{"id":"court_ctb_2030_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2030,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-07-24","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"庭审记录 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #2030（2023-07-24立案）。该份共 158 页的官方记录记载了 2023 年 7 月 18 日由法官 Julie A. Manning 主持的庭审实录，涉及 Pullman & Comley, LLC（律师费 504,742.50 美元、支出 709.53 美元）及 Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC（服务费 178,227.00 美元、支出 11,673.79 美元）的临时报酬申请，以及 GTV Media 与 Saraca Media Group 藐视法庭案由裁定与修订和解裁定草案的审理。","summary_en":"Transcript of Hearing — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui / Ho Wan Kwok), CTB 22-50073 ECF #2030 (filed 2023-07-24). The official 158-page transcript records the July 18, 2023 hearing before Judge Julie A. Manning regarding fee applications for Pullman & Comley, LLC ($504,742.50 fees, $709.53 expenses) and Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC ($178,227.00 fees, $11,673.79 expenses), contempt show-cause proceedings for GTV Media and Saraca Media Group, and revised proposed settlement orders.","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. \\* HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS \\* Adv. Proc No. 22-5003 INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, \\* \\* Plaintiff, \\* v. \\* \\* DESPINS, \\* \\* Defendant. \\* LUC A. DESPINS, \\* Adv. Proc No. 22-5008 Chapter 11 Trustee, \\* \\* Plaintiff, \\* \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut v. \\* July 18, 2023 \\* GUO, \\* \\* Defendant. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* 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| #1917 | INTERIM APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION FOR
PULLMAN & COMPLY, LLC, CREDITOR COMM |\n|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| #1921 | ATY FEE: \\$504,742.50 EXPENSES \\$709.53
INTERIM APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION FOR EPIQ
CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING, LLC, OTHER PROFESSIONAL |\n| | FEE; \\$178,227.00; EXPENSES \\$11,673.79 |\n| #1893 | ORDER REQUIRING GTV MEDIA, INC. SARACA GROUP, INC. |\n| | AND ATTY AARON MITCHELL TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE |\n| | WHY GTV MEDIA, INC. AND SARACA MEDIA GROUP SHOULD |\n| | NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT |\n| | PRETRIAL CONFERENCE |\n| #2004 | REVISED PROPOSED ORDER |\n| #
55 | REVISED PROPOSED ORDER |\n\n2\n\nAPPEARANCES: Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: 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 HK International Funds JAMES MORIARTY, ESQ. Investments, LLC and Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. Mei Guo: 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE J. GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the U.S. Trustee 150 Court Street New Haven, CT 06510 For G Clubs Operations, LLC: JEFFREY M. SKLARZ, ESQ. Green & Sklarz, LLC One Audubon Street New Haven, CT 06511 For the Assignee, RYAN T. JARECK, ESQ. Brian W. Hofmeister: Cole Schotz P.C. 25 Main Street Court Plaza North Hackensack, NJ 07601 DEIRDRE A. O'CONNOR, ESQ. Epiq Corporate Restructuring LLC 777 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017\n\n3\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For Various Creditors MELISSA R. McCLAMMY, ESQ. Of HCHK Technologies: 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 Saraca and GTV: AARON A. MITCHELL, ESQ. Lawall & Mitchell, LLC 55 Madison Avenue Suite 400 Morristown, NJ 07960\n\n4\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 5 of 158\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 5 (Proceedings commenced at 12:03 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings, LLC. I can call them all? THE COURT: No. Just call -- we're going to take in the main case, then we're going to take the two applications for compensation first, but first I'm going to take appearances for the record. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: So I'd start -- I'd like to take the appearances starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LUFT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Avi Luft of Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey of Neubert, Pepe and Monteith, Connecticut counsel for the Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. O'CONNOR: Good afternoon, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 6 of 158\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 6 Deirdre O'Connor, Senior Managing Director at Epiq as the representative of the company. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, for the Creditors Committee and for may fee application. THE COURT: Good afternoon. All right. So we're going to take the fee applications first. And, Trustee Despins, I don't know what order you'd like to go in, but you proceed whichever way you'd like to proceed. MR. DESPINS: We can start with Epiq. THE COURT: Sure. MR. DESPINS: So, Your Honor, this is Epiq's first interim fee application. It was filed on June 21st at docket 1921 and 1923, that's for the time detail at 1923. And the relief sought here is a payment in the amount of \\$178,227 for professional services Epiq rendered to the debtors from December 1st, 2022 to February 28, 2023. And also reimbursement of \\$11,673.79. Your Honor, we have received no objections. They were I wouldn't say extensive, but there were several questions posed by the U.S. Trustee, with information provided nobody has filed an objection.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 7 of 158\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 7 So unless anybody wants to be heard, we would ask the Court to approve the application. THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee has no objection. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard on the Epiq fee application? (No response) THE COURT: Okay. I appreciate that Ms. O'Connor is here today from Epiq with regard to the fee application. I have reviewed the fee application, the expenses and the fees, and they appear to be reasonable and necessary under the circumstances of the case. Ms. O'Connor, I don't know if Trustee Despins has talked to you about I think that most of Epiq's tasks will probably have been completed by now. I'm sure you'll have another fee application, but the way that things are developing in the case is that all of the proofs of claim have been filed, whether they're confidential or public proofs of claim, and we're trying to go through a process where we can assist the Trustee. And I know Epiq is still keeping the claims register, and I'm not sure what else, maybe the docket also on the -- on your site, I'm not sure, but what I'm saying is\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 8 I think there isn't much more for Epiq to do because we're not going to be doing service and things through Epiq at this point. There's a lot of issues with regard to service and so we've had to have specific orders entered and things of that nature. So although I'm sure there'll be another fee application -- MS. O'CONNOR: Yes. THE COURT: -- it is the belief of the parties and the Court that probably the majority of the work Epiq has needed to do in this case is done. So I just wanted to make sure that that's understanding. Or if you had any difference of understanding that you wanted to note for the record. MS. O'CONNOR: Your Honor, that's my understanding as well. The heavy lifting, if you will, on the redactions has been completed. THE COURT: Yes. MS. O'CONNOR: So we're in agreement that the level of our work has tapered off and will continue to. You are correct that there will be another fee application, which will have some substantial fees, but that would be the tail-end of that whole redaction process, so I don't envision -- I might be up here again for the second\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 8 of 158\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 9 of 158\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023
9 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | application, which would be my pleasure, but I don't see any |\n| 2 | escalation in our fees whatsoever. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
I appreciate that. |\n| 4 | And I just wanted to make sure you were aware just |\n| 5 | because things change course, well, in this case, things |\n| 6 | change course on a daily basis, so there -- but with regard |\n| 7 | to the proof of claim issues, I think they're under control. |\n| 8 | And even the redaction issues I think are all under control |\n| 9 | at this point. |\n| 10 | And, you know, obviously it was an unusual set of |\n| 11 | circumstances, but I'm glad to hear that you and -- you |\n| 12 | think -- what you think -- I'm glad to hear what you think |\n| 13 | because that's what everyone's been talking about.
And so I |\n| 14 | just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page. |\n| 15 | MS. O'CONNOR:
Yes, Your Honor.
We are on the |\n| 16 | same page. |\n| 17 | And just so the Court knows I was involved in the |\n| 18 | origination of this matter for Epiq and I've been shadowing |\n| 19 | the case from its filing on every single email.
I talked to |\n| 20 | the consultants frequently.
So, yes, I've been monitoring |\n| 21 | the case and I will continue to do so. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
I appreciate that. |\n| 23 | MS. O'CONNOR:
Yes. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 25 | MS. O'CONNOR:
My pleasure. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 10 THE COURT: And no one else wishes to be heard, correct? I didn't hear anyone else speaking on the Epiq application? Okay. Thank you. As Trustee Despins has said, no one has filed any written objections. There is no one participating in this hearing today that is objecting to the application. The Office of the United States Trustee has filed a statement of no objection. And I have reviewed the fees and expenses and understand why they were incurred, how they were incurred, and find that they're reasonable and necessary under the circumstances of this -- of these jointly administered Chapter 11 cases. So for all those reasons the application is granted. And I believe that the proposed order as submitted, and I will look at it again, but I believe it's fine, yes, and the proposed order as submitted is fine and will enter. MS. O'CONNOR: Thank you so much, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Attorney Goldman, I think your application is the second application on this afternoon. Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 10 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 11 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023
11 |\n| 1 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Yes.
Yes. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
So please proceed. |\n| 3 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Irve |\n| 4 | Goldman. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 6 | MR. GOLDMAN:
In support of my firm's first |\n| 7 | interim fee application, which covers the period from our |\n| 8 | effective date of our retention, which was March 29th, 2022, |\n| 9 | to the end of April of this year, the application seeks an |\n| 10 | allowance of fees in the amount of \\$504,724.50 and expenses |\n| 11 | of \\$709.53. |\n| 12 | As per the U.S. Trustee's statement of no |\n| 13 | objection, we agreed to a voluntary reduction in the amount |\n| 14 | of \\$1,329.50, so the allowance of fees would now be |\n| 15 | \\$503,395. |\n| 16 | No objections have been filed to the application. |\n| 17 | Having myself reviewed the 165 pages of invoices |\n| 18 | submitted with our fee application, I now have a new found |\n| 19 | respect for whoever did that for Paul Hastings' fee |\n| 20 | application, as well as fee examiners in larger cases. |\n| 21 | I prepared and made part of the application a |\n| 22 | rather detailed, six-page narrative of the services that we |\n| 23 | performed for the committee since our retention. |\n| 24 | In light of that and given the absence of |\n| 25 | objections, and the Court's familiarity with the case and |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 12 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023
12 |\n| 1 | our role in it, I don't think it's necessary to go chapter |\n| 2 | and verse through what we did. |\n| 3 | But I'll just remind the Court that there was a |\n| 4 | period of about three months, April through the beginning of |\n| 5 | July, of very intensive activity for the committee that was |\n| 6 | pre-appointment of the Trustee dealing with the various |\n| 7 | early case motions that the debtor filed opposing PAX's |\n| 8 | motion to dismiss, negotiating the consent order for the |\n| 9 | return of the Lady May, filing a number of Rule 2004 motions |\n| 10 | for asset discovery, and serving subpoenas, negotiating the |\n| 11 | consent order for the Lady May, was what filled that first |\n| 12 | three months. |\n| 13 | As well as getting our professionals in place, |\n| 14 | which we never had the opportunity to use because almost |\n| 15 | immediately after they were retained by the Court the |\n| 16 | Trustee was appointed. |\n| 17 | Once the Trustee was appointed, we recognized that |\n| 18 | the role of the committee really should be reduced at that |\n| 19 | point, recognizing that the Trustee has a fiduciary duty to |\n| 20 | the creditors that we represent. |\n| 21 | And we did, in fact, consciously undertake a |\n| 22 | reduced role.
We moderated our work in the case and really |\n| 23 | directed it to supporting the Trustee, consulting with the |\n| 24 | Trustee, providing input on the various motions that were |\n| 25 | filed for asset discovery and for the recovery of assets. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 13 And I think we had a positive impact on the case in that respect. And I would submit it's all consistent with our statutory duties to the committee under Section 1103. So with that I would submit that the fees we've requested are reasonable and compensable and would request that the Court allow the fees and expenses with the voluntary reduction that I mentioned. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: Okay. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard in connection with the first interim fee application of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. The statement that I filed is at Docket No. 2001. It reflects the reduction that Attorney Goldman outlined for the Court. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. Our team has reviewed the fee application and had no issues with the fees submitted, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. And, Attorney Goldman, as you are, I am familiar Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 13 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 14 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023
14 |\n| 1 | with what the committee did undertake from the beginning of |\n| 2 | the appointment of the committee and now until the period of |\n| 3 | time that you're seeking your fees and expenses through, |\n| 4 | which is April 30, 2023. |\n| 5 | I have reviewed the information and I agree that |\n| 6 | you did consciously reduce the role of the committee's |\n| 7 | involvement in the case once the Trustee was appointed, |\n| 8 | which is something we talked about at the time and obviously |\n| 9 | you honored that point that you made that you understood |\n| 10 | that the committee's role would be reduced because of the |\n| 11 | appointment of the Trustee. |\n| 12 | All that being said, the committee has and |\n| 13 | continues to play an important role in these cases. |\n| 14 | And I agree that the paperwork demonstrating that |\n| 15 | is extensive as it has been with the other fee applications |\n| 16 | we've gone through, but necessary under the very specific |\n| 17 | facts and circumstances of these jointly administered |\n| 18 | Chapter 11 cases. |\n| 19 | I appreciate the narrative that you included, not |\n| 20 | only just for the Court, but for anyone looking at this case |\n| 21 | that may come at different points in time and look at things |\n| 22 | and not really understand specifically what has occurred, |\n| 23 | and that narrative tells a very factual history, provides a |\n| 24 | very good factual history of what has happened in the case, |\n| 25 | and I think that's very important for anyone.
Because |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 15 obviously as you know, and we all know, the fee applications have to be served and noticed to every creditor in case anyone wants to file a written objection. No one has filed a written objection. And I go back and I look and make sure, as does the clerk's office, that the service of these applications have been made, which this has, and you filed a certificate of service and it demonstrates that you've complied with the requirement to serve everyone with regard to this fee application. And when I reviewed the time entries, I think they are reasonable under the circumstances, very specific circumstances of these jointly administered Chapter 11 cases. I also think the expenses that you incurred were less than \\$800. And in a case of this -- with all the issues like these cases have, I think that's very reasonable, so I would be surprised if anyone had any opposition or objection to the expenses. And with regard to the fees you've taken a voluntary reduction. As I said with the Trustee's Paul Hastings' application and the Neubert, Pepe application, I appreciate the parties working together with the Office of the United States Trustee. Because it is one of the roles of the Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 15 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2030 | Filed 07/24/23 | Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 | Page 16 of |\n|--|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|--|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023
16 |\n| 1 | United States Trustee's Office to review and analyze and |\n| 2 | make determinations and tell the Court their position with |\n| 3 | regard to fee applications, but I don't want all parties to |\n| 4 | believe that there always has to be an agreed-upon reduction |\n| 5 | in fees. |\n| 6 | If there is an agreed-upon reduction, that's fine, |\n| 7 | but I don't think that that should be an expectation.
And I |\n| 8 | think we can all talk about any issues we might have or see |\n| 9 | in a fee application and that's why we have a hearing. |\n| 10 | Because if there are issues, it can -- they can be addressed |\n| 11 | and then the Court can make the determination that it |\n| 12 | ultimately needs to make, which is whether or not the fees |\n| 13 | and expenses sought should be awarded. |\n| 14 | So I do appreciate as I said the narrative. |\n| 15 | I appreciate the detail that all the parties have |\n| 16 | provided so far that have sought to be reimbursed for their |\n| 17 | fees and expenses in these jointly administered Chapter 11 |\n| 18 | cases.
It's very important.
It's very helpful to the Court |\n| 19 | when you go through the 165 pages or the, you know, 765 |\n| 20 | pages of invoices that had to be reviewed. |\n| 21 | So for all of those reasons, including the fact |\n| 22 | that no one has filed a written objection to the fee |\n| 23 | application, there is no one present at this hearing that is |\n| 24 | objecting to the fee application, the Office of the United |\n| 25 | States Trustee has filed a statement of no objection in |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 17 connection with your agreed reduction, which is a minor reduction in fees, then the first interim application for fees and expenses is granted and the proposed order that you submitted will enter. So thank you very much. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, I thank you. I very much appreciate the comments. I may -- I probably should submit a revised order reflecting the reduction if you'd like. THE COURT: Oh, the one that I looked at doesn't have that included? MR. GOLDMAN: No. THE COURT: I thought it did. But that might be my -- that might be my mistake. MR. GOLDMAN: I don't think it does. THE COURT: It doesn't? Okay. Then, yes, if you would. MR. GOLDMAN: We arrived at the -- THE COURT: My mistake. I thought it did. But then, yes. If you could just get us a revised proposed order by the end of the week, by the 21st. MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. No problem. THE COURT: I know you'll probably get it today, but -- MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 17 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 18 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023
18 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
-- I'd like to have a date for the |\n| 2 | clerk's office.
It's helpful to them. |\n| 3 | MR. GOLDMAN:
No problem, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
So the application is granted and the |\n| 5 | revised proposed order will be submitted on or before July |\n| 6 | 21st. |\n| 7 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Yes. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 9 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 11 | (Indiscernible) scheduled for ten more minutes |\n| 12 | until 12:30, but, Trustee Despins, I did have a question or |\n| 13 | two about things that are not on today's calendar. |\n| 14 | And the first question I have just relates to an |\n| 15 | order setting a deadline for Holy City to file a responsive |\n| 16 | pleading in the adversary of 23-5013. |\n| 17 | When you filed that motion, I understand what |\n| 18 | you're seeking and that's not -- my question is are you |\n| 19 | seeking another subpoena to issue or are you seeking to just |\n| 20 | serve the complaint, the subpoena, and the order on Holy |\n| 21 | City Hong Kong Ventures, Limited?
Because I don't think the |\n| 22 | rules are clear to whether or not there should be another |\n| 23 | subpoena. |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
No.
We're not seeking that.
We're |\n| 25 | just seeking the entry of an order. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 19 THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: With a deadline. THE COURT: Okay. And then you have some address or something that you've served Holy City Hong Kong Ventures. Because it's not -- it's a foreign entity, so you have some -- you'll have to demonstrate how you served them obviously. MR. DESPINS: Correct. Yes. Yes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: Because obviously the rules aren't as clear on that as you would like them to be if you look at the 7004 and Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It doesn't necessarily provide you with the exact steps that you need to take. And so that's why I'm asking the question about whether or not you wanted another -- some people have in the past asked for a different subpoena to be issued. And I can understand that because I don't -- because the rules do not specify. It just says that the Court shall determine the time frame by which a responsive pleading has to be filed, but it doesn't say whether you do that through order, subpoena or otherwise. So I'm fine. If you're fine with moving for an order -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 19 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 20 MR. DESPINS: At this time -- THE COURT: -- that's fine. MR. DESPINS: At this time, we're fine with that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. So then we will take -- after today's hearings, we'll take a look at that. I mean, we looked at it because I have the question obviously, but we haven't gone beyond that really other than you're seeking some date in the future. I guess I'd have to look at whether that date in the future is a good date or should be extended by a few days, or are you specifically looking for a date for a reason that I'm not aware of? MR. DESPINS: I'm going to have Mr. Linsey answer this. THE COURT: That's fine. MR. LINSEY: We just need a date certain for them to have an answer date in order for them to be in default. And our position is they've already been served with the summons, but that under the rules there is no -- there is no answer deadline until the Court sets one. So we will give them notice of that answer line when the Court sets one. If the Court disagrees with a specific deadline, then obviously we'll defer to whatever Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 20 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 21 the Court believes would be proper. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: But our position is they have already received notice. MR. LINSEY: For sure. Yes. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: Your position is that they've already been served? MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: Not received notice, but actually been served. MR. DESPINS: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Right. But they need to have -- now they need to be served with an order indicating which date, by which date they must file or otherwise respond to the complaint. MR. DESPINS: Correct. Correct. THE COURT: Okay. All right. That was that question I had. And I think that's the only question I have right now. So I don't know if you have anything you want to add, but it's only 12:24 and the next hearing is not until 12:30. So I don't know if we're -- do you have anything you want to report before then or just take a recess and we'll come back out at 12:30? Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 21 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 22 MR. DESPINS: I think we can take a recess, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Well, then the Court is in recess until 12:30. (Proceedings recessed at 12:25 p.m.) (Proceedings resumed at 12:32 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Court is in session after recess. THE COURT: Please be seated. All right. We have one matter on the calendar at 12:30, and it's ECF 1893, an order requiring GTV Media, Inc., Saraca Media Group and Attorney Aaron Mitchell to appear and show cause why GTV Media Group and Saraca Media group should not be held in civil contempt. So how are we proceeding today? Is Attorney Mitchell in the courtroom? Okay. Attorney Mitchell, please come forward. Good morning, sir. MR. MITCHELL: Good morning. THE COURT: Could you please state your name for the record. MR. MITCHELL: Aaron Mitchell from the Law Offices of Lawall & Mitchell, LLC, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. So, Attorney Mitchell, if we look at these cases, and there was a motion to compel compliance and also to hold Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 22 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 23 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023
23 |\n| 1 | certain parties in contempt filed by the Trustee sometime |\n| 2 | ago, ECF, I think it's 1805, which was filed, if you give me |\n| 3 | a moment -- |\n| 4 | MR. MITCHELL:
I believe based on the order, Your |\n| 5 | Honor, it was May 18th. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Correct.
I just saw it at the same |\n| 7 | time.
May 18th. |\n| 8 | So this was a motion to compel compliance with the |\n| 9 | Rule 2004 subpoenas and it was directed to numerous parties. |\n| 10 | And some of those issues have been resolved and some have |\n| 11 | not. |\n| 12 | And one of the issues that had been raised through |\n| 13 | that motion to compel was that GTV Media and Saraca Media |\n| 14 | Group had not complied with the subpoenas, the Rule 2004 |\n| 15 | subpoenas, and your name was one of the names, besides GTV |\n| 16 | Media and Saraca Media, who were mentioned as parties that |\n| 17 | would be able to be in possession or control of documents |\n| 18 | that would be responsive to the subpoenas.
Okay. |\n| 19 | And the contempt motion sought to compel GTV Media |\n| 20 | and Saraca Media to produce the documents. |\n| 21 | And during a hearing that was held on June 6th of |\n| 22 | this year, the Trustee said on the record that he was |\n| 23 | seeking an order to hold GTV Media and Saraca Media Group in |\n| 24 | contempt, because although they initially responded to the |\n| 25 | subpoenas, they have not responded since December of 2022, |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 24 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023
24 |\n| 1 | and the Trustee asked that the Court enter an order |\n| 2 | requiring you to appear and testify regarding GTV Media and |\n| 3 | Saraca -- |\n| 4 | MR. MITCHELL:
I'm not -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
-- Media Group. |\n| 6 | MR. MITCHELL:
I'm sorry, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
No, go ahead. |\n| 8 | MR. MITCHELL:
I saw the order.
I represented |\n| 9 | Saraca and GTV in a number of matters.
And up until April |\n| 10 | 20th of 2023, I was the lone remaining director of GTV.
I |\n| 11 | resigned on April 20th, 2023, so I'm not quite sure.
Your |\n| 12 | Honor, ordered me to be here, so I'm glad to be here. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 14 | MR. MITCHELL:
I'm not sure what else I can do. |\n| 15 | I produced as part of my firm's -- the subpoena to |\n| 16 | my firm, I produced about 100,000 pages I believe of GTV |\n| 17 | related documents that were in my possession, custody and |\n| 18 | control, to Paul Hastings in response to the subpoena. |\n| 19 | That's quite frankly what I have.
I don't know what else I |\n| 20 | could produce. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Well, I guess one of the things you |\n| 22 | could do, and one of the reasons that the Trustee asked the |\n| 23 | Court to order you to be here and testify, is to testify to |\n| 24 | that, right? |\n| 25 | MR. MITCHELL:
Sure. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 25 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 25 THE COURT: So what -- in a discovery dispute, and that's obviously what this is, the Trustee's position is that while you may have produced documents, you haven't produced anything since December 20, 2022. Your response to that is whatever your response to that is, but I think they want it under oath, which I think is fine. I think that's a legitimate request. I mean, sometimes people do it by the agreement of a submission of an affidavit under penalty of perjury. You know, we've had -- I've had cases, not this case, I've had cases where, you know, parties have had a disagreement. They cannot come to a resolution of the discovery dispute. They cannot submit to the Court that their issues are resolved. And then one party may submit an affidavit saying I have produced everything I have in my possession and control. I asked this person for that. I'm just giving you an example -- MR. MITCHELL: No. Understood. THE COURT: -- of what they did to diligently comply with the subpoena. And sometimes that is all that's needed. Other cases I've had over the years, when those affidavits have been filed, and then other documents have been discovered after the fact, then that person who filed that affidavit has a problem, right, because that person\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2030 | Filed 07/24/23 | Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 | Page 26 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023
26 |\n| 1 | that filed the affidavit and swore under penalty of perjury |\n| 2 | that they produced everything that they had under their |\n| 3 | possession and control, and diligently complied with the |\n| 4 | request, have then, you know, they've then had to be |\n| 5 | sanctioned unfortunately for -- because those statements |\n| 6 | were not accurate. |\n| 7 | So, Trustee Despins, are you asking that I order |\n| 8 | Attorney Mitchell to testify under oath on questioning from |\n| 9 | your counsel? |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Mr. Luft is handling this, Your |\n| 11 | Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Attorney Luft? |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:
Yes, Your Honor.
We would like that. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So, Attorney Mitchell, you're |\n| 15 | here regarding the -- to testify.
And that is -- it is what |\n| 16 | -- |\n| 17 | The order to appear and show cause was issued on |\n| 18 | June 7th.
And as I said it's ECF No. 1893.
And on the |\n| 19 | second page of the order it says the Trustee also requested |\n| 20 | that the Court order Attorney Aaron Mitchell to appear and |\n| 21 | testify regarding GTV and Saraca. |\n| 22 | Paragraphs 24 through 33 of the contempt motion |\n| 23 | detail the Trustee's communications with GTV, Saraca, and |\n| 24 | Attorney Mitchell regarding the Rule 2004 subpoenas directed |\n| 25 | at GTV and Saraca. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 27 of\n\nAaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft 27 Exhibits C-1, C-2, D-1, D-2, E and F to the declaration of Avram Luft attached to the contempt motion support the Trustee's assertion the contempt motion was served on GTV and Saraca as evidenced by the Trustee's certificate of service. And then it -- then the order paragraphs say GTV, through an officer, director, member, and Attorney Mitchell, shall personally appear on July 18th at 12:30 and show cause why the Court should not hold GTV and Saraca in civil contempt for failing to respond or comply with the subpoenas authorized by the Court. So counsel is asking you to testify about the issues. And are you going to testify without counsel? MR. MITCHELL: I don't have counsel here, Your Honor, so I guess so. I was -- I was under the impression that since it was not being opposed there was no need to have any testimony, but. THE COURT: Well, then, are you saying that -- well, I'm not sure that's what the order says, but. MR. MITCHELL: Understood. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm going to allow -- the order does say that you should appear and testify. Okay? And to show cause. So I'm going to ask you to take the stand then. And then you'll be sworn in by the courtroom\n\nAaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft 28 deputy and then I'll let Attorney Luft ask you some questions. AARON MITCHELL, SWORN THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: State your name and address for the record. THE COURT: And you just need your business address. THE WITNESS: Aaron Mitchell, 55 Madison Avenue in Morristown, New Jersey, zip code is 07960. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. THE COURT: There should be some water there, Mr. Mitchell. THE WITNESS: Thank you. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, may I approach? THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUFT: Q Good afternoon, Mr. Mitchell. My name's Avi Luft. How are you? A Doing well, thank you. Q Mr. Mitchell, I want to start with a somewhat perfunctory question, but it gets to what the Court was just reading you. Are you appearing here just as an individual today or are you also the representative of GTV and/or Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 28 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 29 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
29 |\n| 1 | Saraca? |\n| 2 | A
I am appearing here individually. |\n| 3 | Q
So no one has appeared pursuant to the court order for |\n| 4 | GTV and Saraca to your knowledge? |\n| 5 | A
Not to my knowledge, no. |\n| 6 | Q
Okay.
Mr. Mitchell, let's just start with some |\n| 7 | background just so I understand your role here.
What |\n| 8 | entities do you currently represent in connection with this |\n| 9 | case? |\n| 10 | A
I don't understand your question. |\n| 11 | Q
Okay.
Are you counsel to any individuals in this case? |\n| 12 | A
Meaning the overall -- I'm just not sure of your |\n| 13 | question.
It's very general. |\n| 14 | Q
Yes, the main case. |\n| 15 | A
So do you mean -- I'm sorry, from what I've seen on the |\n| 16 | docket, there are tons of parties to this.
I represent in a |\n| 17 | number of cases the debtor, Mr. Ho Wan Kwok. |\n| 18 | Q
Mm-hmm. |\n| 19 | A
I'm not sure if there -- in other cases I stated I |\n| 20 | represented, and I believe I still represent GTV and Saraca |\n| 21 | in a couple of cases.
I had represented previously Genever, |\n| 22 | the entity that filed bankruptcy.
And there's a number of |\n| 23 | adversary proceedings.
I'm just not quite sure.
I don't |\n| 24 | want to be dishonest, but there's so many parties in this |\n| 25 | case, I'm not trying to be evasive, that I'm just not sure |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2030 | Filed 07/24/23 | Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 | Page 30 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
30 |\n| 1 | (indiscernible) -- |\n| 2 | Q
It's hard to keep track of everyone you're involved |\n| 3 | with, right? |\n| 4 | A
I represent a lot of individuals and entities, yes. |\n| 5 | Q
Okay.
So let me help you and let's go through it. |\n| 6 | A
Sure. |\n| 7 | Q
Okay.
You say you still currently represent both GTV |\n| 8 | and Saraca in connection with the bankruptcy case.
Can you |\n| 9 | tell -- |\n| 10 | A
No, that's not correct.
I said I still represent them. |\n| 11 | I don't represent them in the bankruptcy case.
That's why |\n| 12 | the question was confusing. |\n| 13 | Q
Ah. |\n| 14 | A
The only thing -- the only person I represent in the |\n| 15 | bankruptcy case, as counsel appearing in the bankruptcy |\n| 16 | case, is Mr. Kwok.
I filed a notice of appearance.
So if |\n| 17 | that's your question, it's just Mr. Kwok. |\n| 18 | Q
How about Mei Guo?
She said -- she's testified that |\n| 19 | you were her counsel in this case, is that true? |\n| 20 | A
I'm her counsel.
I've not appeared in this case.
I've |\n| 21 | given her advice, but I've not appeared, again. |\n| 22 | Q
But you serve as her counsel in connection with the |\n| 23 | bankruptcy, correct? |\n| 24 | A
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q
Okay.
For GTV, do you serve as GTV's counsel in |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 31 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
31 |\n| 1 | connection with the bankruptcy? |\n| 2 | A
No. |\n| 3 | Q
What do you serve as their counsel in connection with |\n| 4 | currently? |\n| 5 | A
There are a few cases, which are tangentially I guess |\n| 6 | related to the bankruptcy, where investors have filed suit |\n| 7 | in federal court and in state court and I represent GTV in |\n| 8 | those -- in those matters. |\n| 9 | Q
Do you recall their names? |\n| 10 | A
One is Mr. Yee.
Another is -- there's several.
I'm |\n| 11 | trying to think of the plaintiffs' names in the cases.
I |\n| 12 | believe it's Huang, H-U-A-N-G.
I believe the Wang case is |\n| 13 | resolved, W-A-N-G, that was based in Connecticut.
There are |\n| 14 | a few more that aren't coming to mind. |\n| 15 | Q
Okay. |\n| 16 | A
I think there's about five or six of them.
Most of |\n| 17 | they are stayed as a result of the bankruptcy.
I think the |\n| 18 | Yee case and the -- and I think it's -- I think it's the |\n| 19 | Huang case that's based in New York that is also not stayed. |\n| 20 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Excuse me.
Attorney |\n| 21 | Mitchell, could you just pull the mic a little. |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
Is that better? |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
That's better. |\n| 24 | THE WITNESS:
Sure. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
That's better. |\n| | |\n\nAaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft 32 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. THE COURT: Sometimes it -- yeah. I should have said that to you. THE WITNESS: Sorry. THE COURT: We have to -- THE WITNESS: When I think I drift off too, I know it's -- THE COURT: We have to -- our record is audio only. So if the courtroom deputy can't hear, I do ask her to make sure. Because if someone wants a transcript, they're not going to be able to hear what was said. The person that transcribes the record is not in the courtroom. THE WITNESS: Understood. I apologize. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. BY MR. LUFT: Q Okay. Mr. Mitchell, let me ask you the same -- so you said there's about five or six cases that you currently represent GTV on? A Approximately, yes. Q How about Saraca Media? A The same cases, Saraca is named as a defendant as well. Q Okay. Now, I heard you give an address as your business address in Morristown, New Jersey? A That's correct. Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 32 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 33 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
33 |\n| 1 | Q
I have correspondence showing your business address as |\n| 2 | 162 East 64th Street in Manhattan. |\n| 3 | A
Not anymore. |\n| 4 | Q
When did that stop being your address? |\n| 5 | A
Three years ago. |\n| 6 | Q
Three years ago? |\n| 7 | A
Give or take.
I'm not exactly sure.
Approximately |\n| 8 | three years ago. |\n| 9 | Q
Okay.
In fact, that was your business address after |\n| 10 | the filing of the bankruptcy, right? |\n| 11 | A
I believe so, yes. |\n| 12 | Q
That's less than three years ago. |\n| 13 | A
Maybe two years ago. |\n| 14 | Q
As of at least June 2022, you were still operating out |\n| 15 | of Mr. Kwok's offices? |\n| 16 | A
I was not operating out of there.
I had an office |\n| 17 | there and received mail. |\n| 18 | Q
What is the difference in your mind between operating |\n| 19 | out of an office and doing business there and receiving |\n| 20 | mail? |\n| 21 | A
The difference is I was not reporting to that office at |\n| 22 | any time.
I didn't have a requirement that I go there.
But |\n| 23 | I was using it.
I was using space there to be able to |\n| 24 | receive mail related to Mr. Kwok's cases, because he can be |\n| 25 | the target of threats and things of that nature, so I |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 34 of
158 |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
34 |\n| 1 | | thought it better to have that address for my representation |\n| 2 | | when I filed cases for him. |\n| 3 | Q | So it was just a mailbox? |\n| 4 | A | Essentially, yes. |\n| 5 | Q | You never worked out of that office? |\n| 6 | A | I would go there to meet with Mr. Kwok, but I never -- |\n| 7 | | other than meeting with him and -- I mean, I guess really |\n| 8 | | that's it. |\n| 9 | Q | It's also the business address for GTV and Saraca, |\n| 10 | | correct? |\n| 11 | A | That's correct. |\n| 12 | Q | So when you did work for them as clients, would you |\n| 13 | | meet with them there also? |\n| 14 | A | No. |\n| 15 | Q | Where would you meet with them? |\n| 16 | A | Over the phone. |\n| 17 | Q | Who did you speak with for them? |\n| 18 | A | Well, over the last year or so, there's been no one to |\n| 19 | | speak to.
I was the director, so there was no one to speak |\n| 20 | to. | There was no one else there. |\n| 21 | | Prior to that, at Saraca, I would speak to Dan |\n| 22 | | Podhaskie, and that's P-O-D-H-A-S-K-I-E, and Yvette Wang, W |\n| 23 | A-N-G. | |\n| 24 | Q | Okay.
Now, you said you resigned in April of 2023? |\n| 25 | A | That's correct. |\n| | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030 | Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
158 | Page 35 of |\n|----|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|\n| | | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft | 35 |\n| 1 | Q | Who's at Saraca and GTV now? | |\n| 2 | A | Not that I'm aware of anyone. | |\n| 3 | Q | In December of 2022, was there anyone at those entities | |\n| 4 | other than yourself? | | |\n| 5 | A
I don't know. | December of 2022? | Not at GTV I don't |\n| 6 | believe. | At Saraca, I don't know the answer to that. | |\n| 7 | Q | In connection with representing them, if you had to | |\n| 8 | | speak to them in December at Saraca, who would you speak to? | |\n| 9 | A | There was no one to speak to.
I didn't have to speak | |\n| 10 | to anybody. | The cases were primarily stayed. | The only ones |\n| 11 | | that weren't stayed related to Saraca were the Huang case | |\n| 12 | | and the Yee case and the -- there was nothing going on. | |\n| 13 | Q
Okay. | You also represent HK (USA) in connection with | |\n| 14 | the bankruptcy? | | |\n| 15 | A
Yes. | | |\n| 16 | Q | How about Mr. Quan (ph) Guo, do you represent him in | |\n| 17 | | any way in connection with the bankruptcy? | |\n| 18 | A | I don't know who that is.
Mr.? | |\n| 19 | Q
The debtor's son. | | |\n| 20 | A
Oh, Guo Qiang. | Yes. | |\n| 21 | Q | So you represented him in connection with the | |\n| 22 | bankruptcy also? | | |\n| 23 | A
Yes. | Again, I've not appeared obviously as you know, | |\n| 24 | | but I've given him advice, yes. | |\n| 25 | Q
Okay. | How about the debtor's wife, Hing Chi Ngok? | |\n| | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 36 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
36 |\n| 1 | A
No. |\n| 2 | Q
How about Golden Spring?
Do you represent Golden |\n| 3 | Spring in connection with -- |\n| 4 | A
Not -- |\n| 5 | Q
-- the bankruptcy at any point? |\n| 6 | A
Not at all.
I haven't related to the bankruptcy. |\n| 7 | That's why, I'm sorry, I cut you off.
I didn't mean to.
I |\n| 8 | have represented them in the past in matters, but not in the |\n| 9 | bankruptcy. |\n| 10 | Q
In what matters have you represented Golden Spring in |\n| 11 | connection with? |\n| 12 | A
I don't recall.
There was a number of litigations |\n| 13 | where Golden Spring was a defendant in employment issues and |\n| 14 | the like.
Off the top of my head, I feel like the plaintiff |\n| 15 | was in New York County.
I feel like the plaintiff was |\n| 16 | Zhang, Z-H-A-N-G.
Or I could be confusing that with the |\n| 17 | GTV.
We'll call them investor cases.
I believe in Arizona |\n| 18 | it's Zhang, Z-H-A-N-G.
And the case with Golden Spring was |\n| 19 | Zhuang, Z-H-U-A-N-G. |\n| 20 | Q
Golden Spring has also not responded to discovery in |\n| 21 | this case.
Do you know who is in charge there now? |\n| 22 | A
I have no idea.
I have not spoken to anyone at Golden |\n| 23 | Spring in well over a year.
I know there was an issue about |\n| 24 | that time with getting in touch with anyone for advice. |\n| 25 | Q
Golden Spring is run by Yvette Wang, correct? |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 37 of
158 | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
37 | |\n| 1 | A | It was.
I don't know -- I don't know what's going on | |\n| 2 | | with it now.
I don't believe she runs it now, because I | |\n| 3 | | asked her at one point for direction and she wasn't able to | |\n| 4 | | give it to me. | |\n| 5 | Q | You've not spoken to Yvette Wang in over a year? | |\n| 6 | A | That's not what I said at all. | |\n| 7 | Q | Well, she's at Golden Spring, so? | |\n| 8 | A | She was -- she told me she was not at Golden Spring at | |\n| 9 | | the time I spoke to her. | |\n| 10 | Q | Okay.
When was the last time you spoke to Yvette Wang? | |\n| 11 | A | I don't recall the last time I spoke to Yvette Wang. | |\n| 12 | Q | What's your best recollection? | |\n| 13 | A | Six months ago, maybe less.
I have not spoken to her | |\n| 14 | | since she was arrested, which was three or four months ago, | |\n| 15 | | so maybe five months ago. | |\n| 16 | Q | How about Max Krasner? | |\n| 17 | A | What about Max Krasner? | |\n| 18 | Q | When was the last time you spoke to him? | |\n| 19 | A | I think about four months ago. | |\n| 20 | Q | Do you know where he was at the time? | |\n| 21 | A | I have no idea where he was at the time.
He called me. | |\n| 22 | Q | Okay.
We'll just figure out the rest of the scopes of | |\n| 23 | | your representation.
Have you ever provided legal services | |\n| 24 | | to Lamp Capital? | |\n| 25 | A | No. | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 38 of\n\n| 158 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft | 38 |\n|----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| 1 | Q | Greenwich Land? | |\n| 2 | A | No. | |\n| 3 | Q | HCHK Technologies? | |\n| 4 | A | No. | |\n| 5 | Q | HCHK Property? | |\n| 6 | A | No. | |\n| 7 | Q | Lexington Property Management? | |\n| 8 | A | No. | |\n| 9 | Q | How about G-Club? | |\n| 10 | A | Yes. | |\n| 11 | Q | Okay.
What have you represented G-Club in connection | |\n| 12 | with? | | |\n| 13 | A | I've given them advice related to an arbitration that | |\n| 14 | | was filed, and just generally legal advice. | |\n| 15 | Q | And who did you speak to there? | |\n| 16 | A | I spoke to Carlos, I'm drawing a complete blank, their | |\n| 17 | | CEO and their general counsel.
It's actually Carlo, not | |\n| 18 | | Carlos.
Carlo, I don't recall his last name.
And who is | |\n| 19 | | the CEO?
They both resigned.
I don't recall.
It was | |\n| 20 | woman. | I can't recall her name. | |\n| 21 | Q | Mr. Mitchell, are there any other entities affiliated | |\n| 22 | | with the debtor that you provided legal advice in connection | |\n| 23 | with? | | |\n| 24 | A | I don't have an answer to that question affiliated with | |\n| 25 | | the debtor. | |\n| | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 39 of
158 | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
39 | | |\n| 1 | Q
He's family, entities he's involved with for business? | | |\n| 2 | And I can keep naming entities, but I'm trying to move us | | |\n| 3 | along. | | |\n| 4 | A
Understood.
But it's a broad question.
I think you | | |\n| 5 | understand. | | |\n| 6 | Q
Sure.
How about G Fashion, did you ever provide legal | | |\n| 7 | advice to them? | | |\n| 8 | A
Yes. | | |\n| 9 | Q
What did you do for them? | | |\n| 10 | A
There was money that was -- a bank was -- removed from | | |\n| 11 | their account and I was asked about helping them try and get | | |\n| 12 | the money unfrozen or un-taken.
I don't know.
That was it. | | |\n| 13 | We had a conversation and nothing ever happened with it. | | |\n| 14 | Q
Who did you speak to at G Fashion? | | |\n| 15 | A
A woman whose name is escaping me right now, Tia or Lia | | |\n| 16 | something. | | |\n| 17 | Q
How about G-Music? | | |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Could I just ask you again your | | |\n| 19 | answer, just because I couldn't hear it. | | |\n| 20 | THE WITNESS:
Sure. | | |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Tia or Lia? | | |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
It either Tia, T-I-A, or Lia, L-I-A, | | |\n| 23 | I believe. | | |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay. | | |\n| 25 | THE WITNESS:
That's my recollection. | | |\n| | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 40 of
158 | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
40 | |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
That's helpful when you spell.
Thank | |\n| 2 | you. | |\n| 3 | THE WITNESS:
Sure.
Absolutely.
I'm sorry. | |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
It's very helpful.
Thank you. | |\n| 5 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you, Your Honor. | |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Yeah. | |\n| 7 | THE WITNESS:
G-Music?
I guess, yes.
I was asked | |\n| 8 | one time to see about helping them look at their -- some | |\n| 9 | agreement they wanted to enter into regarding something to | |\n| 10 | do with a song.
I don't recall exactly what, but, so I gave | |\n| 11 | them some advice there. | |\n| 12 | BY MR. LUFT: | |\n| 13 | Q
G-News? | |\n| 14 | A
No.
I don't believe -- I'm not even sure that G-News | |\n| 15 | is an entity.
Is it? | |\n| 16 | Q
I believe it just tried to buy HCHK Properties, so I | |\n| 17 | assume it is. | |\n| 18 | A
Oh, okay.
