{"id":"court_ctb_318_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":318,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2022-05-03","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 1 of 246\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* April 27, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: WILLIAM R. BALDIGA, ESQ. BENNETT S. SILVERBERG, ESQ. KENNETH AULET, ESQ. JEFFREY L. JONAS, ESQ. Brown Rudnick, LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity LAURA S. ARONSSON, ESQ. Fund L.P.: DAVID V. HARBACH, II, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 PATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ. Robinson & Cole LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES Cont'd: 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 For Golden Spring TIMOTHY MILTENBERGER, ESQ. (New York), Interested Cohn Birnbaum & Shea, P.C. Party: 100 Pearl Street Hartford, CT 06103 For HK International Funds STEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ. Investments (USA) Limited, AARON A. ROMNEY, ESQ. LLC, Interested Party: Zeisler & Zeisler 10 Middle Street Bridgeport, CT 06604 Proposed counsel for the IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Creditors Committee: JOHN KAPLAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For Rui Ma, Zheng Wu and KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Weican Meng, Creditors: McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter 30 Jeliff Lane Southport, CT 06890\n\n (Proceedings commenced at 9:46 a.m.) THE CLERK: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good morning. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the debtor's counsel, please. MR. BALDIGA: Good morning, Your Honor. William Baldiga, Brown Rudnick, for the debtor. With me, my colleagues, Ben Silverberg, Ken Aulet, and Jeff Jonas. Thank you. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. JONAS: Good morning. THE CLERK: I'm sorry. I heard Bennett Silverberg, but there was someone else I didn't -- MR. BALDIGA: Ben Silverberg, Kenneth Aulet. THE CLERK: Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: And I believe his motion pro hac was allowed a week or two ago. MR. AULET: Yesterday. THE COURT: I think just the other day. MR. BALDIGA: Yesterday. I'm sorry. THE COURT: Just the other day, yes. MR. BALDIGA: And Jeffrey Jonas. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you. MR. KINDSETH: Good morning, Your Honor. Stephen\n\n| | 4 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Kindseth, Zeisler & Zeisler.
And with me, my colleague |\n| 2 | Aaron Romney, representing HK International Funds |\n| 3 | Investments (USA) Limited, LLC. |\n| 4 | MR. ROMNEY:
Good morning, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 6 | MR. MILTENBERGER:
Good morning, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | Timothy Miltenberger for Golden Spring (New York). |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 9 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Peter |\n| 10 | Friedman of O'Melveny & Myers on behalf of Pacific Alliance |\n| 11 | Group.
I'm here with my colleagues Laura Aronsson, who's |\n| 12 | had a pro hac entered, and David Harbach, who is back there, |\n| 13 | but will be joining us at the bar. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 15 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
And Mr. Birney is here as well from |\n| 16 | the Robinson & Cole firm. |\n| 17 | MR. BIRNEY:
Good morning, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 19 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Irve |\n| 20 | Goldman, Pullman & Comley, with my colleague, Jonathan |\n| 21 | Kaplan.
Our application is pending to represent the |\n| 22 | Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 24 | MR. KAPLAN:
Good morning. |\n| 25 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Holley |\n| | |\n\n| | 5 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 3 | MS. MAYHEW:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Kristin |\n| 4 | Mayhew, McElroy, Deutsche, Mulvaney & Carpenter, on behalf |\n| 5 | of creditors Rui Ma and Zheng Wu. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 7 | MS. MAYHEW:
Good morning. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Does anyone else wish to note their |\n| 9 | appearance for today's hearings? |\n| 10 | (No audible response.) |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
As you all know we scheduled |\n| 12 | the hearings today.
There are many matters on the calendar, |\n| 13 | but the two matters that are scheduled for an evidentiary |\n| 14 | hearing today are the application to employ Verdolino & |\n| 15 | Lowey, ECF No. 90, and the motion for DIP financing -- I've |\n| 16 | shortened the titled, but that's what it essentially is -- |\n| 17 | ECF 117. |\n| 18 | I know there are many other matters on the |\n| 19 | calendar.
I know you all took a few minutes before we |\n| 20 | started this morning.
I don't know if there's anything that |\n| 21 | anyone wants to report to the Court before we begin. |\n| 22 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes, Your Honor.
Thank you.
Again, |\n| 23 | William Baldiga for the debtor. |\n| 24 | Your Honor, we're delighted to have made great |\n| 25 | progress not only this morning, but over the course of the |\n| | |\n\n last two weeks. And if I could just report briefly, not argue, but just report as to where we are as to each matter? THE COURT: Sure. Please, go right ahead. MR. BALDIGA: As to the motion to lift stay involving the boat, there is a resolution. You may remember that the owner of the boat, AK International -- HK International, filed a proposed order some time ago. That order has been negotiated. As you would expect, it's somewhat longer than first submitted, but those -- that's what happens with this things, and the parties need some time to finalize some language over the course of the next -- well, it's being done now, but it's not ready to be handed up -- but they believe that sometime this morning that language will have been reviewed by everyone and that there will be a consent, fully-consented-to order resolving the lift stay motion with the boat being returned and fully resolving it. The \\$37 million is already at the Zeisler Client Trust Fund Account, so that is no longer a concern, if it ever was. So great progress in that regard. In no particular order, the Brown Rudnick retention, all objections have been resolved. I believe that PAX wants to put on the record a reservation of rights, but we'll hear them say whatever they want in that regard. With Verdolino & Lowey, all objections have been\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n resolved other than that of PAX and I guess PAX will decide whether they want to go forward with that. But all other objections have been resolved. With the fee procedures, interim fee procedures motion, all objections have been resolved. With the -- THE COURT: Hold on. Let me just -- I'm with -- MR. BALDIGA: I'm sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: No, that's okay. I'm just trying to make sure I'm following you. MR. BALDIGA: I guess I should be giving docket numbers. THE COURT: No. That's okay. I'm fine with that. I just -- I can figure that out. Okay. Go ahead. So the -- MR. BALDIGA: There is -- THE COURT: -- the interim -- the interim procedures has been resolved, is that what you're saying? MR. BALDIGA: Yes, Your Honor. (Pause.) MR. BALDIGA: We'll add PAX as a noticed party as part of the resolution. So we have work to do on the order, but no objections outstanding, just clean up the order. Thank you. With respect to the DIP loan, there is still an\n\n objection, but I believe only of PAX I believe. I'm sorry. The U.S. Trustee also continues to have an objection. So that appears that we will go forward on -- THE COURT: With evidence on that? MR. BALDIGA: -- on presentations today -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: -- including evidence if the parties wish. And then we have the motion to dismiss. And we -- we'll need some time with you today to work out the scheduling on that with the Court's calendar and the calendars of other parties, but there's been a lot of discussion around that. There's an open issue as to whether we're going to have the 341 continue during that time, and we'll argue if that is necessary as to how that affects the scheduling and complicates the proceeding, but we may be able to resolve that as well. So I think that's the full agenda, Your Honor, I've addressed briefly. Mr. Kindseth may want to give further detail as to where we are with the boat, but obviously all parties can correct any part of that or make additional comment, but -- THE COURT: I have a couple of things -- MR. BALDIGA: Of course.\n\n THE COURT: -- before you go. You all go ahead, and then I'll -- maybe you'll answer my questions. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. I'll turn it over to others. THE COURT: Mr. Friedman, what were you going -- MR. BALDIGA: But I'm delighted with the progress, Your Honor. I reported at the last hearing that there's been an inability to engage with the parties and that has changed dramatically. We've had really good engagement with the committee, with the Office of the United States Trustee, with committee members, and it's good to see the case now proceeding in a good direction with most things that were filed fully resolved and a few things still remaining. So we feel good that we're heading in the right direction. Now I'll turn it over to other people for whatever questions the Court may have. THE COURT: Mr. Friedman, go right ahead. You still have an objection to the DIP motion, but what other objection does your client have? MR. FRIEDMAN: We also have an objection to the -- the retention of a financial advisor in this case, Your Honor, which we will examine the proposed financial advisor who would -- in connection. THE COURT: Okay.\n\n MR. FRIEDMAN: I want to make a couple of comments. You know, the stay motion is obviously our motion, so I thought I should address the status. THE COURT: Yes. MR. FRIEDMAN: We have had extensive discussions with HK. We've had extensive discussions with the committee. I do think we are in a place where we have agreed to, in principle, an order. It is an order that has a lot of belts and suspenders because we obviously, you know, came in to this case with concerns and still have them. It should be -- we should be getting a final draft from counsel for HK shortly I think because we have ironed out the relevant points. I would -- what I would say is once the -- once the order is in your hands -- we obviously have tremendous respect for the Court's time. The date of the stay runs out on Monday, that will be the day ordinarily the Court would have to enter an order. Out of respect for the Court, if the Court needs more time once it's in the Court's hands, we would agree that there's an extenuating circumstance. We would not have agreed to that without an agreement. But I'm obviously very sensitive to overloading the Court or trying to jam the Court, which is nobody's\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n intention, so we will provide it to the -- it will be provided to the Court. And when the Court -- if the Court has follow-up questions after that and needs to schedule something, I just want to make it clear to the Court that we will accommodate whatever the Court needs and not try to rush the schedule in any ways to make your life more difficult. THE COURT: Well, I appreciate that. And I appreciate the efforts of the parties. And obviously once I see the order, I will take a look at it -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. THE COURT: -- and then see if there's any concerns that I have. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. And then, what I would say, Your Honor, is that's progress. It's a discrete form of progress. We still have, you know, a lot of concerns about the case and those have not receded. Mr. Baldiga is correct. We will just reserve some rights with respect to the Brown Rudnick retention. We actually think it's important that Mr. Kwok have competent counsel, and Brown Rudnick certainly is competent counsel. And not having them retained would -- A) we heard what you said at the last hearing that they will be retained, and B) whatever form this case takes, they're necessary.\n\n We do have two other objections. We will be prosecuting them today. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Goldman? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. I'd like to put some finer points on the resolution of the committee's objections to the DIP loan and the Verdolino loan, their retention rather. I think it's important that we put the terms of the settlement on the record and advise the Court that we do have it documented. We had been working on it late into last night and we're finally able to reach final agreement this morning. So if I can report those terms to the Court, I think it would be helpful to the Court and the parties. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. GOLDMAN: As to the DIP motion, we have agreed that the debtor and Golden Spring will remove as termination events the filing by the debtor of a motion to dismiss or a motion for the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee or a motion to convert. They will also remove as termination events the termination of exclusivity for the debtor provided that the committee agrees not to seek to terminate exclusivity before the initial 120-day period expires which would be on or\n\n about June 15th. So we do agree that we will not seek to terminate that exclusivity before then. THE COURT: So how are these agreements going to be noted? Are there going to be -- is there going to be an amended DIP loan agreement, or is this going to be part of the order, or both? MR. GOLDMAN: Both. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah. They're revisions to both. The termination events reside in the DIP agreement, not the order. The order just refers to -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDMAN: -- the credit agreement. The initial \\$2 million loan that is -- we would ask the Court to approve on an interim basis -- is going to be paid into our firm's trust account. We will set up a segregated deposit account that bears interest for that. And I didn't expressly discuss this with the debtor's counsel, but we are going to need a W-9 form filled out by the debtor because the estate will be entitled to the -- whatever interest is on that money. And that's a bank requirement, not our firm's requirement. So we'll need that to be filled out if the Court does approve this resolution. And that \\$2 million will be used to pay the committee's professionals and any examiner that might be\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n appointed or the examiner's professionals. And of course that's without prejudice to the additional loans that are being requested on a final basis. And I expect we'll be able to work those out as well.\n\n The other provision we negotiated and which was of great concern to the committee relates to the termination event that would be based on the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. We were highly concerned -- and that was a point of -- one of the points of our objection -- that that tilted the process.\n\n And so what we were able to work out is a commitment from the debtor and Golden Spring that the -- of the \\$500,000 that Golden Spring agreed to make available upon a termination event -- and that would include the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee -- they would agree to make an addition to all fees of professionals that had been approved up to that date, the date of the appointment of a trustee, an additional \\$500,000. Of that, 400 would be dedicated to a -- the fees of a Chapter 11 trustee, his or her professionals, as well as the committee's professionals to the extent they would continue to have a role post-trustee.\n\n So the committee was satisfied that if a Chapter 11 trustee had to take over, there would be a fund for the trustee to continue on with the investigation and recovery\n\n of assets. THE COURT: Is that 500,000 or 400,000 of which you're talking about part of the two million or in addition to the two million? MR. GOLDMAN: Well, that would be in -- actually in addition to any fees that were accrued up to the date of the appointment of a trustee, so my conception of it was that it would be in addition to the loan. UNIDENTIFIED: In addition to? MR. GOLDMAN: In addition to the two million if the trustee appointment occurred during the interim period. Or if it incurred -- if it occurred in the final period, it would be an addition. That's my understanding. THE COURT: Okay. I'm not sure everybody agrees on that side, but we'll see. That's why I asked the question. (Pause.) MR. BALDIGA: On that point, if you still have un- incurred amounts in the two million, it wouldn't double count that. MR. GOLDMAN: I agree with that. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDMAN: The debtor had requested a finding\n\n of good faith in the interim order. And we had no problem with that as long as it was subject to a very strict caveat, and that would be that it would be strictly limited to the extension of the DIP loan and it would not be construed in any way or used to defend against claims that the committee or another estate representative or a creditor might assert against Golden Spring based on theories such as alter ego, veil piercing, fraudulent transfer. In other words, that they couldn't use the good- faith finding to say, here, Your Honor, you've already held that we were a separate entity and we proceeded in good faith with the DIP, so how could you pierce the corporate veil. So that is being accepted out of the good-faith finding and the good-faith finding will only relate to the extension of the interim DIP fees -- DIP funds rather. And there's a similar caveat for the no-waiver provision that is in the current order. It's in paragraph 15. We'll just make that more explicit to match the caveat I just gave Your Honor about the good-faith finding, that the entry of the order doesn't impair or prejudice in any way the claims that might exist against Golden Spring. And I think that that sums it up. I think there's -- there's one point we agree with\n\n| 1 | the debtor on and that's the point that was made in the |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | declaration, that this proceeding should serve as a ground |\n| 3 | for giving creditors a fair opportunity to investigate what |\n| 4 | assets the debtor has, to conclusively determine what those |\n| 5 | assets are, and to use the DIP financing as a means to do |\n| 6 | that.
That's all in his declaration and that's all being |\n| 7 | served, we think, if this resolution is approved. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 9 | Mr. Kindseth, did you want to say something? |\n| 10 | MR. KINDSETH:
Yes.
There is some logistical |\n| 11 | issues, timing issues, that we have, and so revising the |\n| 12 | order and having it circulated as soon as possible is very |\n| 13 | important, so I'd like to be excused to go back to my office |\n| 14 | to finish the draft order. |\n| 15 | I'm also -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Of the DIP order? |\n| 17 | MR. KINDSETH:
Sorry? |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Of the DIP order? |\n| 19 | MR. KINDSETH:
No.
This is concerning the Lady |\n| 20 | May, the -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Oh, you're -- okay. |\n| 22 | MR. KINDSETH:
Correct.
My -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Well, there isn't really a -- there |\n| 24 | isn't really a motion underlying that then, right? |\n| 25 | I mean -- |\n| | |\n\n MR. KINDSETH: Actually -- THE COURT: -- you're saying it's the resolution of the relief from stay order? MR. KINDSETH: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. MR. KINDSETH: And I can provide Your Honor with a summary of -- THE COURT: No, that's fine. MR. KINDSETH: Great. THE COURT: I don't need to see it. MR. KINDSETH: Perfect. THE COURT: I mean, I think -- I'll read it -- MR. KINDSETH: Yes. THE COURT: -- when I see it, right? MR. KINDSETH: Okay. Very good. THE COURT: And so I think that's fine. MR. KINDSETH: So may I be excused? THE COURT: Yes. Yes. You certainly may. Thank you. MR. KINDSETH: Thank you very much, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then the only other thing that I was going to ask questions about was the -- The only thing, Mr. Baldiga, you didn't speak about that's on the calendar today, other than the examiner and the dismissal motion which you did speak about in some\n\n ways, was the proof of claim bar date motion. What's the status of that motion? MR. BALDIGA: I'm sorry. I did forget that. That's also fully resolved I believe. We've agreed to all the requests of the U.S. Trustee in that regard to basically pare down what creditors must do to comply with the bar date. THE COURT: And what is the bar date proposed to be? MR. BALDIGA: I don't -- I don't -- it comes out to 52 days after service of the bar date. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'll have to look at that because I'm not sure 52 days is enough time. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: I might -- you know, right now, the code, you know, has changed a few times over the last few years, but the least amount of time I think there is after a 341 meeting is 70 days, and it's 7 or something, but this is an 11 where -- MR. BALDIGA: Right. THE COURT: -- there doesn't always have to be a bar date set, right? But if there is, if you ask for one, that's fine, but I don't know if 52 days -- I'll have to look at whatever you propose, but I'm --\n\n MR. BALDIGA: Okay. That's fair enough, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- I'm suggesting to you that I'm not sure if 52 days will be ample time in this case or any Chapter 11 case quite frankly because of many reasons, including the impact of the ability to object or receive a distribution under a plan. MR. BALDIGA: I hear that. THE COURT: So that would be my only concern. I Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 20 of 246\n\n that, you know, I would expect the bar date to be, you know, somewhere at least in the 75-day range. Is that a problem from the management of this\n\nsaying I'm going to 180 or anything like that, but I think\n\nmean, I don't know what other concerns I might have, but I'm\n\njust saying to you 52 days to me seems short. I'm not\n\ncase's perspective?\n\n MR. BALDIGA: Well, it depends. I mean, it's -- it's helpful to know what claims there are as we go through a plan process.\n\nTHE COURT: I understand that.\n\n MR. BALDIGA: And we're anxious to do a plan process. We're two months into the case. And if we give creditors another essentially two months to file claims, it doesn't seem like a big burden, but let's put a date in and get it served, whatever date the Court feels is appropriate,\n\n it will -- but it will help the plan process along -- THE COURT: And you could certainly -- MR. BALDIGA: -- to know what claims there are. THE COURT: You know, you can certainly prepare your disclosure statement and plan based on different eventualities, right? MR. BALDIGA: It's not the disclosure statement as much as the financial transactions that underpin the plan. This is a -- we -- claims, the amount of claims matter. And to go forward -- THE COURT: I completely agree and that's the point, right? MR. BALDIGA: Right. THE COURT: And the -- you don't have a prepackaged Chapter 11, so you have to have time for solicitation and voting, and you have to have people give people an opportunity, meaningful opportunity, to file proofs of claim. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. And I know the rules says there's a presumption that 45 days is sufficient, and we accept that it can be more -- THE COURT: What rule? MR. BALDIGA: Local Rule 3003-1. THE COURT: Says 45 days for filing -- setting a proof of claim bar date? Maybe it does.\n\n MR. BALDIGA: Let me take a look at it again. (Pause.) MR. BALDIGA: But, again, we're not -- we're not even suggesting 45 days, but that's a point of reference I guess. But if the Court feels that it shouldn't be 45, it should be 52 or 60, then -- THE COURT: I just don't see 45 days as -- or any time frame Local Rule 3001-1. MR. BALDIGA: I'm sorry. I misspoke, 3003-1. THE COURT: Those are creditors whose claims are listed as disputed contingent on liquidating. That rule applies to creditors with claims that are disputed contingent on liquidated with a notice of a deadline for filing proofs of claims. The purpose of that rule is so that a debtor who files a case and lists in their statements and schedules of affairs all the claims as -- or any claim, it doesn't have to be all -- as disputed or contingent on liquidated. We have a process here in Connecticut where the debtor is required to provide notice to that claimant that their claim is listed as disputed contingent on liquidated, and that if they don't file a proof of claim, that they will not be able to object and they will not receive any distribution under the plan. MR. BALDIGA: I understand. I didn't -- I didn't\n\n say that that rule dictates what we're doing here. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. BALDIGA: It provides a reference point as to what -- it's a deadline for certain creditors to get their claims in. I'm not saying that that dictates what we do. I am saying that as in pretty much every other Chapter 11 case involving tens of millions of dollars conceivably getting claims, having a deadline on which claims are filed helps to push the case -- THE COURT: I completely agree. I'm not suggesting there isn't going to be a -- MR. BALDIGA: Okay. So that's all I'm saying. So we'll -- THE COURT: I'm not suggesting there isn't going to be a deadline. I'm just not sure it's going to be 52 days. MR. BALDIGA: And as I said, let's put a day in that you're comfortable with and keep the show moving forward, and we'll do that. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. So, Mr. Friedman, this is your objections to the application to employ Verdolino & Lowey and the -- your clients' -- and the DIP financing order.\n\n Now, I did see everyone's list of witnesses and exhibits. And I saw that last night there was a joint exhibit grid with regard to different exhibits. How do you plan on proceeding this morning? Are you -- are you going -- are we going to start with your objection or is Mr. Baldiga going to start with his -- or his motions? MR. BALDIGA: I was going to put -- to establish the evidentiary foundation that -- I was going to put Mr. Craig Jalbert on the stand. That's the witness that PAX intends to cross-examine. Direct would be very short, but -- THE COURT: That's fine with me if it's fine with Mr. Friedman. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: I mean, you two I'm sure have spoken about this, right? MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, my colleague, Ms. Aronsson, will handle any objections to direct and the cross-examination and we'll make argument after the witness is -- has been relieved. THE COURT: Okay. All right. So, Mr. Baldiga, you may call your first witness. And this -- to be clear on the record, we are now -- is this evidence going to be applicable to both Verdolino\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 25 of 246\n\n| | 25 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | & Lowey and the DIP motion or are we just starting with the |\n| 2 | Verdolino & Lowey application? |\n| 3 | MR. BALDIGA:
With Verdolino & Lowey. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 5 | MR. BALDIGA:
Mr. Jalbert. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Mr. Jalbert, when you -- when you sit |\n| 7 | down, just let me know what you can see, okay?
If you have |\n| 8 | a screen in front of you, you know. |\n| 9 | I'm just going to say my screen is showing |\n| 10 | nothing.
Should it be showing at least the calendar? |\n| 11 | THE CLERK:
No. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
It shouldn't be showing |\n| 13 | anything.
Okay. |\n| 14 | MR. JALBERT:
It is blank, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Can you see anything? |\n| 16 | MR. JALBERT:
It is blank. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Good.
Mine is too.
So then |\n| 18 | we're on the same page.
But hopefully we'll be on a |\n| 19 | different page soon. |\n| 20 | MR. JALBERT:
Good morning. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 22 | CRAIG JALBERT, WITNESS FOR THE DEBTOR, SWORN |\n| 23 | THE CLERK:
State your name and business address |\n| 24 | for the record, please. |\n| 25 | THE WITNESS:
My name is Craig R. Jalbert, J-A-L- |\n| | |\n\n B, as in boy, E, as in Eric, R-T, as in Tom. I work at Verdolino & Lowey. Our business address is 124 Washington Street, Foxboro, Massachusetts 02035. THE CLERK: Thank you. THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Jalbert. THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: You okay in there? You've got what you need? THE WITNESS: (No audible response.) THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I don't think we even have any water, but if you do get to a point where you need some, let us know. Okay? THE WITNESS: Thank you. I appreciate it. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BALDIGA: Q Good morning, Mr. Jalbert. A Good morning. Q You said in your introduction that you were affiliated with the firm of Verdolino & Lowey? A Yes. Q Could you tell the Court what that firm does. A It's styled as an accounting firm. Most of our work is specialty work. Pretty much the only accounting service that we do not provide is the test type services, audits, reviews, compilations, but we do a lot of litigation support Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 27 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Direct
27 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | work in insolvency.
We do federal election reporting for |\n| 2 | federal senators and congressmen and presidential |\n| 3 | candidates, and we do what we call high-net-worth |\n| 4 | babysitting and tax preparation. |\n| 5 | Q
And what is your position in the firm? |\n| 6 | A
I'm a principal. |\n| 7 | Q
And were you a co-founder of the firm? |\n| 8 | A
Well, the firm was started back in 1979.
The Verdolino |\n| 9 | or Verdolino & Lowey bought half the firm in 1986.
I bought |\n| 10 | the other half in 1987.
And it's just morphed into |\n| 11 | Verdolino & Lowey over the years. |\n| 12 | Q
So you've been with that firm now for? |\n| 13 | A
Thirty-five years. |\n| 14 | Q
Thirty-five 35 years. |\n| 15 | And within Verdolino and -- and what is your title |\n| 16 | at the firm? |\n| 17 | A
Principal. |\n| 18 | Q
And does that mean that you're in charge of at least -- |\n| 19 | co-charge of the firm with someone else? |\n| 20 | A
Yes.
So I'm not an owner because a CPA can't be an |\n| 21 | owner, but I am treated as an equal 50 percent partner.
And |\n| 22 | 100 percent of my time not spent running the firm -- and I'm |\n| 23 | the \"managing partner\" -- is spent in this insolvency and |\n| 24 | related issues. |\n| 25 | Q
So you have experience in insolvency cases? |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 28 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Direct
28 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A
I do. |\n| 2 | Q
For how many years? |\n| 3 | A
Started somewhere in 1988 or 1989. |\n| 4 | Q
Okay.
And before you joined Verdolino & Lowey, did -- |\n| 5 | what was your schooling, starting with college? |\n| 6 | A
I graduated in 1983 with a bachelor of science and |\n| 7 | degree in accountancy from Boston College.
And since then, |\n| 8 | I've done 35 -- 38 or 39 years of continuing professional |\n| 9 | education in the accounting and related areas. |\n| 10 | Q
Okay.
And as you -- I think as you said Verdolino & |\n| 11 | Lowey is not an auditor, correct? |\n| 12 | A
Correct. |\n| 13 | Q
Describe what you have done in bankruptcy cases and in |\n| 14 | about how many bankruptcy cases over the years? |\n| 15 | A
I last did my count five or ten years ago, and at that |\n| 16 | time, I had been in 7,000 Chapter 7's and 500 Chapter 11's. |\n| 17 | I've been appointed as a Chapter 11 trustee three times. |\n| 18 | I've been a federal -- state -- federal receiver, a state |\n| 19 | court receiver, an assignee for the assignment of benefitted |\n| 20 | creditors in four states. |\n| 21 | I've done -- I've been a post-confirmation |\n| 22 | fiduciary -- pick a title -- liquidating supervisor, |\n| 23 | liquidating manager, whatever, numerous times.
I work with |\n| 24 | trustees, debtors in possessions, creditors committees, |\n| 25 | equity committees, secured creditors, unsecured creditors, |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 29 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Direct
29 | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | pretty much any constituency to a bankruptcy case over the | | | | |\n| 2 | years we've represented in all of these cases. | | | | |\n| 3 | I think that's all I have off the top of my head. | | | | |\n| 4 | Q
And do yo provide assistance to debtors in connection | | | | |\n| 5 | with plan formulation and negotiation? | | | | |\n| 6 | A
Yes. | | | | |\n| 7 | Q
Do you provide assistance with financial reporting? | | | | |\n| 8 | A
Yes. | | | | |\n| 9 | Q
Here, you know that the debtor obviously is an | | | | |\n| 10 | individual? | | | | |\n| 11 | A
Yes. | | | | |\n| 12 | Q
In fact, Mr. Kwok is in the courtroom, and you've met | | | | |\n| 13 | him on several occasions now? | | | | |\n| 14 | A
Yes. | | | | |\n| 15 | Q
He has lawyers obviously that help him, correct? | | | | |\n| 16 | A
Yes. | | | | |\n| 17 | Q
Other than Brown Rudnick, are they bankruptcy lawyers? | | | | |\n| 18 | A
Not to my knowledge. | | | | |\n| 19 | Q
Okay.
Does he have a financial staff individually that | | | | |\n| 20 | is well versed in bankruptcy reporting? | | | | |\n| 21 | A
No. | | | | |\n| 22 | Q
How do you know that? | | | | |\n| 23 | A
I've been told.
And over the last -- what date are we | | | | |\n| 24 | -- 45 or so days, there's been lots of interaction and all | | | | |\n| 25 | of the information necessary for us to do our work has come | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 30 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Direct
30 | | | | | |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | through the legal team. | | | | | |\n| 2 | Q
Okay.
But you and your staff have more than a little | | | | | |\n| 3 | experience with financial reporting in bankruptcy cases, | | | | | |\n| 4 | correct? | | | | | |\n| 5 | A
Yes. | | | | | |\n| 6 | Q
What type of reporting is required in this case? | | | | | |\n| 7 | A
Well, there's two pieces of reporting that come to mind | | | | | |\n| 8 | initially.
Aide from the schedules and the SOFAs, putting | | | | | |\n| 9 | those aside, that's the start of the case, on an ongoing | | | | | |\n| 10 | basis, there's the monthly operative reports that are filed | | | | | |\n| 11 | nowadays on the docket with additional information supplied | | | | | |\n| 12 | to the United States Trustee. | | | | | |\n| 13 | It's the United States Trustee's form and rules. | | | | | |\n| 14 | And there's also a Form 426 which is related to Rule 2015.3 | | | | | |\n| 15 | for reporting related to entities -- I think the term is -- | | | | | |\n| 16 | that are substantially controlled by the debtor. | | | | | |\n| 17 | Q
Okay.
And were you involved in the preparation of the | | | | | |\n| 18 | first MORs filed in this case? | | | | | |\n| 19 | A
Yes. | | | | | |\n| 20 | Q
What did you do?
Or when I say you, you and your | | | | | |\n| 21 | staff, please. | | | | | |\n| 22 | A
We, at Verdolino & Lowey, were -- initiated the | | | | | |\n| 23 | preparation.
We used the form that is supplied by the | | | | | |\n| 24 | United States Trustee.
It's a PDF that you fill out.
It | | | | | |\n| 25 | has lots of instructions.
And we worked with the debtor's | | | | | |\n\nJalbert - Direct 31 attorneys in order to obtain the information necessary to prepare the form. And that has been done for February and March. We needed assistance in getting input from Golden Spring and that was arranged for through counsel. And we did have initial few emails with Golden Spring to obtain information and most everything has come through counsel. Q Okay. With respect to the schedules and statements, were you involved in that process? A Yes. Q What did you and your staff do in that regard? A So in order to file the SOFAs and the schedules, there's an awful lot of historical information necessary, so we participated on numerous telephone calls and emails with the legal team in order to obtain the information. We populated initially the draft forms of both the -- all of the schedules -- and as we all know, there's a number of them -- and the statement of financial affairs. We were -- initially crafted the first draft of what I'll call the specific notes, there were global notes, that were filed as part and parcel to the SOFAs and the schedules. And the general notes were I believe created and drafted by the attorneys. I did the first pass at trying to file the specific notes that responded to the various particular Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 31 of 246\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 32 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Direct
32 | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | questions in the SOFAs and the schedules after receiving and | | | | |\n| 2 | obtaining and organizing the information received from the | | | | |\n| 3 | legal team. | | | | |\n| 4 | Q
Were you involved in the establishment by this debtor | | | | |\n| 5 | in possession of the so-called DIP deposit account? | | | | |\n| 6 | A
Yes. | | | | |\n| 7 | Q
What did you do? | | | | |\n| 8 | A
There were only a number of institutions that the | | | | |\n| 9 | United States Trustee's Office has -- permits to be -- to | | | | |\n| 10 | hold funds in a bankruptcy case so we identified that group | | | | |\n| 11 | of banks and we tried to see who would participate.
We have | | | | |\n| 12 | a relationship with three of the banks that frequently do | | | | |\n| 13 | work in bankruptcy. | | | | |\n| 14 | Initially, and no longer, I was going to be the | | | | |\n| 15 | actual signatory, so we went and presented it that way. | | | | |\n| 16 | When that became clear that that was not going to happen, we | | | | |\n| 17 | made arrangements to be able to get debtor in possession to | | | | |\n| 18 | be the sole signatory on the account and to have a bank | | | | |\n| 19 | account that would meet the requirements of the United | | | | |\n| 20 | States Trustee's Office. | | | | |\n| 21 | It's a bank that's done it in other cases in this | | | | |\n| 22 | jurisdiction and others.
It happens to be a bank that we've | | | | |\n| 23 | worked for -- with -- in a number of matters over the last | | | | |\n| 24 | couple of years. | | | | |\n| 25 | Q
What bank is that? | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 33 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Direct
33 | | | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | A
Well, we went with both People's and M&T.
And in the | | | | |\n| 2 | middle of our discussions, they merged.
So we talked from | | | | |\n| 3 | both sides, but eventually it will be in the -- it will be | | | | |\n| 4 | an account in M&T. | | | | |\n| 5 | Q
Okay.
All right.
Did you use your personal experience | | | | |\n| 6 | and relationships to help establish that account? | | | | |\n| 7 | A
Yes. | | | | |\n| 8 | Q
And, again, you are, yourself, your firm and you, will | | | | |\n| 9 | not be a fiduciary, but you're just providing advisory | | | | |\n| 10 | assistance in that regard, correct? | | | | |\n| 11 | A
Correct. | | | | |\n| 12 | Q
And you're not going to act as a fiduciary in this | | | | |\n| 13 | case, correct? | | | | |\n| 14 | A
Correct. | | | | |\n| 15 | Q
So all work is advisory? | | | | |\n| 16 | A
Well -- | | | | |\n| 17 | Q
Accounting or -- | | | | |\n| 18 | A
Yes.
I don't know what the term would be, but there | | | | |\n| 19 | will be accounting and reporting.
The information coming | | | | |\n| 20 | out of the bank account will have to be reported in the MLR. | | | | |\n| 21 | the debtor doesn't have an accounting staff.
I assume that | | | | |\n| 22 | we will have some role in making sure that checks are | | | | |\n| 23 | written, checks are signed by the debtor. | | | | |\n| 24 | And then the reporting, the committee and others | | | | |\n| 25 | might have.
And the U.S. Trustee might want weekly or | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 34 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Direct
34 | | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | monthly reporting or bi-weekly reporting.
I don't know what | | | | | |\n| 2 | they'll want.
Different cases, people do different things. | | | | | |\n| 3 | And of course there will be the monthly reporting through | | | | | |\n| 4 | the MLR, so I'm assuming we will assist and facilitate that. | | | | | |\n| 5 | Q
And have you had direct -- you and your staff had | | | | | |\n| 6 | direct communications with the Office of the United States | | | | | |\n| 7 | Trustee regarding reporting in this case? | | | | | |\n| 8 | A
Yes. | | | | | |\n| 9 | Q
And how has that gone? | | | | | |\n| 10 | A
Well, it started out with -- everyone probably knows in | | | | | |\n| 11 | June of 2021 the United States Trustee started a requirement | | | | | |\n| 12 | with the monthly -- the MLRs are much different beasts than | | | | | |\n| 13 | they used to be.
They used to be in a -- all in Excel and | | | | | |\n| 14 | you would prepare it and it was fairly simple. | | | | | |\n| 15 | It's now done on a -- on a PDF that is -- you can | | | | | |\n| 16 | keypunch directly into the PDF.
And once the form is filled | | | | | |\n| 17 | and populated with all the information that is required and | | | | | |\n| 18 | appropriate for that particular case, you actually hit a | | | | | |\n| 19 | button and it uploads the data to the cloud in the United | | | | | |\n| 20 | States Trustee's Office. | | | | | |\n| 21 | And it sends back a form that is no longer | | | | | |\n| 22 | watermarked as draft or whatever the watermark was.
That's | | | | | |\n| 23 | then signed by the debtor and filed on the docket.
And any | | | | | |\n| 24 | supplemental information goes to the U.S. Trustee separately | | | | | |\n| 25 | by email either by my firm or the -- or attorneys. | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 35 of 246\n\nJalbert - Direct 35 Well, when -- since January -- and I have a number of cases undergoing Chapter 11s where this reporting is required -- without any word that came down, the form changed dramatically. It used to be a straight four or five pages. All of a sudden it had a whole bunch of other pages and some markings, you know, like when you go to a restaurant and you do the menu button to see what the menu is, this form had those -- those kind of symbols and markings. I didn't know what it was. No one could figure it out. And I talked to someone in the accounting side of the U.S. Trustee's Office who happened to be in New York handling this case and he explained to me that that's the way the form is supposed to be which allowed us to then quickly wrap up the form. And during that, that's when he made a request for additional information on the monthly operating report which we've been providing since then. Q Did you feel that your 35 years of experience with you and your staff helped to get that done efficiently? A Of course. Q Do you think this debtor alone without your office's assistance would have been able to get that done? A No. Q How about the instructions and definitions in the schedules and statements, how did your experience affect how Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 36 of 246\n\nJalbert - Direct 36 that work was done? A Well, obviously it was very helpful. This is a unique case in a number of areas. One of the uniquenesses -- and at least Your Honor probably knows -- is not a large amount of individual Chapter 11 cases by comparison to corporate or Chapter 7 cases it's a relatively minor amount. We have done a number of them in the past. We had -- we've had different types of cases. This one is very unique. And so as we were going through this, well, we had a lot of historical knowledge and history and basis to understand what the SOFAs and the schedules are looking for, we had to make sure we educated everybody to what the rules were, what the definitions were. Frankly, some times what is on the SOFA or a schedule, the actual question, doesn't entirely and completely relate to what the instructions say. The definitions can differ a bit. So we assisted everybody in those -- in those areas. And the attorneys, as well as us, haven't had lots of individual Chapter 11s, so we all made sure that we reviewed those instructions to make sure that we filed and did everything we possibly could, and to be abundantly clear that the attorneys drafted general and specific global notes to accompany the schedules and the SOFAs where there was any issues that needed additional addressing and describing.\n\nJalbert - Direct 37 Q Was your experience helpful in that regard? A Yes. Q Do you think this debtor could have done that without your assistance? A No. Q You mentioned earlier that your firm does not provide auditing services, correct? A Yes. Q And while your firm does serve, and while you have served as a fiduciary, you're not serving as a fiduciary here, correct? A Correct. Q Do you remember being deposed by PAX -- A Yes. Q -- a few weeks ago, I guess? A Yes. Q Okay. Did you try to make clear during your testimony that you were not doing auditing or forensic work or verification work here? A I think -- I think -- I thought I did. I think the key word that they used was investigate. Q Okay. A I didn't investigate anything, and the answer to that question is no. Q Okay. So are you being asked to be an examiner in this\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 37 of 246\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 38 of 246\n\nJalbert - Direct 38 case? A No. Q Are you being asked to be a trustee? A No. Q Are you being asked to do an investigation? A No. Q But you are being asked to work with the debtor and the debtor's team to provide financial information in a manner required by the bankruptcy code and the rules and the Office of the United States Trustee? A Among other services, yes. Q Okay. But you feel capable to do that? A Yes. Q And you feel -- and, again, can the debtor do that without your help? A No. Q Okay. MR. BALDIGA: No other questions, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. Cross-examination, Counsel? (Pause.) MS. ARONSSON: Good morning. THE WITNESS: Good morning. MS. ARONSSON: Laura Aronsson from O'Melveny &\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 39 of 246\n\nJalbert - Cross 39 Myers. THE COURT: Good morning. You may proceed. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ARONSSON: Q Good morning, Mr. Jalbert. I'd like to discuss the work that V&L has done in this matter to date. V&L was contacted sometime in February, is that right? A Late February, early March. Q After retention, you turned to the SOFAs and the schedules, working on them simultaneously? A Well, I'm not retained yet, so. Q After you were contacted? Thank you. A After we were contacted, yes. I think -- aside from drafting an engagement letter and providing background information on the firm, I think our first tasks were to begin working on the SOFAs and the schedules. Q Did you finish that work? A So far, yes. Q Then V&L started preparing the first monthly operating report? A Yes. Q This was the report for the second half of February? A Well, it was a report for the month of February. But it just so happens the debtor filed on February 15th, so. Q Since then, the debtor has filed one additional\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 40 of 246\n\n| | | Jalbert - Cross | 40 | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|----|--|--|\n| 1 | operating report? | | | | |\n| 2 | A | The month of March, yes. | | | |\n| 3 | Q | This was filed on April 20th? | | | |\n| 4 | A | If you say so.
I know it's around that date. | | | |\n| 5 | Q | Turning to the work you've performed so far in | | | |\n| 6 | connection with these categories, I'm going to start with | | | | |\n| 7 | the SOFAs and schedules, you prepared these filings based on | | | | |\n| 8 | | the information you received from others? | | | |\n| 9 | A | Yes. | | | |\n| 10 | Q | These people included Brown Rudnick, right? | | | |\n| 11 | A | Yes. | | | |\n| 12 | Q | Aaron Mitchell? | | | |\n| 13 | A | Yes. | | | |\n| 14 | Q | Is that Kwok's personal attorney? | | | |\n| 15 | A | He's debtor's counsel.
I don't know what you mean by | | | |\n| 16 | | personal attorney. | | | |\n| 17 | Q | And Melissa Francis? | | | |\n| 18 | A | Yes.
I did receive information from her. | | | |\n| 19 | Q | Is that Kwok's personal attorney? | | | |\n| 20 | A | My understanding is she's -- well, she's part of the | | | |\n| 21 | bankruptcy team.
I don't know whether she's just his | | | | |\n| 22 | personal attention attorney. | | | | |\n| 23 | Q | Anyone else? | | | |\n| 24 | A | Yes.
We received a spreadsheet which was I think | | | |\n| 25 | amended or changed a couple of times from someone from | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 41 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Cross
41 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Golden Spring. |\n| 2 | Q
Was this in connection with the SOFAs and the schedules |\n| 3 | or the monthly operating report work? |\n| 4 | A
With the operating report. |\n| 5 | Q
Okay.
We can turn to that.
Did you communicate with |\n| 6 | anyone else regarding the SOFAs and the schedules besides |\n| 7 | Brown Rudnick, Aaron Mitchell and Melissa Francis? |\n| 8 | A
No. |\n| 9 | Q
I think I heard you testify on direct Verdolino & Lowey |\n| 10 | got all of the relevant information from the people we just |\n| 11 | talked about.
I note -- you didn't do any other independent |\n| 12 | work or to verify the facts? |\n| 13 | A
Correct. |\n| 14 | Q
You didn't do any investigating -- investigation into |\n| 15 | the ownership interests, if any, of Mr. Kwok in the assets |\n| 16 | listed in the SOFAs and the schedules? |\n| 17 | A
Correct. |\n| 18 | Q
For example, no investigation of Kwok's interest in the |\n| 19 | Lady May? |\n| 20 | A
Correct. |\n| 21 | Q
You did no work to value the items listed in the SOFAs |\n| 22 | and the schedules, right? |\n| 23 | A
If you're asking if we did valuation work, no.
But |\n| 24 | there was questions.
That the answers to those questions |\n| 25 | was checks issued by the State of New York and I think the |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 42 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Cross
42 |\n|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | federal government that on the face of those checks had a |\n| number. | I don't know if you call that valuing, but we read |\n| | the check and we determined what that number was and put it |\n| | in the schedules. |\n| Q | Verdolino & Lowey has no experience valuing luxury |\n| | items like the Lady May? |\n| A | Correct. |\n| Q | You did no investigation into the debtor's income |\n| | information? |\n| A | Correct. |\n| Q | You have not spoken to the debtor about any of the |\n| | filings Verdolino & Lowey has prepared in this matter? |\n| A | Correct. |\n| Q | Verdolino & Lowey used best case to help prepare the |\n| | SOFAs and the schedules, right? |\n| A | Yes. |\n| Q | That's industry software? |\n| A | Well, it is.
I don't know what else to do besides |\n| | bankruptcy, but best case is a -- and I don't know what the |\n| | real name of the company is, but they manufacture, prepare a |\n| | software, that provides pretty much every bankruptcy form |\n| | that I'm aware of that has to be filed in a bankruptcy. |\n| Q | V&L simply plugged that information that you received |\n| | into the software to create the filings? |\n| A | Well, first we got the information, understood the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 43 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Cross
43 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | information, and then, yes, we did keypunch it. |\n| 2 | Q
You did not review any of the debtor's books and |\n| 3 | records in connection with the engagement? |\n| 4 | A
Correct. |\n| 5 | Q
You do not know where those books and records are kept? |\n| 6 | A
Correct. |\n| 7 | Q
You did not ask to review them? |\n| 8 | A
Correct. |\n| 9 | Q
Turning to the work in connection with the monthly |\n| 10 | operating report, again, like with the SOFAs and the |\n| 11 | schedules, Verdolino relied on information it received from |\n| 12 | the third parties to assist in the preparation? |\n| 13 | A
Correct. |\n| 14 | Q
You mentioned a summary of expenses earlier, is this a |\n| 15 | summary of expenses you received from someone at Golden |\n| 16 | Spring breaking down the debtor's monthly expenses? |\n| 17 | A
Well, they're breaking down the expenses paid on behalf |\n| 18 | of the debtor, paid by a third party on behalf of the |\n| 19 | debtor, yes. |\n| 20 | Q
This was about seven categories? |\n| 21 | A
About that. |\n| 22 | Q
To your knowledge, Golden Spring is the debtor's family |\n| 23 | office in New York City? |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
Objection. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
What's your basis -- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 44 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Cross
44 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE WITNESS:
That's not my understanding. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Hold on a second, sir. |\n| 3 | What's your objection? |\n| 4 | MR. BALDIGA:
Well, the witness answered the |\n| 5 | question, so I'll withdraw the objection, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 7 | THE WITNESS:
I'm sorry.
Ask the question again. |\n| 8 | BY MS. ARONSSON: |\n| 9 | Q
To your knowledge, Golden Spring is the debtor's family |\n| 10 | office in New York City? |\n| 11 | A
No.
That's not my understanding. |\n| 12 | MS. ARONSSON:
Okay.
Madam Clerk, can we please |\n| 13 | pull up PAX Exhibit 14. |\n| 14 | (Pause.) |\n| 15 | BY MS. ARONSSON: |\n| 16 | Q
So just to confirm -- |\n| 17 | THE CLERK:
On the screen -- |\n| 18 | MS. ARONSSON:
Sorry. |\n| 19 | THE CLERK:
On the screen is Exhibit 14, page 1. |\n| 20 | MS. ARONSSON:
Thank you. |\n| 21 | THE CLERK:
PAX Exhibit 14, page 1. |\n| 22 | BY MS. ARONSSON: |\n| 23 | Q
So just to confirm -- |\n| 24 | A
No.
That's not what mine says.
Mine says I'm on page |\n| 25 | 171.
Does it -- does it have a whole bunch of -- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 45 of 246\n\nJalbert - Cross 45 THE CLERK: Yes. THE WITNESS: -- exhibits all in one PDF? Okay. THE CLERK: That's page 1 in Exhibit 14. THE WITNESS: And if you say it's page 1, it's page 1. BY MS. ARONSSON: Q So just to confirm, what is your understanding of Golden Spring? A My understanding is it's the debtor's son's company/family office. MS. ARONSSON: All right. You can take those down. Thank you. THE COURT: So you're not moving for the admission of Exhibit 14, Counsel? MS. ARONSSON: No, I'm not. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. BY MS. ARONSSON: Q You communicated with one person at Golden Spring regarding the information contained in the monthly operating report, right? A Yes. Q That provided -- that person provided you certain information relevant to the monthly operating report? A Yes. Q Who was that person?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 46 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Cross
46 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | A
I only know his first name. |\n| 2 | THE WITNESS:
Am I permitted to say it? |\n| 3 | MR. BALDIGA:
Objection, Your Honor.
Well, I'll |\n| 4 | let Golden Spring argue. |\n| 5 | MR. MILTENBERGER:
Your Honor, this came up at Mr. |\n| 6 | Jalbert's deposition.
My client's concerned about the |\n| 7 | harassment, intimidation of its employees.
And unless |\n| 8 | there's a specific reason why an employee's name needs to be |\n| 9 | said on the record, we would like the identification of the |\n| 10 | employees to remain confidential and be kept off of the |\n| 11 | record. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Well, you'd have to file a motion for |\n| 13 | that, Counsel, I think.
You know, that's a -- if you want |\n| 14 | something under seal or confidential, you have to seek that |\n| 15 | through an appropriate motion. |\n| 16 | But I think what counsel was asking was -- and |\n| 17 | maybe I'm wrong, we can play back the recording -- was you |\n| 18 | were asking about a specific person that was providing |\n| 19 | information from Golden Spring.
I thought that was the |\n| 20 | question. |\n| 21 | MS. ARONSSON:
That's right. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
You know, don't answer it yet |\n| 23 | though, sir, okay, because we have to figure out what the -- |\n| 24 | what the issue is here. |\n| 25 | So what is the need to know the specific person's |\n| | |\n\nJalbert - Cross 47 name from Golden Spring? MS. ARONSSON: Sure. In connection with this particular motion, the retention of V&L, Pacific Alliance, we sought discovery to understand the purpose of Verdolino & Lowey's retention and why it's in the best interest of the estate. We believe we're entitled to explore that, the way in which Verdolino & Lowey prepared the SOFAs, the schedules, the monthly operating reports, including who provided Verdolino with the underlying facts, and what those facts are, is important to uncovering whether this retention is in the best interest of the estate. THE COURT: All right. Well, let me ask you a question if we're -- and I'm not -- I'm not ruling on anything at the moment -- but does -- do you have an opposition to us putting the witness answering the question -- but has the witness already answered this question at the deposition? MS. ARONSSON: He did not. THE COURT: Okay. Was the question asked at the deposition? MS. ARONSSON: Yes. And we also sought discovery and we received a redacted email, so that was the root of the question. THE COURT: I see. So you received an email from Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 47 of 246\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 48 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Cross
48 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | someone at Golden Spring, but it had redacted people's |\n| 2 | names? |\n| 3 | MS. ARONSSON:
Correct. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And what's your concern, |\n| 5 | Attorney Miltenberger? |\n| 6 | MR. MILTENBERGER:
My client's concerned about the |\n| 7 | privacy of their employees, Your Honor.
And in the proffer |\n| 8 | by PAX's attorney, I didn't see anything that made it clear |\n| 9 | that the identity of the person that provided the |\n| 10 | information to Verdolino & Lowey is important. |\n| 11 | We don't have any issue with the disclosure of the |\n| 12 | information that was provided and when that happened.
The |\n| 13 | only concern that we have is the privacy of our employees |\n| 14 | and we would ask that the employee name be kept |\n| 15 | confidential. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, wouldn't somebody from Golden |\n| 17 | Spring have to testify at some point? |\n| 18 | I mean, what are you going to -- are you going to |\n| 19 | designate a Rule 30(b) representative or what -- you're not |\n| 20 | going -- I mean, someone's going to have to, it can't just |\n| 21 | be the corporate entity.
There has to be an individual at |\n| 22 | some point. |\n| 23 | MR. MILTENBERGER:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | Golden Spring has been examined.
We did have the president |\n| 25 | of Golden Spring testify and answer all questions. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 49 of 246\n\nJalbert - Cross 49 THE COURT: So the person that provided the information to Mr. Jalbert is not the president of Golden Spring, is that the -- is that the issue? 4 MR. MILTENBERGER: That's the issue, Your Honor. It was a rank and file employee of Golden Spring who was just passing information over to Verdolino & Lowey. And, again, we don't have any objection to inquiry about what that information was or why Verdolino & Lowey wanted it, just as to the identity of the employee to protect that individual's privacy. THE COURT: Well, you'd have to have sought a protective order I think. But the other way we could handle it is -- I mean, you didn't do that. What did you do at the deposition when this question was asked? 16 MR. MILTENBERGER: I objected to it, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And did you say that you were going to seek some form of a protective order? 19 MR. MILTENBERGER: No, Your Honor. I objected and the questioner moved on. THE COURT: Okay. MS. ARONSSON: Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead. MS. ARONSSON: Two more quick points. Even if the name were not relevant -- we dispute that it's not relevant\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 50 of 246\n\nJalbert - Cross 50 -- I'm not just aware of any applicable rule that allows the debtor of Golden Spring to redact for relevancy. That's just not something that I've ever seen happen. I'm also not aware of any rule that allows the debtor to redact otherwise discoverable information, the name and the email address of a person based on the STAG security threat. And I would also point out that, you know, we've seen Golden Spring employees be identified on LinkedIn, which is publicly available. 11 MR. MILTENBERGER: Your Honor, the argument is is that the probative value of this individual's name is outweighed by the prejudicial effect of disclosing it. THE COURT: Well, I don't know if that's true. I understand your argument, but I don't know if that's true. Maybe what we need to do is, you know, set this issue aside for some further discussion and/or -- I mean, what we could do in the short term -- but I don't know if it's acceptable to PAX, it may not be -- is the question could be asked and answered, whatever the answer might be, and we could put that part of the record under seal pending a ruling on the issue, but that's I think the best that we can do right now. I don't have anything in front of me to make an educated evidentiary ruling on this issue, right?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 51 of 246\n\nJalbert - Cross 51 But if we're going to do that, we have to give the courtroom deputy a moment because we'd have to -- our software, that is, the recording that is the record of the case, does allow us to put certain parts of the record underseal. And I'd have to orally rule that there -- because there is no motion pending, no written motion -- that because there's an objection to a question that is an evidentiary objection in nature, and because I don't have anything in front of me to allow me to make an educated ruling, that I would have to rule at this point that if we want to proceed this way, that the record for this question and answer would be under seal until further order of the Court. Mr. Baldiga? MR. BALDIGA: Yes, Your Honor. For the debtor, our objection is -- in addition to Mr. Miltenberger's -- just on relevance. You gave PAX an opportunity to say how the name is relevant and there was no reason given. The name is simply not relevant to anything here. THE COURT: Okay. Well, again, I'm not sure I agree with you, but I'm not prepared to rule on that at the moment. MR. BALDIGA: But there could be at least some\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 52 of 246\n\nJalbert - Cross 52 showing as to why that is relevant. THE COURT: Well, there is -- I mean, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery is broad, evidence is broad. She's asking a question about the preparation of the financial information that forms the basis of this Chapter 11 case where -- and Mr. Jalbert has testified quite, you know, admirably about what he's done, what he hasn't done, and what -- how the information has come to him from third parties and not from the debtor directly. So I do think it's relevant. If that's your -- on that objection, I think it's relevant. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: I think that's relevant. But whether or not it should be confidential or protected is a different issue at least from the Court's view. Again, this is an individual Chapter 11 case. The debtor has duties under the bankruptcy code. Apparently those -- I shouldn't say -- that's not fair -- let me make sure I say this properly -- from what I've heard today, and that's all I've heard so, the debtor has not directly communicating with the party who is preparing and submitting the financial information that is the basis for this case. If that's the case, which it appears to be --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 53 of 246\n\nJalbert - Cross 53 which is fine, but, I mean, there's nothing -- but that doesn't -- that does not preclude then a party from asking who provided the information. I think it is relevant. And even -- but it may ultimately be not material. I could see that it's relevant, but you could argue at some point possibly that it's immaterial who it is because it was just somebody at Golden Spring. Now, that doesn't mean that the -- that PAX as the objection party -- objecting party shouldn't know who that is because maybe PAX wants to depose that person. Now, you could -- you could object to that and you could file a protective order and motion to quash and all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean it's not relevant under the facts of this case that have been established so far this morning. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. My second point, Your Honor, is that before we go through all these other machinations, it's possible that the witness simply doesn't know the name. And perhaps the Court could inquire as to whether we're all just sort of wasting time because the -- THE COURT: I mean, that's a possibility, but -- MR. BALDIGA: Thank you. THE COURT: -- you know, I think there is a pending question, right? There's a pending objection.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 54 of 246\n\nJalbert - Cross 54 So Golden Spring is trying to -- not trying, is asserting that the answer to that question is confidential and they don't want it disclosed -- MR. BALDIGA: I understand that fully. THE COURT: -- even though they haven't filed any documents or anything with this court with regard to this examination. So why don't I -- Well, how would you like to proceed, Counsel? MS. ARONSSON: Pacific Alliance is happy to proceed under seal as you suggested. I just wanted to also note that we have relevancy arguments, and that Mr. Friedman will address in connection with the DIP objection on this very point. THE COURT: Well, I just ruled that I think it is relevant. MS. ARONSSON: Thank you. Yeah. THE COURT: Okay? I think it is relevant. So, you know. And Mr. Baldiga may find that objectionable and may, you know, note the objection for the record for appeal purposes, whatever he needs, but I think it is relevant in this case. Under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, I think it's relevant to know who provided the information to the party -- that the financial advisor that is preparing and submitting all the financial information\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 55 of 246\n\nJalbert - Cross 55 that is the basis for this case. So that is the Court's ruling. With regard to the -- placing it under seal, now, if you'd all just give me a minute. I don't want to burden the courtroom deputy, but, how much time do you need to get that set up to turn on the -- to make sure that this question that's been pending -- and I'm going to make -- I'm going to ask you to ask it again once we go under seal -- and Mr. Jalbert's answer be placed under seal? THE CLERK: As soon as you say this is under seal, it's just flipping the buttons. THE COURT: Okay. Great. THE CLERK: (Indiscernible.) THE COURT: Okay. Hold on a minute, Mr. Miltenberger. Just hold on. THE CLERK: So are you saying put it under -- THE COURT: No, not yet. I'll tell you. THE CLERK: Okay. THE COURT: I'll say when to start. I just want to hear from -- I still want to hear from counsel for PAX and then I'm going to let Mr. Miltenberger speak again too. THE CLERK: Okay. THE COURT: Is there anything further you wanted to add for the record before I let Mr. Miltenberger talk for\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 56 of 246\n\nJalbert - Cross 56 a moment? MS. ARONSSON: No. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Miltenberger? 5 MR. MILTENBERGER: Your Honor, just to inquire, the public access line would be active during the question and answer? THE COURT: I guess that's a good point, isn't it, Mr. Miltenberger? THE CLERK: We would put it in the waiting room, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So that's what we'd have to do first. We'd have to put -- we'd have to turn off the phone too, right? We've got a phone line going, don't we? THE CLERK: That's the public access line. THE COURT: Yeah. But then who else -- is there anybody else beside -- people in the courtroom are all here, so how are we -- how are we going to do that? (Pause.) THE COURT: We'd have to -- you know what? We'll have to think about this for a second because we'd have to have everybody be excused from the courtroom, which I don't know how much sense this makes right now. Because if it's under seal, but everybody hears it, then it's not under seal. Then it becomes public\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 57 of 246\n\nJalbert - Cross 57 record. MS. ARONSSON: Could I just have one moment, please, Your Honor? THE COURT: Certainly. (Pause.) THE COURT: Go ahead, Counsel. MS. ARONSSON: I think we're happy to proceed with this. THE COURT: Yeah. The only problem is there is a -- there is a problem, right? We'd have to put everybody that's in the public access line out of the -- out of this session right now. And there's all these people in the courtroom, right? So how do I deal with that? If it's under seal and everybody's just heard it, then it's not under seal, right? MS. ARONSSON: Another option, Your Honor, the witness could write the name on a piece of paper and mark it as Court's Exhibit 1. THE COURT: That would be placed under seal? MS. ARONSSON: Correct. THE COURT: Yes. Okay. I think that's a good solution. That's what we're going to do, Attorney Miltenberger, so then we don't have to -- But of course Mr. Jalbert probably doesn't have\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 58 of 246\n\nJalbert - Cross 58 any paper or a pen. THE WITNESS: Your Honor is correct. THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. All right. So, Mr. Jalbert, don't write anything down yet. I'm going to ask counsel to ask the question again. I'm going to note that there are two objections to the question, one of which was relevance that I've overruled. And one of which is from Golden Spring with regard to confidentiality, which I'm not prepared to rule on at the moment because I don't have anything in front of me to address that in an educated manner. So then I'm going to instruct you to answer the question by writing the answer on the paper and then we'll have to mark that as an exhibit under seal. Okay? So you're not going to say anything into the microphone. You're not going to say anything on the record. It's just going to be on that piece of paper. Okay? THE WITNESS: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Counsel, if you would please ask your question again that was the subject of two objections. BY MS. ARONSSON: Q Who is the person from Golden Spring who provided you\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 59 of 246\n\nJalbert - Cross 59 certain information relevant to the monthly operating reports? THE COURT: Okay. So that the record is clear, Mr. Baldiga, on behalf of the debtor, has objected to your question, Counsel, on the basis of relevance. I have stated that I believe it is -- your question is relevant given the prior testimony of Mr. Jalbert that the information that he and his office has compiled and filed in this court, the financial information in the statements and schedules of affairs, and the monthly operating reports, were provided to him by third parties, not directly from the debtor, and that one of those third parties was Golden Spring. So I've overruled the objection to relevance. There was a further objection by Mr. Miltenberger, on behalf of Golden Spring, arguing that the disclosure or answer to that question of an individual's name could -- is a -- Golden Spring would like to keep confidential. And I've said that I can't rule on that right now without appropriate paperwork in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So what we all discussed, and what we're going to do is, Mr. Jalbert is going to write an answer to that question. He's going to hand you that document. And then you're going to hand it to the courtroom deputy and it's\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 60 of 246\n\nJalbert - Cross 60 going to be marked as Court's Exhibit 1 under seal. And it will stay under seal until further order of the Court. Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Yes, Your Honor. If I may just interject -- THE COURT: We can't hear you. Can you just pull that towards you? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee has a right to access to everything in the Court's file. THE COURT: Yes. You will have that. Yes. MS. CLAIBORN: I just wanted to make sure we would have access to the -- THE COURT: It's required that the U.S. Trustee has access to everything under seal. And I'm sure counsel knows that, so -- but good point to make for the record. And, yes, the United States Trustee's Office will have access to that document. MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. So, Mr. Jalbert, could you -- THE WITNESS: Your Honor, if I could just make sure I follow your directions quickly? THE COURT: Sure. THE WITNESS: I'm going to write down, as you -- as you said. Am I to fold the piece of paper or just hand\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 61 of 246\n\nJalbert - Cross 61 it over? THE COURT: You can just hand it to her. It's fine. THE WITNESS: Okay. THE COURT: Thank you. You can -- now, whenever you're done writing it down, just let her know, please. Let counsel know. And then I'm going to allow her to approach and take that from you. And then she's going to approach the courtroom deputy and hand it to the courtroom deputy who will then mark it as Court's Exhibit 1 under seal. Mr. Baldiga? MR. BALDIGA: All right, Your Honor. I'd just like to see it before it's handed up. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you. THE COURT: The U.S. Trustee, you can show it to the U.S. Trustee after you show it to Mr. Miltenberger too. (Pause.) MR. BALDIGA: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Yes. Would you approach, please -- and thank you -- and hand that to the courtroom deputy and she will mark that. So we just need a minute to give the courtroom\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 62 of 246\n\nJalbert - Cross 62 deputy time to make that exhibit. And I am indicating on the record it's 11:03 a.m. I'm marking Court's Exhibit 1 under seal until further order of the Court and that is so ordered on the record. Okay? So we just need a minute if you don't mind. (Pause.) (Mr. Jalbert's written answer to PAX attorney's question marked Court's Exhibit No. 1 under seal.) THE COURT: One other thing I will mention while the courtroom deputy is marking the exhibit, as I mentioned to all the parties -- and I don't think you were here, Counsel, the last time, but maybe you were and I apologize if you were -- we have another hearing at 12:00 p.m., so we have to take a break at 12:00 p.m. And that hearing may last a little while, but I don't know that for sure. So that's all. I just wanted to let you know that. Obviously, we have not a tremendous amount of time between now and 12:00 p.m., but I wasn't sure if you were here, and I just wanted to remind everyone that we do have to take a break in the hearing today at that point in time. MS. ARONSSON: Understood. THE COURT: Okay. Are we ready to go? You're all set? THE CLERK: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 63 of 246\n\n| | | Jalbert - Cross | 63 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| 1 | | So go ahead.
Continue your cross-examination, | |\n| 2 | | Counsel. | |\n| 3 | | BY MS. ARONSSON: | |\n| 4 | Q | Without mentioning the name, you received at least one | |\n| 5 | email from this person at Golden Spring? | | |\n| 6 | A | The firm did.
I was cc'd on one or two of them, but I | |\n| 7 | was not the direct. | | |\n| 8 | Q | You testified that Melissa Francis was part of the | |\n| 9 | debtor's bankruptcy team, right? | | |\n| 10 | A | Yes. | |\n| 11 | Q | Are you aware whether Ms. Francis works at Golden | |\n| 12 | Spring? | | |\n| 13 | A | That's my understanding. | |\n| 14 | Q | Turning back to your work in connection with the | |\n| 15 | monthly operating report, do you recall Verdolino & Lowey | | |\n| 16 | | removing certain line item expenses from the draft expense | |\n| 17 | | report that you received from Golden Spring? | |\n| 18 | A | Yes. | |\n| 19 | Q | Is this -- was this in connection with Sherry | |\n| 20 | Netherland expenses? | | |\n| 21 | A | Yes. | |\n| 22 | Q | Because the debtor did not live there? | |\n| 23 | A | Correct. | |\n| 24 | Q | Is it your understanding that the debtor still does not | |\n| 25 | | reside at the Sherry Netherland? | |\n| | | | |\n\nJalbert - Cross 64 A Yes. MS. ARONSSON: Madam Clerk, will you please display PAX Exhibit 4. THE CLERK: On the screen is the Exhibit 4, page 1 of PAX Exhibit 4. On the screen is page 1 of PAX Exhibit 4. MS. ARONSSON: I'd like to turn to page 14 of PAX Exhibit 4. (Pause.) MS. ARONSSON: Thank you. BY MS. ARONSSON: Q Mr. Jalbert, do you recognize this document? A I do. Q This is the engagement letter filed in this case? A I think it was filed as an exhibit to our motion to be employed. MS. ARONSSON: I'm having a little trouble scrolling. THE COURT: Is the mouse -- yeah, try the mouse. (Pause.) BY MS. ARONSSON: Q Looking at these bullet points here, the first one we covered I think. We talked about the SOFAs and the schedules? A Yes. Q Looking at the second bullet point, if retained, Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 64 of 246\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 65 of 246\n\n| | | Jalbert - Cross
65 | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | | Verdolino would provided services related to cash flow and | |\n| 2 | | budget projections, right? | |\n| 3 | A | Yes. | |\n| 4 | Q | You discussed earlier you set up an account? | |\n| 5 | A | We set up the debtor's account. | |\n| 6 | Q | And you used your relationships to establish this | |\n| 7 | | account? | |\n| 8 | A | Yes. | |\n| 9 | Q | If the DIP loan is approved, Verdolino anticipates | |\n| 10 | | preparing a budget for committee counsel, financial | |\n| 11 | | advisors, and other ordinary course professionals to | |\n| 12 | | effectuate disbursements? | |\n| 13 | A | Conceptually.
