{"id":"court_ctb_2116_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2116,"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 #2116（2023-08-23立案）。本文件为2023年8月15日Julie A. Manning法官主持的法庭诉讼官方记录，审理了涉及Lady May游艇出售交割的特别海事顾问Bohonnon聘用与最终费用申请（3,381.00美元）、专业人士中期报酬程序以及相关对抗性程序审前会议。","summary_en":"Hearing transcript — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #2116 (filed 2023-08-23). This document is the official transcript of the August 15, 2023 proceedings before Judge Julie A. Manning, addressing the joint retention and final fee application for special maritime counsel Bohonnon ($3,381.00 regarding the Lady May sale closing), interim fee procedures, and adversary proceedings status conferences.","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. 23-05002 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| #2025 | SUBPOENA BY UBS<br>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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 9 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 17 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 19 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 23 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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\n We did serve general objections as to the inter- relationship between the creditors and the debtor and I'm respectful of the fact, I said this before, we are here in act five of a play. 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 Case 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 27 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>27                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | step and give you documents to show where they got the funds   |\n| 2  | from to become a creditor.<br>We think that's reasonable.      |\n| 3  | So I think Mr. Luft suggesting that we're blanket              |\n| 4  | objecting is not really fair at all.<br>We did agree to        |\n| 5  | produce all these documents by September 8th and we've --      |\n| 6  | we've begun the process of gathering these documents.          |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>But you're not agreeing to any                   |\n| 8  | depositions?                                                   |\n| 9  | MR. PASTORE:<br>At this point -- so, we couldn't               |\n| 10 | find a single case, and if we brief the motion to compel,      |\n| 11 | we're prepared to argue this, that says interveners have to    |\n| 12 | produce any discovery to be interveners.<br>Judge Breyer has a |\n| 13 | decision, I'm doing this off the top of my head, that says     |\n| 14 | they just have to show a cognizable claim.                     |\n| 15 | And so we think forcing parties who are not in the             |\n| 16 | United States to sit for depositions when they're not even     |\n| 17 | parties to the case yet is beyond the scope of the case law    |\n| 18 | and law that governs intervention, and that's why we oppose    |\n| 19 | the depositions, because we couldn't reach an agreement on     |\n| 20 | the depositions as to how they would be conducted, and we      |\n| 21 | didn't think it was fair these people had to come to the       |\n| 22 | United States to give a deposition when they're not even       |\n| 23 | parties to the case yet.                                       |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:<br>That's not fair.                                  |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Hold on a second.<br>Hold on       |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 29 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>29                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>And if that happens, then he proves            |\n| 2  | the alter ego claim, then it doesn't matter whether your     |\n| 3  | clients -- you see, I guess what I'm -- what I'm struggling  |\n| 4  | with and I'm having some trouble with as far as next steps   |\n| 5  | is if -- if the trustee prevails, everything would be        |\n| 6  | collapsed anyway, because your creditors -- your creditors   |\n| 7  | would all be creditors of Mr. Kwok.                          |\n| 8  | MR. PASTORE:<br>Understood.<br>But if we're right and        |\n| 9  | these companies were not alter egos of the debtor and our    |\n| 10 | intention is to intervene in the case and help counsel and   |\n| 11 | the companies if one appears, or we'll do it ourselves,      |\n| 12 | fight the concept of alter ego and if the Court agrees with  |\n| 13 | us and they're not alter egos, then the money is not         |\n| 14 | property of the estate and we're creditors of those          |\n| 15 | companies entitled to the --                                 |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Right.                                         |\n| 17 | MR. PASTORE:<br>-- \\$27 million back.                        |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Right.<br>So there's no -- there's no          |\n| 19 | harm essentially insofar as if the trustee is not            |\n| 20 | successful, the way the settlement works is the money all    |\n| 21 | goes back to New York and you're -- you're -- I don't know   |\n| 22 | what the status of the creditor body is as far as the        |\n| 23 | assignment is concerned, but apparently your clients would   |\n| 24 | be in control essentially.<br>You'd have the largest claims. |\n| 25 | MR. PASTORE:<br>I honestly don't know.<br>I know I           |\n|    |                                                              |\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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 30 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 34 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 34 as an operation of law, if they're legitimate creditors, they should be able to intervene and they should be able to be repaid if the companies are not alter egos, and their personal relationships, or personal conduct doesn't change the legal analysis of creditor. THE COURT: I think it only does with regard to whether they're legitimate creditors. That's the point. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with anybody at this point, because I don't know. I haven't seen anything. I don't know what -- well, I have an idea, of course, of the discovery and I have an idea of your responses, and I don't need to see them or want to see them unless and until this is really something that the Court has to rule one, right? And we're -- that may be what's -- where we're headed. But the point still is it may be appropriate discovery under the circumstances of this case, and you may be completely correct that you can't find a case on this issue, and that may be because there isn't a case that has these specific facts and circumstances that someone wrote a decision on that you can rely on. So I understand your point. I truly do. I just - - I'm not -- I'm not certain that -- we may just have to have some form of rulings with regard to discovery if there isn't -- if there's still a dispute between the -- among the parties.