I've not advised them at all.
I knew it was | |\n| 19 | a website a long time ago, but. | |\n| 20 | Q
Okay.
Hudson Diamond? | |\n| 21 | A
No. | |\n| 22 | Q
All right.
Again, I can keep going, but are there any | |\n| 23 | other entity -- these are all entities that you know are | |\n| 24 | affiliated with the debtor, correct? | |\n| 25 | A
Again, I'm not comfortable with the word affiliated. | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 41 of
158 |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
41 |\n| 1 | Q | What word would you like to use to connect, describe |\n| 2 | | their relationship? |\n| 3 | A | I don't know.
I don't know that there is one. |\n| 4 | Q | You don't believe there's a connection between the |\n| 5 | | debtor and all the entities I just mentioned?
Under oath? |\n| 6 | A | I don't know some of the entities, so I can't answer |\n| 7 | that. | |\n| 8 | Q | The ones you know? |\n| 9 | A | The ones I know?
I don't know what you mean by |\n| 10 | | connection.
I don't feel comfortable testifying one way or |\n| 11 | | the other.
I mean -- |\n| 12 | Q | Fine.
How about affiliation? |\n| 13 | A | Again, I don't know what you mean by that. |\n| 14 | Q | How about association? |\n| 15 | A | Again. |\n| 16 | Q | These are all words you don't know? |\n| 17 | A | I know the words, but I'm not comfortable -- it seems |\n| 18 | | like you're trying to make him somehow tied to these |\n| 19 | | companies where -- for example, let me give you an example. |\n| 20 | | If he were -- if he put a video on G-News, whether |\n| 21 | | he has any interest in that company or not, would you |\n| 22 | | consider that affiliated?
Just so I understand what you're |\n| 23 | | asking me. |\n| 24 | Q | No.
If he just posted a video on G-News, I wouldn't |\n| 25 | | say he's affiliated. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 42 of\n\n| 158 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft | 42 |\n|----|-------|----------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| 1 | A | Okay. | |\n| 2 | Q | Okay. | |\n| 3 | A | So your question is do I believe that he's -- | |\n| 4 | Q | The entities that I've mentioned that you know -- | |\n| 5 | A | Yes. | |\n| 6 | Q | -- they're all affiliated with the debtor, correct? | |\n| 7 | A | I don't know that I agree with that. | |\n| 8 | Q | How many years have you been Mr. Kwok's counsel? | |\n| 9 | A | Five, five or six. | |\n| 10 | Q | And you've been his counsel in connection with his | |\n| 11 | | business dealings? | |\n| 12 | A | I don't believe he has any business dealings.
Mr. | |\n| 13 | Kwok? | | |\n| 14 | Q | Yes, the debtor in this case, Ho Wan Kwok, you believe | |\n| 15 | | he has no business dealings? | |\n| 16 | A | My understanding of a business dealing would be him | |\n| 17 | | investing or owning a business.
Is that what you're saying? | |\n| 18 | Q | It could be investing.
It could be managing.
It could | |\n| 19 | | running.
It could be providing funds.
All those things | |\n| 20 | | would be involved with. | |\n| 21 | A | I've not seen him do any of that at any of the | |\n| 22 | | companies we've mentioned. | |\n| 23 | Q | Okay.
Why don't we keep going. | |\n| 24 | A | Sure. | |\n| 25 | Q | And you've been a director and officer at GTV? | |\n| | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 43 of
158 | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
43 | |\n| 1 | A | That's -- director. | |\n| 2 | Q | Okay.
And who are the other directors along with you? | |\n| 3 | A | Currently?
Currently I'm not a director.
When I was | |\n| 4 | | for the last year it was only myself for a year and a half. | |\n| 5 | | About the time that GTV entered into the | |\n| 6 | | settlement with the SEC, the other directors resigned, and I | |\n| 7 | | remained to try and -- in case the SEC needed any help in | |\n| 8 | | getting the money back to the investors. | |\n| 9 | Q | Who were the directors before who resigned? | |\n| 10 | A | Max Krasner.
Yvette Wang.
Steve Bannon was at one | |\n| 11 | | time a director.
Kyle Bass was at one time a director. | |\n| 12 | | John Morgan was at one time a director.
There's another | |\n| 13 | | gentleman whose name is escaping me.
He was a hedge fund | |\n| 14 | | manager down in Texas.
I can't think of his name.
He was | |\n| 15 | | also a director. | |\n| 16 | Q | Of GTV? | |\n| 17 | A | Yes.
And I believe that that is it. | |\n| 18 | Q | Okay.
And Ms. Wang was the president and the secretary | |\n| 19 | of GTV? | | |\n| 20 | A | At one point, yes. | |\n| 21 | Q | Was there ever a different president of GTV? | |\n| 22 | A | I believe Max Krasner was president in GTV. | |\n| 23 | Q | Before or after Ms. Wang? | |\n| 24 | A | You know, the more -- now that you mention it, I don't | |\n| 25 | | think Ms. Wang every was president.
I think it was Mr. | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 44 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
44 |\n| 1 | Krasner.
And I believe Ms. Wang was secretary is my |\n| 2 | recollection. |\n| 3 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, may I show the witness a |\n| 4 | document? |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Yes.
But how many documents?
I mean, |\n| 6 | where you don't have anything marked yet.
So are you going |\n| 7 | to be moving for that document for admission into evidence? |\n| 8 | MR. LUFT:
Well, right now I'm going to just use |\n| 9 | it to see if it will refresh the witness's recollection -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
That's fine. |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:
-- and we can discuss -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
If you're using it to refresh his |\n| 13 | recollection, that's fine. |\n| 14 | MR. LUFT
Okay.
I'm going to -- for marcation |\n| 15 | purposes, I'll call this Mitchell 1, Your Honor. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, I don't think we have to do |\n| 17 | anything unless you're going to move it into evidence, |\n| 18 | right?
Right now you're using it just to refresh his |\n| 19 | recollection. |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:
Correct.
Just for the -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
So -- |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:
Okay. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
-- if you could just state what it is |\n| 24 | for the record. |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:
That's fine. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 45 of\n\n| 158 | | | | |\n|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
45 | | | |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay. | | | |\n| 2 | BY MR. LUFT: | | | |\n| 3 | Q
Mr. Mitchell, I'm going to show you a document titled | | | |\n| 4 | Saraca Media Group, Inc, Organizational Chart as of August | | | |\n| 5 | 15th, 2020.
It comes -- I'll represent to you it comes from | | | |\n| 6 | the files of Hodgson Russ. | | | |\n| 7 | A
Can I ask you -- sorry, you were asking me about GTV | | | |\n| 8 | and you're going to show me a document related to Saraca? | | | |\n| 9 | Q
I think once you see it -- | | | |\n| 10 | A
Okay. | | | |\n| 11 | Q
-- it will make sense to you. | | | |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Right now it's only -- I'm only | | | |\n| 13 | letting counsel show you this because he's telling me that | | | |\n| 14 | it's going to refresh your recollection. | | | |\n| 15 | THE WITNESS:
Sure.
No.
I understood. | | | |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So that's -- | | | |\n| 17 | THE WITNESS:
I just was confused because they are | | | |\n| 18 | two -- | | | |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Understood.
But I just want to be | | | |\n| 20 | clear that right now that's all that we're doing with this | | | |\n| 21 | document.
Okay? | | | |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, may I approach the witness? | | | |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may. | | | |\n| 24 | BY MR. LUFT: | | | |\n| 25 | Q
Mr. Mitchell, do you see this is an organizational | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 46 of
158 | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
46 |\n| 1 | chart? | |\n| 2 | A | That's what -- yeah, that's what it says it is. |\n| 3 | Q | And under Saraca Media Group do you if you look to the |\n| 4 | | left of the page it says GTV Media Group? |\n| 5 | A | I do, yes. |\n| 6 | Q | And under directors it says Steve Bannon, Aaron |\n| 7 | | Mitchell, John Morgan and Yvette Wang? |\n| 8 | A | Yes, I see that. |\n| 9 | Q | And then under officers it says Yvette Wang, |\n| 10 | | President/Secretary, Treasurer Anthony DeBatista? |\n| 11 | A | I see that. |\n| 12 | Q | Does this refresh your recollection that Ms. Wang was |\n| 13 | | the president of GTV? |\n| 14 | A | It doesn't.
It doesn't mean it's not true.
I don't |\n| 15 | | dispute it one way or the other.
I don't recall Yvette |\n| 16 | | being president.
But it's possible.
Mr. Krasner resigned, |\n| 17 | | and I see that's noted on here, and perhaps Ms. Wang become |\n| 18 | | president.
I don't recall that.
I don't dispute it, but -- |\n| 19 | Q | You were on the board but you don't know who the |\n| 20 | | president of the company was? |\n| 21 | A | I don't recall who it was. |\n| 22 | Q | Okay.
While you have it there do you recall that Ms. |\n| 23 | | Wang was the President, Secretary and Treasurer of Saraca? |\n| 24 | A | I don't know what her title was.
I know that she was |\n| 25 | | -- I thought she was a director, which it says there.
In |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 47 of
158 | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|----|--|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft | 47 | |\n| 1 | terms of what offices she held at Saraca, I don't -- I don't | | |\n| 2 | recall. | | |\n| 3 | Q
Then this statement here that he's the president, | | |\n| 4 | secretary and treasurer doesn't refresh your recollection? | | |\n| 5 | A
It doesn't.
But I don't have any basis to dispute it | | |\n| 6 | one way or the other. | | |\n| 7 | Q
Okay. | | |\n| 8 | A
I'm sure if it came from Hodgson Russ, assuming it's | | |\n| 9 | not a draft, it's likely accurate. | | |\n| 10 | Q
Okay.
Do you recall who the owner of GTV was? | | |\n| 11 | A
GTV's parent company was Saraca, and then also the | | |\n| 12 | investors who received shares. | | |\n| 13 | Q
Do you recall who the owner of Saraca was? | | |\n| 14 | A
I don't.
But based upon this it says Hudson Diamond | | |\n| 15 | Holding, Inc. if I'm reading this correctly. | | |\n| 16 | Q
Do you recall who the owner of Hudson Diamond, Inc. | | |\n| 17 | was? | | |\n| 18 | A
I do not. | | |\n| 19 | Q
So despite being a director -- | | |\n| 20 | A
I don't want to say I don't recall.
I don't think I | | |\n| 21 | ever knew to be fair.
I don't -- Hudson Diamond Holding I | | |\n| 22 | never represented and I never had any dealings with. | | |\n| 23 | Q
GTV Media sold securities? | | |\n| 24 | A
There was a private offering, yes. | | |\n| 25 | Q
You were on the board at that time? | | |\n| | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 48 of
158 | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft | 48 |\n| 1 | A
Yes. | |\n| 2 | Q
But despite that you never learned beyond what you just | |\n| 3 | told me what the -- who the ownership was ultimately of GTV? | |\n| 4 | A
It was Saraca. | |\n| 5 | Q
And the only thing you know about Saraca is that it was | |\n| 6 | owned by an entity called Hudson Diamond, Inc.? | |\n| 7 | A
That's correct. | |\n| 8 | Q
And you never found out who owned that entity? | |\n| 9 | A
I don't know who owned that entity, no. | |\n| 10 | Q
Despite selling securities about a company that | |\n| 11 | supposedly it was owned by? | |\n| 12 | A
I'm sorry.
I couldn't understand that question well. | |\n| 13 | Q
Sure.
I'm asking, as a director, when you were going | |\n| 14 | out into the public and selling securities, did you ever | |\n| 15 | bother to find out, other than a corporate name, who owned | |\n| 16 | the entity that you were going out to the public and selling | |\n| 17 | securities for -- about? | |\n| 18 | A
Your question has several points that are incorrect. | |\n| 19 | Nobody ever offers -- I never went out into the public to | |\n| 20 | sell securities.
The securities were a private offering. | |\n| 21 | They were never offered to the public. | So I can't answer -- |\n| 22 | the answer to that -- to your question is -- I guess there | |\n| 23 | is no way to answer it because it assumes several things | |\n| 24 | that untrue. | |\n| 25 | Q
So your point is that the securities weren't sold to | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 49 of
158 |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
49 |\n| 1 | | the public, they were -- because it was a private offering? |\n| 2 | A | That's correct. |\n| 3 | Q | And you had no role with regard to the sale? |\n| 4 | A | In terms of? |\n| 5 | Q | Were you listed in the materials as being a director? |\n| 6 | A | Yes.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q | So the company was putting your name and representing |\n| 8 | | it with -- in connection with what it was -- its offering |\n| 9 | | memorandum? |\n| 10 | A | Correct. |\n| 11 | Q | But you still never bothered to find out who allegedly |\n| 12 | | owned the company other an unnamed corporate -- no |\n| 13 | | individual, just a corporate entity in the BVI? |\n| 14 | A | Yes.
I didn't even know in truth they were in the BVI. |\n| 15 | | They weren't in the BVI.
It was Saraca Media Group was the |\n| 16 | owner. | |\n| 17 | Q | Which was owned by Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc., which |\n| 18 | | is in the BVI, correct? |\n| 19 | A | Yes.
I didn't know they were in the BVI to tell you |\n| 20 | | the truth. |\n| 21 | Q | Wasn't important to you to know? |\n| 22 | A | No, it wasn't important. |\n| 23 | Q | Okay.
Other than GTV, what other entities have you |\n| 24 | | served as a director of? |\n| 25 | A | GETTR Media Group, Inc. |\n| | | |\n\nAaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft 50 Q Are you currently still -- A I am. Q -- a member of GETTR? Who owns GETTR? A GETTR is -- there's two shareholders, Hamilton and Freedom Media Ventures, Inc. Q Both entities are affiliated with a man named William Gee, correct? A No. I don't believe so. Q Are you sure? A Yeah, I'm sure. Hamilton I believe is. I don't believe Freedom Media is in any way. Q And Mr. Kwok is affiliated with the ownership of those entities, correct? A Not that I'm aware of. I know he -- I know he and William are colleagues, but other than that I don't know of any affiliation. Q When you say Mr. Kwok and Mr. Gee are colleagues, what do you mean? A I know they know each other. Q Just like passing acquaintances or do they do business together? A I don't believe they do business together. I know that they -- I don't know what their relationship is exactly. Q You know Mr. Gee lends Mr. Kwok money, right? And his family? Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 50 of\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 51 of
158 | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
51 | |\n| 1 | A | I know he lends the family money, yes. | |\n| 2 | Q | In fact, you helped arrange for Mr. Gee to send the \\$37 | |\n| 3 | | million when this court asked for a bond to be posted at the | |\n| 4 | | April hearing in 2022, correct?
That was you? | |\n| 5 | A | It was me what? | |\n| 6 | Q | Who helped arrange for the \\$37 million to be sent over | |\n| 7 | | from Mr. Gee to Ms. Guo? | |\n| 8 | A | I assisted?
I don't understand what that was you | |\n| 9 | means. | | |\n| 10 | Q | I mean, when you say you assisted, I said you. | |\n| 11 | A | I didn't negotiate it. | |\n| 12 | Q | What's that? | |\n| 13 | A | I didn't negotiate it or anything of that nature if | |\n| 14 | | that's what you're asking. | |\n| 15 | Q | So what did you do? | |\n| 16 | A | I made some calls to Mr. Gee. | |\n| 17 | Q | And what did Mr. Gee say? | |\n| 18 | A | That he would talk to Mei Guo and they would work | |\n| 19 | | something out if he could help. | |\n| 20 | Q | And when you called Mr. Gee what did you tell him? | |\n| 21 | A | That the family -- that Mei needed to come up with some | |\n| 22 | | money to help with the bankruptcy. | |\n| 23 | Q | Anything else? | |\n| 24 | A | No. | |\n| 25 | Q | So like I said you helped arrange the \\$37 million? | |\n| | | | |\n\nAaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft 52 A In that context, yes. Q Any other times you've communicated with Mr. Gee about money to go to Mr. Kwok or his family? A I don't believe so, no. Q Any other times you've communicated with Mr. Gee about money in general? A Yes. Q In what context? A I actually represent Mr. Gee. Q Oh, you represent Mr. Gee also? A Yeah. Q Okay. And what do you represent Mr. Gee in connection with? A Just general legal advice. Q About? A Just general. If he has a question about law in the U.S., I give him an answer. Q Okay. I'm asking the subject matters that you've represented Mr. Gee in connection with? A I'm not sure what -- again, general advice. I'm not sure what you're asking me. Q Like traffic tickets? Matrimonial? Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 52 of\n\n A No, I've never advised him on a traffic ticket. I've never advised in matrimonial.\n\nQ Okay. So think about what you have represented, given\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 53 of
158 | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
53 | | | | |\n| 1 | him advice on, and please let me know.
What legal matters | | | | |\n| 2 | do -- | | | | |\n| 3 | A
I don't know how -- | | | | |\n| 4 | Q
-- you represent him in? | | | | |\n| 5 | A
I don't know how I can do that without filing a | | | | |\n| 6 | privilege. | | | | |\n| 7 | Q
I think it's common practice to give the general | | | | |\n| 8 | subject matter on a privilege log as to what you provide | | | | |\n| 9 | legal advice on.
I wouldn't ask -- I'm not asking for | | | | |\n| 10 | anything more than that. | | | | |\n| 11 | A
I don't think that's true.
If it's over the phone, I | | | | |\n| 12 | don't believe you have to provide a privilege log for phone | | | | |\n| 13 | conversations. | | | | |\n| 14 | Q
I think you have to -- it's not a question of whether | | | | |\n| 15 | you have to produce a privilege log.
I feel like I'm | | | | |\n| 16 | debating this.
But quite frankly I think the privilege -- | | | | |\n| 17 | there is no disclosure of privilege to provide the general | | | | |\n| 18 | subject matter upon which you provide legal advice.
That's | | | | |\n| 19 | common and that's what I'm asking you.
I'm not asking you | | | | |\n| 20 | to go further. | | | | |\n| 21 | A
If he was looking to make an investment in the U.S., he | | | | |\n| 22 | would ask me for legal advice in regards to potential ways | | | | |\n| 23 | to acquire the -- ways to acquire either the business or the | | | | |\n| 24 | property and I would give him advice. | | | | |\n| 25 | Q
Did you ever have communications with Mr. Kwok in | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 54 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
54 |\n| 1 | connection with legal advice in the matters that you were |\n| 2 | talking to Mr. Gee about? |\n| 3 | A
I don't understand your question. |\n| 4 | Q
Sure.
You said you've provided -- |\n| 5 | A
Can I -- sorry.
Can I ask what this has to do with the |\n| 6 | order to show cause related to GTV and contempt?
I'm just |\n| 7 | wondering how -- |\n| 8 | MR. LUFT:
I'm happy to explain, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Yes.
You do need to explain because |\n| 10 | we do need to focus back on the -- |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:
Absolutely, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
-- the subpoena, please. |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, the reason I'm asking about |\n| 14 | this is because, as we're going to find out, Mr. Mitchell |\n| 15 | was both the director and their counsel.
He is the person I |\n| 16 | was directed to -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Of whom, director and -- |\n| 18 | MR. LUFT:
Of GTV. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:
And then of Saraca he is the person I |\n| 21 | was directed to get information from whence counsel pulled |\n| 22 | out literally on the day we asked them to finally produce |\n| 23 | their documents.
And I think the connections between Mr. -- |\n| 24 | I want to understand because Mr. Mitchell then proceeded to |\n| 25 | tell me he couldn't do it and he doesn't know about these |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 55 of
158 | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
55 | | | |\n| 1 | things and how could he answer questions. | | | |\n| 2 | So I do want to understand his connections to all | | | |\n| 3 | of Mr. Kwok's entities because there's a lot of missing | | | |\n| 4 | documents and I'd like to understand which ones he's | | | |\n| 5 | involved with because I'm looking for them. | | | |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
I understand.
But right now what we | | | |\n| 7 | were talking about was -- you need to focus -- I think you | | | |\n| 8 | are telling me you're focusing on what you assert is Mr. | | | |\n| 9 | Mitchell's status as an officer and director of both GTV and | | | |\n| 10 | Saraca.
Is that correct? | | | |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:
Officer and director of GTV. | | | |\n| 12 | My understanding is that he has been counsel for | | | |\n| 13 | Saraca.
And I'll find out.
He has told me that he is not a | | | |\n| 14 | director of Saraca. | | | |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay. | | | |\n| 16 | MR. LUFT:
Okay.
But I'm happy to -- | | | |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
And I'll allow you to proceed, but we | | | |\n| 18 | do need to focus on the subpoena. | | | |\n| 19 | MR. LUFT:
Terrific.
We'll move ahead. | | | |\n| 20 | BY MR. LUFT: | | | |\n| 21 | Q
Let me ask you, what's the current status of GTV? | | | |\n| 22 | A
I don't know what you mean by that.
There's -- | | | |\n| 23 | Q
Is it operational? | | | |\n| 24 | A
No. | | | |\n| 25 | Q
But it has pending lawsuits that you still represent it | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 56 of
158 | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
56 | | | |\n| 1 | in? | | | |\n| 2 | A
Well, all of them are stayed except for two, which | | | |\n| 3 | became -- one became unstayed, and the other, well, the | | | |\n| 4 | other was stayed as well.
And recently there's been some | | | |\n| 5 | activity that's caused them to become I guess -- is unstayed | | | |\n| 6 | a word -- no longer stayed. | | | |\n| 7 | Q
When was the -- when did GTV stop operating? | | | |\n| 8 | A
Quite frankly, several years ago.
Prior to the | | | |\n| 9 | settlement with the SEC, the company was no longer | | | |\n| 10 | operational.
The employees had all left.
The website had | | | |\n| 11 | shut down.
And then after that it was really just trying to | | | |\n| 12 | work with the SEC to get the money back to the investors. | | | |\n| 13 | Q
And what's the current status of Saraca Media? | | | |\n| 14 | A
I don't know.
I don't believe there's anyone there.
I | | | |\n| 15 | believe that Ms. Wang resigned.
That's the extent of what I | | | |\n| 16 | know about Saraca. | | | |\n| 17 | Q
When did that happen? | | | |\n| 18 | A
I don't know.
I found out somewhere between six to | | | |\n| 19 | nine months ago, maybe six months ago, not long before Mr. | | | |\n| 20 | Temkin resigned, the attorney referenced.
Shortly before | | | |\n| 21 | that was when I found out that there was no one at Saraca. | | | |\n| 22 | Q
Who told you? | | | |\n| 23 | A
Ms. Wang told me she had resigned.
And I believe -- | | | |\n| 24 | I'm not sure if she told me or if I implied from that that | | | |\n| 25 | there's no one else there because she was I believe the only | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 57 of\n\n| | 158 | | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
57 | | | | | |\n| 1 | person remaining at Saraca. | | | | | |\n| 2 | Q
Where did GTV keep its documents? | | | | | |\n| 3 | A
GTV's documents were at 162 East 64th Street.
And then | | | | | |\n| 4 | they were -- I have them now.
I don't -- but I didn't get | | | | | |\n| 5 | them in between.
And you have already received through my | | | | | |\n| 6 | production of Lawall & Mitchell I believe electronic copies | | | | | |\n| 7 | of all the documents. | | | | | |\n| 8 | Q
Mr. Mitchell, let's be very clear.
Have you ever told | | | | | |\n| 9 | me that you were representing GTV and making a production on | | | | | |\n| 10 | their behalf in connection with a subpoena? | | | | | |\n| 11 | A
No, I didn't make -- there was no -- I don't believe | | | | | |\n| 12 | there was a production made on behalf of GTV. | | | | | |\n| 13 | What I'm telling you is that you received | | | | | |\n| 14 | documents from me personally as I'm here testifying on my | | | | | |\n| 15 | own behalf that I provided to you from GTV which were the | | | | | |\n| 16 | documents that I had in my possession.
And I believe there | | | | | |\n| 17 | was about 100,000 pages. | | | | | |\n| 18 | Q
Of documents you produced based on a subpoena to you, | | | | | |\n| 19 | not any subpoena to GTV? | | | | | |\n| 20 | A
A subpoena to my firm, correct. | | | | | |\n| 21 | Q
Why didn't you represent GTV and produce the documents | | | | | |\n| 22 | when I -- that's when Mr. Temkin told me to speak to you | | | | | |\n| 23 | about it? | | | | | |\n| 24 | A
Why?
I don't even understand your question.
Why | | | | | |\n| 25 | didn't I give you documents I already gave you? | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 58 of
158 | | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
58 | | | |\n| 1 | Q | No.
You didn't give them to me at the time, Mr. | | | |\n| 2 | Mitchell. | | | | |\n| 3 | A | You already had -- you absolutely had the GTV documents | | | |\n| 4 | prior to -- from me, the ones that Lawall & Mitchell had, | | | | |\n| 5 | you absolutely had those documents prior to you reaching out | | | | |\n| 6 | to me on behalf of GTV.
Unequivocally.
And I can give you | | | | |\n| 7 | the Bates stamps. | | | | |\n| 8 | Q | Okay. | | | |\n| 9 | A | And the email if you'd like. | | | |\n| 10 | Q | We'll go through it, Mr. Mitchell.
Where's Saraca | | | |\n| 11 | Media -- where is Saraca Media's documents kept? | | | | |\n| 12 | A | I don't know. | | | |\n| 13 | Q | You represented them as a -- in connection I think you | | | |\n| 14 | | said currently for five or six cases.
You don't know where | | | |\n| 15 | | they keep their documents? | | | |\n| 16 | A | I don't know where they keep their documents. | | | |\n| 17 | Q | How do you do discovery? | | | |\n| 18 | A | I don't -- what do you mean how do I do discovery? | | | |\n| 19 | Q | If you don't know where your client's documents are how | | | |\n| 20 | | do you do discovery? | | | |\n| 21 | A | Discovery has been completed. | | | |\n| 22 | Q | When you did discovery, where were the documents? | | | |\n| 23 | A | They were -- they were on a platform, an electronic | | | |\n| 24 | | platform. | | | |\n| 25 | Q | Where was that? | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 59 of\n\n| | | 158 |\n|----|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
59 |\n| 1 | A | You mean the company? |\n| 2 | Q | Yeah.
What electronic platform? |\n| 3 | A | Terrace. |\n| 4 | Q | Terrace.
They weren't kept on -- they weren't -- there |\n| 5 | | were no hard copied document files for Saraca Media? |\n| 6 | A | I have no idea. |\n| 7 | Q | You never searched them for discovery? |\n| 8 | A | No, because it was all electronic. |\n| 9 | Q | Where are the servers for Terrace? |\n| 10 | A | I have no idea. |\n| 11 | Q | How did you access documents that were on the Terrace |\n| 12 | server? | |\n| 13 | A | Online. |\n| 14 | Q | Through what? |\n| 15 | A | Terrace. |\n| 16 | Q | What?
How did you access them? |\n| 17 | A | I don't understand your question.
I went -- I logged |\n| 18 | | in and accessed them.
I'm not very -- I'm not trying to be |\n| 19 | | evasive.
I'm not very computer savvy.
I log in.
I went on |\n| 20 | | the website.
I logged in and I had access to the documents. |\n| 21 | | I reviewed them and produced what was responsive and/or not |\n| 22 | | privileged. |\n| 23 | Q | Okay.
Who maintained and kept the records for those -- |\n| 24 | for GTV? | |\n| 25 | A | Again, I'm not understanding.
You mean Terrace, is |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 60 of\n\n| | | 158 | |\n|----|---|------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
60 | |\n| 1 | | that what you're asking? | |\n| 2 | Q | No.
I mean who at the company was in charge of keeping | |\n| 3 | | the records and files for GTV? | |\n| 4 | A | At what point in time? | |\n| 5 | Q | Prior to its ceasing operation. | |\n| 6 | A | I presume it would have been the secretary and/or an | |\n| 7 | | employee of GTV. | |\n| 8 | Q | Okay. | |\n| 9 | A | I don't know definitively. | |\n| 10 | Q | I just want to be clear.
Is it your testimony that in | |\n| 11 | | your personal production you've produced all of GTV's, the | |\n| 12 | | entire universe of GTV's documents to us? | |\n| 13 | A | You mean in my firm's production? | |\n| 14 | Q | Well, I served it on you, so. | |\n| 15 | A | For the record, you served it on Lawall & Mitchell. | |\n| 16 | Q | Okay. | |\n| 17 | A | Correct?
Well, you know, I have to testify, but you | |\n| 18 | | served it on Lawall & Mitchell and I responded in my | |\n| 19 | | capacity at the firm. | |\n| 20 | Q | Okay. | |\n| 21 | A | You didn't serve me personally one, no. | |\n| 22 | Q | Okay.
And did Lawall & Mitchell produce the entire | |\n| 23 | | universe of GTV's documents? | |\n| 24 | A | I don't know if they did or not.
They produced -- I | |\n| 25 | | went on and reviewed the documents that were available on | |\n| | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 61 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
61 |\n| 1 | Terrace and produced all of the documents that were stored I |\n| 2 | guess on the site that were responsive. |\n| 3 | Q
So are GTV's documents also -- |\n| 4 | A
Correct. |\n| 5 | Q
-- stored on Terrace? |\n| 6 | A
Yes.
Yes.
They were all stored on Terrace in response |\n| 7 | to the SEC's subpoena. |\n| 8 | Q
Well, Mr. Temkin told me that your documents were not |\n| 9 | included in the -- in that database.
You told me, |\n| 10 | specifically told me that that database does not include all |\n| 11 | of GTV's documents.
Is that -- when you talk about the |\n| 12 | Terrace database, are you referring to the one created for |\n| 13 | the SEC? |\n| 14 | A
That's correct. |\n| 15 | Q
Okay.
So that's -- Mr. Temkin has told me that's not |\n| 16 | all of GTV's documents.
Where are the remainder of GTV's |\n| 17 | documents? |\n| 18 | A
That's all the documents I'm aware of. |\n| 19 | Q
Okay.
How about Saraca? |\n| 20 | A
Just to be fair there, I do have a couple of emails as |\n| 21 | a director to the stock transfer company, V Stock.
I'm |\n| 22 | sorry, the V Stock are Equity. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Do you know how to spell that? |\n| 24 | THE WITNESS:
I'm trying to remember which one it |\n| 25 | is, if it was V Stock.
One of them we referred to and we |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 62 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
62 |\n| 1 | didn't use them.
We used the other.
I believe it Equity, |\n| 2 | E-Q-U-I-T-Y.
But there are -- whomever the stock transfer |\n| 3 | agent was I personally as director of GTV have an exchange |\n| 4 | of emails with them that has not been produced because it's |\n| 5 | not -- again, it wasn't responsive to Lawall & Mitchell's |\n| 6 | subpoena. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
The word that -- the name you used |\n| 8 | before though was it V, like Victor, Stock? |\n| 9 | THE WITNESS:
V, like Victor, Stock. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Victor Stock. |\n| 11 | THE WITNESS:
Yes. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
V Stock.
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 13 | That will just be helpful to know.
Thank you. |\n| 14 | THE WITNESS:
Sure. |\n| 15 | BY MR. LUFT: |\n| 16 | Q
Was it responsive to GTV's subpoena? |\n| 17 | A
I don't believe so. |\n| 18 | Q
Have you reviewed GTV's subpoena for relevance? |\n| 19 | A
Not really, no. |\n| 20 | Q
How about Saraca, have you produced the entire universe |\n| 21 | of Saraca's documents in connection with the Lawall & |\n| 22 | Mitchell production? |\n| 23 | A
All the -- all the documents that I have, yes. |\n| 24 | Q
Well, what documents do you have of Saraca? |\n| 25 | A
The ones that were produced to you.
I believe there |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 63 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
63 |\n| 1 | were some ownership documents that were produced.
Or |\n| 2 | organizational documents is probably a better term.
And |\n| 3 | whatever other documents that were included in the |\n| 4 | production that were provided initially.
I don't recall |\n| 5 | what it was exactly. |\n| 6 | Q
So you're not representing that your production from |\n| 7 | Lawall & Mitchell covered the universe of documents that we |\n| 8 | requested from Saraca Media, correct? |\n| 9 | A
No.
No.
I can't imagine that it did. |\n| 10 | Q
Okay.
Let's turn -- |\n| 11 | A
I don't know definitively to be clear, but I would |\n| 12 | assume there are more documents than what I produced. |\n| 13 | Q
Okay.
Let's turn to Mr. Temkin who's a -- he was a |\n| 14 | lawyer at Morvillo, correct? |\n| 15 | A
Correct. |\n| 16 | Q
And did you hire him to represent GTV and Saraca in |\n| 17 | connection with the 2004 subpoena? |\n| 18 | A
I did not hire him to represent Saraca.
He did |\n| 19 | represent Saraca, but I didn't hire him. |\n| 20 | Q
You hired him to represent GTV? |\n| 21 | A
Well, I was on the board at GTV so I think that is |\n| 22 | fair. |\n| 23 | Q
You were the person who was served with the subpoena, |\n| 24 | the 2004 subpoena, correct, on behalf of GTV? |\n| 25 | A
I don't recall if that's sure.
I think you served it. |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 64 of
158 | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
64 | |\n| 1 | If you represent that, I don't have any reason -- | |\n| 2 | Q
I could show you the email to Mr. Linsey. | |\n| 3 | A
I have no reason to dispute it.
I sincerely don't | |\n| 4 | recall.
But if you represent that, I will accept your | |\n| 5 | representation. | |\n| 6 | Q
And when you got that subpoena, what did you do? | |\n| 7 | A
I believe -- thank you -- I believe that I gave it to | |\n| 8 | Mr. Temkin to respond to. | |\n| 9 | Q
Okay.
And how did Mr. Temkin come to be -- represent | |\n| 10 | Saraca at the exact same time? | |\n| 11 | A
He was already representing Saraca during the SEC -- in | |\n| 12 | response to the SEC subpoena and the settlement there,
Mr. | |\n| 13 | Temkin was representing Saraca.
Cahill was representing | |\n| 14 | GTV.
And Brad Bondi, who's now with your firm, was counsel | |\n| 15 | for GTV.
He was terminated.
And then Mr. Temkin -- at that | |\n| 16 | point, the settlement had essentially been negotiated and | |\n| 17 | Mr. Temkin represented both GTV and Saraca in finalizing the | |\n| 18 | settlement. | |\n| 19 | Q
In connection with the 2004, who contacted Saraca to | |\n| 20 | represent -- who contacted Mr. Temkin to represent Saraca? | |\n| 21 | A
I don't recall.
I may have forwarded him the subpoena. | |\n| 22 | I sincerely don't recall one way or the other. | |\n| 23 | Q
Okay.
On November 28th, my colleague, John Kashuwicz, | |\n| 24 | emailed Mr. Temkin's firm telling him that given the months | |\n| 25 | of non-production we were requesting that they finally make | |\n\n| | 158
Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
65
their production on December 2nd. | |\n|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | We received a response back advising us that as of | |\n| | | |\n| | Were you involved in that decision for Morvillo to | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| A | That decision would have been made by Morvillo. | |\n| Q | Why did Morvillo withdraw as counsel? | |\n| A | I presume, and you'd have to ask Mr. Temkin, but I | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| Q | You had no discussions with Mr. Temkin regarding his -- | |\n| A | That's why I presume is because he had asked several | |\n| | | |\n| | So I believe that that is | |\n| it. | But, again, you'd have to ask him.
I'm speculating a | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| Q | Okay.
So it's your testimony that you had no | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| A | That's not what I said.
What I said was I presume that | |\n| | He told me -- he asked me | |\n| | | |\n| | | that day Morvillo was no longer going to represent GTV.
cease representing GTV on the same day that we demanded that
production be made?
presume it had to do with the fact that they weren't being
paid.
times about payment and I had informed him that there were
no more funds at GTV to pay him.
little bit, but I -- that would be the reason I would resign
if I were him.
conversations with Mr. Temkin and Morvillo about their
decision to withdraw as counsel on the eve of having to make
a production to us?
it's because they weren't paid.
about being paid several times so there were conversations |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 66 of\n\n| | 158 | | | | | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
66 | | | | | | |\n| 1 | where he said I need to get paid or I'm going to have to | | | | | | |\n| 2 | resign.
Ultimately he resigned.
He didn't say I'm going to | | | | | | |\n| 3 | resign today because you have not paid -- because he has not | | | | | | |\n| 4 | paid me.
And it is the day in which the subpoena is due, he | | | | | | |\n| 5 | said to me, we're not getting paid, we're going to have to | | | | | | |\n| 6 | stop working. | | | | | | |\n| 7 | Q
At the time Mr. Morvillo, sorry, Mr. Temkin of Morvillo | | | | | | |\n| 8 | withdrew as counsel for GTV and Saraca you were aware that | | | | | | |\n| 9 | there were pending 2004 subpoenas from the Trustee, correct? | | | | | | |\n| 10 | A
Yes. | | | | | | |\n| 11 | Q
And you're aware that Mr. Temkin had told us that if we | | | | | | |\n| 12 | had any inquiries with regard to GTV and Saraca we were to | | | | | | |\n| 13 | contact you, correct? | | | | | | |\n| 14 | A
Yes.
That's what you had said in your email to me. | | | | | | |\n| 15 | Q
Right.
And you told us that you would tell us who | | | | | | |\n| 16 | GTV's new counsel was? | | | | | | |\n| 17 | A
I don't recall, but that would make sense at the time. | | | | | | |\n| 18 | I would have tried to get new counsel. | | | | | | |\n| 19 | Q
In fact, you told me specifically that you -- before | | | | | | |\n| 20 | you could answer any of my questions you first wanted to | | | | | | |\n| 21 | speak to Mr. Temkin? | | | | | | |\n| 22 | A
That would make sense because, again, you had informed | | | | | | |\n| 23 | me that he had said I was the person to speak to and so I | | | | | | |\n| 24 | was trying to speak to him. | | | | | | |\n| 25 | Also you had said that I was the director of | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 67 of
158 | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
67 | |\n| 1 | Saraca and I wanted to find out why he would say something | |\n| 2 | like that when it was untrue. | |\n| 3 | Q
Mr. Mitchell, I want to be very clear.
I'm not asking | |\n| 4 | what you think would make sense.
I'm just going to ask you | |\n| 5 | for your recollection. | |\n| 6 | A
Well, that's my recollection is that you had identified | |\n| 7 | me as a director of Saraca and I told you that was | |\n| 8 | inaccurate.
You had told me that's what Mr. Temkin had told | |\n| 9 | you.
So I said I wanted to speak to Mr. Temkin because I | |\n| 10 | don't know why he would say something that was untrue. | |\n| 11 | Q
Did you speak to Mr. Temkin? | |\n| 12 | A
I did.
I asked him why he said that I was a director | |\n| 13 | of Saraca?
He said he never said that. | |\n| 14 | Q
Did you have any -- speak about anything else about the | |\n| 15 | subpoenas? | |\n| 16 | A
I don't recall.
That was the thing that I was most | |\n| 17 | concerned with because I didn't like the idea that anyone | |\n| 18 | was saying something that was inaccurate, and quite frankly | |\n| 19 | could arguably cause me to do more work.
So that's my | |\n| 20 | recollection of my conversation with Mr. Temkin. | |\n| 21 | Q
In fact, you told me that you were going to put me in | |\n| 22 | contact with GTV's new counsel once retained, correct? | |\n| 23 | A
You told me you only wanted me to answer definitively. | |\n| 24 | Q
Okay. | |\n| 25 | A
That sounds correct, but that would make sense. | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 68 of
158 | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
68 | |\n| 1 | Q
Do you want me to show you the email? | |\n| 2 | A
No.
I accept your representation.
I'm not disputing | |\n| 3 | it.
You had said not as you think about it, you know, not | |\n| 4 | to tell you I was thinking something, only what I | |\n| 5 | definitively knew.
And I don't specifically recall that, | |\n| 6 | but it sounds accurate. | |\n| 7 | Q
You never told me the name of GTV's new counsel, did | |\n| 8 | you? | |\n| 9 | A
GTV never retained new counsel. | |\n| 10 | Q
And as to Saraca, I asked you to tell me the name of | |\n| 11 | their new counsel or the name of an individual at the | |\n| 12 | company who I could speak to to find out who was the right | |\n| 13 | counsel, the right person to speak to, correct? | |\n| 14 | A
I don't recall that.
Again, if you're representing | |\n| 15 | that, I'll take it as true, but. | |\n| 16 | Q
Maybe I'll say the words and see if it refreshes your | |\n| 17 | recollection.
Do you recall me writing to you on December | |\n| 18 | 21st saying has GTV retained new counsel?
If so, please let | |\n| 19 | me know who it is. | |\n| 20 | As to Saraca, am I correct that as of now it is | |\n| 21 | neither represented by you or Morvillo?
If so, do you know | |\n| 22 | if it is represented by anyone?
If not, who is the person | |\n| 23 | at Saraca that we should be speaking to as Morvillo directed | |\n| 24 | us to speak to you regarding our request to Saraca. | |\n| 25 | Does that refresh your recollection about what I | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 69 of\n\n| | 158 | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
69 | | | | | |\n| 1 | asked you? | | | | | |\n| 2 | A
No.
But I'll accept it as true. | | | | | |\n| 3 | Q
You never gave me any information about who to speak to | | | | | |\n| 4 | at Saraca regarding the subpoenas, correct? | | | | | |\n| 5 | A
That would be -- that would be correct.
I don't | | | | | |\n| 6 | believe I had any information as I testified hereto today. | | | | | |\n| 7 | Q
Did you ever call Ms. Wang and say, hey, we have | | | | | |\n| 8 | subpoenas?
You're the president of Saraca.
You're the | | | | | |\n| 9 | director of Saraca.
What are we going to do to respond to | | | | | |\n| 10 | this? | | | | | |\n| 11 | A
She was not the president and director.
As I testified | | | | | |\n| 12 | she already said she had resigned. | | | | | |\n| 13 | Q
In December she resigned from Saraca, that's your | | | | | |\n| 14 | testimony? | | | | | |\n| 15 | A
I don't recall when she resigned was my testimony, but | | | | | |\n| 16 | I know she wasn't there at that point. | | | | | |\n| 17 | Q
Who was there? | | | | | |\n| 18 | A
I don't believe anybody, but I could be wrong. | | | | | |\n| 19 | Q
So you -- I'm emailing you about who to speak to at | | | | | |\n| 20 | Saraca and you know that there's no one at Saraca and you | | | | | |\n| 21 | never tell me that? | | | | | |\n| 22 | A
Yeah.
I don't believe I responded to that email.
I | | | | | |\n| 23 | don't think you followed up either.
But I don't recall.
I | | | | | |\n| 24 | don't recall responding to it. | | | | | |\n| 25 | Q
In fact, I sent you multiple emails before that one | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 70 of
158 | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
70 | |\n| 1 | | trying to find out who to speak to at Saraca and GTV, didn't | |\n| 2 | I -- | | |\n| 3 | A | I don't (indiscernible) -- | |\n| 4 | Q | -- me and Mr. Kashuwicz? | |\n| 5 | A | I don't know if that's true. | |\n| 6 | Q | You want me to -- | |\n| 7 | A | On multiple -- I guess there's two at least, so, yes, | |\n| 8 | multiple. | | |\n| 9 | Q | There was more than two emails between me and Mr. | |\n| 10 | | Kashuwicz and you, correct? | |\n| 11 | A | Regarding my subpoena, I believe so.
