{"id":"court_ctb_2119_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2119,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2023-08-24","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* U.S. BANK NATIONAL \\* Adv. Proc No. 23-05012 ASSOCIATION, as escrow \\* agent, \\* \\* Plaintiff, \\* v. \\* \\* HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS \\* INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, \\* \\* Defendant. \\* \\* LUC A. DESPINS, \\* Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013 \\* Plaintiff, \\* \\* v. \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* July 11, 2023 HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., \\* et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\n| 2 |\n|---|\n\n|                                             | TRANSCRIPT OF                                     |  |  |  |  |\n|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| #1749                                       | APPLICATION TO EMPLOY AFFILIATES ADJUSTMENT       |  |  |  |  |\n|                                             | GROUP, LTD. AS PUBLIC ADJUSTER                    |  |  |  |  |\n| #1805                                       | MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2004        |  |  |  |  |\n|                                             | SUBPOENAS (SECOND OMNIBUS)(INSOFAR AS IT RELATES  |  |  |  |  |\n|                                             | TO THE HUDSON DIAMOND ENTITIES)                   |  |  |  |  |\n| #1903                                       | MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY FILED BY A. ROMNEY |  |  |  |  |\n| #<br>28                                     | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT                       |  |  |  |  |\n| #1936                                       | MOTION TO COMPROMISE CONTROVERSY W/BRIAN W.       |  |  |  |  |\n| HOFMEISTER AS ASSIGNEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF   |                                                   |  |  |  |  |\n|                                             | CREDITORS OF HCHK ENTITIES UNDER NY COURT         |  |  |  |  |\n|                                             | ASSIGNMENT PROCEEDINGS                            |  |  |  |  |\n| #<br>25                                     | MOTION TO COMPROMISE CONTROVERSY W/BRIAN W.       |  |  |  |  |\n|                                             | HOFMEISTER AS ASSIGNEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF         |  |  |  |  |\n|                                             | CREDITORS OF HCHK ENTITIES UNDER NY COURT         |  |  |  |  |\n| ASSIGNMENT PROCEEDINGS, 3131 PRINCETON PIKE |                                                   |  |  |  |  |\n|                                             | BLDG. 5, STE 110, LAWRENCEVILLE, NJ 08648         |  |  |  |  |\n\nAPPEARANCES: Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: NICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ. AVRAM E. LUFT, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the U.S. Trustee 150 Court Street New Haven, CT 06510 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE J. GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For HK International Funds ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. Investments, LLC and JAMES M. MORIARTY, ESQ. Mei Guo and Hudson Diamond AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. NY: Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Plaintiff, LEE VARTAN, ESQ. HK International Funds and Chiesa Shahinian & Mei Guo: Giantomasi, PC 105 Eisenhauer Pkwy Roseland, NJ 07068 For the Assignee, RYAN T. JARECK, ESQ. Brian W. Hofmeister: Cole Schotz P.C. 25 Main Street Court Plaza North Hackensack, NJ 07601\n\n3\n\nAPPEARANCES (Cont'd): For Various Creditors JOSEPH M. PASTORE, III, ESQ. Of HCHK Technologies: MELISSA R. McCLAMMY, ESQ. Pastore, LLC 4 High Ridge Park, Third Floor Stamford, CT 06905 For Joshua Sherman: JOSHUA SHERMAN, ESQ. HCHK Technologies, Inc. 303 5th Avenue #1705 New York, NY 10016 For G Club News GREGORY F. ARCARO, ESQ. Operations, LLC: GRAFSTEIN & ARCARO, LLC 114 W. Main Street, Suite 105 New Britain, CT 06051 For G Club Operations, LLC: KELLIANE BARANOWSKY, ESQ. Green & Sklarz, LLC 1 Audubon Street, 3rd Floor New Haven, CT 06511 CAROLINA A. FORNOS, ESQ. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019\n\n4\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 5\n\n| 1  | (Proceedings commenced at 12:33 p.m.)                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2  | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>Case Number 22-50073, Ho              |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings, LLC.<br>Adversary Number --     |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | excuse me, 23-5012, U.S. Bank National Association vs. HK      |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | Funds Limited.<br>And also, Case Number 23 -- Adversary Number |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | 23-5013, Despins vs. HCHK Technologies, Inc.                   |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Good afternoon.<br>If we could          |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter     |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | 11 Trustee, please.                                            |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>Luc             |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee.                                   |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>Nick            |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11         |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | Trustee.                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | MR. LINSEY:<br>Good afternoon, Patrick Linsey,                 |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | Connecticut counsel for the trustee.                           |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>Holley         |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee.                                 |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>Irve            |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | Goldman, Pullman & Comley, for the Creditors' Committee.       |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | MR. MORIARTY:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>James          |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | Moriarty from Zeisler & Zeisler for the debtor and also for    |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC in       |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | Docket 23-05012.                                               |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>Aaron            |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 6 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 6 Romney for the same parties as well as for Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. And I'm appearing today on behalf of myself in response to the Court's order to show cause. I also want to put on the record, Attorney Vartan was stuck in very terrible traffic. He should be here any minute. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. MORIARTY: Thank you. MR. HENZY: And Eric Henzy on behalf of the debtor and also potentially on behalf of Mr. Romney. THE COURT: The debtor, Mr. Kwok? MR. HENZY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Attorney Vartan? MR. VARTAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor Lee Vartan also on behalf of Mei Guo and HK USA. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. VARTAN: Good afternoon. THE COURT: All right. Trustee Despins, there are several matters on the calendar today. We've just gone through appearances. How would you like to proceed today? MR. DESPINS: We had promised Mr. Romney that we would start with his matter, so unless the Court has a preference, we're okay with that order.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 7 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 7 MR. ROMNEY: If I may, Your Honor, just by further way of explanation? I have a 7:00 flight out of LaGuardia for depositions in Atlanta tomorrow which I'm very much trying to make. THE COURT: Okay. Then we will proceed that way. MR. DESPINS: Actually, Your Honor, if I -- maybe take five minutes to do the public adjustor retention. Mr. Luft is also -- was also stuck in traffic. He's on his way. Should be here. MR. ROMNEY: I think he'll be here in five minutes or so. If he's not here by the time we get through this, somebody else can handle the motion to withdraw. I'll handle the motion to withdraw if Mr. Luft is not here. But this will take probably five minutes. MR. DESPINS: The public adjustor retention. THE COURT: Okay. Does any -- Mr. Romney, do you have any opposition if we -- MR. ROMNEY: No, of course not. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Then let's address the application to employ the public adjustor first which is in the main case, ECF Number 1749. MR. DESPINS: Correct, Your Honor. And you may have noticed that we filed a amended retention order at\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 8 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 8 Docket Number 1992, because we had received comments from the U.S. Trustee to -- so at 1992 you have both the clean and the marked to show changes. 1992 at pages 10 and -- of the 11 -- or, sorry, 10 of 11, yes? You can see the changes. And, basically, it was to clarify their compensation. Just to give you a little bit of background, this is regarding the fire at The Sherry Netherland. Public adjustors are often retained by companies or owners to negotiate settlements with insurance companies. And you might say, well, but there's no settlement with the insurance company. Good point. But there may come a time where there would be a settlement mode. And, here, this retention is purely on a contingency basis. So no settlement, no compensation. And this person actually has been very helpful in helping me prepare things like a proof of claim. You need to actually submit to the insurance company a claim form. And we did that with respect to -- and he did that with respect to the cleanup costs, et cetera, et cetera. So even though at one point we thought we were going to put this retention to the side for now, it's becoming clear now that we need this person to do the various -- you know, all the legwork that needs to be done with respect to the evaluation of the claim. And given\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 9 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 9 that, again, he doesn't get paid anything unless there's a recovery from the insurance company, we believe it's -- that, you know, it's appropriate to go forward, because there's no risk to Genever US, which is the entity retaining him. And just for the record, to state the compensation, basically it's 5 percent on the first 3 million or less plus 4 percent on any settlement proceeds recovered in excess of 3 million up to 15 million, plus 3 percent on any settlements recovered in excess of 15 million up to 50 million. And we also made a correction to state that the public adjustor -- the acronym is AAGL -- will not hold any settlement proceeds recovered under such insurance policies. That's a change that the U.S. Trustee wanted to make, and so we made that change. So at this point, there had been an objection filed by PAX. It was withdrawn. We have been working with PAX on this, and we're happy that they withdrew the objection. And at this point, we would -- subject to any comments Your Honor may have with respect to the order, we would like to proceed with the retention. THE COURT: I have no comments or questions at this time. Attorney Claiborn, do you wish to be heard?\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 10 MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. The order as revised and filed at ECF 1992 resolves the U.S. Trustee's concerns. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. And I note, obviously, that the application is both under 327(a) and 328 because of the setting of the compensation at this time, the schedule of compensation. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the application -- the trustee's application to employ the public adjustor, Affiliated Adjustment Group, LTD? All right. Hearing nothing, I have seen no written objections other than the objection of PAX, which I note for the record was withdrawn. The United States Trustee has just stated their position that they are in support of the application in connection with the revised proposed order that was filed on the docket yesterday at ECF Number 1992 which resolves any concerns that the U.S. Trustee has. I understand the reason for the retention that you are seeking, Trustee Despins, and it certainly seems to be reasonable under the circumstances of the case. And for all those reasons, the application to employ Affiliated Adjustment Group as a public adjustor is granted, and the proposed order that is -- appears on pages 5, 6, and 7 of ECF Number 1992 can enter. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 10 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 11 of<br>180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>11                                                             |\n| 1  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                                                        |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                                                      |\n| 3  | MR. DESPINS:<br>So at this point, Your Honor, our                                             |\n| 4  | colleague is in route, but we shouldn't hold up the hearing                                   |\n| 5  | for him.<br>So we're ready to go forward.                                                     |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Give me one second, please.                                            |\n| 7  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>The other -- the                                       |\n| 8  | next matter -- there are many matters on the calendar.<br>But                                 |\n| 9  | we -- Attorney Romney specifically requested and the trustee                                  |\n| 10 | and the trustee's counsel agreed to proceed next with the                                     |\n| 11 | motion to withdraw as attorney filed by Attorney Romney,                                      |\n| 12 | 1903, on behalf of the Hudson Diamond entities from which an                                  |\n| 13 | appearance was filed.                                                                         |\n| 14 | I had indicated that the -- Attorney Romney and                                               |\n| 15 | Attorney Vartan needed to appear today to address the motion                                  |\n| 16 | to withdraw.<br>And I -- and both are in the courtroom.<br>So,                                |\n| 17 | Attorney Romney, do you wish to proceed?                                                      |\n| 18 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>I do, Your Honor.<br>One point of                                              |\n| 19 | clarification.<br>Your Honor just said a moment ago that it                                   |\n| 20 | was a motion to withdraw from representation of the Hudson                                    |\n| 21 | Diamond entities.<br>It's just the Hudson Diamond New York                                    |\n| 22 | entity, Your Honor.                                                                           |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>That's true.<br>I did see that.                                        |\n| 24 | I'm sorry.<br>But I thought originally -- originally, I                                       |\n| 25 | thought it was all of the entities.<br>But you're correct.                                    |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 12 of\n\n| 180 |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n|     | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>12                              |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 1   | Thank you for noting that for the record.                      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2   | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Understood, Your Honor.<br>Your Honor,          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3   | as more further set forth in the affidavit submitted at the    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4   | request of the U.S. Trustee, this is a situation where we      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5   | became aware of a subpoena directed to the -- both Hudson      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6   | Diamond entities by virtue of the trustee's motion to compel   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7   | filed in May.<br>That motion to compel identified Hudson       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8   | Diamond Holdings, LLC as the sole member of Hudson Diamond     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9   | New York and had documentation supporting that proposition     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10  | attached to it.<br>The -- and sought contempt against both     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11  | entities.                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12  | I had been -- known as of that time that Ms. Guo               |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13  | was -- is the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings.<br>And I |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14  | was under the very distinct impression for a number of         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15  | reasons, including the Chapter 11 trustee's pleading but       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16  | also conversations that I've had with Ms. Guo who was under    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17  | the impression, that Hudson Diamond New York was a             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18  | wholly-owned subsidiary of Hudson Diamond Holdings.            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19  | That is why I negotiated an extension on behalf of             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20  | both entities.<br>That is why I filed an appearance on behalf  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21  | of both entities.<br>And that is why both Attorney Vartan and  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22  | I following the negotiation of an adjournment in order to      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23  | allow compliance diligently attempted to locate documents on   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24  | behalf of both entities, neither of which were in the actual   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25  | physical possession of the natural human being that's our      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|     |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 13 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 13 client, Ms. Guo. During the course of that investigation/process, we were told by the general counsel of Hodgson Russ, LLP that Ms. Guo was not the -- sorry, that Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC was not the sole member of Hudson Diamond New York and, at that time, identified another individual who is identified in my affidavit, the debtor's son, Mileson Guo, was the member of that entity. At that moment, as stated in my affidavit, I immediately first sought the advice of firm's general counsel who's with me today, Mr. Henzy. The next thing I did was call Attorney Luft to tell him that I had just been informed that it appeared Hudson Diamond Holdings was not the sole member and that it appeared I had made a mistake and that I intended to withdraw, because I didn't believe I had authority to represent the New York entity as distinguished from the holdings entity which, to this -- am positive that I have authority to represent. My understanding is that under the rules of professional conduct, Rule 1.16(b), I cannot represent an entity unless I've been authorized by someone with actual authority and, therefore, must withdraw. And that's why I filed a motion to withdraw, because at the time that I filed\n\ngeneral counsel of a very reputable firm who I believe to be\n\nthe motion to withdraw, based upon the representation of the\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2119 | Filed 08/24/23              | Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 | Page 14 of |\n|---------------|----------|-----------------------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|               |          | 180                         |                           |            |\n|               |          | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 |                           | 14         |\n\n an honest person and upstanding member of the bar, led me to believe that I had made a mistake.\n\n Subsequent to filing that motion, further questions have been raised that now, as I sit here today, I do not know who the sole member of Hudson Diamond New York is. And as set forth in my affidavit, on -- I believe it was June 25th, Attorney Luft brought a document to my attention which was attached to their motion to compel and for contempt that was consistent with our original understanding that, in fact, Hudson Diamond Holdings was the sole member of this New York entity -- of the Hudson Diamond New York entity, and that Mei Guo was the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings.\n\n At that point, Attorney Vartan and I reached out to Hodgson Russ that confirmed that they, in fact, had prepared that document on which the Chapter 11 trustee appears to have relied, which was entirely consistent with Ms. Guo's original understanding that the holdings entity was the parent of the New York entity. They do not have any explanation for why they have an operating agreement that says the debtor's son or an entity he controls is the parent of that entity, but they also prepared and are in possession of a document that indicates Ms. Guo's entity is the parent of this New York entity.\n\nBecause, as I stand here today, I have no\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 15 of\n\n|    | 180<br>Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 15                                                             |\n| 1  | confidence that I have actual authority to represent the New   |\n| 2  | York entity, I believe that the Rules of Professional          |\n| 3  | Conduct require me to continue to pursue this motion to        |\n| 4  | withdraw.<br>Since the day that this issue has arisen, other   |\n| 5  | than what I say what I do every day, which is wake up and      |\n| 6  | make sure my family is okay, this has been my number one       |\n| 7  | priority to both gather documents or attempt to locate         |\n| 8  | documents and attempt to answer this question so that I        |\n| 9  | could come in here today and answer any questions the Court    |\n| 10 | has or anyone else.<br>I've done my best, but that's what I    |\n| 11 | have for the Court today.                                      |\n| 12 | Everything that I did was an attempt to further                |\n| 13 | this process to avoid a situation where it appeared that       |\n| 14 | either me, my firm, or Ms. Guo or any entity that she          |\n| 15 | controls was attempting to ignore a court order or do          |\n| 16 | anything other than attempt to comply with it.<br>And that has |\n| 17 | at all times been my sole motivation for every action that I   |\n| 18 | have undertaken in connection with this entire process.        |\n| 19 | I'm prepared to answer any questions that the                  |\n| 20 | Court or anybody else in the room has, but with that I rest    |\n| 21 | on my motion.                                                  |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Well, I'm going to ask other parties             |\n| 23 | to raise their issues, and then I'll see if I have any         |\n| 24 | questions.<br>Attorney Romney, you did file a -- an affidavit, |\n| 25 | but I don't think -- and I may have missed -- Attorney         |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 16 Vartan, did you file anything? MR. VARTAN: I did not, Your Honor. But I've obviously reviewed Attorney Romney's affidavit, and I -- THE COURT: Well, that doesn't -- that's fine. I just wanted to know whether you filed anything. MR. VARTAN: Oh. I have not, Your Honor. THE COURT: And why did you not file anything? MR. VARTAN: Because everything that Mr. Romney cited in his affidavit is consistent with the record, and I have nothing more -- THE COURT: And don't you have an obligation to make a statement to the Court and not through Attorney Romney? I mean, the issues that we've talked about in this case at different times is who represents whom, who's acting in what nature, you're local counsel, you're main counsel. We've had these discussion before. And the discussion -- what I don't understand is -- I know you're here, and I appreciate that you're here, but I don't understand why Attorney Romney is the only one that filed an affidavit. I would think you would have filed an affidavit. And Attorney Romney has stated, as have other members from his firm, that they got involved and were retained through discussions with you, that your -- you had the contact with the client. Attorney Romney didn't speak directly to Mei Guo. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 16 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 17 That's not what your affidavit says. You said you and Attorney Vartan -- MR. ROMNEY: We -- THE COURT: -- spoke with Mei Guo. And doesn't Attorney Vartan have the relationship with Mei Guo? Don't you, sir? MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, I certainly do have a relationship with the client, as does -- THE COURT: Well, who retained you, Attorney Vartan? MR. VARTAN: Ms. Guo did. THE COURT: Okay. And who did she retain when she retained you? Did she retain you, or did she retain you and Mr. Romney? MR. VARTAN: Both of us. THE COURT: Okay. And there's -- MR. VARTAN: Well, Mr. Romney had already been retained, Your Honor. THE COURT: In connection with the motion for contempt? MR. VARTAN: So in -- I was answering questions with respect to Ms. Guo's retention of Mr. Romney and then Ms. -- with me generally. With respect to the Hudson Diamond entities, Mr. Romney and I both spoke with Ms. Guo. THE COURT: And why didn't you file an appearance Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 17 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 18 of<br>180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>18                                                             |\n| 1  | on behalf of the Hudson Diamond entities?                                                     |\n| 2  | MR. VARTAN:<br>I was planning on doing so, but                                                |\n| 3  | Mr. Romney put forward in his affidavit why I did not.                                        |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Well, that's Mr. Romney's affidavit.                                            |\n| 5  | That's not your affidavit.                                                                    |\n| 6  | MR. VARTAN:<br>No, I understand, Your Honor.<br>But                                           |\n| 7  | there was nothing that I had to add to the record beyond                                      |\n| 8  | what Mr. Romney put forward in his affidavit.<br>And I'm also                                 |\n| 9  | happy to answer any questions that Your Honor may have or                                     |\n| 10 | anyone else may have.                                                                         |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Well, I just asked you a question that                                          |\n| 12 | you didn't answer.<br>Why didn't you file an affidavit?                                       |\n| 13 | MR. VARTAN:<br>Because, again, I didn't have                                                  |\n| 14 | anything more to add to the record.<br>And I didn't have an                                   |\n| 15 | understanding that we were under court order to file.                                         |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Well, it says on an order entered on                                            |\n| 17 | June 20, 2023, that you were to appear and show cause why                                     |\n| 18 | the motion to withdraw should not be granted.<br>And then the                                 |\n| 19 | United States Trustee filed a response to the motion to                                       |\n| 20 | withdraw.<br>And, remember -- well, maybe you don't remember,                                 |\n| 21 | but I do -- that there was a hearing on the motion to compel                                  |\n| 22 | at which I was told on the record through counsel, and which                                  |\n| 23 | included you, that you were resolving -- or attempting to                                     |\n| 24 | resolve the motion for contempt, because you represented the                                  |\n| 25 | Hudson Diamond entities and that you would be producing                                       |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2119 | Filed 08/24/23 | Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 | Page 19 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n|    | 180<br>Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>19                       |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | documents in accordance with the subpoena.                     |\n| 2  | Immediately after -- no, that's not fair.<br>It's              |\n| 3  | not immediately after.<br>But shortly after that hearing,      |\n| 4  | Attorney Romney files a motion to withdraw the appearance.     |\n| 5  | Now, I've asked on many occasions, is Mr. Romney               |\n| 6  | taking direction from Ms. Guo, or is he taking direction       |\n| 7  | from you and Ms. Guo?<br>I've had that discussion.<br>Because  |\n| 8  | we've had a discussion about who's local counsel, who's main   |\n| 9  | counsel.                                                       |\n| 10 | We're not going to do this where -- you're at two              |\n| 11 | different firms.<br>Either you're both counsel where you both  |\n| 12 | are bound and have to comply with court orders or you're       |\n| 13 | not.<br>But we're not going to have, oh, I'm not going to say  |\n| 14 | anything further because Attorney Romney already said it.      |\n| 15 | Otherwise, why would I put you in that order?<br>I             |\n| 16 | put you in that order, sir, because you're the person who's    |\n| 17 | come in and said you have the client contact and authority     |\n| 18 | with Ms. Guo.<br>That's what you've said on many occasions in  |\n| 19 | this court.<br>And you've said it in -- and the pleadings that |\n| 20 | are filed are signed by you first and then Attorney Romney.    |\n| 21 | So the -- you have an obligation, a professional               |\n| 22 | obligation and ethical obligation, to the Court and all the    |\n| 23 | parties involved in the case.<br>So I don't understand why --  |\n| 24 | so that's fine.<br>If you're telling me you're going to rely   |\n| 25 | on Attorney Romney's affidavit, that's what you're telling     |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 20 of<br>180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>20                                                             |\n| 1  | me.<br>I'm not sure that's showing cause why the motion to                                    |\n| 2  | withdraw shouldn't be granted.                                                                |\n| 3  | But in any event, with regard to -- a couple of                                               |\n| 4  | questions with regard to Hodgson Russ.<br>You talk about --                                   |\n| 5  | first of all, I don't see how there's been any -- maybe                                       |\n| 6  | there has been.<br>But there's nothing in the record before me                                |\n| 7  | right now that shows that there's been any compliance with                                    |\n| 8  | the motion for contempt even on behalf of the entity which                                    |\n| 9  | you say you still represent, which is Hudson Diamond                                          |\n| 10 | Holdings.                                                                                     |\n| 11 | Has there been any compliance with the subpoena?                                              |\n| 12 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Yes, there has, Your Honor.                                                    |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>And what has that compliance been?                                              |\n| 14 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>The compliance on January -- excuse                                            |\n| 15 | me -- June 15th, which was the deadline for compliance,                                       |\n| 16 | Attorney Vartan sent a letter which the two of us prepared,                                   |\n| 17 | that explained that -- what we had done at -- as of that                                      |\n| 18 | time to attempt to locate documents.<br>It provided the                                       |\n| 19 | operating agreement that showed Ms. Guo controlled Hudson                                     |\n| 20 | Diamond Holdings, LLC.<br>It provided the articles of                                         |\n| 21 | organization that showed Hudson Diamond Holdings' creation.                                   |\n| 22 | It explained the efforts that we had undertaken to attempt                                    |\n| 23 | to locate documents.                                                                          |\n| 24 | We, as officers of the court and our client as a                                              |\n| 25 | natural human being, only have the ability to produce                                         |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 21 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 21 documents that we can physically possess or that are under the possession of people who we have the ability to control, in other words that we constructively control. We have attempted every which way that we could to locate documents, and we have produced what we could. But we -- and we have also identified other sources of documents where we believe to have them but will not give them to us or Ms. Guo, such as Hodgson Russ and Capital One Bank. We have done everything we could, but they will not give them to us. The other two individuals who -- THE COURT: Well, so let's slow down a little bit on that. Okay? So there's a couple of things that you said. You said that you -- but Attorney Vartan signed a letter and sent it to the trustee on June 15th saying you've done all you can to comply. Is that right? I think I -- I'm just making sure I heard what you said. MR. ROMNEY: We didn't say we've done all we can to comply. We said that. But also -- meaning, yes, that's a fair summary of what we said. And we produced the documents I just described. THE COURT: Okay. And tell me -- I apologize. What are the documents that were produced on June 15th? MR. ROMNEY: It's the Hudson Diamond Holdings operating agreement signed by Ms. Guo.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 22 THE COURT: Signed by -- so Exhibit T? MR. ROMNEY: No. THE COURT: The two -- the two-page document? MR. ROMNEY: No. THE COURT: So there's an operating agreement. MR. ROMNEY: There's a -- THE COURT: How many pages is that document? You don't need to tell me exactly. I'm saying like is it -- are you talking about a 25-page document -- MR. ROMNEY: I believe it -- THE COURT: -- a 50-page document? MR. ROMNEY: I believe it's about a five-page -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- five or six-page document. THE COURT: And that operating -- that agreement is an operating agreement of which entity? MR. ROMNEY: Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC signed by Mei Guo as the sole member. THE COURT: Okay. And you -- you're telling me, and I'm just trying to make it clear for the record, that Mei Guo retained you specifically to represent Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC in this case in connection with the motion for contempt? MR. ROMNEY: She directed me to represent Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC in connection with -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 22 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 23 THE COURT: So she didn't retain you? MR. ROMNEY: I don't understand the distinction. THE COURT: Well, I think there is a -- MR. ROMNEY: But we do not have a separate retention letter. THE COURT: You do not have a separate -- is that what you said? MR. ROMNEY: With the entity. That's correct. THE COURT: Okay. So you don't have a separate retention letter with regard to Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. And you believed at the time that she directed you to represent the Hudson Diamond entities. That included Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, correct? MR. ROMNEY: No. I know that she did. THE COURT: Okay. Yeah. MR. ROMNEY: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. So then things progress. You file a notice of appearance, and you come to the Court and you say at the hearing on the motion for contempt, which I'm not saying it would have happened, okay, but the trustee's counsel was pressing for an order of contempt against both Hudson Diamond New York, LLC and Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC. You say -- MR. ROMNEY: Yes. And that matter is on the calendar today. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 23 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 24 of\n\n|    | 180                                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>24                            |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Right.<br>But at that original hearing,        |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | you said we have an agreement to adjourn that hearing        |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | because we're going to enter into a consent order about how  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | we're going to comply with the subpoenas essentially,        |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | correct?                                                     |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>I think we actually entered into it           |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | on the record.                                               |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>No, you did.                                   |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Yeah.                                         |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>I'm actually looking at it right now.          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Yeah.<br>Yeah.                                |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Meaning we entered into it orally on          |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | the record and then submitted --                             |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>But then you entered into an order             |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | regarding the motion for entry, holding Hudson Diamond New   |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | York, LLC, and Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC in civil         |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | contempt for failing to respond to the subpoenas.<br>And in  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | that order, the Hudson entities say that they have no reason |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | to and therefore do not dispute that they were properly      |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | served with the 2004 subpoenas directed to each of them and  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | that they contend that the relevant individual of the Hudson |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | entities was not actually made aware of the subpoenas until  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | after the filing of the motion.<br>So who was the relevant   |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | individual at the Hudson entities that was not made --       |  |  |  |  |  |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 25 actually made aware of the subpoenas until after the filing of the motion for contempt? MR. ROMNEY: Ms. Guo was the individual -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- I was referring to in that statement. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: And what we meant by it was we have no reason to doubt the veracity of the returns of service that indicate that statutory service agents were signed. But what I was reporting back was that as best I could tell, Ms. Guo was learning about those subpoenas for the first time when Attorney Vartan and I -- I think it was actually me in that particular case that sent the email. And then the three of us had a phone call together. But that it appeared that we were informing her of those subpoenas. THE COURT: Why do you say it appeared that we were informing her? You know or didn't know? MR. ROMNEY: Well, I don't -- THE COURT: She's told you she'd never seen the subpoenas before? MR. ROMNEY: Without waiving privilege with respect to any other statement, yes. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I don't think it's waiving privilege if you want to show cause as to why you Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 25 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 26 of<br>180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>26                                                             |\n| 1  | want to be -- withdraw as an attorney, right?<br>Otherwise,                                   |\n| 2  | you bring Ms. Guo in.<br>She can testify.<br>Right?<br>You could                              |\n| 3  | bring her in.<br>She could support everything you've said.                                    |\n| 4  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Your Honor, right now I'm the one                                              |\n| 5  | with the target on my back, and I'm not going to throw my                                     |\n| 6  | client under the bus.                                                                         |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>I don't understand what that statement                                          |\n| 8  | means, what you just said.                                                                    |\n| 9  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>The Court is obviously upset with                                              |\n| 10 | something I've done, and I'm here to explain my behavior.                                     |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>No, I didn't say -- I'm asking                                                  |\n| 12 | questions.<br>You said -- I think you ended your presentation                                 |\n| 13 | by saying does the Court have any questions.<br>And, yes, I                                   |\n| 14 | do.<br>So I'm asking them.                                                                    |\n| 15 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Understood.<br>And that -- and I'm here                                        |\n| 16 | to ease your concerns.<br>But I understand that you're                                        |\n| 17 | concerned.<br>And that's --                                                                   |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Well, I am concerned, because there                                             |\n| 19 | was an agreement made on the record that there would be                                       |\n| 20 | compliance with a subpoena so that the Court would not rule                                   |\n| 21 | on the motion for contempt with regard to the Hudson Diamond                                  |\n| 22 | entities that you filed a notice of appearance on behalf of.                                  |\n| 23 | And in your affidavit and in your statements here -- and                                      |\n| 24 | Mr. Vartan's not disputing it -- it's with -- in                                              |\n| 25 | consultation with Mr. Vartan too.                                                             |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 27 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 27 So if you have a target on your back, it may be placed by somebody else other than the Court. Because you're putting yourself out there, and I'm not sure why. Because at this point, you're saying you believe that Mei Guo didn't know about the subpoenas until the motion for contempt was filed and you sent an email and then had a phone call with Attorney Vartan and Ms. Guo. MR. ROMNEY: The typical practice when there's matters of substance is for the three of us to have a phone call and discuss matters concerning her or entities that she controls. And sometimes -- I mean, we can't jointly send an email. Sometimes one of us sends it. And if there's a ministerial update, either one of us could have the call. But my point was, in this particular case, I have a recollection of going through my emails where I was the one that sent the subpoenas to her and then requested a call with her and Attorney Vartan. And then we had that call. THE COURT: Okay. So who authorized you to file the notice of appearance on behalf of Hudson Diamond, LLC and Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: Just so we have a clear record, it's Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC and Hudson Diamond New York, LLC. THE COURT: That's fine. Hudson Diamond New York, LLC and Hudson Diamond -- because the notice of appearance\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 28 was on behalf of both of those entities, correct? MR. ROMNEY: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. And who authorized you to file that notice of appearance? MR. ROMNEY: Mei Guo. THE COURT: Okay. And in what capacity? MR. ROMNEY: As counsel for those entities believing that -- THE COURT: No, I'm sorry. I didn't ask the question properly. I'm sorry. How do you believe she had authority to direct you to file an appearance on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC and Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: Well, as stated, but apparently not very clearly, the Chapter 11 trustee's motion for contempt represents that Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC is the parent of Hudson Diamond New York and that Mei Guo is the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. I knew that Mei Guo was the sole -- was the parent -- sorry, the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. I also believed based upon statements from Ms. Guo, which I believe she was subjectively -- I believe she believed she was the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings and that Hudson Diamond Holdings was the sole member of Hudson Diamond New York. I believe the basis of Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 28 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 29 of<br>180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>29                                                             |\n| 1  | her belief, among other things, is that she had been asked                                    |\n| 2  | to sign documents on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York as                                     |\n| 3  | the member of Hudson Diamond Holdings which was New York's                                    |\n| 4  | sole member.                                                                                  |\n| 5  | And the sole reason that caused us to believe that                                            |\n| 6  | Ms. Guo was mistaken, just like I may or may not have been                                    |\n| 7  | mistaken based upon what we know now, is that Hodgson Russ                                    |\n| 8  | informed Attorney Vartan and I when we called them together,                                  |\n| 9  | Attorney Kevin Kearney stated to us that Hudson Holdings,                                     |\n| 10 | LLC was not the sole member of Hudson Diamond -- Hudson                                       |\n| 11 | Diamond New York and that he was -- appeared to have been                                     |\n| 12 | reading an operating agreement that his firm had prepared                                     |\n| 13 | that indicated that the debtor's son was the sole member of                                   |\n| 14 | the New York entity.                                                                          |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC?                                                |\n| 16 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Hudson Diamond New York, LLC.<br>Which                                         |\n| 17 | is what prompted me to immediately consult with Attorney                                      |\n| 18 | Henzy, immediately call Attorney Luft, and then the                                           |\n| 19 | following morning file my motion to withdraw the appearance                                   |\n| 20 | pursuant to what I believed I had to do under Rule 1.16(b)                                    |\n| 21 | of the Rules of Professional Conduct.                                                         |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>With regard to the operating agreement                                          |\n| 23 | of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, you may have done this --                                    |\n| 24 | I'm sorry, but there are, as you know, substantial amount of                                  |\n| 25 | documents in this case.<br>Have you filed that operating                                      |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 30 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 30 agreement on the docket somewhere that indicates that the debtor's -- the individual debtor's son is the member of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: I don't have that operating agreement -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- because Hodgson -- Hodgson Russ would not provide any information concerning any of the Hudson Diamond entities to me, Ms. Guo, or Attorney Vartan. And in my affidavit -- declaration, excuse me, as well as copied into the body of the declaration as well as the email chain with the attachment evidenced that Hodgson Russ will not give us any documentation concerning those entities. So I don't have it. All I had was the word of the general counsel of what I understand to be a highly reputable firm telling me that the debtor's son was the member. THE COURT: So -- MR. ROMNEY: He then subsequently amended his statement to say that it was not the debtor's son in his individual capacity but the debtor's son as an officer and -- an officer in some other capacity of some third entity, Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc., which is a British Virgin Island company, which I have no idea who actually owns that entity, only I believe it -- I have no reason to believe it's Ms. Guo. Ms. Guo has no reason to believe it's\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 31 of<br>180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>31                                                             |\n| 1  | her.<br>And it appears to be the debtor's son based upon                                      |\n| 2  | statements that Hodgson Russ has made to us, because he                                       |\n| 3  | appears to be signing documents on behalf of that entity.                                     |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>So you filed a motion to withdraw your                                          |\n| 5  | appearance because Hodgson Russ told you that Hudson Diamond                                  |\n| 6  | New York, LLC's managing member is the debtor -- individual                                   |\n| 7  | debtor's son, but you never saw a document that confirmed                                     |\n| 8  | that?                                                                                         |\n| 9  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>He would not give it to me, so that's                                          |\n| 10 | correct.                                                                                      |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Okay.                                                                  |\n| 12 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Which leaves me where I am right now,                                          |\n| 13 | because Hodgson Russ has also prepared a subsequent document                                  |\n| 14 | that indicates that it prepared a document for Ms. Guo to                                     |\n| 15 | sign as the member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC as the                                     |\n| 16 | sole member of Hudson Diamond New York.<br>So where I stand                                   |\n| 17 | here right now is I don't know who the sole member of Hudson                                  |\n| 18 | Diamond New York is.<br>Hodgson Russ doesn't appear to know.                                  |\n| 19 | I've asked them for information concerning why                                                |\n| 20 | they prepared this document which is the only document they                                   |\n| 21 | first identified to Attorney Vartan and I at the time I                                       |\n| 22 | filed the motion to withdraw.<br>They have not explained to me                                |\n| 23 | why they produced that document that referenced the debtor's                                  |\n| 24 | son and the debtor's -- and then subsequently prepared a                                      |\n| 25 | document identifying the debtor's daughter as the indirect                                    |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2119 | Filed 08/24/23 | Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 | Page 32 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n|    | 180<br>Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>32                      |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | member of the New York entity.