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 39 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 39 until I have to rule any objections to the discovery, but I don't think you -- well, let me say it a little differently. It was certainly not the intention to have discovery met with a response that I don't have to provide this yet because I'm not an inter -- I haven't intervened. That I think -- that doesn't make any sense. I wouldn't have allowed the discovery. I would have just denied your motion to intervene. I mean, I think that's -- so we have to be -- you know, I think there is utility in being practical under the circumstances, and without question, have allowed you to participate in the hearings, be heard, and assert positions on behalf of your client, but you haven't -- the motion to intervene hasn't been granted yet, so you're not an intervener yet. However, under the circumstances, I allowed you to be heard. I thought that it was clear, and I apologize if it was not, that the discovery has to go to the issue of whether or not you're entitled to intervene. Not -- I don't think you can interpose an objection based upon an assertion that because you're not inter -- you're not an intervener yet, you're not bound by the same Rules of Civil Procedure regarding discovery. And I'm not sure that you've said that. I'm not -- I don't even want to -- I'm not trying to get into a whole disagreement. All I'm saying is the purpose of the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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| 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 48 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 53 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 Case 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 70 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 70 But in terms of how we should proceed in this case, what's efficient, what makes sense, I think it's what I said. I think we should see what happens with the interpleader so that we know what happened. So that we know if there is a \\$37 million at issue. At that point, the trustee who fully believes they -- that Mr. Kwok is the equitable owner of HK USA can make a determination based on the cost benefit for both the Court's resources and the estate's, whether it makes sense to pursue that if the \\$37 million is not at issue. But to sit there and say that we should do that blind, or that we should just certify these, because they'd really like to move ahead, and they're afraid they're going to lose their interlocutory appeal so they'd like you to effectively make them not have to argue that to Judge Dooley, isn't appropriate and it's not efficient. I don't think that makes sense to move forward with the case in that way. If Your Honor has any questions, I'm happy to answer them. THE COURT: I do not have any questions. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Moriarty, would you like to respond?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 73 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 73 All right. Thank you. MR. PASTORE: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. LUFT: Thank you. MR. MORIARTY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Now, that was the last matter on the calendar, other than the HCHK adversary. Did you want to take time to talk and report back, or how do you want to handle that, you and Attorney Pastore. MR. LUFT: Why don't we take a couple minutes, Your Honor, to see if this -- I don't want the Court sitting around. So if this is a longer conversation, and that's what we think, then my suggestion is that we'll tell the Court and then we'll report back later. If we think that we can -- we can hammer this out very quickly, could we maybe take a short recess so that we could let the Court know? But I really don't want you -- THE COURT: Yes. Why don't we take -- MR. LUFT: -- guys sitting. THE COURT: -- the staff hasn't had a break, so why don't we take a recess until 2:00 p.m. MR. LUFT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. PASTORE: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Court is in recess.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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|    |                                                                |\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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 82 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 84 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 86 of 87\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023<br>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|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 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\n*\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n*\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司），\n*\n*\n债务人。\n*\nGENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司），\n*\n对抗程序案号 23-05002 等，\n*\n原告，\n*\n诉\n*\n*\nKWOK 等，\n*\n*\n被告。\n*\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）等，\n*\n对抗程序案号 23-05013\n第11章受托人，\n*\n*\n原告，\n*\n*\n诉\n*\n*\nHCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.（HCHK科技公司），\n*\n等，\n*\n*\n被告。\n*\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS\n*\n对抗程序案号 22-05003\nINVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED（HK国际基金投资（美国）有限公司），\n*\n*\n原告，\n*\n诉\n*\n*\nDESPINS，\n*\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n*\nAugust 15, 2023\n被告。\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国联邦破产法官面前的庭审记录\n\n庭审由电子录音记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录及速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\n康涅狄格州谢尔顿 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n#1362　强制遵守 BK.RULE 2004 的动议\n\n#2025　由 UBS 发出的传票\n联合聘任及临时费用申请\n第一次审前会议；起诉状\n#253　延期举行审前会议\n#2002　请求作出确立程序之命令的动议\n关于临时补偿及报销\n已聘任专业人士费用\n#2065　请求作出授权受托人及\nGENEVER 债务人律师在提交第一次临时\n费用申请后不足 120 日内提交第二次临时\n费用申请之命令的动议\n\n出庭人员：第11章受托人：LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）律师\nPaul Hastings LLP（宝盛律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\n纽约州纽约市 10166\n代表第11章受托人：AVRAM EMMANUEL LUFT（阿夫拉姆·伊曼纽尔·卢夫特）律师\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\n纽约州纽约市 10166\nDOUGLAS S. SKALKA（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）律师\nNeubert Pepe and Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street,13th Floor\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 06510\n代表债权人委员会：KRISTIN B. MAYHEW（克里斯汀·B·梅休）律师\nPullman & Comley LLC（普尔曼及康利有限责任公司）\n850 Main Street, 8th Floor\nP.O. Box 7006\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特 06601\n代表美国受托人：STEVEN E. MACKEY（史蒂文·E·麦基）律师\n美国受托人办公室\nGiaimo联邦大楼\n150 Court Street, Room 302\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 06510\n代表HCHK债权人：JOSEPH PASTORE（约瑟夫·帕斯托雷）律师\nPastore, LLC（帕斯托雷有限责任公司）\n4 High Ridge Park, Third Floor\n康涅狄格州斯坦福 06905\n代表HK International Funds\nJAMES MORIARTY（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）律师\nInvestments, LLC及\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒及蔡斯勒专业公司）\nMei Guo（梅国）：\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特 06604\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2116，提交于 08/23/23，录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24，第 4 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023 4\n\n（庭审于下午12:06开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n法庭：下午好。请各位为记录起见说明出庭身份，先从第11章受托人开始。\n\nDESPINS先生：Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nLUFT先生：Avi Luft，Paul Hastings律师事务所，代表第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nSKALKA先生：下午好，法官阁下。Douglas Skalka，Neubert, Pepe and Monteith律师事务所，亦代表第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nMAYHEW女士：下午好，法官阁下。Kristin Mayhew，Pullman and Comley律师事务所，代表债权人委员会。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nMACKEY先生：Steven Mackey，代表美国受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。是否所有希望就正午事项出庭的人均已说明其出庭身份？\n\nPASTORE先生：下午好，法官阁下。Joseph Pastore，代表HCHK债权人。就我们是否有资格在状态会议上发言，我心中仍存疑问。我们已提出介入动议，但显然该动议尚未获得裁定。因此，我乐意参与，但我希望以尊重程序的方式参与，而非径行假定我在参与。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2116，提交于 08/23/23，录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24，第 5 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 5\n\n法庭：谢谢。我认为我们首先会先处理并非状态会议的事项，然后再看接下来如何进行。\n\nPASTORE先生：好的。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nPASTORE先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，今天的日程上有数项事项，但第一项是——日程上的第一项事项是斯卡尔卡律师提交的联合聘任及临时费用申请。我们是否先处理该事项？\n\nDESPINS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\nDESPINS先生：是的。是，我们可以进行，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢，法官阁下。为记录起见，我是Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2116，提交于 08/23/23，录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24，第 6 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 6\n\n因此，这是针对Bohonnon律师事务所的合并聘任申请及最终费用申请，该律所担任特别海事律师。因此，为向法庭稍作说明背景，如您所知，我们必须推进出售Lady May。我们知道得足够多，足以知道我们并不了解——在Paul Hastings，我们没有海事法专业知识，因此我们完成了大部分工作，但交割涉及一些问题。您知道，必须在美国领海外完成交割——该游艇必须位于美国领海之外。为此存在一整套程序。我们无能力完成该等工作，因此我们聘任了这家位于哈特福德的康涅狄格州律师事务所提供该等服务，而且他们——他们以非常具成本效益的方式完成了工作。他们的费用仅为 $3,381 及零头。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，我们请求法庭批准该律所的聘任及最终费用申请。\n\n法庭：我没有任何问题或疑虑，并且我同意，在此情况下，所请求的金额极为合理。我认为，为提供与出售Lady May相关所需服务，费用总额不足 $4,000。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2116，提交于 08/23/23，录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24，第 7 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023 7\n\n因此，我没有任何问题或疑虑。