Regarding GTV and | |\n| 12 | Saraca, I don't know.
There could be, but I don't recall. | | |\n| 13 | Q | Okay. | |\n| 14 | A | By my subpoena, I mean Lawall & Mitchell just for the | |\n| 15 | | record, my firm. | |\n| 16 | Q | Okay.
I want to ask you, as a board member and an | |\n| 17 | attorney for GTV, you were aware that you had pending valid | | |\n| 18 | subpoenas and you made the decision to not hire any counsel | | |\n| 19 | | for GTV? | |\n| 20 | A | There was no money to hire any counsel for GTV. | |\n| 21 | Q | Could you have done it? | |\n| 22 | A | I suppose I could have done it.
I don't think that | |\n| 23 | | that's my obligation to do it.
I don't think I have to take | |\n| 24 | | on pro bono clients. | |\n| 25 | Q | As a board member, do you think you have an obligation | |\n| | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2030 | Filed 07/24/23 | Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 | Page 71 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft
71 |\n| 1 | to respond to the company that you're a board member of that |\n| 2 | the company has an obligation to respond to subpoenas? |\n| 3 | A
I resigned from the board. |\n| 4 | Q
Oh, when did you resign from the board?
April 2023? |\n| 5 | A
That's correct. |\n| 6 | Q
How about between December and April, did you have an |\n| 7 | obligation then? |\n| 8 | A
I suppose there was an open subpoena.
You know, if |\n| 9 | there had been a request for information, if there had been |\n| 10 | a request for documents from you, a follow-up or something, |\n| 11 | I suppose, yes. |\n| 12 | Q
There wasn't -- the subpoena wasn't a request for |\n| 13 | documents? |\n| 14 | A
It was, but there was nothing further from you that was |\n| 15 | heard regarding, hey, I need documents.
And then -- |\n| 16 | Q
You didn't take my multiple emails following the fact |\n| 17 | that asking you who can I speak to, tell me anyone, you |\n| 18 | didn't take that as me trying to find out who to get |\n| 19 | documents from? |\n| 20 | A
That's not what you said. |\n| 21 | Q
You're right.
I didn't say tell me anyone.
I said who |\n| 22 | is the person at Saraca who we could speak to as Morvillo |\n| 23 | directed us to speak to you regarding our requests?
You |\n| 24 | didn't take that as me asking who to speak to? |\n| 25 | A
I did, but I didn't have an answer for you.
I didn't |\n| | |\n\nAaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft 72 -- there was no one I could tell you because there was no answer to be had. For my -- there was no answer that I had for you, let's put it that way. Q And with regard to Saraca, the same thing, you were aware that there was a pending -- A Your question was about Saraca the first one. Q The first one was about GTV as a board member because you're not a board member of Saraca, correct? A But you asked me about Saraca, but -- Q So fine. A -- (inaudible) response -- Q Then we'll do it as to GTV. A I just want to make sure my response is clear on the record. Q Fine. A That was my response. Q As to GTV as a board member, you were aware that there was a pending subpoena and that the company had an obligation and that you -- and the company was not responding to the subpoena, correct? A The company, correct. Q Okay. How can I get the Saraca documents now? A I don't know. Q Who would I speak to about getting -- who would be the person who would know where I could get the Saraca Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 72 of\n\nAaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft 73 documents? A I don't know. Q How about the GTV documents? A Well, I've given you, on behalf of Lawall & Mitchell, the GTV documents. Q Well, I asked you. You told me that you don't know if you have all the GTV documents. A (Indiscernible). Q You told me you responded to the GTV documents that were responsive to your subpoena. A Sorry, is there a question there? Q Yes. Where can I get the GTV documents? A Again, the ones -- the ones that I am aware of were produced. I suppose Terrace would still have them. Q Do you have the login information for that? A I don't. Q Who does? A Terrace would. Q So every time you wanted to log in you called the platform and said how do I log in? A Well, I haven't logged in since I responded to your subpoena nine months ago. Q And no one has the login information for all the data that's stored on this platform? A Again, Terrace would be able to -- Terrace has the Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 73 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 74 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 74 access to that. Q How about someone who worked for GTV or Saraca? Who has access to those documents on a platform? A Nobody I believe. Q No one has access to those documents? A Not that I'm aware of. MR. LUFT: Okay. Your Honor, I have no further questions on this. THE COURT: Okay. You can step down, Mr. Lawall. Thank you. (Witness excused) THE COURT: All right. With regard to the order requiring GTV Media and Saraca Media Group -- Mr. Lawall, I still need you to come to the table though. MR. MITCHELL: Oh, sorry. THE COURT: Okay. That's okay. I mean, Mr. Mitchell. Because you were appearing here to show cause. I think I heard you say, but I want to be clear, that you -- you have -- you don't have any authority to oppose the entry of a civil contempt order against GTV Media and Saraca Media Group, is that correct? MR. MITCHELL: I believe that's correct, Your Honor. I just want to make sure that I fairly represent to you I have not been retained and I'm not an officer, so I\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 75 don't believe I do, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I think that's what you said. MR. MITCHELL: Yeah. That's -- THE COURT: So I just wanted to be clear about that. Okay? So this order to show cause was requiring someone -- the order to show cause required GTV Media through an officer, director, member or manager, and Saraca Media Group through an officer, director, manager or member, to appear and show cause. In addition to you appearing. I'm just -- and there has been no officer, director, member or manager of GTV Media, Inc. appearing at this hearing today. And I want to be clear that you are not here as an officer, director, member or manager of GTV Media, correct? MR. MITCHELL: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And you are not here, Attorney Mitchell, as an officer, director, member or manager of Saraca Media Group, correct? MR. MITCHELL: No, I'm not, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So you're not here to respond to or show cause on behalf of GTV Media or Saraca Media Group with regard to the contempt motion that was served on those two entities, is that correct? MR. MITCHELL: That's correct, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 75 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 76 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
76 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 2 | All right.
So, Attorney Luft -- |\n| 3 | MR. LUFT:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
-- what we need -- what I'm going to |\n| 5 | give you the opportunity to do today is I'm going to give |\n| 6 | you an opportunity to supplement your motion and your |\n| 7 | declaration with what occurred here today, the order to show |\n| 8 | cause, Mr. Mitchell testified, you're going to want to tell |\n| 9 | me what you think I need to listen to or consider about Mr. |\n| 10 | Mitchell's testimony, and I'm going to -- |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
How much time would you like to |\n| 13 | supplement the motion as it -- as it applies to GTV Media |\n| 14 | Group and Saraca Media Group? |\n| 15 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, if I may, I want to make |\n| 16 | sure that I'm accurate in what I tell -- in what I say. |\n| 17 | Usually it takes about a week for us to get a copy of the |\n| 18 | transcript. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
That's fine.
Yeah.
I'm not -- |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:
So I want to just make sure we have the |\n| 21 | transcript before we do it. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
I agree.
You're going to need a |\n| 23 | transcript. |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:
Right. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I mean, none of us are going to |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 77 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
77 |\n| 1 | remember what was said without a transcript, right? |\n| 2 | MR. LUFT:
Exactly. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
So you're definitely going to need -- |\n| 4 | so how much?
Do you want three weeks?
A month?
How much |\n| 5 | time? |\n| 6 | MR. LUFT:
Three weeks would be more than enough, |\n| 7 | Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 9 | MR. LUFT:
And I'll try to expedite it if I can do |\n| 10 | it faster. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Well, I'll set a date of three weeks. |\n| 12 | And if you get it filed earlier, you get it filed earlier. |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:
Exactly. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
It needs to be served -- |\n| 15 | whatever you file, whatever supplemental document you file, |\n| 16 | will need to be served on Attorney Mitchell. |\n| 17 | And, Attorney Mitchell, in the main case you have |\n| 18 | an appearance, so you'll get it electronically.
Okay. |\n| 19 | MR. MITCHELL:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
You will get whatever Mr. Luft files |\n| 21 | electronically. |\n| 22 | So three weeks from today is August 8th, but I can |\n| 23 | give you to August 11th, which is the Friday.
Is that fair |\n| 24 | or do you need more time? |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:
No, Your Honor.
That's more than |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 78 sufficient. THE COURT: Okay. So August 11th you can, Attorney Luft, supplement your motion for contempt against Saraca Media and GTV Media with whatever you think is appropriate. Okay? MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: But it's got to be served on Attorney Mitchell. Now, Attorney Mitchell, you're not here on behalf of either one of those entities, so I'm not going to give you a time to reply because you're not representing them. Okay? MR. MITCHELL: That's fair, Your Honor. THE COURT: So I'm -- once Attorney Mitchell files whatever, I mean, excuse me, Attorney Luft files whatever he is going to file, then I will review that, and then I will make a determination as to whether anything further needs to be done or the matter would be ripe for a decision. Okay? MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: And I think that's the best way to proceed with regard to the order to show cause. Does anyone have anything else they'd like to state for the record with regard to the order to show cause? MR. LUFT: Nothing on my behalf, Your Honor. MR. MITCHELL: No, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 78 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 79 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
79 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
So then I'm |\n| 2 | ordering on the record -- and whether I -- whether we issue |\n| 3 | a virtual order to confirm it, that any supplemental |\n| 4 | documents that moving counsel, which is counsel for the |\n| 5 | Trustee, wishes to file in connection with the motion for |\n| 6 | contempt as it is directed to GTV Media, Inc. and Saraca |\n| 7 | Media Group, Inc. shall be filed on or before August 11th. |\n| 8 | Okay? |\n| 9 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | So that concludes the hearing on the order to show |\n| 12 | cause with regard to GTV Media Group and Saraca Media Group. |\n| 13 | Okay?
Thank you. |\n| 14 | MR. MITCHELL:
Your Honor, does that mean I'm |\n| 15 | free?
I was ordered to be here so -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
You can do whatever you think is |\n| 17 | appropriate.
But as far as the order to show cause hearing, |\n| 18 | that is -- it is concluded now.
Okay? |\n| 19 | MR. MITCHELL:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 21 | So we have a few other matters on the calendar at |\n| 22 | 1:30 and 2:00 p.m., but the Court is going to take a short |\n| 23 | recess, so the Court will be back at 1:50 p.m. |\n| 24 | (Proceedings recessed at 1:39 p.m.) |\n| 25 | (Proceedings resumed at 1:51 p.m.) |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 80 THE COURT: Please be seated. All right. We're back after recess and we have two matters on the calendar at 1:30 and two matters on the calendar at 2 p.m. I would ask the courtroom deputy to call the adversaries at 1:30 p.m. first, please. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. Case No. 22-5003, HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited versus Despins; Case No 23-5008, Despins versus Guo. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances in these adversary proceedings starting first with the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. LUFT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Avi Luft of Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey for the Trustee. THE COURT: Mr. Moriarty? MR. MORIARTY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James Moriarty from Zeisler & Zeisler for HK International and Mei Guo in 22-5003 and for Mei Guo in 23-5008. THE COURT: Good afternoon. All right. There are pretrial conferences in both Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 80 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 81 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
81 |\n| 1 | of these adversary proceedings.
The first pretrial |\n| 2 | conference in Adversary 22-5003 was set by the Court some |\n| 3 | time ago after motions were filed for summary judgment and |\n| 4 | different rulings were entered in this adversary proceeding. |\n| 5 | The pretrial conference schedule was scheduled on |\n| 6 | May 23rd when the Court had entered partial summary judgment |\n| 7 | on the first and second counterclaims of the Chapter 11 |\n| 8 | Trustee. |\n| 9 | HK International and Mei Guo have filed their |\n| 10 | answers to the counterclaims, therefore, the Court set a |\n| 11 | pretrial conference to be scheduled for today, July 18th at |\n| 12 | 1:30 p.m., and ordered the parties to meet and confer about |\n| 13 | next steps in the adversary proceeding regarding the |\n| 14 | complaint, and the answer and counterclaims in advance of |\n| 15 | the pretrial conference. |\n| 16 | So, Trustee Despins, you are the counterclaim |\n| 17 | plaintiff, so where do things stand in connection with this |\n| 18 | adversary proceeding in accordance with what the Court |\n| 19 | ordered to occur in the order of May 23rd, 2023? |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | I believe we filed a request to adjourn this |\n| 22 | because, on consent, because the status is you've ruled on |\n| 23 | two counts already, both are on appeal, but we want to |\n| 24 | maintain the other counts alive, but dormant for now, in the |\n| 25 | event that for some reason there would be a reversal on |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 82 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
82 |\n| 1 | appeal.
So we need to keep them there, but there's no |\n| 2 | activity that needs to take place in this adversary |\n| 3 | proceeding at this point. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Well, what about the third |\n| 5 | counterclaim?
You're not going to proceed with the third |\n| 6 | counterclaim at this point? |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
Not at this point.
We're -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Because there's been arguments on both |\n| 9 | -- which I don't understand of the parties. |\n| 10 | At one point, at least, Mr. Moriarty, it wasn't |\n| 11 | you that made the argument, but I think it was Ms. -- oh, |\n| 12 | isn't that -- I'm going to forget her name -- Melissa |\n| 13 | Wernick who made an argument that counts 002 and 003 were |\n| 14 | different, counterclaims 002 and 003 were different relief? |\n| 15 | And then there seems to be some argument that they're now |\n| 16 | the same.
So I'm a little confused by that quite frankly, |\n| 17 | number one. |\n| 18 | Number two, I understand that the first and second |\n| 19 | counterclaims are on appeal.
Obviously I understand that. |\n| 20 | But I also understand that the answer in |\n| 21 | counterclaims -- and, Mr. Moriarty, correct me if I'm wrong, |\n| 22 | okay, because it's possible -- but I think in the answer in |\n| 23 | counterclaims in response to the allegations that are |\n| 24 | required to be made under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy |\n| 25 | Procedure regarding jurisdiction and core versus non-core |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 83 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
83 |\n| 1 | that your clients have stated that these are not core |\n| 2 | proceedings. |\n| 3 | Is that the allegation you're going to continue to |\n| 4 | continue to make considering you started this cause of |\n| 5 | action as a declaratory judgment action? |\n| 6 | MR. MORIARTY:
Your Honor, standing here right |\n| 7 | now, I do not know the answer to your question. |\n| 8 | It was filed on behalf of HK International as the |\n| 9 | claimant.
And the counterclaims -- the answer in the |\n| 10 | counterclaims would have been filed by the Trustee.
We did |\n| 11 | answer the counterclaims. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
That's what I'm talking about. |\n| 13 | MR. MORIARTY:
Okay.
So my recollection is that |\n| 14 | in the answer to the counterclaims, pursuant to I believe |\n| 15 | it's either 7008 or 7012, we did indicated that we -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
It's 8 or 9, but anyway, go ahead. |\n| 17 | It's not 12, but go ahead. |\n| 18 | MR. MORIARTY:
We did include the required |\n| 19 | statement stating that we opposed the bankruptcy court |\n| 20 | making a final determination of the claims. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Even though you -- your clients |\n| 22 | commenced this cause of action in which the counterclaim was |\n| 23 | asserted? |\n| 24 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | The counterclaims go much further than my client's |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 84 claim, my clients' claims. THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure that true. You know, the original claim was a declaratory judgment that your client owned the yacht? MR. MORIARTY: Correct. THE COURT: And the counterclaims were in response to that saying that your client doesn't own the -- you know what they said in the first and second counterclaim so -- MR. MORIARTY: Mm-hmm. THE COURT: -- I'm not sure that that's an accurate statement. However, I understand that the parties wanted to adjourn this pretrial conference but I think that there are things that everybody needs to think about, which is -- which are, I understand that there are matters on appeal, but there's no stay pending appeal unless I missed something. Right? There's no stay pending appeal of either one of those decisions at this point in time. MR. MORIARTY: As of this point in time, that's correct. THE COURT: Right. But Judge Dooley definitely denied one of them. She may be taking under consideration -- and I don't recall which is which, okay -- I think she's taking into consideration -- she already denied -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 84 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 85 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
85 |\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
Number one. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
-- count 001.
And then she's taking |\n| 3 | into consideration counterclaim 2. |\n| 4 | MR. DESPINS:
Two, that's correct. |\n| 5 | MR. MORIARTY:
Correct. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
So there's no stay pending appeal with |\n| 7 | regard to count 001. |\n| 8 | You have argued, and that's fine, that count 003 |\n| 9 | is different from count 002, and so I'm not sure that I |\n| 10 | agree that nothing should happen.
All that being said, |\n| 11 | let's put that aside for a moment. |\n| 12 | There's also counts 004 and 005.
There also is |\n| 13 | some argument that I should enter a judgment on -- you've |\n| 14 | made -- you've said that things are different, but then you |\n| 15 | want me to enter a judgment on counts 001 and 002 so that |\n| 16 | there can be a final order under the Federal Rules of Civil |\n| 17 | Procedure for which there would be an appeal with no issue |\n| 18 | that it might be an interlocutory appeal, correct? |\n| 19 | MR. MORIARTY:
Correct.
Correct. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So I haven't ruled on that. |\n| 21 | That was recently filed I believe. |\n| 22 | Has the Trustee responded to that? |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
I don't think we have. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
I don't think you have either. |\n| 25 | So that's another issue of why I say I'm not sure |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 86 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 86 that I agree. And I'm -- we can all work together as far as timing, okay, but I'm not sure I agree that things are going to be stayed or not -- anything happens during the appeal, during the appeal of this, of these counterclaims. And then the other -- the other thing that I -- in that motion that you -- I don't remember, Mr. Moriarty, and I apologize, whether your office filed it -- we're going to look at it and I'll tell you in a minute when I find it -- MR. MORIARTY: I don't believe it was a standalone motion, Your Honor. It may have been included in our summary judgment opposition. I do not recall a specific standalone motion asking that the Court find that there was no reason for delay and that it entered final judgment. THE COURT: It was in your opposition to summary judgment, which is ECF 203. Okay? MR. MORIARTY: Okay. THE COURT: And so in ECF 203 you talk about, you ask the Court, even though you -- and when I say you, Mr. Moriarty, I'm not speaking of you, I'm speaking of the clients that you and others represent -- have stated that you think counterclaims 002 and 003 are different. And then Ms. Wernick made a whole argument about that -- MR. MORIARTY: Right.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 87 THE COURT: -- in response -- the oral argument on summary judgment. And now you say actually, no, enter judgment on counts -- enter a final judgment on counts 001 and 002. Three's disposed of because of 002. Four's disposed of because of 001. And 005 is in the alternative. And you don't need to decide that because you've got 001 and 002. MR. MORIARTY: Mm-hmm. THE COURT: Okay. So that's what you've said. So the Trustee -- that document was filed on April 14. I don't know that the Trustee's responded to that. Whether the Trustee has to respond to that or not we'll talk about that. But then in addition, in that very same brief, and in this adversary proceeding -- this brief was filed on behalf of HK International Funds only, not Mei Guo, so Mei Guo didn't oppose summary judgment, not in writing. It's not anywhere in writing that she opposed summary judgment. Okay? On the second counterclaim. MR. MORIARTY: Yeah. I don't -- Your Honor, I don't believe that that second counterclaim was asserted against her. I could be incorrect, but that's my recollection -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: -- which is why she wouldn't have Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 87 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 88 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
88 |\n| 1 | opposed it.
I believe the only counterclaim that was |\n| 2 | asserted against her, and inartfully, was counterclaim 005, |\n| 3 | which was (indiscernible) -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Well, I'm not sure that's true, but |\n| 5 | you can have an -- you two can talk about that. |\n| 6 | MR. MORIARTY:
Okay. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
I'm not sure I agree with you, but I |\n| 8 | don't have to.
I'm not making a ruling or anything.
I'm |\n| 9 | just saying. |\n| 10 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yeah. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
So that the record clear, the only |\n| 12 | party that opposed the summary judgment on the second |\n| 13 | counterclaim was HK International, not Mei Guo. |\n| 14 | MR. MORIARTY:
Correct. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
So in this, in this brief that you |\n| 16 | filed on April 14th, ECF 203 in this adversary proceeding, |\n| 17 | there's also -- and I think it was signed by -- I believe |\n| 18 | this brief, and let me say, let me make sure I'm right |\n| 19 | before I say something incorrect, no, I am correct, was |\n| 20 | signed by Mr. Vartan with Mr. Della Fera, and Ms. Wernick's |\n| 21 | name under his, and then your name and Mr. Romney's name. |\n| 22 | Okay?
But it's filed by Mr. Vartan. |\n| 23 | MR. MORIARTY:
Mm-hmm. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
In that brief, you also say that the |\n| 25 | PJR and preliminary injunction, should -- must be dissolved |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 89 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 89 as moot because of the argument that you're making that I should enter a final order and judgment on counts 001 and 002, 003 is put aside because of 002, so I don't -- 004 is gone because of 001, and 005 is an extra claim for relief. So in that brief there's a whole section asking the Court to deny the motion for preliminary injunction as moot, excuse me, dissolving them, PJR and the preliminary injunction, as moot. So that's 203. Then you filed also a motion for an order dissolving the PJR and the PI as moot for Mei Guo two days later. Okay. The motion to dissolve the PJR that was filed only on behalf of Mei Guo, not on behalf of HK International, but HK International said in its brief in response to summary judgment that it wanted -- that it -- it took the same position that Mei Guo took two days later in a motion that the -- this court should dissolve the PJR and the preliminary injunction because of the rulings on the first counterclaim and the second counterclaim and because of your argument that the rest of the complaint goes away. Okay. Which I don't agree that the rest of the complaint goes away, but that's fine. And that motion by Mei Guo to terminate the prejudgement remedy and dissolve the preliminary injunction, both dissolve and terminate, was denied without prejudice.\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 90 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
90 |\n| 1 | It says without prejudice.
That's actually in the title of |\n| 2 | the order.
Okay. |\n| 3 | But then I find out the last -- at our last |\n| 4 | hearing, which I don't recall how many -- exactly the date, |\n| 5 | but we can go back and make the record completely accurate, |\n| 6 | that a writ of mandamus has been filed in the district court |\n| 7 | directing the district court to direct this court to |\n| 8 | dissolve the PJR and the preliminary injunction because you |\n| 9 | didn't have a chance to ask the Court to do that. |\n| 10 | And I think that's not accurate. |\n| 11 | MR. MORIARTY:
Well, I don't -- I don't think that |\n| 12 | the representation that that's the basis for the writ of |\n| 13 | mandamus is accurate either. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Well, the basis for the writ, what |\n| 15 | else would it be?
You're asking the district court to |\n| 16 | direct me to do something that you said I didn't give you |\n| 17 | the opportunity to be heard to do. |\n| 18 | MR. MORIARTY:
That's not what it says, Your |\n| 19 | Honor.
It says that -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So what does it say? |\n| 21 | MR. MORIARTY:
It's asking the district court to |\n| 22 | direct you to do something that you declined to do. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Well, isn't that an appeal? |\n| 24 | MR. MORIARTY:
It is not an appeal because it's |\n| 25 | not an appealable order. |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 91 THE COURT: So you're using a writ of mandamus because it's not an appealable order? MR. MORIARTY: It's an alternative, Your Honor, yes. THE COURT: But you also say in that writ of mandamus that HK never had the opportunity to ask for the dissolution or termination of the preliminary injunction and the PJR, but yet your brief filed two days before Mei Guo filed her motion does exactly that. MR. MORIARTY: So, Your Honor, I don't recall all of the words of the writ of mandamus standing here. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: I don't remember anything in there specific as to HK because HK is not a movant, only Mei Guo is. THE COURT: Well, no, because you actually cross- moved in your brief on summary judgment for this court to dissolve the PJR and the preliminary injunction. MR. MORIARTY: Yeah. When I said movant, I meant the writ of mandamus is only as to Mei Guo, not as to HK. THE COURT: But one of the bases in the writ of mandamus, my understanding is, that you're saying that the district court should direct this court to do something because -- because I didn't consider it on HK's behalf as well. Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 91 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 92 MR. MORIARTY: I don't believe that's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Well, in any event, the point is, from this court's perspective, both parties have asked for the same relief and that relief was denied without prejudice. So how that writ of mandamus plays into this adversary proceeding I don't know. Has it been assigned to a judge yet? MR. MORIARTY: It's before Judge Dooley. THE COURT: Okay. So then -- so then Judge Dooley will decide how to deal with that. But that doesn't mean that this adversary proceeding shouldn't go forward, because there is no stay pending appeal at this point in time. Okay? MR. MORIARTY: I agree, Your Honor. THE COURT: So we need to -- what I'm going to ask you to do, the parties to do, is to do what I said in my prior order setting today's pretrial conference, to meet and confer and discuss how we are proceeding with this adversary proceeding and the remaining counts in this adversary proceeding, which are 003, 004 and 005. If there is a stay pending appeal issued by the district court with regard to the second counterclaim because that's -- she's already denied the stay pending Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 92 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 93 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
93 |\n| 1 | appeal on the first, then let me know, just let me know, and |\n| 2 | we'll go from there.
Okay? |\n| 3 | But at this point there is no stay pending appeal. |\n| 4 | There are what I would say conflicting positions taken with |\n| 5 | regard to the remaining counts in the complaint.
And I just |\n| 6 | don't know where we're going to go from here. |\n| 7 | So what I would -- what I will -- what I propose |\n| 8 | to do and will do is I'm going to continue this pretrial |\n| 9 | conference to August 15th at 12:30 p.m. |\n| 10 | Now, if you all have a report or something that |\n| 11 | you can agree to file before that date, that's fine.
I'll |\n| 12 | take a look at it.
And whether we have an additional |\n| 13 | pretrial conference will be determined upon what, if |\n| 14 | anything, the parties file. |\n| 15 | But with regard to the summary judgment |\n| 16 | opposition, I note that HK International asked in that brief |\n| 17 | affirmatively that the Court -- if the Court grants summary |\n| 18 | judgment, it should dismiss the third and fifth |\n| 19 | counterclaims, as they are pled in the alternative to the |\n| 20 | second counterclaim, and should also dismiss the fourth |\n| 21 | counterclaim as it is admittedly moot. |\n| 22 | Well, I don't think anyone's admitted that it's |\n| 23 | moot. |\n| 24 | But in any event the dismissal of the third, |\n| 25 | fourth and fifth counterclaims coupled with the judgment in |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 94 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
94 |\n| 1 | the Trustee's favor on the first and second counterclaims |\n| 2 | would resolve all of the Trustee's claim for the -- for |\n| 3 | relief. |\n| 4 | In the alternative the Court should find pursuant |\n| 5 | to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54 that there is no just |\n| 6 | reason for the delay of the entry of a final judgment on the |\n| 7 | second counterclaim and the first counterclaim to the extent |\n| 8 | judgment is not already filed and enter final judgment. |\n| 9 | The Court should find that there is no reason for |\n| 10 | a delay, just reason for delay and enter final judgment |\n| 11 | because granting the Trustee's summary judgment on the |\n| 12 | second counterclaim, coupled with having obtained summary |\n| 13 | judgment on the first counterclaim, will result in the |\n| 14 | Trustee having obtained all the relief he seeks and could |\n| 15 | obtain by his counterclaims and, therefore, there would be |\n| 16 | nothing left for the Court to decide vis-a-vis the |\n| 17 | counterclaims. |\n| 18 | Which I'm not sure I agree with that, but in any |\n| 19 | event, I haven't heard from the Trustee about whether they |\n| 20 | agree with that. |\n| 21 | Moreover, without any pending claim for relief, |\n| 22 | the PJR order and preliminary injunction are similarly moot |\n| 23 | and should be dissolved. |\n| 24 | So that was an affirmative request for relief on |\n| 25 | behalf of HK International in response to its opposition to |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 95 summary judgment. So I would like the Trustee to respond to that part of the request that has been made by the HK International counter-defendant. And how much time would you like to respond to that? MR. DESPINS: Ten days, Your Honor, is sufficient. THE COURT: Okay. Ten days from today is Friday, July 28th. Does that work for the -- does that work for the Trustee? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So I would like you to file a response to that request for relief in -- set forth in the HK International's opposition to summary judgment. And then I'm going to continue this pretrial conference as I said to August 15th and I believe I said 12:30 p.m. There are other matters scheduled in the case that day in another adversary proceeding that day, that is why I am continuing it to that day. Does anyone have any other questions with regard to this adversary proceeding? If not, I believe that this pretrial conference in this adversary proceeding is concluded for today. (No response) Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 95 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 96 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
96 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Nothing further?
Okay.
All right. |\n| 2 | The pretrial conference is concluded. |\n| 3 | The Trustee's going to file a response to relief |\n| 4 | sought by HK on or before August 28th, excuse me, July 28th, |\n| 5 | and the pretrial conference is continued to August 15 at |\n| 6 | 12:30 p.m. |\n| 7 | All right.
Now, turning to the second adversary |\n| 8 | proceeding on for pretrial conference today, which is |\n| 9 | Despins versus Guo, 23-5008. |\n| 10 | So where do things stand in -- this I think is the |\n| 11 | -- I could be wrong, but is this the original pretrial |\n| 12 | conference that was set in the summons? |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:
Yes, Your Honor.
It is. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
And I understand |\n| 15 | that there's been an answer and affirmative is asserted by |\n| 16 | Ms. Guo. |\n| 17 | And again, Mr. Moriarty, the answer denies the |\n| 18 | Court's ability to enter a final judgment? |\n| 19 | MR. MORIARTY:
It objects to it, Your Honor, yes. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
So this adversary |\n| 21 | proceeding was commenced on 5/16/2023, so two months ago, so |\n| 22 | what initial disclosures have the parties made to each other |\n| 23 | under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, we have worked out a -- we |\n| 25 | have not filed our initial disclosures as of yet.
We have |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 97 of
158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
97 |\n| 1 | worked out a schedule which I believe was filed.
It's at |\n| 2 | Docket No. 23.
It was filed just hours ago, in which part |\n| 3 | -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, then, let me take a look |\n| 5 | at that. |\n| 6 | MR. LUFT:
Okay, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
So it was filed when we were in court |\n| 8 | today? |\n| 9 | MR. LUFT:
Or right before we sat is my |\n| 10 | understanding. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
It was filed when we were in court |\n| 12 | today, which is fine, so I have to take a look at it. |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:
Of course, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | (Pause) |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
There's a blank in the order for a |\n| 16 | filing of the joint pretrial statement.
Are you |\n| 17 | anticipating filing that, I would assume, joint pretrial |\n| 18 | statement after discovery including expert discovery is |\n| 19 | completed? |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:
Yes, Your Honor.
My understanding -- |\n| 21 | the reason it was left blank was quite frankly because we |\n| 22 | hadn't had a chance to speak to the Court yet about its |\n| 23 | calendar and figured that setting a pretrial date without |\n| 24 | knowing where the Court's availability for trial was would |\n| 25 | maybe be a little bit presumptuous. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 98 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
98 |\n| 1 | But I think the idea would be -- we tried to make, |\n| 2 | as I think Your Honor may see, the schedule very consistent |\n| 3 | in terms of timing with what was entered in Bravo Luck and |\n| 4 | Greenwich Land with the idea being that this was a similar |\n| 5 | schedule and a similar type of case. |\n| 6 | Using that timing, I would say that effectively |\n| 7 | you could -- we could have guessed that the pretrial |\n| 8 | schedule would have been at around 145 days out from now. |\n| 9 | With the trial at about 160, I think that's almost to the |\n| 10 | day consistent with how you did the other two. |\n| 11 | But, again, not knowing the Court's schedule we |\n| 12 | didn't want to presume to tell you when you would hold the |\n| 13 | trial.
That's why we left it blank.
For no other reason. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
All right.
Well, I'll have to take a |\n| 15 | look at this because it looks like you are -- the parties |\n| 16 | are -- the deadline for completion of all fact discovery is |\n| 17 | October 18.
Motions for summary judgment were to filed on |\n| 18 | or before November 17.
Well, it looks like expert testimony |\n| 19 | is October 18th as well. |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:
It is, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, I don't know that it |\n| 22 | makes sense for me to set a trial date in this order if |\n| 23 | you're going to file motions for summary judgment, right? |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:
And that is our expectation of how this |\n| 25 | will go, Your Honor. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 99 THE COURT: That you'll file motions for summary judgment? MR. LUFT: That's our expectation at this point that we will be filing for summary judgment. THE COURT: All right. Well, let me take a look at this order. What we'll -- I mean, obviously I haven't read it until now, so. I mean, it looks fine for the most part. I've got to figure out timing, right? And I have to figure out whether or not it makes sense to just have a pretrial -- another pretrial conference versus a trial date specifically because it appears a motion or motions for summary judgment may be filed. So maybe what we need to do is have a pretrial conference shortly after the summary judgment deadline and see whether or not the motions have been filed and get them set up for a hearing. MR. LUFT: That seems quite reasonable, Your Honor. I will note that it was drafted as a deadline for summary judgment with the parties' clear understanding, at least between them, that if a party wants to move for summary judgment earlier they would be permitted to do so. THE COURT: Oh, yeah. Anybody can do whatever they want, but they're not going to move for it after Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 99 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 100 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 100 November 17th. MR. LUFT: Exactly. THE COURT: Okay. So I don't know that I want you to file a joint pretrial statement yet. I think I may just have a pretrial conference after November 17th and then we'll see where we go. I think that's my -- that is my initial reaction. I haven't read it all. What I think we can do is we can -- do either of you oppose if I take out all of the information about the pretrial statement, the remaining part of that pretrial order? Because I don't think it's necessary if we're just going to have another pretrial conference and deal with the motions for summary judgment first. If we're going to have motions for summary judgment, they're either going to be granted or denied, and then we have to figure what's actually going to be tried, right? So it seems to me putting all these other -- this other information in here right at this time does not make sense under the circumstances of this adversary proceeding. MR. MORIARTY: Agreed, Your Honor. And I created this document. I copied it from the order that was entered in Greenwich Land. That's why all of that is in there because it was in that order.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 101 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
101 |\n| 1 | But I don't -- I agree -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Does Greenwich Land have counsel?
I |\n| 3 | don't remember. |\n| 4 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes. |\n| 5 | MR. LUFT:
They do. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
They do? |\n| 7 | MR. LUFT:
Mr. Major, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So are you -- so maybe I |\n| 9 | shouldn't delete it then.
Maybe I should enter the same |\n| 10 | order that was entered in the other case.
I'll take a look |\n| 11 | and we'll let you know.
How's that? |\n| 12 | MR. MORIARTY:
That's fine. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
We'll take a look after today's |\n| 14 | hearings obviously since I haven't seen this until now.
And |\n| 15 | I don't remember what the Greenwich Land pretrial order |\n| 16 | looks like, so I'll have to go back and look.
Okay? |\n| 17 | MR. MORIARTY:
Fair enough. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
All right.
But otherwise is there |\n| 19 | anything else that we can address in this adversary |\n| 20 | proceeding pretrial conference today? |\n| 21 | MR. LUFT:
Nothing that I can think of on behalf |\n| 22 | of the Trustee, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | MR. MORIARTY:
Nothing on behalf of the defendant, |\n| 24 | Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
All right.
So I don't know whether |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 102 I'm going to schedule another pretrial conference or just schedule a trial and have the same kind of framework that's in the Greenwich Land matter. And you'll know either because I'll enter the pretrial order that you submitted with dates in it or you'll get some correspondence from the courtroom deputy that says unless you object by X amount of time the pretrial -- the order will enter without the submission of a joint pretrial order, I'm sorry, a joint pretrial statement, and there will be a pretrial conference set. It will be one or the other. Okay? MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. MORIARTY: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. All right. Thank you. So that concludes the pretrial conference in 23- 05008. All right. Now we can turn to the 2 p.m. matters, so I would ask the courtroom deputy to call the main case and the adversary proceeding, please. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings, LLC; and Case No. 23-5013, Despins versus HCHK Technologies, Inc., et al. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 102 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 103 MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. LUFT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Avi Luft of Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, Neubert, Pepe and Monteith, Connecticut counsel for the Trustee. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. MR. JARECK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Ryan Jareck, Cole Schotz, P.C., on behalf of Mr. Hofmeister, the assignee. Good afternoon. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, appearing for the Creditors Committee. MS. MCCLAMMY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Melissa McClammy from Pastore, LLC for the HCHK creditors. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SKLARZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jeffrey Sklarz, Green & Sklarz, for G-Club Operations, LLC. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SHERMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is Joshua Sherman. I'm an objector in the adversary proceeding. THE COURT: Yes. Good afternoon. Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 103 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 104 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
104 |\n| 1 | Okay.
We continued the hearing on the Trustee's |\n| 2 | motion to compromise filed in the main case and in this |\n| 3 | adversary proceeding to today for the purpose of seeing |\n| 4 | what, if any, further agreed-upon revisions to the order |\n| 5 | that was submitted with the motion to compromise could be |\n| 6 | made and agreed to by the parties and any objecting parties, |\n| 7 | understanding that the objections were still being |\n| 8 | considered by the Court and not ruled upon until this |\n| 9 | revised proposed order was submitted. |\n| 10 | So, Trustee Despins, Attorney Luft, you want to |\n| 11 | explain -- would you please explain where things stand with |\n| 12 | regard to the revised proposed order. |\n| 13 | I know some parties have filed, as they were |\n| 14 | allowed to do, further comments with regard to the order |\n| 15 | which were filed by Friday. |\n| 16 | So where do things stand as of today? |\n| 17 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, may I approach? |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Please. |\n| 19 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | Avi Luft of Paul Hastings. |\n| 21 | So let me -- as Your Honor noted, we have filed an |\n| 22 | amended order.
I think if it's helpful I can highlight what |\n| 23 | I think are what I would call the substantive changes to the |\n| 24 | order. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 105 MR. LUFT: And then we can talk about what -- where we stand with it. The first substantive change is with regard to paragraph 6. And, Your Honor, I think the revised order is at Docket No. 55. And this is the paragraph regarding corporate records. Quite frankly, Your Honor, this was intended to not be much of a substantive change at all. In fact, all that happened is we added a line, a second line, making clear, per the Court's comment -- Your Honor had noted that there is a protective order in this case and to the extent there were confidentiality concerns there was a protective order that was there -- we just wanted to make it explicit that it existed. And then our proposal in the interest of expediting things was that since people had already stated that they were concerned the documents were confidential that we would designate those documents as confidential as a de facto, so effectively to deal with that. And that's all that change is. We had hoped that that would address the confidentiality concern such that they would now all be treated that way. With regard to paragraph 9, Your Honor, the Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 105 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 106 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
106 |\n| 1 | addition is in the last sentence, which is on the bottom of |\n| 2 | page 5, if you're following along, where this is paragraph |\n| 3 | 9, and it notes that we'll file monthly reports on the 21st |\n| 4 | day following the month, and it sets a limit at \\$50,000. |\n| 5 | As we'll talk about, there is still some |\n| 6 | disagreement with the U.S. Trustee who continues to suggest |\n| 7 | that it should be at \\$25,000, but we still believe our |\n| 8 | proposal was at 50 and we think it's appropriate, which I |\n| 9 | can discuss. |\n| 10 | The next substantive change is on paragraph 11, |\n| 11 | which is the approval of the settlement payment, and it |\n| 12 | provides for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors |\n| 13 | to also have access to the documentation supporting the ask |\n| 14 | of these professional fees and rights to review those fees. |\n| 15 | That's just at the last sentence of paragraph 11. |\n| 16 | With regard to paragraph 13, Your Honor, this is |\n| 17 | in place -- in the previous order, there had been an |\n| 18 | exculpation provision, now there is the debtor release. |\n| 19 | Trustee Despins had basically outlined this to the |\n| 20 | Court at the last hearing.
This is the attempt to put that |\n| 21 | down on paper. |\n| 22 | Effectively in the event that there is a |\n| 23 | dispositive ruling in favor of the Trustee the Trustee is |\n| 24 | offering a release and a discharge on behalf of the debtor |\n| 25 | and his estate and it's set forth here.
And that is in |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 107 place of where there was an exculpation provision. Then, Your Honor, if you turn to paragraph 14, previously there had been a channeling injunction. Your Honor will recall also Trustee Despins outlined the idea of what is set forth in paragraph 14, which is now termed a gatekeeping function with the idea being that to the extent there are claims brought by third parties that they first come to this court so that the Court can determine if, in fact, it is a claim of the estate or if it is truly a third-party claim. And that is what's set for there. And those are what I would deem the substantive changes. I will note that in paragraph 2 there is what I understood to basically just be a conforming change, which was because it was now -- the settlement agreement was now either being modified or it being resolved by being overruled that language changed a little just because we've gone through the objection process, but substantively there is not intended to be any other change, substantive change with regard to that. So, Your Honor, those are the changes. THE COURT: On paragraph 2, just let me ask you a question. MR. LUFT: Sure, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 107 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 108 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
108 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
You say -- it reads, the order reads |\n| 2 | right now all objections to the motions have been resolved |\n| 3 | by modifications to the original proposed order as set forth |\n| 4 | in this order or have been overruled, including all |\n| 5 | assertions of reservations of rights. |\n| 6 | So your -- all assertions of reservations of |\n| 7 | rights have been overruled?
That's the intent? |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
Well, no. |\n| 9 | MR. LUFT:
With regard -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
No.
Okay.
What is the intent? |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 |\n| 12 | Trustee. |\n| 13 | The intent there is that reservation of rights as |\n| 14 | to what is being sought today.
But the other parties' |\n| 15 | rights to object to entry of a dispositive order are |\n| 16 | preserved. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:
So that was not -- we were not |\n| 19 | intending to cut them off.
We're trying to cut them off |\n| 20 | today for the purpose of this order, but not for the purpose |\n| 21 | of the dispositive order.
Their reservation of rights in |\n| 22 | that regard are preserved. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
So how about including all assertions |\n| 24 | of reservations of rights with respect to this order? |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:
That would be a fine edit. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 109 THE COURT: Okay. Because I wasn't certain what that meant. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. It was not intended to be anything else. THE COURT: No, that's fine. That's why I asked the question. Okay. MR. LUFT: It's a good edit. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LUFT: So, Your Honor, that's what we had filed. In response, we have received three -- there were three objections filed. One was filed by the U.S. Trustee whose objection as I touched on this issue of the \\$25 versus the \\$50,000; but I think probably more centrally focused on the language with regard to the gatekeeping function, and I'll let Mr. Jareck from Cole Schotz focus on that issue. The other two objections were filed by the Himalaya entities and by G-Club. I am happy to handle this however Your Honor would like. I can either let the issue for the U.S. Trustee raised go first and let Mr. Jareck address that, and then I can come back and discuss the other two. THE COURT: I would like to do that. I would like the U.S. Trustee to be heard first, and then Mr. Jareck can Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 109 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 110 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
110 |\n| 1 | respond to it.
And then we can talk about the other |\n| 2 | parties' opposite pleadings as well. |\n| 3 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 5 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Holley |\n| 6 | Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. |\n| 7 | The U.S. Trustee's supplemental objection was |\n| 8 | filed on the docket in the main case at ECF 2006.
And as |\n| 9 | previewed by Attorney Luft it highlights issues with two |\n| 10 | paragraphs of the proposed revised order.
Those paragraphs |\n| 11 | are 9 and 14. |\n| 12 | Nine is straightforward in that the U.S. Trustee |\n| 13 | continues to maintain that it's appropriate that the Trustee |\n| 14 | have to come back to the U.S. Trustee and to the committee |\n| 15 | before he wants to spend more than 50,000, sorry, more than |\n| 16 | \\$25,000 of the settlement monies. |\n| 17 | The Trustee would like that to be 50,000.
