{"id":"court_ctb_2301_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2301,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2023-11-02","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"法庭听证程序笔录 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #2301（2023-11-02立案）。Julie A. Manning 破产法官于 2023 年 10 月 24 日主持的案件进展状态会议及相关对抗诉讼（案号 23-05005、23-05008、23-05013、23-05017）的官方庭审记录，涉及破产财产保全、G Club 文件披露争议以及责令各方律师会商协调等事项。","summary_en":"Transcript of Hearing Proceedings —— In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #2301 (filed Nov 02, 2023). Official transcript of the status conference and hearings held on October 24, 2023, before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Julie A. Manning covering the main bankruptcy case and related adversary proceedings (Nos. 23-05005, 23-05008, 23-05013, 23-05017), addressing issues including the preservation of estate property, G Club document discovery, and orders directing counsel to meet and confer.","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. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11, \\* Adv. Proc. No. 23-05005 TRUSTEE, \\* Plaintiff, \\* \\* v. \\* \\* GREENWICH LAND, LLC, et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 \\* Adv. Proc. No. 23-05008 TRUSTEE, \\* \\* Plaintiff, \\* v. \\* \\* GUO, \\* \\* Defendant. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* LUC A. DESPINS, et al., \\* Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013 \\* Plaintiffs, \\* \\* v. \\* \\* HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., \\* et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* LUC A. DESPINS, et al., \\* Adv. Proc. No. 23-05017 \\* Plaintiffs, \\* \\* v. \\* \\* TAURUS FUND LLC, et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 2 of 72\n\nTRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE\n\nProceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service.\n\n- #2270 ORDER SCHEDULING HEARING REGARDING G CLUB DOCUMENTS\n- #2279 ORDER GRANTING CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY OF ESTATE AND ORDERING CERTAIN COUNSEL TO APPEAR AT STATUS CONFERENCE\n- # 90 ORDER GRANTING CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY OF ESTATE AND ORDERING CERTAIN COUNSEL TO APPEAR AT STATUS CONFERENCE\n- # 32 MOTION TO COMPEL\n- # 157 ORDER SCHEDULING HEARING REGARDING G-CLUB DOCUMENTS\n- # 71 ORDER GRANTING CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY OF ESTATE AND ORDERING CERTAIN COUNSEL TO APPEAR AT STATUS 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 DOUGLAS S. SKALKA, ESQ. Neubert Pepe and Monteith 195 Church Street,13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 For the Creditors Committee: JONATHAN KAPLAN, 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 ANNECCA H. SMITH, ESQ. Robinson & Cole LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For Taurus Fund, LLC: MICHAEL T. CONWAY, ESQ. Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle, LLP 747 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 For Hing Chi Ngok and CHRISTOPHER J. MAJOR, ESQ. Greenwich Land, LLC: Meister Seelig & Fein LLP 125 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017\n\n3\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Plaintiff, MELISSA F. WERNICK, ESQ. HK International Funds and Chiesa Shahinian & Mei Guo: Giantomasi, PC 105 Eisenhauer Pkwy Roseland, NJ 07068 JAMES M. MORIARTY, ESQ. ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th FL Bridgeport, CT 06604 For HCHK Creditors: PAUL FENAROLI, ESQ. Pastore, LLC 4 High Ridge Park, Third Floor Stamford, CT 06905 For G Clubs Operations, LLC: JEFFREY M. SKLARZ, ESQ. Green & Sklarz, LLC One Audubon Street New Haven, CT 06511 CAROLINA FORNOS, ESQ. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019\n\n4\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 5 (Proceedings commenced at 1:44 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings, LLC; 23-05005, Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee, vs. Greenwich Land, LLC, et al.; 23-05008, Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee vs. Guo; 23-50 -- excuse me, 5013, Despins, et al. vs. HCHK Technologies, Inc., et al.; 23-05017, Despins, et al. vs. Taurus Fund, LLC, et al. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. 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, from Paul Hastings. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SKALKA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. I'm sorry. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Douglas Skalka also here on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee as his local counsel. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. FENAROLI: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Paul Fenaroli on behalf of Pastore, LLC. I'm just here to observe this afternoon. MR. SKLARZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jeffrey Sklarz, Green & Sklarz, for G Club together with lead counsel, Carolina Fornos of Pillsbury Winthrop.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 6 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 6 MS. FORNOS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of Creditor PAX. MR. MAJOR: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Chris Major, Meister Seelig & Fein. We represent Greenwich Land, LLC and Ms. Hing Chi Ngok. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Annecca Smith, Robinson+Cole, also on behalf of PAX along with Mr. Sarnoff. MS. WERNICK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Melissa Wernick from Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi on behalf of Ms. Guo in the 5008 adversary proceeding. MR. MORIARTY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James Moriarty from Zeisler & Zeisler, local counsel for Ms. Guo in that same adversary proceeding, 23-05008. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, Eric Henzy of Zeisler & Zeisler for the debtor. MR. KAPLAN: Good afternoon. Jonathan Kaplan on behalf of the creditors' committee. THE COURT: Mr. Conway, for some reason, we can't hear you, although I can see that you're speaking. I'm not sure why we can't hear Mr. Conway. He doesn't appear to be muted. Mr. Conway, can you hear us? You can nod your\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 7 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 7 head if you can. See, I don't even think he can hear us. (Counsel confer) THE COURT: All right. Mr. Conway appears to be connecting to audio, but he hasn't connected yet. Attorney Claiborn from the Office of the United States Trustee is in the courtroom. Do you wish to note your appearance? MS. CLAIBORN: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Oh, you can see her, though. There she is. Okay. And a member of the public is here, too, to observe the hearing. So there are several matters on the calendar today. I see that something was filed, I believe, late last night with regard to Adversary 23-5008 regarding a joint motion to modify the pretrial order in that adversary. Is that correct, Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: Mr. Skalka is handling that, Your Honor. I think -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: I think that's correct. But I'll let him address it. MR. SKALKA: Your Honor, that is correct. The purpose of the motion was to advise the Court that it\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 8 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>8                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | appears the -- an agreement has been reached between the      |\n| 2  | trustee and counsel for Ms. Guo, at which -- under which she  |\n| 3  | would agree to appear at a deposition next Wednesday,         |\n| 4  | November 1st.<br>And the parties are requesting that the      |\n| 5  | existing pretrial order be modified to allow for this         |\n| 6  | discovery to take place.                                      |\n| 7  | So we've asked for the discovery deadline to be               |\n| 8  | moved to December -- excuse me, November 10th and that the    |\n| 9  | deadline for filing dispositive motions be moved to November  |\n| 10 | 28th.<br>And I think if that's acceptable to Your Honor, then |\n| 11 | today's motions to compel can be denied as moot.              |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Attorney Wernick, are you --           |\n| 13 | you had indicated you where here on that matter as well.      |\n| 14 | MS. WERNICK:<br>Correct.<br>And the motion filed              |\n| 15 | accurately reflects the parties' agreement.                   |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>I note -- I just note for the          |\n| 17 | record that, Attorney Wernick, your office is the only        |\n| 18 | office that signed this joint motion on behalf of Ms. Guo,    |\n| 19 | but there are -- the Zeisler firm still has appearances on    |\n| 20 | behalf of Ms. Guo in this adversary, correct?                 |\n| 21 | MS. WERNICK:<br>Correct.                                      |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>I've looked at           |\n| 23 | your -- the motion, the joint motion.<br>I have to say, I     |\n| 24 | looked at it very briefly since it was filed last night.      |\n| 25 | But it does appear to be fine.<br>It seems to me all you're   |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 9 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>9                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | asking to do is extend the deadlines to complete fact         |\n| 2  | discovery by 23 days and for the filing of motions for        |\n| 3  | summary judgment by 11 days.<br>And you've put the dates in   |\n| 4  | the ordered paragraphs and that the -- if this order          |\n| 5  | granting the joint motion to modify the pretrial order is     |\n| 6  | entered, excuse me, then the motion to compel will be denied  |\n| 7  | as moot.                                                      |\n| 8  | Does anyone else wish to be heard on this issue?              |\n| 9  | So are you conducting the deposition of the                   |\n| 10 | defendant or not, Attorney Skalka?<br>I'm just -- you are but |\n| 11 | sometime in that --                                           |\n| 12 | MR. SKALKA:<br>Yes.                                           |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>-- in that period, that extended                |\n| 14 | period of time?                                               |\n| 15 | MR. SKALKA:<br>Yes, Your Honor.<br>The parties have           |\n| 16 | agreed that she will appear on November 1st in my offices in  |\n| 17 | New Haven.                                                    |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>Then I will -- what      |\n| 19 | was submitted as ECF Number 37 in this Adversary 23-05008, I  |\n| 20 | will enter that order granting the joint motion to modify     |\n| 21 | the pretrial order, which will then render the motion to      |\n| 22 | compel as moot -- denied as moot.<br>Okay?                    |\n| 23 | So is that the only issue that we need to address             |\n| 24 | in that adversary proceeding?                                 |\n| 25 | MR. SKALKA:<br>I believe so, Your Honor.                      |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 10 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 10 MS. WERNICK: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you, both, then. I thought we should address that first since it does resolve these issues. So the motion to compel is denied as moot due to the modification of the pretrial order. MR. SKALKA: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you, both. MS. WERNICK: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Trustee Despins, what matter would you like to turn to next? MR. DESPINS: I believe the G Club matter is the next one on the agenda in terms of order of appearance. THE COURT: Then go right ahead. Whoever is going to proceed with that matter, please proceed. MR. DESPINS: Mr. Luft is going to represent me on that matter, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. MR. LUFT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LUFT: Avi Luft with Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. Your Honor, we're here following up with regard to the 9019 settlement and the term of it which provided for the trustee to have access to HCHK's documents. This term was important. It was provided in\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 11 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 11 part to address -- deal with cost and also because of the need for that information.\n\n Those documents, what HCHK has in its files, go directly to the issues that play into the adversary proceeding, which is an alter ego claim against HCHK. And, clearly, documents that show connections between the debtor, his finances, and entities related to him are exactly the type of evidence that would go towards a finding of alter ego. And G Club clearly falls within that category, being an entity that this Court has already found to be controlled by the debtor.\n\n Now, as I said, the assignee estate and the debtor's estate agreed to this term in part because it would save substantial resources and costs that would otherwise burden both estates if there was adversarial discovery. But there's no question, Your Honor, had we not reached that agreement, we would have pursued discovery on these very same topics, including, and in particular, related to G Club, who has routinely appeared at the heart of issues related to the debtor.\n\n Previously, we had served HCHK with a 2004 subpoena. Prior counsel for HCHK, before it was taken over by the assignee, clearly did not give accurate information or comply, because it only produced 148 documents total for HCHK as having any connection with regards to the debtor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 12 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>12                           |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Now we are learning that there are literally                   |\n| 2  | hundreds of thousands of such responsive documents.<br>Those   |\n| 3  | would have been pursued.                                       |\n| 4  | Similarly, had we not reached agreement, we                    |\n| 5  | certainly would have used Rule 26 in this adversary            |\n| 6  | proceeding to seek documents showing the connection between    |\n| 7  | HCHK and the debtor as part of the alter ego.                  |\n| 8  | Now, in response, G Club came to this Court and                |\n| 9  | said initially that the issue was that it did not have         |\n| 10 | access to its emails because they were -- they were at HCHK,   |\n| 11 | and it wanted access to them so that it could comply with      |\n| 12 | its separate Rule 2004 subpoena.<br>And then somewhere along   |\n| 13 | the line that got shifted.<br>And then it became about         |\n| 14 | G Club's ownership of the documents.<br>And what they said was |\n| 15 | that those documents which were in HCHK's possession and       |\n| 16 | systems, A, included privileged material and, B, should not    |\n| 17 | be handed over to the trustee, because they were               |\n| 18 | non-responsive to the subpoena to G Club in the 2004, not,     |\n| 19 | notably, that they were not responsive to discovery related    |\n| 20 | to HCHK.                                                       |\n| 21 | Now, and the foundation of that argument, Your                 |\n| 22 | Honor, has always been what I believe is a straw mat: that     |\n| 23 | HCHK's only relation to the G Club documents was as an         |\n| 24 | administrator of the cloud-based computing system.<br>And,     |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nYour Honor, if you look at G Club's brief on this, which is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 13 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>13                         |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | at Docket 2244 -- or Document 2244 in, I believe, the main   |\n| 2  | case, you see at page 6 they say, \"HCHK was simply the       |\n| 3  | administrator of a cloud-based enterprise (indiscernible).\"  |\n| 4  | A little further down: G Club did not \"share its             |\n| 5  | purportedly privileged information with HCHK.<br>It simply   |\n| 6  | contracted for the operation of a document management system |\n| 7  | with a third party.\"                                         |\n| 8  | Then on page 7 they say, \"The trustee performed              |\n| 9  | some sleight of hand, characterizing G Club as giving HCHK   |\n| 10 | access to its documents.\"                                    |\n| 11 | And then on page 8 it says, \"HCHK merely hosted              |\n| 12 | G Club data.\"                                                |\n| 13 | So, Your Honor, where I'd like to start with this            |\n| 14 | is to actually look at the master services agreement, which  |\n| 15 | in this adversary is at Document 88, in which G Club         |\n| 16 | predicates its claims on its -- or the basis upon which it   |\n| 17 | can claim these documents but studiously never cites to.     |\n| 18 | And I think it's quite clear from this document that HCHK    |\n| 19 | was not merely hosting G Club data.                          |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Just hold on a second.<br>You're in the        |\n| 21 | master services agreement that's somewhere on the docket --  |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:<br>Yep.                                            |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>-- of the adversary proceeding?<br>Is          |\n| 24 | that what you said?                                          |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:<br>Yes, Your Honor.<br>It's Document 88, I         |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 14 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 14 believe. THE COURT: All right. Give me a moment, please. MR. LUFT: Of course, Your Honor. THE COURT: In Adversary 5013, right? MR. LUFT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Hold on. I don't think it's 88. If it's 88, I'm not seeing anything. MR. LUFT: I will double check that, Your Honor. I was told that that's where the unredacted copy was. I know it was Exhibit A to the brief we filed at Exhibit -- at Document Number 86. THE COURT: Okay. Let me get back to that. (Court confers) THE COURT: All right. Give me one minute. Then I can get there. You just have to be patient, if you would, please, for a moment. MR. LUFT: Of course. (Pause) THE COURT: All right. So you want me to go to page 20 of that document. Is that what you're saying, Attorney Luft? MR. LUFT: No, Your Honor. Just to the first page of the master service agreement. THE COURT: Okay. Hold on. Then I got -- MR. LUFT: That's where I'll start.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 15 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 15 THE COURT: I have to find it. I think it's on page 20 -- MR. LUFT: Of course. THE COURT: -- is the first page. All right. I'm there on the first page of the master services agreement. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. And, unfortunately, I have to note that, once again, this document was stamped by G Club as highly confidential, so we need to take precautions. I know you mentioned that there was -- I believe everyone on the phone is a assignee of the protected order, but you did mention there was a member of the public there. THE COURT: Well, what are you -- are you going to be talking about specific things? Or why don't you just refer me to whatever it is, and I can read it, so we don't have to make it part of the record. MR. LUFT: Sure, Your Honor. Let's try to do it that way. So if we look in the first whereas clause -- THE COURT: Uh-huh. MR. LUFT: -- with regard to what they were contracting to do, Your Honor, I think it's clear what the agreement was for. I would next direct the Court down to Section 1.1, which expresses what the scope of services is and directs the reader to Exhibit A, which sets out those services.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 16 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 16 And if one turns to Exhibit A of the document, which is immediately after the signature page -- THE COURT: Give me a second, if you would, please, to get there. MR. LUFT: Of course, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I am at the -- I'm at the exhibit you just mentioned. MR. LUFT: And if Your Honor looks at A through F, you can see the long litany of services that are to be provided by HCHK to G Club. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LUFT: Then, Your Honor, if we can go back to that first page of the master services agreement under client duties and responsibilities. Broadly speaking, Your Honor can read the provisions herself, but one can see about the types of information and documentation that was to be provided by G Club to HCHK to perform its services. I'll note the word \"all\" there. THE COURT: Okay. I see that. MR. LUFT: Okay. Your Honor, if we turn on to the confidential information section under 6.2. Again, Your Honor will be able to read it for herself. But broadly speaking, what you'll see is what we all know to be an extremely common provision dealing with parties' agreements about making information available when there is a subpoena\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 17 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 17 or legal service. THE COURT: Okay. I see that. MR. LUFT: And finally, Your Honor, I direct you to Section 7.3 under client materials, which again talks about the provision of information, data, work, and whatnot to HCHK in connection with its provision of services, with the definition of the word \"technology\" as pertinent being defined in 7.1D. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I see that. MR. LUFT: And, Your Honor, at this point, I think I can take us off the NSA, and I'll try to keep it broad in -- when I reference it. So I think it's clear that HCHK was doing far more for G Club than merely hosting its data. And that, of course, is backed up by HCHK's own filings in which it explained the services it performed for G Club. If Your Honor is interested, I could provide you with that ECF information as well in connection with an order to show cause in connection with the assignment itself where the assignee explained what HCHK did and specifically listed G Club as one of the companies it did it for. THE COURT: Yes, if you could cite -- MR. LUFT: And that's a public document. THE COURT: If you could cite to what you're speaking to -- about, that would be helpful. MR. LUFT: So this is in the Adversary Proceeding\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 18 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>18                           |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | 23-05013.<br>Is that -- I'm going to ask my colleague.         |\n| 2  | (Counsel confer)                                               |\n| 3  | MR. LUFT:<br>113.<br>1-13 in that adversary.<br>And it's       |\n| 4  | Mr. Hoffmeister's affidavit.                                   |\n| 5  | So, Your Honor, as I was saying, clearly they did              |\n| 6  | far more for G Club than merely host its data.<br>To perform   |\n| 7  | those services, HCHK needed broad access to swaths of G Club   |\n| 8  | documents and information.<br>G Club gave them that access.    |\n| 9  | I'll keep that broad.<br>But Your Honor has seen the           |\n| 10 | provisions.                                                    |\n| 11 | And, notably in that document, nowhere is there                |\n| 12 | any restriction on -- by G Club on HCHK's to access the        |\n| 13 | privileged information or even making any distinction          |\n| 14 | between its privilege and its non-privilege materials.         |\n| 15 | So against that background, we get to our two                  |\n| 16 | questions.<br>The first is this argument that G Club should be |\n| 17 | able to restrict the trustee's access to HCHK information      |\n| 18 | because it's not responsive to a subpoena to G Club.<br>Your   |\n| 19 | Honor, that's the tail wagging the dog.                        |\n| 20 | The issue that -- in this adversary is HCHK's                  |\n| 21 | alter ego status.<br>That's what the settlement was reached    |\n| 22 | about.<br>There was no discovery dispute with regard to        |\n| 23 | G Club's 2004 subpoena in this adversary.<br>Rather, it's      |\n| 24 | inserted itself.                                               |\n| 25 | The issue with this action goes to the alter ego               |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 19 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>19                           |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | of HCHK which goes to -- links to the debtor, his finances,    |\n| 2  | his loans, his personnel, which, as Your Honor just looked     |\n| 3  | at the service agreement, you know the NSA and what was done   |\n| 4  | for G Club by HCHK is directly pertinent to that.              |\n| 5  | Now, Your Honor, G Club's documents have shown in              |\n| 6  | what we looked at that G Club has deep connections to the      |\n| 7  | debtor.<br>Your Honor has already found they're connected.     |\n| 8  | And moreover, we have found numerous loans that connect the    |\n| 9  | debtor.<br>We have found numerous documentations related to    |\n| 10 | purchases for assets which are now in the debtor's             |\n| 11 | possession.<br>And all of these services handled by HCHK would |\n| 12 | presumably directly go to that topic.<br>So they're all        |\n| 13 | responsive.                                                    |\n| 14 | Quite simply, Your Honor, the mere fact that HCHK              |\n| 15 | has all these G Club documents is quite compelling evidence    |\n| 16 | as to the alter ego status of the debtor and HCHK.<br>And      |\n| 17 | G Club should not be able to stop proper discovery of HCHK     |\n| 18 | based on whether or not that information would otherwise       |\n| 19 | separately be responsive to a 2004 subpoena to G Club.         |\n| 20 | Moreover, G Club can't now claim that it's unfair              |\n| 21 | for the documents to be produced in this manner, because it    |\n| 22 | gave them to G Club (sic).<br>And, in fact, it expressly gave  |\n| 23 | them with an understanding of what would happen if a           |\n| 24 | subpoena or other legal process was served.<br>And that's also |\n| 25 | in the MSA.                                                    |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 20 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 20 So demanding that its documents be removed from HCHK and returned to it and only produced if it's responsive to a 2004 to G Club, fundamentally, Your Honor, they would be altering the evidence in the case. What documents HCHK has in its possession, particularly ones that relate to debtor, are clearly pertinent to alter ego. That should be the question, not whether or not something is responsive to G Club subpoenas. That's not what we're here for. Now, Your Honor, I want -- at this point, I'd like to turn to privilege unless you have any questions with regard to responsiveness. THE COURT: I have no questions. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Okay. So let's talk about this assertion of privilege. G Club gave HCHK access to its files, its emails, and its documents. It specifically contracted for services that required HCHK to access and review that information. G Club did nothing to segregate or protect that privileged information. Now, the law is clear that to maintain privilege for an attorney/client communication, it must have been intended to be or was, in fact, kept confidential. That's set out in Strougo v. BEA Associates, 199 F.R.D. 515 at page 519. That's Southern District of New York 2001. And the party seeking the protection of the attorney/client privilege must affirmatively act to protect\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 21 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 21 their communications. That's the Niceforo case v. UBS, 20 F. Supp. 3d 428 at page 437, again Southern District of New York in 2014.\n\n We know from the case law that voluntary disclosure of privileged information to service providers, if not for the purpose of helping comprehend legal advice, you waive that privilege. That's Acker (phonetic) and the AMPA case that we cite.\n\n But the case I think is most pertinent to what we're talking about here, Your Honor, is Judge Friendly's decision in the Horowitz case. That's at 482 F.2d 72, page 82, 1973. In that decision, Judge Friendly found that a privilege is waived when documents are intermingled with non-privileged documents, and no special protections are made for privileged documents. There, and they point out, an accountant had free reign if they wanted to, to look through the -- whatever documents it wanted, and didn't do that.\n\n Your Honor, that is what we have here. G Club, by its own admissions, gave all its documents over to HCHK. They told you they didn't know where the privileged documents were. They'd have to go through and review all the documents to pick out where they were. They were directly intermingled. And accounting services is one of the many services that HCHK had reason to go into the files\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 22 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>22                          |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | and look for.<br>There was no segregation.<br>HCHK had access |\n| 2  | and use.<br>That is exactly what Horowitz speaks to.          |\n| 3  | Now, you compound that, Your Honor, by the fact               |\n| 4  | that this was done three times over.<br>This happened with    |\n| 5  | HCHK.<br>Then HCHK transferred all its information to the     |\n| 6  | assignee.<br>Again, they had access to look at whatever files |\n| 7  | they needed to, both operating under the MSA.<br>At no point  |\n| 8  | did HCHK -- did G Club come to it and say that's our          |\n| 9  | privileged information, you can't do that.<br>Moreover, they  |\n| 10 | had already waived it.                                        |\n| 11 | And then, finally, Your Honor, it happened a third            |\n| 12 | time when the assignee entered into a potential deal with an  |\n| 13 | entity called G News, who is not allegedly affiliated with    |\n| 14 | G Club.<br>And as part of that agreement gave them access to  |\n| 15 | all of HCHK's system.<br>So three times over, there was a     |\n| 16 | waiver.<br>In each case, G Club did nothing to secure its     |\n| 17 | documents and, more importantly, had always basically just    |\n| 18 | handed over all of its files to HCHK and said go through,     |\n| 19 | get what you need.                                            |\n| 20 | Now, G Club's only response to this is, one, to               |\n| 21 | take the claim and say all they did for us is cloud           |\n| 22 | computing.<br>That's what you're going to see when you go     |\n| 23 | through their brief.<br>There is not a mention of a single    |\n| 24 | other service.<br>But as Your Honor sees in the MSA and one   |\n\ncan see in Mr. Hoffmeister's declaration, they did far, far\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 23 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>23                         |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | more for them.<br>So any assertion that no one would have    |\n| 2  | access to G Club's documents fails.                          |\n| 3  | The second thing they do is they cite to a single            |\n| 4  | case, the Metro Services (sic) case.<br>Now -- out of the    |\n| 5  | chancery court in Delaware.<br>Now, first, Your Honor, Metro |\n| 6  | Services doesn't address the issue of where a third party    |\n| 7  | has access to the information.<br>It merely speaks to        |\n| 8  | third-party hosting and confidentiality.<br>So whereas here, |\n| 9  | the entity who's hosting has reason to go in and actually    |\n| 10 | access the information, that is not something that Metro     |\n| 11 | Service speaks to.                                           |\n| 12 | Moreover, I'll note Metro Service does not speak             |\n| 13 | to the issue of privilege at all.<br>It merely speaks to the |\n| 14 | notion of whether something can be held confidential.<br>Nor |\n| 15 | does the underlying article that it cites as a basis for     |\n| 16 | even that proposition.                                       |\n| 17 | Now, the only other argument that they have, Your            |\n| 18 | Honor, is to say that we have not proven that someone        |\n| 19 | specifically asked us that information.<br>Now, not only is  |\n| 20 | that inconsistent with Mr. Hoffmeister's affidavit and the   |\n| 21 | clear terms of the NSA and how it would work, but this is    |\n| 22 | blatant burden shifting, Your Honor.<br>The party asserting  |\n| 23 | privilege has the obligation to prove it, so it is on G Club |\n| 24 | to prove that no one ever accessed its information, not on   |\n| 25 | the trustee to go and try to show that someone actually did, |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 24 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 24 although, as I said, any reading of this agreement and what they -- the services they provided for them or Mr. Hoffmeister's affidavit clearly indicate that such access would have had to have happened. Your Honor, this is a dispute about HCHK and its adversary. That information about G Club's involvement with HCHK is clearly pertinent to that adversary. We should have access to it. And to the extent that any of that information was ever privileged, when they gave HCHK unfettered access to it, they waived such privilege, and we should get those documents as well. Your Honor, do you have any questions that I can answer on this point? THE COURT: I do not. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Attorney Fornos, would you like to respond? MS. FORNOS: Yes, Your Honor, I would. But I think there's a number of misstatements that need to be corrected, so I'll take them one at a time. First, I want to frame the issue. The Court already ruled on this, and we submit that the Court had it right in July -- on July 28th when the Court issued a procedure that protected G Club's (indiscernible) rights and, at the same time, balanced any prejudice to the trustee. So the Court has already created\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 25 a mechanism by which G Club should have access to its documents. Now, one of the issues that I think is being -- perhaps creating confusion -- and understandably so, because these are complex technical issues. So I don't fault the trustee for not appreciating that this is not documents that are being commingled in an office or in a cabinet. This is a cloud service. This is wholesale Microsoft 365. That's where the documents and, in particular, the commingling of G Club is held. Now, Your Honor, I don't represent HCHK. I do not know how HCHK (indiscernible) documents. I don't -- I do not know as counsel for G Club what else HCHK (indiscernible). What I do know is that for a very limited period of time, G Club was not able to access its G Club domain. In other words, the user on the cloud using the G Club domain name were not able to access it. The trustee paints this picture of documents commingled, of things being shared, but I don't believe that the trustee has fully understood that this is just documents, domain names, a Gclub.com domain name on the cloud that maintains users. If we take the trustee's position, that means everyone on this call who has used Microsoft 365 and uses Case 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 25 of 72\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 26 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 26 the cloud has arguably waived their rights. Microsoft has access to the cloud. It's truly an untenable position. HCHK acted as IT. So to be more precise, a new employee joins G Club; they need to get an email assigned to them. An employee leaves G Club; they need to have their account terminated, their email access. That's what we're talking about. Now, since the Court's order, I -- we worked with the assignee, and the assignee did exactly what the Court ordered. We were able to restore our access. And since the Court's order, we were able to get our domain name, review the documents, and we have produced to the trustee another 20,000 documents that are responsive. That's in addition, Your Honor, to the other 120,000 documents that were previously produced. So two things. They have had -- they've had in excess of 140,000 documents and bank records. And if they have any issues of what else it is that they feel that they need, they can certainly come and talk to us. But we have complied with the Court's order. We have worked with the assignee to produce documents. We have produced a privilege log and a redaction log. So at this point, Your Honor, we have complied. The Court's order of July 28th appropriately managed this. We are providing the information pursuant to the Rule 2004.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 27 And there is absolutely no prejudice to the trustee to continue to follow the proper protocol. What the trustee is complaining -- and, again, we don't represent HCHK. If they have issues about HCHK's domain, that's Hchk.com or whatever their domain name is, or HCHK documents, that's an issue that they need to take up with HCHK. We as G Club have access to our documents. We have (indiscernible). We have produced responsive documents. And we've produced a privilege log. And, accordingly, we think that the -- this motion is a colossal waste of judicial resources. It should be denied at length, and the Court's original order of July 28th should be deemed (indiscernible). I'm happy to answer any questions the Court will have. THE COURT: I do not have any questions at the moment. