{"id":"court_ctb_2080_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2080,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-08-11","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -------------------------------------------","summary_zh":"民事藐视法庭补充动议 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #2080（2023-08-11立案）。第 11 章受托人向法院提出动议，请求裁定 GTV Media Group, Inc. 与 Saraca Media Group, Inc. 构成民事藐视法庭，理由是两家实体在收到破产法第 2004 条调查传票近一年后仍未履行调证及文件交付义务。","summary_en":"Supplemental Motion for Civil Contempt —— In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB No. 22-50073, ECF #2080 (filed 2023-08-11). The Chapter 11 Trustee moved for an order holding GTV Media Group, Inc. and Saraca Media Group, Inc. in civil contempt of court for their failure to comply with and respond to Rule 2004 discovery subpoenas served nearly a year prior.","body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | x |                         |\n|---------------------------------------------------------|---|-------------------------|\n|                                                         | : |                         |\n| In re:                                                  | : | Chapter 11              |\n|                                                         | : |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                    | : | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                         | : |                         |\n| Debtors.1                                               | : | Jointly Administered    |\n|                                                         | : |                         |\n| ------------------------------------------------------  | x |                         |\n\n# **SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO HOLD GTV MEDIA GROUP, INC. AND SARACA MEDIA GROUP, INC. IN CIVIL CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR FAILING TO RESPOND TO RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS**\n\nLuc A. Despins, in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee (the \"Trustee\") appointed with respect to the Debtor's chapter 11 case (the \"Chapter 11 Case\"), hereby files this supplemental contempt motion (the \"Supplemental Contempt Motion\") for entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto as **Exhibit A** (the \"Proposed Order\"), pursuant to Rules 26 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Federal Rules\"), and Rules 2004 and 9016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\"), to hold GTV Media Group, Inc. (\"GTV Media\") and Saraca Media Group, Inc. (\"Saraca Media\") in civil contempt for failing to respond to this Court's Rule 2004 Order[2](#page-0-1) and with the subpoenas (the \"Subpoenas\") the Trustee issued\n\n<span id=\"page-0-0\"></span> <sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595) (the \"Debtor\") and Genever Holdings Corporation (the \"Genever BVI Debtor\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and the Genever BVI Debtor is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<span id=\"page-0-1\"></span><sup>2</sup> The term \"Rule 2004 Order\" shall mean the Court's *Order Granting Chapter 11 Trustee's Application for Rule 2004 Discovery with Respect to Various Entities and Individuals Affiliated with Debtor* [ECF No. 758] (the \"Associated Entity Rule 2004 Order\").\n\npursuant to that Order. In support of this Supplemental Contempt Motion, the Trustee respectfully states as follows:\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n1. Both GTV Media and Saraca Media were served with valid Rule 2004 Subpoenas approximately one year ago. Yet, the Trustee has not received any document production from either entity. Instead, both entities have elected to cease communications with the Trustee and instead to simply ignore their obligations under their Subpoenas.\n\n2. GTV Media and Saraca Media initially discussed their respective Subpoenas with counsel for the Trustee through shared counsel, Morvillo,[3](#page-1-0) in or around September 2022. However, their shared counsel abruptly withdrew its representation of both entities on the eve of a production demand made by counsel for the Trustee more than fifty days after both entities' document productions were due. Counsel for the Trustee was told to direct all communication regarding the Subpoenas to Attorney Aaron Mitchell, who accepted service of GTV Media's Subpoena, who was a board member of GTV Media up until April 2023, and who currently represents both GTV Media and Saraca Media in \"five or six\" cases tangentially related to this bankruptcy proceeding.\n\n3. In December 2022, counsel for the Trustee discussed the Subpoenas with Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Mitchell said he would provide the contact information for GTV Media's new counsel once retained. Mr. Mitchell also indicated that he was not authorized to act on behalf of Saraca Media. Counsel for the Trustee followed-up with Mr. Mitchell, asking him to provide the contact information for GTV Media's new counsel and to provide the contact information for an individual able to act on behalf of Saraca Media. However, Attorney Mitchell failed to respond to inquiries from counsel for the Trustee.\n\n<span id=\"page-1-0\"></span> <sup>3</sup> Capitalized terms not yet defined take the meaning assigned to them below.\n\n4. Attorney Mitchell recently told this Court that he (1) knew that GTV Media had a valid Rule 2004 Subpoena against it while he was a member of GTV Media's board; (2) knew that GTV Media's and Saraca Media's shared counsel withdrew from its representation of the entities and directed counsel for the Trustee to speak to him; and (3) failed to respond to inquiries from counsel for the Trustee regarding the Subpoenas because GTV Media never acquired new counsel, and he was not aware of anyone that the Trustee could speak to at Saraca Media – an entity he still represents in multiple other cases.\n\n5. GTV Media and Saraca Media should be held in civil contempt of court for failure to comply with their Rule 2004 Subpoenas.\n\n## **FACTUAL BACKGROUND**\n\n6. On May 18, 2023, the Trustee filed a *Motion for Entry of Order Compelling GTV Media, Inc., Saraca Media Group, Inc., and G-Club Operations LLC to Comply with Rule 2004 Subpoenas and for Entry of an Order Holding G-Club US Operations LLC, G-Club US Operations, Inc., Hudson Diamond NY LLC, Hudson Diamond Holding LLC, G-Fashion LLC, GNews LLC, US Himalaya Capital Inc., New York MOS Himalaya LLC, Crane Advisory Group LLC, and Maywind Trading LLC in Civil Contempt for Failing to Respond to Rule 2004 Subpoenas* (the \"Contempt Motion\") [ECF No. 1805].\n\n7. As more fully described in the Contempt Motion, GTV Media and Saraca Media are closely linked to the Debtor.[4](#page-2-0) Both GTV Media and Saraca Media were subject to an SEC Order resulting in an aggregate obligation to pay the SEC more than \\$539 million in civil penalties,\n\n<span id=\"page-2-0\"></span> <sup>4</sup> Paragraphs 15 through 17 of the Contempt Motion detail the relationship between GTV Media, Saraca Media, and the Debtor. For the sake of judicial economy, the Trustee incorporates those paragraphs by reference into this Supplemental Contempt Motion.\n\ndisgorgement, and interest, and were key links in the fraud indictments against the Debtor, Yvette Wang, and William Je. Saraca Media is also the parent entity to many of the G-Series entities.\n\n8. On June 6, 2023, a hearing was held on the Contempt Motion, during which the Trustee advised the Court that, in addition to seeking to compel GTV Media and Saraca Media to produce documents responsive to the Subpoenas, he also sought to hold GTV Media and Saraca Media in civil contempt of court because, despite initially discussing the Subpoenas with counsel for the Trustee through shared counsel, they stopped all communication with the Trustee in December 2022 and have since done nothing to comply with the Subpoenas. The Trustee also requested that the Court order Attorney Aaron A. Mitchell to appear and testify regarding the Subpoenas issued to GTV Media and Saraca Media.[5](#page-3-0)\n\n9. On June 7, 2023, the Court entered an *Order Requiring GTV Media, Inc., Saraca Media Group, Inc. and Attorney Aaron A. Mitchell to Appear and Show Cause Why GTV Media, Inc. and Saraca Media Group, Inc. Should Not Be Held in Civil Contempt of Court* (the \"Order to Appear and Show Cause\") [ECF No. 1893].\n\n10. The Order to Appear and Show Cause ordered GTV Media and Saraca Media to appear through an officer, director, member, or manager on July 18, 2023 to show cause why this Court should not hold GTV Media and Saraca Media in civil contempt of court for failing to respond or comply with the Subpoenas (the \"Show Cause Hearing\").[6](#page-3-1) The Order to Appear and Show Cause ordered Attorney Mitchell to appear in his personal capacity.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-0\"></span> <sup>5</sup> Paragraphs 24 through 33 of the Contempt Motion detail counsel for the Trustee's communications with GTV Media, Saraca Media, and Attorney Mitchell regarding the Subpoenas. For the sake of judicial economy, the Trustee incorporates those paragraphs by reference into this Supplemental Contempt Motion. Copies of the Subpoenas issued to GTV Media and Saraca Media are attached as Exhibits B-1 and B-2, respectfully, to the *Declaration of Avram E. Luft in Support of Motion to Compel* (the \"Luft Declaration\"), which was filed contemporaneously with the Contempt Motion.\n\n<span id=\"page-3-1\"></span><sup>6</sup> A copy of the transcript from the July 18, 2023 Show Cause Hearing is attached hereto as **Exhibit B**.\n\n11. No one from either GTV Media or Saraca appeared at the July 18, 2023 Show Cause Hearing. Attorney Mitchell appeared at the July 18, 2023 Show Cause Hearing and testified in his personal capacity. Attorney Mitchell did not testify as an officer, director, member, or manager of either Saraca Media or GTV Media. [7](#page-4-0)\n\n12. During the July 18, 2023 Show Cause Hearing, counsel for the Trustee examined Attorney Mitchell with regards to GTV Media's and Saraca Media's lack of response to the Subpoenas.\n\n13. Attorney Mitchell testified that, along with representing the Debtor in this bankruptcy case, he also represents Mei Guo (the Debtor's daughter), [8](#page-4-1) Qiang Guo (the Debtor's son), [9](#page-4-2) and HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC in connection with this bankruptcy case, [10](#page-4-3) and represents numerous other Kwok-related entities and individuals, including Genever Holding LLC, [11](#page-4-4) G-Club Operations LLC,[12](#page-4-5) Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.,[13](#page-4-6) G-Music,[14](#page-4-7) G- Fashion, [15](#page-4-8) and Williams Je[16](#page-4-9) in various other matters. Remarkably, Mr. Mitchell testified that despite being counsel in this bankruptcy and privy to the considerable evidence to the\n\n- <span id=\"page-4-3\"></span><sup>10</sup> *See id.* at 35:13-15.\n- <span id=\"page-4-4\"></span><sup>11</sup> *See id.* at 29:19-22.\n- <span id=\"page-4-5\"></span><sup>12</sup> *See id.* at 38:9-11.\n- <span id=\"page-4-6\"></span><sup>13</sup> *See id.* at 36:2-9.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-0\"></span> <sup>7</sup> *See* **Ex. B** at 75:14-20.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-1\"></span><sup>8</sup> *See id.* at 29:18-24.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-2\"></span><sup>9</sup> *See id.* at 35:16-24.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-7\"></span><sup>14</sup> *See id.* at 40:7-11.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-8\"></span><sup>15</sup> *See id.* at 39:6-8.\n\n<span id=\"page-4-9\"></span><sup>16</sup> *See id.* at 52:9-11.\n\ncontrary that has been presented to this Court, that Mr. Kwok did not have any business dealings with these entities.[17](#page-5-0)\n\n14. Mr. Mitchell also admitted to his role in GTV Media's and Saraca Media's private securities offering evidencing his deep connection to them as both counsel and as a board member to GTV Media, [18](#page-5-1) and to his role in facilitating the relationship between the Debtor and William Je, which included personally arranging a \\$37 million payment from Mr. Je for the benefit of the Debtor, for a bond to be posted in April 2022. [19](#page-5-2)\n\n15. Moreover, Attorney Mitchell testified that he was the lone remaining director of GTV Media until his resignation on April 20, 2023.[20](#page-5-3) He testified that GTV Media is no longer operating and that there is no one left at GTV Media, [21](#page-5-4) but incongruously stated that he still represents GTV Media in about five or six cases tangentially related to this bankruptcy case.[22](#page-5-5)\n\n16. Attorney Mitchell also conceded that he represents Saraca Media in the same five or six cases in which he represents GTV Media. [23](#page-5-6) He stated that he did not know the current operating status of Saraca Media, but he said that he did not think anyone was there, despite being their ongoing counsel. [24](#page-5-7)\n\n<span id=\"page-5-0\"></span> <sup>17</sup> *See id.* at 42:12-22.\n\n<span id=\"page-5-1\"></span><sup>18</sup> *See id.* at 47:23-49:10.\n\n<span id=\"page-5-2\"></span><sup>19</sup> *See id.* at 51:1-52:1.\n\n<span id=\"page-5-3\"></span><sup>20</sup> *See id.* at 24:9-11.\n\n<span id=\"page-5-4\"></span><sup>21</sup> *See id.* at 35:1-2; 56:7-12.\n\n<span id=\"page-5-5\"></span><sup>22</sup> *See id.* at 31:5-8; 31:16-17.\n\n<span id=\"page-5-6\"></span><sup>23</sup> *See id.* at 32:21-22.\n\n<span id=\"page-5-7\"></span><sup>24</sup> *See id.* at 56:13-16.\n\n17. Mr. Mitchell admitted that he accepted service of GTV Media's Subpoena via email, and that once he received service of the Subpoena, he likely forwarded it to Attorney Jeremy Temkin of Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC (\"Morvillo\"), the attorney who represented both GTV Media and Saraca Media prior to his abrupt withdrawal. [25](#page-6-0)\n\n18. Attorney Mitchell testified to his awareness that Morvillo withdrew from representing both GTV Media and Saraca Media on or around the eve of a production demand made by counsel for the Trustee.\n\n19. Attorney Mitchell told the Court that at the time of Morvillo's withdrawal from representing GTV Media and Saraca Media, he and the GTV Media board were aware that there were outstanding Subpoenas to both GTV Media and Saraca Media, [26](#page-6-1) and that he was aware that Attorney Temkin told counsel for the Trustee to direct all communications regarding the Subpoenas to Attorney Mitchell. [27](#page-6-2)\n\n20. Attorney Mitchell did not dispute that counsel for the Trustee sent him multiple emails in or around December 2022, wherein counsel for the Trustee asked Attorney Mitchell to provide the contact information of new counsel for GTV Media and the name of an individual to speak to at Saraca Media.[28](#page-6-3)\n\n21. Despite being a board member of GTV Media between December 2022 and April 2023 (the date Attorney Mitchell resigned from GTV Media's board), and being aware of the GTV Media Subpoena, Attorney Mitchell said that he never responded to the requests made by counsel\n\n<span id=\"page-6-0\"></span> <sup>25</sup> *See id.* at 64:6-8. A copy of the email service of GTV Media's Rule 2004 Subpoena is attached as Exhibit C-1 to the Luft Declaration, filed contemporaneously with the Contempt Motion.\n\n<span id=\"page-6-1\"></span><sup>26</sup> *See id.* at 66:7-10.\n\n<span id=\"page-6-2\"></span><sup>27</sup> *See id.* at 66:11-14.\n\n<span id=\"page-6-3\"></span><sup>28</sup> *See id.* at 67:21-22; 68:10-13.\n\nfor the Trustee because GTV Media never retained new counsel. [29](#page-7-0) Attorney Mitchell testified that, while a member of GTV Media's board, he was aware of GTV Media's failure to respond to its Subpoena.[30](#page-7-1)\n\n22. Similarly, Attorney Mitchell said that he never responded to the requests made by counsel for the Trustee concerning Saraca Media's Subpoena because he did not have the contact information for anyone at Saraca Media, a company which he represents in multiple other cases. [31](#page-7-2)\n\n23. Attorney Mitchell testified that GTV Media's and Saraca Media's documents are stored on an electronic database called Terrace.[32](#page-7-3) However, Attorney Mitchell said that he is not aware of anyone having access to those documents.[33](#page-7-4)\n\n24. At the time of this filing, the Trustee has not received a single document from either GTV Media or Saraca Media.\n\n### **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n25. The Court has jurisdiction to consider this matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Venue is proper in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. This is a core proceeding pursuant to, *inter alia*, 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) (A), (E), and (O).\n\n## **RELIEF REQUESTED**\n\n26. The Trustee seeks entry of the Proposed Order holding GTV Media and Saraca Media in civil contempt for failing to respond to the Subpoenas.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-0\"></span> <sup>29</sup> *See id.* at 68:7-9.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-1\"></span><sup>30</sup> *See id.* at 72:17-21.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-2\"></span><sup>31</sup> *See id.* at 69:3-6.\n\n<span id=\"page-7-3\"></span><sup>32</sup> *See id.* at 58:10-59:3 (Saraca Media); 61:3-5 (GTV Media).\n\n<span id=\"page-7-4\"></span><sup>33</sup> *See id.* at 74:4-6.\n\n#### **BASIS FOR RELIEF**\n\n27. Rule 45(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that \"[f]ailure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena served upon that person may be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena issued.\" *In re Corso*, 328 B.R. 375, 385 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting FRCP 45(e)) (quotations omitted); *PaineWebber Inc. v. Acstar Ins. Co.*, 211 F.R.D. 247, 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (\"Where a party fails to object to a subpoena and also fails to comply, it may be held in contempt, pursuant to Rule 45[(e)]\") (internal quotations omitted).\n\n28. In order to hold a party in civil contempt, \"the court need only (1) have entered a clear and unambiguous order, (2) find it established by clear and convincing evidence that the order was not complied with, and (3) find that the alleged contemnor has not clearly established his inability to comply with the terms of the order.\" *Huber v. Marine Midland Bank*, 51 F.3d 5, 10 (2d Cir. 1995) (*citing N.A. Sales Co. v. Chapman Indus. Corp.*, 736 F.2d 854, 857 (2d Cir. 1984)).\n\n29. In a civil contempt proceeding, a finding of contempt will be upheld so long as the order violated \"is clear and unambiguous, the proof of non-compliance [with the order] is clear and convincing, and the contemnor was not reasonably diligent in attempting to comply.\" *Corso*, 328 B.R. at 385 (quoting *United States v. Local 1804–1, Int'l Longshoremen's Assn.*, 44 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir.1995) (quotations omitted) (alterations in original)).\n\n30. Additionally, a party that fails to timely respond or object to a subpoena within the mandated period is not permitted to raise objections at a later time. *See Corso*, 328 B.R. at 384-85 (\"Because [the subpoenaed party] did not raise any timely objections to the Trustee's subpoena, or move to quash it in a timely manner [it] waived its right to object to the Subpoena.\").\n\n31. Finally, courts have found that a party that fails to respond or object to a subpoena may be sanctioned for that failure. *See PaineWebber Inc.*, 211 F.R.D. at 249 (\"Where a party fails\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 10 of 176\n\nto object to a subpoena and also fails to comply, it may be held in contempt, pursuant to Rule 45[(e)], **and sanctions may therefore be imposed**.\") (internal quotations omitted and emphasis added); *Corso*, 328 B.R. at 385-86 (upholding bankruptcy court's sanction of a party which made \"no effort\" to comply with a Rule 2004 subpoena). Specifically, courts in the Second Circuit have awarded attorneys' fees where a party fails to comply with a subpoena. *See Gucci Am., Inc. v. Li*, No. 10-CV-4974 (RJS), 2015 WL 7758872, at \\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2015) (\"[C]ourts in this Circuit have awarded attorneys' fees where a party or a non-party willfully fails to comply with a subpoena.\").\n\n32. Here, the Trustee served valid Rule 2004 Subpoenas and document requests on both GTV Media and Saraca Media. Shared counsel for GTV Media and Saraca Media initially discussed the Subpoenas with counsel for the Trustee, but withdrew from its representation on or around the eve of a production demand made by counsel for the Trustee prior to a single document being produced, instead directing counsel for the Trustee to direct all communication regarding the Subpoenas to Attorney Mitchell, a former board member for GTV Media, and current counsel for both entities.\n\n33. On multiple occasions, counsel for the Trustee requested that Attorney Mitchell provide the contact information for (1) new counsel for GTV Media and (2) for anyone able to act on Saraca Media's behalf. Despite those repeated attempts by counsel for the Trustee, and despite knowledge of valid Subpoenas against both GTV Media and Saraca Media, Attorney Mitchell stopped all communication with counsel for the Trustee regarding the Subpoenas in December 2022. The Trustee has not received a document production on behalf of either GTV Media or Saraca Media.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 11 of 176\n\n34. There is no dispute that GTV Media and Saraca Media were fully aware that they were served with valid Subpoenas. GTV Media and Saraca Media also had outside counsel in Mr. Mitchell (and former counsel in Attorney Temkin at Morvillo) who knew (1) that GTV Media and Saraca Media had an obligation to respond and comply with the Subpoenas, an obligation that they knew continued following the abrupt withdrawal of Morvillo and (2) that counsel for the Trustee was actively attempting to secure compliance with the Subpoenas.\n\n35. Additionally, GTV Media and Saraca Media both failed to produce an officer, director, member, or manager in response to this Court's Order to Appear and Show Cause, despite their own outside counsel (and in the case of GTV Media, its former board member) being aware of the Court's Order to Appear and Show Cause.\n\n36. GTV Media's and Saraca Media's decisions to refuse to comply with their validly served Subpoenas is plainly an intentional decision to further stymie the Trustee's Rule 2004 investigation.\n\n37. Accordingly, the Court should issue an order (i) holding GTV Media and Saraca Media in civil contempt of Court, (ii) preventing them from raising any objections to the Subpoenas, and (iii) ordering them to pay the Trustee's attorneys' fees related to this Supplemental Contempt Motion. Moreover, as GTV Media and Saraca Media appear able to continue to litigate other matters through Attorney Mitchell, they should be ordered to comply with the Trustee's investigation through the production of their documents, either through Attorney Mitchell or another attorney of their choosing.\n\n#### [*Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank*]\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 12 of 176\n\nWHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests entry of the Proposed Order granting the relief requested in this Supplemental Contempt Motion and such other relief as is just and proper.\n\nDated: August 11, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Avram E. Luft*\n\nAvram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n# **Exhibit A**\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | x      |                         |\n|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                  | :<br>: | Chapter 11              |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                    | :<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors.1                                               | :<br>: | Jointly Administered    |\n| ------------------------------------------------------  | :<br>x |                         |\n\n# **[PROPOSED] ORDER HOLDING GTV MEDIA GROUP, INC. AND SARACA MEDIA GROUP, INC. IN CIVIL CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR FAILING TO RESPOND TO RULE 2004 SUBPOENAS**\n\nUpon consideration of the Supplemental Contempt Motion[2](#page-13-1) seeking to hold GTV Media\n\nGroup, Inc. (\"GTV Media\") and Saraca Media, Inc. (\"Saraca Media\") in civil contempt of court\n\nfor failing to respond to Rule 2004 Subpoenas after notice and a hearing, *see* 11 U.S.C. § 102(1),\n\nit appearing that cause exists to grant the requested relief as conditioned hereafter; it is hereby\n\n**ORDERED**: The Supplemental Contempt Motion is granted as set forth below; and it is\n\nfurther\n\n**ORDERED**: GTV Media and Saraca Media are held to be in civil contempt of court; and\n\nit is further\n\n**ORDERED**: GTV Media and Saraca Media may purge themselves of contempt by\n\ncomplying with their Subpoenas. Should either GTV Media or Saraca Media fail to purge itself\n\n<span id=\"page-13-0\"></span> <sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595) (the \"Debtor \") and Genever Holdings Corporation (the \"Genever BVI Debtor\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and the Genever BVI Debtor is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<span id=\"page-13-1\"></span><sup>2</sup> Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Order have the meanings set forth in the Supplemental Contempt Motion.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 15 of 176\n\nof contempt by September 11, 2023, the Trustee may move for reimbursement of all fees and expenses associated with the Contempt Motion (for the portion of the Contempt Motion concerning GTV Media and Saraca Media) and the Supplemental Contempt Motion.\n\n**ORDERED**: The Trustee shall serve this Order upon GTV Media and Saraca Media within three (3) days of its entry, and file a certificate of service demonstrating such service on or before three (3) days thereafter.\n\nDated: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2023\n\nJulie A. Manning, United States Bankruptcy Judge\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n## **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| ------------------------------------------------------- | x           |                         |\n|---------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------------------|\n| In re:                                                  | :<br>:      | Chapter 11              |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                    | :<br>:<br>: | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| Debtors1                                                | :<br>:      | Jointly Administered    |\n| ------------------------------------------------------  | x           |                         |\n\n# **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**\n\nThe undersigned hereby certifies that on August 11, 2023, the foregoing Supplemental\n\nContempt Motion was electronically filed. Notice of this filing was sent by e-mail to all parties\n\nto the above-captioned chapter 11 case by operation of the Court's electronic filing (\"CM/ECF\")\n\nsystem or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of\n\nElectronic Filing.[2](#page-15-1) Parties may access this filing through the Court's CM/ECF system.\n\nDated: August 11, 2023 LUC A. DESPINS,\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE\n\nBy: */s/ Avram E. Luft*\n\nAvram E. Luft (admitted *pro hac vice*) Douglass Barron (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP\n\n<span id=\"page-15-0\"></span> <sup>1</sup> The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Ho Wan Kwok (also known as Guo Wengui, Miles Guo, and Miles Kwok, as well as numerous other aliases) (last four digits of tax identification number: 9595) (the \"Debtor \") and Genever Holdings Corporation (the \"Genever BVI Debtor\"). The mailing address for the Trustee and the Genever BVI Debtor is Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166 c/o Luc A. Despins, as Trustee for the Estate of Ho Wan Kwok (solely for purposes of notices and communications).\n\n<span id=\"page-15-1\"></span><sup>2</sup> To the extent that the foregoing was filed outside regular business hours, service by mail on recipients unable or not qualified to accept electronic notice was made on the next business day.\n\n200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (212) 318-6079 aviluft@paulhastings.com douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n#### *and*\n\nNicholas A. Bassett (admitted *pro hac vice*) PAUL HASTINGS LLP 2050 M Street NW Washington, D.C., 20036 (202) 551-1902 nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n*and*\n\nPatrick R. Linsey (ct29437) NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 781-2847 plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n*Counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee*\n\n## **Exhibit B**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 19 of\n\n|                                                  | BRIDGEPORT DIVISION                                                                                  |             |                                                     |\n|--------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-----------------------------------------------------|\n| In Re                                            |                                                                                                      | *<br>*      | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM)                             |\n| HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER<br>HOLDINGS CORPORATION, |                                                                                                      | *<br>*      |                                                     |\n|                                                  | Debtor.                                                                                              | *<br>*      |                                                     |\n| HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS                           | INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED,                                                                           | *<br>*      | Adv. Proc No. 22-5003                               |\n| v.                                               | Plaintiff,                                                                                           | *<br>*<br>* |                                                     |\n| DESPINS,                                         |                                                                                                      | *<br>*<br>* |                                                     |\n|                                                  | Defendant.                                                                                           | *           |                                                     |\n| LUC A. DESPINS,<br>Chapter 11 Trustee,           |                                                                                                      | *<br>*<br>* | Adv. Proc No. 23-5008                               |\n|                                                  | Plaintiff,                                                                                           | *<br>*      | Bridgeport, Connecticut                             |\n| v.                                               |                                                                                                      | *<br>*      | July 18, 2023                                       |\n| GUO,                                             |                                                                                                      | *<br>*      |                                                     |\n|                                                  | Defendant.                                                                                           | *<br>*      |                                                     |\n|                                                  | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *                                                                      |             |                                                     |\n|                                                  | TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS<br>BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING<br>UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE |             |                                                     |\n|                                                  | transcript produced by transcription service.                                                        |             | Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, |\n|                                                  |                                                                                                      |             |                                                     |\n\n| #1917            | INTERIM APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION FOR<br>PULLMAN & COMPLY, LLC, CREDITOR COMM                                                                                                                       |\n|------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| #1921            | ATY FEE: \\$504,742.50 EXPENSES \\$709.53<br>INTERIM APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION FOR EPIQ<br>CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING, LLC, OTHER PROFESSIONAL                                                           |\n| #1893            | FEE; \\$178,227.00; EXPENSES \\$11,673.79<br>ORDER REQUIRING GTV MEDIA, INC. SARACA GROUP, INC.<br>AND ATTY AARON MITCHELL TO APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE<br>WHY GTV MEDIA, INC. AND SARACA MEDIA GROUP SHOULD |\n| #2004<br>#<br>55 | NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT<br>PRETRIAL CONFERENCE<br>REVISED PROPOSED ORDER<br>REVISED PROPOSED ORDER                                                                                            |\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\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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 23 of\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\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. Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 24 of\n\n 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\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 Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 25 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 26 of<br>176 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023<br>8                                                                |\n| 1  | I think there isn't much more for Epiq to do because we're                                    |\n| 2  | not going to be doing service and things through Epiq at                                      |\n| 3  | this point.                                                                                   |\n| 4  | There's a lot of issues with regard to service and                                            |\n| 5  | so we've had to have specific orders entered and things of                                    |\n| 6  | that nature.                                                                                  |\n| 7  | So although I'm sure there'll be another fee                                                  |\n| 8  | application --                                                                                |\n| 9  | MS. O'CONNOR:<br>Yes.                                                                         |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>-- it is the belief of the parties and                                          |\n| 11 | the Court that probably the majority of the work Epiq has                                     |\n| 12 | needed to do in this case is done.                                                            |\n| 13 | So I just wanted to make sure that that's                                                     |\n| 14 | understanding.<br>Or if you had any difference of                                             |\n| 15 | understanding that you wanted to note for the record.                                         |\n| 16 | MS. O'CONNOR:<br>Your Honor, that's my understanding                                          |\n| 17 | as well.<br>The heavy lifting, if you will, on the redactions                                 |\n| 18 | has been completed.                                                                           |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                                                            |\n| 20 | MS. O'CONNOR:<br>So we're in agreement that the                                               |\n| 21 | level of our work has tapered off and will continue to.                                       |\n| 22 | You are correct that there will be another fee                                                |\n| 23 | application, which will have some substantial fees, but that                                  |\n| 24 | would be the tail-end of that whole redaction process, so I                                   |\n| 25 | don't envision -- I might be up here again for the second                                     |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 27 of<br>176 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023<br>9                                                                |\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:<br>Thank you.<br>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.<br>And so I                                |\n| 14 | just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.                                        |\n| 15 | MS. O'CONNOR:<br>Yes, Your Honor.<br>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.<br>I talked to                                |\n| 20 | the consultants frequently.<br>So, yes, I've been monitoring                                  |\n| 21 | the case and I will continue to do so.                                                        |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.<br>I appreciate that.                                       |\n| 23 | MS. O'CONNOR:<br>Yes.                                                                         |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                                                      |\n| 25 | MS. O'CONNOR:<br>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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 28 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 29 of\n\n|    | 176                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023<br>11                              |\n| 1  | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Yes.<br>Yes.                                 |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>So please proceed.                             |\n| 3  | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>Irve          |\n| 4  | Goldman.                                                     |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.                                |\n| 6  | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>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<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 30 of<br>176 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023<br>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.<br>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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 31 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 32 of<br>176 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023<br>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.<br>Because                                      |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 33 of\n\n|    | 176                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023<br>15                              |\n| 1  | obviously as you know, and we all know, the fee applications |\n| 2  | have to be served and noticed to every creditor in case      |\n| 3  | anyone wants to file a written objection.                    |\n| 4  | No one has filed a written objection.                        |\n| 5  | And I go back and I look and make sure, as does              |\n| 6  | the clerk's office, that the service of these applications   |\n| 7  | have been made, which this has, and you filed a certificate  |\n| 8  | of service and it demonstrates that you've complied with the |\n| 9  | requirement to serve everyone with regard to this fee        |\n| 10 | application.                                                 |\n| 11 | And when I reviewed the time entries, I think they           |\n| 12 | are reasonable under the circumstances, very specific        |\n| 13 | circumstances of these jointly administered Chapter 11       |\n| 14 | cases.                                                       |\n| 15 | I also think the expenses that you incurred were             |\n| 16 | less than \\$800.<br>And in a case of this -- with all the    |\n| 17 | issues like these cases have, I think that's very            |\n| 18 | reasonable, so I would be surprised if anyone had any        |\n| 19 | opposition or objection to the expenses.                     |\n| 20 | And with regard to the fees you've taken a                   |\n| 21 | voluntary reduction.                                         |\n| 22 | As I said with the Trustee's Paul Hastings'                  |\n| 23 | application and the Neubert, Pepe application, I appreciate  |\n| 24 | the parties working together with the Office of the United   |\n| 25 | States Trustee.<br>Because it is one of the roles of the     |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 34 of\n\n|    | 176                                                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023<br>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.<br>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.<br>It's very important.<br>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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 35 of\n\n|    | 176                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023<br>17                              |\n| 1  | connection with your agreed reduction, which is a minor      |\n| 2  | reduction in fees, then the first interim application for    |\n| 3  | fees and expenses is granted and the proposed order that you |\n| 4  | submitted will enter.                                        |\n| 5  | So thank you very much.                                      |\n| 6  | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Your Honor, I thank you.<br>I very           |\n| 7  | much appreciate the comments.                                |\n| 8  | I may -- I probably should submit a revised order            |\n| 9  | reflecting the reduction if you'd like.                      |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Oh, the one that I looked at doesn't           |\n| 11 | have that included?                                          |\n| 12 | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>No.                                          |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>I thought it did.<br>But that might be         |\n| 14 | my -- that might be my mistake.                              |\n| 15 | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>I don't think it does.                       |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>It doesn't?<br>Okay.<br>Then, yes, if you      |\n| 17 | would.                                                       |\n| 18 | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>We arrived at the --                         |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>My mistake.<br>I thought it did.<br>But        |\n| 20 | then, yes.<br>If you could just get us a revised proposed    |\n| 21 | order by the end of the week, by the 21st.                   |\n| 22 | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Yes.<br>No problem.                          |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>I know you'll probably get it today,           |\n| 24 | but --                                                       |\n| 25 | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Yes.                                         |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 36 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 18 THE COURT: -- I'd like to have a date for the clerk's office. It's helpful to them. MR. GOLDMAN: No problem, Your Honor. THE COURT: So the application is granted and the revised proposed order will be submitted on or before July 21st. MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. (Indiscernible) scheduled for ten more minutes until 12:30, but, Trustee Despins, I did have a question or two about things that are not on today's calendar. And the first question I have just relates to an order setting a deadline for Holy City to file a responsive pleading in the adversary of 23-5013. When you filed that motion, I understand what you're seeking and that's not -- my question is are you seeking another subpoena to issue or are you seeking to just serve the complaint, the subpoena, and the order on Holy City Hong Kong Ventures, Limited? Because I don't think the rules are clear to whether or not there should be another subpoena. MR. DESPINS: No. We're not seeking that. We're 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 37 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 38 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 39 of\n\n|    | 176                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023<br>21                                |\n| 1  | the Court believes would be proper.                            |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                            |\n| 3  | MR. DESPINS:<br>But our position is they have                  |\n| 4  | already received notice.                                       |\n| 5  | MR. LINSEY:<br>For sure.<br>Yes.                               |\n| 6  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yeah.                                          |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Your position is that they've already            |\n| 8  | been served?                                                   |\n| 9  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes.                                           |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Not received notice, but actually been           |\n| 11 | served.                                                        |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Correct, Your Honor.                           |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Right.<br>But they need to have -- now           |\n| 14 | they need to be served with an order indicating which date,    |\n| 15 | by which date they must file or otherwise respond to the       |\n| 16 | complaint.                                                     |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Correct.<br>Correct.                           |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>That was that             |\n| 19 | question I had.<br>And I think that's the only question I have |\n| 20 | right now.                                                     |\n| 21 | So I don't know if you have anything you want to               |\n| 22 | add, but it's only 12:24 and the next hearing is not until     |\n| 23 | 12:30.<br>So I don't know if we're -- do you have anything you |\n| 24 | want to report before then or just take a recess and we'll     |\n| 25 | come back out at 12:30?                                        |\n|    |                                                                |\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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 40 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok July 18, 2023 23 certain parties in contempt filed by the Trustee sometime ago, ECF, I think it's 1805, which was filed, if you give me a moment -- MR. MITCHELL: I believe based on the order, Your Honor, it was May 18th. THE COURT: Correct. I just saw it at the same time. May 18th. So this was a motion to compel compliance with the Rule 2004 subpoenas and it was directed to numerous parties. And some of those issues have been resolved and some have not. And one of the issues that had been raised through that motion to compel was that GTV Media and Saraca Media Group had not complied with the subpoenas, the Rule 2004 subpoenas, and your name was one of the names, besides GTV Media and Saraca Media, who were mentioned as parties that would be able to be in possession or control of documents that would be responsive to the subpoenas. Okay. And the contempt motion sought to compel GTV Media and Saraca Media to produce the documents. And during a hearing that was held on June 6th of this year, the Trustee said on the record that he was seeking an order to hold GTV Media and Saraca Media Group in contempt, because although they initially responded to the subpoenas, they have not responded since December of 2022, Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 41 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 42 of\n\n|    | 176                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023<br>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:<br>I'm not --                                   |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>-- Media Group.                                 |\n| 6  | MR. MITCHELL:<br>I'm sorry, Your Honor.                       |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>No, go ahead.                                   |\n| 8  | MR. MITCHELL:<br>I saw the order.<br>I represented            |\n| 9  | Saraca and GTV in a number of matters.<br>And up until April  |\n| 10 | 20th of 2023, I was the lone remaining director of GTV.<br>I  |\n| 11 | resigned on April 20th, 2023, so I'm not quite sure.<br>Your  |\n| 12 | Honor, ordered me to be here, so I'm glad to be here.         |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Right.                                          |\n| 14 | MR. MITCHELL:<br>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.<br>I don't know what else I |\n| 20 | could produce.                                                |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>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:<br>Sure.                                        |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 43 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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 44 of\n\n|    | 176                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok July 18, 2023<br>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:<br>Mr. Luft is handling this, Your                |\n| 11 | Honor.                                                         |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Attorney Luft?                          |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:<br>Yes, Your Honor.<br>We would like that.           |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So, Attorney Mitchell, you're           |\n| 15 | here regarding the -- to testify.<br>And that is -- it is what |\n| 16 | --                                                             |\n| 17 | The order to appear and show cause was issued on               |\n| 18 | June 7th.<br>And as I said it's ECF No. 1893.<br>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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 45 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 46 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 47 of\n\n|    | 176                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>29                     |\n| 1  | Saraca?                                                        |\n| 2  | A<br>I am appearing here individually.                         |\n| 3  | Q<br>So no one has appeared pursuant to the court order for    |\n| 4  | GTV and Saraca to your knowledge?                              |\n| 5  | A<br>Not to my knowledge, no.                                  |\n| 6  | Q<br>Okay.<br>Mr. Mitchell, let's just start with some         |\n| 7  | background just so I understand your role here.<br>What        |\n| 8  | entities do you currently represent in connection with this    |\n| 9  | case?                                                          |\n| 10 | A<br>I don't understand your question.                         |\n| 11 | Q<br>Okay.<br>Are you counsel to any individuals in this case? |\n| 12 | A<br>Meaning the overall -- I'm just not sure of your          |\n| 13 | question.<br>It's very general.                                |\n| 14 | Q<br>Yes, the main case.                                       |\n| 15 | A<br>So do you mean -- I'm sorry, from what I've seen on the   |\n| 16 | docket, there are tons of parties to this.<br>I represent in a |\n| 17 | number of cases the debtor, Mr. Ho Wan Kwok.                   |\n| 18 | Q<br>Mm-hmm.                                                   |\n| 19 | A<br>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.<br>I had represented previously Genever, |\n| 22 | the entity that filed bankruptcy.<br>And there's a number of   |\n| 23 | adversary proceedings.<br>I'm just not quite sure.<br>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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 48 of\n\n|    | 176                                                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>30                       |\n| 1  | (indiscernible) --                                               |\n| 2  | Q<br>It's hard to keep track of everyone you're involved         |\n| 3  | with, right?                                                     |\n| 4  | A<br>I represent a lot of individuals and entities, yes.         |\n| 5  | Q<br>Okay.<br>So let me help you and let's go through it.        |\n| 6  | A<br>Sure.                                                       |\n| 7  | Q<br>Okay.<br>You say you still currently represent both GTV     |\n| 8  | and Saraca in connection with the bankruptcy case.<br>Can you    |\n| 9  | tell --                                                          |\n| 10 | A<br>No, that's not correct.<br>I said I still represent them.   |\n| 11 | I don't represent them in the bankruptcy case.<br>That's why     |\n| 12 | the question was confusing.                                      |\n| 13 | Q<br>Ah.                                                         |\n| 14 | A<br>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.<br>I filed a notice of appearance.<br>So if   |\n| 17 | that's your question, it's just Mr. Kwok.                        |\n| 18 | Q<br>How about Mei Guo?<br>She said -- she's testified that      |\n| 19 | you were her counsel in this case, is that true?                 |\n| 20 | A<br>I'm her counsel.<br>I've not appeared in this case.<br>I've |\n| 21 | given her advice, but I've not appeared, again.                  |\n| 22 | Q<br>But you serve as her counsel in connection with the         |\n| 23 | bankruptcy, correct?                                             |\n| 24 | A<br>Yes.                                                        |\n| 25 | Q<br>Okay.<br>For GTV, do you serve as GTV's counsel in          |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 49 of<br>176 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>31                                                    |\n| 1  | connection with the bankruptcy?                                                               |\n| 2  | A<br>No.                                                                                      |\n| 3  | Q<br>What do you serve as their counsel in connection with                                    |\n| 4  | currently?                                                                                    |\n| 5  | A<br>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<br>Do you recall their names?                                                               |\n| 10 | A<br>One is Mr. Yee.<br>Another is -- there's several.<br>I'm                                 |\n| 11 | trying to think of the plaintiffs' names in the cases.<br>I                                   |\n| 12 | believe it's Huang, H-U-A-N-G.<br>I believe the Wang case is                                  |\n| 13 | resolved, W-A-N-G, that was based in Connecticut.<br>There are                                |\n| 14 | a few more that aren't coming to mind.                                                        |\n| 15 | Q<br>Okay.                                                                                    |\n| 16 | A<br>I think there's about five or six of them.<br>Most of                                    |\n| 17 | they are stayed as a result of the bankruptcy.<br>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:<br>Excuse me.<br>Attorney                                               |\n| 21 | Mitchell, could you just pull the mic a little.                                               |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:<br>Is that better?                                                               |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.<br>That's better.                                                         |\n| 24 | THE WITNESS:<br>Sure.                                                                         |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>That's better.                                                                  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 50 of\n\n|    | 176                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>32                    |\n| 1  | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>Thank you.                           |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Sometimes it -- yeah.<br>I should have          |\n| 3  | said that to you.                                             |\n| 4  | THE WITNESS:<br>Sorry.                                        |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>We have to --                                   |\n| 6  | THE WITNESS:<br>When I think I drift off too, I know          |\n| 7  | it's --                                                       |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>We have to -- our record is audio               |\n| 9  | only.<br>So if the courtroom deputy can't hear, I do ask her  |\n| 10 | to make sure.                                                 |\n| 11 | Because if someone wants a transcript, they're not            |\n| 12 | going to be able to hear what was said.<br>The person that    |\n| 13 | transcribes the record is not in the courtroom.               |\n| 14 | THE WITNESS:<br>Understood.<br>I apologize.                   |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                             |\n| 16 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                  |\n| 17 | Q<br>Okay.<br>Mr. Mitchell, let me ask you the same -- so you |\n| 18 | said there's about five or six cases that you currently       |\n| 19 | represent GTV on?                                             |\n| 20 | A<br>Approximately, yes.                                      |\n| 21 | Q<br>How about Saraca Media?                                  |\n| 22 | A<br>The same cases, Saraca is named as a defendant as well.  |\n| 23 | Q<br>Okay.<br>Now, I heard you give an address as your        |\n| 24 | business address in Morristown, New Jersey?                   |\n| 25 | A<br>That's correct.                                          |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nAaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft 33 Q I have correspondence showing your business address as 162 East 64th Street in Manhattan. A Not anymore. Q When did that stop being your address? A Three years ago. Q Three years ago? A Give or take. I'm not exactly sure. Approximately three years ago. Q Okay. In fact, that was your business address after the filing of the bankruptcy, right? A I believe so, yes. Q That's less than three years ago. A Maybe two years ago. Q As of at least June 2022, you were still operating out of Mr. Kwok's offices? A I was not operating out of there. I had an office there and received mail. Q What is the difference in your mind between operating out of an office and doing business there and receiving mail? A The difference is I was not reporting to that office at any time. I didn't have a requirement that I go there. But I was using it. I was using space there to be able to receive mail related to Mr. Kwok's cases, because he can be the target of threats and things of that nature, so I Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 51 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 52 of\n\n|    |        | 176                                                           |\n|----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |        | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>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.<br>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.<br>Now, you said you resigned in April of 2023?         |\n| 25 | A      | That's correct.                                               |\n|    |        |                                                               |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 53 of<br>176 |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |               | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>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.<br>December of 2022?<br>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.<br>I didn't have to speak                      |\n| 10 |               | to anybody.<br>The cases were primarily stayed.<br>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.<br>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.<br>Mr.?                                            |\n| 19 | Q             | The debtor's son.                                                            |\n| 20 | A             | Oh, Guo Qiang.<br>Yes.                                                       |\n| 21 | Q             | So you represented him in connection with the                                |\n| 22 |               | bankruptcy also?                                                             |\n| 23 | A             | Yes.<br>Again, I've not appeared obviously as you know,                      |\n| 24 |               | but I've given him advice, yes.                                              |\n| 25 | Q             | Okay.<br>How about the debtor's wife, Hing Chi Ngok?                         |\n|    |               |                                                                              |\n\nAaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft 36 A No. Q How about Golden Spring? Do you represent Golden Spring in connection with -- A Not -- Q -- the bankruptcy at any point? A Not at all. I haven't related to the bankruptcy. That's why, I'm sorry, I cut you off. I didn't mean to. I have represented them in the past in matters, but not in the bankruptcy. Q In what matters have you represented Golden Spring in connection with? A I don't recall. There was a number of litigations where Golden Spring was a defendant in employment issues and the like. Off the top of my head, I feel like the plaintiff was in New York County. I feel like the plaintiff was Zhang, Z-H-A-N-G. Or I could be confusing that with the GTV. We'll call them investor cases. I believe in Arizona it's Zhang, Z-H-A-N-G. And the case with Golden Spring was Zhuang, Z-H-U-A-N-G. Q Golden Spring has also not responded to discovery in this case. Do you know who is in charge there now? A I have no idea. I have not spoken to anyone at Golden Spring in well over a year. I know there was an issue about that time with getting in touch with anyone for advice. Q Golden Spring is run by Yvette Wang, correct? Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 54 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 55 of<br>176 |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |               | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>37                                   |\n| 1  | A             | It was.<br>I don't know -- I don't know what's going on                      |\n| 2  |               | with it now.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>He called me.                    |\n| 22 | Q             | Okay.<br>We'll just figure out the rest of the scopes of                     |\n| 23 |               | your representation.<br>Have you ever provided legal services                |\n| 24 |               | to Lamp Capital?                                                             |\n| 25 | A             | No.                                                                          |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 56 of\n\n| 176 |\n|-----|\n|     |\n\n| (x) |\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.<br>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.<br>It's actually Carlo, not    |    |\n| 18 |        | Carlos.<br>Carlo, I don't recall his last name.<br>And who is |    |\n| 19 |        | the CEO?<br>They both resigned.<br>I don't recall.<br>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<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 57 of<br>176 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>39                                                    |\n| 1  | Q<br>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<br>Understood.<br>But it's a broad question.<br>I think you                                 |\n| 5  | understand.                                                                                   |\n| 6  | Q<br>Sure.<br>How about G Fashion, did you ever provide legal                                 |\n| 7  | advice to them?                                                                               |\n| 8  | A<br>Yes.                                                                                     |\n| 9  | Q<br>What did you do for them?                                                                |\n| 10 | A<br>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.<br>I don't know.<br>That was it.                              |\n| 13 | We had a conversation and nothing ever happened with it.                                      |\n| 14 | Q<br>Who did you speak to at G Fashion?                                                       |\n| 15 | A<br>A woman whose name is escaping me right now, Tia or Lia                                  |\n| 16 | something.                                                                                    |\n| 17 | Q<br>How about G-Music?                                                                       |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Could I just ask you again your                                                 |\n| 19 | answer, just because I couldn't hear it.                                                      |\n| 20 | THE WITNESS:<br>Sure.                                                                         |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Tia or Lia?                                                                     |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:<br>It either Tia, T-I-A, or Lia, L-I-A,                                          |\n| 23 | I believe.                                                                                    |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                                                           |\n| 25 | THE WITNESS:<br>That's my recollection.                                                       |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 58 of<br>176 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>40                                                    |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>That's helpful when you spell.<br>Thank                                         |\n| 2  | you.                                                                                          |\n| 3  | THE WITNESS:<br>Sure.<br>Absolutely.<br>I'm sorry.                                            |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>It's very helpful.<br>Thank you.                                                |\n| 5  | THE WITNESS:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                                                        |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.                                                                           |\n| 7  | THE WITNESS:<br>G-Music?<br>I guess, yes.<br>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.<br>I don't recall exactly what, but, so I gave                                |\n| 11 | them some advice there.                                                                       |\n| 12 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                                                  |\n| 13 | Q<br>G-News?                                                                                  |\n| 14 | A<br>No.<br>I don't believe -- I'm not even sure that G-News                                  |\n| 15 | is an entity.<br>Is it?                                                                       |\n| 16 | Q<br>I believe it just tried to buy HCHK Properties, so I                                     |\n| 17 | assume it is.                                                                                 |\n| 18 | A<br>Oh, okay.<br>I've not advised them at all.<br>I knew it was                              |\n| 19 | a website a long time ago, but.                                                               |\n| 20 | Q<br>Okay.<br>Hudson Diamond?                                                                 |\n| 21 | A<br>No.                                                                                      |\n| 22 | Q<br>All right.<br>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<br>Again, I'm not comfortable with the word affiliated.                                     |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>176 | Page 59 of |\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.<br>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?<br>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?<br>I don't know what you mean by              |            |\n| 10 |               | connection.<br>I don't feel comfortable testifying one way or  |            |\n| 11 |               | the other.<br>I mean --                                        |            |\n| 12 | Q             | Fine.<br>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?<br>Just so I understand what you're  |            |\n| 23 |               | asking me.                                                     |            |\n| 24 | Q             | No.<br>If he just posted a video on G-News, I wouldn't         |            |\n| 25 |               | say he's affiliated.                                           |            |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 60 of\n\n| 176 |\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.<br>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.<br>Is that what you're saying? |    |\n| 18 | Q     | It could be investing.<br>It could be managing.<br>It could    |    |\n| 19 |       | running.<br>It could be providing funds.<br>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.<br>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 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 61 of<br>176 |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |               | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>43                                   |\n| 1  | A             | That's -- director.                                                          |\n| 2  | Q             | Okay.<br>And who are the other directors along with you?                     |\n| 3  | A             | Currently?<br>Currently I'm not a director.<br>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.<br>Yvette Wang.<br>Steve Bannon was at one                      |\n| 11 |               | time a director.<br>Kyle Bass was at one time a director.                    |\n| 12 |               | John Morgan was at one time a director.<br>There's another                   |\n| 13 |               | gentleman whose name is escaping me.<br>He was a hedge fund                  |\n| 14 |               | manager down in Texas.<br>I can't think of his name.<br>He was               |\n| 15 |               | also a director.                                                             |\n| 16 | Q             | Of GTV?                                                                      |\n| 17 | A             | Yes.<br>And I believe that that is it.                                       |\n| 18 | Q             | Okay.<br>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.<br>I think it was Mr.                    |\n\nAaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft 44 Krasner. And I believe Ms. Wang was secretary is my recollection. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, may I show the witness a document? THE COURT: Yes. But how many documents? I mean, where you don't have anything marked yet. So are you going to be moving for that document for admission into evidence? MR. LUFT: Well, right now I'm going to just use it to see if it will refresh the witness's recollection -- THE COURT: Okay. All right. That's fine. MR. LUFT: -- and we can discuss -- THE COURT: If you're using it to refresh his recollection, that's fine. MR. LUFT Okay. I'm going to -- for marcation purposes, I'll call this Mitchell 1, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, I don't think we have to do anything unless you're going to move it into evidence, right? Right now you're using it just to refresh his recollection. MR. LUFT: Correct. Just for the -- THE COURT: So -- MR. LUFT: Okay. THE COURT: -- if you could just state what it is for the record. MR. LUFT: That's fine. Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 62 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 63 of\n\nAaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft 45 THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. LUFT: Q Mr. Mitchell, I'm going to show you a document titled Saraca Media Group, Inc, Organizational Chart as of August 15th, 2020. It comes -- I'll represent to you it comes from the files of Hodgson Russ. A Can I ask you -- sorry, you were asking me about GTV and you're going to show me a document related to Saraca? Q I think once you see it -- A Okay. Q -- it will make sense to you. THE COURT: Right now it's only -- I'm only letting counsel show you this because he's telling me that it's going to refresh your recollection. THE WITNESS: Sure. No. I understood. THE COURT: Okay. So that's -- THE WITNESS: I just was confused because they are two -- THE COURT: Understood. But I just want to be clear that right now that's all that we're doing with this document. Okay? MR. LUFT: Your Honor, may I approach the witness? THE COURT: Yes, you may. BY MR. LUFT: Q Mr. Mitchell, do you see this is an organizational\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 64 of\n\n|    | 176                                                              |  |  |  |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>46                       |  |  |  |\n| 1  | chart?                                                           |  |  |  |\n| 2  | A<br>That's what -- yeah, that's what it says it is.             |  |  |  |\n| 3  | Q<br>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<br>I do, yes.                                                  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | Q<br>And under directors it says Steve Bannon, Aaron             |  |  |  |\n| 7  | Mitchell, John Morgan and Yvette Wang?                           |  |  |  |\n| 8  | A<br>Yes, I see that.                                            |  |  |  |\n| 9  | Q<br>And then under officers it says Yvette Wang,                |  |  |  |\n| 10 | President/Secretary, Treasurer Anthony DeBatista?                |  |  |  |\n| 11 | A<br>I see that.                                                 |  |  |  |\n| 12 | Q<br>Does this refresh your recollection that Ms. Wang was       |  |  |  |\n| 13 | the president of GTV?                                            |  |  |  |\n| 14 | A<br>It doesn't.<br>It doesn't mean it's not true.<br>I don't    |  |  |  |\n| 15 | dispute it one way or the other.<br>I don't recall Yvette        |  |  |  |\n| 16 | being president.<br>But it's possible.<br>Mr. Krasner resigned,  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | and I see that's noted on here, and perhaps Ms. Wang become      |  |  |  |\n| 18 | president.<br>I don't recall that.<br>I don't dispute it, but -- |  |  |  |\n| 19 | Q<br>You were on the board but you don't know who the            |  |  |  |\n| 20 | president of the company was?                                    |  |  |  |\n| 21 | A<br>I don't recall who it was.                                  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | Q<br>Okay.<br>While you have it there do you recall that Ms.     |  |  |  |\n| 23 | Wang was the President, Secretary and Treasurer of Saraca?       |  |  |  |\n| 24 | A<br>I don't know what her title was.<br>I know that she was     |  |  |  |\n| 25 | -- I thought she was a director, which it says there.<br>In      |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                                  |  |  |  |\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 65 of<br>176 |                                |                                                              |  |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n|                                                                                               |                                | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>I don't think I       |  |\n| 21                                                                                            |                                | ever knew to be fair.<br>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\nAaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft 48 A Yes. Q But despite that you never learned beyond what you just told me what the -- who the ownership was ultimately of GTV? A It was Saraca. Q And the only thing you know about Saraca is that it was owned by an entity called Hudson Diamond, Inc.? A That's correct. Q And you never found out who owned that entity? A I don't know who owned that entity, no. Q Despite selling securities about a company that supposedly it was owned by? A I'm sorry. I couldn't understand that question well. Q Sure. I'm asking, as a director, when you were going out into the public and selling securities, did you ever bother to find out, other than a corporate name, who owned the entity that you were going out to the public and selling securities for -- about? A Your question has several points that are incorrect. Nobody ever offers -- I never went out into the public to sell securities. The securities were a private offering. They were never offered to the public. So I can't answer -- the answer to that -- to your question is -- I guess there is no way to answer it because it assumes several things that untrue. Q So your point is that the securities weren't sold to Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 66 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 67 of<br>176 |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |               | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>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.<br>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.<br>I didn't even know in truth they were in the BVI.                    |\n| 15 |               | They weren't in the BVI.<br>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.<br>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.<br>Other than GTV, what other entities have you                        |\n| 24 |               | served as a director of?                                                     |\n| 25 | A             | GETTR Media Group, Inc.                                                      |\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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 68 of\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 69 of<br>176 |        |                                                              |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|                                                                                               |        | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>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?<br>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?<br>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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 70 of\n\n|    | 176   |                                                          |  |  |  |\n|----|-------|----------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n|    |       | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>52               |  |  |  |\n| 1  | A     | In that context, yes.                                    |  |  |  |\n| 2  | Q     | Any other times you've communicated with Mr. Gee about   |  |  |  |\n| 3  |       | money to go to Mr. Kwok or his family?                   |  |  |  |\n| 4  | A     | I don't believe so, no.                                  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | Q     | Any other times you've communicated with Mr. Gee about   |  |  |  |\n| 6  |       | money in general?                                        |  |  |  |\n| 7  | A     | Yes.                                                     |  |  |  |\n| 8  | Q     | In what context?                                         |  |  |  |\n| 9  | A     | I actually represent Mr. Gee.                            |  |  |  |\n| 10 | Q     | Oh, you represent Mr. Gee also?                          |  |  |  |\n| 11 | A     | Yeah.                                                    |  |  |  |\n| 12 | Q     | Okay.<br>And what do you represent Mr. Gee in connection |  |  |  |\n| 13 | with? |                                                          |  |  |  |\n| 14 | A     | Just general legal advice.                               |  |  |  |\n| 15 | Q     | About?                                                   |  |  |  |\n| 16 | A     | Just general.<br>If he has a question about law in the   |  |  |  |\n| 17 |       | U.S., I give him an answer.                              |  |  |  |\n| 18 | Q     | Okay.<br>I'm asking the subject matters that you've      |  |  |  |\n| 19 |       | represented Mr. Gee in connection with?                  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | A     | I'm not sure what -- again, general advice.<br>I'm not   |  |  |  |\n| 21 |       | sure what you're asking me.                              |  |  |  |\n| 22 | Q     | Like traffic tickets?<br>Matrimonial?                    |  |  |  |\n| 23 | A     | No, I've never advised him on a traffic ticket.<br>I've  |  |  |  |\n| 24 |       | never advised in matrimonial.                            |  |  |  |\n| 25 | Q     | Okay.<br>So think about what you have represented, given |  |  |  |\n|    |       |                                                          |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 71 of<br>176 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>53                                                    |\n| 1  | him advice on, and please let me know.<br>What legal matters                                  |\n| 2  | do --                                                                                         |\n| 3  | A<br>I don't know how --                                                                      |\n| 4  | Q<br>-- you represent him in?                                                                 |\n| 5  | A<br>I don't know how I can do that without filing a                                          |\n| 6  | privilege.                                                                                    |\n| 7  | Q<br>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.<br>I wouldn't ask -- I'm not asking for                                      |\n| 10 | anything more than that.                                                                      |\n| 11 | A<br>I don't think that's true.<br>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<br>I think you have to -- it's not a question of whether                                    |\n| 15 | you have to produce a privilege log.<br>I feel like I'm                                       |\n| 16 | debating this.<br>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.<br>That's                                 |\n| 19 | common and that's what I'm asking you.<br>I'm not asking you                                  |\n| 20 | to go further.                                                                                |\n| 21 | A<br>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<br>Did you ever have communications with Mr. Kwok in                                        |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nAaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft 54 connection with legal advice in the matters that you were talking to Mr. Gee about? A I don't understand your question. Q Sure. You said you've provided -- A Can I -- sorry. Can I ask what this has to do with the order to show cause related to GTV and contempt? I'm just wondering how -- MR. LUFT: I'm happy to explain, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. You do need to explain because we do need to focus back on the -- MR. LUFT: Absolutely, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- the subpoena, please. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, the reason I'm asking about this is because, as we're going to find out, Mr. Mitchell was both the director and their counsel. He is the person I was directed to -- THE COURT: Of whom, director and -- MR. LUFT: Of GTV. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LUFT: And then of Saraca he is the person I was directed to get information from whence counsel pulled out literally on the day we asked them to finally produce their documents. And I think the connections between Mr. -- I want to understand because Mr. Mitchell then proceeded to tell me he couldn't do it and he doesn't know about these Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 72 of\n\nAaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft 55 things and how could he answer questions. So I do want to understand his connections to all of Mr. Kwok's entities because there's a lot of missing documents and I'd like to understand which ones he's involved with because I'm looking for them. THE COURT: I understand. But right now what we were talking about was -- you need to focus -- I think you are telling me you're focusing on what you assert is Mr. Mitchell's status as an officer and director of both GTV and Saraca. Is that correct? MR. LUFT: Officer and director of GTV. My understanding is that he has been counsel for Saraca. And I'll find out. He has told me that he is not a director of Saraca. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LUFT: Okay. But I'm happy to -- THE COURT: And I'll allow you to proceed, but we do need to focus on the subpoena. MR. LUFT: Terrific. We'll move ahead. BY MR. LUFT: Q Let me ask you, what's the current status of GTV? A I don't know what you mean by that. There's -- Q Is it operational? A No. Q But it has pending lawsuits that you still represent it Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 73 of\n\nAaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft 56 in? A Well, all of them are stayed except for two, which became -- one became unstayed, and the other, well, the other was stayed as well. And recently there's been some activity that's caused them to become I guess -- is unstayed a word -- no longer stayed. Q When was the -- when did GTV stop operating? A Quite frankly, several years ago. Prior to the settlement with the SEC, the company was no longer operational. The employees had all left. The website had shut down. And then after that it was really just trying to work with the SEC to get the money back to the investors. Q And what's the current status of Saraca Media? A I don't know. I don't believe there's anyone there. I believe that Ms. Wang resigned. That's the extent of what I know about Saraca. Q When did that happen? A I don't know. I found out somewhere between six to nine months ago, maybe six months ago, not long before Mr. Temkin resigned, the attorney referenced. Shortly before that was when I found out that there was no one at Saraca. Q Who told you? A Ms. Wang told me she had resigned. And I believe -- I'm not sure if she told me or if I implied from that that there's no one else there because she was I believe the only Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 74 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 75 of\n\n|    | 176                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>57                     |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 1  | person remaining at Saraca.                                    |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | Q<br>Where did GTV keep its documents?                         |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | A<br>GTV's documents were at 162 East 64th Street.<br>And then |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | they were -- I have them now.<br>I don't -- but I didn't get   |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | them in between.<br>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<br>Mr. Mitchell, let's be very clear.<br>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<br>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.<br>And I believe there  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | was about 100,000 pages.                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | Q<br>Of documents you produced based on a subpoena to you,     |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | not any subpoena to GTV?                                       |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | A<br>A subpoena to my firm, correct.                           |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | Q<br>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<br>Why?<br>I don't even understand your question.<br>Why     |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | didn't I give you documents I already gave you?                |  |  |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 76 of<br>176 |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |               | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>58                                   |\n| 1  | Q             | No.<br>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.<br>Unequivocally.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 77 of\n\n|    |         | 176                                                                |  |\n|----|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n|    |         | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>59                         |  |\n| 1  | A       | You mean the company?                                              |  |\n| 2  | Q       | Yeah.<br>What electronic platform?                                 |  |\n| 3  | A       | Terrace.                                                           |  |\n| 4  | Q       | Terrace.<br>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?<br>How did you access them?                                  |  |\n| 17 | A       | I don't understand your question.<br>I went -- I logged            |  |\n| 18 |         | in and accessed them.<br>I'm not very -- I'm not trying to be      |  |\n| 19 |         | evasive.<br>I'm not very computer savvy.<br>I log in.<br>I went on |  |\n| 20 |         | the website.<br>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.<br>Who maintained and kept the records for those --          |  |\n| 24 |         | for GTV?                                                           |  |\n| 25 | A       | Again, I'm not understanding.<br>You mean Terrace, is              |  |\n|    |         |                                                                    |  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 78 of\n\n|    | 176 |                                                            |  |  |  |  |\n|----|-----|------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n|    |     | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>60                 |  |  |  |  |\n| 1  |     | that what you're asking?                                   |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | Q   | No.<br>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.<br>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?<br>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.<br>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.<br>They produced -- I     |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 |     | went on and reviewed the documents that were available on  |  |  |  |  |\n|    |     |                                                            |  |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 79 of<br>176 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>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<br>So are GTV's documents also --                                                           |\n| 4  | A<br>Correct.                                                                                 |\n| 5  | Q<br>-- stored on Terrace?                                                                    |\n| 6  | A<br>Yes.<br>Yes.<br>They were all stored on Terrace in response                              |\n| 7  | to the SEC's subpoena.                                                                        |\n| 8  | Q<br>Well, Mr. Temkin told me that your documents were not                                    |\n| 9  | included in the -- in that database.<br>You told me,                                          |\n| 10 | specifically told me that that database does not include all                                  |\n| 11 | of GTV's documents.<br>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<br>That's correct.                                                                          |\n| 15 | Q<br>Okay.<br>So that's -- Mr. Temkin has told me that's not                                  |\n| 16 | all of GTV's documents.<br>Where are the remainder of GTV's                                   |\n| 17 | documents?                                                                                    |\n| 18 | A<br>That's all the documents I'm aware of.                                                   |\n| 19 | Q<br>Okay.<br>How about Saraca?                                                               |\n| 20 | A<br>Just to be fair there, I do have a couple of emails as                                   |\n| 21 | a director to the stock transfer company, V Stock.<br>I'm                                     |\n| 22 | sorry, the V Stock are Equity.                                                                |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Do you know how to spell that?                                                  |\n| 24 | THE WITNESS:<br>I'm trying to remember which one it                                           |\n| 25 | is, if it was V Stock.<br>One of them we referred to and we                                   |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2080 | Filed 08/11/23 | Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 | Page 80 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n|    | 176                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>62                     |\n| 1  | didn't use them.<br>We used the other.<br>I believe it Equity, |\n| 2  | E-Q-U-I-T-Y.<br>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:<br>The word that -- the name you used               |\n| 8  | before though was it V, like Victor, Stock?                    |\n| 9  | THE WITNESS:<br>V, like Victor, Stock.                         |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Victor Stock.                                    |\n| 11 | THE WITNESS:<br>Yes.                                           |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>V Stock.<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.         |\n| 13 | That will just be helpful to know.<br>Thank you.               |\n| 14 | THE WITNESS:<br>Sure.                                          |\n| 15 | BY MR. LUFT:                                                   |\n| 16 | Q<br>Was it responsive to GTV's subpoena?                      |\n| 17 | A<br>I don't believe so.                                       |\n| 18 | Q<br>Have you reviewed GTV's subpoena for relevance?           |\n| 19 | A<br>Not really, no.                                           |\n| 20 | Q<br>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<br>All the -- all the documents that I have, yes.            |\n| 24 | Q<br>Well, what documents do you have of Saraca?               |\n| 25 | A<br>The ones that were produced to you.<br>I believe there    |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 81 of\n\n|    | 176                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>63                    |\n| 1  | were some ownership documents that were produced.<br>Or       |\n| 2  | organizational documents is probably a better term.<br>And    |\n| 3  | whatever other documents that were included in the            |\n| 4  | production that were provided initially.<br>I don't recall    |\n| 5  | what it was exactly.                                          |\n| 6  | Q<br>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<br>No.<br>No.<br>I can't imagine that it did.               |\n| 10 | Q<br>Okay.<br>Let's turn --                                   |\n| 11 | A<br>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<br>Okay.<br>Let's turn to Mr. Temkin who's a -- he was a    |\n| 14 | lawyer at Morvillo, correct?                                  |\n| 15 | A<br>Correct.                                                 |\n| 16 | Q<br>And did you hire him to represent GTV and Saraca in      |\n| 17 | connection with the 2004 subpoena?                            |\n| 18 | A<br>I did not hire him to represent Saraca.<br>He did        |\n| 19 | represent Saraca, but I didn't hire him.                      |\n| 20 | Q<br>You hired him to represent GTV?                          |\n| 21 | A<br>Well, I was on the board at GTV so I think that is       |\n| 22 | fair.                                                         |\n| 23 | Q<br>You were the person who was served with the subpoena,    |\n| 24 | the 2004 subpoena, correct, on behalf of GTV?                 |\n| 25 | A<br>I don't recall if that's sure.<br>I think you served it. |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 82 of<br>176 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>64                                                    |\n| 1  | If you represent that, I don't have any reason --                                             |\n| 2  | Q<br>I could show you the email to Mr. Linsey.                                                |\n| 3  | A<br>I have no reason to dispute it.<br>I sincerely don't                                     |\n| 4  | recall.<br>But if you represent that, I will accept your                                      |\n| 5  | representation.                                                                               |\n| 6  | Q<br>And when you got that subpoena, what did you do?                                         |\n| 7  | A<br>I believe -- thank you -- I believe that I gave it to                                    |\n| 8  | Mr. Temkin to respond to.                                                                     |\n| 9  | Q<br>Okay.<br>And how did Mr. Temkin come to be -- represent                                  |\n| 10 | Saraca at the exact same time?                                                                |\n| 11 | A<br>He was already representing Saraca during the SEC -- in                                  |\n| 12 | response to the SEC subpoena and the settlement there,<br>Mr.                                 |\n| 13 | Temkin was representing Saraca.<br>Cahill was representing                                    |\n| 14 | GTV.<br>And Brad Bondi, who's now with your firm, was counsel                                 |\n| 15 | for GTV.<br>He was terminated.<br>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<br>In connection with the 2004, who contacted Saraca to                                     |\n| 20 | represent -- who contacted Mr. Temkin to represent Saraca?                                    |\n| 21 | A<br>I don't recall.<br>I may have forwarded him the subpoena.                                |\n| 22 | I sincerely don't recall one way or the other.                                                |\n| 23 | Q<br>Okay.<br>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|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 83 of<br>176 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>65                                                    |\n| 1  | their production on December 2nd.                                                             |\n| 2  | We received a response back advising us that as of                                            |\n| 3  | that day Morvillo was no longer going to represent GTV.                                       |\n| 4  | Were you involved in that decision for Morvillo to                                            |\n| 5  | cease representing GTV on the same day that we demanded that                                  |\n| 6  | production be made?                                                                           |\n| 7  | A<br>That decision would have been made by Morvillo.                                          |\n| 8  | Q<br>Why did Morvillo withdraw as counsel?                                                    |\n| 9  | A<br>I presume, and you'd have to ask Mr. Temkin, but I                                       |\n| 10 | presume it had to do with the fact that they weren't being                                    |\n| 11 | paid.                                                                                         |\n| 12 | Q<br>You had no discussions with Mr. Temkin regarding his --                                  |\n| 13 | A<br>That's why I presume is because he had asked several                                     |\n| 14 | times about payment and I had informed him that there were                                    |\n| 15 | no more funds at GTV to pay him.<br>So I believe that that is                                 |\n| 16 | it.<br>But, again, you'd have to ask him.<br>I'm speculating a                                |\n| 17 | little bit, but I -- that would be the reason I would resign                                  |\n| 18 | if I were him.                                                                                |\n| 19 | Q<br>Okay.<br>So it's your testimony that you had no                                          |\n| 20 | conversations with Mr. Temkin and Morvillo about their                                        |\n| 21 | decision to withdraw as counsel on the eve of having to make                                  |\n| 22 | a production to us?                                                                           |\n| 23 | A<br>That's not what I said.