And the |\n| 18 | U.S. Trustee's position is that it's appropriate to have a |\n| 19 | lower threshold because we need to know what's going on with |\n| 20 | the monies, and there seems to be a need to have greater |\n| 21 | understanding about what's going to be happening with the |\n| 22 | monies and that's what it was designed to do. |\n| 23 | The \\$50,000 threshold doesn't appear to be a |\n| 24 | particular number.
The U.S. Trustee's number was smaller |\n| 25 | and intentional in that there doesn't seem to be a need for |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 111 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
111 |\n| 1 | -- that had been identified to the U.S. Trustee for anything |\n| 2 | in particular that's going to hit the \\$50,000 mark and, |\n| 3 | therefore, the \\$25,000 mark made more sense because it's a |\n| 4 | lower figure. |\n| 5 | With respect to paragraph 14, the U.S. Trustee is |\n| 6 | continuing to oppose that paragraph.
It requires that |\n| 7 | parties have to come back to this court in order to exercise |\n| 8 | their rights. |\n| 9 | The parties who are restricted by paragraph 14 are |\n| 10 | not necessarily parties who are here today.
They include |\n| 11 | some who are here today, but they also include those who are |\n| 12 | not before the Court in part of this case and part of the |\n| 13 | adversary proceeding. |\n| 14 | And it's a paragraph that while intentional and |\n| 15 | understandable on a certain level doesn't appear to have any |\n| 16 | support in case law or in the statutes, so the U.S. Trustee |\n| 17 | is asking that the Court strike and/or remove paragraph 14. |\n| 18 | If Your Honor has any questions, I'm happy to |\n| 19 | respond to them.
Or perhaps I can respond after Attorney |\n| 20 | Jareck makes his presentation. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Why don't we do that.
Thank you. |\n| 22 | I don't have any questions at the moment, so we'll |\n| 23 | let counsel speak to your -- to the U.S. Trustee's Office |\n| 24 | position.
And then if you would like to respond, I'll |\n| 25 | obviously give you the opportunity to respond. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 112 MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. JARECK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. For the record, Ryan Jareck, Cole Schotz, P.C., on behalf of Mr. Hofmeister. Your Honor, I'm just going to address that paragraph 14 if that's acceptable. THE COURT: Yes. MR. JARECK: If Your Honor has further questions of me I'm happy to address them at the conclusion of my presentation, if that's okay. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. JARECK: Thank you. So, Your Honor, as noted by counsel to the Trustee, paragraph 13 provides for a debtor release, right? So it's a release of estate claims that the Trustee has exclusive standing to assert and settle. Paragraph 14 is meant simply to provide a mechanism for this court to interpret, enforce and implement that release. It's nothing more than that. Nothing in the proposed order at paragraph 13 concerns the exercise of this court's jurisdiction over independent claims of third parties. It's actually to the contrary, Your Honor. If the Court determines a claim is independent, Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 112 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 113 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
113 |\n| 1 | meaning it does not fall within the debtor release, then |\n| 2 | such third-party claimant may proceed with prosecuting its |\n| 3 | claim in its desirable form.
It's simply just -- it's |\n| 4 | simply meant to cover what Your Honor is granting in |\n| 5 | paragraph 13. |\n| 6 | Numerous courts have ordered and affirmed a |\n| 7 | bankruptcy court's gatekeeping role as a mechanism to |\n| 8 | enforce and implement releases issued in its prior orders. |\n| 9 | And I cite this court to the case of Motors |\n| 10 | Liquidation Corp., that's 568 B.R. 217.
It's a Bankruptcy |\n| 11 | Court decision from the Southern District of New York, 2017. |\n| 12 | There the bankruptcy court was entering in an |\n| 13 | order approving the sale of substantially all of the assets |\n| 14 | of G.M. to, quote/unquote, \"New G.M., free and clear of |\n| 15 | various liens, claims and encumbrances.\" |\n| 16 | The G.M. sale order provided the bankruptcy |\n| 17 | court's exclusive jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the |\n| 18 | sale order.
The bankruptcy court assumed a gatekeeping role |\n| 19 | in connection with third-party claims asserted against New |\n| 20 | G.M. |\n| 21 | The bankruptcy court in that decision, and this is |\n| 22 | at page 222, said as follows, and I quote:
\"A bankruptcy |\n| 23 | court's role is a gatekeeper role.
It should be the court |\n| 24 | to decide what claims and allegations should get through the |\n| 25 | gate under the sale order and the bankruptcy court's prior |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 114 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
114 |\n| 1 | decisions.
If a complaint violates an enforceable provision |\n| 2 | of the sale order, it may not proceed as currently drafted. |\n| 3 | If it does not violate the sale order, the complaint passes |\n| 4 | through the gate for the appropriate non-bankruptcy court to |\n| 5 | decide whether it's actionable.\" |\n| 6 | Your Honor, I also cite this court to the Gawker |\n| 7 | Media case, which is 588 B.R. 337.
Again, Your Honor, a |\n| 8 | bankruptcy court decision, Southern District of New York, |\n| 9 | 2018, where Judge Bernstein, in addition to Judge Glenn in |\n| 10 | Motors Liquidation, discussed the Court's gatekeeping role. |\n| 11 | That was in the context of plan confirmation where |\n| 12 | the plan included a broader injunction provision than the |\n| 13 | actual release provision in the plan.
And the purpose of |\n| 14 | that would be to force entities whose claims were not |\n| 15 | released to nonetheless seek relief from the injunction in |\n| 16 | this court before asserting a claim. |\n| 17 | Again, Your Honor, without this gatekeeping |\n| 18 | function, the release has no teeth. |\n| 19 | After entry of a dispositive ruling, assuming the |\n| 20 | Trustee can get it, they can go anywhere.
They could go to |\n| 21 | state court in New York and ask that court for what Your |\n| 22 | Honor's release actually means. |\n| 23 | We believe there's ample support in case authority |\n| 24 | and that this is meant solely to be an exclusive |\n| 25 | jurisdiction provision and not for Your Honor to oversee |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 115 third-party claims. We believe the bankruptcy court has both jurisdiction and authority to enter the gatekeeping paragraph in paragraph 14 in the order and we most respectfully believe it should be approved. And I'll pause there to the extent Your Honor has any questions. THE COURT: I do not have any questions. Thank you. MR. JARECK: And also I want to apologize with having to put out citations. We didn't have a reply right. Normally I would have put this in a brief for Your Honor. But to the extent Your Honor has any questions, we'd be happy to supply those cases to the Court. I'd also be happy to repeat the case citations. THE COURT: I think I know both of those cases. But I took down the cites, so I'll take a look at them. Thank you. MR. JARECK: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Attorney Claiborn, did you want to respond? MR. LUFT: Your Honor, do you first want to hear -- finish that, or do you want to hear about just the -- THE COURT: I just want to have the U.S. Trustee's Office -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 115 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 116 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 116 MR. LUFT: Sure. THE COURT: -- respond if she'd like to because she did ask for the opportunity to do so. MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. I think the point that we need to actually focus on in this debate is what types of claims we're talking about. We're not talking about claims against the estate. We're talking about claims held by third parties against other third parties. And the injunction, gatekeeping, whatever you want to call it, requires that this is the first place that people have to come in order to assert claims. There is no exclusive jurisdiction of this court over the universe of third-party claims that might be tangentially connected to this settlement. And so that's the extent to which the U.S. Trustee is opposing the gatekeeping function as provided for in the order. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, I love the U.S. Trustee, but, you know, the institution, but I think that's wrong. The *General Motors* case, the third party is New G.M. They're a third party to the estate. They're not part\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 117 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
117 |\n| 1 | of the estate.
They're buying the assets of Old G.M., but |\n| 2 | New G.M. is a third party.
They're getting the benefit of |\n| 3 | this gatekeeper function to allow the Court to make sure |\n| 4 | that when people want to sue New G.M. they really have a |\n| 5 | direct claim that's not been released by Old G.M. in favor |\n| 6 | of New G.M. |\n| 7 | So this argument that the Court doesn't have |\n| 8 | jurisdiction it's purely maintaining your jurisdiction in a |\n| 9 | sense that in theory if you approve the release you want to |\n| 10 | make sure people don't go around the release because that |\n| 11 | would be inappropriate. |\n| 12 | And that's the sole function we're asking you to |\n| 13 | play here, the gatekeeper function. |\n| 14 | Because if it's a direct claim, you're going to |\n| 15 | send them to wherever they want to go, New York or other |\n| 16 | courts. |\n| 17 | But if it's a disguised direct claim, sorry, |\n| 18 | disguised derivative claim, meaning a claim that we've |\n| 19 | released, you should not allow those to forward.
And the |\n| 20 | only way to make sure that this won't happen is for you to |\n| 21 | keep jurisdiction over that, to play that gatekeeper |\n| 22 | function.
So I think that's very important. |\n| 23 | And I think that the General Motors case is |\n| 24 | perfectly on point because New G.M. in that case is a third |\n| 25 | party to the estate, the same way here the assignee is a |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 118 third party to the estate. But the Trustee is releasing claims against it and we don't want people to get around that through asserting, you know, alleged direct claims that are not direct claims. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. So, Attorney Claiborn, when we talked last week the United States Trustee's Office was also objecting to the release, but that objection has been resolved by the Trustee saying that the release is limited to the estate releasing. Is that correct? MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. All right. So then the issue still is with regard to this gatekeeping function, so I'm fine. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing anything with regard to -- MS. CLAIBORN: Yes. THE COURT: -- your release, the Office of the United States Trustee's argument about the release. All right. So does anyone else wish to be heard on -- I'm going to let you talk too, don't -- I am going to let the parties talk. I just want to make sure with regard to what the U.S. Trustee's Office has stated, does anyone else wish to Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 118 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 119 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 119 be heard? (No response) THE COURT: Okay. All right. So then we need to talk about the other parties who have filed an objection. And in addition to the existing objections, I'm talking about the specific objections addressed to the revised proposed order. So, Counsel, would you like to proceed? MS. McCLAMMY: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. May I approach? THE COURT: Yes, please. MS. McCLAMMY: Thank you. Your Honor, Melissa McClammy for the HCHK creditors. I will be brief. I don't have very much to add to what Ms. Claiborn said for the United States Trustee. We agree that paragraph 14, the gatekeeping function, is inappropriate. As she said it affects our clients. We are here. We are third parties who may wish to bring claims against not the debtor but the assignee, another third party. And this proposed order would burden those claims, prejudice those claims, without clients' consent, without any consideration for our clients, and until just this moment without any offer of any authority for the Court's\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 120 ability to enter that order. I note that the Trustee said, well, this is the only way to ensure that the Court's release is enforced and without this particular paragraph the release has no teeth. I'll note that when the Trustee made his original motion and he sought a channeling injunction and he sought a broad exculpation clause he said those clauses were necessary. He said those were key terms of the settlement. And when there were objections, he came back and he said, okay, we can do it another way. And I would submit that without written briefing and an opportunity to study whether this court has the authority it's not clear that there is no other way for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction or protect the settlement. And so because the showing hasn't been made that the Court has authority to enter this order, we would request that the Court reject -- deny the motion and reject the proposed order. THE COURT: Question. MS. McCLAMMY: Yes. THE COURT: So the issue -- the issues as I review them and understand them is that the settlement has different components to it. And there is a possibility at this -- you know, Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 120 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 121 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
121 |\n| 1 | who knows what's going to happen, right, but there is a |\n| 2 | possibility that the Trustee is not successful.
And if he's |\n| 3 | not successful, then all the money that would come into this |\n| 4 | -- these jointly administered Chapter 11 cases would be |\n| 5 | returned to the assignee and that the case would continue in |\n| 6 | New York.
Correct? |\n| 7 | MS. McCLAMMY:
Yes.
Yes. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So that's one of the things I'm |\n| 9 | trying to understand.
It's not that I don't understand your |\n| 10 | argument, but I'm not sure if your argument is ready to be |\n| 11 | heard yet insofar as if the Trustee loses you have all your |\n| 12 | claims against whomever you have them outside of this court. |\n| 13 | Right?
That's what will happen.
Number one. |\n| 14 | Number two, one of the other things I see that |\n| 15 | you've talked about is, in the briefs or in the documents |\n| 16 | that you filed, is that your concerned, and I understand the |\n| 17 | concern about your clients' claims being diluted. |\n| 18 | But if the Trustee is successful, now we'll take |\n| 19 | the other side, if the Trustee is successful, then all |\n| 20 | creditors' claims would be diluted, not just your creditors. |\n| 21 | Right? |\n| 22 | MS. McCLAMMY:
Yes. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Because the pot will be what the pot |\n| 24 | is and it's just a matter of how many people get to be a |\n| 25 | part, dip into the pot, right, for lack of better term. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 122 So what -- while I understand your argument, I'm not sure if it, at this point, it carries the day. Now, that doesn't mean that at some point it couldn't carry the day. Except on the -- if the Trustee wins on the, you know, your creditors' claims being diluted, that's going to happen. I mean, if any kind of -- any kind of case, if a party is successful in making these kinds of claims and those -- and that success is upheld on appeal or whatever, that's what's going to happen. I mean, no creditor is going to be able to be -- get paid more than another creditor that's all on the same level. Right? So that argument, while I understand it, I'm not sure -- I am not sure at this moment that that is enough to say that the Trustee's settlement as proposed should not be approved. Now, what I'm more intrigued by is the issue of your claim that the Court doesn't have jurisdiction to do this. And I'm trying to -- you know, what is happening here is that even though the Trustee hasn't proved, I completely agree, we haven't gotten to the point of the merits yet, right, but he's arguing, and the assignee's agreeing, that at least for now, until there's some kind of Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 122 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 123 dispositive ruling, that these monies should become property of the estate, of the bankruptcy -- the jointly administered Chapter 11 cases. Right? So if the -- if the property is property of the estate, then why wouldn't this court have jurisdiction over the settlement as proposed to enter an order on that issue? Why does the Court not have jurisdiction? I understand you're saying they don't cite anything that says they have jurisdiction, but I don't find anything that you cite that says I don't have jurisdiction. And the way that the matter has come before the Court is that the assignment for the benefit of creditors occurred at some point in the -- I think it was in the beginning of June or something, you know, not -- MS. McCLAMMY: Right. THE COURT: -- maybe a month and a half ago -- MS. McCLAMMY: Yeah. THE COURT: -- and there I believe was an order to show cause why certain things should or shouldn't happen in that, in that proceeding. And the Trustee responded -- well, I don't know how, if at all, he responded in the New York case -- but in this case by asking for a preliminary injunction stopping that proceeding from happening. And I found that there was enough evidence at the preliminary injunction stage to have Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 123 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 124 that happen, right, to stop that proceeding. All right. And then I -- we get met with a -- the Court finds out that there's a resolution with the assignee, at least proposed, right, that says, all right, this is going to be resolved in the bankruptcy court one way or another. So there is still a complete possibility that the Trustee doesn't win. And if the Trustee doesn't win, then all the money goes back to the assignee and this release would become null and void essentially. Wouldn't it? MS. McCLAMMY: Yes. THE COURT: Yeah. MS. McCLAMMY: Yes. THE COURT: So what I think you're quarreling with is that you don't want your clients to have to come here if the Trustee wins and determine whether or not their claims are direct claims against third parties or derivative against the estate. Is that what your concern is? MS. McCLAMMY: Let me say it in my own words if I could. THE COURT: Sure. MS. McCLAMMY: I agree entirely with Your Honor that if the Trustee is successful, and if the assets are the property of the HCHK entities become part of the estate permanently, then my clients' claims as to those assets Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 124 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 125 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
125 |\n| 1 | become part of this Chapter 11 case and they are in whatever |\n| 2 | priority they are with the debtor's other claimants. |\n| 3 | The claims that, as I understand it, are the |\n| 4 | subject of the gatekeeping function in Chapter 14 have to do |\n| 5 | with claims -- are the claims that my clients would make not |\n| 6 | against, you know, not on their loan agreements, not against |\n| 7 | the debtor for a piece of the pool as Your Honor described |\n| 8 | it, but claims against the assignee for his conduct and the |\n| 9 | damage he's caused to them by behaving as he has so far. |\n| 10 | So claims like a breach of -- a claim for a breach |\n| 11 | of fiduciary duty, or a claim for gross negligence, |\n| 12 | something like that, which wouldn't be part of the debtor's |\n| 13 | estate and they wouldn't arise from -- or they wouldn't at |\n| 14 | least arise directly from my clients' claims against the |\n| 15 | HCHK entities.
They'd arise from what we would allege to be |\n| 16 | misconduct and a breach of duty by the assignee to them. |\n| 17 | And I don't think that those are analogous to |\n| 18 | claims against the debtor or claims that would be part of |\n| 19 | the administration of a bankruptcy estate. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
So your point is that the settlement |\n| 21 | right now, if approved, stops your clients' rights from |\n| 22 | suing the assignee -- |\n| 23 | MS. McCLAMMY:
Yes. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
-- and you don't want to have that |\n| 25 | happen.
You want to have that right maintained regardless |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 126 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 126 of what happens with the underlying cause of action that the Trustee has against HCHK's assets really being part of these whole -- these estates. MS. McCLAMMY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I understand. I mean, I think that's part of the settlement, but I understand that's your point. MS. McCLAMMY: Okay. THE COURT: That's what I wanted to clarify. Because some of the other things that you had said in your papers I wasn't exactly sure were persuasive. But what you're saying is -- what your argument is is that you think that your clients' rights are -- if this is approved, they don't ever have a right to bring a cause of action against the assignee? MR. MITCHELL: They would be required -- THE COURT: Unless the Trustee loses ultimately and the release becomes null and void? MR. MITCHELL: Well, if the -- as I understand it, Your Honor, the release as it's been rewritten in the revised proposed order is not a release of the type of claims that I'm talking about. As I understand it that's not a release of claims by my clients in their own capacity as opposed to claims that might be derivative of the debtor's claims.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 127 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
127 |\n| 1 | So my understanding is that if the settlement |\n| 2 | agreement is approved, and then if the Trustee is successful |\n| 3 | in the underlying adversary proceeding, if my clients wanted |\n| 4 | to sue the assignee, they would be required to come to this |\n| 5 | court and get this court's approval by some kind of motion, |\n| 6 | the details of which are not spelled out in paragraph 14, to |\n| 7 | bring those claims under state law in state court. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
I think you're right that that's how |\n| 9 | it reads right now. |\n| 10 | MS. McCLAMMY:
Okay. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
That's what it provides right -- |\n| 12 | that's my understanding of it.
Okay? |\n| 13 | MS. McCLAMMY:
I'm glad we agree. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
That your clients would have to come |\n| 15 | here. |\n| 16 | But what I'm asking you -- what I'm saying to you |\n| 17 | is is that your base -- is there anything other than -- and |\n| 18 | I'm not saying that that's -- |\n| 19 | MS. McCLAMMY:
Mm-hmm. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
-- I just want to make sure I |\n| 21 | understand. |\n| 22 | Your objection is we shouldn't have to come here |\n| 23 | and have you determine, Judge, whether or not we have a |\n| 24 | direct claim or a derivative claim.
If we want to sue, we |\n| 25 | should be able to sue. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 128 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
128 |\n| 1 | MS. McCLAMMY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I understand.
Thank you. |\n| 3 | MS. McCLAMMY:
Thank you. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Attorney Sklarz? |\n| 5 | MR. SKLARZ:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | G-Club continues to take issue with paragraph 6. |\n| 7 | Our opposition is ECF No. 2007 in the main case, |\n| 8 | specifically on page 5 we suggest some language. |\n| 9 | The issue -- this is a -- really more of a |\n| 10 | technology issue.
HChK provided IT services including cloud |\n| 11 | computing services, data hosting and email hosting. |\n| 12 | There was a period -- there was a period of time |\n| 13 | where G-Club did not have access to its data through HCHK, |\n| 14 | so we need to have access to our data in order to A) run the |\n| 15 | business, and B) search that data for documents that could |\n| 16 | be responsive to the subpoena for which we've produced over |\n| 17 | 120,000 documents so far. |\n| 18 | Additionally, the email servers contain emails |\n| 19 | that would be subject to an attorney-client -- could, we |\n| 20 | don't know since we haven't been able to look, could contain |\n| 21 | emails containing attorney-client privilege material, |\n| 22 | correspondence with the Pillsbury Winthrop firm, and |\n| 23 | correspondence with my firm. |\n| 24 | So we're just looking for protections for our data |\n| 25 | and the attorney-client privilege. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 129 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 129 We've set forth this information in our papers and we would stand on our papers unless Your Honor has any questions. THE COURT: So the paragraph 6 issue, I think the attempt to resolve it was to indicate that -- to resolve the issues you've raised with regard to confidentiality is to specifically spell out that there's a confidentiality order in place, but that's not helpful to you because your concerned that you're not going -- your client isn't going to be able to look at those records first to make these determinations of whether or not there are other privileges that could be asserted in connection with these documents? MR. SKLARZ: Yes. That would be one. And then also we just need the information to be able to ensure data integrity, if you like, if any of our respective businesses did not have access to email or documents for some period of time. We need to get -- THE COURT: Well, you haven't had access for over a month and a half, right? MR. SKLARZ: That's correct. THE COURT: Okay. Well, let me ask you a question about the first part of that as opposed to the access. So the protective order in this case has different qualifiers, not just confidential, but highly confidential, which would limit the view of documents to I think attorneys\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 130 only, not clients. MR. SKLARZ: I think our client is not as -- me, in particular, we're not as worried necessarily about confidential information or highly-confidential information. It's a lot more about privileged information. Obviously if there's emails between and among lawyers and clients that the Trustee could read, that would be problematic. And once that bell is rung it can't be unsung. So there should be a filtering mechanism. The confidentiality stuff I'm sure we can, you know, I'm sure Attorney Fortis who's been working with Attorney Lutz to resolve the discovery disputes, I think they're all essentially resolved. We can certainly, you know, we can confer on that issue, but it's really the access and the privilege information that we're most concerned about. And that's why we've suggested the proposal we have on page 5, which is essentially let us filter the information, and then -- THE COURT: So how would you do that, just so I know? How would you filter -- you mean you'd have to get from the assignee first before he turns it over to the Trustee? And then -- MR. SKLARZ: Yes. Get access to the information, let us go through it like lawyers normally would with respect to, you know, materials for discovery. And then Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 130 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 131 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 131 turn over what needs to be turned over. If there's a privilege log for privilege materials, supply the privilege log. And then if there's further discovery issues, meet and confer, and then if necessary come back to Your Honor. But there's a service agreement in place. The Trustee has the service agreement. It's G-Club's data. And by virtue of a 9019 motion, data that was never the property of HCHK can't transmogrify into data that is the -- in the possession of the estate and the Trustee. The property rights are set through the contract. THE COURT: I'm looking at your proposed language that you would like to have in paragraph 6 of the revised proposed order, which is on page 5 of your reply, and I think the language is -- I mean, I don't know if you and the Trustee are going to reach any agreement on this, but it says and other documents pertaining only to the HCHK entities. I don't think that's correct. I think you need to say and any and only documents pertaining to the G-Club entities, right? I mean, you don't get to go through everything. You get to go through what's relevant to your client. MR. SKLARZ: Correct. We only want G-Club documents.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 132 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 132 THE COURT: Right. Okay. I just want to make that clear. Okay. MR. SKLARZ: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. THE COURT: And then if you get to do that, then you're saying -- so let's talk about mechanics. So say the assignee says -- somehow filters out anything that says G-Club in it, right, and then he turns it over to you, what are you going to do next? MR. SKLARZ: It would be reviewed for relevant information pursuant to the subpoena that would then be turned over to the Trustee as we've done with -- THE COURT: Well, what do you mean relevant? I mean, I think the only information that you would be holding back would be privileged communications. Right? MR. SKLARZ: Well, if something was not in their subpoena, then if they didn't ask for it, I suppose it wouldn't be turned over. But, yes. The most -- the only thing that's of true concern at this point is the privileged information. THE COURT: Well, I think -- MR. SKLARZ: I mean, to be clear, we're not looking to hold up anything. We're just trying to protect -- THE COURT: No, no, I'm not -- I'm trying to figure out a way to solve --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 133 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 133 MR. SKLARZ: Yeah. THE COURT: -- if at all, to solve the issue, right? Your issue is definitely different from other creditors' issues. MR. SKLARZ: Yeah. It's a technology -- it's sort of a technology issue, almost not even a legal issue. THE COURT: And so we're trying to see if that's something that can be resolved and that's why I'm asking the steps. So I have no idea if the documents are in any form that have been categorized or anything. I have no idea. I would assume, well, I shouldn't assume, but I wouldn't be surprised if I was told they're not, they're not in categories. They're just a whole document dump. Is that -- is that what we have, Counsel? Is that what the documents are that are in your possession? MR. JARECK: We as counsel have a lot of documents in our possession, but they're mostly banking and financial records. The actual corporate records my understanding are held in the cloud and I would have no idea how to sort for them. But, Your Honor, I mean, we'll be guided by whatever you direct us to do.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 134 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 134 THE COURT: Well, I don't know what to do either. I mean, you know, I mean, I have ideas, but if you think I understand how to, you know, do searches in the cloud, I'm not -- that's not -- I'm sorry, but I don't have that knowledge. MR. SKLARZ: And I don't either. I mean, I think there's technology people that need -- I mean, obviously G- Club was accessing this information prior to the ABC being commenced, so there's a way to do this. I am not -- THE COURT: And they can't access it now? MR. SKLARZ: They can't access it now. THE COURT: Why? MR. SKLARZ: Because of the ABC -- THE COURT: The password doesn't work or whatever? MR. SKLARZ: Well, essentially because of the ABC access has been shut down. That's my understanding. THE COURT: Well, that's what I'm saying. MR. SKLARZ: Yeah. THE COURT: So they can't -- they don't have the access -- MR. SKLARZ: Correct. THE COURT: -- they had prior to the commencement, prior to HCHK assigning everything to the assignee? That's what you're saying? MR. SKLARZ: That's my understanding, yes.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 135 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
135 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 2 | MR. SKLARZ:
And so if -- I would anticipate that |\n| 3 | we would work with whoever the assignee's IT provider is |\n| 4 | who's doing the hosting for the cloud and whoever our IT |\n| 5 | person is to regain access and go through the process. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
That's assuming the assignee has |\n| 7 | somebody that's working on hosting the cloud. |\n| 8 | MR. SKLARZ:
Well, they must, otherwise the data |\n| 9 | wouldn't go anywhere. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I think I just heard they don't. |\n| 11 | MR. JARECK:
We have one person in HR and two |\n| 12 | people in security, that's it. |\n| 13 | MR. SKLARZ:
Well, there's -- |\n| 14 | MR. JARECK:
Everyone else was terminated. |\n| 15 | MR. SKLARZ:
But there's -- there are servers that |\n| 16 | need to be maintained.
If they're shut off, then -- or if |\n| 17 | they just got thrown away, that would be problematic.
I |\n| 18 | assume that hasn't been the case. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
But thrown away by whom? |\n| 20 | MR. SKLARZ:
It will be thrown away by the |\n| 21 | assignee. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Well, you don't know that if it wasn't |\n| 23 | assigned to him.
How do you know?
You don't know, right? |\n| 24 | The point is an assignment for the benefit of a -- |\n| 25 | of creditors, the company, the assignor, can assign what |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 136 of
158 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
136 |\n| 1 | they want.
They don't have to assign everything.
And I |\n| 2 | don't know.
I have no idea, I mean, what has happened. |\n| 3 | One of the reasons don't like assignments for the |\n| 4 | benefit of the creditors is just for that reason, right? |\n| 5 | That the party assigning decides what they're going to |\n| 6 | assign.
They might not have assigned everything.
I have no |\n| 7 | idea.
I have no idea. |\n| 8 | MR. SKLARZ:
Nor do I. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
But I'm being told by counsel that |\n| 10 | they don't have any access to the cloud. |\n| 11 | So even if you're correct that you should have the |\n| 12 | right to search it, I don't know how that's going to work. |\n| 13 | MR. SKLARZ:
I mean, if -- it would be -- if all |\n| 14 | the data is now unavailable -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Well, I don't know if it's |\n| 16 | unavailable, but it's not -- it hasn't been provided to the |\n| 17 | assignee, so that's a different issue, right? |\n| 18 | MR. SKLARZ:
Well, I'm not -- I apologize, Your |\n| 19 | Honor.
Can counsel clarify as to whether they're holding |\n| 20 | the data? |\n| 21 | MR. JARECK:
Again, we do have some data, but I |\n| 22 | believe the data that counsel's referring to again is in the |\n| 23 | cloud. |\n| 24 | Could we hire back IT people to pull the |\n| 25 | information down, I assume that we could.
We haven't done |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 137 anything to destroy anything. Everything has been maintained. You can put a key in the door and no one has access to anything. So everything has been maintained and preserved. But how to pull down information from the cloud, that's specific to counsel's client, I wouldn't have -- I couldn't even tell you how to start. THE COURT: Well, if it was in the old days, right, when we were talking about documents, right -- MR. SKLARZ: We'd go there and we could get them. THE COURT: -- you'd go and you'd go look at everything, right? MR. SKLARZ: Yes. THE COURT: And you'd determine, you'd say these are all privileged and confidential, you can't turn them over. So are you saying that G-Club wants to hire somebody to do that? If you're saying that that might be a reasonable request under the supervision of the assignee that you go and you hire somebody to do that. I don't know. MR. SKLARZ: I think that's a good idea, Your Honor. I was -- I did not know until counsel just indicated that that there was no -- that they were not -- they did not have access to the data. Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 137 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 138 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
138 |\n| 1 | I would just want to, you know, speak with my |\n| 2 | client to see if that's acceptable.
But that sounds like a |\n| 3 | good solution to have, you know, G-Club retain an IT |\n| 4 | professional to work with the assignee to figure out a way |\n| 5 | to access this data. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Attorney Luft? |\n| 7 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, when I restart I'd like to |\n| 8 | approach and address this. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Yeah. |\n| 10 | Are you done for the moment, Attorney Sklarz? |\n| 11 | MR. SKLARZ:
Unless Your Honor has any other |\n| 12 | questions. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
So just to be clear, your client's |\n| 14 | objection to the revised proposed order is that it doesn't |\n| 15 | address this technology issue that you have.
You want to be |\n| 16 | able to review documents before they're turned over to the |\n| 17 | Trustee to determine if, and if there is, if there are |\n| 18 | privileged documents and to assert the privilege? |\n| 19 | MR. SKLARZ:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
And if you did that, you'd have to |\n| 21 | establish a privilege log anyway? |\n| 22 | MR. SKLARZ:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 24 | MR. SKLARZ:
Thank you. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
All right.
Go ahead, Attorney Luft. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 139 of\n\n| | 158 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
139 |\n| 1 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, may I approach? |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Sure. |\n| 3 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you very much. |\n| 4 | Your Honor, if it pleases the Court, I'll start |\n| 5 | with G-Club and then I'll refer to the Himalayan entities. |\n| 6 | Once again, this is Avi Luft of Paul Hastings on |\n| 7 | behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 8 | So, Your Honor, I listened to this whole thing. |\n| 9 | And to be honest I appreciate everyone trying to be creative |\n| 10 | and to think how it is.
I'll explain to you why I don't |\n| 11 | think there's any issue that requires this resolution, but |\n| 12 | we'll see if I'm wrong. |\n| 13 | The fact is, Your Honor, what G-Club writes in |\n| 14 | their papers and what they claim is that their concern is |\n| 15 | about confidentiality and to protect any privilege that may |\n| 16 | exist. |\n| 17 | And they say that they, quote, \"Only seek the |\n| 18 | implementation of a defined process that protects and |\n| 19 | preserves rights and privileges.\" |\n| 20 | But what's written down in their papers and what's |\n| 21 | written down in the paragraph that Your Honor saw in their |\n| 22 | revised Chapter 6 has little to nothing to do with what |\n| 23 | they're talking about. |\n| 24 | I want to start with a couple of things that were |\n| 25 | said. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 140 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 140 First of all, paragraph 6 of the settlement is an important term. G-Club keeps talking about their 2004 discovery. And while I have been before you multiple times to try to achieve that, that's not what paragraph 6 is about. Paragraph 6 is about allowing the Trustee access to the documents. And that's important because -- because we're entering into the settlement, and because of how this going to proceed with an adversary, we're effectively doing away with discovery in that adversary and (indiscernible) -- THE COURT: I don't agree with you on that one. Because as I said to it, I hear your point, but as I said to Attorney Sklarz, the way that he's drafting that language to paragraph 6 is not going to work. MR. LUFT: I agree. THE COURT: If anything, if anything, it's going to be limited to G-Club. Okay? So we're not doing away with discovery insofar as if there is information to be provided the only thing that might be set aside and dealt with in more than one step belongs to G-Club. If we get there. Okay? MR. LUFT: Your Honor, I'm happy to hear that. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LUFT: I will go on to note -- THE COURT: Well, that's what I said. So if I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 141 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 141 wasn't clear, I'm sorry. But that's it. I said to Attorney Sklarz this is only applying to G-Club and it's only applying to something that's privileged or confidential that you can assert a privilege and that's it. MR. LUFT: And, Your Honor, to be clear, and I'll jump ahead on this to that language, if you read the language he proposes, it's not -- he's not saying only G- Club's documents, he's saying pertaining -- documents pertaining only to the -- to the HCHK entities. And -- THE COURT: And that's why I made that point. MR. LUFT: Right. THE COURT: That's a point I made. That's not -- that's not going to happen. MR. LUFT: Correct, Your Honor. And what I'm saying is even if I change that to G- Club, if HCHK -- THE COURT: No. You take the only and you put it in a different area. MR. LUFT: Right. THE COURT: It doesn't -- it doesn't pertain to HCHK, it doesn't. That word is incorrect. MR. LUFT: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Because you're correct. Then it would apply to anything anybody could say, right? MR. LUFT: Correct.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 142 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 142 THE COURT: And no one else has said it. So the only person that's going to get any protection, if anyone, is going to be G-Club. MR. LUFT: Right, Your Honor. And the point I'm trying to make, and I think I'm doing it inartfully, is what it's saying is even if it's only G-Club that's a subject matter. So if HCHK had documents about G-Club, under the way they drafted it, even if only limited to G-Club, they would exclude that also. THE COURT: No, they won't. Because it will have to be subject to a privilege that they'll have to assert and then have to prove that they're entitled to that privilege. MR. LUFT: Great. So now we're -- okay. MR. DESPINS: That's fine. MR. LUFT: So now we're talking about if there's a privilege, and if it would make it their document, and I -- and I agree with you. THE COURT: And they'll have to prove it, right? MR. LUFT: Right. THE COURT: That's why you have a privilege log. MR. LUFT: Correct. THE COURT: You're going to look at it and you're going to say that's not privileged, Judge. You have to figure out whether or not that's privileged, right?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 143 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
143 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. LUFT:
True. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
That's what I anticipate happening. |\n| 3 | MR. LUFT:
Okay.
Good.
I agree with that. |\n| 4 | Now, let's talk about this privilege. |\n| 5 | Your Honor, they say that HCHK, they've held that |\n| 6 | as a complete third party to G-Club.
They have given over |\n| 7 | their documents to this third party. |\n| 8 | Since then that third party has -- the documents |\n| 9 | went -- the assignee took it over.
That's another third |\n| 10 | party. |\n| 11 | And then the assignee made a deal with G-News, |\n| 12 | including letting them start up operations for a period, |\n| 13 | that's a third, third party. |\n| 14 | I don't know how anything is privileged anymore. |\n| 15 | And to my knowledge, they never objected when it |\n| 16 | went -- they didn't raise an issue with that.
They didn't |\n| 17 | raise an objection when it went to the assignee.
And they |\n| 18 | certainly didn't raise an objection to my knowledge when |\n| 19 | that assignee then said that G-News could have access to it. |\n| 20 | We now have three third parties who have access to |\n| 21 | privileged information.
So I don't understand how -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
So you're saying that privilege has |\n| 23 | been waived? |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
Correct. |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:
Exactly, Your Honor.
I don't |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 144 of
158 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
144 |\n| 1 | understand what privilege we're talking about.
And what |\n| 2 | we're -- |\n| 3 | So while I can't see any privilege, what I can |\n| 4 | imagine is the process of trying to go through all these |\n| 5 | documents, which I have now been waiting for a considerable |\n| 6 | period of time, to review and to go through all that just to |\n| 7 | get to the conclusion that, oh, right, we waived them all, I |\n| 8 | don't understand. |\n| 9 | Now, maybe there's an argument that I'm not |\n| 10 | seeing, but, Your Honor, I start with the fact that -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
But we -- I hear what you're |\n| 12 | saying.
I do.
We haven't -- we haven't addressed that |\n| 13 | argument legally yet though, have we? |\n| 14 | MR. LUFT:
We spoke about it -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I mean, we haven't addressed the |\n| 16 | argument that you're making legally, which, you know, you |\n| 17 | could be right that the privilege has been waived.
But what |\n| 18 | you've just said I don't think has been presented to the |\n| 19 | Court to make that determination yet.
Right? |\n| 20 | So you would be arguing with regard to G-Club and |\n| 21 | their opposition to the entry of this -- approval of the |\n| 22 | settlement and the entry of this order that their objection |\n| 23 | should be overruled because there is no privilege? |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:
To the extent their objection is, as |\n| 25 | I'm hearing it, which is that they now have a limited |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 145 of\n\n| 158 |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
145 |\n| concern about that they have privileged documents that are |\n| at HCHK, I would say it should be overruled because those |\n| documents, any such privilege to me seems that it would be |\n| waived.
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| MR. LUFT:
As with regard to confidentiality, if I |\n| thought I heard him correctly, that it sounded like they're |\n| not as concerned about that anymore. |\n| THE COURT:
That's what he said. |\n| MR. LUFT:
Okay.
So I'll assume that the language |\n| we have there, there's no need to further discuss that |\n| issue. |\n| THE COURT:
Or any further discussions you both |\n| can have, whether it's confidential or highly confidential, |\n| there's a protective order in place that addresses those |\n| issues. |\n| MR. LUFT:
I agree, Your Honor. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| MR. LUFT:
And I will -- so I think with that, and |\n| with the modifications that has come out with which Your |\n| Honor has discussed, I think that's really the only issue |\n| before us is that privilege issue.
And like I said, I |\n| believe there's a waiver, but that's where I think it is. |\n| Other than that, I would assume that their other |\n| arguments have been addressed based on the comments from |\n| |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 146 of
158 | | | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
146 | | | | |\n| 1 | today. | | | | |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Yes.
We have to -- yes.
I have to | | | | |\n| 3 | think about what, if anything, I want you to do with regard | | | | |\n| 4 | to the waiver issue. | | | | |\n| 5 | But I agree.
Attorney Sklarz has said that the | | | | |\n| 6 | confidentiality is not their big issue.
And they understand | | | | |\n| 7 | and will work with you to deal with the -- what would be the | | | | |\n| 8 | application of the protections in the protective order to | | | | |\n| 9 | confidential information. | | | | |\n| 10 | MR. LUFT:
Okay. | | | | |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
With regard to the privilege issues, | | | | |\n| 12 | we'll talk about that, but I know where it stands. | | | | |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you. | | | | |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
So now let's turn to the other | | | | |\n| 15 | parties. | | | | |\n| 16 | MR. LUFT:
Okay.
And if I can just make one more | | | | |\n| 17 | point? | | | | |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Sure. | | | | |\n| 19 | MR. LUFT:
It's my understanding -- with regard to | | | | |\n| 20 | the access and the access to the documents, I can't -- I | | | | |\n| 21 | don't know whether or not -- speaking to Mr. Jareck it | | | | |\n| 22 | doesn't seem like they were aware that there's been an issue | | | | |\n| 23 | that people have been locked out of it. | | | | |\n| 24 | But what I do have a concern about quite frankly, | | | | |\n| 25 | Your Honor, is the idea of preservation spoliation.
