{"id":"court_ctb_2115_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2115,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-08-23","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"庭审记录 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #2115（2023-08-23立案）。本文件为2023年8月15日Julie A. Manning法官主持的庭审官方记录，审理了包括聘用Bohonnon律所担任特别海事法律顾问及其最终费用申请（3,381.00美元）、中期报酬程序动议以及审前会议等多项事宜。","summary_en":"Hearing transcript — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #2115 (filed 2023-08-23). This document is the official transcript of the August 15, 2023 hearing before Judge Julie A. Manning, covering several motions including the retention and final fee application of Bohonnon as special maritime counsel ($3,381.00), interim compensation procedures, and pretrial conference matters.","body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC, \\* Adv. Proc No. 22-05002 et al., \\* Plaintiff, \\* v. \\* \\* KWOK, et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* LUC A. DESPINS, et al., \\* Adv. Proc No. 23-05013 Chapter 11 Trustee, \\* \\* Plaintiff, \\* \\* v. \\* \\* HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., \\* et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS \\* Adv. Proc No. 22-05003 INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, \\* \\* Plaintiff, \\* v. \\* \\* DESPINS, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* August 15, 2023 Defendant. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\n| 2 |  |\n|---|--|\n|   |  |\n|   |  |\n|   |  |\n\n| #1362 | MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH BK.RULE 2004   |\n|-------|-------------------------------------------------|\n|       | SUBPOENA BY UBS                                 |\n| #2025 | JOINT RETENTION & INTERIM FEE APPLICATION       |\n|       | PRETRIAL CONFERENCE #1; COMPLAINT               |\n| # 253 | CONTINUE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE                    |\n| #2002 | MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES        |\n|       | INTERIM COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF       |\n|       | EXPENSES FOR RETAINED PROFESSIONALS             |\n| #2065 | MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING TRUSTEE'S AND      |\n|       | GENEVER DEBTORS' COUNSEL TO FILE SECOND INTERIM |\n|       | FEE APPLICATIONS LESS THAN 120 DAYS AFTER       |\n|       | FILING FIRST INTERIM FEE APPLICATIONS           |\n|       |                                                 |\n\nAPPEARANCES: Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: AVRAM EMMANUEL LUFT, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 DOUGLAS S. SKALKA, ESQ. Neubert Pepe and Monteith 195 Church Street,13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 For Creditors Committee: KRISTIN B. MAYHEW, ESQ. Pullman & Comley LLC 850 Main Street, 8th Floor P.O. Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601 For U.S. Trustee: STEVEN E. MACKEY, ESQ. Office of U.S. Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 For HCHK Creditors: JOSEPH PASTORE, ESQ. Pastore, LLC 4 High Ridge Park, Third Floor Stamford, CT 06905 For HK International Funds JAMES MORIARTY, ESQ. Investments, LLC and Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. Mei Guo: 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\n3\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 4 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 4 (Proceedings commenced at 12:06 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, please, starting with the Chapter 11 trustee. MR. DESPINS: Luc Despins, Chapter 11 trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LUFT: Avi Luft, of Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SKALKA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Douglas Skalka, Neubert, Pepe and Monteith, also on behalf of the Chapter 11 trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristin Mayhew, Pullman and Comley, on behalf of the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MACKEY: Steven Mackey for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Has everyone noticed -- noted their appearances that would like to appear in the matters at noon? MR. PASTORE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Joseph Pastore, representing the HCHK Creditors. It's an open\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 5 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 5 question in my mind whether we have standing to speak in the status conference. We did a motion to intervene, but that motion has obviously not been ruled on yet. So I'm happy to participate, but I wanted to do it deferentially and not just assume that I was participating. THE COURT: Thank you. I think what we'll do first, counsel, is probably take up the matters that are not the status conference first, and then we'll see where we go from there. MR. PASTORE: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. PASTORE: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So on the calendar today, there are a few matters, but the first is -- the first matter on the calendar is the joint retention and interim fee application filed by Attorney Skalka. Are we proceeding with that matter first? MR. DESPINS: This is for the retention of the maritime counsel? THE COURT: I believe so. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. Yes, we are. We can proceed, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. For the record, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 trustee.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 6 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 6 So this is a combined retention application and final fee application for the law firm of Bohonnon, which was special maritime counsel. So just to give the Court a bit of background, as you know, we had to proceed with the sale of the Lady May. We knew enough to know that we don't know -- at Paul Hastings, we don't have maritime law expertise, so we did the bulk of the work, but there were issues involving the closing. You know, it has to be close -- the yacht has to be outside of the U.S. territorial waters. There's a whole process to do that. We were not competent to do that, so we retained this Connecticut firm based in Hartford to provide those services, and they were -- they did it in a very cost effective way. Their fees are only \\$3,381 and change. And I know that the U.S. trustee filed a no objection statement and, therefore, unless the Court has concerns or comments, we would like the Court to approve both the retention and the final fee application for that firm. THE COURT: I have no questions or concerns and I agree that the amount sought is extremely reasonable under the circumstances. I think it's less than \\$4,000 total for services that needed to be provided in connection with the sale of the Lady May.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 7 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 7 So I have no questions or concerns. And I note that I have not seen any party file any objection to the application and no one is participating in this hearing today that I'm aware of that's objecting to the application. So, Mr. Mackey, did you wish to be heard? MR. MACKEY: Only to the extent of putting it on the record that the U.S. Trustee's statement of no objection was filed by Attorney Claiborn and it's Document 2040. THE COURT: Thank you. So for those reasons, Trustee Despins, the application to employ and to compensate special counsel is granted and the proposed order -- I'm looking at the proposed order right now. The only thing we'll add at some point to the order, the courtroom deputy can add that we can just say that there was a hearing held today on it, and then, otherwise, the proposed order can enter. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DESPINS: So we -- if we skip over the pretrial conference, if that's okay with Your Honor -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: -- we could move to the next matter, which is a motion of the trustee and the Genever debtors to -- for an order establishing procedures for interim compensation. We had mentioned -- it's at Docket No. 2002.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 8 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>8                           |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | We had mentioned that this was coming at the, I              |\n| 2  | guess, at the hearing on the first -- or I guess second fee  |\n| 3  | application of Paul Hastings and the Neubert Pepe firm.      |\n| 4  | And basically, we've had discussions with the                |\n| 5  | committee and with the U.S. trustee to establish these       |\n| 6  | procedures, which have been approved in many other cases.    |\n| 7  | And we filed a motion in -- and after the motion             |\n| 8  | was filed we had discussions with Attorney Claiborne from    |\n| 9  | the U.S. Trustee's Office to modify the order to reflect     |\n| 10 | some of her comments and we filed a notice of amended        |\n| 11 | revised proposed order at Docket No. 2047.                   |\n| 12 | And essentially the changes requested by the                 |\n| 13 | trustees were that she -- well, all parties in interest that |\n| 14 | are -- that have the right to object would have a 21-day     |\n| 15 | period to object.                                            |\n| 16 | And in addition to that, she was concerned about             |\n| 17 | the fact that if we do -- prepare fee applications on a      |\n| 18 | monthly basis, there's a -- her view was that in her         |\n| 19 | experience, that increases the cost to the estate and,       |\n| 20 | therefore, we've agreed and the committee also agreed -- or  |\n| 21 | committee counsel agreed to limit the amount of hours that   |\n| 22 | could be charged for the preparation of these monthly fee    |\n| 23 | statements to five hours.                                    |\n| 24 | And that's in the new Section Q on page five of              |\n| 25 | the revised order at Docket No. 2047.<br>That reflects that  |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 9 agreement to limit the number of hours that can be spent on these monthly statements. The other change I mentioned to give -- to move from 14 to 21 days is reflected on page three, paragraph D, as in David, of the revised proposed order. Again at 2047. Other than these two changes, I believe that we -- we've -- obviously the committee was involved through committee counsel. We received no other comments or questions and, therefore, I'm happy to entertain any question the Court may have, but otherwise we would ask the Court to enter the order. THE COURT: I looked at this revised order not today. I'm looking at it again now. I did before, so I've forgotten some of it, but I'm looking at it again right at the moment to see if I have any questions. I apologize. I don't remember, what happens if there's a dispute? MR. DESPINS: If there's a dispute, the -- the dispute is -- is heard at the next interim fee application, so that you don't have to deal with this on a monthly basis. So it's kicked to -- in this case, the first fee application would probably be in November, subject to Your Honor's calendar. Would probably be in November, so if there's an objection to the monthly statements filed in September, they Case 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 9 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 10 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>10                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | would be heard at the first interim application after that    |\n| 2  | and so on and so forth after that for the subsequent --       |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>So this process commences with the              |\n| 4  | period ending August 31st?<br>Does that mean you can file --  |\n| 5  | you're not going to file something -- let me say it -- let    |\n| 6  | me try to make that make sense, what I was trying to say.     |\n| 7  | The first application that you file that to which             |\n| 8  | this process would apply would include time through and       |\n| 9  | including August 31st?<br>Is that correct?                    |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Correct.<br>But as we will see from           |\n| 11 | the next motion, Your Honor may probably knows this, but we   |\n| 12 | did file both the Neubert and Paul Hastings filed a fee       |\n| 13 | application that we're asking -- well, the Court has already  |\n| 14 | scheduled a hearing for mid-September on it.<br>So that's not |\n| 15 | filed pursuant to --                                          |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Right.                                          |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- this process, although we've               |\n| 18 | applied the same 20 percent hold back --                      |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                           |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- because that was part of the               |\n| 21 | agreement with U.S. Trustee and with the committee.           |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>I did note that when I reviewed        |\n| 23 | this previous to today's hearing that the fee applications    |\n| 24 | that are scheduled for hearing, this process does not apply   |\n| 25 | to those fee applications.                                    |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 11 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 11 MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. And I just note, and I have no problem with it, but the hearing on this -- this process, which is the motion for order 202, was scheduled for 1:00 p.m. and it's 12:15, so we're a little early. MR. DESPINS: Huh. THE COURT: I don't think anyone is going to show that's not already here, and if they do, I'll -- I'll deal with that, but I don't think that is an issue from the Court's perspective. Does the committee or the U.S. Trustee wish to be heard on these issues? MR. MACKEY: Your Honor, Steven Mackey for the U.S. Trustee. As to the procedures, this, again, was negotiated with the U.S. Trustee and the committee and trustee's counsel. And a statement of no objection was -- was filed, by again, Attorney Claiborn, who is on vacation this week. And it is Docket No. 2067. So there's no objection from the U.S. trustee in setting up these procedures. It will save money and I think shortcut the amount of the work of all the parties, too. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. MAYHEW: Kristin Mayhew on behalf of the committee. I would like to just note the committee support\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 12 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 12 for the motion. We were certainly consulted and involved in the drafting of the procedure's motion and we agree that it's fair and reasonable and makes sense in terms of keeping costs down. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. I'm looking at the red lined version of the order. The revised proposed order. That is -- that was filed at ECF No. 2047. I'm just taking a moment, Trustee Despins, just to review it again, if you don't mind. (Pause.) MR. DESPINS: I may have misspoken, Your Honor. You asked me when does this apply. I think that July -- July fees -- if Your Honor enters the order today, the July fees would be subject to this order. THE COURT: I think -- I think that's what I anticipated. MR. DESPINS: And I said August before. THE COURT: What I meant was you wouldn't -- it seemed to me anyway that the first fee application you would file that to which this process would apply would have time through August 31st. MR. DESPINS: The first monthly statement, yeah. THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: That's fine. I understand it. I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 13 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 13 mean -- MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: -- I think it's fine. Obviously, as we all know, the -- the ability to do this in this case is because there's now funds -- there are now funds available to do this. If it wasn't a -- if there was a situation where there were not funds in the estate or, you know, it may be not warranted, but in the circumstances that exist now in this case, I think it's fine to proceed in this manner. That obviously, you know, could change at some point in the future, but hopefully not, because obviously the hope is that there will be, you know, that you will be able to recover whatever it is you can recover for creditors of the estate, and so then if that's the situation -- but as I've said to people in the past, these types of processes make sense in certain conditions and the conditions exist in this case right now. So I think it's fine. So the proposed order that is at ECF No. 2047 can enter. The only change that I would note to the courtroom deputy is on the first page of the order. They're just a blank for today's hearing date. So we'll just have to add today's date, please. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: And otherwise, under the specific\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 14 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 14 facts and circumstances of the case, including the developments that have happened over the last many months in this case, the process is warranted, and will continue unless and until it's not. And, you know, it may never -- it may always continue. So for this -- for this motion, the motion is granted for the reasons stated on the record, and the proposed order with that minor change of the addition of today's hearing date will enter. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: We have this 1 o'clock issue for the next matter, too, which is the motion to authorize the trustee and the general debtor's counsel to file the fee applications that have been filed just -- THE COURT: I think we can take that up as well. MR. DESPINS: Okay. So -- so Your Honor this is at Docket No. 2065. It's a hyper technical issue, but, you know, Section 331 of the code provides that fee applications may not be heard on less than 120 day intervals and it says unless the Court orders otherwise, we and local counsel have filed our second fee application, which has been scheduled for a hearing in mid-September. I want to say the 15th, but I'm not 100 percent sure of that, but it's in the vicinity.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 15 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 15 And we just wanted to have a ruling that the -- that the Court authorizes that process, not approving the actual applications themselves, but just the hearing on such applications despite Section 331 that the Court enters an order allowing for that. And I believe that we've received no objections or comments to that motion as well. THE COURT: Does anyone wish to be heard on the trustee's motion for order authorizing filing of fee applications for less than 120 days? MR. MACKEY: Your Honor, again, Steven Mackey for the U.S. trustee. It has been reviewed by the U.S. trustee. We have not filed a statement to it, but we have no objection to it. It would clear up all the fee matters that will have taken place and accrued prior to the new interim payment scheme of which Your Honor has just approved. THE COURT: Right. Anyone else wish to be heard? I'm just looking at the proposed order again, Trustee Despins. (Pause.) THE COURT: The only thing I would add to this order is the -- courtroom deputy we can do that as after a hearing held on. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. Because I note for the record\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 16 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 16 that I see no objections filed with regard to the motion. There is no one participating in this hearing that is objecting to the motion. The United States Trustee's Office has stated they have no objection to the motion. For all those reasons, the motion is granted and the proposed order with the minor change noted on the record will enter. MR. DESPINS: So at this point -- thank you, Your Honor. At this point, I would cede the podium to Mr. Luft, who will handle the pretrial conference of the HCHK matter. THE COURT: And before that, we continued -- there was a continuance of one of the pretrial conferences today. That continuance was filed last night with regard to the -- MR. DESPINS: Sherry Netherland. THE COURT: Sherry Netherland, correct? MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. And I think that's already been given a new date. I'm not sure about that, if it's been processed yet. Sometime in September. But you anticipate at some point either going forward with that pretrial conference or having some form of a resolution. Is that what I read or am I wrong about that? I could be wrong, because I could be confusing it with one of the other many things in these cases. MR. DESPINS: Yes. Yes, so this is not Bravo\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 17 Luck. This is the issue -- THE COURT: No. I know it's not Bravo Luck. Right. MR. DESPINS: -- so unclear, Your Honor. There's no real urgency, because unfortunately nobody can live in that apartment at this point. So I think that if Your Honor was so inclined, I would kick that further down the road, but because I don't think there will be any activity in that adversary proceeding short term. THE COURT: Do you think -- I don't know if the new date has been assigned, but you're saying you would like it to go beyond September? I think the request was for 30 days. MR. DESPINS: That's true. THE COURT: That's what I recall. MR. DESPINS: That's true. So we have consent from the other parties to 30 days -- THE COURT: Maybe if you have -- MR. DESPINS: -- so I should not ask for -- THE COURT: -- consent again, why don't you file it in advance -- MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: -- and it will get continued -- MR. DESPINS: Yes.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 18 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>18                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>-- again.                                        |\n| 2  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes.<br>Yes, Your Honor.                       |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                            |\n| 4  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Thank you.                                     |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                       |\n| 6  | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, may I approach?                       |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Yes, please.                                     |\n| 8  | MR. LUFT:<br>And, Your Honor, I know Mr. Pastore               |\n| 9  | asked earlier whether he could participate.<br>I certainly     |\n| 10 | have no objection to him being heard on this.                  |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>I have no objection to him being heard           |\n| 12 | either, understanding that you -- there is no ruling on the    |\n| 13 | motion to intervene at this point.                             |\n| 14 | I know the parties -- I don't remember what the                |\n| 15 | dates are, but I know there's dates that you've agreed to or   |\n| 16 | maybe the Court has ordered.<br>I don't remember at the moment |\n| 17 | with regard to response of pleadings, and issues related to    |\n| 18 | the discovery.<br>Right?<br>There's still --                   |\n| 19 | MR. LUFT:<br>Correct, Your Honor.                              |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>-- discovery.<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>So,      |\n| 21 | Mr. Pastore, would you just note your appearance for the       |\n| 22 | record, please?                                                |\n| 23 | MR. PASTORE:<br>Sure.<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.           |\n| 24 | Joseph Pastore, the law firm of Pastore, LLC.<br>I represent   |\n| 25 | the HCHK creditors as we defined in this case.<br>With me      |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 19 today is my colleague, Paul Fenaroli, whose appearance has been put on file. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. PASTORE: My colleague, Melissa McClammy, who has appeared before you is on vacation this week. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. And I'm sorry, I mispronounced your name. I said Pastori. It's Pastore. So -- MR. PASTORE: It's been happening since second grade, Your Honor. No problem. THE COURT: Unfortunately, I'm sure that's true. Okay. Go right ahead, Attorney Luft. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. Avi Luft of Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 trustee. So, Your Honor, in some ways, the issues that you just teed up about these dates are really what's before us. As Your Honor knows, we have the 9019 settlement, has been put through. As part of that, the assignee does not intend to oppose the action we have filed with regard to alter ego and equitable ownership of HCHK. Obviously, if that -- if there is no other interveners and that is the situation and we move forward, we'll move very quickly to summary judgment and try to wrap that up quickly in terms of schedule. But we do have proposed interveners in the case.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 19 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 20 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>20                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | They have put in their papers, and I believe if it's         |\n| 2  | helpful, I'll do it off the top of my head, but I believe    |\n| 3  | the -- we are supposed to conclude discovery by September    |\n| 4  | 8th and I believe we're supposed to file our opposition by   |\n| 5  | September 15th.                                              |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>That sounds right.                             |\n| 7  | MR. LUFT:<br>And since we were last in front of you,         |\n| 8  | Your Honor, when we had the video, the Zoom conference, and  |\n| 9  | we talked about the discovery, it was agreed that they would |\n| 10 | send -- I say them, the proposed interveners would serve us  |\n| 11 | with new objections and responses given that their last one  |\n| 12 | were not specific to the claims.<br>We've received those and |\n| 13 | then if we had issues with it, our motion to compel would be |\n| 14 | due today.                                                   |\n| 15 | So I want -- I say that as background, because I             |\n| 16 | think this is where we are right now, Your Honor.<br>We got  |\n| 17 | the objections and responses and what they said is they have |\n| 18 | blanket objected to all depositions and they have objected   |\n| 19 | to the vast majority of our document requests.<br>And in     |\n| 20 | particular, all those going to anything related to the       |\n| 21 | interveners relationship and connection with the debtor and  |\n| 22 | his agents, plus some other things, including documents that |\n| 23 | would identify who was involved with these alleged loans.    |\n| 24 | I have no intention of arguing that here today,              |\n| 25 | but I say that in the context of most of those objections    |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 21 are centered around the fact as I see them, argument of burden on the grounds that they are still technically non- parties. I had understood Your Honor's order seeking discovery to be basically putting that squarely at what's issued, saying well, that's what we're going to get discovery about. We're going to find out -- we'll get this information and we'll figure out that, because it will go to intervention. But the objections we've got in back to my mind were one step forward and two steps backwards in that they're now objecting on the same grounds that because they're not technically in the case, we won't get the discovery we need. So I've been thinking about this and I haven't had a chance to talk to Mr. Pastore about it beforehand, but I'm trying to -- what I really care about, Your Honor, is I just want to know who these people are. I want to know if they have valid claims and I want to know if they're being pushed by the debtor. If they're being controlled by him. You know, to my mind, that all kind of goes to issues of standing. If what's -- I don't want to go through a whole process and back up our schedule to just fight over whether they're technically in there and then we have an issue on Case 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 21 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 22 appeal as to whether or not technically they were in or they were not. So one thought I had, and I'm happy to discuss it, is I want to find a way to make sure that this discovery happens. I think we all agreed on the phone call the other day that both is relevant to intervention and relevant to their request to amend the TRO. Look, I don't -- I want to be practical minded. If, in fact, saying that they can intervene means that they now feel that they are technically in the case and we can then agree that we will immediately do -- take the discovery we're going to do and call it standing discovery, and that issue will be resolved after we have that, that issue will be resolved through what would then I guess be called a motion for summary judgment with regard to their standing or some form of that before we get to the merits, if that resolves these objections and we can actually get the discovery, that's okay with me. Alternatively, if we just can move ahead, I'll file my motion to compel and we can go ahead with that. You know, I don't want to burden the Court with an unnecessary motion. It's literally as simple as what we're calling it and making sure that we can do that. If that resolves the burden objections, because now they are not technically non-parties, but parties that Case 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 22 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 23 can work. But in terms of a status, so that's kind of where I see it. Thank you. Mr. Despins corrects me. It would be a provisional grant to intervene pending -- THE COURT: Well, I don't think -- MR. LUFT: -- something. THE COURT: -- you can let them intervene and then say they don't have standing. I mean -- MR. LUFT: Well, I guess that's the question -- THE COURT: Right. MR. LUFT: -- Your Honor. That -- THE COURT: But I agree and we'll have -- well, maybe Mr. Pastore, we'll all have to talk, but you filed a motion to intervene to which the trustee objected and said they needed discovery to determine whether or not you're a party who could intervene, and I said, I believe, but I could be wrong, so you all can correct me, that at a conference we had on the two related -- what I see as related motions, although I think your motion to clarify the TRO, that issue has been resolved in some respects by the assignee saying they're not going to take any action in New York until and after this Court resolves this issue. That the discovery was to go to the issue of who you are, your creditors are, and why they would have standing. So I understand what I -- I think I understand\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 23 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 24 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>24                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | what I just heard, which is that your clients have objected  |\n| 2  | to every -- to all discovery at this point --                |\n| 3  | MR. LUFT:<br>No.                                             |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>No?                                            |\n| 5  | MR. LUFT:<br>That's not right.                               |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Then let's clarify that.                       |\n| 7  | MR. LUFT:<br>They've objected to all depositions.            |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 9  | MR. LUFT:<br>They've reject -- objected to the               |\n| 10 | majority of the document requests, including all those going |\n| 11 | to any connection with the debtor and his affiliates and     |\n| 12 | they have objected to a document request asking them to      |\n| 13 | identify who was involved, sufficient to show individual     |\n| 14 | involved with the loan.<br>They have agreed to produce --    |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 16 | MR. LUFT:<br>-- documents that would go to what they         |\n| 17 | say are the loans that they made.<br>So --                   |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>And when -- and that's going to be             |\n| 19 | produced on or before September 8th?                         |\n| 20 | MR. PASTORE:<br>That's correct, Your Honor.<br>May           |\n| 21 | I -- may I speak for a --                                    |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Yes, please.                                   |\n| 23 | MR. PASTORE:<br>-- because I respectively disagree           |\n| 24 | with Mr. Luft a bit.<br>And just so we can get on the same   |\n| 25 | page.                                                        |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 25 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 25 We served our objection as we said we should after the last conference, and then we had an hour or two hour meet and confer on the objection, where we further agreed to produce more. And what we agreed to produce initially were all documents related to the loans. All -- THE COURT: May I -- may I ask you a question about that? MR. PASTORE: Sure. THE COURT: So when I -- when you say the loans, my recollection and -- so, again, you please correct me. In the motion to intervene, I think you attached, or in some pleading you attached a loan, a note, right? Three different notes, isn't that what it was? MR. PASTORE: Yeah. And one wire transfer. THE COURT: Okay. So when you talk about the loan documents, you're going to produce the entire loan document file that your client has with regard to that transaction? MR. PASTORE: Correct. Any documents we have related to the loans we've agreed to produce, and we did that in our objections. We did state objections, but those were -- that was a category we did agree to produce. And at the meet and confer, we also agreed to produce any document showing the source of the funds for the loans, which we think is extraordinary and not really\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 26 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>26                         |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | relevant or necessary, but we did that in good faith to try |\n| 2  | to limit the dispute, because if you're a creditor and you  |\n| 3  | have right, title, and interest in the money, it really     |\n| 4  | doesn't matter where you got it from to determine whether   |\n| 5  | you're a creditor or not, but we said we would take the     |\n| 6  | extra step and try to demonstrate the source of the funds   |\n| 7  | the creditors had to eliminate any possible discovery       |\n| 8  | disputes.                                                   |\n| 9  | We did serve general objections as to the inter             |\n| 10 | relationship between the creditors and the debtor and I'm   |\n| 11 | respectful of the fact, I said this before, we are here in  |\n| 12 | act five of a play.<br>We missed the first four acts.       |\n\n But we just don't see the legal standing of a creditor, doesn't matter who their friends are or relationships are. It's did they have right, title, and interest to the funds and did they enter into a creditor type agreement and loan the money such that they're a creditor or not.\n\n And whether they have a political view consistent with the debtor, have coffee with the debtor, drive around in the debtor's cars is not really relevant legally to whether they're a creditor or not, and that was something we suggested to the trustee.\n\n We did say we've got to give you the documents that show they're a creditor and we'll even take the extra\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 27 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 27 step and give you documents to show where they got the funds from to become a creditor. We think that's reasonable. So I think Mr. Luft suggesting that we're blanket objecting is not really fair at all. We did agree to produce all these documents by September 8th and we've -- we've begun the process of gathering these documents. THE COURT: But you're not agreeing to any depositions? MR. PASTORE: At this point -- so, we couldn't find a single case, and if we brief the motion to compel, we're prepared to argue this, that says interveners have to produce any discovery to be interveners. Judge Breyer has a decision, I'm doing this off the top of my head, that says they just have to show a cognizable claim. And so we think forcing parties who are not in the United States to sit for depositions when they're not even parties to the case yet is beyond the scope of the case law and law that governs intervention, and that's why we oppose the depositions, because we couldn't reach an agreement on the depositions as to how they would be conducted, and we didn't think it was fair these people had to come to the United States to give a deposition when they're not even parties to the case yet. MR. LUFT: That's not fair. THE COURT: All right. Hold on a second. Hold on\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 28 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>28                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | a second.<br>I'm just listening to what you've just said.     |\n| 2  | So the problem is that the party who had the                  |\n| 3  | rights to these claims, right, the assignee has resolved the  |\n| 4  | issues as far as the assignment is concerned with the         |\n| 5  | trustee.                                                      |\n| 6  | And your clients want to -- want to intervene to              |\n| 7  | say that the -- I think that the assignee acted outside the   |\n| 8  | scope of his authority.<br>I think that's one of the claims   |\n| 9  | that you have, isn't it?                                      |\n| 10 | MR. PASTORE:<br>Well, I think it's also they want to          |\n| 11 | intervene to block the alter ego finding.<br>They're going to |\n| 12 | support the concept that --                                   |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>But let's just -- let's go -- i        |\n| 14 | understand that you're right.                                 |\n| 15 | MR. PASTORE:<br>Yeah.                                         |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>That's a good point.                            |\n| 17 | MR. PASTORE:<br>Right.                                        |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>But let's go back through the process           |\n| 19 | of the settlement, at least as I recall it and, again, I'm    |\n| 20 | sure everyone will correct me if I'm wrong.<br>The settlement |\n| 21 | says that nothing will happen with regard to the assignment   |\n| 22 | other than the funds coming to the -- this estate to be       |\n| 23 | invested unless and until the trustee proves the alter ego    |\n| 24 | claim.<br>I think that's accurate.                            |\n| 25 | MR. PASTORE:<br>I think that's fair.                          |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 29 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 29 THE COURT: And if that happens, then he proves the alter ego claim, then it doesn't matter whether your clients -- you see, I guess what I'm -- what I'm struggling with and I'm having some trouble with as far as next steps is if -- if the trustee prevails, everything would be collapsed anyway, because your creditors -- your creditors would all be creditors of Mr. Kwok. MR. PASTORE: Understood. But if we're right and these companies were not alter egos of the debtor and our intention is to intervene in the case and help counsel and the companies if one appears, or we'll do it ourselves, fight the concept of alter ego and if the Court agrees with us and they're not alter egos, then the money is not property of the estate and we're creditors of those companies entitled to the -- THE COURT: Right. MR. PASTORE: -- \\$27 million back. THE COURT: Right. So there's no -- there's no harm essentially insofar as if the trustee is not successful, the way the settlement works is the money all goes back to New York and you're -- you're -- I don't know what the status of the creditor body is as far as the assignment is concerned, but apparently your clients would be in control essentially. You'd have the largest claims. MR. PASTORE: I honestly don't know. I know I\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 30 represent four creditors who have claims. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PASTORE: And it seems like they have -- of the 38 million, 39, whatever it is, they have 27. So they've got a big chunk of it. THE COURT: Right. MR. PASTORE: But I don't know about the other creditors. I have no relationship there. THE COURT: So -- all right. I understand what you're saying. But the discovery, the reason that the discovery was allowed was to provide the trustee the opportunity to make a determination or an argument, whatever the trustee is going to do, to say, yeah, they're -- they are creditors, or they're not, and they shouldn't be allowed to intervene, right? That's the whole -- MR. PASTORE: Completely agree. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PASTORE: Completely agree. And so the discovery we've proposed again goes to whether we're creditors or not and even goes a step further and says you can even see where we got the money from. I don't know why they need anything else to determine if we're creditors or not. If we're friends with the debtor and maybe we are. I don't have a close personal relationship with people, that's not really relevant. Case 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 30 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 31 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>31                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Now, unfortunately, in this case, it             |\n| 2  | might be.<br>As you said, you missed the first four acts.      |\n| 3  | MR. PASTORE:<br>No.<br>I understand that.                      |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>So it might be relevant.<br>I'm not              |\n| 5  | saying -- I'm not ruling on anything.<br>Okay.<br>This is a    |\n| 6  | pretrial conference, but it might be relevant.                 |\n| 7  | There's a -- there's a bigger problem here that --             |\n| 8  | and what I have to do is I have to look at all the issues as   |\n| 9  | a whole.<br>I understand completely you represent your clients |\n| 10 | and you have to worry about your client's concerns without     |\n| 11 | question, but I have to worry about more than your client's    |\n| 12 | concerns.                                                      |\n| 13 | MR. PASTORE:<br>No, no.<br>I understand.                       |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>And so -- no, I know you do.<br>All I'm          |\n| 15 | saying is when you say it's not relevant about whether         |\n| 16 | they're friends, or that was one of the examples you gave,     |\n| 17 | that might be true in many, many cases, but in a case like     |\n| 18 | this, it might not be true.                                    |\n| 19 | And that's part of the problem we have here is                 |\n| 20 | that there are so many things that have gone on and what       |\n| 21 | apparently will continue to go on with regard to different     |\n| 22 | entities and different allegations and assertions that I       |\n| 23 | have -- I have knowledge of and/or have ruled on or has been   |\n| 24 | brought -- you know, we haven't necessarily ruled on every     |\n| 25 | motion, but allegations have been made.                        |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 32 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 32 There's pending -- there are -- I don't know how many adversary proceedings pending, but there are a lot. I think there's more than 12 or probably even closer to 20. I'm not sure, that have all kinds of issues raised with regard to this debtor and, you know, the allegation from the largest creditor when this case was filed was -- that supported the appointment of a trustee was that this debtor uses different entities to conduct business. And whether that's proven or not is not the -- that's the allegation, right? And so when the trustee was appointed, the trustee was appointed because even the debtor consented to the fact that cause existed for the Court to do something under the Chapter 1 -- you know, Section 1112 of the code that says you either dismiss, convert, or appoint a trustee. So the debtor didn't even contest that. They didn't even contest cause. They didn't think cause existed. Now, they wanted the case dismissed, but they con -- they consented that cause existed. Okay. So then Trustee Despins gets appointed and all these things happen, including this assignment proceeding in New York where somebody from these entities assigned all of their assets to, you know, to this assignee in New York of assets that the trustee claims are actually assets of the debtor's estates.