{"id":"court_ctb_3973_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3973,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2025-01-16","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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 . Adversary Proceeding TRUSTEE, . No. 24-05042 (JAM) . Plaintiff, . . v. . . RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC., . et al., . . Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 . Adversary Proceeding TRUSTEE, . No. 24-05182 (JAM) . Plaintiff, . . v. . . Courtroom 123 MAX KRASNER, . Brien McMahon Federal Building . 915 Lafayette Boulevard Defendant. . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 . . Tuesday, January 7, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:08 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Case 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 1 of 29\n\n 2 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 APPEARANCES: For the Chapter 11 Trustee: Patrick R. Linsey, Esquire NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 -and- Luc A. Despins, Esquire PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 For Max Krasner: Ronald I. Chorches, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF RONALD I. CHORCHES 82 Wolcott Hill Road 2nd Floor, Suite 2 Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109 For the U.S. Trustee: Holley L. Claiborn, Esquire OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street Room 302 New Haven, Connecticut 06510 For Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund: Annecca H. Smith, Esquire ROBINSON & COLE, LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, Connecticut 06103 (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 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 2 of 29\n\n| Page 3 of 29 |\n|--------------|\n| 3 |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\n| |\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 INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE In re: Ho Wan Kwok, et al., Debtors. Case no. 22-50073 (JAM) Matter No. 3884 Motion to Amend Order Granting Retention and Employment of Pallas Partners LLP as Solicitors in United Kingdom Filed by Georg Alexander Bongartz on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 12 Court's Ruling: 13 Matter No. 3911 Application to Employ Kobre & Kim (GCC) LLP as Special Counsel in United Arab Emirates Filed by Luc A. Despins on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee 8 Court's Ruling: 12 In re: Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. Adversary Proceeding no. 24-05042 (JAM) Matter No. 41 Motion to Withdraw Appearance Filed by Ronald Ian Chorches on behalf of Max Krasner, Defendant 19 Court's Ruling: 28 Matter No. 45 Order Setting Status Conference 19 Court's Ruling: 28 Case 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 4 of 29\n\n INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE In re: Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee v Max Krasner Adversary Proceeding no. 24-05182 (JAM) Matter No. 20 Motion to Withdraw Appearance Filed by Ronald Ian Chorches on behalf of Max Krasner, Defendant Court's Ruling: 28 Matter No. 24 Order Setting Status Conference 19 Court's Ruling: 28 Transcriptionist's Certificate 29 Case 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 5 of 29\n\n 6 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 1:08 p.m.) THE COURT: We have matters on the calendar at 1:00 p.m., so I ask the courtroom deputy to please call the calendar. THE DEPUTY: 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok; adversary -- THE COURT: Good afternoon -- oh, go ahead. I'm sorry, you're right. Please go ahead. I apologize. THE DEPUTY: Adversary 24-05042, Despins v Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al., and 24-05182, Despins v Krasner. 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, and happy new year. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon, and happy new year to all of you. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. CHORCHES: Good afternoon, Your Honor, and happy new year. I'm Ronald Chorches. I represent the Defendant in the adversary proceedings that are before the Court today. I represent Max Krasner, the Defendant. Case 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 6 of 29\n\n 7 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: Good afternoon. MR. JONES: Good morning -- good afternoon, Your Honor. Roland Jones. I also represent Max Krasner. THE COURT: Attorney Jones, do you have an appearance on file? MR. JONES: No, Your Honor. I just wanted to state my name for the record, but I don't expect to be talking or making argument. THE COURT: Well, you can't represent a party unless you have an appearance on file, Attorney Jones. So, I mean, you can listen to this hearing, but our Local Rules and the District Court Local Rules all, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, you need to file an appearance if you're going to be representing any party. So if you're not filing an appearance, then you're not representing any party, okay? MR. JONES: I understand. Very good, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, and happy new year, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon and happy new year to you, as well. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Annecca Smith, Connecticut counsel for creditor PAX. I just plan to observe today. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you and good afternoon. Case 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 7 of 29\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 All right. So Trustee Despins, on the calendar in the main Chapter 11 jointly administered cases are two matters: a motion to amend an order and an application to employ. How would you like to proceed? MR. DESPINS: As to those two matters, Your Honor, to proceed, I would start with the Kobre & Kim retention, which is Docket 3911. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. So, we filed an application to retain the law firm of Kobre & Kim as special counsel, with respect to UAE, United Arab Emirates matters. As we explained on the application, we're retaining the branch of Kobre & Kim - although Kobre & Kim is an American-based firm, we're retaining their UAE branch to advise us with respect to potential recovery actions or other related actions in the UAE. As Your Honor may or may not know, it's public record that William Che (phonetic) who was one of the codefendants in the criminal trial and was, you know, was not tried, but was charged, but did not appear and was not arrested, he is located in the UAE. As well, we understand that the debtor's son spent a substantial amount of time in the UAE. And there are other potentially-related companies that are based or operating in the UAE and we don't have the\n\n1 2 3 expertise to determine what type of claims or actions could be prosecuted there and that's why we filed a motion to retain Kobre & Kim.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 No creditor has objected to the relief sought in the application, Your Honor. The U.S. Trustee filed a statement raising three concerns. We addressed two of those through the filing at Docket 3936 of a revised order and there's a mark to show a changed version at pages 11 - starting at page 11 of 15 of that filing, Docket 3936, to show the two changes that we made to address the U.S. Trustee's concern and those related to the overhead expenses and also to make clear that this Court has exclusive and sole jurisdiction to deal with compensation disputes, if any, that would ever arise with Kobre & Kim. So I believe that those two issues are resolved.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The third issue raised by the U.S. Trustee is the issue of the liability cap, which is set in the engagement letter at five million per instance or per originating cause. And let me be very clear, if we were retaining Kobre & Kim in the U.S., we would never have that. You know, law firms in the U.S. have not been successful at trying to cap their liability, but in Europe and around the world, it is very common and, actually, you dealt with this in the retention of our Swiss counsel and they also have a liability cap of five million. That's at Docket 3034. That cap, obviously, does\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 not apply to claims based on fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, personal injury, or things like that. And, Your Honor, our view is based on the circumstances, do we like the cap? No. But, practically, it is a standard provision in Europe and around the world now. We negotiated the \\$5 million cap based on what we were able to obtain and approve by Your Honor in the Swiss law firm case and, therefore, we would ask Your Honor to overrule the trustee's objection on that point. And I believe that that's -- I hope that the two other points with the U.S. Trustee were resolved, but -- I think that's the case, but counsel for the U.S. Trustee can confirm that. So that's all I have on Kobre & Kim, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. Trustee Despins articulated correctly that the revised order resolved two of the three issues raised by the U.S. Trustee. The remaining issue is the one that Trustee Despins just covered, with respect to paragraph 13 of the standard terms of engagement provisions that are attached to the application and those limit the liability of Kobre & Kim to \\$5 million. The U.S. Trustee is opposed to any limit on\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 liability as not being appropriate for any professional who's representing the trustee and the estate. We've had this argument, as the trustee noted, before, in connection with other retention applications and the U.S. Trustee is consistent with this position, it opposed it then and opposes it now. While it might be standard outside the United States, it's certainly not standard inside the United States and it puts the risk of problems on the estate, which is inappropriate and the U.S. Trustee would ask the Court to overrule that request and to strike that provision from the agreement. THE COURT: Okay. And the revised proposed order doesn't address it specifically because it just says the agreement is in place, but you're saying, Attorney Claiborn, that you would like the Court to strike that provision from the agreement, correct? MS. CLAIBORN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Trustee Despins, do you have any response? MR. DESPINS: Yes, very briefly. If Kobre & Kim does not get retained, I'm going to have to go to another firm and setting us back, because they've already started working, and the same issues will arise. So, as I said, I prefer to not have a cap, but the\n\n| 1 | problem is that the precedence are against me in that.
In |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Europe, the law firms have been successful imposing these |\n| 3 | caps.