<br>And, therefore, I have      |\n| 2  | absolutely no idea which one it is.<br>And that's why I       |\n| 3  | believe I'm required to pursue my motion to withdraw my       |\n| 4  | appearance.                                                   |\n| 5  | I will say that to the extent I was able to                   |\n| 6  | determine that Ms. Guo directly or indirectly is, in fact,    |\n| 7  | the member, indirect member or person with the authority to   |\n| 8  | control or retain counsel for Hudson Diamond New York, I      |\n| 9  | would withdraw my -- well, I would withdraw my -- I would     |\n| 10 | withdraw my motion to withdraw my appearance, because I am    |\n| 11 | in no way trying to hide from this situation, run from this   |\n| 12 | situation, or try and pull a fast one on behalf of Hudson     |\n| 13 | Diamond New York, Hudson Diamond anything or Ms. Guo.<br>I am |\n| 14 | simply trying to fulfill my ethical duties to this Court, my  |\n| 15 | sole natural client in this situation, Ms. Guo, and everyone  |\n| 16 | else in the room.                                             |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Well, she's not your client in this             |\n| 18 | situation.                                                    |\n| 19 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>No.<br>But she's my client in general.         |\n| 20 | I mean --                                                     |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>No.<br>But she's not your client in this        |\n| 22 | situation.<br>The client -- and you've been very careful, and |\n| 23 | I understand why.<br>The client -- the only client you        |\n| 24 | represent at this point -- or that you believe you represent  |\n| 25 | and had authority to represent is Hudson Diamond Holding,     |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 33 LLC. MR. ROMNEY: Correct. But my statement, Your Honor, and maybe it wasn't precise enough, was that all I'm trying to do is my best to fulfill my ethical obligations to the Court, the Hudson Diamond entities, Ms. Guo, and everybody else in the room. I don't represent anybody else in this room, but I have ethical obligations to them just like I have ethical obligations to the Court. And that's to\n\n tell the truth and to do my best and to honor the agreements that I make to the best of my ability. And that's what I do every day in every one of my cases. And it's what I'm doing right now.\n\n THE COURT: Well, let me ask one more question. So the hearing on the motion to -- for contempt was held on June 6th.\n\nMR. ROMNEY: Correct.\n\n THE COURT: There were a number of hearings held on that day, but that was one of -- that -- the motion for contempt directed against many parties, including the Hudson Diamond New York, LLC and the Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC entities. And at that hearing, you had filed a notice of appearance before that hearing.\n\n You had prepared -- appeared at that hearing and said there was an agreement with regard to the production and that the production would be completed, not just done\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 34 of\n\n|   | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>34                                |\n|---|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | but completed, by June 15th on behalf of both entities.<br>And   |\n| 2 | then on June 8th, the consent order was filed that               |\n| 3 | memorialized the agreement made on the record on June 6th.       |\n| 4 | And the Court entered that order, I think.<br>I don't know if    |\n| 5 | it was the same day or the next day.<br>Apparently, it looks     |\n| 6 | like the same day.<br>And then -- which is June 8th.<br>And that |\n| 7 | order is ECF 1896.                                               |\n| 8 | And so as of June 6th -- and, again, confirmed on                |\n| 9 | June 8th, you represented both Hudson Diamond -- excuse          |\n|   |                                                                  |\n\n me -- New York, LLC and Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. And you and Attorney Vartan represented that you were going to complete the compliance with the subpoenas by June 15. On June 13, two days before -- you know, so five days after the consent order entered but two days before the compliance was due, you filed a motion to withdraw only as to Hudson Diamond New York, LLC.\n\n So you're saying -- I want to just make sure that I understand. You're saying from -- you have complied with the consent order as far as Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC is concerned?\n\nMR. ROMNEY: That's correct.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. And what about Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? They haven't complied, correct?\n\n MR. ROMNEY: I'll answer that, if I may, two ways. I believe that's correct. And I am not here to oppose and\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 35 do not intend to oppose and will not oppose an entry of an order of contempt against the New York entity, because I don't have authority to argue that one way or another. Or I'm not convinced that I do. What I will say is that in the intervening period between June 6th, when I entered into the stipulated order that Your Honor just described, and the present, Attorney Vartan and I and Ms. Guo have attempted to locate documents concerning Hudson Diamond New York as well as Hudson Diamond Holdings. And we have just not been able to locate them. We believe that there are documents at Capital 1 -- THE COURT: I'm sorry. Say that again. You've been attempting to locate documents for Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: That's correct. THE COURT: Why if you don't represent them? MR. ROMNEY: Because during this intervening period, I believed that I did. THE COURT: Okay. So what did you do to try to locate the documents? MR. ROMNEY: As set forth in my declaration, the -- we did three things. We contacted Hodgson Russ, which we believed to have represented -- well, we knew formed the New York entity, because we had the articles of Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 35 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 36 organization that confirmed it formed it. So we attempted to contact -- THE COURT: That the articles of -- I'm sorry. I'm not trying to interrupt you. I just want -- MR. ROMNEY: It's -- THE COURT: -- to be very clear. The Hudson Diamond New York, LLC articles of incorporation. Is that what you're talking about? MR. ROMNEY: Yes. THE COURT: And those were signed by whom? MR. ROMNEY: They were filed by Hodgson Russ. THE COURT: Yeah. But who signed them? Who would the -- who was the Hudson Diamond New York, LLC signatory? MR. ROMNEY: I don't believe there was a signatory. THE COURT: Okay. So you have articles of incorporation that aren't signed? MR. ROMNEY: I don't believe New York law or Connecticut, for that matter, requires a signatory. But New York -- THE COURT: Well, who's the managing member? MR. ROMNEY: It's not identified in the -- there is no natural person identified -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- in the articles -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 36 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 37 THE COURT: All right. MR. ROMNEY: -- of organization other than Hodgson Russ as the \"filing party.\" THE COURT: So you got that document from Hodgson Russ? Is that what you're telling me? These articles of incorporation? MR. ROMNEY: I got that document from Ms. Guo. THE COURT: Okay. And it's not signed. But she had it? MR. ROMNEY: Correct. THE COURT: In her personal files? MR. ROMNEY: Which further -- which was further support for my belief and her belief that it was her entity. Correct. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: Yes. THE COURT: All right. That's what I'm asking. MR. ROMNEY: Yes. THE COURT: All right. So she had it in her files, and she turned it over to you. And Mr. Vartan or just you or Mr. Vartan? MR. ROMNEY: She sent an email to Attorney Vartan and I. So she turned it -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- over to us -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 37 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 38 THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- simultaneously. THE COURT: And what other documents did she turn over with regard to Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: With regard to Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? Those were the only ones. THE COURT: Okay. And did you -- and you may have said this, okay, so I'm sorry. I need to be clear. Did you supply that document to the trustee? MR. ROMNEY: That document had been supplied to the trustee, I believe, in connection with earlier production on the part of Ms. Guo. THE COURT: But you didn't produce it to the trustee on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, even though Ms. Guo sent you an -- you and Attorney Vartan an email with that document? MR. ROMNEY: I did not. Because by the time of the production date, I didn't believe I had authority to do anything on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, because -- THE COURT: When did you get the email from Ms. Guo that had that agreement attached to it? MR. ROMNEY: I don't recall the date. It was before -- THE COURT: Was it before you filed your motion to Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 38 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 39 withdraw as attorney? MR. ROMNEY: It was before I filed -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- my motion to withdraw as an attorney. THE COURT: All right. Now, with regard -- so you have no opposition, because you can't -- you have no authority to oppose an order entering against Hudson Diamond New York, LLC to hold them in contempt. Is that correct? MR. ROMNEY: That's correct. THE COURT: Okay. With regard to Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC, you believe -- and, Attorney Vartan, you're going to be asked the same question -- that you complied and you -- with the consent order for -- and what your terms are in this consent order is that you've completed the production to the trustee on behalf of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC? You -- by June 15th. You believe you've complied with that order? MR. ROMNEY: I do. THE COURT: Okay. Attorney Vartan, you believe you've complied with the order -- the consent order that included Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, completing its production of documents to the trustee by June 15th? MR. VARTAN: Yes, Your Honor. We sought to obtain all documents from all sources that we could and -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 39 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 40 THE COURT: What sources did you seek to obtain them from? MR. VARTAN: So we sought to obtain documents from Hodgson Russ. We sought to obtain documents from Capital One. And we obviously also sought to obtain documents from our client directly. There were a number of other individuals who could theoretically have had documents who would not speak with us. THE COURT: Well, what does that mean? I mean, I don't know what that means, who would not speak with us. MR. VARTAN: So -- THE COURT: What attempts did you make? MR. VARTAN: So we attempted to reach out through our client to both -- THE COURT: So you didn't reach out. Your client reached out? MR. VARTAN: Correct. THE COURT: So you have no knowledge as the lawyer representing the Hudson Diamond entities at that time of whether your client actually reached out to these other sources? MR. VARTAN: Well, we have knowledge that our client went to the bank, because we were on the phone with her both before and after. THE COURT: But you don't know if she was at the Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 40 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 41 bank when she was -- MR. VARTAN: We don't -- THE COURT: You don't -- MR. VARTAN: We have no reason to doubt our client in any way. THE COURT: That's not my question. You don't know. You're the lawyer, right? Aren't you supposed to know? MR. VARTAN: I know that she went to the bank based upon -- THE COURT: How do you know that? MR. VARTAN: -- based upon my conversations with her. THE COURT: So based upon what she says, you know that? MR. VARTAN: Again, I have no reason to doubt her, Judge. THE COURT: I didn't say you have a reason to doubt her. I'm saying based upon what she says to you. MR. VARTAN: If you're asking me if I went to the bank with her, I did not. THE COURT: That's -- okay. So -- MR. VARTAN: But we -- THE COURT: What other sources -- what are you -- were you there when she went through the records of these Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 41 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 42 entities to see what was -- what would be responsive to the subpoena? MR. VARTAN: I have been through Ms. Guo's records with her previously in making -- THE COURT: That wasn't my question. MR. VARTAN: -- prior productions. THE COURT: That wasn't my question. My question was a very direct question. MR. VARTAN: Not -- THE COURT: Were you there when she went through her records, reviewing documents that would be responsive to the subpoenas served on the Hudson Diamond entities? MR. VARTAN: My understanding, Judge, is she has no records beyond the records she and I had previously reviewed. THE COURT: That still didn't answer my question, Attorney Vartan. MR. VARTAN: So then -- THE COURT: Listen to the question. Were you there when your client went through her records that -- to -- that would -- to determine whether she had records that were responsive to the subpoenas issued and served, which you acknowledge were served on the Hudson Diamond entities? MR. VARTAN: I was not when she went through -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 42 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 43 THE COURT: Okay. MR. VARTAN: -- documents right prior to June 15th. Correct. THE COURT: So you were not there. You did not view, observe, or discuss what your client did with regard to the review of the documents in her possession and control that would be responsive to the subpoenas served on the Hudson Diamond entities? MR. VARTAN: We absolutely did discuss. So I didn't view or observe her. THE COURT: Well, what discussions did you have about responsive to subpoenas? That isn't protected. So you can argue it's attorney/client. It's not. MR. VARTAN: Well, I -- THE COURT: You have a subpoena. You've already acknowledged the subpoena was appropriately served. You didn't oppose the subpoena. You didn't file a motion to quash. You didn't file a protective order. So there's no opposition that you can raise right now that is in any way privileged. So what discussions did you have with regard to documents that would have been responsive to the subpoenas served on the Hudson Diamond entities? MR. VARTAN: Well, I would maintain that the communications are privileged. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 43 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 44 THE COURT: Well, you can, but I -- you're wrong. So go ahead. What -- MR. VARTAN: So, well, I'm not going to go into privileged communications with my client, but certainly what we -- THE COURT: Well, then you're going to get held in contempt, okay? Because you have obligations, Attorney Vartan. You have obligations to the Court as an officer of the court. MR. VARTAN: No doubt. THE COURT: Okay? MR. VARTAN: And not to interrupt -- THE COURT: And you stated in a consent order and on the record through Attorney Romney that you were going to comply with these subpoenas. And you have to demonstrate, not just your client, you have to demonstrate what steps you've taken to be in compliance with the subpoenas. And I haven't heard anything. Not one thing. MR. VARTAN: Well, Your Honor, first and foremost, we had multiple conversations, both telephonic and email, with Hodgson Russ who we understood to be the attorneys for both the holdings entity -- THE COURT: And you didn't get any documents from them. They told you they wouldn't produce them. And what did you do at that? You just said, okay, they're not going Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 44 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 45 to produce them. That's what you said. I've seen it. I mean, Attorney Romney has attached to his declaration some -- one person from Hodgson Russ who said I decline to talk to you. MR. VARTAN: Correct. That was the attorney who actually worked on the file. THE COURT: Okay. And what did you do when he said I -- MR. VARTAN: So when he -- THE COURT: -- decline to talk to you. MR. VARTAN: -- when he said I decline to speak with you, we said it was incredibly important that we speak. He then directed -- THE COURT: I don't think I saw anything about that. MR. VARTAN: Well, there was email communication which -- THE COURT: Well, it's not in the record. MR. VARTAN: Well, Your Honor, if I could finish. All I was saying -- THE COURT: You can finish, Attorney Vartan, but you need to be very careful. Okay? MR. VARTAN: I'm trying to be. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. MR. VARTAN: And after we spoke with Mr. Harmon Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 45 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 46 of\n\n|    | 180                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>46                              |\n| 1  | and he declined to speak with us, he then referred us to the   |\n| 2  | general counsel at Hodgson Russ.<br>So that's how we got to    |\n| 3  | the second attorney.<br>And Attorney Romney and I had multiple |\n| 4  | conversations with him where we explained that we were         |\n| 5  | endeavoring to do our best to make a complete production on    |\n| 6  | behalf of both Holdings and on behalf of New York.             |\n| 7  | In the context of those conversations is when he               |\n| 8  | told us that he did not believe that Ms. Guo had anything to   |\n| 9  | do with New York.<br>And that is what precipitated the filing  |\n| 10 | of the motion to withdraw.                                     |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Right.<br>But you've seen no documents           |\n| 12 | or have --                                                     |\n| 13 | MR. VARTAN:<br>Well --                                         |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>And your client said just the                    |\n| 15 | opposite.                                                      |\n| 16 | MR. VARTAN:<br>But can --                                      |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Wait.<br>Hold on.<br>Hold on.<br>You have no     |\n| 18 | documents to support the statement made by the attorney from   |\n| 19 | Hodgson Russ.                                                  |\n| 20 | MR. VARTAN:<br>That's correct.                                 |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>You have no documents.                           |\n| 22 | MR. VARTAN:<br>But can I --                                    |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>And -- hold on, please.                          |\n| 24 | MR. VARTAN:<br>I'm sorry.<br>I apologize.                      |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>And your client said just the                    |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 47 of<br>180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>47                                                             |\n| 1  | opposite, that she was the managing member of Hudson Diamond                                  |\n| 2  | New York, LLC.                                                                                |\n| 3  | MR. VARTAN:<br>So, Your Honor, if I could address                                             |\n| 4  | it?<br>The reason that we don't have documents from Hodgson                                   |\n| 5  | Russ is not for lack of effort on our part.<br>It's because                                   |\n| 6  | Hodgson Russ was representing that Hudson Diamond New York                                    |\n| 7  | had nothing to do with our client, had everything to do with                                  |\n| 8  | her brother who we don't represent.<br>And so, therefore,                                     |\n| 9  | there's a privilege between Hodgson Russ and the brother of                                   |\n| 10 | Hodgson Russ and Hudson Diamond New York that we certainly                                    |\n| 11 | can't abrogate.<br>So it's not for lack of effort on our part.                                |\n| 12 | And the one thing, Judge, that I just want to                                                 |\n| 13 | point out, I think it was implicit and explicit in what                                       |\n| 14 | Mr. Romney was saying, but we're not here in any way to hide                                  |\n| 15 | the ball from the Court or from the trustee.<br>The whole                                     |\n| 16 | reason that we made an appearance on behalf of both Holdings                                  |\n| 17 | and New York in this case was not to obfuscate in any way,                                    |\n| 18 | but it was to make as complete a production as possible to                                    |\n| 19 | the trustee.                                                                                  |\n| 20 | We did not have an interest in either entity to                                               |\n| 21 | the extent that we believed at the time that Ms. Guo was                                      |\n| 22 | affiliated with them to have either entity held in contempt.                                  |\n| 23 | And I believe the trustee isn't looking to hold entities in                                   |\n| 24 | contempt.<br>The trustee is looking to get documents.                                         |\n| 25 | And so we were --                                                                             |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 48 THE COURT: Well, he's got a pending motion to hold them in contempt, so I disagree with you. MR. VARTAN: But what I was saying is I assume the trustee's preference would be to get documents -- THE COURT: It may -- yeah, it would be his preference. MR. VARTAN: -- as opposed to hold an entity in contempt. And that's what we were endeavoring to do no more. Had we continued to believe that we represented Hudson Diamond New York in addition to Holdings, then we would have made a production. The only reason there was a motion to withdraw with respect to New York was based upon the conversations, based upon the due diligence we were doing with respect to Hodgson Russ. THE COURT: Did you meet the Hodgson Russ lawyer in person? MR. VARTAN: I did not, Your Honor. THE COURT: Did you have a video conference with the person? MR. VARTAN: We had multiple telephone conversations. THE COURT: So you don't even know who the person is. You don't even know what the person looks like, right? MR. VARTAN: From the website, I do. But, no, I did not have -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 48 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 49 of\n\n|    | 180                                                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>49                                |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                              |\n| 2  | MR. VARTAN:<br>-- a video conference.                            |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>So you had a telephone conversation in             |\n| 4  | which the person at Hodgson Russ who wouldn't produce any        |\n| 5  | documents to you told you that the son is the managing           |\n| 6  | member.<br>And based on that, you --                             |\n| 7  | MR. VARTAN:<br>Of New York.                                      |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Right.<br>Of New York.                             |\n| 9  | MR. VARTAN:<br>Correct.                                          |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>And that you -- based on that, you                 |\n| 11 | withdrew -- you moved -- well, you didn't file an                |\n| 12 | appearance, which is another whole issue.<br>So we're going to   |\n| 13 | talk about that at a different point.<br>We're not doing this    |\n| 14 | ping pong thing.<br>Okay?<br>I've had that conversation from the |\n| 15 | beginning of this case.<br>You're either both in or you're       |\n| 16 | both out, or you're one in or you're one out.                    |\n| 17 | I need to know who represents these entities.                    |\n| 18 | This is not going to continue in this court.<br>Okay?<br>You     |\n| 19 | need to decide how that's going to work, and you need to         |\n| 20 | stick by that.                                                   |\n| 21 | Because to have you sign some documents with                     |\n| 22 | Attorney Romney's signature under them as -- which appears       |\n| 23 | as local counsel and then have Attorney Romney be the only       |\n| 24 | person that files a notice of appearance is not appropriate.     |\n| 25 | And it will not continue in this case.<br>So you'll all have     |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 50 of<br>180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>50                                                             |\n| 1  | to figure that out.<br>You either both represent them or one                                  |\n| 2  | of you represents them, and that's it.                                                        |\n| 3  | MR. VARTAN:<br>And I just wanted to clarify that for                                          |\n| 4  | the record.<br>So since I and my law firm have been involved                                  |\n| 5  | with the case it's very much been a co-counsel relationship                                   |\n| 6  | between CSG, my law firm, and --                                                              |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Then why didn't you file a notice of                                            |\n| 8  | appearance on behalf of both the Hudson Diamond entities?                                     |\n| 9  | MR. VARTAN:<br>Your Honor, by the time that I was                                             |\n| 10 | preparing to do that, there was an issue, obviously, which                                    |\n| 11 | we brought to the Court.                                                                      |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>That's not accurate.<br>That's not                                              |\n| 13 | accurate.<br>The motion to compel for contempt was pending.                                   |\n| 14 | And Mr. Romney filed an appearance well before the hearing                                    |\n| 15 | on the motion for contempt.<br>So, Mr. Vartan, that is not                                    |\n| 16 | accurate.<br>So I don't want to hear that, because that's not                                 |\n| 17 | accurate.                                                                                     |\n| 18 | You made a choice.<br>And, fine, you made that                                                |\n| 19 | choice.<br>But you're not making that choice anymore.<br>You                                  |\n| 20 | either both represent the entities or one or the other of                                     |\n| 21 | you does.                                                                                     |\n| 22 | We are not doing this anymore.<br>You are wasting                                             |\n| 23 | the Court's time, and I don't feel that you are being                                         |\n| 24 | accurate in your representations to this Court.<br>And so you                                 |\n| 25 | need to think long and hard about that.                                                       |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 51 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 51 Attorney Romney's the only one that filed an affidavit or a declaration in connection with this motion to compel. You're going to argue, well, I didn't have to. I never filed the notice of appearance on behalf of the Hudson Diamond entities. But what do I hear? Every conversation that has to do with the motion for contempt and the notice of appearance and the motion and the production of documents has you involved in it, Attorney Vartan, not just Attorney Romney. That's not appropriate. MR. VARTAN: Understood, Your Honor. And I am truly not trying to hide anything from this Court or any party in the courtroom. Really, what we have endeavored to do since the filing of the motion seeking to hold the Hudson Diamond entities in contempt was to do our level best to figure out which of the entities that we represent. We certainly -- THE COURT: Well, you didn't do your level best to figure out which one of the -- entities you represented when Mr. Romney filed the notice of appearance. He represented both of them. MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, but, again, it was done -- and I understand a mistake was made. But what we're saying here is it was done with the best of intentions. Meaning we were not trying to hide anything from anyone. We were just --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 52 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 52 THE COURT: Whether it's done with the best of intentions really doesn't matter, Attorney Vartan. MR. VARTAN: Well, I -- THE COURT: What matters is what are your professional obligations -- MR. VARTAN: We were trying -- THE COURT: -- under the applicable codes of conduct and as a member of the bar of the State of New York or New Jersey and practicing before this Court. And that's what your obligations are. You can have whatever intent you think. It doesn't matter. What matters is, what are your requirements? What are your obligations? What are you obligated to do? MR. VARTAN: And, Your Honor, I believe that we've met those obligations. THE COURT: Okay. That's your belief. That's fine. All right. Attorney Romney, is there anything else you'd like to add? MR. ROMNEY: Yes. Very briefly, Your Honor. My appearance on behalf of the Hudson Diamond entities -- I actually don't have that with me, but I believe it was -- THE COURT: I can -- we can put it up on the screen if you'd like. MR. ROMNEY: If it's not too much trouble, that\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 53 would be helpful. THE COURT: All right. We'll find it. Give us a minute, and we'll put it up on the screen. MR. ROMNEY: I believe it's June 1st, filed at around 10-something p.m., if I recall correctly. THE COURT: 1848 is the ECF number. And it says that you entered an appearance on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC and Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC, parties in interest. MR. ROMNEY: And I -- am I correct that it was filed at 10-something p.m.? THE COURT: 10:16 p.m. Actually -- yes. No. 8:16 p.m. MR. ROMNEY: 8:16. Okay. I thought it was around 10. But the -- perhaps it was the motion for an adjournment that was filed at 10-something. THE COURT: That may be. You want me to -- MR. ROMNEY: No, no, no. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: The point I was making, Your Honor, was that this was filed on the evening before the deadline to respond for -- or the evening of -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. ROMNEY: -- the deadline to respond. THE COURT: I understand. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 53 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 54 of<br>180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>54                                                             |\n| 1  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Attorney --                                                                    |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>The hearing wasn't until June 6th.                                              |\n| 3  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>I understand.<br>Attorney Vartan was --                                        |\n| 4  | is admitted in this Court pro hac vice on behalf of                                           |\n| 5  | HK International and Mei Guo.<br>I recall very specifically                                   |\n| 6  | why I am the one that filed this appearance was because                                       |\n| 7  | there wasn't time to get another pro hac vice application.                                    |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>I understand that.<br>But you could have                                        |\n| 9  | done that the next day.                                                                       |\n| 10 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>It could have.<br>And as --                                                    |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>There was -- actually, you could have                                           |\n| 12 | done it that night, because it's all electronic filing.                                       |\n| 13 | It's very easy.                                                                               |\n| 14 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>We --                                                                          |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>You've done it very well on many other                                          |\n| 16 | occasions, as have other people in the court.                                                 |\n| 17 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>I actually don't know how to E-file,                                           |\n| 18 | which is pretty sad in this day and age.<br>But I -- but we                                   |\n| 19 | have very good support staff, so that's a distinction                                         |\n| 20 | without a difference.                                                                         |\n| 21 | At the time that we filed this, nobody -- not me,                                             |\n| 22 | not Attorney Vartan, not Ms. Guo and nobody else that I've                                    |\n| 23 | had discussions with -- was expecting for anything other to                                   |\n| 24 | happen other than us to negotiate a brief extension in                                        |\n| 25 | exchange for our compliance.<br>And by compliance, I define, I                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 55 of\n\n|    | 180                                                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>55                                |\n| 1  | believe correctly so in connection with the case law -- but      |\n| 2  | if I'm mistaken, I apologize -- to attempt in good faith and     |\n| 3  | diligently to locate every document that is within the           |\n| 4  | client's control, actual and constructive.<br>And that is what   |\n| 5  | we intended to do.<br>That's what we agreed to do.<br>And that's |\n| 6  | what we did do.                                                  |\n| 7  | And nobody, between Attorney Vartan, myself, and                 |\n| 8  | Ms. Guo, expected this to become anything worthy of having       |\n| 9  | another attorney file a pro hac -- another pro hac vice          |\n| 10 | application, another docket entry in this case, because we       |\n| 11 | all intended and did act in good faith to comply and get the     |\n| 12 | trustee everything that the trustee wanted concerning these      |\n| 13 | entities.<br>And I --                                            |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Well, I don't have any declaration of              |\n| 15 | Ms. Guo, so I can't make any findings with regard to that.       |\n| 16 | The only thing I could make a finding with -- is with regard     |\n| 17 | to what you've said in your declaration under penalty of         |\n| 18 | perjury, which I appreciate that you filed.<br>Okay?             |\n| 19 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Thank you.                                        |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>So I can't speak to what Ms. Guo's                 |\n| 21 | intentions are.<br>I can't speak to what Attorney Vartan's       |\n| 22 | intentions are, because he hasn't filed anything.<br>All I can   |\n| 23 | speak to is what has happened in this case and what -- where     |\n| 24 | we are.                                                          |\n| 25 | And we were at a point on June 6th where there was               |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 56 of\n\n|    | 180                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>56                              |\n| 1  | going to be an order possibly entered against the Hudson       |\n| 2  | Diamond entities holding them in contempt.<br>And I was told   |\n| 3  | on the docket, on the record that there was agreement that     |\n| 4  | you represented both of them, that there was an agreement      |\n| 5  | that they would produce and they would do so by June 15th.     |\n| 6  | You've now stated, Attorney Romney, that you                   |\n| 7  | believe that you complied with regard to -- that you've        |\n| 8  | complied on the -- with the subpoenas for the production of    |\n| 9  | the documents with regard to Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC.      |\n| 10 | That's your statement.<br>And the trustee will do with that    |\n| 11 | what the trustee's going to do with that.<br>And we'll hear in |\n| 12 | a -- I'm sure soon.                                            |\n| 13 | With regard to Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, there             |\n| 14 | has been no compliance that I'm aware of.<br>And no one has    |\n| 15 | shown me that there is any compliance.<br>So if the trustee    |\n| 16 | moves for a contempt, then I'm going to consider that.         |\n| 17 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>And I will not oppose it.                       |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Well, as you said, I don't think you             |\n| 19 | have -- well, you --                                           |\n| 20 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Correct.<br>That's --                           |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>If you are consistent with your motion           |\n| 22 | to withdraw your attorney, you don't have any authority to     |\n| 23 | oppose it.                                                     |\n| 24 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Correct.                                        |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>So in any event, is there anything               |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 57 else you wanted to add? MR. ROMNEY: No. Thank you for -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- hearing us. THE COURT: All right. Then I'd like to hear from the trustee's counsel -- MR. VARTAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- and the Office of the United States Trustee as well. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, do you have a preference as to which you hear from first? THE COURT: I have no preference. MR. LUFT: Okay. Your Honor, may I approach? THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Avi Luft, Paul Hastings, on behalf of the trustee. Your Honor, I don't have any intention to speak today as to what the intent was of counsel. I wasn't part of their conversations that they had with anyone else, whether it be their client or Hodgson Russ. And I have no way to speak to that. So what I do want to speak to, and hopefully briefly, though, is with regard to this notion that no one knows who runs Hudson Diamond New York and that all Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 57 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 58 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 58 documents that presumably exist in the world that could have been responsive to our subpoena have been produced and, thus, there has been compliance. Because I don't think either of those is quite that straightforward. Look, as I understand it, Your Honor, they made reference to the fact that we filed papers indicating that Hudson Diamond New York appeared to be -- have a sole member of Ms. Guo. We did. They're attached to my declaration which is at Exhibit 1805. And specifically, Your Honor, if you look -- THE COURT: Exhibit T. MR. LUFT: There is Exhibit T, Your Honor. There is also Exhibit U which -- THE COURT: I may not have looked at Exhibit U. Go ahead. MR. LUFT: -- as well as Exhibits G, H, and I, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LUFT: And in brief, and this is why we believed it, if you look at Exhibit G, it is a document prepared by Hodgson Russ for Ms. Yvette Wang of Golden Springs which sets out an -- sets out org charts of the entities, which I can tell you from speaking to them they believed were controlled by the debtor. But be that as it may, they had listed who is named.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 59 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 59 And under the one for Hudson Diamond Holdings, you can see Ms. Guo on the top directly above Hudson Diamond Holdings, directly above Hudson Diamond New York, LLC. Consistent with that, at Exhibit H is a document for Hudson Diamond New York which lists Ms. Wang as the contact but as the sole member says Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, 100 percent. Not surprisingly, located at 162 East 64th Street in Manhattan which is where most of the debtor's entities are located. And then if we go to Exhibit I, we see who owns Hudson Diamond Holdings. The member is listed as Ms. Guo, 100 percent interest, again with the 162 East 64th Street address. As Your Honor mentioned, and there is Exhibit T in which we see Ms. Guo signing consistent in her role as the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings. And Exhibit U where we see Ms. Guo again signing, this time as the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings. Based on that documentation, that is why we understood Ms. Guo to be the person in control of Hudson Diamond Holding and Hudson Diamond New York. We are not aware of any document which indicates that anyone else is the named member. I will tell you I\n\non discovery and our investigation. But in terms of who is\n\nbelieve that the debtor actually controlled the entity based\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 60 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 60 the member and who can -- should be responding to the subpoena, that is what -- who we believe is in charge. Now, I feel like I'm not sure why we have confusion at this point, because my understanding is that while there is no document anywhere that someone has seen that indicates that someone other than Ms. Guo is the member, there have been representations that there were conversations in which Mr. Kearney of Hodgson Russ indicated that the son may be the member. That very well may have happened. I don't know. What I do know is if we look at Mr. Romney's declaration and Exhibit A, Mr. Kearney wrote to Mr. Romney and Mr. Vartan saying that he questions whether he ever said that but then more importantly says the documents indicate that Holdings was the member, not Qiang Guo, who is the son. And he goes on to say that the engagement concerning Hudson Diamond New York was addressed to Ms. Wang. So whatever may have been said on the call, and very well there may have been a miscommunication, I think Mr. Kearney has made clear at this point that there is not a belief that Mr. -- the debtor's son, Mr. -- again, Mr. Guo is the member of Holdings, in which case there is no reason to believe that Ms. Guo, Mei Guo, is not the member of Holdings, in which case they should be able to comply. Why do I care about this, Your Honor? Solely for\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 61 of<br>180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>61                                                             |\n| 1  | one reason.<br>We need to get documents.<br>We need someone who                               |\n| 2  | we can speak to, who we can get from.                                                         |\n| 3  | And that brings me to really the second point we                                              |\n| 4  | have here, which is you've heard today that they've said                                      |\n| 5  | that they've gotten all documents from all sources.                                           |\n| 6  | Mr. Romney in his declaration says I do not have any reason                                   |\n| 7  | to believe that New York or Holdings have any assets or the                                   |\n| 8  | ability to produce additional documents.                                                      |\n| 9  | Well, Your Honor, I don't know how that could be                                              |\n| 10 | true.<br>I've had conversations with Mr. Vartan and                                           |\n| 11 | Mr. Romney.<br>And I've pointed them in particular to Exhibit                                 |\n| 12 | J of my declaration, which is an insurance agreement on                                       |\n| 13 | behalf of Hudson Diamonds New York with AIG indicating that                                   |\n| 14 | there's a Rolls-Royce in their name.<br>We don't have any                                     |\n| 15 | documents about that.<br>We received two documents total in                                   |\n| 16 | compliance from Holdings.<br>So J talks about a Rolls-Royce.                                  |\n| 17 | If you look at Exhibit V, that is the deposition                                              |\n| 18 | of Margaret Conboy.                                                                           |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Exhibit -- which?                                                               |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:<br>V as in Victor.                                                                  |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>V?<br>Okay.<br>Hold on one second.                                              |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:<br>Of course, Your Honor.                                                           |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>So I'm looking at --                                              |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:<br>So it's --                                                                       |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>-- Exhibit J to your declaration --                                             |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 62 of\n\n|    | 180                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>62                             |\n| 1  | MR. LUFT:<br>Correct, Your Honor.                             |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>-- which is attached to 1805 at                 |\n| 3  | 1805-36, page 1 of 5.<br>And there's a -- New York auto bill  |\n| 4  | declaration page.<br>It says there's a policy number, name of |\n| 5  | insured, and mailing address, Hudson Diamond New York, LLC,   |\n| 6  | 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York.<br>Name and address |\n| 7  | of issuing company, AIG Property Casualty Company.            |\n| 8  | Description of your covered automobiles.<br>2019 Rolls-Royce  |\n| 9  | with a VIN number and an agreed-upon value of \\$283,712.      |\n| 10 | That's what you're referring to?                              |\n| 11 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                               |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>And the description of the drivers are          |\n| 13 | two individuals who says are authorized and covered, Dean     |\n| 14 | Rabideau -- I'm not sure I'm pronouncing that right --        |\n| 15 | R-A-B-I-D-E-A-U -- and I -- Cao Defeng -- and again, I        |\n| 16 | probably did not pronounce that correctly -- C-A-O is the     |\n| 17 | first name.<br>D-E-F-E-N-G is the second name.                |\n| 18 | And there's a million-dollar coverage -- liability            |\n| 19 | coverage per occurrence.<br>Medical expenses coverages of     |\n| 20 | \\$50,000 person.<br>Uninsured motorist of a million per       |\n| 21 | occurrence.<br>Collision coverage for your damage to your     |\n| 22 | automobile up to the agreed value.<br>Personal injury         |\n| 23 | protection with a premium of \\$5,817.<br>That's a four-page   |\n| 24 | document, it looks like.                                      |\n| 25 | Okay.<br>Go ahead.<br>That's Exhibit G -- J as in jam.        |\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 63 of<br>180 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>63                                                             |\n| Now we need to look at V as in Victor?                                                        |\n| MR. LUFT:<br>Yes, Your Honor, which is a transcript                                           |\n| of a deposition of Margaret Conboy who is a lawyer at                                         |\n| Whitman Breed who represented on behalf of Hodgson -- Hudson                                  |\n| Diamond with regard to at least five real estate                                              |\n| transactions that Mr. --                                                                      |\n| THE COURT:<br>What page do you want me to go to in                                            |\n| this deposition?<br>I've opened up Exhibit V now.                                             |\n| MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, I can point you to Exhibit                                           |\n| 21 -- page 21 where there is a discussion about Hudson                                        |\n| Diamond.<br>I don't -- just so you can see what it is.<br>I                                   |\n| don't intend to go through all of this.                                                       |\n| THE COURT:<br>Do you want me to pull it up on the                                             |\n| screen, or do you just want to -- wait.<br>How do you want to                                 |\n| handle that?                                                                                  |\n| MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, I'll make reference to it.                                           |\n| I think that'll just expedite things.                                                         |\n| THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Go right ahead.                                                        |\n| MR. LUFT:<br>But, specifically, it talks about the                                            |\n| purchase being made on behalf of an entity called Hudson                                      |\n| Diamond.<br>And then it says, \"Is this the same engagement                                    |\n| where you were told you were representing the interests of                                    |\n| Mr. Kwok and his family, correct?<br>Yes.\"<br>And it goes on                                  |\n| from there.                                                                                   |\n| I raise these, Your Honor, and I raised them with                                             |\n|                                                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 64 of\n\n|    | 180                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>64                              |\n| 1  | Mr. Vartan and Mr. Romney previously to say we know about      |\n| 2  | the car, we know that there were real estate transactions,     |\n| 3  | we know there seems to be transfers related to the Hudson      |\n| 4  | Diamond entities, meaning there should be documents.<br>This   |\n| 5  | isn't a shell company that did nothing or that no one ever     |\n| 6  | did anything on behalf of.                                     |\n| 7  | But all we've received is the two documents you've             |\n| 8  | heard about from Holdings, and we've received nothing from     |\n| 9  | New York at this point.<br>And, unfortunately, it sounds like  |\n| 10 | we're being told there's no one we can even talk to about      |\n| 11 | that.<br>I really would rather much prefer to have the         |\n| 12 | information about where these assets are, whether some -- a    |\n| 13 | house was actually purchased.                                  |\n| 14 | Some of these houses that I looked up were worth               |\n| 15 | upwards of \\$35 million, Your Honor.<br>I don't know if        |\n| 16 | anything was ever consummated.<br>But I know that they must    |\n| 17 | have had funds if they were looking to buy it.<br>Or at least  |\n| 18 | that would be a reasonable assumption.                         |\n| 19 | So that's what I'm trying to find out here.<br>And             |\n| 20 | at this point, it seems to me that this seems knowable.<br>Not |\n| 21 | only do all the documents suggest it, but the idea that a      |\n| 22 | brother and a sister and a father can't speak and understand   |\n| 23 | who's the person that the debtor -- whose name the debtor      |\n| 24 | put on top of the company, that seems knowable, particularly   |\n| 25 | when two of the three entities are represented by the same     |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 65 counsel. So, Your Honor, that's really where we are with regard to this. I understand the idea that if they -- if they say that they're not representing them then they can't -- they need to withdraw, because they're not representing them. I can only speak to in terms of what we know and we've presented to you in terms of why we believed Ms. Guo was the person in charge. That's where that is. But what I do have to take issue with is the idea that there has been compliance or we've received all the documents related to Hudson Diamond, whether from Holdings, which appears to us to wholly own New York, or from New York. I don't know which specific -- where all the assets are or whatever else. That's what the documents would tell me. But I don't believe we've had compliance. And so as to both, I would renew our motion for contempt, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. I want to circle back to something Attorney Luft pointed out, and I think that that is important to focus on, which is that based upon the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 66 of\n\n|    | 180<br>Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>66                     |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | emails between Attorney Romney and Attorney Kevin Kearney at |\n| 2  | Hodgson Russ, there appears to be a consensus that the last  |\n| 3  | document that exists that anyone's seen was actually signed  |\n| 4  | by Mei Guo in her capacity as the sole member of Holdings,   |\n| 5  | which is the same -- it's the same sole member of New York.  |\n| 6  | So that's the last document that's been before the Court and |\n|    |                                                              |\n| 7  | the last document that's been talked about.                  |\n| 8  | That document is consistent with what Attorney               |\n| 9  | Kearney is saying in the emails that are attached to         |\n| 10 | Attorney Romney's affidavit.<br>So based on that, there      |\n| 11 | doesn't seem to be any confusion, at least on paper, that    |\n| 12 | Mei Guo is the person in charge.                             |\n| 13 | So if Mei Guo is the person in charge, then                  |\n| 14 | Attorney Romney appears to have a direct connection to her,  |\n| 15 | because he represents her in her individual capacity as      |\n| 16 | well.<br>And then there seems to be no reason to do a        |\n| 17 | withdrawal of the appearance.                                |\n| 18 | The other thing I wanted to say is that the                  |\n| 19 | withdrawal of the appearance on behalf of Hudson Diamond --  |\n| 20 | sorry, Hudson Diamond New York, LLC appears to be            |\n| 21 | detrimental to the estate.<br>Because as Attorney Luft just  |\n| 22 | pointed out, there are a number of areas of documents that   |\n| 23 | should have been provided, haven't been provided, and are    |\n| 24 | delinquent.<br>The trustee has a pending motion for contempt |\n| 25 | for the failure to comply with the subpoenas and allowing    |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 67 of\n\n|    | 180                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>67                             |\n| 1  | Attorney Romney to withdraw from representing Hudson Diamond  |\n| 2  | New York, LLC would appear to be detrimental to the estate    |\n| 3  | and detrimental to the investigation that the trustee is      |\n| 4  | trying to pursue.<br>So at the end of the day, Your Honor, I  |\n| 5  | don't think that Attorney Romney has met his burden to        |\n| 6  | demonstrate that the withdrawal is appropriate.               |\n| 7  | The other thing I would say is that the U.S.                  |\n| 8  | Trustee's response to the Court's order asked both Attorney   |\n| 9  | Romney and Attorney Vartan to provide answers to a number of  |\n| 10 | different questions.<br>As the Court has already noted,       |\n| 11 | Attorney Vartan did not file anything in response.<br>And I   |\n| 12 | would say that the response filed by Attorney Romney did not  |\n| 13 | address all of the points requested by the United States      |\n| 14 | Trustee.<br>And it appears based on not only the declaration  |\n| 15 | that was filed and the comments that are made today that      |\n| 16 | there is more information that could have been provided to    |\n| 17 | the Court about the series of events that led to the motion   |\n| 18 | to withdraw.<br>So, unfortunately, the U.S. Trustee's efforts |\n| 19 | to try to get some more information about what's happened     |\n| 20 | and how we got here remain unfulfilled.                       |\n| 21 | But getting back to the point I made a minute ago which       |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n is that the last document anyone has that has been provided demonstrates that Mei Guo is at the heart of all of these entities and, therefore, based on that, it appears that Attorney Romney has a basis to stay in this case. Thank\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 68 you. THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Romney, do you wish to respond? MR. ROMNEY: Yes, I do. On the first issue, responding to Attorney Luft, the issue is not whether there are documents in the world concerning the Hudson Diamond entities. I'm in no position to opine on that beyond what I already have. The issue is whether I or somebody I can control can locate them. The trustee has alleged in this case that the two individuals that, as far as their investigation is concerned with all of their resources, which is well beyond what I can do -- and they have all of Hodgson Russ's files. I don't. The record is clear that I requested it. I demanded it, and I was told no. That is in the record. I cannot go to Hodgson Russ' office with a gun in my hand, nor am I required to, and make them give me my files. I can ask. I can demand. But at the end of the day, I was told no. They were told yes. They got the files. I didn't. They have the information. With that information, they have alleged, consistent to what Ms. Guo has said or told us and what we have represented, is that the two individuals who were responsible for the management of these entities were Yvette Wang, who is incarcerated and I have no access to\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 69 whatsoever, and Max Krasner, who we cannot locate, has had no contact with Ms. Guo as far as we know for months. And we are unable to locate him. So the individuals that have the information for all that we know, all that the documents that are being referred to by the trustee beyond the extent that they're with Hodgson Russ and whoever else is cooperating with them and not us are in the possession of the U.S. Department of Justice. I don't believe -- I have not taken it upon myself to ask the U.S. Department of Justice for their files on these entities, because I've never in my entire career, even when I had clients that were cooperating with them, received a document from the U.S. Department of Justice. We have done what we can. That's point number one. Second, Hodgson Russ, in the most recent communication with us, is refusing under Ethical Rule 1.6 to communicate confidential information with us, because he, as the general counsel of the firm that prepared the document that the U.S. Trustee's Office and Mr. Luft are saying is now conclusive, but he, the general counsel to the firm that prepared this so-called conclusive document is unsure enough as to what that document is, why it was prepared that he won't give me as counsel to Ms. Guo and Hudson Diamond Holdings any information besides the fact that it was prepared at the Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 69 of\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nrest -- at the request of Max Krasner.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 70 of\n\n|    | 180                                                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>70                                |\n| 1  | So I find that far from conclusive that Ms. Guo                  |\n| 2  | controls these entities.<br>And, you know, if Ms. Guo controls   |\n| 3  | these entities, as I've said on the record, I will withdraw      |\n| 4  | my motion to withdraw the appearance, because my sole basis      |\n| 5  | for moving to withdraw is -- was because I do not know           |\n| 6  | whether Ms. Guo has the authority to direct me to appear on      |\n| 7  | behalf of it.<br>And the attorney who prepared the smoking gun   |\n| 8  | that she does doesn't know himself or the general counsel of     |\n| 9  | the firm.                                                        |\n| 10 | So I don't know how this Court can require me to                 |\n| 11 | stay in on behalf of this entity.<br>I would love to know all    |\n| 12 | of these facts and be able to stay in on behalf of this          |\n| 13 | entity and continue to do everything I can.<br>But I don't.<br>I |\n| 14 | do not have sufficient information that I believe under the      |\n| 15 | ethical rules that I can continue to represent this entity       |\n| 16 | based on the facts that are available to me.                     |\n| 17 | One point with respect to what Attorney Luft said                |\n| 18 | with respect to Attorney Kearney and Hodgson Russ's              |\n| 19 | comments.<br>Attorney Kearney did not say, contrary to the --    |\n| 20 | or despite the fact that in his email communication he does      |\n| 21 | not recall telling us -- telling Attorney Vartan and I that      |\n| 22 | it was the debtor's son.<br>That appears to be a distinction     |\n| 23 | without a difference, because he is clearly saying that it       |\n| 24 | was the debtor's son as signatory on behalf of Hudson            |\n| 25 | Diamond Holdings, Inc.                                           |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 71 of\n\n|    | 180<br>Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>71                       |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Hudson Diamond's Holding, Inc. (sic) per Hodgson               |\n| 2  | Russ, is a British Virgin Islands company.<br>It is not Hudson |\n|    |                                                                |\n| 3  | Diamond Holdings, LLC.<br>The fact that they both have the     |\n| 4  | name Hudson Diamond Holdings in them does not make them the    |\n| 5  | same entity and does not make Ms. Guo the principal of the     |\n| 6  | British Virgin Island company.                                 |\n| 7  | And as best as I recall, I don't even think the                |\n| 8  | trustee has alleged in this case that Ms. Guo has anything     |\n| 9  | to do with Hodgson Diamond Holdings, Inc.<br>So whether        |\n| 10 | Attorney Kearney told us that it was Mileson Guo, the          |\n| 11 | debtor's son, which I am 100 percent sure he did, or told us   |\n| 12 | that it was Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc., a British Virgin    |\n| 13 | Island company -- which the emails in the record do draw       |\n| 14 | distinctions between those two entities towards the, you       |\n| 15 | know, earlier part of the email chain, because he              |\n| 16 | specifically referred to Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.<br>And  |\n| 17 | I said Attorney Vartan and I represent Hudson Diamond          |\n| 18 | Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.<br>Is     |\n| 19 | your answer that you do not represent the same with respect    |\n| 20 | to the Delaware LLC as it is with the BVI Inc.?<br>And his     |\n| 21 | response was, yes, it is.                                      |\n| 22 | So whether it's Mileson Guo in his individual                  |\n| 23 | capacity or Mileson Guo as president of Hudson Diamond         |\n| 24 | Holdings, Inc., a BVI company, the answer with respect to --   |\n| 25 | that it was -- that it -- there's no connection that I can     |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 72 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 72 ascertain with respect to Ms. Guo is the same. And for that reason, I believe I am required to withdraw. The last thing, with respect to the U.S. Trustee's contention or belief that I have not answered her questions in response to the affidavit that she requested, was I went through her questions. I believed them to be largely redundant, at least with respect to the two entities, but --\n\n same time with respect to both of them. And I gave -- I did my best to provide everything I could with respect to her questions, my knowledge, and my diligent investigation with respect to this matter.\n\nbecause many of these discussions were happening, all at the\n\n And, in fact, what I did after I drafted this declaration is I went back and I re-read the U.S. Attorney's request for information. And after I drafted, based upon having reviewed her request three times, drafting this document, I realized that the only question that I believed I have not ascertained was the question of why I and not Attorney Vartan -- or why my appearance was the only one. And that's why that -- the answer concerning why I appeared and Attorney Vartan did not. And that involved the pro hac vice motion as well as our understanding at the time that this was a very minor matter that did not strike us as prudent or efficient to involve multiple appearances in a pro hac vice motion.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 73 of\n\n|    | 180                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>73                            |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Hold on one second.<br>With regard to          |\n| 2  | what you just said, so I'm clear, you believed that the      |\n| 3  | motion for contempt was a very minor matter?                 |\n| 4  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>I believed that the motion for                |\n| 5  | contempt -- or the process of negotiating a brief extension  |\n| 6  | and doing everything possible to comply would be a minor     |\n| 7  | matter, because I did not -- I expected us to appear.<br>I   |\n| 8  | believed I could negotiate a brief -- actually, I take that  |\n| 9  | back.<br>By the time I appeared, I knew that Attorney Vartan |\n| 10 | and Attorney Luft had reached an agreement for a brief       |\n| 11 | extension, and I knew that I was going to do everything I    |\n| 12 | could in conjunction with Ms. Guo and Attorney Vartan to     |\n| 13 | comply or -- and locate as many responsive documents as      |\n| 14 | possible.                                                    |\n| 15 | As I've said earlier, my understanding of                    |\n| 16 | responding to a subpoena is providing all documents that are |\n| 17 | in the actual and constructive control of a client.<br>And I |\n| 18 | do not believe that if I make a demand on a former law firm  |\n| 19 | or law firm that claims it never represented the client and  |\n| 20 | it tells me to go pound sand, I believe that that is -- the  |\n| 21 | documents in that firm's control are not under my or my      |\n| 22 | client's actual or constructive control.                     |\n| 23 | Actual or constructive control under my                      |\n| 24 | understanding is that it's under the control of somebody who |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nis acting under the direction of me or my client and that if\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 74 of\n\n| 180 |                                                                |  |  |\n|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n|     | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>74                              |  |  |\n| 1   | I tell them they have to comply.<br>Not that I have to take    |  |  |\n| 2   | legal action against someone to produce documents that my      |  |  |\n| 3   | understanding is the Chapter 11 trustee already has, because   |  |  |\n| 4   | their whole position -- notwithstanding that Hodgson Russ      |  |  |\n| 5   | doesn't know whether it was the debtor's son or the debtor's   |  |  |\n| 6   | daughter that owned these companies, it still produced all     |  |  |\n| 7   | of its files concerning these to the Chapter 11 trustee        |  |  |\n| 8   | despite the fact that it's not contending, as far as           |  |  |\n| 9   | anything that's been told to me, that it was the debtor's      |  |  |\n| 10  | entity.                                                        |  |  |\n| 11  | And there's no objection to that.<br>The Chapter 11            |  |  |\n| 12  | trustee got the documents.<br>They have more information than  |  |  |\n| 13  | we do.<br>But we, as is evidence by these documents, tried and |  |  |\n| 14  | tried again and tried again.<br>We told them it was important. |  |  |\n| 15  | We told them why it was important.<br>I told them I had filed  |  |  |\n| 16  | a motion to withdraw based on their representation, and I      |  |  |\n| 17  | needed all information.<br>I made multiple demands in writing. |  |  |\n| 18  | I do not know what else I can do with respect to               |  |  |\n| 19  | the Hodgson Russ firm.<br>I don't know what else I can do with |  |  |\n| 20  | respect to Max Krasner.<br>And I told -- to the extent that    |  |  |\n\n respect to Max Krasner. And I told -- to the extent that the Chapter 11 trustee wasn't aware of the Capital One bank accounts, I told them about them so that they can get them from Capital One. And I tried -- I would have much rather been the one to deliver them, so then I could have delivered them. But I can't.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 75 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 75 The best thing I could do is tell them these accounts exist. And I know these accounts exist, because they told Ms. Guo that -- according to what she told me, they told her that these accounts existed, but they would not give the documents to her. So -- THE COURT: You're saying -- just so -- you mean the bank, Capital One? MR. ROMNEY: Capital One Bank. Yes. THE COURT: And the documents existed that are the Hudson Diamond entities accounts. Is that what you're saying? MR. ROMNEY: That's what I'm saying. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. ROMNEY: And the last thing I would like to say is that if the Chapter -- if the U.S. Trustee or anybody else in the room believes I have neglected to answer any questions under oath, I am right here and prepared to answer any questions under oath that anybody would like to ask me. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I just have a question, though, that I didn't ask you before, because I didn't focus on some of the exhibits that Attorney Luft focused on. So did you ask Ms. Guo to give you any documents about this insurance policy with AIG between Hudson Diamond New York and -- covering an automobile?\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 76 of<br>180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>76                                                             |\n| 1  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>I was not aware of a insurance policy                                          |\n| 2  | concerning an automobile.                                                                     |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Well, except the only problem with                                              |\n| 4  | that is that exhibit was filed back with 1805, and that was                                   |\n| 5  | filed back sometime before you filed an appearance on behalf                                  |\n| 6  | of -- it was filed on May 18th.                                                               |\n| 7  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>I understand that.<br>And, Your Honor,                                         |\n| 8  | as Your Honor has pointed out, there's a tremendous amount                                    |\n| 9  | of paper in this case.<br>There's a tremendous amount to do.                                  |\n| 10 | And --                                                                                        |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Right.<br>But this was directed to                                              |\n| 12 | Hudson Diamond.<br>This was -- remember, this is part of the                                  |\n| 13 | motion for contempt.                                                                          |\n| 14 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>This --                                                                        |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>And the motion for contempt                                                     |\n| 16 | specifically laid out exhibits to support an assertion that                                   |\n| 17 | certain entities -- and there were many.<br>There weren't just                                |\n| 18 | the Hudson.<br>I agree with you.<br>But they -- it had exhibits                               |\n| 19 | attached to it that -- with regard to the Hudson Diamond                                      |\n| 20 | entities.                                                                                     |\n| 21 | And it said this is why we want the documents.                                                |\n| 22 | Here's some exhibits that show you that, at least from what                                   |\n| 23 | we've been shown to this point, that Hudson Diamond New                                       |\n| 24 | York, LLC and/or Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC had assets and                                  |\n| 25 | have assets in the present.<br>The policy covered a period of                                 |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 77 of\n\n|    | 180                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>77                              |\n| 1  | time through May of 2023.<br>And then there was this -- the    |\n| 2  | deposition transcription of a prior counsel who talked about   |\n| 3  | the Hudson Diamond entities trying to purchase real estate.    |\n| 4  | I mean, there's Exhibits G, E, H, U, J, and then               |\n| 5  | T, which you refer to.<br>You refer to Exhibit T in your       |\n| 6  | declaration, which is one of the reasons I looked back at      |\n| 7  | it, because you refer to Exhibit T in your declaration.<br>And |\n| 8  | I appreciate that you referred to that exhibit.                |\n| 9  | But there's other exhibits attached to that very               |\n| 10 | same motion in which Exhibit T appears that directly address   |\n| 11 | the existence of assets of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC or     |\n| 12 | Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC.<br>And so my question is, did    |\n| 13 | you ask your client about those exhibits and those assets?     |\n| 14 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>I need to answer that question in two           |\n| 15 | ways.<br>And the -- phrased as did I ask them about those      |\n| 16 | exhibits, no.<br>Because prior to filing the motion for        |\n| 17 | adjournment -- you know, again, I didn't think there was any   |\n| 18 | dispute about the ownership.<br>I spoke to Attorney Luft --    |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>The ownership of --                              |\n| 20 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Of the New York entity.                         |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Who controlled the entities --                   |\n| 22 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Yes.                                            |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>-- not of specific assets?                       |\n| 24 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Yes.                                            |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                            |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 78 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 78 MR. ROMNEY: I spoke with Attorney Luft in the conference room, as the Court directed, for purposes of reaching our agreement. He, in that meeting, mentioned a Rolls-Royce, didn't mention a -- an exhibit or anything but asked me about a Rolls-Royce. I said I'd ask about it. And I -- that was when I first mentioned the -- what I was aware of was a Capital One bank account that had been closed. I did inquire about the Rolls-Royce with Ms. Guo. I did not receive any response or any documentation concerning it. Had I done so, I would have turned it over. I didn't -- THE COURT: So she never responded to your question about the Rolls-Royce? MR. ROMNEY: She didn't neglect to respond. She responded by indicating that she did not have any documentation and -- THE COURT: About the Rolls-Royce? MR. ROMNEY: About a Rolls-Royce. And -- THE COURT: See, none of that's in the record. She didn't file any declaration. MR. ROMNEY: Well, again, she's not a party to this. It's -- THE COURT: Well, she is a party if she's the management member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, which the documents indicate she is. And you represent her. You've\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 79 clearly said -- MR. ROMNEY: I do. I represent her. THE COURT: -- you -- as the managing member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. MR. ROMNEY: I don't know that that's -- she was the -- THE COURT: Well, how else do you have authority to -- MR. ROMNEY: -- individual that directed me to -- THE COURT: How else do you have authority to act on behalf of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: That is the only way. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: But I don't believe -- THE COURT: So then -- MR. ROMNEY: -- when I -- THE COURT: So then you do represent her in her capacity as the managing member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. MR. ROMNEY: That's -- I look at it as representing the entity. But I also represent her in her individual capacity. THE COURT: Yeah. But you represent the entity. That's who the appearance -- that's who the motion for contempt is addressed against. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 79 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 80 MR. ROMNEY: That is. And I believe that we -- I don't believe -- THE COURT: But she never answered your question about the Rolls-Royce? MR. ROMNEY: I -- that's not what I said. THE COURT: Okay. And -- MR. ROMNEY: She answered my question in that she did not have any documentation, and she could not get -- THE COURT: And you specifically asked her about the Rolls-Royce? MR. ROMNEY: I specifically asked her about the Rolls-Royce. THE COURT: And you specifically asked her about the real estate transactions that Hudson Diamond were supposedly involved in? MR. ROMNEY: I don't believe I specifically asked her about the -- I don't recall, is the answer. And what I was getting into was that I did not read Attorney Luft's declaration or all of the exhibits. When Attorney Luft brought Exhibit T, I believe -- THE COURT: It wasn't a declaration. It was the actual motion. MR. ROMNEY: I thought it was the -- THE COURT: No. That's the -- well, in support of the motion. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 80 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 81 of<br>180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>81                                                             |\n| 1  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>No.<br>Right.<br>The declaration --                                            |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Right.                                                                          |\n| 3  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>-- attached -- I did not read the                                              |\n| 4  | declaration or the exhibits.                                                                  |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>In support of the motion for contempt.                                          |\n| 6  | Yeah.<br>Yeah.                                                                                |\n| 7  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>He brought the Exhibit T to my                                                 |\n| 8  | attention, which I very much appreciated and expressed that                                   |\n| 9  | to him and called him.<br>I said both verbally and in writing                                 |\n| 10 | that we were willing to do anything that we could to help                                     |\n| 11 | the trustee locate documents on behalf of either entity.                                      |\n| 12 | And if he had any information available to him that would                                     |\n| 13 | assist me to locate documents for them, that I would do                                       |\n| 14 | anything I could with that information.<br>And I didn't                                       |\n| 15 | receive any additional information.                                                           |\n| 16 | Perhaps that was foolish of me, and that is on me.                                            |\n| 17 | And I will own that.<br>I should have done that.<br>And with the                              |\n| 18 | many moving parts of this situation and the other moving                                      |\n| 19 | parts of what goes on in any given day in the world that is                                   |\n| 20 | this case and the others that we all have to manage, I did                                    |\n| 21 | not go back to that declaration and see if there were any                                     |\n| 22 | other documents that could have helped me.                                                    |\n| 23 | However, I was told among -- I was told and I                                                 |\n| 24 | believe this is Hodgson Russ and -- but I am not positive.                                    |\n| 25 | And, frankly, I didn't think of it as very significant.<br>But                                |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 82 of\n\n|    | 180                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>82                            |\n| 1  | I believe I was told by Hodgson Russ's general counsel that  |\n| 2  | the New York entity explored real estate transactions but to |\n| 3  | the best of their knowledge never consummated a single one.  |\n| 4  | And I am virtually certain that Attorney Luft told me the    |\n| 5  | exact same thing without referencing any particular          |\n| 6  | documents.                                                   |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 8  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you, Your Honor.               |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Is there anything else you want to             |\n| 10 | add?                                                         |\n| 11 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>No.<br>Other than renewing my offer to        |\n| 12 | answer any questions that anybody else has under oath.       |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Does anybody have any questions that           |\n| 14 | they would like to place Attorney Romney under oath and ask  |\n| 15 | as part of this proceeding?                                  |\n| 16 | MR. LUFT:<br>None from me, Your Honor.                       |\n| 17 | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>Your Honor, if I could take up the          |\n| 18 | opportunity to ask Attorney Romney to go through the U.S.    |\n| 19 | Trustee's pleading, which is ECF 1971.                       |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>You're calling -- you'd like him to go         |\n| 21 | to the stand and be sworn in?                                |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>If I could.                                 |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.                                          |\n| 24 | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>Because I --                                |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Mr. Romney offered, so --                      |\n|    |                                                              |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 83 of<br>180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>83                                                             |\n| 1  | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>There are a number of questions we                                           |\n| 2  | had that were not answered.                                                                   |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Mr. Romney, come forward, please.                                               |\n| 4  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Yep.<br>Mr. Henzy will be representing                                         |\n| 5  | me, Your Honor.                                                                               |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Well, I don't know how that works,                                              |\n| 7  | actually.                                                                                     |\n| 8  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>I believe as a witness I have the                                              |\n| 9  | right to counsel for the purpose of lodging objections.                                       |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>I understand that.<br>And I'm not                                               |\n| 11 | suggesting that.<br>But how are -- how is Mr. Henzy, who                                      |\n| 12 | represents the debtor and other parties, going to be your                                     |\n| 13 | counsel in connection with a motion to withdraw an                                            |\n| 14 | appearance?                                                                                   |\n| 15 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>I don't believe that there's any                                               |\n| 16 | conflict in terms of -- Attorney Henzy has been my firm's                                     |\n| 17 | general counsel for years.<br>I don't believe there's any                                     |\n| 18 | conflict between representation of me and any of my clients.                                  |\n| 19 | I don't believe I have any adverse interest to any of my                                      |\n| 20 | clients.                                                                                      |\n| 21 | I believe as a witness I'm not entitled to lodge                                              |\n| 22 | an objection to a question.<br>And I believe I'm entitled to                                  |\n| 23 | counsel to lodge an objection if there is one.                                                |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>I understand that you're entitled                                               |\n| 25 | to -- I'm not quarreling that you're entitled to counsel if                                   |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 84 you want to have counsel and -- you offered to get on the stand. Okay? MR. ROMNEY: I did. THE COURT: You offered. MR. ROMNEY: With my general counsel present. THE COURT: Okay? But, I mean, I don't understand how Attorney Henzy can be your lawyer in this situation. You are partners in a firm together. You both have pecuniary interests in the firm. How could it not be a conflict? How could it -- because he has to worry about him as well. Because whatever happens to you happens to him. How could that not be a conflict? MR. ROMNEY: I would say that means our interests are 100 percent aligned. THE COURT: Okay. Well, guess what? We're not going to do this today until -- there is -- I mean, Trustee Despins, United States Trustee's Office, do you really believe that Attorney Henzy can represent Attorney Romney in connection with a cross-examination of documents in this case that relate to a motion for contempt that might enter against Attorney Romney in addition to the client that Attorney -- client or clients that Attorney Romney represents? Am I just on another planet here? I mean, this is Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 84 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 85 of<br>180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>85                                                             |\n| 1  | insane.<br>How is that not a conflict?<br>No -- how is that not                               |\n| 2  | a conflict?                                                                                   |\n| 3  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>It is solely for the purpose of                                                |\n| 4  | lodging evidentiary objections.<br>I respectfully submit                                      |\n| 5  | that --                                                                                       |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>It is not solely for the purpose of                                             |\n| 7  | lodging evidentiary objections.<br>It's Mr. Henzy is trying to                                |\n| 8  | protect you, which he -- any lawyer would do who represented                                  |\n| 9  | you.<br>That's the point, right?<br>That's why you need a                                     |\n| 10 | lawyer.<br>You want to be protected.                                                          |\n| 11 | How is it not a conflict?<br>I just -- I'm sorry.<br>I                                        |\n| 12 | just don't see it.<br>I don't -- I'm not saying you're not                                    |\n| 13 | entitled to counsel.<br>You offered to put yourself on the                                    |\n| 14 | stand.<br>You now want me to allow Attorney Henzy, your                                       |\n| 15 | partner with whom the -- all of you and your other partners                                   |\n| 16 | all have a pecuniary interest to help each other, you all                                     |\n| 17 | have -- you're involved in a partnership agreement.<br>I don't                                |\n| 18 | know what your obligations are to each other.                                                 |\n| 19 | And you might be found -- you could be -- I'm                                                 |\n| 20 | talking now for the analysis of the conflict.<br>You could be                                 |\n| 21 | found personally held in contempt for which you'd have to                                     |\n| 22 | pay a fine, supposedly.<br>Okay?<br>I'm talking about for the                                 |\n| 23 | contempt purpose.<br>How is that not a conflict?                                              |\n| 24 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>I don't believe it is.                                                         |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>We got 80 lawyers in the room.<br>How is                                        |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 86 this not a conflict? MR. ROMNEY: Well, if I have to pay a fine, then I have to pay a fine. If my firm has to pay a fine, my firm has to pay a fine. And I'd say my partners have the same interest as I do, which are the same as my clients. THE COURT: I don't know that that's true. Depends upon what your partnership agreement says. I don't even know what you have. I have no idea, and I don't want to know, because it's not relevant to the issue. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, I am trying to be as transparent as possible. I am -- THE COURT: I'm not suggesting otherwise, Attorney Romney. I'm not suggesting any of that. I just don't know how Attorney Henzy can be your lawyer in this situation. And I don't know why anyone else thinks that he can be. MR. HENZY: Well, I think I can be, so just -- THE COURT: Well, I don't -- MR. HENZY: -- just to be clear -- THE COURT: I'm not asking you right now. MR. HENZY: -- just to be clear, there's at least one other person in the courtroom who thinks that I can be, but -- THE COURT: Okay. Well, that's good. I'm glad you think that. MR. HENZY: Okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 86 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 87 THE COURT: But I'm not asking you right now. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I'm asking other people. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, perhaps I can propose a solution, which is that if you go back to what the U.S. Trustee filed at 1971, it is very straightforward, with the questions that are being asked. But, for example, if you just look at the first bullet point, which is little (Indiscernible), that question never actually gets answered in Attorney Romney's declaration. So my suggestion was going to be that Attorney Romney redo his declaration and actually respond to all the questions that are asked or -- THE COURT: Fine. You know what? MS. CLAIBORN: -- assert that he -- or assert that he can't. THE COURT: Actually, just get him on the stand. Let Attorney Henzy represent him. Nobody seems to think it's a problem, so go right ahead. MS. CLAIBORN: I didn't say that, Your Honor. I'm just suggesting -- THE COURT: Oh, well, I'm saying that. Attorney Romney, get on the stand. Trustee -- Attorney Claiborn, start asking your questions. Let Attorney Romney get sworn in. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 87 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 88 of\n\n|    | 180                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>88                              |\n| 1  | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>Attorney Romney, please               |\n| 2  | stand and raise your right hand.                               |\n| 3  | AARON ROMNEY, WITNESS, SWORN                                   |\n| 4  | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>Can you please state your             |\n| 5  | name for the record?                                           |\n| 6  | THE WITNESS:<br>Aaron Romney.                                  |\n| 7  | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>Name and address.                     |\n| 8  | THE WITNESS:<br>My business address --                         |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.<br>Just your business address.             |\n| 10 | THE WITNESS:<br>-- is 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor,            |\n| 11 | Bridgeport, Connecticut, 0604 -- 06604.<br>May I be seated?    |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Yes, you may.                                    |\n| 13 | THE WITNESS:<br>Thank you.                                     |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>If you need -- there's water.<br>There           |\n| 15 | should be water there too.                                     |\n| 16 | THE WITNESS:<br>Thank you.                                     |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Go ahead, Attorney                 |\n| 18 | Claiborn.                                                      |\n| 19 | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>Thank you.<br>Holley Claiborn for the         |\n| 20 | U.S. Trustee.                                                  |\n| 21 | DIRECT EXAMINATION                                             |\n| 22 | BY MS. CLAIBORN:                                               |\n| 23 | Q<br>Attorney Romney, can you please tell the Court when you   |\n| 24 | were first contacted by a representative of Hudson New York    |\n| 25 | with respect to the subpoena issued to Hudson New York?<br>And |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 89 of\n\n|    | 180                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>89                              |\n| 1  | I'm using that term as defined in my pleading with respect     |\n| 2  | to the subpoena issued by the trustee to Hudson New York.      |\n| 3  | A<br>Yes.<br>And I interpret that question as in the capacity  |\n| 4  | as somebody acting as behalf of Hudson New York.<br>And the    |\n| 5  | only reason -- point of clarification I draw there is that     |\n| 6  | obviously I've spoken to Mei Guo, the individual who was       |\n| 7  | that representative.<br>I've spoken with her consistently      |\n| 8  | since I began representing her in April of last year.          |\n| 9  | But with respect to in her capacity as a representative        |\n| 10 | of Hudson Diamond New York, I believe I contacted her.<br>And  |\n| 11 | that was on, I believe -- it's stated in my declaration when   |\n| 12 | I did it.<br>I believe it was on April -- sorry, May 30th that |\n| 13 | I sent her the subpoenas.<br>But we would have had to have     |\n| 14 | been discussing them prior to that.<br>So sometime in between  |\n| 15 | April 23rd and May 30th, I believe closer to May 23rd.<br>But  |\n| 16 | it was within that time frame.                                 |\n| 17 | Q<br>Do I understand your testimony correctly that Ms. Guo     |\n| 18 | did not know about the subpoena issued to Hudson Diamond New   |\n| 19 | York until you told her about it?                              |\n| 20 | A<br>That is my correct -- that is my understanding.           |\n| 21 | Q<br>And what do you base that understanding from?             |\n| 22 | A<br>Because she told me.                                      |\n| 23 | Q<br>Do you know what the first point of contact was for       |\n| 24 | Attorney Vartan with respect to the Hudson Diamond New York    |\n\nsubpoena issued by the trustee?\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 90 of<br>180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>90                                                             |\n| 1  | A<br>I do.                                                                                    |\n| 2  | Q<br>What was that?                                                                           |\n| 3  | A<br>It was the same as I just described.<br>In fact, I, on                                   |\n| 4  | May 23rd, read the motion to compel for the first time.<br>I                                  |\n| 5  | believe it was filed May 18th.<br>As I've mentioned several                                   |\n| 6  | times in court today, we have very case -- we have very busy                                  |\n| 7  | case loads right now, so I did not actually read that                                         |\n| 8  | document until May the 23rd.<br>At that point, I read the                                     |\n| 9  | portions with respect to Hudson Diamond.<br>I recognized the                                  |\n| 10 | names, and I emailed Attorney Vartan, and I said something                                    |\n| 11 | to the effect of we need to contact Ms. Guo about this                                        |\n| 12 | immediately.                                                                                  |\n| 13 | Q<br>Who was the person on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York                                  |\n| 14 | who engaged your representation as their counsel?                                             |\n| 15 | A<br>Ms. Guo.                                                                                 |\n| 16 | Q<br>Who were the members of Hudson Diamond New York as of                                    |\n| 17 | December 1, 2022?                                                                             |\n| 18 | A<br>I don't know the answer to that question for the                                         |\n| 19 | reasons stated in my declaration.                                                             |\n| 20 | Q<br>Who were the members of Hudson Diamond New York as of                                    |\n| 21 | June 1, 2023?                                                                                 |\n| 22 | A<br>I don't know the answer to that -- I'm sorry.<br>Did                                     |\n| 23 | you -- was that question about Hudson Diamond -- were either                                  |\n| 24 | of those questions about Hudson Diamond New York or                                           |\n| 25 | Holdings?                                                                                     |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 91 of<br>180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>91                                                             |\n| 1  | Q<br>They were both intended to be about Hudson Diamond New                                   |\n| 2  | York.                                                                                         |\n| 3  | A<br>Okay.<br>That's what I thought, but I just -- I don't                                    |\n| 4  | know the answer to that question.                                                             |\n| 5  | Q<br>Okay.<br>And who are the members of Hudson Diamond New                                   |\n| 6  | York as of June 13, 2023?                                                                     |\n| 7  | A<br>I don't know the answer to that question for the                                         |\n| 8  | reasons stated on the record today.                                                           |\n| 9  | Q<br>Did you ever ask Mei Guo those questions as to those                                     |\n| 10 | memberships and those dates we just went over?                                                |\n| 11 | A<br>Specifically with respect to those particular dates, I                                   |\n| 12 | don't believe I specifically referenced those dates.<br>But if                                |\n| 13 | your question is did I ever discuss with Mei Guo whether she                                  |\n| 14 | was -- whether Hudson Diamond Holdings was a -- was the                                       |\n| 15 | member of Hudson Diamond New York, the answer is yes.<br>And                                  |\n| 16 | her belief, as I've stated, was that Hudson Diamond Holdings                                  |\n| 17 | controlled the New York entity, which is why she directed me                                  |\n| 18 | to respond -- to attempt to negotiate a -- me and Attorney                                    |\n| 19 | Vartan to attempt to negotiate an extension and then do                                       |\n| 20 | everything that I could to provide the Chapter 11 trustee                                     |\n| 21 | with responsive documents that we were able to locate.<br>And                                 |\n| 22 | she offered to -- or she indicated, and I believe did,                                        |\n| 23 | assist Attorney Vartan or participate in that process with                                    |\n| 24 | us.                                                                                           |\n| 25 | Q<br>With respect to Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, do you                                     |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 92 intend to continue to represent that entity? A Of course. MS. CLAIBORN: Okay. I have nothing further. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. You can step down, Attorney ROmney. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything further on the motion for contempt, the motion to withdraw as attorney? Okay. I'll take those matters under advisement. Let's proceed to the next matter. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, I apologize. May I be excused? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. ROMNEY: I do have to catch a flight. Thank you very much, Your Honor. THE COURT: You're welcome. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, if it pleases the Court, I think the next matter we would propose to take up is the motion for summary judgment in the Adversary Proceeding 23-5012, which involves the -- it's the interpleader action with respect to the HK USA escrow funds. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. So I apologize. I think I may have started a past hearing with a Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 92 of\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 93 of\n\n|    | 180                                                         |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>93                           |\n| 1  | similar remark, and it's unfortunate, but I do feel like    |\n| 2  | there are several occasions in which we find ourselves      |\n| 3  | before Your Honor arguing motions that, in our view, just   |\n| 4  | are not necessary.<br>This is another one of those.         |\n| 5  | I think it will be brief.<br>And the reason for that        |\n| 6  | and the reason why this hearing is, in our view, necessary  |\n| 7  | is because the issue before the Court, which is whether or  |\n| 8  | not the funds sitting in escrow pursuant to the escrow      |\n| 9  | agreement should be released to the trustee, has already    |\n| 10 | been conclusively decided by this Court's summary judgment  |\n| 11 | decision issued on May 18th finding both that HK USA is the |\n| 12 | debtor's alter ego and that all of its property, including  |\n| 13 | the escrow funds, are property of the estate.               |\n|    |                                                             |\n\n And I'd like to cite to the Court the particular language of the order. And this May 18th order is at ECF 221. On page 36, the first two so-ordered paragraphs. The first so-ordered paragraph says that \"HK USA is and was at all relevant times the alter ego of the debtor, Mr. Kwok.\" The very next paragraph says that \"All property of HK USA at all relevant times to the present is property of the estate.\"\n\n What this means, Your Honor, is that the definition of property of the estate under Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, which refers to all legal or equitable interests in property, extends by virtue of the May 18th\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 94 of\n\n|   | 180                                                           |    |\n|---|---------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n|   | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023                                   | 94 |\n| 1 | summary judgment order to all of HK USA's property.<br>And it |    |\n| 2 | is not subject to any reasonable dispute.<br>There's been no  |    |\n| 3 | suggestion to the contrary in the papers filed by HK USA      |    |\n| 4 | that the definition of property of the estate under Section   |    |\n| 5 | 541 of the Bankruptcy Code includes contractual rights and    |    |\n| 6 | legal rights.                                                 |    |\n| 7 | So therefore, by operation of the May 18th order,             |    |\n| 8 | any contractual right that HK USA ever could have hoped to    |    |\n\n hold and to exercise under the escrow agreement is now a right that belongs to the estate and is property of the estate under the Bankruptcy Code. So HK USA has no ability to stand before the Court today and to obstruct in the way that it has for the last several weeks or, I guess, since the issuance of the summary judgment order and prevent the funds from being released by purportedly hiding behind contractual rights that it's trying to exercise. Those rights now belong to the estate.\n\n They have no response to this point in their papers, because there is not one. This ends the analysis, and the Court need not consider anything else. Whether or not the escrow funds are property of the estate has already been decided, and it cannot be relitigated. That's res judicata.\n\n Now, HK USA in its opposition to the trustee's motion for summary judgment spends a lot of time focusing on paragraph 4 of the escrow agreement, which is attached as\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 95 of\n\n|   | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>95                             |\n|---|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Exhibit 1 to the complaint.<br>They also cite case law        |\n| 2 | purportedly standing for the unremarkable proposition that,   |\n| 3 | generally speaking, contracts should be enforced and public   |\n| 4 | policy concerns related to that principle.