我注意到，我未见任何一方对该申请提出异议，并且据我所知，今日没有任何参与本次听证会的人反对该申请。因此，Mackey先生，您是否希望陈述意见？\n\nMACKEY先生：仅为记录在案，美国受托人的无异议声明由Claiborn律师提交，文件编号为2040。\n\n法庭：谢谢。因此，基于上述理由，Despins受托人，聘任及补偿特别律师的申请获准，且拟议命令——我现在正在查看拟议命令。我们将于某一时点在该命令中添加的唯一内容，是法庭书记员可以添加我们可仅说明今日已就此举行听证会；除此之外，拟议命令可以录入。\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nDESPINS先生：因此，我们——如果我们略过审前会议，若法官阁下认为可以——\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nDESPINS先生：——我们可以转至下一事项，即受托人与Genever债务人提出的请求作出确立临时补偿程序之命令的动议。我们曾提到——该动议载于案卷编号2002。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2116，提交于 08/23/23，录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24，第 8 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023\n\n1　我们曾提到此事将在，我想，是在Paul Hastings及Neubert Pepe律师事务所第一次——或者我想是第二次费用申请的听证会上提出。\n\n2　基本上，我们已与委员会及美国受托人讨论，以确立这些程序；该等程序已在许多其他案件中获批准。\n\n3　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Claiborne律师讨论，以修改该命令以反映其部分意见；我们已在案卷编号2047提交经修订的拟议命令通知。\n\n4　实质上，受托人要求的修改是，她——即所有有权提出异议的利害关系方，将有21日期间提出异议。\n\n5　此外，她担心，如我们按月编制费用申请，则——她的观点是，依其经验，这会增加破产财产的成本，因此，我们已同意，委员会亦已同意——或者委员会律师已同意，将为编制这些每月费用报表可计费的小时数限制为五小时。\n\n6　该项内容载于案卷编号2047所载修订命令第5页的新Q节。\n\n7　该项内容反映了限制可用于这些每月报表的小时数的协议。另一项我提到的修改，即将期限从14日改为21日，反映于修订拟议命令第3页D段，David的D，亦即2047号文件。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，我乐意回答法庭可能提出的任何问题，但除此之外，我们请求法庭录入该命令。\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。我之前看过，因此我忘记了其中一些内容，但我现在正重新查看，以看我是否有任何问题。抱歉。我不记得，若有争议会如何处理？\n\nDESPINS先生：如有争议，该——该争议将在下一次临时费用申请时审理，如此您便无需按月处理此事。因此，该事项会推至——在本案中，第一次费用申请可能会在11月，取决于法官阁下的日程。可能会在11月，因此如对9月提交的每月报表提出异议，该等异议将会——\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2116，提交于 08/23/23，录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24，第 9 页，共 87 页\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2116，提交于 08/23/23，录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24，第 10 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 15, 2023\n\n1　在其后的第一次临时申请时审理，之后的后续事项亦依此类推——\n\n2　法庭：因此，该程序自截至August 31st的期间开始？\n\n3　这是否意味着您可以提交——您不会提交某项——让我换一种说法——让我尝试使我刚才想说的话更清楚。\n\n4　您提交的、适用该程序的第一份申请，将包括截至并包括August 31st的时间？\n\n5　这是否正确？\n\n6　DESPINS先生：正确。但是，如我们将从下一项动议看到的，法官阁下可能已知道这一点，但Neubert及Paul Hastings均已提交费用申请，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\n7　法庭：对。\n\n8　DESPINS先生：——该程序提交，尽管我们已适用相同的20 percent hold back——\n\n9　法庭：好的。\n\n10　DESPINS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\n11　法庭：好的。我确实注意到，在今日听证会之前审阅该文件时，已安排听证会的费用申请并不适用该程序。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2116，提交于 08/23/23，录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24，第 11 页，共 87 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- 2023年8月15日 11　德斯平斯先生（MR. DESPINS）：正确。\n\n法庭：好的。我仅指出一点，我对此没有异议，但关于本程序——即申请第202号命令的动议——的听证会原定于下午1:00举行，而现在是12:15，因此我们稍微提前了一些。\n\n德斯平斯先生：嗯。\n\n法庭：我认为不会有尚未在场的人会出现；即便有人出现，我会——我会处理，但我认为从法庭的角度看，这不是问题。委员会或美国受托人是否希望就这些问题发言？\n\n麦基先生（MR. MACKEY）：法官阁下，我是代表美国受托人的史蒂文·麦基（Steven Mackey）。关于程序，该程序同样是与美国受托人、委员会及受托人律师协商达成的。克莱伯恩律师（Attorney Claiborn）已提交无异议声明——再次说明，他本周正在休假。该文件的案卷编号为2067。因此，美国受托人对建立这些程序没有异议。这将节省费用，我认为也会缩短所有当事人的工作量。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n梅休女士（MS. MAYHEW）：我是代表委员会的克里斯汀·梅休（Kristin Mayhew）。我想指出，委员会支持该动议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 于 08/23/23 提交 于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记 第12页，共87页\n\n郭文贵 - 2023年8月15日 12　我们当然被征询意见，并参与起草了该程序动议；我们同意该程序公平、合理，并且就控制成本而言是合理的。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。好的。我正在查看命令的红线版本，即修订后的拟议命令。该文件以ECF No. 2047提交。德斯平斯受托人（Trustee Despins），如果您不介意，我只是花一点时间再审阅一遍。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，我可能说错了。您问我该命令何时适用。我认为7月——7月的费用——如果法官阁下今天签发该命令，7月的费用将受本命令约束。\n\n法庭：我认为——我认为这正是我所预期的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：我刚才说的是8月。\n\n法庭：我的意思是，您不会——至少在我看来，您将提交的第一份适用本程序的费用申请，将涵盖截至8月31日的期间。\n\n德斯平斯先生：第一份月度报表，是的。\n\n法庭：对。\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。\n\n法庭：这没问题。我明白了。我——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 于 08/23/23 提交 于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记 第13页，共87页\n\n郭文贵 - 2023年8月15日 13　我的意思是——\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——我认为没问题。显然，正如我们都知道的，本案能够这样做，是因为现在有资金——现已有资金可供这样做。如果这不是——如果存在遗产中没有资金的情形，或者，您知道，可能并不适当，但在本案目前存在的情形下，我认为以这种方式进行是适当的。当然，您知道，这一点将来某个时候可能会发生变化，但希望不会，因为显然，希望是，您将能够为遗产债权人追收任何能够追收的财产；所以，如果情况如此——但正如我过去对人们所说的，此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修改是，在命令第一页，有一处留白用于填写今日的听证日期。因此，请加入今天的日期。\n\n法庭书记员：好的。\n\n法庭：除此之外，根据本案的具体事实和情形，包括过去数月本案发生的进展，该程序是有必要的，并将继续适用，除非且直至其不再适用。而且，您知道，它可能永远不会——它可能会一直继续。因此，就本——本动议而言，基于庭审记录中陈述的理由，动议获准；经作出加入今日听证日期这一轻微修改后，拟议命令将予签发。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 于 08/23/23 提交 于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记 第14页，共87页\n\n郭文贵 - 2023年8月15日 14　德斯平斯先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：下一事项也有这个下午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法庭：我认为我们也可以审理该事项。\n\n德斯平斯先生：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，费用申请不得在少于120天的间隔内进行审理，除非法庭另有命令。我们和本地律师已经提交了第二份费用申请，该申请已安排在9月中旬举行听证会。我想是15日，但我对此并非百分之百确定，不过大致在那个时候。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 于 08/23/23 提交 于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记 第15页，共87页\n\n郭文贵 - 2023年8月15日 15　我们只是希望获得一项裁定，即法庭授权该程序，并非批准实际的申请本身，而是允许不受第331条限制就此类申请举行听证会，即法庭签发允许如此进行的命令。我相信，我们也没有收到对该动议的任何异议或意见。\n\n法庭：是否有人希望就受托人申请命令以授权在少于120天期限内提交费用申请的动议发言？\n\n麦基先生：法官阁下，再次说明，我是代表美国受托人的史蒂文·麦基。该事项已由美国受托人审查。我们尚未就此提交声明，但对此没有异议。这将处理在法官阁下刚刚批准的新临时付款机制之前已经发生并累积的所有费用事项。\n\n法庭：对。还有其他人希望发言吗？德斯平斯受托人，我正在再次查看拟议命令。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：我将对该命令作出的唯一补充是——法庭书记员，我们可以在“在举行听证会后”之后加上该内容。\n\n法庭书记员：好的。\n\n法庭：好的。因为我在记录中指出，我看到没有人就该动议提交异议。参加本次听证会的任何人均未反对该动议。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，动议获准，并将签发经庭审记录中指出的轻微修改后的拟议命令。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 于 08/23/23 提交 于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记 第16页，共87页\n\n郭文贵 - 2023年8月15日 16　德斯平斯先生：那么现在——谢谢，法官阁下。现在，我将把发言席让给卢夫特先生（Mr. Luft），他将处理HCHK事项的审前会议。\n\n法庭：在此之前，我们今天延期了其中一场审前会议。该延期申请昨晚已就——提交。\n\n德斯平斯先生：Sherry Netherland（谢里·内瑟兰）。\n\n法庭：Sherry Netherland，正确吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。\n\n法庭：好的。我认为该事项已经确定了新的日期。我不确定是否已经处理完毕。日期在9月的某个时候。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。是我这样理解的吗，还是我理解错了？我可能错了，因为我可能将其与这些案件中的许多其他事项之一混淆了。\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。是，所以这不是Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）——\n\n郭文贵 - 2023年8月15日 17　法庭：不，我知道这不是Bravo Luck。对。\n\n德斯平斯先生：——因此情况尚不清楚，法官阁下。并没有真正的紧迫性，因为遗憾的是，目前没有人能够居住在那套公寓内。因此，我认为，如果法官阁下倾向于这样做，我会将该事项进一步延后，但因为我认为在短期内该对抗性程序不会有任何活动。\n\n法庭：您认为——我不知道是否已确定新的日期，但您是说您希望将其延至9月之后？我认为该请求是延期30天。\n\n德斯平斯先生：没错。\n\n法庭：这是我所记得的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：没错。因此，我们已获得其他当事人同意延期30天——\n\n法庭：或许如果您再次获得——\n\n德斯平斯先生：——因此我不应请求——\n\n法庭：——同意，何不提前提交——\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。\n\n法庭：——该事项将获延期——\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。\n\n菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 于 08/23/23 提交 于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记 第17页，共87页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 于 08/23/23 提交 于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记 第18页，共87页\n\n郭文贵 - 2023年8月15日\n1　法庭：\n——再次。\n\n2　德斯平斯先生：\n是。是的，法官阁下。\n\n3　法庭：\n好的。\n\n4　德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢。\n\n5　法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n6　卢夫特先生：\n法官阁下，我可以走近吗？\n\n7　法庭：\n可以，请。\n\n8　卢夫特先生：\n而且，法官阁下，我知道帕斯托雷先生（Mr. Pastore）\n\n9　先前询问过他是否可以参加。我当然\n\n10　不反对听取他的意见。\n\n11　法庭：\n我也不反对听取他的意见，\n\n12　但应理解，您——目前尚未就\n\n13　介入动议作出裁定。\n\n14　我知道当事人——我不记得具体\n\n15　日期，但我知道你们已经同意了日期，或者\n\n16　可能是法庭已经作出了命令。我此刻不记得\n\n17　有关答辩文书的回复，以及与\n\n18　证据开示有关的问题的日期。对吗？仍有——\n\n19　卢夫特先生：\n正确，法官阁下。\n\n20　法庭：\n——证据开示。好的。好的。那么，\n\n21　帕斯托雷先生，请您为记录说明您的\n\n22　出庭身份，好吗？\n\n23　帕斯托雷先生：\n当然。下午好，法官阁下。\n\n24　我是帕斯托雷律师事务所（Pastore, LLC）的约瑟夫·帕斯托雷（Joseph Pastore）。我代表\n\n25　本案中我们所界定的HCHK债权人。今天与我一同出席的\n\n郭文贵 - 2023年8月15日 19　是我的同事保罗·费纳罗利（Paul Fenaroli），其出庭身份已登记在案。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n帕斯托雷先生：我的同事梅利莎·麦克拉米（Melissa McClammy）曾在您面前出庭，她本周正在休假。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。抱歉，我把您的姓氏读错了。我说成了Pastori。是Pastore。所以——\n\n帕斯托雷先生：从二年级起就一直有人这样叫，法官阁下。没关系。\n\n法庭：遗憾的是，我相信确实如此。好的。请继续，卢夫特律师（Attorney Luft）。\n\n卢夫特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我是代表第11章受托人的保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所（Paul Hastings）的阿维·卢夫特（Avi Luft）。