Most of the times, the caps were much lower than that |\n| 4 | and that's why we ask the Court to overrule the U.S. |\n| 5 | Trustee's objection. |\n| 6 | It's not something that's within our control to |\n| 7 | impose a no-cap agreement on them.
They will not do the work |\n| 8 | without that cap and that's kind of the market in Europe. |\n| 9 | So, that's, unfortunately, where we are. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Attorney Claiborn, anything |\n| 11 | further? |\n| 12 | MS. CLAIBORN:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
All right.
I'm going to have to go |\n| 14 | back and look at that because when I saw the notice of filing |\n| 15 | of revised proposed order, I thought the issues were |\n| 16 | resolved.
I, obviously, just need to go back and look at |\n| 17 | that.
I'll take that under advisement, but I anticipate that |\n| 18 | I will rule very shortly on that application, okay? |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS:
So, we would move now to the |\n| 22 | amendment, the motion to amend the retention of Pallas |\n| 23 | Partners, our UK counsel, and the motion was filed |\n| 24 | December 12th, at Docket 3884. |\n| 25 | It's fairly simple.
They pointed out to us that |\n\n| we retained them, with respect to the UBS matter because all |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| (indiscernible), that's true and we recently expanded their |\n| retention to deal with the, I call it a \"bankruptcy |\n| proceeding,\" but it's called an \"administration proceeding\" |\n| of the company called Hamilton Capital Holdings Ltd. in the |\n| U.K.
And they said, Well, look, we need to get a court order |\n| because we're not covered by the UBS retention for that and |\n| they're absolutely right.
So it doesn't change the terms at |\n| all, Your Honor, of their retention; it just makes clear that |\n| they're also authorized to act on our behalf, with respect to |\n| the Hamilton Capital Holdings insolvency matter pending in |\n| the U.K. |\n| I believe that U.S. Trustee had filed a statement |\n| of no objection at 3933 and, therefore, would ask Your Honor |\n| to approve the modifications to their retention. |\n| THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| Attorney Claiborn? |\n| MS. CLAIBORN:
I have nothing to contribute, Your |\n| Honor. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| I just wanted to -- again, I have it in front of |\n| me -- I did review the proposed order, but I want to do that |\n| again just to make sure that I had no changes other than the |\n| courtroom deputy -- the proposed order amending -- the order |\n| amending order granting application to approve and retain |\n| |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pallas Partners is at ECF 3884, page 8 of 14 is where it starts. And what we'll need to do is just at the beginning -- at the bottom of the first page of the order, we'll have to take out the word \"proposed\" and add today's hearing date in the blank that there was. And, otherwise, I have no changes to that order and the order can enter, so that motion is granted. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DESPINS: And I have nothing further, except to mention that we are preparing a proposed agenda for the hearing tomorrow, which you'll be free to disregard if you so choose, but to try to organize the hearing because there are so many people who want to participate, so many things that will be discussed tomorrow. This is the hearing -- a status conference, I should call it, with respect to the hearing that's scheduled for January 15th. So I just want to alert Your Honor that we're in the process of finalizing a proposed agenda that we will be filing with the Court. THE COURT: When you say, \"so many people want to talk,\" how many people are we talking about? MR. DESPINS: Well, there's the, what I call the \"joint Defendants\" and they will -- now, we're talking about the February 15th -- the January 15th hearing?\n\n 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Yep. MR. DESPINS: They've designated three speakers, so that's not a problem, but -- THE COURT: Well, it might be from the Court's perspective, but we'll see about that. MR. DESPINS: Well, clearly, it is up to (indiscernible) to try to (indiscernible) them, so that group wants to have three speakers, but -- and that will all be addressed tomorrow. But, also, there's a number of other parties that have, like, for example, the Zeisler firm and others -- THE COURT: No, I understand. I understand. MR. DESPINS: -- that also are scheduled for that day and those issues are not perfectly -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. DESPINS: -- aligned. Okay. Fine. So that's what we need to address. THE COURT: But I would definitely appreciate the agenda and that's