{"id":"court_ctb_2947_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":2947,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2024-02-22","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":"听证会庭审记录 —— Ho Wan Kwok 破产案（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo），CTB 22-50073 ECF #2947（2024-02-22立案）。这份共 170 页的记录反映了法官 Julie A. Manning 于 2024 年 2 月 13 日主持的远程听证会全程，核心议题为第 11 章受托人提请延长追索起诉期限的动议（ECF #2509），包含受托人 Luc Despins 等人的作证及交叉质询过程。","summary_en":"Hearing Transcript — In re Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui), CTB 22-50073 ECF #2947 (filed 2024-02-22). The 170-page transcript of the remote hearing held on February 13, 2024 before Judge Julie A. Manning regarding the Chapter 11 Trustee's Motion for Entry of Order Extending Deadline to File Avoidance Actions (ECF #2509), including witness testimony from Trustee Luc Despins.","body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\* February 13, 2024 \\* Debtors. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE #2509 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR TRUSTEE TO FILE AVOIDANCE ACTIONS UNDER BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS 108, 546(a) and 549 APPEARANCES: For the Chapter 11 Trustee: NICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ. SHLOMO MAZA, ESQ, Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe and Monteith 195 Church Street,13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. Shelton, CT 06484 (203)732-6461**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Creditors Committee: JONATHAN KAPLAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the Creditor, Pacific STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity O'Melveny & Myers LLP Fund L.P.: Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 ANNECCA H. SMITH, ESQ. Robinson & Cole 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For Mei Guo: SAM DELLA FERA, JR., ESQ. Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, PC 105 Eisenhauer Pkwy Roseland, NJ 07068 JAMES M. MORIARTY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th FL Bridgeport, CT 06604 For Defeng Cao: MICHAEL A. CARBONE, ESQ. Parrett Porto Parese & Colwell, P.C. 2319 Whitney Avenue Suite 1D Hamden, CT 06518 (Excused) KATHERINE E. MATEO, ESQ. ADAM FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Olshan Frome Wolosky, LLP 1325 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 For UBS: LISA FRIED, ESQ. Herbert Smith Freehills New York, LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd.) For DBS Bank Ltd.: GENEVIEVE G. WEINER, ESQ. Sidley Austin, LLC 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 For Taurus Fund, LLC, MICHAEL T. CONWAY, ESQ. Taurus Management, LLC, Lazare Potter Giacovas & and Scott Barnett: Moyle, LLP 747 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 For G Club Operations, LLC: JEFFREY M. SKLARZ, ESQ. Green & Sklarz, LLC One Audubon Street New Haven, CT 06511 CAROLINA A. FORNOS, ESQ. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 For Rule of Law Foundation DOUGLAS M. EVANS, ESQ. III, Inc. and Rule of Law Shapiro, Dorry & Masterson LLC Society, IV, Inc.: 71 Raymond Road West Hartford, CT 06107 For Chris Lee and Qidong JON P. NEWTON, ESQ. Xia: Reid and Riege PC One Financial Plaza Hartford, CT 06103 (Excused) ERIC T. SCHMITT, ESQ. The Quinlan Law Firm, LLC 233 S. Wacker Drive Suite 6142 Chicago, IL 60606 For Greenwich Land, LLC CHRISTOPHER J. MAJOR, ESQ. and Hing Chi Hgok: Meister Seelig & Fein LLP 125 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd.) For GS Security Solutions, ROBERT J. GRAND, ESQ. Inc.: Lax & Neville LLP 350 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10118 For Yingying Wang: DAVID H. WANDER, ESQ. Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP 1350 Broadway New York, NY 10018 For Sotheby's International STEVEN BROWN, ESQ. Realty, Inc.: Wilson Else Moskowitz Dicker 1010 Washington Blvd. Stamford, CT 06901 MARY AUGUSTINE, ESQ. A.M. Saccullo Legal LLC 27 Crimson King Drive Bear, DE 19701 For Yongbing Zhang: JAMES EDWARD NEALON, ESQ. Nealon Law LLC 1266 East Main Street Suite 700 Stamford, CT 06902\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 5 of 170\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 5 (Proceedings commenced at 2:06 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. Obviously, there are many people on this remote hearing due to the weather today that we are experiencing. And I can see that some people have their cameras on and some people don't, and some people don't have their full names and some do. I would like everyone to have their cameras on, have their full names on. And if you can't do that, then I'm -- you're not going to participate in this hearing, because it's too distracting otherwise to the Court. And I'm going to ask everyone to file -- I'm going to have everyone announce their appearance for the record starting -- first, I'm going to ask the Chapter 11 Trustee and his counsel. But then I'm going to take the appearances of the parties who have filed objections to the motion that's on for hearing this afternoon, the motion for entry of order extending the deadline for the trustee to file avoidance actions, which is ECF Number 2509. And then after I take the trustee's appearance and his counsel, I'll take the appearance of the United States Trustee, if the United States Trustee is on. And I believe I did see someone from the United States Trustee's office\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 6 of 170\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 6 on. And then we will go through each ECF number and have everyone note their appearance. And if you haven't filed an objection and you are appearing, you're going to note your appearance as well, and we will go from there. So we will first take the appearance of Trustee Despins and his counsel. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Basset is from Paul Hastings, counsel to the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. MAZA: Hi, Your Honor. Shlomo Maza with Paul Hastings, also for the trustee. MS. CLAIBORN: Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Okay. The only people, Attorney Despins, that are appearing on your behalf today have noticed their appearance? MR. DESPINS: Well, I was expecting Mr. Linsey, but I -- we can proceed without him, but I was expecting him. I don't know. Maybe he's having technical -- THE COURT: Okay. We'll proceed for now, and we'll come back. Thank you.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 7 of 170\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 7 All right. The first objecting parties that have filed -- that have responded to the trustee's motion is Mei Guo, ECF Number 2551. So I'd like the counsels that are appearing on behalf of Mei Guo to note their appearance for the record, please. MR. MORIARTY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James Moriarty from Zeisler & Zeisler for Ms. Guo. MR. DELLA FERA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Sam Della Fera, Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, for Ms. Guo. THE COURT: Anyone else on behalf of Ms. Guo? Okay. Then the next objecting party is Defeng Cao, ECF Number 2553. I would ask people to -- who are representing that objecting party to please note their appearance for the record. MR. CARBONE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Michael Carbone from Parrett Porto on behalf of Defeng Cao. MS. MATEO: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Katherine Mateo from Olshan Frome Wolosky on behalf of Mr. Cao. And I'll also note just that in yesterday's request to appear remotely, we also included a request to excuse our local counsel, Mr. Carbone, from having to participate in today's hearing. THE COURT: Okay. I didn't see that request. Because, as I said, when I set the hearing remotely, all of the motions were moot, because we were having this remote\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 8 hearing. So you're asking if Mr. Carbone may be excused? MS. MATEO: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Carbone, you may be excused. MR. CARBONE: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: You're welcome. Anybody else then representing -- Ms. Mateo, anybody besides yourself? There's an Adam Friedman, I think, also has an appearance on record. Is he participating in this hearing? MR. FRIEDMAN: Correct, Your Honor. Adam Friedman's here. I'm on the phone. Ms. Mateo will be leading the argument for us, however. Thank you very much. THE COURT: You're welcome. The next objecting party was UBS AG, but I saw a withdrawal of an objection. But I don't know if I saw Attorney -- I don't remember if Attorney Fried is on this call or not. MS. FRIED: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Yes, this is Lisa Fried of Herbert Smith Freehills for UBS. And I'm -- Your Honor correctly noted that we have withdrawn our objection. But I did want to appear in the event that the Court had any questions for us. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. The next objecting party then is DBS Bank, which\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 8 of 170\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 9 is ECF Number 2556. Who is appearing on behalf of DBS Bank? MR. WEINER: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is Genevieve Weiner with Sidley Austin on behalf of DBS Bank Limited. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And, Ms. Weiner, you're the only party that is here on behalf of DBS Bank this afternoon? MS. WEINER: That's correct. We had understood -- and our local counsel, Bill Fish, is not on. We had understood his appearance wasn't necessary since this was just being done over Zoom. THE COURT: Well, that's not exactly true, but that's fine. Okay? MS. WEINER: Okay. Okay. THE COURT: (Indiscernible) local counsel at least introduces the counsel, and then -- the visiting counsel, and then there's a request such as what was made by Ms. Mateo to excuse local counsel. And that's fine. That's fine. MS. WEINER: Okay. THE COURT: Okay? That's fine. MS. WEINER: Okay. All right. THE COURT: Okay. MS. WEINER: Well, thank you for the accommodation. We'll make note of that in the future. Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 9 of 170\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 10 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
10 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 2 | The next objecting party is Taurus Fund, LLC, ECF |\n| 3 | 2557.
Attorney Conway, I think I saw you somewhere in this |\n| 4 | screen. |\n| 5 | MR. CONWAY:
You did, Your Honor.
Thank you, and |\n| 6 | good afternoon.
Michael Conway, Lazare Potter Giacovas & |\n| 7 | Moyle for Taurus Fund, LLC; Taurus Management, LLC; and |\n| 8 | Scott Barnett. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon.
Anybody else with you |\n| 10 | this afternoon, Attorney Conway? |\n| 11 | MR. CONWAY:
No, just me. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 13 | All right.
Then the next objecting party is G |\n| 14 | Club Operations, LLC, which is ECF Number 2563. |\n| 15 | MR. SKLARZ:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Jeffrey |\n| 16 | Sklarz, Green & Sklarz, for G Club Operations, LLC. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 18 | MS. FORNOS:
Good afternoon. |\n| 19 | MR. SKLARZ:
And Ms. Fornos will introduce |\n| 20 | herself. |\n| 21 | MS. FORNOS:
Yes.
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | Carolina Fornos with Pillsbury Winthrop. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon, Attorney Fornos.
I |\n| 24 | see you there.
Thank you. |\n| 25 | The next objecting party -- I'm not sure if |\n| | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 11 these -- there are -- there were two separate objections, but I think 2565, Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc. I think, Attorney Evans, is that you? MR. EVANS: Yes, Your Honor. Douglas Evans representing Rule of Law Foundation and Rule of Law Society, Your Honor. We filed an objection and a declaration. So the objection is 2565. The declaration at 2568. THE COURT: Oh, thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. MR. EVANS: Thank you. THE COURT: And you're by yourself, Attorney Evans? No one else appearing on behalf of those parties? MR. EVANS: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. EVANS: Thank you. THE COURT: Then the next objecting party is Chris Lee and Qidong Xia, 2566. Attorney Newton, are you appearing? Do I see you? MR. NEWTON: Yes, Your Honor, with one qualification. So good afternoon. Jon Newton for Mr. Lee and Mr. Xia. I do have lead counsel on with me. In the motion pro hoc, I did request to be excused from this hearing. That was denied. But after Mr. Schmitt's appearance now -- he has been admitted pro hoc -- I would ask if you would reconsider and then allow me to be excused. Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 11 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 12 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
12 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
I think that's fine.
I think the only |\n| 2 | reason you weren't excused was because Mr. Schmitt didn't |\n| 3 | have an appearance in the case. |\n| 4 | MR. NEWTON:
Understood. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay?
So that's fine, Attorney |\n| 6 | Newton.
You may be excused. |\n| 7 | And Attorney Schmitt?
I don't -- |\n| 8 | MR. SCHMITT:
Yes. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I'm sorry. |\n| 10 | MR. SCHMITT:
Yes. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I don't see you yet, but I'm sure I |\n| 12 | will. |\n| 13 | MR. SCHMITT:
Yes.
Eric Schmitt on behalf of |\n| 14 | Mr. Xia and Mr. Lee. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
Welcome. |\n| 16 | Okay.
Then the next objecting party is Greenwich |\n| 17 | Land, LLC, and Ms. Hgok, 2569.
And, Attorney Major, I think |\n| 18 | I saw you. |\n| 19 | MR. MAJOR:
Yes.
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | Chris Major of Meister, Seelig & Fein.
We represent Hing |\n| 21 | Chi Hgok and Greenwich Land, LLC. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 23 | Then the next objecting party is GCS (sic) |\n| 24 | Security Solutions, Inc.
2571 is the ECF number.
And, |\n| 25 | Attorney Schurr, you're local counsel?
Or is it -- |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 13 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
13 |\n| 1 | MR. GRAND:
This is Robert Grand from -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Oh, okay.
Attorney Grand, you're |\n| 3 | right.
Attorney Schurr has already been excused in prior |\n| 4 | proceedings.
So I apologize. |\n| 5 | MR. GRAND:
Yes. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
I understand.
Are you alone, Attorney |\n| 7 | Grand, or is your colleague with you? |\n| 8 | MR. GRAND:
I am alone. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 10 | The next objection is Yingying Wang, 2582.
And |\n| 11 | Michael (indiscernible) is local counsel. |\n| 12 | MR. WANDER:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
This is |\n| 13 | David Wander.
My pro hoc vice motion was approved, and then |\n| 14 | I filed my notice of appearance.
And with Your Honor's |\n| 15 | permission, I'll be -- I'm from Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, and |\n| 16 | I'll be appearing on behalf of my client. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
That's fine.
So, Attorney |\n| 18 | (indiscernible) isn't here today, which is fine, correct? |\n| 19 | MR. WANDER:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | The next objecting party is Sotheby's |\n| 22 | International Realty.
Steven Brown is local counsel.
Is |\n| 23 | Attorney -- |\n| 24 | MR. BROWN:
Yes, Your Honor.
Steven Brown on |\n| 25 | behalf of Sotheby's, and I'll be -- I'm here on my own at |\n| | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 14 the moment. THE COURT: I thought I saw Attorney Augustine. MR. BROWN: No. Yeah. THE COURT: Where is she? MR. BROWN: She's having trouble with her camera, Your Honor, so she's looking to just be observing. And I think we might even have an agreement when we get into the case. THE COURT: Okay. So just Attorney Augustine, though, would be local counsel, not her colleague? MR. BROWN: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. But she's having trouble with her camera. MR. BROWN: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BROWN: Thank you. THE COURT: Then the last objecting party, I believe, that I have today, and someone can obviously correct the record if I'm incorrect, is Yongbing Zhang, ECF Number 2591. Attorney Nealon? MR. NEALON: Yes, Your Honor. I'm here for Attorney Zhang. THE COURT: All right. Would you note your full appearance for the record, please? MR. NEALON: Sure. James Nealon, Nealon Law, LLC. Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 14 of\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2947 | Filed 02/22/24 | Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 | Page 15 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
15 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Good afternoon.
Thank you. |\n| 2 | All right.
Now, I believe that I have now stated |\n| 3 | for the record all the parties that have filed objections to |\n| 4 | the trustee's tolling motion.
Is there anyone else that has |\n| 5 | filed an objection that I have not noted for the record? |\n| 6 | Okay.
Thank you.
Hearing none.
I think that we've gotten |\n| 7 | everybody then. |\n| 8 | MR. LINSEY:
Your Honor, this -- I had a technical |\n| 9 | glitch.
This is Patrick Linsey, also counsel for the |\n| 10 | trustee. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 12 | MR. LINSEY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | MR. KAPLAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Jonathan |\n| 14 | Kaplan on behalf of the committee. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 16 | And then we have other people.
I know there -- |\n| 17 | counsel for PAX, I think, is on the -- is participating in |\n| 18 | this virtual hearing.
So if you could note your appearance |\n| 19 | for the record, please. |\n| 20 | MR. SARNOFF:
Yes.
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of Creditor |\n| 22 | PAX.
And with me is local counsel, Annecca Smith of |\n| 23 | Robinson Cole. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 25 | MR. SMITH:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 16 THE COURT: Good afternoon. So Attorney Keller. Oh, I'm sorry. That's not Attorney Keller. That's Mr. Keller. He's here. Okay. Sorry. I'm looking to make sure I have everyone noted for the record. Attorney Claiborn, did we miss you? MS. CLAIBORN: I announced myself at the very beginning, Your Honor, but I'll happily do it again. THE COURT: Okay. MS. CLAIBORN: Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure everybody's on the record. That's all. I also see someone name -- whose name is Jackie Marasco. And who -- where is Jackie Marasco and who are you representing, please? MS. MARASCO: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jaclyn Marasco, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath. We are just observing today on behalf of potential interested parties, (indiscernible) Aircraft. THE COURT: Okay. Well, you're not -- did you file an appearance? MS. MARASCO: We did not, Your Honor. We were just -- THE COURT: Well, this was a hearing for appearing Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 16 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 17 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
17 |\n| 1 | parties only.
I will let you listen, but you will not be |\n| 2 | allowed to speak.
This was not a hearing where people were |\n| 3 | going to just appear, because this was a hearing about a |\n| 4 | motion for which there were objections.
So in any event, |\n| 5 | that's fine.
You'll just mute yourself, please. |\n| 6 | MS. MARASCO:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Attorney Wolman?
If you could please |\n| 8 | note your appearance for the record and who you are |\n| 9 | representing?
Attorney Wolman?
I can see that you're |\n| 10 | connected, but you're on mute, and your camera's off.
You |\n| 11 | need to announce who you're here for. |\n| 12 | All right. I'm going to come back to Attorney |\n| 13 | Wolman.
He may be removed from the hearing in a moment if I |\n| 14 | don't hear from him. |\n| 15 | Lisa Fried?
Did I speak with someone already this |\n| 16 | morning -- or this afternoon?
I don't believe I have. |\n| 17 | Who's Lisa Fried? |\n| 18 | MS. FRIED:
Yes.
Good afternoon again, Your |\n| 19 | Honor.
I'm counsel for UBS in connection with -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Oh, I'm sorry.
You know what?
I |\n| 21 | marked you -- I didn't mark you as present because of the |\n| 22 | withdrawal of the objection.
I apologize. |\n| 23 | MS. FRIED:
Understood. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
All right.
So I think that I have |\n| 25 | been -- everyone has announced their appearance for the |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 18 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
18 |\n| 1 | record.
Is that correct?
All right. |\n| 2 | Then, Trustee Despins, this is your motion, so |\n| 3 | please proceed. |\n| 4 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, I was going to proceed |\n| 5 | on behalf of Trustee Despins.
Again, for the record -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| 7 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
And, by the |\n| 8 | way, thank you for accommodating us all on Zoom.
I know it |\n| 9 | can be technologically difficult, but everybody appreciates |\n| 10 | it, that's for sure. |\n| 11 | I wanted to begin, if I could, by giving the Court |\n| 12 | a bit of an update as to some other filings leading up to |\n| 13 | this hearing that have been relevant, kind of the current |\n| 14 | state of play with respect to objecting parties.
And then, |\n| 15 | after doing that, we did plan to present evidence, including |\n| 16 | the testimony of the trustee, so I would then move into that |\n| 17 | portion of the hearing, if that's okay for the Court. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
That's fine. |\n| 19 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
So in terms |\n| 20 | of updates, as the Court knows, we are conducting this |\n| 21 | hearing pursuant to a set of notice procedures that were |\n| 22 | ordered by the Court.
I did just want to reference ECF |\n| 23 | Docket Number 2540.
That is the certificates of service. |\n| 24 | That document contains the various certificates of service |\n| 25 | that the trustee has filed.
And just by way of a quick |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 19 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
19 |\n| 1 | summary on that note, I think, overall, at this point, the |\n| 2 | trustees across Paul Hastings and Neubert Pepe have served, |\n| 3 | I believe, more than 840 parties with the motion either by |\n| 4 | email, by ECF, and/or by address where available. |\n| 5 | Basically, if there was an email, we served it.
If they |\n| 6 | were signed up for ECF, they got notice.
And if we had a |\n| 7 | mailing address, we mailed it. |\n| 8 | In addition to that, we had BVI counsel serve a |\n| 9 | total of 55 entities in the BVI.
So I think, in total, |\n| 10 | we're up to around 900 entities that got some form of notice |\n| 11 | along the lines that I described. |\n| 12 | In addition to that, we've done publication notice |\n| 13 | across five different publications, including USA Today, and |\n| 14 | two BVI publications, as well as two publications circulated |\n| 15 | in the U.S. and internationally in Mandarin.
So I wanted to |\n| 16 | provide that update in terms of the notice that's been |\n| 17 | provided, which I think dovetails into where we are with the |\n| 18 | objections for today's hearing. |\n| 19 | So a total of, I believe, 13 objections were filed |\n| 20 | in response to the trustee's motion.
At this point, two of |\n| 21 | those have been resolved, which leaves 11, although one of |\n| 22 | the 11, by DBS Bank, is actually just a reservation of |\n| 23 | rights.
And DBS Bank, according to that reservation of |\n| 24 | rights, does not object to the trustee's request for a |\n| 25 | six-month period of the tolling of the statute of |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 20 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
20 |\n| 1 | limitations, but reserves its rights thereafter.
That |\n| 2 | leaves 12 objections. |\n| 3 | Two of the remaining objections by DBS, and then |\n| 4 | also an objection by Sotheby's, those have both been |\n| 5 | resolved.
And there is a revised proposed order, which we |\n| 6 | have filed on the docket at point 803, which adds some |\n| 7 | language that addresses those parties and carves them out of |\n| 8 | the order.
They are no longer objecting, as I understand |\n| 9 | it. |\n| 10 | The last point I would note is that -- well, two |\n| 11 | more points, actually.
One, the ten remaining objections -- |\n| 12 | and I'll get to this later through the evidentiary |\n| 13 | presentation and also in argument.
But, you know, that |\n| 14 | leaves ten people who really the Court would recognize as |\n| 15 | having been involved in this case in various capacities, |\n| 16 | people who are defendants, people who are associated with |\n| 17 | the debtor, et cetera.
There are no remaining objecting |\n| 18 | parties who are sort of banks or vendors or parties who are |\n| 19 | sort of unrelated to the course of events that has |\n| 20 | transpired thus far in this case.
Again, I'll save most of |\n| 21 | those remarks for later and during the evidentiary portion |\n| 22 | as to the relevance of that. |\n| 23 | But then the last point I wanted to note for the |\n| 24 | Court was that we have also filed a motion at ECF 2801, |\n| 25 | filing -- excuse me -- approximately 30 stipulations, |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 21 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
21 |\n| 1 | tolling agreements to be entered by the Court.
Those are |\n| 2 | all being filed under seal pursuant to agreements with the |\n| 3 | parties and the request that we've made with the Court.
I |\n| 4 | mention that because, obviously, those tolling stipulations |\n| 5 | would resolve, you know, any issue as to all of those 30 |\n| 6 | parties, because the statute of limitations as to those |\n| 7 | parties is going to be tolled by consent. |\n| 8 | So with that, that's all I had by way of updates. |\n| 9 | I'll pause there to see if the Court has any questions. |\n| 10 | Then after that, I -- we will plan to move into our |\n| 11 | evidentiary presentation. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
I have no questions. |\n| 13 | Please proceed. |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
So yesterday |\n| 15 | morning, I believe it was, at ECF 2763, the trustee filed a |\n| 16 | proposed witness and exhibit list listing the trustee as a |\n| 17 | witness.
And then I think we have approximately 130 or so |\n| 18 | odd exhibits.
Your Honor, we filed that exhibit list, I |\n| 19 | think, primarily as a helpful guide and summary for the |\n| 20 | Court as to all of the various documents that we've |\n| 21 | mentioned in our briefing and that we otherwise think are |\n| 22 | particularly relevant to the relief that we are requesting. |\n| 23 | But every single document on that exhibit list is actually a |\n| 24 | docket item in the main Chapter 11 case for an adversary |\n| 25 | proceeding.
And for that reason, I don't think it is |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 22 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 22 necessary to move all of those into evidence as exhibits. I think they are all documents of which the Court can take judicial notice, and that's what we would ask the Court to do. Again, the real reason for filing that is to just put in one place a lot of the exhibits we will be referencing. But, of course, this is a very lengthy\n\n bankruptcy case thus far with thousands upon thousands of docket entries and related events. And, you know, it's really the entire record in this case that we will be relying upon.\n\n So in terms of that exhibit list, I don't think we need to have it moved into evidence, but we would ask the Court to take judicial notice of all of those documents and, of course, any others on the docket of this case that we might direct the Court's attention to.\n\n THE COURT: Well, that's fine, except that if you want me to look at certain provisions in those -- in any of those pleadings that are on the docket of the case, then I'm going to ask you to direct me to those, because -- I can certainly take judicial notice that they've all been filed. And I have some -- under the federal rules of civil -- of evidence, have some recollection as to what they may include.\n\nBut if there are very specific things that you\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 23 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
23 |\n| 1 | would like the Court to take judicial notice of in those |\n| 2 | documents, I will need you to point me to those documents. |\n| 3 | So I think if you are asking the Court to make findings with |\n| 4 | regard to specific information in a specific pleading, |\n| 5 | you're going to need to point me to that pleading and |\n| 6 | whatever it is in it that you think is relevant.
I can |\n| 7 | certainly take judicial notice of the fact that they've all |\n| 8 | been filed.
And I know generally what they are. |\n| 9 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood.
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
With that, Your Honor, the trustee |\n| 12 | would call Attorney Despins, the trustee himself, to the |\n| 13 | witness stand. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Well, as there isn't a witness stand, |\n| 15 | we just have to improvise a little bit.
So we -- I'm going |\n| 16 | to ask the courtroom deputy -- and, obviously -- I don't |\n| 17 | even see Mr. Despins at the moment, but I might have to go |\n| 18 | to a different page. |\n| 19 | Mr. Despins, oh, there you are.
So, obviously, |\n| 20 | you understand that even though we are not in a courtroom, |\n| 21 | the courtroom deputy is authorized to swear you in and ask |\n| 22 | you to swear about the truth of what you are going to |\n| 23 | testify to.
You can't see the courtroom deputy, but you'll |\n| 24 | be able to hear the courtroom deputy.
And I believe, |\n| 25 | although I shouldn't say that -- I would ask you, Trustee |\n| | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 24 Despins, I think you'd recognize the courtroom deputy's voice in any event. You will not, obviously, see her raise her right hand, but she's going to ask you to raise yours, and I'm going to see you raise yours, and then we will proceed accordingly. Is that okay with you, Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Understood. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Then I would ask the courtroom deputy to please swear in the witness. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay, thank you. Sorry. Excuse me. I'm sorry. I just lost my voice for a minute. LUC DESPINS, TRUSTEE, SWORN THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. State your name and address for the record, please. THE WITNESS: Luc Despins. My business address is 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York, 10166. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay, Attorney Bassett, you may proceed. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BASSETT: Q Trustee Despins, could you please start by just Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 24 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 25 reminding the Court and everyone else on the line when you were appointed as the trustee in this case? A Early July 2022. Q Okay. And then the Chapter 11 petition was originally filed by the debtor in February of 2022, I believe. So is it the case that you were not appointed until approximately five months into the case? A That's correct. Q Trustee Despins, could you please tell the Court, generally, what did you do upon your appointment to start getting up to speed in this case? A Obviously, I involved my counsel, Paul Hastings, to try to get our arms around the information that was available at the time we were appointed. Q And when you say information that was available, what are you referring to? What types of -- A Well, we were looking for books and records, for the schedules of assets and liabilities, statements of financial affairs, those types of documents. Q And what did you find after you had undertaken those initial efforts to sort of get your arms around the information available? A That there were no books and records, that -- it became clear that the schedules of assets and liabilities and the statements of financial affairs were fraudulent. So, Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 25 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 26 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
26 |\n| 1 | basically, there was no real information.
And on top of |\n| 2 | that, there was no money in the estate.
Zero.
Well, that's |\n| 3 | not true.
There was about \\$15,000 in the estate at that |\n| 4 | time. |\n| 5 | Q
So what did the -- you mentioned the schedules of |\n| 6 | assets and statements of financial affairs.
What did those |\n| 7 | list as it relates to the debtor's assets that he was |\n| 8 | identifying to the Court? |\n| 9 | A
\\$3,850 in assets, basically. |\n| 10 | Q
So then you mentioned that there was, well -- the |\n| 11 | \\$3,800 in assets, what were you to do about funding costs |\n| 12 | and expenses of the work that you undertake in this case? |\n| 13 | A
Well, we have no choice but to go forward and try to |\n| 14 | identify assets that could be liquidated to cash to fund the |\n| 15 | estate and, at the same time, conduct a broad Rule 2004 |\n| 16 | investigation. |\n| 17 | Q
Can you please talk a little bit more about the |\n| 18 | investigation that you began to undertake after getting your |\n| 19 | arms around the lay of the land, so to speak, as you just |\n| 20 | noted? |\n| 21 | A
Yeah.
I think that within a month or less, we filed |\n| 22 | our first Rule 2004 motion.
And, basically, you know, that |\n| 23 | was targeted to the family -- debtor's family members or |\n| 24 | close associates that -- basically that we have been able to |\n| 25 | identify as being involved with the debtor in the debtor's |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 27 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
27 |\n| 1 | various transactions. |\n| 2 | Q
And after those -- that initial -- or initial 2004 |\n| 3 | motions, you have since filed others, correct? |\n| 4 | A
Yeah.
We filed a total of 15 Rule 2004 motions to |\n| 5 | date. |\n| 6 | Q
And across those 15, how many parties have you |\n| 7 | subpoenaed? |\n| 8 | A
About 250 subpoenas were issued. |\n| 9 | Q
And in response to those subpoenas, do you have a sense |\n| 10 | of approximately the total number of documents that your |\n| 11 | team has received in response? |\n| 12 | A
Yes.
If we're talking about documents, which is not |\n| 13 | pages, but documents, it's about 700,000 documents.
And |\n| 14 | that's a bit misleading, because it's more than that. |\n| 15 | Because there -- if you look at number of pages, it would be |\n| 16 | more like 2 million pages.
And it's even more than that, |\n| 17 | because some documents are produced in the live format, |\n| 18 | native format, so that means that those have not been |\n| 19 | printed and cataloged.
You can look at them on a computer |\n| 20 | screen, but -- so they still need to be reviewed, but yet |\n| 21 | you can't count those pages.
So that would be in addition |\n| 22 | to that. |\n| 23 | Q
So when you're saying native documents, you mean like |\n| 24 | spreadsheets and things like that that have to be reviewed |\n| 25 | sort of on a computer and have multiple tabs and things like |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 28 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
28 |\n| 1 | that? |\n| 2 | A
Correct. |\n| 3 | Q
Now, were all of these documents in English? |\n| 4 | A
No.
A number of them were in Mandarin. |\n| 5 | Q
And, by the way, when did you get all of these |\n| 6 | documents?
Was it one dump at the beginning of your |\n| 7 | investigation, over time?
Trying to get a sense of the |\n| 8 | timing. |\n| 9 | A
Yeah.
I would say there was very slow initial |\n| 10 | production trickling through.
I would say that from a |\n| 11 | number of pages point of view that the bulk of this was |\n| 12 | received in the fall of 2023. |\n| 13 | Q
And what has your team done with the documents that |\n| 14 | have been received in response to the subpoenas? |\n| 15 | A
Well, attempt to, you know, review them all and |\n| 16 | understand them.
As I pointed out, there are no books and |\n| 17 | records to tell us what -- how this worked, really.
So |\n| 18 | you -- you're reviewing documents, but you have no way of |\n| 19 | knowing whether the document is a critical document, because |\n| 20 | you -- the best way to look at this would be like the |\n| 21 | equivalent of a puzzle.
You don't know if that -- does that |\n| 22 | piece go in the middle of the puzzle, on the border, or not? |\n| 23 | So that -- so what we tried to do is get our arms around |\n| 24 | this and, you know, get as much of an understanding of what |\n| 25 | has -- what transpired in the, you know, ten years or so |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 29 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
29 |\n| 1 | before the filing through these documents -- that document |\n| 2 | review. |\n| 3 | Q
So have you actually -- has your team actually reviewed |\n| 4 | all of the 700,000 or so documents at this point? |\n| 5 | A
I would say that most, if not all of them, have been |\n| 6 | reviewed.
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q
But then you mentioned sort of it being a puzzle.
And |\n| 8 | would it be fair to say that just because a document has |\n| 9 | been reviewed once, it doesn't mean that you've necessarily |\n| 10 | been able to appreciate the significance of that document at |\n| 11 | that time? |\n| 12 | A
Yeah. |\n| 13 | MR. SKLARZ:
Objection to leading. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Who is objecting? |\n| 15 | MR. SKLARZ:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.
This is |\n| 16 | Jeffrey Sklarz.
Leading. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
You're objecting to a leading |\n| 18 | question, as to that's a leading question? |\n| 19 | MR. SKLARZ:
Yes.
He -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
All right.
Overruled.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | Go ahead, Attorney Bassett. |\n| 22 | BY MR. BASSETT: |\n| 23 | Q
So you had said that it was sort of like putting |\n| 24 | together a puzzle.
And my question for you is, that comment |\n| 25 | that you made, you know, how does that relate to the |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 | Page 30 of |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
30 |\n| 1 | document review process and what your team is able to learn |\n| 2 | from that process? |\n| 3 | A
That there are very rarely, in today's environment, |\n| 4 | like documents where somebody says, I did it, I did this, or |\n| 5 | it's a fraud or something like that.
There's none of that. |\n| 6 | So you have to piece -- put the pieces together.
And so you |\n| 7 | know parts of the story, but you need them to verify all of |\n| 8 | this, because some of those may be false leads.
I've talked |\n| 9 | to the Court about false leads before, because we've got a |\n| 10 | lot of documents that were not produced to us through the |\n| 11 | 2004 process but rather by people who had been previously or |\n| 12 | alleged to have been previously involved in the debtor's |\n| 13 | affairs.
And we -- you know, when you review this, you |\n| 14 | can't take this for what's asserted there.
You need to |\n| 15 | verify that.
So there's a whole process of reviewing these |\n| 16 | documents, testing the various theories that are there.
And |\n| 17 | so it's a fairly lengthy and burdensome process. |\n| 18 | Q
Other than reviewing the documents that you've received |\n| 19 | in response to Rule 2004 subpoenas, has your team reviewed |\n| 20 | any other information? |\n| 21 | A
Yes.
You know, the debtor was a prolific user of |\n| 22 | social media, so there's tons of videos of him that he |\n| 23 | posted on social media.
And so they're all -- I would say |\n| 24 | they're mostly all in Mandarin.
Most of them do not have |\n| 25 | translation.
So obviously the part of the team that speaks |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 31 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
31 |\n| 1 | Mandarin needed to review those. |\n| 2 | And as I said, we had people who believed they had been |\n| 3 | defrauded by the debtor, and, therefore, they were providing |\n| 4 | us with information voluntarily.
And we reviewed those as |\n| 5 | well.
And as I said, you can't assume that anything that is |\n| 6 | provided either by the debtor or by these folks is accurate, |\n| 7 | so we need to test them and challenge every assumption |\n| 8 | there. |\n| 9 | Q
Other than your legal counsel, have any other |\n| 10 | professionals assisted in the trustee's investigation? |\n| 11 | A
Yes.
We hired Kroll to do the forensic and accounting |\n| 12 | investigation -- part of the investigation. |\n| 13 | Q
And when did you retain Kroll? |\n| 14 | A
Very early.
August 2nd or August 3rd of 2023. |\n| 15 | Q
And so that was approximately a year after your |\n| 16 | appointment.
Why did you not hire Kroll earlier? |\n| 17 | A
Because -- and I have already testified to this. |\n| 18 | Because, given that we had not been able to capture assets |\n| 19 | and sell them so that we had cash on hand, it was |\n| 20 | practically impossible to hire a forensic accountant in the |\n| 21 | sense that I did approach one to see if they wanted to do |\n| 22 | under contingency.
They turned me down.
I know my |\n| 23 | colleague, Mr. Avi Luft, also approached some -- another |\n| 24 | firm, a forensic investigator, who also turned him down. |\n| 25 | And I think that people say, well, you could have found |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 32 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
32 |\n| 1 | somebody on a contingency basis.
But I think it's very |\n| 2 | important to understand that it's not only the contingency |\n| 3 | that was an issue.
It's the fact that we, meaning |\n| 4 | Mr. Linsey's firm and ourselves, were already in the hole |\n| 5 | for probably \\$8 million by the time we were in May of '23. |\n| 6 | And even a contingency firm would not agree to be |\n| 7 | behind us.
They would want to share or pari-passu with us |\n| 8 | over any recoveries.
And, of course, I -- you know, I want |\n| 9 | to get paid first because that -- obviously, we've been |\n| 10 | funding the case for a long period of time. |\n| 11 | So that -- so it's not only the contingency.
Even if |\n| 12 | you could find somebody on a contingency basis, they would |\n| 13 | say that -- by experience, I'm sure that they would say, |\n| 14 | fine, but we're pari-passu with you.
And that created a |\n| 15 | huge issue until we had funding in the case, which was in |\n| 16 | late June 2023. |\n| 17 | Q
So what -- and that was what I was going to ask you. |\n| 18 | What was it that happened sort of before August when you |\n| 19 | said you retained Kroll that finally gave you the means and |\n| 20 | the funding to be able to hire Kroll? |\n| 21 | A
It was the sale of the Lady May in late June 2023. |\n| 22 | Q
So that was late June of 2023.
I think you said Kroll |\n| 23 | was retained as of early August.
Just is there a reason why |\n| 24 | there was sort of a month gap between selling the Lady May |\n| 25 | and retaining Kroll? |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 33 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
33 |\n| 1 | A
Yeah, because we had to have an interview process.
We |\n| 2 | went out to a number of firms to interview them.
They had |\n| 3 | to themselves do their conflicts check, which takes -- given |\n| 4 | the number of parties involved in this case takes a lot of |\n| 5 | time.
And we needed to decide which way to go.
And that |\n| 6 | took -- basically, if you put away July 4th and, you know, |\n| 7 | summer, you know, vacation for some of the team, not all, |\n| 8 | that took basically 30 days to select and hire and -- and |\n| 9 | it's not only select but also negotiate the engagement |\n| 10 | letter and all that.
So that took 30 days. |\n| 11 | Q
So at the outset of this discussion about Kroll, you |\n| 12 | very briefly talked about, you know, the kind of work that |\n| 13 | Kroll has performed.
But could you talk about that in a |\n| 14 | little more detail, that since Kroll's appointment, what |\n| 15 | kind of investigation and analysis has it assisted you with? |\n| 16 | A
Yes.
Basically, it's a forensic but also tracing |\n| 17 | analysis of how -- you know, how did money flow, which |\n| 18 | accounts did it go into, et cetera, et cetera.
But also |\n| 19 | they do investigative work in terms of are there assets in |\n| 20 | country X or country Y.
So they do some of that.
But I |\n| 21 | would say that 80 percent plus of their work has been |\n| 22 | focused, since their retention, on the review and analysis |\n| 23 | of the flow of funds, reviewing, you know, hundreds of bank |\n| 24 | accounts. |\n| 25 | Q
So on that particular point, to help give the Court a |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 34 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
34 |\n| 1 | sense -- and it's not a memory test here, but do you have a |\n| 2 | ballpark idea of -- just to give the Court a sense of the |\n| 3 | scope of the work, the number of accounts, transactions, et |\n| 4 | cetera, that Kroll has identified and has been |\n| 5 | investigating? |\n| 6 | A
Yes.
So there's more than 330 accounts.
And by that, |\n| 7 | I would say that we're still discovering accounts this week, |\n| 8 | but so it's just -- it's a yardstick.
It's more than 300 |\n| 9 | accounts.
There are something like 85 -- I could be off by |\n| 10 | 2,000 or 3,000 -- but 85,000 transactions.
More than |\n| 11 | 3 billion transiting through these accounts that Kroll has |\n| 12 | been reviewing. |\n| 13 | And I would say just -- Your Honor, just to -- I always |\n| 14 | like to use this example of the Russian doll.
I mean, you |\n| 15 | start with one bank account, and it shows you a number of |\n| 16 | transfers.
So the first one is you open that doll, so |\n| 17 | that's the bank account.
The bank account leads you to |\n| 18 | other smaller Russian dolls.
Because what happens is that |\n| 19 | there are transfers from that account to other accounts. |\n| 20 | Sometimes the account is completely closed, because the |\n| 21 | banks, you know, got wind of, you know, bad things going on, |\n| 22 | and they closed the account.
So it goes to another account. |\n| 23 | But even if the account is not closed, during a period |\n| 24 | of six months, there could be thousands of transfers to |\n| 25 | other accounts that are similarly controlled by the Kwok |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 35 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
35 |\n| 1 | enterprise.
And so you need to go -- now Mr. Linsey needs |\n| 2 | to go to those new banks, get 2004 discovery from them, and |\n| 3 | have them produce their accounts.
And then what you find |\n| 4 | often is that you go to that second layer, and there are |\n| 5 | payment transfer companies like PayPal. |\n| 6 | So people know what PayPal is.
And there's a |\n| 7 | transfer, let's say, of 100,000 to PayPal.
By the way, it's |\n| 8 | not PayPal.
It's other competitors of PayPal, but.
So now |\n| 9 | Mr. Linsey has to go back to the equivalent of PayPal and |\n| 10 | say please produce all the documents regarding this -- these |\n| 11 | transfers.
Then you open that Russian doll.
Then there are |\n| 12 | hundreds of transfers. |\n| 13 | And then you have information regarding the bank |\n| 14 | opening accounts.
Like who opened that account at -- again, |\n| 15 | it's not PayPal.
I'm using that as shorthand.
Who opened |\n| 16 | the account at PayPal? |\n| 17 | And then you have all sorts of things you're |\n| 18 | discovering through that process.
But that takes -- as I |\n| 19 | explained, that Mr. Linsey has to go back again and again |\n| 20 | and again to different banks.
On top of that, these banks |\n| 21 | are not all -- meaning if the production is due on June 1st, |\n| 22 | to give an example, I would say 90 percent of these banks |\n| 23 | don't produce on June 1st.
You know, they're taking their |\n| 24 | time, not in a nefarious way, but because they're not happy |\n| 25 | to do this work.
They don't make money that way.
So they |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2947 | Filed 02/22/24 | Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 | Page 36 of |\n|--|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|--|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 36 are slow producers. And, of course, I can't send Mr. Linsey to court every week to file a motion to compel, because we're going to be broke very soon. So, therefore, we need to have some tolerance. And, therefore, the banks take time to produce. Not only that, they don't do a good job of producing. Meaning that we looked at the documents they produced. That's good. Thank you very much. But we're missing, you know, like probably six months of statements. So we have to go back to them and get them to produce that. So it's a huge, complex, and time-consuming effort to do all of this. Q So you've now talked about -- thank you for that -- for the explanation. But you've now talked about Kroll's investigation. You also talked about your team's Rule 2004 investigation. Through that investigation collectively, what are you doing once you have determined that there is information that may give you a cause of action? What are you doing at that point? A Well, we -- as I said, we test it to make sure that it holds together. But once we're -- we have enough, we draft the complaint, and we are filing them. And as you can -- as Your Honor has seen in the last -- since Friday, I think we've probably filed 180 complaints. So when we have the\n\ninformation, we are filing the complaints.\n\nAnd I would say most of the people who are objecting\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 37 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
37 |\n| 1 | are in complaints.
Now, they are named as a defendant in |\n| 2 | complaints already filed or to be filed between now and |\n| 3 | Thursday. |\n| 4 | Q
So you mentioned 100 and some complaints that have been |\n| 5 | filed since Friday.
How would you characterize those |\n| 6 | complaints?
Is there a particular type of complaint?
What |\n| 7 | are the ones that have been filed recently? |\n| 8 | A
The ones that have been filed since Friday by |\n| 9 | Mr. Linsey's firm are typically avoidance actions |\n| 10 | complaints, fraudulent transfer, actual intent fraudulent |\n| 11 | transfer, generally. |\n| 12 | Q
And prior to the filing of those complaints, had you |\n| 13 | and your team filed other complaints previously in the |\n| 14 | Chapter 11 case? |\n| 15 | A
Yeah.
We had filed about ten or so complaints to try |\n| 16 | to recover assets like the Lady May, HCHK funding, the |\n| 17 | funds, the UBS fund, the Bombardier jet, all of these. |\n| 18 | Sherry Netherland.
I'm sorry, I forgot to mention Sherry |\n| 19 | Netherland. |\n| 20 | Q
Understood.
So other than these complaints and other |\n| 21 | than the avoidance action complaints that you just talked |\n| 22 | about, are there any additional complaints that you and your |\n| 23 | team intend to file prior to February 15th or prior to the |\n| 24 | end of the day on February 15th of 2024? |\n| 25 | A
Yes.
There are two other categories.
We're still |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 38 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
38 |\n| 1 | continuing with the filing of the avoidance actions.
But |\n| 2 | other than those, we're going to file a very broad alter ego |\n| 3 | complaint that basically seeks to have the Court find that |\n| 4 | the debtor equitably owns or a -- the alter ego -- or that a |\n| 5 | number of entities are the alter ego of the debtor.
The way |\n| 6 | the Court has found with respect to some of these entities |\n| 7 | so far.
But this is a much broader list.
So that's one. |\n| 8 | And the second complaint that's, you know, a very broad |\n| 9 | complaint is a civil RICO complaint which alleges that a |\n| 10 | number -- I would say most of the people who are objecting |\n| 11 | today are part of a fraudulent scheme that the debtor was |\n| 12 | running to hide assets, to obstruct justice, bankruptcy |\n| 13 | fraud, et cetera, et cetera. |\n| 14 | Q
Are any of the potential objecting parties going to be |\n| 15 | named defendants in either of those two complaints that you |\n| 16 | just described? |\n| 17 | A
I would say most, if not all. |\n| 18 | Q
Okay.
Now I'd like to shift gears a little bit and ask |\n| 19 | you about some of the challenges or difficulties you've |\n| 20 | experienced along the way in your investigation.
Before I |\n| 21 | do that, please remind the Court, I know we've talked about |\n| 22 | this in the past, but how long you've been practicing |\n| 23 | bankruptcy law and have been involved in Chapter 11 cases. |\n| 24 | A
Over 35 years now. |\n| 25 | Q
And sort of, you know, within the context of that |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 39 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
39 |\n| 1 | experience of yours, were there any unique challenges that |\n| 2 | you faced during your investigation that you've described |\n| 3 | that have affected your ability to complete that |\n| 4 | investigation by the February 15th deadline? |\n| 5 | A
Yes.
I would say this is unprecedented in the sense |\n| 6 | that I've seen fraud cases before, very sophisticated fraud |\n| 7 | cases before I've been involved in, but this -- in terms of |\n| 8 | the brazenness of what's going on and the fact that it |\n| 9 | continued post-bankruptcy in spades and with renewed vigor |\n| 10 | is -- I've never seen something like this.
And yet, the |\n| 11 | level of obstruction and the lack of any shame in doing it |\n| 12 | is unprecedented.
Sorry to say. |\n| 13 | Q
So we're in the thousands of docket entries in this |\n| 14 | case.
A lot has gone on.
Again, it's not a memory test, |\n| 15 | but can you just highlight for the Court some of the |\n| 16 | particular issues or challenges that arose? |\n| 17 | A
Well, if we focus for a minute on -- well, from the |\n| 18 | beginning, you know, the debtor tried to disqualify the |\n| 19 | firm, tried to get me removed, appealed that, did it again, |\n| 20 | then withdrew it.
So that's just a little segment. |\n| 21 | And then it went on from there to -- I mean, I don't |\n| 22 | want to take too much of the Court's time, because the Court |\n| 23 | has lived this probably more than we have.
But, you know, |\n| 24 | there just -- it was nonstop, like the -- not producing any |\n| 25 | documents.
For example, the debtor, I think, produced -- |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 40 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
40 |\n| 1 | the total was, I could be off by a few, but 45 documents. |\n| 2 | Mei Guo produced like 47 documents.
There was a, you know, |\n| 3 | constant battle, for example, on the yacht where, you know, |\n| 4 | even though there was a finding by a New York judge, there |\n| 5 | was just constant fighting over all the assets.
And it's |\n| 6 | just silly.
There was nonstop obstruction both on the |\n| 7 | discovery front but also on the asset recovery front. |\n| 8 | Q
So in addition to that, you said the debtor tried to |\n| 9 | have you and your firm disqualified.
You mentioned the |\n| 10 | discovery challenges.
How about outside of that?
Anything |\n| 11 | else that occurred that interfered with your investigation? |\n| 12 | A
Well, the whole protest that took a lot of time.
And |\n| 13 | there was the distraction, intentional distraction, I'm |\n| 14 | sure, to try to get us off of our appointed work so that, |\n| 15 | you know, the whole protest thing. |\n| 16 | The lawsuit filed against us by one of the parties |\n| 17 | present here that's objecting to this that -- where this |\n| 18 | person was sanctioned by -- against us but also against PAX |\n| 19 | and the counsel, et cetera, so much so that one of the |\n| 20 | district court judges ordered this gentleman to always |\n| 21 | file -- attach to any pleading he files in any court a copy |\n| 22 | of the sanction order that he was -- basically, that he was |\n| 23 | found to be -- have committed -- or had, you know, been |\n| 24 | sanctioned for.
Now, the reason why it wasn't filed with |\n| 25 | this Court is because he's retained a lawyer to represent |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2947 | Filed 02/22/24 | Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 | Page 41 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 41 him. But if he had appeared here himself as a lawyer, he would have had to attach a sanction order by -- I forget which judge, by the Southern District of New York judge. So that's just another level of, you know, obstructionism and -- that took, you know, time away from what should have happened. Q Now, you mentioned it was one of the objecting parties. Is that Mr. Yongbing Zhang? A That's correct. Q Now, when the bankruptcy court has issued decisions, whether it's on a motion to compel or in a litigation, what typically happens following that from an appellate perspective? A Well, appeals. Numerous appeals. But on top of that, stay pending appeal, both before Your Honor and before Judge Dooley, all of them denied. But that takes time, and it's incredibly time-consuming. Very expensive. So there have been a number of those as well. Q So recently -- and this is in the adversary proceeding that relates to the Mahwah mansion, there was a subpoena that you filed with respect to a storage unit to investigate. And as has been reported to the Court, the trustee has been going through the contents of that. Can you talk about how that may have affected your investigation\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 42 of\n\n| | 170 | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
42 | | | | |\n| 1 | and the timing of it? | | | | |\n| 2 | A
Yes.
