{"id":"court_ctb_2286_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2286,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-10-24","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"听证会庭审笔录 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #2286（2023-10-24立案）。这份由法庭认证记录员出具的56页正式笔录记录了破产法官 Julie A. Manning 于2023年10月17日主持的听证会，内容涵盖破产主案及涉及 Taurus Fund, LLC、AIG 保险和 Golden Spring 等关联衍生诉讼的审前会议与状态研讨。","summary_en":"Transcript of Hearing —— In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #2286 (filed 2023-10-24). The official 56-page transcript of the October 17, 2023 hearing before Bankruptcy Judge Julie A. Manning covers status conferences and pretrial matters across the main bankruptcy case and related adversary proceedings involving Taurus Fund, LLC, AIG Property Casualty, and Golden Spring (New York) Ltd.","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, \\* \\* Debtors. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC, \\* Adv. Proc. No. 23-05007 \\* Plaintiff, \\* \\* v. \\* \\* AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY,\\* \\* Defendant. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* LUC A. DESPINS, et al., \\* Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017 \\* Plaintiffs, \\* \\* v. \\* \\* TAURUS FUND LLC, et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* LUC A. DESPINS, et al., \\* Adv. Proc. No. 23-05018 \\* Plaintiffs, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* October 17, 2023 v. \\* \\* GOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD, \\* 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, CT 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\n#1362 MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH BK.RULE 2004 SUBPOENA # 56 ORDER REGARDING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE # 68 ORDER REGARDING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE # 19 ORDER REGARDING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE\n\n2\n\nAPPEARANCES: Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: AVRAM EMMANUEL LUFT, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. ANNECCA H. SMITH, ESQ. Neubert Pepe and Monteith 195 Church Street,13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 For the Creditors Committee: KRISTEN B. MAYHEW, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the Creditor, Pacific STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity O'Melveny & Myers LLP Fund L.P.: Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 For Taurus Fund, LLC: MICHAEL T. CONWAY, ESQ. Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle, LLP 747 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 For AIG Property Casualty: JOHN FREDERICK O'CONNOR,JR., ESQ. Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 MICHAEL P. THOMPSON, ESQ. Gordon & Rees LLP Gorden Rees Scully Mansukhani 95 Glastonbury Blvd. Suite 206 Glastonbury, CT 06033\n\n3\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd.) For Genever Holdings LLC: MICHAEL T. McCORMACK, ESQ. O'Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss PC 180 Glastonbury Blvd. Suite 206 Glastonbury, CT 06033 For UBS AG: LISA FRIED, ESQ. Herbert Smith Freehills New York, LLP 450 Lexington Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 11017\n\n4\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 5 (Proceedings commenced at 2:05 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holding; 23-05007, Genever Holdings, LLC and AIG Property Casualty Company; 23-05017, Despins, et al. versus Taurus Fund, LLC, et al; 23-05018, Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee versus Golden Spring (New York) Ltd., et al. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. If we could have appearances for the record, please, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. I'm here with my counsel, Avi Luft. MR. LUFT: Good morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, Connecticut counsel for the Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Stuart Sarnoff on behalf of Creditor PAX. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Annecca Smith of Robinson & Cole, also on behalf of Creditor PAX. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew, Pullman & Comley, on behalf of the creditors\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 6 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 6 committee. MS. FRIED: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Lisa Fried, from Herbert Smith Freehills, on behalf of UBS AG. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. McCORMACK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Michael McCormack, from O'Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss, as special insurance counsel for Genever Holdings, LLC. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And everyone knows Mr. McCormack -- MR. O'CONNOR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- has stated in his disclosure that I happen to know Mr. McCormack personally. We lived in the same neighborhood for years. So if anyone has a problem with that, I would ask that you note that now. But I just want to make sure everyone is clear that I do know Mr. McCormack personally. (No response) THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Go right ahead, whoever's next. MR. O'CONNOR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. John O'Connor for AIG. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. THOMPSON: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Michael Thompson for AIG as well. THE COURT: Good afternoon.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 7 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 7 MR. DESPINS: Mr. O'Connor, I don't know -- I'm sorry, Judge, to interrupt, but it was hard to hear. I don't know if it was only us, but maybe -- it's very faint, but I just wanted to make sure you knew that. THE COURT: You mean, Attorney O'Connor, Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Mr. O'Connor. Yes. THE COURT: I heard him fine. Did you? MR. DESPINS: Okay. Well, then -- THE COURT: I'm turning to the courtroom deputy to make sure. MR. DESPINS: -- that's what's important. THE COURT: Yeah. We heard you fine, Attorney O'Connor. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: It must have been Trustee Despins' connection. MR. DESPINS: Apologies. THE COURT: That's okay. MR. DESPINS: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you, Your Honor. I heard it fine too. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 8 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 8 Attorney Conway, we took your appearance, correct? MR. CONWAY: Not yet, Your Honor. I think I'm the last one. THE COURT: Okay. Then please, go ahead. MR. CONWAY: This is Michael Conway, Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle. I'm appear for Taurus Fund, LLC, Taurus Fund Management, LLC, and Scott Barnett. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And thank you. All right. The first matter on the calendar today is the motion to compel compliance with a Rule 2004 subpoena issued by the Trustee to UBS. And I see Attorney Fried is here as well. And I recall in prior hearings other parties had been moving toward compliance on a consensual basis. I haven't seen any other documents filed in connection with the motion to compel, so I'm not sure where things stand as of this afternoon, but I'm happy to hear from the Trustee's counsel and/or Attorney Fried with regard to the status of this motion, please. MR. LINSEY: There have not been filings in advance of this hearing. The Trustee thought it would be helpful to provide the Court an update and we want to do that. But there has -- there has been further work that's been done. So this is a (indiscernible) for a motion to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 9 of 56\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023<br>9                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | compel that was filed earlier this year, which was then most |\n| 2  | recently adjourned through a series of stipulated and        |\n| 3  | consent orders while the Trustee and UBS have sought to      |\n| 4  | negotiate in terms of compliance with the Trustee's Rule     |\n| 5  | 2004 subpoena.                                               |\n| 6  | Most recently, on August 13th, the parties                   |\n| 7  | submitted a stipulated order to the Court providing for      |\n| 8  | production of certain documents by UBS according to a        |\n| 9  | schedule.<br>The Court approved that order.                  |\n| 10 | The parties have some differences of opinion about           |\n| 11 | performance under the stipulation, but I don't want to argue |\n| 12 | today over matters that, well, we're not disagreeing         |\n| 13 | (indiscernible) any result, but the Trustee understands that |\n| 14 | at this point the substantial majority of the production     |\n| 15 | that the Trustee and UBS have been dealing with have now     |\n| 16 | been provided.                                               |\n| 17 | As I understand it, and counsel for UBS can                  |\n| 18 | correct me if I'm wrong, there is an additional traunch of   |\n| 19 | documents that were found that were related to certain other |\n| 20 | documents, that because they were found later still require  |\n| 21 | review, UBS has --                                           |\n| 22 | There's also the issue outstanding of UBS's                  |\n| 23 | privilege log, which the Trustee is requesting, so counsel   |\n| 24 | for the Trustee and UBS have discussed those matters.        |\n| 25 | UBS has committed to provide the non-privileged              |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 10 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 10 documents based on those additional documents that were found following its review by October 23rd and will provide a privilege log by October 31st. The Trustee would request, and I think UBS is onboard with, adjourning this hearing another month. Hopefully, at that point, we can put this project behind us and have some more, you know, some kind of a longer term resolution. But where we are now, again, I don't want to get into (indiscernible) that are ultimately academic and the parties are just going to reserve their rights. I'm happy to answer any questions the Court has and otherwise to allow counsel for UBS to add anything or clarify anything that they think is appropriate. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Attorney Linsey. Attorney Fried, did you wish to be heard? MS. FRIED: Thank you, Your Honor. I can be quite brief because we agree to everything that Mr. Linsey just indicated. We agree to -- I share with you that there's no value into getting into any ongoing disagreements at this point. The only additional color I can add which might be helpful is that the additional documents that we expect to be producing next week we do not believe any of them are in Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 11 themselves responsive to the subpoena. Instead, we believe they simply were what in sort of e-discovery terms I think are referred to as family members of responsive documents that have been produced that we also should, you know, produce just for the sake of good order. So we'll be getting those out, as Mr. Linsey indicated, no later than Monday. And then we'll be producing our privilege log no later than October 31st. And we agree with his characterization of where things stand. And both parties desire to adjourn the motion for another month in the hopes that we can wrap things up by then. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. I just need to take a look at the calendar for a moment if you would just be patient for a second. (Pause) THE COURT: Toward the end of November, the 21st or the 28th, are both available dates. And what I would do is I would schedule those for -- this for 2:00 p.m. on one of those two dates and then see where things stand. If the parties have some form of agreement where the motion to compel does not need to be prosecuted, then obviously something could be filed on the docket with regard to that issue and then there would be no need for the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 11 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 12 parties to appear at a hearing, a continued hearing, on the motion. But if there isn't, then we'll have the continued hearing. So the two dates that are available right now are November 21st and November 28th. So which would you prefer? MR. LINSEY: Either is fine for the Trustee. MS. FRIED: Either is fine for UBS, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Why don't we say November 28th then at 2:00 p.m. And then, as I noted, if there is a reason why we should not conduct that hearing because there's a resolution of the issues, then you will -- I would ask you to file something on the docket indicating that and we will act accordingly. But as it stands right now, the matter is continued to November 28th at 2:00 p.m. Thank you both. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you, both. MS. FRIED: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you, both. All right. That takes care of the first matter on the calendar. Attorney Fried, you obviously, it's completely up to you, you're welcome to stay, but you do not need to stay as part of these hearings unless you would like to. Okay?