{"id":"court_ctb_2481_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2481,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2024-01-02","title":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTIC","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION IN RE: . Chapter 11 . Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK AND GENEVER . HOLDINGS CORPORATION AND . (Jointly Administered) GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC, . . Debtors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 . Adversary Proceeding TRUSTEE, . No. 23-05008 (JAM) . Plaintiff, . . Courtroom 123 v. . Brien McMahon Federal Building . 915 Lafayette Boulevard MEI GUO, . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 . Defendant. . Monday, December 18, 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:36 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Audio Operator: Electronically recorded Transcription Company: Reliable The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302)654-8080 Email: gmatthews@reliable-co.com Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 1 of 83\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2481
Filed 01/02/24 | Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50
Page 2 of 83 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | 2 |\n| | | |\n| 1 | APPEARANCES: | |\n| 2 | For the Chapter 11 | |\n| 3 | Trustee: | Patrick R. Linsey, Esquire
NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.
195 Church Street |\n| 4 | | 13th Floor
New Haven, Connecticut 06510 |\n| 5 | | |\n| 6 | | -and- |\n| 7 | | Georg A. Bongartz, Esquire
Luc A. Despins, Esquire |\n| 8 | | PAUL HASTINGS, LLP
200 Park Avenue |\n| 9 | | New York, New York 10166 |\n| 10 | For the U.S. Trustee: | Holley, L. Claiborn, Esquire |\n| 11 | | OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
Robert N. Giaimo Federal Building
150 Court Street |\n| 12 | | Room 302 |\n| 13 | | New Haven, Connecticut 06510 |\n| 14 | For Mei Guo: | James M. Moriarty, Esquire |\n| 15 | | ZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C.
10 Middle Street
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 |\n| 16 | | |\n| 17 | | -and- |\n| 18 | | Melissa F. Wernick, Esquire
CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI, P.C. |\n| 19 | | 105 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, New Jersey 07068 |\n| 20 | For Taurus Fund LLC, | |\n| 21 | Scott Barnett as
trustee of Taurus Fund | |\n| 22 | LLC, and Taurus
Management LLC, as | |\n| 23 | trustee of Taurus
Fund LLC: | Michael T. Conway, Esquire |\n| 24 | | LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE
747 Third Avenue |\n| 25 | | 16th Floor
New York, New York 10017 |\n| | | |\n\n 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE Matter No. 2375 Motion to Sell / Trustee's Motion, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 105 and 363, Bankruptcy Rules 2002, 6004(c), and 9014, and Local Rules 6004-1 and 6004 2, Seeking Entry of Order: (I) Authorizing and Approving Sale of the Lady May II Free and Clear of Liens, Claims, Interests, and Encumbrances, (II) Authorizing and Approving Purchase and Sale Agreement, and (III) Granting Related Relief Filed by Georg Alexander Bongartz on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. 5 Court's Ruling: 18 Matter No. 2429 Order Scheduling Status Conference on Notice Regarding Motion for Return of Property Filed by Alleged Customers of Himalaya Exchange in Debtor's Criminal Proceedings 23 Court's Ruling: -- Matter No. 67 Order Scheduling Status Conference Regarding Order Compelling Anton Development Limited, Whitecroft Shore Limited, and the Defendant to Comply with Subpoenas and Awarding Sanctions and Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to File Documents Under Seal. 23 Court's Ruling: -- Transcriptionists' Certificate 83 Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 3 of 83\n\n 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Proceedings commenced at 2:36 p.m.) THE CLERK: Case Number 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok, and Adversary Number 23-05008, Despins v Guo. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BONGARTZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Alex Bongartz of Paul Hastings for the Chapter 11 trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MORIARTY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James Moriarty from Zeisler & Zeisler for the debtor in 22-50037 and as local counsel for Ms. Guo in 23-05008. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MORIARTY: Good afternoon. MS. WERNICK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Melissa Wernick from CSG Law, on behalf of the defendant Mei Guo in Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 4 of 83\n\n 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the adversary proceeding. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Is there anyone else that wishes to note their appearance this afternoon? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. There are certain matters on the calendar this afternoon that, I'm not sure, Trustee Despins, how you want to proceed, so how would you like to proceed? MR. DESPINS: It would probably make sense, Your Honor, to start with the sale of the small (indiscernible) -- THE COURT: It seems to make sense, yes; although, that is scheduled for 3:00 p.m., but there are no objections and you had no other bids is my understanding. Is that correct? MR. DESPINS: That's -- MR. BONGARTZ: That is -- I'm sorry -- that is correct. May I approach? THE COURT: Yes, please, thank you. So right now, we're going to be addressing ECF Number 2375. MR. DESPINS: Yes. MR. BONGARTZ: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon. This is, again, Alex Bongartz of Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 5 of 83\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Paul Hastings for the Chapter 11 trustee. Just one small housekeeping matter before I get started. Dirk Johnson, who is the declarant in support of the sale motion at Docket 2375 had not -- unfortunately was not able to travel down here due to the weather and I saw that Your Honor granted our request to have him appear remotely.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 He is available, although, I think because the time -- the schedule start time was 3 o'clock, he may not yet be on the Zoom, but if Your Honor does have questions, I would be more than happy to contact him and he can join sooner than that.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay.\n\n13\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. BONGARTZ: In any event, let me just right into the motion. The motion, we filed on November 27 at Docket 2375 seeks the approval of the proposed sale of the Lady May II to Patrick Cloppenburg. I will refer to him as \"the buyer.\" The proposed sale will be free and clear of all liens, claims, and encumbrances, pursuant to the purchase agreement, dated November 22nd, 2023, and the related addenda, thereto.\n\n22 23 24 25 A few things to highlight, the sale would be on an \"as-is, where-is\" basis, no representations or warranties as to the condition of the Lady May II would be given by the estate. The proposed purchase price is \\$375,000. The buyer\n\n| 1 | has already made a good faith deposit in the amount of 25 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | percent of the purchase price, which is \\$93,750. |\n| 3 | Your Honor has already correctly noted, no |\n| 4 | objections have been filed to the motion and I'd be happy to |\n| 5 | walk Your Honor through the marketing process, the sale |\n| 6 | agreement, or any other questions that you have, but in light |\n| 7 | of the lack of objections, I would request that the Court |\n| 8 | grant the motion. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
The only thing I would like you to do, |\n| 10 | counsel, is just walk through the marketing and the service |\n| 11 | of the motion.
I know there was a notice of sale posted on |\n| 12 | the Court's website, but I do think the record should contain |\n| 13 | representations, with regard to the marketing of the asset |\n| 14 | and the service of the motion and the objection deadlines and |\n| 15 | that so that the record is complete, okay? |\n| 16 | MR. BONGARTZ:
Absolutely.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 18 | MR. BONGARTZ:
So let me take a step back and |\n| 19 | actually start with the marketing process, prior to the |\n| 20 | filing of the motion.
Edmiston engaged in an extensive |\n| 21 | marketing campaign.
They've canvassed the market of |\n| 22 | potential buyers and sent out mailers and emails to their |\n| 23 | distributions of their entire network of brokers and parties |\n| 24 | that might be potentially interested. |\n| 25 | The Lady May II was also displayed at the Newport |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Boat Show in mid-September 2023. There were some initial expressions of interest and we reached out to each of those parties and provided them with a copy of the proposed -- the form of proposed purchase-and-sale agreement. Unfortunately, by the proposed October 4 bid deadline, the trustee did not receive any qualified bids from any of the parties that had expressed tentatively, an interest.\n\n8 9 10 11 The only bid that was received was for \\$150,000, which was far below what our expectation was and also, in fact, far below the minimum bid that we had asked from those parties who had expressed interest.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 Following the bid deadline, the trustee did not stop there. We continued to engage both, with the one bidder that had submitted a bid for \\$150,000, as well as the purchaser of the Lady May, as you will recall, earlier this year, but that buyer had no interest in purchasing the Lady May II.\n\n18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As far as the service of the motion is concerned, I should note that we served it on the ECF list, obviously, and those who did not seek or did not agree to accept services by email, we served a hard copy on those parties on the ECF list. We also served, in accordance with Your Honor's order, we served a copy of the sale notice on the Committee and I believe copy of the sale notice, as well as your hearing notice, were also served on everyone on the ECF\n\n| 1 | list. |\n|---|-------|\n|---|-------|\n\n25\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I would like to make one clarification, and I apologize for any oversight, but due to some miscommunication, the underlying motion was not served, again, on the proposed -- on the handful of parties that had initially expressed an interest, but never submitted a bid. They did get a copy of the PSA, though, as part of the bidding process and, I should also note as we explained in the supplemental declaration this morning, the broker, after the motion had been filed, sent a global notice to this entire network of brokers with the -- with all of the relevant information, the purchase price, the -- sorry, let me -- the proposed purchase price, as well as the hearing date, as well as the December 15 requested deadline for any further and final bids. And on top of all of that, the broker also updated the YATCO and YachtWorld listings, both of which also have now included the additional information about the hearing date. To be super clear, all these things, the email distributions, as well as the updates to the YATCO and YachtWorld listings were done on November 30th. So that's -- has been now, 19 days ago. I should also note that certificate of service that described the service of the motion was filed at Docket 2418.\n\nThank you, Your Honor.\n\nTHE COURT: Thank you.\n\n1\n\n2 3 4 5 And I haven't seen yet, but I'm looking at a supplemental declaration of Dirk Johnson, who is not going to be here in person, because he had travel issues. That was filed at 9:48 this morning.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MR. BONGARTZ: Yes, that is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: And I'm looking at that, because I'm taking that into account as evidence in support of the marketing of the Lady May II and the service and discussions that were made in connection with the sale of the Lady May II. And it has several exhibits attached to it, including a brochure of the boat.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MR. BONGARTZ: Yes, just to explain really brief what the declaration shows, is that, as I mentioned earlier, there was a global email distribution to 1875 brokers, that's on Exhibit A, and that includes on the very first page, to do so hearing date, the proposed sale price, as well as the request for any final bids by December 15th. And then the other exhibits are just the updates to the YATCO and YachtWorld listing to include the same information.\n\n21 22 23 THE COURT: I'm just reviewing the document right now, so if you will just bear with me for a moment, please. (Pause)\n\n24 25 THE COURT: All right. I have reviewed the supplemental declaration of Mr. Johnson in support of the\n\n| 1 | motion to sell the Lady May II and I see that the documents |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | filed on the docket of the case are what you described on the |\n| 3 | record here today, including information regarding the |\n| 4 | marketing and service and continued communications, with |\n| 5 | regard to the sale of the Lady May II for \\$350,000 -- three |\n| 6 | hundred and seventy-five, I'm sorry, thousand dollars. |\n| 7 | Now, with regard to the purchase and sale |\n| 8 | agreement itself, I was looking at this before and I'm |\n| 9 | probably just looking in the wrong space.
I know it has a |\n| 10 | closing date of the 31st of December 2023, but I'm actually |\n| 11 | looking at the date that this document was signed and I just |\n| 12 | don't see that, but I'm probably missing it somewhere. |\n| 13 | MR. BONGARTZ:
It's actually on the very first |\n| 14 | page.
There is a little -- if you go to the purchase-and |\n| 15 | sale agreement for brokerage vessel, which is the standard |\n| 16 | form -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Uh-huh. |\n| 18 | MR. BONGARTZ:
-- there's a box at the top and if |\n| 19 | you look at the sub box that reads \"important dates,\" there's |\n| 20 | a -- it says 31.12.2023; that's the European version of |\n| 21 | writing the date. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Right.
But I don't know the date this |\n| 23 | agreement was signed, I'm saying. |\n| 24 | MR. BONGARTZ:
Oh, I'm -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I saw that date. |\n\n 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BONGARTZ: No, it's on the signature block to the addendum. It's ECF page 52 of 62. I'm sorry, I misunderstood, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's okay. Okay. There it is. I didn't see it. That's all I was looking for. MR. BONGARTZ: No, it's okay. It's also on the form itself on page 45 of 62, but it's in multiple places. THE COURT: And this was on, obviously, of the docket of the case, so it was available for -- if someone has the ability to view, electronically, and/or, obviously, to come to the Clerk's Office and review this purchase and sale agreement. So, I don't know why I couldn't find that date before, but now I see it. Okay. So if this sale is approved today, there are a couple of provisions, obviously, that may change the actual amount that is delivered by the buyer to the seller, depending upon the date of closing, correct? MR. BONGARTZ: That is correct. There is a cost allocation with respect to the winterization and storage at the Newport shipyard, which depends on the scheduled date of closing. THE COURT: And have you -- are you able to report to the Court what day you think the closing may occur at this Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 12 of 83\n\n 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 point? I'm not -- MR. BONGARTZ: No, we are preparing for a closing either Thursday or Friday this week. THE COURT: Of this week? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Does anyone else wish to be heard, with regard to the sale, the proposed sale of the Lady May II to the buyer identified in the purchase and sale agreement, as Patrick Cloppenburg? (No verbal response) THE COURT: All right. Hearing nothing, then I think the only thing we need -- I have a few questions about the proposed order. MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: You might need to revise it. MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: Is that -- you should have -- I mean, we can put in the hearing date today, but it says during which -- I'm sorry, I'm on page 2 of the order -- MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: -- and probably the sixth or seventh line down, it says, \"During which the trustee's exhibits and the testimony of Mr. Johnson were admitted into evidence.\" I mean, he really isn't testifying, but you can say his affidavit and supplemental declaration were reviewed Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 13 of 83\n\n 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 by the Court -- MR. BONGARTZ: Yep. THE COURT: -- and no party raised any objection to that admission as evidence in support of the sale. MR. BONGARTZ: We will make that change, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then in three lines down or two lines down, depending upon which line you're looking at there -- MR. BONGARTZ: Uh-huh. THE COURT: -- and it says, \"And all objections thereto.\" I think I'd rather you say, \"There being no objections filed\" -- MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: -- or however you want to say it. MR. BONGARTZ: We'll put that there. THE COURT: But it's clear that there were no objections filed, okay? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: And then on page 11 of the proposed order, paragraph 12. MR. BONGARTZ: Yes? THE COURT: It says, \"It being the intent of the Court,\" in the second sentence -- MR. BONGARTZ: Uh-huh. Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 14 of 83\n\n 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: -- I think it would just say -- I mean, what you're trying to say is just because we don't identify a specific provision in the PSA doesn't mean it's not enforceable, right. Isn't that what you're trying to say? MR. BONGARTZ: Correct, the entire agreement is approved by the Court and all provisions are enforceable; that is correct. THE COURT: I don't think we need it being the intent of the Court, right. It's not my intent. MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: I mean, it's what it says and that's what I'm approving. So I would just say, you know: \"All the terms and conditions are in effect and enforceable and, therefore, authorized and approved.\" Okay? MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: Now, the one thing I noticed in paragraph 12 that might be different from the purchase-andsale agreement itself, but I think you have a provision that says the order will -- MR. BONGARTZ: We do. THE COURT: -- will govern? MR. BONGARTZ: Uh-huh. Yes, we do. THE COURT: But in paragraph 12, it says the -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 15 of 83\n\n 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 isn't that saying just a few lines down, it says: \"Provided, however, that the PSA may be modified, amended, or supplemented by the parties thereto in a writing signed by all the parties without further notice to or order of this Court.\" But then there is something -- I mean, I don't think it's -- I just thought there was something that said there might have to be further order of the Court if there was an amendment. MR. BONGARTZ: I think it's the last phrase, \"Unless approved by order of the Court,\" I believe, refers to modifications that do have material and adverse effect. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. All right. Then the only other question I had -- I think it's the only other question I have -- so Florida law is going to govern this contract? That's what the purchaseand-sale agreement says. MR. BONGARTZ: If that's what it says, then that -- THE COURT: Well, it says, \"State of blank,\" and then it says, \"Florida,\" if left blank. So that's what I'm assuming? MR. BONGARTZ: That's the correct assumption; yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 16 of 83\n\n 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BONGARTZ: Actually, Your Honor, let me double-check, because it may be that that provision was modified in the addendum, now that I focused on this question. Just give me a second, let me double-check. I just don't want to misstate. THE COURT: Yeah, I didn't see that, but you could be right. I mean, I don't know. (Pause) THE COURT: You're right, it's paragraph 4. MR. BONGARTZ: Yeah, I believe we -- THE COURT: On page 1 of the first addendum, it says, \"Notwithstanding in the PSA --\" MR. BONGARTZ: Yes, sorry. THE COURT: -- \"to the contrary, the PSA is governed by and interpreted, according to the laws of the State of New York.\" MR. BONGARTZ: Yes, I apologize. I should have remembered that -- THE COURT: That's okay. That's fine. MR. BONGARTZ: -- we modified that. THE COURT: I saw it, so that's fine. We now understand that it's governed by the laws of the State of New York. All right. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the proposed order with regard to the sale of the Lady Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 17 of 83\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 May II? (No verbal response) THE COURT: All right. Hearing nothing, then I am prepared to grant the motion for the reasons that we've just gone through on the record, including the representations made in the motion, the evidence that support the marketing of the Lady May II, which includes prior pleadings, but also the affidavit of Mr. Johnson that was filed today at ECF 2441. I also reviewed information when the motion was filed and I know that the notice of sale was also posted on the Court's website, which indicated today would be the hearing on the approval of the sale and then an objection deadline was set at December 15 and no objections were filed with regard to the motion. I also find that service was appropriately made in\n\n16 17 18 accordance with the applicable rules and the order entered by this Court with regard to a hearing and objection deadlines concerning the sale of the Lady May II.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 No one has filed any written objections to the motion and there is no one participating in this hearing today that is objecting in any way to the motion or the proposed order, although, the Court has inquired and received no response from anyone in the courtroom.\n\n24 25 So, for all those reasons, the motion to sell is granted and the proposed order, as we discussed, will just be\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2481
Filed 01/02/24
Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50
Page 19 of 83 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 19 |\n| 1 | a modified and submitted.
I know you want to close soon, so |\n| 2 | I would assume you'll get that proposed order back to the |\n| 3 | Court tomorrow, at the latest, maybe even today.
I have no |\n| 4 | idea. |\n| 5 | MR. BONGARTZ:
We will get it back to chambers |\n| 6 | today. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Actually, you don't have to get it |\n| 8 | back to the chambers.
You can submit it to the courtroom |\n| 9 | deputy -- the Bridgeport courtroom deputy email box, |\n| 10 | please -- |\n| 11 | MR. BONGARTZ:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
-- and then please CC everyone in the |\n| 13 | courtroom that has noted their appearance for the record on |\n| 14 | that email, please, with the final changes to the proposed |\n| 15 | order. |\n| 16 | MR. BONGARTZ:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 18 | MR. BONGARTZ:
Thank you. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you very much. |\n| 20 | Obviously, Mr. Johnson does not need to -- well, |\n| 21 | no one has asked Mr. Johnson to appear.
I've looked at his |\n| 22 | affidavit.