There are dozens of boxes in these storage units | | | | |\n| 3 | that are basically Golden Springs documents, documents that | | | | |\n| 4 | should have been produced to us months ago.
And, obviously, | | | | |\n| 5 | we're trying to go through them, but it's not like an easy | | | | |\n| 6 | task.
And, obviously, Your Honor knows that Golden Springs | | | | |\n| 7 | defaulted on their production obligations.
They were held | | | | |\n| 8 | in contempt. | | | | |\n| 9 | But now we know that those documents that we're looking | | | | |\n| 10 | for, now we found them, but we found them in -- I forget. | | | | |\n| 11 | Is it December of last year?
Something along those lines. | | | | |\n| 12 | And by the way, I am sure there are other storage units, | | | | |\n| 13 | maybe not in the U.S. but around the world that contain | | | | |\n| 14 | other documents or artwork. | | | | |\n| 15 | Q
So before we leave the sort of topic of the challenges | | | | |\n| 16 | that you face -- and I think you've given some examples of | | | | |\n| 17 | what you view as obstruction of your investigation -- can | | | | |\n| 18 | you talk about any particular instances of obstruction that | | | | |\n| 19 | stick out in your mind as it relates to the particular | | | | |\n| 20 | objecting parties to this motion? | | | | |\n| 21 | A
Sure.
Well, the leader of the group, Mei Guo, I mean, | | | | |\n| 22 | I just -- I don't know how to say this, but is a poster | | | | |\n| 23 | child for obstruction and for, you know, misrepresentation | | | | |\n| 24 | and perjury.
There's no other way to describe it.
You | | | | |\n| 25 | know, she, for example, said that she had stopped using a | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 43 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
43 |\n| 1 | smartphone because of the concern with the Chinese Communist |\n| 2 | Party.
That wasn't true.
Because later, we got all her |\n| 3 | WhatsApp -- or not all of it, but some of her WhatsApp or |\n| 4 | text messages sent with a smartphone, an iPhone.
So that's |\n| 5 | number one. |\n| 6 | Two, she was deposed.
This is incredible.
She was |\n| 7 | deposed in January.
January 20, 2023.
And she said, oh, |\n| 8 | yeah, the airplane that I owned, even though she was a |\n| 9 | teenager when it was bought, that I owned was sold during |\n| 10 | the case in August 2022, and I don't know where the money |\n| 11 | is.
I don't know.
Okay. |\n| 12 | So that complete lie.
We know now from documents that |\n| 13 | she was emailing the entity that got those funds, the |\n| 14 | \\$13 million.
It's an entity in London called JMFX.
It's a |\n| 15 | foreign exchange entity.
She was emailing, communicating |\n| 16 | with them as late as December 17, 2022.
And she said in her |\n| 17 | deposition that she had no idea where these funds were. |\n| 18 | It's just -- you know, that is just a -- that's why I |\n| 19 | said, she's a poster child for what is going on in this |\n| 20 | case. |\n| 21 | Q
And how has that affected your investigation and the |\n| 22 | need for your -- |\n| 23 | A
Well -- |\n| 24 | Q
-- request for tolling that's set forth in the motion |\n| 25 | before the Court today? |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2947 | Filed 02/22/24 | Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 | Page 44 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
44 |\n| 1 | A
Well, that -- you know, that's -- because we were -- we |\n| 2 | had to spend a lot of time chasing all of this instead of, |\n| 3 | you know, being able to review all of the claims that should |\n| 4 | be brought.
We were -- we had to chase this asset that was |\n| 5 | right under our nose, but we didn't know it.
Our nose -- |\n| 6 | you know, I guess London is not under our nose, but close |\n| 7 | enough.
But she knew that. |\n| 8 | And, of course, that is just an example of the |\n| 9 | obstructionism that we faced throughout the case.
The |\n| 10 | more -- that's a more blatant one. |\n| 11 | Q
So you mentioned Mr. Yongbing Zhang.
But, again, not a |\n| 12 | memory test.
We don't need to go down the line.
But |\n| 13 | anything else from any of the other objecting parties that |\n| 14 | stands out to you as a problem? |\n| 15 | A
Well, you know, G Club.
I mean, that was a drag-down |\n| 16 | fight to get documents from them.
Again, appeals, stay |\n| 17 | pending appeals, all denied.
I mean, the appeal on the |\n| 18 | merits has not been heard, but stay pending appeal was |\n| 19 | denied. |\n| 20 | Just, you know, Defendant Cao, C-A-O, that we just sued |\n| 21 | last week, because he is the title owner to three luxury |\n| 22 | motorcycles that are the debtor's motorcycles, obviously. |\n| 23 | In his deposition, I -- because it's confidential, I have to |\n| 24 | be careful.
But, basically, I invite anyone to read that |\n| 25 | deposition.
And it's just -- the evasiveness of this |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 45 of\n\n| | 170
Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 45
person.
You know, he says that a person, Max, called me to |\n| | |\n| 2 | sign title, to get title to these motorcycles.
But who's |\n| 3 | Max?
Don't know.
Don't know his name.
Of course we know |\n| 4 | who Max is.
It's Krasner.
But, you know, the concept that |\n| 5 | somehow he doesn't know that. |\n| 6 | And then he gets money from a Chinese company that he |\n| 7 | hasn't worked for for 12 years or 15 years.
He doesn't know |\n| 8 | why he's getting the money.
I just -- the level of |\n| 9 | obstructionism -- it's all very subtle, I mean, in the sense |\n| 10 | that you might say, well, that's -- how do you know that |\n| 11 | he's lying?
Okay.
Fair enough.
But it's -- once you've |\n| 12 | done like 15 of these depositions, I think you get a pretty |\n| 13 | clear pattern of what's going on. |\n| 14 | Q
The Court is familiar with, from one of the adversary |\n| 15 | proceedings in this case, a group of individuals known as |\n| 16 | the HCHK Creditors Committee.
Has your team identified any |\n| 17 | relationship between that committee and any of the objecting |\n| 18 | parties? |\n| 19 | A
Yeah.
There are -- and we pointed that out in our |\n| 20 | reply.
There's a few of them that are members of that |\n| 21 | creditors committee which was headed by Mr. Yongbing Zhang. |\n| 22 | Who, by the way, visits the debtor in prison all the time. |\n| 23 | We know that from maybe a social media posting.
So he's the |\n| 24 | debtor's counsel on immigration matters, apparently.
So, |\n| 25 | you know, so they're -- again, they're in contact.
They're |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 46 of\n\n| 170 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
46 |\n| part of the creditors committee for HCHK.
They were |\n| involved in the protests, et cetera, et cetera. |\n| Some of them, I believe, got money from the Rule of Law |\n| Foundation.
So that I'm not 100 percent sure of, but I know |\n| that a number of protesters are getting sued in the next two |\n| days for receiving substantial sums from the Rule of Law |\n| Foundation. |\n| Q
Which is another objecting party, correct? |\n| A
That's correct. |\n| Q
So you talked a little bit earlier about how you're |\n| planning to file -- or you're continuing to file avoidance |\n| action complaints and then planning to file two additional |\n| complaints prior to the 15th.
And you also mentioned that |\n| you're going to be naming, you think, most if not all of |\n| these objecting parties in one or both of those complaints. |\n| My question for you is, if you are able to file all of these |\n| complaints that you talked about prior to the February 15th |\n| deadline, why do you need the tolling that you are seeking |\n| through your motion? |\n| A
Yeah.
So let me take two very specific examples.
The |\n| first one is when I know that there's an issue, but I don't |\n| have enough information to bring a claim.
So I'll give -- |\n| you know, I mentioned the Russian doll analogy when talking |\n| about bank accounts.
But we have a very specific issue here |\n| |\n\nwhere going through the first account leads us to a second\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 47 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
47 |\n| 1 | account, which leads us to a PayPal type of entity.
It's |\n| 2 | not PayPal.
I'm just using that as a shorthand for a |\n| 3 | payment transfer entity.
So we go to that entity. |\n| 4 | Mr. Lindsay asked them to produce their documents, including |\n| 5 | the account opening documents. |\n| 6 | Well, what do we find in there?
We find a passport for |\n| 7 | one of the persons that is very close to the debtor, |\n| 8 | involved in many of the schemes, asset hiding schemes.
And |\n| 9 | it's a passport for a country in Europe that, how shall I |\n| 10 | say this, was very liberal in granting passports to |\n| 11 | foreigners that bought real estate in the past and maybe |\n| 12 | five, six years ago. |\n| 13 | And so you might say, well, so what does that tell you? |\n| 14 | What that tells me is that there's probably real estate in |\n| 15 | that country.
And it's not owned by that person, because |\n| 16 | that person has no money.
It's the debtor's real property. |\n| 17 | Now, do I know that enough to file a complaint?
No, |\n| 18 | absolutely not.
There's no -- we discovered that |\n| 19 | information in late November.
There's no way we -- there's |\n| 20 | no central real estate registry, Your Honor, that we have in |\n| 21 | all our states here in the states, so you can't go and do a |\n| 22 | search like that. |\n| 23 | So we're absolutely looking through that issue, but |\n| 24 | I -- there's no way I can file a complaint saying I think |\n| 25 | there's a house in that country, but I don't know where it |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 48 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
48 |\n| 1 | is.
By the way, it could have been sold, so I have no -- so |\n| 2 | the point is, we have a number of these nuggets, if you |\n| 3 | will, that we cannot pursue because we don't know enough. |\n| 4 | And then the next type of claim is, as I said -- I |\n| 5 | don't want to sound pedantic about this.
I'm 100 percent |\n| 6 | sure that there are other claims of asset transfers that we |\n| 7 | don't know about, because that's just the nature of what |\n| 8 | we're dealing with.
And there we don't even have a tip.
So |\n| 9 | that is why, I'm sorry to say this, but why all of these |\n| 10 | objectors are coming here, because there's real benefit for |\n| 11 | them to have a strict statute of limitations of February |\n| 12 | 15th, because they could actually benefit tremendously from |\n| 13 | that. |\n| 14 | And that's the second example.
And that's why it's |\n| 15 | critical to get the tolling -- equitable tolling of statute |\n| 16 | of limitations in this case. |\n| 17 | Q
So some of the objecting parties have said in their |\n| | |\n\n papers that they usually just wait and seek equitable tolling later if you decide to bring a complaint against a particular party. What's your response to that suggestion? A In this extraordinary case with these extraordinary circumstances, that doesn't work, because it puts the estate at incredible risk. It's the risk of going down the -- continuing our investigation, spending real money investigating real leads, only to find out later after you\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 49 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 49 spend all that money that you're time barred. Basically, the people that are objecting here should not benefit from the obstructionism of either the debtor or other people. They don't have to cause the obstruction themselves, although I would say in most cases they have. The point is that the estate should not be at risk of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars continuing the investigation that might be found to be time barred six months from now. That's really the crux of the issue. Q And you've mentioned six months, and that's the length of the extension that you're seeking in your motion. Why six months? A Because, as I said, we have a number of -- I call them nuggets or potential leads. We believe that six months is a -- there's a balancing here. So, I mean, we could have asked for a year, but the point is we -- we're conscious that we're asking the Court to enter an order that affects people's rights. And so we're trying to balance that against the issue of protecting the estate and maximizing recovery for unsecured creditors. So we believe that six months is a good -- certainly a good check-in point. It may be the last extension, because we will have concluded that these nuggets are not worth pursuing, too costly or too complicated, because they involve foreign jurisdictions, or we may have filed them the\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 50 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
50 |\n| 1 | same way we filed -- we will have filed 230 complaints now |\n| 2 | by February 15th.
Because we will have -- you know, those |\n| 3 | were ready to be filed. |\n| 4 | There's no strategic waiting here.
We're not sitting |\n| 5 | on a complaint that's ready to go, and we're not filing it |\n| 6 | for strategic reasons.
I think there was some allegation of |\n| 7 | that.
But, no, none of that.
When a complaint is ready, we |\n| 8 | have the information, it passes Rule 11, we're filing it. |\n| 9 | And but we think that six months is going to put us in a |\n| 10 | very good position to file more or say that's the end of it. |\n| 11 | Q
Thank you.
I think I have just one final question, and |\n| 12 | that's to ask you if you have any response to the assertion |\n| 13 | that's been made by not all but I think several of the |\n| 14 | objecting parties that they don't believe you and your team |\n| 15 | have acted diligently in pursuing your investigation of |\n| 16 | potential claims by the deadline.
Do you have a response to |\n| 17 | that? |\n| 18 | A
Well, I -- again, I don't want to be pedantic, but I |\n| 19 | think we've been working around the clock.
And I would say |\n| 20 | especially on the (indiscernible), Mr. Linsey's team have |\n| 21 | been working around the clock for the last six months on |\n| 22 | this process.
We've been as diligent as -- I've done a lot |\n| 23 | of these, and I think we've explored every possibility. |\n| 24 | We've captured any possibility by filing complaints when we |\n| 25 | had enough information to do so.
And, therefore, it's not a |\n| | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 51 question of lack of diligence. It's a question of the impossibility of knowing the full universe of what happened here in the period since the appointment of the trustee. It's just impossible. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Trustee Despins. Your Honor, I have no additional questions at this time. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Now, we have several objecting parties. And I'm sure people would like to cross-examine Trustee Despins, but I'm not going to allow parties to ask the same questions someone else already asked. So I'm just letting people understand that before we begin with any cross-examination of Mr. Despins. So I'm going to start with counsel for Mei Guo, who is in the -- Mr. Moriarty or Mr. Della Fera. Obviously, just one of you is going to question -- cross-examine Trustee Despins, not two of you. So I assume you've already worked that out prior to this hearing this afternoon. MR. DELLA FERA: Yes, Your Honor. Sam Della Fera. I'll be asking --- I'll be cross-examining the trustee. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. You may proceed. MR. DELLA FERA: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 51 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 52 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
52 |\n| 1 | BY MR. DELLA FERA: |\n| 2 | Q
Mr. Despins, you testified about the risk to the estate |\n| 3 | of bringing -- trying to bring a claim in the absence of the |\n| 4 | requested extension that may ultimately be time barred. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Mr. Della Fera, unfortunately, you're |\n| 6 | frozen.
Is that true for everyone else? |\n| 7 | MR. BASSETT:
Yeah. |\n| 8 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Hold on a second.
Let's see if |\n| 10 | we can get him back. |\n| 11 | THE WITNESS:
I think he's back now. |\n| 12 | MR. DELLA FERA:
I'm sorry, Your Honor.
Can you |\n| 13 | hear me? |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry.
Yeah.
We could.
You were |\n| 15 | just asking a question about what Trustee Despins just |\n| 16 | testified about.
And then you kind of -- |\n| 17 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Right. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
So you may want to ask the question |\n| 19 | again. |\n| 20 | MR. DELLA FERA:
I will do that, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | Again, I apologize. |\n| 22 | BY MR. DELLA FERA: |\n| 23 | Q
Mr. Despins, you testified as to -- regarding the risk |\n| 24 | to the estate that a claim that is brought down the road in |\n| 25 | the absence of the requested extension of the deadline, that |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 53 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
53 |\n| 1 | the -- that that claim would be time barred for the estate. |\n| 2 | Do you recall that testimony? |\n| 3 | A
The risk to the estate of incurring, you know, hundreds |\n| 4 | of thousands in fees, you know, direct from that process, |\n| 5 | yes. |\n| 6 | Q
And, ultimately, spending that money, bringing the |\n| 7 | claim, and ultimately that claim might be found to be time |\n| 8 | barred, correct? |\n| 9 | A
That's the risk unless we get a tolling decision today, |\n| 10 | yes. |\n| 11 | Q
Well, isn't it -- but is it a risk if -- isn't it only |\n| 12 | a risk if the equities at the time you bring that claim are |\n| 13 | unfavorable to you and the estate? |\n| 14 | A
I don't know what could transpire at that hearing.
But |\n| 15 | it's hard to believe that Mei Guo can argue today that the |\n| 16 | equities would favor -- are you saying that equities would |\n| 17 | favor us in that context? |\n| 18 | Q
I'm not arguing that the equities are favoring you. |\n| 19 | You're arguing that the equities favor you today.
And we |\n| 20 | don't know what those claims are that you're -- that you |\n| 21 | potentially could bring against my client, correct? |\n| 22 | A
We don't know precisely what they are.
That's correct. |\n| 23 | Q
Okay.
So it seems to me, I'm wondering if you agree |\n| 24 | with me, the risk to the estate that the claim is time |\n| 25 | barred, that risk only arises if the equities do not favor |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2947 | Filed 02/22/24 | Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 | Page 54 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
54 |\n| 1 | the estate when that claim is brought.
Isn't that correct? |\n| 2 | A
No, because there could be many things.
The Court |\n| 3 | could find that we had sufficient information to bring the |\n| 4 | claim or that we waited too long.
Or I -- you know, there |\n| 5 | are multiple -- it's a multifaceted analysis.
So, |\n| 6 | therefore, there's no way to predict how that ruling would |\n| 7 | be. |\n| 8 | But the point is that when you're faced with people who |\n| 9 | have obstructed justice, as your client has, they -- we |\n| 10 | should not be in a position where we have any risk -- |\n| 11 | Q
So it sounds -- |\n| 12 | A
-- on that issue. |\n| 13 | Q
Sounds like you're not a big fan of my client.
Is that |\n| 14 | fair to say? |\n| 15 | A
Well, I don't know, but I think that we've come to know |\n| 16 | what she stands for.
Yes. |\n| 17 | Q
Do you consider her a bad actor? |\n| 18 | A
Well, it depends how you view perjury. |\n| 19 | Q
Well, it sounds like you do.
Are perjurers -- are bad |\n| 20 | actors entitled to due process, in your opinion? |\n| 21 | MR. BASSETT:
Objection.
This is legal -- this is |\n| 22 | argumentative, and it's legal argument, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Mr. Della Fera, I understand your |\n| 24 | question.
You've gotten the trustee to answer your |\n| 25 | question.
But if you want to ask about due process, I think |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 55 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
55 |\n| 1 | you need to ask the question a different way.
Okay? |\n| 2 | MR. DELLA FERA:
That's okay.
Thank you, Your |\n| 3 | Honor.
I'll withdraw that question. |\n| 4 | BY MR. DELLA FERA: |\n| 5 | Q
How many attorneys are at your law firm, Mr. Despins? |\n| 6 | A
You mean all attorneys? |\n| 7 | Q
All attorneys. |\n| 8 | A
Yeah.
Something like 1,200 or maybe more. |\n| 9 | Q
Right.
And how many appeals have been filed in this |\n| 10 | bankruptcy case, more or less? |\n| 11 | A
At least ten, if not more. |\n| 12 | Q
Okay.
So is it your testimony that those ten appeals |\n| 13 | have prevented you and your firm of 1,200 lawyers from |\n| 14 | efficiently and expeditiously investigating claims you may |\n| 15 | have against certain individuals and entities? |\n| 16 | A
Yeah.
Let me address that.
That's a fundamental |\n| 17 | issue, which is that you cannot run a case like this with 50 |\n| 18 | lawyers.
I could throw 50 lawyers or 70 lawyers at this. |\n| 19 | We cannot do, that because the cost would be incredible, and |\n| 20 | you would lose all efficiency.
So we're operating with a |\n| 21 | team that is large enough to handle a case like this without |\n| 22 | being wasteful.
So, of course, we could put 1,200 lawyers |\n| 23 | working on all these things, but the -- it would not be an |\n| 24 | efficient case, and it would be impossible to manage a case |\n| 25 | like that with that number of lawyers.
And also the costs |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 56 would be prohibitive. So the answer is, it makes no sense whatsoever to have a larger team than we have. When you think about our team, it's fairly large as it is. But we have also Mr. Linsey's team that's working on this. So that's a fairly large group. And it's very expensive, very expensive. And, you know, I understand that from the debtor's point of view, you would like the -- basically to have us run the most inefficient process possible, but we cannot do that. Q I don't represent the debtor, Mr. Despins, but that may or may not be true. But now I'm thinking back to your testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding the retention of a forensic accountant. Do you recall that testimony generally? A Yes, generally. Q And I believe you testified that one of the problems in retaining a forensic accountant was that they wanted to be paid, like other administrative creditors, pari-passu with you and your firm. Is that correct? A That's one of the issues with retaining a forensic accountant, even on a contingency basis, assuming that they would be willing to do that. They would honestly say, well, then if there's a \\$20 million pot, we're sharing pari-passu, and that's not -- in the context where we were then, Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 56 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 57 of\n\n| | 170
Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 57
which -- where we're already owed, I think, 7 or \\$8 million, |\n| | |\n| 2 | that's just not realistic. |\n| 3 | Q
Do you think you could have retained a forensic |\n| 4 | investigator sooner than 13 -- sooner than the 13 or 14 |\n| 5 | months that it took you to retain one if you weren't |\n| 6 | concerned about the protection and priority of your -- of |\n| 7 | the fees of you and your firm? |\n| 8 | A
No, that's not the way I would put it.
I would put it |\n| 9 | in the way that the financial advisor would be obviously |\n| 10 | looking at that issue.
And so, as I said, assuming they're |\n| 11 | willing to do contingency -- which I've already testified we |\n| 12 | were turned down as to two of those.
So understanding -- |\n| 13 | assuming that you find someone who can do it on a |\n| 14 | contingency basis, you face the other issue, which is they |\n| 15 | want to be sharing pari-passu with us. |\n| 16 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Okay, thank you, Mr. Despins. |\n| 17 | Your Honor, I have no further questions. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you, Attorney Della Fera. |\n| 19 | The next objecting party, I think -- Attorney |\n| 20 | Mateo, are you going to be cross-examining, if you are going |\n| 21 | to ask any questions? |\n| 22 | MS. MATEO:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| 24 | CROSS-EXAMINATION |\n| 25 | BY MS. MATEO: |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 58 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
58 |\n| 1 | Q
Good afternoon, Trustee Despins.
I will be asking you |\n| 2 | a few questions about Mr. Defeng Cao, C-A-O, one of the |\n| 3 | objectors.
As a shorthand, I'll refer to Mr. Cao -- to |\n| 4 | Mr. Defeng Cao as Mr. Cao.
Is that okay? |\n| 5 | A
Sure. |\n| 6 | Q
When did you first learn about Mr. Cao? |\n| 7 | A
I don't remember specifically.
I mean, I -- I've |\n| 8 | learned about him.
Of course, the question is putting a |\n| 9 | time frame on that about him.
It's what I -- actually, |\n| 10 | yeah, I can put a frame on this.
It's after our visit to |\n| 11 | the Mahwah mansion.
So Mahwah mansion, I want to say that |\n| 12 | it was July 4th.
Maybe I'm mixing -- is it Memorial Day or |\n| 13 | July 4th?
Anyway, so -- wait.
No, no.
Actually, it was |\n| 14 | Labor Day.
Sorry.
Labor Day weekend. |\n| 15 | Q
I'll help you out, because it sounds like maybe you're |\n| 16 | doing a little bit of speculating.
You filed a Rule 2004 |\n| 17 | motion to seek discovery for Mr. Cao on May 15th, 2023, |\n| 18 | correct? |\n| 19 | A
Okay.
So it would have been, yeah, around that time. |\n| 20 | Okay.
Sure. |\n| 21 | Q
Isn't it correct that in that Rule 2004 motion, you |\n| 22 | stated that you identified Mr. Cao's name from a list of |\n| 23 | proposed shorters in a proposed bond package for a defendant |\n| 24 | in the parallel criminal action?
Isn't that correct? |\n| 25 | A
That's probably right.
Yeah. |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 59 THE COURT: May I just interrupt? THE WITNESS: We had no idea about the motorcycles -- THE COURT: May I interrupt for one second? Attorney Mateo, I didn't hear your question. One part of your question didn't come across. And because we do everything on audio, if I didn't hear it right, that means it didn't get picked up. You said, didn't you identify Mr. Cao's name from a list of -- and I didn't hear the word. MS. MATEO: Of proposed shorters. THE COURT: Shorters? MS. MATEO: Yeah, shorters. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. MS. MATEO: No, it's okay. THE COURT: I appreciate that. I appreciate that. Go ahead. MS. MATEO: It's a tricky word. No worries. BY MS. MATEO: Q Okay. And Mr. Cao did not file an objection to your Rule 2004 motion, correct? A I don't know. To be candid with you, I have no involvement -- I mean, I -- yes, I'm involved, because I'm the trustee. But I hope it comes as no surprise to anyone that I don't follow every 2004 target. So I -- my first recollection of him, why I was interested in him, was after Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 59 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 60 the visit with the Mahwah mansion. And I think that was in Labor Day or July 4th. I remember it was a big holiday. And because we found motorcycles there they eventually turned out that he was the registered owner of. But sorry to interrupt your line of questioning. MS. MATEO: Objection to strike as non-responsive. BY MS. MATEO: Q My question was, Mr. Cao did not file a motion -- an objection to your Rule 2004 motion, correct? A And I said I don't know. Q Okay. I'll help you out that Mr. Cao did not, in fact, file an objection or a motion to quash the Rule 2004 subpoena. Mr. Cao voluntarily accepted service of your Rule 2004 subpoena. Isn't that correct? A I don't know. Q He did. And Mr. Cao also served timely written responses to your Rule 2004 subpoena. Isn't that right? A That's possible, but I have no personal knowledge of that. Q And Mr. Cao also timely served you and Paul Hastings with documents responsive to your Rule 2004 subpoena. Isn't that right? A He did produce some documents. Whether all documents that are responsive were produced, that I would -- I have severe doubts about. Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 60 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 61 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
61 |\n| 1 | MS. MATEO:
Motion to strike as non-responsive. |\n| 2 | BY MS. MATEO: |\n| 3 | Q
I also did not ask you whether he produced all |\n| 4 | documents.
I asked you whether he timely served you with |\n| 5 | documents responsive to your Rule 2004 subpoena.
Isn't that |\n| 6 | right? |\n| 7 | A
I don't know whether they were timely filed or not. |\n| 8 | Q
Isn't it correct that Paul Hastings did not schedule |\n| 9 | Mr. Cao's deposition until October 20, 2023? |\n| 10 | A
I know we scheduled it in October, but I don't know |\n| 11 | more details of that. |\n| 12 | Q
And after Mr. Cao's deposition, isn't it correct that |\n| 13 | you and your counsel did not seek any additional discovery |\n| 14 | from Mr. Cao? |\n| 15 | A
That may be.
I don't know.
Again, I don't follow the |\n| 16 | 250, you know, 2004 targets on a daily basis.
I don't know |\n| 17 | precisely in that case whether he did or not. |\n| 18 | Q
Well, I'm just probing here.
Because a moment ago in |\n| 19 | your testimony, you testified that Mr. Cao was someone who |\n| 20 | had obstructed your search for discovery, and so I'm just |\n| 21 | trying to tease out here that that, in fact, is not the |\n| 22 | case.
Isn't it correct that subsequent Rule 2004 subpoenas |\n| 23 | to other third parties list Mr. Cao as an associated |\n| 24 | individual? |\n| 25 | A
That's certainly possible. |\n| | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 62 Q And isn't it correct that Mr. Cao has not objected to any of those Rule 2004 subpoenas seeking information about him as one of the numerous individuals identified as associated individuals? A That may very well be. I don't know. Q Isn't it correct that your counsel only began drafting the adversary proceeding complaint against Mr. Cao last week after they saw that he objected to the tolling motion? A No. That's completely false. Q Isn't it correct that the adversary proceeding complaint against Mr. Cao only relies on his deposition testimony and documents he produced to you four months ago? A I'm not sure if -- I'm not sure that's the case. Q It is. A Okay. Q Isn't it correct that your counsel -- MR. BASSETT: Objection. Objection. Objection to counsel testifying. If she gets an answer to the question, that's fine, but following up with providing testimony is inappropriate. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MS. MATEO: Q Isn't it correct that your counsel filed the adversary proceeding complaint against Mr. Cao the day after they saw that he objected to the tolling motion? Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 62 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 63 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
63 |\n| 1 | A
I don't know that, but I know we've been working on |\n| 2 | that complaint for at least two months. |\n| 3 | Q
Isn't it correct that the adversary proceeding against |\n| 4 | Mr. Cao was only filed to try to moot his objection to the |\n| 5 | tolling motion? |\n| 6 | A
Absolutely not.
And, by the way, that wouldn't |\n| 7 | accomplish that, because I want to be able to assert other |\n| 8 | claims against him that we don't know enough about.
So it |\n| 9 | doesn't moot it. |\n| 10 | Q
You talked earlier about having to balance the needs of |\n| 11 | the estate with the right to due process of the more than |\n| 12 | 900 potential defendants.
Do you recall that? |\n| 13 | A
No, I didn't say that.
Sorry.
I think you're talking |\n| 14 | about the 900 defendants.
And I said that -- I didn't talk |\n| 15 | about due process.
I said that we're affecting some |\n| 16 | people's rights, and we want to balance that against the |\n| 17 | need to protect the estate to maximize value for creditors. |\n| 18 | Q
I believe when we started this hearing, your counsel |\n| 19 | provided an update to the Court where he identified that |\n| 20 | more than 900 potential defendants had been noticed in |\n| 21 | connection with the tolling motion.
Isn't that right? |\n| 22 | A
He didn't say potential defendants.
He said 900 |\n| 23 | entities were notified. |\n| 24 | Q
And those entities and individuals have been identified |\n| 25 | in the tolling motion as \"potential defendants.\"
Isn't that |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 64 correct? A That I -- I don't recall whether the 900 were identified as potential defendants. But we tried to cast --- in terms of notice, we tried to cast as wide a net as we could so that we didn't fall, you know, outside of -- from a noticed point of view that they had accurate notice of the proceedings that are going on before the Court. Q Well, if they're not potential defendants, then how would you classify or describe who the -- these 900 individuals and entities are? A Because they are people who had dealings with the debtors, but it doesn't mean that they're going to get sued, actually. The notice expressly said, I think at my request we put that in, that it's not because you're getting that notice that you will get sued. It's because we don't have all the facts, and that's really the crux here. Q How would the equity serve by infringing the right of due process of parties that have cooperated with you in your counsel? MR. BASSETT: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MS. MATEO: Q Is it possible that you may get to the six months that you're asking for and that your -- you and your counsel will have to request another extension? Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 64 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 65 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
65 |\n| 1 | A
That definitely is possible, but no -- it will be my |\n| 2 | job to make sure that, to the extent possible, this doesn't |\n| 3 | happen.
I mean, I really want to wrap up this part of the |\n| 4 | case as expeditiously as possible.
So we're going to go |\n| 5 | full steam ahead, you know, provided we can get the relief |\n| 6 | here with what we're doing.
And hopefully we'll not have to |\n| 7 | ask the Court for more. |\n| 8 | Q
And how can the potential defendants have any assurance |\n| 9 | that their due process rights won't be further infringed by |\n| 10 | additional extensions that you may seek to the statute of |\n| 11 | limitations? |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:
Objection.
Argumentative.
Assumes |\n| 13 | facts not in evidence. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Sustained. |\n| 15 | MS. MATEO:
I have nothing further, Your Honor. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you, Attorney Mateo. |\n| 17 | The next objecting party then would be DBS Bank, |\n| 18 | and that's Attorney Weiner, I believe? |\n| 19 | MS. WEINER:
Yes.
Thank you, Your Honor.
I have |\n| 20 | no questions for the witness but would just like to reserve |\n| 21 | for a brief statement later, if possible. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may.
Thank you. |\n| 23 | MS. WEINER:
Thank you. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
All right.
Then the next objecting |\n| 25 | party is Taurus Fund, LLC, and that's you, Mr. Conway. |\n| | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 66 Mr. Conway, if you can give me one moment before you start your questioning, please. I just need to catch up with where I am. Just give me one second. Well, maybe more than one second. About 30 seconds, please. MR. CONWAY: Sure. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead, Mr. Conway, whenever you're ready. MR. CONWAY: Thank you, Your Honor. Michael Conway, for the record, representing Taurus Fund, LLC; Tourist Management, LLC; Scott Barnett. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CONWAY: Q Good afternoon, Mr. Despins. A Good afternoon. Q Just a couple follow-ups. There was a statement about 900 folks were served with this motion, but about how many potential defendants are you aware of? A Well, that assumes I know the universe. I know we're going to file approximately 230 complaints. Don't hold me to that number. It could be 10 more, 20 more, or 15 less, you know, depending on the tolling agreements we were able to obtain from people. But so that's one universe, but that's known. If you're asking me to speculate as to, on the other side of February 15th, the potential defendants, I don't Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 66 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 67 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
67 |\n| 1 | know.
I know that -- I shouldn't say I know.
I believe |\n| 2 | that it's very likely that additional claims will be filed |\n| 3 | against most of the objectors, just because I know that we |\n| 4 | don't have the full picture yet.
But I can't tell you 15, |\n| 5 | 20, 12, 50.
I can't assess that.
I'm sorry. |\n| 6 | Q
That's all right.
We don't want you to speculate.
I |\n| 7 | want to ask you a little bit about the exhibits that we |\n| 8 | heard about before you started testifying.
Were they -- we |\n| 9 | didn't really hear you testify about any of the exhibits, |\n| 10 | but were they listed as examples of obstructive conduct? |\n| 11 | A
Well, but, I mean, they were -- they're docketed |\n| 12 | documents.
So I'm sure there are like motions to compel, |\n| 13 | motions for sanction, motions or orders by the Court, so -- |\n| 14 | Q
Relating to obstructive conduct? |\n| 15 | A
I assume that's the case.
Yeah. |\n| 16 | Q
Okay.
Were there any instances of obstructive conduct |\n| 17 | which did not make their way into your exhibit list? |\n| 18 | A
Well, yes.
If we're talking about your clients, you |\n| 19 | know, Mr. Barnett, for example, well, we just learned -- and |\n| 20 | that's what just shows, you know, to the Court, you know, |\n| 21 | how we learn things all the time -- that, in fact, he was |\n| 22 | the owner of the motorcycles before Mr. Cao became the |\n| 23 | owner. |\n| 24 | So that's another example of what's going on there.
Of |\n| 25 | course, he was not the real owner.
He was used by the |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 68 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
68 |\n| 1 | debtor to have ownership of the motorcycles the debtor was |\n| 2 | using. |\n| 3 | And also, we just learned probably two months ago that |\n| 4 | as to the storage units in Mahwah, who was the tenant of |\n| 5 | that?
Mr. Barnett or his company.
So that -- these are |\n| 6 | other examples of obstructionists, obviously.
He's there to |\n| 7 | make sure the debtor is not the tenant of the facility, or |\n| 8 | he's not the owner of the motorcycles.
He's part of the |\n| 9 | scheme.
So that would be more obstruction, yes. |\n| 10 | Q
Those are allegations about misconduct.
He didn't hide |\n| 11 | any of these facts from you, did he? |\n| 12 | A
Well, he didn't disclose them.
That's for sure. |\n| 13 | Q
When did you ask him about it? |\n| 14 | A
I didn't -- I don't -- as I said, I don't handle every |\n| 15 | aspect of discovery, so I couldn't say. |\n| 16 | Q
Okay.
You're not aware of any requests to him where |\n| 17 | that information was solicited but withheld, correct? |\n| 18 | A
I don't know.
The answer is I don't know. |\n| 19 | Q
Okay.
But my question was broader than just |\n| 20 | Mr. Barnett.
I'm asking whether you're aware of whether |\n| 21 | there are instances where somebody was requested -- you made |\n| 22 | a request to somebody, they refused to respond to your |\n| 23 | request, and you didn't raise the issue with the Court. |\n| 24 | A
Again, I -- there are 250 subpoenas, targets.
So I |\n| 25 | cannot give you -- I think generally we try to follow up |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2947 | Filed 02/22/24 | Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 | Page 69 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
69 |\n| 1 | with the Court.
Although there are instances where either |\n| 2 | it's too time-consuming or the target is too small or we're |\n| 3 | going to get the target in some other way.
And Barnett may |\n| 4 | be in that category, because we're suing him in the |\n| 5 | adversary proceeding regarding Mahwah. |\n| 6 | So there are many reasons why we may not have followed |\n| 7 | up with the Court in getting motion -- or an order of |\n| 8 | contempt.
Because to get an order of contempt against |\n| 9 | someone with no money or an entity that's been liquidated |\n| 10 | may not be attractive. |\n| 11 | So I wouldn't conclude, Mr. Conway, that every time |\n| 12 | somebody did not produce something that we filed something |\n| 13 | with the Court.
It may be in the works that we're about to |\n| 14 | file it, or we decided not to file it now because we're |\n| 15 | going to get it in some other way. |\n| 16 | Q
Okay.
And just to clarify, you mentioned you had a |\n| 17 | couple of teams working on this matter.
How many attorneys |\n| 18 | in your -- in Paul Hastings are working on this bankruptcy? |\n| 19 | A
About 10, 12. |\n| 20 | Q
We would be able to see essentially all the attorneys |\n| 21 | working on this bankruptcy from looking at your invoices |\n| 22 | that are submitted to the Court for approval, correct? |\n| 23 | A
That's correct. |\n| 24 | Q
Okay.
Now, have you been receiving information from |\n| 25 | the Department of Justice related to their investigations |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 70 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
70 |\n| 1 | and the criminal prosecution of the debtor? |\n| 2 | A
No.
Actually, we -- that's another reason where we're |\n| 3 | seeking equitable tolling is, after a lot of fighting, this |\n| 4 | Court found that the debtor should ask the criminal court to |\n| 5 | provide to us whatever documents the DOJ gave to them.
And |\n| 6 | we had -- we basically had to withdraw that request, and |\n| 7 | therefore we don't have that.
So the answer to your |\n| 8 | question -- sorry for the long way of getting there -- is, |\n| 9 | no, we're not getting anything from the DOJ. |\n| 10 | Q
So and you say we're not getting -- you have not |\n| 11 | received any information from the DOJ relating to the |\n| 12 | debtor? |\n| 13 | A
Well, that's -- actually, I spoke without nuance there. |\n| 14 | In your case, in the Mahwah case, we did obtain pictures |\n| 15 | that FBI agents took of certain items such as the debtor's |\n| 16 | prescription drugs or family photos or -- I forget.
There |\n| 17 | were others.
But you know what they are.
Other things like |\n| 18 | that.
So we did get that from the DOJ.
But that -- to my |\n| 19 | knowledge, that's the only information that we got from them |\n| 20 | regarding the debtor's documents or anything regarding the |\n| 21 | debtor. |\n| 22 | Q
Okay.
And they didn't provide you with anything that |\n| 23 | related to someone other than the debtor, the bank account |\n| 24 | records, for instance, of any of the -- |\n| 25 | A
No, not -- |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 71 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
71 |\n| 1 | Q
-- BVI entities that you're noticing? |\n| 2 | A
No.
So too I would say, tongue in cheek, but our -- to |\n| 3 | our great frustration, no, we're not getting anything from |\n| 4 | them. |\n| 5 | Q
You asked for it?
They said no? |\n| 6 | A
No, we didn't ask for it, but it was -- we asked for it |\n| 7 | through the motion we filed with the Court where the Court |\n| 8 | directed the debtor to seek from the criminal court to give |\n| 9 | us access to the documents.
And so that's frustrating, |\n| 10 | because we assumed there would be a lot of very good |\n| 11 | documents there.
But that's why I'm saying it's frustrating |\n| 12 | to us, because we didn't -- |\n| 13 | Q
Just to clarify, the motion was made in which court? |\n| 14 | A
We filed the motion to compel the debtor, that was a |\n| 15 | long saga, but to compel the debtor to produce all documents |\n| 16 | that the debtor would have received in the criminal case |\n| 17 | from the DOJ on the theory that it's coming from the DOJ. |\n| 18 | So we should be able -- if the debtor has it, there's no |\n| 19 | harm with us seeing it.
And, obviously, that didn't happen, |\n| 20 | so -- |\n| 21 | Q
Okay.
And just to clarify, my question was did you ask |\n| 22 | the DOJ for documents? |\n| 23 | A
Yes.
And it -- well, we asked for the -- early on, we |\n| 24 | said we wanted access to that, and they told us no way.
Not |\n| 25 | from them, we couldn't get it. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 72 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
72 |\n| 1 | MR. CONWAY:
I have no further questions. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you, Attorney Conway. |\n| 3 | Then the next objecting party is G Club |\n| 4 | Operations.
And Attorney Sklarz, Attorney Fornos, which one |\n| 5 | of you, if either of you, are going to be cross-examining |\n| 6 | Mr. Despins? |\n| 7 | MR. SKLARZ:
Thank you, Your Honor.
I will. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| 9 | CROSS-EXAMINATION |\n| 10 | BY MR. SKLARZ: |\n| 11 | Q
Good afternoon, Trustee Despins.
My name is Jeff |\n| 12 | Sclarz, and I represent G Club.
G Club's produced more than |\n| 13 | 140,000 documents in this matter, correct? |\n| 14 | A
I don't know the precise number.
I know they produced |\n| 15 | documents, but I don't have a count of exactly what they |\n| 16 | produced. |\n| 17 | Q
And the documents were produced beginning in June of |\n| 18 | 2023, correct? |\n| 19 | A
What I recall is that there was months of back and |\n| 20 | forth until we moved to compel, and then we got some |\n| 21 | documents.
Whether it was June 2023, I could not say for |\n| 22 | sure. |\n| 23 | Q
Right.
And you mentioned a motion to compel.
You're |\n| 24 | familiar with the rules of bankruptcy procedure and the |\n| 25 | federal rules of civil procedure? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 73 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
73 |\n| 1 | A
Yes, generally. |\n| 2 | Q
And they permit parties to object to discovery |\n| 3 | requests, correct? |\n| 4 | A
Yes, of course. |\n| 5 | Q
And those are promulgated by the Supreme Court? |\n| 6 | A
That's correct. |\n| 7 | Q
So the Supreme Court feels that it's appropriate for |\n| 8 | parties to object to discovery and for courts to rule on |\n| 9 | those objections, correct? |\n| 10 | MR. BASSETT:
Objection.
Argumentative. |\n| 11 | Relevance. |\n| 12 | MR. SKLARZ:
The relevance is Mr. Despins, when |\n| 13 | asked a yes or no question about production of documents in |\n| 14 | June, gave a little speech about how we fought discovery. |\n| 15 | We used the rules, which is appropriate.
So I think the |\n| 16 | question is appropriate. |\n| 17 | MR. BASSETT:
I don't think it's appropriate to be |\n| 18 | asking the witness how the Supreme Court feels about |\n| 19 | something, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | MR. SKLARZ:
I didn't ask how the Supreme Court |\n| 21 | feels. |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
That's what you did. |\n| 23 | MR. SKLARZ:
Let me rephrase the -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Why don't we just ask a different |\n| 25 | question? |\n| | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 74 MR. SKLARZ: Yeah. I'll rephrase. BY MR. SKLARZ: Q G Club followed the rules of civil procedure. Is that correct? A I couldn't say whether they did or not. I know that you objected to production. Of course, everyone is entitled to object. That's -- but that's not what went on. That went on for many months. Q Okay. A And also -- Q There's no question. There's no question pending. A Okay. Q You have no question pending. But regardless of your opinion on the matter, by October of 2023, G Club produced over 140,000 documents, correct? A As I said, I know you produced documents. I cannot tell you the exact count. Q Do you have any reason to disbelieve me when I say G Club produced over 140,000 documents? A I -- well, no more than somebody asking me whether you produced 125,000. I don't know the count. I'm sorry. Q Okay. And just two weeks ago, your co-counsel, Mr. Linsey, asked G Club for a affidavit authenticating documents produced by G Club in an adversary proceeding related to Mei Guo and the summary judgment motion. Is Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 74 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
75 |\n| 1 | that -- you would agree with that? |\n| 2 | A
I -- to be candid, I knew there was some of that going |\n| 3 | on, but I didn't know precisely what it was about.
But, |\n| 4 | okay. |\n| 5 | Q
And -- |\n| 6 | A
And -- |\n| 7 | Q
-- G Club facilitated the production of that document |\n| 8 | affidavit, correct? |\n| 9 | A
I'm sorry.
I don't know precisely what happened.
I |\n| 10 | have no reason to believe that's not true, but I don't know |\n| 11 | the details. |\n| 12 | Q
And, unfortunately, the record is sealed, Your Honor, |\n| 13 | but I believe -- and counsel -- Attorney Linsey can correct |\n| 14 | me if the record is wrong, because I don't have access to |\n| 15 | this.
But I believe the document was produced in Adversary |\n| 16 | Proceeding 23-5008 and probably is in ECF Number 116, which |\n| 17 | contains some sealed documents.
And I believe this is a |\n| 18 | sealed record.
But the question -- and so I believe the |\n| 19 | Court will have access to the sealed documents.
I don't, |\n| 20 | but I believe it's in there.
And the question for |\n| 21 | Mr. Despins is, do you have any reason to believe that G |\n| 22 | Club did not facilitate the production of the document |\n| 23 | affidavit? |\n| 24 | A
I couldn't say whether you facilitated it or not. |\n| 25 | There's a -- it's an -- I can't -- you know, I would have to |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 75 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 76 talk to Mr. Linsey to confirm that. I was not close enough to this aspect to really tell you whether it was facilitated. And, you know, he would have to opine on that, because he's handling it, so. Q Okay. Well, you've retained Mr. Linsey's firm, correct? A That's correct. Q And he's your agent, correct? A Correct. Q Okay. So if we put Mr. Linsey on the stand to confirm this, would that be helpful to you? Or perhaps counsel can just stipulate that this has occurred. THE COURT: Mr. Sklarz -- Attorney Sklarz, so let me just ask you a question. You're talking about a document that you're saying G Club helped to authenticate, right? MR. SKLARZ: Correct. THE COURT: Is that what you're -- okay. And you've told me I can figure that out by looking at a sealed document, correct? MR. SKLARZ: I think that's the case, because I -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 76 of\n\n THE COURT: Okay. MR. SKLARZ: -- can't personally -- THE COURT: So just tell me -- okay. So just tell me why you -- well, I mean, I understand why you're asking\n\nthe question. But I think we can move on insofar as you've\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 77 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
77 |\n| 1 | either -- you either did or didn't help authenticate a |\n| 2 | document.
And I understand your questions about production. |\n| 3 | And I think Trustee Despins has said that he knows that |\n| 4 | you've produced these documents. |\n| 5 | So why don't we move on to -- I completely |\n| 6 | understand what you're saying, but I do have familiarity |\n| 7 | with this issue.
So I think the question then is -- let's |\n| 8 | get to your objection as to -- and I think you already have. |\n| 9 | I'm not suggesting that you haven't.
But I think your |\n| 10 | objection is based upon the fact -- or at least your |\n| 11 | questioning right now is that you have complied with what |\n| 12 | the trustee has asked. |\n| 13 | MR. SKLARZ:
Yes.
The trustee said in direct |\n| 14 | testimony that G Club -- I think the words were something |\n| 15 | along the lines of it was a knock-down, drag-out fight.
And |\n| 16 | while -- my point is that, while we may have had a discovery |\n| 17 | dispute, we went by the rules.
Your Honor ruled on the |\n| 18 | dispute, and we complied with Your Honor's ruling.
And I |\n| 19 | just want to make sure that that's clear, because -- and |\n| 20 | I'll reserve oral argument on our legal positions.
But I |\n| 21 | just want to make sure I have a factual predicate to make |\n| 22 | that argument.
And it sounds like Your Honor |\n| 23 | (indiscernible). |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
As far as what I think you're trying |\n| 25 | to accomplish on cross-examination, I think you have done |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 78 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
78 |\n| 1 | that.
But I -- but that doesn't mean you should stop asking |\n| 2 | questions.
I just want us to move on to any other parts of |\n| 3 | objection that you may have, if you would, please. |\n| 4 | MR. SKLARZ:
So, yes.
So, Your Honor, I'm |\n| 5 | prepared to present our legal argument at this time, but I |\n| 6 | assume you want me to reserve that until after everybody's |\n| 7 | cross-examined? |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Yes, please.
I'm sorry, but I think |\n| 9 | that's the better way to handle the matter, even though I -- |\n| 10 | MR. SKLARZ:
I agree.
Absolutely. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Okay. |\n| 12 | MR. SKLARZ:
And so, my last point.
I don't have |\n| 13 | any additional questions at this time, but I would like |\n| 14 | to -- I am going to make a motion to strike Attorney |\n| 15 | Despins' -- I'm sorry, Trustee Despins' direct testimony for |\n| 16 | two reasons.
First, it's irrelevant on the legal issues |\n| 17 | presented, which is equitable tolling and the applicability |\n| 18 | of Rule 9006.
Those are purely legal issues, and there's |\n| 19 | been no evidence offered on the elements of equitable |\n| 20 | tolling. |\n| 21 | And the second ground is that much of Attorney -- |\n| 22 | Trustee Despins' testimony was legal argument, including why |\n| 23 | they -- why the trustee and his team took certain steps. |\n| 24 | Again, this issue is related to equitable tolling and Rule |\n| 25 | 9006, and his strategy did not relate to either of those |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 79 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 79 elements. So with that, I move to strike his direct testimony. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, may I respond? THE COURT: Yes. MR. BASSETT: First of all, all of Trustee Despins' testimony relates directly to the issues before the Court. As the Court knows, and as we will get into in arguments, as already been articulated in the papers, it is absolutely relevant to a request for equitable tolling whether or not the party seeking equitable tolling, in this case the trustee, acted reasonably, diligently. The other element of the test is whether there have been extraordinary circumstances that have prevented the trustee from otherwise meeting the deadline. All of the testimony he gave about the efforts that he and his team undertook, factual testimony, factual testimony about the obstruction that he faced, the way that that obstruction impacted his investigation, all of that is centrally relevant to that standard. Second of all, to the extent counsel had an objection to any of the testimony that Trustee Despins was providing during direct, he should have objected during direct, not waited until the entire testimony was finished and raising his objection at this time. So, the objection,\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2947 | Filed 02/22/24 | Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 | Page 80 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
80 |\n| 1 | Your Honor, we respectfully ask be overruled. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Attorney Sklarz, with regard to |\n| 3 | your motion to strike, there were two prongs I heard.
