{"id":"court_ctb_3817_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3817,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2024-11-13","title":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTIC","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION IN RE: . Chapter 11 . Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK, et al., . . (Jointly Administered) . . Debtors. . Courtroom 123 . Brien McMahon Federal Building . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 . . Wednesday, November 6, 2024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:09 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Chapter 11 Trustee: Luc A. Despins, Esquire PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 - and - Nicholas A. Bassett, Esquire PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 2050 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (APPEARANCES CONTINUED) Audio Operator: Electronically recorded Transcription Company: Reliable The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302)654-8080 Email: gmatthews@reliable-co.com Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. Case 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 1 of 43\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 3817 | Filed 11/13/24 | | Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 | Page 2 of 43 |\n|----|---------------------------|----------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------------|\n| | | | | | 2 |\n| 1 | APPEARANCES: | | | | |\n| 2 | For G Club | | | | |\n| 3 | Operations, LLC and G | | | Club International, LLC: Jeffrey M. Sklarz, Esquire | |\n| 4 | | | | GREEN & SKLARZ, LLC
One Audubon Street | |\n| 5 | | | 3rd Floor | New Haven, Connecticut 06511 | |\n| 6 | For Creditor Pax: | | | Annecca H. Smith, Esquire | |\n| 7 | | | ROBINSON&COLE LLP
One State Street | | |\n| 8 | | | | Hartford, Connecticut 06103 | |\n| 9 | | | | | |\n| 10 | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 3817 | | Filed 11/13/24 | Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 | Page 3 of 43 | |\n|---------------|----------|----------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------|------|\n| | | | | | | 3 | |\n| 1 | | | | | INDEX | | |\n| 2 | MOTIONS: | | | | | | PAGE |\n| 3 | Matter | | | | Motion to Quash Trustee's Rule 2004 | | |\n| 4 | No. 3752 | | Examination Subpoena Filed by Jeffrey M. | | 4 | | |\n| 5 | | | | LLC, Interested Party | Sklarz on behalf of G Club Operations, | | |\n| 6 | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | | | | Transcriptionist's Certificate | | | 43 |\n| 10 | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n\n 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Proceedings commenced at 1:09 p.m.) THE COURT: Good afternoon. We have one matter on the calendar at 1:00 p.m., so I ask the courtroom deputy to please call the calendar. THE CLERK: Case Number 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay, good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please? MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BASSETT: And good -- sorry, Your Honor - good afternoon, Your Honor, Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SKLARZ: And good afternoon, Your Honor, Jeffrey Sklarz for G Club Operations, LLC. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor, Annecca Smith of Robinson&Cole on behalf of creditor PAX, just anticipating (indiscernible) today. THE COURT: Thank you. Good afternoon. All right, on the calendar today then is the motion to quash filed by G Club, Attorney Sklarz, and then the opposition from the trustee. Case 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 4 of 43\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I know there were some discussions, I don't know if it was about the substance of the motion to quash, but do the parties have anything to report on where things stand as of today? MR. SKLARZ: Yes, Your Honor. We have not resolved this matter. Attorney Bassett and myself, as well as our colleagues, have had several phone conversations, exchanged numerous emails, in an attempt to narrow the dispute, I think we have narrowed the dispute considerably. We've discussed logistics should I not prevail on the motion to quash. So I think we've done our best to streamline the\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 process and try and reach a resolution. Unfortunately, I don't think -- we made a proposal, which I'll go through, which I still think is appropriate, to respond to certain inquiries in a non-deposition fashion, but I believe the trustee does believe they need a deposition and is entitled to a deposition, and we respectfully disagree.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 So we have had significant discussions and tried to resolve this, and have narrowed the scope of the dispute. THE COURT: So how has it been narrowed if the trustee would like to take a deposition and you don't believe that a deposition should be taken? I just don't know what you're saying, so you need to enlighten me.\n\n25\n\nMR. SKLARZ: I can clarify. So I believe, and\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Attorney Bassett can correct me if I'm wrong, that we've talked about the topics. G Club believes the topics are too broad, the trustee, in discussions back and forth, has agreed to truncate those topics. We've proposed to respond to certain of those topics in writing under oath and provide documents, which we believe would be sufficient to give them the information they need, which arguably could be 2004 exam in nature. The trustee believes they should be able to obtain -- take a deposition to ask follow-up questions and further inquiry, I believe -- and, again, I can go into this more substantively -- that those discussions, that questioning is more akin to a deposition in one of the myriad adversary proceedings related to G Club. So we think the pending -- we think we can get the trustee the information that is focused on what they say they need without going beyond the scope -- without the need for a deposition. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, we can -- THE COURT: Attorney Bassett? MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor, we can obviously get into a discussion of the arguments, including Attorney Sklarz's position and G Club's position as to whether or not a 2004 deposition is appropriate in light of pending adversary proceedings. I'll put that to the side for the moment and just try to address the Court's question about to\n\n1 what extent has the dispute been narrowed.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 From our perspective, based on the discussions that have occurred, as the Court knows from Attorney Sklarz's opposition and I believe the motion to expedite associated with that, we have agreed at least on a deposition date, to the extent it goes forward, of November 20th. Attorney Sklarz and I have also discussed logistics, as he mentioned, which would resolve one of the issues that he's raised in his objection, which is, you know, the location of the deposition, where it would occur. We had indicated that we are prepared, if necessary, to go to the deponent, but I think for the convenience of all the parties we would agree, subject to ironing out all the appropriate logistics, to do that deposition remotely. So I think that's, you know, an issue that's been taken off the table, at least in terms of the objection.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 And then, as Attorney Sklarz stated, it really comes down to from there whether a deposition will occur and, if so, on what topics. We think a deposition is absolutely necessary; we can get into all the reasons for that, whatever the Court like.\n\n22 23 24 25 In terms of narrowing the proposed topics, that's set out in our response to the opposition. Basically, there are five topics, and we've agreed to further limit them -- we think they're already narrow, but basically a couple of the\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 objections of G Club were, one, the topics could be read to allow us to ask questions about any G Club affiliates, which I think, in attorney Attorney Sklarz's view, could extend to, you know, many, many different entities, and we clarified that we're really looking to explore G Club and its direct parent ownership structure, and then also to the extent that we find out during questioning that there are other entities that have some role or influence in directing the operations of G Club, we would inquire about those entities, but we're not trying to open up the deposition to all Kwok-related entities generally.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And then we also agreed to be responsive to one of the objections to limit our topics to issues, in terms of timeline, from the petition date forward. So we wouldn't be exploring a lot of the prepetition relationship between G Club and the debtor and others that is sort of more central to the pending adversary proceedings. We can get into all of that in more detail, obviously, in the course of the hearing today, but I just wanted to clarify for the Court from our perspective what we see as the ways that the dispute has been limited. It's I think the logistics around where the deposition will occur and when has been resolved and then some narrowing of the topics, but we still have a dispute as to whether a deposition will happen and whether the narrowed topics are appropriate for a deposition.\n\n 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 THE COURT: So what are you asking the Court to do? MR. BASSETT: Well, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Rule on whether or not the deposition is going to go forward and what the topics are? MR. BASSETT: I'll leave that to Attorney Sklarz Case 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 9 of 43\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 because we're here on his motion to quash, but the trustee's position certainly is that the motion to quash should be denied, that the deposition should go forward remotely, covering the topics as narrowed by the trustee in the way that I just described. That's the trustee's position and I think, as long as G Club's motion to quash is out there, that motion to quash would be denied -- or would need to be denied because the relief that motion is seeking obviously is to prevent the deposition from going forward all together.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. Attorney Sklarz?\n\n16\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SKLARZ: That's correct, we're asking that the Court grant our motion, preclude the deposition and, as we've indicated, we will provide the information, which, again, I'll go into more substantively, in writing, and if that leads to further inquiry, perhaps that's appropriate. However, again, our -- in our briefing, we explained our positions, particularly under the pending action rule, that this is really just an effort to obtain information relating to those cases having to do with alter ego, fraudulent\n\n1 2 transfer, and effectively understand the corporate governance structure of G Club.\n\n3 4 5 6 Again, there are three basic -- again, I don't want to go too far into argument. I want to make sure I'm answering Your Honor's questions and I don't want to delve too far, but -- so I'll pause there.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 THE COURT: So I'll start with the question I asked at the beginning. So how has this been narrowed? The only thing that's been narrowed is you've agreed to a date of the deposition if the Court denies the motion to quash, and you've agreed that what the topics will be, but you just said, Attorney Sklarz, you want the motion to quash to be granted.\n\n14 15 16 So I still have to rule, is what you're telling me and, unless I'm missing something, that's what I've just heard.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MR. SKLARZ: No, no, no, I think you're correct, Your Honor, but we're proposing that we will provide in lieu of the deposition this information. So I suppose the motion would be granted in part because we've made this offer -- Attorney Bassett has turned it down, but Your Honor may say, hey, Jeff, you're being reasonable today and I'll limit it in that manner, or you may say I'm --\n\n24 25 THE COURT: Well, I don't want to have another hearing on a motion to quash, right? So it's either you --\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the motion is denied and the process -- the deposition date goes forward with the topics and, in the interim, you supply the information and then maybe you both agree that there's no deposition, or the motion is granted and whatever happens. But the problem is there have already been discovery issues with G Club in this case, right? We went through this before with the counsel -- and I apologize, I can't remember her name -- from New York who came in and argued for quite some time about G Club and the issues related to the 2004 subpoena -- is my recollection, by the way, so that doesn't mean I'm correct. So you can all correct me, but that's my recollection. And now we're at a point where the trustee is asking, as part of a Rule 2004 examination and in connection with documents that have already been produced -- MR. SKLARZ: No -- THE COURT: -- why do you say no? MR. SKLARZ: -- that's not -- because this is - so, two things. Number one, this is a deposition as part of a 2004 exam on very limited -- on very specific -- on very specific topics. There is no topic related to anything that G Club produced previously in discovery. So that would be number one. Number two, I respectfully disagree that there were problems with G Club and discovery. We had discovery disputes, we brought them before the Court, much of it\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 12 of 43\n\n12\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 related to trying to get an independent fiduciary in the case because of the nature -- because all of G Club's professional staff resigned, and working that out. THE COURT: But didn't I -- MR. SKLARZ: At no time -- THE COURT: -- enter an order denying G Club's -- I mean, I remember -- you know, look, it doesn't really matter. MR. SKLARZ: You ruled -- THE COURT: My recollection is, though -- MR. SKLARZ: -- in favor of the trustee, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- there was an order entered that G Club had to do something with regard to -- MR. SKLARZ: Right. THE COURT: -- discovery that it was saying it shouldn't need to do. MR. SKLARZ: And we complied with -- and we complied with that order. THE COURT: Right, but after several hearings and time going by and not reaching an agreement. And, as you know, this is a discovery dispute, so I don't need to issue any kind of written opinion. I could just say -- I could just say granted or denied, it's a discovery dispute. MR. SKLARZ: I don't -- I'm not suggesting\n\n1 otherwise, Your Honor.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 The other thing that's changed significantly is the trustee has sued G Club at least three times and named them as a fraudulent transferor in a number of other lawsuits. So this is not pre-litigation discovery anymore. We have to be --\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, even if I agreed with you on that point, which I'm not saying I do or don't, but even if I agreed with you, so then they could depose you in that right now. What would stop them from doing that and asking these questions? Even if I agreed with you, which I'm not saying I do, but why couldn't they ask those questions in a notice of deposition and a subpoena in one of those adversary proceedings? MR. SKLARZ: Well, most of those cases are stayed. THE COURT: Well, that -- MR. SKLARZ: The only one -- THE COURT: -- well, that's the problem, right? So they're stayed. MR. SKLARZ: Well, but -- THE COURT: So -- MR. SKLARZ: -- they're stayed, but -- THE COURT: -- but they're seeking discovery, to which the response is -- MR. SKLARZ: They're seeking --\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3817
Filed 11/13/24
Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25
Page 14 of 43 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 14 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
-- there's a prior -- |\n| 2 | MR. SKLARZ:
-- a 2004 examination -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
-- pending action, there's difficulty |\n| 4 | and someone is -- someone is located in Puerto Rico.