He would have testified about what he said in his |\n| 23 | affidavit and so if you need to tell Mr. Johnson he doesn't |\n| 24 | need to appear, that's fine with the Court. |\n| 25 | MR. BONGARTZ:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| | |\n\n 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Then, aside from the motion to sell the Lady May II, Trustee Despins, you've asked for a status conference that was filed in both, the main case and Adversary Proceeding 5008, with regard to compelling certain parties to comply with subpoenas and award sanctions. So, how would you like to proceed on that matter, Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: Mr. Linsey is handling this matter, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. There are two things that I'll be addressing -- Patrick Linsey for the trustee -- one is the privilege motion that was filed in the main case. The other is the discovery disputes and just a general update that exists in the adversary proceeding. I would propose to take the privilege motion first if that's acceptable to the Court? THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. LINSEY: Thank you. MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, may I just confer with Attorney Linsey for one second on the motion that he's about to argue? THE COURT: I can't hear anything you said, Attorney Moriarty. Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 20 of 83\n\n 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MORIARTY: I apologize, because I'm not speaking into a microphone. THE COURT: That's okay. MR. MORIARTY: May I just confer with Attorney Linsey for one second on the motion -- THE COURT: Certainly. MR. MORIARTY: -- he's about to argue? THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. MORIARTY: Thank you, Your Honor. (Counsel confers) MR. MORIARTY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah, just give me one moment. MR. LINSEY: Sure. (Pause) THE COURT: Sorry. Go ahead, Attorney Linsey. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. No problem. So what Mr. Moriarty wanted to ask me about is what I was coincidentally about to say, which is that in order to discuss the content of potentially privileged materials, I think we would probably need to have a sealed hearing and close the courtroom. I'm going to endeavor to -- THE COURT: Well, who's in the courtroom that hasn't signed the protective order yet? MR. LINSEY: I think this would go beyond the protective order, Your Honor, to the privileges order. Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 21 of 83\n\n 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, and the privileges -- I mean, all right. So who you tell me who needs to leave the courtroom, then. MR. DESPINS: Everyone. MR. LINSEY: Everyone, other than Mr. Moriarty and trustee's counsel -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: -- and Your Honor can stay. (Laughter) THE COURT: The creditors have to leave? The creditors also have to leave? MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: And did you say the U.S. Trustee has to leave? MR. LINSEY: It's privileged, Your Honor, so the -- or, I should say it's potentially privileged and I'll get into why that \"potential\" word is there, but I do think there is some privileged material here. So, yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: What's the U.S. Trustee's -- I don't know that \"position\" is the right word -- but response to that request? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I'm in a bit of a difficult spot, as I believe Attorney Linsey is in, which is that the statute that provides for the U.S. Trustee's participation and that we're able to review anything that Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 22 of 83\n\n1 2 3 gets filed on docket would also include the idea that we could be here today and participate and hear what's said in today's hearing.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That said, there is the other issue of the privilege and to the extent that the problem really gets elevated by my participation here, I will step into the hallway, but I will not agree that we have waived any argument that we're not entitled to be here. I'm making the decision to be in the hallway based on practical considerations, not because I don't think that it's appropriate. THE COURT: Okay. Well, this is what we're going to do. We're going to take a short recess and you're all going to chat and then we're going to come back and you're going to tell me where everyone stands, okay, and we'll make that record accordingly. So it's 3:05. I'm come back at 3:15, all right. The Court is in recess until 3:15. THE CLERK: All rise. The Court is in recess until 3:15. (Recess taken at 3:05 p.m.) (Proceedings resumed at 3:23 p.m.) THE COURT: The scheduling order and issues related to the privileges order. So where do things stand?\n\n 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINSEY: Counsel for everyone present discussed, and we think it makes the most sense to deal with the privileges motion at the end of the day, such that everyone else can leave. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: And Mr. Moriarty and I and the trustee, I assume, will all stick around and deal with that. So, then, I would propose to move on to the discovery status conference in the Whitecroft, rather the Mei Guo/Bombardier adversary proceeding. I'm going to step back a bit further than some of the other discovery motions that have been filed in this case, because the trustee has learned certain information in the last couple of weeks that has given rise to substantial concern. In August of 2022, the trustee served the defendant with a Rule 2004 subpoena. That Rule 2004 subpoena called -- THE COURT: In the main case -- MR. LINSEY: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- the Rule 2004? Go ahead. I just want to make sure I'm completely following you. MR. LINSEY: I appreciate it. The Rule 2004 subpoena included, as an associated entity, Whitecroft Shore Ltd. and numerous of the requests Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 24 of 83\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 called for documents and records that are a lot of the evidence that we're seeing more recently, documents that exist, but were not produced 16 months ago. As the Court is well aware, there was a pattern of obstruction with respect to the Rule 2004 subpoena, which eventually led to an order holding the defendant and others in contempt.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Thereafter, the defendant filed the declaration, wherein the defendant said that the defendant had complied and purported to detail her compliance. What we have seen recently is documents that prove that either one of two alternatives. Either the defendant had responsive information, knew about responsive information and lied about it or the defendant didn't know about the responsive documents and information, because someone other than the defendant is conducting the business that the defendant purports is beneficially owned by her.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Moving forward to this adversary proceeding, as the Court has seen from several of the recent filings, it's been pulling teeth for the trustee to try to obtain discovery in this adversary proceeding. Agreeing on a deposition date for the defendant required a motion to compel. Enforcing subpoenas against the shell companies, Whitecroft Shore Ltd. and Anton Development, likewise, required a motion to compel. The Court entered an order on that motion to compel and set deadlines for the shell companies, Whitecroft\n\n1 2 3 4 5 and Anton Development, and the defendant, in her capacity with respect to those shell companies, to provide documents to the trustee. The trustee received nine documents from Whitecroft on the day of the deadline and nothing from Anton Development.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 The documents, we have sort of a confidentiality issue again. This one, just a confidentiality issue. They've all been marked \"highly confidential,\" so I won't get into the subject matter of those documents, but I will say - and this is -- the specifics of these facts are discussed in the emergency motion for a temporary restraining order that my office filed shortly before this hearing.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 The content of those documents reflects that there are other documents out there; in particular, there is an account that was opened, a financial institution in the United Kingdom called \"JNFX.\" Approximately \\$12 million of proceeds from the sale of a private jet that the trustee believes is the debtors' private jet, was deposited into that account.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 The best case, based on the trustee's investigation to date, that amount in that account has substantially diminished. And we're not talking about a long time frame here. The sale of the Bombardier was postpetition. The sale apparently closed in between August and October of 2022. Funds were originally transmitted, sale\n\n1 2 3 4 5 proceeds were originally transmitted to an escrow agent. The funds show as depositing in this U.K. financial institution, JNFX, in February of 2023. That's why -- you know, that's well into a number of things; among them, the trustee's efforts to obtain Rule 2004 compliance from the defendant.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 In the relatively short time, six months, that - ten months -- that the funds have been in the JNFX account, best case, they have diminished substantially, going from, as far as the trustee can discern -- and this is, information is coming in literally minute to minute here -- there is approximately \\$10.1 million U.S. worth of assets left in the account, which had started around \\$12 million. That's in less than a year.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 So the trustee is substantially concerned about the safety of the funds in this account. The trustee is also concerned about who may give orders, the defendant or others, that funds in the account may be moved or that other things may happen.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Prior to the shell companies appearing for their 30(b)(6) deposition, prior -- one hour prior to the shell companies appearing for their 30(b)(6) deposition, the trustee received a statement from JNFX through defendant's counsel and received email correspondence. The email correspondence reflects JNFX telling one of the defendant's agents that the defendant had made agreements that allowed\n\n 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JNFX to engage in certain transactions with these funds. The trustee was obviously substantially concerned to see the content of these emails, particularly concerned when the one statement that we have seen reflected a zero balance in the account. The trustee called the defendant's counsel and was told that defendant's counsel was unsure what the statement meant. The trustee then sought to take the 30(b)(6) deposition of Whitecroft and, unfortunately, the defendant, appearing as the 30(b)(6) representative for Whitecroft, invokes the -- I should say, sought to invoke the Fifth Amendment, with respect to almost every substantive question that was posed to her. And as I think the Court is aware at this point, corporations do not enjoy a Fifth Amendment privilege. It was incumbent upon the corporation to provide a witness who could intelligently testify with respect to the facts at issue in this adversary proceeding, none more important than what is going on with these Bombardier proceeds. And yet, when I asked question after question, What agreements were made with JNFX? What is this agreement that the representative from JNFX is referring to in the email? All the trustee's counsel heard was \"Fifth Amendment. Fifth Amendment. Fifth Amendment.\" That isn't proper, but it's also prejudicial.\n\n1 2 3 4 It's prejudicial that discovery has been delayed. At this point, if we go back to Rule 2004 discovery, we would have known about the funds before they even made it to JNFX, before that two million dollars turned into vapor.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 And I do want to caution, we're getting more information about the JNFX, but that 10.1 -- and the funds, but that 10.1 million is the best information I have right now, and the trustee is substantially concerned to the point that trustee's counsel sent, this morning, are correspondence to JNFX and spent the weekend preparing an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order to ensure that the funds of JNFX are not further diminished or dissipated.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 So, in terms of discovery disputes that exist right now, I would say that the primary discovery dispute is what the trustee views as improper invocation of the Fifth Amendment by the shell companies and the shell companies' if failure to provide documents and information, which it appears to the trustee, must exist.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I will also -- I want to add one more element to the frustration that came from the deposition on Friday. The trustee sought to inquire about when the shell companies sought to obtain documents responsive to the subpoena and the 30(b)(6) witness, the defendant, was unable to testify about those facts, either because she asserted that she did not know or because she was invoking the Fifth Amendment.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 But there are material facts that the trustee is entitled to explore in discovery. That's something that Your Honor will see. In this TRO motion is evidence the debtor has uncovered -- evidence the trustee has uncovered that it was the debtors' alter-ego Golden Spring that orchestrated the sale of the Bombardier jet. It was Max Krasner identifying himself in emails as the director of operations of Golden Spring, who was the client contact for Jetlaw, which was the law firm that purported to represent Whitecroft in the sale of the jet. So the trustee is entitled to information from the shell companies about those facts or entitled to a 30(b)(6) representative who will testify knowledgeably. And if for some reason that can't happen in a closed conference room, then it should happen in open court and the defendant should come to open court and Your Honor can rule about which invocations of the Fifth Amendment are proper and which invocations are not. And just very briefly, Your Honor, I want to read from one of the JNFX representative's emails to Ms. Guo and an agent that the trustee had never heard of until last Friday. The email reads:\n\n23 24 25 \"The statements are in U.S. dollars and Euro, reflecting the FX conversion from U.S. dollars to Euro that Ms. Guo agreed to previously, and which JNFX are entitled to\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do, pursuant to our terms and conditions. Funds have been converted back to U.S. dollars in anticipation of returning U.S. dollar sums to the account from which they were received, but you made it clear, this step would be unwelcome.\" Someone is plainly giving JNFX instructions about what to do with this money and the trustee is profoundly concerned that someone is going to give JNFX the wrong instructions and that JNFX is going to listen. So we're not here today to argue a TRO motion, but I couldn't, in good conscience, not -- in light of these facts, not discuss it. The trustee's primary interest from a discovery perspective is getting through these shell company depositions without further delay and getting testimony to which the trustee is entitled. THE COURT: So right now, with regard to the depositions of the shell companies, the answers to the 30(b)(6) representative, who's the defendant in adversary 5008 is either \"I don't know\" or \"the Fifth Amendment.\" That's what you're telling me? MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor, with very, very few exceptions. There were some basic questions, and I mean very basic about document production that were answered, but anything that became, you know, who specifically was reached out to or when was anyone reached out to, then we were in \"I\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2481
Filed 01/02/24
Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50
Page 32 of 83 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 32 |\n| 1 | don't know\" or sometimes we were in the territory of the |\n| 2 | \"Fifth Amendment.\" |\n| 3 | And Your Honor can read the deposition transcript |\n| 4 | in its entirety.
It's attached as an exhibit to the TRO |\n| 5 | motion. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
And this was the deposition that took |\n| 7 | place on Friday, December 15th; is that what you're telling |\n| 8 | me? |\n| 9 | MR. LINSEY:
Correct, Your Honor.
It was the |\n| 10 | Whitecroft deposition. |\n| 11 | In light of having received the information about |\n| 12 | the JNFX account one hour before the deposition began, the |\n| 13 | deposition was delayed in getting started.
We didn't even |\n| 14 | finish that deposition. |\n| 15 | It's also -- it was an unwieldy practice to |\n| 16 | continuously ask the 30(b)(6) representative to continually |\n| 17 | instruct that from the trustee's perspective, the |\n| 18 | representative needed to answer the questions and was not |\n| 19 | invoking properly, a Fifth Amendment privilege. |\n| 20 | But, Your Honor -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
You're saying that -- who conducted |\n| 22 | the deposition on behalf of the trustee? |\n| 23 | MR. LINSEY:
I did, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
So you said -- you're saying -- I |\n| 25 | obviously haven't looked at what you're talking about -- but |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what you're saying is that when the defendant, as the 30(b)(6) representative of Whitecroft invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege, you stated on the record that it's the trustee's position that such an invocation is improper? MR. LINSEY: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: We got to a pattern. I would ask a question. The defendant would say -- I should say the 30(b)(6) representative would say, \"Fifth Amendment.\" I would say, \"Are you invoking the Fifth Amendment in your individual capacity?\" The witness would say, \"Fifth Amendment.\" I would say, \"Please answer the question on behalf of Whitecroft.\" The defendant or representative would say, \"Fifth Amendment.\" And I would say, \"Is Whitecroft refusing to answer the question?\" And the witness would say, \"Fifth Amendment.\" Eventually, we agreed that her initial invocation of Fifth Amendment could be taken as her continued responses to that colloquy and incorporated it into all of the questions. But the trustee wished to be very clear that the trustee disagrees that a corporation may assert the Fifth Amendment.\n\n| 1 | The trustee has cited Second Circuit case law to |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | the effect that corporations do not enjoy a Fifth Amendment |\n| 3 | privilege against self-incrimination and the trustee is |\n| 4 | entitled to a witness who can testify knowledgeably, |\n| 5 | particularly, where there is evidence; and evidence now that |\n| 6 | the Court has access to; evidence, which the trustee has |\n| 7 | recently just gotten access to, that there are instructions |\n| 8 | going.
There is business happening.
People are doing |\n| 9 | things, purportedly, on behalf of Whitecroft. |\n| 10 | So, you know, the Fifth Amendment cannot |\n| 11 | completely insulate a corporation, allow it to do business, |\n| 12 | allow it to, you know, potentially dissipate funds that a |\n| 13 | trustee believes are property of the estate, without any |\n| 14 | remedy for the trustee to obtain information about that, |\n| 15 | because the corporation's chosen 30(b)(6) representative is |\n| 16 | invoking the Fifth Amendment. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Didn't you attempt to conduct these |\n| 18 | depositions once before, following the deposition of the |\n| 19 | defendant and those depositions did not occur? |\n| 20 | MR. LINSEY:
We did, Your Honor.
On November -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Who represented the defendant as the |\n| 22 | 30(b)(6) representative at the deposition on December 15? |\n| 23 | MR. LINSEY:
Ms. Wernick was counsel for the |\n| 24 | defendant and was counsel for Whitecroft. |\n| 25 | The defendant's personal criminal counsel was |\n\n 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Matthew Leder (phonetic) of Depeny (phonetic). THE COURT: And both parties invoked -- interposed objections and questions and things, both counsel? MR. LINSEY: Mr. Leder of -- Mr. Leder primarily advised the witness, with respect to her invocation of the Fifth Amendment. THE COURT: What was his advice? MR. LINSEY: Well, generally, it was to invoke, Your Honor. I don't mean to make light of it. It was a frustrating afternoon. But Your Honor will see in the transcript, the vast majority of questions that were put to Whitecroft were met with a Fifth Amendment, particularly, as I discussed Max Krasner, the communications that he had with Jetlaw, was Max Krasner an authorized agent of Whitecroft? That was met with, \"Fifth Amendment.\" Yvette Wang also appears on documents related to the sale of the Bombardier; for example, she's listed as an addressee on the letter of intent that the buyer of the Bombardier sent in, I believe it was February of 2022. That's another exhibit to our TRO motion. And when I sought to ask about Yvette Wang and her role with respect to the sale of the Bombardier, I was met with, \"Fifth Amendment.\" And there are exigencies that apply to this information, Your Honor. I mean, one of the reasons that the Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 35 of 83\n\n| 1 | trustee wants to be very clear about who was an authorized |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | agent for Whitecroft is because the trustee is concerned |\n| 3 | about who is going to potentially be doing things that could |\n| 4 | prejudice a recovery by further dissipating or diminishing |\n| 5 | the money that, right now, may be held in that JNFX account. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Well, when you say, Who is an |\n| 7 | authorized representative, the counsel for the defendant |\n| 8 | appointed an authorized representative under the Federal |\n| 9 | Rules of Civil Procedure, correct? |\n| 10 | MR. LINSEY:
Correct. |\n| 11 | And I don't mean to use overlapping terminology; I |\n| 12 | just meant it as a general principal of an agency; someone |\n| 13 | who has the power to call the bank and tell the bank what to |\n| 14 | do. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
No, no, I understand what you're |\n| 16 | saying, but right now you're talking to me about discovery, |\n| 17 | right? |\n| 18 | MR. LINSEY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
That's the conversation were having. |\n| 20 | We're having a conversation about discovery and the |\n| 21 | conversation that we're having is that, first of all, the |\n| 22 | status conference was requested because, I believe, and you |\n| 23 | can please correct me if I'm wrong -- somebody will, I'm sure |\n| 24 | -- because there was not compliance at the previous |\n| 25 | deposition that was noticed and subpoenaed for the Rule 30(b) |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2481
Filed 01/02/24
Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50
Page 37 of 83 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 37 |\n| | |\n| 1 | representative of Whitecroft and Anton Development.
That was |\n| 2 | number one, correct?
That was one of the reasons you wanted |\n| 3 | to have a status conference. |\n| 4 | Number two, you weren't sure whether they were |\n| 5 | going to appear for a deposition on the 15th, right, and they |\n| 6 | did, apparently. |\n| 7 | MR. LINSEY:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
You're telling me.
I'm sure that's |\n| 9 | accurate. |\n| 10 | So, now, they did and they -- and when I say |\n| 11 | \"they,\" I shouldn't say that.
So, now, a Rule 30(b) |\n| 12 | representative who happens to be the defendant, Ms. Guo, |\n| 13 | appeared as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative on behalf of |\n| 14 | Whitecroft, you didn't get to Anton Development; is that |\n| 15 | correct? |\n| 16 | MR. LINSEY:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
And Ms. Guo was represented by |\n| 18 | counsel, who is in this courtroom at that deposition in her |\n| 19 | capacity as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative of Whitecroft |\n| 20 | and then represented by criminal counsel, which I don't know |\n| 21 | if I understand why there was criminal counsel there, because |\n| 22 | she was testifying as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative. |\n| 23 | So, now, you're asking the Court to make a ruling. |\n| 24 | I'm asking you, this is what you're asking me to do, to rule |\n| 25 | on whether or not there was a proper invocation of the Fifth |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | Amendment by Ms. Guo as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | while she was represented by counsel, both, in her capacity |\n| 3 | as a Rule 30(b)(6) representative and, I guess, as potential |\n| 4 | -- for potential exposure, although, I don't know how she has |\n| 5 | criminal exposure as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative.
But |\n| 6 | in any event, and she -- you're telling me that she was |\n| 7 | counseled and instructed to invoke the Fifth Amendment. |\n| 8 | Is that what you're telling me? |\n| 9 | MR. LINSEY:
That's my understanding, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Well, when you say your understanding, |\n| 11 | isn't that what -- that's what they said?
Does the |\n| 12 | deposition transcript reflect that? |\n| 13 | MR. LINSEY:
No, there were breaks where counsel |\n| 14 | spoke with the witness.
Sometimes, Mr. Leder would gesture, |\n| 15 | which I understood those gestures to be suggesting the Fifth |\n| 16 | Amendment be invoked. |\n| 17 | Mainly, the witness invoked the Fifth Amendment on her own, |\n| 18 | but it was my understanding that counsel -- that it was a |\n| 19 | strategy that was employed -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Did counsel ever tell her that it was |\n| 21 | improper to invoke the Fifth Amendment –- |\n| 22 | MR. LINSEY:
Certainly not. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
-- on the record. |\n| 24 | MR. LINSEY:
Certainly not.
Trustee's counsel was |\n| 25 | emphatic repeatedly that the invocations were improper and |\n\n| 1 | | should cease. |\n|---|--|---------------|\n|---|--|---------------|\n\n2 3 4 5 6 THE COURT: Okay. So, you are asking this Court to enter an order compelling her, the representative, who was designated as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative of Whitecroft, to answer those questions because there was an improper invocation of the Fifth Amendment?\n\n7 8 9 MR. LINSEY: That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: You are asking for an order from the Court to say that?\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. I would suggest, if the Court would entertain it, that we would be in a more effective environment to obtain the discovery if there were a way to obtain a resolution to disagreements that would occur during the deposition. One way to resolve that would be to have the deposition occur in open Court. I am not eager to take Your Honor's time if we don't need to. Another way could be to take the deposition at a time where, potentially, Your Honor might be available by phone to the extent that there is a dispute that arises during the deposition.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 One of the things that I have tried to emphasize is that there is a lot of exigencies here. We have already burned a month obtaining the shell company's compliance such as it is; compliance such that the walk-through, the threshold of Trustee's counsel's office, but not substantively testify. So, the Trustee wants to move this\n\n 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 forward –- wants to move this case forward expeditiously. THE COURT: Okay. So, aside from the privileges issue, is that the discovery issue that you are asking me to review and determine? Is there any other discovery issue that you are asking me –- well, Anton hasn't even appeared apparently. MR. LINSEY: That is correct, Your Honor. I would –- THE COURT: And is Ms. Guo the –- isn't she the 30(b)(6) representative of that corporation as well. Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 40 of 83\n\n11 12 13 14 15 16 MR. LINSEY: She was. I would anticipate that if we had –- we stayed until seven o'clock Friday night. So, we didn't knock off early. The interpreter had to drive back to New Jersey. So, at a certain point I wanted to let her go. If we had stayed till ten and gotten into Anton my sense is that it would have gone the same way.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: So, I just want to make sure, from the Trustee's perspective that is Your –- those are Your discovery issues that you asked for a status conference on, which we already had discussions about because of the prior deposition of the defendant in this adversary proceeding in which she was also –- Ms. Guo was also subpoenaed to testify on behalf of the two corporations as the representative and she and her criminal counsel refused to do so, correct? MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. Look, if we're not\n\n| 1 | going to get compliance then at a certain point the Trustee |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | believes that the Court just needs to enter –- to order |\n| 3 | sanctions, whether they be negative inferences, whether they |\n| 4 | be –- given the pattern of obstruction here, and that is why |\n| 5 | I started with the Rule 2004 subpoena, the long –- these few |\n| 6 | documents that the Trustee got were dated in the fall of 2022 |\n| 7 | and the winter of 2023.
Had the defendant –- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
What is the representation from the |\n| 9 | defendant's counsel as to when they came into possession of |\n| 10 | those documents? |\n| 11 | MR. LINSEY:
I don't have a representation from |\n| 12 | defendant's counsel. I asked the witness, the 30(b)(6) |\n| 13 | witness, at the deposition on Friday whether Ms. Guo sought |\n| 14 | to obtain responsive documents from Whitecroft and in |\n| 15 | response to that question, like so many others, the witness |\n| 16 | invoked the Fifth Amendment. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 18 | MR. LINSEY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Counsel, I assume you would like to be |\n| 20 | heard. |\n| 21 | MS. WERNICK:
Yes, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 22 | I want to begin as to, you know, how we are here |\n| 23 | today and why we are here today in the frame of the requested |\n| 24 | status conference.