We'd have to be asked actually to do it, | |\n| 14 | | but it's something we could do. | |\n| 15 | Q | Are you aware that no ordinary course professionals | |\n| 16 | | have been approved? | |\n| 17 | A | Yes. | |\n| 18 | Q | Are you -- are you aware of any other financial | |\n| 19 | advisors besides yourself involved in this case? | | |\n| 20 | A | No. | |\n| 21 | Q | Do you understand the committee would need your help in | |\n| 22 | | preparing a budget for its counsel? | |\n| 23 | A | I don't know that they would need my help, but they | |\n| 24 | | certainly can ask. | |\n| 25 | Q | Turning to the third bullet point here related to | |\n| | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 66 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Cross
66 | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | monthly operating reports, we have covered that, right? | |\n| 2 | A
I see the third bullet is being a need to opening and | |\n| 3 | maintaining a DIP. | |\n| 4 | Q
Sorry.
The fourth bullet point.
Thank you. | |\n| 5 | A
Yes. | |\n| 6 | Q
In addition, Verdolino would review the quarterly | |\n| 7 | reports provided by the U.S. Trustee? | |\n| 8 | A
Well, the U.S. Trustee, when they do their quarterly | |\n| 9 | report, it's really a bill based on the disbursements in the | |\n| 10 | preceding calendar quarter.
We would just verify its | |\n| 11 | accuracy.
And in the first quarter, they're never accurate. | |\n| 12 | It's not their fault.
They're making an estimate in | |\n| 13 | advance. | |\n| 14 | Q
This is pretty straightforward, right? | |\n| 15 | A
Well, if you have experience, yes. | |\n| 16 | Q
The fifth bullet relating to estate, federal tax and | |\n| 17 | state income tax, you haven't performed any connection -- | |\n| 18 | any work in connection with this item? | |\n| 19 | A
In actual preparation, no. | |\n| 20 | Q
But you would suggest that the debtor and the estate | |\n| 21 | file tax returns? | |\n| 22 | A
I absolutely would, but there's other services related | |\n| 23 | to that too. | |\n| 24 | Q
The estate may come as currently zero? | |\n| 25 | A
Well, I don't know technically whether that's true or | |\n| | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 67 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Cross
67 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | not because I don't know what -- I don't know exactly, |\n| 2 | legally, where the boat is.
And when the boat comes in, how |\n| 3 | it's going to come in and how that's going to impact the |\n| 4 | debtor, so I don't -- |\n| 5 | THE WITNESS:
I'm talking -- referring to the Lady |\n| 6 | May, Your Honor, so I don't know what implications that's |\n| 7 | going to have.
It might have to be reviewed by someone with |\n| 8 | a tax background. |\n| 9 | BY MS. ARONSSON: |\n| 10 | Q
So this assume the Lady May as part of the estate? |\n| 11 | A
No, I don't assume that.
If someone determined that it |\n| 12 | was part of the estate, then it would be an issue.
If it's |\n| 13 | going to be contributed to the estate at some point in time, |\n| 14 | it's an issue.
I'm not making a declaration of whether it's |\n| 15 | property or not.
I don't know that. |\n| 16 | Q
Turning to the sixth bullet, assistance with the |\n| 17 | reviewing, reconciling, analyzing, and if necessary |\n| 18 | objecting to proofs of claims, Verdolino has not performed |\n| 19 | any investigation into the pending litigation claims in this |\n| 20 | matter, right? |\n| 21 | A
Correct. |\n| 22 | Q
Verdolino has no experience analyzing pending |\n| 23 | litigation claims? |\n| 24 | A
Correct. |\n| 25 | Q
Regarding the seventh bullet, we already talked about |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 68 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Cross
68 | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | Verdolino has not reviewed the debtor's books and records? | |\n| 2 | A
Correct. | |\n| 3 | Q
Are you aware that there are 21 professional service | |\n| 4 | providers who have received a pre-petition payment in the 90 | |\n| 5 | days before filing? | |\n| 6 | A
Yes. | |\n| 7 | Q
Verdolino has not performed any work in connection with | |\n| 8 | those services? | |\n| 9 | A
Can you -- I'm confused by your question. | |\n| 10 | Q
Has Verdolino prepared -- withdrawn. | |\n| 11 | Has Verdolino performed any work in connection | |\n| 12 | with the 21 pre-petition service providers? | |\n| 13 | A
Besides ensuring that they were disclosed in the proper | |\n| 14 | SOFA schedule, no. | |\n| 15 | Q
This is a pretty straightforward process you described? | |\n| 16 | A
Yes. | |\n| 17 | Q
Regarding the eighth bullet, the assistance with | |\n| 18 | necessary litigation support, Verdolino has not performed | |\n| 19 | any work in connection with this line item, but anticipates | |\n| 20 | potential miscellaneous tasks as requested by counsel? | |\n| 21 | A
Miscellaneous what? | |\n| 22 | Q
Tasks? | |\n| 23 | A
Tasks.
Yes. | |\n| 24 | Q
The final bullet, assistance with plan developments and | |\n| 25 | preparation, including feasibility, you are aware that the | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 69 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Cross
69 | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| 1 | debtor already filed a plan? | | |\n| 2 | A
I am. | | |\n| 3 | Q
Verdolino did not do any work in connection with that | | |\n| 4 | filing? | | |\n| 5 | A
In connection with the original plan, correct. | | |\n| 6 | Q
You are aware that the estate purports to have | | |\n| 7 | approximately 3,800 in assets other than the litigation | | |\n| 8 | claims? | | |\n| 9 | A
Correct. | | |\n| 10 | Q
Do you know what a best interest test is in connection | | |\n| 11 | with the confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan? | | |\n| 12 | A
I think so. | | |\n| 13 | Q
Do you anticipate you would do a liquidation valuation | | |\n| 14 | of the \\$3,800 in assets for a best interest test analysis? | | |\n| 15 | A
Well, we don't know what the assets of the estate are | | |\n| 16 | going to be at the time that someone's going to do the best | | |\n| 17 | interest test. | | |\n| 18 | And when it comes time to do the best interest test, we | | |\n| 19 | will not be part of the team that does value those assets to | | |\n| 20 | the extent that they're not already reduced to cash. | | |\n| 21 | But we would, I'm sure, participate in preparing the | | |\n| 22 | analysis that would be the best interest test using | | |\n| 23 | information from an expert that is a valuation of whatever | | |\n| 24 | the assets that need valuing. | | |\n| 25 | Q
The only other potential asset besides the \\$3800 would | | |\n| | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 70 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Cross
70 | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | be future litigation claims? | |\n| 2 | A
So far. | |\n| 3 | Q
Again, Verdolino has no experience valuing litigation | |\n| 4 | claims? | |\n| 5 | A
Correct. | |\n| 6 | Q
So if the estate consisted only of litigation claims, | |\n| 7 | Verdolino would have a very small role in any plan? | |\n| 8 | A
I don't know you could draw that conclusion. | |\n| 9 | Q
Verdolino billed on an hourly basis, is that right? | |\n| 10 | A
Yes. | |\n| 11 | Q
As a principal, your hourly rate is \\$515? | |\n| 12 | A
Correct. | |\n| 13 | MS. ARONSSON:
No more questions. | |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
So, Counsel, you're not moving for the | |\n| 15 | admission of PAX Exhibit 4? | |\n| 16 | MS. ARONSSON:
We'll move for the admission of | |\n| 17 | Exhibit 4.
It was filed on the docket as Exhibit 90, Docket | |\n| 18 | No. 90. | |\n| 19 | MR. BALDIGA:
No objection. | |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Well, it will be -- all the exhibits | |\n| 21 | will ultimately be marked as what you've indicated their | |\n| 22 | numbers are on your list of witnesses and exhibits. | |\n| 23 | So PAX Exhibit 4, there's no objection to, | |\n| 24 | according to the joint grid of the admission of that -- of | |\n| 25 | exhibit in full. | |\n| | | |\n\n And so after today's hearing, what the courtroom deputy will do is we'll compile the list of admitted exhibits -- and this would be one of them -- and it will have a -- the Administrative Office of the United States Courts form of sticker on it that essentially says it's been admitted as an exhibit full. Okay? Mr. Baldiga, did you have an -- MR. BALDIGA: No objection. THE COURT: Okay. Good. Because it said you didn't have one -- MR. BALDIGA: That's right. THE COURT: -- so I just jumped to that conclusion. MR. BALDIGA: No. There was a motion, so I -- THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Nothing further? MS. ARONSSON: Nothing further. THE COURT: Okay. MS. ARONSSON: Thank you. THE COURT: Any redirect? MR. BALDIGA: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BALDIGA: Q Mr. Jalbert, do you speak Mandarin?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 72 of 246\n\n| | | Jalbert - Redirect | 72 |\n|----|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| 1 | A | No. | |\n| 2 | Q | Do you understand that the debtor speaks some English? | |\n| 3 | A | Some, yes. | |\n| 4 | Q | But are you able to converse directly with the debtor | |\n| 5 | | regarding financial matters? | |\n| 6 | A | I've not tried, but I don't think so. | |\n| 7 | Q | Okay.
You know that the debtor pre the work that you | |\n| 8 | | did did not have a checkbook, correct? | |\n| 9 | A | Yes. | |\n| 10 | Q | And that the debtor's needs on a daily basis, security, | |\n| 11 | | food and so forth, were provided by the love and goodwill of | |\n| 12 | | his son through Golden Spring, correct? | |\n| 13 | A | Yes. | |\n| 14 | Q | You've worked with debtors that have general ledgers? | |\n| 15 | A | Yes. | |\n| 16 | Q | Does this debtor have a general ledger? | |\n| 17 | A | No. | |\n| 18 | Q | Okay.
Does this debtor have a check register? | |\n| 19 | A | No. | |\n| 20 | Q | But it will going forward? | |\n| 21 | A | Yes. | |\n| 22 | Q | Okay.
Has this debtor been subject to audits? | |\n| 23 | A | Not to my knowledge. | |\n| 24 | Q | All right.
Does this debtor keep inventories? | |\n| 25 | A | Again, not to my knowledge. | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 73 of 246\n\nJalbert - Redirect 73 Q So does this debtor have the type of assets that you would have discussed directly with the debtor, such as equipment, inventories and accounts receivable? A Not those type of business assets, no. Q Right. So in the -- in the ordinary case, where you represent or where you're assisting a corporate debtor, you would sit down and talk to the controller or chief financial officer or someone like that about the various assets that the company has, correct? MS. ARONSSON: Objection, Your Honor. He's leading the witness. MR. BALDIGA: I am, but it's -- THE COURT: I'm going to allow -- MR. BALDIGA: -- foundation I guess. THE COURT: I'm going -- MR. BALDIGA: And so based -- THE COURT: I'm going to allow it. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. BALDIGA: Q Okay. And the debtor's assets here are comprised primarily -- other than the clothes on his back -- of two lawsuits, correct? A Two lawsuits. And a third possible, I think. Q Okay. A possible lawsuit? A Yes.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 74 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Redirect
74 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q
Okay.
So you understand that the assets, the primary |\n| 2 | assets, that you were disclosing on the schedules and SOFAs |\n| 3 | were three litigation claims, two pending and one possible, |\n| 4 | correct? |\n| 5 | A
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q
And you talked about those legal claims with lawyers, |\n| 7 | correct? |\n| 8 | A
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q
Okay.
And do you understand that the debtor's primary |\n| 10 | debts here are litigation claims against him, correct? |\n| 11 | A
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q
PAX for example? |\n| 13 | A
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q
And others here in the courtroom and not in the |\n| 15 | courtroom have 20 or 30 other litigation claims against the |\n| 16 | debtor? |\n| 17 | A
Yes. |\n| 18 | Q
Okay.
And about these legal litigation claims against |\n| 19 | the debtor, you spoke to the debtor's lawyers or the people |\n| 20 | who handled his legal claims against him, correct? |\n| 21 | A
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q
So did you speak to the people for the debtor who you |\n| 23 | thought had the most relevant and concrete information |\n| 24 | regarding the debtor's assets and liabilities? |\n| 25 | A
Yes. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 75 of 246\n\n| | Jalbert - Redirect/Recross
75 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Q
And did you get the information you thought you needed |\n| 2 | to do a professional job in this case? |\n| 3 | A
Yes. |\n| 4 | Q
And obviously this case is a lot different from a |\n| 5 | business with inventory and receivables and financial |\n| 6 | statements and so forth, but did you go through the same |\n| 7 | process, but here, talking to the people who had the most |\n| 8 | relevant information? |\n| 9 | A
Well, I wasn't looking for financial statements and |\n| 10 | general ledgers and the like.
I was just looking for |\n| 11 | information. |\n| 12 | Q
Because the debtor doesn't have any? |\n| 13 | A
I've never seen an individual debtor have those. |\n| 14 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay.
Nothing else, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | Thank you. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 17 | Any recross? |\n| 18 | (Pause.) |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Go ahead, Counsel.
I'm sorry. |\n| 20 | MS. ARONSSON:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Just a few |\n| 21 | quick questions. |\n| 22 | RECROSS-EXAMINATION |\n| 23 | BY MS. ARONSSON: |\n| 24 | Q
Could the debtor obtain an interpreter to communicate |\n| 25 | with Verdolino & Lowey? |\n| | |\n\nJalbert - Recross 76 A Yes. I'm sure it could. Q Are you aware that the debtor has an interpreter? A I am. Q I just want to ask about the basis for your understanding that Golden Spring provided money out of the love and support of a family member. What's the basis of your understanding of that knowledge? A From talking with the legal team. MS. ARONSSON: Thank you. Nothing further. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. You can step down, Mr. Jalbert. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you very much. (Witness excused.) THE COURT: Mr. Baldiga, do you have another witness? MR. BALDIGA: I do not, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Friedman? MR. FRIEDMAN: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: So both sides are resting other than your arguments? MR. BALDIGA: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, one moment. We're just\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 76 of 246\n\n conferring to see if there's anything else we'd seek to move into evidence. THE COURT: Okay. Yes. That is -- as I think I've told everyone at the last hearing, I'm happy to have -- and I appreciate that the parties took the time and complied with the Court order to submit lists of witnesses and exhibits, which you're required to do -- but the Court is not going to look at any exhibits unless they're admitted as full exhibits. And even if they are admitted as full exhibits, I'm not bound to look at anything that you didn't point out to me that was important in your presentation with regard to these issues. Okay? Does any -- so I'm -- if anyone has anything they want to make sure is in the record, then now would be the time to take care of that issue. (Pause.) MS. ARONSSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Nothing further from us. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Nothing further from the debtor? MR. BALDIGA: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. So then the application to retain Verdolino & Lowey is ripe for adjudication. I'm not going to adjudicate it right now. I\n\n obviously have to look at what you all just talked about on the record, but I'm sure that it's something that I will be able to do in short order. Okay? MR. BALDIGA: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Now, with regard to the DIP financing motion. Again, that is a matter that I don't know how long you anticipate the questioning and the evidence to be on the DIP financing motion, so I have a couple of questions. One of the other matters on today's calendar is the application to employ the creditors committee counsel. I didn't see any objections to that application. Is that correct? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee filed a statement of no objection, but that just asked for two small edits to the order that -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. CLAIBORN: -- were to include language that was in the supplement filed by Attorney Goldman in support of the application. THE COURT: So is there a revised order on the docket? MS. CLAIBORN: I haven't seen one, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So I'm asking any party, does any party have an objection to the application to employ\n\n Pullman & Comley as counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, ECF 157? MR. BALDIGA: Not by the debtor. We support the application. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. None by Pax? MR. FRIEDMAN: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard on the application to employ Pullman & Comley? Attorney Goldman, you're going to be submitting a new order, is that what Attorney Claiborn is saying? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. As long as it's in my supplemental declaration, then no problem in revising the order to comport with what's in the supplement. THE COURT: Okay. How much time would you like to submit that order? You can have as much time -- I mean, I'm going to grant the application subject to the submission of a revised order. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, I could submit it by tomorrow. THE COURT: Sure. I'll give you until Friday, how's that? MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you. THE COURT: The 29th. All right.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 79 of 246\n\n Then, the other thing that I didn't mention to Mr. Kindseth -- and I'm going to mention to Mr. Goldman and Attorney Claiborn -- with regard to the monies that we talked about this morning, the \\$37 million that's at the Zeisler & Zeisler client funds account and the monies that will be held by Attorney Goldman if the DIP loan is approved, bank statements every month have to be submitted at least to the Office of the United States Trustee and among the parties to evidence that those funds are there. Every month. And I'm so ordering that on the record right now. And I can go back to this hearing. And if someone fails to comply with that, then they'll be in violation of a court order. We need to ensure that the funds are there in the amount that are supposed to be there. Now, with regard to the \\$37 million, there shouldn't be any change in that amount other than a gain of some interest hopefully unless and until there's a further order when the boat is returned. That's my understanding. Mr. Kindseth's working on the order, but that's what -- that's the mechanics. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. And the order that you see -- that you will see, Your Honor, provides that there is a national bank that will be acting as co-agent. So Mr. Kindseth is holding the money just so there\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n| | 81 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | wouldn't be any concern in the courtroom today whether the |\n| 2 | money was really coming or whatever there were -- from the |\n| 3 | last hearing, we spent way too long on those types of |\n| 4 | concerns, so no one has to have that concern.
But it's not |\n| 5 | the permanent solution.
The permanent solution for a month |\n| 6 | or two is to have the money go into a bank as more |\n| 7 | customary. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
However it works is fine.
I just want |\n| 9 | evidence -- |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
Understood. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
-- that's submitted to demonstrate |\n| 12 | that those funds are there.
And it's got to be submitted, |\n| 13 | you know, every month. |\n| 14 | And I guess we will figure out -- it might not be |\n| 15 | as cumbersome with the 37 million if the boat is returned in |\n| 16 | two months, but with regard to the DIP financing, there's |\n| 17 | going to be in that order, if there is an order, it's going |\n| 18 | to say that I need -- the Court -- there has to be evidence |\n| 19 | supplied of the amount of the funds in the account every |\n| 20 | month. |\n| 21 | I know the DIP orders may have some more specifics |\n| 22 | with regard to what's being paid and drawn down and all |\n| 23 | that, all those issues, but that was the other thing that I |\n| 24 | wanted to raise. |\n| 25 | Now, with regard to the DIP financing evidentiary |\n| | |\n\n hearing, I'm happy to start right now, but we have to end at noon. So the other thing we can do is you mentioned at the beginning of the hearing that there is some discussion about how we were going to set up the hearing on the motion to dismiss, so I don't -- whatever way you want to proceed, I have no problem. MR. BALDIGA: Well, this might be a good time just to clear up the Brown Rudnick application, that there's no evidence on that, and that could be taken care of. I think there's a -- THE COURT: I thought there was -- MR. BALDIGA: -- reservation of rights that wants to be made. THE COURT: Okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah. I think -- THE COURT: But isn't there an order that you need to fix or did you fix that order yet? Or you agreed to? MR. FRIEDMAN: I think the order is on the docket, Your Honor. We have a very short reservation of rights and then I think we could do the pre-trial -- the pre-motion, you know, conference before noon. And then we're afternoon to -- MR. BALDIGA: I think that that's right. MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay.\n\n MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. MR. FRIEDMAN: So -- THE COURT: I didn't hear what you said now. MR. FRIEDMAN: Sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: Peter Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers. We don't have an objection to Brown Rudnick's retention per se. We just want to make clear that, you know, we do believe that Lamp -- that Mr. Kwok was restrained by Judge -- Justice Ostrager's retraining order pre-petition from transferring his assets. We believe that by encumbering himself with the Lamp loan to pay Brown Rudnick's retainer that he violated that restraining order. Brown Rudnick reads Justice Ostrager's order differently than we do. We believe that his order was specific as to two assets, but also had a broader, sweeping clause that made it clear that any outside of the ordinary course transaction was prohibited. Brown Rudnick, Mr. Baldiga, has cited to a portion of a transcript that he believes supports his view of the language that was specific as to two assets. We believe that page 24 of that transcript, which was attached to their response, says that Justice Ostrager\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 84 of 246\n\n says I want to know if any transaction is going to take place in which Mr. Kwok is the guiding hand that's something other than an ordinary course of business transaction. So it wasn't so limited. And so we just want to reserve rights that to the extent, you know, there's litigation in the future over whether there was a breach of that and whether there's any damages or there's any liability for anybody who participated in that breach or is tort related to the breach, that nothing in the retention order absolves anybody of liability for that. We have no objection to retention if it's to the reasonable staffing in light of this case. We just want to make clear that, you know, we believe it was one final act of contempt, one last finger in the eye, right before filing of bankruptcy. And note that we've never received the Lamp Capital loan despite numerous requests to Mr. Lamp's -- I'm sorry -- to Lamp Capital's lawyers. They've produced nothing. We'll go back at it. But, you know, the whole circumstances around that episode we believe are very troubling and that's why I wanted to make a reservation of our rights. THE COURT: And you're going to -- my understanding -- and I didn't look at it, okay -- but\n\n sometime last night or this morning, there was an order submitted with regard to the Brown Rudnick application? Is that -- is Attorney Friedman in agreement with that or not -- that order? If not, then you both have to talk and tell me when you're going to -- you think you're going to resolve that order. (Pause.) MR. FRIEDMAN: (Indiscernible.) THE COURT: Certainly. Take your time. (Pause.) MR. FRIEDMAN: So, Your Honor, I think we do have an issue with the order. We just want a reservation of rights with respect to any party for receipt of those funds. We have no objection to the retention and to their filing fee applications, but we don't think the retention should wipe out the prospect that there might be liability for having received these funds. THE COURT: So you're going to have to add that reservation of rights language to the order, correct? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. Unless that reservation is acceptable on the record? MR. BALDIGA: If I could address it, Your Honor, please. THE COURT: Sure.\n\n MR. BALDIGA: Unless Mr. Goldman wants to argue first. MR. GOLDMAN: Well, I was just going to say, speaking of reservations, we -- our resolution of the DIP motion -- I should have mentioned this at the outset -- is really based on a resolution of the boat delivery order I'll call it -- which they're working on -- THE COURT: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. Of the what order? MR. GOLDMAN: The boat delivery. THE COURT: Okay. The relief from stay agreed upon order? MR. GOLDMAN: Correct. Correct. Which we're confident they'll be able to do. It still hasn't been inked so to speak, and so before we actually formally withdraw objections, I would like to see that on the record. THE COURT: Well, right now we're talking about Brown Rudnick. MR. GOLDMAN: Well, aren't we -- that is linked to the resolution of the DIP motion. In other words, we resolve the DIP motion and we also agree to withdraw our objections to all the retentions. Of course the resolution of the DIP motion depends on the resolution of this boat delivery order that we're working on. So they're all linked together is basically\n\n what I'm saying. And so I would just appreciate if we could wait until after the lunch break when we are absolutely certain that the boat -- the PAX motion for relief from stay has been resolved and then we can formally withdraw all these objections. That's all I'm saying. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Baldiga? MR. BALDIGA: Well, we've been trying to work and have actually been able to work hand in hand with Mr. Goldman on so many things that I don't want to -- I mean, I accept his premise that it would be easier perhaps to know that we are all in accord on the boat order. It won't affect PAX's objection because PAX's position on everything, right, will continue to be the same regardless. So the -- I can address PAX's reservation of rights if the Court so wishes or if the Court wants to wait until after lunch, after the boat issue, to do that, we're happy to do that. Whatever the Court -- THE COURT: All right. Why don't we just see what happens after the -- what will -- what should be essentially an agreed-upon order resolving PAX's motion for relief from stay, correct, that's what it is? That's what Mr. Kindseth is working on? MR. BALDIGA: Yes.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. So why don't we wait for that. So then the only other issue is the -- the interim professionals, everything, Mr. Goldman, you reserve your rights on everything until -- all right. So let's just start with the DIP financing evidentiary hearing. Or if you -- if all of you would rather take a break and not start, we can do that too. Whatever works for all of you. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, may we do the pre-trial discussion of the dates? THE COURT: On the motion to dismiss? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. THE COURT: Well, that's what -- that's what I had said a few minutes ago I thought made some sense. MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. So, Your Honor, we have -- obviously pending the Court's schedule, we have -- we've reached out to counsel for other parties this week and we made a proposal. We got some feedback. People asked us for a little more time, which we were -- you know, even though I don't think we have a statutory obligation to provide it, we were willing to do that. What we would propose is that there be a -- and I tried to accommodate as many people as I could -- May 16th would the date on which parties need to file oppositions if\n\n acceptable to the Court. We would ask for the ability to file a reply on May 25th. We would ask to be able to file a reply on the 25th of May. And then we would ask for a hearing on the -- to reserve the 1st, 2nd and 3rd -- THE COURT: All right. I have a take a look at the calendar. MR. FRIEDMAN: -- if that works for the Court. THE COURT: Just let me take a look at the calendar before we go any further. (Pause.) THE COURT: I have some time on the 1st. MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. THE COURT: But there's a period of time where I'd have to take a break again. I have time on the 2nd. And I have at least the morning of the 3rd. MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. That certainly works for us, Your Honor. I would also ask, given the potential complexity, if it would be okay to propose a submission of post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law for any party the 10th. Or if the hearing lasts longer than the 3rd, you know, seven days after the conclusion of the hearing if the Court believes that would be helpful.\n\n THE COURT: I certainly think it could be, so I will tell you at the end of the hearing if I would like that, but I think it's a possibility. Sure. MR. FRIEDMAN: And, Your Honor, what I would also propose is that the parties, you know, by the 20 -- Friday the 27th, if this works for the Court, if the Court would like it to be the 26th, that the parties exchange, you know, witness lists and exhibits and provide the Court with a -- you know, the appropriate grid if possible by that date as well and listing objections, and that the parties be ordered to meet and confer on all pre-trial procedures in good faith. You know, my understanding is that Mr. -- that Mr. Kwok's counsel believes that this schedule, which we believe is actually a substantial accommodation to people, should be contingent on no more 341 hearings, a cessation of Mr. Kwok's 341 obligations, which is due -- which is expected to continue this Friday -- I don't see why that should be an issue. We certainly are seeking to depose Mr. Kwok again in connection with the -- with the motion to dismiss or motion to appoint a trustee. We're seeking some other discovery. I'd note that one issue we've had -- and I'm not asking the Court to do anything other than to know about it\n\n -- is we asked Golden Spring last Thursday if they would express -- if they would accept service of the subpoena on Miles Kwok's son. We've heard crickets. And so not a surprise, but given the purported centrality of Miles' son to this case and his support of beneficence and love, I guess if they don't want to accept a subpoena, we can try to do it in the Hague. And if we have to maybe we won't complete on that time, but the Court can draw whatever conclusions it wants to from Mr. Kwok's son's refusal to participate in good faith in discovery. So that shouldn't take six days to find out from somebody if a subpoena can be accepted. That's our proposed schedule. You know, we hope we don't have discovery disputes to bring to the Court's attention. If we do, we will. We'll work with Mr. Birney on how to tee those up correctly for you. And I believe we've provided everybody with copies of the discovery we've served. If anybody hasn't, please let me know. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. The U.S. Trustee, as you know, has a pending motion for an examiner or in the alternative the appointment of Chapter 11 trustee.\n\n And the dates that Attorney Friedman has just outlined are fine for the U.S. Trustee. And I would assume that scheduling is applicable to both PAX's motion and the U.S. Trustee's motion. THE COURT: Yes. Except I will be addressing the PAX's motion first. MS. CLAIBORN: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MS. CLAIBORN: With respect to the point about the 341 meeting, that request was just made to me this morning. I haven't had a chance to confer with my office. I haven't had a chance to confer with counsel for the parties who are here today. So I don't have an answer as to whether or not the U.S. Trustee is willing to delay that 341 meeting to a different date. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: I'm sorry. I missed what you just said. I couldn't hear. I'm sorry. MS. CLAIBORN: I don't have an answer for you as to the 341 meeting date. THE COURT: All right. Anyone else wish to be heard on the scheduling of the motion to dismiss and the -- I'm going to reiterate it, but go right ahead. MR. BALDIGA: Well, the -- I think the debtor is not available the first week of June so, I think,\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n unfortunately, like so many other things, we're probably going to have to spend some time over the lunch break to try to pin those dates down. THE COURT: All right. Well, why don't you talk about because I'm not sure why the debtor would need to be here on the motion, I mean, unless you're going to call him as a witness. MR. PERLMAN: We certainly are, but this is news to me because I proposed this schedule to Mr. Aulet before. THE COURT: Okay. Well, then I'll let you all talk about it. But I will say one thing in particular, that it's going to be shortly thereafter if it's not those days. I've already said to Attorney Friedman -- MR. BALDIGA: We understand that. THE COURT: -- Attorney Friedman the last hearing, and he's agreed, and I don't know if he's expressly consented on the record again today, but under the -- under the code, I have to hold that hearing within 30 days unless the movant, the movant expressly consents to the extension of time, to a continuance for a specific period of time, which Attorney Friedman has done right now, but I don't know if he's going to do it when you have your discussions. So you're going to have to have your discussions. MR. FRIEDMAN: Honestly, Your Honor, given that\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n the debtor doesn't have a job, doesn't have a business to operate, I can't imagine if there's a justifiable reason for not being here. THE COURT: Well, I'm going to let you all talk about that. MR. BALDIGA: I'd appreciate a chance just to talk with the client, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'm going to let you all talk about that. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay? So let me just again go through what is on our calendar today. I think it makes complete sense at this point not to start the DIP evidentiary hearing if we're only going to have 15 minutes. Does that make sense to anyone? MR. BALDIGA: Yes. Correct. THE COURT: I think you can take the break and use the time. Now, I don't know, you've all been here in the hallway longer than I've been sitting here, but I assume the conference rooms are unlocked. There's, you know -- there is a hallway to talk in except there are other agencies so you have to be somewhat quiet if possible. There's a room back here with vending machines, but it has no tables and\n\n chairs. There's a place next door to eat with tables. I mean, you know, I would think that I would be surprised if I'm ready to see you again before one o'clock. Okay? MR. BALDIGA: Understood. THE COURT: It may be even a little longer, but I don't think it should be much longer than that. I'm just checking to make sure we have -- we are addressing in one way -- some way, shape or form everything on today's calendar, and I think we have. Although we need to -- a lot of it is linked to Mr. Kindseth's revisions to that order. So does anyone else wish to be heard before we recess in this case, in the Kwok case? (No audible response.) THE COURT: No? Okay. Well, then I'm going to take a recess until 12 noon for the other matter. Again, I would be surprised if I was available to see you before one o'clock. I think that you should expect one o'clock at the earliest. If you are all talking and you need more time and we are completed with the other hearing, then you can let the courtroom deputy or someone in the clerk's office know, and I will, you know, take that into consideration. But if we are going to have the evidentiary\n\n| | 96 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | hearing this afternoon on the DIP, which I think we are, |\n| 2 | then I would like to start sooner as opposed to later |\n| 3 | understanding that you all may be talking about different |\n| 4 | things. |\n| 5 | MR. BALDIGA:
Understood. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay? |\n| 7 | MR. BALDIGA:
We'll keep the courtroom deputy |\n| 8 | posted, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Great. |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
All right.
All right.
Thank you, |\n| 12 | all. |\n| 13 | Then Court is in recess until 12 p.m. |\n| 14 | (Recess from 11:45 a.m. until 1:10 p.m.) |\n| 15 | THE CLERK:
Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Sorry about that.
We're back on the |\n| 17 | record after taking a recess in the Kwok case, which we left |\n| 18 | the court about 11:45 or so a.m.
It's now 11:12 [sic] p.m. |\n| 19 | and we're back after the morning session where we had some |\n| 20 | evidence presented in connection with the application of |\n| 21 | Verdolino & Lowey. |\n| 22 | And, Attorney Baldiga, are we moving to go forward |\n| 23 | with the evidentiary hearing on the DIP financing motion? |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes, Your Honor.
But before we do, |\n| 25 | we can report as to the boat, because remember how that |\n| | |\n\n affected everybody? THE COURT: Yes. MR. BALDIGA: It was sort of a -- THE COURT: Oh, Mr. Kindseth is back. MR. BALDIGA: -- connective string. We do have, and Mr. Kindseth can report, and should, a fully conformed, agreed order as to the boat that resolves the lift stay motion. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: And that in turn resolves all objections I believe that the committee has to everything else today. And so we proceed in full accord. But he should -- Mr. Goldman should report and Mr. Kindseth should report. And then -- and then I think we do move to the relief from stay. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Goldman and Mr. Friedman? MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah. I would -- THE COURT: So everyone's in agreement with this order on the relief from stay? I mean, that's wonderful if it's true. MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: I just want to make sure that's accurate. MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. We're in agreement, Your\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 98 of 246\n\n Honor. We have reached an agreement. An order can be submitted. We're pleased with the outcome. MR. KINDSETH: Yes. Just in terms of the logistics, Your Honor, we're actually not going to be in a position to submit it to this court at this moment. We're submitting it to the escrow agent, U.S. Bank, for their counsel, Shipman & Goodwin, to review it and ensure that they don't have any issue with it. I'm hoping to hear back later today or tomorrow. Once they're good with it, we're going to fund the escrow, and we will submit the order hopefully Friday or Monday at the very latest. THE COURT: Okay. I mean, I think that's fine. And that's -- that's a positive development obviously in the case. So, Attorney Goldman? MR. GOLDMAN: I was going to say would it be appropriate to put just the basic terms of the order on the record so we -- the Court is aware and we have an enforcable agreement here? MR. KINDSETH: I'm prepared to do that, Your Honor, if you'd like. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. KINDSETH: So the proposed, stipulated order provides that my client will return the vessel known as the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 99 of 246\n\n Lady May to the navigable waters of Connecticut by July 15th. That may or may not address the various repairs that are being performed now.\n\n We're going to try to complete as much as possible. The repairs that are not complete will be addressed through a reserve, a repair reserve, a separate one entirely, and there's a process through which that reserve will be established.\n\n To secure my client's performance of the delivery, we will be posting \\$37 million with a third-party escrow agent, U.S. Bank. We've worked out the terms of an escrow agreement.\n\n And subject to final approval by U.S. Bank and the party's signature, we'll be providing bi-monthly progress reports with respect to the location of the yacht, and the repairs, status of arrangements for the delivery of the yacht, and the anticipated delivery date.\n\n The way the escrow is going to be handled is that my client will file a certification with this court and there will be a period of time for parties to object to the certification. The certification, you know -- the certification is pertaining really just to the delivery of the yacht timely to Connecticut.\n\n As well as an order to ensure that the yacht stays in Connecticut, we've agreed in that certification that\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 100 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 100 |\n| 1 | would be certifying that we served the then captain of the |\n| 2 | vessel as well as the yacht management company with that and |\n| 3 | we'll be filing the certification of service with the Court |\n| 4 | as part of that process. |\n| 5 | We'll also have the repair reserve in place and |\n| 6 | that is a requirement of the certification. |\n| 7 | So if those elements, which are described as |\n| 8 | certification conditions, are met and we certify it, we'll |\n| 9 | provide 15 days to object.
And if nobody objects, my client |\n| 10 | will be allowed to provide that HK certification to the |\n| 11 | escrow agent, which is the triggering event for the return |\n| 12 | of the \\$37 million. |\n| 13 | If there is an objection, then we'll appear before |\n| 14 | Your Honor. |\n| 15 | And there's -- depending upon the severity of the |\n| 16 | default, there are different consequences.
Obviously if the |\n| 17 | boat's not here, it's the most severe consequence.
The |\n| 18 | other consequence -- consequences for the other conditions |\n| 19 | if they're not met, there's remedies in place that are |\n| 20 | proportionate to the default. |\n| 21 | My client will maintain insurance and provide |\n| 22 | proof of insurance.
There's a provision in here requiring |\n| 23 | my client and agents and representatives and so forth to |\n| 24 | continue to maintain the boat here in Connecticut and |\n\nsubject to further order of this court.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 101 of\n\n| | 101 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And there is a provision in here that says that if |\n| 2 | the boat isn't delivered timely and we are unable to |\n| 3 | establish extenuating circumstances -- and they're |\n| 4 | delineated very clearly -- then the funds, the 37 million |\n| 5 | escrow agent will be directed by order of this court to turn |\n| 6 | over those funds to an account designated by this court to |\n| 7 | be held in substitution for whatever the estate's rights are |\n| 8 | in the Lady May, those rights will be against the \\$37 |\n| 9 | million. |\n| 10 | And then, as I said, we're establishing the repair |\n| 11 | reserve in accordance with the process set forth in the |\n| 12 | order.
And so I believe that is the most salient terms of |\n| 13 | the agreed-upon order. |\n| 14 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Yeah.
I appreciate the recitation. |\n| 15 | The committee is in agreement with those terms and we'll |\n| 16 | follow it up obviously with the written order. |\n| 17 | And I'll leave it to PAX. |\n| 18 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
They're saying, Your Honor, there |\n| 19 | are also provisions of what happens upon dismissal, if the |\n| 20 | case is dismissed while the boat is in the jurisdiction or |\n| 21 | the escrow's jurisdiction.
Those are also in there. |\n| 22 | I do want to say -- not to mix metaphors -- but |\n| 23 | the boat is not -- I mean, the boat should never be the tail |\n| 24 | that wags the dog in this case.
The boat is important |\n| 25 | because it's an asset.
This is not the end all and be all |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 102 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 102 |\n| 1 | of what Mr. Kwok has to pay his creditors. |\n| 2 | I just want to be really clear from our |\n| 3 | perspective that this is important, but this is just a |\n| 4 | beginning step in the pursuit of getting paid for people who |\n| 5 | have substantial judgments against Mr. Kwok. |\n| 6 | MR. KINDSETH:
It's still progress. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Understood. |\n| 8 | MR. GOLDMAN:
So with that, Your Honor, the |\n| 9 | committee can formerly withdraw its objections to the DIP |\n| 10 | motion as well as the retention applications and lend our |\n| 11 | support to the interim DIP order that's being advanced for |\n| 12 | today. |\n| 13 | I can say with certainty, Your Honor, that it is |\n| 14 | absolutely critical that the committee have this funding in |\n| 15 | place in order to function properly and do what it's |\n| 16 | supposed to do in a case like this, especially in a case |\n| 17 | with this profile. |\n| 18 | We're expected to investigate potential assets of |\n| 19 | this estate.
And I can ensure Your Honor that we have been |\n| 20 | actively engaged in interviewing financial advisors to |\n| 21 | assist us in that endeavor and we will be submitting an |\n| 22 | application shortly to get the Court's approval to retain |\n| 23 | one who will be highly capable, skilled and experienced in |\n| 24 | what we need them to do. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 103 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 103 |\n| 1 | Mr. Kindseth, I know you said this already, but I |\n| 2 | don't think I -- I didn't write it down, so I don't remember |\n| 3 | -- what date do you think you're going to submit this order |\n| 4 | to the Court? |\n| 5 | MR. KINDSETH:
Friday or Monday. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
All right.
So I'll give you until |\n| 7 | Monday.
What is Monday?
May 1st of 2nd?
Oh, it's the 2nd. |\n| 8 | Is it the 2nd?
Yeah.
It has to be in by Monday.
See, |\n| 9 | yeah, you have to because -- all right.
Yeah.
On or before |\n| 10 | May 2nd.
Okay?
All right. |\n| 11 | But what were you going to say?
I'm sorry. |\n| 12 | MR. KINDSETH:
May I be excused?
My client |\n| 13 | doesn't have a stake in the afternoon's proceedings. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
You can be excused if everybody else |\n| 15 | thinks that you don't need to be here. |\n| 16 | MR. BALDIGA:
Just with the clarification, I think |\n| 17 | it's assumed in all of the comments of everybody so far, but |\n| 18 | the stay will continue in force until entry of the order? |\n| 19 | Okay.
Assuming that it does get submitted on a |\n| 20 | timely basis? |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 22 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
I mean, but it -- |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
I just wanted the record to be |\n| 25 | clear. |\n\n| | 246 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 104 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
-- but if it doesn't get timely |\n| 2 | entered, then there isn't any stay anymore under 362(e)(2), |\n| 3 | so I would assume you are motivated to get it timely |\n| 4 | entered. |\n| 5 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 7 | No one else wants -- needs to have Mr. Kindseth |\n| 8 | here for this afternoon's hearing, is that correct? |\n| 9 | (No audible response.) |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Kindseth. |\n| 11 | MR. KINDSETH:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
All right.
So let's go back before we |\n| 13 | start the evidentiary hearing given the committee's position |\n| 14 | now of withdrawing its oppositions to certain things. |\n| 15 | So the application to employ Brown Rudnick, the |\n| 16 | committee has withdrawn its objection. |\n| 17 | PAX still wants to reserve its rights, correct? |\n| 18 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes, Your Honor.
I've conveyed to |\n| 19 | Mr. Baldiga we have no issue with the order.
Actually |\n| 20 | looking at the order I don't think the order releases the |\n| 21 | kind of claims that we want to reserve, and so I'm not going |\n| 22 | to ask Mr. Baldiga to agree in the order to the language. |\n| 23 | I just want to note for the Court and for |\n| 24 | everybody else that that's our position. |\n| 25 | And, you know, Brown Rudnick has their own |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 104 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 105 of\n\n| 246 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| 105 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| position with the order as proposed is fine. |\n| THE COURT:
So the order that was submitted -- |\n| Thank you, Attorney Friedman. |\n| So the order that was submitted sometime last |\n| night or -- I don't -- I know there was several, but is that |\n| the order that you're looking to have entered? |\n| MR. BALDIGA:
Yes.
Unless it's -- yes, Your |\n| Honor.
And just for the record, we're -- we don't, the |\n| debtor doesn't, and Brown Rudnick doesn't agree to anything |\n| that's not in the order.
And it's that simple. |\n| MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, just to complete the |\n| record, I just wanted to let the Court know that the U.S. |\n| Trustee has reviewed the order that was uploaded last night |\n| and it does resolve the U.S. Trustee's objections. |\n| THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| So if I'm correct, that's ECF No. 259 that was |\n| filed last night, correct? |\n| (No audible response.) |\n| THE COURT:
Okay.
If you just give me one minute, |\n| please. |\n| (Pause.) |\n| THE COURT:
All right.
So I haven't looked at ECF |\n| 259 because it was submitted last night, which is fine.
I'm |\n| going to take a look at it right now and then tell you |\n| whether I think there's any issues. |\n| |\n\n| | 106 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | (Pause.) |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
The order looks fine to me.
So ECF |\n| 3 | 259 will enter and the application to approve Brown Rudnick |\n| 4 | as counsel to the debtor is approved -- is granted. |\n| 5 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 7 | So let me just make sure we're getting to |\n| 8 | everything we need to get to before we get to the |\n| 9 | evidentiary hearing on the DIP motion. |\n| 10 | (Pause.) |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
So the bar date order then, everyone's |\n| 12 | fine with that other than the Court putting in a bar date? |\n| 13 | MR. BALDIGA:
I believe so, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So I'll take a look at that |\n| 15 | after today.
That will enter though tomorrow or Friday at |\n| 16 | the latest.
Okay? |\n| 17 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
I would assume -- I shouldn't say |\n| 19 | that.
I haven't looked at the order, Attorney Baldiga, but |\n| 20 | is -- who's serving that bar date order?
Are you serving |\n| 21 | it?
Is the debtor serving it? |\n| 22 | MR. BALDIGA:
The debtor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Okay.
I'll take a look at |\n| 24 | that. |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. |\n| | |\n\n THE COURT: And I think it probably will have no problem other than me possibly changing your bar date for a little bit more time. MR. GOLDMAN: I just wanted to mention the committee did have a limited objection to that. And I hadn't been following the variations of the proposed orders, but did they take into account our objections? MR. BALDIGA: We did. MR. GOLDMAN: Okay. All right. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you. THE COURT: The motion to establish procedures for entering compensation and reimbursement expenses, is everyone in agreement with that now as well? The committee, you had an objection, did you, or not? MR. GOLDMAN: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Could you repeat that. THE COURT: The motion to establish procedures for interim compensation and reimbursement of expenses. MR. GOLDMAN: No objection. THE COURT: Did the U.S. Trustee have an objection? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, we have been looking on some language. And I haven't had a chance to review what Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 107 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 108 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 108 |\n| 1 | just got uploaded in the last hour.
And subject to me |\n| 2 | reporting back to Your Honor maybe by the end of today, I'm |\n| 3 | not -- I think we probably could lose that loop.
I'd just |\n| 4 | need to read it. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
So leave that matter open essentially |\n| 6 | for now? |\n| 7 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Yes. |\n| 8 | MR. BALDIGA:
That's right.
But we all think it's |\n| 9 | just a matter of looking at language. |\n| 10 | MS. CLAIBORN:
It's just a matter of me looking at |\n| 11 | their language. |\n| 12 | MR. BALDIGA:
We've worked out everything. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
So you're going to -- everyone, you |\n| 14 | know, I will tell you these matters, these motions, I'll |\n| 15 | look at the language.
But, you know, I know the parties are |\n| 16 | asking the Court to do something that's -- essentially |\n| 17 | shorten the time and the procedures that are required by the |\n| 18 | code for fee applications.
I'm reluctant to do that in a |\n| 19 | lot of cases for many, many reasons. |\n| 20 | I'll do it in this case if everyone is in |\n| 21 | agreement.
But I will tell you if there's -- if I see that |\n| 22 | there's anything of any concern at any point, I may schedule |\n| 23 | a status conference and/or vacate any order entered if I |\n| 24 | think that there's any issue. |\n| 25 | I mean, you know, what you don't want to have is a |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 109 of\n\n| 246 |\n|-----|\n| |\n\n| | 109 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | situation where everybody believes that we're just seeing |\n| 2 | how much fees are incurred.
And I'm not saying that that's |\n| 3 | happening in this case.
I'm saying you want to guard |\n| 4 | against that. |\n| 5 | And entry of these types of orders sometimes gives |\n| 6 | -- give people arguments that that's the major concern.
And |\n| 7 | I'm not suggesting it is, but all I'm saying is if this |\n| 8 | enters, and it apparently will subject to some language, |\n| 9 | that doesn't mean that I'm not going to look at it in the |\n| 10 | future. |\n| 11 | MR. BALDIGA:
Of course.
Of course. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
And if I think -- |\n| 13 | MR. BALDIGA:
And, Your Honor, you've seen from |\n| 14 | day one that we're -- we're trying to spend as little as |\n| 15 | possible, but we need to be responsive to a particular |\n| 16 | creditor that is not funded from the estate.
And we can't |\n| 17 | control how many motions with what enthusiasm they bring so |\n| 18 | we're -- we're trying to keep up and do the right thing and |\n| 19 | responsibly represent the estate. |\n| 20 | Mr. Goldman has a lot of work to do himself in |\n| 21 | that regard as we've already talked about. |\n| 22 | We've all agreed there has to be an examination |\n| 23 | before people are comfortable confirming a plan.
The debtor |\n| 24 | has supported that from day one.
And this motion helps to |\n| 25 | do that and the DIP helps to do that.
They go hand in hand. |\n| | |\n\n THE COURT: Understood. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, if I just could make a quick comment? I wanted to preview for the Court that the order that was uploaded is different than the original proposal. But what it does have is the obligation to file interim fee applications at a 90-day interval. So there will be an actual -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. CLAIBORN: -- fee application process -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. CLAIBORN: -- that's a component of it. But there was also the existing monthly option where the professionals get paid 80 percent of their fees and 100 percent of their expenses upon there being no objection from any of the parties. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. So that motion will be granted. But we have to wait and see what -- if there's any minor -- any final comments to the proposed order, Attorney Claiborn, correct? MS. CLAIBORN: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. The only thing -- the only Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 110 of\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 111 of\n\n| | 111 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | other matter I'd like to discuss before we turn to the |\n| 2 | evidentiary hearing on the DIP motion is the scheduling on |\n| 3 | the motion to dismiss. |\n| 4 | Were you able to discuss that during the break? |\n| 5 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
We were, Your Honor.
With respect |\n| 6 | to our motion, we I guess propose to begin -- so we would -- |\n| 7 | oppositions, we would ask to be set for the 11th of May. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
All right.
So that's a change, right? |\n| 9 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
So let me just make a note.
Okay?
I |\n| 11 | just want to make sure I have the right things in my -- on |\n| 12 | my notes. |\n| 13 | (Pause.) |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
May 11th did you say? |\n| 15 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 17 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
We would ask for our reply to be |\n| 18 | filed on the 18th, and to commence the hearing on the 25th. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
All right.
Let me take a look at |\n| 20 | that.
I haven't looked at that date obviously.
Hold on. |\n| 21 | (Pause.) |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I can commence the hearing on |\n| 23 | the 25th.
I can even have some time on the 26th, but no |\n| 24 | time on the 27th. |\n| 25 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Okay.
And so, Your Honor, we would |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 112 of\n\n| | 112 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | ask the 25th and 26th.
We will submit witness statements. |\n| 2 | I'm sorry.
We will submit exhibits.
We will -- we will |\n| 3 | meet and confer and propose a schedule for exhibits over -- |\n| 4 | hopefully, Mr. Jonas and I can have some discussions.
We'll |\n| 5 | submit something by early next week on those, on when we'll |\n| 6 | submit exhibit lists and witness lists. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Well, I can tell you when you need to |\n| 8 | submit exhibit lists. |\n| 9 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Even better.
Thank you, Your |\n| 10 | Honor. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I think that will help you.
There's |\n| 12 | no need to meet. |\n| 13 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Just give me one second, please. |\n| 15 | (Pause.) |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
You'll submit your list of witnesses |\n| 17 | and exhibits by 12 p.m. on May 20. |\n| 18 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 20 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
I can't anticipate now how long it |\n| 21 | will take.
We will endeavor to examine Mr. Kwok on the |\n| 22 | first day.
Because I've been advised there are some dates |\n| 23 | the following week, if we have to go into the following |\n| 24 | week, that he's unavailable, so we will endeavor to have him |\n| 25 | examined on the first day of the hearing. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 113 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 113 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead, Counsel. |\n| 2 | MR. JONAS:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Jeff |\n| 3 | Jonas from Brown Rudnick.
A pleasure to be before you |\n| 4 | again. |\n| 5 | Those are all acceptable, and I appreciate Mr. |\n| 6 | Friedman's courtesies with respect to Mr. Kwok. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 8 | MR. JONAS:
Thank you. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Attorney Goldman? |\n| 10 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Your Honor, yes, thank you. |\n| 11 | I just wanted to mention obviously we are not a |\n| 12 | formal party to this motion.
Not a movant or respondent, |\n| 13 | but we do intend to most decidedly oppose this motion and |\n| 14 | may want to participate in the evidentiary phase as well as |\n| 15 | discovery. |\n| 16 | So I just wanted to make clear I think the moving |\n| 17 | party doesn't have a problem with our formally intervening |\n| 18 | as a party to the extent that's necessary, but if everybody |\n| 19 | could be in agreement that we would be treated as a party |\n| 20 | for discovery and evidentiary hearing purposes, then I don't |\n| 21 | think it's necessary. |\n| 22 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
At least, Your Honor, on behalf of |\n| 23 | PAX, we certainly consent.
We've provided discovery or the |\n| 24 | discovery we've served is I believe on both the committee |\n| 25 | and the U.S. Trustee.
We recognize the committee's and the |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 114 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 114 |\n| 1 | trustee's statutory right as well.
There's overlap with the |\n| 2 | motion of the U.S. Trustee, so that's certainly fine by us. |\n| 3 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, the dates proposed are |\n| 4 | fine with the U.S. Trustee. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 6 | Mr. Jonas? |\n| 7 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, not that it's necessary -- |\n| 8 | Jeff Jonas from Brown Rudnick -- but of course we welcome |\n| 9 | the committee's involvement in connection with the motion to |\n| 10 | dismiss. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
All |\n| 12 | right. |\n| 13 | So then what will happen either today or tomorrow |\n| 14 | is a scheduling order will issue setting forth the dates we |\n| 15 | just discussed on the record this afternoon. |\n| 16 | Obviously, those are different from this |\n| 17 | mornings', and that's fine.
You all indicated that you |\n| 18 | wanted to talk about the dates at the break, and you did, so |\n| 19 | a scheduling order will enter with the dates and the times. |\n| 20 | We'll start at 10 a.m. on the 25th and the 26th. |\n| 21 | And the scheduling order, Attorney Friedman, will |\n| 22 | say that the moving party expressly consents to a |\n| 23 | continuance of the hearing to the specific dates, okay, in |\n| 24 | accordance with 1112(b)(3). |\n| 25 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 115 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 115 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 2 | And the other thing I should note is that the U.S. |\n| 3 | Trustee's motion for the appointment of an examiner or a |\n| 4 | trustee will also be continued to those dates, the dates of |\n| 5 | the motion to dismiss.
Okay? |\n| 6 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
So the only thing left on the |\n| 8 | calendar, today's calendar, that we have not addressed is |\n| 9 | the debtor's motion for entry of interim final DIP orders |\n| 10 | for which we are going to conduct an evidentiary hearing. |\n| 11 | So, Mr. Jonas, you may proceed. |\n| 12 | MR. JONAS:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Jeff Jonas |\n| 13 | from Brown Rudnick on behalf of the debtor. |\n| 14 | Your Honor, one -- perhaps I should call it |\n| 15 | housekeeping matter.
I think as you're aware Mr. Kwok has |\n| 16 | the need of an interpreter.
We have brought an interpreter |\n| 17 | with us.
Her name is Una Wilkinson.
She's a 19 -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Could you spell her first name for us? |\n| 19 | MR. JONAS:
Sure.
U-N-A. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 21 | MR. JONAS:
It's pronounced Una. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 23 | MR. JONAS:
But it's U-N-A.
And her last name is |\n| 24 | Wilkinson, W-I-L-K-I-N-S-O-N. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| | |\n\n MR. JONAS: She's a 1995 graduate of the Westminster University in the U.K. with a degree in translation. In terms of her qualifications, the United Court System of New York State, she's a certified interpreter in both Mandarin and Cantonese. She's on the list of interpreters of the Eastern and Southern District Courts of New York. She's interpreted for the grand jury in multiple trial cases in the Eastern and Southern District Courts, state criminal, New York State Criminal, and New York Civil courts. She has a long list of notable assignments that I won't go through here, Your Honor, but I did want to provide the Court with some background with respect to Ms. Wilkinson's qualifications. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, my suggestion -- although I've never done this before this way, so what do I know -- but perhaps Ms. Wilkinson could sit next to the witness. THE COURT: Yeah. The box is very small, but we can move a chair over there. MR. JONAS: That's what I was thinking, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I don't think we could put two people in the box. Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 116 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 117 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 117 |\n| 1 | MR. JONAS:
No.
I don't think so.
But I'm happy |\n| 2 | to wheel this chair over if you'd -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
That would be great. |\n| 4 | MR. JONAS:
Okay. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Sure. |\n| 6 | MR. JONAS:
Thank you. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
And then does any party have any |\n| 8 | objection or issue with the qualifications of the |\n| 9 | interpreter that have just been noted on the record by |\n| 10 | Attorney Jonas? |\n| 11 | MR. HARBACH:
Your Honor, David Harbach for |\n| 12 | Pacific Alliance. |\n| 13 | We have no quarrel with Ms. Wilkinson's |\n| 14 | qualifications and no reason to question them.
However, it |\n| 15 | is also our understanding that Ms. Wilkinson is Mr. Kwok's |\n| 16 | personal interpreter and that she has worked with him for |\n| 17 | quite some time.
And we have some concern about bias. |\n| 18 | And we brought a similarly certified interpreter |\n| 19 | for use today, one that is -- we hired -- and this is the |\n| 20 | first time I believe we're using this person.
She's here in |\n| 21 | the courtroom.
She's also qualified and certified. |\n| 22 | And the procedure that we had used in the past, |\n| 23 | Your Honor, is to utilize the neutral interpreter as the |\n| 24 | primary interpreter.
And then to the extent necessary use |\n| 25 | Ms. Wilkinson as a check interpreter to the extent there is |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 118 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 118 |\n| 1 | an issue with how something is being interpreted or perhaps |\n| 2 | a peculiar way how -- in which Mr. Kwok's speaks or |\n| 3 | something. |\n| 4 | But that's how we would propose we proceed today. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
And have you talked about that with |\n| 6 | Attorney Jonas? |\n| 7 | MR. HARBACH:
No, ma'am. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right. |\n| 9 | Well, Attorney Jonas, what's your response to what |\n| 10 | we just heard from -- |\n| 11 | MR. JONAS:
Yeah.
My response, Your Honor, is as |\n| 12 | follows.
First of all, Ms. Wilkinson, I don't think it's |\n| 13 | fair, and I think she would take some umbrage to any |\n| 14 | allegation of bias.
That's number one. |\n| 15 | Number two, she's not Mr. -- I don't know what it |\n| 16 | means to say she's Mr. Kwok's personal interpreter.
Has she |\n| 17 | worked with him quite a bit over the years? |\n| 18 | And he's been involved in a number of litigation |\n| 19 | matters as you know or as I think the Court's aware, yes, |\n| 20 | absolutely. |\n| 21 | But that being said, my suggestion -- and we fully |\n| 22 | welcome subject to learning a little bit about the |\n| 23 | qualifications of the -- PAX's interpreter, I suspect we'll |\n| 24 | have no objection. |\n| 25 | But what I would suggest, Your Honor, is that Ms. |\n| | |\n\n| | 119 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Wilkinson will translate for Mr. Kwok.
I'll ask the |\n| 2 | questions, she'll translate.
She will translate his |\n| 3 | answers. |\n| 4 | And of course I would -- we would welcome what |\n| 5 | I'll call the check interpreter to the extent there's any |\n| 6 | issue to raise those.
And we'll do the same, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | They may have -- if they'd like, they can have |\n| 8 | their interpreter for the I guess I'll call it the cross and |\n| 9 | we'll have Ms. Wilkinson check if you will.
That would be |\n| 10 | my suggestion, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
But wouldn't the check essentially |\n| 12 | just be an objection?
I mean, wouldn't it be? |\n| 13 | I mean, I'm not -- I haven't had two interpreters |\n| 14 | at one time.
I've had one interpreter. |\n| 15 | But I understand the issue that Attorney Harbach |\n| 16 | raises.
I understand the issue you raise. |\n| 17 | So in order to try to have the issue proceed, |\n| 18 | wouldn't it be appropriate for -- for example, if you are |\n| 19 | going to do a -- conduct a direct examination of the debtor |\n| 20 | and use Ms. Wilkinson to be translating whatever the debtor |\n| 21 | is saying in response to your answer? |\n| 22 | Mr. Harbach, wouldn't it be appropriate to have |\n| 23 | your translator if she believes it's inaccurate to tell you |\n| 24 | that and you can object to that and we can address the issue |\n| 25 | of whether or not that testimony stays part of the record? |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 119 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 120 of\n\n MR. HARBACH: That's certainly one way to proceed, Your Honor. All we're talking about now is who's doing the primary interpretation in the first instance. THE COURT: Right. MR. HARBACH: And all I can represent to the Court is that on multiple occasions at the 341, and also at the deposition of other witnesses, Ms. Wilkinson has been on standby as the check interpreter and it has worked just fine. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, with all due respect, I don't think saying that the 341 worked just fine is a fair representation. It was a mess. The level of interpretation at the 341, in my opinion, was not good. Ms. Wilkinson was required quite a bit to intervene if you will. We got through it. But I really -- it did not work, that I can assure you. And if you were to read the record, I think you'd agree with me. THE COURT: Well, I don't get the record of the 341 meeting -- MR. JONAS: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- unless you all decide to get it transcribed and docket it, so I can't speak to that. But the United States Trustee's Office has stood, so I'd like to hear from you, Attorney Claiborn. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I wanted to confirm\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 121 of\n\n| 246 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | 121 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | what Attorney Harbach has represented to the Court. |\n| 2 | And that is that during the course of this case |\n| 3 | thus far, Ms. Wilkinson has participated on a number of |\n| 4 | occasions as the personal interpreter to the debtor, and |\n| 5 | that Ms. Wilkinson did very capably interrupt the |\n| 6 | proceedings to correct and/or criticize and/or elaborate on |\n| 7 | the interpretations provided by the interpreter who was the |\n| 8 | official interpreter for both the meetings.
And that |\n| 9 | happened during both sections of the 341 meeting. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
So we're not talking about that |\n| 11 | happening though, are we? |\n| 12 | I mean, I thought you were saying Ms. Wilkinson |\n| 13 | was going to be the main interpreter. |\n| 14 | MR. JONAS:
That's what our -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
So what happened?
I wasn't at -- I |\n| 16 | mean, I have no idea what happened at the 341 meeting. |\n| 17 | You had -- the office had an interpreter? |\n| 18 | MS. CLAIBORN:
We hired an interpreter. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
That I didn't understand until |\n| 20 | just now.
Okay. |\n| 21 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Correct. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
So -- |\n| 23 | MS. CLAIBORN:
So the U.S. Trustee's preference |\n| 24 | would be that we have an independent corroborated -- I mean |\n| 25 | -- sorry -- an independent interpreter who has no |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 318 | Filed 05/03/22 | Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 | Page 122 of |\n|---------------|---------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n| 246 | | | | |\n\n affiliation whatsoever to anything be the primary interpreter. THE COURT: Okay. And that person is the person that PAX has brought today? MS. CLAIBORN: I'm not -- I'm not privy to the qualifications or the interactions between that interpreter and PAX, but I'm sure that Mr. Harbach can address that. THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Harbach, go ahead. MR. HARBACH: We have someone who can fill that role here today, Your Honor, and I'm happy to do a brief voir dire of her and allow counsel also to elaborate on her qualifications. I don't have them committed to memory. THE COURT: I'm not suggesting you should. I'm just trying to figure out how to proceed, right? MR. HARBACH: Yes. Yes. THE COURT: That's what -- that's what I'm trying to do. MR. HARBACH: So the record -- THE COURT: I have obviously no knowledge until you just all told me about what happened at a 341 meeting, right? The 341 meeting transcript isn't in the record. The Court doesn't participate in the 341 meetings, so I have no idea about these issues. And as I had said, you know, a few hearings ago, the issue of the interpreter is an important issue. I\n\n| | 246 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 123 |\n| 1 | raised the issue -- I raised it at some point because it is |\n| 2 | an important issue. |\n| 3 | So if the parties don't have an agreement as to |\n| 4 | how this is going to proceed, then unfortunately I'm going |\n| 5 | to have to determine how that's going to proceed.
And it |\n| 6 | sounds -- |\n| 7 | The U.S. Trustee's Office, you hired an |\n| 8 | interpreter from where? |\n| 9 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, the first meeting of |\n| 10 | creditors I used an interpreter who was provided over the |\n| 11 | telephone through I think the service is called |\n| 12 | INTERPRETALK.
And then there's a service that the U.S. |\n| 13 | Trustee Program provides nationwide.
You're able to call in |\n| 14 | and get an interpreter in whatever language you need and |\n| 15 | that interpreter gets placed onto the telephone line and |\n| 16 | then interprets. |\n| 17 | So one of the challenges we had with that process |\n| 18 | was the fact that the telephone line doesn't always lend |\n| 19 | itself to the best hearing on either end of it. |\n| 20 | The second 341 meeting was an in-person |\n| 21 | interpreter who we hired from another third party in an |\n| 22 | effort to get somebody in person. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Was it in-person?
Yes. |\n| 24 | MS. CLAIBORN:
It was. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 123 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 124 of\n\n| | 124 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MS. CLAIBORN:
It was an improvement.
I'm sure |\n| 2 | that no one would tell you that their experience was 100 |\n| 3 | percent awesome, but we tried to accommodate the idea that |\n| 4 | an in-person was a better product than on the telephone |\n| 5 | line. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, it's clear -- as I told |\n| 7 | all of you I think at a hearing, one or two hearings ago, |\n| 8 | the Court does not have -- the judiciary is not -- the |\n| 9 | bankruptcy court anyway is not allowed to spend money to |\n| 10 | hire an interpreter in a case.
It's not allowed by the |\n| 11 | United States Judicial Conference, the Administrative |\n| 12 | Office, and then essentially Congress, so the Court can't |\n| 13 | hire anybody.
The issue then becomes the parties having to |\n| 14 | hire people. |\n| 15 | We've got two people here today, one of whom two |\n| 16 | parties have said -- have suggested I should say -- might |\n| 17 | not be the person that the Court wants to use as the primary |\n| 18 | interpreter.
That's the suggestion. |\n| 19 | And, Mr. Jonas, you're -- |\n| 20 | I didn't know any of this, right, that there was a |\n| 21 | problem with the interpretation or at least a perceived |\n| 22 | problem with the interpretation by parties who are objecting |\n| 23 | to the DIP financing motion and that financing coming from a |\n| 24 | third party.
Okay? |\n| 25 | So it's hard for me to say that -- to agree with |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 125 of
246 | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | 125 | |\n| 1 | what you've just said, Mr. Jonas, when I didn't know that | |\n| 2 | there was a problem. | |\n| 3 | So the issue that I would assume, Mr. Harbach, | |\n| 4 | that you're saying is you want your interpreter to be the | |\n| 5 | primary interpreter? | |\n| 6 | MR. HARBACH:
Yes, Your Honor.
That's right.
And | |\n| 7 | I'll add a couple of other facts for your consideration in | |\n| 8 | making this decision. | |\n| 9 | Number one, that the person who we've arranged to | |\n| 10 | be in court today is from TransPerfect Legal Services.
They | |\n| 11 | provide interpreters like this as a matter of course for all | |\n| 12 | different sorts of languages.