The |\n| 4 | first is that you would like to strike Trustee Despins' |\n| 5 | direct testimony with regard to his statements that -- and I |\n| 6 | recall -- I believe you are accurate, Attorney Sklarz, that |\n| 7 | Trustee Despins said it was a drag-down fight or something |\n| 8 | along those lines.
With regard to that, you're asking me to |\n| 9 | strike that. |\n| 10 | I'm going -- not -- I'm going to deny that.
I'm |\n| 11 | going to allow that in the record, but I'll give that |\n| 12 | whatever weight I think is appropriate. |\n| 13 | With regard to your second prong, I'd like you to |\n| 14 | explain it to me one more time, please. |\n| 15 | MR. SKLARZ:
Sure.
The thrust of the trustee's |\n| 16 | motion was really, at least as I saw it, in two ways. |\n| 17 | First, that equitable tolling can be applied prospectively. |\n| 18 | And to do that, there has to be evidence offered on the |\n| 19 | elements of equitable tolling, not a summary of what may |\n| 20 | happen as to many cases. |\n| 21 | So, for example, with respect to my client, G |\n| 22 | Club, the only thing he said was we had a knock-down, |\n| 23 | drag-out discovery fight.
So, I'm not sure how that |\n| 24 | addresses any of the elements of equitable tolling. |\n| 25 | Secondly, under Rule -- the second basis for -- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 81 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
81 |\n| 1 | for tolling the statute limitations is Rule 9006 of the |\n| 2 | bankruptcy rules.
That's a purely legal argument.
Attorney |\n| 3 | Bassett and the rest of counsel will certainly have |\n| 4 | significant arguments over that issue coming up, but there |\n| 5 | can't be evidence authored on why this Court -- why your |\n| 6 | Honor should apply a particular rule in a particular way. |\n| 7 | It either applies or it doesn't apply as a matter of law. |\n| 8 | So, Attorney -- I'm sorry, Trustee Despins' testimony on the |\n| 9 | applicability of what he said is really just argument but |\n| 10 | through a witness. |\n| 11 | And then what I didn't mention is, obviously, |\n| 12 | yesterday we were served with the witness and exhibit list |\n| 13 | with 132 exhibits 24 hours before trial that references |\n| 14 | exhibits that would have taken two days to download.
I |\n| 15 | understand that they're on the docket, but there's no |\n| 16 | possible way that we could have reviewed all those exhibits |\n| 17 | and properly prepared a cross-examination. |\n| 18 | So I think that the offer of testimony is just |\n| 19 | generally unfair given the nature of what's -- of these |\n| 20 | proceedings. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
All right.
Well, I understand your |\n| 22 | objection on the second part then.
And I'm going to |\n| 23 | overrule your -- well, your motion to strike, I'm going to |\n| 24 | deny your motion.
Whether or not you are correct that this |\n| 25 | is a legal argument is something I will have to consider, |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 82 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
82 |\n| 1 | right, as the finder of fact and the trier of fact and the |\n| 2 | party who makes the conclusions of law.
So I do understand |\n| 3 | your argument, and I will consider it, but I'm not going to |\n| 4 | strike the testimony of the trustee.
So that motion is |\n| 5 | denied. |\n| 6 | MR. SKLARZ:
Understood, Your Honor.
And I don't |\n| 7 | have any further questions for the trustee. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And you would like to be heard, |\n| 9 | obviously, for a -- you would like to make, excuse me, an |\n| 10 | argument at the end of the hearing, as I will allow other |\n| 11 | objecting parties to do as well. |\n| 12 | MR. SKLARZ:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
But I -- yeah.
But that's fine.
So |\n| 14 | you'll reserve some time.
We'll talk about that.
Now -- |\n| 15 | MR. SKLARZ:
Thank you. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
-- we've been going at this hearing |\n| 17 | for a few hours now.
And I'm going to give the courtroom |\n| 18 | deputy a five-minute break.
Because we're not even halfway |\n| 19 | through the objecting parties' objections yet and the |\n| 20 | cross-examination of Mr. Despins.
And then we're going to |\n| 21 | have legal arguments made by the parties. |\n| 22 | So it is 3:50.
We are going to come back -- well, |\n| 23 | it's 3:51.
Now that I've said that, I've already used a |\n| 24 | minute.
So we'll come back at 3:56.
I need to give the |\n| 25 | courtroom staff a five-minute break.
Okay?
So we will -- |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 83 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
83 |\n| 1 | the Court is in recess until 3:56. |\n| 2 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you. |\n| 3 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Court is in recess until |\n| 5 | 3:56. |\n| 6 | (Recess from 3:51 p.m. to 3:58 p.m.) |\n| 7 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Court is in session after |\n| 8 | recess.
The Honorable Julie Manning is presiding. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So before we took a recess, |\n| 10 | G Club Operations finished their cross-examination. |\n| 11 | So the next party that has objected to the tolling |\n| 12 | motion is the Rule of Law Foundation, Inc. and the Rule of |\n| 13 | Law Society, Inc.
And, Attorney Evans, will you be |\n| 14 | conducting any cross-examination, if there is any |\n| 15 | cross-examination to be conducted? |\n| 16 | MR. EVANS:
Your Honor, in order, I guess, to |\n| 17 | really address that, I'd like to inquire on whether the |\n| 18 | trustee is objecting to our declaration.
As I indicated |\n| 19 | before, on behalf of the Rule of Law Foundation and Rule of |\n| 20 | Law Society, we filed a written objection.
And it's not |\n| 21 | dissimilar to other objecting parties.
We also included a |\n| 22 | declaration and set forth certain facts concerning our |\n| 23 | discovery compliance.
And if the trustee accepts that as |\n| 24 | part of the record, then I really won't need to ask any |\n| 25 | questions. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 84 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
84 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
I don't know if |\n| 2 | Trustee Despins is with us.
I should have asked that before |\n| 3 | I even asked you, Attorney Evans. |\n| 4 | THE WITNESS:
I am here, but I don't know if |\n| 5 | Mr. Bassett will address this question or -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 7 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, I'm all for expediting |\n| 8 | the proceedings today, if we can.
I had assumed that if |\n| 9 | anything were going to be offered into evidence today, there |\n| 10 | would be a witness supporting it.
That said, I'm happy to |\n| 11 | consider the request.
Would it be possible if we modified |\n| 12 | the order, and I could have a colleague sort of take a look |\n| 13 | at this while we are having some other individuals or other |\n| 14 | parties ask questions? |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
That's fine with me. |\n| 16 | Attorney Evans, I think that's fair.
We can come |\n| 17 | back to you after -- |\n| 18 | MR. EVANS:
Of course. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
-- they are able to look at -- to |\n| 20 | consider and respond to your request, okay? |\n| 21 | MR. EVANS:
Of course.
No problem.
Thank you. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 23 | Then the next objecting party is Mr. Lee and |\n| 24 | Mr. Xai.
And, Mr. Schmitt, are you going to be |\n| 25 | cross-examining Trustee Despins? |\n| | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 85 MR. SCHMITT: No, Your Honor. We have no questions for the witness, although we will reserve some time at the end. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Then we can move on to Mr. Major -- Attorney Major for Greenwich Land and Ms. Hgok. Mr. Major -- or Attorney Major, are you going to be cross-examining Mr. Despins, Trustee Despins? MR. MAJOR: Your Honor, I'm not going to ask any questions of the witness. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Then, Mr. Grand -- Attorney Grand, I believe you're next for GS Security Solutions, Inc.? MR. GRAND: Yes. I have no questions for the witness either, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. And then we're -- the objecting party, Wang. Attorney Wander, are you going to be cross-examining Trustee Despins? MR. WANDER: Yes, Your Honor. I have a few questions. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. WANDER: Yes. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WANDER: Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 85 of\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 86 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
86 |\n| 1 | Q
Mr. Despins, in paragraph 12 of the motion -- of the -- |\n| 2 | well, of the trustee's reply, that's the only place it gives |\n| 3 | any specifics about my client.
And it says, \"Finally, |\n| 4 | Yingying Wang, Chris Lee, and Qidong Xia are members of the |\n| 5 | purported HCHK Creditors Committee led by Objector Yongbing |\n| 6 | Zhang, who has been sanctioned multiple times for frivolous |\n| 7 | litigation against the trustee and others.
My question is, |\n| 8 | the motion does not and you're not making any claim that |\n| 9 | Ms. Wang hindered or obstructed your investigation, are you? |\n| 10 | A
Well, clearly the committee -- the informal committee |\n| 11 | that is referred to did. |\n| 12 | Q
Correct.
But is it possible that a person could have |\n| 13 | had involvement with the HCHK Creditors Committee without |\n| 14 | engaging in any improper conduct that would support the |\n| 15 | filing of an adversary complaint? |\n| 16 | A
I think the sole purpose of that committee was to |\n| 17 | obstruct the trustee's work on HCHK.
And I believe that -- |\n| 18 | if it's your client -- or, well, there are two people |\n| 19 | involved here, and one of them was clearly involved in the |\n| 20 | protest as well.
But certainly in terms of the HCHK |\n| 21 | Committee, the sole goal of that, because it was run by |\n| 22 | Mr. Yongbing Zhang, was to obstruct the trustee's work on |\n| 23 | the HCHK adversary proceeding.
So, you know, I don't think |\n| 24 | they were discussing the Super Bowl at these meetings.
They |\n| 25 | were there to try to impede the trustee's work.
That's the |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 87 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
87 |\n| 1 | goal of the -- of this organization. |\n| 2 | Q
Right.
But my question was more nuanced.
And I don't |\n| 3 | represent Yongbing Zhang.
I'm only concerned about |\n| 4 | Ms. Wang, who seems to have been caught up in things.
And, |\n| 5 | again, my question is, is it possible that she or anyone |\n| 6 | could have been involved with this committee without having |\n| 7 | done anything that would justify the filing of an adversary |\n| 8 | complaint?
Was it simply the guilt by the association with |\n| 9 | this committee? |\n| 10 | A
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
I think now I understand your |\n| 11 | question better.
I thought you were asking me is it |\n| 12 | possible that that person did nothing wrong that would |\n| 13 | justify tolling, and I was responding to that.
Now you're |\n| 14 | asking me whether it's possible that somebody could be a |\n| 15 | party to or involved with that committee, and that full |\n| 16 | activity being the basis to get sued -- and I think that's |\n| 17 | now your -- if I got it right, tell me.
If I -- so -- |\n| 18 | Q
Yes. |\n| 19 | A
Okay.
I don't think anyone is going to -- I shouldn't |\n| 20 | say that.
I think that that could be part of allegations |\n| 21 | made with respect to the civil RICO complaint.
The question |\n| 22 | is, is that the only allegation, though, being made against |\n| 23 | some of the people involved?
I don't think so.
But now I'm |\n| 24 | speculating, so.
But there's no -- there's not going to be |\n\nan avoidance action brought against your client because she\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 88 of |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n\n| 170 | | | | | |\n|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
88 | | | | |\n| 1 | or he participated in the committee -- informal committee | | | | |\n| 2 | meetings.
If that helps? | | | | |\n| 3 | Q
Yes.
Well, see the only allegation about my client in | | | | |\n| 4 | the papers is that she was a member of this committee.
And | | | | |\n| 5 | that's why I'm asking, is the membership in the committee | | | | |\n| 6 | alone sufficient to justify the view that this person | | | | |\n| 7 | engaged in some kind of improper conduct that would bring | | | | |\n| 8 | them under the tolling motion? | | | | |\n| 9 | A
No.
But by the way, so just again to be precise, our | | | | |\n| 10 | argument is not that everyone that will be covered by the | | | | |\n| 11 | tolling needs to have engaged in bad conduct.
No.
The | | | | |\n| 12 | extraordinary circumstances that Mr. Bassett described can | | | | |\n| 13 | be brought on by the debtor, the debtor's daughter, the | | | | |\n| 14 | debtor's son, et cetera.
And it's possible to have people | | | | |\n| 15 | who've had no involvement in that but that still will be | | | | |\n| 16 | subject to the tolling.
Why?
Because that's an | | | | |\n| 17 | extraordinary circumstance that precluded the trustee from | | | | |\n| 18 | reaching the conclusion before the expiration of the statute | | | | |\n| 19 | of limitation that a claim should be brought even against | | | | |\n| 20 | people not involved in the -- so I know that everyone is | | | | |\n| 21 | trying to prove that they didn't do anything wrong. | | | | |\n| 22 | That's not -- sorry, but that's -- Mr. Bassett will | | | | |\n| 23 | argue this, but that's not our view of the test.
The test | | | | |\n| 24 | is, one, was the trustee diligent?
Two, are there | | | | |\n| 25 | extraordinary circumstances?
And those circumstances do not | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 89 of\n\n| | 170 | | | | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
89 | | | | | |\n| 1 | need to apply to each individual party subject -- that the | | | | | |\n| 2 | tolling will apply to.
So -- | | | | | |\n| 3 | Q
I appreciate the argument you're making.
I'm simply | | | | | |\n| 4 | trying to see what is in the record about my client.
Now, | | | | | |\n| 5 | you testified before that, I believe, with respect to the | | | | | |\n| 6 | three people that in paragraph 12 are identified as being | | | | | |\n| 7 | connected with this committee, I believe you testified that | | | | | |\n| 8 | two of the three are going to be sued in the next two days. | | | | | |\n| 9 | Do you recall that? | | | | | |\n| 10 | A
That's correct.
But only as to what we have ready to | | | | | |\n| 11 | go in the next few days.
There may be other claims.
That's | | | | | |\n| 12 | the whole point of this is we don't need relief to file | | | | | |\n| 13 | something in the next two days.
We are doing that.
The | | | | | |\n| 14 | question is what we don't know or don't know sufficiently to | | | | | |\n| 15 | bring later. | | | | | |\n| 16 | Q
I appreciate that.
It's just that you filed the motion | | | | | |\n| 17 | against 331 individuals and entities, and 10 of them filed | | | | | |\n| 18 | an objection, approximately 10.
And so that means there's | | | | | |\n| 19 | 321 of the people who are subject to the motion that there's | | | | | |\n| 20 | no issue about.
So that brings us down to the 10. | | | | | |\n| 21 | And I've heard your testimony.
And I'm not going to | | | | | |\n| 22 | say which one you were talking about, but several of them | | | | | |\n| 23 | you may have made a good case for, for your tolling motion. | | | | | |\n| 24 | That brings it down to three people.
And I only | | | | | |\n| 25 | represent one.
And I'm submitting that of the 331 people | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 90 of\n\n| | 170
Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
90 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | subject to your motion and of the objectors -- and, frankly, |\n| 2 | if my client didn't object, we are deemed to consent.
If |\n| 3 | there's one person that the Court denies the motion to, and |\n| 4 | if that's my client, based upon the showing that's been |\n| 5 | made, is that in any way going to cause any type of |\n| 6 | significant damage to the estate or to your investigation, |\n| | |\n| 7 | assuming my client is cooperating with whatever else you may |\n| 8 | ask from our Rule 2004 exam? |\n| 9 | A
The point is we don't know.
That's the whole point of |\n| 10 | tolling is that we know that your client was involved in |\n| 11 | this committee.
We know that the committee was not up to |\n| 12 | any good.
But the point is, we're seeking (indiscernible) |\n| 13 | tolling because of extraordinary circumstances brought on by |\n| 14 | the debtor and other associates.
And you're saying, my |\n| 15 | client had such a tiny little roll in this, why don't you |\n| 16 | leave her alone.
My point is, she may not get sued.
She |\n| 17 | may get sued in the next two days, but she may not get sued |\n| 18 | later.
We don't know.
But we certainly don't want to give |\n| 19 | her a bye or pass now, because, for all we know, she was |\n| 20 | heavily involved in something we don't know about today. |\n| 21 | That's the entire relief we're seeking. |\n| 22 | Q
But you were able to determine that some people |\n| 23 | involved with this committee received funds, and you're |\n| 24 | going to sue them, correct? |\n| 25 | A
Correct. |\n| | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 91 Q And you also have articulated facts about several objectors who you claim hindered or obstructed your investigation, correct? A Yes. But that's not necessary to the relief we're seeking. It was obstruction -- Q I appreciate that. A -- across the board. Q No, I appreciate that. And I understand all the difficulties that you've been involved in with regard to the investigation. And I'm only -- I only want to make the record clear for the Court with respect to my client, who seems to be, in my view, of the 331 people subject to the motion -- at least to my client, I don't see -- can you say in any way how, if the Court denies the motion to my client, that would adversely affect your investigation just with regard to my client? Q And that's the whole point here is that given -- two things. One is that, based on the record of these cases, there are more claims that should be brought. And the involvement of your client in that is yet to be determined. And the reason it cannot be determined is because the trustee was not able to complete his work on this. That's really what this is. And so your client may be completely uninvolved going forward or could be the center or one of the main elements Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 91 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 92 of something that we have yet to discover. That's the whole issue. Q Yet with regard to all of the other objectors, it seems that my client, assuming she's not one of the two people who are going to get sued in the next day, that my client is the one person that there's nothing in the record that would indicate that she has had any involvement whatsoever with anything that might result in a claim against her. I just want to make sure that the record is clear on that. MR. BASSETT: Objection, Your Honor. I think this is now argumentative, if it hasn't been already. I also think we're treading over the same ground, asking the same questions multiple times. Obviously, counsel can make the point that he's trying to make in argument, but the utility of trying to do it during direct examination has run -- during cross-examination has run its course. BY MR. WANDER: Q Well, let me ask you. You had testified that one person went to Europe with apparent nefarious intentions. That's not my client, correct? A I don't know. I don't recall. I mean, there are a lot of parties involved, but it could very well be. And I'm not Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 92 of\n\nnext two days. She -- I don't recall this particular\n\nsaying, by the way, that she's not going to get sued in the\n\nexample, whether she will or not. So I -- Mr. Linsey would\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 93 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
93 |\n| 1 | know that, but I don't know that offhand.
So I don't want |\n| 2 | to mislead you in thinking that she is not going to get sued |\n| 3 | in the next two days. |\n| 4 | But, regardless, that has nothing to do with what we're |\n| 5 | asking for, because we don't need the Court's approval to |\n| 6 | sue people in the next two days.
That's not what we're |\n| 7 | talking about. |\n| 8 | MR. WANDER:
I have no further questions, Your |\n| 9 | Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you, Attorney Wander. |\n| 11 | The next objecting party is Sotheby's |\n| 12 | International Realty.
And, Attorney Brown, are you going to |\n| 13 | be conducting a cross-examination, if there is any |\n| 14 | cross-examination to conduct? |\n| 15 | MR. BROWN:
Yes.
There's going to be no |\n| 16 | cross-examination at this time, Your Honor, for the trustee. |\n| 17 | But we would, depending on what we hear, reserve some time |\n| 18 | at the end of the hearing, please. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Give me one moment then.
Thank |\n| 20 | you. |\n| 21 | MR. BROWN:
Thank you. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
All right.
Then the last objecting |\n| 23 | party on my list is Mr. Zhang.
And, Mr. Nealon, are you |\n| 24 | going to be conducting cross-examination? |\n| 25 | MR. NEALON:
Yes, Your Honor.
I have a few |\n| | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 94 questions, if I could. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. NEALON: Thank you. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NEALON: Q Trustee Despins, how many adversary proceedings have you brought in the last four days? Am I correct that it's around 200, maybe plus or minus 10 percent? A Yeah. The last time I checked, it was 180. But while we're talking, they're getting filed every, you know, 20 minutes or so. So 200 might be the right number right now. Q And assuming this motion isn't granted, hypothetically, your deadline is Thursday, correct, to file the rest of them? A That's correct. Q And how many more, you know, ballpark, should we expect over the next two days? A Around -- well, assuming that your number of 200 is correct for -- just for sake of argument, I think we could expect another 30 or so. Q Okay. So what we're talking about with this tolling extension is you're expecting you'd like to bring other adversary proceedings over the -- up until the August proposed extended deadline, correct? A That's correct. Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 94 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 95 of
170 |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
95 |\n| 1 | Q | All right.
And do you have a ballpark sense as to how |\n| 2 | | many more we should expect if you're given that extension? |\n| 3 | A | No. |\n| 4 | Q | Okay. |\n| 5 | A | Sorry. |\n| 6 | Q | Now, you mentioned that we can expect a RICO suit to be |\n| 7 | | forthcoming over the next couple of days.
Is that tied to |\n| 8 | | this extension in any way?
Or are you planning -- in other |\n| 9 | | words, do you need to file that within this time period, or |\n| 10 | | does that have its own time -- |\n| 11 | A | We're filing it before Thursday, whether we have to or |\n| 12 | not. | We're filing it before Thursday. |\n| 13 | Q | Okay. |\n| 14 | A | Or on Thursday. |\n| 15 | Q | All right.
And are any of those planned RICO claims |\n| 16 | | specifically tied to or going to be based on an obstruction |\n| 17 | | of your investigation as a trustee? |\n| 18 | A | In part, yes. |\n| 19 | Q | Okay.
And is Mr. Zhang, my client, a planned defendant |\n| 20 | | in that suit? |\n| 21 | A | I think so. |\n| 22 | Q | Okay.
And what is it that Mr. Zhang did that would |\n| 23 | | cause you to believe he's an appropriate defendant in terms |\n| 24 | | of obstructing your investigation? |\n| 25 | A | That's not the scope of this hearing.
We're not |\n| | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 96 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
96 |\n| 1 | litigating a complaint that's yet to be filed. |\n| 2 | Q
Okay.
Well, I'll ask you the question in the abstract. |\n| 3 | You have the floor here.
What is it that my client, |\n| 4 | Attorney Zhang, did that has obstructed your investigation |\n| 5 | and has required you to seek additional time? |\n| 6 | A
No, I -- so I want to be clear.
He will be sued on |\n| 7 | certain counts, certain claims by Thursday.
No doubt about |\n| 8 | that.
But we want to have the ability to bring other claims |\n| 9 | against him in the future. |\n| 10 | Q
Right.
But my question, Trustee Despins, is what is |\n| 11 | it, if anything, that my client has done that has obstructed |\n| 12 | your investigation to date and caused you or contributed to |\n| 13 | the need for you to file for this extension? |\n| 14 | A
Well, clearly, the whole HCHK informal committee, |\n| 15 | that's his creation, and he was the quarterback there. |\n| 16 | That's one thing.
And that cost a fortune, and it took -- |\n| 17 | it was a very time-consuming side show in the case.
That's |\n| 18 | number one. |\n| 19 | Two, the whole -- all these claims that he filed where |\n| 20 | he was sanctioned, you know, that's -- it's an effort to |\n| 21 | intimidate a court officer.
And, of course, that takes |\n| 22 | time.
We need to deal with that.
And it costs money.
So |\n| 23 | that's another basis whereby he should -- one of the last |\n| | |\n\n people that should get the benefit of the statute of limitation given his conduct.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 97 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
97 |\n| 1 | And we know, based on informants, that he visits the |\n| 2 | debtor prison and that he professes to tell people after |\n| 3 | these visits what debtor's directions are. |\n| 4 | Q
And what are those directions? |\n| 5 | A
Well, to organize the HCHK committee to do this or to |\n| 6 | do that. |\n| 7 | Q
Well, what are the other things besides organizing the |\n| 8 | HCHK committee? |\n| 9 | A
I don't recall them at this point.
But the point is |\n| 10 | that he's as involved in this as Mei Guo or the debtor's |\n| 11 | son. |\n| 12 | Q
So you indicated when you were being examined by one of |\n| 13 | the prior counsels that -- I think you said that HCHK |\n| 14 | committee was plainly not up to any good.
Was that your |\n| 15 | testimony? |\n| 16 | A
Correct.
The purpose of that committee was to find |\n| 17 | people to appear in court, file false documents, documents |\n| 18 | that have been backdated, provide testimony that was not |\n| 19 | credible, et cetera, et cetera.
Their sole goal was to stop |\n| 20 | this, stop the trustee's effort to get control of HCHK. |\n| 21 | Q
So is it your view, Trustee Despins, that anyone who -- |\n| 22 | anyone who comes into court and objects to your motion -- |\n| 23 | and I believe you had a motion to approve a settlement |\n| 24 | agreement, a motion for an injunction, a motion to take |\n| 25 | control of approximately 38 million -- anyone who |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 98 of
170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
98 |\n| 1 | obstructs -- or objects is an obstructor?
Is that your |\n| 2 | view? |\n| 3 | A
No.
Of course not. |\n| 4 | Q
Okay.
Specifically, what is it that Attorney Zhang did |\n| 5 | that you consider improper relative to that committee?
Are |\n| 6 | you saying he had knowledge that a frivolous or false claim |\n| 7 | would be brought?
Do you have any evidence of that? |\n| 8 | A
No.
No.
We're not going to litigate claims against |\n| 9 | him right now. |\n| 10 | Q
But you have no evidence of that, do you, sir? |\n| 11 | A
Well, we know that he spearheaded the committee, and |\n| 12 | the committee caused the folks to appear in court and file, |\n| 13 | you know, false documents that were backdated, et cetera, et |\n| 14 | cetera.
So -- |\n| 15 | Q
Okay.
But you have no evidence that Attorney Yongbing |\n| 16 | Zhang had anything to do with that witness who testified |\n| 17 | about backdating a document, do you? |\n| 18 | A
I'm not going to go through the claims we're going to |\n| 19 | bring against him in the next few days. |\n| 20 | Q
All right.
So the answer is no then.
Let me ask you a |\n| 21 | true or false question if I could, okay?
Is it true or |\n| 22 | false the number one overriding reason why you're filing |\n| 23 | this motion is it took you a long period of time to hire |\n| 24 | Kroll to investigate all these avoidance claims because the |\n| 25 | estate simply didn't have the resources until the Lady May |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 99 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
99 |\n| 1 | was solved in June of 2023?
Isn't that a fact?
That is the |\n| 2 | primary overarching reason why you need more time? |\n| 3 | A
No.
That's one of the reasons.
As I said, this whole |\n| 4 | enterprise with -- that have no books and records, no |\n| 5 | reliable documents, was so convoluted.
And, you know, as I |\n| 6 | said, 330 bank accounts that have to be completely analyzed, |\n| 7 | et cetera, et cetera, that no one could have conducted -- or |\n| 8 | completed the investigation and the prosecution of the |\n| 9 | claims in the two-year period. |\n| 10 | Q
Well, wouldn't it be fair to say, though, that the bank |\n| 11 | records that you referenced, the 330 bank accounts, are the |\n| 12 | principal source of information that Kroll is analyzing in |\n| 13 | order to make recommendations as to what claims to make? |\n| 14 | Isn't that a fact? |\n| 15 | A
That's a very important source of the documents.
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q
Well, it's the most important source, right?
Because |\n| 17 | you testified earlier there were no reliable ledgers or |\n| 18 | accounting systems. |\n| 19 | A
Well, the bank accounts are good, because they don't |\n| 20 | lie.
But they don't tell you the full story.
So you need |\n| 21 | to actually do more analysis.
And as I said, it's the |\n| 22 | Russian doll concept, which is that one bank account leads |\n| 23 | you to another, to another, to another.
And that's what |\n| 24 | makes this impossible to complete in the time frame statute. |\n| 25 | Q
Isn't it a fact, Trustee Despins, that the -- you as |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 100 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
100 |\n| 1 | trustee have had the vast majority of these banking records |\n| 2 | for many years prior to -- |\n| 3 | A
No, no.
That's completely not accurate. |\n| 4 | Q
What percentage of the 330 bank accounts did you get |\n| 5 | after Kroll was hired in August of 2023? |\n| 6 | A
I can't give you a precise percentage, but it's |\n| 7 | certainly more than half. |\n| 8 | Q
More than half?
And that's through the 2004 exam? |\n| 9 | A
Correct. |\n| 10 | Q
So then you'd agree with me that if you got those |\n| 11 | records late, that's the principal reason you need more |\n| 12 | time, correct? |\n| 13 | A
No.
So I don't -- no. |\n| 14 | Q
Okay. |\n| 15 | A
Because these -- because of the complexity of the |\n| 16 | scheme.
And, as I said, you know, you go to one bank.
They |\n| 17 | give you documents.
As I said, they don't give it to you on |\n| 18 | the spot.
You need to press them, press them.
And they |\n| 19 | eventually produce.
They don't produce completely -- the |\n| 20 | complete set of documents.
You need to follow up again. |\n| 21 | And then that opens up, like the example I gave about |\n| 22 | the PayPal, although it's not PayPal but the equivalent of |\n| 23 | PayPal, opens up that whole line of inquiry.
And there's |\n| 24 | that multiplied by, you know, 300 accounts.
I'm |\n| 25 | exaggerating when I say that, but it's exponential. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 101 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 101 And, therefore, all of that takes a lot of time and a lot of work. And we need -- as I said, bank accounts are great. They don't give you the full story. You need to go and figure out when the payments were made and in what context, et cetera, et cetera. So now the lawyers get involved, not only Kroll. And it's the combination of the two teams that get us where we are now, which is a fairly, I would say, incredible accomplishment to be able to file 230 complaints regarding avoidance actions by the deadline is -- is amazing. But that's not the full story. Q Now, we talked about or you mentioned that Mr. Zhang was sanctioned by at least two federal courts for -- I think he brought a complaint against you or your firm for supposedly being an unregistered foreign lobbyist or something to that effect. Is that correct? A He was actually -- I think he was sanctioned three times -- Q Okay. A -- by three Southern District of New York judges. Q Okay. Well, I'm not -- maybe we'll agree to disagree about that. But it -- A Okay. Q -- doesn't matter. Is it not a fact that all of those are on appeal at the moment?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 102 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
102 |\n| 1 | A
I'm not sure about that.
I thought that the plaintiffs |\n| 2 | were dropping out or, at least in our case, that they were |\n| 3 | trying to drop out.
So I -- so the answer is I don't know. |\n| 4 | Q
Okay.
But it's fair to say that in all of those cases, |\n| 5 | whether it's two or three, that was handled by a law firm |\n| 6 | other than Paul Hastings, correct?
Davis Polk was counsel |\n| 7 | in one.
I forget who the counsel was in the other.
Isn't |\n| 8 | that a fact? |\n| 9 | A
Yes.
But that doesn't involve us, because Davis Polk |\n| 10 | is handling -- |\n| 11 | Q
But those were back in 2022, correct? |\n| 12 | A
I'm not so sure about that.
I think it was in 2023, |\n| 13 | actually. |\n| 14 | Q
So but it is your testimony as you sit here today, |\n| 15 | under oath, that that was one of the major reasons why you |\n| 16 | need an extension on these -- the disruption caused by that |\n| 17 | is one of the major reasons you need more time? |\n| 18 | A
No.
I wouldn't put (indiscernible) major.
It's one -- |\n| 19 | it's -- as I said during the direct, there's just tons of |\n| 20 | these events that occurred.
And that's one of them.
So I'm |\n| 21 | not going to say it's 50 percent of it or -- no, I can't put |\n| 22 | a percentage on it.
But it was certainly a massive |\n| 23 | distraction. |\n| 24 | Also, the protests were a massive distraction to deal |\n| 25 | with that.
They took the Court -- I think there was a full |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 103 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
103 |\n| 1 | week or maybe a seven-day evidentiary hearing, et cetera, et |\n| 2 | cetera.
It's a huge distraction from the work that should |\n| 3 | have gone on in this case. |\n| 4 | Q
And what were these protests, just in brief, because |\n| 5 | we're short on time? |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
I just want to know how all this is |\n| 7 | relevant at this point, Mr. Nealon.
You've had many |\n| 8 | questions that you've asked.
Your objection says that -- |\n| 9 | and you've established what you believe is your case on |\n| 10 | cross-examination that Trustee Despins has not met his |\n| 11 | burden with -- vis-a-vis your client.
So what's the point |\n| 12 | about asking about the protests at -- |\n| 13 | MR. NEALON:
Okay.
That's fine, Your Honor.
I |\n| 14 | know we're short on time, so I'll move on. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 16 | BY MR. NEALON: |\n| 17 | Q
Just a couple more questions for you, and I'll be done. |\n| 18 | Now, you mentioned that one of your concerns, Trustee |\n| 19 | Despins, was that my client frequently visits Miles Guo in |\n| 20 | prison.
Is that correct? |\n| 21 | A
It's a concern, but it's a fact. |\n| 22 | Q
Okay.
Has that obstructed your ability to investigate |\n| 23 | avoidance actions that might be available to the trustee? |\n| 24 | A
The visit in itself is wonderful.
He's going there for |\n| 25 | the right reason.
The question is, is he going there to get |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 104 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
104 |\n| 1 | instructions from the debtor about what to convey to the |\n| 2 | team outside of prison, is really the issue.
Which time |\n| 3 | will tell exactly what went on there. |\n| 4 | Q
Okay.
But you have no specific evidence that he has |\n| 5 | gotten any instructions to hide assets or do any other |\n| 6 | things as you sit here today, do you? |\n| 7 | A
I'm not going to share.
That's work product.
That's |\n| 8 | ongoing. |\n| 9 | Q
Well, okay.
I don't agree with that.
But a final |\n| 10 | question here.
So is it your belief -- your -- well, strike |\n| 11 | the question.
Mr. Zhang, you're aware that he is the |\n| 12 | immigration lawyer who's trying to process a political |\n| 13 | asylum request by Miles Guo, correct? |\n| 14 | A
No, I don't agree with that.
He filed a notice of |\n| 15 | appearance in the immigration case, but the immigration case |\n| 16 | was handled by a famous immigration firm, Wildes & Weinberg. |\n| 17 | And, actually, the gentleman passed away recently.
It was |\n| 18 | very sad.
But that's that immigration lawyer. |\n| 19 | But that appearance in that case allows Zhang to go to |\n| 20 | prison and not have his conversations with the debtor |\n| 21 | recorded. |\n| 22 | Q
Okay.
And you don't know what those communications |\n| 23 | are, obviously, correct? |\n| 24 | A
We've been through this already.
I am not going to |\n| 25 | give you what our work product (indiscernible). |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 105 of
170 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
105 |\n| 1 | MR. NEALON:
No further questions, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 3 | All right.
Attorney Bassett?
I don't know if |\n| 4 | Attorney Bassett has had a chance to look at the request |\n| 5 | that Attorney Evans made with regard to the declaration of |\n| 6 | the Rule of Law Foundation and the Rule of Law Society. |\n| 7 | MR. BASSETT:
We have, Your Honor.
You know, some |\n| 8 | of it is just innocuous attachments of pleadings that were |\n| 9 | filed on the docket. |\n| 10 | But I, unfortunately, can't agree that the |\n| 11 | entirety of the declaration (indiscernible) which contains |\n| 12 | representations about completeness of production, et cetera. |\n| 13 | So, unfortunately, I'm going to have to decline that |\n| 14 | request. |\n| 15 | MR. EVANS:
Your Honor, may I be heard on that? |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 17 | MR. EVANS:
I was unaware when we filed our |\n| 18 | objection that this was going to be taken as an evidentiary |\n| 19 | matter.
I'm not sure if it's assigned as a contested matter |\n| 20 | under the rules.
One of the primary objections, Your Honor, |\n| 21 | we had asserted in our objection here was that the trustee's |\n| 22 | motion was unsupported by declaration, affidavit, wasn't |\n| 23 | verified.
And then we made a point to make sure that we |\n| 24 | supported our objection with a declaration.
It's strictly |\n| 25 | factual as to my client's efforts to comply with a subpoena |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 106 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
106 |\n| 1 | that was attached -- the subpoenas that were served, the |\n| 2 | objections, email communications between the trustee's |\n| 3 | lawyers in regards to our efforts to comply with that |\n| 4 | subpoena, along the lines that other parties have argued to |\n| 5 | this Court.
That we have endeavored to comply.
There's no |\n| 6 | motion to compel. |\n| 7 | I think under the circumstances under which the |\n| 8 | motion -- the tolling motion was presented to this Court, it |\n| 9 | would be appropriate for the Court to take an affidavit in |\n| 10 | lieu of live testimony of a lawyer whose licensed and barred |\n| 11 | in New York City. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Attorney Basset, do you have any |\n| 13 | response? |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
I do, Your Honor.
Like I said, the |\n| 15 | declaration in many respects seeks to, I suppose, have the |\n| 16 | Court take notice of the subpoenas that the trustees served |\n| 17 | on the Rule of Law Foundation, responses and objections that |\n| 18 | were served on particular dates, et cetera.
Again, I don't |\n| 19 | have a problem with that. |\n| 20 | And to the extent that counsel is, you know, |\n| 21 | attempting to support his position factually that -- you |\n| 22 | know, that his client has not been the subject of any, you |\n| 23 | know, adverse orders by the Court with respect to discovery, |\n| 24 | et cetera, I think he can make that argument and showing, to |\n| 25 | the extent he thinks it is an accurate one, by simply |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 107 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 107 pointing the Court to the docket in this case. It's when this declaration, which is not subject to cross examination, there is no witness here to support it, starts saying that the Rule of Law Foundation has complied fully with all of their discovery obligations, they produced voluminous emails -- there are statements like that in the declaration that simply can't come in unrebutted. So I think we -- it was clear from our papers that this is a motion that we intended to make an evidentiary showing in support of. And that's what we are doing today. If counsel thought that he needed to make an evidentiary showing on behalf of the clients, you know, they should have done the same. So that's our view, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, what I would note for the record is that this motion is a motion for extension of time and/or statute of limitations, which under our local rules is not a contested matter. It does -- it is an exception to the contested matter procedure. It does not follow the contested matter procedure. And the trustee filed a motion to expedite the hearing on this motion, which is also not a contested matter under our local rules. It was -- both of those types of motion would appear on Appendix M to our local rules. And it says motions, applications that do not follow the contested matter procedure and may be scheduled for a hearing. And\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 108 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
108 |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | two of those motions are a motion for extension of time and |\n| 2 | a motion to expedite the hearing.
So I did not view this |\n| 3 | matter in connection with the filings made by the trustee as |\n| 4 | a contested matter, number one. |\n\n Number two, there is an order that was entered -- if you give me a moment, I will find it -- on January 19th, almost a month ago, ECF Number 2515, that granted the trustee's emergency motion for an entry of the order approving the form and manner of trustee's forthcoming tolling motion and scheduling the hearing on that. That order entered on January 19th, and that order has been in place since that time.\n\n No one has raised any issues. None of the objecting parties, until Attorney Evans, has raised any issues about putting forth evidence until today. The trustee indicated in the motion for which the order applies that they would establish the reason for their requested relief.\n\n So what I'm going to do, Attorney Evans, is I'm going to take a look at the declaration that you submitted, and I'll determine -- I have not looked at it other than to know it exists. And then I will determine whether or not I will consider it and, if I consider it, what weight I will give it. Okay?\n\nMR. EVANS: Understood. Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 109 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
109 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 2 | All right.
Attorney Bassett, would you like to |\n| 3 | make your closing argument on the legal and evidentiary |\n| 4 | issues related to the trustee's tolling motion? |\n| 5 | And then I, obviously, will let the objecting |\n| 6 | parties make a statement as well.
I'm going to say that, |\n| 7 | you know, we're going to have to be cognizant of time.
I |\n| 8 | understand that every objecting party should be able to make |\n| 9 | a statement, if they care to.
The overwhelming majority -- |\n| 10 | well, I shouldn't say that.
That's not fair, the |\n| 11 | overwhelming majority.
But the majority of objectors did |\n| 12 | cross-examine Trustee Despins.
But others reserved their |\n| 13 | right to speak.
So that's fine. |\n| 14 | So, Attorney Bassett, are you ready to proceed? |\n| 15 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, I was actually looking |\n| 16 | to determine whether I had any redirect testimony for the |\n| 17 | trustee and -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Oh, okay.
That's fair.
Go ahead |\n| 19 | then. |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, before Mr. Bassett does |\n| 21 | that, I was a bit confused, because counsel for Sotheby's |\n| 22 | said, oh, I may have some comments at the end.
I thought |\n| 23 | Sotheby's had been carved out of the order, so I -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
I didn't see any withdrawal of -- of |\n| 25 | their objection, though, Trustee Despins. |\n| | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 110 MR. DESPINS: I know, but I -- THE COURT: I did see an objection of the withdrawal by UBS, though. MR. DESPINS: No, I understand, Your Honor. But, obviously, they were carved out of the order. That was -- part of the deal is that they would go away if their -- THE COURT: I didn't look at your order, so I don't know. I mean, it was filed. But, Attorney Bassett and Attorney Brown, why don't you address that issue, please. MR. BASSETT: Sure. Your Honor, as I had said in my comments at the outset, we had understood, and I have emails in my inbox that I thought confirmed it, that we had resolved Sotheby's objection with revised language to the order, which I believe references them specifically, carves them out. They're no longer affected by it. So I don't understand there to be any basis for an objection or other comments by their counsel. If they do feel the need to object, then I think we would -- THE COURT: Well, let's let -- MR. BASSETT: I think we would need to revisit -- THE COURT: Why don't we hear from Attorney Brown? MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. BROWN: All right. And hearing some of the trustee's comments and Attorney Bassett's concerns, I -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 110 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 111 just that we didn't see anything. And we were working on it literally just, you know, moments before this hearing. So I -- you know, I would have figured I would (indiscernible). That's the only reason why I asked. Because as I was sitting here, I see complaint after complaint after complaint. So I wanted to make sure we did have a (indiscernible). I have no reason to believe, Attorney Bassett, you're not -- you're going -- THE COURT: Well, Attorney Brown, let me stop you right there. MR. BROWN: Okay. THE COURT: There is a revised proposed order that was filed on the docket. Have you not seen that? MR. BROWN: I'm going through it as we sat here, Your Honor. I didn't see it. Unless -- THE COURT: Well, it was put -- it was filed on the docket before the hearing today. And I'll tell you where it is if you give me a second. MR. BROWN: Okay. THE COURT: Actually, it was filed yesterday. MR. BROWN: I don't -- THE COURT: It was filed -- but it was filed at 10:20 last night, so I'll give you that. But it has been on the docket since 10:20 last night. It's ECF Number 2803. Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 111 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 112 And there's a -- the pages with the redline changes, which are pages 8 through 10 of the document, have language about your client in it. Let's see. What, the second page of the order, fourth ordered paragraph relates to UBS and Sotheby's. And look at those pages. You can see it in redline. MR. BROWN: Yep. I will just say there were emails which are related to this afternoon's discussion. So we -- it's not, I think, anything that holds up this hearing (indiscernible). I don't (indiscernible). THE COURT: Well, I need to know whether you agree to that. So I'm going to tell you to -- why don't you turn off your camera and go talk to people. And let's get that worked out. Okay? MR. BROWN: Thank you. THE COURT: One way or another. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, if I may, because it may be helpful for Attorney Brown. I have an email in my inbox from Meg Augustine, who I believe is his co-counsel -- THE COURT: Well, she's here. She -- Ms. Augustine, you're here, so -- MR. BROWN: Yeah, she's here. MR. BASSETT: -- at 12:05 p.m. just indicating that they were signed off on the language of the revised proposed order. So I just am a little confused. There was Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 112 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 113 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
113 |\n| 1 | a miscommunication. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Attorney Augustine? |\n| 3 | MR. BROWN:
That was today? |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I see that you're here. |\n| 5 | MS. AUGUSTINE:
Yes, Your Honor.
This is Mary |\n| 6 | Augustine at Sotheby's.
And I'm looking at the proposed |\n| 7 | order on the docket.
I think the confusion, which it's not |\n| 8 | really that important at this point, was that after that was |\n| 9 | filed there was still back and forth about whether the |\n| 10 | language was agreed upon.
And I can tell you, having read |\n| 11 | the order right now, it is agreed upon.
And we agreed to |\n| 12 | withdraw our objection based on this language. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Great.
Thank you very much. |\n| 14 | Then the objection 2584 is withdrawn on the record, and |\n| 15 | Sotheby's agrees with -- I'm not saying that the order -- |\n| 16 | you know, there aren't other issues if we have -- but the |\n| 17 | language in the order that the trustee submitted at 10:20 |\n| 18 | last night, ECF number 2803, is acceptable to Sotheby's, and |\n| 19 | that resolves their objection, which is now withdrawn on the |\n| 20 | record. |\n| 21 | All right.
So, Attorney Brown, you're all set. |\n| 22 | You don't need to worry about anything. |\n| 23 | MR. BROWN:
Thank you. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
All right.
So let's go back to you, |\n| 25 | Attorney Bassett.
You're correct.
If you'd like to ask, |\n| | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 114 redirect, you are entitled to do so. So go right ahead. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, I've actually decided that I don't think it will be necessary, so I'm happy to proceed with closing arguments. THE COURT: Okay. Then you go right ahead and proceed. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, the trustee's position is that the evidentiary record, which has been established not only by his testimony but by the record on the docket of this case over the past two years with thousands of docket entries, establishes that this -- establishes that if there was ever a case, Your Honor, in which equitable tolling for claims held by a chapter trustee is warranted, it is this one. The case law, Your Honor, that applies to this motion provides that a trustee, such as Attorney Despins, may equitably toll the statute of limitations if, despite all due diligence, he is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of his claim. That's the Valdez v. United States case we cite in our papers, Second Circuit, 2008. The case law bears out that there are two showings a trustee must make to obtain that release. The first is that he has acted with reasonable diligence during the time period that he seeks to have tolled. And second, that he Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 114 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 115 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 115 has proved that circumstances are so extraordinary that the doctrine should apply. That's the In Re Anderson case from Bankruptcy Court in Connecticut, District of Connecticut, 2020.\n\n Your Honor, the facts of this case, as established by the testimony and the record more generally, blow that standard out of the water. To be clear, on the first prong, whether the trustee has exercised reasonable diligence, it is just that: reasonable diligence. The case law has established, Supreme Court, the Holland v. Florida case, it is not maximum feasible diligence. That's a quote from the Supreme Court. It is not maximum feasible diligence. It is reasonable diligence.\n\n No one can credibly look at the record in this case, which the Court has lived through painstakingly at times, and possibly contend that this trustee has not acted reasonably diligently in trying to pursue his investigation and identify and timely pursue all claims that he holds. The trustee today demonstrated that through his testimony when he talked about all of the various work his team has performed, the hundreds of thousands of documents his team has tried to review, the difficulty in this -- in that process.\n\n It's not merely laying eyes on a document. It's getting the puzzle pieces together. The fact that the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 116 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 116 trustee may have had hundreds of thousands of documents for a long period of time, may have been able to have some people lay eyes on those documents, does not mean that the review and analysis and the investigation has concluded. Far from it. It is a puzzle and, in this case, a very complicated one given the financial affairs of this debtor, the web of shell companies, bank accounts, et cetera, that we have to sort through.\n\n You know, in fact, I think -- one thing that occurred to me as I was thinking about the hearing today is it's a bit ironic, too, to hear some of the parties here object as to the trustee's diligence. I just -- I think it's absolutely not credible. And one of the reasons for that is, as the Court well knows, you know, for the first year, at least, of this case, all you heard from the debtor and those who followed him and were perpetuating his protests across the globe is how overzealous the trustee was being. They can't have it both ways.\n\n This is a trustee who has obviously very passionately investigating claims, pursuing his investigations diligently, and there's no credible basis to contend otherwise.\n\n The second component of the standard that I mentioned at the outset, Your Honor, is whether there are extraordinary circumstances that justify equitable tolling\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 117 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
117 |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | in a particular situation.
I would submit, Your Honor, that |\n| 2 | the circumstances in this case are not only extraordinary, |\n| 3 | they are essentially the perfect storm of things that have |\n| 4 | happened, of circumstances that have not only slowed and |\n| 5 | delayed the trustee's investigation but at times have |\n| 6 | derailed it entirely and required him and his team to focus |\n| 7 | on work that has no real bearing on what he has been |\n| 8 | appointed to do. |\n\n To start with, and the trustee testified about this, this is a case where the trustee was appointed to oversee an estate that had effectively zero money. Zero money to fund the trustee's legal fees, zero money to fund additional expenses, zero money for the trustee to use to hire advisors who are necessary to complete his work. Yet on top of that, a debtor who prior to the case had been found to have been operating a shell game across the world to hide his assets from creditors by tucking them into the pockets of his family members and associates and shell companies across the world, a tangled web that the trustee has to investigate and get to the bottom of.\n\n You add on top of that the near constant obstruction, which despite the objecting parties' protestations to the contrary, the docket in this case and the Court's own experiences in this case make clear has happened repeatedly and over and over again. It's the\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 118 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
118 |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | debtor.
It's close family members, including Mei Guo, who's |\n| 2 | one of the objecting parties.
G Club, one of the objecting |\n| 3 | parties.
Have constantly delayed producing documents in |\n| 4 | response to Rule 2004, have altogether refused to produce |\n| 5 | categories of documents, have forced the trustee to come to |\n| 6 | the Court, filed motions to compel.