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 33 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 33 So while I understand what you're saying, I'm not sure I agree -- can agree right now -- and I'm -- as I said, I'm not ruling anything. This is pretrial conference. We're having a conversation. MR. PASTORE: Right. THE COURT: But that is irrelevant. It very well may be relevant. And see that's the problem, because if it's relevant, then the discovery that saw it might be -- it may be appropriate. And so -- but let's keep talking, but I just want you to understand that while I -- your general statement -- or not your general statement, your statement may be generally true about it doesn't matter if you went to lunch with the debtor. That actually may be relevant in this case. MR. PASTORE: I understand and very respectful and have some -- I've read a lot of the decisions -- some sense of the history of the case and, you know, from our perspective we're -- we're trying to present this in the purest way we can, which is these are creditors from our perspective who loan money to companies. Those companies are not alter egos. Those creditors are entitled to be repaid. If somehow the estate is entitled, then, to take the money from the creditors, that's a different issue, but\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 34 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>34                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | as an operation of law, if they're legitimate creditors,      |\n| 2  | they should be able to intervene and they should be able to   |\n| 3  | be repaid if the companies are not alter egos, and their      |\n| 4  | personal relationships, or personal conduct doesn't change    |\n| 5  | the legal analysis of creditor.                               |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>I think it only does with regard to             |\n| 7  | whether they're legitimate creditors.<br>That's the point.    |\n| 8  | I'm not saying I agree or disagree with anybody at            |\n| 9  | this point, because I don't know.<br>I haven't seen anything. |\n| 10 | I don't know what -- well, I have an idea, of course, of the  |\n| 11 | discovery and I have an idea of your responses, and I don't   |\n| 12 | need to see them or want to see them unless and until this    |\n| 13 | is really something that the Court has to rule one, right?    |\n| 14 | And we're -- that may be what's -- where we're headed.        |\n| 15 | But the point still is it may be appropriate                  |\n| 16 | discovery under the circumstances of this case, and you may   |\n| 17 | be completely correct that you can't find a case on this      |\n| 18 | issue, and that may be because there isn't a case that has    |\n| 19 | these specific facts and circumstances that someone wrote a   |\n| 20 | decision on that you can rely on.                             |\n| 21 | So I understand your point.<br>I truly do.<br>I just -        |\n| 22 | - I'm not -- I'm not certain that -- we may just have to      |\n| 23 | have some form of rulings with regard to discovery if there   |\n| 24 | isn't -- if there's still a dispute between the -- among the  |\n| 25 | parties.                                                      |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 35 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 35 It does sound like you've made progress and I appreciate that. Okay. There's no question that a Court appreciates when parties are addressing discovery that they're working cooperatively and meeting their obligations to do so, which are obviously both sides are attempting to do. So I have no concerns that that isn't happening. However, there may be a point where I have to rule on whether the discovery sought is appropriate under the circumstances. So I understand you already had a meet and confer. I understand you are going to be producing documents by September 8th and then I think I built in some time frame or something I have a recollection of that if there is a dispute, somebody has got to file something by a certain date, and then the Court is going to have to rule, right, because isn't there -- actually, I'm not certain if there is a hearing actually set on the intervention motion yet. MR. PASTORE: I don't believe there is, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. I don't think there is actually -- MR. PASTORE: But -- THE COURT: -- because we had to get through this discovery issue first.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 36 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 36 MR. PASTORE: Right. MR. LUFT: And there is a date. It is today that we were supposed to file a motion to -- you know, a motion to compel if we have one. THE COURT: That's today? MR. LUFT: It is today. Let me -- I'll cut to the end or the middle, which is, look, I'm happy to talk to Mr. Pastore more and if we can -- if that -- if it's helpful to push out that date by a day or so or to allow us to talk more -- THE COURT: Well, if you both consent to that, I have no problem with that. MR. PASTORE: Oh, no problem. We -- I think we have three days to reply. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PASTORE: I just want to make sure we keep those three days. Yeah. MR. LUFT: Yeah. THE COURT: Yes. I mean, we would push everything out -- MR. LUFT: Yeah. THE COURT: -- if everybody is in agreement. MR. PASTORE: Of course. MR. LUFT: That's fine with me, Your Honor. I will say, and look, I'm not going to get into the back and\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 37 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 37 forth of the characterization. I think it is all fair. I guess the one thing I'll say is, and at least with my understanding, was that part of what -- and my comments before was part of my understanding of what was fueling the objections was the notion that because they had not yet intervened, they had objections to discovery that were unique, then if they had worked, technically had intervened, but there was still a question of standing. Meaning, if I had just brought a complaint against them and there was -- you know, there was a motion to dismiss no standing, you would go through that, you know -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. LUFT: -- as it would -- so and that's what I was really trying to get at, which was, look, I don't want to -- I think we need this discovery. I think we have to have it. We can disagree as to the scope. I think that what we're talking about is necessary, but I don't think it's very fruitful to effectively be in a position where that discovery is inherently always going to be hampered because of the posture of where it is. There's always an argument that it's not appropriate discovery at this point, nor do I want to create an appellate issue about that if we can all just agree on a procedure where we can do that type of standing discovery with the understanding that it is important for us to know\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 38 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>38                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | if they are valid creditors in terms of if they made loans.   |\n| 2  | We have real questions based on what we're seeing             |\n| 3  | on that.<br>It is important for us to know what is going on   |\n| 4  | with the debtor.<br>And while I understand that this may have |\n| 5  | been a lighthearted have coffee, get in the car, we know in   |\n| 6  | this case, we're not talking about our political beliefs.     |\n| 7  | We're not asking if they're both Republicans or Democrats     |\n| 8  | here, Your Honor.                                             |\n| 9  | We're asking about, quite frankly, if the debtor              |\n| 10 | is controlling or directing these entities.<br>These are for  |\n| 11 | the most part Himalayan Farms which this Court has already    |\n| 12 | found to be operative -- you know, do the business interest   |\n| 13 | and largely under the control of the debtor.                  |\n| 14 | We have very significant reasons to have questions            |\n| 15 | about whether the debtor is directing this.<br>Based on that, |\n| 16 | based on what we talked about yesterday that the evidence is  |\n| 17 | coming in that even from jail, Mr. Kwok is having Ms. Wang    |\n| 18 | direct these entities to still do that.                       |\n| 19 | I think all that is very pertinent and if what's              |\n| 20 | going to hold up getting that discovery or allow it is        |\n| 21 | figuring out this procedural mechanism, then I'm happy to     |\n| 22 | talk to Mr. Pastore, but I really do think we should try to   |\n| 23 | find a way that allows us to do this once and get it right.   |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Well, I mean, I haven't seen                    |\n| 25 | obviously, and I -- as I said, I don't think I should see     |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 39 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>39                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | until I have to rule any objections to the discovery, but I    |\n| 2  | don't think you -- well, let me say it a little differently.   |\n| 3  | It was certainly not the intention to have discovery met       |\n| 4  | with a response that I don't have to provide this yet          |\n| 5  | because I'm not an inter -- I haven't intervened.<br>That I    |\n| 6  | think -- that doesn't make any sense.                          |\n| 7  | I wouldn't have allowed the discovery.<br>I would              |\n| 8  | have just denied your motion to intervene.<br>I mean, I think  |\n| 9  | that's -- so we have to be -- you know, I think there is       |\n| 10 | utility in being practical under the circumstances, and        |\n| 11 | without question, have allowed you to participate in the       |\n| 12 | hearings, be heard, and assert positions on behalf of your     |\n| 13 | client, but you haven't -- the motion to intervene hasn't      |\n| 14 | been granted yet, so you're not an intervener yet.             |\n| 15 | However, under the circumstances, I allowed you to             |\n| 16 | be heard. I thought that it was clear, and I apologize if it   |\n| 17 | was not, that the discovery has to go to the issue of          |\n| 18 | whether or not you're entitled to intervene.<br>Not -- I don't |\n| 19 | think you can interpose an objection based upon an assertion   |\n| 20 | that because you're not inter -- you're not an intervener      |\n| 21 | yet, you're not bound by the same Rules of Civil Procedure     |\n| 22 | regarding discovery.                                           |\n| 23 | And I'm not sure that you've said that.<br>I'm                 |\n| 24 | not -- I don't even want to -- I'm not trying to get into a    |\n| 25 | whole disagreement.<br>All I'm saying is the purpose of the    |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 40 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 40 discovery from the Court's perspective was to allow the trustee, because I think it's a valid request, to determine whether or not your clients should be allowed to intervene, and I think that's valid. And, again, it's because of so many other things outside of the four corners of this complaint, and within the four corners. It's both. But as I said, you know, I have to think about, as does the trustee as the fiduciary and representative of all these estates, right, everybody, not just specific people. So I don't know how you want to handle this. I mean, if you want to take -- if you want to take a recess and talk or what you -- what you want the court to do. But it sounds like you both agree that you can extend out for a couple of days this time frame to file a motion, which would require the Court to make some rulings on discovery issues. Is that correct? MR. LUFT: It's agreeable to me. MR. PASTORE: Absolutely agreeable to us. THE COURT: Okay. And then the reply deadline would be extended out as well. MR. LUFT: Of course. THE COURT: So how do you want to handle this? Do you want to take a short recess? Do you want to report back later? What -- what do you -- what would you like to do?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 41 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 41 MR. LUFT: We can report back later, maybe, because I know that you have other things on the docket and we have people here, Your Honor. THE COURT: There's only one other thing on the docket, I think, right? Unless I've missed something. But, yes, we can report back later. That's fine. Why don't -- MR. LUFT: Okay. Does that work for you? THE COURT: -- we do that? Why don't you talk and then -- MR. LUFT: Great. THE COURT: -- we can go from there. MR. LUFT: Okay. Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PASTORE: May I just say one thing for the record? I don't -- yes, we may have interposed objections based on our standing as interveners, et cetera, but our fundamental -- I think to divide these documents, fundamental issue is we saw our obligation to produce documents that demonstrated -- demonstrated we were creditors and demonstrated, as I said, a step further where we got the money from. We did draw a line to say that our relationship to the debtor, we didn't think was relevant to whether or not we're legally valid creditors, because that's a legal analysis of our loan documents and the tendering of credit.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 42 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 42 I don't think we've taken the position that we don't have to demonstrate that we're valid creditors in the case. We wouldn't do that and we haven't done that. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. PASTORE: Yeah. THE COURT: All right. So then why don't we -- I'll let -- I'll take up another matter on the calendar and you both can talk and see if you have anything that you'd like to report back, but I understand, even in the absence of a report, that I'm not going to hold you to the dates right now other than the September 8th date, that -- with regard to filing a motion and/or replying to that motion on a discovery dispute at the moment. Okay. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PASTORE: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you both. Then the only -- am I incorrect -- or if it's just -- I think the only other matter on is another -- is the -- MR. LUFT: I believe it's the HK USA. THE COURT: Yes. The 22-5003 HK USA pretrial conference, correct? MR. DESPINS: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: I think Attorney Moriarty is coming forward for that.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 43 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 43 Okay. With regard to HK Funds, USA Adversary Proceeding 22-5003, if we could just note appearances for the record, please. MR. DESPINS: Luc Despins, Chapter 11 trustee. MR. LUFT: Avi Luft of Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 trustee, Your Honor. MR. SKALKA: Douglas Skalka, Neubert, Pepe, and Monteith, also on behalf of the Chapter 11 trustee. MR. MORIARTY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James Moriarty, of Zeisler and Zeisler, for HK International Funds Investments, USA Limited, LLC and Mei Guo. THE COURT: Good afternoon. All right. So this pretrial conference, we held a pretrial conference on July 18th and then we continued the pretrial conference to today. So have the parties had any further discussions as to the status of this adversary proceeding and what you're looking for the Court to do? MR. LUFT: We have had discussions, Your Honor. I can't say that we're in agreement, but I'm happy to brief the Court on where we are. THE COURT: Please. Go right ahead. MR. LUFT: May I approach? THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor, for the record. Avi Luft, of Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 44 trustee. So we have had the chance to talk with opposing counsel, and the issues that I think were before us is the fact that what I'll refer to as claims three, four and five in the action. Three being the equitable ownership, four being the fraudulent transfer, and five being the tort claim were still outstanding. There is a preliminary injunction that which remains in effect in the case and there is also what I think is relevant, I'll explain why, our summary judgment motion for interpleader which is sub judice. The Court has asked what are we -- what are we to do with these? What's with the remainder and -- by way of background, I think it's first important to look at claim three, which is equitable ownership. Last time it was suggested that that was a claim pled in the alternative to claims one and two. That's not the case and I think we've worked that out and I think they'll agree that that's clear. Claim three was not an alternative claim. It was another basis. Another claim. But not something in contrast to one and two. Now, it still remains live. Counts four and five, Your Honor, I think should not be dismissed, because there are appeals pending, but it is true that if we prevail on Counts 1 and 2, and it potentially in addition to three,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 45 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>45                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Counts 4 and 5 would not be operable, because, in fact, we    |\n| 2  | would be the alter -- it would be the alter ego.<br>Finding   |\n| 3  | would be held up and equitable ownership would be there and,  |\n| 4  | thus, there would not be a question of fraudulent transfer    |\n| 5  | or the tort.                                                  |\n| 6  | Now, in the interpleader action, the defendants               |\n| 7  | have taken the position that the trustees -- the Court's      |\n| 8  | decision on alter ego, granting it all property and rights    |\n| 9  | and that is not sufficient and that they can still somehow    |\n| 10 | stop the interpleader and, thus, prevent the transfer.        |\n| 11 | We don't agree with that.<br>We don't believe that's          |\n| 12 | what -- that we believe the Court's decision is very clear    |\n| 13 | as to claim two which transfers all property, which would     |\n| 14 | include all contractual rights.                               |\n| 15 | It also directed them to take all steps to comply,            |\n| 16 | which would include their right to simply call the            |\n| 17 | interpleader agent and tell them to release the funds.<br>But |\n| 18 | they have focused on the fact that claim three is equitable   |\n| 19 | ownership and they say that absent getting those rights, we   |\n| 20 | don't have enough.                                            |\n| 21 | So why do I say all that?<br>It's because it really           |\n| 22 | puts us to a question of what do we do with claim three?<br>I |\n| 23 | believe to the extent the sum -- the Court agrees with us on  |\n| 24 | our summary judgment motion for interpleader, then the        |\n| 25 | monies will be released to us, at which point I don't know    |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 46 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>46                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | if there is a reason to proceed with claim three.             |\n|    |                                                               |\n| 2  | However, pending that decision or if that summary             |\n| 3  | judgment is not granted, then, of course, we will have to     |\n| 4  | proceed with claim three, because under -- that's the crux    |\n| 5  | that the defendants are using to argue is the sort of last    |\n| 6  | piece of straw we don't have to force their hand to release   |\n| 7  | it.                                                           |\n| 8  | So in that instance, Your Honor, we're in a                   |\n| 9  | position where I'd say I think we need to wait on the         |\n| 10 | decision for the interpleader.<br>I don't think it makes much |\n| 11 | sense to decide before that.                                  |\n| 12 | Obviously, if the Court agrees with us, then those            |\n| 13 | monies will be released and at least to our knowledge that    |\n| 14 | will be the assets of HK USA to what we -- that we know of,   |\n| 15 | and all those will be released to us and I don't know if      |\n| 16 | there's a need to proceed with claim three.                   |\n| 17 | Alternatively, if that -- if you do not agree with            |\n| 18 | us or that we go in a different order, we need to proceed     |\n| 19 | with claim three.                                             |\n| 20 | Now, where that leaves the other question I think             |\n| 21 | you asked us, which is there were questions about whether     |\n| 22 | claims one and two are final, I believe that was something    |\n| 23 | that other side has raised, trying to say that they should    |\n| 24 | be treated as final and not interlocutory.                    |\n| 25 | I don't think that's right.<br>I think claims one             |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 47 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 47 and two and three are inextricably intertwined with each other in terms of the facts. I don't think it makes any sense to do an appeal of claims one and two while three may be out there. So to the extent there's an issue that we're going to have to proceed with claim three, I think it makes sense to treat -- continue to treat claims one and two as interlocutory pending the decision as to claim three if we need to go ahead with it. So that's where I think we are, Your Honor. We have not unfortunately been able to reach an agreement with regard to the interpleader funds and, thus, we still remain having to rely on the Court's decisions to move us ahead there. But as I said, until we know what's going on with that, given the position that they've taken that we effectively need rights bestowed by claim three despite the fact that we don't think we do, we think what you granted in claim -- in your decision with regard to the alter ego was more than sufficient. But given their position, we're not in a position to say that claim three is no longer necessary to be heard. I think it's just going to need to have to wait until that interpleader decision is decided. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I understand your\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 48 position. So I will hear from Attorney Moriarty, please. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. MORIARTY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Once again, James Moriarty for HK USA and Mei Guo. My client's primary concern is having the appeal of the two pending judgments heard as expeditiously as possible. And the concern is if we put Count 3 off to the side -- four and five are pled in the alternative and admittedly when our summary judgment papers were drafted, we viewed two and three as being in the alternative, which is why we made the argument that the trustee would get all of the relief he was seeking. And if you go back and you look at that argument, it starts with the premises that two and three are in the alternative, and admittedly they're not. I went back, I looked at the counterclaim several times. Count 3 is not in the alternative to Count 2. It relies on the same facts as Count 2, but four and five are pled in the alternative with four as one, two, or three, and I believe with five, it's one or two. So those four and five are in the alternative. Those can go off to the side. I don't think that they would impact the appeal at all. Three is the count that could impact the appeal and if we want to wait until Case 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 48 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 49 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>49                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | the Court rules on the interpleader summary judgment motion    |\n| 2  | and then determine what we're going to do with Count 3 and     |\n| 3  | then the trustee through his counsel says, no, we have to      |\n| 4  | pick up Count 3, because the Court denied summary judgment     |\n| 5  | on the interpleader, we're taking up a lot of time.            |\n| 6  | And I understand Attorney Luft's point, which is               |\n| 7  | Count 3 maybe it gets us to the interpleader funds if we       |\n| 8  | don't get there through the summary judgment motion in the     |\n| 9  | interpleader on the escrow agreement.<br>The other way you get |\n| 10 | there and the argument that my clients have made is you need   |\n| 11 | a final non-appealable order.                                  |\n| 12 | So we don't contend that Count 2 doesn't give the              |\n| 13 | trustee the escrow funds.<br>It does and the trustee is        |\n| 14 | holding them right now.<br>The question is timing and when     |\n| 15 | they can be released.                                          |\n| 16 | And if the appeal is heard on Count 2 and that                 |\n| 17 | becomes a final order.<br>Now granted, subject -- my clients   |\n| 18 | may decide they want to go to the Second Circuit.<br>I don't   |\n| 19 | know that, but that is another way that you get to that        |\n| 20 | final non-appealable order that you need under that escrow     |\n| 21 | agreement.                                                     |\n| 22 | Now, granted, Your Honor, can grant them summary               |\n| 23 | judgment in the interpleader action and then apparently this   |\n| 24 | all goes away.                                                 |\n| 25 | So from my client's perspective, if this Court                 |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 50 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>50                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | were to enter an order under Federal Bankruptcy Procedure      |\n| 2  | 754, Federal Rule of Procedure 70 -- or 54B -- excuse me --    |\n| 3  | that there is no just reason for delay for the appeal of the   |\n| 4  | judgments on Counts 1 and 2, which I believe totals about      |\n| 5  | \\$57 million in assets that have been transferred to the       |\n| 6  | trustee,<br>I believe, assuming that their fee applications    |\n| 7  | that have just been filed are approved in September, the       |\n| 8  | entity of the Lady May proceeds will have been expended and    |\n| 9  | then we'll start to get into, assuming they can be released,   |\n| 10 | the escrow funds.                                              |\n| 11 | So we're going to be spending those down while my              |\n| 12 | clients' appeals are pending, maybe the trustee brings in      |\n| 13 | more assets.<br>Maybe he doesn't.<br>Who knows what the Sherry |\n| 14 | Netherland's apartment will be worth.                          |\n| 15 | My point is is that there is no just reason for                |\n| 16 | delay as to those two claims, and we get to the final          |\n| 17 | judgment through the appeal maybe quicker than we do, even     |\n| 18 | if the trustee were to move for summary judgment on Count 3,   |\n| 19 | I'm not in position to tell you what rights that would give    |\n| 20 | the trustee under Second Circuit law.<br>Maybe the trustee can |\n| 21 | then waive the provision in the escrow agreement.<br>Maybe he  |\n| 22 | can't.<br>Maybe my clients would appeal that.<br>I don't know. |\n| 23 | My point is -- and maybe it's a long-winded way to             |\n| 24 | make my point -- that it seems like the most expeditious way   |\n| 25 | to get to a final judgment on Count 2, and get the escrow      |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 51 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 51 funds to the trustee, assuming he's successful on appeal, is through the appeal process, and Count 3 can be put in the corner with four and five. We'll agree that those three counts are stayed and we pursue the appeals, and whatever happens with the appeals happens. THE COURT: Well, isn't it up to the district court as to whether or not you have a right to appeal at this point? Isn't -- doesn't the district court make that determination? Because I think you filed a motion -- you filed a notice of appeal, but a motion for leave to appeal on both Counts 1 and Counts 2, didn't you? MR. MORIARTY: So there's -- I will answer that by saying no and yes. So initially we filed notices of appeal. We filed on behalf of HK and Ms. Guo the appellate brief I believe two weeks ago. And in the appellate brief, we asked the district court if you find that these judgments are not final, then you should grant us, us being the clients, interlocutory appeal. So yes, we did do that. More recently, and this may be what Your Honor has in mind, the debtor filed a notice of appeal and a motion for interlocutory appeal. THE COURT: Oh, maybe that's what it is. Yes. MR. MORIARTY: Related to -- THE COURT: I could -- MR. MORIARTY: -- the Fifth Amendment issue.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 52 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>52                             |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Oh, no.<br>I was talking about this               |\n| 2  | case.<br>I wasn't talking about the Fifth Amendment issue.<br>I |\n| 3  | thought that when you appealed these summary judgment           |\n| 4  | rulings that you had filed -- and so I'm just wrong.<br>If you  |\n| 5  | didn't file a motion for leave to appeal, I thought you did.    |\n| 6  | Whatever.                                                       |\n| 7  | My point is is if this is before the district                   |\n| 8  | court now --                                                    |\n| 9  | MR. MORIARTY:<br>Well, it --                                    |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>-- so what jurisdiction do I have to              |\n| 11 | do anything under Rule 54 at this point in time?<br>You filed   |\n| 12 | -- which is absolutely your clients' right.<br>You filed a      |\n| 13 | notice of appeal, right?<br>So that -- of the rulings on the    |\n| 14 | summary judgment.<br>I don't -- I have no idea what the status  |\n| 15 | is of the appeals before the district court, but it's in the    |\n| 16 | district court's hands at this point.                           |\n| 17 | MR. MORIARTY:<br>So the appeals of the judgements on            |\n| 18 | the first and second count are pending before the district      |\n| 19 | court.<br>That is correct.<br>The appellants, my clients, have  |\n| 20 | filed their opening brief.<br>The trustee has not responded to  |\n| 21 | that yet.                                                       |\n| 22 | As of right now, because there has been no order                |\n| 23 | entered under Rule 54(b) by Your Honor finding that there is    |\n| 24 | no just reason for delay, those orders are technically --       |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>I wouldn't even think you could enter             |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 53 that order while there's an appeal pending, can you? I mean, I'm not sure you can. MR. MORIARTY: I have not looked at that issue, Your Honor. THE COURT: I mean, there's -- you can't get a Rule 60 motion granted or a 59 motion granted when there's an appeal pending without leave of the district court I think. So I don't know if -- I don't know the answer to the question honestly, but I know that under Rule 60 and 59 you can't do anything when there's an appeal pending. MR. MORIARTY: So I agree with that, Your Honor, because as a general matter an appeal divests jurisdiction from say the district court, the Second Circuit. In this particular case to the extent that there is an issue of final and appealability with respect to those judgments, this Court should be able to, and I'm not going to say could, because admittedly I haven't researched the issue, certify under 54(b) that there is no just reason for delay making those judgments final to the extent they are not already. And I'm happy to submit a short brief on that if that would be helpful. THE COURT: I don't know yet. Hold on a second. I was just reading something. (Pause.) Case 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 53 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 54 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 54 THE COURT: Well, it says that under 54(b) I'd have to expressly determine that there is no just reason for delay, otherwise any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all of the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities. So it doesn't have the same language as Rules 59 and 60, because they're -- because right now, the district court -- I don't actually know how you teed it up other than what you've said in your brief. I don't even know if the district court is determined that you have the right to appeal those summary judgment rulings right now. And you're saying that you want me to find that -- you want that -- you want to take that issue off the table by having me enter an order under 54(b) with regard to Counts 1 and 2 of the complaint? MR. MORIARTY: Correct, Your Honor. Then we remove forward with the appeal, which as I said, my clients have already submitted their opening brief. We would agree to stay Counts 3, 4, and 5. Nothing -- THE COURT: So what's the -- what's the just reason? What's the -- what is the reason that I would\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 55 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 55 expressly determine that there's no just reason for delay? MR. MORIARTY: The only other count under which the trustee can obtain relief, my understanding based on where we are now, obviously things can change, would be Count 3 and that would be the trustee obtaining the equity of the entity and control over the entity. And Attorney Luft just I believe told the Court that if Your Honor enters summary judgment in the trustee's favor on the interpleader action, then they probably don't have to do that, because really what they're focused on is the provision in the escrow agreement that says there has to be a final non-appealable order. And if Your Honor grants them summary judgment on the interpleader issue, then presumably that goes away and they're not -- THE COURT: Well, it doesn't go away if your client appeals it. MR. MORIARTY: Maybe there's a stay. Maybe there's not, Your Honor. You're right. It doesn't go away if my client appeals it, assuming my client is successful on appeal. If there's no stay, obviously the order becomes effective. There's 57-ish million dollars in assets when you take into account the escrow funds plus the Lady May and how much that was sold for. The trustee is spending that money. It's his right to do it, at least with respect to the Lady\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 56 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 56 May funds. But that is really what the core of this dispute is. It's the assets of HK and those assets are being dissipated by the trustee. Maybe dissipated is too strong of a word. They're being spent, and again it's his right to do it. The Court has blessed him doing that. But that's really the issue. The issue is the assets and the Court has determined, based on Counts 1 and 2, that the assets are assets of the estate. My clients obviously disagree with that, which is why they're appealing, but that's why there's no just reason for delay. In addition to the fact that if Your Honor grants summary judgment on the interpleader, and even if you don't, the Lady May assets, the funds that were received from the sale of Lady May are going to be completely gone with these next fee applications. And then assuming that Your Honor grants summary judgment on the interpleader action and the trustee has the ability to spend down the escrow funds, my understanding from just sitting in the courtroom today is that the trustee is going to start submitting fee applications on a monthly basis, and if those are granted, we're going to be spending down those escrow funds. Maybe not as quickly as we are with the present fee applications, which are based on many months, but that's\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 57 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 57 why there's not just reason for delay, Your Honor, is we get at least closer to finality with respect to those assets, which as I said total about \\$57 million. THE COURT: Well, I mean, there's more than one way you could get there. You know, your clients have decided -- your clients brought this adversary proceeding. They started the adversary proceeding in April of last year to determine -- for a declaratory judgment that they were the owners of the Lady May. You know, I found otherwise in connection with Counts 1 and Count 2. Your clients have appealed those orders, whether they're final or not. So the issue is with regard to the remaining counts of the complaint, and there are three of them, and your clients argued that three was an important cause of action, but I think I hear you changing that position, and that's fine. I just want to be clear. Are you changing that position? Because I think it was Ms. -- I'm so sorry. I can't think of her name. MR. MORIARTY: Warnick. THE COURT: What's her name? MR. MORIARTY: Warnick. Melissa Warnick. THE COURT: Ms. Warnick who argued that, that Count 3 was essential, so -- MR. MORIARTY: Ms. Warnick's argument, and this is just me going on memory from sitting in the courtroom that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 58 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 58 day, was the trustee was trying to bypass a step in the alter ego analysis, which was there was no allegation that the trustee and no evidence that the trustee owned any interest in HK and the argument was the trustee first had to prove that the debtor had an ownership interest, some type of an equity interest in the entity in order to be able to get to the alter ego. In other words, if you're not an owner, whether directly or indirectly, under Delaware law, there is no alter ego. Your Honor, disagreed with that. You disagreed with that in your decision. We respect that. That's part of our appeal, but that's what Your Honor's decision was. As it relates to Count 3, in Your Honor's decision, you specifically distinguish the relief that the trustee could obtain under Count 2 and under Count 3. Under Count -- THE COURT: Because the counts specifically distinguish that. MR. MORIARTY: Well, I get that, Your Honor. So it's not that we're changing our position. What we're saying is this is what Your Honor found. Regardless of what the argument may have been, this is what the Court found, and the Court found that under Count 2, you get the assets. Under Count 3, you get the control.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 59 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 59 And that's what we've been pointing to in arguing in the interpleader action that the order is not final and that the trustee needs a final non-appealable order. THE COURT: Well, you're also assuming that whatever the district court does is say it's a final order. What if they say it's not? What if the district court says this is an interlocutory appeal or what if the district court says, you know what? The bankruptcy court was wrong and you need to go back and do something different. I mean, you're making an assumption that if there's a certification from this Court that these two rulings are final, that that means that everything is going to move forward for your clients, and that's not necessarily true. The district court could -- could rule -- you know, say reverse and remand or ask for a clarification or they could do -- district court could do many things. I don't -- you know, that's the district court's prerogative and purview. So I'm not sure that -- you know, my thought is you've already said that Count 3 is a separate and distinct count and it -- and the argument was that it was integral to Count 2. And so now, you're saying so find one and two as final so we can get on with our appeals. Well, your appeals are pending and whatever the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 60 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>60                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | district court is going to do, the district court is going       |\n| 2  | to do.<br>I don't know what that is.<br>The district court could |\n| 3  | find that I -- that this ruling was correct in some ways.        |\n| 4  | Incorrect in other ways.<br>They could find that it's all        |\n| 5  | incorrect.<br>They could remand for further -- I mean, who       |\n| 6  | knows?                                                           |\n| 7  | MR. MORIARTY:<br>I agree with -- I agree with you,               |\n| 8  | Your Honor, that the issue that we're talking about here         |\n| 9  | right now is the issue of jurisdiction now.                      |\n| 10 | So the district court could conceivably say these                |\n| 11 | orders aren't final, but I'm granting interlocutory -- I'm       |\n| 12 | granting you leave to proceed on interlocutory basis as to       |\n| 13 | one and two.                                                     |\n| 14 | The district court could say these orders aren't                 |\n| 15 | final and I'm denying your motion for an interlocutory           |\n| 16 | appeal.<br>Then we no longer have an appeal pending, and I       |\n| 17 | assume then we have to move forward with Counts 3, 4, and 5,     |\n| 18 | because that's the only way we ever get through the entire       |\n| 19 | case, and that's my point.                                       |\n| 20 | My point is is that the trustee is saying, we                    |\n| 21 | really don't want to proceed with Count 3 right now, because     |\n| 22 | we want the summary judgment ruling in the interpleader          |\n| 23 | action, and then maybe we'll have to proceed with Count 3,       |\n| 24 | but don't certify under Rule 54, and we're basically at a        |\n| 25 | standstill.                                                      |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 61 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 61 If we get to 54(b) certification, the district court could say it's not good enough and reject it. I get that. I don't think that -- I would hope that that wouldn't happen, but in that particular case, we're moving forward with those two appeals. A district court is going to decide the appeals however. She's -- Judge Dooley's going to decide them, but at least we're moving forward. I guess the other alternative is -- THE COURT: Well, then, if you're moving forward, what do you need me to do anything for? MR. MORIARTY: Because we don't -- at this point in time, Your Honor, Judge Dooley can say she doesn't have jurisdiction over the appeals. THE COURT: That's right. MR. MORIARTY: If we get -- THE COURT: She can say that. MR. MORIARTY: -- if we get the certification from you under 54(b) that these judgments are final and that there's no just reason for delay and she accepts that, then there is jurisdiction and there's no question about it. And as Your Honor said before, we're trying to take that issue off the table. That's really the whole focus. THE COURT: But I don't know if you can do it the way you want to do it. That's the point, right? I understand what you're saying, but I don't know if you can\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 62 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 62 just come in and say, you know what? We want to move this along differently, so, you know, certify that these are final judgments. I don't know if that's -- if that's really -- meets the standard -- MR. MORIARTY: Well, the -- THE COURT: -- under Rule 54. MR. MORIARTY: So the Second Circuit requires something more than just a statement -- THE COURT: Right. MR. MORIARTY: -- that there's no just reason for delay, but I articulated before that the \\$57 million that's being spent down and those two judgements are really the core of the case. If the trustee -- THE COURT: The core of what case? MR. MORIARTY: This adversary proceeding, because -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: -- if the trustee gets access to the escrow funds, if the Court says, I'm granting you, Mr. Trustee, summary judgment in the interpleader action and that's not stayed, then the trustee can spend the escrow funds, and that's really what the focus is. The focus is about the timing of when can the trustee access these funds to pay estate expenses, including Case 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 63 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 63 his attorney's fees and -- THE COURT: Oh, it's not just to pay estate expenses, Mr. Moriarty. I mean, it's to pay creditors. Remember, Mr. Kwok voluntarily filed his Chapter 11 case. So that's what happens. MR. MORIARTY: I don't disagree with you, Your Honor. That is the whole purpose of the bankruptcy case, as I understand it, is to pay creditors at the end, but I think we're pretty far away from that right now. I know that there's a number of claims that have been filed, and as far as I know, there hasn't been any process to, you know, weed out claims, object to claims, whatever the trustee is going to do. But, again, that goes -- THE COURT: In what Chapter 11 case do you think at this point after a year that that would be happening? You know, all I'm saying is the arguments that you're making are just -- they're just not -- with regard to that issue, you keep trying to -- or at least it seems as though you're trying to argue that this is all about so the trustee can get paid. I don't think that's fair. MR. MORIARTY: And I -- and that's not the point of the argument, Your Honor. It's not so the trustee can pay himself. It's so that the trustee has access to these funds. That's what it's about. It's about the timing.