And the person who was | |\n| 13 | assigned, as I said earlier, I don't believe we even knew | |\n| 14 | her identity until today. | |\n| 15 | So the point is the obvious one, that although we | |\n| 16 | are paying for her, she is not in any way affiliated with us | |\n| 17 | or anything, doesn't know anything about this case other | |\n| 18 | than some names that we've given her ahead of time to listen | |\n| 19 | for. | |\n| 20 | The second thing that I should mention is that Ms. | |\n| 21 | Wilkinson also performed the check interpretation role at | |\n| 22 | our deposition of Yvette Wang, who was the Golden Spring | |\n| 23 | 30(b)(6) representative.
And at that deposition, the | |\n| 24 | primary interpreter we hired through a similar agency, not | |\n| 25 | TransPerfect, but I believe it was called Veritext, another | |\n\n| | 246 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 126 |\n| 1 | agency, and that interpreter performed extremely well. |\n| 2 | There were not the same problems, some of which we |\n| 3 | encountered at the 341 hearing. |\n| 4 | So I mention all this to say -- and the reason I |\n| 5 | mentioned the track record of what we've done thus far is to |\n| 6 | hopefully illuminate for the Court why we obviously |\n| 7 | erroneously assumed we would do something similar today. |\n| 8 | So apologies for this rearing its head without any |\n| 9 | notice to the Court, but that's our position. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | Attorney Jonas? |\n| 12 | MR. JONAS:
Yes, Your Honor.
Jeff Jonas, Brown |\n| 13 | Rudnick for the debtor. |\n| 14 | I'll just add, Your Honor, first of all, I take no |\n| 15 | offense -- I don't think the Court should either -- with |\n| 16 | what PAX has had to say.
We heard the Court's instruction |\n| 17 | that the Court couldn't provide interpreters.
We both went |\n| 18 | out -- obviously it would have been great if we had spoken, |\n| 19 | unfortunately we didn't -- but we both went out and hired |\n| 20 | interpreters.
So that's just the way it is. |\n| 21 | And, again, I have no reason without further |\n| 22 | information to question the capabilities of their |\n| 23 | interpreter. |\n| 24 | What I would say, Your Honor, in addition to my |\n| 25 | prior comments, is, as you can imagine, Mandarin is a |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 126 of\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 127 of\n\n| 246 |\n|-----|\n| |\n\n complicated language I've learned in the few weeks I've had to deal with it. And, yes, Mr. Kwok, there has been -- he's used -- and Ms. Wilkinson is familiar with Mr. Kwok, the way he speaks, and I think it would be particularly helpful to him. Obviously this is a critical hearing. And he's going to be testifying live for the first time in this case. And I think that level, having some level of -- again, without bias -- but simply a level of comfort and understanding as to his tone, his inflection, how he speaks, I think that ultimately will benefit the trier of fact in terms of getting the most accurate translation. I'm not really sure of the relevance of what's happened before. We're here now. He's going to testify for the first time. And on that basis, Your Honor, we, again respectfully -- happy to leave it up to the Court if it comes to that -- but respectfully would prefer and suggest that Ms. Wilkinson be the primary interpreter. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. JONAS: Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Harbach, anything else you'd like to add? MR. HARBACH: No, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 128 of\n\n Well, again, under the circumstances of this case and the arguments that have been advanced with regard to the interpreters, and the fact that the United States Trustee's Office has highlighted some concerns it had -- it experienced is a better term -- word -- I suppose at the 341 meetings, I think -- well, the Court will rule that the interpreter hired by PAX will be the main interpreter and Ms. Wilkinson can be the check interpreter. But we all have to understand that means there's going to be three people up here, okay, and so we're going to have to figure out a way that I think we're going to have the interpreters understand that the questioning is probably going to have to move a little slowly. MR. JONAS: Yes. THE COURT: Okay? That you're going to ask a question, Mr. Jonas, and then Mr. Harbach will answer -- ask a question on cross-exam, and we're going to have to wait for the debtor to respond, then we're going to have to wait for the -- and this is all fine, I'm just explaining to everyone how it's going to work -- that we're going to have to wait for the interpreter. And I don't remember the person's name that PAX has hired. What's the interpreter's name? MR. HARBACH: It's because I haven't put her on the record, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 129 of\n\n| | 246 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 129 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 2 | MR. HARBACH:
It's not an issue of memory. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 4 | MR. HARBACH:
To be honest, I do not even know her |\n| 5 | name. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 7 | MR. HARBACH:
But I know she's in here. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Well, then the interpreter to tell us |\n| 9 | the answer that Mr. Kwok has given in English.
And then |\n| 10 | we'll have to wait to see if Ms. Wilkinson has a problem |\n| 11 | with it.
And if she does, then, you know, we'll have to |\n| 12 | address it.
I think that's all we can do.
Okay?
I think |\n| 13 | that's the best we can do given the circumstances of today. |\n| 14 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, one question? |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 16 | MR. JONAS:
And I very much appreciate and respect |\n| 17 | the Court's ruling.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | Just a suggestion so we understand the ground |\n| 19 | rules, would it be okay if the lawyers step back a little |\n| 20 | and -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 22 | MR. JONAS:
Yeah.
And let the -- to the extent -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Absolutely. |\n| 24 | MR. HARBACH:
-- there's an interpretation by the |\n| 25 | primary of an answer, to the extent Ms. Wilkinson, she can |\n| | |\n\n speak for herself and raise it, I just -- I don't -- I'd prefer we not be on the front lines of it because -- THE COURT: No, I agree. MR. HARBACH: Okay. THE COURT: I think you should step back. And I think we might need another chair too. MR. HARBACH: Yes. Yes. THE COURT: And I don't know if we have another chair readily available at the moment. MR. JONAS: I can provide mine, Your Honor, for now. THE COURT: Okay. You're going to stand the whole time? MR. JONAS: Yes. Well, at least for my direct, and then we'll figure it out. THE COURT: Okay. All right. MR. JONAS: I'll take somebody else's chair. THE COURT: All right. I think that's fair under the circumstances. And just we'll note for the record that once Mr. Jonas -- Someone's bringing in another chair too, so if anybody needs another chair, we'll be all set. Thank you very much. I don't know if we're going to need it, but that's okay. I appreciate you doing that,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 130 of\n\n so thank you. UNIDENTIFIED: I'll return it if you don't need it. THE COURT: Thank you. So what's -- so everyone's clear, Mr. Jonas is going to start his presentation on behalf of the debtor on the debtor's -- and I keep calling it shorthand -- but a DIP motion, a DIP motion -- and then he will call his first witness, which I'll -- And then we'll have the interpreters come forward. The interpreters are going to have to note their names for the record. And I'm going to have to make sure that both -- every party -- no one is challenging the qualifications of either one of the interpreters. And then, Mr. Jonas, you'll be able to proceed. Okay? MR. JONAS: Absolutely. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. You can -- you may start, please. MR. JONAS: Well, may we call the interpreters, Your Honor? THE COURT: Sure. Absolutely. MR. JONAS: And we would obviously ask Ms. Wilkinson to come up and I guess take the second chair, right?\n\n THE COURT: Yes. So, Ms. Wilkinson, are you in the courtroom? MS. WILKINSON: Yes. THE COURT: Would you please come forward. (Pause.) THE COURT: All right. So one at a time, I'm going to -- the courtroom staff is going to make sure that that microphone can capture at least both the people. Ms. Wilkinson, just because you came first, the courtroom deputy is going to swear you in. Okay? (The check interpreter is sworn.) THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. THE CLERK: Can you just state your name and a business address for the record, please. THE CHECK INTERPRETER: Yes. My name is -- THE COURT: We can't hear you. THE CLERK: I need Ms. Wilkinson. THE COURT: We need Ms. Wilkinson's first. Why don't you come to the microphone. Yeah. THE CHECK INTERPRETER: Name, Una, U-N-A, Wilkinson, W-I-L-K-I-N-S-O-N. THE COURT: Just your business address. THE CHECK INTERPRETER: My business address is my home. THE COURT: Okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 132 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 133 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 133 |\n| 1 | THE CHECK INTERPRETER:
6818 Juno Street, J-U-N-O, |\n| 2 | Forest Hills, New York, New York 01375. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
Thank you very much. |\n| 4 | Now, if I could have you come home --
I don't |\n| 5 | know your name.
I'm sorry.
If you could tell me your name. |\n| 6 | THE MAIN INTERPRETER:
Sure.
Your Honor, my name |\n| 7 | is I Ching Ng, the spelling is I-C-H-I-N-G, last name is N |\n| 8 | G. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
N-G.
Okay.
And could you tell us |\n| 10 | your business address, please. |\n| 11 | THE MAIN INTERPRETER:
Sure.
It's 450 Lexington |\n| 12 | Avenue, Unit 3294, New York, New York 10163. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
And the company you work for? |\n| 14 | THE MAIN INTERPRETER:
Today I'm representing |\n| 15 | TransPerfect. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
TransPerfect.
Okay. |\n| 17 | THE MAIN INTERPRETER:
Yes. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
The courtroom deputy is going to swear |\n| 19 | you in.
Okay. |\n| 20 | THE CLERK:
Raise your right hand, please. |\n| 21 | (The main interpreter is sworn.) |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 23 | You can take off your coat.
You know.
You don't |\n| 24 | have to be -- whatever you're more comfortable in, but I'm |\n| 25 | going to have you sit right next to the witness chair.
And |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 134 of\n\n| | 134 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Ms. Wilkinson is going to sit to your right.
Okay? |\n| 2 | And now, both of you, what I'm going to ask you to |\n| 3 | do -- you don't know this, but we only -- our record comes |\n| 4 | through the microphone.
So once the witness, Mr. Kwok, |\n| 5 | speaks, after he speaks and you interpret, you're going to |\n| 6 | have to speak into the microphone. |\n| 7 | And so, Ms. Wilkinson, it might be that you have |\n| 8 | to come up and stand at this microphone if Mr. Jonas steps |\n| 9 | (indiscernible) -- because if we can't hear you, we're going |\n| 10 | to have to stop you.
Don't worry about that, that happens |\n| 11 | sometimes.
We have -- this is -- our only record is through |\n| 12 | a microphone.
So if I stop you, it's not because you've |\n| 13 | done anything wrong, it's because we weren't able to hear or |\n| 14 | for whatever reason.
Okay? |\n| 15 | I just want to -- I know you haven't done this |\n| 16 | before -- or maybe not in this courtroom -- but we can only |\n| 17 | -- we don't have a transcriber.
We don't.
We have to get |\n| 18 | everything on the record this way.
And if we don't get it, |\n| 19 | then we have to stop and make sure it's on the record. |\n| 20 | Okay? |\n| 21 | THE CHECK INTERPRETER:
Okay. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
So do either of you have any |\n| 23 | questions? |\n| 24 | THE MAIN INTERPRETER:
So that means I can use |\n| 25 | this microphone, right? |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 135 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 135 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
You can.
And it will be after |\n| 2 | -- there's another microphone here too.
Okay.
Great. |\n| 3 | Okay.
That will be helpful for Ms. Wilkinson too.
Great. |\n| 4 | Thank you. |\n| 5 | After Mr. Kwok has answered the question, then, |\n| 6 | yes, you can -- that's why we turned the microphone a little |\n| 7 | bit so it will be able to pick up your voice as well.
If |\n| 8 | for some reason we're wrong and it doesn't pick up your |\n| 9 | voice, we'll figure out where to get you to stand so we can |\n| 10 | understand what you're saying as well. |\n| 11 | THE MAIN INTERPRETER:
Okay. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay?
Does that make sense to both of |\n| 13 | you? |\n| 14 | (No audible response.) |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I just want to make sure.
If |\n| 16 | you have any questions, please let me know before we begin. |\n| 17 | Okay?
All right. |\n| 18 | All right.
Hearing no questions, then what else |\n| 19 | do we need to do? |\n| 20 | THE CLERK:
I have a note here we're going to have |\n| 21 | the witness (indiscernible). |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
I think Mr. Jonas is going to call his |\n| 23 | witness, so there you go. |\n| 24 | MR. JONAS:
Yes, Your Honor.
If we're ready, I'm |\n| 25 | happy to do that. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 136 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 136 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Go right ahead. |\n| 2 | MR. JONAS:
Thank you.
Your Honor, we would -- |\n| 3 | the debtor would call Ho Wan Kwok to the witness stand. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Mr. Kwok, if you'd come |\n| 5 | forward, please. |\n| 6 | MR. KWOK:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon, sir. |\n| 8 | Now, Mr. Kwok, you can just stand when you get in |\n| 9 | there, please.
And then you're going to raise your right |\n| 10 | hand and listen to the courtroom deputy.
She's going -- |\n| 11 | You'll interpret it -- but this is the person who |\n| 12 | is speaking to you right now. |\n| 13 | THE CLERK:
I'm sorry.
You know. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
It's okay.
It's not a problem. |\n| 15 | THE CLERK:
Let me just get my notes.
I'm so |\n| 16 | sorry. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
And you can break it down if you would |\n| 18 | like so that the interpreter can break it down for Mr. Kwok. |\n| 19 | Okay? |\n| 20 | THE CLERK:
Okay. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
You can say a few words at a time, and |\n| 22 | that will be
helpful I think for Mr. Kwok to understand as |\n| 23 | well. |\n| 24 | HO WAN KWOK, SWORN |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| | |\n\n THE CLERK: State your name and address for the record, please. THE MAIN INTERPRETER: The interpreter would like to get a spelling for the address from Mr. Kwok. THE COURT: The spelling? THE MAIN INTERPRETER: Yeah. THE COURT: Yeah. Go ahead. You can ask him. THE WITNESS: The name is Kwok, K-W-O-K. First name is Ho Wan, H-A -- I'm sorry -- H-O W-A-N. The address is in Technic(ph)[sic], Connecticut, but I don't know how to spell it. THE COURT: I didn't hear what you said. What Connecticut? I think it's Greenwich, Connecticut. Is that what you think you heard? THE WITNESS: The street number is 373, but I don't remember the street name. That's in Greenwich, Connecticut. THE COURT: Okay. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, I believe it's Taconic. THE COURT: I think it's Taconic, yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. You may be seated. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, may I -- is the microphone Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 137 of\n\nKwok - Direct 138 -- I'm just wondering if it will pick up Mr. Kwok? THE COURT: I think if he just leans a little toward it -- MR. JONAS: Okay. THE COURT: -- so that we can get both of them. MR. JONAS: Okay. Okay. THE COURT: Okay. (Pause.) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. JONAS: Q Good afternoon, Mr. Kwok. Mr. Kwok, why did you file this Chapter 11 bankruptcy case? A First of all, I would like to take the opportunity -- first of all, I would like to say that I'm very excited today. This is the first time I get to appear in this case. It's been going on for five years. And I appreciate this opportunity. And also excited that I couldn't sleep last night. THE COURT: Thank you. BY MR. JONAS: Q I'll just -- I'll repeat my question. Mr. Kwok, why did you file this Chapter 11 bankruptcy case? A In early February this year, at the Southern District Court, the judge made a judgment asking me to pay \\$120 million in five days. Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 138 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 139 of\n\n| | 246 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Direct
139 |\n| 1 | THE CLERK:
Excuse me, Your Honor.
I need to |\n| 2 | interrupt to the extent that there's a message that we're |\n| 3 | not hearing the interpreter.
Although I can hear |\n| 4 | (indiscernible), we're getting messages that we cannot hear. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 6 | MR. JONAS:
May I make a suggestion, Your Honor? |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Sure. |\n| 8 | MR. JONAS:
I'm not sure that what -- I think all |\n| 9 | we really need to hear is the interpreter as long as she |\n| 10 | hears Mr. Kwok.
So my suggestion would be that I can turn |\n| 11 | the microphone directly to the interpreter and we'll pick up |\n| 12 | the interpreter since that's really all that's I think |\n| 13 | important. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
I think that makes -- let's try it. |\n| 15 | MR. JONAS:
Okay. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 17 | MR. JONAS:
We'll try it. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Let's try that.
Okay. |\n| 19 | MR. JONAS:
Thank you for your patience. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
No.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | (Pause.) |\n| 22 | MR. JONAS:
I just want to -- I don't know where |\n| 23 | we left off. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 25 | MR. JONAS:
I can -- I think he was in the middle |\n| | |\n\nKwok - Direct 140 of the answer, so shall we start again? THE MAIN INTERPRETER: If you wouldn't mind. MR. JONAS: Be happy to. THE COURT: That would be helpful. Thank you. MR. JONAS: Sure. BY MR. JONAS: Q Let's just go back, Mr. Kwok. Mr. Kwok, why did you file this Chapter 11 bankruptcy case? A In February of 2020, the judge at the Southern District Court made a judgment for my case with PAX and the judgment asked me to pay \\$120 million of fines within five days. THE MAIN INTERPRETER: Let me clarify the figure with Mr. Kwok. Okay. Let me clarify. That should be 124 million. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Under such circumstances, I had no choice. And in order to quickly resolve and fairly to resolve the debt issues with my debtors -- I have many debtors -- that's one of the choices I had to make, even though I have no choices, to resolve the issues of the creditors. THE COURT: Okay. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, I just want to make sure. I actually think it's working okay. I just want to make sure the Court's satisfied and -- Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 140 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 141 of\n\n| | 246 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Direct
141 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
I can hear.
It's really the courtroom |\n| 2 | deputy and the recordings that make sure that it's getting |\n| 3 | picked up. |\n| 4 | THE CLERK:
Yes. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 6 | MR. JONAS:
But I think also the corrections from |\n| 7 | Ms. Wilkinson, I think this is -- the system is working. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
That's fine.
Yes, I agree. |\n| 9 | MR. JONAS:
Okay.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | BY MR. JONAS: |\n| 12 | Q
Were you finished with your answer?
I just want to |\n| 13 | make sure, Mr. Kwok, as to why you filed this Chapter 11 |\n| 14 | case? |\n| 15 | A
Yes, I'm done. |\n| 16 | Q
Okay.
Thank you.
Mr. Kwok, have you taken public |\n| 17 | positions critical of the Chinese Communist Party or what's |\n| 18 | commonly referred to as the CCP? |\n| 19 | A
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q
And why have you done that? |\n| 21 | A
During the Tiananmen Square democratic protest in 1989 |\n| 22 | in China, I funded the students.
Because of that, I was |\n| 23 | arrested and I was jailed for 22 months, and my younger |\n| 24 | brother was killed. |\n| 25 | And since my parents were tortured by the CCP, and |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 142 of\n\n| | 246
Kwok - Direct
142 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | during my arrest I've witnessed that many student protesters |\n| 2 | were being killed, and because of that I've sworn that I |\n| 3 | need to eliminate the Chinese Communist Party. |\n| 4 | Q
Mr. Kwok, in connection with your activities opposing |\n| 5 | the CCP, have you done and do you do broadcasts in |\n| 6 | opposition to the CCP? |\n| 7 | A
In the past five years, I've made more than 5,000 live |\n| 8 | broadcasts with thousands of hours of air time to criticize |\n| 9 | the CCP regarding the corruptions and to expose them to the |\n| 10 | world. |\n| 11 | And I also talked about the massacre in |\n| 12 | (indiscernible) and also in Hong Kong and how they conducted |\n| 13 | spying activities in the West, in U.S., and human right |\n| 14 | violations. |\n| 15 | Q
How many people have watched or viewed your broadcasts? |\n| 16 | A
I feel tens of millions, hundreds of millions. |\n| 17 | Q
Does being an outspoken public critic of the CCP put |\n| 18 | you at risk? |\n| 19 | A
It has a huge risk. |\n| 20 | Q
And what are those risks? |\n| 21 | A
On January 10, 2015, these people behind me, the two |\n| 22 | people who (indiscernible), and they also paid the lawyer's |\n| 23 | fee, by the name of Wu Zheng (ph), he spied on me. |\n| 24 | And my family members were arrested, including my |\n| 25 | wife, my daughter, and hundreds of my colleagues were |\n| | |\n\nKwok - Direct 143 arrested as well, and my family assets were being seized. And they said to me that if I don't collaborate with the Chinese Communist Party they would kill me. THE MAIN INTERPRETER: The interpreter would like to clarify a few names with the witness. THE COURT: Sure. Go right ahead. THE WITNESS: Bernard Wu, he was the former partner of an investigation company called CGI and he worked with (indiscernible) and also they were involved in this investigation. And also they were -- THE MAIN INTERPRETER: Let me clarify a term with Mr. -- MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, I realize that interpretation is being clarified, but we'll interpose an objection as to relevance and non-responsiveness. The question, if memory serves, were what are the risks? And it's not clear at all to me that this answer is responsive to that question or relevant to the purposes of this hearing. THE COURT: I understand. I'm going to allow this question and the answer and then we'll move on to the relevant issues for the DIP filings. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, I couldn't agree more. I was just trying to provide some background and this was the last question on this topic.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 143 of\n\nKwok - Direct 144 THE COURT: Okay. Go right -- go right ahead. But may I ask you, the interpreter -- THE MAIN INTERPRETER: Yes. THE COURT: -- there was a name that you said. I don't know if I heard you. Was it Bernard Wu, is that the name? THE MAIN INTERPRETER: Yes. Mm-hmm. THE COURT: All right. Can we -- can you just spell that for the Court, please. THE MAIN INTERPRETER: Let me clarify the spelling with Mr. Kwok. THE COURT: Sure. THE WITNESS: Bruno Wu. THE COURT: Bruno. THE WITNESS: B-R-U-N-O, last name is W-U. THE COURT: Thank you. BY MR. JONAS: Q Thank you, Mr. Kwok. THE MAIN INTERPRETER: Yeah. I'm sorry. I haven't finished my translation already. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. JONAS: My apologies. THE WITNESS: And regarding the Puff (ph) case, Bruno Wu Partners was also involved, and also concerning the case with the Department of Justice about trying to get Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 144 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 145 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Direct
145 |\n| 1 | President Trump to extradite me. |\n| 2 | And I would like to say that in the past five |\n| 3 | years I was in dire, extreme risky situation.
There were |\n| 4 | numerous moments where somebody came to my residence and |\n| 5 | wanted to harm me.
And I don't want to take the time to |\n| 6 | elaborate on that. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 8 | BY MR. JONAS: |\n| 9 | Q
Thank you, Mr. Kwok.
Let's move on.
Do you have the |\n| 10 | financial ability to satisfy all of the liabilities asserted |\n| 11 | against you in this case? |\n| 12 | A
No. |\n| 13 | Q
Are you aware of allegations that you have the |\n| 14 | appearance of being a wealthy man? |\n| 15 | A
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q
And in this case, you've disclosed that you have very |\n| 17 | few -- is it true that in this case you've disclosed very |\n| 18 | few assets? |\n| 19 | A
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q
Can you explain that contradiction? |\n| 21 | A
In 1989, I was arrested during the (indiscernible) |\n| 22 | movement because I participated in a campaign.
And then I |\n| 23 | emigrated to Hong Kong in the year 2000. |\n| 24 | And then from 2015 until now, I have mobilized |\n| 25 | campaigns to eliminate the Chinese Communist Party, |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 146 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Direct
146 |\n| 1 | therefore, I'm the notably known number one enemy of the |\n| 2 | CCP.
And because of that, there's no way I can hold any |\n| 3 | assets. |\n| 4 | Q
But, sir, you -- again, I want to come back to my |\n| 5 | question about the alleged appearance that you have the |\n| 6 | means to live well and yet you've disclosed very few assets. |\n| 7 | Where are you -- where are you getting the means to support |\n| 8 | yourself? |\n| 9 | A
Right now, I'm in a very special circumstances.
It's |\n| 10 | very unique.
I'm in the phase of the campaign to eliminate |\n| 11 | the Chinese Communist Party. |\n| 12 | And my son and my daughter and my family business |\n| 13 | have been very successful.
And these are very unique |\n| 14 | (indiscernible).
And my family loves me and they are |\n| 15 | supporting me with my living expenses and with the campaign |\n| 16 | to rejoin that is necessary. |\n| 17 | And in the past five years, the Chinese Communist |\n| 18 | Party have conducted multiple investigations against my |\n| 19 | family, and also publicly scandalized me.
However, they |\n| 20 | never said -- they never disclosed my assets or cited that I |\n| 21 | committed any crime. |\n| 22 | Q
Mr. Kwok, are you familiar with your request for debtor |\n| 23 | in possession or DIP financing in this case? |\n| 24 | A
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q
And who is the proposed DIP lender? |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 147 of
246 | |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | Kwok - Direct
147 | |\n| 1 | A | New York Golden Spring. | |\n| 2 | Q | And let me ask you, what is Golden Spring New York, | |\n| 3 | | Limited? | |\n| 4 | A | This is a company owned by my son.
He set up that | |\n| 5 | | company to invest in New York, and also to help the family, | |\n| 6 | | and also to handle family affairs in the west. | |\n| 7 | Q | Okay.
And did you assist him in setting up Golden | |\n| 8 | Spring? | | |\n| 9 | A | Yes. | |\n| 10 | Q | And were any of your funds used to set up Golden | |\n| 11 | Spring? | | |\n| 12 | A | I was at one point authorized to transfer funds to help | |\n| 13 | | Golden Spring and to transfer funds to J.P. Morgan. | |\n| 14 | Q | But those funds -- strike that. | |\n| 15 | | Were those funds yours? | |\n| 16 | A | No. | |\n| 17 | Q | Whose funds were they? | |\n| 18 | A | My son's. | |\n| 19 | Q | Do you own Golden Spring? | |\n| 20 | A | No. | |\n| 21 | Q | Do you control Golden Spring? | |\n| 22 | A | No. | |\n| 23 | Q | Do you work for Golden Spring? | |\n| 24 | A | No. | |\n| 25 | Q | Has Golden Spring lent money to you in the past? | |\n| | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 148 of\n\n| | | 246
Kwok - Direct
148 | |\n|----|---|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1 | A | Yes. | |\n| 2 | Q | And for what purpose? | |\n| 3 | A | It was because in the past few years there were many | |\n| 4 | | lawsuits, numerous lawsuits, from the Chinese Communist | |\n| 5 | | Party against me, so I had to get the loan, the borrowings, | |\n| 6 | | from New York Golden Spring to pay these lawyers' fees. | |\n| | | | |\n| 7 | | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, may I -- I know I'm | |\n| 8 | | parched.
May I provide this to Mr. Kwok?
Thank you.
Thank | |\n| 9 | | you, Your Honor. | |\n| 10 | | BY MR. JONAS: | |\n| 11 | Q | Mr. Kwok, does Golden Spring pay your living expenses? | |\n| 12 | A | Yes. | |\n| 13 | Q | Why?
Why would Golden Spring do that? | |\n| 14 | A | It is because during this time I am in this campaign to | |\n| 15 | | eliminate Chinese Communist Party and of course there's no | |\n| 16 | | choice. | |\n| 17 | | And at the same time, my son loves me very much. | |\n| 18 | | I am his only father.
So that's why the company has been to | |\n| 19 | | pay the living expenses. | |\n| 20 | Q | And are you familiar with Lamp Capital? | |\n| 21 | A | That is my son's company. | |\n| 22 | Q | And do you work for Lamp Capital? | |\n| 23 | A | No. | |\n| 24 | Q | Do you control Lamp Capital? | |\n| 25 | A | No. | |\n| | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 149 of
246 |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Kwok - Direct
149 |\n| 1 | Q | Has Lamp Capital lent you money in the past? |\n| 2 | A | Yes. |\n| 3 | Q | For what purpose? |\n| 4 | A | Yes.
To pay one million U.S. dollars to be our law |\n| 5 | | firm to handle my bankruptcy case. |\n| 6 | Q | Are you aware that certain pleadings have been filed in |\n| 7 | | this case alleging that you have a connection to G Music? |\n| 8 | A | I am a volunteer for G Music.
I sing many songs about |\n| 9 | | eliminating the Chinese Communist Party for G Music. |\n| 10 | Q | And are you -- strike that. |\n| 11 | | What is your connection, if any, to Himalayan |\n| 12 | | Exchange? |\n| 13 | A | I am the advisor and promoter. |\n| 14 | Q | And what is your connection, if any, to GETTR, G-E-T-T |\n| 15 | R? | |\n| 16 | A | I am the advisor and one of their promoters. |\n| 17 | Q | And is your -- is the activities that you take in |\n| 18 | | connection with these entities all part of your public |\n| 19 | | opposition to the CCP? |\n| 20 | A | Regarding all these companies that have been mentioned, |\n| 21 | | I work with my (indiscernible) for the purpose of |\n| 22 | | eliminating the Chinese Communist Party, so I sort of the |\n| 23 | | promoter for the cause. |\n| 24 | Q | Do you get paid from any of these entities? |\n| 25 | A | No. |\n| | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 150 of
246 | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Kwok - Direct
150 | |\n| 1 | Q
Do you dispute some of your creditors' claims against | |\n| 2 | you? | |\n| 3 | A
Yes. | |\n| 4 | Q
Prior to this bankruptcy, do you recall being examined | |\n| 5 | under oath in connection with some of the litigations that | |\n| 6 | you're involved with? | |\n| 7 | A
Yes. | |\n| 8 | Q
Do you recall invoking your Fifth Amendment right | |\n| 9 | against self-incrimination in connection with some of those | |\n| 10 | examinations? | |\n| 11 | A
Yes. | |\n| 12 | Q
At your recent 341 meetings, did you assert your Fifth | |\n| 13 | Amendment right at all? | |\n| 14 | A
No.
I did not use it at all. | |\n| 15 | Q
And why is that? | |\n| 16 | A
Because with the bankruptcy case, there's a need for | |\n| 17 | more transparency and fairness.
And also the fact that | |\n| 18 | disclosing more of my financial information can help handle | |\n| 19 | the relationship with various debtors, so I hope the judge | |\n| 20 | -- I'm sorry -- creditors -- and I hope the judge and also | |\n| 21 | all the creditors can know all this information so that we | |\n| 22 | can do it in an open manner. | |\n| 23 | Q
And I want to return to the DIP.
Can you briefly | |\n| 24 | describe how the DIP loan initially was arranged? | |\n| 25 | A
When I learned that the judge at the Southern District | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 151 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Direct
151 |\n| 1 | Court imposed a fine of 124 million and asked me to pay it |\n| 2 | off in five days, I asked my lawyer and my son to make |\n| 3 | contacts to help me to resolve this loan. |\n| 4 | Q
And was that what resulted ultimately in the DIP loan |\n| 5 | that's before the Court today? |\n| 6 | A
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q
And briefly, what is your understanding of the current |\n| 8 | proposed terms of the DIP loan? |\n| 9 | A
Regarding the loan amount, that is an \\$8 million and an |\n| 10 | \\$1 million, the \\$8 million and the \\$1 million were being |\n| 11 | prioritized to fairly to pay all the creditors, and also any |\n| 12 | fees that incurred for other third parties due to this |\n| 13 | bankruptcy case, such as the lawyers and other |\n| 14 | professionals.
And to add onto that -- and the one million |\n| 15 | is the donation. |\n| 16 | Q
And do you understand whether the DIP loan can be paid |\n| 17 | back before creditors or ahead of creditors?
I'm not sure |\n| 18 | how that translates, but. |\n| 19 | A
No.
That is not allowed. |\n| 20 | Q
And do you understand whether the DIP loan can be
used |\n| 21 | to fund an examiner if an examiner is appointed in this |\n| 22 | case? |\n| 23 | A
Yes.
That is feasible. |\n| 24 | Q
And do you understand whether the DIP loan can be used |\n| 25 | to pay the creditors committee's professionals in this case? |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 152 of
246 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Kwok - Direct
152 |\n| A
Yes. |\n| Q
And do you understand whether the DIP loan can be used |\n| to pay the United States Trustee fees that will be due in |\n| this case? |\n| A
Yes. |\n| Q
As you sit here today, do you think it's likely that |\n| the DIP loan will be repaid? |\n| A
(Indiscernible.) |\n| Q
And why would Golden Spring do this? |\n| MR. HARBACH:
Objection.
That calls for |\n| speculation. |\n| THE COURT:
I'll allow it. |\n| THE WITNESS:
Regarding Golden Spring, that is a |\n| company owned by my son.
And he has only one father.
And |\n| our family has gone through many hardships.
And in facing |\n| the suppression of the Chinese Communist Party. |\n| And also because of his personal considerations |\n| and Chinese family values, he wants to safeguard of the |\n| interest of the family and me and his mother.
Otherwise, I |\n| would have been thrown into jail and been killed. |\n| BY MR. JONAS: |\n| Q
Do you know if the \\$9 million of DIP loan proceeds are |\n| now available? |\n| |\n| A
I know that the money has arrived yesterday, but I'm |\n| |\n\nKwok - Direct 153 lawyer. I know that the money has started to arrive yesterday. I'm not sure whether it has already reached the escrow account of the counselors. Q Do you believe that any other party, that is, other than Golden Spring, would provide a DIP loan on better terms than are provided here? MR. HARBACH: Objection. Speculative. THE COURT: I'm going to allow it, and I'll give it whatever weight I think is appropriate. THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. JONAS: Q Mr. Kwok, you mentioned an examiner, do you support the appointment of an examiner in this case? A Yes. Q And why is that? A And since the first day of this case until now, this is the only moment that I feel secure, I feel safe, because I have a chance to speak for myself here. And also because my goal to eliminate the Chinese Communist Party, I need the chance to voice, to make noise, and this judicial system provided that platform. And I understand the U.S. legal system and -- so that it will offer a chance to have a fair and transparent and more professional way to resolve my debt issues with the Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 153 of\n\nKwok - Direct 154 creditors. Q If the DIP financing is not approved, do you have any other source to pay the costs and expenses of this Chapter 11 case? A No. Q Have you filed a proposed plan of reorganization? A Yes. Q And do you believe having the DIP loan in place is necessary and will facilitate the prosecution or your plan moving forward? A Yes. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, I have no further questions right now on direct. I would ask, if it's convenient for the Court at some point, just to take a short break? `I do appreciate Mr. Kwok needs to be instructed not to speak with anyone, and that's fine. I just want to make sure he and I have an opportunity to take a quick break if we may. THE COURT: Opposing counsel have an objection to that? MR. HARBACH: Not at all, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. Then if there's no objection, that's fine. So how much time would you like?\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 154 of\n\nKwok - Direct/Cross 155 MR. JONAS: Oh, just five or ten minutes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, it's ten of three. Would you like to come back at three? MR. JONAS: That would be fine. And I appreciate the courtesy, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. We're going to take a quick recess until 3 p.m. Okay? All right. All right. Court is in recess until three. (Recess from 2:47 p.m. until 3 p.m.) THE COURT: All right. So we can go back on the record after recess, please. THE CLERK: Yes. We're still on case Number 22- 50073 Ho Wan Kwok. We are in court after (indiscernible). THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Harbach, you ready to proceed? MR. HARBACH: Yes, Your Honor. May I inquire? THE COURT: Yes, please. Go right ahead. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. HARBACH: Q Good afternoon, Mr. Kwok. I'd like to start by talking about an entity Mr. Jonas asked you about, called GETTR. Do you know the entity I'm talking about, sir? A First of all I want to say, good afternoon, sir, and I do know GETTR. Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 155 of\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 156 Q Okay. What is GETTR? A It's a social media platform. Q I believe you testified on direct that you were an advisor and promoter to GETTR. Is that right? A Yes. Q When did GETTR launch its platform? A 2021. Q Does the -- approximately the summer of 2021 sound about right to you? A I cannot remember. Q Okay. How was GETTR funded initially? A I don't know. Q Were you involved in donating any money to GETTR? A No. Q Did you help raise any money for GETTR from others? A No. Q Did your family make any donations or payments to GETTR related to the startup? A No. Q What's Himalayan Exchange? A It's an online company for the trading or the exchange of digital currency. Q Did you found it? A No. Q Were you among those who helped found it? Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 156 of\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 157 A No. Q Okay. What's Himalaya Coin? A That is a digital currency on the Himalaya Exchange. Q So Himalaya Exchange is a platform that supports trading of Himalaya Coin. Is that fair? A Yes. Q Okay. And do you know about a music video called HCoin to the Moon? THE MAIN INTERPRETER: I'm sorry, counselor, can you repeat -- BY MR. HARBACH: Q HCoin -- oh, the witness knows. A I know. Q Okay. That was a successful and popular music video, wasn't it? A Yes. Q And it features you, does it not? A I was a small portion of it. Q You feature prominently in the video, don't you, sir? A I only spoke -- I only spoke one line. Q And did you have any role in producing the song? A I only sang one line. In fact, this song, HCoin to the Moon, took 30,000 people to complete. Q Isn't it true that HCoin to the Moon has been a very popular download on iTunes for example? Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 157 of\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 158 of
246 | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------|----------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
158 | | |\n| 1 | A | What do you mean by a lot or very popular? | | |\n| 2 | Q | Wasn't HCoin to the Moon at one point in the top 10 | | |\n| 3 | | downloads on Apple iTunes? | | |\n| 4 | A | Yes. | | |\n| 5 | Q | Okay.
So it made lots of money. | | |\n| 6 | A | I don't know. | | |\n| 7 | Q | And I take it then, your testimony will be that you | | |\n| 8 | | received no money in connection with royalties from that | | |\n| 9 | song? | | | |\n| 10 | A | Yes. | | |\n| 11 | Q | You mentioned your invocation of the Fifth Amendment | | |\n| 12 | | earlier.
Do you recall that testimony? | | |\n| 13 | A | Yes. | | |\n| 14 | Q | And you understand, do you not, that the purpose of the | | |\n| 15 | | Fifth Amendment is a protection in circumstances where | | |\n| 16 | | truthful testimony might incriminate you. | | |\n| 17 | | MR. JONAS:
Objection, Your Honor. | | |\n| 18 | | THE COURT:
What basis? | | |\n| 19 | | MR. JONAS:
He's asking for legal conclusion.
I | | |\n| 20 | | don't think the witness is -- | | |\n| 21 | | THE COURT:
No, I think he was asking for -- he | | |\n| 22 | | asked him what his understanding is, so I'll -- | | |\n| 23 | | MR. HARBACH:
Thank you, Your Honor. | | |\n| 24 | | THE COURT:
-- overrule that objection. | | |\n| 25 | | THE WITNESS:
No, that's not the case. | | |\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 159 BY MR. HARBACH: Q Okay. What is your understanding of the purpose of invocation of the Fifth Amendment? A I requested to use the Fifth Amendment under the advice of my counsel. Q Well, I understand that and believe me, I'm not intending to ask about communications with your counsel about whether you should invoke it or not, that's privileged. But I -- but your counsel made a point of establishing on direct examination that you had evoked the Fifth Amendment in the past but did not do so at the 341 meeting. And you said it was because you wanted to be more transparent. MR. JONAS: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: On what basis? MR. JONAS: I don't think there have been questions the last two -- he's -- Mr. Harbach has made statements, but there's been no question in the last two alleged questions. MR. HARBACH: I'm just pausing for the interpreter, Your Honor, instead of asking one great big long question, I'm leaving time for her to -- THE COURT: I'm not sure it's not a question. I mean, you're asking him what he said. I don't -- I'm not Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 159 of\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 160 sure it's not a question, so I think let's let it go and see how we -- where we get to, okay? BY MR. HARBACH: Q The question, sir, is, what is your understanding of the reason one would invoke the Fifth Amendment? A I don't understand this question. Q Do you understand what -- do you have an understanding of what the Fifth Amendment is? A I know. Q Do you know what it means to invoke the Fifth Amendment? A The U.S. law gives the right to the people to do so. Q That's absolutely right, and what I'm trying to understand is a right to do what? What is it -- what is the reason that one might invoke the Fifth Amendment, according to your understanding? MR. JONAS: Objection, Your Honor. Again, I -- and I respectfully -- I -- I'm not trying to interrupt, but I do need to preserve my objections for the record. I don't think it's appropriate to ask a witness -- he's now asked, I don't know, 10 questions relating to the Fifth Amendment, his understanding. Obviously, some of that is privileged to the extent his understanding comes from us. THE COURT: He's not asking for privileged Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 160 of\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 161 information. He made that clear. And I think it's a relevant question and I'm overruling your objection. MR. JONAS: Fair enough. Thank you. THE COURT: You did open the door on direct examination to this issue. MR. JONAS: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. JONAS: And that's why I -- at the beginning, I let it go but we're kind of deep into this and I'm not sure where it's going. THE COURT: I -- but he hasn't gotten an answer yet. MR. JONAS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. HARBACH: Q Would you like me to repeat the question, sir? THE MAIN INTERPRETER: Yes. Yes, please. This is the interpreter. MR. HARBACH: Sure. BY MR. HARBACH: Q What is your understanding of what it means to invoke the Fifth Amendment? A I listen to my counsel -- I listened to my counsel's advice. Q Okay. Well, I think I'll move on. Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 161 of\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 162 At the very beginning of your examination, when you were asked why you filed this Chapter 11 case, you mentioned that it was because a judge in New York ordered you to pay a \\$124 million fine in five days. Do you recall that testimony? A Yes. Q And I don't want to go too deep into this, except to say that there was a judgment in place against you because of a decision that was made by the judge against your side of the lawsuit, correct? A Are you talking about a judgment from the Seventh District of New York? I know that one. Q Well, I'm talking about a judgment from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Justice Barry Ostrager presiding. A Yes, I know that. Q Okay. And so, there were actually -- there are two judgments that have been issued. One was a partial summary judgment in connection with PAX's breach of contract claim. Do you remember that? A Are you talking about me breaching the contract? Q I'm merely trying to illustrate that there are two judgments against you from the New York Supreme Court. I'm not asking you to admit whether you agree with them or not. I'm just asking if you know of their existence. Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 162 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 163 of
246 |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
163 |\n| 1 | A | Yes. |\n| 2 | Q | Okay.
You understand that one of them is a judgment in |\n| 3 | | connection with a contempt finding, right? |\n| 4 | A | Yes. |\n| 5 | Q | Okay.
And did you attempt to file an appeal bond in |\n| 6 | | connection with that contempt judgment? |\n| 7 | A | Yes. |\n| 8 | Q | How much was it? |\n| 9 | A | Are you talking about appeal bond? |\n| 10 | Q | Yes. |\n| 11 | A | I don't understand what you mean by appeal bond. |\n| 12 | Q | Do you know what an appeal bond is? |\n| 13 | A | So are you asking about me -- about the case of |\n| 14 | | contempt of court issued by Justice Ostrager? |\n| 15 | Q | That is correct.
And my question is, did you file or |\n| 16 | | attempt to file an appeal bond in connection with that |\n| 17 | | judgment? |\n| 18 | A | My counsel is working on it, but I don't know the |\n| 19 | | details. |\n| 20 | Q | So as far as you understand, it has not been done yet, |\n| 21 | | to your knowledge. |\n| 22 | A | We already appealed against a judgment of Justice |\n| 23 | | Ostrager. |\n| 24 | Q | I understand that. |\n| 25 | | MR. HARBACH:
And I'll move on very shortly, Your |\n| | | |\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 164 Honor. BY MR. HARBACH: Q Just so we're clear, my question is not about whether you appealed the decision, it's about whether you posted an appeal bond. Now, a moment ago you said that you believed your attorneys were working on it, which is fine. A Yes. Q Okay. And so all I want to establish is that they're working on it. To your knowledge, it hasn't been done yet, correct? A My counsel is handling this matter. Q Understood. Thank you. One other piece of cleanup from direct. Mr. Jonas asked you about the risks to you as a result of your opposition to the CCP, and among the things you said was that your family was arrested and that the CCP seized your family's assets. Do you recall that testimony? A Yes. Q Some of those assets were yours as well, correct? A No. Q So is it your testimony that the CCP has seized none of your assets? A Yes. Q Okay. Only your family's assets. Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 164 of\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 165 A Yes. Q Because of your conduct. A Yes. Q Golden Spring New York was set up in March of 2015, correct? A Yes. Q And I believe you said on direct that it's -- it was an investment firm? A At the time, one of the functions served by this company was to look for investment opportunities in the US for the family. Q And since March of 2015, how many successful investment opportunities have -- has Golden Spring carried out? A We had some cases whereby we were almost successful. However, because of Bruno Wu representing the Chinese Communist Party to make phone calls and make threats, so they were in futile. Q I didn't hear the last word. They were -- A In futile. Q They were futile? THE INTERPRETER: Yeah. BY MR. HARBACH: Q Okay. So is the answer to my question that there have been no successful investments by Golden Spring since it was set up in March of 2015?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 165 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 166 of
246 |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
166 |\n| 1 | A | I don't know what happened after 2015. |\n| 2 | Q | Okay.
So is the answer to my question that you have no |\n| 3 | | idea whether Golden Spring has had any successful |\n| 4 | | investments since 2015? |\n| 5 | A | Yes. |\n| 6 | Q | This is the company that you say is owned by your son? |\n| 7 | A | Yes. |\n| 8 | Q | The son whose love and goodwill has resulted in their |\n| 9 | | generosity to you, according to you? |\n| 10 | A | Yes. |\n| 11 | Q | A son with, given that, you're pretty close? |\n| 12 | A | Yes. |\n| 13 | Q | You've never asked him about how the business is going |\n| 14 | | or what they're interested in investing in? |\n| 15 | A | That has to do with his partner, Bruno Wu, who went to |\n| 16 | | London and -- with many people, there were Chinese spies |\n| 17 | | from the Chinese Communist Party and try to kill them. |\n| 18 | | And in 2015, my daughter, my wife were arrested and -- |\n| 19 | | because of this -- these issues, and the fact that I'm being |\n| 20 | | chased and was -- and they were attempted -- they attempted |\n| 21 | | to kill me, and therefore they did not want to tell me much |\n| 22 | | about their personal affairs or what happened, and I do |\n| 23 | | respect that. |\n| 24 | Q | So your answer is, you've never asked him. |\n| 25 | A | I did. |\n| | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 167 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
167 |\n| 1 | Q
And he refused to answer your question.
Is that it? |\n| 2 | A
Because I was threatened to be killed and because of |\n| 3 | me, many problems has risen.
Therefore, they did not want |\n| 4 | to answer that. |\n| 5 | Q
I didn't hear the tail end of the answer.
I'm sorry. |\n| 6 | A
Because I was being threatened and because many |\n| 7 | problems has risen because of me, they did not want to |\n| 8 | answer that. |\n| 9 | Q
Out of fear that what, that the Chinese Communist Party |\n| 10 | would come after their assets? |\n| 11 | A
It was not just about seizing the assets.
My son in |\n| 12 | fact was arrested by the Chinese Communist Party before, and |\n| 13 | he was being threatened to be killed, so he has been in this |\n| 14 | process.
And also, many of his assets in Hong Kong and in |\n| 15 | Mainland China have been seized or confiscated by them. |\n| 16 | Q
And you've testified before, have you not, that you, |\n| 17 | yourself, do not have any bank accounts, right? |\n| 18 | A
Yes. |\n| 19 | Q
And the reason for that, according to you, is because |\n| 20 | of the Chinese Communist Party, right? |\n| 21 | A
Yes. |\n| 22 | Q
And the -- you can't hold on to any assets for the same |\n| 23 | reason, right? |\n| 24 | A
As I mentioned in the beginning, because of the 1989 |\n| 25 | incidents, I was arrested for 22 months, and then I became a |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 168 of\n\n| | 246 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
168 |\n| 1 | personality that is anti Communist Party, and then in year |\n| 2 | 2000, I had a Hong Kong passport, and in 2015, I became anti |\n| 3 | Chinese Communist Party.
Therefore, for these three |\n| 4 | different stages and because of the political climate at the |\n| 5 | time, I could not own or hold any assets. |\n| 6 | Q
Okay.
And let me get to one of the points, hopefully. |\n| 7 | You seem to have no trouble swearing in very public filings |\n| 8 | that your son owns Golden Spring New York, right?
Isn't |\n| 9 | that true, that you have sworn in very public filings that |\n| 10 | your son is the owner of Golden Spring New York? |\n| 11 | A
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q
Okay.
And it's also true, is it not, that Golden |\n| 13 | Spring has millions of dollars at its disposal? |\n| 14 | A
I don't know how much money they have. |\n| 15 | Q
Well, you know they have millions of dollars, right, |\n| 16 | because you just testified a few minutes ago that they've |\n| 17 | pledged to give you eight, or the estate, eight.
Right? |\n| 18 | MR. JONAS:
Objection, Your Honor.
That's |\n| 19 | actually not accurate.
He -- when he was asked about the |\n| 20 | terms of the DIP, I believe he said \\$9 million. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
I think he can answer the question. |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, the testimony I gave earlier |\n| 23 | stated \\$9 million. |\n| 24 | BY MR. HARBACH: |\n| 25 | Q
And my question to you was, you know, don't you, that |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 169 of
246 | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
169 | |\n| 1 | Golden Spring has millions of dollars at its disposal? | |\n| 2 | A
Yes. | |\n| 3 | Q
Isn't it true that you owned Golden Spring when it was | |\n| 4 | set up in 2015? | |\n| 5 | A
No. | |\n| 6 | Q
Do you recall on April 6th of this year, at the 341 | |\n| 7 | hearing that was held in New Haven, the one that was in | |\n| 8 | person? | |\n| 9 | A
Yes. | |\n| 10 | Q
Do you recall testifying that at one time you held a | |\n| 11 | title at Golden Spring but you couldn't remember what the | |\n| 12 | title was? | |\n| 13 | A
Yes. | |\n| 14 | Q
Is that still the case that sitting here today, you do | |\n| 15 | not remember what the title was? | |\n| 16 | A
Yes. | |\n| 17 | Q
Or when you held it? | |\n| 18 | A
That was in the very beginning in early 2015, when the | |\n| 19 | company just founded. | |\n| 20 | Q
For approximately how long? | |\n| 21 | A
I don't remember. | |\n| 22 | Q
On direct examination you were asked some questions | |\n| 23 | about Golden Springs being set up, and I believe you | |\n| 24 | testified that you assisted your son in setting up Golden | |\n| 25 | Spring.
Is that right? | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 170 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
170 |\n| 1 | A
Yes. |\n| 2 | Q
And if we could just take a brief detour and put your |\n| 3 | son's name on the record.
It is Qiang Guo, is that correct? |\n| 4 | A
Yes. |\n| 5 | Q
Okay.
And I'll spell that for the record.
Q-I-A-N-G, |\n| 6 | last name G-U-O. |\n| 7 | A
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q
Thank you.
Now, you also testified on direct that none |\n| 9 | of your funds were used to set up Golden Spring, right? |\n| 10 | A
It did not use money that was owned by me. |\n| 11 | Q
Okay.
It was used by money contained in an account you |\n| 12 | owned, wasn't it? |\n| 13 | A
I was authorized to use the account under my name. |\n| 14 | Q
Do you recall, Mr. Kwok, preparing an affidavit in the |\n| 15 | case of Ace Decade Holdings Limited v. UBS AG in New York |\n| 16 | State Court in February of 2016? |\n| 17 | A
I remember. |\n| 18 | MR. HARBACH:
Madam Clerk, could you please |\n| 19 | display PAX's Exhibit 18?
Actually, my mistake.
Could we |\n| 20 | start with PAX's 19, please?
Sorry, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
That's okay. |\n| 22 | THE CLERK:
On the screen is PAX Exhibit 19. |\n| 23 | MR. HARBACH:
Thank you, ma'am. |\n| 24 | BY MR. HARBACH: |\n| 25 | Q
I'd like to go to the next to last page of 19, which is |\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 171 -- looks like it should be 17. It's the page that -- well, it may be -- it may be a different page number, but it's the page with Mr. Kwok's signature on it. And for the record, Exhibit 19 is the Chinese version of the affidavit I referenced earlier, and so what's on the screen for the witness right now is the signature page for that affidavit, and the question to the witness is whether that is your signature, sir. A Yes. Q Okay. MR. HARBACH: Now, if we could, Madam Clerk, rewind in that document to paragraph 36? And, Your Honor, this is a little cumbersome because of the Chinese, but what PAX intends to offer -- well, what PAX intends to do is to question the witness using the version with Chinese characters that he signed, and then we'll offer to the Court, the Chinese version as well as the English translation that is also certified and is a separate exhibit. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. BY MR. HARBACH: Q So, Mr. Kwok, I'd like you to take a look at paragraph 36, please. And so, could you please read paragraph 36 to yourself and then just let me know when you're finished? A I'm done. Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 171 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 172 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
172 |\n| 1 | Q
Isn't it true that in this affidavit, in February of |\n| 2 | 2016, you swore that in April 2015, Mr. Wong, W-O-N-G, Ms. |\n| 3 | Fu, F-U, and Ms. Lam, L-A-M, assisted me with setting up |\n| 4 | Golden Spring New York by transferring funds from one of my |\n| 5 | accounts at UBS to Golden Spring New York's JP Morgan Chase |\n| 6 | Bank account in New York? |\n| 7 | A
Yes. |\n| 8 | Q
Okay.
In your affidavit, you didn't say anything about |\n| 9 | your son setting up Golden Spring New York, did you? |\n| 10 | A
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q
Okay.
In fact, isn't it true that you set up Golden |\n| 12 | Spring with your own money? |\n| 13 | A
That money was my son's money, but my account was being |\n| 14 | used to transfer funds to his account.
And that is not my |\n| 15 | money. |\n| 16 | Q
How much money was it? |\n| 17 | A
I cannot remember clearly.
However, after that -- |\n| 18 | well, I cannot remember. |\n| 19 | MR. HARBACH:
Can I just have one moment, Judge? |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Certainly. |\n| 21 | (Pause) |\n| 22 | MR. HARBACH:
Thanks for the indulgence, Your |\n| 23 | Honor.
I hope we've streamlined things a little bit. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
That's fine. |\n| 25 | BY MR. HARBACH: |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 173 of
246 | | | | |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
173 | | |\n| 1 | Q | Mr. Kwok, isn't it true that in November or December of | | |\n| 2 | | 2014, you had \\$1 billion at your disposal? | | |\n| 3 | A | Yes. | | |\n| 4 | Q | Okay.
That wasn't your son's money, was it? | | |\n| 5 | A | That was family's money, including my son's money. | | |\n| 6 | Q | Okay.
That was, as you said a moment ago, at your | | |\n| 7 | | disposal. | | |\n| 8 | A | I was authorized to use that money. | | |\n| 9 | Q | Did I hear you correctly earlier to say today that you | | |\n| 10 | | never -- you never worked at Golden Spring New York? | | |\n| 11 | A | Yes. | | |\n| 12 | Q | Okay. | | |\n| 13 | A | As I mentioned earlier, at one point, I did have a | | |\n| 14 | title. | | | |\n| 15 | Q | Okay.
Did you do any work in connection with that | | |\n| 16 | title? | | | |\n| 17 | A | I did get a salary. | | |\n| 18 | Q | You got a salary.
How much was the salary? | | |\n| 19 | A | \\$300,000 U.S. dollars. | | |\n| 20 | Q | For what time period? | | |\n| 21 | A | 2015. | | |\n| 22 | Q | So for the calendar year 2015, you earned \\$300,000 from | | |\n| 23 | | Golden Spring? | | |\n| 24 | A | Around that, but I cannot remember clearly. | | |\n| 25 | Q | Okay.
For doing what? | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 174 of
246 |\n|----|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
174 |\n| 1 | A | At the time it was to help setting up Golden Spring New |\n| 2 | | York, and also to serve as an advisor to find investment |\n| 3 | | opportunities. |\n| 4 | Q | Okay.
An advisor to whom? |\n| 5 | A | Golden Spring. |\n| 6 | Q | Who at Golden Spring?
Who did you give advice to? |\n| 7 | A | My son. |\n| 8 | Q | According to you, the Golden Spring New York has |\n| 9 | | advanced you loans to fund various lawsuits that you're |\n| 10 | | involved in, some \\$21 million, right? |\n| 11 | A | Yes. |\n| 12 | Q | Okay.
Now I'm not -- I'm talking about those loans |\n| 13 | | now, the 21 million.
Okay?
Isn't it true that you |\n| 14 | | requested those loans yourself from your son? |\n| 15 | A | Yes. |\n| 16 | Q | Okay.
And what did he say? |\n| 17 | A | He just loaned it to me. |\n| 18 | Q | Okay.
Did he say anything about needing to consult |\n| 19 | | with the other directors of Golden Spring? |\n| 20 | A | That was handled by my son. |\n| 21 | Q | Did he say anything about needing to convene a vote of |\n| 22 | | the other directors of Golden Spring, a vote of the board, |\n| 23 | | before lending you millions of dollars? |\n| 24 | A | It was because my son and the family office in Europe, |\n| 25 | | including other family members, would hold meetings to talk |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 175 of\n\n| | 246 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
175 |\n| 1 | about that.
So my son would convene meetings to handle that |\n| 2 | issue, but I don't know the details. |\n| 3 | Q
My question is what he told you, and I think a moment |\n| 4 | ago you said he just told you that he would do it. |\n| 5 | A
That was a long time ago and there are too many |\n| 6 | details, but he would consult family members and their |\n| 7 | lawyers, and then they would hold meetings and I don't |\n| 8 | handle all the nitty gritty details. |\n| 9 | Q
So is your testimony that when you asked your son for |\n| 10 | loans to cover your litigation expenses, he told you that he |\n| 11 | needed to consult with the family first?
Is that your |\n| 12 | testimony? |\n| 13 | A
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q
Okay.
Isn't it true that you don't know how many loans |\n| 15 | you have had from Golden Spring? |\n| 16 | A
I know. |\n| 17 | Q
You know or you don't know? |\n| 18 | A
I know. |\n| 19 | Q
Okay.
How many loans have you had from Golden Spring? |\n| 20 | A
210 million. |\n| 21 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
21 million. |\n| 22 | THE MAIN INTERPRETER:
I'm sorry.
21 million. |\n| 23 | BY MR. HARBACH: |\n| 24 | Q
Yeah.
I'm not asking about the total amount.
I'm |\n| 25 | asking about the number of loans. |\n| | |\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 176 A I cannot remember clearly. Q Okay. And you don't know which of the loans were put in writing? A I remember a few of them. Q But you don't know which ones or how many? A I know parts of them related to the litigations, but I cannot remember all of them. That is impossible. Q Well, all I'm asking is whether of the -- however many loans there are, do you know how many of them were in writing? A I believe more than 10 were in writing, but I cannot be sure at all. Q And isn't it also true that you don't know whether the written agreements were in English or Chinese? A They must have been all in English. Some of them have Chinese versions. MR. HARBACH: Just a -- just a moment, please, Judge. THE COURT: Certainly. (Pause) BY MR. HARBACH: Q Do you recall giving testimony at a meeting of creditors on March 21st, 2022, by telephone? A I remember. MR. HARBACH: And I'll ask for PAX 17 to be Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 176 of\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 177 displayed please, Madam Clerk. THE CLERK: On the screen is Exhibit 17, PAX Exhibit 17. MR. HARBACH: Thank you, ma'am. I'd like to go to page 73 of the transcript. Maybe I can try and control it myself. THE COURT: She has to give it to you first. MR. HARBACH: Oh, okay. THE COURT: But if you'd rather do that, she's -- she can do that for you. THE CLERK: It's up to you, whatever you -- I just gave you control. MR. HARBACH: Okay. I think that will work. Thank you. THE COURT: Are you having trouble moving it? MR. HARBACH: I think I've got it. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HARBACH: Okay. So we're in that. That's behind 30. Okay. One off. Okay. For the record, I'm displaying Page 73 of PAX 17, and I'm going to direct the witness's attention to Lines 4 through 8. BY MR. HARBACH: Q Mr. Kwok, isn't it true that you were asked this question, were any of the loans that were put in writing in Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 177 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 178 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
178 |\n| 1 | English, and your answer was, I don't remember?
And then |\n| 2 | you were asked, were any of them in Chinese, and your answer |\n| 3 | was, I don't remember.
And my question to you is, do you |\n| 4 | have a different memory of that today? |\n| 5 | A
I cannot read English so I have to rely on the |\n| 6 | interpretation.
Of course, my memory today is different |\n| 7 | from before. |\n| 8 | Q
Okay.
And if I had you correctly, your memory today is |\n| 9 | that most of the loans in writing were in English? |\n| 10 | A
Yes, that's what I remember. |\n| 11 | Q
Okay.
Now isn't it also true that you did not know the |\n| 12 | \\$21 million total amount until lawyers told you that's how |\n| 13 | much it was? |\n| 14 | A
What do you mean by that? |\n| 15 | Q
Well, before lawyers told you that the total was \\$21 |\n| 16 | million that Lamp -- excuse me, that Golden Spring had |\n| 17 | loaned you in litigation funding, did you know that that's |\n| 18 | what the total was? |\n| 19 | A
I know. |\n| 20 | Q
Okay.
Let's stick with where we are on the transcript, |\n| 21 | which is again, PAX's 17 at Page 73.
Directing your |\n| 22 | attention to Line -- starting at Line 22 of that page. |\n| 23 | Question: \"If you don't know -- \" sorry.
Withdrawn. |\n| 24 | Isn't it true that you were asked this question and you |\n| 25 | gave this answer?
\"If you don't know how many times you |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 179 of
246 | | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
179 | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | took out loans from Golden Spring, not all of which were in | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | writing, how do you know how much you owe them?\" | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | MR. HARBACH:
I'll let you interpret the question, | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | then I'll give the answer. | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | BY MR. HARBACH: | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | Q
And your answer was, \"My lawyer an the lawyer of Golden | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | Spring, they communicate with each other, tells me the | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | amount they can define is 21 million.\" | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | Isn't that what you said, sir? | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | A
Well, I cannot read English and through the | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | interpretations earlier, from my recollection, at the time | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | through the counsels I knew that the figure was 21 million. | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | Q
And that's all I'm trying to establish is that your | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | knowledge about the amount, the 21 million, that came from | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | your lawyers, correct? | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | A
I confirmed that with my lawyer. | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | Q
Okay. | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | MR. HARBACH:
Thank you, Your Honor, for your | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | patience.
I have no further questions. | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I appreciate that.
Thank you. | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | MR. HARBACH:
Oh, well, I suppose I could do it at | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | the end, but I intended to offer PAX's 17, 18, and 19. | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Any objection?
Let me look at | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | your list?
PAX's 17, 18, and 19 -- 17 has no objection. | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | MR. HARBACH:
Correct. | | | | | | | |\n\nKwok - Cross - Claiborn 180 THE COURT: It's the transcript of the 341 meeting. So that will be admitted as a full exhibit. With regard -- go ahead. MR. HARBACH: 18 is the ACE Decade affidavit that I used for impeachment purposes. 18 is the English version and 19 is the Chinese version. THE COURT: Okay. And does the debtor still have an opposition with regard to the admission of exhibits -- PAX Exhibits 18 and 19 in full? MR. JONAS: Your Honor, we have no objection to obviously the portions that were used, such that Mr. Kwok had an opportunity to respond to them. We have -- we'll withdraw any objections and have no further objection. THE COURT: Okay. So then, Exhibits 17, 18, and 19 are admitted as full exhibits. PAX's Exhibits 17, 18, and 19 are admitted as full exhibits in connection with the evidentiary hearing on the DIP financing motions. MR. HARBACH: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. (PAX Exhibit Nos. 17 through 19 admitted into evidence.) THE COURT: Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, if I could, I have a few questions. Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 180 of\n\nTHE COURT: Certainly. And then, Mr. Jonas, are\n\nKwok - Cross - Claiborn 181 you going to have some redirect? MR. JONAS: I doubt it, Your Honor, but -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. JONAS: -- I'd like to consider that after. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. Just curious. Thank you. Go ahead, Attorney Claiborn. BY MS. CLAIBORN: Q Good afternoon, Mr. Kwok. Did you negotiate the terms of the debtor in possession loan with your son? A First of all, I would like to say, good afternoon. And regarding the exact terms of the loans, it was my lawyer and their lawyers had negotiations. Q Before you filed your Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, did you ask your son to loan you money to fund your bankruptcy case? A Yes. Q And when you asked your son to give you money, did you ask him to loan it to you or to gift it to you? A It was a loan. Q And why did you ask for it to be a loan? A It was because Golden Spring, the company of my son, is also a family company and that money is not just my son's money. Q Mr. Kwok, do you know the source of the money that Golden Spring is using to loan to the estate if the loan is Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 181 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 182 of
246 | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Kwok - Cross - Claiborn
182 | | | | | | |\n| 1 | approved? | | | | | | |\n| 2 | THE MAIN INTERPRETER:
Okay.
I'm sorry.
Counsel, | | | | | | |\n| 3 | do you mind repeating the question again? | | | | | | |\n| 4 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | | | | | | |\n| 5 | Q
Do you know what the source is of the money that Golden | | | | | | |\n| 6 | Spring is going to loan to your bankruptcy estate? | | | | | | |\n| 7 | A
I don't know. | | | | | | |\n| 8 | Q
Did you ask? | | | | | | |\n| 9 | A
Yes, I did. | | | | | | |\n| 10 | Q
And what was the answer? | | | | | | |\n| 11 | A
My son asked me not to deal with it.
He would | | | | | | |\n| 12 | communicate with my lawyer. | | | | | | |\n| 13 | Q
Do you know whether or not your son told your lawyer | | | | | | |\n| 14 | what the source of the money would be? | | | | | | |\n| 15 | A
I don't know. | | | | | | |\n| 16 | Q
Did you ask your lawyers? | | | | | | |\n| 17 | MR. JONAS:
Objection, Your Honor.
She's asking | | | | | | |\n| 18 | for direct communication with counsel. | | | | | | |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
No, she just asked -- the question | | | | | | |\n| 20 | was, did he ask his lawyers about the source of the funds. | | | | | | |\n| 21 | That's -- he can answer that question, just yes or no. | | | | | | |\n| 22 | MR. JONAS:
Okay.
Thank you, Your Honor. | | | | | | |\n| 23 | THE WITNESS:
My lawyer did not answer that. | | | | | | |\n| 24 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: | | | | | | |\n| 25 | Q
The money that Golden Spring uses to fund your life | | | | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 183 of
246 | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Kwok - Cross - Claiborn
183 | | | | | |\n| 1 | expenses, your personal living expenses, is that a loan or a | | | | | |\n| 2 | gift? | | | | | |\n| 3 | A
It's a gift. | | | | | |\n| 4 | Q
Why is that a gift and not a loan? | | | | | |\n| 5 | A
Because I could not repay it, and regarding supporting | | | | | |\n| 6 | my daily living, as his dad, well I had my son when I was | | | | | |\n| 7 | 18, and from the Eastern culture, that is normal and also | | | | | |\n| 8 | the fact that right now I'm being threatened for my life. | | | | | |\n| 9 | Q
So why is it that the debtor in possession loan that | | | | | |\n| 10 | Golden Spring is not a gift?