definitely appreciated, but I will say that those parties -- first of all, the joint brief parties already have spoken through one person. So whether or not they're going to speak through three people, I'll determine. And with regard to the Defendants in the other adversary proceedings that are not mediation avoidance procedure adversary proceedings, those motions to dismiss Case 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 15 of 29\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 are on the calendar, there are several that are represented by the same lawyer and then I think there's only one or two where there's only one other lawyer. Those parties all argued that they wanted to be heard at the time of the hearing on the joint brief. And if their issues are not in alignment, I will address those in the manner in which I think is appropriate, given that I heard them listen and say that they wanted to be heard and so, I will do what I think is appropriate under the circumstances. But I think the agenda would be very helpful, so thank you. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. And I may have misspoken, because I said they're not alignment -- that's not what I meant -- what I meant is that some of them raised different issues. For example, they have say the trustee didn't (indiscernible) actually fraud -- THE COURT: And I will address that. MR. DESPINS: -- sufficiently. THE COURT: And I will address that -- MR. DESPINS: So that has nothing to do with (indiscernible) -- THE COURT: And I will address all of those things because the hearing is on -- MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: -- a joint brief and the four issues\n\n| 1 | in the joint brief and that's what -- and all the parties |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | that wanted their motions to dismiss to be heard at the same |\n| 3 | time, that's what they argued, that they also had those -- |\n| 4 | some, if not all of those issues raised in their motions to |\n| 5 | dismiss and I will address those appropriately, as part of |\n| 6 | the case management of this, of these adversary proceedings. |\n| 7 | But, again, I appreciate what you're saying, I |\n| 8 | just want to be very clear.
This is not -- we are not -- |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
-- going to spend hours and hours on |\n| 11 | this.
The issues are what they are.
They've been briefed |\n| 12 | and I will hear things from parties, number one. |\n| 13 | Number two, one of the things that we'll talk |\n| 14 | about tomorrow is that I'm not going to spend an hour taking |\n| 15 | appearances, either, because all the parties that have signed |\n| 16 | on to the joint brief have signed on to the joint brief.
All |\n| 17 | the parties that have filed their motions to dismiss, those |\n| 18 | are already in -- they've already filed their appearances and |\n| 19 | it's already in the record.
The courtroom deputy will take |\n| 20 | care of putting all that together because we're not going to |\n| 21 | spend an enormous amount of time doing that on the record. |\n| 22 | And we'll go from there.
It'll all be fine. |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
But I just have one thing before we |\n| 25 | turn -- I don't know what happened to Attorney Chorches and, |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3973
Filed 01/16/25
Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19
Page 18 of 29 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 18 |\n| 1 | I think it was Attorney Jones who was on the call, but |\n| | |\n| 2 | they -- I don't know where they are because those are the |\n| 3 | next matters. |\n| 4 | There's Attorney Chorches.
Okay.
So, Attorney |\n| 5 | Chorches, where's Attorney Jones? |\n| 6 | MR. CHORCHES:
I believe he's still on the call. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Good. |\n| 8 | Then we just need one more minute and then we're |\n| 9 | going to turn to your issue in the adversaries. |\n| 10 | MR. CHORCHES:
Okay. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
So, Trustee Despins, I have one |\n| 12 | question for you, which you don't need to answer right now, |\n| 13 | necessarily, but at some point you will.
There was a new |\n| 14 | adversary proceeding filed right before the holidays that is |\n| 15 | Despins v AA Global Venture Ltd. and it has several |\n| 16 | Defendants, numerous Defendants, many of which are outside of |\n| 17 | the United States.
And in the past, we issued a subpoena or |\n| 18 | the Clerk's Office issued a subpoena that gave everyone, all |\n| 19 | Defendants, 60 days to respond, regardless of whether they |\n| 20 | were in the United States or not. |\n| 21 | And you had raised -- someone had raised a |\n| 22 | question about whether that was an appropriate subpoena.