<br>What I said was I presume that                                |\n| 24 | it's because they weren't paid.<br>He told me -- he asked me                                  |\n| 25 | about being paid several times so there were conversations                                    |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 84 of\n\n|    | 176                                                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>66                       |\n| 1  | where he said I need to get paid or I'm going to have to         |\n| 2  | resign.<br>Ultimately he resigned.<br>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.<br>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<br>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<br>Yes.                                                        |\n| 11 | Q<br>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<br>Yes.<br>That's what you had said in your email to me.       |\n| 15 | Q<br>Right.<br>And you told us that you would tell us who        |\n| 16 | GTV's new counsel was?                                           |\n| 17 | A<br>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<br>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<br>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 2080 | Filed 08/11/23 | Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 | Page 85 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n|    | 176                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>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<br>Mr. Mitchell, I want to be very clear.<br>I'm not asking  |\n| 4  | what you think would make sense.<br>I'm just going to ask you  |\n| 5  | for your recollection.                                         |\n| 6  | A<br>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.<br>You had told me that's what Mr. Temkin had told |\n| 9  | you.<br>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<br>Did you speak to Mr. Temkin?                              |\n| 12 | A<br>I did.<br>I asked him why he said that I was a director   |\n| 13 | of Saraca?<br>He said he never said that.                      |\n| 14 | Q<br>Did you have any -- speak about anything else about the   |\n| 15 | subpoenas?                                                     |\n| 16 | A<br>I don't recall.<br>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.<br>So that's my       |\n| 20 | recollection of my conversation with Mr. Temkin.               |\n| 21 | Q<br>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<br>You told me you only wanted me to answer definitively.    |\n| 24 | Q<br>Okay.                                                     |\n| 25 | A<br>That sounds correct, but that would make sense.           |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 86 of<br>176 |  |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>68                                                    |  |\n| 1  | Q<br>Do you want me to show you the email?                                                    |  |\n| 2  | A<br>No.<br>I accept your representation.<br>I'm not disputing                                |  |\n| 3  | it.<br>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.<br>And I don't specifically recall that,                                   |  |\n| 6  | but it sounds accurate.                                                                       |  |\n| 7  | Q<br>You never told me the name of GTV's new counsel, did                                     |  |\n| 8  | you?                                                                                          |  |\n| 9  | A<br>GTV never retained new counsel.                                                          |  |\n| 10 | Q<br>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<br>I don't recall that.<br>Again, if you're representing                                    |  |\n| 15 | that, I'll take it as true, but.                                                              |  |\n| 16 | Q<br>Maybe I'll say the words and see if it refreshes your                                    |  |\n| 17 | recollection.<br>Do you recall me writing to you on December                                  |  |\n| 18 | 21st saying has GTV retained new counsel?<br>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?<br>If so, do you know                                 |  |\n| 22 | if it is represented by anyone?<br>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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 87 of\n\n|    | 176                                                             |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>69                      |\n| 1  | asked you?                                                      |\n| 2  | A<br>No.<br>But I'll accept it as true.                         |\n| 3  | Q<br>You never gave me any information about who to speak to    |\n| 4  | at Saraca regarding the subpoenas, correct?                     |\n| 5  | A<br>That would be -- that would be correct.<br>I don't         |\n| 6  | believe I had any information as I testified hereto today.      |\n| 7  | Q<br>Did you ever call Ms. Wang and say, hey, we have           |\n| 8  | subpoenas?<br>You're the president of Saraca.<br>You're the     |\n| 9  | director of Saraca.<br>What are we going to do to respond to    |\n| 10 | this?                                                           |\n| 11 | A<br>She was not the president and director.<br>As I testified  |\n| 12 | she already said she had resigned.                              |\n| 13 | Q<br>In December she resigned from Saraca, that's your          |\n| 14 | testimony?                                                      |\n| 15 | A<br>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<br>Who was there?                                             |\n| 18 | A<br>I don't believe anybody, but I could be wrong.             |\n| 19 | Q<br>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<br>Yeah.<br>I don't believe I responded to that email.<br>I   |\n| 23 | don't think you followed up either.<br>But I don't recall.<br>I |\n| 24 | don't recall responding to it.                                  |\n| 25 | Q<br>In fact, I sent you multiple emails before that one        |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 88 of<br>176 |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |               | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>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.<br>Regarding GTV and                    |\n| 12 |               | Saraca, I don't know.<br>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.<br>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.<br>I don't think that                        |\n| 23 |               | that's my obligation to do it.<br>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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 89 of\n\n|    | 176                                                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft<br>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<br>I resigned from the board.                                  |\n| 4  | Q<br>Oh, when did you resign from the board?<br>April 2023?      |\n| 5  | A<br>That's correct.                                             |\n| 6  | Q<br>How about between December and April, did you have an       |\n| 7  | obligation then?                                                 |\n| 8  | A<br>I suppose there was an open subpoena.<br>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<br>There wasn't -- the subpoena wasn't a request for           |\n| 13 | documents?                                                       |\n| 14 | A<br>It was, but there was nothing further from you that was     |\n| 15 | heard regarding, hey, I need documents.<br>And then --           |\n| 16 | Q<br>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<br>That's not what you said.                                   |\n| 21 | Q<br>You're right.<br>I didn't say tell me anyone.<br>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?<br>You       |\n| 24 | didn't take that as me asking who to speak to?                   |\n| 25 | A<br>I did, but I didn't have an answer for you.<br>I didn't     |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 90 of\n\n|    | 176 |                                                               |    |  |  |  |  |\n|----|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------|----|--|--|--|--|\n|    |     | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft                          | 72 |  |  |  |  |\n| 1  |     | -- there was no one I could tell you because there was no     |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  |     | answer to be had.<br>For my -- there was no answer that I had |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  |     | for you, let's put it that way.                               |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | Q   | And with regard to Saraca, the same thing, you were           |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  |     | aware that there was a pending --                             |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | A   | Your question was about Saraca the first one.                 |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | Q   | The first one was about GTV as a board member because         |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  |     | you're not a board member of Saraca, correct?                 |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | A   | But you asked me about Saraca, but --                         |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | Q   | So fine.                                                      |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | A   | -- (inaudible) response --                                    |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | Q   | Then we'll do it as to GTV.                                   |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | A   | I just want to make sure my response is clear on the          |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 |     | record.                                                       |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | Q   | Fine.                                                         |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | A   | That was my response.                                         |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | Q   | As to GTV as a board member, you were aware that there        |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 |     | was a pending subpoena and that the company had an            |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 |     | obligation and that you -- and the company was not            |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 |     | responding to the subpoena, correct?                          |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | A   | The company, correct.                                         |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | Q   | Okay.<br>How can I get the Saraca documents now?              |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | A   | I don't know.                                                 |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | Q   | Who would I speak to about getting -- who would be the        |    |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 |     | person who would know where I could get the Saraca            |    |  |  |  |  |\n|    |     |                                                               |    |  |  |  |  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 91 of\n\n|    |   | 176                                                      |    |\n|----|---|----------------------------------------------------------|----|\n|    |   | Aaron Mitchell - Direct - Avram Luft                     | 73 |\n| 1  |   | documents?                                               |    |\n| 2  | A | I don't know.                                            |    |\n| 3  | Q | How about the GTV documents?                             |    |\n| 4  | A | Well, I've given you, on behalf of Lawall & Mitchell,    |    |\n| 5  |   | the GTV documents.                                       |    |\n| 6  | Q | Well, I asked you.<br>You told me that you don't know if |    |\n| 7  |   | you have all the GTV documents.                          |    |\n| 8  | A | (Indiscernible).                                         |    |\n| 9  | Q | You told me you responded to the GTV documents that      |    |\n| 10 |   | were responsive to your subpoena.                        |    |\n| 11 | A | Sorry, is there a question there?                        |    |\n| 12 | Q | Yes.<br>Where can I get the GTV documents?               |    |\n| 13 | A | Again, the ones -- the ones that I am aware of were      |    |\n| 14 |   | produced.<br>I suppose Terrace would still have them.    |    |\n| 15 | Q | Do you have the login information for that?              |    |\n| 16 | A | I don't.                                                 |    |\n| 17 | Q | Who does?                                                |    |\n| 18 | A | Terrace would.                                           |    |\n| 19 | Q | So every time you wanted to log in you called the        |    |\n| 20 |   | platform and said how do I log in?                       |    |\n| 21 | A | Well, I haven't logged in since I responded to your      |    |\n| 22 |   | subpoena nine months ago.                                |    |\n| 23 | Q | And no one has the login information for all the data    |    |\n| 24 |   | that's stored on this platform?                          |    |\n| 25 | A | Again, Terrace would be able to -- Terrace has the       |    |\n|    |   |                                                          |    |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 92 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 93 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 94 of\n\n|    | 176                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>76                            |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                            |\n| 2  | All right.<br>So, Attorney Luft --                           |\n| 3  | MR. LUFT:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                                |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>-- 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:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                                |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>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:<br>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:<br>That's fine.<br>Yeah.<br>I'm not --            |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:<br>So I want to just make sure we have the         |\n| 21 | transcript before we do it.                                  |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>I agree.<br>You're going to need a             |\n| 23 | transcript.                                                  |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:<br>Right.                                          |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>I mean, none of us are going to                |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 77 remember what was said without a transcript, right? MR. LUFT: Exactly. THE COURT: So you're definitely going to need -- so how much? Do you want three weeks? A month? How much time? MR. LUFT: Three weeks would be more than enough, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LUFT: And I'll try to expedite it if I can do it faster. THE COURT: Well, I'll set a date of three weeks. And if you get it filed earlier, you get it filed earlier. MR. LUFT: Exactly. THE COURT: Okay. It needs to be served -- whatever you file, whatever supplemental document you file, will need to be served on Attorney Mitchell. And, Attorney Mitchell, in the main case you have an appearance, so you'll get it electronically. Okay. MR. MITCHELL: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: You will get whatever Mr. Luft files electronically. So three weeks from today is August 8th, but I can give you to August 11th, which is the Friday. Is that fair or do you need more time? MR. LUFT: No, Your Honor. That's more than Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 95 of\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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 96 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 97 of\n\n|    | 176                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>79                              |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>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:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                            |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>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?<br>Thank you.                                            |\n| 14 | MR. MITCHELL:<br>Your Honor, does that mean I'm                |\n| 15 | free?<br>I was ordered to be here so --                        |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>You can do whatever you think is                 |\n| 17 | appropriate.<br>But as far as the order to show cause hearing, |\n| 18 | that is -- it is concluded now.<br>Okay?                       |\n| 19 | MR. MITCHELL:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                        |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>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 Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 98 of\n\nTHE COURT: Good afternoon.\n\nGuo in 22-5003 and for Mei Guo in 23-5008.\n\nAll right. There are pretrial conferences in both\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 99 of\n\n|    | 176                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>81                            |\n| 1  | of these adversary proceedings.<br>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:<br>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\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 82 appeal. So we need to keep them there, but there's no activity that needs to take place in this adversary proceeding at this point. THE COURT: Well, what about the third counterclaim? You're not going to proceed with the third counterclaim at this point? MR. DESPINS: Not at this point. We're -- THE COURT: Because there's been arguments on both -- which I don't understand of the parties. At one point, at least, Mr. Moriarty, it wasn't you that made the argument, but I think it was Ms. -- oh, isn't that -- I'm going to forget her name -- Melissa Wernick who made an argument that counts 002 and 003 were different, counterclaims 002 and 003 were different relief? And then there seems to be some argument that they're now the same. So I'm a little confused by that quite frankly, number one. Number two, I understand that the first and second counterclaims are on appeal. Obviously I understand that. But I also understand that the answer in counterclaims -- and, Mr. Moriarty, correct me if I'm wrong, okay, because it's possible -- but I think in the answer in counterclaims in response to the allegations that are required to be made under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure regarding jurisdiction and core versus non-core Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 100 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 101 of<br>176 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>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:<br>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.<br>And the counterclaims -- the answer in the                                        |\n| 10 | counterclaims would have been filed by the Trustee.<br>We did                                  |\n| 11 | answer the counterclaims.                                                                      |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.<br>That's what I'm talking about.                                          |\n| 13 | MR. MORIARTY:<br>Okay.<br>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:<br>It's 8 or 9, but anyway, go ahead.                                               |\n| 17 | It's not 12, but go ahead.                                                                     |\n| 18 | MR. MORIARTY:<br>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:<br>Even though you -- your clients                                                  |\n| 22 | commenced this cause of action in which the counterclaim was                                   |\n| 23 | asserted?                                                                                      |\n| 24 | MR. MORIARTY:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                                                              |\n| 25 | The counterclaims go much further than my client's                                             |\n|    |                                                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 102 of\n\n|    | 176                                                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>84                                |\n| 1  | claim, my clients' claims.                                       |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Well, I'm not sure that true.<br>You               |\n| 3  | know, the original claim was a declaratory judgment that         |\n| 4  | your client owned the yacht?                                     |\n| 5  | MR. MORIARTY:<br>Correct.                                        |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>And the counterclaims were in response             |\n| 7  | to that saying that your client doesn't own the -- you know      |\n| 8  | what they said in the first and second counterclaim so --        |\n| 9  | MR. MORIARTY:<br>Mm-hmm.                                         |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>-- I'm not sure that that's an                     |\n| 11 | accurate statement.                                              |\n| 12 | However, I understand that the parties wanted to                 |\n| 13 | adjourn this pretrial conference but I think that there are      |\n| 14 | things that everybody needs to think about, which is --          |\n| 15 | which are, I understand that there are matters on appeal,        |\n| 16 | but there's no stay pending appeal unless I missed               |\n| 17 | something.<br>Right?<br>There's no stay pending appeal of either |\n| 18 | one of those decisions at this point in time.                    |\n| 19 | MR. MORIARTY:<br>As of this point in time, that's                |\n| 20 | correct.                                                         |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Right.                                             |\n| 22 | But Judge Dooley definitely denied one of them.                  |\n| 23 | She may be taking under consideration -- and I don't recall      |\n| 24 | which is which, okay -- I think she's taking into                |\n| 25 | consideration -- she already denied --                           |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 103 of\n\n|    | 176                                                         |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>85                           |\n| 1  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Number one.                                 |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>-- count 001.<br>And then she's taking        |\n| 3  | into consideration counterclaim 2.                          |\n| 4  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Two, that's correct.                        |\n| 5  | MR. MORIARTY:<br>Correct.                                   |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>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.<br>All that being said,   |\n| 11 | let's put that aside for a moment.                          |\n| 12 | There's also counts 004 and 005.<br>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:<br>Correct.<br>Correct.                       |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>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:<br>I don't think we have.                      |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 104 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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 105 of\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\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 88 opposed it. I believe the only counterclaim that was asserted against her, and inartfully, was counterclaim 005, which was (indiscernible) -- THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure that's true, but you can have an -- you two can talk about that. MR. MORIARTY: Okay. THE COURT: I'm not sure I agree with you, but I don't have to. I'm not making a ruling or anything. I'm just saying. MR. MORIARTY: Yeah. THE COURT: So that the record clear, the only party that opposed the summary judgment on the second counterclaim was HK International, not Mei Guo. MR. MORIARTY: Correct. THE COURT: So in this, in this brief that you filed on April 14th, ECF 203 in this adversary proceeding, there's also -- and I think it was signed by -- I believe this brief, and let me say, let me make sure I'm right before I say something incorrect, no, I am correct, was signed by Mr. Vartan with Mr. Della Fera, and Ms. Wernick's name under his, and then your name and Mr. Romney's name. Okay? But it's filed by Mr. Vartan. MR. MORIARTY: Mm-hmm. THE COURT: In that brief, you also say that the PJR and preliminary injunction, should -- must be dissolved Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 106 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 107 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\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 90 It says without prejudice. That's actually in the title of the order. Okay. But then I find out the last -- at our last hearing, which I don't recall how many -- exactly the date, but we can go back and make the record completely accurate, that a writ of mandamus has been filed in the district court directing the district court to direct this court to dissolve the PJR and the preliminary injunction because you didn't have a chance to ask the Court to do that. And I think that's not accurate. MR. MORIARTY: Well, I don't -- I don't think that the representation that that's the basis for the writ of mandamus is accurate either. THE COURT: Well, the basis for the writ, what else would it be? You're asking the district court to direct me to do something that you said I didn't give you the opportunity to be heard to do. MR. MORIARTY: That's not what it says, Your Honor. It says that -- THE COURT: Okay. So what does it say? MR. MORIARTY: It's asking the district court to direct you to do something that you declined to do. THE COURT: Well, isn't that an appeal? MR. MORIARTY: It is not an appeal because it's not an appealable order. Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 108 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 109 of\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.\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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 110 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 111 of<br>176 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>93                                                              |\n| 1  | appeal on the first, then let me know, just let me know, and                                   |\n| 2  | we'll go from there.<br>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.<br>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.<br>I'll                                   |\n| 12 | take a look at it.<br>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<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 112 of<br>176 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 113 of\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 114 of<br>176 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>96                                                              |\n| THE COURT:<br>Nothing further?<br>Okay.<br>All right.                                          |\n| The pretrial conference is concluded.                                                          |\n| The Trustee's going to file a response to relief                                               |\n| sought by HK on or before August 28th, excuse me, July 28th,                                   |\n| and the pretrial conference is continued to August 15 at                                       |\n| 12:30 p.m.                                                                                     |\n| All right.<br>Now, turning to the second adversary                                             |\n| proceeding on for pretrial conference today, which is                                          |\n| Despins versus Guo, 23-5008.                                                                   |\n| So where do things stand in -- this I think is the                                             |\n| -- I could be wrong, but is this the original pretrial                                         |\n| conference that was set in the summons?                                                        |\n| MR. LUFT:<br>Yes, Your Honor.<br>It is.                                                        |\n| THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>And I understand                                          |\n| that there's been an answer and affirmative is asserted by                                     |\n| Ms. Guo.                                                                                       |\n| And again, Mr. Moriarty, the answer denies the                                                 |\n| Court's ability to enter a final judgment?                                                     |\n| MR. MORIARTY:<br>It objects to it, Your Honor, yes.                                            |\n| THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>So this adversary                                         |\n| proceeding was commenced on 5/16/2023, so two months ago, so                                   |\n| what initial disclosures have the parties made to each other                                   |\n| under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?                                                    |\n| MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, we have worked out a -- we                                            |\n| have not filed our initial disclosures as of yet.<br>We have                                   |\n|                                                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 97 worked out a schedule which I believe was filed. It's at Docket No. 23. It was filed just hours ago, in which part -- THE COURT: Okay. Well, then, let me take a look at that. MR. LUFT: Okay, Your Honor. THE COURT: So it was filed when we were in court today? MR. LUFT: Or right before we sat is my understanding. THE COURT: It was filed when we were in court today, which is fine, so I have to take a look at it. MR. LUFT: Of course, Your Honor. (Pause) THE COURT: There's a blank in the order for a filing of the joint pretrial statement. Are you anticipating filing that, I would assume, joint pretrial statement after discovery including expert discovery is completed? MR. LUFT: Yes, Your Honor. My understanding -- the reason it was left blank was quite frankly because we hadn't had a chance to speak to the Court yet about its calendar and figured that setting a pretrial date without knowing where the Court's availability for trial was would maybe be a little bit presumptuous. Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 115 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 116 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 98 But I think the idea would be -- we tried to make, as I think Your Honor may see, the schedule very consistent in terms of timing with what was entered in Bravo Luck and Greenwich Land with the idea being that this was a similar schedule and a similar type of case. Using that timing, I would say that effectively you could -- we could have guessed that the pretrial schedule would have been at around 145 days out from now. With the trial at about 160, I think that's almost to the day consistent with how you did the other two. But, again, not knowing the Court's schedule we didn't want to presume to tell you when you would hold the trial. That's why we left it blank. For no other reason. THE COURT: All right. Well, I'll have to take a look at this because it looks like you are -- the parties are -- the deadline for completion of all fact discovery is October 18. Motions for summary judgment were to filed on or before November 17. Well, it looks like expert testimony is October 18th as well. MR. LUFT: It is, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I don't know that it makes sense for me to set a trial date in this order if you're going to file motions for summary judgment, right? MR. LUFT: And that is our expectation of how this will go, Your Honor.\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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 117 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 118 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 119 of\n\n|    | 176                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>101                             |\n| 1  | But I don't -- I agree --                                      |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Does Greenwich Land have counsel?<br>I           |\n| 3  | don't remember.                                                |\n| 4  | MR. MORIARTY:<br>Yes.                                          |\n| 5  | MR. LUFT:<br>They do.                                          |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>They do?                                         |\n| 7  | MR. LUFT:<br>Mr. Major, Your Honor.                            |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So are you -- so maybe I                |\n| 9  | shouldn't delete it then.<br>Maybe I should enter the same     |\n| 10 | order that was entered in the other case.<br>I'll take a look  |\n| 11 | and we'll let you know.<br>How's that?                         |\n| 12 | MR. MORIARTY:<br>That's fine.                                  |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>We'll take a look after today's         |\n| 14 | hearings obviously since I haven't seen this until now.<br>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.<br>Okay?         |\n| 17 | MR. MORIARTY:<br>Fair enough.                                  |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>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:<br>Nothing that I can think of on behalf             |\n| 22 | of the Trustee, Your Honor.                                    |\n| 23 | MR. MORIARTY:<br>Nothing on behalf of the defendant,           |\n| 24 | Your Honor.                                                    |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 120 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 121 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 122 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 104 Okay. We continued the hearing on the Trustee's motion to compromise filed in the main case and in this adversary proceeding to today for the purpose of seeing what, if any, further agreed-upon revisions to the order that was submitted with the motion to compromise could be made and agreed to by the parties and any objecting parties, understanding that the objections were still being considered by the Court and not ruled upon until this revised proposed order was submitted. So, Trustee Despins, Attorney Luft, you want to explain -- would you please explain where things stand with regard to the revised proposed order. I know some parties have filed, as they were allowed to do, further comments with regard to the order which were filed by Friday. So where do things stand as of today? MR. LUFT: Your Honor, may I approach? THE COURT: Please. MR. LUFT: Thank you. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Avi Luft of Paul Hastings. So let me -- as Your Honor noted, we have filed an amended order. I think if it's helpful I can highlight what I think are what I would call the substantive changes to the order. THE COURT: Go right ahead.\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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 123 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 124 of\n\n|    | 176                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>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.<br>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.<br>And that is in     |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 125 of\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.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 126 of\n\n|    | 176                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>108                           |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>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?<br>That's the intent?            |\n| 8  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Well, no.                                    |\n| 9  | MR. LUFT:<br>With regard --                                  |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>No.<br>Okay.<br>What is the intent?            |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:<br>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.<br>But the other parties'     |\n| 15 | rights to object to entry of a dispositive order are         |\n| 16 | preserved.                                                   |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:<br>So that was not -- we were not               |\n| 19 | intending to cut them off.<br>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.<br>Their reservation of rights in  |\n| 22 | that regard are preserved.                                   |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>So how about including all assertions          |\n| 24 | of reservations of rights with respect to this order?        |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:<br>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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 127 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 128 of\n\n|    | 176                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>110                            |\n| 1  | respond to it.<br>And then we can talk about the other        |\n| 2  | parties' opposite pleadings as well.                          |\n| 3  | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>Thank you.             |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                      |\n| 5  | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>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.<br>And as   |\n| 9  | previewed by Attorney Luft it highlights issues with two      |\n| 10 | paragraphs of the proposed revised order.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 129 of\n\n|    | 176                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>Or perhaps I can respond after Attorney  |\n| 20 | Jareck makes his presentation.                               |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Why don't we do that.<br>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.<br>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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 130 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 131 of\n\n|    | 176                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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:<br>\"A bankruptcy    |\n| 23 | court's role is a gatekeeper role.<br>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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 132 of\n\n|    | 176                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>114                             |\n| 1  | decisions.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 133 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 134 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 135 of\n\n|    | 176                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>117                           |\n| 1  | of the estate.<br>They're buying the assets of Old G.M., but |\n| 2  | New G.M. is a third party.<br>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.<br>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.<br>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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 136 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 137 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 138 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 139 of\n\n|    | 176                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>121                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 1  | who knows what's going to happen, right, but there is a        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | possibility that the Trustee is not successful.<br>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.<br>Correct?                                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | MS. McCLAMMY:<br>Yes.<br>Yes.                                  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So that's one of the things I'm         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | trying to understand.<br>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?<br>That's what will happen.<br>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:<br>Yes.                                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 140 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 141 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 142 of\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 143 of\n\n|    | 176                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>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.<br>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:<br>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:<br>Yes.                                          |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>-- and you don't want to have that               |\n| 25 | happen.<br>You want to have that right maintained regardless   |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 144 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 145 of\n\n|    | 176                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>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:<br>I think you're right that that's how           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | it reads right now.                                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | MS. McCLAMMY:<br>Okay.                                       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>That's what it provides right --               |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | that's my understanding of it.<br>Okay?                      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | MS. McCLAMMY:<br>I'm glad we agree.                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>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:<br>Mm-hmm.                                     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>-- 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.<br>If we want to sue, we |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | should be able to sue.                                       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                              |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 146 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 128 MS. McCLAMMY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I understand. Thank you. MS. McCLAMMY: Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Sklarz? MR. SKLARZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. G-Club continues to take issue with paragraph 6. Our opposition is ECF No. 2007 in the main case, specifically on page 5 we suggest some language. The issue -- this is a -- really more of a technology issue. HChK provided IT services including cloud computing services, data hosting and email hosting. There was a period -- there was a period of time where G-Club did not have access to its data through HCHK, so we need to have access to our data in order to A) run the business, and B) search that data for documents that could be responsive to the subpoena for which we've produced over 120,000 documents so far. Additionally, the email servers contain emails that would be subject to an attorney-client -- could, we don't know since we haven't been able to look, could contain emails containing attorney-client privilege material, correspondence with the Pillsbury Winthrop firm, and correspondence with my firm. So we're just looking for protections for our data and the attorney-client privilege.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 147 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\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2080 | Filed 08/11/23 | Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 | Page 148 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\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\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 149 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 150 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 151 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 152 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 153 of\n\n|    | 176                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>135                             |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                            |\n| 2  | MR. SKLARZ:<br>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:<br>That's assuming the assignee has                 |\n| 7  | somebody that's working on hosting the cloud.                  |\n| 8  | MR. SKLARZ:<br>Well, they must, otherwise the data             |\n| 9  | wouldn't go anywhere.                                          |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>I think I just heard they don't.                 |\n| 11 | MR. JARECK:<br>We have one person in HR and two                |\n| 12 | people in security, that's it.                                 |\n| 13 | MR. SKLARZ:<br>Well, there's --                                |\n| 14 | MR. JARECK:<br>Everyone else was terminated.                   |\n| 15 | MR. SKLARZ:<br>But there's -- there are servers that           |\n| 16 | need to be maintained.<br>If they're shut off, then -- or if   |\n| 17 | they just got thrown away, that would be problematic.<br>I     |\n| 18 | assume that hasn't been the case.                              |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>But thrown away by whom?                         |\n| 20 | MR. SKLARZ:<br>It will be thrown away by the                   |\n| 21 | assignee.                                                      |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Well, you don't know that if it wasn't           |\n| 23 | assigned to him.<br>How do you know?<br>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<br>Doc 2080<br>Filed 08/11/23<br>Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05<br>Page 154 of<br>176 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>136                                                             |\n| 1  | they want.<br>They don't have to assign everything.<br>And I                                   |\n| 2  | don't know.<br>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.<br>They might not have assigned everything.<br>I have no                               |\n| 7  | idea.<br>I have no idea.                                                                       |\n| 8  | MR. SKLARZ:<br>Nor do I.                                                                       |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>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:<br>I mean, if -- it would be -- if all                                             |\n| 14 | the data is now unavailable --                                                                 |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>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:<br>Well, I'm not -- I apologize, Your                                              |\n| 19 | Honor.<br>Can counsel clarify as to whether they're holding                                    |\n| 20 | the data?                                                                                      |\n| 21 | MR. JARECK:<br>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.<br>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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 155 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 156 of\n\n|    | 176                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>138                             |\n| 1  | I would just want to, you know, speak with my                  |\n| 2  | client to see if that's acceptable.<br>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:<br>Attorney Luft?                                   |\n| 7  | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, when I restart I'd like to            |\n| 8  | approach and address this.                                     |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Yeah.                                   |\n| 10 | Are you done for the moment, Attorney Sklarz?                  |\n| 11 | MR. SKLARZ:<br>Unless Your Honor has any other                 |\n| 12 | questions.                                                     |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>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.<br>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:<br>That's correct, Your Honor.                     |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>And if you did that, you'd have to               |\n| 21 | establish a privilege log anyway?                              |\n| 22 | MR. SKLARZ:<br>That's correct, Your Honor.                     |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>Thank you.                |\n| 24 | MR. SKLARZ:<br>Thank you.                                      |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Go ahead, Attorney Luft.           |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 157 of\n\n|    | 176                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>139                           |\n| 1  | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, may I approach?                     |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Sure.                                          |\n| 3  | MR. LUFT:<br>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.<br>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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 158 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 159 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 160 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\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 143 MR. LUFT: True. THE COURT: That's what I anticipate happening. MR. LUFT: Okay. Good. I agree with that. Now, let's talk about this privilege. Your Honor, they say that HCHK, they've held that as a complete third party to G-Club. They have given over their documents to this third party. Since then that third party has -- the documents went -- the assignee took it over. That's another third party. And then the assignee made a deal with G-News, including letting them start up operations for a period, that's a third, third party. I don't know how anything is privileged anymore. And to my knowledge, they never objected when it went -- they didn't raise an issue with that. They didn't raise an objection when it went to the assignee. And they certainly didn't raise an objection to my knowledge when that assignee then said that G-News could have access to it. We now have three third parties who have access to privileged information. So I don't understand how -- THE COURT: So you're saying that privilege has been waived? Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 161 of\n\n MR. DESPINS: Correct. MR. LUFT: Exactly, Your Honor. I don't\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 144 understand what privilege we're talking about. And what we're -- So while I can't see any privilege, what I can imagine is the process of trying to go through all these documents, which I have now been waiting for a considerable period of time, to review and to go through all that just to get to the conclusion that, oh, right, we waived them all, I don't understand. Now, maybe there's an argument that I'm not seeing, but, Your Honor, I start with the fact that -- THE COURT: Okay. But we -- I hear what you're saying. I do. We haven't -- we haven't addressed that argument legally yet though, have we? MR. LUFT: We spoke about it -- THE COURT: I mean, we haven't addressed the argument that you're making legally, which, you know, you could be right that the privilege has been waived. But what you've just said I don't think has been presented to the Court to make that determination yet. Right? So you would be arguing with regard to G-Club and their opposition to the entry of this -- approval of the settlement and the entry of this order that their objection should be overruled because there is no privilege? MR. LUFT: To the extent their objection is, as I'm hearing it, which is that they now have a limited Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 162 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 163 of\n\n|    | 176                                                         |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>145                          |\n| 1  | concern about that they have privileged documents that are  |\n| 2  | at HCHK, I would say it should be overruled because those   |\n| 3  | documents, any such privilege to me seems that it would be  |\n| 4  | waived.<br>Yes, Your Honor.                                 |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                         |\n| 6  | MR. LUFT:<br>As with regard to confidentiality, if I        |\n| 7  | thought I heard him correctly, that it sounded like they're |\n| 8  | not as concerned about that anymore.                        |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>That's what he said.                          |\n| 10 | MR. LUFT:<br>Okay.<br>So I'll assume that the language      |\n| 11 | we have there, there's no need to further discuss that      |\n| 12 | issue.                                                      |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Or any further discussions you both           |\n| 14 | can have, whether it's confidential or highly confidential, |\n| 15 | there's a protective order in place that addresses those    |\n| 16 | issues.                                                     |\n| 17 | MR. LUFT:<br>I agree, Your Honor.                           |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                         |\n| 19 | MR. LUFT:<br>And I will -- so I think with that, and        |\n| 20 | with the modifications that has come out with which Your    |\n| 21 | Honor has discussed, I think that's really the only issue   |\n| 22 | before us is that privilege issue.<br>And like I said, I    |\n| 23 | believe there's a waiver, but that's where I think it is.   |\n| 24 | Other than that, I would assume that their other            |\n| 25 | arguments have been addressed based on the comments from    |\n|    |                                                             |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 146 today. THE COURT: Yes. We have to -- yes. I have to think about what, if anything, I want you to do with regard to the waiver issue. But I agree. Attorney Sklarz has said that the confidentiality is not their big issue. And they understand and will work with you to deal with the -- what would be the application of the protections in the protective order to confidential information. MR. LUFT: Okay. THE COURT: With regard to the privilege issues, we'll talk about that, but I know where it stands. MR. LUFT: Thank you. THE COURT: So now let's turn to the other parties. MR. LUFT: Okay. And if I can just make one more point? THE COURT: Sure. MR. LUFT: It's my understanding -- with regard to the access and the access to the documents, I can't -- I don't know whether or not -- speaking to Mr. Jareck it doesn't seem like they were aware that there's been an issue that people have been locked out of it. But what I do have a concern about quite frankly, Your Honor, is the idea of preservation spoliation. To the Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 164 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 165 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 166 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 167 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 168 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 169 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 170 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 171 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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 172 of\n\n|    | 176                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>154                             |\n| 1  | argument I was trying to make.                                 |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                              |\n| 3  | MS. McCLAMMY:<br>Thank you.                                    |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>I appreciate that.                               |\n| 5  | Anything further from anyone this afternoon?                   |\n| 6  | MR. LUFT:<br>No, Your Honor.                                   |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>All right.                                       |\n| 8  | I'm sorry.<br>Go ahead, Attorney Luft.<br>Oh, you said         |\n| 9  | nothing?                                                       |\n| 10 | MR. LUFT:<br>Nothing, Your Honor.                              |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>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.<br>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.<br>I understand there are still concerns about  |\n| 23 | paragraph 14.<br>I understand the G-Club concerns about and    |\n| 24 | the Trustee's concerns about paragraph 6.<br>There are also    |\n| 25 | other pending objections just to the settlement as a whole     |\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 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 173 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 156 calendar shows as of now. MR. DESPINS: For now, yeah. THE COURT: August 2nd in an adversary proceeding only, motion to dismiss adversary proceeding. That's what the calendar shows. At least what I'm looking at right now, that's all I see. Could I have missed something? Certainly. But it appears that the next hearing is August 2nd in adversary proceeding 22-5027 on motions -- on a motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding. MR. DESPINS: All right. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay? All right. That concludes our hearings today. And that is the last matter on today's calendar, therefore, court is adjourned. Thank you. ALL COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honor. (Proceedings concluded at 3:31 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 174 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 175 of\n\n|    | 176                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023<br>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|    | 176<br>Ho Wan Kwok - July 18, 2023 |        |       |\n|----|------------------------------------|--------|-------|\n|    |                                    |        | 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|    |                                    |        |       |","body_zh":"美国破产法院 康涅狄格州联邦地区 布里奇波特分院\n\n-------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　:　第11章\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，　:　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n债务人。1　:　合并管理\n\n------------------------------------------------------　x\n要求认定 GTV MEDIA GROUP, INC.（GTV媒体集团公司）及 SARACA MEDIA GROUP, INC.（萨拉卡媒体集团公司）因未回应规则2004传票而构成民事藐视法庭的补充动议\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）作为就债务人第11章案件（“第11章案件”）获指定的第11章受托人（“受托人”），特此根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》（“联邦规则”）第26条和第37条，以及《联邦破产程序规则》（“破产规则”）第2004条和第9016条，提交本补充藐视法庭动议（“补充藐视法庭动议”），请求作出一项实质上采用随附附件A所列形式的命令（“拟议命令”），以认定GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司因未回应本院的规则2004命令[2]及受托人根据该命令发出的传票（“传票”）而构成民事藐视法庭。为支持本补充藐视法庭动议，受托人谨陈述如下：\n\n1 本第11章案件中的债务人为Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称Guo Wengui、Miles Guo及Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）（“债务人”）以及Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司）（“Genever BVI债务人”）。受托人及Genever BVI债务人的邮寄地址为：Paul Hastings LLP（博钦律师事务所），200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交Luc A. Despins，作为Ho Wan Kwok遗产的受托人（仅为通知及通信之目的）。\n\n2 “规则2004命令”一词系指本院作出的《准许第11章受托人就与债务人有关联的各实体及个人进行规则2004取证之申请的命令》[ECF No. 758]（“关联实体规则2004命令”）。\n\n初步陈述\n\n1. 约一年前，GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司均获送达有效的规则2004传票。然而，受托人尚未收到任一实体提交的任何文件。相反，两实体均选择停止与受托人沟通，并仅仅无视其在传票项下的义务。\n\n2. 大约在2022年9月，GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司最初通过共同代理律师Morvillo[3]，与受托人的律师讨论了各自的传票。然而，在两实体提交文件的期限届满五十余日后，受托人的律师提出提交文件要求的前夕，其共同代理律师突然撤回了对两实体的代理。受托人的律师被告知，所有关于传票的沟通均应向Attorney Aaron Mitchell（律师Aaron Mitchell）进行；其接受了GTV媒体集团公司传票的送达，直至2023年4月一直担任GTV媒体集团公司董事会成员，并且目前在“五、六”宗与本破产程序间接相关的案件中代理GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司。\n\n3. 2022年12月，受托人的律师与Mitchell先生讨论了传票，Mitchell先生称，一旦聘请了GTV媒体集团公司的新律师，他将提供该律师的联系信息。Mitchell先生还表示，其未获授权代表萨拉卡媒体集团公司行事。受托人的律师随后向Mitchell先生跟进，请其提供GTV媒体集团公司新律师的联系信息，并提供能够代表萨拉卡媒体集团公司行事之人员的联系信息。然而，Mitchell律师未回应受托人律师的询问。\n\n3 尚未定义的首字母大写术语应具有下文赋予其的含义。\n\n4. Mitchell律师最近向本院表示，其：(1)在担任GTV媒体集团公司董事会成员期间，知悉GTV媒体集团公司收到了一份有效的规则2004传票；(2)知悉GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司的共同代理律师撤回了对两实体的代理，并指示受托人的律师与其联系；及(3)未回应受托人律师关于传票的询问，是因为GTV媒体集团公司从未聘请新律师，而其不知萨拉卡媒体集团公司中有任何可供受托人联系的人员——该实体目前仍由其在多宗其他案件中代理。\n\n5. GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司应因未遵从其规则2004传票而被认定构成民事藐视法庭。\n\n事实背景\n\n6. 2023年5月18日，受托人提交了《要求作出命令，强制GTV Media, Inc.、Saraca Media Group, Inc.及G-Club Operations LLC遵从规则2004传票，并作出命令认定G-Club US Operations LLC、G-Club US Operations, Inc.、Hudson Diamond NY LLC、Hudson Diamond Holding LLC、G-Fashion LLC、GNews LLC、US Himalaya Capital Inc.、New York MOS Himalaya LLC、Crane Advisory Group LLC及Maywind Trading LLC因未回应规则2004传票而构成民事藐视法庭的动议》（“藐视法庭动议”）[ECF No. 1805]。\n\n7. 如藐视法庭动议中更充分所述，GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司与债务人密切关联。[4] GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司均受一项SEC命令约束，该命令导致其对SEC负有合计超过$539 million的民事罚款、追缴款及利息支付义务，并且是针对债务人、Yvette Wang（王雁平）及William Je（叶威廉）的欺诈起诉书中的关键环节。萨拉卡媒体集团公司亦为众多G-Series实体的母公司。\n\n4 藐视法庭动议第15至17段详述了GTV媒体集团公司、萨拉卡媒体集团公司与债务人之间的关系。为节约司法资源，受托人通过援引方式将该等段落纳入本补充藐视法庭动议。\n\n8. 2023年6月6日，本院就藐视法庭动议举行听证会。会上，受托人告知本院，除请求强制GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司提交回应传票的文件外，其还请求认定两实体构成民事藐视法庭，因为两实体虽最初通过共同代理律师与受托人的律师讨论了传票，但其于2022年12月停止与受托人的一切沟通，此后未采取任何行动遵从传票。受托人还请求本院命令Aaron A. Mitchell律师出庭，并就向GTV媒体集团公司及萨拉卡媒体集团公司发出的传票作证。[5]\n\n9. 2023年6月7日，本院作出《要求GTV Media, Inc.、Saraca Media Group, Inc.及律师Aaron A. Mitchell出庭并说明为何不应认定GTV Media, Inc.及Saraca Media Group, Inc.构成民事藐视法庭的命令》（“出庭说明理由命令”）[ECF No. 1893]。\n\n10. 出庭说明理由命令要求GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司于2023年7月18日通过高级职员、董事、成员或经理出庭，说明为何本院不应因其未回应或未遵从传票而认定两实体构成民事藐视法庭（“说明理由听证会”）。[6] 出庭说明理由命令要求Mitchell律师以其个人身份出庭。\n\n5 藐视法庭动议第24至33段详述了受托人的律师就传票与GTV媒体集团公司、萨拉卡媒体集团公司及Mitchell律师之间的沟通。为节约司法资源，受托人通过援引方式将该等段落纳入本补充藐视法庭动议。发给GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司的传票副本，分别作为附件B-1和B-2附于《支持强制动议的Avram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·拉夫特）声明》（“Luft声明”），该声明与藐视法庭动议同期提交。\n\n6 2023年7月18日说明理由听证会的记录副本作为附件B随附于此。\n\n11. 2023年7月18日说明理由听证会上，GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司均无人出庭。Mitchell律师以个人身份出席了该听证会并作证。Mitchell律师并非以萨拉卡媒体集团公司或GTV媒体集团公司的高级职员、董事、成员或经理身份作证。[7]\n\n12. 在2023年7月18日说明理由听证会上，受托人的律师就GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司未回应传票一事询问了Mitchell律师。\n\n13. Mitchell律师作证称，除在本破产案件中代理债务人外，其还就本破产案件代理Mei Guo（债务人的女儿）[8]、Qiang Guo（债务人的儿子）[9]及HK International Funds Investment (USA) Limited, LLC，并在多项其他事务中代理众多与Kwok有关的实体和个人，包括Genever Holding LLC、G-Club Operations LLC、Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.、G-Music、G-Fashion及Williams Je。[16] 值得注意的是，Mitchell先生作证称，尽管其在本破产案件中担任代理律师，并知悉已向本院提交的大量相反证据，但Kwok先生与这些实体不存在任何业务往来。[17]\n\n- 10 见同上第35:13-15页。\n- 11 见同上第29:19-22页。\n- 12 见同上第38:9-11页。\n- 13 见同上第36:2-9页。\n\n7 见附件B第75:14-20页。\n\n8 见同上第29:18-24页。\n\n9 见同上第35:16-24页。\n\n14 见同上第40:7-11页。\n\n15 见同上第39:6-8页。\n\n16 见同上第52:9-11页。\n\n14. Mitchell先生还承认，其在GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司的私募证券发行中所发挥的作用，证明其作为两实体律师及GTV媒体集团公司董事会成员而与二者存在深厚联系；[18]其还承认，其在促成债务人与William Je之间关系中所发挥的作用，包括为于2022年4月提交的一项保释保证金，亲自安排William Je支付一笔为债务人利益而支付的$37 million款项。[19]\n\n15. 此外，Mitchell律师作证称，直至其于2023年4月20日辞任前，其是GTV媒体集团公司唯一剩余的董事。[20] 其作证称，GTV媒体集团公司已不再运营，且该公司已无人留任，[21]但其不一致地表示，其仍在约五、六宗与本破产案件间接相关的案件中代理GTV媒体集团公司。[22]\n\n16. Mitchell律师还承认，其在代理GTV媒体集团公司的同样五、六宗案件中代理萨拉卡媒体集团公司。[23] 其表示，其不知道萨拉卡媒体集团公司当前的运营状态，但其称其认为那里没有任何人，尽管其仍持续担任该公司的律师。[24]\n\n17 见同上第42:12-22页。\n\n18 见同上第47:23-49:10页。\n\n19 见同上第51:1-52:1页。\n\n20 见同上第24:9-11页。\n\n21 见同上第35:1-2页；第56:7-12页。\n\n22 见同上第31:5-8页；第31:16-17页。\n\n23 见同上第32:21-22页。\n\n24 见同上第56:13-16页。\n\n17. Mitchell先生承认，其通过电子邮件接受了GTV媒体集团公司传票的送达；其一旦收到传票送达，可能即将其转交给Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello PC（Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello律师事务所）的Jeremy Temkin律师，即在其突然撤回代理前曾代理GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司的律师。[25]\n\n18. Mitchell律师作证称，其知悉Morvillo在受托人的律师提出文件提交要求前后撤回了对GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司的代理。\n\n19. Mitchell律师告知本院，在Morvillo撤回对GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司的代理时，其本人及GTV媒体集团公司董事会均知悉，GTV媒体集团公司和萨拉卡媒体集团公司均有尚未处理的传票，[26]且其知悉Temkin律师曾告知受托人的律师，所有关于传票的沟通均应向Mitchell律师进行。[27]\n\n20. Mitchell律师并未对以下事实提出异议：受托人的律师于2022年12月前后向其发送了多封电子邮件，其中受托人的律师要求Mitchell律师提供GTV Media新任律师的联系信息，以及可就Saraca Media事宜进行沟通的个人姓名。[28]\n\n21. 尽管Mitchell律师于2022年12月至2023年4月期间担任GTV Media董事会成员（即Mitchell律师从GTV Media董事会辞职之日），并知悉GTV Media传票，Mitchell律师表示，其从未回应受托人律师提出的请求，因为GTV Media从未聘请新律师。[29] Mitchell律师作证称，在担任GTV Media董事会成员期间，他知悉GTV Media未对其传票作出回应。[30]\n\n25 参见同上，第64:6-8页。GTV Media《规则2004》传票的电子邮件送达副本作为Luft声明的附件C-1随藐视法庭动议同时提交。\n\n26 参见同上，第66:7-10页。\n\n27 参见同上，第66:11-14页。\n\n28 参见同上，第67:21-22页；第68:10-13页。\n\n22. 同样，Mitchell律师表示，其从未回应受托人律师就Saraca Media传票提出的请求，因为其并无Saraca Media任何人员的联系信息；Saraca Media是一家其在多起其他案件中代理的公司。[31]\n\n23. Mitchell律师作证称，GTV Media和Saraca Media的文件储存在名为Terrace的电子数据库中。[32] 但是，Mitchell律师表示，其不知道有任何人能够访问该等文件。[33]\n\n24. 截至本文件提交之时，受托人尚未从GTV Media或Saraca Media中的任何一方收到一份文件。\n\n管辖权和审判地\n\n25. 本院根据28 U.S.C. §§ 157和1334对审理本事项具有管辖权。根据28 U.S.C. §§ 1408和1409，审判地适格。根据包括28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) (A)、(E)和(O)在内的规定，本事项属于核心程序。\n\n请求的救济\n\n26. 受托人请求作出拟议命令，认定GTV Media和Saraca Media因未回应传票而构成民事藐视法庭。\n\n29 参见同上，第68:7-9页。\n\n30 参见同上，第72:17-21页。\n\n31 参见同上，第69:3-6页。\n\n32 参见同上，第58:10-59:3页（Saraca Media）；第61:3-5页（GTV Media）。\n\n33 参见同上，第74:4-6页。\n\n救济依据\n\n27. 《联邦民事诉讼规则》第45(e)条规定：“任何人在无充分理由的情况下未遵从向其送达的传票，可被视为构成对发出该传票之法院的藐视。”In re Corso, 328 B.R. 375, 385 (E.D.N.Y. 2005)（引述FRCP 45(e)）（省略引文）；PaineWebber Inc. v. Acstar Ins. Co., 211 F.R.D. 247, 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)（“如一方未对传票提出异议且亦未予遵从，可根据第45[(e)]条认定其构成藐视法庭”）（省略内部引文）。\n\n28. 为认定一方构成民事藐视法庭，“法院仅须：(1) 已作出明确且无歧义的命令；(2) 基于明确且有说服力的证据认定该命令未获遵从；以及(3) 认定被指称的藐视者未能明确证明其无法遵从该命令的条款。”Huber v. Marine Midland Bank, 51 F.3d 5, 10 (2d Cir. 1995)（援引N.A. Sales Co. v. Chapman Indus. Corp., 736 F.2d 854, 857 (2d Cir. 1984)）。\n\n29. 在民事藐视法庭程序中，只要被违反的命令“明确且无歧义，不遵从［该命令］的证据明确且有说服力，并且藐视者在尝试遵从时未尽合理勤勉”，则藐视法庭认定将获维持。Corso, 328 B.R. at 385（引述United States v. Local 1804–1, Int'l Longshoremen's Assn., 44 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir.1995)（省略引文）（原文有改动））。\n\n30. 此外，未在规定期限内及时回应或对传票提出异议的一方，不得在之后提出异议。参见Corso, 328 B.R. at 384-85（“由于［被传唤方］未就受托人的传票及时提出任何异议，亦未及时申请撤销该传票，［其］放弃了对该传票提出异议的权利。”）。\n\n31. 最后，法院已认定，未回应或未对传票提出异议的一方可因该等未作为而受到制裁。参见PaineWebber Inc., 211 F.R.D. at 249（“如一方未对传票提出异议且亦未予遵从，可根据第45[(e)]条认定其构成藐视法庭，因此可施加制裁。”）（省略内部引文并加重强调）；Corso, 328 B.R. at 385-86（维持破产法院对未作出“任何努力”遵从《规则2004》传票的一方所施加的制裁）。具体而言，第二巡回区法院在一方未遵从传票时已裁定支付律师费。参见Gucci Am., Inc. v. Li, No. 10-CV-4974 (RJS), 2015 WL 7758872, at \\*4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2015)（“本巡回区法院在一方当事人或非当事人故意未遵从传票时已裁定支付律师费。”）。\n\n案件22-50073 文件2080 提交于08/11/23 登记于08/11/23 17:27:05 第10页，共176页\n\n32. 在本案中，受托人向GTV Media和Saraca Media均送达了有效的《规则2004》传票和文件请求。GTV Media和Saraca Media的共同律师最初曾与受托人律师讨论该等传票，但在受托人律师提出文件出示要求前夕、且尚未出示任何一份文件之前，退出了代理，转而指示受托人律师将有关传票的所有沟通均转交给Mitchell律师；Mitchell律师曾为GTV Media董事会成员，现为两实体的律师。