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, may I respond? THE COURT: Yes. MR. LUFT: All right. Well, let's start -- Ms. Fornos says that I somehow mischaracterized the Court's ruling. I would direct her to the -- Part B of the ruling which was the Court specifically said that the trustee shall file a brief in support of the trustee's argument that Case 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 27 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 28 G Club has waived any privilege and has no right to object to responsiveness. So I'm sorry Ms. Fornos finds that to be a colossal waste of time, but there was no final ruling on this. The Court specifically set out that we were to brief it, and I think appropriately so. I do not find it a waste of time. And I do find it quite telling that -- what did we not here from Ms. Fornos? There was no mention of the NSA. There was no mention of all the services that had to be provided under the MSA. There was no mention that G Club had access to all these HCHK documents. Instead, she keeps talking about domain names. HCHK had all the documents, had to provide all the services for it. She says, well, we produced documents that were responsive to G Club's 2004. Well, that's good. They are required to do it. It took many months to get her to do that. But that has no bearing on whether HCHK's Rule 2004 is at issue. Now, as to this -- to the extent she is trying to suggest what's the big deal, Your Honor, you get it for one, you get it for the other, she's -- it's true that she produced recently 20,000 documents. I called HCHK to say how many documents did you send them originally that would have been responsive if we just had our access, and I was Case 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 28 of 72\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 29 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 29 told by HCHK's counsel that they produced hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of documents. So the fact that we got 2,000 -- sorry, 20,000 of those documents means there -- we are getting a fraction of what are the responsive documents to discovery with regard to HCHK both with regard to the 2004 it was served that it never properly responded to or that we would have -- absolutely have sought if we had not reached this settlement.\n\n Now, as to the final -- where she started and where I'd like to end is she said I am not understanding how the cloud works; it's not a filing cabinet. No, it's not a physical filing cabinet. But in the modern world, Your Honor, it is a virtual filing cabinet. That is what we are talking about. It is a place where you store all your documents.\n\n And Judge Friendly, who while not deciding today, as is often the case foresaw what is to come and understands what is at issue. What Judge Friendly speaks to in the Horowitz decision is when someone just hands someone a giant filing cabinet or box of documents or virtual container of documents and makes no effort to distinguish which are the privileged ones and which are not the privileged ones, then they are not complying with their obligations to protect those documents and, thus, they've waived the privilege. That is what we are talking about here. So the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 30 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>30                           |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | fact that it is -- nothing about the fact that it is now       |\n| 2  | kept on the \"cloud\" makes it any different.<br>If anything,    |\n| 3  | when you consider that I'm sure Judge Friendly was not         |\n| 4  | envisioning a filing cabinet that could hold a million         |\n| 5  | documents, it makes it all the more telling how little         |\n| 6  | effort was done.                                               |\n| 7  | We have not heard any explanation that someone --              |\n| 8  | that they have evidence that no one complied with the MSA,     |\n| 9  | that the work wasn't done or anything else.                    |\n| 10 | And, finally, I'll just have a note, Your Honor,               |\n| 11 | with regard to this question of the apocalyptic all law        |\n| 12 | firms will have waived everything.<br>That is not a question   |\n| 13 | before the Court today.<br>No one is talking about a           |\n| 14 | hermetically sealed world where it is just on the cloud, no    |\n| 15 | one accessed the information, and the legal question is, is    |\n| 16 | the mere fact that you contracted with a third party to        |\n| 17 | provide cloud services, if they are not otherwise given        |\n| 18 | access to them, does that create a privilege waiver.<br>That's |\n| 19 | not something we need to decide today.                         |\n| 20 | What we're talking about is, when someone gives                |\n| 21 | someone access to all their documents, they hold the           |\n| 22 | documents and specifically contracts to them and says go       |\n| 23 | look at that information to do the work you have to do,        |\n| 24 | exactly what they are talking about Acker and -- I'll find     |\n| 25 | the name, Your Honor -- the AMPA decision where they talk      |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 31 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 31 about accountants going in and looking at information, being provided information. That's the question we have. If something is on the cloud and you say to someone, a third party, hey, go take what you need, go look at my information, does that constitute a waiver. And also, Your Honor, that is textbook, that is exactly when there is a waiver. When you give third parties access to your privileged information, you waive. When you don't work to protect your information, you waive. And the fact that it is on the cloud does not change that. MS. FORNOS: Your Honor? THE COURT: Hold on just a second. I just want to make sure Attorney Luft is completing his statements. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, if you have no questions, I am complete. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Hold on a second, Attorney Fornos. Just hold on a second. All right. Go ahead, Attorney Fornos. MS. FORNOS: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, the master services agreement is not what's at issue here. And Mr. Luft is making a lot of conclusory jumps, conclusory jumps from access to possession, possession to waiver. And that's a very slippery slope, and it is an untenable\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 32 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>32                           |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | position.<br>The fact of the matter is, we have our documents. |\n| 2  | We reviewed them, and we have produced responsive documents.   |\n| 3  | Now, Mr. Luft is saying hundreds of thousands of               |\n| 4  | documents.<br>Well, that's -- to be fair, we've produced       |\n| 5  | 140-plus-thousand documents.<br>As the Court will recognize,   |\n| 6  | in (indiscernible) 2004, a party need not go through 30        |\n| 7  | employees' email -- emails when we can identify specific       |\n| 8  | custodians that are most likely to have (indiscernible) the    |\n| 9  | trustee we have identified the custodians that have the        |\n| 10 | information.<br>We have applied search terms, and we have      |\n| 11 | reviewed those documents, and we have reviewed quite a         |\n| 12 | number of documents at a great cost to our company.            |\n| 13 | Responsive documents have been produced.                       |\n| 14 | And the trustee cannot possibly stand before Your              |\n| 15 | Honor and say that we haven't complied with that Rule 2004.    |\n| 16 | We have produced the banking records.<br>We have produced the  |\n| 17 | emails (indiscernible).<br>We have produced the loan           |\n| 18 | documents.<br>They have the information.                       |\n| 19 | What he's talking about here is conflating the                 |\n| 20 | scope with responsiveness and privilege.<br>And on the         |\n| 21 | privilege end, Your Honor, there is absolutely no evidence     |\n| 22 | whatsoever that anyone at HCHK reviewed these emails,          |\n| 23 | reviewed privileged communication, had access to every         |\n| 24 | single document and actually reviewed it such that there       |\n| 25 | would be an intentional waiver.                                |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 33 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 33 We ask the Court to deny this motion simply because the Court has already created a mechanism that is working. And I have yet to hear -- I haven't had a request for a meet and confer for any documents that they feel are missing. I haven't heard a meet and confer for anything from them since we produced these documents. So to the extent that there is (indiscernible) that's a different matter. The issue here is, is there a waiver simply because we had cloud services and HCHK acted as an IT department to help with the technological issue? The answer is no. The Court's order appropriately sets forth the mechanism, and we simply ask that the Court adhere to that original order and deny the request by the trustee to just have a wholesale waiver of every and any email and every and any document that exists on the cloud that HCHK may have had access to simply by being an IT manager. THE COURT: I didn't hear the last thing you said. I'm sorry. Would you say that again? MS. FORNOS: Sure. Yes, Your Honor. G Club does not waive its rights simply because an IT manager may have had access. There is no evidence of that. And, in fact, it would have been inappropriate for them to access any of our records. They simply acted as an IT department to assist with technological -- technical issues associated with the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 34 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>34                           |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | cloud and with creating domain names and email addresses.      |\n| 2  | There's no evidence, and it's a bit conclusory for the         |\n| 3  | trustee to simply said that they had -- they have the right    |\n| 4  | to every piece of paper, every email, every document that      |\n| 5  | has been -- exists in the cloud simply because we had an IT    |\n| 6  | manager.                                                       |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Well, I do have one question for you             |\n| 8  | now that you've --                                             |\n| 9  | MS. FORNOS:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                                |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>-- Attorney Fornos.<br>So you started            |\n| 11 | off your -- this -- your response to Attorney Luft's reply     |\n| 12 | after you both made your initial arguments to say that the     |\n| 13 | MSA, the master service agreement, is not at issue here.       |\n| 14 | But then you just said that there's no waiver simply because   |\n| 15 | an IT manager had access to G Club's documents.                |\n| 16 | So isn't the MSA at issue then?<br>Because what                |\n| 17 | evidence do I have other than that document to determine,      |\n| 18 | rightly or wrongly, what services were provided by HCHK to     |\n| 19 | G Club?                                                        |\n| 20 | MS. FORNOS:<br>The Court is correct, Your Honor.               |\n| 21 | And my apologies.<br>The trustee's presentation focused on far |\n| 22 | beyond what the master services agreement allegedly            |\n| 23 | provided.<br>The issue of confidentiality was maintained by    |\n| 24 | the master services agreement.<br>The master services          |\n| 25 | agreement did specifically say that HCHK would provide IT      |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 35 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 35 services and all information was to be maintained confidential. What I'm referring to and the reason that I just want to make sure that we all understand, whatever the MSA and confidentiality restrictions apply to HCHK, the fact of the matter is they were an IT manager for our domain name. There is absolutely no evidence in the record that HCHK logged on and searched all of these emails and reviewed these emails or had the authority to simply cart blanche review these emails. That's just not in evidence. And what the trustee is painting is this picture of HCHK -- and I still even know who at HCHK. There's no names mentioned. There's no individuals that are being identified that allegedly rummaged through all of these emails and domain names as if they were rummaging in a cabinet maintained, physically possessed in their offices. And that's the part that I'm concerned about. There's conflating of issues here. These are digital records maintained on the cloud that only belong to G Club. And no one had a right to access that other than G Club. And the master services agreement did specifically say our information is confidential, period. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: Just briefly. Yes, you may. MR. LUFT: Okay. Just to clear this up. Again,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 36 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>36                         |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Your Honor, I'll direct you -- I won't say it, but if one    |\n| 2  | looks at Exhibit A, IT, by my estimation, is one of 20       |\n| 3  | services provided by HCHK to G Club.<br>And the agreement    |\n| 4  | explicitly called in two places for G -- HCHK to use the     |\n| 5  | information of G Club to perform those 20 services.          |\n| 6  | So I don't know where Ms. Fornos can continually             |\n| 7  | just say all they were, were IT managers or that I'm wildly  |\n| 8  | speculating that people would be accessing the information.  |\n| 9  | I'll point again to the affidavit again of Mr. Hoffmeister   |\n| 10 | who also explicitly states those are the services they       |\n| 11 | performed for G Club.                                        |\n| 12 | Your Honor, that's all I have.                               |\n| 13 | MS. FORNOS:<br>Your Honor?                                   |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Yes?                                           |\n| 15 | MS. FORNOS:<br>May I just clarify?<br>Providing a            |\n| 16 | service doesn't mean and it's not the same as simply saying  |\n| 17 | I'm going to log into your domain and look at your emails    |\n| 18 | and email addresses and the contents of those email          |\n| 19 | addresses.<br>I'm baffled by the trustee's position, because |\n| 20 | to provide accounting services, even if it's being done at   |\n| 21 | HCHK, HCHK may then email communications to G Club.<br>Well, |\n| 22 | those communications, if they're responsive, have already    |\n| 23 | been produced from our end to the trustee.                   |\n| 24 | I am still not -- I think he's conflating issues             |\n| 25 | and making it a lot more complicated than it needs to be.    |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 37 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 37 Because the fact of the matter is, those documents belong to G Club and only G Club. And he cannot do an end run around that situation simply because he's trying to get HCHK documents, documents held on an HCHK.com domain name. Those belong to HCHK. Documents that HCHK had are theirs. And I can't respond for their documents or how they kept them or what they did. What I can say is we, G Club, do have access to our documents and have produced what's responsive. THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to take the matter under advisement and will rule accordingly. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. MS. FORNOS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: So with regard to the order scheduling the hearing on the issue of the G Club documents, which appears in the main case at ECF 2270 and in the adversary at 157, those matters are taken under advisement. So then I believe, Trustee Despins, the only other matters on today's calendar are related to the trustee's request for a status conference regarding preservation of property of the estate. Is that correct? MR. DESPINS: That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Please proceed. MR. DESPINS: Well, first I want to make sure that Mr. Conway was able to resolve his audio issues.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 38 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>38                           |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. CONWAY:<br>I will give you a test now.<br>Can you          |\n| 2  | hear me?                                                       |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Yes, we can hear you.                   |\n| 4  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes.<br>Yes.                                   |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                       |\n| 6  | MR. CONWAY:<br>I'm not sure what happened, but I'm             |\n| 7  | on the phone now.                                              |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                              |\n| 9  | MR. DESPINS:<br>So, Your Honor, I will try to make             |\n| 10 | this relatively brief.<br>And the request itself was very      |\n| 11 | short, because the pictures are really worth a thousand        |\n| 12 | words here.<br>And I would say at the outset that we're doing  |\n| 13 | this in the main case but also in the Greenwich Land case      |\n| 14 | and the Taurus Management Mahwah case, because it's all --     |\n| 15 | for reasons we'll explain in a second, is all related.         |\n| 16 | So the first thing I'd like to do is just briefly              |\n| 17 | go through the exhibits, Your Honor.<br>And the first thing to |\n| 18 | keep in mind, I believe, is the key dates here, which are      |\n| 19 | February 2020, the purchasing of the Taconic house; October    |\n| 20 | 12, 2020, Genever Holdings filing for Chapter 11; and          |\n| 21 | December 2021, the closing of the Mahwah mansion; and          |\n| 22 | February 15, 2022, the debtor's Chapter 11 filing date.        |\n| 23 | I would say at the outset, Your Honor, that as we              |\n| 24 | have done with status conferences in the past, this is not     |\n| 25 | an evidentiary hearing.<br>I'm saying this not because we      |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 39 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>39                             |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | cannot prove these various links that we've used and the         |\n| 2  | pictures.<br>We can put that into evidence eventually if we      |\n| 3  | need to, so we have no doubts about that.<br>But I want to       |\n| 4  | make sure that, you know, people don't feel the need that --     |\n| 5  | to object to say, well, this link to Mr. Kwok's, you know,       |\n| 6  | statement on this page has not been admitted.<br>You know,       |\n| 7  | we'll -- we can deal with evidentiary issues later.              |\n| 8  | But the basic issue here is that I asked -- after                |\n| 9  | the visit on September 1st, I asked members of the team          |\n| 10 | to -- in my mind, I thought the issue was are there missing      |\n| 11 | items.<br>And, of course, they did that.<br>But they went beyond |\n| 12 | what I asked for, and they said you should also know that a      |\n| 13 | number of these items, like a lot, that are Mahwah mansion       |\n| 14 | came from The Sherry Netherland.                                 |\n| 15 | And this is what, Your Honor, Tabs 1 through 8                   |\n| 16 | show is that you have various videos showing Mr. Kwok at The     |\n| 17 | Sherry Netherland with a number of items that are now at the     |\n| 18 | Mahwah mansion.<br>And so you can see those through the          |\n| 19 | presentation where -- and because eventually we get in the       |\n| 20 | presentation in the various tabs to the Mahwah mansion           |\n| 21 | itself where we show these items, where they are by picture      |\n| 22 | or by videos or, you know, screenshots of videos.                |\n| 23 | And we also show on Tabs 11, 12, 35, and 48 items                |\n| 24 | that either were at The Sherry Netherland or the Taconic         |\n| 25 | house, were at the Mahwah mansion at one point but don't         |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 40 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 40 appear to be there anymore. So and, you know, this is pretty telling that this has -- it had to happen between March 15th and September 1st, because there's a video that you've seen that actually is admitted as evidence in -- at the Mahwah hearing where the two Kwok affiliates basically are going through the mansion to show how the -- beautiful the mansion is and all that. But through that, you see various pieces of arts on the wall, vases and things like that that we have screenshots of. And those are no longer there on September 1st. I would say at the outset that the I have no -- and I hope I don't live to regret this -- but at this time, I have no concerns about the current security at the Mahwah mansion, meaning from September 1st going forward, I've had various discussions with this gentleman. You know, I can never be a hundred percent sure, but I have a high degree of confidence that nothing is disappearing under his watch. But there are a number of issues here. One is clearly things did \"disappear\" or are no longer on the walls where they were based on the September 12th video. We know that from the September 1st video. And so that's number one.\n\n Number two, there are a number of items that are still at the mansion but that came from Mr. Kwok through The\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 41 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 41 Sherry Netherland or that transmitted from The Sherry Netherland to the Taconic house, Taconic to Mahwah. And some of those have disappeared as well. So the issues are as follows. The first thing is, Your Honor, there was allegedly a manager for the alleged owner of Mahwah, and that was the driver -- the debtor's driver or bodyguard, Mr. Barnett. Yes. This person should be -- come into court and testify as to his knowledge of what happened to these items or not. And the same thing -- you know, Mr. Conway at the first day hearing, after a question from Your Honor -- you asked who is the human being you're dealing with who's running this, who's in control, and said Mr. -- I forget his name now. Yeah. Mr. Fallon, Mr. David Fallon. So that person should also come to court to tell us what they know or not about these items that disappeared under their watch. So that's number one. Number two, it's obvious that there's a movement of assets between these three properties. And now I'm focusing on Taconic Road. It's clear there's some items that were there that are now at Mahwah. And I would say shame on me for not asking for this before, but I think we were -- we did not know when we started the Greenwich Land adversary proceeding what we know now, which is, you know, pretty bad if you look at the summary judgment motion we\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 42 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 42 filed in that case in terms of dissipation of assets, cash, tons of cash, hundreds of thousands of dollars from that entity to all sorts of affiliates of the debtor, including Zeisler getting payments from that entity and the debtor's daughter, et cetera, et cetera. So I'm not here to argue this, but the point is, going back to the shame on me, I should have asked for a video tour of that property right at the time. But I thought it was -- would have been perceived as heavy-handed because, you know, what proof do I have that these people would do things like that. Well, now we have the proof in spades that they would do that. And, therefore, Your Honor, we believe there should be an immediate video tour so we establish a benchmark as we did for the Mahwah mansion on September 1st of what's in that house. The reason I'm saying this is I don't want to be overly confident, but I'm pretty sure we're going to get title to that house. And I don't want to get it and then end up with an -- you know, \"missing items\" as we have now experienced with Mahwah. And then there's another category which is not necessarily an emergency, but there are things that were moved from Taconic to Mahwah. For example, four motorcycles. And these are not like, you know, a Yamaha 250, Your Honor. These are high-end motorcycles, including\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 43 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 43 a Maserati Ducati. And we have pictures in there of Mr. Kwok riding motorcycles. Those were taken, and we have evidence of that, at the Taconic house. And, obviously, these motorcycles are now at the Mahwah mansion. And I don't think Mr. Conway is going to say that the motorcycles are there so that the members of the New Federation of the State of China can use the motorcycles for recreational purposes. Okay? So these are clearly Kwok assets. These are worth thousands and thousands of dollars. They're okay where they are. As I said, I'm not concerned at this time with the security at the Mahwah mansion. I want to be clear about that. But, clearly these are not under any circumstance Taurus Management assets. They're not on the list of assets by Taurus Management. We know who is the title owner of these motorcycles. And, you know, that would probably surprise you, but it's somebody who's related or has a close degree of relationship with a member of the Kwok family. So the point, Your Honor, is we need to address the immediate issue, which is what happened to the stuff at the Mahwah mansion. Two, we need a video tour of the Greenwich land property as soon as possible. And, three, we need to discuss eventually a procedure to extract from the Mahwah mansion things that even Taurus itself does not say\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 44 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 44 it owns but that are located at the Mahwah mansion such as the motorcycles and tons of other assets of Mr. Kwok in that property that are not listed on the Taurus Management assets and that we have pictures of at The Sherry Netherland. So I could take you, you know, through a painstaking review of a vase here or a couch there, but I think the pictures are pretty telling. And at this point, I'll stop and answer any questions Your Honor may have. THE COURT: So I do have a question or two just based upon what you've said in both the document that you filed requesting the status conference and what you've just said on the record. So this is a status conference. So are you planning on filing some kind of motion to require the -- you're talking about Mr. Kwok's bodyguard and Mr. Fallon, whom I believe Mr. Conway had mentioned at some point during a hearing in the Taurus Fund adversary proceeding. How are you -- how -- what is it that you are expecting the Court to do? MR. DESPINS: Yeah. Frankly, Your Honor -- and you might think we're cutting corners, but we're trying to save fees wherever we can. I believe the Court can sua sponte direct Taurus Management to produce those people at a hearing in court to answer these questions given the circumstances here. We're not talking about, you know, a briefing on the issue of alter ego. We're talking about\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 45 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 45 assets not being there. By the way, if we find them, great. That's wonderful. But I think -- and also I want to point out, there's a very expensive, expensive security system in Mahwah with cameras everywhere. So there should be -- somebody would control that, right? The \"owner,\" Taurus, would have access to these videos. And that would show who took these paintings down and the vases and all that. So therefore, yes, we could file a motion, Your Honor. But we think that the Court sua sponte can order the -- these people to appear in court to answer these questions the same way you've directed Mr. Mitchell to appear and answer some questions in the past. And, you know, they're parties. Barnett is a defendant. Taurus Management is a defendant. And in the case of Greenwich Land, I think the Court also has the power sua sponte to order -- and I would think that, frankly, Mr. Major would consent to that, because if he doesn't consent, how does that look that, what, there's a concern here? I mean, this would be a two-hour video. We would do this very professionally. So I would hope that either they would consent to that or the Court would order it. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Well, that's only the first part. Then the second part is that -- well, I guess\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 46 that is both. That's bringing the people into court and also seeking a video. But let's turn to the Taurus Fund situation first, because I think that's a little more direct insofar as, Mr. Conway, I ordered you and you did supply a list of assets owned by the Taurus Fund. And the debt -- the trustee is asserting that there are other assets located -- and I -- I'm fairly certain that I don't have it in front of me at the moment, that that order, you know, included a list of everything on the grounds or in the mansion, so everywhere associated with that property. And, apparently, the assertion is that there is many other -- there are many other items of property in the Mahwah mansion or on the grounds of the Mahwah mansion that are not listed in your list of assets. So have you had an opportunity to review what the trustee's saying versus what has been filed on behalf of the Taurus Fund in this adversary proceeding as to the assets that are owned by the Taurus Fund? MR. CONWAY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Michael Conway. And since I didn't get my appearance on the record earlier, Michael Conway, Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle. I represent the defendants in the Taurus Fund matter. Your Honor, I have obviously not had time to go through item by item these picture. I truly don't\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 46 of 72\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 47 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 47 understand what the emergency is. I gathered from this motion that the trustee find -- found that there is additional objects at the Mahwah house that were not on our list. And my understanding is that that was not an uncommon thing for the New Federal State of China's events. They would bring in to stage -- whether it be for that video we watched in court or for the fundraising events, what have you. I do know this, that when I got involved, Your\n\n Honor, which was literally the -- a day or two before the hearing, I instructed the folks not to remove anything. It didn't matter if it was on our list or otherwise. I felt that the -- this Court's injunction was fairly expansive and that nothing should be removed from the premises, whether we owned it or not.\n\n So I think you'll find that that might be one reason why if there is anybody out here who claims this other property they haven't removed it, because you said don't. And as the trustee has indicated, we have a security force in place that's not letting anybody in, not letting anybody remove anything.\n\n So, yeah, there are -- is property on the premises that's not -- that does not belong to Taurus Fund. It was brought there to stage for various events. But that does not seem to be a Taurus Fund issue. It seems to be an issue\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 48 related to whatever entity the trustee says owns that property. THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure that's accurate. I mean, you're -- right now, the Taurus Fund, you've come in and said the Taurus Fund owns the property, that -- and that you're in control of the property. Well, if -- and it wasn't just about removal. It was about bringing things to the Mahwah mansion, apparently. That's the assertion since the March 15 events of this year. So I'm not sure I would agree with you that it's somebody else's problem. You're in control. Your clients are in control of this property. You've agreed to the security firm. I've ordered that there be a security firm given what all the assertions were. And I'm not sure why you can't, as counsel to Mahwah -- I mean, excuse me, to the Taurus Fund indicate what is on the property or at the property that you don't own. Remember, we've got insurance issues here too. We have no insurance on this property. So the trustee says -- MR. CONWAY: There's no reason to -- THE COURT: And, wait, let me -- MR. CONWAY: I'm sorry. THE COURT: -- let me just finish my thought for a second, and then I'm happy to hear from you. But the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 48 of 72\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 49 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 49 trustee says -- and I have no -- you know, I'm listening to what the trustee says. There isn't anything before me that establishes what he's saying. But he's saying that, for example, there were four expensive motorcycles removed from the house in Greenwich that are in Mahwah. Now, if that's in Mahwah or on the property or in the premises, your people should know that. And I don't see what the burden would be for them to tell me that. I want to know what's there at the property, not just what you own. I mean, you could -- for -- because, for example -- I mean, you're saying they bring stuff in to stage things. Well, I don't think they ever did that before March 15, 2023, number one. Number two, that's like saying somebody could pull up to the Mahwah mansion with a -- I don't know, a Ferrari and let it sit there, and you could say, yeah, well, it's not ours. Well, you know, you'd have to account to -- for that to this Court at this point given the events that have occurred and the orders that are in place in the adversary proceeding. I think that's -- I don't -- I think that is important. I mean, the -- we asked you for a list of all -- I didn't ask you. I ordered a list of all assets. I didn't understand that that meant that there were a lot of other\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 50 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 50 assets there that you don't own, that your clients claim they don't own. Well, if they claim they don't own them, I want to know what it is they claim they don't own that's on the property. I think that's more than reasonable under the circumstances of the case, considering that none of them have come forward to the Court individually and -- even though we've been told or I've been told once or twice -- there's two different names I've heard. So I want that done. That's easy. And I'll give you a week to do that. No more than a week. I want it by noontime on the 31st of October. I want to know what else -- MR. CONWAY: (Indiscernible). THE COURT: -- is at the property besides the list of the assets that you were already required to file with this Court, even if they're not owned by Taurus Fund. Because then why are they there if you don't own them? It's not about -- MR. CONWAY: May I respond? THE COURT: It's not about a company coming in and setting up an event. MR. CONWAY: May I respond, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. CONWAY: I don't think that there's any\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 51 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>51                          |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | question in the trustee's mind as to what's there.<br>The     |\n| 2  | trustee has done extensive inventory.<br>Now, if what you're  |\n| 3  | saying is you want us to do a walkthrough and say, okay,      |\n| 4  | that item is not ours, that item is not ours, that item is    |\n| 5  | not ours, I -- we're happy to do that.                        |\n| 6  | The problem is going to be -- well, I mean, it's              |\n| 7  | not really a problem.<br>It's we know what's there, and we    |\n| 8  | know what's ours.<br>And so we can deduce what's not ours.    |\n| 9  | But I'm not sure still what the emergency is.<br>It           |\n| 10 | sounds like what the trustee is saying -- and this was --     |\n| 11 | and I -- you mischaracterized it, with all due respect, Your  |\n| 12 | Honor.<br>I didn't say it wasn't our problem.<br>I said that  |\n| 13 | there's persons with more knowledge.                          |\n| 14 | If, for instance, the Taconic house was the place             |\n| 15 | that was originally the location for a piece of art, then     |\n| 16 | they can produce somebody who says, yes, that piece of art    |\n| 17 | belongs to X.<br>All I can do is it does not belong to Taurus |\n| 18 | Fund.<br>There's a difference, and it's of limited value for  |\n| 19 | us to say --                                                  |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Well --                                         |\n| 21 | MR. CONWAY:<br>-- that doesn't belong to us.                  |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>You may think --                                |\n| 23 | MR. CONWAY:<br>What you want is to know who it                |\n| 24 | belongs to.                                                   |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>You may think it's of limited value to          |\n|    | Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 52 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 52 you, but it's not as limited value to these bankruptcy cases. So, yes, you're going to do that. And it's not this item. It's the -- let's presume the trustee's correct. I don't know what kind of motorcycle he said. He said some word I've heard before about an expensive motorcycle brand. Then you need to say that the red Maserati motorcycle, which it isn't that, but whatever it was, that's located -- MR. CONWAY: Understood. THE COURT: -- in the garage or in -- somewhere on the land is not ours. I mean, you know, what's what you're going to do. And I'm -- and the trustee can be there with you or have a representative or your security guards take pictures. I mean, I thought we had a detailed log of all comings and goings at the property. So where is that? MR. CONWAY: We do, Your Honor. No. There's been nothing nefarious or anything like that. We got involved in this case. It's been status quo ever since. There's nothing that's happened. And there's nothing in the motion that suggests that anything has happened since you got involved with this house. MR. DESPINS: No. THE COURT: Yes, there is. MR. DESPINS: No, you -- MR. CONWAY: No, there's not.