To the | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 147 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 147 extent that access is already available or is restored, I would not want G-Club changing any of the documents that currently exist. And that would be my only -- THE COURT: Well, if they're in the cloud, how can they change them? They can copy them. MR. LUFT: Well, if they have access now, Your Honor, or if they got access, if they had access -- THE COURT: Well, I don't know what you -- I mean, I don't know what I could possibly do about that unless and until somebody brings somebody brings something forward specifically. I mean, I hear what you're saying. But, you know, you have a lawyer -- MR. LUFT: I understand -- THE COURT: -- representing -- two lawyers representing an entity who have ethical obligations, right? I'm sure that they've informed their clients that there's a litigation hold or whatever they want to call it. And if their clients go ahead and destroy documents, then somebody will have to show that and prove that and go from there. At this point, I'm not going to solve this problem with regard to documents in the cloud. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, I appreciate that. I guess from our point of view through this settlement by allowing the Trustee to have access that at least ensures that we have the ability to see what was\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 148 there. Whether they can have access to and read what was there as well is a separate issue. And I agree with you that's not for Your Honor to decide. I'm just saying one of the reasons this was an important provision to this settlement is so that we can see what's there and know that and have that information. And I'll stop with that. THE COURT: I understand. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, with regard to the Himalayan entities, I will be very brief. Unless Your Honor has questions, I'm not going to go through all of it. THE COURT: No. Go right ahead. MR. LUFT: Very quickly, there are multiple arguments with regard to the idea of whether proper consideration was given to the release. I think we're almost looking at this through a mirror. Usually when a trustee gives a release, the question as to whether there was adequate consideration is a question of whether the estate got adequate consideration for that release. Yet, these people, the Himalayan entities, seem to be talking about whether they got enough consideration for the assignee receiving a release. I just don't think that is the question for a 9019. The Trustee is granting the release and the Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 148 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 149 question is did we get enough back? I think what I argued last time about why we think this is a good settlement and the consideration that the estate is receiving answers that question. And I think that solves that. With regard to the suggestion that because there was an exculpation provision and a channeling injunction, and then we listened to the comments and accordingly we tried to find a compromise and find some language that that means that somehow we didn't think those first provisions were important, I think is just a little disingenuous, Your Honor. That is the process of what we do here. People come, they make objections, we don't turn a deaf ear, we try to listen, and where we can find a way to reach a resolution, that's what we try to do. I think it would be a terrible public policy if effectively any time someone compromised you said that means you must not have been serious in the first place. I just don't think that is reasonable. Finally, with regard to the idea that -- the gatekeeping, I'll leave that to Mr. Jareck. I think he's addressed what the basis of the concern is. But I will touch on the fact that there have been multiple references made to the fact that what we've put in Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 149 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 150 the revised order hasn't been, I believe, supported under 9013 or we didn't write -- give writing -- THE COURT: Yeah. The language about 9013 in the brief is not correct by the way. Ninety-thirteen doesn't say anything about consideration. It's a motion. It's a rule regarding motions. MR. LUFT: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: So I already looked at that, and the language about what 9013 provides is not accurate. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. And I will just comment that to the extent there's other comments that we haven't somehow provided or didn't support, Your Honor didn't ask us to file a brief in connection with a revised motion. You asked us to put in or changes to the protective order. THE COURT: Right. I agree. MR. LUFT: So I think to take issue with the fact that we didn't expand on it further I think is unfair. THE COURT: I'm not worried about that issue. MR. LUFT: Neither am I, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LUFT: I have no further questions -- I have no comments. Do you have any questions for me? THE COURT: What about your -- the U.S. Trustee's final position with regard to paragraph 14? Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 150 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 151 MR. LUFT: I'll let Mr. Jareck -- MR. DESPINS: I'll address that. MR. LUFT: -- or Mr. Despins would like to speak to that. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, I wanted to address both 13 and 14. Both of them start with in the event the Court grants a dispositive ruling in favor of the Trustee. None of this 13 -- 14 says in the event the release set forth in 13 becomes effective. So it's all linked together. None of these two paragraphs become effective unless you've determined that we are correct and that these entities are alter egos of the debtor. If that's the case, they're not third-party claimants. \"They're our claimant,\" quote/unquote, and we certainly have jurisdiction over them. Once that we've accomplished that, clearly the Court has jurisdiction to say, in order to avoid claims that would bypass my order, your order, that these claims are released, I will force people to file a simple motion with the Court to say I'm suing the assignee. I have a direct claim. And Your Honor is going to call, you know, balls and strikes and say, okay, that's a direct claim, go in peace. Or it's not a direct claim, it's been released. Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 151 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 152 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 152 You certainly have the jurisdiction to do that because these two provisions don't kick in until you've found that they are the alter ego. At that point, they are our creditors. You clearly have jurisdiction over them. So I want to make sure. And you might say, so if that's not kicking in now, why are you putting that in? Because the assignee wants to know that if we win, he will get the benefit of that. So that's why it's in there now. But today, these provisions, that's not happening today. It's happening if, automatically by the way, if Your Honor rules that we prevail on the alter ego. So the jurisdictional basis over them is covered in spades. And there's just no issue that the Court can grant that. And, gain, the *General Motors* case is on all fours on that. It was a sale, but the point is the same here. If it's a release or a sale, the point is the same. So we believe that the Court can do that and has jurisdiction to do it. If there's something I didn't address, I'm happy to address that. THE COURT: No. I have no further questions at the moment. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Does anyone else wish to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 153 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 153 be heard? MS. McCLAMMY: Very briefly, Your Honor? THE COURT: Sure. MS. McCLAMMY: May I approach? THE COURT: Certainly. MS. McCLAMMY: I just wanted to respond to Mr. Luft's comments because it's not my habit to be disingenuous and I don't want that to be the record. We very much appreciate the changes to the release and we, as you and I discussed earlier, agree that that release no longer covers claims that my clients would bring in their own capacity. And there is no argument that my clients should have received consideration for that release because that is not a release that is binding on them. The argument about consideration, and maybe it wasn't artfully worded, was to say that this order, paragraph 14 in particular, prejudices my clients and poses burdens on them as we discussed, and as Ms. Claiborn, and it does so without their getting any benefit in return. So from their point of view this settlement is one that's entirely one-sided. It's a great result for the estate, clearly. It provides the assignee with things, clearly. It doesn't provide us with anything of value, but at the same time it imposes burdens on us. And that's the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 154 of\n\n| | 158 | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
154 | | | |\n| 1 | argument I was trying to make. | | | |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. | | | |\n| 3 | MS. McCLAMMY:
Thank you. | | | |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I appreciate that. | | | |\n| 5 | Anything further from anyone this afternoon? | | | |\n| 6 | MR. LUFT:
No, Your Honor. | | | |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
All right. | | | |\n| 8 | I'm sorry.
Go ahead, Attorney Luft.
Oh, you said | | | |\n| 9 | nothing? | | | |\n| 10 | MR. LUFT:
Nothing, Your Honor. | | | |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Given the arguments that have | | | |\n| 12 | been made this afternoon and some references to case law | | | |\n| 13 | that I haven't looked at, I have to take a look at this.
So | | | |\n| 14 | what I'm going to do is I'm going to take the matter under | | | |\n| 15 | advisement and I will rule accordingly. | | | |\n| 16 | If, if, for some reason while I take the matter | | | |\n| 17 | under advisement I think I need something additional from | | | |\n| 18 | the parties, we'll let you know, but I need to go back and | | | |\n| 19 | look at this. | | | |\n| 20 | I do think, as counsel just pointed out, there has | | | |\n| 21 | been progress made in the last week with regard to the | | | |\n| 22 | release issue.
I understand there are still concerns about | | | |\n| 23 | paragraph 14.
I understand the G-Club concerns about and | | | |\n| 24 | the Trustee's concerns about paragraph 6.
There are also | | | |\n| 25 | other pending objections just to the settlement as a whole | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 155 that have been made by parties, specifically with regard to administrative claim issues. And I'll have to look at all those issues and make a decision. As I said, if there is something else that the Court needs, you'll be made aware of that. And otherwise I will -- if I can rule without asking for anything else, I will. And if I can't, then I will ask you and we'll proceed from there. I know the parties would like this to be resolved sooner as opposed to later as would I and I will do my best to do that. We have other matters, other cases, other things, but we will be taking a look at this and we'll try to resolve as soon as we possibly can. Does anyone have anything else this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: I just wanted to confirm, Your Honor, our next hearing, if I'm not mistaken, is August 2nd. Is that the same -- THE COURT: I don't know at the moment. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: But I suppose I could take a look. MR. DESPINS: Well, no, you don't need to. I just -- THE COURT: I can take a look. We can all take a look. I don't know. Yes. At least that's what the Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 155 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 156 of
158 | | | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
156 | | | | |\n| 1 | calendar shows as of now. | | | | |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
For now, yeah. | | | | |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
August 2nd in an adversary proceeding | | | | |\n| 4 | only, motion to dismiss adversary proceeding.
That's what | | | | |\n| 5 | the calendar shows.
At least what I'm looking at right now, | | | | |\n| 6 | that's all I see.
Could I have missed something? | | | | |\n| 7 | Certainly.
But it appears that the next hearing is August | | | | |\n| 8 | 2nd in adversary proceeding 22-5027 on motions -- on a | | | | |\n| 9 | motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding. | | | | |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
All right.
Thank you, Your Honor. | | | | |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay?
All right.
That concludes our | | | | |\n| 12 | hearings today.
And that is the last matter on today's | | | | |\n| 13 | calendar, therefore, court is adjourned.
Thank you. | | | | |\n| 14 | ALL COUNSEL:
Thank you, Your Honor. | | | | |\n| 15 | (Proceedings concluded at 3:31 p.m.) | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 157 of\n\n| | 158 | | | | | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023
157 | | | | | | |\n| 1 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and certified | | | | | | |\n| 2 | electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the | | | | | | |\n| 3 | foregoing is a correct transcript from the official | | | | | | |\n| 4 | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above | | | | | | |\n| 5 | entitled matter. | | | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | July 24, 2023 | | | | | | |\n| 9 | Christine Fiore, CERT | | | | | | |\n| 10 | Transcriber | | | | | | |\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| | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2030
Filed 07/24/23
Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31
Page 158 of
158 | | | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|-------|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 | | 158 | | |\n| 1 | | | | | |\n| 2 | | | | | |\n| 3 | | INDEX | | | |\n| 4 | | | | | |\n| 5 | WITNESS FOR THE DEBTOR: | DIRECT | CROSS | | |\n| 6 | Aaron Mitchell | 28 | | | |\n| 7 | | | | | |\n| 8 | | | | | |\n| 9 | | | | | |\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| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\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 ＊ 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n ＊\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER ＊\nHOLDINGS CORPORATION（吉尼弗控股公司），＊\n ＊\n债务人。 ＊\n\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS ＊ 对抗程序案号 22-5003\nINVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED（香港国际基金\n投资（美国）有限公司）， ＊\n ＊\n原告， ＊\n诉 ＊\n ＊\nDESPINS（德斯平斯）， ＊\n ＊\n被告。 ＊\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）， ＊ 对抗程序案号 22-5008\n第11章受托人， ＊\n ＊\n原告， ＊\n ＊ 康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n诉 ＊ July 18, 2023\n ＊\nGUO（郭）， ＊\n ＊\n被告。 ＊\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官阁下面前进行的程序记录\n美国联邦破产法官\n\n程序由电子录音记录，笔录由转录服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n#1917 PULLMAN & COMPLY, LLC（普尔曼与康普利有限责任公司）、债权人委员会的临时报酬申请\n\n#1921 律师费：$504,742.50；费用 $709.53\nEPIQ CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING, LLC（Epiq公司重组有限责任公司）、其他专业人士的临时报酬申请\n费用：$178,227.00；支出 $11,673.79\n\n#1893 命令要求 GTV MEDIA, INC.（GTV媒体公司）、SARACA GROUP, INC.（萨拉卡集团公司）及律师 AARON MITCHELL（亚伦·米切尔）出庭并说明理由，说明为何不应认定 GTV MEDIA, INC. 及 SARACA MEDIA GROUP（萨拉卡媒体集团）藐视法庭\n\n审前会议\n\n#2004 修订后的拟议命令\n\n#55 修订后的拟议命令\n\n出庭人员：\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nAVRAM E. LUFT, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.\nNeubert Pepe & Monteith, PC（纽伯特·佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表 HK International Funds Investments, LLC（香港国际基金投资有限责任公司）及 Mei Guo（郭美）：\nJAMES MORIARTY, ESQ.\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE J. GOLDMAN, ESQ.\nPullman & Comley\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.\nOffice of the U.S. Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\n150 Court Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表 G Clubs Operations, LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）：\nJEFFREY M. SKLARZ, ESQ.\nGreen & Sklarz, LLC（格林与斯克拉兹有限责任公司）\nOne Audubon Street\nNew Haven, CT 06511\n\n代表受让人 Brian W. Hofmeister（布赖恩·W·霍夫迈斯特）：\nRYAN T. JARECK, ESQ.\nCole Schotz P.C.（科尔·肖茨律师事务所）\n25 Main Street\nCourt Plaza North\nHackensack, NJ 07601\n\nDEIRDRE A. O'CONNOR, ESQ.\nEpiq Corporate Restructuring LLC\n777 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10017\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表 HCHK Technologies（HCHK技术公司）的各债权人：\nMELISSA R. McCLAMMY, ESQ.\nPastore, LLC（帕斯托尔有限责任公司）\n4 High Ridge Park, Third Floor\nStamford, CT 06905\n\n代表 Joshua Sherman（约书亚·谢尔曼）：\nJOSHUA SHERMAN, ESQ.\nHCHK Technologies, Inc.\n303 5th Avenue #1705\nNew York, NY 10016\n\n代表 Saraca（萨拉卡）及 GTV：\nAARON A. MITCHELL, ESQ.\nLawall & Mitchell, LLC（拉沃尔与米切尔有限责任公司）\n55 Madison Avenue\nSuite 400\nMorristown, NJ 07960\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 登记于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 5 页，共 158 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 5\n\n（程序于下午 12:03 开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：22-50073号，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holdings, LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）。我可以全部叫案吗？\n\n法官：不。只叫——我们将先审理主案，然后先审理两项报酬申请，但首先我要记录出庭人员。\n\n法庭书记员：好的。\n\n法官：那么，我想请第11章受托人先作出庭登记。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nLUFT先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Paul Hastings 的 Avi Luft，代表第11章受托人。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nLINSEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 的 Patrick Linsey，受托人的康涅狄格州律师。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：下午好。我是代表美国受托人的 Holley Claiborn。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nO'CONNOR女士：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 登记于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 6 页，共 158 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 6\n\n我是 Epiq 的高级董事总经理 Deirdre O'Connor，作为公司的代表。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Pullman & Comley 的 Irve Goldman，代表债权人委员会，并就我的费用申请出庭。\n\n法官：下午好。好的。那么我们将先审理费用申请。Despins受托人，我不知道您希望按什么顺序进行，但您可以按您希望的任何方式进行。\n\nDESPINS先生：我们可以先从 Epiq 开始。\n\n法官：当然。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，这是 Epiq 的第一份临时费用申请。该申请于 June 21st 提交，案卷编号为 1921 和 1923，其中 1923 是时间明细。本申请所请求的救济为，就 Epiq 于 December 1st, 2022 至 February 28, 2023 期间向债务人提供的专业服务，支付 $178,227，并报销 $11,673.79。法官阁下，我们没有收到任何异议。我不会说问题很多，但美国受托人提出了若干问题，并已提供相关信息；无人提出异议。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 登记于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 7 页，共 158 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 7\n\n因此，除非有人希望陈述意见，我们请求法院批准该申请。\n\n法官：谢谢。Claiborn律师？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：法官阁下，美国受托人没有异议。\n\n法官：还有其他人希望就 Epiq 的费用申请陈述意见吗？\n\n（无人回应）\n\n法官：好的。我感谢 O'Connor 女士今天代表 Epiq 就该费用申请出庭。我已审阅费用申请、支出和费用，根据本案情形，它们看来合理且必要。O'Connor 女士，我不知道 Despins受托人是否已和您谈过，我认为 Epiq 的大部分任务现在可能已经完成。我确信您还会有另一份费用申请，但本案的发展情况是，所有债权证明都已经提交，无论是保密债权证明还是公开债权证明，我们正在尝试推进一个程序，以便能够协助受托人。我知道 Epiq 仍在维护债权登记册，至于其他工作，我不确定，也许还在您方的网站上维护案卷，我不确定，但我的意思是\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 8\n\n我认为 Epiq 已经没有多少更多工作可做，因为现阶段我们不会通过 Epiq 进行送达及类似事项。关于送达有很多问题，因此我们不得不签发具体命令及采取该等性质的措施。所以，虽然我确信还会有另一份费用申请——\n\nO'CONNOR女士：是的。\n\n法官：——但当事人和法院都认为，Epiq 在本案中需要完成的工作大部分可能已经完成。因此，我只是想确认这是否是共同的理解。或者，您是否有任何不同的理解，希望记入记录。\n\nO'CONNOR女士：法官阁下，这也是我的理解。可以说，关于删节的大部分繁重工作已经完成。\n\n法官：是的。\n\nO'CONNOR女士：因此，我们一致认为，我们的工作量已经减少，并将继续减少。您所言正确，还会有另一份费用申请，其中将包含一些数额较大的费用，但那将是整个删节程序的收尾部分，所以我预计——我可能会再次在这里，就第二份\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 登记于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 8 页，共 158 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 登记于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 9 页，共 158 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023\n\n1 申请出庭，这将是我的荣幸，但我完全看不到我们的费用会有任何增加。\n\n2 \n\n3 法官：\n谢谢。我对此表示感谢。\n\n4 我只是想确保您知悉，因为事情会改变方向，嗯，在本案中，事情每天都在改变方向，所以——但就债权证明问题而言，我认为它们已得到控制。\n\n5 \n\n6 \n\n7 \n\n8 即使删节问题，我认为目前也都已得到控制。\n\n9 \n\n10 而且，您知道，显然这是一组不寻常的情况，但我很高兴听到您和——您认为——我很高兴听到您的看法，\n\n11 \n\n12 \n\n13 因为这正是每个人一直在谈论的。因此，我只是想确保我们都达成共识。\n\n14 \n\n15 O'CONNOR女士：\n是的，法官阁下。我们达成共识。\n\n16 \n\n17 并且让法院知悉，我参与了 Epiq 对本事项的承接工作，自本案提交以来，我一直通过每一封电子邮件跟踪本案。\n\n18 \n\n19 我经常与顾问交谈。因此，是的，我一直在监督本案，并将继续如此。\n\n20 \n\n21 \n\n22 法官：\n好的。谢谢。我对此表示感谢。\n\n23 O'CONNOR女士：\n是的。\n\n24 法官：\n谢谢。\n\n25 O'CONNOR女士：\n不客气。\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 10\n\n法官：并且没有其他人希望陈述意见，对吗？我没有听到其他人就 Epiq 申请发言？好的。谢谢。如 Despins受托人所言，无人提出任何书面异议。今天参加本听证会的人员中，没有人反对该申请。美国受托人办公室已提交无异议声明。我已审阅费用和支出，并了解其产生的原因、产生的方式，认定在这些合并管理的第11章案件情形下，它们是合理且必要的。因此，基于所有这些理由，该申请获准。我认为所提交的拟议命令，而且我会再次审阅，但我认为没有问题，是的，所提交的拟议命令没有问题，将予以登记。\n\nO'CONNOR女士：非常感谢，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。非常感谢。\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法官：Goldman律师，我认为您的申请是今天下午的第二项申请。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 登记于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 10 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 登记于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 11 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023\n\n1 GOLDMAN先生：\n是。是的。\n\n2 法官：\n那么请继续。\n\n3 GOLDMAN先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。我是 Irve\n\n4 Goldman。\n\n5 法官：\n下午好。\n\n6 GOLDMAN先生：\n为支持我律所的第一份临时费用申请，该申请涵盖自我们受聘生效日，即 March 29th, 2022，至本年四月底期间，本申请请求准许费用 $504,724.50 及支出\n\n7 \n\n8 \n\n9 \n\n10 $709.53。\n\n11 \n\n12 根据美国受托人的无异议声明，我们同意自愿减少 $1,329.50，因此现准许的费用将为\n\n13 \n\n14 \n\n15 $503,395。\n\n16 无人对该申请提出异议。\n\n17 在我本人审阅了随我方费用申请提交的 165 页发票后，\n\n18 我现在对为 Paul Hastings 的费用申请完成该工作的人，\n\n19 以及较大案件中的费用审查员，产生了新的敬意。\n\n20 \n\n21 我编写了一份相当详细的六页叙述，并将其作为申请的一部分，说明自我们受聘以来为委员会提供的服务。\n\n22 \n\n23 \n\n24 鉴于此，并考虑到没有异议，以及法院对本案及\n\n25\n\n1 在其中所起的作用，我认为没有必要逐章逐节地详述我们所做的工作。\n\n2 但我只想提醒法庭，在四月至七月初约三个月期间，委员会开展了非常密集的活动，当时尚未任命受托人，处理债务人提出的各项早期案件动议，包括反对 PAX 的驳回动议、协商返还 Lady May 的同意命令、提交若干项根据 Rule 2004 提出的资产调查动议，以及送达传票；协商有关 Lady May 的同意命令，构成了最初三个月的主要工作。\n\n3 还包括安排我们的专业人员就位；但我们从未有机会使用他们，因为他们刚获法庭聘任后不久，受托人即被任命。\n\n4 受托人一经任命，我们即认识到委员会的作用在当时确应缩减，同时认识到受托人对我们所代表的债权人负有信义义务。\n\n5 事实上，我们有意识地承担了缩减后的角色。我们减少了在本案中的工作，确实将工作重心转向支持受托人、与受托人协商，并就为资产调查及资产追回而提交的各项动议提供意见。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 2023年7月18日 13 我认为，在这方面我们对本案产生了积极影响。我主张，这一切均符合我们根据 Section 1103 对委员会承担的法定义务。因此，我主张我们所请求的费用合理且可获补偿，并请求法庭批准该等费用和支出，并计入我所提及的自愿减免。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：好的。\n\n法庭：是否还有其他人希望就无担保债权人正式委员会的第一份临时费用申请发表意见？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：法官阁下，我是代表 United States Trustee（美国受托人）的 Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）。我提交的声明载于 Docket No. 2001。该声明反映了 Goldman 律师向法庭概述的减免。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nDESPINS 先生：此外，法官阁下，我是 Chapter 11 Trustee（第 11 章受托人）Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平）。我们的团队审阅了该费用申请，对所提交的费用没有异议，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。此外，Goldman 律师，如您所知，我也熟悉——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2030\nFiled 07/24/23\nEntered 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 2023年7月18日\n\n1 委员会自获任命之初至您现正请求费用和支出的期间，即截至 2023年4月30日，所开展的工作。\n\n2 我已审阅相关资料，并同意在任命受托人后，您确实有意识地缩减了委员会参与本案的角色；这是我们当时讨论过的事项，显然您也遵守了您所作出的说明，即您理解委员会的角色将因任命受托人而缩减。\n\n3 尽管如此，委员会在这些案件中一直并持续发挥重要作用。\n\n4 我同意，证明这一点的文件如同我们审查过的其他费用申请一样数量庞大，但鉴于这些合并管理的 Chapter 11（第 11 章）案件所具有的极其具体的事实和情形，这些文件是必要的。\n\n5 我感谢您所附的叙述，不仅对法庭有益，也对任何可能在不同时间点查阅本案、查看相关事项但未必真正具体了解已发生何事的人有益；该叙述提供了非常翔实的事实经过，记录了本案中发生的情况，我认为这对任何人都十分重要。因为——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 2023年7月18日 15 显然，如您所知，也如我们都知道，费用申请必须向每一位债权人送达并发出通知，以便任何人如欲提出书面异议，均可提出。无人提出书面异议。我会回头审查并确认该等申请是否已完成送达，书记官办公室也会如此审查；本案已经完成送达，且您已提交送达证明书，证明您已遵守就该费用申请向所有人送达的要求。我审阅工时记录后认为，在这些合并管理的 Chapter 11 案件的具体情形下，该等工时是合理的。我还认为，您产生的支出不足 $800。在像本案这样存在诸多争议的案件中，我认为这非常合理，因此如有人反对或异议该等支出，我会感到惊讶。至于费用，您已作出自愿减免。如同我就受托人的 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯）申请及 Neubert, Pepe（诺伊伯特、佩佩）申请所说，我赞赏各方与 Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）共同合作。因为这是——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2030\nFiled 07/24/23\nEntered 07/24/23 16:18:31\nPage 15 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 16 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 2023年7月18日\n\n1 美国受托人办公室的职责之一，即审查、分析并作出决定，向法庭说明其就费用申请所持的立场；但我不希望所有当事人认为费用总是必须达成一致减免。\n\n2 如达成一致减免，当然可以，但我认为这不应成为一种预期。我们都可以讨论我们可能在费用申请中发现的任何问题，这也是我们举行听证会的原因。\n\n3 因为如有问题，便可以加以处理，随后法庭可以作出其最终需要作出的决定，即是否应裁定支付所请求的费用和支出。\n\n4 因此，正如我所说，我确实感谢该叙述。\n\n5 我感谢迄今为止所有在这些合并管理的 Chapter 11 案件中请求偿付其费用和支出的当事人所提供的详细资料。这非常重要。当您审阅 165 页或，您知道的，765 页必须审查的发票时，这对法庭非常有帮助。\n\n6 因此，基于所有上述理由，包括无人就该费用申请提出书面异议、本次听证会上无人反对该费用申请、Office of the United States Trustee 已就您同意的减免提交无异议声明，而该减免仅是小幅费用减免，故第一份临时费用和支出申请获准，您提交的拟议命令将予录入。因此，非常感谢。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：法官阁下，谢谢您。我非常感谢您的意见。若您希望，我可以——我可能应当提交一份反映该减免的修订命令。\n\n法庭：哦，我审阅的那一份没有包括该内容吗？\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：没有。\n\n法庭：我以为包括了。但这可能是我的——可能是我的错误。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：我认为没有包括。\n\n法庭：没有吗？好的。那么，是的，请您这样做。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：我们达成了——\n\n法庭：是我的错误。我以为包括了。但那么，是的。如果您能在本周末之前，即 21 日之前，向我们提交一份修订后的拟议命令。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：可以。没问题。\n\n法庭：我知道您可能今天就会提交，但——\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：是的。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2030\nFiled 07/24/23\nEntered 07/24/23 16:18:31\nPage 17 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2030\nFiled 07/24/23\nEntered 07/24/23 16:18:31\nPage 18 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 2023年7月18日\n\n1 法庭：——我希望为书记官办公室确定一个日期。这对他们有帮助。\n\n2 GOLDMAN 先生：没问题，法官阁下。\n\n3 法庭：因此，该申请获准，修订后的拟议命令将于 7月21日或之前提交。\n\n4 GOLDMAN 先生：是的。\n\n5 法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n6 GOLDMAN 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n7 法庭：谢谢。\n\n8 （无法辨识）原定再安排十分钟，至 12:30，但 Despins 受托人，我确有一两个关于不在今日日程表上的事项的问题。\n\n9 我的第一个问题仅涉及一项命令，该命令为 Holy City（圣城）在 23-5013 对抗程序中提交答辩状设定截止日期。\n\n10 当您提交该动议时，我理解您所寻求的内容，而这并非——我的问题是，您是否寻求签发另一份传票，还是仅寻求向 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures, Limited（圣城香港创投有限公司）送达起诉状、传票和命令？因为我认为规则并未明确是否应当另行签发传票。\n\n11 DESPINS 先生：不。我们并不寻求那样做。我们只是寻求录入一项命令。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 2023年7月18日 19 法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：附带一个截止日期。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，您有某个地址或其他信息，证明您已向 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures 送达。因为它不是——它是外国实体，所以显然您必须证明您如何向其送达。\n\nDESPINS 先生：正确。是的。是的。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的。\n\n法庭：因为显然，如果您查阅 7004 和 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（联邦民事诉讼规则）Rule 4，相关规则并不像您希望的那样明确。它未必向您提供所需采取步骤的确切说明。因此，我才会询问您是否希望另行——过去有些人曾请求签发不同的传票。我能够理解这一点，因为我不——因为规则并未作出明确规定。它只说法庭应确定提交答辩状的期限，但没有说明应通过命令、传票还是其他方式确定。因此，我没有异议。如果您认为申请一项命令可以——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2030\nFiled 07/24/23\nEntered 07/24/23 16:18:31\nPage 19 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 2023年7月18日 20 DESPINS 先生：目前——\n\n法庭：——那没有问题。\n\nDESPINS 先生：目前，我们对此没有异议，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那没有问题。那么，我们将在今日听证会结束后审阅该事项。我的意思是，我们已经审阅过，因为显然我有这个问题，但除您寻求一个未来日期之外，我们实际上并未进一步审阅。我想我必须考量该未来日期是否合适，是否应延长几天，或者您是否出于我不了解的理由而特别寻求某个日期？\n\nDESPINS 先生：我将请 Linsey 先生回答这个问题。\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nLINSEY 先生：我们只是需要一个确定日期，作为他们提交答辩的日期，以便他们构成缺席。我们的立场是，他们已被送达传票，但根据规则，在法庭设定期限前，并无——并无答辩截止日期。法庭设定期限后，我们将向他们通知该答辩期限。