Much of Mr. Linsey's presentation or |\n| 25 | Attorney Linsey's presentation are of events that have |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 transpired on Friday or earlier today including a TRO motion that was filed moments before Court began. From defendant's perspective the issues that had been addressed previously included appearance at depositions which occurred. We made clear that we were –- that Ms. Guo\n\n6 7 8 was prepared to testify as a 30(b)(6) representative for both Anton Development and Whitecroft on Friday in compliance with the Court's order. Documents have been produced –-\n\n9 10 11 12 13 THE COURT: Well, how did you make that clear because my understanding is that you filed a motion, an emergency motion, for a protective order. So, how did you make it clear that you were going to appear for a deposition on December 15th?\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 MS. WERNICK: Through conversations with Attorney Linsey. And to back up, I want to make sure the stage is appropriate set, Ms. Guo appeared for her deposition, in her individual capacity, at the beginning of November. On that same day she was served with subpoenas for Whitecroft and Anton Development, and requested –-\n\n20 21 22 THE COURT: Well, wasn't that because you wouldn't accept service? I mean, you know, I do know what happened. I read the papers.\n\n23 24 25 MS. WERNICK: Certainly, but there is no obligation for anyone to accept service. There a request for –-\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 43 of 83\n\n43\n\n1 2 3 THE COURT: But you knew that she was going to be served. If you are not going to accept service how else is she going to be served?\n\n4 5 MS. WERNICK: Well, but certainly not for a deposition to occur moments later that same day.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 THE COURT: My recollection of that is that that was well-known by you and Attorney Twardy, I believe, who was there. I mean I understand, okay. I understand, but you have obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and if you don't want to comply with those then that is Your choice. That is Your choice.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I know where you are going, okay, but to say to the Court, any Court no matter who it is, that the Rule 30(b)(6) representative, the Rule 30(b)(6) representative of a corporation, has the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege, please, please, show me Your case because I have seen about –- I have seen numerous cases to the contrary. So, where do you have a case that says that the person that you, as counsel because you counseled this person, designated as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative with Your understanding of Your obligations, Your personal obligations as a lawyer, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that its –- that there is law that supports the claim that ta 30(b)(6) representative of a corporation can invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege. Show me that.\n\n| | 44 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MS. WERNICK:
Your Honor, we are happy to brief |\n| 2 | the issue.
There is -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
No, no, no.
Stop, stop.
Show me that |\n| 4 | right now.
That is what you are here for, right.
We all |\n| 5 | know why we are here.
This is –- we all know why we are |\n| 6 | here, right.
We are here because Your client was served with |\n| 7 | a 2004 examination motion last August, August of 2022. I had |\n| 8 | to go back and look at it because at first I thought is that |\n| 9 | right and then I said, yeah, that is right.
August of 2022 |\n| 10 | and we are now –- its December 18th of 2023 and I am having |\n| 11 | an argument about whether –- I mean if that is the path you |\n| 12 | want to go down that is you choice.
That is Your choice. |\n| 13 | I would urge you to think about that choice very |\n| 14 | long and hard because for you to say we will brief the issue |\n| 15 | it doesn't need to be briefed.
I can show you twelve cases. |\n| 16 | Show me one.
If you show me one I will listen to you. I |\n| 17 | haven't seen one.
It's Your obligation.
You filed a motion |\n| 18 | for a protective order, emergency motion to stop the |\n| 19 | deposition from happening. I guess because I didn't see it |\n| 20 | you then appeared on the 15th somehow to try to be in |\n| 21 | compliance with the Court order, but you still are not in |\n| 22 | compliance because the other entity hasn't been deposed, |\n| 23 | number one. |\n| 24 | Number two, if this is accurate, which I haven't |\n| 25 | seen everything, okay, to be fair I haven't seen what |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Attorney Linsey said about this deposition, but apparently there is a deposition transcript that I will be able to look at. If –- you need to tell me that what Attorney Linsey said is inaccurate that Your client, as the 30(b)(6) representative of Whitecroft, didn't invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege with regard to questions about Whitecroft. MS. WERNICK: Ms. Guo does not cease to be a natural person simply because she appeared in her capacity as\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 a 30(b)(6) witness. Ms. Guo was accompanied by her personal criminal attorney throughout the course of the deposition. Certainly, I am not going to disagree with her invocation. It's in the transcript. It is what transpired on Friday and was instructed by her personal criminal counsel to invoke the Fifth Amendment.\n\n16 17 18 I think the Court, and I would respect the Trustee as well, has to recognize a real tension here with respect to the complaint that the Trustee has brought and then –-\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: You know what, none of that matters. What matters is you are the lawyer who represents the defendant who agreed and counseled her to be designated as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative. This Court has spent an enormous amount of time and every time you all complain about how much money the Trustee spends in fees you lose. You know why, because you're fighting a fight that its clear what the\n\n 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 answer is yet you continue to fight the fight. So, you are now fighting a fight that you're saying she –- nobody said she ceases to be an individual, but that is not what she was being deposed about. She was being deposed as a Rule 30(b)(6) representative of Whitecroft. You, as the lawyer, counseled her to be that party. If there is somebody else then that is Your mistake for not brining that person forward. You can't use the process to delay the process. You can't use the process to suit Your desires at a time that it works for you. You are making a decision and that decision is going to have ramifications. So, I urge you to seriously think about what you just said.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 No one is suggesting that Ms. Guo isn't an individual. She wasn't being asked any questions in her individual capacity. If that is the case, counsel, then every single time a Rule 30(b)(6) representative is deposed they should have a criminal lawyer there with them.\n\n18 19 20 MS. WERNICK: No, but certainly this is not every single case. Here Ms. Guo has been told by the Department of Justice that she is a subject or a target of –-\n\n21 22 THE COURT: I am not involved with the Department of Justice.\n\n23 24 25 MS. WERNICK: -- a criminal investigation. THE COURT: I am involved with a Trustee whose assets –- there are assets here, correct? Ms. Guo testified\n\n 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 already that the plane was sold, but she doesn't know to whom and she doesn't remember when. MS. WERNICK: Documents have been produced by the entity and we have been real time producing –- THE COURT: When did you get the document about the bank account? MS. WERNICK: We sent it last week, as soon as it was received. THE COURT: No, no, no, that wasn't my question. I didn't ask you when you sent it. MS. WERNICK: No, I –- THE COURT: I asked you when you got it. MS. WERNICK: Within days of receipt and the email –- we sent our email correspondence from JNFX to the Trustee so they could see in real time as they were being –- THE COURT: So, you had no idea that there was money being taken out of a bank account? MS. WERNICK: And what we believe the record will show there was a single statement. We were extremely forthcoming to the Trustee that we have been trying to get information from JNFX. We were providing them with information in real time. And what we believe, when additional information from JNFX is obtained, that it will show that it's just fees from JNFX itself being withdrawn from the account. Remember –- Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 47 of 83\n\n 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: \\$10 million? MS. WERNICK: No, no, no, that is not what Attorney Linsey said. There is \\$10 million in the account. THE COURT: I think I heard that the account is depleted. MS. WERNICK: No, no, that there had been withdrawals from the account that we understand to be JNFX fees for holding the funds. There is \\$10 million presently sitting in the account today which we would agree, Your Honor, we would agree with the Trustee, that that is subject to the preliminary injunction that was –- THE COURT: So, they don't need a temporary restraining order? Those funds aren't going to –- MS. WERNICK: Exactly. So, the instruction provided –- THE COURT: Wait a minute, hold on. That may be progress, hold on. So, you are saying that you have evidence, today, that there is \\$10 million in a bank account in –- where is it: Europe, London? MS. WERNICK: In London. THE COURT: Okay. MS. WERNICK: The Trustee received the same email that we did earlier today. THE COURT: And you are going to agree what? MS. WERNICK: The position, and I think what Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 48 of 83\n\n| 1 | further discovery on the communications that the Trustee |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | reference would show, is that the reason why there couldn't |\n| 3 | be movement of the funds from that account is because they |\n| 4 | have been subject to the injunction this whole time.
So, the |\n| 5 | funds were in that account prior to the entry of the |\n| 6 | preliminary injunction, prior to the complaint in this |\n| 7 | adversary proceeding, and they have been with JNFX per the |\n| 8 | direction of Whitecroft's corporate counsel in the British |\n| 9 | Virgin Islands that we have identified –- that was identified |\n| 10 | during the course of the deposition and on the direction of |\n| 11 | Ms. Guo that they be preserved in that account. |\n| 12 | It is our understanding that any deduction in the |\n| 13 | account is fees being charged by the holder of the funds. |\n| 14 | And, you know, I don't want to be speaking out of turn, |\n| 15 | but –- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry, I'm interrupting you just |\n| 17 | because I want to get the timing right.
Are you saying the |\n| 18 | fees that were deducted were deducted before the preliminary |\n| 19 | injunction, is that what you are saying, or were they |\n| 20 | deducted after the preliminary injunction? |\n| 21 | MS. WERNICK:
I couldn't speak to that |\n| 22 | specifically. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
I think I would need to know that, |\n| 24 | wouldn't I? |\n| 25 | MS. WERNICK:
Certainly, but it's not under the |\n| | |\n| | |\n\n 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 direction of Ms. Guo, right. So, the preliminary injunction –- THE COURT: Well, if Ms. Guo was served with a preliminary injunction and it applies to Whitecroft then why would a bank take out money if they knew that there was a preliminary injunction with regard to Whitecroft that says you can't transfer, dispose of; I mean, I can go through the language. MS. WERNICK: Right, exactly, which is why the funds weren't moved. So, they pre-existed in that account. They remained in that account. We would agree that they were subject to the preliminary injunction that was imposed by the Court. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, just for the record, \\$1.5 million in fees on a \\$12 million investment –- THE COURT: We haven't even gotten to that point. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: I understand. MS. WERNICK: So, I understand the concern over the assets, but I raise it just to note just that the assets, we would agree, have been part of the –- THE COURT: All right. Let's just go back to what this is about, at least what it was about when the order was granted scheduling a status conference, right. This was about the failure of Your client to testify as the Rule Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 50 of 83\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30(b)(6) representative and produce documents, subject to a subpoena, of both Whitecroft and Anton Development. So, as we stand here today that still hasn't happened. MS. WERNICK: Again, Your Honor, I would respectfully disagree that documents were produced, all documents. We contacted –- and as Ms. Guo testified during the course of her deposition, she requested counsel reach out to any identifiable parties to seek documents. That was done. THE COURT: What counsel? MS. WERNICK: She asked –- THE COURT: The British Virgin Islands counsel? MS. WERNICK: -- both BVI counsel, our office. We made efforts to reach out and I think, again, this is where we need to contextualize where we are in this case. Folks don't answer to us. We tried to reach out to Max Krazner. I would like to reach out to Max Krazner and ask him to give us, you know, whatever documents or materials he has. We have attempted phone numbers, we have attempted emails. I'm sure, certainly, all the methods of communication that the Trustee himself perhaps has attempted to reach this individual. So, we don't receive responses from Mr. Krazner. We don't receive responses from the jet management company. We reached out to AKAS (ph), which is another entity that was\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 identified, and they say we will give you all the documents we have already provided to the Trustee. We reach out to former counsel that we understand would have documents and we provide to the Trustee whatever was able to be obtained. So, I truly don't want there to be any thought that efforts haven't been made to comply with a subpoena because they certainly have and any documents obtained were provided to the Trustee. So, I would want to note for the record that it's not lack of compliance with a subpoena when there are no documents received in return for these various endeavors. THE COURT: Well, but Your client won't testify that there are no other documents. She has taken the Fifth, for a corporation. So, you can't say that. You can't say what you just said because you have no evidence to back it up. If Your client testified as to that and then the documents are found, well then, Your client has got another problem apparently. That is not the point, counsel. There is no evidence that there aren't other documents. I have no idea, but if the documents that you produced, including something from some bank, like where is the bank statements? MS. WERNICK: So, again, this is not a typical\n\n24 bank. My understanding is –- again, we have to go back to the –-\n\n25\n\nTHE COURT: Again, you can say whatever you want,\n\n1 2 3 4 5 but without evidence it really doesn't matter what you say. Okay. So, I don't have any evidence for you to say it's not a typical bank. I have no idea what that means. You have nothing to support that. You have nothing to prove what you just said.\n\n6 7 8 So, if Your client isn't going to testify under oath about these issues then there is no evidence to support Your claims. There is no evidence.\n\n9 10 11 12 MS. WERNICK: Well, I would respectfully disagree. Ms. Guo testified during the course of the deposition that she requested –- she sought, through counsel, that documents be requested. That is –-\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 THE COURT: So what. That doesn't mean anything. I can request through counsel something too. That doesn't mean documents don't exist. You have an obligation. You, as the lawyer, have an obligation to counsel Your client and the client has an obligation under the subpoena powers. So, I mean you can make these arguments, and you go right ahead, and you create whatever record you want to create, but you don't have a record that has any proof in it.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 All you have, at this point, is you and Your client, subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the sanctions that are also imposed in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure not complying with an order of this Court and a subpoena. So, I think that you need to think about that.\n\n1 That is a problem.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MS. WERNICK: Frankly, Your Honor, and I want to –- you know, when Mr. Linsey, you know, appeared before the Court there was a notion that we're having a discussion which is, you know, my understanding of what we are here for today in terms of a status conference there is no pending motion, there wasn't a request for entry of an order prior to –- THE COURT: Well, there has been a pending motion for sanctions and to compel compliance. So, I am not sure what you mean about that. And I entered an order that said the deposition had to happen by the 15th. Now, I didn't look at the –- I shouldn't say I didn't look at, I saw –- I don't remember exactly what was put in the emergency motion for a protective order, but you didn't want to go through with that, it's pretty clear. MS. WERNICK: Well, it was only a matter of scheduling. We had originally proposed to Attorney Linsey that the depositions proceed either today or tomorrow given the scheduling reason. When it was not agreed with and made the application to the Court –-\n\n22 23 THE COURT: I understand, but I entered an order and it said the date.\n\n24 MS. WERNICK: Understood.\n\n25\n\nTHE COURT: It said, very clearly, by\n\n 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 December 15th. MS. WERNICK: Which is why we respected that and appeared by December 15th. THE COURT: Well, only because, I guess, there was no protective order entered. You wouldn't have respected it if there was a protective order. MS. WERNICK: But there was –- then the order would have been modified. So, I mean to suggest that, you know, we should be any way penalized for violating the order. THE COURT: First of all, I don't even know how you could have asked for a protective order. It was a Court order ordering Your client to appear. You don't get protection from a Court order. Where in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does it say, oh, and if I don't like the order and it has to do with discovery I can ask for a protective order. First of all, there is no basis in law for that, counsel, okay. Number one. Number two, I still don't have any basis in law from anything you are telling me about Your client invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege when she was designated and counseled by you and Your colleagues to be the Rule 30(b)(6) representative. So, when you say there is no motion pending that is not accurate. There is a motion pending. There absolutely is a motion pending and I issued an order for compliance. Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 55 of 83\n\n| 1 | I just want to be very clear, I am not going to |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | spend a lot of time on discovery.
You are just going to have |\n| 3 | to deal with the results of the rulings.
This is –- we have |\n| 4 | gone through this, okay. I may be old, but I'm not that old. |\n| 5 | I remember things, okay.
I have gone through this since the |\n| 6 | beginning of this –- since the time the Trustee was |\n| 7 | appointed.
And all it is, is a constant barrage of |\n| 8 | roadblocks, that is the attempt; road-block after road-block. |\n| 9 | If you have a case that says what you are telling |\n| 10 | me then you should have already filed that.
You should have |\n| 11 | filed a protective order in the first place with regard to |\n| 12 | the subpoenas.
You didn't do that.
You filed a motion for a |\n| 13 | protective order with regard to a Court order compelling |\n| 14 | compliance.
There is no such thing.
You cannot do.
There |\n| 15 | is no law.
You had no basis in statute, or law, or rule to |\n| 16 | seek the relief that you were seeking for a protective order. |\n| 17 | MS. WERNICK:
Respectfully, I would submit that |\n| 18 | that application was mooted because we did, in fact, appear. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Respectfully, you wasted the Court's |\n| 20 | time of having to read something that you filed under |\n| 21 | Rule 11, which says I don't –- you are not going to file |\n| 22 | anything for the cause of delay or the purpose of delay that |\n| 23 | there is no basis in law to grant the relief that you |\n| 24 | requested, none. |\n| 25 | So, if there is no basis in law to grant the |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 relief that you are requesting then the issue becomes sanctions. If that is the path you want to go down that is the path we will have to go down. I am not going to spend hours, and hours, and hours on discovery that when you have an obligation as an officer of the Court to address those issues and when you file a motion, and I'm not saying just you, I know it was colleagues and whatever, that says that you want a protective order from a Court's order compelling compliance you lost. You have lost. MS. WERNICK: Which is why out of respect for the order, again, I would just repeat that –- THE COURT: When you say that, you should have had respect for the order in the first place. There was no basis for Your request. So, you didn't have respect for the order because if you did you wouldn't have made a baseless, meritless request that has no support in the code, the rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, our Local Rules of Procedure, nothing. You had nothing. You didn't even have anything.\n\n20 21 22 MS. WERNICK: I mean, again, Your Honor, I would agree entirely that there is no need to spend additional time on the motion for a protective order. I don't want to –-\n\n23 24 25 THE COURT: Then produce Your client and have her testify appropriately. Your client cannot –- and I have seen no case that says the Rule 30(b)(6) representative of a\n\n 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 corporation can properly invoke the Fifth Amendment; otherwise, what would be the point of Rule 30(b)(6). There is no point. MS. WERNICK: But, Your Honor, again, I would respectfully disagree. Any statements made by Ms. Guo or anyone who is under the subject of a real serious criminal investigation –- THE COURT: Then appoint someone else. MS. WERNICK: We would be happy to. So, if there is not going to be any objection to appoint an agent or some other individual then –- THE COURT: Who is it going to be and when you are going to do it? MS. WERNICK: Exactly. THE COURT: Isn't she the only person who –- MS. WERNICK: So, that is the real –- THE COURT: Wait a minute. Isn't she the only person that has the authority to do so for both of these corporations? I thought she testified there is nobody else? MS. WERNICK: Exactly. THE COURT: Then how can you appoint somebody else? MS. WERNICK: So, this is the real tension. If we can –- THE COURT: Well, it's not a tension, counsel. Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 58 of 83\n\n| 1 | It's not a tension. It's the reality and you have to deal |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | with the reality.
It's time to deal with the reality.
It's |\n| 3 | not a tension.
Its specifically how Your client setup these |\n| 4 | corporations or was instructed to setup these corporations. |\n| 5 | You can't now hide behind it by saying, well, she is an |\n| 6 | individual and she has been told that she might be the |\n| 7 | subject of a criminal inquiry and, therefore, she can invoke |\n| 8 | her Fifth Amendment privilege when she is –- I mean, that is |\n| 9 | ludicrous.
What you are saying is actually ludicrous because |\n| 10 | then every single time that any party is a Rule 30(b)(6) |\n| 11 | representative they could have criminal counsel. |\n| 12 | MS. WERNICK:
I am not here to suggest that there |\n| 13 | shouldn't be potentially an adverse inference or whatever |\n| 14 | legal arguments would be made as a result of the |\n| 15 | implication –- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, then why don't you stipulate to |\n| 17 | that? |\n| 18 | MS. WERNICK:
I understand. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Why don't you stipulate to all the |\n| 20 | facts.
Trustee said that, why don't you stipulate to all |\n| 21 | these facts.
Just stipulate to them.
What is the problem |\n| 22 | with that? |\n| 23 | MS. WERNICK:
I am not aware of that proposal |\n| 24 | having been presented. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
It's in writing. I have read it.
So, |\n| | |\n\n 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 nobody came and told me about it. It's in one of the pleadings. MS. WERNICK: I am not familiar with the –- again, what I –- THE COURT: I don't know how you can't be familiar with that proposal, counsel. You represent the defendant and the defendant, in the defendant's capacity, as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative for both Whitecroft and Anton. I don't know you can't be familiar with that. So, in any event, did you want to add anything else to the record? MS. WERNICK: If Your Honor has any questions, I am happy to answer them. I would repeat that our position is that there has been compliance. I am happy to provide the Court with a further and supplemental information with respect to the invocation. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. WERNICK: Thank you. THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Linsey? MR. LINSEY: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: So, then that takes care of the discovery issues. With regard to the privileges issue we need to clear the courtroom because we are going to have a sealed hearing, is that –- MR. DESPINS: We were thinking of doing the status Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 60 of 83\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2481
Filed 01/02/24
Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50
Page 61 of 83 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 61 |\n| 1 | conference on the other matter first if everyone can leave. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
That's fine. |\n| | |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
Is that okay with Your Honor? |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
That's fine. |\n| 5 | MR. DESPINS:
May I approach, Your Honor? |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may. |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
So, Your Honor, about ten days ago |\n| 8 | or so –- first of all, for the record, Luc Despins, |\n| 9 | Chapter 11 Trustee.
About ten days ago we filed with the |\n| 10 | Court a copy of a motion that had been filed in the criminal |\n| 11 | case for the return of customer funds.
That motion had been |\n| 12 | filed by counsel for, I will say in quotes, \"alleged\" group |\n| 13 | of customers represented by Mr. Giar (ph). I will come back |\n| 14 | to why I am saying \"alleged\" in quotes. |\n| 15 | Basically, we had said in that filing that we were |\n| 16 | available for a status conference and Your Honor did schedule |\n| 17 | the status conference.
The first thing I want to say is why |\n| 18 | we are saying \"alleged\" in quotes is because, and I want to |\n| 19 | be very clear about this, it is obvious that there are |\n| 20 | victims of the various transactions that transpired around |\n| 21 | Mr. Kwok.
Those victims need to be compensated at one point. |\n| 22 | The challenge is who are those victims, who |\n| 23 | decides that they are victims, and how much are they owed. |\n| 24 | That is why we are emphasizing the word \"alleged\".