所以，法官阁下，从某种意义上说，您刚才提及的有关这些日期的问题，正是我们面前的事项。正如法官阁下所知，我们已经通过了9019和解协议。作为其中的一部分，受让人无意反对我们就HCHK的另我及衡平所有权所提起的诉讼。显然，如果——如果没有其他拟介入人，并且情况如此，而我们继续推进，我们将很快申请简易判决，并争取就时间安排尽快结束该事项。但本案中确有拟介入人。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 于 08/23/23 提交 于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记 第19页，共87页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 于 08/23/23 提交 于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记 第20页，共87页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023\n\n1　他们已提交了书面文件，我认为如果有帮助的话，我可以凭记忆说明，但我认为——我们应当在 September 8th 前完成证据开示，并且我认为我们应当在 September 15th 前提交反对意见。\n\n6　法庭：\n听起来没错。\n\n7　LUFT先生：\n自从我们上次在您面前出庭以来，法官阁下，当时我们进行了视频、Zoom 会议，并讨论了证据开示，各方一致同意他们会发送——我说“他们”，是指拟介入人——鉴于他们上一次的答复并未针对具体请求，他们将向我们送达新的异议和答复。我们已经收到这些文件，如我们对此有异议，我们提出强制披露动议的期限就是今天。因此，我想——我把这作为背景说明，因为我认为这就是我们目前的状况，法官阁下。我们收到了异议和答复，他们表示，他们一概反对所有证言录取，并反对我们绝大多数文件请求。尤其是，反对所有涉及拟介入人与债务人及其代理人之间关系和关联的请求，以及其他一些事项，包括能够识别哪些人参与了这些所谓贷款的文件。我无意今天在这里就此进行辩论，但我提出这一点，是因为我认为大多数此类异议的核心事实是——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023\n\n21　如我所理解的——基于他们在技术上仍属非当事人这一理由提出负担方面的主张。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争议核心，即表示，好吧，这正是我们将就其进行证据开示的事项。我们将查明——我们会取得这些信息并弄清楚，因为这关系到介入问题。但我收到的异议，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并未列为本案当事人，我们就无法获得所需的证据开示。因此，我一直在思考这个问题，且此前没有机会与Pastore先生讨论，但我试图——我真正关心的是，法官阁下，我只是想知道这些人是谁。我想知道他们是否拥有有效请求权，也想知道他们是否受债务人推动、是否受其控制。您知道，在我看来，这些都涉及当事人资格问题。如果——我不想经历整个程序、拖延我们的日程，只为争论他们在技术上是否属于本案当事人，然后我们又在上诉中面临以下问题，即他们在技术上究竟是否属于当事人。\n\n案件 22-50073，文档 2116，提交于 08/23/23，录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24，第 21 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023\n\n22　关于他们在技术上是否属于当事人。因此，我有一个想法，也乐意讨论，就是我想找到一种方式确保该证据开示能够进行。我认为，我们在前几天的电话会议中都同意，该证据开示既与介入有关，也与他们修改 TRO 的请求有关。请看，我不——我想采取务实的做法。如果事实上允许他们介入意味着他们现在认为自己在技术上已是本案当事人，而我们随后能够同意立即进行——实施我们将要进行的证据开示，并称之为当事人资格证据开示；而该问题将在我们完成该等证据开示后，通过届时我想将被称为关于其当事人资格的简易判决动议，或在实体问题审理之前以某种形式得到解决，那么如果这样能解决这些异议并使我们实际上能够进行证据开示，我对此没有异议。或者，如果我们能够直接推进，我会提交我的强制披露动议，然后我们可以继续进行。您知道，我不想以不必要的动议增加法庭负担。这确实只是我们如何称呼它，以及确保我们能够这样做的问题。如果这样能解决关于负担的异议，因为他们现在不再在技术上属于非当事人，而是能够——\n\n案件 22-50073，文档 2116，提交于 08/23/23，录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24，第 22 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023\n\n23　开展工作的当事人。但就目前状态而言，这大致是我的看法。谢谢。Despins先生纠正我。这将是暂准允许介入，等待——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我认为不——\n\nLUFT先生：\n——某些事项。\n\n法庭：\n——你不能允许他们介入，然后又说他们没有当事人资格。我的意思是——\n\nLUFT先生：\n嗯，我想这就是问题——\n\n法庭：\n对。\n\nLUFT先生：\n——法官阁下。那——\n\n法庭：\n但我同意，我们将会——嗯，也许Pastore先生，我们都需要讨论一下，不过你们提交了介入动议，受托人对此提出异议，并称他们需要证据开示，以确定你们是否是可以介入的当事人。我想我曾表示过，但我也可能记错，所以你们都可以纠正我，在我们就两项相关——我认为相关——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及之后均不会在纽约采取任何行动而得到解决。证据开示将涉及你们是谁、你们的债权人是谁，以及他们为何具有当事人资格的问题。因此，我明白我——我想我明白了。\n\n案件 22-50073，文档 2116，提交于 08/23/23，录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24，第 23 页，共 87 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文档 2116，提交于 08/23/23，录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24，第 24 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023\n\n1　我刚才所听到的内容，即你们的客户此时已对每一项——对全部证据开示提出异议——\n\n3　LUFT先生：\n不。\n\n4　法庭：\n不？\n\n5　LUFT先生：\n那不对。\n\n6　法庭：\n那么我们澄清一下。\n\n7　LUFT先生：\n他们反对所有证言录取。\n\n8　法庭：\n好的。\n\n9　LUFT先生：\n他们反对——反对绝大多数文件请求，包括所有涉及与债务人及其关联方任何关联的请求；并且他们反对一项要求其识别参与人、足以表明哪些个人参与贷款的文件请求。他们已同意提供——\n\n15　法庭：\n好的。\n\n16　LUFT先生：\n——能够证明他们所称已作出贷款的文件。因此——\n\n18　法庭：\n而且何时——这些文件将在 September 8th 当日或之前提供？\n\n20　PASTORE先生：\n是的，法官阁下。请问我——我能否就——\n\n22　法庭：\n可以，请讲。\n\n23　PASTORE先生：\n——因为我对Luft先生的说法略有不同意见。只是为了让我们能达成一致认识。\n\n案件 22-50073，文档 2116，提交于 08/23/23，录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24，第 25 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023\n\n25　如我们在上次会议后所说应当做的那样，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，在会上我们进一步同意提供更多文件。我们最初同意提供的是与贷款有关的全部文件。全部——\n\n法庭：\n我能——我能就此问你一个问题吗？\n\nPASTORE先生：\n当然。\n\n法庭：\n所以当我——当你说贷款时，我记得——因此，再次请你纠正我。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笔贷款、一张票据，对吗？三张不同的票据，不是这样吗？\n\nPASTORE先生：\n是的。还有一笔电汇。\n\n法庭：\n好的。因此，当你谈及贷款文件时，你将提供你的客户就该笔交易所持有的整套贷款文件档案？\n\nPASTORE先生：\n是的。我们同意提供我们持有的与贷款有关的任何文件，并且我们已在异议中这样做。我们确实提出了异议，但那是——那一类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；我们认为这很不寻常，也并非真正——\n\n案件 22-50073，文档 2116，提交于 08/23/23，录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24，第 26 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023\n\n1　相关或必要，但我们是出于善意这样做，以尽量缩小争议，因为如果你是债权人，并对该笔款项拥有权利、所有权和权益，那么为确定你是否是债权人，实际上并不重要你从哪里取得该笔款项；但我们表示愿意采取额外步骤，试图证明债权人拥有的资金来源，以消除任何可能的证据开示争议。\n\n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，我们如今处于一出戏剧的第五幕。我们错过了前四幕。\n\n但我们只是认为，债权人的法律地位并不取决于他们的朋友是谁或他们有什么关系。问题在于，他们是否对资金拥有权利、所有权和权益，以及他们是否订立了债权人类型的协议并出借了款项，从而构成债权人。\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、是否驾驶债务人的汽车，在法律上与他们是否属于债权人并无真正关联；这正是我们向受托人提出的意见。\n\n我们确实表示，我们必须向你们提供证明他们是债权人的文件，并且我们甚至会采取额外——\n\n案件 22-50073，文档 2116，提交于 08/23/23，录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24，第 27 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023\n\n1　步骤，提供证明他们为成为债权人而从何处取得资金的文件。我们认为这是合理的。\n\n3　因此，我认为Luft先生称我们一概提出异议，实在并不公平。我们确实同意在 September 8th 前提供所有这些文件，并且我们已经——我们已经开始收集这些文件。\n\n7　法庭：\n但你们不同意进行任何证言录取？\n\n9　PASTORE先生：\n目前——所以，我们找不到任何一个案例表明介入人必须为成为介入人而提供任何证据开示。如果我们就强制披露动议提交书面意见，我们准备就此主张，Breyer法官有一项判决，我现在是凭记忆说的，该判决称他们只须提出可依法审理的请求。\n\n15　因此，我们认为，强迫尚未成为本案当事人、且不在美国境内的各方接受证言录取，超出了判例法和规管介入的法律所允许的范围；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将如何进行达成协议，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，要求他们前往美国作证言录取并不公平。\n\n24　LUFT先生：\n这不公平。\n\n25　法庭：\n好。等一下。等一下。\n\n案件 22-50073，文档 2116，提交于 08/23/23，录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24，第 28 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023\n法庭：请稍等一下。我只是听取您刚才所说的内容。因此，问题在于，对这些债权享有权利的一方，即受让人，已经就转让事宜与受托人解决了相关问题。而您的当事人希望——希望介入，以主张——我认为受让人的行为超出了其授权范围。我认为这是你们提出的主张之一，不是吗？\n帕斯托雷先生：嗯，我认为他们也希望介入，以阻止作出另我认定。他们将支持这样一种观点，即——\n法庭：好的。但我们先——我们继续——我理解您说得对。\n帕斯托雷先生：是的。\n法庭：这是个很好的观点。\n帕斯托雷先生：对。\n法庭：但让我们回顾一下和解过程，至少据我所记得的情况，而且再次说明，如果我有误，我相信大家都会纠正我。和解协议规定，除非且直至受托人证明另我主张，否则不会就转让采取任何行动，资金仅会进入本破产财产进行投资。我认为这是准确的。\n帕斯托雷先生：我认为这很公平。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 于 08/23/23 提交，于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记，第 29 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023\n法庭：如果发生这种情况，即他证明了另我主张，那么您的当事人是否——您看，我想我正在努力理解、且对下一步行动感到有些困难的是，如果受托人胜诉，无论如何一切都将被归并，因为你们的债权人——你们的债权人都将成为 Kwok（郭）先生的债权人。\n帕斯托雷先生：明白。但是，如果我们是对的，这些公司并非债务人的另我，而我们打算介入本案，并协助律师和这些公司——如果有律师出庭的话——否则我们将自行处理，反对另我的观点；如果法庭同意我们，它们并非另我，那么该笔款项就不是破产财产，而我们是这些公司的债权人，有权获得——\n法庭：对。\n帕斯托雷先生：——$27 million 的返还。\n法庭：对。因此，实质上并不存在损害，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的状况如何，但显然您的当事人实质上将处于控制地位。你们将拥有最大的债权。\n帕斯托雷先生：坦率地说，我不知道。我知道我——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023 30\n代表四名提出债权的债权人。\n法庭：好的。\n帕斯托雷先生：而且看起来，在 38 million、39 million——不管具体是多少——之中，他们拥有 27。因此他们占了很大一部分。\n法庭：对。\n帕斯托雷先生：但我不知道其他债权人的情况。我与他们没有任何关系。\n法庭：那么——好吧。我理解您的意思。但允许证据开示的原因，是为了给受托人机会作出判断或提出论点——无论受托人将如何处理——即说明，是的，他们是债权人，或者他们不是债权人，因此不应被允许介入，对吗？这就是全部——\n帕斯托雷先生：完全同意。\n法庭：好的。\n帕斯托雷先生：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，说明你们还可以看到我们从哪里获得资金。我不知道他们为何还需要任何其他材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。我与这些人没有密切的私人关系，这实际上并不相关。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 于 08/23/23 提交，于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记，第 30 页，共 87 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 于 08/23/23 提交，于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记，第 31 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023\n法庭：现在，不幸的是，在本案中，这可能相关。正如您所说，您错过了前四幕。\n帕斯托雷先生：不。我明白这一点。\n法庭：因此，这可能相关。我不是在说——我没有就任何事项作出裁定。好的。这是一次审前会议，但这可能相关。这里存在一个——一个更大的问题，即——我必须做的是整体审视所有问题。我完全理解您代表您的当事人，毫无疑问，您必须关注您当事人的关切，但我必须关注的不仅仅是您当事人的关切。\n帕斯托雷先生：不，不。我明白。\n法庭：所以——不，我知道您明白。我只是说，当您说他们是否是朋友并不相关时，或者说那是您举出的例子之一，在很多很多案件中这可能是对的，但在像本案这样的案件中，这可能并不对。我们在这里遇到的问题的一部分在于，已经发生了如此多的事情，而且显然还将继续发生的事情，涉及不同实体以及不同的指控和主张；对此我已经知悉和/或已经作出裁定，或者已被提出——您知道，我们不一定已经就每项动议作出裁定，但已经提出了指控。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 于 08/23/23 提交，于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记，第 32 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023 32\n有待决的——有——我不知道有多少对抗程序尚待审理，但有很多。我认为超过 12 件，或者甚至可能接近 20 件。我不确定，其中提出了各种与本债务人有关的问题。您知道，本案提交时最大债权人的指控——该债权人支持指定受托人——是该债务人利用不同实体开展业务。该项指控是否被证明，并不是——那是指控，对吗？因此，在指定受托人时，指定受托人是因为甚至债务人也同意，存在事由使法庭根据 Chapter 11——您知道，法典的 Section 1112——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。他们甚至没有对事由提出异议。他们并不认为存在事由。现在，他们希望本案被驳回，但他们同意存在事由。好的。