如法庭不同意某一具体截止日期，那么显然我们将遵从任何——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2030\nFiled 07/24/23\nEntered 07/24/23 16:18:31\nPage 20 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） July 18, 2023 21 法院认为将是适当的。法庭：好的。DESPINS（德斯平斯）先生：但我方立场是，他们已经收到通知。LINSEY（林赛）先生：当然。是的。DESPINS先生：是。法庭：你方的立场是，他们已经被送达了吗？DESPINS先生：是。法庭：不是收到通知，而是实际已被送达。DESPINS先生：正确，法官阁下。法庭：是。但他们现在需要被送达一项命令，说明其必须在何日之前提交答复，或以其他方式回应起诉状。DESPINS先生：正确。正确。法庭：好的。好。这就是我所问的那个问题。我认为目前这是我唯一的问题。因此，我不知道你们是否还有任何补充，但现在才12:24，下一场听证会要到12:30才开始。所以我不知道我们是否——你们在此之前有什么要报告的，还是休庭并在12:30回来？\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2030 提交 07/24/23 录入 07/24/23 16:18:31 第21页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） July 18, 2023 22 DESPINS先生：我认为我们可以休庭，法官阁下。谢谢。法庭：好的。那么，法庭休庭至12:30。（程序于12:25 p.m.休庭。）（程序于12:32 p.m.恢复进行。）法警：休庭后法庭现开庭。法庭：请坐。好的。我们在12:30日程上有一项事项，即ECF 1893，一项命令，要求GTV Media, Inc.（GTV传媒公司）、Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡传媒集团）及律师Aaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）出庭并说明理由，为何GTV Media Group（GTV传媒集团）和Saraca Media group（萨拉卡传媒集团）不应被认定构成民事藐视法庭。那么，今天我们如何进行？Mitchell律师在法庭内吗？好的。Mitchell律师，请上前。先生，早上好。MITCHELL先生：早上好。法庭：请陈述您的姓名，以载入记录。MITCHELL先生：法官阁下，我是来自Law Offices of Lawall & Mitchell, LLC（Lawall & Mitchell律师事务所，有限责任公司）的Aaron Mitchell。法庭：好的。下午好。那么，Mitchell律师，如果我们看这些案件，受托人大约在此前提交了一项要求强制遵从并认定某些当事人藐视法庭的动议，ECF，我想是1805，该动议提交于——请给我一点时间——\n\nMITCHELL先生：法官阁下，我相信根据该命令，是May 18th。\n\n法庭：正确。我刚才也同时看到了。May 18th。\n\n因此，这是一项要求遵从Rule 2004传票的动议，指向众多当事人。其中一些问题已经解决，另一些尚未解决。\n\n而该强制动议提出的问题之一是，GTV Media和Saraca Media Group未遵从传票，即Rule 2004传票；除GTV Media和Saraca Media外，您的姓名也是被提及的姓名之一，作为可能占有或控制对传票具有回应性的文件的当事人。好的。\n\n该藐视法庭动议旨在强制GTV Media和Saraca Media提交文件。\n\n并且，在今年June 6th举行的一场听证会上，受托人在记录中表示，他正在寻求一项命令，将GTV Media和Saraca Media Group认定为藐视法庭，因为尽管它们最初回应了传票，但自December of 2022以来一直未作回应，\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2030 提交 07/24/23 录入 07/24/23 16:18:31 第22页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 2030\n提交 07/24/23\n录入 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） July 18, 2023\n\n1 且受托人请求法院作出命令，要求您出庭并就GTV Media和Saraca——\n\n2 作证。\n\n3 \n\n4 MITCHELL先生：我不是——\n\n5 法庭：——Media Group。\n\n6 MITCHELL先生：对不起，法官阁下。\n\n7 法庭：不，请继续。\n\n8 MITCHELL先生：我看到了该命令。我在多项事项中代理Saraca和GTV。直至April\n\n9 20th of 2023，我一直是GTV唯一留任的董事。我于April 20th, 2023辞职，因此我不太确定。\n\n10 法官阁下命令我到这里来，所以我很高兴来到这里。\n\n11 \n\n12 \n\n13 法庭：是。\n\n14 MITCHELL先生：我不确定我还能做什么。\n\n15 作为对向我律所发出的传票的回应，我提交了我相信约100,000页的、与GTV\n\n16 相关的文件；这些文件处于我的占有、保管和控制之下，我向Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯）提交了这些文件，\n\n17 以回应传票。\n\n18 \n\n19 坦率地说，这就是我所拥有的。我不知道我还能提交什么。\n\n20 \n\n21 法庭：那么，我想您可以做的事情之一，也是受托人请求\n\n22 法院命令您到这里并作证的原因之一，就是就此作证，对吗？\n\n23 \n\n24 \n\n25 MITCHELL先生：当然。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2030 提交 07/24/23 录入 07/24/23 16:18:31 第24页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） July 18, 2023\n\n1 作证。\n\n2 \n\n3 SARACA——\n\n4 MITCHELL先生：我不是——\n\n5 法庭：——Media Group。\n\n6 MITCHELL先生：对不起，法官阁下。\n\n7 法庭：不，请继续。\n\n8 MITCHELL先生：我看到了该命令。我在多项事项中代理Saraca和GTV。直至April\n\n9 20th of 2023，我一直是GTV唯一留任的董事。我于April 20th, 2023辞职，因此我不太确定。\n\n10 法官阁下命令我到这里来，所以我很高兴来到这里。\n\n11 \n\n12 \n\n13 法庭：是。\n\n14 MITCHELL先生：我不确定我还能做什么。\n\n15 作为对向我律所发出的传票的回应，我提交了我相信约100,000页的、与GTV\n\n16 相关的文件；这些文件处于我的占有、保管和控制之下，我向Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯）提交了这些文件，\n\n17 以回应传票。\n\n18 \n\n19 坦率地说，这就是我所拥有的。我不知道我还能提交什么。\n\n20 \n\n21 法庭：那么，我想您可以做的事情之一，也是受托人请求\n\n22 法院命令您到这里并作证的原因之一，就是就此作证，对吗？\n\n23 \n\n24 \n\n25 MITCHELL先生：当然。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2030 提交 07/24/23 录入 07/24/23 16:18:31 第25页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） July 18, 2023 25 法庭：那么——在证据开示争议中，而这显然就是这种情形，受托人的立场是，尽管您可能提交了文件，但自December 20, 2022以来您没有提交任何文件。您对此的回应，无论您的回应是什么，但我认为他们希望您在宣誓后作出回应，我认为这没有问题。我认为这是一项正当请求。我的意思是，有时当事人会经协议提交一份在伪证处罚下作出的宣誓书。您知道，我们曾经有过——我曾经有过案件，不是本案，我曾经有过案件，其中，当事人之间存在分歧。他们无法就证据开示争议达成解决。他们无法向法院表示其问题已经解决。然后，其中一方可能提交一份宣誓书，称我已提交我占有和控制的一切文件。我向此人索取了该文件。我只是向您举一个例子——\n\nMITCHELL先生：不。我明白。\n\n法庭：——说明他们为勤勉遵从传票所做的事情。有时，这就是所需要的一切。在我多年来审理的其他案件中，当这些宣誓书已被提交，而之后又发现其他文件时，提交该宣誓书的人就会有麻烦，对吗，因为那个人\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2030 提交 07/24/23 录入 07/24/23 16:18:31 第26页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） July 18, 2023\n\n1 提交了宣誓书，并在伪证处罚下宣誓称其已提交其占有和控制之下的一切文件，\n\n2 且已勤勉遵从请求，之后，您知道，他们随后不得不\n\n3 因——因为那些陈述\n\n4 不准确，而不幸地受到制裁。\n\n5 \n\n6 \n\n7 那么，受托人Despins（德斯平斯），您是否请求我命令\n\n8 Mitchell律师在您方律师的询问下宣誓作证？\n\n9 \n\n10 DESPINS先生：法官阁下，Luft（卢夫特）先生负责此事。\n\n11 \n\n12 法庭：好的。Luft律师？\n\n13 LUFT先生：是，法官阁下。我们希望如此。\n\n14 法庭：好的。那么，Mitchell律师，您到这里是为了——作证。而这就是——它是\n\n15 什么——\n\n16 \n\n17 出庭说明理由命令于June 7th作出。正如我所说，这是ECF No. 1893。在\n\n18 该命令的第二页中写道，受托人还请求法院命令律师Aaron Mitchell出庭并\n\n19 就GTV和Saraca作证。\n\n20 \n\n21 藐视法庭动议第24至33段详细说明了受托人与GTV、Saraca及\n\n22 Mitchell律师就指向GTV和Saraca的Rule 2004传票进行的沟通。\n\n23 \n\n24 \n\n25 \n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2030 提交 07/24/23 录入 07/24/23 16:18:31 第27页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特） 27 附于藐视法庭动议的Avram Luft声明之证物C-1、C-2、D-1、D-2、E和F，支持受托人的主张，即如受托人的送达证明所示，该藐视法庭动议已向GTV和Saraca送达。然后——该命令各段写道，GTV应通过一名高级职员、董事、成员及Mitchell律师，于July 18th 12:30亲自出庭，并说明理由，为何法院不应因GTV和Saraca未回应或遵从经法院授权的传票，而将GTV和Saraca认定为民事藐视法庭。因此，律师请求您就这些问题作证。您将不在律师代理下作证吗？\n\nMITCHELL先生：法官阁下，我没有律师在场，所以我想是这样。我原以为，由于对此并无异议，因此无需作出任何证言，但是。\n\n法庭：那么，您是在说——嗯，我不确定该命令是这样写的，但是。\n\nMITCHELL先生：明白。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，我将允许——该命令确实写明您应出庭并作证。好的？并说明理由。因此，我将要求您到证人席。之后法警将为您宣誓，然后我将让Luft律师向您提出一些问题。\n\nAaron Mitchell，已宣誓\n\n法警：请陈述您的姓名和地址，以载入记录。\n\n法庭：您只需要提供您的营业地址。\n\n证人：Aaron Mitchell，55 Madison Avenue，Morristown，New Jersey，邮政编码07960。\n\n法警：谢谢。\n\n法庭：Mitchell先生，那里应该有一些水。\n\n证人：谢谢。\n\nLUFT先生：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以，请。\n\nLUFT先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n由LUFT先生进行直接询问：\n\n问 下午好，Mitchell先生。我的名字是Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特）。您好吗？\n\n答 很好，谢谢。\n\n问 Mitchell先生，我想先问一个有些例行的问题，但这涉及法院刚才向您宣读的内容。您今天仅以个人身份出庭，还是也是GTV及／或\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2030 提交 07/24/23 录入 07/24/23 16:18:31 第28页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2030 提交 07/24/23 录入 07/24/23 16:18:31 第29页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell—直接询问—Avram Luft\n\n1 Saraca的代表？\n\n2 答 我今天以个人身份出庭。\n\n3 问 据您所知，没有任何人依据法院命令为\n\n4 GTV和Saraca出庭，是吗？\n\n5 答 据我所知，没有。\n\n6 问 好的。Mitchell先生，让我们先了解一些\n\n7 背景，以便我理解您在此的角色。您目前就本案代理哪些\n\n8 实体？\n\n9 \n\n10 答 我不理解您的问题。\n\n11 问 好的。您是否担任本案任何个人的律师？\n\n12 答 您的意思是整个——我只是不确定您的\n\n13 问题。这非常笼统。\n\n14 问 是的，主案。\n\n15 答 那么您的意思是——对不起，根据我在案卷中所见，本案有大量当事人。我在多起案件中代理\n\n16 债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生。\n\n17 \n\n18 问 嗯。\n\n19 答 我不确定是否——在其他案件中，我曾表示我代理过，并且我相信我仍在几起案件中代理GTV和Saraca。\n\n20 我此前代理过Genever（吉尼弗），即申请破产的实体。\n\n21 还有多起对抗程序。我不太确定。我不想不诚实，但本案有这么多当事人，\n\n22 我并非试图回避，只是我不确定\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2030 提交 07/24/23 录入 07/24/23 16:18:31 第30页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell—直接询问—Avram Luft\n\n（无法辨认）——\n\n问：很难记清您涉及的所有人，对吗？\n\n答：是的，我代理很多个人和实体。\n\n问：好的。那么让我帮您梳理一下，我们逐一过一遍。\n\n答：当然。\n\n问：好的。您说您目前仍在破产案件中代理GTV（GTV）和Saraca（萨拉卡）。您能否——\n\n答：不，那不正确。我说的是我仍然代理他们。\n\n我并不在破产案件中代理他们。这就是为什么那个问题令人困惑。\n\n问：啊。\n\n答：在破产案件中，作为出庭律师，我唯一代理的当事人——唯一代理的人——是Kwok先生（郭文贵）。我已提交出庭通知。因此，如果这就是您的问题，那就只有Kwok先生。\n\n问：Mei Guo（郭美）呢？她说——她作证称您在本案中是她的律师，这是真的吗？\n\n答：我是她的律师。我没有在本案中出庭。我向她提供过建议，但我同样没有出庭。\n\n问：但您作为她与破产相关事项的律师，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：好的。对于GTV，您是否在破产相关事项中担任GTV的律师？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n答：否。\n\n问：您目前在哪些相关事项中担任他们的律师？\n\n答：有几起案件，我想是与破产案间接相关，投资者已在联邦法院和州法院提起诉讼，我在那些——那些事项中代理GTV。\n\n问：您记得那些案件的名称吗？\n\n答：一起是Yee先生（叶先生）。另一起是——有好几起。我正在设法想起案件中原告的姓名。我相信是Huang（黄），H-U-A-N-G。我相信Wang（王）案已经解决，W-A-N-G，该案在Connecticut（康涅狄格州）提起。还有几起我一时想不起来。\n\n问：好的。\n\n答：我认为大约有五六起。其中大多数因破产案而中止。我认为Yee案以及——我认为是——我认为是在New York（纽约州）提起的Huang案也没有中止。\n\n法庭书记官：请原谅。Mitchell律师，您能把麦克风稍微拉近一点吗？\n\n证人：这样好些吗？\n\n法院：是的。这样好些。\n\n证人：好的。\n\n法院：这样好些。\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特） 32\n\n法庭书记官：谢谢。\n\n法院：有时它——是的。我本该对您说这一点。\n\n证人：抱歉。\n\n法院：我们必须——\n\n证人：当我觉得自己也偏离麦克风时，我知道那是——\n\n法院：我们必须——我们的记录仅有音频。因此，如果法庭书记官听不见，我确实请她确保这一点。因为如果有人想要文字记录，他们将无法听清所说的内容。转录记录的人并不在法庭内。\n\n证人：明白。我道歉。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n由LUFT先生询问：\n\n问：好的。Mitchell先生，让我问您同样的问题——所以您说，您目前大约在五六起案件中代理GTV？\n\n答：大约是的。\n\n问：Saraca Media（萨拉卡媒体）呢？\n\n答：是同样的案件，Saraca也被列为被告。\n\n问：好的。现在，我听到您将New Jersey（新泽西州）Morristown（莫里斯敦）的一个地址说成是您的营业地址？\n\n答：正确。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n第32页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n问：我有函件显示，您的营业地址是Manhattan（曼哈顿）East 64th Street 162号。\n\n答：现在不是了。\n\n问：那是什么时候不再是您的地址？\n\n答：三年前。\n\n问：三年前？\n\n答：上下浮动。我不太确定。大约三年前。\n\n问：好的。事实上，在提交破产申请之后，那仍是您的营业地址，对吗？\n\n答：我相信是的。\n\n问：那不到三年前。\n\n答：也许是两年前。\n\n问：至少截至2022年6月，您仍在Kwok先生的办公室办公？\n\n答：我并非在那里办公。我在那里有一间办公室，并收取邮件。\n\n问：在您看来，在一个办公室办公和在那里从事业务，与收取邮件之间有什么区别？\n\n答：区别在于，我从未需要到该办公室报到。我没有必须去那里的要求。但我在使用它。我使用那里的空间，以便收取与Kwok先生案件相关的邮件，因为他可能成为威胁及类似事情的目标，所以我认为，在我为他提起案件时，使用那个地址作为我代理业务的地址更好。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n问：所以那只是一个邮箱？\n\n答：本质上是的。\n\n问：您从未在那间办公室办公？\n\n答：我会去那里与Kwok先生会面，但我从未——除了与他会面以及——我的意思是，我想实际上就这些。\n\n问：那也是GTV和Saraca的营业地址，对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：那么，当您为他们作为客户开展工作时，您也会在那里与他们会面吗？\n\n答：不会。\n\n问：您会在哪里与他们会面？\n\n答：通过电话。\n\n问：您代表他们与谁交谈？\n\n答：嗯，过去一年左右，没有人可以交谈。我是董事，所以没有人可以交谈。那里没有其他人。\n\n在此之前，在Saraca，我会与Dan Podhaskie（丹·波达斯基）交谈，拼写为P-O-D-H-A-S-K-I-E，以及Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王），W-A-N-G。\n\n问：好的。现在，您说您于2023年4月辞职？\n\n答：正确。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2030 提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n158 第35页\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特） 35\n\n问：现在Saraca和GTV有哪些人？\n\n答：据我所知，没有任何人。\n\n问：在2022年12月，除了您自己外，那些实体中还有其他人吗？\n\n答：我不知道。2022年12月？我认为GTV没有。在Saraca，我不知道该问题的答案。\n\n问：就代理他们而言，如果您在12月需要与Saraca的人交谈，您会与谁交谈？\n\n答：没有人可以交谈。我不需要与任何人交谈。案件主要处于中止状态。与Saraca有关而未被中止的仅有Huang案和Yee案，而且——当时没有任何进展。\n\n问：好的。您还在破产相关事项中代理HK (USA)（HK（美国））？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：Quan（读音）Guo先生，您是否以任何方式在破产相关事项中代理他？\n\n答：我不知道那是谁。先生？\n\n问：债务人的儿子。\n\n答：哦，Guo Qiang（郭强）。是。\n\n问：所以您也在破产相关事项中代理他？\n\n答：是。再次说明，显然如您所知，我没有出庭，但我向他提供过建议，是的。\n\n问：好的。债务人的妻子Hing Chi Ngok（兴志乐）呢？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n答：不。\n\n问：Golden Spring（黄金泉）呢？您是否在——\n\n答：没有——\n\n问：——破产相关事项中，在任何时候代理Golden Spring？\n\n答：完全没有。我没有在破产相关事项中代理过他们。这就是为什么——抱歉，我打断了您。我不是故意的。我过去曾在一些事项中代理过他们，但不是在破产案中。\n\n问：您在哪些事项中代理Golden Spring？\n\n答：我不记得。有若干诉讼中，Golden Spring因雇佣问题及类似事项而被列为被告。凭我的记忆，我觉得原告是在New York County（纽约县）。我觉得原告是Zhang（张），Z-H-A-N-G。或者我可能将其与GTV混淆了。我们就称之为投资者案件。我相信在Arizona（亚利桑那州）的是Zhang，Z-H-A-N-G。而涉及Golden Spring的案件是Zhuang（庄），Z-H-U-A-N-G。\n\n问：Golden Spring在本案中也未对证据开示作出回应。您知道现在谁在那里负责吗？\n\n答：我完全不知道。我已远超过一年没有与Golden Spring的任何人交谈。我知道大约在那个时候，曾有一个关于联系任何人以获得建议的问题。\n\n问：Golden Spring由Yvette Wang经营，对吗？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n答：曾经是。我不知道——我不知道现在是什么情况。我不认为她现在经营它，因为有一次我向她征求指示，而她无法给我。\n\n问：您已超过一年未与Yvette Wang交谈？\n\n答：那根本不是我所说的。\n\n问：嗯，她在Golden Spring，所以？\n\n答：她曾经是——在我与她交谈时，她告诉我她不在Golden Spring。\n\n问：好的。您最后一次与Yvette Wang交谈是什么时候？\n\n答：我不记得最后一次与Yvette Wang交谈是什么时候。\n\n问：您最好的记忆是什么？\n\n答：六个月前，或许更短。我自她被逮捕后就没有与她交谈，那是三四个月前，所以可能是五个月前。\n\n问：Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）呢？\n\n答：关于Max Krasner的什么问题？\n\n问：您最后一次与他交谈是什么时候？\n\n答：我认为大约四个月前。\n\n问：您知道他当时在哪里吗？\n\n答：我完全不知道他当时在哪里。他给我打电话。\n\n问：好的。我们将确定您代理范围的其余部分。您是否曾向Lamp Capital（兰普资本）提供法律服务？\n\n答：没有。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交日期 07/24/23 录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31 第38页\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特） 38\n\n问：Greenwich Land（格林尼治地产）？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技）？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：HCHK Property（HCHK物业）？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Lexington Property Management（列克星敦物业管理）？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：G-Club（G俱乐部）呢？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您在哪些事项中代理G-Club？\n\n答：我就一项已提交的仲裁向他们提供过建议，以及一般性的法律建议。\n\n问：您在那里与谁交谈？\n\n答：我与Carlos交谈——我完全想不起来了，他们的首席执行官和总法律顾问。实际上是Carlo（卡洛），不是Carlos。我不记得Carlo的姓氏。首席执行官是谁？他们两人都辞职了。我不记得。是一名女性。我想不起她的名字。\n\n问：Mitchell先生，您是否还就与债务人有关联的任何其他实体提供过法律建议？\n\n答：对于“与债务人有关联”，我无法回答该问题。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n问：他是家属，他参与经营的实体？我可以继续列举实体，但我正试图加快进程。\n\n答：明白。但这是一个宽泛的问题。我想您明白。\n\n问：当然。G Fashion（G时尚）呢，您是否曾向他们提供法律建议？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您为他们做了什么？\n\n答：有一笔钱——一家银行——从他们的账户中移走了，我被要求协助他们尝试使该笔资金解除冻结或取回。我不知道。就这些。我们进行过一次交谈，但此后从未就此采取任何行动。\n\n问：您在G Fashion与谁交谈？\n\n答：一名女性，我现在想不起她的名字，Tia（蒂娅）或Lia（莉娅）什么的。\n\n问：G-Music（G音乐）呢？\n\n法院：我能否请您再说一次您的回答，因为我没听清。\n\n证人：当然。\n\n法院：Tia还是Lia？\n\n证人：我相信是Tia，T-I-A，或Lia，L-I-A。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n证人：这就是我的记忆。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n法官：\n您拼写时很有帮助。谢谢。\n\n证人：\n当然。绝对可以。抱歉。\n\n法官：\n很有帮助。谢谢。\n\n证人：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法官：\n是。\n\n证人：\nG-Music（G音乐）？我想是的。有一次有人请我协助他们审阅一份他们拟就与某首歌曲有关事项订立的协议。我不确切记得是什么，但我就此给了他们一些意见。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n问 G-News（G新闻）？\n\n答 没有。我不认为——我甚至不确定 G-News 是否是一个实体。是吗？\n\n问 我相信它刚刚试图收购 HCHK Properties（HCHK地产），所以我假定它是。\n\n答 哦，好的。我从未向他们提供过任何意见。我很久以前知道它是一个网站，不过。\n\n问 好的。Hudson Diamond（哈德逊钻石）？\n\n答 没有。\n\n问 好的。再次说，我可以继续问下去，但还有没有其他实体——这些都是您知道与债务人有关联的实体，对吗？\n\n答 再次说，我不太愿意使用“关联”这个词。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n问 您希望用什么词来联系、描述它们之间的关系？\n\n答 我不知道。我不知道是否存在这种关系。\n\n问 您不认为债务人与我刚才提到的所有实体之间存在联系？在宣誓作证的情况下？\n\n答 我不了解其中一些实体，所以无法回答。\n\n问 您了解的那些呢？\n\n答 我了解的那些？我不知道您所说的“联系”是什么意思。我不愿意就任一方向作证。我的意思是——\n\n问 好。那么“关联”呢？\n\n答 再次说，我不知道您说的是什么意思。\n\n问 那么“联系”呢？\n\n答 还是一样。\n\n问 这些词您都不懂吗？\n\n答 我懂这些词，但我不太愿意——看起来您是在试图以某种方式将他与这些公司联系起来。例如，让我举个例子。如果他——如果他在 G-News 上发布了一段视频，无论他是否在该公司拥有任何权益，您会认为那属于关联吗？只是为了让我明白您在问什么。\n\n问 不会。如果他只是在 G-News 上发布了一段视频，我不会说他与其有关联。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交日期 07/24/23 录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 42 页\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特） 42\n\n答 好的。\n\n问 好的。\n\n答 所以您的问题是，我是否认为他——\n\n问 我提到的那些您所了解的实体——\n\n答 是。\n\n问 ——它们都与债务人有关联，对吗？\n\n答 我不知道我是否同意这一点。\n\n问 您担任 Kwok 先生的律师多少年了？\n\n答 五年，五年或六年。\n\n问 您一直在与其商业交易有关的事项上担任他的律师？\n\n答 我不认为他有任何商业交易。Kwok 先生？\n\n问 是的，本案的债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），您认为他没有任何商业交易？\n\n答 我所理解的商业交易，是指他投资于或拥有一家企业。您是这个意思吗？\n\n问 可以是投资。可以是管理。可以是经营。可以是提供资金。所有这些都可以涉及其中。\n\n答 在我们提到的任何公司中，我都没有见过他做过任何这些事情。\n\n问 好的。我们为什么不继续。\n\n答 当然。\n\n问 您曾担任 GTV（GTV传媒集团）的董事和高级管理人员？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n答 是——董事。\n\n问 好的。与您一起的其他董事是谁？\n\n答 目前吗？目前我不是董事。在过去一年半中，我曾有一年是唯一的董事。大约在 GTV 与 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）达成和解时，其他董事辞职了，而我留下来，以便在 SEC 需要协助把钱返还给投资者时提供帮助。\n\n问 此前辞职的董事是谁？\n\n答 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）。Yvette Wang（王雁）。Steve Bannon（史蒂夫·班农）曾一度担任董事。Kyle Bass（凯尔·巴斯）曾一度担任董事。John Morgan（约翰·摩根）曾一度担任董事。还有另一位先生，我一时想不起他的名字。他是得克萨斯州的一名对冲基金经理。我想不起他的名字。他也是董事。\n\n问 GTV 的董事？\n\n答 是。我相信就是这些。\n\n问 好的。王女士曾任 GTV 的总裁兼秘书？\n\n答 曾有一段时间，是的。\n\n问 GTV 是否曾有其他总裁？\n\n答 我相信 Max Krasner 曾担任 GTV 的总裁。\n\n问 在王女士之前还是之后？\n\n答 您知道，您这么一说，我现在想起来，我不认为王女士曾经担任过总裁。我认为是 Krasner 先生。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n答 Krasner 先生。我记得王女士是秘书。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，我可以向证人出示一份文件吗？\n\n法官：\n可以。但有多少份文件？我的意思是，您目前尚未标记任何文件。那么您是否打算申请将该文件作为证据接纳？\n\n卢夫特先生：\n嗯，目前我只是想用它看看能否唤起证人的记忆——\n\n法官：\n好的。好。可以。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n——我们可以讨论——\n\n法官：\n如果您是用它来唤起他的记忆，可以。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n好的。为标记起见，法官阁下，我将把这份文件称为 Mitchell 1（米切尔1号）。\n\n法官：\n嗯，我认为除非您打算将其作为证据提出，否则我们不必做任何事，对吗？目前您只是用它来唤起他的记忆。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n正确。只是为了——\n\n法官：\n所以——\n\n卢夫特先生：\n好的。\n\n法官：\n——如果您能为记录说明它是什么。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n可以。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交日期 07/24/23 录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 45 页\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n法官：\n好的。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n问 Mitchell 先生，我将向您出示一份题为“截至 August 15th, 2020 的 Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡传媒集团公司）组织结构图”的文件。我向您陈述，该文件来自 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）的档案。\n\n答 我可以问一下吗——抱歉，您刚才问我有关 GTV 的事情，现在要向我出示一份与 Saraca 有关的文件？\n\n问 我想一旦您看到它——\n\n答 好的。\n\n问 ——您就会明白。\n\n法官：\n目前，我只允许律师向您出示此文件，因为他告诉我，该文件将唤起您的记忆。\n\n证人：\n当然。不，我明白。\n\n法官：\n好的。所以那是——\n\n证人：\n我只是感到困惑，因为它们是两个——\n\n法官：\n明白。但我只是想明确，目前我们对这份文件所做的仅此而已。好吗？\n\n卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，我可以走近证人吗？\n\n法官：\n可以。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n问 Mitchell 先生，您看到这是一份组织结构图吗？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n答 这就是——是的，这就是它所称的内容。\n\n问 在 Saraca Media Group 项下，如果您看页面左侧，是否写着 GTV Media Group（GTV传媒集团）？\n\n答 是，我看到了。\n\n问 在董事项下，是否写着 Steve Bannon、Aaron Mitchell、John Morgan 和 Yvette Wang？\n\n答 是，我看到了。\n\n问 然后在高级管理人员项下，是否写着 Yvette Wang，总裁/秘书，财务主管 Anthony DeBatista（安东尼·德巴蒂斯塔）？\n\n答 我看到了。\n\n问 这是否唤起了您的记忆，即王女士曾担任 GTV 的总裁？\n\n答 没有。这并不意味着这不是真的。我不对其作任何方向的争议。我不记得 Yvette 曾担任总裁。但有这种可能。Krasner 先生辞职了，我看到这里注明了这一点，也许王女士后来成为总裁。我不记得。我不争议这一点，但——\n\n问 您在董事会任职，却不知道公司的总裁是谁？\n\n答 我不记得是谁。\n\n问 好的。在您持有该文件时，您是否记得王女士曾担任 Saraca 的总裁、秘书兼财务主管？\n\n答 我不知道她的职务是什么。我知道她是——我原以为她是董事，这里也是这样写的。至于她在 Saraca 担任哪些高级管理职务，我不——我不记得。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特） 47\n\n问 那么这里称她是总裁、秘书兼财务主管的陈述，并未唤起您的记忆？\n\n答 没有。但我没有任何依据对其作任何方向的争议。\n\n问 好的。\n\n答 我确信，如果它来自 Hodgson Russ，假定它不是草稿，那么它很可能是准确的。\n\n问 好的。您是否记得 GTV 的所有者是谁？\n\n答 GTV 的母公司是 Saraca，此外还有获得股份的投资者。\n\n问 您是否记得 Saraca 的所有者是谁？\n\n答 不记得。但根据这份文件，如果我读取正确，上面写的是 Hudson Diamond Holding, Inc.（哈德逊钻石控股公司）。\n\n问 您是否记得 Hudson Diamond, Inc. 的所有者是谁？\n\n答 不记得。\n\n问 所以尽管您是董事——\n\n答 我不想说我不记得。公平地说，我认为我从未知道过。我不——我从未代理过 Hudson Diamond Holding，也从未与其有过任何往来。\n\n问 GTV Media 出售过证券？\n\n答 有过一次私募发行，是的。\n\n问 您当时在董事会任职？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特） 48\n\n答 是。\n\n问 但尽管如此，除您刚才告诉我的内容外，您从未了解 GTV 的最终所有权归谁所有？\n\n答 是 Saraca。\n\n问 而您对 Saraca 所知的唯一情况是，它由一家名为 Hudson Diamond, Inc. 的实体所有？\n\n答 正确。\n\n问 您从未查明谁拥有该实体？\n\n答 不，我不知道谁拥有该实体。\n\n问 尽管出售了某家据称由其拥有的公司的证券？\n\n答 抱歉。我没有很好地听懂那个问题。\n\n问 当然。我想问的是，作为董事，当您向公众出售证券时，除了一个公司名称外，您是否曾费心查明，谁拥有您向公众为其——就其出售证券的实体？\n\n答 您的问题有几个不正确的前提。没有人曾经发行——我从未向公众出售证券。该证券是一次私募发行。从未向公众发行。因此我无法回答——对您的问题的回答是——我想没有办法回答，因为它假定了几件不真实的事情。\n\n问 所以您的意思是，证券并非出售给公众，而是——因为这是一次私募发行？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n答 正确。\n\n问 而您在出售方面没有任何角色？\n\n答 就哪方面而言？\n\n问 您是否在材料中被列为董事？\n\n答 是。是的。\n\n问 因此，该公司将您的姓名列入并在其——发行备忘录中就其所作事项加以陈述？\n\n答 正确。\n\n问 但您仍然从未费心查明，据称是谁拥有该公司，除了一个未具名的公司——没有个人，仅仅是一家位于 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）的公司实体？\n\n答 是。事实上，我甚至不知道他们在 BVI。他们不在 BVI。Saraca Media Group 是所有者。\n\n问 其由 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc. 所有，而该公司位于 BVI，对吗？\n\n答 是。说实话，我不知道他们位于 BVI。\n\n问 知道这一点对您不重要吗？\n\n答 不，不重要。\n\n问 好的。除 GTV 外，您还曾担任过哪些实体的董事？\n\n答 GETTR Media Group, Inc.（盖特尔传媒集团公司）。\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特） 50 问：您目前是否仍然——答：是。问：——是 GETTR（GETTR）的成员？谁拥有 GETTR？答：GETTR——有两个股东，Hamilton（汉密尔顿）和 Freedom Media Ventures, Inc.（自由媒体风险投资公司）。问：这两个实体都与一名名叫 William Gee（威廉·纪）的人有关联，对吗？答：不，我不这么认为。问：您确定吗？答：是的，我确定。我认为 Hamilton 是。我不认为 Freedom Media 以任何方式有关联。问：Kwok（郭文贵）先生与这些实体的所有权有关联，对吗？答：据我所知并非如此。我知道他——我知道他和 William 是同事，但除此之外，我不知道有任何关联。问：当您说 Kwok 先生和 Gee 先生是同事时，您是什么意思？答：我知道他们彼此认识。问：只是点头之交，还是他们一起做生意？答：我不认为他们一起做生意。我知道他们——我不清楚他们之间究竟是什么关系。问：您知道 Gee 先生向 Kwok 先生借钱，对吧？还有他的家人？Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 50 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2030\nFiled 07/24/23\nEntered 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1 答：我知道他向该家庭借钱，是的。\n2 问：事实上，2022 年 4 月听证会期间，本院要求提供保证金时，\n3 是您协助安排 Gee 先生汇出\n4 $37 million，对吗？那是您做的？\n5 答：是我做的什么？\n6 问：是谁协助安排 Gee 先生向 Guo（郭）女士\n7 汇出 $37 million？\n8 答：我协助了？我不明白“那是您做的”\n9 是什么意思。\n10 问：我的意思是，当您说您协助了，我说的是您。\n11 答：我没有就此进行谈判。\n12 问：什么？\n13 答：如果您问的是这个，我没有就此谈判，或做任何类似的事。\n14 \n15 问：那么您做了什么？\n16 答：我给 Gee 先生打了几个电话。\n17 问：Gee 先生说了什么？\n18 答：他说他会与 Mei Guo（郭梅）谈谈，如果他能够帮忙，\n19 他们会想办法解决。\n20 问：您给 Gee 先生打电话时，您告诉他什么？\n21 答：该家庭——Mei 需要筹集一些钱\n22 来帮助处理破产事宜。\n23 问：还有别的吗？\n24 答：没有。\n25 问：所以，如我所说，您协助安排了 $37 million？\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特） 52 答：在那个语境下，是的。问：您还有其他时候就向 Kwok 先生或其家人支付款项一事与 Gee 先生沟通过吗？答：我不认为有，没有。问：您还有其他时候就一般性的款项问题与 Gee 先生沟通过吗？答：有。问：在什么背景下？答：实际上，我代理 Gee 先生。问：哦，您也代理 Gee 先生？答：是。问：好的。您就什么事项代理 Gee 先生？答：只是一般法律建议。问：关于什么？答：只是一般性的。如果他对美国法律有疑问，我会给他答复。问：好的。我问的是您就哪些主题事项代理 Gee 先生？答：我不确定什么——再次强调，一般建议。我不确定您在问什么。问：比如交通罚单？婚姻家庭事项？Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 52 of\n\n答：没有，我从未就交通罚单向他提供建议。我从未就婚姻家庭事项提供建议。\n\n问：好的。那么请想一想，您曾就哪些事项代理他、向他提供过建议，并请告诉我。您就哪些法律事项——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2030\nFiled 07/24/23\nEntered 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1 向他提供过建议，请告诉我。您就哪些法律事项\n2 ——\n3 答：我不知道该如何——\n4 问：——代理他的？\n5 答：我不知道如何能够在不提出\n6 特权主张的情况下这样做。\n7 问：我认为，在特权清单中说明您提供\n8 法律建议的一般主题事项，是通常做法。\n9 我不会问——我问的并不超过这个范围。\n10 \n11 答：我不认为那是正确的。如果是通过电话，我\n12 不认为您必须就电话交谈提供特权清单。\n13 \n14 问：我认为您必须——问题不在于您是否必须\n15 出具特权清单。我感觉自己正在就此争论。\n16 但坦率地说，我认为特权——\n17 提供您据以提供法律建议的一般主题事项，并不构成披露特权。\n18 这\n19 很常见，这正是我所问的。我并未要求您\n20 进一步说明。\n21 答：如果他打算在美国进行投资，他会就获得——\n22 获得企业或财产的可能方式向我寻求法律建议，\n23 我会向他提供建议。\n24 \n25 问：您是否曾就您与 Gee 先生讨论的事项中的法律建议，\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2030\nFiled 07/24/23\nEntered 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1 与 Kwok 先生进行过沟通？\n2 \n3 答：我不明白您的问题。\n4 问：当然。您说您曾提供——\n5 答：我能否——抱歉。我能否问一下，这与\n6 关于 GTV（GTV）及藐视法庭的说明理由命令有什么关系？我只是想知道如何——\n7 \n8 卢夫特先生：我很乐意解释，法官阁下。\n9 法庭：是的。您确实需要解释，因为\n10 我们确实需要重新聚焦于——\n11 卢夫特先生：当然，法官阁下。\n12 法庭：——传票，请。\n13 卢夫特先生：法官阁下，我问这个问题的原因\n14 是，因为，如我们将会发现的，Mitchell 先生\n15 既是董事，也是他们的法律顾问。他是被指示让我去——\n16 \n17 法庭：谁的董事和——\n18 卢夫特先生：GTV 的。\n19 法庭：好的。\n20 卢夫特先生：然后，就 Saraca（萨拉卡）而言，他是法律顾问\n21 在我们要求他们最终出示文件的当天突然退出后，我被指示向其\n22 获取信息的人。而且我认为，Mitchell 先生与——\n23 我想了解，因为 Mitchell 先生随后\n24 告诉我他无法做到，而且他不了解这些\n25 事情，他怎么能回答问题。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2030\nFiled 07/24/23\nEntered 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1 事情，他怎么能回答问题。\n2 因此，我确实想了解他与 Kwok 先生所有实体之间的关联，\n3 因为有很多缺失的文件，\n4 我想了解他参与了哪些实体，\n5 因为我正在寻找那些文件。\n6 法庭：我明白。但此刻我们所讨论的是——您需要聚焦——我认为您是在告诉我，您正聚焦于您所主张的\n7 \n8 Mitchell 先生作为 GTV 和\n9 Saraca 两者的高级职员及董事的身份。\n10 对吗？\n11 卢夫特先生：GTV 的高级职员及董事。\n12 我的理解是，他曾担任\n13 Saraca 的法律顾问。我会弄清楚。他已告诉我，他不是\n14 Saraca 的董事。\n15 法庭：好的。\n16 卢夫特先生：好的。但我很乐意——\n17 法庭：我将允许您继续，但我们\n18 确实需要聚焦于传票。\n19 卢夫特先生：很好。我们继续。\n20 由卢夫特先生询问：\n21 问：请告诉我，GTV 的当前状况如何？\n22 答：我不知道您是什么意思。有——\n23 问：它是否仍在运营？\n24 答：没有。\n25 问：但它有尚未终结的诉讼，您仍在其中代理它，\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2030\nFiled 07/24/23\nEntered 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1 对吗？\n2 答：嗯，除两起外，所有案件都已中止；其中一起后来——一起不再中止，另一起，嗯，\n3 另一起也已中止。最近发生了一些\n4 情况，导致它们变成，我想——“解除中止”是个词吗——\n5 不再中止。\n6 \n7 问：GTV 是何时——何时停止运营的？\n8 答：坦率地说，几年前。在与 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）和解之前，\n9 该公司已不再运营。\n10 员工全都离开了。网站也已关闭。\n11 此后，就只是试图与 SEC 合作，将钱返还给投资者。\n12 \n13 问：Saraca Media（萨拉卡媒体）的当前状况如何？\n14 答：我不知道。我不认为那里还有任何人。我\n15 相信 Wang（王）女士已辞职。这就是我所知道的\n16 关于 Saraca 的全部情况。\n17 问：那是什么时候发生的？\n18 答：我不知道。我在大约六至九个月前得知，也许是六个月前，\n19 就在所提及的律师 Temkin（坦普金）先生辞职前不久。\n20 此前不久，\n21 我得知 Saraca 已没有任何人。\n22 问：谁告诉您的？\n23 答：Wang 女士告诉我她已辞职。我相信——\n24 我不确定是她告诉我的，还是我由此推断出\n25 那里没有其他人，因为我相信她是唯一仍留在\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 57 of\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1 Saraca 的人。\n2 问：GTV 将其文件保存在何处？\n3 答：GTV 的文件在 162 East 64th Street（东64街162号）。然后\n4 它们——现在由我保管。我不——但我在此期间没有取得它们。\n5 而且我相信，您已通过我代表 Lawall & Mitchell（劳沃尔与米切尔律师事务所）所作的出示，\n6 收到所有文件的电子副本。\n7 \n8 问：Mitchell 先生，请让我们说得非常清楚。您是否曾告诉\n9 我，您代理 GTV 并代表其就一份传票出示文件？\n10 \n11 答：没有，我没有作出——没有——我不认为曾代表 GTV 作出文件出示。\n12 \n13 我告诉您的是，您从我个人处收到了文件；正如我在此代表自己作证，\n14 我向您提供了来自 GTV 的、\n15 我所持有的文件。我相信大约有 100,000 页。\n16 \n17 \n18 问：您是根据向您而非向 GTV 发出的传票出示文件，\n19 对吗？\n20 答：向我律师事务所发出的传票，正确。\n21 问：为什么您没有代理 GTV 并出示文件——当时 Temkin 先生告诉我就此事\n22 与您交谈？\n23 \n24 答：为什么？我根本不明白您的问题。为什么\n25 我没有向您提供我已经给过您的文件？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2030\nFiled 07/24/23\nEntered 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1 问：不。您当时没有把它们给我，Mitchell\n2 先生。\n3 答：在您——在您代表 GTV 联系我之前，您绝对已经\n4 从我这里得到 GTV 文件，即 Lawall & Mitchell 持有的那些文件，\n5 您绝对已经有了那些文件。\n6 毫无疑问。而且我可以给您\n7 Bates 编号。\n8 问：好的。\n9 答：以及电子邮件，如果您愿意。\n10 问：我们会逐一核对，Mitchell 先生。Saraca\n11 Media——Saraca Media 的文件保存在哪里？\n12 答：我不知道。\n13 问：您代理他们——就我想您所说，目前有五六起案件。您不知道\n14 他们将文件保存在何处？\n15 答：我不知道他们将文件保存在何处。\n16 问：您如何进行证据开示？\n17 答：我不——您说我如何进行证据开示是什么意思？\n18 问：如果您不知道客户的文件在哪里，\n19 您如何进行证据开示？\n20 答：证据开示已经完成。\n21 问：您进行证据开示时，文件在哪里？\n22 答：它们在——它们在一个平台上，一个电子\n23 平台上。\n24 问：那是什么地方？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 59 of\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1 答：您是指该公司？\n2 问：是的。什么电子平台？\n3 答：Terrace（特雷斯）。\n4 问：Terrace。它们没有保存在——它们没有——\n5 Saraca Media 没有纸质文件档案？\n6 答：我完全不知道。\n7 问：您从未为了证据开示而检索它们？\n8 答：没有，因为全都是电子文件。\n9 问：Terrace 的服务器在哪里？\n10 答：我完全不知道。\n11 问：您如何访问 Terrace\n12 服务器上的文件？\n13 答：在线。\n14 问：通过什么？\n15 答：Terrace。\n16 问：什么？您如何访问它们？\n17 答：我不明白您的问题。我——我登录\n18 并访问它们。我并非——我并非试图回避。\n19 我不太懂电脑。我登录。我上\n20 网站。我登录，然后便可访问文件。\n21 我审阅了它们，并出示了具有关联性和/或\n22 不受特权保护的文件。\n23 问：好的。谁维护并保管那些——\n24 GTV 的记录？\n25 答：再次，我不明白。您是指 Terrace，是\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 60 of\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n这是否是您所问的？\n\n问 不是。我的意思是，公司中谁负责保管 GTV（郭媒体）的记录和档案？\n\n答 在哪一时间点？\n\n问 在其停止运营之前。\n\n答 我推测应当是秘书和/或 GTV 的一名员工。\n\n问 好的。\n\n答 我并不确定。\n\n问 我只是想明确一下。您的证言是否是，在您个人提交的材料中，您已向我们提交了 GTV 的全部文件，即 GTV 文件的完整范围？\n\n答 您的意思是我所在律师事务所提交的材料？\n\n问 嗯，我是向您送达的，所以。\n\n答 为记录在案，您是向 Lawall & Mitchell（劳沃尔与米切尔律师事务所）送达的。\n\n问 好的。\n\n答 对吗？嗯，您知道，我必须作证，但您是向 Lawall & Mitchell 送达的，而我是以该所身份作出回应的。\n\n问 好的。\n\n答 您并未向我个人送达传票，没有。\n\n问 好的。那么，Lawall & Mitchell 是否提交了 GTV 文件的完整范围？\n\n答 我不知道他们是否提交了。他们提交了——我查看了 Terrace（特勒斯）上可获得的文件，并提交了我想是在该网站上存储的所有具有回应性的文件。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）——直接询问——Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n问 那么，GTV 的文件也——\n\n答 对。\n\n问 ——存储在 Terrace 上？\n\n答 是。是的。它们都是为回应 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）的传票而存储在 Terrace 上的。\n\n问 嗯，Temkin 先生告诉我，您的文件并未包含在该——该数据库中。您曾具体告诉我，该数据库不包含 GTV 的全部文件。您谈及 Terrace 数据库时，是否指为 SEC 创建的那个数据库？\n\n答 是的。\n\n问 好的。那么——Temkin 先生告诉我，那并非 GTV 的全部文件。GTV 其余的文件在哪里？\n\n答 那就是我所知的全部文件。\n\n问 好的。那么 Saraca（萨拉卡）呢？\n\n答 公平地说，作为董事，我确实有几封发给股票过户代理机构 V Stock（维斯托克）的电子邮件。抱歉，是 V Stock 还是 Equity（艾奎蒂）。\n\n法庭：您知道如何拼写吗？\n\n证人：我正试图回想是哪一家，是否是 V Stock。我们提到过其中一家，但没有使用它。我们使用了另一家。我相信是 Equity，E-Q-U-I-T-Y。不过，无论股票过户代理人是谁，作为 GTV 的董事，我个人与其有一些往来电子邮件尚未提交，因为——再次说明，它们不属于对 Lawall & Mitchell 传票的回应范围。\n\n法庭：不过，您之前所用的名称是 V，像 Victor，Stock 吗？\n\n证人：V，像 Victor，Stock。\n\n法庭：Victor Stock。\n\n证人：是。\n\n法庭：好的。V Stock。好的。谢谢。这将有助于了解。谢谢。\n\n证人：当然。\n\n由卢夫特先生发问：\n\n问 它们是否属于对 GTV 传票的回应范围？\n\n答 我认为不是。\n\n问 您是否审查过 GTV 传票的相关性？\n\n答 不太算，没有。\n\n问 那么 Saraca 呢，就 Lawall & Mitchell 提交的材料而言，您是否提交了 Saraca 文件的完整范围？\n\n答 我拥有的所有——所有文件，是的。\n\n问 那么，您拥有 Saraca 的哪些文件？\n\n答 提交给您的那些文件。我相信提交了一些所有权文件。或者说，组织文件可能是更恰当的说法。以及最初提供的提交材料中包含的任何其他文件。我不记得具体是什么。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n第 63 页，共\n\n亚伦·米切尔——直接询问——阿夫拉姆·卢夫特\n\n问 因此，您并不是声称，Lawall & Mitchell 提交的材料涵盖了我们向 Saraca Media（萨拉卡媒体）要求的全部文件范围，对吗？\n\n答 不，不是。我无法想象它涵盖了。\n\n问 好的。让我们转到——\n\n答 为明确起见，我并不确定，但我会假定文件多于我所提交的那些。\n\n问 好的。让我们转到 Temkin 先生，他是一名——他曾是 Morvillo（莫维略律师事务所）的律师，对吗？\n\n答 对。\n\n问 您是否聘请他在与 2004 传票有关的事项中代表 GTV 和 Saraca？\n\n答 我没有聘请他代表 Saraca。他确实代表 Saraca，但不是我聘请他的。\n\n问 您聘请他代表 GTV？\n\n答 嗯，我当时是 GTV 的董事会成员，所以我认为这样说是公平的。\n\n问 您是代表 GTV 被送达该传票，即 2004 传票的人，对吗？\n\n答 我不记得是否确实如此。我认为是您送达的。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\n亚伦·米切尔——直接询问——阿夫拉姆·卢夫特\n\n答 如果您这样表示，我没有任何理由——\n\n问 我可以向您出示发给 Linsey 先生的电子邮件。\n\n答 我没有理由对此提出异议。我确实不记得了。但如果您这样表示，我接受您的说法。\n\n问 当您收到该传票后，您做了什么？\n\n答 我相信——谢谢——我相信我将其交给 Temkin 先生处理回应。\n\n问 好的。那么 Temkin 先生如何会在完全相同的时间代表 Saraca？\n\n答 在 SEC 事项期间——为回应 SEC 的传票及相关和解，Temkin 先生已在代表 Saraca。Cahill（卡希尔律师事务所）代表 GTV。现在在贵所任职的 Brad Bondi（布拉德·邦迪）是 GTV 的律师。他被解聘了。随后，Temkin 先生——当时，和解实际上已经谈妥，Temkin 先生代表 GTV 和 Saraca 完成和解事宜。\n\n问 就 2004 事项而言，谁联系 Saraca 以代表——谁联系 Temkin 先生以代表 Saraca？\n\n答 我不记得。我可能将传票转发给了他。我确实不记得究竟是哪一种情况。\n\n问 好的。11 月 28 日，我的同事 John Kashuwicz（约翰·卡舒维奇）向 Temkin 先生的律师事务所发送电子邮件，告知他们，鉴于数月未提交文件，我们要求他们最终于 12 月 2 日提交材料。\n\n我们收到回复，告知我们，截至当日，Morvillo 将不再代表 GTV。\n\n您是否参与了 Morvillo 作出在我们要求提交材料的同一天停止代表 GTV 的决定？\n\n答 该决定应是由 Morvillo 作出的。\n\n问 Morvillo 为什么退出代理？\n\n答 我推测，您得问 Temkin 先生，但我推测这与他们未获付款有关。