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 12 of 56\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 13 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 13 MR. FRIED: Thank you, Your Honor. I think I'll excuse myself, but thank you very much. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. The next -- now, the next matters are all involving adversary proceedings. I don't know, Trustee Despins, if there's a certain way in which you'd like to proceed this afternoon. MR. DESPINS: Well, on the agenda I have, it may have been prepared in-house, so I don't know if that's your agenda, but the next matter was the AIG litigation. So if that's agreeable to Your Honor, I think we might as well -- THE COURT: That's fine. MR. DESPINS: -- go in that direction. THE COURT: That's fine. Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: So Mr. McCormack is handling that. Thank you. MR. McCORMACK: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor. With respect to the status of the AIG matter, the plaintiff has served discovery. The parties have exchanged written discovery. Attorney O'Connor and I have met for purposes of preparing a Rule 26 report and we are working on finalizing that. We have proposed dates for the completion of discovery and the filing of dispositive motions. I would expect that we would be in a position to file that by next\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 14 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 14 week at the latest. And as the Court may be aware, we did file a motion for summary judgment on behalf of Genever Holdings, a motion for partial summary judgment, on one of the coverage issues on October 6th. And we have agreed with Attorney O'Connor that AIG may have an additional two weeks to respond to that motion beyond the 21-day time period if necessary. So that's the first point on the AIG case. THE COURT: Okay. With regard to the Rule 26 report, you're anticipating -- you both are anticipating filing that on or before October 27, which would be next Friday, is that what you're looking to as far as dates? MR. McCORMACK: Yes, Your Honor. If that's acceptable with Attorney O'Connor. MR. O'CONNOR: I think that's (indiscernible). THE COURT: That works, Attorney O'Connor? MR. O'CONNOR: Yes. THE COURT: Now, that time, I didn't hear you, so. I don't know why, but in that time I didn't hear you. MR. O'CONNOR: I have a little frog in my throat. That works, Your Honor. I think the date's are all agreed to, so it's the other stuff. But next week will be plenty of time. THE COURT: Okay. And then, yes, somewhere,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 15 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 15 either in your Rule 26 report, or I've said the 27th because that's the date next week, or even in connection with -- you could make this agreement on the record, I don't want you to have to file more pleadings than necessary. But I would like to know the date by which you both have agreed that Attorney O'Connor is to file a response to the motion, the partial motion for summary judgment, or motion for partial -- I haven't seen -- I knew it was filed, but I have not looked at it yet, so I -- and I usually don't look at the motions until the reply is filed, the response and then the reply. So if you could just either tell me on the record today what your dates are or just submit a very brief stipulation as to your dates, that would be helpful, because the clerk's office is going to monitor the motion for when the Court should be taking a look at it. And under our rules and the district court rules, we don't necessarily have oral argument on the motion, so if you're requesting that, I'd like to know. And obviously the Rule 56, the district court Rule 56(a)(1) and (a)(2) statements, need to be filed before the Court would address any issues on summary judgment as well. MR. McCORMACK: Understood -- MR. O'CONNOR: Your Honor -- go ahead. MR. McCORMACK: Go ahead, John.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 16 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 16 MR. O'CONNOR: Your Honor, this is John O'Connor. I know (indiscernible) date for a response (indiscernible) -- THE COURT: November 8th? MR. O'CONNOR: November 10th, Your Honor. THE COURT: Now, I'm sorry, Attorney O'Connor. I am having trouble hearing you. I apologize. MR. O'CONNOR: November 10, Your Honor. THE COURT: 20, 2-0? MR. McCORMACK: 1-0. THE COURT: 1-0. Okay. Hands. There you go. I don't know why your audio is not right now coming through, but that's helpful. All right. Response date is November 10th. Okay. MR. McCORMACK: And Your Honor, with respect to the summary judgment, the plaintiff has filed its Rule 56(a) statement, so that's complied with. We will obviously reserve the right to file a reply to any opposition. And we would request a hearing on the summary judgment if the Court is willing to entertain oral argument. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I will take that under -- into consideration when I review the motion, the -- the response, and then the reply. MR. McCORMACK: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. All right.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 17 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 17 MR. McCORMACK: And Your Honor, if I may, the only other issue I believe on the AIG insurance case that I raised with Attorney O'Connor this morning is it relates to your July 14th ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction. And it's our understanding from that ruling that you had ordered AIG to issue reinstatement notices for all insurance policies that it was intending to cancel with the exception of one policy, which was a policy that covered jewelry and fine art. And I know that before that ruling was issued Genever filed or indicated that it was not pursuing a motion for preliminary injunction on the excess liability policy on the issue of -- that the lease required that policy to be in place. But you issued your ruling after Genever filed its submission indicating that it wasn't proceeding on that basis. And my understanding from the ruling is that you ordered that all AIG policies had to be reinstated but for that jewelry policy that I mentioned. And AIG has issued reinstatements for various policies. But it recently came to my attention that there has not been a reinstatement issued for an excess liability policy that was reportedly cancelled.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 18 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 18 We learned that recently through communications indicating that a premium was not collected for that. So I think that issue has to be addressed at some point in time. I will indicate -- I don't know if Attorney O'Connor is up to speed on that, but we do need to address that issue. THE COURT: I don't recall as I sit here right now what -- I recall the fact that the jewelry policy was not -- was carved out, for lack of a better term, but I don't recall as I sit here right now if I was more specific other than -- I just don't know. Attorney O'Connor, what's your recollection? MR. O'CONNOR: Your Honor, this is what happened. And I understand Mr. McCormack was not counsel at the time. As the hearing concluded, one of our main arguments was the arguments that Genever made for a preliminary injunction did not apply to the fine arts policy or to the excess liability policy. The argument's really only applied to the homeowner's policy. And so as the hearing ended, Mr. Clifford said, this is at page 167 of the transcript, \"We're going to concede on the jewelry policy, considering the cancellation of that,\" but then he went on to say, \"As far as the excess goes, subject to some diligence and some further inquiries into our part concerning what effect that's going to have, we're likely to concede on that too, but they may ask for\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 19 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 19 some time to figure that out.\" The next day, at 12:16 in the afternoon, Genever filed its -- a supplemental memorandum. And it said in the supplemental memorandum as an initial matter, as represented during the hearing, Genever withdraws its motion seeking a preliminary injunction as to the cancellation of listed policy number -- the private collection policy. That's the jewelry policy. Jewelry, fine arts, and so forth. But then the next sentence is Genever also withdraws its motion seeking a preliminary injunction as to cancellation of policy number PCG-0017034504, the personal excess liability policy. And then -- and then nine hours later Your Honor granted Genever's preliminary injunction motion. But at the time Your Honor granted it, they had withdrawn, you know, at the hearing, the fine arts request, and had withdrawn earlier in the day the excess policy. And Your Honor's order referenced the withdrawal of the fine arts, said nothing about the excess, but the -- the order defines policy as policies covering the property. So the excess policy, unlike all these other policies, doesn't cover the property. It's strictly a liability policy. So, you know, the request for an injunction relating to the excess policy was withdrawn. And it was --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 20 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 20 it was -- and by the time it (indiscernible) through, Genever was no longer pursuing it. And, you know, we think that the if Court had intended to get Genever something that it specifically disclaimed an interest in having, the Court probably would have said that in the order. But the Court granted the relief that they were still seeking, but they weren't seeking an injunction on the (indiscernible) policy. If the Court wants briefing on this, we're happy to brief it, but those are the facts. THE COURT: Well, again, sitting here I don't recall. I understand what you both just said, but I don't recall what the -- the specifics other than what you both just said, so I'd have to go back and look at it. So are you suggesting that there has to be some additional or supplemental ruling on the preliminary injunction based upon this issue? MR. McCORMACK: On behalf of the plaintiff, we do, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. O'CONNOR: We think the Court's ruled. But to the extent Genever believes that clarification is needed, then we should brief that and do it. I mean, clarity is everybody's friend here. THE COURT: All right. Why don't I take a look\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 21 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 21 back at the issue after today's hearing. And then I'll give you both an opportunity to submit a short pleading with regard to your position and then I'll figure out what to do. I think that's probably the best way to proceed unless you have some other thought. MR. O'CONNOR: I agree with that entirely, Your Honor. MR. McCORMACK: We do as well, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Alright. Is there anything else then we need to address in the Genever AIG adversary proceeding? MR. McCORMACK: I do not believe so, Your Honor. MR. O'CONNOR: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you, both. And I will take a look back specifically with regard to this last issue, the preliminary injunction issue, and will issue some form of an order in the next few days that will allow the parties to submit a pleading with regard to your respective positions. And we will go from there. Okay? MR. O'CONNOR: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. McCORMACK: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Thank you, both. Then the next, Trustee Despins, the next matter on\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 22 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 22 the Court's calendar is the adversary proceeding versus the Taurus Fund. Did you want to address that matter next? MR. DESPINS: That's correct. But Mr. Luft will be handling that for the Trustee, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. How are you? THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LUFT: So I wanted to report we have -- myself and Mr. Conway, have been speaking. We had our 26(f) conference on October 13th. The parties have exchanged initial disclosures yesterday. And we have been exchanging drafts of a proposed pretrial order in the hopes of submitting it to the Court. With regard to that, I would say, the substance of it, I think we are pretty much in agreement. Where there is a disconnect, Your Honor, is with regard to the dates for the proposed schedule. In short, the defendants are seeking about six weeks longer than the Trustee has proposed and in particular the notion that a month more fact discovery should be needed to take discovery of what had been referred to as third parties that are ostensibly the owners/investors of the Taurus Fund, LLC and (indiscernible) in the case. And then there's another two weeks that have also been built in.