And even motions to |\n| 7 | compel, as the Court knows, were not complied with, forcing |\n| 8 | the trustee to bring motions for sanctions. |\n\n That has happened time and time again. I don't need to chronicle every instance, because it's right there on the docket, and this Court knows all of it all too well.\n\n In addition to that, we have the overlay of the criminal case, Your Honor. And, of course, that has caused complications for a variety of reasons, including that the debtor, his daughter, others involved in that case have asserted the Fifth Amendment when the trustee attempts to obtain testimony from them. The debtor, of course, has filed a motion to stay this bankruptcy case in its entirety, forcing the trustee and his attorneys to spend all kinds of time and effort in the criminal case.\n\n And then, finally, Your Honor, and this is what, among many, many other things, makes this case so unprecedented, is the worldwide harassment campaign that the debtor and his followers engaged in for months. I don't need to recount all of that for the Court, the vile and\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 119 of\n\n| | 170 | |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 | 119 |\n| 1 | disgusting images and signs outside of the trustee's office, | |\n| 2 | outside of his family members' homes and offices, outside of | |\n| 3 | PAX's offices and their counsel.
That required the trustee | |\n| 4 | and his counsel, including myself, to spend over a week | |\n| 5 | conducting a trial in this court to deal with those types of | |\n| 6 | issues instead of focusing on the investigation.
That's not | |\n| 7 | to mention the delay and obstruction, as set forth in the | |\n| 8 | testimony at that hearing, that the harassment was itself | |\n| 9 | causing. | |\n| | | |\n\n I cannot -- I'm not aware of, from all the case law we've looked at prior to this hearing, Your Honor, of any case that involves all of these different elements that set forth a truly extraordinary set of circumstances where you have people who are determined at every step of the way to prevent the trustee from conducting his investigation and delaying it in any way possible.\n\n And, Your Honor, when it comes to these two elements, to diligence and whether there are extraordinary circumstances, none of the objectors seriously argue otherwise. There are legal arguments, which I'll get to later, which are incorrect, that some of the objectors say, you know, you have to look at a case-by-case, entity-by-entity, or objector-by-objector analysis to figure out, you know, whether each party has engaged in particular obstructionist activities, et cetera. That's not a correct\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 120 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 120 articulation of the law. But what they really don't argue, none of them, is that, generally, the trustee has not acted diligently and that there are not overall extraordinary circumstances that have affected his ability to complete his investigation in a timely manner in this case. I won't go through all of the testimony and recount it for the Court, because the Court just heard it, about particular actions that have been taken by particular objecting parties. I do, however, want to briefly respond to some of the points that G Club's counsel was making during the trustee's testimony when he was, you know, trying, I think, to make the point that all G Club had done is complied with its rules -- with the rules of civil procedure and the federal rules of bankruptcy procedure and had not done anything to delay the trustee's investigation. I just want to reference, in response to that particular argument, the Court order granting the trustee's motion to compel as to G Club at ECF 1960 filed on June 28, 2023. This is a quote from that order: \"It is clear that the production of documents by G Club is several months overdue. The production of 300 documents in three weeks is not an encouraging sign, and an additional 60-day extension of time is not reasonable.\" That was in response to an extension request. Your Honor, the Court has already found that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 121 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
121 |\n| 1 | G Club delayed by several months in producing its documents, |\n| 2 | which necessarily delayed the trustee's investigation.
Your |\n| 3 | Honor, having no real ability to respond to the robust |\n| 4 | factual record established through the trustee's testimony, |\n| 5 | and the record more generally, that he's been diligent and |\n| 6 | that there have been extraordinary circumstances impeding |\n| 7 | his investigation, what we're left with is the legal |\n| 8 | arguments that all of the objectors, I think, uniformly |\n| 9 | raise, the primary one being that, in their view, this Court |\n| 10 | is incapable as a matter of law of entering an order tolling |\n| 11 | the statute of limitations before adversary complaints have |\n| 12 | been filed. |\n| 13 | Obviously, as the Court is aware from the papers, |\n| | |\n\n there has been much focus placed on Judge Tancredi's decision in the Walnut Hill case in this bankruptcy court from June 2018. We've addressed that decision in our papers, and I'll address it again, Your Honor.\n\n A few quick notes first. Although from another bankruptcy judge, a former bankruptcy judge in this district, that decision is not binding on this Court, of course. Second, there are a number of other decisions which we cite in our papers in which courts have, in fact, equitably tolled the statute of limitations prior to the expiration of the deadline and prior to the filing of complaints. These cases are listed in paragraph 30 of our\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 122 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 122 motion. One of those cases, which we spent some time discussing, of course, is the International Administrative Services case out of the Eleventh Circuit in 2005. That case, Your Honor, I think is highly relevant to the analysis before the Court today, because its facts are, in many ways -- I would say identical, but I think they are -- they share similarities, but they are far less extraordinary than the facts we have at issue here. This is from the Second -- from the Eleventh Circuit decision in that case. The Eleventh Circuit observed that the debtor there had engaged in a fraud and then had took steps to hide his assets in \"a tangled and complex web of multi-step international transactions.\" And then it described the trustee's investigation as \"The trustee began the unenviable task of unraveling the knotted trail of transfers. The trustee's ability to investigate the transfers was hampered by the debtor and his associates who, among other things, delayed document production, withheld discovery responses, and simply 'lost' records of the asset transfers. As a result, the trustee filed a motion to hold the debtor and his professionals assisting him in covering their tracks in contempt of court.\" Your Honor, that's just one aspect of the extraordinary circumstances and obstruction that this\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 123 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
123 |\n| 1 | trustee has faced in this case.
And yet, on that record, |\n| 2 | the court, in fact, extended the statute of limitations |\n| 3 | twice prior to the expiration of the deadline.
It did that |\n| 4 | both under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006 and |\n| 5 | based on the doctrine of equitable tolling. |\n| 6 | Now, Judge Tancredi, in the Walnut Hill case, he |\n| 7 | attempted to discredit that Eleventh Circuit decision on |\n| 8 | what he described as his reading of that decision, that the |\n| 9 | equitable tolling requested in that case did not occur until |\n| 10 | after the adversary proceeding was filed.
But I would |\n| 11 | submit if you look at the International Administrative |\n| 12 | Services decision, that is simply not the record.
That is |\n| 13 | not how that case transpired. |\n| 14 | In fact, as I said before, the request to toll the |\n| 15 | statute of limitations to extend it beyond the initial |\n| 16 | deadline was made twice prior to the expiration of the |\n| 17 | deadline and granted by the court.
The Eleventh Circuit |\n| 18 | separately analyzed equitable tolling in its decision.
But, |\n| 19 | again, it does not affect the fact that that decision was |\n| | |\n\n one in which equitable tolling was granted on a prospective basis.\n\n Now, the objectors argue that, well, look, why does it matter? Why can't the trustee just file his complaints and then seek equitable tolling after the fact? Your Honor, you heard from the trustee why that doesn't\n\nwork.\n\n And the reason it doesn't work is because of the sheer volume of additional investigative tasks before the trustee and his need to pour resources into those tasks at significant cost and expense to the estate. This is not a situation where the trustee only has one or two leads that he needs to run down, and he can do that and then seek equitable tolling as to those claims later. This is a situation where the trustee has all kinds of things that he continues to need to investigate and things he needs to start investigating from scratch, because he hasn't had the opportunity to get all the discovery prior to the deadline that he needs.\n\n What all that means is that this is an extraordinarily large undertaking and an extraordinarily expensive one. And what these objectors are asking the trustee to do is to force this estate to bear all of the costs of investigating, of pursuing that investigation, not having any clarity and any certainty as to whether or not those claims will, in fact, be -- whether the statute of limitations governing those claims will, in fact, be tolled.\n\n In addition, what the trustee is asking for is a breathing spell, Your Honor, of six months through -- I believe it's August 15th, to try to complete his investigation and pursue additional claims. What the\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 124\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 125 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 125 objectors are asking for is for the Court to not allow that to happen. And the result would be the trustee is essentially forced to operate for every day after February 15th that he's conducting his investigation and trying to find additional claims with, essentially, a gun to his head where he has to finish that investigation as fast as he possibly can or else any party who argues that the statute of limitations has lapsed on claims that he brings is going to say he didn't bring them fast enough.\n\n That is unfair and inequitable to the trustee and to this estate under these circumstances where he's been unable to complete his investigation the way he needs to prior to the deadline. He is entitled to an additional period to finish his investigation, the investigation that he should have been able to complete prior to the deadline absent the extraordinary circumstances that existed. And it's a modest six-month extension that he's looking for.\n\n The second major legal argument that several of the objectors raised, Your Honor, that I want to address briefly is the argument which you've heard -- or you saw previewed time and time again during cross-examination, and that's the argument that equitable tolling as against particular defendants is not appropriate because they claim that their particular defendants or potential defendants or objectors did not themselves engage in any obstruction or\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 126 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 126 other behavior contributing to the circumstances that prevented the trustee from completing his investigation. And that argument, Your Honor, fails on two bases. First, as the record has demonstrated, with respect to the lion's share, if not all, of the defendants, that's just factually wrong. The defendants have either been directly involved in failing to timely produce documents, to providing testimony under oath that turned out to be inaccurate in the case of Mei Guo, to being held in a contempt of court, which is the case for several of the defendants, to being members of the creditors committee with which the Court is familiar. That's just simply not true factually.\n\n But legally, Your Honor, more importantly, it's irrelevant. And I think the Taurus Funds spend a lot of time in their objection citing to case law which they suggest stands for the proposition that it is the defendants or the potential defendants at issue who has to have engaged in wrongful conduct. And they even cite a case saying that it's sort of unsettled in some jurisdictions as to whether the conduct needs to be on behalf or brought by the particular defendant or not.\n\n I don't think there's any dispute that it doesn't, Your Honor. And the case that I would direct the Court to is the Second Circuit's decision in the Valdez case from\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 127 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
127 |\n| 1 | 2008, which we cite in our reply papers at paragraph 20.
I |\n| 2 | think that decision removes any doubt as to the standard and |\n| 3 | as to whether or not the trustee on a motion for equitable |\n| 4 | tolling has to show some sort of wrongful conduct on behalf |\n| 5 | of each of the potential defendant parties.
And what the |\n| 6 | Court said in that case was \"Equitable tolling permits a |\n| 7 | plaintiff to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations if, |\n| 8 | despite all due diligence, he is unable to obtain vital |\n| 9 | information bearing on the existence of his claim. |\n| 10 | Equitable tolling is frequently confused both with |\n| 11 | fraudulent concealment on the one hand and with the |\n| 12 | discovery rule governing accrual on the other.
It differs |\n| 13 | in that the former\" -- sorry.
The accrual prong of the |\n| 14 | analysis differs from the former, i.e. fraudulent consumer, |\n| 15 | in that it does not assume a wrongful or any effort by the |\n| 16 | defendant to prevent the plaintiff from suing. |\n| 17 | The court then goes on and says, \"Because |\n\n equitable tolling is often confused with fraudulent concealment, cases may be found holding that equitable tolling applies where the defendants have engaged in such concealment. Nevertheless, we,\" i.e. the Second Circuit, \"have held explicitly that the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling is not limited to such cases.\"\n\n So, Your Honor, there is no requirement that the defendants at issue be the ones who have engaged in\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 128 of\n\n| 170 | | | | | | | | |\n|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
128 | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | concealment of information, obstruction of justice, et | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | cetera.
What is relevant is whether there are extraordinary | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | circumstances generally that have presented -- have | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | prevented, rather, the trustee from completing his | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | investigation in general and pursuing claims against any | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | parties, including the parties who are objecting. | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | With that, Your Honor, the last point I would make | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | is that there's -- two things.
First of all, there's a lot | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | of mention in several of the objections to the number of | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | parties who would be affected by this motion and efforts by | | | | | | | |\n\n the objecting parties to assert their rights and sort of make arguments on behalf of parties who are not here objecting today. I don't think there should be any reasonable dispute about this, although from some of the papers it appears there might be.\n\n But the parties who are here today objecting can assert their rights and only their rights. They have no ability to appear and object on behalf of other parties. And the consequence of that, Your Honor, is that even if the Court were inclined to sustain any of the objections of the objecting parties, which we don't think it should, that would not affect the ability of the Court to grant the motion as to all other parties who have not appeared and have not objected.\n\nLastly, again, if the Court were inclined to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 129 of\n\n| | 170 | | | | | | | | | |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
129 | | | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | sustain any of the objections, which the trustee does not | | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | think it should be, I think it goes without saying that that | | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | would have to be without prejudice to the trustee's ability | | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | to seek equitable tolling in the future.
Although, for all | | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | the reasons I've said, we think that the law supports it now | | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | and the record before the Court supports it now as well. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | That's all I had, Your Honor, unless the Court has | | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | any questions. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
No, I have no questions. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | Thank you. | | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | Okay.
Mr. Della Fera, would you like to make a | | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | closing statement on behalf of the objection that was filed | | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | on behalf of Mei Guo? | | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | MR. DELLA FERA:
Yes, Your Honor.
Thank you.
Of | | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | course, we will rely primarily on our -- on the arguments in | | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | our filed objection, but just to supplement briefly there, | | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | there is little, if any, dispute that equitable tolling is | | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | available if this two-part test that the Court has heard | | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | much about is satisfied, i.e. extraordinary circumstances | | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | and reasonable diligence.
Contrary to trustee's counsel's | | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | argument, however, with respect to reasonable diligence, | | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | Ms. Guo does contest the reasonableness of the trustee's | | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | failure, for example, to retain a forensic accountant until | | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | 13 or 14 months after his appointment, apparently primarily | | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | because the potential forensic accountants had the temerity | | | | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 130 of\n\n| | 170 | | | | | | | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
130 | | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | to seek pari-passu treatment as administrative expense | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | creditors with the trustee and his firm. | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | Be that as it may, there is a dispute as to when | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | that two-part test should be applied.
We submit that that | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | test should only be applied to specific claims when they are | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | asserted, after they are asserted, and when the parties | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | against whom those claims are asserted are known. | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | Picking up on a point that Mr. Sklarz made during | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | the hearing, no amount of testimony, Your Honor, can | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | authorize this Court to do what the law does not authorize | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | it to do.
And what the trustee is asking the Court to do | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | today is to find and to enter essentially a declaratory | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | judgment against every individual and corporate entity on | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | the planet that today the trustee has made an adequate, | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | equitable argument to excuse his filing of presently unknown | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | avoidance actions against presently unknown defendants for, | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | you know, up to six months from now, by the way.
And we | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | submit that the Court should not grant that relief. | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | Although the requested relief is not | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | unprecedented, it is extraordinary.
And as Judge Tancredi | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | explained in Walnut Hill, and Your Honor has read enough | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | about that and probably knows enough about it anyway, it | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | finds no support -- that relief finds no support in the | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | Bankruptcy Code, the bankruptcy rules, or in the ideals of | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | due process. | | | | | | | | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 131 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 131 The trustee ignores the declaratory judgment nature of the relief requested, as well as the fact that he is not prejudiced in the least if the relief requested is denied. Like other trustees, he may have to impair costs to pursue claims. But, frankly, Your Honor, if equity dictates after those claims are asserted that the trustee should not be permitted to assert those claims due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, well, if equity doesn't support the relief at that time, it certainly doesn't support it up to six months prior to that time, which is the trustee's request.\n\n The trustee goes so far as to say in his motion papers that he would be left with no recourse if the extraordinary relief he seeks is denied. And he knows better than that, Your Honor. He knows that he retains the ability after avoidance actions are filed -- to the extent, by the way, a statute of limitations defense is raised, he retains the ability at that time to seek equitable relief, likely from this Court, based on the actual and demonstrable facts and circumstances associated with that specific claim against that specific defendant.\n\n There is no prejudice, at least no material prejudice, to the trustee or the estate if the motion is denied. And we respectfully request that the Court deny the motion. Thank you, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 132 of\n\n| | 170 | | | | | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
132 | | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Thank you. | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | Attorney Mateo, did you wish to make a closing | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | argument on behalf of your client, Mr. Cao? | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | MS. MATEO:
Yes, Your Honor. | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | MS. MATEO:
We join in Mr. Della Fera's argument. | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | The tolling motion is a thinly veiled request for a | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | declaratory judgment that the trustee can equitably toll the | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | statutory deadline for filing avoidance actions, carte | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | blanche, as against hundreds of potential defendants without | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | any case or controversy before the Court.
Nothing justifies | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | the imposition of such a blanket extension. | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | The trustee's counsel refers to this additional | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | six months as a \"breathing spell,\" but his counsel ignores | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | the cost to due process to -- of hundreds of potential | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | defendants.
Aside from listing the names of what appear to | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | be any and all entities and associates with any connection | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | to the debtor, no matter how remote, the tolling motion is | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | noticeably silent on the specifics of what claims the | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | trustee intends to bring and specifically against whom.
The | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | trustee referred to it as casting a wide net, and that it | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | is. | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | And as you heard from the trustee directly, six | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | months is not the most that he may seek, testifying that he | | | | | | | | |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nmay seek additional extensions in the future. To justify\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2947 | Filed 02/22/24 | Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 | Page 133 of | | | |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|--|--|--|\n| 170 | | | | | | | |\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
133 | | | | | | |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | his acts now, the trustee conflates Federal Rules of | | | | | | |\n| 2 | Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 9006(b) and the doctrine of | | | | | | |\n| 3 | equitable tolling.
Neither authorizes the trustee's | | | | | | |\n| 4 | requested extension. | | | | | | |\n\n First, Rule 9006(b) cannot be used to extend statutory deadlines. As Walnut Hill and its progeny confirm, judicial modification of substantive deadlines established by Congress would violate the separation of powers preserved in the Constitution (indiscernible) the legislature has spoken authoritatively, it is not within the province of the judiciary to modify its determination. And even assuming that Rule 9006(b) could be used to extend the Section 546(a) deadline or any other of the statutory deadlines, such an enlargement would be inappropriate on the facts as against Mr. Cao because the decision to enlarge a deadline under Rule 9006(b) must be for \"cause shown,\" and the trustee has not demonstrated any basis that justifies extending the deadline to file an avoidance action against Mr. Cao.\n\n The trustee seeks to paint a broad stroke when describing the objectors, as well as the other potential defendants, claiming that all the objectors have been complicit in their efforts to obstruct and delay the trustee's investigation. But as you heard today from the questioning from the objectors' counsel, that is certainly Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 134 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 134 not the case with many of the objectors and definitely not the case with regard to the hundreds of potential defendants that have been served with this motion.\n\n As Your Honor learned from my cross-examination, Trustee Despins has virtually no knowledge of my client and did not challenge, because he can't, that Mr. Cao has fully cooperated with the trustee since first being served with the Rule 2004 subpoena. For one, Mr. Cao voluntarily accepted service of the Rule 2004 subpoena. He timely served written responses and produced documents. And he sat for more than seven hours for a deposition on October 20, 2023. Unlike what Mr. Despins' counsel claims, Mr. Cao did not plead the fifth, and he did not refuse to answer any questions substantively.\n\n Further highlighting the lack of diligence by the trustee, he has never sought any additional information from Mr. Cao following his deposition. Highlighting Mr. Cao's cooperation, on the other hand, at no point has Mr. Cao attempted to quash any of the Rule 2004 subpoenas seeking information from him or about him, and in no way has wasted the trustee's time, money, or resources with any motion practice or by filing litigation against the trustee, as the trustee claims that others have allegedly done.\n\n This is yet another example of how the trustee is attempting to leverage allegedly obstructive behavior by a\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 135 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
135 |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | few others to trample on the rights of hundreds of potential |\n| 2 | defendants.
Alternatively, the trustee availed himself of |\n| 3 | the equitable tolling doctrine to warrant his extension. |\n| 4 | While statutory deadlines are subject to equitable tolling, |\n| 5 | any such arguments are procedurally premature at this |\n| 6 | juncture, as there are no actual identified defendants and |\n| 7 | no pending adversary proceedings ripe for consideration. |\n\n As the case law makes abundantly clear, the Court can only properly consider whether equitable tolling is appropriate after a belated adversary proceeding is commenced and a statute of limitations defense is asserted. This is logical, since application of equitable tolling requires a fact-based assessment. Indeed, the Court would need to analyze whether the trustee, despite his diligence, was unable to commence the action against that defendant due to extraordinary circumstances.\n\n The trustee does not dispute this in his motion, even though he claims to do so today. He concedes in paragraph 45 of his opening brief that \"Equitable tolling must be decided on a case-by-case basis.\" That's exactly what Walnut Hill says is required, and only after filing an adversary proceeding, knowing the claims, knowing the defendant, and knowing the trustee's diligence with regard to those claims.\n\nThe trustee's lack of diligence was further\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 136 of\n\n| | 170 | | | | | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
136 | | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | confirmed when we served the trustee with discovery requests | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | seeking documents and information as to any other | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | investigation into Mr. Cao since his deposition.
And we did | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | that in connection with this tolling motion.
The trustee | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | merely responded with broad and improper objections and | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | pointed us back to Mr. Cao's deposition transcript and | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | documents that we produced to the trustee four months ago. | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | That is because the trustee has been sitting on his hands | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | for months, and now, seeing the impending deadline, wants | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | the Court to preemptively excuse his negligence by giving | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | him an additional six months to do what he should have been | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | doing since his appointment. | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | |\n\n That is not diligence and is certainly not what is required for equitable tolling. The trustee vaguely claims that forcing him to have to meet the relevant standard for equitable tolling only after filing an adversary proceeding, which is exactly what the law requires, will prejudice him, because he may not be able to make the requisite showing then and may waste resources. But if the trustee is unable to make that showing then, when the claims are more crystallized and the defendants are known, it is inappropriate to give the trustee a blank check now with no known claims or actual defendants on the basis that equitable tolling justifies that.\n\nFor the reasons explained and discussed further in\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 137 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
137 |\n| 1 | our opposition, as well as the other arguments that the |\n| 2 | objectors will make in their closing arguments, Mr. Cao |\n| 3 | respectfully requests that the Court deny the tolling |\n| 4 | motion.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 6 | All right.
Moving to DBS Bank.
Attorney Weiner? |\n| 7 | I might be mispronouncing your name.
I'm not sure if you |\n| 8 | pronounced it -- |\n| 9 | MS. WEINER:
No.
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | Genevieve Weiner.
Thank you.
And, yes, I'll be very brief. |\n| 11 | As noted, we did just file a reservation of |\n| 12 | rights.
And just two points to clarify quickly.
There's |\n| 13 | been a number of references throughout the hearing today |\n| 14 | referring to sort of the objecting parties sort of lumped |\n| 15 | together.
And I don't think this is meant to refer to DBS, |\n| 16 | which, again, just filed a reservation of rights.
But just |\n| 17 | noting for the record that DBS Bank has been cooperating |\n| 18 | with the trustee.
And this has been noted in two consensual |\n| 19 | continuances, which are at Docket Numbers 2438 and 2517. |\n| 20 | And then very briefly, and I'm hoping this is |\n| 21 | non-controversial, we had one requested change to the second |\n| 22 | proposed order which was filed last night.
And this is |\n| 23 | consistent with our reservation of rights.
Right now, the |\n| 24 | order says that the ordered extension, the new defined term, |\n| 25 | which date may be further extended.
I'm quoting there.
We |\n| | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 138 would just ask that that be clarified that it can only be further extended after notice and a hearing. So we should all be before Your Honor again if there is going to be further continuances or extensions. THE COURT: You're looking at the order that was submitted, was the second ordered paragraph on the second page? MS. WEINER: Yeah. Yes, Your Honor. Well, I was looking at the redlines. I'm looking at page 9 of the PDF at 28 -- THE COURT: Yeah. No, I'm looking at the same page. It's just the second page of the order is what I'm saying. MS. WEINER: Correct. Yes. THE COURT: In the second ordered paragraph where you're saying which date may be further extended, you're saying it should say after notice and a hearing? MS. WEINER: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I just -- I'm making a note that that's what you are requesting. MS. WEINER: Okay. I appreciate that. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, we have no issue with that. It's very reasonable. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MS. WEINER: And that's it. Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 138 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 139 THE COURT: All right. Anything further? Okay. All right. Great. Thank you very much. Then we will move on to Mr. Conway for Taurus Fund. Do you have a closing statement that you'd like to make, Attorney Conway? MR. CONWAY: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. Michael Conway for Taurus Fund, LLC. I'm not going to get into the case law. It's cited in our brief. It's been discussed by a lot of folks here today. I know we're short of time. But I do want to just point out that one of the reasons why the Walnut Hill case comes down the way it does is that that's the way the statutes are written. That's the way every court and almost universally around the country has interpreted these statutes. The reason is to protect from the very problem we have here. And that is -- and there's been no case cited by the trustee that comes anywhere close to this case. This case has what is estimated to be more than 900 potential defendants. We don't know how many potential defendants there really are. And we have a handful of situations where there may have been folks during the course of the last two years who have not been complying with discovery requests. There is no way of knowing whether, one, any of Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 139 of\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 140 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
140 |\n| 1 | those potential defendants have been obstructing the |\n| 2 | trustee's investigation or, two, whether any of the people |\n| 3 | who were obstructing the trustee's investigation result -- |\n| 4 | caused the result of them not being able to bring a case |\n| 5 | against these hundreds and hundreds of possible defendants. |\n| 6 | And the reason we don't know that, we don't know who the |\n| 7 | defendants are or what the claims are.
We would know that |\n| 8 | if they followed the correct procedure, which is file the |\n| 9 | claims and then deal with the equitable tolling defense as |\n| 10 | part of that case. |\n| 11 | You know, and the trustee says, well, we don't |\n| 12 | want to run the risk here.
You know, what if we get there |\n| 13 | six months down the road and find out that Your Honor |\n\n doesn't believe that what we had for a defense is sufficient? Well, you know what? It's the same today as it is six months from now.\n\n And right now, what we don't know in order to dispute this motion is what it is they -- you know, they claim that these hundreds of defendants did to obstruct. And I would guess that most of them did zero. There's been little evidence.\n\n There's just -- the evidence that was presented on behalf of my clients consisted of, well, we found out that Mr. Barnett's name was on title to a motorcycle. Well, he didn't do anything to obstruct you from doing your\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 141 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 141 investigation. That's not the same thing. You know, and you've already got a claim against my clients. So, you know, you could have amended if you thought there was a claim based on the fact that he had his name on the title to a motorcycle. You could have amended well before the statute of limitations came away, which obviously doesn't come for another couple of days. But the fact of the matter is, this is the same problem that everybody has. And I wanted to respond to a comment by, you know, Mr. Bassett, but also Mr. Wander. I wasn't sure why he was making this argument when he was questioning the trustee. But there is no law that -- or case or statute that says that if Your Honor decides this motion is inappropriate with respect to one defendant, it can find it appropriate with respect to everybody else. It's an all or nothing deal here. Either they have a valid motion to extend or they don't. The law doesn't say you can pick and choose when to violate the law. Either this can be extended as to everybody or it can be extended as to nobody. And the fact that there are only 10 people or 12 people or 14 people who file objections is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that most of these people probably have no idea we're here today. And the reason that Your Honor is -- you know, has precedent and case law and\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2947 | Filed 02/22/24 | Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 | Page 142 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n| | | | | |\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
142 |\n| 1 | statutes to rely on is because, you know, it's your job to |\n| 2 | protect these folks that don't know that we're here today. |\n| 3 | And so it's not fair to say, oh, well, you know |\n| 4 | what, they could have been here and they weren't.
And, |\n| 5 | therefore, I'm going to just sort of tweak the statute here |\n| 6 | and say I can extend it.
That's just not the way it works. |\n| 7 | And I just wanted to make that clear, because both |\n| 8 | Mr. Bassett and it sounded like Mr. Wander thought that you |\n| 9 | could do that on a case-by-case basis. |\n| 10 | That's all I have to say. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 12 | Attorney Sklarz for G Club? |\n| 13 | MR. SKLARZ:
Thank you.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | To be clear, this is a motion that has never been |\n| 15 | presented to any court that I can possibly find.
Over 900 |\n| 16 | people, according to Trustee Despins, this applies to.
The |\n| 17 | IAS case or IBT case, whatever you want to call it, applied |\n| 18 | to two defendants, not 900. |\n| 19 | Both the Court -- and I concede that, perhaps, me |\n| 20 | standing on a soapbox representing G Club looking out to |\n| 21 | protect other people may or may not be relevant.
But |\n| 22 | certainly, the U.S. Trustee has that obligation.
And |\n| 23 | certainly, the Court has an obligation to look at that. |\n| 24 | So I commend the Court to consider the |\n| 25 | extraordinary motion.
This is a class action extension of |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 143 time motion to change a statute of limitations written by Congress. There are constitutional ramifications. There are statutory ramifications. And there are rules interpretations here. First, Stern vs. Marshall says that private rights of actions, which are avoidance actions -- all avoidance actions are Stern claims. Wellness says that. Executive Benefits says that. Hundreds of cases in the Madoff case say that. It's not controversial. These are all Stern claims. To extend a Stern claim, you certainly can't just ignore Stern. So first of all, the Court, I believe -- I believe it's correct that the Court would have to write reports and recommendations, and then this matter would need to be considered by the district court. These are clearly private rights of actions. There's no such thing as a public rights claim under Chapter 5. The one exception I possibly may have found is 502(d) claims. There is one case that says 502(d) claims may be public rights claims. But that's not at issue here. We're talking about fraudulent transfer actions. I saw some 549 actions and possibly some preference actions, but no public rights claims. Second, we need to look at the enabling act that Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 143 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 144 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
144 |\n| 1 | created the bankruptcy rules.
Again, during my |\n| 2 | cross-examination of the trustee, we spoke -- we -- I |\n| 3 | mentioned there are two primary bases for tolling.
One is |\n| 4 | the rule, 9006, and one is the concept of equitable tolling. |\n| 5 | Turning first to the rule.
28 U.S.C. 2075 is the |\n| 6 | enabling act, and it says such rules shall not abridge, |\n| 7 | enlarge, or modify any substantive right.
The IAS case is |\n| 8 | the only case that has addressed Rule -- Rule 9006 and said |\n| 9 | you can use that to toll.
However, that court doesn't even |\n| 10 | look at the enabling act.
That court doesn't consider the |\n| 11 | arguments raised in Walnut Hill.
It just assumes without |\n| 12 | analyzing the issue.
It only cites Rule 9006, I think, four |\n| 13 | times.
And, moreover, Rule 2000 -- I'm sorry, 28 U.S.C. |\n| 14 | 2075 is not even reviewed. |\n| 15 | Congress has -- legislatures are very capable of |\n| 16 | giving courts authority to extend statutes of limitations. |\n| | |\n\n legislature affords a court -- the Superior Court the ability to extend the statute of limitations upon petition for med mal action.\n\nOne example from our brief is that the Connecticut\n\n Let's think about if this case was upstairs in district court as opposed to in bankruptcy court. We'd be operating under Rule 6. The Second Circuit has held Rule 6 -- Rule 6(a) is a rule of procedure relating to acts done or proceedings had after commencement of the action and any\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 145 statute expressly applicable to such proceedings. It is not intended to modify and change existing statutes of limitations. And that's the Dining Car Employees case, 157 F.2d 417, pinpoint site 420. It's a 1946 case that's still good law. And here's two additional citations. THE COURT: Are these cites in your brief? MR. SKLARZ: No. These are in response to the reply that doesn't -- trustee's reply doesn't really address our argument on the enabling act or our Rule 6 district court argument. Ward v. Hudson City Department of Corrections, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147383, page 11, note 4. And that's a District of New Jersey case from 2015. And In Re Vermont Knitting Company 98 B.R. 184, page 186, note 2. And that's a District of Vermont case, 1989. And they both cite the Dining Car case. Again, let's think about this. If the trustee walked into Judge Bolden's chamber upstairs and said I'm filing a class action lawsuit to extend the statute of limitations for a fraudulent transfer action, that wouldn't even be a case that anyone would consider legitimate. There's just no analog outside of this action. There's no district court case that I could find that consider this Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 145 of\n\n| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 2947 | Filed 02/22/24
170 | Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 | Page 146 of |\n|---------------|--|-----------------|-----------------------|---------------------------------|-------------|\n| | | | | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 | 146 |\n| 1 | | type of ruling. | | | |\n\n And again, remember, we're not talking extensions to one or two recalcitrant defendants. We're talking hundreds and hundreds of people who, as counsel just indicated, could be anyone in the world.\n\n Now, the cases -- and it's not just Judge Tancredi's case in Walnut Hill. It's Judge Krechevsky's case in Damage (ph). There, he looked at extending the statute of limitations. Actually, that was under public rights before that concept existed in bankruptcy law. It talked -- Damage addressed extending lease assumption. And he said you can't extend that statute of limitations. There's a statute of limitations. The statute applies. You can't use Rule 9006 to move it.\n\n So IAS is the only thing they have to rely on. And that case doesn't analyze the issue. It just assumes it in its two parties.\n\n Now, turning to the equitable tolling argument, the other ground for extension. The Second Circuit is very clear here. The term \"extraordinary\" does not refer to the uniqueness of a party's circumstance, but rather to the severity of the obstacle impeding compliance with limitations period. And that's from a case called Harper, 648 F.3d 132, page 137, Second Circuit, 2011. And there's a number of cases that specifically\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 147 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
147 | |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | say limited financial means are not extraordinary.
In fact, | |\n| 2 | in a case called Djurdjevich, a 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS case, | |\n| 3 | 223295, at page 16, the court -- the Southern District held | |\n| 4 | \"The law is clear that lack of education, limited financial | |\n| 5 | means, and ignorance of the law are not extraordinary | |\n| 6 | circumstances that justify equitable tolling.\" | |\n\n So here, there is no causation between the diligence and the extraordinary circumstances. And the diligence needs to be throughout the period. It can't just be once we got money we could hire Kroll, because we wanted to make sure we got paid before everybody. Attorney Bassett gave his number one reason for extraordinary circumstances, no money. Limited financial means are not extraordinary circumstances.\n\n Now, finally, the trustee could have filed this motion months ago. It is not fair to Your Honor and to the parties here that we're doing this two days before the statute of limitations run. There was a status report given, I think, in September/October time frame indicating that this motion was coming. And now we're here two days before statute of limitations dealing with it.\n\n I can't remember the wise man that once said someone's delay is not everybody else's emergency, or some version of that. This emergency could have been averted. We could have had a proper evidentiary hearing. We could\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 148 have had a proper briefing schedule. We could have had proper -- more time to consider this. This is extraordinarily relief. Never been done as far as I can tell. We were then handed 132 exhibits. Actually, not handed 132 exhibits. We were handed a list of 132 exhibits, some of which we can't even access, about 24 hours before the hearing. There was no reason to create this level of fire drill. Due process has to matter. Due process for the objectors, but also due process for the process. Now, lastly, addressing counsel's suggestion that in ECF 1960, in June of '23, that G Club delayed on several matters. We've complied. The Court has ruled, and we have followed the Court's ruling. I do not -- and counsel is right. There doesn't have to -- this is not a claim for fraudulent concealment. This is a claim for equitable tolling. They know everything they need to know about G Club. They said they're going to sue us, so I guess they're going to sue us. But this case is not like IBT. This case is -- has no reason for it to have played out this way. And the Court should deny this motion, because it's simply constitutionally improper. There's no statutory basis to grant the relief, and the relief is unnecessary. Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 148 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 149 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 149 They have to show it on a particular basis with respect to each claim. There's no such thing as class-action relief for equitable tolling. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Attorney Sklarz. Attorney Evans? Is Attorney Evans still with us, or did he leave? MR. EVANS: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. Attorney Sklarz broke up there at the end. Can the Court hear me okay? THE COURT: Yes, I can hear you fine. Go right ahead. Can you not hear us? MR. EVANS: I can now. It just came back. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. MR. EVANS: I'll be brief, Your Honor. Thank you. And I'm not going to repeat the arguments in our objection and those other objections that have been made here, which urge the Court to deny the tolling motion on the basis that the Court does not have the authority to issue a prospective blanket tolling order, whether under Rule 9006(b) or under the equitable tolling doctrine. I just wanted to focus the Court for just a brief moment on just the unfairness, the unfairness to a party like my client who, despite, I think, what Attorney Bassett had opened up about, said that we're, as an objecting party,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 150 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
150 |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | someone who's recognized by this Court has been involved in |\n| 2 | this case.
That's really not true.
And as Your Honor |\n| 3 | knows, this is the first time I've appeared before the Court |\n| 4 | on this case.
We haven't been involved.
There's been |\n| 5 | (indiscernible) filings.
And the trustee supports his |\n| 6 | motion.
We know very little about the case. |\n\n And so my objection, primarily, that I want to focus the Court on goes really to process, the process of a party like the Rule of Law entities not having a meaningful opportunity to defend the motion. We were entitled to go through no discovery on the assertions in the trustee's motion. As I indicated earlier, it's not supported by an affidavit or declaration.\n\n Normally, the way affidavits would happen, and other parties have alluded to this, is the statute of limitations gets pled as an affirmative defense, and then the trustee would, I guess, assert as a matter of avoidance in the adversary proceeding that there's been -- there's some grounds for equitable tolling. In that case, the party would be entitled to discovery, specific discovery on whether equitable tolling applies to that case.\n\n Be seeking it in this context prior to filing of the adversary proceeding, a client like Rule of Law entities who've not been involved at all, we -- we're deprived of any opportunity to rebut any of the testimony offered by the\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 151 trustee today. I learned a lot about what's going on in this case from the trustee's testimony, all of which was information not known to me before. We have -- from my client's perspective, we have to accept it as true for purposes of the motion, because I have no way to meaningfully cross-examine him on whether his assertions are true. I have no doubt that he is speaking truthfully to the Court, but (indiscernible) -- THE COURT: We lost you there for -- MR. EVANS: -- can't meaningfully challenge it. I can't refute those -- THE COURT: We lost you there for -- MR. EVANS: -- allegations without having -- THE COURT: We lost you there for a second -- MR. EVANS: For how long? THE COURT: -- Attorney Evans. MR. EVANS: Okay. THE COURT: You said -- I think the last thing we heard is we have no doubt the trustee is testifying as to what he's doing. And then I -- we lost you. MR. EVANS: Okay. And then from there, we have no opportunity to meaningfully address his assertions. Without the benefit of discovery, without being able to go through a process with a scheduling order to be able to protect parties against the one-sided approach, we're here with one Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 151 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 152 arm tied behind our back. And we've provided the Court with our declaration saying that we fully cooperate. And there's been no motion to compel as to my client. We dutifully responded to a subpoena by providing thousands of documents as early as October of 2022. And then we provided supplemental discovery in, I think, April and May of 2023 and, since then, did not hear back from the trustee until December 20 of 2023 asking for additional documents, which we'll provide. So we would urge the Court on the basis of that to deny the motion as to our clients, the Rule of Law entities. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Attorney Evans. Then Attorney Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Your Honor. I'll be extremely brief. You know, I'll initially say I just join in the legal arguments of counsel for our fellow objectors, which are well stated. And I'll say I am -- we were limited in our response here factually, because, like counsel just said, we're new to this case as well. And I will note that I didn't hear the trustee actually discuss my clients, Mr. Lee or Mr. Xia, specifically today either. I will note, you know, that in the reply brief, both Mr. Lee and Mr. Xia were accused of Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 152 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 153 of\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 153 having obstructed the trustee's investigation. Expected to hear something about that specifically. We didn't hear anything about that. And I will note that they're -- the way they were alleged, and this is in paragraph 12 of the reply, was by being members of the HCHK Creditors Committee. I think it has already been discussed it's not clear exactly how any individual member of that committee obstructed the trustee. And I think the trustee conceded it's not clear it's even legally significant. But I will note, because it is such a serious allegation, that that -- based on the evidence here, I just believe it is -- it's factually incorrect that Mr. Xia was a member of that creditors committee. And I would just direct the Court to the Trustee's Exhibit 12, which is the memorandum opinion in the HCHK case. And at paragraph 27, and the findings of fact of that opinion, Your Honor lays out -- and I believe it was pursuant to a stipulation by the trustee and the other parties in that case -- who exactly the members of the creditors committee were. And they do not include Mr. Xia. And, again, I'm not sure that the trustee is even saying that that's legally relevant, but I will just note that, you know, it's a pretty serious accusation against someone if they were -- obstructed the trustee's\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 154 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
154 |\n| 1 | investigation.
I think the reply also says that both my |\n| 2 | clients were complicit in the fraudulent scheme because they |\n| 3 | were members of the creditors committee.
And I will say, |\n| 4 | with respect to Mr. Xia, at least, the trustee's own |\n| 5 | exhibits made clear that that is not true, that he was not a |\n| 6 | member of the creditors committee. |\n| 7 | And, like I said, I'd be brief, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | That's all I have to say. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you very much. |\n| 10 | Mr. Major? |\n| 11 | MR. MAJOR:
Thank you very much, Your Honor.
I |\n| 12 | will be brief as well, because I will join in the arguments |\n| 13 | of counsel who have already gone and in the various written |\n| 14 | objections, including ours, that are on file. |\n| 15 | So I just want to start on -- and I'm going to be |\n| 16 | very careful to not retread the same ground you've just been |\n| 17 | hearing.
But I want to start with the proposed order.
The |\n| 18 | language of the proposed order is exceedingly broad and |\n| 19 | makes it clear that the trustee is not looking for equitable |\n| 20 | tolling, but rather for the Court to amend Congress's |\n| 21 | statute.
He's asking that the statute of limitations be |\n| 22 | moved from this week until mid-August of 2024.
Because |\n| 23 | under his proposed language in the order, he could file a |\n| 24 | claim -- if this order gets -- if this order is approved, he |\n| 25 | could file a claim two months from now that he knew about on |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 155 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
155 |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | December 1st.
And I'm not suggesting he's going to do that. |\n| 2 | I'm saying that's what the order would -- says.
And that's |\n| 3 | proof to me that what he's really asking is to extend the |\n| 4 | six-month statute of limitations. |\n\n I can give you another example of something he could do that has nothing to do with equitable tolling. He could have decided on December 1st that a particular avoidance action wasn't worth the expense because of collection risk, right? The statute of limitations gets extended, and he determines a different analysis of collection risks in a few months and decides now it is worthwhile to bring the action. That's a problem. And that's an order that I think would be unprecedented and, obviously, would violate the separation of powers.\n\n Another problem that this is creating is the trustee is asking the Court to make a finding of equitable tolling without any sort of causation. Because he's asking for you to extend the statute of limitations, it will never get revisited, never have -- he'll never have to demonstrate that a particular claim or case could not have been filed by him in reasonable diligence by this week. That would all get swept under the rug if he gets the order that he's looking for.\n\n And that means that the Court has not had an opportunity to hear any evidence or reason as to why he Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 156 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
156 |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | can't bring a particular claim.
That's why Judge Tancredi |\n| 2 | issued the decision he issued, which everyone has cited and |\n| 3 | discussed.
That's another critical problem with this entire |\n| 4 | process. |\n\n Finally, I want to touch on some cases that were cited, and particularly the Valdez case that counsel for the trustee read from during his closing argument. The Valdez case -- and this deals with the issue of whether or not the defendant has to be in some way responsible for the delay. At a minimum, a court would have to examine a particular claim or case to determine whether it -- there should be equitable tolling. But on top of that, Valdez, I don't think, stands for the proposition that counsel alluded to.\n\n It was a federal tort claim act case. And in that case, the U.S. government, which was the defendant, failed to inform the mother of a deceased infant that the doctor that the mother wanted to sue for medical malpractice was a federal employee, which changes the statute of limitations from what she and her lawyer anticipated, not knowing it thought a federal employee, would -- they thought they were going to apply the state law statute of limitations in New York. And there -- and for that reason, there was tolling there. But, again, you have conduct by the defendant that led to the delay.\n\nAnd the quote that Mr. Bassett read to the Court\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 157 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
157 |\n|---|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | today cites to -- in that Valdez decision cites to another |\n| 2 | decision called Veltri, V-E-L-T-R-I.
It's in the Valdez |\n| 3 | decision that the trustee cited in his reply.
That was an |\n| 4 | ERISA case.
And, again, in that case, the defendant failed |\n| 5 | to inform the plaintiff of their -- of its right and the |\n| 6 | procedure for challenging the denial of benefits, and that's |\n| 7 | what led to the delay.
So that's why there was equitable |\n| 8 | tolling. |\n\n So, yes, it's true; it doesn't necessarily have to be fraudulent concealment in order to have equitable tolling, but there has to be some conduct that, A, caused the delay -- and we have no way of measuring that right now, because the trustee who testified for a long time this afternoon didn't identify a single action that he's being impeded from filing. And he jumped the gun by filing this motion now before he had such an action. And then, number two, there does have to be some conduct. It's equitable tolling, so I don't know how a Court could possibly balance the equities if you don't know who the defendant is and what, if anything, they did to impede the progress of the lawsuit. So I'd just like to add those things into the\n\n record, and I thank the Court for its time. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Attorney Major. Attorney Grand?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 158 of\n\n| | 170
Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
158 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. GRAND:
Thank you, Your Honor.
I also, on |\n| 2 | behalf of GS Security, just will join in the |\n| 3 | well-articulated legal arguments advanced by counsel for the |\n| 4 | other objectors and only wish to add -- or highlight the |\n| 5 | points articulated about the fact that the equities need to |\n| 6 | be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
The trustee in his |\n| 7 | moving papers cites Supreme Court precedent that basically |\n| 8 | holds that equitable tolling decisions need to be made on a |\n| 9 | case-by-case basis and, I think it's just three or four |\n| 10 | paragraphs later, argues that despite that authority that |\n| 11 | this Court should determine that equitable tolling decision |\n| 12 | based on the entirety of the factual record. |\n| 13 | So I -- again, I urge the Court to take note |\n| 14 | that -- you know, that that's the standard, and that's what |\n| 15 | should be applied in this case as to each defendant or |\n| 16 | potential defendant.
And I don't have -- beyond that, I |\n| 17 | don't have anything more to add. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 19 | So I think now it's Attorney Wander, if I'm |\n| 20 | correct? |\n| 21 | MR. WANDER:
Thank you, Your Honor.
I also will |\n| 22 | be brief.
And in large part, I'm going to echo some |\n| 23 | statements by the last two counsel, Major and Grand.
My |\n| 24 | argument, focusing on my particular client, Yingying Wang, |\n| 25 | was not intended to undercut the arguments by other counsel |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 159 of
170 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
159 |\n| 1 | that the motion should be denied to all 331 noticed parties. |\n| 2 | I'm just here to speak to my client, whose situation is |\n| 3 | different. |\n| 4 | If this Court finds that the trustee has overcome |\n| 5 | the first hurdle, which many of the objectors argue he has |\n| 6 | not, that equitable tolling is permissible under the |\n| 7 | applicable law and the facts of this case, in that |\n| 8 | situation, then I submit that the Court should only grant |\n| 9 | the trustee 99 percent of the relief requested.
Judge, they |\n| 10 | noticed 331 people, and 221 of them there's no issue with, |\n| 11 | unless you can't have this motion granted to anyone.
And if |\n| 12 | that's correct, then what I say next doesn't matter. |\n| 13 | But if the Court finds that we have to go to the |\n| 14 | next step, that equitable tolling is permissible under |\n| 15 | certain facts, then we have to look at the facts, and there |\n| 16 | are only ten people left.
And the trustee, arguably, on an |\n| 17 | individualized basis, has made a showing to seven of those |\n| 18 | ten.
Three of them, of which my client is one, are |\n| 19 | categorically different than everyone else. |\n| 20 | The only evidence in the record against my client |\n| 21 | and two others is that they were members of a committee.
If |\n| 22 | that is the only thing that the trustee can hang his hat on, |\n| 23 | then that has grave implications if the Court grants the |\n| 24 | motion to everyone, first amendment implications.
No one |\n| 25 | can be a member of this committee without becoming a target |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 160 of
170 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
160 |\n| 1 | of this type of motion. |\n| 2 | And, again, the only evidence in the record as to |\n| 3 | my client and two others is that they were members of a |\n| 4 | committee.
Not that they did anything wrong, but that the |\n| 5 | committee did.
And because this motion is in the nature of |\n| 6 | a class action type of request for relief, the Court needs |\n| 7 | to drill down on who is affected.
And when you get to the |\n| 8 | individual people who will be affected and who are asking |\n| 9 | for a minimum amount of due process, the Court should |\n| 10 | consider the particular facts and the lack of any support |\n| 11 | for the motion against my client.
Thank you. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 13 | All right.
Then I think the final objecting party |\n| 14 | to argue would be Attorney Nealon, correct? |\n| 15 | MR. NEALON:
Yes, Your Honor.
I'll be brief.
So, |\n| 16 | you know, what was -- I don't think it matters, |\n| 17 | particularly, consistent with the arguments of the other |\n| 18 | objectors, what all of these individuals did.
I think it's |\n| 19 | more of a macro question, as was very articulately put by |\n| 20 | the other parties.
Is it appropriate to effectively have a |\n| 21 | class action declaratory judgment in a vacuum that permits |\n| 22 | the trustee to bring future avoidance actions out of time |\n| 23 | against potentially hundreds or thousands of new parties? |\n| 24 | I spent some time dealing with Mr. Zhang's |\n| 25 | circumstances, because the trustee likes to use him as a bit |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 161 of a piñata in the various pleadings he files throughout this case. I went through three or four particular points that were raised by Trustee Despins. And let's just focus on those real briefly. Again, I don't think they're central to anything. But the idea that Mr. Zhang might have attended a protest and been carrying around a sign in 2022, while although I would think that's probably ill-advised and is ill-advised, it has nothing to do with the trustee's ability to discover avoidance actions. Same thing with the sanctions motions that were brought against Attorney Zhang in his capacity as co-counsel for -- from -- for some other parties. What in the world, if anything, does that have to do with the trustee's ability to discover the facts that would support avoidance actions against third parties? Nor is there any evidence that's been presented that Mr. Yongbing Zhang did anything to conceal or hide any facts that might relate to any monetary payments, if any, that he received. As in nothing. And then when I pressed the trustee on some of the other points about this HCHK Creditors Committee -- I'm Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 161 of\n\n like, here's your opportunity. Tell us specifically what it is Mr. Zhang did. We get nothing. Because there's no proof of anything. It's just a big innuendo.\n\nOh, and what's the other thing? Well, Attorney\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 162 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
162 |\n| 1 | Zhang went to visit Miles Guo in prison, so therefore -- |\n| 2 | well, therefore what?