然后，Despins（德斯潘）受托人被指定，随后发生所有这些事情，包括纽约的这项转让程序，其中来自这些实体的某人将其全部资产转让给了——您知道，转让给纽约的这名受让人；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 2116 于 08/23/23 提交，于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记，第 33 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023 33\n因此，尽管我理解您所说的内容，我不确定我现在是否同意——能够同意——而且，正如我所说，我没有就任何事项作出裁定。这是一次审前会议。我们正在进行讨论。\n帕斯托雷先生：对。\n法庭：但这不相关。这很可能相关。您看，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——但让我们继续讨论；我只是希望您理解，尽管我——您的概括性陈述——或者不是您的概括性陈述，您的陈述在一般情况下可能是正确的，即您是否与债务人共进午餐并不重要。但在本案中，这实际上可能相关。\n帕斯托雷先生：我理解，并且非常尊重法庭，我阅读了很多裁定——对本案的历史有一定了解，而且，您知道，从我们的角度来看，我们正努力以我们所能做到的最纯粹的方式提出此事，即这些是从我们角度看借钱给公司的债权人。这些公司并非另我。这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处取得这笔钱，那是另一个问题，但是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 于 08/23/23 提交，于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记，第 34 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023 34\n依法，如果他们是合法债权人，他们应当能够介入；如果这些公司并非另我，他们应当能够获得偿还，而他们的私人关系或个人行为并不改变关于债权人的法律分析。\n法庭：我认为这只与他们是否为合法债权人有关。这就是重点。我此时并不是说我同意或不同意任何人，因为我不知道。我还没有看到任何东西。我不知道什么——嗯，我当然对证据开示有所了解，也对你们的答复有所了解；除非且直至这确实成为法庭必须作出裁定的事项，否则我既不需要也不想看到它们，对吗？而我们——那可能正是我们要走的方向。但关键仍然是，在本案情形下，这可能是适当的证据开示；而且您可能完全正确，即您无法找到关于该问题的判例。这可能是因为不存在一个具有这些具体事实和情形、且有人作出您可以援引的裁定的案件。因此，我理解您的观点。我确实理解。我只是——我并不——我不确定——如果当事人之间仍存在争议，我们可能必须就证据开示作出某种形式的裁定。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 于 08/23/23 提交，于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记，第 35 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023 35\n听起来你们已经取得进展，我对此表示赞赏。好的。毫无疑问，当事人在处理证据开示时，法庭会赞赏他们进行合作并履行其相应义务，显然双方都在努力这样做。因此，我并不担心这没有发生。然而，可能会有一个时点，我必须裁定在本案情形下所寻求的证据开示是否适当。因此，我理解你们已经进行了会面协商。我理解你们将在 September 8th 之前提交文件；而且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之前提交某些材料，然后法庭将必须作出裁定，对吗？因为——实际上，我不确定是否已经就介入动议安排了听证会。\n帕斯托雷先生：我认为没有，法官阁下。\n法庭：是的，我认为实际上没有——\n帕斯托雷先生：但是——\n法庭：——因为我们必须先解决这一证据开示问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 于 08/23/23 提交，于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记，第 36 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023 36\n帕斯托雷先生：对。\n卢夫特先生：有一个日期。就是今天，我们本应在今天提交一项——您知道，如果我们有的话，提出强制动议。\n法庭：就是今天？\n卢夫特先生：就是今天。让我——我直说结论，或者中间部分，也就是说，我很乐意与帕斯托雷先生进一步交谈；如果我们能够——如果将该日期推迟一天左右，或允许我们进一步交谈会有帮助的话——\n法庭：如果你们双方同意，我对此没有问题。\n帕斯托雷先生：哦，没问题。我们——我认为我们有三天时间答复。\n法庭：好的。\n帕斯托雷先生：我只是想确保我们保留那三天。是的。\n卢夫特先生：是的。\n法庭：是的。我的意思是，我们会将所有事情都推迟——\n卢夫特先生：是的。\n法庭：——如果所有人都同意。\n帕斯托雷先生：当然。\n卢夫特先生：我对此没有意见，法官阁下。我想说，而且，您看，我不打算谈及来回——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 于 08/23/23 提交，于 08/23/23 18:18:24 登记，第 37 页，共 87 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—August 15, 2023　37　就该定性而言。我认为这完全公平。我想我要说的一点是，至少按照我的理解，之前我的评论所理解的是，推动这些异议的部分原因是这样一种观念：因为他们尚未介入，他们对取证提出了独特的异议；而如果他们已经实际、技术性地介入，仍然会存在诉讼资格问题。也就是说，如果我刚刚对他们提起诉讼，而存在——您知道——以无诉讼资格为由提出的驳回动议，您会对此进行审理，您知道——法庭：我明白。卢夫特先生：——正如其应有的方式——所以，这正是我真正想表达的，即，请看，我不想——我认为我们需要这些取证。我认为我们必须取得这些取证。我们可以就范围存在分歧。我认为我们所讨论的内容是必要的，但我不认为实际上处于这样一种境地会很有成效：由于其所处程序阶段，该等取证本身将始终受到阻碍。始终会有人主张在此时该取证不适当；如果我们能够就一项程序达成一致，以便我们能够进行该种有关诉讼资格的取证，并且理解我们必须知悉\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2116　于 08/23/23 提交　于 08/23/23 18:18:24 录入　第 38 页，共 87 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—August 15, 2023\n1　他们是否为有效债权人，例如他们是否发放过贷款。\n2　根据我们所看到的情况，我们对此确实存在疑问\n3　。\n我们必须知悉债务人正在发生什么情况。\n4　尽管我理解这可能\n5　是一次轻松地喝咖啡、上车的会面，但我们知道，在\n6　本案中，我们讨论的不是我们的政治信仰。\n7　我们不是在询问他们两人是否都是共和党人或民主党人，\n8　法官大人。\n9　坦率地说，我们询问的是债务人\n10　是否控制或指挥这些实体。这些实体\n11　大多是喜马拉雅农场（Himalayan Farms），本庭已经认定其在运营——您知道，\n12　该商业利益，并且在很大程度上受\n13　债务人控制。\n14　我们有非常重要的理由质疑\n15　债务人是否正在指挥此事。基于此，\n16　基于我们昨天讨论的情况，即证据表明\n17　即使在监狱中，郭先生仍在让王女士（Ms. Wang）\n18　指挥这些实体继续这样做。\n19　我认为所有这些都非常相关；如果妨碍或允许\n20　取得该等取证的因素\n21　是确定这一程序机制，那么我很乐意\n22　与帕斯托雷先生（Mr. Pastore）交谈，但我确实认为我们应当努力\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：\n嗯，我的意思是，我显然尚未看到\n25　，而且我——正如我所说，我认为在我必须裁定之前，我不应当看到\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2116　于 08/23/23 提交　于 08/23/23 18:18:24 录入　第 39 页，共 87 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—August 15, 2023　39　任何有关取证的异议，但我不认为你们——嗯，让我换一种说法。当然，其意图并非让取证遭到这样的答复：我尚不必提供这些材料，因为我不是介入——我尚未介入。我认为这——这毫无道理。我本不会允许该取证。我会直接驳回你们的介入动议。我的意思是，我认为这——所以我们必须——您知道，我认为在此情形下采取务实做法是有益的，而且毫无疑问，我已允许你们参加听证、陈述意见，并代表你们的当事人主张立场，但你们尚未——介入动议尚未获准，因此你们尚不是介入人。然而，在此情形下，我允许你们陈述意见。我原以为已经明确，若非如此，我表示歉意，即取证必须针对你们是否有权介入这一问题。并非——我不认为你们可以基于这样的主张提出异议：因为你们尚未介入——你们尚不是介入人，所以你们不受关于取证的同一《民事诉讼规则》约束。我不确定你们是否作出过这种主张。我不——我甚至不想——我并不想陷入一场全面争论。我所要说的只是，该项\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2116　于 08/23/23 提交　于 08/23/23 18:18:24 录入　第 40 页，共 87 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—August 15, 2023　40　取证从法庭的角度而言，是为了允许受托人——因为我认为这是一项有效请求——确定是否应允许你们的当事人介入，我认为这也是正当的。而且，再次强调，这是由于本起诉状四角之内和四角之外的许多其他事项。两者皆是。但正如我所说，您知道，我必须像受托人一样思考；受托人是所有这些财产的受托人和代表，对吗，是每一个人，而不只是特定人员。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——如果你们想要休庭商谈，或者你们——你们希望法庭采取什么行动。但听起来你们双方都同意，可以将提交一项动议的这一期限延长几天；该动议将要求法庭就取证问题作出一些裁定。对吗？\n\n卢夫特先生：我同意。\n\n帕斯托雷先生：我们完全同意。\n\n法庭：好的。随后答复期限也将相应延长。\n\n卢夫特先生：当然。\n\n法庭：那么你们希望如何处理此事？你们想要短暂休庭吗？你们希望稍后回来报告吗？你们——你们希望怎么做？\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2116　于 08/23/23 提交　于 08/23/23 18:18:24 录入　第 41 页，共 87 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—August 15, 2023　41　卢夫特先生：我们或许可以稍后回来报告，因为我知道您日程表上还有其他事项，而且我们这里还有人员，法官大人。\n\n法庭：我想日程表上只有另一件事，对吗？除非我遗漏了什么。不过，是的，我们可以稍后回来报告。没问题。何不——\n\n卢夫特先生：好的。这对您可行吗？\n\n法庭：——我们这样做？你们何不先商谈，然后——\n\n卢夫特先生：很好。\n\n法庭：——我们再继续。\n\n卢夫特先生：好的，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n帕斯托雷先生：我可以为记录说明一件事吗？我不——是的，我们可能基于我们作为介入人的诉讼资格等提出过异议，但我们的基本——我认为，为了区分这些文件，基本问题是，我们认为我们有义务出示证明——证明我们是债权人的文件，并且证明，正如我所说，进一步说明我们的资金来源。我们确实划定了界限，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，因为这是对我们的贷款文件及信贷提供行为进行的法律分析。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2116　于 08/23/23 提交　于 08/23/23 18:18:24 录入　第 42 页，共 87 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—August 15, 2023　42　我不认为我们曾采取这样的立场：我们不必证明自己是本案中的有效债权人。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\n帕斯托雷先生：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，何不我们——我将——我会处理日程表上的另一事项，而你们双方可以商谈，看看是否有任何事项希望回来报告；但我理解的是，即使没有报告，除 September 8th 这一日期之外，目前我也不会要求你们遵守其他日期，该日期涉及就取证争议提交动议和/或答复该动议。好的。\n\n卢夫特先生：谢谢您，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n帕斯托雷先生：谢谢您，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢二位。那么唯一的——是我弄错了吗——还是仅仅——我想唯一的另一事项是另一件——是——\n\n卢夫特先生：我相信是 HK USA。\n\n法庭：是的。22-5003 HK USA 审前会议，对吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）：对，法官大人。\n\n法庭：我想莫里亚蒂律师（Attorney Moriarty）正要为该事项到前面来。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2116　于 08/23/23 提交　于 08/23/23 18:18:24 录入　第 43 页，共 87 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—August 15, 2023　43　好的。关于 HK Funds, USA 对抗程序 22-5003，请各方为记录说明出庭身份。\n\n德斯平斯先生：Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯），Chapter 11 受托人。\n\n卢夫特先生：Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）律师，代表 Chapter 11 受托人，法官大人。\n\n斯卡尔卡先生：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），亦代表 Chapter 11 受托人。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：下午好，法官大人。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（香港国际基金投资美国有限公司）和 Mei Guo（梅国）。\n\n法庭：下午好。好的。因此，本次审前会议方面，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。那么，各方是否就该对抗程序的状态以及希望法庭采取何种行动进行了进一步讨论？\n\n卢夫特先生：我们已进行讨论，法官大人。我不能说我们已达成一致，但我很乐意向法庭简要说明我们的现状。\n\n法庭：请。请继续。\n\n卢夫特先生：我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以，请。\n\n卢夫特先生：谢谢您，法官大人。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 Chapter 11\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—August 15, 2023　44　受托人。因此，我们已与对方律师进行交谈，我认为摆在我们面前的问题是，本诉讼中我将称为第三、第四和第五项请求的事项。第三项是衡平所有权，第四项是欺诈性转让，第五项是侵权请求，仍未解决。本案中仍有效的一项初步禁令，并且还有一项我认为相关的事项，我将解释原因，即我们就提存之诉提出的简易判决动议正在审理中。法庭已问我们——我们应如何处理这些事项？剩余部分怎么办——作为背景，我认为首先审视第三项请求很重要。上次有人提出，该请求是作为第一项和第二项请求的备位请求提出的。事实并非如此，我认为我们已经解决了这一点，而且我认为他们会同意这一点是明确的。第三项请求不是备位请求。它是另一项依据，另一项请求，但并非与第一项和第二项相对立的内容。现在，它仍然有效。法官大人，我认为第四项和第五项不应被驳回，因为上诉正在进行中；但确实，如果我们在第一项和第二项请求上胜诉，并且可能还包括第三项，\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2116　于 08/23/23 提交　于 08/23/23 18:18:24 录入　第 45 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023\n罪名项4和5将无法适用，因为事实上，我们将是另一个自我——这将是另一个自我认定，将予以维持，且衡平所有权将会存在，因此，不会存在欺诈性转让或侵权行为的问题。\n\n现在，在提存诉讼中，被告采取的立场是，受托人——法院关于另一个自我的裁定，赋予其所有财产和权利——尚不足够，而且他们仍可设法阻止提存诉讼，从而阻止转让。我们不同意这一点。我们不认为情况是这样——我们认为法院就请求2所作的裁定非常明确，其转让所有财产，其中将包括所有合同权利。\n\n该裁定还指示他们采取一切步骤予以遵守，其中将包括他们仅须致电提存代理人并告知其释放资金的权利。但他们着重于请求3为衡平所有权这一事实，并称若未取得该等权利，我们所拥有的并不足够。\n\n那么，我为何要说这些？因为这实际上使我们面临一个问题：我们该如何处理请求3？我认为，如果法院就我们在提存诉讼中的简易判决动议同意我们的意见，那么款项将被释放给我们；届时，我不知道是否还有理由继续推进请求3。