他曾多次要求付款，而我告知他 GTV 已无更多资金向他付款。所以我相信就是这个原因。不过，再次说明，您得问他。我是在稍作推测，但——如果我是他，这将是我辞任的理由。\n\n问 好的。那么，您的证言是，您并未就他们在必须向我们提交材料前夕退出代理的决定，与 Temkin 先生和 Morvillo 进行任何交谈？\n\n答 这不是我所说的。我的意思是，我推测是因为他们没有获得付款。他曾数次告诉我有关付款的事，因此有过交谈，他说我需要获得付款，否则我将不得不辞任。最终他辞任了。他并未说，因为您没有付款——因为他没有向我付款，所以我今天要辞任。而且在传票到期当天，他对我说，我们没有获得付款，我们将不得不停止工作。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n第 66 页，共\n\n亚伦·米切尔——直接询问——阿夫拉姆·卢夫特\n\n问 在 Morvillo 的 Temkin 先生退出担任 GTV 和 Saraca 的律师时，您知悉受托人尚有待处理的 2004 传票，对吗？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 并且您知悉，Temkin 先生曾告诉我们，如我们就 GTV 和 Saraca 有任何询问，应当联系您，对吗？\n\n答 是。这是您在发给我的电子邮件中所说的。\n\n问 对。并且您告诉我们，您会告知我们 GTV 的新律师是谁？\n\n答 我不记得，但在当时这说得通。我本会尝试聘请新律师。\n\n问 事实上，您曾具体告诉我，在回答我的任何问题之前，您首先想与 Temkin 先生交谈？\n\n答 这说得通，因为，再次说明，您已告知我，他曾说我是应当交谈的人，所以我试图与他交谈。您还说我是 Saraca 的董事，我想弄清他为何会说出那样的话，因为那并不属实。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\n亚伦·米切尔——直接询问——阿夫拉姆·卢夫特\n\n问 Mitchell 先生，我想非常明确。我并未问您认为何者说得通。我只想问您的记忆。\n\n答 嗯，我的记忆是，您曾认定我是 Saraca 的董事，而我告诉您这并不准确。您告诉我，那是 Temkin 先生曾对您所说的话。因此我说我想与 Temkin 先生交谈，因为我不知道他为何会说不真实的话。\n\n问 您是否与 Temkin 先生交谈？\n\n答 交谈了。我问他为何说我是 Saraca 的董事？他说他从未这样说过。\n\n问 您是否——就传票谈论过其他任何事项？\n\n答 我不记得。那是我最关心的事，因为我不喜欢任何人说出不准确的事情，而且坦率地说，这可被认为会导致我做更多工作。因此，那就是我对与 Temkin 先生交谈的记忆。\n\n问 事实上，您曾告诉我，一旦聘请了 GTV 的新律师，您会让我与其联系，对吗？\n\n答 您曾告诉我，您只希望我作出确定的回答。\n\n问 好的。\n\n答 这听起来是正确的，但那样做也说得通。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\n亚伦·米切尔——直接询问——阿夫拉姆·卢夫特\n\n问 您想让我向您出示电子邮件吗？\n\n答 不。我接受您的说法。我并未对此提出异议。您曾说，不要就我如何考虑此事，您知道，不要告诉您我在想什么，只说我确定知道的内容。我并不具体记得此事，但听起来准确。\n\n问 您从未告诉我 GTV 新律师的姓名，对吗？\n\n答 GTV 从未聘请新律师。\n\n问 至于 Saraca，我要求您告诉我其新律师的姓名，或者公司中我可以与之交谈、以查明正确律师和正确联系人的个人姓名，对吗？\n\n答 我不记得。再次说明，如果您这样表示，我会将其视为真实，但是。\n\n问 也许我会念出原文，看看是否能唤起您的记忆。您是否记得我于 12 月 21 日写信给您说，GTV 是否已聘请新律师？如是，请告知我是谁。\n\n至于 Saraca，截至目前，我是否理解正确，其既不由您也不由 Morvillo 代理？如是，您是否知道其是否由任何人代理？如否，Saraca 中我们应当与谁交谈，因为 Morvillo 曾指示我们就向 Saraca 提出的请求与您交谈。\n\n这是否唤起您对于我所……的记忆？\n\n问过你？\n\n答 没有。不过我接受其为真实。\n\n问 你从未向我提供过关于就传票事宜应与 Saraca（萨拉卡）的谁交谈的任何信息，对吗？\n\n答 那将会——那将会是正确的。我不相信，如我今日在此作证所述，我当时掌握任何信息。\n\n问 你是否曾给 Wang 女士（王女士）打电话说，嘿，我们有传票？你是 Saraca 的总裁。你是 Saraca 的董事。我们将如何回应此事？\n\n答 她不是总裁和董事。如我所作证，她已经说她辞职了。\n\n问 你作证称，她于十二月从 Saraca 辞职？\n\n答 我作证称我不记得她何时辞职，但我知道当时她已不在那里。\n\n问 谁在那里？\n\n答 我不相信有任何人，但我可能错了。\n\n问 所以我——我给你发电子邮件，询问应与 Saraca 的谁交谈，而你知道 Saraca 没有人，却从未告诉我这一点？\n\n答 是的。我不相信我回复了那封电子邮件。我也不认为你曾跟进。但我不记得。我不记得回复过它。\n\n问 事实上，在那封电子邮件之前，我曾向你发送多封电子邮件，试图查明应与 Saraca 和 GTV 的谁交谈，不是吗——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n答 我不（无法辨认）——\n\n问 ——我和 Kashuwicz 先生？\n\n答 我不知道那是否属实。\n\n问 你想让我——\n\n答 多封——我想至少有两封，所以，是，多封。\n\n问 在我和 Kashuwicz 先生、以及你之间，电子邮件不止两封，对吗？\n\n答 关于我的传票，我相信是如此。关于 GTV 和 Saraca，我不知道。可能有，但我不记得。\n\n问 好的。\n\n答 为记录在案，我所说的“我的传票”是指 Lawall & Mitchell（劳沃尔与米切尔律师事务所），即我的律师事务所。\n\n问 好的。我想问你，作为 GTV 的董事会成员和律师，你知道有待处理且有效的传票，而你决定不为 GTV 聘请任何律师？\n\n答 没有钱为 GTV 聘请任何律师。\n\n问 你本可以这样做吗？\n\n答 我想我本可以这样做。我不认为那是我有义务做的事。我不认为我必须接手无偿代理的客户。\n\n问 作为董事会成员，你认为你对你担任董事会成员的公司负有义务，而该公司有义务回应传票吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交日期 07/24/23 录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 71 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n答 我已从董事会辞职。\n\n问 哦，你何时从董事会辞职？2023 年 4 月？\n\n答 正确。\n\n问 那么，在十二月至四月期间，你当时有义务吗？\n\n答 我想有一份待处理的传票。你知道，如果你曾请求提供信息，如果你曾请求我提供文件，进行跟进或类似事项，我想，是的。\n\n问 传票不是请求提供文件吗？\n\n答 是，但你没有进一步表示，嘿，我需要文件。然后——\n\n问 在此之后我给你发了多封电子邮件，询问我可以与谁交谈，告诉我任何人，你没有将其理解为我试图查明应向谁获取文件吗？\n\n答 你不是这么说的。\n\n问 你说得对。我没有说“告诉我任何人”。我说的是，Saraca 中我们可以与谁交谈，正如 Morvillo（莫维洛）指示我们就我们的请求与你交谈？你没有将其理解为我在询问该与谁交谈吗？\n\n答 我理解了，但我没有答案可以给你。我没有——没有人可以告诉你，因为没有可获得的答案。就我而言——我没有能给你的答案，就这么说吧。\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）72\n\n问 关于 Saraca，也是同样的情况，你知道有一份待处理的——\n\n答 你的第一个问题是关于 Saraca。\n\n问 第一个问题是关于作为董事会成员的 GTV，因为你不是 Saraca 的董事会成员，对吗？\n\n答 但你问了我关于 Saraca 的问题，不过——\n\n问 好吧。\n\n答 ——（听不清）回应——\n\n问 那么我们就针对 GTV 来谈。\n\n答 我只是想确保我的回应在记录中清楚明确。\n\n问 好。\n\n答 那就是我的回应。\n\n问 就 GTV 而言，作为董事会成员，你知道有一份待处理的传票，公司有义务回应，而你——以及公司没有回应传票，对吗？\n\n答 公司，是的。\n\n问 好的。现在我如何取得 Saraca 的文件？\n\n答 我不知道。\n\n问 我应该就取得——谁会知道我可以从哪里取得 Saraca 的文件一事与谁交谈？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交日期 07/24/23 录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 72 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）73\n\n答 我不知道。\n\n问 GTV 的文件呢？\n\n答 嗯，我已代表 Lawall & Mitchell 向你提供了 GTV 的文件。\n\n问 嗯，我问过你。你告诉我，你不知道你是否拥有全部 GTV 文件。\n\n答 （无法辨认）。\n\n问 你告诉我，你已就与你的传票相关的 GTV 文件作出了回应。\n\n答 抱歉，这里有问题吗？\n\n问 有。我可以从哪里取得 GTV 的文件？\n\n答 再说一次——我所知道的那些文件已经提供。我想 Terrace（特雷斯）仍会持有它们。\n\n问 你有该平台的登录信息吗？\n\n答 没有。\n\n问 谁有？\n\n答 Terrace 有。\n\n问 所以你每次想登录时，都打电话给该平台并说我该如何登录？\n\n答 嗯，自从九个月前回应你的传票以来，我没有登录过。\n\n问 而且没有人拥有存储在该平台上的所有数据的登录信息？\n\n答 再说一次，Terrace 能够——Terrace 有——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交日期 07/24/23 录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 73 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交日期 07/24/23 录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 74 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—July 18, 2023 74\n\n访问该等数据的权限。\n\n问 那么曾为 GTV 或 Saraca 工作的人呢？谁可以在某个平台上访问那些文件？\n\n答 据我所知，没有人。\n\n问 没有人可以访问那些文件？\n\n答 据我所知没有。\n\nLUFT 先生：好的，法官阁下。就此我没有更多问题。\n\n法院：好的。Lawall 先生，你可以下去了。谢谢。\n\n（证人退庭）\n\n法院：好的。关于要求 GTV Media（GTV 传媒）和 Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡传媒集团）——Lawall 先生，不过我仍需要你到席前来。\n\nMITCHELL 先生：哦，抱歉。\n\n法院：好的。没关系。我的意思是，Mitchell 先生。因为你出庭是为了说明理由。我想我听到你说，但我想确认清楚，你——你——你没有任何权限反对对 GTV Media 和 Saraca Media Group 作出民事藐视法庭命令，是这样吗？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：我相信是这样，法官阁下。我只是想确保我如实向您陈述，我未受聘，且不是高级职员，因此我相信我没有该权限，法官阁下。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—July 18, 2023 75\n\n法院：好的。我想这就是你所说的。\n\nMITCHELL 先生：是。那是——\n\n法院：所以我只是想对此确认清楚。好的？因此，该说明理由命令要求某人——该说明理由命令要求 GTV Media 通过一名高级职员、董事、成员或经理，以及 Saraca Media Group 通过一名高级职员、董事、经理或成员出庭并说明理由。此外，你也出庭。我只是——而且今天没有 GTV Media, Inc. 的任何高级职员、董事、成员或经理出席本次听证会。我想确认清楚，你今天不是以 GTV Media 的高级职员、董事、成员或经理身份出庭，对吗？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。而且你，Mitchell 律师，也不是以 Saraca Media Group 的高级职员、董事、成员或经理身份出庭，对吗？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：不是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。因此，就送达给该两实体的藐视法庭动议而言，你并非代表 GTV Media 或 Saraca Media Group 作出回应或说明理由而出庭，对吗？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交日期 07/24/23 录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 75 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交日期 07/24/23 录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 76 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—July 18, 2023\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n好的。那么，Luft 律师——\n\nLUFT 先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：——我们需要——我今天将给予你机会做的是，我将给予你机会，以今天在此发生的情况补充你的动议和声明，即说明理由命令、Mitchell 先生的证词；你会想告诉我，你认为我需要听取或考虑 Mitchell 先生证词中的哪些内容，而我将——\n\nLUFT 先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：你希望有多少时间补充该动议，就其适用于 GTV Media Group（GTV 传媒集团）和 Saraca Media Group 而言？\n\nLUFT 先生：法官阁下，恕我直言，我想确保我所告诉您的——我所说的是准确的。通常我们需要约一周时间才能取得庭审记录副本。\n\n法院：可以。是。我并不——\n\nLUFT 先生：所以我想确保在我们办理此事前已有庭审记录。\n\n法院：我同意。你需要庭审记录。\n\nLUFT 先生：对。\n\n法院：我的意思是，没有庭审记录，我们谁都不会记得说过什么，对吗？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2030\n提交日期 07/24/23\n录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—July 18, 2023\n\n法院：所以你肯定需要——那么，需要多长时间？你想要三周？一个月？多长时间？\n\nLUFT 先生：三周就绰绰有余了，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nLUFT 先生：如果我能更快办妥，我会尽力加快。\n\n法院：那么，我将设定三周的期限。如果你更早提交，你就更早提交。\n\nLUFT 先生：正是。\n\n法院：好的。文件需要送达——无论你提交什么，无论你提交何种补充文件，都需要送达给 Mitchell 律师。而且，Mitchell 律师，你在主案中已提交出庭代理，所以你会以电子方式收到。好的。\n\nMITCHELL 先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：你将以电子方式收到 Luft 先生提交的任何文件。因此，从今天起三周是 8 月 8 日，但我可以给你到 8 月 11 日，即星期五。这样公平吗，还是你需要更多时间？\n\nLUFT 先生：不需要，法官阁下。这已经——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—July 18, 2023 78\n\n足够了。\n\n法院：好的。因此，Luft 律师，你可以在 8 月 11 日之前，以你认为适当的任何内容补充你针对 Saraca Media 和 GTV Media 提出的藐视法庭动议。好的？\n\nLUFT 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：但必须送达给 Mitchell 律师。现在，Mitchell 律师，你并非代表这两个实体中的任何一个出庭，因此我不会给予你答复时间，因为你不代表它们。好的？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：这很公平，法官阁下。\n\n法院：因此，我将——一旦 Mitchell 律师提交任何文件，我是说，抱歉，一旦 Luft 律师提交他将要提交的任何文件，我就会审阅该文件，然后我将决定是否需要采取进一步措施，或者该事项是否已具备作出裁决的条件。好的？\n\nLUFT 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：我认为，就说明理由命令而言，这是最佳的处理方式。关于说明理由命令，是否有人还有任何事项希望记入记录？\n\nLUFT 先生：代表我方没有，法官阁下。\n\nMITCHELL 先生：没有，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交日期 07/24/23 录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 78 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交日期 07/24/23 录入日期 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 79 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—July 18, 2023\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n好的。那么，我在记录中命令——以及，无论我是否——我们是否发布一项电子命令以确认，即，任何动议方律师、即受托人律师，希望就针对 GTV Media, Inc.（GTV媒体公司）和 Saraca Media Group, Inc.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）的藐视法庭动议提交的补充文件，均应于 8月11日或之前提交。\n好吗？\n\nLUFT先生（卢夫特先生）：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n至此，关于 GTV Media Group（GTV媒体集团）和 Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）的说明理由令听证结束。\n好吗？谢谢。\n\nMITCHELL先生（米切尔先生）：\n法官阁下，这是否意味着我可以离开了？我被命令到场，所以——\n\n法庭：\n您可以做您认为适当的任何事情。但就说明理由令听证而言，它——现已结束。好吗？\n\nMITCHELL先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n因此，法庭在下午 1:30 和 2:00 还有几项日程事项，但法庭将短暂休庭，因此法庭将于下午 1:50 返回。\n\n（程序于下午 1:39 休庭。）\n\n（程序于下午 1:51 恢复。）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 80\n法庭：请坐。好的。休庭后我们回来了，下午 1:30 的日程上有两项事项，下午 2:00 的日程上有两项事项。我请法庭书记员先传唤下午 1:30 的对抗程序当事人。\n法庭书记员：好的。案号 22-5003，HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited（HK国际基金投资〈美国〉有限公司）诉 Despins（德斯平斯）；案号 23-5008，Despins（德斯平斯）诉 Guo（郭）。\n法庭：好的。下午好。请各方在这些对抗程序中出庭陈述，先由 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）开始。\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯），第11章受托人。\nLUFT先生：下午好，法官阁下。Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）律师，代表第11章受托人。\nLINSEY先生（林赛先生）：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛），代表受托人。\n法庭：Moriarty先生？\nMORIARTY先生（莫里亚蒂先生）：下午好，法官阁下。James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂），来自 Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所），在 22-5003 案中代表 HK International（HK国际）和 Mei Guo（郭美），并在 23-5008 案中代表 Mei Guo（郭美）。\n法庭：下午好。好的。这两项对抗程序均有审前会议。\n\n在这些对抗程序中，第一项审前会议，即对抗程序 22-5003 中的审前会议，是法庭在就简易判决提出动议并在该对抗程序中作出不同裁定后，于一段时间前确定的。\n\n审前会议日程是在 5月23日安排的，当时法庭已就第11章受托人的第一项和第二项反诉作出部分简易判决。\n\nHK International 和 Mei Guo 已就反诉提交答辩，因此，法庭将审前会议定于今日，即 7月18日下午 1:30 举行，并命令各方在审前会议前就该对抗程序中有关起诉状、答辩状及反诉的下一步措施进行会谈和协商。\n\n因此，Despins受托人，您是反诉原告，那么，根据法庭在 2023年5月23日命令中所要求发生的事项，这项对抗程序目前进展如何？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n我相信我们提出了延期请求，因为经同意，现状是您已经就两项罪名项作出裁定，两项均在上诉中，但我们希望维持其他罪名项仍然有效，不过目前处于休眠状态，以防上诉因某种原因被撤销。\n\n因此，我们需要保留它们，但目前这项对抗程序中没有任何需要进行的活动。\n\n法庭：\n那么，第三项反诉呢？您目前不打算继续推进第三项反诉吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n目前不打算。我们——\n\n法庭：\n因为双方都曾就此提出论点——我不理解。至少曾有一段时间，Moriarty先生，提出该论点的不是您，但我认为是 Wernick女士——哦，那不是——我会忘记她的名字——Melissa Wernick（梅丽莎·韦尼克）曾主张，罪名项 002 和 003 不同，反诉 002 和 003 请求的是不同救济。\n\n而后似乎又有某种主张，认为它们现在相同。坦率地说，这使我有些困惑，这是第一点。\n\n第二点，我明白第一项和第二项反诉正在上诉中。这一点我显然明白。\n\n但我也明白，反诉答辩状——Moriarty先生，如果我错了请纠正我，好吗，因为这有可能——但我认为，在反诉答辩状中，对于根据 Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure（联邦破产程序规则）关于管辖权以及核心程序与非核心程序必须作出的陈述，贵方当事人主张这些不是核心程序。\n\n鉴于贵方最初是作为确认判决诉讼提起本项诉因，您是否仍将继续作出该项主张？\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n法官阁下，此刻站在这里，我不知道您问题的答案。\n\n该案是代表作为请求人的 HK International 提起的。而反诉——反诉答辩状本应由受托人提交。我们确实对反诉作出了答辩。\n\n法庭：\n对。这正是我在说的。\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n好的。因此，我记得，在对反诉的答辩中，根据我相信是 7008 或 7012，我们确实表示我们——\n\n法庭：\n是 8 或 9，但无论如何，请继续。不是 12，但请继续。\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n我们确实列入了所要求的陈述，即我们反对破产法院就这些请求作出终局裁定。\n\n法庭：\n即使是贵方——贵方当事人提起了本项诉因，而其中提出了反诉？\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n反诉远远超出了我当事人的请求、我当事人的各项请求。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 84\n法庭：那么，我不确定这是否属实。您知道，最初的请求是确认判决，即贵方当事人拥有该游艇？\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n正确。\n\n法庭：\n而反诉是对该项请求作出的回应，称贵方当事人并不拥有该——您知道他们在第一项和第二项反诉中所说的内容，所以——\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n嗯哼。\n\n法庭：\n——因此，我不确定这是一个准确的陈述。不过，我明白各方希望延期举行这次审前会议，但我认为每个人都需要考虑一些事项，即——也就是，我明白有些事项正在上诉中，但除非我遗漏了什么，否则在上诉期间没有中止执行。对吗？目前，这两项裁定中任一项在上诉期间均未中止执行。\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n截至目前，正确。\n\n法庭：\n对。但 Dooley法官（杜利法官）肯定驳回了其中一项。她可能正在审议——而我不记得哪一项是哪一项，好吗——我认为她正在审议——她已经驳回了——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n第一项。\n\n法庭：\n——罪名项 001。然后她正在审议反诉 2。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n第二项，正确。\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n正确。\n\n法庭：\n因此，就罪名项 001 而言，在上诉期间不存在中止执行。\n\n贵方曾主张，而且这没有问题，罪名项 003 不同于罪名项 002，因此，我不确定我是否同意什么都不应发生。话虽如此，我们暂且将此搁置。\n\n还有罪名项 004 和 005。还有某种主张，认为我应当作出一项判决——贵方已经作出——贵方说各事项不同，但随后贵方希望我就罪名项 001 和 002 作出判决，以便根据 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（联邦民事诉讼规则）作出终局命令，从而可以上诉，且不会出现该上诉可能是中间上诉的问题，正确吗？\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n正确。正确。\n\n法庭：\n好的。因此，我尚未对此作出裁定。我相信这是最近提交的。\n\n受托人是否对此作出了回应？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n我认为我们没有。\n\n法庭：\n我认为贵方也没有。因此，这也是我说我不确定是否同意的另一个原因。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 登记于 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 86\n我——我们都可以就时间安排共同协作，好吗，但我不确定我是否同意，在此期间、在对这些反诉的上诉期间，事项将被中止，或不会发生任何事情。\n\n然后，另一件我——在贵方提出的那项动议中——我不记得，Moriarty先生，并且我很抱歉，是否由贵方律师事务所提交——我们将查看它，找到后我会马上告诉您——\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n我不认为那是一项独立动议，法官阁下。它可能包含在我们对简易判决的反对意见中。我不记得有一项专门的独立动议，请求法庭认定不存在延误理由并作出终局判决。\n\n法庭：\n它在贵方对简易判决的反对意见中，即 ECF 203。好吗？\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n因此，在 ECF 203 中，贵方谈到，贵方请求法庭，尽管贵方——当我说贵方时，Moriarty先生，我不是指您，我指的是您和其他人所代表的当事人——曾表示贵方认为反诉 002 和 003 不同。\n\n随后 Wernick女士对此作了完整论证——\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n对。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 87\n法庭：\n——是在回应——简易判决的口头辩论中。而现在贵方说，实际上，不，就罪名项——就罪名项 001 和 002 作出终局判决。第三项因第二项而得到处理。第四项因第一项而得到处理。005 是备位请求。既然已有 001 和 002，您无需对此作出裁定。\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n嗯哼。\n\n法庭：\n好的。因此，这是贵方所说的。因此，受托人——该文件于 4月14日提交。我不知道受托人是否对此作出了回应。受托人是否必须对此作出回应，我们将讨论。\n\n但此外，在同一份书面意见中，并且在这项对抗程序中——该书面意见仅代表 HK International Funds（HK国际基金）提交，而非 Mei Guo，因此 Mei Guo 未反对简易判决，至少未以书面形式反对。她没有在任何书面文件中反对简易判决。好吗？就第二项反诉而言。\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n是的。我不——法官阁下，我不认为该第二项反诉是针对她提出的。我可能不正确，但这是我的记忆——\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n——这就是为什么她不会有\n\n对此提出反对。\n\n我认为，对她提出的唯一反诉主张，而且表述得不够妥当，是反诉请求005，\n\n即（听不清）——\n\n法庭：\n\n嗯，我不确定这是否属实，但\n\n你们二位可以就此谈谈。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n\n我不确定我同意你的看法，但我\n\n不必同意。我并未作出裁定或任何决定。我\n\n只是说说而已。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n\n是。\n\n法庭：\n\n因此，为使记录明确，对第二项\n\n反诉请求的简易判决提出反对的唯一当事人\n\n是HK International（HK国际），而不是Mei Guo（郭美）。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n\n正确。\n\n法庭：\n\n因此，在你于4月14日提交的这份\n\n书状中，即本对抗程序中的ECF 203，\n\n还有——我认为该书状是由——我相信\n\n这份书状，让我在说错之前先确认\n\n一下，不，我是正确的，该书状由\n\nVartan先生（瓦尔坦先生）与Della Fera先生（德拉费拉先生）签署，Wernick女士（韦尼克女士）的\n\n姓名列在其姓名之下，随后是你的姓名及Romney先生（罗姆尼先生）的姓名。\n\n好的？但该书状由Vartan先生提交。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n\n嗯。\n\n法庭：\n\n在该书状中，你们还称，\n\nPJR（判决前救济）和初步禁令应当——必须因\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第89页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月18日 89\n\n鉴于你们提出的论点，即我应就罪名项001和002作出终局命令及判决，而003因002被搁置，我不——004因001而不复存在，005则是额外的救济请求，故应作为无实际争议事项予以解除。因此，该书状中有整节内容请求法院驳回初步禁令动议，理由是其已无实际争议——抱歉，是请求将PJR和初步禁令作为无实际争议事项予以解除。因此，那是203。随后两天后，你们还代表Mei Guo提交了一项动议，请求作为无实际争议事项解除PJR和PI（初步禁令）。好的。该项请求解除PJR的动议仅代表Mei Guo提交，并非代表HK International提交；但HK International在其针对简易判决的答辩书状中表示其希望——其所持立场与Mei Guo两天后在动议中所持立场相同，即本法院应因对第一项反诉请求和第二项反诉请求作出的裁定，以及因你们关于起诉状其余部分均应不复存在的论点，而解除PJR和初步禁令。好的。我不同意起诉状其余部分均不复存在，但这没关系。Mei Guo提出的终止判决前救济并解除初步禁令的该项动议——既解除又终止——被裁定为不妨碍再次提出而驳回。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2030\n提交于 07/24/23\n录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月18日\n\n裁定中写明“不妨碍再次提出”。这实际上就在\n\n该裁定的标题中。好的。\n\n但后来我发现，在我们上一次\n\n听证会上——我不记得具体是\n\n哪一天，但我们可以回去使记录完全准确——\n\n有人已向地区法院提交调卷令申请，\n\n要求地区法院指示本法院\n\n解除PJR和初步禁令，理由是你们\n\n没有机会请求法院这样做。\n\n我认为这并不准确。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n\n嗯，我不——我也不认为，称这就是\n\n调卷令申请依据的说法准确。\n\n法庭：\n\n嗯，调卷令的依据还能是什么？\n\n你们是在请求地区法院\n\n指示我做某事，而你们称我没有给你们\n\n就此获得陈述意见机会。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n\n裁定中不是这么说的，法官阁下。\n\n其表述是——\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。那么它是怎么说的？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n\n其请求地区法院\n\n指示您做您拒绝做的事情。\n\n法庭：\n\n嗯，那不就是上诉吗？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n\n这不是上诉，因为这不是\n\n可上诉的命令。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月18日 91\n\n法庭：所以，你们因为这不是可上诉的命令而使用调卷令？莫里亚蒂先生：这是另一种途径，法官阁下，是的。法庭：但你们还在该调卷令申请中称，HK从未有机会请求解除或终止初步禁令和PJR，然而你们在Mei Guo提交其动议两天前提交的书状恰恰提出了该请求。莫里亚蒂先生：那么，法官阁下，我此刻不记得调卷令申请中的全部措辞。法庭：好的。莫里亚蒂先生：我不记得其中有任何专门关于HK的内容，因为HK不是动议人，只有Mei Guo是。法庭：不，因为你们实际上在针对简易判决的书状中提出交叉动议，请求本法院解除PJR和初步禁令。莫里亚蒂先生：是的。当我说动议人时，我的意思是调卷令申请仅涉及Mei Guo，不涉及HK。法庭：但据我理解，调卷令申请的一个依据是，你们称地区法院应指示本法院做某事，因为——因为我也未代表HK审议该事项。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第91页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月18日 92\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：我不认为这是正确的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。无论如何，关键是，从本法院的角度看，双方当事人均请求了相同的救济，而该救济被裁定为不妨碍再次提出而驳回。因此，我不知道该调卷令申请将如何影响本对抗程序。它是否已分配给法官？莫里亚蒂先生：该案由Dooley法官（杜利法官）审理。法庭：好的。那么——那么Dooley法官将决定如何处理该事项。但这并不意味着本对抗程序不应继续进行，因为目前并无上诉待决期间的中止。好的？莫里亚蒂先生：我同意，法官阁下。法庭：因此，我们需要——我将要求你们，即双方当事人，按照我在先前设定今日审前会议的命令中所说，进行会商，并讨论我们将如何推进本对抗程序以及本对抗程序中剩余的罪名项，即003、004和005。如果地区法院就第二项反诉请求签发上诉待决期间的中止，因为——她已经驳回了就第一项提出的上诉待决期间中止，那么请告知我，只要告知我即可，然后我们再据此处理。好的？但目前并无上诉待决期间的中止。对于起诉状中剩余罪名项，存在我认为相互冲突的立场。我只是不知道我们接下来将如何进行。因此，我将——我会——我拟议并将会做的是，将本审前会议续延至8月15日下午12:30。现在，如果各位在该日期之前有一份报告或其他可以同意提交的文件，那也可以。我会审阅。是否举行额外的审前会议，将取决于当事人提交了什么，如有提交的话。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第92页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月18日\n\n但就对简易判决的反对而言，我注意到HK International在该书状中明确请求，法院——如法院批准简易判决——应驳回第三项和第五项反诉请求，因为其是作为第二项反诉请求的备位主张提出的，并且还应驳回第四项反诉请求，因为其已被承认不具有实际争议。\n\n嗯，我不认为有人承认其不具有实际争议。\n\n但无论如何，驳回第三、第四和第五项反诉请求，加上就第一项和第二项反诉请求作出有利于受托人（Trustee）的判决，将解决受托人的全部救济请求。\n\n作为备选方案，法院应根据Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54（《联邦民事诉讼规则》第54条）认定，就第二项反诉请求及第一项反诉请求作出终局判决不存在延迟的正当理由——如尚未就其提交判决——并作出终局判决。\n\n法院应认定不存在延迟的正当理由并作出终局判决，因为批准受托人就第二项反诉请求提出的简易判决，加上已就第一项反诉请求取得简易判决，将使受托人取得其通过反诉请求所寻求且能够取得的全部救济，因此法院将不再有任何关于反诉请求需要裁决的事项。\n\n我不确定我是否同意这一点，但无论如何，我尚未听取受托人是否同意该观点。\n\n此外，在没有任何待决救济请求的情况下，PJR命令和初步禁令同样不具有实际争议，应予解除。\n\n因此，这是HK International代表其对简易判决提出反对时明确提出的救济请求。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月18日 95\n\n因此，我希望受托人就HK International反诉被告提出的该部分救济请求作出回应。你们希望用多长时间回应？\n\nDespins先生（德斯平斯先生）：\n\n十天，法官阁下，足够了。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。从今天起十天是7月28日，星期五。这对——这对受托人可行吗？\n\nDespins先生：\n\n可以，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。因此，我希望你们就HK International针对简易判决提出反对中所载的该项救济请求提交回应。然后，如我所说，我将把本审前会议续延至8月15日，我相信我说的是下午12:30。当天本案还有其他事项安排在另一对抗程序中审理，这就是我将其续延至该日的原因。是否有人就本对抗程序还有其他问题？如无，我认为本对抗程序的本次审前会议今日结束。\n\n（无人回应）\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第95页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2030\n提交于 07/24/23\n录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月18日\n\n法庭：\n\n没有其他事项？好的。好。\n\n审前会议结束。\n\n受托人将于8月28日或之前——抱歉，于7月28日或之前——\n\n提交对HK所请求救济的回应，\n\n审前会议续延至8月15日\n\n下午12:30。\n\n好。现在转向今日安排进行审前会议的第二个\n\n对抗程序，即Despins v. Guo（德斯平斯诉郭），23-5008。\n\n那么，情况进展如何——我认为这是\n\n——我可能错了，但这是否是在传票中设定的\n\n原审前会议？\n\nLuft先生（卢夫特先生）：\n\n是的，法官阁下。是的。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。好。我了解到\n\nGuo女士已提交答辩并提出积极抗辩。\n\n再次请问，莫里亚蒂先生，该答辩否认\n\n本法院作出终局判决的权限吗？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n\n其对此提出异议，法官阁下，是的。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。好。因此，该对抗程序于5/16/2023提起，\n\n即两个月前，那么双方当事人根据\n\n《联邦民事诉讼规则》已向彼此作出了哪些初步披露？\n\nLuft先生：\n\n法官阁下，我们已经商定了一个——我们\n\n截至目前尚未提交初步披露。我们已经\n\n制定了一份我相信已经提交的进度安排。其载于案卷编号 23。该文件就在数小时前提交，其中部分——\n\n法庭：好的。那么，我来看一下。\n\nLUFT 先生（卢夫特先生）：好的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：所以，这是在我们今天开庭期间提交的？\n\nLUFT 先生：据我了解，是在我们坐下开庭前不久提交的。\n\n法庭：这是在我们今天开庭期间提交的，这没有问题，所以我必须看一下。\n\nLUFT 先生：当然，法官阁下。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：该命令中关于提交联合审前陈述书的部分留有空白。你们是否预计在包括专家证据开示在内的证据开示完成后，提交我认为应当是联合审前陈述书？\n\nLUFT 先生：是的，法官阁下。据我了解——坦率地说，之所以留白，是因为我们尚未有机会就法庭的日程与法庭沟通，并且认为，在不了解法庭何时可安排审判的情况下设定审前日期，或许会有些冒昧。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 98 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月18日\n\n但是，我认为其思路是——正如法官阁下可能看到的，我们试图使该日程在时间安排方面与 Bravo Luck（布拉沃幸运）和 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）案中已录入的日程高度一致，其理念是这是一个类似的日程和类似类型的案件。按照该时间安排，我会说，实际上你们可以——我们本可以推测审前日程将从现在起约 145 天后进行。审判约在 160 天后，我认为这几乎与您在另外两案中的做法精确一致。但是，鉴于我们不了解法庭的日程，我们不想擅自告诉您何时举行审判。这就是我们留白的原因。没有其他原因。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，我必须看一下这个，因为看起来你们——双方——完成所有事实证据开示的截止日期是 October 18。简易判决动议应于 November 17 或之前提交。嗯，看起来专家证言的截止日期也是 October 18th。\n\nLUFT 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，如果你们将要提交简易判决动议，我不知道在这项命令中设定审判日期是否合理，对吗？\n\nLUFT 先生：这正是我们预计本案将会如何进行，法官阁下。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月18日 99\n\n法庭：你们将提交简易判决动议？\n\nLUFT 先生：我们目前预计将会申请简易判决。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，让我看一下这项命令。我们将——我的意思是，显然我直到现在才读到它，所以。我的意思是，其大部分看起来没有问题。我得确定时间安排，对吗？而且我必须确定，鉴于似乎可能会提交一项或多项简易判决动议，是否应当仅举行一次审前——另一次审前会议，而不是具体设定审判日期。因此，也许我们需要做的是，在简易判决截止日期后不久举行一次审前会议，看看是否已经提交动议，并安排就这些动议举行听证。\n\nLUFT 先生：这似乎非常合理，法官阁下。我想指出的是，该文件被起草为简易判决的截止日期，双方显然相互理解的是，如果任何一方希望更早提出简易判决动议，将被允许这样做。\n\n法庭：哦，是的。任何人都可以做任何他们想做的事，但他们不会在此之后提出动议——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 99 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 100 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月18日 100\n\nNovember 17th 之后。\n\nLUFT 先生：完全正确。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，我不知道我是否希望你们现在提交联合审前陈述书。我认为我可能只会在 November 17th 之后举行一次审前会议，然后我们再看如何进行。这是我的——这是我的初步反应。我还没有全部读完。我认为我们可以做的是，我们可以——你们两方是否反对我删除关于审前陈述书的所有信息，而保留该审前命令的其余部分？因为如果我们只是要再举行一次审前会议，并先处理简易判决动议，我认为这没有必要。如果我们将有简易判决动议，它们要么会被准许，要么会被驳回，然后我们必须弄清楚实际将审理什么，对吗？因此，在本对抗程序的情况下，我认为此时将所有这些其他——这些其他信息放在这里没有意义。\n\nMORIARTY 先生（莫里亚蒂先生）：同意，法官阁下。而且这份文件是我制作的。我是从 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）案中录入的命令复制而来的。这就是所有那些内容都在里面的原因，因为它们在那项命令中。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 101 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月18日\n\n但是，我不——我同意——\n\n法庭：Greenwich Land 有律师代理吗？我不记得了。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：有。\n\nLUFT 先生：他们有。\n\n法庭：他们有？\n\nLUFT 先生：Major 先生（梅杰先生），法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么你们是——那么也许我不应删除它。也许我应当录入与另一案件中录入的相同命令。我会看一下，然后通知你们。这样如何？\n\nMORIARTY 先生：可以。\n\n法庭：好的。显然，我们将在今天的听证结束后看一下，因为我直到现在才看到这个。而且我不记得 Greenwich Land 审前命令是什么样子，所以我必须回去看一下。好吗？\n\nMORIARTY 先生：很公平。\n\n法庭：好的。不过，除此之外，今天我们还能在本对抗程序审前会议中处理其他事项吗？\n\nLUFT 先生：就受托人而言，我想不出还有什么，法官阁下。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：就被告而言，没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，我不知道我是要安排另一次审前会议，还是仅安排审判，并采用 Greenwich Land 事项中的同类框架。你们将会知道，因为我将录入你们提交的、其中载有日期的审前命令，或者你们将收到法庭书记员的来函，说明除非你们在 X 时限内提出异议，否则审前——该命令将会录入，而无须提交联合审前命令，对不起，联合审前陈述书，并将安排一次审前会议。将会是二者之一。好吗？\n\nLUFT 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：是的，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。谢谢。那么，23-05008 案的审前会议至此结束。好的。现在我们可以转入下午 2 时的事项，因此我请法庭书记员宣读主案和对抗程序。\n\n法庭书记员：好的。案件编号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings, LLC（吉尼弗控股有限责任公司）；以及案件编号 23-5013，Despins（德斯潘）诉 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK 科技公司）等。\n\n法庭：好的。下午好。请从 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）开始，为记录说明出庭人员。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 102 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月18日 103\n\nDESPINS 先生（德斯潘先生）：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（吕克·德斯潘），第11章受托人。\n\nLUFT 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），代表第11章受托人。\n\nLINSEY 先生（林赛先生）：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛），Neubert, Pepe and Monteith（诺伊伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂思律师事务所），受托人的康涅狄格州律师。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士（克莱伯恩女士）：下午好。Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），代表 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）。\n\nJARECK 先生（贾雷克先生）：下午好，法官阁下。Ryan Jareck（瑞安·贾雷克），Cole Schotz, P.C.（科尔·肖茨专业公司），代表受让人 Hofmeister 先生（霍夫迈斯特先生）。下午好。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生（戈德曼先生）：下午好，法官阁下。Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼），Pullman & Comley（普尔曼和康利律师事务所），代表债权人委员会出庭。\n\nMCCLAMMY 女士（麦克拉米女士）：下午好，法官阁下。Melissa McClammy（梅丽莎·麦克拉米），来自 Pastore, LLC（帕斯托雷有限责任公司），代表 HCHK 债权人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nSKLARZ 先生（斯克拉兹先生）：下午好，法官阁下。Jeffrey Sklarz（杰弗里·斯克拉兹），Green & Sklarz（格林和斯克拉兹律师事务所），代表 G-Club Operations, LLC（G-Club 运营有限责任公司）。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nSHERMAN 先生（谢尔曼先生）：下午好，法官阁下。我叫 Joshua Sherman（约书亚·谢尔曼）。我是该对抗程序中的一名异议人。\n\n法庭：是的。下午好。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 103 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 104 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月18日\n\n好的。我们将主案及本对抗程序中受托人提出的和解动议的听证续期至今日，目的是查看随该和解动议提交的命令，是否可以作出任何进一步经同意的修订，并由各方及任何提出异议的当事人同意；前提是，法庭仍在审议异议，且在提交该经修订的拟议命令之前尚未就异议作出裁定。\n\n因此，Despins 受托人、Luft 律师，你们想要说明——请说明经修订的拟议命令目前进展如何。\n\n我知道一些当事人已于 Friday 前就该命令提交了进一步意见，正如他们获准所做的那样。\n\n那么，截至今日情况如何？\n\nLUFT 先生：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：请。\n\nLUFT 先生：谢谢。下午好，法官阁下。Avi Luft，来自 Paul Hastings。\n\n那么让我——正如法官阁下指出的，我们已提交一项修订命令。我认为，如果有帮助，我可以重点说明我所认为的该命令中的实质性修改。\n\n法庭：请继续。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月18日 105\n\nLUFT 先生：然后我们可以讨论——我们目前的进展。第一项实质性修改涉及第 6 段。并且，法官阁下，我认为经修订的命令位于案卷编号 55。这一段涉及公司记录。坦率地说，法官阁下，这原本完全不是要作出多少实质性修改。事实上，所做的只是增加了一行，第二行，明确说明，按照法庭的意见——法官阁下曾指出本案中有一项保护令，并且在存在保密性关切的范围内，有一项保护令——我们只是想明确说明该保护令的存在。然后，为了加快进程，我们的建议是，既然人们已经表示他们担心这些文件具有保密性，我们将当然地将这些文件指定为保密文件，从而有效地处理该问题。这就是全部修改。我们原本希望这将解决保密性关切，使得它们现在均将以这种方式受到对待。关于第 9 段，法官阁下，该——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 105 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 106 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月18日\n\n最后一句新增内容位于第5页底部，如各位正在查阅，即第9段，其中说明我们将在每月结束后第21日提交月度报告，并将限额定为$50,000。\n\n如我们将要讨论的，与继续主张限额应为$25,000的U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）之间仍存在一些分歧，但我们仍认为我们的提议是50，并且我们认为这是适当的，我可以对此进行说明。\n\n下一项实质性修改位于第11段，即对和解付款的批准，其中规定Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人官方委员会）亦可查阅支持该等专业费用申请的文件，并有权审查该等费用。这仅载于第11段最后一句。\n\n关于第13段，法官阁下，此处取代了此前命令中的免责条款，现为债务人解除条款。Despins受托人此前在上次听证会上已基本向法庭说明此事。本段旨在将其书面化。\n\n实际上，如作出有利于受托人的终局性裁决，受托人将代表债务人及其财产提供解除和免除责任，具体规定于此。该条款取代了原有的免责条款。随后，法官阁下，如您查看第14段，此前曾有一项引导禁令。法官阁下也会记得，Despins受托人曾说明第14段所载理念，现称为准入审查机制，其构想是，在第三方提出索赔时，应首先提交本法院，以便法庭确定该索赔事实上是否属于财产索赔，或是否确实为第三方索赔。这就是该段所规定的内容。这些就是我认为的实质性修改。我还要指出，第2段有一项我理解基本上仅为相应调整的修改，这是因为和解协议现正被修改，或者因异议被驳回而得到解决；鉴于我们已经历异议程序，该措辞略有调整，但实质上无意对此作出任何其他实质性修改。因此，法官阁下，这些就是修改内容。\n\n法庭：关于第2段，我想问您一个问题。\n\nLUFT先生：当然，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 于 07/24/23 提交，于 07/24/23 16:18:31 登记，第107页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 于 07/24/23 提交，于 07/24/23 16:18:31 登记，第108页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 18, 2023\n\n法庭：您说——该命令目前的表述是，所有对动议的异议均已通过本命令所载对原拟议命令的修改得到解决，或已被驳回，包括所有保留权利的主张。\n\n因此，所有保留权利的主张均已被驳回？这是本意吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：嗯，不是。\n\nLUFT先生：关于——\n\n法庭：不是。好的。本意是什么？\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，我是Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯），Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）。\n\n该处的本意是保留与今日所请求事项有关的权利。但其他当事方反对作出终局性命令的权利仍予保留。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：因此，我们并非意图剥夺其权利。我们试图就本命令之目的在今日排除其权利，但并非就终局性命令之目的排除其权利。他们在该方面保留权利的主张仍予保留。\n\n法庭：那么，将其改为“与本命令有关的所有保留权利主张”如何？\n\nLUFT先生：这是一个很好的修改。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 18, 2023\n\n法庭：好的。因为我不确定那是什么意思。\n\nLUFT先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。本意并非指其他任何事项。\n\n法庭：不，那很好。这就是我提出该问题的原因。好的。\n\nLUFT先生：这是一个很好的修改。谢谢您。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLUFT先生：因此，法官阁下，这就是我们已提交的内容。作为回应，我们收到三项——已有三项异议被提交。其中一项由U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）提出，如我所提及，其异议涉及$25,000与$50,000的问题；但我认为其更核心地关注有关准入审查机制的措辞，我将让来自Cole Schotz, P.C.（Cole Schotz专业公司）的Jareck先生着重说明该问题。另两项异议由Himalaya entities（喜马拉雅实体）和G-Club（G-Club）提出。