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 23 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 23 I could go through the dates, Your Honor, if it's helpful, but that's really where the disconnect is. I can tell you, from the Trustee's perspective, the reason we are focused on this and this delay, first and foremost, is the fact that it creates greater exposure. There is currently no insurance on the house or its contents. As such, any time that goes by, we face exposure, as we believe ultimately we'll prevail and this estate will recover that property and the additional six weeks creates six weeks move of exposure. Now, beyond that, Your Honor, I also don't believe there is a need for an extra six weeks to deal with this. Based on the initial disclosures we received yesterday, all of the people who they cite here appear to either be agents of the defendants, notably Aaron Mitchell, who is, Your Honor is well aware of, the lawyer for the Taurus Fund, LLC, and then what appears to be a local lawyer and title company who handled the closing. I assume that those are agents and can just be handled not as third parties, but as parties. There is no - - there was no mention of who the real estate agent was with regard to the transaction, although I think they would be treated the same way once we find their name. Beyond that, the other people mentioned are Hamilton Opportunity Fund, which purports to own Hamilton\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 24 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 24 Taurus Fund, FP, which G Club International, Limited they told us has a subscription in. And G Club International owns G Club Operations, which Your Honor is well familiar with. That's the entity that we had to chase through discovery and default for months, and so Your Honor is familiar with them. And there's this Hamilton Taurus Fund, FP, which is the owner of Hamilton Fund, LLC. And four of those entities, the Hamilton Funds, which Your Honor is familiar with because they are the entities we believe to be controlled by William Je, who we believe works for the debtor, and the G Club, which we know has long ties to the debtor, it seems to us, given that all these are purported ownership -- owners of the Taurus Fund, LLC, who are claiming that they are the rightful owners, all of this should just be handled as party discovery. Effectively Taurus Fund, LLC is a party. They want to say that it's not them who own it but, in fact, the parent of people who own the interest that's the business. But I would hope that Mr. Conway would just accept discovery on their behalf so we don't end up in the discovery quagmire where entities are coming before the\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\ncourt seeking to assert control over assets and rights, but\n\nthese entities, as I can tell through initial exposure, are\n\nat the same time hiding behind saying that they are third\n\nparties for discovery, in particular, given that most of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 25 in the Cayman Islands, which would create unnecessary delay. There is one other -- I note, Your Honor, one other point with this, which is these entities are not new to this case in the way that you think of a traditional third party. We talked about the Hamilton Funds, which we know Mr. Je has been tied to. G-Club, the same. And then the one person who's been identified for the Opportunity Fund and the Hamilton Taurus Fund is a man by the name of (indiscernible) Mohammed Sayed, who is listed as a director for those entities. He also happens to be a director of an entity called Macron, Limited, which has paid the debtor's legal fees, so the Zeisler firm in this case, as well as -- and I think the next thing I need to tell you is highly confidential because it was marked that way. I don't -- I think everyone is on there, but -- THE COURT: Well, wait a minute. Don't talk of anything highly confidential if not everybody -- Is there anybody else on this call other than -- I'm looking at the courtroom deputy. There's no one other on the -- there's no one else on this call other than the people that are -- that we can clearly see who have all announced their appearances? Case 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 25 of 56\n\n(No audible response)\n\nTHE COURT: All right. So Attorney Luft, you have\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 26 of 56\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023<br>26                          |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | to make sure.<br>And I'm going to rely on you that if you say |\n| 2  | something, it's all the -- all the people that are --         |\n| 3  | First of all, if you're going to say something                |\n| 4  | confidential, we'd have to note that it's confidential,       |\n| 5  | because if someone wants a transcript, right, it can't be     |\n| 6  | transcribed, so that's number one.                            |\n| 7  | MR. LUFT:<br>Correct, Your Honor.                             |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Number two, I need you to state for             |\n| 9  | the record that you believe everyone on this -- that is       |\n| 10 | participating in this hearing remotely is bound by a          |\n| 11 | confidentiality agreement -- the confidentiality agreement,   |\n| 12 | and/or protective order, that's in place in this case.        |\n| 13 | MR. McCORMACK:<br>Your Honor, I'm sorry.                      |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>When I say this case --                         |\n| 15 | MR. McCORMACK:<br>This is Michael McCormack.                  |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>-- and I didn't -- that was really,             |\n| 17 | that's not even accurate -- in place in the main Chapter 11   |\n| 18 | cases, right?<br>There isn't any confidentiality order or     |\n| 19 | protective order in this adversary proceeding, is there?      |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:<br>No, Your Honor.<br>I believe it's just           |\n| 21 | the one in the main case --                                   |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Right.                                          |\n| 23 | MR. LUFT:<br>-- which has been applied to these --            |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                           |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:<br>-- adversaries.                                  |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 27 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 27 THE COURT: So if you're going to -- you need to do two things then. If you want to disclose some kind of confidential information, you have to tell me that. Because then the courtroom deputy has to note that it's confidential and sealed for purposes of whatever transcript might be created by this hearing, which, as you know, is only audio at this point. It's only recorded through audio. We don't have a transcriber. We're not allowed to have a transcriber. So that would -- The courtroom deputy would have to make those notations because the transcription of the hearing is provided to a third-party transcriber who then creates the transcript. So before -- so there's two things you have to do. Tell me everybody that's on this -- that's participating in this hearing is bound by that confidentiality order so that if they hear anything and they breach that confidentiality order, then there's a cause of action against them. And two, if you're actually going to say something that I need to have it noted for the record, from the beginning to the end of your comments, so it's clear that if this hearing is transcribed, that that portion of the transcription would be under seal in accordance with the confidentiality order and protective orders in place in the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 28 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 28 jointly administered Chapter 11 cases of Mr. Kwok and the related corporate entities. MR. McCORMACK: Your Honor, this is Michael McCormack. I'm sorry to interrupt. Since I'm not part of this proceeding, may I be excused? THE COURT: Yes, you may. Thank you very much. MR. McCORMACK: Thank you. THE COURT: I should have said that before. And I think Mr. O'Connor actually left. And so I apologize. Thank you. MR. McCORMACK: No problem. Thank you, Your Honor. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, everyone that I can see on my screen is -- has signed the confidentiality order and is entitled to share the information. THE COURT: Okay. So let's just -- let's just note everyone on the screen right at the moment at 2:37 p.m. is Attorney Luft, Trustee Despins, Attorney Sarnoff, Attorney Conway, Attorney Linsey, Attorney Smith, and Attorney Mayhew. And then of course I am here. And then -- and the courtroom deputy and the law clerks are here. So those are the only people right now that are listening to what is actually being said, other than if there's court IT staff and back-up staff just making sure that the audio is properly recording the voices. Okay?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 29 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 29 So are you ready to talk, Mr. Luft? Because if you are, if you are ready, I need to just have the courtroom deputy seal this part of the record. MR. LUFT: I am, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Give us one second, please. It won't take -- (Audio recording sealed from 2:38 p.m. through 2:41 p.m.) THE COURT: Just one moment, Attorney Luft, and then we'll be back. MR. LUFT: Of course, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. We're all set. Go right ahead. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. So, in short, the entities we're talking about, for which my understanding is there is a need for additional time, are not new to this case. They're not truly separate. And I, as I said, I would truly hope and expect that particularly for the entities that are either agents and/or the entities that purport to be the owners/investors of the defendants here that we would not be proceeding with this as though there was third-party discovery but, in fact, they'd be -- Mr. Conway would accept discovery and discovery requests from them as parties given as that their interests were being advocated. I think if we do that, Your Honor, we've set out a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 30 of 56\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023<br>30                           |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | schedule which would allow for fact discovery to be closed     |\n| 2  | by December 18th; for expert reports, to the extent            |\n| 3  | necessary, to be served by December 20th; for rebuttal         |\n| 4  | reports to be done by January 10th; expert depositions to be   |\n| 5  | done by January 16th; and summary judgment briefs, to the      |\n| 6  | extent they'll be filed, filed no later than January 26th.     |\n| 7  | And then allowing for a pretrial order to be                   |\n| 8  | filed, if there is no summary judgment briefing done by        |\n| 9  | February 16th, or if there is summary judgment briefing to     |\n| 10 | be done, three weeks after Your Honor has ruled.               |\n| 11 | As I said, I know the defendants have a view that              |\n| 12 | they need additional time of an additional six weeks           |\n| 13 | (indiscernible).<br>We'd like to hold to the schedule we've    |\n| 14 | proposed.<br>And we could, once it's worked out, we're happy - |\n| 15 | - we are ready to submit an order to the Court once those      |\n| 16 | date issues have been resolved.                                |\n| 17 | If Your Honor has any questions, I'm happy to                  |\n| 18 | answer it, but otherwise that's what I had to say on this.     |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Attorney Conway, you do not             |\n| 20 | agree with those dates, is that correct?                       |\n| 21 | MR. CONWAY:<br>That is correct, Your Honor.                    |\n| 22 | There are a number of names that counsel used that             |\n| 23 | were incorrect, but I don't think it's really relevant to      |\n| 24 | what we're talking about.<br>The real issue was timing.        |\n| 25 | And counsel proposed a discovery schedule, which               |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 31 of 56\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023<br>31                           |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | essentially is 60 days, during a -- as I pointed out to him,   |\n| 2  | November and December are not just holiday months, but I'm     |\n| 3  | out of the country fore most of November.<br>When I get back,  |\n| 4  | I have mediations.<br>I get back the day before Thanksgiving.  |\n| 5  | I have mediations in Tennessee the Monday and Tuesday after    |\n| 6  | Thanksgiving.                                                  |\n| 7  | So I said to him that's one of the reasons why I               |\n| 8  | wanted to expand this to a 90-day discovery period, not a      |\n| 9  | 60-day discovery period.                                       |\n| 10 | The six weeks that counsel is talking about is                 |\n| 11 | really -- I added an additional about -- approximate week      |\n| 12 | and a half to your summary judgment deadline and that's the    |\n| 13 | only one that's not -- it's simply adding 30 days to it.       |\n| 14 | That one I added a little extra time because it                |\n| 15 | would fall directly in a period where I'm in trial in          |\n| 16 | California in February.                                        |\n| 17 | So, you know, aside from that, everything is -- it             |\n| 18 | would be completed within 90 days by my schedule versus 60     |\n| 19 | days under counsel's schedule.                                 |\n| 20 | In terms of fact discovery and motion practice,                |\n| 21 | it's an extra week and a half only because of my trial in      |\n| 22 | California.