The |\n| 25 | reason I may sound defensive about this is that there is a |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 supplemental pleading filed by Mr. Giar on Friday that, basically, takes a very strident attack on the DOJ and the Trustee on the basis that –- you know, there is basis, but the lead one is that the DOJ or the Trustee are hostile to victims. I want to debunk that myth from the beginning.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 So, I'm glad the Court gave us an opportunity to be heard on this. As you can see from the notice we filed this morning, I'm not sure you had time to look at it, but there was this extensive reply, I would say premature reply filed by Mr. Giar. By the way, we invited Mr. Giar to attend the hearing today, but he had a conflict. He was not available. Basically, we wanted to address what we are going to file with the criminal court and we will come back to that in a second.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 First, I want to give you a bit of background. So, as I said on Friday, counsel for the \"alleged\" claimant filed a, what we call, somehow premature response because we had not filed our substantive response in the criminal court. As I said, filed a very aggressive pleading attacking the Chapter 11 process and the DOJ. So, this is remarkable for various reasons.\n\n22 23 24 25 First, the reply rehashes that Paul Hastings is a tool of the CCP argument and attaches, for the criminal court, a copy of Mr. Kwok's motion to disqualify the Trustee based on the fact that Paul Hastings had offices in China.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Second, it takes the position that there is no jurisdiction over the Himalaya Exchange because it is a company, a BVI company, therefore not a US company, and because Kwok is not an officer or director of that company. Obviously, we know that that is not the law. The reply pushes really hard on the concept that the Himalaya Exchange is entirely separate from Mr. Kwok. It doesn't mention at all that William Je, who is a co-defendant of Mr. Kwok, is the registered owner of the Himalaya Exchange. It also fails to mention that, Your Honor may recall, that in this case the defendant and the airplane adversary proceeding, also the defendant in the Lady May adversary proceeding the debtor's daughter, referred to Mr. Je as Uncle William. You recall that he is the one that used the Himalaya Exchange to provide \\$37 million for the Lady May escrow. So, there is a direct connection to the debtor and to this case. Then the reply makes a number of fascinating legal pronouncements such as the Trustee has no greater right then a bank would have with respect to deposits left with a bank by customers, meaning that customers own deposits with a bank. It's been Hornbook law in this country for at least a hundred years, Your Honor, that banks own the deposits that\n\n23 24 customers leave with them and that the customers are unsecured creditors of the bank.\n\n25\n\nOther allegations are that this is the victim's\n\n| 1 | money, we will come back to that.
The key allegations is |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | that Himalaya Exchange is a foreign entity and, therefore, no |\n| 3 | one has jurisdiction over it.
Again, its Hornbook law, as |\n| 4 | Your Honor knows, that this Court has jurisdiction over |\n| 5 | property of the estate wherever you are located in the world |\n| 6 | and by whomever. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
You are talking about a filing that |\n| 8 | was made by someone who says they represent the Himalayan |\n| 9 | investors? |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Correct, 3,700 of these. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
In the… |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
In the criminal case. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
It was filed here today, you |\n| 14 | are saying. |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
Well, we filed a copy of that |\n| 16 | ourselves, basically, so that you would have it.
I didn't |\n| 17 | expect you to have a chance to read it before the hearing, |\n| 18 | but, basically, their theory is that we represent these |\n| 19 | 37,000 people –- no, sorry, 3,700 claimants and we can't tell |\n| 20 | you who they are because they could be at risk for physical |\n| 21 | aggression if their identity is known, but trust us, criminal |\n| 22 | court, give us the money and we will make sure that the money |\n| 23 | is given to the right people.
That is really the nature of |\n| 24 | this motion. |\n| 25 | So, they attacked the Chapter 11 Trustee for |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 being –- for requesting to be heard by the criminal court on the basis that this is a foreign company and, therefore, the Trustee has no jurisdiction over it or this court has no jurisdiction over it. Obviously, we know that that is not the case. They also pushed really hard on the fact that because Mr. Kwok is not a director or an officer of the Himalaya Exchange that company is totally independent and, of course, we know from tons of findings that have been made by this Court that it's possible to have a company that, on the surface, doesn't look like it has anything to do with Mr. Kwok, but, in fact, is controlled and owned by him. So, I am not going to repeat all this because you know this in spades, but in addition to that it's not only the Court's finding but its (indiscernible), but also in 2023. Three District Courts in the Southern District of New York sanctioned a number of claimants or plaintiffs that sued the Trustee, PAX, O'Melveny. Didn't sanction them just because they alleged meritless claims, but because those three separate District Courts found that the plaintiffs in there were bringing this litigation for improper purposes, i.e. on behalf of Mr. Kwok. So, this whole allegation that somehow if you are foreign company, if Mr. Kwok is not a director or an officer, then you are independent and, therefore, we're off to the races is, as you know, Your\n\n25 Honor, not credible.\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Then, and again I want to be very clear about this, they say that the victims it's their money, why is the DOJ and the Trustee trying to preclude the victims from receiving their money. Of course, there are victims here. Of course they need to be compensated. As I said at the beginning, the issue is who is a victim, who is a real victim, who is not, and how much are they owed. As Your Honor knows, in this case tons of claimants have filed claims saying I was defrauded by the Himalaya Exchange scheme. So, how would we turn over, you\n\n12 13 claimants and leave these other people alone or on their own, I don't know, but the point is it makes no sense.\n\nknow, \\$200 million plus to Mr. Giar based on unnamed\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 So, there needs to be a determination by a Court about who is a claimant, who is not, and for how much. Obviously, the issue of property of the estate is key here and there is only one Court that has jurisdiction to determine that and it's this Court. I also want to point out, as Your Honor knows, we have seen many \"victims\" show up in this Court, swear under oath that they had no contacts or no alignment with Mr. Kwok, only to be confronted by my partners with videos of them giggling with Mr. Kwok, or selling G clothes, or WhatsApp chats where they were involved with Mr. Kwok.\n\n25\n\n11\n\nSo, that is why the Trustee has grave concern when\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 people show up and say we represent the real victims here because we were not aligned with Mr. Kwok. In light of our position that we need to be extremely careful before anyone reaches a final determination as to who is a victim and for how much its very relevant that in this particular case, and I mean by that Mr. Giar's movement which is called the Himalaya Exchange Restoration Program. That was started in August of this year on the internet by someone named Little Sara. Of course, that is not her real name, that is a \"Kwok world name\". Little Sara can be seen, Your Honor, on several postings either calling the debtor Uncle, dining with the debtor (indiscernible) apartment, being on the Lay May II that we just are in the process of selling, or protesting at the house of PAX's chairman. So, you might say, well, they are entitled to free expression and that's great, we respect that, except that that post said, \"Call Mr. Giar\". So, with all due respect, and we give the benefit of the doubt of anyone that comes to this Court saying they represent victims, but we have to say our antennas are up about this one because the first mention of Mr. Giar was by Little Sara in that posting in August where she said call this guy to get Your money back. Of course, you know, more\n\n23 on that later.\n\n24 25 Now in terms of process going forward Mr. Giar's request was twofold. One, to tell the criminal court the\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 forfeiture was inappropriate or the forfeiture should be undone. So, that is one part. The second part is criminal court, please, direct the DOJ to give Mr. Giar the money. So, we are going to file something tomorrow, its due tomorrow, telling the criminal court that we are not taking a position on whether the forfeiture was appropriate or not, that is not for us to say. The Government has already filed an extensive letter explaining why this makes no sense, but we are not going to take a position on that.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 We are taking a position on the second part, which is, please, criminal court, once you have determined that the forfeiture should be undone order the transfer of these funds to Mr. Giar and on that, Your Honor, we are going to tell the District Court that this Court should be given an opportunity to rule on the issue of property of the estate and other relief before that second part of the relief is considered. We are not stipulating or conceding in any way that the first part will be granted, meaning that the Court will find that forfeiture was not appropriate, but only that if the Court reaches that conclusion then the Court should not order the return of funds to anyone until this Court has the ability to look at property of the estate, the impact of the automatic stay, etc., etc.\n\n24 25 So, I wanted to alert the Court to this. I know that you have had some concerns in the past about issuing an\n\n| 1 | injunction involving the defendant in a criminal case, but | | | | | | |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | these people are not defendants.
We are talking about people | | | | | | |\n| 3 | attempting to grab money that we believe is property of the | | | | | | |\n| 4 | estate.
It's possible that some of these people are true | | | | | | |\n| 5 | victims of Mr. Kwok.
We are not debating that today.
We are | | | | | | |\n| 6 | only debating that there is an organized process to determine | | | | | | |\n| 7 | that and that on the issue of whether this is property of the | | | | | | |\n| 8 | estate or not only this Court should be able to determine | | | | | | |\n| 9 | that. | | | | | | |\n| 10 | So, that is the update on that, Your Honor.
We | | | | | | |\n| 11 | wanted you to have the benefit of that before we file our | | | | | | |\n| 12 | response with the criminal court tomorrow. | | | | | | |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
There is nothing in front of this | | | | | | |\n| 14 | Corut right now with regard to these issues. | | | | | | |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:
No.
The only communication I had | | | | | | |\n| 16 | with Mr. Giar, he sent me some text or emails saying I was | | | | | | |\n| 17 | hoping not to have to deal with the Bankruptcy Court.
It was | | | | | | |\n| 18 | like, okay, good luck with that.
So, there is nothing before | | | | | | |\n| 19 | the Court today.
There may very well be later some type of | | | | | | |\n| 20 | motion to enforce the automatic stay or something along those | | | | | | |\n| 21 | lines if the proceeding is going forward before the District | | | | | | |\n| 22 | Court beyond the issue of whether the forfeiture was | | | | | | |\n| 23 | appropriate or whether the forfeiture or freezing of these | | | | | | |\n| 24 | sums should be undone. | | | | | | |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
The United States Government froze | | | | | | |\n\n| 1 | those funds as part of the criminal indictment? | | | | | | | |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes.
So, they are arguing that they | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | have a right to forfeiture and they filed a pleading to that | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | effect.
We are not debating that with them at this stage. | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | So, it may be that this goes nowhere from our point of view | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | in the sense that the Court will say, no, the forfeiture or | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | the temporary forfeiture, the pre-conviction forfeiture, is | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | appropriate and, therefore, it ends there in which case we | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | don't have to do anything at this point. But if it went to | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | the next level where the Court said actually I think that | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | these funds should be unfrozen then we will be back in front | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | of Your Honor for the next stage which is those funds should | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | certainly not go back to the BVI or to anyone until this | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | Court has had a chance to review the automatic stay and | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | property of the estate issues. | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I understand. | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | All right.
With regard to the issue that we just | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | discussed prior to what I reported or has been reported will | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | be a closed courtroom, I heard a lot of things today about | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | Whitecroft and this deposition, and now apparently a | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | temporary restraining order, a motion for a temporary | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | restraining order or an application.
That is something you | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | want soon, I would have to assume. | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes; although, I heard, through Your | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | questioning, counsel for the defendant, I don't want to push | | | | | | | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that too hard, volunteering to agree to a consensual TRO meaning that none of these funds would be moved in any way. We would like to loop in the holder of the funds to something along those lines. So, we understand that Your docket is full, so if we don't have to go through the temporary restraining order we would also rather avoid that, Your Honor. So –- THE COURT: All I am asking you is what are the dates you are looking for if there isn't some agreement. I would assume, and I don't know this, that you are asking for something soon. So, I would have to go look at these documents and then it was filed, so you are not seeking an ex parte TRO. MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: The other side already knows that you are seeking it, right? MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: So, then it would have to be some kind of a deadline for a response; although, I would, again, assume that that you would like it to be as soon as possible. So, today is the 18th. MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor, but if we –- I think the next matter would be the privilege issue, but perhaps we would take a –- in any event, the courtroom has to be cleared for that. We could take a short recess. We could\n\n 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 talk to counsel about stipulating to –- THE COURT: Let me just ask the courtroom staff because I don't remember –- are we closed this Friday? MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: So, we are closed this Friday and then when are we closed again? MR. DESPINS: Monday. THE COURT: Okay. Well, you know better than I. Obviously Monday makes sense, but then are we closed another day before the 1st of January and next Friday. So, we are closed the 23rd, the 25th and the 29th, is that right –- or the 22nd, sorry. The 22nd, the 25th, and the 29th. So, that is not a lot of time, obviously. MR. DESPINS: Based on what I heard and maybe I misheard that, but I think we may be able to resolve this consensually short term. So, maybe a five-minute break if that is acceptable to Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, whatever you want. All I am saying is if you want me to enter an order setting up a hearing on a temporary –- granting a temporary restraining order and then having a preliminary injunction hearing, you know, I need to understand timeframes. MR. DESPINS: Well, if they did not consent to this we would want this to be heard as soon as possible, Your Honor. I mean the issues are not complicated. We know where Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 72 of 83\n\n1 2 3 4 5 the funds are. We know she has testified that these funds are hers. We don't buy that for a second, but at least they are not somebody else's funds. It's just the issue is freezing those funds until Your Honor has ruled on the adversary proceeding.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 So, if they are not going to stipulate to those funds that are frozen, we are not going to get the formal agreement from the foreign exchange entity that holds this then we would need to proceed as soon as possible and maybe as early as Wednesday. Your Honor, there is another emergency motion that you may not have seen that was filed. It's a motion to preserve evidence regarding a storage facility that is a few miles from the (indiscernible). We are asking that to be heard on shortened notice and on Wednesday of this week.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Just to set the stage, we have discovered that there is a storage facility that is not just a cubicle. They are paying \\$7,000 a month for that facility. So, it must have a certain size. And we know that its related to the Mahwah mansion because the bodyguard, Barnett, was the lessee on the storage facility lease. He then transferred that to another entity which is a Kwok entity.\n\n23 24 25 What we want is just to be able to go to the facility and no one else can access the facility in the meantime because we don't want stuff to be taken out of that\n\n| 1 | facility.
This does not disrupt anyone in the sense that | | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | it's a facility where there are objects in there or maybe | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | not.
To answer an order that says nobody will go to that | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | storage facility until the Trustee has had a chance to visit | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | it should be not disruptive to anyone.
We are not asking | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | anything beyond that, but that was an emergency motion that | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | was filed in the Mahwah mansion adversary proceeding this | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | morning because we discovered the existence of this storage | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | facility. | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | As you remember, there are assets that disappeared | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | from the Mahwah mansion.
So, they could be there, we don't | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | know that.
Certainly, if they are paying \\$7,000 a month for | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | storage there has to be something there, but we don't know. | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | So, that is another matter.
And we filed a motion to | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | expedite the hearing on that so it would be heard on | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | Wednesday of this week.
So, with my apologies we are | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | discovering all of this on the fly. | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
So, we are talking about the Taurus | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | Fund adversary proceeding? | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes. | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Mr. Conway, I see you are in the | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | courtroom. | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | MR. CONWAY:
I am, Your Honor. Michael Conaway, | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | Taurus Fund LLC. | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay. | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2481
Filed 01/02/24
Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50
Page 75 of 83 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 75 |\n| 1 | MR. CONWAY:
I will just –- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
We can't hear you. It's not Your |\n| 3 | fault, but we can't hear you because everything has to be |\n| 4 | picked up by a microphone. |\n| 5 | MR. CONWAY:
Michael Conway.
I represent Taurus |\n| 6 | Fund LLC.
I did speak with the Trustee about this.
That is |\n| 7 | one of the reasons I am here because I got that while I was |\n| 8 | in the neighborhood.
I got a copy of the unredacted motion. |\n| 9 | I was reading it while we were sitting here. I suspect that |\n| 10 | as long as it says I can go in and do an inventory as well in |\n| 11 | the order I think we would stipulate to what the Trustee is |\n| 12 | asking for.
So, to the extent that the Trustee is concerned |\n| 13 | about timing, I think we can get that one off Your plate. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. Again, these were |\n| 15 | filed today so I haven't seen what it is, but it sounds like |\n| 16 | you might be able to agree to an order which should be fine. |\n| 17 | MR. CONWAY:
It sounds like he just doesn't want |\n| 18 | anything to move, which is fine with me.
I just want to be |\n| 19 | able to see what is there myself. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Is –- well, I will let you both talk |\n| 21 | about it.
I am not going to worry about the facts because I |\n| 22 | don't need to at the moment. |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
So, Your Honor, Mr. Linsey is |\n| 24 | correcting me.