I'm |\n| 23 | prepared to do -- have the Clerk's Office do that, unless you |\n| 24 | think there's some other -- there should be two time frames. |\n| 25 | But we've done that in the past in other adversaries, so I'm |\n| | |\n\n 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not -- I just want to avoid having one summons issue and then having an issue be raised where some other kind of summons should issue. MR. DESPINS: Understood, Your Honor. And we will revert to the Court through the courtroom deputy email address if we can on that. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. That's very helpful. So, then, as far as today's calendar is concerned, then we're turning to the two adversary proceedings: 24- 05042 and 24-05182. And Attorney Chorches, your motion to withdraw the appearance on behalf of the Defendant Krasner, and then the Court setting a status conference on those two matters, in which you filed an appearance, and which you filed the same motion to withdraw the appearance. The reason the Court is setting a status conference is because it's not clear -- well, it is clear, actually, from what you wrote in your motion to withdraw appearance, that you have no contact with the client and that the only contact you have, the client that you represent, and the only contact you have is with Attorney Jones. And you said that you were going to move for your admission, the admission of Attorney Jones pro hac vice and that hasn't Case 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 19 of 29\n\n1 happened yet.\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 And then I asked Attorney Jones today whether he's going to appear and he said no. So, I'm not going to grant your motion. I know you've withdrawn it, but I don't understand what's going on here. How can you represent a client that you don't have any direct contact with and then Attorney Jones doesn't have any obligations to the Court by filing an appearance?\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MR. CHORCHES: I understand the Court's concern, Your Honor, and let me explain. When I first became involved in the case, though I didn't have client contact, I did have -- I worked with Attorney Jones really up to the time when (indiscernible) motion that Your Honor referenced was filed. I was very familiar with the case a lot more than Attorney Jones because I already represented multiple Defendants in different adversary proceedings had participated. I had calls with trustee's counsel. I drafted the answer Attorney Jones that would state that I made a mistake at that time by including his signature on it because I had not yet filed the motion for pro hac vice.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 It's at a point in time where Attorney Jones wanted out of the case due to billing concerns and I had conversations with Mr. Krasner at that point after the - after my motion was filed and with his counsel several times about me continuing to represent Mr. Krasner in both these\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 adversary proceedings. THE COURT: All right. Let me stop you right there. You just said you had conversations with Mr. Krasner and his counsel. Who's his counsel? MR. CHORCHES: I apologize. He had, like, a general counsel who -- THE COURT: Well, who is that? MR. CHORCHES: His first -- I don't have it in front of me -- his first name is Louis. I'd have to -- I apologize, I don't have his last name, but I can find it and provide it. Louis Freeman. His name is Louis Freeman and he is out of New York and -- THE COURT: And he's Mr. Krasner's general counsel; that's what he represented to you? MR. CHORCHES: I believe he represents him in a - well, counsel regarding a criminal matter. THE COURT: Okay. Well, you need to know, right? You have an obligation to this Court; you filed a notice of appearance. You need to know how you have authority to act and through whom you are acting. Apparently, when you filed the notice of appearance, you had no authority from Mr. Krasner directly to file a notice of appearance on his behalf; is that correct? MR. CHORCHES: There was the intent at that time Case 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 21 of 29\n\n 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that I would be filing a motion pro hac vice for Attorney Jones' office. THE COURT: Okay. So why haven't you done that? MR. CHORCHES: The reason is, first of all, I should have done that earlier and there were conversations in an attempt to quickly resolve both adversary proceedings, to settle them for dollar amounts that the trustee would, we thought -- THE COURT: I don't want to hear anything about settlement, Attorney Chorches. I asked you a very specific question. So, you had no direct communication with Mr. Krasner when you filed the notice of appearance on his behalf; is that correct? That's the question I asked you. MR. CHORCHES: That is correct, but I did have the intent at that point, for filing a motion for pro hac vice. THE COURT: So, how has your -- why is your intent changed? You just filed a motion to withdraw an appearance on behalf of the Defendant that you admitted you had no direct contact with until, I guess, recently. I don't understand what's going on. You either represent the Defendant or you don't. And if you already do and you have an appearance, you have Rule 11 issues. I mean, we're not going to do this. MR. CHORCHES: Your Honor -- Case 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 22 of 29\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
This isn't going to be, in the |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | beginning, you file an appearance for somebody and then you |\n| 3 | leave.