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 53 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 53 THE COURT: There's a lot of things that have suggested things have happened, that there are things that have come into -- MR. CONWAY: Okay. Well, I'm just saying, Your Honor, I read their motion very thoroughly, and I didn't see a single thing that had anything to do with anything that's happened since this case was filed. MR. DESPINS: Well, Your Honor, he's correct, but that doesn't change the analysis. Meaning Taurus was the owner all along. So the issue -- he wants to talk about what's not there is what's on the list. But critically here, items have disappeared from the walls at the mansion owned -- allegedly owned by Taurus. That is the first order of business from the trustee's point of view. Where is that stuff? And they should come and testify as to that. MR. CONWAY: So, Your Honor, the other thing I was going to mention is that if you want us to go to the property and walk through even with the trustee, I don't think that the order as written even allows me to go to the property. So we'd need something that says that Mr. Conway and whoever he needs to go can go and do the walkthrough on the property. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, if I may? I think we should stage this. The first order of business is the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 54 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 54 missing items. THE COURT: Well, you need to -- MR. DESPINS: We need evidence. THE COURT: You need to have a list of the missing items, Trustee Despins, right? MR. DESPINS: We have -- they're all listed in the pictures with big circles and the pages. I can, just for the record, give them again. Tab 11, 12, 35, 48. Those are the tabs that contain the missing items. And I don't expect -- THE COURT: That you say should be in the Mahwah mansion? That's what you're saying? MR. DESPINS: Yes. That -- THE COURT: They should be in the Mahwah mansion? MR. DESPINS: That we're -- we have pictures of those items in the Mahwah mansion. But on September 1st, those pictures show an empty wall or a empty desk where there was a vase or, you know, other things that are missing. That's very clear from -- and I -- you know, to be fair to Mr. Conway, he may not have had a chance to review what we filed. But it's clearly laid out there exactly what's missing or -- and I hope it will be found, like the piano. I don't know where it's -- it's floating somewhere. That's worth \\$250,000. I mean, the point is, that should be\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 55 at the Mahwah mansion, and it's not there anymore per the September 1st visit. So that happened between March 15th and September 1st. And Taurus was the owner. Mr. Fallon or whoever was in charge at that time, Mr. Barnett, should come and explain to the Court what happened to those items or where they are. Or maybe they can return them. MR. CONWAY: And with respect to that, Your Honor, there's no item that was owned by Taurus that's missing. What he's suggesting is that there's items that appeared for a limited period of time that belong to someone else that are no longer there. So we're going to have to find somebody who can explain to us who owned those items and where are they now. But it's not -- MR. DESPINS: No, no. MR. CONWAY: -- on Taurus' person. MR. DESPINS: No. Who owns it is -- I know who owns it. It's Kwok. But the point is, that's irrelevant. They were in the Taurus house, and they're no longer there. And that happened under Taurus management. They should know, because that's their house, right? They controlled it and all that. They should know what happened to it. And if they don't, that speaks for itself. But they should at least know about the videos, how to retrieve the data from the extensive security system Case 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 55 of 72\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 56 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>56                            |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | that is there to show who was in the house, you know, after     |\n| 2  | March 15th, who took these paintings and artwork from the       |\n| 3  | premises.<br>That should be in the videos.<br>And at least they |\n| 4  | should be able to tell us that they checked that and that       |\n| 5  | they don't know.                                                |\n| 6  | But the point is that, Your Honor, that is the                  |\n| 7  | first order of business.<br>Because the other items, Your       |\n| 8  | Honor, that are there and are Kwok's -- clearly Kwok's -- I     |\n| 9  | think it's all Kwok's.<br>But for the record, that are clearly  |\n| 10 | from Kwok, you know, they're not going to be stolen now.<br>I   |\n| 11 | feel comfortable.<br>But right now, there's no emergency as to  |\n| 12 | that, although we should get to that, and Taurus should be      |\n| 13 | providing the information we've asked for, Your Honor.          |\n| 14 | But the first order of business is, what happened               |\n| 15 | to the missing items?<br>And Taurus cannot say, well, I'm       |\n| 16 | sorry, it's not my stuff.<br>It was at the property.<br>That's  |\n| 17 | clearly established from the evidence we produced.              |\n| 18 | MR. CONWAY:<br>And just to be clear -- keep the                 |\n| 19 | record absolutely complete on that, Your Honor, it is not       |\n| 20 | the responsibility of a homeowner if somebody brings a piece    |\n| 21 | of property to their home to then keep an inventory of it       |\n| 22 | thereon -- thereafter wherever they might take it.<br>Just      |\n| 23 | because somebody --                                             |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>We don't --                                       |\n| 25 | MR. CONWAY:<br>-- brought something to the                      |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 57 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 57 property -- THE COURT: Mr. Connolly? I mean, Mr. Conway? MR. CONWAY: -- and then took it off the property -- THE COURT: Mr. Conway? MR. CONWAY: Pardon? THE COURT: We're not talking about somebody bringing something to a homeowner's house. So let's move on from that. These are -- we all know what we're talking about. MR. CONWAY: Okay. We are, Your Honor. I'm sorry, Your Honor, but we are. THE COURT: We're talking about serious issues here with regard to assets. So, look, this is what I'm going to -- MR. CONWAY: We're talking about a couple of vases -- THE COURT: This is what -- no. Excuse me. MR. CONWAY: -- and one calligraphy -- THE COURT: Excuse me. MR. CONWAY: -- and that's it. THE COURT: Excuse me. This is what I'm going to do. You and Trustee Despins are going to have a conference after this hearing, and you're going to figure out how this is going to work out or not. And we're going to continue --\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 58 and then I will have a further conference with both of you on this issue. I'm not going to listen to it doesn't matter if somebody else brought some property to this property, and it's not our problem. That's not going to work. So you need to figure out whether you can come to some form of an agreement on how this is going to work or not. But that is not going to happen. We're not going to have a situation where there is property other than what it is owned by the Taurus Fund at that mansion during the pendency of this adversary proceeding. You need to see if you can work this out. And if you can't, then the Court will make some determination. But I'm not doing -- I'm not going to listen to these arguments about if somebody brings somebody -- something to your house, you don't have to worry about it. That's ridiculous. Okay? We're not dealing with that. MR. CONWAY: It's not ridiculous, Your Honor. But that aside, Your Honor is suggesting that you don't want these extra property to be at the house? Because that's an issue that the trustee and I can clearly work out. THE COURT: That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I didn't say anything to that -- to -- MR. CONWAY: Well, that's what I heard. That's why I'm asking the question, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 58 of 72\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 59 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 59 THE COURT: I didn't ask -- I said to you, I want to know what other property is there that your client claims it doesn't own. And I want to know specifically what other property is there that your client claims it doesn't own and where exactly it's located. And maybe you and Mr. Despins are going to go through it together this week and go to the house and get that done. Because I'm not going to spend my time on this. This is a waste of the Court's time. MR. CONWAY: Your Honor, that's clear. That's clear. My confusion was when you said that you didn't want the property there during the pendency of the case that confused me. THE COURT: No. I said during the pendency of the case, we're not going to have arguments about property that's at the property that you don't -- your client doesn't own. I want to know what property is at the property that your client doesn't own, and I want your client to swear to it. Where is the person? There's never a person for Taurus Fund who signs or does anything. So your client's going to swear that they went through this property, and this is the property that they don't own, and this is what it is, and this is where it's located. And they're going to swear it's never going to be\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 60 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 60 removed until further order of the Court. And that could be on many ways. Somebody who claims they own it could come in and ask for the Court to allow it to be removed. There's many different ways that could be accomplished. But with regard to this situation, that's how it's going to work. So I'm going to give you 48 -- I'm going to give you less than 48 hours to report back to me on how it's going to work. And then if it -- there isn't an agreement, then I'll do whatever I think is appropriate under the circumstances. I don't know what that's going to be yet, because I want to hear what you both have to say after you've had this conversation. But you can't have somebody -- you filed a list. I don't believe, Mr. Conway, it was ever signed by your client. I think it was -- you submitted it under your -- as counsel. And that's fine. But now things have changed. And I want your client to sign under penalty of perjury the assets that are at the property that it claims it does not own specifically by item and location. Do you have any questions about that? MR. CONWAY: No. It just seems like we need to get the total inventory to -- as the house is today, which means that the trustee and I need to go there and do that. And then we can sign the appropriate piece of paper. THE COURT: That's fine. So you can talk about\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 61 that. Now, Mr. Major, the trustee's making representations that there are -- there is property in the Greenwich house that's been removed from the Greenwich house as well, and he wants to go in and take a video. What's the -- what's your position with regard to his wanting to go into the Greenwich property and inventory what is in the Greenwich property? MR. MAJOR: Your Honor, I'd like an opportunity to confer with my client and to review the trustee's motion -- not -- well, it was in a motion to set the status conference which was filed yesterday and filed as an emergency. Now, I don't think it's fair to my client for the trustee, who no doubt -- I mean, these videos -- or, you know, I guess they're still shots from videos which are now three-plus years old, are being relied upon to set an emergency to then ask for substantive relief today. And the motion was filed by the trustee yesterday knowing for sure that the Court already had In Re Kwok matters scheduled today and that the status conference would be scheduled right away. I haven't had time to address the assertions in the trustee's motion. And I'm going to need time to do that with my client in the first instance and an interpreter so that I can understand what the assertions are.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 62 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 62 But just to set the stage here, what the trustee has apparently done -- and I'm sure the time records that the trustee attaches with his various fee applications will reflect when his team first started looking at these Kwok videos online. But I'm sure it was quite a while ago. I think that to call -- with respect to Greenwich Land, to call this an emergency motion and then to ask us in less than 24 hours to respond when there's no motion pending seeking any relief other than setting the status conference is not fair to my client, and it doesn't give me an adequate opportunity, frankly, to address the Court. I think that the most important thing for me to be able to do is to review the motion and the various photographs with my client and understand what the position is. But the idea for the trustee to say that I would just come on and consent and if I don't consent to him invading my client's home and videoing her home and that if I don't consent that that somehow is a tell that we're concerned about something is not -- is, frankly, not a reasonable position to take. I'd like to know when the trustee first came to the conclusion that property had been moved from Taconic to the Mahwah property as he asserts in his motion and why I wasn't approached about that. Because we're now in front of the Court. I'm not in a position where I can respond\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 63 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>63                            |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | substantively for the Court, because I haven't been given an    |\n| 2  | opportunity to do the research I need to do.<br>And I don't     |\n| 3  | know what my client's position would be after I, you know,      |\n| 4  | get a better understanding of the facts.                        |\n| 5  | I think the best thing to do would be to continue               |\n| 6  | this as to Greenwich land and Mrs. Guo, my client, for a        |\n| 7  | week.<br>Let me get to the bottom of it.<br>I'm happy to confer |\n| 8  | with a trustee in the meantime.<br>But, frankly, we've been,    |\n| 9  | you know, hit with this, and I haven't had any time to get      |\n| 10 | to the bottom of it.                                            |\n| 11 | So, Your Honor, I don't know what to say.<br>I tried            |\n| 12 | watching some of the videos from which they took the still      |\n| 13 | shots.<br>They're not in English, so I can't determine, you     |\n| 14 | know, what was said by the speaker on those videos.<br>I        |\n| 15 | just -- I'm not in a position to respond substantively for      |\n| 16 | the Court.                                                      |\n| 17 | I can't imagine, though, that there's an emergency              |\n| 18 | created by these three-plus-year-old videos that would          |\n| 19 | require me to respond substantively in less than 24 hours.      |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Your Honor, if I may?                           |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Well, the status conference motion                |\n| 22 | didn't require a response, Attorney Major.<br>So I just -- it   |\n| 23 | didn't require a response.<br>But I asked you what your         |\n| 24 | position would be, and I understand your position that          |\n| 25 | you've just articulated that you'd like at least this to be     |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 64 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>64                            |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | continued for a week so you can talk -- you can look at         |\n| 2  | information, you can discuss it with your clients, and then,    |\n| 3  | I assume, have a follow-up conversation with the trustee.       |\n| 4  | Not a follow-up.<br>You haven't had a conversation.<br>But what |\n| 5  | I'm saying is, after you discuss this with your clients, and    |\n| 6  | you review this information, you would have a discussion        |\n| 7  | with the trustee.                                               |\n| 8  | That's your request, correct?                                   |\n| 9  | MR. MAJOR:<br>Yes, Your Honor.<br>Just to put a little          |\n| 10 | bit of context on why I'm asking for a week, which I think      |\n| 11 | in the normal case would be a perfectly fine amount of time.    |\n| 12 | But it's not a situation where I can just call up the           |\n| 13 | general counsel and say here's the situation, I just emailed    |\n| 14 | you some pictures, let's talk about it.                         |\n| 15 | I have to set a meeting in person with my client                |\n| 16 | and with an interpreter who has a day job in the courts.        |\n| 17 | And so I have to logistically arrange that meeting.<br>It's     |\n| 18 | the only way I'm able to effectively communicate with my        |\n| 19 | client.<br>And so I need a little bit of time to be able to     |\n| 20 | have that meeting, get to the bottom of it, and then have an    |\n| 21 | initial discussion with the trustee or his lawyers to figure    |\n| 22 | out the best way forward.                                       |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                             |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:<br>And, Your Honor, if I may?<br>We                |\n| 25 | obtained confirmation that the motorcycles were at the          |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 65 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 65 Taconic property for the first time on Friday of last week. And, you know, Mr. Major's position sounds -- would be incredibly reasonable. I would agree with it in every case. Except in this case, there's an injunction that said that Greenwich Land should not deplete their bank accounts. Of course they did. We know that. Look at the summary judgment. I'm not asking you to rule on that. But, you know, they did that. They actually depleted the bank accounts. And so, therefore, this is not like a gentlemanly dispute between two groups here. There's bad conduct, bad actions. And so a week in this case is a year, because a lot of things can happen in a week. Not the debtor, but the debtor's wife here doesn't work. We can get an interpreter there tomorrow. And it's a pretty simple issue. We're not asking them to admit to anything. It's just preservation of evidence, which is a video. So, Your Honor, I wouldn't give them a week given the bad behavior here. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were siphoned out of this company from the sale of an asset that PAX had issued a notice of -- it's not -- it was not a lis pendens, but the equivalent of that under Delaware law. And the -- all that money went to affiliates, went to Zeisler, among other people.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 66 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 66 And now we're supposed to say, well, you know, let's be reasonable and all that. We're beyond that point, Your Honor. This is -- the reason it's an emergency is that we just discovered that confirmation on Friday. We're dealing with bad actors. I'm sorry to say that. I apologize. I wish I never had to say that. But bad actors who do bad things that defy court orders all the time, including Greenwich Land depleting its bank accounts while there was an injunction by Your Honor to do -- not to do that. So I don't know. I don't want to be dramatic about it, but it's of concern. So he doesn't need a week to do that. It's a simple procedure. So we'd ask Your Honor not to agree to the week extension. THE COURT: Mr. Major, do you have any response? MR. MAJOR: Your Honor, just -- yeah. I'm sorry. THE COURT: No. Go right ahead. MR. MAJOR: Your Honor, I'm not asking for a week extension for anything. The only thing that the trustee asked for was for a status conference. And I appeared at the status conference in less than 24 hours. Now what the trustee is saying is let's dispense with motion practice, let's dispense with due process, and let me invade this woman's home and videotape it, even though they know that she has legitimate security concerns.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 67 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 67 And there have been disputes in the past about what the trustee has done with photographic and videographic pictures relating to the debtor's family members. I'm not asking for an extension. Right now, there's nothing pending that would require us to respond other than appearing here today. What I am asking for is an opportunity to speak with my client and show her the pictures and understand what the assertions by the trustee are. The trustee, he was careful in his response. He said he just got confirmation that the motorcycles were, in fact, at the Taconic property. Well, he knew they were in Mahwah, New Jersey, I think if I understand the papers correctly, as of about six or seven weeks ago on September 1st. MR. DESPINS: That's right. MR. MAJOR: And the pictures that the trustee says are the debtor riding those motorcycles at the Taconic Road property, those appear to be -- from the plain language of the trustee's submission yesterday, appear to be videos that date back to 2021. It doesn't -- it's nothing that has happened recently. And so I don't understand why I can't have a little bit of time to speak with my client, to confer with the trustee's lawyers, because they didn't reach out to me\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 68 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 68 before their filing yesterday, and see if this is something that can be resolved. And if not, we could probably come up with a -- I think a streamlined procedure to put the issue to the Court. But I'm just asking for an opportunity to be able to speak with my client intelligently and understand what the assertions are here. But I just want to be clear, I'm not asking for an extension, because there's nothing that exists right now that requires me to do anything than I've already done. THE COURT: Anything further from anyone? Okay. Mr. Conway and Mr. Despins, you're going to meet and confer and then report to the Court in a written report by 2 p.m. on Thursday whether or not you've reached some form of an agreement with regard to the assets that are at the property that are not owned by the Taurus Fund. And the Taurus Fund, regardless of whether there's an agreement reached or not, is going to file a list signed by a representative of the Taurus Fund, under penalty of perjury, by next Tuesday, the 31st of October, specifically delineating all the assets that are at the estate in Mahwah, regardless of whether they're owned by the Taurus Fund. So the trustee and Mr. Conway, your first requirement is to meet and confer and then file by 2 p.m. on Thursday a report with regard to that meet and confer and to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 69 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 69 see what, if anything, you've agreed to with regard to the issues raised in the status request. And then, Mr. Conway, as I said, regardless of that, your client has to sign under penalty of perjury by Tuesday, you know, as far as an affidavit or a declaration by Tuesday the 31st, a list of all assets on or in the Mahwah mansion. And I think we've, in prior orders, been very clear about that it includes something that could be on the grounds of the Mahwah mansion. It doesn't need to be inside the Mahwah mansion. Mr. Major and Mr. Despins, you're going to meet and confer and file a report by Friday at 2 p.m. as to whether you have any form of an agreement with regard to the Greenwich property. And if you don't, then I'll act -- I don't know what I will do, but I'll see what I -- what I'll figure out. But, Mr. Major, I understand that you need some time to talk to your client. But today's Tuesday. It's 3:00. And I'm giving you until Friday at 2 p.m. to try to have those conversations and see what, if anything, you can accomplish between now and Friday. And then we will go from there. Does anyone have any questions? MR. CONWAY: Just one, Your Honor. After we file whatever we file with you on Thursday, I'm going to -- I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 70 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023<br>70                           |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | anticipate I'm going to need some sort of a -- an order that   |\n| 2  | just says that whatever the plan is for making a visit is      |\n| 3  | ordered by Your Honor so the -- you know, the security         |\n| 4  | doesn't stop us.<br>I anticipate they're going to need --      |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                             |\n| 6  | MR. CONWAY:<br>-- to bring in the manager --                   |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                             |\n| 8  | MR. CONWAY:<br>-- and so on.<br>And but we can work            |\n| 9  | that out.<br>The trustee and I can work that out and put it in |\n| 10 | our report to you.<br>I just want to give you the heads-up     |\n| 11 | that I'm anticipating, based on the injunction, that that --   |\n| 12 | I'll need that.                                                |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:<br>I believe, Your Honor, under the               |\n| 14 | order the trustee may authorize people to give access.<br>So   |\n| 15 | I'm sure I can authorize Mr. Conway to have access or one of   |\n| 16 | his colleagues or -- so we can work that out.                  |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Well, you -- exactly.<br>You can talk            |\n| 18 | about that during your meet and confer.<br>And if the existing |\n| 19 | order already can provide for that without a further order,    |\n| 20 | fine.<br>And if it can't, then a further order can enter.      |\n| 21 | Okay?                                                          |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                         |\n| 23 | MR. CONWAY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                          |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So that'll be the filing on --          |\n| 25 | with Mr. Conway and Trustee Despins.                           |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 71 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 71 And then Mr. Major and Mr. -- and Trustee Despins, you'll file your filing on Friday by 2 p.m. And then we'll see where we go from there. But you're all ordered to meet and confer and see what you can accomplish with regard to these issues. I understand that you may not be able to accomplish everything or anything, but we'll -- I'm ordering you to try to -- to see what you can do. And then we will take the next steps. So is there anything further we need to address this afternoon in the Kwok Chapter 11 jointly administered cases or any of the adversary proceedings that are on the docket today? MR. DESPINS: Not from the trustee, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then thank you, all. That was our last hearing today, so Court is adjourned. IN UNISON: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Court is adjourned. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. (Proceedings concluded at 2:49 p.m.)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 72 of 72\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023                             | 72 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| 1  | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved                         |    |\n| 2  | transcriber and certified electronic reporter and          |    |\n| 3  | transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct       |    |\n| 4  | transcript from the official electronic sound recording of |    |\n| 5  | the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.              |    |\n| 6  |                                                            |    |\n| 7  |                                                            |    |\n| 8  |                                                            |    |\n| 9  | November 1, 2023                                           |    |\n| 10 | Christine Fiore, CERT                                      |    |\n| 11 |                                                            |    |\n| 12 |                                                            |    |\n| 13 |                                                            |    |\n| 14 |                                                            |    |\n| 15 |                                                            |    |\n| 16 |                                                            |    |\n| 17 |                                                            |    |\n| 18 |                                                            |    |\n| 19 |                                                            |    |\n| 20 |                                                            |    |\n| 21 |                                                            |    |\n| 22 |                                                            |    |\n| 23 |                                                            |    |\n| 24 |                                                            |    |\n| 25 |                                                            |    |\n|    |                                                            |    |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院布里奇波特分庭\n\n关于\n\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（杰尼弗控股公司），\n\n债务人。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，\n\n对抗诉讼案号 23-05005\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nGREENWICH LAND, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）等，\n\n被告。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，\n\n对抗诉讼案号 23-05008\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nGUO（郭），\n\n被告。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）等，\n\n对抗诉讼案号 23-05013\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nHCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.（HCHK科技公司）等，\n\n被告。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）等，\n\n对抗诉讼案号 23-05017\n\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nTAURUS FUND LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等，\n\n被告。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 2 of 72\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官面前进行的程序记录\n\n程序由电子录音记录，文字记录由转录服务机构制作。\n\n2270号命令：安排就 G CLUB（G俱乐部）文件举行听证会\n\n2279号命令：准许第11章受托人就讨论保全破产财产而提出的紧急状态会议动议，并命令特定律师出席状态会议\n\n90号命令：准许第11章受托人就讨论保全破产财产而提出的紧急状态会议动议，并命令特定律师出席状态会议\n\n32号强制披露动议\n\n157号命令：安排就 G-CLUB 文件举行听证会\n\n71号命令：准许第11章受托人就讨论保全破产财产而提出的紧急状态会议动议，并命令特定律师出席状态会议\n\n出庭人员：\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代理第11章受托人：\nAVRAM EMMANUEL LUFT（阿夫拉姆·伊曼纽尔·卢夫特）, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nDOUGLAS S. SKALKA（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡）, ESQ.\nNeubert Pepe and Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂斯律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代理债权人委员会：\nJONATHAN KAPLAN（乔纳森·卡普兰）, ESQ.\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代理债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：\nSTUART M. SARNOFF（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫）, ESQ.\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nANNECCA H. SMITH（安妮卡·H·史密斯）, ESQ.\nRobinson & Cole LLP（罗宾逊与科尔有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代理 Taurus Fund, LLC：\nMICHAEL T. CONWAY（迈克尔·T·康韦）, ESQ.\nLazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle, LLP（拉扎尔·波特·贾科瓦斯与莫伊尔有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n747 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10017\n\n代理 HING CHI NGOK（邢志岳）及 Greenwich Land, LLC：\nCHRISTOPHER J. MAJOR（克里斯托弗·J·梅杰）, ESQ.\nMeister Seelig & Fein LLP（迈斯特·西利格与费恩有限责任合伙律师事务所）\n125 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10017\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代理原告 HK International Funds（香港国际基金）及 MEI GUO（郭梅）：\nMELISSA F. WERNICK（梅利莎·F·韦尼克）, ESQ.\nChiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, PC（切萨·沙希尼安与贾恩托马西专业公司）\n105 Eisenhauer Pkwy\nRoseland, NJ 07068\n\nJAMES M. MORIARTY（詹姆斯·M·莫里亚蒂）, ESQ.\n\nERIC A. HENZY（埃里克·A·亨齐）, ESQ.\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒专业公司）\n10 Middle Street, 15th FL\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代理 HCHK 债权人：\nPAUL FENAROLI（保罗·费纳罗利）, ESQ.\nPastore, LLC（帕斯托雷有限责任公司）\n4 High Ridge Park, Third Floor\nStamford, CT 06905\n\n代理 G Clubs Operations, LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）：\nJEFFREY M. SKLARZ（杰弗里·M·斯克拉兹）, ESQ.\nGreen & Sklarz, LLC（格林与斯克拉兹有限责任公司）\nOne Audubon Street\nNew Haven, CT 06511\n\nCAROLINA FORNOS（卡罗琳娜·福尔诺斯）, ESQ.\nPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman（皮尔斯伯里·温思罗普·肖·皮特曼律师事务所）\n31 West 52nd Street\nNew York, NY 10019\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 5\n\n（程序于下午1:44开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）和 Genever Holdings, LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司）；23-05005，Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，诉 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）等；23-05008，Luc A. Despins，第11章受托人，诉 Guo（郭）；23-50——抱歉，5013，Despins 等诉 HCHK Technologies, Inc.（HCHK科技公司）等；23-05017，Despins 等诉 Taurus Fund, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）等。\n\n法官：好的。下午好。请各方为记录目的报出出庭身份，先从第11章受托人开始。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章受托人。我与我的律师 Paul Hastings 的 Avi Luft 一同出庭。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nSKALKA先生：下午好，法官阁下。抱歉。下午好，法官阁下。Douglas Skalka 也作为第11章受托人的本地律师代表其出庭。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nFENAROLI先生：下午好，法官阁下。Paul Fenaroli，代表 Pastore, LLC。我今天下午仅到场旁听。\n\nSKLARZ先生：下午好，法官阁下。Jeffrey Sklarz，Green & Sklarz 律师事务所，代表 G Club，与首席律师、Pillsbury Winthrop 的 Carolina Fornos 一同出庭。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 6 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 6\n\nFORNOS女士：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nSARNOFF先生：下午好，法官阁下。Stuart Sarnoff，O'Melveny & Myers 律师事务所，代表债权人 PAX。\n\nMAJOR先生：下午好，法官阁下。Chris Major，Meister Seelig & Fein 律师事务所。我们代表 Greenwich Land, LLC 和 Hing Chi Ngok 女士。\n\nSMITH女士：下午好，法官阁下。Annecca Smith，Robinson+Cole 律师事务所，也与 Sarnoff 先生共同代表 PAX。\n\nWERNICK女士：下午好，法官阁下。Melissa Wernick，来自 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi，代表5008号对抗诉讼中的 Guo 女士。\n\nMORIARTY先生：下午好，法官阁下。James Moriarty，来自 Zeisler & Zeisler，是该同一对抗诉讼23-05008中 Guo 女士的本地律师。\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，我是 Zeisler & Zeisler 的 Eric Henzy，代表债务人。\n\nKAPLAN先生：下午好。我是 Jonathan Kaplan，代表债权人委员会。\n\n法官：Conway先生，出于某种原因，我们听不到您说话，尽管我能看到您正在说话。我不确定为何我们听不到 Conway 先生。他似乎没有被静音。Conway先生，您能听到我们吗？如果能，您可以点头示意。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 7 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 7\n\n法官：看，我甚至认为他听不到我们。\n\n（律师商议。）\n\n法官：好的。Conway先生似乎正在连接音频，但尚未连接成功。美国受托人办公室的 Claiborn 律师在法庭内。您是否希望记载您的出庭身份？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：不，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。哦，不过你们能看见她。她在那里。好的。还有一名公众人士也在此旁听听证会。因此，今天排期审理若干事项。我看到昨晚深夜似乎就第23-5008号对抗诉讼提交了一份文件，内容涉及一项修改该对抗诉讼审前命令的联合动议。是这样吗，Despins受托人？\n\nDESPINS先生：Skalka先生正在处理该事项，法官阁下。我认为——\n\n法官：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：我认为是这样。但我让他来说明。\n\nSKALKA先生：法官阁下，确实如此。该动议的目的在于告知法院，受托人与 Guo 女士的律师之间似乎已达成一项协议，根据该协议，她同意于下周三，即 November 1st，出席作证笔录。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 8 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023\n\n该等当事人请求修改现有审前命令，以允许进行该项证据开示。\n\n因此，我们请求将证据开示截止期限延至 December——抱歉，November 10th，并将提交终局性动议的截止期限延至 November 28th。\n\n而且我认为，如果法官阁下同意，那么今日的强制披露动议可以因无实际意义而予以驳回。\n\n法官：好的。Wernick律师，您——您也表示就该事项到庭。\n\nWERNICK女士：正确。所提交的动议准确反映了当事人之间的协议。\n\n法官：好的。我注意到——我仅为记录目的指出，Wernick律师，贵所是唯一代表 Guo 女士签署该联合动议的律所，但 Zeisler 律所仍在本对抗诉讼中代表 Guo 女士出庭，对吗？\n\nWERNICK女士：正确。\n\n法官：好的。好。我已审阅你们的——该动议，该联合动议。我必须说，由于它是昨晚提交的，我只是非常简要地审阅了它。但它看来没有问题。在我看来，你们所请求的只是将完成事实证据开示的期限延长23天，以及将提交简易判决动议的期限延长11天。你们已将日期列入命令性段落，并且——如果录入该项准许修改审前命令的联合动议的命令，抱歉，那么强制披露动议将因无实际意义而被驳回。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 9 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023\n\n是否还有其他人希望就此问题陈述意见？\n\n那么，Skalka律师，您是否会对被告进行作证笔录？我只是——您会，但会在那个——\n\nSKALKA先生：会。\n\n法官：——在那段延长期限内的某个时候？\n\nSKALKA先生：会，法官阁下。当事人已同意她将于 November 1st 在我位于 New Haven 的办公室出席。\n\n法官：好的。好。那么，我将——本第23-05008号对抗诉讼中作为 ECF Number 37 提交的文件，我将录入该项准许修改审前命令的联合动议的命令，届时该强制披露动议将因无实际意义——因无实际意义而被驳回。好吗？\n\n那么，这是我们需要在该对抗诉讼中处理的唯一问题吗？\n\nSKALKA先生：我相信是的，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 10 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 10\n\nWERNICK女士：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。好。那么，谢谢二位。我认为我们应先处理该事项，因为它确实解决了这些问题。因此，由于修改审前命令，强制披露动议因无实际意义而被驳回。\n\nSKALKA先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法官：谢谢二位。\n\nWERNICK女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。Despins受托人，您接下来希望处理哪一事项？\n\nDESPINS先生：我认为，按出庭顺序而言，G Club事项是议程上的下一项。\n\n法官：那么请继续。无论由谁处理该事项，请继续。\n\nDESPINS先生：Luft先生将代表我处理该事项，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。请继续。\n\nLUFT先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nLUFT先生：我是 Paul Hastings 的 Avi Luft，代表第11章受托人。法官阁下，我们在此跟进9019和解以及其中规定受托人可查阅 HCHK 文件的条款。该条款很重要。其设定部分是为处理——应对成本问题，也因为需要该等信息。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 11 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 24, 2023 11\n\n这些文件，即 HCHK 在其档案中持有的文件，直接关系到影响该对抗诉讼的问题，该对抗诉讼是针对 HCHK 提出的法人人格混同主张。显然，显示债务人、其财务状况及与其有关实体之间联系的文件，正是可用于支持认定法人人格混同的证据类型。G Club 显然属于该类别，因为本法院已经认定该实体受债务人控制。\n\n如我所述，受让人破产财产与债务人破产财产同意该条款，部分原因是如果进行对抗性证据开示，原本会给两项破产财产造成重大资源和成本负担，而该条款将节省此类资源和成本。