\n\n33. 受托人律师曾多次请求Mitchell律师提供：(1) GTV Media新任律师的联系信息，以及(2) 任何能够代表Saraca Media行事之人员的联系信息。尽管受托人律师作出该等反复尝试，且Mitchell律师知悉针对GTV Media和Saraca Media两者的有效传票，其于2022年12月停止与受托人律师就该等传票进行一切沟通。受托人未收到代表GTV Media或Saraca Media任何一方作出的文件出示。\n\n案件22-50073 文件2080 提交于08/11/23 登记于08/11/23 17:27:05 第11页，共176页\n\n34. 对于GTV Media和Saraca Media完全知悉其已被送达有效传票一事，并无争议。GTV Media和Saraca Media亦有外部律师Mitchell先生（以及Morvillo律所的前律师Temkin律师），其知悉：(1) GTV Media和Saraca Media有义务回应并遵从该等传票，且其知悉该义务在Morvillo突然退出代理后仍持续存在；以及(2) 受托人律师正积极寻求促使遵从该等传票。\n\n35. 此外，GTV Media和Saraca Media均未依照本院的出庭并说明理由命令，安排高级管理人员、董事、成员或经理出庭，尽管其各自的外部律师（且就GTV Media而言，其前董事会成员）知悉本院的出庭并说明理由命令。\n\n36. GTV Media和Saraca Media决定拒绝遵从向其有效送达的传票，显然是为进一步阻挠受托人的《规则2004》调查而作出的故意决定。\n\n37. 因此，本院应作出命令：(i) 认定GTV Media和Saraca Media构成民事藐视法庭；(ii) 禁止其对传票提出任何异议；以及(iii) 命令其支付受托人与本补充藐视法庭动议有关的律师费。此外，由于GTV Media和Saraca Media似乎能够继续通过Mitchell律师就其他事项进行诉讼，应命令其通过Mitchell律师或其自行选择的另一名律师，出示其文件以配合受托人的调查。\n\n［本页其余部分特意留白］\n\n案件22-50073 文件2080 提交于08/11/23 登记于08/11/23 17:27:05 第12页，共176页\n\n鉴于上述理由，受托人谨请求作出拟议命令，准予本补充藐视法庭动议所请求的救济，以及其他公正和适当的救济。\n\n日期：August 11, 2023                              LUC A. DESPINS（Luc A. Despins），\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut                              第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Avram E. Luft\n\nAvram E. Luft（Avram E. Luft，获准pro hac vice出庭）\nDouglass Barron（Douglass Barron，获准pro hac vice出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n(212) 318-6079\naviluft@paulhastings.com\ndouglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（Nicholas A. Bassett，获准pro hac vice出庭）\nPAUL HASTINGS LLP\n2050 M Street NW\nWashington, D.C., 20036\n(202) 551-1902\nnicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（Patrick R. Linsey，ct29437）\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n(203) 781-2847\nplinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人的律师\n\n附件A\n\n美国破产法院（United States Bankruptcy Court）\n康涅狄格州地区（District of Connecticut）\n布里奇波特分部（Bridgeport Division）\n\n-------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　:\n:　第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，　:\n:　案件编号22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人。1　:\n:　合并管理\n\nx\n\n［拟议］关于认定GTV MEDIA GROUP, INC.和SARACA MEDIA GROUP, INC.因未回应《规则2004》传票而构成民事藐视法庭的命令\n\n经审议补充藐视法庭动议[2]，该动议请求在通知和听证后，因GTV Media Group, Inc.（“GTV Media”）和Saraca Media, Inc.（“Saraca Media”）未回应《规则2004》传票而认定其构成民事藐视法庭，参见11 U.S.C. § 102(1)；经认定存在理由按下文所附条件准予所请求的救济；现据此\n\n命令：准予补充藐视法庭动议，具体如下；并进一步\n\n命令：认定GTV Media和Saraca Media构成民事藐视法庭；并进一步\n\n命令：GTV Media和Saraca Media可通过遵从其各自的传票以消除其藐视法庭状态。如GTV Media或Saraca Media任一方未能在September 11, 2023前消除其藐视法庭状态，受托人可申请偿付与藐视法庭动议（就该藐视法庭动议中涉及GTV Media和Saraca Media的部分）及补充藐视法庭动议有关的全部费用和开支。\n\n命令：受托人应在本命令作出后三(3)日内向GTV Media和Saraca Media送达本命令，并于其后三(3)日内或之前提交证明该等送达的送达证明。\n\n日期：\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_, 2023\n\nJulie A. Manning（Julie A. Manning），美国破产法院法官\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\n美国破产法院（United States Bankruptcy Court）\n康涅狄格州地区（District of Connecticut）\n布里奇波特分部（Bridgeport Division）\n\n-------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n关于：　:\n:　第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等，　:\n:\n:　案件编号22-50073 (JAM)\n债务人1　:\n:　合并管理\n------------------------------------------------------　x\n\n送达证明\n\n下列签署人特此证明，前述补充藐视法庭动议已于August 11, 2023以电子方式提交。该次提交的通知已通过电子邮件发送给所有当事人。\n\n通过法院电子提交系统（“CM/ECF”）的运行，或按照《电子提交通知》中所示，通过邮寄方式向无法接受电子提交的任何人士送达上述标题所示第11章案件的文件。[2] 当事人可通过法院的 CM/ECF 系统查阅本次提交。\n\n日期：August 11, 2023　　LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n\nNew Haven, Connecticut　　第11章受托人\n\n签署人：/s/ Avram E. Luft\n\nAvram E. Luft（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）（获准临时出庭）　Douglass Barron（道格拉斯·巴伦）（获准临时出庭）　PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n\n1　本第11章案件中的债务人为 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）（亦称 Guo Wengui、Miles Guo 和 Miles Kwok，以及众多其他别名）（税务识别号码后四位：9595）（“债务人”）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司）（“Genever BVI债务人”）。受托人及 Genever BVI 债务人的邮寄地址为 Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166，转交 Ho Wan Kwok 遗产受托人 Luc A. Despins（仅为通知和通信之目的）。\n\n2　如上述文件在正常营业时间以外提交，则对无法或无资格接受电子通知的收件人进行的邮寄送达，于下一营业日完成。\n\n200 Park Avenue　New York, New York 10166　(212) 318-6079　aviluft@paulhastings.com　douglassbarron@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特）（获准临时出庭）　PAUL HASTINGS LLP（普衡律师事务所）　2050 M Street NW　Washington, D.C., 20036　(202) 551-1902　nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com\n\n以及\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛）（ct29437）　NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙泰斯律师事务所）　195 Church Street, 13th Floor　New Haven, Connecticut 06510　(203) 781-2847　plinsey@npmlaw.com\n\n第11章受托人的律师\n附件B\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 2080　Filed 08/11/23　Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05　Page 19 of\n\n布里奇波特分庭\n\n关于　*\n*　案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER\nHOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司），　*\n*\n债务人。　*\n*\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司），　*\n*　对抗程序编号 22-5003\n原告，　*\n诉　*\n*\nDESPINS（德斯平斯），　*\n*\n被告。　*\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），\n第11章受托人，　*\n*\n*　对抗程序编号 23-5008\n原告，　*\n*　Bridgeport, Connecticut\n诉　*\n*　July 18, 2023\nGUO（郭），　*\n*\n被告。　*\n*\n* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n庭审记录\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官面前\n美国破产法院法官\n庭审由电子录音记录，记录由速记服务机构制作。\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#1893　费用；$178,227.00；支出 $11,673.79\n命令 GTV MEDIA, INC.（GTV媒体公司）、SARACA GROUP, INC.（萨拉卡集团公司）\n及律师 AARON MITCHELL（亚伦·米切尔）到庭并说明理由，\n说明为何 GTV MEDIA, INC. 和 SARACA MEDIA GROUP（萨拉卡媒体集团）\n#2004\n55　不应被认定为藐视法庭\n审前会议\n修订后的拟议命令\n修订后的拟议命令\n\n出庭人员：第11章受托人：LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）律师　Paul Hastings　200 Park Avenue　New York, NY 10166　代表第11章受托人：AVRAM E. LUFT（阿夫拉姆·E·卢夫特）律师　Paul Hastings LLP　200 Park Avenue　New York, NY 10166　PATRICK R. LINSEY（帕特里克·R·林赛）律师　Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC　195 Church Street　New Haven, CT 06510　代表 HK International Funds Investments, LLC（香港国际基金投资有限责任公司）及 Mei Guo（郭梅）：JAMES MORIARTY（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）律师　Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.　10 Middle Street, 15th Floor　Bridgeport, CT 06604　代表债权人委员会：IRVE J. GOLDMAN（欧文·J·戈德曼）律师　Pullman & Comley　850 Main Street　Bridgeport, CT 06601　代表美国受托人：HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩）律师　美国受托人办公室　150 Court Street　New Haven, CT 06510　代表 G Clubs Operations, LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）：JEFFREY M. SKLARZ（杰弗里·M·斯克拉兹）律师　Green & Sklarz, LLC　One Audubon Street　New Haven, CT 06511　代表受让人 Brian W. Hofmeister（布莱恩·W·霍夫迈斯特）：RYAN T. JARECK（瑞安·T·贾雷克）律师　Cole Schotz P.C.　25 Main Street　Court Plaza North　Hackensack, NJ 07601　DEIRDRE A. O'CONNOR（迪尔德丽·A·奥康纳）律师　Epiq Corporate Restructuring LLC　777 Third Avenue　New York, NY 10017\n\n出庭人员：（续）代表 HCHK Technologies（HCHK技术公司）的各债权人：MELISSA R. McCLAMMY（梅利莎·R·麦克拉米）律师　Pastore, LLC　4 High Ridge Park, Third Floor　Stamford, CT 06905　代表 Joshua Sherman（约书亚·舍曼）：JOSHUA SHERMAN（约书亚·舍曼）律师　HCHK Technologies, Inc.　303 5th Avenue #1705　New York, NY 10016　代表 Saraca 和 GTV：AARON A. MITCHELL（亚伦·A·米切尔）律师　Lawall & Mitchell, LLC　55 Madison Avenue　Suite 400　Morristown, NJ 07960\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 2080　Filed 08/11/23　Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05　Page 23 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok　July 18, 2023　5　（庭审于下午12:03开始。）法庭书记员：编号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）。我可以全部叫案吗？法庭：不。只叫——我们将先审理主案件，随后先审理两项报酬申请，但首先我要记录出庭人员。法庭书记员：好的。法庭：那么我先——请从第11章受托人开始记录出庭人员。DESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Luc Despins，第11章受托人。法庭：下午好。LUFT先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Paul Hastings 的 Avi Luft，代表第11章受托人。法庭：下午好。LINSEY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。法庭：下午好。CLAIBORN女士：下午好。我是代表美国受托人的 Holley Claiborn。法庭：下午好。O'CONNOR女士：下午好，法官阁下。\n\nHo Wan Kwok　July 18, 2023　6　我是 Epiq 的高级董事总经理 Deirdre O'Connor，作为该公司的代表。法庭：下午好。GOLDMAN先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Pullman & Comley 的 Irve Goldman，代表债权人委员会及我的费用申请。法庭：下午好。好的。那么我们将首先审理费用申请。Despins受托人，我不知道您希望按何种顺序进行，但请您按您希望的方式进行。DESPINS先生：我们可以从 Epiq 开始。法庭：当然。DESPINS先生：因此，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 为工时明细。本申请所请求的救济是，支付 Epiq 于 December 1st, 2022 至 February 28, 2023 期间向债务人提供专业服务的 $178,227 报酬，以及偿还 $11,673.79。Case 22-50073　Doc 2080　Filed 08/11/23　Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05　Page 24 of\n\n法官阁下，我们未收到任何异议。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\nHo Wan Kwok　July 18, 2023　7　因此，除非有人希望发言，我们请求法院批准该申请。法庭：谢谢。Claiborn律师？CLAIBORN女士：法官阁下，美国受托人不提出异议。法庭：还有其他人希望就 Epiq 费用申请发言吗？（无人回应）法庭：好的。我感谢 O'Connor 女士今日代表 Epiq 就费用申请到庭。我已审查该费用申请、支出和费用；在本案情形下，其似属合理且必要。O'Connor女士，我不知道 Despins 受托人是否曾与您谈过，我认为 Epiq 的大多数任务目前可能已完成。我相信您还会有另一份费用申请，但本案的发展情况是，所有债权证明均已提交，无论其为保密债权证明还是公开债权证明，我们正试图通过一个程序协助受托人。我知道 Epiq 仍在维护债权登记册，而我不确定还有什么，或许还有贵方网站上的案卷目录，我不确定；但我要说的是，Case 22-50073　Doc 2080　Filed 08/11/23　Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05　Page 25 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2080\nFiled 08/11/23\nEntered 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok　July 18, 2023\n\n1　我认为 Epiq 已没有太多工作可做，因为我们目前\n2　不会通过 Epiq 进行送达及相关事项。\n3　\n4　关于送达存在许多问题，\n5　因此我们不得不作出具体命令及采取\n6　此类措施。\n7　所以，尽管我相信还会有另一份费用\n8　申请——\n9　O'CONNOR女士：\n是的。\n10　法庭：\n——当事人和\n11　法院认为，Epiq 在本案中需要完成的工作\n12　大部分可能已经完成。\n13　因此，我只是想确保这是你们的\n14　理解。或者，如你们有任何不同的\n15　理解，希望记录在案。\n16　O'CONNOR女士：\n法官阁下，这也是我的理解。\n17　如果可以这么说，关于删节工作的繁重任务\n18　已经完成。\n19　法庭：\n是的。\n20　O'CONNOR女士：\n因此，我们同意，\n21　我们的工作量已逐渐减少，并将继续减少。\n22　您说得对，仍将有另一份费用\n23　申请，其中将包括一些数额较大的费用，但那\n24　将是整个删节程序的收尾部分，因此我\n25　预计——我可能会为第二份申请再次到这里\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2080\nFiled 08/11/23\nEntered 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok　July 18, 2023\n\n1　出庭，这将是我的荣幸，但我并未看到\n2　我们的费用会有任何增加。\n3　法庭：\n谢谢。我对此表示感谢。\n4　我只是想确保您知悉，因为情况会改变方向，嗯，\n5　在本案中，情况每天都在改变方向，所以——但就\n6　债权证明问题而言，我认为其已得到控制。\n7　即使删节问题，我认为目前也都已得到控制。\n8　\n9　\n10　而且，您知道，显然这是不寻常的一组\n11　情形，但我很高兴听到您和——您\n12　认为——我很高兴听到您的看法，\n13　因为这正是所有人一直在谈论的。因此，我\n14　只是想确保我们都达成共识。\n15　O'CONNOR女士：\n是的，法官阁下。我们达成\n16　共识。\n17　并且让法院知悉，我曾参与 Epiq 对本事项的\n18　立项工作，自本案提交以来，我一直通过每一封电子邮件\n19　跟进本案。我经常与\n20　顾问交谈。因此，是的，我一直在监督\n21　本案，并将继续如此。\n22　法庭：\n好的。谢谢。我对此表示感谢。\n23　O'CONNOR女士：\n是的。\n24　法庭：\n谢谢。\n25　O'CONNOR女士：\n不客气。\n\nHo Wan Kwok　July 18, 2023　10　法庭：并且没有其他人希望发言，对吗？我没有听到其他人就 Epiq 申请发言？好的。谢谢。正如 Despins 受托人所述，无人提交书面异议。今日参加本听证会的人中，无人反对该申请。美国受托人办公室已提交不反对声明。我已审查费用和支出，并了解其产生的原因及方式，认定在这些共同管理的第11章案件情形下，它们是合理且必要的。因此，基于上述全部理由，该申请获准。我认为所提交的拟议命令——我将再次审阅——但我认为其没有问题，是的，所提交的拟议命令没有问题，将予以录入。O'CONNOR女士：非常感谢您，法官阁下。法庭：好的。非常感谢。DESPINS先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：Goldman律师，我认为您的申请是今日下午的第二项申请。Case 22-50073　Doc 2080　Filed 08/11/23　Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05　Page 28 of\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 2080　Filed 08/11/23　Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05　Page 29 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok　July 18, 2023\n\n戈德曼先生（Irve Goldman）：\n是。\n是。\n\n法院：\n那么，请继续。\n\n戈德曼先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n戈德曼。\n\n法院：\n下午好。\n\n戈德曼先生：\n为支持本所的第一份中期费用申请，该申请涵盖自我们受聘生效日，即 2022 年 3 月 29 日，至今年 4 月底期间，我们申请核准费用 $504,724.50 以及支出 $709.53。\n\n根据美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）无异议声明，我们同意自愿减免 $1,329.50，因此现申请核准的费用为 $503,395。\n\n无人对该申请提出异议。\n\n我本人审阅了随费用申请提交的 165 页发票后，现在对审阅 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）费用申请的人，以及较大案件中的费用审查员，产生了新的敬意。\n\n我编写了一份相当详细的六页服务说明，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\n鉴于此，并考虑到无人提出异议，且法院熟悉本案及我们在其中的角色，\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 2023 年 7 月 18 日\n\n我认为没有必要逐项详述我们所做的工作。\n\n但我仅提醒法院，委员会曾有大约三个月，即从 4 月至 7 月初，开展了非常密集的活动；该期间是在受托人获任命之前，委员会处理债务人就 PAX（PAX）提出的驳回动议所提交的早期案件动议，协商返还 Lady May（“Lady May”号）的同意命令，提交若干 Rule 2004 资产调查动议，以及送达传票、协商关于 Lady May 的同意命令，这些工作占据了最初三个月。\n\n此外，我们还使专业人员到位；但我们从未有机会使用他们，因为他们获法院聘任后几乎立即，受托人便获任命。\n\n受托人获任命后，我们认识到委员会的角色在当时确应缩减，因为受托人对我们所代表的债权人负有信义义务。\n\n而且，我们实际上有意识地承担了较为缩减的角色。我们减少了在本案中的工作，并确实将其指向支持受托人、与受托人协商，以及就为资产调查和资产追回而提交的各项动议提供意见。\n\nHo Wan Kwok 2023 年 7 月 18 日 13\n\n我认为，我们在这方面对本案产生了积极影响。我谨陈述，这一切均符合我们根据第 1103 条对委员会承担的法定义务。因此，我谨陈述，我们所请求的费用合理且可获补偿，并请求法院按我所述的自愿减免后金额，核准费用和支出。\n\n法院：\n谢谢。\n\n戈德曼先生：\n好的。\n\n法院：\n是否还有其他人希望就无担保债权人官方委员会（Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors）的第一份中期费用申请发言？\n\n克莱伯恩女士（Holley Claiborn）：\n法官阁下，我是代表美国受托人的霍莉·克莱伯恩。我的声明已提交于案卷编号 2001。该声明反映了戈德曼律师向法院说明的减免。\n\n法院：\n谢谢。\n\n德斯平先生（Luc Despins）：\n法官阁下，我是第 11 章受托人吕克·德斯平。我们的团队已审阅该费用申请，对所提交的费用没有异议，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法院：\n谢谢。戈德曼律师，正如您熟悉一样，我也熟悉\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok 2023 年 7 月 18 日\n\n委员会自委员会获任命之初至您现请求费用和支出所涵盖的期间，即截至 2023 年 4 月 30 日，所开展的工作。\n\n我已审阅相关资料，并同意在受托人获任命后，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，而且显然，您遵守了您所表示理解的这一点，即由于受托人获任命，委员会的角色将会缩减。\n\n尽管如此，委员会在这些案件中一直并将继续发挥重要作用。\n\n我也同意，证明这一点的文件数量庞大，正如我们审理过的其他费用申请一样；但鉴于这些合并管理的第 11 章案件具有极为具体的事实和情形，这些文件是必要的。\n\n我感谢您附上的说明，这不仅对法院有用，也对任何可能在不同时间查看本案并审视相关事项、但未必真正具体了解所发生情况的人有用；该说明叙述了非常翔实的历史，并提供了本案所发生事项的非常良好的事实经过，我认为这对任何人都非常重要。因为\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\n第 31 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok 2023 年 7 月 18 日\n\n显然，如您所知，也如我们全体所知，费用申请必须向每一位债权人送达并通知，以便任何人如希望提出书面异议，可以这样做。\n\n无人提出书面异议。\n\n我会回头核查并确认，与书记官办公室一样，核查这些申请是否已经送达；本申请已经送达，而且您已提交送达证明，该证明显示您已遵守就该费用申请向所有人送达的要求。\n\n我审阅计时记录后认为，鉴于这些合并管理的第 11 章案件的情形，特别具体的情形，这些记录是合理的。\n\n我还认为，您发生的支出不足 $800。在这样一个案件中——具有这些案件所具有的所有问题——我认为这非常合理，因此如果有人反对或异议这些支出，我会感到惊讶。\n\n关于费用，您作出了自愿减免。\n\n正如我在受托人的 Paul Hastings 申请和 Neubert, Pepe（诺伊贝特、佩佩律师事务所）申请中所说，我感谢各方与美国受托人办公室（Office of the United States Trustee）共同合作。因为这是\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\n第 34 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok 2023 年 7 月 18 日\n\n美国受托人办公室的职责之一，即审阅和分析费用申请，作出判断，并向法院说明其对于费用申请的立场；但我不希望所有各方认为费用总是必须有协商一致的减免。\n\n如果有协商一致的减免，那没有问题，但我不认为这应当成为预期。我认为我们都可以讨论我们在费用申请中可能存在或发现的任何问题，这也是我们举行听证会的原因。\n\n因为如果存在问题，就可以处理，然后法院可以作出其最终需要作出的决定，即所请求的费用和支出是否应予裁定给付。\n\n因此，正如我所说，我确实感谢该说明。\n\n我感谢迄今为止所有在这些合并管理的第 11 章案件中请求偿还其费用和支出的各方所提供的细节。这非常重要。在审阅 165 页或者，您知道的，必须审阅的 765 页发票时，这对法院非常有帮助。\n\n因此，基于所有这些理由，包括无人对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、美国受托人办公室已就您协商一致的减免提交无异议声明，而该减免属于较小的费用减免，现准许第一份费用和支出中期申请，您提交的拟议命令将予录入。\n\n非常感谢。\n\n戈德曼先生：\n法官阁下，谢谢您。我非常感谢这些意见。\n\n如您希望，我可以——我或许应当提交一份反映该减免的修订命令。\n\n法院：\n哦，我审阅的那份没有包含该项吗？\n\n戈德曼先生：\n没有。\n\n法院：\n我以为包含了。但可能是我的——可能是我的错误。\n\n戈德曼先生：\n我认为没有包含。\n\n法院：\n没有吗？好的。那么，是的，请您这样做。\n\n戈德曼先生：\n我们达成了——\n\n法院：\n是我的错误。我以为包含了。不过那么，是的。如果您能在本周末前，即 21 日前，向我们提交一份修订后的拟议命令。\n\n戈德曼先生：\n好的。没问题。\n\n法院：\n我知道您可能今天就会提交，但是——\n\n戈德曼先生：\n好的。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\n第 36 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok 2023 年 7 月 18 日 18\n\n法院：\n——我希望为书记官办公室确定一个日期。这对他们有帮助。\n\n戈德曼先生：\n没问题，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n因此，准许该申请，修订后的拟议命令将在 7 月 21 日或之前提交。\n\n戈德曼先生：\n好的。\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n戈德曼先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n谢谢。\n\n（无法辨认）原定再进行十分钟，至 12:30，但德斯平受托人，我确实有一两个关于不在今日日程上的事项的问题。我的第一个问题仅涉及一项命令，该命令为 Holy City（圣城）在对抗程序 23-5013 中提交答辩书状设定期限。当您提交该动议时，我理解您所寻求的内容，而这不是——我的问题是，您是否寻求签发另一份传票，还是仅寻求将起诉状、传票和命令送达 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures, Limited（圣城香港创投有限公司）？因为我认为，规则并不明确是否应当另行签发一份传票。\n\n德斯平先生：\n不是。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 2023 年 7 月 18 日 19\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\n德斯平先生：\n并设定期限。\n\n法院：\n好的。那么，您有某个地址或其他信息，表明您已向 Holy City Hong Kong Ventures 送达。因为它不是——它是外国实体，所以您显然需要证明您如何向其送达。\n\n德斯平先生：\n正确。是的。是的。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\n德斯平先生：\n是的。\n\n法院：\n因为显然，如果您查看 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（联邦民事诉讼规则）的 7004 和 Rule 4，这方面的规则不像您希望的那样明确。它并未必然向您提供需要采取的确切步骤。因此，我才询问您是否希望另行——过去有些人曾要求签发不同的传票。我能够理解，因为我不——因为规则并未具体说明。它仅规定，法院应确定必须提交答辩书状的期限，但并未说明您是通过命令、传票还是其他方式这样做。因此，我没有异议。如果您同意申请一项命令——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\n第 37 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 2023年7月18日 20　德斯平斯先生：此时——法庭：——可以。德斯平斯先生：此时我们对此没有异议，法官阁下。法庭：好的。可以。那么，在今天的听证结束后，我们会审阅一下。我是说，我们已经看过了，因为我显然有这个问题，但除此之外我们实际上尚未进一步审阅，只知道你们请求未来的某个日期。我想我必须考虑未来的那个日期是否合适，或者是否应延长几天，抑或你们是否出于我尚不知晓的原因而专门要求某个日期？德斯平斯先生：我请林西先生回答这个问题。法庭：可以。林西先生：我们只是需要一个确定日期，以便他们有一个答辩日期，从而在其未答辩时构成违约。我们的立场是，他们已经收到了传票送达，但根据规则，在法庭设定期限之前，并不存在——不存在答辩期限。因此，法庭设定期限时，我们将向他们通知该答辩期限。如果法庭不同意某一具体期限，那么显然我们将遵从法庭认为适当的任何期限。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 2023年08月11日提交 2023年08月11日录入 17:27:05 第38页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 2023年08月11日提交 2023年08月11日录入 17:27:05 第39页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 2023年7月18日\n\n1　法庭认为适当的期限。\n2　法庭：好的。\n3　德斯平斯先生：但我们的立场是，他们已经\n4　收到通知。\n5　林西先生：当然。是的。\n6　德斯平斯先生：是。\n7　法庭：你们的立场是他们已经\n8　被送达？\n9　德斯平斯先生：是。\n10　法庭：不是收到通知，而是实际上已经\n11　被送达。\n12　德斯平斯先生：正确，法官阁下。\n13　法庭：对。但他们现在需要——\n14　向他们送达一项命令，指明日期，\n15　即他们必须在该日期之前提交文件或以其他方式答复\n16　起诉状。\n17　德斯平斯先生：正确。正确。\n18　法庭：好的。好。这就是我\n19　提出的那个问题。我认为这是我目前唯一的问题。\n20　\n21　因此，我不知道你们是否还有任何补充，\n22　不过现在才12:24，下一场听证要到\n23　12:30才开始。因此，我不知道我们是否——你们是否有任何\n24　事情想在那之前报告，还是先休庭，然后我们\n25　于12:30再回来？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 2023年7月18日 22　德斯平斯先生：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。（程序于下午12:25休庭。）（程序于下午12:32恢复进行。）法庭书记员：休庭后法庭现在开庭。法庭：请坐。好的。我们在12:30的日程上有一项事项，即ECF 1893，一项命令，要求GTV Media, Inc.（GTV媒体公司）、Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）和律师Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）出庭并说明理由，说明为何GTV Media Group（GTV媒体集团）和Saraca Media Group不应被裁定构成民事藐视法庭。那么，我们今天如何进行？米切尔律师在法庭吗？好的。米切尔律师，请上前。先生，早上好。米切尔先生：早上好。法庭：请为记录陈述您的姓名。米切尔先生：法官阁下，我是Law Offices of Lawall & Mitchell, LLC（劳沃尔与米切尔律师事务所）的Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）。法庭：好的。下午好。那么，米切尔律师，如果我们审视这些案件，受托人不久前提交了一项请求强制遵从并裁定某些当事人藐视法庭的动议，ECF，我认为是1805，该动议提交于——请稍等——米切尔先生：法官阁下，我相信根据该命令，是5月18日。法庭：正确。我刚刚也同时看到了。5月18日。因此，这是一项请求强制遵从Rule 2004传票的动议，针对众多当事人。其中一些问题已经解决，另一些尚未解决。该强制遵从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，而除GTV Media和Saraca Media外，您的姓名也是被提及的姓名之一，作为可能持有或控制对传票作出回应的文件的当事人。好的。该藐视法庭动议请求强制GTV Media和Saraca Media提交文件。在今年6月6日举行的听证会上，受托人在记录中表示，他正请求一项命令，裁定GTV Media和Saraca Media Group构成藐视法庭，因为尽管它们最初回应了传票，但自2022年12月以来一直未作回应，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 2023年08月11日提交 2023年08月11日录入 17:27:05 第40页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 2023年7月18日 23　某些当事人藐视法庭的动议由受托人不久前提交，ECF，我认为是1805，该动议提交于——请稍等——米切尔先生：法官阁下，我相信根据该命令，是5月18日。法庭：正确。我刚刚也同时看到了。5月18日。因此，这是一项请求强制遵从Rule 2004传票的动议，针对众多当事人。其中一些问题已经解决，另一些尚未解决。该强制遵从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，而除GTV Media和Saraca Media外，您的姓名也是被提及的姓名之一，作为可能持有或控制对传票作出回应的文件的当事人。好的。该藐视法庭动议请求强制GTV Media和Saraca Media提交文件。在今年6月6日举行的听证会上，受托人在记录中表示，他正请求一项命令，裁定GTV Media和Saraca Media Group构成藐视法庭，因为尽管它们最初回应了传票，但自2022年12月以来一直未作回应，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 2023年08月11日提交 2023年08月11日录入 17:27:05 第41页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 2023年08月11日提交 2023年08月11日录入 17:27:05 第42页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 2023年7月18日\n\n1　并且受托人请求法庭作出一项命令，\n2　要求您出庭并就GTV Media和\n3　Saraca——作证。\n4　米切尔先生：我不是——\n5　法庭：——Media Group。\n6　米切尔先生：对不起，法官阁下。\n7　法庭：不，请继续。\n8　米切尔先生：我看到了该命令。我曾在\n9　若干事项中代理Saraca和GTV。截至\n10　2023年4月20日，我是GTV唯一剩余的董事。我\n11　于2023年4月20日辞职，所以我不太确定。法官阁下\n12　命令我到这里，因此我很高兴来到这里。\n13　法庭：对。\n14　米切尔先生：我不确定我还能做什么。\n15　作为我律师事务所——向我律师事务所发出的传票的一部分，\n16　我向Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）提交了我相信约100,000页与GTV\n17　相关的、由我持有、保管和控制的文件，\n18　以回应传票。\n19　坦率地说，这就是我所拥有的。我不知道还有什么\n20　可以提交。\n21　法庭：嗯，我想您可以做的一件事，\n22　也是受托人请求法庭\n23　命令您到这里并作证的原因之一，\n24　就是对此作证，对吗？\n25　米切尔先生：当然。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 2023年08月11日提交 2023年08月11日录入 17:27:05 第43页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 2023年7月18日 25　法庭：那么——在证据开示争议中，而这显然正是这种情况，受托人的立场是，尽管您可能已提交文件，但自2022年12月20日以来，您没有提交任何文件。您对此的答复无论为何，但我认为他们希望您在宣誓后作出答复，我认为这没有问题。我认为这是合理的请求。我的意思是，有时人们会通过同意提交一份在伪证处罚下作出的宣誓书来处理。您知道，我们曾经有过——我曾经有过案件，不是本案，我曾经有过这样的案件，即，当事人之间存在分歧。他们无法就证据开示争议达成解决方案。他们无法向法庭提交说明其争议已经解决。然后，一方可能提交一份宣誓书，说明我已提交我持有和控制的所有文件。我向此人要求了该文件。我只是举一个例子——米切尔先生：不。明白。法庭：——说明他们为勤勉遵从传票做了什么。有时这就是所需的一切。在我这些年来处理的其他案件中，当那些宣誓书已经提交、而后又发现其他文件时，那么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 文书 2080 2023年08月11日提交 2023年08月11日录入 17:27:05 第44页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） 2023年7月18日\n\n1　提交了宣誓书，并在伪证处罚下宣誓称其已提交其\n2　持有和控制的一切文件，\n3　并且勤勉遵从了\n4　请求，之后却——您知道，他们之后不得不\n5　很遗憾地受到制裁，因为——\n6　因为那些陈述并不准确。\n7　因此，Despins受托人，您是否请求我命令\n8　米切尔律师在您方律师的询问下宣誓作证？\n9　\n10　德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，Luft先生正在处理此事。\n11　\n12　法庭：好的。Luft律师？\n13　Luft先生：是，法官阁下。我们希望如此。\n14　法庭：好的。那么，米切尔律师，您\n15　到这里是为了——作证。这就是——它是——\n16　\n17　出庭说明理由命令于\n18　6月7日作出。如我所说，这是ECF No. 1893。在\n19　该命令的第二页写道，受托人还请求\n20　法庭命令Aaron Mitchell律师出庭\n21　并就GTV和Saraca作证。\n22　藐视法庭动议第24至33段\n23　详细说明了受托人与GTV、Saraca及\n24　米切尔律师就针对\n25　GTV和Saraca的Rule 2004传票所进行的沟通。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 2023年08月11日提交 2023年08月11日录入 17:27:05 第45页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）——直接询问——Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特） 27　随附于藐视法庭动议的Avram Luft声明的证物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——接着，该命令的各段落写道，GTV应通过一名高级职员、董事、成员及米切尔律师，于7月18日12:30亲自出庭，并说明理由，说明为何法庭不应因GTV和Saraca未回应或遵从经法庭授权的传票而裁定GTV和Saraca构成民事藐视法庭。因此，律师请求您就这些问题作证。您是否将在没有律师代理的情况下作证？米切尔先生：法官阁下，我没有律师在场，所以我想是的。我原先的理解是，既然没有人提出异议，就无需任何证词，但是。法庭：那么，您是说——嗯，我不确定该命令是这样写的，但是。米切尔先生：明白。法庭：好的。嗯，我将允许——该命令确实写明您应当出庭并作证。好的？并说明理由。因此，我将请您上证人席。然后法庭书记员将为您宣誓，之后我会让Luft律师向您提一些问题。AARON MITCHELL，已宣誓。法庭书记员：请为记录陈述您的姓名和地址。法庭：您只需提供您的营业地址。证人：Aaron Mitchell，55 Madison Avenue，Morristown，New Jersey，邮政编码07960。法庭书记员：谢谢。法庭：米切尔先生，那里应该有些水。证人：谢谢。Luft先生：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？法庭：可以，请。Luft先生：谢谢，法官阁下。由LUFT先生进行直接询问：问：下午好，米切尔先生。我叫Avi Luft。您好吗？答：很好，谢谢。问：米切尔先生，我想先问一个有些例行的问题，但这涉及法庭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和/或\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 2023年08月11日提交 2023年08月11日录入 17:27:05 第46页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 2023年08月11日提交 2023年08月11日录入 17:27:05 第47页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）——直接询问——Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　Saraca（萨拉卡）？\n2　答\n我以个人身份出庭。\n3　问\n据您所知，没有人根据法院命令代表GTV和Saraca出庭？\n4　\n5　答\n据我所知，没有。\n6　问\n好的。\nMitchell先生，我们先了解一些背景，以便我理解您在此的角色。\n7　您目前就本案代理哪些实体？\n8　\n9　答\n我不理解您的问题。\n10　\n11　问\n好的。您是否担任本案中任何个人的律师？\n12　答\n您的意思是整个案件——我只是不确定您的问题。\n13　这个问题非常笼统。\n14　问\n是的，主案。\n15　答\n那么您的意思是——抱歉，根据我在案卷中所见，本案有大量当事人。我在若干案件中代理债务人Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生。\n16　\n17　问\n嗯。\n18　答\n我不确定是否有——在其他案件中，我曾表示我代理过，并且我相信我现在仍在若干案件中代理GTV和Saraca。我此前代理过提交破产申请的实体Genever（杰尼弗）。还有若干对立程序。我不太确定。我不想不诚实，但本案当事人太多了；我并非试图闪烁其词，只是我不确定。\n\n案号 22-50073　文件2080　提交日期 08/11/23　登记日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第48页，\n\nAaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）— 直接询问 — Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　（听不清）——\n2　问\n很难记住您参与的所有人，对吗？\n3　\n4　答\n是的，我代理很多个人和实体。\n5　问\n好的。那么让我帮您，我们逐一过一遍。\n6　答\n当然。\n7　问\n好的。您说您目前仍就破产案代理GTV和Saraca。您能否告诉——\n8　\n9　答\n不，那不正确。我说我仍代理他们。我并不在破产案中代理他们。这就是为什么这个问题令人困惑。\n10　\n11　问\n啊。\n12　答\n唯一——我在破产案中代理的唯一人士，以在破产案中出庭的律师身份，是Kwok先生。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。\n13　\n14　问\nMei Guo（郭美）呢？她说——她已作证称您是她在本案中的律师，是真的吗？\n15　\n16　答\n我是她的律师。我没有在本案中出庭。我向她提供过建议，但我仍然没有出庭。\n17　\n18　问\n但您就破产事宜担任她的律师，对吗？\n19　答\n是。\n20　问\n好的。就GTV而言，您是否就破产事宜担任GTV的律师？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n登记日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nAaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）— 直接询问 — Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　答\n不。\n2　问\n您目前就何事担任他们的律师？\n3　\n4　答\n有几宗案件，我想与破产案有些间接关联，其中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。\n5　\n6　问\n您记得它们的名称吗？\n7　答\n其中一宗是Yee先生。另一宗是——有好几宗。我在努力回想各案原告的姓名。我相信是Huang，H-U-A-N-G。我相信Wang案已解决，W-A-N-G，该案在Connecticut（康涅狄格州）提起。还有几宗我一时想不起来。\n8　\n9　问\n好的。\n10　答\n我认为大约有五六宗。其中大多数因破产而中止。我认为Yee案以及——我认为是——我认为是在New York（纽约）提起的Huang案也未中止。\n11　\n12　法庭书记员：\n不好意思。Mitchell律师，您能否把麦克风稍微拉近一点。\n13　证人：\n这样好些吗？\n14　法院：\n是的。这样好些。\n15　证人：\n好的。\n16　法院：\n这样好些。\n\n案号 22-50073　文件2080　提交日期 08/11/23　登记日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第50页，\n\nAaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）— 直接询问 — Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　法庭书记员：\n谢谢。\n2　法院：\n有时它——是的。我本应对您说这一点。\n3　\n4　证人：\n抱歉。\n5　法院：\n我们必须——\n6　证人：\n当我觉得自己也偏离麦克风时，我知道这——\n7　\n8　法院：\n我们必须——我们的记录仅为音频。因此，如法庭书记员听不见，我会要求她确保这一点。因为如果有人想要庭审记录，他们将无法听清所说内容。记录的誊写人员不在法庭内。\n9　\n10　证人：\n明白。我道歉。\n11　法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n12　由LUFT先生询问：\n13　问\n好的。Mitchell先生，我再问您同样的问题——所以您说，您目前代理GTV的大约有五六宗案件？\n14　\n15　答\n大约是这样。\n16　问\nSaraca Media（萨拉卡传媒）呢？\n17　答\n是相同的案件，Saraca也被列为被告。\n18　问\n好的。现在，我听到您说您在New Jersey（新泽西州）Morristown（莫里斯敦）的营业地址？\n19　\n20　答\n正确。\n\nAaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）— 直接询问 — Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特） 33　问　我有通信显示您的营业地址为Manhattan（曼哈顿）East 64th Street 162号。答　不再是了。问　何时不再是您的地址？答　三年前。问　三年前？答　大致如此。我不完全确定。大约三年前。问　好的。事实上，在提交破产申请后，那是您的营业地址，对吗？答　我相信是的。问　那还不到三年前。答　也许是两年前。问　至少截至2022年6月，您仍在Kwok先生的办公室办公？答　我并非在那里办公。我在那里有一间办公室并收取邮件。问　在您看来，在某办公室办公和在那里经营业务，与收取邮件之间有什么区别？答　区别在于，我从未需要到该办公室报到。我没有必须前往那里的要求。但我确实在使用它。我使用那里的空间来收取与Kwok先生案件有关的邮件，因为他可能成为威胁及此类事情的目标，所以我认为，当我为他提交案件时，为我的代理使用该地址会更好。\n\n案号 22-50073　文件2080　提交日期 08/11/23　登记日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第51页，\n\n案号 22-50073　文件2080　提交日期 08/11/23　登记日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第52页，\n\nAaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）— 直接询问 — Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　问　所以那只是一个邮箱？\n2　答　实质上是的。\n3　问　您从未在那间办公室办公？\n4　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。\n5　问　那也是GTV和Saraca的营业地址，对吗？\n6　答　正确。\n7　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？\n8　答　不会。\n9　问　您会在哪里与他们会面？\n10　答　通过电话。\n11　问　您为他们与谁交谈？\n12　答　嗯，在过去一年左右，没有人可谈。我是董事，所以没有人可谈。那里没有其他人。\n13　此前，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，还会与Yvette Wang（王伊维特）交谈，W-A-N-G。\n14　问　好的。现在，您说您于2023年4月辞职？\n15　答　正确。\n\n案号 22-50073　文件2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n登记日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nAaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）— 直接询问 — Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　问　现在Saraca和GTV有谁？\n2　答　据我所知，没有任何人。\n3　问　在2022年12月，除您之外，那些实体是否还有其他人？\n4　答　我不知道。2022年12月？我相信GTV没有。至于Saraca，我不知道答案。\n5　问　就代理他们而言，如果您在12月必须与Saraca沟通，您会与谁交谈？\n6　答　没有人可谈。我不必与任何人交谈。案件主要处于中止状态。与Saraca有关而未中止的只有Huang案和Yee案，并且——没有任何进展。\n7　问　好的。您还就破产事宜代理HK (USA)？\n8　答　是。\n9　问　Quan Guo（郭强，音）先生呢，您是否以任何方式就破产事宜代理他？\n10　答　我不知道那是谁。先生？\n11　问　债务人的儿子。\n12　答　哦，Guo Qiang（郭强）。是。\n13　问　那么您也就破产事宜代理他？\n14　答　是。再次说明，如您显然知道的，我没有出庭，但我向他提供过建议，是的。\n15　问　好的。债务人的妻子Hing Chi Ngok（邢志若）呢？\n\nAaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）— 直接询问 — Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特） 36　答　不。问　Golden Spring（金泉）呢？您是否就——答　并未——问　——破产事宜在任何时候代理Golden Spring？答　完全没有。我没有就破产事宜代理他们。这就是为什么，抱歉，我打断了您。我无意如此。我过去曾在一些事项中代理他们，但不是在破产案中。问　您就哪些事项代理过Golden Spring？答　我不记得了。有若干诉讼，Golden Spring在劳动争议等事项中是被告。凭我的初步记忆，我觉得原告是在New York County（纽约县）。我觉得原告是Zhang，Z-H-A-N-G。或者我可能把这与GTV混淆了。我们就称它们为投资者案件。我相信在Arizona（亚利桑那州）是Zhang，Z-H-A-N-G。而涉及Golden Spring的案件是Zhuang，Z-H-U-A-N-G。问　Golden Spring在本案中也未回应证据开示。您知道现在谁在那里负责吗？答　我完全不知道。我已有远超过一年未与Golden Spring的任何人交谈。我知道大约在那段时间，曾存在为获取建议而联系任何人的问题。问　Golden Spring由Yvette Wang（王伊维特）经营，对吗？\n\n案号 22-50073　文件2080　提交日期 08/11/23　登记日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第54页，\n\n案号 22-50073　文件2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n登记日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nAaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）— 直接询问 — Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　答　过去是。我不知道——我不知道现在情况如何。我相信她现在不经营它，因为我曾一度向她询问指示，而她无法给我。\n2　问　您已有一年多未与Yvette Wang交谈？\n3　答　那根本不是我所说的。\n4　问　嗯，她在Golden Spring，所以？\n5　答　她曾经是——她在我与她交谈时告诉我，她不在Golden Spring。\n6　问　好的。您最后一次与Yvette Wang交谈是什么时候？\n7　答　我不记得最后一次与Yvette Wang交谈的时间。\n8　问　您最好的记忆是什么？\n9　答　六个月前，可能更短。我自她被捕后就没有与她交谈过，那是三四个月前，所以可能是五个月前。\n10　问　Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）呢？\n11　答　Max Krasner怎么了？\n12　问　您最后一次与他交谈是什么时候？\n13　答　我想大约四个月前。\n14　问　您知道他当时在哪里吗？\n15　答　我完全不知道他当时在哪里。他给我打了电话。\n16　问　好的。我们将弄清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？\n17　答　没有。\n\n案号 22-50073　文件2080　提交日期 08/11/23　登记日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第56页，\n\n(x)\n\nAaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）— 直接询问 — Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）　38\n\n1　问　Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）？\n2　答　没有。\n3　问　HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技）？\n4　答　没有。\n5　问　HCHK Property（HCHK物业）？\n6　答　没有。\n7　问　Lexington Property Management（列克星敦物业管理）？\n8　答　没有。\n9　问　G-Club（G俱乐部）呢？\n10　答　是。\n11　问　好的。您就何事代理G-Club？\n12　答　我就已提起的一项仲裁向他们提供过建议，以及一般性的法律建议。\n13　问　您在那里与谁交谈？\n14　答　我与Carlos交谈过，我完全想不起来，他是他们的首席执行官和总法律顾问。实际上是Carlo，不是Carlos。Carlo，我不记得他的姓氏。首席执行官是谁？他们两人都辞职了。我不记得。是一名女性。我记不起她的姓名。\n15　问　Mitchell先生，您是否还向任何与债务人关联的其他实体提供过法律建议？\n16　答　对于与债务人关联这一点，我无法回答该问题。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n登记日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nAaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）— 直接询问 — Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n问\n他的家人、他参与经营的实体？\n\n我还可以继续列举实体，但我想加快进度。\n\n答\n明白。但这是一个宽泛的问题。我想你明白。\n\n问\n当然。G Fashion（G时尚）怎么样，您是否曾向他们提供法律意见？\n\n答\n是。\n\n问\n您为他们做了什么？\n\n答\n有一笔资金——一家银行——从他们的账户中划走了，我被问及是否能协助他们设法让该笔资金解冻或追回。我不知道。就这些。\n\n我们进行过一次谈话，但后来并未就此采取任何行动。\n\n问\n您在 G Fashion 与谁交谈过？\n\n答\n一名女性，我现在想不起她的名字，叫 Tia 或 Lia 之类的。\n\n问\nG-Music（G音乐）呢？\n\n法庭：\n我能否请您再说一遍您的回答，因为我没有听清。\n\n证人：\n当然。\n\n法庭：\nTia 还是 Lia？\n\n证人：\n我相信是 Tia，T-I-A，或者 Lia，L-I-A。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n证人：\n这是我的记忆。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）— 直接询问 — Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n法庭：\n您拼读时很有帮助。谢谢。\n\n证人：\n当然。完全可以。抱歉。\n\n法庭：\n这很有帮助。谢谢。\n\n证人：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n嗯。\n\n证人：\nG-Music？我想，是的。有一次有人请我协助他们审阅他们想要签订的某项协议，该协议与一首歌曲有关。我不确切记得是什么，但我就此向他们提供了一些意见。\n\n卢夫特先生询问：\n\n问\nG-News（G新闻）呢？\n\n答\n没有。我认为——我甚至不确定 G-News 是否是一个实体。是吗？\n\n问\n我相信它刚试图购买 HCHK Properties（HCHK地产），所以我推定它是。\n\n答\n哦，好的。我从未向他们提供过任何意见。我知道它很久以前是一个网站，但是。\n\n问\n好的。Hudson Diamond（哈德逊钻石）呢？\n\n答\n没有。\n\n问\n好的。同样，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\n再说一遍，我不愿使用“关联”这个词。\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\n176　第 59 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell — 直接询问 — Avram Luft　41\n\n问\n您想用什么词来连接、描述它们之间的关系？\n\n答\n我不知道。我不知道是否存在这种关系。\n\n问\n您不认为债务人与我刚才提到的所有实体之间存在关联？在宣誓之下？\n\n答\n我不知道其中一些实体，所以我无法回答。\n\n问\n您知道的那些呢？\n\n答\n我知道的那些？我不知道您所说的“关联”是什么意思。我不愿意作出任何一种方向的证言。我的意思是——\n\n问\n好。那么“隶属关系”呢？\n\n答\n再说一遍，我不知道您所说的是什么意思。\n\n问\n那么“联系”呢？\n\n答\n再说一遍。\n\n问\n这些词您都不知道？\n\n答\n我知道这些词，但我不愿意——看起来您是在试图把他以某种方式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，您会认为这属于关联吗？只是为了让我明白您在问什么。\n\n问\n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 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 60 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell — 直接询问 — Avram Luft　42\n\n答\n好的。\n\n问\n好的。\n\n答\n所以您的问题是，我是否认为他——\n\n问\n我提到的、您知道的那些实体——\n\n答\n是。\n\n问\n——它们都与债务人有关联，对吗？\n\n答\n我不知道我是否同意这一点。\n\n问\n您担任 Kwok 先生的律师有多少年了？\n\n答\n五年，五年或六年。\n\n问\n您担任他的律师，是就其商业事务而言？\n\n答\n我不认为 Kwok 先生有任何商业事务。\n\n问\n是的，本案债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），您认为他没有任何商业事务？\n\n答\n我对商业事务的理解，是指他投资或拥有一项企业。您是这个意思吗？\n\n问\n可以是投资。可以是管理。可以是经营。可以是提供资金。所有这些都会涉及其中。\n\n答\n我没有见过他在我们提到的任何公司从事过上述任何行为。\n\n问\n好的。我们继续吧。\n\n答\n当然。\n\n问\n您曾担任 GTV（GTV）的董事和高级管理人员？\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nAaron Mitchell — 直接询问 — Avram Luft\n\n答\n那是——董事。\n\n问\n好的。除您之外，其他董事是谁？\n\n答\n目前？我目前不是董事。我在任的最后一年中，有一年半时间只有我一人担任董事。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，而我留任，以便——如果 SEC 需要任何协助，把钱返还给投资者。\n\n问\n此前辞职的董事是谁？\n\n答\nMax Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）。Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）。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。还有一位先生，我现在想不起他的名字。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\nGTV 的董事？\n\n答\n是的。我相信就是这些。\n\n问\n好的。王女士曾任 GTV 的总裁和秘书？\n\n答\n曾有一段时间，是的。\n\n问\nGTV 是否曾有另一位总裁？\n\n答\n我相信 Max Krasner 是 GTV 的总裁。\n\n问\n是在王女士之前还是之后？\n\n答\n您知道，您这么一提，我不认为王女士曾经担任过总裁。我认为是 Krasner 先生。\n\nAaron Mitchell — 直接询问 — Avram Luft　44\n\nKrasner 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法庭：\n可以。但有多少份文件？我的意思是，您还没有标记任何文件。那么，您是否将申请把该文件作为证据接纳？\n\n卢夫特先生：\n嗯，目前我只是要用它看看是否能唤起证人的记忆——\n\n法庭：\n好的。好吧，可以。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n——然后我们可以讨论——\n\n法庭：\n如果您用它来唤起其记忆，可以。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n好的。我将——为标记目的，我将把这份文件称为 Mitchell 1，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我认为除非您要申请将其作为证据接纳，否则我们无需做任何事，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法庭：\n所以——\n\n卢夫特先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n——如果您能为了记录说明它是什么。\n\n卢夫特先生：\n可以。\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 62 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 63 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell — 直接询问 — Avram Luft　45\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n卢夫特先生询问：\n\n问\nMitchell 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）组织架构图”的文件。它来自——我向您说明，它来自 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）的档案。\n\n答\n我可以问一下吗——抱歉，您刚才在问我 GTV，现在您要向我出示一份与 Saraca 有关的文件？\n\n问\n我想您一看到它——\n\n答\n好的。\n\n问\n——就会明白。\n\n法庭：\n目前，我只允许律师向您出示这份文件，因为他告诉我，这将唤起您的记忆。\n\n证人：\n当然。不，我明白了。\n\n法庭：\n好的。所以这——\n\n证人：\n我只是感到困惑，因为它们是两个——\n\n法庭：\n明白。但我只是想明确，目前我们用这份文件所做的就只是这些。好吗？\n\n卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，我可以走近证人吗？\n\n法庭：\n可以。\n\n卢夫特先生询问：\n\n问\nMitchell 先生，您看到这是一份组织架构图吗？\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 64 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell — 直接询问 — Avram Luft\n\n答\n那是——是的，上面说它是一份组织架构图。\n\n问\n如果您看该页左侧，您看到在 Saraca Media Group 下方写着 GTV Media Group（GTV传媒集团）吗？\n\n答\n我看到了，是的。\n\n问\n在董事下方写着 Steve Bannon、Aaron Mitchell、John Morgan 和 Yvette Wang？\n\n答\n是的，我看到了。\n\n问\n然后在高级管理人员下方写着 Yvette Wang，总裁/秘书，以及财务主管 Anthony DeBatista（安东尼·德巴蒂斯塔）？\n\n答\n我看到了。\n\n问\n这是否唤起您的记忆，即王女士是 GTV 的总裁？\n\n答\n没有。这并不意味着它不是真的。我不以任何方式对此提出异议。我不记得 Yvette 曾担任总裁。但有这种可能。Krasner 先生辞职了，我看到这里有此记载，也许王女士后来成为总裁。我不记得这一点。我不对此提出异议，但是——\n\n问\n您在董事会任职，却不知道公司的总裁是谁？\n\n答\n我不记得是谁。\n\n问\n好的。在您拿着该文件时，您是否记得王女士是 Saraca 的总裁、秘书和财务主管？\n\n答\n我不知道她的职务是什么。我知道她曾——我认为她是董事，这上面也是这么写的。至于她在 Saraca 担任过哪些职务，我不——我不记得。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nAaron Mitchell — 直接询问 — Avram Luft\n\n问\n那么，这里写着她是总裁、秘书和财务主管的这项陈述，没有唤起您的记忆？\n\n答\n没有。但我没有任何依据以任何方式对此提出异议。\n\n问\n好的。\n\n答\n我确信，如果它来自 Hodgson Russ，假设它不是草稿，很可能是准确的。\n\n问\n好的。您记得 GTV 的所有者是谁吗？\n\n答\nGTV 的母公司是 Saraca，另外还有获得股份的投资者。\n\n问\n您记得 Saraca 的所有者是谁吗？\n\n答\n不记得。但根据这份文件，如果我阅读正确的话，上面写的是 Hudson Diamond Holding, Inc.（哈德逊钻石控股公司）。\n\n问\n您记得 Hudson Diamond, Inc.（哈德逊钻石公司）的所有者是谁吗？\n\n答\n不记得。\n\n问\n所以尽管您是董事——\n\n答\n我不想说我不记得。坦白说，我认为我从未知道。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\nGTV Media 出售过证券？\n\n答\n有一次私募发行，是的。\n\n问\n您当时在董事会任职？\n\nAaron Mitchell — 直接询问 — Avram Luft　48\n\n答\n是。\n\n问\n但尽管如此，除了您刚才告诉我的情况外，您从未了解 GTV 最终的所有权归属是谁？\n\n答\n是 Saraca。\n\n问\n而您对 Saraca 所知道的唯一情况，是它由一个名为 Hudson Diamond, Inc. 的实体所有？\n\n答\n正确。\n\n问\n而您从未查明是谁拥有该实体？\n\n答\n我不知道谁拥有该实体，没有。\n\n问\n尽管出售的是一家据称由该实体拥有的公司的证券？\n\n答\n抱歉。我没有很好地听懂那个问题。\n\n问\n当然。