The –- what we are asking you on the TRO is |\n| 25 | to enter it without a hearing; meaning that fourteen days |\n| | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 thereafter there will be a hearing. Again, it's just to freeze funds, nothing more than that. Again, I would hope that we can –- THE COURT: This is what I am going to do, we are going to have more of a hearing this afternoon. We have other hearings scheduled tomorrow, but my understanding is there were things in this case that have been continued. So, I am not sure there is anything on the calendar in this case or any related adversary proceeding tomorrow afternoon. I am not sure about that. MR. DESPINS: No, you are correct. THE COURT: Then I need to know by tomorrow afternoon –- at least as far as this temporary restraining order is concerned, I don't know what Mr. Conway just said about the Taurus Fund adversary proceeding. It sounds like that could be resolved. MR. DESPINS: Absolutely. We have no problem with him coming with us. THE COURT: All right. So, let's put that aside. Then we have the temporary restraining order seeking to stop any kind of transfer, withdrawal, or disposition the funds in a bank account in London. MR. DESPINS: It's not a bank, it's a foreign exchange. THE COURT: Whatever it is, somebody holding \\$10\n\n 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 million, right? MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: And counsel –- Attorney Wernick said that she might agree to that. Now she hasn't had a chance, in fairness. I mean I was asking questions or whatever and she was responding. So, in fairness she has hasn't had a chance to talk about that, really, either. So, I think that what we should do then is use the time that was set aside for tomorrow for you to report to me where we stand on the –- because if there isn't agreement then I have to rule one way or another on the TRO. I guess that is what I will have to do. That is fine, but I need to understand what I am being asked to do. MR. DESPINS: Understood. THE COURT: So, Mr. Conway –- it sounds like you and Mr. Conway, Your issue might be more directly resolved and that can be something that I don't need to enter an order until and unless you tell me you don't have an agreement. MR. DESPINS: There is only one wrinkle to this which is the entity that is currently the lessee under that storage facility, I forget the name of that entity, but it's –- I am not sure if Mr. Conway represents them. They are a BVI entity. Again, it's a Kwok related entity. We don't know necessarily where they are or who represents them. So, in theory they are the ones who have the right Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 77 of 83\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to say no or yes. Mr. Conway is involved because it's in his case, but he is not the lessee under that facility. So, we appreciate his consent and we are happy to have him come with us to visit, but the other entity somehow would need to acquiesce and I am not sure Mr. Conway represents them. MR. CONWAY: I have never heard of them until I saw it in Your filing. THE COURT: Okay. I will let you figure that out. MR. DESPINS: Well, the question is –- THE COURT: Well, you will have to tell me tomorrow. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: I am not going to have time to look at anything anyway tonight, right, and then we have –- well, I mean I could have time, but I don't because we have other hearings tomorrow that I have to look at. Then I think we need to use the time that was originally scheduled for whatever hearings were on in the main case and adversaries tomorrow which I think were one p.m. I could do it remotely. I don't have to bring people back into the courtroom. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: I want to know where things stand on what appears to be two matters that were filed today that have associated with them the assertion that they are emergencies. So, I need to figure that out because you are\n\n 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not going to have people here over the next week. MR. DESPINS: Understood. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: So, therefore, the only thing that remains for today is the privilege discussion where we would clear the courtroom. THE COURT: Before you do that the storage facility issue have you talked to the storage facility? MR. DESPINS: They have been served with the papers, but I don't think –- THE COURT: Okay. So, they –- MR. DESPINS: So, they have been served with a subpoena. They know about this. THE COURT: -- have been served with this. They have some idea? MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: I don't think that –- THE COURT: No, I am not suggesting they are the problem. I just want to know whether not –- MR. DESPINS: Yes, they have. THE COURT: All right. So, Mr. Conway, Attorney Wernick, and I don't know if Attorney Moriarty is going to be available or how you are going to handle it as far as who is going to appear tomorrow, but I need to know on the issues that we discussed when I was talking with you about the Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 79 of 83\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 discovery issues where you stand on whether there is consent to some kind of order, at least temporarily, with regard to the funds in the accounts and Mr. Conway. I understand what the Trustee just said, but even if you consent its better than no one consenting. So, I would like to know if that is possible as well. Okay. So, we will do it at one o'clock tomorrow. We will –- I guess you will have to contact the calendar connect, is that how\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 they should do it to get the Zoom information for the 1:00 p.m. because we don't even have it set up yet, obviously. So, you can do that. I'm sure the courtroom deputy will be able to get something together between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning when we have other hearings in person here. Then you will get that information. You can all appear via Zoom and we can see where things stand.\n\n17 18 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, could we have that at two o'clock by any chance?\n\n19 20 THE COURT: Sure. We can have it at two o'clock. MR. DESPINS: Thank you.\n\n21 22 MR. CONWAY: Your Honor, if the Trustee and I come to an agreement –-\n\n23 24 25 THE COURT: No, you don't have to appear. If you have an agreement then you do what you need to do other then be involved. That is true with you too, Attorney Wernick. If\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all it is, is the Trustee reporting agreements then no one else has to appear. I have no problem with that, but I just need to know what, if anything, I need to do between Tuesday afternoon and Thursday when the staff is leaving for the holidays. That is what I need to know. MR. LINSEY: I thought of something, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. MR. LINSEY: I will be filing what looks like an unremarkable consent motion to add an addendum to the protective order based on an agreement reached between the Trustee and the FDIC. While it will not look important, it is very important in order for the Trustee to get Rule 2004 discovery that directly bears on that February 15th deadline which is the only reason I am standing up to mention it now. THE COURT: So, you are going to be filing something is what you are saying that we need to take a look out for. MR. LINSEY: Likely tomorrow, if not Wednesday. THE COURT: I just realized Wednesday, you know, I am not going to make people stay on Thursday after the regular close of business. I mean I may be here, but they are not going to be here. MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. That is why I wanted to mention it. It will look very garden variety. It's just further privacy protections that the FDIC wanted to\n\n comply with some of the banking regulations that they are subject to. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LINSEY: Thank you. THE COURT: So, everyone, do what you can do, obviously, and if you need the information for a Zoom call at 2 o'clock tomorrow then you will contact the calendar connect information to get that Zoom information. MS. WERNICK: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much. Now you all tell me who has to leave. MR. DESPINS: Mr. Moriarty is going to stay with Mr. Linsey and myself. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. (Recess taken at 4:48 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 82 of 83\n\n| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 2481 | Filed 01/02/24 | Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 | | Page 83 of 83 | | | | |\n|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------|--|-------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | | | | | | 83 | | | | |\n| 1 | CERTIFICATION | | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | We certify that the foregoing is a correct | | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | transcript from the electronic sound recording of the | | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of our | | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | | | knowledge and ability. | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | | | /s/ William J. Garling | | | December 26, 2023 | | | | |\n| 8 | William J. Garling, CET-543 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | Certified Court Transcriptionist | | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | | For Reliable | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | /s/ Mary Zajaczkowski | | | | December 26, 2023 | | | | |\n| 13 | | | Mary Zajaczkowski, CET-531 | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | Certified Court Transcriptionist | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | | For Reliable | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | | |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分庭\n\n关于：\n第11章\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及 Genever Holdings Corporation（杰尼弗控股公司）及\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nGenever Holdings, LLC（杰尼弗控股有限责任公司），\n（合并管理）\n\n债务人。\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章\n对抗诉讼\n\n受托人，\n编号：23-05008 (JAM)\n\n原告，\n法庭123室\n\n诉\nBrien McMahon Federal Building（布赖恩·麦克马洪联邦大楼）\n915 Lafayette Boulevard（拉斐特大道915号）\n\nMei Guo（郭美），\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n\n被告。\n2023年12月18日，星期一\n\n下午2:36\n\n在尊敬的 Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官，即美国联邦破产法官面前举行听证会的庭审记录\n\n音频操作员：电子录音\n\n速记公司：Reliable（可靠速记公司）\nThe Nemours Building（内穆尔大楼）\n1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110\nWilmington, Delaware 19801\n电话：(302)654-8080\n电子邮件：gmatthews@reliable-co.com\n\n诉讼程序通过电子录音记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 1 of 83\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第11章\n受托人：Patrick R. Linsey, Esquire（帕特里克·R·林西律师）\nNEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特·佩佩及蒙蒂思专业公司）\n195 Church Street\n13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n以及\n\nGeorg A. Bongartz, Esquire（乔治·A·邦加茨律师）\nLuc A. Despins, Esquire（卢克·A·德斯平斯律师）\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n\n代表美国受托人：Holley L. Claiborn, Esquire（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩律师）\nOFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE（美国受托人办公室）\nRobert N. Giaimo Federal Building（罗伯特·N·贾伊莫联邦大楼）\n150 Court Street\nRoom 302\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n代表 Mei Guo（郭美）：James M. Moriarty, Esquire（詹姆斯·M·莫里亚蒂律师）\nZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C.（蔡斯勒及蔡斯勒专业公司）\n10 Middle Street\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n\n以及\n\nMelissa F. Wernick, Esquire（梅丽莎·F·韦尼克律师）\nCHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI, P.C.（基耶萨·沙希尼安及贾恩托马西专业公司）\n105 Eisenhower Parkway\nRoseland, New Jersey 07068\n\n代表 Taurus Fund LLC（Taurus基金有限责任公司）、\n作为 Taurus Fund LLC（Taurus基金有限责任公司）受托人的 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特），以及作为 Taurus Fund LLC（Taurus基金有限责任公司）受托人的 Taurus Management LLC（Taurus管理有限责任公司）：Michael T. Conway, Esquire（迈克尔·T·康韦律师）\nLAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE（拉扎尔·波特·贾科瓦斯及莫伊尔律师事务所）\n747 Third Avenue\n16th Floor\nNew York, New York 10017\n\n目录\n\n动议：页码\n\n事项编号2375\n出售动议／受托人依据《破产法典》第105条和第363条、《破产程序规则》2002、6004(c)和9014条以及地方法规则6004-1和6004-2提出的动议，请求作出命令：（I）授权并批准在无任何留置权、请求权、权益及负担的情况下出售 Lady May II（“梅夫人二号”）；（II）授权并批准买卖协议；以及（III）给予相关救济。由 Georg Alexander Bongartz（乔治·亚历山大·邦加茨）代表第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）提交。5\n\n法院裁决：18\n\n事项编号2429\n就债务人刑事诉讼程序中喜马拉雅交易所被主张客户提出的返还财产动议，安排状态会议的命令。