但毫无疑问，法官阁下，若我们未达成该协议，我们本会就完全相同的事项寻求证据开示，包括并尤其涉及 G Club，后者一贯出现在与债务人有关问题的核心。\n\n此前，我们已向 HCHK（HCHK）送达了 Rule 2004 传票。HCHK 的前任律师在该实体被受让人接管之前，显然没有提供准确信息或予以遵从，因为其就与债务人具有任何关联的 HCHK 文件总共仅出示了 148 份。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2301 提交于 11/02/23 录入于 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 12 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 24, 2023\n\n现在我们得知，实际上有数十万份此类符合请求范围的文件。这些文件本应被追索。\n\n同样地，若我们未能达成协议，我们当然会在本对抗程序中使用 Rule 26，寻求显示 HCHK 与债务人之间作为另一自我关系组成部分的关联的文件。\n\n现在，作为回应，G Club（G俱乐部）来到本院，起初称问题在于其无法访问电子邮件，因为电子邮件在 HCHK 那里，而其希望获得访问权限，以便遵从其另行收到的 Rule 2004 传票。随后不知从何时起，论点发生了转变。之后问题变成了 G Club 对这些文件的所有权。他们所称的是，位于 HCHK 持有范围及系统中的文件，A，包含享有特权的材料；B，不应交给受托人，因为这些文件对 2004 程序中向 G Club 发出的传票不具回应性，而尤其并非称其对与 HCHK 有关的证据开示不具回应性。\n\n法官阁下，该论点的基础始终是我认为的一个稻草人论证：HCHK 与 G Club 文件之间的唯一关系，是作为云端计算系统的管理者。而且，\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司）\n\n法官阁下，如果您查看 G Club 就此提交的书面意见，其中\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2301 提交于 11/02/23 录入于 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 13 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 24, 2023\n\n我相信是在主案的 Docket 2244——或 Document 2244——中，您会看到其在第 6 页称：“HCHK 仅仅是一家云端企业的管理者（听不清）。”\n\n再往下一些：G Club 并未“与 HCHK 共享其声称享有特权的信息。其只是与第三方签订合同，由该第三方运营文件管理系统。”\n\n随后其在第 7 页称：“受托人玩弄了一些障眼法，将 G Club 描述为允许 HCHK 访问其文件。”\n\n然后第 8 页称：“HCHK 仅仅托管 G Club 数据。”\n\n因此，法官阁下，我希望从主服务协议着手，该协议在本对抗程序中为 Document 88，G Club 据以提出其主张，或据以能够主张这些文件的依据，但其却刻意从未引用该协议。我认为，该文件非常清楚地表明，HCHK 并非仅仅托管 G Club 数据。\n\n法庭：请稍等。您所说的主服务协议是在案卷中的某处——\n\nLUFT 律师（卢夫特律师）：是。\n\n法庭：——在对抗程序的案卷中？您是这么说的吗？\n\nLUFT 律师：是的，法官阁下。我相信是 Document 88。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2301 提交于 11/02/23 录入于 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 14 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 24, 2023\n\n法庭：好的。请给我一点时间。\n\nLUFT 律师：当然，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：是在 Adversary 5013 中，对吗？\n\nLUFT 律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。等等。我认为不是 88。如果是 88，我没有看到任何内容。\n\nLUFT 律师：我会核实，法官阁下。有人告诉我，未删节副本在那里。我知道它是我们提交的书面意见的 Exhibit A，位于 Exhibit——Document Number 86。\n\n法庭：好的。让我回到那里。\n\n（法庭商议）\n\n法庭：好的。给我一分钟。然后我就能找到。请您暂且耐心等待片刻。\n\nLUFT 律师：当然。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：好的。所以您是要我看该文件第 20 页。您是这个意思吗，Luft 律师？\n\nLUFT 律师：不是，法官阁下。只需看主服务协议的第一页。\n\n法庭：好的。等等。那么我——\n\nLUFT 律师：我将从那里开始。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2301 提交于 11/02/23 录入于 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 15 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 24, 2023\n\n法庭：我得找到它。我认为第一页在第 20 页——\n\nLUFT 律师：当然。\n\n法庭：——是第一页。好的。我现在看到主服务协议的第一页了。\n\nLUFT 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。不幸的是，我必须指出，这份文件又被 G Club 标注为高度保密，因此我们需要采取预防措施。我知道您提到——我相信电话上的每个人都受保护令约束，但您提到现场有一名公众成员。\n\n法庭：那么您——您是否要谈论具体事项？或者您不如只告诉我相关之处，我可以自行阅读，这样我们就不必将其纳入记录。\n\nLUFT 律师：好的，法官阁下。让我们尽量这样做。因此，如果我们看第一个鉴于条款——\n\n法庭：嗯。\n\nLUFT 律师：——关于他们订约要做的事项，法官阁下，我认为协议的目的很清楚。接下来，我请法庭查看第 1.1 节，该节说明服务范围，并指引读者查看列明该等服务的 Exhibit A。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2301 提交于 11/02/23 录入于 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 16 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 24, 2023\n\n如果翻到该文件的 Exhibit A，即签署页之后紧接的部分——\n\n法庭：请给我一点时间到那里。\n\nLUFT 律师：当然，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。我在——我现在看到您刚才提到的附件。\n\nLUFT 律师：如果法官阁下查看 A 至 F，您可以看到 HCHK 应向 G Club 提供的一长串服务。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLUFT 律师：然后，法官阁下，如果我们可以回到主服务协议第一页的“客户义务与责任”部分。概括而言，法官阁下可以自行阅读条款，但可以看到 G Club 为使 HCHK 履行服务而应向其提供的信息和文件种类。我请您注意其中的“所有”一词。\n\n法庭：好的。我看到了。\n\nLUFT 律师：好的。法官阁下，如果我们继续看第 6.2 节下的保密信息部分。再次，法官阁下可以自行阅读。但概括而言，您会看到我们都知道的极其常见的一项条款，涉及各方在收到传票\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2301 提交于 11/02/23 录入于 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 17 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 24, 2023\n\n或其他法律程序送达时，就提供信息所作的约定。\n\n法庭：好的。我看到了。\n\nLUFT 律师：最后，法官阁下，我请您查看“客户材料”项下第 7.3 节，该节再次谈到与 HCHK 提供服务有关而向其提供的信息、数据、工作成果及其他内容；其中相关的“技术”一词定义载于第 7.1D 节。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。我看到了。\n\nLUFT 律师：法官阁下，此时我想我们可以不再看 MSA，我会在提及时尽量保持概括。因此，我认为很清楚，HCHK 为 G Club 所做的远不止托管其数据。当然，这也得到 HCHK 自身提交文件的支持，其在文件中说明了其为 G Club 提供的服务。如果法官阁下有兴趣，我也可以向您提供相关 ECF 信息，该信息与就该转让本身提出的说明理由命令有关；在该命令中，受让人说明了 HCHK 的业务，并具体将 G Club 列为其提供该等业务服务的公司之一。\n\n法庭：是，如果您能够引用——\n\nLUFT 律师：而且那是一份公开文件。\n\n法庭：如果您能够引用您所谈论的内容——那会有所帮助。\n\nLUFT 律师：那么，这是在对抗程序中\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2301 提交于 11/02/23 录入于 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 18 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 24, 2023\n\n23-05013。是吗——我要问一下我的同事。\n\n（律师商议）\n\nLUFT 律师：113。在该对抗程序中的 1-13。这是 Hoffmeister 先生（霍夫迈斯特先生）的宣誓书。\n\n因此，法官阁下，正如我所说，显然他们为 G Club 所做的远不止托管其数据。为提供这些服务，HCHK 需要广泛访问大量 G Club 文件和信息。G Club 给予了其该等访问权限。我会保持概括。但法官阁下已经看到了相关条款。\n\n而且，值得注意的是，在该文件中，G Club 未在任何地方限制 HCHK 访问享有特权的信息，甚至没有区分其享有特权和不享有特权的材料。\n\n因此，在此背景下，我们来到两个问题。第一个是这一论点：G Club 应能够限制受托人访问 HCHK 信息，因为该等信息对向 G Club 发出的传票不具回应性。法官阁下，这是本末倒置。\n\n本对抗程序中的问题是 HCHK 的另一自我地位。这正是达成和解所涉及的问题。本对抗程序中不存在与 G Club 的 2004 传票有关的证据开示争议。相反，它自行介入了。\n\n本案中的问题涉及 HCHK 的另一自我地位\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2301 提交于 11/02/23 录入于 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 19 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 24, 2023\n\n，该地位关联到债务人、其财务、其贷款及其人员；如法官阁下刚才查看服务协议时所知，MSA 以及 HCHK 为 G Club 所做的事项与此直接相关。\n\n现在，法官阁下，从我们所查看的内容可见，G Club 的文件显示 G Club 与债务人有深厚关联。法官阁下已经认定他们存在关联。此外，我们发现了多笔与债务人有关联的贷款。我们发现了大量有关购买资产的文件，而这些资产现由债务人持有。HCHK 处理的所有这些服务推定均直接涉及该问题。因此，它们全部具有回应性。\n\n简言之，法官阁下，HCHK 持有所有这些 G Club 文件这一事实本身，就是关于债务人与 HCHK 之间另一自我地位的相当有力证据。G Club 不应能够基于该等信息是否原本会对向 G Club 发出的 Rule 2004 传票另行具有回应性，而阻止对 HCHK 进行适当的证据开示。\n\n此外，G Club 现在不能声称以这种方式出示文件是不公平的，因为是其将这些文件交给了 G Club（原文如此）。事实上，其明确是在理解若收到传票或其他法律程序将会发生何事的情况下交付这些文件。该内容也载于 MSA。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2301 提交于 11/02/23 录入于 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 20 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年10月24日 20 因此，要求将其文件从 HCHK 取走并返还给其，且仅在其对向 G Club（G俱乐部）提出的 2004 调查请求具有回应性时才予提供，根本上说，法官阁下，他们将会改变本案中的证据。HCHK 所持有的文件，尤其是与债务人有关的文件，显然与另我问题相关。应当审查的是这个问题，而不是某些材料是否对 G Club 的传票具有回应性。这不是我们今天到这里来的原因。现在，法官阁下，除非您对回应性有任何问题，否则我想——此时我想转而讨论特权问题。\n\n法庭：我没有问题。谢谢。\n\nLUFT 律师：好的。那么让我们谈谈这项特权主张。G Club 允许 HCHK 查阅其档案、电子邮件和文件。其特别签订了要求 HCHK 查阅并审查该等信息的服务合同。G Club 没有采取任何措施将该等享有特权的信息隔离或保护起来。现在，法律明确规定，为维持律师—当事人通信特权，该通信必须意图保密，或实际上一直处于保密状态。这一点载于 Strougo v. BEA Associates, 199 F.R.D. 515 第519页。该案是 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）2001年的案件。而寻求律师—当事人特权保护的一方必须积极采取行动保护其通信。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2301 提交日期 11/02/23 登记日期 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 21 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年10月24日 21 其通信。这是 Niceforo case v. UBS, 20 F. Supp. 3d 428 第437页，亦为 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）2014年的案件。\n\n我们从判例法中知道，若向服务提供商自愿披露享有特权的信息，而非为协助理解法律意见之目的，即放弃该项特权。这是我们所引用的 Acker（音译）案和 AMPA 案。\n\n但是，法官阁下，我认为与我们在此讨论的问题最相关的案件，是 Friendly 法官在 Horowitz 案中的裁决。该案载于 482 F.2d 72，第82页，1973年。在该裁决中，Friendly 法官认定，当文件与不享有特权的文件混杂在一起，且未对享有特权的文件采取特别保护措施时，特权即被放弃。在该案中，正如他们所指出的，一名会计师若其愿意，可不受限制地查阅——其想查阅的任何文件，但并未这样做。\n\n法官阁下，这正是本案的情形。G Club 根据其自身承认，将其全部文件交给了 HCHK。他们告诉您，他们不知道享有特权的文件位于何处。他们必须逐一审查全部文件，才能找出这些文件所在之处。它们是直接混杂在一起的。而会计服务是 HCHK 有理由进入档案查找资料的多项服务之一。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2301 提交日期 11/02/23 登记日期 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 22 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年10月24日\n1　并查找资料。\n不存在任何隔离。\nHCHK 具有访问\n2　和使用权限。\n这正是 Horowitz 案所论及的情形。\n3　现在，法官阁下，以下事实进一步加重了这一点：\n4　该行为总共发生了三次。\n这先是在\n5　HCHK 处发生。\n随后 HCHK 将其全部信息转交给了\n6　受让人。\n同样，他们有权查阅其所需要的任何档案，\n7　双方均依照 MSA 开展工作。\n在任何时候，\n8　HCHK——G Club 都未曾向其表示这是其\n9　享有特权的信息，你们不得如此做。\n此外，他们\n10　此前已经放弃了该特权。\n11　最后，法官阁下，第三次发生于\n12　受让人与一家名为 G News（G新闻）的实体达成一项潜在交易时，\n13　该实体据称与\n14　G Club 不存在关联。\n作为该协议的一部分，其允许该实体访问\n15　HCHK 的整个系统。\n因此，该特权总共被\n16　放弃了三次。\n在每一种情况下，G Club 均未采取任何措施保障其\n17　文件，而且更重要的是，其始终基本上只是\n18　将全部档案交给 HCHK，并表示，请查阅，\n19　取得你们所需的资料。\n20　现在，G Club 对此唯一的回应是，第一，\n21　其主张其为我们所做的一切只是云\n22　计算。\n当您审阅其书面陈述时，您将会看到这一点。\n其中没有提及任何\n23　其他服务。\n但是，正如法官阁下从 MSA 以及从\n\nHoffmeister 先生的声明中所能看到的那样，他们为其提供的服务远远\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2301 提交日期 11/02/23 登记日期 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 23 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年10月24日\n1　不止于此。\n因此，任何声称无人会\n2　访问 G Club 文件的主张均不能成立。\n3　他们所做的第二件事是援引一宗\n4　案件，即 Metro Services（原文如此）案。\n该案——来自 Delaware（特拉华州）的\n5　衡平法院。\n首先，法官阁下，Metro\n6　Services 并未涉及第三方\n7　可访问该信息的问题。\n它仅仅涉及\n8　第三方托管和保密性。\n因此，在本案中，\n9　托管该信息的实体有理由进入并实际\n10　访问该信息，这并不是 Metro\n11　Service 案所论及的问题。\n12　此外，我要指出，Metro Service 案完全没有论及\n13　特权问题。\n它仅仅涉及\n14　某些内容是否可以被保密持有这一概念。\n该案所援引作为\n15　甚至支持该命题依据的文章亦未涉及\n16　该问题。\n17　现在，法官阁下，他们唯一的其他论点是，\n18　声称我们尚未证明有人\n19　明确向我们索取过该信息。\n现在，这不仅\n20　与 Hoffmeister 先生的宣誓书以及 NSA 的明确条款和其运作方式不一致，\n21　而且这是公然转移举证责任，法官阁下。\n主张\n22　特权的一方负有证明义务，因此应由 G Club\n23　证明从未有人访问其信息，而非由\n24　受托人去设法证明确实有人这样做了，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2301 提交日期 11/02/23 登记日期 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 24 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年10月24日 24 尽管，如我所述，对该协议、他们为其提供的服务或 Hoffmeister 先生宣誓书的任何解读均清楚表明，此类访问必然已经发生。法官阁下，这是关于 HCHK 及其对立方的争议。有关 G Club 参与 HCHK 的信息显然与该对立程序相关。我们应当有权访问该等信息。即使其中任何信息曾享有特权，在他们允许 HCHK 不受限制地访问该信息时，他们便放弃了该等特权，我们也应取得该等文件。法官阁下，您对此点是否有任何问题需要我回答？\n\n法庭：没有。谢谢。\n\nLUFT 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：Fornos 律师，您愿意回应吗？\n\nFORNOS 律师：是的，法官阁下，我愿意。但我认为有若干错误陈述需要纠正，因此我会逐一说明。首先，我想界定争议问题。法庭已经就此作出裁定，而且我们提交意见认为，法庭在7月——即法庭于7月28日制定一项程序时的裁定是正确的；该程序保护了 G Club 的（听不清）权利，同时平衡了对受托人的任何不利影响。因此，法庭已经建立了\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年10月24日 25 一项机制，使 G Club 应当能够访问其文件。现在，我认为正在——也许正在造成混淆的问题之一——而且可以理解，因为这些是复杂的技术问题。因此，我不责怪受托人没有理解，这并非是文件在办公室或文件柜中混杂在一起。这是一项云服务。这是整体的 Microsoft 365。文件，尤其是 G Club 的混杂情况，均存储于此。现在，法官阁下，我不代理 HCHK。我不知道 HCHK 如何（听不清）文件。作为 G Club 的律师，我不——我不知道 HCHK 还（听不清）什么。我所知道的是，在非常有限的一段时间内，G Club 无法访问其 G Club 域名。换言之，在云端使用 G Club 域名的用户无法访问该域名。受托人描绘出文件混杂、事项共享的图景，但我认为受托人尚未充分理解，这只是文件、域名，即云端维护用户的 Gclub.com 域名。如果我们采纳受托人的立场，这意味着本次通话中每一位使用过 Microsoft 365 并使用\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2301 提交日期 11/02/23 登记日期 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 25 页，共 72 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2301 提交日期 11/02/23 登记日期 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 26 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年10月24日 26 云服务的人，均可以说已经放弃了其权利。Microsoft（微软）可以访问云端。这确实是一种不可接受的立场。HCHK 的角色是 IT 服务。因此，更准确地说，一名新员工加入 G Club；需要为其分配电子邮件。一名员工离开 G Club；需要终止其账户及其电子邮件访问权限。这就是我们所讨论的问题。现在，自法庭裁定以来，我——我们与受让人合作，而受让人完全按照法庭的命令行事。我们得以恢复访问权限。自法庭裁定以来，我们得以取得我们的域名、审阅文件，并且已向受托人另行提供 20,000 份具有回应性的文件。这是对先前已提供的另外 120,000 份文件的补充。因此，有两点。他们已经获得——他们已获得超过 140,000 份文件及银行记录。而且，如果他们对于其认为还需要什么有任何问题，当然可以来与我们沟通。但是，我们已遵守法庭命令。我们已与受让人合作提供文件。我们已提供特权日志和删节日志。因此，目前，法官阁下，我们已遵守规定。法庭7月28日的命令已适当地处理此事。我们正依照 Rule 2004（第2004规则）提供信息。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年10月24日 27 而继续遵循适当程序对受托人绝无任何不利影响。受托人所抱怨的是——而且再次说明，我们并不代理 HCHK。如果他们对 HCHK 的域名存在问题，即 Hchk.com 或其任何域名，或者对 HCHK 文件存在问题，那是他们需要与 HCHK 解决的问题。我们作为 G Club，能够访问我们的文件。我们有（听不清）。我们已经提供具有回应性的文件。并且我们已提供特权日志。因此，我们认为该——该动议是对司法资源的极大浪费。应当彻底驳回，并且法庭7月28日的原命令应被视为（听不清）。我愿意回答法庭可能提出的任何问题。\n\n法庭：我目前没有任何问题。谢谢。\n\nLUFT 律师：法官阁下，我可以回应吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nLUFT 律师：好的。那么我们开始——Fornos 律师称我以某种方式错误描述了法庭的裁定。我想请她注意该裁定的 B 部分，其中法庭明确指出，受托人应提交一份书面陈述，以支持受托人关于以下事项的论点：案号 22-50073 文件 2301 提交日期 11/02/23 登记日期 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 27 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - October 24, 2023 28\n\nG Club（G俱乐部）已放弃任何特权，并且无权就回应性提出异议。因此，对于Fornos（福尔诺斯女士）认为这会极大地浪费时间，我很遗憾，但对此并无最终裁定。本院明确规定我们应当就此提交书面陈述，我认为这样做是适当的。我不认为这是浪费时间。而且，我确实认为以下情况颇具说明意义——我们没有听到福尔诺斯女士说什么？没有提到NSA。没有提到根据MSA（主服务协议）必须提供的全部服务。没有提到G Club可以访问所有这些HCHK（HCHK）文件。相反，她一直在谈论域名。HCHK拥有全部文件，并且必须为此提供全部服务。她说，嗯，我们已经提交了对G Club的Rule 2004请求具有回应性的文件。嗯，这很好。他们本就必须这样做。花了许多个月才让她这么做。但这与HCHK的Rule 2004是否存在争议毫无关系。现在，关于这一点——就她试图暗示这有什么大不了的、法官阁下，给一方就给另一方而言，她——确实最近提交了20,000份文件。我致电HCHK，询问他们最初向其发送了多少份文件，如果我们仅仅拥有访问权限，这些文件本会具有回应性；HCHK的律师告诉我，他们提交了数十万份又数十万份文件。因此，我们获得其中2,000份——抱歉，是20,000份——这一事实意味着，我们获得的只是与HCHK有关的、对证据开示具有回应性的文件中的一小部分，无论是就已经向其送达但其从未妥善回应的Rule 2004而言，还是就如果我们没有达成这一和解本来绝对会寻求的文件而言。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2301 提交于 11/02/23 录入于 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 28 页，共 72 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2301 提交于 11/02/23 录入于 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 29 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - October 24, 2023 29\n\n现在，至于最后一点——她开始说的地方，也是我想结束的地方——她说我不了解云如何运作；它不是文件柜。没错，它不是实体文件柜。但在现代世界中，法官阁下，它是一个虚拟文件柜。这正是我们所谈论的。它是储存所有文件的地方。\n\n而Friendly（弗兰德利法官）虽然并非在今天作出裁决，但正如经常发生的那样，他预见了未来，并理解争议所在。弗兰德利法官在Horowitz（霍罗维茨）判决中所谈的是，当某人仅仅向他人交付一个巨大的文件柜、文件箱或虚拟文件容器，而没有努力区分哪些文件受特权保护、哪些不受特权保护时，他们便没有履行保护这些文件的义务，因此，他们已放弃特权。这正是我们在这里所谈论的。因此，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2301 提交于 11/02/23 录入于 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 30 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - October 24, 2023\n\n这一事实——其目前存放于“云端”这一事实——并不会使其有所不同。恰恰相反，当你考虑到我相信弗兰德利法官并未设想过一个能够容纳一百万份文件的文件柜时，这就更加说明所作努力是何等之少。\n\n我们没有听到任何解释称有人——称他们有证据表明没有人遵守MSA，工作没有完成，或者存在任何其他情况。\n\n最后，法官阁下，我只想就所有律师事务所都将放弃一切这一灾难性说法提出一点说明。这不是今天摆在本院面前的问题。没有人在谈论一个完全隔绝的世界，在该世界中信息仅存于云端，没有人访问该信息，而法律问题是：仅仅因为你与第三方订约提供云服务，如果该第三方未被以其他方式赋予访问权限，这是否会造成特权放弃。这不是我们今天需要裁定的事情。\n\n我们所谈论的是，当某人让他人访问其所有文件，而该他人持有这些文件，并且与其明确订约并说，去查看该等信息以完成你必须完成的工作时，这正是他们在Acker（阿克尔）案以及——我会找到名称，法官阁下——AMPA判决中所谈论的内容，在那里他们谈到会计师进入并查看信息、被提供信息。这就是我们面对的问题。如果某物存放在云端，而你对某个第三方说，嘿，去拿你所需要的，去查看我的信息，这是否构成放弃。而且，法官阁下，这属于教科书式情形，这正是发生放弃的时候。当你允许第三方访问你的特权信息时，你就放弃了特权。当你不努力保护你的信息时，你就放弃了特权。该等信息位于云端这一事实并不改变这一点。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：法官阁下？\n\n法庭：请稍等一下。我只是想确保Luft（卢夫特律师）正在完成其陈述。\n\n卢夫特律师：法官阁下，如果您没有问题，我已陈述完毕。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好。请稍等一下，福尔诺斯律师。请稍等一下。好的，请继续，福尔诺斯律师。\n\n福尔诺斯女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。法官阁下，主服务协议并非本案争议所在。卢夫特先生作出了许多结论性的跳跃，从访问跳跃到占有，从占有跳跃到放弃。这是非常危险的滑坡，而且是站不住脚的立场。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2301 提交于 11/02/23 录入于 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 32 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - October 24, 2023\n\n事实是，我们拥有我们的文件。我们审查了这些文件，并且已经提交了具有回应性的文件。\n\n现在，卢夫特先生说有数十万份文件。嗯，公平地说，我们已经提交了超过140,000份文件。正如本院将会认识到的，在（听不清）2004中，当我们能够确定最可能拥有（听不清）的具体保管人时，一方当事人无需逐一审查30名员工的电子邮件——电子邮件。对于受托人，我们已经确定了掌握该等信息的保管人。我们使用了搜索词，并审查了这些文件；我们已经审查了相当数量的文件，给我公司造成了巨大成本。\n\n具有回应性的文件已经提交。\n\n受托人绝不可能在法官阁下面前称，我们没有遵守该Rule 2004。我们已经提交了银行记录。我们已经提交了电子邮件（听不清）。我们已经提交了贷款文件。他们拥有这些信息。\n\n他在这里所谈的是混淆范围、回应性和特权。至于特权方面，法官阁下，绝对没有任何证据表明HCHK的任何人审查过这些电子邮件、审查过特权通信、访问过每一份文件并实际审查过这些文件，以致构成故意放弃。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2301 提交于 11/02/23 录入于 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 33 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - October 24, 2023 33\n\n我们请求本院驳回该动议，仅仅因为本院已经建立了一项正在有效运行的机制。而且，迄今为止，我没有听到——我没有收到他们就其认为缺失的任何文件提出会面协商的请求。自我们提交这些文件以来，我没有听到他们提出任何事项的会面协商。因此，就存在（听不清）的范围而言，那是另一回事。这里的问题是，仅仅因为我们有云服务，而HCHK充当信息技术部门协助处理技术问题，是否就构成放弃？答案是否定的。本院的命令适当地规定了该机制，我们只是请求本院遵循该原命令，并驳回受托人提出的请求，即仅仅因为HCHK作为信息技术管理者可能拥有访问权限，便对云端存在的每一封及任何电子邮件、每一份及任何文件作出全面放弃。\n\n法庭：我没有听清你最后说的内容。抱歉。你能再说一遍吗？\n\n福尔诺斯女士：当然可以。是的，法官阁下。G Club并不会仅仅因为信息技术管理者可能拥有访问权限而放弃其权利。没有任何此类证据。实际上，他们访问我们的任何记录都是不适当的。他们仅仅充当信息技术部门，协助处理与\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2301 提交于 11/02/23 录入于 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 34 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - October 24, 2023\n\n云端以及创建域名和电子邮件地址有关的技术——技术问题。\n\n没有证据；受托人仅仅因为我们有一名信息技术管理者，就称他们对云端已存在的每一张纸、每一封电子邮件、每一份文件都享有权利，这有些过于结论性了。\n\n法庭：嗯，现在我确实有一个问题要问你，因为你已经——\n\n福尔诺斯女士：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——福尔诺斯律师。因此，在你们双方作出初步陈述之后，你开始对卢夫特律师的答复作出回应时说，MSA，即主服务协议，并非本案争议所在。\n\n但是你刚才说，仅仅因为一名信息技术管理者可以访问G Club的文件，并不构成放弃。\n\n那么，MSA不就是争议所在吗？因为，除该文件外，我还有什么证据能够确定——无论正确与否——HCHK向G Club提供了哪些服务？\n\n福尔诺斯女士：本院说得对，法官阁下。我表示歉意。受托人的陈述所聚焦的内容远远超出了主服务协议据称所规定的内容。主服务协议维持了保密性问题。主服务协议确实规定HCHK将提供信息技术\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2301 提交于 11/02/23 录入于 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 35 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - October 24, 2023 35\n\n服务，而且所有信息均应予以保密。我所指的是，以及我想确保我们都理解的原因是，无论MSA及其保密限制如何适用于HCHK，事实是，他们是我们域名的信息技术管理者。案卷中绝对没有证据表明HCHK登录并搜索了所有这些电子邮件、审查了这些电子邮件，或者拥有不受限制地审查这些电子邮件的权限。这根本不在证据之中。而受托人所描绘的是这样一幅HCHK的图景——我甚至仍不知道HCHK中是哪一个人。没有提到姓名。没有确定任何个人据称翻查所有这些电子邮件和域名，仿佛他们在翻查一个由其办公室保管、由其实际占有的文件柜。那是我所担心的部分。这里混淆了问题。这些是存储于云端、仅属于G Club的数字记录。除G Club外，任何人均无权访问这些记录。主服务协议确实规定我们的信息是保密的，仅此而已。\n\n卢夫特律师：法官阁下，我可以说几句吗？\n\n法庭：简短一些。可以。\n\n卢夫特律师：好的。只是为了澄清这一点。再一次，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2301 提交于 11/02/23 录入于 11/02/23 09:23:46 第 36 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年10月24日\n\n法官阁下，我想请您注意——我不打算逐一说明，但如果查看证物A，我估计，IT（信息技术）是HCHK为G Club（G俱乐部）提供的20项服务之一。该协议明确在两处规定，G——HCHK应使用G Club的信息来履行该20项服务。因此，我不知道Fornos女士何以能不断地仅仅声称他们只是IT管理人员，或者说我是在毫无根据地推测人们会访问该信息。我再次请您注意Hoffmeister先生的宣誓书，其中也明确陈述了这些是他们为G Club履行的服务。法官阁下，我的陈述完毕。\n\nFORNOS女士：法官阁下？\n\n法庭：是？\n\nFORNOS女士：我可以澄清一下吗？提供一项服务并不意味着，也不等同于仅仅说，我要登录你的域名，查看你的电子邮件、电子邮件地址以及这些电子邮件地址的内容。我对受托人的立场感到困惑，因为为了提供会计服务，即使该服务是在HCHK进行，HCHK也可能随后向G Club发送电子通信。嗯，如果那些通信具有相关性，我方已经将其提供给受托人。我仍然不——我认为他混淆了问题，并把事情弄得比实际需要的复杂得多。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 37 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年10月24日 37 因为事实是，那些文件属于G Club，并且只属于G Club。他不能仅仅因为试图获取HCHK文件、保存在HCHK.com域名下的文件，就绕过该情形。那些文件属于HCHK。HCHK持有的文件属于HCHK。我无法就其文件、其保存方式或其所作所为作出回应。我能说的是，我方G Club确实能够访问自己的文件，并且已经提供了具有相关性的文件。法庭：好的。我将对此事项保留审议，并将据此作出裁定。谢谢。LUFT先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。FORNOS女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：因此，关于排定就G Club文件问题举行听证会的命令，该命令在主案中载于ECF 2270，在对抗程序中载于157，这些事项均保留审议。那么，我相信，Despins受托人，今天日程上唯一剩余的事项与受托人就保全破产财产提出举行状态会议的请求有关。对吗？DESPINS先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。请继续。DESPINS先生：那么，首先，我想确认Conway先生是否已经解决了他的音频问题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 38 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年10月24日\n\nCONWAY先生：我现在测试一下。您能听到我吗？\n\n法庭：好的。是的，我们能听到您。\n\nDESPINS先生：是。是。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nCONWAY先生：我不确定发生了什么，但我现在在用电话。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS先生：那么，法官阁下，我会尽量简要陈述。该请求本身非常简短，因为在这里，图片确实胜过千言万语。首先我要说，我们在主案中提出此事，也在Greenwich Land案和Taurus Management Mahwah案中提出此事，因为——由于我们稍后会解释的原因，这一切都相互关联。因此，我首先想做的是简要说明证物，法官阁下。我认为，首先要牢记的是这里的关键日期，即2020年2月购买Taconic房屋；2020年10月12日，Genever Holdings提交Chapter 11申请；2021年12月，Mahwah宅邸完成交易；以及2022年2月15日，债务人提交Chapter 11申请的日期。我首先要说，法官阁下，正如我们过去在状态会议中所做的那样，这不是证据听证会。我这样说并不是因为我们无法证明我们所使用的这些不同链接和图片。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 39 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年10月24日\n\n我们最终如有需要，可以将其作为证据提交，所以我们对此毫不怀疑。但我想确保，您知道，人们不会觉得有必要——提出异议说，好吧，本页中链接到Kwok先生陈述的这个链接尚未被采纳为证据。您知道，我们——我们可以稍后处理证据问题。\n\n但这里的基本问题是，在9月1日访问之后，我要求团队成员——在我看来，我认为问题在于是否存在遗失物品。当然，他们这样做了。但他们超出了我的要求，并说您还应当知道，其中有不少物品，实际上有很多，现在位于Mahwah宅邸的物品来自The Sherry Netherland（雪莉荷兰酒店）。\n\n法官阁下，这正是第1至8标签页所显示的内容：您有多段视频显示Kwok先生在The Sherry Netherland，当时那里有许多现位于Mahwah宅邸的物品。因此，您可以通过演示材料看到这些内容——并且由于我们最终会在各标签页的演示材料中展示Mahwah宅邸本身，我们会通过照片、视频或者，您知道，视频截图，展示这些物品及其所在位置。\n\n我们还在第11、12、35和48标签页中展示了如下物品：其原先或者位于The Sherry Netherland，或者位于Taconic房屋；其曾一度位于Mahwah宅邸，但似乎已不再在那里。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 40 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年10月24日 40 出现。因此，而且，您知道，这相当能说明问题：这——它必定发生在3月15日和9月1日之间，因为您看过一段视频，该视频实际上在——Mahwah听证会上已被采纳为证据，其中Kwok的两家关联方基本上在宅邸中走动，以展示该宅邸是多么——美丽，诸如此类。但通过该视频，您可以看到我们有截图的墙上各种艺术品、花瓶及类似物品。而在9月1日，这些物品已经不在那里了。我首先要说的是，我没有——并且希望我不会后悔这样说——但目前，我对Mahwah宅邸现有的安保没有担忧，也就是说，自9月1日起，我已与这位先生进行过多次讨论。您知道，我永远不可能百分之百确定，但我高度确信，在他的监管之下没有任何东西正在消失。但这里有若干问题。