It has nothing to do with the |\n| 3 | trustee's ability to pursue avoidance actions. |\n| 4 | Attorney Bassett did a great job in the afternoon, |\n| 5 | and there almost should have been a drum roll in front of |\n| 6 | it, when he set up the question for the trustee that I |\n| 7 | interpreted as, look, the fundamental reason why we're doing |\n| 8 | this so late is we couldn't afford to hire Kroll until we |\n| 9 | got some money in when we sold the Lady May.
That's the |\n| 10 | thrust of why we're here.
Not all these shiny objects that |\n| 11 | are getting thrown out, innuendos and insinuations, which |\n| 12 | are really all irrelevant. |\n| 13 | But I think Attorney Evans hit on a good point |\n| 14 | here and another reason to deny this motion.
This is, from |\n| 15 | what I've observed -- albeit my powers of observation are |\n| 16 | limited, because I've been on the periphery.
This is not a |\n| 17 | very transparent situation we have here.
What do we know |\n| 18 | about what Kroll's been doing?
I don't think we know very |\n| 19 | much. |\n| 20 | And, again, when I asked questions today saying, |\n| 21 | let's hear your evidence, that's work product; I'm not going |\n\n to tell you that. Well, that's been a theme of this trustee's operation. And maybe Kroll's been super diligent. Maybe it'll be proven that the trustee's been super diligent. But that should be evaluated later in the context\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 163 of
170 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
163 |\n| of individual cases and not decided now in a vacuum, |\n| particularly when the trustee tends to operate like a black |\n| box. |\n| Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| THE COURT:
I don't understand what you mean, when |\n| the trustee operates like a black box.
What do you mean? |\n| MR. NEALON:
Well, I'll give you an example.
In the |\n| HCHK proceedings, all the relevant -- most of the relevant |\n| documents, as I understand it, that relate to those entities |\n| are in the possession of the trustee.
And I know some of |\n| the parties in that case have been trying to get access to |\n| those.
And -- |\n| THE COURT:
Well, there's -- there are protective |\n| orders and confidentiality orders in place in this case for |\n| almost two years, Mr. Nealon.
And so you can make that |\n| argument.
And that's fine.
But you also need to understand |\n| the other side of that argument -- |\n| MR. NEALON:
Right. |\n| THE COURT:
-- which is the requirements and the |\n| positions taken by the debtors since the beginning of the |\n| time that the trustee was appointed that everything had to |\n| be confidential and that there were all kinds of |\n| requirements with regard to documents. |\n| So all I'm saying to you is, you're correct; |\n| you're on the periphery.
And so when you make a statement |\n| |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 164 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
164 |\n| 1 | that -- when you say a trustee, any trustee, is operating in |\n| 2 | a black box when you haven't been involved in the case, I |\n| 3 | think you need to be careful about that.
Okay? |\n| 4 | MR. NEALON:
I'll modify my statement.
I didn't |\n| 5 | intend to describe any intentionality to it.
I'm just |\n| 6 | saying, at the moment, there's not a lot of visibility -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Well, there can't be if there are |\n| 8 | confidentiality agreements, Mr. Nealon.
Do you want people, |\n| 9 | including people that are affiliated with the debtor, |\n| 10 | violating those confidentiality agreements and that |\n| 11 | protective order that the debtor's counsel fought so hard |\n| 12 | for? |\n| 13 | What I'm saying to you is, I understand your |\n| 14 | arguments, and you are absolutely entitled to make them. |\n| 15 | But to say -- to make that statement at the end of this |\n| 16 | hearing, I think, is inappropriate in that you have not been |\n| 17 | involved.
And maybe you need to go read those protective |\n| 18 | orders and confidentiality orders to understand what's been |\n| 19 | going on in this case. |\n| 20 | I don't -- I have no problem with legal arguments. |\n| 21 | I have no problem with you making any kind of arguments on |\n| 22 | behalf of your clients.
But I do have problems when lawyers |\n| 23 | make arguments that are not supported by the record that is |\n| 24 | before a court.
So that's all I wanted to say on that |\n| 25 | point, okay? |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 165 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
165 |\n| 1 | MR. NEALON:
All right.
I'll withdraw the |\n| 2 | argument, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 4 | All right.
Well, that concludes -- Attorney |\n| 5 | Bassett, I'm not going to have another round of arguments. |\n| 6 | I'm sure you want one, but we'll be here until 8:00 at that |\n| 7 | point.
And I have to let the courtroom staff go. |\n| 8 | Plus, I have to rule on this motion.
And I would |\n| 9 | assume I have to rule on this motion by the close of |\n| 10 | business tomorrow.
Is that -- isn't that correct? |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
I'm thinking about that in real -- |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Well, the close of business could be |\n| 13 | 11:59 p.m., I suppose.
But, in any event, I mean, I -- it |\n| 14 | might be the 15th.
But what I'm saying to you is, I'm not |\n| 15 | going to -- I am going to -- I need to go now and listen |\n| 16 | to -- go back to what everything -- everything was said |\n| 17 | today.
Obviously, we've been doing this for about four |\n| 18 | hours.
I have to take into account Trustee Despins' |\n| 19 | testimony, the cross-examination by various counsel on |\n| 20 | behalf of the objecting parties. |\n| 21 | And then I have to make a determination.
So I |\n| 22 | don't want to put any party in a position where the Court is |\n| 23 | somehow impacting this issue in one way or another.
It has |\n| 24 | to be decided.
So that's what I'd like to spend the time |\n| 25 | doing. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 166 of\n\n| | 170 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
166 |\n| 1 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay?
So I -- there -- I will take |\n| 3 | into consideration what everyone has said today, of course, |\n| 4 | and what has been said in the pleadings that have also been |\n| 5 | filed, which I have read, but I'm going to go back and |\n| 6 | re-read.
I need to do that in light of the issues raised |\n| 7 | today.
And there were some cases cited today that aren't in |\n| 8 | the briefs, so I have to look at that.
I have to take |\n| 9 | everything into consideration, which I will do. |\n| 10 | And some -- I anticipate that something will be |\n| 11 | issued tomorrow.
But if for some reason it's not, we'll |\n| 12 | notify everyone.
Everyone that's on -- participated in this |\n| 13 | hearing today is a CM/ECF filer, so you will have notice of |\n| 14 | what the Court does when the Court does it.
Okay? |\n| 15 | Does anyone have any questions? |\n| 16 | MR. LINSEY:
I just have a one-line update about |\n| 17 | the tolling stipulations, if that's all right, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
About the what? |\n| 19 | MR. LINSEY:
The tolling stipulations that we |\n| 20 | filed -- that we had filed yesterday.
Could I just update |\n| 21 | the Court about something? |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
Go ahead. |\n| 23 | MR. LINSEY:
So there was a motion to approve |\n| 24 | tolling stipulations that was filed yesterday.
In footnote |\n| 25 | two, we indicated that more may come in and that, if so, we |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 167 of
170 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
167 |\n| 1 | would file those on a supplemental basis.
We did receive |\n| 2 | three additional tolling stipulations today.
I will file |\n| 3 | those this evening in the same manner as we filed the |\n| 4 | others. |\n| 5 | We would just ask that the Court please rule one |\n| 6 | way or the other on those tomorrow as well, because we |\n| 7 | have -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Well, I have to ask you -- |\n| 9 | MR. LINSEY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I haven't looked.
I haven't looked, |\n| 11 | because, obviously, we've been in court.
And we had other |\n| 12 | hearings as well this week.
If you have a tolling |\n| 13 | stipulation, there -- no -- who's going to -- there's no one |\n| 14 | that's going to object to that.
What would be the basis to |\n| 15 | object to it?
If the party against whom the trustee is |\n| 16 | going to file a cause of action has agreed to toll the |\n| 17 | statute of limitations, what would be a basis for any party |\n| 18 | to object to that? |\n| 19 | MR. LINSEY:
I don't expect that any party would |\n| 20 | object to it, but they're drafted as stipulated orders to be |\n| 21 | approved by the Court. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
That's fine.
I'll take a look |\n| 23 | at them.
I will -- |\n| 24 | MR. LINSEY:
So I don't I just wanted to let Your |\n| 25 | Honor know the extras were coming, because there's a lot of |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 168 of\n\n| 170 | | | |\n|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024
168 | | |\n| 1 | stuff hitting the docket right now.
That was all.
I | | |\n| 2 | appreciate the Court taking the time to listen. | | |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
That's fine.
Thank you very much. | | |\n| 4 | All right.
Thank you all very much. | | |\n| 5 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you. | | |\n| 6 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor. | | |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
That concludes today's hearing.
And | | |\n| 8 | you will -- you'll know what the Court decides when there's | | |\n| 9 | something that is filed on the docket. | | |\n| 10 | IN UNISON:
Thank you, Your Honor. | | |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Thank you all.
Court is adjourned. | | |\n| 12 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Court is adjourned. | | |\n| 13 | (Proceedings concluded at 6:05 p.m.) | | |\n| 14 | | | |\n| 15 | | | |\n| 16 | | | |\n| 17 | | | |\n| 18 | | | |\n| 19 | | | |\n| 20 | | | |\n| 21 | | | |\n| 22 | | | |\n| 23 | | | |\n| 24 | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2947
Filed 02/22/24
Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18
Page 169 of
170 | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 | 169 | |\n| 1 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and | | |\n| 2 | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that | | |\n| 3 | the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official | | |\n| 4 | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above | | |\n| 5 | entitled matter. | | |\n| 6 | | | |\n| 7 | | | |\n| 8 | | February 21, 2024 | |\n| 9 | Christine Fiore, CERT | | |\n| 10 | Transcriber | | |\n| 11 | | | |\n| 12 | | | |\n| 13 | | | |\n| 14 | | | |\n| 15 | | | |\n| 16 | | | |\n| 17 | | | |\n| 18 | | | |\n| 19 | | | |\n| 20 | | | |\n| 21 | | | |\n| 22 | | | |\n| 23 | | | |\n| 24 | | | |\n| 25 | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n Ho Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 170 INDEX WITNESS FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Direct Cross Luc Despins 25 52/58/66/72/86/94 Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 170 of","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格州联邦破产法院 布里奇波特分院\n\n关于 ＊ 案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）及Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司）， ＊ 康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n\n债务人。 ＊ February 13, 2024\n\n＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊ ＊\n\n在尊敬的美国联邦破产法院法官Julie A. Manning（朱莉·A·曼宁）阁下面前进行的程序记录\n\n#2509 关于作出裁定延长受托人依《破产法典》第108、546(a)及549条提起撤销诉讼期限的动议\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第11章受托人：\n\nNicholas A. Bassett, Esq.（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特律师）\n\nShlomo Maza, Esq.（什洛莫·马扎律师）\n\nPaul Hastings LLP（宝盛律师事务所）\n\n200 Park Avenue\n\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nPatrick R. Linsey, Esq.（帕特里克·R·林西律师）\n\nNeubert Pepe and Monteith（纽伯特·佩佩及蒙蒂斯律师事务所）\n\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\n\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n第11章受托人：\n\nLuc A. Despins, Esq.（吕克·A·德斯平斯律师）\n\nPaul Hastings LLP\n\n200 Park Avenue\n\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表美国受托人：\n\nHolley L. Claiborn, Esq.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩律师）\n\n美国受托人办公室\n\nGiaimo联邦大楼\n\n150 Court Street, Room 302\n\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n程序由电子录音记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷庭审记录及速记服务公司）\n\nShelton, CT 06484\n\n(203)732-6461\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表债权人委员会：\n\nJonathan Kaplan, Esq.（乔纳森·卡普兰律师）\n\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼及科姆利律师事务所）\n\n850 Main Street\n\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表债权人Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：\n\nStuart M. Sarnoff, Esq.（斯图尔特·M·萨尔诺夫律师）\n\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n\nTimes Square Tower\n\n7 Times Square\n\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nAnnecca H. Smith, Esq.（安妮卡·H·史密斯律师）\n\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊及科尔律师事务所）\n\n28 Trumbull Street\n\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代表Mei Guo（郭美）：\n\nSam Della Fera, Jr., Esq.（小萨姆·德拉费拉律师）\n\nChiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, PC（基耶萨、沙希尼安及贾恩托马西律师事务所）\n\n105 Eisenhauer Pkwy\n\nRoseland, NJ 07068\n\nJames M. Moriarty, Esq.（詹姆斯·M·莫里亚蒂律师）\n\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒及泽斯勒律师事务所）\n\n10 Middle Street, 15th FL\n\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表Defeng Cao（曹德凤）：\n\nMichael A. Carbone, Esq.（迈克尔·A·卡博恩律师）\n\nParrett Porto Parese & Colwell, P.C.（帕雷特、波尔图、帕雷塞及科尔韦尔律师事务所）\n\n2319 Whitney Avenue\n\nSuite 1D\n\nHamden, CT 06518\n\n（获准免予出席）\n\nKatherine E. Mateo, Esq.（凯瑟琳·E·马特奥律师）\n\nAdam Friedman, Esq.（亚当·弗里德曼律师）\n\nOlshan Frome Wolosky, LLP（奥尔尚、弗罗姆及沃洛斯基律师事务所）\n\n1325 Avenue of the Americas\n\nNew York, NY 10019\n\n代表UBS（瑞银）：\n\nLisa Fried, Esq.（丽莎·弗里德律师）\n\nHerbert Smith Freehills New York, LLP（赫伯特·史密斯·自由希尔律师事务所纽约分所）\n\n450 Lexington Avenue\n\nNew York, NY 10017\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表DBS Bank Ltd.（星展银行有限公司）：\n\nGenevieve G. Weiner, Esq.（珍妮维芙·G·韦纳律师）\n\nSidley Austin, LLC（盛德律师事务所）\n\n555 West Fifth Street\n\nLos Angeles, CA 90013\n\n代表Taurus Fund, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）、Taurus Management, LLC（金牛管理有限责任公司）及Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）：\n\nMichael T. Conway, Esq.（迈克尔·T·康威律师）\n\nLazare Potter Giacovas & Moyle, LLP（拉扎尔、波特、贾科瓦斯及莫伊尔律师事务所）\n\n747 Third Avenue\n\nNew York, NY 10017\n\n代表G Club Operations, LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）：\n\nJeffrey M. Sklarz, Esq.（杰弗里·M·斯克拉兹律师）\n\nGreen & Sklarz, LLC（格林及斯克拉兹律师事务所）\n\nOne Audubon Street\n\nNew Haven, CT 06511\n\nCarolina A. Fornos, Esq.（卡罗莱纳·A·福尔诺斯律师）\n\nPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP（博钦律师事务所）\n\n31 West 52nd Street\n\nNew York, NY 10019\n\n代表Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.（法治基金会III公司）及Rule of Law Society, IV, Inc.（法治协会IV公司）：\n\nDouglas M. Evans, Esq.（道格拉斯·M·埃文斯律师）\n\nShapiro, Dorry & Masterson LLC（夏皮罗、多里及马斯特森律师事务所）\n\n71 Raymond Road\n\nWest Hartford, CT 06107\n\n代表Chris Lee（李克里斯）及Qidong Xia（夏启东）：\n\nJon P. Newton, Esq.（乔恩·P·牛顿律师）\n\nReid and Riege PC（里德及里格律师事务所）\n\nOne Financial Plaza\n\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n（获准免予出席）\n\nEric T. Schmitt, Esq.（埃里克·T·施密特律师）\n\nThe Quinlan Law Firm, LLC（奎因兰律师事务所）\n\n233 S. Wacker Drive\n\nSuite 6142\n\nChicago, IL 60606\n\n代表Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）及Hing Chi Hgok（吴兴志）：\n\nChristopher J. Major, Esq.（克里斯托弗·J·梅杰律师）\n\nMeister Seelig & Fein LLP（迈斯特、锡利格及范恩律师事务所）\n\n125 Park Avenue\n\nNew York, NY 10017\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表GS Security Solutions, Inc.（GS安保解决方案公司）：\n\nRobert J. Grand, Esq.（罗伯特·J·格兰德律师）\n\nLax & Neville LLP（拉克斯及内维尔律师事务所）\n\n350 Fifth Avenue\n\nNew York, NY 10118\n\n代表Yingying Wang（王莹莹）：\n\nDavid H. Wander, Esq.（大卫·H·万德律师）\n\nTarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP（塔特、克林斯基及德罗金律师事务所）\n\n1350 Broadway\n\nNew York, NY 10018\n\n代表Sotheby's International Realty, Inc.（苏富比国际房地产公司）：\n\nSteven Brown, Esq.（史蒂文·布朗律师）\n\nWilson Else Moskowitz Dicker（威尔逊、埃尔斯、莫斯科维茨及迪克律师事务所）\n\n1010 Washington Blvd.\n\nStamford, CT 06901\n\nMary Augustine, Esq.（玛丽·奥古斯丁律师）\n\nA.M. Saccullo Legal LLC（A.M. 萨库洛法律有限责任公司）\n\n27 Crimson King Drive\n\nBear, DE 19701\n\n代表Yongbing Zhang（张永兵）：\n\nJames Edward Nealon, Esq.（詹姆斯·爱德华·尼伦律师）\n\nNealon Law LLC（尼伦法律有限责任公司）\n\n1266 East Main Street\n\nSuite 700\n\nStamford, CT 06902\n\n案号22-50073 文件2947 提交日期02/22/24 登记日期02/22/24 13:48:18 第5页，共170页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－February 13, 2024 5\n\n（程序于下午2:06开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案号22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法官：好的。下午好。显然，由于我们今天所经历的天气情况，本次远程听证会有许多人参加。我看到有些人开启了摄像头，有些人没有；有些人显示了全名，有些人没有。我希望每个人都开启摄像头，显示全名。如果无法做到这一点，那么我——你们将不得参加本次听证会，因为否则会对法庭造成过多干扰。我将要求每个人提交——我将要求每个人为记录声明出庭身份，首先——我先请第11章受托人及其律师声明出庭身份。随后，我将请对今天下午待审动议提出异议的各方声明出庭身份；该动议为请求作出裁定，延长受托人提起撤销诉讼期限的动议，即ECF编号2509。在听取受托人及其律师的出庭声明后，如美国受托人在场，我将听取美国受托人的出庭声明。我相信我确实看到美国受托人办公室有人在场。\n\n案号22-50073 文件2947 提交日期02/22/24 登记日期02/22/24 13:48:18 第6页，共170页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－February 13, 2024 6\n\n在场。然后，我们将依次查看每个ECF编号，并请每个人声明出庭身份。如果你们没有提交异议但仍出庭，也应声明出庭身份，之后我们将继续进行。因此，我们首先听取受托人Despins（德斯平斯）及其律师的出庭声明。\n\nDespins先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯），第11章受托人。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nBassett先生：下午好，法官阁下。Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），来自Paul Hastings（宝盛律师事务所），担任第11章受托人的律师。\n\nMaza先生：您好，法官阁下。Shlomo Maza（什洛莫·马扎），Paul Hastings（宝盛律师事务所），同样代表受托人。\n\nClaiborn女士：Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），代表美国受托人。\n\n法官：好的。Despins律师，今天代表您出庭的人员中，是否所有人都已声明出庭身份？\n\nDespins先生：嗯，我原本预计Linsey先生会出席，但我——没有他我们也可以继续，不过我原本预计他会出席。我不知道。也许他遇到了技术——\n\n法官：好的。我们暂时继续，之后再回来处理。谢谢。\n\n案号22-50073 文件2947 提交日期02/22/24 登记日期02/22/24 13:48:18 第7页，共170页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－February 13, 2024 7\n\n好的。第一位已提交——已对受托人动议作出回应的异议方是Mei Guo（郭美），ECF编号2551。因此，请代表Mei Guo（郭美）出庭的律师为记录声明出庭身份。\n\nMoriarty先生：下午好，法官阁下。James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂），来自Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒及泽斯勒律师事务所），代表Guo女士。\n\nDella Fera先生：下午好，法官阁下。Sam Della Fera（萨姆·德拉费拉），Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi（基耶萨、沙希尼安及贾恩托马西律师事务所），代表Guo女士。\n\n法官：还有其他代表Guo女士的人吗？好的。那么下一位异议方是Defeng Cao（曹德凤），ECF编号2553。我请代表该异议方的人为记录声明出庭身份。\n\nCarbone先生：下午好，法官阁下。Michael Carbone（迈克尔·卡博恩），来自Parrett Porto（帕雷特·波尔图律师事务所），代表Defeng Cao（曹德凤）。\n\nMateo女士：下午好，法官阁下。Katherine Mateo（凯瑟琳·马特奥），来自Olshan Frome Wolosky（奥尔尚、弗罗姆及沃洛斯基律师事务所），代表Cao先生。此外，我想说明，在昨天提出的远程出席申请中，我们还请求免除我们的本地律师Carbone先生参加今天听证会的要求。\n\n法官：好的。我没有看到该请求。因为，如我所说，当我将听证会安排为远程举行时，所有动议都已无实际意义，因为我们将举行本次远程\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－February 13, 2024 8\n\n听证会。因此，你们请求允许Carbone先生免予出席？\n\nMateo女士：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。Carbone先生，您可以免予出席。\n\nCarbone先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法官：不客气。那么还有其他代表——Mateo女士，除您之外还有其他人吗？我认为还有一位Adam Friedman（亚当·弗里德曼）的出庭记录。他是否参加本次听证会？\n\nFriedman先生：是的，法官阁下。Adam Friedman（亚当·弗里德曼）在场。我通过电话参加。不过，Mateo女士将为我们主导辩论。非常感谢。\n\n法官：不客气。下一位异议方是UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司），但我看到其撤回了异议。不过，我不知道是否看到Fried律师——我不记得Fried律师是否参加本次电话会议。\n\nFried女士：下午好，法官阁下。是的，我是Lisa Fried（丽莎·弗里德），来自Herbert Smith Freehills（赫伯特·史密斯·自由希尔律师事务所），代表UBS（瑞银）。并且，如法官阁下正确指出的，我们已撤回异议。但我仍希望出庭，以防法庭有任何问题要问我们。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。下一位异议方是DBS Bank（星展银行），即\n\n案号22-50073 文件2947 提交日期02/22/24 登记日期02/22/24 13:48:18 第8页，共170页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－February 13, 2024 9\n\nECF编号2556。谁代表DBS Bank（星展银行）出庭？\n\nWeiner先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是Genevieve Weiner（珍妮维芙·韦纳），来自Sidley Austin（盛德律师事务所），代表DBS Bank Limited（星展银行有限公司）。\n\n法官：下午好。Weiner女士，今天下午代表DBS Bank（星展银行）在场的只有您一人吗？\n\nWeiner女士：是的。我们理解——我们的本地律师Bill Fish（比尔·菲什）未在场。我们理解，由于此次仅通过Zoom进行，他无需出庭。\n\n法官：嗯，这并不完全正确，但没关系。好吗？\n\nWeiner女士：好的。好的。\n\n法官：本地律师至少应当介绍律师，然后——来访律师，然后应提出如Mateo女士所提出的、免除本地律师出席的请求。这没关系。这没关系。\n\nWeiner女士：好的。\n\n法官：好吗？没关系。\n\nWeiner女士：好的。好的。\n\n法官：好的。\n\nWeiner女士：那么，谢谢您作出通融。我们今后会注意这一点。\n\n案号22-50073\n\n文件2947\n\n提交日期02/22/24\n\n登记日期02/22/24 13:48:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）－February 13, 2024\n\n1 法官：\n谢谢。\n\n2 下一位异议方是Taurus Fund, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司），ECF\n\n3 2557。\nConway律师，我想我在屏幕上的某处看到您了。\n\n4 \n\n5 Conway先生：\n是的，法官阁下。谢谢，下午好。\n\n6 Michael Conway（迈克尔·康威），Lazare Potter Giacovas &\n\n7 Moyle（拉扎尔、波特、贾科瓦斯及莫伊尔律师事务所），代表Taurus Fund, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）；Taurus Management, LLC（金牛管理有限责任公司）；及\n\n8 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）。\n\n9 法官：\n下午好。Conway律师，\n\n10 今天下午还有其他人与您一同出席吗？\n\n11 Conway先生：\n没有，只有我。\n\n12 法官：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n13 好的。那么下一位异议方是G\n\n14 Club Operations, LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司），即ECF编号2563。\n\n15 Sklarz先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Jeffrey\n\n16 Sklarz（杰弗里·斯克拉兹），Green & Sklarz（格林及斯克拉兹律师事务所），代表G Club Operations, LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）。\n\n17 法官：\n下午好。\n\n18 Fornos女士：\n下午好。\n\n19 Sklarz先生：\nFornos女士将介绍\n\n20 她自己。\n\n21 Fornos女士：\n是的。下午好，法官阁下。\n\n22 Carolina Fornos（卡罗莱纳·福尔诺斯），来自Pillsbury Winthrop（博钦律师事务所）。\n\n23 法官：\n下午好，Fornos律师。我\n\n24 看到您在那里。谢谢。\n\n25 下一位异议方——我不确定是否\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2024年2月13日\n\n就这些——有——曾有两项分别提出的异议，但我认为是 2565，Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc.（法治基金会 III 公司）。我想，Evans 律师，是您吗？\n\nEVANS 先生：是，法官阁下。Douglas Evans（道格拉斯·埃文斯）代表 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）和 Rule of Law Society（法治协会），法官阁下。我们提交了一项异议和一份声明。因此，异议为 2565。声明为 2568。\n\n法院：哦，谢谢。好的。好的。非常感谢。\n\nEVANS 先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：Evans 律师，您是独自出席吗？没有其他人代表那些当事人出席吗？\n\nEVANS 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nEVANS 先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：那么，下一位提出异议的当事人是 Chris Lee（克里斯·李）和 Qidong Xia（夏启东），2566。Newton 律师，您出席了吗？我看到您了吗？\n\nNEWTON 先生：是的，法官阁下，但有一点说明。下午好。Jon Newton（乔恩·牛顿）代表 Lee 先生和 Xia 先生。我的主办律师也与我一同在线。我在 pro hac vice 动议中确实请求免于出席本次听证。该请求被驳回了。但在 Schmitt 先生现已出席之后——他已获准 pro hac vice 出庭——我请求您重新考虑，并允许我免于出席。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 于 02/22/24 提交 于 02/22/24 13:48:18 录入 第 11 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 于 02/22/24 提交 于 02/22/24 13:48:18 录入 第 12 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2024年2月13日\n\n法院：我认为可以。您此前未获准免于出席的唯一原因，是因为 Schmitt 先生尚未在本案中提交出庭代理。\n\nNEWTON 先生：明白。\n\n法院：好的？这样可以，Newton 律师。您可以免于出席。Schmitt 律师？我不——\n\nSCHMITT 先生：是。\n\n法院：好的。抱歉。\n\nSCHMITT 先生：是。\n\n法院：我还没有看到您，但我相信很快会看到。\n\nSCHMITT 先生：是。Eric Schmitt（埃里克·施密特）代表 Xia 先生和 Lee 先生。\n\n法院：谢谢。欢迎。\n\n法院：好的。那么，下一位提出异议的当事人是 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）和 Hgok 女士（霍克女士），2569。Major 律师，我想我看到了您。\n\nMAJOR 先生：是。下午好，法官阁下。Chris Major（克里斯·梅杰），来自 Meister, Seelig & Fein（迈斯特、希利格及法因律师事务所）。我们代表 Hing Chi Hgok（兴志·霍克）和 Greenwich Land, LLC（格林尼治土地有限责任公司）。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\n法院：那么，下一位提出异议的当事人是 GCS（原文如此） Security Solutions, Inc.（GCS 安全解决方案公司）。2571 是 ECF 编号。Schurr 律师，您是当地代理律师吗？还是——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2947\n于 02/22/24 提交\n于 02/22/24 13:48:18 录入\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2024年2月13日\n\nGRAND 先生：我是 Robert Grand（罗伯特·格兰德），来自——\n\n法院：哦，好的。Grand 律师，您说得对。Schurr 律师已在先前程序中获准免于出席。因此，我表示歉意。\n\nGRAND 先生：是。\n\n法院：我明白。Grand 律师，您是独自出席，还是您的同事与您一起出席？\n\nGRAND 先生：我是独自出席。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n法院：下一项异议是 Yingying Wang（王莹莹），2582。Michael（无法辨认）是当地代理律师。\n\nWANDER 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 David Wander（大卫·万德）。我的 pro hac vice 动议已获批准，随后我提交了出庭通知。经法官阁下许可，我将——我来自 Tarter Krinsky & Drogin（塔特·克林斯基及德罗金律师事务所），我将代表我的客户出庭。\n\n法院：可以。那么，（无法辨认）律师今天不在场，这没有问题，对吗？\n\nWANDER 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。好的。谢谢。\n\n法院：下一位提出异议的当事人是 Sotheby's International Realty（苏富比国际地产）。Steven Brown（史蒂文·布朗）是当地代理律师。律师——\n\nBROWN 先生：是，法官阁下。Steven Brown（史蒂文·布朗）代表 Sotheby's，我将——我目前独自出席。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2024年2月13日\n\n法院：我以为我看到了 Augustine 律师。\n\nBROWN 先生：没有。是的。\n\n法院：她在哪里？\n\nBROWN 先生：她的摄像头出了问题，法官阁下，所以她只是想旁听。我认为，在我们开始审理本案时，我们甚至可能已有协议。\n\n法院：好的。那么，只有 Augustine 律师是当地代理律师，而不是她的同事？\n\nBROWN 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。但她的摄像头出了问题。\n\nBROWN 先生：是。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nBROWN 先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：那么，我认为今天最后一位提出异议的当事人是 Yongbing Zhang（张永兵），ECF 编号 2591。当然，如果我有误，任何人都可以更正记录。Nealon 律师？\n\nNEALON 先生：是，法官阁下。我代表 Zhang 律师出席。\n\n法院：好的。请您为记录说明您的完整出庭代理信息。\n\nNEALON 先生：当然。James Nealon（詹姆斯·尼隆），Nealon Law, LLC（尼隆律师事务所有限责任公司）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 于 02/22/24 提交 于 02/22/24 13:48:18 录入 第 14 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 于 02/22/24 提交 于 02/22/24 13:48:18 录入 第 15 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2024年2月13日\n\n法院：好的。下午好。谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。现在，我相信我已为记录说明了所有对受托人的时效中止动议提出异议的当事人。是否还有任何已提交异议、但我尚未为记录说明的当事人？\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。既然无人回应，我认为我们已涵盖所有人。\n\nLINSEY 先生：法官阁下，这——我遇到了技术故障。我是 Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛），也是受托人的律师。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nLINSEY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\nKAPLAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Jonathan Kaplan（乔纳森·卡普兰）代表委员会。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\n法院：还有其他人员。我知道——我认为 PAX 的律师正在参与本次虚拟听证。因此，请您为记录说明您的出庭代理信息。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：是。下午好，法官阁下。Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），O'Melveny & Myers（欧麦律师事务所），代表债权人 PAX。与我一同出席的是当地代理律师 Annecca Smith（安妮卡·史密斯），来自 Robinson Cole（罗宾逊·科尔律师事务所）。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\nSMITH 先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2024年2月13日\n\n法院：下午好。那么，Keller 律师。哦，抱歉。那不是 Keller 律师。那是 Keller 先生。他在场。好的。抱歉。我是在确认我已为记录注明所有人员。Claiborn 律师，我们是否漏掉您了？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：我在一开始已经说明过自己，法官阁下，但我很乐意再说明一次。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）代表 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。我只是想确认每个人都已载入记录。仅此而已。我还看到一位名叫 Jackie Marasco（杰基·马拉斯科）的人。那么，Jackie Marasco 在哪里，您代表谁，请说明？\n\nMARASCO 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Jaclyn Marasco（杰克琳·马拉斯科），Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath（费格雷·德林克·比德尔及里思律师事务所）。我们今天仅代表潜在利害关系方（无法辨认）Aircraft（航空公司）旁听。\n\n法院：好的。那么，您没有——您提交出庭代理了吗？\n\nMARASCO 女士：我们没有，法官阁下。我们只是——\n\n法院：那么，本次听证仅面向已出庭的当事人。我会允许您旁听，但不允许您发言。这不是让人们仅仅出庭的听证，因为这是关于一项已收到异议的动议的听证。无论如何，这没有问题。请您保持静音。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 于 02/22/24 提交 于 02/22/24 13:48:18 录入 第 16 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 于 02/22/24 提交 于 02/22/24 13:48:18 录入 第 17 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2024年2月13日\n\nMARASCO 女士：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：Wolman 律师？请您为记录说明您的出庭代理信息以及您所代表的对象？Wolman 律师？我可以看到您已连接，但您处于静音状态，而且摄像头关闭。您需要说明您代表谁出席。\n\n法院：好的。我稍后会再回到 Wolman 律师。如果我没有收到他的回应，他可能很快会被移出听证。\n\n法院：Lisa Fried（丽莎·弗里德）？我今天上午——或者下午——是否已经与某人交谈过？我认为没有。Lisa Fried 是谁？\n\nFRIED 女士：是。再次下午好，法官阁下。我是 UBS（瑞银）的律师，负责——\n\n法院：哦，抱歉。您知道吗？由于撤回异议，我——我没有将您标记为出席。我表示歉意。\n\nFRIED 女士：明白。\n\n法院：好的。因此，我认为我已经——所有人都已为记录说明其出庭代理信息。对吗？好的。\n\n法院：那么，Despins 受托人，这是您的动议，请继续。\n\nBASSETT 先生：法官阁下，我原本将代表 Despins 受托人继续进行。再次为记录说明——\n\n法院：请继续。\n\nBASSETT 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。顺便说一句，感谢您通过 Zoom 为我们所有人提供便利。我知道这在技术上可能有困难，但可以肯定，每个人都对此表示感谢。\n\nBASSETT 先生：如果可以，我想首先向法院简要更新一下在本次听证之前提交的、与本次听证相关的其他文件，以及提出异议的当事人目前的大致状况。之后，我们计划提交证据，包括受托人的证词，因此，如果法院同意，我随后将进入听证的该部分。