Why isn't it just given to you | | | | | |\n| 11 | as money as a gift? | | | | | |\n| 12 | A
It was because since they loaned me \\$21 million before, | | | | | |\n| 13 | and also including this one, it's a huge sum of money and I | | | | | |\n| 14 | wish I could repay that, and that was the result of the | | | | | |\n| 15 | communication between his lawyer and my lawyer. | | | | | |\n| 16 | Q
If the Court approves the loan from Golden Spring, | | | | | |\n| 17 | where will the money be held? | | | | | |\n| 18 | A
Where that money would be placed, that would be decided | | | | | |\n| 19 | by the judge and my counsel. | | | | | |\n| 20 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you.
I don't have any | | | | | |\n| 21 | further questions. | | | | | |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. | | | | | |\n| 23 | MR. JONAS:
Nothing further, Your Honor. | | | | | |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Are you calling any other | | | | | |\n| 25 | witness, Mr. Jonas? | | | | | |\n\n| | 246 | | | | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | 184 | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | MR. JONAS:
No, we're not, Your Honor. | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Mr. Kwok, you can step down. | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | Thank you. | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | THE WITNESS:
Certainly, Your Honor. | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Thank you. | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | THE WITNESS:
I would like to say that I really | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | appreciate Your Honor to give me the chance to sit here | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | today. | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay. | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | THE WITNESS:
Because the fact that I cannot speak | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | English, I cause more troubles for you. | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | right.
Any -- no further witnesses for the debtor, correct? | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | MR. JONAS:
Correct, Your Honor. | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Witnesses for PAX?
Any further | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | witnesses? | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | MR. HARBACH:
Your Honor, we have no additional | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | witnesses.
We do have one additional exhibit we would offer | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | to the Court, and it's PAX's 15. | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Take a minute. | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | MR. HARBACH:
It's the deposition transcript of | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | Xiaoping Wang, also know as Yvette Wang. | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay. | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | MR. HARBACH:
It was the -- sorry. | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 184 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 185 of\n\n MR. HARBACH: I should also say that it was the 30(b)(6) deposition of Golden Spring. She was testifying in that capacity, and I mentioned to counsel during the meet and confer process that I would tender the entire exhibit, and we had marked the entire exhibit, anticipating a possible completeness objection were we to only offer portions. So that's why we offered the whole thing. But if counsel would prefer that we only offer the precise pieces that we want Your Honor to focus on, I'm prepared to put those in the record, and so, I don't know how the Court wants to proceed. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I want to just hear the objection from the debtor first, because apparently the debtor objects to this transcript. MR. JONAS: Yes, Your Honor. Jeff Jonas, Brown Rudnick for the Debtor. Your Honor has noted, we have objected. We continue to object on hearsay grounds. The witness is, as I understand it, within subpoena power. They certainly could have brought her here if they intended to have her as a witness at trial. We didn't have any agreement that they would -- we'd permit transcripts in place of live testimony. I think it's inappropriate and it's just not a decision somebody gets to make that we're not going to bring a witness when\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 318 | Filed 05/03/22 | Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 | Page 186 of |\n|---------------|---------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n| | | | | |\n\n| | 246 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 186 |\n| 1 | the witness is available and could be brought to trial.
So |\n| 2 | I'll object. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
And where is the witness located? |\n| 4 | MR. JONAS:
My understanding is the witness is in |\n| 5 | New York within 100 -- I actually asked the question, Your |\n| 6 | Honor.
Within -- it might be 60 miles, but I believe it is |\n| 7 | within 100 miles.
I'm not sure.
I wanted to be prepared in |\n| 8 | case you asked me, so they certainly could have served a |\n| 9 | subpoena and she could have been here. |\n| 10 | We didn't think it's necessary, and having the |\n| 11 | record come in, I continue to think it's not necessary.
But |\n| 12 | again, I don't think counsel just gets to make a choice in a |\n| 13 | case when you're having a trial and a witness is available, |\n| 14 | to substitute in a transcript. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Your -- according to the joint |\n| 16 | grid, your basis of your exhibit -- excuse me, of the |\n| 17 | objection was hearsay, but that's not what I'm hearing.
I'm |\n| 18 | hearing you say they could have brought the witness in and |\n| 19 | we're not going to allow, under the Federal Civil -- Rules |\n| 20 | of Civil Procedure, you shouldn't allow the introduction of |\n| 21 | a transcript when the witness could be here in person. |\n| 22 | MR. JONAS:
I think that -- may apologies if |\n| 23 | somehow my vernacular is not correct.
I think that's |\n| 24 | exactly what hear -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Well, I mean, it could -- |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 187 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 187 |\n| 1 | MR. JONAS:
-- hearsay is, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
-- it can and it may and it may not |\n| 3 | be.
I mean, this is the Rule 30(b)(6) person that you |\n| 4 | designated to be the 30(6)(b) person, right?
So you could |\n| 5 | argue it -- we want to be very clear about it.
I mean, |\n| 6 | hearsay usually is not the testimony of the 30(b)(6) |\n| 7 | representative. |\n| 8 | But I understand what you're saying about your |\n| 9 | issue of why didn't the PAX subpoena and bring this |\n| 10 | individual to the court.
That's your -- that's your |\n| 11 | concern, so I'm going to -- I'm going -- not your concern, |\n| 12 | your objection.
So I am going to ask Mr. Harbach, what is |\n| 13 | his response to the fact that this witness was not |\n| 14 | subpoenaed and brought to court today? |\n| 15 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, may I -- I apologize.
I |\n| 16 | just want to correct the record. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Sure. |\n| 18 | MR. JONAS:
Not argue.
It's not the -- |\n| 19 | technically, it's not the debtor's 30(b)(6) witness, it's |\n| 20 | the Golden Spring 30(b)(6) witness.
I just -- just for the |\n| 21 | record, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Oh, okay.
I misunderstood.
See, I |\n| 23 | haven't seen anything, so -- |\n| 24 | MR. JONAS:
Understood. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay?
So I thought that this was the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 188 of\n\n| | 188 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | debtor's 30(b)(6) representative.
So this is -- |\n| 2 | MR. JONAS:
Mr. Kwok is obviously -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
-- Golden -- |\n| 4 | MR. JONAS:
-- the debtor and is here. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Well, I understand, but I don't know |\n| 6 | what happened in your discovery. |\n| 7 | MR. JONAS:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
So I -- but I'm glad you corrected the |\n| 9 | record.
Thank you.
So -- well, wouldn't the appropriate |\n| 10 | person to be objecting to that be Golden Spring? |\n| 11 | MR. JONAS:
I don't think so, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Why? |\n| 13 | MR. JONAS:
It's -- I mean, again, we processed, |\n| 14 | if you will, the exhibits with counsel.
We raised the |\n| 15 | objection.
I'm raising the objection here.
It's our trial |\n| 16 | if you will, on our motion regarding the DIP, and if they |\n| 17 | want to use a 30(b)(6) witness -- another party, if you |\n| 18 | will, 30(b)(6) transcript, I think it's inappropriate. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Mr. Harbach, what's your |\n| 20 | response to that, Mr. Harbach? |\n| 21 | MR. HARBACH:
I'll direct the Court to Rule 32 of |\n| 22 | the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Because they're not a party?
Is that |\n| 24 | what you're trying to tell me? |\n| 25 | MR. HARBACH:
No, to the contrary.
I think they |\n| | |\n\n are a party. THE COURT: Okay. Hold on. I meant the debtor. See, I didn't know who -- I -- as you all would expect, I would think -- oh yes. See, I'm sorry. You can -- I apologize. Thank you. I'm sorry. I don't -- I didn't look at any of your exhibits, you know? So I don't know what they're about until and unless you introduce them. So, all right. I'm looking at -- MR. HARBACH: Mr. -- THE COURT: -- 32. MR. HARBACH: Sure. And first of all, Mr. Jonas is quite correct, of course. Ms. Wang was the 30(b)(6) witness designated by Golden Spring. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HARBACH: That's correct. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HARBACH: So our basis for offering it, as you can see, the 32(a) is captioned using depositions, and so we believe that we satisfy all of A, B, and C, right there in general. It says that all -- at a hearing or trial, all or part of a deposition may be used against a party on these conditions. A, the party was present or represented at the taking of the deposition, or had reasonable notice of it. Well, the -- I would hope that counsel would be willing to\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 190 of
246 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 190 |\n| accept my proffer that Ms. Wang was represented at the |\n| deposition, and indeed, the transcript makes it quite clear |\n| that she was, or that Golden Spring was.
So A should be |\n| noncontroversial. |\n| B, that it is used to the extent it would be |\n| admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence if the |\n| deponent were present and testifying.
Well, that's plainly |\n| true insofar as it is essentially a sworn out-of-court |\n| statement of a live witness. |\n| C, you have to satisfy one of these subsections, |\n| Rule 32(a)(2) through (8), and where we believe we squarely |\n| fall is in 32(a)(3), which is captioned, Deposition of |\n| Party, Agent, or Designee. |\n| So we think that Golden Spring, by virtue of being |\n| a proposed financier for the debtor in possession, and in |\n| light of the fact that they are, to quote Section 8B of the |\n| agreement, seeking rights, remedies, powers, and privileges, |\n| and in addition to that are seeking a good faith finding |\n| from the Court, for all of those reasons, we think it's |\n| imminently reasonable for the Court to treat Golden Spring |\n| as a party, at a minimum for purposes of this rule. |\n| I'll just note finally, insofar as the |\n| impropriety, leaving aside whether it falls within the |\n| rules, is the impropriety of this, of course the debtor had |\n| a lawyer present at the deposition of Golden Spring's |\n| |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 191 of\n\n 30(b)(6) witness and had an opportunity to cross her; chose not to. And I'll also note that at one point, Ms. Wang herself was on the debtor's witness list for this very hearing today, and they removed her. So I think that the suggestion that this is improper isn't quite as strong as it otherwise might sound under those circumstances. But I think candidly, that's all beside the point. We think that, for the reasons that I said earlier, that the entirety of the transcript is admissible under Rule 32. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Any response, Attorney Jonas? MR. JONAS: Yes, Your Honor. May I just have one minute? THE COURT: Yes. MR. JONAS: Thank you. Just want to check one thing. (Pause) MR. JONAS: Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. MR. JONAS: One point I wanted to add on to that is, this is a rule that is incorporated into the contested matter rules under Rules 9014. So this -- THE COURT: Oh, yes. MR. JONAS: -- this is also Bankruptcy Rule 7032.\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 192 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 192 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Yes.
Yep.
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 2 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
No objection in that respect, Your |\n| 3 | Honor.
Just give me one moment, please. |\n| 4 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, Jeff Jonas from Brown |\n| 5 | Rudnick on behalf of the debtor. |\n| 6 | Your Honor, I'll renew my objection, just make a |\n| 7 | couple quick comments.
And let me just say, Your Honor, |\n| 8 | we're not particularly concerned about the deposition.
That |\n| 9 | being said, I just, I think we're entitled to have a fair |\n| 10 | trial, and from our perspective, again, they are not a |\n| 11 | party.
This was -- this is effectively our motion, the |\n| 12 | debtor's motion.
We're prosecuting it and we're a party. |\n| 13 | Certainly, PAX, the objector, is a party, and I think those |\n| 14 | are the parties for purposes and I think -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Well, Golden Spring is the lender. |\n| 16 | MR. JONAS:
I understand that, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
So how are they not a party to -- |\n| 18 | MR. JONAS:
I don't think they're -- they've put |\n| 19 | the money up, the money is available, they're the lender. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Right.
But the Court can -- the Court |\n| 21 | can -- the Court has the obligation to understand what the |\n| 22 | lender is or is not willing to do, and that may include the |\n| 23 | testimony of the lender with regard to that issue.
I mean, |\n| 24 | I've -- |\n| 25 | MR. JONAS:
And let me say, Your Honor -- |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 193 of\n\n THE COURT: -- and every other -- and any other contested debtor in possession financing hearing that I've seen, the lender does -- you know, if there's a -- if there's a contested issue, the issue of the lender -- what - - is the lender ready, willing, and able to loan? Is the -- what are the terms and conditions all -- MR. JONAS: Exactly, Your Honor. The money is here, so -- THE COURT: Well, I don't know that it's here. Where is the proof in the record that's here? MR. JONAS: Well, you had -- you had testimony from Mr. Kwok. THE COURT: Well, I had testimony from Mr. Kwok that says he believes it's all here. He's not sure if it's all here, and -- but he believes it's here. MR. JONAS: There was no -- it's uncontroverted. THE COURT: I didn't say it was controverted. I'm just saying it -- he said he believes it's all here. I don't -- MR. JONAS: Oh, okay. THE COURT: -- there's no record in the -- there's no document in the record that says it's here. MR. JONAS: I don't -- with all due respect, Your Honor, I don't think -- we have put on our case. We have had a witness. He has testified. It was -- he could have\n\n| | 246 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 194 |\n| 1 | been crossed.
He wasn't.
It's uncontroverted.
That is a |\n| 2 | fact.
I don't think -- I appreciate you -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
I think it's a fact insofar as what he |\n| 4 | said. |\n| 5 | MR. JONAS:
Fair.
Fair enough, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
And he said, I believe it's here.
He |\n| 7 | doesn't know if it's here. |\n| 8 | MR. JONAS:
I understand, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 10 | MR. JONAS:
And so I -- look, as I said, if the |\n| 11 | Court feels I need to -- I need to stand on my objection for |\n| 12 | the record, however, I certainly respect the Court very |\n| 13 | much.
If the Court feels it's necessary to take in the |\n| 14 | transcript, my only comment would be, we'd ask the whole |\n| 15 | transcript come in. |\n| 16 | We haven't been -- there's nothing been designated |\n| 17 | to us.
It's a little unfair to designate portions now on |\n| 18 | the fly.
So if they want to put the transcript in, so be |\n| 19 | it, Your Honor.
I pre -- I want to -- I don't want to |\n| 20 | belabor this with the Court, and I want to respect the |\n| 21 | Court's opinion on that. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
I haven't ruled on anything.
I've |\n| 23 | really just been asking questions at this point. |\n| 24 | MR. JONAS:
Understood. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay?
To understand the parties' |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 194 of\n\n positions. MR. JONAS: And our position is, we continue the objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Harbach, anything else you want to add? MR. HARBACH: I don't have anything else to add, Your Honor. Just let us know how you'd like to proceed. THE COURT: Okay. Well, the -- when I'm look -- you know, I haven't looked at Rule 32 in the last few weeks so I -- you know, I'm looking at the -- I'm looking at the language of 32. The only part that is a problem for PAX, if it is a problem, is 32(a)(4), because 32(a)(1) -- 32(a)(2) -- 32(a)(4) could be a problem because it says -- 32(a)(1)(C) says, \"And the use is allowed by Rule 32(a)(2) through (8).\" So does that mean it's got to be allowed on all eight? All of those? I mean, I'm looking at this. I know 7 doesn't apply because there isn't a substitution of a party. Deposition taken in an earlier action doesn't apply because that's not what you're trying to do. You're not trying to enter a deposition taken in an earlier action. Using part of the deposition, you may -- that might be fine. Limitations on use, that at this point, no one is arguing that the deposition was taken on short notice or the\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 196 of\n\n| | 196 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | deponent was unavailable at the time of the deposition. |\n| 2 | Nobody has a problem with impeachment and other uses, or |\n| 3 | deposition of a party agent or designee, but the problem is |\n| 4 | -- I mean, I don't know, I haven't looked in a long time. |\n| 5 | Does A -- does 32(a)(2) through (8) mean you have to meet |\n| 6 | all those requirements?
It can't, because all those |\n| 7 | requirements don't exist all at the same time. |\n| 8 | MR. HARBACH:
Yeah.
And I think that that is in - |\n| 9 | - perhaps in starkest relief, Your Honor.
If you look at 2 |\n| 10 | and 4, because 2 says, any party.
Four says -- oh, I'm |\n| 11 | sorry.
That's a witness whether or not a party.
That's |\n| 12 | true. |\n| 13 | Well, in any event, Your Honor, I -- all right. |\n| 14 | So, Your Honor, PAX concedes that Ms. Wang is not |\n| 15 | unavailable. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 17 | MR. HARBACH:
So, conceded. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 19 | MR. HARBACH:
Notwithstanding that, if -- |\n| 20 | (Pause) |\n| 21 | MR. HARBACH:
If you look at -- sorry, I said 2 |\n| 22 | earlier.
If you look at 3, Your Honor, an adverse party may |\n| 23 | use, for any purpose, the deposition of a party -- |\n| 24 | THE CLERK:
Attorney Harbach, you're a little low. |\n| 25 | MR. HARBACH:
Oh, sorry. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 197 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 197 |\n| 1 | THE CLERK:
We're not picking you up. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Go ahead. |\n| 3 | MR. HARBACH:
Thank you, Judge.
If you look at |\n| 4 | 32(a)(3), it says, \"An adverse party may use, for any |\n| 5 | purpose, the deposition of a party or anyone who when |\n| 6 | deposed was the party's 30(b)(6) representative.\"
And -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
It does say that.
I mean, 4 does not |\n| 8 | say that. |\n| 9 | MR. HARBACH:
It does.
That's true. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Which is why I asked the question, |\n| 11 | not knowing that the 30(b)(6) representative wasn't the |\n| 12 | debtor, but it was the debtor's representative, the Golden |\n| 13 | Spring, which is when I started the conversation I said, you |\n| 14 | mean you're opposing a 30(b)(6) representative's deposition, |\n| 15 | but not knowing that it wasn't the debtor, it was Golden |\n| 16 | Spring. |\n| 17 | MR. HARBACH:
Well, I think maybe one observation |\n| 18 | that helps is that it can't be that Rule 32 is restricted to |\n| 19 | situations -- to 30(b)(6) depositions. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I agree with you. |\n| 21 | MR. HARBACH:
And if it -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
That's why -- that's why I said, I |\n| 23 | don't think (a)(1)(C) means that you have to comply -- that |\n| 24 | the use of it has to comply with every situation in 32(a)(2) |\n| 25 | through (8). |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 198 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 198 |\n| 1 | MR. HARBACH:
I think -- I agree with you, because |\n| 2 | otherwise, if 3 were required, then it would effectively |\n| 3 | restrict the rule to 30(b)(6) situation. |\n| 4 | Now, I also agree with the Court that, for |\n| 5 | example, 5, caption limitations on use, I mean, I think that |\n| 6 | would plainly apply, but -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
If that situation was present, but |\n| 8 | it's not. |\n| 9 | MR. HARBACH:
If it was -- if it were present, |\n| 10 | yes.
In other words, you know, 2, 3, and 4, are all |\n| 11 | permissive.
Those are different means by which a party can |\n| 12 | do something, and then 5 is limitations, and 6, 7, and 8 are |\n| 13 | other unique circumstances. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 15 | MR. HARBACH:
So I don't think it's necessarily -- |\n| 16 | you have to put blinders on and only look at 2 through 8 and |\n| 17 | not any of the others, but I do think that 2, 3, and 4 |\n| 18 | cannot all apply at the same time. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Right.
I agree.
They all can't apply |\n| 20 | at the same time.
It doesn't make sense.
So the debtor's |\n| 21 | objection to the introduction of PAX Exhibit 15, the |\n| 22 | 30(b)(6) representative of Golden Spring is overruled. |\n| 23 | MR. JONAS:
Thank you for your consideration, Your |\n| 24 | Honor. |\n| 25 | (PAX Exhibit No. 15 admitted into evidence) |\n\n| | 246 | | | | | | | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | 199 | | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
All right.
So are we now | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | -- what are we -- are we moving to closing arguments based | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | upon the evidence that's submitted? | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes, Your Honor.
That concludes | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | our evidentiary submission, if I may -- | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay. | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
-- make some remarks about the DIP? | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Yes, please. | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | CLOSING ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF CREDITOR PAX | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Thank you.
So, Your Honor, I have | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | really three areas I want to address.
Sort of, one is big | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | picture, two is some of what you heard today and why you | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | shouldn't believe it, and the third is the order, the | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | proposed order. | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | And to be fair -- I don't know if fair is the | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | right word, but to be clear about the order, I'm going to | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | refer to the current version of the order.
There is an | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | updated version of the order, apparently based on the | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | proposed settlement between the committee and the debtor. | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | I'm going to be -- | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
When you say the current version, do | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | you mean the version attached to the original DIP financing | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | motion? | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
No, the version that was filed with | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | the Court on -- the redlined version -- | | | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 199 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 200 of\n\n| 200 | | | | | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| THE COURT:
Yesterday? | | | | | |\n| MR. FRIEDMAN:
-- that was filed -- | | | | | |\n| THE COURT:
Last night? | | | | | |\n| MR. FRIEDMAN:
-- I thought the most recent | | | | | |\n| version of the DIP financing was on the 10th of April. | | | | | |\n| THE COURT:
Oh, okay.
Well, then I would like to | | | | | |\n| get there if you would give me a -- | | | | | |\n| MS. CLAIBORN:
I think it's ECF 198. | | | | | |\n| MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes. | | | | | |\n| THE COURT:
Thank you. | | | | | |\n| MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes. | | | | | |\n| THE COURT:
And if you would let me get there, | | | | | |\n| then -- give me one moment, then I'll be able to follow you | | | | | |\n| -- | | | | | |\n| MR. FRIEDMAN:
Okay. | | | | | |\n| THE COURT:
-- much better than if I'm trying to | | | | | |\n| find it so -- | | | | | |\n| (Pause) | | | | | |\n| THE COURT:
So you would like me -- would you like | | | | | |\n| me to be looking at the redlined version of that order?
Is | | | | | |\n| that what you're suggesting, counsel? | | | | | |\n| MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes, Your Honor, when I get to that | | | | | |\n| point.
That's -- when I get to that portion of my remarks. | | | | | |\n| THE COURT:
Okay.
Let me -- then I think I'm | | | | | |\n| there. | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. THE COURT: I just want to make sure I am there. (Pause) THE COURT: Okay. So what I'm looking at, when you get to the point that you were actually asking me to consider the terms and conditions of the order, I'm looking at ECF 198, starting at page 29. Does that sound right? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then go right ahead, please. MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. So, Your Honor, we have here a proposed DIP between Golden Spring and Mr. Kwok. It was very subtle. I'm not sure if you heard it. The record will reflect it. These are not independent entities. Mr. Kwok referred today during his testimony, to Golden Spring as \"we\". Small word, enormous consequences. Mr. Jalbert also testified that there was a member of Mr. Kwok's legal team, Melissa Francis. Who is Melissa Francis, he was asked? Somebody he thinks works for Golden Spring. There's no separation between these two entities, Your Honor. This is a sham transaction. And I realize it's appealing. It looks appealing because in some respects it has some potentially salutary goals, but it doesn't work. It doesn't make sense. Who would spend \\$8 million, maybe \\$9 to defend \\$3,850 in assets? Brown Rudnick alone's time today is probably cost\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 202 of\n\n infinitely more than the \\$3,850 that Mr. Kwok asserts he has in assets. So this DIP is designed to do one of two things. Either protect Mr. Kwok's massive assets that he sat there and said he didn't have, or to protect Golden Spring's assets from a variety -- which is a non-debtor, from people coming straight after it, for really being Mr. Kwok's money. Neither one of those is an appropriate use of a debtor in possession financing.\n\n This case shouldn't be run for Golden Spring's benefit, and we shouldn't be spending, not just the 9 million because it's really not -- 9 million to \\$3,850 vastly understates the amount of assets that have been put into defending Mr. Kwok, because there's also the \\$21 million loan that you heard about, loan, with quotes, and the million dollars from Lamp.\n\n So when you add that up, you have \\$31 million to protect \\$3,850. It doesn't make any sense unless something much more than meets the eye is happening here, and the debtor and Golden Spring are asking this Court to bless a transaction that is furthering that inappropriate scheme.\n\n Now, Your Honor, PAX, in its reply brief to our papers, and you heard it sort of from Mr. Kwok today, attempts to blame PAX as -- the debtor attempt to blame PAX as the catalyst of this case, and he needs to, you know, straighten things out because of things PAX did.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 203 of\n\n The debtor's own conduct forced him here today. He, I think effectively conceded that he had never been transparent before.\n\n Now, I don't know if what you heard today was transparent, but his testimony today was, I didn't assert the Fifth Amendment today because I wanted to be transparent, which begs the question, because he gave no other answer, why didn't he want to be transparent before? Is that an -- is it appropriate to start borrowing money under a debtor in possession financing because you've been non-transparent in the past and all of a sudden you're going to turn a new leaf over? I realize some of this has overlap with our dismissal motion, but that's the reason he gave today. That's not an appropriate use of 364 authority.\n\n You heard testimony from Mr. Kwok today, that this needed to be a DIP because he wanted to protect his family resources.\n\n Go look at the MORS, they're spending millions of dollars to support Mr. Kwok. That wasn't a loan, it was a gift. This is a strategic effort by Golden Spring and Mr. Kwok, to use 364 for nefarious purposes. This -- as Ms. Claiborn's examatination clearly established, if this is going to be anything, it ought to be a gift just like everything else that's purportedly done for Mr. Kwok is. We don't believe it, but he should be held, and Golden Spring\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 318 | Filed 05/03/22 | Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 | Page 204 of | | | | |\n|---------------|---------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | | | | | | | | |\n\n should be held to their pattern of conduct. You heard some, I think what can best be described as far-fetched testimony from Mr. Kwok. Mr. Kwok said, I never asked my son about where the money from Golden Spring came from. I guess we are meant to believe that Golden Spring is really scared and this Miles son is really scared about telling Mr. Kwok where his money comes from, but not scared about making a very public debtor in possession financing loan for \\$9 million in a case where the evidence is on the docket. These are public documents where Mr. Kwok filed his declaration that talks about his purported crusade against the CCP. I mean, this is just not credible testimony that somebody would be afraid. Or Mr. Kwok, as he testified, I won't ask my son for money, Your Honor. However, I will use my own money and -- or I will be used by my son to manage accounts for his benefit very publically. I put in a declaration in the *Ace Decade* case that said, you know, this is my money, when it's really my son's money, and my son was fine with that. I just can't ask him where his money comes from. I don't think you have to believe that, because it's just not credible. And if that's not credible, I think you begin to unwind the threads of why\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 205 of\n\n this entire case isn't credible, but also why this is an inappropriate use of Section 364.\n\n Your Honor, I want to turn to the DIP, which is a little bit of a yo-yo from what I understand. Particularly as it relates -- oh, I should note. Why did we try to put Ms. Wang's deposition in? Well, she was a 30(b)(6) witness for Golden Spring, which is asking the Court for a good faith finding. I'll get to the really confusing part about that in a moment.\n\n They're asking the Court for an allowed subordinated claim. They're asking the Court for things. She was their designated witness. What did she say? On page 133, she wasn't involved in the negotiation of a DIP loan, has no knowledge of how the \\$8 million figure was arrived at. Unfamiliar with the terms of the DIP loan. Didn't pay attention to the DIP loan agreement until the day before the deposition.\n\n The first time she heard where the DIP loan dollars were coming from was the day before the deposition. When I asked her understanding of how the DIP loan was going to be repaid she said, I don't know. So, Your Honor, this is the designated witness who binds Golden Spring, that knows nothing about this loan.\n\n So turning to the order, I don't think there's anything to support the finding in E that there is an\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 206 of\n\n immediate need for financing. I certainly don't think that there's anything to support the finding that there's any value to the debtor seeking confirmation of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, given that we've seen, I think the outrageous nature of the plan proposed by the debtor. There's good cause in Section H on page 4. The entry of this interim order that says, we'll preserve the assets of the debtor's estate for the benefit of creditors. There's no evidence that that's true. There are no assets, according to Mr. Kwok, other than \\$3,850 and certain litigation claims which the DIP loan isn't being used to fund. He says it's in the interest -- it's an exercise of the debtor -- debtor's exercise of the prudent business judgment. You didn't hear any testimony on that. Your Honor, I think the same issue on the next page, page -- the top 335, good cause, the ability of the debtor to obtain financing is vital to the estate of the debtor and his creditors so that the debtor can maximize the value of his estate and confirm a plan or reorganization.\n\n Again, no -- you've, I think, heard what creditors think of this purported plan, and I believe that language should be struck.\n\nThen there's stuff I just don't know -- I just\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 207 of\n\n| | 207 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | don't understand, right?
Page 35.
Page 6.
Permitted uses |\n| 2 | of loan proceeds and cash collateral.
There's no cash |\n| 3 | collateral under this agreement, unless it's being snuck in |\n| 4 | somewhere.
I don't know why the loan refers to cash |\n| 5 | collateral.
There isn't any.
They didn't seek approval of |\n| 6 | any -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
I'm missing where you are at the |\n| 8 | moment on the cash collateral.
I've followed you all along, |\n| 9 | but I don't see -- |\n| 10 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Page 35, it's the -- for the top |\n| 11 | underlining is Amendments and Modifications. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
I see.
Okay.
Yep. |\n| 13 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
And then permitted uses of loan |\n| 14 | proceeds and cash collateral. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I see.
I see. |\n| 16 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Now maybe it's a typo.
I don't |\n| 17 | know, but it makes me nervous.
Shouldn't be in there. |\n| 18 | Sub A, issues with respect to budgets.
I would |\n| 19 | note that there's never been a budget. |\n| 20 | Mr. Jalbert basically testified there can't -- he |\n| 21 | would have no idea how to put together the budget, but if |\n| 22 | there's going to be a dip, and there's going to be budgets, |\n| 23 | and there's going to be uses, and accruals, then PAX should |\n| 24 | get copies of it. |\n| 25 | Page 36, I think PAX should be added to subsection |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 208 of\n\n -- what's currently subsection C, that was added after we filed our objection, we should certainly be entitled to receive copies of bank accounts.\n\n In E, which was added as well, after we filed an objection, you know, I'm really troubled by the notion in this kind of case that no money can be spent in pursuing money damages or equitable relief from DIP lender. Not DIP lender in DIP lender's capacity as DIP lender, but DIP lender. If this case goes forward and Mr. -- you know, and Pullman and Comley as Committee counsel has the right to be pursuing estate actions, then they should be able to use whatever money for whatever purpose they see fit.\n\n I have an issue on page 38-C. This is -- I think is where, in the second sentence, the notwithstanding any language to the contrary contained in this interim DIP order, I think it should be added, or the DIP loan, because the DIP loan can -- should be clear.\n\n It says, \"The rights of the DIP lender shall be subject and subordinate to the claims of all other creditors of the debtor existing as of the petition date.\" Well, what if we seek a substantial contribution motion for our work getting the boat back? We should be senior to this bogus loan. It shouldn't be creditors existing as of the petition date. It should be all creditors, any creditors. And the same -- you know, I think -- so I think\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 209 of\n\n| | 209 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | there are some other places in paragraph 8, termination of |\n| 2 | events.
Certainly PAX should get notice of that. |\n| 3 | At the beck end of that on page 40, in the revised |\n| 4 | language they said the DIP lender shall provide notice to |\n| 5 | the U.S. Trustee of its election to charge interest of the |\n| 6 | default rate.
That's no reason that should just be to the |\n| 7 | U.S. Trustee, it should be to everyone. |\n| 8 | And where I really get concerned, Your Honor, is |\n| 9 | to -- to flip back, and this is where I just have trust |\n| 10 | issues -- the debtor took out, on page 33, the good faith |\n| 11 | finding, right?
Now my understanding is, it may be back in. |\n| 12 | But they took out the good faith finding. |\n| 13 | So I thought, okay, that's sort of progress.
But |\n| 14 | then I looked at page 40, and I looked at page -- paragraph |\n| 15 | 10, which has 364(e) baked into it.
It's, by its terms, a |\n| 16 | good faith provision. |\n| 17 | So when people ask, you know, why are -- why are |\n| 18 | you so suspicious, that's one of the reasons we're really |\n| 19 | suspicious, because you take out a good faith finding but |\n| 20 | you keep in a 364(e) provision, you're not really taking out |\n| 21 | the good faith finding. |\n| 22 | So we -- and then we look at, on page 41, no |\n| 23 | deemed control.
By consenting to this interim DIP order, |\n| 24 | the DIP lender shall not be deemed in control of the debtor |\n| 25 | to be acting as a responsible person, managing agent, or |\n| | |\n\n| | 246 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 210 |\n| 1 | owner or operator as such terms are defined in Circla (ph) |\n| 2 | as amended or any similar federal -- similar state or |\n| 3 | federal statute.\" |\n| 4 | How could that be appropriate in a case where the |\n| 5 | debtor says he doesn't own anything except the suits on his |\n| 6 | back and a couple of dogs?
It's just overreach and it |\n| 7 | doesn't make any sense.
And I think it -- it gives us a lot |\n| 8 | of pause when these things are put into orders. |\n| 9 | Paragraph 15, no waiver.
Again, I think PAX |\n| 10 | should be included in the notice parties.
Those are the |\n| 11 | points that are important to us.
Your Honor, I just want to |\n| 12 | be clear about something. |\n| 13 | The fact that I spent so much time on the order, I |\n| 14 | just don't want the Court to think that we're okay with the |\n| 15 | order.
I realize the Court will do what it does.
People |\n| 16 | will put forward arguments as to why maybe this does benefit |\n| 17 | the estate.
We strongly disagree.
But if the Court's |\n| 18 | inclined to go in a different direction, we do have very |\n| 19 | substantial concerns with the order and with the credibility |\n| 20 | of what you heard today. |\n| 21 | I have nothing further, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 23 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Thank you. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Does the debtor wish to respond to the |\n| 25 | arguments of PAX? |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 210 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 211 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 211 |\n| 1 | MR. JONAS:
I just wondered, Your Honor, whether |\n| 2 | there were any other parties that wished to be heard. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Oh, that's a good point.
I'm sorry. |\n| 4 | Attorney Claiborn? |\n| 5 | CLOSING ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE |\n| 6 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you, Your Honor.
I do have a |\n| 7 | few comments. |\n| 8 | I had hoped that after today's testimony I'd have |\n| 9 | a better understanding of what money is being loaned, where |\n| 10 | it's coming from, why it's really being loaned, and why |\n| 11 | can't it be a gift.
Unfortunately, I don't feel any more |\n| 12 | informed than I did at the beginning of today. |\n| 13 | There may be a dilution of the events of default |\n| 14 | that were raised earlier today by Attorney Goldman, and |\n| 15 | that's progress.
But at the end of the day, I see no reason |\n| 16 | why this couldn't just be a gift.
The debtor's lifestyle is |\n| 17 | being funded by Golden Spring.
Why is it different for this |\n| 18 | loan?
Why couldn't it just be a gift? |\n| 19 | But there is control mechanism left over that I |\n| 20 | didn't hear being removed from this suggested order as to |\n| 21 | how you can use the funds.
To the extent that the funds are |\n| 22 | being used to help facilitate this Chapter 11, they need to |\n| 23 | be unrestricted so that anyone who needs to do something |\n| 24 | with it can do so, and that includes the committee. |\n| 25 | So hamstringing the committee, as I think the |\n| | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 212 of\n\n order is currently proposed, hamstringing its ability to use it to investigate and/or pursue appropriate actions as a result of investigations, is not something that makes this a loan that's worth giving. The other thing I wanted to say to the Court is that earlier today, Attorney Goldman posited that one of the areas of consensus that prompted the withdrawal of their objection to the loan was that the money -- the first\n\n initial traunch of the loan, \\$2 million, would be held by Pullman and Comley.\n\n And I wanted to let the Court know that the U.S. Trustee opposes that, to the extent it's based on a lack of trust of the debtor holding funds, and that in and of itself is demonstratable that this case needs a Chapter 11 trustee.\n\n The loan, to the extent the Court approves it, should go to the debtor's funds account, the debtor in possession account, and if that's not comfortable for everybody else in this case, then that speaks volumes.\n\n So based on all of what I've heard today, and then the comments I think that Mr. Friedman just eloquently made about concern are well taken, and I think that thus far to date, as of now, the debtor has not met its burden to demonstrate that this is an appropriate loan for the estate to be involved in.\n\nTHE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Goldman.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 213 of\n\n CLOSING ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED CREDITORS MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. Just to respond to a few of the points that Mr. Friedman made, and let me just say at the outset that the committee certainly shares the skepticism and, you know, outright disbelief that PAX has as to where these so-called family assets really reside, and who really controls them, which I think cries out for the need for funding for the disinterested committee in this case, and an examiner to do a proper investigation and uncover the rocks that need to be uncovered in this case to get the -- get at the bottom of what these assets are. Now Mr. Friedman referred to the idea that this is designed to protect Golden Spring from parties pursuing it. To the contrary. There's a specific carve out that we negotiated in the most recent version of the order that provides just the contrary. It states in the new paragraph 16 of the proposed order, that this interim DIP order shall not be construed in any way as a waiver or relinquishment of any rights that the debtor, the DIP lender, the committee, any creditor, or any estate representative may have to bring or be heard on any matter brought before this Court, including without limitation, any claims that may be asserted by the committee, any creditor, or any other estate representative\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 214 of\n\n against the DIP lender based on any conduct, act, or omission relating to the debtor, other than an extension of the interim DIP loan.\n\n And then it goes on to list a litany of examples of what claims could be asserted, notwithstanding the reentry of this order, including veil piercing, substantive consolidation, fraudulent transfer.\n\n So there's no protection in this order for Golden Spring against actions that a creditor or an estate -- a representative would bring.\n\n I would point out that PAX is the only creditor of this estate that I'm aware of that has a judgment. And consequently, they have a substantial head start over every other non-insider creditor of this estate, which is why they want this case dismissed, so that they can sail off with the boat and wave in the rearview mirror to the other creditors of this estate.\n\n All the other creditors are in the middle of litigation and they aren't certainly close to getting judgments, which is another reason why we need this loan to do a proper investigation for the benefit of all creations, not just the judgment creditors.\n\n And PAX, like -- unlike the committee, is funded by a well-healed litigant, whereas the committee obviously has on funding to do anything in this case.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 215 of\n\n So we considered it a win for the estate, this DIP loan, where we are being given the resources to get the tools we need to get to the bottom of where the assets are. And so, the -- so the case isn't -- so the case is used properly. Yes, the debtor only has -- or claims \\$3,900 in assets and no income, but this bankruptcy case is legitimately used to discover where the assets are and to see if we can negotiation if, once they're encumbered, we can negotiate a plan that's acceptable to the creditor body. So I think that I would urge the Court to grant the DIP loan with the limitations and revisions that we've managed to negotiate with the debtor. As far as holding the funds, I find it anomalous that the U.S. Trustee would rather have the funds held by a debtor who they say should be replaced by a trustee as opposed to Pullman and Comley, which has been a firm that's been around since the early 1900s, and certainly the money is going nowhere. It is the functional equivalent of a retainer and they have no problem with Brown Rudnick holding \\$1 million in their account. So there -- I would maintain, a complete disconnect between their position about wanting to appoint a trustee for the debtor, yet wanting him to hold the \\$2\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 216 of\n\n| 246 | |\n|-----|--|\n| | |\n\n| | 216 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | million.
So I think it's entirely proper for the Court to |\n| 2 | authorize us to hold money and be subject to all the orders |\n| 3 | of the Court, the interim compensation procedures, et |\n| 4 | cetera, and we'll be bound to hold the money in trust until |\n| 5 | authorized to disburse it by the Court. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 7 | MR. GOLDMAN:
And that's all I have. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
Mr. Jonas. |\n| 9 | MR. JONAS:
Oh, I'm sorry.
Your Honor -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Oh, Mr. Miltenberger. |\n| 11 | MR. JONAS:
Yeah.
Thank you. |\n| 12 | CLOSING ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF GOLDEN SPRING NEW YORK |\n| 13 | MR. MILTENBERGER:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Timothy |\n| 14 | Miltenberger for Golden Spring New York. |\n| 15 | I'd just like to follow up briefly on some of the |\n| 16 | comments that Attorney Goldman made.
As the Court knows, my |\n| 17 | client is interested in making a loan for the benefit of the |\n| 18 | estate. |\n| 19 | The position of PAX was, as it said earlier, |\n| 20 | something much more than meets the eye is happening here, |\n| 21 | and that's not something the Court's going to be able to |\n| 22 | decide today. |\n| 23 | And the way it's going to be decided is if there's |\n| 24 | money available to fund a committee and to fund an examiner |\n| 25 | so that everybody can understand what has or has not |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 217 of\n\n happened, and that's what Golden Springs would like to see happen. That's What the debtor would like to see happen. The big picture, as Attorney Friedman says, clearly points to the fact that a bankruptcy estate with \\$9 million is better than a bankruptcy estate with zero dollars, and that's what this motion is about. It's not a close call. Having \\$9 million is really in the benefit of the estate and all of its creditors. I can report to the Court that as of 3:30 yesterday, my client was wiring money to my firm. It has not yet been received by my firm, but it is in transit. When we have it, we'll make arrangements with the U.S. Trustee and all the parties as to where to warehouse that money after we give \\$2 million to the committee. THE COURT: Are you saying that the entire \\$9 million is coming to your firm? MR. MILTENBERGER: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I just want to be clear, because we've talked to a lot of -- about a lot of different things happening at different points, so -- okay. Mr. Jonas? CLOSING ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEBTOR MR. JONAS: Your Honor, Jeff Jonas from Brown Rudnick on behalf of the debtor. First let me say, Your Honor, I know it's been a long day, and on behalf of myself\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 218 of\n\n and the firm and the debtor, I want to thank you. I think it's been under difficult circumstances. I actually think it came off pretty well and we thank the Court and the Court staff for accommodating us today.\n\n That said, Your Honor, let me make a few remarks. Mr. Kwok filed this case, bankruptcy, to deal with his many alleged creditors, and he wants to do that during the breathing spell that bankruptcy affords. That's the whole purpose of bankruptcy.\n\n Mr. Kwok is here in good faith. He's not only saying he wants to do that, but let's review the proof of that. He has arranged an unsecured subordinated \\$9 million DIP loan to fund this case. Among other things, that will fund the creditor's committee to do their work. It will fund U.S. Trustee fees, and it will fund, if appointed, which we support, an independent examiner to investigate the allegations against him.\n\n He also has obtained a commitment as set forth in the -- as filed in the proposed plan, to have a boat costing \\$37 million contributed to creditors as set forth therein. There's been a lot of allegations against Mr. Kwok. Today, they're just that, allegations. There will be a time and a place for these allegations to be determined. In fact, Mr. Kwok, or the DIP lender is paying the cost of determining those allegations, and he welcomes that.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 219 of\n\n There is no basis for the DIP loan, which all creditors as represented by the creditor's committee, support, except for one single creditor, PAX, which has a long history of litigating with Mr. Kwok. Your Honor, it would truly be a travesty if this debtor, on the basis and the record before this Court, can't go forward with this bankruptcy case, which would be the result if the DIP loan is not approved.\n\n Let me respond to a number of the comments that were made. Mr. Friedman focuses on the alleged \\$3,000 or so in assets. Your Honor, there's \\$400 million, or thereabouts, I think it's 370-something, in claims asserted in this case. \\$400 million. That should be the focus. That's what we're here -- we'll deal with those. Yes, there's disputes. That's what bankruptcy is for, to resolve on a financial basis, claims asserted against the debtor.\n\n Mr. Kwok referred to -- I want to make one comment, Your Honor, which might be a little unusual, but Mr. Kwok referred to Chinese or Eastern culture, which I've learned during my career is very different than our Western culture.\n\n And so, yes, a son may be prepared to lose millions of dollars in order to help and protect his father. And there was also a comment by Mr. Friedman that certain -- he said far-fetched testimony about communications between\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 318 | Filed 05/03/22 | Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 | Page 220 of |\n|---------------|---------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n| | | 246 | | |\n| | | | | 220 |\n\n Mr. Kwok and his son. I would suggest, Your Honor, that's easy for Mr. Friedman to say. His physical safety and his life and the life of his family are not at risk every day. By the way, Your Honor, with respect to the comments Mr. Friedman made on the DIP loan, had he called us, we'd be happy to accommodate many of his changes, which I'm about to do right now, but that didn't happen. So let me address them. First -- well, first he said there was no immediate need for financing. I think the evidence is uncontroverted on that by Mr. Kwok. Without the DIP there will be no creditor's committee to carry out its work, there will be no examiner, or at least funding for an examiner, if and when appointed to carry out its work. The DIP documents, Your Honor, were heavily negotiated with the creditor's committee. I think -- it's a little bit of a guess, but based on the drafts, and I wasn't in the weeds on it, but I think there were literally hundreds of changes made to accommodate creditor's committee's request. It was not -- it was in negotiation. It went probably until not that long ago today and into the night or nights, but nevertheless, there were many, many changes, and unfortunately, occasionally there will be a typo when that happens and the cash collateral reference is just that. It's a typo, it can be removed.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 221 of\n\n In terms of reporting, we're happy to provide PAX with reporting notices, et cetera, that's not a problem. We're happy to, as we've represented, if Mr. Friedman feels there needs to be better language making the loan fully subordinate to all creditors, we're happy to do that. There was a reference to *Circla* not being deemed an owner and having done a few DIPs in my day, I think that's -- I'm guessing that's probably in our form and it just got carried over. Again, creditor's committee didn't have an objection to it, but we'll remove it. Not a problem. Let me address the issue the U.S. Trustee made, and others, which is why not a gift. Your Honor, while the DIP loan may effectively be a gift in that it's unlikely to be repaid, the DIP lender gets to decide on what terms it will advance funds. Not creditors. Not the United States Trustee. You know, I have to say it's I think -- I'm not sure anybody has ever seen a DIP where the DIP lender has agreed to be fully subordinate, not be secured. Effectively, doesn't expect to get paid. Nevertheless, it's their -- they get to determine on what basis. They determine to do it as a loan. That's the basis on which we're before the Court. Your Honor, the Committee asked us to -- that it\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 222 of\n\n hold the funds, and again, on the basis set forth in the order. And in an effort -- in the many efforts we took to resolve disputes, which I think is our charge in many bankruptcy cases, an effort to get to an agreement, a consensual resolution, within my opinion, perhaps the most important creditor body in this case, the creditor's committee, we made many concessions. One of them was, okay, if you want to hold the money, hold the money. And now we're being criticized for that, and effectively it's being used as a basis for the DIP to not be approved. Again, Your Honor, we are here. We've agreed to a schedule to move forward on the motion to dismiss. I think you heard Mr. Kwok. He intends to be as open as possible. I think sometimes there are translation issues, but nevertheless, I think his testimony was honest today. He intends to continue down that road. He welcomes the opportunity to have an independent examiner take a look at everything and inform creditors and the Court. He's going to pay for that, and we welcome that day. I don't think today, unfounded allegations should be the basis to deny the DIP. And with that, Your Honor, we'd ask that the Court, with the changes which were -- I represented we're happy to make, approve the DIP. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Let me just ask you what version of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 223 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 223 |\n| 1 | the order you want me to be looking at, because I'm looking |\n| 2 | at a version of an order that was filed on April 10th. |\n| 3 | MR. JONAS:
May I just consult, Your Honor? |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 5 | MR. ROMNEY:
And again, Your Honor, we would be |\n| 6 | prepared to make the changes I've mentioned, but let me |\n| 7 | check. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Just a second, Attorney Friedman, |\n| 9 | okay? |\n| 10 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, and I think Mr. Goldman |\n| 11 | can confirm this.
The actual form we would have asked to, |\n| 12 | even before make -- agreeing to make changes to respond to |\n| 13 | Mr. Friedman hasn't been filed because we were working on |\n| 14 | it. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Well, that's what I'm asking. |\n| 16 | MR. JONAS:
Yeah. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
So there's nothing else that I should |\n| 18 | be looking at right now. |\n| 19 | MR. JONAS:
No, but we will -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 21 | MR. JONAS:
-- promptly, Your Honor, get that |\n| 22 | before the Court. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Before I let others talk again, |\n| 24 | I think I may have said this to Attorney Baldiga in the |\n| 25 | beginning part of this case at a prior hearing. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 224 of\n\n| | 224 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | You know, there's a lot -- obviously, I understand |\n| 2 | I think -- not as well as all of you do, but I understand |\n| 3 | what's happened among the parties, between obviously the |\n| 4 | debtor and PAX, but with other parties now involved, and one |\n| 5 | of the things I mentioned early on was when we have interim |\n| 6 | DIP orders in Connecticut, we often don't make a lot of the |\n| 7 | findings that you're asking -- at last that's -- that are in |\n| 8 | the April 10 version of this order, okay, because what we do |\n| 9 | we enter interim orders is we say, the debtor has |\n| 10 | demonstrated, or someone has demonstrated, or people agree, |\n| 11 | or whatever the situation may be, that for a period of time, |\n| 12 | whatever period of time it is, until we have another hearing |\n| 13 | and whether that's another interim order or a final order, |\n| 14 | this is what's going to happen. |\n| 15 | This much money is going to be loaned, this amount |\n| 16 | of money could be spent, doesn't necessarily have to be. |\n| 17 | There's some form of a budget that people all understand |\n| 18 | what's going to be spent. |\n| 19 | I understand all the issues about the employment |\n| 20 | of professionals and this process about getting people paid |\n| 21 | differently, and I understand what you're saying about |\n| 22 | funding the committee and paying for an examiner, but I want |\n| 23 | to be clear, and I tried to be clear at the beginning, so if |\n| 24 | I wasn't, that's my fault.
I'm not going to enter an order |\n| 25 | that makes findings that are binding through the end of this |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 225 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 225 |\n| 1 | case when it's an interim order.
That's just not going to |\n| 2 | happen because it's -- I don't think it's appropriate, |\n| 3 | right?
I don't think that's appropriate.
That's not what |\n| 4 | the bankruptcy code says. |\n| 5 | I understand why people have asked for that on |\n| 6 | many occasions, have fought for that, and often the Courts |\n| 7 | have allowed it.
But we're in a unique situation here, |\n| 8 | right? |\n| 9 | We have an individual Chapter 11 debtor who has no |\n| 10 | income, doesn't have a -- well, maybe he does now have a |\n| 11 | bank account.
I'm sorry.
I'm trying to remember what Mr. |\n| 12 | Kwok testified about.
And -- but there's going to be \\$8 |\n| 13 | million that comes in. 9 million, actually. |\n| 14 | I don't know if that's -- I don't know if that's |\n| 15 | the way things should proceed at this point, that it may be |\n| 16 | that the parties should discuss this more incrementally to - |\n| 17 | - because I am not going to make all these findings.
I |\n| 18 | don't know why I'd need to make a finding of good cause at |\n| 19 | this point in time when there -- all we would be doing on an |\n| 20 | interim basis is -- you know, we're talking about the |\n| 21 | immediate need for funding. |\n| 22 | Well, what needs to be funded?
Mr. Kwok's living |\n| 23 | expenses don't, because that doesn't -- that's not part of |\n| 24 | this.
So what needs to be funded to keep this estate open? |\n| 25 | What needs to be funded is the payment of professional fees. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 226 of\n\n| | 226 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | That's -- I mean, and tell me what else, because I |\n| 2 | could be missing something and I -- |\n| 3 | MR. JONAS:
That's largely -- that's -- |\n| 4 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Quarterly fees. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I mean
-- |\n| 6 | MR. JONAS:
And U.S. Trustee fees. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
But -- okay.
I'd consider that |\n| 8 | somewhat professional fees, Attorney Claiborn, even though I |\n| 9 | know they're not, but they're a fee of the estate.
They're |\n| 10 | an expense of the estate, right? |\n| 11 | So we have -- we have a lot of issues here.
We |\n| 12 | have a lot of findings that I'm being made to -- you know, I |\n| 13 | have to say -- I'd have to say, you met your burden of proof |\n| 14 | on all that.
I don't know if you want me to do that at this |\n| 15 | point, number one. |\n| 16 | Number 2, there's a hearing coming up on a motion |\n| 17 | to dismiss, which is only -- it's less than a month away, |\n| 18 | we're going to start that hearing.
Okay?
There's also this |\n| 19 | issue of the -- in the alternative, the appointment of a |\n| 20 | trustee, in the alternative, the U.S. Trustee's motion for |\n| 21 | an appointment of an examiner. |\n| 22 | I understand, and you've said it and everyone's |\n| 23 | said it on the debtor's side, that the debtor will pay for |\n| 24 | the examiner.
But I want to know what is examiner going to |\n| 25 | -- what power does the examiner have?
It doesn't have any |\n| | |\n\n## power. It just has the ability, if there is an examiner, to Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 227 of\n\n collect information and prepare a report, right? Not that that's not -- not that that can't be helpful in a case, but I'm not sure that's helpful in this case. We already know what the examiner is going to find, I think, based upon the testimony of Mr. Kwok and apparently - - and I haven't looked -- as I said, I haven't looked at any of the exhibits which is why I didn't know who the 30(b)(6) representative was. MR. JONAS: Uh-huh. THE COURT: But there isn't anything here in this estate, other than the loans that could be made, and the fact that Mr. Kwok can continue to live, so that's a good thing. We're not worried about the debtor not being able to live, which often is a situation in this cases. We don't have that issue. But what we do have is we have -- whether or not it's only one creditor, we have a creditor who has asserted certain issues in this case that have to be addressed one way or another, and the long story short is, if we start -- when you say there's \\$400 million in claims -- MR. JONAS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- I think you said, but isn't half of that PAX's with the judgment and the contempt judgment? I mean, so that's half -- half of the claims here are --\n\n| | 246 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 228 |\n| 1 | belong to one creditor.
And it's an individual Chapter 11 |\n| 2 | case, so that one creditor has a lot of power, which is |\n| 3 | different than it would be if we were in a corporate Chapter |\n| 4 | 11 case. |\n| 5 | So what -- all I'm suggesting to you, all of you |\n| 6 | today, is I don't even know what -- I mean, I do.
I looked |\n| 7 | at the order Mr. Friedman asked me to look at, and he wants |\n| 8 | to say something else, and Attorney Claiborn wants to say |\n| 9 | something else, and of course I'm going to allow that to |\n| 10 | happen. |\n| 11 | But if there isn't an agreement on to some kind of |\n| 12 | form and order, then I'm going to make rulings that may not |\n| 13 | be what the debtor is looking for, and I don't -- and maybe |\n| 14 | not be what PAX or the creditor committee is looking for |\n| 15 | either. |\n| 16 | But as Mr. -- one thing Mr. Goldman said that is |\n| 17 | correct is, they're all intertwined, right?
Everything that |\n| 18 | happened today is intertwined, and to enter orders other |\n| 19 | than the -- I would say the Brown Rudnick order, which I |\n| 20 | would say is more what I would say, routine, versus some of |\n| 21 | the other orders that I'm being asked to enter, including |\n| 22 | the payment of professionals on an ongoing basis that is |\n| 23 | allowed to happen in less time than the bankruptcy code |\n| 24 | provides, then I think there has to be some understanding |\n| 25 | that there should be some incremental review and analysis of |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 228 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 229 of\n\n| 1 | what you're asking the Court to do. |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Now, that may be no problem because you're working |\n| 3 | on this order, and you may be able to say all those things. |\n| 4 | But there's a lot of findings I'm being made to |\n| 5 | find in this order that I'm not sure I'm prepared to make at |\n| 6 | an interim basis, with everything else that's going on in |\n| 7 | this case.
I have to look at it that way.
Whether or not |\n| 8 | you agree with that, and I don't mean you personally, I |\n| 9 | don't mean the debtor or -- whether or not anybody agrees |\n| 10 | with it, I mean, I -- you -- absolutely, we can agree to |\n| 11 | disagree.
But that's what I have to do, right?
I have to |\n| 12 | think about the case as a whole. |\n| 13 | I think you parties have made very good progress, |\n| 14 | and I don't think that every single case has to be |\n| 15 | consensual.
That's not what I'm saying.
But I'm not sure |\n| 16 | that I'm going to enter the order that I've looked at that |\n| 17 | Mr. -- that Friedman has pointed out to me with any kind of |\n| 18 | binding findings in it, in this case. |\n| 19 | So while I understand everything everyone has |\n| 20 | said, or at least I've tried to.
I'm not saying I couldn't |\n| 21 | have made a mistake, but I've tried to, I'm going to still |\n| 22 | have to look at whatever you all negotiate. |\n| 23 | MR. JONAS:
Absolutely. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
And I may disagree.
And so, if I |\n| 25 | disagree, we'll have to have -- you know, we'll have some |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 230 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 230 |\n| 1 | kind of conference and we'll talk about it, but I think that |\n| 2 | you need to think about that. |\n| 3 | I did hear -- and, Mr. Friedman, I did hear Mr. |\n| 4 | Jonas say that a lot of -- not all, but a lot of the issues |\n| 5 | that you raised, they'll accommodate, which I think is |\n| 6 | again, progress.
Whether you are all going to come to an |\n| 7 | agreement completely, I don't know. |\n| 8 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, may I just make two |\n| 9 | points? |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Sure. |\n| 11 | MR. JONAS:
First, I'll just say this.
As he said |\n| 12 | about me, Your Honor, I respect Mr. Friedman a great deal, |\n| 13 | but unfortunately I -- my impression, maybe he'll tell me |\n| 14 | I'm wrong -- we will never -- there's no way to reach a |\n| 15 | consensual resolution because there -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
On this order, right? |\n| 17 | MR. JONAS:
On this order, because -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
I think that's right. |\n| 19 | MR. JONAS:
-- they're -- you know, we could give |\n| 20 | them everything -- all of it specific points, and then he |\n| 21 | said, well, but I don't want you to lose track, Your Honor, |\n| 22 | that we're still opposing this.
So that's just number one. |\n| 23 | We can try, and we'll continue to try. |\n| 24 | Point number 2, Your Honor, is let me apologize |\n| 25 | because I do remember you early on talking about findings of |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 231 of\n\n fact, and we didn't -- maybe we didn't hear you well enough. I certainly hear you now, and we would -- I welcome the opportunity to take up many of the findings. I have to -- obviously, we have to talk to our DIP lender, but let us take those up. I'm guessing we will be able to streamline and eliminate many of them now having heard the Court better, and I hope when we submit -- and obviously, we'll provide it to all other parties, I hope when we next submit a revised draft, it will be much more something you'd be prepared to sign. Again, we may need another conference. We're happy to do that, but those are my comments, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And that's more than fair, and I -- all I'm suggesting to you is that as, I said a few weeks ago when we were talking about the relief from stay timing and the motion to dismiss timing, that I can't look at this DIP motion as the only motion in the case. I can't. MR. JONAS: Uh-huh. THE COURT: It affects other things. Mr. Goldman, as I said, I keep pointing to Mr. Goldman, but he was right. They're all intertwined. And so, I'm happy to hear what you all -- look at what you all come up with. MR. JONAS: Very good, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay?\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 232 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 232 |\n| 1 | MR. JONAS:
Thank you. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you.
Mr. Friedman? |\n| 3 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Thanks, Mr. Jonas.
I appreciate |\n| 4 | it. |\n| 5 | MR. JONAS:
Okay. |\n| 6 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
I always do.
I have three quick |\n| 7 | things to say.
First, Your Honor, it's true, we can't tell |\n| 8 | Golden Spring it has to make a loan, but you can.
You can |\n| 9 | tell them that this proposed -- I'm sorry, that they can't - |\n| 10 | - it doesn't have to be a gift.
You can.
You don't have to |\n| 11 | approve this as a loan. |\n| 12 | The second thing, Your Honor, is yes, PAX has a |\n| 13 | long history of litigating against Mr. Kwok.
Has a long |\n| 14 | history of winning its litigation.
It has \\$268 million in |\n| 15 | claims. |\n| 16 | It is the only creditor with a liquidated claim |\n| 17 | that is non-insider as far as I'm aware.
And the third |\n| 18 | point is, just like I said, listen to the small word, we.
I |\n| 19 | would say, at the end of Mr. Jonas's remakes he said, he |\n| 20 | wants to pay for it.
Right.
He.
Mr. Kwok, which is again, |\n| 21 | I just think a tell about ultimately where the money is |\n| 22 | coming from.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
Attorney Claiborn? |\n| 24 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, I just wanted to let |\n| 25 | the Court know that I haven't seen a revised draft of the |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 233 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 233 |\n| 1 | order, so therefore, I don't know whether or not there are |\n| 2 | other concerns that I would like to bring to the Court's |\n| 3 | attention. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Yeah, I mean, I think -- |\n| 5 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I might -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
-- that Mr. Jonas has made that clear, |\n| 7 | and that's why I think we're going to have to have another |\n| 8 | conference most likely, if there isn't an agreement, and I'm |\n| 9 | not -- I don't believe there will be an agreement, so I |\n| 10 | think there has to be another conference. |\n| 11 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you for that opportunity.
I |\n| 12 | just wanted to let the Court know that I might have some |\n| 13 | thoughts. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
I thank you.
And see, what I normally |\n| 15 | do, is when we have an interim order, we have a date.
The |\n| 16 | order goes into effect one day, and it expires on a date in |\n| 17 | the future, and there's a budget that is connected to that. |\n| 18 | You know, and it may not be a budget in the sense of a cash |\n| 19 | collateral budget, you know, but how much money is coming in |\n| 20 | and what could -- what is authorized to be spent during that |\n| 21 | period of time, and for what. |\n| 22 | And then that -- then if you want to talk about |\n| 23 | transparency, that's transparency.
Everybody knows that X |\n| 24 | amount was approved.
X amount came in, and then the line |\n| 25 | items on the -- whatever the -- you don't have to call it a |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 234 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 234 |\n| 1 | budget.
You can call it whatever you want to call it. |\n| 2 | Authorization for payments during interim DIP loan period, |\n| 3 | then we know what's going on.
Then no one is questioning |\n| 4 | what's happening. |\n| 5 | And then you get approval, Mr. Jonas, for certain |\n| 6 | things that apply to that interim period, which is better |\n| 7 | than not getting approval to anything at all. |\n| 8 | And that, I could do, but I'm not in a position -- |\n| 9 | and I -- when I say I, I mean the bank -- the person who |\n| 10 | happens to be sitting here as the judge in this case, feels |\n| 11 | it's inappropriate at this point in time, at this point in |\n| 12 | time, to make findings that will be binding throughout the |\n| 13 | case.
So I think I've made that clear. |\n| 14 | So the issue is, how much time do we need -- are |\n| 15 | we continuing -- we're not -- the evidence is done with |\n| 16 | regard to the DIP financing motion.
Are we continuing the |\n| 17 | hearing solely to work out what essentially is -- are the |\n| 18 | terms and conditions of an interim DIP financing order which |\n| 19 | should have, as part of it, a period of time that this |\n| 20 | financing would be applicable to, and what amounts would |\n| 21 | come in through the funding, and I want to say to the |\n| 22 | estate, but we have an issue here of where the funds are |\n| 23 | going still, and so I won't quite say that, and what amounts |\n| 24 | are authorized to be paid or accrued against that loan |\n| 25 | during that period of time.
That's what I think is |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 235 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 235 |\n| 1 | appropriate under those -- under these circumstances. |\n| 2 | So what are the parties thoughts.
Are we talking |\n| 3 | about -- today's what?
Wednesday?
Are we talking about |\n| 4 | coming back, you know, Friday?
Are we talking about coming |\n| 5 | back Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday of next week?
What are we |\n| 6 | talking about? |\n| 7 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Your Honor, I know for the |\n| 8 | committee, I was planning to be at the ABS Spring meeting |\n| 9 | Thursday and Friday, so I would say -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Meaning tomorrow and the next day? |\n| 11 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Yes.
Yes.
Yes. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 13 | MR. GOLDMAN:
And so, any time next week.
You |\n| 14 | know, on this budget concept, so I can give some clarity -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Well, it may not -- I said budget |\n| 16 | isn't exactly the right word, but it's authorized accruals |\n| 17 | or payments or whatever you want to call it against what's |\n| 18 | funded, right?
\\$400,000 comes in.
I'm just pulling a name, |\n| 19 | it doesn't mean anything.
And during -- for the next four |\n| 20 | weeks, these amount of monies can be accrued against those |\n| 21 | dollars for these reasons. |\n| 22 | MR. GOLDMAN:
So -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
I mean, we don't have to worry about |\n| 24 | funding Mr. Kwok's life.
That's a good thing.
But if |\n| 25 | everything else is going to be about every -- the parties |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 236 of\n\n getting paid, then I want to know what it is everybody thinks they're going to get paid for the next four weeks, even if you're not authorized to draw it out yet. MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah. And, Your Honor, I think the most we could expect to have is an estimate, really. THE COURT: I understand that. I'm not -- oh, I'm not -- a budget is a budget. It doesn't always meet -- you don't always meet it. I'm not asking for an accounting that's audited. I'm asking for -- I want to know. You know, the order says there's an immediate need for funding. What's the immediate need? Show me what it is and how much, and what it is for. I mean, this is not -- this is not a case where you have a company that is producing some form of a product that is generating revenue that continues -- that's not what we have. We all know that. So there has to be some control, or at least oversight by the Court with regard to these issues, right? Otherwise, why am I here? You can all go do this out in the hallway -- MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: -- and see how that works out. MR. GOLDMAN: Well, I'm just -- THE COURT: But that's why I'm here, right? To make sure that we -- this doesn't go awry, and we also have other motions pending that may -- may completely -- you\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 237 of\n\n| | 237 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | know, who knows, have the case be dismissed in five weeks. |\n| 2 | I don't know.
That could happen.
I haven't heard any |\n| 3 | arguments on that yet.
I haven't seen your papers. |\n| 4 | Nobody's -- nor should you.
You just all agreed today when |\n| 5 | you're going to file your papers. |\n| 6 | So I don't know what they're going to say, but I |\n| 7 | have to -- I have to be -- I think you have to treat it |\n| 8 | practically and not theoretically. |\n| 9 | And the practical reality of this case is, from |\n| 10 | the moment it started, there is opposition and there's |\n| 11 | strong opposition, and I'm not passing on whether that's |\n| 12 | warranted or not.
It's a reality.
It's a reality that |\n| 13 | there is -- there are all kinds of things that happened |\n| 14 | before this case came here, which is often the case, but I |\n| 15 | can't ignore that either.