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 64 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 64 THE COURT: That's why the trustee brought the cause of action, because he -- MR. MORIARTY: Right. But he doesn't want to pursue it. THE COURT: -- wanted access to the funds to pay creditors. MR. MORIARTY: But he doesn't want to pursue Count 3. THE COURT: It's not that -- we don't know that he doesn't want to pursue Count 3. I didn't hear that he didn't want to pursue Count 3. MR. MORIARTY: Okay. So, Your Honor, you ordered the trustee to file a response to the argument in the summary judgment brief of HK and Mr. Guo that the Court should certify these judgments as final under Rule 54. THE COURT: Right. MR. MORIARTY: The trustee did not. And in that filing, he said if the Court denies summary judgment on the interpleader action, we may pursue Count 3. They don't want to pursue Count 3 at this point in time. They want to wait to see what happens in the interpleader action, and then if they're not successful there, maybe then they want to pick up Count 3, but at the same time, the appeals are sitting there. We don't know what Judge Dooley is going to do. THE COURT: That's her prerogative.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 65 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 65 MR. MORIARTY: But my point, Your Honor, is that there's a -- it is much more certain that there would be jurisdiction if there was a certification from this Court under 54(b) that those two judgments are final. And if Your Honor is not going to do that, then I think we need to -- THE COURT: I didn't say I wasn't going to do that. I'm trying to understand your argument that -- what's the just cause, and from our perspective the just cause is you don't want to have to argue whether or not these appeals are interlocutory. So you want me to certify them under 54(b) so you don't have to make that argument. MR. MORIARTY: That's not at all what I'm saying, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then what are you saying? MR. MORIARTY: The just cause is that my client, HK, had the Lady May, the Lady May 2, and \\$37 million in an escrow account. Those are the assets. The Lady May has been sold. \\$21 million plus was realized. The trustee is holding the escrow funds and the trustee is holding the Lady May 2. It's an asset of the estate. As far as I know, that's all that the estate has. There was the 490 -- or \\$499,000 -- THE COURT: Well, there's the Lady May 2 somewhere.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 66 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>66                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. MORIARTY:<br>And I said that.                              |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                            |\n| 3  | MR. MORIARTY:<br>\\$499,000 settlement with Clark               |\n| 4  | Hill, I believe is the name of the law firm, but the bulk of   |\n| 5  | the assets that the estate has, the overwhelming majority      |\n| 6  | come from my client, and those are being spent down.           |\n| 7  | Now, maybe the trustee brings in more assets, and              |\n| 8  | if my client is successful on appeal, my client can claw       |\n| 9  | back everything that's been distributed from the estate        |\n| 10 | through additional assets that are being brought in.           |\n| 11 | I don't know that that's going to happen.<br>I                 |\n| 12 | understand that there's a settlement with Bravo Luck.          |\n| 13 | There's a 9019 motion that's been filed.<br>I also understand  |\n| 14 | that there's an adversary proceeding related to insurance      |\n| 15 | proceeds from the fire.<br>The insurance company doesn't want  |\n| 16 | to pay.                                                        |\n| 17 | There's a whole bunch of moving parts here.                    |\n| 18 | There's other assets that the trustee may bring in, but the    |\n| 19 | point is we don't know that.<br>So, yes, these funds are being |\n| 20 | used.<br>They're being used for whatever the purposes they're  |\n| 21 | being used for, but the no just reason for delay is that my    |\n| 22 | client's assets are being spent.<br>And again, I don't mean    |\n| 23 | that in a derogatory manner.<br>It's all being done with the   |\n| 24 | blessing of the Court, but we don't know that there's going    |\n| 25 | to be additional assets that come in.                          |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 67 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>67                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | So if my client is successful on appeal, what                    |\n| 2  | relief do they get?<br>That's the point.                         |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Anything further?                         |\n| 4  | MR. MORIARTY:<br>No.<br>That's it, Your Honor.<br>Thank          |\n| 5  | you.                                                             |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                         |\n| 7  | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor --                                       |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Attorney Luft.<br>Yes.                             |\n| 9  | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>I'll try to be            |\n| 10 | brief.                                                           |\n| 11 | What you just heard is that Mr. Moriarty wanted a                |\n| 12 | stay pending appeal.<br>He didn't get one.<br>And now he's doing |\n| 13 | self help.<br>They refuse to give the -- he stated, we agree,    |\n| 14 | Count 2 gives them the escrow funds.<br>We agree we have the     |\n| 15 | property.<br>This is why we had to file this whole summary       |\n| 16 | judgment for interlocutory appeal.                               |\n| 17 | And you heard why they're holding it up, because                 |\n| 18 | they're afraid that if they win their appeals, there won't       |\n| 19 | be money.<br>That's what a stay pending appeal is about.<br>They |\n| 20 | -- one wasn't granted, and I agree it shouldn't have been        |\n| 21 | granted.                                                         |\n| 22 | But now so they've just done it themselves.<br>What              |\n| 23 | you will not -- did not hear at all, what they haven't done      |\n| 24 | is they keep talking about how they have -- well, there's a      |\n| 25 | contractual -- they have the right right now to call up the      |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 68 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 68 person who is holding up the funds, the trustee, and say, release them. We have a court order that tells us to do everything to assist that. They can do that now at which point those funds would be released and we could make a judgment today about whether or not we need to pursue Count 3. Now, these arguments that you heard about why aren't we pursuing Count 3 right now? Well, because quite frankly we are stewards of the creditor's funds. Yes, I would like to know if there is an actual amount of money that is going to be worth pursuing another push in Count 3 today. I think it is worthwhile for the trustee and this Court to think about their resources and decide whether or not it is -- there is an amount. If that money is released from escrow, we can make a decision as to whether or not these equitable rights to control the equity will provide enough benefit to the estate that it is worth pursuing at that time. Obviously, the want to have their cake and eat it, too. They are arguing to you that without the rights in Count 3, that we can't make them release the funds, and, thus, it is integral. It's a \\$37 million. I promise you at that amount of money it will absolutely worth pursuing Count 3 and that makes sense. But\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 69 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 69 instead what they say to you is, well, we don't want to do what we could do, which is voluntarily call and say, hey, we have a court order telling us to do everything to assist, and release the funds. They don't want to move it along that way. Instead, they just want you to say, make this final. Let us have -- let us have a final appeal, despite that the fact we know Count 3, which we say is very important, is completely interconnected to one and two. It's clearly not meeting the 54(b) standard. So they effectively are creating the Zeisler Rules of Civil Procedure. They'd like when they want to appeal. They'd like to have it final to say that. Despite not getting a stay pending appeal, they want to be able to say, well, I'm still going to hold back the funds, because quite frankly, I'm really worried about, you know, you -- those funds being spent. That's not their choice anymore, Your Honor. Mr. Moriarty is honest and straightforward and when he says to you the Court blessed this. We didn't have that right. They don't. But this is just self help at this point, Your Honor. I honest -- and so we're here for a status conference. The issue of interlocutory appeal will be -- the issue of the -- excuse me -- interpleader is before you.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 70 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>70                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | But in terms of how we should proceed in this case, what's   |\n| 2  | efficient, what makes sense, I think it's what I said.<br>I  |\n| 3  | think we should see what happens with the interpleader so    |\n| 4  | that we know what happened.<br>So that we know if there is a |\n| 5  | \\$37 million at issue.                                       |\n| 6  | At that point, the trustee who fully believes they           |\n| 7  | -- that Mr. Kwok is the equitable owner of HK USA can make a |\n| 8  | determination based on the cost benefit for both the Court's |\n| 9  | resources and the estate's, whether it makes sense to pursue |\n| 10 | that if the \\$37 million is not at issue.                    |\n| 11 | But to sit there and say that we should do that              |\n| 12 | blind, or that we should just certify these, because they'd  |\n| 13 | really like to move ahead, and they're afraid they're going  |\n| 14 | to lose their interlocutory appeal so they'd like you to     |\n| 15 | effectively make them not have to argue that to Judge        |\n| 16 | Dooley, isn't appropriate and it's not efficient.<br>I don't |\n| 17 | think that makes sense to move forward with the case in that |\n| 18 | way.                                                         |\n| 19 | If Your Honor has any questions, I'm happy to                |\n| 20 | answer them.                                                 |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>I do not have any questions.<br>Thank          |\n| 22 | you.                                                         |\n| 23 | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                          |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Mr. Moriarty, would you like to                |\n| 25 | respond?                                                     |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 71 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 71 MR. MORIARTY: Yes, please, Your Honor. So the Zeisler Rules of Professional Conduct -- I mean, professional conduct, the Zeisler Rules -- THE COURT: I think he said procedure. MR. MORIARTY: -- professional -- yeah, he did. Civil Procedure, and I don't know why I had that in my head, but that's okay. So really, the only thing I want to comment on, Your Honor, is we're not seeking a stay pending appeal. The summary judgment motion on the interpleader is pending before Your Honor. Your Honor knows the argument. There's a provision in there that says that the funds can't be released until there's a final non-appealable order at the bankruptcy court. That doesn't exist at this point in time. Your Honor will decide that or not decide that, but basically what Attorney Luft is saying to you is we want everything to be put on hold. We want to freeze everything until Your Honor enters an order on the interpleader summary judgment motion, and then we'll decide maybe we'll pursue Count 3, and maybe we won't. In the meantime, maybe Judge Dooley grants interlocutory appeal. Maybe she doesn't. But effectively nothing happens, and then they say, but in the alternative, they could give up their\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 72 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>72                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | summary judgment argument.<br>They could give up their right |\n| 2  | under the contract, HK could, and just agree that they have  |\n| 3  | the money.<br>And then maybe we'll think about, maybe then   |\n| 4  | we'll say, well, we don't need to pursue Count 3.<br>So      |\n| 5  | basically we're going to hold this hostage until you give    |\n| 6  | up.<br>And my client is not going to give up.                |\n| 7  | So if Your Honor is -- and I understand.<br>I hear           |\n| 8  | what Your Honor said.<br>You're not deciding this right now, |\n| 9  | but if Your Honor is not going to certify these judgments as |\n| 10 | final under 54(b), then the trustee should move forward with |\n| 11 | Count 3, because that's the only way that the case           |\n| 12 | progresses.                                                  |\n| 13 | Thank you, Your Honor.                                       |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.<br>All right.<br>Anything           |\n| 15 | further in the HK adversary proceeding?                      |\n| 16 | MR. LUFT:<br>No, Your Honor.                                 |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 18 | MR. PASTORE:<br>No.<br>Thank you, Your Honor. .              |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.<br>All right.<br>I'm not going      |\n| 20 | to schedule any further pretrial conferences in this         |\n| 21 | adversary proceeding at this time.                           |\n| 22 | I understand the statements of counsel and I'll              |\n| 23 | take those into consideration and we'll look at pending      |\n| 24 | issues, and I'll move ahead in the manner I think is         |\n| 25 | appropriate.<br>Okay.                                        |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 73 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>73                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | All right.<br>Thank you.                                      |\n| 2  | MR. PASTORE:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                        |\n| 3  | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you.                                       |\n| 4  | MR. MORIARTY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                       |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.<br>Now, that was the last            |\n| 6  | matter on the calendar, other than the HCHK adversary.<br>Did |\n| 7  | you want to take time to talk and report back, or how do you  |\n| 8  | want to handle that, you and Attorney Pastore.                |\n| 9  | MR. LUFT:<br>Why don't we take a couple minutes,              |\n| 10 | Your Honor, to see if this -- I don't want the Court sitting  |\n| 11 | around.<br>So if this is a longer conversation, and that's    |\n| 12 | what we think, then my suggestion is that we'll tell the      |\n| 13 | Court and then we'll report back later.                       |\n| 14 | If we think that we can -- we can hammer this out             |\n| 15 | very quickly, could we maybe take a short recess so that we   |\n| 16 | could let the Court know?<br>But I really don't want you --   |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.<br>Why don't we take --                    |\n| 18 | MR. LUFT:<br>-- guys sitting.                                 |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>-- the staff hasn't had a break, so             |\n| 20 | why don't we take a recess until 2:00 p.m.                    |\n| 21 | MR. LUFT:<br>Okay.                                            |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS: Thank you.                                       |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                      |\n| 24 | MR. PASTORE:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                        |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Court is in recess.                             |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 74 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>74                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | (Court recessed at 1:37 p.m. to 2:11 p.m.)                     |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>In adversary proceeding 23-             |\n| 3  | 05013, Despins versus HCHK Technologies, et al.<br>We have --  |\n| 4  | we have been having a pretrial conference and there were       |\n| 5  | some issues raised with regard to discovery and the parties    |\n| 6  | took some time to talk.<br>And so Attorney Luft, Attorney      |\n| 7  | Pastore, is there something you would like to report to the    |\n| 8  | Court?                                                         |\n| 9  | MR. LUFT:<br>Yes, Your Honor.<br>May I approach?               |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Yes, please.<br>Thank you.                       |\n| 11 | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>For the record,         |\n| 12 | Avi Luft, of Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11        |\n| 13 | trustee.                                                       |\n| 14 | Your Honor, I think we used the time wisely and it             |\n| 15 | was productive, and hopefully that will mean that we don't     |\n| 16 | have to burden the Court with disputes.                        |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Great.                                           |\n| 18 | MR. LUFT:<br>So where we are is we have agreed that            |\n| 19 | we will go ahead with the depositions.<br>They will be limited |\n| 20 | to the issue of standing, but to be clear, that will include   |\n| 21 | the relationship with the debtor and his agents.<br>If the     |\n| 22 | individuals are in the United States, they will be in person   |\n| 23 | depositions.                                                   |\n| 24 | If the people are abroad, then we will agree to do             |\n| 25 | them by WebEx or some other non-Zoom mobile way to do it.      |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 75 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 75 With regard to the document requests, I think we have an understanding that we will need to get documents related to the debtor and his relationship -- the entities' relationships with the debtor and his agents. We still have a little bit of discussion and work to do as to what the scope of those requests will be, but we will work over the next couple of days to try to agree upon that. It is -- I think the outliers are sufficient to show it's not enough and the argument that all may be too -- is too many. So we're trying -- going to try to find something that works, but we think it's appropriate. Moreover, the parties agree that this is -- this discovery is consensual and that accordingly there will be no objections to the discovery made based on the fact that the proposed interveners are not yet interveners in the case. And similarly, with regard to appeal, there will be no argument made later that to the extent the proposed interveners are not allowed to intervene, that they're appealing based on the fact that -- there was too much information or that information was found out through this consensual discovery. To be clear, to the extent that they believe that the bar was set to high and any motion to intervene that they lose, they will, of course, still\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 76 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 76 reserve the right to appeal, based on that. But that is what we have agreed to. I believe Mr. Pastore can correct me if I got anything wrong with regard to how to proceed with discovery and I think what that does is allows us to move ahead on the schedule the Court has already set up with regard to discovery. To the extent we cannot reach agreement with regard to the scope of those remaining document requests, we will make a motion to compel, but I am hopeful that won't be necessary. There is one other issue I wanted to raise, Your Honor. I think we got -- you know, we kind of talked before. This was supposed to be the HCHK status conference and, you know -- THE COURT: It was actually supposed to be the pretrial -- MR. PASTORE: Pretrial. THE COURT: -- conference. MR. LUFT: Oh, pretrial. Excuse me. THE COURT: In accordance with the -- you know, what the initial pretrial conference that gets set when a summons is issued. MR. LUFT: Yes, Your Honor. That's correct and I apologize for misspeaking. THE COURT: That's okay.