<br>It's nothing unreasonable, Your Honor.<br>We've |\n| 23 | got the holidays here.<br>We're talking about finishing all    |\n| 24 | fact discovery by mid January instead of mid December.         |\n| 25 | The issue of third parties, you know, the names                |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 32 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 32 that were being rattled off were names that were listed as people that might have information relating to the case as is required by Rule 26. The parties that are third parties are the ones relating to G Club's -- G Club Operations and G-Club International, I guess, who have to do their own essentially in order -- let me back up, Your Honor. I believe that it's the Trustee's burden here. I'm not taking on the Trustee's burden to prove what's going on here. But the problem is that the Trustee says that the debtor owns the house. I shouldn't have to put on evidence. He should put on the evidence. However, in an abundance of caution, I want to have the names and investment of every person who put money into the fund that bought the house, so that that's all transparent. And in order to do that, I have to go through these third parties and get their information. For the first time -- I'm new to the case, unlike Your Honor and several folks on this call -- I just heard for the first time that they're having trouble getting this information from the G Club entities, so that only compounds the problem that I'm going to have in getting things done while I'm out of the country; but two, in 60 days. You know, talking about doing it in 90 days versus 60 days is really a non-issue, especially during the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 33 of 56\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023<br>33                          |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | holidays.<br>I'm not sure why we're having this discussion.   |\n| 2  | It should be a really simple matter, just having discovery    |\n| 3  | end mid-January.                                              |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                           |\n| 5  | MR. LUFT:<br>Your Honor?                                      |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                            |\n| 7  | MR. LUFT:<br>I'm happy to respond.<br>I'll take the           |\n| 8  | easiest one first.                                            |\n| 9  | I am aware of the holidays, that's why we tried to            |\n| 10 | -- under our schedule we concluded we would complete fact     |\n| 11 | discovery on December 18th.<br>That was intentional.<br>Right |\n| 12 | now, under the schedule they have proposed, they would, in    |\n| 13 | fact, push all the fact discovery, or much of the fact        |\n| 14 | discovery as I expect, as these depositions tend to get back  |\n| 15 | loaded, right over the holidays, and we want to avoid that.   |\n| 16 | With regard -- I do want to comment on what was               |\n| 17 | just said though, that what Mr. Conway wants to know is the   |\n| 18 | names and the money -- or who put money into the Taurus, LLC  |\n| 19 | fund.                                                         |\n| 20 | Your Honor, that to me is not third party.<br>The             |\n| 21 | Taurus, LLC fund is the defendant here.<br>They're the ones   |\n| 22 | who are claiming to own the house.<br>I don't understand how  |\n| 23 | they can say that they don't know who invested the money in   |\n| 24 | there or that they have to go to third parties to get it.     |\n| 25 | And you couple that with the fact that we know who G          |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 34 Club is. They're here. We did move, but they are now -- they have now responded, Your Honor, because they were forced to. The idea that that's going to be the issue quite frankly worries me. And that's why I think if there's someone who is claiming to own this house, they should have to come forward and participate in discovery. It's straightforward. I don't think that's a reason for delay, particularly when we face the issue that there is no insurance on this house. Every day that's delayed, it's one more day where there is not a protective steward of this property and that's a risk. Finally, Your Honor, I understand that Mr. Conway has other obligations. I would hope, and I would expect with my own colleagues, that some of his colleagues would chip in and be there for if there's a discovery date or something else so that we can keep this moving forward. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Attorney Luft. Attorney Conway, would you like to respond? MR. CONWAY: Yeah. The insurance issue I would address that because I'm sure Your Honor is interested in knowing what's going on with that. Yeah. The insurance carrier has agreed to insure the property except for one problem. Right now the property Case 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 34 of 56\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 35 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 35 is vacant. And we said, you know, it's not vacant, we've got security personnel there. But for the insurance company's purposes, they say it's vacant. So the plan was to come back to you for an amendment of the injunction order so that we can put the Taurus office in the property, with a dedicated manager who just takes care of the house, which we believe will be the piece that the insurance carrier needs. They just don't want to insure property that doesn't have somebody that's there as a live-in person. So that's the update on that. Again, the idea that we're going to -- and it may be just me, but I've never had a case in an adversary proceeding where we didn't have 90-day discoveries. So the idea that we're delaying by doing what's pretty standard. I mean, I know the other judges in Connecticut also do 90-day discovery adversary scheduling pretty routinely. I know that, you know, counsel has plenty of folks on the team that they can rely on to step in for them, but I'm me and I'm it for my clients. So, you know, it's -- you know, it is going to be challenging for me. And I'm not trying to say that I want a delay, Your Honor. I want what's normal, what's standard, which is three months to do discovery in an adversary proceeding. And those three months are really two months as\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 36 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 36 far as I'm concerned. And then, like I said, Your Honor, at the back end, the fact that I'm on trial in California means I'm asking for a little bit of extra time so summary judgment isn't done while I'm in trial. It's not unreasonable. I'm not asking for anything out of the ordinary. And I'm not sure that -- well, let's put it this way, I would never take the positions that counsel is taking when somebody else asks for this courtesy. But there we go. THE COURT: Well, let me ask you a question, Attorney Conway. Who at the Taurus Fund is dealing with the insurance company to insure the company? And what insurance company are you -- is the Taurus Fund seeking to enter into a policy with? MR. CONWAY: My understanding is Chubb is willing to write the policy. And the issue with Chubb, like I said, is that we've got an order from Your Honor that nobody can be, you know, in the premises other than the security guards and -- THE COURT: Well, that's not what it says. MR. CONWAY: -- they want somebody there. So I -- THE COURT: That's actually not -- that's actually not what the order says at all. It doesn't say that no one can be in the property other than the security people. It\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 37 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 37 doesn't say that at all. It says there can be a certain amount of people at a certain amount of time and there has to be a log and things of that nature. I think it said up to 20 people can be there at a time is my recollection of the order. But what I'm asking you is -- MR. CONWAY: But, Your Honor, that was (indiscernible) -- THE COURT: You know, I see insurance companies. And just -- I don't know what that means by vacant. It's not vacant. It's full of, at least as far as what I've been shown, whether that's still true or not, I don't know, but it's full of furniture, fixtures and all kinds of things. And so I don't know why -- that's why I asked who at the Taurus Fund is discussing this issue with Chubb. Because if they don't understand the issues, then they need to understand them and get the insurance in place. You want -- you're looking for 90-days discovery -- and by the way, that's not necessarily standard in Connecticut, but I understand your point -- then it would seem to me that one of the things that is a problem in this case, and has been from the start, is that the property isn't insured. It's an amazing thing that there could be a property worth -- I don't know what it's worth, but the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 38 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 38 allegations are that it's worth, you know, multiple millions of dollars, that there's no insurance on the property. It's just I don't know how that happens. I truly don't. So in any event, you still haven't answered the question as to who at the Taurus Fund is negotiating with Chubb? MR. CONWAY: You know, I'm the point person on negotiating the insurance policy, Your Honor. The issue -- THE COURT: Well, don't you have -- you need authority from your client. Who's providing you with the authority to enter into an insurance -- you're not the Taurus Fund. MR. CONWAY: No. But, Your Honor, the Taurus Fund is not -- the Taurus Fund is sitting in the BVI. The BVI obviously is not a -- it's full of people who deal with Americans, American problems. They hire the lawyers here in the U.S. to deal with these things. It's not unusual. THE COURT: I didn't say it was unusual. I said who is the person? It's a question you don't want to answer apparently. Because the question is who is instructing you to do this? You need to be -- MR. CONWAY: You're asking two different questions. THE COURT: You're not sticking your neck out -- MR. CONWAY: Who am I going back to Taurus Fund\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 39 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 39 talking to or after I talk to the insurance company? THE COURT: No. Who is providing you -- MR. CONWAY: Or are you asking me -- THE COURT: -- with the authority to act on behalf of the Taurus Fund? You just said you're negotiating it. Unless I heard you incorrectly, which maybe I did, you said you were negotiating the policy with Chubb. Isn't that what you just said? MR. CONWAY: I did, Your Honor. And I said I was talking to attorneys at various law firms that are also trying to help me to -- because we didn't just go to Chubb. I've gone to every person that we can find that has a contact with insurance companies. We finally got Chubb, and Chubb's response, it just came, it just came back, was -- Look, the new order -- Your Honor gave two orders. You issued two orders. The first one said 20 people can be there. But there's an amended order, which I have to come back to you and say, Your Honor, we need to amend the amended order, because right now it said nobody's allowed on the property at all but the security force. If the order is amended to allow Taurus Fund to simply have a person there -- not all these people that counsel was concerned about being there. I guess they -- you know, had been there in the past because there's this issue with political movements -- but simply Taurus Fund having a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 40 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 40 person there, a dedicated person there. And that's Kee Young (ph). There's no -- if you're curious as to who the manager is. You know, that's all we would need to get the insurance policy written. But right now the -- you know, Chubb wants to have evidence of a -- of somebody being there so it's not considered, and they consider it, vacant right now. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, this is Trustee Despins. If I may for two seconds? THE COURT: Yes. Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: The alleged owner here is not a BVI entity. It's a Nevada LLC. And Mr. Conway, at the first hearing said -- you asked him the same question, who is instructing you? He said David Salins. I don't know what happened to Mr. Salins, if he's still in touch with him or not, but he said that's the person that hired him. And now we have a new person that we've never heard of. I mean, there was no insurance. To be clear, we didn't create the situation of having no insurance because you ordered that no one should be there because there's no insurance. There was no insurance to start with. All the time that they owned the property, there was no insurance. And, Your Honor, you, at our request, entered an order saying no one other than security can be there because of the no insurance situation. So it's like flipping this\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 41 on its head to say that you or we caused this inability to get insurance. They never had insurance to start with. MR. CONWAY: Nobody has pointed fingers from my side. MR. DESPINS: Well, okay. MR. CONWAY: Let's get that straight. MR. DESPINS: So we certainly need to understand where is Mr. Salins who was instructing Mr. Conway from the beginning? There's no mention of him being involved anymore. I just, I find that really remarkable. And also, it's not a BVI entity. So if these BVI people were giving him instructions, I don't know what we're talking about here. THE COURT: The point -- MR. CONWAY: Well, if Your Honor -- THE COURT: Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead, Attorney Conway. MR. CONWAY: I don't know how many times we've been through this, but the Taurus Fund, LLC is a Nevada entity created for the special purpose of buying a house. The Taurus Fund, SP, a BVI entity, was the entity that provided the cash to buy the house it owned, and they're the owner of the Taurus Fund, LLC. This is not rocket science, Your Honor. This is fairly simple. Now, we have a manager that I deal with who's in\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 41 of 56\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 42 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 42 charge of managing the property. We have an insurance company who is looking to write the policy. I'm not trying to say that Mr. Despins is the reason why we don't have insurance. I never said that. I said, Your Honor, that we will have to -- based on what I've just been told, we have to come back to you getting an amended order allowing for the Taurus Fund to have an office there with a dedicated person to take care of the house -- THE COURT: Well, where in -- MR. CONWAY: -- so to that that satisfies the insurance company. THE COURT: Where in the insurance policy does it say there has to be a dedicated office in the place in order to insure? I don't think I've seen many insurance policies that say that. MR. CONWAY: I don't know that they'll ever see -- write something like that on a piece of paper, Your Honor. What they said was we don't want the house to be vacant -- THE COURT: But it's not vacant. MR. CONWAY: -- if we're going to insure it. THE COURT: It's not vacant. MR. CONWAY: And so what I -- THE COURT: There's security people. MR. CONWAY: -- proposed -- THE COURT: There's security people there. It's\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 43 not vacant. And there's all kinds of furniture -- MR. CONWAY: But that's what I said, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- and fixtures in the -- in the -- it's not a house. It's a mansion, right? Isn't it? More than 20,000 square feet or something? MR. CONWAY: It's a -- THE COURT: I mean, it's -- this isn't a house where someone's -- there's security there. So if the water leaks, they're going to know. If the alarm goes off, they're going to know. If the heat fails, they're going to know. So it doesn't seem persuasive to me that Chubb needs to have somebody from the Taurus Fund be there. The security -- the people that are there, I believe are -- you both agreed to the people that are at the -- that are providing security at the mansion, didn't you? MR. CONWAY: The Trustee and I agreed on who's going to be there. THE COURT: Right. MR. CONWAY: And the agreement was signed by Mr. Young. The Trustee knows who he is. He's been dealing with us for quite a while. The arguments that Your Honor just made, if you want to call them arguments, are exactly what I said to Chubb. So it's not like I don't -- that I disagree with Case 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 43 of 56\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 44 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 44 you. Chubb's response is security is not a resident. And, you know, I can't -- I can't argue for them because they're being unreasonable in my mind. I'm just trying to solve the problem, Your Honor. And so my proposal is, well, how about if Taurus Fund just simply puts somebody in there, will that satisfy it? And I've got -- THE COURT: Well, what does that mean? I don't know what that means, put somebody in there. MR. CONWAY: Well, an office, Your Honor, where Mr. Young would work -- apparently live there full time as opposed to living outside the premises. THE COURT: Well, that's a whole different ball game. Nobody's lived in that -- nobody from any place. There's been no evidence that's submitted to this court that anyone other than Mr. Kwok and/or his family members have lived in that mansion prior to this adversary proceeding or his arrest. If you have evidence of that, that may be something different, but that's not what's before the Court. What's before the Court is that this is Mr. -- whether it's right what -- the evidence, the only evidence, is that Mr. Kwok and I believe his son and daughter were the people, and maybe his spouse, I don't know about that, the only people that slept there. So why am I going to change the status quo, which is exactly what I wasn't going to do in the preliminary\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 45 injunction, to allow someone from the Taurus Fund to come in and live there? And do what? I don't know what they're going to do. And what, are we going to have a security guard sleeping in the same room with the Taurus Fund person? I'm not -- that's not going to happen. 7 MR. CONWAY: Well, Your Honor, first things first. It is a Taurus Fund house. They can stay. They should be able to stay there if they want. But that's not the point. THE COURT: When they get insurance, they can. MR. CONWAY: The point -- THE COURT: When they get insurance -- MR. CONWAY: -- the point is we're trying to get insurance. THE COURT: When they get insurance, they can. MR. CONWAY: We're not trying to enjoy the house. THE COURT: When they get insurance, they can, but they haven't done that. MR. CONWAY: Okay. So Your Honor, I -- THE COURT: We've been talking about this since the middle of August. MR. CONWAY: -- my goal is to try and solve the problem. I do my best to try and solve the problem. The Trustee says, oh, Conway's not solving the problem, therefore, we don't want to give him an extra 30 days of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 45 of 56\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 46 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 46 discovery. You know. All I'm trying to do, Your Honor, is tell you that we can probably solve this problem if we have a person living on premises. If that's not sufficient, if that's not acceptable, for whatever reason, we're still asking for an extra 30 days to finish discovery. If they -- I mean, it seems to me that I get -- I get punished somehow because I'm not putting somebody in the house so that the insurance company will insure it. I guess what I'm saying, Your Honor, is I don't understand how any of this is even relevant. We're trying to finish a discovery schedule. It should be a simple process. I've never gone through something like this before. I've been doing this for 30-something years. THE COURT: Well, unfortunately -- MR. CONWAY: I've never had this problem before. THE COURT: I understand your points but, unfortunately, this isn't the usual circumstance, right? This isn't -- it's not -- as you said at the beginning of your comments, I think you said, and I apologize if I'm wrong, but I think you said you haven't been here as long as we've all been here. Well, it's not that kind of a case. This isn't a plaintiff and a defendant with a cause of action where you're going to go to your regular discovery\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 47 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 47 and you're going to -- you're going to see whether dispositive motions are going to be filed and then you're going to have a trial. You know that. You've known that from the start. And that doesn't mean that you're not entitled to the discovery time you're seeking. I haven't made that determination yet. What I was asking about was the insurance. Okay? And the insurance is a serious concern. It's a serious concern. I can't look the other way when there's no insurance on a property. And again, I apologize, I don't have it committed to memory, but I think this property's more than 20,000 square feet, maybe it's more than that. I don't even remember. And it's got 800 -- MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, it's 52,000 square feet. THE COURT: Oh, 52,000 square feet. Wow, that's pretty big. And you know, it's -- it's worth millions and millions of dollars. A bankruptcy court, no court, would look the other way on an issue of that. You can't -- you have to worry about the risk. And I'm not saying you're not worried about the risk, but to hear me for -- to tell me, well, you know what, I want you to amend your preliminary injunction order\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 48 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 48 because Chubb said they won't insure without somebody from the Taurus Fund living there and working there. Okay. Well, if that's Chubb's position, then they need to bring it before the Court and I'll have to rule on it. But I'm not going to, you know, make a determination of changing a preliminary injunction order based upon that statement. Sorry, I'm not. MR. CONWAY: And nobody would ask you to, Your Honor. THE COURT: There'll be an insurance company out there that will insure it as long as there's money to pay the premium. MR. CONWAY: Yes. Yes. A million dollar premium. It's a pretty extortionate, but that's what we're dealing with right now. But Your Honor -- THE COURT: Well, I don't know. MR. CONWAY: -- you may not remember all the details. THE COURT: Let me -- let me stop you right there, Attorney Conway. I think extortion is a strong term that you may want to be very careful about when your clients supposedly -- well apparently, are the record owner of a 52,000 square foot property that doesn't have any insurance on it.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 49 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 49 So I think you need to -- I would be careful about that if I were you. MR. CONWAY: Your Honor may not recall every aspect of the order because you've got a big calendar, but the way it was written was not I will never change this order under any circumstances. Basically, the invitation was when you get insurance, you know, we can modify this order and go back to the original preliminary injunction. THE COURT: But I'm not going to -- MR. CONWAY: And so -- THE COURT: I'm not going to modify the preliminary injunction based upon a claim that you had a discussion with Chubb who says -- if Chubb wants to, they can come testify as to why they need that. MR. CONWAY: I'm not -- I haven't made the motion yet, Your Honor. I haven't made the motion. THE COURT: Okay. But I'm just telling you I'm not doing it without something from Chubb. I'm not doing it. It doesn't matter to me what Chubb says. It only matters if they testify -- MR. CONWAY: I get that. I wasn't going to ask you to grant it on this call. THE COURT: Well -- MR. CONWAY: I would make a motion with evidence.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 50 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 50 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, then, you go right ahead and do that. But the problem still is that this piece of property, which is the subject of more than just this case, as you very well know, has no insurance. That's just an amazing thing. I think that's amazing. MR. CONWAY: It's difficult -- it's difficult for everybody, Your Honor. You know, my client put up all the money to buy the house, put up all the money to buy the property that's in the house -- THE COURT: Well, that's what your allegation is, but that's never -- MR. CONWAY: -- so they want insurance as well. They want insurance as well. THE COURT: That's what the allegation is, but that hasn't been proven at this point, Counsel. MR. CONWAY: Okay. Well, I wish -- THE COURT: There's been no proof as to who purchased the house. All that's -- all that is -- MR. CONWAY: There's been no allegation proven at this point. THE COURT: The only -- MR. CONWAY: None of any kind. THE COURT: Well, the only proof is that the title\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 51 holder is your client. That's it. MR. CONWAY: Yes. There is -- there's no dispute about that I think. THE COURT: So this is what I'm going to have you both do. MR. CONWAY: But that said, Your Honor -- THE COURT: This is what I'm going to have you both do. You're going to submit your proposed dates for your discovery schedule to the Court by next Friday, the 27th of October, and I'm going to enter the dates, because obviously you're not agreeing, which is fine, and then I'll just enter the order. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So I think that there probably isn't anything else that we can do in the Taurus Fund adversary, is that correct? MR. LUFT: That's correct, Your Honor. MR. DESPINS: That's correct. MR. CONWAY: As far as I know, Your Honor, that's correct. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. And I'll look. I want them filed by noon on October 27th. MR. LUFT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. CONWAY: I'm sure that's the last on your\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 51 of 56\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 52 of 56\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023                            | 52 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| 1  | calendar, Your Honor, but if not, may I be excused?       |    |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Yes, you may.<br>Thank you very much.       |    |\n| 3  | MR. CONWAY:<br>All right.<br>Take care.                   |    |\n| 4  | MR. DESPINS:<br>There is another matter and so --         |    |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.<br>But not with Attorney Conway,      |    |\n| 6  | right?<br>He doesn't need to --                           |    |\n| 7  | MR. DESPINS:<br>That's correct.<br>That's correct.        |    |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Go right ahead to the last         |    |\n| 9  | matter.                                                   |    |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Which is Golden Spring.<br>And Mr.        |    |\n| 11 | Luft will address that as well.                           |    |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Go ahead, Attorney Luft.                    |    |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>Avi Luft of        |    |\n| 14 | Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee.        |    |\n| 15 | Your Honor, I believe as of this morning we now           |    |\n| 16 | have default judgments have been entered which relate to  |    |\n| 17 | Golden Spring (New York) and with regard to Golden Spring |    |\n| 18 | (China).                                                  |    |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Not judgments, just defaults?<br>You        |    |\n| 20 | said default judgments, but --                            |    |\n| 21 | MR. LUFT:<br>Correct.<br>Just defaults.                   |    |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>-- just defaults at this point.             |    |\n| 23 | MR. LUFT:<br>Sorry, Your Honor.                           |    |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>That's okay.                                |    |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:<br>I misspoke in getting ahead to my next       |    |\n|    |                                                           |    |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 53 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 53 sentence, which is we do plan to file a motion for default judgments with regard to both. It is our expectation and our intention to try to get those on file with you this week. And that's where things stand with regard to the Golden Spring adversaries. THE COURT: Okay. You know, obviously, we'll have to take a look at your motion for default judgment. We normally schedule motions for default judgment for hearing, but we'll take at look at what yours has included with it and we'll make a determination accordingly. Does that make sense? MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. It does, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: And Your Honor, there's something not on the calendar, but I wanted to update you with respect to the Lady May II. You will recall that I asked you to reserve a date. I forget now when that was. But we will not need that date. Unfortunately, the bids we received were really not satisfactory and we need to -- we're going to winterize the Lady May II. Hopefully, we'll try to market it and try to sell it, but we need to take it out of the water for the winter.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 54 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 54 And then we'll have to figure out what's the best way to deal with that because the bids were not acceptable. THE COURT: Okay. I'm sorry to hear that. But I -- that does happen from time to time. And I think we were talking about November 9th in the afternoon, was my recollection, but I don't know if that is correct. MR. DESPINS: Yes. I think you're right, Your Honor, because you have a good memory. But I think it was in the afternoon of the 9th at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock, something like that. THE COURT: Yes. Because we had -- MR. DESPINS: So we will not need that date. THE COURT: Because we had -- we have Chapter 13 calendar in the morning. THE COURT: All right. THE COURT: And that's why we're -- that's the only reason I think I'm recalling that. But in any event, I understand, and I appreciate you letting us know that that is not a date and time that you think that you will need court time. And we'll have to see where things go from there. MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So is there anything else that you would like to address this afternoon?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 55 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023 55 MR. DESPINS: Not at this time, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to address any issues this afternoon? UNIDENTIFIED: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, thank you, all. And we will handle the matters that are before us in the ordinary course and we'll see you when we have the next hearing or status conference. UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you, Your Honor. Appreciate it. THE COURT: All right. Thank you, all. That concludes today's calendar, so court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 3:14 p.m.)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 56 of 56\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2023<br>56                         |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and certified |\n| 2  | electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the        |\n| 3  | foregoing is a correct transcript from the official          |\n| 4  | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above   |\n| 5  | entitled matter.                                             |\n| 6  |                                                              |\n| 7  |                                                              |\n| 8  | October 24, 2023                                             |\n| 9  | Christine Fiore, CERT                                        |\n| 10 | Transcriber                                                  |\n| 11 |                                                              |\n| 12 |                                                              |\n| 13 |                                                              |\n| 14 |                                                              |\n| 15 |                                                              |\n| 16 |                                                              |\n| 17 |                                                              |\n| 18 |                                                              |\n| 19 |                                                              |\n| 20 |                                                              |\n| 21 |                                                              |\n| 22 |                                                              |\n| 23 |                                                              |\n| 24 |                                                              |\n| 25 |                                                              |\n|    |                                                              |","body_zh":"美国破产法院\n康涅狄格联邦地区\n布里奇波特分部\n\n关于                                                  案件编号 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\nGENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（Genever 控股有限责任公司），       对抗程序编号 23-05007\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nAIG PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY（AIG 财产意外保险公司），\n\n被告。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯潘）等，                    对抗程序编号 23-05017\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nTAURUS FUND LLC（Taurus 基金有限责任公司）等，\n\n被告。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯潘）等，                    对抗程序编号 23-05018\n\n原告，                                                康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n                                                      2023年10月17日\n诉\n\nGOLDEN SPRING (NEW YORK) LTD（金泉〔纽约〕有限公司）\n等，\n\n被告。\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官面前的程序记录誊本\n\n程序由电子录音记录，誊本由速记服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, CT 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n#1362 要求遵守《破产规则》2004 传票的强制执行动议\n56 关于审前会议的命令\n68 关于审前会议的命令\n19 关于审前会议的命令\n\n出庭人员：\n\n第 11 章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表第 11 章受托人：\nAVRAM EMMANUEL LUFT, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.\nANNECCA H. SMITH, ESQ.\nNeubert Pepe and Monteith\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nKRISTEN B. MAYHEW, ESQ.\nPullman & Comley\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.：\nSTUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n代表 Taurus Fund, LLC：\nMICHAEL T. CONWAY, ESQ.\nLazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle, LLP\n747 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10017\n\n代表 AIG Property Casualty：\nJOHN FREDERICK O'CONNOR, JR., ESQ.\nSteptoe & Johnson LLP\n1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW\nWashington, DC 20036\n\nMICHAEL P. THOMPSON, ESQ.\nGordon & Rees LLP\nGorden Rees Scully Mansukhani\n95 Glastonbury Blvd.\nSuite 206\nGlastonbury, CT 06033\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表 Genever Holdings LLC：\nMICHAEL T. McCORMACK, ESQ.\nO'Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss PC\n180 Glastonbury Blvd.\nSuite 206\nGlastonbury, CT 06033\n\n代表 UBS AG：\nLISA FRIED, ESQ.\nHerbert Smith Freehills New York, LLP\n450 Lexington Avenue, 14th Floor\nNew York, NY 11017\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年10月17日\n\n5\n\n（程序于下午 2:05 开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案件编号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holding；23-05007，Genever Holdings, LLC 与 AIG Property Casualty Company；23-05017，Despins 等诉 Taurus Fund, LLC 等；23-05018，第 11 章受托人 Luc A. Despins 诉 Golden Spring (New York) Ltd. 等。\n\n法庭：好的。各位下午好。请为记录说明出庭身份，先由第 11 章受托人开始。\n\nDESPINS 先生：法官阁下，下午好。我是第 11 章受托人 Luc Despins。我与我的律师 Avi Luft 一同出庭。\n\nLUFT 先生：法官阁下，早上好。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nLINSEY 先生：法官阁下，下午好。我是 Patrick Linsey，受托人的康涅狄格州律师。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：法官阁下，下午好。我是 Stuart Sarnoff，代表债权人 PAX 出庭。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nSMITH 女士：法官阁下，下午好。我是 Robinson & Cole 的 Annecca Smith，同样代表债权人 PAX 出庭。\n\nMAYHEW 女士：法官阁下，下午好。我是 Pullman & Comley 的 Kristen Mayhew，代表债权人委员会出庭。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2286，提交于 10/24/23，登记于 10/24/23 18:04:08，第 6 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年10月17日\n\n6\n\nFRIED 女士：法官阁下，下午好。我是 Herbert Smith Freehills 的 Lisa Fried，代表 UBS AG 出庭。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nMcCORMACK 先生：法官阁下，下午好。我是 O'Sullivan McCormack Jensen & Bliss 的 Michael McCormack，担任 Genever Holdings, LLC 的特别保险法律顾问。\n\n法庭：下午好。各位都知道 McCormack 先生——\n\nO'CONNOR 先生：法官阁下，下午好。\n\n法庭：——已在其披露中说明，我恰好与 McCormack 先生相识。我们多年来住在同一个社区。因此，如有人对此有异议，我请你们现在提出记录。但我只是想确保各位明确，我确实与 McCormack 先生相识。\n\n（无人回应）\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。请继续，下一位。\n\nO'CONNOR 先生：法官阁下，下午好。我是代表 AIG 的 John O'Connor。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nTHOMPSON 先生：法官阁下，下午好。我是同样代表 AIG 的 Michael Thompson。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2286，提交于 10/24/23，登记于 10/24/23 18:04:08，第 7 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年10月17日\n\n7\n\nDESPINS 先生：O'Connor 先生，我不知道——抱歉，法官阁下，打断一下，但声音很难听清。我不知道是否只有我们这样，但也许——声音非常微弱，不过我只是想确保您知道这一点。\n\n法庭：你的意思是 O'Connor 律师，Despins 受托人？\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的，O'Connor 先生。是的。\n\n法庭：我听得很清楚。你呢？\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。那么——\n\n法庭：我正在询问法庭书记员以确认。\n\nDESPINS 先生：——那才是重要的。\n\n法庭：是的。我们听 O'Connor 律师的声音很清楚。\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n法庭：一定是 Despins 受托人的连接问题。\n\nDESPINS 先生：抱歉。\n\n法庭：没关系。\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n身份不明者：谢谢，法官阁下。我也听得很清楚。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。还有其他人吗？\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2286，提交于 10/24/23，登记于 10/24/23 18:04:08，第 8 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年10月17日\n\n8\n\n法庭：Conway 律师，我们已经记录了您的出庭身份，对吗？\n\nCONWAY 先生：还没有，法官阁下。我想我是最后一位。\n\n法庭：好的。那么请继续。\n\nCONWAY 先生：我是 Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle 的 Michael Conway。我代表 Taurus Fund, LLC、Taurus Fund Management, LLC 和 Scott Barnett 出庭。\n\n法庭：下午好。谢谢。好的。今天日程上的第一项事项，是关于受托人向 UBS 发出的《规则》2004 传票的遵守情况而提出的强制执行动议。我看到 Fried 律师也在场。我记得在先前的听证中，其他当事人一直在通过协商一致的方式推进遵守事宜。我没有看到与该强制执行动议有关的任何其他文件提交，因此我不确定截至今天下午情况进展如何，但我很愿意听取受托人律师和／或 Fried 律师就该动议状态所作的说明。\n\nLINSEY 先生：在本次听证会前没有提交文件。受托人认为向法庭提供最新情况会有帮助，我们希望这样做。但是，已经开展了进一步工作。因此，这是今年早些时候提交的一项强制执行动议，随后在受托人与 UBS 就遵守受托人的《规则》2004 传票进行协商期间，通过一系列经协议和同意的命令，最近一次被延期。\n\n最近，于 8 月 13 日，当事方向法庭提交了一项经协议的命令，规定 UBS 应按照时间表提交某些文件。法庭批准了该命令。\n\n当事人对于协议的履行存在一些意见分歧，但我不想今天就那些事项进行争论；嗯，我们并未就任何结果存在分歧，但受托人理解，截至目前，受托人与 UBS 一直处理的绝大多数文件现已提供。\n\n据我理解，如果我有误，UBS 的律师可以纠正我，有一批与某些其他文件有关的额外文件被发现；由于这些文件是在较晚时候发现的，仍需审查，UBS 已——\n\n此外，尚待解决的是 UBS 的特权日志问题，受托人正在请求该日志，因此受托人与 UBS 的律师已讨论了这些事项。\n\nUBS 已承诺，在审查后于 10 月 23 日之前，基于所发现的那些额外文件提供非特权文件，并将在 10 月 31 日之前提供特权日志。受托人请求，并且我认为 UBS 也同意，将本次听证会再延期一个月。希望届时我们可以将这项工作告一段落，并取得某种更长期的解决方案。但就目前而言，再次说明，我不想讨论最终仅具学术意义的事项，当事人将保留各自权利。我很愿意回答法庭提出的任何问题；否则，也请 UBS 的律师补充或澄清他们认为适当的任何内容。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢，Linsey 律师。Fried 律师，您希望发言吗？\n\nFRIED 女士：谢谢，法官阁下。我可以非常简短，因为我们同意 Linsey 先生刚才所述的一切。我们同意——我也赞同您的看法，即目前讨论任何持续存在的分歧没有价值。我可以补充的唯一情况说明，也许会有帮助，是我们预计下周提交的额外文件，我们认为其中没有任何一份本身是对传票有回应性的文件。相反，我们认为，从电子证据开示的术语来看，它们只是已提交的有回应性文件的文件家族成员；为妥善起见，我们也应当提交这些文件。因此，如 Linsey 先生所述，我们最迟将在周一前提交这些文件。然后，我们最迟将在 10 月 31 日前提交特权日志。我们同意他对当前情况的描述。双方都希望将该动议再延期一个月，希望届时能够完成这些事项。\n\n法庭：谢谢。好的。如果各位能耐心等候片刻，我只需查看一下日程表。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：11 月底，21 日或 28 日均有空档。