23\n\n法院裁决：--\n\n事项编号67\n就命令 Anton Development Limited（安东开发有限公司）、Whitecroft Shore Limited（怀特克罗夫特海岸有限公司）及被告遵守传票，并施加制裁，以及授权第11章受托人密封提交文件，安排状态会议的命令。23\n\n法院裁决：--\n\n速记员证明书 83\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 3 of 83\n\n（程序于下午2:36开始。）\n\n书记员：案件编号22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），以及对抗诉讼编号23-05008，Despins（德斯平斯）诉 Guo（郭）。\n\n法院：下午好。请为记录而申明出庭身份，先由第11章受托人开始。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯），第11章受托人。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：下午好，法官阁下。Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的 Alex Bongartz（亚历克斯·邦加茨），代表第11章受托人。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nLINSEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西），代表受托人。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：下午好。Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），代表美国受托人。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nMORIARTY先生：下午好，法官阁下。Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒及蔡斯勒专业公司）的 James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂），代表22-50037案的债务人，并担任23-05008案 Guo女士的本地律师。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nMORIARTY先生：下午好。\n\nWERNICK女士：下午好，法官阁下。CSG Law（CSG律师事务所）的 Melissa Wernick（梅丽莎·韦尼克），代表对抗诉讼中的被告 Mei Guo（郭美）。\n\n法院：下午好。今天下午还有其他人希望申明出庭身份吗？\n\n（无人作口头回应）\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。好的。今天下午日程上有若干事项，我不确定，Despins受托人，您希望如何进行，所以您希望如何进行？\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，可能先从出售这艘小型的——（听不清）——开始较为合理。\n\n法院：是的，这似乎合理；不过，该事项安排在下午3:00，但据我所知，没有异议，也没有其他出价。对吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：那是——\n\nBONGARTZ先生：那是——抱歉——是正确的。我可以上前吗？\n\n法院：可以，请。谢谢。那么现在，我们将处理 ECF 编号2375。\n\nDESPINS先生：是。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：谢谢，法官阁下。下午好。再次说明，我是代表第11章受托人的 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）律师 Alex Bongartz（亚历克斯·邦加茨）。开始前有一项小的事务性事项。Dirk Johnson（德克·约翰逊）是在案卷2375中支持出售动议的声明人；遗憾的是，由于天气原因，他无法前来此处，而我看到法官阁下已批准我们请求其远程出庭。\n\n他可以出席；不过，我认为由于安排的开始时间是3点，他可能尚未进入 Zoom。但若法官阁下有问题，我非常乐意联系他，他可以早于该时间加入。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：无论如何，让我直接谈动议。我们于11月27日在案卷2375提交的动议，请求批准向 Patrick Cloppenburg（帕特里克·克洛彭堡）出售 Lady May II（“梅夫人二号”）的拟议交易。我将称其为“买方”。根据日期为2023年11月22日的购买协议及其相关附录，拟议出售将不附带任何留置权、请求权及负担。\n\n有几项事项需要强调：该出售将按“现状、现地”基础进行，财产不会就 Lady May II（“梅夫人二号”）的状况作出任何陈述或保证。拟议购买价格为 $375,000。买方\n\n已经以诚信方式支付了相当于购买价格25%的保证金，即 $93,750。\n\n法官阁下已经正确指出，尚未对该动议提出任何异议；我很乐意向法官阁下说明营销流程、出售协议或您可能有的任何其他问题，但鉴于没有异议，我请求法院批准该动议。\n\n法院：我唯一希望您做的，律师，就是说明营销以及该动议的送达情况。我知道法院网站上发布了出售通知，但我确实认为记录应当包括关于资产营销、动议送达、异议期限等事项的陈述，以使记录完整，可以吗？\n\nBONGARTZ先生：当然可以。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：那么，让我退一步，实际从提交动议之前的营销过程开始。Edmiston（埃德米斯顿）开展了广泛的营销活动。他们对潜在买方市场进行了全面搜寻，并向其全部经纪人网络及可能有兴趣的各方发送了邮寄宣传材料和电子邮件。\n\nLady May II（“梅夫人二号”）也于2023年9月中旬在 Newport Boat Show（纽波特船展）展出。有一些初步的意向表示，我们联系了各该方，并向其提供了拟议——拟议买卖协议范本的副本。遗憾的是，截至拟议的10月4日投标截止日期，受托人未收到任何曾暂时表示有兴趣的各方所提交的合格投标。\n\n唯一收到的投标是 $150,000，远低于我们的预期，实际上也远低于我们向那些表示有兴趣的各方所要求的最低投标金额。\n\n投标截止后，受托人并未止步于此。我们继续与提交 $150,000 投标的唯一投标人以及您将记得的、今年早些时候 Lady May（“梅夫人号”）的购买人进行接洽，但该买方对购买 Lady May II（“梅夫人二号”）没有兴趣。\n\n就动议送达而言，我应当指出，我们显然已向 ECF 名单上的人员送达；对于未请求或未同意通过电子邮件接受送达的人员，我们向 ECF 名单上的该等当事人送达了纸质副本。我们还按照法官阁下的命令，向委员会送达了出售通知副本；我相信，出售通知副本以及您的听证通知也已向 ECF\n\n名单上的所有人员送达。\n\n我想作一项澄清，并对任何疏漏表示歉意，但由于某些沟通失误，基础动议未再次送达给最初表示有兴趣、但从未提交投标的少数当事人。不过，作为投标程序的一部分，他们确实收到了一份 PSA 副本；我还应指出，正如我们在今天上午的补充声明中所解释的，在动议提交后，经纪人向其整个经纪人网络发出了全面通知，载明所有相关信息、购买价格——抱歉，让我说——拟议购买价格，以及听证日期，以及12月15日提交任何进一步及最终投标的请求期限。此外，经纪人还更新了 YATCO（游艇经纪平台）和 YachtWorld（游艇世界）上的挂牌信息，两者现均已包含有关听证日期的补充信息。为绝对明确起见，所有这些事项，即电子邮件发送以及对 YATCO（游艇经纪平台）和 YachtWorld（游艇世界）挂牌信息的更新，均于11月30日完成。因此，至今已是19天前。我还应指出，说明动议送达情况的送达证明书已在案卷2418提交。\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\n我尚未看到，但我正在查看 Dirk Johnson（德克·约翰逊）的补充声明；他因旅行问题不会亲自到场。该声明于今天上午9:48提交。\n\nBONGARTZ先生：是的，法官阁下，这是正确的。\n\n法院：我正在查看该声明，因为我将其作为支持 Lady May II（“梅夫人二号”）营销、送达以及与 Lady May II（“梅夫人二号”）出售有关的讨论的证据予以考虑。该声明附有数份证物，包括一份该船的宣传册。\n\n邦加茨先生（BONGARTZ）：是的，简要说明一下，该声明显示，如我先前提到的，已向1,875名经纪人进行了全球电子邮件发送，详见附件A；其中首页载有出售听证会日期、拟议售价，以及要求于12月15日前提交任何最终报价的通知。其他附件只是对YATCO和YachtWorld所刊登信息作出的更新，以包括相同信息。\n\n法院：我现在正在审阅该文件，请稍候片刻。 （暂停）\n\n法院：好的。我已审阅约翰逊先生（Johnson）为支持出售“Lady May II”号游艇（Lady May II）动议而提交的补充声明，并且我看到，本案案卷中提交的文件与您今天在庭上所描述的内容一致，包括有关“Lady May II”号游艇以\\$350,000——抱歉，是三百七十五——千美元出售事宜的营销、送达及持续沟通的信息。关于该买卖协议本身，我此前正在查看，可能只是查看的位置不对。我知道其成交日期为2023年12月31日，但我实际查找的是该文件签署日期，而我没有看到；不过，我可能是在某处漏看了。\n\n邦加茨先生：实际上就在第一页。如果您查看经纪船舶买卖协议，这是标准格式——\n\n法院：嗯。\n\n邦加茨先生：——顶部有一个方框，如果您查看写有“重要日期”的子框，其中写着31.12.2023；这是欧洲书写日期的方式。\n\n法院：对。但我说的是，我不知道该协议是哪一天签署的。\n\n邦加茨先生：哦，我——\n\n法院：我看到了那个日期。\n\n邦加茨先生：不，在附录的签署栏中。它在ECF第52页，共62页。抱歉，法官阁下，我误解了您的意思。\n\n法院：没关系。好的，就在那里。我没看到。这就是我在找的全部内容。\n\n邦加茨先生：没关系。该日期也在表格本身中，在第45页，共62页，但它出现在多个地方。\n\n法院：而且这显然已载入本案案卷，因此，任何人如能以电子方式查阅，和／或显然前往书记官办公室审阅该买卖协议，均可获得该文件。因此，我不知道自己之前为何找不到该日期，但现在我看到了。好的。那么，如果今天批准该出售，根据成交日期，显然有几项条款可能会改变买方实际交付给卖方的金额，对吗？\n\n邦加茨先生：确实如此。关于纽波特船厂（Newport shipyard）的越冬处理和仓储费用，存在费用分配安排，该安排取决于预定的成交日期。\n\n法院：那么，在此时点，您是否已经——您能否向法院报告您认为成交可能在哪一天发生？我并不是——\n\n邦加茨先生：不能，我们正在准备于本周四或周五成交。\n\n法院：本周？\n\n邦加茨先生：是的。\n\n法院：好的。是否还有其他人希望就将“Lady May II”号游艇出售给买卖协议中确定为帕特里克·克洛彭堡（Patrick Cloppenburg）的买方这一拟议出售事项发言？（无人作口头回应）\n\n法院：好的。既然无人发言，那么我认为唯一需要处理的是——我对拟议命令有几个问题。\n\n邦加茨先生：好的。\n\n法院：您可能需要修改它。\n\n邦加茨先生：好的。\n\n法院：是否——你们应当——我的意思是，我们可以填入今天的听证日期，但其中写着“在此期间”——抱歉，我正在看命令第2页——\n\n邦加茨先生：好的。\n\n法院：——大概在往下第六或第七行，其写道：“在此期间，受托人的证据和约翰逊先生的证言被准许作为证据。”我的意思是，他实际上并未作证，但你们可以说法院审阅了他的宣誓书和补充声明——\n\n邦加茨先生：是的。\n\n法院：——并且没有任何当事人对将其作为支持出售的证据予以采纳提出异议。\n\n邦加茨先生：我们将作出该修改，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。然后再往下三行或两行，取决于您看的是哪一行——\n\n邦加茨先生：嗯。\n\n法院：——其中写着“以及对此的一切异议”。我认为我更希望你们写成“未提交任何异议”——\n\n邦加茨先生：好的。\n\n法院：——或者无论你们希望如何表述。\n\n邦加茨先生：我们会加上这一表述。\n\n法院：但显然没有提交任何异议，好吗？\n\n邦加茨先生：是的。\n\n法院：然后，在拟议命令第11页第12段。\n\n邦加茨先生：是？\n\n法院：第二句写道，“法院的意图是”——\n\n邦加茨先生：嗯。\n\n法院：——我认为应当只写——我的意思是，你们想表达的是，仅仅因为我们没有在PSA中指明具体条款，并不意味着该条款不可执行，对吗？这就是你们想表达的吗？\n\n邦加茨先生：正确，整个协议均获法院批准，所有条款均可执行；确实如此。\n\n法院：我认为不需要“法院的意图是”，对吗？这不是我的意图。\n\n邦加茨先生：好的。\n\n法院：我的意思是，这是其所载内容，也是我正在批准的内容。因此，我会写成，比如：“所有条款和条件均有效且可执行，因此获授权和批准。”好吗？\n\n邦加茨先生：好的。\n\n法院：现在，我注意到第12段中有一项内容可能与买卖协议本身不同，但我认为你们有一项条款规定该命令将——\n\n邦加茨先生：我们有。\n\n法院：——将优先适用？\n\n邦加茨先生：嗯。是的，我们有。\n\n法院：但第12段中写着——\n\n法院：这难道不是在往下几行处写道：“但前提是，PSA可由其各方通过经所有各方签署的书面文件予以修改、修订或补充，而无需进一步通知本法院或取得本法院命令。”但后来还有一些内容——我的意思是，我不认为这——我只是觉得有些内容写着，如果作出修订，可能必须取得法院进一步命令。\n\n邦加茨先生：我认为是最后一项短语，“除非经法院命令批准”，我相信，是指对具有重大不利影响的修改。\n\n法院：好的。没问题。好的。那么我唯一的另一个问题——我认为这是我唯一的另一个问题——所以，佛罗里达州法律将管辖该合同？买卖协议是这样写的。\n\n邦加茨先生：如果其如此规定，那么——\n\n法院：嗯，其中写着“州名空白处”，然后写着“如留空则为佛罗里达州”。所以这是我的理解？\n\n邦加茨先生：这是正确理解；是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n邦加茨先生：实际上，法官阁下，让我再核实一下，因为既然我注意到这个问题，该条款可能已在附录中修改。请给我一点时间，让我再核实一下。我只是不想作出错误陈述。\n\n法院：是的，我没有看到这一点，但您可能是对的。我的意思是，我不知道。 （暂停）\n\n法院：您是对的，是第4段。\n\n邦加茨先生：是的，我相信我们——\n\n法院：在第一份附录第1页中写着：“尽管PSA中有任何——”\n\n邦加茨先生：是的，抱歉。\n\n法院：——“相反规定，PSA受纽约州法律管辖，并依纽约州法律解释。”\n\n邦加茨先生：是的，我道歉。我本应记得——\n\n法院：没关系，没问题。\n\n邦加茨先生：——我们修改了该条款。\n\n法院：我看到了，所以没关系。我们现在明白，该协议受纽约州法律管辖。好的。是否还有其他人希望就出售“Lady May II”号游艇的拟议命令发言？（无人作口头回应）\n\n法院：好的。既然无人发言，那么基于我们刚刚在庭上审议的理由，我准备准许该出售动议，包括动议中所作的陈述、支持“Lady May II”号游艇营销工作的证据——其中包括先前提交的诉状，也包括今天在ECF 2441提交的约翰逊先生宣誓书。我还审阅了提交该动议时所提供的信息，并且我知道出售通知也已张贴在法院网站上，其中表明今天将举行出售批准听证会，并将异议截止日期定为12月15日；未就该动议提交任何异议。我还认定，已依照适用规则及本法院就“Lady May II”号游艇出售的听证会和异议期限所作出的命令，适当地完成送达。\n\n没有任何人就该动议提交书面异议，且今天参加本次听证会的任何人均未以任何方式反对该动议或拟议命令，尽管法院已进行询问，但法庭内无人作出回应。\n\n因此，基于上述所有理由，准许出售动议，并且如我们所讨论的，拟议命令仅需经修改后提交。我知道你们希望尽快成交，因此我想你们最迟会在明天，甚至可能今天，就将该拟议命令交回法院。我不知道。\n\n邦加茨先生：我们今天会将其交回法官办公室。\n\n法院：实际上，你们不必将其交回法官办公室。请将其提交至法庭书记员——布里奇波特法庭书记员电子邮箱——\n\n邦加茨先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：——并请在该电子邮件中抄送所有已为记录注明出庭的法庭内人员，同时附上对拟议命令作出的最终修改。\n\n邦加茨先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n邦加茨先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。非常感谢。显然，约翰逊先生不需要——嗯，没有人要求约翰逊先生出庭。我已阅读他的宣誓书。他本会就其在宣誓书中所述内容作证，因此，如果你们需要告诉约翰逊先生他不必出庭，法院对此没有异议。\n\n邦加茨先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好。那么，除出售 Lady May II 的动议之外，德斯平斯受托人（Trustee Despins），您还请求举行一次状态会议，该请求已在主案和对抗程序 5008 中提交，涉及强制若干方遵守传票并裁定制裁。那么，您希望如何处理该事项，德斯平斯受托人？德斯平斯先生：林西先生正在处理此事，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。林西先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我将处理两件事——帕特里克·林西（Patrick Linsey），代表受托人——其一是已在主案中提交的特权动议。其二是对抗程序中的证据开示争议以及总体进展更新。如果法庭可以接受，我提议先处理特权动议？法庭：请开始。林西先生：谢谢。莫里亚蒂先生：法官阁下，我能否就他即将辩论的动议与林西律师简短商议一下？法庭：莫里亚蒂律师，我听不见您说的任何内容。案件 22-50073，文件 2481，提交于 01/02/24，录入于 01/02/24 07:51:50，第 20 页，共 83 页。\n\n莫里亚蒂先生：抱歉，因为我没有对着麦克风说话。法庭：没关系。莫里亚蒂先生：我能否就该动议与林西律师简短商议一下——法庭：当然可以。莫里亚蒂先生：——他即将辩论的动议？法庭：请开始。莫里亚蒂先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。（律师商议）莫里亚蒂先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：好的，请给我一点时间。林西先生：当然。（暂停）法庭：抱歉。请继续，林西律师。林西先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。没问题。莫里亚蒂先生想问我的问题，恰好也是我正要说的，即为了讨论可能受特权保护的材料内容，我认为我们可能需要举行不公开的听证，并清空法庭。我将尽力——法庭：那么，法庭内还有谁尚未签署保护令？林西先生：我认为这将超出保护令的范围，法官阁下，而涉及特权令。案件 22-50073，文件 2481，提交于 01/02/24，录入于 01/02/24 07:51:50，第 21 页，共 83 页。\n\n法庭：那么，关于特权——我的意思是，好吧。那么请您告诉我，谁需要离开法庭。德斯平斯先生：所有人。林西先生：除莫里亚蒂先生和受托人的律师之外，所有人——法庭：好的。林西先生：——法官阁下可以留下。（笑声）法庭：债权人必须离开？债权人也必须离开？林西先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：您是否说美国受托人必须离开？林西先生：这涉及特权，法官阁下，所以——或者，我应该说，这可能涉及特权，我将说明为何使用“可能”这个词，但我确实认为这里有一些受特权保护的材料。所以，是的，法官阁下。法庭：美国受托人的——我不知道“立场”是否为恰当用词——但对该请求的回应是什么？克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，我处于一个有些困难的境地，我相信林西律师也是如此，即规定美国受托人参与权并允许我们审阅提交至案卷的任何内容的法规，也包括我们今天可以在场、参与并听取今日听证中所述内容这一含义。案件 22-50073，文件 2481，提交于 01/02/24，录入于 01/02/24 07:51:50，第 22 页，共 83 页。\n\n不过，还存在特权这一另一问题；如果我的在场确实会加剧该问题，我将到走廊里去，但我不会同意我们已放弃任何关于我们无权在此的主张。我决定到走廊里去是基于实际考量，而不是因为我认为这样做不恰当。法庭：好的。那么，我们将这样处理。我们将短暂休庭，你们都去商议，然后回来告诉我各方的立场，好吗？我们将相应作出记录。那么现在是 3:05。我将在 3:15 回来，好吗？法庭休庭至 3:15。书记员：全体起立。法庭休庭至 3:15。（下午 3:05 休庭。）（下午 3:23 恢复庭审。）法庭：排期命令以及与特权令有关的问题。那么目前情况如何？\n\n林西先生：在场各方的律师进行了讨论，我们认为最合理的做法是在今天结束时处理特权动议，以便其他所有人可以离开。法庭：好的。林西先生：我、莫里亚蒂先生以及受托人，我想，都会留下来处理该事项。因此，我提议转而处理 Whitecroft，或者说 Mei Guo/Bombardier 对抗程序中的证据开示状态会议。我将比本案已提交的其他一些证据开示动议再往前追溯一些，因为受托人在过去几周得知了某些信息，引发了重大关切。2022 年 8 月，受托人向被告送达了 Rule 2004 传票。该 Rule 2004 传票要求——法庭：在主案中——林西先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：——Rule 2004？请继续。我只是想确保我完全跟得上您的陈述。林西先生：感谢。该 Rule 2004 传票将 Whitecroft Shore Ltd. 列为关联实体，并且其中许多请求要求提供文件和记录，这些文件和记录正是我们最近看到的大量证据，即确实存在、但在 16 个月前未被提供的文件。正如法庭非常清楚的，就该 Rule 2004 传票而言，存在阻挠模式，最终导致法院作出裁定，认定被告及其他人藐视法庭。案件 22-50073，文件 2481，提交于 01/02/24，录入于 01/02/24 07:51:50，第 24 页，共 83 页。\n\n此后，被告提交了一份声明，其中被告称其已遵守要求，并声称详细说明了其遵守情况。我们最近看到的文件证明，以下两种情形必居其一。要么被告掌握了相关信息，知晓相关信息，却就此撒谎；要么被告不知道相关文件和信息，因为除被告以外的其他人正在经营被告声称由其实益拥有的业务。\n\n转到本对抗程序，正如法庭从最近提交的数份文件中所见，受托人为试图在本对抗程序中取得证据开示而费尽周折。就被告商定一个证言录取日期，需要提出强制执行动议。针对空壳公司 Whitecroft Shore Ltd. 和 Anton Development 执行传票，同样需要提出强制执行动议。法庭就该强制执行动议作出裁定，并为这些空壳公司 Whitecroft 和 Anton Development，以及被告以其与这些空壳公司有关的身份，向受托人提供文件设定了期限。受托人在截止日从 Whitecroft 收到九份文件，而未从 Anton Development 收到任何文件。\n\n这些文件，我们又有某种保密问题。这次只是保密问题。它们全部被标记为“高度保密”，因此我不会谈及这些文件的主题内容，但我要说的是——而且这些事实的具体细节已在我的办公室于本次听证前不久提交的临时限制令紧急动议中讨论。\n\n这些文件的内容显示，还有其他文件存在；尤其是，有一个在英国名为“JNFX”的金融机构开立的账户。受托人认为属于债务人的一架私人飞机出售所得中约 \\$12 million 被存入该账户。\n\n根据受托人迄今的调查，按最好的情况，该账户中的该笔金额已大幅减少。我们谈论的时间跨度并不长。Bombardier 的出售发生在破产申请提交之后。该出售显然在 2022 年 8 月至 10 月之间完成交割。资金最初，即出售所得最初，被汇至一名托管代理人。资金显示于 2023 年 2 月存入这家英国金融机构 JNFX。这就是为什么——您知道，这已经是在多项事情发生很久之后；其中包括受托人努力要求被告遵守 Rule 2004 的期间。\n\n在资金存入 JNFX 账户的相对较短时间内，六个月——十个月——按最好的情况，资金已大幅减少；据受托人所能查明——而且信息确实每分钟都在传来——账户中尚余约价值 \\$10.1 million 的资产，而该账户最初约有 \\$12 million。这还不到一年。\n\n因此，受托人对该账户中资金的安全高度关切。受托人还关切，被告或其他人可能下达指令，要求转移账户内资金，或者发生其他事情。\n\n在这些空壳公司出席其 30(b)(6) 证言录取之前，在这些空壳公司出席其 30(b)(6) 证言录取前一小时，受托人通过被告律师收到一份来自 JNFX 的对账单，并收到电子邮件通信。该电子邮件通信显示，JNFX 告知被告的一名代理人，被告已作出协议，允许 JNFX 使用这些资金进行某些交易。\n\nJNFX 使用这些资金进行某些交易。受托人看到这些电子邮件的内容后，显然高度关切，尤其关切的是，我们所见的一份对账单显示该账户余额为零。受托人致电被告律师，并被告知被告律师不确定该对账单的含义。随后，受托人寻求录取 Whitecroft 的 30(b)(6) 证言；不幸的是，以 Whitecroft 的 30(b)(6) 代表身份出席的被告援引——我应该说，试图援引——《第五修正案》，就向其提出的几乎每一个实质性问题拒绝作答。而且，如我认为法庭目前所知，公司不享有《第五修正案》特权。公司有责任提供一名能够就本对抗程序中争议事实作出明智证言的证人，其中没有任何事项比这些 Bombardier 出售所得的情况更为重要。然而，当我一个问题接一个问题地询问时：与 JNFX 达成了什么协议？JNFX 代表在电子邮件中提到的这个协议是什么？受托人律师听到的只有“第五修正案。第五修正案。第五修正案。”这不恰当，而且也具有不利影响。\n\n证据开示被拖延具有不利影响。截至目前，如果我们回到 Rule 2004 证据开示，我们本会在资金甚至进入 JNFX 之前，在那 \\$2 million 化为乌有之前，就已知道这些资金的情况。\n\n并且我确实要提醒一下，我们正在获得有关 JNFX 的更多信息，包括那 10.1 -- 以及资金的情况；但目前我所掌握的最佳信息是 10.1 million，而且受托人对此有重大关切，以至于受托人的律师今天上午向 JNFX 发出了函件，并在周末准备了一项要求发布临时限制令的紧急动议，以确保 JNFX 的资金不会进一步减少或被耗散。\n\n因此，就目前存在的证据开示争议而言，我认为主要的证据开示争议是，受托人认为这些空壳公司不当援引第五修正案，以及这些空壳公司未能提供文件和信息，而在受托人看来，这些文件和信息必定存在。\n\n我还要——我想补充一个导致周五证言录取受挫的因素。受托人试图询问空壳公司何时寻求获取响应传票的文件，而 30(b)(6) 证人，即被告，无法就这些事实作证，原因要么是她声称自己不知道，要么是她援引第五修正案。\n\n但是，受托人有权在证据开示中调查实质性事实。法官阁下将会看到这一点。在这项 TRO 动议中，有债务人已经发现的证据——受托人已经发现的证据，即债务人的另一个自我公司 Golden Spring（金泉）策划了 Bombardier（庞巴迪）喷气机的出售。Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）在电子邮件中自称为 Golden Spring 的运营总监，他是 Jetlaw（捷特劳律师事务所）的客户联系人；Jetlaw 是一家声称在该喷气机出售中代表 Whitecroft（怀特克罗夫特）的律师事务所。因此，受托人有权从这些空壳公司取得有关这些事实的信息，或者有权获得一名能够知情作证的 30(b)(6) 代表。如果出于某种原因，这无法在封闭的会议室中进行，那么就应当在公开法庭上进行，被告应当来到公开法庭，法官阁下可以裁定哪些援引第五修正案是适当的，哪些援引并不适当。法官阁下，我还想非常简要地宣读 JNFX 一名代表发给 Guo 女士和一名代理人的电子邮件；直到上周五，受托人此前从未听说过该代理人。该电子邮件写道：\n\n“这些对账单以 U.S. dollars 和 Euro 计，反映了 Guo 女士此前同意的从 U.S. dollars 到 Euro 的外汇兑换，而 JNFX 有权依照我们的条款和条件进行该等兑换。为预期将 U.S. dollar 款项返还至收款账户，资金已被兑换回 U.S. dollars，但您已明确表示，这一步骤将不受欢迎。”显然有人在向 JNFX 指示如何处理这笔钱，受托人深切担忧有人会向 JNFX 发出错误指示，而 JNFX 会予以听从。