Okay.
I can't ignore that. |\n| 16 | So all I'm suggesting is, you come up with a |\n| 17 | period of time that there's this first wave of monies come |\n| 18 | in, whatever it may be.
And maybe there isn't going to be |\n| 19 | agreement, and then I'll finally have to decide what it's |\n| 20 | going to be.
But then -- and you tell me, and the world, |\n| 21 | because it's going to be public, what the monies are going |\n| 22 | to be spent on, even if they're not drawn down during that |\n| 23 | period of time, right? |\n| 24 | So anyway, I think that's pretty clear.
Maybe |\n| 25 | it's not. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 238 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 238 |\n| 1 | MR. GOLDMAN:
So -- no, understood, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 3 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Your Honor, so we have a |\n| 4 | theological objection.
It's -- we have practical |\n| 5 | objections.
I'm going to express, actually, a pretty high |\n| 6 | degree of confidence that we can work out our practical |\n| 7 | issues, right?
The DIP issue is theological to us.
We |\n| 8 | don't believe it should be entered. |\n| 9 | I also realize bankruptcy exists on your deep |\n| 10 | rooted beliefs on the one hand, and the nitty-gritty |\n| 11 | practical on the other.
I will work with Mr. Jonas, Mr. |\n| 12 | Goldman, Ms. Claiborn, to deal with our practical issues |\n| 13 | where we can compromise and where we can't, but -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Right.
I have to rule.
I understand. |\n| 15 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
So -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
And I'm happy to do that. |\n| 17 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
-- so I guess the question I have |\n| 18 | is, if we need a further hearing, or really it sounds like a |\n| 19 | conference, I'm in California next week.
Is it doable by |\n| 20 | Zoom?
I'm going to -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 22 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Okay. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 24 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Thank you. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
See, and the problem is, I'm looking |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 318 | Filed 05/03/22 | Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 | Page 239 of |\n|---------------|---------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|---------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n at an order that is now two weeks old, so it's stale. So I'm not going to just enter an order that somebody presents when there's nobody here to talk to me about it, right? I'm not going to do that. I -- you know, unfortunately, someone's name has to be on that order and I'm going to read the order before I enter it, and I have to make sure that it complies with the bankruptcy code and rules and all those things. So -- but yes, we can absolutely do it. I'm not going to drag you all back in here. We've had the evidentiary hearing, but I do want to see the order before we have a conference, otherwise, I don't think it's a meaningful conference. Okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: Yep. Yep. THE COURT: So you can even all tell me tomorrow. I mean, you know, I don't -- whatever works for you. I'm not trying to stand here and say, you need to tell me right now and we have to make a date on all those things. And I say that, but I should look and see what's on next week, although I don't think it's bad. I don't -- I could be wrong, though, so let me just -- let me just take a five- second look, okay? Tuesday is not good. Wednesday is definitely a possibility without question, except for the middle of the day. Thursday, we have Chapter 13 hearings. We could do it\n\n in the afternoon on Thursday. MR. JONAS: Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. MR. JONAS: Could I suggest that we just put a placeholder on it? I think you said Wednesday sounded like the best day. THE COURT: Other than between -- MR. JONAS: By Zoom, to -- THE COURT: Yeah. MR. JONAS: -- certainly to accommodate everyone. I think that might make -- and then we'll all work towards that. THE COURT: Yes. MR. JONAS: Obviously try and, you know, report to the Court. Hopefully submit as early in advance, as much in advance of that as possible, submit a form of order, maybe even agreed, who knows, but I think that would be very helpful, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Well, on -- that's fine, but I'm going to want the order -- MR. JONAS: Yes. THE COURT: -- if we're going to have a conference on Wednesday, I can do it in the morning or the afternoon, but I can't do it between 12:30 and 2:00 p.m. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, I think to accommodate Mr.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 240 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 241 of\n\n| 1 | Friedman, who's going to -- | | | |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Oh, you're going to be in California. | | | |\n| 3 | MR. JONAS:
-- in California -- | | | |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
So -- | | | |\n| 5 | MR. JONAS:
-- the afternoon will be fine. | | | |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
-- 2:00 p.m.
You want -- you want | | | |\n| 7 | later than 2:00 p.m.? | | | |\n| 8 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
2:00 p.m. is perfect.
Thank you, | | | |\n| 9 | Your Honor. | | | |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
All right.
So -- and if I'm five or | | | |\n| 11 | ten minutes late, don't worry about it, I'm -- just have to | | | |\n| 12 | do something with a school, so I could be five or ten | | | |\n| 13 | minutes late, and if we are -- if you have to hold on the | | | |\n| 14 | Zoom call, you'll have to hold on the Zoom call, okay? | | | |\n| 15 | But I would like -- I would like the order by 2:00 | | | |\n| 16 | p.m. the day before.
I mean, I've got to be able to read | | | |\n| 17 | it, right? | | | |\n| 18 | MR. JONAS:
Understood, Your Honor, and thank you | | | |\n| 19 | for that. | | | |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
All right.
So then I'll just block | | | |\n| 21 | off the rest of that afternoon for now, and hopefully we | | | |\n| 22 | won't take the all -- but if we do, we do. | | | |\n| 23 | I mean, so the only thing left on the calendar | | | |\n| 24 | today that wasn't resolved was -- subject to the submission | | | |\n| 25 | of revised proposed orders or a scheduling order on the | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 242 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 242 |\n| 1 | motion to dismiss was this DIP financing motion, which is |\n| 2 | 117, I believe. |\n| 3 | Yes, so then, 117 is continued.
The hearing is |\n| 4 | continued to Wednesday -- to May 4th at 2:00 p.m. remotely, |\n| 5 | via Zoom, okay?
You'll have to reach out to the courtroom - |\n| 6 | - there's a courtroom -- what is the address?
I forget. |\n| 7 | There's an email address that you would have to reach out to |\n| 8 | to get the Zoom information.
Is that Court Connect? |\n| 9 | Calendar Connect? |\n| 10 | THE CLERK:
Calendar. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Calendar Connect.
Did you have a |\n| 12 | question, Attorney Claiborn? |\n| 13 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, I did promise to report |\n| 14 | back to the Court on the monthly compensation order -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 16 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- before we ended today, and I can |\n| 17 | do that now, which is that I have looked at that and the |\n| 18 | U.S. Trustee is okay with that order that was uploaded. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
And is that on the docket? |\n| 20 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Yes. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
What's the -- what number is that?
Or |\n| 22 | do you know?
If you don't know, we can look.
I'm just |\n| 23 | saying, I thought maybe you had it at your disposal. |\n| 24 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I didn't write it down, but it was |\n| 25 | docketed earlier today. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 243 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 243 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 2 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
Your Honor, it's Docket |\n| 3 | Number 263. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
263.
Okay.
Thank you.
All right. |\n| 5 | So I'll take a look.
I've got a few of your orders to take |\n| 6 | a look at.
And, you know, I'm sure they're fine, so we'll - |\n| 7 | - and if there aren't -- if they aren't for some reason, |\n| 8 | we'll let you know. |\n| 9 | But in the meantime, is there anything else that |\n| 10 | we should be doing today, because I think we've addressed |\n| 11 | everything, unless I'm forgetting something. |\n| 12 | MR. JONAS:
Nothing further here, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Well, I do |\n| 14 | appreciate the cooperation of the parties and the progress |\n| 15 | that has been made.
I again want to be clear, I'm not |\n| 16 | suggesting that everything has to be consented to.
That's |\n| 17 | not how it works.
I understand that. |\n| 18 | But I still appreciate when things -- some issues, |\n| 19 | and many issues today were resolved upon agreement, which is |\n| 20 | helpful, very helpful.
And I appreciate the parties efforts |\n| 21 | in trying to resolve these matters. |\n| 22 | I will take a look at all the orders that we |\n| 23 | discussed on the record today that were submitted either |\n| 24 | yesterday or today and try to get those entered tomorrow, |\n| 25 | and then with regard to the DIP financing motion, that's |\n| | |\n\n| | 246 | |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | 244 | |\n| 1 | continued to next week at 2:00 p.m. remotely.
Okay? | |\n| 2 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, I just, I guess -- | |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Who am I missing?
Okay. | |\n| 4 | MR. JONAS:
-- the Verdolino and Lowey submission | |\n| 5 | is like -- I guess you said you were just going to consider | |\n| 6 | the evidence before -- | |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
I took it under advisement. | |\n| 8 | MR. JONAS:
Thank you, Your Honor. | |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
So I have to review -- I want to | |\n| 10 | review the evidence that was submitted today, and I will -- | |\n| 11 | and it will note on the -- it will note on the docket -- | |\n| 12 | should note on the docket that it was taken under | |\n| 13 | advisement.
Okay? | |\n| 14 | MR. JONAS:
Better -- I'm sorry.
Just one quick | |\n| 15 | comment. | |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Sure. | |\n| 17 | MR. JONAS:
I just looked at my calendar.
I may | |\n| 18 | need to do next -- because I'm before Judge Kaplan in the | |\n| 19 | Johnson and Johnson case in Trenton in the morning, I may | |\n| 20 | have to do it remotely, but since it's Zoom it shouldn't | |\n| 21 | matter, but I -- | |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Shouldn't matter.
That's right. | |\n| 23 | MR. JONAS:
-- just wanted to let you know.
Thank | |\n| 24 | you. | |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I'm sure Judge Kaplan can find a room | |\n| | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 244 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 318
Filed 05/03/22
Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34
Page 245 of
246 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 245 |\n| 1 | for you. |\n| 2 | MR. JONAS:
Yes, I'm sure.
Thank you. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Okay.
All right.
Anything |\n| 4 | further from anyone? |\n| 5 | All right.
So since we've addressed all the |\n| 6 | matters in the Kwok case today, court is adjourned. |\n| 7 | (Proceedings adjourned at 5:34 p.m.) |\n| 8 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and |\n| 9 | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that |\n| 10 | the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official |\n| 11 | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above |\n| 12 | entitled matter. |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | May 3, 2022 |\n| 16 | Christine Fiore, CERT-410 |\n| 17 | Transcriber |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n\n| | 246 | | | |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------|---------|--|--|\n| | | 246 | | |\n| 1 | | | | |\n| 2 | INDEX | | | |\n| 3 | | | | |\n| 4 | WITNESSES
DIRECT
CROSS
REDIRECT | RECROSS | | |\n| 5 | FOR THE DEBTOR: | | | |\n| 6 | Craig R. Jalbert
26
39
71 | 75 | | |\n| 7 | | | | |\n| 8 | Ho Wan Kwok
138
155,181 | | | |\n| 9 | | | | |\n| 10 | | | | |\n| 11 | COURT EXHIBITS:
ID | Rec'd | | |\n| 12 | 1
Craig answer to Aronsson question under seal
62 | | | |\n| 13 | | | | |\n| 14 | PAX EXHIBITS: | | | |\n| 15 | 17
Transcript of 341 Meeting | 180 | | |\n| 16 | 18
Ace Decade Affidavit in English | 180 | | |\n| 17 | 19
Ace Decade Affidavit in Chinese | 180 | | |\n| 18 | 15
Wang Deposition Transcript | 198 | | |\n| 19 | | | | |\n| 20 | CLOSING ARGUMENT: | | | |\n| 21 | On Behalf of PAX | 199 | | |\n| 22 | On Behalf of the United States Trustee | 211 | | |\n| 23 | On Behalf of the Unsecured Creditors | 213 | | |\n| 24 | On Behalf of Golden Springs New York | 216 | | |\n| 25 | On Behalf of the Debtor | 217 | | |\n| | | | | |","body_zh":"案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交于 05/03/22 录入于 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 1 页，共 246 页\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格州地区 布里奇波特分院\n\n关于\n*\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n*\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n*\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n*\n2022年4月27日\n债务人。\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官面前进行的程序记录誊本\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：\nWILLIAM R. BALDIGA, ESQ.（威廉·R·鲍尔迪加律师）\nBENNETT S. SILVERBERG, ESQ.（本尼特·S·西尔弗伯格律师）\nKENNETH AULET, ESQ.（肯尼斯·奥莱特律师）\nJEFFREY L. JONAS, ESQ.（杰弗里·L·乔纳斯律师）\nBrown Rudnick, LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\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）：\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼律师）\nLAURA S. ARONSSON, ESQ.（劳拉·S·阿伦松律师）\nDAVID V. HARBACH, II, ESQ.（大卫·V·哈巴赫二世律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥麦文·迈尔斯律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nPATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·M·伯尼律师）\nRobinson & Cole LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n程序以电子录音方式记录，誊本由誊写服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与誊写服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍利·L·克莱伯恩律师）\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表利害关系方 Golden Spring (New York)（金泉〔纽约〕）：\nTIMOTHY MILTENBERGER, ESQ.（蒂莫西·米尔滕伯格律师）\nCohn Birnbaum & Shea, P.C.（科恩·伯恩鲍姆与谢律师事务所）\n100 Pearl Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代表利害关系方 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资〔美国〕有限责任公司）：\nSTEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ.（斯蒂芬·M·金塞思律师）\nAARON A. ROMNEY, ESQ.（亚伦·A·罗姆尼律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n拟受聘为债权人委员会律师：\nIRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·戈德曼律师）\nJOHN KAPLAN, ESQ.（约翰·卡普兰律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表债权人 Rui Ma（马锐）、Zheng Wu（吴征）及 Weican Meng（孟维灿）：\nKRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯滕·梅休律师）\nMcElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter（麦克尔罗伊、多伊奇、马尔瓦尼与卡彭特律师事务所）\n30 Jeliff Lane\nSouthport, CT 06890\n\n（程序于上午9时46分开始。）\n\n书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法庭：早上好。请债务人律师先行，为记录目的说明出庭情况。\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：早上好，法官阁下。William Baldiga，Brown Rudnick，代表债务人。与我一同出庭的是我的同事 Ben Silverberg、Ken Aulet 和 Jeff Jonas。谢谢。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n乔纳斯律师：早上好。\n\n书记员：抱歉。我听到了 Bennett Silverberg，但还有一位我没有——\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：Ben Silverberg，Kenneth Aulet。\n\n书记员：谢谢。\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：我相信他的临时出庭动议在一两周前已获准。\n\n奥莱特律师：昨天。\n\n法庭：我想就在前几天。\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：昨天。抱歉。\n\n法庭：就在前几天，是的。\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：以及 Jeffrey Jonas。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：谢谢。\n\n金塞思律师：早上好，法官阁下。Stephen Kindseth，Zeisler & Zeisler。\n\n与我一同出庭的是我的同事 Aaron Romney，代表 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC。\n\n罗姆尼律师：早上好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n米尔滕伯格律师：早上好，法官阁下。Timothy Miltenberger，代表 Golden Spring (New York)。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n弗里德曼律师：早上好，法官阁下。Peter Friedman，O'Melveny & Myers，代表 Pacific Alliance Group（太平洋联盟集团）。\n\n与我一同出庭的是我的同事 Laura Aronsson，她的临时出庭申请已获准，还有 David Harbach，他在后方，但将到律师席加入我们。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n弗里德曼律师：Robinson & Cole 律师事务所的 Birney 律师也在场。\n\n伯尼律师：早上好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n戈德曼律师：早上好，法官阁下。Irve Goldman，Pullman & Comley，与我的同事 Jonathan Kaplan（乔纳森·卡普兰）一同出庭。我们代表 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors（无担保债权人正式委员会）的申请尚待裁定。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n卡普兰律师：早上好。\n\n克莱伯恩律师：早上好，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n梅休律师：早上好，法官阁下。Kristin Mayhew，McElroy, Deutsche, Mulvaney & Carpenter，代表债权人 Rui Ma 和 Zheng Wu。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n梅休律师：早上好。\n\n法庭：还有其他人希望为今日听证记录其出庭情况吗？\n\n（无可听见的回应。）\n\n法庭：好的。如各位所知，我们今天安排了听证会。日程表上有许多事项，但今天安排进行证据听证的两项事项是聘用 Verdolino & Lowey（韦尔多利诺与洛伊）的申请，ECF No. 90，以及债务人持有资产融资动议——我已缩短其标题，但其本质上就是如此——ECF 117。\n\n我知道日程表上还有许多其他事项。我知道各位今天早上开始前用了几分钟时间。我不知道在我们开始之前，是否有人希望向法庭报告任何事项。\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：是的，法官阁下。谢谢。再次说明，William Baldiga，代表债务人。\n\n法官阁下，我们不仅在今天上午，而且在过去两周中都很高兴取得了重大进展。如果我可以仅作简要报告，而不作辩论，说明我们就每项事项目前所处的情况？\n\n法庭：当然。请继续。\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：关于涉及该船舶的解除自动停止动议，已有解决方案。您可能记得，该船舶的所有人，AK International——HK International，曾在一段时间前提交拟议命令。该命令已协商完毕。如您所料，它比最初提交的版本稍长，但这些——这是这类事项中会发生的情况，各方需要一些时间在接下来——嗯，目前正在进行——最终确定某些措辞，但尚未准备好提交——但他们相信，今天上午某个时候，所有人都会审阅该措辞，并将有一份经完全同意的命令，解决解除停止动议，返还该船舶，并彻底解决该事项。$37 million 已存入 Zeisler Client Trust Fund Account，因此这已不再是问题，即使它曾经是问题。故此方面取得了重大进展。\n\n不按任何特定顺序，Brown Rudnick 的聘用事项，所有异议均已解决。我相信 PAX 希望在记录中保留权利，但我们会听取他们在该方面希望作出的任何陈述。\n\n关于 Verdolino & Lowey，除 PAX 的异议外，所有异议均已解决，我猜 PAX 将决定他们是否希望继续推进该异议。但所有其他异议均已解决。\n\n关于费用程序，即中期费用程序动议，所有异议均已解决。关于——\n\n法庭：请等一下。让我——我正在——\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：抱歉，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：不，没关系。我只是想确保我在跟上您的陈述。\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：我想我应当提供案卷编号。\n\n法庭：不，没关系。这样就可以。我只是——我能弄清楚。好的。请继续。那么——\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：有——\n\n法庭：——中期——中期程序已解决，您是这个意思吗？\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：作为解决方案的一部分，我们将把 PAX 增列为已通知当事人。因此，我们还需要就该命令进行工作，但不存在尚未解决的异议，只需完善该命令。谢谢。\n\n关于 DIP 贷款，仍有一项异议，但我相信仅为 PAX 的异议。我很抱歉。美国受托人也仍有一项异议。因此，看起来我们将就——\n\n法庭：就该事项出示证据？\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：——今日的陈述继续进行——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：——如各方希望，包括证据。然后，我们还有驳回动议。我们——我们今天需要花一些时间与您就此进行排期，并协调法庭日程和其他当事人的日程，但已经就此进行了大量讨论。有一个未决问题，即我们是否将在此期间继续进行 341 会议；如有必要，我们将就此进行辩论，说明其如何影响排期并使程序复杂化，但我们也许能够解决该问题。因此，我认为这就是我已简要说明的全部日程，法官阁下。Kindseth 律师可能希望进一步说明我们就该船舶目前所处的情况，但显然所有当事人均可纠正其中任何部分或作出补充评论，不过——\n\n法庭：我有几件事——\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：当然。\n\n法庭：——在您继续之前。各位先继续，然后我——也许你们会回答我的问题。\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：好的。我将交给其他人。\n\n法庭：Friedman 律师，您方才准备——\n\n鲍尔迪加律师：但我对取得的进展感到很高兴，法官阁下。我在上次听证中报告过，无法与各方进行沟通，而这一情况已发生显著改变。我们与委员会、美国受托人办公室以及委员会成员进行了非常良好的沟通，很高兴看到本案现正朝着良好方向推进，大多数已提交的事项已得到彻底解决，仍有少数事项尚待处理。因此，我们认为正朝着正确方向前进。现在，我将交由其他人回答法庭可能提出的任何问题。\n\n法庭：Friedman 律师，请继续。您对 DIP 动议仍有异议，但您的当事人还有何种其他异议？\n\n弗里德曼律师：法官阁下，我们还对本案中聘用财务顾问提出异议，我们将审查拟议的财务顾问，其将——就此关联事项。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n弗里德曼律师：我想作出几点评论。您知道，停止动议显然是我方的动议，因此我认为我应说明其现状。\n\n法庭：是的。\n\n弗里德曼律师：我们已与 HK 进行了广泛讨论。我们已与委员会进行了广泛讨论。我确实认为，我们目前已原则上同意一份命令。该命令有许多保障措施，因为我们显然，您知道，在进入本案时存在疑虑，并且仍有这些疑虑。我认为我们应很快会从 HK 的律师那里收到最终草案，因为我们已解决相关要点。\n\n我想——我要说的是，一旦该命令——一旦该命令提交到您手中——我们显然极为尊重法庭的时间。停止期限于星期一届满，通常那一天将是法庭必须作出命令的日期。出于对法庭的尊重，如该命令到法庭手中后法庭需要更多时间，我们将同意存在一项特殊情况。没有达成协议，我们本不会同意这一点。但我显然对给法庭造成过重负担或试图迫使法庭仓促处理极为敏感，这不是任何人的\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n意图，因此我们将把它提交给——它将被提交给本院。并且在本院——如果本院此后有后续问题并需要安排任何事项，我只是想向本院明确表示，我们将配合本院的一切需要，不会以任何方式试图催促日程，从而使您的工作更加困难。本院：嗯，我对此表示感谢。我也感谢各方所作的努力。显然，一旦我看到该命令，我将审阅它——弗里德曼先生（Friedman）：好的。本院：——然后看看我是否有任何关切。弗里德曼先生：谢谢，法官阁下。然后，我想说，法官阁下，这是进展。这是一种明确的进展形式。我们仍然对本案有很多关切，这些关切并未减退。巴尔迪加先生（Baldiga）是正确的。我们仅保留与聘请 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）有关的某些权利。我们实际上认为，Kwok 先生（郭文贵）拥有称职律师代理是重要的，而 Brown Rudnick 无疑是称职的律师。若不聘请他们，将会——A）我们在上次听证会上听到您说他们将被聘请；以及 B）无论本案采取何种形式，他们都是必要的。\n\n我们还有另外两项异议。我们将在今天对其进行推进。本院：好的。谢谢。戈德曼先生（Goldman）？戈德曼先生：是，法官阁下。谢谢。我想就委员会对 DIP 贷款和 Verdolino 贷款——更准确地说，对其继续保留——所提异议的解决方案作进一步说明。我认为，将和解条款记入记录并告知本院我们已将其形成书面文件，这一点很重要。我们昨晚一直工作到很晚，终于能够在今天上午达成最终协议。因此，如果我能向本院报告这些条款，我认为将有助于本院和各方。本院：请讲。戈德曼先生：关于 DIP 动议，我们已同意，债务人和 Golden Spring（黄金泉）将删除以下作为终止事件：债务人提出驳回动议、指定 Chapter 11 受托人的动议，或转换程序的动议。他们还将删除债务人专属权终止作为终止事件，前提是委员会同意在最初的 120 天期限届满前不寻求终止专属权，该期限将于\n\n6 月 15 日前后届满。因此，我们确实同意，在此之前不会寻求终止该专属权。本院：那么，这些协议将如何记载？是否会有——是否会有一份修订后的 DIP 贷款协议，还是这将成为命令的一部分，或者两者兼有？戈德曼先生：两者兼有。本院：好的。请继续。戈德曼先生：是的。两者都会修订。终止事件载于 DIP 协议中，而非命令中。命令只是提及——本院：好的。戈德曼先生：——信贷协议。最初的 $2 million 贷款——我们请求本院在临时基础上批准的贷款——将支付至本所的信托账户。我们将为此设立一个计息的独立存款账户。我没有与债务人的律师明确讨论这一点，但我们将需要债务人填写一份 W-9 表格，因为破产财产将有权获得该笔资金所产生的——任何利息。这是银行的要求，而不是本所的要求。因此，如本院批准该解决方案，我们将需要填写该表格。该 $2 million 将用于支付委员会的专业人员以及可能被指定的任何审查员，或者审查员的专业人员的费用。当然，这不影响在最终基础上请求的额外贷款。我预计我们也将能够就那些贷款达成安排。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n指定或审查员的专业人员。当然，这不影响在最终基础上请求的额外贷款。我预计我们也将能够就那些贷款达成安排。\n\n我们协商的另一项条款，也是委员会极为关切的事项，涉及以指定 Chapter 11 受托人为依据的终止事件。我们非常担心——而这也是我们提出异议的要点之一——该条款会使程序失衡。\n\n因此，我们能够达成的安排是，债务人和 Golden Spring 承诺，在 Golden Spring 同意于发生终止事件时提供的 $500,000 中——其中将包括指定 Chapter 11 受托人——他们同意在截至该日，即指定受托人之日，已经获批的所有专业人员费用之外，额外提供 $500,000。其中，400 将专门用于 Chapter 11 受托人及其专业人员的费用，以及委员会专业人员的费用，前提是他们在受托人被指定后仍继续发挥作用。\n\n因此，委员会确信，如果必须由 Chapter 11 受托人接管，将有一笔资金供该受托人继续进行资产调查和追偿。本院：您所说的 500,000 或 400,000，是这 $2 million 的一部分，还是在这 $2 million 之外？戈德曼先生：嗯，那将——实际上是在截至指定受托人之日已经产生的任何费用之外，因此我的理解是，它将在该贷款之外。未具名人士：在……之外？戈德曼先生：如果在临时期间指定受托人，则在 $2 million 之外。或者，如果其在最终期间发生，则将是额外增加的款项。这是我的理解。本院：好的。我不确定那一方的所有人是否同意，但我们拭目以待。这就是我提出该问题的原因。（停顿。）巴尔迪加先生：关于这一点，如果 $2 million 中仍有尚未发生的金额，就不会对其重复计算。戈德曼先生：我同意。巴尔迪加先生：好的。谢谢。戈德曼先生：是。本院：好的。戈德曼先生：债务人请求在临时命令中作出善意认定。只要附有非常严格的限定条件，我们对此没有异议；该限定条件是，该认定将严格限于提供 DIP 贷款展期，并且不得以任何方式被解释或用于抗辩委员会、另一破产财产代表或债权人可能基于替身实体、揭开公司面纱、欺诈性转让等理论对 Golden Spring 提出的请求。换言之，他们不能利用善意认定来表示：法官阁下，您已认定我们是一个独立实体，而且我们在 DIP 事项中系善意行事，那么您怎能揭开公司面纱。因此，该内容将从善意认定中排除，善意认定将仅涉及临时 DIP 费用——更正，是 DIP 资金——的提供。现行命令中的不放弃条款也有类似的限定条件。该条款载于第 15 段。我们将使其更加明确，以符合我刚才就善意认定向法官阁下说明的限定条件，即命令的录入不会以任何方式损害或不利影响可能对 Golden Spring 存在的请求。我认为这概括了全部内容。我认为——我们与债务人就一点达成一致，那就是声明中所提出的观点，即本程序应当为债权人提供公平机会，以调查债务人拥有何种资产、最终确定这些资产为何，并将 DIP 融资作为实现该目的的手段。如果该解决方案获批准，我们认为这完全有助于实现其声明中所述的一切。本院：好的。谢谢。金德塞斯先生（Kindseth），您想说些什么吗？金德塞斯先生：是的。我们存在一些后勤问题和时间问题，因此，尽快修订并传阅该命令非常重要，所以我想请求准许离席返回办公室完成命令草案。我还——本院：是 DIP 命令吗？金德塞斯先生：抱歉？本院：是 DIP 命令吗？金德塞斯先生：不是。这是有关 Lady May（“五月女士”）的——本院：哦，您是——好的。金德塞斯先生：正确。我的——本院：那么，其实并没有——那么并没有作为基础的动议，对吗？我的意思是——\n\n金德塞斯先生：实际上——本院：——您是说，这是对解除自动中止裁定所涉救济的解决方案？金德塞斯先生：正确。本院：好的，好的。金德塞斯先生：我可以向法官阁下提供一份概要——本院：不，那没关系。金德塞斯先生：很好。本院：我不需要看它。金德塞斯先生：太好了。本院：我的意思是，我想——我会阅读它——金德塞斯先生：是。本院：——当我看到它时，对吗？金德塞斯先生：好的。很好。本院：因此，我认为这没问题。金德塞斯先生：那么，我可以离席吗？本院：是的，是的。当然可以。谢谢。金德塞斯先生：非常感谢，法官阁下。本院：好的。那么，我原本要就其提出问题的唯一另一事项是——巴尔迪加先生，除审查员和驳回动议外，您没有谈到今天日程上唯一的事项是债权申报截止日期动议。该动议的状态如何？巴尔迪加先生：抱歉。我确实忘记了那一点。我相信该事项也已完全解决。就此而言，我们已同意美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）提出的所有请求，基本上是简化债权人为遵守截止日期所必须做的事项。本院：提议的截止日期是什么时候？巴尔迪加先生：我不——我不——计算下来是在送达截止日期通知后 52 天。本院：好的。那么我必须审阅该事项，因为我不确定 52 天是否有足够时间。巴尔迪加先生：好的。本院：我可能——您知道，现行法典在过去几年中已经变更过数次，但我认为，在第 341 次会议之后最短的期限是 70 天，是 7 天或类似期限，但这是一个 Chapter 11 案件，其中——巴尔迪加先生：对。本院：——并非总是必须设定申报截止日期，对吗？但如果设定，如果你们申请设定，这没有问题，但我不知道 52 天是否——我必须审阅你们提出的任何方案，不过我只是想告诉你们，对我而言 52 天似乎很短。我并不是说我要设定为 180 天或诸如此类，但我认为，债权申报截止日期至少应在 75 天左右的范围内。从本案管理的角度看，这会有问题吗？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：嗯，这取决于情况。我的意思是，在我们进行计划程序时，了解有哪些债权是有帮助的。\n\n本院：我理解。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：而且我们急于推进计划程序。案件已经进行了两个月。如果我们再给债权人大致两个月提交债权申报，这似乎不是很大的负担，但请确定一个日期并予以送达，无论本院认为何种日期适当，\n\n这将会——但这将有助于推进计划程序——法庭：而且您当然可以——巴尔迪加律师：——了解有哪些债权主张。法庭：您知道，您当然可以根据不同的可能情况准备您的披露声明和计划，对吗？巴尔迪加律师：与其说是披露声明，不如说是支撑该计划的财务交易。这是一个——我们——债权主张，债权主张的金额很重要。并且为了推进——法庭：我完全同意，这正是关键所在，对吗？巴尔迪加律师：是的。法庭：而且——您没有预先打包的第11章程序，因此您必须有时间进行征求意见和表决，也必须给予人们提出债权证明的机会，即有实质意义的机会。巴尔迪加律师：是的。我知道规则规定，推定45天是充分的，我们接受可以更多——法庭：什么规则？巴尔迪加律师：地方法规则3003-1。法庭：规定提交——设定债权证明截止日期为45天？也许确实如此。\n\n巴尔迪加律师：让我再看一遍。（暂停。）巴尔迪加律师：但是，再说一次，我们——我们甚至并未建议45天，但我想那是一个参考点。不过，如果法庭认为不应是45天，而应是52天或60天，那么——法庭：我只是没有看到45天作为——或者地方法规则3001-1中任何时间期限。巴尔迪加律师：抱歉。我说错了，是3003-1。法庭：那是指其债权被列为有争议、附条件或未确定金额的债权人。该规则适用于债权被列为有争议、附条件或未确定金额的债权人，并向其发出提交债权证明截止期限的通知。该规则的目的在于，使提交案件并在其财务状况说明和清单中将所有债权——或者任何债权，不一定是全部——列为有争议、附条件或未确定金额的债务人，在康涅狄格州适用一项程序，即要求债务人通知该债权人，其债权被列为有争议、附条件或未确定金额；且若其不提交债权证明，则其将无法提出异议，并且不会根据该计划获得任何分配。巴尔迪加律师：我明白。我并没有——我并没有\n\n说该规则决定我们在这里所做的事情。法庭：是。巴尔迪加律师：它提供了一个参考点，即——这是某些债权人提交其债权的截止期限。我并不是说这决定我们该怎么做。我是说，如同几乎所有其他涉及可能提出数千万美元债权的第11章案件一样，设定债权提交截止期限有助于推动案件进展——法庭：我完全同意。我并不是说不会有一个——巴尔迪加律师：好的。这就是我所说的全部。因此我们将——法庭：我并不是说不会有截止期限。我只是不确定会是52天。巴尔迪加律师：正如我所说，让我们定一个您觉得合适的日期，并让程序继续推进，我们会照做。法庭：好的。谢谢。巴尔迪加律师：谢谢。法庭：好的。那么，弗里德曼先生（Friedman），这是您对聘用韦尔多利诺及洛伊（Verdolino & Lowey）的申请提出的异议，以及——您客户的——以及DIP融资命令的异议。\n\n现在，我确实看到了各方的证人和证物清单。我还看到昨晚就不同证物提交了一份联合证物表格。你们计划今天上午如何进行？您——您要——我们是从您的异议开始，还是巴尔迪加律师从他的——或者他的动议开始？巴尔迪加律师：为确立证据基础——我原本打算传唤克雷格·贾尔伯特（Craig Jalbert）先生出庭作证。这是PAX打算交叉询问的证人。直接询问会很简短，但是——法庭：如果弗里德曼先生同意，我没有意见。巴尔迪加律师：好的。法庭：我的意思是，我相信你们二位已就此谈过，对吗？弗里德曼律师：法官阁下，我的同事阿伦松女士（Aronsson）将处理对直接询问的任何异议及交叉询问；该证人——被准予退庭后，我们将进行辩论。法庭：好的。好的。那么，巴尔迪加律师，您可以传唤您的第一位证人。并且，为使记录明确，我们现在——这些证据是否将同时适用于韦尔多利诺\n\n案号22-50073，文件318，于05/03/22提交，于05/03/22 13:29:34登记，第25页，共246页\n1 及洛伊以及DIP动议，还是我们仅从\n2 韦尔多利诺及洛伊的申请开始？\n3 巴尔迪加律师：\n就韦尔多利诺及洛伊。\n4 法庭：\n好的。\n谢谢。\n5 巴尔迪加律师：\n贾尔伯特先生。\n6 法庭：\n贾尔伯特先生，当您——当您坐下\n7 时，请告诉我您能看到什么，好吗？\n如果您面前有\n8 一个屏幕，您知道。\n9 我只是想说，我的屏幕显示\n10 什么也没有。\n它至少应当显示日程表吗？\n11 书记员：\n不。\n12 法庭：\n好的。\n它不应当显示\n13 任何内容。\n好的。\n14 贾尔伯特先生：\n它是空白的，法官阁下。\n15 法庭：\n您能看到任何东西吗？\n16 贾尔伯特先生：\n它是空白的。\n17 法庭：\n好的。\n很好。\n我的也是。\n那么\n18 我们是在同一页面上。\n但希望我们很快会转到\n19 不同的页面。\n20 贾尔伯特先生：\n早上好。\n21 法庭：\n早上好。\n22 债务人证人克雷格·贾尔伯特，已宣誓\n23 书记员：\n请陈述您的姓名和营业地址，\n24 以供记录。\n25 证人：\n我的姓名是Craig R. Jalbert，J-A-L-\n\nB，如Boy中的B，E，如Eric中的E，R-T，如Tom中的T。我在韦尔多利诺及洛伊工作。我们的营业地址是124 Washington Street, Foxboro, Massachusetts 02035。书记员：谢谢。法庭：早上好，贾尔伯特先生。证人：早上好，法官阁下。法庭：您在那里还好吗？您有所需的一切吗？证人：（无可听见的回应。）法庭：好的。谢谢。我想我们甚至没有水，但如果您到了需要一些水的时候，请告诉我们。好吗？证人：谢谢。我很感激。由巴尔迪加律师直接询问：问：早上好，贾尔伯特先生。答：早上好。问：您在介绍中说，您与韦尔多利诺及洛伊律师事务所有关联？答：是。问：您能否向法庭说明该事务所从事什么业务。答：它被称为一家会计师事务所。我们的大部分工作是专项工作。我们几乎唯一不提供的会计服务是鉴证类服务，即审计、审阅、汇编；但我们在无力偿债事务中提供大量诉讼支持工作。我们为联邦参议员、众议员和总统候选人进行联邦选举申报，并提供我们称为高净值人士事务管理和税务申报的服务。案号22-50073，文件318，于05/03/22提交，于05/03/22 13:29:34登记，第27页，共246页\n\n贾尔伯特——直接询问\n1 工作。\n我们为\n2 联邦参议员、众议员和总统\n3 候选人进行联邦选举申报，并提供我们所称的高净值\n4 人士事务管理和税务申报服务。\n5 问：\n您在该事务所担任什么职位？\n6 答：\n我是负责人。\n7 问：\n您是否为该事务所的共同创办人？\n8 答：\n嗯，该事务所于1979年成立。\n韦尔多利诺\n9 或韦尔多利诺及洛伊于1986年购买了该事务所的一半。\n我购买了\n10 另一半是在1987年。\n多年来，它逐渐发展为\n11 韦尔多利诺及洛伊。\n12 问：\n那么，您至今已在该事务所工作了多久？\n13 答：\n三十五年。\n14 问：\n三十五——35年。\n15 那么，在韦尔多利诺及——您在该事务所的职务\n16 是什么？\n17 答：\n负责人。\n18 问：\n这是否意味着您至少负责——\n19 与他人共同负责该事务所？\n20 答：\n是。\n因此，我不是所有人，因为注册会计师不能成为\n21 所有人，但我被视为享有同等地位的50%合伙人。\n并且\n22 我所有未用于管理该事务所的时间——我是\n23 “管理合伙人”——都用于无力偿债事务及\n24 相关事项。\n25 问：\n那么，您在无力偿债案件中有经验吗？\n\n案号22-50073，文件318，于05/03/22提交，于05/03/22 13:29:34登记，第28页，共246页\n\n贾尔伯特——直接询问\n1 答：\n有。\n2 问：\n有多少年？\n3 答：\n始于1988年或1989年的某个时候。\n4 问：\n好的。\n在加入韦尔多利诺及洛伊之前，您——\n5 从大学教育开始，您的受教育经历是什么？\n6 答：\n我于1983年从波士顿学院（Boston College）毕业，获得理学学士学位及\n7 会计学学位。\n此后，\n8 我已完成35——38或39年的会计及相关领域\n9 继续专业教育。\n10 问：\n好的。\n并且，如您——我想如您所说，韦尔多利诺及\n11 洛伊不是审计机构，对吗？\n12 答：\n对。\n13 问：\n请说明您在破产案件中所做的工作，以及\n14 多年来大约参与过多少破产案件？\n15 答：\n我上次统计是在五年前或十年前，当时\n16 我参与过7,000宗第7章案件及500宗第11章案件。\n17 我曾三次被指定为第11章受托人。\n18 我曾担任联邦——州——联邦接管人、州\n19 法院接管人，并在四个州担任为债权人利益进行转让的受让人。\n20 我曾——我曾多次担任确认后\n21 受托人——随便什么头衔——清算监督人、\n22 清算管理人，诸如此类。\n我与\n23 受托人、占有中的债务人、债权人委员会、\n24 股权委员会、有担保债权人、无担保债权人合作，\n\n案号22-50073，文件318，于05/03/22提交，于05/03/22 13:29:34登记，第29页，共246页\n\n贾尔伯特——直接询问\n1 多年来，我们几乎代表过破产案件中的任何\n2 利益相关方，参与过所有这些案件。\n3 我想这就是我目前能想到的全部。\n4 问：\n您是否就计划制定和谈判向债务人提供协助？\n5 答：\n是。\n6 问：\n您是否提供财务报告协助？\n7 答：\n是。\n8 问：\n在这里，您知道债务人显然是一名\n9 个人？\n10 答：\n是。\n11 问：\n事实上，Kwok先生（郭文贵）就在法庭内，您现在已多次\n12 见过他？\n13 答：\n是。\n14 问：\n他显然有律师协助他，对吗？\n15 答：\n是。\n16 问：\n除布朗·拉德尼克（Brown Rudnick）外，他们是破产律师吗？\n17 答：\n据我所知，不是。\n18 问：\n好的。\n他个人是否有一支精通破产报告的\n19 财务工作人员？\n20 答：\n没有。\n21 问：\n您怎么知道？\n22 答：\n有人告诉过我。\n而且，在过去——今天是几号\n23 ——大约45天内，发生了大量互动，为使我们开展工作所需的全部\n24 信息都经由\n25 法律团队提供。\n\n案号22-50073，文件318，于05/03/22提交，于05/03/22 13:29:34登记，第30页，共246页\n\n贾尔伯特——直接询问\n1 法律团队。\n2 问：\n好的。\n但您和您的员工在破产案件中的\n3 财务报告方面具有相当丰富的经验，\n4 对吗？\n5 答：\n是。\n6 问：\n本案需要何种报告？\n7 答：\n嗯，最初想到的是两部分报告。\n8 除清单和财务状况说明书外，\n9 先不谈那些，那是案件开始时的事项；在持续进行的\n10 基础上，有每月经营报告，现在还在案卷中提交，\n11 并向美国受托人（United States Trustee）提供补充信息。\n12 这是美国受托人的表格和规则。\n13 此外，还有一份表格426，其与规则2015.3有关，\n14 用于报告与实体有关的事项——我认为该术语是——\n15 由债务人实质控制的\n16 实体。\n17 问：\n好的。\n您是否参与了本案首次提交的每月经营报告的\n18 编制？\n19 答：\n是。\n20 问：\n您做了什么？\n或者说，我所称的您，是指您和您的\n21 工作人员。\n22 答：\n我们韦尔多利诺及洛伊——开始了\n23 编制工作。\n我们使用美国受托人提供的表格。\n24 那是一份需要填写的PDF。\n其中\n25 有很多说明。\n我们与债务人的\n\nJalbert－直接询问\n\n我们与律师合作，以取得准备该表格所需的信息。该项工作已就2月和3月完成。我们需要协助取得Golden Spring（黄金泉）方面的意见，并已通过律师作出安排。我们确实与Golden Spring进行了最初几次电子邮件往来以获取信息，而几乎所有信息均通过律师提供。问：好的。关于财务状况说明和清单，您是否参与了该过程？答：是。问：您和您的工作人员在这方面做了什么？答：为了提交财务状况说明和清单，需要大量历史信息，因此我们通过多次电话和电子邮件与法律团队沟通，以获取该等信息。我们最初填写了所有清单的草案表格——众所周知，此类清单有若干份——以及财务状况说明。我们最初起草了我称之为具体说明的第一稿；其中有作为财务状况说明和清单不可分割组成部分提交的通用说明。我相信一般说明由律师拟定和起草。在从法律团队收到、取得并整理信息后，我首先尝试提交针对财务状况说明和清单中各项具体问题作出回应的具体说明。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 31 页，共 246 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 32 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert－直接询问\n\n问：您是否参与了该占有中债务人设立所谓DIP存款账户的工作？答：是。问：您做了什么？答：美国受托人办公室只允许若干金融机构在破产案件中持有资金，因此我们确定了该组银行，并试图了解哪些银行愿意参与。我们与三家经常办理破产业务的银行保持合作关系。最初——现已不再如此——我将担任实际签字人，因此我们以该方式进行陈述。当明确不会如此时，我们作出安排，使占有中债务人成为该账户的唯一签字人，并设立符合美国受托人办公室要求的银行账户。该银行曾在本辖区及其他辖区的其他案件中办理过此类业务。该银行也是我们在过去几年中于若干事项中与之合作过的银行。问：是哪家银行？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 33 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert－直接询问\n\n答：我们选择了People's（人民银行）和M&T（M&T银行）。在我们讨论期间，它们合并了。因此，我们与双方都进行了沟通，但最终该账户将设于M&T。问：好的。明白。您是否利用您的个人经验和关系协助设立该账户？答：是。问：再确认一下，您本人和您的事务所都不会担任受托人，但您仅在这方面提供咨询协助，对吗？答：正确。问：您不会在本案中担任受托人，对吗？答：正确。问：因此，所有工作均为咨询性质？答：嗯——问：会计方面或——答：是。我不知道应使用什么术语，但将会有会计和报告工作。银行账户中的信息必须在MLR中报告。债务人没有会计人员。我认为我们将承担一定职责，确保支票开具，并由债务人签署支票。此后，关于报告，委员会和其他方可能会有要求。美国受托人可能要求每周、每月或每两周报告。我不知道他们会要求什么。不同案件中，人们采取不同做法。当然，还将通过MLR进行每月报告，因此我认为我们将协助并促成该项工作。问：您和您的工作人员是否曾就本案报告事宜与美国受托人办公室直接沟通？答：是。问：进展如何？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 34 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert－直接询问\n\n答：嗯，事情起始于——大家可能都知道，2021年6月，美国受托人开始提出一项要求，即每月的MLR与过去大不相同。过去全部使用Excel，您准备起来相当简单。现在是在PDF上完成，您可以直接在PDF中键入。一旦表格填写完毕，并录入特定案件所需且适当的全部信息，您实际点击一个按钮，数据便上传至美国受托人办公室的云端。随后会返回一份不再带有“草案”或其他水印的表格。该表格随后由债务人签署并提交至案卷。任何补充信息均由我的事务所或律师另行通过电子邮件发送给美国受托人。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 35 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert－直接询问\n\n嗯，自1月以来——我有若干正在进行第11章程序并须进行此类报告的案件——在未收到任何通知的情况下，表格发生了重大变化。过去它只是四、五页的普通表格。突然之间，它增加了一大堆其他页面和一些标记；您知道，就像去餐厅时按菜单按钮查看菜单那样，这份表格有那类符号和标记。我不知道那是什么。没有人能弄明白。我与美国受托人办公室会计部门的一位人士交谈，他恰好在纽约负责办理本案；他向我解释，这正是该表格应有的样子，因此我们随后得以迅速完成该表格。在此期间，他要求提供每月经营报告中的额外信息，此后我们一直在提供。问：您是否认为您和您的工作人员35年的经验有助于高效完成该项工作？答：当然。问：您认为该债务人如果没有贵所协助，能够完成该项工作吗？答：不能。问：关于清单和财务状况说明中的指示和定义，您的经验如何影响该项工作的完成方式？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 36 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert－直接询问\n\n答：嗯，显然非常有帮助。本案在多个方面都很特殊。其中一个特殊之处——至少法官阁下可能知道——是，与公司案件或第7章案件相比，个人第11章案件的数量并不多，相对占比较小。我们过去办理过若干此类案件。我们曾办理过不同类型的案件。本案非常特殊。因此，在处理过程中，虽然我们拥有大量历史知识、经验和基础，了解财务状况说明和清单所要求的内容，但我们必须确保向每个人说明规则和定义是什么。坦率地说，有时财务状况说明或清单中的实际问题，并不完全和全面地对应指示所述内容。定义可能略有不同。因此，我们在这些方面协助了所有人。律师和我们一样，都没有办理过很多个人第11章案件，因此我们都确保审阅了这些指示，以确保我们已经提交并完成一切可能完成的事项；并且，为免生疑，律师起草了随附于清单和财务状况说明的一般及具体通用说明，以处理和说明任何需要额外处理和描述的问题。\n\nJalbert－直接询问\n\n问：您的经验在这方面是否有帮助？答：是。问：您认为该债务人在没有您的协助下能够完成该项工作吗？答：不能。问：您先前提到，您的事务所不提供审计服务，对吗？答：是。问：虽然您的事务所担任受托人，而且您也曾担任受托人，但您在此并未担任受托人，对吗？答：正确。问：您记得几周前接受PAX（PAX）取证吗？答：是。问：好的。您是否尝试在证词中明确说明，您在此并未从事审计、法务或核验工作？答：我认为——我认为——我当时认为我已经说明了。我认为他们使用的关键词是“调查”。问：好的。答：我没有调查任何事项，对该问题的回答是否定的。问：好的。那么，是否要求您在本案中担任审查人？\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司）\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 37 页，共 246 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 38 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert－直接询问\n\n答：否。问：是否要求您担任受托人？答：否。问：是否要求您进行调查？答：否。问：但是否要求您与债务人及债务人的团队合作，按照破产法、规则和美国受托人办公室的要求提供财务信息？答：是，这属于其他服务之一。问：好的。但您认为您有能力完成该项工作？答：是。问：您认为——再确认一下——债务人没有您的帮助能完成该项工作吗？答：不能。问：好的。BALDIGA先生：法官阁下，没有其他问题。谢谢。法庭：谢谢。律师，交叉询问？（暂停。）ARONSSON女士：早上好。证人：早上好。ARONSSON女士：我是来自O'Melveny & Myers（欧麦律师事务所）的Laura Aronsson（劳拉·阿伦松）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 39 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert－交叉询问\n\nMyers。法庭：早上好。您可以开始。ARONSSON女士进行交叉询问：问：早上好，Jalbert先生。我想讨论V&L（V&L）迄今在本事项中所完成的工作。V&L是在2月的某个时候被联系的，对吗？答：2月底，3月初。问：受聘后，您同时着手处理财务状况说明和清单？答：嗯，我尚未受聘，所以。问：在您被联系之后？谢谢。答：在我们被联系之后，是的。我认为——除起草聘用函和提供关于本事务所的背景信息外——我认为我们的首要任务是开始处理财务状况说明和清单。问：您完成了该项工作吗？答：到目前为止，是的。问：随后V&L开始编制第一份每月经营报告？答：是。问：这是2月后半月的报告？答：嗯，这是2月份的报告。但债务人恰好于2月15日提交申请，所以。问：自那以后，债务人又提交了一份经营报告？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 40 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert－交叉询问\n\n答：3月份的，是的。问：该报告于4月20日提交？答：如果您这么说。我知道大约是在那个日期。问：现在谈谈您迄今就这些类别所完成的工作，我将从财务状况说明和清单开始；您根据从他人处收到的信息编制了这些提交文件？答：是。问：这些人包括Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所），对吗？答：是。问：Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）？答：是。问：他是Kwok（郭文贵）的私人律师吗？答：他是债务人的律师。我不知道您所说的私人律师是什么意思。问：还有Melissa Francis（梅丽莎·弗朗西斯）？答：是。我确实从她那里收到过信息。问：她是Kwok的私人律师吗？答：据我了解，她是——嗯，她是破产团队的一员。我不知道她是否只是他的私人律师。问：还有其他人吗？答：是。我们收到了一份电子表格，我认为该表格曾被某人修改或变更过几次。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交 05/03/22 登记 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 41 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—交叉询问\n\n1 Golden Spring（戈尔登·斯普林）。\n2 问 这与 SOFAs 和财产清单有关，还是与月度经营报告工作有关？\n4 答 与经营报告有关。\n5 问 好的。我们可以转到那个问题。除 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）、Aaron Mitchell（艾伦·米切尔）和 Melissa Francis（梅利莎·弗朗西斯）外，您是否就 SOFAs 和财产清单与其他任何人沟通过？\n8 答 没有。\n9 问 我想我听到您在主询问中作证称，Verdolino & Lowey（韦尔多利诺与洛伊）从我们刚才谈到的人员那里获得了所有相关信息。我注意到——您没有进行任何其他独立工作或核实事实？\n13 答 正确。\n14 问 您没有对 Kwok（郭文贵）先生在 SOFAs 和财产清单所列资产中可能拥有的所有权权益进行任何调查——调查？\n17 答 正确。\n18 问 例如，没有调查 Kwok 在 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）中的权益？\n20 答 正确。\n21 问 您没有对 SOFAs 和财产清单所列项目进行任何估值工作，对吗？\n23 答 如果您问的是我们是否进行了估值工作，没有。但是有人提出了问题。对那些问题的回答是纽约州签发的支票，我想还有联邦政府签发的支票；那些支票表面上载有一个数额。我不知道您是否称之为估值，但我们读取了支票，确定了该数额，并将其填入财产清单。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交 05/03/22 登记 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 42 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—交叉询问\n\n问 Verdolino & Lowey 没有对 Lady May 这类奢侈品进行估值的经验？\n\n答 正确。\n\n问 您没有对债务人的收入信息进行任何调查？\n\n答 正确。\n\n问 您没有就 Verdolino & Lowey 在本案中编制的任何申报文件与债务人交谈过？\n\n答 正确。\n\n问 Verdolino & Lowey 使用 Best Case（“最佳案例”）协助编制 SOFAs 和财产清单，对吗？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 那是行业软件？\n\n答 嗯，是的。除破产事务以外，我不知道它还做什么，但 Best Case 是一家——我不知道该公司的正式名称——他们制造、编制了一种软件，提供我所知道的几乎所有必须在破产案件中提交的破产表格。\n\n问 V&L 只是将您收到的信息输入该软件，以生成申报文件？\n\n答 嗯，首先我们获得了信息，理解了信息，然后，是的，我们将其键入了系统。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交 05/03/22 登记 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 43 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—交叉询问\n\n2 问 您没有就该委任审阅债务人的任何账簿和记录？\n4 答 正确。\n5 问 您不知道这些账簿和记录保存在何处？\n6 答 正确。\n7 问 您没有要求审阅它们？\n8 答 正确。\n9 问 转到与月度经营报告有关的工作，再次如同 SOFAs 和财产清单一样，Verdolino 依赖其从第三方收到的信息来协助编制？\n13 答 正确。\n14 问 您刚才提到了一份费用汇总，这是否是您从 Golden Spring 收到的一份费用汇总，其中分列了债务人的每月费用？\n17 答 嗯，他们分列的是代债务人支付的费用，即由第三方代表债务人支付的费用，是的。\n20 问 这大约分为七个类别？\n21 答 大约如此。\n22 问 据您所知，Golden Spring 是债务人在纽约市的家族办公室？\n24 BALDIGA（巴尔迪加）先生：异议。\n25 法院：您的依据是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交 05/03/22 登记 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 44 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—交叉询问\n\n1 证人：这不是我的理解。\n2 法院：请稍等一下，先生。\n3 您的异议是什么？\n4 BALDIGA（巴尔迪加）先生：嗯，证人已经回答了这个问题，所以我撤回异议，法官阁下。\n6 法院：好的。谢谢。\n7 证人：抱歉。请再问一遍。\n8 由 ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士询问：\n9 问 据您所知，Golden Spring 是债务人在纽约市的家族办公室？\n11 答 不是。这不是我的理解。\n12 ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：好的。书记官女士，请调出 PAX 证据 14。\n14 （暂停。）\n15 由 ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士询问：\n16 问 那么，仅为确认——\n17 书记官：在屏幕上——\n18 ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：抱歉。\n19 书记官：屏幕上显示的是证据 14，第 1 页。\n20 ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：谢谢。\n21 书记官：PAX 证据 14，第 1 页。\n22 由 ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士询问：\n23 问 那么，仅为确认——\n24 答 不。这不是我那份材料上所说的。我的材料显示我在第 171 页。它——它是否有一大堆——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交 05/03/22 登记 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 45 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—交叉询问\n\n45 书记官：是。\n\n证人：——所有证据都在一个 PDF 中？好的。\n\n书记官：那是证据 14 的第 1 页。\n\n证人：如果您说它是第 1 页，那它就是第 1 页。\n\n由 ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士询问：\n\n问 那么，仅为确认，您对 Golden Spring 的理解是什么？\n\n答 我的理解是，它是债务人儿子的公司／家族办公室。\n\nARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：好的。你们可以把那些撤下。谢谢。