我会将本事项安排在这两个日期中的某一天下午 2:00，然后查看届时情况如何。如果当事人达成某种协议，使该强制执行动议无需继续推进，那么显然可以就该事项向案卷提交文件，届时便无需再——\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2286，提交于 10/24/23，登记于 10/24/23 18:04:08，第 11 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - October 17, 2023 12 各方当事人出席就该动议举行的听证会，即继续举行的听证会。但如果不存在这种情况，那么我们将举行继续听证会。因此，目前可用的两个日期是 November 21st 和 November 28th。那么你们倾向于哪个日期？LINSEY先生（林西先生）：对受托人而言，任一日期均可。FRIED女士（弗里德女士）：对 UBS（瑞银集团）而言，任一日期均可，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。那么就定在 November 28th 下午 2:00 吧。然后，正如我所指出的，如果由于争议事项已经解决而有理由不举行该听证会，那么你们将——我请你们在案卷中提交文件说明该情况，我们将据此处理。但就目前而言，本案继续至 November 28th 下午 2:00 审理。谢谢二位。LINSEY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：谢谢二位。FRIED女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：谢谢二位。好的。至此，日程表上的第一事项处理完毕。Fried律师，显然，这完全由您决定，您欢迎留下，但除非您愿意，否则您无需作为这些听证会的一部分留下。好吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2286 提交于 10/24/23 录入于 10/24/23 18:04:08 第 12 页，共 56 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2286 提交于 10/24/23 录入于 10/24/23 18:04:08 第 13 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - October 17, 2023 13 FRIED先生（弗里德先生）：谢谢您，法官阁下。我想我就先告退了，但非常感谢。法庭：谢谢。好的。接下来——现在，接下来的事项均涉及对抗程序。Despins受托人（Despins Trustee），我不知道您今天下午是否有特定的推进方式。DESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：嗯，在我所持的日程表上，它可能是内部编制的，所以我不知道那是否是您的日程表，但下一个事项是 AIG（美国国际集团）诉讼。因此，如果法官阁下同意，我认为我们不妨——法庭：可以。DESPINS先生：——朝那个方向进行。法庭：可以。请继续。DESPINS先生：那么，该事项由 McCormack先生（麦科马克先生）处理。谢谢。McCORMACK先生（麦科马克先生）：是。下午好，法官阁下。关于 AIG 事项的进展情况，原告已送达证据开示请求。双方已交换书面证据开示材料。O'Connor律师（奥康纳律师）和我已为编制 Rule 26 报告而会面，我们正在完成该报告。我们已提议完成证据开示及提交处置性动议的日期。我预计最迟将在下周能够提交该报告。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2286 提交于 10/24/23 录入于 10/24/23 18:04:08 第 14 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - October 17, 2023 14 而且，如法庭可能知悉，我们于 October 6th 代表 Genever Holdings（杰尼弗控股公司）提交了一项简易判决动议，即就其中一个承保范围问题提出的部分简易判决动议。我们已与 O'Connor 律师达成协议，如有必要，AIG 可在 21 天期限之外另有两周时间对该动议作出回应。因此，这是 AIG 案件的第一点。法庭：好的。关于 Rule 26 报告，你们预计——双方均预计在 October 27 当日或之前，即下周五，提交该报告；就日期而言，这是你们所考虑的安排吗？McCORMACK先生：是的，法官阁下。如果 O'Connor 律师可以接受的话。O'CONNOR先生（奥康纳先生）：我认为这（听不清）。法庭：这样可以吗，O'Connor 律师？O'CONNOR先生：可以。法庭：刚才那段时间，我没有听到您说话，所以。我不知道为什么，但那段时间我没有听到您说话。O'CONNOR先生：我嗓子有点不舒服。这样可以，法官阁下。我认为日期都已商定，所以是其他事项的问题。不过，下周会有充足的时间。法庭：好的。然后，是的，在某处，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2286 提交于 10/24/23 录入于 10/24/23 18:04:08 第 15 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - October 17, 2023 15 无论是在你们的 Rule 26 报告中，还是——我说 October 27 是因为那是下周的日期，或者即使是与——你们可以在庭审记录中达成这一协议，我不希望你们不得不提交超过必要数量的诉状。但我希望知道你们双方商定 O'Connor 律师应在何日提交对该动议、该部分简易判决动议或部分——动议的答复；我尚未看过——我知道它已提交，但我尚未审阅，所以我——我通常在答复意见和复答意见提交之后才审阅动议。因此，如果你们今天可以在庭审记录中告诉我你们的日期，或者仅就你们的日期提交一份非常简短的约定书，那将有所帮助，因为书记官办公室将监督该动议，以确定法庭何时应予审阅。根据我们的规则和地区法院规则，我们不一定就该动议举行口头辩论，因此如果你们请求举行口头辩论，我希望知悉。当然，在法庭就任何简易判决问题作出处理之前，Rule 56、地区法院 Rule 56(a)(1) 和 (a)(2) 陈述也需要提交。McCORMACK先生：明白——O'CONNOR先生：法官阁下——请继续。McCORMACK先生：您请先说，John。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2286 提交于 10/24/23 录入于 10/24/23 18:04:08 第 16 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - October 17, 2023 16 O'CONNOR先生：法官阁下，我是 John O'Connor。我知道答复的日期是（听不清）——法庭：November 8th？O'CONNOR先生：November 10th，法官阁下。法庭：抱歉，O'Connor 律师。我听您说话有困难。我很抱歉。O'CONNOR先生：November 10，法官阁下。法庭：20，2-0？McCORMACK先生：1-0。法庭：1-0。好的。用手势。好了。我不知道为什么您现在的音频无法传过来，但这很有帮助。好的。答复日期是 November 10th。好的。McCORMACK先生：而且，法官阁下，关于简易判决，原告已提交其 Rule 56(a) 陈述，因此已符合要求。我们当然保留对任何异议提交复答的权利。如果法庭愿意听取口头辩论，我们请求就简易判决举行听证会。法庭：好的。谢谢。我将在审阅该动议、答复意见以及复答意见时，对此予以考虑。McCORMACK先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：谢谢。好的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2286 提交于 10/24/23 录入于 10/24/23 18:04:08 第 17 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - October 17, 2023 17 McCORMACK先生：而且，法官阁下，如果可以的话，我认为我今天上午向 O'Connor 律师提出的 AIG 保险案件中唯一另一个问题，涉及您于 July 14th 对初步禁令动议作出的裁定。根据我们对该裁定的理解，您命令 AIG 就其拟取消的所有保险单发出恢复效力通知，只有一份保险单例外，即承保珠宝和美术品的保险单。我知道，在该裁定作出之前，Genever 已提交文件或表示，其不再就超额责任保险单提出初步禁令动议，理由是租约要求该保险单必须有效。但您是在 Genever 提交其说明其不再基于该理由推进程序的文件之后作出裁定的。根据我对该裁定的理解，您命令除我提到的珠宝保险单外，所有 AIG 保险单均须恢复效力。AIG 已就多份保险单发出恢复效力通知。但我最近注意到，尚未就一份据称已被取消的超额责任保险单发出恢复效力通知。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2286 提交于 10/24/23 录入于 10/24/23 18:04:08 第 18 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - October 17, 2023 18 我们最近通过表明未收取该保险费的通信得知此事。因此，我认为该问题必须在某个时点得到处理。我会说明——我不知道 O'Connor 律师是否了解该情况，但我们确实需要处理该问题。法庭：我现在坐在这里不记得——我记得珠宝保险单未被——换言之，被排除在外，但我现在坐在这里不记得我是否作出过除此以外更具体的说明——我只是不了解。O'Connor 律师，您的记忆是什么？O'CONNOR先生：法官阁下，事情是这样的。我理解 McCormack 先生当时并非代理律师。听证会结束时，我们的主要论点之一是，Genever 提出支持初步禁令的论点不适用于美术品保险单或超额责任保险单。该论点实际上仅适用于房主保险单。因此，在听证会结束时，Clifford先生（克利福德先生）说，这是记录第 167 页：“我们将就珠宝保险单作出让步，考虑到该保险单被取消，”但他接着说：“至于超额保险单，在我们方面经过一些尽职调查和进一步查询，以确定这将产生何种影响后，我们很可能也会就此作出让步，但他们可能会请求一些时间来弄清楚这一点。”次日，下午 12:16，Genever 提交了其——一份补充备忘录。该补充备忘录称，作为初步事项，如在听证会上所陈述，Genever 撤回其就取消所列保险单号——私人收藏品保险单寻求初步禁令的动议。那就是珠宝保险单。珠宝、美术品等等。但下一句是，Genever 还撤回其就取消保险单号 PCG-0017034504，即个人超额责任保险单，寻求初步禁令的动议。然后——然后九小时后，法官阁下批准了 Genever 的初步禁令动议。但在法官阁下批准时，他们已在听证会上撤回美术品请求，并在当天较早时候撤回超额保险单请求。法官阁下的命令提及撤回美术品请求，对超额保险单未作说明，但——该命令将“保险单”定义为承保该不动产的保险单。因此，与所有其他保险单不同，超额保险单并不承保该不动产。它严格来说是一份责任保险单。因此，关于超额保险单的禁令请求已被撤回。并且它——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2286 提交于 10/24/23 录入于 10/24/23 18:04:08 第 19 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - October 17, 2023 19 它——到（听不清）完成时，Genever 已不再寻求该项请求。而且，我们认为，如果法庭意图给予 Genever 其明确声明不希望获得的某项救济，法庭大概会在命令中说明。但法庭批准了他们仍在寻求的救济，而他们并未就（听不清）保险单寻求禁令。如果法庭希望就此提交书面意见，我们乐意提交，但事实就是如此。法庭：嗯，再说一次，我现在坐在这里不记得。我理解你们刚才所说的内容，但我不记得除你们刚才所说之外的——具体情况，所以我必须回去审阅。那么，您的意思是，基于这一问题，必须就初步禁令作出某种额外或补充裁定吗？McCORMACK先生：代表原告，我们是这样认为的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。O'CONNOR先生：我们认为法庭已经作出裁定。但如果 Genever 认为需要澄清，那么我们就应提交书面意见并予以处理。我的意思是，明确性对所有人都有好处。法庭：好的。我来审阅一下\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 21 就今天的听证会之后再回过头来看这个问题。然后，我会给双方机会就各自的立场提交一份简短的书面陈述，之后我将决定如何处理。我认为这可能是最佳的推进方式，除非你们另有想法。奥康纳律师：我完全同意，法官阁下。麦考马克律师：我们也同意，法官阁下。谢谢。法庭：好的。谢谢。好。那么，在 Genever AIG（杰内弗 AIG）对抗程序中，我们还有其他需要处理的事项吗？麦考马克律师：我认为没有了，法官阁下。奥康纳律师：没有，法官阁下。法庭：好的。好。两位，谢谢。我会专门就最后这个问题，即初步禁令问题，再作审视，并将在未来几天内发布某种形式的命令，允许双方就各自的立场提交书面陈述。然后我们再据此推进。好吗？奥康纳律师：谢谢，法官阁下。麦考马克律师：谢谢。法庭：好的。两位，谢谢。那么，下一项，德斯平斯受托人，法庭日程上的下一事项是\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2286 提交 10/24/23 登记 10/24/23 18:04:08 第 22 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 22 针对 Taurus Fund（金牛基金）的对抗程序。您想接下来处理该事项吗？德斯平斯律师：是的。但卢夫特先生将代表受托人处理该事项，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。卢夫特律师：下午好，法官阁下。您好吗？法庭：下午好。卢夫特律师：因此，我想报告一下，我本人和康威先生一直在沟通。我们于 October 13th 举行了 Rule 26(f) 会议。双方昨天交换了初步披露材料。我们一直在交换拟议审前命令的草案，希望将其提交法庭。就此而言，我想说，我认为其实质内容我们基本已达成一致。法官阁下，存在分歧的是拟议时间表的日期。简而言之，被告方要求的期限比受托人提出的期限长约六周，尤其是他们认为，为了对被称为 Taurus Fund, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）及本案中（无法辨认）的表面所有人／投资者的第三方进行取证，还需要额外一个月的事实取证时间。此外，还另行加入了两周时间。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2286 提交 10/24/23 登记 10/24/23 18:04:08 第 23 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 23 如果有帮助，法官阁下，我可以逐一说明日期，但分歧确实就在这里。我可以告诉您，从受托人的角度看，我们首先关注这一点及这一延误的原因是，这会造成更大的风险暴露。目前，该房屋及其内部物品均未投保。因此，随着时间推移，我们面临风险暴露，因为我们相信最终将胜诉，且本破产财产将收回该财产，而额外六周会造成多六周的风险暴露。此外，法官阁下，我也不认为处理此事需要额外六周。根据我们昨天收到的初步披露材料，他们在此提及的所有人员似乎要么是被告的代理人，尤其是艾伦·米切尔（Aaron Mitchell），如法官阁下所充分知悉，他是 Taurus Fund, LLC 的律师；要么似乎是处理交割事宜的当地律师和产权公司。我认为这些人都是代理人，可以不作为第三方，而是作为当事人处理。关于该交易，没有——并没有提及房地产经纪人是谁，不过我认为一旦我们查明其姓名，他们也将以同样方式处理。除此之外，提及的其他人包括 Hamilton Opportunity Fund（汉密尔顿机会基金），其声称拥有 Hamilton\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2286 提交 10/24/23 登记 10/24/23 18:04:08 第 24 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 24 Taurus Fund, FP（汉密尔顿金牛基金有限合伙企业）；据告知我们，G Club International, Limited（G 俱乐部国际有限公司）在该基金中持有认购权益。G Club International 拥有 G Club Operations（G 俱乐部运营公司），法官阁下对此十分熟悉。那是我们不得不通过取证和缺席程序追查数月的实体，因此法官阁下熟悉他们。还有这个 Hamilton Taurus Fund, FP，其为 Hamilton Fund, LLC（汉密尔顿基金有限责任公司）的所有人。上述实体中有四个是汉密尔顿基金，法官阁下对此很熟悉，因为我们认为这些实体受 William Je（杰威廉）控制，而我们认为他为债务人工作；另一个是 G Club，我们知道它与债务人长期存在联系。鉴于所有这些实体都是 Taurus Fund, LLC 的表面所有人——并主张其为正当所有人——在我们看来，这一切都应作为当事人取证处理。实际上，Taurus Fund, LLC 是当事人。他们想说，拥有该财产的不是他们，而是拥有该商业权益的那些人的母公司。但我希望康威先生会代表他们接受取证，以免我们陷入取证泥潭：这些实体来到法庭，试图主张对资产和权利的控制权，但如我从初步披露中所能看出的，同时又躲在其属于第三方这一说法之后，尤其是鉴于其中大部分位于开曼群岛，这将造成不必要的延误。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与誊写服务公司）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 25 关于此事，我还注意到一点，法官阁下，即这些实体并不像人们所理解的传统第三方那样是本案的新参与者。我们谈到过汉密尔顿基金，我们知道杰先生与其有关联。G Club 也是如此。然后，为机会基金和 Hamilton Taurus Fund 确定的一人，是一名名为（无法辨认）的 Mohammed Sayed（穆罕默德·赛义德）的人，他被列为这些实体的董事。他同时还是一家名为 Macron, Limited（马克龙有限公司）的实体的董事，该实体曾支付债务人的律师费，即本案中的 Zeisler 律师事务所（Zeisler firm）的律师费，以及——我认为我接下来需要告诉您的事情高度保密，因为其被如此标记。我不——我认为每个人都在线上，但是——法庭：等等。如果并非每个人都——就不要谈论任何高度保密的事项。除——我正在看法庭书记员。除我们能够清楚看到且均已宣布出庭的人以外，这个电话会议上还有其他人吗？——这个电话会议上没有其他人吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2286 提交 10/24/23 登记 10/24/23 18:04:08 第 25 页，共 56 页\n\n（无可听见的回应）\n\n法庭：好的。那么，卢夫特律师，您必须确保这一点。如果您要说什么，我将依赖您确认在场的所有人——所有人员——首先，如果您要说保密内容，我们必须注明其为保密内容，因为如果有人要求取得誊本，对吗，该部分就不能被誊写，这是第一点。卢夫特律师：正确，法官阁下。法庭：第二，我需要您在记录中陈述，您相信所有远程参与本次听证会的人均受本案现行保密协议——保密协议和／或保护令的约束。麦考马克律师：法官阁下，抱歉。法庭：当我说本案——麦考马克律师：我是 Michael McCormack（迈克尔·麦考马克）。法庭：——而且我没有——实际上，那甚至并不准确——是在主要 Chapter 11 案件中有效，对吗？本对抗程序中没有任何保密命令或保护令，对吗？卢夫特律师：没有，法官阁下。我相信只有主要案件中的那一份——法庭：对。卢夫特律师：——已适用于这些——法庭：好的。卢夫特律师：——对抗程序。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2286 提交 10/24/23 登记 10/24/23 18:04:08 第 27 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 27 法庭：因此，如果您要——那么您需要做两件事。如果您想披露某种保密信息，您必须告诉我。因为法庭书记员必须注明其为保密且密封，以便处理可能由本次听证会制作的任何誊本；如您所知，目前只有音频。仅通过音频录制。我们没有誊写员。我们不被允许有誊写员。因此——法庭书记员必须作出这些标注，因为听证会的录音将提供给第三方誊写员，由其制作誊本。因此，在此之前——所以您必须做两件事。告诉我，所有在线参与本次听证会的人员均受该保密命令约束，以便如果他们听到任何内容并违反该保密命令，则可对其提起诉讼。第二，如果您确实要说某些内容，我需要从您发言的开始到结束都在记录中注明，以明确如果本次听证会被誊写，则根据郭先生及相关公司实体共同管理的 Chapter 11 案件中现行的保密命令和保护令，该部分誊写内容将予以密封。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2286 提交 10/24/23 登记 10/24/23 18:04:08 第 28 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 28 麦考马克律师：法官阁下，我是 Michael McCormack。抱歉打断一下。由于我并非本程序的一方，我可以离开吗？法庭：是的，您可以。非常感谢。麦考马克律师：谢谢。法庭：我本该更早说的。而且我认为奥康纳先生实际上已经离开了。因此，我表示歉意。谢谢。麦考马克律师：没关系。谢谢，法官阁下。卢夫特律师：法官阁下，我在屏幕上看到的所有人都——已经签署保密命令，并有权分享该信息。法庭：好的。那么让我们——让我们注明，此刻，即下午 2:37，屏幕上的每个人是卢夫特律师、德斯平斯受托人、Sarnoff 律师（萨诺夫律师）、康威律师、Linsey 律师（林赛律师）、Smith 律师（史密斯律师）以及 Mayhew 律师（梅休律师）。当然，我也在场。此外——法庭书记员和书记官助理也在场。因此，现在实际听到所说内容的仅有这些人，除非还有法庭 IT 工作人员和后备工作人员，以确保音频正确录下声音。好吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2286 提交 10/24/23 登记 10/24/23 18:04:08 第 29 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 29 那么，卢夫特先生，您准备好发言了吗？因为如果您准备好了，我需要让法庭书记员将记录的这一部分密封。卢夫特律师：我准备好了，法官阁下。法庭：好的。请给我们一秒钟。不会花——（音频录音自下午 2:38 至下午 2:41 密封。）法庭：请稍等，卢夫特律师，然后我们就回来。卢夫特律师：当然，法官阁下。法庭：好的。一切准备就绪。请继续。卢夫特律师：谢谢，法官阁下。简而言之，我们正在谈论的实体，即据我理解需要额外时间的那些实体，并非本案的新参与者。它们并非真正独立。我，如我所说，确实希望并预期，特别是对于那些既是代理人和／或声称是本案被告所有人／投资者的实体，我们不会如同存在第三方取证一样推进本案；而是，鉴于他们的利益正在被主张，康威先生会接受其作为当事人的取证和取证请求。我认为如果我们这样做，法官阁下，我们已经提出了一项\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2286 于 10/24/23 提交 于 10/24/23 18:04:08 登记 第 30 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年10月17日\n1　该时间表将允许事实开示于\n2　12月18日前完成；必要时，\n3　专家报告于12月20日前送达；反驳\n4　报告于1月10日前完成；专家证言录取于\n5　1月16日前完成；以及简易判决书状，在\n6　提交的范围内，最迟于1月26日提交。\n7　然后允许审前命令于\n8　以下期限内提交：如未进行简易判决书状程序，则于\n9　2月16日前提交；如进行简易判决书状程序，\n10　则于阁下作出裁定后三周内提交。\n11　如我所言，我知道被告方认为\n12　其还需要额外六周的时间\n13　（听不清）。\n我们希望维持我们\n14　所提议的时间表。一旦相关安排确定，我们很乐意——\n15　——在这些日期问题得到解决后，立即准备向法庭提交一项\n16　命令。\n17　如阁下有任何问题，我很乐意\n18　回答；但除此之外，这就是我就此要说的。\n19　法庭：好的。康韦律师（Attorney Conway），您不同意这些\n20　日期，对吗？\n21　康韦先生：是的，阁下。\n22　对方律师使用的一些名称\n23　不正确，但我认为这与\n24　我们正在讨论的问题并无实质关联。真正的问题是时间安排。\n25　对方律师提议了一份开示时间表，该时间表\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2286 于 10/24/23 提交 于 10/24/23 18:04:08 登记 第 31 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年10月17日\n1　实质上只有60天；正如我向他指出的，\n2　11月和12月不仅是节假日月份，而且我\n3　11月大部分时间都在国外。回来后，\n4　我还有调解安排。我在感恩节前一天回来。\n5　感恩节后的周一和周二，我在田纳西州有\n6　调解安排。\n7　因此我对他说，这就是我\n8　希望将开示期限延长至90天、而非\n9　60天的原因之一。\n10　对方律师所说的六周\n11　实际上是——我在您的简易判决期限上增加了大约\n12　一周半的额外时间，而这\n13　是唯一不——只是增加30天的部分。\n14　我在该项上多增加了一点时间，因为它\n15　将恰好落在我2月在\n16　加利福尼亚州出庭审判的期间。\n17　所以，除此以外，一切——按照我的\n18　时间表将在90天内完成，而按照对方律师的时间表则为60\n19　天。\n20　就事实开示和动议程序而言，\n21　仅多一周半，原因只是我在\n22　加利福尼亚州的审判。这并不不合理，阁下。这里\n23　还有节假日。我们说的是在\n24　1月中旬而非12月中旬完成全部事实开示。\n25　关于第三方的问题，您知道，刚才\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2286 于 10/24/23 提交 于 10/24/23 18:04:08 登记 第 32 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年10月17日 32　刚才列举的名称，是根据规则第26条的要求，被列为可能掌握与本案有关信息的人员的名称。作为第三方的当事人，是与G Club（G俱乐部）的——G Club Operations（G Club运营公司）及G-Club International（G-Club国际公司）有关的当事人，我想，他们必须实质上自行进行——请允许我重新说明，阁下。我认为这里的举证责任在受托人一方。我不会承担受托人证明此处情况的责任。但问题在于，受托人称债务人拥有该房屋。我不应当必须提交证据。应由他提交证据。然而，出于谨慎考虑，我希望取得每一位向购买该房屋的基金投入资金之人的姓名及投资情况，以使这一切都透明化。为此，我必须通过这些第三方取得其信息。与阁下及本次通话中的几位人士不同，我刚接手本案——我刚刚第一次听说，他们从G Club实体取得该等信息存在困难，这只会加重我在国外期间完成事项以及在60天内完成事项时将面临的问题。您知道，在90天而非60天内完成，实际上并非问题，尤其是在\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2286 于 10/24/23 提交 于 10/24/23 18:04:08 登记 第 33 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年10月17日\n1　节假日期间。我不确定我们为何要进行这场讨论。\n2　这本应是非常简单的事情，只需让开示于\n3　1月中旬结束。\n4　法庭：好的。\n5　卢夫特先生（Mr. Luft）：阁下？\n6　法庭：是。\n7　卢夫特先生：我很乐意回应。我先说\n8　最容易的一点。\n9　我知道节假日，因此我们试图\n10　——按照我们的时间表，我们确定将在12月18日\n11　完成事实开示。这是有意安排的。目前，\n12　按照他们提议的时间表，他们实际上会\n13　将全部事实开示，或如我所预期的大部分\n14　事实开示——因为这些证言录取往往被安排在后期——\n15　推到节假日期间进行，而我们希望避免这种情况。\n16　关于——不过，我确实想评论\n17　刚才所说的，即康韦先生想知道的是\n18　姓名和资金——或者说，是谁向Taurus, LLC 基金（Taurus, LLC fund）\n19　投入了资金。\n20　阁下，在我看来，那不是第三方。\n21　Taurus, LLC 基金是本案的被告。他们\n22　声称拥有该房屋。我不明白他们怎么能够说\n23　他们不知道谁向其中投资了资金，\n24　或者说他们必须向第三方取得该信息。\n25　再加上我们知道G\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年10月17日 34　Club是谁。他们就在这里。我们确实提出过动议，但他们现在——他们现在已经作出回应，阁下，因为他们被迫这样做。坦率说，认为这会成为问题的想法令我担忧。因此，我认为，如果有人主张拥有该房屋，他们就应当出面并参与开示。这很直接。我认为这不是拖延的理由，特别是我们面临该房屋没有保险的问题。每拖延一天，就多一天没有对该财产进行保护性管理的人，这是一项风险。最后，阁下，我理解康韦先生有其他事务。我希望，而且我也会期待我自己的同事这样做，他的一些同事会分担工作，并在有开示日期或其他事项时到场，以便我们能够继续推进此事。法庭：好的。谢谢，卢夫特律师（Attorney Luft）。康韦律师，您想回应吗？康韦先生：是的。关于保险问题，我想就此作出说明，因为我相信阁下有兴趣了解其进展。