I mean, these are serious matters.
This person is a |\n| 4 | Defendant.
You have filed a notice of appearance on his |\n| 5 | behalf and you've stated in the record under Rule 11 that |\n| 6 | you're going to file a motion for pro hac vice for Attorney |\n| 7 | Jones and now Attorney Jones is here today and he's saying, |\n| 8 | No, no, no, well, he represents Max Krasner, he's not going |\n| 9 | to file a notice of appearance. |\n| 10 | Well, that's not how it works. |\n| 11 | MR. CHORCHES:
Your Honor, I don't know that I |\n| 12 | finished, but Mr. Krasner wants me to continue representing |\n| 13 | him in this proceeding. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
You had a direct communication with |\n| 15 | him that authorized you to contact on his behalf? |\n| 16 | MR. CHORCHES:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Have you met Mr. Krasner in person? |\n| 18 | MR. CHORCHES:
I had a phone conversation -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
So you don't even know what he looks |\n| 20 | like? |\n| 21 | MR. CHORCHES:
I haven't met him, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Do you know what he looks like, |\n| 23 | Attorney Chorches?
Could you pick him out if he was standing |\n| 24 | here in the courtroom? |\n| 25 | MR. CHORCHES:
I could not pick him out, Your |\n| | |\n\n| | 24 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Honor. |\n| 2 | I did not have a Zoom conference with him, but I |\n| 3 | can tell you that I am intimately familiar with this case.
I |\n| 4 | have been since the beginning.
I don't think that it's -- I |\n| 5 | believe that appearances are often filed or not always filed |\n| 6 | before the pro hac vice motion is filed and I would not |\n| 7 | have -- again, I was very, very familiar with the defenses, |\n| 8 | came up with numerous defenses. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
You filed an answer to the complaint, |\n| 10 | Attorney Chorches, you didn't just file an appearance.
You |\n| 11 | filed an answer. |\n| 12 | MR. CHORCHES:
That is correct, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
That is correct. |\n| 14 | So you have Rule 11 issues.
You've now made |\n| 15 | representations to the Court and to all the parties that you |\n| 16 | signed on behalf of this Defendant. |\n| 17 | I'm not suggesting you can't stay in, but you |\n| 18 | can't come in and say -- first of all, you come in and you |\n| 19 | say -- you file a notice of appearance.
You say you're going |\n| 20 | to file a motion pro hac.
You never do it.
You file an |\n| 21 | answer, an answer back in May of last year, and then you file |\n| 22 | a motion to withdraw the appearance saying, Well, I can't |\n| 23 | appear anymore because I was contacted by Attorney Jones and |\n| 24 | attorney -- I've known Attorney Jones for many years, but you |\n| 25 | don't even know the Defendant and you haven't gotten any |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 25 of 29\n\n25\n\n1 2 3 4 authority directly from the Defendant. That's your motion that was filed on December 10th, doesn't say anything about having any communications with Mr. Krasner, none, other than sending a notice to him.\n\n5 6 MR. CHORCHES: At that time, I did not -- it was my intent to be local counsel.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 THE COURT: Attorney Chorches, you filed an answer in May of 2024, an answer, and then you come in seven months later and say, Oh, I want to withdraw because Mr. Jones - you didn't even say anything about -- you say, subsequent to the filing, you were contacted by Attorney Jones to serve as local counsel. The movant has known Attorney Jones for many years, okay, and has a long history of serving as local counsel.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 So, then, what's the problem? Where's the pro hac vice motion? Maybe there isn't going to be one. That's fine, you're Defendant's counsel, but now you've represented on the record and to the Court and to all parties that you've had direct communications where Mr. Krasner and you're taking direction from him, even though you've never met him and you couldn't pick him out if he was standing here in the courtroom.