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 77 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>77                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. LUFT:<br>So consistent with that, there was one            |\n| 2  | other thing I wanted to raise with the Court.<br>I believe the |\n| 3  | proposed interveners have claims of approximately \\$27         |\n| 4  | million.<br>I believe there is about \\$38 million at the HCHK  |\n| 5  | entities.<br>There are no other proposed interveners and as    |\n| 6  | we've talked about, the assignee does not intend to contest    |\n| 7  | the trustee's claims in the adversary the trustee has          |\n| 8  | brought.                                                       |\n| 9  | Accordingly, there is a balance of approximately               |\n| 10 | \\$11 million, which is effectively not at issue in terms of    |\n| 11 | if we make our case, that 11 -- no one is objecting that       |\n| 12 | they have a claim to that \\$11 million.                        |\n| 13 | Accordingly, for that amount of money, the trustee             |\n| 14 | would like to proceed with trying to seek a final              |\n| 15 | determination with regard to whether or not those monies are   |\n| 16 | -- with regard to its claims, that HCHK is the alter ego and   |\n| 17 | that the debtor -- of the debtor and the debtor is the         |\n| 18 | equitable ownership, and to the extent that that is the        |\n| 19 | case, those \\$11 million will be turned over.                  |\n| 20 | The \\$27 million we would not do, because we are --            |\n| 21 | until we have determined whether or not the proposed           |\n| 22 | interveners and their claims should be allowed into the        |\n| 23 | case.                                                          |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>So --                                            |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:<br>So that --                                        |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 78 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 78 THE COURT: -- does Mr. Pastore have an objection to what you just stated? MR. LUFT: I'll let Mr. Pastore tell -- say what he says. I asked him to it. I think Mr. Pastore's view is that the -- his clients have \\$27 million. He understands that he doesn't represent anyone else. But whether or not he has a problem with regard to the other \\$11 million, I'm not sure on what basis he -- THE COURT: So how would you proceed? Assuming -- I have no idea yet. Assuming he has no objection. So what would you do to be in control of that money? Is that what you're saying? MR. LUFT: Yes, Your Honor. Effectively, I would move for default as to the remaining \\$11 million because there would be no -- THE COURT: As to all the other defendants. MR. LUFT: Right. Because there is no objection. And then as to the balance that is at issue, we would waive intervention to the extent the Court grants their motion to intervene. Then we would proceed with the case. As to that \\$27 million, to the extent the Court determines that they are not proper interveners, then we would know -- then there would be effectively no objectors and we would then move for default with regard to that \\$27 million.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 79 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>79                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>I understand your position.                     |\n| 2  | MR. LUFT:<br>Thanks, Your Honor.                              |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>I'll see where things go.                       |\n| 4  | MR. LUFT:<br>Okay, Your Honor.<br>Thank you.                  |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.<br>But thank you and        |\n| 6  | Mr. Pastore for working on the discovery issues and I -- Mr.  |\n| 7  | Pastore, I do want to hear from you, make sure that you       |\n| 8  | agree with what Attorney Luft said, and then maybe you'll --  |\n| 9  | and I'd like you to address the last point, if you would,     |\n| 10 | about the \\$11 million.                                       |\n| 11 | MR. PASTORE:<br>Can I take the last point --                  |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Certainly.                                      |\n| 13 | MR. PASTORE:<br>-- first.<br>So my clients have claims        |\n| 14 | I understand it -- I think discovery will flush out more to   |\n| 15 | approximately \\$27 million.<br>I don't represent anyone other |\n| 16 | than those four creditors.                                    |\n| 17 | I think it would be intellectually inconsistent               |\n| 18 | for me to say I have no objection, because I think it's       |\n| 19 | binary.<br>The entities are either alter egos or they're not. |\n| 20 | But I don't think I really have a voice as to the             |\n| 21 | 11 million other than saying our position is we're going to   |\n| 22 | win.<br>We're going to try to win.<br>Do our best efforts to  |\n| 23 | win, and if we win, all that money is coming back, including  |\n| 24 | 11 million, but I don't really have standing to fight over    |\n| 25 | the 11 million.                                               |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 80 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 80 I think the U.S. Attorney -- I'm sorry -- the U.S. trustee may have a vote in this, too, as I think they took some positions to protect the creditorship of the New York action generally, and when we negotiated, the settlement was in controversy. So I certainly this issue would need to be put past them as well. And so I can't say I have no objection. I can just say my client's claim is for approximately 27 million. I am concerned under the settlement agreement that some of this money does get spent, and so I hate to see money not there if we do recover the 27 million, because 11 million has been already gone. So that would reduce the amount available of the 27 million if it's taken from that pile. Long and short, I think it would be intellectually inconsistent for me to say no objection, but I'm not sure I have a right to object as to the 11 million. THE COURT: Understood. MR. PASTORE: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. PASTORE: Yeah. As to discovery, just briefly, I do think we've reached an agreement. I think a few minor points to make the record clear. We've also in discussion to the meeting, first said that to the extent you're entitled to discovery, we're entitled to discovery. You may recall in this case the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 81 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>81                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | assignee had documents related to the companies.<br>We believe |\n| 2  | the documents in the trustee's possession related to the       |\n| 3  | companies that go to our standing as creditors.<br>Loan        |\n| 4  | agreements, discussions, emails, that sort of thing, we're     |\n| 5  | entitled to, and they've agreed that they'll provide those     |\n| 6  | to us as well.                                                 |\n| 7  | With respect to the depositions, we agreed to                  |\n| 8  | seven hours because of translation issues.<br>I've interacted  |\n| 9  | with these clients and it does take a little extra time,       |\n| 10 | because everything -- a lot of things do need to be            |\n| 11 | translated, and that's why I agreed.                           |\n| 12 | I think it's unduly long period were it not a                  |\n| 13 | translation issue for a standing deposition, but I'm           |\n| 14 | recognizing that and we've reserved the right to object to     |\n| 15 | the extent they get into the merits of the case, the alter     |\n| 16 | ego issues, and stuff like that.<br>They should be limited to  |\n| 17 | the standing as creditors, the loans.<br>Of course, they can   |\n| 18 | certainly ask, well, why did you make the loan?<br>That's fair |\n| 19 | game.                                                          |\n| 20 | The issue of standing goes to whether or not                   |\n| 21 | they're a creditor and what was the purpose of the loan,       |\n| 22 | that sort of thing.<br>But if it gets far afield into the      |\n| 23 | merits of corporate board meetings regarding the HCHK          |\n| 24 | entities unrelated to the loans, I think that's too far.       |\n| 25 | And finally, with respect to the appeal, we agree,             |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 82 and I think it's intellectually consistent to say, if the Court denies our right to intervene because it had additional information, we can't object to that. That seems silly to me. But we're preserving our right to object to the extent we're denied the right to intervene, because we disagree over the legal standard, as to the right to intervene. We're not waiving that -- that appellate right to the extent we'll need it or not. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. PASTORE: Any questions on that? THE COURT: No, no. Thank you. MR. PASTORE: Okay. THE COURT: As I said, I appreciate you working together to resolve the discovery issues. I -- I will wait to see what -- where things stand. I think we need to -- my recollection is that once the discovery is completed and then the trustee files a response to the motion to intervene, then I'll determine whether or not we'll actually have a hearing. I think it's likely we'll have a hearing, and then we'll go from there. I don't -- I think there is not anything else I can do at the moment other than I -- you have a pending motion for a stay pending appeal, I think. You filed the notice of appeal.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 82 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 83 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 83 MR. PASTORE: We did. THE COURT: You have a stay pending appeal motion. Are you anticipating or suggesting that I should hold off on that while this discovery is -- and I'm not saying I'll even have time. I'm just asking you. What are your -- what is your position with regard to your motion for stay pending appeal? MR. PASTORE: Yeah. I mean, I don't want to waive our rights, but I think Your Honor's ruling the other day and agreements we reached with regard to the activity in New York makes the stay pending appeal less critical. Our biggest concern is that the assignee would start taking actions in the New York court that would make unwinding the settlement untenable. And so I don't want to waive the right, but I can say to the Court that I think the rulings the other day limit the need for the stay. THE COURT: You could argue that they limit irreparable harm, right? MR. PASTORE: I think that -- THE COURT: In that the trust -- the assignee has stated through counsel and individually that they will not take any actions in the New York State action until further order of this Court. MR. PASTORE: Right. And I don't know that there's been an order, so maybe it comprises if the stay is\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 84 not granted, there's a formal order that says, but the assignees agreed that they will hold off until such time as there's a ruling. THE COURT: I can't remember if there's an order or not, but I know that they're not to take any action. And I specifically asked -- and I apologize -- is it Mr. Hofmeister (ph)? MR. PASTORE: You did, yeah. THE COURT: Yes. Mr. -- MR. LUFT: I believe it was Attorney Jarrett who was on -- THE COURT: And Mr. Hofmeister, too. MR. PASTORE: Mr. Hofmeister is on the screen, too. THE COURT: I specifically turned to him first, I believe. MR. LUFT: Yes. THE COURT: And he's, you know, said that he would be bound by that. So I can't recall. But that -- the only reason I ask is I happen to think, given the developments and what you just acknowledge on the record, that ruling on the stay pending appeal at this time is not necessary. So unless you say that it is, then I'm -- I will probably put that motion aside for now. MR. PASTORE: The only thing I'd like to do is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 84 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 85 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 85 just go back and look at the order that came out of the Fri -- I think it was a Friday Zoom conference. I know you gave that instruction on the record, so that should be good enough. But -- THE COURT: It should be.But I understand. That's fine. MR. PASTORE: So I may -- THE COURT: And you can let me know if you think otherwise. How's that? MR. PASTORE: That's fair. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PASTORE: Okay. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. MR. PASTORE: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I believe, then, that concludes everything we need to address in this adversary proceeding today; is that correct? MR. LUFT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then, again, I definitely appreciate the efforts of the parties here today. I will see where things stand once the objection -- response to the motion to intervene is filed. And I -- I see no reason to schedule any further pretrial conferences at this time, unless someone disagrees with me. And, again, this was -- this pretrial conference\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 86 of 87\n\n|    | 86                                                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | was originally scheduled in the summons issued by the          |\n| 2  | Clerk's Office when the complaint was filed, and it was        |\n| 3  | continued once, and that's absolutely fine.<br>But I see no    |\n| 4  | reason to schedule any further pretrial conferences at this    |\n| 5  | time.                                                          |\n| 6  | Does anyone disagree?                                          |\n| 7  | MR. LUFT:<br>No, Your Honor.                                   |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                              |\n| 9  | MR. PASTORE:<br>No, Your Honor.                                |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you all, then.<br>All             |\n| 11 | right.<br>This -- that concludes all of the matters on today's |\n| 12 | calendar, so court is adjourned.<br>Thank you.                 |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                            |\n| 14 | MR. PASTORE:<br>Thank you.                                     |\n| 15 | (Proceedings concluded at 2:26 p.m.)                           |\n| 16 |                                                                |\n| 17 |                                                                |\n| 18 |                                                                |\n| 19 |                                                                |\n| 20 |                                                                |\n| 21 |                                                                |\n| 22 |                                                                |\n| 23 |                                                                |\n| 24 |                                                                |\n|    |                                                                |\n|    | Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 87 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>87                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\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  | August 23, 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|    |                                                              |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及\nGENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever 控股公司），\n\n债务人。\n\nGENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司），\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　对抗程序案号：22-05002 等\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nKWOK（郭文贵）等，\n\n被告。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）等，\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　对抗程序案号：23-05013\n第11章受托人，\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nHCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.（HCHK 科技公司）\n等，\n\n被告。\n\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS\nINVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司），\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　对抗程序案号：22-05003\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nDESPINS（德斯平斯），　　　　　　　　康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　August 15, 2023\n被告。\n\n美国破产法官 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）阁下审理程序记录副本\n\n程序由电子录音记录，副本由速记服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n#1362　要求遵守 BK.RULE 2004 的动议\n\nUBS 的传票\n\n#2025　联合聘任及中期费用申请\n第一次审前会议；起诉状\n\n#253　延期审前会议\n\n#2002　请求作出裁定以确立程序的动议\n关于受聘专业人士的中期报酬及费用偿还\n\n#2065　请求作出裁定以授权受托人及\nGenever 债务人律师在提交第一次中期\n费用申请后不足 120 日内提交第二次中期\n费用申请的动议\n\n出庭人员：第11章受托人：LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings LLP（保罗·哈斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表第11章受托人：AVRAM EMMANUEL LUFT（阿夫拉姆·伊曼纽尔·卢夫特）, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings LLP（保罗·哈斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nDOUGLAS S. SKALKA（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）, ESQ.\nNeubert Pepe and Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street,13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债权人委员会：KRISTIN B. MAYHEW（克里斯廷·B·梅休）, ESQ.\nPullman & Comley LLC（普尔曼与科姆利有限责任公司）\n850 Main Street, 8th Floor\nP.O. Box 7006\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表美国受托人：STEVEN E. MACKEY（史蒂文·E·麦基）, ESQ.\nOffice of U.S. Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表 HCHK 债权人：JOSEPH PASTORE（约瑟夫·帕斯托雷）, ESQ.\nPastore, LLC（帕斯托雷有限责任公司）\n4 High Ridge Park, Third Floor\nStamford, CT 06905\n\n代表 HK International Funds\nInvestments, LLC（香港国际基金投资有限责任公司）及\nMei Guo（梅国）：JAMES MORIARTY（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）, ESQ.\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒专业公司）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2115　提交于 08/23/23　登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49　第 4 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023　4\n\n（程序于下午 12:06 开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案件号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法庭：下午好。请各位为记录目的说明出庭身份，先从第11章受托人开始。\n\n德斯平斯先生：卢克·德斯平斯，第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n卢夫特先生：阿维·卢夫特，Paul Hastings（保罗·哈斯廷斯律师事务所），代表第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n斯卡尔卡先生：下午好，法官阁下。道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡，Neubert, Pepe and Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所），亦代表第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n梅休女士：下午好，法官阁下。克里斯廷·梅休，Pullman and Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所），代表债权人委员会。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n麦基先生：史蒂文·麦基，代表美国受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。是否所有希望就中午事项出庭的人员均已说明——记录其出庭身份？\n\n帕斯托雷先生：下午好，法官阁下。约瑟夫·帕斯托雷，代表 HCHK 债权人。我认为，我们是否有资格在状态会议上发言尚属未决问题。我们曾提出介入动议，但该动议显然尚未获裁定。因此，我乐于参与，但我希望以恭敬方式参与，而非仅仅假定自己正在参与。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2115　提交于 08/23/23　登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49　第 5 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023　5\n\n法庭：谢谢。我认为我们首先会处理并非状态会议的事项，然后再看接下来如何进行。\n\n帕斯托雷先生：好的。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n帕斯托雷先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，今天的日程上有几项事项，但第一项——日程上的第一项事项是斯卡尔卡律师提交的联合聘任及中期费用申请。我们是否先处理该事项？\n\n德斯平斯先生：这是关于聘任海事律师的事项吗？\n\n法庭：我相信是的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：是的。是，我们可以继续，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\n德斯平斯先生：谢谢，法官阁下。为记录目的，卢克·德斯平斯，第11章受托人。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2115　提交于 08/23/23　登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49　第 6 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023　6\n\n因此，这是为 Bohonnon 律师事务所提交的合并聘任申请及最终费用申请，该事务所曾担任特别海事律师。为向法庭简要说明背景，如您所知，我们必须推进出售 Lady May。我们知道得足够清楚，即我们并不了解——在 Paul Hastings，我们并不具备海商法专业知识，因此我们完成了大部分工作，但其中有涉及交割的问题。您知道，必须完成交割——该游艇必须位于美国领海之外。为此存在一整套程序。我们无能力处理该事项，因此我们聘请了这家设于哈特福德的康涅狄格州律师事务所提供该等服务，而他们——其处理方式极具成本效益。其费用仅为 $3,381 and change。我知道美国受托人已提交无异议声明，因此，除非法庭有疑虑或意见，我们希望法庭批准该事务所的聘任及最终费用申请。\n\n法庭：我没有问题或疑虑，并且我同意，鉴于具体情形，所请求的金额极其合理。我认为，为提供与出售 Lady May 有关所必需的服务，总额不足 $4,000。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2115　提交于 08/23/23　登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49　第 7 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023　7\n\n因此，我没有问题或疑虑。我注意到，我未见任何一方对该申请提出任何异议，并且据我所知，今天没有任何参加本听证会的人员反对该申请。麦基先生，您是否希望陈述意见？\n\n麦基先生：仅为在记录中说明，美国受托人的无异议声明由克莱伯恩律师提交，文件编号为 2040。\n\n法庭：谢谢。因此，基于该等理由，德斯平斯受托人，聘任及补偿特别律师的申请获准，拟议命令——我现在正在查看拟议命令。我们将在适当时候在命令中补充的唯一内容，是法庭书记员可以补充说明今天就此举行了听证会，然后，除此之外，拟议命令可以登记。\n\n德斯平斯先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：因此，我们——如果我们略过审前会议，且法官阁下允许——\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n德斯平斯先生：——我们可以转至下一事项，即受托人及 Genever 债务人提出的一项动议，请求作出命令以确立有关中期报酬的程序。我们曾提及——其案卷编号为 2002。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2115　提交于 08/23/23　登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49　第 8 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023\n\n1　我们曾在第一次——或者我想是第二次 Paul Hastings 和 Neubert Pepe 律师事务所费用申请的听证会上提及，该事项即将提出。\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4　基本上，我们已与委员会及美国受托人讨论，以确立这些已在许多其他案件中获批准的程序。\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7　我们提交了一项动议，并且在该动议提交后，我们与美国受托人办公室的克莱伯恩律师讨论修改命令，以反映她的一些意见；我们已提交经修订的修订版拟议命令通知，案卷编号为 2047。\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12　实质上，受托人所要求的修改是，她——即所有有利害关系方，如其有权提出异议，将有 21 日期限提出异议。\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16　除此之外，她担心，如果我们按月编制费用申请，她认为，根据她的经验，这会增加破产财产的成本，因此，我们已同意，委员会也已同意——或者委员会律师已同意，将可就编制这些月度费用报表收费的小时数限制为五小时。\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24　该内容载于案卷编号 2047 的修订命令第 5 页新增的 Q 节。\n\n25　该内容反映了限制可用于编制这些月度报表的小时数的协议。另一项我已提及的修改，即将期限从 14 日改为 21 日，载于修订版拟议命令第 3 页 D 段，即 David 的 D 段。同样见于 2047。除这两项修改外，我相信我们——我们——显然委员会通过委员会律师参与其中。我们未收到其他意见或问题，因此，我乐于回答法庭可能提出的任何问题，但除此之外，我们请求法庭登记该命令。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023　9\n\n法庭：我不是今天才查看这份修订命令。我现在再次查看它。我以前看过，因此忘记了一些内容，但我现在正再次查看，以确定我是否有任何问题。抱歉。我不记得了，如果存在争议，会如何处理？\n\n德斯平斯先生：如存在争议，该争议——该争议会在下一次中期费用申请时审理，因此您不必每月处理该事项。因此，该事项会转至——在本案中，第一次费用申请可能会在 11 月，视法官阁下的日程而定。可能会在 11 月，因此，如果对 9 月提交的月度报表提出异议，该等事项——\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2115　提交于 08/23/23　登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49　第 9 页，共 87 页\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2115　提交于 08/23/23　登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49　第 10 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023\n\n1　将在此后的第一次中期申请时审理，之后的后续事项亦依此类推——\n\n2\n\n3　法庭：因此，该程序自截至 8 月 31 日的期间开始？