My |\n| 5 | reading is, the trustee said he'd go to Puerto Rico, so that |\n| 6 | takes care of that.
The prior pending action issue, whether |\n| 7 | or not I agree with it -- even if I agreed that there is one, |\n| 8 | there's nothing that says he can't ask the same questions in |\n| 9 | the deposition.
So we're not going to do the form-over |\n| 10 | substance issue, number two.
And number three is it's |\n| 11 | discovery, it's broad, whether it's in a 2004 context or in |\n| 12 | the context of the adversary proceeding. |\n| 13 | You can't -- I think it's hard to argue that the |\n| 14 | topics for which the information is sought, which my |\n| 15 | understanding is who is in charge of G Club, where is it |\n| 16 | located, who has the authority to make decisions on its |\n| 17 | behalf -- isn't that what you're asking, Attorney Bassett? |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
That's, you know, in substance |\n| 19 | correct, Your Honor.
And there's a lot of very important |\n| 20 | context for the subpoena, which I know the Court is well |\n| 21 | aware of, but one of the primary motivating reasons for it is |\n\n22 23 24 25 what I would call kind of the shift in the regime that we've seen, you know, recently in light of the debtor's arrest, conviction, and the fact that he is now incarcerated for the foreseeable future. We've seen all kinds of different\n\n15\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 modifications in the way that entities associated with the debtor are operating, we've seen some of them fold up the tents; we've seen some of them apparently continue to take directions from others. There's the HCHK entities which all of a sudden dropped their appeals and in the course of that, in a hearing that occurred before Judge Dooley, there was an indication that the person who had been directing the HCHK entities was the former attorney of the debtor, Mr. Yan Bing Zhang (ph), who's been sanctioned multiple times. We have the whole Taurus Fund (ph) fiasco with them suddenly refusing to comply with court orders. We've served another 2004 subpoena related to the fact that another one of the debtor's former law firms appears to be directing Taurus Fund behind the scenes, including working on its pleadings before this Court.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We have all kinds of things that are happening not transparently, not with notice to the trustee, and all of that is incredibly important to our ongoing investigation. We need to understand what is happening right now, who is in control. If the debtor is incarcerated and his number one lieutenant Yvette Wang is incarcerated with him, who is actually continuing to instruct entities who are litigating before this Court? Who are they talking to in this case? To the extent that this entity in the Cayman Islands is nominally the person in charge of G Club, who appointed them?\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 What conversations took place around that appointment? Who was giving direction on a day-to-day basis? What conversation is the person at this organization having with others? How is G Club being funded? How are the sources of that funding related to G Club, how are they related to the debtor?\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 All kinds of information exists that we need to understand to figure out what other leads do we need to pursue to find out where is this being -- where current estate assets may be, so we can further pursue those leads to find out what's happening. Those are all the kinds of things that we need to pursue.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So that's exactly -- I think what Your Honor stated is exactly correct, but I just wanted to provide all that context for why we served this subpoena at this time. It's very, very important to us to get them. We think it - you know, the topics are narrow; they're just those that I described. We're not trying to re-litigate or to litigate in this forum the entire relationship between the debtor and G Club. I acknowledge that a lot of that is going to be litigated in the omnibus alter ego litigation, but the information that we need right now is to figure out what other estate assets might there be, what other connections to the debtor do we need to explore, and that's time-sensitive because, as we've seen in the past, information becomes stale\n\n 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 very quickly, things are moved around, and we need the discovery for that reason, Your Honor. MR. SKLARZ: Your Honor, this is putting the cart entirely before the horse and G Club has never acted in any of those manners since certainly my firm and FFP have been involved. THE COURT: And that may be true, Attorney Sklarz -- MR. SKLARZ: We think that's deeply -- THE COURT: -- I'm not disagreeing with you -- MR. SKLARZ: -- we think that's deeply, deeply unfair. THE COURT: I'm sorry. I'm not disagreeing with you, but the one thing that -- I mean, there's a few things, right? I obviously don't know what is said in other proceedings outside of this court unless someone brings them to this Court, right? And so apparently -- and it's accurately described in a transcript in front of Judge Dooley -- that Judge -- no, just hear me out, though, Attorney Sklarz, I'm not saying this -- just hear me out, though, okay? That Attorney Shaban (ph) said -- well, I asked him the same questions, by the way, Judge Dooley did, and he never answered my questions, but he answered Judge Dooley's questions about who he was taking direction from, and he answered that he was taking direction from Yan Bing Zhang,\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that's what he said to Judge Dooley. When I asked him that question, he wouldn't answer it. But, in any event, he then said -- MR. SKLARZ: I don't know who these people are. THE COURT: Well, yeah, we do, we all know who they are. So -- MR. SKLARZ: No, no, no, I don't know who Young Bang Zhang (ph) is other than -- THE COURT: Well, you may not, but we do -- MR. SKLARZ: -- what Attorney Bassett has said. THE COURT: -- you see? And the trustee does, and he's conducting his investigation. And here's the other -- whether you know him or not isn't relevant, it's your being -- your clients are parties that have come before this Court, by the way, and in the main case, aside from the adversaries, have asked for relief. And that's fine, you're entitled to do that, but the trustee is -- MR. SKLARZ: And we're asking for -- THE COURT: -- also entitled to conduct discovery. And the other thing that happened in front of Judge Dooley that I find fascinating when I read this transcript is that Attorney Shaban said that there was a joint defense agreement with Attorney Pasteur and his clients, and I asked those exact questions to those lawyers\n\n| 1 | in this courtroom and never was told those answers.
In fact |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | I was told, oh, we used to work together at a firm together, |\n| 3 | but that's it.
That's what I was told.
Okay? |\n| 4 | MR. SKLARZ:
I understand, Your Honor -- |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
And, look, I'm not -- you have to |\n| 6 | understand something, Attorney Sklarz, I'm not saying you're |\n| 7 | saying any of that.
I'm saying here's the job or role that I |\n| 8 | have, right?
At least what I believe I've been told I'm |\n| 9 | supposed to do in this position is rule on matters that come |\n| 10 | before it and that impact the case as a whole, including the |\n| 11 | trustee's investigation, and the reason that the trustee was |\n| 12 | appointed in this case was to investigate the affairs of the |\n| 13 | debtor.
G Club has been -- apparently, from what has been |\n| 14 | put before this Court, been found to be part of a criminal |\n| 15 | enterprise that the debtor has been found guilty of by a jury |\n| 16 | of his peers. |\n| 17 | MR. SKLARZ:
Your Honor, Your Honor, I understand |\n| 18 | other things have occurred in this case.
In no proceeding |\n| 19 | where my client has been a defendant have they been found |\n| 20 | liable or guilty for anything -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
I didn't say that they did -- |\n| 22 | MR. SKLARZ:
-- period -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
-- they were, I didn't say that at |\n| 24 | all.
I've never said that.
I was talking about the main |\n| 25 | case, Attorney Sklarz. |\n| | |\n\n 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SKLARZ: In the main -- in any, in any case, the main case, in the adversary proceeding -- THE COURT: No, I know that -- MR. SKLARZ: -- the criminal proceeding -- THE COURT: -- no, no, no -- MR. SKLARZ: -- anything. THE COURT: -- don't get me wrong. I never said that your client was found guilty of anything. I didn't say your client was found guilty of anything, I said the debtor was -- MR. SKLARZ: They have been alleged -- THE COURT: -- the debtor was -- MR. SKLARZ: -- oh, I'm sorry, the debtor. THE COURT: -- well, no, it's more than allegations in the criminal action because the criminal action includes claims -- MR. SKLARZ: Oh, the debtor was indicted in - yes. THE COURT: So it's -- I'm not talking about - the criminal jury verdict includes G Club as the process through -- MR. SKLARZ: It does not. THE COURT: Okay, all right. Would you -- MR. SKLARZ: It does not. The criminal verdict -- THE COURT: -- like me to read it to you? Case 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 20 of 43\n\n 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SKLARZ: -- the criminal verdict -- THE COURT: It says that -- MR. SKLARZ: -- yes, the criminal verdict -- THE COURT: -- it says that Kwok used G Club as a way to defraud people and get money that was used to buy different assets that weren't -- with their money that they had no -- that's what it said, that's what the -- MR. SKLARZ: But G Club is not -- they were not a defendant to any criminal matter -- THE COURT: I didn't say -- MR. SKLARZ: -- there's not a preclusive effect -- THE COURT: -- they were a defendant -- MR. SKLARZ: -- on that -- THE COURT: -- Mr. Sklarz, I've never said that. I said that the jury found that Mr. Kwok used different vehicles to commit crimes -- MR. SKLARZ: Okay. THE COURT: -- and used different corporate entities to commit crimes. That's what the jury found. I didn't find it, the jury found it, right? MR. SKLARZ: And that -- and that certainly may be predicate for Attorney Bassett and the trustee to sue G Club, which they've done on several occasions. What it doesn't give them the ability to do is take this examination through a 2004 process, which is entirely different than under Rule Case 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 21 of 43\n\n| 1 | 30.
If they want discovery in one of the various adversary |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | proceedings, they should ask for it in the appropriate way. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Well, why don't we just do it this |\n| 4 | way?
Remember, I can cut form over substance.
I can deal -- |\n| 5 | so we'll lift the stay in one of the adversary proceedings, |\n| 6 | and I will deem the Rule 2004 examination order and the |\n| 7 | subpoena to be a notice of deposition under the Federal Rules |\n| 8 | of Civil Procedure, and your client will make themselves |\n| 9 | available for a deposition on November 20, unless you produce |\n| 10 | documents to Mr. Bassett that satisfies his questions prior |\n| 11 | to that date. |\n| 12 | MR. SKLARZ:
Obviously, we'll comply with Your |\n| 13 | Honor's order, if that's the order.
So, just to be clear, if |\n| 14 | Your Honor makes that order, we're proceeding under Rule 30 |\n| 15 | and Rule 26, not under Rule 24, and this -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, I said I could do that because |\n| 17 | what you're trying -- what you're saying -- |\n| 18 | MR. SKLARZ:
-- and this will be their one -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
-- I asked you initially what was the |\n| 20 | agreement, and you both -- and you said we've made a lot of |\n| 21 | progress, I don't see any progress other than agreement on a |\n| 22 | date of a deposition and topics narrowed by the trustee's |\n| 23 | counsel.
There's still -- you don't want me to -- you want |\n| 24 | me to grant a motion to quash, the trustee wants me to deny |\n| 25 | the motion, I don't see how that's progress.