\n\n法院：可以。\n\nBASSETT 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。就更新而言，如法院所知，我们正依照法院命令规定的一套通知程序举行本次听证。我只是想提及 ECF 案卷编号 2540。那是送达证明。该文件载有受托人提交的各种送达证明。就该通知作一简要概述，我认为，截至目前，Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）和 Neubert Pepe（诺伊贝特·佩佩律师事务所）的受托人已通过电子邮件、ECF 和／或在地址可得时按地址，向超过 840 个当事人送达了该动议。\n\n基本上，如果有电子邮件地址，我们就进行了送达。如果他们已登记 ECF，他们就收到了通知。如果我们有邮寄地址，我们就邮寄送达。\n\n此外，我们还让英属维尔京群岛（BVI）律师向英属维尔京群岛的共计 55 个实体进行了送达。因此，我认为，合计约有 900 个实体以我所述方式获得了某种形式的通知。\n\n此外，我们还通过五种不同出版物进行了公告通知，包括 USA Today（《今日美国报》）、两种英属维尔京群岛出版物，以及两种以中文在美国和国际发行的出版物。因此，我想就已作出的通知提供这一更新，我认为这也与我们今天听证中异议的情况相衔接。\n\n因此，我认为，共有 13 项异议针对受托人的动议被提交。截至目前，其中两项已得到解决，剩余 11 项，尽管这 11 项中的一项，即 DBS Bank（星展银行）提出的异议，实际上只是保留权利。并且，依照该保留权利，DBS Bank 不反对受托人提出的法定时效中止六个月期限的请求。\n\n时效限制，但保留其此后的权利。\n\n这就剩下 12 项异议。\n\nDBS（星展银行）提出的其余异议中有两项，以及 Sotheby's（苏富比）提出的一项异议，均已得到解决。\n\n我们已在案卷第 803 项提交了一份经修订的拟议命令，其中增加了一些措辞，处理了这些当事方，并将其排除在该命令之外。\n\n据我了解，他们已不再提出异议。\n\n我最后要向法院说明的一点是——实际上还有两点。\n\n第一，剩余的十项异议——我稍后会通过证据陈述及辩论对此加以说明。\n\n但是，如您所知，这就剩下十个人，法院会认定他们均以各种身份参与了本案，包括被告、与债务人有关联的人士，等等。\n\n剩余提出异议的当事方中，没有任何一方是银行、供应商，或者与本案迄今发生的事态无关的当事方。\n\n同样，我会将关于其相关性的大部分陈述留待稍后及证据调查部分再作说明。\n\n但我最后想向法院说明的是，我们还在 ECF 2801 提交了一项动议，提交——抱歉——约 30 份约定，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 21 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n请求法院签署的时效中止协议。这些协议均依照与当事方达成的协议以及我们向法院提出的请求，以密封方式提交。\n\n我提及此事，是因为显然，这些时效中止约定将解决与所有该 30 名当事方有关的任何问题，因为针对这些当事方的诉讼时效将经同意而中止。\n\n因此，以上就是我所作的最新情况说明。我将在此暂停，以了解法院是否有任何问题。\n\n随后，我——我们将计划进入证据陈述阶段。\n\n法院：谢谢。我没有问题。\n\n请继续。\n\n巴塞特先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。因此，我相信是在昨天上午，受托人在 ECF 2763 提交了一份拟议证人和证物清单，将受托人列为证人。\n\n然后，我认为我们大约有 130 件左右的证物。法官阁下，我们提交该证物清单，我认为主要是为了向法院提供一份有帮助的指引和汇总，涵盖我们在书面陈述中提到的所有各种文件，以及我们认为与所请求救济尤其相关的文件。\n\n但该证物清单上的每一份文件，实际上都是主第 11 章案件或对抗程序中的一项案卷文件。因此，我认为没有必要将所有这些文件作为证物纳入证据。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 22 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n我认为这些均属于法院可以司法认知的文件，而这正是我们请求法院所做的。再次说明，提交该清单的真正原因，只是为了将我们将会援引的大量证物集中列于一处。当然，截至目前，这是一起历时甚长的破产案件，已有数以千计的案卷条目及相关事件。而且，如您所知，我们将依赖的是本案的全部记录。\n\n因此，就该证物清单而言，我认为我们无需将其纳入证据，但我们请求法院对所有这些文件，以及当然本案案卷中我们可能提请法院注意的任何其他文件，予以司法认知。\n\n法院：好的，这没有问题，但是，如果你希望我查看本案案卷中任何一份诉状的某些具体条款，那么我会要求你向我指出这些条款，因为——我当然可以对它们均已提交这一事实予以司法认知。而且，根据联邦民事——证据规则，我对它们可能包含的内容有一定了解。\n\n但是，如果你希望法院对那些文件中的非常具体事项予以司法认知，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 23 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n我需要你向我指出那些文件。\n\n因此，我认为，如果你请求法院就某一具体诉状中的具体信息作出认定，你需要向我指出该诉状，以及其中你认为相关的内容。\n\n我当然可以对它们均已提交这一事实予以司法认知。而且我大致知道它们是什么。\n\n巴塞特先生：明白。明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n巴塞特先生：那么，法官阁下，受托人将传唤德斯平斯律师，即受托人本人，出庭作证。\n\n法院：既然没有证人席，我们只好稍作变通。因此我们——我要请法庭书记员——当然——我此刻甚至没有看到德斯平斯先生，但我可能得切换到另一页。\n\n德斯平斯先生，哦，您在那里。因此，显然，您明白，尽管我们不在法庭内，法庭书记员有权为您宣誓，并要求您就将要作出的证言宣誓其真实性。\n\n您看不到法庭书记员，但您能够听到法庭书记员的声音。而且我相信，尽管我不该这么说——我想问您，德斯平斯受托人，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n德斯平斯受托人，我想无论如何您都会认出法庭书记员的声音。显然，您不会看到她举起右手，但她会要求您举起您的右手，我会看到您举起右手，然后我们将据此继续进行。这样可以吗，德斯平斯受托人？\n\n德斯平斯先生：可以，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：明白。\n\n法院：谢谢。好的。那么，我请法庭书记员为证人宣誓。\n\n法庭书记员：好的，谢谢。抱歉。不好意思。抱歉，我刚才一时失声了。\n\n吕克·德斯平斯（Luc Despins），受托人，已宣誓\n\n法庭书记员：好的。请陈述您的姓名和地址，以供记录。\n\n证人：吕克·德斯平斯。我的办公地址是 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York, 10166。\n\n法庭书记员：谢谢。\n\n法院：好的，巴塞特律师，您可以继续。\n\n巴塞特先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n巴塞特先生直接询问：\n\n问：德斯平斯受托人，您能否先向法院以及线上其他所有人说明，您何时被任命为本案受托人？\n\n答：2022年7月初。\n\n问：好的。然后，我相信债务人最初是在 2022年2月提交第 11 章申请书的。那么，您是在本案开始约五个月后才被任命的，是这样吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：德斯平斯受托人，您能否概括地告诉法院，您在被任命后为开始了解本案情况做了什么？\n\n答：显然，我让我的律师，即 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），参与进来，试图掌握我们获任时可获得的信息。\n\n问：当您说可获得的信息时，您指的是什么？哪些类型的——\n\n答：嗯，我们在寻找账簿和记录、资产和负债明细表、财务状况说明书，这类文件。\n\n问：在您作出初步努力以大致掌握可获得信息后，您发现了什么？\n\n答：没有账簿和记录；并且——显而易见，资产和负债明细表及财务状况说明书均属虚假。因此，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n基本上没有任何真实信息。除此之外，破产财产中没有资金。零。嗯，这不完全正确。当时破产财产中约有 $15,000。\n\n问：那么，您提到了资产明细表和财务状况说明书。就债务人向法院申报的资产而言，其中列载了什么？\n\n答：基本上是 $3,850 的资产。\n\n问：那么您刚才提到了，嗯——$3,800 的资产，您应如何支付您在本案中所开展工作的费用和开支？\n\n答：我们别无选择，只能继续推进，并试图识别可以变现为现金以资助破产财产的资产，同时进行广泛的规则 2004 调查。\n\n问：您能否进一步谈谈，在您如刚才所述大致了解情况后，您开始进行的调查？\n\n答：可以。我认为在一个月或更短时间内，我们就提交了第一项规则 2004 动议。基本上，如您所知，该动议针对的是债务人的家庭成员或近亲关联人——基本上是我们能够确认参与债务人相关交易的人员。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 27 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n问：在那些——最初的——规则 2004 动议之后，您此后又提交了其他动议，对吗？\n\n答：是的。迄今我们共提交了 15 项规则 2004 动议。\n\n问：在这 15 项动议中，您向多少当事方发出了传票？\n\n答：发出了约 250 份传票。\n\n问：针对这些传票，您是否知道您的团队收到的文件总数约为多少？\n\n答：知道。如果我们说的是文件而不是页数，大约是 700,000 份文件。\n\n这有点误导性，因为实际数量更多。因为——如果看页数，则更接近 2 million 页。而且实际数量甚至更多，因为有些文件是以实时格式、本机格式提供的，这意味着它们尚未被打印和编目。\n\n您可以在电脑屏幕上查看它们，但是——因此它们仍需审阅，但您无法计算这些文件的页数。因此，这些文件还要加在上述数量之外。\n\n问：所以，当您说本机文件时，您的意思是像电子表格之类的文件，必须在电脑上审阅，并且有多个选项卡及类似内容，例如——\n\n那个？\n\n答\n正确。\n\n问\n那么，这些文件全部都是英文的吗？\n\n答\n不是。\n其中相当一部分是中文普通话。\n\n问\n顺便问一下，您何时收到所有这些文件？\n是在调查开始时一次性收到的，还是随着时间推移陆续收到的？\n我想了解一下时间安排。\n\n答\n是的。\n我会说，最初提供的文件非常缓慢地陆续到来。\n从页数的角度看，我会说其中大部分是在2023年秋季收到的。\n\n问\n对于为回应传票而收到的文件，您的团队做了什么？\n\n答\n嗯，努力审阅所有文件并了解其内容。\n如我所指出，并没有账簿和记录告诉我们这实际上是如何运作的。\n因此，您在审阅文件，但无法知道某一文件是否为关键文件，因为看待此事的最佳方式相当于拼图。\n您不知道那一块拼图是放在拼图中间、边缘，还是不放在那里。\n因此，我们试图掌握整体情况，并尽可能了解在提交申请前大约十年期间发生了什么，这要通过这些文件审阅来实现。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2947\n提交于 02/22/24\n录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2024年2月13日\n\n问\n那么，截至目前，您的团队实际上是否已经审阅了大约700,000份文件中的全部文件？\n\n答\n我会说，其中大多数，即使不是全部，均已审阅。\n是的。\n\n问\n但您刚才提到这有点像拼图。\n是否可以公平地说，仅仅因为一份文件被审阅过一次，并不意味着您当时必然能够认识到该文件的重要性？\n\n答\n是的。\n\nSKLARZ先生：\n反对诱导性提问。\n\n法庭：\n谁提出反对？\n\nSKLARZ先生：\n抱歉，法官阁下。\n我是Jeffrey Sklarz（杰弗里·斯克拉兹）。\n诱导性提问。\n\n法庭：\n您是反对诱导性提问，即认为那是一个诱导性问题吗？\n\nSKLARZ先生：\n是的。\n他——\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n驳回。\n谢谢。\n请继续，Bassett律师（巴塞特律师）。\n\n由BASSETT先生提问：\n\n问\n您曾说这有点像把拼图拼起来。\n我想问您，您作出的那项评论如何与文件审阅程序以及您的团队能够从该程序中了解的内容相关？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 2947\n提交于 02/22/24\n录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第30页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2024年2月13日\n\n答\n在当今环境中，很少有诸如某人说“我干了这件事，我做了这个”，或者“这是欺诈”之类的文件。\n没有这类文件。\n因此，您必须把各个碎片拼凑起来。\n所以您知道故事的一些部分，但需要用它们来核实这一切，因为其中一些可能是错误线索。\n我此前曾向法庭谈及错误线索，因为我们有许多文件并非通过2004程序向我们提供，而是由此前曾参与或被指称此前曾参与债务人事务的人提供。\n而且，我们审阅这些文件时，不能把其中所称内容视为事实。\n您需要核实。\n因此，审阅这些文件、检验其中各种理论，构成一个完整的过程。\n所以这是一个相当漫长且繁重的过程。\n\n问\n除审阅为回应Rule 2004传票而收到的文件外，您的团队还审阅了任何其他信息吗？\n\n答\n是的。\n债务人是社交媒体的高频使用者，因此有大量他发布在社交媒体上的视频。\n我会说，它们几乎全部是中文普通话。\n其中大多数没有翻译。\n因此，显然，团队中会说中文普通话的人员需要审阅这些内容。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第31页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2024年2月13日\n\n答\n正如我所说，有些人相信自己曾受到债务人的欺诈，因此他们自愿向我们提供信息。\n我们也审阅了这些信息。\n而且，如我所说，您不能假定债务人或这些人提供的任何内容都是准确的，因此我们需要检验它们，并对其中的每一项假定提出质疑。\n\n问\n除您的法律顾问外，是否有其他专业人士协助受托人进行调查？\n\n答\n有。\n我们聘请了Kroll（克罗尔）进行法务和会计调查——即调查的一部分。\n\n问\n您何时聘请Kroll？\n\n答\n非常早。\n2023年8月2日或8月3日。\n\n问\n那么，那大约是在您获任命一年后。\n您为什么没有更早聘请Kroll？\n\n答\n因为——我已经就此作过证。\n因为，鉴于我们无法控制并出售资产以便手头拥有现金，实际上不可能聘请一名法务会计师；我确实接洽过一人，询问其是否愿意按风险代理方式开展工作。\n他们拒绝了我。\n我知道我的同事Avi Luft先生（阿维·卢夫特）也接洽过另一家机构，一名法务调查人员，该人员也拒绝了他。\n我认为，人们会说，嗯，您本可以找到按风险代理方式工作的人。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第32页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2024年2月13日\n\n答\n按风险代理方式找人。\n但我认为，非常重要的一点是，应当理解，问题不仅在于风险代理。\n事实是，截至'23年5月，我们，也就是Linsey先生（林赛先生）的律所和我们自己，可能已经垫付了$8 million。\n即使是风险代理机构，也不会同意排在我们之后。\n他们会希望与我们分享任何追回款项，或者与我们按比例平等受偿。\n当然，我——您知道，我希望先获得支付，因为显然，我们已为该案件提供资金很长一段时间。\n因此，问题不仅在于风险代理。\n即使您能够找到按风险代理方式工作的人，凭经验我相信他们会说，好，但我们与您按比例平等受偿。\n在该案件获得资金之前，这造成了一个巨大的问题；该案件是在2023年6月下旬获得资金的。\n\n问\n那么——这正是我本来要问您的。\n在您说于8月聘请Kroll之前，大约发生了什么，最终使您获得了聘请Kroll的手段和资金？\n\n答\n那是2023年6月下旬出售Lady May（Lady May号）。\n\n问\n那么，那是在2023年6月下旬。\n我想您说Kroll是在8月初受聘。\n在出售Lady May号与聘请Kroll之间大约相隔一个月，是否有原因？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第33页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2024年2月13日\n\n答\n有，因为我们必须进行面试程序。\n我们联系了多家机构，对其进行面试。\n他们自身必须进行利益冲突审查，鉴于本案涉及的当事方数量，这需要很长时间。\n我们还需要决定采取哪一种方案。\n基本上，如果不计7月4日以及团队中部分成员——不是所有成员——的暑期休假，这大约花了30天来选择和聘请，并且——不仅是选择，还要协商委聘函及所有相关事项。\n所以这花了30天。\n\n问\n在我们一开始讨论Kroll时，您非常简短地谈到了Kroll所开展的工作类型。\n但您能否更详细地谈谈，自Kroll受聘以来，其协助您开展了何种调查和分析？\n\n答\n可以。\n基本上，这是法务分析，也是追踪分析，即资金如何流动，进入了哪些账户，等等，等等。\n但他们也进行调查工作，例如X国或Y国是否存在资产。\n所以他们进行了一些此类工作。\n但我会说，自其受聘以来，其工作中80%以上集中于审阅和分析资金流向，审阅数百个银行账户。\n\n问\n关于这一具体问题，为了帮助法庭了解——这不是记忆测试——您是否大致知道，为了让法庭了解工作范围，Kroll已经识别并一直在调查的账户、交易等的数量？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第34页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2024年2月13日\n\n答\n是的。\n有超过330个账户。\n对此，我会说，我们本周仍在发现账户，因此这只是一个衡量标准。\n有超过300个账户。\n大约有85,000笔交易——我可能相差2,000或3,000笔——Kroll一直在审阅的这些账户中流经的金额超过3 billion。\n\n我还想说，法官阁下，我总喜欢举俄罗斯套娃这个例子。\n我的意思是，您从一个银行账户开始，它显示出若干笔转账。\n所以，第一个就是您打开那个套娃，也就是该银行账户。\n该银行账户会引向其他较小的俄罗斯套娃。\n因为发生的情况是，从该账户向其他账户转账。\n有时账户被完全关闭，因为银行——您知道——察觉到有不当行为正在发生，于是关闭该账户。\n所以资金转到另一个账户。\n\n但即使该账户没有关闭，在六个月期间内，也可能有数千笔转账转至同样由郭企业控制的其他账户。\n因此，Linsey先生现在需要前往那些新的银行，向其取得2004证据开示，并让其提供其账户资料。\n然后，您通常会发现，您到了第二层，还有诸如PayPal（贝宝）之类的付款转账公司。\n\n人们知道PayPal是什么。\n例如，有一笔100,000的转账到PayPal。\n顺便说，这不是PayPal，而是PayPal的其他竞争者，但是。\n所以，现在Linsey先生必须回到相当于PayPal的机构，并说，请提供与这笔——这些转账有关的所有文件。\n然后您打开那个俄罗斯套娃。\n接着就有数百笔转账。\n\n然后，您掌握了有关开立银行账户的信息。\n例如，谁在——再说一次，这不是PayPal。\n我用它作简称——谁在PayPal开立了该账户？\n\n然后，您在该过程中发现各种各样的事情。\n但这需要——如我所解释，Linsey先生必须一次又一次、再一次地回到不同的银行。\n此外，这些银行并非全部——也就是说，举例而言，如果文件提供截止日是6月1日，我会说其中90%的银行不会在6月1日提供文件。\n您知道，它们在慢慢处理，并非出于不正当目的，而是因为它们不乐意做这项工作。\n它们不会以这种方式赚钱。\n所以它们\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2024年2月13日\n\n银行出示材料进度缓慢。当然，我不能每周都让 Linsey 先生（林西）去法院提交强制出示动议，因为我们很快就会破产。因此，我们需要有一定容忍度。因此，银行需要时间来出示材料。不仅如此，它们出示材料的工作做得也不好。意思是，我们查看了它们出示的文件。这很好。非常感谢。但是，我们缺少大概六个月的对账单。因此，我们必须回去要求它们出示该等材料。因此，完成所有这些工作是一项庞大、复杂且耗时的工作。\n\n问：那么，感谢您的说明。您现在谈到了 Kroll（克罗尔）的调查。您还谈到了您团队依据 Rule 2004（第2004条规则）进行的调查。通过该等调查，当您共同确定存在可能赋予您诉因的信息时，您会怎么做？届时您会怎么做？\n\n答：嗯，我们——如我所说——会对其进行检验，以确保其经得起推敲。但一旦我们掌握了足够材料，我们就起草起诉状，并提交起诉状。而且，正如阁下自上周五以来所见，我想我们大概已经提交了180份起诉状。因此，当我们掌握信息时，我们就提交起诉状。\n\n而且，我想说，大多数提出异议的人都已被列入起诉状。现在，他们已在已提交的起诉状中被列为被告，或者将在现在至周四期间提交的起诉状中被列为被告。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2947\n提交于 02/22/24\n录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2024年2月13日\n\n问：您提到自上周五以来已提交100多份起诉状。您如何界定那些起诉状？是否属于某一特定类型的起诉状？最近提交的是哪些起诉状？\n\n答：自上周五以来由 Linsey 先生（林西）律所提交的起诉状，通常是撤销之诉起诉状，一般而言，是欺诈转让、具有实际欺诈意图的转让。\n\n问：在提交这些起诉状之前，您和您的团队是否此前已在 Chapter 11（第11章）案件中提交过其他起诉状？\n\n答：是。我们曾提交约十份起诉状，试图追回诸如 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）、HCHK（HCHK）资金、该等资金、UBS（瑞银）基金、Bombardier（庞巴迪）喷气机等资产。Sherry Netherland（谢里·内瑟兰）。抱歉，我忘了提及 Sherry Netherland（谢里·内瑟兰）。\n\n问：明白。那么，除这些起诉状以及您刚才谈到的撤销之诉起诉状外，您和您的团队是否打算在2024年2月15日之前或2024年2月15日当日结束前提交任何其他起诉状？\n\n答：是。还有两类。我们仍将继续提交撤销之诉。但除此之外，我们将提交一份范围非常广泛的替身起诉状，基本上请求法院认定债务人衡平地拥有某些实体，或者——该等实体是债务人的替身。正如法院迄今就其中一些实体所作的认定。但这是一份范围广得多的名单。这是其一。\n\n第二份起诉状也是一份范围非常广泛的起诉状，是一份民事 RICO（《反有组织犯罪法》）起诉状，主张若干人——我会说今天提出异议的大多数人——参与了债务人为隐藏资产、妨碍司法、实施破产欺诈等而运作的欺诈计划。\n\n问：任何潜在的异议方会否在您刚才描述的两份起诉状中的任何一份中被列为被告？\n\n答：我会说，大多数人，即使不是全部。\n\n问：好的。现在我想稍微转换一下话题，询问您在调查过程中所经历的一些挑战或困难。在此之前，请提醒法院，我知道我们过去谈过这一点，但您从事破产法执业以及参与 Chapter 11（第11章）案件已有多久？\n\n答：现已超过35年。\n\n问：就您的该等经验而言，您在所描述的调查中是否面临过任何独特挑战，影响了您在2月15日截止日期前完成该项调查的能力？\n\n答：是。我会说，这是前所未有的，理由是我以前见过欺诈案件，也参与过极其复杂的欺诈案件，但本案——就正在发生之事的肆无忌惮程度，以及其在破产后大规模并以重新增强的势头持续发生这一事实而言——我从未见过这样的事情。然而，其中的妨碍程度以及实施这种行为时毫无羞耻感，是前所未有的。很遗憾这样说。\n\n问：本案已有数千项案卷记录。发生了很多事情。再次说明，这不是记忆测试，但您能否向法院重点说明出现的一些具体问题或挑战？\n\n答：嗯，如果我们暂且聚焦于——嗯，从一开始，债务人就试图取消该律所的资格，试图让我被撤换，对此提出上诉，又再次这样做，然后又撤回。因此，这只是一个小片段。\n\n然后事情继续发展为——我的意思是，我不想占用法院太多时间，因为法院可能比我们更亲历了这一切。但是，始终不停地——例如，不出示任何文件。例如，我认为债务人出示的文件总数是——我可能相差几份——但为45份文件。Mei Guo（郭美）出示了大约47份文件。例如，围绕游艇一直存在争斗，尽管纽约一名法官已作出认定，但仍就所有资产不断争斗。这实在荒谬。在证据开示方面以及资产追回方面，始终存在妨碍。\n\n问：那么，除您所说债务人试图取消您及您律所资格，以及您提到的证据开示挑战之外，还有其他情况吗？是否发生过其他干扰您调查的事情？\n\n答：嗯，整个抗议活动耗费了大量时间。而且存在干扰，我确信是有意的干扰，试图使我们偏离获任开展的工作，所以，您知道，整个抗议活动。\n\n一名在场并对此提出异议的当事人对我们提起了诉讼——该人因此受到制裁——不仅是针对我们，也针对 PAX（PAX）及律师等人，以至于一名地区法院法官命令该人士在其向任何法院提交的任何诉状中，始终附上对其作出制裁的命令副本——基本上，即认定其实施了相关行为或对其作出制裁的命令。之所以没有向本法院提交该命令，是因为他聘请了一名律师代理他。但如果他本人作为律师在此出庭，他就必须附上——我忘记是哪位法官作出的——纽约南区（Southern District of New York）法官作出的制裁命令。因此，这只是又一层妨碍行为，并且——其占用了本应发生之事的时间。\n\n问：现在，您提到那是一名异议方。是 Yongbing Zhang 先生（张永兵）吗？\n\n答：是的。\n\n问：当破产法院作出裁决时，无论是就强制出示动议还是诉讼，之后从上诉角度通常会发生什么？\n\n答：嗯，上诉。大量上诉。但除此之外，还有上诉待决期间停止执行，无论是在阁下面前还是在 Dooley 法官（杜利法官）面前，全部均被驳回。但这需要时间，而且极其耗时。费用非常高。因此，也有多起此类事项。\n\n问：那么，最近——这是在与 Mahwah mansion（马瓦宅邸）有关的对抗程序中——您就一个储物单元为调查目的提交了传票。正如已向法院报告的，受托人一直在审查其中内容。您能否谈谈这如何可能影响您的调查及其时间安排？\n\n答：是。这些储物单元中有数十个箱子，基本上装的是 Golden Springs（戈尔登斯普林斯）文件，即本应在数月前向我们出示的文件。显然，我们正试图审查这些文件，但这并非一项轻松的任务。显然，阁下知道 Golden Springs（戈尔登斯普林斯）未履行其出示义务。其被裁定藐视法庭。\n\n但现在我们知道，我们正在寻找的那些文件如今已找到，但我们是在——我忘了——去年12月左右找到的。大致是那个时间。顺便说一句，我确信还有其他储物单元，也许不在美国，而在世界各地，其中存有其他文件或艺术品。\n\n问：那么，在我们结束您面临挑战这一话题之前——我认为您已经举了一些您认为对您调查的妨碍行为的例子——您能否谈谈与本动议的特定异议方有关、令您印象特别深刻的任何妨碍行为？\n\n答：当然。嗯，该团体的领导人 Mei Guo（郭美），我的意思是，我不知道该怎么说，但她是妨碍行为、虚假陈述和伪证的典型代表。没有其他方式可以描述。比如，她说她因担心中国共产党而已停止使用智能手机。那不是真的。因为后来，我们获得了她的全部 WhatsApp（WhatsApp）记录——或者不是全部，而是她使用智能手机、iPhone（苹果手机）发送的部分 WhatsApp（WhatsApp）信息或短信。这是第一点。\n\n第二，她接受了宣誓证言。这令人难以置信。她于1月接受了宣誓证言。2023年1月20日。她说，哦，是的，我拥有的那架飞机——尽管购买时她还是青少年——在案件进行期间于2022年8月被出售了，而我不知道钱在哪里。我不知道。好的。\n\n这完全是谎言。我们现在从文件中得知，她一直在向获得该等资金的实体，即$13 million，发送电子邮件。该实体是伦敦一家名为 JMFX（JMFX）的实体。它是一家外汇实体。直至2022年12月17日，她仍在向其发送电子邮件、与其沟通。而她在宣誓证言中称，她完全不知道这些资金在哪里。这就是——您知道，这就是——这就是为什么我说，她是本案正在发生之事的典型代表。\n\n问：这如何影响您的调查以及您对——\n\n答：嗯——\n\n问：——本日提交法院的动议中所载期限中止请求的需要？\n\n答\n\n嗯，那——您知道，那是因为我们——我们不得不花大量时间追查所有这些事情，而不是能够审查本应提起的所有请求。我们——我们不得不追查这项近在眼前的资产，但我们当时并不知道。近在眼前——您知道，我想伦敦并不算近在眼前，但也足够接近了。但她知道这一点。\n\n而且，当然，这只是我们在整个案件中所面对的阻挠行为的一个例子。更——那是一个更为明显的例子。\n\n问\n\n所以您提到了 Yongbing Zhang（张勇兵）先生。不过，再次说明，这不是记忆测试。我们不需要逐一列举。但是，其他任何提出异议的当事人是否有令您印象深刻的问题？\n\n答\n\n嗯，您知道，G Club（G俱乐部）。我的意思是，为了从他们那里取得文件，进行了一场艰苦的拉锯战。再次，提出上诉、申请上诉期间停止执行，均被驳回。我的意思是，关于实体问题的上诉尚未审理，但上诉期间停止执行的申请被驳回。\n\n还有，您知道，Cao（曹）被告，我们上周刚刚起诉他，因为他是三辆豪华摩托车的登记所有人，而这些显然是债务人的摩托车。在他的证言记录中，我——由于该记录是保密的，我必须谨慎。但基本上，我邀请任何人阅读那份证言记录。这个人的闪烁其词实在是——您知道，他说，一个叫 Max（马克斯）的人打电话给我，让我签署所有权文件，以取得这些摩托车的所有权。但是 Max 是谁？不知道。不知道他的姓名。当然，我们知道 Max 是谁。他是 Krasner（克拉斯纳）。但是，您知道，他竟然声称自己不知情，这种说法。\n\n然后，他从一家自己已有 12 年或 15 年未曾任职的中国公司获得款项。他不知道自己为何收到这笔钱。我只是——这种阻挠行为的程度——这一切都非常微妙，我的意思是，从某种意义上说，您可能会说，好吧，那——你如何知道他在撒谎？好吧。公平地说。但是，一旦您做过大约 15 次这样的证言记录，我认为您就会对正在发生的事情形成相当清楚的模式认识。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第45页（共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n问\n\n本庭从本案的一项对抗性诉讼程序中了解到，有一个被称为 HCHK Creditors Committee（HCHK 债权人委员会）的个人群体。您的团队是否发现该委员会与任何提出异议的当事人之间存在任何关系？\n\n答\n\n是。有——我们在答复中已经指出，其中有几人是该债权人委员会的成员，该委员会由 Yongbing Zhang（张勇兵）先生领导。顺便说一句，他一直在监狱探视债务人。我们可能是从一则社交媒体帖子中得知此事。因此，显然他是债务人在移民事务方面的律师。因此，您知道，所以他们——再次，他们保持联系。他们是 HCHK 债权人委员会的一部分。他们参与了抗议，等等，等等。\n\n我相信，其中一些人从 Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）收到了钱。因此，我对此并非百分之百确定，但我知道，接下来两天内，有多名抗议者将因从法治基金会收取大额款项而被起诉。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第46页（共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n问\n\n这也是另一名提出异议的当事人，对吗？\n\n答\n\n正确。\n\n问\n\n所以您之前稍微谈到，您计划提起——或者说您正在继续提起撤销权诉讼起诉状，然后计划在 15 日之前再提起两份起诉状。您还提到，您认为将会在其中一份或两份起诉状中把这些提出异议的当事人大多数、即使不是全部，列为被告。我的问题是，如果您能够在 February 15th 截止日期之前提起您所谈到的所有这些起诉状，您为什么需要通过您的动议所寻求的时效中止？\n\n答\n\n是。那么让我举两个非常具体的例子。第一个是，我知道存在一个问题，但我没有足够的信息提出请求。比如——您知道，我在谈及银行账户时提到了俄罗斯套娃的比喻。但我们这里有一个非常具体的问题：通过第一个账户，我们发现第二个账户；第二个账户又引向一种类似 PayPal 的实体。这不是 PayPal；我只是用它作为支付转账实体的简称。因此，我们向该实体进行调查。Lindsay（林赛）先生要求他们提交其文件，包括开户文件。\n\n那么，我们在那里发现了什么？我们发现了一名与债务人关系非常密切、参与许多计划和资产隐藏计划的人的护照。这是一份欧洲某国的护照；该国，我该怎么说呢，过去以及也许五、六年前，对于购买房地产的外国人授予护照非常宽松。\n\n所以您可能会说，好吧，这能告诉你什么？这告诉我，该国可能有房地产。而且不是由那个人拥有，因为那个人没有钱。那是债务人的不动产。现在，我是否知道得足以提起起诉状？不，绝对不够。我们在 11 月下旬发现了该信息。我们没有任何办法——法官阁下，这里各州并没有一个中央房地产登记册，因此您无法进行那样的查询。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第47页（共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n我们当然正在调查该问题，但我——我无法提起一份起诉状，说我认为那个国家有一栋房屋，但我不知道它在哪里。顺便说一句，它也可能已经被出售，因此我没有——所以关键是，我们有许多这样的线索，如果您愿意这么称呼，我们无法继续追查，因为我们了解得还不够。\n\n第二类请求是，正如我所说——我不想在这件事上显得过于迂腐。我百分之百确定，还有我们不知道的其他资产转移请求，因为这正是我们所面对之事的性质。而对于那些，我们甚至没有线索。因此，恕我直言，这就是所有这些异议者来这里的原因，因为对他们而言，严格适用 February 15th 的时效期限确有实际好处，因为他们实际上可以从中获得极大的利益。\n\n这就是第二个例子。这也是为什么在本案中取得时效期限的衡平中止至关重要。\n\n问\n\n因此，一些提出异议的当事人在其书面文件中表示，如果您决定对某一特定当事人提起起诉状，他们通常只会等待，并在以后寻求衡平时效中止。您对这一建议有何回应？\n\n答\n\n在这个具有非同寻常情形的非同寻常案件中，这种做法行不通，因为它使破产财产面临难以置信的风险。风险在于沿着——继续我们的调查，花费真金白银调查真实线索，结果在您花掉所有这些钱之后，才发现您的请求已过时效。基本上，在这里提出异议的人不应当从债务人或其他人的阻挠行为中受益。他们不必亲自造成阻挠，尽管我会说，在大多数情况下他们确实如此。关键是，破产财产不应冒这样的风险：花费数十万美元继续进行调查，却可能在六个月后被认定已过时效。这确实是问题的核心。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第49页（共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n问\n\n您提到了六个月，这正是您在动议中寻求的延期时长。为什么是六个月？\n\n答\n\n因为，如我所说，我们有许多——我称之为线索或潜在线索。我们认为六个月是一个——这里需要进行权衡。我的意思是，我们本可以申请一年，但关键在于，我们——我们意识到，我们正在请求本庭作出一项影响他人权利的命令。因此，我们正试图在此与保护破产财产及最大化无担保债权人回收额的问题之间取得平衡。因此，我们认为六个月是一个良好的——当然是一个良好的复核节点。这可能是最后一次延期，因为我们将会得出结论，这些线索不值得追查、成本过高或过于复杂，因为它们涉及外国司法管辖区；或者我们可能已经像我们提交其他起诉状那样提交了它们——到 February 15th，我们现在将已提交 230 份起诉状。因为我们将会——您知道，那些起诉状当时已经准备好提交。\n\n不存在任何策略性等待。我们并非坐等一份已准备好提交的起诉状，也并非出于策略性理由不提交它。我认为曾有这种指控。但是，不，并非如此。当一份起诉状准备好、我们掌握了信息、它符合 Rule 11 时，我们就会提交它。但是，我们认为六个月将使我们处于非常有利的位置，要么提交更多起诉状，要么说明事情到此为止。\n\n问\n\n谢谢。我想我只有最后一个问题，就是询问您，针对并非所有、但我认为是数名提出异议的当事人所作出的主张，称他们不相信您和您的团队在截止日期前追查潜在请求的调查中采取了勤勉行动，您是否有任何回应？您对此有何回应？\n\n答\n\n嗯，我——再次说明，我不想显得过于迂腐，但我认为我们一直在昼夜不停地工作。尤其是在（无法辨认）方面，我会说，Linsey（林赛）先生的团队在过去六个月里一直昼夜不停地从事这一过程。我们已经尽可能勤勉——我做过很多这类事情，我认为我们探索了每一种可能性。在我们拥有足够信息这样做时，我们通过提交起诉状抓住了每一种可能性。因此，这不是缺乏勤勉的问题。这是在受托人被指定以来的这一期间内，不可能知悉这里所发生之事的完整范围的问题。这根本不可能。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n这不是勤勉不足的问题。这是在受托人被指定以来的期间内，不可能知悉这里所发生之事的完整范围的问题。这根本不可能。\n\nBASSETT（巴西特）先生：谢谢您，Despins（德斯潘）受托人。法官阁下，我目前没有其他问题。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。现在，有数名提出异议的当事人。我相信人们希望对 Despins 受托人进行交叉询问，但我不会允许各方重复询问其他人已经问过的问题。因此，在我们开始对 Despins 先生进行任何交叉询问之前，我只是让大家明白这一点。因此，我将从 Mei Guo（郭美）的律师开始，即 Moriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生或 Della Fera（德拉费拉）先生。显然，你们中只有一人将询问——交叉询问 Despins 受托人，而不是你们二人。我因此假定，你们已在今天下午本次听证会之前对此作出了安排。\n\nDELLA FERA（德拉费拉）先生：是的，法官阁下。Sam Della Fera（萨姆·德拉费拉）。我将进行——我将交叉询问受托人。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。您可以进行。\n\nDELLA FERA（德拉费拉）先生：好的。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n交叉询问\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第51页（共\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第52页（共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n由 DELLA FERA律师发问：\n\n问：Despins先生，您就以下风险作证：如未获准所请求的期限延长，而日后试图提出一项请求权，该请求权最终可能因超过时效而被禁止，从而给破产财团带来风险。\n\n法庭：Della Fera律师，很遗憾，您的画面卡住了。其他人也是这样吗？\n\nBASSETT律师：是的。\n\n证人：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。请稍等一下。我们看看能否让他恢复。\n\n证人：我想他现在恢复了。\n\nDELLA FERA律师：抱歉，法官阁下。您能听见我吗？\n\n法庭：抱歉。可以，我们能听见。您刚才在问有关Despins受托人刚刚所作证言的问题。然后您似乎——\n\nDELLA FERA律师：对。\n\n法庭：所以您可能需要再问一遍该问题。\n\nDELLA FERA律师：我会的，法官阁下。再次表示歉意。\n\n由 DELLA FERA律师发问：\n\n问：Despins先生，您就以下风险作证：如在所请求的期限延长未获准的情况下，日后提出一项请求权，则该请求权可能会因超过时效而对破产财团被禁止。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 53 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— February 13, 2024\n\n问：您记得该证言吗？\n\n答：对破产财团而言，风险在于该程序会直接产生数十万美元的费用，是的。\n\n问：而且，最终花费该笔资金提出该请求权后，该请求权最终可能被认定为因超过时效而被禁止，对吗？\n\n答：除非我们今天获得时效中止裁定，否则这就是风险，是的。\n\n问：那么，难道不是这样吗——但这是否构成风险，难道只有在您提出该请求权时，衡平因素对您和破产财团不利，才会构成风险吗？\n\n答：我不知道该听证会上可能发生什么。但很难相信Mei Guo（郭美）今天能够主张衡平因素会有利于——您的意思是，衡平因素在该情形下会有利于我们吗？\n\n问：我并未主张衡平因素有利于你们。是你们主张衡平因素今天有利于你们。而且我们并不知道您可能会对我的当事人提出哪些请求权，对吗？\n\n答：我们并不确切知道是什么请求权。这是正确的。\n\n问：好的。所以在我看来，我想知道您是否同意，破产财团面临请求权因超过时效而被禁止的风险，只有在提出该请求权时衡平因素并不有利于破产财团的情况下才会出现。对吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 54 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok — February 13, 2024\n\n答：不对，因为可能存在许多因素。法庭可能认定我们已有足够信息提出该请求权，或者我们等待得太久。或者我——您知道，这是一个多方面的分析。因此，无法预测该裁定会如何作出。\n\n答：但关键在于，当您面对像您的当事人那样妨碍司法的人时，他们——我们不应处于承担任何风险的境地——\n\n问：所以听起来——\n\n答：——就该问题而言。\n\n问：听起来您并不太喜欢我的当事人。这样说公平吗？\n\n答：嗯，我不知道，但我认为我们已经开始了解她所代表的是什么。是的。\n\n问：您认为她是不良行为人吗？\n\n答：嗯，这取决于您如何看待伪证。\n\n问：那么，听起来您是这么认为的。在您看来，作伪证者——不良行为人是否有权享有正当程序？\n\nBASSETT律师：异议。这是法律——这是诱导性提问，而且是法律论证，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：Della Fera律师，我理解您的问题。您已经让受托人回答了您的问题。但如果您想询问正当程序，我认为您需要以不同的方式提出问题。好吗？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 2947\n提交 02/22/24\n录入 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok — February 13, 2024\n\nDELLA FERA律师：没关系。谢谢您，法官阁下。我撤回该问题。\n\n由 DELLA FERA律师发问：\n\n问：Despins先生，您所在律师事务所有多少名律师？\n\n答：您是指所有律师吗？\n\n问：所有律师。\n\n答：是的。大约1,200名，可能更多。\n\n问：对。那么，在这起破产案件中，已经提出了多少宗上诉，大致而言？\n\n答：至少十宗，也许更多。\n\n问：好的。那么，您的证言是，这十宗上诉阻碍了您以及您所在拥有1,200名律师的事务所高效、迅速地调查您可能对某些个人和实体提出的请求权吗？\n\n答：是的。让我回应一下。这是一个根本问题，即您不能用50名律师来办理这样的案件。我可以让50名或70名律师投入此案。我们不能这么做，因为成本将高得惊人，而且您会失去所有效率。因此，我们的团队规模足以处理这样的案件，同时又不浪费资源。所以，当然，我们可以让1,200名律师处理所有这些事情，但这样办案不会有效率，而且不可能用这么多律师管理这样的案件。而且成本也会高得令人无法承受。\n\nHo Wan Kwok — February 13, 2024\n\n因此，答案是，拥有比我们现有团队更大的团队完全没有意义。考虑到我们的团队，它本身已经相当大了。但我们还有Linsey先生的团队在处理此事。因此，这是一个相当大的团队。而且费用非常昂贵，非常昂贵。并且，您知道，我理解从债务人的角度，您基本上希望我们运行尽可能低效的程序，但我们不能那样做。\n\n问：我不代表债务人，Despins先生，但那可能对，也可能不对。不过，我现在想到您关于聘用一名法务会计师的相关情况所作的证言。您大致记得该证言吗？\n\n答：是的，大致记得。\n\n问：我相信您作证称，聘用法务会计师的问题之一是，他们希望像其他行政债权人一样，与您和您的事务所按同等比例受偿。对吗？\n\n答：这是聘用法务会计师的问题之一，即使按风险代理的基础聘用也是如此，前提是他们愿意这样做。他们会坦率地说，那么，如果有一个\\$20 million的资金池，我们将按同等比例分享，而这并不——在我们当时所处的情形下，\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 56 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 57 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok — February 13, 2024\n\n我们已经被欠付，我认为，7 or \\$8 million，这根本不现实。\n\n问：如果您不担心保障和优先支付您及您事务所的费用，您认为您能否比实际耗费13——比实际耗费13或14个月聘用一名法务调查员更早聘用到一名？\n\n答：不，这不是我会采用的表述方式。我会说，财务顾问显然会考虑该问题。因此，正如我所说，假定他们愿意按风险代理方式办理——我已经作证，我们就其中两家遭到拒绝。因此，理解——假定您找到愿意按风险代理方式办理的人，您还会面临另一个问题，即他们希望与我们按同等比例受偿。\n\nDELLA FERA律师：好的，谢谢您，Despins先生。法官阁下，我没有进一步的问题。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢您，Della Fera律师。下一位提出异议的当事人，我想——Mateo律师，如果您要提问，您将进行交叉询问吗？\n\nMATEO女士：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：请开始。\n\n交叉询问\n\n由 MATEO女士发问：\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 2947\n提交 02/22/24\n录入 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok — February 13, 2024\n\n问：下午好，Despins受托人。我将就提出异议者之一Defeng Cao（曹德锋），C-A-O，向您提出几个问题。为简便起见，我将称Defeng Cao先生为Cao先生。可以吗？\n\n答：当然。\n\n问：您何时首次得知Cao先生？\n\n答：我不具体记得。我的意思是，我——我得知过他。当然，问题是要为我得知他的时间确定一个时间范围。实际上，我——对，我可以给出一个时间范围。是在我们到访Mahwah豪宅之后。所以，Mahwah豪宅，我想说是在July 4th。也许我弄混了——是Memorial Day还是July 4th？总之——等等。不，不。实际上，是Labor Day。抱歉。Labor Day周末。\n\n问：我来帮您一下，因为听起来您可能是在作一些推测。您于May 15th, 2023提交了一项Rule 2004动议，以寻求对Cao先生进行证据开示，对吗？\n\n答：好的。那么，是的，大约就是在那个时间。好的。当然。\n\n问：难道不是这样吗，您在该Rule 2004动议中称，您是在平行刑事诉讼中一名被告的拟议保释担保方案所列拟议保证人名单中发现Cao先生姓名的？对吗？\n\n答：那大概是对的。是的。\n\nHo Wan Kwok — February 13, 2024\n\n法庭：我能打断一下吗？\n\n证人：我们对那些摩托车毫不知情——\n\n法庭：我能打断一下吗？Mateo律师，我没有听到您的问题。您问题中的一部分没有传过来。由于我们所有程序都通过音频进行，如果我没有听清，那就意味着没有被录下来。您说，您不是从一份——名单中识别出Cao先生的姓名吗——我没有听到那个词。\n\nMATEO女士：拟议保证人。\n\n法庭：保证人？\n\nMATEO女士：是的，保证人。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。谢谢您。抱歉。\n\nMATEO女士：没关系。\n\n法庭：感谢您。感谢您。请继续。\n\nMATEO女士：这是个容易混淆的词。不必担心。\n\n由 MATEO女士发问：\n\n问：好的。而且Cao先生没有对您的Rule 2004动议提出异议，对吗？\n\n答：我不知道。坦率地说，我没有参与——我的意思是，我——是的，我参与了，因为我是受托人。但我希望这不会让任何人感到意外，我不会跟踪每一个Rule 2004目标对象。所以，我——我对他的最初记忆，即我为何对他感兴趣，是在\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 59 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok — February 13, 2024\n\n到访Mahwah豪宅之后。我认为那是在Labor Day或July 4th。我记得那是一个大型节日。因为我们在那里发现了摩托车，而他后来被证明是这些摩托车的登记所有人。但抱歉打断了您的提问思路。\n\nMATEO女士：申请删除该不具回应性的回答。\n\n由 MATEO女士发问：\n\n问：我的问题是，Cao先生没有对您的Rule 2004动议提出动议——提出异议，对吗？\n\n答：而我说的是，我不知道。\n\n问：好的。我来帮您一下：事实上，Cao先生没有对Rule 2004传票提出异议或提出撤销动议。Cao先生自愿接受了您Rule 2004传票的送达。对吗？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：他接受了。而且Cao先生还及时向您的Rule 2004传票提交了书面答复。对吗？\n\n答：有这种可能，但我对此没有个人所知。\n\n问：而且Cao先生还及时向您和Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）提交了回应您Rule 2004传票的文件。对吗？\n\n答：他确实提交了一些文件。至于是否提交了所有回应性文件，我对此——我有严重怀疑。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 60 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 2947\n提交 02/22/24\n录入 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok — February 13, 2024\n\n马特奥女士（Mateo）：\n请求删除，理由为答复不具回应性。\n\n由马特奥女士提问：\n\n问 我也没有问您他是否提交了所有文件。我问您的是，他是否及时向您送达了响应您根据《破产规则》第 2004 条发出的传票的文件。对吗？\n\n答 我不知道它们是否及时提交。\n\n问 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）直到 October 20, 2023 才安排曹先生（Mr. Cao）的证言录取，对吗？\n\n答 我知道我们是在 October 安排的，但我不知道更多细节。\n\n问 在曹先生的证言录取之后，您和您的律师没有向曹先生寻求任何额外的证据开示，对吗？\n\n答 可能是这样。我不知道。再次说明，我并不每日跟进 250 个，您知道，第 2004 条的对象。我不知道在那个具体案件中他是否这样做了。\n\n问 嗯，我只是想探究一下。因为您刚才在证言中证明，曹先生是阻碍您寻求证据开示的人，所以我只是想弄清楚，事实上并非如此。随后向其他第三方发出的第 2004 条传票中，是否将曹先生列为关联个人？对吗？\n\n答 这当然有可能。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— February 13, 2024\n\n问 曹先生作为被认定为关联个人的众多个人之一，针对寻求有关其信息的任何该等第 2004 条传票均未提出异议，对吗？\n\n答 这很可能是。我不知道。\n\n问 直到您的律师看到他对中止时效动议提出异议后，才于上周开始起草针对曹先生的对抗程序起诉状，对吗？\n\n答 不。这完全不实。\n\n问 针对曹先生的对抗程序起诉状仅依赖于其证言录取证词，以及他四个月前向您提交的文件，对吗？\n\n答 我不确定是否——我不确定是否是这种情况。\n\n问 就是这样。\n\n答 好的。\n\n问 您的律师——\n\n巴西特先生（Bassett）：\n异议。异议。异议律师作证。如果她得到该问题的回答，那没问题，但随后跟进并提供证词是不适当的。\n\n法院：\n异议成立。\n\n由马特奥女士提问：\n\n问 您的律师在看到他对中止时效动议提出异议的次日，便提交了针对曹先生的对抗程序起诉状，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 62 页，共 69 页\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 2947\n提交 02/22/24\n录入 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— February 13, 2024\n\n答 我不知道这一点，但我知道我们至少已经就该起诉状开展工作两个月了。\n\n问 针对曹先生的对抗程序是否仅为试图使其对中止时效动议的异议失去意义而提起？对吗？\n\n答 绝对不是。顺便说一句，那也不会实现这一点，因为我希望能够对他主张其他我们尚不了解足够情况的请求权。因此，这并不会使其失去意义。\n\n问 您此前谈到，必须在破产财团的需要与 900 多名潜在被告的正当程序权利之间取得平衡。您记得吗？\n\n答 不，我没有这么说。抱歉。我认为您说的是那 900 名被告。而且我说过——我没有谈到正当程序。我说的是，我们正在影响一些人的权利，我们希望将此与保护破产财团、为债权人实现价值最大化的需要进行平衡。\n\n问 我相信，在本次听证开始时，您的律师向法院提供了一项更新，其中指出，就中止时效动议而言，已向 900 多名潜在被告送达通知。对吗？\n\n答 他没有说潜在被告。他说已向 900 个实体发出通知。\n\n问 而这些实体和个人在中止时效动议中被认定为“潜在被告”。对吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— February 13, 2024\n\n答 这一点我——我不记得那 900 个对象是否被认定为潜在被告。但就通知而言，我们试图尽可能广泛地撒网，以便从通知的角度而言，我们不会落在范围之外，并确保他们对正在法院审理的程序获得准确通知。\n\n问 那么，如果他们不是潜在被告，您会如何分类或描述这 900 名个人和实体？\n\n答 因为他们是与债务人有过往来的人，但这并不意味着他们实际上会被起诉。该通知明确说明，我认为是应我的要求加入的，即收到该通知并不意味着您将被起诉。因为我们并不掌握所有事实，而这正是这里的关键所在。\n\n问 侵犯已与您及您的律师合作的当事人的正当程序权利，如何能实现衡平？\n\n巴西特先生（Bassett）：\n异议。具有争辩性。\n\n法院：\n异议成立。\n\n由马特奥女士提问：\n\n问 是否可能在达到您所请求的六个月期限时，您和您的律师还必须请求再次延期？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 64 页，共 69 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 65 页，共 69 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— February 13, 2024\n\n答 这绝对有可能，但不会——我的职责是确保在可能范围内，这种情况不会发生。我的意思是，我确实希望尽可能迅速地结束本案的这一部分。因此，只要我们能够就我们所做之事在此获得救济，我们将全速推进。并且希望我们不必向法院提出更多请求。\n\n问 潜在被告如何能够获得任何保证，确保其正当程序权利不会因您可能就诉讼时效提出的额外延期而进一步受到侵犯？\n\n巴西特先生（Bassett）：\n异议。具有争辩性。假定不存在于证据中的事实。\n\n法院：\n异议成立。\n\n马特奥女士（Mateo）：\n法官阁下，我没有其他问题。\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢您，马特奥律师。下一位提出异议的当事人应为 DBS Bank（星展银行），我相信是韦纳律师（Attorney Weiner）？\n\n韦纳女士（Weiner）：\n是的。谢谢您，法官阁下。我没有要询问该证人的问题，但如有可能，我希望保留稍后作简短陈述的权利。\n\n法院：\n可以。谢谢。\n\n韦纳女士（Weiner）：\n谢谢。\n\n法院：\n好的。那么下一位提出异议的当事人是 Taurus Fund, LLC（金牛座基金有限责任公司），那就是您，康威先生（Mr. Conway）。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— February 13, 2024\n\n康威先生，请您在开始提问前给我一点时间。我只需要弄清楚我进行到哪里了。请给我一秒钟。嗯，也许不止一秒钟。大约 30 秒钟，请。\n\n康威先生（Conway）：\n当然。\n\n法院：\n好的。康威先生，您准备好后即可开始。\n\n康威先生（Conway）：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。记录在案，我是代表 Taurus Fund, LLC（金牛座基金有限责任公司）、Tourist Management, LLC（旅游管理有限责任公司）以及 Scott Barnett（斯科特·巴内特）的 Michael Conway（迈克尔·康威）。\n\n由康威先生交叉询问：\n\n问 下午好，德斯潘先生（Mr. Despins）。\n\n答 下午好。\n\n问 仅有几个后续问题。有人陈述称，已向 900 人送达本动议，但您所知的大约有多少潜在被告？\n\n答 嗯，这假定我知道全部范围。我知道我们将提交大约 230 份起诉状。请不要以该数字为准。根据我们能够从人们那里获得的中止时效协议，这个数字可能多 10 个、多 20 个，或少 15 个。因此，那是一个范围，但它是已知的。如果您是要求我推测，在 February 15th 之后的潜在被告，我不知道。我知道——我不该说我知道。我相信，很可能会对大多数提出异议者提交额外的请求权主张，因为我知道我们尚未掌握全貌。但我不能告诉您是 15、20、12 或 50。我无法评估。抱歉。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 66 页，共 69 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 67 页，共 69 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— February 13, 2024\n\n问 没关系。我们不希望您推测。我想就您开始作证前听到的证物问您一些问题。它们是否——我们实际上并没有听到您就任何证物作证，但它们是否被列为阻碍行为的例子？\n\n答 嗯，但是，我的意思是，它们是——它们是已登记在案的文件。因此，我确信其中有强制动议、制裁动议，以及法院作出的动议或命令，所以——\n\n问 与阻碍行为有关？\n\n答 我假定是这样。是。\n\n问 是否有任何阻碍行为的事例没有被列入您的证物清单？\n\n答 嗯，有。如果我们谈的是您的当事人，例如巴内特先生，我们刚刚得知——而这正表明，您知道，我们一直都在得知事情——事实上，在曹先生成为所有人之前，他是那些摩托车的所有人。\n\n因此，这是那里正在发生之事的又一例证。当然，他不是真正的所有人。他被债务人利用，以持有债务人正在使用的摩托车的所有权。\n\n并且，我们大概两个月前刚刚得知，就 Mahwah（马瓦）的储物单元而言，谁是租户？巴内特先生或其公司。因此，这些显然也是阻碍者的其他例子。他在那里是为了确保债务人不是该设施的租户，或者不是摩托车的所有人。他是该计划的一部分。因此，这会构成更多阻碍，是的。\n\n问 那些是关于不当行为的指控。他没有向您隐瞒任何这些事实，对吗？\n\n答 嗯，他没有披露它们。这是肯定的。\n\n问 您何时就此询问过他？\n\n答 我没有——我不——如我所说，我并不处理证据开示的每个方面，所以我无法说明。\n\n问 好的。您不知道曾向他提出任何要求、索取该信息但他予以隐瞒的情况，对吗？\n\n答 我不知道。答案是我不知道。\n\n问 好的。但我的问题比巴内特先生更广泛。我问的是，您是否知道是否存在这样的情形：有人被要求——您向某人提出请求，该人拒绝回应您的请求，而您没有向法院提出该问题。\n\n答 再次说明，我——有 250 份传票、对象。因此，我不能给您——我认为一般而言，我们会尝试向法院跟进。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2947 提交 02/22/24 录入 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 69 页，共 69 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— February 13, 2024\n\n尽管有些情形中，要么过于耗时，要么对象太小，要么我们会以其他方式获得该对象。巴内特可能属于该类别，因为我们正就 Mahwah 事宜在对抗程序中起诉他。\n\n因此，我们可能有许多理由没有向法院跟进以取得动议——或藐视法庭命令。因为对没有钱的人或已清算的实体取得藐视法庭命令，可能并不具有吸引力。\n\n因此，康威先生，我不会得出这样的结论：每当有人未提交某物时，我们就向法院提交了文件。可能正在准备提交，或者我们决定目前不提交，因为我们将以其他方式取得它。\n\n问 好的。为澄清起见，您提到有几个团队在处理此事。您所在的 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）有多少律师正在处理这宗破产案？