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 46 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023\n然而，在该裁定作出之前，或者如果该简易判决未获准许，那么当然我们将必须继续推进请求3，因为根据——这正是被告用来主张的关键，即我们所缺乏、无法迫使他们释放该款项的最后一根稻草。\n\n因此，在该情形下，法官阁下，我们所处的位置是，我会说，我认为我们需要等待提存诉讼的裁定。我认为在此之前作出决定没有多大意义。\n\n显然，如果法院同意我们的意见，那么款项将被释放，而且据我们所知，那将是HK USA（HK USA公司）的资产，据我们所知，所有这些资产都将被释放给我们，我不知道是否有必要继续推进请求3。\n\n或者，如果您不同意我们的意见，或者我们按照不同的顺序进行，我们就需要继续推进请求3。\n\n现在，这就涉及我认为您问我们的另一个问题，即关于请求1和2是否为终局裁定存在疑问。我相信这是对方提出的，他们试图说这些应被视为终局裁定而非中间裁定。我认为这不正确。我认为请求1\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 47 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023 47\n和2及3在事实方面彼此密不可分。我认为在请求3仍可能悬而未决时，对请求1和2进行上诉毫无意义。因此，如果存在一个问题，即我们将不得不继续推进请求3，我认为合理的做法是，在我们如需继续推进请求3的情况下，于就请求3作出裁定之前，继续将请求1和2视为中间裁定。\n\n所以，法官阁下，我认为这就是我们目前的情况。遗憾的是，我们未能就提存资金达成协议，因此我们仍不得不依赖法院的裁定来推动我们在该事项上的进展。但如我所说，在我们知道该事项的进展之前，鉴于他们所采取的立场，即尽管我们认为并不需要，但我们实际上需要请求3所赋予的权利；我们认为，您就另一个自我在您的裁定中所准许的内容已经绰绰有余。但鉴于他们的立场，我们无法说请求3已不再需要审理。我认为这将不得不等到提存诉讼裁定作出后再决定。\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。再次说明，我是代表HK USA（HK USA公司）和Mei Guo（郭美）的James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）。我当事人的首要关切是使对两项待决判决的上诉尽可能迅速地得到审理。问题在于，如果我们将罪名项3搁置一旁——4和5是以备选方式主张的，而且诚然，在起草我们的简易判决文件时，我们将2和3视为备选关系，这就是为什么我们主张受托人将获得其所寻求的全部救济。\n\n如果回过头看该项主张，其前提是2和3是备选关系，而诚然它们并非如此。我回去多次查看了反诉。罪名项3并非罪名项2的备选项。它依赖于与罪名项2相同的事实，但4和5是以备选方式主张的，其中4是相对于1、2或3的备选项，我相信5是相对于1或2的备选项。因此，4和5是备选项。这些可以搁置一旁。我认为它们完全不会影响上诉。3是可能影响上诉的罪名项；而如果我们要等到\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 48 of 87\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 49 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023\n法院就提存诉讼简易判决动议作出裁定，然后再决定如何处理罪名项3，而受托人通过其律师表示，不，我们必须重新推进罪名项3，因为法院驳回了提存诉讼中的简易判决，那么我们将耗费大量时间。\n\n我理解卢夫特律师的观点，即如果我们无法通过提存诉讼中就托管协议提出的简易判决动议取得提存资金，罪名项3或许能使我们取得该等资金。取得该等资金的另一种途径，以及我当事人所作的主张，是你们需要一项终局且不可上诉的命令。\n\n因此，我们并不主张罪名项2未将托管资金给予受托人。它确实给予了，且受托人目前正持有这些资金。问题在于时间以及何时可以释放这些资金。\n\n如果就罪名项2审理上诉，而该项裁定成为终局裁定。当然，我当事人可能决定要向第二巡回法院上诉。我不知道，但这也是取得托管协议项下所需终局且不可上诉命令的另一种途径。\n\n当然，法官阁下，可以在提存诉讼中准许他们简易判决，然后显然这一切都将消失。\n\n因此，从我当事人的角度看，如果本法院\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 50 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023\n依据《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——抱歉——认定对请求1和2的判决提出上诉不存在延迟的正当理由，我相信已转让给受托人的资产总额约为$57 million；我相信，假设刚刚提交的费用申请在September获得批准，Lady May（Lady May）的全部收益将被支出，之后，假设能够释放，我们将开始动用托管资金。\n\n因此，在我当事人的上诉待决期间，我们将持续支出这些资金；受托人也许会取得更多资产，也许不会。谁知道Sherry Netherland（谢里·内德兰）的公寓将值多少钱。\n\n我的观点是，就这两项请求而言不存在延迟的正当理由；而且，通过上诉取得终局判决，也许比即使受托人就罪名项3提出简易判决动议还要更快。我无法向您说明，根据第二巡回法院的法律，这将赋予受托人何种权利。也许受托人届时可以放弃托管协议中的该项条款，也许不能。也许我当事人会对此上诉。我不知道。\n\n我的观点是——也许这是我冗长地表达观点的方式——看来，就罪名项2取得终局判决，并在其上诉成功的前提下将托管资金交给受托人，最快捷的途径是通过上诉程序，而罪名项3可与4和5一同搁置。我们将同意中止这三项罪名项，并推进上诉；上诉将产生何种结果，就由其自行发展。\n\n法院：嗯，您目前是否有权上诉，不是由地区法院决定吗？难道不是——不是由地区法院作出该决定吗？因为我认为你们提交了一项动议——你们提交了上诉通知书，但也就罪名项1和罪名项2均提交了上诉许可动议，对吗？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：对此，我的回答是，既不是，也可以说是。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女士提交了上诉状。在上诉状中，我们请求地区法院，如果您认定这些判决并非终局判决，那么您应准许我们，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所想到的，债务人提交了一份上诉通知书和中间上诉动议。\n\n法院：哦，也许就是这个。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\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2116 Filed 08/23/23 Entered 08/23/23 18:18:24 Page 52 of 87\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 15, 2023\n法院：哦，不。我说的是本案。我说的不是第五修正案问题。我原以为，当你们就这些简易判决裁定上诉时，你们已提交了——所以只是我错了。如果你们没有提交上诉许可动议，我原以为你们提交了。无论如何。\n\n我的观点是，如果该事项目前在地区法院审理——\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：嗯，它——\n\n法院：——那么此时我依据规则54有何管辖权采取任何行动？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？因此，就简易判决裁定而言——我不知道地区法院上诉的状态如何，但目前该事项由地区法院掌握。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：因此，关于第一和第二罪名项判决的上诉目前在地区法院待决。这是正确的。上诉人，即我的当事人，已提交其开篇陈述书。受托人尚未对此作出答复。\n\n截至目前，由于法官阁下尚未依据规则54(b)作出认定不存在延迟正当理由的命令，这些命令从技术上讲——\n\n法院：我甚至不认为你们能够作出\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月15日 53 在上诉待决期间，你不能就该命令采取行动，对吧？我的意思是，我不确定你能否这样做。\n莫里亚蒂先生（Moriarty）：法官阁下，我尚未研究该问题。\n法庭：我的意思是，在上诉待决期间，未经地区法院许可，你不能使一项 Rule 60 动议或一项 59 动议获得批准，我想是这样。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 Rule 60 和 59，在上诉待决期间你不能采取任何行动。\n莫里亚蒂先生：法官阁下，我同意这一点，因为一般而言，上诉会剥夺地区法院的管辖权，比如移交给第二巡回法院。在本案中，就这些判决的终局性和可上诉性存在问题的范围而言，本法庭应当能够——我不想说“可以”，因为诚然我尚未研究该问题——根据 54(b) 作出认证，认定不存在延迟的正当理由，使这些判决在其尚未终局的范围内成为终局判决。如果这会有帮助，我愿意就此提交一份简短书面意见。\n法庭：我还不知道。等一下。我刚才在读一些内容。\n（暂停。）\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2116 提交 08/23/23 登记 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 53 页，共 87 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2116 提交 08/23/23 登记 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 54 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月15日 54\n法庭：嗯，其中说，根据 54(b)，我必须明确认定不存在延迟的正当理由；否则，任何命令或其他决定，无论其名称如何，只要裁决的请求少于全部请求，或者裁决的当事人的权利和责任少于全体当事人的权利和责任，均不终结针对任何请求或当事人的诉讼，并且在作出裁决全部请求及全体当事人权利和责任的判决书之前，均可随时修改。因此，它没有 Rules 59 和 60 中同样的措辞，因为它们——因为目前，地区法院——除你在书面意见中所述之外，我实际上不知道你是如何提出这个问题的。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出上诉。而你是在说，你希望我作出如下认定——你希望——你希望通过让我就起诉状的第1项和第2项罪名根据 54(b) 作出命令，从而将该问题排除在外？\n莫里亚蒂先生：正确，法官阁下。然后我们继续进行上诉；如我所说，我的当事人已经提交了其上诉开篇书状。我们会同意中止第3项、第4项和第5项罪名。没有——\n法庭：那么，正当理由是什么——我明确认定不存在延迟的正当理由，理由是什么？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2116 提交 08/23/23 登记 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 55 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月15日 55\n莫里亚蒂先生：据我了解，基于我们目前所处的阶段——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；该项将使受托人取得该实体的权益及对该实体的控制权。我相信卢夫律师（Attorney Luft）刚才告诉法庭，如果法官阁下在提存诉讼（interpleader action）中就简易判决作出有利于受托人的裁定，那么他们可能不必这样做，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且不可上诉的命令。如果法官阁下在提存诉讼问题上授予他们简易判决，那么推定该要求便不复存在，而且他们不会——\n法庭：如果你的当事人对其提出上诉，它并不会不复存在。\n莫里亚蒂先生：也许会有中止，也许不会，法官阁下。您是对的。如果我的当事人提出上诉，假定我的当事人在上诉中胜诉，它并不会不复存在。如果没有中止，显然该命令将生效。将托管资金加上 Lady May（“五月夫人”号）及其出售所得金额计算在内，资产约为 57 million dollars。受托人正在花费该资金。至少就 Lady May 的资金而言，他有权这样做。但这确实是本争议的核心。这是 HK（HK）的资产，而这些资产正在被受托人耗散。也许“耗散”一词过于强烈。它们正在被花费；再次说明，他有权这样做。法庭已经认可他这样做。但这确实是问题所在。问题是这些资产，而法庭已根据第1项和第2项罪名认定，这些资产属于破产财产。我的当事人显然不同意该认定，这就是他们提出上诉的原因，但这也是不存在延迟的正当理由的原因。此外，如果法官阁下就提存诉讼授予简易判决，即使您不授予，Lady May 的资产，即出售 Lady May 所得的资金，也将在接下来的这些费用申请中被完全耗尽。然后，假定法官阁下就提存诉讼授予简易判决，并且受托人有权花费托管资金，据我今天仅在法庭旁听所了解，受托人将开始按月提交费用申请；如果这些申请获准，我们将逐步耗尽那些托管资金。也许不会像目前基于数月期间的费用申请那样快，但这就是不存在延迟的正当理由的原因，法官阁下，因为我们至少会更接近就这些资产作出终局处理，如我所说，这些资产总额约为 \\$57 million。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2116 提交 08/23/23 登记 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 56 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月15日 56\n法庭：嗯，我的意思是，你们可以通过不止一种方式达到这一结果。你知道，你的当事人已决定——你的当事人提起了这项对抗程序。他们于去年4月启动该对抗程序，以确定——请求宣告判决确认他们是 Lady May 的所有人。你知道，我在第1项和第2项罪名中作出了相反认定。你的当事人已对那些命令提出上诉，无论这些命令是否终局。因此，问题在于起诉状的其余罪名项，共有三项；而你的当事人曾主张第3项是一项重要的诉因，但我认为我听到你正在改变这一立场，这没有问题。我只是想明确一下。你正在改变该立场吗？因为我认为是 Warnick 女士——我很抱歉。我想不起她的名字。\n莫里亚蒂先生：沃尼克（Warnick）。\n法庭：她叫什么名字？\n莫里亚蒂先生：沃尼克。梅丽莎·沃尼克（Melissa Warnick）。\n法庭：沃尼克女士主张第3项罪名是必要的，所以——\n莫里亚蒂先生：沃尼克女士的论点——这只是我凭当天在法庭旁听的记忆所述——是受托人试图绕过替身实体分析中的一个步骤，即没有主张受托人、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、某种类型的股权权益，才能进一步主张替身实体。换言之，如果你不是所有人，无论直接还是间接，根据 Delaware（特拉华州）法律，就不存在替身实体。法官阁下不同意这一点。您在您的裁决中不同意这一点。我们尊重这一点。这是我们上诉的一部分，但那就是法官阁下的裁决。就第3项罪名而言，在法官阁下的裁决中，您明确区分了受托人根据第2项和根据第3项罪名能够获得的救济。根据第——\n法庭：因为这些罪名项本身就作出了区分。\n莫里亚蒂先生：嗯，我明白，法官阁下。因此，并不是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。无论当时的论点可能是什么，这都是法庭的认定；法庭认定，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 文件 2116 提交 08/23/23 登记 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 57 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月15日 57\n而这正是我们在提存诉讼中所援引并据以主张的内容，即该命令并非终局，且受托人需要一项终局且不可上诉的命令。\n法庭：嗯，你还假定地区法院无论做什么，都会说这是一项终局命令。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，你们需要回去做些不同的事情。我是说，你假定如果本法庭认证这两项裁定为终局裁定，就意味着你的当事人的一切都会继续推进，但这未必是真的。地区法院可以——可以作出裁定——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——地区法院可以做许多事情。我不——你知道，那是地区法院的特权和权限。因此，我不确定——你知道，我的想法是，你已经说过第3项是一个独立且不同的罪名项，并且——论点是它对第2项至关重要。因此，现在你说，认定第1项和第2项为终局，以便我们继续进行上诉。嗯，你们的上诉正在待决，而地区法院将要做什么，地区法院就会做什么。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2116 提交 08/23/23 登记 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 60 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年8月15日\n地区法院可能会认定，我——该裁定在某些方面是正确的，在其他方面是不正确的。他们可能认定它完全不正确。他们可能发回进行进一步——我的意思是，谁知道呢？\n莫里亚蒂先生：法官阁下，我同意——我同意您的看法，即我们现在讨论的问题是目前的管辖权问题。因此，地区法院可以设想地说，这些命令不是终局命令，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。地区法院可以说，这些命令不是终局命令，我驳回你们提出中间上诉的动议。届时我们便不再有待决上诉，而我假定我们就必须继续推进第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，而这就是我的观点。