<br>But all of that |\n| 5 | is irrelevant in this situation where the Court has already   |\n| 6 | decided that any contractual rights that HK USA held or       |\n| 7 | holds under the escrow agreement are, by virtue of the May    |\n| 8 | 18th decision, property of the estate, exercisable by the     |\n| 9 | estate.                                                       |\n\n And not surprisingly, none of the cases they cite which talk about enforcement of contractual rights generally or enforcement of rights in escrow agreements have anything to do with the finding that one entity is another's alter ego and that, therefore, the rights that a party is purportedly trying to exercise, under an escrow agreement or otherwise, are actually rights that belong to another party. They don't cite any case like that. And it's not surprising why, because it wouldn't make sense for there to be an outcome in a situation like this other than the one we are asking the Court to order.\n\n What I would also point out, while we're on the topic of looking at the language of the escrow agreement, which HK USA is so intent on doing, is that if you look at paragraph 16 of the escrow agreement, it specifically deals with revisions, amendments, modifications to, changes to the\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 96 of\n\n|    | 180                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>96                              |\n| 1  | escrow agreement.<br>What it says is that the escrow agreement |\n| 2  | may not be modified unless ordered by the bankruptcy court.    |\n| 3  | Now, this is significant, because even assuming HK             |\n| 4  | USA still had the ability to exercise its contractual rights   |\n| 5  | under the escrow agreement, which it does not for the          |\n| 6  | reasons I've already discussed, this paragraph 16 allows the   |\n| 7  | Court to modify it.<br>Now, they may say, well, you know, what |\n| 8  | that really means is that if the parties agree then the        |\n| 9  | Court has to so order that agreement.<br>But they didn't --    |\n| 10 | that language doesn't appear in paragraph 16.                  |\n| 11 | If it did, it would say in order to modify this                |\n| 12 | agreement, the parties have to agree on it, and then the       |\n| 13 | Court needs to so order it.<br>It doesn't say that.<br>It says |\n| 14 | the Court can order a change to the agreement.<br>If they're   |\n| 15 | going to be held to the benefit of the bargain that they       |\n| 16 | seem so worried about, then it needs to apply to the entire    |\n| 17 | agreement.                                                     |\n| 18 | The last point that I'll make, Your Honor, is the              |\n| 19 | one we make in our motion, which is with respect to the        |\n| 20 | overall purpose of the escrow agreement and the related        |\n| 21 | stipulation concerning the Lady May and the fact that there    |\n| 22 | is no question the purpose of the agreement has run its        |\n| 23 | course.<br>The agreement and the stipulation, and it's         |\n| 24 | undisputed, were designed originally, ostensibly, to secure    |\n| 25 | delivery of the Lady May yacht to the estate.                  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 97 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 97 The Court recognized this in its recent decision denying the HK USA or the -- I guess HK USA's motion for stay pending appeal at ECF Number 24. And there is no genuine factual dispute about this purpose. In their opposition to the motion for summary judgment, they try to erect the strawman argument that if we're talking about the intent of the agreement it must be introducing questions of fact.\n\n There is no genuine factual dispute about the very clear purpose of that agreement. You can just look at background paragraph D of the agreement which makes it very clear that the entire purpose of the escrow agreement was to complement the stipulation and secure delivery of the Lady May to the estate.\n\n Now, why is this significant? Because, obviously, that purpose has run its course. As the Court again pointed out in its decision denying the motion for stay pending appeal, the HK certification was going to be submitted so that the funds could be released to HK USA. That was postponed while the Court considered the trustee's pending motion for preliminary injunction and a prejudgment remedy.\n\n So but there's no question. I mean, the yacht's now been sold. The purpose of holding the funds in escrow has run its course and is no longer necessary. You know, in fact, if you were to ask counsel today or anytime in the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 98 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 98 recent past whether they think that the escrowed funds should be released to HK USA, I'm sure they would tell you yes. I don't think they could say with a straight face that they don't think they should get the funds back. The problem with that argument from their perspective is the second that the funds are released to them, they're our property. Because all property of HK USA under the May 18th order is property of the estate. I say this because it just highlights the absurdity of their position. They are not using the escrow agreement and its provisions in order to fulfill its intended purpose of holding the funds in escrow while there might be a dispute resolved about whether or not the certification requirements have been satisfied. They're now using it to obtain a de facto stay pending appeal and to hold hostage this Chapter 11 case and the trustee's efforts to enforce the May 18th order. So for those reasons, Your Honor, I think there's no question in our mind. This is an open and shut motion for summary judgment. There are no disputed issues of fact. This issue has already been decided by the Court. There's no stay pending appeal. The escrow funds should be delivered to the trustee. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you.\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 99 of<br>180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>99                                                             |\n| 1  | Mr. Moriarty, you're going to respond?                                                        |\n| 2  | MR. MORIARTY:<br>Yes.<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>And                                        |\n| 3  | for the record, James Moriarty for HK International Funds                                     |\n| 4  | Investments (USA) Limited, LLC.                                                               |\n| 5  | So I will start, Your Honor, with Attorney                                                    |\n| 6  | Bassett's point about paragraph 16 of the escrow agreement.                                   |\n| 7  | Obviously, I agree with what he says about it, because it                                     |\n| 8  | says what it says.<br>I do want to point out for the Court --                                 |\n| 9  | and as Your Honor remembers, the escrow agreement was for,                                    |\n| 10 | for lack of a better term, amended back in October of 2022.                                   |\n| 11 | At that point, \\$4 million were released from escrow to                                       |\n| 12 | create the repair reserve for the Lady May.                                                   |\n| 13 | And the order that Your Honor entered is at Docket                                            |\n| 14 | Entry 932.<br>It's dated October 7, 2022.<br>And even with that                               |\n| 15 | order, the first paragraph starting with order, that                                          |\n| 16 | actually refers to paragraph 42 of the escrow agreement.                                      |\n| 17 | And it says that as soon as reasonably practical after this                                   |\n| 18 | order becomes a final non-appealable order.<br>So even with                                   |\n| 19 | respect to the repair reserve, the order had to become final                                  |\n| 20 | and non-appealable before that \\$4 million was going to be                                    |\n| 21 | released.                                                                                     |\n| 22 | So can the escrow agreement be amended by court                                               |\n| 23 | order?<br>Absolutely.<br>That's what the parties agreed to.                                   |\n| 24 | Does that order have to become final and non-appealable                                       |\n| 25 | before that modification of the escrow agreement would be                                     |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 100 enforceable and applicable? Yes. And we see that in the Court's order at Docket 932. As far as the escrow agreement running its course, HK cites in its opposition the case Netherberg vs. G.V. Licensing (sic). And I will give Your Honor the citation for that in a second. So that is at 1995 US Dist. LEXIS 11725 and also 1195WL491489. And in that case, the Court was looking at an escrow agreement, and the escrow agreement had been set up in connection with the sale of some intellectual property. And the escrow was designed to protect the seller post closing for litigation that based on the decision was then ongoing. The seller settled its litigation. The party with whom it settled sought to either terminate the escrow or to have released from escrow proceeds that were not disputed. And one of the arguments that was made to the Southern District in that case was, well, this escrow agreement is now superfluous, because we've settled the litigation that the escrow funds were intended to secure. And what the court said -- and this is on PDF page 2 of 3, and it's at start 4 in my LEXIS printout -- even if the reasons for the parties' execution of the escrow agreement fail to have continued validity, that would not void the amended escrow agreement which plaintiff agreed to Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 100 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 101 of\n\n| 180                                                            |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>101                             |\n| in its settlement agreement with Gitano.<br>Plaintiff's        |\n| argument that only GVTI, which was the buyer of the            |\n| intellectual property, has an interest in the escrowed funds   |\n| fails to state a legally recognized reason to override the     |\n| negotiated terms of a binding agreement.<br>And in that case,  |\n| the court -- it held that it was not going to alter the        |\n| terms of the escrow agreement and that one of the              |\n| contingencies that was required to occur before the funds      |\n| would be released had to occur, and it had not happened yet.   |\n| And that is our case.<br>We have in paragraph 4 of             |\n| the escrow agreement four contingencies.<br>And upon the       |\n| occurrence of one of those contingencies, the escrow funds     |\n| would be released.<br>This Court entered an order, and it      |\n| entered an order that HK USA is the debtor's alter ego.        |\n| We are not seeking to relitigate that issue here               |\n| at all.<br>What we are talking about here is we are talking    |\n| about timing and conditions precedent.<br>When are these funds |\n| going to be released from escrow to the trustee, who, by the   |\n| way, has the proceeds right now.<br>And one of those           |\n| contingencies has to be satisfied.                             |\n|                                                                |\n\n And the contingency that we're focused on is that we need a final, non-appealable order of this Court. And the order that the Court entered on May 18th is presently being appealed. The appeal is pending before Judge Dooley in the district court, and so that contingency has not been\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 102 of<br>180 |                                                                |  |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n|                                                                                                | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>102                             |  |\n| 1                                                                                              | satisfied, and the funds should not be released pursuant to    |  |\n| 2                                                                                              | the terms of the escrow agreement.                             |  |\n| 3                                                                                              | This is a summary judgment motion.<br>It's a                   |  |\n| 4                                                                                              | contract issue.<br>The contract with respect to the            |  |\n| 5                                                                                              | contingencies is non-ambiguous.<br>And as a matter of law,     |  |\n| 6                                                                                              | those conditions -- one of those conditions has to be          |  |\n| 7                                                                                              | satisfied before the funds can be released.                    |  |\n| 8                                                                                              | Now, Attorney Bassett did argue that this                      |  |\n| 9                                                                                              | agreement was really all about returning the Lady May and      |  |\n| 10                                                                                             | now the Lady May has been sold.<br>And as I just identified to |  |\n| 11                                                                                             | the Court, there's the Netherberg (sic) decision.<br>But if    |  |\n| 12                                                                                             | we're talking about summary judgment, and that is what we're   |  |\n| 13                                                                                             | talking about, if we're going to get into the intent of the    |  |\n| 14                                                                                             | parties, what did the parties intend when they drafted this    |  |\n| 15                                                                                             | language that there has to be a final, non-appealable order    |  |\n| 16                                                                                             | of the bankruptcy court?<br>Did they intend it to apply solely |  |\n| 17                                                                                             | with respect to issues regarding the Lady May, or did they     |  |\n| 18                                                                                             | expect it to apply more broadly?                               |  |\n| 19                                                                                             | If you read the plain language of the agreement,               |  |\n| 20                                                                                             | it has to be applied more broadly.<br>But regardless, if we're |  |\n| 21                                                                                             | talking about what did the parties mean by this provision,     |  |\n| 22                                                                                             | and we're not going to give it its plain meaning from the      |  |\n|                                                                                                |                                                                |  |\n\n judgment has to be denied based on the fact that there is an issue of fact as to what the parties intended with the\n\nagreement, then there's an issue of fact, and summary\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 103 escrow agreement. And then lastly, Your Honor, with respect to property of the estate, there is no dispute that HK's right to receive the escrow proceeds is an asset of the estate. But that right is contingent on the happening of a contingency or a condition precedent, which has not happened yet. And in Your Honor's decision granting summary judgment on the trustee's second counterclaim on May 18th, Your Honor distinguished between Count 2 of the counterclaim, which was alter ego, and Count 3, which I believe was a fraudulent transfer claim, but I could be mistaken on that. But in distinguishing it, what Your Honor distinguished was with respect to the alter ego claim, it makes the assets of HK available to satisfy the claims of the creditors. If the trustee wanted to control the entity, he would have to move under Count 3. And if the trustee had moved solely under Count 3 as Your Honor discusses in the decision which is at page 25, then the trustee would control the entity. The entity would be property of the estate, an asset of the estate. But in order to get to the assets of the entity, the trustee would still have to pierce the veil. So the trustee does not control HK. HK is an independent entity whose assets have been made available to Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 103 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 104 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 104 the creditors. And, Your Honor, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. THE COURT: I have no questions. MR. MORIARTY: Thank you. MR. BASSETT: Just a few brief points in response, Your Honor. And I'll -- I guess I'll start where Attorney Moriarty ended, which is the question of the passage of property rights to the estate and what is the consequence of that under the May 18th order. The rights that it -- to the extent that what Attorney Moriarty is arguing is that the only right that passed to the estate is the right to receive the escrow funds and that any contractual rights that HK holds to prevent that from happening are not rights of the estate, that is simply not the law. The estate is now, pursuant to this Court's very clear order -- and I want to make another point, which is that when Attorney Moriarty was referencing the Court's order, he's focused on the alter ego finding and what that means. And I will get to that in a second. But he's ignoring the very clear provision saying that all property of HK USA, which includes contractual rights, is property of the estate. So to the extent -- and he's -- I don't think he's\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 105 of\n\n|    | 180                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>105                           |\n| 1  | arguing that HK USA does not have this ability, because it   |\n| 2  | obviously does.<br>To the extent that HK USA, as everybody   |\n| 3  | knows it could, could go to the escrow agent and say, hey,   |\n| 4  | we authorize you to release these funds, that right, that    |\n| 5  | ability now belongs to the trustee.                          |\n| 6  | (Audio skip 2:46 p.m. to 2:49 p.m.)                          |\n| 7  | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>At the time this contract was made           |\n| 8  | to which the committee was a party, no one certainly         |\n| 9  | envisioned the situation we are now dealing with right now,  |\n| 10 | which is that a trustee would later be appointed months      |\n| 11 | after the transaction took place and would end up freezing   |\n| 12 | and obtaining a PJR against the funds that were on deposit.  |\n| 13 | The purpose of that deposit, as articulated by Mr. Bassett,  |\n| 14 | was to secure the delivery of the Lady May.                  |\n| 15 | Certainly, this situation was not envisioned by              |\n| 16 | any party at the time the escrow agreement was entered into. |\n| 17 | And Your Honor ought to interpret the contract in light of   |\n| 18 | that purpose.<br>And it's specifically the situation of the  |\n| 19 | parties and the circumstances connected with the transaction |\n| 20 | at the time, which means that it just simply is inapplicable |\n| 21 | to the current situation right now.                          |\n| 22 | And we otherwise fully support the arguments made            |\n| 23 | by Mr. Bassett.                                              |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                            |\n| 25 | Anyone else wish to be heard?<br>Okay.<br>The motion         |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 106 for summary judgment is taken under advisement. What's the next matter that the Court needs to address this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: It's the HCHK settlements, Your Honor. And Mr. Luft is going to handle that matter. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Unless Your Honor wants to take a break. THE COURT: No. I think -- MR. DESPINS: No? Okay. THE COURT: -- we should continue. MR. GOLDMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, may I approach? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Please proceed. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. Excuse me. Avi Luft of Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 trustee. Your Honor, what I'm here is (sic) in connection with our 9019 motion to approve the settlement agreement between the Chapter 11 trustee and the assignee for the HCHK entities. Your Honor, the agreement we present to the Court is highly beneficial to the estate for multiple reasons. It is the product of extensive good faith negotiation. It will immediately transfer on an interim basis pending the outcome Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 106 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 107 of\n\n|    | 180                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>107                             |\n| 1  | of the adversary proceedings over \\$38 million of the HCHK     |\n| 2  | entity's cash to the trustee's account.                        |\n| 3  | Sum and agreement will resolve all open issues                 |\n| 4  | between the trustee and the assignee, avoiding an expensive    |\n| 5  | and time-consuming disputed preliminary injunction             |\n| 6  | litigation.<br>It also helps pave the way for an expedited and |\n| 7  | less costly resolution of the adversary proceeding.<br>The     |\n| 8  | assignee has agreed not to oppose the relief sought by the     |\n| 9  | trustee in the adversary proceeding which we believe should    |\n| 10 | clear the path.                                                |\n| 11 | The settlement agreement provides for continued                |\n| 12 | administration of the assignee, of the HCHK entities, the      |\n| 13 | Columbus Circle offices, and the Columbus Circle assets,       |\n| 14 | which will lessen the administrative burden on the trustee.    |\n| 15 | And, Your Honor, the settlement ensures that there is --       |\n| 16 | will be due process available to all.                          |\n| 17 | Now, Your Honor, the 9019 standard the Court is                |\n| 18 | well aware of.<br>But in short, the settlement need not be the |\n| 19 | best that the debtor could have obtained, but rather it must   |\n| 20 | be in the range of reasonableness and make sure it falls not   |\n| 21 | within the lowest point.<br>And one looks at the Iridium       |\n| 22 | factors to determine if that's the case.<br>When one looks at  |\n| 23 | the benefits we just discussed in light of the Iridium         |\n| 24 | factors, I think it's quite clear that the -- this             |\n| 25 | settlement is most assuredly in the best interests of the      |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 108 estate. With regard to possibility of success versus future benefits, by securing the funds now, settlement eliminates the risk and cost related to the PI litigation as well as providing a more likely positive outcome with regard to the adversary proceeding. As to the second factor of the likelihood of complex and protracted litigation, this would eliminate both the PI -- the need for a PI evidentiary hearing as well as, as I said, streamline the future adversary. With regard to the interests of the creditors of the estate, Your Honor, I'll note that not one creditor of the estate has objected. The UCC supports this. And I'll note that this -- by making sure that the assets are within the trustee's control, it prevents the possible dissipation of substantial assets of the trustee, which he hopes to bring into the estate for the benefit of all creditors. The fourth factor under Iridium is support of other parties in interest. As I noted, the UCC is in support. There have been very few objections. Notably, a number of them that have been filed in fact make clear that they do not dispute the terms of the settlement but rather seek to make sure that their own claim can be added or with regard to a very discrete issue in the case of the U.S. Trustee. I will deal with all those. Which really leaves\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 109 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>109                                                             |\n| 1  | only one substantial objection which is from the Himalaya                                      |\n| 2  | parties.<br>And I will deal with that shortly, but it -- I                                     |\n| 3  | think, clearly, on balance most parties support this                                           |\n| 4  | settlement.                                                                                    |\n| 5  | With regard to competency of counsel and                                                       |\n| 6  | experience of Judge, I will be modest here, but I will                                         |\n| 7  | certainly say that this Court is by far the most up-to-date                                    |\n| 8  | and aware of the issues related to this case and more than                                     |\n| 9  | appropriate to judge whether this is an appropriate                                            |\n| 10 | settlement.                                                                                    |\n| 11 | As to the nature and breadth of releases of the                                                |\n| 12 | directors and officers, the former HCHK executives are not                                     |\n| 13 | getting releases.<br>There is the issue of the assignees'                                      |\n| 14 | exculpation provision, which will be addressed later.<br>But                                   |\n| 15 | with regard to the directors and officers of HCHK who                                          |\n| 16 | existed previously, they are not getting a release.                                            |\n| 17 | And as to whether this was an arm's length, I can                                              |\n| 18 | report to the Court that this was the product of extensive                                     |\n| 19 | negotiations following an emergency TRO in which the parties                                   |\n| 20 | very much were on -- had different interests at the start                                      |\n| 21 | but were able to reach resolution.                                                             |\n| 22 | Your Honor, before I delve into the objections,                                                |\n| 23 | though, I think it would be helpful -- and if you're -- the                                    |\n| 24 | Court would appreciate, I would like to walk through how the                                   |\n| 25 | settlement will work.<br>Because there is, as we've outlined                                   |\n|    |                                                                                                |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 110 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>110                                                             |\n| 1  | in our papers, sort of three phases as to the settlement.                                      |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Go right ahead.                                                                  |\n| 3  | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>So this                                                 |\n| 4  | proposed order with regard to the settlement will modify the                                   |\n| 5  | TRO order that exists, and it does so in three phases.<br>The                                  |\n| 6  | first is stage one.<br>As I referenced, there'll be initial                                    |\n| 7  | transfer of the HCHK funds to the trustee.<br>The amount will                                  |\n| 8  | be \\$38,835,734.27.                                                                            |\n| 9  | The trustee will invest those funds in treasury                                                |\n| 10 | securities pending a dispositive ruling.<br>Pending that                                       |\n| 11 | dispositive ruling, to be clear, the trustee will not be                                       |\n| 12 | authorized to use the HCHK funds for any purpose other than                                    |\n| 13 | set forth in the 9019 order.                                                                   |\n| 14 | Another part of the stage one will be the assignee                                             |\n| 15 | will make available to the trustee all HCHK non-privileged                                     |\n| 16 | corporate records and other documents in his possession.                                       |\n| 17 | The assignee has agreed to take no position in connection                                      |\n| 18 | with the adversary proceeding.<br>And I believe as indicated                                   |\n| 19 | in their papers that they were -- would not be in a position                                   |\n| 20 | to say otherwise.<br>Nor will they assist any party in                                         |\n| 21 | opposing such relief.                                                                          |\n| 22 | At the same time, Your Honor, this order would                                                 |\n| 23 | make clear that this settlement and the fund transfers are                                     |\n| 24 | without prejudice of the rights of any party, other than the                                   |\n| 25 | assignee who for the reasons stated above, to file pleadings                                   |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 111 of\n\n|   | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>111                             |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | and take positions subject to meeting standing requirements.   |\n| 2 | And the trustee notes that, of course, he has -- reserves      |\n| 3 | the right to oppose standing.<br>But in short, what that means |\n| 4 | is if you qualify for standing and you have it, then you'll    |\n| 5 | have the opportunity.<br>And, of course, the trustee will have |\n| 6 | the opportunity to challenge that.                             |\n\n That is stage one. Stage two will be following the entry of the proposed order, should it be entered, and the occurrence of the initial HCHK fund transfer. That deals with in paragraph 9 of the order the authorized assignee actions. This allows the assignee, pursuant to the terms of the order, to take certain actions related to the Columbus Circle offices, HCHK's remaining employees, and related issues to that which are procedural and administrative, and that the trustee may advance portions of the HCHK funds for payment of those expenses. And this is the administrative relief that I referred to, which is a benefit to the estate.\n\n Paragraph 10 notes that the New York court relief is not -- will not be binding, which brings us to stage three which arises upon dispositive ruling on the alter ego and the equitable ownership claim. To the extent that there is a favorable ruling on the trustee's adversary proceeding, it does provide -- paragraph 11 of the order provides for settlement payments. It sets out the amounts.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 112 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 112 Paragraph 12 deals with a modification of the bar date where the trustee is authorized to seek the Court to modify the bar date to allow HCHK entities' creditors, to the extent there are any, to now file under the debtor's Chapter 11 case, because to the extent an alter ego or equitable ownership is granted, those creditors will now become creditors of the debtor's estate to the extent they exist. Paragraph 13 deals with the channeling injunction which we will speak about later. Paragraph 14, the exculpation provision. And then, Your Honor, I'll turn to what happens to the extent there is a final order ruling against the trustee and the adversary. Paragraph 15 explicitly provides for the return of funds to the trustee -- from the trustee to the assignee. So that is the three stages of how the order would work and what we would propose under the settlement. Your Honor, before I turn to the objections, I'll ask if you have any questions. THE COURT: I have no questions. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. Okay. In which case, let me turn to the objections. So I started off by speaking about why we believe the Iridium factors have been met. I will note that, overall with regard to the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 113 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 113 objections, the Iridium factors have largely been not addressed. Rather, they seem to be a mishmash of things that people would like, attempts to jump ahead on the claims process, or in the case of Himalaya, who I will turn to, frankly, a person who is not happy with how the assignment process has worked out for them but not one who has actual basis to be objecting here.\n\n So the Himalaya parties who, as we detail in our reply brief, Your Honor, are largely made up of entities that this Court has either directly found the debtor to control -- the Himalaya farms, Himalaya -- or other entities that the debtor has been involved with, has filed an objection. And I think the heart of it is effectively saying we would have preferred to be in New York state court; we thought that's where the assignment was going to go.\n\n Everyone's entitled to their preferences, but that's not a basis to object to the settlement. And it's certainly not a basis to claim that this is not in the best interest of the debtor's estate, which is what the 9019 motion is about.\n\n Now, the Himalaya parties spend a good part of their papers contesting the alter ego and equitable ownership claims in the adversary proceeding. That's not what's before us today, Your Honor. They -- to the extent\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 114 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>114                                                             |\n| 1  | they have standing, they will have an opportunity to raise                                     |\n| 2  | whatever objections they have to the trustee's adversary                                       |\n| 3  | proceeding.<br>But nothing about the settlement precludes them                                 |\n| 4  | from that.                                                                                     |\n| 5  | Similarly, Your Honor, the assignee is the party                                               |\n| 6  | who makes the decisions.<br>That's what happens when he was                                    |\n| 7  | appointed.<br>None of these entities objected to the                                           |\n| 8  | assignment, to my knowledge.<br>Nor did any of them intend --                                  |\n| 9  | to my knowledge intend -- file any objections to date of the                                   |\n| 10 | idea of -- when the assignee was considering selling these                                     |\n| 11 | entities to another party, a G News party.                                                     |\n| 12 | The assignee made the decision that this was --                                                |\n| 13 | this settlement is in its best interest.<br>It's not the place                                 |\n| 14 | for purported creditors or the assignee to take issue with                                     |\n| 15 | it.                                                                                            |\n| 16 | This Court clearly has jurisdiction as set forth                                               |\n| 17 | in the TRO order.<br>And accordingly, any -- the arguments                                     |\n| 18 | about its jurisdiction are really just a collateral attack                                     |\n| 19 | on that.<br>I don't think they're appropriate.                                                 |\n| 20 | Finally, Your Honor, the Himalaya entities raise                                               |\n| 21 | issues with regard to the channeling injunction and the                                        |\n| 22 | exculpation provision.<br>Counsel from Cole Schotz is going to                                 |\n| 23 | focus on those issues.<br>But I will say that the trustee                                      |\n| 24 | agreed to those provisions and supports them.<br>But I will                                    |\n| 25 | let counsel from Cole Schotz address those as they focus                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 115 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>115                                                             |\n| 1  | more directly on their issue and their papers.                                                 |\n| 2  | Finally, Your Honor, the only other issue I                                                    |\n| 3  | believe the Himalaya parties raise is with regard to                                           |\n| 4  | authority.<br>Again, counsel for Cole Schotz will focus on                                     |\n| 5  | this.<br>But I will note that under the deeds of assignment,                                   |\n| 6  | which not only weren't objected to but were entered, it is                                     |\n| 7  | my understanding that the assignee has full authority to                                       |\n| 8  | settle any and all claims against it.<br>And I would certainly                                 |\n| 9  | think that this would fall within that.                                                        |\n| 10 | If Your Honor has any questions with regard to the                                             |\n| 11 | Himalaya parties' objection, I'll answer them.<br>Otherwise,                                   |\n| 12 | I'll move on to the next one.                                                                  |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>I have no questions.<br>You may move on                                          |\n| 14 | to the next objection.                                                                         |\n| 15 | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>The next one is                                         |\n| 16 | the U.S. Trustee's limited objection with regard to the                                        |\n| 17 | channeling and exculpation issues.<br>As I said, counsel for                                   |\n| 18 | Cole Schotz is going to focus on that.<br>I will -- it's, I                                    |\n| 19 | think, a very similar issue.<br>I'll leave that there.                                         |\n| 20 | Otherwise, there's a question about the notice.                                                |\n| 21 | The U.S. Trustee's office has indicated that they'd like                                       |\n| 22 | three days' notice and a \\$25,000 cap.<br>The trustee has                                      |\n| 23 | proposed a \\$50,000 cap just given the costs in the case in                                    |\n| 24 | an effort to decrease administrative burden.<br>And it's our                                   |\n| 25 | view that raising it to 50,000 would not harm the interests                                    |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 116 of\n\n|    | 180                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>116                             |\n| 1  | of people interested in understanding what expenses were       |\n| 2  | being made and, at the same time, would make it much more      |\n| 3  | manageable for the trustee to handle to have a slightly        |\n| 4  | higher cap.<br>So that is the only difference there to my      |\n| 5  | knowledge.                                                     |\n| 6  | With regard to G News' limited objection and the               |\n| 7  | objection from Attorney Sherman, both of them raise a very     |\n| 8  | similar issue, which is they believe they have what I think    |\n| 9  | they would term an administrative claims.<br>They have monies  |\n| 10 | that they -- either in the case of Mr. Sherman who he          |\n| 11 | believes is owed to him pursuant to a severance agreement.     |\n| 12 | In the case of G News, they outlaid a limited amount of        |\n| 13 | money when they thought their transaction was going to go      |\n| 14 | forward for rent and other expenses.                           |\n| 15 | I don't believe the -- an objection to the 9019                |\n| 16 | motion is the appropriate procedural vehicle for raising       |\n| 17 | these claims.<br>Certainly don't speak to the interests of the |\n| 18 | estate.<br>I don't believe moving forward with this settlement |\n| 19 | would in any way prejudice either parties' rights.<br>If they  |\n| 20 | have -- if these claims are valid, they'll be dealt with in    |\n| 21 | a number of ways.<br>And there'll be more than enough time to  |\n| 22 | deal with them.<br>But there's no reason to hold up the        |\n| 23 | settlement for it or to change the settlement to add other     |\n| 24 | people's claims into it.                                       |\n\nI believe, Your Honor, that leaves us with the G\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 117 of\n\n|    | 180                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>117                             |\n| 1  | Club -- what it refers to as its notice and not an             |\n| 2  | objection.<br>I should pause and say does Your Honor have any  |\n| 3  | questions before I turn to that last one?                      |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>I do not.                                        |\n| 5  | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>Your Honor              |\n| 6  | is -- I think we've been talking about G Club for a while      |\n| 7  | recently in this Court.<br>This is the same G Club entity that |\n| 8  | we have been having the discovery issues with.<br>And this, of |\n| 9  | course, involves documents again.                              |\n| 10 | G Club has in its notice made clear that they are              |\n| 11 | not objecting but that they claim that there is a master       |\n| 12 | services agreement, which is not attached, nor is any          |\n| 13 | provision cited.<br>But they say that there is now a master    |\n| 14 | services agreement -- which there may be, I don't know --      |\n| 15 | that provides -- pursuant to which all documents and emails,   |\n| 16 | in fact, for G Club, they say, in fact, were being             |\n| 17 | administered by HCHK.                                          |\n| 18 | Now, Your Honor will recall that previously we                 |\n| 19 | were told that there was, at best, a tangential relationship   |\n| 20 | between the debtor and G Club, and that's why they couldn't    |\n| 21 | produce their documents.<br>That, you know, he was an unpaid   |\n| 22 | spokesperson.<br>After that, we were told that because         |\n| 23 | executives left, documents couldn't be produced, because the   |\n| 24 | relevant people had left.                                      |\n| 25 | Now, we've sort of taken a 180, and now G Club is              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 118 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 118 saying not only is there a relationship with the debtor but, in fact, it's so close that it -- an entity which we believe we will show to be its alter ego had a management service agreement with it and that the emails were, in fact, sitting in Manhattan, available at HCHK this whole time. Be that as it may, they now have a new argument for why the trustee should not be able to get documents.\n\n They ask for a modification of the order to say that the trustee should only be allowed to see HCHK documents that only relate to HCHK. Now, the impact of that, Your Honor, quite likely is to create a null set of documents because, by HCHK's own papers, the -- what they did was they provided services for all the different debtor entities. So to the extent you can only talk about documents only related to HCHK, they would have carved it out such that I would -- my guess is that almost all their documents would once again be pulled out from the grasp of the trustee, and we would once again not have them.\n\n The second thing that they claim is that these documents are confidential and, thus, must be returned to them. And here, Your Honor, I will note that the assignee, when he was appointed, G Club didn't come forward and say these are -- you have confidential documents; you can't be looking at them. They've certainly never argued that any of these are privileged.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 119 of\n\n|    | 180<br>Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>119                      |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | And then when the assignee was going to sell all               |\n| 2  | the assets to G News, another entity which would have          |\n|    |                                                                |\n| 3  | included these same files, again, to my knowledge, no          |\n| 4  | objection to it.<br>It seems that G Club only has an objection |\n| 5  | when the trustee is going to gain access to the documents.     |\n| 6  | I don't think there's any basis for it, Your                   |\n| 7  | Honor.<br>I think the settlement should stand as it is.<br>I   |\n| 8  | think, to the extent there are responsive documents from G     |\n| 9  | Club, we will be able to see them.<br>I think the agreement    |\n| 10 | that the trustee be able to see HCHK's documents who also      |\n| 11 | had a pending 2004 against it at the time is completely        |\n| 12 | appropriate.                                                   |\n| 13 | I think, for all those reasons and what I've said              |\n| 14 | before, Your Honor, G Club's objection shouldn't stand.        |\n| 15 | The final thing I'll just mention, Your Honor,                 |\n| 16 | there are -- I did mention that fees will be paid.<br>To be    |\n| 17 | clear, the trustee has done an initial review of the           |\n| 18 | documentation.<br>The fees that are listed in the order appear |\n| 19 | to be reasonable in the trustee's view.<br>But I do note that  |\n| 20 | the trustee does have an opportunity to do a further review    |\n| 21 | to the extent there is any question to make sure that the --   |\n| 22 | any such fees are reasonable.                                  |\n| 23 | Your Honor, if you have any questions, I'm happy               |\n| 24 | to answer them.<br>Otherwise, I'll -- I have nothing further   |\n| 25 | at<br>this time.                                               |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 120 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I have no questions. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. Who wishes to be heard in response to the trustee's motion to compromise? MR. LUFT: Your Honor, I believe this is the attorney from Cole Schotz. THE COURT: Okay. Yes. Come forward, sir. So if you'd just state your name again for the record, please. MR. JARECK: For the record, Your Honor, Ryan Jareck, Cole Schotz PC, on behalf of the assignee, Mr. Hofmeister. And, Your Honor, just by way of introduction, Mr. Hofmeister is in the room. THE COURT: Okay. MR. JARECK: I just wanted to briefly introduce you to him. THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Hofmeister. MR. HOFMEISTER: Afternoon, Judge. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 120 of\n\n MR. JARECK: Your Honor, I don't know if you have a preference if I address the U.S. Trustee's objection first or the Himalaya objection as it relates to the authority issue. THE COURT: You can -- you should proceed in any\n\n way you think is appropriate. Okay? MR. JARECK: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll start\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 121 of\n\n|   | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>121                             |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | with the U.S. Trustee's objection.<br>So, Your Honor, the U.S. |\n| 2 | Trustee objects to the 9019 motion on two bases.<br>First, the |\n| 3 | U.S. Trustee objects to the proposed channeling injunction     |\n| 4 | which is paragraph 13 of the proposed order.<br>And it         |\n| 5 | secondly objects to the proposed exculpation provision,        |\n| 6 | which is paragraph 14 of the order.                            |\n\n Your Honor, we put in a response on Friday to sort of put the -- put some context as to why these are critical components of the settlement for the assignee, and I would just like to hit on a couple of points. The assignee is currently enjoined under the TRO from prosecuting the assignment proceedings. If the settlement is approved, the assignment essentially will be wound down in an orderly fashion.\n\n If the trustee obtains a dispositive ruling, the HCHK estates will essentially be folded into the Kwok estates before this Court. Accordingly, as part of the settlement discussions, it was important that any and all claims arising from the assignment proceedings be decided by this Court, be channeled to this Court as opposed to having piecemeal litigation in multiple forums. And that's the reason why the assignee requested a channeling injunction.\n\n The channeling injunction is solely intended to be a forum mechanism, and it will not -- is not intended to affect any parties' rights. If Your Honor actually has\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 122 paragraph 13 of the order or can pull it up, please. THE COURT: Of the temporary restraining order? MR. JARECK: No. Of the proposed 9019 order. THE COURT: Oh, okay. Hold on a minute. MR. JARECK: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: No, I don't have that. MR. JARECK: It's Case 23-05013, Docket Entry 25. THE COURT: Just give me a moment, and I will do that. MR. JARECK: Absolutely, Your Honor. (Pause) THE COURT: Oh, good. We've just pulled it up. What page do you want me to go to? MR. JARECK: Page 24 of 28, paragraph 13. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. JARECK: So, Your Honor, you see paragraph 13, the channeling injunction? THE COURT: Yes. MR. JARECK: It says in sum and substance, in the event of a dispositive ruling -- so in other words, assuming you're -- the -- Your Honor agrees with the trustee and finds that there is an alter ego, all creditors and equity holders shall be barred and enjoined from asserting claims and causes of action. And as you continue to scroll down, it then says, \"except as raised through the appropriate Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 122 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 123 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 123 pleadings filed in this court.\" This is not, as the United States Trustee asserts, whether it's a non-consensual, non-debtor, third-party release, this is solely a forum mechanism. This is simply a mechanism to ensure that any and all claims following a dispositive ruling be filed in this court under the Court's supervision. And, in fact, we actually thought the U.S. Trustee's Office would prefer this. When speaking with Attorney Claiborn over the weekend and as most recently as yesterday, we circulated language to make it even more clear that this was a forum mechanism. And, in fact, we proposed -- after the words \"except as raised through the appropriate pleading filed in this court,\" we proposed \"(it being expressly understood that the foregoing provision is solely intended to be a forum mechanism and not affect any parties' rights)\". That proposed revision as part of more global settlement discussions, unfortunately, was rejected. Similarly, Your Honor, the exculpation provision is very important. All right? You may have the opportunity to -- excuse me. The exculpation provision is also not a release of third-party claims. The provision, which is found in paragraph 14\n\n right below the channeling injunction provision, is contingent upon the Court issuing a dispositive ruling in\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 124 of\n\n|   | 180                                                            |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|   | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>124                             |\n| 1 | favor of the trustee.<br>Once that ruling is made, the claims, |\n| 2 | if any, against the assignee for purposes of the assignment    |\n| 3 | proceedings and the settlement agreement become estate         |\n| 4 | causes of action.<br>So any claims for mismanagement, breach   |\n| 5 | of fiduciary duty, to the extent they exist, they're no        |\n| 6 | longer direct claims of any creditor.<br>They are not estate   |\n| 7 | causes of action.                                              |\n\n In other words, the exculpation provision is more in the nature of a debtor release, not a third-party release. The Second Circuit is very clear that a debtor is authorized to release estate causes of action under Rule 9019. And I'm happy to provide the Court with citations to the extent that the Court is interested. I think it's pretty well known that debtors and trustees can compromise claims under 9019. That's what the rule's actually for.\n\n Therefore, although it is styled as an exculpation, it's more in the nature of a limited debtor release for certain acts in favor of the assignee. This is not a Purdue Pharma third-party release issue whatsoever. And to the extent the language is not clear, we're open to any modification to make sure that the intent of the assignee is explicit in the order.\n\n Your Honor, just to put it more in perspective, if the U.S. Trustee is successful and the other creditors are successful in knocking out the exculpation provision and the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 125 of\n\n|    | 180<br>Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>125                    |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | channeling injunction, after a dispositive ruling, again     |\n|    |                                                              |\n| 2  | assuming these provisions are not approved, the assignee may |\n| 3  | be subject to claims in multiple forums without any          |\n| 4  | resources to defend against them.