因此，我们今天并非来就 TRO 动议进行辩论，但基于这些事实，我无法凭良心不——不讨论此事。从证据开示角度而言，受托人的首要利益是，不再进一步延误地完成这些空壳公司的证言录取，并取得受托人有权获得的证言。\n\n法庭：那么目前，就这些空壳公司的证言录取而言，对 30(b)(6) 代表——即对抗程序 5008 中的被告——的回答，要么是“我不知道”，要么是“第五修正案”。这是您告诉我的情况吗？\n\nLinsey 先生：是的，法官阁下，只有极少数例外。有一些基本问题——我是说非常基本的有关文件提交的问题——得到了回答；但只要涉及，比如，具体联系了谁，或何时联系了任何人，我们就会得到“我不知道”的回答，或者有时会进入“第五修正案”的范围。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2481\n提交 01/02/24\n录入 01/02/24 07:51:50\n\n法庭：您可以完整阅读证言记录。它作为 TRO 动议的附件提交。您说的是发生于 Friday, December 15th 的那次证言录取，是吗？\n\nLinsey 先生：是的，法官阁下。那是 Whitecroft 的证言录取。鉴于我们在证言录取开始前一小时收到了有关 JNFX 账户的信息，该证言录取延迟开始。我们甚至没有完成那次证言录取。\n\n而且——不断要求 30(b)(6) 代表持续接受指示，即从受托人的角度看，该代表需要回答问题，且其并未恰当地援引第五修正案特权，这也是一种难以操作的做法。\n\n但是，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：您是说——代表受托人进行证言录取的是谁？\n\nLinsey 先生：是我，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：所以您说——您是说——我显然还没有看您所说的内容——但您所说的是，当被告作为 Whitecroft 的 30(b)(6) 代表援引第五修正案特权时，您在记录中声明，受托人的立场是此种援引不当？\n\nLinsey 先生：正是如此，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLinsey 先生：我们形成了一种模式。我提出一个问题。被告会说——我应当说，30(b)(6) 代表会说：“第五修正案。”我会说：“您是以个人身份援引第五修正案吗？”证人会说：“第五修正案。”我会说：“请代表 Whitecroft 回答该问题。”被告或代表会说：“第五修正案。”我会说：“Whitecroft 是否拒绝回答该问题？”证人会说：“第五修正案。”最终，我们同意，她最初援引第五修正案可被视为其对此段问答的持续回答，并纳入所有问题之中。但受托人希望非常明确地表示，受托人不同意公司可以援引第五修正案。\n\n受托人援引了 Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）的判例法，其效力在于，公司不享有反对自证其罪的第五修正案特权，且受托人有权获得一名能够知情作证的证人，尤其是在存在证据的情况下；并且现在法庭可以接触到该证据；受托人最近才获得接触的证据表明，指示正在发出。业务活动正在进行。有人据称正在代表 Whitecroft 从事活动。\n\n因此，您知道，第五修正案不能完全隔绝一家公司，使其能够开展业务，使其能够——您知道——可能耗散受托人认为属于破产财产的资金，同时不为受托人取得有关该事项的信息提供任何救济，仅仅因为公司选择的 30(b)(6) 代表正在援引第五修正案。\n\n法庭：在此之前，您是否曾尝试进行这些证言录取，即在被告的证言录取之后，而那些证言录取并未进行？\n\nLinsey 先生：是的，法官阁下。在 November——\n\n法庭：在 December 15 的证言录取中，谁代表被告担任 30(b)(6) 代表？\n\nLinsey 先生：Wernick 女士是被告的律师，也是 Whitecroft 的律师。被告的个人刑事辩护律师是 Depeny（音译）的 Matthew Leder（马修·莱德，音译）。\n\n法庭：两名律师都提出了异议、插话提问以及诸如此类的事项，是吗？\n\nLinsey 先生：Leder 先生——Leder 先生主要就证人援引第五修正案一事向证人提供建议。\n\n法庭：他的建议是什么？\n\nLinsey 先生：嗯，总体而言，是建议援引，法官阁下。我无意轻描淡写。这是一个令人沮丧的下午。但是法官阁下会在记录中看到，向 Whitecroft 提出的绝大多数问题都得到“第五修正案”的回答，尤其是，如我所讨论的，Max Krasner、他与 Jetlaw 之间的通信，Max Krasner 是否为 Whitecroft 的获授权代理人？对此得到的回答是：“第五修正案。”Yvette Wang（王悦）也出现在与出售 Bombardier 有关的文件中；例如，她被列为 Bombardier 买方发出的意向书收件人之一，我相信那是在 February of 2022。这是我们 TRO 动议的另一附件。当我试图询问 Yvette Wang 及其在 Bombardier 出售中的作用时，我得到的回答是：“第五修正案。”而且，这些信息具有紧迫性，法官阁下。我的意思是，受托人希望非常明确谁是 Whitecroft 的获授权代理人的一个原因，是因为受托人担忧谁可能会从事可能通过进一步耗散或减少目前可能持有在该 JNFX 账户中的资金、从而损害追偿的行为。\n\n法庭：嗯，当您说“谁是获授权代表”时，被告的律师根据 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（联邦民事诉讼规则）指定了一名获授权代表，正确吗？\n\nLinsey 先生：正确。\n\nLinsey 先生：而且我无意使用重叠的术语；我只是将其作为代理的一般原则而言；即有权打电话给银行并告诉银行该做什么的人。\n\n法庭：不，不，我明白您的意思，但您现在是在向我谈论证据开示，对吗？\n\nLinsey 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：这正是我们正在进行的谈话。我们正在谈论证据开示，而我们正在进行的谈话是，首先，请求召开状态会议，是因为，我相信——如果我错了，请您纠正我——肯定会有人纠正我——是因为此前已通知并发出传票、针对 Whitecroft 和 Anton Development（安东开发）的 Rule 30(b) 代表进行的证言录取未获遵从。那是第一项，正确吗？那是您希望召开状态会议的原因之一。\n\n第二，您不确定他们是否会在 15 日出席证言录取，对吗，但他们显然出席了。\n\nLinsey 先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：您正在告诉我。我相信这是准确的。\n\n所以，现在他们确实出席了，而且他们——当我说“他们”时，我不应当这么说。所以，现在，一名恰好是被告 Guo 女士的 Rule 30(b) 代表，代表 Whitecroft 出席并担任 Rule 30(b)(6) 代表；您没有进行 Anton Development 的证言录取，正确吗？\n\nLinsey 先生：正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：而 Guo 女士在该次证言录取中，以其担任 Whitecroft 的 Rule 30(b)(6) 代表的身份，由在本法庭内的律师代理；之后又由刑事辩护律师代理。我不知道我是否理解为什么有刑事辩护律师在场，因为她是在作为 Rule 30(b)(6) 代表作证。\n\n所以，现在您要求法庭作出裁定。我是在问您，这正是您要求我做的，即裁定 Guo 女士作为 Rule 30(b)(6) 代表对第五修正案的援引是否适当。\n\n在她由律师代理期间，无论是以Rule 30(b)(6)（规则30(b)(6)）代表的身份，还是，我想，是因潜在的——就潜在风险而言，尽管我不知道她作为Rule 30(b)(6)代表如何会面临刑事风险。但无论如何，她——您的意思是，她已被律师告知并指示援引Fifth Amendment（美国宪法第五修正案）。您是这个意思吗？\n\nLINSEY先生（林西先生）：\n据我了解，是这样，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n那么，当您说“据您了解”时，难道不是——这就是他们所说的吗？证言笔录中反映了这一点吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：\n没有，期间有休庭，律师曾与证人交谈。有时，Leder先生（莱德先生）会做手势，我理解那些手势是在示意援引第五修正案。\n\n主要是证人自行援引第五修正案，但据我了解，律师——这是所采取的一项策略——\n\n法庭：\n律师是否曾当场告诉她，援引第五修正案是不当的——\n\nLINSEY先生：\n当然没有。\n\n法庭：\n——在记录中。\n\nLINSEY先生：\n当然没有。受托人的律师反复强调，援引是不当的，并且\n\n应当停止。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，您请求本庭作出命令，强制她——即被指定为Whitecroft（怀特克罗夫特公司）Rule 30(b)(6)代表的该名代表——回答那些问题，因为其对第五修正案的援引不当，是吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：您请求本庭作出命令这样说，是吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：是的，法官阁下。我建议，若法庭愿意考虑，我们若能有一种方式就证言录取期间发生的争议获得解决，将能在更有效的环境中取得证据开示。解决该问题的一种方式是，在公开法庭进行证言录取。如果没有必要，我并不愿占用法官阁下的时间。另一种方式可以是在可能的情况下，于法官阁下能够通过电话参与的时间进行证言录取，以处理证言录取期间产生的争议。\n\n我试图强调的一点是，此处存在许多紧迫情况。我们已经耗费了一个月，才取得空壳公司的所谓配合；这种配合仅仅是走进受托人律师办公室的门槛，而并未作出实质性证言。因此，受托人希望推进本案——希望迅速推进本案。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，除特权问题外，这是否就是您请求我审查并裁定的证据开示问题？您是否还请求我处理任何其他证据开示问题——嗯，显然Anton（安东公司）甚至还没有出庭。\n\nLINSEY先生：是的，法官阁下。我会——\n\n法庭：而且，Guo女士（郭女士）也是该公司的30(b)(6)代表，不是吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 40 of 83\n\nLINSEY先生：她曾是。我预计，如果我们当时——我们一直进行到周五晚上七点。因此，我们没有提前结束。口译员必须开车返回New Jersey（新泽西州）。所以，到某个时候，我想让她离开。如果我们一直进行到十点并且谈到Anton，我认为结果也会是一样的。\n\n法庭：因此，我只是想确认，从受托人的角度看，这些就是您请求召开状态会议所要处理的证据开示问题；我们此前已就此进行讨论，因为在本对抗程序中此前对被告进行证言录取时，她也——Guo女士也被传唤作为两家公司的代表作证，而她和她的刑事律师拒绝这样做，对吗？\n\nLINSEY先生：是的，法官阁下。听着，如果我们不能获得配合，那么在某个时候，受托人认为法庭只需作出——下令实施制裁，无论是作出不利推定，还是——鉴于这里存在的阻挠模式，这就是我从Rule 2004（规则2004）传票开始说起的原因；受托人取得的这几份文件日期是2022年秋季和2023年冬季。若被告——\n\n法庭：被告律师就他们何时取得这些文件作出了何种陈述？\n\nLINSEY先生：我没有收到被告律师的任何陈述。我在周五的证言录取中询问该证人，即30(b)(6)证人，Guo女士是否曾试图从Whitecroft取得相关文件；对此问题的回答如同许多其他问题一样，证人援引了第五修正案。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nLINSEY先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：律师，我假定您希望发言。\n\nWERNICK女士（韦尼克女士）：是的，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n我想就我们今天如何来到这里以及为何今天来到这里，结合所请求的状态会议开始说明。Linsey先生的陈述，或者Linsey律师的陈述，很大一部分涉及周五或今天稍早发生的事件，包括在法庭开庭前片刻提交的一项TRO（临时限制令）动议。从被告的角度看，此前所处理的问题包括出席已进行的证言录取。我们已明确表示，我们——Guo女士\n\n已准备好遵照法庭命令，于周五作为Anton Development（安东开发公司）和Whitecroft两者的30(b)(6)代表作证。文件已经提交——\n\n法庭：那么，您是如何明确表示这一点的？因为据我了解，您提交了一项要求保护令的动议，即紧急动议。那么，您是如何明确表示您将于12月15日出席证言录取的？\n\nWERNICK女士：通过与Linsey律师的交谈。退一步说，我想确保背景得到适当说明。Guo女士于11月初以其个人身份出席了证言录取。同一天，她被送达了针对Whitecroft和Anton Development的传票，并请求——\n\n法庭：那么，那不是因为您不愿接受送达吗？我的意思是，您知道，我确实知道发生了什么。我读过文件。\n\nWERNICK女士：当然，但任何人均无义务接受送达。有一项请求——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 43 of 83\n\n法庭：但您知道她将被送达。如果您不接受送达，她还能如何被送达？\n\nWERNICK女士：但是，当然不应是为了在同日稍后片刻进行证言录取。\n\n法庭：我记得，那一点是您和我相信当时在场的Twardy律师（特沃迪律师）都很清楚的。我的意思是，我明白，好吗。我明白，但是您在Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（《联邦民事诉讼规则》）下负有义务；如果您不想遵守，那是您的选择。那是您的选择。\n\n我知道您要说什么，好吗，但无论向哪个法院说，称一家公司Rule 30(b)(6)代表，即一家公司Rule 30(b)(6)代表，有权援引第五修正案特权，请您，请您向我出示您的判例，因为我已看到大约——我已看到许多相反的判例。那么，您有什么判例认为，您作为律师，因为您曾向此人提供法律意见，而指定为Rule 30(b)(6)代表的人，且您了解您在《联邦民事诉讼规则》下的义务、您作为律师的个人义务，存在法律支持公司Rule 30(b)(6)代表可以援引第五修正案特权的主张。给我看看。\n\nWERNICK女士：法官阁下，我们很愿意就该问题提交书面意见。有——\n\n法庭：不，不，不。停，停。现在就给我看。这就是您来此的原因，对吗。我们都知道我们为何在这里。这是——我们都知道我们为何在这里，对吗。我们在这里是因为您的当事人于去年8月，即2022年8月，被送达了一项2004调查动议。我不得不回去查看，因为起初我想，这对吗，然后我说，是的，对。2022年8月，而现在——现在是2023年12月18日，而我正在就是否——我的意思是，如果这是您想走的路，那是您的选择。那是您的选择。\n\n我敦促您认真且慎重地考虑这一选择，因为您说“我们将就该问题提交书面意见”，但这不需要提交书面意见。我可以给您看十二个判例。给我看一个。如果您给我看一个，我会听您说。我一个也没见过。这是您的义务。您提交了一项保护令动议，一项阻止证言录取进行的紧急动议。我想，因为我没有看到该动议，您后来便于15日出席，试图以某种方式遵守法庭命令，但您仍未遵守，因为另一实体尚未被录取证言，这是第一点。\n\n第二点，如果这属实——我还没有看到所有材料，好吗，公平地说，我还没有看到Linsey律师就此次证言录取所说的内容，但显然有一份证言笔录，我将能够查看。如果——您需要告诉我，Linsey律师所说的内容不准确，即您的当事人作为Whitecroft的30(b)(6)代表，并未就有关Whitecroft的问题援引第五修正案特权。\n\nWERNICK女士：Guo女士并不会仅因其以30(b)(6)证人的身份出席，就不再是自然人。Guo女士在整个证言录取过程中均有其个人刑事律师陪同。当然，我不会反对她的援引。笔录中有记载。这就是周五发生的事情，并且是其个人刑事律师指示她援引第五修正案的。\n\n我认为，法庭，以及我同样尊重受托人，都必须认识到，就受托人所提起的起诉而言，这里确实存在一种紧张关系，然后——\n\n法庭：您知道吗，这些都不重要。重要的是，您是代表被告的律师；您同意并向她提供法律意见，使其被指定为Rule 30(b)(6)代表。本庭已经耗费了大量时间，而每次你们都抱怨受托人在律师费上花了多少钱，你们就输了。您知道为什么吗，因为你们在打一场答案很明确的仗，却仍继续打这场仗。因此，您现在正在打一场仗，您说她——没有人说她不再是个人，但那并非她被录取证言的事项。她是作为Whitecroft的Rule 30(b)(6)代表被录取证言。您作为律师，曾向她提供法律意见，使她成为该方代表。如果还有其他人，那么是您未让该人出面的错误。您不能利用程序拖延程序。您不能在对您有利时利用程序来满足您的意愿。您正在作出一个决定，而该决定将产生后果。因此，我敦促您认真考虑您刚才所说的话。\n\n没有人主张Guo女士不是个人。没有人就她的个人身份向她提问。如果情况是这样，律师，那么每一次对Rule 30(b)(6)代表进行证言录取时，他们都应有一名刑事律师陪同。\n\n韦尼克律师：不是，但当然这并非每一个案件的情形。在此，郭女士已被美国司法部告知，她是——\n\n本院：我不参与美国司法部的事务。\n\n韦尼克律师：——一项刑事调查的涉案对象或目标。\n\n本院：我所涉及的是一位受托人，其资产——这里有资产，对吗？郭女士已经作证称，该飞机已被出售，但她不知道卖给了谁，也不记得何时出售。\n\n韦尼克律师：相关实体已提供文件，我们一直在实时提供——\n\n本院：你何时收到有关该银行账户的文件？\n\n韦尼克律师：我们在上周收到后立即发送了。\n\n本院：不，不，不，那不是我的问题。我没有问你何时发送。\n\n韦尼克律师：不，我——\n\n本院：我问的是你何时收到。\n\n韦尼克律师：在收到后数日内，而且该电子邮件——我们已将我们从 JNFX（JNFX）收到的电子邮件往来发送给受托人，以便他们能够在这些邮件被——时实时看到。\n\n本院：所以，你完全不知道有钱从一个银行账户中被取出？\n\n韦尼克律师：而且我们相信案卷将显示，仅有一份对账单。我们一直非常坦诚地向受托人说明，我们一直在努力从 JNFX 获取信息。我们一直在实时向他们提供信息。而且我们相信，在从 JNFX 获得更多信息后，该信息将显示，这只是 JNFX 自身从该账户中提取的费用。请记住——\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2481，提交于 01/02/24，录入于 01/02/24 07:51:50，第 47 页，共 83 页\n\n本院：$10 million？\n\n韦尼克律师：不，不，不，那不是林赛律师所说的。该账户中有 $10 million。\n\n本院：我想我听到的是，该账户已被清空。\n\n韦尼克律师：不，不，是说该账户曾有提款，而我们理解那是 JNFX 为持有资金收取的费用。今天该账户中目前存有 $10 million，我们同意，法官阁下，我们会与受托人同意，该款项受本院作出的初步禁令约束——\n\n本院：那么，他们不需要临时限制令？那些资金不会——\n\n韦尼克律师：正是如此。因此，所提供的指示——\n\n本院：等一下，等等。这可能是进展，等等。所以，你是说，你今天有证据证明某个银行账户中有 $10 million——在哪里：欧洲、伦敦？\n\n韦尼克律师：在伦敦。\n\n本院：好。\n\n韦尼克律师：受托人今天早些时候收到了与我们相同的电子邮件。\n\n本院：而你们将同意什么？\n\n韦尼克律师：我们的立场是，而且我认为受托人所提及通信的进一步证据开示将显示，资金无法从该账户转移的原因，是因为它们一直受该禁令约束。因此，该等资金在初步禁令作出之前、在本对立程序中的起诉状提出之前即已存于该账户，并且依照我们已确认的英属维尔京群岛 Whitecroft（怀特克罗夫特公司）公司法律顾问的指示——该指示是在证言录取过程中确认的——以及郭女士要求将其保留在该账户中的指示，由 JNFX 持有。我们的理解是，该账户中的任何扣减，均系资金持有人收取的费用。而且，您知道，我不想越权发言，但是——\n\n本院：抱歉，我打断你只是因为我想弄清时间。你是说，被扣除的费用是在初步禁令之前扣除的，是这个意思，还是在初步禁令之后扣除的？\n\n韦尼克律师：我无法就此作出具体说明。\n\n本院：我想我需要知道这一点，不是吗？\n\n韦尼克律师：当然，但这并非依照郭女士的指示，对吧。因此，初步禁令——\n\n本院：那么，如果郭女士已获送达初步禁令，且该禁令适用于 Whitecroft，那么，若银行知悉存在一项涉及 Whitecroft 的初步禁令，规定不得转让、处置，为何银行会取出资金？我是说，我可以逐一说明其中的措辞。\n\n韦尼克律师：是的，正是如此，这就是资金没有被转移的原因。因此，它们原先就存于该账户中。它们仍留在该账户中。我们同意，它们受本院作出的初步禁令约束。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，仅为记录在案，就一项 $12 million 的投资收取 $1.5 million 的费用——\n\n本院：我们甚至还没有谈到那一点。\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。\n\n本院：我明白。\n\n韦尼克律师：因此，我理解对资产的担忧，但我提出此事只是为了指出，该等资产，我们同意，已属于——\n\n本院：好。让我们回到此事所关乎的问题，至少是在作出命令安排举行状态会议时所关乎的问题，对吗？这涉及你当事人未能以 Whitecroft 和 Anton Development（安东开发公司）两者的 Rule 30(b)(6) 代表人身份作证，也未能依照传票提供文件。因此，截至今日，这仍未发生。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 2481，提交于 01/02/24，录入于 01/02/24 07:51:50，第 50 页，共 83 页\n\n韦尼克律师：再次说明，法官阁下，我谨不同意文件已经提供、所有文件均已提供的说法。我们联系了——而且正如郭女士在其证言录取过程中作证称，她要求律师联系任何可识别的当事方以寻求文件。已经这样做了。\n\n本院：什么律师？\n\n韦尼克律师：她要求——\n\n本院：英属维尔京群岛的律师？\n\n韦尼克律师：——两方英属维尔京群岛律师以及我们办公室。我们努力进行联系，而且我认为，再次说明，这正是我们需要将本案所处情境加以考量的地方。其他人并不听命于我们。我们曾试图联系马克斯·克拉兹纳。我想联系马克斯·克拉兹纳，请他向我们提供，您知道，他所拥有的任何文件或材料。我们尝试过电话号码，也尝试过电子邮件。当然，我确信，这些可能也是受托人本人曾尝试用以联系此人的一切沟通方式。因此，我们没有收到克拉兹纳先生的回复。我们没有收到飞机管理公司的回复。我们联系了 AKAS（AKAS），这是另一家已被确认的实体，而他们表示，我们将向你们提供我们已经向受托人提供的所有文件。我们联系了据我们了解将持有文件的前任律师，并向受托人提供一切能够获得的文件。因此，我确实不希望有人认为未曾努力遵从传票，因为确实已作出此种努力，而且任何取得的文件均已提供给受托人。因此，我希望为记录在案指出，当这些各种努力没有收到任何文件回应时，这并非未遵从传票。\n\n本院：可是，你的当事人拒绝作证称不存在其他文件。她代表一家公司援引第五修正案特权。因此，你不能这么说。你不能作出刚才那样的陈述，因为你没有任何证据支持。如果你的当事人就此作证，之后又发现文件，那么，显然你的当事人就又有另一个问题。这不是重点，律师。没有证据表明不存在其他文件。我不知道，但如果你们所提供的文件，包括来自某家银行的某些东西，比如说，银行对账单在哪里？\n\n韦尼克律师：所以，再次说明，这不是一家典型的银行。我的理解是——再次，我们必须回到——\n\n本院：再次说明，你可以随意说什么，但没有证据，你说什么实际上都无关紧要。好。因此，我没有任何证据支持你所说的这不是一家典型的银行。我不知道那是什么意思。你没有任何东西支持这一点。你没有任何东西证明你刚才所说的话。\n\n因此，如果你的当事人不愿就这些问题宣誓作证，那么就没有证据支持你们的主张。没有证据。\n\n韦尼克律师：嗯，我谨不同意。郭女士在证言录取过程中作证称，她要求——她通过律师寻求请求提供文件。这——\n\n本院：那又怎样。这毫无意义。我也可以通过律师请求某些东西。这并不意味着文件不存在。你有义务。你作为律师，有义务向你的当事人提供法律意见，而当事人依传票权力也负有义务。因此，我是说，你可以提出这些论点，尽管去做，并且建立你想建立的任何案卷记录，但你没有一份含有任何证明的案卷记录。\n\n在这一点上，你所面对的只是你和你的当事人，受《联邦民事诉讼规则》约束，并且也受《联邦民事诉讼规则》规定的制裁约束，因为你们未遵从本院的命令及传票。因此，我认为你需要思考这一点。\n\n这是一个问题。\n\n韦尼克律师：坦率地说，法官阁下，而且我想——您知道，当林赛先生出庭时，似乎存在一种看法，即我们正在进行讨论；而据我理解，就我们今天在此举行状态会议而言，没有待决动议，在此之前也没有请求作出命令——\n\n本院：嗯，一直存在一项请求制裁和强制遵从的待决动议。因此，我不确定你这是什么意思。而且我作出了一项命令，规定证言录取必须在 15th 之前进行。现在，我没有查看——我不该说我没有查看，我看到过——我不确切记得紧急保护令动议中写了什么，但很明显，你们不想继续进行此事。\n\n韦尼克律师：嗯，这仅仅是排期问题。我们最初向林赛律师提议，鉴于排期原因，证言录取在今天或明天进行。在该提议未获同意后，我们向本院提出申请——\n\n本院：我明白，但我作出了命令，命令中写明了日期。\n\n韦尼克律师：明白。\n\n本院：命令非常明确地写明，在——\n\n55\n\n韦尼克女士（Wernick）：这就是为什么我们尊重该命令，并于12月15日之前出庭。\n\n法庭：嗯，只是因为，我想，没有作出保护令。如果存在保护令，你们就不会尊重该命令。\n\n韦尼克女士：但是如果有——那么该命令就会被修改。因此，我的意思是说，不能因为我们违反该命令而以任何方式对我们予以处罚。\n\n法庭：首先，我甚至不知道你们怎么能够申请保护令。这是一项命令你们当事人出庭的法院命令。你们不能获得针对法院命令的保护。《联邦民事诉讼规则》的哪里规定，哦，如果我不喜欢该命令，而它又涉及证据开示，我就可以申请保护令？首先，律师，这在法律上没有任何依据，好吗？第一。第二，对于你们当事人在被指定且由你和你的同事建议担任第30(b)(6)条代表人时援引第五修正案特权一事，你所告诉我的任何内容仍未向我提供任何法律依据。因此，当你说没有待决动议时，这并不准确。有一项待决动议。绝对有一项待决动议，而且我已作出要求遵从的命令。Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 55 of 83\n\n我只是想非常明确地说明，我不会在证据开示上花很多时间。你们将不得不承担这些裁定所导致的结果。对此——我们已经处理过了，好吗。我可能年纪大了，但还没有老到那种程度。我记得事情，好吗。自本案开始以来——自受托人被任命之时起，我就一直在处理这个问题。而这一切只不过是不断设置障碍，意图就是如此；一个又一个路障。\n\n如果你有支持你所告诉我的内容的判例，你本应早就提交。你本应一开始就针对传票提交保护令。你没有这样做。你针对一项强制遵从的法院命令提交了保护令动议。不存在这种事情。你不能这样做。没有任何法律依据。你没有任何成文法、法律或规则依据来寻求你通过保护令所寻求的救济。\n\n韦尼克女士：恭敬地说，我提交认为，该申请已因我们确实出庭而失去实际意义。\n\n法庭：恭敬地说，你浪费了法院的时间，使法院不得不审阅你根据第11条提交的材料；该规则规定，你们不得为拖延或以拖延为目的而提交任何材料，而你们所请求的救济没有任何法律依据可以批准，完全没有。\n\n因此，如果没有法律依据批准你所请求的救济，那么问题就变成制裁。如果这是你想走的路，我们就不得不走这条路。我不会在证据开示上花费数小时、数小时、再数小时，而你作为法院官员，有义务处理这些问题；当你提交一项动议——我并不是只说你，我知道是同事以及其他人——声称你想要获得针对法院强制遵从命令的保护令时，你已经败诉。你已经败诉。\n\n韦尼克女士：这就是为什么出于对该命令的尊重，我再次重申——\n\n法庭：当你这样说时，你一开始就应当尊重该命令。你的请求没有任何依据。因此，你并不尊重该命令，因为如果你尊重，你就不会提出一个毫无依据、毫无理由、在法典、规则、《联邦民事诉讼规则》、《联邦破产程序规则》、我们的地方法律程序规则中均无任何支持的请求，什么都没有。你什么都没有。你甚至连任何东西都没有。\n\n韦尼克女士：我的意思是，再次，法官阁下，我完全同意，没有必要在保护令动议上再花额外时间。