我的观点是，受托人说，我们现在确实不想继续进行第3项，因为我们希望在提存诉讼中获得简易判决裁定；届时也许我们将不得不继续进行第3项，但不要根据 Rule 54 作出认证，而我们基本上处于停滞状态。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2116 提交 08/23/23 登记 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 61 页，共 87 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年8月15日 61 如果我们走到第54(b)条认证这一步，地区法院可能会说这还不够，并予以驳回。我明白。我不认为——我希望不会发生这种情况，但在那种特定情况下，我们将继续推进那两项上诉。无论如何，地区法院都会对上诉作出裁决。她——杜利法官（Judge Dooley）将作出裁决，但至少我们正在继续推进。我想，另一种选择是——法庭：那么，如果你们正在继续推进，你们还需要我做什么？莫里亚蒂律师（MR. MORIARTY）：因为我们——在目前这个时候，法官阁下，杜利法官可以说她对这些上诉没有管辖权。法庭：没错。莫里亚蒂律师：如果我们取得——法庭：她可以这么说。莫里亚蒂律师：——如果我们取得您依据第54(b)条作出的认证，确认这些判决为终局判决，且不存在延迟的正当理由，而她接受该认证，那么就存在管辖权，毫无疑问。而且，如法官阁下此前所说，我们正试图排除这个问题。这才是全部重点。法庭：但我不知道你们是否能按你们希望的方式来做。这才是关键，对吧？我明白你在说什么，但我不知道你们是否能够\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2116 提交日期 08/23/23 录入日期 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 62 页，共 87 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年8月15日 62 就这样进来说，你们知道吗？我们想以不同方式推进此事，所以，你们知道的，认证这些是终局判决。我不知道这是否——这是否确实——符合标准——莫里亚蒂律师：那么，这个——法庭：——第54条规定的标准。莫里亚蒂律师：因此，第二巡回上诉法院（Second Circuit）要求的不仅仅是一项声明——法庭：对。莫里亚蒂律师：——声明不存在延迟的正当理由，但我此前已说明，正在被消耗的$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？莫里亚蒂律师：本对抗程序，因为——法庭：好的。莫里亚蒂律师：——如果受托人能够取得托管资金，如果法庭说，我作出有利于您、受托人先生的裁定，在提存诉讼中准予简易判决，且该裁定未被暂缓执行，那么受托人就可以动用托管资金，而这确实才是重点。重点在于受托人何时能够动用这些资金支付破产财产费用，包括\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2116 提交日期 08/23/23 录入日期 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 63 页，共 87 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年8月15日 63 他的律师费以及——法庭：哦，不仅仅是支付破产财产费用，莫里亚蒂律师。我的意思是，这是为了向债权人付款。请记住，郭先生自愿提起了其第11章破产案件。因此，这就是会发生的情况。莫里亚蒂律师：法官阁下，我并不反对您的说法。据我理解，这正是破产案件的全部目的，即最终向债权人付款，但我认为我们目前距离那一步还很远。我知道已提交了若干债权申报，而且据我所知，尚未进行任何程序，例如筛除债权申报、对债权申报提出异议，无论受托人将采取何种做法。但同样，这又涉及——法庭：你认为在哪一个第11章案件中，在一年之后的这个阶段，这种事情就会发生？你知道，我只是说，你提出的论点就是——它们就是不——就该问题而言，你一直试图——或者至少看起来你是在试图主张，这一切都是为了让受托人获得报酬。我认为这并不公平。莫里亚蒂律师：而我——这并非该论点的重点，法官阁下。这并不是为了让受托人支付给自己报酬，而是为了让受托人能够动用这些资金。这才是关键。关键在于时间。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2116 提交日期 08/23/23 录入日期 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 64 页，共 87 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年8月15日 64 法庭：这就是受托人提起诉因的原因，因为他——莫里亚蒂律师：对。但他不想继续追诉。法庭：——想要动用资金向债权人付款。莫里亚蒂律师：但他不想追诉第3项罪名。法庭：不是这样——我们并不知道他不想追诉第3项罪名。我没有听说他不想追诉第3项罪名。莫里亚蒂律师：好的。那么，法官阁下，您命令受托人就HK（郭文贵）和郭先生在简易判决书状中提出的论点提交答复，即法庭应依据第54条认证这些判决为终局判决。法庭：对。莫里亚蒂律师：受托人没有这样做。而在该文件中，他表示，如果法庭在提存诉讼中驳回简易判决，我们可能会追诉第3项罪名。他们目前不想追诉第3项罪名。他们想等待看看提存诉讼的结果；如果他们在该诉讼中未获成功，那么届时他们或许想重新处理第3项罪名，但与此同时，上诉仍悬而未决。我们不知道杜利法官将如何裁决。法庭：那是她的裁量权。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2116 提交日期 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 65 页，共 87 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年8月15日 65 莫里亚蒂律师：但我的观点是，法官阁下，如果本庭依据第54(b)条认证那两项判决为终局判决，则存在管辖权的确定性将大大提高。如果法官阁下不打算这样做，那么我认为我们需要——法庭：我没有说我不会这样做。我是在试图理解你的论点，即——正当理由是什么；从我们的角度看，正当理由是你不想就这些上诉是否为中间上诉进行辩论。因此，你希望我依据第54(b)条认证它们，以便你无需提出该论点。莫里亚蒂律师：法官阁下，我完全不是这个意思。法庭：好的。那么你是什么意思？莫里亚蒂律师：正当理由是，我的当事人HK拥有Lady May（“梅女士”号）、Lady May 2（“梅女士2号）以及托管账户中的$37 million。这些就是资产。Lady May已被出售，实现了$21 million以上的收益。受托人持有托管资金，受托人也持有Lady May 2。它是破产财产的一项资产。据我所知，这就是破产财产拥有的全部资产。还有那笔490——或$499,000——法庭：嗯，Lady May 2在某个地方。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2116 提交日期 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 66 页，共 87 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年8月15日\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：我已经说过了。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：我相信是与Clark Hill（克拉克·希尔）达成的$499,000和解；Clark Hill是该律师事务所的名称。但破产财产拥有的资产中，大部分、绝大多数均来自我的当事人，而且这些资产正在被消耗。\n\n现在，受托人或许会带来更多资产；如果我的当事人在上诉中胜诉，我的当事人便可以通过后来带入的额外资产，追回从破产财产中分配出去的一切。\n\n我不知道这是否会发生。我了解到与Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）达成了一项和解。已经提交了一项第9019条动议。我还了解到，有一项对抗程序涉及火灾保险赔偿金。保险公司不愿付款。\n\n这里有许多正在变化的因素。受托人可能会带来其他资产，但关键是我们对此并不确定。因此，是的，这些资金正在被使用。它们正被用于其所被使用的任何目的，但不存在延迟的正当理由在于，我当事人的资产正在被消耗。再次说明，我并无贬损之意。这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案号 22-50073 文件 2116 提交日期 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 67 页，共 87 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年8月15日\n\n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。\n\n法庭：好的。还有其他事项吗？\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：没有了。就这些，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n卢夫特律师（MR. LUFT）：法官阁下——\n\n法庭：卢夫特律师。请讲。\n\n卢夫特律师：谢谢，法官阁下。我会尽量简短。\n\n您刚才听到的是，莫里亚蒂律师想要在上诉期间暂缓执行。他没有获得暂缓执行。现在他在自行采取补救措施。他们拒绝给予——他表示，我们同意，第2项罪名使他们获得托管资金。我们同意我们拥有该财产。这就是为什么我们不得不就中间上诉提交这整套简易判决材料。\n\n您也听到了他们为什么拖延，因为他们担心，如果他们的上诉获胜，将不会有钱。这正是上诉期间暂缓执行所要解决的问题。他们——未获准暂缓执行，我也同意不应当准许。\n\n但现在他们就自行这样做了。您不会——根本没有听到的是，他们没有做的事情是，他们一直说他们拥有——嗯，有一项合同上的——他们现在就有权打电话给阻止资金释放的人，即受托人，并说，释放资金。我们有一项法院命令，要求我们尽一切努力协助此事。他们现在就可以这样做，届时这些资金将被释放，我们今天就可以就是否需要追诉第3项罪名作出判断。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2116 提交日期 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 68 页，共 87 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年8月15日 68 您所听到的这些论点，即我们为什么现在不追诉第3项罪名？坦白说，因为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次推进第3项罪名的金额。我认为，受托人和本庭值得考虑其资源，并决定是否——是否存在这样一笔金额。如果该笔资金从托管中释放，我们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，从而值得在那时继续追诉。显然，他们想两全其美。他们向您主张，没有第3项罪名中的权利，我们就无法让他们释放资金，因此该项权利不可或缺。这是$37 million。我向您保证，在这个金额下，绝对值得追诉第3项罪名，这也是合理的。但是\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2116 提交日期 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 69 页，共 87 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年8月15日 69 相反，他们对您说，嗯，我们不想做我们本可以做的事，即自愿打电话说，嘿，我们有一项法院命令，要求我们尽一切努力协助，因此请释放资金。他们不想以这种方式推进。相反，他们只想让您说，使这成为终局判决。让我们——让我们进行终局上诉，尽管我们知道第3项罪名——我们称其为非常重要——与第1项和第2项完全相互关联。这显然不符合第54(b)条标准。因此，他们实际上是在制定蔡斯勒民事诉讼规则（Zeisler Rules of Civil Procedure）。他们希望在自己想上诉时上诉。他们希望得到终局判决，以便这样主张。尽管未获上诉期间暂缓执行，他们仍想说，嗯，我仍将扣留资金，因为坦白说，我确实担心，你知道的，你——那些资金被花掉。这已不再是他们的选择，法官阁下。莫里亚蒂律师是诚实、坦率的；当他对您说法庭许可了此事时，他说得没错。我们没有这种权利。他们也没有。但目前这只是自行采取补救措施，法官阁下。我坦白——因此，我们在此举行一次情况会议。中间上诉问题将会——那个问题——抱歉——提存诉讼正在您面前审理。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2116 提交日期 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 70 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023 70\n\n但是，就我们应如何在本案中推进而言，何为高效、何为合理，我认为正如我所说。我认为我们应当看看交互pleader程序会如何发展，以便我们知道发生了什么。以便我们知道是否存在争议中的$37 million。届时，完全相信Kwok先生是HK USA衡平所有人的受托人，可以根据法院资源和破产财产资源的成本效益，决定在$37 million并不存在争议的情况下，是否值得继续追究该事项。但是，盲目地说我们应当那样做，或者说我们应当仅仅因为他们确实希望继续推进，就认证这些判决；而且他们担心会在中间上诉中败诉，因此希望您实际上使他们无须在Dooley法官（Judge Dooley）面前就此进行辩论，这并不恰当，也不高效。我认为以这种方式推进本案没有意义。如果法庭阁下有任何问题，我很乐意回答。法庭：我没有任何问题。谢谢。Luft先生（Mr. Luft）：谢谢，法庭阁下。法庭：Moriarty先生（Mr. Moriarty），您想回应吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 提交于 08/23/23 录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 71 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023 71\n\nMoriarty先生（Mr. Moriarty）：是的，请允许，法庭阁下。因此，Zeisler职业行为规则——我是说，职业行为，Zeisler规则——法庭：我认为他说的是程序。Moriarty先生：——职业——是的，他说的是。民事诉讼程序，我不知道为什么我脑中会是那个，但没关系。因此，法庭阁下，我真正想评论的唯一一点是，我们并未寻求在上诉期间中止程序。关于交互pleader程序的简易判决动议正在法庭阁下面前审理。法庭阁下知道该论点。其中有一项规定称，在破产法院作出最终且不可上诉的命令之前，资金不得释放。目前并不存在该等命令。法庭阁下将决定或不决定该事项，但基本上，Luft律师（Attorney Luft）对您所说的是，我们希望一切都暂停。我们希望冻结一切，直至法庭阁下就交互pleader简易判决动议作出命令，然后我们再决定或许会追究第3项罪名，也或许不会。同时，Dooley法官或许会准许中间上诉，也或许不会。但实际上什么都不会发生，然后他们说，作为替代方案，他们可以放弃其\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 提交于 08/23/23 录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 72 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023\n\n简易判决论点。他们可以放弃其合同项下的权利，HK可以如此，并且仅同意他们拥有该笔资金。然后或许我们会考虑，或许届时我们会说，好吧，我们无须追究第3项罪名。因此，基本上，在你们放弃之前，我们将把这作为人质扣住。而我的当事人不会放弃。因此，如果法庭阁下——我理解。我听到了法庭阁下所说的。您目前不会就此作出决定，但如果法庭阁下不准备根据54(b)将这些判决认证为最终判决，那么受托人应当继续推进第3项罪名，因为那是本案得以推进的唯一方式。谢谢，法庭阁下。法庭：谢谢。好的。在HK对抗程序中还有其他事项吗？Luft先生：没有，法庭阁下。法庭：好的。Pastore先生（Mr. Pastore）：没有。谢谢，法庭阁下。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。我理解律师们的陈述，并将予以考虑；我们将审视待决事项，并以我认为适当的方式继续推进。好的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 提交于 08/23/23 录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 73 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023 73\n\n好的。谢谢。Pastore先生：谢谢，法庭阁下。Luft先生：谢谢。Moriarty先生：谢谢，法庭阁下。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。您和Pastore律师（Attorney Pastore）是否想花些时间谈谈，然后向法庭报告，还是您们希望如何处理？Luft先生：法庭阁下，我们不妨花几分钟，看看这件事——我不希望法庭在这里等着。因此，如果这是一次较长的谈话，而且我们认为确实如此，那么我的建议是，我们会告知法庭，然后稍后再报告。如果我们认为能够——能够很快解决此事，我们是否可以短暂休庭，以便告知法庭？但我确实不希望您——法庭：是。我们不妨——Luft先生：——各位在这里等着。法庭：——工作人员尚未休息，因此我们不妨休庭至2:00 p.m.。Luft先生：好的。Despins先生（Mr. Despins）：谢谢。法庭：谢谢。Pastore先生：谢谢，法庭阁下。法庭：现在休庭。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 提交于 08/23/23 录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 74 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023\n\n（法庭自1:37 p.m.