我愿意按照法官阁下希望的任何方式处理。我可以先让Jareck先生说明美国受托人提出的问题，然后我再回来讨论另外两项。\n\n法庭：我希望这样做。我希望先听取美国受托人的意见，然后Jareck先生可以作出回应。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 于 07/24/23 提交，于 07/24/23 16:18:31 登记，第109页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 于 07/24/23 提交，于 07/24/23 16:18:31 登记，第110页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 18, 2023\n\n回应其意见。然后我们也可以讨论其他当事方的反对意见书。\n\nLUFT先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。我是代表U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）的Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）。\n\n美国受托人的补充异议已在主案案卷中以ECF 2006提交。如Luft律师所预告，其强调拟议修订命令中两段的相关问题。该两段为第9段和第14段。\n\n第9段很直接，即美国受托人仍坚持认为，受托人在希望支出超过50,000——抱歉，超过$25,000的和解款项之前，应当再次向美国受托人和委员会提出申请。\n\n受托人希望该数额为50,000。美国受托人的立场是，应当设定较低的门槛，因为我们需要知道款项的使用情况，并且似乎需要更充分地了解这些款项将如何使用，这正是该规定旨在实现的目的。\n\n$50,000这一门槛看来并非一个具有特定依据的数额。美国受托人提出的数额较小，并且是有意为之，因为美国受托人并未获告知有任何特定事项将达到$50,000这一标准；因此，$25,000这一标准更为合理，因为其数额较低。\n\n关于第14段，美国受托人继续反对该段。该段要求当事方必须回到本法院方可行使其权利。\n\n受第14段限制的当事方未必是今日到庭的当事方。其中包括今日到庭的一些当事方，但也包括并非本案或对抗程序中法庭面前的当事方。\n\n尽管该段在某一层面上具有意图且可理解，但其似乎未获判例法或法条支持，因此美国受托人请求法庭删除及/或移除第14段。\n\n如法官阁下有任何问题，我乐意作答。或者，也许我可以在Jareck律师陈述后作出回应。\n\n法庭：我们就这么做。谢谢。\n\n我目前没有任何问题，因此我们将让律师就您——就美国受托人办公室的立场发言。然后，如您希望作出回应，我显然会给予您回应的机会。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 18, 2023\n\nCLAIBORN女士：谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nJARECK先生：下午好，法官阁下。为记录在案，我是代表Hofmeister先生的Ryan Jareck（瑞安·贾雷克），来自Cole Schotz, P.C.（Cole Schotz专业公司）。法官阁下，如可接受，我将仅说明第14段。\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nJARECK先生：如法官阁下还有其他问题，我乐意在陈述结束时予以回答，如此是否可以？\n\n法庭：请继续。\n\nJARECK先生：谢谢。因此，法官阁下，如受托人律师所述，第13段规定了债务人解除，对吗？即解除受托人拥有专属资格提出和和解的财产索赔。第14段仅旨在为本法院解释、执行和实施该解除提供一种机制，仅此而已。拟议命令第13段没有任何内容涉及本法院对第三方独立索赔行使管辖权。事实上，恰恰相反，法官阁下。如法庭认定某项索赔属于独立索赔，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 于 07/24/23 提交，于 07/24/23 16:18:31 登记，第112页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 于 07/24/23 提交，于 07/24/23 16:18:31 登记，第113页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 18, 2023\n\n即其不属于债务人解除的范围，则该第三方索赔人可按其希望的形式继续推进其索赔。其仅仅旨在涵盖法官阁下在第13段中所准予的内容。\n\n众多法院已作出命令并确认破产法院的准入审查角色，作为执行和实施其先前命令中作出的解除的一种机制。\n\n我请本法院注意Motors Liquidation Corp.（汽车清算公司）案，载于568 B.R. 217。这是一项Southern District of New York（纽约南区）破产法院于2017年作出的裁决。\n\n在该案中，破产法院作出命令，批准将G.M.（通用汽车）几乎全部资产出售给，引用原文，“New G.M.（新通用汽车）”，不附带各种留置权、索赔和产权负担。\n\nG.M.出售命令规定破产法院对解释和执行该出售命令享有专属管辖权。破产法院就针对New G.M.提出的第三方索赔承担了准入审查角色。\n\n该裁决中的破产法院在第222页作出如下表述，现引用如下：“破产法院的角色是准入审查者角色。应由该法院决定，根据出售命令和破产法院先前裁决，哪些索赔和主张应当通过该门槛。如果一项起诉状违反出售命令中可执行的规定，则不得按现有起草内容继续进行。如果其不违反出售命令，则该起诉状通过该门槛，由适当的非破产法院决定其是否可诉。”\n\n法官阁下，我还请本法院注意Gawker Media（高客传媒）案，载于588 B.R. 337。同样，法官阁下，这是Southern District of New York（纽约南区）破产法院于2018年作出的裁决，其中Bernstein法官除Motors Liquidation案中的Glenn法官外，也讨论了法庭的准入审查角色。\n\n该案是在确认计划的背景下作出的，其中该计划包含一项比计划中实际解除条款更广泛的禁令条款。其目的在于迫使索赔未被解除的实体，仍须在提出索赔之前先向本法院请求解除禁令。\n\n再次说明，法官阁下，如无此准入审查机制，该解除便毫无效力。\n\n在作出终局性裁决后，假定受托人能够取得该裁决，他们可以前往任何地方。他们可以前往纽约州法院，并请求该法院确定法官阁下的解除实际意味着什么。\n\n我们认为，判例权威对此提供了充分支持，且该条款仅旨在作为一项专属管辖权规定，而非由法官阁下监督\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月18日 115 第三方请求权。我们认为，破产法院对在该命令第14段中作出把关条款既有管辖权也有权限，并且我们谨此认为该条款应获批准。如法庭有任何问题，我将在此暂停陈述。法庭：我没有任何问题。谢谢。Jareck（杰雷克）律师：此外，对于必须提出判例引证一事，我想表示歉意。我们没有提交答复状。通常我会在书面意见中向法庭提出这些内容。但如法庭有任何问题，我们很乐意向法庭提供这些案例。我也很乐意重复案件引证。法庭：我想我知道那两个案例。但我记下了引证，所以会看一下。谢谢。Jareck律师：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：Claiborn（克莱伯恩）律师，您想回应吗？Luft（卢夫特）律师：法官阁下，您是想先听完——完成那个，还是想听仅就——法庭：我只是想让美国受托人办公室（U.S. Trustee's Office）——案件 22-50073 文件 2030 已提交 07/24/23 已登记 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 115 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 已提交 07/24/23 已登记 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 116 页，共\n\n郭文贵—2023年7月18日 116 Luft律师：当然。法庭：——如果她愿意，就作出回应，因为她确实请求了这样做的机会。Claiborn女士：谢谢，法官阁下。我是代表美国受托人的Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）。我认为，在这场争论中我们实际需要关注的是我们所谈论的是何种类型的请求权。我们谈论的不是针对破产财产的请求权。我们谈论的是第三方对其他第三方享有的请求权。该禁令、把关机制，无论您想如何称呼，要求人们必须首先来到这里才能主张请求权。本法院对可能与该和解协议仅有间接关联的所有第三方请求权，并不具有专属管辖权。因此，美国受托人反对该命令所规定的把关功能的范围仅限于此。法庭：谢谢。Despins（德斯平斯）律师：法官阁下，我很敬重美国受托人——我是说这个机构——但我认为那是错误的。General Motors（通用汽车）一案中，第三方是New G.M.（新通用汽车）。它是破产财产的第三方。它并非其中的一部分。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 已提交 07/24/23 已登记 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 117 页，共\n\n郭文贵—2023年7月18日\n\n1 属于破产财产。\n他们正在购买Old G.M.（旧通用汽车）的资产，但\n2 New G.M.是第三方。他们正在获得\n3 这种把关功能的益处，以便法庭确保\n4 当人们想要起诉New G.M.时，他们确实具有一项\n5 未被Old G.M.为New G.M.之利益而放弃的\n6 直接请求权。\n7 因此，这种认为法庭没有\n8 管辖权的论点，纯粹是在某种意义上维持您的管辖权，\n9 即理论上，如果您批准该放弃，您就想要\n10 确保人们不会规避该放弃，因为那样做\n11 是不适当的。\n12 而这正是我们请求您在此发挥的唯一功能，\n13 即把关功能。\n14 因为如果这是直接请求权，您将会\n15 把他们送往他们想去的任何地方，纽约或其他\n16 法院。\n17 但如果这是一项伪装的直接请求权，抱歉，\n18 伪装的派生请求权，意即一项我们已经\n19 放弃的请求权，您不应允许其继续推进。而\n20 确保这种情况不会发生的唯一方法，是由您\n21 保留对此的管辖权，以发挥该把关\n22 功能。因此，我认为这非常重要。\n23 我认为General Motors一案\n24 完全切合要点，因为该案中的New G.M.是破产财产的\n25 第三方，如同本案中的受让人是\n\n郭文贵—2023年7月18日 118 破产财产的第三方一样。但受托人正在放弃针对其的请求权，我们不希望人们通过主张所谓实际上并非直接请求权的直接请求权来规避该放弃。谢谢。法庭：谢谢。那么，Claiborn律师，当我们上周交谈时，美国受托人办公室也反对该放弃，但该异议已因受托人表示该放弃仅限于由破产财产作出放弃而得到解决。对吗？Claiborn女士：正确。法庭：好的。好。那么问题仍然是关于该把关功能，所以我没问题。我只是想确保，就——Claiborn女士：是。法庭：——您的放弃而言，我没有遗漏美国受托人办公室关于该放弃的论点。好的。那么还有其他人希望就——我也会让您发言，别——我会让各方发言。我只是想确保，就美国受托人办公室所述内容而言，是否还有其他人希望案件 22-50073 文件 2030 已提交 07/24/23 已登记 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 118 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 已提交 07/24/23 已登记 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 119 页，共\n\n郭文贵—2023年7月18日 119 发言？（无人回应）法庭：好的。好。那么我们需要讨论其他已提出异议的当事人。除现有异议外，我指的是专门针对经修订拟议命令提出的异议。那么，律师，您想继续吗？McClammy（麦克拉米）女士：是的，法官阁下。谢谢。我可以上前吗？法庭：可以，请。McClammy女士：谢谢。法官阁下，我是代表HCHK债权人的Melissa McClammy（梅丽莎·麦克拉米）。我将简要陈述。对于Claiborn女士代表美国受托人所说的内容，我没有太多补充。我们同意，第14段，即把关功能，是不适当的。正如她所说，它影响我们的客户。我们在这里。我们是可能希望对并非债务人、而是受让人这一另一第三方提出请求权的第三方。该拟议命令将对这些请求权施加负担、损害这些请求权，且未经客户同意，未向我们的客户提供任何对价，并且直到刚才都未提出任何表明法庭有权作出该命令的依据。\n\n郭文贵—2023年7月18日 120 我注意到，受托人表示，这是确保法庭的放弃得到执行的唯一方式，没有这一特定段落，该放弃就没有约束力。我注意到，受托人提出其最初动议、寻求导流禁令并寻求宽泛免责条款时，他称这些条款是必要的。他称这些是和解协议的关键条款。而在有人提出异议时，他又回来表示，好，我们可以采取另一种方式。我谨认为，在没有书面意见以及没有机会研究本法院是否具有该权限的情况下，尚不明确不存在其他方式可供法庭行使其管辖权或保护该和解协议。因此，由于尚未证明法庭有权作出该命令，我们请求法庭驳回——否决该动议并驳回该拟议命令。法庭：问题。McClammy女士：是。法庭：因此，我审阅并理解的争点——争点是，该和解协议具有不同组成部分。而且在此时存在一种可能性——您知道，案件 22-50073 文件 2030 已提交 07/24/23 已登记 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 120 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 已提交 07/24/23 已登记 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 121 页，共\n\n郭文贵—2023年7月18日\n\n1 谁知道会发生什么，对吧，但存在一种\n2 可能性，即受托人未能成功。如果他\n3 未能成功，那么本应进入这些\n4 ——合并管理的第11章案件的全部款项将会\n5 返还给受让人，而案件将在\n6 纽约继续进行。对吗？\n7 McCLAMMY女士：是。是。\n8 法庭：好的。因此，这是我\n9 试图理解的事项之一。这并不是说我不理解您的\n10 论点，但我不确定您的论点是否已经准备好\n11 获得审理，因为如果受托人败诉，您就可以在本法院之外\n12 向您对其享有请求权的任何人提出所有请求权。\n13 对吗？这就是将会发生的情况。第一点。\n14 第二点，我看到的另一件事是，\n15 您在书面意见或您提交的文件中\n16 谈到的是，您担心，而且我理解您对\n17 客户请求权被稀释的担忧。\n18 但如果受托人成功，现在我们来看\n19 另一面，如果受托人成功，那么所有\n20 债权人的请求权都会被稀释，而不仅仅是您的债权人。\n21 对吗？\n22 McCLAMMY女士：是。\n23 法庭：因为资金池就只是\n24 那个资金池，问题只在于有多少人能够成为其中一员、\n25 从资金池中取用，对吧，恕我措辞不够准确。\n\n郭文贵—2023年7月18日 122 因此，虽然我理解您的论点，但我不确定它在此时是否足以决定结果。当然，这并不意味着它在某个时候不能决定结果。但如果——如果受托人在您债权人请求权被稀释的问题上获胜，那就会发生。我的意思是，在任何一种——任何一种案件中，如果一方当事人成功提出这类请求权，并且该——该成功结果在上诉或其他程序中得到维持，那就会发生。我的意思是，不会有任何债权人能够——获得比处于同一等级的另一债权人更多的清偿。对吗？因此，尽管我理解该论点，但我不确定——我此刻不确定，该论点是否足以说明不应批准按所提方案达成的受托人和解协议。现在，更令我感到关注的是您主张法庭无管辖权作出此项安排的问题。而我正在试图——您知道，这里正在发生的是，即使受托人尚未证明，我完全同意，我们尚未进入实体问题阶段，对吧，但他主张，并且受让人同意，至少目前，在作出某种案件处理性裁定之前，这些款项应成为破产财产，即这些合并管理的第11章案件的财产。对吗？因此，如果——如果该财产是破产财产，那么本法院为什么不会对所提和解协议具有管辖权，以就该问题作出命令？法庭为什么没有管辖权？我理解您是在说他们没有引用任何表明其具有管辖权的依据，但我也没有发现您引用任何表明我没有管辖权的依据。而该事项提交法庭的方式是，为债权人利益而作出的转让在某个时候发生——我认为是在6月初左右，您知道，不——McClammy女士：对。法庭：——大约一个半月前——McClammy女士：是。法庭：——而且我相信，在该程序中曾有一项说明理由命令，要求说明某些事项为何应当或不应当发生。受托人作出回应——嗯，我不知道他在纽约案件中如何回应，或者是否作出任何回应——但在本案中，他请求作出初步禁令，阻止该程序继续进行。而我认定，在初步禁令阶段已有足够证据，可以案件 22-50073 文件 2030 已提交 07/24/23 已登记 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 122 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 已提交 07/24/23 已登记 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 123 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 124 发生这种情况，对吧，为了阻止该程序。好的。然后我——我们得知，受让人与人已达成一项解决方案，至少已提出一项解决方案，对吧，该方案称，好的，这将在破产法院以某种方式得到解决。因此，受托人仍然完全有可能不会胜诉。如果受托人不胜诉，那么所有款项都会返还给受让人，而该豁免本质上将变得无效。不是吗？McCLAMMY女士：是。法庭：是。McCLAMMY女士：是。法庭：所以，我认为你所争议的是，如果受托人胜诉，你不希望你的客户必须到这里来，由本庭确定其请求权是针对第三方的直接请求权，还是针对破产财产的派生请求权。那是你所担心的吗？McCLAMMY女士：如果可以的话，请允许我用自己的话说。法庭：当然。McCLAMMY女士：我完全同意法官阁下的意见，如果受托人成功，并且如果HCHK实体的资产成为破产财产并永久地归入破产财产，那么我客户就这些资产提出的请求权——案件 22-50073 文书 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 124 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 125 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日\n\n1 将成为本第11章案件的一部分，并与债务人的其他权利主张人一起，处于其应有的任何优先顺位。\n2 \n3 据我理解，第14段中的审查机制所涉及的请求权，\n4 \n5 是指我客户将提出的请求权，而非\n6 针对其贷款协议提出的请求权，也并非\n7 如法官阁下所述，针对债务人就该资金池的一部分提出的请求权，\n8 而是针对受让人因其行为以及\n9 迄今为止其行为方式给他们造成的损害提出的请求权。\n10 因此，例如违反——关于违反\n11 信义义务的请求权，或者重大过失的请求权，\n12 诸如此类；该等请求权不会构成债务人\n13 破产财产的一部分，也不会产生于——或者至少不会直接产生于\n14 我客户针对\n15 HCHK实体提出的请求权。它们将产生于我们将主张的\n16 受让人对其实施的不当行为及违反义务。\n17 我认为这些请求权并不类似于\n18 针对债务人的请求权，或将构成\n19 破产财产管理一部分的请求权。\n20 法庭：所以你的观点是，\n21 目前的和解协议如获批准，将阻止你客户\n22 起诉受让人的权利——\n23 McCLAMMY女士：是。\n24 法庭：——而你不希望\n25 发生这种情况。无论受托人针对HCHK资产是否确实构成这些全部——这些破产财产的基础诉因会发生什么，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 126 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 126 你都希望保留该项权利。McCLAMMY女士：是，法官阁下。法庭：好的。我明白了。我的意思是，我认为这是和解协议的一部分，但我明白这就是你的观点。McCLAMMY女士：好的。法庭：这正是我想澄清的。因为你在书面文件中所说的其他一些事项，我并不完全确定是否具有说服力。但你所说的是——你的论点是，你认为你客户的权利是——如果这项协议获批准，他们就永远无权对受让人提起诉因？MITCHELL先生：他们将被要求——法庭：除非受托人最终败诉，并且该豁免变得无效？MITCHELL先生：嗯，如果——据我理解，法官阁下，经修改后的拟议裁定中重写的豁免，并不豁免我所谈及的那类请求权。据我理解，这并不豁免我客户以其自身身份提出的请求权，而是豁免可能派生于债务人请求权的请求权。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 127 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日\n\n1 因此，据我理解，如果和解\n2 协议获批准，且如果受托人在基础对抗程序中\n3 胜诉，如果我客户希望\n4 起诉受让人，他们将被要求到本\n5 庭通过某种动议取得本庭批准，\n6 其细节并未在第14段中明确说明，以便\n7 在州法院依据州法提出该等请求权。\n8 法庭：我认为你是对的，这就是\n9 目前文本的含义。\n10 McCLAMMY女士：好的。\n11 法庭：这就是其规定，对吧——\n12 这是我对其的理解。好的？\n13 McCLAMMY女士：我很高兴我们达成一致。\n14 法庭：即你的客户必须到\n15 这里来。\n16 但我问你的——我对你说的是，\n17 你的基本——是否还有其他理由——而且\n18 我并不是说那就是——\n19 McCLAMMY女士：嗯哼。\n20 法庭：——我只是想确保我\n21 理解。\n22 你的异议是，我们不应当到这里来，\n23 让您来确定，法官，我们是否拥有\n24 直接请求权或派生请求权。如果我们想起诉，我们\n25 就应当能够起诉。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 128 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日\n\n1 McCLAMMY女士：是，法官阁下。\n2 法庭：好的。我明白。谢谢。\n3 McCLAMMY女士：谢谢。\n4 法庭：Sklarz律师？\n5 SKLARZ先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n6 G-Club（G-Club）继续对第6段提出异议。\n7 我们的反对意见载于主案中的ECF No. 2007，\n8 具体而言，我们在第5页提出了一些措辞建议。\n9 该问题——这实际上更多是一个\n10 技术问题。HCHK提供了包括云\n11 计算服务、数据托管和电子邮件托管在内的信息技术服务。\n12 在一段期间内——有一段时间，\n13 G-Club无法通过HCHK访问其数据，\n14 因此我们需要访问我们的数据，以便A）经营\n15 业务，以及B）检索该等数据，以查找可能\n16 对传票有所回应的文件；迄今为止，我们已提交逾\n17 120,000份文件。\n18 此外，电子邮件服务器包含的电子邮件\n19 可能受律师—客户特权保护——可能，我们\n20 不知道，因为我们尚无法查阅——可能包含\n21 含有律师—客户特权材料的电子邮件，\n22 与Pillsbury Winthrop（普博威）律师事务所的通信，以及\n23 与我的律师事务所的通信。\n24 因此，我们只是寻求对我们数据\n25 及律师—客户特权的保护。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 129 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 129 我们已在书面文件中列明该等信息，除非法官阁下有任何问题，否则我们将依赖我们的书面文件。法庭：因此，关于第6段的问题，我认为，解决它的尝试是表明——为解决你就保密性提出的问题，明确说明已有一项保密命令生效；但这对你没有帮助，因为你担心在作出有关是否存在可就这些文件主张的其他特权的判断之前，你将无法——你的客户将无法先行查阅这些记录？SKLARZ先生：是。这是其一。此外，我们也需要该等信息，以便确保数据完整性，如果您愿意的话；如果我们各自的任何企业在一段时间内无法访问电子邮件或文件，我们需要取得——法庭：嗯，你们已经超过一个半月无法访问了，对吧？SKLARZ先生：这是正确的。法庭：好的。那么，让我就其中第一部分，而非访问问题，问你一个问题。因此，本案的保护令设有不同的限定级别，不只是“保密”，还有“高度保密”，我认为这将把文件的查阅限制于律师\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 130 בלבד，而非客户。SKLARZ先生：我认为我们的客户并非——尤其是我本人，我们未必那么担心保密信息或高度保密信息。这更多涉及特权信息。显然，如果存在受托人能够阅读的律师与客户之间的电子邮件，那将是有问题的。一旦泄露，便无法挽回。因此，应当有筛选机制。至于保密事项，我相信我们可以，您知道，我相信一直与Lutz律师合作解决证据开示争议的Fortis律师，我认为他们基本上都已解决。我们当然可以，您知道，就该问题进行协商，但我们最担心的确实是访问问题和特权信息。这就是我们在第5页提出该建议的原因，其实质是让我们筛选信息，然后——法庭：那么，为了让我明白，你们将如何做？你们将如何筛选——你的意思是，你们必须先从受让人那里取得，然后在他将其交给受托人之前？然后——SKLARZ先生：是。取得该等信息的访问权限，让我们像律师通常就证据开示材料所做的那样审查，然后——案件 22-50073 文书 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 130 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 131 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 131 移交需要移交的内容。如果特权材料有特权日志，则提供该特权日志。然后，如果有进一步的证据开示问题，则会面协商；如有必要，再回到法官阁下面前。但已有一项服务协议。受托人持有该服务协议。这是G-Club的数据。仅凭一项9019动议，从来不属于HCHK财产的数据不可能转变为由破产财产和受托人占有的数据。财产权利由合同确定。法庭：我正在查看你希望列入经修改拟议裁定第6段的建议措辞，该措辞位于你答复第5页；我认为该措辞是——我的意思是，我不知道你与受托人是否会就此达成任何协议，但其写道“以及仅与HCHK实体有关的其他文件”。我认为这并不正确。我认为你需要写成“以及任何且仅与G-Club实体有关的文件”，对吧？我的意思是，你不能查阅所有内容。你可以查阅与你客户相关的内容。SKLARZ先生：正确。我们只想要G-Club的文件。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 132 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 132 法庭：对。好的。我只是想明确这一点。好的。SKLARZ先生：是。是。当然。法庭：然后，如果你能这样做，那么你说——所以让我们谈谈操作方式。假设受让人说——以某种方式筛除其中任何提到G-Club的内容，对吧，然后交给你，你接下来打算怎么做？SKLARZ先生：将依据传票审查相关信息，然后将其移交给受托人，如同我们已经就——法庭：嗯，“相关”是什么意思？我的意思是，我认为你们唯一会保留不交的资料应当是享有特权的通信。对吧？SKLARZ先生：嗯，如果某项内容不在其传票范围内，如果他们没有要求，我想它就不会被移交。但是，是的。目前真正唯一令人担忧的是特权信息。法庭：嗯，我认为——SKLARZ先生：我的意思是，澄清一点，我们并不寻求拖延任何事情。我们只是试图保护——法庭：不，不，我不是——我是在试图找到一种解决办法——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2030 提交于 07/24/23 录入于 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 133 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 133 斯克拉兹先生：是。法官：——如果有必要，以解决该问题，对吗？你们的问题显然不同于其他债权人的问题。斯克拉兹先生：是。这是一个技术问题——某种技术问题，几乎甚至不是法律问题。法官：因此，我们正试图确定这是否可以解决，这就是我询问步骤的原因。所以我完全不知道这些文件是否以任何已分类的形式存在，或者诸如此类。我完全不知道。我本会假定——不过我不该假定——但如果有人告诉我它们没有分类，它们不在任何类别中，我不会感到意外。它们只是整批文件的倾倒。律师，这——这就是我们现有的情况吗？这就是你们持有的文件吗？贾雷克先生：我们作为律师持有很多文件，但主要是银行和财务记录。据我了解，实际的公司记录存储在云端，我完全不知道如何对其进行筛选。但是，法官阁下，我的意思是，我们将遵从您指示我们采取的任何做法。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 提交 07/24/23 录入 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 134 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 134 法官：嗯，我也不知道该怎么办。我的意思是，您知道，我有一些想法，但如果你认为我懂得如何在云端进行搜索，我并不——不是——抱歉，但我没有那方面的知识。斯克拉兹先生：我也不懂。我的意思是，我认为需要技术人员——我的意思是，显然，在启动 ABC 之前，G-Club（G-Club）能够访问这些信息，所以有办法做到这一点。我并不——法官：他们现在无法访问吗？斯克拉兹先生：他们现在无法访问。法官：为什么？斯克拉兹先生：因为 ABC——法官：密码不起作用，或者诸如此类？斯克拉兹先生：嗯，实质上是因为 ABC，访问权限已被关闭。据我了解是这样。法官：嗯，这正是我在说的。斯克拉兹先生：是。法官：所以他们不能——他们没有访问权限——斯克拉兹先生：正确。法官：——没有在启动之前、在 HCHK 将一切转让给受让人之前所拥有的访问权限？你是这个意思吗？斯克拉兹先生：据我了解，是的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 提交 07/24/23 录入 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 135 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023\n\n1 法官：\n好的。\n2 斯克拉兹先生：\n因此，如果——我预计\n3 我们将与受让人的 IT 服务提供商合作，\n4 即负责云端托管的人，以及我们的 IT\n5 人员，以重新获得访问权限并完成该程序。\n6 法官：\n那是假定受让人有\n7 某人在负责云端托管。\n8 斯克拉兹先生：\n嗯，他们一定有，否则数据\n9 就不会存储在任何地方。\n10 法官：\n我想我刚刚听说他们没有。\n11 贾雷克先生：\n我们有一名人力资源人员和两名\n12 安保人员，仅此而已。\n13 斯克拉兹先生：\n嗯，有——\n14 贾雷克先生：\n其他所有人都被解雇了。\n15 斯克拉兹先生：\n但是，有——有服务器\n16 需要维护。如果它们被关闭，那么——或者如果\n17 它们被直接丢弃，那将会有问题。我\n18 假定情况并非如此。\n19 法官：\n但是，谁把它们丢弃？\n20 斯克拉兹先生：\n受让人会把它们\n21 丢弃。\n22 法官：\n嗯，如果它们没有被转让给他，你并不知道\n23 这一点。你怎么知道？你不知道，对吗？\n24 关键在于，为债权人利益而进行的转让，\n25 公司，即转让人，可以转让其\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2030\n提交 07/24/23\n录入 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023\n\n1 想要转让的内容。他们不必转让一切。而且我\n2 不知道。我完全不知道，我的意思是，已经发生了什么。\n3 我不喜欢为债权人利益而进行的\n4 转让的一个原因正是这个，对吗？\n5 进行转让的一方决定他们将要\n6 转让什么。他们可能没有转让一切。我完全\n7 不知道。我完全不知道。\n8 斯克拉兹先生：\n我也不知道。\n9 法官：\n但是，律师告诉我，\n10 他们根本无法访问云端。\n11 因此，即使你所言正确，即你应有权搜索该云端，\n12 我也不知道这将如何运作。\n13 斯克拉兹先生：\n我的意思是，如果——如果所有\n14 数据现在都无法获得——\n15 法官：\n嗯，我不知道它是否\n16 无法获得，但它没有——它尚未提供给\n17 受让人，所以那是另一个问题，对吗？\n18 斯克拉兹先生：\n嗯，我并不——我很抱歉，法官\n19 阁下。律师能否澄清他们是否持有\n20 该数据？\n21 贾雷克先生：\n再说一次，我们确实持有一些数据，但我\n22 相信律师所指的数据，再说一次，是在\n23 云端。\n24 我们能否重新聘用 IT 人员来下载\n25 这些信息，我假定可以。我们没有做过\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 137 任何毁坏任何东西的行为。一切均已维护。你可以把钥匙插进门锁，但没有人能够接触任何东西。因此，一切均已维护和保存。但是，如何从云端下载信息，那是专属于律师当事人的事项，我不会——我甚至无法告诉你从何开始。法官：嗯，如果是在过去的年代，对吗，当我们谈论文件时，对吗——斯克拉兹先生：我们会去那里并取得它们。法官：——你会去那里并查看一切，对吗？斯克拉兹先生：是。法官：然后你会作出判断，你会说这些都是享有保密特权且属机密的文件，你们不能交出它们。那么，你是说 G-Club 想聘请某人来做这件事吗？如果你是说，在受让人的监督下，你们去聘请某人来做这件事，这可能是一项合理的请求。我不知道。斯克拉兹先生：我认为这是一个好主意，法官阁下。我——直到律师刚才表示不存在——即他们并未——他们无法访问数据之前，我并不知道这一点。案件 22-50073 文件 2030 提交 07/24/23 录入 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 137 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 提交 07/24/23 录入 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 138 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023\n\n1 我只是想，您知道，与我的\n2 当事人谈谈，看看这是否可以接受。但这听起来是一个\n3 好办法，即由 G-Club 聘请一名 IT\n4 专业人员，与受让人合作，找出\n5 访问该数据的方法。\n6 法官：\n卢夫特律师（Luft）？\n7 卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，我重新开始陈述时，我想\n8 上前并就此发言。\n9 法官：\n好的。是。\n10 斯克拉兹律师，你暂时说完了吗？\n11 斯克拉兹先生：\n除非法官阁下还有其他\n12 问题。\n13 法官：\n因此，为了明确起见，你当事人\n14 对修订后拟议命令的异议是，该命令没有\n15 处理你们所称的这一技术问题。你们希望能够在\n16 文件交给受托人之前审阅文件，\n17 以确定是否存在——如果存在——享有\n18 保密特权的文件，并主张该特权？\n19 斯克拉兹先生：\n正确，法官阁下。\n20 法官：\n而且如果你这样做，无论如何你必须\n21 编制一份特权清单？\n22 斯克拉兹先生：\n正确，法官阁下。\n23 法官：\n好的。好。谢谢。\n24 斯克拉兹先生：\n谢谢。\n25 法官：\n好的。请继续，卢夫特律师。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 提交 07/24/23 录入 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 139 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023\n\n1 卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n2 法官：\n当然。\n3 卢夫特先生：\n非常感谢。\n4 法官阁下，如蒙法庭许可，我将先谈\n5 G-Club，然后再谈及 Himalayan entities（喜马拉雅实体）。\n6 再次说明，我是 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的 Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），\n7 代表 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）。\n8 那么，法官阁下，我听了整个过程。\n9 坦率地说，我感谢每个人都试图创造性地思考\n10 如何处理此事。我将向您解释为何我不\n11 认为存在任何需要通过本项裁定解决的问题，\n12 但我们看看是否是我错了。\n13 事实是，法官阁下，G-Club 在\n14 其文件中所写和所主张的是，他们担心\n15 保密性，并保护可能存在的任何特权。\n16 \n17 他们称，他们，“只寻求实施一项明确界定的程序，\n18 以保护并保全权利和特权。”\n19 \n20 但是，他们文件中所写的内容，以及法官阁下在其\n21 修订版第6章中看到的段落所写的内容，与\n22 他们所谈论的事情几乎毫无关系。\n23 \n24 我想先谈几项\n25 已经说过的事情。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 提交 07/24/23 录入 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 140 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 140 首先，和解协议第6段是一项重要条款。G-Club 一直谈论其 2004 证据开示。尽管我曾多次在您面前试图实现这一点，但第6段并非关于此事。第6段是关于允许受托人访问文件。这很重要，因为——因为我们正在达成和解，并且由于该对抗程序将如何进行，我们实际上是在该对抗程序中取消证据开示，并且（听不清）——法官：我不同意你这一点。因为如同我对其所说，我明白你的观点，但如同我对斯克拉兹律师所说，他为第6段拟定该措辞的方式不可行。卢夫特先生：我同意。法官：即便有任何限制，也将仅限于 G-Club。好吗？因此，就必须提供信息而言，我们并未取消证据开示；唯一可能被搁置并以超过一个步骤处理的事项属于 G-Club。如果我们进行到那一步。好吗？卢夫特先生：法官阁下，我很高兴听到这一点。法官：好的。卢夫特先生：我接着指出——法官：嗯，这正是我所说的。所以，如果我\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 提交 07/24/23 录入 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 141 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 141 说得不够清楚，我很抱歉。但就是这样。我对斯克拉兹律师说过，这仅适用于 G-Club，也仅适用于任何享有保密特权或属机密、你们可以就其主张特权的事项，仅此而已。卢夫特先生：而且，法官阁下，为明确起见，我将就该措辞提前说明，如果您阅读他提出的措辞，那并不是——他不是说仅限 G-Club 的文件，他说的是仅与——仅与 HCHK 实体有关的文件。而且——法官：这就是我提出该点的原因。卢夫特先生：是。法官：这是我提出的一点。那不会——那不会发生。卢夫特先生：正确，法官阁下。我的意思是，即使我将其改为 G-Club，如果 HCHK——法官：不。你把“仅”放在不同的位置。卢夫特先生：是。法官：它并不与 HCHK 有关，它并不有关。那个词不正确。卢夫特先生：法官阁下——法官：因为你是正确的。那样的话，它就会适用于任何任何人可以说的事情，对吗？卢夫特先生：正确。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2030 提交 07/24/23 录入 07/24/23 16:18:31 第 142 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 142 法院：而且没有其他任何人这样说。因此，如果有人将获得任何保护，唯一会获得保护的人将是G-Club。LUFT先生：是的，法官阁下。我想说明的一点，我想我表达得不够恰当，是其含义是，即使只有G-Club属于相关事项。因此，如果HCHK持有关于G-Club的文件，按照他们起草的方式，即使范围仅限于G-Club，他们也会将其排除在外。法院：不，他们不会。因为该文件必须受一项他们须主张并随后证明其有权享有的特权所保护。LUFT先生：很好。那么现在我们——好的。DESPINS先生：这没有问题。LUFT先生：那么现在我们讨论的是，如果存在特权，并且该特权会使其成为他们的文件，我——我同意您的看法。法院：而且他们必须证明这一点，对吗？LUFT先生：对。法院：这就是为什么你有特权清单。LUFT先生：正确。法院：你将审阅该清单，然后会说，这不享有特权，法官。您必须判断其是否享有特权，对吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 143 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日\n\n1 LUFT先生：\n确实。\n2 法院：\n这正是我预计将发生的情况。\n3 LUFT先生：\n好的。\n很好。\n我同意这一点。\n4 现在，让我们谈谈这项特权。\n5 法官阁下，他们称，他们已将HCHK视为\n6 与G-Club完全无关的第三方。他们已将\n7 其文件交给了这个第三方。\n8 此后，该第三方——这些文件\n9 被转让人接管。这是又一个第三\n10 方。\n11 然后，该转让人与G-News达成了一项交易，\n12 其中包括允许其在一段期间内开始运营，\n13 这又是第三个第三方。\n14 我不知道现在还有什么能够享有特权。\n15 据我所知，在文件被转交时，他们从未提出异议——\n16 他们没有就此提出问题。他们没有\n17 在文件被转交给该转让人时提出异议。而且，他们\n18 当然也没有提出异议，据我所知，当时\n19 该转让人随后表示G-News可以访问这些文件。\n20 现在已有三个第三方可以访问\n21 受特权保护的信息。因此，我不理解如何——\n22 法院：\n所以你是说，该特权已被\n23 放弃？\n24 DESPINS先生：\n正确。\n25 LUFT先生：\n完全正确，法官阁下。我不\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2030\nFiled 07/24/23\nEntered 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日\n\n1 理解我们所谈的是何种特权。而我们——\n2 \n3 因此，尽管我看不出存在任何特权，但我可以\n4 想象，要试图审阅所有这些\n5 文件——我现在已等待了相当长的一段时间——\n6 进行审阅并逐一核查所有文件，只是为了\n7 得出这样的结论，即，哦，对，我们已将它们全部放弃，我\n8 无法理解。\n9 现在，也许存在我没有\n10 看到的论点，但是，法官阁下，我首先要指出的是——\n11 法院：\n好的。但我们——我听到了你\n12 所说的。我确实听到了。不过，我们尚未——我们尚未\n13 在法律上处理过该论点，对吗？\n14 LUFT先生：\n我们曾谈到过这一点——\n15 法院：\n我是说，我们尚未在\n16 法律上处理你所提出的论点，即，你知道，\n17 你可能是对的，该特权可能已被放弃。但是，\n18 我认为你刚才所说的内容尚未提交给\n19 法院以作出该项认定。对吗？\n20 因此，就G-Club及其反对作出——批准\n21 该和解及作出本项命令而言，你将主张\n22 其异议\n23 应被驳回，因为不存在任何特权？\n24 LUFT先生：\n就其异议而言，正如\n25 我所理解的，即他们现在对其持有范围有限的\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 145 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日\n\n担忧，即HCHK存有其享有特权的文件，我会说该异议应被驳回，因为就我而言，这些文件中的任何此类特权似乎都已被放弃。是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nLUFT先生：\n至于保密性，如果我正确听到了他的意思，听起来他们对此已不再那么担忧。\n\n法院：\n这就是他所说的。\n\nLUFT先生：\n好的。因此，我将假定，我们现有的措辞无需再进一步讨论该问题。\n\n法院：\n或者你们双方可以作任何进一步讨论，无论是保密还是高度保密，现有的保护令已处理这些问题。\n\nLUFT先生：\n我同意，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nLUFT先生：\n我将——因此，我认为基于此，以及法官阁下所讨论的已经作出的修改，我认为我们面前真正唯一的问题就是该特权问题。如我所说，我认为存在放弃，但我认为问题就在于此。\n\n除此以外，我将假定，根据今天的意见，他们的其他论点均已得到处理。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2030\nFiled 07/24/23\nEntered 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日\n\n1 法院：\n是。我们必须——是。我必须\n2 考虑，就放弃问题而言，我是否要你采取任何行动，以及要你采取何种行动。\n3 \n4 \n5 但我同意。Sklarz律师（斯克拉兹）已表示，\n6 保密性并非他们最主要的问题。他们理解\n7 并将与你合作处理——即\n8 保护令中的保护措施将如何适用于\n9 保密信息。\n10 LUFT先生：\n好的。\n11 法院：\n关于特权问题，\n12 我们将讨论此事，但我知道其目前的状况。\n13 LUFT先生：\n谢谢。\n14 法院：\n那么现在让我们转向其他\n15 当事人。\n16 LUFT先生：\n好的。我可以再说明一点\n17 吗？\n18 法院：\n当然。\n19 LUFT先生：\n据我理解——关于\n20 访问以及对文件的访问，我不能——我\n21 不知道是否——与Jareck先生（雅雷克）交谈后，\n22 似乎他们并不知道曾出现\n23 有人被禁止访问这些文件的问题。\n24 但坦率地说，法官阁下，我确实担忧的是\n25 保存义务违反及证据灭失的问题。就\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 147 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 147 而言，如果访问权限已经可用或已恢复，我不希望G-Club更改目前存在的任何文件。这将是我唯一的——法院：嗯，如果它们在云端，他们怎么能更改它们？他们可以复制它们。LUFT先生：嗯，如果他们现在有访问权限，法官阁下，或者如果他们获得访问权限，如果他们曾有访问权限——法院：嗯，我不知道你——我是说，我不知道在有人具体提出某事之前，我能就此做些什么。我是说，我听到了你所说的。但是，你知道，你有一名律师——LUFT先生：我理解——法院：——代表——两名律师代表一个实体，他们负有职业道德义务，对吗？我确信他们已告知其客户存在诉讼保全令，或者不论他们想如何称呼它。而如果其客户继续销毁文件，那么就必须有人证明这一点，并从那里继续处理。目前，我不会解决有关云端文件的这一问题。LUFT先生：法官阁下，我理解这一点。我想，从我们的角度来看，通过该和解允许受托人访问，至少确保我们能够看到曾经存在什么内容。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 148 无论他们也能否访问并阅读曾经存在的内容，则是另一个问题。我同意您的看法，那不是由法官阁下来决定的。我只是说，这项安排之所以是该和解中的一项重要条款，原因之一是为了使我们能够看到其中有什么内容，知悉该等内容，并掌握该等信息。我的陈述至此结束。法院：我理解。LUFT先生：法官阁下，关于喜马拉雅实体，除非法官阁下有问题，否则我将非常简要地陈述。我不会逐项说明全部内容。法院：不。请继续。LUFT先生：非常简要地说，关于是否为免责给予了适当对价这一问题，存在多项论点。我认为我们几乎是在以镜像方式看待此事。通常，当受托人给予免责时，关于对价是否充分的问题，是破产财产是否因该免责而获得充分对价的问题。然而，这些人，即喜马拉雅实体，似乎在谈论的是，他们是否因受让人获得免责而得到了充分对价。我认为这不是9019所要审查的问题。受托人正在给予免责，而 Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 148 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 149 问题是我们是否获得了足够的回报？我认为，我上次所主张的、关于我们为何认为这是一个良好和解以及破产财产所获得的对价的内容，已经回答了该问题。我认为这解决了该问题。\n\n关于这样的说法，即由于存在一项免责条款和一项导流禁令，然后我们听取了意见并相应地尝试寻求折中、寻求某种措辞，这就意味着我们不知何故认为最初的这些条款并不重要，我认为这多少有些不坦诚，法官阁下。这就是我们在这里所做之事的程序。人们到场提出异议，我们不会充耳不闻，我们尝试倾听，并且在能够找到达成解决办法的途径时，这就是我们所尝试去做的。我认为，如果实际上每次有人作出妥协，你就说这意味着其一开始一定并不认真，这将是一项糟糕的公共政策。我认为这不合理。\n\n最后，关于——把关机制这一问题，我将留给Jareck先生处理。我认为他已经说明了担忧的依据。但我将提及这样一个事实，即已有多次提到，我们已纳入 Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 149 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 150 修订命令中的内容，据我理解，未依据9013获得支持，或者我们没有撰写——提供书面——法院：是的。顺便说一句，书面陈述中关于9013的措辞并不正确。9013对对价没有任何规定。那是一项动议。那是一项关于动议的规则。LUFT先生：正确，法官阁下。法院：因此，我已经审阅过该问题，关于9013规定何种内容的措辞并不准确。LUFT先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我只想指出，就其他意见而言，即认为我们不知何故没有提供或者未予支持，法官阁下并未要求我们就修订后的动议提交书面陈述。您要求我们将内容纳入保护令，或者对保护令作出修改。法院：对。我同意。LUFT先生：因此，我认为，对我们没有进一步展开说明这一事实提出异议，是不公平的。法院：我并不担忧该问题。LUFT先生：我也不担忧，法官阁下。法院：好的。LUFT先生：我没有其他问题——我没有其他意见。您对我有任何问题吗？法院：关于第14段，美国受托人的最终立场是什么？Case 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 150 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 151\n\nLUFT先生（卢夫特）：我让Jareck先生（贾雷克）——\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯）：我来回应这个问题。\n\nLUFT先生：——或者Despins先生愿意就此发言。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，我想就第13和第14段都作出回应。两段均以“如法庭作出有利于受托人的终局性裁定”为开头。第13段——第14段中均未说“如第13段所述的免责生效”。因此，它们是相互关联的。除非法庭已认定我们是正确的，并且这些实体是债务人的另一自我，否则这两段均不会生效。如果是这样，它们就不是第三方权利主张人。“它们是我们一方的权利主张人”，引号内原话，而我们当然对它们拥有管辖权。一旦我们实现了这一点，显然法庭有管辖权认定，为避免规避我的命令、您的命令的权利主张，这些权利主张获得豁免；我将要求人们向法庭提交一项简易动议，说明“我正在起诉受让人。我拥有直接权利主张。”而法官阁下将会，如您所知，作出裁断，并说，好的，这是直接权利主张，准许其继续进行。或者，这不是直接权利主张，已获豁免。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 151 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 152 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 152\n\n您当然有管辖权这样做，因为只有在您认定它们是另一自我之后，这两项规定才会生效。届时，它们就是我们的债权人。您显然对它们拥有管辖权。所以，我想确保这一点。您可能会说，既然这现在尚未生效，为什么要把它写进去？因为受让人希望知道，如果我们胜诉，他将获得其利益。因此，这就是现在将其写入的原因。但今天，这些规定不会发生效力；如果法官阁下裁定我们在另一自我问题上胜诉，它们将自动生效。因此，对它们的管辖权依据完全充分。法庭可以作出该项裁定，这毫无疑问。而且，再者，General Motors（通用汽车）案与此完全相符。那是一次出售，但这里的要点是相同的。无论是免责还是出售，要点都相同。因此，我们认为法庭可以这样做，并且有管辖权这样做。如果有任何我未回应的问题，我乐于回应。\n\n法庭：没有。我目前没有进一步问题。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 153 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 153\n\nMcCLAMMY女士（麦克拉米）：法官阁下，简要说几句？\n\n法庭：当然。\n\nMcCLAMMY女士：我可以走近吗？\n\n法庭：当然可以。\n\nMcCLAMMY女士：我只是想回应Luft先生的评论，因为不真诚并非我的习惯，我不希望记录显示如此。我们非常感谢对免责条款所作的修改，并且，如您和我此前讨论的，我们同意该免责条款不再涵盖我的当事人以其自身身份提出的权利主张。对于该项免责，我的当事人本应获得对价的说法不存在争议，因为该免责对他们并无约束力。关于对价的论点——也许措辞不够妥当——是说，该命令，特别是第14段，如我们所讨论的，也如Claiborn女士（克莱伯恩女士）所述，对我的当事人造成不利影响并给他们施加负担，却未给予他们任何相应利益。因此，从他们的角度看，这项和解完全是单方面的。显然，这对破产财产而言是极好的结果。显然，它向受让人提供了一些事项。它没有向我们提供任何有价值的东西，但同时又向我们施加负担。这就是我试图提出的论点。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 154 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023\n\n1 法庭：\n2 好的。谢谢。\n3 McCLAMMY女士：谢谢。\n4 法庭：我明白。\n5 今天下午还有任何人要补充吗？\n6 LUFT先生：没有，法官阁下。\n7 法庭：好的。\n8 抱歉。请讲，Luft律师。哦，您说没有？\n9 \n10 LUFT先生：没有，法官阁下。\n11 法庭：好的。鉴于今天下午提出的论点以及若干我尚未查阅的判例法引述，我必须审查此事。\n12 \n13 因此，我将对此事保留裁决，并将据此作出裁定。\n14 \n15 \n16 如果在我保留裁决期间，出于某种原因，我认为需要当事人提供额外材料，我们会通知你们，但我需要回去审查此事。\n17 \n18 \n19 \n20 我确实认为，正如律师刚才指出的，过去一周在免责问题上已经取得进展。\n21 \n22 我理解，对第14段仍存在关切。我理解G-Club（G俱乐部）对第6段的关切，以及受托人对第6段的关切。此外，其他当事人还就整个和解提出了尚待处理的异议，具体涉及行政权利主张问题。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 155\n\n这些问题均须由我审查并作出决定。如我所说，如果法庭需要其他材料，你们将获知该情况。否则，如果我可以在不要求任何其他材料的情况下作出裁定，我就会这样做。如果不能，我将要求你们提供材料，然后我们将据此继续进行。我知道当事人希望尽早解决此事，我也是如此，我将尽最大努力做到这一点。我们还有其他事项、其他案件、其他事务，但我们将审查此事，并将尽可能尽快解决。今天下午还有其他人有任何事项吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，我只是想确认一下，如果我没弄错，我们的下一次听证会是August 2nd。是同一——\n\n法庭：我目前不知道。\n\nDESPINS先生：好的。\n\n法庭：但我想我可以看一下。\n\nDESPINS先生：嗯，不，您不需要。我只是——\n\n法庭：我可以看一下。我们都可以看一下。我不知道。是的。至少目前日程表显示如此。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 155 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2030\nFiled 07/24/23\nEntered 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023\n\n1 日程表目前是这样显示的。\n2 DESPINS先生：目前是这样，对。\n3 法庭：August 2nd，仅在对抗程序中举行听证，就驳回对抗程序的动议进行听证。这是日程表显示的内容。至少就我现在所看的而言，我只看到这些。我是否可能漏了什么？当然可能。但看来下一次听证会是在August 2nd，就对抗程序22-5027中的动议——即驳回对抗程序的动议——举行听证。\n4 \n5 \n6 \n7 \n8 \n9 \n10 DESPINS先生：好的。谢谢，法官阁下。\n11 法庭：好的？好的。今天的听证至此结束。这也是今日日程表上的最后一项事项，因此，法庭休庭。谢谢。\n12 \n13 \n14 全体律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n15 （程序于下午3:31结束。）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2030 Filed 07/24/23 Entered 07/24/23 16:18:31 Page 157 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023\n\n1 本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），经法庭批准的笔录员以及认证电子记录员和笔录员，特此证明，\n2 上述内容是对上述标题事项程序官方电子录音的正确笔录。\n3 \n4 \n5 \n8 July 24, 2023\n9 Christine Fiore, CERT\n10 笔录员\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2030\nFiled 07/24/23\nEntered 07/24/23 16:18:31\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 158\n\n3 索引\n\n5 债务人方证人： 直接询问 交叉询问\n6 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔） 28","key_entities":["Kwok","GTV","Ho Wan Kwok","Saraca","Despins","Je","Guo","HCHK","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins","Himalaya","GETTR","CIPA","G Clubs"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":203,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1893,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2006,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2007,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":44701,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-07-24 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-07-24","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:12:19"}