There isn't an |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 23 of 43\n\n 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agreement here, there's still a need for the Court to rule. So if there's a need for the Court to rule, then I'll have to rule and that's what I'll do. MR. SKLARZ: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Attorney Bassett, in the -- you said that you recite in the response the narrowing of the topics that you would question the witness about? Which, by the way, who is -- MR. SKLARZ: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- the witness? MR. SKLARZ: The witness would be Andrew Childe, who is an employee, an agent of FFP, which is the fiduciary of G Club. THE COURT: And what's the authority -- MR. SKLARZ: And to be clear, Your Honor -- THE COURT: -- that Mr. Childe has as the fiduciary of G Club? MR. SKLARZ: Consents and other corporate documentation appointing FFP as the manager and director of G Club, from using the proper corporate structure ultimately executed by the ultimate beneficial owner of G Club. THE COURT: And he's going to disclose all that information to the trustee? MR. SKLARZ: The trustee -- we have offered to disclose that information to the trustee, all of that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 24 of 43\n\n| | 24 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | documentation. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
All right.
Well, then I -- |\n| 3 | MR. SKLARZ:
And that's -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
-- this is what I'm going to do -- |\n| 5 | MR. SKLARZ:
-- and Mr. Childe is the only person |\n| 6 | that I've ever taken instruction from, just to be clear. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Mr. Childe, is that what you said? |\n| 8 | MR. SKLARZ:
Mr. Childe, Mr. Childe, Andrew Childe |\n| 9 | -- FFP is the director and manager, Mr. Childe is the |\n| 10 | individual with whom I interface the most.
There's other |\n| 11 | people at FFP who I do interface with, but that's -- FFP is |\n| 12 | my client's representative. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
So who is FFP?
What does that stand |\n| 14 | for?
I've never heard that before. |\n| 15 | MR. SKLARZ:
FFP is the professional fiduciary, |\n| 16 | like, you know, a restructuring adviser, like an |\n| 17 | AlixPartners, they -- they're more offshore -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
So who appointed FFP to be that party? |\n| 19 | MR. SKLARZ:
The ultimate beneficial owner of G |\n| 20 | Club. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
And who is that? |\n| 22 | MR. SKLARZ:
Horan He. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Who? |\n| 24 | MR. SKLARZ:
His name is Horan, H-o-r-a-n, He, H |\n| 25 | e. |\n| | |\n\n 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. And where -- MR. BASSETT: And, Your Honor -- THE COURT: -- is Mr. He? MR. SKLARZ: I have no idea. I have no contact with him, he's not my client. My client is G Club and FFP, I do not represent -- THE COURT: So does FFP -- MR. SKLARZ: -- Horan He. THE COURT: -- have an agreement with Mr. He of what its -- MR. SKLARZ: Yes. THE COURT: -- authority is to act on behalf of G Club? MR. SKLARZ: Yes, and that's what we've offered to turn over to the trustee. THE COURT: And when was that entered into, when was that agreement entered into? MR. SKLARZ: In June of 2023. THE COURT: But the trustee is looking from the petition date forward. So what happened before then? MR. SKLARZ: Before then, G Club had employees, they all resigned. That was the genesis of the problem we had in 2023 before Your Honor. Once Mr. Kwok was -- THE COURT: Yeah, but isn't that a different person -- I'm sorry, I cut you off, Attorney Sklarz. My Case 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 25 of 43\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 26 of 43\n\n| | 26 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | recollection is the lawyer from New York, whose name I cannot |\n| 2 | remember and I'm sorry -- |\n| 3 | MR. SKLARZ:
Attorney Forness, Carolina Forness. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
-- Yeah, Attorney Forness, didn't she |\n| 5 | mention a different person than the person you just mentioned |\n| 6 | as the head of -- that she was taking direction from? |\n| 7 | MR. SKLARZ:
She was probably taking direction |\n| 8 | from the general counsel of G Club before he resigned.
I |\n| 9 | don't recall his name off the top of my head.
The general |\n| 10 | counsel -- everybody at G Club resigned in -- and, again, I |\n| 11 | don't have these dates committed to memory, but it was |\n| 12 | approximately March of 2023, which is what caused the problem |\n| 13 | in responding to discovery.
Until FFP was retained and |\n| 14 | gotten in place on approximately June -- in June of 2023, |\n| 15 | neither I nor Pillsbury had a client for all intents and |\n| 16 | purposes -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay, my -- again, I could -- |\n| 18 | MR. SKLARZ:
-- a client representative -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
-- be completely wrong on the |\n| 20 | recollection, but I don't recall the name Mr. He before.
I |\n| 21 | recall Attorney Forness speaking of another name, but I can't |\n| 22 | tell you what it is, so I could be wrong. |\n| 23 | MR. SKLARZ:
Mr. He is not an employee or |\n| 24 | executive at G Club, he's the ultimate beneficial owner. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Yeah, but he's the one who provided |\n| | |\n\n 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the authority to your client, FFP, to act on -- MR. SKLARZ: Correct. THE COURT: -- its behalf, right? MR. SKLARZ: Correct -- THE COURT: Isn't that what you just said? MR. SKLARZ: -- but just -- it is, but just because he provided the corporate authority doesn't mean he was effectively acting as CEO of G Club at any time -- at any time, let alone when it had professional management. THE COURT: Well, then -- MR. SKLARZ: I don't -- THE COURT: -- how did he have the authority to give FFP the authority to act on its behalf? MR. SKLARZ: He's the ultimate beneficial owner. It's like -- THE COURT: Well, the shareholder doesn't get to do that without the corporate authority. Where is the corporate authority? MR. SKLARZ: I'm -- THE COURT: Isn't it a Puerto Rican -- MR. SKLARZ: -- it's in the documentation -- THE COURT: -- company? MR. SKLARZ: There's a Puerto Rican LLC that's owned -- that's a sole owner is a BVI corporation, and then there's additional companies above that. That's all set Case 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 27 of 43\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3817
Filed 11/13/24
Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25
Page 28 of 43 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 28 |\n| 1 | forth in the corporate disclosure statements we filed -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 3 | MR. SKLARZ:
-- and identified -- and there's -- |\n| 4 | Your Honor, I want to make clear because I feel like there's |\n| 5 | a suggestion of hiding the ball here.
We're not hiding the |\n| 6 | ball, we've been very clear.
I represent G Club; G Club is |\n| 7 | managed by FFP.
FFP was appointed as the fiduciary of the |\n| 8 | company because of everything that happened with Mr. Kwok. |\n| 9 | So, regardless of what the trustee says about other |\n| 10 | companies, G Club had customers, G Club had independent |\n| 11 | assets, G Club provided goods and services to its customers, |\n| 12 | and G Club had large operations, it had a bank account at |\n| 13 | Banco Popular, it had other -- it had other relationships. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
So did HCHK, but they're gone, they've |\n| 15 | evaporated, they've evaporated and they evaporated -- in |\n| 16 | front of Judge Dooley they said that they evaporated.
I |\n| 17 | thought that was fascinating, actually, when we spent a year |\n| 18 | fighting about HCHK and the fact that they were supposedly |\n| 19 | creditors entitled to -- this assignment for the benefit of |\n| 20 | creditors in New York State Court. |\n| 21 | I hear what you're saying, but -- you say you |\n| 22 | represent G Club, but you don't have authority from G Club. |\n| 23 | The only authority you have -- |\n| 24 | MR. SKLARZ:
Yes, I do. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
-- is from FFP. |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | MR. SKLARZ:
No, I have authority from G Club.
My |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | retainer agreement is signed by G Club, my -- the documents |\n| 3 | are signed by G Club.
The -- Mr. He provided the corporate |\n| 4 | consents.
I have all of that information.
We offered to |\n| 5 | turn it over to the trustee.
I don't know -- this is a |\n| 6 | business, I don't -- if this was Green & Sklarz, which was |\n| 7 | owned by Green & Sklarz Holdings, which was owned by, you |\n| 8 | know, the Trustee Number 2 and Trustee Number 1, it is not |\n| 9 | unusual for companies to have layered ownership.
The |\n| 10 | consents are all there.
If the trustee doesn't like that, |\n| 11 | they can ask -- they can go take a deposition of whoever they |\n| 12 | want, but this has nothing -- that has nothing to do with G |\n| 13 | Club.
We've offered to provide that information. |\n| 14 | So the deposition of who runs G Club, FFP runs G |\n| 15 | Club, subject to -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
All right.
So this is -- |\n| 17 | MR. SKLARZ:
-- whatever it says -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
-- what I'm going to do -- |\n| 19 | MR. SKLARZ:
-- in those documents. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
-- I'm going to order you, Attorney |\n| 21 | Sklarz, to turn over the documents you say you're going to |\n| 22 | turn over, and I'm going to give Attorney Bassett some time |\n| 23 | to review it.
And then we're going to have a further status |\n| 24 | conference, at which point we'll discuss whether or not a |\n| 25 | deposition is necessary.
But I'm not going to give you a lot |\n\n 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of time because we've already got an agreed-upon of a deposition of November 20. MR. SKLARZ: And I don't want to -- I will -- I am visiting -- the next day I leave to visit my daughter, who's spending the semester studying in Rome, so I do want to hold that date. I would hope that the Court -- THE COURT: All right, so then you -- MR. SKLARZ: -- wouldn't make me cancel those plans. THE COURT: -- should be able to get these documents to -- today is Wednesday -- MR. SKLARZ: I'll have them today, I'll have them today; I'll send them right now. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: And, Your Honor, just so I'm clear, I think it was the Court's intention to say that Attorney Sklarz would provide the documents, we would then have a further status conference between now and -- THE COURT: And November 20th -- MR. BASSETT: -- a date -- THE COURT: -- that's correct. MR. BASSETT: -- yeah -- THE COURT: And then if your review -- MR. BASSETT: -- to ensure that the deposition could still -- Case 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 30 of 43\n\n1 2 3 4 5 THE COURT: Yeah, if your review -- if you say I still need to ask these questions, then I'll determine whether or not you're entitled to ask those questions on November 20. MR. BASSETT: Understood, Your Honor. And I just\n\n6 7 8 wanted to be clear from the trustee's perspective, obviously, I don't want to prejudge anything, but I think it's highly unlikely that documentation would be sufficient --\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 THE COURT: Well, then -- but the document you can enlighten me about, right? I'm not enlightened about anything at the moment. So, when the documentation gets turned over, you can enlighten the Court as to whether or not it answers the questions and the topics that you agreed to with Attorney Sklarz would be the subject of the deposition.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. SKLARZ: Well, to be clear, Your Honor, I'm supplying corporate documentation, that will not answer a question like where is G Club getting its funding from. That documentation, as I've told Attorney Bassett, I'm willing -- I can pull together, we don't have an objection to pulling that together, but I don't have all of that information at my fingertips as I do the corporate documentation.\n\n22 23 24 25 MR. BASSETT: And the other comment I would make, Your Honor, is that the corporate documentation, which I have no reason to doubt what Attorney Sklarz is saying, I expect that that corporate documentation will show that FFP was\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 actually appointed to serve as the nominal fiduciary at this time for G Club. But that is something we have seen time and time again, and it is nothing, in our view, other than a way for Mr. Kwok and those close to him to nominally disassociate themselves (indiscernible) so what really matters to us is who's behind the scenes. Who at FFP is making decisions and giving instructions to Mr. Sklarz, and from whom is that person taking direction. Is it Mr. He? What kind of conversations are they having with Mr. He? Where is Mr. He? From whom is Mr. He taking instructions? How are they getting their funding? Are they engaged in any activities other than litigation? If so, what are those activities? Who's making decisions in the litigation?\n\n14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Because what we've seen with HCHK, what we've seen time and time again is that fiduciary firms come in and they act as assignees or they act as representatives in an insolvency proceeding in the United Kingdom or in some island in the Caribbean, and they're there to stand in and put a layer of separation between the people who are actually making the decisions and calling the shots and these people who are nominally appointed. And that -- so getting the documentation showing this nominal appointment is certainly not going to satisfy us, but I'm happy to do this in a stepby-step process, to take a look at it and to come back to the Court and have a further status conference. That's obviously\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 acceptable to the trustee and we'll do whatever the Court orders. THE COURT: Mr. Sklarz is going to turn over to you -- now, wait a minute, Mr. Sklarz, I heard you say you would gather other things, but you already have corporate documents that you can get to them this afternoon? MR. SKLARZ: Yes. I'll email -- as soon as this hearing ends, I'll email them to Attorney Bassett. THE COURT: All right. What other information are you going to gather that you're going to turn over to Attorney Bassett? MR. SKLARZ: Well, what we had proposed was pulling together -- he had -- they had asked, there were three -- there were basically three questions, and this is from paragraph 5 of their opposition: Whether the persons directing G Club have changed since the debtor's arrest and subsequent conviction, the answer is no, it remains FFP. Whether G Club -- THE COURT: And the documents -- MR. SKLARZ: -- has any continuing -- THE COURT: -- show that, Attorney Sklarz? Do the documents show that? MR. SKLARZ: They do. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. SKLARZ: Whether G Club has any continuing\n\n33\n\n| 1 | operations aside from litigation, and the answer is yes. |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | One, preservation of corporate records; number two, whether |\n| 3 | the trustee or Mr. Bassett or anyone believes this is the |\n| 4 | case, FFP, as fiduciary for G Club, believes its |\n| 5 | responsibility is to ensure that whatever proceeds, whatever |\n| 6 | funds of G Club that have been seized by the Government, |\n| 7 | which I think is about \\$200 million, is returned to those |\n| 8 | customers who we call members and not dissipated in some |\n| 9 | fashion.