我是在问，作为董事，当您向公众出售证券时，除了一个公司名称以外，您是否曾费心查明是谁拥有该实体——也就是您向公众推销其证券的那家实体？\n\n答\n您的问题中有几个前提不正确。没有任何人曾经——我从未向公众出售证券。这些证券是一次私募发行。它们从未向公众发售。因此，我无法回答——对您的问题的回答是——我想没有办法回答，因为它假定了几项不真实的事情。\n\n问\n所以您的观点是，这些证券并未出售给\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 66 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nAaron Mitchell — 直接询问 — Avram Luft\n\n1　面向公众，他们是——因为这是一次私募发行？\n\n2　答　正确。\n\n3　问　而且你在销售方面没有任何角色？\n\n4　答　就哪方面而言？\n\n5　问　你在材料中被列为董事吗？\n\n6　答　是。\n是。\n\n7　问　那么，该公司将你的姓名列入并在其——发行备忘录中就此作出陈述？\n\n8　它在其——发行备忘录中作出陈述？\n\n9　备忘录？\n\n10　答　正确。\n\n11　问　但你仍从未费心查明，据称拥有该公司的是谁，除了一个未具名的公司——没有个人，仅是一个位于 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）的公司实体？\n\n12　拥有该公司的，是谁，除了一个未具名的公司——没有\n\n13　个人，仅是一个位于 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）的公司实体？\n\n14　答　是。\n说实话，我甚至不知道他们在 BVI。\n\n15　他们不在 BVI。\nSaraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）是\n\n16　所有者。\n\n17　问　其由 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.（哈德逊钻石控股公司）所有，而该公司位于 BVI，对吗？\n\n18　位于 BVI，对吗？\n\n19　答　是。\n说实话，我不知道他们在 BVI。\n\n20　说实话。\n\n21　问　知道这一点对你并不重要？\n\n22　答　不，这不重要。\n\n23　问　好的。\n除 GTV 外，你还担任过哪些实体的\n\n24　董事？\n\n25　答　GETTR Media Group, Inc.（GETTR 媒体集团公司）。\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）　50　问　你目前仍然——　答　是。　问　——GETTR 的成员？谁拥有 GETTR？　答　GETTR——有两名股东，Hamilton（汉密尔顿）和 Freedom Media Ventures, Inc.（自由媒体创投公司）。　问　这两个实体都与一名叫 William Gee（威廉·吉）的人有关联，对吗？　答　不。我不这么认为。　问　你确定吗？　答　是的，我确定。我相信 Hamilton 有关联。我不认为 Freedom Media 以任何方式有关联。　问　而 Kwok 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　你说 Kwok 先生和 Gee 先生是同事，是什么意思？　答　我知道他们彼此认识。　问　只是泛泛之交，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——我不知道他们之间的确切关系。　问　你知道 Gee 先生借钱给 Kwok 先生，对吗？还有他的家人？　案号 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 68 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　答　我知道他借钱给该家人，是的。\n\n2　问　事实上，2022 年 4 月听证会中，本院要求提交保证金时，是你协助安排 Gee 先生将 $37\n\n3　million 汇出，对吗？\n\n4　million 在 2022 年 4 月听证会中，本院要求提交保证金时汇出，对吗？是你做的？\n\n5　答　是我做了什么？\n\n6　问　是谁协助安排将 $37 million\n\n7　从 Gee 先生汇给 Guo 女士？\n\n8　答　我协助了？\n我不明白“是你做的”\n\n9　是什么意思。\n\n10　问　我的意思是，当你说你协助了时，我说的是你。\n\n11　答　我没有就此进行谈判。\n\n12　问　什么？\n\n13　答　如果你问的是这个，我没有就此进行谈判，也没有做任何类似的事情。\n\n14　如果你问的是这个。\n\n15　问　那么你做了什么？\n\n16　答　我给 Gee 先生打了几通电话。\n\n17　问　Gee 先生说了什么？\n\n18　答　他说他会与 Mei Guo（郭梅）谈谈，如果他能帮忙，他们会想出办法。\n\n19　如果他能帮忙。\n\n20　问　你给 Gee 先生打电话时，告诉了他什么？\n\n21　答　我告诉他，该家人——Mei 需要筹集一些钱来协助处理破产事宜。\n\n22　来协助处理破产事宜。\n\n23　问　还有别的吗？\n\n24　答　没有。\n\n25　问　所以，如我所说，你协助安排了这 $37 million？\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 70 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　答　在那个语境下，是的。\n\n2　问　你还有其他时候曾就向 Kwok 先生或其家人支付款项一事与 Gee 先生沟通过吗？\n\n3　你还有其他时候曾就向 Kwok 先生或其家人支付款项一事与 Gee 先生沟通过吗？\n\n4　答　我想没有，没有。\n\n5　问　你还有其他时候曾就钱款问题与 Gee 先生沟通过吗？\n\n6　钱款问题？\n\n7　答　有。\n\n8　问　在什么情境下？\n\n9　答　实际上，我代理 Gee 先生。\n\n10　问　哦，你也代理 Gee 先生？\n\n11　答　是。\n\n12　问　好的。\n你代理 Gee 先生是就什么事项\n\n13　而言？\n\n14　答　只是提供一般法律意见。\n\n15　问　关于什么？\n\n16　答　就是一般性的。\n如果他对美国法律有问题，\n\n17　我就给他答复。\n\n18　问　好的。\n我问的是你代理 Gee 先生所涉事项的\n\n19　主题？\n\n20　答　我不确定是什么——再次强调，一般性意见。\n我不\n\n21　确定你在问什么。\n\n22　问　例如交通罚单？婚姻事务？\n\n23　答　不，我从未就交通罚单向他提供意见。我\n\n24　从未就婚姻事务提供意见。\n\n25　问　好的。\n那么请想一想，你曾就哪些事项代理他、提供过\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　意见，并请告诉我。\n你——涉及哪些法律事项\n\n2　——\n\n3　答　我不知道该如何——\n\n4　问　——代理他？\n\n5　答　我不知道如果不提出特权主张，我该如何做到这一点。\n\n6　特权主张。\n\n7　问　我认为，在特权清单中说明你所提供法律意见的一般主题，是通常做法。\n\n8　特权清单中说明你所提供法律意见的一般主题，是通常做法。\n\n9　我不会问——我所要求的不超过这个范围。\n\n10　任何超过这个范围的内容。\n\n11　答　我不认为这是真的。如果是电话沟通，我\n\n12　不认为你必须就电话交谈提供特权清单。\n\n13　电话交谈。\n\n14　问　我认为你必须——这不是你是否必须提交特权清单的问题。\n\n15　我觉得我正在为此争辩。\n\n16　但坦率地说，我认为特权——\n\n17　提供你所给出法律意见的一般主题，不涉及任何特权披露。\n\n18　提供你所给出法律意见的一般主题，不涉及任何特权披露。这\n\n19　是通常做法，这正是我所问的。我并未要求你\n\n20　进一步说明。\n\n21　答　如果他考虑在美国进行投资，他会就可能取得——\n\n22　取得该业务或财产的方式，向我寻求法律意见，\n\n23　取得该业务或财产的方式，我会向他提供意见。\n\n24　取得该业务或财产的方式，我会向他提供意见。\n\n25　问　你是否曾就 Gee 先生向你咨询的事项中所涉法律意见，与 Kwok 先生进行过沟通？\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）　54　与 Gee 先生讨论的事项中所涉法律意见？　答　我不明白你的问题。　问　当然。你说你曾提供——　答　我能否——抱歉。我能问一下，这与涉及 GTV 及藐视法庭的说明理由令有什么关系吗？我只是想知道如何——　卢夫特律师：法官阁下，我很乐意解释。　法院：是的。你确实需要解释，因为我们确实需要把重点放回——　卢夫特律师：当然，法官阁下。　法院：——传票上，请。　卢夫特律师：法官阁下，我问这个的原因是，因为正如我们将会发现的，Mitchell 先生既是董事，也是他们的法律顾问。他是被指示让我去找的人——　法院：谁的董事和——　卢夫特律师：GTV 的。　法院：好的。　卢夫特律师：然后，就 Saraca 而言，他是被指示让我去向其获取信息的人；就在我们要求他们最终提交文件的当天，法律顾问退出了。我认为这些关联——我想了解，因为 Mitchell 先生随后告诉我，他无法这么做，他不了解这些事情，怎么能回答这些问题。因此，我确实想了解他与 Kwok 先生所有实体之间的关联，因为有许多缺失的文件，而我想了解他参与了哪些实体，因为我正在寻找那些文件。　案号 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　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）　55　这些事情，以及他怎么能回答问题。因此，我确实想了解他与 Kwok 先生所有实体之间的关联，因为有许多缺失的文件，而我想了解他参与了哪些实体，因为我正在寻找那些文件。　法院：我明白。但我们刚才谈论的是——你需要聚焦——我认为你是在告诉我，你聚焦于你所主张的 Mitchell 先生同时担任 GTV 和 Saraca 的高级管理人员及董事的身份。对吗？　卢夫特律师：GTV 的高级管理人员及董事。我的理解是，他曾担任 Saraca 的法律顾问。我会弄清楚。他已告诉我，他不是 Saraca 的董事。　法院：好的。　卢夫特律师：好的。但我很乐意——　法院：我会允许你继续，但我们确实需要聚焦于传票。　卢夫特律师：很好。我们继续。　卢夫特律师询问：　问　我问你，GTV 的目前状况是什么？　答　我不知道你这话是什么意思。有——　问　它是否仍在运营？　答　否。　问　但它有尚未结案的诉讼，你仍在其中代理它？　案号 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 73 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）　56　答　嗯，除两件外，所有案件都已中止；其中一件后来——一件不再中止，另一件，嗯，另一件也被中止。最近有一些进展，使它们变成，我想——“不再中止”是个词吗——不再处于中止状态。　问　何时——GTV 何时停止运营？　答　坦率地说，几年前。在与 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）达成和解之前，该公司已不再运营。员工都已离职。网站已关闭。之后，实际上只是尝试与 SEC 合作，把钱返还给投资者。　问　Saraca Media 的目前状况是什么？　答　我不知道。我不认为那里还有任何人。我相信 Wang 女士（王女士）辞职了。这就是我对 Saraca 所知的全部情况。　问　那是什么时候发生的？　答　我不知道。我是在大约六到九个月前得知的，或许是六个月前，在所提到的律师 Temkin 先生（坦普金）辞职前不久。就在那之前，我得知 Saraca 已没有任何人。　问　谁告诉你的？　答　Wang 女士告诉我她辞职了。而且我相信——我不确定是她告诉我的，还是我由此推断出那里没有其他人，因为我相信她是唯一的　案号 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 74 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 75 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　留在 Saraca 的人。\n\n2　问　GTV 将其文件存放在哪里？\n\n3　答　GTV 的文件在 162 East 64th Street。\n之后\n\n4　它们——现在由我持有。\n我不——但我在这期间没有拿到\n\n5　它们。而且，我相信，你们已经通过我以 Lawall & Mitchell（洛沃尔与米切尔律师事务所）名义提交的文件，收到了\n\n6　所有文件的电子副本。\n\n7　所有文件。\n\n8　问　Mitchell 先生，让我们非常明确。\n你是否曾告诉\n\n9　我，你代理 GTV，并正代表其就一份传票提交文件？\n\n10　代表其就一份传票提交文件？\n\n11　答　不，我没有提交——没有——我不认为曾有代表 GTV 作出的文件提交。\n\n12　代表 GTV 作出的文件提交。\n\n13　我告诉你的是，\n\n14　你从我个人处收到文件；正如我在此以本人名义作证，我向你提供了来自 GTV 的\n\n15　文件，那些是我所持有的文件。\n\n16　文件。而且我相信\n\n17　大约有 100,000 页。\n\n18　问　你是基于向你发出的传票提交文件，而不是基于向 GTV 发出的任何传票？\n\n19　而不是基于向 GTV 发出的任何传票？\n\n20　答　向我的律师事务所发出的传票，正确。\n\n21　问　当我——当时 Temkin 先生告诉我就此与你谈谈时，你为什么没有代理 GTV 并提交文件？\n\n22　当时 Temkin 先生告诉我就此与你谈谈时？\n\n23　关于此事？\n\n24　答　为什么？\n我甚至不明白你的问题。\n为什么\n\n25　我没有把已经给过你的文件再给你？\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 2080\n提交日期 08/11/23\n录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05\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。你当时没有把它们给我，Mitchell 先生。\n\n2　Mitchell 先生。\n\n3　答　在你以 GTV 名义联系我之前，你已经——绝对已经从我这里获得了 GTV 的文件，\n\n4　即 Lawall & Mitchell 持有的那些文件，\n\n5　你绝对已经拥有那些文件，在你以 GTV 名义联系我之前。毫无疑问。\n\n6　你以 GTV 名义联系我之前。毫无疑问。而且我可以给你\n\n7　贝茨编号。\n\n8　问　好的。\n\n9　答　如果你愿意，我还可以给你电子邮件。\n\n10　问　我们会核实这一点，Mitchell 先生。Saraca\n\n11　Media——Saraca Media 的文件存放在哪里？\n\n12　答　我不知道。\n\n13　问　你代理他们作为——就我认为你说的，目前有五或六起案件而言。\n\n14　目前有五或六起案件而言。你不知道他们将文件存放在哪里？\n\n15　他们将文件存放在哪里？\n\n16　答　我不知道他们将文件存放在哪里。\n\n17　问　你如何进行证据开示？\n\n18　答　我不——你说我如何进行证据开示，是什么意思？\n\n19　问　如果你不知道你客户的文件在哪里，你如何进行证据开示？\n\n20　如果你不知道你客户的文件在哪里，你如何进行证据开示？\n\n21　答　证据开示已经完成。\n\n22　问　你进行证据开示时，文件在哪里？\n\n23　答　它们——它们在一个平台上，一个电子平台上。\n\n24　一个电子平台上。\n\n25　问　那个平台在哪里？\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 77 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　答　您是指公司吗？\n\n2　问　对。\n是什么电子平台？\n\n3　答　Terrace（特雷斯）。\n\n4　问　Terrace。\n它们没有保存在——它们没有——那里\n\n5　没有 Saraca Media（萨拉卡媒体）的纸质文件档案吗？\n\n6　答　我不知道。\n\n7　问　您从未为证据开示而检索过它们吗？\n\n8　答　没有，因为全都是电子形式的。\n\n9　问　Terrace 的服务器在哪里？\n\n10　答　我不知道。\n\n11　问　您如何访问 Terrace\n\n12　服务器上的文件？\n\n13　答　在线访问。\n\n14　问　通过什么？\n\n15　答　Terrace。\n\n16　问　什么？\n您如何访问它们？\n\n17　答　我不理解您的问题。\n我进入——我登录\n\n18　并访问它们。\n我并不十分——我并非试图\n\n19　回避。\n我不太懂电脑。\n我登录。\n我进入\n\n20　该网站。\n我登录后便可以访问这些文件。\n\n21　我审阅了这些文件，并提供了所有具有关联性和/或\n\n22　不受特权保护的文件。\n\n23　问　好的。\n谁负责维护和保管那些——\n\n24　GTV 的记录？\n\n25　答　再说一次，我不理解。\n您是指 Terrace 吗，是\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交于 08/11/23　录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 78 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔） - 直接询问 - Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　您问的是这个吗？\n\n2　问　不是。\n我是指公司里谁负责保管\n\n3　GTV 的记录和文件？\n\n4　答　在什么时间点？\n\n5　问　在其停止运营之前。\n\n6　答　我推定应当是秘书和/或一名\n\n7　GTV 的雇员。\n\n8　问　好的。\n\n9　答　我不能确定。\n\n10　问　我只是想明确一下。您的证言是否是，在\n\n11　您个人提供的文件中，您已向我们提供了 GTV 的全部、\n\n12　即 GTV 文件的全部范围？\n\n13　答　您是指我所在律所提供的文件吗？\n\n14　问　嗯，我把传票送达给您了，所以。\n\n15　答　为记录起见，您送达给的是 Lawall & Mitchell（劳瓦尔与米切尔律师事务所）。\n\n16　问　好的。\n\n17　答　对吗？嗯，您知道，我必须作证，但您\n\n18　是向 Lawall & Mitchell 送达的，而我是在\n\n19　律所中的职务范围内作出回应。\n\n20　问　好的。\n\n21　答　您并未亲自向我送达一份，不是吗。\n\n22　问　好的。Lawall & Mitchell 是否提供了\n\n23　GTV 文件的全部范围？\n\n24　答　我不知道他们是否提供了。他们提供了——我\n\n25　进入并审阅了可供访问的文件，这些文件位于\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2080\n提交于 08/11/23\n录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔） - 直接询问 - Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　Terrace 上，并提供了存储在我想\n\n2　该网站上的所有具有关联性的文件。\n\n3　问\n那么，GTV 的文件也——\n\n4　答\n对。\n\n5　问\n——存储在 Terrace 上？\n\n6　答\n是。是。为回应 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）的传票，它们全都存储在 Terrace 上。\n\n7　\n\n8　问\n嗯，Temkin 先生告诉我，您的文件没有\n\n9　被包括在——该数据库中。您告诉过我，\n\n10　明确告诉过我，该数据库不包括 GTV 的全部文件。\n\n11　是否——当您谈到\n\n12　Terrace 数据库时，您指的是为 SEC 创建的那个数据库\n\n13　吗？\n\n14　答\n是的。\n\n15　问\n好的。那么——Temkin 先生告诉我，那并非\n\n16　GTV 的全部文件。GTV 其余的\n\n17　文件在哪里？\n\n18　答\n这是我所知的全部文件。\n\n19　问\n好的。Saraca 呢？\n\n20　答\n公平起见，我确实有几封作为董事写给股票过户公司 V Stock（V Stock）的电子邮件。我\n\n21　\n\n22　很抱歉，V Stock 是 Equity（Equity）。\n\n23　法庭：\n您知道如何拼写吗？\n\n24　证人：\n我正在试着想起是哪一个，\n\n25　是不是 V Stock。我们曾提到其中一个，但我们\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交于 08/11/23　录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 80 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔） - 直接询问 - Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　没有使用它。我们使用了另一个。我相信是 Equity，\n\n2　E-Q-U-I-T-Y。但是——无论股票过户代理人是谁，\n\n3　我作为 GTV 的董事，个人与其有过电子邮件往来，该等邮件\n\n4　尚未被提供，因为它们——再说一次，对 Lawall & Mitchell 的\n\n5　传票而言并不具有相关性。\n\n6　\n\n7　法庭：\n不过，您之前使用的那个词——那个名称\n\n8　是 V，像 Victor，Stock 吗？\n\n9　证人：\nV，像 Victor，Stock。\n\n10　法庭：\nVictor Stock。\n\n11　证人：\n是。\n\n12　法庭：\n好的。V Stock。好的。谢谢。\n\n13　知道这一点会有帮助。谢谢。\n\n14　证人：\n当然。\n\n15　由 LUFT 先生询问：\n\n16　问\n它对 GTV 的传票有相关性吗？\n\n17　答\n我认为没有。\n\n18　问\n您是否审阅过 GTV 的传票以判断相关性？\n\n19　答\n不完全是，没有。\n\n20　问\nSaraca 呢，关于 Lawall &\n\n21　Mitchell 提供的文件，您是否已提供 Saraca 文件的全部\n\n22　范围？\n\n23　答\n我拥有的全部——全部文件，是的。\n\n24　问\n那么，您拥有哪些 Saraca 的文件？\n\n25　答\n就是提供给您的那些。我相信有\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交于 08/11/23　录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 81 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔） - 直接询问 - Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　一些已提供的所有权文件。或者\n\n2　组织文件可能是更恰当的说法。以及\n\n3　初始提供的文件中所包括的任何其他\n\n4　文件。我不记得具体是什么。\n\n5　\n\n6　问\n那么，您并非声称 Lawall & Mitchell 提供的文件涵盖了我们\n\n7　向 Saraca Media 要求的全部文件\n\n8　范围，对吗？\n\n9　答\n不。不。我无法想象它涵盖了全部文件。\n\n10　问\n好的。我们转向——\n\n11　答\n为明确起见，我不能确定，但我会\n\n12　假定文件比我提供的更多。\n\n13　问\n好的。我们转向 Temkin 先生，他是一名——他曾是\n\n14　Morvillo（莫维略律师事务所）的律师，对吗？\n\n15　答\n对。\n\n16　问\n您是否聘请他代表 GTV 和 Saraca，就\n\n17　2004 传票事宜提供法律服务？\n\n18　答\n我没有聘请他代表 Saraca。他确实\n\n19　代表 Saraca，但不是我聘请的他。\n\n20　问\n您聘请他代表 GTV？\n\n21　答\n嗯，我当时在 GTV 董事会任职，所以我认为\n\n22　这样说是公平的。\n\n23　问\n代表 GTV 被送达传票，即\n\n24　2004 传票的人是您，对吗？\n\n25　答\n我不记得是否确实如此。我想是您送达的。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2080\n提交于 08/11/23\n录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔） - 直接询问 - Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　如果您这样表示，我没有任何理由——\n\n2　问\n我可以向您出示发给 Linsey 先生的电子邮件。\n\n3　答\n我没有理由对此提出异议。我确实不\n\n4　记得。但是如果您这样表示，我会接受您的\n\n5　陈述。\n\n6　问\n您收到该传票后，做了什么？\n\n7　答\n我相信——谢谢——我相信我把它交给了\n\n8　Temkin 先生，由他作出回应。\n\n9　问\n好的。那么 Temkin 先生如何会在完全相同的时间——\n\n10　代表 Saraca？\n\n11　答\n在 SEC——为回应 SEC 的传票以及就和解事宜期间，他已经在代表 Saraca。\n\n12　\n\n13　Temkin 先生代表 Saraca。Cahill（卡希尔律师事务所）代表\n\n14　GTV。现任职于贵所的 Brad Bondi（布拉德·邦迪）担任\n\n15　GTV 的律师。他被解除代理。然后 Temkin 先生——当时，\n\n16　和解实质上已经谈判完成，\n\n17　Temkin 先生代表 GTV 和 Saraca 最终敲定\n\n18　和解。\n\n19　问\n就 2004 事宜而言，谁联系 Saraca 以代表——谁联系 Temkin\n\n20　先生以代表 Saraca？\n\n21　答\n我不记得。我可能把传票转发给了他。\n\n22　我确实不记得究竟是哪种情况。\n\n23　问\n好的。11 月 28 日，我的同事 John Kashuwicz（约翰·卡舒维茨）\n\n24　向 Temkin 先生所在律所发送电子邮件，告知他鉴于数月未提供文件，我们要求他们最终在\n\n25　12 月 2 日提供其文件。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2080\n提交于 08/11/23\n录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔） - 直接询问 - Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　其文件。\n\n2　我们收到回复，告知我们自当日起\n\n3　Morvillo 将不再代表 GTV。\n\n4　Morvillo 在我们要求其\n\n5　提供文件的同一天停止代表 GTV 的决定，您是否参与其中？\n\n6　\n\n7　答\n该决定应当是由 Morvillo 作出的。\n\n8　问\nMorvillo 为什么退出代理？\n\n9　答\n我推定——您得问 Temkin 先生——但我\n\n10　推定这与他们没有获得报酬有关。\n\n11　\n\n12　问\n您没有就他——一事与 Temkin 先生进行任何讨论吗？\n\n13　答\n我之所以如此推定，是因为他曾数次\n\n14　询问付款事宜，而我已告知他 GTV 没有更多资金向他付款。因此，我相信就是\n\n15　这个原因。但是，再说一次，您得问他。我是在稍作\n\n16　推测，但我——如果我是他，那将是我辞任的理由。\n\n17　\n\n18　问\n好的。那么，您的证言是，您没有\n\n19　就 Morvillo 和 Temkin 先生决定退出代理一事与他们进行任何\n\n20　交谈，而该决定是在他们必须\n\n21　向我们提供文件的前夕作出的？\n\n22　\n\n23　答\n我不是这么说的。我说的是，我推定\n\n24　这是因为他们没有获得报酬。他告诉我——他数次问我\n\n25　付款事宜，所以有过谈话，\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交于 08/11/23　录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 84 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔） - 直接询问 - Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　其中他说，我需要获得报酬，否则我将不得不\n\n2　辞任。最终他辞任了。他没有说，我今天就要\n\n3　辞任，因为您尚未付款——因为他没有向我付款。\n\n4　而且在传票到期的当天，他对我说，我们没有获得报酬，我们将不得不\n\n5　停止工作。\n\n6　\n\n7　问\n在 Morvillo 的 Morvillo 先生，抱歉，Temkin 先生\n\n8　退出担任 GTV 和 Saraca 的律师时，您知道受托人提出的\n\n9　2004 传票尚未处理，对吗？\n\n10　答\n是。\n\n11　问\n而且您知道，Temkin 先生已告诉我们，如果我们\n\n12　就 GTV 和 Saraca 有任何询问，应当\n\n13　联系您，对吗？\n\n14　答\n是。那是您在发给我的电子邮件中所说的。\n\n15　问\n对。而且您告诉我们，您会告知我们\n\n16　GTV 的新律师是谁？\n\n17　答\n我不记得，但当时那样做是合乎情理的。\n\n18　我本会尝试聘请新律师。\n\n19　问\n事实上，您明确告诉我，您——在\n\n20　回答我的任何问题之前，您首先想与\n\n21　Temkin 先生交谈？\n\n22　答\n那是合乎情理的，因为再说一次，您已经告知\n\n23　我，他说我是应当联系的人，因此我正试图与他交谈。\n\n24　此外，您还说我是\n\n25　Saraca 的董事，而我想弄清楚他为何会说这种\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交于 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 85 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔） - 直接询问 - Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　不真实的话。\n\n2　问\nMitchell 先生，我想非常明确。我不是在问\n\n3　您认为什么合乎情理。我只会询问您的\n\n4　记忆。\n\n5　答\n嗯，我的记忆是，您认定\n\n6　我是 Saraca 的董事，而我告诉您那\n\n7　并不准确。您告诉我，那是 Temkin 先生告诉\n\n8　您的。因此，我说我想与 Temkin 先生交谈，因为我\n\n9　不知道他为何会说不真实的话。\n\n10　问\n您与 Temkin 先生交谈过吗？\n\n11　答\n交谈过。我问他为什么说我是 Saraca 的董事？\n\n12　他说他从未这么说过。\n\n13　问\n您是否——就传票的其他事项谈过什么？\n\n14　答\n我不记得。那是我最\n\n15　关心的事情，因为我不喜欢任何人说\n\n16　不准确的话这个想法，而且坦率地说，\n\n17　这可能会导致我做更多工作。因此，那就是我对与 Temkin 先生谈话的\n\n18　记忆。\n\n19　问\n事实上，您告诉我，一旦聘请 GTV 的新律师，您将让我\n\n20　与其联系，对吗？\n\n21　答\n您说您只希望我作出明确回答。\n\n22　问\n好的。\n\n23　答\n听起来是对的，但那样做也合乎情理。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2080\n提交于 08/11/23\n录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nAaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔） - 直接询问 - Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　问\n您要我向您出示该电子邮件吗？\n\n2　答\n不要。\n我接受您的陈述。\n我并不争议\n3　此事。\n您曾说过，不是您所认为的情况，您知道，不是\n4　告诉您我正在思考什么，而只是告诉您我\n5　确定知道的事情。对此我没有具体记忆，\n6　但听起来是准确的。\n\n7　问\n您从未告诉我 GTV（GTV）新律师的姓名，对吗？\n\n8　答\nGTV 从未聘请新律师。\n\n9　问\n至于 Saraca（Saraca），我要求您告诉我\n10　其新律师的姓名，或者该公司内某个人的姓名，\n11　以便我可以与其交谈，从而查明谁是合适的\n12　律师、合适的交谈对象，对吗？\n\n13　答\n我不记得了。再次，如果您\n14　如此陈述，我会接受其为真实，不过。\n\n15　问\n也许我把原话说出来，看看能否唤起您的\n16　记忆。您是否记得我在 December\n17　21st 写信给您说，GTV 是否已聘请新律师？如是，请\n18　告知我是谁。\n19　至于 Saraca，截至目前，我是否正确地理解为，\n20　它既不由您也不由 Morvillo（Morvillo）代理？如是，您是否知道\n21　其是否由任何人代理？如否，我们应当与 Saraca 的哪位人员\n22　交谈，因为 Morvillo 指示\n23　我们就我们向 Saraca 提出的请求与您交谈。\n24　这是否唤起您对我所\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交于 08/11/23　录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 87 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　问您的内容的记忆？\n\n2　答\n没有。但我会接受其为真实。\n\n3　问\n您从未向我提供任何关于就传票事项应与 Saraca 的谁\n4　交谈的信息，对吗？\n\n5　答\n那将会是——那将会是正确的。我不\n6　相信我有任何信息，正如我今天在此作证的那样。\n\n7　问\n您是否曾给 Wang 女士（王女士）打电话说，嘿，我们收到了\n8　传票？您是 Saraca 的总裁。您是 Saraca 的\n9　董事。我们将如何回应\n10　此事？\n\n11　答\n她不是总裁，也不是董事。正如我作证所述，\n12　她已经说过她已辞职。\n\n13　问\n您作证称，她在 December 从 Saraca 辞职？\n\n14　答\n我作证称我不记得她何时辞职，但\n15　我知道她在那时已不在那里。\n\n16　问\n谁在那里？\n\n17　答\n我相信没有任何人，但我可能错了。\n\n18　问\n所以您——我正通过电子邮件询问您应与 Saraca 的谁\n19　交谈，而您知道 Saraca 没有任何人，却\n20　从未告诉我这一点？\n\n21　答\n是的。我相信我没有回复那封电子邮件。我\n22　认为您也没有跟进。但我不记得。我\n23　不记得回复过该邮件。\n\n24　问\n事实上，在那封电子邮件之前，我曾向您发送多封电子邮件\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080\n提交于 08/11/23\n录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nAaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　试图查明应与 Saraca 和 GTV 的谁交谈，不是吗\n2　我——\n\n3　答　我不（听不清）——\n\n4　问　——我和 Kashuwicz 先生（卡舒维奇先生）？\n\n5　答　我不知道那是否属实。\n\n6　问　您要我——\n\n7　答　多封——我想至少有两封，所以，是的，\n8　多封。\n\n9　问　我和 Kashuwicz 先生与您之间的电子邮件不止两封，\n10　对吗？\n\n11　答　关于我的传票，我相信如此。关于 GTV 和\n12　Saraca，我不知道。可能有，但我不记得。\n\n13　问　好的。\n\n14　答　为记录在案，我所说的我的传票，是指 Lawall & Mitchell（Lawall & Mitchell 律师事务所），即我的律所。\n\n15　问　好的。我想问您，作为 GTV 的董事会成员和\n16　律师，您知道存在尚未处理的有效传票，并且您决定\n17　不为 GTV 聘请任何律师？\n\n18　答　GTV 没有钱聘请任何律师。\n\n19　问　您本可以这样做吗？\n\n20　答　我想我本可以这样做。我不认为\n21　那是我有义务做的事。我不认为我必须接受\n22　无偿代理的客户。\n\n23　问　作为董事会成员，您认为自己是否有义务\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交于 08/11/23　录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 89 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）\n\n1　就您担任董事会成员的公司而言，该公司有义务回应传票，\n2　您是否有义务作出回应？\n\n3　答\n我已辞去董事会职务。\n\n4　问\n哦，您何时辞去董事会职务？April 2023？\n\n5　答\n正确。\n\n6　问\n那么在 December 至 April 期间，您当时有\n7　义务吗？\n\n8　答\n我想有一份尚未处理的传票。您知道，如果\n9　有人向您提出信息请求，或者向您提出文件请求，\n10　后续请求或其他什么，我想，是的。\n\n11　问\n传票不是——传票不是文件请求吗？\n\n12　答\n是，但此后没有收到您关于\n13　“嘿，我需要文件”的任何进一步消息。然后——\n\n14　问\n在此之后，我多封电子邮件询问您我可以与谁交谈、请告诉我任何人，\n15　您没有将此理解为我正试图查明可从谁那里\n16　获取文件吗？\n\n17　答\n您并不是那样说的。\n\n18　问\n您说得对。我没有说“请告诉我任何人”。我说的是，\n19　如 Morvillo 指示我们就我们的请求与您交谈，\n20　Saraca 内我们可以与谁交谈？\n21　您没有将此理解为我在询问应与谁交谈吗？\n\n22　答\n我理解了，但我没有答案可以给您。我没有——\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交于 08/11/23　录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 90 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）　72\n\n1　——没有人可以告诉您，因为没有答案可得。就我而言——\n2　我没有可给您的答案，姑且这么说。\n\n3　问　至于 Saraca，同样，您知道存在一份尚未处理的——\n\n4　答　您第一个问题是关于 Saraca。\n\n5　问　第一个问题是关于作为董事会成员的 GTV，因为\n6　您不是 Saraca 的董事会成员，对吗？\n\n7　答　但您问了我关于 Saraca 的问题，不过——\n\n8　问　那么好吧。\n\n9　答　——（听不清）回应——\n\n10　问　那我们就以 GTV 为例。\n\n11　答　我只是想确保我的回答在记录中清楚无误。\n\n12　问　好。\n\n13　答　那就是我的回答。\n\n14　问　作为 GTV 的董事会成员，您知道存在一份尚未处理的传票，\n15　并且公司负有义务，而您——且公司没有\n16　回应传票，对吗？\n\n17　答　公司，是的。\n\n18　问　好的。我现在如何取得 Saraca 的文件？\n\n19　答　我不知道。\n\n20　问　我应当与谁谈论取得——谁会知道我可以从何处取得 Saraca 的\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交于 08/11/23　录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 91 页，共\n\nAaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）—直接询问—Avram Luft（阿夫拉姆·卢夫特）　73\n\n1　文件？\n\n2　答　我不知道。\n\n3　问　GTV 的文件呢？\n\n4　答　嗯，我已代表 Lawall & Mitchell 向您提供了\n5　GTV 的文件。\n\n6　问　嗯，我问过您。您告诉我，您不知道\n7　您是否拥有全部 GTV 文件。\n\n8　答　（听不清）。\n\n9　问　您告诉我，您对 GTV 文件作出了回应，即回应了与您的传票有关的\n10　文件。\n\n11　答　抱歉，这里面有问题吗？\n\n12　问　是的。我可以从何处取得 GTV 文件？\n\n13　答　再次，我所知道的那些——我所知道的那些文件已经\n14　提供。我想 Terrace（Terrace）仍然会持有这些文件。\n\n15　问　您有该平台的登录信息吗？\n\n16　答　没有。\n\n17　问　谁有？\n\n18　答　Terrace 会有。\n\n19　问　所以每次您想登录时，您都会致电该\n20　平台并说我该如何登录？\n\n21　答　嗯，自从九个月前回应您的传票后，我就没有登录过。\n\n22　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\n23　答　再次，Terrace 能够——Terrace 有\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交于 08/11/23　录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 92 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　曾为 GTV 或 Saraca 工作的人呢？谁有权访问平台上的那些文件？\n\n答　据我所知，没有人。\n\n问　没有人有权访问那些文件？\n\n答　据我所知，没有。\n\nLUFT 先生：好的。法官阁下，我对此没有进一步问题。\n\n法庭：好的。Lawall 先生（劳沃尔先生），您可以离席了。谢谢。\n\n（证人退庭）\n\n法庭：好。关于要求 GTV Media（GTV Media）和 Saraca Media Group（Saraca Media Group）——Lawall 先生，不过，我仍然需要您到律师席来。\n\nMITCHELL 先生：哦，抱歉。\n\n法庭：好的。没关系。我的意思是，Mitchell 先生。因为您出庭是为了说明理由。我想我听到您说过，但我想确认清楚，您——您——您没有任何授权反对对 GTV Media 和 Saraca Media Group 作出民事藐视法庭命令，对吗？\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，我未受聘代理，也不是公司高级管理人员，所以我\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—July 18, 2023　75\n\n认为我没有这种授权，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。我想这就是您所说的。\n\nMITCHELL 先生：是的。那——\n\n法庭：所以我只是想确认这一点。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 通过一名高级管理人员、董事、成员或经理，以及 Saraca Media Group 通过一名高级管理人员、董事、经理或成员，出庭说明理由。除您出庭之外。我只是——今天的本次听证会上，没有 GTV Media, Inc. 的高级管理人员、董事、成员或经理出庭。我想确认，您并非以 GTV Media 的高级管理人员、董事、成员或经理身份在此出庭，对吗？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。而且，Mitchell 律师，您并非以 Saraca Media Group 的高级管理人员、董事、成员或经理身份在此出庭，对吗？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：不，我不是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，就向这两个实体送达的藐视法庭动议而言，您并非代表 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案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交于 08/11/23　录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 93 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交于 08/11/23　录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 94 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—July 18, 2023\n\n1　法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n2　好。那么，Luft 律师——\n\n3　LUFT 先生：\n是，法官阁下。\n\n4　法庭：\n——我们需要做的——我今天将\n5　给予您的机会是，我将给予您机会\n6　以今天在此发生的情况补充您的动议和\n7　声明，即说明理由命令、Mitchell 先生的证言，您将需要告诉\n8　我您认为我应当听取或考虑有关 Mitchell 先生\n9　证言的哪些内容，并且我将——\n\n10　LUFT 先生：\n是，法官阁下。\n\n11　法庭：\n您希望有多少时间\n12　补充该动议，就该动议——就该动议适用于 GTV Media\n13　Group 和 Saraca Media Group 而言？\n\n14　LUFT 先生：\n法官阁下，如果可以的话，我想确保\n15　我所告诉您的——我所说的是准确的。\n16　通常我们大约需要一周时间才能拿到\n17　庭审记录副本。\n\n18　法庭：\n没问题。是的。我并不——\n\n19　LUFT 先生：\n所以我想确保在我们进行此事之前已经拿到\n20　庭审记录。\n\n21　法庭：\n我同意。您将需要一份\n22　庭审记录。\n\n23　LUFT 先生：\n对。\n\n24　法庭：\n我是说，没有庭审记录，我们谁也不会\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—July 18, 2023　77\n\n记得说过什么，对吗？\n\nLUFT 先生：正是如此。\n\n法庭：所以您肯定需要——那么需要多长时间？您要三周？一个月？需要多长时间？\n\nLUFT 先生：三周就绰绰有余了，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLUFT 先生：如果我能更快完成，我会尽量加快进度。\n\n法庭：那么，我将设定三周的期限。如果您更早提交，就更早提交。\n\nLUFT 先生：正是如此。\n\n法庭：好的。需要送达——无论您提交什么，无论您提交何种补充文件，均需送达给 Mitchell 律师。而且，Mitchell 律师，您在主案中已登记出庭，因此您会以电子方式收到。好的。\n\nMITCHELL 先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：您将以电子方式收到 Luft 先生提交的任何文件。因此，从今天起三周是 August 8th，但我可以给您到 August 11th，即周五。这样公平吗，还是您需要更多时间？\n\nLUFT 先生：不，法官阁下。那已经超过了\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交于 08/11/23　录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05　第 95 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 78 足够。法庭：好的。那么，Luft 律师，您可以在 August 11th 就您针对 Saraca Media（萨拉卡媒体）和 GTV Media（GTV媒体）的藐视法庭动议提交您认为适当的补充材料。好吗？LUFT 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：但必须向 Mitchell 律师送达。现在，Mitchell 律师，您并非代表这两个实体中的任何一个出庭，因此我不会给您答复期限，因为您并不代表它们。好吗？MITCHELL 律师：这很公平，法官阁下。法庭：所以，我——在 Mitchell 律师提交任何材料后，我是说，抱歉，在 Luft 律师提交他将要提交的任何材料后，我将审阅该等材料，然后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。好吗？LUFT 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：我认为，这是就说明理由命令进行处理的最佳方式。就说明理由命令而言，是否有人还有任何事项希望记入记录？LUFT 律师：我方没有，法官阁下。MITCHELL 律师：没有，法官阁下。案件 22-50073 文档 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 96 of\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 97 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023\n\n1　法庭：好的。好。那么，我现在在记录中命令——无论我是否——无论我们是否发布一项电子命令予以确认——作为提出动议一方的律师，即受托人的律师，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）的藐视法庭动议希望提交的任何补充文件，均应于 August 11th 当日或之前提交。好吗？\n\n9　LUFT 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n10　法庭：好。谢谢。因此，就 GTV Media Group（GTV媒体集团）和 Saraca Media Group（萨拉卡媒体集团）而言，说明理由命令的听证至此结束。好吗？谢谢。\n\n14　MITCHELL 律师：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\n16　法庭：您可以做您认为适当的任何事情。但就说明理由命令听证而言，该听证——现已结束。好吗？\n\n19　MITCHELL 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n20　法庭：谢谢。\n\n21　那么，我们在 1:30 和 2:00 p.m. 的日程上还有几项事项，但法庭将短暂休庭，因此法庭将于 1:50 p.m. 返回。\n\n24　（程序于 1:39 p.m. 休庭。）\n\n25　（程序于 1:51 p.m. 恢复。）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 80 法庭：请就座。好。我们休庭后恢复开庭，日程上有两项事项定于 1:30，另有两项事项定于 2 p.m.。我请法警书记员先宣读定于 1:30 p.m. 的对立程序案件。法警书记员：好的。案件编号 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）；案件编号 23-5008，Despins（德斯平）诉 Guo（郭）。法庭：好的。下午好。请在这些对立程序中作出出庭声明，先由 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）开始。DESPINS 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平），第11章受托人。LUFT 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的 Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），代表第11章受托人。LINSEY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西），代表受托人。法庭：Moriarty 先生？MORIARTY 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），代表 22-5003 案中的 HK International 和 Mei Guo（郭梅）。案件 22-50073 文档 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 98 of\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n以及代表 23-5008 案中的 Mei Guo（郭梅）。\n\n好的。两起案件中均有审前会议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 99 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023\n\n1　这两起对立程序中的第一起审前会议，即对立程序 22-5003 中的审前会议，是在一段时间前、在本对立程序中提出简易判决动议并作出不同裁定后，由法庭安排的。\n\n5　审前会议日程是在 May 23rd 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\n9　HK International 和 Mei Guo 已就反诉提交答辩，因此法庭将审前会议安排在今日，即 July 18th 的 1:30 p.m. 举行，并命令各方在审前会议之前，就与起诉状、答辩及反诉有关的该对立程序的后续步骤进行会面和协商。\n\n16　那么，Despins 受托人，您是反诉原告，因此，根据法庭 May 23rd, 2023 命令要求发生的事项，该对立程序目前处于何种状态？\n\n20　DESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我相信我们已提交请求，经同意延期举行本次会议，因为目前的状态是，您已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有效，不过暂时搁置，以防因任何原因上诉会导致撤销。因此，我们需要保留它们，但目前在该对立程序中无需进行任何活动。\n\n法庭：那么第三项反诉呢？您目前不打算推进第三项反诉吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：目前不打算。我们——\n\n法庭：因为双方都曾就此提出论点——我不理解双方的论点。在某一时点，至少，Moriarty 先生，并非由您提出该论点，但我认为是 Wernick 女士——哦，不是吗——我会忘记她的名字——Melissa Wernick（梅丽莎·韦尼克）曾提出论点称，第 002 项和第 003 项罪名项不同，第二项和第三项反诉请求不同的救济。然后似乎又有论点称，它们现在相同。因此，坦率地说，第一点，我对此有些困惑。第二点，我理解第一项和第二项反诉正在上诉中。我显然理解这一点。但我也理解，反诉答辩——Moriarty 先生，如果我错了请纠正我，好吗，因为这是有可能的——但我认为，在就依据《联邦破产程序规则》必须就管辖权以及核心程序与非核心程序作出的陈述而提出的反诉答辩中，案件 22-50073 文档 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 100 of\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 2080\nFiled 08/11/23\nEntered 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023\n\n1　你们的当事人称这些不是核心程序。\n\n3　鉴于你们是作为确认判决诉讼提起本诉因的，你们是否将继续主张该项陈述？\n\n6　MORIARTY 先生：法官阁下，此刻站在这里，我不知道您问题的答案。该案是由 HK International 作为权利主张人提起的。而反诉——反诉答辩本应由受托人提交。我们确实对反诉作出了答辩。\n\n12　法庭：是的。这正是我所说的。\n\n13　MORIARTY 先生：好的。因此，我记得，在对反诉的答辩中，依据我相信是 7008 或 7012，我们确实表明我们——\n\n16　法庭：是 8 或 9，但无论如何，请继续。不是 12，但请继续。\n\n18　MORIARTY 先生：我们确实载入了所要求的陈述，称我们反对破产法院对这些请求作出最终裁定。\n\n21　法庭：即使你们——你们的当事人提起了本诉因，而反诉是在该诉因中提出的？\n\n24　MORIARTY 先生：是的，法官阁下。反诉的范围远超我当事人的——\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 102 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023\n\n1　请求，我当事人的请求。\n\n2　法庭：嗯，我不确定这是否属实。您知道，原始请求是要求确认判决，确认您的当事人拥有该游艇？\n\n5　MORIARTY 先生：正确。\n\n6　法庭：而反诉是对此作出回应，称您的当事人并不拥有该——您知道他们在第一项和第二项反诉中所称的内容，所以——\n\n9　MORIARTY 先生：嗯哼。\n\n10　法庭：——我不确定这是准确的陈述。\n\n12　不过，我理解各方希望延期举行本次审前会议，但我认为每个人都有一些事项需要考虑，即——也就是说，我理解有事项正在上诉，但除非我遗漏了什么，否则在上诉期间并无中止。对吗？目前对其中任何一项裁定的上诉均无上诉期间中止。\n\n19　MORIARTY 先生：截至目前，这是正确的。\n\n21　法庭：对。但 Dooley 法官（杜利法官）明确驳回了其中一项。她可能正在审议——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\n案件 22-50073 文档 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 103 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023\n\n1　DESPINS 先生：第一项。\n\n2　法庭：——第 001 项罪名项。然后她正在审议第二项反诉。\n\n4　DESPINS 先生：第二项，正确。\n\n5　MORIARTY 先生：正确。\n\n6　法庭：因此，就第 001 项罪名项而言，并无上诉期间中止。\n\n8　你们曾主张，这没有问题，第 003 项罪名项不同于第 002 项罪名项，因此我不确定我是否同意不应发生任何事情。尽管如此，让我们暂时把这一点搁置一旁。\n\n12　还有第 004 项和第 005 项罪名项。还有一些论点称，我应就——你们已经——你们称事情不同，但你们又希望我就第 001 项和第 002 项罪名项作出判决，以便依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》形成一项最终命令，从而可以上诉，且不存在该上诉可能属于中间上诉的问题，正确吗？\n\n19　MORIARTY 先生：正确。正确。\n\n20　法庭：好的。因此，我尚未就此作出裁定。我相信该事项是最近提交的。\n\n22　受托人是否已对此作出回应？\n\n23　DESPINS 先生：我认为我们没有。\n\n24　法庭：我认为你们也没有。因此，这是我说我不确定是否同意的另一个问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 104 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 86 而且我——关于时间安排，我们都可以共同协作，好吗，但我不确定我是否同意，在对本案、对这些反诉进行上诉期间，事项将被中止，或者不会发生任何事情。然后，另一件我——在你们那项动议中——我不记得，Moriarty 先生，我对此表示歉意，是不是你们律所提交的——我们将查看它，等我找到后很快告诉您——MORIARTY 先生：我不认为那是一项单独的动议，法官阁下。它可能包含在我们对简易判决的反对意见中。我不记得有一项具体的单独动议，请求法庭认定不存在延迟理由并作出最终判决。法庭：它在你们对简易判决的反对意见中，即 ECF 203。好吗？MORIARTY 先生：好的。法庭：因此，在 ECF 203 中，你们谈到，你们请求法庭，即使你们——当我说你们时，Moriarty 先生，我不是指您，我指的是您和其他人所代表的当事人——已经称你们认为第 002 项和第 003 项反诉不同。然后 Wernick 女士就此进行了完整论证——MORIARTY 先生：对。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2080 Filed 08/11/23 Entered 08/11/23 17:27:05 Page 105 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 18, 2023 87\n\n法庭：——作为对——简易判决口头辩论的回应。现在你又说，实际上，不，应当就罪名项——就罪名项 001 和 002 作出终局判决。由于 002，第三项已获处理。由于 001，第四项已获处理。005 则是备选请求。你无需对其作出裁决，因为你已有 001 和 002。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：嗯。\n\n法庭：好的。这就是你所说的。因此，受托人——该文件于 April 14 提交。我不知道受托人是否已对此作出回应。受托人是否必须对此作出回应，我们将讨论。但是，此外，在同一份书状中，并且在本对抗程序中——该书状仅代表 HK International Funds（香港国际基金）提交，并非代表 Mei Guo（郭美），因此，Mei Guo 没有反对简易判决，至少并未以书面方式反对。没有任何书面材料显示她反对简易判决。好吗？就第二项反诉而言。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：是。我不——法官阁下，我认为该第二项反诉并未针对她提出。我可能不正确，但这是我的记忆——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：——这就是她不会反对它的原因。我相信唯一针对她提出的反诉，而且表述不当的，是反诉 005，该项是（听不清）——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 18, 2023 88\n\n法庭：嗯，我不确定这是否属实，但你们二人可以谈谈这个问题。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：好的。\n\n法庭：我不确定我是否同意你的说法，但我无需这样做。我并未作出裁决或任何决定。我只是说说而已。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：是。\n\n法庭：因此，为使记录清楚，唯一反对就第二项反诉作出简易判决的一方是 HK International，而非 Mei Guo。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：正确。\n\n法庭：因此，在你于 April 14 提交的本对抗程序中的 ECF 203 这份书状中，还有——我认为它是由——我相信该书状，且让我在说错话之前确认一下，不，我是正确的，是由 Vartan 先生（瓦尔坦先生）签署，Della Fera 先生（德拉费拉先生）和 Wernick 女士（韦尔尼克女士）的姓名列在其下，然后是你的姓名和 Romney 先生（罗姆尼先生）的姓名。好吗？但该书状是由 Vartan 先生提交的。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：嗯。\n\n法庭：在该书状中，你还称，PJR 和初步禁令应当——必须——解除。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 于 08/11/23 提交 于 08/11/23 17:27:05 录入 第 106 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 于 08/11/23 提交 于 08/11/23 17:27:05 录入 第 107 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 18, 2023 89\n\n法庭：理由是，根据你所提出的论点，即我应当就罪名项 001 和 002 作出终局命令和判决，因 002 而搁置 003，所以我不——因 001 而消除 004，而 005 是额外的救济请求，PJR 和初步禁令已无实际争议。因此，该书状中有整整一节请求法院以已无实际争议为由驳回初步禁令动议，抱歉，是以已无实际争议为由解除 PJR 和初步禁令。因此，那是 203。两天后，你们还代表 Mei Guo 提交了一项动议，请求以已无实际争议为由作出命令解除 PJR 和 PI。好的。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——即其采取了与 Mei Guo 两天后在动议中所采取的相同立场，即本法院应当因对第一项反诉和第二项反诉的裁决，并因你所提出的其余诉状请求均消失的论点，而解除 PJR 和初步禁令。好的。我不同意其余诉状请求均消失，但这没关系。并且，Mei Guo 请求终止判决前救济并解除初步禁令的该项动议，即同时请求解除和终止，被不妨碍再次提出而驳回。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 18, 2023 90\n\n法庭：其中写明“不妨碍再次提出”。这实际上就在该命令的标题中。好的。但是，随后我得知，在我们上一次开庭时——我不记得具体是哪一天，但我们可以回溯并使记录完全准确——已向地区法院提交了一份强制令状，请求指示地区法院命令本法院解除 PJR 和初步禁令，理由是你没有机会请求法院这样做。我认为这并不准确。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：嗯，我不——我也不认为关于这是该强制令状依据的陈述准确。\n\n法庭：那么，该令状的依据还能是什么？你是在请求地区法院指示我去做某事，而你称我没有给你机会就此请求法院听取你的意见。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：它并非这样说，法官阁下。它说的是——\n\n法庭：好的。那么它是怎么说的？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：它请求地区法院指示您去做某项您拒绝做的事情。\n\n法庭：那么，那不就是上诉吗？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：那不是上诉，因为那不是可上诉命令。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 于 08/11/23 提交 于 08/11/23 17:27:05 录入 第 108 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 于 08/11/23 提交 于 08/11/23 17:27:05 录入 第 109 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 18, 2023 91\n\n法庭：因此，你使用强制令状是因为那不是可上诉命令？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：这是一种备选方式，法官阁下，是的。\n\n法庭：但是，你们还在该强制令状中称，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。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：所以，法官阁下，我站在这里并不记得该强制令状中的所有措辞。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：我不记得其中有任何关于 HK 的具体内容，因为 HK 不是动议人，只有 Mei Guo 是动议人。\n\n法庭：不，因为你们实际上在针对简易判决的书状中交叉提出动议，请求本法院解除 PJR 和初步禁令。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：是。当我说动议人时，我的意思是该强制令状仅涉及 Mei Guo，并不涉及 HK。\n\n法庭：但是，该强制令状的依据之一，据我理解，是你们称地区法院应当指示本法院采取某项行动，因为——因为我也没有代表 HK 审议该事项。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 18, 2023 92\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：我不认为那是正确的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。无论如何，关键是，从本法院的角度来看，双方均请求了相同的救济，而该救济被不妨碍再次提出而驳回。因此，我不知道该强制令状如何影响本对抗程序。它是否已经分配给一位法官？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：它在 Dooley 法官（杜利法官）面前审理。\n\n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，因为目前不存在上诉期间中止执行。好吗？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：我同意，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：因此，我们需要——我将要求你们做的，即要求双方做的，是按照我先前设定今日审前会议的命令中所说，进行会面协商，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签发上诉期间中止执行令，因为她已经驳回了第一项反诉的上诉期间中止执行请求，那么请告知我，只需告知我，我们将据此继续处理。好吗？但目前不存在上诉期间中止执行。就诉状中剩余罪名项而言，各方所采取的立场可以说是相互冲突的。我只是不知道我们接下来将如何进行。因此，我将——我会——我提议并将要做的是，将本审前会议延期至 August 15th at 12:30 p.m.。现在，如果你们有报告或其他可以在该日期前同意提交的材料，那很好。我会审阅。我们是否举行额外的审前会议，将根据双方提交的材料（如有）决定。但是，就反对简易判决的答辩而言，我注意到 HK International 在该书状中明确请求，如果法院准许简易判决，其应驳回第三项和第五项反诉，因为它们是作为第二项反诉的备选请求提出的，并且还应驳回第四项反诉，因为其公认已无实际争议。嗯，我不认为任何人承认它已无实际争议。但无论如何，驳回第三项、第四项和第五项反诉，加上就第一项和第二项反诉作出有利于受托人的判决，将解决受托人的全部救济请求。作为备选，法院应根据 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54 认定，就第二项反诉和第一项反诉作出终局判决不存在延误的正当理由，前提是尚未就该等反诉提交判决书，并作出终局判决。法院应认定不存在延误的正当理由并作出终局判决，因为准许受托人就第二项反诉获得简易判决，加上其已就第一项反诉获得简易判决，将导致受托人获得其通过反诉所寻求且能够获得的全部救济，因此法院将无需再就反诉作出任何裁决。对此我不确定是否同意，但无论如何，我尚未听取受托人对于其是否同意的意见。此外，在不存在任何待决救济请求的情况下，PJR 命令和初步禁令同样已无实际争议，应予解除。因此，这是 HK International 代表其针对简易判决的答辩明确提出的救济请求。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 18, 2023 95\n\n法庭：因此，我希望受托人就 HK International 反诉被告所提出的该部分救济请求作出回应。你们希望有多少时间作出回应？\n\n德斯平斯先生：十天，法官阁下，足够了。\n\n法庭：好的。自今日起十天是 Friday, July 28th。这样对——这样对受托人可以吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：可以，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，我希望你们就 HK International 针对简易判决的答辩中所载的该救济请求提交回应。然后，正如我所说，我将把本审前会议延期至 August 15th，我相信我说的是 12:30 p.m.。该案当日在另一对抗程序中还有其他事项排期审理，这就是我将其延期至该日的原因。是否有人就本对抗程序还有其他问题？如无，我相信本对抗程序的本次审前会议今日至此结束。\n\n（无人回应）\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 于 08/11/23 提交 于 08/11/23 17:27:05 录入 第 113 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 2080\n于 08/11/23 提交\n于 08/11/23 17:27:05 录入\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 18, 2023\n\n法院：\n没有其他事项了吗？\n\n好的。\n\n好。\n\n审前会议结束。\n\n受托人将于 August 28th 之前，抱歉，是 July 28th 之前，就 HK 所请求的救济提交答复，审前会议续期至 August 15 at 12:30 p.m.\n\n好。\n\n现在，转到今天进行审前会议的第二个对抗程序，即 Despins（德斯平斯）诉 Guo（郭），23-5008。\n\n那么，目前情况如何——我认为这是——我可能记错了，但这是否是传票中确定的原定审前会议？\n\nLUFT 先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n是的。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\n好。\n\n我了解到，Guo 女士已提交答辩并提出了积极抗辩。\n\n再次请问，Moriarty 先生，该答辩否认法院作出终局判决的权限吗？\n\nMORIARTY 先生：\n其对此提出异议，法官阁下，是的。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\n好。\n\n因此，本对抗程序于 5/16/2023 提起，也就是两个月前；那么，双方当事人根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》彼此作出了哪些初步披露？\n\nLUFT 先生：\n法官阁下，我们已经商定了一项——截至目前，我们尚未提交初步披露。我们已经\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 97\n\n商定了一份时间表，我相信该时间表已经提交。其载于案卷编号 23。该文件仅在数小时前提交，其中部分——\n\n法院：\n好的。那么，让我看一下。\n\nLUFT 先生：\n好的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n所以，该文件是在我们今天开庭期间提交的吗？\n\nLUFT 先生：\n据我了解，是在我们刚刚开庭前提交的。\n\n法院：\n该文件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：\n当然，法官阁下。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法院：\n命令中关于提交联合审前陈述的部分留有空白。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该联合审前陈述？\n\nLUFT 先生：\n是的，法官阁下。据我了解——坦率地说，之所以留空，是因为我们尚未来得及就法院的日程安排与法院沟通，并且认为，在不知道法院可安排审判的时间之前确定审前日期，可能有些冒昧。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 115 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 116 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 98\n\n但我认为，设想是——正如法官阁下可能看到的，我们试图使该时间表在时间安排上与 Bravo Luck（布拉沃幸运）和 Greenwich Land（格林尼治土地）案中作出的安排非常一致，理由是本案具有类似的时间表和类似的案件类型。按照该时间安排，我会说，实际上你们可以——我们本可以猜测审前时间表将从现在起约 145 天后进行。审判约在 160 天后，我认为这几乎与您在另两案中的处理完全一致。但是，再说一次，由于不知道法院的日程安排，我们不希望擅自告诉您何时举行审判。