<br>That is simply          |\n| 5  | inequitable based on the services that the assignee          |\n| 6  | performed and his professionals for these estates and the    |\n| 7  | value derived therefrom.                                     |\n| 8  | Your Honor, I'll stop there and ask if you have              |\n| 9  | any questions on our position as it relates to the           |\n| 10 | channeling injunction and the exculpation.                   |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>I do not have any questions.<br>Thank          |\n| 12 | you.                                                         |\n| 13 | MR. JARECK:<br>So, Your Honor, I'm then going to             |\n| 14 | shift to the Himalaya creditors' objection and focus on the  |\n| 15 | authority issue that has been raised by them, which I think  |\n| 16 | is more appropriate that it be addressed by the assignee and |\n| 17 | his counsel.                                                 |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 19 | MR. JARECK:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>First, the          |\n| 20 | objectors cite to numerous provisions of the deeds, New York |\n| 21 | debtor/creditor law.<br>Those provisions are simply not      |\n| 22 | applicable to what we're proposing to do by way of this      |\n| 23 | settlement.<br>And I'll just give you a few examples.        |\n| 24 | First, the objectors challenge the assignee's                |\n| 25 | authority to enter the settlement agreement, and they cite   |\n|    |                                                              |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 126 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>126                                                             |\n| 1  | to -- and, I'm sorry, in paragraphs 57 and 60.<br>They cite to                                 |\n| 2  | the deeds.<br>They cite to New York debtor/creditor law which                                  |\n| 3  | require the state court approval of any sale or disposition                                    |\n| 4  | of personal property.                                                                          |\n| 5  | The settlement agreement is not a sale of the                                                  |\n| 6  | assignor's assets.<br>The settlement agreement simply                                          |\n| 7  | contemplates the transfer of the HCHK funds from one                                           |\n| 8  | fiduciary to another fiduciary under the express supervision                                   |\n| 9  | of this Court.<br>The funds will sit in a trustee custodial                                    |\n| 10 | account pending this Court's decision on the trustee's alter                                   |\n| 11 | ego claims.                                                                                    |\n| 12 | Similarly, the objectors in paragraph 58 cite to a                                             |\n| 13 | provision of New York debtor/creditor law concerning the                                       |\n| 14 | authorization of the assignee to sell, compromise, or                                          |\n| 15 | compound any claim or debt belonging to the estate.<br>Again,                                  |\n| 16 | Your Honor, the assignee is not selling or compromising any                                    |\n| 17 | claims belonging to the assignors.<br>And, in fact, to the                                     |\n| 18 | contrary.                                                                                      |\n| 19 | There's no release provision.<br>As part of the                                                |\n| 20 | agreement, the assignee made it required that all interested                                   |\n| 21 | parties of the estates received notice of the proposed                                         |\n| 22 | settlement, and all parties' rights are expressly reserved                                     |\n| 23 | and preserved pursuant to the no-prejudice paragraph in                                        |\n| 24 | paragraph 8.                                                                                   |\n| 25 | In addition, in paragraph 61, the objectors                                                    |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 127 of\n\n|    | 180                                                         |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>127                          |\n| 1  | criticize the assignee for not providing notice and         |\n| 2  | opportunity to be heard.<br>The assignee certainly provided |\n| 3  | creditors with the opportunity to be heard in this Court.   |\n| 4  | Following entry of the expedited hearing order, notice to   |\n| 5  | these creditors were provided and a certificate of service  |\n| 6  | was filed to that effect.                                   |\n| 7  | Lastly, Your Honor, I want to note, consistent              |\n| 8  | with counsel previous brought up, that the authority issue  |\n| 9  | is actually addressed in the deeds and at Section 4F which  |\n| 10 | says that the assignee has the right to settle any and all  |\n| 11 | disputes.<br>That's precisely what we're doing here, Your   |\n| 12 | Honor.                                                      |\n| 13 | There's been several discussions with the trustee           |\n|    |                                                             |\n\n and his counsel following entry of the TRO. As a result of those discussions, the assignee determined in his business judgment to enter into this settlement as opposed to litigating the request for an injunction and the issues raised in the adversary complaint, provided that the transfer of the funds to the control of the trustee would be subject to this Court's ultimate adjudication of the issues raised in the adversary complaint.\n\n Your Honor, the assignee believes that the settlement agreement should be approved and is beneficial to creditors as the issues raised by the trustee in his complaint has to be resolved or adjudicated in one form or\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 128 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>128                                                             |\n| 1  | another.<br>The settlement avoids costly litigation but at the                                 |\n| 2  | same time preserves parties' rights to contest the trustee's                                   |\n| 3  | claims should they wish to do so.                                                              |\n| 4  | For these reasons, the assignee respectfully                                                   |\n| 5  | submits that the 9019 motion should be approved.<br>And I'll                                   |\n| 6  | stop there and ask if the Court has any questions about my                                     |\n| 7  | presentation this afternoon.                                                                   |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>I do not have any questions.<br>Thank                                            |\n| 9  | you.                                                                                           |\n| 10 | MR. JARECK:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                                                          |\n| 11 | MR. PASTORE:<br>May I approach, Your Honor?                                                    |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Yes, you may.                                                                    |\n| 13 | MR. PASTORE:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                                                         |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Could you just state your name --                                                |\n| 15 | MR. PASTORE:<br>Yeah.                                                                          |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>-- for the record, please?                                                       |\n| 17 | MR. PASTORE:<br>Of course.<br>My name is Joseph                                                |\n| 18 | Pastore from Pastore LLC.<br>With me today is my colleague,                                    |\n| 19 | Melissa McClammy.<br>We also have some summer associates in                                    |\n| 20 | the room in the back.                                                                          |\n| 21 | We represent several of the creditors of the HCHK                                              |\n| 22 | entities.<br>And if Your Honor would like, I could read it.                                    |\n| 23 | They're difficult to pronounce in numbers.<br>Or if the record                                 |\n| 24 | is fine with our brief --                                                                      |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>The record is fine.<br>Thank you.                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 129 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 129 MR. PASTORE: Great. Thank you. Your Honor, I represent creditors who, despite innuendo and statements, believe that they're bona fide creditors of these entities, loaned money, and are legitimate creditors. I have no personal relationship with them, no history with them, no history with the movement, no relationship to anything that's gone on here. I'm dropping into a play that I know has had many acts, and I only see a piece of it. And I respect that and understand it. But from our perspective, I'm here because there's creditors whose rights are being abridged by a settlement that we think is ultra vires or illegal. I think counsel for the assignee highlighted it. This is a motion to compromise. And the New York law makes clear, we just read it, that the assignee is not free to compromise -- paragraph 58, I believe, of our objection -- without court approval under New York law. And there's a reason for that. The assignee is not a creature unto himself. The assignee operates under the direction of the New York court. Very respectful of the TRO. I understand the need to freeze the money. I understand the need to be very careful. But someone has to supervise and legitimatize the assignee's compromise. He does not get to unilaterally act on his own belief. He has to seek approval in New York\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 130 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>130                                                             |\n| 1  | court.<br>And because of that, this settlement agreement is                                    |\n| 2  | unlawful, because no such approval was sought.                                                 |\n| 3  | And from our perspective, someone has to validate                                              |\n| 4  | the assignee's belief that he could disenfranchise these                                       |\n| 5  | creditors without any investigation, any information, simply                                   |\n| 6  | disenfranchise creditors that he has a fiduciary obligation                                    |\n| 7  | to serve and protect under the New York law.                                                   |\n| 8  | Now, let's be clear.<br>When I say disenfranchise,                                             |\n| 9  | the creditors of the HCHK entities, assuming they're bona                                      |\n| 10 | fide -- and I have to assume it.<br>And I've investigated it.                                  |\n| 11 | Best I know, they're legitimate creditors.<br>Good faith                                       |\n| 12 | claims.<br>Good faith monies loaned.<br>Are being completely                                   |\n| 13 | disenfranchised by this arrangement.                                                           |\n| 14 | And the assignee has had to report to no one as to                                             |\n| 15 | why he's doing that.<br>He's getting immunized for doing it.                                   |\n| 16 | He's getting \\$550,000 for doing it.<br>His counsel is getting                                 |\n| 17 | \\$400,000 for doing it.<br>And under what theory can anyone                                    |\n| 18 | suggest he's acted in the best interest of the creditors                                       |\n| 19 | he's sworn to protect?                                                                         |\n| 20 | As a result, the agreement as structured by the                                                |\n| 21 | trustee and the assignees is illegal, ultra vires.<br>This                                     |\n| 22 | Court has authority to stay the New York action.<br>But I                                      |\n| 23 | don't think this Court has the authority to tell the New                                       |\n| 24 | York court you must approve this assignment in this action                                     |\n| 25 | by the assignee.                                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 131 of\n\n|    | 180                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>131                            |\n| 1  | I think that's for the New York court to                      |\n| 2  | determine.<br>And if the New York court so determines it, the |\n| 3  | settlement could proceed.<br>But absent that, someone has to. |\n| 4  | It can't -- the assignee is not free to do this under New     |\n| 5  | York law simply on its own volition.                          |\n| 6  | With respect to the, you know, someday maybe we'll            |\n| 7  | have a finding of alter ego, maybe we will, maybe we won't.   |\n| 8  | But I don't think that's strong enough for this Court simply  |\n| 9  | to ignore the plain strictures of the New York law.<br>There  |\n| 10 | may be a finding someday of alter ego, and if that's the      |\n| 11 | case, ultimately, these monies will be transferred.<br>But    |\n| 12 | until then, it doesn't justify just ignoring the law.         |\n| 13 | So our view, Your Honor, is that this settlement              |\n| 14 | should not be approved as it's structured.<br>It's ultra      |\n| 15 | vires.<br>It's illegal.<br>And that the stricture should be   |\n| 16 | followed.                                                     |\n| 17 | We intend, if the case proceeds, to intervene in              |\n| 18 | the case and protect our creditors' rights.<br>They're        |\n| 19 | good-faith creditors of this entity and this money.<br>And we |\n| 20 | intend to try to hold the assignee to his sworn duty to       |\n| 21 | protect the rights of the creditors, my clients.              |\n| 22 | If you have any questions, Your Honor, I'm happy              |\n| 23 | to answer them.<br>That's the position of the creditors that  |\n| 24 | we represent.                                                 |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>I do not have any questions at the              |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 132 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 132 moment. MR. PASTORE: Okay. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. PASTORE: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard on the motion to compromise? MR. SHERMAN: Your Honor, may I be heard? My name is Joshua Sherman. I filed a limited objection. THE COURT: Yes. MR. SHERMAN: I just wish to state that -- THE COURT: Why don't you come up to this podium, please -- MR. SHERMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- so it'll be easier. Thank you. MR. SHERMAN: Your Honor, I just wish to state that I agree with the arguments made by the Himalaya creditors. But in addition, I just wanted to state that my own claim, I believe, is administrative in nature. I described it in my letter to the Court. The trustee and the assignee have not argued otherwise. Therefore, if the Court is inclined to approve the settlement, my claim should be included among the authorized assignee actions in a proposed order. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. ARCARO: Your Honor, good afternoon. Gregory\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 133 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 133 Arcaro appearing on behalf of G News Operations, LLC. Similar to counsel's objection, my client entered into a management agreement with the assignee and prepaid rent and other expenses pursuant to that management agreement. The proposed order and settlement agreement provides for the termination of that management agreement but does not provide for the fallout of that, which is the recoupment of the funds outlaid by my client.\n\n I heard trustee's counsel say that the objection to a motion to compromise is not the proper place to assert claims, but the trustee put that issue squarely before the Court when it proposed a payment of certain administrative -- what I would consider to be administrative claims as part of the settlement but does not propose a mechanism to pay my client, simply requesting that a mechanism be included so that my client can submit a claim and, if proved up, be paid along with other administrative claims and asserts that it stands on equal footing to all the other proposed payments in the settlement agreement, specifically in phase three, but could also come in phase two when the trustee is authorized to advance the assignee to pay certain expenses, could come either way in either section of the settlement agreement but should be a specific reference to how that claim is to be addressed. Thank you, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 134 of\n\n|    | 180                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>134                             |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                       |\n| 2  | MS. BARANOWSKY:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.                 |\n| 3  | Kelliane Baranowsky with Green & Sklarz on behalf of G Club    |\n| 4  | Operations, LLC.<br>And I'm joined with Carolina Fornos from   |\n| 5  | Pillsbury Winthrop on behalf of the same entity.               |\n| 6  | MS. FORNOS:<br>May I approach, Your Honor?                     |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Yes, please.                                     |\n| 8  | MS. FORNOS:<br>Thank you.                                      |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.                                  |\n| 10 | MS. FORNOS:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>Carolina         |\n| 11 | Fornos of Pillsbury Winthrop on behalf of G Club Operations.   |\n| 12 | Your Honor, we had filed a notice, and the frame -- the way    |\n| 13 | that the trustee has framed that notice is all about           |\n| 14 | avoiding producing documents.<br>To be clear, G Club           |\n| 15 | Operations has produced documents, not just the 300 that we    |\n| 16 | mentioned when we were last before the Court but also over     |\n| 17 | 100,000 documents that we produced this morning.<br>And there  |\n| 18 | are more that we will produce because we will comply with      |\n| 19 | the Court's order prior to July 14th.                          |\n| 20 | The issues that we are presenting to the Court is              |\n| 21 | that the trustee cannot simply walk in, assume alter ego,      |\n| 22 | assume substantive consolidation, and take hold of all         |\n| 23 | documents in the possession of HCHK.<br>To be very clear, HCHK |\n| 24 | Technologies -- and there are multiple entities.<br>The only   |\n| 25 | issue for us is HCHK Technologies.<br>That had an              |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 135 administrative and managerial position with respect to our IT. HCHK does not have the authority to transfer those rights and documents to the assignee. And the assignee does not have rights to just turn that over to the trustee. And the trustee can't just do an end-run around discovery and just say, oh, I'm just going to take all these documents, ignoring privilege, ignoring contractual rights. And that is the reason that we have filed the notice. We respectfully ask that the Court take notice that we will produce documents, but G Club has to have access to their documents, review them, account for privilege, and we will produce what is responsive. The trustee doesn't get to just take everything irrespective of privilege rights and responsiveness. Does the Court have any questions on this issue, Your Honor? Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 135 of\n\n THE COURT: I just -- the only thing I think you said that I believe I knew but I want to make sure I understand is your notice is only -- the notice that you filed on behalf of G Club Operations relates only to the HK -- HCHK Technologies entity, correct? MS. FORNOS: Yes, Your Honor. That is correct.\n\n And, Your Honor, we don't take a position -- we defer to other counsel to address the settlement. The issue is that Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 136 of\n\n|    | 180                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>136                            |\n| 1  | the proposed order as currently drafted bypasses a number of  |\n| 2  | rights and due process rights that affect G Club Operations.  |\n| 3  | Those rights start with the concept that the settlement       |\n| 4  | agreement assumes alter ego, assumes substantive              |\n| 5  | consolidation, and assumes that the trustee can just take     |\n| 6  | hold of all of our documents and do an end-run around the     |\n| 7  | discovery process.                                            |\n| 8  | That's the concern, and that's why we are flagging            |\n| 9  | that the proposed order should be modified.<br>To the extent  |\n| 10 | that the Court agrees with the settlement, the proposed       |\n| 11 | order should be modified to protect our rights.               |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Let me just ask you about the HCHK              |\n| 13 | Technologies, though.<br>HCHK Technologies executed some      |\n| 14 | document that assigned all of their rights and title and      |\n| 15 | interest and claims and assets to the assignee, right?        |\n| 16 | We're not disputing that?<br>That happened?                   |\n| 17 | MS. FORNOS:<br>Your Honor, yes.                               |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                           |\n| 19 | MS. FORNOS:<br>But I want to clarify -- let me                |\n| 20 | clarify this.<br>The trustee made it sound as if no one       |\n| 21 | objected.<br>The TRO was entered before any dates would have  |\n| 22 | come up in state court to file position statements.<br>So the |\n| 23 | TRO --                                                        |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>No, no.<br>I understand that.<br>I'm            |\n| 25 | talking about even before the TRO, though.<br>The reason the  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 137 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>137                                                             |\n| 1  | case was commenced in New York was because somebody in                                         |\n| 2  | control at HCHK Technologies signed a document assigning                                       |\n| 3  | over all of its everything to the assignee.<br>That occurred,                                  |\n| 4  | right?                                                                                         |\n| 5  | MS. FORNOS:<br>Yes, Your Honor.<br>But I don't believe                                         |\n| 6  | that the process was finished.<br>But I will defer to --                                       |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>No, no.<br>I'm not suggesting that you                                           |\n| 8  | believe that.<br>I'm just saying that's what happened, right?                                  |\n| 9  | So the assignee comes into this case in New York and has                                       |\n| 10 | assigned to him as the assignee all of these entities,                                         |\n| 11 | assets and -- for the benefit of creditors, right?<br>So that                                  |\n| 12 | the assignee's role would be to take everything in the --                                      |\n| 13 | from those entities and turn them into cash and pay                                            |\n| 14 | creditors.<br>That's what was supposed to happen.                                              |\n| 15 | MS. FORNOS:<br>Your Honor, that was, I think, the                                              |\n| 16 | intent.<br>But to be clear, the assignee steps into the shoes                                  |\n| 17 | of -- if all of that is proper under New York law --                                           |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.                                                                            |\n| 19 | MS. FORNOS:<br>-- and everything was supposed to be                                            |\n| 20 | done and everybody was afforded the opportunity to be heard                                    |\n| 21 | with that process, assuming all of that takes place, the                                       |\n| 22 | assignee takes the -- would arguably take the shoes of HCHK                                    |\n| 23 | Technologies and step into the shoes of those contracts.                                       |\n| 24 | And under those contracts, the assignee would still be bound                                   |\n| 25 | by those agreements.<br>And those agreements specifically                                      |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 138 of\n\n|    | 180                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>138                             |\n| 1  | contain confidentiality provisions and specific provisions     |\n| 2  | that prevented the assignee or HCHK from just transferring     |\n| 3  | all documents --                                               |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                            |\n| 5  | MS. FORNOS:<br>-- irrespective of --                           |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Did you point out in your notice --              |\n| 7  | and I apologize if you did, and I just didn't see it --        |\n| 8  | where in the agreements between G Club Operations and HCHK     |\n| 9  | Technologies there's this confidentiality provision?           |\n| 10 | MS. FORNOS:<br>Your Honor, we did not attach the               |\n| 11 | master services agreement.<br>We note for the record that      |\n| 12 | counsel for the trustee was provided not only with the         |\n| 13 | master services agreement originally in the original           |\n| 14 | production of the 300 documents, the Court may recall that     |\n| 15 | the Court specifically asked me about HCHK at the last         |\n| 16 | hearing and --                                                 |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>I asked about the confidentiality                |\n| 18 | provisions, right, and whether the members had any -- I'm      |\n| 19 | not talking about HCHK.<br>I'm talking about G Club right now. |\n| 20 | You were talking about -- I said is there any contractual      |\n| 21 | basis upon which a member would have a belief that their       |\n| 22 | information would remain confidential.                         |\n| 23 | MS. FORNOS:<br>Your Honor, I will answer that.                 |\n| 24 | There's two different --                                       |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Sure.<br>Go ahead.                               |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 139 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 139 MS. FORNOS: -- issues. There's the membership agreements and the membership rights. And the Court properly raised that issue last time, and we did look into it and determined that we do have the ability to provide it subject to the protective order, which is what we discussed with the trustee and resolved that. THE COURT: Okay. MS. FORNOS: This confidentiality issue that we're talking about is a separate issue. This is our entire IT system. This is all of our email communications. This is Microsoft 365. THE COURT: Right. MS. FORNOS: This is -- THE COURT: But you have to have some agreement with HCHK regarding that. MS. FORNOS: And that contains a confidentiality agreement with respect -- THE COURT: Okay. That's what I'm asking. MS. FORNOS: -- to all of our -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. FORNOS: -- all of our information. And that does exist, and we have provided a copy of that agreement to the trustee -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. FORNOS: -- multiple times and have copied him\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 140 of\n\n|    | 180                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>140                           |\n| 1  | on communications with HCHK demanding this information back. |\n| 2  | And accordingly, Your Honor, the way the proposed            |\n| 3  | order is structured right now does not take into account --  |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Well, when you say this information,           |\n| 5  | what information are you talking about?<br>Isn't it all      |\n| 6  | software if they were controlling your systems?              |\n| 7  | MS. FORNOS:<br>It's IT.<br>It's emails and other             |\n| 8  | applications, Your Honor.                                    |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Okay.                                 |\n| 10 | MS. FORNOS:<br>And we simply ask that the Court take         |\n| 11 | notice that the trustee cannot just do an end-run and just   |\n| 12 | step in and say I'm going to just take everything.           |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Well, whether or not that's what the           |\n| 14 | trustee's saying, I don't know.<br>That's what you're saying |\n| 15 | the trustee's saying.<br>But my question was, what --        |\n| 16 | you're -- you are asserting on behalf of G Clubs (sic)       |\n| 17 | Operations that there is an agreement between G Club         |\n| 18 | Operations and HCHK Technologies in which there's a          |\n| 19 | confidentiality provision with regard to the information     |\n| 20 | that HCHK manages on behalf of G Club Operations?<br>That's  |\n| 21 | what you're --                                               |\n| 22 | MS. FORNOS:<br>Correct, Your Honor.                          |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 24 | MS. FORNOS:<br>That's correct.                               |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>And you've provided that information           |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 141 to the trustee, is what you've said. MS. FORNOS: Yes. THE COURT: And you're saying that -- are you saying that it should never be turned over, or you need it back? What are you saying with regard to the information that is in the agreement between G Club and HCHK aside from the members that we talked about already? MS. FORNOS: Yes. That all information should be returned to G Club so that G Club can perform review, determine responsiveness, produce what's responsive, and withhold privileged information. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. That's what I wanted to be clear about. MS. FORNOS: Thank you, Your Honor. MS. CLAIBORN: Again, Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. I think I'm the last of the objecting parties to present to the Court today. The U.S. Trustee filed a limited objection to the settlement. It's at ECF 1978, and it takes issue with three things. I'm going to take the easiest of it first, and I'm going to go back into the more substantive discussion. The easy part has to do with the trustee's use of the funds that he gets if the Court approves the settlement and what people should know about that. And the U.S. Trustee took the position that we should have some greater transparency with Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 141 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 142 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>142                                                             |\n| 1  | respect to that and some guard rails to know what's going to                                   |\n| 2  | happen.                                                                                        |\n| 3  | The U.S. Trustee proposed that the monthly list of                                             |\n| 4  | what gets paid be filed by the trustee.<br>I think the trustee                                 |\n| 5  | is on board with that.<br>The U.S. Trustee also proposed that                                  |\n| 6  | for an expense that exceeded \\$25,000 that there be given an                                   |\n| 7  | opportunity for the U.S. Trustee and the committee to weigh                                    |\n| 8  | in on whether or not that that was an appropriate expense.                                     |\n| 9  | And the trustee has pushed back and asked for that be                                          |\n| 10 | increased to \\$50,000.                                                                         |\n| 11 | I don't think I heard any argument other than that                                             |\n| 12 | it's more efficient to have a threshold of \\$50,000.<br>I think                                |\n| 13 | the problem really is, is that we don't really know what the                                   |\n| 14 | trustee's going to be doing with the money.<br>And we ought to                                 |\n| 15 | have some sort of mechanism to assure ourselves that an                                        |\n| 16 | expense that's significant is properly before the parties to                                   |\n| 17 | know what's happening before it happens.                                                       |\n| 18 | So the U.S. Trustee thought that the \\$25,000                                                  |\n| 19 | marker was a better threshold for what would be a reasonable                                   |\n| 20 | threshold for knowing what's going to happen in advance of                                     |\n| 21 | it happening.<br>So the U.S. Trustee would like that to be the                                 |\n| 22 | threshold at which the trustee has to take into                                                |\n| 23 | consideration the opinion of the U.S. Trustee and the                                          |\n| 24 | committee.<br>And to be clear, to the extent that the U.S.                                     |\n| 25 | Trustee has a problem with the proposed expense, it's the                                      |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 143 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>143                                                             |\n| 1  | U.S. Trustee's burden to come back to the Court to take it                                     |\n| 2  | up with the Court.                                                                             |\n| 3  | Going back to the other two issues that the U.S.                                               |\n| 4  | Trustee raised in the objection.<br>They are important issues.                                 |\n| 5  | And they are issues of some significance right now in courts                                   |\n| 6  | across the nation, including the Second Circuit.                                               |\n| 7  | The proposed settlement agreement includes two                                                 |\n| 8  | provisions that work hand in hand with each other.                                             |\n| 9  | Paragraph 13 of the proposed order provides for a channeling                                   |\n| 10 | injunction, and paragraph 14 of the proposed order provides                                    |\n| 11 | for an exculpation.<br>And they are as broad as can possibly                                   |\n| 12 | be written.<br>And there is no dispute that they actually do                                   |\n| 13 | intend to protect the assignee and his professionals from                                      |\n| 14 | claims of others who are not the debtors, the debtor's                                         |\n| 15 | estate, or claims by the trustee.                                                              |\n| 16 | The definition of who is protected is referred to                                              |\n| 17 | as the assignee, but it does, for clarification -- and --                                      |\n| 18 | reference not only the assignee, Mr. Hofmeister, but several                                   |\n| 19 | professionals.<br>So it's a group.<br>And it includes counsel                                  |\n| 20 | who made the presentation today on behalf of the assignee,                                     |\n| 21 | the firm of Cole Schotz.                                                                       |\n| 22 | The exculpation that is included in the order and                                              |\n| 23 | the settlement agreement is absolutely within the purview of                                   |\n| 24 | this Court to decide if it's appropriate.<br>And it's the U.S.                                 |\n| 25 | Trustee's position that it's not appropriate, because it's a                                   |\n|    |                                                                                                |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 144 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>144                                                             |\n| 1  | functional equivalent of an improper non-consensual release                                    |\n| 2  | of a third-party claim.                                                                        |\n| 3  | Stepping back from that for a minute.<br>If the                                                |\n| 4  | trustee were to be proposing that the trustee wants to                                         |\n| 5  | release the estate's claims against the assignee and his                                       |\n| 6  | professionals, the trustee has the capacity to do that.<br>But                                 |\n| 7  | that's not what the language proposed says.                                                    |\n| 8  | The language proposed goes far beyond that.<br>It                                              |\n| 9  | talks about any liability to any person or entity and then                                     |\n| 10 | goes on to talk about the various different conduct.<br>And                                    |\n| 11 | included, for example, in that conduct that is not protected                                   |\n| 12 | and reserved is criminal conduct.<br>So, for example, if a                                     |\n| 13 | government agency wanted to take steps to pursue criminal                                      |\n| 14 | charges, those would arguably be barred by the exculpation                                     |\n| 15 | language that's in the proposed order.                                                         |\n| 16 | The U.S. Trustee doesn't believe that the proposed                                             |\n| 17 | language for exculpation meets the standards that the Second                                   |\n| 18 | Circuit has articulated recently in the Purdue Pharma case.                                    |\n| 19 | None of the factors that are cited in that case, and there                                     |\n| 20 | are seven of them, appear to have been met by the proposed                                     |\n| 21 | motion and settlement terms.<br>And the Court has to evaluate                                  |\n| 22 | whether or not it actually has the ability to approve that                                     |\n| 23 | release, because it affects the claims of not just this                                        |\n| 24 | estate but of third parties who are not here and are not                                       |\n| 25 | subject to the subject matter of this Court and this                                           |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 145 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>145                                                             |\n| 1  | jurisdiction.<br>And you may have claims that have not been                                    |\n| 2  | articulated or presented to this Court.                                                        |\n| 3  | Even to the extent that this Court determines for                                              |\n| 4  | some reason that the Purdue Pharma factors have actually                                       |\n| 5  | been met, the Purdue Pharma decision recently issued by the                                    |\n| 6  | Second Circuit makes it very clear that this Court does not                                    |\n| 7  | have the actual authority to finally approve the proposed                                      |\n| 8  | channeling injunction and the exculpation, because any                                         |\n| 9  | findings it would make would just be proposed findings that                                    |\n| 10 | would have to be approved and blessed and adopted by the                                       |\n| 11 | District Court.<br>And that's because this is a non-core                                       |\n| 12 | proceeding, and it violates the opinion of the United States                                   |\n| 13 | Supreme Court in Stern v. Marshall to the extent it's asking                                   |\n| 14 | this Court to just bypass and adopt full jurisdiction,                                         |\n| 15 | because it doesn't have it.                                                                    |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>So wait a minute.<br>Let me stop you on                                          |\n| 17 | that question, because I'm not sure I follow you.<br>The Court                                 |\n| 18 | doesn't have core jurisdiction to decide a motion to -- for                                    |\n| 19 | settlement under this -- in this case because why?                                             |\n| 20 | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>I'll be more specific.                                                        |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                                                            |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>The Court does not have                                                       |\n| 23 | jurisdiction to approve the channeling injunction and the                                      |\n| 24 | exculpation because together they comprise a non-consensual                                    |\n| 25 | release of third-party claims that do not belong to this                                       |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 146 estate. That -- THE COURT: So but -- MS. CLAIBORN: That determination about jurisdiction -- THE COURT: But you're taking about jurisdiction, so -- you're talking about jurisdiction, so we -- I just want to be -- MS. CLAIBORN: So my argument is -- THE COURT: I just want to make sure I understand your position clearly. MS. CLAIBORN: My argument is twofold. One, that we don't think that the factors articulated in the Purdue Pharma decision -- THE COURT: That I get. I -- MS. CLAIBORN: -- have been met. THE COURT: The Seventh Circuit -- the seven factors haven't been met. MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: But even if they have, I can't decide them anyway, because they're not core -- MS. CLAIBORN: You don't have final approval authority. THE COURT: -- they're not core proceedings, and they'd have to be referred to the district court? MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 146 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 147 of\n\n|    | 180                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>147                           |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>But couldn't -- even if you're                 |\n| 2  | correct, which I don't know if you are or not, because I     |\n| 3  | haven't studied what you just said until -- I didn't         |\n| 4  | appreciate what you're saying until now, can I enter         |\n| 5  | proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule  |\n| 6  | 7052?                                                        |\n| 7  | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>You can.<br>But the district court          |\n| 8  | has to ultimately weigh in on that.                          |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>I understand.<br>Okay.<br>All right.           |\n| 10 | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>And that's --                               |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>I'm just asking.                               |\n| 12 | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>And that's with respect to just the         |\n| 13 | issues of the exculpation provision --                       |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Yep.                                           |\n| 15 | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>-- and the channeling injunction.           |\n| 16 | The other thing that I want to point out is that             |\n| 17 | there is no statutory authority for this Court to approve a  |\n| 18 | channeling injunction outside the confines of the plan.      |\n| 19 | That issue is a big issue, and it stops this channeling      |\n| 20 | injunction request in its tracks.<br>The only mechanisms --  |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Doesn't that -- aren't people asking           |\n| 22 | for that all the time in -- I actually have -- the Chapter 7 |\n| 23 | trustee is asking for those, and no one's raising an issue   |\n| 24 | about channeling injunctions and no statutory authority.     |\n| 25 | And I -- and in Chapter 11 cases when there aren't plans     |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 148 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 148 confirmed yet. And where does 542(g), I think, say that it has to be in connection with a plan? I'm not sure it does. There's been a lot of controversy over that, hasn't there? MS. CLAIBORN: There has been, Your Honor. And it's 524(g). THE COURT: What did I say, 42? MS. CLAIBORN: Yeah. THE COURT: I said it backwards? MS. CLAIBORN: That's okay. THE COURT: 24(g). Sorry. MS. CLAIBORN: So the point is that the authority to impose that restriction on others is found only in that section. And courts have determined that that section does authorize channeling injunctions outside the concept of the specific language that's in there that refers to asbestos cases. That said, there is no case law that we're aware of that authorizes the Court to impose this channeling injunction outside the confines of a plan. All of the case law determines the appropriateness of a channeling injunction in the confines of an actual plan. THE COURT: Okay. MS. CLAIBORN: So it's the U.S. Trustee's position that this Court does not have authority to do -- THE COURT: There's no statutory authority to --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 149 of\n\n|    | 180                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>149                             |\n| 1  | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>Correct.                                      |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>-- to allow that.<br>Okay.                       |\n| 3  | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>Correct.                                      |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>I -- that help -- that's helpful to --           |\n| 5  | for you to just articulate that.<br>I wasn't exactly sure.     |\n| 6  | But that -- now I understand what you're saying.               |\n| 7  | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>So circling back to the proposal,             |\n| 8  | if it were scaled back to the idea that the trustee wants to   |\n| 9  | release the assignee and his professionals for claims that     |\n| 10 | the estate may have against them, that's within the            |\n| 11 | trustee's purview.<br>But the trustee does not have the        |\n| 12 | authority to ask this Court to bless releases of claims held   |\n| 13 | by third parties against the assignee and his professionals.   |\n| 14 | And so we're asking the Court to deny that part of             |\n| 15 | the settlement agreement with respect to the two provisions,   |\n| 16 | because they have to be read in harmony with each other.<br>So |\n| 17 | that's 13 and 14 in the proposed order, and we would ask       |\n| 18 | that those be stricken from the proposed order to the extent   |\n| 19 | that the Court approves the actual settlement agreement        |\n| 20 | that's before the Court.                                       |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                              |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>Thank you.                                    |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Any response from the trustee?                   |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes, Your Honor.<br>The first response         |\n| 25 | is would it be possible to take a ten-minute recess, so we     |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 150 can discuss -- THE COURT: Yes. But actually, before we do, is there anybody else that has an objection that hasn't been heard? And who are you representing, Attorney Moriarty? MR. MORIARTY: The debtor, Your Honor. And -- THE COURT: Which debtor? MR. MORIARTY: Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Mr. Kwok? MR. MORIARTY: Mr. Kwok. THE COURT: He's -- MR. MORIARTY: I'm not objecting. THE COURT: He isn't -- MR. MORIARTY: I just want to state for the record that the debtor does not take any position on the settlement agreement or the motion. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: And that is it. Okay? THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Yes, let's take a ten-minute break -- recess. Court is in recess until 4 p.m. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise. Court is in recess until 4 p.m. (Recess from 3:51 p.m. to 4:05 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 150 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 151 of\n\n|    | 180                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>151                           |\n| 1  | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>All rise.<br>United States          |\n| 2  | Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut is back --  |\n| 3  | is now in session.                                           |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Please be seated.                              |\n| 5  | Okay.<br>We took a recess a little before -- around          |\n| 6  | 3:50-ish, I guess, Trustee Despins.<br>So where do we stand  |\n| 7  | now?                                                         |\n| 8  | MR. DESPINS:<br>I'm happy to report that we have             |\n| 9  | reached an agreement with the assignee which I think         |\n| 10 | resolves a lot of the issues that were raised regarding      |\n| 11 | exculpation and channeling.<br>And the agreement is as       |\n| 12 | follows.                                                     |\n| 13 | The trustee will release any estate cause of                 |\n| 14 | action against the assignee and/or his professionals.<br>And |\n| 15 | we obviously -- you know, I don't have to tell you this.     |\n| 16 | You know it better than I do.<br>The trustee can do that     |\n| 17 | subject to Your Honor's approval.<br>We believe there are no |\n| 18 | such claims, but we would be releasing them as part of the   |\n| 19 | settlement.                                                  |\n| 20 | And as far as channeling, there wouldn't be a                |\n| 21 | broad channeling injunction that concerned the U.S. Trustee, |\n| 22 | but rather there would be basically the Court being placed   |\n| 23 | into the gatekeeper function, meaning that anyone who wants  |\n| 24 | to assert a claim against the assignee or his professionals  |\n| 25 | with respect to his role as assignee and the assignment for  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 152 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 152 the benefit of the creditor must first file such claim before this Court so that the Court can determine whether that cause of action was released by the trustee pursuant to the release that we would be giving.\n\n And by the way, that release would only be given if Your Honor approves, you know, the third stage of the settlement, which is if Your Honor approves the alter ego or equitable ownership claims that the trustee has brought forward. If that's not approved, all of -- all bets are off. There's no release. There's no gatekeeper function by the Court. This would all be done in the third phase of this process.\n\n But, again, the trustee would release only estate claims against the assignee and his professionals. There would be a provision and -- you know, the assignee is okay with this subject to reviewing the language, his counsel reviewing the language. But the concept would be that any claims against the assignee or his professionals must first be brought before this Court so that the Court may determine whether those claims are subject to the release.\n\n Because this -- as you know, the issue whether people have direct claims or not in this context is very murky. And we don't want people to be suing all over the place until Your Honor determines, yes, that's a direct claim not subject to the trustee release; go ahead and you\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 153 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>153                                                             |\n| 1  | can sue whoever you want.<br>We hope that will not happen.                                     |\n| 2  | But the point is that that right is protected.                                                 |\n| 3  | But the Court would play a gatekeeper function.                                                |\n| 4  | We believe there's plenty of support for giving the Court                                      |\n| 5  | jurisdiction to do solely that.