That money was seized by the U.S. Government and |\n| 10 | presumably will be forfeited through a civil forfeiture.
FFP |\n| 11 | believes its fiduciary duty is to ensure that money goes back |\n| 12 | to G Club's customers, again, who we call members, not LLC |\n| 13 | members -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Well, wouldn't you have to do that in |\n| 15 | the criminal proceeding? |\n| 16 | MR. SKLARZ:
Exactly, precisely.
And then, third, |\n| 17 | how -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Yeah, but that's not -- but that's not |\n| 19 | the question, though.
The question is -- all right, so |\n| 20 | anyway. |\n| 21 | MR. SKLARZ:
Well, the question was what are our |\n| 22 | operations?
Our operations are to wind down the company.
We |\n| 23 | can't just pitch all the records into the ocean and say we're |\n| 24 | done with it, although given as much fun as I have at these |\n| 25 | -- in this case, perhaps that's what we should do. |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, I'm sure you don't really want to do that. MR. SKLARZ: No, of course not. We don't -- we don't -- FFP -- I take my job seriously and FFP takes their job seriously, and we believe preservation of records and winding down the operations for the benefit of the customers is important. So those are the ongoing operations. How G Club's ongoing litigation efforts are being funded is the third question asked in paragraph 5. I can explain how -- I know what's happening, but I don't have all of the documentation. That's what I indicated to Attorney Bassett would take a little bit more time to pull together, I have conversations set up to do that. So I can't turn that over now, but -- THE COURT: Can Mr. Childe produce an affidavit about it? He's the financial adviser or fiduciary on behalf of the company. Can't he produce -- MR. SKLARZ: Correct -- THE COURT: -- the data? MR. SKLARZ: -- that's what we would do. Yes, that's what we proposed. We proposed Mr. Childe provide an affidavit on these three questions. And, if there's certain other corollary questions that Mr. Bassett wants to know, we would put those in an affidavit. That's why we don't view it as necessary to have a deposition. His conversations with\n\n 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. He, his conver -- Mr. He's conversations with Mr. Jay, I don't -- I don't know anything about that. I don't represent Mr. He. THE COURT: But you don't have to know anything about that, your client might. MR. SKLARZ: He might, but they're irrelevant to what the trustee says they're trying to do -- THE COURT: I don't think it's irrelevant -- MR. SKLARZ: -- which -- THE COURT: -- at all, I don't think it's irrelevant at all, Attorney Sklarz. That's where I disagree with you. It's not irrelevant. He is conducting an investigation, whether you know anything about it is irrelevant, whether your client knows anything about it is irrelevant. The trustee gets to ask the question under oath and have an answer to that question under oath, he gets to do that. MR. SKLARZ: And that's fine. The questions should be asked -- and if he wants to know what questions - the conversations about Mr. He, if we're doing this in the context of a deposition as opposed to Rule 2004, okay, then Rule 26 and Rule 30 -- THE COURT: I didn't say -- MR. SKLARZ: -- should apply, that's fine. THE COURT: -- we were doing it in the context of Case 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 36 of 43\n\n 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a deposition other than a 2004. I said let's cut to the case on your argument, couldn't he ask the same questions if I lifted the stay and it was in a deposition. So -- but I didn't say -- MR. SKLARZ: He could, but -- THE COURT: -- I was doing that -- MR. SKLARZ: -- we have more protection. THE COURT: -- and it's not teed up that way. Okay? MR. SKLARZ: Fair enough. THE COURT: That was -- look, I'm not going to take too much more time. Here's what's going to happen. You're going to produce the corporate records of G Club that you have in your -- you and/or your client has in their possession and control to Attorney Bassett by 5 o'clock today. Then you're going to gather up additional information that you and Attorney Bassett have discussed, and you're going to provide that to him -- can you -- I'm going to -- today is Wednesday, do you believe you can produce it by Friday? MR. SKLARZ: I cannot, Your Honor. I -- THE COURT: What about Monday? MR. SKLARZ: Monday close of business would probably be the best I could do, but I -- THE COURT: Just know that -- Case 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 37 of 43\n\n 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SKLARZ: -- if I need more -- THE COURT: -- we're closed on Monday, it's Veterans Day, but most -- I think law firms are not closed on Monday. The Court is closed on Monday. MR. SKLARZ: We're open and we'll endeavor to do it. My only issue is there -- I am beholden to third parties. If I need additional time -- THE COURT: Well, third parties -- MR. SKLARZ: -- I will ask Attorney Bassett -- THE COURT: -- better understand that they're subject to a subpoena right now, okay? MR. SKLARZ: Oh, yeah, no question. THE COURT: And the Court is telling them they need to get this information together; otherwise, they may be in violation of a subpoena. MR. SKLARZ: Again -- THE COURT: I understand your point -- MR. SKLARZ: -- I'm not saying we won't do it -- THE COURT: -- I do, I do understand your point -- MR. SKLARZ: -- I'm trying -- THE COURT: -- I do understand your point -- MR. SKLARZ: -- it's a timing issue. THE COURT: -- however, you need to make them aware that this is -- this is not -- I will -- I'll just enter an order then that they're in violation of the Case 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 38 of 43\n\n 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 subpoena, I can do that. So I understand it may take some time, but this motion and your motion has been pending since -- well, I think your motion was filed back on October what day? MR. SKLARZ: The 28th. THE COURT: Yeah, and the subpoena and everything was issued well before that, I think October 18th or something. So the point is -- I understand your point, I really do, but we are not going to -- it was actually issued before that because the examination was supposed to be October 18th. It was issued on October 9th -- MR. BASSETT: It was October 9th -- THE COURT: -- and it's -- yeah -- MR. BASSETT: -- yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- October 9th and it's November 6th. So, 30 days, right? So the issue is, I understand what you're saying, but you have to make your clients aware that, if they don't comply, they're subject to an order of the Court finding them -- you know, that they're in violation of a court order. MR. SKLARZ: We will do our utmost to comply with the court order and, if for whatever reason we need a little more time, I will file a motion. THE COURT: Well, or if you and Attorney Bassett Case 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 39 of 43\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3817
Filed 11/13/24
Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25
Page 40 of 43 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 40 |\n| 1 | agree on that, you don't need to file a motion.
Okay? |\n| 2 | MR. SKLARZ:
Understood. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
But I know you both have been working |\n| 4 | and trying to come up with a solution, I understand that and |\n| 5 | I appreciate it, but there still isn't enough of a solution |\n| 6 | at the moment.
So we'll take it in this step.
You're going |\n| 7 | to produce by 5:00 p.m. today, Attorney Sklarz, the documents |\n| 8 | you have in your possession and control, or your client has |\n| 9 | in their possession and control, with regard to the corporate |\n| 10 | records.
So Mr. Childs -- is that his name?
I apologize, |\n| 11 | but I think that's what you said. |\n| 12 | MR. SKLARZ:
Childe -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Child, no S? |\n| 14 | MR. SKLARZ:
-- C-h-i-l-d-e.
No S. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Whatever he has he better have given |\n| 16 | to you. |\n| 17 | MR. SKLARZ:
I have them all.
As soon as this |\n| 18 | hearing ends, I will email Attorney Bassett, that's not an |\n| 19 | issue. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay, all right.
Then with regard to |\n| 21 | the other documents, you're going to work to provide |\n| 22 | everything by November 11th.
If you can't because of third |\n| 23 | parties, you and Attorney Bassett will talk and see if |\n| 24 | Attorney Bassett will agree to a 24-hour extension, something |\n| 25 | along those lines, and then we're going to continue this |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | hearing to November 18th at 1:00 p.m.
And we can continue it |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | to be -- have it remote, so nobody has to come to court, but |\n| 3 | at that point, if there still isn't an agreement and the |\n| 4 | trustee is asking the Court to allow the trustee to proceed |\n| 5 | with the deposition that's scheduled on November 20th, that |\n| 6 | request may be granted.
I don't know yet, but it could be. |\n| 7 | So I want everybody to understand that, your clients in |\n| 8 | particular, that it may in fact be that there's going to be a |\n| 9 | deposition on November 20.
Okay? |\n| 10 | MR. SKLARZ:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I'm not going to issue any kind of |\n| 12 | written ruling with regard to what I said.
I am so ordering |\n| 13 | all this on the record. |\n| 14 | MR. SKLARZ:
Understood, Your Honor, we'll -- we |\n| 15 | will comply. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 17 | MR. SKLARZ:
Thank you. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Is there anything else that we can |\n| 19 | accomplish this afternoon? |\n| 20 | MR. SKLARZ:
Not from G Club's perspective, Your |\n| 21 | Honor. |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
Not from the trustee's point of |\n| 23 | view.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay, all right.