休庭至2:11 p.m.。）\n\n法庭：好的。在对抗程序23-05013中，Despins诉HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）等。我们一直在举行审前会议，并且就证据开示提出了一些问题，当事人花了一些时间进行交谈。因此，Luft律师、Pastore律师，您们有什么想向法庭报告的吗？Luft先生：有，法庭阁下。我可以上前吗？法庭：可以，请。谢谢。Luft先生：谢谢，法庭阁下。为作记录，本人Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）律师，代表Chapter 11受托人。法庭阁下，我认为我们明智地利用了时间，且富有成效，并且希望这意味着我们不必以争议事项加重法庭负担。法庭：很好。Luft先生：因此，我们目前的共识是，我们将继续进行证言录取。其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。如果相关人员在美国，将进行当面证言录取。如果相关人员在国外，则我们同意通过WebEx或其他非Zoom的远程方式进行。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 提交于 08/23/23 录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 75 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023 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。至于这些请求的范围，我们仍有一些讨论和工作要做，但我们将在接下来的几天内努力就此达成一致。我认为，离群情形足以表明这还不够，而所有事项可能太多的论点——确实太多。因此，我们将努力找到可行的办法，但我们认为这是适当的。此外，当事人同意，此项证据开示系自愿进行，因此，不会以拟介入方尚未成为本案介入方为由，对该证据开示提出异议。同样，关于上诉，日后不会主张：在拟介入方不被允许介入的范围内，他们是基于——信息过多，或信息是通过此项自愿证据开示获得的事实而提起上诉。为明确起见，如他们认为标准设定过高，并且其提出的任何介入动议败诉，他们当然仍保留据此上诉的权利。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 提交于 08/23/23 录入于 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 76 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023 76\n\n但这就是我们已经达成的协议。如我就如何推进证据开示有任何表述错误，我相信Pastore先生可以纠正我。我认为，这使我们得以按照法庭已就证据开示制定的日程继续推进。如我们无法就剩余文件请求的范围达成一致，我们将提出强制披露动议，但我希望无此必要。法庭阁下，我还想提出另一个问题。我想我们已经——您知道，我们之前有过一些交谈。这本应是HCHK的状态会议，并且，您知道——法庭：实际上本应是审前——Pastore先生：审前。法庭：——会议。Luft先生：哦，审前。请原谅。法庭：根据——您知道，传票签发时所安排的首次审前会议。Luft先生：是的，法庭阁下。那是正确的，我为失言道歉。法庭：没关系。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 提交于 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 77 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023\n\nLuft先生：因此，与此一致，我还想向法庭提出一件事。我相信拟介入方提出约$27 million的请求权。我相信HCHK实体约有$38 million。不存在其他拟介入方，而且如我们已经谈到的，受让人无意对受托人在其提起的对抗程序中提出的请求权提出异议。因此，约有$11 million的余额；实际上，就我们如果证明我们的主张而言，该$11 million并不存在争议——没有人反对他们对该$11 million拥有请求权。因此，就该金额而言，受托人希望着手寻求最终裁决，以确定就其请求权而言，该等款项是否——HCHK是否为债务人的另一个自我，以及债务人是否为衡平所有人；如确属如此，该$11 million将被移交。对于$27 million，我们不会这样做，因为我们将等待确定拟介入方及其请求权是否应获准进入本案。法庭：所以——Luft先生：所以——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 提交于 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 78 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 15, 2023 78\n\n法庭：——Pastore先生是否对您刚才所述提出异议？Luft先生：我让Pastore先生说——说他要说的。我向他提出了这个问题。我认为Pastore先生的看法是，他的当事人拥有$27 million。他理解他不代表任何其他人。但是，对于另外的$11 million，他是否存在问题，我不确定其依据为何——法庭：那么您将如何推进？假定——我现在还毫无头绪。假定他没有异议。那么您会怎样做以控制该笔资金？这就是您的意思吗？Luft先生：是的，法庭阁下。实际上，我会就剩余$11 million申请缺席判决，因为不会有——法庭：针对所有其他被告。Luft先生：对。因为没有异议。然后，对于存在争议的余额，如果法庭准许他们的介入动议，我们将放弃反对介入。届时我们将继续推进本案。至于该$27 million，如法庭认定他们并非适格介入方，那么我们将知道——届时实际上将不存在反对者，我们随后将就该$27 million申请缺席判决。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 提交于 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 79 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 15, 2023\n\n法官：\n我理解你们的立场。\n\nLUFT先生（卢夫特先生）：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法官：\n我会看看事态如何发展。\n\nLUFT先生：\n好的，法官阁下。\n谢谢。\n\n法官：\n好的。\n谢谢。\n并且，感谢你和\n\nPastore先生（帕斯托雷先生）就证据开示问题所作的工作，而我——Pastore先生，我确实希望听取你的意见，以确认你\n\n同意Luft律师所说的内容；然后，也许你会——如果可以，我希望你就最后一点，\n\n即关于$11 million的问题，作出说明。\n\nPASTORE先生：\n我可以先谈最后一点——\n\n法官：\n当然可以。\n\nPASTORE先生：\n——先谈吗？我的当事人提出的债权，我理解——我认为证据开示将会进一步明确——\n\n约为$27 million。我不代表除那四名债权人以外的任何人。\n\n我认为，\n\n如果我说我没有异议，在逻辑上将不一致，因为我认为这是非此即彼的问题。相关实体要么是另一个实体的替身，要么不是。\n\n但是，除说明我们的立场是我们将会\n\n胜诉之外，我认为我对这11 million实际上没有发言权。我们将努力胜诉。我们将尽最大努力\n\n胜诉；如果我们胜诉，所有这些款项都会返还，包括\n\n11 million，但我实际上没有资格就\n\n这11 million提出争议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 80 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 15, 2023 80\n\n我认为美国联邦检察官——抱歉——美国受托人也可能对此享有表决权，因为我认为他们曾采取某些立场，以总体保护纽约诉讼中债权人的债权地位；而且，在我们进行谈判时，该和解协议尚存争议。因此，当然也需要将此问题提交他们审议。因此，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，其中部分款项会被支出；因此，如果我们确实追偿到27 million，我不希望看到资金已经不存在，因为11 million已经被支出了。如果该款项从那一资金池中取走，就会减少可供偿还27 million的金额。长话短说，如果我说没有异议，在逻辑上将不一致，但我不确定自己是否有权就这11 million提出异议。\n\n法官：\n明白。\n\nPASTORE先生：\n是的。\n\n法官：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nPASTORE先生：\n是的。关于证据开示，简要说来，我确实认为我们已经达成协议。我想提出几个小问题，以使记录清楚。我们在会前讨论中也首先表示，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。你们或许记得，在本案中，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 81 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 15, 2023\n\n受让人持有与这些公司有关的文件。我们认为，\n\n受托人持有的与这些公司有关的文件，关系到我们作为债权人的主体资格。贷款\n\n协议、讨论记录、电子邮件以及诸如此类的文件，我们\n\n有权获得；他们也同意将这些文件提供给我们。\n\n关于证言录取，我们同意进行\n\n七小时，原因是翻译问题。我曾与这些当事人打交道，\n\n确实需要多花一些时间，\n\n因为所有事情——许多事情确实需要\n\n翻译，这就是我同意的原因。\n\n如果不是翻译问题，对于一场关于主体资格的证言录取而言，我认为这段时间过长；但是，我\n\n考虑到了这一点，并且我们保留提出异议的权利，\n\n如果他们进入案件实体问题、替身\n\n问题以及类似事项。询问应限于\n\n其作为债权人的主体资格及贷款事项。当然，他们\n\n当然可以问，例如，你为什么发放该笔贷款？那是可以\n\n询问的。\n\n主体资格问题涉及\n\n他们是否为债权人以及贷款的目的为何，\n\n诸如此类的问题。但是，如果问题过度延伸至\n\n与贷款无关的、关于HCHK实体的公司董事会会议等实体问题，\n\n我认为那就过头了。\n\n最后，关于上诉，我们同意，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 15, 2023 82\n\n而且我认为，在逻辑上一致的说法是：如果法院因其获得了额外信息而驳回我们介入的权利，我们不能对此提出异议。在我看来，那似乎很荒谬。但是，如果我们被拒绝介入的权利，我们保留提出异议的权利，因为我们对于介入权的法律标准存在分歧。我们并未放弃该项——该项上诉权，无论我们是否将需要行使该权利。\n\n法官：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nPASTORE先生：\n对此有什么问题吗？\n\n法官：\n没有，没有。谢谢。\n\nPASTORE先生：\n好的。\n\n法官：\n正如我所说，我感谢你们共同努力解决证据开示问题。我——我将等待看看——事态进展如何。我认为我们需要——我的记忆是，一旦完成证据开示，且受托人就介入动议提交答复后，我将决定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——我认为目前我无事可做，除了我——你们似乎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\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 82 页，共 87 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 83 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 15, 2023 83\n\nPASTORE先生：\n是的，我们已提交。\n\n法官：\n你们有一项上诉期间暂停执行动议。你们是否预期或建议，我应当在本次证据开示进行期间暂缓处理该动议——我并不是说我一定有时间，我只是问问你们。对于你们的上诉期间暂停执行动议，你们的——你们的立场是什么？\n\nPASTORE先生：\n是的。我的意思是，我不想放弃我们的权利，但我认为法官阁下日前的裁决，以及我们就纽约诉讼活动达成的协议，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法院采取行动，致使撤销该和解协议变得不可行。因此，我不想放弃该项权利，但我可以向法院表示，我认为日前的裁决限制了暂停执行的必要性。\n\n法官：\n你可以主张，这些裁决限制了不可弥补的损害，对吗？\n\nPASTORE先生：\n我认为——\n\n法官：\n即，受托人——受让人已通过其律师及其本人表示，在本法院进一步命令作出之前，他们不会在纽约州诉讼中采取任何行动。\n\nPASTORE先生：\n对。我不知道是否已经有一项命令，因此，也许可以包括这样的内容：如果不准予暂停执行，则作出一项正式命令，说明受让人已同意在作出裁决之前暂缓采取行动。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 15, 2023 84\n\n法官：\n我记不清是否有命令，但我知道他们不得采取任何行动。而且我特别询问了——抱歉——是Hofmeister先生（霍夫迈斯特先生，按发音）吗？\n\nPASTORE先生：\n是的，您问过。\n\n法官：\n是的。Hofmeister先生——\n\nLUFT先生：\n我相信当时在线的是Jarrett律师（贾勒特律师）——\n\n法官：\n还有Hofmeister先生。\n\nPASTORE先生：\nHofmeister先生也在线上。\n\n法官：\n我相信，我首先专门向他询问了。\n\nLUFT先生：\n是的。\n\n法官：\n而且他——你知道——表示他将受此约束。因此，我记不清了。但是，我之所以问这个问题，只是因为鉴于事态发展以及你刚才在记录中所承认的情况，我碰巧认为，目前无需就上诉期间暂停执行作出裁定。因此，除非你表示有必要，否则我——我目前可能会将该动议搁置。\n\nPASTORE先生：\n我唯一想做的是\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 84 页，共 87 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 85 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 15, 2023 85\n\n回去看看周五——我认为是一次周五Zoom会议——后作出的命令。我知道您在记录中作出了该指示，因此那应当已足够。但是——\n\n法官：\n应当足够。但我理解。没问题。\n\nPASTORE先生：\n那么我可能会——\n\n法官：\n如果你认为不是这样，可以告诉我。如何？\n\nPASTORE先生：\n可以。\n\n法官：\n好的。\n\nPASTORE先生：\n好的。\n\n法官：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nPASTORE先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法官：\n好的。那么，我相信这就结束了我们今天在本对抗程序中需要处理的所有事项；对吗？\n\nLUFT先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：\n好的。那么，再次，我确实感谢今天各方所作的努力。一旦对介入动议的异议——答复提交后，我将看看事态进展如何。而且我——我看不出有任何理由在此时安排进一步的审前会议，除非有人不同意我的看法。而且，再次说明，这次——本次审前会议\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 86 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 15, 2023\n\n最初是在提交起诉状时由书记官办公室发出的传票中安排的，\n\n并且曾延期一次，这完全没有问题。但是，我看不出\n\n有任何理由在此时安排进一步的审前会议。\n\n有人不同意吗？\n\nLUFT先生：\n没有，法官阁下。\n\n法官：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nPASTORE先生：\n没有，法官阁下。\n\n法官：\n好的。那么谢谢各位。\n好的。这——这就结束了今天日程中的所有事项，因此现在休庭。谢谢。\n\nLUFT先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nPASTORE先生：\n谢谢。\n\n（程序于2:26 p.m.结束。）\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2116 提交于 08/23/23 登记于 08/23/23 18:18:24 第 87 页，共 87 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 15, 2023\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的转录员及经认证的\n\n电子记录员和转录员，特此证明，\n\n上述内容系根据上述\n\n案由事项程序的官方电子录音制作的正确逐字记录。\n\nAugust 23, 2023\n\nChristine Fiore, CERT\n\n转录员","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":22708,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-08-23 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-08-23","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:00:49"}