我不想——\n\n法庭：那么就让你们当事人出庭，并让她作出适当证言。你们当事人不能——而且我没有见过任何判例表明，一家公司的第30(b)(6)条代表人可以适当地援引第五修正案；否则，第30(b)(6)条还有什么意义。毫无意义。\n\n58\n\n韦尼克女士：但是，法官阁下，再次，我恭敬地表示不同意。郭女士（Guo）或任何作为一项真实且严重刑事调查对象之人的任何陈述——\n\n法庭：那就指定其他人。\n\n韦尼克女士：我们很乐意这样做。因此，如果对指定一名代理人或其他个人不会有任何异议，那么——\n\n法庭：会是谁，以及你们何时会这样做？\n\n韦尼克女士：正是如此。\n\n法庭：她难道不是唯一一个——\n\n韦尼克女士：所以，这才是真正的——\n\n法庭：等一下。她难道不是唯一一个有权为这两家公司这么做的人吗？我以为她作证说没有其他人？\n\n韦尼克女士：正是如此。\n\n法庭：那你们怎么能指定其他人？\n\n韦尼克女士：所以，这就是真正的紧张关系。如果我们能够——\n\n法庭：嗯，这不是紧张关系，律师。Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 58 of 83\n\n这不是紧张关系。这是现实，而你们必须面对现实。现在是面对现实的时候了。这不是紧张关系。这正是你们当事人如何设立这些公司，或者被指示如何设立这些公司的结果。你们现在不能躲在其后，说，嗯，她是一个个人，而且她被告知自己可能是刑事调查的对象，因此，在她——我的意思是，那很荒谬。你们所说的实际上很荒谬，因为那样一来，每一次任何一方作为第30(b)(6)条代表人时，他们都可以聘请刑事律师。\n\n韦尼克女士：我在这里并不是要表示，不应当可能作出不利推定，或者因该影响而提出任何法律论点——\n\n法庭：那你为什么不对此作出约定？\n\n韦尼克女士：我明白。\n\n法庭：为什么不对所有事实作出约定？受托人说过，为什么不对所有这些事实作出约定。就对此作出约定。有什么问题？\n\n韦尼克女士：我不知道曾提出过该建议。\n\n法庭：书面材料中有。我读过。所以，\n\n60\n\n没有人来告诉我这件事。它在其中一份诉状中。\n\n韦尼克女士：我不熟悉——再次，我——\n\n法庭：我不知道你怎么会不熟悉该建议，律师。你代表被告，而被告以被告的身份，担任Whitecroft（怀特克罗夫特）和Anton（安东）两家公司的第30(b)(6)条代表人。我不知道你怎么会不熟悉这一点。无论如何，你还想向记录补充什么吗？\n\n韦尼克女士：如果法官阁下有任何问题，我很乐意回答。我重申，我们的立场是已经遵从。我很乐意就援引该特权一事向法院提供进一步和补充资料。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n韦尼克女士：谢谢。\n\n法庭：还有别的吗，林西先生（Linsey）？\n\n林西先生：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么，这就处理了证据开示问题。关于特权问题，我们需要清空法庭，因为我们将举行不公开听证会，是吗——\n\n德斯平斯先生（Despins）：我们原本想先就另一事项举行状态会议，如果所有人都可以离开。Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 60 of 83\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2481\nFiled 01/02/24\nEntered 01/02/24 07:51:50\n\n会议，如果所有人都可以离开。\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，这样可以吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n德斯平斯先生：那么，法官阁下，大约十天前左右——首先，为记录在案，我是第11章受托人Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）。大约十天前，我们向法院提交了一份在刑事案件中提出的、要求返还客户资金的动议副本。该动议是由Giar先生（Giar，发音不确定）所代表的，我姑且加上引号称为“所谓”客户群体的律师提交。我稍后会说明我为何给“所谓”加上引号。\n\n基本上，我们在该提交文件中表示，我们可以参加状态会议，而法官阁下确实安排了状态会议。我首先想说的是，我们之所以给“所谓”加上引号，是因为——我想对此非常明确——显然，有各种围绕郭文贵先生（Ho Wan Kwok）发生的交易的受害人。这些受害人终有一日需要得到赔偿。难点在于谁是这些受害人、由谁决定他们是受害人，以及他们应获多少赔偿。这就是我们强调“所谓”一词的原因。我听起来可能对此有所防御的原因是，Giar先生于周五提交了一份补充诉状，基本上以非常强硬的方式攻击司法部（DOJ）和受托人，依据是——你知道，有一些依据，但主要的依据是司法部或受托人敌视受害人。我想从一开始就揭穿这个谬误。\n\n因此，我很高兴法院给了我们就此陈述意见的机会。正如您可从我们今天上午提交的通知中看到的，我不确定您是否有时间审阅，但Giar先生提交了一份内容广泛的答复，我会说是一份过早的答复。顺便说一下，我们邀请Giar先生今天参加听证会，但他有冲突，无法出席。基本上，我们想讨论我们将向刑事法院提交什么材料，稍后我们会回到这一点。\n\n首先，我想向您提供一些背景情况。如我所说，周五，“所谓”申请人的律师提交了一份我们称之为有些过早的答复，因为我们尚未在刑事法院提交我们的实体答复。如我所说，提交了一份非常激进的诉状，攻击第11章程序和司法部。因此，这出于多种原因而值得注意。\n\n首先，该答复重提了Paul Hastings（宝维斯律师事务所）是中国共产党（CCP）工具的论点，并向刑事法院附上了郭文贵先生基于Paul Hastings在中国设有办事处这一事实而请求取消受托人资格的动议副本。\n\n其次，其立场是，对 Himalaya Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）不存在管辖权，因为该公司是一家 BVI company（英属维尔京群岛公司），因而不是一家美国公司，而且 Kwok（郭文贵）并非该公司的高级管理人员或董事。显然，我们知道这不是法律规定。答复状极力强调 Himalaya Exchange 与 Kwok 先生完全分离这一概念。答复状完全未提及，Kwok 先生的共同被告 William Je（威廉·杰）是 Himalaya Exchange 的登记所有人。答复状也未提及，法官阁下或许记得，在本案的飞机对抗程序中作为被告、在 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）对抗程序中亦作为被告的债务人之女，将 Je 先生称为 William 叔叔。您记得，他正是使用 Himalaya Exchange 为 Lady May 的托管账户提供 $37 million 的人。因此，与债务人及本案存在直接联系。随后，答复状作出若干颇为引人注目的法律论断，例如，就客户留置于银行的存款而言，受托人并不比银行享有更大的权利，这意味着客户拥有其存放于银行的存款。法官阁下，至少一百年来，本国教科书式的法律原则一直是，银行拥有客户留置于其处的存款，而客户是该银行的无担保债权人。其他主张是，这是受害人的钱，我们将回到这一点。\n\n核心主张是 Himalaya Exchange 是外国实体，因此任何人均无权对其行使管辖权。再次，如法官阁下所知，教科书式的法律原则是，无论财产位于世界何处、由何人持有，本院均对破产财团财产享有管辖权。\n\n法庭：您说的是由某个声称代表 Himalaya 投资者的人提交的一份文件？\n\nDESPINS 先生：正确，代表这 3,700 人。\n\n法庭：在……？\n\nDESPINS 先生：在刑事案件中。\n\n法庭：好的。您是说，它今天在这里提交了。\n\nDESPINS 先生：嗯，我们基本上自己提交了一份副本，以便您能收到它。我并未预期您在听证会前有机会阅读它，但基本上，他们的理论是：我们代表这 37,000 人——不，抱歉，是 3,700 名申索人；我们不能告诉您他们是谁，因为一旦身份被知悉，他们可能面临人身攻击风险；但请相信我们，刑事法院，把钱交给我们，我们会确保把钱交给正确的人。这实质上就是该动议的性质。\n\n因此，他们攻击 Chapter 11 Trustee（第 11 章受托人）请求在刑事法院陈述意见，理由是这是一家外国公司，因此受托人对其没有管辖权，或者本院对其没有管辖权。显然，我们知道事实并非如此。他们还极力强调，由于 Kwok 先生并非 Himalaya Exchange 的董事或高级管理人员，该公司便完全独立。当然，我们从本院作出的大量认定中知道，一家公司表面上可能看起来与 Kwok 先生毫无关系，但实际上由其控制并为其所有。因此，我不会重复这些，因为您对此了如指掌；但除此之外，这不仅是本院的认定，而且也是其（听不清）的认定；另外，在 2023 年，Southern District of New York（纽约南区）的三个地区法院制裁了若干起诉受托人、PAX（PAX）和 O'Melveny（奥美律师事务所）的申索人或原告。制裁他们并不只是因为他们主张了毫无根据的请求，而是因为这三个不同的地区法院认定，其中的原告是为了不当目的提起该诉讼，即代表 Kwok 先生。因此，关于只要你是一家外国公司、Kwok 先生不是董事或高级管理人员，你便是独立的，因而我们即可一路畅行的整套主张，如您所知，法官阁下，均不可信。\n\n然后，再次，我想对此非常明确：他们说，钱是受害人的钱，为什么 DOJ（美国司法部）和受托人试图阻止受害人获得他们的钱。当然，这里存在受害人。当然，他们需要得到赔偿。如我在开始时所说，问题是谁是受害人、谁是真正的受害人、谁不是，以及他们被欠付多少。正如法官阁下所知，在本案中，大量申索人已提交债权申报，称自己遭 Himalaya Exchange 计划欺诈。那么，我们怎么能仅基于未具名申索人，就把 $200 million 以上交给 Giar 先生，而对其他这些人置之不理，或者让他们自行处理，我不知道；但关键是，这毫无道理。\n\n因此，需要由法院确定谁是申索人、谁不是申索人，以及金额是多少。显然，破产财团财产问题是此处的关键，而只有一个法院有管辖权作出该决定，那就是本院。我还想指出，如法官阁下所知，我们已经看到许多“受害人”出现在本院，宣誓称他们与 Kwok 先生没有联系或没有一致立场，结果却被我的合伙人出示他们与 Kwok 先生咯咯笑的录像、销售 G 服装的录像，或者显示他们与 Kwok 先生有关联的 WhatsApp 聊天记录所驳斥。因此，当有人出庭说他们代表这里真正的受害人，因为他们未与 Kwok 先生站在同一立场时，受托人深感担忧。鉴于我们的立场是，在任何人就谁是受害人及其应获多少作出最终决定之前，我们必须极为谨慎，因此，在这个具体案件中——我的意思是 Giar 先生的、名为 Himalaya Exchange Restoration Program（喜马拉雅交易所恢复计划）的活动——这一点极为相关。该活动由一名名叫 Little Sara（小莎拉）的人于今年八月在互联网上发起。当然，那不是她的真实姓名，而是一个“Kwok 世界的名字”。法官阁下，可以在若干帖子中看到 Little Sara 称债务人为叔叔、与债务人在其公寓内用餐（听不清）、登上我们刚刚正在出售的 Lady May II（“梅夫人 II”号），或者在 PAX 主席的住宅前抗议。您可能会说，好吧，他们有表达自由的权利，这很好，我们尊重这一点；但该帖子说：“致电 Giar 先生。”因此，恕我直言，我们会善意看待每一个来到本院并称其代表受害人的人，但对于这一位，我们必须保持警觉，因为八月时首次提及 Giar 先生的正是 Little Sara，她在该帖子中说，致电此人以取回你的钱。当然，稍后还会谈到这一点。\n\n现在，就后续程序而言，Giar 先生的请求有两部分。第一，告诉刑事法院，没收不当，或者应当撤销没收。这是一部分。第二，刑事法院，请指示 DOJ 将该笔款项交给 Giar 先生。因此，我们明天将提交一份文件，明天到期，告知刑事法院，我们对没收是否适当不持立场；这不是由我们说了算。政府已经提交了一封详尽的信函，说明为什么这毫无道理，但我们不会对此持立场。\n\n我们对第二部分持立场，即，请刑事法院，一旦您认定应撤销没收，即命令将这些资金转交给 Giar 先生。对此，法官阁下，我们将告知地区法院，在考虑第二部分救济之前，应给予本院机会就破产财团财产问题及其他救济作出裁决。我们绝未以任何方式约定或承认第一部分将获准，即法院将认定没收不当；而只是说，如果法院得出该结论，则在本院有能力审查破产财团财产、自动停止效力等问题之前，法院不应命令将资金返还给任何人。\n\n因此，我想向本院提醒此事。我知道您过去曾对针对刑事案件被告发布禁令有所顾虑，但这些人不是被告。我们谈论的是试图攫取我们认为属于破产财团财产的资金的人。这些人中的一些可能确实是 Kwok 先生的真正受害人。我们今天并未争论这一点。我们只是在争论，存在一个有组织的程序来确定这一点，并且，就这是否属于破产财团财产的问题，只有本院应能够作出决定。因此，这就是关于该事项的最新情况，法官阁下。我们希望您在明天向刑事法院提交答复之前获悉这些情况。\n\n法庭：目前并无任何关于这些问题的事项提交至本院。\n\nDESPINS 先生：没有。我与 Giar 先生唯一的沟通是，他给我发了一些短信或电子邮件，说他希望不必与破产法院打交道。当时我想，好吧，祝你好运。因此，今天本院面前没有任何事项。如果地区法院的程序在没收是否适当、或是否应撤销没收或冻结这些款项的问题之外继续推进，之后很可能会有某种执行自动停止效力的动议，或类似动议。\n\n法庭：美国政府是否将该等资金作为刑事起诉书的一部分予以冻结？\n\nDESPINS 先生：是。因此，他们主张其有权进行没收，并已为此提交了一份诉状。我们现阶段不与他们争论这一点。因此，从我们的角度看，此事可能不会有任何进展，因为法院可能会说，不，没收或临时没收、定罪前没收是适当的，因此事情到此为止；在这种情况下，我们目前无需采取任何行动。但如果进入下一阶段，法院表示，实际上，我认为这些资金应当解冻，那么我们将再次到法官阁下面前处理下一阶段，即在本院有机会审查自动停止效力和破产财团财产问题之前，这些资金当然不应返还至 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）或返还给任何人。\n\n法庭：好的。我明白了。好的。关于我们刚刚讨论的、在我所报告或已报告将闭庭审理的事项之前的问题，我今天听到了很多关于 Whitecroft（怀特克罗夫特）、这项证言记录，以及现在显然还有临时限制令、临时限制令动议或申请的情况。我必须假定，这是你们希望尽快处理的事情。\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的；不过，我从您对被告律师的询问中听到，我不想强行推进。\n\n……那样做太难，主动同意一项经双方同意的临时限制令（TRO），即这些资金不得以任何方式被转移。我们希望让该资金持有人参与达成类似的安排。因此，我们理解您的日程很满，所以如果我们不必通过临时限制令程序，我们也宁愿避免这样做，法官阁下。于是——\n\n法院：我只想问，如果不存在某种协议，你们希望安排在什么日期。我会假定——但我并不确定——你们是在要求尽快处理。因此，我需要去查看这些文件，而且既然该文件已经提交，你们并非在寻求单方临时限制令。\n\n德斯平斯先生（Despins）：正确。\n\n法院：另一方已经知道你们正在寻求该项救济，对吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。\n\n法院：那么，就需要设定某种答复期限；不过，我再次假定，你们希望尽快进行处理。今天是18日。\n\n德斯平斯先生：是，法官阁下，但如果我们——我认为下一个事项将是特权问题，不过也许我们可以——无论如何，为此必须清空法庭。我们可以短暂休庭。我们可以与律师商谈，就……达成协议——\n\n法院：让我问一下法庭工作人员，因为我不记得了——本周五我们休庭吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。\n\n法院：那么，本周五休庭，然后我们何时再次休庭？\n\n德斯平斯先生：周一。\n\n法院：好的。嗯，你比我更清楚。显然周一是合理的，但在1月1日之前以及下周五之前，我们还会再休庭一天吗？那么，我们在23日、25日和29日休庭，对吗——或者是22日，抱歉。22日、25日和29日。因此，显然时间并不多。\n\n德斯平斯先生：根据我听到的情况，也许我听错了，但我认为我们或许能够在短期内通过协商解决此事。因此，如果法官阁下允许，也许休息五分钟。\n\n法院：嗯，随你们的意。我所说的只是，如果你们希望我作出命令，安排就临时——作出临时限制令并随后举行初步禁令听证会，你们知道，我需要了解时间安排。\n\n德斯平斯先生：嗯，如果他们不同意，我们希望尽快审理此事，法官阁下。我的意思是，这些问题并不复杂。我们知道资金在哪里。\n\n我们知道她已作证称这些资金属于她。我们完全不相信这一点，但至少这些并非他人的资金。问题只是，在法官阁下就对抗程序作出裁决之前冻结这些资金。\n\n因此，如果他们不愿就冻结这些资金达成协议，我们又无法从持有该资金的外汇实体获得正式协议，那么我们将需要尽快推进，可能最早于周三。法官阁下，还有一项您可能尚未看到的紧急动议已经提交。该动议请求保全有关一处存储设施的证据，该设施距离（听不清）数英里。我们请求对此缩短通知期限，并于本周三进行审理。\n\n为说明情况，我们发现有一处存储设施，不只是一个储物格。他们每月为该设施支付 \\$7,000。因此，它必定具有一定规模。我们知道它与Mahwah mansion（马瓦庄园）有关，因为保镖Barnett（巴内特）是该存储设施租赁合同项下的承租人。随后，他将其转让给另一实体，即一个Kwok（郭文贵）关联实体。\n\n我们所希望的只是能够前往该设施，并且在此期间任何其他人都不得进入该设施，因为我们不希望物品从该设施中被取走。\n\n该设施。\n\n这不会在任何意义上干扰任何人，因为这是一个其中存放有物品的设施，或者也可能没有。\n\n一项命令规定，在受托人有机会查看该存储设施之前，任何人都不得前往该存储设施，这不应当干扰任何人。我们并未请求超出该范围的任何事项，但这是一项今晨在Mahwah mansion（马瓦庄园）对抗程序中提交的紧急动议，因为我们发现了该存储设施的存在。\n\n如您所记得，Mahwah mansion（马瓦庄园）中的资产曾经失踪。因此，它们可能在那里，我们并不知情。当然，如果他们每月支付 \\$7,000 用于存储，那里一定有些东西，但我们不知道是什么。因此，这是另一事项。我们已提交动议请求加快对该事项的听证，以便于本周三审理。因此，请原谅，我们是在事发过程中发现所有这些情况的。\n\n法院：那么，我们谈论的是Taurus Fund（Taurus基金）对抗程序？\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。\n\n法院：Conway先生（康威），我看到您在法庭内。\n\n康威先生：是的，法官阁下。Michael Conway（迈克尔·康威），Taurus Fund LLC（Taurus Fund有限责任公司）。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n康威先生：我只想——\n\n法院：我们听不见您。这不是您的过错，但我们听不见您，因为一切都必须由麦克风收音。\n\n康威先生：Michael Conway（迈克尔·康威）。我代理Taurus Fund LLC（Taurus Fund有限责任公司）。我确实就此与受托人谈过。这也是我在这里的原因之一，因为我在附近时收到了那份文件。我收到了未删节动议的副本。我们坐在这里时我一直在阅读。我认为，只要命令中写明我也可以进入并进行清点，我们将同意受托人所请求的内容。因此，就受托人对于时间安排的担忧而言，我认为我们可以让您不必处理该事项。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。再次说明，这些文件今天才提交，所以我尚未看到其内容，但听起来你们或许能够就一项命令达成协议，这应当没有问题。\n\n康威先生：听起来他只是不希望任何东西被移动，这对我没有问题。我只希望自己也能够查看那里有什么。\n\n法院：是否——嗯，我让你们双方讨论此事。我不会担心事实问题，因为目前我不需要这么做。\n\n德斯平斯先生：那么，法官阁下，Linsey先生（林赛）正在纠正我。关于临时限制令，我们请求您在不举行听证的情况下作出该命令；这意味着十四天后将举行听证。再次说明，这只是为了冻结资金，仅此而已。再次说明，我希望我们能够——\n\n法院：我将这样处理：今天下午我们将进行更多听证。明天我们已安排其他听证，但据我了解，本案中有些事项已被延期。因此，我不确定本案或任何相关对抗程序明天下午的日程表上是否有事项。我对此并不确定。\n\n德斯平斯先生：不，您说得对。\n\n法院：那么，最迟到明天下午，我需要知道——至少就这项临时限制令而言，我不知道康威先生刚才就Taurus Fund（Taurus基金）对抗程序所说的内容。听起来该事项可能得到解决。\n\n德斯平斯先生：当然。我们对他与我们一同前往没有任何异议。\n\n法院：好的。那么，让我们暂且搁置该事项。接下来是临时限制令，该命令请求阻止对伦敦一账户中资金进行任何形式的转让、提取或处分。\n\n德斯平斯先生：这不是银行，而是一家外汇机构。\n\n法院：不管它是什么，有人持有 \\$10 million，对吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。\n\n法院：而且律师Wernick（韦尼克）表示她可能会同意。现在，公平地说，她尚未有机会处理此事。我的意思是，我当时在提问或做其他事情，而她在作答。因此，公平地说，她也确实尚未有机会就此进行讨论。因此，我认为我们应当利用原定于明天的时间，让你们向我报告我们在此事上的进展——因为如果未达成协议，那么我就必须以某种方式对临时限制令作出裁决。我想这就是我必须做的。这没有问题，但我需要了解要求我做什么。\n\n德斯平斯先生：明白。\n\n法院：那么，康威先生——听起来您与康威先生之间的问题可能能够更直接地解决，除非且直到你们告诉我未达成协议，否则我不需要就该事项作出命令。\n\n德斯平斯先生：此事只有一个小问题，即目前作为该存储设施承租人的实体，我忘记了该实体的名称，但它是——我不确定康威先生是否代理他们。他们是一个BVI实体。再次说明，这是一个Kwok（郭文贵）关联实体。我们不一定知道他们在哪里，或由谁代理。因而，理论上，他们才是有权说不或说是的一方。康威先生之所以参与，是因为这属于他的案件，但他并非该设施项下的承租人。因此，我们感谢他的同意，也乐意让他与我们一同前往查看，但另一实体将需要以某种方式予以默许，而我不确定康威先生是否代理他们。\n\n康威先生：在我看到您提交的文件之前，我从未听说过他们。\n\n法院：好的。我让你们弄清楚此事。\n\n德斯平斯先生：嗯，问题是——\n\n法院：嗯，你们必须在明天告诉我。\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。\n\n法院：无论如何，我今晚不会有时间查看任何材料，对吗，而且我们还有——嗯，我的意思是，我可能有时间，但我没有，因为明天还有其他听证需要我审阅。因此，我认为我们需要利用原定安排给主案和对抗程序中明日听证的时间，我认为是下午1点。我可以远程进行，不必让人们回到法庭。\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。\n\n法院：我想知道，今日提交的、看来涉及两项事项的进展如何，而它们均附带称其属于紧急事项的主张。因此，我需要弄清楚，因为在接下来的一周内你们不会有人在这里。\n\n德斯平斯先生：明白。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：因此，今天唯一剩下的事项是特权讨论，届时我们将清空法庭。\n\n法院：在你们这样做之前，关于存储设施的问题，你们是否已与该存储设施沟通过？\n\n德斯平斯先生：他们已被送达相关文件，但我不认为——\n\n法院：好的。那么，他们——\n\n德斯平斯先生：因此，他们已被送达传票。他们知道此事。\n\n法院：——已被送达这些文件。他们对此有些了解？\n\n德斯平斯先生：是。\n\n法院：我不认为——\n\n法院：不，我并不是说他们是问题所在。我只是想知道是否——\n\n德斯平斯先生：是，他们已经知道。\n\n法院：好的。那么，康威先生、Wernick律师（韦尼克），以及我不知道Moriarty律师（莫里亚蒂）是否会出席，或者你们将如何处理明天由谁出席的问题，但我需要知道我们讨论的那些问题的情况，当时我与您谈到本案的……\n\n关于证据开示事项，以及你们是否同意就账户内资金和Conway先生作出某种命令，至少是暂时性的命令，你们的立场如何。我理解受托人刚才所说的内容，但即便你们同意，也总比无人同意要好。因此，我也想知道这是否可能。好的。那么，我们明天一点钟进行。我们将——我想你们必须联系日程协调员，是这样吗\n\n他们应当如何取得下午1:00的Zoom信息，因为显然我们甚至尚未将其安排妥当。所以，你们可以这样做。我相信，法庭书记员将能够在明天上午9:00至10:00期间安排好一些事项，届时我们会在此处进行其他现场听证。届时你们将获得该信息。你们均可通过Zoom出席，我们可以看看情况进展如何。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，请问我们能否改在两点钟举行？\n\n法庭：当然。我们可以在两点钟举行。DESPINS先生：谢谢。\n\nCONWAY先生：法官阁下，如果受托人与我达成协议——\n\n法庭：不，你不必出席。如果你们达成协议，那么你们应当办理所需事项，除此之外不必参与。Wernick律师，这对你也是一样。如果\n\n受托人所做的仅是报告协议，那么其他人均无需出席。我对此没有异议，但我只需要知道，在周二下午至周四期间、工作人员因节假日离开之前，我是否需要做任何事情，以及需要做什么。这是我需要知道的。LINSEY先生：法官阁下，我想到了一件事。法庭：是。LINSEY先生：我将提交一项看似普通的同意动议，根据受托人与FDIC（联邦存款保险公司）达成的协议，在保护令中增加一份附录。虽然这看起来并不重要，但对于受托人取得与2月15日截止日期直接相关的《联邦破产程序规则》第2004条项下证据开示而言，这非常重要；这也是我现在站起来提及此事的唯一原因。法庭：所以，你的意思是，你将提交某些文件，我们需要留意。LINSEY先生：可能是明天；最晚不迟于周三。法庭：我刚刚意识到，周三，你知道，我不会让人们在正常营业时间结束后于周四继续留下来。我的意思是，我可能会在这里，但他们不会在这里。LINSEY先生：明白，法官阁下。这就是我想提及此事的原因。这看起来将非常普通。这只是FDIC为遵守其所受约束的部分银行法规而要求的进一步隐私保护措施。法庭：好的。谢谢。LINSEY先生：谢谢。法庭：所以，各位，显然，尽你们所能去做；如果你们需要明天两点钟Zoom会议的信息，那么你们应联系日程协调员的联系信息，以取得该Zoom信息。WERNICK女士：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：好的。非常感谢。现在，你们都告诉我谁必须离开。DESPINS先生：Moriarty先生将与Linsey先生和我一起留下。法庭：好的。谢谢。 （于下午4:48休庭。）Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 82 of 83\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 83 of 83\n\n证明\n\n我们证明，据我们所知和所能，前述内容是对上述案件程序电子录音的正确誊本。\n\n/s/ William J. Garling December 26, 2023\nWilliam J. Garling，CET-543\n认证法庭誊录员\n代表Reliable\n\n/s/ Mary Zajaczkowski December 26, 2023\nMary Zajaczkowski，CET-531\n认证法庭誊录员\n代表Reliable","key_entities":["Despins","Je","Guo","Kwok","forfeiture","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","CIPA","Paul Hastings","Ho Wan Kwok","Luc Despins","William Je","CCP"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":2441,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":22376,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-01-02 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-01-02","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:01:17"}