So let's see how |\n| 25 | things progress in the next few days, understanding that -- I |\n| | |\n\n mean you'll do what you all need to do. Just remember, though, if you would, please, the court is closed on Monday, November 1st, so there will be no court staff or anything available. If you needed something, you could still file it, but it won't be reviewed until the 12th at the earliest. Okay? MR. SKLARZ: Understood, Your Honor. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right, that concludes today's hearing. And that is the last matter on today's calendar, so court is adjourned. Thank you all. (Proceedings concluded at 1:57 p.m.)\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3817
Filed 11/13/24
Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25
Page 43 of 43 | |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | 43 | |\n| 1 | CERTIFICATION | |\n| 2 | I certify that the foregoing is a correct | |\n| 3 | transcript from the electronic sound recording of the | |\n| 4 | proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of my | |\n| 5 | knowledge and ability. | |\n| 6 | | |\n| 7 | /s/ Tracey J. Williams
November 11, 2024 | |\n| 8 | Tracey J. Williams, CET-914 | |\n| 9 | Certified Court Transcriptionist | |\n| 10 | For Reliable | |\n| 11 | | |\n| 12 | | |\n| 13 | | |\n| 14 | | |\n| 15 | | |\n| 16 | | |\n| 17 | | |\n| 18 | | |\n| 19 | | |\n| 20 | | |\n| 21 | | |\n| 22 | | |\n| 23 | | |\n| 24 | | |\n| 25 | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |","body_zh":"美利坚合众国破产法院\n康涅狄格州地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\n\n第11章\n\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n\n（合并管理）\n\n债务人。\n\n第123法庭\nBrien McMahon Federal Building（布赖恩·麦克马洪联邦大楼）\n915 Lafayette Boulevard\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n\n2024年11月6日，星期三\n\n下午1:09\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美利坚合众国破产法官面前举行听证会的庭审记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第11章受托人：\n\nLuc A. Despins, Esquire（吕克·A·德斯潘斯律师）\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n\n以及\n\nNicholas A. Bassett, Esquire（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特律师）\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n2050 M Street, NW\nWashington, DC 20036\n\n（出庭人员续）\n\n音频操作员：电子录音\n\n庭审记录公司：\nReliable\nThe Nemours Building\n1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110\nWilmington, Delaware 19801\n电话：(302)654-8080\n电子邮箱：gmatthews@reliable-co.com\n\n庭审程序以电子声音录音记录，庭审记录由记录服务机构制作。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3817 提交日期 11/13/24 录入日期 11/13/24 14:25:25 第 1 页，共 43 页\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 3817 提交日期 11/13/24 录入日期 11/13/24 14:25:25 第 2 页，共 43 页\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表 G Club Operations, LLC（G Club运营有限责任公司）及 G Club International, LLC（G Club国际有限责任公司）：\n\nJeffrey M. Sklarz, Esquire（杰弗里·M·斯克拉兹律师）\nGREEN & SKLARZ, LLC（格林与斯克拉兹有限责任公司）\nOne Audubon Street\n3rd Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06511\n\n代表债权人 Pax：\n\nAnnecca H. Smith, Esquire（安妮卡·H·史密斯律师）\nROBINSON&COLE LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\nOne State Street\nHartford, Connecticut 06103\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3817 提交日期 11/13/24 录入日期 11/13/24 14:25:25 第 3 页，共 43 页\n\n目录\n\n动议： 页码\n\n事项 由 Jeffrey M. Sklarz 代表利害关系方 G Club Operations, LLC 提交的撤销受托人依据规则2004进行审查之传票的动议 4\n\n庭审记录员证明 43\n\n（庭审于下午1:09开始。）\n\n法庭：下午好。日程表上有一项下午1:00的事项，因此我请法警助理宣读日程。\n\n书记员：案号22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法庭：好的，下午好。请为记录说明出庭人员，先请第11章受托人？\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下，我是第11章受托人 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯潘斯）。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nBASSETT先生：以及下午好——抱歉，法官阁下——下午好，法官阁下，我是代表第11章受托人的保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nSKLARZ先生：下午好，法官阁下，我是代表 G Club Operations, LLC 的 Jeffrey Sklarz（杰弗里·斯克拉兹）。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nSMITH女士：下午好，法官阁下，我是代表债权人 PAX 的罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所 Annecca Smith（安妮卡·史密斯），只是预计今日将会（听不清）。\n\n法庭：谢谢。下午好。那么，今日日程表上的事项是由 G Club 提交的撤销动议，斯克拉兹律师，以及受托人提出的反对意见。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3817 提交日期 11/13/24 录入日期 11/13/24 14:25:25 第 4 页，共 43 页\n\n我知道此前有一些讨论，我不知道是否涉及撤销动议的实质内容，但截至今日，各方当事人是否有任何关于事项进展情况需要报告？\n\nSKLARZ先生：是的，法官阁下。我们尚未解决此事项。巴塞特律师和我，以及我们的同事，已经进行过数次电话交谈并交换大量电子邮件，试图缩小争议范围；我认为我们已大幅缩小争议范围。我们讨论了如果我的撤销动议未获支持时的后勤安排。因此，我认为我们已尽力精简程序并试图达成解决方案。不幸的是，我认为——我们提出了一项建议，我将予以说明，我仍认为该建议适当，即以非证言录取的方式答复某些询问；但我相信受托人认为他们需要进行证言录取，并且有权进行证言录取，而我们对此恭敬地表示异议。\n\n因此，我们已进行了大量讨论并试图解决此事，且已缩小争议范围。\n\n法庭：那么，如果受托人希望进行证言录取，而你认为不应进行证言录取，争议是如何缩小的？我不知道你在说什么，因此你需要向我说明。\n\nSKLARZ先生：我可以澄清。我相信——如果我有误，巴塞特律师可以纠正我——我们讨论过各项议题。G Club 认为这些议题过于宽泛；受托人在来回讨论中已同意缩减这些议题。我们提议，就其中某些议题以书面宣誓方式作出答复并提供文件；我们认为，这足以向他们提供所需信息，而这些信息可以说具有规则2004审查的性质。受托人认为他们应能够取得——进行证言录取，以提出追问和进一步询问；我认为——同样，我可以就此作出更实质性的说明——这些讨论和询问更类似于与 G Club 有关的大量对抗程序中的证言录取。因此，我们认为，在无需进行证言录取的情况下，我们可以向受托人提供聚焦于他们所称需要的信息，而不超出范围。\n\nBASSETT先生：法官阁下，我们可以——\n\n法庭：巴塞特律师？\n\nBASSETT先生：是，法官阁下。我们当然可以讨论各项论点，包括斯克拉兹律师和 G Club 关于在存在尚未终结的对抗程序的情况下，规则2004证言录取是否适当的立场。我暂且搁置该问题，只试图回答法庭关于争议在何种程度上已被缩小的问题。\n\n从我们的角度而言，基于已经进行的讨论，正如法庭从斯克拉兹律师的反对意见以及我相信与其相关的加速审理动议中所知，我们至少已就证言录取日期达成一致，即如其继续进行，则为11月20日。斯克拉兹律师和我也讨论过他所提及的后勤安排，这将解决他在异议中提出的一个问题，即证言录取地点及其进行地点。我们曾表示，如有必要，我们准备前往证人所在地；但我认为，为了各方当事人的便利，我们同意，在落实所有适当后勤安排的前提下，以远程方式进行该证言录取。因此，我认为，至少就异议而言，该问题已不复存在。\n\n然后，如斯克拉兹律师所述，问题实际上归结为是否将进行证言录取，以及如进行，应涉及哪些议题。我们认为证言录取绝对必要；如法庭愿意，我们可以说明所有理由。\n\n至于缩小拟议议题范围，这已载于我们对反对意见的答复中。基本上共有五项议题，我们同意进一步限制它们——我们认为它们本已范围狭窄，但基本上 G Club 提出的若干异议之一是，这些议题可能被理解为允许我们就任何 G Club 关联方提出问题；我认为，在斯克拉兹律师看来，这可能扩及许多、许多不同实体。我们已澄清，我们真正希望审查的是 G Club 及其直接母公司的所有权结构；此外，如我们在询问过程中发现存在其他在指导 G Club 运营方面具有某种作用或影响的实体，我们将就那些实体进行询问，但我们并非试图将证言录取扩大至所有与 Kwok（郭文贵）有关的实体。\n\n我们还同意回应其中一项异议，将议题在时间范围上限于自破产申请日以后发生的事项。因此，我们不会审查 G Club 与债务人及其他方之间大量破产申请前的关系，而该等关系更是尚未终结的对抗程序的核心内容。显然，我们可以在今日听证过程中更详细地讨论所有这些问题；但我只是想从我们的角度向法庭澄清，我们所认为争议已被限制的方面。我认为，围绕证言录取将在何地、何时进行的后勤安排已经解决，议题范围也有所缩小；但我们对于是否会进行证言录取，以及缩小后的议题是否适宜作为证言录取议题，仍存在争议。\n\n法庭：那么，你请求法庭采取何种行动？\n\nBASSETT先生：嗯，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：裁定证言录取是否将继续进行，以及议题为何？\n\nBASSETT先生：由于我们是就斯克拉兹律师的撤销动议出庭，我将此问题留给斯克拉兹律师；但受托人的立场当然是，撤销动议应予驳回，证言录取应以远程方式继续进行，并涵盖受托人以我刚才所述方式缩小范围后的议题。这是受托人的立场；而且我认为，只要 G Club 的撤销动议仍在，那么该撤销动议就应被驳回——或者必须被驳回，因为该动议所寻求的救济显然是完全阻止证言录取继续进行。\n\n法庭：好的。斯克拉兹律师？\n\nSKLARZ先生：确实如此，我们请求法庭准许我们的动议，禁止进行证言录取；并且，如我们所示，我们将以书面形式提供该等信息，我仍将就此作出更实质性的说明；如果这导致进一步询问，也许那是适当的。然而，再次说明，我们在书面陈述中解释了我们的立场，特别是依据待决诉讼规则，本案实际上只是试图获得与那些涉及另我人格、欺诈性转让以及实质上了解 G Club 公司治理结构的案件有关的信息。\n\n再次说明，有三个基本——再次，我不想过多进入论证。我想确保我正在回答法官阁下的问题，也不想探讨得过深，因此——我就先说到这里。