<br>Because they're not being                                   |\n| 6  | precluded from bringing the other claims; they're just --                                      |\n| 7  | there's just one step, which is they need to start with this                                   |\n| 8  | Court so the Court can protect its jurisdiction, i.e. did --                                   |\n| 9  | are these claims derivative claims or are they claims that                                     |\n| 10 | are direct and not derivative.<br>And that determination must                                  |\n| 11 | be made by this Court, the Court that approved -- or if Your                                   |\n| 12 | Honor approves it, that would approve the settlement.                                          |\n| 13 | So that's the -- I think that resolves that issue.                                             |\n| 14 | My colleagues will address other issues raised by other                                        |\n| 15 | claim creditors or alleged creditors.<br>But that issue, to                                    |\n| 16 | me, I think that resolves a -- an issue in a way that's                                        |\n| 17 | favorable to the estate but also that should make the Court                                    |\n| 18 | comfortable that you have the jurisdiction and power and                                       |\n| 19 | that it's appropriate to issue such -- that type of order.                                     |\n| 20 | The only point -- before I cede the podium to my                                               |\n| 21 | colleague, I would just say, Your Honor, every time people                                     |\n| 22 | who -- whose name starts with a G -- and I don't mean a                                        |\n| 23 | first name, but a company starts with a G appears in court                                     |\n\n here, putting themselves at -- or asking for -- the Court for protection, I would be very concerned that we need to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 154 of\n\n|    | 180                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>154                             |\n| 1  | see how the dust settles on these things.<br>We need to see    |\n| 2  | what's what, what happened.<br>And, you know, I would be very  |\n| 3  | concerned about any attempt to derail this or for people       |\n| 4  | saying, well, I want a special deal as well.                   |\n| 5  | First of all, it's important to understand that                |\n| 6  | the relief that the assignee and his professionals are         |\n| 7  | getting, they're getting that only if Your Honor determines    |\n| 8  | that this -- these entities are alter egos of the debtor.      |\n| 9  | If not, they're not getting that.<br>And at that stage, people |\n| 10 | will be free to say, oh, I'm an admin creditor of the          |\n| 11 | estate; let me explain to you why.<br>And we'll determine that |\n| 12 | at that time.                                                  |\n| 13 | But this is not today the proper (indiscernible)               |\n| 14 | or process to have the claims of people who would like to be   |\n| 15 | recognized as admin -- eventual admin claimants.<br>That's not |\n| 16 | the proper context.                                            |\n| 17 | But I'll -- on that note, Your Honor, I'll cede                |\n| 18 | the podium to my colleagues.                                   |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Let me ask you one question about what           |\n| 20 | you just explained as a resolution of the release issues and   |\n| 21 | the exculpation issues.<br>You're saying that you'll agree to  |\n| 22 | limit the release language to say that the trustee will        |\n| 23 | agree only estate claims against the assignee are released     |\n| 24 | and that if any --                                             |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:<br>And his professionals.<br>Yes.                 |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 155 THE COURT: Go ahead. I'm sorry. What? MR. DESPINS: And his professionals. THE COURT: And his professionals. Okay. And that if any party has a claim -- what they believe is a claim against the assignee and his professionals, they have to bring that claim before this Court? MR. DESPINS: Or file a motion before the Court saying I want to be authorized to bring that claim in -- wherever they want to bring it, in New York state court, and let me explain to the Court why that claim that I have -- this is the creditor speaking now -- is not covered by the release that the trustee gave to the -- to these folks. THE COURT: Then how do these creditors know that? How are they going to know that? MR. DESPINS: Well, in the notice that they would get -- again, this only happens in the third phase. If Your Honor rules that these entities are alter egos of the debtor, at that point there would be a notice given that says that any -- and we can work on the language -- but that any creditor that believes that they have such a claim need to file first a motion with this Court to be authorized to bring any such claim. That's a minimum -- you know, frankly, in terms of due process, it -- it's a very light impediment to them Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 155 of\n\nexercising their rights and -- because, at the end of the\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 156 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>156                                                             |\n| 1  | day, it's very likely that all these claims are derivative                                     |\n| 2  | claims and, therefore, that we own those claims.<br>And that's                                 |\n| 3  | why it's important to have that gatekeeper function, Your                                      |\n| 4  | Honor.                                                                                         |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>How does the proposed -- let's -- if                                             |\n| 6  | you are successful and the motion to compromise is granted,                                    |\n| 7  | how does the proposed order at this point address that                                         |\n| 8  | issue --                                                                                       |\n| 9  | MR. DESPINS:<br>We would --                                                                    |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>-- that you --                                                                   |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:<br>We need to submit new language to                                              |\n| 12 | Your Honor.<br>But, basically, I would say ignore the sections                                 |\n| 13 | that -- on exculpation on channeling that you have before                                      |\n| 14 | you now.<br>We will submit one provision that says the                                         |\n| 15 | trustee -- if the Court grants the relief, we call that                                        |\n| 16 | the -- in the dispositive motion, meaning the summary                                          |\n| 17 | judgment or whatever motion we bring -- the trustee will                                       |\n| 18 | release, add that point, all claims against the assignee and                                   |\n| 19 | his professionals.                                                                             |\n| 20 | And the Court will, at that point, enter an                                                    |\n| 21 | order -- or, you know, of course, subject to Your Honor's                                      |\n| 22 | consent, would enter an order saying that any creditor                                         |\n| 23 | wishing to assert a claim against the assignee or his                                          |\n| 24 | professionals must first file a motion before this Court to                                    |\n| 25 | be authorized to do so, so that the Court can determine                                        |\n|    |                                                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 157 whether the claims to be asserted are claims that are derivative, meaning that are still owned by the estate, or a direct claim of these creditors, something along those lines. Again, I hesitate to give too much language, because counsel for the assignee has not reviewed this language. But those are the concepts, Your Honor. So, obviously, we need to submit a new order to Your Honor. You know, there's no doubt about that. THE COURT: All right. But for right now, your proposal addresses the United States Trustee's objections? MR. DESPINS: Well, no. THE COURT: Oh, she's shaking her head. MR. DESPINS: No, I don't -- I said that we resolved this with the assignee. THE COURT: It doesn't resolve it with the U.S. Trustee. Okay. MS. CLAIBORN: It does resolve the U.S. Trustee's concerns with response to the release. The estate is authorized to propose a release of whoever it wants to release. And it's up to the Court as to whether or not that's appropriate. We're not arguing that point. What we were arguing about was whether or not you could release other claims that belong to third parties who are not the estate Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 157 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 158 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>158                                                             |\n| 1  | and not the debtor.<br>So that issue, I think, can be dealt                                    |\n| 2  | with by language and can be resolved.                                                          |\n| 3  | The issue as to the proposed mechanism for the                                                 |\n| 4  | Court to be a gatekeeper, I don't have any authority to                                        |\n| 5  | consent to that at this point.<br>I need to see the language                                   |\n| 6  | and discuss it with the U.S. Trustee and circle back to the                                    |\n| 7  | Court and to the parties.                                                                      |\n| 8  | MR. DESPINS:<br>But, again, I think that we're far                                             |\n| 9  | away from the channeling injunction where it was mandatory                                     |\n| 10 | that any claims be brought here for -- on the merits.                                          |\n| 11 | Basically, it's solely a gatekeeper function.<br>And I believe                                 |\n| 12 | that there are precedents for courts doing that, so.                                           |\n| 13 | But, anyway, if I could have my colleague address                                              |\n| 14 | other -- I mean, unless you have other questions, Your                                         |\n| 15 | Honor.<br>There are other objectors, and that raises -- raised                                 |\n| 16 | issues.<br>And I'd like my colleague to address these points                                   |\n| 17 | if possible.                                                                                   |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>I'm just looking to see if I have any                                            |\n| 19 | other questions.<br>I don't have any other questions at the                                    |\n| 20 | moment, but that doesn't mean I might not, depending upon                                      |\n| 21 | what else is --                                                                                |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:<br>So I'll -- if -- I'll ask Mr. Luft                                             |\n| 23 | to come to the podium to address --                                                            |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                                                              |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor, may I approach?                                                       |\n|    |                                                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 159 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 159 THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. DESPINS: Actually, Your Honor, there's one point I -- this is purely procedural before Mr. Luft comes up. Mr. Goldman asked me whether the committee could have a review right regarding the fees of the assignee's professionals, and that was agreed to. THE COURT: With the assignee as well? MR. DESPINS: Just the assignee's professionals. Because the assignee, there's nothing to review. It's a -- meaning the -- THE COURT: No, but you -- MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: But the -- MR. DESPINS: They agreed to that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. DESPINS: I apologize. I didn't understand your question. The second point is that Mr. Luft accurately described the provision saying that the funds would be invested in treasuries. That's the current version. But we need to modify that -- and, again, the assignee has agreed to this -- to provide that we can also keep it in the trustee Section 345 accounts. Because, to make a long story short, after we told the bank that we were going to take the money and invest it in treasuries, they said, well, you know, guess what, we'll\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 160 offer you 4.95 percent, which is just like a quarter point or half a point less than treasuries. And that's in a 345 account. So we decided to -- THE COURT: You mean U.S. Bank offered you that? Is that what you're saying? MR. DESPINS: No. A bank -- THE COURT: Oh. MR. DESPINS: -- but not U.S. Bank. Not this U.S. Bank. But the bank that holds the other trustee accounts in the case. THE COURT: Okay. Got it. MR. DESPINS: And they've agreed to give us -- THE COURT: The estate trustee accounts. MR. DESPINS: -- 4.95 percent, which is pretty -- it's not marketing for them, but that's a pretty high interest rate. And it's a Section 345 account. So the U.S. Trustee is happy. So the point is that we need to modify that section to allow for the money to be deposited in such accounts. But that -- those are the only two procedural points I wanted to make. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. Avi Luft again from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. I will try to be brief, because I realize it is getting late. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 160 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 161 of\n\n| 180 |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n|     | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>161                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 1   | I will go in order in which it was discussed.                  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2   | Your Honor, with regard to the comments made by the -- what    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3   | I've referred to as the Himalaya objectors, I want to focus    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4   | just on two things really.<br>The first is that nowhere in     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5   | there was there any discussion of the Iridium factors or       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6   | that, in fact, this is not in the best interest of the         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7   | debtor's estate.<br>And that's really what we're here for on a |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8   | 9019 settlement.                                               |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9   | In fact, I didn't hear that from anybody.<br>And to            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10  | be honest, I think that really is where the analysis should    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11  | be focused.                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12  | Beyond that, Your Honor, I do want to just                     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13  | comment.<br>There was a lot of language thrown around about    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14  | people being \"completely disenfranchised\" and suggestions      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15  | that they won't be able to have claims.<br>That's just not how |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16  | this settlement is structured, Your Honor.                     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17  | To the extent the trustee prevails in the                      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18  | adversary proceeding with regard to either alter ego and/or    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19  | equitable ownership, to the extent people are valid            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20  | creditors of the HCHK entities, then they will have an         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21  | opportunity to bring claims in this case subject to the        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22  | trustee making his application to reopen the deadline for      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23  | filing claims, which is already provided for in the order.     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24  | And to the extent the trustee is to lose, then the money is    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25  | returned to the assignee.<br>In which case, they're in -- no   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 162 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 162 worse off. So all this language with regard to people being disenfranchised or losing claims just isn't true. And I think in the papers that they filed, the reality kind of is there. There's a reference to the fact that what they really think is unfair is that in the New York state court case they would have only been competing with other creditors of HCHK, but if the trustee is to prevail on his alter ego claims then they will be subject -- equal with the other creditors of the debtor. But that's actually quite fair, Your Honor. If we are right that HCHK entities are alter egos of the debtor, then creditors of one -- of one aspect of the debtor's estate is -- should be treated the exact same as creditors of other aspects of the estate. So with that, Your Honor, unless you have questions, I'll move on to the others. THE COURT: I have no questions. MR. LUFT: Thank you. With regard to Mr. Sherman's statement, he made a brief reference that we did not specifically disagree with him that his claim is an admin claim. Your Honor, what I said in my opening statement was that I thought it was premature to deal with what -- these claims. And just so we're clear, I would not take the fact\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 163 that I did not get into the details as to whether or not it is an admin claim as any type of agreement that it is. I think when the time and the place is right, it could be submitted. It could be considered. THE COURT: Well, when would the time and the place be right? I'm just asking. MR. LUFT: Yeah, Your Honor. That's completely fair. I think, should we prevail on the adversary proceeding and it is determined that we are -- that the HCHK assets are part of the debtor's estate, then I think any creditors of the debtor, whether through HCHK or otherwise, here I think Mr. Sherman or whoever else, can come forward and say I have a claim, and they can assert it. THE COURT: But what if it's an administrative claim? MR. LUFT: Your Honor, in terms of the timing, I still think that would probably be the right time just because prior -- THE COURT: Okay. I'm just asking, because there is -- MR. LUFT: No, it's completely fair. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. LUFT: Look, Mr. Sherman's free to raise it to us now. We can talk about it. I just don't think it has any bearing on the settlement. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 163 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 164 of\n\n| 180 |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n|     | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>164                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 1   | As I -- the only thing I'll finish with is, to the             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2   | extent we were to lose, then the money would go back to the    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3   | assignee, and then he would have to make the judgments,        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4   | which is why I time it to awaiting that judgment.              |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5   | With regard to G News, I'll simply say, look,                  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6   | there is no obligation because you settle a claim with one     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7   | party to settle all claims that any party may have.<br>Again,  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8   | this is a settlement that was reached -- with the assignee     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9   | and the trustee.<br>That's whose claims are being addressed.   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10  | I don't think the fact that that is happening in               |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11  | any way prejudices G News.<br>Again, we will deal with their   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12  | claim at the appropriate time.                                 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13  | Finally, with regard to G Club, I just want to                 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14  | make a few comments.<br>First of all, I'll note they're not a  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15  | creditor, Your Honor.<br>It's not exactly clear on what        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16  | grounds they are objecting to this settlement.                 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17  | I will note specifically there was no mention with             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18  | regard to the language I highlighted which is in their         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19  | proposal in paragraph 6 of their notice that we may only       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20  | look at documents pertaining \"only to the HCHK entities.\"      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21  | As I said, the inclusion of that language which they added     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22  | and which they did not address now very likely could create    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23  | a null set of what documents the trustee may see.<br>I don't   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24  | think it's appropriate.<br>Nor do they seem to have a response |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25  | with regard to it.                                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 165 of\n\n|    | 180                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>165                             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 1  | With regard to this idea that HCHK controls all                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | their emails and all their IT, I'll note that despite what     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | is now going on seven, perhaps eight, months this -- this      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | notice was the first time we've heard that HCHK -- or in the   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | last weeks the first time we've heard that HCHK's emails       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | were, in fact, all controlled by a third party and that HCHK   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | ran it all.<br>We've never heard that from G Club when they    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | had -- were asked to produce their documents for months.       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | They now raise privilege and confidentiality                   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | issues.<br>I don't see how they can do that.<br>They didn't    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | object when the assignee was sent the documents.<br>They       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | didn't seem to have a problem with HCHK having their           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 | documents.<br>And they didn't seem to have an objection to the |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 | idea of the assignee selling it all to G News and letting      |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | them have all their documents.                                 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | You know, I think to the extent there ever was any             |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | privilege or confidentiality concerns, of which I have         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | questions, those are -- in my view have been waived.<br>It     |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | seems that everyone else is allowed to see these documents.    |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 | It'd be appropriate for the trustee.                           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 | Finally, with regard to the notion your -- the                 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | Court asked questions with regard to the MSA and what          |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | provisions you asked.<br>It is quite possible that the MSA was |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | produced to us along with the other documents.<br>Certainly,   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 | no provision in the MSA was highlighted to us.<br>No language  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2119 | Filed 08/24/23 | Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 | Page 166 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n|    | 180                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>166                             |\n| 1  | was shown to us.<br>Nor was any included in this agreement     |\n| 2  | indicating what was being allegedly violated or otherwise.     |\n| 3  | Again, I think the most appropriate thing is to                |\n| 4  | let the trustee, just like the assignee, put them in the       |\n| 5  | same position.<br>Let them have the documents of HCHK.<br>Let  |\n| 6  | them use it for -- to the extent they need to review it.<br>If |\n| 7  | there are G Club documents included within that, then that     |\n| 8  | was always the case.<br>It didn't seem to be a problem before. |\n| 9  | It shouldn't be a problem now.                                 |\n| 10 | Your Honor, if you have any questions, I'm happy               |\n| 11 | to answer them.                                                |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>I have no questions.<br>Thank you.               |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                            |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Anyone else wish to be heard?                    |\n| 15 | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>Irve Goldman         |\n| 16 | for the committee.<br>I just wanted to express our support for |\n| 17 | the settlement the trustee has proposed.<br>We appreciate the  |\n| 18 | alacrity and aggressiveness with which the trustee has been    |\n| 19 | able to halt the state court proceedings and bring the         |\n| 20 | assets that were subject to those proceedings when the --      |\n| 21 | within the protective umbrella of the Chapter 11 process.      |\n| 22 | And these are assets that could have been -- could have        |\n| 23 | evaded the reach of the estate.<br>Not that they've been       |\n| 24 | determined to be property of the estate yet, but at least      |\n| 25 | they've come before the Court for that determination.          |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 167 of\n\n|    | 180                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>167                           |\n| 1  | Of course, this Court has the exclusive                      |\n| 2  | jurisdiction over property of the estate, and I would submit |\n| 3  | exclusive jurisdiction to determine what is property of the  |\n| 4  | estate.<br>And that's what this settlement does.<br>As the   |\n| 5  | assignee mentioned, this is just a forum-shifting settlement |\n| 6  | which actually channels whatever claims there were in the    |\n| 7  | assignment proceedings into this Court, preserves all the    |\n| 8  | claims that could be asserted.<br>No one is getting          |\n| 9  | disenfranchised.                                             |\n| 10 | You know, we -- as to the estate release, that's a           |\n| 11 | business judgment standard.<br>And we are supportive of that |\n| 12 | if it means approving the entire settlement.                 |\n| 13 | On the gatekeeping function, I think it's a common           |\n| 14 | feature for courts to apply when a direct claim is dressed   |\n| 15 | up -- well, rather a derivative claim is dressed up as a     |\n| 16 | direct claim.<br>And so this type of gatekeeping function is |\n| 17 | commonly utilized so that creditors aren't able to do that,  |\n| 18 | and the Court will be the ultimate arbiter of what is a      |\n| 19 | direct claim and what is a derivative claim so that those    |\n| 20 | derivative claims dressed up as direct claims can't just go  |\n| 21 | off in various courts filing suit until the Court at least   |\n| 22 | determines that they're legitimately direct claims.          |\n| 23 | So with that, the committee does support the                 |\n| 24 | settlement as modified in the way that has been articulated  |\n| 25 | to the Court.                                                |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 168 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you. MR. PASTORE: May I approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. PASTORE: I know it's late, so I'll be brief. I have deep respect for my good friend, Mr. Goldman, and -- but I wanted to highlight one word he just used, which is \"halt.\" THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I'm sorry. I need your name. I didn't get that name. MR. PASTORE: Oh, I'm sorry. Joseph Pastore for the -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. MR. PASTORE: -- HCHK creditors. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. MR. PASTORE: Halt. I think that's an important word. So what we have here is we have no finding of alter ego, no finding that any of the creditors are worthy of impugnment, but we're going to halt a proceeding in New York without anyone finding that what -- the assignee was in the best interest of those creditors he was assigned to protect, which is the New York court's role, and then tell those creditors that they can't bring any lawsuits against the assignee for his actions unless it's approved by this Court. I think always a fan of the due process clause, Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 168 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 169 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>169                                                             |\n| 1  | always a fan of, you know, findings of -- conclusions of law                                   |\n| 2  | and findings of fact.<br>You have none of that here.<br>Yet, my                                |\n| 3  | clients' rights are all being disenfranchised, clearly.                                        |\n| 4  | At a minimum -- we do appreciate the U.S.                                                      |\n| 5  | Attorney's objections to the injunction.<br>I think that's --                                  |\n| 6  | had to be said for sure.<br>And I think I said it.<br>At a                                     |\n| 7  | minimum, we'd request the right to look at any proposed                                        |\n| 8  | order changing that language and comment on it if necessary.                                   |\n| 9  | Thank you, Your Honor.                                                                         |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                                                       |\n| 11 | MR. JARECK:<br>Your Honor, one final?                                                          |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.<br>Yes.<br>Go right ahead.                                                  |\n| 13 | MR. JARECK:<br>For the record, Ryan Jareck, Cole                                               |\n| 14 | Schotz PC, on behalf of the assignee.<br>Your Honor, it's                                      |\n| 15 | actually perfect timing, because my comment deals with what                                    |\n| 16 | Mr. Pastore said earlier in his presentation that this                                         |\n| 17 | settlement is ultra vires and violates New York law.                                           |\n| 18 | And when saying that, he cites to his own brief,                                               |\n| 19 | paragraph 58, which is, again, another section from the New                                    |\n| 20 | York debtor and creditor law.<br>And what that says is \"The                                    |\n| 21 | judge may, upon application of the assignee, authorize the                                     |\n| 22 | assignee to sell, compromise, or compound any claim or debt                                    |\n| 23 | belonging to the estate of the debtor.\"                                                        |\n| 24 | Again, Your Honor, this is a complete mis-cite.                                                |\n| 25 | This is not what we're doing.<br>We're not selling.<br>We're not                               |\n|    |                                                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 170 compromising. We are simply shifting the funds to another fiduciary under the control of this Court. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. FORNOS: Your Honor, may I approach? THE COURT: Yes. MS. FORNOS: Just briefly, Your Honor. G Club Operations has not waived any of its rights. As the Court may recall, I specifically mentioned the issue of HCHK at the last hearing. I teed it up. I also contacted Mr. Jareck on June 19th regarding this issue and return of our confidential information. I also contacted Mr. Jareck and Mr. Lutz as well on July 5th and provided them a copy of the master services agreement. Our position is very simple. We can address the proposed order in the way that the Court feels appropriate. The issue is simply that the trustee cannot just do an end-run around discovery and step into the shoes of a company that hasn't even been determined to be an alter ego, hasn't been substantively consolidated with this estate, and all of a sudden step in and say these are all our documents now, we can -- get to have them. So we respectfully request that the Court consider our request that they -- that the trustee does not get a right to do that. Rather, they should be returned to G Club Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 170 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 171 of\n\n|    | 180                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>171                             |\n| 1  | Operations so that G Club Operations can review for            |\n| 2  | responsiveness and privilege and produce accordingly.<br>Thank |\n| 3  | you, Your Honor.                                               |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                       |\n| 5  | MS. FORNOS:<br>Any other questions from the Court?             |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>No.<br>Thank you.                                |\n| 7  | MS. FORNOS:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                          |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>So the motion to compromise                      |\n| 9  | controversy was filed both in the main case at ECF Number      |\n| 10 | 1936 and in the Adversary Proceeding 23-5013 at ECF Number     |\n| 11 | 25.<br>And our local rules of bankruptcy procedure require     |\n| 12 | that any motion to compromise in an adversary proceeding       |\n| 13 | also be filed in the main case so that notice and service of   |\n| 14 | the motion to compromise is provided to all parties.           |\n| 15 | The motion -- the notice and service of the motion             |\n| 16 | and the hearing on the motion was properly made as             |\n| 17 | established by the record in the main case and in the          |\n| 18 | adversary proceeding and the certificate of services -- the    |\n| 19 | certificates, excuse me, of service that relate to the         |\n| 20 | motion in the main case and the motion in the adversary.       |\n| 21 | The parties -- certain parties filed objections to             |\n| 22 | the motion to compromise, all of whom have appeared at this    |\n| 23 | hearing today, including the Himalaya parties represented by   |\n| 24 | Attorney Pastore, Attorney Sherman representing himself with   |\n| 25 | regard to a claim of -- that he is entitled to an              |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 172 of\n\n|   | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023                                  | 172 |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n| 1 | administrative claim from the HCHK parties.<br>Counsel for G |     |\n| 2 | News filed an objection again asserting that there is -- G   |     |\n| 3 | News has a right to an administrative claim and requests a   |     |\n| 4 | mechanism be implemented for administrative claims.          |     |\n\n And then counsel for G Club Operations filed notice which counsel has articulated, and the concern is that the trustee is entering into this settlement agreement in order to obtain documents through discovery that it might not be able to obtain until G Club Operations has its documents returned from the HCHK Technologies entities. And then G Club can undertake its review of those documents and determine what, if any, of those documents can be produced subject to whatever privilege G Club could try to assert.\n\n But I remind G Club and the trustee that apparently with regard to the other discovery sought against G Club -- and I'm not saying that this settlement is discovery, but that's the view of G Club Operations -- that the protective order and confidentiality provisions and orders already in place in the main case apparently have addressed the issues that the Court raised with regard to the pending motion to -- for contempt and to compel the production of documents from G Club.\n\n Also, the United States Trustee filed a limited objection. I understand the limited objections of the United States Trustee. And Mr. Kwok through his counsel,\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 173 of<br>180 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>173                                                             |\n| Mr. Moriarty, has taken no position on the motion to                                           |\n| compromise.                                                                                    |\n| Apparently -- it's more than apparent.<br>As stated                                            |\n| on the record, the trustee has agreed to limit the releases                                    |\n| set forth in the -- any order on the motion to compromise to                                   |\n| estate -- an estate release.<br>And that release will only                                     |\n| occur if the third stage of the settlement is reached.<br>And                                  |\n| that will only happen after the Court makes a ruling on                                        |\n| whether or not the alter ego claims and -- are decided in                                      |\n| favor of the trustee.                                                                          |\n| Because the discussions and representations and                                                |\n| suggestions made on the record by the trustee and other                                        |\n| counsel, including the Office of the United States Trustee                                     |\n| and the creditors' committee and counsel for the assignee,                                     |\n| are somewhat different than proposed before the hearing, I'm                                   |\n| going to continue this hearing but solely for a week and                                       |\n| only to see what the proposed order approving a settlement                                     |\n| looks like with the changes noted on the record today.<br>All                                  |\n| parties' objections have been noted for the record.<br>There's                                 |\n| no need for any further objection by any of the parties who                                    |\n| filed objections.<br>And the Court isn't going to consider any                                 |\n| further objections.                                                                            |\n| But I will order the trustee's counsel to revise                                               |\n| that proposed order along the lines that were stated on the                                    |\n| record today and serve it on all objecting parties.<br>And I'd                                 |\n|                                                                                                |\n\n|    | 180                                                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>174                               |\n| 1  | like that done by 5 p.m. on July 13th so that when we come       |\n| 2  | back here to a hearing next week I know what, if any,            |\n| 3  | problems there may be with regard to the provisions of a         |\n| 4  | proposed order approving the settlement.                         |\n| 5  | I am not ruling on whether -- right at this moment               |\n| 6  | on whether this motion to compromise is granted or not           |\n| 7  | granted.<br>I am suggesting that the parties need to have some   |\n| 8  | discussions about the proposed order.<br>I'm going to take a     |\n| 9  | look at proposed order and, with it, the revisions as noted.     |\n| 10 | And then next week, I will either say that the                   |\n| 11 | matter is ripe for decision, I will decide, or I will insist     |\n| 12 | that, I suppose, other things could be included in the           |\n| 13 | order.<br>But I'm not ruling at this time.<br>I will go back and |\n| 14 | review everyone's pleadings, and I will review them in the       |\n| 15 | light of the arguments that were made during the hearing         |\n| 16 | today.                                                           |\n| 17 | But the hearing itself with regard to the                        |\n| 18 | substantive motion, the relief sought in the motion and the      |\n| 19 | objections, there'll be no need for any further hearing.<br>I    |\n| 20 | want to see what this order looks like, and I want to            |\n| 21 | understand it.                                                   |\n| 22 | So, Trustee Despins, when your office serves the                 |\n| 23 | order on everyone at 3 p.m. -- I'm sorry, 5 p.m. on the          |\n| 24 | 13th, I'd like you to put it on the docket of the main case      |\n| 25 | and the adversary proceeding as well.<br>That'll give the        |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 174 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 175 of\n\n|    | 180                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>175                             |\n| 1  | Court time to review it and prior to the continued hearing,    |\n| 2  | which we will schedule -- there are already other matters      |\n| 3  | scheduled in the case and the adversary proceedings on July    |\n| 4  | 18th starting at 12 p.m.<br>And I will schedule this -- I will |\n| 5  | continue the hearing solely with regard to the proposed        |\n| 6  | order.<br>And I will schedule it for 2 p.m.                    |\n| 7  | And the reason I say 2 p.m. is because, right now,             |\n| 8  | on next week's calendar, the original pretrial conference in   |\n| 9  | the Genever Holdings vs. AIG Property Casualty adversary       |\n| 10 | proceeding is scheduled.<br>And given that we're going to have |\n| 11 | two days of -- or possibly two days of evidentiary hearing     |\n| 12 | with the -- in the AIG adversary proceeding starting           |\n| 13 | tomorrow, there's no need for a pretrial conference next       |\n| 14 | week.<br>I'll know what's going on.<br>And I'm not going to    |\n| 15 | bring the parties into the court on a pretrial conference      |\n| 16 | when that's not necessary.                                     |\n| 17 | So this -- so the hearings on -- in the main case              |\n| 18 | on ECF 1936, the motion to compromise, and the hearing in      |\n| 19 | Adversary 23-5013 on ECF 25, motion to compromise, are         |\n| 20 | continued to July 18th at 2 p.m.<br>And I'm not going to enter |\n| 21 | a formal scheduling order with regard to the filing and        |\n| 22 | service of the revised proposed order, because I'm ordering    |\n| 23 | it on the record.                                              |\n| 24 | Does anybody have any question about that?                     |\n| 25 | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>Just one question, Your Honor.<br>If          |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 176 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>176                                                             |\n| 1  | a party has a problem with the proposed order, is there a                                      |\n| 2  | deadline by which the Court would like comments?                                               |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>We're going to talk about it at the                                              |\n| 4  | hearing next -- well --                                                                        |\n| 5  | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>No, I know.<br>For a written response                                         |\n| 6  | if one is --                                                                                   |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>I would give everyone an ability to                                              |\n| 8  | file a written response by 5 p.m. on Friday, July 14th.                                        |\n| 9  | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>Thank you.                                                                    |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Now, no other party that -- the only                                             |\n| 11 | parties that are -- I'm going to entertain any kind of                                         |\n| 12 | written response is going to be parties that have already                                      |\n| 13 | filed an objection.<br>Anybody that hasn't already filed an                                    |\n| 14 | objection is already beyond the deadline, number one.                                          |\n| 15 | Number two, this hearing next week is not -- we're                                             |\n| 16 | not going to go over the same issues we've already gone                                        |\n| 17 | over.<br>I've gone -- we've gone through them.<br>I understand                                 |\n| 18 | the parties' respective positions, and I'll rule based -- at                                   |\n| 19 | some point, whether it be at the hearing, after the hearing,                                   |\n| 20 | whatever I see with regard to your revised proposed order                                      |\n| 21 | and any responses.<br>But the hearing is going to be limited                                   |\n| 22 | to those issues.                                                                               |\n| 23 | Does anyone have any questions?                                                                |\n| 24 | MR. PASTORE:<br>Just a quick statement.<br>I've got a                                          |\n| 25 | settlement conference in federal court in New Jersey at                                        |\n|    |                                                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 177 2 p.m. that day. Ms. McClammy can handle this hearing. I just wanted the Court to know. No disrespect, but I will be -- THE COURT: That's fine. Thank you. MR. PASTORE: Yeah. THE COURT: I appreciate that. MR. PASTORE: Yeah. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, do you have any flexibility as to the time? For example, could it be later, like maybe 3:30 or 4:00? THE COURT: Sure. I mean, if that's what people want to do. But you've got to get everybody's agreement on that. MR. DESPINS: Oh, well -- THE COURT: If everybody agrees, that's fine. I mean, I'm not going to go later than 4 p.m., though. The court staff -- I have no idea what everybody's going to say. Maybe they'll be -- maybe there won't be a problem. But the court staff -- I -- you know, I -- they like to go home at night, which I can understand. MR. ARCARO: Your Honor, just one question for the Court. THE COURT: Yes. MR. ARCARO : To the extent that the revised order that's submitted to the Court -- we -- there's no -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 177 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 178 THE COURT: It's going to be docketed, so Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 178 of\n\n everybody that has an appearance will get it via -- I'm not sure if that was your question. But you will get it via CM/ECF.\n\n MR. ARCARO: My question is that Your Honor is giving the opportunity to file a response to that proposed order.\n\n THE COURT: By Friday at -- July 14th at 5 p.m. MR. ARCARO: If no response is filed, are objections considered waived?\n\n THE COURT: No. Your objections will still be considered. I haven't ruled yet, right?\n\nMR. ARCARO: Your Honor, thank you. Thank you.\n\n THE COURT: So sorry if that wasn't clear. I will consider everyone's objections.\n\n MR. ARCARO: Very well. Thank you. THE COURT: But I want to see how this revised proposed order is going to look given what we all talked about -- I didn't talk about it, but what you all talked about today and what your presentations were on your respective objections.\n\n MR. ARCARO: Thank you very much. THE COURT: So, no, it's not -- you're not waiving any objection that has been timely filed. They will be considered.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 179 of\n\n|    | 180                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>179                           |\n| 1  | MR. ARCARO:<br>Very well.                                    |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>But I want to see where we get on the          |\n| 3  | revised proposed order as well.                              |\n| 4  | MR. ARCARO:<br>Very well.<br>Thank you, Your Honor.          |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Okay?<br>Thank you.                            |\n| 6  | All right.<br>So the courtroom deputy will note              |\n| 7  | probably later today or -- not today, tomorrow that that     |\n| 8  | pretrial conference next week in the AIG adversary will just |\n| 9  | be continued to a date to be determined.                     |\n| 10 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>Okay.                               |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Okay?                                          |\n| 12 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>Yes.                                |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>And I believe we're starting with the          |\n| 14 | evidentiary hearing with the AIG adversary proceeding at 10  |\n| 15 | a.m. tomorrow.<br>Is that correct?                           |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:<br>That's correct, Your Honor.                  |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Then I -- we have concluded all       |\n| 18 | the matters on today's calendar.<br>For those reasons, court |\n| 19 | is adjourned.<br>Thank you, all.                             |\n| 20 | IN UNISON:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                         |\n| 21 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>All rise.<br>Court is               |\n| 22 | adjourned.                                                   |\n| 23 | (Proceedings concluded at 4:46 p.m.)                         |\n| 24 |                                                              |\n| 25 |                                                              |\n|    |                                                              |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 2119<br>Filed 08/24/23<br>Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49<br>Page 180 of<br>180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023<br>180                                                             |\n| 1  | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and                                             |\n| 2  | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that                                    |\n| 3  | the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official                                        |\n| 4  | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the                                           |\n| 5  | above-entitled matter.                                                                         |\n| 6  |                                                                                                |\n| 7  |                                                                                                |\n| 8  | July 20, 2023                                                                                  |\n| 9  | Christine Fiore, CERT                                                                          |\n| 10 |                                                                                                |\n| 11 |                                                                                                |\n| 12 |                                                                                                |\n| 13 |                                                                                                |\n| 14 |                                                                                                |\n| 15 |                                                                                                |\n| 16 |                                                                                                |\n| 17 |                                                                                                |\n| 18 |                                                                                                |\n| 19 |                                                                                                |\n| 20 |                                                                                                |\n| 21 |                                                                                                |\n| 22 |                                                                                                |\n| 23 |                                                                                                |\n| 24 |                                                                                                |\n| 25 |                                                                                                |\n|    |                                                                                                |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于                                       案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及GENEVER\nHOLDINGS CORPORATION（Genever控股公司），\n\n债务人。\n\nU.S. BANK NATIONAL\nASSOCIATION（美国合众银行全国协会），作为托管\n代理人，\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS\nINVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限公司），\n\n被告。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），             对抗程序案号：23-05013\n\n原告，\n\n诉                                      康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n                                        2023年7月11日\n\nHCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.（HCHK科技公司）\n等，\n\n被告。\n\n在尊敬的JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官前的程序记录\n美国联邦破产法官\n\n程序由电子录音记录，笔录由转录服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n下列事项的庭审笔录\n\n1749号　申请聘用AFFILIATES ADJUSTMENT\nGROUP, LTD.（关联理赔调整集团有限公司）担任公共理算师\n\n1805号　请求强制遵守《规则2004》传票的动议\n（第二项综合动议）（就其与\nHUDSON DIAMOND ENTITIES（哈德逊钻石实体）有关的部分）\n\n1903号　A. ROMNEY（A·罗姆尼）提交的退出担任律师动议\n\n1928号　简易判决动议\n\n1936号　就与BRIAN W.\nHOFMEISTER（布莱恩·W·霍夫迈斯特）作为HCHK ENTITIES（HCHK实体）\n债权人利益受让人达成争议和解的动议，该受让人系根据纽约法院\n转让程序指定\n\n1925号　就与BRIAN W.\nHOFMEISTER（布莱恩·W·霍夫迈斯特）作为HCHK ENTITIES（HCHK实体）\n债权人利益受让人达成争议和解的动议，该受让人系根据纽约法院\n转让程序指定，3131 PRINCETON PIKE\nBLDG. 5, STE 110, LAWRENCEVILLE, NJ 08648\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（宝和律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表第11章受托人：NICHOLAS A. BASSETT（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特），律师\nAVRAM E. LUFT（亚夫拉姆·E·卢夫特），律师\nPaul Hastings LLP（宝和律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nPATRICK R. LINSEY（帕特里克·R·林西），律师\nNeubert Pepe & Monteith, PC（诺伊贝特·佩佩及蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表美国受托人：HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN（霍利·L·克莱伯恩），律师\nOffice of the U.S. Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\n150 Court Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债权人委员会：IRVE J. GOLDMAN（欧文·J·戈德曼），律师\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表HK International Funds\nInvestments, LLC（香港国际基金投资有限责任公司）及\nMei Guo（郭美）、Hudson Diamond：ERIC A. HENZY（埃里克·A·亨齐），律师\nJAMES M. MORIARTY（詹姆斯·M·莫里亚蒂），律师\nAARON ROMNEY（亚伦·罗姆尼），律师\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表原告LEE VARTAN（李·瓦坦），律师\nHK International Funds（香港国际基金）及\nMei Guo（郭美）：\nChiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, PC（奇耶萨·沙希尼安与贾恩托马西律师事务所）\n105 Eisenhauer Pkwy\nRoseland, NJ 07068\n\n代表受让人RYAN T. JARECK（瑞安·T·贾雷克），律师\nBrian W. Hofmeister（布莱恩·W·霍夫迈斯特）：\nCole Schotz P.C.（科尔·绍茨律师事务所）\n25 Main Street\nCourt Plaza North\nHackensack, NJ 07601\n\n出庭人员（续）：代表HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）的\n各债权人：JOSEPH M. PASTORE, III（约瑟夫·M·帕斯托雷三世），律师\nMELISSA R. McCLAMMY（梅利莎·R·麦克拉米），律师\nPastore, LLC（帕斯托雷律师事务所）\n4 High Ridge Park, Third Floor\nStamford, CT 06905\n\n代表Joshua Sherman（约书亚·谢尔曼）：JOSHUA SHERMAN（约书亚·谢尔曼），律师\nHCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK科技公司）\n303 5th Avenue #1705\nNew York, NY 10016\n\n代表G Club News\nOperations, LLC（G Club新闻运营有限责任公司）：\nGREGORY F. ARCARO（格雷戈里·F·阿卡罗），律师\nGRAFSTEIN & ARCARO, LLC（格拉夫斯坦与阿卡罗律师事务所）\n114 W. Main Street, Suite 105\nNew Britain, CT 06051\n\n代表G Club Operations, LLC（G Club运营有限责任公司）：\nKELLIANE BARANOWSKY（凯莉安·巴拉诺夫斯基），律师\nGreen & Sklarz, LLC（格林与斯克拉兹律师事务所）\n1 Audubon Street, 3rd Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06511\n\nCAROLINA A. FORNOS（卡罗琳娜·A·福尔诺斯），律师\nPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman（博钦律师事务所）\n31 West 52nd Street\nNew York, NY 10019\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日　5\n\n1　（程序于下午12:33开始。）\n\n2　法庭书记员：\n案号22-50073，Ho\n3　Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及Genever Holdings, LLC（Genever控股有限责任公司）。\n对抗程序案号——\n4　抱歉，23-5012，U.S. Bank National Association（美国合众银行全国协会）诉HK\n5　Funds Limited（香港基金有限公司）。\n另有，案号23——对抗程序案号\n6　23-5013，Despins（德斯平斯）诉HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK科技公司）。\n\n7　法官：\n好的。下午好。请\n8　为记录在案进行出庭陈述，首先请第\n9　11章受托人陈述。\n\n10　DESPINS先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Luc\n11　Despins（卢克·德斯平斯），第11章受托人。\n\n12　BASSETT先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Nick\n13　Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），来自Paul Hastings（宝和律师事务所），代表第11章\n14　受托人。\n\n15　LINSEY先生：\n下午好，Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西），\n16　受托人的康涅狄格州律师。\n\n17　CLAIBORN女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。Holley\n18　Claiborn（霍利·克莱伯恩），代表美国受托人。\n\n19　GOLDMAN先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Irve\n20　Goldman（欧文·戈德曼），Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所），代表债权人委员会。\n\n21　MORIARTY先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。James\n22　Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂），来自Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所），代表债务人，同时亦代表\n23　案卷23-05012中的HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）。\n24　\n\n25　ROMNEY先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Aaron\n\n案号22-50073　文件2119　提交日期08/24/23　录入日期08/24/23 12:37:49　第6页，共180页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日　6\n\nRomney（亚伦·罗姆尼），代表上述相同当事人，并代表Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）。我今日亦代表本人出庭，以回应法院的说明理由命令。我还想记录在案，Vartan律师遇到了非常严重的交通拥堵。他应该随时会到。\n\n法官：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nMORIARTY先生：\n谢谢。\n\nHENZY先生：\n以及Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐），代表债务人，并可能也代表Romney先生。\n\n法官：\n债务人，即Kwok先生？\n\nHENZY先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nHENZY先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法官：\nVartan律师？\n\nVARTAN先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Lee Vartan（李·瓦坦）也代表Mei Guo（郭美）和HK USA（香港美国公司）出庭。\n\n法官：\n下午好。\n\nVARTAN先生：\n下午好。\n\n法官：\n好的。Despins受托人，今天日程上有若干事项。我们刚刚完成出庭陈述。您希望今天如何进行？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n我们曾向Romney先生承诺，将先处理他的事项，因此除非法院另有偏好，我们同意按该顺序进行。\n\n案号22-50073　文件2119　提交日期08/24/23　录入日期08/24/23 12:37:49　第7页，共180页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日　7\n\nROMNEY先生：\n如果可以，法官阁下，我想进一步说明一下？我今晚7:00从LaGuardia（拉瓜迪亚机场）起飞，明天要在Atlanta（亚特兰大）进行证言录取，我非常希望赶上这趟航班。\n\n法官：\n好的。那么我们将按此方式进行。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n实际上，法官阁下，如果我——也许先用五分钟处理公共理算师的聘用事项。Luft先生也——也遇到了交通拥堵。他正在赶来。应该会到。\n\nROMNEY先生：\n我认为他大约五分钟后就会到。如果到我们处理完这个事项时他还没到，其他人可以处理退出代理动议。如果Luft先生还没到，我会处理退出代理动议。但这大概需要五分钟。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n公共理算师的聘用事项。\n\n法官：\n好的。是否有人——Romney先生，如果我们——您是否反对我们先处理该事项？\n\nROMNEY先生：\n不，当然不反对。\n\n法官：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nROMNEY先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法官：\n好的。那么我们先处理主案中的公共理算师聘用申请，即ECF第1749号。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n正确，法官阁下。您可能已注意到，我们在\n\n案号22-50073　文件2119　提交日期08/24/23　录入日期08/24/23 12:37:49　第8页，共180页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日　8\n\n案卷第1992号提交了一份修订后的聘用命令，因为我们收到了美国受托人的意见，因此在1992号文件中，您可看到清稿和显示修改内容的版本。1992号文件第10页和——共11页中的——抱歉，第10页，共11页，是吗？您可以看到修改内容。基本上，这是为了明确其报酬。\n\n为向您略作背景说明，这涉及The Sherry Netherland（雪莉荷兰酒店）的火灾。公司或业主通常会聘用公共理算师与保险公司协商和解。您可能会说，保险公司并没有和解。说得对。但可能会在某个时候进入和解模式。在此，该项聘用纯粹按风险代理基础进行。因此，没有和解，就没有报酬。\n\n而且，此人实际上在协助我准备诸如债权申报表等事项方面非常有帮助。您实际上需要向保险公司提交索赔表格。我们就——他就清理费用等事项提交了该表格。因此，尽管我们一度认为目前将该项聘用搁置，但现在越来越清楚，我们需要此人进行与索赔评估相关的各种——您知道的——所有必须完成的基础工作。并且鉴于\n\n案号22-50073　文件2119　提交日期08/24/23　录入日期08/24/23 12:37:49　第9页，共180页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日　9\n\n这一点，他再次强调，除非从保险公司获得赔偿，否则不会获得任何报酬，我们认为——您知道——继续进行是适当的，因为对于聘用他的实体Genever US（Genever美国公司）没有风险。并且为记录在案，说明报酬：基本上，首个3 million或以下部分按5 percent计酬；超过3 million至15 million的任何已获和解款项按4 percent计酬；超过15 million至50 million的任何已获和解款项按3 percent计酬。\n\n我们还作出了一项更正，说明公共理算师——其缩写为AAGL——不会持有根据该等保险单取得的任何和解款项。这是美国受托人希望作出的修改，因此我们作出了该修改。目前，PAX提交过一项异议，现已撤回。我们一直在就此与PAX合作，我们很高兴他们撤回了异议。目前，我们希望——以法官阁下对该命令可能提出的任何意见为限——继续进行该项聘用。\n\n法官：\n目前我没有意见或问题。Claiborn律师，您是否希望发表意见？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日　10\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n谢谢，法官阁下。经修订并作为ECF第1992号提交的命令解决了美国受托人的关切。\n\n法官：\n好的。谢谢。我注意到，显然，该申请同时依据327(a)和328提出，因为此时设定了报酬，即报酬表。是否还有其他人希望就该申请——即受托人聘用公共理算师Affiliated Adjustment Group（关联理赔调整集团）的申请——发表意见？\n\n好的。没有听到意见。我未见任何书面异议，PAX的异议除外；我记录在案，该异议已被撤回。美国受托人刚刚陈述了其立场，即其支持该申请，涉及昨天在案卷中作为ECF第1992号提交的经修订拟议命令，该命令解决了美国受托人的任何关切。\n\nDespins受托人，我理解您所寻求聘用的理由，并且在本案情形下，这显然是合理的。基于所有这些理由，聘用Affiliated Adjustment Group（关联理赔调整集团）担任公共理算师的申请获准，并且载于ECF第1992号第5、6及7页的拟议命令可以录入。\n\n案号22-50073　文件2119　提交日期08/24/23　录入日期08/24/23 12:37:49　第10页，共180页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n英文>>>\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n那么目前，法官阁下，我们的同事正在路上，但我们不应为了等他而延误听证。因此，我们已准备好继续进行。\n\n法庭：\n好的。请稍等我一下。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n好的。好。另一件——下一项事项——日程表上有许多事项。但是，我们——罗姆尼律师特别请求，而且受托人及受托人的律师同意，下一项审理由罗姆尼律师代表已提交出庭通知的 Hudson Diamond 实体所提交的撤回代理律师资格动议，即 ECF 1903。\n\n我曾表示，罗姆尼律师和瓦尔坦律师需要于今日出庭，就该撤回代理动议作出说明。而且我——两位都在法庭内。那么，罗姆尼律师，您是否希望继续进行？\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n是的，法官阁下。有一点需要澄清。法官阁下刚才说，这是撤回代理 Hudson Diamond 实体的动议。实际上，仅涉及 Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约）实体，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。确实如此。我看到了。抱歉。但我最初——最初以为涉及所有实体。不过您说得对。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2119　提交于 08/24/23　登记于 08/24/23 12:37:49　第 12 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n感谢您为记录指出这一点。\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n明白，法官阁下。法官阁下，如应美国受托人要求提交的宣誓书中进一步详细说明的那样，我们是通过受托人于5月提交的强制执行动议，得知有一份传票针对两个 Hudson Diamond 实体。该强制执行动议认定 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）为 Hudson Diamond New York 的唯一成员，并附有支持该主张的文件。该动议——并寻求对两个实体作出藐视法庭认定。\n\n当时我已知道，Guo 女士是 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的唯一成员。由于若干原因，包括第11章受托人的诉状，以及我与 Guo 女士进行的交谈——她当时也认为 Hudson Diamond New York 是 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的全资子公司——我当时有着非常明确的印象，认为情况如此。\n\n这就是我代表两个实体协商延期的原因。这就是我代表两个实体提交出庭通知的原因。这也是为什么，在协商延期开庭以便允许遵从要求之后，瓦尔坦律师和我均勤勉地尝试代表两个实体查找文件；而这两个实体均不实际由作为我们客户的自然人 Guo 女士实际占有相关文件。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2119　提交于 08/24/23　登记于 08/24/23 12:37:49　第 13 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日　13\n\n在该调查／查找过程中，Hodgson Russ, LLP（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）的总法律顾问告诉我们，Guo 女士并非——抱歉，Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 并非 Hudson Diamond New York 的唯一成员；并且当时指出，另一名在我的宣誓书中列明的个人，即债务人的儿子 Mileson Guo（郭迈尔森），是该实体的成员。在那一刻，如我的宣誓书所述，我立即首先征求了本所总法律顾问 Henzy 先生的意见，他今天与我一同出席。接下来我所做的是致电 Luft 律师，告知他我刚刚获悉，Hudson Diamond Holdings 似乎并非唯一成员，且看来我犯了一个错误；我打算撤回代理，因为我不认为自己有权代理纽约实体，这不同于控股实体——就后者而言，直到目前我确信自己有权代理。我的理解是，根据职业行为规则第1.16(b)条，除非获得具有实际授权之人的授权，否则我不能代理一个实体，因此必须撤回。这就是我提交撤回代理动议的原因，因为在我提交该撤回代理动议时，基于一所非常有声誉的律师事务所的总法律顾问——我相信他是一名诚实且正直的律师协会成员——所作的陈述，使我相信自己犯了一个错误。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2119　提交于 08/24/23　登记于 08/24/23 12:37:49　第 14 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日　14\n\n在提交该动议之后，又出现了进一步的问题，以致于现在，当我今天坐在这里时，我不知道 Hudson Diamond New York 的唯一成员是谁。如我的宣誓书所述，在——我相信是6月25日，Luft 律师提请我注意一份附于其强制执行及藐视法庭动议的文件，该文件与我们最初的理解一致，即 Hudson Diamond Holdings 实际上是该纽约实体——Hudson Diamond New York 实体——的唯一成员，而 Mei Guo（郭梅）是 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的唯一成员。\n\n在那之后，瓦尔坦律师和我联系了 Hodgson Russ，后者确认他们实际上制作了该文件，第11章受托人似乎依赖了该文件；该文件完全符合 Guo 女士最初的理解，即控股实体是纽约实体的母公司。他们无法解释为何他们有一份经营协议称债务人的儿子或其控制的实体是该实体的母公司，但他们也制作并持有一份文件，表明 Guo 女士的实体是该纽约实体的母公司。\n\n由于截至今天我站在这里时，完全没有把握自己拥有代理纽约实体的实际授权，我认为职业行为规则要求我继续推进本撤回代理动议。自该问题出现之日起，除了我每天所做的事情——即醒来并确认我的家人安好——之外，这一直是我的首要任务，即收集文件或尝试查找文件，并尝试回答这个问题，以便我今天能够来到这里并回答法庭或任何其他人提出的任何问题。我已尽力而为，但这就是我今天能够向法庭提供的内容。\n\n我所做的一切，都是为了推动这一程序，以避免出现这样的情形：看起来我、本所、Guo 女士或她控制的任何实体，正在试图无视法院命令，或者未采取遵从该命令的行动。自始至终，这都是我就整个程序所采取的每一项行动的唯一动机。\n\n我准备回答法庭或在场任何其他人提出的任何问题，但除此之外，我依赖我的动议。\n\n法庭：\n那么，我将请其他当事人提出他们的问题，然后再看我是否有任何问题。罗姆尼律师，您确实提交了一份——一份宣誓书，但我认为——而且我可能遗漏了——瓦尔坦律师，您提交了任何文件吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日　16\n\n瓦尔坦先生：\n没有，法官阁下。但我显然已审阅罗姆尼律师的宣誓书，而且我——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，那——没关系。我只是想知道您是否提交了任何文件。\n\n瓦尔坦先生：\n哦。我没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n您为什么没有提交任何文件？\n\n瓦尔坦先生：\n因为罗姆尼先生在其宣誓书中所述的一切均与记录一致，我没有更多——\n\n法庭：\n而且，您难道没有义务亲自向法庭作出陈述，而不是通过罗姆尼律师吗？我的意思是，我们曾在本案不同时间讨论过的问题是，谁代理谁、谁以何种身份行事；您是本地律师，您是主要代理律师。我们之前进行过这些讨论。而这一讨论——我不理解的是——我知道您在场，也感谢您在场，但我不理解为何罗姆尼律师是唯一提交宣誓书的人。我原以为您会提交一份宣誓书。而且罗姆尼律师及其律所其他成员均表示，他们是通过与您讨论而介入并受聘的；是您——您与客户有联系。罗姆尼律师没有直接与 Mei Guo 交谈。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2119　提交于 08/24/23　登记于 08/24/23 12:37:49　第 16 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日　17\n\n这与您的宣誓书所述不符。您说您和瓦尔坦律师——\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n我们——\n\n法庭：\n——与 Mei Guo 交谈过。而且瓦尔坦律师与 Mei Guo 有联系，不是吗，先生？\n\n瓦尔坦先生：\n法官阁下，我当然与客户有联系，如同——\n\n法庭：\n那么，是谁聘请您的，瓦尔坦律师？\n\n瓦尔坦先生：\n是 Guo 女士。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么当她聘请您时，她聘请了谁？她是聘请您，还是聘请您和罗姆尼先生？\n\n瓦尔坦先生：\n我们两人。\n\n法庭：\n好的。而且有——\n\n瓦尔坦先生：\n嗯，罗姆尼先生此前已经受聘，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n与藐视法庭动议有关？\n\n瓦尔坦先生：\n因此，关于——我是在回答有关 Guo 女士聘请罗姆尼先生以及 Guo 女士——一般性聘请我的问题。关于 Hudson Diamond 实体，罗姆尼先生和我都与 Guo 女士交谈过。\n\n法庭：\n那么，您为什么没有代表 Hudson Diamond 实体提交出庭通知？\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2119　提交于 08/24/23　登记于 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n瓦尔坦先生：\n我原计划这样做，但罗姆尼先生在其宣誓书中说明了我没有这样做的原因。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，那是罗姆尼先生的宣誓书，不是您的宣誓书。\n\n瓦尔坦先生：\n不，我理解，法官阁下。但除罗姆尼先生在其宣誓书中所述内容之外，我没有任何内容可补充到记录中。而且，我也很乐意回答法官阁下或其他任何人可能提出的任何问题。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我刚才问了您一个问题，而您没有回答。您为什么没有提交宣誓书？\n\n瓦尔坦先生：\n因为，如前所述，我没有更多内容可补充到记录中。而且我并不理解我们受法院命令要求提交。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，2023年6月20日作出的一项命令写明，您应出庭并说明为何不应准许撤回代理动议。随后，美国受托人对撤回代理动议提交了答复。而且，请记住——嗯，也许您不记得，但我记得——曾就强制执行动议举行过听证会，在该听证会上，律师代表在记录中告诉我，其中包括您在内，您们正在解决——或者试图解决——藐视法庭动议，因为您们代理 Hudson Diamond 实体，并且您们将提供——\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 2119　提交于 08/24/23　登记于 08/24/23 12:37:49　第 19 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n1　依照传票提供文件。\n\n2　紧接着——不，那样说不公平。\n\n3　并非紧接着。但在该次听证会后不久，\n\n4　Romney律师提出了撤回出庭代理的动议。\n\n5　现在，我已多次问过，Romney先生\n\n6　是听从Guo女士的指示，还是听从\n\n7　您和Guo女士的指示？我曾就此进行讨论。因为\n\n8　我们曾讨论过谁是本地律师，谁是主要\n\n9　律师。\n\n10　我们不会这样做，即——你们在两家不同的\n\n11　律师事务所。要么你们二人都是律师，二人\n\n12　均受约束并必须遵守法院命令；要么你们\n\n13　不是。但我们不会出现这种情况：哦，我不会再说\n\n14　任何话，因为Romney律师已经说过了。\n\n15　否则，我为何会在该命令中列入你？\n\n16　先生，我在该命令中列入你，是因为你是\n\n17　出庭并称你与Guo女士有客户联系并拥有\n\n18　授权的人。这是你多次在\n\n19　本院所说的。你也曾在——而且所提交的书状\n\n20　均先由你签署，随后由Romney律师签署。\n\n21　因此，你负有义务，即对本院及本案所有\n\n22　相关当事人的职业义务和道德义务。因此，我不明白为何——\n\n23　所以，这没问题。如果你告诉我你将依赖\n\n24　Romney律师的宣誓书，那就是你告诉我的\n\n25　内容。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n1　我不确定这是否表明存在理由说明不应准许\n\n2　该撤回动议。\n\n3　但无论如何，关于Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯）——有几个\n\n4　问题。你谈到——\n\n5　首先，我看不出是否曾有任何——也许\n\n6　有过。但目前提交给我的记录中没有任何内容\n\n7　表明，即使代表你称仍在代理的实体，\n\n8　也曾就藐视法庭动议作出任何遵从，该实体即Hudson Diamond\n\n9　Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股）。\n\n10　\n\n11　是否曾遵从传票？\n\n12　ROMNEY律师：是的，法官阁下，曾经遵从。\n\n13　法庭：该项遵从为何？\n\n14　ROMNEY律师：在1月——请原谅\n\n15　我——6月15日，即遵从期限届满之日，\n\n16　Vartan律师寄出了一封由我们二人起草的信，\n\n17　该信说明了——截至当时，我们为\n\n18　尝试查找文件所做的工作。该信提供了\n\n19　经营协议，显示Guo女士控制Hudson\n\n20　Diamond Holdings, LLC。该信提供了\n\n21　组织章程，显示Hudson Diamond Holdings的设立。\n\n22　该信说明了我们为尝试\n\n23　查找文件所作的努力。\n\n24　我们作为法院官员，以及我们的客户作为\n\n25　自然人，仅有能力提供\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 21 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n21　我们能够实际占有的文件，或者由我们有能力控制之人占有的文件，换言之，即我们可推定控制的文件。我们已竭尽所能尝试查找文件，并已提供我们能够提供的文件。但是我们——我们还确认了我们认为持有相关文件、但不会将其交给我们或Guo女士的其他文件来源，例如Hodgson Russ和Capital One Bank（第一资本银行）。我们已尽一切所能，但他们不会将文件交给我们。另有两名个人——\n\n法庭：那么，让我们把这一点稍微放慢些，好吗？你说了几件事。你说你们——但Vartan律师签署了一封信，并于6月15日寄给受托人，称你们已尽一切所能予以遵从。是这样吗？我想我——我只是确认我听清了你的话。\n\nROMNEY律师：我们并没有说我们已尽一切所能予以遵从。我们说了那一点。但同时——也就是说，是的，这是对我们所述内容的公平概括。并且我们提供了我刚才描述的文件。\n\n法庭：好的。请告诉我——抱歉。6月15日提供的是哪些文件？\n\nROMNEY律师：是由Guo女士签署的Hudson Diamond Holdings经营协议。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n22　法庭：由谁签署——那么，是证物T吗？\n\nROMNEY律师：不是。\n\n法庭：那份两页的文件？\n\nROMNEY律师：不是。\n\n法庭：那么有一份经营协议。\n\nROMNEY律师：有一份——\n\n法庭：该文件有多少页？你不必准确告诉我。我是说，例如，它是——你说的是一份25页的文件——\n\nROMNEY律师：我相信它——\n\n法庭：——一份50页的文件？\n\nROMNEY律师：我相信它大约是一份五页——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nROMNEY律师：——五页或六页的文件。\n\n法庭：该经营——该协议是哪个实体的经营协议？\n\nROMNEY律师：Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC的经营协议，由Mei Guo（郭美）作为唯一成员签署。\n\n法庭：好的。你——你告诉我，而且我只是想为记录明确这一点，即Mei Guo专门聘请你在本案中就藐视法庭动议代理Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC，是吗？\n\nROMNEY律师：她指示我就——代理Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 22 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n23　法庭：那么她没有聘请你？\n\nROMNEY律师：我不理解其中的区别。\n\n法庭：嗯，我认为存在一个——\n\nROMNEY律师：但我们没有单独的聘用函。\n\n法庭：你们没有单独的——那是你所说的吗？\n\nROMNEY律师：与该实体之间。是的。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，就Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC而言，你们没有单独的聘用函。并且在当时，你相信她指示你代理Hudson Diamond各实体。其中包括Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约），对吗？\n\nROMNEY律师：不。我知道她确实如此。\n\n法庭：好的。是的。\n\nROMNEY律师：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。那么事情随后发展。你提交了出庭通知，并来到本院，在就藐视法庭动议举行的听证会上你称——我并不是说那本会发生，好吗——但受托人的律师正要求就Hudson Diamond New York, LLC和Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC两者作出藐视法庭命令。你说——\n\nROMNEY律师：是的。而该事项今日已列入日程。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 23 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 24 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n1　法庭：对。但在最初的那次听证会上，\n\n2　你称我们已同意延期举行该听证会，\n\n3　因为我们将就\n\n4　实质上如何遵从传票订立一项同意命令，\n\n5　对吗？\n\n6　ROMNEY律师：我想我们实际上已在\n\n7　记录中订立该协议。\n\n8　法庭：不，你们确实订立了。\n\n9　ROMNEY律师：是。\n\n10　法庭：我现在实际上正在查看它。\n\n11　ROMNEY律师：是。是。\n\n12　法庭：好的。\n\n13　ROMNEY律师：我的意思是，我们在记录中口头订立了该协议，\n\n14　随后提交了——\n\n15　法庭：但随后，你们就申请作出命令的动议订立了一项\n\n16　命令，认定Hudson Diamond New\n\n17　York, LLC和Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC因未\n\n18　回应传票而构成民事藐视法庭。并且在\n\n19　该命令中，Hudson各实体称，它们没有理由\n\n20　且因此不争议，它们均已被适当\n\n21　送达分别向其发出的2004传票，并且\n\n22　它们主张，Hudson各实体的相关个人实际上直到\n\n23　动议提交之后才得知传票。那么，Hudson各实体中\n\n24　直到动议提交之后才实际得知传票的相关\n\n25　个人是谁——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n25　直到藐视法庭动议提交之后才实际得知传票？\n\nROMNEY律师：Guo女士是——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nROMNEY律师：——我在该陈述中所指的个人。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nROMNEY律师：我们的意思是，我们没有理由怀疑送达回证的真实性，该等回证表明法定送达代理人已签收。但我所反馈的是，据我所能判断，Guo女士是在Vartan律师和我——我想在该具体事项中实际是我发送了该电子邮件——向她发送电子邮件时，首次得知那些传票。之后我们三人一起进行了电话交谈。但看来是我们在向她告知那些传票。\n\n法庭：你为何说看来是我们在向她告知？你知道还是不知道？\n\nROMNEY律师：嗯，我并不——\n\n法庭：她是否告诉过你，她此前从未见过这些传票？\n\nROMNEY律师：在不放弃就任何其他陈述所享有的特权的前提下，是的。\n\n法庭：好的。嗯，我不认为如果你想表明存在理由说明你为何\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 25 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n1　希望——撤回作为律师的代理资格，对吗？否则，\n\n2　你可以让Guo女士出庭。她可以作证。对吗？你可以\n\n3　让她出庭。她可以支持你所说的一切。\n\n4　ROMNEY律师：法官阁下，现在我才是被针对的那个人，\n\n5　我不会把我的客户推到风口浪尖。\n\n6　\n\n7　法庭：我不理解你刚才所说的那句话\n\n8　是什么意思。\n\n9　ROMNEY律师：本院显然对我所做的某事感到不满，\n\n10　而我在此说明我的行为。\n\n11　法庭：不，我没有说——我在提问。\n\n12　你说——我认为你在陈述结束时说本院是否有任何问题。\n\n13　而且，是的，我有。\n\n14　因此我正在提出这些问题。\n\n15　ROMNEY律师：明白。而且——我在此\n\n16　是为消除您的疑虑。但我理解您\n\n17　有所担忧。并且那是——\n\n18　法庭：嗯，我确实有所担忧，因为在记录中已达成\n\n19　一项协议，即将遵从传票，以便本院不会就\n\n20　你代表其提交出庭通知的Hudson Diamond各实体\n\n21　的藐视法庭动议作出裁决。\n\n22　而且在你的宣誓书及你在此的陈述中——并且\n\n23　Vartan先生并未争议——这也是在\n\n24　与Vartan先生协商后作出的。\n\n25　\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 27 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n27　因此，如果你成了被针对的对象，或许是本院以外的其他人将你置于该位置。因为你主动把自己置于该位置，而我不确定原因。因为此时，你称你相信Mei Guo直到藐视法庭动议提交、你发送电子邮件，并随后与Vartan律师和Guo女士进行电话交谈后，才知道这些传票。\n\nROMNEY律师：通常的做法是，在涉及实质事项时，我们三人会进行电话交谈，并讨论有关她或她控制的实体的事项。有时——我是说，我们无法共同发送一封电子邮件。有时由我们其中一人发送。如果是行政性更新，我们其中任何一人都可以通话。但我的意思是，在这个具体事项中，我记得查看我的电子邮件后，是由我将传票发送给她，然后要求与她及Vartan律师通话。随后我们进行了那次通话。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，谁授权你代表Hudson Diamond, LLC及Hudson Diamond New York, LLC提交出庭通知？\n\nROMNEY律师：为使记录清楚，是Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC及Hudson Diamond New York, LLC。\n\n法庭：这没关系。Hudson Diamond New York, LLC和Hudson Diamond——因为出庭通知\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日 28 是代表这两个实体提交的，对吗？罗姆尼先生（Mr. Romney）：对。法院：好的。谁授权您提交该出庭代理通知？罗姆尼先生：郭梅（Mei Guo）。法院：好的。以何种身份？罗姆尼先生：作为这些实体的律师，相信——法院：不，抱歉。我没有正确地提出问题。抱歉。您认为她如何有权指示您代表 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 和 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 提交出庭代理通知？罗姆尼先生：嗯，如所述，但显然表述得不够清楚，第11章受托人提出的藐视法庭动议称，Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 是 Hudson Diamond New York 的母公司，而郭梅是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的唯一成员。我知道郭梅是唯一的——是母公司——抱歉，是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的唯一成员。我还基于郭女士的陈述认为，我相信她主观上——我相信她认为自己是 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的唯一成员，而 Hudson Diamond Holdings 是 Hudson Diamond New York 的唯一成员。我相信其信念的依据\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 2119\n提交日期 08/24/23\n录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日\n\n1　除其他事项外，是她曾被要求\n2　作为 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的成员，代表 Hudson Diamond New York 签署文件，而 Hudson Diamond Holdings 是纽约实体的\n3　唯一成员。\n5　导致我们认为郭女士存在错误的唯一原因，\n6　正如我基于我们现今所知可能有误或可能无误一样，\n7　是 Hodgson Russ 律师事务所（Hodgson Russ）在我们共同致电该所时告知瓦尔坦律师（Attorney Vartan）和我，\n8　凯文·卡尼律师（Attorney Kevin Kearney）向我们表示，Hudson Holdings,\n9　LLC 并非 Hudson Diamond——Hudson\n10　Diamond New York 的唯一成员，并且他——似乎一直在\n11　阅读其律所编制的一份经营协议，\n12　该协议表明债务人的儿子是该纽约实体的唯一成员。\n15　法院：\n是 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的？\n16　罗姆尼先生：\nHudson Diamond New York, LLC。\n这\n17　促使我立即咨询亨齐律师（Attorney Henzy），立即致电卢夫特律师（Attorney Luft），并于\n18　次日上午根据我认为《职业行为规则》第1.16(b)条所要求的事项，\n19　提交撤回出庭代理的动议。\n22　法院：\n关于 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的\n23　经营协议，您或许已这样做过——\n24　抱歉，但如您所知，本案中有数量庞大的\n25　文件。您是否已将该经营协议提交\n\n案件 22-50073　文书 2119　提交日期 08/24/23　录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49　第30页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日 30 至案卷中的某处，该协议表明债务人——个人债务人的儿子是 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的成员？罗姆尼先生：我没有那份经营协议——法院：好的。罗姆尼先生：——因为 Hodgson——Hodgson Russ 不会向我、郭女士或瓦尔坦律师提供有关任何 Hudson Diamond 实体的任何信息。而在我的宣誓书——声明，抱歉——中，以及复制进该声明正文的内容和附有附件的电子邮件链，均证明 Hodgson Russ 不会向我们提供有关这些实体的任何文件。因此我没有它。我仅有的是，据我了解是一家信誉极高的律所的总法律顾问告诉我的话，即债务人的儿子是该成员。法院：那么——罗姆尼先生：他随后修正其说法，称并非债务人的儿子以其个人身份担任成员，而是债务人的儿子作为某一第三方实体 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc. 的高管，并且——以其他某种身份担任高管。该实体是一家英属维尔京群岛公司，我完全不知道实际由谁拥有该实体；我没有理由相信是郭女士。郭女士也没有理由相信是\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 2119\n提交日期 08/24/23\n录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日\n\n1　她。\n根据 Hodgson Russ 向我们作出的陈述，\n2　该人似乎是债务人的儿子，\n3　因为他似乎在代表该实体签署文件。\n4　法院：\n因此，您因 Hodgson Russ 告诉您 Hudson Diamond\n5　New York, LLC 的管理成员是债务人——个人\n6　债务人的儿子而提出撤回出庭代理的动议，\n7　但您从未见过确认该事实的文件，\n8　是吗？\n9　罗姆尼先生：\n他不肯把该文件给我，所以\n10　是的。\n11　法院：\n好的。好的。\n12　罗姆尼先生：\n这就使我处于目前的境地，\n13　因为 Hodgson Russ 还编制了一份后续文件，\n14　该文件表明其编制了一份由郭女士签署的文件，\n15　由她作为 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的成员，\n16　即 Hudson Diamond New York 的唯一成员签署。因此我\n17　目前的立场是，我不知道 Hudson Diamond\n18　New York 的唯一成员是谁。Hodgson Russ 似乎也不知道。\n19　我已向他们询问有关\n20　他们为何编制该文件的信息；该文件是他们在我\n21　提出撤回动议时，首次向瓦尔坦律师和我指出的唯一文件。\n22　他们没有向我解释\n23　为何他们制作了提及债务人儿子的该文件，\n24　然后又编制了一份将债务人的女儿确定为间接\n\n案件 22-50073　文书 2119　提交日期 08/24/23　录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49　第32页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日\n1　纽约实体成员的文件。因此，我\n2　完全不知道究竟是哪一个。这就是我\n3　认为我必须继续推进撤回\n4　出庭代理动议的原因。\n5　我要说的是，如若我能够确定郭女士直接或\n6　间接确实是 Hudson Diamond New York 的成员、\n7　间接成员，或有权控制或聘任 Hudson Diamond New York 律师的人，\n8　我将撤回我的——嗯，我将撤回我的——我将\n9　撤回我的撤回出庭代理动议，因为我绝无意\n10　逃避这一情况、回避这一情况，或试图代表\n11　Hudson Diamond New York、任何 Hudson Diamond 实体或郭女士耍花招。\n12　我只是试图履行我对本法院、我在此情况下唯一的自然人客户郭女士，\n13　以及在场其他所有人的\n14　伦理义务。\n17　法院：\n嗯，在此情况下，她不是您的\n18　客户。\n19　罗姆尼先生：\n不是。但她总体上是我的客户。\n20　我的意思是——\n21　法院：\n不是。但在此情况下，她不是您的\n22　客户。客户——而且您一直非常谨慎，我\n23　理解原因。客户——您目前唯一代表的客户——\n24　或您认为您代表且有权代表的客户是 Hudson Diamond Holding,\n25　LLC。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日 33 LLC。罗姆尼先生：对。但是，法官阁下，我的意思，也许不够精确，是我所试图做的一切，就是尽我所能履行我对法院、Hudson Diamond 各实体、郭女士以及在场其他所有人的伦理义务。我不代表在场的任何其他人，但我对他们负有伦理义务，正如我对法院负有伦理义务一样。那就是\n\n如实陈述，尽我所能，并尽我最大能力遵守我作出的协议。这是我每天在每一宗案件中所做的事。这也是我现在正在做的事。\n\n法院：那么，让我再问一个问题。因此，关于——藐视法庭的动议的听证会于6月6日举行。\n\n罗姆尼先生：对。\n\n法院：当天举行了多场听证会，但那是其中之一——该藐视法庭动议针对多方，包括 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 和 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 实体。在该听证会之前，您已提交出庭代理通知。\n\n您在该听证会上出庭，并表示就文件提交事宜达成了一项协议，且代表这两个实体，文件提交将于6月15日前完成，而不仅仅是已着手进行\n\n案件 22-50073　文书 2119　提交日期 08/24/23　录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49　第34页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日\n1　而是完成。\n2　随后于6月8日提交了同意命令，\n3　该命令记载了6月6日在记录中达成的协议。\n4　法院作出了该命令，我想。\n我不知道\n5　是在当天还是次日。显然看起来\n6　是在当天。然后——即6月8日。该\n7　命令为 ECF 1896。\n8　因此，截至6月6日——并且再次于\n9　6月8日得到确认——您代表 Hudson Diamond——抱歉\n\n——New York, LLC 和 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC。您和瓦尔坦律师表示，您将于6月15日前完成对传票的遵从。6月13日，即在——您知道的，同意命令作出五天后、但在应遵从期限届满前两天，您仅就 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 提出撤回代理动议。\n\n因此，您是说——我只是想确保我理解正确。就 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 而言，您已经遵从同意命令？\n\n罗姆尼先生：对。\n\n法院：好的。那么 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 呢？他们尚未遵从，对吗？\n\n罗姆尼先生：如果可以，我会从两个方面回答。我相信是这样。我不是来反对，也无意反对，并且不会反对就纽约实体作出藐视法庭命令，因为我无权从任何一方面对此进行争辩。或者说，我并不确信我有此权限。我想说的是，在6月6日——即我达成法官阁下刚刚所述的约定命令之日——与现在之间的期间内，瓦尔坦律师、郭女士和我曾试图查找有关 Hudson Diamond New York 以及 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的文件。我们始终未能找到这些文件。我们相信 Capital 1 有文件——法院：抱歉。请再说一遍。您一直试图为 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 查找文件？罗姆尼先生：对。法院：如果您不代表他们，为什么？罗姆尼先生：因为在这段期间内，我相信我代表他们。法院：好的。那么您为查找这些文件做了什么？罗姆尼先生：如我的声明所载，我们——我们做了三件事。我们联系了 Hodgson Russ；我们认为该所曾代理——嗯，我们知道该所设立了纽约实体，因为我们有组织章程\n\n案件 22-50073　文书 2119　提交日期 08/24/23　录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49　第35页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年7月11日 36，该章程确认该所设立了该实体。因此我们试图联系——法院：该组织章程——抱歉。我不是想打断您。我只是想——罗姆尼先生：它是——法院：——非常明确。Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的公司章程。您说的是这个吗？罗姆尼先生：是。法院：这些文件由谁签署？罗姆尼先生：它们由 Hodgson Russ 提交。法院：是的。但谁签署了它们？谁是——谁是 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的签字人？罗姆尼先生：我认为没有签字人。法院：好的。所以您有未经签署的公司章程？罗姆尼先生：我认为纽约州法律，或者就此而言康涅狄格州法律，并不要求签字人。但是，纽约——法院：那么谁是管理成员？罗姆尼先生：在——其中未予确定；没有自然人被确定——法院：好的。罗姆尼先生：——在该章程中——\n\n案件 22-50073　文书 2119　提交日期 08/24/23　录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49　第36页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日 37　法庭：好的。ROMNEY先生（罗姆尼先生）：——除Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）以外的组织作为“申报方”。法庭：那么，你是从Hodgson Russ取得该文件的？你是这样告诉我的吗？这些公司设立章程？ROMNEY先生：我从Guo女士（郭女士）那里取得该文件。法庭：好的。它没有签字。但她持有它？ROMNEY先生：正确。法庭：在她的个人档案中？ROMNEY先生：这进一步——这进一步支持了我和她认为这是她的实体的信念。正确。法庭：好的。ROMNEY先生：是。法庭：好的。这正是我在问的。ROMNEY先生：是。法庭：好的。所以她将其保存在她的档案中，并交给了你。还有Vartan先生（瓦尔坦先生），还是只有你，或者Vartan先生？ROMNEY先生：她向Vartan律师和我发送了一封电子邮件。所以她将其——法庭：好的。ROMNEY先生：——交给了我们——案件 22-50073 文件 2119 提交日期 08/24/23 录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49 第37页，共\n\n郭文贵— 2023年7月11日 38　法庭：好的。ROMNEY先生：——同时。法庭：就Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）而言，她还交出了哪些其他文件？ROMNEY先生：就Hudson Diamond New York, LLC而言？那些是仅有的文件。法庭：好的。你是否——你可能已经说过这一点，好吧，所以抱歉。我需要弄清楚。你是否向受托人提供了该文件？ROMNEY先生：我相信，该文件已在郭女士早先提交材料时一并提供给受托人。法庭：但你没有代表Hudson Diamond New York, LLC向受托人提交该文件，尽管郭女士向你——向你和Vartan律师发送了一封附有该文件的电子邮件？ROMNEY先生：我没有。因为在提交日期时，我不认为我有权代表Hudson Diamond New York, LLC采取任何行动，因为——法庭：你何时收到郭女士的电子邮件，其中附有该协议？ROMNEY先生：我不记得日期。那是在——法庭：是在你提交撤回作为律师的动议之前吗？案件 22-50073 文件 2119 提交日期 08/24/23 录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49 第38页，共\n\n郭文贵— 2023年7月11日 39　ROMNEY先生：那是在我提交——法庭：好的。ROMNEY先生：——撤回作为律师的动议之前。法庭：好的。现在，关于——所以你不反对，因为你不能——你无权反对对Hudson Diamond New York, LLC作出藐视法庭裁定。对吗？ROMNEY先生：正确。法庭：好的。关于Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司），你认为——而且，Vartan律师，将向你提出同样的问题——你已遵守同意命令，并且——该同意命令中的条款是，你已代表Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）完成向受托人提交材料？你——截至6月15日。你认为你已遵守该命令？ROMNEY先生：我认为是。法庭：好的。Vartan律师，你认为你已遵守该命令——包含Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC须在6月15日前完成向受托人提交文件的同意命令？VARTAN先生（瓦尔坦先生）：是，法官阁下。我们力图从我们能够取得文件的所有来源取得全部文件，并且——案件 22-50073 文件 2119 提交日期 08/24/23 录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49 第39页，共\n\n郭文贵— 2023年7月11日 40　法庭：你试图从哪些来源取得文件？VARTAN先生：我们试图从Hodgson Russ取得文件。我们试图从Capital One（第一资本）取得文件。当然，我们也试图直接从我们的当事人取得文件。还有若干其他个人，理论上他们可能持有文件，但他们不愿与我们交谈。法庭：嗯，这是什么意思？我的意思是，我不知道“他们不愿与我们交谈”是什么意思。VARTAN先生：所以——法庭：你作了哪些尝试？VARTAN先生：所以我们试图通过我们的当事人联系双方——法庭：所以你们没有联系。是你们的当事人联系了？VARTAN先生：正确。法庭：因此，作为当时代表Hudson Diamond各实体的律师，你不知道你的当事人是否确实联系了这些其他来源？VARTAN先生：嗯，我们知道我们的当事人去了银行，因为我们在她去之前和之后都与她通了电话。法庭：但你不知道她当时是否在——案件 22-50073 文件 2119 提交日期 08/24/23 录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49 第40页，共\n\n郭文贵— 2023年7月11日 41　银行，当她——VARTAN先生：我们不——法庭：你不知道——VARTAN先生：我们没有任何理由以任何方式怀疑我们的当事人。法庭：这不是我的问题。你不知道。你是律师，对吧？你不是应该知道吗？VARTAN先生：我根据——法庭：你怎么知道？VARTAN先生：——根据我与她的谈话，知道她去了银行。法庭：所以你是基于她对你所说的话而知道的？VARTAN先生：再次说明，法官，我没有理由怀疑她。法庭：我没有说你有理由怀疑她。我是说，基于她对你所说的话。VARTAN先生：如果您问我是否和她一起去了银行，我没有。法庭：这——好的。所以——VARTAN先生：但是我们——法庭：还有哪些来源——你们——她查阅这些实体的记录时，你在场吗，以查看哪些内容——哪些内容会对传票作出响应？案件 22-50073 文件 2119 提交日期 08/24/23 录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49 第41页，共\n\n郭文贵— 2023年7月11日 42　VARTAN先生：我此前曾与郭女士一起查阅过她的记录，以便进行——法庭：那不是我的问题。VARTAN先生：——先前的提交。法庭：那不是我的问题。我的问题是一个非常直接的问题。VARTAN先生：没有——法庭：当她查阅其记录、审查可能对向Hudson Diamond各实体送达的传票作出响应的文件时，你在场吗？VARTAN先生：法官，据我了解，她没有任何记录，除她和我此前审查过的记录之外。法庭：这仍然没有回答我的问题，Vartan律师。VARTAN先生：那么——法庭：听问题。当你的当事人查阅她的记录，以确定她是否持有可能对已发出并送达的传票作出响应的记录时，你在场吗？你承认这些传票已送达Hudson Diamond各实体。VARTAN先生：当她查阅——案件 22-50073 文件 2119 提交日期 08/24/23 录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49 第42页，共\n\n郭文贵— 2023年7月11日 43　法庭：好的。VARTAN先生：——就在6月15日之前的文件时，我不在场。正确。法庭：所以你不在场。你没有查看、观察或讨论你的当事人就审查其占有和控制之中、可能对送达Hudson Diamond各实体的传票作出响应的文件所采取的行动？VARTAN先生：我们绝对讨论过。所以我没有查看或观察她。法庭：那么，你们就对传票作出响应讨论了什么？那不受保护。因此，你可以主张这是律师—当事人事项。但不是。VARTAN先生：嗯，我——法庭：你有一份传票。你已经承认该传票已被适当送达。你没有反对该传票。你没有提出撤销传票动议。你没有申请保护令。因此，你现在不能提出任何在任何方面享有特权的反对意见。那么，就可能对送达Hudson Diamond各实体的传票作出响应的文件，你们进行了什么讨论？VARTAN先生：嗯，我仍主张这些通信享有特权。案件 22-50073 文件 2119 提交日期 08/24/23 录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49 第43页，共\n\n郭文贵— 2023年7月11日 44　法庭：你可以主张，但我——你错了。所以请继续。什么——VARTAN先生：所以，嗯，我不会谈及我与当事人的享有特权的通信，但当然，我们——法庭：那么你将被裁定藐视法庭，好的？因为你有义务，Vartan律师。作为法庭官员，你对法庭负有义务。VARTAN先生：毫无疑问。法庭：好的？VARTAN先生：并非要打断——法庭：而且你通过Romney律师在同意命令中并在记录中表示，你将遵守这些传票。你必须证明，不仅是你的当事人，你必须证明你已采取哪些步骤来遵守传票。而我什么也没听到。一件也没有。VARTAN先生：嗯，法官阁下，首先，我们与Hodgson Russ进行了多次电话和电子邮件沟通，我们了解到该所是两家控股实体的律师——法庭：而你没有从他们那里取得任何文件。他们告诉你不会提交文件。然后你做了什么？你只是说，好吧，他们不会——案件 22-50073 文件 2119 提交日期 08/24/23 录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49 第44页，共\n\n郭文贵— 2023年7月11日 45　提交文件。这就是你所说的。我看过。我是说，Romney律师在其声明中附上了某些内容——Hodgson Russ的一人说，我拒绝与你交谈。VARTAN先生：正确。那是实际处理该案卷的律师。法庭：好的。当他说“我——”时，你做了什么？VARTAN先生：所以当他——法庭：——拒绝与你交谈。VARTAN先生：——当他说“我拒绝与你交谈”时，我们说我们交谈极其重要。随后他将——法庭：我认为我没有看到任何这方面的内容。VARTAN先生：嗯，有电子邮件通信，其中——法庭：嗯，那不在记录中。VARTAN先生：嗯，法官阁下，如果我可以说完。我要说的只是——法庭：你可以说完，Vartan律师，但你需要非常谨慎。好的？VARTAN先生：我正在尽力。法庭：好的。请继续。VARTAN先生：在我们与Harmon先生（哈蒙先生）交谈之后——案件 22-50073 文件 2119 提交日期 08/24/23 录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49 第45页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交日期 08/24/23\n录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\n郭文贵— 2023年7月11日\n\n1　而他拒绝与我们交谈后，他随后将我们转介给\n2　Hodgson Russ的总法律顾问。因此，这就是我们找到\n3　第二位律师的经过。Romney律师和我与他进行了多次\n4　交谈，我们在交谈中解释，我们正在\n5　努力尽最大所能代表Holdings和代表New York\n6　完成全部提交。\n7　在这些交谈中，\n8　他告诉我们，他不认为郭女士与New York有任何\n9　关系。这正是促使我们提出\n10　撤回动议的原因。\n11　法庭：对。但你没有看到任何文件，\n12　也没有——\n13　VARTAN先生：嗯——\n14　法庭：而你的当事人所说的恰恰\n15　相反。\n16　VARTAN先生：但是我能否——\n17　法庭：等等。停一下。停一下。你没有\n18　任何文件支持Hodgson Russ的律师所作的陈述。\n19　\n20　VARTAN先生：正确。\n21　法庭：你没有文件。\n22　VARTAN先生：但是我能否——\n23　法庭：并且——请稍等。\n24　VARTAN先生：抱歉。我道歉。\n25　法庭：而你的当事人所说的恰恰相反。\n\n相反，她是 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）的管理成员。\n\n瓦尔坦律师：那么，法官阁下，如果我可以就此回应？\n\n我们未能从 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）取得文件，并非因为我们没有努力。\n\n而是因为 Hodgson Russ 表示，Hudson Diamond New York 与我们的当事人毫无关系，而与她的兄弟完全有关；我们并不代理她的兄弟。因此，Hodgson Russ、该兄弟与 Hudson Diamond New York 之间存在特权关系，我们当然不能予以破除。因此，并非因为我们没有努力。\n\n法官阁下，我只想指出一点，我认为罗姆尼律师所说的话中既有隐含也有明确表达：我们绝非要向本院或受托人隐瞒任何情况。我们在本案中代表 Holdings 和 New York 两者出庭的全部原因，并非以任何方式混淆视听，而是为了尽可能完整地向受托人提供文件。\n\n就我们当时认为郭女士与这两个实体有关联的范围而言，我们对任何一个实体均无利益关系，因而不希望任何实体被裁定藐视法庭。我相信受托人并非寻求将实体裁定为藐视法庭。受托人寻求的是取得文件。\n\n因此，我们当时——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日 48\n\n法庭：嗯，他有一项待决动议，要求将它们裁定为藐视法庭，所以我不同意你的说法。\n\n瓦尔坦律师：但我所说的是，我假定受托人的偏好是取得文件——\n\n法庭：可能——是的，那会是他的偏好。\n\n瓦尔坦律师：——而不是将一个实体裁定为藐视法庭。这正是我们努力所做之事，仅此而已。若我们仍相信除 Holdings 外还代理 Hudson Diamond New York，那么我们本会提供文件。就 New York 提出撤回代理动议的唯一原因，是基于相关谈话，以及我们就 Hodgson Russ 所进行的尽职调查。\n\n法庭：你亲自会见过 Hodgson Russ 的律师吗？\n\n瓦尔坦律师：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：你与此人进行过视频会议吗？\n\n瓦尔坦律师：我们进行过多次电话交谈。\n\n法庭：所以你甚至不知道此人是谁。你甚至不知道此人长什么样，对吗？\n\n瓦尔坦律师：从网站上看，我知道。但是，没有，我没有——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第48页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第49页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n瓦尔坦律师：——进行视频会议。\n\n法庭：所以，你进行过一次电话交谈，在该电话交谈中，Hodgson Russ 那位不愿向你提供任何文件的人告诉你，儿子是管理成员。并且基于此，你——\n\n瓦尔坦律师：是 New York 的管理成员。\n\n法庭：对。是 New York 的管理成员。\n\n瓦尔坦律师：正确。\n\n法庭：而且你——基于此，你撤回了——你提出了动议——嗯，你并未提交出庭通知书，这又是另一个问题。我们将在另一个时间讨论此事。我们不会再这样来回推诿了，好吗？从本案一开始，我就一直在说这个问题。你们要么都代理，要么都不代理；要么其中一人代理，要么其中一人不代理。我需要知道谁代理这些实体。此事不会在本院继续下去，好吗？你们需要决定如何运作，并且坚持这一决定。\n\n因为由你签署某些文件，而文件下方有罗姆尼律师的签名，显示其为当地律师，然后罗姆尼律师却是唯一提交出庭通知书的人，这并不适当。本案中不会再继续这样。因此，你们所有人都必须——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交于 08/24/23\n录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n弄清楚此事。要么你们两人都代理他们，要么你们中的一人代理他们，仅此而已。\n\n瓦尔坦律师：我只是想为记录澄清这一点。因此，自从我和我的律师事务所参与本案以来，这一直是 CSG、我的律师事务所与——之间的共同律师关系。\n\n法庭：那么，为什么你没有代表两个 Hudson Diamond 实体提交出庭通知书？\n\n瓦尔坦律师：法官阁下，在我准备这样做时，显然出现了一个问题，我们已将该问题提交本院。\n\n法庭：这不准确。这不准确。强制履行及藐视法庭动议当时尚在待决。罗姆尼律师在藐视法庭动议听证会之前很早就提交了出庭通知书。因此，瓦尔坦律师，这不准确。所以我不想再听到这种说法，因为这不准确。\n\n你作出了选择。好，你作出了该选择。但你不能再作出那种选择。你们要么两人都代理这些实体，要么你们中的一人代理。\n\n我们不会再这样做了。你们在浪费本院的时间，而且我认为你向本院所作的陈述并不准确。因此，你需要对此进行认真且深入的思考。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第51页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日 51\n\n罗姆尼律师是唯一就该强制履行动议提交宣誓书或声明的人。你将会辩称，嗯，我没有义务这样做。我从未代表 Hudson Diamond 实体提交出庭通知书。但我听到的是什么？每一次涉及藐视法庭动议、出庭通知书、该动议及文件提供的谈话，都有你参与其中，瓦尔坦律师，而不仅仅是罗姆尼律师。这并不适当。\n\n瓦尔坦律师：明白，法官阁下。我确实并非试图向本院或法庭中的任何一方隐瞒任何事情。实际上，自提出要求将 Hudson Diamond 实体裁定为藐视法庭的动议以来，我们一直努力所做的是，尽最大努力查明我们代理的是哪些实体。我们当然——\n\n法庭：嗯，在罗姆尼律师提交出庭通知书时，你们并未尽最大努力查明你们代理的是哪个——实体。他代理了这两个实体。\n\n瓦尔坦律师：法官阁下，但是，再次说明，当时这样做是——我明白发生了一个错误。但我们在此所说的是，当时这样做是出于最好的意图。也就是说，我们并未试图向任何人隐瞒任何事情。我们只是——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第52页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日 52\n\n法庭：是否出于最好的意图实际上并不重要，瓦尔坦律师。\n\n瓦尔坦律师：嗯，我——\n\n法庭：重要的是你们的职业义务是什么——\n\n瓦尔坦律师：我们当时试图——\n\n法庭：——依据适用的行为准则，以及作为纽约州或新泽西州律师协会成员并在本院执业的身份。那才是你们的义务。你可以持有任何你认为的意图。这并不重要。重要的是，你们的要求是什么？你们的义务是什么？你们有义务做什么？\n\n瓦尔坦律师：而且，法官阁下，我相信我们已经履行了那些义务。\n\n法庭：好的。那是你的信念。很好。好的。罗姆尼律师，你还有什么想补充的吗？\n\n罗姆尼律师：有，法官阁下。非常简短地说。我代表 Hudson Diamond 实体提交的出庭通知书——实际上我没有带在身边，但我相信那是在——\n\n法庭：如果你愿意，我可以——我们可以把它显示在屏幕上。\n\n罗姆尼律师：如果不太麻烦的话，那会有帮助。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日 53\n\n法庭：好的。我们会找到它。请给我们一分钟，我们会把它显示在屏幕上。\n\n罗姆尼律师：我记得很清楚，我相信是 6月1日，大约在晚上 10 点多提交的。\n\n法庭：ECF 编号是 1848。上面写着，你代表利益相关方 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 和 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 提交出庭通知书。\n\n罗姆尼律师：而且我——我说得对吗，它是在晚上 10 点多提交的？\n\n法庭：晚上 10:16。实际上——是。不是。晚上 8:16。\n\n罗姆尼律师：8:16。好的。我以为大约是 10 点。但——或许是在 10 点多提交的，是延期动议。\n\n法庭：可能是。你要我——\n\n罗姆尼律师：不，不，不。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n罗姆尼律师：法官阁下，我想说明的是，这是在答复期限前一晚提交的——或者是在——\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\n罗姆尼律师：——答复期限当晚。\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第53页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交于 08/24/23\n录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n罗姆尼律师：瓦尔坦律师——\n\n法庭：听证会直到 6月6日才举行。\n\n罗姆尼律师：我明白。瓦尔坦律师当时——现已获准以临时代理资格在本院代表 HK International（香港国际公司）和 Mei Guo（郭美）出庭。我非常清楚地记得，我之所以是提交该出庭通知书的人，是因为没有时间再办理另一份临时代理资格申请。\n\n法庭：我明白。但你第二天本可以这样做。\n\n罗姆尼律师：本可以。而且如同——\n\n法庭：实际上，你当晚就可以这样做，因为全部都是电子提交。非常容易。\n\n罗姆尼律师：我们——\n\n法庭：你在许多其他场合都做得很好，本院其他人也是如此。\n\n罗姆尼律师：实际上，我不知道如何进行电子提交，在这个时代这相当可悲。但我——不过我们有非常好的辅助工作人员，所以这一区别并无实质差异。\n\n在我们提交该文件时，没有人——不是我，不是瓦尔坦律师，不是郭女士，也不是我与之进行过讨论的任何其他人——预期会发生任何其他事情，只预期我们会就延期一事进行简短协商，以换取我们的遵从。而所谓遵从，我的定义是，我相信根据相关判例法这是正确的——但如果我错了，我道歉——即善意且勤勉地尝试查找当事人实际或推定控制之下的每一份文件。这正是我们意图要做的事。这正是我们同意要做的事。这也是我们实际所做的事。\n\n在瓦尔坦律师、我本人和郭女士之间，没有人预期此事会发展为值得让另一位律师提交临时代理——另一份临时代理资格申请，或在本案中增加另一项案卷记录的事情，因为我们所有人都意图并且确实善意地采取行动，以遵从要求并向受托人提供受托人就这些实体所希望得到的一切文件。而我——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第55页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n法庭：嗯，我没有郭女士的任何声明，因此我不能就此作出任何认定。我唯一能够作出认定的依据，是你在伪证处罚的约束下于声明中所说的内容；我感谢你提交了该声明。好吗？\n\n罗姆尼律师：谢谢。\n\n法庭：因此，我无法谈论郭女士的意图。我无法谈论瓦尔坦律师的意图，因为他没有提交任何文件。我唯一能够谈论的是本案中已经发生的事情，以及我们——我们目前所处的状况。\n\n而在 6月6日，我们当时处于这样一个阶段，即存在——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第56页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年7月11日\n\n1　将可能作出一项命令，认定 Hudson Diamond entities（哈德逊钻石实体）藐视法庭。\n2　而且我被告知，\n3　案卷记录和庭审记录均表明，双方同意\n4　由您代理该两实体，且已达成协议，\n5　即它们将提交材料，并将在 June 15th 前提交。\n6　Romney 律师（罗姆尼律师），您现已陈述，您\n7　认为您已就——即您已\n8　就针对 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）的文件提交传票\n9　履行了义务。\n10　这是您的陈述。受托人将对此\n11　采取其将采取的行动。我们将在\n12　我确信不久之后——听取相关事项。\n13　至于 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司），\n14　据我所知，尚未履行义务。也没有人\n15　向我表明已履行义务。因此，如受托人\n16　提出藐视法庭动议，我将予以审议。\n17　ROMNEY 先生：\n我不会反对。\n18　法庭：\n正如您所说，我认为您\n19　没有——嗯，您——\n20　ROMNEY 先生：\n对。那——\n21　法庭：\n如果您与您要求撤回作为律师的动议\n22　保持一致，您无权\n23　反对该动议。\n24　ROMNEY 先生：\n对。\n25　法庭：\n因此，无论如何，您还有什么\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 57 其他事项想补充吗？ROMNEY 先生：没有。感谢您——法庭：好的。ROMNEY 先生：——听取我们的陈述。法庭：好。那么我想听取受托人律师——VARTAN 先生（瓦尔坦）：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：——以及 United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）的意见。LUFT 先生（卢夫特）：法官阁下，您希望先听取哪一方的陈述吗？法庭：没有偏好。LUFT 先生：好的。法官阁下，我可以上前吗？法庭：可以，请。LUFT 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。下午好，法官阁下。Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），代表受托人出庭。法官阁下，我今天无意就律师的意图发表意见。我没有参与他们与其他任何人——无论是其客户还是 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）——进行的谈话。我也无法就此发表意见。因此，我确实想谈的，并希望简要谈及的，是关于如下说法：无人知道谁在运营 Hudson Diamond New York，且所有\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 57 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 58 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 58 推定在世上存在、且本可对我方传票作出回应的文件，均已提交，因此已履行义务。因为我认为这两点都并非如此直截了当。法官阁下，据我理解，他们提到我们已提交文件，表明 Hudson Diamond New York 似乎——拥有 Guo 女士（郭女士）作为唯一成员。确实如此。这些文件附于我的声明，作为 Exhibit 1805。具体而言，法官阁下，如果您看——法庭：Exhibit T。LUFT 先生：有 Exhibit T，法官阁下。还有 Exhibit U，其中——法庭：我可能尚未看过 Exhibit U。请继续。LUFT 先生：——以及 Exhibits G、H 和 I，法官阁下。法庭：好的。LUFT 先生：简言之，这就是我们为何如此认为：如果您看 Exhibit G，这是一份由 Hodgson Russ 为 Golden Springs（黄金泉公司）的 Yvette Wang（王伊薇特女士）编制的文件，其中列出了——列出了各实体的组织结构图；我可以告诉您，根据我与他们的沟通，他们认为这些实体由债务人控制。但无论如何，文件中列出了所载明的人员。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 59 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 59 在 Hudson Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股公司）项下，您可以看到 Guo 女士位于最上方，直接位于 Hudson Diamond Holdings 之上，也直接位于 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 之上。与此一致，Exhibit H 是一份关于 Hudson Diamond New York 的文件，其中列 Wang 女士为联系人，但将唯一成员列为 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC，100 percent。该公司位于 Manhattan（曼哈顿）162 East 64th Street，这并不令人意外，因为债务人的大多数实体均位于此处。随后，如我们看 Exhibit I，便可看到谁拥有 Hudson Diamond Holdings。成员被列为 Guo 女士，100 percent interest，同样使用 162 East 64th Street 地址。如法官阁下提到，Exhibit T 显示 Guo 女士以 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的唯一成员身份签字。Exhibit U 显示 Guo 女士再次签字，这次同样以 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的唯一成员身份签字。基于该等文件，我们因此理解 Guo 女士是控制 Hudson Diamond Holding 和 Hudson Diamond New York 的人员。我们不知道有任何文件表明其他任何人是列名成员。我可以告诉您，我\n\n基于证据开示和我们的调查，认为债务人实际控制该实体。但就谁是\n\n成员以及谁能够——应当回应传票而言，这就是——我们认为负责之人。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 60 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 60 现在，我觉得我不确定为何此时会存在混淆，因为据我理解，尽管没有任何人见过的文件表明除 Guo 女士之外的任何人是成员，但有人陈述，曾有谈话，其中 Hodgson Russ 的 Kearney 先生（基尔尼）表示儿子可能是成员。这很可能发生过。我不知道。但我确实知道，如果我们看 Romney 先生的声明和 Exhibit A，Kearney 先生曾写信给 Romney 先生和 Vartan 先生，称他质疑自己是否曾说过该话，但更重要的是，他称文件表明 Holdings 是成员，而不是 Qiang Guo（郭强），即该儿子。他接着称，关于 Hudson Diamond New York 的委托代理函寄给了 Wang 女士。因此，无论通话中说了什么，而且很可能确实存在误解，我认为 Kearney 先生此时已明确表示，并不认为债务人的儿子——郭先生——是 Holdings 的成员；如此一来，就没有理由认为 Guo 女士，即 Mei Guo（郭梅），不是 Holdings 的成员；如此一来，他们就应当能够履行义务。法官阁下，我为何关心此事？仅仅出于\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n1　一个原因。我们需要取得文件。我们需要一名\n2　我们可以与其交谈、可以从其处取得文件的人。\n3　这就真正引向我们在此的第二点，\n4　即您今天已听到，他们称\n5　他们已从所有来源取得了全部文件。\n6　Romney 先生在其声明中称，我没有任何理由\n7　相信 New York 或 Holdings 拥有任何资产或\n8　有能力提交额外文件。\n9　可是，法官阁下，我不知道这怎么可能\n10　是真的。我曾与 Vartan 先生和\n11　Romney 先生交谈。我特别向他们指出我声明的 Exhibit\n12　J，这是一份代表 Hudson Diamonds New York 与 AIG（美国国际集团）\n13　订立的保险协议，表明\n14　其名下有一辆 Rolls-Royce（劳斯莱斯）。我们没有任何\n15　关于该车辆的文件。我们从 Holdings 仅收到两份\n16　为履行义务而提交的文件。因此，J 谈及一辆 Rolls-Royce。\n17　如果您看 Exhibit V，那是\n18　Margaret Conboy（玛格丽特·康博伊）的证言录。\n19　法庭：\nExhibit——哪一个？\n20　LUFT 先生：\nV，如 Victor 中的 V。\n21　法庭：\nV？好的。请稍等。\n22　LUFT 先生：\n当然，法官阁下。\n23　法庭：\n好的。那么我正在看——\n24　LUFT 先生：\n那么是——\n25　法庭：\n——您声明的 Exhibit J——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 62 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n1　LUFT 先生：\n对，法官阁下。\n2　法庭：\n——其附于 1805，第\n3　1805-36 页，共 5 页中的第 1 页。有一份——纽约汽车保险声明\n4　页。其载明有保单号码、被保险人姓名\n5　及邮寄地址，Hudson Diamond New York, LLC，\n6　162 East 64th Street, New York, New York。签发公司的\n7　名称和地址为 AIG Property Casualty Company（AIG 财产意外保险公司）。\n8　您承保的汽车说明。2019 Rolls-Royce\n9　，载有车辆识别号码，约定价值为 \\$283,712。\n10　这就是您所指的吗？\n11　ROMNEY 先生：\n是，法官阁下。\n12　法庭：\n驾驶员说明中载有\n13　两名被称为获授权且受保障的个人，Dean\n14　Rabideau（迪恩·拉比多）——我不确定发音是否正确——\n15　R-A-B-I-D-E-A-U——以及 I——Cao Defeng（曹德峰）——同样，\n16　我可能没有正确发音——C-A-O 是\n17　名字。D-E-F-E-N-G 是姓氏。\n18　并且每次事故的责任保险保障额度为一百万美元——\n19　每人的医疗费用保险保障为\n20　\\$50,000。每次事故的无保险驾驶人保障为一百万美元。\n21　碰撞保险保障您汽车遭受的损失，\n22　最高至约定价值。人身伤害\n23　保护保险，保费为 \\$5,817。这似乎是一份四页\n24　文件。\n25　好的。请继续。这是 Exhibit G——J，如 jam 中的 J。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n现在我们需要看 V，如 Victor 中的 V？\nLUFT 先生：\n是，法官阁下，这是一份 Margaret Conboy 的证言笔录；她是 Whitman Breed（惠特曼·布里德律师事务所）的律师，代表 Hodgson——Hudson Diamond，就至少五项房地产交易提供代理服务，该等交易中，K——\n法庭：\n您希望我在这份证言中查看哪一页？\n我现在已打开 Exhibit V。\nLUFT 先生：\n法官阁下，我可以请您看 Exhibit\n21——第 21 页，其中有关于 Hudson\nDiamond 的讨论。我不——只是让您看看它是什么。\n我无意逐一审阅全部内容。\n法庭：\n您希望我将其调到屏幕上，还是您仅想——等一下。\n您希望如何处理？\nLUFT 先生：\n法官阁下，我会援引该内容。\n我认为那样会加快进程。\n法庭：\n好的。请继续。\nLUFT 先生：\n但具体而言，其谈及以名为 Hudson\nDiamond 的实体名义进行购买。\n随后其称：“这是否是同一项委托代理，在该委托中，您被告知您代表 Kwok 先生及其家人的利益，对吗？\n是。”\n其后继续如此陈述。\n法官阁下，我提出这些事项，也先前向\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 64 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n1　Vartan 先生和 Romney 先生提出这些事项，以说明我们知道\n2　该车辆，我们知道曾有房地产交易，\n3　我们知道似乎存在与 Hudson\n4　Diamond 实体有关的转让，这意味着应当存在文件。这\n5　不是一家什么也未做、或者从未有人代表其做过任何事情的空壳公司。\n6　\n7　但我们从 Holdings 仅收到您已听闻的两份\n8　文件，截至目前，我们没有从 New York 收到任何文件。而且不幸的是，\n9　听起来有人告诉我们，甚至没有任何我们可以就此\n10　与之交谈的人。我实际上更希望取得\n11　关于这些资产位于何处、某——一所房屋是否实际购置的\n12　信息。\n13　\n14　我查阅的其中一些房屋价值高达\n15　\\$35 million 以上，法官阁下。我不知道\n16　是否曾实际完成任何交易。但我知道\n17　如果他们曾寻求购买该房屋，就必定拥有资金。或者至少\n18　这是合理的推定。\n19　\n20　所以这就是我试图在此查明的事项。而且\n21　此时，我认为这似乎是可以查明的。不仅\n22　所有文件都表明如此，而且认为一名兄弟、一名姐妹和一名父亲无法交谈并弄清\n23　谁是债务人——债务人将其姓名置于\n24　公司顶端的那个人，这似乎是可以查明的，尤其是\n25　三家实体中有两家由同一\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 65 律师。因此，法官阁下，这确实就是我们就此所处的情况。我理解这样的观点：如果他们——如果他们表示并未代理这些实体，那么他们就不能——他们需要退出代理，因为他们并未代理这些实体。我只能就我们所知以及我们向您陈述的、我们为何相信 Mei Guo（郭梅）是负责人而言发言。情况就是如此。但是，我确实必须对以下观点提出异议：即已经遵从要求，或者我们已经收到了与 Hudson Diamond（哈德逊钻石）有关的全部文件，无论这些文件来自 Holdings（控股公司）——其在我们看来似乎全资拥有 New York（纽约公司）——还是来自 New York。我不知道具体是——所有资产在哪里，或者其他任何情况。文件本应会告诉我这些。但我不相信我们已经获得了遵从。因此，就两者而言，我重新提出我们的藐视法庭动议，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。Luft 律师：谢谢。法庭：Claiborn 律师？Claiborn 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。我是代表 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）的 Holley Claiborn（霍利·克莱伯恩）。我想回到 Luft 律师指出的一点，我认为重点关注这一点很重要，即根据 Romney 律师与 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）的 Kevin Kearney 律师之间的\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 于 08/24/23 提交，于 08/24/23 12:37:49 登记，第 66 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n1　电子邮件，似乎已有共识，即现存且任何人见过的最后一份文件实际上是由 Mei Guo 以 Holdings 唯一成员的身份签署的，\n\n2　而 Holdings 的该唯一成员\n\n3　也是——也是 New York 的同一唯一成员。\n\n4　\n\n5　因此，这是提交至法庭的最后一份文件，并且\n\n6　\n\n7　也是最后被讨论的文件。\n\n8　该文件与 Kearney 律师在附于\n\n9　Romney 律师宣誓陈述书中的电子邮件里所说的内容一致。\n\n10　因此，基于此，\n\n11　至少从书面上看，似乎并不存在任何混淆，\n\n12　即 Mei Guo 是负责人。\n\n13　因此，如果 Mei Guo 是负责人，那么\n\n14　Romney 律师似乎与她有直接联系，\n\n15　因为他也以其个人身份代理她。\n\n16　并且，似乎没有理由\n\n17　退出代理。\n\n18　我还想说的是，代表 Hudson Diamond——\n\n19　抱歉，Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）\n\n20　退出代理，\n\n21　似乎会损害破产财产。因为正如 Luft 律师刚才\n\n22　指出的，有若干类别的文件\n\n23　本应提供但尚未提供，且已逾期。\n\n24　受托人就未遵从传票一事提出的藐视法庭动议尚未裁决，\n\n25　而允许\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 于 08/24/23 提交，于 08/24/23 12:37:49 登记，第 67 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n1　Romney 律师退出对 Hudson Diamond\n\n2　New York, LLC 的代理，似乎将损害破产财产，\n\n3　并损害受托人正试图推进的调查。\n\n4　因此，归根结底，法官阁下，我\n\n5　认为 Romney 律师并未完成其举证责任，\n\n6　以证明退出代理是适当的。\n\n7　我还要说的是，U.S.\n\n8　Trustee 对法庭命令的答复要求 Romney 律师和 Vartan 律师\n\n9　就若干不同问题作出答复。\n\n10　正如法庭已经指出的，\n\n11　Vartan 律师未提交任何答复。而且，我\n\n12　要说 Romney 律师提交的答复并未\n\n13　回应 United States Trustee（美国受托人）所要求的全部事项。\n\n14　而且，根据不仅是已提交的声明，\n\n15　还有今天所作的评论，似乎\n\n16　还可以向法庭提供更多信息，\n\n17　说明导致提出退出代理动议的一系列事件。\n\n18　因此，遗憾的是，U.S. Trustee 试图\n\n19　获得有关发生了什么以及我们如何走到这一步的更多信息的努力，\n\n20　仍未得到满足。\n\n21　但回到我刚才提出的观点，即\n\n最后一份任何人持有并已被提供的文件表明，Mei Guo 是所有这些实体的核心，因此，基于此，Romney 律师似乎有依据继续留在本案中。谢谢。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 68 谢谢。法庭：谢谢。Romney 律师，您希望答复吗？Romney 律师：是的，我希望答复。关于第一个问题，即答复 Luft 律师，问题不在于世界上是否存在有关 Hudson Diamond 各实体的文件。除我已经说过的内容外，我无从对此发表意见。问题在于，我或者我能控制的某个人是否能找到这些文件。受托人在本案中主张，就其凭借全部资源所进行的调查而言——这些资源远超我所能做到的——两名个人的情况是如此；而且他们拥有 Hodgson Russ 的全部文件。我没有。记录清楚表明，我曾请求取得这些文件。我曾要求取得这些文件，而有人告诉我不行。这一点载于记录中。我不能手持枪支前往 Hodgson Russ 的办公室，也不被要求这样做，逼迫他们把我的文件交给我。我可以请求。我可以要求。但是归根结底，有人告诉我不行。他们被告知可以。他们拿到了文件。我没有。他们掌握这些信息。凭借这些信息，他们所主张的内容与 Guo 女士所说或告知我们的内容以及我们所陈述的内容一致，即负责管理这些实体的两个人是 Yvette Wang（王伊薇特），她目前被监禁，我完全无法接触到她，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 69 以及 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳），我们无法找到他，据我们所知，他数月来未与 Guo 女士有任何联系。我们无法找到他。因此，就我们所知，掌握这些信息的个人，连同受托人所提及的文件——除其在 Hodgson Russ 以及其他正与他们而非与我们合作的人手中的部分外——均由 U.S. Department of Justice（美国司法部）持有。我不认为——我没有主动向美国司法部索取其持有的关于这些实体的文件，因为在我整个职业生涯中，即使在我有与他们合作的客户时，我也从未从美国司法部收到过一份文件。我们已经尽力而为。这是第一点。第二，Hodgson Russ 在最近一次与我们的沟通中，依据 Ethical Rule 1.6（职业道德规则 1.6）拒绝向我们传达保密信息，因为他作为起草该文件的律师事务所的总法律顾问——U.S. Trustee’s Office（美国受托人办公室）和 Luft 先生称该文件现已具有决定性，但该起草所谓决定性文件的律师事务所的总法律顾问，对于该文件为何物、为何起草仍有足够的不确定性，以至于他不会向作为 Guo 女士及 Hudson Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股公司）律师的我提供任何信息，除非该文件是在\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 于 08/24/23 提交，于 08/24/23 12:37:49 登记，第 69 页，共\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷速记与誊写服务公司）\n\n其余部分——应 Max Krasner 的请求而起草。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 于 08/24/23 提交，于 08/24/23 12:37:49 登记，第 70 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n1　因此，我认为这远不足以决定性地证明 Guo 女士\n\n2　控制这些实体。而且，您知道，如果 Guo 女士控制\n\n3　这些实体，正如我已在记录中所说，我将撤回\n\n4　我的退出代理动议，因为我提出退出代理动议的唯一依据\n\n5　是——曾是因为我不知道\n\n6　Guo 女士是否有权指示我代表该实体出庭。\n\n7　而起草这个证明她确有该权力的确凿证据的律师\n\n8　本人或该律师事务所的总法律顾问也不知道。\n\n9　\n\n10　因此，我不知道本庭如何能够要求我\n\n11　继续代表该实体。我非常希望知悉所有\n\n12　这些事实，并能够继续代表该实体\n\n13　并继续尽我所能。但我并不知悉。我\n\n14　没有足够信息，使我相信根据\n\n15　职业道德规则，我可以基于目前可获得的事实\n\n16　继续代理该实体。\n\n17　关于 Luft 律师就\n\n18　Kearney 律师及 Hodgson Russ 的评论所说内容，我要说明一点。\n\n19　Kearney 律师并未说，与——\n\n20　或者尽管他在电子邮件通信中\n\n21　不记得曾告知我们——告知 Vartan 律师和我\n\n22　那是债务人的儿子。这似乎是\n\n23　没有实质差别的区分，因为他显然是在说，\n\n24　作为 Hudson\n\n25　Diamond Holdings, Inc.（哈德逊钻石控股股份有限公司）代表签署人的是债务人的儿子。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 于 08/24/23 提交，于 08/24/23 12:37:49 登记，第 71 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n1　根据 Hodgson Russ，Hudson Diamond's Holding, Inc.（原文如此）\n\n2　是一家 British Virgin Islands（英属维尔京群岛）公司。它不是 Hudson\n\n3　Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）。它们都带有\n\n4　Hudson Diamond Holdings 这一名称这一事实，并不使它们成为\n\n5　同一实体，也不使 Guo 女士成为该\n\n6　英属维尔京群岛公司的负责人。\n\n7　据我所能回忆，我甚至不认为\n\n8　受托人在本案中主张 Guo 女士与 Hodgson\n\n9　Diamond Holdings, Inc. 有任何关系。因此，\n\n10　无论 Kearney 律师告知我们签署人是 Mileson Guo（郭美森），\n\n11　即债务人的儿子——我百分之百确定他曾如此告知——还是告知我们\n\n12　签署人是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.，一家英属维尔京\n\n13　群岛公司——记录中的电子邮件确实\n\n14　在该电子邮件链较早部分区分了这两个实体，因为他\n\n15　明确提到了 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.。\n\n16　而我说，Vartan 律师和我代理的是 Hudson Diamond\n\n17　Holdings, LLC，一家 Delaware（特拉华州）有限责任公司。\n\n18　您的答复是，您就特拉华州有限责任公司所作的答复\n\n19　与就英属维尔京群岛股份公司所作的答复不同吗？\n\n20　而他的答复是，是的，确实不同。\n\n21　\n\n22　因此，无论是 Mileson Guo 以其个人\n\n23　身份，还是 Mileson Guo 作为 Hudson Diamond\n\n24　Holdings, Inc.——一家英属维尔京群岛公司——的总裁，关于——\n\n25　即该人是——即该人——我所能够确定的与 Guo 女士不存在关联这一点，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 于 08/24/23 提交，于 08/24/23 12:37:49 登记，第 72 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 72 都是一样的。因此，基于这一原因，我相信我必须退出代理。最后一点，关于 U.S. Trustee 所称或所相信的，即我未在其要求的宣誓陈述书答复中回答她的问题，我逐一审查了她的问题。我认为这些问题大多重复，至少就这两个实体而言，但——\n\n因为这些讨论中的许多讨论均发生在同一时间，且涉及两个实体。我已尽我所能，就她的问题、我的知情情况以及我对此事进行的勤勉调查，提供我所能提供的一切。\n\n事实上，在我起草这份声明之后，我回头重新阅读了 U.S. Attorney（美国联邦检察官）的信息请求。在我三次审阅其请求并据此起草本文件之后，我意识到，我认为唯一尚未查明的问题是，为何是我而不是 Vartan 律师——或者为何只有我提交了出庭代理。因此，这就是关于为何我出庭而 Vartan 律师未出庭的答复。该答复涉及临时获准出庭动议，以及我们当时的理解，即这是一件非常轻微的事项，我们认为在临时获准出庭动议中涉及多名律师出庭并不审慎或高效。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 于 08/24/23 提交，于 08/24/23 12:37:49 登记，第 73 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n1　法庭：\n请稍等一下。\n关于你刚才所说的，\n2　为了让我明确，你认为这项\n3　藐视法庭动议是一个非常小的问题吗？\n4　ROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：\n我认为这项\n5　藐视法庭动议——或者就短暂延期进行协商\n6　并尽一切可能遵守要求的过程——会是一个小\n7　问题，因为我并没有——我原本预计我们会出庭。我\n8　认为我可以协商一个短暂的——实际上，我收回这句话。\n9　到我出庭时，我知道 Vartan 律师（瓦尔坦）和 Luft 律师（卢夫特）\n10　已就短暂延期达成协议，而且我知道我将与\n11　郭女士和 Vartan 律师一道，尽我所能\n12　遵守要求，或者——并尽可能查找更多\n13　相关文件。\n14　\n15　正如我先前所说，我对\n16　回应传票的理解是提供所有处于\n17　客户实际和推定控制之下的文件。而且我\n18　不认为，如果我向一家前律师事务所\n19　或声称从未代理过该客户的律师事务所提出要求，\n20　而它叫我滚开，我认为这意味着——该\n21　律师事务所控制的文件并不处于我或我\n22　客户的实际或推定控制之下。\n23　\n24　根据我的理解，实际或推定控制是指由某个\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷庭审记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n在我或我的客户指示下行事的人所控制，并且如果\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 74 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n1　我告诉他们必须遵守要求。并不是说我必须\n2　对某人采取法律行动，以出示据我理解第11章受托人已经\n3　拥有的文件，因为他们的整个立场——尽管 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）\n4　不知道这些公司的所有者是债务人的儿子还是\n5　债务人的女儿——它仍然向第11章受托人出示了\n6　其关于这些事项的全部档案，\n7　尽管据我获知的任何情况，它并未主张\n8　该实体属于债务人。\n9　\n10　对此没有异议。第11章\n11　受托人取得了这些文件。他们掌握的信息比\n12　我们更多。但我们，如这些文件所证明的那样，一次又一次、\n13　再一次地尝试。我们告诉他们这很重要。\n14　我们告诉他们为什么这很重要。我告诉他们，我已基于他们的陈述\n15　提交了退出代理动议，而且我\n16　需要所有信息。我多次以书面形式提出要求。\n17　就 Hodgson Russ 律师事务所而言，我不知道自己\n18　还能做什么。就 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）而言，我也不知道\n19　还能做什么。而且我告诉——就\n\n就 Max Krasner 而言，我还能做什么。而且我告诉——就第11章受托人不知道 Capital One 银行账户的范围而言，我告诉了他们这些账户的情况，以便他们能够从 Capital One 取得相关文件。我也尝试过——我本来更愿意由我来交付这些文件，那样我就能够交付它们。但我做不到。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 75 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 75 我所能做的最好的事情就是告诉他们这些账户存在。我知道这些账户存在，因为他们告诉郭女士——根据她告诉我的情况，他们告诉她这些账户存在，但他们不会向她提供文件。所以——\n\n法庭：\n你是说——只是为了——你的意思是银行，即 Capital One？\n\nROMNEY 先生：\nCapital One Bank（第一资本银行）。是的。\n\n法庭：\n而存在的文件是 Hudson Diamond 各实体的账户文件。你是这个意思吗？\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n我就是这个意思。\n\n法庭：\n好的。请继续。\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n我最后想说的是，如果第——如果美国受托人或在场任何其他人认为我疏于回答任何宣誓作答的问题，我就在这里，并准备好宣誓回答任何人想向我提出的任何问题。谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。不过，我有一个先前没有问你的问题，因为我没有聚焦于 Luft 律师所聚焦的一些证据材料。那么，你是否要求郭女士向你提供任何关于 Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约）与 AIG（美国国际集团）之间、涵盖一辆汽车的这份保险单的文件？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n\n1　ROMNEY 先生：\n我不知道有一份涉及汽车的\n2　保险单。\n3　法庭：\n嗯，但唯一的问题是，\n4　该证据材料早在 1805 时就已提交，而那是在你代表——提交出庭声明之前的某个时候\n5　提交的——它是在 May 18th 提交的。\n6　\n7　ROMNEY 先生：\n我明白这一点。而且，法官阁下，\n8　正如法官阁下所指出的，本案有数量极其庞大的\n9　文件。有极其庞大的工作要做。\n10　并且——\n11　法庭：\n对。但这是针对\n12　Hudson Diamond 的。这是——请记住，这是藐视法庭动议的\n13　一部分。\n14　ROMNEY 先生：\n这——\n15　法庭：\n而且，该藐视法庭动议\n16　明确列出了证据材料，以支持如下主张：某些实体——而且有许多实体。\n17　不只是 Hudson Diamond。我同意你的说法。\n18　但是，该动议附有\n19　关于 Hudson Diamond 各实体的证据材料。\n20　\n21　并且动议说，这就是我们为什么想要这些文件。\n22　这里有一些证据材料向你显示，至少根据截至目前向我们展示的情况，\n23　Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）和/或\n24　Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）过去曾拥有资产，并且\n25　目前仍拥有资产。该保险单涵盖的期间至\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 77 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n\n1　May of 2023。然后还有一份——先前代理律师的\n2　证言誊本，其中谈到 Hudson Diamond 各实体试图购买房地产。\n3　\n4　我的意思是，有证据材料 G、E、H、U、J，以及\n5　T，也就是你所提到的。你在你的\n6　声明中提到证据材料 T，这也是我回头查看它的原因之一，\n7　因为你在你的声明中提到了证据材料 T。而且\n8　我感谢你提及该证据材料。\n9　\n10　但是，附在同一项动议中、且证据材料 T 也在其中的其他证据材料，\n11　直接涉及 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 或\n12　Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 存在资产的问题。因此，我的问题是，\n13　你是否向你的客户询问过那些证据材料和那些资产？\n14　ROMNEY 先生：\n我需要从两个方面回答这个问题。\n15　至于——按是否向他们询问过那些证据材料来表述，答案是否定的。\n16　因为在提交延期动议之前——你知道，再说一次，我不认为\n17　资产所有权存在任何争议。我与 Luft 律师谈过——\n18　\n19　法庭：\n什么的所有权——\n20　ROMNEY 先生：\n纽约实体的所有权。\n21　法庭：\n谁控制这些实体——\n22　ROMNEY 先生：\n是。\n23　法庭：\n——而不是具体资产的所有权？\n24　ROMNEY 先生：\n是。\n25　法庭：\n好的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 78 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 78\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n按照法庭的指示，为达成我们的协议，我在会议室里与 Luft 律师谈过。他在那次会谈中提到了一辆劳斯莱斯，但没有提到——任何证据材料或其他事项，只是问我一辆劳斯莱斯的情况。我说我会问一下。而且我——那是我第一次提到——我所知的是一个已关闭的 Capital One 银行账户。我确实向郭女士询问过那辆劳斯莱斯。我没有收到任何有关它的回应或文件。如果我收到过，我就会将其交出。我没有——\n\n法庭：\n所以，她从未回应你关于那辆劳斯莱斯的问题？\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n她并没有疏于回应。她回应说她没有任何文件，而且——\n\n法庭：\n关于那辆劳斯莱斯？\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n关于一辆劳斯莱斯。而且——\n\n法庭：\n你看，这些都没有载入记录。她没有提交任何声明。\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n嗯，再说一次，她不是本案当事人。这——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，如果她是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的管理成员，她就是当事人，而文件表明她正是管理成员。并且你代理她。你已经\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 79 明确说过——\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n我代理她。我代理她。\n\n法庭：\n——你——作为 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的管理成员。\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n我不知道那是否——她是——\n\n法庭：\n不然，你如何有权——\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n——指示我去——的个人。\n\n法庭：\n不然，你如何有权代表 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 行事？\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n那是唯一的方式。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n但我不认为——\n\n法庭：\n那么——\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n——当我——\n\n法庭：\n那么，你确实是在她作为 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 管理成员的身份下代理她。\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n我将其理解为代理该实体。但我也以她个人身份代理她。\n\n法庭：\n是的，但你代理该实体。出庭声明所针对的就是该实体——藐视法庭动议所针对的就是该实体。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 79 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 80\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n是这样。而且我认为我们——我不认为——\n\n法庭：\n但是她从未回答你关于那辆劳斯莱斯的问题？\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n我——那不是我所说的。\n\n法庭：\n好的。而且——\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n她回答了我的问题，说她没有任何文件，而且她无法取得——\n\n法庭：\n而且你明确问过她那辆劳斯莱斯？\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n我明确问过她那辆劳斯莱斯。\n\n法庭：\n而且你明确问过她 Hudson Diamond 据称参与的房地产交易？\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n我不认为我明确问过她关于——我不记得了，这就是答案。我原本要说的是，我没有阅读 Luft 律师的声明或全部证据材料。当 Luft 律师提出证据材料 T 时，我认为——\n\n法庭：\n那不是一份声明。那是实际的动议。\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n我以为那是——\n\n法庭：\n不。那是——嗯，支持该动议的材料。