\n\n法院：律师，您并不申请将证据 14 采纳为证据，对吗？\n\nARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：不，我不申请。谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n由 ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士询问：\n\n问 您就月度经营报告中所含信息与 Golden Spring 的一人沟通过，对吗？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 该人向您提供了与月度经营报告有关的某些信息？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 那个人是谁？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交 05/03/22 登记 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 46 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—交叉询问\n\n1 答 我只知道他的名字。\n2 证人：我可以说出来吗？\n3 BALDIGA（巴尔迪加）先生：异议，法官阁下。嗯，我让 Golden Spring 来主张。\n5 MILTENBERGER（米尔滕伯格）先生：法官阁下，这个问题在 Jalbert 先生的证言录取中已经出现过。我的客户担心其员工受到骚扰、恐吓。除非有具体理由需要在记录中说出某位员工的姓名，否则我们希望员工身份保持保密，并且不载入记录。\n12 法院：嗯，我认为您必须就此提出动议，律师。您知道，这是——如果您想要求密封或保密，您必须通过适当的动议申请。\n16 但我认为律师所问的是——也许我错了，我们可以回放录音——您问的是一名从 Golden Spring 提供信息的特定人员。我认为问题是这个。\n21 ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：正是。\n22 法院：好的。不过，先生，暂时不要回答，好吗，因为我们必须弄清楚这里的——这里的问题是什么。\n25 那么，为什么需要知道 Golden Spring 那名特定人员的姓名？\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—交叉询问\n\n47 ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：当然。就这项特定动议而言，即 V&L、Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）的聘任，我们寻求证据开示，以了解聘任 Verdolino & Lowey 的目的，以及为何这符合财产的最佳利益。我们认为我们有权探究这一点；Verdolino & Lowey 编制 SOFAs、财产清单和月度经营报告的方式，包括是谁向 Verdolino 提供了基础事实，以及这些事实是什么，对于揭示该聘任是否符合财产的最佳利益具有重要意义。\n\n法院：好的。那么让我问您一个问题，如果我们——而且我现在并未就任何事项作出裁定——但是，对于让证人回答该问题，您是否反对——证人是否已经在证言录取中回答过这个问题？\n\nARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：他没有。\n\n法院：好的。该问题是否在证言录取中被问过？\n\nARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：是的。我们还寻求了证据开示，并收到了经过删节的电子邮件，因此那是该问题的缘由。\n\n法院：我明白了。所以您收到了一封来自——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交 05/03/22 登记 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 47 页，共 246 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交 05/03/22 登记 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 48 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—交叉询问\n\n1 来自 Golden Spring 的某人的电子邮件，但其中删节了人员姓名？\n3 ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：正确。\n4 法院：好的。您的担忧是什么，Miltenberger 律师？\n6 MILTENBERGER（米尔滕伯格）先生：我的客户担心其员工的隐私，法官阁下。且在 PAX 律师的陈述中，我没有看到任何内容明确表明，向 Verdolino & Lowey 提供信息之人的身份很重要。\n11 我们并不反对披露所提供的信息及其提供时间。我们唯一担心的是员工的隐私，我们请求对该员工姓名予以保密。\n16 法院：嗯，是否在某个时候必须由 Golden Spring 的某个人作证？\n18 我的意思是，您打算——您是否要指定一名 Rule 30(b) 代表，还是怎样——您不会——我的意思是，必须有某个人，不能只是公司实体。在某个时候必须有一名个人。\n23 MILTENBERGER（米尔滕伯格）先生：正确，法官阁下。Golden Spring 已接受询问。我们确实让 Golden Spring 的总裁作证并回答了所有问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交 05/03/22 登记 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 49 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—交叉询问\n\n49 法院：那么，向 Jalbert 先生提供信息的人不是 Golden Spring 的总裁，这就是——这就是问题所在？\n\n4 MILTENBERGER（米尔滕伯格）先生：这就是问题所在，法官阁下。那是一名 Golden Spring 的普通员工，只是将信息传递给 Verdolino & Lowey。而且，再次说明，我们并不反对询问该信息是什么，或者 Verdolino & Lowey 为何需要该信息；我们仅就该员工身份提出异议，以保护该个人的隐私。\n\n法院：嗯，我认为您本应申请保护令。但是，我们可以采取的另一种处理方式是——我的意思是，您没有这样做。在证言录取中被问到该问题时，您做了什么？\n\n16 MILTENBERGER（米尔滕伯格）先生：我对此提出了异议，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。您是否说过您会寻求某种形式的保护令？\n\n19 MILTENBERGER（米尔滕伯格）先生：没有，法官阁下。我提出了异议，提问者便继续问下一个问题。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：法官阁下，恕我可以发言吗？\n\n法院：可以。请说。\n\nARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：还有两点简短说明。即使该姓名并不相关——我们对此存在争议，即它并非不相关——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交 05/03/22 登记 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 50 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—交叉询问\n\n50 ——我并不知道有任何适用规则允许债务人或 Golden Spring 以关联性为由进行删节。这并非我曾见过发生的事情。\n\n我也不知道有任何规则允许债务人基于 STAG 安全威胁，对原本可经证据开示获得的信息，即某人的姓名和电子邮件地址，进行删节。我还要指出，您知道，我们已看到 Golden Spring 的员工在公开可得的 LinkedIn 上被识别。\n\n11 MILTENBERGER（米尔滕伯格）先生：法官阁下，论点是，该个人姓名的证明价值低于披露该姓名所造成的不利影响。\n\n法院：嗯，我不知道这是否属实。我理解您的论点，但我不知道这是否属实。或许我们需要做的是，您知道，将该问题搁置，以便进一步讨论和／或——我的意思是，我们短期内可以采取的做法——但我不知道 PAX 是否能接受，也许不能——是可以提出并回答该问题，不论答案为何，我们可以在就该问题作出裁定前，将记录的该部分置于密封状态，但我认为这是我们目前所能做的最好处理。我面前没有任何材料，无法就该问题作出经过审慎考虑的证据裁定，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交 05/03/22 登记 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 51 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝）—交叉询问 51 但是，如果我们要这样做，就必须给法庭书记员一点时间，因为我们必须——也就是说，我们的软件，即构成本案记录的录音，确实允许我们将记录中的某些部分予以密封。而且，我必须口头裁定——因为目前没有待决动议，也没有书面动议——鉴于对该问题提出的是具有证据性质的异议，而且我面前没有任何材料使我能够作出审慎裁定，我此时必须裁定，如果我们要以这种方式继续进行，则该问题及答案的记录应予密封，直至本院另行命令。Baldiga（巴尔迪加）先生？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：是，法官阁下。代表债务人，除Miltenberger（米尔滕贝格）先生提出的异议外，我们的异议仅基于关联性。您已给予PAX机会说明该姓名如何具有关联性，但未给出任何理由。该姓名与本案任何事项均无关联。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，再次说明，我不确定我是否同意您的意见，但目前我尚未准备好就此作出裁定。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：但至少应当说明其为何具有关联性。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 于 05/03/22 提交 于 05/03/22 13:29:34 录入 第 52 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert—交叉询问 52 说明其为何具有关联性。\n\n法庭：嗯，存在关联性——我的意思是，根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》，证据开示范围很广，证据范围也很广。她正在询问构成本Chapter 11案件基础的财务信息的编制情况，而Jalbert先生已相当——您知道——令人钦佩地就其做了什么、没有做什么，以及该信息如何由第三方而非债务人直接提供给他作了证言。因此，我确实认为这具有关联性。如果这是您——就该异议而言，我认为其具有关联性。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：好的。\n\n法庭：我认为这具有关联性。但其是否应当保密或受到保护，是一个不同的问题，至少从本院的角度来看如此。再次说明，这是一起个人Chapter 11案件。债务人根据破产法负有义务。显然这些——我不该这样说——这不公平——让我确保我表述准确——根据我今天所听到的情况，而这也是我目前所听到的全部情况，债务人并未直接与编制并提交构成本案基础的财务信息的一方进行沟通。如果情况确实如此，而看起来似乎是这样——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 于 05/03/22 提交 于 05/03/22 13:29:34 录入 第 53 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert—交叉询问 53 这没有问题，但我的意思是，没有任何——但这并不——这并不排除一方询问是谁提供了该信息。我认为这具有关联性。即使——但最终它可能并不具有实质性。可以认为它具有关联性，但您可能在某个时候主张，该人是谁可能并不具有实质性，因为其只是Golden Spring（黄金泉）公司的某个人。现在，这并不意味着作为提出异议一方的PAX不应当知道该人是谁，因为PAX或许希望对该人进行证言录取。现在，您可以——您可以对此提出异议，并且可以申请保护令和撤销传票动议，以及各种其他措施，但这并不意味着，根据今天上午迄今已确定的本案事实，该事项不具有关联性。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：好的。法官阁下，我的第二点是，在我们进行所有这些其他程序之前，证人有可能根本不知道该姓名。或许法庭可以询问一下，我们是否只是在某种程度上浪费时间，因为——\n\n法庭：我的意思是，这有可能，但是——\n\n巴尔迪加先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：——您知道，目前有一个待答问题，对吗？有一项待决异议。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 于 05/03/22 提交 于 05/03/22 13:29:34 录入 第 54 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert—交叉询问 54 因此，Golden Spring正试图——不是试图，而是主张，该问题的答案具有保密性，且他们不希望予以披露——\n\n巴尔迪加先生：我完全理解这一点。\n\n法庭：——尽管他们尚未就本次询问向本院提交任何文件或任何材料。那么，我为什么不——嗯，各位律师希望如何继续进行？\n\nAronsson（阿伦松）女士：Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）愿意按照您所建议的方式，在密封状态下继续进行。我还想指出，我们也有关于关联性的论点，Friedman（弗里德曼）先生将就这一点在DIP异议中陈述。\n\n法庭：嗯，我刚刚已裁定，我认为其具有关联性。\n\n阿伦松女士：谢谢。是的。\n\n法庭：好的？我认为其具有关联性。所以，您知道。巴尔迪加先生可能认为该裁定令人反感，并且可能——您知道——为上诉目的或其所需的任何目的在记录中记载异议，但我认为它在本案中具有关联性。根据本案的具体事实和情形，我认为，知悉是谁向——编制并向本院提交构成本案基础的全部财务信息的财务顾问——提供了信息，具有关联性。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 于 05/03/22 提交 于 05/03/22 13:29:34 录入 第 55 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert—交叉询问 55 因此，这就是本院的裁定。关于——将其密封，现在，如果各位给我一点时间。我不想给法庭书记员增加负担，但是，你们需要多长时间才能设置好并开启——以确保这个一直待答的问题——待我们进入密封状态后，我会要求你们再次提出该问题——以及Jalbert先生的答案被予以密封？\n\n书记员：您一说这是密封的，只需切换按钮即可。\n\n法庭：好的。很好。\n\n书记员：（听不清。）\n\n法庭：好的。稍等一下，Miltenberger先生。请稍等。\n\n书记员：那么您是说要将其置于——\n\n法庭：不，还没。我会告诉你。\n\n书记员：好的。\n\n法庭：我会说何时开始。我只是想听取——我仍然想听取PAX代理律师的意见，然后我也会让Miltenberger先生再次发言。\n\n书记员：好的。\n\n法庭：在我让Miltenberger先生发言之前，您是否还有任何想加入记录的内容？\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 于 05/03/22 提交 于 05/03/22 13:29:34 录入 第 56 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert—交叉询问 56 片刻？\n\n阿伦松女士：没有。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。Miltenberger先生？\n\nMiltenberger先生：法官阁下，我想询问一下，在问答期间，公众接入线路是否仍将处于开启状态？\n\n法庭：我想这是个好问题，不是吗，Miltenberger先生？\n\n书记员：我们会把他们置于等候室，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么这就是我们首先必须做的。我们必须把——我们也必须关闭电话，对吗？我们有一条电话线路正在接通，对吗？\n\n书记员：那就是公众接入线路。\n\n法庭：是的。但还有谁——除了——法庭内的人员都在这里，那么我们——我们该如何处理？（暂停。）\n\n法庭：我们必须——你知道吗？我们得稍微考虑一下，因为我们必须让法庭内的每个人都离开，而我不知道目前这样做有多大意义。因为如果它被密封，但所有人都听到了，那它就不是密封的。那它就成为公开记录。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 于 05/03/22 提交 于 05/03/22 13:29:34 录入 第 57 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert—交叉询问 57\n\n阿伦松女士：法官阁下，我能否稍候片刻？\n\n法庭：当然可以。（暂停。）\n\n法庭：请继续，律师。\n\n阿伦松女士：我认为我们愿意按此方式继续进行。\n\n法庭：是的。唯一的问题是存在一个——存在一个问题，对吗？我们必须让目前所有在公众接入线路上的人退出——退出本次庭审。法庭内还有所有这些人，对吗？那么我该如何处理？如果它被密封，而所有人刚刚都听到了，那它就不是密封的，对吗？\n\n阿伦松女士：法官阁下，另一种选择是，证人可以将姓名写在一张纸上，并将其标记为法院证物1。\n\n法庭：那将被予以密封？\n\n阿伦松女士：正确。\n\n法庭：是。好的。我认为这是一个好的解决办法。这就是我们要做的，Miltenberger律师，因此我们就不必——但是当然，Jalbert先生可能没有——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 于 05/03/22 提交 于 05/03/22 13:29:34 录入 第 58 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert—交叉询问 58 任何纸张或笔。\n\n证人：法官阁下所言正确。\n\n法庭：是。谢谢。好的。那么，Jalbert先生，暂时不要写下任何内容。我将要求律师再次提出该问题。我将记载，对该问题有两项异议，其中一项是关联性异议，我已予驳回。其中一项是Golden Spring就保密性提出的异议，我目前尚未准备好就此作出裁定，因为我面前没有任何材料可使我以审慎方式处理该问题。因此，我将指示您通过将答案写在纸上来回答该问题，然后我们必须将其作为密封证物进行标记。好吗？因此，您不得对着麦克风说任何话。您不得在记录中说任何话。只会写在那张纸上。好吗？\n\n证人：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好的。律师，请您再次提出刚才作为两项异议对象的问题。\n\n阿伦松女士询问：\n问：Golden Spring中向您提供了与月度经营报告有关的某些信息的人是谁？\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 于 05/03/22 提交 于 05/03/22 13:29:34 录入 第 59 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert—交叉询问 59\n\n法庭：好的。为使记录清楚，巴尔迪加先生代表债务人，以关联性为由对您的问题提出了异议，律师。我已说明，鉴于Jalbert先生先前的证言，即他及其办公室汇编并向本院提交的信息、事务说明和清单中的财务信息，以及月度经营报告，均由第三方而非债务人直接向其提供，而Golden Spring正是这些第三方之一，我认为您的问题具有关联性。因此，我驳回了关联性异议。Miltenberger先生代表Golden Spring进一步提出异议，主张披露或回答该问题中个人的姓名可能——是——Golden Spring希望保密的事项。我已表示，在没有符合《联邦民事诉讼规则》的适当书面材料的情况下，我目前无法就此作出裁定。因此，我们全体讨论过的、并且将要采取的做法是，Jalbert先生将写下该问题的答案。他会将该文件交给您。然后您将其交给法庭书记员，并且它将被作为密封状态下的法院证物1予以标记。它将持续密封，直至本院另行命令。Claiborn（克莱伯恩）律师？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：是，法官阁下。如果我可以插话——\n\n法庭：我们听不见您。您能否把那个拉向您？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，美国受托人有权查阅法院案卷中的全部内容。\n\n法庭：是。你们将会获得查阅权。是。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：我只是想确保我们能够查阅——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 于 05/03/22 提交 于 05/03/22 13:29:34 录入 第 60 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert—交叉询问 60\n\n法庭：美国受托人必须能够查阅所有密封材料。这是规定的。我相信律师知道这一点，所以——但为记录提出这一点是个好观点。是的，美国受托人办公室将能够查阅该文件。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好的。那么，Jalbert先生，您能否——\n\n证人：法官阁下，如果我能迅速确认我是否遵循了您的指示？\n\n法庭：当然。\n\n证人：我将按照您——正如您所说的写下来。我是否应将这张纸折起来，还是只需交给——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 于 05/03/22 提交 于 05/03/22 13:29:34 录入 第 61 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝）——交叉询问 61 把它递过去吗？法院：你可以直接交给她，没关系。证人：好的。法院：谢谢。你现在可以——无论何时你写完后，请告诉她一声。请告知律师。然后我将允许她走近并从你那里取走该物。接着她会走近法庭书记员，并将其交给法庭书记员，书记员随后会将其作为法院密封证物1予以标记。Baldiga（巴尔迪加）先生？巴尔迪加先生：好的，法官阁下。我只是想在呈交之前先看一下。法院：请便。巴尔迪加先生：谢谢。法院：美国受托人，你在给Miltenberger（米尔滕伯格）先生看过之后，可以向美国受托人出示。（暂停。）巴尔迪加先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。是的。请走近——谢谢——并把它交给法庭书记员，她会予以标记。因此，我们只需要一点时间让法庭书记员制作该证物。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 62 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝）——交叉询问 62 法庭书记员有时间制作该证物。我现于记录中说明，目前时间为上午11:03。我将法院证物1标记为密封，直至法院另行命令为止，并于记录中作出该命令。好吗？因此，如果各位不介意，我们只需要一点时间。（暂停。） （Jalbert（贾尔贝）先生对PAX律师问题的书面回答被作为法院密封证物第1号予以标记。）法院：法庭书记员正在标记该证物期间，我还想提一件事，正如我向所有当事人提到的——而且我想你上次不在这里，律师，不过也许你在，如果你在，我向你致歉——我们在中午12:00还有另一场听证会，因此我们必须在中午12:00休庭。那场听证会可能会持续一段时间，但我不能确定。就这些。我只是想让你知道这一点。显然，从现在到中午12:00，我们没有很多时间，但我不确定你是否在这里，我只是想提醒各位，我们今天的听证会届时确实必须休庭。ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：明白。法院：好的。我们准备好继续了吗？各位都准备好了吗？书记员：是。法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 63 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝）——交叉询问 63\n\n1 那么，请继续。\n继续进行你的交叉询问，\n2 律师。\n3 由ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士询问：\n4 问：在不提及姓名的情况下，你至少收到过此人从\n5 Golden Spring（Golden Spring）发来的一封电子邮件？\n6 答：本所收到了。我被抄送其中一两封，但我\n7 不是直接收件人。\n8 问：你作证称Melissa Francis（梅利莎·弗朗西斯）是\n9 债务人破产团队的一员，对吗？\n10 答：是。\n11 问：你是否知道Francis（弗朗西斯）女士是否在Golden\n12 Spring（Golden Spring）工作？\n13 答：据我了解，是这样。\n14 问：回到你与月度经营报告有关的工作，你是否记得Verdolino & Lowey（Verdolino & Lowey）从你从Golden Spring收到的费用\n15 报告草案中删除了某些费用\n16 项目？\n17 答：是。\n18 问：这是否——这是否与Sherry\n19 Netherland（雪莉·荷兰人酒店）的费用有关？\n20 答：是。\n21 问：因为债务人并不住在那里？\n22 答：正确。\n23 问：据你了解，债务人目前仍未\n24 居住在Sherry Netherland（雪莉·荷兰人酒店）吗？\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝）——交叉询问 64 答：是。ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：书记员女士，请出示PAX证物4。书记员：屏幕上显示的是证物4，即PAX证物4的第1页。屏幕上显示的是PAX证物4的第1页。ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：我想转到PAX证物4的第14页。（暂停。）ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：谢谢。由ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士询问：问：Jalbert（贾尔贝）先生，你认得这份文件吗？答：认得。问：这是在本案中提交的委任函吗？答：我认为它是作为我们受聘动议的附件提交的。ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：我滚动页面时有一点困难。法院：鼠标——对，试试鼠标。（暂停。）由ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士询问：问：看这里的这些项目符号，我想我们已经讨论了第一项。我们谈过财务状况说明书和附表？答：是。问：看第二个项目符号，如获聘用，\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 64 页，共 246 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 65 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝）——交叉询问\n\n1 Verdolino（Verdolino）将提供与现金流和\n2 预算预测有关的服务，对吗？\n3 答：是。\n4 问：你此前谈到过你设立了一个账户？\n5 答：我们设立了债务人的账户。\n6 问：你利用你的人脉关系设立了该\n7 账户？\n8 答：是。\n9 问：如果DIP贷款获得批准，Verdolino预计将为委员会律师、财务\n10 顾问及其他日常业务专业人士编制预算，\n11 以实现款项支付？\n12 答：从概念上说是这样。实际上必须有人要求我们这么做，\n13 但这是我们能够做的事情。\n14 问：你是否知道，尚未批准任何日常业务专业人士？\n15 答：是。\n16 问：你是否——你是否知道，除你本人之外，本案中还有其他财务\n17 顾问参与？\n18 答：不知道。\n19 问：你是否理解，委员会需要你的协助来\n20 为其律师编制预算？\n21 答：我不知道他们是否需要我的协助，但他们\n22 当然可以提出要求。\n23 问：转到这里与以下事项有关的第三个项目符号：\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 66 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝）——交叉询问\n\n1 月度经营报告，我们已经讨论过了，对吗？\n2 答：我看到第三个项目符号是关于需要开立和\n3 维持一个DIP账户。\n4 问：抱歉。第四个项目符号。谢谢。\n5 答：是。\n6 问：此外，Verdolino将审查美国受托人\n7 提供的季度报告？\n8 答：嗯，美国受托人在制作其季度\n9 报告时，实际上是根据前一日历季度的支出\n10 所作的账单。我们只会核实其\n11 准确性。在第一季度，它们从来不准确。\n12 这不是他们的错。他们是在提前作出估计。\n13\n14 问：这相当直接明了，对吗？\n15 答：嗯，如果你有经验，是的。\n16 问：关于遗产、联邦税和州所得税的第五个项目符号，你没有就该事项开展任何\n17 工作——任何工作？\n18 答：就实际编制而言，没有。\n19 问：但你会建议债务人和遗产\n20 提交纳税申报表？\n21 答：我绝对会，但还有与此有关的其他服务。\n22\n23 问：目前遗产可能为零？\n24 答：嗯，我不清楚从技术上讲这是否属实，或者\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 67 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝）——交叉询问\n\n1 不属实，因为我不知道——我不确切知道，\n2 从法律上说，那艘船在哪里。而且，当那艘船到来时，\n3 它将如何到来，以及这将如何影响\n4 债务人，所以我不——\n5 证人：我指的是——指的是Lady\n6 May（“Lady May”号），法官阁下，所以我不知道这\n7 将会产生什么影响。这可能需要由具有\n8 税务背景的人审查。\n9 由ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士询问：\n10 问：所以这是假定Lady May（“Lady May”号）是遗产的一部分？\n11 答：不，我并不作出该假定。如果有人认定它\n12 是遗产的一部分，那么这将构成一个问题。如果它将在某个时候\n13 被投入遗产，这就是一个问题。我并未声明它是否为\n14 财产。我不知道。\n15 问：转到第六个项目符号，即协助审查、核对、分析，\n16 以及在必要时对债权申报提出异议，Verdolino没有就本案中\n17 待决诉讼债权开展任何调查，\n18 对吗？\n19 答：正确。\n20 问：Verdolino没有分析待决\n21 诉讼债权的经验？\n22 答：正确。\n23 问：关于第七个项目符号，我们已经谈到\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 68 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝）——交叉询问\n\n1 Verdolino尚未审查债务人的账簿和记录？\n2 答：正确。\n3 问：你是否知道，在提交申请前90日内，有21家专业服务\n4 提供者收到了申请前付款？\n5\n6 答：是。\n7 问：Verdolino没有就\n8 这些服务开展任何工作？\n9 答：你能否——我对你的问题感到困惑。\n10 问：Verdolino是否已编制——撤回。\n11 Verdolino是否已就\n12 这21家申请前服务提供者开展任何工作？\n13 答：除确保它们在适当的财务状况说明书附表中得到披露外，\n14 没有。\n15 问：你所描述的是一个相当直接明了的程序？\n16 答：是。\n17 问：关于第八个项目符号，即协助\n18 必要的诉讼支持，Verdolino尚未就该项目开展\n19 任何工作，但预计将根据律师要求承担潜在的\n20 各项杂项任务？\n21 答：什么杂项？\n22 问：任务？\n23 答：任务。是。\n24 问：最后一个项目符号，即协助制定和\n25 编制计划，包括可行性问题，你知道\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 69 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝）——交叉询问\n\n1 债务人已经提交了一项计划？\n2 答：我知道。\n3 问：Verdolino未就该\n4 提交开展任何工作？\n5 答：就原始计划而言，正确。\n6 问：你知道，除诉讼\n7 债权外，遗产声称约有3,800的资产？\n8\n9 答：正确。\n10 问：你知道在确认第11章计划时，什么是最大利益测试吗？\n11\n12 答：我想我知道。\n13 问：你是否预计会就这3,800的资产进行清算价值评估，\n14 以作最大利益测试分析？\n15 答：嗯，我们不知道在有人进行最大利益测试时，\n16 遗产将拥有哪些资产。\n17 当需要进行最大利益测试时，我们不会成为\n18 对那些尚未变现资产进行估值的团队成员。\n19\n20 但是，我们肯定会利用专家提供的信息参与编制\n21 作为最大利益测试的分析，该信息是对任何\n22 需要估值资产的估值。\n23\n24 问：除这$3800外，唯一其他的潜在资产将\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 70 页，共 246 页\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝）——交叉询问\n\n1 是未来诉讼债权？\n2 答：截至目前是。\n3 问：再次确认，Verdolino没有对诉讼\n4 债权进行估值的经验？\n5 答：正确。\n6 问：因此，如果遗产仅由诉讼债权构成，\n7 Verdolino在任何计划中的作用将非常小？\n8 答：我不知道你能得出该结论。\n9 问：Verdolino按小时计费，对吗？\n10 答：是。\n11 问：作为负责人，你的时薪是$515？\n12 答：正确。\n13 ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：没有更多问题。\n14 法院：那么，律师，你不申请接纳PAX证物4吗？\n15\n16 ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：我们将申请接纳\n17 证物4。它作为证物90，即案卷\n18 编号90，提交于案卷中。\n19 BALDIGA（巴尔迪加）先生：无异议。\n20 法院：嗯，最终——所有证物\n21 都将按照你们在证人及证物清单上所列示的\n22 编号予以标记。\n23 因此，对PAX证物4，根据联合表格，对\n24 完整接纳该证物\n25 没有异议。\n\n今天听证会结束后，法庭书记员将会汇总已接纳证物清单——这将是其中之一——并且其上将贴有美国法院行政办公室的表格标签，实质上表明该证物已被完整接纳。好吗？Baldiga（巴尔迪加）先生，你是否有——巴尔迪加先生：无异议。法院：好的，很好。因为上面写着你没有异议——巴尔迪加先生：对。法院：——所以我就直接作出了那个结论。巴尔迪加先生：不。有一项动议，所以我——法院：好的。谢谢。好的。没有其他事项？ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：没有其他事项。法院：好的。ARONSSON（阿伦松）女士：谢谢。法院：有复询吗？BALDIGA（巴尔迪加）先生：有，法官阁下。谢谢。由BALDIGA（巴尔迪加）先生进行复询：问：Jalbert（贾尔贝）先生，你会说普通话吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 72 页，共 246 页\n\n贾尔伯特（Jalbert）—复询问 72\n\n1 答 不知道。\n\n2 问 您是否了解，债务人会说一些英语？\n\n3 答 会一些，是的。\n\n4 问 但您能否就财务事项直接与债务人交谈？\n\n5 \n\n6 答 我没有尝试过，但我认为不能。\n\n7 问 好的。您知道，在您开展工作之前，债务人没有支票簿，对吗？\n\n8 \n\n9 答 是的。\n\n10 问 而且债务人的日常所需，例如安保、食物等等，均由其儿子通过Golden Spring（金泉）基于亲情和善意提供，对吗？\n\n11 \n\n12 \n\n13 答 是的。\n\n14 问 您曾与拥有总账的债务人合作过？\n\n15 答 是的。\n\n16 问 该债务人有总账吗？\n\n17 答 没有。\n\n18 问 好的。该债务人有支票登记簿吗？\n\n19 答 没有。\n\n20 问 但今后会有吗？\n\n21 答 是的。\n\n22 问 好的。该债务人是否接受过审计？\n\n23 答 据我所知，没有。\n\n24 问 好的。该债务人是否保有存货清单？\n\n25 答 同样，据我所知，没有。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 73 页，共 246 页\n\n贾尔伯特—复询问 73 问 那么，该债务人是否拥有您本会与债务人直接讨论的那类资产，例如设备、存货及应收账款？答 不是那类商业资产，没有。问 对。因此，在通常情形下，当您代理公司债务人或协助公司债务人时，您会坐下来与财务总监、首席财务官或类似人员讨论该公司拥有的各类资产，对吗？阿伦松女士（Ms. Aronsson）：反对，法官阁下。他在诱导证人。巴尔迪加先生（Mr. Baldiga）：我是，但这是——法庭：我会允许——巴尔迪加先生：——我想是为了奠定基础。法庭：我将——巴尔迪加先生：因此，根据——法庭：我会允许。请继续。证人：是的。巴尔迪加先生询问：问 好的。而本案中债务人的资产，除其身上穿的衣物外，主要由两项诉讼构成，对吗？答 两项诉讼。我认为还有第三项可能的诉讼。问 好的。一项可能的诉讼？答 是的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 74 页，共 246 页\n\n贾尔伯特—复询问\n\n1 问 好的。因此，您了解，您在财产清单和财务状况说明书中披露的资产、主要资产，是三项诉讼请求，其中两项正在进行，一项可能提出，对吗？\n\n2 \n\n3 \n\n4 \n\n5 答 是的。\n\n6 问 而且您是与律师讨论这些法律请求的，对吗？\n\n7 \n\n8 答 是的。\n\n9 问 好的。您是否了解，债务人在本案中的主要债务，是针对其提出的诉讼请求，对吗？\n\n10 \n\n11 答 是的。\n\n12 问 例如PAX（PAX）？\n\n13 答 是的。\n\n14 问 以及本法庭内外的其他人，对债务人提出了20项或30项其他诉讼请求？\n\n15 \n\n16 \n\n17 答 是的。\n\n18 问 好的。关于这些针对债务人的法律诉讼请求，您与债务人的律师或处理针对其提出的法律请求的人员交谈过，对吗？\n\n19 \n\n20 \n\n21 答 是的。\n\n22 问 因此，您是否与您认为掌握有关债务人资产和负债的最相关且最具体信息的债务人方面人员交谈过？\n\n23 \n\n24 \n\n25 答 是的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 75 页，共 246 页\n\n贾尔伯特—复询问/再交叉询问\n\n1 问 而且，您是否获得了您认为在本案中专业履职所需的信息？\n\n2 \n\n3 答 是的。\n\n4 问 显然，本案与拥有存货、应收账款、财务报表等等的企业大不相同，但您是否采用了相同的程序，只是在本案中与掌握最相关信息的人员交谈？\n\n5 \n\n6 \n\n7 \n\n8 \n\n9 答 嗯，我并非在寻找财务报表、总账及类似材料。我只是在寻找信息。\n\n10 \n\n11 \n\n12 问 因为债务人没有这些材料？\n\n13 答 我从未见过个人债务人拥有这些材料。\n\n14 巴尔迪加先生：好的。没有其他问题了，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n15 \n\n16 法庭：谢谢。还有再交叉询问吗？\n\n17 \n\n18 （暂停。）\n\n19 法庭：请继续，律师。抱歉。\n\n20 阿伦松女士：谢谢，法官阁下。仅几个简短问题。\n\n21 \n\n22 再交叉询问\n\n23 阿伦松女士询问：\n\n24 问 债务人能否聘请口译员与Verdolino & Lowey（韦尔多利诺与洛伊）沟通？\n\n25 \n\n贾尔伯特—再交叉询问 76 答 可以。我确信可以。问 您是否知道债务人有一名口译员？答 我知道。问 我只是想问一下，您理解Golden Spring是出于家庭成员的关爱和支持而提供资金的依据是什么？您对该情况的了解依据是什么？答 通过与法律团队交谈。阿伦松女士：谢谢。没有其他问题。法庭：好的。谢谢。贾尔伯特先生，您可以退庭。谢谢。证人：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：非常感谢。（证人退庭。）法庭：巴尔迪加先生，您还有其他证人吗？巴尔迪加先生：没有，法官阁下。谢谢。法庭：好的。谢谢。弗里德曼先生（Mr. Friedman）？弗里德曼先生：没有，法官阁下。法庭：那么，除你们的辩论外，双方均已结束举证？巴尔迪加先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。弗里德曼先生：法官阁下，请稍候。我们只是——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 76 页，共 246 页\n\n正在商议，看看是否还有任何我们拟申请作为证据提交的材料。法庭：好的。是的。正如我想我在上次庭审时已告知各位，我乐于接受——并且我感谢各方花时间并遵守法院命令提交证人和证物清单，这是你们必须做的——但除非证物被作为完整证物接纳，否则法院不会审阅任何证物。即使它们被作为完整证物接纳，我也不一定会审阅你们在就这些争议事项进行陈述时没有向我指出的重要内容。明白吗？是否有——因此，如果任何人有任何希望确保载入案卷的内容，现在就是处理该事项的时候。（暂停。）阿伦松女士：谢谢，法官阁下。我们没有其他事项。法庭：好的。谢谢。债务人方面没有其他事项？巴尔迪加先生：正确，法官阁下。法庭：好的。好。那么，聘请Verdolino & Lowey的申请已具备裁判条件。我现在不会对此作出裁判。我显然必须审阅你们刚才在庭审记录中讨论的内容，但我确信我能够很快处理。明白吗？巴尔迪加先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。现在，关于债务人持有期间融资动议。再次说明，这是一个我不知道你们预计就该债务人持有期间融资动议进行多长时间质询和举证的事项，因此我有几个问题。今天日程表上的另一事项，是聘请债权人委员会律师的申请。我没有看到对该申请提出的任何异议。情况正确吗？克莱伯恩女士（Ms. Claiborn）：法官阁下，美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）提交了一份不反对声明，但其中仅要求对命令作两项小修改，即——法庭：好的。克莱伯恩女士：——加入高盛律师（Attorney Goldman）为支持该申请所提交补充材料中的措辞。法庭：那么，案卷中是否有修订后的命令？克莱伯恩女士：我尚未看到，法官阁下。法庭：好的。因此，我询问各方，是否有任何一方反对聘请Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利）担任无担保债权人正式委员会律师的申请，ECF 157？巴尔迪加先生：债务人方面不反对。我们支持该申请。法庭：好的。谢谢。Pax方面也没有异议？弗里德曼先生：没有，法官阁下。法庭：好的。还有其他人希望就聘请Pullman & Comley的申请发表意见吗？高盛律师，您将提交一份新的命令，是克莱伯恩律师所说的这个意思吗？高盛先生（Mr. Goldman）：是的，法官阁下。只要其内容载于我的补充声明中，修订命令以使之符合补充材料中的内容就没有问题。法庭：好的。您希望有多长时间提交该命令？您可以有充足时间——我的意思是，我将批准该申请，但以提交修订后的命令为条件。高盛先生：法官阁下，我可以在明天之前提交。法庭：当然。我给您到星期五，怎么样？高盛先生：谢谢。法庭：29日。好的。\n\nFiore速记与转录服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 79 页，共 246 页\n\n另外，我没有向金德塞思先生（Mr. Kindseth）提及的一件事——我现在要向高盛先生和克莱伯恩律师提及——是关于我们今天上午讨论的资金，即存放在Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒）客户资金账户中的$37 million，以及如果债务人持有期间贷款获批将由高盛律师持有的资金，每月必须至少向美国受托人办公室以及各方提交银行对账单，以证明这些资金确实存在。每月都要提交。我现在就在庭审记录中作出该命令。我可以回溯本次庭审。如果有人未遵守，该人将违反法院命令。我们需要确保资金金额与应有金额相符。现在，关于$37 million，除非且直至船舶返还时另有命令，否则该金额不应有任何变化，除希望获得一些利息收益外。这是我的理解。金德塞思先生正在起草命令，但这就是——这就是操作机制。巴尔迪加先生：是的。您将会看到的命令，法官阁下，规定将由一家全国性银行担任共同代理人。因此，金德塞思先生暂时持有该笔资金，只是为了——\n\nFiore速记与转录服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n\n1 以免今天在法庭上有人担心资金是否真的会到位，或诸如此类的问题——\n\n2 \n\n3 上次庭审中，我们在这类担忧上耗费了太长时间，\n\n4 因此没有人需要再有这种担忧。但这不是永久性解决办法。为期一两个月的永久性解决办法，是让资金进入一家银行，这更为惯常。\n\n5 \n\n6 \n\n7 \n\n8 法庭：无论如何操作都可以。我只是希望有证据——\n\n9 \n\n10 巴尔迪加先生：明白。\n\n11 法庭：——予以提交，证明这些资金确实存在。而且必须每月提交，您知道。\n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 而且，我想我们会弄清楚——如果船舶在两个月内返还，那么$37 million的问题可能不会那么繁琐；但就债务人持有期间融资而言，如果有命令，该命令将规定我需要——法院——每月必须提供账户内资金金额的证据。\n\n15 \n\n16 \n\n17 \n\n18 \n\n19 \n\n20 \n\n21 我知道债务人持有期间融资命令可能会对支付、提款以及所有这些事项作出更具体规定，但这是我想提出的另一件事。\n\n22 \n\n23 \n\n24 \n\n25 现在，关于债务人持有期间融资的证据听证会——\n\n我很乐意现在开始，但我们必须在中午结束。另一种做法是，您在庭审开始时提到，对于如何安排驳回动议的听证会存在一些讨论，所以我不——无论您们希望如何进行，我都没有问题。巴尔迪加先生：嗯，现在或许正是澄清Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）申请的好时机，该事项无需举证，可以处理。我认为有一项——法庭：我以为有——巴尔迪加先生：——需要作出的权利保留。法庭：好的。弗里德曼先生：是的。我认为——法庭：但您是否有一份命令需要修改，或者您已经修改了那份命令？或者您已同意修改？弗里德曼先生：我认为命令已在案卷中，法官阁下。我们有一项非常简短的权利保留，然后我认为我们可以在中午之前举行审前——动议前会议。之后下午再——巴尔迪加先生：我认为是这样。弗里德曼先生：好的。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：是的。弗里德曼先生：所以——法庭：我没有听清您刚才说的内容。弗里德曼先生：抱歉，法官阁下。法庭：没关系。弗里德曼先生：我是来自 O'Melveny & Myers（奥迈律师事务所）的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。我们并不反对保留 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）本身。我们只是想明确指出，我们确实认为，在申请破产前，Kwok先生（郭文贵）受到 Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格法官）限制令的约束，不得转移其资产。我们认为，他通过让自己承担 Lamp（蓝普）贷款以支付布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所预付聘金的方式，违反了该限制令。布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所对奥斯特拉格法官命令的理解与我们不同。我们认为，该命令具体涉及两项资产，但还包含一项更为广泛、全面的条款，明确规定禁止任何非正常经营过程中的交易。布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所的巴尔迪加先生援引了一份庭审记录中的一部分，他认为该部分支持其对涉及两项资产的具体措辞的理解。我们认为，其答复所附该庭审记录第24页表明，奥斯特拉格法官说：“我想知道是否将发生任何交易，其中Kwok先生是主导者，而该交易并非正常经营过程中的交易。”因此，该命令并非如此受限。因此，我们只是希望保留权利，即在今后就是否存在违反该命令、是否存在任何损害，或任何参与该违反行为的人是否承担责任，或是否存在与该违反行为有关的侵权行为而发生诉讼的范围内，保留聘任的命令不得免除任何人对此承担的责任。若聘任是基于本案情形下合理的人员配置，我们不反对聘任。我们只是想明确指出，我们认为这是在申请破产前最后一次藐视法庭、最后一次公然挑衅。并且，请注意，尽管我们多次向Lamp先生——抱歉——向 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）的律师提出请求，我们从未收到Lamp Capital贷款的文件。他们什么也没有提供。我们将继续追究此事。但是，我们认为，该事件的整体情况非常令人担忧，这就是我想保留我们权利的原因。法庭：而且您将会——我的理解是——我没有看过，好的——但是昨晚某个时候或今天上午，有一份关于布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所申请的命令已提交？是这样吗——弗里德曼律师是否同意该命令？如不同意，那么你们双方必须沟通，并告诉我你们认为何时能够解决该命令。（停顿。）弗里德曼先生：（听不清。）法庭：当然。慢慢来。（停顿。）弗里德曼先生：因此，法官阁下，我认为我们对该命令确有异议。我们只希望就任何当事方收取该等资金保留权利。我们不反对聘任，也不反对他们提交费用申请，但我们认为，聘任不应消除因收取这些资金而可能承担责任的可能性。法庭：因此，您必须将该保留权利的措辞加入命令中，对吗？弗里德曼先生：是的。除非该保留在庭审记录中可被接受？巴尔迪加先生：法官阁下，如可允许，我想对此作出回应。法庭：当然。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：除非 Goldman先生（戈德曼）想先陈述。戈德曼先生：嗯，我只是想说，谈到保留，我们——我们对 DIP 动议的解决——我本应在一开始提及这一点——确实以对我称之为船舶交付命令的解决为基础——他们正在处理该事项——法庭：抱歉，我没有听清。什么命令？戈德曼先生：船舶交付。法庭：好的。双方同意的解除自动停止命令？戈德曼先生：正确。正确。我们确信他们能够完成。该命令尚未正式签署，可以这么说，因此，在我们实际上正式撤回异议之前，我希望看到该事项记录在案。法庭：嗯，目前我们讨论的是布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所。戈德曼先生：嗯，难道我们不是——这与DIP动议的解决有关联。换句话说，我们解决DIP动议，并且我们也同意撤回对所有聘任的异议。当然，DIP动议的解决取决于我们正在处理的该船舶交付命令的解决。因此，基本上我想说的是，它们全都相互关联。因此，我只是希望我们能够等到午休之后，届时我们绝对确认关于船舶的——PAX解除自动停止动议已经得到解决，然后我们就可以正式撤回所有这些异议。这就是我想说的。法庭：好的。巴尔迪加先生？巴尔迪加先生：嗯，我们一直在努力与戈德曼先生合作，并且实际上已能在许多事项上与其密切合作，因此我不想——我的意思是，我接受他的前提，即如果知道我们都同意船舶命令，或许会更容易。这不会影响 PAX 的异议，因为无论如何，PAX在所有事项上的立场都将保持不变。因此，如果法庭希望，我可以回应PAX保留权利的问题；或者，如果法庭希望等到午餐后、船舶问题处理完毕后再处理该问题，我们也很乐意这样做。一切依照法庭——\n\n法庭：好的。那么，我们何不等着看，在——本质上应当是一项双方同意的命令、解决PAX解除自动停止动议之后会如何，正确吗，这就是该事项？这就是 Kindseth先生（金塞思）正在处理的事项？巴尔迪加先生：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。那么我们就等着处理该事项。因此，唯一剩下的问题是——临时专业人员，一切事项，戈德曼先生，您就一切事项保留权利，直至——好的。那么，我们就开始进行DIP融资证据听证会。或者，如果你们各位宁愿休息而不开始，我们也可以这样做。一切以对你们各位都方便的方式进行。弗里德曼先生：法官阁下，我们可以讨论审前日期吗？法庭：关于驳回动议？弗里德曼先生：是的。法庭：嗯，这正是——这正是我几分钟前所说的、我认为有一定道理的事项。弗里德曼先生：是的。因此，法官阁下，我们已经——显然须视法庭的日程安排而定——我们本周已联系其他当事方的律师，并提出了一项建议。我们收到了一些反馈。有人要求我们给予更多一点时间，尽管我们认为我们并无法定义务提供该时间，但我们愿意这样做。我们建议，如法庭可接受，各方须于 May 16th 提交答辩状。我们请求允许于 May 25th 提交回复。我们请求能够于5月25日提交回复。然后，我们请求安排听证会——预留1日、2日和3日——法庭：好的。我需要查看一下日历。弗里德曼先生：——如果这对法庭方便。法庭：在我们继续之前，请让我先查看一下日历。（停顿。）法庭：我在1日有一些时间。弗里德曼先生：好的。法庭：但期间有一段时间我必须再次休庭。我在2日有时间。而且我至少在3日上午有时间。弗里德曼先生：好的。这当然对我们适用，法官阁下。鉴于潜在的复杂性，我还请求，是否可以提议任何一方于10日提交审后事实认定和法律结论。或者，如果听证会持续至3日之后，则如法庭认为有帮助，在听证会结束后七日内提交。\n\n法庭：我当然认为这可能会有帮助，因此，我会在听证会结束时告诉您我是否希望如此，但我认为这是有可能的。当然。弗里德曼先生：而且，法官阁下，我还建议，各方于20——即27日星期五，如此安排对法庭适用；若法庭希望定于26日，则各方交换证人名单和证据材料，并且如可能，也应于该日期向法庭提供适当的清单并列明异议，而且应命令各方就所有审前程序进行善意协商。我的理解是，Kwok先生律师认为，我们认为实际上已经是对各方作出重大照顾的这一日程安排，应以不再举行341会议、停止Kwok先生本应在本周五继续履行的341义务为条件——我不明白为何这应当成为问题。我们当然正就驳回动议或指定受托人动议，再次寻求对Kwok先生进行证言录取。我们也在寻求其他证据开示。我注意到，我们遇到的一个问题——我并非请求法庭采取任何行动，只是希望法庭知悉此事——\n\n——是，我们上周四询问 Golden Spring（黄金春天）是否愿意明确表示接受向Miles Kwok之子送达传票。我们毫无回应。这并不令人意外，但鉴于Miles之子据称在本案中的核心地位，以及他对善意和关爱的支持，我想，如果他们不愿接受传票，我们可以尝试依据《海牙公约》送达。如果必须如此，也许我们无法在该时间内完成，但法庭可以从Kwok先生之子拒绝善意参与证据开示中作出其认为适当的任何推论。因此，从某人处确认是否可以接受传票，不应耗费六天。这就是我们建议的日程安排。我们希望不必将证据开示争议提交法庭注意。如果有争议，我们会提交。我们将与 Birney先生（伯尼）合作，确定如何为您适当地提出这些事项。我相信我们已向所有人提供我们已送达的证据开示文件副本。如有任何人尚未收到，请告知我。法庭：好的。谢谢。Claiborn律师（克莱伯恩）？Claiborn女士：谢谢，法官阁下。如您所知，美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）有一项待决动议，请求指定审查员，或者作为替代方案指定Chapter 11受托人。\n\n并且，弗里德曼律师刚刚概述的日期对美国受托人而言可以接受。我认为，该日程安排适用于PAX动议和美国受托人动议。法庭：是的。但我将先处理PAX动议。Claiborn女士：明白，法官阁下。法庭：好的。Claiborn女士：关于341会议的问题，该请求今天上午才向我提出。我尚未有机会与我的办公室协商。我尚未有机会与今天在场的各方律师协商。因此，我无法回答美国受托人是否愿意将该341会议推迟至其他日期。法庭：好的。巴尔迪加先生：抱歉。我没有听清您刚才所说的话。抱歉。Claiborn女士：我无法就341会议日期向您作出答复。法庭：好的。还有其他人希望就驳回动议的日程安排以及——发表意见吗？我将重申该事项，但请继续。巴尔迪加先生：嗯，债务人在6月第一周似乎没有时间，因此，我认为，\n\n遗憾的是，和许多其他事情一样，我们可能不得不利用午餐休息时间来尽量确定那些日期。法庭：好的。那么，你们为什么不讨论一下，因为我不确定债务人为何需要出席该动议的听证，除非你们打算传唤他作为证人。PERLMAN先生（珀尔曼）：我们当然打算这样做，但这对我来说是新闻，因为我此前已向Aulet先生（奥莱特）提出了这一日程安排。法庭：好的。那么我就让你们都讨论一下。但我特别要说一点，如果不是那些日期，听证将在其后不久举行。我已经向Friedman律师（弗里德曼）说过——BALDIGA先生（巴尔迪加）：我们明白。法庭：——我在上次听证时已向Friedman律师说过，他已同意，而且我不知道他今天是否再次在记录中明确同意，但根据——根据法典，我必须在30天内举行该听证，除非动议提出人，即动议提出人明确同意延长时间、为特定期限延期；Friedman律师现在已这样做，但我不知道你们讨论时他是否仍会这样做。因此，你们必须进行讨论。FRIEDMAN先生：坦率地说，法官阁下，鉴于\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷庭审记录与转录服务公司）\n\n债务人没有工作，也没有经营中的企业，我无法想象有什么正当理由不在场。法庭：好的，我将让你们都讨论这个问题。BALDIGA先生：法官阁下，我希望有机会先与当事人谈谈。法庭：我将让你们都讨论这个问题。BALDIGA先生：谢谢。法庭：好的？那么让我再次说明一下今天日程上有哪些事项。我认为，此时如果我们只有15分钟，就不开始DIP证据听证会，完全合理。这对各位有意义吗？BALDIGA先生：是的。正确。法庭：我认为你们可以休庭并利用这段时间。现在，我不知道，你们在走廊里待的时间已经比我坐在这里的时间长了，但我假定会议室没有上锁。那里，嗯——有走廊可供交谈，只是还有其他机构，所以如有可能，你们必须稍微安静一些。后面有一间设有自动售货机的房间，但没有桌椅。隔壁有一个可用餐且有桌子的地方。我的意思是，我想，如果我在一点钟之前准备好再次见你们，我会感到惊讶。好的？BALDIGA先生：明白。法庭：可能还会再长一点，但我认为不应比那长很多。我只是核实一下，以确保我们以某种方式——不论何种方式——处理了今天日程上的所有事项，我认为我们已经处理了。尽管其中很多事项与Kindseth先生（金塞思）对该命令的修改有关。那么，在Kwok案中，在我们就此案休庭之前，还有其他人希望发言吗？（无可听见的回应。）法庭：没有？好的。那么，我将为另一事项休庭至12 noon。再次说明，如果我在一点钟之前可以见你们，我会感到惊讶。我认为你们最早应预期为一点钟。如果你们都在讨论并且需要更多时间，而我们已完成另一场听证，那么你们可以告知法庭书记员助理或书记官办公室的某人，我会，嗯，将此纳入考虑。但如果我们今天下午要就DIP举行证据\n\n听证会，我认为我们会举行，\n那么我希望早些开始，而不是晚些开始，\n同时理解你们可能正在讨论不同的\n事项。\nBALDIGA先生：\n明白。\n法庭：\n好的？\nBALDIGA先生：\n我们会让法庭书记员助理\n随时了解情况，法官阁下。\n法庭：\n好的。很好。\nBALDIGA先生：\n谢谢。\n法庭：\n好的。好的。谢谢，\n各位。\n那么，法庭休庭至12 p.m.\n（自11:45 a.m.休庭至1:10 p.m.）\n书记员：\n案号22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n法庭：\n对此抱歉。我们在Kwok案休庭后\n重新开始记录，当时我们大约在11:45 a.m.离开法庭。\n现在是11:12 [sic] p.m.，\n我们在上午庭审结束后重新开始；上午庭审中，\n就Verdolino & Lowey（维尔多利诺与洛伊）\n的申请提出了一些证据。\n那么，Baldiga律师，我们是否继续\n就DIP融资动议进行证据听证会？\nBALDIGA先生：\n是的，法官阁下。但在此之前，\n我们可以就船只事项进行报告，因为请记得那件事如何\n\n影响了所有人？法庭：是的。BALDIGA先生：它有点像——法庭：哦，Kindseth先生回来了。BALDIGA先生：——一条连接线。我们确实有，而且Kindseth先生可以且应当报告，就船只事项已有一份完全符合、经同意的命令，解决了解除自动中止动议。法庭：好的。BALDIGA先生：而且我相信，这进而解决了委员会对今天其他所有事项提出的全部异议。因此我们完全一致地继续进行。但他应当——Goldman先生（戈德曼）应当报告，Kindseth先生也应当报告。然后——然后我认为我们确实转入解除自动中止事项。法庭：好的。Goldman先生和Friedman先生？GOLDMAN先生：是的。我会——法庭：那么所有人都同意这项关于解除自动中止的命令吗？我的意思是，如果这是真的，那就太好了。GOLDMAN先生：是的。法庭：我只是想确认这准确无误。FRIEDMAN先生：是的，我们同意，法官阁下。\n\n案号22-50073 文件318 提交日期05/03/22 录入日期05/03/22 13:29:34 第98页，共246页\n\n我们已达成协议。可以提交一项命令。我们对结果感到满意。KINDSETH先生：是的。仅就程序安排而言，法官阁下，我们目前实际上还不能向本法庭提交该命令。我们正将其提交给第三方托管代理人U.S. Bank（美国合众银行），供其律师Shipman & Goodwin（希普曼与古德温律师事务所）审阅，并确保他们对此没有任何问题。我希望今天晚些时候或明天收到回复。一旦他们同意，我们将向托管账户注资，并且我们最迟将在周五或周一提交该命令。法庭：好的。我的意思是，我认为这没有问题。而且显然，这是本案的一个积极进展。那么，Goldman律师？GOLDMAN先生：我本想说，我们是否适宜仅将命令的基本条款载入记录，以便——法庭知悉，并且我们在此有一项可执行的协议？KINDSETH先生：如果您愿意，法官阁下，我已准备好这样做。法庭：请开始。KINDSETH先生：因此，拟议的经协议命令规定，我的当事人将在7月15日之前将名为Lady May（“贵妇人”号）的船只送回Connecticut（康涅狄格州）可通航水域。这可能会或可能不会解决目前正在进行的各项维修。\n\n我们将尽可能完成更多维修。尚未完成的维修将通过一项准备金，即一项单独的维修准备金处理，并且将通过一项程序设立该准备金。\n\n为保证我的当事人履行交付义务，我们将向第三方托管代理人U.S. Bank存入$37 million。我们已商定一份托管协议的条款。\n\n并且，在获得U.S. Bank最终批准及当事人签署的前提下，我们将每两个月提供一次有关游艇位置、维修情况、游艇交付安排的状态以及预期交付日期的进度报告。\n\n托管款的处理方式是，我的当事人将向本法庭提交一份证明，并将有一段时间供各方对该证明提出异议。该证明，嗯——该证明实际上仅涉及将游艇及时交付至Connecticut。\n\n为确保游艇留在Connecticut而作出的命令，我们已在该证明中同意\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷庭审记录与转录服务公司）\n\n案号22-50073\n文件318\n提交日期05/03/22\n录入日期05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n将证明我们已向该船当时的船长以及游艇管理公司送达该文件，并且我们将作为该程序的一部分向法庭提交送达证明。\n我们还将设立维修准备金，\n这是该证明的一项要求。\n因此，如果满足这些被称为\n证明条件的要素，并且我们作出证明，我们将\n提供15天提出异议。\n如果无人提出异议，我的当事人\n将获准向托管代理人提供该HK证明，\n这将触发返还\n$37 million。\n如果存在异议，那么我们将出席\n法官阁下的庭审。\n并且——视违约的严重程度而定，\n会有不同后果。显然，如果\n船只不在这里，那是最严重的后果。对于其他条件\n未获满足的其他后果——后果，\n已有与违约相称的救济措施。\n我的当事人将维持保险并提供\n保险证明。本文件中有一项条款要求\n我的当事人以及代理人、代表等\n继续将船只留在Connecticut，并且\n\n受本法庭进一步命令约束。\n\n案号22-50073 文件318 提交日期05/03/22 录入日期05/03/22 13:29:34 第101页，共\n\n并且，本文件中有一项条款规定，如果\n船只未及时交付，并且我们无法\n证明存在可酌情考虑的情形——这些情形\n已明确列明——那么资金，即37 million，\n托管代理人将依本法庭命令被指示\n将该等资金交付至本法庭指定的账户，\n以代替遗产在Lady May中的任何权利而持有；该等权利\n将针对该$37 million。\n然后，如我所说，我们将依照\n命令规定的程序设立维修准备金。\n因此，我相信这些是经同意命令中\n最主要的条款。\nGOLDMAN先生：\n是的。我感谢这一陈述。\n委员会同意这些条款，我们显然将\n随后提交书面命令。\n我将交由PAX（帕克斯）处理。\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n他们表示，法官阁下，\n还有关于在案件被驳回时如何处理的条款，\n即如果在船只位于本管辖区或\n托管安排管辖期间案件被驳回。\n这些条款也包括在内。\n我确实想说——不想混用比喻——但是\n船只不应当——我的意思是，船只绝不应当成为\n本案中喧宾夺主的尾巴。船只很重要，\n因为它是一项资产。这不是全部，也不是终局。\n\n郭文贵先生须向其债权人支付的款项。\n\n我只是想从我们的角度明确指出，这很重要，但这只是为那些对郭先生持有巨额判决的人员争取获得偿付的第一步。\n\nKINDSETH先生（金德塞斯）：这仍然是进展。\n\n审判长：明白。\n\nGOLDMAN先生（高盛）：因此，法官阁下，委员会现可正式撤回其对DIP动议以及聘任申请的异议，并支持今日拟提交的临时DIP命令。\n\n我可以肯定地说，法官阁下，委员会必须具备这笔资金，才能正常履行职能，并完成其在此类案件中应完成的工作，尤其是在如此受关注的案件中。\n\n我们预计将调查本遗产的潜在资产。我可以向法官阁下保证，我们一直积极面试财务顾问，以协助我们开展该项工作，并将很快提交申请，请求法院批准聘任一名在我们所需工作方面具有高度能力、技能和经验的顾问。\n\n审判长：好的。谢谢。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 318\n提交于 05/03/22\n录入于 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n审判长：Kindseth先生，我知道您已经说过这个，但我想我——我没有记下来，所以我不记得了——您认为何时会把这项命令提交给法院？\n\nKINDSETH先生：周五或周一。\n\n审判长：好的。那么我给您到周一。周一是几号？5月1日还是2日？哦，是2日。\n\n是2日吗？对。必须在周一前提交。明白，您必须如此，因为——好的。对。不晚于5月2日。好吗？好的。\n\n但您刚才想说什么？抱歉。\n\nKINDSETH先生：我可以离席吗？我的客户与下午的程序没有利害关系。\n\n审判长：如果其他所有人都认为您无需在场，您可以离席。\n\nBALDIGA先生（巴尔迪加）：仅作一项澄清，我认为至今所有人的意见均假定，但暂缓仍将持续有效，直至命令录入？\n\n好的。假定该命令能及时提交？\n\n审判长：是。\n\nBALDIGA先生：好的。谢谢。\n\n审判长：我的意思是，但是——\n\nBALDIGA先生：我只是希望记录清楚。\n\n审判长：——但如果未能及时录入，则根据362(e)(2)，暂缓将不再有效，因此我假定各方有动力使其及时录入。\n\nBALDIGA先生：是。\n\n审判长：好的。好的。谢谢。\n\n没有其他人希望——需要Kindseth先生出席今天下午的听证会，对吗？\n\n（无可听见的回应。）\n\n审判长：好的。谢谢，Kindseth先生。\n\nKINDSETH先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n审判长：好的。那么，在我们开始就DIP动议进行证据听证会之前，鉴于委员会现已撤回其对某些事项的反对，我们先回到前面的事项。\n\n因此，关于聘任Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）的申请，委员会已撤回其异议。\n\nPAX（PAX）仍希望保留其权利，对吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生（弗里德曼）：是，法官阁下。我已向Baldiga先生表示，我们对该命令没有异议。实际上，查看该命令后，我认为该命令并未免除我们希望保留的那类请求权，因此我不会要求Baldiga先生同意在命令中加入该措辞。\n\n我只是想向法院及其他所有人说明，那是我们的立场。\n\n而且，您知道，Brown Rudnick对拟议命令本身也有其立场，该命令可以接受。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 318 提交于 05/03/22 录入于 05/03/22 13:29:34 第104页，共\n案件 22-50073 文书 318 提交于 05/03/22 录入于 05/03/22 13:29:34 第105页，共\n\n审判长：那么，昨晚某个时候提交的命令——谢谢，Friedman律师。那么，昨晚某个时候提交的命令，或者——我不——我知道有数份，但那是否是您希望录入的命令？\n\nBALDIGA先生：是。除非——是的，法官阁下。并且，为记录在案，我们——我们不，债务人不，Brown Rudnick也不同意任何未载入该命令的事项。就是这么简单。\n\nCLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩）：法官阁下，为完整记录起见，我想让法院知道，美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）已审阅昨晚上载的命令，该命令确实解决了美国受托人的异议。\n\n审判长：谢谢。那么如果我没弄错，那是昨晚提交的ECF No. 259，对吗？\n\n（无可听见的回应。）\n\n审判长：好的。请给我一分钟。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n审判长：好的。那么我尚未查看ECF 259，因为它是昨晚提交的，这没问题。我现在将查看，并告诉各位我是否认为存在任何问题。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n审判长：该命令对我而言没有问题。因此，ECF 259将予以录入，批准Brown Rudnick担任债务人律师的申请获准——予以批准。\n\nBALDIGA先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n审判长：好的。谢谢。\n\n那么，在我们进行DIP动议的证据听证会之前，让我确保我们处理了需要处理的所有事项。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n审判长：那么，关于申报截止日期命令，除法院加入申报截止日期外，所有人对此都没有异议？\n\nBALDIGA先生：我相信是这样，法官阁下。\n\n审判长：好的。那么我将在今天之后查看该命令。不过，该命令最迟将于明天或周五录入。好吗？\n\nBALDIGA先生：谢谢。\n\n审判长：我假定——我不该这么说。我尚未查看该命令，Baldiga律师，但——谁负责送达该申报截止日期命令？是您送达吗？还是债务人送达？\n\nBALDIGA先生：债务人。\n\n审判长：好的。好的。我会查看该命令。\n\nBALDIGA先生：谢谢。\n\n审判长：而且我认为它可能不会有问题，除非我可能会将你们的申报截止日期延长一些时间。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：我只是想提到，委员会确实对此提出了有限异议。我一直没有跟进拟议命令的不同版本，但它们是否考虑了我们的异议？\n\nBALDIGA先生：我们考虑了。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：好的。好的。\n\n审判长：好的。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：谢谢。\n\n审判长：关于制定临时报酬及费用偿还程序的动议，各方现在对此也都同意吗？委员会，你们提出过异议吗，还是没有？\n\nGOLDMAN先生：抱歉，法官阁下。您能重复一下吗？\n\n审判长：关于制定临时报酬及费用偿还程序的动议。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：无异议。\n\n审判长：美国受托人提出过异议吗？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：法官阁下，我们一直在研究一些措辞。我还没有机会审阅过去一小时刚刚上传的内容。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 318 提交于 05/03/22 录入于 05/03/22 13:29:34 第107页，共\n\n在我今天结束前可能向法官阁下回复的前提下，我并不——我认为我们大概可以消除该问题。我只需要阅读一下。\n\n审判长：那么，基本上暂时保留该事项不作处理？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：是。\n\nBALDIGA先生：没错。但我们都认为这只是审阅措辞的问题。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：这只是我审阅其措辞的问题。\n\nBALDIGA先生：我们已经解决了所有问题。\n\n审判长：所以你们将会——各位，您知道，我要告诉你们，对于这些事项、这些动议，我会查看措辞。但是，您知道，我知道各方正在请求法院采取某项措施，即——实质上缩短法典对费用申请所要求的期限和程序。出于许多、许多原因，我在很多案件中不愿这样做。\n\n如果所有人都同意，我会在本案中这样做。但我要告诉各位，如果——如果在任何时候我看到任何令人担忧的事项，我可能会安排状态会议和／或撤销任何已录入的命令，如果我认为存在任何问题。\n\n我的意思是，您知道，您不希望出现这样一种情况，即所有人都认为我们只是看到产生了多少费用。我并不是说本案正在发生这种情况。我是说，你们应防范这种情况。\n\n而录入此类命令有时会给予——会给人们提供论点，认为那是主要关切。我并不是暗示确实如此，但我只是说，如果该命令录入，并且显然将在某些措辞的前提下录入，并不意味着我今后不会审查它。\n\nBALDIGA先生：当然。当然。\n\n审判长：而且如果我认为——\n\nBALDIGA先生：并且，法官阁下，您从第一天起就看到，我们——我们正尽量少花钱，但我们需要回应一名不由遗产提供资金的特定债权人。我们无法控制他们以何种热情提出多少动议，因此我们——我们正努力跟上进度、做正确的事，并负责任地代表遗产。\n\n正如我们已经讨论过的，Goldman先生在这方面也有许多工作要做。\n\n我们都同意，在人们能够安心确认一项计划之前，必须进行审查。债务人从第一天起就支持这一点。这项动议有助于做到这一点，DIP也有助于做到这一点。两者相辅相成。\n\n审判长：明白。\n\nBALDIGA先生：谢谢。\n\n审判长：谢谢。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：法官阁下，我可以简要发表一项意见吗？我想预先向法院说明，已上传的命令与最初提案不同。但其中包含每隔90日提交临时费用申请的义务。因此，将会有实际的——\n\n审判长：好的。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：——费用申请程序——\n\n审判长：好的。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：——作为其中的一部分。但同时还保留了现有的按月选择机制，即在任何一方均无异议的情况下，专业人士可获得其费用的80 percent及其支出的100 percent。\n\n审判长：好的。谢谢。我对此表示感谢。因此，该动议将获准。但我们必须等待并查看——是否对拟议命令存在任何轻微的——任何最终意见，Claiborn律师，对吗？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：是，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n审判长：好的。唯一的事情——唯一的\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 318 提交于 05/03/22 录入于 05/03/22 13:29:34 第110页，共\n案件 22-50073 文书 318 提交于 05/03/22 录入于 05/03/22 13:29:34 第111页，共\n\n在我们转入DIP动议的证据听证会之前，我想讨论的另一事项，是驳回动议的日程安排。\n\n你们是否在休庭期间能够讨论此事？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：能够，法官阁下。关于我们的动议，我们，我想建议开始——所以我们将会——我们请求将异议截止日期定为5月11日。\n\n审判长：好的。那么这是一项变更，对吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：是。\n\n审判长：那么让我记一下。好吗？我只是想确保我的——我的笔记中有正确事项。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n审判长：您说5月11日？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n审判长：好的。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：我们请求于18日提交答复，并于25日开始听证会。\n\n审判长：好的。让我看看。我显然还没看过那个日期。请稍等。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n审判长：好的。我可以于25日开始听证会。26日我甚至也有一些时间，但27日没有时间。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：好的。那么，法官阁下，我们将会\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 318 提交于 05/03/22 录入于 05/03/22 13:29:34 第112页，共\n\n在25日和26日进行询问。\n\n我们将提交证人陈述。\n\n抱歉。我们将提交证据材料。我们将——我们将就证据材料的安排进行会谈协商，并提出时间表——\n\n希望Jonas先生和我能够进行一些讨论。我们将在下周初就这些事项，即何时提交证据清单和证人清单，提交相关材料。\n\n法院：我可以告诉你们何时需要提交证据清单。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生（弗里德曼先生）：那就更好了。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：我认为这会对你们有所帮助。无需会谈。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：是。\n\n法院：请稍等一下。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法院：你们须于May 20中午12点前提交证人及证据材料清单。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：对。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：我目前无法预估需要多长时间。我们将努力在第一天对Kwok先生（郭文贵）进行询问。因为我获悉，如必须延至下一周，他在下一周的某些日期无法出席，因此我们将努力在听证会第一天完成对他的询问。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n法院：好的。律师，请继续。\n\nJONAS先生（杰夫·乔纳斯）：下午好，法官阁下。我是来自Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）的Jeff Jonas。很高兴再次在您面前出庭。\n\n上述安排均可接受，我感谢Friedman先生就Kwok先生所表现出的礼遇。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nJONAS先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：Goldman律师？\n\nGOLDMAN先生（戈德曼先生）：法官阁下，是的，谢谢。我只是想指出，显然我们并非本动议的正式当事人，不是动议方或被申请方，但我们确实明确打算反对本动议，并且可能希望参与证据阶段以及证据开示程序。\n\n因此，我只是想明确说明，我认为动议方不反对我们在必要范围内正式作为当事人介入；但如果各方能够同意，为证据开示和证据听证之目的，我们将被视为当事人，那么我认为并无必要正式介入。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：至少就PAX（帕克斯）而言，法官阁下，我们当然同意。我们已提供证据开示，或者说，我们已送达的证据开示材料，我相信已送达委员会和U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）。