\n\n法庭：那么，我先从一开始提出的问题说起。那么，这如何被缩小？唯一被缩小的是，如果法庭驳回撤销动议，你们已就证言录取日期达成一致，并且你们已就议题内容达成一致；但你刚才说过，斯克拉兹律师，你希望撤销动议获准。\n\n因此，按照你的说法，我仍须作出裁定，除非我遗漏了什么，这就是我刚才所听到的。\n\nSKLARZ先生：不，不，不，我认为您是正确的，法官阁下，但我们提议将以提供该等信息替代证言录取。因此，我想该动议可被部分准许，因为我们已提出这一提议——巴塞特律师拒绝了，但法官阁下或许会说，嘿，Jeff（杰夫），你今天的做法很合理，我将以该种方式加以限制，或者您可能会说我是——\n\n法庭：那么，我不希望就撤销动议再举行一次听证会，对吗？所以要么你——\n\n该动议被驳回，程序——证言录取日期将按照所列议题继续进行；与此同时，你们提供该等信息，然后或许你们双方会同意无需进行证言录取，或者动议获准，并发生任何相应后果。但问题在于，本案中 G Club（G俱乐部）已经出现过证据开示问题，对吗？我们此前与来自 New York（纽约）的律师——我很抱歉，我记不起她的名字——讨论过此事；她曾出庭并就 G Club 以及与 2004 subpoena（2004号传票）相关的问题进行了相当长时间的辩论——顺便说一句，这是我的记忆，因此并不意味着我是正确的。你们都可以纠正我，但这是我的记忆。现在，受托人作为 Rule 2004 examination（第2004条规则审查）的一部分，并就已经出示的文件——\n\nSKLARZ先生：不——\n\n法庭：——你为什么说不？\n\nSKLARZ先生：——不是——因为这是——所以，有两点。第一，这是作为 2004 审查一部分的证言录取，范围非常有限——针对非常具体——非常具体的议题。没有任何议题涉及 G Club 此前在证据开示中出示的任何内容。因此，这是第一点。第二，我谨不同意 G Club 在证据开示方面存在问题。我们曾有证据开示争议，将其提交法庭，其中很大一部分——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3817 于 11/13/24 提交 于 11/13/24 14:25:25 录入 第 12 页，共 43 页\n\n——涉及因 G Club 全体专业人员辞职这一性质问题，试图在本案中取得一名独立受托人的问题，以及如何解决该问题。\n\n法庭：但我不是——\n\nSKLARZ先生：从未——\n\n法庭：——作出过一项命令，驳回 G Club 的——我的意思是，我记得——你知道，听着，这实际上并不重要。\n\nSKLARZ先生：您裁定——\n\n法庭：不过，我的记忆是——\n\nSKLARZ先生：——支持受托人，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——已经作出一项命令，要求 G Club 就——\n\nSKLARZ先生：对。\n\n法庭：——证据开示采取某些行动，而它当时称其不应需要采取该等行动。\n\nSKLARZ先生：而我们遵守了——我们遵守了该命令。\n\n法庭：对，但那是在举行数次听证、时间流逝且未能达成协议之后。而且，如你所知，这是证据开示争议，所以我无需出具任何书面意见。我可以直接说——我可以直接说准许或驳回，这是证据开示争议。\n\nSKLARZ先生：我并非——\n\n并非另有主张，法官阁下。\n\n另一项发生重大变化的事情是，受托人已至少三次起诉 G Club，并在其他若干诉讼中将其列为欺诈性转让人。因此，这已不再是诉前证据开示。我们必须——\n\n法庭：那么，即使我在这一点上同意你——我并不是说我同意或不同意——但即使我同意你，那么他们现在就可以在那一案件中对你进行证言录取。有什么能阻止他们这样做并提出这些问题？即使我同意你——我并不是说我同意——但他们为什么不能在那些对抗程序之一中通过证言录取通知和传票提出这些问题？\n\nSKLARZ先生：嗯，大多数那些案件都处于中止状态。\n\n法庭：嗯，那——\n\nSKLARZ先生：唯一的一个——\n\n法庭：——嗯，这正是问题所在，对吗？因此它们处于中止状态。\n\nSKLARZ先生：嗯，但是——\n\n法庭：所以——\n\nSKLARZ先生：——它们处于中止状态，但是——\n\n法庭：——但是他们正在寻求证据开示，对此回应是——\n\nSKLARZ先生：他们正在寻求——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3817\n于 11/13/24 提交\n于 11/13/24 14:25:25 录入\n\n法庭：——此前有——\n\nSKLARZ先生：——一次 2004 审查——\n\n法庭：——未决诉讼，存在困难，而且有人——有人位于 Puerto Rico（波多黎各）。我的理解是，受托人表示他会前往波多黎各，因此这解决了该问题。此前未决诉讼的问题，无论我是否同意——即使我同意确有这样的诉讼，也没有任何规定说他不能在证言录取中提出同样的问题。因此，我们不会进行形式重于实质的问题，这是第二点。第三，这是证据开示，范围广泛，无论是在 2004 审查的语境中，还是在对抗程序的语境中。你不能——我认为很难主张，所寻求信息的议题，即据我理解，谁负责 G Club、它位于何处、谁有权代表它作出决定——这不就是你所问的吗，Bassett 律师（Attorney Bassett）？\n\nBASSETT律师：从实质上说，这是正确的，法官阁下。传票有许多非常重要的背景情况，我知道法庭对此十分了解，但促使我们发出传票的主要原因之一，是我所称的我们最近看到的管理层变动，鉴于债务人被逮捕、被定罪，以及他现在将在可预见的未来被监禁这一事实。我们看到与债务人有关联的实体运作方式发生了各种不同的变化；我们看到其中一些实体收摊；我们看到其中一些实体显然继续接受其他人的指示。有 HCHK entities（HCHK实体），它们突然撤回了上诉；在此过程中，在 Dooley 法官（Judge Dooley）主持的一次听证中，有迹象表明，指挥 HCHK 实体的人是债务人的前律师 Yan Bing Zhang（张岩冰，音），此人已多次受到制裁。还有 Taurus Fund（Taurus基金，音）的整场闹剧，它们突然拒绝遵守法院命令。我们已就另一家债务人的前律师事务所似乎在幕后指挥 Taurus Fund 一事送达另一份 2004 传票，包括在本法庭前处理其诉状。\n\n各种事情正在不透明地发生，未通知受托人，而这一切对于我们正在进行的调查都极为重要。我们需要了解目前正在发生什么，谁处于控制地位。如果债务人被监禁，而他的头号副手 Yvette Wang（伊薇特·王）与他一同被监禁，究竟是谁仍在指示那些在本法庭前进行诉讼的实体？在本案中，他们在与谁交谈？如果这个位于 Cayman Islands（开曼群岛）的实体名义上是负责 G Club 的人，是谁任命了他们？\n\n围绕该任命进行了哪些对话？谁在日常基础上发出指示？该组织中的人员正在与其他人进行什么对话？G Club 如何获得资金？该等资金来源与 G Club 有何关联，它们又与债务人有何关联？\n\n存在各种我们需要了解的信息，以确定我们还需要追查哪些其他线索，查明这——目前的遗产资产可能位于何处，从而我们可以进一步追查这些线索，以查明正在发生什么。这些都是我们需要追查的事项。\n\n因此，这正是——我认为法官阁下所陈述的完全正确，但我只是想提供所有这些背景，说明我们为何在此时送达该传票。对我们而言，获得这些信息极其重要。我们认为这——你知道，议题范围很窄；仅限于我刚才描述的那些。我们并非试图在此庭重新审理或审理债务人与 G Club 之间的全部关系。我承认，其中许多问题将在 omnibus alter ego litigation（综合替身人格诉讼）中审理，但我们现在需要的信息，是为了确定还可能有哪些遗产资产，我们还需要探索与债务人的哪些其他联系，而这具有时间敏感性，因为正如我们过去所见，信息会很快过时。\n\n事情被四处转移，因此我们因该等原因需要证据开示，法官阁下。\n\nSKLARZ先生：法官阁下，这是完全本末倒置，而且至少自从我的律师事务所和 FFP 参与以来，G Club 从未以任何该等方式行事。\n\n法庭：Sklarz 律师（Attorney Sklarz），这或许是真的——\n\nSKLARZ先生：我们认为这极其——\n\n法庭：——我并非不同意你——\n\nSKLARZ先生：——我们认为这极其、极其不公平。\n\n法庭：抱歉。我并非不同意你，但有一点——我的意思是，有几件事情，对吗？显然，除非有人将其他程序中所说的内容提交给本法庭，否则我不知道本法庭外的其他程序中说了什么，对吗？因此，显然——而且在 Dooley 法官面前的一份庭审记录中准确记载——该法官——不，不过请听我说完，Sklarz 律师，我并不是在说这个——不过请听我说完，好吗？Shaban 律师（Attorney Shaban，音）说——顺便说一句，我向他问了与 Dooley 法官相同的问题，而他从未回答我的问题，但他回答了 Dooley 法官关于他接受谁指示的问题，他回答说他接受 Yan Bing Zhang 的指示。\n\n这就是他对 Dooley 法官所说的。当我问他该问题时，他拒绝回答。但无论如何，他随后说——\n\nSKLARZ先生：我不知道这些人是谁。\n\n法庭：嗯，是的，我们知道，我们都知道他们是谁。因此——\n\nSKLARZ先生：不，不，不，除——\n\n法庭：嗯，你可能不知道，但我们知道——\n\nSKLARZ先生：——Bassett 律师所说的以外，我不知道 Young Bang Zhang（音）是谁。\n\n法庭：——你看？而受托人知道，他正在进行调查。还有另一点——无论你是否知道他都无关紧要，是你——顺便说一句，你的客户是已出现在本法庭前的当事人，并且在主案中，除对抗程序外，曾请求救济。这没有问题，你们有权这样做，但受托人——\n\nSKLARZ先生：而我们正在请求——\n\n法庭：——同样有权进行证据开示。在 Dooley 法官面前发生的另一件事，当我阅读这份庭审记录时我觉得很有意思，是 Shaban 律师说他与 Pasteur 律师（Attorney Pasteur）及其客户之间存在共同辩护协议，而我向那些律师提出了完全相同的问题。\n\n在本法庭内，我从未被告知那些答案。事实上，我被告知，哦，我们过去曾在同一家律师事务所共事，但仅此而已。这就是我被告知的。好吗？\n\nSKLARZ先生：我明白，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：而且，听着，我不是——你必须明白，Sklarz 律师，我并不是说你在说任何那些事情。我是说，这是我所承担的职责或角色，对吗？至少我相信我被告知，在这个职位上我应当做的是，对提交至本法庭并影响整个案件的事项作出裁决，包括受托人的调查，而受托人在本案中被任命的原因是调查债务人的事务。G Club——显然，根据提交给本法庭的材料，已被认定为犯罪企业的一部分，而债务人已被由其同侪组成的陪审团认定犯有该犯罪企业罪。\n\nSKLARZ先生：法官阁下，法官阁下，我理解本案中已经发生了其他事情。在任何我的客户作为被告的程序中，他们均未被认定对任何事项承担责任或有罪——\n\n法庭：我没有说他们被认定了——\n\nSKLARZ先生：——句号——\n\n法庭：——我完全没有那样说。我从未那样说过。我说的是主案，Sklarz 律师。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：在主案中——在任何、任何案件中，在主案中，在对抗程序中——\n\n法院：不，我知道——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——刑事程序——\n\n法院：——不，不，不——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——任何事项。\n\n法院：——别误解我。我从未说过你的委托人被认定犯有任何罪行。我没有说你的委托人被认定犯有任何罪行；我说的是债务人——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：他们只是被指称——\n\n法院：——债务人是——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——哦，抱歉，是债务人。\n\n法院：——嗯，不，刑事诉讼中的情况不只是指称，因为刑事诉讼包含相关主张——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：哦，债务人被起诉了——是的。\n\n法院：所以——我不是在谈论——刑事陪审团裁决将 G Club（G俱乐部）包括为通过其实施的途径——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：没有。\n\n法院：好，好。您是否——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：没有。刑事裁决——\n\n法院：——希望我给您读出来吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3817 提交日期 11/13/24 登记日期 11/13/24 14:25:25 第 20 页，共 43 页\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——刑事裁决——\n\n法院：其中写道——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——是的，刑事裁决——\n\n法院：——其中写道，Kwok（郭文贵）利用 G Club 作为欺诈他人并获取资金的途径，这些资金被用于购买不同资产，而这些资产并非——是用他们无权支配的资金购买的——这就是其中所述，这就是——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：但 G Club 并非——他们并非任何刑事事项中的被告——\n\n法院：我没有说——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——不存在排除效力——\n\n法院：——他们是被告——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——就此而言——\n\n法院：——斯克拉兹律师，我从未这么说过。我说的是，陪审团认定 Kwok 先生使用不同工具实施犯罪——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：好的。\n\n法院：——并使用不同公司实体实施犯罪。这是陪审团的认定。不是我作出的认定，是陪审团作出的认定，对吗？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：而且——而且这当然可能构成巴塞特律师（Attorney Bassett）和受托人起诉 G Club 的依据，他们已多次这样做。但这并未赋予他们通过第 2004 条规则程序进行本次询问的能力，这与第 30 条规则下的程序完全不同。