\n\n23 24 25 MR. CHORCHES: I'm going to continue representing him in this case, Your Honor, and I'll have direct communication with Mr. Krasner throughout. And I've also --\n\n 26 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 I've had -- if Your Honor (indiscernible) knew nothing about this case, I probably knew more about the case than Attorney Jones. THE COURT: That's not the -- Attorney Chorches, you keep going back to knowing about the case. That's not the issue. The issue is, you, as an officer of the Court, have filed a notice of appearance and an answer. You then, move to withdraw that appearance saying that you needed to withdraw the appearance. This is what it says, that Attorney Jones contacted the movant and notified him that the attorney-client relationship between Mr. Jones has been irretrievably broken down. Well, Mr. Jones is here today and he just told me that he represents Mr. Krasner. Even though he's not going to file a notice of appearance, he just told me he's going to represent Mr. Krasner, or he does -- excuse me -- we can go back and listen to the recording. So, I don't know what you're doing here, but I'm not going to see another motion to withdraw an appearance in this case in these adversaries. You're in and you're not getting out. MR. CHORCHES: I understand that. And through the motion -- THE COURT: And you filed an answer, and if Case 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 26 of 29\n\n| 1 | anything else goes on in this case that doesn't make sense, | | | | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | then, you know, somebody is going to bring some cause of | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | action.
This is not a game. | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | MR. CHORCHES:
Your Honor, it's my -- I understand | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | that and it's my intent to represent Mr. Krasner zealously in | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | both of these adversary proceedings to the end. | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Then that's fine. | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | But I don't know why Mr. Jones is here if he's not | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | representing Mr. Krasner, but he is, actually, so you're | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | going to be working with Mr. Jones, apparently? | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | MR. CHORCHES:
No, Your Honor.
No, Your Honor. | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | I'm going to be working directly with Mr. Krasner. | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Well, maybe you should meet him, so if | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | you have to -- you know, you don't want to meet your client | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | in the courtroom, right.
Maybe you should meet him and make | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | sure you have the direct authority to act, because at this | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | point, you haven't even met him. | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | MR. CHORCHES:
I will have to -- I'm forwarding | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | him retainer agreements and I will obviously have | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | communication with my client, as required, under the Rules of | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | Professional Responsibility. | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
And the Federal Rules of Civil | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | Procedure, the Local District Court Rules, and the Local | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | Bankruptcy Court Rules. | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | MR. CHORCHES:
I understand that, Your Honor, and | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |\n\n 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that is the main reason why the motion was withdrawn. THE COURT: What was the main reason that the motion was withdrawn? MR. CHORCHES: Well, because I want to continue to represent him. THE COURT: Okay. I'm not going to entertain any other motions to withdraw. I just want that to be very clear. That will not happen. You can file them and they will be denied. You are in -- MR. CHORCHES: I understand. THE COURT: -- you filed a notice of appearance and you filed an answer, and that's how these adversaries are going to proceed. I have nothing further, with regard to this status conference and these adversaries. Does anyone else wish to be heard? MR. DESPINS: Nothing from the trustee, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Then, that concludes the status conferences in these adversaries. No further status conferences will be scheduled at this time. That concludes all the matters on today's calendar. So, thank you, all. Court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 1:40 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 28 of 29\n\n| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 3973 | Filed 01/16/25 | Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 | | Page 29 of 29 | | |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------|--|------------------|--|--|\n| | | | | | | 29 | | |\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/ William J. Garling | | | | January 13, 2025 | | |\n| 8 | | | William J. Garling, CET-543 | | | | | |\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