我们也承认委员会和受托人的法定权利。该事项与美国受托人的动议存在重叠，因此我们当然没有异议。\n\nCLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩女士）：法官阁下，所提日期对美国受托人而言可以接受。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。Jonas先生？\n\nJONAS先生：法官阁下，虽然没有这个必要——我是来自Brown Rudnick的Jeff Jonas——但我们当然欢迎委员会参与驳回动议。\n\n法院：好的。很好。谢谢。好的。\n\n因此，今日或明日将发布一项排期命令，载明我们今天下午刚刚在庭上讨论的日期。\n\n显然，这些日期与今天上午的日期不同，这没有问题。你们都表示希望在休庭期间讨论日期，而你们也确实讨论了，因此将作出一项载明日期和时间的排期命令。\n\n我们将于25日和26日上午10点开始。\n\nFriedman律师，排期命令将载明，动议方明确同意依照1112(b)(3)将听证会延期至特定日期，可以吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n我还应当指出，U.S. Trustee关于指定审查员或受托人的动议也将延期至这些日期，即驳回动议的日期，可以吗？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：因此，今日庭审日程中尚未处理的唯一事项，是债务人要求作出临时最终债务人占有融资（DIP）命令的动议；对此我们将进行证据听证。Jonas先生，您可以继续。\n\nJONAS先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我是代表债务人的、来自Brown Rudnick的Jeff Jonas。\n\n法官阁下，有一件——或许我应称之为事务性事项。据我所知，Kwok先生需要一名口译员。我们带来了一名口译员。她名叫Una Wilkinson（乌娜·威尔金森）。她于1995年毕业。\n\n法院：请您为我们拼读一下她的名字，好吗？\n\nJONAS先生：当然。U-N-A。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nJONAS先生：读作Una。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nJONAS先生：但拼写是U-N-A。她的姓氏是Wilkinson，W-I-L-K-I-N-S-O-N。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nJONAS先生：她于1995年毕业于英国Westminster University（威斯敏斯特大学），获翻译学位。就其资质而言，她是Unified Court System of New York State（纽约州统一法院系统）认证的普通话和粤语口译员。她在Eastern and Southern District Courts of New York（纽约东区和南区地区法院）的口译员名单上。她曾在东区和南区地区法院的多起审判案件中为大陪审团提供口译服务，也曾在州刑事法庭、纽约州刑事法庭和纽约民事法庭提供口译服务。她有一长列重要受命工作，我在此不逐一说明，法官阁下，但我确实想向法院介绍一些有关Wilkinson女士资质的背景。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nJONAS先生：法官阁下，我的建议是——虽然我以前从未以这种方式做过，所以我又知道什么呢——或许Wilkinson女士可以坐在证人旁边。\n\n法院：可以。证人席很小，但我们可以搬一把椅子过去。\n\nJONAS先生：这正是我的想法，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。我认为我们无法在证人席内坐下两个人。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n第116页，共\n\nJONAS先生：不，我也不这么认为。但如果您愿意，我很乐意把这把椅子推过去——\n\n法院：那太好了。\n\nJONAS先生：好的。\n\n法院：当然。\n\nJONAS先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：那么，是否有任何当事人对Jonas律师刚才在庭上说明的口译员资质提出异议或有任何问题？\n\nHARBACH先生（戴维·哈巴赫）：法官阁下，我是代表Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）的David Harbach。\n\n我们不质疑Wilkinson女士的资质，也没有理由质疑她的资质。然而，我们也了解到，Wilkinson女士是Kwok先生的个人口译员，并且已与他共事相当长时间。我们对偏见问题有所担忧。\n\n我们今天还带来了一名同样获得认证的口译员供使用；她是我们聘请的——我相信这是我们第一次使用此人。她在法庭内，也具备资格并获得认证。\n\n法官阁下，我们过去采用的程序是，以中立口译员作为主要口译员。然后，在必要范围内，将Wilkinson女士作为核对口译员，以便在某项内容的口译方式、Kwok先生的某种特殊说话方式或其他事项存在问题时进行核对。\n\n但这是我们建议今日采用的程序。\n\n法院：您是否就此与Jonas律师沟通过？\n\nHARBACH先生：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。很好。\n\n那么，Jonas律师，您对我们刚才听到的意见有何回应——\n\nJONAS先生：是。法官阁下，我的回应如下。首先，我认为称Wilkinson女士存在偏见并不公平，我认为她会对任何有关偏见的指称感到不满。这是第一点。\n\n第二点，她不是Kwok先生的——我不知道称她为Kwok先生的个人口译员是什么意思。她这些年来是否与他有过相当多的合作？\n\n如您所知，或者我认为法院也知悉，他参与了多项诉讼事项；是的，绝对如此。\n\n但即便如此，我的建议是——在进一步了解PAX口译员的资质后，我们完全欢迎其参与，我预计我们不会提出异议。\n\n但我建议的是，法官阁下，由Wilkinson女士为Kwok先生翻译。我会提问，她会翻译。她将翻译他的回答。\n\n当然，我——我们欢迎我所称的核对口译员，在存在任何问题时提出这些问题。我们也将采取同样做法，法官阁下。\n\n如果他们愿意，他们可以在我姑且称为交叉询问时使用他们的口译员，而我们将由Wilkinson女士进行核对。那是我的建议，法官阁下。\n\n法院：但核对实质上不就是提出异议吗？我的意思是，难道不是这样吗？\n\n我的意思是，我——我没有同时使用过两名口译员。我使用过一名口译员。\n\n但我理解Harbach律师提出的问题。我也理解您提出的问题。\n\n因此，为了使该问题能够继续进行，例如，如果您将对债务人进行直接询问，并使用Wilkinson女士翻译债务人对您问题的任何回答，是否不妥？\n\nHarbach先生，如果您的翻译认为该翻译不准确，让她告知您，然后您可以对此提出异议，而我们可以处理该证言是否仍作为记录一部分的问题，这样是否合适？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n第119页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n第120页，共\n\nHARBACH先生：法官阁下，这当然是一种进行方式。我们现在讨论的只是，最初由谁进行主要口译。\n\n法院：对。\n\nHARBACH先生：我能向法院陈述的只是，在341会议上以及其他证人的证言录取中，多次由Wilkinson女士作为核对口译员待命，且运作得很好。\n\nJONAS先生：法官阁下，恕我直言，我认为称341会议运作得很好并非公平的表述。那是一团糟。依我之见，341会议上的口译水平并不好。如您所言，Wilkinson女士不得不多次介入。我们最终完成了，但我确实——我可以向您保证，那并未奏效。如果您阅读记录，我认为您会同意我的看法。\n\n法院：嗯，我并未收到341会议的记录——\n\nJONAS先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：——除非你们决定将其制作成文字记录并提交至案卷，因此我无法对此发表意见。但美国受托人办公室已经起立，因此我想听听您的意见，Claiborn律师。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：法官阁下，我想确认\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n第121页，共\n\nHarbach 律师所向本院陈述的内容。\n\n即，截至目前，在本案审理过程中，Wilkinson 女士多次担任债务人的个人口译员，且 Wilkinson 女士曾非常熟练地打断程序，以纠正及/或批评及/或补充担任两次会议正式口译员的口译员所作出的口译。该情形在两次 341 会议期间均有发生。\n\n法庭：所以，我们现在并不是在讨论这种情况会发生，对吗？我的意思是，我以为您是说 Wilkinson 女士将担任主要口译员。\n\nJonas 律师：那是我们的——\n\n法庭：那发生了什么？我没有在场——我的意思是，我根本不知道 341 会议上发生了什么。你们——办公室配备了一名口译员？\n\nClaiborn 女士：我们聘请了一名口译员。\n\n法庭：好的。直到刚才我才明白这一点。好的。\n\nClaiborn 女士：是的。\n\n法庭：那么——\n\nClaiborn 女士：因此，美国受托人办公室的偏好是，由一名与任何相关方毫无任何关联的独立口译员担任主要口译员。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交 05/03/22 登记 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 122 页，共\n\n法庭：好的。那个人就是 PAX（PAX）今天带来的那个人吗？\n\nClaiborn 女士：我不了解该口译员的资质，也不了解该口译员与 PAX 之间的互动情况，但我相信 Harbach 先生可以就此说明。\n\n法庭：好的，Harbach 先生，请继续。\n\nHarbach 律师：法官大人，我们今天有一人可以担任该角色，我愿意对她进行简短的资格询问，也允许律师进一步说明她的资质。我没有把这些资质记在脑中。\n\n法庭：我并不是说您应该记住。我只是想弄清楚该如何进行，对吗？\n\nHarbach 律师：是。是的。\n\n法庭：这就是——这就是我想做的。\n\nHarbach 律师：所以，记录——\n\n法庭：显然，在你们刚才都告诉我 341 会议上发生的事情之前，我对此一无所知，对吗？341 会议的笔录不在案卷中。本院不参加 341 会议，因此我对这些问题毫无了解。而且正如我在数次庭审之前所说，口译员问题是一个重要问题。我曾提出这个问题——我曾在某个时候提出过，因为这是一个重要问题。\n\n因此，如果各方对于如何进行此事未能达成协议，那么遗憾的是，我将不得不决定应如何进行。而且听起来——美国受托人办公室，你们从哪里聘请了口译员？\n\nClaiborn 女士：法官大人，在第一次债权人会议上，我使用了一名通过电话提供的口译员，我想该服务名称是 INTERPRETALK。此后，美国受托人计划在全国范围内提供一项服务。您可以拨入并获得任何所需语言的口译员，该口译员会被接入电话线路，然后进行口译。\n\n因此，我们在该过程中遇到的挑战之一是，电话线路并不总能让线路两端都获得最佳听觉效果。第二次 341 会议中，我们为争取获得一名现场口译员，从另一家第三方聘请了一名现场口译员。\n\n法庭：是现场的吗？是的。\n\nClaiborn 女士：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交 05/03/22 登记 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 123 页，共\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交 05/03/22 登记 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 124 页，共\n\nClaiborn 女士：这有所改善。我相信没有人会告诉您，他们的体验百分之百完美，但我们试图适应这样一种看法，即现场口译比电话线路上的口译效果更好。\n\n法庭：好的。正如我想是在一两次庭审之前告诉过各位的，很明确的是，本院无权——司法系统无权——无论如何，破产法院不得为在案件中聘请口译员而支出资金。美国司法会议、行政办公室，以及实质上国会均不允许这样做，因此本院不能聘请任何人。于是，问题变成了各方必须自行聘请人员。\n\n今天我们这里有两个人，其中一人被两方当事人表示——我应该说是建议——可能不是本院希望用作主要口译员的人。这是他们的建议。\n\n而且，Jonas 先生，您——我此前并不知道这些，对吗，即口译存在问题，或者至少反对 DIP 融资动议以及该项融资来自第三方的当事人认为口译存在问题。好的？\n\n因此，在我不知道存在问题的情况下，我很难说——很难同意您刚才所说的话，Jonas 先生。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交 05/03/22\n登记 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n所以，我假定您所说的问题是，Harbach 先生，您希望由您方的口译员担任主要口译员？\n\nHarbach 律师：是的，法官大人。正是如此。我还想补充几项事实，供您作出该决定时考虑。\n\n第一，今天我们安排到庭的人员来自 TransPerfect Legal Services（泛达法律服务）。该机构一贯为各种不同语言提供此类口译员。如我先前所说，我相信我们直到今天甚至都不知道她的身份。\n\n因此，显而易见的一点是，尽管我们支付她的费用，但她与我们或任何事物均无任何关联，除了一些我们事先告知她须留意的姓名外，她对本案一无所知。\n\n我还应提及的第二点是，Wilkinson 女士还在我们对 Yvette Wang（王悦）进行的证言录取中担任核校口译员；Yvette Wang 是 Golden Spring（黄金春）根据 30(b)(6) 指定的代表。在该证言录取中，我们通过一家类似机构聘请的主要口译员——不是 TransPerfect，而我相信是另一家名为 Veritext（维瑞文本）的机构——表现得极为出色。\n\n并未出现我们在 341 听证会上遇到的同样问题中的一些问题。\n\n所以我提及这一切，是为了说明——我提及我们迄今所做之事的记录，是希望向本院阐明，为何我们显然错误地假定今天会采取类似做法。\n\n因此，对于此事未经通知本院便突然出现，我们表示歉意，但这就是我方的立场。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。Jonas 律师？\n\nJonas 律师：是的，法官大人。Jeff Jonas（杰夫·乔纳斯），代表债务人的 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）。\n\n我仅补充一点，法官大人，首先，对于 PAX 所说的内容，我并不感到冒犯——我认为本院也不应感到冒犯。我们听取了本院关于本院无法提供口译员的指示。我们双方都自行去——显然，如果我们事先沟通过会很好，遗憾的是我们没有沟通——但我们双方都自行聘请了口译员。所以事情就是这样。\n\n而且，再次说明，在没有进一步信息的情况下，我没有理由质疑其口译员的能力。\n\n法官大人，除我先前的意见外，我想说的是，正如您可以想象的，普通话是一种复杂的语言，这是我在过去数周不得不处理它时了解到的。并且，是的，Kwok 先生（郭文贵）一直——他所使用的——而 Wilkinson 女士熟悉 Kwok 先生、他的说话方式，我认为这对他会特别有帮助。显然，这是一次关键听证会。而且，他将在本案中首次现场作证。我认为，具备某种程度的——再次说明，并非偏见——而只是对其语调、语气和说话方式具有一定程度的熟悉和理解，最终将有助于事实裁判者获得最准确的翻译。\n\n我不太确定此前发生之事的相关性。我们现在在这里。他将首次作证。基于此，法官大人，我们再次恭敬地——如果最终需要如此，我们乐意交由本院决定——但我们恭敬地希望并建议由 Wilkinson 女士担任主要口译员。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nJonas 律师：谢谢。\n\n法庭：Harbach 律师，您还有其他想补充的吗？\n\nHarbach 律师：没有，法官大人。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交 05/03/22 登记 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 126 页，共\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交 05/03/22 登记 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 127 页，共\n\n嗯，再次考虑到本案情形以及就口译员提出的论点，并且美国受托人办公室强调了其在 341 会议上所具有——经历过是更恰当的术语——措辞——我想是经历过的一些担忧，本院认为——嗯，本院裁定，由 PAX 聘请的口译员担任主要口译员，而 Wilkinson 女士可以担任核校口译员。\n\n但我们都必须理解，这意味着这里将有三个人，好的，因此我们将不得不想办法，我认为我们需要让口译员明白，提问可能必须进行得稍慢一些。\n\nJonas 律师：是。\n\n法庭：好的？Jonas 先生，您将提出一个问题，然后 Harbach 先生将在交叉询问中回答——提出一个问题，而我们将必须等待债务人作答，随后我们将必须等待——这一切都没有问题，我只是向大家解释将如何进行——我们将必须等待口译员。我不记得 PAX 聘请的那个人的姓名。口译员叫什么名字？\n\nHarbach 律师：因为我尚未让她记入记录，法官大人。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交 05/03/22 登记 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 128 页，共\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nHarbach 律师：这不是记忆问题。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nHarbach 律师：坦白说，我甚至不知道她的名字。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nHarbach 律师：但我知道她在这里。\n\n法庭：那么，口译员将用英语告诉我们 Kwok 先生作出的回答。然后我们将必须等待，看看 Wilkinson 女士是否对此有异议。如果她有异议，那么，您知道，我们将不得不处理。我认为这是我们所能做的一切。好的？考虑到今天的情形，我认为这是我们所能做到的最好办法。\n\nJonas 律师：法官大人，一个问题？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nJonas 律师：我非常感谢并尊重本院的裁定。谢谢您，法官大人。\n\n只是为了让我们明白基本规则，提出一个建议，律师是否可以稍微退后一些，并且——\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nJonas 律师：是的。并让——在——的范围内——\n\n法庭：当然可以。\n\nHarbach 律师：——主要口译员对某项回答作出翻译时，在 Wilkinson 女士可以——\n\n由她本人发言并提出此事，我只是——我不——我希望我们不要站在这件事的最前线，因为——法院：不，我同意。HARBACH 律师：好的。法院：我认为你们应当退一步。我认为我们可能还需要一把椅子。HARBACH 律师：是的。是的。法院：我不知道目前是否能立即找到另一把椅子。JONAS 律师：法官阁下，目前我可以提供我的椅子。法院：好的。你要一直站着吗？JONAS 律师：是的。至少在我的直接询问期间，之后我们再想办法。法院：好的。好的。JONAS 律师：我会坐别人的椅子。法院：好的。在这种情况下，我认为这很公平。并且，我们将在记录中注明，一旦 Jonas 律师——也有人正在搬另一把椅子进来，所以如果有人需要另一把椅子，我们就都准备好了。非常感谢。我不知道我们是否会需要它，但没关系。我感谢你这样做，\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 130 页，共\n\n所以，谢谢。身份不明者：如果您不需要，我会把它还回去。法院：谢谢。那么——为使每个人都清楚，Jonas 律师将代表债务人，就债务人的——我一直用简称来称呼它——但一项 DIP 动议，一项 DIP 动议——开始陈述，然后他将传唤其第一名证人，我将——然后我们将请口译员上前。口译员必须为记录说明其姓名。我还必须确保双方——每一方——均无人质疑两位口译员中任何一位的资格。然后，Jonas 律师，您便可继续进行。好吗？JONAS 律师：当然。谢谢您，法官阁下。法院：好的。您可以——请开始。JONAS 律师：那么，我们可以请口译员上来吗，法官阁下？法院：当然。绝对可以。JONAS 律师：显然，我们会请 Wilkinson 女士上来，我想坐第二把椅子，对吗？\n\n法院：是的。那么，Wilkinson 女士，您在法庭内吗？WILKINSON 女士：在。法院：请您上前。（暂停。）法院：好的。一次一位，我将——法庭工作人员将确保该麦克风至少能够收录两人的声音。Wilkinson 女士，仅因您先到，法庭书记员将为您宣誓。好吗？（核对口译员宣誓。）法院：好的。谢谢。书记员：请为记录说明您的姓名和营业地址。核对口译员：好的。我的姓名是——法院：我们听不见您。书记员：我需要 Wilkinson 女士。法院：我们需要先听 Wilkinson 女士的。请您到麦克风前来。对。核对口译员：姓名，Una，U-N-A，Wilkinson，W-I-L-K-I-N-S-O-N。法院：只需您的营业地址。核对口译员：我的营业地址就是我的家。法院：好的。案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 132 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n1 核对口译员：\n6818 Juno Street，J-U-N-O，\n2 Forest Hills，New York，New York 11375。\n3 法院：\n谢谢。\n非常感谢。\n4 现在，如果我可以请您过来——我不\n5 知道您的姓名。抱歉。\n如果您能告诉我您的姓名。\n6 主口译员：\n当然。\n法官阁下，我的姓名\n7 是 I Ching Ng（吴依晴），拼写为 I-C-H-I-N-G，姓氏为 N\n8 G。\n9 法院：\nN-G。好的。您能否告诉我们\n10 您的营业地址。\n11 主口译员：\n当然。是 450 Lexington\n12 Avenue，Unit 3294，New York，New York 10163。\n13 法院：\n以及您工作的公司？\n14 主口译员：\n今天我代表\n15 TransPerfect（泛达）。\n16 法院：\nTransPerfect。好的。\n17 主口译员：\n是的。\n18 法院：\n法庭书记员将为\n19 您宣誓。好吗？\n20 书记员：\n请举起您的右手。\n21 （主口译员宣誓。）\n22 法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n23 您可以脱下外套。您知道。您不\n24 必——以您觉得更舒适的方式即可，但我\n25 将请您坐在证人席紧旁边。并且\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 134 页，共\n\n1 Wilkinson 女士将坐在您的右侧。好吗？\n2 现在，两位，我要请你们\n3 做的是——你们不知道这一点，但我们的——记录仅能\n4 通过麦克风收录。因此，一旦证人 Kwok 先生\n5 发言，在他发言之后，而你们进行翻译时，你们将\n6 必须对着麦克风说话。\n7 因此，Wilkinson 女士，可能\n8 如果 Jonas 律师走开\n9 （听不清）——您就必须上来站在这个麦克风前，因为如果我们听不见您，\n10 我们就必须让您停止。不要担心，这种情况\n11 有时会发生。我们有——这就是——我们唯一的记录\n12 只能通过麦克风收录。因此，如果我让您停止，并不是因为您\n13 做错了什么，而是因为我们无法听见，或者\n14 出于任何原因。好吗？\n15 我只是想——我知道您以前没有做过这个——或者至少没有在这个法庭做过——但我们只能\n16 ——我们没有速记员。没有。我们必须\n17 以这种方式将一切纳入记录。如果我们没有收录到，\n18 那么我们必须暂停并确保其已纳入记录。\n19 好吗？\n20 核对口译员：\n好的。\n21 法院：\n那么，你们二位是否有任何\n22 问题？\n23 主口译员：\n所以这意味着我可以使用\n24 这个麦克风，对吗？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n1 法院：\n对，您可以。而且是在\n2 ——这里还有另一个麦克风。好的。很好。\n3 好的。这对 Wilkinson 女士也会有帮助。很好。\n4 谢谢。\n5 在 Kwok 先生回答问题之后，那么，\n6 是的，您可以——这就是我们将麦克风稍微转过来\n7 的原因，这样也能够收录您的声音。如果\n8 出于某种原因我们错了，它没有收录\n9 您的声音，我们会弄清楚让您站在哪里，以便我们\n10 也能够听懂您所说的话。\n11 主口译员：\n好的。\n12 法院：\n好吗？这对你们二位\n13 都有道理吗？\n14 （无可听见的回应。）\n15 法院：\n好的。我只是想确保。如果\n16 您有任何问题，请在我们开始前告诉我。\n17 好吗？好的。\n18 好的。既然没有听到问题，那么我们还\n19 需要做什么？\n20 书记员：\n我这里有一则记录，说我们将让\n21 证人（听不清）。\n22 法院：\n我认为 Jonas 律师将传唤他的\n23 证人，所以就这样。\n24 JONAS 律师：\n是的，法官阁下。如果准备好了，我\n25 很乐意这样做。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n1 法院：\n是的。请继续。\n2 JONAS 律师：\n谢谢。法官阁下，我们将——\n3 债务人传唤 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）出庭作证。\n4 法院：\n好的。Kwok 先生，请您\n5 上前。\n6 KWOK 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n7 法院：\n下午好，先生。\n8 现在，Kwok 先生，您到那里后只需站着，\n9 然后请举起您的右手，并听从法庭书记员的指示。她将——\n10 您将翻译——但现在与您\n11 说话的是这个人。\n12 书记员：\n抱歉。您知道。\n13 法院：\n没关系。这不是问题。\n14 书记员：\n让我拿一下我的笔记。非常\n15 抱歉。\n16 法院：\n如果您愿意，您可以将其分成几段，\n17 以便口译员可以将其分段翻译给 Kwok 先生。\n18 好吗？\n19 书记员：\n好的。\n20 法院：\n您可以一次说几个词，我认为那样也会\n21 有助于 Kwok 先生理解。\n22 23\n24 HO WAN KWOK，已宣誓\n25 法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n书记员：请为记录说明您的姓名和地址。主口译员：口译员希望向 Kwok 先生确认地址的拼写。法院：拼写？主口译员：对。法院：对。请继续。您可以问他。证人：姓名是 Kwok，K-W-O-K。名字是 Ho Wan，H-A——抱歉——H-O W-A-N。地址在 Connecticut 的 Taconic，但我不知道如何拼写。法院：我没听清您说什么。Connecticut 的什么？我想是 Greenwich，Connecticut。您认为您听到的是这个吗？证人：门牌号是 373，但我不记得街道名称。那是在 Greenwich，Connecticut。法院：好的。JONAS 律师：法官阁下，我相信是 Taconic。法院：我想是 Taconic，是的。好的。谢谢。谢谢。好的。您可以坐下。证人：谢谢您，法官阁下。法院：好的。JONAS 律师：法官阁下，我可以——这个麦克风 案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 137 页，共\n\nKwok—直接询问 138——我只是想知道它是否会收录 Kwok 先生的声音？法院：我认为如果他稍微向它靠近一点——JONAS 律师：好的。法院：——这样我们就能收录他们两人的声音。JONAS 律师：好的。好的。法院：好的。（暂停。）JONAS 律师直接询问：\n问 下午好，Kwok 先生。Kwok 先生，您为什么提起本 Chapter 11 破产案件？\n答 首先，我想借此机会——首先，我想说，我今天非常激动。这是我第一次能够在本案中出庭。本案已持续五年。我感谢这个机会。而且我也非常激动，以至于昨晚无法入睡。\n法院：谢谢。\nJONAS 律师询问：\n问 我将——我再重复一遍我的问题。Kwok 先生，您为什么提起本 Chapter 11 破产案件？\n答 今年二月初，在 Southern District Court（南区法院），法官作出判决，要求我在五天内支付 $120 million。\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 138 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 139 页，共\n\nKwok—直接询问\n\n1 书记员：\n请原谅，法官阁下。我需要\n2 中断一下，因为有消息称我们听不见\n3 口译员。虽然我能听见\n4 （听不清），但我们收到消息称听不见。\n5 法院：\n好的。\n6 JONAS 律师：\n我可以提出一个建议吗，法官阁下？\n7 法院：\n当然。\n8 JONAS 律师：\n我不确定——我认为\n9 我们真正需要听到的只是口译员，只要她能听见 Kwok 先生。\n10 所以我的建议是，我可以将麦克风直接转向口译员，这样我们就能收录\n11 口译员的声音，因为我认为这实际上是唯一\n12 重要的声音。\n13 法院：\n我认为这有道理——我们试试。\n14 JONAS 律师：\n好的。\n15 法院：\n好的。\n16 JONAS 律师：\n我们试试。\n17 法院：\n我们试试。好的。\n18 JONAS 律师：\n谢谢您的耐心。\n19 法院：\n好的。不，谢谢您。\n20 （暂停。）\n21 JONAS 律师：\n我只是想——我不知道\n22 我们停在了哪里。\n23 法院：\n对。\n24 JONAS 律师：\n我可以——我认为他正说到\n25 答案的一半\n\nKwok—直接询问 140，所以我们要不要重新开始？主口译员：如果您不介意。JONAS 律师：很乐意。法院：那会有帮助。谢谢。JONAS 律师：当然。\nJONAS 律师询问：\n问 我们回到刚才，Kwok 先生。Kwok 先生，您为什么提起本 Chapter 11 破产案件？\n答 2020 年 2 月，Southern District Court（南区法院）的法官就我与 PAX（PAX公司）之间的案件作出判决，该判决要求我在五天内支付 $120 million 的罚款。\n主口译员：让我向 Kwok 先生确认一下数额。好的。让我确认一下。应当是 124 million。\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n证人：在这种情况下，我别无选择。为了迅速并公平地解决我与债务人的债务问题——我有很多债务人——这是我必须作出的选择之一，尽管我没有选择，以解决债权人的问题。\n法院：好的。\nJONAS 律师：法官阁下，我只是想确保。我实际上认为运作得很好。我只是想确保法院满意，并且——案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 140 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 141 页，共\n\nKwok—直接询问\n\n法庭：\n\n我能听到。真正确保声音被收录的是法庭书记员和录音设备。\n\n书记员：\n\n是。\n\n法庭：\n\n好。\n\nJonas先生：\n\n但我认为，Wilkinson女士（威尔金森）所作的更正也表明，系统正在运行。\n\n法庭：\n\n没问题。是的，我同意。\n\nJonas先生：\n\n好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。谢谢。\n\n由Jonas先生询问：\n\n问：您是否已经回答完毕？我只是想确认一下，Kwok先生（郭文贵），您为何提出这宗Chapter 11案件？\n\n答：是的，我说完了。\n\n问：好的。谢谢。Kwok先生，您是否曾公开采取批评中国共产党的立场，或者批评通常所称的CCP？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您为什么这样做？\n\n答：1989年中国天安门民主抗议期间，我资助了学生。因此，我被逮捕并被监禁22个月，我的弟弟被杀害。\n\n而且，由于我的父母遭到CCP酷刑，并且在我被捕期间，我亲眼看到许多学生抗议者被杀害，因此我发誓必须消灭中国共产党。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第142页\n\n郭文贵—直接询问\n\n问：Kwok先生，就您反对CCP的活动而言，您是否曾经并且目前是否进行反对CCP的广播？\n\n答：在过去五年中，我进行了超过5,000场直播，播出时长数千小时，以批评CCP的腐败行为，并向世界揭露它们。\n\n我还谈到了（无法辨认）发生的屠杀，以及香港的情况，以及他们如何在西方、在美国开展间谍活动和实施侵犯人权的行为。\n\n问：有多少人观看或收看过您的广播？\n\n答：我认为有数千万、数亿人。\n\n问：作为公开直言批评CCP的人，是否使您面临风险？\n\n答：风险极大。\n\n问：这些风险是什么？\n\n答：2015年1月10日，我身后的这些人，那两个人（无法辨认），他们还支付了律师费。有一名叫Wu Zheng（音）的人，他对我进行了监视。\n\n我的家人遭到逮捕，包括我的妻子、女儿，以及数百名同事也遭到逮捕，我的家庭资产被查封。他们对我说，如果我不与中国共产党合作，他们就会杀了我。\n\n主口译员：\n\n口译员希望与证人核实几个姓名。\n\n法庭：\n\n当然。请继续。\n\n证人：\n\nBernard Wu，他曾是名为CGI的调查公司的合伙人，他与（无法辨认）合作，他们也参与了这项调查。而且他们当时——\n\n主口译员：\n\n让我与——先生核实一个术语。\n\nHarbach先生（哈巴赫）：\n\n法官阁下，我意识到正在对口译作出核实，但我们就关联性和答非所问提出异议。据我记得，问题是风险是什么？在我看来，这个回答完全不清楚是否回答了该问题，或者是否与本次听证会的目的相关。\n\n法庭：\n\n我明白。我将允许提出这个问题并给出回答，之后我们将转入与DIP申请相关的议题。\n\nJonas先生：\n\n法官阁下，我完全同意。我只是试图提供一些背景，这是关于该话题的最后一个问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第143页\n\n郭文贵—直接询问\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。请继续——请继续。不过我可以问一下您吗，口译员——\n\n主口译员：\n\n可以。\n\n法庭：\n\n——您说了一个名字。我不知道我是否听清了。是Bernard Wu吗，是这个名字吗？\n\n主口译员：\n\n是。嗯。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。我们能否——您能否为法庭拼写一下？\n\n主口译员：\n\n让我与Kwok先生核实拼写。\n\n法庭：\n\n当然。\n\n证人：\n\nBruno Wu（吴征）。\n\n法庭：\n\nBruno。\n\n证人：\n\nB-R-U-N-O，姓氏是W-U。\n\n法庭：\n\n谢谢。\n\n由Jonas先生询问：\n\n问：谢谢您，Kwok先生。\n\n主口译员：\n\n是。抱歉，我还没有完成翻译。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。请继续。\n\nJonas先生：\n\n抱歉。\n\n证人：\n\n关于Puff（音）案，Bruno Wu Partners也参与其中；此外，关于司法部试图让Trump总统（特朗普）将我引渡的案件——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第144页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n郭文贵—直接询问\n\n——我想说，在过去五年中，我处于极其危急、风险极高的境地。有很多次有人来到我的住所，想要伤害我。我不想花时间详述这些事情。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。\n\n由Jonas先生询问：\n\n问：谢谢您，Kwok先生。我们继续。您是否有经济能力清偿本案中针对您主张的全部债务？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您是否知悉，有人声称您给人的印象是一名富有的人？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：在本案中，您披露您拥有很少的——您在本案中是否确实披露了极少的资产？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您能解释这一矛盾吗？\n\n答：1989年，我因参与一场运动而在（无法辨认）运动期间被逮捕。之后，我于2000年移居香港。\n\n然后，自2015年至今，我动员开展了消灭中国共产党的运动——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n郭文贵—直接询问\n\n——因此，我是众所周知的CCP头号敌人。正因如此，我不可能持有任何资产。\n\n问：但是，先生，您——再次，我想回到我的问题，即据称您看起来有能力过优渥生活，但您却披露了极少的资产。您从何处——您从何处获得维持自身生活的资金？\n\n答：目前，我处于一种非常特殊的情形。这非常独特。我正处于消灭中国共产党的运动阶段。\n\n我的儿子、女儿以及家族企业都非常成功。这些都是非常特殊的（无法辨认）。我的家人爱我，他们为我的生活开支以及开展必要的运动提供支持。\n\n在过去五年中，中国共产党对我的家人进行了多次调查，也公开诽谤我。然而，他们从未说过——他们从未披露我的资产，也从未指出我犯有任何罪行。\n\n问：Kwok先生，您是否熟悉您在本案中提出的债务人占有融资，即DIP融资请求？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：拟议的DIP贷款人是谁？\n\n案号 22-50073 文书318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n郭文贵—直接询问\n\n答：New York Golden Spring（纽约金泉）。\n\n问：请问，Golden Spring New York, Limited是什么？\n\n答：这是一家由我儿子拥有的公司。他设立该公司是为了在纽约投资，也为了帮助家人，并处理西方的家庭事务。\n\n问：好的。您是否协助他设立Golden Spring？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：是否使用了您的任何资金来设立Golden Spring？\n\n答：我曾一度获授权转移资金以帮助Golden Spring，并将资金转入J.P. Morgan（摩根大通）。\n\n问：但这些资金——撤回该问题。这些资金是您的吗？\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：它们是谁的资金？\n\n答：我儿子的。\n\n问：您拥有Golden Spring吗？\n\n答：不拥有。\n\n问：您控制Golden Spring吗？\n\n答：不控制。\n\n问：您为Golden Spring工作吗？\n\n答：不工作。\n\n问：Golden Spring过去是否曾向您借款？\n\n案号 22-50073 文书318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第148页\n\n郭文贵—直接询问\n\n答：是。\n\n问：用途是什么？\n\n答：因为过去几年中，中国共产党对我提起了很多诉讼，数量众多的诉讼，所以我必须从New York Golden Spring获得贷款、借款，以支付这些律师费。\n\nJonas先生：\n\n法官阁下，我可以——我知道我口渴得厉害。我可以把这个给Kwok先生吗？谢谢。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n由Jonas先生询问：\n\n问：Kwok先生，Golden Spring是否支付您的生活开支？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：为什么？Golden Spring为什么会这样做？\n\n答：因为在这段时间里，我正在开展消灭中国共产党的运动，当然没有其他选择。\n\n与此同时，我的儿子非常爱我。我是他唯一的父亲。因此，这家公司一直在支付生活开支。\n\n问：您是否熟悉Lamp Capital？\n\n答：那是我儿子的公司。\n\n问：您为Lamp Capital工作吗？\n\n答：不工作。\n\n问：您控制Lamp Capital吗？\n\n答：不控制。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n郭文贵—直接询问\n\n问：Lamp Capital过去是否曾向您借款？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：用途是什么？\n\n答：是。支付一百万美元给我们的律师事务所，以处理我的破产案件。\n\n问：您是否知悉，本案中已经提交若干书状，声称您与G Music存在关联？\n\n答：我是G Music的志愿者。我为G Music演唱许多有关消灭中国共产党的歌曲。\n\n问：您是否——撤回该问题。您与Himalayan Exchange之间，如有，存在何种关联？\n\n答：我是顾问和推广人。\n\n问：您与GETTR，G-E-T-T-R之间，如有，存在何种关联？\n\n答：我是顾问及其推广人之一。\n\n问：您就这些实体开展的活动，是否全部构成您公开反对CCP的一部分？\n\n答：关于所提及的所有这些公司，我与我的（无法辨认）合作，目的是消灭中国共产党，因此我算是这一事业的推广人。\n\n问：您是否从这些实体中的任何一个获得报酬？\n\n答：没有。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n郭文贵—直接询问\n\n问：您是否对部分债权人针对您提出的债权主张提出异议？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：在本次破产之前，您是否记得曾就您所涉的一些诉讼接受宣誓询问？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您是否记得曾在其中一些询问中援引《第五修正案》规定的反对自证其罪权利？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：在您最近的341会议上，您是否曾援引《第五修正案》权利？\n\n答：没有。我完全没有使用。\n\n问：为什么？\n\n答：因为在破产案件中，需要更多的透明度和公平。而且，披露更多我的财务信息有助于处理与各个债务人的关系，所以我希望法官——抱歉——债权人——我希望法官和所有债权人都能知悉所有这些信息，以便我们能够以公开的方式进行处理。\n\n问：我想回到DIP。您能否简要说明DIP贷款最初是如何安排的？\n\n答：当我得知Southern District（南区）的法官时——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n郭文贵—直接询问\n\n法院处以 124 million 的罚款，并要求我在五天内付清。我请我的律师和儿子联系相关人士，以帮助我解决这笔贷款。\n\n问：而这最终促成了今天提交法院审理的 DIP 贷款吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：请简要说明您对目前拟议的 DIP 贷款条款的理解。\n\n答：关于贷款金额，其中包括 $8 million 和 $1 million，这 $8 million 和 $1 million 被优先用于公平地向所有债权人付款，也用于支付因本破产案件而为其他第三方产生的任何费用，例如律师和其他专业人士的费用。此外——这 $1 million 是捐款。\n\n问：您是否了解，DIP 贷款能否在向债权人付款之前或优先于债权人偿还？我不确定这该如何翻译，但是。\n\n答：不可以。不允许这样做。\n\n问：您是否了解，如果本案指定了审查员，DIP 贷款能否用于资助该审查员？\n\n答：是。这是可行的。\n\n问：您是否了解，DIP 贷款能否用于支付本案债权人委员会专业人士的费用？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\nKwok - 直接询问\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您是否了解，DIP 贷款能否用于支付本案到期应付的美国受托人（United States Trustee）费用？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：就您今天坐在这里的情况而言，您是否认为 DIP 贷款很可能会得到偿还？\n\n答：（听不清。）\n\n问：Golden Spring 为什么会这样做？\n\nHARBACH 律师：反对。这要求证人作出推测。\n\n法院：我允许。\n\n证人：关于 Golden Spring，那是一家由我儿子拥有的公司。他只有一个父亲。我们家经历了许多困难。在面对中国共产党的压制时也是如此。此外，出于他个人的考量和中国家庭价值观，他希望维护家庭、我以及他母亲的利益。否则，我早已被投入监狱并被杀害。\n\nJONAS 律师询问：\n\n问：您是否知道，$9 million 的 DIP 贷款收益现已可供使用？\n\n答：我知道这笔钱昨天已经到账，但我——\n\nKwok - 直接询问 153\n\n律师。我知道这笔钱昨天已经开始到账。我不确定它是否已经到达律师的托管账户。\n\n问：您是否认为，除 Golden Spring 外的任何其他方会以比本案所提供条款更优的条件提供 DIP 贷款？\n\nHARBACH 律师：反对。推测。\n\n法院：我将允许，并将赋予其我认为适当的权重。\n\n证人：不会。\n\nJONAS 律师询问：\n\n问：Kwok 先生，您提到了审查员，您支持在本案中指定审查员吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：为什么？\n\n答：自本案第一天起直至现在，这是我唯一感到安心、感到安全的时刻，因为我有机会在这里为自己发言。而且，由于我消灭中国共产党的目标，我需要有机会发声、制造声响，而这个司法制度提供了那个平台。我了解美国法律制度，并且——因此，它将提供一个公平、透明且更专业的方式，与债权人解决我的债务问题。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n第 153 页，共\n\nKwok - 直接询问 154\n\n问：如果 DIP 融资未获批准，您是否有其他资金来源支付本 Chapter 11 案件的成本和费用？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您是否已提交拟议的重整计划？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您是否认为，落实 DIP 贷款是必要的，并将有助于推进或执行您今后的计划？\n\n答：是。\n\nJONAS 律师：法官阁下，目前我对直接询问没有其他问题。如果方便的话，我请求法院在某个时候短暂休庭？我确实明白需要指示 Kwok 先生不得与任何人交谈，这没有问题。我只是想确保，如果可以的话，他和我有机会稍作休息。\n\n法院：对方律师对此有异议吗？\n\nHARBACH 律师：完全没有，法官。\n\n法院：好的。那么，如果没有异议，就可以。那么您想要多长时间？\n\nFiore 记录与速记服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n第 154 页，共\n\nKwok - 直接询问/交叉询问 155\n\nJONAS 律师：哦，只需五或十分钟，法官阁下。\n\n法院：现在是差十分三点。您想在三点回来吗？\n\nJONAS 律师：可以。感谢您的礼遇，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。我们将短暂休庭至下午 3 点，好吗？好的。好的。法庭休庭至三点。\n\n（下午 2:47 至下午 3 点休庭。）\n\n法院：好的。请在休庭后恢复庭审记录。\n\n书记员：是。我们仍在审理案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）案。我们在（听不清）后开庭。\n\n法院：好的。Harbach 先生，您准备好继续了吗？\n\nHARBACH 律师：是，法官阁下。我可以询问吗？\n\n法院：可以，请。请继续。\n\nHARBACH 律师交叉询问：\n\n问：下午好，Kwok 先生。我想先谈谈 Jonas 先生曾问到的一个实体，名为 GETTR。先生，您知道我所说的实体吗？\n\n答：首先，我想说，先生，下午好，我知道 GETTR。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n第 155 页，共\n\nKwok - Harbach 交叉询问 156\n\n问：好的。GETTR 是什么？\n\n答：它是一个社交媒体平台。\n\n问：我相信您在直接询问中作证称，您是 GETTR 的顾问和推广人。对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：GETTR 何时推出其平台？\n\n答：2021。\n\n问：大约在 2021 年夏季，这听起来大致正确吗？\n\n答：我记不清了。\n\n问：好的。GETTR 最初是如何获得资金的？\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：您是否参与向 GETTR 捐赠任何资金？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您是否帮助 GETTR 从他人处筹集任何资金？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您的家人是否就其创办向 GETTR 作出任何捐赠或付款？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：Himalayan Exchange 是什么？\n\n答：它是一家用于交易或兑换数字货币的在线公司。\n\n问：是您创办的吗？\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：您是否属于协助创办它的人士？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n第 156 页，共\n\nKwok - Harbach 交叉询问 157\n\n答：不是。\n\n问：好的。Himalaya Coin 是什么？\n\n答：那是在 Himalayan Exchange 上的一种数字货币。\n\n问：所以，Himalayan Exchange 是一个支持交易 Himalaya Coin 的平台。这样说公平吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：好的。您知道一部名为《HCoin to the Moon》的音乐视频吗？\n\n首席口译员：抱歉，律师，您能重复——\n\nHARBACH 律师询问：\n\n问：HCoin——哦，证人知道。\n\n答：我知道。\n\n问：好的。那是一部成功且受欢迎的音乐视频，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：它有您的出演，是吗？\n\n答：我只是其中很小的一部分。\n\n问：先生，您在该视频中显著出镜，不是吗？\n\n答：我只说了——我只说了一句。\n\n问：您在制作这首歌中是否发挥任何作用？\n\n答：我只唱了一句。实际上，这首歌《HCoin to the Moon》由 30,000 人完成。\n\n问：例如，《HCoin to the Moon》在 iTunes 上是否曾是非常受欢迎的下载内容？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n第 157 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\nKwok - Harbach 交叉询问\n\n答：您所说的“大量”或“非常受欢迎”是什么意思？\n\n问：《HCoin to the Moon》是否曾一度位列 Apple iTunes 下载量前 10 名？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：好的。所以它赚了很多钱。\n\n答：我不知道。\n\n问：那么我理解，您的证词将是，您没有收到任何与该歌曲版税有关的款项？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您之前提到了您援引第五修正案。您记得该证词吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您是否了解，第五修正案的目的，是在如实作证可能使您负罪的情形下提供保护。\n\nJONAS 律师：反对，法官阁下。\n\n法院：依据是什么？\n\nJONAS 律师：他是在要求作出法律结论。我认为证人——\n\n法院：不，我认为他是在询问——他问的是其理解是什么，所以我将——\n\nHARBACH 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：——驳回该反对意见。\n\n证人：不，情况不是这样。\n\nKwok - Harbach 交叉询问 159\n\nHARBACH 律师询问：\n\n问：好的。您对援引第五修正案的目的有何理解？\n\n答：我是在我的律师的建议下请求使用第五修正案的。\n\n问：好的，我理解，并且请相信我，我无意询问您与律师之间有关您是否应援引该修正案的沟通，那是享有特权的。但是，我——但是您的律师在直接询问中着重确定，您过去曾援引第五修正案，但在第 341 次会议上没有这样做。而您说，那是因为您想更透明。\n\nJONAS 律师：反对，法官阁下。\n\n法院：依据是什么？\n\nJONAS 律师：我认为最近两个——他——Harbach 先生作了陈述，但在最近两个所谓的问题中没有提出问题。\n\nHARBACH 律师：法官阁下，我只是在为口译员停顿，而不是提出一个很长的大问题，我是在留时间让她——\n\n法院：我不确定这不是一个问题。我的意思是，您是在问他曾说过什么。我不——我不——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n第 159 页，共\n\nKwok - Harbach 交叉询问 160\n\n确定这不是一个问题，所以我认为我们就继续，看看我们——会到哪里，好吗？\n\nHARBACH 律师询问：\n\n问：先生，问题是，您对一个人为何会援引第五修正案的原因有何理解？\n\n答：我不理解这个问题。\n\n问：您是否理解——您是否了解第五修正案是什么？\n\n答：我知道。\n\n问：您知道援引第五修正案是什么意思吗？\n\n答：美国法律赋予人们这样做的权利。\n\n问：完全正确，而我试图理解的是，有权做什么？这是什么——根据您的理解，一个人可能援引第五修正案的原因是什么？\n\nJONAS 律师：反对，法官阁下。再次，我——而且我恭敬地——我——我并非想要打断，但我确实需要为记录保留我的反对意见。我认为不适当地询问一名证人——他现在已经提出了，我不知道，10 个有关第五修正案及其理解的问题。显然，其中一些在其理解来自我们这一范围内享有特权。\n\n法院：他没有要求提供享有特权的信息。他已经明确说明。我认为这是一个相关问题，我驳回您的反对意见。\n\nJONAS 律师：可以。谢谢。\n\n法院：您确实在直接询问中就该问题打开了大门。\n\nJONAS 律师：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nJONAS 律师：这就是为什么我——一开始，我没有提出异议，但我们对此讨论得相当深入，我不确定这要走向何处。\n\n法院：我——但他还没有得到答案。\n\nJONAS 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nHARBACH 律师询问：\n\n问：先生，您希望我重复这个问题吗？\n\n首席口译员：是。是的，请。这是口译员。\n\nHARBACH 律师：当然。\n\nHARBACH 律师询问：\n\n问：您对援引第五修正案意味着什么有何理解？\n\n答：我听从我的律师——我听从我律师的建议。\n\n问：好的。那么我想我会继续下一个问题。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n第 161 页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫） 162 在询问一开始，当被问及您为何提出本次 Chapter 11 案件时，您提到，这是因为纽约的一名法官命令您在五天内支付 \\$124 million 罚金。您记得该证言吗？答 是。问 我不想对此深入探究，只想说，当时已有一项针对您的判决，因为法官作出了不利于您在该诉讼中一方的裁决，对吗？答 您说的是纽约第七区的一项判决吗？我知道那一项。问 嗯，我说的是由 Barry Ostrager 法官（Justice Barry Ostrager）主持审理的 New York State Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）作出的判决。答 是，我知道。问 好的。因此，实际上——已经作出了两项判决。其中一项是与 PAX 违约索赔有关的部分简易判决。您记得吗？答 您是说我违反合同吗？问 我只是试图说明，纽约州最高法院已对您作出两项判决。我并非要求您承认是否同意这些判决。我只是问您是否知道它们的存在。Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 162 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318\nFiled 05/03/22\nEntered 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n郭文贵—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 答 是。\n2 问 好的。您知道其中一项是与藐视法庭认定有关的判决，对吗？\n3 \n4 答 是。\n5 问 好的。您是否就该藐视法庭判决提交或试图提交上诉保证金？\n6 \n7 答 是。\n8 问 金额是多少？\n9 答 您是说上诉保证金吗？\n10 问 是。\n11 答 我不明白您所说的上诉保证金是什么意思。\n12 问 您知道什么是上诉保证金吗？\n13 答 那么您是在问 Barry Ostrager 法官作出的——关于藐视法庭案件的事吗？\n14 \n15 问 正是。我的问题是，您是否就该判决提交或试图提交上诉保证金？\n16 \n17 \n18 答 我的律师正在处理，但我不知道细节。\n19 \n20 问 所以据您所知，该事项尚未完成。\n21 \n22 答 我们已经就 Barry Ostrager 法官的一项判决提出上诉。\n23 \n24 问 我明白。\n25 HARBACH 先生：法官阁下，我很快会继续下一个问题。\n\n郭文贵—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫） 164\n法官阁下。\n由 HARBACH 先生询问：\n问 为澄清起见，我的问题不是您是否对该裁决提出上诉，而是您是否缴纳了上诉保证金。刚才，您说您相信您的律师正在处理此事，这没有问题。\n答 是。\n问 好的。因此，我只想确认他们正在处理。就您所知，此事尚未完成，对吗？\n答 我的律师正在处理此事。\n问 明白。谢谢。就主询问再澄清一件事。Jonas 先生（Jonas）问过您，由于您反对中国共产党，您面临哪些风险；您所说的事项中包括您的家人被逮捕，以及中国共产党没收了您家人的资产。您记得该证言吗？\n答 是。\n问 其中一些资产也是您的，对吗？\n答 不是。\n问 那么，您的证言是，中国共产党没有没收您的任何资产吗？\n答 是。\n问 好的。只有您家人的资产。Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 164 of\n\n郭文贵—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫） 165\n答 是。\n问 因您的行为所致。\n答 是。\n问 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）于 March of 2015 设立，对吗？\n答 是。\n问 而且我相信您在主询问中说过，它——曾是一家投资公司？\n答 当时，该公司所承担的职能之一，是为家人在美国寻找投资机会。\n问 自 March of 2015 以来，Golden Spring 已经实施了多少项成功的投资机会？\n答 我们有一些几乎成功的案例。然而，由于 Bruno Wu（吴征）代表中国共产党打电话并作出威胁，因此它们都未能成功。\n问 我没有听清最后一个词。它们是——\n答 未能成功。\n问 它们未能成功？\n口译员：对。\n由 HARBACH 先生询问：\n问 好的。因此，对我问题的回答是，自其于 March of 2015 设立以来，Golden Spring 没有任何成功的投资吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 165 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318\nFiled 05/03/22\nEntered 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n郭文贵—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 答 我不知道 2015 年之后发生了什么。\n2 问 好的。因此，对我问题的回答是，您完全不知道 Golden Spring 自 2015 年以来是否有任何成功的投资？\n3 \n4 \n5 答 是。\n6 问 这是您所称由您儿子拥有的公司？\n7 答 是。\n8 问 按照您的说法，正是这位儿子出于爱和善意而对您慷慨相助？\n9 \n10 答 是。\n11 问 考虑到这一点，您和这位儿子的关系相当亲近？\n12 答 是。\n13 问 您从未问过他生意进展如何，或者他们有兴趣投资什么？\n14 \n15 答 这与他的合伙人 Bruno Wu 有关，他去了伦敦，并且——与许多人一起，有来自中国共产党的中国间谍试图杀害他们。\n16 \n17 \n18 2015 年，我的女儿、我的妻子被逮捕，而且——\n19 因为这些——这些问题，以及我被追捕并且曾——他们曾试图——他们试图杀害我这一事实，因此他们不想告诉我太多有关他们个人事务或所发生事情的情况，\n20 \n21 \n22 \n23 而我尊重这一点。\n24 问 所以您的回答是，您从未问过他。\n25 答 我问过。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 318\nFiled 05/03/22\nEntered 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n郭文贵—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 问 而他拒绝回答您的问题。是这样吗？\n2 答 因为我受到死亡威胁，并且因为我，出现了许多问题。因此，\n3 他们不想回答。\n4 \n5 问 我没有听清回答的末尾部分。抱歉。\n6 答 因为我受到威胁，而且因为我出现了许多问题，他们不想回答。\n7 \n8 \n9 问 出于什么恐惧，即中国共产党会追查他们的资产？\n10 \n11 答 这不仅仅是没收资产的问题。事实上，我儿子此前曾被中国共产党逮捕，\n12 \n13 并受到死亡威胁，因此他一直处于这个过程中。此外，他在香港和中国大陆的许多资产\n14 \n15 已被他们没收或充公。\n16 问 您此前曾作证，不是吗，您本人没有任何银行账户，对吗？\n17 \n18 答 是。\n19 问 而按照您的说法，原因是中国共产党，对吗？\n20 \n21 答 是。\n22 问 而且出于同一原因，您无法持有任何资产，对吗？\n23 \n24 答 如我一开始所述，由于 1989 年事件，我被拘押了 22 个月，之后我成为一名\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 168 of\n\n郭文贵—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 反共产党的人士；之后在 year 2000，我持有香港护照；并且在 2015 年，我成为反中国共产党人士。因此，由于这三个不同阶段以及当时的政治环境，\n2 \n3 \n4 \n5 我无法拥有或持有任何资产。\n6 问 好的。我希望现在谈到其中一点。您在非常公开的申报文件中宣誓称，您的儿子拥有 Golden Spring New York，似乎毫无困难，对吗？难道不是这样吗，即您在非常公开的申报文件中宣誓称，\n7 \n8 \n9 \n10 您的儿子是 Golden Spring New York 的所有人？\n11 答 是。\n12 问 好的。而且，Golden Spring 可支配数百万美元，这也是真的，对吗？\n13 \n14 答 我不知道他们有多少钱。\n15 问 嗯，您知道他们有数百万美元，对吗，因为您几分钟前刚刚作证，他们已承诺向您，或者向破产财产，提供八。对吗？\n16 \n17 \n18 JONAS 先生：异议，法官阁下。这实际上不准确。他——在被问及 DIP 的条款时，我相信他说的是 \\$9 million。\n19 \n20 \n21 法庭：我认为他可以回答这个问题。\n22 证人：是，我此前的证言称为 \\$9 million。\n23 \n24 由 HARBACH 先生询问：\n25 问 而我问您的问题是，您知道，不是吗，\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 318\nFiled 05/03/22\nEntered 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n郭文贵—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 Golden Spring 可支配数百万美元？\n2 答 是。\n3 问 Golden Spring 在 2015 年设立时，是您拥有的，是真的吗？\n4 答 不是。\n5 问 您是否记得今年 April 6th 在 New Haven（纽黑文）举行的 341 听证会，即亲自出席的那次？\n6 \n7 \n8 \n9 答 是。\n10 问 您是否记得作证称，您曾一度在 Golden Spring 担任某个职务，但您记不起该职务是什么？\n11 \n12 \n13 答 是。\n14 问 截至今天坐在这里，您仍然记不起该职务是什么吗？\n15 \n16 答 是。\n17 问 或者您何时担任该职务？\n18 答 是在最开始，即 early 2015，公司刚成立时。\n19 \n20 问 大约持续多久？\n21 答 我不记得。\n22 问 在主询问中，您被问及 Golden Springs 的设立情况，我相信您作证称，您协助儿子设立 Golden Spring。对吗？\n23 \n24 \n25 \n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 318\nFiled 05/03/22\nEntered 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n郭文贵—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 答 是。\n2 问 我们稍作岔开，将您儿子的姓名载入记录。他是 Qiang Guo（郭强），对吗？\n3 \n4 答 是。\n5 问 好的。我为记录拼写一下。Q-I-A-N-G，姓氏为 G-U-O。\n6 \n7 答 是。\n8 问 谢谢。现在，您在主询问中还作证称，没有使用您的任何资金设立 Golden Spring，对吗？\n9 \n10 答 没有使用属于我的钱。\n11 问 使用的是存放在由您拥有的账户中的钱，不是吗？\n12 \n13 答 我获授权使用以我名义开立的账户。\n14 问 Kwok 先生，您是否记得于 February of 2016 在纽约州法院审理的 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（Ace Decade Holdings Limited）v. UBS AG（UBS AG）一案中准备了一份宣誓书？\n15 \n16 \n17 答 我记得。\n18 HARBACH 先生：书记官女士，请展示 PAX 的 Exhibit 18？实际上，是我弄错了。请先展示 PAX 的 19？抱歉，法官阁下。\n19 \n20 \n21 法庭：没关系。\n22 书记官：屏幕上显示的是 PAX Exhibit 19。\n23 HARBACH 先生：谢谢，女士。\n24 由 HARBACH 先生询问：\n25 问 我想看 19 的倒数第二页，看起来应当是第 17 页。\n\n郭文贵—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫） 171——看起来应当是第 17 页。这一页——嗯，页码可能不同，但这是有 Kwok 先生签名的一页。为记录起见，Exhibit 19 是我此前提及的宣誓书中文版本，因此，目前向证人屏幕上显示的是该宣誓书的签名页；向证人提出的问题是，这是否是您的签名，先生。\n答 是。\n问 好的。\nHARBACH 先生：现在，书记官女士，请将该文件回到第 36 段？法官阁下，这由于中文而有些繁琐，但 PAX 拟提出的——嗯，PAX 拟进行的是，使用他签署的含有汉字的版本询问证人，然后我们将向法庭提交中文版本以及同样经认证且作为单独证物的英文译本。\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n由 HARBACH 先生询问：\n问 那么，Kwok 先生，请您看一下第 36 段。因此，请您自行阅读第 36 段，读完后告诉我即可。\n答 我读完了。Case 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 171 of\n\n问\n\n您是否确实在这份宣誓书中，于 2016 年 2 月宣誓称，2015 年 4 月，Wong 先生（黄先生，W-O-N-G）、Fu 女士（傅女士，F-U）和 Lam 女士（林女士，L-A-M）通过将资金从我在 UBS 的一个账户转入 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）在纽约的 JP Morgan Chase Bank 账户，协助我设立 Golden Spring New York？\n\n答\n\n是。\n\n问\n\n好的。您在宣誓书中没有提及任何关于您儿子设立 Golden Spring New York 的内容，对吗？\n\n答\n\n是。\n\n问\n\n好的。事实上，您是否确实是用自己的钱设立了 Golden Spring？\n\n答\n\n那笔钱是我儿子的钱，但使用我的账户将资金转入他的账户。那不是我的钱。\n\n问\n\n是多少钱？\n\n答\n\n我记不清了。不过，在那之后——嗯，我记不清了。\n\nHARBACH 先生：\n\n法官阁下，我能占用一点时间吗？\n\n法庭：\n\n当然可以。\n\n（暂停）\n\nHARBACH 先生：\n\n感谢您的宽容，法官阁下。我希望我们已将事情稍微简化了一些。\n\n法庭：\n\n没关系。\n\n由 HARBACH 先生询问：\n\n案号 22-50073\n\n文件 318\n\n提交日期 05/03/22\n\n登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\nKwok（郭文贵）— 交叉询问 — Harbach\n\n问 Kwok 先生，您是否确实在 2014 年 11 月或 12 月时可支配 \\$1 billion？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 好的。那不是您儿子的钱，对吗？\n\n答 那是家庭的钱，包括我儿子的钱。\n\n问 好的。正如您刚才所说，那笔钱由您支配。\n\n答 我获授权使用那笔钱。\n\n问 我先前是否正确听到您今天说，您从未——您从未在 Golden Spring New York 工作过？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 好的。\n\n答 如我先前提到，我曾一度拥有一个职务。\n\n问 好的。您是否从事过与该职务有关的任何工作？\n\n答 我确实领取了薪水。\n\n问 您领取了薪水。薪水是多少？\n\n答 \\$300,000 U.S. dollars。\n\n问 是哪个期间？\n\n答 2015 年。\n\n问 所以，在 2015 日历年度，您从 Golden Spring 赚取了 \\$300,000？\n\n答 大约是那个数额，但我记不清了。\n\n问 好的。是因为什么工作？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 318\n\n提交日期 05/03/22\n\n登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\nKwok — 交叉询问 — Harbach\n\n答 当时是为了协助设立 Golden Spring New York，并担任顾问寻找投资机会。\n\n问 好的。担任谁的顾问？\n\n答 Golden Spring 的顾问。\n\n问 Golden Spring 的谁？您向谁提供建议？\n\n答 我儿子。\n\n问 根据您的说法，Golden Spring New York 已向您预付贷款，以资助您参与的各种诉讼，约 \\$21 million，对吗？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 好的。现在我不是——我现在谈的是那些贷款，即 21 million。好的？您是否确实亲自向您儿子请求过那些贷款？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 好的。他怎么说？\n\n答 他就把钱借给我了。\n\n问 好的。他是否说过需要与 Golden Spring 的其他董事协商？\n\n答 那是由我儿子处理的。\n\n问 在向您出借数百万美元之前，他是否说过需要召集 Golden Spring 其他董事进行表决，即董事会表决？\n\n答 这是因为我儿子和欧洲的家族办公室，包括其他家庭成员，会举行会议讨论此事。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 175 页，共\n\nKwok — 交叉询问 — Harbach\n\n答 关于那件事。因此，我儿子会召集会议处理该问题，但我不知道细节。\n\n问 我的问题是他告诉您的内容，我认为您刚才说他只是告诉您他会处理。\n\n答 那是很久以前的事，而且细节太多，但他会与家庭成员及其律师协商，然后他们会举行会议，我不处理所有琐碎细节。\n\n问 所以，您的证词是：当您向儿子请求贷款以支付您的诉讼费用时，他告诉您，他需要先与家人协商？这是您的证词吗？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 好的。您是否确实不知道您从 Golden Spring 获得过多少笔贷款？\n\n答 我知道。\n\n问 您知道还是不知道？\n\n答 我知道。\n\n问 好的。您从 Golden Spring 获得过多少笔贷款？\n\n答 210 million。\n\n身份不明的发言人：\n\n21 million。\n\n首席口译员：\n\n抱歉。21 million。\n\n由 HARBACH 先生询问：\n\n问 是的。我问的不是总额。我问的是贷款笔数。\n\nKwok — 交叉询问 — Harbach 176\n\n答 我记不清了。\n\n问 好的。您也不知道哪些贷款被写成书面形式？\n\n答 我记得其中几笔。\n\n问 但您不知道是哪些，或者有多少笔？\n\n答 我知道其中与诉讼有关的部分，但我记不住全部。这是不可能的。\n\n问 我所问的只是，在——不论共有多少笔贷款中，您是否知道其中有多少笔是书面形式？\n\n答 我相信超过 10 笔是书面形式，但我完全不能确定。\n\n问 您是否也确实不知道书面协议是英文还是中文？\n\n答 它们肯定都是英文。其中一些有中文版本。\n\nHARBACH 先生：\n\n请稍等一下，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n当然可以。\n\n（暂停）\n\n由 HARBACH 先生询问：\n\n问 您是否记得于 2022 年 3 月 21 日通过电话在债权人会议上作证？\n\n答 我记得。\n\nHARBACH 先生：\n\n我请求展示 PAX 17，书记官女士。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 176 页，共\n\nKwok — 交叉询问 — Harbach 177\n\n书记官：\n\n屏幕上显示的是证物 17，PAX 证物 17。\n\nHARBACH 先生：\n\n谢谢您，女士。我想看记录第 73 页。也许我可以试着自己控制它。\n\n法庭：\n\n她必须先把控制权交给您。\n\nHARBACH 先生：\n\n哦，好的。\n\n法庭：\n\n但如果您宁愿这样做，她——她可以为您这样做。\n\n书记官：\n\n由您决定，无论您——我刚刚已将控制权交给您。\n\nHARBACH 先生：\n\n好的。我想这样可以。谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n\n您移动它时遇到困难了吗？\n\nHARBACH 先生：\n\n我想我已经弄好了。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。谢谢。\n\nHARBACH 先生：\n\n好的。所以我们就在那个部分。那是在 30 后面。好的。差一页。好的。为记录起见，我正在显示 PAX 17 第 73 页，并将请证人注意第 4 至第 8 行。\n\n由 HARBACH 先生询问：\n\n问 Kwok 先生，您是否确实被问到过这个问题：以书面形式作出的贷款中，是否有任何一笔是英文，而您的回答是“我不记得”？然后您被问到：其中是否有任何一笔是中文，而您的回答是“我不记得”。我问您的是，您今天对此有不同的记忆吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 177 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n\n文件 318\n\n提交日期 05/03/22\n\n登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\nKwok — 交叉询问 — Harbach\n\n答 我不能阅读英文，所以我必须依赖口译。当然，我今天的记忆与之前不同。\n\n问 好的。如果我正确理解您，您今天的记忆是，大多数书面贷款都是英文？\n\n答 是，这就是我所记得的。\n\n问 好的。您是否也确实直到律师告诉您总额是多少，才知道 \\$21 million 的总额？\n\n答 您这话是什么意思？\n\n问 嗯，在律师告诉您 Golden Spring 向您提供用于诉讼资金的贷款总额为 \\$21 million 之前，您知道总额是这个数额吗？\n\n答 我知道。\n\n问 好的。我们继续看记录中的当前位置，即 PAX 17 第 73 页。请您注意该页——从第 22 行开始。问题：“如果您不知道——”抱歉。撤回。您是否确实被问到过这个问题，并作出如下回答？“如果您不知道自己从 Golden Spring 借过多少次贷款，并非所有贷款都是书面形式，您怎么知道您欠他们多少钱？”\n\n案号 22-50073\n\n文件 318\n\n提交日期 05/03/22\n\n登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\nKwok — 交叉询问 — Harbach\n\nHARBACH 先生：\n\n我会让您口译这个问题，然后我会给出回答。\n\n由 HARBACH 先生询问：\n\n问 而您的回答是：“我的律师和 Golden Spring 的律师，他们彼此沟通，告诉我他们能够确定的数额是 21 million。”先生，您是否这样说过？\n\n答 嗯，我不能阅读英文，根据先前的口译，依我所记得的，当时我通过律师知道该数额是 21 million。\n\n问 而我试图确定的只是，您对 21 million 这一数额的了解来自您的律师，对吗？\n\n答 我向我的律师确认了这一点。\n\n问 好的。\n\nHARBACH 先生：\n\n感谢您的耐心，法官阁下。我没有进一步问题。\n\n法庭：\n\n我对此表示感谢。谢谢。\n\nHARBACH 先生：\n\n哦，嗯，我想我可以在最后再做，但我原本打算提交 PAX 17、18 和 19。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。有人反对吗？让我看看您的清单？PAX 17、18 和 19——17 没有反对意见。\n\nHARBACH 先生：\n\n正确。\n\nKwok — 交叉询问 — Claiborn 180\n\n法庭：\n\n这是 341 会议的记录。因此，将作为完整证物接纳。关于——请继续。\n\nHARBACH 先生：\n\n18 是我用于弹劾目的的 ACE Decade（艾斯十年）宣誓书。18 是英文版本，19 是中文版本。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。关于完整接纳证物——PAX 证物 18 和 19，债务人是否仍有异议？\n\nJONAS 先生：\n\n法官阁下，对于显然已经使用的部分，即 Kwok 先生有机会作出回应的部分，我们没有异议。我们将撤回任何异议，并且没有进一步异议。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。那么，证物 17、18 和 19 作为完整证物接纳。PAX 证物 17、18 和 19 就债务人占有财产融资动议的证据听证会而言，作为完整证物接纳。\n\nHARBACH 先生：\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n谢谢。\n\n（PAX 证物编号 17 至 19 被接纳为证据。）\n\n法庭：\n\nClaiborn 律师？