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3817 提交日期 11/13/24 登记日期 11/13/24 14:25:25 第 21 页，共 43 页\n\n如果他们希望在各项对抗程序之一中进行证据开示，就应当以适当方式提出请求。\n\n法院：那么，我们为什么不就这样处理？请记住，我可以重实质而轻形式。我可以处理——所以我们将在其中一项对抗程序中解除中止，并将第 2004 条规则询问命令和传票视为《联邦民事诉讼规则》下的证言通知；除非你们在该日期之前向巴塞特律师提交能够解答其问题的文件，否则你们的委托人应于 November 20 接受证言录取。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：显然，如果这是命令，我们将遵从法官阁下的命令。因此，为明确起见，如果法官阁下作出该命令，我们将依第 30 条规则和第 26 条规则推进，而非依第 24 条规则，并且这——\n\n法院：嗯，我说我可以这样做，因为你试图——你所说的是——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——而且这将是他们唯一的一次——\n\n法院：——我最初问你们达成了什么协议，而你们双方——你说我们已经取得了很大进展；除就证言录取日期以及由受托人律师缩小的议题达成一致外，我看不出有任何进展。你们仍然——你不希望我——你希望我准许撤销传票动议，受托人希望我驳回该动议；我看不出这怎么能算进展。这里并不存在协议，仍然需要法院作出裁决。因此，如果需要法院裁决，我就必须裁决，而这正是我将要做的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3817 提交日期 11/13/24 登记日期 11/13/24 14:25:25 第 23 页，共 43 页\n\n斯克拉兹律师：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：巴塞特律师，在——您说您在答复中列明了将就哪些缩小后的议题询问证人？顺便问一句，证人是谁——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：——证人？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：证人将是 Andrew Childe（安德鲁·柴尔德），他是 FFP（专业受托机构）的雇员、代理人；FFP 是 G Club 的受托管理人。\n\n法院：而作为 G Club 的受托管理人，Childe 先生具有什么权限——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：并且，为明确起见，法官阁下——\n\n法院：——使其具有该权限？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：是同意书及其他公司文件，该等文件依适当公司架构任命 FFP 为 G Club 的经理和董事，最终由 G Club 的最终受益所有人签署。\n\n法院：而且他将向受托人披露所有这些信息吗？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：受托人——我们已提出向受托人披露该等信息，所有这些文件。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3817 提交日期 11/13/24 登记日期 11/13/24 14:25:25 第 24 页，共 43 页\n\n法院：好。那么我——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：而且那是——\n\n法院：——我将这样处理——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——并且，为明确起见，Childe 先生是我唯一曾接受其指示的人。\n\n法院：Childe 先生，这就是您所说的吗？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：Childe 先生，Childe 先生，Andrew Childe——FFP 是董事和经理；Childe 先生是我最常与之对接的个人。我也与 FFP 的其他人对接，但——FFP 是我委托人的代表。\n\n法院：那么 FFP 是谁？它代表什么？我此前从未听说过。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：FFP 是专业受托管理人，就像重组顾问，例如 AlixPartners（艾睿铂）；他们——他们更偏向离岸——\n\n法院：那么是谁任命 FFP 担任该方？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：G Club 的最终受益所有人。\n\n法院：是谁？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：Horan He（霍兰·何）。\n\n法院：谁？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：他的名字是 Horan，H-o-r-a-n，He，H-e。\n\n法院：好的。那么 He 先生在哪里——\n\n巴塞特律师：而且，法官阁下——\n\n法院：——He 先生在哪里？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：我完全不知道。我与他没有联系，他不是我的委托人。我的委托人是 G Club 和 FFP；我不代理——\n\n法院：那么 FFP 是否——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——Horan He。\n\n法院：——与 He 先生就其代表 G Club 行事的权限订有协议？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：是的。\n\n法院：该协议何时订立，何时签订？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：在 June of 2023。\n\n法院：但受托人寻求的是自破产申请日开始的信息。那么在此之前发生了什么？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：在此之前，G Club 有雇员，他们全都辞职了。这就是我们在 2023 年于法官阁下面前遇到问题的根源。一旦 Kwok 先生被——\n\n法院：是的，但那不是另一个人吗——抱歉，我打断您了，斯克拉兹律师。我的记忆是，来自 New York（纽约）的那位律师，我不记得她的名字了，很抱歉——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3817 提交日期 11/13/24 登记日期 11/13/24 14:25:25 第 25 页，共 43 页\n\n斯克拉兹律师：Forness 律师，Carolina Forness（卡罗琳娜·福内斯）。\n\n法院：——是的，Forness 律师，她是否提到过一名不同于您刚才所说之人的人，作为她接受指示的负责人？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：她可能是在 G Club 总法律顾问辞职前接受该总法律顾问的指示。我一时想不起他的名字。总法律顾问——G Club 的每个人都在——而且，再说一次，我没有牢记这些日期，但大约是在 March of 2023，这导致了对证据开示请求作出答复的问题。直至 FFP 于大约 June——即 June of 2023 受聘并到位之前，无论从何种意义上说，我和 Pillsbury（普盈律师事务所）都没有委托人——\n\n法院：好的，我——再说一次，我可能——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——委托人的代表——\n\n法院：——完全记错了，但我不记得此前出现过 He 先生这个名字。我记得 Forness 律师说过另一个名字，但我无法告诉您是什么，所以可能是我记错了。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：He 先生不是 G Club 的雇员或高管；他是最终受益所有人。\n\n法院：是的，但他是向你的委托人 FFP 授予代表其行事权限的人——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3817 提交日期 11/13/24 登记日期 11/13/24 14:25:25 第 26 页，共 43 页\n\n斯克拉兹律师：正确。\n\n法院：——对吗？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：正确——\n\n法院：这不正是您刚才所说的吗？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——但只是——确实如此，但仅因他授予公司权限，并不意味着他在任何时候实际担任 G Club 的首席执行官——在任何时候，更不用说在其具有专业管理层时。\n\n法院：那么——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：我不——\n\n法院：——他如何有权授予 FFP 代表其行事的权限？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：他是最终受益所有人。这就像——\n\n法院：嗯，股东没有公司权限就不能这样做。公司权限在哪里？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：我——\n\n法院：这不是一家 Puerto Rican（波多黎各）——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——在文件中——\n\n法院：——公司吗？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：有一家 Puerto Rican LLC（波多黎各有限责任公司），其所有者——其唯一所有者是一家 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）公司，其上层还有其他公司。这一切均载于我们提交的公司披露声明中——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3817\n提交日期 11/13/24\n登记日期 11/13/24 14:25:25\n\n斯克拉兹律师：——并已标明——而且还有——法官阁下，我想澄清，因为我感觉这里有一种隐瞒事实的暗示。我们没有隐瞒事实，我们一直都非常明确。我代理 G Club；G Club 由 FFP 管理。由于 Kwok 先生所发生的一切，FFP 被任命为该公司的受托管理人。因此，不论受托人对其他公司有何说法，G Club 有客户，G Club 有独立资产，G Club 向客户提供货物和服务，G Club 有大规模业务运营；它在 Banco Popular（大众银行）有一个银行账户，还有其他——还有其他关系。\n\n法院：HCHK（HCHK）也是如此，但他们已经消失了，他们蒸发了，而且他们蒸发了——在 Dooley 法官（Judge Dooley）面前，他们说自己蒸发了。实际上，我觉得这很耐人寻味，因为我们花了一年时间就 HCHK 以及其据称有权获得——这项在 New York State Court（纽约州法院）为债权人利益而作出的让与展开争执。\n\n我明白你所说的，但——你说你代理 G Club，但你没有获得 G Club 的授权。你唯一拥有的授权——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：不，我有。\n\n法院：——来自 FFP。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：不，我有 G Club 的授权。我的\n\n委托代理协议由 G Club（G Club）签署，我的——相关文件由 G Club 签署。何先生（Mr. He）提供了公司决议同意文件。我掌握所有这些信息。我们曾提出将其交给受托人。我不知道——这是一家企业，我不知道——如果这是 Green & Sklarz（Green & Sklarz），由 Green & Sklarz Holdings（Green & Sklarz Holdings）所有，而后者由，你知道的，2号受托人和1号受托人所有，公司具有多层所有权结构并不罕见。这些同意文件都在那里。如果受托人不喜欢，他们可以要求——他们可以对任何他们想要的人进行证言录取，但这与 G Club 无关。我们已提出提供该信息。\n\n因此，关于谁经营 G Club 的证言录取，FFP（FFP）经营 G Club，但须以——\n\n法庭：好的。那么这——\n\n斯克拉茨律师（Mr. Sklarz）：——以那些文件所述为准——\n\n法庭：——我要做的是——\n\n斯克拉茨律师：——\n\n法庭：——我将命令你，斯克拉茨律师，交出你所说将要交出的文件，并且我将给予巴塞特律师（Attorney Bassett）一些时间审阅。然后我们将举行进一步的状态会议，届时我们将讨论是否有必要进行证言录取。但我不会给你很多时间，因为我们已经约定于 November 20 进行证言录取。\n\n斯克拉茨律师：而且我不想——我将——我会去探望——次日我将离开，去探望我的女儿，她正在 Rome（罗马）学习一个学期，所以我确实希望保留该日期。我希望法庭——\n\n法庭：好的，那么你——\n\n斯克拉茨律师：——不会让我取消那些计划。\n\n法庭：——应当能够将这些文件交付给——今天是星期三——\n\n斯克拉茨律师：我今天就会提交，我今天就会提交；我现在就发送。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n巴塞特律师：法官阁下，为了确保我理解无误，我认为法庭的意思是，斯克拉茨律师将提供文件，之后我们将在现在至——\n\n法庭：以及 November 20 之间——\n\n巴塞特律师：——某个日期——\n\n法庭：——是的，正确。\n\n巴塞特律师：——是的——\n\n法庭：然后，如果你们的审阅——\n\n巴塞特律师：——以确保仍然可以进行证言录取——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3817 提交于 11/13/24 登记于 11/13/24 14:25:25 第 30 页，共 43 页\n\n法庭：是的，如果你们审阅后——如果你说我仍需要问这些问题，那么我将决定你是否有权在 November 20 提出这些问题。