\n\n答 大约 10、12 名。\n\n问 通过查看您提交给法院审批的发票，我们基本上能够看到所有处理该破产案的律师，对吗？\n\n答 正确。\n\n问 好的。现在，您是否一直在从 Department of Justice（司法部）接收与其调查有关的信息？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 70 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - February 13, 2024\n\n1 以及债务人的刑事追诉？\n2 答\n不是。实际上，我们——这也是我们寻求适用衡平法时效中止的另一个原因——在经历了大量争执后，\n3 本院裁定，债务人应请求刑事法院向我们提供美国司法部（DOJ）向其提供的任何文件。并且\n4 我们曾经——我们基本上不得不撤回该请求，\n5 因此我们没有获得那些文件。因此，对您问题的\n6 回答——抱歉绕了这么大一圈才说到这里——是，\n7 不是，我们没有从美国司法部获得任何材料。\n8 问\n那么，您说我们没有获得——您尚未\n9 从美国司法部收到任何与\n10 债务人有关的信息？\n11 答\n嗯，实际上——我刚才说得不够严谨。\n12 在您的案件，即 Mahwah 案件中，我们确实获得了联邦调查局（FBI）探员拍摄的某些物品的照片，例如债务人的\n13 处方药或家庭照片，或者——我记不清了。还有\n14 其他物品。但您知道那些是什么。诸如此类的其他东西。\n15 所以我们确实从美国司法部获得了那些材料。但据我\n16 所知，那是我们从他们那里获得的、唯一有关债务人文件或任何有关\n17 债务人的信息。\n18 问\n好的。他们没有向您提供任何\n19 与债务人以外的人有关的材料，例如任何——的\n20 银行账户记录？\n21 答\n没有，不——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2947\n提交日期 02/22/24\n录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\n郭文贵 - February 13, 2024\n\n1 问\n——您所提及的 BVI entities（英属维尔京群岛实体）？\n2 答\n没有。所以，我也可以半开玩笑地说，但令我们\n3 极为沮丧的是，没有，我们没有从\n4 他们那里获得任何材料。\n5 问\n您向他们要过吗？他们说不行？\n6 答\n没有，我们没有直接向他们索要，但我们是通过向本院提交的动议提出请求，\n7 本院命令债务人向刑事法院请求\n8 让我们查阅这些文件。因此这令人沮丧，\n9 因为我们认为那里会有很多非常有价值的\n10 文件。但这就是我说我们感到沮丧的原因，\n11 因为我们没有——\n12 问\n为澄清起见，该动议是向哪个法院提出的？\n13 答\n我们提交了强制债务人的动议，那是一段\n14 漫长的经历，但目的是强制债务人交出债务人在刑事案件中\n15 从美国司法部收到的所有文件，\n16 理由是这些文件来自美国司法部。\n17 因此，如果债务人持有这些文件，我们应该能够——让我们查阅并无\n18 妨害。显然，这并未发生，\n19 所以——\n20 问\n好的。为澄清起见，我的问题是，您是否向\n21 美国司法部索要过文件？\n22 答\n是的。嗯，我们在早期请求查阅那些文件，\n23 他们告诉我们绝无可能。我们无法\n24 从他们那里获得。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2947\n提交日期 02/22/24\n录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\n郭文贵 - February 13, 2024\n\n1 康威律师（MR. CONWAY）：\n我没有更多问题。\n2 本院：\n好的。谢谢您，康威律师。\n3 那么，下一异议方是 G Club\n4 Operations（G Club运营公司）。斯克拉兹律师（Attorney Sklarz）、福尔诺斯律师（Attorney Fornos），你们两位中哪一位，\n5 如果有的话，将对德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）进行交叉询问？\n6 \n7 斯克拉兹律师：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。我会。\n8 本院：\n请开始。\n9 交叉询问\n10 由斯克拉兹律师进行：\n11 问\n下午好，德斯平斯受托人。我的名字是 Jeff\n12 Sclarz（杰夫·斯克拉兹），我代理 G Club（G Club）。G Club 在本事项中已出示超过\n13 140,000 份文件，对吗？\n14 答\n我不知道确切数量。我知道他们出示了\n15 文件，但我没有他们究竟出示了多少文件的\n16 计数。\n17 问\n这些文件自 June 2023 起开始出示，\n18 对吗？\n19 答\n我记得的是，在我们提出强制动议之前，双方往返沟通了数月，\n20 之后我们获得了一些\n21 文件。至于是否为 June 2023，我不能确定地\n22 说。\n23 问\n好的。您提到了强制动议。您熟悉\n24 《破产程序规则》和\n25 《联邦民事诉讼规则》吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 73 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - February 13, 2024\n\n1 答\n是的，大体上熟悉。\n2 问\n这些规则允许当事人对证据开示\n3 请求提出异议，对吗？\n4 答\n是的，当然。\n5 问\n这些规则是由最高法院颁布的？\n6 答\n正确。\n7 问\n所以，最高法院认为当事人对证据开示提出异议、\n8 由法院对这些异议作出裁决是适当的，\n9 对吗？\n10 巴塞特先生（MR. BASSETT）：\n异议。诱导性。\n11 无关性。\n12 斯克拉兹律师：\n其相关性在于，德斯平斯先生在被\n13 问及有关 June 出示文件的是或否问题时，\n14 就我们如何就证据开示进行争执发表了一番讲话。\n15 我们遵循了规则，这是适当的。因此，我认为该\n16 问题适当。\n17 巴塞特先生：\n我认为，询问证人最高法院如何看待\n18 某事并不适当，法官阁下。\n19 \n20 斯克拉兹律师：\n我没有问最高法院如何看待。\n21 \n22 巴塞特先生：\n您就是这么问的。\n23 斯克拉兹律师：\n让我重新表述——\n24 本院：\n为什么我们不直接问一个不同的\n25 问题？\n\n郭文贵 - February 13, 2024 74 斯克拉兹律师：好的。我会重新表述。由斯克拉兹律师进行：问 G Club 遵循了民事诉讼规则。对吗？答 我不能说他们是否遵循了。我知道你们反对出示文件。当然，每个人都有权提出异议。这——但那并非发生的情况。那持续了数月。问 好的。答 还有——问 没有问题。当前没有问题。答 好的。问 您当前没有问题。但无论您对此事有何看法，截至 October 2023，G Club 已出示超过 140,000 份文件，对吗？答 如我所说，我知道你们出示了文件。我不能告诉您确切数量。问 当我说 G Club 出示了超过 140,000 份文件时，您有任何理由不相信我吗？答 我——嗯，这与有人问我你们是否出示了 125,000 份文件没有什么不同。我不知道数量。抱歉。问 好的。就在两周前，您的共同代理律师林赛先生（Mr. Linsey）向 G Club 索要一份宣誓书，以认证 G Club 在与 Mei Guo（梅国）及简易判决动议有关的对立诉讼中出示的文件。是\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 74 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - February 13, 2024\n\n1 这样吗——您会同意这一点？\n2 答\n我——坦率地说，我知道有一些这类事情在\n3 进行，但我并不确切知道那是关于什么。不过，\n4 好的。\n5 问\n还有——\n6 答\n还有——\n7 问\n——G Club 协助出示了该文件认证\n8 宣誓书，对吗？\n9 答\n抱歉。我不确切知道发生了什么。\n10 我没有理由相信这不是真的，但我不知道\n11 细节。\n12 问\n不幸的是，记录被密封了，法官阁下，\n13 但我相信——如果记录有误，代理律师——林赛律师可以纠正\n14 我，因为我无法查阅\n15 这些材料。但我相信该文件是在对立诉讼 23-5008 中出示的，\n16 并且很可能在 ECF Number 116 中，该文件包含一些密封文件。\n17 我相信这是一份密封记录。但问题是——因此，我相信\n18 本院将能够查阅密封文件。我不能，\n19 但我相信它就在其中。向\n20 德斯平斯先生提出的问题是，您有任何理由相信 G\n21 Club 没有协助出示该文件\n22 认证宣誓书吗？\n23 答\n我不能说你们是否协助了。这有——这是一个——我不能——您知道，我必须\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 75 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - February 13, 2024 76 与林赛先生谈谈以确认这一点。我对这一方面并不够了解，无法真正告诉您是否得到了协助。而且，您知道，他必须就此发表意见，因为是他在处理此事，所以。问 好的。那么，您聘请了林赛先生所在的律师事务所，对吗？答 正确。问 他是您的代理人，对吗？答 正确。问 好的。因此，如果我们让林赛先生出庭确认此事，这会对您有帮助吗？或者代理律师也许可以直接约定此事已经发生。本院：斯克拉兹先生——斯克拉兹律师，让我问您一个问题。您说的是一份您称 G Club 协助认证的文件，对吗？斯克拉兹律师：正确。本院：这就是您——好的。您已经告诉我，我可以通过查阅一份密封文件来确认这一点，对吗？斯克拉兹律师：我认为是这样，因为我——案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 76 页，共\n\n本院：好的。斯克拉兹律师：——个人无法——本院：那么请告诉我——好的。那么请告诉我为什么您——嗯，我的意思是，我理解您为什么问这个问题。但我认为我们可以继续进行，因为你们\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2947\n提交日期 02/22/24\n录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\n郭文贵 - February 13, 2024\n\n1 要么——要么协助认证了一份\n2 文件，要么没有。我理解您关于出示文件的问题。\n3 我认为德斯平斯受托人已表示，他知道\n4 你们已经出示了这些文件。\n5 因此，我们为什么不继续转到——我完全\n6 理解您的意思，但我确实熟悉这个问题。\n7 所以，我认为问题就是——让我们谈谈您的异议——我认为您已经提出了。\n8 我并不是说您尚未提出。但我认为您的\n9 异议是基于这样一个事实——或者至少您现在的\n10 询问是基于这样一个事实，即你们已遵从\n11 受托人的要求。\n12 \n13 斯克拉兹律师：\n是的。受托人在直接证言中说，G Club——我认为他用的词大致是这是一场激烈的争斗。并且\n14 \n15 ——我的观点是，尽管我们可能有证据开示\n16 争议，我们依照规则行事。法官阁下裁决了该\n17 争议，我们遵从了法官阁下的裁决。我\n18 只是希望确保这一点明确，因为——我将保留就我们的法律立场进行口头辩论。\n19 但我只是想确保我有事实基础来提出\n20 该论点。而且听起来法官阁下\n21 （听不清）。\n22 \n23 本院：\n就我认为您试图通过\n24 交叉询问达成的目的而言，我认为您已经做到\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2947\n提交日期 02/22/24\n录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\n郭文贵 - February 13, 2024\n\n1 了。但我——但这并不意味着您应停止提问。\n2 我只是希望我们继续处理您可能提出的任何其他\n3 异议部分，如果您愿意的话。\n4 斯克拉兹律师：\n那么，是的。那么，法官阁下，我\n5 已准备好此时提出我们的法律论点，但我\n6 假定您希望我保留该论点，直至所有人均完成\n7 交叉询问之后？\n8 本院：\n是的，请这样做。抱歉，但我认为\n9 这是处理此事更好的方式，尽管我——\n10 斯克拉兹律师：\n我同意。完全同意。\n11 本院：\n好的。好的。\n12 斯克拉兹律师：\n那么，我最后一点。我目前没有\n13 任何额外问题，但我想要——我将提出动议，请求排除\n14 德斯平斯律师——抱歉，德斯平斯受托人的直接证言，\n15 理由有二。第一，其与所提出的法律问题无关，\n16 即衡平法时效中止和 Rule 9006 的适用性。\n17 这些纯属法律问题，并且没有就衡平法时效中止的\n18 要件提出任何证据。\n19 \n20 第二个理由是，德斯平斯律师——\n21 德斯平斯受托人的大部分证言属于法律论证，包括他们——\n22 受托人及其团队为何采取某些步骤。\n23 同样，该问题涉及衡平法时效中止和 Rule\n24 9006，而其策略与其中任何一个都无关\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 79 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2024年2月13日 79项要件。因此，基于此，我请求删除其直接询问证词。巴塞特律师：法官阁下，我可以回应吗？法庭：可以。巴塞特律师：首先，Despins（德斯平）受托人的全部证词均与法庭面前的争议直接相关。正如法庭所知，并且正如我们将在辩论中进一步阐述的、以及书面文件中已表述的，对于一项衡平中止请求而言，寻求衡平中止的一方——本案中即受托人——是否合理、勤勉地行事，绝对具有相关性。检验标准中的另一项要件是，是否存在致使受托人无法在期限内完成相关事项的特殊情形。他就其本人及其团队所作努力所作的全部证词、事实性证词、关于其所遭遇阻碍的事实性证词，以及该等阻碍如何影响其调查，均与该项标准具有核心相关性。其次，如辩护律师对Despins受托人在直接询问中提供的任何证词有异议，其本应在直接询问期间提出异议，而非等待全部证词结束后才在此时提出异议。因此，该异议，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 80 of\n\n郭文贵—2024年2月13日\n\n法庭：好的。斯克拉兹律师，关于你的删除动议，我听到了两项依据。第一项是，你希望删除Despins受托人关于其所称——我记得——斯克拉兹律师，我相信你的说法准确，即Despins受托人称这是一场激烈而持久的斗争，或大致如此的陈述。关于这一点，你请求我删除该陈述。我将——不——我将驳回该请求。我将允许该陈述保留在案卷记录中，但我会赋予其我认为适当的证明力。关于你的第二项依据，请你再向我解释一次。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：当然。至少在我看来，受托人的动议实际上基于两点。第一，衡平中止可以前瞻性地适用。为此，必须就衡平中止的各项要件提出证据，而不是概述许多案件中可能发生的情况。例如，就我的当事人G Club（G俱乐部）而言，他唯一所说的是我们进行了一场激烈而持久的证据开示争议。因此，我不确定这如何涉及衡平中止的任何要件。第二，根据Rule——关于——中止诉讼时效的第二项依据是《联邦破产程序规则》Rule 9006。这纯属法律论证。巴塞特律师及其他律师当然将就该问题提出重要论证，但不能就为何本法庭——为何法官阁下应以特定方式适用某项规则提出证据。作为法律问题，该规则要么适用，要么不适用。因此，律师——抱歉，Despins受托人关于其所称规则适用性的证词，实际上只是通过证人提出的论证。另有一点我此前未提及，显然，我们昨天在审判前24小时收到了证人和证物清单，其中列有132项证物，而下载其中所涉证物将需要两天时间。我理解它们已在案卷中，但我们不可能审阅所有这些证物并适当准备交叉询问。因此，鉴于本程序的性质，我认为提出该证词总体上并不公平。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 81 of\n\n郭文贵—2024年2月13日\n\n法庭：好的。那么，我理解你对第二部分的异议。我将驳回你的——嗯，你的删除动议，我将驳回你的动议。你关于此属法律论证的说法是否正确，是我作为事实认定者、事实审理者以及作出法律结论的一方必须考虑的问题。因此，我理解你的论点，并将予以考虑，但我不会删除受托人的证词。因此，该动议被驳回。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：明白，法官阁下。我没有要向受托人提出的进一步问题。\n\n法庭：好的。显然，你希望获得陈述意见的机会——抱歉，你希望在听证结束时进行辩论，我也将允许其他提出异议的当事人这样做。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：但是我——是的。不过没问题。因此，你将保留一些时间。我们将讨论这一点。现在——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：谢谢。\n\n法庭：——我们已经进行了几个小时的听证。我将给法庭书记员五分钟休息时间。因为我们甚至尚未进行到异议方异议和对Despins先生交叉询问的一半。之后，当事人还将进行法律辩论。因此，现在是3:50。我们将回来——嗯，现在是3:51。既然我说了这句话，我已经用去一分钟。因此，我们将在3:56回来。我需要给法庭工作人员五分钟休息时间。好吗？那么我们将——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2947\nFiled 02/22/24\nEntered 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\n郭文贵—2024年2月13日\n\n法庭：法庭休庭至3:56。\n\n证人：谢谢。\n\n巴塞特律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭书记员：法庭休庭至3:56。\n\n（下午3:51至下午3:58休庭。）\n\n法庭书记员：休庭后继续开庭。Julie Manning（朱莉·曼宁）法官主持庭审。\n\n法庭：好的。在我们休庭前，G Club Operations已完成其交叉询问。因此，下一位对时效中止动议提出异议的当事人是Rule of Law Foundation, Inc.（法治基金会公司）和Rule of Law Society, Inc.（法治协会公司）。埃文斯律师，如有交叉询问需要进行，将由你进行吗？\n\n埃文斯律师：法官阁下，为了真正处理该问题，我想询问受托人是否反对我们的声明。正如我此前指出的，我们代表Rule of Law Foundation和Rule of Law Society提交了书面异议。这与其他提出异议的当事人并无不同。我们还附上了一份声明，并陈述了有关我们遵守证据开示义务的某些事实。如果受托人接受该声明作为案卷记录的一部分，那么我确实无需提出任何问题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 84 of\n\n郭文贵—2024年2月13日\n\n法庭：好的，谢谢。我不知道Despins受托人是否与我们连线。在询问你之前，我本应先问这个问题，埃文斯律师。\n\n证人：我在，但我不知道巴塞特先生是否会处理这个问题，或者——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n巴塞特律师：法官阁下，如果可以，我完全支持加快今天的程序。我原本假定，若今天有任何事项将作为证据提出，就会有证人支持该事项。话虽如此，我很乐意考虑该请求。是否可以修改该项命令，让我的一位同事在其他个人或其他当事人提问期间大致审阅一下？\n\n法庭：我对此没有异议。埃文斯律师，我认为这很公平。待他们能够审阅——考虑并回应你的请求后，我们可以再回到你这里，好吗？\n\n埃文斯律师：当然。\n\n法庭：——可以考虑并回应你的请求，好吗？\n\n埃文斯律师：当然，没问题。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的，谢谢。那么下一位提出异议的当事人是Lee（李）先生和Xai（夏）先生。施密特律师，你将对Despins受托人进行交叉询问吗？\n\n郭文贵—2024年2月13日 85 施密特律师：不会，法官阁下。我们没有要向证人提出的问题，不过我们将在结束时保留一些时间。法庭：好的，谢谢。好的。那么我们可以继续至Major先生——Greenwich Land（格林尼治地产）和Hgok女士的Major律师。Major先生——或者Major律师，你将对Despins先生、Despins受托人进行交叉询问吗？Major律师：法官阁下，我不会向证人提出任何问题。谢谢。法庭：好的，谢谢。那么，Grand先生——Grand律师，我相信你接下来代表GS Security Solutions, Inc.（GS安全解决方案公司）？Grand律师：是的。我同样没有要向证人提出的问题，法官阁下。法庭：好的，谢谢。接下来我们——提出异议的当事人，Wang（王）。万德律师，你将对Despins受托人进行交叉询问吗？万德律师：是的，法官阁下。我有几个问题。法庭：请开始。万德律师：是。由万德律师进行交叉询问：Case 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 85 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 86 of\n\n郭文贵—2024年2月13日\n\n问：Despins先生，在该动议——该——嗯，受托人答复的第12段中，那是唯一提及我的当事人具体情况之处。其中写道：“最后，Yingying Wang（王莹莹）、Chris Lee（李克里斯）和Qidong Xia（夏启东）是所谓HCHK债权人委员会的成员，该委员会由异议人Yongbing Zhang（张永兵）领导，而张永兵因针对受托人及其他人提起轻率诉讼已多次受到制裁。”我的问题是，该动议并未提出、你也并未主张Wang女士妨碍或阻碍了你的调查，对吗？\n\n答：嗯，显然，该委员会——所提及的非正式委员会——确实如此。\n\n问：正确。但是，一个人是否可能参与HCHK债权人委员会，而未从事任何足以支持提交对抗程序起诉状的不当行为？\n\n答：我认为，该委员会的唯一目的就是阻碍受托人就HCHK开展工作。而且我相信——如果那是你的当事人——或者，嗯，这里涉及两个人，其中一人显然也参与了抗议活动。但当然，就HCHK委员会而言，由于该委员会由张永兵先生管理，其唯一目标就是阻碍受托人就HCHK对抗程序开展工作。因此，你知道，我不认为他们在这些会议上讨论的是Super Bowl（超级碗）。他们在那里是为了试图阻碍受托人的工作。这就是\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 87 of\n\n郭文贵—2024年2月13日\n\n本组织的目标。\n\n问\n是的。但我的问题更细致一些。而且我并不代表Yongbing Zhang（张永兵）。我只关心Wang女士，她似乎被卷入了这些事情。再说一次，我的问题是：她或任何人是否可能在未做出任何足以证明提起对抗性诉讼有正当理由的事情的情况下参与了该委员会？仅仅是因与该委员会有关联而承担责任吗？\n\n答\n是的。抱歉。我想我现在更明白您的问题了。我原以为您是在问我，该人是否可能没有做任何足以证明中止时效具有正当理由的错事，而我是在回应那个问题。现在您问的是，某人是否可能成为该委员会的一方或参与其中，而其全部活动成为被起诉的依据——我想这才是您现在的问题；如果我理解正确，请告诉我。如果我——那么——\n\n问\n是。\n\n答\n好的。我不认为任何人会——我不应该这么说。我认为这可能构成就民事RICO起诉书提出的部分指控。问题是，这是否是针对某些涉案人员提出的唯一指控？我认为不是。但我现在是在推测。不过，不会仅仅因为您的当事人她或他参加了委员会——非正式委员会会议——就对其提起撤销权诉讼。如果这有帮助的话？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文档 2947\n提交日期 02/22/24\n录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - February 13, 2024\n\n问\n是的。您看，文件中关于我的当事人的唯一指控是她是该委员会的成员。因此我才问，仅凭委员会成员身份，是否足以证明认为此人从事了某种不当行为，从而使其受到中止时效动议的约束？\n\n答\n不是。不过，顺便说一下，为了再次准确说明，我们的主张并不是每一名将受到中止时效约束的人都必须从事不当行为。不是。Bassett先生所述的特殊情况可能是由债务人、债务人的女儿、债务人的儿子等等造成的。也可能有人完全未参与其中，但仍将受到中止时效的约束。为什么？因为这是一种特殊情况，致使受托人在诉讼时效届满前无法得出应当提起诉讼的结论，即便是针对未参与其中的人也是如此——所以我知道每个人都在试图证明自己没有做错任何事。这不是——抱歉，但这是——Bassett先生会就此进行辩论，但这不是我们对标准的看法。标准是：第一，受托人是否勤勉？第二，是否存在特殊情况？而这些情况不需要适用于每一名将受到中止时效约束的当事人。因此——\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第89页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - February 13, 2024\n\n问\n我理解您提出的论点。我只是试图了解记录中关于我的当事人的内容。现在，我相信您此前就第12段中被确定为与该委员会有关联的三人作证时，曾证言称，其中三人中的两人将在未来两天内被起诉。您记得吗？\n\n答\n是的。但这仅涉及我们在未来几天内已准备好提起的诉讼。可能还有其他请求权。这正是此事的全部要点：我们无需为在未来两天内提交某些文件寻求救济。我们正在这样做。问题在于，我们尚不知道或尚未充分了解、因而将在稍后提起的事项。\n\n问\n我理解。只是您针对331名个人和实体提交了该动议，其中10人提出了异议，大约10人。这意味着，受该动议约束的人员中有321人不存在争议。因此范围缩小到这10人。我听取了您的证言。我不会说您指的是哪一位，但对其中数人而言，您可能已为您的中止时效动议提出了充分理由。这样就缩小到三人。我只代理其中一人。我主张，在受您动议约束的331人中，以及在提出异议者中——坦率地说，如果我的当事人未提出异议，我们即被视为同意——如果法院驳回针对某一人的动议，而该人是我的当事人，根据已作出的说明，这是否会对破产财产或您的调查造成任何重大损害，假设我的当事人正配合我们在《联邦破产程序规则》第2004条调查中可能提出的任何其他要求？\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第90页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - February 13, 2024\n\n答\n关键在于我们不知道。这正是中止时效的全部要点：我们知道您的当事人参与了该委员会。我们知道该委员会没有做任何好事。但关键是，我们因债务人和其他关联人造成的特殊情况而寻求（听不清）中止时效。您是在说，我的当事人在此事中所起的作用微乎其微，为什么不放过她。我的观点是，她可能不会被起诉。她可能在未来两天内被起诉，但她也可能在稍后不会被起诉。我们不知道。但我们当然不希望现在就给予她豁免或放行，因为据我们所知，她可能深度参与了我们今天尚不了解的某件事情。这就是我们寻求的全部救济。\n\n问\n但您已经能够确定，该委员会中的一些人收到了资金，并且您将起诉他们，对吗？\n\n答\n正确。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - February 13, 2024\n\n问\n而且，您还就数名提出异议者陈述了事实，称他们妨碍或阻挠了您的调查，对吗？\n\n答\n是。但这并非我们所寻求救济的必要条件。那是阻挠——\n\n问\n我理解。\n\n答\n——全面的阻挠。\n\n问\n不，我理解。而且我明白您在调查中所面临的所有困难。我只是——我只是想就我的当事人向法院澄清记录；在我看来，在受该动议约束的331人中——至少就我的当事人而言，我看不出——您能否说明，如果法院驳回针对我的当事人的动议，这将如何仅就我的当事人而言对您的调查造成不利影响？\n\n问\n这正是这里的关键所在，即鉴于——两件事。其一，根据这些案件的记录，存在应当提出的更多请求权。而您的当事人是否参与其中尚待确定。之所以无法确定，是因为受托人未能完成其在此方面的工作。这实际上就是本案所关乎的。因此，您的当事人今后可能完全未参与，也可能成为我们尚待发现的某件事情的中心或主要要素之一。这就是全部问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第91页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - February 13, 2024\n\n问\n然而，就所有其他提出异议者而言，看来我的当事人——假设她不是将在次日被起诉的两人之一——是唯一一个记录中没有任何内容表明她曾以任何方式参与任何可能导致对她提出请求权的事情的人。我只是想确保记录对此是清楚的。\n\nBassett先生：\n异议，法官阁下。我认为这现在是在进行争辩，即使此前尚非如此。我还认为我们正在重复相同内容，多次提出相同问题。显然，律师可以在辩论中提出他试图提出的观点，但试图在直接询问期间——在交叉询问期间这样做的效用已经耗尽。\n\n由Wander先生进行：\n\n问\n那么让我问您。您曾证言称，有一人带着明显不法意图前往欧洲。那不是我的当事人，对吗？\n\n答\n我不知道。我不记得。我的意思是，涉及许多当事人，但很可能是她。顺便说一句，我并不是说她不会在未来两天内被起诉。她——我不记得这个具体例子，不知道她是否会被起诉。因此，我——Linsey先生会知道，但我并不立即知道。所以我不想误导您，让您认为她不会在未来两天内被起诉。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文档 2947\n提交日期 02/22/24\n录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - February 13, 2024\n\n答\n但无论如何，这与我们所请求的内容无关，因为我们不需要法院批准即可在未来两天内起诉他人。这不是我们正在讨论的事情。\n\nWander先生：\n我没有进一步问题了，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢您，Wander律师。下一名提出异议的当事人是Sotheby's International Realty（苏富比国际地产）。Brown律师，您是否将进行交叉询问，如果有任何交叉询问需要进行的话？\n\nBrown先生：\n是的。受托人方面目前不会进行交叉询问，法官阁下。但我们希望，视我们听到的内容而定，在听证会结束时保留一些时间。\n\n法院：\n好的。那么请给我一点时间。谢谢。\n\nBrown先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法院：\n好的。那么我名单上的最后一名提出异议的当事人是Zhang先生。Nealon先生，您是否将进行交叉询问？\n\nNealon先生：\n是的，法官阁下。我有几个问题，如果可以的话。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - February 13, 2024\n\n法院：\n请开始。\n\nNealon先生：\n谢谢。\n\nNealon先生交叉询问：\n\n问\nDespins受托人，在过去四天中您提起了多少起对抗性程序？我理解大约是200起，上下浮动10%，对吗？\n\n答\n是。上次我查看时是180起。但在我们交谈期间，它们大约每20分钟左右就在提交。因此，200起现在可能是正确的数字。\n\n问\n假设该动议未获准，作为假设，您提交其余诉讼的截止日期是周四，对吗？\n\n答\n正确。\n\n问\n那么，未来两天内大约还会有多少起，您认为我们应当预计？\n\n答\n大约——嗯，假设您所说的200起是正确的——仅为便于讨论，我认为我们还可以预计大约30起。\n\n问\n好的。因此，就我们正在讨论的这一中止时效延长而言，您预计希望在——直至拟议延长至8月的截止日期之前——提起其他对抗性程序，对吗？\n\n答\n正确。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第94页\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 2947\n提交日期 02/22/24\n录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - February 13, 2024\n\n问 好。\n如果获准延长期限，您大致认为我们还应预期会有多少项？\n\n答 不知道。\n\n问 好的。\n\n答 抱歉。\n\n问 现在，您提到我们可以预期在未来几天内会提起一项 RICO 诉讼。\n这与该延期是否有任何关联？换言之，您是否需要在此期限内提交该诉讼，还是它有其自身的期限——\n\n答 无论是否必须，我们都会在星期四之前提交。我们会在星期四之前提交。\n\n问 好的。\n\n答 或者在星期四当天。\n\n问 好。您计划提出的任何 RICO 请求，是否特别与妨碍您作为受托人的调查有关，或者将以此为依据？\n\n答 部分是。\n\n问 好的。我的当事人张先生是否是该诉讼中计划列入的被告？\n\n答 我想是的。\n\n问 好的。张先生做了什么，使您认为，就妨碍您的调查而言，他是适当的被告？\n\n答 这不属于本次听证的范围。我们不会\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 96 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024 年 2 月 13 日\n\n就一份尚未提交的起诉状进行诉讼。\n\n问 好的。那么，我将抽象地问您这个问题。您在这里有发言权。我的当事人张律师做了什么，妨碍了您的调查，并导致您需要寻求额外时间？\n\n答 不，我——所以我想澄清一点。他将在星期四之前因某些罪名项、某些请求而被起诉。这毫无疑问。但我们希望保留将来对他提出其他请求的能力。\n\n问 是的。但我的问题是，德斯平斯受托人，就目前而言，我的当事人做了什么（如果有的话）妨碍了您的调查，并导致或促成您需要申请该延期？\n\n答 嗯，显然，整个 HCHK 非正式委员会是他创建的，而他是那里的主导者。这是一点。而且那耗费了巨额费用，并且——它是本案中一场非常耗时的旁枝插曲。这是第一点。\n\n第二，他提出的所有这些请求，他因此受到了制裁，您知道，那是试图恐吓法院工作人员。当然，这需要时间。我们需要处理此事。而且这要花钱。因此，这是另一项理由，说明鉴于他的行为，他应当——是最不应当享受时效法规利益的人之一。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 97 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024 年 2 月 13 日\n\n而且，我们根据线人的信息得知，他会探访债务人所在的监狱，并且据称在这些探访之后向人们转述债务人的指示。\n\n问 那些指示是什么？\n\n答 嗯，组织 HCHK 委员会去做这个或做那个。\n\n问 那么，除了组织 HCHK 委员会之外，其他事情是什么？\n\n答 我目前记不起来。但关键是，他参与其中的程度与 Mei Guo（梅·郭）或债务人的儿子一样深。\n\n问 因此，您在接受先前一位律师询问时表示——我想您说 HCHK 委员会显然不怀好意。那是您的证言吗？\n\n答 正确。该委员会的目的是寻找人员出庭、提交虚假文件、提交经过倒签日期的文件、提供不可信的证言，等等，等等。他们唯一的目标是阻止这一切，阻止受托人取得对 HCHK 的控制权。\n\n问 所以，德斯平斯受托人，您的观点是否是，任何——任何来到法庭反对您动议的人——我相信您曾提出一项批准和解协议的动议、一项禁令动议、一项取得约 38 million 控制权的动议——任何\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024 年 2 月 13 日\n\n阻挠——或提出异议的人，都是阻挠者？这是您的观点吗？\n\n答 不。当然不是。\n\n问 好的。具体而言，关于该委员会，张律师做了什么，是您认为不当的？您是说他知道会提出一项轻率或虚假的请求吗？您是否有任何证据证明这一点？\n\n答 没有。没有。我们现在不会就将对他提出的请求进行诉讼。\n\n问 但您没有这方面的证据，对吗，先生？\n\n答 嗯，我们知道他牵头成立了该委员会，而该委员会导致那些人出庭并提交，您知道，经过倒签日期的虚假文件，等等，等等。所以——\n\n问 好的。但您没有证据表明张永兵律师与那名就倒签文件日期作证的证人有任何关系，对吗？\n\n答 我不会逐一说明我们将在未来几天内对他提出的请求。\n\n问 好。那么答案就是没有。请允许我问您一个是非题，好吗？您提交这项动议的第一项、压倒性的理由，是否是由于遗产在 Lady May（Lady May）于 2023 年 6 月得到解决之前根本没有资源，因此您花了很长时间聘请 Kroll（克罗尔）调查所有这些撤销请求？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 99 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024 年 2 月 13 日\n\n这不是事实吗？这就是您需要更多时间的主要、总体理由？\n\n答 不是。这是原因之一。正如我所说，这整个没有账簿和记录、没有可靠文件的企业，极其错综复杂。而且，正如我所说，必须对 330 个银行账户进行全面分析，等等，等等，没有人能够在两年期限内进行——或完成对这些请求的调查和追诉。\n\n问 但是，公平地说，您提到的银行记录，即 330 个银行账户，是 Kroll 为就应当提出哪些请求作出建议而分析的主要信息来源，对吗？这不是事实吗？\n\n答 这是非常重要的文件来源。是的。\n\n问 嗯，这是最重要的来源，对吗？因为您先前证称，没有可靠的分类账或会计系统。\n\n答 嗯，银行账户是好的，因为它们不会说谎。但它们不会告诉您全部情况。因此，您实际上需要作进一步分析。而且正如我所说，这是俄罗斯套娃的概念，即一个银行账户引向另一个，再引向另一个，再引向另一个。这正是使得无法在法定期限内完成此事的原因。\n\n问 德斯平斯受托人，事实是否是——您作为\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 100 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024 年 2 月 13 日\n\n受托人，在此前许多年中已持有绝大多数这些银行记录——\n\n答 不，不。这完全不准确。\n\n问 在 2023 年 8 月聘请 Kroll 后，您取得了 330 个银行账户中百分之多少的记录？\n\n答 我无法给出准确百分比，但肯定超过一半。\n\n问 超过一半？而且那是通过 2004 年审查取得的？\n\n答 正确。\n\n问 那么，如果您较晚取得那些记录，您就同意那是您需要更多时间的主要原因，对吗？\n\n答 不。所以我不——不。\n\n问 好的。\n\n答 因为这些——因为该计划的复杂性。而且，如我所说，您去一家银行。他们给您文件。如我所说，他们不会当场给您。您需要催促他们，催促他们。最终他们才提供。他们并不会完整提供——完整的一套文件。您需要再次跟进。然后，这就会开启，例如我举过的关于 PayPal（贝宝）的例子，尽管不是 PayPal，而是与 PayPal 相当的服务，开启整条调查线索。而这还要乘以，您知道，300 个账户。我这样说是在夸张，但它是指数级的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 101 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024 年 2 月 13 日\n\n因此，所有这些都需要大量时间和大量工作。而且我们需要——如我所说，银行账户很好。它们不会告诉您全部情况。您需要查明付款何时作出、是在何种背景下作出，等等，等等。因此，现在律师也参与进来，而不仅是 Kroll。正是两个团队的结合使我们达到如今的进展，即能够在截止日期前就撤销诉讼提交 230 份起诉状，这可以说是一项相当惊人的成就。但这并非全部情况。\n\n问 现在，我们谈到过，或者您提到张先生至少被两家联邦法院制裁过，原因是——我想他曾对您或您的律师事务所提起起诉，称你们据称是未注册的外国说客，或者大致类似的事情。这正确吗？\n\n答 实际上，他——我想他被制裁过三次——\n\n问 好的。\n\n答 ——由纽约南区（Southern District of New York）的三位法官作出。\n\n问 好的。嗯，我不——也许我们对此保留分歧。但这——\n\n答 好的。\n\n问 ——无关紧要。事实不是这些案件目前全都在上诉中吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 102 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024 年 2 月 13 日\n\n答 我不确定。我原以为原告正在退出，或者至少在我们的案件中，他们正试图退出。因此，我——所以答案是我不知道。\n\n问 好的。但可以公平地说，在所有那些案件中，无论是两起还是三起，代理律师事务所都不是 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所），对吗？Davis Polk（达维律师事务所）在其中一起担任律师。我忘了另一起的代理律师是谁。这不是事实吗？\n\n答 是。但这与我们无关，因为 Davis Polk 正在处理——\n\n问 但那些是在 2022 年，对吗？\n\n答 我对此不太确定。我认为实际上是在 2023 年。\n\n问 所以，但就您今天在此宣誓作证而言，那是您需要就这些事项延期的主要原因之一——由此造成的干扰，是您需要更多时间的主要原因之一？\n\n答 不。我不会把“主要”这个词放在——听不清。这是其中之一——它是——正如我在直接询问中所说，发生了大量这类事件。而那是其中之一。因此，我不会说它占其中的 50 percent，或者——不，我无法给它确定一个百分比。但它肯定是一次巨大的干扰。\n\n此外，抗议活动也是需要处理的巨大干扰。它们占用了法院——我想有整整一周，或者可能是一次为期七天的证据听证，等等，等等。这对本案本应进行的工作构成了巨大干扰。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 103 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024 年 2 月 13 日\n\n问 鉴于我们时间不多，这些抗议活动是什么，请简要说明？\n\n法院：我只想知道，此时此刻这一切与本案有何关联，尼隆先生。您已经问了很多问题。您的异议表明——而且您已经通过交叉询问确立了您认为的立场，即德斯平斯受托人未能就您的当事人履行其举证责任。那么，询问抗议活动的意义何在——\n\n尼隆先生：好的。没问题，法官阁下。我知道我们时间不多，所以我继续下一个问题。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n尼隆先生询问：\n\n问 再问您几个问题，我就结束。现在，德斯平斯受托人，您提到您的担忧之一是，我的当事人经常去监狱探望 Miles Guo（郭文贵）。这正确吗？\n\n答 这是一个担忧，但也是一个事实。\n\n问 好的。这是否妨碍了您调查受托人可能可主张的撤销诉讼的能力？\n\n答 探望本身是很好的。他出于正确的理由去那里。问题是，他去那里是否是为了取得\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 104 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024\n\n1 关键实际上在于，债务人就应向监狱外团队传达什么所作出的指示。时间将准确说明当时究竟发生了什么。\n\n4 问 好的。但截至今天你坐在这里时，你没有任何具体证据表明他曾收到指示，要隐匿资产或做任何其他事情，对吗？\n\n7 答 我不会披露。那是工作成果。这仍在进行中。\n\n9 问 好吧。我不同意这一点。但最后一个问题。那么，你是否相信——你——好吧，撤回这个问题。张先生，你知道他是正试图为Miles Guo（郭文贵）办理政治庇护申请的移民律师，对吗？\n\n14 答 不，我不同意这种说法。他在移民案件中提交了出庭代理通知，但该移民案件由一家知名移民律师事务所Wildes & Weinberg（怀尔德斯与温伯格律师事务所）办理。而且，事实上，那位先生最近去世了。令人非常悲伤。但那才是那位移民律师。不过，该案中的出庭代理资格使张可以进入监狱，并且他与债务人的谈话不会被录音。\n\n22 问 好的。而且你显然不知道那些沟通内容是什么，对吗？\n\n24 答 我们已经讨论过这个问题。我不会向你提供我们的工作成果（听不清）。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 2947\n提交于 02/22/24\n录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024\n\n1 尼隆先生：没有进一步问题了，审判长。\n\n2 法庭：好的。谢谢。好了。Bassett律师？我不知道Bassett律师是否有机会查看Evans律师就Rule of Law Foundation（法治基金会）和Rule of Law Society（法治协会）声明所提出的请求。\n\n7 Bassett先生：我们已经看过了，审判长。其中一部分只是已在案卷中提交的诉状的无害附件。但遗憾的是，我不能同意接纳整份声明（听不清），其中包含关于材料提交完整性等方面的陈述。因此，遗憾的是，我必须拒绝该请求。\n\n15 Evans先生：审判长，我可以就此陈述吗？\n\n16 法庭：可以。\n\n17 Evans先生：在我们提交异议时，我并不知道这将被作为证据事项处理。我不确定根据规则这是否被指定为争议事项。审判长，我们在此提出的异议中，一项主要异议是受托人的动议没有声明或宣誓书支持，也未经核实。随后，我们特意以一份声明支持我们的异议。该声明严格涉及我当事人为遵守附在——已送达的传票、异议，以及受托人律师与我们就遵守该传票所作努力相关的电子邮件沟通所作的努力，且与其他当事方向本法庭提出的主张一致。我们已经尽力遵守。不存在强制履行动议。\n\n7 我认为，在向本法庭提出该动议——时效中止动议的情形下，法庭接受一名获准在纽约市执业的律师的宣誓书，以代替现场证言，是适当的。\n\n12 法庭：Bassett律师，你有什么回应吗？\n\n14 Bassett先生：有，审判长。正如我所说，该声明在许多方面试图——我想——让法庭注意到受托人向法治基金会送达的传票、在特定日期送达的答复和异议等。再次说明，我对此没有异议。\n\n20 并且，就律师试图以事实支持其立场——即其当事人未曾因有关证据开示等事项受到法庭任何不利命令——我认为，只要他认为该说法准确，他就可以通过向法庭指出本案案卷来提出该论点并作出证明。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 107 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024 107\n\n向法庭指出本案案卷即可。但问题在于，该声明未经交叉询问，也没有证人在场予以支持，却开始声称法治基金会已完全履行其全部证据开示义务、已提交大量电子邮件——该声明中有此类陈述，不能在无人反驳的情况下被采纳。因此，我认为我们——从我们的书面材料中已经很清楚，这是我们意图为支持该动议而作出证据陈述的动议。这正是我们今天正在做的。如果律师认为其需要代表当事人作出证据陈述，那么他们本应同样这样做。这就是我们的立场，审判长。\n\n法庭：那么，为记录在案，我要指出的是，本动议是延长期限和/或时效动议，根据我们的地方法规，该动议不是争议事项。它确实——它是争议事项程序的例外。它不遵循争议事项程序。受托人还提交了加快本动议听证的动议，根据我们的地方法规，该动议也不是争议事项。这两类动议——均载于我们地方法规的附录M。该附录称，不遵循争议事项程序且可安排听证的动议、申请。并且\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 108 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024\n\n1 其中两类动议是延长期限动议和加快听证动议。因此，第一，我并未将本事项连同受托人提交的文件视为争议事项。\n\n第二，有一项已录入的命令——请稍等，我会找到它——于January 19th，即将近一个月前，ECF Number 2515，该命令准许了受托人的紧急动议，要求录入一项命令，以批准受托人即将提出的时效中止动议的形式和方式，并安排就此举行听证。该命令于January 19th录入，自那时起一直有效。\n\n没有人提出任何问题。除Evans律师外，提出异议的任何一方均未在今天之前就提交证据提出任何问题。受托人在该命令所适用的动议中表示，他们将证明其所请求救济的理由。\n\n因此，Evans律师，我将要做的是查看你提交的声明，并作出决定——除知道其存在外，我尚未查看该声明。然后我将决定是否考虑该声明；如果考虑，将赋予其何种证明力。好吗？\n\nEvans先生：明白。谢谢您，审判长。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 109 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024\n\n1 法庭：谢谢。好了。Bassett律师，你是否愿意就与受托人时效中止动议有关的法律和证据问题作结案陈词？\n\n5 随后，我显然也会让提出异议的各方作出陈述。我想说的是，我们必须注意时间。我理解，每一提出异议的当事方，如其愿意，都应能作出陈述。压倒性多数——好吧，我不该这么说。那样说多数并不公平。但大多数异议人确实交叉询问了Despins受托人。其他人则保留了发言权。因此，这没有问题。\n\n14 那么，Bassett律师，你准备好继续了吗？\n\n15 Bassett先生：审判长，我实际上正在确认我是否有任何针对受托人的复询证言，并且——\n\n18 法庭：哦，好的。那很合理。那么请继续。\n\n20 Despins先生：审判长，在Bassett先生这样做之前，我有些困惑，因为Sotheby's（苏富比）的律师说，哦，我最后可能有一些意见。我以为Sotheby's已被从该命令中排除，所以我——\n\n24 法庭：不过，我没有看到他们撤回异议，Despins受托人。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024 110\n\nDespins先生：我知道，但我——\n\n法庭：不过，我确实看到了UBS（瑞银）撤回异议。\n\nDespins先生：不，我明白，审判长。但显然，他们已被从该命令中排除。那是——协议的一部分是，如果他们的——他们就会退出，如果他们的——\n\n法庭：我没有看过你的命令，所以我不知道。我是说，它已经提交了。不过，Bassett律师和Brown律师，请你们处理一下这个问题。\n\nBassett先生：当然，审判长。正如我在一开始的陈述中所说，我们的理解是——而且我的收件箱中有我认为确认这一点的电子邮件——我们已经通过修订命令措辞解决了Sotheby's的异议；我相信该修订措辞明确提到他们，并将他们排除在外。他们不再受该命令影响。因此，我不理解他们的律师提出异议或其他意见还有何依据。如果他们确实认为有必要提出异议，那么我认为我们将——\n\n法庭：那么，让我们——\n\nBassett先生：我认为我们需要重新考虑——\n\n法庭：让我们听听Brown律师怎么说。\n\nBassett先生：谢谢您，审判长。\n\nBrown先生：好的。听到受托人的一些意见以及Bassett律师的担忧后，我——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 110 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024 111\n\n只是我们没有看到任何东西。而且，我们确实是在本次听证前的——确实就在几分钟前——处理此事。因此，我——我本以为我会（听不清）。这就是我提出这个问题的唯一原因。因为我坐在这里时，看到了一份又一份、一份又一份的起诉状。因此，我想确保我们确实有一份（听不清）。我没有理由认为，Bassett律师，你不是——你将会——\n\n法庭：那么，Brown律师，让我就在这里打断你。\n\nBrown先生：好的。\n\n法庭：案卷中已提交一份修订后的拟议命令。你没有看到吗？\n\nBrown先生：审判长，我们坐在这里时我正在查看。我没有看到。除非——\n\n法庭：嗯，它是在今天听证之前提交至案卷的。如果你给我一秒钟，我会告诉你在哪里。\n\nBrown先生：好的。\n\n法庭：实际上，它是昨天提交的。\n\nBrown先生：我不——\n\n法庭：它已提交——但它是在昨晚10:20提交的，所以这一点我可以体谅。但自昨晚10:20起，它一直在案卷中。它是ECF Number 2803。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 111 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - February 13, 2024 112 而且，带有修订标记的页面，即该文件的第8页至第10页，包含关于你方当事人的措辞。让我看看。裁定书第二页的第四项命令段涉及 UBS（瑞银集团）和 Sotheby's（苏富比）。看看那些页面。你可以在修订标记中看到。MR. BROWN（布朗先生）：是的。我只想说，有一些与今天下午讨论相关的电子邮件。因此，我们——我认为这并不会阻碍本次听证会的进行（听不清）。我不（听不清）。法庭：嗯，我需要知道你们是否同意。因此，我要告诉你——不如你关掉摄像头，去和相关人员谈谈。我们把这件事解决。好吗？MR. BROWN：谢谢。法庭：无论如何。MR. BASSETT（巴西特先生）：法官阁下，如果可以的话，因为这可能对布朗律师有所帮助。我的收件箱里有一封来自 Meg Augustine（梅格·奥古斯丁）的电子邮件，我相信她是他的共同代理律师——法庭：嗯，她在这里。她——Augustine 女士，你在这里，所以——MR. BROWN：是的，她在这里。MR. BASSETT：——于下午12:05发出，只是表明他们已经同意经修订的拟议裁定中的措辞。因此，我只是有点困惑。存在案件 22-50073 文书 2947 提交于 02/22/24 登记于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第112页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2947 提交于 02/22/24 登记于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第113页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - February 13, 2024\n\n1 存在沟通误会。\n2 法庭：\nAugustine 律师？\n3 MR. BROWN：\n那是今天的吗？\n4 法庭：\n我看到你在这里。\n5 MS. AUGUSTINE（奥古斯丁女士）：\n是的，法官阁下。这是\n6 Sotheby's 的 Mary Augustine（玛丽·奥古斯丁）。我正在查看案卷上的拟议\n7 裁定。我认为困惑之处——尽管此时其实\n8 并不那么重要——是，在该裁定提交后，\n9 对于该措辞是否已获同意，仍然有来回讨论。\n10 我现在阅读该裁定后可以告诉您，\n11 该措辞已获同意。我们同意\n12 基于该措辞撤回我们的异议。\n13 法庭：\n好的。很好。非常感谢。\n14 那么，异议 2584 在记录中予以撤回，并且\n15 Sotheby's 同意——我并不是说该裁定——\n16 您知道，如果我们有——不存在其他问题——但\n17 受托人昨晚10:20提交的裁定中的措辞，\n18 即 ECF 编号 2803，对 Sotheby's 而言可以接受，并且\n19 该措辞解决了其异议，该异议现已在记录中\n20 撤回。\n21 好的。那么，布朗律师，你已经没事了。\n22 你无需担心任何事情。\n23 MR. BROWN：\n谢谢。\n24 法庭：\n好的。那么我们回到你这里，\n25 巴西特律师。你是正确的。如果你想进行再询问，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - February 13, 2024 114 你有权这样做。那么请开始。MR. BASSETT：法官阁下，我实际上已决定，我认为这没有必要，因此我很乐意继续进行结案陈词。法庭：好的。那么请继续。MR. BASSETT：谢谢，法官阁下。法官阁下，受托人的立场是，不仅由其证言，而且由过去两年本案案卷中数千份案卷条目的记录所确立的证据记录表明，这——表明，法官阁下，如果曾有任何案件值得对破产受托人持有的请求权适用衡平时效中止，那就是本案。适用于本动议的判例法规定，如 Despins 律师（德斯平斯律师）这样的受托人，如果其尽到一切应有注意仍无法获得与其请求权存在有关的关键资料，则可以衡平中止诉讼时效。这就是我们在书面文件中援引的 Valdez v. United States（瓦尔德斯诉美国案），Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院），2008。判例法表明，受托人要获得该项救济，必须作出两项证明。第一，他在寻求中止计算的期间内已采取合理勤勉的行动。第二，他案件 22-50073 文书 2947 提交于 02/22/24 登记于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第114页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 2947 提交于 02/22/24 登记于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第115页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - February 13, 2024 115 已证明情势极其特殊，以至于该原则应予适用。这就是 In Re Anderson（安德森案），Connecticut, District of Connecticut Bankruptcy Court（康涅狄格州联邦地区破产法院），2020。\n\n法官阁下，本案事实，如证言及更广泛的记录所确立，完全超过了该标准。明确而言，就第一项要件，即受托人是否已尽到合理勤勉而言，标准正是如此：合理勤勉。判例法已经确立，Supreme Court（联邦最高法院）的 Holland v. Florida（霍兰德诉佛罗里达州案）指出，这不是最大可行勤勉。这是联邦最高法院的原话。这不是最大可行勤勉，而是合理勤勉。\n\n没有人能够可信地审视本案记录——法庭有时曾煞费苦心地亲历这些记录——并可能主张，该受托人在努力推进其调查、识别并及时追究其持有的所有请求权时，未采取合理勤勉的行动。受托人今天在其证言中谈到其团队完成的各种工作、其团队试图审阅的数十万份文件，以及该——该过程中的困难，从而证明了这一点。\n\n这并非仅仅看一眼文件，而是要把拼图碎片拼在一起。案件 22-50073 文书 2947 提交于 02/22/24 登记于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第116页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - February 13, 2024 116 受托人可能在很长一段时间内拥有数十万份文件，可能能够让一些人审阅这些文件，并不意味着审阅、分析和调查已经完成。远非如此。这是一幅拼图，并且在本案中，鉴于该债务人的财务事务、我们必须梳理的空壳公司网络、银行账户等等，这是一幅极其复杂的拼图。\n\n事实上，我想——今天我思考本次听证会时想到的一点是，听到本案一些当事人就受托人的勤勉提出异议，也有些讽刺。我只是——我认为这绝对不可信。其中一个原因是，正如法庭非常清楚，在本案至少第一年里，您从债务人及其追随者那里听到的、以及他们在世界各地持续抗议所宣扬的，都是受托人是如何过度积极行事。他们不能两头都占。\n\n这是一名显然极其投入地调查请求权、勤勉推进调查的受托人，没有任何可信依据可以主张相反情况。\n\n法官阁下，我起初提到的该标准的第二项组成部分，是是否存在足以证明适用衡平时效中止正当性的特殊情势。案件 22-50073 文书 2947 提交于 02/22/24 登记于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第117页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - February 13, 2024\n\n1 在特定情形中。我谨向法官阁下提出，本案情势不仅特殊，\n2 其本质上是各种已发生事项的完美风暴，\n3 是各种情势的完美风暴；这些情势不仅\n4 减缓并延误了受托人的调查，而且有时\n5 完全使其偏离轨道，并要求他及其团队集中\n6 处理与其受任工作没有实质关联的\n7 工作。\n\n首先，受托人已就此作证，这是一个受托人被任命管理一个实际上资金为零的破产财产的案件。没有资金支付受托人的律师费，没有资金支付额外开支，也没有资金供受托人聘请完成其工作所必需的顾问。然而除此之外，还有一名债务人，他在本案之前已被认定在世界各地实施幌子骗局，通过将资产藏匿于其家庭成员、关联人士和遍布世界各地的空壳公司的名下，以向债权人隐匿其资产；这是一张受托人必须调查并查明真相的错综复杂网络。\n\n此外，还存在几乎持续不断的阻挠。尽管提出异议的当事人作出相反抗辩，但本案案卷和法庭在本案中的亲身经历清楚表明，这种情况反复且一再发生。是案件 22-50073 文书 2947 提交于 02/22/24 登记于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第118页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - February 13, 2024\n\n1 债务人。是其近亲属，包括 Mei Guo（郭梅），她是\n2 提出异议的当事人之一。G Club（G俱乐部）也是提出异议\n3 的当事人之一。他们不断拖延根据 Rule 2004 提交文件，\n4 完全拒绝提交某些类别的文件，\n5 迫使受托人向法庭提出申请、提出强制提交动议。\n6 甚至强制提交动议，正如法庭所知，也未获遵守，迫使\n7 受托人提出制裁动议。\n\n这种情况一次又一次地发生。我不必逐一记述每一个事例，因为它们就在案卷中，而本法庭对此无不十分清楚。\n\n除此之外，法官阁下，还有刑事案件这一叠加因素。当然，这出于各种原因造成了复杂情况，其中包括：当受托人试图从债务人、其女儿及该案件中涉及的其他人获取证言时，他们援引了 Fifth Amendment（美国宪法第五修正案）。