\n\n4　这是否意味着您可以提交——您不会提交某项文件——让我换个说法——让我试着使我刚才想说的话表达清楚。\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7　您提交的、适用该程序的第一份申请，将包括截至并包括 8 月 31 日的时间？是否正确？\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10　德斯平斯先生：正确。但是，正如我们将从下一项动议看到的，法官阁下可能已知悉，我们确实提交了 Neubert 及 Paul Hastings 的费用申请，我们请求——嗯，法庭已安排于 9 月中旬就此举行听证会。因此，该申请并非依据——\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15　法庭：对。\n\n16\n\n17　德斯平斯先生：——该程序提交，尽管我们适用了相同的 20 percent hold back——\n\n18\n\n19　法庭：好的。\n\n20　德斯平斯先生：——因为那是与美国受托人及委员会达成协议的一部分。\n\n21\n\n22　法庭：好的。我确实注意到，在今天听证会前审阅该文件时，已安排听证会的费用申请不适用该程序。\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2115　提交于 08/23/23　登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49　第 11 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023 年 8 月 15 日 11　DESPINS 先生：正确。\n\n法院：好的。我只是注意到，我对此没有任何异议，但本次——本程序，即关于第 202 号命令的动议——的听证原定于下午 1:00 举行，现在是 12:15，所以我们稍微提前了一些。\n\nDESPINS 先生：嗯。\n\n法院：我认为不会有人尚未到场而又会出席；如果有，我会——我会处理，但从法院的角度看，我认为这不是问题。委员会或美国受托人是否希望就这些事项陈述意见？\n\nMACKEY 先生：法官阁下，我是代表美国受托人的 Steven Mackey（史蒂文·麦基）。关于这些程序，这同样是与美国受托人、委员会和受托人的律师协商达成的。无异议声明已由 Claiborn 律师提交——再次说明，他本周休假。该文件为案卷编号 2067。因此，美国受托人对制定这些程序没有异议。这将节省费用，我认为也会缩短各方的工作量。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nMAYHEW 女士：我是代表委员会的 Kristin Mayhew（克里斯廷·梅休）。我只想说明委员会支持该动议。我们当然曾被征询意见并参与起草该程序动议，我们同意其公平、合理，并且就控制费用而言是合理的。谢谢。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 12 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023 年 8 月 15 日 12　法院：谢谢。好的。我正在查看该命令的红线版本，即经修订的拟议命令。该文件已作为 ECF No. 2047 提交。Despins 受托人，如果您不介意，我只是花一点时间再审阅一遍。（暂停。）\n\nDESPINS 先生：法官阁下，我可能说错了。您问我这何时适用。我认为，7 月——7 月的费用——如果法官阁下今天签发该命令，7 月的费用将受该命令约束。\n\n法院：我想——我想这正是我所预期的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：而我此前说的是 8 月。\n\n法院：我的意思是，您不会——无论如何，在我看来，您将提交的、适用本程序的第一份费用申请，其期间将截至 8 月 31 日。\n\nDESPINS 先生：第一份月度报表，是的。\n\n法院：对。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是。\n\n法院：这没问题。我明白。我——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 13 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023 年 8 月 15 日 13　我的意思是——\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n法院：——我认为没问题。显然，如我们都知道的，本案能够这样做，是因为现在有资金——现在已有可用资金来这样做。如果不是——如果存在遗产中没有资金的情况，或者，您知道，可能并不适宜，但在本案目前存在的情形下，我认为以这种方式进行是可以的。这显然，您知道，将来在某个时候可能会改变，但希望不会，因为显然希望是，您知道，您将能够为遗产债权人追回任何能够追回的款项；因此，如果情况如此——但正如我过去对人们所说，这类程序在某些条件下是合理的，而本案目前具备这些条件。因此，我认为没问题。因此，ECF No. 2047 中的拟议命令可以签发。我唯一要向法庭书记员指出的变更是在该命令的第一页。其中有一处空白供填写今天的听证日期。因此，请我们只需加上今天的日期。\n\n法庭书记员：好的。\n\n法院：此外，根据本案的具体事实和情形，包括本案过去数月发生的进展，该程序具有正当性，并将持续，除非且直至其不再具有正当性。并且，您知道，它可能永远不会——它可能会一直持续。因此，就本——就本动议而言，基于记录中陈述的理由，准许该动议，并将签发经作出该项小变更、加入今天听证日期的拟议命令。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 14 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023 年 8 月 15 日 14　DESPINS 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS 先生：下一个事项我们也有这个下午 1 点的问题，即授权受托人和债务人总法律顾问提交已经提交的费用申请的动议——\n\n法院：我认为我们也可以审理该事项。\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。那么——那么，法官阁下，该事项的案卷编号为 2065。这是一个高度技术性的问题，但，您知道，《法典》第 331 条规定，费用申请不得在间隔少于 120 天的情况下举行听证，除非法院另有命令。我们及当地律师已提交第二份费用申请，该申请已安排于 9 月中旬举行听证。我想是 15 日，但我不能百分之百确定，不过大致就在那个日期附近。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 15 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023 年 8 月 15 日 15　我们只是希望获得一项裁定，即法院授权该程序；并非批准实际的申请本身，而只是允许尽管有第 331 条规定，仍就该等申请举行听证，即法院签发一项命令允许如此进行。而且我相信，我们也没有收到对该动议提出的异议或意见。\n\n法院：是否有人希望就受托人关于授权在少于 120 天间隔内提交费用申请的命令动议陈述意见？\n\nMACKEY 先生：法官阁下，再次说明，我是代表美国受托人的 Steven Mackey（史蒂文·麦基）。该事项已由美国受托人审查。我们尚未就此提交声明，但我们对此没有异议。这将厘清在法官阁下刚刚批准的新临时付款机制之前已经发生和累积的所有费用事项。\n\n法院：对。还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？Despins 受托人，我正在再次查看拟议命令。（暂停。）\n\n法院：我唯一会在这项命令中加入的是——法庭书记员，我们可以在“在举行听证后”之后加入该内容。\n\n法庭书记员：好的。\n\n法院：好的。因为我在记录中注意到，我没有看到就该动议提交的任何异议。没有参与本次听证的任何人反对该动议。美国受托人办公室已表示其对该动议没有异议。基于所有这些理由，准许该动议，并将签发经作出记录中所述的小变更的拟议命令。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 16 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023 年 8 月 15 日 16　DESPINS 先生：那么此时——谢谢，法官阁下。此时，我将把发言席让给 Luft 先生，由他处理 HCHK 事项的审前会议。\n\n法院：在此之前，我们延期——今天有一场审前会议被延期。该延期申请昨晚已提交，涉及——\n\nDESPINS 先生：Sherry Netherland。\n\n法院：Sherry Netherland，对吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：是。\n\n法院：好的。我认为该事项已经获得新的日期。我不确定是否已经处理完毕。大概在 9 月的某个时间。但您预计在某个时候，要么继续进行该审前会议，要么达成某种形式的解决方案。那是我所读到的吗，还是我理解错了？我可能错了，因为我可能把它与这些案件中的其他许多事项之一混淆了。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是。是的，所以这不是 Bravo Luck。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023 年 8 月 15 日 17　法院：不，我知道这不是 Bravo Luck。对。\n\nDESPINS 先生：——所以情况不明，法官阁下。没有真正的紧迫性，因为不幸的是，目前没有人能够住在那套公寓里。因此，我认为，如果法官阁下愿意，我会将该事项进一步往后安排，因为我认为短期内该对抗程序不会有任何活动。\n\n法院：您认为——我不知道新日期是否已经确定，但您是说您希望排到 9 月以后？我想延期请求是 30 天。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是这样。\n\n法院：这就是我的记忆。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是这样。因此，我们获得其他当事人同意延期 30 天——\n\n法院：也许如果您再次获得——\n\nDESPINS 先生：——所以我不应请求——\n\n法院：——同意，为什么不提前提交呢——\n\nDESPINS 先生：是。\n\n法院：——这样它就会再次延期——\n\nDESPINS 先生：是。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 18 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023 年 8 月 15 日\n1　法院：\n——再次。\n2　DESPINS 先生：\n是。是的，法官阁下。\n3　法院：\n好的。\n4　DESPINS 先生：\n谢谢。\n5　法院：\n谢谢。\n6　LUFT 先生：\n法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n7　法院：\n可以，请。\n8　LUFT 先生：\n并且，法官阁下，我知道 Pastore 先生\n9　先前询问过他是否可以参与。我当然\n10　不反对听取他的意见。\n11　法院：\n我也不反对听取他的意见，\n12　但须理解，您——目前尚未就\n13　介入动议作出裁定。\n14　我知道当事人——我不记得\n15　具体日期，但我知道你们已同意某些日期，或者\n16　可能是法院已经命令。我现在不记得\n17　有关对诉状的回应，以及\n18　与证据开示有关的事项。\n对吗？仍然有——\n19　LUFT 先生：\n正确，法官阁下。\n20　法院：\n——证据开示。好的。好。那么，\n21　Pastore 先生，您能否请在记录中说明您的\n22　出庭代理身份？\n23　PASTORE 先生：\n当然。下午好，法官阁下。\n24　我是 Joseph Pastore（约瑟夫·帕斯托雷），Pastore, LLC 律师事务所。\n我代表\n25　本案中界定的 HCHK 债权人。今天与我一同出席的\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023 年 8 月 15 日 19　是我的同事 Paul Fenaroli（保罗·费纳罗利），其出庭代理身份已提交存档。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nPASTORE 先生：我的同事 Melissa McClammy（梅丽莎·麦克拉米），她此前曾在您面前出庭，本周休假。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。抱歉，我把您的姓名读错了。我说成了 Pastori。应为 Pastore。因此——\n\nPASTORE 先生：自二年级以来就一直有人这样叫错，法官阁下。没关系。\n\n法院：不幸的是，我相信确实如此。好的。请继续，Luft 律师。\n\nLUFT 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我是代表 Chapter 11 受托人的 Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），来自 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）。因此，法官阁下，在某种程度上，您刚刚提出的有关这些日期的问题正是我们面前的事项。如法官阁下所知，我们已有 9019 和解，该和解已经获得批准。作为其中一部分，受让人不打算反对我们就 HCHK 的替身实体及衡平所有权提起的诉讼。显然，如果——如果没有其他介入人并且情况如此，而我们继续推进，我们将非常迅速地申请简易判决，并力求在时间安排上尽快结束该事项。但本案确有拟议介入人。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 19 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 20 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023\n1　他们已提交其书面文件；如有帮助，我可以凭记忆说明，但我相信——我们应当在\n2　September 8th前完成证据开示，并且我相信我们应当在\n3　September 15th前提交反对意见。\n\n6　法庭：\n听起来是这样。\n\n7　LUFT律师：\n自我们上次在您面前出庭以来，\n8　法官阁下，当时我们举行了视频Zoom会议，并且\n9　讨论了证据开示，双方同意他们将\n10　向我们送达——我说“他们”，是指拟介入人——新的异议和答复，\n11　因为他们上一次的答复并非针对这些请求具体作出。\n我们已收到该等文件，\n12　如果我们对此有争议，\n13　我们的强制披露动议应于今日到期。\n14　因此，我想——我以此作为背景，因为我\n15　认为这就是我们目前所处的阶段，法官阁下。我们收到了\n16　异议和答复；他们表示，他们对所有证言录取一概提出异议，\n17　并且对我们绝大多数文件请求提出异议。\n18　尤其是，对所有涉及\n19　介入人与债务人\n20　及其代理人之间关系和联系的事项，以及其他一些事项，包括\n21　可识别参与这些所谓贷款人员的文件，\n22　均提出异议。\n23　我无意在今天于此对此进行辩论，\n24　但我是在大多数该等异议的背景下提出这一点。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 21　依我看来，这些异议的核心在于，以其在技术上仍属非当事人为由主张负担过重。我理解法官阁下要求进行证据开示的命令，基本上是将该问题直接置于待决事项之中，即表示，这正是我们将要进行证据开示的内容。我们将查明——我们将取得该等信息并加以判断，因为这将涉及介入问题。但我们收到的异议，在我看来，是前进一步、后退两步，因为他们现在又以同样理由提出异议，即由于他们在技术上不是本案当事人，我们将无法取得所需的证据开示材料。因此，我一直在考虑此事，虽然我此前没有机会与Pastore律师谈过，但我试图——我真正关心的是，法官阁下，我只想知道这些人是谁。我想知道他们是否拥有有效请求权，以及他们是否受债务人驱使、是否受其控制。依我看来，这些都涉及诉讼资格问题。我不想经历整个程序并延误我们的日程，只是为了争论他们在技术上是否已在本案中，然后我们又在上诉中面临他们在技术上是否属于本案当事人的问题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 21 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 22　因此，我有一个想法，也愿意讨论：我想找到一种方式，确保进行该等证据开示。我认为，我们在前几天的电话会议中都同意，这既与介入相关，也与他们修改TRO（临时限制令）的请求相关。请看，我不——我想务实一些。若准许他们介入意味着他们现在认为自己在技术上已成为本案当事人，而我们随后可以同意立即进行——开展我们将进行的证据开示，并将其称为诉讼资格相关证据开示；在我们取得该等证据开示后，该问题将得到解决，即在审理实体问题之前，通过届时我想将被称为有关其诉讼资格的简易判决动议或某种形式的动议解决该问题；如果这样能够解决这些异议并使我们实际取得证据开示材料，我对此没有异议。或者，如果我们可以直接推进，我将提交强制披露动议，并据此继续进行。您知道，我不想以不必要的动议增加法庭负担。这实际上就只是我们如何称呼它，以及确保我们能够这样做。如果这能解决关于负担的异议，因为他们现在在技术上不再是非当事人，而是能够运作的当事人。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 22 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 23　但就目前状态而言，这大致就是我的看法。谢谢。Despins律师纠正我：这将是附条件准许介入，等待——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我不认为——\n\nLUFT律师：\n——某项后续事项。\n\n法庭：\n——你可以允许他们介入，然后又说他们没有诉讼资格。我的意思是——\n\nLUFT律师：\n嗯，我想这就是问题——\n\n法庭：\n对。\n\nLUFT律师：\n——法官阁下。那——\n\n法庭：\n但我同意，我们将——嗯，也许Pastore律师，我们大家都需要谈一谈；但你提交了介入动议，受托人对此提出异议，并称其需要证据开示以确定你们是否属于可以介入的当事人；我认为我曾说过，但我可能记错了，所以各位可以纠正我，在我们就两项相关——我认为是相关——动议举行的会议上，尽管我认为你们澄清TRO的动议，该问题在某些方面已因受让人表示在本法庭解决该问题之前和之后均不会在纽约采取任何行动而得到解决。证据开示旨在查明你们是谁、你们的债权人是谁，以及他们为何具有诉讼资格。因此，我理解——我认为我理解了\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 23 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 24 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023\n1　我刚才听到的内容，即你们的委托人已对目前的每一项——所有证据开示\n2　提出异议——\n\n3　LUFT律师：\n没有。\n\n4　法庭：\n没有？\n\n5　LUFT律师：\n那不对。\n\n6　法庭：\n那我们澄清一下。\n\n7　LUFT律师：\n他们对所有证言录取提出异议。\n\n8　法庭：\n好的。\n\n9　LUFT律师：\n他们拒绝——对\n10　大多数文件请求提出异议，包括所有涉及与债务人及其关联方\n11　任何联系的请求；\n12　他们还对一项要求其\n13　识别参与人员、足以显示个人参与该贷款的文件请求提出异议。\n14　他们已同意提供——\n\n15　法庭：\n好的。\n\n16　LUFT律师：\n——他们所称其发放的贷款相关文件。\n17　所以——\n\n18　法庭：\n那么——那些材料将在\n19　September 8th当日或之前提供吗？\n\n20　PASTORE律师：\n正确，法官阁下。我能否——\n21　我能否说几句——\n\n22　法庭：\n请讲。\n\n23　PASTORE律师：\n——因为我对Luft律师的说法略有不同意见。\n24　只是为了让我们能够达成共识。\n25　\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 25 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 25　如我们在上次会议后所说，我们送达了异议；随后，我们就该异议进行了一个或两个小时的会面协商，在该过程中我们进一步同意提供更多文件。我们最初同意提供的是所有与贷款有关的文件。所有——\n\n法庭：\n我能否——我能否就此问你一个问题？\n\nPASTORE律师：\n当然。\n\n法庭：\n所以，当我——当你说贷款时，我记得——再说一次，请你纠正我。在介入动议中，我认为你附上了，或者在某份诉状中附上了一份贷款文件、一份票据，对吗？三份不同的票据，是这样吗？\n\nPASTORE律师：\n是的。还有一份电汇转账。\n\n法庭：\n好的。因此，当你谈到贷款文件时，你将提供你委托人就该项交易所持有的全部贷款文件档案吗？\n\nPASTORE律师：\n正确。我们同意提供我们所持有的任何与贷款有关的文件，并且我们已在异议中如此表示。我们确实提出了异议，但那是——那一类别文件是我们同意提供的。在会面协商中，我们还同意提供任何显示贷款资金来源的文件；我们认为这非常特殊，并非真正\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 26 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023\n1　相关或必要，但我们出于善意这样做，试图缩小争议，因为如果你是债权人，并且对该笔资金享有权利、所有权和权益，那么为确定你是否为债权人，该资金来自何处实际上并不重要；但我们表示愿意采取额外步骤，尝试证明债权人为消除任何可能的证据开示争议而持有的资金来源。\n2　\n3　\n4　\n5　\n6　\n7　\n8　我们确实就债权人与债务人之间的相互关系提出了一般性异议；我尊重这样一个事实，我以前说过，我们现在是在一出戏的第五幕。\n我们错过了前四幕。\n\n但我们只是认为，债权人的法律诉讼资格并不取决于他们的朋友是谁或者他们有何种关系。关键在于，他们是否对该笔资金享有权利、所有权和权益，以及他们是否订立了债权人性质的协议并出借了该款项，从而成为债权人。\n\n而他们是否持有与债务人一致的政治观点、是否与债务人喝咖啡、是否开着债务人的汽车，从法律上说并不真正与他们是否为债权人相关；这是我们向受托人建议的一点。\n\n我们确实说过，我们必须向你们提供显示他们是债权人的文件；我们甚至会采取额外\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 27 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 27　步骤，向你们提供显示他们取得资金以成为债权人的来源的文件。我们认为这很合理。因此，我认为Luft律师称我们一概提出异议并不公平。我们确实同意在September 8th前提供所有这些文件，并且我们已——我们已开始收集这些文件。\n\n法庭：\n但你们不同意进行任何证言录取？\n\nPASTORE律师：\n目前——我们找不到任何一个判例表明，介入人必须提供任何证据开示才能成为介入人。如果我们就强制披露动议提交书面意见，我们准备就此进行辩论；Breyer法官有一项判决，我凭记忆说，它表示他们只须提出可识别的请求权。因此，我们认为，强迫尚不在美国且甚至尚未成为本案当事人的各方接受证言录取，超出了判例法和规范介入的法律范围；这就是我们反对证言录取的原因，因为我们无法就证言录取应如何进行达成协议，而且我们认为，在这些人甚至尚未成为本案当事人的情况下，要求他们来到美国接受证言录取并不公平。\n\nLUFT律师：\n那不公平。\n\n法庭：\n好。等一下。等一下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 28 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023\n1　等一下。我只是听取你刚才所说的话。\n2　所以问题在于，对这些请求权享有权利的一方，即受让人，已就转让问题与\n3　受托人解决了争议。\n4　\n5　而你们的委托人想要——想要介入，以主张——我认为受让人超越了其权限范围行事。\n6　我认为这是你们的一项请求权，\n7　不是吗？\n\n10　PASTORE律师：\n嗯，我认为他们也想介入以阻止作出另我认定。\n他们将支持以下观点，即——\n\n13　法庭：\n好的。但我们先——我们继续——我\n14　理解你说得对。\n\n15　PASTORE律师：\n是的。\n\n16　法庭：\n这是个好观点。\n\n17　PASTORE律师：\n对。\n\n18　法庭：\n但我们回顾一下和解过程，至少按我的记忆，而且再说一次，如果我错了，我相信各位都会纠正我。该和解协议规定，除非且直至受托人证明另我请求权，否则不会就转让采取任何行动，除资金进入该——该破产财产以供投资之外。我认为这是准确的。\n\n25　PASTORE律师：\n我认为这很公允。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 29 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日 29 法庭：如果发生这种情况，那么他证明了另我主张，那么无论你们的委托人是否——你看，我想我——我所纠结并且对下一步有些困惑的是，如果——如果受托人胜诉，那么一切都会被归并，因为你们的债权人——你们的债权人都会成为郭先生的债权人。PASTORE先生：明白。但如果我们是对的，这些公司不是债务人的另我，并且我们打算介入本案，协助律师和公司——如果有律师出庭的话——或者我们自己来做，抗辩另我的概念；如果法庭同意我们，而且它们不是另我，那么该款项就不是破产财产，我们是那些公司的债权人，有权获得——法庭：对。PASTORE先生：——$27 million返还。法庭：对。因此，本质上没有——没有损害，因为如果受托人未能成功，按照和解协议的运作方式，所有款项都会返还纽约，而你们——你们——我不知道就转让而言债权人群体目前的状况，但显然你们的委托人实质上会处于控制地位。你们会拥有最大的债权。PASTORE先生：老实说，我不知道。我知道我\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日 30 代表四名拥有债权的债权人。法庭：好的。PASTORE先生：看起来，在那38 million、39 million，不管是多少之中，他们拥有27。因此，他们占了很大一部分。法庭：对。PASTORE先生：但我不了解其他债权人。我与他们没有任何关系。法庭：那么——好吧。我明白你的意思。但是，允许证据开示的原因，是为了给受托人一个机会作出判断或提出论证，无论受托人将要做什么，以说明，是的，他们——他们是债权人，或者他们不是，并且不应被允许介入，对吗？这就是全部——PASTORE先生：完全同意。法庭：好的。PASTORE先生：完全同意。因此，我们再次提出的证据开示涉及我们是否为债权人，甚至更进一步，说你们甚至可以看到我们从哪里得到这笔钱。我不知道他们为何还需要任何其他资料来确定我们是否为债权人。如果我们与债务人是朋友，也许我们确实是。我与人没有密切的私人关系，这实际上并不相关。案件 22-50073 文书 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 30 页，共 87 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 31 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日\n1　法庭：现在，不幸的是，在本案中，\n2　这可能相关。如你所说，你错过了前四幕。\n3　PASTORE先生：不。我明白。\n4　法庭：因此，这可能相关。我并非\n5　要说——我并未就任何事项作出裁定。好的。这是一次\n6　审前会议，但这可能相关。\n7　这里存在一个——存在一个更大的问题，即——\n8　我必须做的是，我必须整体审视所有问题。\n9　我完全明白，你代表你的委托人，\n10　你毫无疑问必须关切你委托人的利益，但\n11　我必须关切的不止是你委托人的\n12　利益。\n13　PASTORE先生：不，不。我明白。\n14　法庭：因此——不，我知道你明白。我只是\n15　想说，当你说他们是否为朋友并不相关时，\n16　或者那是你举的例子之一，\n17　在许多许多案件中，这或许确实如此，但在像\n18　本案这样的案件中，可能并非如此。\n19　而且，这正是我们在此面临的问题的一部分，即\n20　已经发生了如此多的事情，以及显然将继续发生的事情，\n21　涉及不同实体和不同的指控与主张，而我\n22　已经知悉和/或已经作出裁定，或者已经被提出\n23　给我的——你知道，我们未必对每一项\n24　动议都作出了裁定，但已经提出了指控。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 32 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日 32 目前有待决——有——我不知道有多少待决的对抗程序，但有很多。我认为超过12个，或者可能接近20个。我不确定，其中均提出了与该债务人有关的各种问题；而且，你知道，本案提交时，最大债权人提出的——支持指定受托人的指控是，该债务人利用不同实体开展经营活动。这是否会得到证明并不是——那是指控，对吗？因此，在指定受托人时，之所以指定受托人，是因为甚至债务人也同意存在理由，使法庭根据《破产法》第11章——你知道，即《法典》第1112条——采取某种行动，该条规定你要么驳回、转换，要么指定受托人。因此，债务人甚至没有对此提出异议。他们甚至没有对理由提出异议。他们不认为存在理由。现在，他们希望案件被驳回，但他们同——他们同意存在理由。好的。然后指定Despins（德斯平斯）受托人，随后发生了所有这些事情，包括纽约的这项转让程序，其中有人将这些实体的全部资产转让给——你知道，转让给纽约的该受让人，而受托人主张这些资产实际上是债务人破产财产的资产。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 33 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日 33 因此，虽然我明白你的意思，但我不确定我现在是否同意——能够同意——而且，正如我所说，我并未就任何事项作出裁定。这是审前会议。我们是在进行讨论。PASTORE先生：对。法庭：但这并不相关。它很可能相关。你看，这就是问题所在，因为如果它相关，那么所寻求的证据开示可能——可能是适当的。因此——但我们继续讨论，不过我只是想让你明白，尽管我——你的一般性陈述——或者不是你的一般性陈述，你的陈述可能通常是正确的，即你是否与债务人共进午餐并不重要。但在本案中，那实际上可能相关。PASTORE先生：我明白，并且非常尊重法庭，我已阅读了许多裁决——对本案的历史有一些了解；而且，你知道，从我们的角度看，我们——我们正努力以我们所能的最纯粹方式来陈述这一点，即从我们的角度看，这些是借款给公司的债权人。那些公司不是另我。那些债权人有权获得偿还。如果破产财产以某种方式有权从债权人手中取得该款项，那是另一个问题，但是\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 34 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日\n1　依法，如果他们是合法债权人，\n2　他们应当能够介入；如果这些公司不是另我，\n3　他们应当能够获得偿还，而且\n4　他们的人际关系或个人行为，并不改变\n5　关于债权人的法律分析。\n6　法庭：我认为这只在\n7　他们是否为合法债权人方面相关。这就是重点。\n8　我目前并非说我同意或不同意任何一方，\n9　因为我不知道。我没有看过任何资料。\n10　我不知道什么——嗯，当然，我对\n11　证据开示有一个概念，也对你们的答复有一个概念；\n12　除非并且直到这确实是\n13　法庭必须作出裁定的事项，否则我不需要看，也不想看，对吗？\n14　而我们——那可能正是——我们正在前往的方向。\n15　但重点仍然是，在\n16　本案的情形下，这可能是适当的证据开示；你可能\n17　完全正确，即你找不到有关该问题的判例，\n18　而那可能是因为并没有一个具有这些具体事实和情形、\n19　并且有人就此作出可供你\n20　援引的裁决的案件。\n21　因此，我明白你的观点。我确实明白。我只是——\n22　——我不——我不确定——如果\n23　当事人之间仍存在争议，我们可能就必须\n24　对证据开示作出某种形式的裁定。\n25　\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 35 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日 35 听起来你们确实取得了进展，我对此表示感谢。好的。毫无疑问，当当事人处理证据开示时，法庭会赞赏他们以合作方式工作并履行其义务，而显然双方都在努力这样做。因此，我并不担心没有发生这种情况。然而，可能会有一个时点，我必须裁定所寻求的证据开示在这种情形下是否适当。因此，我了解到你们已经进行了会谈协商。我了解到你们将于September 8th前提交文件；然后，我想我设定了某个期限，或者我记得，如果存在争议，某人必须在某个日期前提交某项文件，然后法庭将不得不作出裁定，对吗？因为是否——实际上，我不确定目前是否已经就介入动议安排了听证。PASTORE先生：我认为没有，法官阁下。法庭：是的，我认为实际上没有——PASTORE先生：但是——法庭：——因为我们必须先处理完这一证据开示问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 36 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日 36 PASTORE先生：对。LUFT先生：有一个日期。就是今天，我们本应在今天提交一项——你知道，一项强制动议，如果我们有的话。法庭：是今天？LUFT先生：就是今天。让我——我直接说结论或中间部分，就是，看，我乐意与Pastore先生进一步交谈；如果我们能够——如果那——如果将该日期推迟一天左右，或者让我们能够进一步交谈会有帮助——法庭：如果你们双方同意，我对此没有问题。PASTORE先生：哦，没有问题。我们——我认为我们有三天时间提交答复。法庭：好的。PASTORE先生：我只是想确保保留那三天。是的。LUFT先生：是的。法庭：是，我的意思是，如果所有人都同意，我们会将一切期限——LUFT先生：是的。法庭：——予以顺延。PASTORE先生：当然。LUFT先生：法官阁下，我对此没有意见。我会说，而且，看，我不会讨论来回争论的定性问题。我认为这都是公平的。我想我要说的一点是，至少根据我的理解，部分——以及我先前的评论，部分源于我对引发异议之事的理解，即认为因为他们尚未介入，他们对证据开示提出了独特的异议；而如果他们已经在技术上介入，但仍然存在诉讼资格问题。也就是说，如果我刚刚对他们提起诉讼，而存在——你知道，一项以没有诉讼资格为由的驳回动议，你会经历那个程序，你知道——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 37 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日 37 法庭：我明白。LUFT先生：——就像那将会——因此，这就是我真正想表达的，就是，看，我不想——我认为我们需要这项证据开示。我认为我们必须获得它。我们可以就范围存在分歧。我认为我们正在讨论的内容是必要的，但我认为，实际上处于这样一种境地并不十分有成效：由于其所处程序地位，该证据开示本质上总会受到阻碍。总会有人主张，在这个时点这不是适当的证据开示；而且，如果我们能够就一项程序达成一致，使我们能够进行那种有关诉讼资格的证据开示，并理解知悉此事对我们而言很重要，我也不希望就此制造上诉争点。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2115 提交日期 08/23/23 录入日期 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 38 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023 年 8 月 15 日\n1　如果他们作出了贷款，则他们是否为有效债权人。\n2　根据我们所看到的情况，我们对此确实存在疑问。\n3　我们了解债务人的情况\n4　至关重要。虽然我理解这可能\n5　是一次轻松的喝咖啡、上车会面，但我们知道，在本案中，\n6　我们并非在谈论我们的政治信仰。\n7　我们并非在询问他们二人是否都是共和党人或民主党人，\n8　法官阁下。\n9　坦率地说，我们所询问的是债务人是否\n10　控制或指挥这些实体。这些实体大部分是\n11　Himalayan Farms（喜马拉雅农场），本院已认定其为实际\n12　经营——您知道，该企业权益\n13　在很大程度上受债务人控制。\n14　我们有非常重要的理由质疑\n15　债务人是否在指挥此事。基于此，\n16　基于我们昨天谈到的证据正在显示，\n17　即使在监狱中，Kwok 先生仍在让 Wang 女士\n18　指挥这些实体继续这样做。\n19　我认为这一切都非常相关；如果阻碍获得该证据开示、\n20　或使其得以进行的问题，\n21　是弄清这一程序机制，那么我很乐意\n22　与 Pastore 先生交谈，但我确实认为我们应当设法\n23　找到一种方式，使我们能够一次完成此事并妥善处理。\n24　法庭：嗯，我的意思是，我显然尚未看到\n25　任何材料，而且我——正如我所说，我认为我不应当看到\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2115 提交日期 08/23/23 录入日期 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 39 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023 年 8 月 15 日\n1　任何材料，除非我必须就证据开示异议作出裁定；但是，\n2　我不认为你们——嗯，让我换一种说法。\n3　当然并非意图让证据开示面对这样的答复：\n4　“我目前无需提供这些材料，\n5　因为我不是介入——我尚未介入。”我认为\n6　这毫无道理。\n7　我不会允许进行证据开示。我会\n8　直接驳回你们的介入动议。我的意思是，我认为\n9　情况就是这样——因此我们必须——您知道，我认为\n10　在这种情况下采取务实做法是有益的；并且\n11　毫无疑问，我已允许你们参加听证，\n12　发表意见，并代表你们的客户主张立场，\n13　但你们尚未——介入动议尚未获准，\n14　因此你们目前尚不是介入人。\n15　但是，在这种情况下，我允许你们\n16　发表意见。我原以为这很明确，如非如此，我表示歉意：\n17　证据开示必须针对\n18　你们是否有权介入这一问题。并非——我不认为\n19　你们可以基于如下主张提出异议：\n20　因为你们尚未介入——你们尚不是介入人，\n21　所以你们不受有关证据开示的同一《联邦民事诉讼规则》\n22　约束。\n23　而且我不确定你们是否曾作出过该主张。我\n24　并不——我甚至不想——我并不试图陷入\n25　一场全面争论。我只是说，从本院的角度来看，证据开示的目的\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2115 提交日期 08/23/23 录入日期 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 40 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023 年 8 月 15 日\n40　是让受托人能够确定你们的客户是否应被允许介入，因为我认为这是一项有效的请求，我认为这具有正当性。而且，重申一次，这是由于起诉状文本范围之外以及文本范围之内存在的诸多其他事项。两者皆有。但是，正如我所说，您知道，我必须考虑到，受托人作为所有这些财产的受托义务人和代表人也必须考虑到，对吗，所有人，而不仅仅是特定的人。因此，我不知道你们希望如何处理此事。我的意思是，如果你们想要休庭——如果你们想要休庭交谈，或者你们希望法庭做什么。但听起来你们双方均同意，可以将本次提交动议的期限延长几天；该动议将要求本院就证据开示问题作出若干裁定。是否如此？\n\nLUFT 先生：我同意。\n\nPASTORE 先生：我们完全同意。\n\n法庭：好的。随后提交答复的期限也将相应延长。\n\nLUFT 先生：当然。\n\n法庭：那么你们希望如何处理？是否想短暂休庭？是否希望稍后回来报告？你们——你们希望怎么做？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2115 提交日期 08/23/23 录入日期 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 41 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023 年 8 月 15 日\n41　LUFT 先生：我们或许可以稍后回来报告，因为我知道您还有其他排期事项，而且我们有人在这里，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我想排期表上只有另一件事项，对吗？除非我遗漏了什么。但是，是的，我们可以稍后回来报告。没问题。为什么不——\n\nLUFT 先生：好的。这样对您可以吗？\n\n法庭：——我们就这么做？你们何不先谈谈，然后——\n\nLUFT 先生：很好。\n\n法庭：——我们再据此继续。\n\nLUFT 先生：好的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nPASTORE 先生：我可以为记录说明一点吗？我不——是的，我们可能基于我们作为介入人的资格等提出过异议，但我们的根本——我认为，为了区分这些文件，根本问题是，我们认为我们有义务提供证明——证明我们是债权人的文件，并且如我所说，进一步证明我们从何处取得资金。我们划定界限，认为我们与债务人的关系与我们是否为法律上有效的债权人无关，因为那是对我们的贷款文件和信贷提供的法律分析。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2115 提交日期 08/23/23 录入日期 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 42 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023 年 8 月 15 日\n42　我不认为我们采取过这样的立场，即我们无需证明自己在本案中是有效债权人。我们不会这样做，而且我们也没有这样做。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nPASTORE 先生：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。那么为什么不这样——我将——我会处理日程上的另一事项，而你们双方可以交谈，看看是否有任何事项希望回来报告；但我理解，即使没有报告，除 September 8th 日期外，目前我不会要求你们遵守其他日期，该日期涉及就证据开示争议提交动议和／或对该动议作出答复。好的。\n\nLUFT 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nPASTORE 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢两位。那么唯一——我是否有误——或者如果只是——我想唯一的另一事项是另一个——是——\n\nLUFT 先生：我相信是 HK USA（HK 美国）。\n\n法庭：是的。22-5003 HK USA（HK 美国）审前会议，对吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我想 Moriarty 律师将为该事项上前。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2115 提交日期 08/23/23 录入日期 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 43 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023 年 8 月 15 日\n43　好的。关于 HK Funds, USA（HK 基金，美国）对抗程序 22-5003，请各方为记录注明出庭身份。\n\nDESPINS 先生：Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人。\n\nLUFT 先生：Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）律师，代表第 11 章受托人，法官阁下。\n\nSKALKA 先生：Douglas Skalka（道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡），Neubert, Pepe, and Monteith（诺伊伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂思律师事务所），同样代表第 11 章受托人。\n\nMORIARTY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂），Zeisler and Zeisler（泽斯勒和泽斯勒律师事务所）律师，代表 HK International Funds Investments, USA Limited, LLC（HK 国际基金投资美国有限责任公司）及 Mei Guo（梅果）。\n\n法庭：下午好。好的。那么，本次审前会议，我们于 July 18th 举行了一次审前会议，随后将审前会议延期至今日。因此，各方是否就该对抗程序的现状以及你们希望本院采取何种措施进行了进一步讨论？\n\nLUFT 先生：我们已进行讨论，法官阁下。我不能说我们已达成一致，但我很乐意向本院说明我们目前的情况。\n\n法庭：请。请继续。\n\nLUFT 先生：我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以，请。\n\nLUFT 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。为记录说明，Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）律师，代表第 11 章\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023 年 8 月 15 日\n44　受托人。因此，我们已有机会与对方律师交谈；我认为目前摆在我们面前的问题是，本案中我将称为第三、第四和第五项诉请的事项。第三项为衡平所有权，第四项为欺诈性转让，第五项为侵权请求，仍未解决。本案中有一项初步禁令仍然有效；另有一项我认为相关的事项——我将解释原因——即我们有关提存诉讼的简易判决动议正待裁决。本院问我们：“我们——我们要如何处理这些事项？剩余部分怎么办？”作为背景，我认为首先审视第三项诉请很重要。上次有人提出，该项诉请是作为第一和第二项诉请的备选诉请提出的。这并非事实；我认为我们已澄清此点，而且我认为他们会同意这一点很明确。第三项诉请并非备选诉请。它是另一项依据，另一项诉请。但并非与第一项和第二项相对立的事项。现在，它仍然有效。法官阁下，我认为第四和第五项罪名项不应被驳回，因为尚有上诉待决；但确实，如果我们在第一和第二项罪名项上胜诉，并且可能还在第三项上胜诉，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2115 提交日期 08/23/23 录入日期 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 45 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023 年 8 月 15 日\n1　第四和第五项罪名项将不再适用，因为事实上，我们将是另一个——将是另我实体。该认定\n2　将得以维持，衡平所有权将存在，因此，\n3　将不会存在欺诈性转让\n4　或侵权的问题。\n5　\n6　现在，在提存诉讼中，被告\n7　采取的立场是，受托人——本院关于另我实体的裁定，\n8　即授予其全部财产和权利的裁定，\n9　并不充分，他们仍可不知以何种方式\n10　阻止提存诉讼，从而阻止转让。\n11　我们不同意这一点。我们不认为\n12　——我们认为本院就第二项诉请作出的裁定非常明确，\n13　即转让全部财产，其中将包括所有合同权利。\n14　\n15　该裁定还指示他们采取一切步骤以遵从裁定，\n16　其中包括他们只需致电\n17　提存代理人并告知其释放资金的权利。但\n18　他们着重于第三项诉请是衡平所有权这一事实，\n19　并且他们称，若未取得这些权利，\n20　我们便没有足够的权利。\n21　\n22　那么，我为何要说这些？这是因为，\n23　这确实使我们面临一个问题：我们如何处理第三项诉请？我\n24　认为，如果本院在我们的\n25　提存诉讼简易判决动议上同意我们的主张，那么资金将被释放给我们，届时我不知道\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2115 提交日期 08/23/23 录入日期 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 46 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023 年 8 月 15 日\n1　是否还有理由继续进行第三项诉请。\n\n2　然而，在该裁定作出之前，或者如果未获准作出该简易判决，那么，当然，我们将不得不继续审理第三项请求，因为根据——这是被告方用来主张的关键所在——这算是我们没有的最后一根稻草，无法迫使他们释放该款项。\n\n8　因此，在此情形下，法官阁下，我们认为需要等待提存诉讼的裁定。\n\n10　我认为在此之前作出裁定没有太大意义。\n\n12　显然，如果法院同意我们的意见，那么该等款项将被释放，并且据我们所知，那将是 HK USA（美国HK公司）的资产，就我们——我们所知而言，所有这些都将被释放给我们，我不知道是否还有必要继续审理第三项请求。\n\n17　或者，如果您——如果您不同意我们的意见，或者我们以不同的顺序进行，我们就需要继续审理第三项请求。