因此我们将其留空。没有其他原因。\n\n法院：\n好。那么，我得看一下，因为看起来你们——双方当事人——完成所有事实证据开示的期限是 October 18。简易判决动议须于 November 17 之前提交。嗯，看起来专家证言的期限也是 October 18th。\n\nLUFT 先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n好的。那么，如果你们要提交简易判决动议，我不知道在这份命令中确定审判日期是否合理，对吗？\n\nLUFT 先生：\n这是我们预计本案将会采取的程序，法官阁下。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 99\n\n法院：\n你们将提交简易判决动议？\n\nLUFT 先生：\n我们目前预计将提交简易判决动议。\n\n法院：\n好。那么，让我看一下这份命令。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，大部分看起来没问题。我得确定时间安排，对吗？而且我必须确定，是仅再举行一次审前会议，还是专门确定一个审判日期是否合理，因为看起来可能会提交一项或多项简易判决动议。因此，或许我们需要在简易判决期限后不久举行审前会议，看看是否已经提交动议，并为这些动议安排听证。\n\nLUFT 先生：\n这似乎非常合理，法官阁下。我想指出，该文件被起草为简易判决的截止期限，双方当事人之间显然理解，至少在双方之间，如果一方希望更早提出简易判决动议，则应获准这样做。\n\n法院：\n哦，是的。任何人都可以做任何他们想做的事，但他们不会在\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 117 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 118 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 100\n\nNovember 17th 之后提出该动议。\n\nLUFT 先生：\n正是如此。\n\n法院：\n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。我认为我可能会在 November 17th 之后举行一次审前会议，然后我们再看下一步如何进行。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——如果我删除有关审前陈述的所有信息，以及该审前命令的其余部分，你们二位是否有人反对？因为如果我们只是再举行一次审前会议，并首先处理简易判决动议，我认为这并无必要。如果我们要提出简易判决动议，这些动议要么会被准许，要么会被驳回，然后我们必须确定实际将审理什么，对吗？因此，在本对抗程序的情形下，我认为此时将所有这些其他——这些其他信息放入这里并不合理。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：\n同意，法官阁下。而且是我制作了这份文件。我从 Greenwich Land 案中作出的命令复制而来。这就是所有那些内容都在其中的原因，因为它们在那份命令中。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 119 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023\n\n1 但我并不——我同意——\n\n2 法院：\nGreenwich Land 有代理律师吗？我\n\n3 不记得了。\n\n4 MORIARTY 先生：\n有。\n\n5 LUFT 先生：\n他们有。\n\n6 法院：\n他们有？\n\n7 LUFT 先生：\nMajor 先生，法官阁下。\n\n8 法院：\n好的。那么你们——那么也许我\n\n9 不应删除它。那么也许我应作出与另一案件中相同的\n\n10 命令。我会看一下\n\n11 并告知你们。这样如何？\n\n12 MORIARTY 先生：\n可以。\n\n13 法院：\n好的。显然，在今天的听证结束后，我们会看一下，\n\n14 因为我直到现在才看到这份文件。而且\n\n15 我不记得 Greenwich Land 审前命令\n\n16 的内容，所以我必须回去看看。好吗？\n\n17 MORIARTY 先生：\n可以。\n\n18 法院：\n好。那么除此之外，今天在本对抗程序的\n\n19 审前会议中，是否还有\n\n20 其他我们可以处理的事项？\n\n21 LUFT 先生：\n我代表受托人想不到其他事项，\n\n22 法官阁下。\n\n23 MORIARTY 先生：\n代表被告没有其他事项，\n\n24 法官阁下。\n\n25 法院：\n好。那么，我不知道是否\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 102\n\n我要再安排一次审前会议，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、含有日期的审前命令，或者你们将收到法庭书记员的某种通知，说明除非你们在 X 时间内提出异议，否则该审前——该命令将在未提交联合审前命令的情况下录入，抱歉，是联合审前陈述，并将确定审前会议。二者必居其一。好吗？\n\nLUFT 先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：\n是的，法官阁下。谢谢您。\n\n法院：\n好。好。谢谢。因此，23-05008 中的审前会议至此结束。好。现在我们可以转到下午 2 点的事项，因此请法庭书记员点名主案和对抗程序。\n\n法庭书记员：\n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（德斯平斯）诉 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK 技术公司）等。\n\n法院：\n好的。下午好。请从 Chapter 11 Trustee（第 11 章受托人）开始，为记录出庭。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 120 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 103\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人。\n\nLUFT 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所），代表第 11 章受托人。\n\nLINSEY 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西），Neubert, Pepe and Monteith（纽伯特、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：\n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：\n下午好，法官阁下。Ryan Jareck（瑞安·贾雷克），Cole Schotz, P.C.（科尔·肖茨律师事务所），代表受让人 Hofmeister（霍夫迈斯特）先生。下午好。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼），Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所），代表 Creditors Committee（债权人委员会）出庭。\n\nMCCLAMMY 女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。Melissa McClammy（梅丽莎·麦克拉米），Pastore, LLC（帕斯托雷有限责任公司），代表 HCHK 债权人。\n\n法院：\n下午好。\n\nSKLARZ 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Jeffrey Sklarz（杰弗里·斯克拉茨），Green & Sklarz（格林与斯克拉茨律师事务所），代表 G-Club Operations, LLC（G-Club 运营有限责任公司）。\n\n法院：\n下午好。\n\nSHERMAN 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。我叫 Joshua Sherman（约书亚·舍曼）。我是该对抗程序中的异议人。\n\n法院：\n是的。下午好。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 121 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 122 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 104\n\n好的。我们将主案和本对抗程序中受托人提出的和解动议的听证续至今日，目的是了解就随和解动议提交的命令可作出何种进一步经同意的修改，以及哪些修改可由当事人和任何提出异议的当事人同意；前提是，法院仍在审议异议，且在提交这份经修订的拟议命令之前不对异议作出裁决。因此，Despins 受托人、Luft 律师，你们是否愿意说明——请说明经修订的拟议命令目前的情况。我知道一些当事人已按获准方式，就该命令提交了进一步意见，并已于 Friday 之前提交。那么，截至今天，情况如何？\n\nLUFT 先生：\n法官阁下，我可以走近吗？\n\n法院：\n请。\n\nLUFT 先生：\n谢谢。下午好，法官阁下。我是 Paul Hastings 的 Avi Luft。因此，让我——正如法官阁下所指出，我们已提交一份修订命令。我认为，如有帮助，我可以重点说明我认为可称为该命令实质性修改的内容。\n\n法院：\n请继续。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 105  卢夫特先生：然后我们可以讨论一下目前进展如何。第一项实质性修改涉及第6段。法官阁下，我认为修订后的命令载于案卷编号55。这一段涉及公司记录。坦率地说，法官阁下，这原本并非意图作出很大的实质性修改。事实上，我们所做的只是增加了一行，即第二行，以明确说明，根据法院的意见——法官阁下曾指出本案中有一项保护令，并且在存在保密疑虑的范围内，已有一项保护令——我们只是想明确写明该保护令的存在。为加快进程，我们的提议是，鉴于有人已经表示担心这些文件具有保密性，我们将事实上将这些文件指定为保密文件，从而实际处理这一问题。这就是全部修改。我们希望这能解决保密方面的疑虑，从而使这些文件现在都被如此对待。关于第9段，法官阁下，\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2080，于 08/11/23 提交，于 08/11/23 17:27:05 录入，第 123 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2080，于 08/11/23 提交，于 08/11/23 17:27:05 录入，第 124 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日\n\n新增内容在最后一句，如果您正在跟进阅读，该句位于第5页底部；这是第9段，其中说明我们将在该月结束后第21日提交月度报告，并设定 $50,000 的限额。正如我们将要讨论的，美国受托人仍然建议限额应为 $25,000，因此对此仍存在一些分歧；但我们仍认为我们的 $50,000 提议是适当的，我可以对此加以说明。\n\n下一项实质性修改在第11段，即对和解付款的批准；该段规定，无担保债权人官方委员会也可查阅支持所申请专业费用的文件，并有权审查该等费用。这仅在第11段的最后一句中。\n\n关于第13段，法官阁下，此项内容——在此前的命令中，曾有一项免责条款，现在则为债务人免责。德斯平斯受托人（Trustee Despins）在上次听证中已基本向法院说明了这一点。这是试图将其付诸文字。实际上，如作出有利于受托人的终局性裁定，受托人将代表债务人及其财产提供解除和免责，具体内容载于此处。这是替代原先免责条款的内容。随后，法官阁下，如果您翻到第14段，此前曾有一项引导性禁令。法官阁下也会记得，德斯平斯受托人说明了第14段所载内容的构想，该内容现被称为把关职能；其构想是，在第三方提出请求权的范围内，其须先提交本法院，以便法院判断该请求权实际上是否属于财产请求权，或是否确实为第三方请求权。这就是其中规定的内容。这些是我认为的实质性修改。我还要指出，第2段中有一项据我理解基本上仅为相应调整的修改；因为现在——和解协议现已通过修改或通过驳回异议而获得解决，故该措辞略作变动，只是因为我们已经历经异议程序，但实质上并无意就此作出任何其他实质性修改。因此，法官阁下，以上就是这些修改。\n\n法院：关于第2段，让我问您一个问题。\n\n卢夫特先生：当然可以，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2080，于 08/11/23 提交，于 08/11/23 17:27:05 录入，第 126 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日\n\n法院：您说——目前命令的表述是，对各项动议的所有异议，均已通过本命令所列对原拟议命令的修改得到解决，或者已被驳回，包括所有保留权利的主张。\n\n那么，您是指——所有保留权利的主张都已被驳回？这就是本意吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：嗯，不是。\n\n卢夫特先生：关于——\n\n法院：不。好。那么本意是什么？\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，我是卢克·德斯平斯（Luc Despins），第11章受托人。\n\n这里的本意是，针对今日所请求事项的权利保留。但其他各方反对作出终局性命令的权利仍予保留。\n\n法院：好。\n\n德斯平斯先生：因此，那并不是——我们无意剥夺他们的该等权利。我们试图为本命令之目的在今日排除其权利，但并非为终局性命令之目的。他们在该方面的权利保留仍予保留。\n\n法院：那么，加入“针对本命令的所有保留权利主张”如何？\n\n卢夫特先生：这会是一个很好的修改。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 109  法院：好。因为我不确定那是什么意思。\n\n卢夫特先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。其本意并非其他任何内容。\n\n法院：不，那很好。这就是我提出问题的原因。好。\n\n卢夫特先生：这是一个很好的修改。谢谢。\n\n法院：好。\n\n卢夫特先生：所以，法官阁下，这就是我们已提交的内容。对此，我们收到三份——共提交了三份异议。其中一份由美国受托人提交；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聚焦于有关把关职能的措辞，我将让 Cole Schotz, P.C.（科尔·肖茨律师事务所）的贾雷克先生（Mr. Jareck）着重处理该问题。另两份异议由喜马拉雅实体（Himalaya entities）和 G-Club（G-Club）提交。我愿意按法官阁下希望的任何方式处理。我们可以先让贾雷克先生处理美国受托人提出的问题，然后我可以回来讨论另外两份异议。\n\n法院：我希望这样做。我希望先听取美国受托人的陈述，然后贾雷克先生可以\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2080，于 08/11/23 提交，于 08/11/23 17:27:05 录入，第 127 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2080，于 08/11/23 提交，于 08/11/23 17:27:05 录入，第 128 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日\n\n对此作出回应。然后我们也可以讨论其他各方的反对文书。\n\n卢夫特先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\n克莱伯恩女士（Ms. Claiborn）：谢谢您，法官阁下。我是代表美国受托人的霍莉·克莱伯恩（Holley Claiborn）。\n\n美国受托人的补充异议已在主案案卷中以 ECF 2006 提交。正如卢夫特律师所预先说明的，该异议强调了拟议修订命令中两段内容的问题。这两段是第9段和第14段。\n\n第9段很直接，美国受托人仍认为，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，应当返回征询美国受托人和委员会的意见。\n\n受托人希望该数额为 $50,000。美国受托人的立场是，较低的门槛是适当的，因为我们需要知道这些款项的情况，并且似乎有必要更深入了解这些款项将如何使用，而这正是该规定的目的。\n\n$50,000 的门槛似乎并非一个具有特殊依据的数额。美国受托人提出的数额较小，而且是有意如此，因为美国受托人尚未获确认有任何特定事项将达到 $50,000 的数额，因此，$25,000 的数额更有意义，因为它是一个较低的数额。\n\n关于第14段，美国受托人继续反对该段。它要求各方为行使其权利而必须回到本法院。\n\n受第14段限制的各方未必是今天在场的各方。其中包括今天在场的一些人，但也包括并未在法院面前、未参加本案及对抗程序的人员。\n\n该段虽然在某种层面上是有意设置且可以理解的，但似乎没有判例法或法规的支持，因此，美国受托人请求法院删除和／或移除第14段。\n\n如法官阁下有任何问题，我很乐意作出回应。或者，或许我可以在贾雷克律师陈述后再作回应。\n\n法院：那我们就这样做。谢谢。我目前没有任何问题，因此我们将让律师就您——美国受托人办公室的立场发言。然后，如您希望回应，我当然会给予您回应的机会。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 112  克莱伯恩女士：谢谢。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\n贾雷克先生：下午好，法官阁下。为记录在案，我是瑞安·贾雷克（Ryan Jareck），来自 Cole Schotz, P.C.（科尔·肖茨律师事务所），代表霍夫迈斯特先生（Mr. Hofmeister）。法官阁下，如果可以，我将仅就第14段进行陈述。\n\n法院：可以。\n\n贾雷克先生：如法官阁下对我有进一步问题，如可行，我很乐意在我的陈述结束时予以回答。\n\n法院：请开始。\n\n贾雷克先生：谢谢。因此，法官阁下，正如受托人的律师所指出，第13段规定债务人免责，对吗？因此，这是对受托人享有专属资格提出和和解的财产请求权的解除。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段中没有任何内容涉及本法院对第三方独立请求权行使管辖权。事实上恰恰相反，法官阁下。如果法院认定某项请求权是独立的，\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2080，于 08/11/23 提交，于 08/11/23 17:27:05 录入，第 130 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2080，于 08/11/23 提交，于 08/11/23 17:27:05 录入，第 131 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日\n\n即该请求权不属于债务人免责的范围，则该第三方请求权人可以在其选择的法院继续追诉其请求权。这仅仅是——其仅旨在涵盖法官阁下在第13段中所授予的内容。\n\n众多法院已命令并确认，破产法院的把关角色是一种执行和实施其先前命令中所作解除的机制。\n\n我请本法院注意 Motors Liquidation Corp.（汽车清算公司）一案，载于 568 B.R. 217。这是 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）破产法院于2017年作出的裁定。\n\n在该案中，破产法院作出命令，批准将 G.M. 的几乎全部资产出售给所谓“New G.M.”，且不附带各类留置权、请求权和权利负担。\n\nG.M. 的出售命令规定，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. 提出的第三方请求权承担了把关角色。\n\n该裁定中的破产法院在第222页作出如下说明，现引用如下：“破产法院的角色是把关角色。应由该法院决定，根据出售命令和破产法院先前的命令，哪些请求权和主张可以通过闸门。”\n\n裁决。若一项诉状违反出售裁定中可执行的规定，则其不得按目前的起草方式继续进行。若其不违反出售裁定，该诉状即通过门槛，由适当的非破产法院决定其是否构成可诉请求。”\n\n法官阁下，我还提请本院注意 Gawker Media（高客传媒）一案，即 588 B.R. 337。再次说明，法官阁下，该案是 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）破产法院于 2018 年作出的裁决；Bernstein 法官除 Glenn 法官在 Motors Liquidation 案中所作论述外，也讨论了法院的把关职责。\n\n该案是在计划确认的背景下作出的，其中该计划包含一项比计划中实际免责条款更广泛的禁令规定。其目的在于，迫使其请求权未获免责的实体，仍须在主张请求权之前，先向本院申请解除该禁令。\n\n再次说明，法官阁下，若无此把关职能，该免责条款便毫无效力。\n\n在作出终局性裁决后，假定受托人能够取得该裁决，他们可以到任何地方起诉。他们可以前往纽约州法院，并要求该法院解释法官阁下的免责条款实际含义为何。\n\n我们认为，判例权威对此提供了充分支持，而这仅意在作为一项专属管辖权规定，并非让法官阁下监督\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 18 日 115 第三方请求权。我们认为，破产法院既有管辖权，也有权力在该裁定第 14 段中纳入把关段落；我们恭请批准该段落。如法官阁下有任何问题，我在此暂停陈述。\n\n法庭：我没有问题。谢谢。\n\nJARECK 律师：此外，我还想就不得不当庭提出引证表示歉意。我们没有提交答辩状的权利。通常我会在提交给法官阁下的书面陈述中列出这些内容。但如法官阁下有任何问题，我们很乐意向法庭提供这些案例。我也很乐意重复案例引证。\n\n法庭：我想我知道这两个案件。但我已记下引证，因此会查阅它们。谢谢。\n\nJARECK 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：Claiborn 律师，您是否想作出回应？\n\nLUFT 律师：法官阁下，您是想先听——完成那个问题，还是想只听有关——\n\n法庭：我只是想让 United States Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）——案件 22-50073 文书 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 133 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 134 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 18 日 116\n\nLUFT 律师：当然。\n\n法庭：——如其愿意，则作出回应，因为她确实请求了这样做的机会。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：谢谢，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）代表美国受托人。我认为，我们在这场辩论中实际需要聚焦的问题是，我们所讨论的是何种类型的请求权。我们讨论的不是针对破产财产的请求权。我们讨论的是第三方对其他第三方享有的请求权。无论称其为禁令、把关机制，还是其他名称，它都要求人们在主张请求权时，首先必须来到这里。对于可能与本次和解仅存在间接关联的全部第三方请求权，本院并不具有专属管辖权。因此，美国受托人反对该裁定所规定的把关职能，仅限于此。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nDESPINS 律师：法官阁下，我敬爱美国受托人——我是说这个机构——但我认为这一点不正确。General Motors 案中的第三方是 New G.M.。它是破产财产的第三方。它并非破产财产的一部分。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 135 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 18 日\n\n其购买 Old G.M. 的资产，但 New G.M. 是第三方。其获得该把关职能的益处，以使法院确保：当人们希望起诉 New G.M. 时，其确实拥有一项直接请求权，而非 Old G.M. 为 New G.M. 的利益所免责的请求权。\n\n因此，关于法院没有管辖权的这一论点——从某种意义上说，这纯粹是在维持您的管辖权，因为理论上，如果您批准了免责，就应确保人们不会规避免责，否则便不恰当。\n\n而这就是我们请求您在此履行的唯一职能，即把关职能。\n\n因为如果这是一项直接请求权，您会将他们送往他们想去的任何地方，无论是纽约还是其他法院。\n\n但如果这是一项伪装的直接请求权，抱歉，是伪装的派生请求权，即我们已免责的请求权，您不应允许该等请求权继续推进。确保此事不会发生的唯一方式，就是由您保留对此的管辖权，履行该把关职能。因此，我认为这非常重要。\n\n而且我认为 General Motors 案完全切合本案，因为该案中的 New G.M. 是破产财产的第三方，正如本案中的受让人也是\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 18 日 118 破产财产的第三方一样。但受托人正在免除对其的请求权，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免责。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。那么，Claiborn 律师，当我们上周讨论时，美国受托人办公室也反对该免责条款，但受托人表示该免责仅限于破产财产作出的免责，因此该异议已获解决。正确吗？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：正确。\n\n法庭：好的。好。那么，问题仍在于该把关职能，所以我没有问题。我只是想确保，就——\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：是。\n\n法庭：——您的免责条款而言，我没有遗漏美国受托人办公室关于免责条款的论点。好的。那么，还有其他人希望就此发表意见吗——我也会让您发言，别担心——我会让当事人发言。我只是想确保，就美国受托人办公室所述内容而言，还有其他人希望\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 136 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 137 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 18 日 119 发表意见吗？\n\n（无人回应）\n\n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裁定提出的异议。那么，律师，您是否愿意继续？\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：是，法官阁下。谢谢。我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以，请。\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：谢谢。法官阁下，Melissa McClammy（梅利莎·麦克拉米）代表 HCHK 债权人。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 段中的把关职能并不适当。如她所言，该职能影响我们的当事人。我们在此。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。该拟议裁定将会加重这些请求权的负担、损害这些请求权，而未取得当事人的同意，未向我们的当事人提供任何对价，并且直至刚才，亦未就法院作出该项裁定的权限提出任何依据。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 18 日 120 我注意到，受托人表示，这乃确保法院免责条款获得执行的唯一方式；没有这一特定段落，免责条款便毫无效力。我注意到，当受托人提出其最初动议并寻求一项导流禁令和一项广泛的免责条款时，他表示这些条款是必要的。他表示这些是和解的关键条款。而当有人提出异议时，他又回来表示，好吧，我们可以换一种方式处理。我谨提出，若没有书面陈述以及研究本院是否具有相关权限的机会，就不能确定法院没有其他方式行使其管辖权或保护该和解。因此，由于尚未证明法院有权作出该裁定，我们请求法院驳回该动议并否决该拟议裁定。\n\n法庭：问题。\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：是。\n\n法庭：因此，该问题——按照我的审查和理解，问题在于该和解包含不同组成部分。而在此时存在一种可能性——您知道，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 138 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 139 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 18 日\n\n谁知道会发生什么，对吧，但存在一种可能性，即受托人不成功。如果他不成功，那么将进入这些共同管理的 Chapter 11（第 11 章）案件的所有资金都将返还给受让人，并且案件将在纽约继续进行。正确吗？\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：是。是的。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，这是我试图理解的事项之一。这并非我不理解您的论点，但我不确定您的论点是否已准备好接受审理，因为如果受托人败诉，您对无论何人的所有请求权都将在本院之外继续存在。对吗？这将是结果。这是第一点。\n\n第二点，我看到您在书面陈述或提交的文件中谈到的另一件事是，您担心您当事人的请求权被稀释，我理解这一担忧。\n\n但如果受托人成功，现在我们从另一面来看，如果受托人成功，那么所有债权人的请求权都会被稀释，而不仅仅是您方债权人的请求权。对吗？\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：是。\n\n法庭：因为可供分配的资金总额就是既定的资金总额，问题仅在于有多少人能够参与、从该资金池中分得一杯羹，对吧，姑且这么说。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 18 日 122 因此，尽管我理解您的论点，但我不确定在此时该论点足以决定结果。当然，这并不意味着在某个时候它不能决定结果。只是，如果受托人在您方债权人的请求权被稀释这一问题上获胜，那么这就会发生。我的意思是，在任何类型的案件中，如果一方当事人成功提出此类请求权，且该成功结果在上诉中或以其他方式获得维持，这就是会发生的结果。我的意思是，任何债权人都不可能比处于同一顺位的另一债权人获得更多清偿。对吗？因此，尽管我理解该论点，但我目前不确定该论点足以说明不应批准按拟议方式达成的受托人和解。\n\n不过，我更感兴趣的是您所提出的本院没有管辖权作出此事这一问题。而我正在试图——您知道，此处发生的情况是，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，在某种——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 140 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 123　作出终局性裁决，即这些款项应成为破产财产，即合并管理的第11章案件的财产。对吗？因此，如果该财产属于破产财产，那么本院为何对拟议和解具有管辖权，以便就该问题作出命令？本院为何没有管辖权？我理解你们的意思是，他们没有援引任何表明其具有管辖权的依据，但我也没有发现你们援引任何表明我没有管辖权的依据。而且，该事项提交本院的方式是，为债权人利益的财产让与是在——我想是在6月初左右，知道吗，并不是——\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：对。\n\n法庭：——大约一个半月前——\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：是。\n\n法庭：——并且我相信，在该程序中曾发出说明理由命令，要求说明某些事项应当或不应当发生。受托人作出了回应——好，我不知道他在纽约案件中是否以及如何作出回应——但在本案中，他请求颁布初步禁令，以阻止该程序继续进行。我认定，在初步禁令阶段已有足够证据，可以使——\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第141页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 124　该事项得以发生，对吗，即停止该程序。好的。然后我——我们得知——本院发现与受让人达成了一项解决方案，至少是一项拟议解决方案，对吗？其内容是，好的，此事将以某种方式在破产法院得到解决。因此，受托人仍完全有可能不能胜诉。如果受托人不能胜诉，那么所有款项都将返还给受让人，而该免责条款实质上将变为无效。不是吗？\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：是。\n\n法庭：是。\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：是。\n\n法庭：因此，我认为你所争议的是，如果受托人胜诉，你不希望你的当事人必须来本院，由本院决定其请求是针对第三方的直接请求，还是针对破产财产的派生请求。那是你所担心的吗？\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：如果可以的话，请允许我用自己的话来说。\n\n法庭：当然。\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：我完全同意法官阁下的看法，即如果受托人胜诉，并且如果属于 HCHK 实体的财产永久成为破产财产的一部分，那么我当事人就该等财产提出的请求——\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第142页，共\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第143页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日\n\n成为本第11章案件的一部分，并将与债务人的其他请求人按照其各自的优先顺位受偿。\n\n据我理解，第14段所规定的把关机制所涉及的请求，是指我当事人将提出的请求——并非基于其贷款协议，亦非针对债务人就如法官阁下所描述的资金池分得一部分的请求，而是针对受让人因其行为，以及因其迄今为止的行为给他们造成损害所提出的请求。\n\n因此，例如违反受托责任的请求，或者重大过失的请求，诸如此类；这些请求不会构成债务人破产财产的一部分，也不会因——或者至少不会直接因——我当事人针对 HCHK 实体提出的请求而产生。它们将源于我们所主张的受让人对其的不当行为及违反义务。\n\n我认为，这些请求并不类似于针对债务人的请求，也不属于破产财产管理的一部分。\n\n法庭：因此，你的观点是，当前的和解方案如获批准，将阻止你的当事人起诉受让人的权利——\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：是。\n\n法庭：——而你不希望发生这种情况。无论受托人针对 HCHK 资产实际上属于这些全部——这些破产财产的基础诉因最终结果如何，你都希望保留该项权利。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第144页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 126\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的，我明白。我的意思是，我认为那是和解的一部分，但我明白那是你的观点。\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：好的。\n\n法庭：这正是我想澄清的。因为你在书面文件中提出的其他一些事项，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，如果该方案获批准，你认为你的当事人的权利将会——他们将永远无权对受让人提起诉因？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：他们将被要求——\n\n法庭：除非受托人最终败诉，而免责条款变为无效？\n\nMITCHELL 先生：嗯，如果——据我理解，法官阁下，经修订的拟议命令中重新起草的免责条款，并非针对我所谈及的那类请求的免责。据我理解，该条款并不免除我当事人以其自身身份提出的请求，而是可能属于债务人请求之派生请求的请求。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第145页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日\n\n因此，我的理解是，如果和解协议获批准，并且如果受托人在基础对抗程序中胜诉，那么若我的当事人希望起诉受让人，他们将被要求通过某种动议向本院申请并取得本院批准；第14段并未说明该动议的具体细节，以便在州法院根据州法提出该等请求。\n\n法庭：我认为你说得对，这就是该条款目前的表述方式。\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：好的。\n\n法庭：这正是它所规定的——这是我的理解。好吗？\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：我很高兴我们达成一致。\n\n法庭：即你的当事人必须来本院。\n\n但是，我想问你——我的意思是——除了这一点之外，还有其他基础吗——我并不是说那一点——\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：嗯哼。\n\n法庭：——我只是想确保我理解。\n\n你们的异议是，我们不应当必须来本院，并由您来决定，法官，我们的请求是直接请求还是派生请求。如果我们想起诉，我们就应当能够起诉。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第146页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 128\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的，我明白。谢谢。\n\nMcCLAMMY 女士：谢谢。\n\n法庭：Sklarz 律师？\n\nSKLARZ 先生：下午好，法官阁下。G-Club（G-Club）仍对第6段提出异议。我们的反对意见载于主案件 ECF No. 2007，具体而言，我们在第5页提出了一些措辞建议。该问题——这实际上更多是一个技术问题。HCHK 提供信息技术服务，包括云计算服务、数据托管和电子邮件托管服务。有一段时间，G-Club 无法通过 HCHK 访问其数据，因此我们需要访问我们的数据，以便 A）经营业务，以及 B）在该数据中检索可能回应传票的文件；截至目前，我们已提交超过 120,000 份文件。此外，电子邮件服务器含有可能受律师—当事人特权保护的电子邮件——由于我们尚无法查阅，因此我们不知道——其可能包含含有律师—当事人特权材料的电子邮件、与 Pillsbury Winthrop 律师事务所（Pillsbury Winthrop）的通信，以及与我所律师事务所的通信。因此，我们只是寻求对我们的数据和律师—当事人特权的保护。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第147页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 129\n\n我们已在书面文件中陈述了这些信息；除非法官阁下有任何问题，否则我们将以书面文件为据。\n\n法庭：因此，就第6段的问题而言，我认为为解决该问题所作的尝试，是明确指出已有一项保密令生效，以解决你们就保密性提出的问题；但这对你们没有帮助，因为你担心你们将无法——你的当事人将无法先查阅这些记录，以决定是否存在可就这些文件主张的其他特权，是吗？\n\nSKLARZ 先生：是。这是其一。此外，我们还需要该信息，以便确保数据完整性，如果你愿意这样说的话；如果我们各自的任何企业在某一期间无法访问电子邮件或文件。我们需要取得——\n\n法庭：嗯，你们已经有一个半月以上无法访问了，对吗？\n\nSKLARZ 先生：没错。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，关于你所说的第一部分，而非访问权，我想问你一个问题。因此，本案中的保护令有不同的限定级别，不只是“保密”，还有“高度保密”，我认为这将把文件的阅览范围限制为仅限律师，而不包括当事人。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第148页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 130\n\nSKLARZ 先生：我认为我们的当事人——尤其是我本人——并不必然如此担心保密信息或高度保密信息。我们更担心的是特权信息。显然，如果受托人能够阅读律师与当事人之间的电子邮件，那将会有问题。一旦事情已经发生，便无法挽回。因此，应当有筛选机制。至于保密性问题，我相信我们可以——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。我们当然可以就该问题进行协商，但我们最担心的确实是访问权和特权信息。这就是为什么我们在第5页提出了我们的建议，其实质是让我们筛选该信息，然后——\n\n法庭：那么你会如何做，只是为了让我了解？你会如何筛选——你的意思是，在受让人将其交给受托人之前，你必须先从受让人那里取得？\n\nSKLARZ 先生：是。取得该信息的访问权，让我们像律师通常就证据开示材料所做的那样审阅。然后——\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第149页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月18日 131\n\n交出需要交出的内容。如果特权材料有特权清单，则提供该特权清单。然后，如果存在进一步的证据开示问题，则进行会面协商；如有必要，再向法官阁下提出。但是，已有一份服务协议。受托人持有该服务协议。该数据属于 G-Club。仅凭一项 9019 动议，从来不属于 HCHK 财产的数据不能变成破产财产和受托人占有的数据。财产权由合同确定。\n\n法庭：我正在查看你希望纳入修订拟议命令第6段的拟议措辞，该措辞载于你答复文件的第5页。我认为该措辞是——我的意思是，我不知道你和受托人是否会就此达成任何协议——但它写的是“以及仅与 HCHK 实体有关的其他文件”。我认为这不正确。我认为你需要写成“以及任何且仅与 G-Club 实体有关的文件”，对吗？我的意思是，你们不能审阅所有内容。你们可以审阅与你们当事人有关的内容。\n\nSKLARZ 先生：正确。我们只要 G-Club 的文件。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2080　提交日期 08/11/23　录入日期 08/11/23 17:27:05　第150页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 18, 2023 132　法庭：对。好的。我只是想澄清这一点。好的。SKLARZ先生（斯克拉茨）：是。是。绝对如此。法庭：然后，如果你们能够这么做，那么你是说——我们来谈谈具体操作。假设受让人以某种方式筛选掉所有含有G-Club（G-Club）的内容，对吧，然后将其交给你们，接下来你们要怎么做？SKLARZ先生：将根据传票审查其中是否有相关信息，随后将其移交给受托人，正如我们此前所做的——法庭：那么，你说的相关是什么意思？我的意思是，我认为你们唯一会暂不交出的信息应当是受特权保护的通信。对吗？SKLARZ先生：嗯，如果某些内容不在其传票范围内，如果他们没有要求，我想就不会移交。但是，是的。目前真正唯一令人关切的是受特权保护的信息。法庭：嗯，我认为——SKLARZ先生：我的意思是，澄清一下，我们并不想拖延任何事情。我们只是想保护——法庭：不，不，我不是——我是在设法找出解决办法——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 提交 08/11/23 录入 08/11/23 17:27:05 第151页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 18, 2023 133　SKLARZ先生：是。法庭：——如果可能的话，解决这个问题，对吧？你们的问题显然不同于其他债权人的问题。SKLARZ先生：是。这是一个技术问题——几乎可以说是技术问题，甚至不算法律问题。法庭：因此，我们正试图了解这是否能够解决，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，或者是否有任何其他情况。我完全不知道。我会假定——不过我不该假定——但如果有人告诉我它们没有分类，我也不会感到意外。它们只是整批文件的堆放。律师，这是否——这是否就是我们现有的情况？这是否就是你们所持有的文件？JARECK先生（贾雷克）：作为律师，我们持有大量文件，但它们大多是银行和财务记录。据我了解，实际的公司记录保存在云端，我完全不知道如何对其进行分类。但是，法官阁下，我们将遵从您指示我们采取的任何做法。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 提交 08/11/23 录入 08/11/23 17:27:05 第152页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 18, 2023 134　法庭：嗯，我也不知道该怎么做。我的意思是，你知道，我是说，我有一些想法，但如果你认为我懂得如何在云端进行搜索，我不——那不是——很抱歉，但我没有这方面的知识。SKLARZ先生：我也没有。我的意思是，我认为需要技术人员——我的意思是，显然，在ABC（为债权人利益所作的转让）开始之前，G-Club曾访问这些信息，因此有办法做到这一点。我并不——法庭：他们现在无法访问吗？SKLARZ先生：他们现在无法访问。法庭：为什么？SKLARZ先生：因为ABC——法庭：密码失效了还是什么？SKLARZ先生：嗯，本质上是因为ABC，访问权限已被关闭。据我所知是这样。法庭：嗯，这正是我所说的。SKLARZ先生：是。法庭：所以他们不能——他们没有访问权限——SKLARZ先生：正确。法庭：——即他们在开始之前、在HCHK（HCHK）将一切转让给受让人之前所拥有的访问权限？这就是你的意思？SKLARZ先生：据我了解，是的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 提交 08/11/23 录入 08/11/23 17:27:05 第153页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 18, 2023\n\n1　法庭：好的。\n2　SKLARZ先生：因此，如果——我预计，\n3　我们会与受让人的IT服务商合作，\n4　即负责云端托管的人，以及与我们自己的IT\n5　人员合作，以重新取得访问权限并完成该流程。\n6　法庭：这是以受让人有\n7　某人在负责云端托管为前提。\n8　SKLARZ先生：嗯，他们必须有，否则数据\n9　不会存放在任何地方。\n10　法庭：我想我刚才听说他们没有。\n11　JARECK先生：我们有一名人力资源人员和两名\n12　安保人员，仅此而已。\n13　SKLARZ先生：嗯，有——\n14　JARECK先生：其他所有人都被解雇了。\n15　SKLARZ先生：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　假定并非如此。\n19　法庭：但由谁丢弃？\n20　SKLARZ先生：它将由\n21　受让人丢弃。\n22　法庭：嗯，如果它没有被转让给他，你就不知道这一点。\n23　你怎么知道？你不知道，对吧？\n24　关键是，为债权人利益所作的转让中，\n25　公司，即转让人，可以转让其\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 2080\n提交 08/11/23\n录入 08/11/23 17:27:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 18, 2023\n\n1　想要转让的东西。他们不必转让一切。而我\n2　不知道。我完全不知道，我是说，已经发生了什么。\n3　我不喜欢为债权人利益所作的转让的原因之一\n4　正是这个原因，对吧？\n5　即作出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　SKLARZ先生：我也不知道。\n9　法庭：但律师告诉我，\n10　他们无法访问云端。\n11　所以，即使你是正确的，即你应当有权搜索它，\n12　我也不知道那将如何运作。\n13　SKLARZ先生：我的意思是，如果——如果所有\n14　数据现在都无法访问——\n15　法庭：嗯，我不知道它是否\n16　无法访问，但它没有——它尚未提供给\n17　受让人，所以那是不同的问题，对吧？\n18　SKLARZ先生：嗯，我不是——抱歉，法官阁下。\n19　律师能否澄清他们是否持有\n20　这些数据？\n21　JARECK先生：再说一次，我们确实有一些数据，但我\n22　相信律师所指的数据仍然是在\n23　云端。\n24　我们是否可以重新聘请IT人员来提取\n25　信息，我想是可以的。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。一切都得到了维护。你可以把钥匙插进门锁，但没有人能够访问任何东西。因此，一切都得到了维护和保存。但是，如何从云端提取信息，这属于律师客户的具体事项，我不会——我甚至无法告诉你从何开始。法庭：嗯，如果是在过去，对吧，当时我们谈论的是文件，对吧——SKLARZ先生：我们会去那里，然后就能取得它们。法庭：——你会去，然后查看一切，对吧？SKLARZ先生：是。法庭：然后你会作出判断，说这些都属于特权和保密材料，不能将其交出。因此，你是说G-Club希望聘请某人来做这件事吗？如果你是说，在受让人的监督下，你们去聘请某人做这件事，这可能是合理的请求。我不知道。SKLARZ先生：我认为这是个好主意，法官阁下。我——直到律师刚才表示没有——他们没有——他们无法访问数据之前，我并不知道这一点。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 提交 08/11/23 录入 08/11/23 17:27:05 第155页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 提交 08/11/23 录入 08/11/23 17:27:05 第156页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 18, 2023\n\n1　我只想，您知道，与我的\n2　客户谈谈，看看这是否可以接受。但这听起来是一个\n3　很好的解决方案，即让G-Club聘请一名IT\n4　专业人员与受让人合作，设法\n5　访问这些数据。\n6　法庭：卢夫特律师？\n7　LUFT先生（卢夫特）：法官阁下，待我重新开始时，我想\n8　上前并就此陈述。\n9　法庭：好的。是。\n10　斯克拉茨律师，您目前说完了吗？\n11　SKLARZ先生：除非法官阁下还有其他\n12　问题。\n13　法庭：那么，为澄清起见，你客户对修订后的拟议\n14　命令提出异议，是因为该命令没有\n15　处理你们所说的这个技术问题。你们希望能够在文件\n16　交给受托人之前审查文件，\n17　以确定是否存在——如果存在——\n18　受特权保护的文件，并主张该特权？\n19　SKLARZ先生：正确，法官阁下。\n20　法庭：而且如果你们这样做，无论如何都必须\n21　建立一份特权清单？\n22　SKLARZ先生：正确，法官阁下。\n23　法庭：好的。好。谢谢。\n24　SKLARZ先生：谢谢。\n25　法庭：好的。请继续，卢夫特律师。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 提交 08/11/23 录入 08/11/23 17:27:05 第157页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 18, 2023\n\n1　LUFT先生：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n2　法庭：当然。\n3　LUFT先生：非常感谢。\n4　法官阁下，如法庭准许，我将先从\n5　G-Club谈起，然后会提及喜马拉雅实体。\n6　再次说明，我是来自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　因此，法官阁下，我听取了全部内容。\n9　坦率地说，我感谢大家试图创造性地思考\n10　如何处理此事。我会向您解释为何我认为\n11　不存在需要通过这一解决办法处理的问题，但\n12　我们看看是否是我错了。\n13　事实上，法官阁下，G-Club在其书面文件中所写\n14　以及其所主张的是，他们担心的是\n15　保密性以及保护任何可能存在的特权。\n16　\n17　他们说，他们，“仅寻求实施一项保护并\n18　维护权利和特权的明确程序。”\n19　\n20　但是，他们的书面文件所写内容，以及法官阁下在其\n21　修订后的第6段中所看到的内容，与他们\n22　正在谈论的事情几乎毫无关系。\n23　\n24　我想先从已经说过的几件事\n25　谈起。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 提交 08/11/23 录入 08/11/23 17:27:05 第158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一直在谈论其2004证据开示。虽然我曾多次出庭，试图实现该事项，但第6段不是关于那个问题。第6段是关于允许受托人访问文件。这一点很重要，因为——因为我们正在达成和解，而且鉴于该对抗程序将如何推进，我们实际上是在取消该对抗程序中的证据开示，并且（听不清）——法庭：在这一点上我不同意你的意见。因为正如我所说，我明白你的观点，但正如我对斯克拉茨律师所说，他为第6段拟定该措辞的方式行不通。LUFT先生：我同意。法庭：即便如此，即便如此，也将限于G-Club。好的？因此，我们并没有取消证据开示；如果有信息需要提供，唯一可能被搁置并通过不止一个步骤处理的内容，属于G-Club。如果我们进行到那一步。好的？LUFT先生：法官阁下，我很高兴听到这一点。法庭：好的。LUFT先生：我接着要指出——法庭：嗯，这正是我所说的。因此，如果我\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2080 提交 08/11/23 录入 08/11/23 17:27:05 第159页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年7月18日，第141页：我刚才没有说清楚，抱歉。但就是这样。我对斯克拉兹律师（Attorney Sklarz）说过，这仅适用于G-Club（G-Club），并且仅适用于享有特权或保密、而你们可以主张特权的事项，仅此而已。卢夫特先生（MR. LUFT）：而且，法官阁下，为明确起见，我先跳到该措辞上，如果您阅读他提出的措辞，其中并非——他并不是说仅限G-Club的文件，他说的是有关——仅有关HCHK实体（HCHK entities）的文件。而且——法院（THE COURT）：这就是我提出该点的原因。卢夫特先生：是。法院：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。我想说的是，即使我将其改为G-Club，如果HCHK——法院：不。你把“仅”放在另一个位置。卢夫特先生：是。法院：它并不——并不涉及HCHK，它不涉及。那个词不正确。卢夫特先生：法官阁下——法院：因为你是对的。那样的话，它就会适用于任何任何人都可以说的事情，对吗？卢夫特先生：正确。\n\n案件22-50073，文件2080，提交于08/11/23，录入于08/11/23 17:27:05，第160页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年7月18日，第142页：法院：而且没有其他人提出过。因此，唯一可能获得任何保护的人，如果有的话，将是G-Club。卢夫特先生：是，法官阁下。我试图说明的要点，我想我表达得不够恰当，是即使仅以G-Club为主题事项，所述内容也是如此。因此，如果HCHK持有关于G-Club的文件，按照他们起草的方式，即使仅限于G-Club，他们也会将该等文件排除在外。法院：不，他们不会。因为该等文件必须受某项特权约束，他们必须主张该特权，随后必须证明他们有权享有该特权。卢夫特先生：很好。那么现在我们——好的。德斯平斯先生（MR. DESPINS）：可以。卢夫特先生：那么现在我们讨论的是，如果存在特权，并且如果这会使其成为他们的文件，而我——我同意您的意见。法院：而且他们必须证明，对吗？卢夫特先生：对。法院：这就是你有特权清单的原因。卢夫特先生：正确。法院：你将审查它，并说这不是特权材料，法官。你必须判断它是否享有特权，对吗？\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年7月18日，第143页：卢夫特先生：确实如此。法院：这就是我预期会发生的情况。卢夫特先生：好的。很好。我同意这一点。现在，让我们谈谈这项特权。法官阁下，他们称，HCHK作为与G-Club完全无关的第三方持有该等文件。他们已将其文件交给该第三方。此后，该第三方——文件转移了——受让人接管了它。这是另一个第三方。然后，受让人与G-News（G-News）达成协议，包括允许其在一段期间内开始运营，这是第三个第三方。我不知道怎么可能还有任何特权。据我所知，当文件转移时，他们从未提出异议——他们没有就此提出问题。文件转移给受让人时，他们没有提出异议。据我所知，当该受让人随后称G-News可以查阅文件时，他们当然也没有提出异议。现在已有三个第三方可以查阅特权信息。因此，我不明白如何——法院：所以你是说特权已被放弃？\n\n案件22-50073，文件2080，提交于08/11/23，录入于08/11/23 17:27:05，第161页，共\n\n德斯平斯先生：正确。卢夫特先生：正是如此，法官阁下。我不——\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年7月18日，第144页：不明白我们谈论的是何种特权。而且我们——因此，尽管我看不出存在任何特权，我能设想的是审查和逐一查阅所有这些文件的过程；我现在已等待相当长一段时间才能获得这些文件，只为得出这样的结论：哦，对，我们已经放弃了所有特权。我不理解。现在，也许存在我没有看到的论点，但法官阁下，我首先要指出的是——法院：好的。但我们——我听到了你的说法，确实如此。不过，我们尚未从法律上处理过该论点，对吗？卢夫特先生：我们谈过这个问题——法院：我的意思是，我们尚未从法律上处理你所提出的论点；你知道，你可能是对的，即特权已经被放弃。但我认为你刚才所说的内容尚未提交法院以作出该项决定。对吗？因此，就G-Club及其反对批准该和解协议并作出本命令而言，你会主张应驳回其异议，因为不存在特权？卢夫特先生：就其异议而言，如我所理解，即他们现在有限地——\n\n案件22-50073，文件2080，提交于08/11/23，录入于08/11/23 17:27:05，第162页，共\n\n案件22-50073，文件2080，提交于08/11/23，录入于08/11/23 17:27:05，第163页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年7月18日\n\n1　担忧其在HCHK处存有享有特权的文件，\n2　我会说应驳回该异议，因为对我而言，任何此类文件\n3　所享有的任何特权似乎都\n4　已被放弃。\n是的，法官阁下。\n5　法院：\n好的。\n6　卢夫特先生：\n至于保密性，如果我认为自己正确听到了他的意思，听起来他们\n7　对此已不再那么担忧。\n8　\n9　法院：\n这正是他说的。\n10　卢夫特先生：\n好的。\n因此，我将假定\n11　我们已有的措辞无需再进一步讨论该\n12　问题。\n13　法院：\n或者你们双方可以进行进一步讨论，\n14　无论是保密还是高度保密，\n15　已有保护令处理这些\n16　问题。\n17　卢夫特先生：\n我同意，法官阁下。\n18　法院：\n好的。\n19　卢夫特先生：\n而且我将——因此，我认为就此而言，连同\n20　法官阁下已经讨论过的修改，\n21　我认为摆在我们面前的确实唯一问题\n22　就是该特权问题。而且，正如我所说，我\n23　认为存在放弃，但我认为问题就在这里。\n24　除此之外，我将假定其其他\n25　论点已根据今天的意见得到处理。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年7月18日，第146页：法院：是。我们必须——是。我必须考虑是否要你们就放弃问题采取任何行动。但我同意。斯克拉兹律师已表示，保密性并非他们的重大问题。他们理解，并将与你们合作处理——保护令中各项保护措施将如何适用于保密信息的问题。卢夫特先生：好的。法院：至于特权问题，我们将讨论该问题，但我知道其目前所处的阶段。卢夫特先生：谢谢。法院：那么现在让我们转向其他当事人。卢夫特先生：好的。如果我可以再提出一点？法院：当然。卢夫特先生：据我了解——关于查阅权及查阅文件，我不能——我不知道是否——与贾雷克先生（Mr. Jareck）交谈后，似乎他们并不知道有人被拒绝访问该等文件的问题。但坦率说，法官阁下，我确实担忧证据保全和毁损。就——\n\n案件22-50073，文件2080，提交于08/11/23，录入于08/11/23 17:27:05，第164页，共\n\n案件22-50073，文件2080，提交于08/11/23，录入于08/11/23 17:27:05，第165页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年7月18日，第147页：已经可获得访问权或访问权已恢复的范围而言，我不希望G-Club变更目前存在的任何文件。而且那将是我唯一的——法院：嗯，如果它们在云端，他们如何变更它们？他们可以复制它们。卢夫特先生：嗯，如果他们现在有访问权，法官阁下，或者如果他们获得了访问权，如果他们曾有访问权——法院：嗯，我不知道你——我的意思是，我不知道在有人具体提出某些事项之前，我可能对此做什么。我听到了你的说法。但是，你知道，你有一名律师——卢夫特先生：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？我相信他们已告知其客户存在诉讼保全令，或者无论他们想如何称呼它。而如果他们的客户继续销毁文件，那么就必须有人展示并证明该事实，然后再据此处理。目前，我不会解决有关云端文件的这个问题。卢夫特先生：法官阁下，我理解这一点。我想，从我们的角度来看，通过这项和解协议，允许受托人查阅，至少确保我们有能力看到当时存在什么。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年7月18日，第148页：他们是否也可以访问并阅读当时存在的内容，是另一个问题。我同意您的意见，这不应由法官阁下来决定。我只是说，本和解协议中该条款之所以重要，原因之一是让我们能够看到其中有什么，了解该情况，并掌握该信息。我的陈述到此为止。法院：我理解。卢夫特先生：法官阁下，关于喜马拉雅实体（Himalayan entities），我将非常简要。除非法官阁下有问题，否则我不会逐一说明全部内容。法院：不。请继续。卢夫特先生：非常简要地说，关于是否为该免责给予适当对价的观点，存在多项论点。我认为我们几乎是在透过镜子看这个问题。通常，当受托人给予免责时，是否有充分对价的问题，是财产是否为该免责获得充分对价的问题。然而，这些人，即喜马拉雅实体，似乎在谈论他们是否因受让人获得免责而得到足够对价。我只是认为这不是9019下应当审查的问题。受托人正在给予免责，而问题是我们是否获得了足够回报？我认为我上次就为何我们认为这是一个良好和解协议、以及财产所获得的对价所作的论述，已回答了该问题。我认为这解决了该问题。至于有人提出，因为存在免责条款和导流禁令，随后我们听取了意见，并相应地试图寻求妥协和一些措辞，这就意味着我们以某种方式认为那些最初条款不重要，我认为这有些不真诚，法官阁下。这就是我们在这里所做工作的过程。人们前来提出异议，我们不会充耳不闻，我们尝试聆听，并且在能够找到达成解决方案的办法时，这就是我们所尝试做的。我认为，如果实际上每次有人妥协时，你就说这意味着其一开始必定并不认真，那将是糟糕的公共政策。我只是认为那并不合理。最后，关于——把关机制的观点，我将留给贾雷克先生处理。我认为他已说明担忧的依据。但我将谈及这样一个事实，即已经多次提到，我们所载入的——\n\n案件22-50073，文件2080，提交于08/11/23，录入于08/11/23 17:27:05，第166页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年7月18日，第149页：问题是我们是否获得了足够回报？我认为我上次就为何我们认为这是一个良好和解协议、以及财产所获得的对价所作的论述，已回答了该问题。我认为这解决了该问题。至于有人提出，因为存在免责条款和导流禁令，随后我们听取了意见，并相应地试图寻求妥协和一些措辞，这就意味着我们以某种方式认为那些最初条款不重要，我认为这有些不真诚，法官阁下。这就是我们在这里所做工作的过程。人们前来提出异议，我们不会充耳不闻，我们尝试聆听，并且在能够找到达成解决方案的办法时，这就是我们所尝试做的。我认为，如果实际上每次有人妥协时，你就说这意味着其一开始必定并不认真，那将是糟糕的公共政策。我只是认为那并不合理。最后，关于——把关机制的观点，我将留给贾雷克先生处理。我认为他已说明担忧的依据。但我将谈及这样一个事实，即已经多次提到，我们所载入的——\n\n案件22-50073，文件2080，提交于08/11/23，录入于08/11/23 17:27:05，第167页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 150 修订后的命令尚未——我认为——依据 9013 得到支持，或者我们没有写——提交书面材料——法庭：是的。顺便说一句，书面陈述中关于 9013 的表述并不正确。9013 并未就对价作出任何规定。它是一项动议。这是一项关于动议的规则。LUFT先生（卢夫特）：正确，法官阁下。法庭：因此，我已经看过了，其中关于 9013 规定内容的表述不准确。LUFT先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我只想说明，就其他意见而言，若认为我们未以某种方式提交或未予支持，法官阁下并未要求我们就修订后的动议提交书面陈述。您要求我们将对保护令的修改提交进来。法庭：对。我同意。LUFT先生：因此，我认为，因我们未进一步展开说明而对此提出异议，是不公平的。法庭：我并不担心那个问题。LUFT先生：我也不担心，法官阁下。法庭：好的。LUFT先生：我没有进一步的问题——我没有意见。您有什么问题要问我吗？法庭：关于第 14 段，美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）的最终立场是什么？案号 22-50073 文件 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 168 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 151 LUFT先生：我让 Jareck先生（贾雷克）——DESPINS先生（德斯平斯）：我来说明。LUFT先生：——或者 Despins先生愿意就此发言。法庭：好的。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，我想就第 13 段和第 14 段作出说明。这两段均以“如果法庭作出有利于受托人的终局性裁定”为开头。第 13 段——第 14 段均未说“如果第 13 段所述免责生效”。因此，它们彼此关联。这两段均不会生效，除非您已认定我们是正确的，并且这些实体是债务人的另我。如果是这样，它们就不是第三方请求权人。“它们是我们的债权人”，引号内的原话，并且我们当然对它们享有管辖权。一旦我们完成这一点，显然法庭就有管辖权说，为避免规避我的命令、您的命令的请求权，这些请求权均获免责；我将要求人们向法庭提交一项简单动议，说明我正在起诉该受让人。我拥有直接请求权。法官阁下将会作出判断，并说，好的，这是直接请求权，放行。或者这不是直接请求权，它已经获得免责。案号 22-50073 文件 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 169 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 170 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 152 您当然有管辖权这样做，因为这两项规定在您认定它们是另我之前不会启动。届时，它们是我们的债权人。您显然对它们享有管辖权。因此，我想确保这一点。您可能会说，既然这现在尚未启动，为什么要将其写进去？因为受让人想知道，如果我们胜诉，他将获得该项利益。因此，这就是现在将其写入的原因。但是在今天，这些规定——今天并未发生这种情况。如果法官阁下裁定我们在另我问题上胜诉，则其将自动发生，顺便说一句。因此，对它们的管辖权基础是充分具备的。法庭可以作出该项裁定，完全不存在任何问题。而且，General Motors（通用汽车）案在这一点上完全相同。那是一次出售，但这里的要点相同。无论是免责还是出售，要点都是相同的。因此，我们认为法庭可以这样做，并且有管辖权这样做。如果有我未说明之处，我很乐意说明。法庭：没有。我目前没有进一步的问题。谢谢。DESPINS先生：谢谢。法庭：好的。还有其他人希望\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 171 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 153 陈述意见吗？McCLAMMY女士（麦克拉米）：非常简短地说几句，法官阁下？法庭：当然。McCLAMMY女士：我可以上前吗？法庭：当然可以。McCLAMMY女士：我只是想回应 Luft先生的意见，因为不坦诚并非我的习惯，我不希望记录显示如此。我们非常感谢对免责条款作出的修改，而且，如同您我先前讨论的那样，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请求权。并且不存在任何论点称，我的当事人本应就该免责获得对价，因为该免责对他们并无约束力。关于对价的论点——或许措辞不够恰当——是为了说明，这项命令，尤其是第 14 段，如我们所讨论、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带来负担，而他们没有获得任何相应利益。因此，从他们的角度看，这项和解完全是单方面的。显然，这对破产财产是很好的结果。显然，它向受让人提供了某些事项。它没有向我们提供任何有价值的东西，但同时却给我们施加了负担。这就是\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 172 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023\n\n1　我试图提出的论点。\n\n2　法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n3　McCLAMMY女士：\n谢谢。\n\n4　法庭：\n我理解这一点。\n\n5　今天下午还有其他人要补充吗？\n\n6　LUFT先生：\n没有，法官阁下。\n\n7　法庭：\n好的。\n\n8　抱歉。请继续，Luft律师。哦，您说\n\n9　没有？\n\n10　LUFT先生：\n没有，法官阁下。\n\n11　法庭：\n好的。鉴于今天下午提出的论点以及一些我尚未审阅的判例法引用，我必须审阅此事。因此，\n\n12　鉴于今天下午提出的论点以及一些我尚未审阅的判例法引用，\n\n13　我必须审阅此事。因此，\n\n14　我将对此事项保留裁定，并将相应作出裁决。\n\n15　我将相应作出裁决。\n\n16　如果，在我保留裁定期间，出于某种原因，\n\n17　我认为需要当事人提供额外材料，\n\n18　我们会通知你们，但我需要回去\n\n19　审阅此事。\n\n20　我确实认为，正如律师刚才指出的，就\n\n21　免责问题而言，过去一周已取得进展。\n\n22　我理解对第 14 段仍存在关切。我理解 G-Club（G-Club）对\n\n23　第 6 段的关切，以及受托人对第 6 段的关切。还有\n\n24　针对整个和解的其他待决异议\n\n25　由当事人提出，尤其涉及行政请求权问题。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 155 我将必须审阅所有这些问题并作出决定。如我所说，如果法庭需要其他事项，你们将会得知。否则，如果我可以在不要求任何其他材料的情况下作出裁决，我就会这样做。如果不能，那么我将要求你们提供，我们再据此继续进行。我知道各方都希望此事尽早解决，我也是如此，我会尽力做到这一点。我们还有其他事项、其他案件、其他事务，但我们将审阅此事，并将尽可能尽快解决。今天下午还有其他人有事吗？DESPINS先生：法官阁下，我只是想确认一下，如果我没弄错，我们下一次听证会是在 August 2nd。是同一——法庭：我目前不知道。DESPINS先生：好的。法庭：但我想我可以看一下。DESPINS先生：嗯，不，您不必。我只是——法庭：我可以看一下。我们都可以看一下。我不知道。是的。至少目前日历是这样显示的。案号 22-50073 文件 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 173 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023 156 DESPINS先生：目前是这样，对。法庭：August 2nd，仅就对抗程序举行听证会，即请求驳回对抗程序的动议。这是日历显示的内容。至少根据我现在看到的，这就是全部内容。我可能遗漏了什么吗？当然有可能。但看来下一次听证会是在 August 2nd，就对抗程序 22-5027 中请求驳回该对抗程序的动议举行。DESPINS先生：好的。谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：好吗？好的。今天的听证会至此结束。这是今天日历上的最后一项事项，因此，法庭休庭。谢谢。全体律师：谢谢，法官阁下。（程序于下午 3:31 结束。）案号 22-50073 文件 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 174 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2080 提交于 08/11/23 录入于 08/11/23 17:27:05 第 175 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023\n\n1　本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），经法院批准的誊录员及认证电子记录员和誊录员，证明\n\n2　上述内容系对上述\n\n3　案件程序官方电子录音的正确誊本。\n\n8　July 24, 2023\n\n9　Christine Fiore（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），CERT\n\n10　誊录员\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 18, 2023\n\n3　目录\n\n5　债务人方证人：　直接询问　交叉询问\n\n6　Aaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）　28","key_entities":["GTV","Saraca","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je","Guo","HCHK","Paul Hastings","Himalaya","Luc Despins","GETTR","CIPA","Miles Guo","William Je","G Clubs"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":203,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":758,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1805,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1893,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2006,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2007,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":47463,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-08-11 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-08-11","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:06:04"}