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：\n\n法官阁下，如果可以，我有几个问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 180 页，共\n\n法庭：\n\n当然可以。然后，Jonas 先生，您是否会进行一些再直接询问？\n\nKwok — 交叉询问 — Claiborn 181\n\nJONAS 先生：\n\n我想不会，法官阁下，但是——\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。\n\nJONAS 先生：\n\n——我想在之后再考虑。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。没关系。只是想问一下。谢谢。请继续，Claiborn 律师。\n\n由 CLAIBORN 女士询问：\n\n问 下午好，Kwok 先生。您是否与您儿子协商过债务人占有财产贷款的条款？\n\n答 首先，我想说下午好。关于贷款的具体条款，是我的律师和他们的律师进行了协商。\n\n问 在您提交第 11 章破产案件之前，您是否请求您儿子借钱给您，以资助您的破产案件？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 当您请求您儿子给您钱时，您是要求他借给您，还是赠与给您？\n\n答 是贷款。\n\n问 您为什么要求将其作为贷款？\n\n答 因为 Golden Spring，即我儿子的公司，也是一家家族公司，而且那笔钱不只是我儿子的钱。\n\n问 Kwok 先生，如果该贷款是\n\n案号 22-50073\n\n文件 318\n\n提交日期 05/03/22\n\n登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\nKwok — 交叉询问 — Claiborn\n\n1 获准了吗？\n2 主译员：\n好的。\n抱歉。\n律师，\n3 您介意再重复一遍问题吗？\n4 克莱伯恩女士询问：\n5 问\n您知道 Golden\n6 Spring（“金泉”）将向您的破产财产提供贷款的资金来源吗？\n7 答\n我不知道。\n8 问\n您问过吗？\n9 答\n是的，我问过。\n10 问\n答复是什么？\n11 答\n我儿子让我不要处理此事。他会\n12 与我的律师沟通。\n13 问\n您是否知道您的儿子是否告诉了您的律师\n14 这笔钱的来源是什么？\n15 答\n我不知道。\n16 问\n您问过您的律师吗？\n17 乔纳斯先生：\n异议，法官阁下。她是在询问\n18 与律师的直接沟通内容。\n19 法庭：\n不，她刚才问的是——问题\n20 是，他是否询问过他的律师资金来源。\n21 他可以回答那个问题，只需回答是或否。\n22 乔纳斯先生：\n好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n23 证人：\n我的律师没有回答这个问题。\n24 克莱伯恩女士询问：\n25 问\nGolden Spring 用于支付您的生活\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Claiborn（克莱伯恩）\n\n1 开支，即您的个人生活开支的钱，是贷款还是\n2 赠与？\n3 答\n是赠与。\n4 问\n为什么这是赠与而不是贷款？\n5 答\n因为我无法偿还，而且关于支持\n6 我的日常生活，作为他的父亲，我在\n7 18 岁时就有了我的儿子；按照东方文化，那是正常的，此外，\n8 目前我的生命正受到威胁。\n9 问\n那么，为什么 Golden Spring 向占有中的债务人提供的贷款\n10 不是赠与？为什么不直接将这笔钱\n11 作为赠与给您？\n12 答\n这是因为他们此前已向我贷款 \\$21 million，\n13 加上这笔贷款，这是一笔巨额款项，而且我\n14 希望能够偿还；这是其律师与我的律师\n15 沟通的结果。\n16 问\n如果法庭批准 Golden Spring 的贷款，\n17 这笔钱将存放在哪里？\n18 答\n这笔钱将存放在哪里，将由\n19 法官和我的律师决定。\n20 克莱伯恩女士：\n谢谢。我没有\n21 进一步的问题。\n22 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n23 乔纳斯先生：\n没有进一步问题，法官阁下。\n24 法庭：\n好的。乔纳斯先生，您还要传唤其他\n25 证人吗？\n\n1 乔纳斯先生：\n不，不传唤，法官阁下。\n2 法庭：\n好的。Kwok 先生，您可以退庭。\n3 谢谢。\n4 证人：\n当然，法官阁下。\n5 法庭：\n谢谢。\n6 证人：\n我想说，我非常\n7 感谢法官阁下今天给我机会坐在这里。\n8 \n9 法庭：\n好的。\n10 证人：\n由于我不会说\n11 英语，我给您造成了更多麻烦。\n12 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。谢谢。好，\n13 债务人没有进一步证人了，对吗？\n14 乔纳斯先生：\n正确，法官阁下。\n15 法庭：\n好的。PAX 的证人呢？还有其他\n16 证人吗？\n17 Harbach（哈巴赫）先生：\n法官阁下，我们没有其他\n18 证人。我们确有一份补充证据拟提交\n19 法庭，即 PAX 的第 15 号证据。\n20 法庭：\n好的。请稍等片刻。\n21 哈巴赫先生：\n这是 Xiaoping Wang（王小平），也称\n22 Yvette Wang（王伊薇特）的证言笔录。\n23 法庭：\n好的。\n24 哈巴赫先生：\n这是——抱歉。\n25 法庭：\n请继续。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 184 页，共\n案号 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 185 页，共\n\n哈巴赫先生：我还应当说明，这是对 Golden Spring 的 30(b)(6) 证言录取。她是以该身份作证的，并且我在会面协商过程中向律师提到，我将提交整份证据，我们也已将整份证据标记在案，因为预计如果我们仅提交部分内容，可能会有人提出完整性异议。因此，这就是我们提交整份材料的原因。但是，如果律师希望我们只提交我们希望法官阁下重点关注的具体部分，我准备将这些部分载入记录，因此，我不知道法庭希望如何进行。法庭：好的。那么，我想先听取债务人的异议，因为显然债务人反对这份笔录。乔纳斯先生：是，法官阁下。我是 Jeff Jonas（杰夫·乔纳斯），Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）代表债务人。正如法官阁下注意到的，我们已提出异议。我们仍基于传闻证据理由提出异议。据我了解，该证人在传票送达权限范围内。如果他们原本打算让她在审判中作为证人，他们当然可以把她带到这里。我们并未同意他们可以——我们会允许以笔录代替现场证言。我认为这不适当，而且当\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 186 页，共\n\n1 证人可获得并且可以被带到审判时，这不是任何人可以决定我们\n2 不传唤证人的事情。因此\n3 我提出异议。\n4 法庭：\n该证人位于何处？\n5 乔纳斯先生：\n据我了解，该证人在\n6 纽约，距离在 100 英里以内——我实际上问过这个问题，法官阁下。\n7 可能在 60 英里以内，但我相信在 100 英里以内。我不确定。我想在\n8 您问我时做好准备，因此他们当然可以送达\n9 传票，她本可以到庭。\n10 我们认为没有必要，并且让该\n11 笔录进入证据，我仍认为没有必要。但是，\n12 再次强调，我认为在审判案件中，当证人可获得时，律师不能仅仅选择\n13 以笔录\n14 替代现场证言。\n15 法庭：\n好的。根据你们的联合\n16 清单，你们对该证据的依据——抱歉，对该\n17 异议的依据是传闻证据，但我听到的并非如此。我\n18 听到您说他们本可以把证人带来，\n19 根据《联邦民事——民事诉讼规则》，我们不应当允许\n20 在证人能够亲自到庭时\n21 提交笔录。\n22 乔纳斯先生：\n我认为——如果我的用语\n23 不知何故不正确，请原谅。我认为这\n24 正是传闻——\n25 法庭：\n嗯，我是说，这可能——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n1 乔纳斯先生：\n——就是传闻证据，法官阁下。\n2 法庭：\n——可能是，也可能不是。\n3 我是说，这是您指定为 30(b)(6) 人员的\n4 Rule 30(6)(b) 人员，对吗？因此您可以主张——我们想对此非常明确。我是说，\n5 \n6 传闻证据通常不包括 30(b)(6)\n7 代表的证言。\n8 但我理解您关于 PAX 为什么没有传唤并将该\n9 人士带到法庭的\n10 问题。这是您的——这是您的\n11 关切，因此我将——我将——不是您的关切，\n12 而是您的异议。因此，我将询问哈巴赫先生，\n13 他如何回应该证人未被\n14 传唤并于今日带到法庭这一事实？\n15 乔纳斯先生：\n法官阁下，我可以——我很抱歉。我\n16 只想更正记录。\n17 法庭：\n当然。\n18 乔纳斯先生：\n不是要争辩。这不是——\n19 严格来说，这不是债务人的 30(b)(6) 证人，而是\n20 Golden Spring 的 30(b)(6) 证人。我只是——只是为了\n21 记录，法官阁下。\n22 法庭：\n哦，好的。我误解了。您看，我\n23 什么材料都没看过，所以——\n24 乔纳斯先生：\n明白。\n25 法庭：\n好吗？所以我以为这是\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 188 页，共\n\n1 债务人的 30(b)(6) 代表。因此，这是——\n2 乔纳斯先生：\nKwok 先生显然是——\n3 法庭：\n——Golden——\n4 乔纳斯先生：\n——债务人，并且在场。\n5 法庭：\n嗯，我明白，但我不知道\n6 你们的证据开示中发生了什么。\n7 乔纳斯先生：\n明白，法官阁下。\n8 法庭：\n所以我——但我很高兴您更正了\n9 记录。谢谢。那么——嗯，难道适当提出异议的人\n10 不应当是 Golden Spring 吗？\n11 乔纳斯先生：\n我不这么认为，法官阁下。\n12 法庭：\n为什么？\n13 乔纳斯先生：\n这——我是说，再次，我们与律师一起处理了\n14 证据，姑且这么说。我们提出了\n15 异议。我在这里提出异议。这是我们的审判，\n16 姑且这么说，是就我们有关 DIP（占有中的债务人）的动议进行的；如果他们要使用\n17 一名 30(b)(6) 证人的——另一方的，\n18 姑且这么说，30(b)(6) 笔录，我认为这不适当。\n19 法庭：\n好的。哈巴赫先生，您对此有何\n20 回应，哈巴赫先生？\n21 哈巴赫先生：\n我请法庭参阅《联邦民事诉讼规则》\n22 第 32 条。\n23 法庭：\n因为他们不是当事人？这就是\n24 您想告诉我的吗？\n25 哈巴赫先生：\n不，恰恰相反。我认为他们\n\n是当事人。法庭：好的。等等。我指的是债务人。您看，我不知道谁——我——正如诸位所预期，我会认为——哦，是的。您看，对不起。您可以——我道歉。谢谢。对不起。我没有——我没有看你们的任何证据，知道吗？所以，除非你们提交证据，否则我不知道它们是什么。因此，好吧。我正在看——哈巴赫先生：先生——法庭：——第 32 条。哈巴赫先生：当然。首先，乔纳斯先生当然完全正确。Wang 女士是由 Golden Spring 指定的 30(b)(6) 证人。法庭：好的。哈巴赫先生：正确。法庭：好的。哈巴赫先生：因此，我们提交该材料的依据，如您所见，第 32(a) 条的标题是“使用证言录取”，因此我们认为我们符合其中 A、B 和 C 的全部要求，即一般规定。该条规定，在听证或审判中，可以在下列条件下对当事人使用证言录取的全部或部分内容。A，当事人在录取证言时在场或由代理人代表，或者已收到合理通知。嗯，我希望律师愿意接受我的陈述，即 Wang 女士在证言录取时有代理人代表，事实上，笔录明确显示她有代理人代表，或者 Golden Spring 有代理人代表。因此，A 不应存在争议。B，在假如证言人到场作证的情况下，该证言录取在《联邦证据规则》下可采纳的范围内使用。嗯，这显然成立，因为它实质上是一名现场证人的经宣誓庭外陈述。C，您必须满足这些款项中的一项，即第 32(a)(2) 至 (8) 条，而我们认为我们明确符合的是第 32(a)(3) 条，其标题为“当事人、代理人或指定人的证言录取”。因此，我们认为，鉴于 Golden Spring 是占有中的债务人的拟议融资方，并且鉴于他们——引用协议第 8B 条——正在寻求权利、救济、权力和特权，此外还正在寻求法庭作出善意认定，基于所有这些理由，我们认为法庭将 Golden Spring 视为当事人是极其合理的，至少就本规则而言。最后我只想指出，至于所谓不当性，暂且不论其是否属于规则范围内，当然，债务人在对 Golden Spring 的\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 191 页，共\n\n30(b)(6) 证人进行证言录取时有律师在场，并有机会对她进行交叉询问；但选择不这样做。我还要指出，Wang 女士本人一度被列入债务人本日此次听证会的证人名单，后来他们将她移除了。因此，我认为在这些情形下，认为此举不当的说法并不像在其他情况下听起来那么有力。但是，我坦率地说，我认为这些都无关紧要。我们认为，基于我之前所述的理由，整份笔录均可根据第 32 条采纳。法庭：好的。谢谢。乔纳斯律师，您有任何回应吗？乔纳斯先生：有，法官阁下。我可以有一分钟吗？法庭：可以。乔纳斯先生：谢谢。我只是想核对一件事。（暂停）乔纳斯先生：法官阁下。法庭：是。乔纳斯先生：我想补充的一点是，这是一项根据第 9014 条纳入争议事项规则的规则。因此，这——法庭：哦，是的。乔纳斯先生：——这也是《破产程序规则》第 7032 条。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n法庭：\n是。\n是。\n对。\n好的。\n谢谢。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生（弗里德曼先生）：\n在这方面没有异议，法官大人。\n\n请稍等我一下。\n\nJONAS先生（乔纳斯先生）：\n法官大人，我是代表债务人的布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所（Brown Rudnick）的Jeff Jonas（杰夫·乔纳斯）。\n\n法官大人，我重申我的异议，并作几点简要说明。让我说明一下，法官大人，我们并不特别担心该证言笔录。话虽如此，我只是认为我们有权获得公平审理；而从我们的角度看，他们并非当事人。这实际上是我们的动议，即债务人的动议。我们正在推进该动议，且我们是当事人。当然，PAX，即异议人，是当事人，我认为就此目的而言，这些才是当事人，而且我认为——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，Golden Spring（金泉）是出借人。\n\nJONAS先生：\n我明白，法官大人。\n\n法庭：\n那么，他们怎么会不是该事项的当事人——\n\nJONAS先生：\n我不认为他们是——他们已提供资金，资金可供使用，他们是出借人。\n\n法庭：\n对。但是法庭可以——法庭可以——法庭有义务了解出借人愿意或不愿意做什么，这可能包括出借人就该问题作出的证言。我的意思是，我——\n\nJONAS先生：\n请让我说明，法官大人——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 于 05/03/22 提交 于 05/03/22 13:29:34 登记 第193页，共\n\n法庭：——以及我所见过的每一场其他存在争议的债务人占有融资听证会中，出借人确实会——您知道，如果存在——如果存在争议问题，关于出借人的问题——出借人是否准备好、愿意并且能够出借？其——所有条款和条件是什么——\n\nJONAS先生：\n正是如此，法官大人。资金就在这里，所以——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我不知道资金就在这里。案卷中有什么证据证明资金就在这里？\n\nJONAS先生：\n嗯，您已经——您已经听取了Kwok先生（郭文贵）的证言。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，Kwok先生向我作证说，他相信资金全都在这里。他不确定是否全都在这里，但是——他相信资金在这里。\n\nJONAS先生：\n没有——这是无争议的。\n\n法庭：\n我没说这是有争议的。我只是说——他说他相信资金全都在这里。我不——\n\nJONAS先生：\n哦，好的。\n\n法庭：\n——案卷中没有记录——案卷中没有文件说明资金在这里。\n\nJONAS先生：\n我不——恕我直言，法官大人，我不认为——我们已经提出了我们的案件。我们已经传唤了一名证人。他已经作证。他本可以——\n\n他本可以接受交叉询问。他没有。这是无争议的。这是一个事实。我不认为——我理解您——\n\n法庭：\n我认为，就他所说的话而言，那是一个事实。\n\nJONAS先生：\n可以。完全可以，法官大人。\n\n法庭：\n而且他说：“我相信资金在这里。”他不知道资金是否在这里。\n\nJONAS先生：\n我明白，法官大人。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nJONAS先生：\n所以我——您看，正如我所说，如果法庭认为我需要——我需要为案卷目的坚持我的异议，然而，我当然非常尊重法庭。如果法庭认为有必要接纳该笔录，我唯一的意见是，我们要求接纳完整笔录。没有任何内容被指定给我们。现在临时指定部分内容有些不公平。因此，如果他们想将笔录提交为证据，那就这样吧，法官大人。我——我想——我不想就此事向法庭过多纠缠，而且我想尊重法庭对此的意见。\n\n法庭：\n我尚未就任何事项作出裁定。我目前实际上只是在提问。\n\nJONAS先生：\n明白。\n\n法庭：\n好的？为了了解各方的——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 于 05/03/22 提交 于 05/03/22 13:29:34 登记 第194页，共\n\n立场。\n\nJONAS先生：\n而我们的立场是，我们维持异议，法官大人。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。Harbach先生（哈巴赫先生），您还有什么要补充的吗？\n\nHARBACH先生：\n我没有其他要补充的，法官大人。请告知我们您希望如何继续。\n\n法庭：\n好的。嗯，这个——当我在看——您知道，我过去几周没有看过规则32，所以我——您知道，我正在看——我正在看32的文字。对PAX而言，唯一可能成为问题的部分，如果确实是问题的话，是32(a)(4)，因为32(a)(1)——32(a)(2)——32(a)(4)可能是个问题，因为它规定——32(a)(1)(C)规定：“且该使用须经规则32(a)(2)至(8)允许。”那么，这是否意味着必须全部八项都获允许？所有那些项？我的意思是，我正在看这个。我知道第7项不适用，因为不存在当事人替换。此前诉讼中取得的证言笔录不适用，因为那不是你们试图做的事。你们并非试图提交此前诉讼中取得的证言笔录。使用证言笔录的一部分，你们可以——那或许没有问题。关于使用的限制，目前没有人主张该证言笔录是在短期通知下取得的，或者——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 于 05/03/22 提交 于 05/03/22 13:29:34 登记 第196页，共\n\n证人在进行证言录取时无法出席。没有人对弹劾及其他用途，或对当事人代理人或指定代表人的证言笔录有异议，但问题是——我的意思是，我不知道，我很久没有看过了。A——32(a)(2)至(8)是否意味着你们必须满足所有那些要求？不可能，因为所有那些要求不会在同一时间全部存在。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n是的。而且我认为，这一点或许在最鲜明的情况下体现出来，法官大人。如果您看第2项和第4项，因为第2项说，任何当事人。第4项说——哦，抱歉。那是证人，无论其是否为当事人。这没错。\n\n无论如何，法官大人，我——好吧。所以，法官大人，PAX承认Wang女士（王女士）并非无法出席。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n因此，承认。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n尽管如此，如果——\n\n（暂停）\n\nHARBACH先生：\n如果您看——抱歉，我刚才说的是第2项。如果您看第3项，法官大人，不利当事人可以为任何目的使用当事人的证言笔录——\n\n书记员：\nHarbach律师，您的声音有点小。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n哦，抱歉。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 318\n于 05/03/22 提交\n于 05/03/22 13:29:34 登记\n\n书记员：\n我们收不到您的声音。\n\n法庭：\n请继续。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n谢谢，法官。如果您看32(a)(3)，其中规定：“不利当事人可以为任何目的使用当事人，或在接受证言录取时为该当事人30(b)(6)代表的任何人的证言笔录。”而且——\n\n法庭：\n它确实是这样规定的。我的意思是，第4项没有这样规定。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n是的，确实如此。\n\n法庭：\n这就是我提出该问题的原因；我当时并不知道30(b)(6)代表不是债务人，而是债务人的代表，即Golden Spring，这也是我开始这段讨论时所说的：你是说你反对30(b)(6)代表的证言笔录，但当时并不知道那不是债务人，而是Golden Spring。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n嗯，我认为或许有一个有帮助的观察是，规则32不可能仅限于——30(b)(6)证言笔录的情形。\n\n法庭：\n我同意你的看法。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n而且如果它——\n\n法庭：\n这就是——这就是我所说的，我不认为(a)(1)(C)意味着你必须遵守——其使用必须符合32(a)(2)至(8)中的每一种情形。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 318\n于 05/03/22 提交\n于 05/03/22 13:29:34 登记\n\nHARBACH先生：\n我认为——我同意您的看法，因为否则，如果第3项是必需的，那么它实际上会将该规则限于30(b)(6)情形。\n\n现在，我也同意法庭的看法，例如第5项，标题为使用限制，我的意思是，我认为这显然适用，但是——\n\n法庭：\n如果该情形存在，但它并不存在。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n如果它——如果它存在，是的。换言之，您知道，第2、3和4项均为许可性规定。这些是当事人可以采取某项行为的不同方式；然后第5项是限制，第6、7和8项是其他特殊情形。\n\n法庭：\n对。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n所以我不认为必然是——你们必须戴上眼罩，只看第2项至第8项，而不看其他任何项；但我确实认为，第2、3和4项不能在同一时间全部适用。\n\n法庭：\n对。我同意。它们不可能在同一时间全部适用。这没有道理。因此，债务人对引入PAX Exhibit 15（PAX证据15）的异议，即Golden Spring的30(b)(6)代表的证言笔录，予以驳回。\n\nJONAS先生：\n感谢法庭的考虑，法官大人。\n\n（PAX证据15获准作为证据）\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。好的。那么我们现在——我们在——我们是否根据已提交的证据进入结案陈词？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n是的，法官大人。这就结束了我们的证据提交，如果我可以——\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n——就DIP作一些陈述？\n\n法庭：\n可以，请讲。\n\n代表债权人PAX的结案陈词\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n谢谢。因此，法官大人，我确实有三个方面想要谈谈。大致而言，一是整体情况，二是您今天听到的部分内容以及为何您不应相信它，三是该裁定，即拟议裁定。\n\n而且，为公平起见——我不知道“公平”是否是正确的词，但为明确该裁定，我将引用该裁定的当前版本。显然，根据委员会与债务人之间拟议的和解，存在一个更新版本的裁定。我将——\n\n法庭：\n当你说当前版本时，你指的是附于最初DIP融资动议的版本吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n不是，是向法庭提交的版本——标注修订的版本——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 于 05/03/22 提交 于 05/03/22 13:29:34 登记 第199页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 318 于 05/03/22 提交 于 05/03/22 13:29:34 登记 第200页，共\n\n法庭：\n昨天？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n——已提交的——\n\n法庭：\n昨晚？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n——我认为最新的DIP融资版本是在4月10日。\n\n法庭：\n哦，好的。那么，如果您能给我——我想找到它。\n\nCLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩女士）：\n我想是ECF 198。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n如果您让我找到它，那么——请稍等一下，这样我就能更好地跟上您的陈述，而不是我一边找它一边——\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n——这样。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：\n那么，您希望我——您希望我查看该裁定的标注修订版本吗？这是您的建议吗，律师？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n是的，法官大人，等我谈到那一点时。那是——等我谈到我陈述的那一部分时。\n\n法庭：\n好的。让我——那么我想我找到了。\n\n弗里德曼先生：好的。法庭：我只是想确保我已找到相应部分。（停顿）法庭：好的。那么，我看到的是，当你实际请求我考虑该命令的条款和条件时，我正在看 ECF 198，从第 29 页开始。这样对吗？弗里德曼先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。那么请继续。弗里德曼先生：好的。那么，法官阁下，我们这里有一份 Golden Spring（戈尔登斯普林）与 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）之间拟议的债务人占有融资（DIP）。这一点非常微妙。我不确定您是否听到了。记录会反映这一点。这些并非独立实体。Kwok 先生今天在其证词中将 Golden Spring 称为“我们”。一个小词，后果却极其重大。Jalbert 先生（贾尔伯特）也证实，Kwok 先生的法律团队中有一名成员，Melissa Francis（梅利莎·弗朗西斯）。有人问他，Melissa Francis 是谁？他认为是为 Golden Spring 工作的人。法官阁下，这两个实体之间没有任何区分。这是一项虚假交易。我也明白它看起来很有吸引力。它之所以看似有吸引力，是因为在某些方面它有一些可能有益的目标，但它行不通。它没有道理。谁会花费 $8 million，或许 $9 million，去保卫 $3,850 的资产？仅 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）今天的工作时间成本，可能就远远超过 Kwok 先生声称拥有的 $3,850 资产。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 202 页，共\n\n无穷多倍于 Kwok 先生声称拥有的 $3,850 资产。因此，这项 DIP 的设计是为了做以下两件事之一：要么保护 Kwok 先生坐在那里声称自己并不拥有的大量资产；要么保护 Golden Spring 的资产，使其免遭各方直接追索——Golden Spring 是非债务人，而这些资产实际上是 Kwok 先生的钱。二者均非债务人占有融资的适当用途。\n\n本案不应为 Golden Spring 的利益而运作，而且我们不应花费，不只是 9 million，因为实际上并非如此——$9 million 对 $3,850 极大低估了为 Kwok 先生辩护所投入的资产数额，因为还有您听说过的 $21 million “贷款”——贷款一词应加引号——以及来自 Lamp（兰普）的 million dollars。\n\n因此，当你把这些加起来，就是用 $31 million 来保护 $3,850。除非此处发生了远超表面所见的事情，否则这毫无道理；债务人与 Golden Spring 正请求本法庭认可一项推进该不当方案的交易。\n\n现在，法官阁下，PAX 在对我方文件的答复状中，以及您今天从 Kwok 先生那里也大致听到的，试图把 PAX 归咎为——债务人试图将 PAX 归咎为本案的导火索，并称他需要，您知道，因 PAX 所做之事而把事情理顺。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 203 页，共\n\n债务人自身的行为迫使他今天来到这里。我认为，他实际上承认自己此前从未透明披露过。\n\n现在，我不知道您今天听到的内容是否透明，但他今天的证词是：我今天没有援引第五修正案，因为我想要透明披露。这恰恰引出了问题，因为他没有给出其他答案：他此前为何不想透明披露？此前一直不透明披露，然后突然决定改过自新，是否适合据此开始以债务人占有融资方式借款？我明白其中一部分与我方的驳回动议有所重叠，但这是他今天给出的理由。这不是对第 364 条授权的适当使用。\n\n您今天听取了 Kwok 先生的证词，即这必须是一项 DIP，因为他想保护其家庭资源。\n\n看看 MORS（经营月报），他们正在花费数百万美元支持 Kwok 先生。那不是贷款，而是赠与。这是 Golden Spring 与 Kwok 先生为不当目的使用第 364 条的战略性努力。正如 Claiborn 女士（克莱伯恩）的询问明确表明的那样，如果这要算作任何性质的东西，它就应当是一项赠与，正如据称为 Kwok 先生所做的其他一切都是赠与一样。我们并不相信这一点，但他应当受到约束，Golden Spring\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 204 页，共\n\n也应当受到其一贯行为模式的约束。您听到了一些我认为最恰当的描述是牵强附会的 Kwok 先生证词。Kwok 先生说，我从未问过我儿子 Golden Spring 的钱来自哪里。我想，我们被要求相信的是，Golden Spring 真的很害怕，这位 Miles 儿子也真的很害怕向 Kwok 先生说明他的钱来自哪里，但却不害怕在本案中作出一项非常公开的 $9 million 债务人占有融资贷款，而本案的证据均载于案卷。这些都是公开文件，Kwok 先生提交了他的声明，其中谈及他所谓反对 CCP（中国共产党）的运动。我的意思是，说有人会害怕，这根本不是可信的证词。又或者，正如 Kwok 先生所证实的：我不会向我的儿子要钱，法官阁下。不过，我会使用我自己的钱，而且——或者我会被我儿子用来公开管理为其利益而设的账户。我在 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）案中提交了一份声明，其中说，您知道，这是我的钱，而实际上是我儿子的钱，而且我儿子对此没有异议。我只是不能问他的钱来自哪里。我认为您不必相信这一点，因为这根本不可信。如果这不可信，我认为您就开始能理清为何\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 205 页，共\n\n整个案件都不可信的脉络，也能明白为何这是对第 364 条的不当使用。\n\n法官阁下，我想转向 DIP，据我所知，它有些反复无常。尤其是就其相关内容而言——哦，我应当指出。我们为何试图提交 Wang 女士（王女士）的证词？因为她是 Golden Spring 的 30(b)(6) 证人，而 Golden Spring 正请求法庭作出善意认定。我稍后会谈到其中真正令人困惑的部分。\n\n他们正在请求法庭准许一项次级债权。他们正在请求法庭给予一些事项。她是他们指定的证人。她说了什么？在第 133 页，她未参与 DIP 贷款的谈判，不知道 $8 million 数额是如何确定的。不熟悉 DIP 贷款的条款。直到证词作出前一天才关注 DIP 贷款协议。\n\n她第一次听说 DIP 贷款资金来自何处，是在作证前一天。当我问她对 DIP 贷款将如何偿还的理解时，她说，我不知道。因此，法官阁下，这位对 Golden Spring 有约束力的指定证人，对这笔贷款一无所知。\n\n因此，转向该命令，我认为没有任何内容支持 E 项中的认定，即存在\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 206 页，共\n\n立即融资的必要。我当然不认为，有任何内容支持这样一种认定，即鉴于我们已经看到债务人提出的计划具有我认为令人震惊的性质，债务人根据《破产法》第 11 章寻求确认重整计划具有任何价值。第 4 页 H 项中有“正当理由”。该临时命令的作出称，其将为债权人的利益保全债务人财产。这一说法没有证据证明属实。据 Kwok 先生所称，除 $3,850 及某些诉讼请求外，不存在任何资产，而 DIP 贷款并未用于资助这些诉讼请求。他说，这符合利益——这是债务人审慎商业判断的行使。您没有听到任何有关这一点的证词。法官阁下，我认为下一页，即第 335 页顶部的同一问题，“正当理由”，债务人获得融资的能力对于债务人及其债权人的财产至关重要，以便债务人能够最大化其财产的价值并确认一项重整计划。\n\n再次强调，没有——我认为您已经听到债权人如何看待这项所谓计划，我认为该措辞应予删除。\n\n然后还有一些我根本不知道——我就是\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 207 页，共\n\n不理解的内容，对吗？\n\n第 35 页。\n\n第 6 页。\n\n贷款收益和现金担保物的允许用途。\n\n本协议项下没有任何现金担保物，除非它被偷偷塞进了某个地方。\n\n我不知道为何该贷款提到现金担保物。\n\n根本没有。\n\n他们没有寻求批准任何——\n\n法庭：我此刻没有明白你所指的现金担保物部分。\n\n我一直都跟得上你，但我看不到——\n\n弗里德曼先生：第 35 页，是——顶部下划线部分“修订和修改”。\n\n法庭：我看到了。好的。是的。\n\n弗里德曼先生：然后是贷款收益和现金担保物的允许用途。\n\n法庭：我明白。我明白。\n\n弗里德曼先生：现在，也许这是笔误。\n\n我不知道，但这令我担忧。\n\n不应当写在里面。\n\nA 子项，关于预算的问题。\n\n我想指出，从来没有预算。\n\nJalbert 先生基本上证实，他无法——他根本不知道如何编制预算，但如果要有一项 DIP，而且要有预算、用途和应计项目，那么 PAX 应当取得其副本。\n\n第 36 页，我认为 PAX 应当被加入子项\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 208 页，共\n\n——即目前的 C 子项，该项是在我们提交异议后加入的；我们当然应当有权获得银行账户副本。\n\n在 E 项中，该项同样是在我们提交异议后加入的，您知道，我确实对在此类案件中不得花费任何资金向 DIP 出借人寻求金钱损害赔偿或衡平法救济这一观念感到困扰。不是以 DIP 出借人作为 DIP 出借人的身份针对 DIP 出借人，而是针对 DIP 出借人。如果本案继续进行，而 Kwok 先生——您知道，作为委员会律师的 Pullman and Comley（普尔曼及康利）有权追诉财产诉讼，那么他们应当能够为其认为合适的任何目的使用任何资金。\n\n我对第 38-C 页有异议。这是——我认为是在第二句中，“尽管本临时 DIP 命令中包含任何相反措辞”，我认为应当增加“或 DIP 贷款”，因为 DIP 贷款可以——应当明确。\n\n其中写道：“DIP 出借人的权利应受限于并从属于所有在申请日存在的债务人其他债权人的债权。”那么，如果我们就为使船只返还所做的工作寻求一项重大贡献动议呢？我们的优先顺位应当高于这笔虚假贷款。不应当是申请日存在的债权人。应当是所有债权人，任何债权人。同样——您知道，我认为——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 录入日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 209 页，共\n\n第8段中还有其他一些地方，涉及事件的终止。当然，PAX应当收到相关通知。在第40页末尾，经修订的措辞称，DIP贷款人应当就其选择按违约利率计收利息一事向美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）发出通知。没有理由仅向美国受托人发出该通知；应向所有人发出通知。\n\n法官阁下，我真正感到担忧的是——回到前面，这正是我存在信任问题的地方——债务人在第33页删除了善意认定，对吧？据我了解，该认定可能已经恢复。但他们曾删除善意认定。因此我想，好吧，这算是某种进展。但随后我查看了第40页，也查看了第10段，其中纳入了364(e)。依其条款而言，这是一项善意条款。\n\n因此，当人们问，为什么——为什么你们如此怀疑时，这正是我们确实怀疑的原因之一，因为你们删除了一项善意认定，却保留了一项364(e)条款，你们并没有真正删除善意认定。\n\n因此，我们——接着我们看第41页，其中规定不视为控制。通过同意这项临时DIP命令，DIP贷款人不应被视为控制债务人，或作为责任人、管理代理人、所有人或经营者行事，该等术语定义于经修订的CERCLA（《综合环境反应、赔偿与责任法》）或任何类似的州或联邦法规中。在债务人称其除身上穿的衣服和几条狗之外一无所有的案件中，这怎么可能适当？这完全是越权，毫无道理。我认为，当这些内容被写入命令时，会令我们极为犹豫。\n\n第15段，不放弃权利。再次，我认为PAX应被列为通知当事人。这些是对我们重要的要点。法官阁下，我只想澄清一点。\n\n我花了这么多时间讨论该命令这一事实，我只是不希望法院认为我们接受该命令。我明白法院将作出其认为适当的决定。人们将提出论点，说明这为何或许有利于破产财产。我们强烈不同意。但如果法院倾向于作出不同的决定，我们确实对该命令以及您今天所听取内容的可信度抱有极为重大的疑虑。\n\n法官阁下，我没有其他陈述。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nFriedman先生（弗里德曼先生）：谢谢。\n\n法庭：债务人是否希望回应PAX的论点？\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 318 提交于 05/03/22 录入于 05/03/22 13:29:34 第210页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 318\n提交于 05/03/22\n录入于 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\nJonas先生（乔纳斯先生）：法官阁下，我只是想知道，是否还有其他当事人希望发言。\n\n法庭：哦，这是个好观点。抱歉。Claiborn律师（克莱伯恩律师）？\n\n代表美国受托人的结案陈词\n\nClaiborn女士（克莱伯恩女士）：谢谢，法官阁下。我确有几点意见。\n\n我原本希望，在今日证言结束后，我能更好地了解所出借的是何种资金、资金来自何处、为何确实要作为贷款出借，以及为何不能将其作为赠与。不幸的是，我并不比今天开始时掌握更多信息。\n\n对于Goldman律师（戈德曼律师）今天早些时候提出的违约事件，可能有所弱化，这算是进展。但归根结底，我看不出为何这不能仅仅是一项赠与。债务人的生活方式由Golden Spring（金泉）资助。为何这笔贷款不同？为何不能仅仅是一项赠与？\n\n但对于如何使用资金，仍存在控制机制，而我没有听到该建议命令删除这些机制。就该等资金用于帮助推进本次Chapter 11程序而言，资金必须不受限制，以便任何需要使用资金做事的人都可以这样做，其中包括委员会。因此，如目前所提议的命令那样限制委员会，限制其使用该等资金进行调查和／或根据调查结果采取适当行动的能力，并不使该贷款成为一笔值得发放的贷款。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 318 提交于 05/03/22 录入于 05/03/22 13:29:34 第212页，共\n\n我想向法院说明的另一件事是，今天早些时候，Goldman律师提出，促使其撤回对该贷款异议的共识领域之一，是该笔资金——贷款的第一笔初始款项，即$2 million——将由Pullman and Comley（普尔曼与康利）持有。\n\n我想让法院知悉，美国受托人反对这一点，只要其依据是对债务人持有资金缺乏信任；而这本身就证明，本案需要一名Chapter 11受托人。\n\n该贷款，如法院批准，应存入债务人的资金账户，即债务人占有账户；如果本案中的其他所有人对此感到不安，那么这就充分说明问题。\n\n因此，基于我今天所听到的一切，以及我认为Friedman先生刚才就担忧所作的雄辩评论是恰当的，我认为迄今为止、截至目前，债务人尚未完成其举证责任，证明这是一笔适宜由破产财产参与的贷款。\n\n法庭：谢谢。Goldman律师。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 318 提交于 05/03/22 录入于 05/03/22 13:29:34 第213页，共\n\n代表无担保债权人的结案陈词\n\nGoldman先生（戈德曼先生）：是的。谢谢，法官阁下。仅回应Friedman先生提出的几点，并让我首先说明，委员会当然与PAX一样，对这些所谓家族资产究竟位于何处、究竟由谁控制持怀疑态度，甚至完全不相信；我认为，这正说明本案中无利害关系的委员会需要资金，也需要一名审查员进行适当调查，揭开本案中需要揭开的真相，以查明这些资产究竟是什么。Friedman先生提到，这旨在保护Golden Spring免受当事人对其提出追诉。恰恰相反。我们在该命令最新版本中协商达成了一项具体例外规定，恰好作出了相反规定。该拟议命令的新第16段规定，本临时DIP命令在任何方面均不得解释为放弃或让渡债务人、DIP贷款人、委员会、任何债权人或任何破产财产代表人可能拥有的、就提交本法院的任何事项提起主张或获得听审的任何权利，包括但不限于委员会、任何债权人或任何其他破产财产代表人可能提出的任何请求权。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 318 提交于 05/03/22 录入于 05/03/22 13:29:34 第214页，共\n\n该等请求权可针对DIP贷款人提出，并基于与债务人有关的任何行为、作为或不作为，但临时DIP贷款的延期除外。\n\n随后，该命令还列举了一长串例子，说明尽管重新作出该命令，仍可提出何种请求权，包括揭开公司面纱、实质合并、欺诈性转让。\n\n因此，该命令并未就债权人或破产财产代表人将提起的诉讼向Golden Spring提供任何保护。\n\n我要指出，据我所知，PAX是本破产财产唯一拥有判决书的债权人。因此，他们比本破产财产的其他每一名非内部人债权人拥有实质性的领先优势，这就是他们希望驳回本案的原因，如此他们便可独自扬帆而去，并在后视镜中向本破产财产的其他债权人挥手告别。\n\n所有其他债权人均处于诉讼过程中，当然远未获得判决书，这也是我们需要该贷款以进行适当调查、造福所有债权人而不仅是判决债权人的另一个原因。\n\n而PAX与委员会不同，由一名财力雄厚的诉讼当事人提供资金；而委员会显然没有资金在本案中开展任何工作。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 318 提交于 05/03/22 录入于 05/03/22 13:29:34 第215页，共\n\n因此，我们认为这笔DIP贷款是破产财产的胜利，因为我们获得了资源，可以取得查明资产所在地所需的工具。因此——因此本案得以适当使用。是的，债务人仅拥有——或声称拥有$3,900资产且没有收入，但本破产案件被正当地用于发现资产所在地，并审视一旦发现这些资产，我们是否可以协商出债权人群体可以接受的计划。\n\n因此，我敦促法院批准这笔DIP贷款，但应附加我们已设法与债务人协商达成的限制和修订。至于持有资金，我认为，美国受托人宁愿让一名其称应由受托人替代的债务人持有资金，而非由自20世纪初以来便已存在的Pullman and Comley持有，这很反常；而且资金当然不会去任何地方。这在功能上等同于一笔预付费用，而且他们对Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克）在其账户中持有$1 million没有任何异议。因此——我认为，他们一方面希望为债务人指定受托人，另一方面又希望由债务人持有该$2 million，这两种立场之间完全脱节。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 318 提交于 05/03/22 录入于 05/03/22 13:29:34 第216页，共\n\nmillion。因此，我认为法院完全适宜授权我们持有该笔资金，并受法院所有命令、临时报酬程序等约束；在法院授权支付之前，我们将受约束以信托方式持有该笔资金。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nGoldman先生：我的陈述完毕。\n\n法庭：谢谢。Jonas先生。\n\nJonas先生：哦，抱歉。法官阁下——\n\n法庭：哦，Miltenberger先生（米尔滕伯格先生）。\n\nJonas先生：是的。谢谢。\n\n代表Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）的结案陈词\n\nMiltenberger先生（米尔滕伯格先生）：谢谢，法官阁下。我是代表Golden Spring New York的Timothy Miltenberger（蒂莫西·米尔滕伯格）。\n\n我想简要跟进Goldman律师所作的一些评论。如法院所知，我的客户有意为破产财产的利益提供贷款。\n\nPAX的立场是，正如其早先所称，此处发生的事情远不止表面所见，而这不是法院今天能够决定的事情。\n\n而决定方式是，是否有资金可用于资助委员会和资助审查员，以便每个人都能了解已经发生或尚未发生的事情。\n\n发生，而这正是 Golden Springs（黄金泉）希望看到发生的。这正是债务人希望看到发生的。正如 Friedman 律师（弗里德曼律师）所言，总体情况显然表明，拥有 $9 million 的破产财产优于拥有零美元的破产财产，而这正是本动议所关乎的事项。这并非一个难以判断的问题。拥有 $9 million 确实符合破产财产及其全体债权人的利益。我可以向法院报告，截至 yesterday 3:30，我的客户正在向我的律所电汇资金。我的律所尚未收到该笔资金，但其正在汇途中。收到后，在我们向委员会支付 $2 million 后，我们将与 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）及各方就该笔资金应存放于何处作出安排。法院：您是说全部 $9 million 都将汇至您的律所吗？MILTENBERGER 先生（米尔滕贝格先生）：是的，法官阁下。法院：好的。我只是想弄清楚，因为我们已经谈到许多——在不同时间点发生的许多不同事项，所以——好的。Jonas 先生（乔纳斯先生）？\n\n代表债务人的结案陈词\n\nJONAS 先生：法官阁下，我是代表债务人的 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）的 Jeff Jonas（杰夫·乔纳斯）。首先请允许我说，法官阁下，我知道今天很漫长，我谨代表我本人、律所及债务人向您致谢。我认为是在困难的情况下进行的。事实上，我认为进行得相当顺利，并感谢法院及法院工作人员今天为我们提供便利。\n\n话虽如此，法官阁下，请允许我作几点说明。Kwok 先生（郭文贵）提起本破产案件，是为了处理其众多被指称的债权人，并且他希望在破产程序提供的喘息期内这样做。这正是破产程序的全部目的。\n\nKwok 先生是出于善意来到这里的。他不仅表示希望这样做，让我们回顾一下证明这一点的证据。他已安排一笔无担保、次于其他债权的 $9 million DIP 贷款，以资助本案。除其他事项外，该贷款将资助债权人委员会开展工作，将支付美国受托人费用，并将资助——如获任命，我们对此表示支持——独立审查员调查针对他的指控。\n\n他还已取得一项承诺，如拟议计划中所提交的内容，将一艘价值 $37 million 的船舶按其中所列方式转让给债权人。针对 Kwok 先生提出了许多指控。今天，它们仅仅是指控。将会有适当的时间和场合对这些指控作出裁断。事实上，Kwok 先生或 DIP 贷款人正在支付裁断这些指控的费用，他欢迎这样做。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 218 of\n\n没有依据反对该 DIP 贷款；如债权人委员会所代表的，全体债权人均支持该贷款，只有一名债权人例外，即 PAX（派克斯），其与 Kwok 先生有着长期诉讼历史。法官阁下，如果依据本法院面前的事实基础和记录，该债务人无法继续推进本破产案件，而这将是 DIP 贷款未获批准的结果，那将确实是一种严重不公。\n\n让我回应若干已提出的意见。Friedman 先生聚焦于约 $3,000 的被指称资产。法官阁下，本案中提出的债权主张有 $400 million 左右，我认为是 $370 million 多一点。$400 million。这才应当是重点。那才是我们来此要处理的——我们将处理这些主张。是的，存在争议。这正是破产程序的作用，即从财务角度解决针对债务人提出的债权主张。\n\nKwok 先生提到——法官阁下，我想作一点说明，这可能有些不同寻常，但 Kwok 先生提到了中国或东方文化，我在职业生涯中了解到，这与我们的西方文化非常不同。\n\n因此，是的，一名儿子可能准备损失数百万美元，以帮助并保护其父亲。Friedman 先生还评论说，某些——他说，关于 Kwok 先生与其儿子之间通信的证词牵强附会。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 220 of\n\n我想说，法官阁下，Friedman 先生这样说很容易。他的人身安全、生命以及其家人的生命并非每天都面临风险。顺便说一句，法官阁下，就 Friedman 先生就 DIP 贷款所作的评论而言，如果他曾致电我们，我们很乐意接受其许多修改意见，我现在正准备这样做，但这并未发生。因此，请允许我予以回应。首先——嗯，首先，他说不存在融资的迫切需要。我认为 Kwok 先生的证词对此没有争议。没有 DIP，债权人委员会将无法开展工作；如独立审查员获任命，也将不会有审查员，或者至少不会有资金供审查员开展工作。法官阁下，DIP 文件曾与债权人委员会进行大量协商。我认为——这有些猜测，但根据各份草案，且我没有深入参与细节，我认为确实作出了数百项修改，以满足债权人委员会的请求。它并非一成不变，而是一直在协商中。协商大概一直持续到今天不久前，并延续到夜间或数个夜晚；但无论如何，作出了许多、许多修改，而遗憾的是，发生这种情况时偶尔会出现笔误，提及现金担保物之处仅仅是一个笔误，可以删除。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 221 of\n\n就报告而言，我们很乐意向 PAX 提供报告通知等等，这不是问题。正如我们已表示的，如果 Friedman 先生认为需要使用更好的措辞，以明确该贷款完全次于所有债权人的债权，我们很乐意这样做。有人提到 Circla（瑟克拉）不被视为所有人；我这些年做过几宗 DIP，我认为——我猜那可能是在我们的表格中并被沿用了。再次说明，债权人委员会并未对此提出异议，但我们将删除它。没有问题。让我回应美国受托人及其他人提出的问题，即为何不作为赠与。法官阁下，尽管该 DIP 贷款实际上可能是一项赠与，因为其不太可能得到偿还，但 DIP 贷款人有权决定其将按何种条件提供资金。不是债权人。不是美国受托人。您知道，我必须说，我认为——我不确定是否有人见过 DIP 贷款人同意完全次于其他债权、不取得担保、实际上不预期得到偿还的 DIP。尽管如此，这是他们的——他们有权决定以何种基础提供资金。他们决定以贷款的形式提供。这就是我们来到法院面前的基础。法官阁下，委员会要求我们同意由其持有资金，并且同样，按照命令中所列的基础。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 222 of\n\n为了——在我们为解决争议所作的诸多努力中，我认为这在许多破产案件中是我们的职责，为了达成协议、达成协商一致的解决方案，在我看来，债权人委员会或许是本案最重要的债权人团体，我们作出了许多让步。其中之一是，好的，如果你们想持有该笔资金，就持有该笔资金。现在我们却因此受到批评，实际上这被用作不批准 DIP 的依据。再次说明，法官阁下，我们在此。我们已同意一项时间表，以推进驳回动议。我认为您听到了 Kwok 先生所说的。他打算尽可能公开。我认为有时存在翻译问题，但无论如何，我认为他今天的证词是诚实的。他打算继续沿着这条道路前行。他欢迎独立审查员审查一切并向债权人和法院报告的机会。他将为此支付费用，我们欢迎那一天。我认为今天，毫无根据的指控不应成为拒绝 DIP 的依据。基于此，法官阁下，我们请求法院在作出——我已表示我们乐意作出的——修改后，批准 DIP。谢谢您，法官阁下。法院：我只想问一下，您希望我审阅哪一版本的命令，因为我现在看到的是一份于 April 10th 提交的命令版本。JONAS 先生：法官阁下，我可以先商量一下吗？法院：可以。ROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼先生）：再次说明，法官阁下，我们准备作出我提到的修改，但请让我核实一下。法院：请稍等，Friedman 律师，好吗？JONAS 先生：法官阁下，我认为 Goldman 先生（戈德曼先生）可以确认这一点。即使在同意作出修改以回应 Friedman 先生之前，我们本会请求法院审阅的实际文本尚未提交，因为我们一直在处理它。法院：这正是我在问的。JONAS 先生：是的。法院：所以目前没有其他我应当审阅的内容。JONAS 先生：没有，但我们将——法院：好的。JONAS 先生：——立即，法官阁下，将该文件提交法院。法院：好的。在我再次让其他人发言之前，我认为我可能曾在本案早期的一次先前听证会上对 Baldiga 律师（巴尔迪加律师）说过这一点。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 318 Filed 05/03/22 Entered 05/03/22 13:29:34 Page 224 of\n\n您知道，显然有许多事情——我认为我理解，虽然不像你们所有人那样了解，但我理解各方之间所发生的事情，显然包括债务人与 PAX 之间的事情，也包括现在其他各方的参与；我早先提到的事项之一是，在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州），当我们作出临时 DIP 命令时，我们通常不会作出你们所请求的大量认定——至少是——即 April 10 命令版本中所载的那些认定，好吗？因为当我们作出临时命令时，我们会说，债务人已证明，或某人已证明，或各方同意，或无论具体情况如何，在一段期间内，无论该期间为何，直至我们再次举行听证会，以及无论届时是再次作出临时命令还是作出最终命令，将会发生以下事项。将借出这么多资金，该金额的资金可以支出，但并非必须支出。存在某种预算，使各方都了解将支出何种款项。我理解有关聘用专业人员以及以不同方式向人员付款的所有问题，我也理解你们关于资助委员会及支付审查员费用的说法，但我想澄清，而且我在一开始就曾试图澄清，所以如果我没有澄清，那是我的责任。我不会作出直至本案结束均具有约束力的认定的命令。\n\n当其为临时命令时的案件。那将不会发生，因为这——我认为并不适当，对吗？我认为那并不适当。这不是《破产法》所规定的。\n\n我理解为何人们多次提出过该项请求、为此抗争，而且法院经常予以准许。但我们这里处于一种特殊情形，对吗？\n\n我们有一名个人 Chapter 11 债务人，他没有收入，也没有——嗯，也许他现在有一个银行账户。抱歉。我在试着回想 Kwok（郭文贵）先生作了何种证言。但是，将会有 $8 million 到账。实际上是 9 million。\n\n我不知道这是否——我不知道在现阶段事项是否应以这种方式推进；也许各方应当以更渐进的方式进一步讨论此事，因为我不会作出所有这些认定。我不知道为何在此时我需要作出具有正当理由的认定，因为——在临时基础上我们所做的一切只是——你知道，我们谈论的是对资金的即时需求。\n\n那么，哪些事项需要资金？Kwok 先生的生活费用不需要，因为那不——那不属于本案的一部分。那么，为维持本破产财产持续存在，需要为哪些事项提供资金？需要提供资金的是专业费用的支付。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 226 页，共\n\n这——我的意思是，请告诉我还有什么，因为我可能遗漏了什么，而且我——\n\nJONAS（乔纳斯）先生：这主要是——这——\n\nCLAIBORN（克莱伯恩）女士：季度费用。\n\n法庭：我的意思是——\n\nJONAS 先生：以及美国受托人费用。\n\n法庭：是的。但是——好吧。我会将其在某种程度上视为专业费用，Claiborn 律师，尽管我知道它们并非如此，但它们是破产财产的一项费用。它们是破产财产的一项支出，对吗？\n\n所以我们这里有——我们有很多问题。有很多认定要求我作出——你知道，我必须说——我必须说，你们已就所有这些事项完成了举证责任。我不知道你们是否希望我在此时这样做，这是第一点。\n\n第二点，即将就一项驳回动议举行听证会，该听证会仅仅——距离开始还不到一个月，好吗？还有这个问题，即作为备选方案，指定一名受托人；作为备选方案，美国受托人提出指定一名审查员的动议。\n\n我理解，而且你们已说过，债务人一方的每个人都说过，债务人将支付审查员的费用。但我想知道审查员将会——审查员有什么权力？它没有任何权力。它仅有的能力是，如果有审查员，收集信息并编制报告，对吗？并非这——并非这不会对案件有所帮助，但我不确定这对本案是否有帮助。我想，根据 Kwok 先生的证言以及显然——而且我没有看过——如我所说，我没有看过任何证据材料，这就是为何我不知道 30(b)(6) 代表是谁。\n\nJONAS 先生：嗯哼。\n\n法庭：但是，本破产财产中并没有任何东西，除了可能作出的贷款，以及 Kwok 先生可以继续生活这一事实，所以那是件好事。我们并不担心债务人无法生活，这在此类案件中经常是一种情形。我们没有这个问题。但我们确实有的是——无论是否只有一名债权人，我们有一名债权人在本案中提出了某些必须以某种方式解决的问题。长话短说，如果我们开始——当你说有 $400 million 的债权时——\n\nJONAS 先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——我想你是这么说的，但其中不是有一半是 PAX（PAX）持有的判决书和藐视法庭判决书吗？我的意思是，因此，这里一半——一半的债权属于一名债权人。\n\n而且这是一起个人 Chapter 11 案件，所以该一名债权人拥有很大权力，这与公司 Chapter 11 案件中的情形不同。\n\n因此，我今天向你们所有人建议的只是，我甚至不知道什么——我的意思是，我知道。我看了 Friedman（弗里德曼）先生要求我看的命令，他想说些别的，Claiborn 律师想说些别的，当然我会允许这种情况发生。\n\n但如果未能就某种形式和命令达成协议，那么我将作出裁决，而该等裁决可能不是债务人所寻求的，而且我不——而且可能也不是 PAX 或债权人委员会所寻求的。\n\n但是，Goldman（戈德曼）先生所说的一件事是正确的，即它们全都相互关联，对吗？今天发生的一切都相互关联。作出除——我会说 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）命令以外的命令，后者我会说更属于常规性命令；相较之下，我被要求作出的其他一些命令，包括允许在短于《破产法》规定期限内持续支付专业人士费用，我认为必须有一种理解，即应对你们要求法庭采取的行动进行某种渐进式审查和分析。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 228 页，共\n案号 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 229 页，共\n\n现在，这可能不会有问题，因为你们正在处理这项命令，而且你们可能能够说明所有这些事项。\n\n但是，该命令中有许多要求我作出的认定，我不确定在临时基础上、在本案还有其他一切事项正在进行的情况下，我是否准备作出这些认定。我必须以这种方式看待它。无论你们是否同意，而且我并非指你们个人，我并非指债务人，或者——无论任何人是否同意，我的意思是，我——你们——当然，我们可以同意保留分歧。但这是我必须做的，对吗？我必须从整体上考虑本案。\n\n我认为各方已取得很好的进展，而且我并非认为每一起案件都必须经协商一致。这不是我在说的。但我不确定我会在本案中签发我看过的、Friedman 指给我看的那项包含任何具有约束力认定的命令。\n\n因此，尽管我理解每个人所说的一切，或者至少我已试图理解。我并非说我不可能犯了错误，但我已试图理解；我仍然必须审查你们所有人协商达成的任何内容。\n\nJONAS 先生：完全同意。\n\n法庭：而且我可能不同意。因此，如果我不同意，我们将不得不——你知道，我们将举行某种会议并讨论此事，但我认为你们需要考虑这一点。\n\n我确实听到了——而且，Friedman 先生，我确实听到 Jonas 先生说，你提出的许多——不是全部，但许多问题，他们会予以满足；我认为这再次是进展。至于你们是否都会完全达成协议，我不知道。\n\nJONAS 先生：法官阁下，我可以只提出两点吗？\n\n法庭：当然。\n\nJONAS 先生：第一，我只想说这一点。正如他谈到我时所说的，法官阁下，我非常尊重 Friedman 先生，但不幸的是，我——我的印象是，也许他会告诉我我是错的——我们绝不可能——不可能达成协商一致的解决方案，因为——\n\n法庭：就这项命令而言，对吗？\n\nJONAS 先生：就这项命令而言，因为——\n\n法庭：我认为是这样。\n\nJONAS 先生：——他们——你知道，我们可以给他们一切——所有具体事项，然后他会说，好吧，但我不希望您忽略，法官阁下，我们仍然反对此事。所以这只是第一点。我们可以尝试，而且我们将继续尝试。\n\n第二点，法官阁下，请允许我道歉，因为我记得您早些时候谈到事实认定，而我们没有——也许我们没有充分听清您所说的话。我现在当然听清了，而且我们——我欢迎有机会处理许多认定。我必须——显然，我们必须与我们的 DIP lender（债务人占有融资贷款人）沟通，但请允许我们处理这些事项。我猜想，在现在更好地理解法庭意见后，我们将能够精简并删除其中许多内容；我希望，当我们提交——而且显然，我们会向所有其他各方提供——我希望当我们下次提交经修订的草案时，它将更符合您准备签署的形式。再次说明，我们可能需要再举行一次会议。我们很乐意这样做，但以上是我的意见，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。这非常公平，而且我——我仅向你们建议的是，正如我几周前在讨论解除自动中止的时间安排和驳回动议的时间安排时所说，我不能将这项 DIP 动议视为本案中唯一的动议。我不能。\n\nJONAS 先生：嗯哼。\n\n法庭：它会影响其他事项。Goldman 先生，正如我所说，我一直提到 Goldman 先生，但他是对的。它们全都相互关联。因此，我很乐意听取你们所有人——审查你们所有人提出的内容。\n\nJONAS 先生：很好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\nJONAS 先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。Friedman 先生？\n\nFRIEDMAN 先生：谢谢，Jonas 先生。我很感激。\n\nJONAS 先生：好。\n\nFRIEDMAN 先生：我一向如此。我有三点简短的话要说。第一，法官阁下，确实，我们不能告诉 Golden Spring（黄金泉）它必须提供贷款，但您可以。您可以告诉他们，这项拟议——抱歉，他们不能——这不必是一项赠与。您可以。您不必将其作为贷款批准。\n\n第二点，法官阁下，是的，PAX 长期以来一直与 Kwok 先生进行诉讼。长期以来一直赢得其诉讼。它有 $268 million 的债权。\n\n据我所知，它是唯一一名拥有已确定债权、且非内部人的债权人。第三点，正如我刚才所说，请听这个小词：“我们”。我会说，在 Jonas 先生的评论结尾，他说，他想支付费用。对。他。Kwok 先生，这再次——我只是认为，这说明了资金最终来自何处。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。Claiborn 律师？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：法官阁下，我只是想让法庭知道，我尚未看到经修订的草案。\n\n命令，因此，我不知道是否还有其他我想提请法庭注意的关切事项。\n\n法官：\n是的，我的意思是，我认为——\n\n克莱伯恩女士（Ms. Claiborn）：\n我可能——\n\n法官：\n——乔纳斯先生（Mr. Jonas）已经说明了这一点，这就是为什么我认为我们很可能还需要举行一次会议，如果无法达成协议的话，而且我并不——我不认为会达成协议，所以我认为必须再举行一次会议。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n感谢您给予这个机会。我只是想让法庭知道，我可能有一些想法。\n\n法官：\n谢谢你。你看，我通常的做法是，当我们作出临时命令时，我们会确定一个日期。该命令于某一天生效，并于未来某一日期失效，同时会有一份与之相关的预算。你知道，这可能不是现金担保品预算意义上的预算，但会说明有多少钱进来，以及在该期间内可以——获准支出多少钱，以及用于什么。\n\n然后，如果你想谈透明度，那就是透明度。每个人都知道获批了 X 金额。X 金额进来了，然后在——不管那个——你不必把它称为预算。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 318\n提交 05/03/22\n录入 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n预算。你可以随意称呼它。临时 DIP 贷款期间付款授权，那么我们就知道发生了什么。这样就没有人会质疑正在发生什么。\n\n然后，乔纳斯先生，你可以获得对适用于该临时期的某些事项的批准，这总比完全得不到任何事项的批准要好。\n\n这一点我可以做，但我并不处于这样一个位置——而且，当我说“我”时，我指的是法官席——碰巧在本案中坐在法官席上的人认为，在此时此刻，作出将在整个案件期间具有约束力的认定是不适当的。因此，我认为我已经说明清楚了。\n\n所以问题是，我们需要多少时间——我们是否继续——我们并不——关于 DIP 融资动议的证据程序已经结束。我们是否仅为解决实质上是临时 DIP 融资命令的条款和条件而继续举行听证，该命令应当包括该融资适用的期限、通过融资将进入的金额——我本想说进入破产财产，但我们这里仍有一个资金去向问题，所以我不会完全这么说——以及在该期间内获准就该贷款支付或计提的金额。这是我认为在那些——在这些情形下适当的做法。\n\n那么，各方有什么想法？我们是在说——今天是星期几？星期三？我们是在说周五回来？我们是在说下周一、周二、周三回来？我们在说什么？\n\n戈德曼先生（Mr. Goldman）：\n法官大人，我知道委员会方面，我原计划周四和周五参加 ABS 春季会议，所以我会说——\n\n法官：\n也就是说，明天和后天？\n\n戈德曼先生：\n是。是。是。\n\n法官：\n好的。\n\n戈德曼先生：\n所以，下周任何时间都可以。你知道，关于这个预算概念，我可以作一些说明——\n\n法官：\n嗯，可能——我说过预算并不完全是正确的词，但它是针对已提供资金的获授权计提额或付款额，或者你想怎么称呼都可以，对吧？$400,000 进来。我只是随便举个名称，并不意味着任何事情。在——接下来的四周内，可以因这些理由就这些资金计提这些金额。\n\n戈德曼先生：\n所以——\n\n法官：\n我的意思是，我们不必担心资助 Kwok 先生（Mr. Kwok）的生活。这是件好事。但如果其他一切都将涉及所有——各方获得付款，那么我想知道每个人认为他们在接下来的四周内将因什么而获得付款，即使你们尚未获授权提取这些款项。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 318 提交 05/03/22 录入 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 236 页，共\n\n戈德曼先生：\n是的。而且，法官大人，我认为我们最多只能有一个估算，实际上。\n\n法官：\n我明白。我不是——哦，我不是——预算就是预算。它并不总是符合——你并不总能符合预算。我不是要求一份经过审计的账目。我要求的是——我想知道。你知道，命令说存在立即获得资金的需要。立即需要的是什么？向我说明它是什么、金额是多少，以及用途是什么。我的意思是，这不是——这不是一个公司生产某种产品并持续产生收入的案件——这不是我们现在的情况。我们都知道这一点。因此，法庭必须对这些事项有某种控制，或者至少有监督，对吧？否则，我在这里做什么？你们都可以去走廊里处理这个——\n\n戈德曼先生：\n是。\n\n法官：\n——然后看看结果如何。\n\n戈德曼先生：\n嗯，我只是——\n\n法官：\n但这就是我在这里的原因，对吧？确保我们——这不会出岔子，而且我们还有其他待决动议，可能——可能完全——你知道，谁知道，会导致本案在五周内被驳回。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 318 提交 05/03/22 录入 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 237 页，共\n\n我不知道。这可能发生。我还没有听取关于该事项的任何辩论。我还没有看到你们的书面文件。没有人——你们也不应该。你们今天才刚刚就何时提交书面文件达成一致。\n\n因此，我不知道它们会说什么，但我必须——我必须——我认为你们必须实际而非理论地对待此事。\n\n本案的实际情况是，从案件开始那一刻起，就存在反对意见，而且是强烈反对意见；我并未就该等反对是否有根据作出判断。这是一个现实。这是一个现实，即在本案来到这里之前发生了各种事情，这种情况也经常出现，但我也不能忽视这一点。好的。我不能忽视这一点。\n\n所以我所建议的只是，你们确定一个期限，在该期限内第一批资金进入，不管数额是多少。也许不会达成协议，那么我最终将不得不决定它会是什么。但随后——你们要告诉我，也要告诉公众，因为这将是公开的——这些资金将用于什么，即使它们在该期间内尚未被提取，对吧？\n\n总之，我认为这相当清楚。也许并非如此。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 318\n提交 05/03/22\n录入 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n戈德曼先生：\n所以——不，明白了，法官大人。\n\n法官：\n好的。\n\n弗里德曼先生（Mr. Friedman）：\n法官大人，所以我们有一个原则性反对意见。它——我们有实际方面的反对意见。实际上，我非常有信心我们能够解决我们的实际问题，对吧？对我们而言，DIP 问题是原则性的。我们认为不应当录入该命令。\n\n我也意识到，破产法一方面建立在您根深蒂固的信念之上，另一方面则建立在细枝末节的实际问题之上。我将与乔纳斯先生、戈德曼先生、克莱伯恩女士合作，在我们能够妥协以及不能妥协的地方处理我们的实际问题，但是——\n\n法官：\n对。我必须作出裁决。我明白。\n\n弗里德曼先生：\n所以——\n\n法官：\n而且我乐意这样做。\n\n弗里德曼先生：\n——所以我想我的问题是，如果我们需要进一步听证，或者实际上听起来是一次会议，我下周在加利福尼亚州。可以通过 Zoom 进行吗？我将——\n\n法官：\n可以。\n\n弗里德曼先生：\n好的。\n\n法官：\n可以。\n\n弗里德曼先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法官：\n你看，问题是，我现在看到的是一份已经两周前作出的命令，所以它已经过时了。因此，当这里没有人能就此与我讨论时，我不会仅仅录入某人提交的命令，对吧？我不会这么做。我——你知道，不幸的是，该命令上必须有某个人的名字，而且我会在录入命令前阅读该命令，并且我必须确保它符合《破产法典》、规则以及所有这些规定。所以——但可以，我们完全可以这样做。我不会把你们都再拖到这里来。我们已经举行了证据听证，但我确实想在我们举行会议之前看到该命令，否则我认为那不会是一次有意义的会议。好的。\n\n弗里德曼先生：\n是。是。\n\n法官：\n所以你们甚至可以明天都告诉我。我的意思是，你知道，我不——无论什么对你们有用。我并不是想站在这里说，你们必须现在告诉我，而且我们必须就所有这些事情确定一个日期。我这么说，但我应该看看下周有什么安排，尽管我认为情况不坏。不过，我可能错了，所以让我——让我花五秒钟看一下，好吗？周二不行。周三绝对有可能，毫无疑问，除了当天中午。周四，我们有第 13 章听证。我们可以在周四下午进行。\n\n乔纳斯先生：\n法官大人。\n\n法官：\n是。\n\n乔纳斯先生：\n我能否建议我们先为此预留一个时间？我认为您说周三听起来是最好的日子。\n\n法官：\n除了在——之间。\n\n乔纳斯先生：\n通过 Zoom，以便——\n\n法官：\n是。\n\n乔纳斯先生：\n——当然适应每个人。我认为这或许会——然后我们都朝着这个目标努力。\n\n法官：\n是。\n\n乔纳斯先生：\n显然会努力，你知道，向法庭报告。希望尽可能早地、尽可能提前提交一份命令草案，也许甚至是经同意的，谁知道呢，但我认为这将非常有帮助，法官大人。\n\n法官：\n好的。嗯，关于——这没问题，但我将需要该命令——\n\n乔纳斯先生：\n是。\n\n法官：\n——如果我们周三举行会议，我可以在上午或下午进行，但我不能在下午 12:30 至 2:00 之间进行。\n\n乔纳斯先生：\n法官大人，我认为为了适应弗里德曼先生——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 记录与转录服务公司）\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 318 提交 05/03/22 录入 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 240 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 318 提交 05/03/22 录入 05/03/22 13:29:34 第 241 页，共\n\n弗里德曼先生，他将要——\n\n法官：\n哦，你要去加利福尼亚州。\n\n乔纳斯先生：\n——在加利福尼亚州——\n\n法官：\n所以——\n\n乔纳斯先生：\n——下午就可以。\n\n法官：\n——下午 2:00。你想要——你想要晚于下午 2:00 吗？\n\n弗里德曼先生：\n下午 2:00 正合适。谢谢您，法官大人。\n\n法官：\n好的。所以——如果我晚了五分钟或十分钟，不要担心，我——只是必须处理一件与学校有关的事情，所以我可能会晚五分钟或十分钟，如果我们——如果你们必须在 Zoom 通话中等待，你们就必须在 Zoom 通话中等待，好吗？\n\n但我希望——我希望在前一天的下午 2:00 前收到该命令。我的意思是，我必须能够阅读它，对吧？\n\n乔纳斯先生：\n明白，法官大人，感谢您。\n\n法官：\n好的。那么我暂时就把那天下午余下的时间都预留出来，希望我们不会占用全部——但如果占用了，也就占用了。\n\n我的意思是，今天日程中唯一尚未解决的事项是——以提交修订后的拟议命令或一份排期命令为条件，就——\n\n驳回动议是这项DIP融资动议，我认为是第117号。\n\n是的，那么，第117号事项延期。听证会延期至星期三——5月4日，下午2:00，以远程方式通过 Zoom（视频会议平台）进行，好吗？你们需要联系法庭——有一个法庭……地址是什么？我忘了。你们需要联系一个电子邮件地址，以获取 Zoom 信息。是 Court Connect 吗？Calendar Connect（日程连接）？\n\n书记员：Calendar。\n\n法院：Calendar Connect。克莱伯恩律师，您有问题吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，我确实承诺在今天结束前就每月报酬命令向法院报告——\n\n法院：是。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：——我现在可以报告，即我已经审阅了该命令，美国受托人对已上传的该项命令没有异议。\n\n法院：该命令已记入卷宗吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：是。\n\n法院：编号是多少？或者您知道吗？如果您不知道，我们可以查阅。我只是说，我以为您手头可能有。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：我没有记下来，但今天早些时候已记入卷宗。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n法院：好的。\n\n身份不明的发言人：法官阁下，是卷宗第263号。\n\n法院：263号。好的。谢谢。那么我会看一下。我有几份你们的命令需要审阅。而且，您知道，我相信它们没有问题，所以我们——如果因某种原因它们有问题，我们会通知你们。但与此同时，今天是否还有其他需要处理的事项，因为我认为我们已经处理完所有事项，除非我遗漏了什么。\n\n乔纳斯先生：没有其他事项了，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么，我确实感谢各方的合作以及已经取得的进展。我再次明确说明，我并不是建议所有事项都必须经同意。这不是运作方式。我理解这一点。但我仍然感谢一些事项——以及今天许多事项——经协商得到解决，这很有帮助，非常有帮助。我感谢各方努力解决这些事项。\n\n我将审阅今天庭审记录中讨论的、于昨天或今天提交的所有命令，并尽力于明天将其登记。至于DIP融资动议，其听证会延期至下周下午2:00以远程方式进行。好吗？\n\n乔纳斯先生：法官阁下，我只是，我想——\n\n法院：我遗漏了谁？好的。\n\n乔纳斯先生：——Verdolino 和 Lowey（维尔多利诺与洛伊）提交的材料，我想，您说您只是会审议提交到您面前的证据——\n\n法院：我已留待裁定。\n\n乔纳斯先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：所以我必须审阅——我想审阅今天提交的证据，而且我将会——并且将在——卷宗上应当注明——该事项已留待裁定。好吗？\n\n乔纳斯先生：抱歉。还有一点简短意见。\n\n法院：当然。\n\n乔纳斯先生：我刚看了我的日历。下周我可能需要——因为我上午要在特伦顿的 Johnson and Johnson（强生）案中出庭于 Kaplan（卡普兰）法官面前——我可能必须远程参加，但既然是 Zoom，应该没关系，不过我——\n\n法院：应该没关系。没错。\n\n乔纳斯先生：——只是想告知您。谢谢。\n\n法院：我相信 Kaplan 法官能为您找一个房间。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 318 提交日期 05/03/22 登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34 第244页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 318\n提交日期 05/03/22\n登记日期 05/03/22 13:29:34\n\n乔纳斯先生：是，我相信。谢谢。\n\n法院：好的。好的。那么，还有任何人有其他事项吗？\n\n好的。既然我们今天已处理完 Kwok（郭文贵）案中的所有事项，本庭休庭。\n\n（庭审于下午5:34休庭。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的记录转写员及认证电子记录员和转写员，证明上述内容是根据上述案名所列事项庭审的官方电子录音制作的准确记录文本。\n\nMay 3, 2022\nChristine Fiore（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），CERT-410\n转写员\n\n目录\n\n证人\n直接询问 交叉询问 再次直接询问 再次交叉询问\n\n代表债务人：\nCraig R. Jalbert（克雷格·R·贾尔伯特）\n71 75\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n155,181\n\n法院证物：\n编号 已收\n\n1 Craig 对 Aronsson（阿伦松）问题的密封答复\n\nPAX（帕克斯）证物：\n\n17 第341会议记录 180\n\n18 Ace Decade（艾斯·迪凯德）英文宣誓书 180\n\n19 Ace Decade（艾斯·迪凯德）中文宣誓书 180\n\n15 Wang（王）证言笔录 198\n\n结案陈词：\n\n代表 PAX 199\n\n代表美国受托人 211\n\n代表无担保债权人 213\n\n代表 Golden Springs New York（纽约金泉） 216\n\n代表债务人 217","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","CIPA","Chinese Communist Party","CCP","GETTR","Ho Wan Kwok","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":90,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":117,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":157,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":198,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":259,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":65373,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-03 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-03","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:36:30"}