\n\n20　现在，关于您认为曾向我们提出的另一个问题，即第一项和第二项请求是否为终局性裁定的问题，我相信这是对方提出的问题，他们试图主张应将其视为终局性裁定而非中间裁定。\n\n25　我认为这不正确。我认为第一项、第二项和第三项请求在事实方面彼此密不可分。我认为，在第三项请求仍可能悬而未决时，就第一项和第二项请求提出上诉毫无意义。因此，只要存在我们将不得不继续审理第三项请求的问题，我认为，如果我们需要继续审理第三项请求，则在就第三项请求作出裁定之前，将第一项和第二项请求继续视为中间裁定是合理的。因此，我认为我们目前的情况就是如此，法官阁下。遗憾的是，我们未能就提存款项达成协议，因此，我们仍必须依赖法院的裁定来推动该事项向前进行。但正如我所说，在我们知道该事项的情况之前，鉴于他们采取的立场是，尽管我们认为并不需要，我们实际上仍需要由第三项请求赋予的权利，我们认为您就另我问题所作裁定中授予的内容已绰绰有余。但是，鉴于他们的立场，我们无法说第三项请求已不再需要审理。我认为，这只能等到提存诉讼的裁定作出后再说。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 47 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023 47\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。我理解你们的立场。因此，请莫里亚蒂律师发言。谢谢。\n\n卢夫特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：下午好，法官阁下。我再次代表 HK USA（美国HK公司）和 Mei Guo（郭美）出庭，我是 James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）。我当事人最主要的关切，是尽快审理针对两项待决判决书的上诉。如果我们将第三项罪名放在一边——第四项和第五项是作为备选主张提出的，而且诚然，在我们起草简易判决书面材料时，我们将第二项和第三项视为备选主张，这就是我们主张受托人将获得其所寻求全部救济的原因。如果回头看该项主张，它是以第二项和第三项互为备选为前提的，而诚然，它们并非如此。我回去看了好几次反诉。第三项罪名并非第二项罪名的备选。它依赖于与第二项相同的事实，但第四项和第五项是作为备选主张提出的，其中第四项是第一项、第二项或第三项的备选，我相信第五项则是第一项或第二项的备选。因此，第四项和第五项是备选主张。它们可以放在一边。我认为它们根本不会影响上诉。第三项是可能影响上诉的罪名项；如果我们等待法院就提存诉讼中的简易判决动议作出裁定，然后再决定如何处理第三项罪名，随后受托人通过其律师说，不，我们必须恢复第三项罪名，因为法院驳回了提存诉讼中的简易判决，我们就要耗费大量时间。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 48 页，共 87 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 49 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023\n\n6　我理解卢夫特律师的观点，即如果我们未能通过提存诉讼中关于托管协议的简易判决动议取得提存款项，第三项罪名或许能使我们取得该等款项。取得该等款项的另一种方式，以及我当事人所主张的，是你们需要一项终局且不可上诉的命令。\n\n12　因此，我们并不主张第二项罪名并未向受托人赋予托管款项。它确实赋予了，而且受托人现在正持有该等款项。问题在于时间，以及何时可以释放这些款项。\n\n16　如果就第二项罪名审理上诉并使其成为终局命令。当然，我当事人可能决定要向 Second Circuit（美国联邦第二巡回上诉法院）提出上诉。我不知道，但那是根据该托管协议取得所需终局且不可上诉命令的另一种方式。\n\n22　当然，法官阁下，可以在提存诉讼中准予他们简易判决，然后显然这一切都会消失。\n\n25　因此，从我当事人的角度来看，如果本法院根据《联邦破产程序规则》第 7054 条、《联邦民事诉讼规则》第 54(b) 条作出命令，认定就第一项和第二项罪名的判决书提出上诉不存在无正当理由的延迟，我相信这合计约为已转移给受托人的 $57 million 资产；我相信，假定刚刚提交的费用申请于九月份获得批准，Lady May（Lady May）收益的全部款项将已被支出，然后我们将开始处理——假定它们可以被释放——托管款项。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 50 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023\n\n11　因此，在我当事人的上诉待决期间，我们将持续支出这些款项，或许受托人会取得更多资产，也或许不会。谁知道 Sherry Netherland（雪莉·尼德兰）公寓会值多少钱。\n\n15　我的观点是，就那两项请求而言不存在无正当理由的延迟，而且我们或许能通过上诉更快地取得终局判决书，即使受托人就第三项罪名提出简易判决动议，我也无法告诉您这将根据 Second Circuit 法律赋予受托人什么权利。或许受托人随后可以放弃托管协议中的该项条款，也或许不可以。或许我当事人会对此提出上诉。我不知道。\n\n23　我的观点是——也许我以一种冗长的方式表达我的观点——看来，就第二项罪名取得终局判决书并在他上诉成功的前提下将托管款项交给受托人的最快方式，是通过上诉程序，第三项罪名可以与第四项和第五项一同搁置。我们将同意暂停这三项罪名，而我们继续进行上诉，上诉结果如何便如何。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 51 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 51\n\n法院：嗯，现阶段你们是否有上诉权，难道不是由地区法院决定吗？难道——地区法院不作出该项决定吗？因为我认为你们提交了一项动议——你们提交了上诉通知书，但也就第一项和第二项罪名都提交了上诉许可动议，不是吗？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：对此，我的回答是否和是。因此，起初我们提交了上诉通知书。我相信，两周前我们代表 HK 和 Guo 女士提交了上诉书面陈述。在上诉书面陈述中，我们请求地区法院，如果您认定这些判决书并非终局性判决书，那么您应当准许我们，即我们的当事人，进行中间上诉。因此，是的，我们确实这样做了。最近，而且这可能是法官阁下想到的，债务人提交了上诉通知书和中间上诉动议。\n\n法院：哦，也许就是那个。是的。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：与——\n\n法院：我可以——\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：——第五修正案问题有关。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 52 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023\n\n1　法院：哦，不。我说的是本案。我不是在说第五修正案问题。我原以为，当你们就这些简易判决裁定提出上诉时，你们已经提交了——所以是我错了。如果你们没有提交上诉许可动议，我原以为你们提交了。不管怎样。\n\n7　我的观点是，如果该事项现在在地区法院审理中——\n\n9　莫里亚蒂先生：嗯，它——\n\n10　法院：——那么此时此刻，我依据第 54 条具有何种管辖权来采取任何行动？你们提交了——这绝对是你们当事人的权利。你们提交了上诉通知书，对吗？也就是针对简易判决裁定的上诉。我——我完全不知道地区法院审理中的上诉目前处于何种状态，但现阶段它已由地区法院掌握。\n\n17　莫里亚蒂先生：因此，针对第一项和第二项罪名判决书的上诉正在地区法院待决。此言正确。上诉人，即我的当事人，已经提交了开篇书面陈述。受托人尚未对此作出答复。\n\n22　截至目前，由于法官阁下尚未根据第 54(b) 条作出命令，认定不存在无正当理由的延迟，这些命令在技术上——\n\n25　法院：我甚至不会认为，在上诉待决期间你们可以作出该命令，可以吗？我的意思是，我不确定你们能否这样做。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 53\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：我尚未研究过该问题，法官阁下。\n\n法院：我的意思是，在上诉待决期间，未经地区法院许可，我认为你不能获准第 60 条动议或第 59 条动议。因此，我不知道——坦率地说，我不知道这个问题的答案，但我知道，根据第 60 条和第 59 条，在上诉待决期间你什么也不能做。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：法官阁下，我同意这一点，因为一般而言，上诉会使地区法院，例如 Second Circuit，丧失管辖权。在本案中，就这些判决书的终局性及可上诉性存在问题的范围内，本法院应当能够——我不说“可以”，因为诚然我尚未研究该问题——根据第 54(b) 条证明不存在无正当理由的延迟，从而使这些判决书在其尚未成为终局性判决书的范围内成为终局性判决书。如果这会有帮助，我很乐意就此提交一份简短书面陈述。\n\n法院：我现在还不知道。等一下。我刚才在读一些东西。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 53 页，共 87 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 54 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 15, 2023 54 本院：嗯，其中写道，根据规则54(b)，我必须明确认定不存在延迟的正当理由；否则，任何裁定或其他决定，无论其名称为何，如对少于全部请求或者少于全部当事人的权利和责任作出裁决，并不就任何请求或任何当事人终结本诉讼，且可在就全部请求及全部当事人的权利和责任作出判决书之前的任何时候予以修改。因此，它并未使用规则59和60中的相同措辞，因为它们——因为目前，地区法院——除了你在书面意见中所说的内容外，我实际上不知道你是如何提出这一问题的。我甚至不知道地区法院是否已认定你目前有权就那些简易判决裁定提起上诉。而你是说，你希望我认定——你希望——你希望通过让我就诉状中的第1项和第2项罪名根据规则54(b)作出裁定，从而将该问题排除在外？莫里亚蒂先生（Moriarty）：是的，法官阁下。然后我们继续推进上诉；如我所说，我的当事人已经提交了开篇陈述书。我们同意中止第3项、第4项和第5项罪名。没有——本院：那么，正当理由是什么？我作出如下认定的理由是什么——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 55 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 15, 2023 55 明确认定不存在延迟的正当理由？莫里亚蒂先生：据我基于我们目前所处阶段的理解，当然情况可能发生变化，受托人能够据以获得救济的唯一其他罪名项将是第3项，而这将使受托人取得该实体的股权及对该实体的控制权。我相信卢夫律师（Attorney Luft）刚刚告诉本院，如果法官阁下在提存诉讼中作出有利于受托人的简易判决，那么他们可能无需这样做，因为他们真正关注的是托管协议中的条款，该条款规定必须有一项终局性且不可上诉的裁定。如果法官阁下就提存争议作出有利于他们的简易判决，那么推定该要求便不复存在，而且他们并非——本院：如果你的当事人对其提起上诉，该要求并不会不复存在。莫里亚蒂先生：可能会有中止，也可能不会有，法官阁下。您是对的。如果我的当事人提起上诉，假定我的当事人在上诉中胜诉，该要求并不会不复存在。如果没有中止，显然，该裁定将生效。将托管资金加上“Lady May”号（Lady May）的出售所得考虑在内，资产约有57 million dollars。受托人正在花费该笔资金。至少就“Lady May”号的资金而言，他有权这样做。但这确实是本争议的核心。争议涉及HK（HK）的资产，而这些资产正被受托人耗用。也许“耗用”这个词过于强烈。它们正在被支出，而且如前所述，他有权这样做。本院已批准其这样做。但这确实是问题所在。问题在于资产，而本院已基于第1项和第2项罪名认定，该等资产属于破产财产。我的当事人显然不同意这一点，这正是他们提起上诉的原因，但这也是不存在延迟的正当理由的原因。此外，如果法官阁下在提存诉讼中作出简易判决，即使您不作出该判决，“Lady May”号资产，即出售“Lady May”号所得的资金，也将随着接下来的这些费用申请而全部耗尽。然后，假定法官阁下在提存诉讼中作出简易判决，且受托人有权动用托管资金，据我今天在法庭上所听到的理解，受托人将开始按月提交费用申请；如果这些申请获准，我们将会动用这些托管资金。或许不会像目前基于数月期间提出的费用申请那样快，但这\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 56 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 15, 2023 56 就是不存在延迟的正当理由的原因，法官阁下，因为就那些资产而言，我们至少更接近终局性；如我所说，这些资产合计约为$57 million。 本院：嗯，我的意思是，你可以通过不止一种方式实现这一点。你知道，你的当事人已经决定——你的当事人提起了这项对抗程序。他们在去年4月启动了该对抗程序，以确定——请求作出确认他们为“Lady May”号所有人的确认判决。你知道，我在第1项和第2项罪名中作出了相反认定。你的当事人已就那些裁定提起上诉，无论其是否为终局裁定。因此，问题涉及诉状中的其余罪名项，共有三项；而你的当事人主张第3项是一项重要的诉因，但我认为我听到你正在改变该立场，这没有问题。我只是想确认。你是在改变该立场吗？因为我想是沃尼克女士（Warnick）——很抱歉，我想不起她的名字了。莫里亚蒂先生：沃尼克。 本院：她叫什么名字？莫里亚蒂先生：沃尼克。梅丽莎·沃尼克（Melissa Warnick）。本院：沃尼克女士主张第3项是必要的，所以——莫里亚蒂先生：沃尼克女士的论点，而这只是我根据那天坐在法庭上的记忆所说，是受托人试图跳过替身人格分析中的一个步骤，即受托人并未主张、也没有证据证明受托人拥有HK的任何权益；其论点是，受托人必须首先证明债务人在该实体中拥有所有权权益，即某种股权权益，方能进一步主张替身人格。换言之，根据特拉华州法律，如果你不是直接或间接的所有人，就不存在替身人格。法官阁下不同意这一点。您在您的裁定中不同意这一点。我们尊重这一点。这是我们上诉的一部分，但这就是法官阁下的裁定。就第3项而言，在法官阁下的裁定中，您明确区分了受托人可根据第2项和第3项获得的救济。根据第——本院：因为这些罪名项本身就作出了区分。莫里亚蒂先生：嗯，我明白，法官阁下。因此，并非我们正在改变我们的立场。我们所说的是，这是法官阁下的认定。无论此前的论点可能是什么，这是本院的认定，而本院认定，根据第2项，你取得资产。根据第3项，你取得控制权。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 57 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 15, 2023 57 而这正是我们在提存诉讼中援引的内容，以主张该裁定并非终局性裁定，且受托人需要一项终局性且不可上诉的裁定。本院：嗯，你还假定地区法院无论作出什么决定，都会说这是一项终局裁定。如果他们说不是呢？如果地区法院说这是一次中间上诉，或者地区法院说，你知道吗？破产法院错了，你需要回去做些不同的事情呢？我的意思是，你假定，如果本院证明这两项裁定为终局裁定，那么这意味着一切都会为你的当事人继续推进，而这未必正确。地区法院可以——可以裁定——你知道，作出撤销并发回重审的裁定，或者要求澄清，或者他们可以做——地区法院可以做很多事情。我不——你知道，那是地区法院的裁量和权限。因此，我不确定——你知道，我的想法是，你已经说过第3项是一项独立且不同的罪名项，并且——论点是它对第2项不可或缺。因此，现在你说认定第1项和第2项为终局性裁定，以便我们继续进行上诉。嗯，你们的上诉正在进行，而无论\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 58 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 15, 2023\n地区法院将要做什么，地区法院都会去做。\n我不知道那会是什么。\n地区法院可以认定，我——该裁定在某些方面是正确的。\n在其他方面是不正确的。\n他们可以认定其全部不正确。\n他们可以发回进一步——我的意思是，谁知道呢？\n莫里亚蒂先生：我同意——我同意您的看法，法官阁下，我们现在所谈论的问题是管辖权问题。\n因此，地区法院可以认为这些裁定并非终局裁定，但我准许你们就第1项和第2项在中间上诉基础上继续进行。\n地区法院可以说这些裁定并非终局裁定，并且我驳回你们提出中间上诉的动议。\n那么我们就不再有正在进行的上诉，我认为届时我们必须继续处理第3项、第4项和第5项罪名，因为那是我们完成整个案件的唯一方式，这就是我的观点。\n我的观点是，受托人说，我们目前确实不想继续处理第3项，因为我们希望在提存诉讼中获得简易判决裁定，然后我们或许必须继续处理第3项，但不要根据规则54作出证明，而我们基本上处于停滞状态。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 61 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 15, 2023 61 如果我们获得54(b)证明，地区法院可以说这还不够并予以驳回。我明白。我不认为——我希望不会发生这种情况，但在该特定情形下，我们正在推进那两项上诉。地区法院无论如何都会裁决上诉。她——杜利法官（Judge Dooley）会裁决它们，但至少我们正在推进。我想另一种选择是——本院：那么，如果你们正在推进，你们还需要我做什么？莫里亚蒂先生：因为我们不——目前，法官阁下，杜利法官可以说她对这些上诉没有管辖权。本院：没错。莫里亚蒂先生：如果我们获得——本院：她可以这样说。莫里亚蒂先生：——如果我们获得您根据54(b)作出的证明，认定这些判决书是终局性的，且不存在延迟的正当理由，而她接受该证明，那么便存在管辖权，毫无疑问。正如法官阁下之前所说，我们正试图将该问题排除在外。这确实是全部重点。本院：但我不知道你是否可以按照你希望的方式这样做。这才是关键，对吗？我理解你在说什么，但我不知道你是否可以\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023 62 只是进来说，你知道吗？我们想以不同的方式推进此事，所以，你知道，确认这些是终局判决书。我不知道这是否——是否确实——符合标准——莫里亚蒂先生（Moriarty）：嗯，那个——法庭：——《规则》54条规定的标准。莫里亚蒂先生：因此，第二巡回法院（Second Circuit）要求的不仅仅是一项声明——法庭：对。莫里亚蒂先生：——即不存在延迟的正当理由，但我此前已说明，正在被逐渐支出的 $57 million 以及那两项判决确实是本案的核心。如果受托人——法庭：哪一案件的核心？莫里亚蒂先生：本对抗程序，因为——法庭：好的。莫里亚蒂先生：——如果受托人获得对托管资金的使用权，如果法庭说，我准许你，受托人先生，在提存诉讼中获得简易判决，且该判决未被中止，那么受托人就可以支用托管资金，而这确实是焦点所在。焦点在于受托人何时可以使用这些资金支付破产财产费用，包括\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 63 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023 63 其律师费及——法庭：哦，莫里亚蒂先生，这不仅是为了支付破产财产费用。我的意思是，这是为了偿付债权人。请记住，郭先生自愿提起了其 Chapter 11 案件。这就是会发生的情况。莫里亚蒂先生：法官阁下，我并不不同意您的看法。据我理解，破产案件的全部目的，就是最终偿付债权人，但我认为我们目前距离那一步还很远。我知道已有若干项债权申报，而且据我所知，尚未进行任何程序来，您知道，筛除债权、对债权提出异议，或无论受托人打算如何处理。但再次强调，这涉及——法庭：你认为在哪一种 Chapter 11 案件中，在一年后的这个阶段，会发生那种情况？您知道，我所说的只是，您提出的论点实在是——实在不是——就该问题而言，您一直试图——或者至少看起来您试图主张，这一切都是为了让受托人获得报酬。我认为这并不公平。莫里亚蒂先生：而我——这并不是该论点的重点，法官阁下。这不是为了让受托人支付他自己。这是为了让受托人能够使用这些资金。这才是关键。这关乎时间安排。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 64 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023 64 法庭：这就是受托人提起该诉因的原因，因为他——莫里亚蒂先生：对。但他不想继续推进。法庭：——想要使用资金偿付债权人。莫里亚蒂先生：但他不想推进第 3 项罪名。法庭：并非如此——我们并不知道他不想推进第 3 项罪名。我没有听到他说他不想推进第 3 项罪名。莫里亚蒂先生：好的。因此，法官阁下，您命令受托人就 HK 和 Guo 先生在简易判决书面陈述中提出的论点作出回应，即法庭应根据《规则》54条确认这些判决为终局判决。法庭：对。莫里亚蒂先生：受托人没有这样做。在该提交文件中，他说，如果法庭驳回提存诉讼中的简易判决，我们可能会推进第 3 项罪名。他们目前不想推进第 3 项罪名。他们想等待看看提存诉讼会如何发展，然后如果他们在该案中未获成功，或许届时他们想重新推进第 3 项罪名，但与此同时，上诉就摆在那里。我们不知道 Dooley 法官（杜利）会怎么做。法庭：那是她的裁量权。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 65 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023 65 莫里亚蒂先生：但我的观点，法官阁下，是如果本法庭根据 54(b) 对那两项判决作出终局确认，存在管辖权就会更加确定。而如果法官阁下不打算这样做，那么我认为我们需要——法庭：我没有说我不打算这样做。我正在试图理解您的论点，即——正当理由是什么，而从我们的角度看，正当理由是您不想就这些上诉是否属于中间上诉进行辩论。因此，您希望我根据 54(b) 确认它们，以便您无需提出该论点。莫里亚蒂先生：法官阁下，我完全不是这个意思。法庭：好的。那么您是什么意思？莫里亚蒂先生：正当理由是，我的当事人 HK 拥有 Lady May（“Lady May”号）、Lady May 2（“Lady May 2”号）以及托管账户中的 $37 million。那些是资产。Lady May 已被出售，实现了 $21 million 以上的款项。受托人持有托管资金，受托人持有 Lady May 2。它是破产财产的一项资产。据我所知，这就是破产财产所拥有的全部资产。此前有一笔 490——或 $499,000——法庭：嗯，Lady May 2 在某个地方。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 66 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023 莫里亚蒂先生：我已经说过了。法庭：好的。莫里亚蒂先生：与 Clark Hill（克拉克·希尔）达成的 $499,000 和解，我相信这是该律师事务所的名称，但破产财产所拥有资产的绝大部分、压倒性多数来自我的当事人，而且这些资产正在被逐渐支出。现在，也许受托人会追回更多资产，而如果我的当事人在上诉中胜诉，我的当事人可以通过之后追回的额外资产，追回从破产财产中分配出去的一切。我不知道那是否会发生。我了解到，与 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）达成了一项和解。已提交一项 9019 动议。我还了解到，有一项与火灾保险赔款有关的对抗程序。保险公司不想赔付。这里有很多变动因素。受托人可能会追回其他资产，但关键是我们并不知道。因此，是的，这些资金正在被使用。它们正被用于任何其被使用的目的，但不存在延迟的正当理由在于，我当事人的资产正在被支出。再次说明，我并非以贬损的方式表达这一点。一切都是在法庭许可下进行的，但我们不知道是否会有额外资产进入。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 67 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023 因此，如果我的当事人在上诉中胜诉，他们能获得何种救济？这才是关键。法庭：好的。还有其他事项吗？莫里亚蒂先生：没有了。就这些，法官阁下。谢谢。法庭：谢谢。卢夫特先生（Luft）：法官阁下——法庭：卢夫特律师。是。卢夫特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我会尽量简短。您刚才听到的是，莫里亚蒂先生想要在上诉期间中止执行。他没有获得中止。现在他正在自行救济。他们拒绝给予——他表示，我们同意，第 2 项罪名给予他们托管资金。我们同意我们拥有该财产。这就是我们不得不就中间上诉提交整项简易判决动议的原因。您也听到了他们为何拖延，因为他们担心如果其上诉获胜，就不会有钱。这正是上诉期间中止执行所针对的事情。他们——未获准中止，我同意本不应准予中止。但现在他们就自行这样做了。您不会——您完全没有听到的是，他们尚未做的事情是，他们一直谈论他们拥有——嗯，存在一项合同上的——他们现在就有权打电话给\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 68 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023 68 持有资金的人，即受托人，并说，释放这些资金。我们有一项法庭命令，要求我们尽一切努力协助此事。他们现在就可以这样做，届时那些资金就会被释放，我们今天就可以就是否需要推进第 3 项罪名作出判断。现在，您所听到的这些关于我们为什么现在不推进第 3 项罪名的论点？嗯，因为坦率地说，我们是债权人资金的管理人。是的，我想知道是否确实存在一笔值得今天再度推进第 3 项罪名的金额。我认为受托人和本法庭思考其资源，并决定是否存在这样一笔金额，是值得的。如果该笔款项从托管中释放，我们就可以决定这些控制衡平权益的衡平权利是否会给破产财产带来足够利益，以至于届时值得推进。当然，他们既想鱼与熊掌兼得。他们向您主张，若没有第 3 项罪名中的权利，我们就无法让他们释放资金，因此该项罪名不可或缺。这是 $37 million。我向您保证，就这笔金额而言，绝对值得推进第 3 项罪名，这也合乎情理。但是\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 69 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023 69 相反，他们对您说，嗯，我们不想做我们本可以做的事，即自愿打电话并说，嘿，我们有一项法庭命令，要求我们尽一切努力协助，并释放资金。他们不想以那种方式推进。相反，他们只想让您说，确认这是终局的。让我们——让我们进行终局上诉，尽管我们知道第 3 项罪名——而我们称其极为重要——与第 1 项和第 2 项完全相互关联。这显然不符合 54(b) 标准。因此，他们实际上是在制定 Zeisler 民事诉讼规则。他们想在自己想上诉时上诉。他们想将其称为终局性的。尽管没有获得上诉期间中止执行，他们仍想说，嗯，我仍将扣留资金，因为坦率地说，我确实担心，您知道，您——那些资金被支出。这已不再是他们的选择，法官阁下。莫里亚蒂先生在他对您说法庭认可了这一点时是诚实且直率的。我们没有那个权利。他们也没有。但在此时，这只是自行救济，法官阁下。我坦诚地——因此，我们在这里举行状态会议。中间上诉问题将会——那个——请原谅——提存问题正在您面前审理。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 70 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023 但是，就我们应如何在本案中推进、什么做法有效率、什么做法合理而言，我认为应如我所说。我认为我们应当看看提存诉讼会如何发展，以便知道发生了什么。以便知道是否有 $37 million 处于争议之中。届时，受托人完全相信——即 Kwok 先生是 HK USA 的衡平法所有人——可以根据法庭资源和破产财产资源两方面的成本效益，决定在 $37 million 不处于争议之中时，是否应当推进该事项。但坐在那里说我们应当在毫不知情的情况下这样做，或者说我们应当仅仅确认这些判决，因为他们确实想要继续推进，而且他们担心会在中间上诉中败诉，所以希望您实际上使他们无需向 Dooley 法官就此进行辩论，并不适当，也没有效率。我认为以那种方式推进本案没有意义。如果法官阁下有任何问题，我很乐意回答。法庭：我没有任何问题。谢谢。卢夫特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：莫里亚蒂先生，您想作出回应吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2115 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 17:56:49 第 71 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日 71\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：是的，请，法官阁下。因此，Zeisler《职业行为规则》——我是说，职业行为，Zeisler规则——\n\n法庭：我认为他说的是诉讼程序。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：——职业——是的，他说了。《民事诉讼规则》，我不知道为什么我脑子里想的是那个，但没关系。因此，法官阁下，我真正想评论的唯一一点是，我们并未请求在上诉期间中止程序。关于提存之诉的简易判决动议目前正由法官阁下审理。法官阁下知道相关论点。其中有一项规定称，在破产法院作出不可上诉的终局命令之前，资金不得发放。目前尚不存在这样的命令。法官阁下会作出决定，或者不作出决定；但基本上，卢夫特律师对您所说的是，我们希望一切都暂停。我们希望冻结一切，直至法官阁下就提存之诉的简易判决动议作出命令，然后我们将决定是否可能继续推进第3项罪名，也可能不推进。与此同时，杜利法官可能准许中间上诉，也可能不会。但实际上什么都不会发生，然后他们会说，作为替代方案，他们可以放弃其——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 72 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日\n\n简易判决论点。他们可以放弃其在合同项下的权利，HK可以这样做，并直接同意他们拥有该笔款项。然后也许我们会考虑，也许届时我们会说，好吧，我们不需要推进第3项罪名。因此，基本上，在你们放弃之前，我们将扣住此事不放。我的当事人不会放弃。因此，如果法官阁下——我理解。我听到了法官阁下所说的话。您现在不会作出决定，但如果法官阁下不根据第54(b)条将这些判决认证为终局判决，那么受托人应当继续推进第3项罪名，因为这是本案得以推进的唯一方式。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。那么，HK对抗程序中还有其他事项吗？\n\n卢夫特先生：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n帕斯托雷先生：没有。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。好的。我目前不会在本对抗程序中安排任何进一步的审前会议。我理解各位律师的陈述，并将予以考虑；我们将审视待决问题，并将以我认为适当的方式继续推进。好的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 73 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n帕斯托雷先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n卢夫特先生：谢谢。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。现在，除HCHK对抗程序外，那是日程表上的最后一项事项。你们想花些时间讨论后再向法庭报告，还是你和帕斯托雷律师想如何处理？\n\n卢夫特先生：法官阁下，我们何不花几分钟看看——我不希望法庭在这里空等。因此，如果这是一次较长的谈话，而我们认为确实如此，那么我的建议是，我们会告知法庭，然后稍后再报告。如果我们认为可以——我们可以很快解决此事，能否短暂休庭，以便我们告知法庭？但我确实不希望您——\n\n法庭：可以。我们何不——\n\n卢夫特先生：——各位在这里等着。\n\n法庭：——工作人员还没有休息，所以我们何不休庭至下午2:00。\n\n卢夫特先生：好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n帕斯托雷先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：现在休庭。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 74 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日\n\n（法庭于下午1:37休庭，至下午2:11复庭。）\n\n法庭：好的。在对抗程序23-05013中，Despins（德斯平斯）诉HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）等。我们一直在举行审前会议，并就证据开示提出了一些问题，当事人花了一些时间进行了讨论。因此，卢夫特律师、帕斯托雷律师，你们是否有事项要向法庭报告？\n\n卢夫特先生：是的，法官阁下。我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以，请。谢谢。\n\n卢夫特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。为记录在案，我是Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的阿维·卢夫特，代表Chapter 11受托人。\n\n法官阁下，我认为我们有效地利用了时间，讨论富有成效，并且希望这意味着我们不必以争议事项烦扰法庭。\n\n法庭：很好。\n\n卢夫特先生：因此，目前情况是，我们已同意继续进行证言录取。其范围将限于原告资格问题，但为明确起见，这将包括与债务人及其代理人的关系。如果相关个人在美国境内，将进行现场证言录取。\n\n如果相关人员在国外，那么我们将同意通过WebEx或其他非Zoom的移动方式进行。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 75 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日 75\n\n关于文件请求，我认为我们的共识是，我们需要取得与债务人及其关系有关的文件——即各实体与债务人及其代理人之间关系的文件。关于这些请求的范围，我们仍需进行一些讨论和工作，但我们将在未来几天努力就此达成一致。我认为，离群值足以表明这还不够，而认为“所有”可能过多的论点也成立。因此，我们将努力找到可行的方案，但我们认为这适当。此外，当事人同意，此项证据开示系经双方同意进行，因此不会基于拟介入人尚未成为本案介入人这一事实，对证据开示提出异议。同样，就上诉而言，日后不会提出如下论点：即在拟介入人未获准介入的情况下，其基于以下事实提出上诉——信息过多，或者信息是通过该项经同意的证据开示获得的。为明确起见，如其认为标准设定过高，并且其提出的任何介入动议遭到驳回，他们当然仍将保留就此提出上诉的权利。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 76 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日 76\n\n但这就是我们已达成的协议。如果我就如何推进证据开示有任何表述错误，帕斯托雷先生可以予以纠正；我认为，这使我们能够按照法庭已经就证据开示设定的日程继续推进。如我们无法就其余文件请求的范围达成一致，我们将提出强制动议，但我希望没有必要这样做。法官阁下，我还想提出另一个问题。我认为我们已经——您知道，我们之前进行过一些讨论。这本应是HCHK情况会议，而且，您知道——\n\n法庭：实际上本应是审前——\n\n帕斯托雷先生：审前。\n\n法庭：——会议。\n\n卢夫特先生：哦，审前。抱歉。\n\n法庭：根据——您知道，传票发出时所安排的首次审前会议。\n\n卢夫特先生：是的，法官阁下。那是正确的，我为口误道歉。\n\n法庭：没关系。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 77 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日\n\n卢夫特先生：因此，与此一致，我还想向法庭提出另一件事。我相信，拟介入人的债权约为\\$27 million。我相信，HCHK各实体处约有\\$38 million。没有其他拟介入人，而且如我们所讨论的，受让人无意对受托人在该对抗程序中提出的债权提出抗辩。\n\n因此，约有\\$11 million的余额；实际上，就我们若能证明本案这一点而言，该笔\\$11 million并无争议——没有人反对他们对该\\$11 million享有债权。\n\n因此，对于该笔款项，受托人希望继续寻求就该等款项是否——就其债权而言——作出终局认定，即HCHK是否为债务人的另我，以及债务人是否为衡平法上的所有人；如确属如此，该\\$11 million将被移交。\n\n我们不会就该\\$27 million这样做，因为在我们确定拟介入人及其债权是否应获准进入本案之前，我们不会这样做。\n\n法庭：那么——\n\n卢夫特先生：所以——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 78 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日 78\n\n法庭：——帕斯托雷先生是否反对你刚才所述内容？\n\n卢夫特先生：我让帕斯托雷先生说——说他要说的。我请他这么做。我认为帕斯托雷先生的观点是，他的当事人享有\\$27 million。他明白他不代表其他任何人。但他是否对另外的\\$11 million有异议，我不确定他基于何种理由会——\n\n法庭：那么你将如何推进？假设——我现在还没有任何想法。假设他没有异议。那么，你将如何控制那笔钱？你是这个意思吗？\n\n卢夫特先生：是的，法官阁下。实际上，我会就剩余的\\$11 million申请缺席判决，因为不会有——\n\n法庭：针对所有其他被告。\n\n卢夫特先生：对。因为没有异议。然后，就存在争议的余额而言，如法庭准许其介入动议，我们将放弃对介入的异议。随后我们将继续推进案件。就该\\$27 million而言，如法庭认定他们并非适格介入人，那么我们就会知道——届时实际上将没有异议人，我们随后将就该\\$27 million申请缺席判决。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 79 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年8月15日\n\n法庭：我理解你方立场。\n\n卢夫特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我会看看事情如何发展。\n\n卢夫特先生：好的，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。但也感谢你和帕斯托雷先生就证据开示问题所做的工作，而且我——帕斯托雷先生，我确实想听听你的意见，确认你同意卢夫特律师所说的内容；然后，如果可以的话，我还希望你就最后一点，即关于\\$11 million的问题，发表意见。\n\n帕斯托雷先生：我可以先谈最后一点吗——\n\n法庭：当然可以。\n\n帕斯托雷先生：——我的当事人有债权，据我理解——我认为证据开示将进一步查明，约为\\$27 million。我不代表那四名债权人以外的任何人。\n\n我认为，如果我说我没有异议，在理智上将是不一致的，因为我认为这是非此即彼的。各实体要么是另我，要么不是。\n\n但我认为，对于该\\$11 million，我实际上没有发言权，除了表示我们的立场是我们将胜诉。我们将努力胜诉，尽最大努力胜诉；如果我们胜诉，所有那笔钱都将返还，包括\\$11 million，但我确实没有原告资格就该\\$11 million进行争议。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2115 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 17:56:49 Page 80 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月15日 80　我认为美国检察官——抱歉——美国受托人可能对此也有发言权，因为我认为他们采取了一些立场，以总体保护纽约诉讼中的债权人地位，而在我们谈判时，和解事宜存在争议。因此，这一问题当然也需要提交给他们。我不能说我没有异议。我只能说，我当事人的债权约为27 million。我担心，根据和解协议，这笔钱中的一部分确实会被花掉；因此，如果我们确实追回27 million，我不愿看到钱不在那里，因为11 million已经没有了。因此，如果从那一笔资金中拿走，这将减少27 million中可供使用的金额。长话短说，如果我说没有异议，在理智上会不一致，但我不确定我是否有权就该11 million提出异议。法庭：明白。PASTORE先生：是。法庭：好的。谢谢。PASTORE先生：是。关于证据开示，我简要说明一下，我认为我们已经达成协议。我认为有几个小问题需要说明，以明确记录。我们还在会前讨论中首先表示，在你们有权获得证据开示的范围内，我们也有权获得证据开示。你们可能记得，在本案中，\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 2115　提交于 08/23/23　录入于 08/23/23 17:56:49　第 81 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年8月15日\n1　受让人持有与这些公司有关的文件。我们认为，\n2　受托人持有的、与这些公司有关且涉及我们作为债权人之诉讼资格的\n3　文件，\n4　包括贷款协议、讨论记录、电子邮件及类似文件，我们\n5　有权获得；他们已同意也向我们提供\n6　这些文件。\n7　关于证言录取，我们同意\n8　进行七个小时，原因是翻译问题。我曾与\n9　这些当事人打过交道，确实需要额外一些时间，\n10　因为所有事情——许多事情确实需要\n11　翻译，这就是我同意的原因。\n12　如果不是翻译问题，对于一场关于诉讼资格的证言录取而言，\n13　这个期限就过长了；但我\n14　认可这一点，并且我们保留提出异议的权利，\n15　即在他们涉及案件实体问题、另一个自我问题\n16　及类似事项的范围内提出异议。他们应限于\n17　债权人的诉讼资格和贷款问题。当然，他们\n18　当然可以问，例如，你们为什么发放该贷款？这是可以\n19　询问的。\n20　诉讼资格问题涉及\n21　他们是否为债权人以及该贷款的目的为何，\n22　诸如此类。但如果问题偏离甚远，涉及\n23　与贷款无关的、关于HCHK实体（HCHK entities）公司董事会会议的实体问题，\n24　我认为那就太过了。\n25　最后，关于上诉，我们同意，\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年8月15日 82　我认为，从理智上说，如果法庭因掌握了补充信息而驳回我们介入的权利，我们不能对此提出异议，这是一致的。那在我看来很荒谬。但我们保留提出异议的权利，即如果我们被拒绝介入，因为我们对介入权的法律标准存在分歧。我们并未放弃该项——在我们需要或不需要时的——上诉权利。法庭：好的。谢谢。PASTORE先生：对此有任何问题吗？法庭：没有，没有。谢谢。PASTORE先生：好的。法庭：如我所说，我感谢你们共同努力解决证据开示问题。我——我将等待观察情况进展。我认为我们需要——我的记忆是，一旦证据开示完成，之后受托人就介入动议提交答复，我将决定我们是否实际举行听证会。我认为我们很可能会举行听证会，然后再继续处理。我不——我认为此刻我无须做其他任何事情，除非——我认为你们有一项待决的上诉期间暂停执行动议。你们已经提交了上诉通知。\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 2115　提交于 08/23/23　录入于 08/23/23 17:56:49　第 82 页，共 87 页\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 2115　提交于 08/23/23　录入于 08/23/23 17:56:49　第 83 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年8月15日 83　PASTORE先生：是的。法庭：你们有一项上诉期间暂停执行动议。你们是否预计或建议，在该证据开示进行期间，我应暂缓处理该动议——我并不是说我甚至会有时间，我只是在问你们。关于你们的上诉期间暂停执行动议，你们的立场是什么？PASTORE先生：是。我的意思是，我不想放弃我们的权利，但我认为法官阁下前几天的裁决以及我们就纽约活动达成的协议，使上诉期间暂停执行不那么关键。我们最大的担忧是，受让人会开始在纽约州法院采取行动，使撤销和解变得不可行。因此，我不想放弃该项权利，但我可以向法庭表示，我认为前几天的裁决限制了暂停执行的必要性。法庭：你可以主张，它们限制了不可弥补的损害，对吗？PASTORE先生：我认为——法庭：即，受托人——受让人已通过律师并以其本人名义表示，在本庭另行命令之前，他们不会在纽约州诉讼中采取任何行动。PASTORE先生：对。我不知道是否已经有一项命令，因此，也许可以这样安排：如果不批准暂停执行，则作出一项正式命令，规定受让人已同意在作出裁决之前暂缓行动。\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年8月15日 84　法庭：我不记得是否有命令，但我知道他们不得采取任何行动。而且我特别询问过——请原谅——是Hofmeister先生（发音存疑）吗？PASTORE先生：您问过，是的。法庭：是。先生——LUFT先生：我相信当时在线的是Jarrett律师——法庭：还有Hofmeister先生。PASTORE先生：Hofmeister先生也在屏幕上。法庭：我相信我首先专门转向询问他。LUFT先生：是。法庭：而且他，您知道，表示他将受此约束。因此，我记不起来了。但——我之所以问的唯一原因是，鉴于事态发展以及你刚才在记录中承认的事项，我恰好认为此时无需就上诉期间暂停执行作出裁决。因此，除非你说有必要，否则我——我现在可能会将该动议搁置。PASTORE先生：我唯一想做的是\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 2115　提交于 08/23/23　录入于 08/23/23 17:56:49　第 84 页，共 87 页\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 2115　提交于 08/23/23　录入于 08/23/23 17:56:49　第 85 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年8月15日 85　回去查看一下周五——我认为是一次周五的Zoom会议——所作出的命令。我知道您已在记录中作出了该指示，因此那应当足够了。但是——法庭：应当足够。但我理解。没关系。PASTORE先生：所以我可能——法庭：如果你认为不是这样，可以告知我。如何？PASTORE先生：可以。法庭：好的。PASTORE先生：好的。法庭：好。谢谢。PASTORE先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：好。那么，我相信这就结束了我们今天需要在本对抗程序中处理的所有事项；对吗？LUFT先生：是，法官阁下。法庭：好的。那么，再次，我确实感谢今日各方的努力。待就介入动议提交异议——答复后，我将查看情况进展。除非有人不同意我，否则我认为目前没有理由安排任何进一步的审前会议。再次说明，这次——这次审前会议\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 2115　提交于 08/23/23　录入于 08/23/23 17:56:49　第 86 页，共 87 页\n1　最初是在提交起诉状时由书记官办公室发出的传票中\n2　安排的，\n3　并且曾延期一次，这完全没有问题。但我认为，\n4　目前没有理由安排任何进一步的审前会议。\n5　\n6　有人不同意吗？\n7　LUFT先生：没有，法官阁下。\n8　法庭：好的。谢谢。\n9　PASTORE先生：没有，法官阁下。\n10　法庭：好的。那么谢谢各位。好。\n11　这——这就结束了今天日程上的全部事项，\n12　因此现在休庭。谢谢。\n13　LUFT先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n14　PASTORE先生：谢谢。\n15　（程序于下午2:26结束。）\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 2115　提交于 08/23/23　录入于 08/23/23 17:56:49　第 87 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok—2023年8月15日\n1　本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），经法院批准的誊写员及经认证的\n2　电子记录员和誊写员，兹证明，\n3　上述内容系根据上述\n4　案名事项程序的官方电子录音制作的正确誊本。\n\n8　August 23, 2023\n9　Christine Fiore，CERT\n10　誊写员","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Despins","HCHK","Paul Hastings","CIPA","Guo","Luc Despins","Himalaya"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":2040,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2047,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":22896,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-08-23 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-08-23","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:02:12"}