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 80 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n\n1　ROMNEY 先生：\n不。对。该声明——\n2　法庭：\n对。\n3　ROMNEY 先生：\n——所附的——我没有阅读\n4　该声明或证据材料。\n5　法庭：\n为支持藐视法庭动议。\n6　是的。是的。\n7　ROMNEY 先生：\n他提请我注意证据材料 T，\n8　我非常感谢他，并向他表达了这一点，还给他打了电话。\n9　我口头和书面都表示，\n10　我们愿意尽我们所能，帮助受托人代表任一实体查找文件。\n11　而且，如果他掌握任何可帮助我为他们查找文件的\n12　信息，\n13　我将利用该信息尽我所能。而且我没有\n14　收到任何额外信息。\n15　也许这是我的愚蠢之处，这由我承担责任。\n16　我应该这样做。在这个情形的诸多变动因素，\n17　以及这个案件所处世界中任何一天发生的其他诸多变动因素、\n18　还有我们都必须管理的其他案件之中，我\n19　没有回头查看该声明，以确定是否有其他\n20　可能帮助我的文件。\n21　\n22　不过，我被告知——我被告知，而且我相信这是 Hodgson Russ，\n23　但是我不确定。而且，坦率地说，我并不认为这很重要。但是\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 82 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n\n我相信 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）的总法律顾问曾告诉我，\n纽约实体曾探索过房地产交易，但据其所知，从未完成过任何一笔交易。\n我几乎可以确定，Luft 律师也在未提及任何特定文件的情况下，\n向我说过完全相同的话。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nRomney 先生：\n好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n您还有什么要补充的吗？\n\nRomney 先生：\n没有。只是重申我愿意在宣誓后回答任何其他人提出的任何问题。\n\n法庭：\n是否有人希望让 Romney 律师宣誓，并作为本程序的一部分向其提问？\n\nLuft 律师：\n我没有，法官阁下。\n\nClaiborn 女士：\n法官阁下，如果我可以利用这个机会，请 Romney 律师逐一说明美国受托人的书面陈述，即 ECF 1971。\n\n法庭：\n您的意思是——您希望他到证人席宣誓作证？\n\nClaiborn 女士：\n如果可以的话。\n\n法庭：\n可以。\n\nClaiborn 女士：\n因为我——\n\n法庭：\nRomney 先生已经提出了，所以——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交日期 08/24/23\n录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\nClaiborn 女士：\n我们有若干问题尚未得到回答。\n\n法庭：\nRomney 先生，请上前。\n\nRomney 先生：\n好的。Henzy 律师将代表我，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，实际上，我不知道这该如何运作。\n\nRomney 先生：\n我相信，作为证人，我有权由律师代理，以便提出异议。\n\n法庭：\n我明白这一点。我并非是在表示其他意思。但是，Henzy 先生代表债务人及其他当事人，他如何能在有关撤回出庭代理的动议中担任您的律师？\n\nRomney 先生：\n我不认为存在任何冲突——Henzy 律师多年来一直是我律师事务所的总法律顾问。我不认为其代理我与代理我的任何客户之间存在任何冲突。我不认为我与我的任何客户存在任何相反利益。我相信，作为证人，我无权对问题提出异议。我相信，如有异议，我有权由律师提出异议。\n\n法庭：\n我明白您有权——我并不质疑如果您希望有律师，您有权获得律师代理，而且——是您提出要到证人席作证的。好的？\n\nRomney 先生：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n是您提出的。\n\nRomney 先生：\n在我的总法律顾问在场的情况下。\n\n法庭：\n好的？但是，我的意思是，我不明白 Henzy 律师如何能在这种情况下担任您的律师。你们是同一律师事务所的合伙人。你们双方在该事务所均有金钱利益。他怎么可能不存在利益冲突？他怎么可能——因为他也必须为自己担心。因为发生在您身上的事情也会发生在他身上。这怎么可能不构成利益冲突？\n\nRomney 先生：\n我会说，这意味着我们的利益百分之百一致。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那您猜怎么着？今天我们不会这样做，除非——我的意思是，Despins 受托人、美国受托人办公室，你们真的认为 Henzy 律师能够在本案中就与可能针对 Romney 律师以及 Romney 律师所代理的客户或多个客户作出的藐视法庭动议有关的文件交叉询问中代理 Romney 律师吗？是我完全脱离现实了吗？我的意思是，这太荒谬了。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交日期 08/24/23\n录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n这怎么可能不构成利益冲突？不——这怎么可能不构成利益冲突？\n\nRomney 先生：\n这仅仅是为了提出证据异议。我谨此陈述——\n\n法庭：\n这并非仅仅是为了提出证据异议。Henzy 先生是在试图保护您，任何代理您的律师都会如此。这正是重点，对吗？这就是您需要律师的原因。您希望得到保护。这怎么可能不构成利益冲突？我只是——抱歉，我就是看不出来。我并不是说您无权获得律师代理。是您提出要到证人席作证。现在您希望我允许 Henzy 律师——您的合伙人，您、他以及其他合伙人都在彼此协助方面享有金钱利益；你们都——受到合伙协议的约束。我不知道你们彼此之间的义务是什么。而且可能会认定——可能会认定您个人构成藐视法庭，届时据称您将必须支付罚款。好的？我现在是在讨论利益冲突的分析。就藐视法庭而言，这怎么可能不构成利益冲突？\n\nRomney 先生：\n我认为不是。\n\n法庭：\n屋内有 80 名律师。这怎么不构成利益冲突？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\nRomney 先生：\n嗯，如果我必须支付罚款，那我就必须支付罚款。如果我的律师事务所必须支付罚款，那我的律师事务所就必须支付罚款。而且我会说，我的合伙人与我具有相同的利益，也与我的客户具有相同的利益。\n\n法庭：\n我不知道那是否属实。这取决于你们的合伙协议怎么写。我甚至不知道你们有什么样的协议。我毫无头绪，而且我不想知道，因为这与该问题无关。\n\nRomney 先生：\n法官阁下，我正努力尽可能做到透明。我——\n\n法庭：\n我并非在暗示并非如此，Romney 律师。我并非在暗示那些事情。我只是不明白 Henzy 律师如何能在这种情况下担任您的律师。我也不明白为什么其他任何人认为他可以。\n\nHenzy 律师：\n嗯，我认为我可以，所以——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我不——\n\nHenzy 律师：\n——只是为了明确——\n\n法庭：\n我现在不是在问您。\n\nHenzy 律师：\n——只是为了明确，法庭内至少还有一人认为我可以，但是——\n\n法庭：\n好的。那很好。我很高兴您这样认为。\n\nHenzy 律师：\n好的。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交日期 08/24/23\n录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n法庭：\n但我现在不是在问您。\n\nHenzy 律师：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n我是在问其他人。\n\nClaiborn 女士：\n法官阁下，或许我可以提出一个解决方案，即如果您回到美国受托人在 1971 提交的文件，该文件及其中所提问题非常直接。例如，如果您只看第一项要点，即小号的（无法辨识），Romney 律师的声明中实际上从未回答该问题。因此，我本来建议 Romney 律师重新作出其声明，并实际回应所有提出的问题，或者——\n\n法庭：\n好的。您知道吗？\n\nClaiborn 女士：\n——主张他——或者主张他无法作答。\n\n法庭：\n实际上，就让他到证人席。让 Henzy 律师代理他。似乎没有人认为这是个问题，所以请继续。\n\nClaiborn 女士：\n我并没有这么说，法官阁下。我只是建议——\n\n法庭：\n哦，但我是这么说的。Romney 律师，到证人席去。受托人——Claiborn 律师，开始提问。让 Romney 律师宣誓。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交日期 08/24/23\n录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49\n第 88 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n法庭书记员：\nRomney 律师，请起立并举起右手。\n\nAARON ROMNEY（亚伦·罗姆尼），证人，已宣誓\n\n法庭书记员：\n请您陈述您的姓名，以供记录？\n\n证人：\nAaron Romney。\n\n法庭书记员：\n姓名和地址。\n\n证人：\n我的营业地址——\n\n法庭：\n是的。只需您的营业地址。\n\n证人：\n——是 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor, Bridgeport, Connecticut, 0604 -- 06604。我可以坐下吗？\n\n法庭：\n可以。\n\n证人：\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n如果您需要——有水。那里也应该有水。\n\n证人：\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的。请继续，Claiborn 律师。\n\nClaiborn 女士：\n谢谢。我是代表美国受托人的 Holley Claiborn（霍利·克莱伯恩）。\n\n直接询问\n\n由 Claiborn 女士询问：\n\n问：\nRomney 律师，请您告诉法庭，就向 Hudson New York（纽约哈德逊公司）发出的传票而言，Hudson New York 的代表最初何时与您联系？我使用该术语的含义，系依照我就受托人向 Hudson New York 发出的传票所提交书面陈述中的定义。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交日期 08/24/23\n录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49\n第 89 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n答：\n是的。我将该问题理解为，以代表 Hudson New York 行事之人的身份而言。我要作出该澄清的唯一原因是，显然我曾与 Mei Guo（郭梅）交谈过，她就是那名代表。自去年四月开始代理她以来，我一直与她保持交谈。但是，就其作为 Hudson Diamond New York（纽约哈德逊钻石公司）代表的身份而言，我相信是我联系了她。那是在——我相信，我的声明中载明了我何时这样做。我相信是在 5月30日——抱歉——我在该日将传票发送给她。但在此之前我们必定已经讨论过该等传票。因此，我相信是在 4月23日和 5月30日之间的某个时候，更接近 5月23日。但就在该时间范围内。\n\n问：\n我是否正确理解您的证言，即 Guo 女士直到您告知她后，才知道向 Hudson Diamond New York 发出的传票？\n\n答：\n这是我的正确——这是我的理解。\n\n问：\n您这一理解的依据是什么？\n\n答：\n因为她告诉了我。\n\n问：\n您知道 Vartan 律师就受托人向 Hudson Diamond New York 发出的传票最初的接触是什么吗？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交日期 08/24/23\n录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n答：\n我知道。\n\n问：\n是什么？\n\n答：\n与我刚才所述相同。事实上，我于 5月23日首次阅读了强制执行动议。我相信该动议于 5月18日提交。如我今天在法庭上多次提到的，我们目前的案件——我们的案件工作量非常繁重，因此我直到 5月23日才实际阅读该文件。当时，我阅读了有关 Hudson Diamond 的部分。我认出了那些名字，于是我给 Vartan 律师发了电子邮件，并说了大意是，我们需要立即就此联系 Guo 女士。\n\n问：\n代表 Hudson Diamond New York 聘请您担任其律师的是谁？\n\n答：\nGuo 女士。\n\n问：\n截至 December 1, 2022，Hudson Diamond New York 的成员是谁？\n\n答：\n基于我在声明中陈述的理由，我不知道该问题的答案。\n\n问：\n截至 June 1, 2023，Hudson Diamond New York 的成员是谁？\n\n答：\n我不知道该问题的答案——抱歉。您——该问题是关于 Hudson Diamond——这两个问题中是否有任何一个是关于 Hudson Diamond New York 还是 Holdings？\n\n问\n二者均旨在涉及 Hudson Diamond New York（哈德森钻石纽约）。\n\n答\n好的。这正是我的理解，但我只是——我不知道该问题的答案。\n\n问\n好的。截至 June 13, 2023，Hudson Diamond New York 的成员是谁？\n\n答\n基于今日庭审记录中陈述的理由，我不知道该问题的答案。\n\n问\n就我们刚刚谈到的成员资格和日期问题，您是否曾向 Mei Guo（郭梅）询问过？\n\n答\n具体就那些特定日期而言，我不认为我曾明确提及那些日期。但如果您的问题是，我是否曾与 Mei Guo 讨论过她是否——Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德森钻石控股有限责任公司）是否为 Hudson Diamond New York 的成员，答案是肯定的。正如我已陈述的，她的看法是 Hudson Diamond Holdings 控制该纽约实体，因此她指示我作出回应——尝试协商一项——让我和 Attorney Vartan（瓦尔坦律师）尝试协商延期，然后尽我所能向 Chapter 11 trustee（第11章受托人）提供我们能够找到的相关文件。她提出——或者表示，而且我相信确实——协助 Attorney Vartan，或与我们一同参与该过程。\n\n问\n就 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 而言，您是否打算继续代理该实体？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 92\n答\n当然。\n\nMS. CLAIBORN（克莱伯恩女士）：\n好的。我没有其他问题了。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。您可以退席了，Attorney Romney（罗姆尼律师）。\n\n证人：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n关于藐视法庭动议、律师退出代理动议，是否还有其他事项？好的。我将对这些事项保留裁决。让我们继续处理下一事项。\n\nMR. ROMNEY（罗姆尼先生）：\n法官阁下，我很抱歉。我可以离席吗？\n\n法庭：\n可以。\n\nMR. ROMNEY：\n我确实得赶飞机。非常感谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n不客气。\n\nMR. BASSETT（巴西特先生）：\n法官阁下，如法庭准许，我认为我们提议接下来处理的是对抗程序 23-5012 中的简易判决动议，该程序涉及——即有关 HK USA（美国HK公司）托管资金的提存诉讼。\n\n法庭：\n请继续。\n\nMR. BASSETT：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。对此我很抱歉。我想我可能曾在之前的一次庭审中以类似的话开场，这很令人遗憾，但我确实觉得，有好几次我们在法官阁下面前就一些我们认为根本没有必要的动议进行辩论。这又是其中之一。我想这会很简短。其原因，以及我们认为本次庭审有必要的原因，是因为提交法庭的问题，即根据托管协议存放于托管中的资金是否应释放给受托人，已由本法庭 May 18th 作出的简易判决裁定作出终局裁决；该裁定认定 HK USA 既是债务人的另一个自我，且其所有财产，包括托管资金，均为破产财产。\n\n我想向法庭援引该裁定的具体措辞。这份 May 18th 裁定载于 ECF 221。第36页前两个经法庭命令确认的段落。第一个经法庭命令确认的段落称：“HK USA is and was at all relevant times the alter ego of the debtor, Mr. Kwok.” 紧接着的段落称：“All property of HK USA at all relevant times to the present is property of the estate.”\n\n这意味着，法官阁下，根据 Bankruptcy Code Section 541 对破产财产的定义——该条涉及财产中的一切法定或衡平权益——凭借 May 18th 简易判决裁定，该定义延及 HK USA 的全部财产。这一点不存在任何合理争议。HK USA 提交的文件中没有任何相反主张，即 Bankruptcy Code Section 541 所规定的破产财产定义包括合同权利和法定权利。\n\n因此，根据 May 18th 裁定的效力，HK USA 根据托管协议可能希望持有和行使的任何合同权利，现在均为属于破产财产的权利，并构成 Bankruptcy Code 规定的破产财产。因此，HK USA 无法在今日站在法庭面前，以其在过去数周中——或者我想，自简易判决裁定作出以来——所采取的方式进行阻挠，并通过躲在其试图行使的合同权利背后，阻止资金被释放。这些权利现在属于破产财产。\n\n他们在其文件中对此没有回应，因为不存在任何回应。这就结束了分析，法庭无需考虑任何其他事项。托管资金是否属于破产财产已经作出裁决，且不得再次诉讼。这是既判力。\n\n现在，HK USA 在其对受托人简易判决动议的反对意见中，花费大量篇幅聚焦于托管协议第4段，该协议作为起诉书附件1附具。他们还援引判例法，声称该等判例支持这样一个并无特别之处的命题：一般而言，合同应得到执行，以及与该原则相关的公共政策考量。但在本案中，所有这些均无关紧要，因为法庭已经裁定，HK USA 根据托管协议持有或拥有的任何合同权利，凭借 May 18th 裁定，均为破产财产，并可由破产财产行使。\n\n毫不意外，他们所援引的、一般谈论合同权利执行或托管协议项下权利执行的判例，没有任何一个涉及这样一种认定：一个实体是另一个实体的另一个自我，因而某一方根据托管协议或其他方式声称试图行使的权利，实际上属于另一方。他们没有援引任何此类案件。其原因并不令人意外，因为在此类情况下，除我们请求法庭作出的结果以外，任何其他结果均不合逻辑。\n\n我还想指出，既然我们正在讨论 HK USA 如此坚持审阅的托管协议措辞，如果您看托管协议第16段，该段专门处理对托管协议的修订、增补、修改及变更。其内容是，除非由破产法院命令，托管协议不得修改。\n\n现在，这一点很重要，因为即使假定 HK USA 仍有能力行使其在托管协议项下的合同权利——基于我已经讨论的理由，它并没有这种能力——第16段也允许法庭修改该协议。现在，他们可能会说，嗯，您知道，这实际上意味着如果双方同意，那么法庭必须以命令确认该协议。但他们没有——第16段中没有这样的措辞。如果有，该段会说，为修改本协议，双方必须就此达成一致，然后法庭需要以命令确认。它并未如此规定。它规定法庭可以命令变更该协议。如果他们将受合同利益的约束，而这似乎正是他们如此担忧的，那么这应当适用于整个协议。\n\n我最后要说的一点，法官阁下，就是我们在动议中提出的关于托管协议及有关 Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）的约定整体目的，以及该协议目的显然已经完成这一事实。该协议和该约定——这一点没有争议——最初表面上是为确保将 Lady May 游艇交付给破产财产而制定的。\n\n法庭最近在 ECF Number 24 中驳回 HK USA——或者，我想是 HK USA——上诉期间暂停执行动议的裁定中承认了这一点。关于这一目的，不存在真实的事实争议。在其对简易判决动议的反对意见中，他们试图树立一个稻草人论点，即如果我们讨论协议意图，就必然是在引入事实问题。\n\n关于该协议极其明确的目的，不存在真实的事实争议。您只需查看协议背景段落 D，该段非常明确地表明，托管协议的全部目的在于补充该约定，并确保将 Lady May 交付给破产财产。\n\n现在，这为何重要？因为显然，该目的已经完成。正如法庭再次在其驳回上诉期间暂停执行动议的裁定中指出，HK certification 将被提交，以便资金能够释放给 HK USA。在法庭审议受托人尚待裁决的初步禁令动议及判决前救济期间，该事项被推迟。\n\n但是，这一点毫无疑问。我的意思是，该游艇现已出售。将资金存放于托管中的目的已经完成，不再必要。事实上，如果您今日或在最近任何时候询问律师，他们是否认为托管资金应释放给 HK USA，我相信他们会回答是。我认为他们无法一本正经地说，他们认为自己不应取回资金。从他们的角度看，该论点的问题是，资金一旦释放给他们，就成为我们的财产。因为根据 May 18th 裁定，HK USA 的所有财产均为破产财产。我之所以这样说，是因为这恰恰凸显了他们立场的荒谬性。他们并非为实现托管协议规定的预定目的而使用该协议及其条款，即在认证要求是否已得到满足的争议可能得到解决期间，将资金保留于托管中。他们现在正利用该协议，以获得事实上上诉期间暂停执行，并挟持本 Chapter 11 案件及受托人为执行 May 18th 裁定所作的努力。因此，基于这些理由，法官阁下，我认为在我们看来毫无疑问。这是一项一目了然的简易判决动议。不存在有争议的事实问题。该问题已经由法庭裁决。不存在上诉期间暂停执行。托管资金应交付给受托人。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n莫里亚蒂先生，您要回应吗？\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：\n是的。\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n并且\n\n为记录在案，詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂（James Moriarty）代表HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资（美国）有限责任公司）。\n\n那么，法官阁下，我将首先谈谈巴西特律师（Attorney Bassett）关于托管协议第16段的观点。\n\n显然，我同意他对此的说法，因为协议的表述就是如此。\n我确实想向本院指出——\n\n正如法官阁下所记得的，为了便于称呼，托管协议于2022年10月作了修订。\n\n当时，从托管资金中释放了$4 million，用于设立“五月女士”号（Lady May）的维修准备金。\n\n法官阁下作出的命令载于案卷条目932。\n\n该命令日期为October 7, 2022。即使根据该命令，以“命令”开头的第一段实际上援引了托管协议第42段。\n\n其规定，在该命令成为最终且不可上诉的命令后，在合理可行的情况下尽快执行。因此，即使就维修准备金而言，该命令也必须成为最终且不可上诉的命令，该$4 million方可被释放。\n\n托管协议能否通过法院命令修订？\n当然可以。这正是各方所约定的。\n\n该命令是否必须成为最终且不可上诉的命令，该项对托管协议的修改方可具有可执行性和适用性？是的。本院在案卷条目932的命令中可见这一点。至于托管协议是否已履行完毕，HK在其反对意见中援引了Netherberg v. G.V. Licensing（内瑟伯格诉G.V. Licensing，原文如此）一案。我马上向法官阁下提供该案引证。因此，该案引证为1995 US Dist. LEXIS 11725，另见1195WL491489。在该案中，法院审查了一份托管协议，该托管协议系与某些知识产权的出售有关而设立。根据该判决，当时正在进行诉讼，托管安排旨在于交割后保护卖方。卖方和解了其诉讼。与其达成和解的一方寻求终止托管，或者释放托管中不存在争议的收益。该案中向Southern District（纽约南区）提出的一项论点是：该托管协议现已多余，因为我们已经和解了托管资金原本旨在担保的诉讼。法院所说的是——这载于PDF第2页，共3页，并在我的LEXIS打印件第4页开头——即使各方签订托管协议的理由不再持续有效，也不会使原告在其与Gitano的和解协议中同意的经修订托管协议失效。\n\n案件22-50073 文书2119 于08/24/23提交 于08/24/23 12:37:49录入 第100页\n\n案件22-50073 文书2119 于08/24/23提交 于08/24/23 12:37:49录入 第101页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— July 11, 2023\n\n原告主张只有GVTI，即该知识产权的买方，对托管资金享有权益，该主张未能提出法律认可的理由，以推翻一份具有约束力协议经协商达成的条款。\n\n在该案中，法院裁定其不会变更托管协议的条款，并且资金释放前必须发生的条件之一必须发生，而该条件尚未发生。\n\n这正是本案的情况。\n\n托管协议第4段规定了四项或有条件。\n\n其中任一或有条件发生后，托管资金将被释放。\n\n本院作出了一项命令，并认定HK USA是债务人的另一个自我。\n\n我们完全不寻求在此重新审理该问题。\n\n我们在此讨论的是时间和先决条件。\n\n这些资金何时将从托管中释放给受托人；顺便说一句，受托人目前持有该收益。\n\n其中一项或有条件必须得到满足。\n\n而我们所关注的或有条件是，我们需要本院作出的最终且不可上诉的命令。本院于May 18th作出的命令目前正在上诉。该上诉正在地区法院的杜利法官（Judge Dooley）审理中，因此该项或有条件尚未得到满足，依托管协议的条款，资金不应被释放。\n\n案件22-50073\n文书2119\n于08/24/23提交\n于08/24/23 12:37:49录入\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— July 11, 2023\n\n该项或有条件尚未得到满足，依托管协议的条款，资金不应被释放。\n\n这是一项简易判决动议。\n\n这是合同问题。\n\n关于或有条件的合同条款并无歧义。作为法律问题，在资金能够被释放之前，必须满足其中一项条件。\n\n现在，巴西特律师确实主张，该协议实际上完全是为了返还“五月女士”号，而现在“五月女士”号已经被出售。\n\n正如我刚才向本院指出的，存在Netherberg（原文如此）判决。\n\n但如果我们讨论的是简易判决，而这正是我们正在讨论的，那么，如果我们要探究当事人的意图，即当事人在起草这项要求破产法院作出最终且不可上诉命令的文字时意图为何，他们是意图仅将其适用于与“五月女士”号有关的问题，还是预期其具有更广泛的适用范围？\n\n如果依照协议的通常文字阅读，其必须具有更广泛的适用范围。\n\n但无论如何，如果我们讨论的是当事人对该条款的含义为何，而不赋予其在托管协议中的通常含义，那么就存在关于当事人就该托管协议意图为何的事实争议，简易判决必须被驳回。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— July 11, 2023 103\n\n最后，法官阁下，关于破产财产，不存在争议的是，HK收取托管收益的权利是破产财产的一项资产。但该权利取决于一项或有条件或先决条件的发生，而该条件尚未发生。在法官阁下于May 18th就受托人第二项反诉请求准许简易判决的裁决中，法官阁下区分了反诉请求中的罪名项2，即另一个自我，与罪名项3；我认为后者是一项欺诈性转让请求，但对此我可能有误。但在作出该区分时，法官阁下所区分的是，就另一个自我请求而言，它使HK的资产可用于清偿债权人的债权。如果受托人想要控制该实体，他必须根据罪名项3提出动议。如果受托人如法官阁下在第25页裁决中所讨论的那样，仅根据罪名项3提出动议，那么受托人将控制该实体。该实体将成为破产财产，即破产财产的一项资产。但为了取得该实体的资产，受托人仍须刺破公司面纱。因此，受托人并不控制HK。HK是一个独立实体，其资产已可用于\n\n案件22-50073 文书2119 于08/24/23提交 于08/24/23 12:37:49录入 第103页\n\n案件22-50073 文书2119 于08/24/23提交 于08/24/23 12:37:49录入 第104页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— July 11, 2023 104\n\n清偿债权人的债权。并且，法官阁下，如您有任何问题，我很乐意回答。\n\n法庭：\n我没有问题。\n\n莫里亚蒂律师：\n谢谢。\n\n巴西特律师：\n法官阁下，我仅就此作几点简要回应。我想——我想从莫里亚蒂律师结束的地方开始，即财产权利转移至破产财产的问题，以及根据May 18th命令其后果为何。就莫里亚蒂律师的主张而言，他主张转移给破产财产的唯一权利是收取托管资金的权利，而HK为阻止该事项发生所享有的任何合同权利并非破产财产的权利，这根本不是法律规定。根据本院非常明确的命令，破产财产现在——我还想提出另一点，即莫里亚蒂律师援引本院命令时，他着重于另一个自我的认定及其含义。我稍后会谈到这一点。但他忽略了一项非常明确的规定，即HK USA的全部财产，包括合同权利，均属于破产财产。因此，就此而言——而且他——我认为他并未主张\n\n案件22-50073 文书2119 于08/24/23提交 于08/24/23 12:37:49录入 第105页\n\n案件22-50073 文书2119 于08/24/23提交 于08/24/23 12:37:49录入 第105页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— July 11, 2023\n\nHK USA不具备该能力，因为它显然具备。就HK USA而言，正如所有人都知道它可以做的那样，它可以前往托管代理人处并说：嘿，我们授权你释放这些资金；该权利、该能力现在属于受托人。\n\n（音频跳过：2:46 p.m.至2:49 p.m.）\n\n戈德曼律师（MR. GOLDMAN）：\n在该合同订立时，委员会是该合同的一方，没有人当然预见到我们目前正在处理的情形，即在交易发生数月后将任命一名受托人，并最终冻结和就存入的资金取得PJR。\n\n正如巴西特先生所阐述的，该笔存款的目的是担保交付“五月女士”号。\n\n当然，任何一方在订立托管协议时都未预见到这种情形。\n\n法官阁下应当根据该目的解释合同。具体而言，应根据当事人的情形以及交易当时相关的情况解释，这意味着该协议完全不适用于目前的情形。\n\n此外，我们完全支持巴西特先生提出的论点。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n还有其他人希望发言吗？好的。该简易判决动议\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— July 11, 2023 106\n\n留待裁定。本院今天下午接下来需要处理什么事项？\n\n德斯平斯律师（MR. DESPINS）：\n法官阁下，是HCHK和解事项。卢夫特先生（Mr. Luft）将处理该事项。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n德斯平斯律师：\n除非法官阁下想要休息一下。\n\n法庭：\n不。我认为——\n\n德斯平斯律师：\n不？好的。\n\n法庭：\n——我们应当继续。\n\n戈德曼律师：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n卢夫特律师（MR. LUFT）：\n法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：\n是，您可以。\n\n卢夫特律师：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n请继续。\n\n卢夫特律师：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。抱歉。代表第11章受托人的Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的阿维·卢夫特（Avi Luft）。法官阁下，我今天到庭是就我们根据9019提出的动议，请求批准第11章受托人与HCHK实体受让人之间的和解协议。\n\n法官阁下，我们向本院提交的协议因多项理由对破产财产极为有利。该协议是广泛善意协商的产物。该协议将立即在临时基础上转移，等待结果。\n\nHCHK 实体的 $38 million 现金转入受托人账户的对抗性诉讼程序。\n\n该和解及协议将解决受托人与受让人之间所有未决问题，避免代价高昂且耗时的、存在争议的初步禁令诉讼。\n\n这也有助于为迅速且成本较低地解决该对抗性诉讼程序铺平道路。受让人已同意不反对受托人在该对抗性诉讼程序中请求的救济，我们认为这应当扫清障碍。\n\n和解协议规定继续管理受让人、HCHK 实体、Columbus Circle（哥伦布圆环）办公室及 Columbus Circle 资产，这将减轻受托人的行政负担。\n\n而且，法官阁下，该和解确保所有人均将获得正当程序保障。\n\n现在，法官阁下，本院十分熟悉 9019 标准。但简言之，和解不必是债务人本可获得的最佳结果，而是必须处于合理性范围内，并确保其不落在最低点之内。应当通过考量 Iridium 因素来确定是否如此。\n\n结合我们刚刚讨论的利益以及 Iridium 因素来看，我认为十分清楚，该和解无疑最符合 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）破产财产的最佳利益。就成功可能性与未来利益而言，通过现在取得该等资金，和解消除了与初步禁令诉讼有关的风险和成本，并且更有可能就该对抗性诉讼程序取得积极结果。就第二项因素，即复杂且旷日持久诉讼的可能性而言，这将消除举行初步禁令证据听证会的必要，并且，如我所说，精简未来的对抗性诉讼程序。关于破产财产债权人的利益，法官阁下，我要指出，没有一名破产财产债权人提出异议。无担保债权人委员会（UCC）支持此事。我还要指出，通过确保资产处于受托人的控制之下，这将防止受托人可能耗散大量资产；他希望将这些资产纳入破产财产，以惠及所有债权人。Iridium 项下的第四项因素是其他利害关系方的支持。如我所述，UCC 表示支持。异议极少。尤其是，其中若干已提交的异议实际上明确表示，其并不争议和解条款，而是寻求确保其自身债权能够被加入；或者，就美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）的情形而言，涉及一个非常具体的问题。我将处理所有这些问题。这实际上只剩下\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交日期 08/24/23\n录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n唯一一项重大异议，即来自 Himalaya 各方的异议。我稍后会处理该异议，但我认为，很明显，综合而言，大多数当事人支持该和解。\n\n关于律师的胜任能力和法官的经验，我在此会保持谦逊，但我当然会说，本院迄今最了解并掌握与本案有关的问题，且完全适宜判断这是否为适当的和解。\n\n关于对董事和高级管理人员的免责性质及范围，前 HCHK 高管不会获得免责。存在关于受让人免责条款的问题，稍后将予以处理。但是，对于此前存在的 HCHK 董事和高级管理人员而言，他们不会获得免责。\n\n至于这是否为公平交易，我可以向本院报告，这是在紧急临时限制令之后进行广泛谈判的结果；在一开始，各方确实具有不同利益，但最终能够达成解决方案。\n\n法官阁下，不过，在我深入讨论异议之前，我认为若本院认为有帮助，我愿意说明该和解将如何运作。因为，正如我们在书面文件中所概述的，该和解大致分为三个阶段。\n\n法官：请继续。\n\nLUFT 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。因此，这项关于和解的拟议命令将修改现有的临时限制令命令，并且分三个阶段实施。第一阶段为阶段一。如我所提及，将首先把 HCHK 资金转给受托人。金额将为 $38,835,734.27。\n\n在等待终局裁定期间，受托人将把该等资金投资于国债证券。为明确起见，在等待该终局裁定期间，除 9019 命令规定的用途外，受托人无权将 HCHK 资金用于任何其他目的。\n\n阶段一的另一部分是，受让人将向受托人提供其持有的所有 HCHK 非特权公司记录及其他文件。受让人已同意不就该对抗性诉讼程序采取立场。我相信，如其书面文件所示，他们也无法作出其他表态。他们也不会协助任何一方反对该等救济。\n\n同时，法官阁下，该命令将明确，该和解及资金转移不影响除受让人外任何一方的权利；受让人因上述理由，有权在符合诉讼资格要求的前提下提交书状并采取立场。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交日期 08/24/23\n录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49\n第 111 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n受托人当然指出，他保留对诉讼资格提出异议的权利。但简言之，这意味着，如果你符合并具有诉讼资格，你将获得机会。当然，受托人也将有机会对此提出质疑。\n\n那是阶段一。阶段二将在拟议命令（如获录入）录入之后以及首次 HCHK 资金转移发生之后进行。这涉及命令第 9 段中获授权的受让人行为。这允许受让人根据命令条款，就 Columbus Circle 办公室、HCHK 的剩余员工及与此相关的程序性和行政性事项采取某些行动，并允许受托人为支付该等费用而预支部分 HCHK 资金。这就是我所提到的行政性救济，其对破产财产有益。\n\n第 10 段指出，纽约法院（New York court）的救济不具有约束力，这引出阶段三，即在对替身实体和衡平所有权主张作出终局裁定时发生。若受托人的对抗性诉讼程序获得有利裁定，则命令第 11 段规定了和解付款，并列明了金额。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交日期 08/24/23\n录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49\n第 112 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n第 12 段涉及对申报截止日期的修改，受托人获授权请求本院修改申报截止日期，以允许 HCHK 实体的债权人（如有）现可在债务人的 Chapter 11 案件下申报，因为在替身实体或衡平所有权主张获准的范围内，该等债权人将成为债务人破产财产的债权人，如其存在。第 13 段涉及我们稍后将讨论的引流禁令。第 14 段涉及免责条款。然后，法官阁下，我将转而说明，若就受托人及该对抗性诉讼程序作出不利的终局命令，将会发生什么。第 15 段明确规定将资金从受托人返还给受让人。因此，这就是该命令将如何运作的三个阶段，以及我们根据该和解所提出的方案。法官阁下，在我转向异议之前，我想询问您是否有任何问题。\n\n法官：我没有问题。谢谢。\n\nLUFT 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。好的。既然如此，让我转向异议。因此，我一开始谈到我们为何认为 Iridium 因素已获满足。我要指出，总体而言，就\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交日期 08/24/23\n录入日期 08/24/23 12:37:49\n第 113 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n这些异议而言，Iridium 因素在很大程度上未被讨论。相反，它们似乎是人们希望得到的各种事项的混杂，是试图在债权程序中抢先一步，或者，就我将谈及的 Himalaya 而言，坦率地说，是一个对转让程序如何对其产生结果不满意的人，但并非一个具有在此提出异议实际依据的人。\n\n因此，正如我们在答复状中详细说明的，法官阁下，Himalaya 各方主要由本院已直接认定由债务人控制的实体构成——Himalaya farms（喜马拉雅农场）、Himalaya——或者由债务人参与的其他实体；其已提出异议。我认为，其核心实质上是说，我们本更愿意在纽约州法院；我们认为转让程序会在那里进行。\n\n每个人都有权拥有其偏好，但这并非反对该和解的依据。当然，这也不是声称该和解不符合债务人破产财产最佳利益的依据，而这正是 9019 动议所涉及的问题。\n\n现在，Himalaya 各方在其书面文件中花了很大篇幅争议该对抗性诉讼程序中的替身实体及衡平所有权主张。这不是今日摆在我们面前的问题，法官阁下。在其具有诉讼资格的范围内，他们将有机会对受托人的对抗性诉讼程序提出任何异议。但和解没有任何内容阻止他们这样做。\n\n同样，法官阁下，受让人是作出决定的一方。这就是在其被任命时所发生的情况。据我所知，这些实体均未反对该转让。据我所知，其中也没有任何一方曾就受让人在考虑将这些实体出售给另一方，即 G News 一方（G News party）时的构想，截至目前提交任何异议。\n\n受让人作出了决定，即该和解符合其最佳利益。这并非所谓债权人或受让人对其提出异议之处。\n\n如临时限制令命令所述，本院显然具有管辖权。因此，任何关于其管辖权的论点实际上都只是对此的附带攻击。我认为它们并不适当。\n\n最后，法官阁下，Himalaya 实体就引流禁令和免责条款提出问题。来自 Cole Schotz（科尔·肖茨律师事务所）的律师将重点讨论这些问题。但我要说，受托人同意这些条款并予以支持。不过，我将让 Cole Schotz 的律师就这些问题作出说明，因为他们重点关注这些问题。\n\n更直接地就该问题及其提交的文件发表意见。\n\n最后，法官阁下，我认为喜马拉雅各方（Himalaya parties）提出的唯一其他问题涉及权限。\n\n对此，Cole Schotz（科尔·肖茨律师事务所）的律师将予以重点说明。\n\n但我要指出，根据让与契据，该等契据不仅未遭异议，而且已被登记；据我理解，受让人拥有完全权限，就针对其的任何及全部请求达成和解。\n\n我当然认为本案将属于该权限范围。\n\n如法官阁下就喜马拉雅各方的异议有任何问题，我愿作答。\n\n否则，我将转至下一项。\n\n法庭：我没有问题。你可以转至下一项异议。\n\nLUFT先生：谢谢，法官阁下。下一项是美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）就导向管辖和免责问题提出的有限异议。如我所述，Cole Schotz的律师将重点说明该问题。我认为这属于非常相似的问题。我就不再赘述。\n\n此外，还有关于通知的问题。\n\n美国受托人办公室表示，其希望获得三天通知，并设定$25,000的上限。鉴于本案费用，受托人为减少行政负担，提出设定$50,000的上限。我们认为，将上限提高至50,000，不会损害有意了解支出情况之人的利益。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 已提交 08/24/23 已录入 08/24/23 12:37:49 第116页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n并且，同时也会使受托人因上限略高而更容易处理。因此，据我所知，这是唯一的差异。\n\n关于G News（G新闻）的有限异议及Sherman律师（Attorney Sherman）提出的异议，两者均提出了非常相似的问题，即其认为自己拥有我想他们会称为行政请求权的权利。他们涉及的款项——在Sherman先生的情形中，他认为根据遣散协议应向其支付；在G News的情形中，他们在认为其交易将会继续推进时，为租金及其他费用支出了有限金额。\n\n我不认为对9019动议提出异议是提出这些请求的适当程序途径。这当然不涉及破产财产的利益。我不认为推进该和解会以任何方式损害任何一方的权利。如该等请求有效，将通过多种方式予以处理，并且将有充足时间处理这些请求。但没有理由因此拖延和解，或修改和解以将其他人的请求纳入其中。\n\n我认为，法官阁下，这就只剩下G Club（G俱乐部）所称的通知，而非异议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 已提交 08/24/23 已录入 08/24/23 12:37:49 第117页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n在谈及最后一项之前，我应当暂停一下，询问法官阁下是否有任何问题？\n\n法庭：没有。\n\nLUFT先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我认为，我们最近一段时间一直在本法庭讨论G Club。这就是我们一直就证据开示问题进行争议的同一G Club实体。当然，这再次涉及文件。\n\nG Club在其通知中明确表示，他们并不提出异议，但主张存在一份主服务协议；该协议未随附，也未引用其中任何条款。但他们表示，目前存在一份主服务协议——可能确有其事，我不知道——根据该协议，G Club的所有文件和电子邮件实际上均由HCHK（HCHK）管理。\n\n法官阁下会记得，此前我们被告知，债务人与G Club之间至多仅存在间接关系，因此他们无法出示其文件。也就是说，他是一名无报酬的发言人。此后，我们又被告知，由于高管离职，相关人员已经离开，文件无法出示。\n\n现在，我们的说法有了180度转变，G Club现在表示，不仅其与债务人之间存在关系，而且实际上，该关系如此密切，以至于我们认为将证明为其另我实体的一个实体与其订有管理服务协议，而电子邮件实际上一直存放在曼哈顿，可在HCHK处取得。无论如何，他们现在提出了新的论点，说明为何不应允许受托人取得文件。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 已提交 08/24/23 已录入 08/24/23 12:37:49 第118页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日 118\n\n他们请求修改命令，规定仅允许受托人查阅仅与HCHK有关的HCHK文件。现在，法官阁下，此举很可能造成文件空集，因为根据HCHK自身提交的文件，其所做的是为所有不同的债务人实体提供服务。因此，如仅能谈及仅与HCHK有关的文件，他们便会将范围划定为，我猜想，几乎其所有文件将再次脱离受托人的掌控，而我们将再次无法取得这些文件。\n\n他们提出的第二点是，这些文件具有保密性质，因此必须返还给他们。对此，法官阁下，我要指出，受让人被任命时，G Club并未出面称这些是保密文件；你们不能查阅它们。他们当然也从未主张其中任何文件享有特权。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 已提交 08/24/23 已录入 08/24/23 12:37:49 第119页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n其后，当受让人拟将全部资产出售给G News——另一实体，而该出售本将包括这些相同文件——据我所知，他们再次未对此提出异议。G Club似乎仅在受托人将取得文件访问权限时才提出异议。\n\n我认为这毫无依据，法官阁下。我认为和解应按现状维持。我认为，如存在G Club提供的相关文件，我们将能够查阅。我认为，允许受托人查阅HCHK的文件——HCHK当时也正面临一项待决的2004审查——完全适当。\n\n我认为，基于上述所有理由以及我此前所述，法官阁下，G Club的异议不应成立。\n\n最后我要提及的是，法官阁下，我确实提到将支付费用。为明确起见，受托人已对文件进行了初步审查。命令中列明的费用在受托人看来似属合理。但我要指出，如有任何疑问，受托人仍有机会进一步审查，以确保任何该等费用均属合理。\n\n如法官阁下有任何问题，我很乐意回答。否则，目前我没有其他陈述。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日 120\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。我没有问题。谢谢。\n\nLUFT先生：谢谢，法官阁下。谁希望就受托人的和解动议发表回应意见？\n\nLUFT先生：法官阁下，我相信这是Cole Schotz的律师。\n\n法庭：好的。是的，先生，请上前。请再次陈述您的姓名以供记录。\n\nJARECK先生：为供记录，法官阁下，我是Ryan Jareck（瑞安·贾雷克），来自Cole Schotz PC，代表受让人Hofmeister先生（霍夫迈斯特先生）。法官阁下，作为介绍，Hofmeister先生就在法庭内。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nJARECK先生：我只是想简要向您介绍他。\n\n法庭：下午好，Hofmeister先生。\n\nHOFMEISTER先生：下午好，法官。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 已提交 08/24/23 已录入 08/24/23 12:37:49 第120页\n\nJARECK先生：法官阁下，我不知道您是否倾向于让我先处理美国受托人的异议，还是先处理与权限问题有关的喜马拉雅异议。\n\n法庭：你可以——你应当以你认为适当的任何方式进行。好吗？\n\nJARECK先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我将开始——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 已提交 08/24/23 已录入 08/24/23 12:37:49 第121页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n处理美国受托人的异议。因此，法官阁下，美国受托人基于两项理由反对9019动议。第一，美国受托人反对拟议导向禁令，即拟议命令第13段。第二，其反对拟议命令中的免责条款，即该命令第14段。\n\n法官阁下，我们于周五提交了回应，以说明为何这些是对受让人而言至关重要的和解组成部分；我只想谈几点。受让人目前受临时限制令（TRO）禁止推进让与程序。如和解获准，让与程序实际上将以有序方式结束。\n\n如受托人获得终局性裁决，HCHK破产财产将实际上并入本法庭审理的Kwok破产财产。因此，作为和解讨论的一部分，重要的是，任何及全部因让与程序产生的请求均应由本法庭裁决，并被导向本法庭，而非在多个审理机构进行零散诉讼。这就是受让人请求导向禁令的原因。\n\n该导向禁令仅旨在作为审理机构机制，并不会——也并非意图影响任何当事人的权利。法官阁下，如您实际上有——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日 122\n\n命令第13段，或者可以调出该段，请。\n\n法庭：临时限制令的第13段？\n\nJARECK先生：不是。拟议9019命令的第13段。\n\n法庭：哦，好的。请稍等。\n\nJARECK先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：不，我没有那份文件。\n\nJARECK先生：案件23-05013，案卷条目25。\n\n法庭：请给我一点时间，我会调出该文件。\n\nJARECK先生：当然，法官阁下。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：哦，很好。我们刚刚调出来了。您希望我看哪一页？\n\nJARECK先生：共28页中的第24页，第13段。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nJARECK先生：因此，法官阁下，您看到第13段，即导向禁令了吗？\n\n法庭：看到了。\n\nJARECK先生：概言之，其规定，如发生终局性裁决——换言之，假定您——法官阁下同意受托人的意见并认定存在另我关系——所有债权人和权益持有人均应被禁止并受禁令约束，不得主张请求及诉因。随着您继续向下滚动，其后写道：“但通过适当的——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 已提交 08/24/23 已录入 08/24/23 12:37:49 第122页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 已提交 08/24/23 已录入 08/24/23 12:37:49 第123页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年7月11日 123「在本法院提交的任何诉状。」这并非如美国受托人（United States Trustee）所称的、是否属于非协商性、非债务人、第三方免责的问题；这纯粹是一种法院管辖机制。这仅仅是一种机制，旨在确保在作出终局性裁定后产生的任何及所有请求均在本法院的监督下向本法院提出。事实上，我们实际上认为美国受托人办公室（U.S. Trustee's Office）会更倾向于此。在周末与克莱伯恩律师（Attorney Claiborn）交谈时，以及最晚在昨天，我们已传阅措辞，以更明确地说明这是一种法院管辖机制。事实上，我们提议——在「except as raised through the appropriate pleading filed in this court」之后，增加「(it being expressly understood that the foregoing provision is solely intended to be a forum mechanism and not affect any parties' rights)」。遗憾的是，作为更全面和解讨论的一部分，该项拟议修订被拒绝了。同样，法官阁下，免责条款非常重要。好的？您可能有机会——抱歉。免责条款也并非对第三方请求的免责。该条款载于第14段，即引流禁令条款正下方，其效力取决于法院作出有利于受托人的终局性裁定。\n\n案号 22-50073，文档 2119，提交于 08/24/23，录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49，第124页（共）\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年7月11日\n\n一旦作出该裁定，如有针对受让人为转让程序及和解协议之目的提出的请求，该等请求即成为财产权益诉因。因此，任何有关管理不善、违反信义义务的请求，如其存在，均不再是任何债权人的直接请求。它们并非财产权益诉因。\n\n换言之，免责条款更具债务人免责的性质，而非第三方免责。第二巡回上诉法院（Second Circuit）明确指出，债务人获授权根据 Rule 9019 对财产权益诉因作出免责。若法院有兴趣，我很乐意向法院提供引注。我认为众所周知，债务人和受托人可以根据 9019 对请求作出和解。这正是该规则的实际用途。\n\n因此，尽管其被称为免责条款，但其更具有限债务人免责的性质，即就某些行为使受让人受益。这绝非 Purdue Pharma（普渡制药）式第三方免责问题。如该措辞不明确，我们愿意作出任何修改，以确保命令中明确载明受让人的意图。\n\n法官阁下，为进一步说明情况，如果美国受托人和其他债权人成功否决免责条款及引流禁令，那么在作出终局性裁定后，再次假设这些条款未获批准，受让人可能会在多个法院面临请求，却没有任何资源为自己辩护。这基于受让人及其专业人士为这些财产所提供的服务及由此产生的价值，显然不公平。\n\n法官阁下，我就此结束，并请问您对我们有关引流禁令和免责条款的立场是否有任何问题。\n\n法院：我没有任何问题。谢谢。\n\nJareck先生（贾雷克）：那么，法官阁下，我接下来将转向喜马拉雅债权人（Himalaya creditors）的异议，并着重讨论其提出的授权问题；我认为该问题更适合由受让人及其律师处理。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nJareck先生：谢谢，法官阁下。首先，异议人援引了转让契据（deeds）及纽约债务人／债权人法（New York debtor/creditor law）的诸多条款。这些条款完全不适用于我们拟通过本和解实施的事项。我仅举几个例子。\n\n首先，异议人质疑受让人订立和解协议的授权，并援引——抱歉——其异议的第57和60段。他们援引转让契据。他们援引纽约债务人／债权人法，该法要求州法院批准任何个人财产的出售或处分。\n\n和解协议并非出售转让人的资产。和解协议仅设想在本法院明确监督下，将 HCHK 资金从一名受信人转移给另一名受信人。在本法院就受托人的另我主张作出裁决之前，该等资金将存放于受托人的托管账户中。\n\n同样，异议人在第58段援引纽约债务人／债权人法的一项规定，该规定涉及授权受让人出售、和解或处理属于财产的任何请求或债务。再次说明，法官阁下，受让人并未出售或和解任何属于转让人的请求。事实上，恰恰相反。\n\n不存在免责条款。作为协议的一部分，受让人要求向财产的所有利害关系方发出拟议和解通知，并且根据第8段中的不损害条款，明确保留和维护所有当事人的权利。\n\n此外，在第61段中，异议人批评受让人未提供通知及陈述意见的机会。受让人当然已向债权人提供在本法院陈述意见的机会。在加急听证命令录入后，已向这些债权人发出通知，并已就此提交送达证明。\n\n最后，法官阁下，我想指出，如先前律师所提及，授权问题实际上已在转让契据第4F节中得到处理；该节规定受让人有权和解任何及所有争议。这正是我们在此所做之事，法官阁下。\n\n在临时限制令（TRO）录入后，已与受托人及其律师进行了多次讨论。由于这些讨论，受让人基于其商业判断决定订立本和解，而非就禁令请求和对抗程序起诉状中提出的问题进行诉讼，但前提是，将资金转移至受托人控制之下须受本法院对对抗程序起诉状所提问题作出的最终裁决所约束。\n\n法官阁下，受让人认为应批准和解协议，且该协议有利于债权人，因为受托人在其起诉状中提出的问题无论如何均必须获得解决或裁决。该和解避免了高昂的诉讼费用，同时保留当事人选择对受托人的请求提出异议的权利。\n\n基于上述理由，受让人谨陈，9019 动议应予批准。我就此结束，并请问法院对我今天下午的陈述是否有任何问题。\n\n法院：我没有任何问题。谢谢。\n\nJareck先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nPastore先生（帕斯托雷）：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n\n法院：可以。\n\nPastore先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：请您——\n\nPastore先生：好的。\n\n法院：——为记录陈述您的姓名，好吗？\n\nPastore先生：当然可以。我叫约瑟夫·帕斯托雷（Joseph Pastore），来自帕斯托雷有限责任公司（Pastore LLC）。今天与我一同出席的是我的同事梅丽莎·麦克拉米（Melissa McClammy）。后排室内还有几名暑期实习律师。我们代表 HCHK 实体（HCHK entities）的若干债权人。如果法官阁下愿意，我可以念出来。这些名称由数字组成，难以发音。或者记录中引用我们的书面意见即可——\n\n法院：记录中引用即可。谢谢。\n\n案号 22-50073，文档 2119，提交于 08/24/23，录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49，第129页（共）\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年7月11日 129\n\nPastore先生：很好。谢谢。法官阁下，我代表的债权人尽管面临影射和陈述，仍相信自己是这些实体的善意债权人，曾出借资金，且是合法债权人。我与他们没有任何私人关系，没有任何过往关系，与该运动没有任何过往关系，与此处发生的任何事情均无关系。我是进入一出我知道已上演许多幕、但我只看到其中一部分的戏剧。我尊重并理解这一点。但从我们的角度而言，我出席是因为债权人的权利正因一项我们认为越权或违法的和解而受到剥夺。我认为受让人的律师已经强调了这一点。这是一项和解动议。纽约法律明确规定——我们刚刚读过——受让人无权在未经纽约法律要求的法院批准的情况下作出和解——我相信这是我们异议的第58段。这样规定是有原因的。受让人并非独立存在的主体。受让人是在纽约法院的指示下行事。我完全尊重临时限制令。我理解冻结该笔资金的必要性。我理解必须十分谨慎。但必须有人监督并使受让人的和解合法化。他不能仅凭自己的判断单方面行事。他必须向纽约法院寻求批准。\n\n因此，本和解协议不合法，因为并未寻求该等批准。\n\n从我们的角度而言，必须有人核实受让人认为自己可以在没有任何调查、没有任何信息的情况下剥夺这些债权人权利的判断；根据纽约法律，他对这些债权人负有服务和保护的信义义务。\n\n现在，让我们说清楚。当我说剥夺权利时，HCHK 实体的债权人，假定他们是善意债权人——而我必须如此假定。我已对此进行了调查。据我所知，他们是合法债权人。善意请求。善意出借资金。正因这一安排而被完全剥夺权利。\n\n而受让人无须向任何人报告其为何这样做。他因这样做而获得豁免。他因这样做获得 $550,000。他的律师因这样做获得 $400,000。基于何种理论，任何人可以认为他是为了其宣誓保护的债权人的最佳利益而行事？\n\n因此，受托人和受让人所构建的协议违法且越权。本法院有权中止纽约诉讼。但我认为本法院无权命令纽约法院必须批准受让人在本诉讼中作出的该项转让。\n\n案号 22-50073，文档 2119，提交于 08/24/23，录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49，第131页（共）\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年7月11日\n\n我认为这应由纽约法院作出认定。\n\n如果纽约法院作出该等认定，和解即可继续进行。但在此之前，必须有人作出该认定。\n\n根据纽约州法律，受让人不能仅凭其自身意愿自由地这样做。\n\n至于，您知道的，将来某一天可能会认定存在另我人格，也可能会，也可能不会。\n\n但我认为，这不足以使本院径直无视纽约州法律的明确严格规定。将来某一天可能会认定存在另我人格；如果是这样，最终这些款项将会被移转。\n\n但在此之前，这并不能成为径直无视法律的正当理由。\n\n因此，法官阁下，我们认为，不应按目前的结构批准该和解。该和解超越权限。该和解违法。应当遵守该项严格规定。\n\n如果本案继续进行，我们拟介入本案并保护我们债权人的权利。\n\n他们是该实体及该等款项的善意债权人。我们拟设法要求受让人履行其经宣誓承担的职责，以保护债权人——即我的当事人——的权利。\n\n法官阁下，如您有任何问题，我很乐意回答。这就是我们所代表债权人的立场。\n\n法庭：目前我没有任何问题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 132 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 132\n\n帕斯托雷先生：好的。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n帕斯托雷先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：还有其他人希望就和解动议发表意见吗？\n\n舍曼先生：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？我叫约书亚·舍曼（Joshua Sherman）。我提交了一份有限异议。\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n舍曼先生：我只是希望说明——\n\n法庭：请您到这个讲台前来，好吗——\n\n舍曼先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——这样会更方便。谢谢。\n\n舍曼先生：法官阁下，我只是希望说明，我同意喜马拉雅债权人提出的论点。此外，我还想说明，我认为我本人的债权具有管理费用性质。我已在致本院的信函中说明了这一点。受托人和受让人均未提出相反主张。因此，如本院倾向于批准该和解，我的债权应在拟议命令中列入获授权受让人采取的行动之中。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n阿尔卡罗先生：法官阁下，下午好。我是格雷戈里·阿尔卡罗（Gregory Arcaro），代表G News Operations, LLC（G新闻运营有限责任公司）出庭。与律师的异议类似，我的当事人与受让人签订了一份管理协议，并依据该管理协议预付了租金及其他费用。拟议命令及和解协议规定终止该管理协议，但未规定由此产生的后果，即返还我当事人支付的款项。\n\n我听到受托人律师称，对和解动议提出异议并非主张债权的适当场合；但受托人在提出和解协议中支付某些管理费用性质——我认为属于管理费用性质——债权的方案时，已将该问题明确提交本院，却未提出向我的当事人付款的机制。我们只是请求纳入一项机制，以便我的当事人能够提交债权，并在证实后与其他管理费用债权一并获得支付；并主张其与和解协议中拟议的所有其他付款具有同等地位，具体而言是在第三阶段，但也可以在第二阶段提出，届时受托人获授权向受让人垫付款项以支付某些费用。可在和解协议任一部分以任一方式提出，但应具体说明该债权将如何处理。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 134 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n巴拉诺夫斯基女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是凯利安娜·巴拉诺夫斯基（Kelliane Baranowsky），来自Green & Sklarz（格林与斯克拉兹律师事务所），代表G Club Operations, LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）出庭。卡罗莱纳·福尔诺斯（Carolina Fornos）也与我一同出庭，她来自Pillsbury Winthrop（普博瑞温斯洛普律师事务所），代表同一实体。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以，请。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：谢谢。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是Pillsbury Winthrop的卡罗莱纳·福尔诺斯，代表G Club Operations。法官阁下，我们已提交一份通知，而受托人对该通知的界定——其界定方式完全是为了避免出示文件。为明确起见，G Club Operations已经出示了文件，不仅是我们上次到庭时提到的300份文件，还包括我们今天上午出示的逾100,000份文件。我们还将出示更多文件，因为我们将在7月14日之前遵守本院命令。\n\n我们向本院提出的问题是，受托人不能只是走进来，假定存在另我人格，假定实质合并，并接管HCHK持有的所有文件。为明确起见，HCHK Technologies（HCHK科技公司）——存在多个实体。与我们有关的唯一问题是HCHK Technologies。该实体就我们的信息技术系统担任行政及管理职务。HCHK无权将该等权利和文件移转给受让人。受让人也无权径直将其交给受托人。受托人不能只是规避取证程序，然后说，哦，我就是要拿走所有这些文件，无视特权，无视合同权利。这就是我们提交该通知的原因。我们谨请本院注意，我们将出示文件，但G Club必须能够查阅其文件、审查文件、核查特权，并且我们将出示具有回应性的文件。受托人无权不顾特权权利及回应性而径直拿走一切。法官阁下，本院就此问题有任何疑问吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 135 of\n\n法庭：我只是——我认为您所说的一点，我相信我原本知道，但我想确保我理解正确：您代表G Club Operations提交的通知，仅涉及HK——HCHK Technologies实体，对吗？\n\n福尔诺斯女士：是的，法官阁下。这是正确的。\n\n并且，法官阁下，我们不持立场——我们交由其他律师就和解问题作出陈述。问题在于——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 136 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n目前起草的拟议命令绕过了影响G Club Operations的若干权利及正当程序权利。\n\n这些权利始于这样一种观念，即和解协议假定存在另我人格，假定实质合并，并假定受托人可以径直接管我们的所有文件并规避取证程序。\n\n这就是所担忧的问题，也是我们指出拟议命令应予修改的原因。在本院同意该和解的范围内，拟议命令应予修改，以保护我们的权利。\n\n法庭：不过，让我问一下关于HCHK Technologies的情况。HCHK Technologies签署了某份文件，将其全部权利、所有权、权益、债权和资产转让给受让人，对吗？我们对此没有争议吧？这发生过吗？\n\n福尔诺斯女士：法官阁下，是的。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：但我想澄清——让我澄清这一点。受托人使人觉得好像没有人提出异议。临时限制令在州法院提交立场声明的任何日期到来之前就已作出。因此，临时限制令——\n\n法庭：不，不。我明白这一点。不过，我说的是甚至在临时限制令之前。本案之所以在纽约提起，是因为HCHK Technologies的某名控制人员签署了一份文件，将其全部一切转让给受让人。这发生了，对吗？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n福尔诺斯女士：是的，法官阁下。但我不认为该程序已经完成。不过，我将交由——\n\n法庭：不，不。我不是说您相信这一点。我只是说，这就是所发生的事情，对吗？因此，受让人以受让人身份进入纽约的本案，并被转让了所有这些实体、资产和——为债权人利益而转让的资产，对吗？所以，受让人的角色应当是从这些实体取得一切，将其变现，并支付债权人。这本来应当发生。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：法官阁下，我认为那是意图所在。但为明确起见，受让人代位于——如果这一切根据纽约州法律均属适当——\n\n法庭：是的。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：——并且一切均应完成，且在该程序中每个人均获得陈述意见的机会，假定所有这些都发生，受让人将取得——可以说将代位于HCHK Technologies，并代位于那些合同。根据那些合同，受让人仍将受该等协议约束。并且那些协议明确——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 138 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n包含保密条款及具体条款，禁止受让人或HCHK径直移转所有文件——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：——而不顾——\n\n法庭：您是否在通知中指出——如果您指出了而我没有看到，我表示歉意——G Club Operations与HCHK Technologies之间的协议中，该保密条款位于何处？\n\n福尔诺斯女士：法官阁下，我们没有附上主服务协议。我们谨为记录说明，受托人律师不仅在最初出示的300份文件中获得了主服务协议；本院可能记得，在上次听证会上，本院曾专门就HCHK询问我，并且——\n\n法庭：我问的是保密条款，对吗？以及会员是否有任何——我不是在谈HCHK。我现在谈的是G Club。您当时在谈——我说，是否存在任何合同依据，使会员有理由相信其信息将保持保密。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：法官阁下，我会回答这个问题。这有两个不同的——\n\n法庭：当然。请继续。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 139 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023 139\n\n福尔诺斯女士：——问题。一是会员协议和会员权利。本院上次恰当地提出了该问题，我们也进行了研究，并确定我们可以在保护令约束下提供该等材料；这正是我们与受托人讨论并解决的问题。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：我们现在谈论的这个保密问题是另一个问题。这是我们的整个信息技术系统。这是我们所有的电子邮件通信。这是Microsoft 365。\n\n法庭：对。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：这是——\n\n法庭：但您必须就此与HCHK订有某种协议。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：而且其中包含关于——的保密协议——\n\n法庭：好的。这正是我所问的。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：——我们所有的——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：——我们所有的信息。而且该协议确实存在，我们已向受托人提供该协议副本——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：——多次，并已将他抄送——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 140 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 11, 2023\n\n就与HCHK就要求返还该等信息所进行的沟通而言。\n\n因此，法官阁下，目前拟议命令的结构并未考虑到——\n\n本院：那么，你所说的该等信息，是指什么信息？如果他们控制了你们的系统，那不全都是软件吗？\n\n福诺斯女士：是信息技术资料。是电子邮件和其他应用程序，法官阁下。\n\n本院：好的。好的。\n\n福诺斯女士：我们只是请求本院注意，受托人不能只是采取迂回手段，直接介入并说我要把一切都拿走。\n\n本院：嗯，受托人是否在这么说，我不知道。是你说受托人在这么说。但我的问题是，贵方代表G Club Operations（G Club运营）主张，G Club Operations与HCHK Technologies（HCHK技术公司）之间存在一项协议，其中载有关于HCHK代表G Club Operations管理的信息的保密条款，是这样吗？\n\n福诺斯女士：是的，法官阁下。\n\n本院：好的。\n\n福诺斯女士：是的。\n\n本院：而且，据你所说，你已向受托人提供了该等信息。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 141\n\n福诺斯女士：是的。\n\n本院：而且，你的意思是——你是说这些信息绝不应当移交，还是说你需要将其取回？对于G Club与HCHK之间协议所涵盖的信息，除我们已经讨论过的会员信息之外，你的主张是什么？\n\n福诺斯女士：是的。所有信息均应返还给G Club，以便G Club进行审查，确定哪些材料具有回应性，提交具有回应性的材料，并保留享有特权的信息。\n\n本院：好的。谢谢。这正是我想明确的事项。\n\n福诺斯女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：再次说明，我是代表美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）的Holley Claiborn（霍利·克莱伯恩）。我想我是今天最后一位向本院陈述意见的异议方。美国受托人就该和解提交了一份有限异议，载于ECF 1978，其中对三项事项提出异议。我将先讲其中最简单的一项，然后再回到更具实质性的讨论。简单的部分涉及，如果本院批准该和解，受托人将如何使用其获得的资金，以及人们对此应当了解什么。美国受托人认为，我们应当对此具有更高程度的透明度，并设置一些保障措施，以了解将会发生什么。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\n第141页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n\n美国受托人提议，由受托人提交每月付款清单。我认为受托人同意这一点。美国受托人还提议，对于超过$25,000的支出，应给予美国受托人和委员会机会，就该项支出是否适当发表意见。而受托人提出异议，请求将该金额提高至$50,000。\n\n我认为，除称采用$50,000门槛更有效率之外，我没有听到任何其他论点。我认为真正的问题是，我们实际上不知道受托人将如何使用这笔钱。我们应当设有某种机制，以确保在重大支出发生之前，该支出已适当地提交给各方，使各方了解将要发生什么。\n\n因此，美国受托人认为，$25,000这一标准更适合作为了解某项事项将在其发生之前发生的合理门槛。因此，美国受托人希望将此作为受托人在作出支出前必须考虑美国受托人及委员会意见的门槛。为明确起见，如果美国受托人对拟议支出有异议，则由美国受托人负责返回本院，向本院提出该事项。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n\n回到美国受托人在异议中提出的另外两项问题。这些是重要问题。目前，这些问题在全国各地的法院中，包括在Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院），均具有一定重要性。\n\n拟议和解协议包括两项相互配合的规定。拟议命令第13段规定了一项导流禁令，拟议命令第14段规定了免责。而且其范围之广，已经达到可以写出的最大范围。毫无争议的是，它们实际意图保护受让人及其专业人员，使其免受并非债务人、破产财产或受托人提出的他人请求权影响。\n\n受保护人员的定义称为受让人，但为明确起见，其不仅指Hofmeister（霍夫迈斯特）先生这一受让人，也指若干专业人员。因此，这是一个群体。其中包括今天代表受让人进行陈述的律师，即Cole Schotz（科尔·肖茨律师事务所）。\n\n命令及和解协议中所包含的免责，绝对属于本院有权决定其是否适当的范围。美国受托人的立场是，这并不适当，因为这在功能上等同于不适当的、未经同意的第三方请求权豁免。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n\n暂且退一步说。如果受托人拟议要解除破产财产对受让人及其专业人员提出的请求权，受托人有能力这样做。但拟议文本并非如此表述。\n\n拟议文本远远超出了这一范围。它谈及对任何个人或实体的任何责任，随后又谈及各种不同的行为。例如，其中所包含的未受保护且被保留的行为包括犯罪行为。因此，例如，如果某政府机构希望采取措施追究刑事指控，该等行动可以说会被拟议命令中的免责文本所阻止。\n\n美国受托人不认为拟议免责文本符合Second Circuit最近在Purdue Pharma（普渡制药）案中阐明的标准。该案列举的七项因素，没有一项看来已由拟议动议和和解条款满足。本院必须评估其是否确实有权批准该项豁免，因为它影响的不只是本破产财产的请求权，还影响未出席本院、且不受本院事项管辖权约束的第三方请求权。并且，可能存在尚未向本院阐明或提出的请求权。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n\n即使本院因某种原因认定Purdue Pharma案的因素确已满足，Second Circuit最近作出的Purdue Pharma判决也非常明确地表明，本院并无实际权限最终批准拟议导流禁令及免责，因为其作出的任何认定都仅为拟议认定，必须由District Court（地区法院）批准、认可并采纳。这是因为这属于非核心程序，并且在要求本院绕过限制并取得完全管辖权的范围内，违反了United States Supreme Court（美国最高法院）在Stern v. Marshall案中的意见，因为本院并不具有该等管辖权。\n\n本院：等一下。让我就这个问题打断你，因为我不确定我理解你的意思。本院对本案中关于——和解的动议不具有核心管辖权，原因是什么？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：我会说得更具体一些。\n\n本院：好的。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：本院无权批准导流禁令及免责，因为两者合起来构成对不属于本破产财产的第三方请求权的未经同意的豁免。那——\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 146\n\n本院：那么，但是——\n\n克莱伯恩女士：关于管辖权的该项认定——\n\n本院：但你在谈管辖权，所以——你在谈管辖权，所以我们——我只是想——\n\n克莱伯恩女士：所以我的论点是——\n\n本院：我只是想确保我清楚理解你的立场。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：我的论点有两方面。第一，我们认为Purdue Pharma判决中阐明的因素——\n\n本院：这一点我明白。我——\n\n克莱伯恩女士：——尚未得到满足。\n\n本院：第七巡回上诉法院——七项因素尚未得到满足。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：正确。\n\n本院：但即使它们已得到满足，我也无论如何不能裁决，因为它们不是核心——\n\n克莱伯恩女士：您不具有最终批准权限。\n\n本院：——它们不是核心程序，因此必须移交地区法院？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：正确。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\n第146页，共\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\n第147页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n\n本院：但是，即使你是正确的——我不知道你是否正确，因为我直到现在才研究你刚才所说的内容——我直到现在才理解你所说的内容，我能否根据Rule 7052作出拟议事实认定和法律结论？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：您可以。但最终必须由地区法院对此发表意见。\n\n本院：我明白。好的。好吧。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：而且那是——\n\n本院：我只是问一下。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：而且那仅涉及免责条款——\n\n本院：是。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：——和导流禁令的问题。我还想指出的是，本院没有法定授权在计划范围之外批准导流禁令。该问题是一个重大问题，它直接阻断了该项导流禁令请求。唯一的机制——\n\n本院：难道不是——人们一直都在请求这个吗——实际上，我有——Chapter 7（第7章）受托人正在请求这些，而且没有人就导流禁令及无法定授权提出问题。而且我——在Chapter 11（第11章）案件中，在计划尚未确认时也是如此。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\n第148页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 148\n\n而且，我认为，542(g)在哪里规定它必须与计划有关？我不确定它有此规定。对此一直存在很多争议，不是吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：确实如此，法官阁下。而且是524(g)。\n\n本院：我说的是42吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：是的。\n\n本院：我说反了吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：没关系。\n\n本院：24(g)。抱歉。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：所以关键在于，对他人施加该限制的权限仅见于该条款。法院已认定，该条款确实授权在其中提及石棉案件的具体文本概念之外作出导流禁令。尽管如此，据我们所知，没有任何判例法授权本院在计划范围之外施加该导流禁令。所有判例法均在实际计划的范围内确定导流禁令的适当性。\n\n本院：好的。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：因此，美国受托人的立场是，本院无权这样做——\n\n本院：没有法定授权来——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第 149 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 11 日\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n正确。\n\n法庭：\n——允许这样做。\n好的。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n正确。\n\n法庭：\n我——这有助于——这有助于——\n\n让您把这一点说明出来。我当时并不完全确定。\n\n但现在——我明白您的意思了。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n那么回到该提议，\n\n如果将其缩减为这样的思路：受托人希望就破产财产可能对受让人及其专业人员提出的请求，给予受让人及其专业人员免责，这属于受托人的权限范围。\n\n但是，受托人无权请求本法庭批准第三方对受让人及其专业人员持有的请求之免责。\n\n因此，我们请求法庭就和解协议中的这两项规定予以驳回，\n\n因为必须将其相互协调地解读。因此，\n\n即拟议命令中的第 13 项和第 14 项；如法庭批准目前提交法庭审理的实际和解协议，我们请求从拟议命令中删除该等规定。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n受托人有何回应？\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n是，法官大人。第一个回应是，是否可以休庭十分钟，以便我们\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 11 日 150\n\n进行讨论——\n\n法庭：\n可以。但实际上，在此之前，是否还有尚未听取意见的其他异议人？莫里亚蒂律师，您代表谁？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n债务人，法官大人。并且——\n\n法庭：\n哪一位债务人？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法庭：\n郭先生？\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n郭先生。\n\n法庭：\n他——\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n我并不提出异议。\n\n法庭：\n他没有——\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n我只是希望载入记录，债务人对和解协议或该动议不持任何立场。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：\n就是这些。好吗？\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。好。是的，我们休庭十分钟——休庭。法庭休庭至下午 4 点。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法警：\n全体起立。法庭休庭至下午 4 点。\n\n（下午 3:51 至下午 4:05 休庭。）\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第 150 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第 151 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 11 日\n\n法警：\n全体起立。United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut（康涅狄格联邦破产法院）现已——现正开庭。\n\n法庭：\n请坐。\n\n好的。我们在——大约下午 3:50 左右休庭了，德斯平斯受托人。我想。那么，我们现在情况如何？\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n我很高兴地报告，我们已与受让人达成协议；我认为这解决了关于免责和引导管辖所提出的许多问题。协议如下。\n\n受托人将放弃破产财产对受让人和／或其专业人员享有的任何诉因。而且，我们显然——您知道，我不必告诉您这一点。您比我更清楚。经法官大人批准，受托人可以这样做。我们认为不存在此类请求，但我们会作为和解的一部分放弃这些请求。\n\n至于引导管辖，不会存在使美国受托人感到担忧的广泛引导管辖禁令；而是基本上由法庭履行把关职能，这意味着，任何希望就受让人作为受让人以及为债权人利益而进行的让与这一角色，对受让人或其专业人员提出请求的人，必须先向本法庭提出该请求，以便法庭确定该诉因是否已由受托人根据我们将给予的免责而放弃。\n\n顺便说一句，只有在法官大人批准和解的第三阶段时，才会给予该免责；即法官大人批准受托人提出的另一自我或衡平所有权主张时。如果未获批准，那么一切均不成立。没有免责。法庭不履行把关职能。这一切都将在该程序的第三阶段完成。\n\n但是，再说一次，受托人只会放弃破产财产对受让人及其专业人员提出的请求。将会有一项规定，而且——您知道，受让人在审阅措辞、其律师审阅措辞的前提下同意这一点。但其构想是，对受让人或其专业人员提出的任何请求，必须先提交本法庭，以便法庭确定该等请求是否受该免责约束。\n\n因为，正如您所知，在这种情形下，人们是否拥有直接请求权的问题非常模糊。我们不希望人们在各处提起诉讼，直到法官大人确定：是的，这是不受受托人免责约束的直接请求；请继续，您可以\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 11 日\n\n起诉任何您想起诉的人。我们希望这种情况不会发生。\n\n但关键在于，该权利受到保护。\n\n但法庭将履行把关职能。我们认为，有大量依据支持赋予法庭仅为此目的的管辖权。因为他们并未被禁止提出其他请求；他们只是——只是多了一个步骤，即他们需要从本法庭开始，以便法庭能够保护其管辖权，即：这些请求是派生请求，还是直接而非派生的请求。该认定必须由本法庭作出，即批准了——或者如果法官大人批准，则将批准该和解的法庭作出。\n\n所以，这就是——我认为这解决了该问题。我的同事将处理其他请求债权人或被指称的债权人提出的其他问题。但对我而言，我认为这以一种有利于破产财产的方式解决了一个问题，同时也应使法庭确信，您拥有管辖权和权力，并且发布此种类型的命令是适当的。\n\n唯一一点——在我将发言席让给我的同事之前，我只想说，法官大人，每当姓名以 G 开头的人——我指的不是名字，而是公司名称以 G 开头的公司——出现在本庭\n\n这里，置身于——或者请求法庭给予保护时，我会非常担心，我们需要\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第 154 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 11 日\n\n看看这些事情最终如何尘埃落定。我们需要看看究竟是什么情况，发生了什么。而且，您知道，我会非常担心任何试图破坏这一程序的行为，或有人说，好吧，我也想要一项特别安排。\n\n首先，重要的是要理解，受让人及其专业人员获得的救济，只有在法官大人认定这些实体是债务人的另一自我时，他们才能获得该救济。否则，他们不会获得。在那个阶段，人们将可以自由地说，哦，我是破产财产的行政费用债权人；让我向您解释为什么。届时我们会作出决定。\n\n但今天并不是处理希望被承认为行政——最终行政费用请求人的人的请求的适当（无法辨识）或程序。这不是适当的背景。\n\n不过，我会——说到这里，法官大人，我将发言席让给我的同事。\n\n法庭：\n让我就您刚才解释的、作为解决免责问题和免责条款问题的方案问您一个问题。您是说，您将同意限制免责措辞，规定受托人只同意放弃破产财产对受让人的请求，并且如果有任何——\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n以及其专业人员。是的。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 11 日 155\n\n法庭：\n请继续。抱歉。什么？\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n以及其专业人员。\n\n法庭：\n以及其专业人员。好的。如果任何一方提出请求——其认为对受让人及其专业人员享有请求——他们必须向本法庭提出该请求？\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n或者向法庭提交一项动议，称我希望获授权在——无论他们希望在哪里提出该请求，例如纽约州法院——提出该请求，并向法庭说明为何我所享有的该请求——现在是债权人在说话——不受受托人给予——给予这些人的免责所涵盖。\n\n法庭：\n那么，这些债权人如何知道这一点？他们将如何知道？\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n嗯，在他们将收到的通知中——再说一次，这只会在第三阶段发生。如果法官大人裁定这些实体是债务人的另一自我，届时将发出通知，说明任何——我们可以商定措辞——但说明任何认为其享有此类请求的债权人，均须先向本法庭提交动议，以获授权提出任何此类请求。就正当程序而言，这对他们\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第 155 页，共\n\n行使其权利构成的障碍——坦率地说——是极小的；而且，因为归根结底，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023 年 7 月 11 日\n\n这些请求极有可能均为派生请求，因此我们拥有这些请求。这就是为何让法庭履行把关职能很重要，法官大人。\n\n法庭：\n拟议的——让我们——如果您成功且和解动议获准，拟议命令目前如何处理该问题——\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n我们将——\n\n法庭：\n——即您——\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n我们需要向法官大人提交新的措辞。但基本上，我会说，忽略您现在面前有关免责和引导管辖的部分。我们将提交一项规定，说明受托人——如果法庭准予救济，我们称之为——在处置性动议中，即简易判决或我们提出的任何动议——届时受托人将放弃对受让人及其专业人员的全部请求。\n\n届时，法庭将作出一项命令——当然，须经法官大人同意——规定任何希望对受让人或其专业人员提出请求的债权人，必须先向本法庭提交动议，以获授权这样做，以便法庭能够确定\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 157 是否拟主张的权利主张属于派生性权利主张，即仍归财产所有，抑或属于这些债权人的直接权利主张，诸如此类。再次说明，我不愿提供过多具体措辞，因为受让人的律师尚未审阅该等措辞。但这些就是相关概念，法官阁下。因此，显然我们需要向法官阁下提交一项新的命令。您知道，这一点毫无疑问。法院：好的。但目前而言，你们的提议是否回应了美国受托人（United States Trustee）的异议？德斯平先生（Mr. Despins）：嗯，没有。法院：哦，她在摇头。德斯平先生：没有，我并没有——我说的是，我们已与受让人解决了此事。法院：这并未与美国受托人解决此事。好的。克莱伯恩女士（Ms. Claiborn）：就对免责的回应而言，这确实解决了美国受托人的关切。财产有权提议对其希望免责的任何人予以免责。是否适当则由法院决定。我们并未就此提出异议。我们所争论的是，是否可以免除属于非财产第三方的其他权利主张。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交 08/24/23\n录入 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n以及不属于债务人的权利主张。因此，我认为该问题可以通过措辞处理并得到解决。\n\n关于拟议由法院担任把关人的机制问题，我目前无权对此表示同意。我需要先查看措辞，并与美国受托人讨论，然后再向法院和各方回复。\n\n德斯平先生：但是，再次说明，我认为我们与那种要求任何权利主张都必须在此就实体问题提起的导流禁令相距甚远。基本上，这仅仅是一项把关功能。而且我相信，法院采取此种做法是有先例的。因此，无论如何，除非法官阁下还有其他问题，否则我想请我的同事回应其他问题——我是说，还有其他异议人，这引发了——提出了一些问题。如有可能，我希望我的同事回应这些要点。\n\n法院：我只是想看看我是否还有其他问题。我目前没有其他问题，但这并不意味着我之后不会有，具体取决于还有什么——\n\n德斯平先生：那么我——如果——我将请卢夫特先生（Mr. Luft）到讲台前回应——\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n卢夫特先生：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2119 提交 08/24/23 录入 08/24/23 12:37:49 第159页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 159 法院：可以，请。德斯平先生：实际上，法官阁下，在卢夫特先生上来之前，我还有一点——这纯属程序性问题。戈德曼先生（Mr. Goldman）问我，委员会是否可以就受让人专业人士的费用享有审查权，而这一点已获同意。法院：受让人也同意吗？德斯平先生：仅限受让人的专业人士。因为受让人，没有什么可审查的。这是——意思是——法院：不，但你们——德斯平先生：是。法院：但——德斯平先生：他们已同意这一点，法官阁下。法院：是。德斯平先生：抱歉。我没有理解您的问题。第二点是，卢夫特先生准确描述了有关资金将投资于国债的条款。这是当前版本。但我们需要修改该条款——再次说明，受让人已同意——规定我们也可以将其保留在受托人第345条账户中。因为，长话短说，在我们告知银行将取出该笔资金并投资于国债后，他们说，好吧，您知道，猜猜怎么着，我们将——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 160 向您提供4.95 percent，这仅比国债低大约四分之一个百分点或半个百分点。而且这是在一个345账户中。因此，我们决定——法院：你的意思是美国银行（U.S. Bank）向你们提供该利率？你是这个意思吗？德斯平先生：不。一家银行——法院：哦。德斯平先生：——但不是美国银行。不是这家美国银行。而是持有本案其他受托人账户的那家银行。法院：好的，明白了。德斯平先生：并且他们已同意向我们提供——法院：财产受托人账户。德斯平先生：——4.95 percent，这相当——这不是在为他们做宣传，但这是相当高的利率。而且这是一个第345条账户。因此，美国受托人对此满意。因此，关键在于，我们需要修改该部分，以允许将资金存入此类账户。但这就是我想说明的仅有两个程序性事项。法院：好的。谢谢。卢夫特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我是保罗·哈斯廷斯律师事务所（Paul Hastings）代表第11章受托人（Chapter 11 Trustee）的阿维·卢夫特（Avi Luft），再次发言。我会尽量简短，因为我意识到时间已晚。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2119 提交 08/24/23 录入 08/24/23 12:37:49 第161页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n我将按照讨论的顺序进行。法官阁下，关于我所称的喜马拉雅异议人（Himalaya objectors）提出的意见，我实际上只想聚焦于两点。第一，其中没有任何地方讨论过Iridium因素，也没有任何地方认为事实上这不符合债务人财产的最佳利益。而这正是我们在9019和解中所要处理的问题。\n\n事实上，我没有听到任何人提出这一点。坦率地说，我认为分析确实应当聚焦于此。\n\n除此之外，法官阁下，我确实想作一点评论。有人大量使用了“被完全剥夺权利”之类的措辞，并暗示他们将无法提出权利主张。法官阁下，这并非该和解的架构方式。\n\n如果受托人就另一自我和／或衡平所有权问题在对抗程序中胜诉，且这些人是HCHK实体（HCHK entities）的有效债权人，则他们将有机会在本案中提出权利主张，但须由受托人申请重新开放申报债权的截止日期，而该事项已在命令中作出规定。\n\n如果受托人败诉，则该笔资金将返还给受让人。在这种情况下，他们的处境不会更差。因此，所有关于人们被剥夺权利或失去权利主张的说法都不真实。我认为，在他们提交的文件中，实际情况大致已经显现。其中提到，他们真正认为不公平的是，在纽约州法院案件中，他们只会与HCHK的其他债权人竞争；但如果受托人就其另一自我权利主张胜诉，那么他们将与债务人的其他债权人处于同等地位。但这实际上相当公平，法官阁下。如果我们关于HCHK实体是债务人另一自我的观点正确，那么债务人财产某一部分的债权人——债务人财产某一部分的债权人——就应当与财产其他部分的债权人受到完全相同的对待。因此，法官阁下，除非您有问题，否则我将继续讨论其他事项。\n\n法院：我没有问题。\n\n卢夫特先生：谢谢。关于舍曼先生（Mr. Sherman）的陈述，他简要提到，我们并未明确不同意他的权利主张属于行政费用债权。法官阁下，我在开场陈述中所说的是，我认为现在处理这些权利主张——这些权利主张——为时过早。为明确起见，我不会将我未详细讨论其是否属于行政费用债权这一事实，视为任何形式的同意其确属行政费用债权。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023 163 我认为，在适当的时间和场合，可以提交该问题，并对其进行审议。\n\n法院：那么，何时何地才适当？我只是问问。\n\n卢夫特先生：是，法官阁下。这完全公平。我认为，如果我们在对抗程序中胜诉，并确定——确定HCHK资产属于债务人财产，那么我认为债务人的任何债权人，无论是通过HCHK还是其他方式，在此我想包括舍曼先生或任何其他人，都可以提出并表示我有一项权利主张，并可以主张该权利。\n\n法院：但如果那是一项行政费用债权呢？\n\n卢夫特先生：法官阁下，就时间而言，我仍认为那或许是适当的时机，只是因为在此之前——\n\n法院：好的。我只是问问，因为存在——\n\n卢夫特先生：不，这完全公平。\n\n法院：好的。请继续。\n\n卢夫特先生：请看，舍曼先生现在可以自由地向我们提出。我们可以讨论。我只是认为这与和解毫无关系。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2119 提交 08/24/23 录入 08/24/23 12:37:49 第163页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n至于我——我最后要说的是，如果我们败诉，那么资金将返还给受让人，之后他将不得不作出判断，这就是我将其时间定在等待该裁判之后的原因。\n\n关于G News（G新闻），我只想说，请看，因为与一方和解了一项权利主张，并不意味着有义务就任何一方可能拥有的所有权利主张达成和解。再次说明，这是一项由受让人与受托人达成的和解。这正是所处理的权利主张。\n\n我不认为发生这种情况会以任何方式损害G新闻。再次说明，我们将在适当的时候处理他们的权利主张。\n\n最后，关于G Club（G俱乐部），我只想作几点评论。首先，我注意到他们并非债权人，法官阁下。他们基于何种理由反对该和解并不十分清楚。\n\n我特别注意到，关于我强调的措辞——该措辞位于他们通知书第6段的提议中，即我们只能查看“仅与HCHK实体有关”的文件——没有任何提及。正如我所说，他们添加的、而他们现在未予回应的该措辞，很可能导致受托人能够查看的文件构成一个空集。我认为这并不适当。他们似乎也没有对此作出回应。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2119 提交 08/24/23 录入 08/24/23 12:37:49 第165页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 11, 2023\n\n关于HCHK控制他们所有电子邮件和所有信息技术系统这一观点，我注意到，尽管目前已过去七个月、或许八个月，这份——这份通知书是我们首次听说HCHK——或者说，在过去几周内首次听说，HCHK的电子邮件事实上全部由第三方控制，且HCHK负责运行一切。此前，在G俱乐部数月来被要求出示其文件时，我们从未从G俱乐部那里听说过这一点。\n\n他们现在提出特权和保密问题。我看不出他们如何能够这样做。在文件被发送给受让人时，他们没有提出异议。他们似乎对HCHK持有其文件没有问题。而且，他们似乎也不反对受让人将其全部出售给G新闻并允许后者拥有其全部文件这一做法。\n\n您知道，我认为，即使曾经存在任何特权或保密方面的关切——对此我也存有疑问——在我看来，这些关切均已被放弃。似乎其他所有人都被允许查看这些文件。受托人也应当可以查看。\n\n最后，关于您——法院就MSA（主服务协议）以及您询问哪些条款所提出的问题。MSA很可能已与其他文件一并向我们出示。当然，没有向我们突出显示MSA中的任何条款。没有任何措辞\n\n案号 22-50073　文书 2119　提交于 08/24/23　录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49　第 166 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n此前未向我们出示过任何此类文件。本协议中也未包含任何表明据称被违反的内容或其他说明。\n\n再次，我认为最适当的做法是让受托人与受让人一样，处于相同地位。让他们取得 HCHK 的文件。让他们在需要审阅的范围内使用这些文件。如果其中包含 G Club 的文件，情况一直都是如此。此前这似乎并非问题。现在也不应成为问题。\n\n法官阁下，如您有任何问题，我乐意回答。\n\n法院：我没有问题。谢谢。\n\nLUFT 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\nGOLDMAN 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。我是代表委员会的 Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼）。我只是想表示，我们支持受托人提出的和解方案。我们赞赏受托人能够迅速且积极地中止州法院程序，并将受该等程序约束的资产纳入 Chapter 11 程序的保护范围之内。这些资产本可能逃避遗产的追索。并非说这些资产现已被认定为遗产财产，但至少它们已提交本院作出该项认定。\n\n案号 22-50073　文书 2119　提交于 08/24/23　录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49　第 167 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n当然，本院对遗产财产拥有专属管辖权；我主张，本院对认定何者属于遗产财产亦拥有专属管辖权。而这正是本和解所实现的内容。正如受让人所提及，这仅是一项改变审理法院的和解，它实际上将让与程序中存在的任何请求引入本院，并保留所有可主张的请求权。任何人都不会被剥夺权利。\n\n至于遗产免责，这是适用商业判断标准的问题。若这意味着批准整个和解，我们对此表示支持。\n\n关于审查把关职能，我认为，当直接请求权被伪装为——或者更确切地说，派生请求权被伪装为直接请求权时，法院通常会适用该职能。因此，通常会采用此类审查把关职能，以防债权人进行此类行为；本院将最终裁定何者为直接请求权、何者为派生请求权，从而使那些被伪装为直接请求权的派生请求权，不能仅仅在各个法院提起诉讼，直至本院至少认定它们确属正当的直接请求权。\n\n因此，委员会支持按已向本院陈述的方式修改后的和解方案。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日　168\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nGOLDMAN 律师：谢谢。\n\nPASTORE 律师：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n\n法院：可以。\n\nPASTORE 律师：我知道时间已晚，所以我会简短陈述。我非常尊敬我的好友 Goldman 律师，但是——我想强调他刚才使用的一个词，即“中止”。\n\n法庭书记员：抱歉，我需要您的姓名。我没有听清该姓名。\n\nPASTORE 律师：哦，抱歉。我是代表——的 Joseph Pastore（约瑟夫·帕斯托雷）。\n\n法庭书记员：谢谢。\n\nPASTORE 律师：——HCHK 债权人的律师。\n\n法庭书记员：谢谢。\n\nPASTORE 律师：中止。我认为这是一个重要的词。因此，我们在此没有任何关于另我人格的认定，没有任何关于任何债权人值得受到责难的认定，但我们却要中止纽约的一项程序，而没有任何人认定——受让人的行为是否符合其受委托保护的那些债权人的最佳利益；而这正是纽约法院的职责。随后又告知那些债权人，除非经本院批准，否则他们不得就受让人的行为对其提起任何诉讼。我认为，我一向拥护正当程序条款，\n\n案号 22-50073　文书 2119　提交于 08/24/23　录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49　第 168 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073　文书 2119　提交于 08/24/23　录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n一向拥护——您知道——法律结论和事实认定。这里没有任何此类内容。然而，我当事人的权利显然全都被剥夺了。\n\n至少——我们确实感谢 U.S. Attorney（美国联邦检察官）对禁令提出的异议。我认为——这当然必须说出来。我想我已经说过了。至少，我们请求有权审阅任何拟议裁定中修改该措辞的内容，并在必要时对此发表评论。\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nJARECK 律师：法官阁下，最后一点？\n\n法院：可以。可以。请继续。\n\nJARECK 律师：为记录在案，我是 Ryan Jareck（瑞安·贾雷克），Cole Schotz PC（科尔·肖茨律师事务所），代表受让人。法官阁下，时机实际上恰到好处，因为我的意见涉及 Pastore 律师先前在其陈述中所说的，即这项和解越权并违反纽约州法律。\n\n他在作出该说法时，引用了他自己的书面意见第 58 段，该段再次援引了纽约州债务人与债权人法的另一条规定。该规定称：“法官可应受让人的申请，授权受让人出售、和解或处理属于债务人遗产的任何请求权或债务。”\n\n再次，法官阁下，这是完全错误的引用。这不是我们正在做的事。我们并未出售。我们并未\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日　170\n\n进行和解。我们只是将资金移交给受本院控制的另一名受托人。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nFORNOS 女士：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n\n法院：可以。\n\nFORNOS 女士：仅简要陈述，法官阁下。G Club Operations（G Club运营公司）并未放弃其任何权利。如本院可能记得，我在上次听证会上明确提到了 HCHK 问题。我已提出该问题。我还于 6月19日就该问题以及返还我方保密信息一事联系了 Jareck 律师。我也于 7月5日联系了 Jareck 律师和 Lutz 律师，并向他们提供了一份主服务协议副本。\n\n我们的立场非常简单。我们可以按照本院认为适当的方式处理拟议裁定。问题仅在于，受托人不能仅仅规避证据开示，并取代一家甚至尚未被认定为另我人格、尚未与本遗产进行实质性合并的公司，然后突然介入并称：这些现在都是我们的文件，我们可以——取得它们。因此，我们恭请本院考虑我们的请求，即他们——即受托人——无权这样做。相反，应将其返还给 G Club\n\n案号 22-50073　文书 2119　提交于 08/24/23　录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49　第 170 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073　文书 2119　提交于 08/24/23　录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49　第 171 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\nOperations，以便 G Club Operations 可以审查其相关性及特权情况，并据此提交文件。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nFORNOS 女士：本院还有其他问题吗？\n\n法院：没有。谢谢。\n\nFORNOS 女士：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：关于和解争议的动议，既在主案中以 ECF 编号 1936 提交，也在对抗程序 23-5013 中以 ECF 编号 25 提交。我们当地的破产程序规则要求，对抗程序中的任何和解动议也须在主案中提交，以便向所有当事方发出该和解动议的通知并完成送达。\n\n该动议——该动议的通知和送达，以及就该动议举行的听证，均已如主案和对抗程序中的记录以及与主案动议和对抗程序动议相关的送达证明——抱歉，送达证明书——所示，得到适当完成。\n\n各方——某些当事方对和解动议提出了异议，其中所有人均已出席今日听证会，包括由 Pastore 律师代理的 Himalaya parties（喜马拉雅各方）、代表其本人就其有权获得——提出主张的 Sherman 律师，即他有权从 HCHK 各方获得一项\n\n案号 22-50073　文书 2119　提交于 08/24/23　录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49　第 172 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日　172\n\n行政请求权。G News（G 新闻）律师提交了异议，再次主张 G News 有权获得一项行政请求权，并请求设立行政请求权机制。\n\n随后，G Club Operations 的律师提交了通知，其律师已作出陈述；所担忧的是，受托人订立该和解协议，是为了通过证据开示取得文件，而在 G Club Operations 从 HCHK Technologies entities（HCHK Technologies实体）收回其文件之前，受托人可能无法取得这些文件。随后，G Club 可以审查这些文件，并确定其中哪些文件（如有）可以在不受 G Club 可能主张的任何特权限制的情况下提交。\n\n但我提醒 G Club 和受托人，就针对 G Club 寻求的其他证据开示而言——我并不是说该和解属于证据开示，但这是 G Club Operations 的观点——主案中已经生效的保护令、保密条款和命令，显然已处理了本院就尚待裁决的藐视法庭动议及强制 G Club 提交文件动议所提出的问题。\n\n此外，United States Trustee（美国受托人）提交了有限异议。我理解美国受托人的有限异议。Kwok 先生通过其律师 Moriarty 律师，\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 2119\n提交于 08/24/23\n录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年7月11日\n\n对和解动议未持立场。\n\n显然——不仅仅是显然。如记录所述，受托人已同意将和解动议的任何裁定中规定的免责限于遗产——遗产免责。且该免责仅在和解的第三阶段达成时才会发生。而这只有在本院就另我人格请求权是否——作出有利于受托人的裁决之后才会发生。\n\n由于受托人及其他律师，包括 United States Trustee（美国受托人）办公室、债权人委员会和受让人律师，在记录中作出的讨论、陈述和建议，与听证会前提出的内容有所不同，我将继续进行本次听证，但仅延后一周，且仅为审阅按照今日记录中所指出的修改内容作出的批准和解的拟议裁定。所有当事方的异议均已记录在案。已提出异议的任何当事方无需再提出进一步异议。本院也不会审议任何进一步异议。\n\n但我将命令受托人的律师按照今日记录中陈述的思路修改该拟议裁定，并向所有提出异议的当事方送达。并且我将\n\n在7月13日下午5点前完成，以便我们下周回到这里开庭时，我能知道拟议命令中关于批准和解的条款可能存在哪些问题（如有）。\n\n我此刻并未裁定该妥协动议是否准许。我建议各方就拟议命令进行一些讨论。我将审阅拟议命令及其中所述修订内容。随后在下周，我将要么表示该事项已具备裁决条件并作出裁定，要么要求命令中可以加入其他内容。但我目前不会作出裁定。我将重新审阅各方的诉状，并结合今天庭审中提出的论点进行审阅。\n\n但是，就实体动议、该动议请求的救济以及异议而言，无须再举行任何庭审。我希望看到该命令的具体内容，并希望理解它。\n\n因此，Despins 受托人（德斯平斯），贵办公室于13日下午3点——抱歉，下午5点——向所有人送达该命令时，我希望你们也将其提交至主案和对抗程序的案卷。这样将给予法院审阅该命令的时间，并在续期庭审之前——我们将安排该庭审；该案及对抗程序中已有其他事项定于7月18日中午12点开始审理。我将仅就拟议命令续期开庭，并安排在下午2点。\n\n我之所以说下午2点，是因为目前下周日程中，Genever Holdings（杰内弗控股公司）诉 AIG Property Casualty（AIG财产意外险）对抗程序的原定审前会议已排定。鉴于我们从明天开始将在 AIG 对抗程序中举行两天——或者可能两天——的证据听证，下周没有必要举行审前会议。我会了解进展情况。我不会在没有必要的情况下，为审前会议将各方带到法庭。\n\n因此，主案中关于 ECF 1936，即妥协动议的庭审，以及第23-5013号对抗程序中关于 ECF 25，即妥协动议的庭审，均续期至7月18日下午2点。我不会就提交和送达经修订的拟议命令作出正式排期命令，因为我正在庭审记录中作出该命令。\n\n有人对此有任何问题吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，只有一个问题。如果一方对拟议命令有异议，法院希望在何日期限前提交意见？\n\n法院：我们将在下次庭审中讨论这个问题——嗯——\n\n克莱伯恩女士：不，我知道。我的意思是，如果要提交书面答复——\n\n法院：我将给予所有人机会，在7月14日星期五下午5点前提交书面答复。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：谢谢。\n\n法院：现在，其他任何一方——我将考虑任何形式书面答复的唯一当事人，是已经提出异议的当事人。任何尚未提出异议的人，首先已经超过期限。其次，下周的庭审并不是——我们不会重新讨论已经讨论过的相同问题。我们已经讨论过了。我理解各方各自的立场，并且将在某个时候——无论是在庭审中还是庭审后——根据我所看到的经修订拟议命令及任何答复作出裁定。但是，庭审将限于这些问题。\n\n有人有任何问题吗？\n\n帕斯托雷先生：只是简短说明一下。那天下午2点，我在新泽西联邦法院有一场和解会议。麦克拉米女士可以处理这场庭审。我只是想让法院知道。并无不敬之意，但我将会——\n\n法院：没问题。谢谢。\n\n帕斯托雷先生：好的。\n\n法院：我对此表示感谢。\n\n帕斯托雷先生：好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，关于时间是否有任何弹性？例如，能否再晚一些，比如下午3点30分或4点？\n\n法院：当然。我的意思是，如果这是大家希望的安排。但你必须取得所有人的同意。\n\n德斯平斯先生：噢，那么——\n\n法院：如果所有人同意，那没有问题。不过，我不会安排晚于下午4点。法庭工作人员——我不知道每个人会说什么。也许会——也许不会有问题。但法庭工作人员——我——你知道，我——他们也希望晚上回家，这一点我能理解。\n\n阿卡罗先生：法官阁下，我有一个问题请教法院。\n\n法院：请讲。\n\n阿卡罗先生：就向法院提交的经修订命令而言——我们——不存在——\n\n法院：该命令将被录入案卷，因此，所有已出庭的人都将通过——我不确定这是否是你的问题。但你们将通过 CM/ECF 收到该命令。\n\n阿卡罗先生：我的问题是，法官阁下给予了就该拟议命令提交答复的机会。\n\n法院：截至星期五——7月14日下午5点。\n\n阿卡罗先生：如果未提交答复，异议是否视为放弃？\n\n法院：不会。你们的异议仍将被考虑。我尚未作出裁定，对吗？\n\n阿卡罗先生：法官阁下，谢谢。谢谢。\n\n法院：如果此前不够明确，我很抱歉。我将考虑所有人的异议。\n\n阿卡罗先生：很好。谢谢。\n\n法院：但我希望看到，鉴于我们今天所讨论的一切——不是我讨论的，而是你们今天所讨论的内容，以及你们就各自异议所作的陈述——该经修订拟议命令将会是什么样子。\n\n阿卡罗先生：非常感谢。\n\n法院：因此，不是的——你们并未放弃任何已及时提出的异议。这些异议将被考虑。\n\n阿卡罗先生：很好。\n\n法院：但我也希望看到经修订拟议命令的进展情况。\n\n阿卡罗先生：很好。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的？谢谢。\n\n好的。因此，法庭书记员可能会在今天晚些时候——不是今天，明天——注明，下周 AIG 对抗程序中的那场审前会议将续期至一个待定日期。\n\n法庭书记员：好的。\n\n法院：好的？\n\n法庭书记员：是的。\n\n法院：我相信，我们明天上午10点开始审理 AIG 对抗程序的证据听证。对吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么，我——我们已经处理完今天日程中的所有事项。基于上述理由，现休庭。谢谢各位。\n\n全体：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭书记员：全体起立。现在休庭。\n\n（庭审于下午4:46结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的速记员及认证电子记录员和速记员，证明上述内容系根据上述案件庭审的正式电子录音制作的正确庭审记录。\n\nJuly 20, 2023\n\nChristine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Guo","HCHK","Despins","Himalaya","Paul Hastings","CIPA","G Clubs"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":25,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":221,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1896,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1936,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1971,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1978,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":1992,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":51363,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-08-24 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-08-24","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:10:38"}