其一，显然有些物品确实“消失”了，或者已不再位于根据9月12日视频所示其原先所在的墙上。我们从9月1日视频中得知这一点。因此，这是第一点。\n\n第二，仍有若干物品在该宅邸内，但其经由The Sherry Netherland来自Kwok先生，或者从The Sherry Netherland转移至Taconic房屋，再从Taconic转移至Mahwah。其中一些也已消失。因此，问题如下。第一，法官阁下，据称Mahwah的据称所有人有一名经理，而该人是司机——债务人的司机或保镖，Barnett先生。是的。此人应当——到庭并就其所知这些物品发生了什么或未发生什么作证。同样的情况——您知道，在首次听证日，Conway先生在法官阁下提问后——您问，与你们打交道、负责运营此事、掌控此事的人是谁，并说是某位先生——我现在忘记他的名字了。对，Fallon先生，David Fallon（大卫·法伦）先生。因此，该人也应到庭，告诉我们其对在其监管之下消失的这些物品知道什么或不知道什么。因此，这是第一点。第二，显然这三处房产之间存在资产转移。现在我着重谈Taconic Road。显然有一些原先在那里的物品现在位于Mahwah。我想说，是我失察，没有更早提出这个要求，但我认为我们——在启动Greenwich Land对抗程序时，我们并不知道现在所知的情况；如果您查看我们在该案中提交的简易判决动议，就资产耗散而言，情况相当糟糕：现金、大量现金、该实体向债务人的各种关联方转移了数十万美元，包括Zeisler从该实体获得付款，以及债务人的女儿，等等，等等。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 42 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年10月24日 42 因此，我并非在这里就此进行辩论，但重点是，回到我失察这一点，我本应当在当时立即要求对该房产进行视频巡视。但我认为那——会被视为强硬过度，因为，您知道，我有什么证据证明这些人会做这类事情呢。嗯，现在我们已有大量证据证明他们会那样做。因此，法官阁下，我们认为应当立即进行视频巡视，以便像我们在9月1日对Mahwah宅邸所做的那样，确定该房屋内有什么物品的基准。我这样说的原因是，我不想过度自信，但我相当确定我们将取得该房屋的所有权。我不想在取得该房屋后，最终面对——您知道的——“遗失物品”，正如我们现在在Mahwah所经历的情形。\n\n此外还有另一类别，未必是紧急事项，但有些物品从Taconic转移至Mahwah。例如，四辆摩托车。这些不是，比如说，Yamaha 250，法官阁下。这些是高端摩托车，包括一辆Maserati Ducati。我们有Kwok先生骑摩托车的照片。那些照片是在Taconic房屋拍摄的，我们对此有证据。显然，这些摩托车现在位于Mahwah宅邸。我认为Conway先生不会说，这些摩托车放在那里是为了让New Federation of the State of China（新中国联邦）的成员将摩托车用于娱乐目的。好吗？因此，这些显然是Kwok的资产。这些价值数以千计、数以千计的美元。它们放在那里没有问题。如我所说，我目前并不担心Mahwah宅邸的安保。我想澄清这一点。但显然，在任何情况下，这些都不是Taurus Management的资产。它们不在Taurus Management的资产清单上。我们知道这些摩托车的登记所有人是谁。而且，您知道，这可能会令您惊讶，但那是与Kwok家族成员有关联或关系密切的人。因此，法官阁下，重点是我们需要处理紧急问题，即Mahwah宅邸内的物品发生了什么。第二，我们需要尽快对Greenwich土地房产进行视频巡视。第三，我们最终需要讨论一项程序，以便从Mahwah宅邸取出甚至Taurus自身也未称为其资产的物品。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2301 Filed 11/02/23 Entered 11/02/23 09:23:46 Page 44 of 72\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 24, 2023 44\n\n其拥有但位于 Mahwah 宅邸的资产，例如摩托车，以及该处郭先生的众多其他资产，均未列入 Taurus Management（Taurus 管理公司）的资产清单，而且我们在 The Sherry Netherland（雪莉-尼德兰酒店）拍摄了这些资产的照片。因此，我可以带您逐一仔细审查这里的一个花瓶或那里的一个沙发，但我认为这些照片已经相当说明问题。此时，我就此停止，并回答法官阁下可能提出的任何问题。\n\n法院：因此，我确实有一两个问题，仅基于您在所提交的请求举行进展情况会议的文件中所说的内容，以及您刚才在庭上所述的内容。这是一次进展情况会议。那么，您是否打算提交某种动议，要求——您谈到的是郭先生的保镖和 Fallon 先生（法伦先生），我相信 Conway 先生（康威先生）曾在 Taurus Fund（Taurus 基金）对立诉讼程序的一次听证中提到过 Fallon 先生。您将如何——您期望法院采取什么行动？\n\nDESPINS 先生（德斯平斯先生）：是的。坦率地说，法官阁下——您可能认为我们是在走捷径，但我们正尽可能节省费用。我相信，鉴于此处的情况，法院可以依职权指示 Taurus Management 在法庭听证中提交这些人员，以回答这些问题。我们谈论的并不是就另我问题提交书面意见。我们谈论的是\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2301，于 11/02/23 提交，于 11/02/23 09:23:46 录入，第 45 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 24, 2023 45\n\n资产不在现场。顺便说一句，如果我们找到它们，那很好，太好了。但我认为——而且我还想指出，Mahwah 有一套非常昂贵、非常昂贵的安保系统，到处都有摄像头。因此，应该有人控制该系统，对吧？“所有者”Taurus 应当能够调取这些视频。这些视频将显示是谁拿走了这些画作、花瓶以及所有那些物品。因此，是的，我们可以提交动议，法官阁下。但我们认为，法院可以依职权命令这些人员出庭回答这些问题，就像您过去曾指示 Mitchell 先生（米切尔先生）出庭回答一些问题一样。而且，您知道，他们是当事人。Barnett（巴内特）是被告。Taurus Management 是被告。至于 Greenwich Land（格林尼治地产），我认为法院也有权依职权作出命令——坦率地说，我认为 Major 先生（梅杰先生）会同意，因为如果他不同意，这看起来会怎样，即，这里存在某种担忧吗？我的意思是，这将是一段两小时的视频。我们会非常专业地完成此事。因此，我希望他们要么同意，要么法院作出命令。谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。不过，那只是第一部分。第二部分是——嗯，我想\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 24, 2023 46\n\n那两者都是。即让这些人出庭，并且寻求一段视频。但我们先讨论 Taurus Fund 的情况，因为我认为那更为直接，Conway 先生，我曾命令您，而您也确实提交了一份 Taurus Fund 所拥有资产的清单。债——受托人主张，还有其他资产位于——我——我相当确定此刻我面前没有那份命令，该命令包括了场地上或宅邸内所有物品的清单，即与该财产有关的所有地点。显然，主张是 Mahwah 宅邸内或 Mahwah 宅邸场地上还有许多其他财产物品，未列入您提交的资产清单。那么，您是否有机会审查受托人所说的内容，并将其与本对立诉讼程序中代表 Taurus Fund 提交的、有关 Taurus Fund 所拥有资产的材料进行比较？\n\nCONWAY 先生（康威先生）：下午好，法官阁下。Michael Conway（迈克尔·康威）。由于我此前未在庭审记录中登记出庭，Michael Conway，Lazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle（拉扎尔·波特·贾科瓦斯与莫伊尔律师事务所）。我代表 Taurus Fund 事项中的被告。法官阁下，显然我还没有时间逐项审查这些照片。我确实不\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2301，于 11/02/23 提交，于 11/02/23 09:23:46 录入，第 46 页，共 72 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2301，于 11/02/23 提交，于 11/02/23 09:23:46 录入，第 47 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 24, 2023 47\n\n理解紧急情况何在。我从这项动议中得知，受托人发现 Mahwah 房屋内有未列入我们清单的额外物品。我理解，这对于 New Federal State of China（新中国联邦）的活动并非罕见。他们会为布置场景而带入物品——无论是为了我们在法庭上观看的那段视频，还是为了筹款活动，等等。\n\n我确实知道的是，当我介入时，法官阁下，那确实是在听证会前一两天，我指示有关人员不得移走任何物品。无论其是否列入我们的清单，都无关紧要。我认为本法院的禁令范围相当广泛，任何物品均不应从该处移走，无论是否由我们所有。\n\n因此，我认为您会发现，这可能是为什么，如果这里有人主张拥有该等其他财产，他们并未将其移走，因为您说过不要移走。而且正如受托人所表示，我们已部署安保人员，不让任何人进入，也不让任何人移走任何物品。\n\n所以，是的，现场有不属于 Taurus Fund 的财产。那些物品是为各种活动布置场景而带到那里的。但这似乎并非 Taurus Fund 的问题。这似乎是一个\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 24, 2023 48\n\n与受托人所称拥有该财产的任何实体有关的问题。\n\n法院：嗯，我不确定那是否准确。我的意思是，您——目前，Taurus Fund，您已经出庭并表示 Taurus Fund 拥有该财产，并且您控制该财产。好，如果——而且这不只是移走的问题。显然，这还涉及将物品带到 Mahwah 宅邸。自今年 3 月 15 日的事件以来，这是所主张的情况。因此，我不确定我会同意您的说法，即这是他人的问题。您处于控制之中。您的客户处于对该财产的控制之中。您已同意聘用安保公司。鉴于所提出的所有主张，我已命令必须有一家安保公司。而且我不确定，作为 Mahwah 的律师——我的意思是，对不起，作为 Taurus Fund 的律师，您为何不能说明您不拥有但位于该财产上或该财产处的物品。请记住，这里还有保险问题。该财产没有任何保险。因此，受托人说——\n\nCONWAY 先生：没有理由——\n\n法院：等等，让我——\n\nCONWAY 先生：对不起。\n\n法院：——让我先完成我的思路，然后我很乐意听您陈述。但是\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2301，于 11/02/23 提交，于 11/02/23 09:23:46 录入，第 48 页，共 72 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2301，于 11/02/23 提交，于 11/02/23 09:23:46 录入，第 49 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 24, 2023 49\n\n受托人说——而且我没有——您知道，我是在听取受托人所说的内容。目前我面前没有任何材料能够证实他所说的内容。但他表示，例如，有四辆昂贵的摩托车从 Greenwich 的房屋移走，现位于 Mahwah。现在，如果那些物品在 Mahwah，或在该财产上，或在该处所内，您的人员应当知道这一点。我看不出让他们向我说明这一点有什么负担。我想知道该财产处有什么，而不仅仅是您拥有什么。我的意思是，您可以——例如——因为，例如——我的意思是，您说他们带进物品来布置场景。嗯，我认为在 2023 年 3 月 15 日之前他们从未这样做过，这是第一点。第二点，这就好比有人可以开着一辆——我不知道，一辆 Ferrari（法拉利）到 Mahwah 宅邸，让其停在那里，而您可以说，是的，嗯，那不是我们的。嗯，您知道，鉴于已经发生的事件以及对立诉讼程序中已生效的命令，届时您必须就此向本法院作出说明。我认为那——我不——我认为那很重要。我的意思是，我们要求您提交一份所有——不是我要求您。我命令提交一份所有资产的清单。我并不理解这意味着那里有许多您不拥有、您的客户声称不拥有的其他\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2301，于 11/02/23 提交，于 11/02/23 09:23:46 录入，第 50 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 24, 2023 50\n\n资产。嗯，如果他们声称不拥有这些资产，我想知道他们声称不拥有、但位于该财产上的究竟是什么。考虑到本案的情形，尤其考虑到他们没有任何人单独向法院出庭——尽管我们曾被告知，或者我曾被告知一两次——我听到了两个不同的名称。我希望完成此事。这很容易。我给您一周时间完成。不得超过一周。我要求在 10 月 31 日中午前提交。我想知道还有什么——\n\nCONWAY 先生：（听不清）。\n\n法院：——位于该财产处，除您已被要求向本法院提交的资产清单外，即使该等资产并非 Taurus Fund 所有。因为如果您不拥有它们，它们为什么会在那里？这不是关于——\n\nCONWAY 先生：我可以回应吗？\n\n法院：这不是关于一家公司进来举办一场活动。\n\nCONWAY 先生：法官阁下，我可以回应吗？\n\n法院：可以。\n\nCONWAY 先生：我认为受托人对于那里有什么\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2301，于 11/02/23 提交，于 11/02/23 09:23:46 录入，第 51 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 24, 2023\n\n1　并无疑问。受托人已进行了广泛盘点。现在，如果您的意思是希望我们进行一次现场查看并说明，好，这件物品不是我们的，那件物品不是我们的，那件物品不是我们的，我们——我们很乐意这样做。\n\n2　问题将会是——嗯，我的意思是，其实并不真是问题。我们知道那里有什么，也知道什么是我们的。因此，我们可以推断出什么不是我们的。但我仍不确定紧急情况何在。这听起来像是受托人所说的——而这曾经是——而且恕我直言，法官阁下，您曲解了我的意思。我并未说这不是我们的问题。我说的是，有些人知道得更多。\n\n3　例如，如果 Taconic 房屋（塔科尼克住宅）原本是某件艺术品所在地，那么他们可以找出某人说明，是的，那件艺术品属于 X。我们所能说的只是它不属于 Taurus Fund。两者有区别，而让我们说——其价值有限。\n\n4　法院：嗯——\n\n5　CONWAY 先生：——那不属于我们。\n\n6　法院：您可能认为——\n\n7　CONWAY 先生：您想知道的是它属于谁。\n\n8　法院：您可能认为其价值有限，\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与庭审转录服务公司）\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2301，于 11/02/23 提交，于 11/02/23 09:23:46 录入，第 52 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年10月24日 52 你，不过其价值并不像在这些破产案件中那样有限。所以，是的，你们要这样做。而且不是这件物品。是——假定受托人是正确的。我不知道他说的是哪种摩托车。他说了一个我以前听过的、关于昂贵摩托车品牌的词。那么你们需要说明，那辆红色玛莎拉蒂摩托车——其实并不是那个，但不管它是什么——其所在位置——康韦先生：明白。法院：——在车库内，或者在——该土地上的某处，不属于我们。我的意思是，你知道，这就是你们要做的。而且我——受托人可以与你们一同在场，或者派一名代表，或者由你们的保安拍照。我的意思是，我原以为我们有一份关于该房产所有进出情况的详细日志。那么那份日志在哪里？康韦先生：我们有，法官阁下。没有。不存在任何不当行为或诸如此类的事情。我们介入本案后，情况一直维持原状。没有发生任何事情。而且该动议中没有任何内容表明，自您介入这栋房屋以来发生过任何事情。德斯平斯先生：没有。法院：有，发生了。德斯平斯先生：没有，您——康韦先生：没有，没有发生。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2301 于 11/02/23 提交 于 11/02/23 09:23:46 登记 第 53 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年10月24日 53 法院：有很多事情表明发生了一些事情，有一些东西进入了——康韦先生：好的。不过我只是说，法官阁下，我非常仔细地阅读了他们的动议，我没有看到任何一件与本案提交后发生的任何事情有关的事。德斯平斯先生：嗯，法官阁下，他是正确的，但这并不改变分析。也就是说，Taurus（陶鲁斯）始终是所有人。因此，问题——他想谈论不在那里的东西，也就是清单上的东西。但关键在于，据称由陶鲁斯所有的豪宅墙上的物品已经消失。这从受托人的角度而言是首要事项。那些东西在哪里？他们应当就此出庭作证。康韦先生：那么，法官阁下，我本来还想提到的是，如果您希望我们去该房产，即使与受托人一同查看，我认为按书面命令，我甚至不能去该房产。因此，我们需要有一项内容说明，康韦先生及其需要带去的任何人可以去该房产进行查看。德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，如果我可以说一句？我认为我们应该分阶段进行。首要事项是——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2301 于 11/02/23 提交 于 11/02/23 09:23:46 登记 第 54 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年10月24日 54 缺失的物品。法院：嗯，你们需要——德斯平斯先生：我们需要证据。法院：你们需要有一份缺失物品清单，德斯平斯受托人，对吗？德斯平斯先生：我们有——它们全都列在附有大圆圈和页码的图片中。我可以仅为记录之目的再次列出。第11、12、35、48标签页。这些是载有缺失物品的标签页。而且我并不期待——法院：你说这些物品应当在Mahwah（马瓦）豪宅里？这是你的说法？德斯平斯先生：是。那——法院：它们应当在马瓦豪宅里？德斯平斯先生：我们——我们有这些物品在马瓦豪宅中的照片。但在9月1日，这些照片显示，原先有花瓶或其他缺失物品的墙面空了，或者桌面空了。这一点非常清楚，来自——而且我——为公平起见，康韦先生可能没有机会审阅我们提交的材料。但那里清楚列明了究竟缺失了什么，或者——我希望它会被找到，比如那架钢琴。我不知道它在哪里——它漂在某处。那价值$250,000。我的意思是，关键在于，它应当在——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年10月24日 55 马瓦豪宅里，而根据9月1日的访问记录，它已经不在那里了。因此，这发生在3月15日与9月1日之间。而陶鲁斯是所有人。当时负责的Fallon（法伦）先生，或者Barnett（巴尼特）先生或任何其他人，应当出庭向法院解释那些物品发生了什么或它们在哪里。或者也许他们可以归还这些物品。康韦先生：关于此事，法官阁下，没有任何由陶鲁斯所有的物品缺失。他所暗示的是，有一些在有限期间出现、属于其他人的物品现在已不在那里。因此，我们将必须找到能够向我们说明谁拥有那些物品以及它们现在在哪里的人。但这不是——德斯平斯先生：不，不。康韦先生：——陶鲁斯的人身财产。德斯平斯先生：不。谁拥有它——我知道谁拥有它。是郭文贵。但关键在于，这无关紧要。它们在陶鲁斯的房子里，而现在不在那里。这发生在陶鲁斯管理期间。他们应当知道，因为那是他们的房子，对吗？他们控制着它以及所有相关事宜。他们应当知道它发生了什么。如果他们不知道，这本身就说明问题。但他们至少应当知道关于视频的情况，知道如何从广泛的安保系统中检索数据——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2301 于 11/02/23 提交 于 11/02/23 09:23:46 登记 第 55 页，共 72 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2301 于 11/02/23 提交 于 11/02/23 09:23:46 登记 第 56 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年10月24日\n1　该系统在那里，用以显示在3月15日之后谁在房子里，\n2　谁从该处所拿走了这些绘画和艺术品。\n这些内容应当在视频中。\n至少他们\n3　应当能够告诉我们，他们已核查过该等内容，并且\n4　他们不知道。\n5　但关键在于，法官阁下，这才是\n6　首要事项。因为其他物品，法官阁下，\n7　那些在那里且属于郭文贵的——显然属于郭文贵的——我\n8　认为全都是郭文贵的。但为记录起见，那些显然\n9　来自郭文贵的物品，它们现在不会被盗走。我\n10　感到放心。但目前，对此不存在紧急情况，\n11　尽管我们应当处理此事，而且陶鲁斯应当\n12　提供我们要求的信息，法官阁下。\n13　但首要事项是，缺失的物品\n14　发生了什么？陶鲁斯不能说，嗯，我很抱歉，\n15　那不是我的东西。它在该房产内。这\n16　从我们提出的证据中已明确确立。\n17　康韦先生：而且为澄清起见——使该记录绝对完整，\n18　法官阁下，如果有人将一件财产带到房主的\n19　住所，房主没有责任\n20　对其进行清点，然后在此后无论该人将其带往何处\n21　都对其负责。仅仅因为某人——\n22　法院：我们不——\n23　康韦先生：——带了某物到该——\n24　法院：康诺利先生？我是说，康韦先生？\n25　康韦先生：——房产——然后又将其带离该房产——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2301 于 11/02/23 提交 于 11/02/23 09:23:46 登记 第 57 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年10月24日 57 法院：康韦先生？康韦先生：抱歉？法院：我们不是在谈论有人把某件东西带到房主的房子里。因此，不要再谈这个了。这些是——我们都知道我们在谈论什么。康韦先生：好的。确实如此，法官阁下。抱歉，法官阁下，但确实如此。法院：我们正在谈论与资产有关的严重问题。所以，听着，这就是我要——康韦先生：我们谈的是几个花瓶——法院：这就是——不。请原谅。康韦先生：——以及一幅书法作品——法院：请原谅。康韦先生：——就这些。法院：请原谅。这就是我要做的。你和德斯平斯受托人将在本次听证会后举行会议，并且你们将弄清楚这将如何解决，或者不能如何解决。我们将继续——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年10月24日 58 然后我将就这一问题与你们二人进一步举行会议。我不会听取这种说法，即有人把某些财产带到该房产，那就不是我们的问题。这行不通。因此，你们需要弄清楚能否就此将如何处理达成某种协议。但那种情况不会发生。在这一对抗性程序审理期间，我们不会容许马瓦豪宅内存在陶鲁斯基金（Taurus Fund）所拥有财产以外的财产。你们需要看看能否解决此事。如果不能，法院将作出某种决定。但我不——我不会听取这种论点，即如果有人把某人的某件东西带到你们的房子里，你们就不必担心。这很荒谬。明白吗？我们处理的不是这个问题。康韦先生：这并不荒谬，法官阁下。但撇开这一点，法官阁下是在表示您不希望这些额外财产留在该房子里吗？因为这是受托人与我显然可以解决的问题。法院：我根本没有这个意思。我没有说任何那样的——康韦先生：嗯，我是这么听到的。因此我才提出这个问题，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2301 于 11/02/23 提交 于 11/02/23 09:23:46 登记 第 58 页，共 72 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2301 于 11/02/23 提交 于 11/02/23 09:23:46 登记 第 59 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年10月24日 59 法院：我没有问——我对你说，我想知道还有哪些财产在那里，而你的当事人声称其并不拥有。我想具体知道还有哪些财产在那里，而你的当事人声称其并不拥有，以及其确切位置。或许你和德斯平斯先生本周将一同逐项核查，并到房子里完成此事。因为我不会把时间花在这上面。这是在浪费法院的时间。康韦先生：法官阁下，这很清楚。这很清楚。我的困惑是，您说在本案审理期间您不希望该财产在那里，这让我感到困惑。法院：不。我说的是，在本案审理期间，我们不会就位于该房产而你——你的当事人并不拥有的财产进行争论。我想知道位于该房产而你的当事人并不拥有的是什么财产，并且我希望你的当事人就此宣誓。人在哪里？从来没有一名陶鲁斯基金的人签署任何文件或做任何事情。因此，你的当事人将宣誓，他们已经逐项核查该房产，这是他们不拥有的财产，这是什么财产，以及其所在位置。他们还将宣誓，在法院进一步命令之前，该财产绝不会被——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2301 于 11/02/23 提交 于 11/02/23 09:23:46 登记 第 60 页，共 72 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2023年10月24日 60 移走。这可以通过许多方式实现。声称拥有该财产的人可以出庭并请求法院准许将其移走。这可以通过许多不同方式完成。但就当前情况而言，将按此方式处理。因此，我将给你们48——我将给你们少于48小时的时间，向我报告这将如何处理。随后，如果——如果未达成协议，那么我将根据情况作出我认为适当的任何决定。我目前还不知道那会是什么，因为我希望在你们二人进行此次交谈后听取你们双方的意见。但你们不能有人——你们提交了一份清单。我不相信，康韦先生，该清单曾由你的当事人签署。我认为它是——你以律师身份提交的。这没问题。但现在情况已经改变。我希望你的当事人就该房产内其声称并不拥有的资产，按具体物品及所在位置，在伪证罪处罚的约束下签署。对此你有什么问题吗？康韦先生：没有。只是看来我们需要取得完整清单，以——按房屋目前的状况，这意味着受托人与我需要去那里完成此事。然后我们可以签署适当的文件。法院：可以。那么你们可以谈谈。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年10月24日 61 本院知悉该情况。现在，Major先生（Mr. Major），受托人陈述称，格林威治房屋内的财产也已从该房屋移出，他希望进入并拍摄视频。对于他希望进入格林威治房产并清点其中物品一事，您的立场是什么？\n\nMAJOR先生：法官大人，我希望有机会与我的当事人商议，并审阅受托人的动议——不——嗯，该内容载于昨天提交并作为紧急事项提交的、请求安排状态会议的动议中。现在，我认为，受托人无疑——我的意思是，这些视频——或者，您知道，我想它们是视频截图——现在已经有三年多了，却被用来作为提出紧急事项的依据，继而要求今天获得实体性救济，这对我的当事人并不公平。而且，受托人昨天提交该动议时，明知本院今天已经安排审理 In Re Kwok（郭文贵案）事项，并且状态会议将立即安排。我没有时间回应受托人动议中的主张。我首先需要与我的当事人及一名口译员就此花些时间，以便我能够理解这些主张为何。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2301，提交日期 11/02/23，录入日期 11/02/23 09:23:46，第 62 页，共 72 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年10月24日 62 但为了说明背景，受托人显然所做的是——我确信，受托人在其各项费用申请中附具的工时记录，将反映其团队何时开始在网上查看这些郭文贵视频。但我确信那已经是相当久以前的事了。我认为，就 Greenwich Land（格林威治地产）而言，把这称为紧急动议，然后要求我们在不足24小时内作出回应，而目前并无任何寻求除安排状态会议以外救济的待决动议，这对我的当事人并不公平，而且坦率地说，这没有给予我充分机会向本院陈述。我认为，对我而言最重要的是，能够与我的当事人审阅该动议及各种照片，并理解其立场。但是，受托人认为我会直接出庭并同意；并且如果我不同意他侵犯我当事人的住所、拍摄她住所的视频，而我不同意便以某种方式表明我们担心什么——坦率地说，这并不是一个合理的立场。我想知道，受托人何时首次得出结论，认为如其在动议中所主张，财产已从 Taconic（塔科尼克）转移至 Mahwah（马瓦）房产，以及为何没有就此联系我。因为我们现在正在本院面前。我无法向本院作出实体性回应，\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2301，提交日期 11/02/23，录入日期 11/02/23 09:23:46，第 63 页，共 72 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年10月24日\n因为我没有获得进行所需研究的机会。而且，在我更好地了解事实之后，我不知道我的当事人的立场会是什么。\n\n我认为，最好的做法是，就 Greenwich Land 和我的当事人郭太太（Mrs. Guo）而言，将此事延期一周。请让我查明情况。在此期间，我愿意与受托人商议。但是，坦率地说，我们是突然遭遇此事，而我没有任何时间查明情况。\n\n因此，法官大人，我不知道该说什么。我试着观看他们从中截取静态画面的部分视频。它们不是英语，所以我无法确定，您知道，视频中的发言人说了什么。我只是——无法向本院作出实体性回应。\n\n不过，我无法想象，这些已有三年多历史的视频会造成一项紧急情况，要求我在不足24小时内作出实体性回应。\n\nDESPINS先生（Mr. Despins）：法官大人，我可以发言吗？\n\n本院：嗯，状态会议动议并不要求作出回应，Major律师（Attorney Major）。所以我只是——它并不要求作出回应。但我问了您的立场是什么，我理解您刚刚阐明的立场是，您希望至少将此事延期一周，\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2301，提交日期 11/02/23，录入日期 11/02/23 09:23:46，第 64 页，共 72 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年10月24日\n以便您可以谈——您可以查看信息，可以与您的当事人讨论，然后，我假定，再与受托人进行后续谈话。不是后续谈话。您尚未进行过谈话。但我想说的是，在您与当事人讨论此事并审阅这些信息后，您将与受托人进行讨论。这是您的请求，对吗？\n\nMAJOR先生：是的，法官大人。仅就我为何请求一周时间提供一点背景，我认为在通常情况下，这将是完全适当的时间。但这并非我可以直接致电总法律顾问并说，情况如下，我刚给您发了一些照片，我们谈谈的情形。\n\n我必须安排与我的当事人及一名在法院有日常工作的口译员进行当面会面。因此，我必须在后勤上安排该次会面。这是我能够与我的当事人有效沟通的唯一方式。因此，我需要一点时间来举行该会面、查明情况，然后与受托人或其律师进行初步讨论，以确定最佳的后续做法。\n\n本院：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官大人，我可以发言吗？我们确认，摩托车首次于上周五出现在\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2301，提交日期 11/02/23，录入日期 11/02/23 09:23:46，第 65 页，共 72 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年10月24日 65 Taconic 房产。并且，您知道，Major先生的立场听起来——将会非常合理。在任何案件中，我都会同意。但本案例外，因为有一项禁令规定 Greenwich Land 不得耗尽其银行账户。当然，他们这样做了。我们知道这一点。看看简易判决。我并未请求您就此作出裁定。但是，您知道，他们确实这样做了。他们实际上耗尽了银行账户。因此，这不像是这里两方之间的君子争议。存在不当行为，不当行动。因此，本案中一周就是一年，因为一周内可能发生很多事情。并非债务人，而是这里债务人的妻子没有工作。我们明天可以安排一名口译员到场。这是一个相当简单的问题。我们并非要求他们承认任何事情。这只是保存证据，即一段视频。因此，法官大人，鉴于此处的不当行为，我不会给他们一周时间。PAX（PAX）就一项资产的出售发出了通知——这不是 lis pendens（诉讼待决通知），但相当于特拉华州法律下的该通知——该资产出售所得的数十万美元被从这家公司转出。而且，该全部款项都流向关联方，包括流向 Zeisler（蔡斯勒）及其他人。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2301，提交日期 11/02/23，录入日期 11/02/23 09:23:46，第 66 页，共 72 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年10月24日 66 而现在我们应该说，嗯，您知道，大家理性一点，诸如此类。法官大人，我们已经过了那个阶段。这是——其之所以紧急，是因为我们刚刚在周五发现了该确认情况。我们面对的是不当行为者。很遗憾我这样说。我对此表示歉意。我希望我从不必这样说。但这些不当行为者一直从事违抗法院命令的不当行为，包括 Greenwich Land 在本院发出禁令要求其不得这样做期间耗尽其银行账户。所以我不知道。我不想夸大其词，但这令人担忧。因此，他不需要一周来做这件事。这是一个简单程序。因此，我们请求法官大人不同意给予一周延期。\n\n本院：Major先生，您有任何回应吗？\n\nMAJOR先生：法官大人，只是——是的。抱歉。\n\n本院：不。请继续。\n\nMAJOR先生：法官大人，我没有请求就任何事项延期一周。受托人所请求的唯一事项是举行状态会议。我在不足24小时内出席了状态会议。现在受托人所说的是，让我们免除动议程序，免除正当程序，让我侵入这名女士的住所并拍摄视频，即使他们知道她有正当的安全顾虑。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2301，提交日期 11/02/23，录入日期 11/02/23 09:23:46，第 67 页，共 72 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年10月24日 67 过去曾就受托人如何处理与债务人家庭成员有关的照片和录像资料发生争议。我并未请求延期。目前，除今天到庭之外，并无任何待决事项要求我们作出回应。我所请求的是一个机会，让我与我的当事人交谈，向她展示照片，并理解受托人作出的主张。受托人在其回应中很谨慎。他说，他刚刚确认摩托车实际上位于 Taconic 房产。嗯，如果我对文件的理解正确，他大约在六七周前的9月1日就知道它们位于新泽西州 Mahwah。\n\nDESPINS先生：没错。\n\nMAJOR先生：受托人称债务人驾驶这些摩托车在 Taconic Road（塔科尼克路）房产的照片，看来是——根据受托人昨天提交文件中的字面表述，看来是可追溯至2021年的视频。这——并非最近发生的任何事情。因此，我不理解为何我不能有一点时间与我的当事人交谈，与受托人的律师商议，因为他们在昨天提交文件之前没有联系我，\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2301，提交日期 11/02/23，录入日期 11/02/23 09:23:46，第 68 页，共 72 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2023年10月24日 68 并看看此事能否得到解决。如果不能，我们或许可以制定——我认为是一项简化程序，将该问题提交本院。但我只是请求一个机会，让我能够明智地与我的当事人交谈，并理解此处的主张是什么。但我想澄清，我并未请求延期，因为目前不存在任何要求我采取超出我已经采取行动之外行动的事项。\n\n本院：还有其他人要补充吗？好的。Conway先生（Mr. Conway）和 Despins先生，你们将进行会面协商，然后在周四下午2点前向本院提交书面报告，说明你们是否已就位于该房产、且不归 Taurus Fund（Taurus 基金）所有的资产达成某种形式的协议。无论是否达成协议，Taurus Fund 都将在下周二，即10月31日之前，提交一份由 Taurus Fund 代表在伪证罪处罚下签署的清单，具体列明位于 Mahwah 遗产财产处的全部资产，无论其是否归 Taurus Fund 所有。因此，受托人和 Conway先生，你们的首要要求是进行会面协商，然后在周四下午2点前提交一份关于该会面协商以及\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 2301，提交日期 11/02/23，录入日期 11/02/23 09:23:46，第 69 页，共 72 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2023年10月24日 69 看看你们就状态请求中提出的问题达成了何种协议（如有）。然后，Conway 先生，正如我所说，无论是否如此，你的当事人必须在下周二前，即 31 日前，就 Mahwah 豪宅内或其上的所有资产清单，在伪证处罚的约束下签署宣誓书或声明。我认为我们在先前的命令中已经非常明确地说明，这包括可能位于 Mahwah 豪宅土地范围内的物品；不必位于 Mahwah 豪宅内部。Major 先生和 Despins 先生，你们将进行协商，并于周五下午 2 点前提交一份报告，说明你们是否就 Greenwich 房产达成任何形式的协议。如果没有，那么我将采取行动——我不知道我会怎么做，但我会看看我能——我会想出办法。不过，Major 先生，我理解你需要一些时间与当事人交谈。但今天是星期二，现在是 3:00。我给你们到周五下午 2 点，以便尝试进行这些交谈，看看从现在到周五之间你们能够取得何种成果（如有）。然后我们再据此推进。有人有任何问题吗？\n\nCONWAY 先生：只有一个问题，法官阁下。在我们周四向您提交我们将要提交的任何文件后，我预期我将需要某种——一项命令，仅说明无论访问的安排是什么，均系由法官阁下命令作出，这样——您知道，安保人员就不会阻止我们。我预期他们将需要——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2301 于 11/02/23 提交 于 11/02/23 09:23:46 录入 第 70 页，共 72 页\n\n郭文贵—2023年10月24日\n\n1　我预期我将需要某种——一项命令，\n2　仅说明无论访问的安排是什么，均系由\n3　法官阁下命令作出，这样——您知道，安保\n4　人员就不会阻止我们。我预期他们将需要——\n\n法庭：是。\n\nCONWAY 先生：——带来管理人员——\n\n法庭：是。\n\nCONWAY 先生：——等等。但我们可以解决\n8　这个问题。受托人和我可以解决这个问题，并将其写入\n10　我们向您提交的报告中。我只是想提醒您，\n11　基于禁令，我预期我将需要——\n12　那项命令。\n\nDESPINS 先生：我认为，法官阁下，根据该\n14　命令，受托人可以授权他人获得进入许可。因此，\n15　我确信我可以授权 Conway 先生或他的某一位\n16　同事获得进入许可，或者——因此我们可以解决这个问题。\n\n法庭：嗯，你们——正是如此。你们可以在\n18　协商期间讨论此事。如果现有命令\n19　已经可以在无需进一步命令的情况下对此作出规定，\n20　那很好。如果不能，则可以作出进一步命令。\n21　好吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nCONWAY 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，那将是由——\n25　Conway 先生和受托人 Despins 提交的文件。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2301 于 11/02/23 提交 于 11/02/23 09:23:46 录入 第 71 页，共 72 页\n\n郭文贵—2023年10月24日 71 然后，Major 先生和——受托人 Despins，你们将于周五下午 2 点前提交你们的文件。然后我们将看看接下来如何推进。但你们全体均被命令进行协商，并看看就这些问题你们能够取得何种成果。我理解你们可能无法完成全部事项，或任何事项，但我——我命令你们尝试——看看你们能做什么。然后我们将采取下一步措施。那么，关于郭文贵 Chapter 11 联合管理案件，或今日列入日程的任何对立程序，今天下午是否还有任何事项需要处理？\n\nDESPINS 先生：受托人方面没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么谢谢各位。那是我们今天最后一次听证，因此现在休庭。\n\n全体：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭书记员：现休庭。\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n（程序于下午 2:49 结束。）\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2301 于 11/02/23 提交 于 11/02/23 09:23:46 录入 第 72 页，共 72 页\n\n郭文贵—2023年10月24日　72\n\n1　本人，CHRISTINE FIORE，经法院批准的\n2　速记员及经认证的电子记录员和\n3　速记员，特此证明，前述内容系根据\n4　上述案件程序的官方电子录音制作的正确\n5　记录文本。\n\n9　November 1, 2023\n10　Christine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","HCHK","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","Je","Paul Hastings","CIPA","Luc Despins","G Clubs"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":88,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2244,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2270,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":19015,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-11-02 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-11-02","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:48:59"}