\n\n巴塞特律师：明白，法官阁下。我只是想从受托人的角度澄清一点，显然，我不想预断任何事情，但我认为文件材料极不可能足够——\n\n法庭：那么——但文件可以让你向我说明情况，对吧？目前我对任何事情都不了解。因此，待文件交出后，你可以向法庭说明其是否回答了你与斯克拉茨律师约定作为证言录取事项的问题和议题。\n\n斯克拉茨律师：为明确起见，法官阁下，我正在提供公司文件，这些文件不会回答诸如 G Club 的资金来自何处这样的问题。正如我已告知巴塞特律师的那样，那些文件我愿意——我可以汇集起来，我们不反对汇集那些文件，但我不像掌握公司文件那样，能够立即掌握所有该等信息。\n\n巴塞特律师：法官阁下，我还想说明的是，对于公司文件，我没有理由怀疑斯克拉茨律师所言。我预计该等公司文件将显示，FFP 此时确实被任命为担任 G Club 名义上的受托管理人。但这是我们一再见到的情况，而且在我们看来，这只不过是郭文贵（Mr. Kwok）及其亲近之人名义上与其自身脱离关联的一种方式（听不清）。因此，对我们真正重要的是，幕后是谁。FFP 中是谁在作出决定并向斯克拉茨律师发出指示，该人又是从谁那里接受指示。是何先生吗？他们与何先生进行了什么样的谈话？何先生在哪里？何先生从谁那里接受指示？他们如何获得资金？他们是否从事诉讼以外的任何活动？如是，那些活动是什么？谁在诉讼中作出决定？\n\n因为就我们在 HCHK（HCHK）中所见，以及我们一再所见，受托管理公司会介入，并作为英国某项破产程序或加勒比海某个岛屿上的破产程序中的受让人或代表人行事；其存在是为了代为出面，并在实际作出决定和发号施令的人与那些名义上被任命的人之间设置一层隔离。因此，取得显示该名义任命的文件当然不会令我们满意，但我很乐意按步骤进行，审阅该文件，然后回到法庭举行进一步的状态会议。这显然为受托人所接受，我们将遵从法庭作出的任何命令。\n\n法庭：斯克拉茨先生将向你交出——现在，等一下，斯克拉茨先生，我听到你说你会收集其他资料，但你已经有可以在今天下午交给他们的公司文件吗？\n\n斯克拉茨律师：有。听证结束后，我会立即通过电子邮件将其发送给巴塞特律师。\n\n法庭：好的。你还将收集哪些信息并交给巴塞特律师？\n\n斯克拉茨律师：嗯，我们曾提出汇集——他曾——他们曾提出，有三个——基本上有三个问题，这来自其异议书第 5 段：自债务人被捕并随后被定罪以来，指挥 G Club 的人员是否发生变化，答案是否定的，仍是 FFP。G Club 是否——\n\n法庭：而文件——\n\n斯克拉茨律师：——仍有任何——\n\n法庭：——显示这一点吗，斯克拉茨律师？文件显示这一点吗？\n\n斯克拉茨律师：显示。\n\n法庭：好的。继续。\n\n斯克拉茨律师：G Club 是否仍有任何\n\n运营活动，除诉讼外，答案是有。\n\n第一，保存公司记录；第二，无论受托人、巴塞特先生或其他任何人是否认为这是事实，FFP 作为 G Club 的受托管理人，认为其责任是确保 G Club 被政府扣押的任何收益、任何资金——我认为约为 \\$200 million——返还给我们称为会员的客户，而不以任何方式被耗散。该笔资金被 U.S. Government（美国政府）扣押，并推定将通过民事没收程序予以没收。FFP 认为，其受托义务是确保该笔资金返还给 G Club 的客户，同样，我们称其为会员，而非 LLC 成员——\n\n法庭：那么，你们难道不必须在刑事程序中这样做吗？\n\n斯克拉茨律师：正是，完全正确。然后，第三，如何——\n\n法庭：是的，但那不是——但那不是问题。问题是——好吧，总之。\n\n斯克拉茨律师：嗯，问题是我们的运营活动是什么？我们的运营活动是结束公司的业务。我们不能只是把所有记录扔进海里，然后说我们处理完了，尽管考虑到我在这些——本案中所得到的乐趣，也许那正是我们应当做的。\n\n法庭：嗯，我相信你并不真的想这样做。\n\n斯克拉茨律师：不，当然不。我们不——我们不——FFP——我认真对待我的工作，FFP 也认真对待他们的工作，我们认为，为客户利益保存记录并结束运营是重要的。因此，那些就是持续进行的运营活动。G Club 持续进行的诉讼工作如何获得资金，是第 5 段提出的第三个问题。我可以解释如何——我知道发生了什么，但我没有全部文件。正是我向巴塞特律师表明，汇集这些资料将需要稍多一些时间；我已安排谈话以办理此事。因此，我现在不能交出这些资料，但是——\n\n法庭：Childe 先生（Mr. Childe）能否就此提供一份宣誓书？他是代表公司的财务顾问或受托管理人。他不能提供——\n\n斯克拉茨律师：正确——\n\n法庭：——该数据吗？\n\n斯克拉茨律师：——这正是我们会做的。是的，这正是我们提出的方案。我们提议由 Childe 先生就这三个问题提供一份宣誓书。而且，如果巴塞特先生想了解某些其他相关问题，我们会将其写入宣誓书。这就是我们认为没有必要进行证言录取的原因。他与何先生的谈话，他——何先生与 Jay 先生（Mr. Jay）的谈话，我不——我对此一无所知。我不代理何先生。\n\n法庭：但你不必了解该等情况，你的当事人可能了解。\n\n斯克拉茨律师：他可能了解，但那些与受托人所称其试图做的事情无关——\n\n法庭：我不认为这无关——\n\n斯克拉茨律师：——即——\n\n法庭：——完全不认为这无关，斯克拉茨律师。这一点我不同意你。这不是无关的。他正在进行调查；你是否了解任何情况无关紧要，你的当事人是否了解任何情况无关紧要。受托人有权在宣誓后提出问题，并在宣誓后获得该问题的回答，他有权这样做。\n\n斯克拉茨律师：这没有问题。应当提出这些问题——如果他想知道哪些问题——关于何先生的谈话，如果我们是在证言录取的语境中而不是 Rule 2004 的语境中进行，那么，Rule 26 和 Rule 30——\n\n法庭：我没有说——\n\n斯克拉茨律师：——应当适用，这没有问题。\n\n法庭：——我们是在以下案件的语境中进行\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3817 提交于 11/13/24 登记于 11/13/24 14:25:25 第 36 页，共 43 页\n\n证言录取，而非 2004 证言录取。我说的是，就你的论点直指要害，如果我解除中止令并且是在证言录取中进行，他难道不能提出同样的问题吗？所以——但我没有说——\n\n斯克拉茨律师：他可以，但是——\n\n法庭：——我正在这样做——\n\n斯克拉茨律师：——我们有更多保护。\n\n法庭：——而且事情并未以那种方式准备好。好吗？\n\n斯克拉茨律师：可以。\n\n法庭：那是——听着，我不会再花太多时间。接下来将发生的是：你将于今天 5 点前，向巴塞特律师提供你和／或你的当事人占有并控制的 G Club 公司记录。然后，你将收集你和巴塞特律师已讨论的额外信息，并将其提供给他——你能——我要——今天是星期三，你认为可以在 Friday 前提供吗？\n\n斯克拉茨律师：不能，法官阁下。我——\n\n法庭：Monday 如何？\n\n斯克拉茨律师：Monday 营业结束时可能是我所能做到的最好期限，但我——\n\n法庭：只要知道——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 3817 提交于 11/13/24 登记于 11/13/24 14:25:25 第 37 页，共 43 页\n\n38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\nSKLARZ先生（斯克拉兹先生）：——如果我需要更多时间——\n\n法庭：——我们周一休庭，因为是退伍军人节，但大多数——我想律师事务所周一并不放假。法庭周一休庭。\n\nSKLARZ先生：我们营业，并将尽力完成。唯一的问题是——我受制于第三方。如果我需要额外时间——\n\n法庭：那么，第三方——\n\nSKLARZ先生：——我会请求BASSETT律师（巴塞特律师）——\n\n法庭：——最好明白，他们目前受传票约束，可以吗？\n\nSKLARZ先生：哦，是的，毫无疑问。\n\n法庭：法庭正在告知他们，他们需要整理这些信息；否则，他们可能违反传票。\n\nSKLARZ先生：再次——\n\n法庭：我理解你的观点——\n\nSKLARZ先生：——我并不是说我们不会完成——\n\n法庭：——我理解，我确实理解你的观点——\n\nSKLARZ先生：——我正在努力——\n\n法庭：——我确实理解你的观点——\n\nSKLARZ先生：——这是一个时间问题。\n\n法庭：——然而，你需要让他们明白，这不是——这不是——我将——那么我就会下达命令，认定他们违反了——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 38 of 43\n\n39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n\n传票，我可以这么做。因此，我理解这可能需要一些时间，但本动议和你方的动议自——嗯，我认为你方的动议是在10月哪一天提交的？\n\nSKLARZ先生：28日。\n\n法庭：是的，而且传票及其他一切早在那之前就已发出，我想是10月18日左右。因此，关键是——我理解你的观点，我确实理解，但我们不会——实际上，它在那之前就已发出，因为询问原定于10月18日进行。它于10月9日发出——\n\nBASSETT律师：是在10月9日——\n\n法庭：——而且它——是的——\n\nBASSETT律师：——是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——10月9日，现在是11月6日。因此，30天，对吗？所以问题是，我理解你的意思，但你必须让你的当事人明白，如果他们不遵从，他们将受到法庭命令的约束，认定他们——你知道——违反了法院命令。\n\nSKLARZ先生：我们将竭尽全力遵从法院命令，如果出于任何原因我们需要多一点时间，我将提交动议。\n\n法庭：那么，或者如果你和BASSETT律师——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3817 Filed 11/13/24 Entered 11/13/24 14:25:25 Page 39 of 43\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3817\nFiled 11/13/24\nEntered 11/13/24 14:25:25\n\n1 对此达成一致，你无需提交动议。\n可以吗？\n2 SKLARZ先生：\n明白。\n3 法庭：\n但我知道你们双方一直在努力\n4 并试图想出一个解决方案，我理解这一点，而且\n5 我对此表示感谢，但目前仍没有足够的解决方案。\n6 因此，我们将采取这一步。SKLARZ律师，你将\n7 于今日下午5:00前提交你所占有和控制的文件，以及你的\n8 当事人所占有和控制的、关于公司\n9 记录的文件。因此，Childs先生——是这个名字吗？抱歉，\n10 但我想这就是你所说的名字。\n11 SKLARZ先生：\nChilde——\n12 法庭：\nChild，没有S？\n13 SKLARZ先生：\n——C-h-i-l-d-e。没有S。\n14 法庭：\n无论他有什么，他最好已经交给\n15 你了。\n16 SKLARZ先生：\n我全都有。本次\n17 听证一结束，我就会给BASSETT律师发电子邮件，这不存在\n18 问题。\n19 法庭：\n好，好的。那么，关于\n20 其他文件，你将努力在\n21 11月11日前提供一切。如果你因第三方原因无法做到，\n22 你和BASSETT律师将讨论，看看\n23 BASSETT律师是否同意给予24小时的延期，诸如此类，\n24 然后我们将继续进行本次——\n\n1 听证至11月18日下午1:00。我们可以继续\n2 以远程方式进行，因此没有人必须到法庭，但\n3 届时，如果仍未达成协议，并且\n4 受托人请求法庭允许受托人继续进行定于11月20日的\n5 证言记录，该请求\n6 可能会获准。我现在还不知道，但有可能。因此，我希望每个人都明白，\n7 尤其是你们的当事人，事实上可能将于\n8 11月20日进行证言记录。可以吗？\n9 SKLARZ先生：\n明白，法官阁下。\n10 法庭：\n我不会就我所说的内容作出任何\n11 书面裁定。我现当庭命令\n12 所有这些事项。\n13 SKLARZ先生：\n明白，法官阁下，我们将——我们\n14 将遵从。\n15 法庭：\n好。谢谢。\n16 SKLARZ先生：\n谢谢。\n17 法庭：\n今天下午还有什么其他事项\n18 我们可以处理吗？\n19 SKLARZ先生：\n从G Club（G俱乐部）的角度而言，没有，\n20 法官阁下。\n21 DESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：\n从受托人的角度而言，\n22 没有。谢谢，法官阁下。\n23 法庭：\n好，好的。那么，让我们看看\n24 接下来几天事情如何进展，同时理解——我的\n25 意思是，你们会做所有需要做的事情。不过，请记住，法庭于周一11月1日休庭，因此将没有法院工作人员或任何人员可用。如果你们需要什么，仍可以提交，但最早要到12日才会审查。可以吗？\n\nSKLARZ先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\nBASSETT律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的，今天的听证至此结束。这也是今天日程表上的最后一项事项，因此现在休庭。谢谢各位。\n\n（程序于下午1:57结束。）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3817\nFiled 11/13/24\nEntered 11/13/24 14:25:25\n\n1 证明\n2 本人证明，据本人所知及能力所及，\n3 上述内容是对上述案件程序电子录音的\n4 正确誊本。\n5\n7 /s/ Tracey J. Williams\nNovember 11, 2024\n8 Tracey J. Williams, CET-914\n9 认证法庭速记员\n10 代表 Reliable","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Despins","HCHK","Paul Hastings","Ho Wan Kwok","RICO","Luc Despins","CIPA","forfeiture"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":11246,"status":"published","published_at":"2024-11-13 00:00:00","created_at":"2024-11-13","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:18:22"}