是的，保险承保人已同意为该财产承保，但有一个问题。目前，该财产\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2286 于 10/24/23 提交 于 10/24/23 18:04:08 登记 第 34 页，共 56 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2286 于 10/24/23 提交 于 10/24/23 18:04:08 登记 第 35 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年10月17日 35　是空置的。我们说，您知道，它并非空置，我们在那里配有安保人员。但就保险公司的标准而言，他们认为它是空置的。因此，计划是就禁令命令的修改再次向您申请，以便我们可以将Taurus办公室设在该财产内，并安排一名专职经理负责照管房屋；我们相信，这将是保险承保人所需要的条件。他们只是不愿为没有人作为住户居住于其中的财产承保。以上是该问题的最新情况。再者，认为我们将要——这也许只是我的情况，但我从未在一宗对抗程序中遇到过开示期限不是90天的案件。因此，认为我们在通过做相当标准的事情来拖延。我是说，我知道康涅狄格州的其他法官也相当惯常地在对抗程序排期中设定90天开示期限。我知道，对方律师的团队有很多人可以依靠，在他们无法出面时顶替他们，但我只有自己，我就是我的客户唯一的律师。所以，您知道，这——您知道，对我而言确实将很有挑战性。而且我并非想说我希望拖延，阁下。我希望的是正常、标准的做法，即在对抗程序中用三个月完成开示。就我而言，这三个月实际上是两个月。然后，正如我所说，阁下，在后续阶段，我在加利福尼亚州出庭审判这一事实意味着，我要求多给一点时间，以免在我审判期间完成简易判决程序。这并不不合理。我没有要求任何异常的事项。我也不确定——这样说吧，如果有人向我请求这种便利，我绝不会采取对方律师正在采取的立场。但也就这样了。法庭：那么，让我问您一个问题，康韦律师。Taurus基金中谁在与保险公司沟通，为该公司投保？Taurus基金正寻求与哪一家保险公司订立保险单？康韦先生：据我了解，Chubb（丘博）愿意承保。正如我所说，Chubb的问题在于，我们有阁下的命令，规定除安保人员外，任何人不得，您知道，进入该处所，而且——法庭：这并非命令所述。康韦先生：——他们希望有人在那里。所以我——法庭：实际上并非——实际上该命令根本不是这么说的。它并未规定除安保人员以外，任何人不得在该财产内。它根本没有这样规定。它规定在某一时段内可以有一定数量的人在场，且必须保留日志，以及诸如此类的要求。我记得该命令规定一次最多可有20人在场。但我问您的是——康韦先生：但是，阁下，那是（听不清）——法庭：您知道，我见过保险公司。而且——我不知道他们所说的“空置”是什么意思。它并不空置。至少据向我出示的情况，其中摆满了家具、固定装置以及各种物品，至于现在是否仍然如此，我不知道。因此，我不知道为什么——这就是我问您Taurus基金中谁在与Chubb讨论该问题的原因。因为如果他们不了解这些问题，他们就需要了解，并落实保险。您希望——您寻求90天的开示期限——顺便说一下，这在康涅狄格州并不一定是标准做法，但我理解您的观点——那么，在我看来，本案中存在且从一开始就存在的问题之一，就是该财产没有投保。这实在令人惊讶，竟会有一处价值——我不知道其价值，但该\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2286 于 10/24/23 提交 于 10/24/23 18:04:08 登记 第 36 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年10月17日 36　就我而言。然后，正如我所说，阁下，在后续阶段，我在加利福尼亚州出庭审判这一事实意味着，我要求多给一点时间，以免在我审判期间完成简易判决程序。这并不不合理。我没有要求任何异常的事项。我也不确定——这样说吧，如果有人向我请求这种便利，我绝不会采取对方律师正在采取的立场。但也就这样了。法庭：那么，让我问您一个问题，康韦律师。Taurus基金中谁在与保险公司沟通，为该公司投保？Taurus基金正寻求与哪一家保险公司订立保险单？康韦先生：据我了解，Chubb（丘博）愿意承保。正如我所说，Chubb的问题在于，我们有阁下的命令，规定除安保人员外，任何人不得，您知道，进入该处所，而且——法庭：这并非命令所述。康韦先生：——他们希望有人在那里。所以我——法庭：实际上并非——实际上该命令根本不是这么说的。它并未规定除安保人员以外，任何人不得在该财产内。它根本没有这样规定。它规定在某一时段内可以有一定数量的人在场，且必须保留日志，以及诸如此类的要求。我记得该命令规定一次最多可有20人在场。但我问您的是——康韦先生：但是，阁下，那是（听不清）——法庭：您知道，我见过保险公司。而且——我不知道他们所说的“空置”是什么意思。它并不空置。至少据向我出示的情况，其中摆满了家具、固定装置以及各种物品，至于现在是否仍然如此，我不知道。因此，我不知道为什么——这就是我问您Taurus基金中谁在与Chubb讨论该问题的原因。因为如果他们不了解这些问题，他们就需要了解，并落实保险。您希望——您寻求90天的开示期限——顺便说一下，这在康涅狄格州并不一定是标准做法，但我理解您的观点——那么，在我看来，本案中存在且从一开始就存在的问题之一，就是该财产没有投保。这实在令人惊讶，竟会有一处价值——我不知道其价值，但该\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2286 于 10/24/23 提交 于 10/24/23 18:04:08 登记 第 37 页，共 56 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2023年10月17日 37　就我而言。然后，正如我所说，阁下，在后续阶段，我在加利福尼亚州出庭审判这一事实意味着，我要求多给一点时间，以免在我审判期间完成简易判决程序。这并不不合理。我没有要求任何异常的事项。我也不确定——这样说吧，如果有人向我请求这种便利，我绝不会采取对方律师正在采取的立场。但也就这样了。法庭：那么，让我问您一个问题，康韦律师。Taurus基金中谁在与保险公司沟通，为该公司投保？Taurus基金正寻求与哪一家保险公司订立保险单？康韦先生：据我了解，Chubb（丘博）愿意承保。正如我所说，Chubb的问题在于，我们有阁下的命令，规定除安保人员外，任何人不得，您知道，进入该处所，而且——法庭：这并非命令所述。康韦先生：——他们希望有人在那里。所以我——法庭：实际上并非——实际上该命令根本不是这么说的。它并未规定除安保人员以外，任何人不得在该财产内。它根本没有这样规定。它规定在某一时段内可以有一定数量的人在场，且必须保留日志，以及诸如此类的要求。我记得该命令规定一次最多可有20人在场。但我问您的是——康韦先生：但是，阁下，那是（听不清）——法庭：您知道，我见过保险公司。而且——我不知道他们所说的“空置”是什么意思。它并不空置。至少据向我出示的情况，其中摆满了家具、固定装置以及各种物品，至于现在是否仍然如此，我不知道。因此，我不知道为什么——这就是我问您Taurus基金中谁在与Chubb讨论该问题的原因。因为如果他们不了解这些问题，他们就需要了解，并落实保险。您希望——您寻求90天的开示期限——顺便说一下，这在康涅狄格州并不一定是标准做法，但我理解您的观点——那么，在我看来，本案中存在且从一开始就存在的问题之一，就是该财产没有投保。这实在令人惊讶，竟会有一处价值——我不知道其价值，但该\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 38 指称该房产价值，您知道，数百万美元，且该房产没有保险。我就是不知道这怎么会发生。我确实不知道。那么无论如何，您仍未回答关于Taurus Fund（Taurus基金）中是谁在与Chubb（丘博保险）谈判的问题？康威先生：您知道，就保险单的谈判而言，我是负责联系人，法官阁下。问题是——法庭：嗯，难道您没有——您需要获得您客户的授权。是谁授权您订立一份保险——您不是Taurus Fund。康威先生：不是。但是，法官阁下，Taurus Fund并非——Taurus Fund设在BVI（英属维尔京群岛）。显然，英属维尔京群岛并不是——那里有很多处理与美国人、美国问题相关事务的人。他们聘请美国这里的律师处理这些事情。这并不罕见。法庭：我没说这很罕见。我说的是那个人是谁？显然，这是一个您不愿回答的问题。因为问题是，谁指示您这样做？您需要——康威先生：您问的是两个不同的问题。法庭：您不是在承担风险——康威先生：我是在向Taurus Fund中的谁汇报\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 39 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 39，在我与保险公司交谈时或之后与谁交谈？法庭：不是。是谁赋予您——康威先生：还是您在问我——法庭：——代表Taurus Fund行事的授权？您刚才说您正在谈判此事。除非我听错了，而我或许确实听错了，您说您正在与Chubb就该保单进行谈判。这不正是您刚才说的吗？康威先生：是的，法官阁下。而且我说过，我在与多家律师事务所的律师交谈，他们也在设法帮助我，因为我们不只是去找了Chubb。我已联系了我们能找到的、与保险公司有关系的每一个人。我们最终联系到了Chubb，而Chubb的答复，刚刚，刚刚收到，是——听着，新命令——法官阁下作出了两项命令。您发布了两项命令。第一项说可以有20人在那里。但有一项经修订的命令，我必须回来对您说，法官阁下，我们需要修订该经修订命令，因为目前该命令规定，除安保人员外，任何人均不得进入该房产。如果该命令经修订，允许Taurus Fund仅仅安排一人在那里——而不是律师所担心会在那里出现的所有这些人。我想他们——您知道，过去曾在那里，因为存在这个与政治运动有关的问题——而只是让Taurus Fund有一人\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 40 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 40 在那里，一名专职人员在那里。那就是Kee Young（基·杨，音）。没有——如果您想知道经理是谁。您知道，这就是我们让保险单得以承保所需要的全部条件。但目前——您知道，Chubb希望看到有人在那里的证据，以便该房产不被视为无人居住，而他们目前认为它无人居住。德斯平先生：法官阁下，我是受托人德斯平。如果我可以占用两秒钟？法庭：可以。请讲。德斯平先生：这里所称的所有人不是一家英属维尔京群岛实体。它是一家内华达州有限责任公司。康威先生在第一次听证会上说过——您问了他同样的问题，谁在指示您？他说是David Salins（大卫·萨林斯）。我不知道萨林斯先生发生了什么事，他是否仍与其保持联系，但他说那是聘请他的人。现在我们有了一个我们从未听说过的新的人。我的意思是，根本没有保险。需要明确的是，我们并未因您命令任何人不得在那里而造成没有保险的局面，因为不存在保险。一开始就没有保险。在他们拥有该房产的整个期间，都没有保险。而且，法官阁下，您应我们的请求作出命令，规定除安保人员外，任何人均不得在那里，因为没有保险。因此，说是您或我们造成了无法取得保险的情形，完全是本末倒置。他们一开始从未有过保险。康威先生：我方没有任何人指责过谁。德斯平先生：好吧。康威先生：让我们把这一点说清楚。德斯平先生：因此，我们当然需要了解，从一开始指示康威先生的萨林斯先生在哪里？已不再提及他参与其中。我只是，我觉得这实在非常令人惊讶。而且，这也不是一家英属维尔京群岛实体。因此，如果这些英属维尔京群岛的人在向他发出指示，我不知道我们在谈论什么。法庭：关键是——康威先生：那么，如果法官阁下——法庭：是。请讲。康威律师。康威先生：我不知道我们已经讨论过多少次了，但Taurus Fund, LLC是一家为购买房屋这一特殊目的而设立的内华达州实体。Taurus Fund, SP，一家英属维尔京群岛实体，是提供现金购买该房屋、且拥有该房屋的实体，并且其是Taurus Fund, LLC的所有人。这不是什么高深难懂的事，法官阁下。这相当简单。现在，我们有一名我与之打交道的经理，他负责\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 41 of 56\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 42 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 42 管理该房产。我们有一家正考虑承保该保单的保险公司。我并不是想说德斯平先生是我们没有保险的原因。我从未这么说过。我说的是，法官阁下，我们将不得不——根据刚刚告诉我的情况，我们必须回来请求您作出一项经修订命令，允许Taurus Fund在那里设立办公室，并由一名专职人员照管该房屋——法庭：那么，在——康威先生：——以便满足保险公司的要求。法庭：保险单的什么地方规定，为了投保，该处必须有一间专职办公室？我想我没见过多少保险单这样规定。康威先生：我不知道他们是否会——法官阁下，会把这种事写在纸上。他们说的是，我们不希望该房屋无人居住——法庭：但它并非无人居住。康威先生：——如果我们要为它承保。法庭：它并非无人居住。康威先生：因此我——法庭：那里有安保人员。康威先生：——提出的——法庭：那里有安保人员。它\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 43 并非无人居住。里面还有各种家具——康威先生：但这正是我说的，法官阁下。法庭：——以及固定装置，在那——在那——这不是一所房子。这是一座豪宅，对吗？不是吗？超过20,000平方英尺还是什么？康威先生：这是一——法庭：我的意思是——这不是那种有人——那里有安保人员的房子。因此，如果漏水，他们会知道。如果警报响起，他们会知道。如果供暖失效，他们会知道。因此，在我看来，Chubb需要Taurus Fund的人在那里并不具有说服力。安保人员——我相信，你们双方都同意在该——为该豪宅提供安保的人员，对吗？康威先生：受托人与我就谁将在那里达成了一致。法庭：对。康威先生：该协议由杨先生签署。受托人知道他是谁。他已经与我们打交道相当长一段时间。法官阁下刚才提出的论点，如果您愿意称之为论点，正是我向Chubb所说的。因此，这并不是说我不——不同意\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 43 of 56\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 44 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 44 您。Chubb的答复是，安保人员不是居住者。而且，您知道，我无法——我无法替他们辩论，因为在我看来他们不合理。我只是想解决这个问题，法官阁下。因此，我的提议是，那么，如果Taurus Fund只是简单地安排一个人住进去，这是否会满足要求？而我已经——法庭：嗯，这是什么意思？我不知道“安排一个人住进去”是什么意思。康威先生：嗯，一间办公室，法官阁下，杨先生将在那里工作——显然将全职住在那里，而不是住在房产外。法庭：嗯，那完全是另一回事。没有人住在那——没有任何地方的人住在那里。在本对抗程序或郭先生被捕之前，没有向本法庭提交任何证据表明郭先生和/或其家属以外的任何人曾住在该豪宅中。如果您有此类证据，情况可能有所不同，但这不是本法庭目前所面对的内容。本法庭目前所面对的是，这属于郭先生——不管证据是否正确，唯一的证据是，郭先生以及我相信他的儿子和女儿，也许还有他的配偶，我不清楚这一点，是在那里过夜的唯一人员。那么，为什么我要改变现状——这正是我在初步\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 45 禁令中不会做的事——允许Taurus Fund的人进入并住在那里？并且做什么？我不知道他们会做什么。而且，什么，我们要让一名安保人员与Taurus Fund的人睡在同一个房间吗？我不——那不会发生。康威先生：嗯，法官阁下，先说最重要的。这是一栋Taurus Fund的房子。他们可以住。他们如果愿意，应当能够住在那里。但这不是重点。法庭：他们取得保险后，就可以。康威先生：重点——法庭：他们取得保险后——康威先生：——重点是我们正在努力取得保险。法庭：他们取得保险后，就可以。康威先生：我们并不是想享用这栋房子。法庭：他们取得保险后，就可以，但他们还没有做到。康威先生：好的。那么法官阁下，我——法庭：我们自8月中旬以来一直在谈论此事。康威先生：——我的目标是试图解决问题。我尽力试图解决问题。受托人说，哦，康威没有解决问题，因此，我们不想给他额外30天的\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 45 of 56\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 46 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 46 证据开示时间。您知道。我所做的一切，法官阁下，就是告诉您，如果我们有一个人住在房产内，我们可能可以解决这个问题。如果这不够，如果无论出于何种原因这不可接受，我们仍请求额外30天完成证据开示。如果他们——我的意思是，在我看来，我因为没有安排一个人住进房子以便保险公司为其承保，而以某种方式受到惩罚。我想说的是，法官阁下，我不明白这些事情与本案究竟有什么关联。我们正在努力完成一项证据开示安排。这本应是一个简单的过程。我以前从未经历过这样的事情。我从事这一行已有30多年。法庭：嗯，不幸的是——康威先生：我以前从未遇到过这个问题。法庭：我理解您的观点，但不幸的是，这不是通常的情形，对吗？这不是——它不是——正如您在发言开始时所说，我想您说过，如果我错了我很抱歉，但我想您说您在这里的时间没有我们所有人在这里的时间长。嗯，这不是那种案件。这不是原告与被告之间存在诉因、而您将进入常规证据开示程序的案件\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2286 Filed 10/24/23 Entered 10/24/23 18:04:08 Page 47 of 56\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 47 而且你们将会——你们将会看到是否会提出处置性动议，然后你们将进行审判。你们知道这一点。你们从一开始就知道这一点。这并不意味着你们无权获得你们所寻求的证据开示期限。我尚未作出该项决定。我所问的是保险问题。明白吗？而保险是一个严重关切事项。这是一个严重关切事项。当某处房产没有保险时，我不能视而不见。而且，再次表示歉意，我没有牢记于心，但我认为这处房产超过20,000平方英尺，也许超过得更多。我甚至不记得了。而且它有800——DESPINS先生：法官阁下，是52,000平方英尺。法庭：哦，52,000平方英尺。哇，那相当大。而且，你知道，它价值数以百万计美元。破产法院，任何法院，都不会对这样的问题视而不见。你们不能——你们必须担心风险。我并不是说你们不担心风险，但听到我——听到你们告诉我，好吧，你知道吗，我希望你修改你的初步禁令命令。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2286 提交于 10/24/23 登记于 10/24/23 18:04:08 第48页，共56页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 48 因为 Chubb（丘博保险）表示，除非 Taurus Fund（金牛基金）的人员住在那里并在那里工作，否则他们不会承保。好吧。如果这是 Chubb 的立场，那么他们需要将此事提交法庭，我将不得不对此作出裁决。但是，我不会，你知道，仅根据该陈述就作出修改初步禁令命令的决定。抱歉，我不会。CONWAY先生：法官阁下，没有人会要求您这么做。法庭：只要有钱支付保费，就会有一家保险公司愿意承保。CONWAY先生：是的。是的。一百万美元的保费。这相当敲诈，但这就是我们目前所面对的情况。不过，法官阁下——法庭：嗯，我不知道。CONWAY先生：——您可能不记得所有细节。法庭：让我——让我就在这里打断你，Conway 律师。我认为“敲诈”是一个措辞强烈的词；当你的当事人据称——嗯，显然，是一处52,000平方英尺且没有任何保险的房产的登记所有人时，你可能应当非常谨慎地使用这个词。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2286 提交于 10/24/23 登记于 10/24/23 18:04:08 第49页，共56页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 49 因此，我认为你需要——如果我是你，我会对此谨慎些。CONWAY先生：法官阁下，您可能不记得该命令的每一个方面，因为您的日程繁忙，但其写法并不是说，在任何情形下我都绝不会修改该命令。基本上，意思是当你们获得保险后，你知道，我们可以修改该命令，并恢复原来的初步禁令。法庭：但我不会——CONWAY先生：所以——法庭：我不会仅基于你声称曾与 Chubb 讨论，而 Chubb 表示——如果 Chubb 愿意，他们可以出庭作证，说明他们为何需要那一点。CONWAY先生：我并没有——我还没有提出动议，法官阁下。我还没有提出动议。法庭：好。但我只是告诉你，如果没有 Chubb 提供的材料，我不会这么做。我不会这么做。Chubb 怎么说对我并不重要。只有在他们作证时才重要——CONWAY先生：我明白。我本来并不打算要求您在这次电话会议中准许该动议。法庭：嗯——CONWAY先生：我会提出附有证据的动议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2286 提交于 10/24/23 登记于 10/24/23 18:04:08 第50页，共56页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 50 法庭：好。好吧。那么，你尽管去做。但是问题仍然在于，这处房产——如你非常清楚的，不仅是本案的标的——没有保险。这实在令人惊讶。我认为这令人惊讶。CONWAY先生：这很困难——这对每个人都很困难，法官阁下。你知道，我的当事人支付了购买房屋的全部款项，支付了购买房屋内财产的全部款项——法庭：嗯，那是你方的主张，但那从未——CONWAY先生：——所以他们也希望有保险。他们也希望有保险。法庭：那是主张，但在目前尚未得到证明，律师。CONWAY先生：好吧。我希望——法庭：没有证据证明是谁购买了该房屋。所有这些——所有这些都是——CONWAY先生：目前没有任何主张得到证明。法庭：唯一的——CONWAY先生：任何一种主张都没有。法庭：嗯，唯一的证据是，产权\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 51 持有人是你的当事人。仅此而已。CONWAY先生：是的。我认为对此没有争议。法庭：那么，我将要求你们双方这样做。CONWAY先生：但话虽如此，法官阁下——法庭：这就是我将要求你们双方做的。你们将在下周五，即 October 27th，之前向法庭提交你们就证据开示日程提出的日期；我将确定日期，因为显然你们无法达成一致，这没关系，然后我将签发命令。DESPINS先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：好。那么，我认为在 Taurus Fund 对抗诉讼中可能没有其他事项可以处理了，对吗？LUFT先生：正确，法官阁下。DESPINS先生：正确。CONWAY先生：据我所知，法官阁下，正确。法庭：好。谢谢。我会查看。我要求在 October 27th 中午之前提交。LUFT先生：是，法官阁下。法庭：谢谢。CONWAY先生：我相信那是您日程上的最后一项，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2286 提交于 10/24/23 登记于 10/24/23 18:04:08 第51页，共56页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2286 提交于 10/24/23 登记于 10/24/23 18:04:08 第52页，共56页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 52\n\n1　法官阁下，但若不是，我可以离席吗？\n2　法庭：\n可以。\n非常感谢。\n3　CONWAY先生：\n好的。\n保重。\n4　DESPINS先生：\n还有另一事项，因此——\n5　法庭：\n是。\n但不涉及 Conway 律师，\n6　对吗？\n他不需要——\n7　DESPINS先生：\n正确。\n正确。\n8　法庭：\n好。\n请继续处理最后一项\n9　事项。\n10　DESPINS先生：\n即 Golden Spring（黄金泉）。而且\n11　Luft 先生也将就此发言。\n12　法庭：\n请讲，Luft 律师。\n13　LUFT先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。我是 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的 Avi Luft（阿维·卢夫特），代表\n14　Chapter 11 受托人。\n15　法官阁下，我相信截至今天上午，我们现在\n16　已有与 Golden Spring（New York）有关的缺席判决作出，并且就 Golden Spring\n17　（China）而言也是如此。\n18　\n19　法庭：\n不是判决，只是缺席登记？\n你\n20　说的是缺席判决，但是——\n21　LUFT先生：\n正确。\n只是缺席登记。\n22　法庭：\n——目前只是缺席登记。\n23　LUFT先生：\n抱歉，法官阁下。\n24　法庭：\n没关系。\n25　LUFT先生：\n我说错了，抢先说到了我的下一\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2286 提交于 10/24/23 登记于 10/24/23 18:04:08 第53页，共56页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 53 句话，即我们确实计划就两者提出申请缺席判决的动议。我们预计并打算争取在本周内向您提交这些动议。这就是 Golden Spring 对抗诉讼目前的情况。法庭：好。你知道，显然，我们必须审查你方的缺席判决动议。我们通常会安排就缺席判决动议举行听证会，但我们将审查你方动议所附的内容，并据此作出决定。这样说有道理吗？LUFT先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。有道理，法官阁下。法庭：好。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，还有一件不在日程上的事项，但我想就 Lady May II（梅夫人二号）向您更新情况。您会记得，我曾请求您预留一个日期。我现在忘了是什么时候。但我们将不需要那个日期。遗憾的是，我们收到的投标确实不令人满意，我们需要——我们将对 Lady May II 采取过冬保养措施。希望我们会尝试推销并出售它，但我们需要在冬季将其从水中吊出。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2286 提交于 10/24/23 登记于 10/24/23 18:04:08 第54页，共56页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 54 然后，我们将不得不确定处理该船的最佳方式，因为投标不可接受。法庭：好。听到这个消息我很遗憾。但是，我——这种事确实时有发生。而且我记得，我们谈的是 November 9th 下午，但我不知道这是否正确。DESPINS先生：是的。我认为您是对的，法官阁下，因为您记忆力很好。但我认为是在9日下午2点或3点左右，类似那个时间。法庭：是。因为我们有——DESPINS先生：所以我们将不需要那个日期。法庭：因为我们有——我们上午有 Chapter 13 日程。法庭：好。法庭：我认为这就是我记得那个日期的唯一原因。但无论如何，我明白，我也感谢你告知我们，你认为那并非你将需要法庭时间的日期和时间。之后我们必须看看事态如何发展。DESPINS先生：是，法官阁下。法庭：好。那么，今天下午你们还有任何希望处理的事项吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2286 提交于 10/24/23 登记于 10/24/23 18:04:08 第55页，共56页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023 55 DESPINS先生：目前没有，法官阁下。谢谢。法庭：今天下午还有其他人希望处理任何事项吗？身份不明者：没有，法官阁下。法庭：好。好吧。那么，谢谢各位。我们将按通常程序处理摆在我们面前的事项，并将在下次听证会或状态会议时再见。身份不明者：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：好。身份不明者：谢谢您，法官阁下。感谢您。法庭：好。谢谢各位。今天的日程至此结束，现宣布休庭。 （程序于下午3:14结束。）\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2286 提交于 10/24/23 登记于 10/24/23 18:04:08 第56页，共56页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 17, 2023\n1　本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的记录员及认证电子庭审记录员兼记录员，\n2　特此证明，\n3　上述内容是根据上述\n4　所列事项程序的正式电子录音制作的正确誊本。\n5　\n\n8　October 24, 2023\n9　Christine Fiore，CERT\n10　记录员","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je","CIPA","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins","William Je"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":12967,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-10-24 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-10-24","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:27:17"}