债务人当然已提出动议，要求整体中止本破产案件，迫使受托人及其律师在刑事案件中投入大量时间和精力。\n\n最后，法官阁下，除许多其他事项外，使本案如此前所未有的是，债务人及其追随者持续数月进行的全球骚扰活动。我不必向法庭重述所有这些情况，那些令人厌恶且案件 22-50073 文书 2947 提交于 02/22/24 登记于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第119页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - February 13, 2024 119\n1 令人作呕的图像和标语，出现在受托人办公室外、\n2 其家庭成员的住宅和办公室外、以及\n3 PAX（PAX）的办公室及其律师外。这迫使受托人\n4 及其律师，包括我本人，花费超过一周时间\n5 在本法庭进行审理，以处理这些类型的\n6 问题，而非专注于调查。更不用说，正如\n7 该次听证会上的证言所述，骚扰本身\n8 所造成的延误和阻挠。\n\n法官阁下，在本次听证会前我们审阅过的所有判例法中，我不知道有任何案件涉及所有这些不同因素；这些因素构成一组真正特殊的情势，其中有人在每一步都决心阻止受托人进行调查，并以任何可能方式拖延调查。\n\n而且，法官阁下，关于这两项要件，即勤勉及是否存在特殊情势，没有任何异议人认真主张相反观点。有一些法律论点——我稍后会谈到——是不正确的；一些异议人称，您知道，必须逐案、逐实体或逐异议人进行分析，以确定，您知道，每一方是否从事了特定的阻挠活动，等等。这并非正确。案件 22-50073 文书 2947 提交于 02/22/24 登记于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第120页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024 120 对法律的阐述。但他们真正没有主张的是——他们无一人主张——总体而言，受托人未勤勉行事，且不存在影响其在本案中及时完成调查能力的整体性特殊情形。我不会逐一说明所有证词并向法院复述，因为法院刚刚已经听取了有关特定提出异议方所采取具体行动的证词。然而，我确实想简要回应一下，在受托人作证期间，G Club（G 俱乐部）的律师提出的若干观点；他当时，您知道，我认为是在试图表明，G Club 所做的一切只是遵守其规则——遵守民事诉讼规则和联邦破产程序规则——并未采取任何延误受托人调查的行动。为回应该项具体论点，我想援引法院于 June 28, 2023 提交的 ECF 1960 中就 G Club 批准受托人强制执行动议的命令。该命令中写道：“显然，G Club 提交文件已逾期数月。在三周内提交 300 份文件并非令人鼓舞的迹象，额外延长 60 天也并不合理。”这是针对延期请求所作出的回应。法官阁下，法院已经认定，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 121 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024\n\nG Club 延误数月才提交其文件，这必然延误了受托人的调查。法官阁下，鉴于无法对通过受托人证词以及更广泛案卷所确立的充分事实记录作出真正回应——即其一直勤勉行事，且存在妨碍其调查的特殊情形——剩下的便是我认为所有异议人一致提出的法律论点，主要论点是，依其观点，本法院在对抗程序诉状提交之前，依法无权作出中止诉讼时效的命令。\n\n显然，正如法院从书面材料中所知，很多关注点集中于本破产法院 Tancredi 法官在 June 2018 就 Walnut Hill（核桃山案）作出的裁决。我们已在书面材料中论及该裁决，并且我将再次论及，法官阁下。\n\n首先简要说明几点。尽管该裁决出自本辖区另一位破产法官——一位本辖区的前破产法官——当然，其对本法院并无约束力。其次，正如我们在书面材料中所援引，另有若干裁决中，法院确实在期限届满前及诉状提交前对诉讼时效作出了衡平中止。这些案件列于我们的动议第 30 段。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 122 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 122 motion. 其中一个我们当然曾用一些时间讨论的案件，是第十一巡回上诉法院（Eleventh Circuit）于 2005 年作出的 International Administrative Services（国际行政服务案）。法官阁下，我认为该案与法院今日所面临的分析高度相关，因为其事实在许多方面——我本想说相同，但我认为它们确实——具有相似之处，但远不如本案所涉事实特殊。以下引自该案第十一巡回上诉法院的裁决。第十一巡回上诉法院指出，该案债务人曾实施欺诈，随后采取措施，将其资产隐藏于“由多步骤国际交易构成的错综复杂网络”中。其后，该法院将受托人的调查描述为：“受托人开始了梳理盘根错节的转让路径这一令人艳羡不得的任务。债务人及其同伙妨碍了受托人调查该等转让的能力；除其他事项外，他们延迟提交文件，扣留证据开示答复，并且干脆‘遗失’资产转让记录。因此，受托人提出动议，请求以藐视法庭罪追究债务人及协助其掩盖行迹的专业人士的责任。”法官阁下，这仅仅是本案受托人所面对的特殊情形和阻碍的一个方面。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 123 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024\n\n然而，即使在该等案卷记录下，法院事实上仍在期限届满前两次延长了诉讼时效。其既依据《联邦破产程序规则》第 9006 条，也依据衡平中止原则作出该等延长。\n\n现在，Tancredi 法官在 Walnut Hill 案中，试图依据其所称对该裁决的解读而贬低第十一巡回上诉法院的该项裁决，即该案所请求的衡平中止是在对抗程序提起后才发生的。但我主张，如果审阅 International Administrative Services 的裁决，情况绝非如此。该案并非如此发生。\n\n事实上，正如我先前所述，在最初期限届满之前，曾两次提出请求，将诉讼时效中止并延长至最初期限之后，且均获法院准许。第十一巡回上诉法院在其裁决中另行分析了衡平中止问题。但是，再次强调，这并不改变以下事实：该裁决是在前瞻性基础上准予衡平中止的裁决。\n\n现在，异议人主张，看看，这有什么关系？受托人为什么不能仅仅提交其诉状，然后在事后请求衡平中止？法官阁下，您已听取受托人说明为何这行不通。\n\n其行不通的原因在于，受托人面前尚有大量额外调查任务，以及其需要投入资源处理这些任务，这将给破产财产带来重大成本和费用。这并非受托人仅有一两条线索需要追查，然后可以完成追查并就该等请求权在之后寻求衡平中止的情形。这是一种受托人仍有各种事项需要继续调查，且有些事项需要从头开始调查的情形，因为他没有机会在期限届满前取得其所需的全部证据开示材料。\n\n这一切意味着，这是一项规模极其庞大且费用极其高昂的工作。异议人要求受托人所做的是，迫使本破产财产承担调查及推进该调查的全部成本，同时对于该等请求权是否实际上会——关于该等请求权的诉讼时效是否实际上会被中止——毫无明确性和确定性。\n\n此外，受托人所请求的是一段喘息期，法官阁下，为期六个月，至——我相信是 August 15th——以努力完成其调查并追究额外请求权。异议人所请求的是，法院不允许这种情况发生。其结果将是，受托人实质上被迫在 February 15th 后进行调查并试图发现额外请求权的每一天，都如同被枪指着头一样行事：他必须尽可能快地完成该调查，否则，任何主张其所提出请求权已过诉讼时效的一方都会说，他没有足够快地提出这些请求权。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n\nHo Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 124\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 125 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 125 在此等情形下，这对受托人及本破产财产均不公平且不符合衡平原则，因为他一直无法在期限届满前以其所需方式完成调查。他有权获得额外期间以完成其调查；若非存在该等特殊情形，他本应能够在期限届满前完成该调查。而他所寻求的只是适度延长六个月。\n\n法官阁下，我想简要回应的若干异议人提出的第二项主要法律论点，是您已听闻——或者您在交叉询问期间一次又一次看到预先提出——的论点，即针对特定被告的衡平中止并不适当，因为他们主张，其各自的被告、潜在被告或异议人本身并未实施任何阻碍行为，或其他导致受托人无法完成调查情形的行为。而该论点在两方面都不能成立。第一，正如案卷记录所显示，就绝大多数——即便并非全部——被告而言，这在事实上根本错误。被告或者直接参与了未及时提交文件，或者如 Mei Guo（郭梅）一样提供了后来被证明不准确的宣誓证词，或者如数名被告一样被裁定藐视法庭，或者是法院所熟悉的债权人委员会成员。这在事实上根本不成立。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 126 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024 126 但从法律上看，法官阁下，更重要的是，这无关紧要。我认为 Taurus Funds（Taurus 基金）在其异议中花费大量篇幅援引判例法，称其支持以下命题：必须是所涉被告或潜在被告实施了不当行为。他们甚至援引一宗案件，称在某些辖区内，对于该行为是否需要代表特定被告实施或由特定被告作出，尚未有定论。\n\n我认为对此不存在争议，即并不需要如此，法官阁下。我请法院注意的案件是第二巡回上诉法院（Second Circuit）于 2008 年作出的 Valdez（巴尔德斯案）裁决，我们在答复书面材料第 20 段中援引了该裁决。我认为，该裁决消除了关于适用标准以及受托人在衡平中止动议中是否必须证明每一潜在被告方存在某种不当行为的任何疑问。该法院在该案中表示：“如原告尽到一切应有勤勉仍无法获得与其请求权存在有关的关键资料，衡平中止允许原告避免诉讼时效的阻却。衡平中止常常一方面与欺诈性隐瞒混淆，另一方面又与规范请求权发生时间的发现规则混淆。其不同之处在于前者”——抱歉。分析中的发生部分不同于前者，即欺诈性隐瞒，因为它不假定被告存在不当行为，或作出任何阻止原告提起诉讼的努力。该法院接着表示：“由于衡平中止常与欺诈性隐瞒相混淆，可能会发现一些案件认定，在被告实施该等隐瞒的情况下适用衡平中止。然而，我们，”即第二巡回上诉法院，“已明确认定，衡平中止原则的适用并不限于该等案件。”\n\n因此，法官阁下，并不要求所涉被告必须是实施了以下行为的人：\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 128 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - February 13, 2024\n\n1 隐瞒信息、妨碍司法等。\n\n相关的问题是，是否总体上存在特殊情形——更确切地说，是否阻碍了受托人完成其总体调查，并向包括提出异议的当事人在内的任何当事人追索权利主张。\n\n就此，法官阁下，我最后要说的是——有两点。\n\n首先，若干异议中多次提及将受本动议影响的当事人数量，以及提出异议的当事人试图主张其权利，并某种程度上代表今日未到庭提出异议的当事人提出论点。我认为，对此不应存在任何合理争议，尽管从某些书面文件来看，似乎可能存在争议。\n\n但今日到庭提出异议的当事人可以主张其自身权利，而且只能主张其自身权利。他们无权代表其他当事人出庭并提出异议。因此，法官阁下，即使法院倾向于支持提出异议的当事人所提出的任何异议——我们认为法院不应如此——也不会影响法院就所有其他未出庭且未提出异议的当事人准许该动议的权力。\n\n最后，再次强调，如果法院倾向于支持任何异议——受托人认为法院不应如此——不言而喻，这必须不损害受托人今后请求适用衡平法时效中止的权利。尽管基于我已经陈述的所有理由，我们认为法律目前支持这一点，法院面前的记录同样目前支持这一点。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第129页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n1 这就是我要说的全部内容，法官阁下，除非法院有任何问题。\n\n9 法庭：谢谢。没有，我没有问题。谢谢。\n\n11 好的。Della Fera先生（德拉费拉先生），您是否愿意代表Mei Guo（郭梅）就其提交的异议作结案陈述？\n\n14 Della Fera先生：是的，法官阁下。谢谢。当然，我们将主要依赖于——依赖于我们已经提交的异议中的论点，但简要补充而言，如果法院已经多次听到的两项检验标准得到满足，即特殊情形和合理勤勉，几乎没有争议——即便有争议——衡平法时效中止也是可适用的。可是，与受托人律师的论点相反，就合理勤勉而言，郭女士确实对受托人未能例如在其获任后13或14个月才聘请法务会计师的合理性提出异议，显然主要是因为潜在的法务会计师竟敢要求与受托人及其律所作为行政费用债权人享有同等受偿待遇。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第130页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n1 不论如何，对于应当何时适用该两项检验标准存在争议。我们主张，该检验标准仅应在具体权利主张被提出时、被提出之后，以及被主张权利的一方确定后，适用于该等具体权利主张。\n\n8 接着Sklarz先生（斯克拉兹先生）在听证期间提出的一点，法官阁下，任何证言都不能授权本法院实施法律未授权其实施的行为。而受托人今日请求法院实施的行为，是认定并作出实质上针对地球上每一名个人及每一家公司实体的确认判决，即受托人今日已提出充分、公平的论据，以原谅其在从现在起最长六个月后针对目前未知的被告提起目前未知的撤销行为之迟延提交。我们主张，法院不应准许该救济。\n\n尽管所请求的救济并非前所未有，但它是非常的。正如Tancredi法官（坦克雷迪法官）在Walnut Hill（核桃山案）中所解释的，法官阁下，您已经阅读了足够多关于该案的内容，而且无论如何可能也已经对此足够了解，该救济在《破产法典》、破产程序规则或正当程序理念中均找不到支持。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第131页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日 131\n\n受托人忽视了所请求救济的确认判决性质，也忽视了一个事实，即如果所请求的救济被驳回，他丝毫不会受到损害。与其他受托人一样，他可能必须承担为追索权利主张而产生的成本。但坦率地说，法官阁下，如果在提出这些权利主张后，衡平原则规定受托人不应因时效届满而被允许提出这些权利主张，那么，如果衡平原则在那个时候不支持该救济，当然也不会在该时点之前最长六个月时支持该救济，而这正是受托人所请求的。\n\n受托人甚至在其动议文件中称，如果其所寻求的非常救济被驳回，他将无任何救济途径。法官阁下，他知道事实并非如此。他知道，在提起撤销行为后——顺便说一句，在提出时效抗辩的范围内——他仍保有在当时基于与针对该特定被告的该特定权利主张相关的实际且可证明的事实与情形，请求衡平救济的能力，很可能仍是向本法院请求。\n\n如果该动议被驳回，受托人或破产财产不会受到损害，至少不会受到实质性损害。我们恭请法院驳回该动议。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第132页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n1 法庭：谢谢。\n\n2 Mateo律师（马特奥律师），您是否希望代表您的当事人Cao先生（曹先生）作结案陈词？\n\n4 Mateo女士（马特奥女士）：是的，法官阁下。\n\n5 法庭：请讲。\n\n6 Mateo女士：我们加入Della Fera先生的论点。时效中止动议是经过掩饰的请求，要求作出确认判决，认定受托人可以对数百名潜在被告一概适用衡平法时效中止，以延长提交撤销行为的法定期限，而法院面前不存在任何案件或争议。没有任何理由能够证明施加如此笼统的延期是正当的。\n\n13 受托人的律师将这额外六个月称为“喘息期”，但其律师忽视了对数百名潜在被告的正当程序所造成的代价。除了列举似乎与债务人存在任何关联、无论该关联多么遥远的任何及所有实体和关联人的姓名外，时效中止动议明显未说明受托人意图提起何种具体权利主张以及具体针对何人。受托人将其称为撒下大网，事实的确如此。\n\n23 而且，正如您直接从受托人处听到的，六个月并非他可能寻求的最长期间；他作证称，今后可能寻求额外延期。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司）\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第133页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n1 为证明其目前行为的正当性，受托人混同了《联邦破产程序规则》第9006(b)条与衡平法时效中止原则。二者均不授权受托人所请求的延期。\n\n首先，第9006(b)条不得用于延长法定期限。正如Walnut Hill案及其后续判例所确认的，对国会确立的实体期限作出司法修改，将违反宪法所保障的权力分立原则；（听不清）立法机关已作出权威性规定，修改其决定不属于司法机关的职权范围。即使假定第9006(b)条可用于延长第546(a)条期限或任何其他法定期限，基于与曹先生有关的事实，此类延长期亦属不当，因为根据第9006(b)条延长期限的决定必须基于“所示原因”，而受托人并未证明任何足以正当化延长针对曹先生提起撤销行为期限的依据。\n\n受托人试图在描述异议人以及其他潜在被告时一概而论，声称所有异议人均共谋阻碍和拖延受托人的调查。但正如您今日从异议人律师的询问中听到的，许多异议人显然并非如此，对于已被送达本动议的数百名潜在被告而言，更绝非如此。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第134页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日 134\n\n正如法官阁下从我的交叉询问中了解到的，Despins受托人（德斯平斯受托人）几乎不了解我的当事人，而且他没有质疑——因为他无法质疑——曹先生自首次被送达第2004条传票以来一直充分配合受托人。其一，曹先生自愿接受第2004条传票的送达。他及时送达书面答复并提供文件。他还于2023年10月20日接受了超过七小时的证言录取。与Despins先生的律师所称不同，曹先生没有援引第五修正案权利，也没有拒绝对任何问题作出实质性回答。\n\n进一步凸显受托人缺乏勤勉的是，他在曹先生接受证言录取后从未向曹先生寻求任何额外信息。另一方面，凸显曹先生配合的是，曹先生从未试图撤销任何要求其提供与其本人有关信息的第2004条传票，也绝未通过任何动议程序或对受托人提起诉讼而浪费受托人的时间、金钱或资源，而受托人声称其他人据称曾如此行事。\n\n这又是一个例子，说明受托人试图利用少数其他人据称具有阻碍性的行为，来践踏数百名潜在被告的权利。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第135页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n1 或者，受托人援引衡平法时效中止原则以支持其延期。虽然法定期限可以适用衡平法时效中止，但在目前这一阶段，任何此类论点在程序上均为时过早，因为没有实际已确定的被告，也没有任何已待决且适宜审理的对抗程序。\n\n正如判例法明确表明的，法院只有在迟延提起对抗程序并提出时效抗辩后，才能适当考虑衡平法时效中止是否适用。这是合乎逻辑的，因为适用衡平法时效中止需要基于事实进行评估。事实上，法院需要分析，受托人是否尽管勤勉，仍因特殊情形而无法针对该被告提起该诉讼。\n\n受托人在其动议中并不否认这一点，尽管他今日声称否认。他在其开篇书状第45段承认，“衡平法时效中止必须逐案决定。”这正是Walnut Hill案所称的必要要求，而且只能在提起对抗程序、知晓权利主张、知晓被告，并知晓受托人就该等权利主张所具勤勉程度之后进行。\n\n受托人缺乏勤勉进一步\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第136页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n1 我们在向受托人送达证据开示请求时确认了这一点，\n2 该请求寻求与曹先生自其证言录取以来\n3 所受任何其他调查有关的文件和信息。我们确实\n4 是在本项时效中止动议中提出了该请求。受托人\n5 仅提出宽泛且不当的异议，\n6 并让我们回头查阅曹先生的证言笔录以及\n7 我们四个月前向受托人提供的文件。\n8 这是因为受托人\n9 数月来一直无所作为，现在眼看截止日期将至，\n10 便希望法院通过给予\n11 其额外六个月时间，预先宽恕其疏忽，以完成其自被任命以来\n12 本应一直在做的事情。\n\n这并非勤勉，当然也不符合适用衡平时效中止所需的条件。受托人含糊地声称，要求其仅在提起对抗程序后才必须满足衡平时效中止的相关标准——而这正是法律所要求的——将使其受到不利影响，因为届时其可能无法作出所需证明，并可能浪费资源。但是，如果受托人在届时无法作出该证明——届时请求权已更加明确且被告身份已知——则不宜以衡平时效中止足以证明此举合理为由，在目前不存在已知请求权或实际被告的情况下，向受托人开出一张空白支票。\n\n基于在下文进一步说明和讨论的理由\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 137 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n1 载于我方反对意见中的理由，以及异议方将在其\n2 结案陈词中提出的其他论点，曹先生\n3 谨请求法院驳回该时效中止\n4 动议。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n5 法庭：\n谢谢。\n6 好的。现在转至 DBS Bank（星展银行）。\nWeiner 律师？\n7 我可能把您的名字读错了。我不确定您是否\n8 读作——\n9 WEINER 女士：\n没有。是正确的，法官阁下。\n10 Genevieve Weiner（吉纳维芙·韦纳）。谢谢。是的，我会非常简短。\n11 如前所述，我们刚刚提交了一份权利\n12 保留声明。仅有两点需要迅速澄清。今天的听证过程中\n13 多次提到\n14 异议方似乎被笼统地\n15 归为一类。我认为这并非意指 DBS，\n16 因为 DBS 再次强调，其刚刚提交了权利保留声明。但我仅\n17 为记录在案指出，DBS Bank 一直在与\n18 受托人合作。这一点已在两份经双方同意的\n19 延期文件中注明，见案卷编号 2438 和 2517。\n20 此外，简要而言，我希望这\n21 并无争议，我们对昨晚提交的第二份\n22 拟议命令提出一项修改请求。这一请求\n23 与我们的权利保留声明一致。目前，\n24 该命令载明，所命令延长的期限，即新定义的术语，\n25 “该日期可进一步延长”。这是引文。我们\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日 138 仅请求澄清，该日期只能在通知并举行听证后进一步延长。因此，如将有进一步延期或延展，我们都应再次到法官阁下面前。法庭：您所指的是已提交命令的第二页第二个命令段落吗？WEINER 女士：是。是的，法官阁下。嗯，我查看的是修订痕迹。我查看的是 PDF 第 9 页第 28——法庭：是。不，我查看的是同一页。我所说的是命令的第二页。WEINER 女士：正确。是的。法庭：在第二个命令段落中，您所说的“该日期可进一步延长”，您的意思是应当写为“在通知并举行听证后”？WEINER 女士：正确，法官阁下。法庭：好的。我只是——我记下您提出的是这一请求。WEINER 女士：好的。对此我表示感谢。DESPINS 先生：并且，法官阁下，我们对此没有异议。这非常合理。谢谢。法庭：好的。谢谢。WEINER 女士：就这些。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 138 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日 139 法庭：好的。还有其他事项吗？好的。很好。非常感谢。接下来我们转至代表 Taurus Fund, LLC（金牛基金有限责任公司）的 Conway 先生。Conway 律师，您是否有希望发表的结案陈词？CONWAY 先生：有。谢谢，法官阁下。Michael Conway（迈克尔·康韦），代表 Taurus Fund, LLC。我不会讨论判例法。其已在我方书面意见中援引，今天也已由许多人讨论。我知道时间紧迫。但我确实想指出，Walnut Hill案（核桃山案）之所以得出其结论，其中一个原因是成文法就是如此规定的。这也是全国几乎所有法院普遍对这些法规作出的解释。其原因是防范我们这里面临的恰恰这一问题。即——受托人未引用任何接近本案情况的判例。本案估计有超过 900 名潜在被告。我们并不知道实际究竟有多少潜在被告。我们仅有少数情形表明，在过去两年期间，可能有人未遵守证据开示请求。无法得知，第一，任何\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 139 页，共\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 140 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n1 这些潜在被告是否妨碍了\n2 受托人的调查，或者第二，任何\n3 妨碍受托人调查之人是否导致——\n4 导致受托人无法对这数百名、数百名可能的被告\n5 提起诉讼。\n6 而我们不知道这一点的原因，是我们不知道\n7 被告是谁，或者请求权是什么。如果他们遵循正确程序，\n8 即提出\n9 请求权，然后在该案中处理衡平时效中止抗辩，\n10 我们就会知道这些情况。\n11 您知道，受托人说，嗯，我们不\n12 希望在这里承担风险。您知道，如果我们在\n13 六个月后走到那一步，发现法官阁下\n\n不认为我们所提出的抗辩理由足够充分，该怎么办？那么，您知道吗？今天与六个月后都是一样的。\n\n而目前，为了对这项动议提出争议，我们不知道的是，他们——您知道——声称这些数百名被告实施了什么妨碍行为。我猜想其中大多数人什么也没做。证据很少。\n\n只是——代表我方当事人提交的证据是，嗯，我们发现 Barnett 先生的名字登记在一辆摩托车的所有权证书上。嗯，他并未做任何事情妨碍您进行\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 141 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日 141 调查。那不是一回事。您知道，您已经对我方当事人拥有一项请求权。因此，您知道，如果您认为基于他的名字出现在一辆摩托车的所有权证书上这一事实存在请求权，您本可以修改。您本可以在诉讼时效届满之前很久就修改，而显然诉讼时效还要过几天才届满。但事实是，这是每个人都面临的同一问题。我想回应 Bassett 先生的一项评论，也回应 Wander 先生的一项评论。我不确定他在询问受托人时为何提出这一论点。但没有任何法律——或判例或法规——规定，如果法官阁下认为该动议对于一名被告不适当，便可以认定其对于其他所有人适当。这里是全有或全无。要么他们有一项有效的延期动议，要么没有。法律并未规定您可以选择何时违反法律。要么可以对所有人延长，要么不能对任何人延长。只有 10 人、12 人或 14 人提出异议这一事实无关紧要。事实上，这些人大多数可能根本不知道我们今天在这里。而法官阁下——您知道——拥有先例、判例法和\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 142 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n1 可供依循的法规，是因为，您知道，这是您的职责，\n2 保护这些不知道我们今天在这里的人。\n3 因此，说，哦，好吧，您知道\n4 吗，他们本可以到场但没有到场，\n5 所以，我就对法规稍作修改，\n6 并说我可以延长，这并不公平。这根本不是其运作方式。\n7 我只是想说明这一点，因为 Bassett 先生和\n8 Wander 先生似乎都认为，您\n9 可以逐案这样做。\n10 我就说这些。\n11 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n12 代表 G Club（G俱乐部）的 Sklarz 律师？\n13 SKLARZ 先生：\n谢谢。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n14 需要明确的是，据我所能查到，这是一项从未\n15 提交给任何法院审理过的动议。根据 Despins 受托人所言，\n16 其适用于超过 900 人。IAS案（IAS案件）或 IBT案（IBT案件），\n17 无论您想如何称呼，适用于\n18 两名被告，而非 900 人。\n19 法庭以及——我承认，也许我\n20 代表 G Club 站在讲台上，\n21 着眼于保护其他人，可能相关也可能不相关。但是，\n22 当然，美国受托人有该义务。\n23 当然，法庭也有义务审查这一点。\n24 因此，我建议法庭考虑这项\n25 非同寻常的动议。这是一项集体诉讼式的延期\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日 143 动议，旨在改变国会制定的诉讼时效。此举涉及宪法层面的影响，也涉及法定层面的影响，并且还涉及规则解释。第一，Stern v. Marshall案（斯特恩诉马歇尔案）指出，私人权利诉讼，即撤销权诉讼——所有撤销权诉讼都是 Stern 请求权。Wellness案（韦尔内斯案）如此认定。Executive Benefits案（执行福利案）如此认定。Madoff案（麦道夫案）中的数百个案件也如此认定。这并无争议。这些全都是 Stern 请求权。要延长 Stern 请求权，当然不能直接忽视 Stern。首先，我认为——我认为正确的做法是，法庭必须撰写报告和建议，随后地区法院需要审议此事。这显然是私人权利诉讼。第五章下不存在公共权利请求权。我所能找到的一项可能例外是 502(d) 请求权。有一宗案件称 502(d) 请求权可能属于公共权利请求权。但这不是本案争点。我们谈论的是欺诈性转让诉讼。我看到一些 549 诉讼，也可能有一些优先受偿诉讼，但没有公共权利请求权。第二，我们需要审视制定破产规则的授权法案，其\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 143 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 2947 提交日期 02/22/24 录入日期 02/22/24 13:48:18 第 144 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2024年2月13日\n\n1 制定了破产规则。再次，在我\n2 对受托人的交叉询问中，我们谈到——我们——我\n3 提到，时效中止有两个主要依据。其一是\n4 规则，即 9006，另一项是衡平时效中止的概念。\n5 先谈规则。28 U.S.C. 2075 是\n6 授权法案，其规定该等规则不得缩减、\n7 扩大或修改任何实体权利。IAS案是\n8 唯一处理过规则——规则 9006 并称\n9 可利用其进行时效中止的案件。但是，该法院甚至没有\n10 审视授权法案。该法院未考虑 Walnut Hill案中提出的\n11 论点。它只是在未分析该问题的情况下\n12 作出假定。我认为，它仅四次引用规则 9006。\n13 此外，规则 2000——抱歉，28 U.S.C.\n14 2075 甚至未被审查。\n15 国会——立法机关完全有能力\n16 授予法院延长诉讼时效的权力。\n\n立法机关赋予法院——Superior Court（高等法院）在医疗过失诉讼的申请下延长诉讼时效的权力。\n\n我们在书状中举出的一个例子是，Connecticut（康涅狄格州）\n\n让我们设想一下，如果本案是在地区法院审理，而不是在破产法院审理。我们将适用 Rule 6。Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）已裁定，Rule 6——Rule 6(a)是一项有关诉讼开始后所实施行为或进行程序的程序规则，以及任何\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024 145\n\n明确适用于此类程序的法规。其目的并非修改或变更现有的诉讼时效法规。这就是 Dining Car Employees（餐车雇员案），157 F.2d 417，具体引注第420页。这是一个1946年的案件，至今仍为有效法律。这里还有另外两个引证。法院：这些引证在你们的书状中吗？SKLARZ律师：没有。这些是对答复书的回应，因为该答复书——受托人的答复并未真正回应我们关于授权法案或关于我们 Rule 6 地区法院论点的主张。Ward v. Hudson City Department of Corrections，2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147383，第11页，脚注4。这是一个2015年 District of New Jersey（新泽西联邦地区法院）的案件。以及 In Re Vermont Knitting Company，98 B.R. 184，第186页，脚注2。这是一个1989年 District of Vermont（佛蒙特联邦地区法院）的案件。二者均援引了 Dining Car 案。再说一次，让我们思考一下。如果受托人走进楼上 Bolden法官的办公室并说，我正在提起一宗集体诉讼，以延长欺诈性转让诉讼的诉讼时效，那么没有人会认为那是一个正当案件。在本案之外根本没有类似情形。据我所能找到的，没有任何地区法院案件审理过这种\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第145页，共170页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第146页，共170页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024 146\n\n类型的裁定。\n\n再者，请记住，我们谈的并非针对一两个不配合被告的延期。我们谈的是数以百计的人，正如律师刚刚所指出的，他们可能是世界上的任何人。\n\n现在，这些案件——不只是 Tancredi法官在 Walnut Hill 一案中的案件。还有 Krechevsky法官在 Damage（语音不清）一案中的案件。在那里，他审视了延长诉讼时效的问题。事实上，那是在破产法中“公共权利”这一概念出现之前。他讨论——Damage 案涉及延长租赁承接期限。他说你不能延长该诉讼时效。存在一项诉讼时效。该法规适用。你不能使用 Rule 9006 来延长它。\n\n因此，IAS 是他们唯一可以依赖的依据。而该案并未分析这个问题。它只是在其双方当事人的情形中作了假定。\n\n现在，转向衡平中止时效的论点，即延期的另一依据。Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）在这里说得非常明确。“特别”一词并非指某一方当事人情形的独特性，而是指妨碍遵守时效期间的障碍严重程度。这引自一宗名为 Harper 的案件，648 F.3d 132，第137页，Second Circuit，2011年。还有若干案件明确\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第147页，共170页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024\n\n称，有限的经济能力并非特别情形。事实上，在一宗名为 Djurdjevich 的案件中，一宗2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS案件，223295，第16页，法院——Southern District（纽约南区）裁定：“法律明确，教育程度不足、经济能力有限及不知法律，均不构成证明衡平中止时效正当性的特别情形。”\n\n因此，在此，勤勉与特别情形之间不存在因果关系。并且，勤勉必须贯穿整个期间。不能只是我们一旦有钱就可以聘请 Kroll（科尔），因为我们想确保我们在其他所有人之前获得支付。Bassett律师给出的特别情形的首要理由是没有钱。有限的经济能力并非特别情形。\n\n最后，受托人本可以数月前提出本动议。在诉讼时效届满前两天才处理此事，对法官阁下及此处各方而言并不公平。我认为，在9月/10月左右曾提交一份状态报告，表明该动议即将提出。而现在我们在诉讼时效届满前两天处理它。\n\n我记不起是哪位智者曾经说过，某人的拖延不是所有其他人的紧急情况，或者大致是这个意思。这一紧急情况本可避免。我们本可以举行适当的证据听证。我们本可以\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024 148\n\n有适当的书状提交时间表。我们本可以有适当的——更多时间来审议此事。这是特别救济。据我所知，从未有过先例。随后我们收到132份证据。实际上，不是收到132份证据。我们在听证会前约24小时收到了一份列有132份证据的清单，其中一些我们甚至无法查阅。没有理由造成如此程度的紧急应对。正当程序必须得到重视。对提出异议者的正当程序如此，对程序本身的正当程序亦如此。最后，回应律师的说法，即在 ECF 1960 中，于 '23 年6月，G Club（G俱乐部）在若干事项上拖延。我们已经遵从。法院已经作出裁定，我们也已遵循法院的裁定。我不——而且律师说得对。不必——这不是一项欺诈隐瞒主张。这是一项衡平中止时效主张。他们知道关于 G Club 所需要知道的一切。他们说他们要起诉我们，所以我想他们会起诉我们。但本案不像 IBT。本案——没有理由以这种方式发展。法院应驳回本动议，因为它在宪法上不适当。没有授予该救济的法定依据，而且该救济没有必要。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第148页，共170页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第149页，共170页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024 149\n\n他们必须就每一项请求权证明其具有具体依据。不存在针对衡平中止时效的集体诉讼救济。谢谢，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢你，Sklarz律师。Evans律师？Evans律师仍在线上，还是已经离开了？EVANS先生：是的，法官阁下。谢谢。Sklarz律师在最后部分断线了。法院能清楚听到我吗？法院：是的，我能清楚听到你。请继续。你听不到我们吗？EVANS先生：我现在能听到了。刚刚恢复。法院：好的。好的。EVANS先生：我会简短陈述，法官阁下。谢谢。我不会重复我们在异议书中以及此处提出的其他异议中的论点；这些论点主张法院应驳回中止时效动议，理由是无论依据 Rule 9006(b) 还是衡平中止时效原则，法院均无权作出前瞻性的一揽子中止时效命令。我只想请法院简要关注一下不公平之处，即对像我的当事人这样的当事人的不公平；尽管我认为 Bassett律师在开场时所说的是，我们作为提出异议的一方，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第150页，共170页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024\n\n是被本法院认定参与了本案的人。这实在不是真的。如法官阁下所知，这是我首次就本案出庭。我们并未参与。有过（听不清）提交材料。受托人支持其动议。我们对本案知之甚少。\n\n因此，我的异议主要希望法院关注的是程序，即像 Rule of Law entities（法治实体）这样的当事人没有有意义机会对该动议进行抗辩的程序。我们无权就受托人动议中的主张进行任何证据开示。如我先前所述，该动议没有宣誓书或声明支持。\n\n通常，宣誓书所涉程序会是——其他当事人也提及过这一点——诉讼时效被作为积极抗辩提出，然后受托人会，我想，会在对抗程序中主张，作为排除抗辩的事项，存在——存在某些衡平中止时效的依据。在该情形下，当事人将有权就衡平中止时效是否适用于该案件进行证据开示，具体的证据开示。\n\n在提起对抗程序之前，在此情形下寻求该救济时，像完全未参与本案的 Rule of Law entities 这样的当事人，我们——被剥夺了反驳受托人今天所提供任何证词的任何机会。我从受托人的证词中了解到许多本案的情况，所有这些信息在此前我均不知悉。从我当事人的角度而言，我们必须为本动议之目的接受其为真实，因为我没有办法就其主张是否真实对他进行有意义的交叉询问。我毫不怀疑他是在如实向法院陈述，但（听不清）——法院：我们刚才听不到你——EVANS先生：——无法有意义地质疑。我无法反驳那些——法院：我们刚才听不到你——EVANS先生：——指控，除非有——法院：我们刚才有一秒钟听不到你——EVANS先生：多久？法院：——Evans律师。EVANS先生：好的。法院：你说——我认为我们最后听到的是，我们毫不怀疑受托人正在就其所做之事作证。然后我——我们就听不到你了。EVANS先生：好的。然后从那里开始，我们没有机会有意义地回应他的主张。没有证据开示的益处，没有能够依据排期命令完成程序、以保护当事人免受单方方式影响的机会，我们在这里就像一只\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第151页，共170页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024 152\n\n手臂被绑在背后。我们已向法院提交声明，表明我们充分合作。并且，针对我的当事人并无强制动议。我们已尽职回应传票，最早于2022年10月提供数千份文件。随后，我认为是在2023年4月和5月，我们提供了补充证据开示；此后，直到2023年12月20日受托人要求提供额外文件时，我们才再次收到受托人的消息，而我们将提供这些文件。因此，我们敦请法院基于此驳回针对我们当事人，即 Rule of Law entities 的动议。谢谢。法院：好的。谢谢你，Evans律师。那么，Schmitt律师？SCHMITT先生：是的，法官阁下。我会极为简短。首先我要说，我加入我们其他提出异议者律师所提出的法律论点，这些论点表述得很好。我要说的是，我——我们在事实上对本案的回应受到限制，因为正如刚才律师所说，我们也是本案的新参与者。我还要指出，我今天实际上也没有听到受托人具体讨论我的当事人 Lee先生或 Xia先生。我还要指出，在答复书中，Lee先生和 Xia先生均被指控\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第152页，共170页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交于 02/22/24 录入于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第153页，共170页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— February 13, 2024\n\n153\n\n曾妨碍受托人的调查。预计会具体听到有关此事的内容。我们没有听到有关此事的任何内容。我还要指出，他们——据称其作出该等行为的方式，载于答复书第12段——是作为HCHK债权人委员会成员。我认为已经讨论过，并不清楚该委员会的任何个别成员究竟如何妨碍了受托人。我认为受托人也承认，甚至不清楚此事是否具有法律上的重要性。但我要指出，由于这是一项如此严重的指控，基于此处的证据，我认为夏先生并非该债权人委员会成员这一点在事实层面上是正确的。我只请法院参阅受托人证据12，即HCHK案件中的备忘录意见书。在第27段以及该意见书的事实认定中，法官阁下列明——我相信是依据受托人与该案其他当事人的一项约定——债权人委员会的确切成员为何人。其中不包括夏先生。再次说明，我不确定受托人是否甚至主张此事在法律上相关，但我要指出，如果有人曾妨碍受托人的调查，这对该人而言是一项相当严重的指控。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交于 02/22/24 登记于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第154页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— February 13, 2024\n\n1 调查。\n\n我认为答复书还称，我的两名当事人均因其作为债权人委员会成员而参与了该欺诈计划。我要说的是，至少就夏先生而言，受托人自身的证据明确表明这不属实，他不是债权人委员会成员。正如我所说，我会简要陈述，法官阁下。这就是我要说的全部内容。\n\n法庭：好的。非常感谢。\n\nMajor律师？\n\nMajor律师：非常感谢，法官阁下。我也会简要陈述，因为我加入此前已发言律师的论点，以及已提交存档的各项书面异议，包括我们的异议。\n\n我只想先谈谈——我会非常谨慎，不重复您刚刚听到的相同内容——拟议命令。拟议命令的措辞极其宽泛，明确表明受托人所寻求的并非衡平时效中止，而是要求法院修改国会制定的法律。他请求将诉讼时效从本周延至2024年8月中旬。因为根据他在命令中拟议的措辞，他可以提出一项请求——如果该命令获批准——他可以在两个月后提出一项他在December 1st已经知悉的请求。我并不是说他会这样做。我是说，这正是该命令所规定的。这向我证明，他真正请求的是延长六个月的诉讼时效。\n\n我可以再举一个与衡平时效中止毫无关系的例子。他本可以在December 1st决定，鉴于追偿风险，某项撤销诉讼不值得承担费用，对吗？诉讼时效获得延长后，他在数月内对追偿风险作出不同分析，并决定现在值得提起该诉讼。这是一个问题。我认为此类命令将是前所未有的，而且显然会违反权力分立原则。\n\n该程序造成的另一个问题是，受托人要求法院在不存在任何因果关系的情况下作出衡平时效中止的认定。因为他请求您延长诉讼时效，此事将永远不会被重新审视，他将永远不必证明，他本可通过合理勤勉在本周前提出某项具体请求或案件。如果他获得其所寻求的命令，所有这些都会被掩盖。\n\n这意味着，法院没有机会听取任何证据或理由，说明他为何无法提出某项具体请求。这就是Tancredi法官作出其所作决定的原因，该决定已被每个人援引和讨论。这是整个程序的另一个关键问题。\n\n最后，我想谈谈所援引的一些案件，尤其是受托人律师在其结案陈词中宣读的Valdez案。Valdez案——该案涉及被告是否必须以某种方式对迟延负责的问题。至少，法院必须审查一项具体请求或案件，以确定是否应适用衡平时效中止。但除此之外，我认为Valdez案并不支持律师所暗示的命题。\n\n该案是一宗联邦侵权索赔法案件。在该案中，作为被告的美国政府未告知一名死亡婴儿的母亲，她拟就医疗过失提起诉讼的医生是联邦雇员，这改变了她及其律师所预期的诉讼时效；由于不知道该医生是联邦雇员，他们原以为将适用纽约州法规定的诉讼时效。因此，该案适用了时效中止。但再次强调，被告的行为导致了迟延。\n\nBassett先生（巴塞特先生）今日向法院宣读的引文，在该Valdez裁决中援引了另一项名为Veltri，V-E-L-T-R-I的裁决。该裁决载于受托人在其答复书中援引的Valdez裁决中。那是一宗ERISA案件。同样，在该案中，被告未告知原告其挑战福利被拒的权利及程序，而这正是导致迟延的原因。因此，该案适用了衡平时效中止。\n\n因此，是的，确实如此；适用衡平时效中止不一定必须存在欺诈性隐瞒，但必须存在某种行为，第一，该行为造成了迟延——而我们目前无法衡量这一点，因为今日下午作证许久的受托人并未指出任何一项他被阻碍提出的诉讼。他在尚未有此类诉讼前就提出本动议，操之过急。第二，确实必须存在某种行为。这是衡平时效中止，所以如果您不知道被告是谁，也不知道他们曾作出何种行为——如有——阻碍诉讼进展，我不知道法院如何可能权衡衡平因素。因此，我只想将这些事项载入记录，并感谢法院给予的时间。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢您，Major律师。Grand律师？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2947 提交于 02/22/24 登记于 02/22/24 13:48:18 第158页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— February 13, 2024\n\nGrand律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。我还代表GS Security，仅加入其他异议方律师提出的表述清晰的法律论点，并只想补充——或者强调——已经提出的观点，即衡平因素必须逐案处理。受托人在其动议文件中援引最高法院判例，该判例基本认为衡平时效中止的决定必须逐案作出，而我认为仅在三、四段之后，他又主张，尽管有该等权威，本法院应根据全部事实记录作出衡平时效中止决定。\n\n因此，我再次请求法院注意，这就是标准，并且在本案中应就每一名被告或潜在被告适用该标准。除此之外，我没有更多内容补充。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。那么，我认为现在轮到Wander律师，如果我没错？\n\nWander律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。我也会简要陈述。在很大程度上，我将重申前两位律师Major和Grand的一些陈述。我聚焦于我的特定当事人Yingying Wang（王莹莹）的论点，并非意在削弱其他律师提出的、应对全部331名已获通知当事人驳回该动议的论点。我在此仅就我的当事人发言，她的情况有所不同。\n\n如果本法院认定受托人已跨越第一道门槛——许多异议方主张他尚未跨越——即根据适用法律及本案事实，衡平时效中止是允许的，那么在该情况下，我主张法院应仅准许受托人所请求救济的99%。法官阁下，他们向331人发出通知，其中221人不存在问题，除非您不能对任何人准许该动议。如果是这样，那么我接下来所说的便无关紧要。\n\n但如果法院认定我们必须进入下一步，即在某些事实情形下衡平时效中止是允许的，那么我们必须审视事实，而仅剩十人。可以说，受托人已就其中十人中的七人逐一个别作出了说明。其中三人，包括我的当事人在内，在性质上与其他所有人截然不同。\n\n记录中针对我的当事人及另外两人的唯一证据，是他们曾为某委员会成员。如果这就是受托人唯一能够据以主张的事项，那么如果法院对所有人准许该动议，将产生严重的美国宪法第一修正案层面的影响。任何人都无法成为该委员会成员而不成为此类动议的目标。\n\n再次说明，记录中关于我的当事人及另外两人的唯一证据，是他们曾为某委员会成员。不是他们做错了任何事，而是该委员会做错了事。由于该动议具有集体诉讼式救济请求的性质，法院需要深入审查受影响的是谁。当审查到将受影响的个别人员，以及他们所请求的最低限度正当程序时，法院应考虑具体事实，以及缺乏任何支持针对我当事人的动议的依据。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。好的。那么，我认为最后一名进行陈述的异议方是Nealon律师，对吗？\n\nNealon律师：是的，法官阁下。我会简要陈述。因此，我认为，尤其是与其他异议方的论点一致，这些人各自做了什么并不重要。我认为这是一个更宏观的问题，正如其他当事人非常清楚地指出的那样：在脱离具体情境的情况下，作出一种实际上允许受托人对潜在数百或数千名新当事人提起逾期未来撤销诉讼的集体诉讼式确认判决，是否适当？\n\n我花了一些时间讨论Zhang先生（张先生）的情况，因为受托人喜欢把他当作某种\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024 161 在本案期间提交的各种诉状中被当作皮纳塔彩罐一般对待。我审阅了Despins（德斯平斯）受托人提出的三四项具体要点。我们就简要聚焦于这些问题。再次说明，我认为它们并非任何事项的核心。但是，Zhang先生可能参加过一次抗议活动并在2022年携带标语牌一事，尽管我认为这大概是不明智的，而且确实不明智，但这与受托人发现撤销权诉讼的能力毫无关系。同样，针对Zhang律师以其他当事人共同代理律师身份而提出的制裁动议也是如此。这究竟与受托人发现支持其针对第三方提起撤销权诉讼的事实的能力有什么关系，若有的话？也没有任何证据表明，Yongbing Zhang（张永兵）先生曾做过任何事情，以隐瞒或遮掩任何可能与其收到的任何金钱付款有关的事实。即完全没有。然后，当我就这个HCHK债权人委员会向受托人追问其他一些要点时——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 161 of\n\n我的意思是，这就是你们的机会。请具体告诉我们Zhang先生做了什么。我们什么也没有得到。因为没有任何事情的证据。这只是一大堆影射。\n\n哦，还有什么事？好吧，Zhang律师去监狱探视Miles Guo（郭文贵），所以——那么，又怎样？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 162 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024\n\n这与受托人提起撤销权诉讼的能力毫无关系。\n\nBassett（巴塞特）律师下午做得非常出色，而且当他为向受托人提问作铺垫时，前面几乎应当有一阵鼓声；我将其理解为：看，我们这么晚才做这件事的根本原因，是在出售Lady May之后有了资金之前，我们无力聘请Kroll（科尔）公司。这就是我们来到这里的主旨。并不是所有这些被抛出来的障眼法、影射和暗示，它们确实全都无关紧要。\n\n但我认为Evans（埃文斯）律师在此提出了一个很好的观点，也提出了驳回本动议的另一个理由。根据我的观察——尽管我的观察能力有限，因为我一直处于外围——我们目前的情况并不十分透明。我们知道Kroll一直在做什么吗？我认为我们知道得并不多。\n\n而且，再次说明，当我今天提问说，让我们听听你们的证据时，答复是那属于工作成果；我不会告诉你。好吧，这一直是该受托人运作的一项主题。也许Kroll一直极其勤勉。也许将来会证明受托人一直极其勤勉。但这应当在个别案件的背景下于日后予以评估，而不是现在在真空中作出决定，特别是受托人往往像一个黑箱一样运作。\n\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我不明白你所说的受托人像黑箱一样运作是什么意思。你是什么意思？\n\nNEALON（尼隆）先生：好吧，我给您举一个例子。在HCHK程序中，据我了解，与这些实体有关的所有相关文件——大多数相关文件——均由受托人持有。我知道该案的一些当事人一直试图取得这些文件。\n\n法庭：好吧，本案中近两年来一直有效的保护令和保密令，Nealon先生。因此，你可以提出该项论点。这没有问题。但你也需要理解该论点的另一面——\n\nNEALON先生：是的。\n\n法庭：——即自受托人被指定以来，债务人所提出的要求和立场是，一切都必须保密，并且对文件有各种要求。因此，我对你所说的只是：你是正确的；你处于外围。因此，当你发表一种陈述——当你说受托人，任何受托人，在你未参与该案的情况下像黑箱一样运作时，我认为你需要对此谨慎。好吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 164 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024\n\nNEALON先生：我修改我的陈述。我无意将任何故意性归于此。我只是说，目前并没有很多可见性——\n\n法庭：如果存在保密协议，就不可能有可见性，Nealon先生。你希望包括与债务人有关联的人在内的人违反那些保密协议以及债务人律师如此竭力争取的保护令吗？\n\n我对你所说的是，我理解你的论点，而且你绝对有权提出这些论点。但是，在本次听证结束时作出那种陈述——我认为是不适当的，因为你没有参与其中。也许你需要去阅读那些保护令和保密令，以了解本案一直在发生什么。\n\n我对法律论点没有任何异议。我对你代表客户提出任何类型的论点没有任何异议。但是，当律师提出不受法院面前记录支持的论点时，我确实有异议。这就是我想就该点所说的一切，好吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 165 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024\n\nNEALON先生：好的。我撤回该论点，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n好的。那么，这就结束了——Bassett律师，我不会再进行一轮辩论。我确信你想要再来一轮，但那样我们就得在这里待到8:00。而且我必须让法庭工作人员下班。\n\n此外，我必须就本动议作出裁定。我想我必须在明天营业结束前就本动议作出裁定。是这样——不对吗？\n\nBASSETT先生：我正在认真考虑这件事——\n\n法庭：好吧，我想营业结束可以是11:59 p.m.。但无论如何，我的意思是，我——可能会是15日。但我要说的是，我不会——我将会——我现在需要回去听取——回顾今天所说的一切。显然，我们已经进行了约四个小时。我必须考虑Despins受托人的证言，以及代表提出异议当事人的各位律师所进行的交叉询问。\n\n然后我必须作出决定。因此，我不想使任何一方处于法院以某种方式影响该问题的境地。必须作出决定。这就是我希望花时间做的事。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 166 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024\n\nBASSETT先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的？所以，我——我当然会考虑今天每个人所说的内容，以及已提交的诉状中所说的内容；我已经读过这些诉状，但我将回去重新阅读。鉴于今天提出的问题，我需要这样做。今天引用了一些并未载于书面陈述中的案例，因此我必须审阅这些案例。我必须考虑一切，我会这样做。\n\n而且，我预计明天会发布某项裁定。但如果因某种原因未能如此，我们将通知所有人。今天参与本次听证的所有人都是CM/ECF提交人，因此，法院采取行动时，你们将获悉法院所作的行动。好吗？\n\n有人有任何问题吗？\n\nLINSEY（林赛）先生：如果可以的话，法官阁下，我仅就中止时效约定作一行更新。\n\n法庭：关于什么？\n\nLINSEY先生：关于我们昨天提交——原本昨天提交的中止时效约定。我可以就某件事向法庭作更新吗？\n\n法庭：可以。请讲。\n\nLINSEY先生：昨天提交了一项请求批准中止时效约定的动议。在脚注二中，我们表示可能还会收到更多约定，如收到，我们将以补充方式提交。我们今天确实收到了另外三份中止时效约定。我将在今晚以与我们提交其他约定相同的方式提交这些约定。\n\n我们只是请求法庭明天也请就这些约定作出批准或不批准的裁定，因为我们有——\n\n法庭：好吧，我必须问你——\n\nLINSEY先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我还没有看。我还没有看，因为显然我们一直在开庭。本周我们也有其他听证会。如果你有一份中止时效约定，那里——不——谁会——没有人会反对该约定。反对它的依据会是什么？如果受托人拟对其提起诉因的一方已同意中止诉讼时效，任何一方反对该约定的依据会是什么？\n\nLINSEY先生：我不认为任何一方会反对，但它们被起草为由法庭批准的约定命令。\n\n法庭：好的。这没问题。我会审阅它们。我会——\n\nLINSEY先生：所以我只是想让法官阁下知道，补充材料即将提交，因为现在有很多东西正在进入案卷。这就是全部。感谢法庭抽出时间听取意见。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 168 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024\n\n法庭：没问题。非常感谢。\n\n好的。非常感谢各位。\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢。\n\nBASSETT先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：今天的听证至此结束。当有文件提交至案卷时，你们将会——你们将会知道法庭作出的决定。\n\n全体：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢各位。现在休庭。\n\n法庭书记员：现在休庭。\n\n（程序于6:05 p.m.结束。）\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2947\nFiled 02/22/24\nEntered 02/22/24 13:48:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024 169\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），经法院批准的记录员及认证电子记录员和记录誊写员，证明上述内容系从上述案件程序的官方电子录音中制作的正确誊本。\n\nFebruary 21, 2024\n\nChristine Fiore（克里斯廷·菲奥雷）, CERT\n\n誊写员\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- February 13, 2024 170\n\n索引\n\n原告方证人： 直接询问 交叉询问\n\nLuc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯） 25 52/58/66/72/86/94\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2947 Filed 02/22/24 Entered 02/22/24 13:48:18 Page 170 of","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Guo","HCHK","Paul Hastings","CIPA","Luc Despins","RICO","Miles Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1960,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2763,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":2801,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":50484,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-02-22 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-02-22","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:10:28"}