22 | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |","body_zh":"美国破产法院\n康涅狄格州地区\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于：\n第11章\n\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n（合并管理）\n债务人。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，\n对抗程序案号 24-05042 (JAM)\n原告，\n\n诉\n\nRESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.（Restoration Hardware, Inc.）等人，\n被告。\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，\n对抗程序案号 24-05182 (JAM)\n原告，\n\n诉\n\n法庭 123\nMAX KRASNER（马克斯·克拉斯纳），\nBrien McMahon Federal Building\n915 Lafayette Boulevard\n被告。\nBridgeport, Connecticut 06604\n\nTuesday, January 7, 2025\n\n1:08 p.m.\n\n美利坚合众国破产法官 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）阁下面前听证会记录\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 1 of 29\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林西）律师\nNEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\n13th Floor\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n以及\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）律师\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10166\n\n代表 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）：\nRonald I. Chorches（罗纳德·I·乔奇斯）律师\nLAW OFFICES OF RONALD I. CHORCHES（罗纳德·I·乔奇斯律师事务所）\n82 Wolcott Hill Road\n2nd Floor, Suite 2\nWethersfield, Connecticut 06109\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHolley L. Claiborn（霍莉·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\nRoom 302\nNew Haven, Connecticut 06510\n\n代表 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金）：\nAnnecca H. Smith（安妮卡·H·史密斯）律师\nROBINSON & COLE, LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, Connecticut 06103\n\n（出庭人员续）\n\n音频操作员：电子录音\n\n速记公司：Reliable\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程序以电子录音方式记录，记录稿由速记服务制作。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 2 of 29\n\n目录\n\n动议：页码\n\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）等人，债务人。\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\n事项编号 3884\n修改准许聘用 Pallas Partners LLP（帕拉斯合伙律师事务所）作为英国事务律师的命令之动议\n由 Georg Alexander Bongartz（格奥尔格·亚历山大·邦加茨）代表第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）提交\n12\n\n法院裁定：\n13\n\n事项编号 3911\n申请聘用 Kobre & Kim (GCC) LLP（科布雷与金（海湾合作委员会）律师事务所）作为阿拉伯联合酋长国特别法律顾问\n由 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）代表第11章受托人 Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）提交\n8\n\n法院裁定：\n12\n\n关于：Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，诉 Restoration Hardware, Inc.（Restoration Hardware, Inc.）等人\n对抗程序案号 24-05042 (JAM)\n\n事项编号 41\n由 Ronald Ian Chorches（罗纳德·伊恩·乔奇斯）代表被告 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）提交的撤回出庭代理声明动议\n19\n\n法院裁定：\n28\n\n事项编号 45\n设定状态会议的命令\n19\n\n法院裁定：\n28\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 4 of 29\n\n目录\n\n动议：页码\n\n关于：Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯），第11章受托人，诉 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）\n对抗程序案号 24-05182 (JAM)\n\n事项编号 20\n由 Ronald Ian Chorches（罗纳德·伊恩·乔奇斯）代表被告 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）提交的撤回出庭代理声明动议\n\n法院裁定：\n28\n\n事项编号 24\n设定状态会议的命令\n19\n\n法院裁定：\n28\n\n速记员证明\n29\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 5 of 29\n\n（程序于 1:08 p.m. 开始。）\n\n法庭：本庭在 1:00 p.m. 的日程中有事项，因此请法庭书记官宣读日程。\n\n书记官：22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）；对抗程序——\n\n法庭：下午好——哦，请继续。抱歉，您说得对。请继续。我表示歉意。\n\n书记官：对抗程序 24-05042，Despins（德斯平斯）诉 Restoration Hardware, Inc.（Restoration Hardware, Inc.）等人，以及 24-05182，Despins（德斯平斯）诉 Krasner（克拉斯纳）。\n\n法庭：好的。下午好。请为记录注明出庭人员，先从第11章受托人开始。\n\nDESPINS 先生：下午好，法官阁下，新年快乐。Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯），第11章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好，也祝各位新年快乐。\n\nLINSEY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林西），Neubert, Pepe & Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所），第11章受托人的律师。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nCHORCHES 先生：下午好，法官阁下，新年快乐。我是 Ronald Chorches（罗纳德·乔奇斯）。我代表今日提交至本庭审理的对抗程序中的被告。我代表被告 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 6 of 29\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nJONES 先生：上午好——下午好，法官阁下。Roland Jones（罗兰·琼斯）。我也代表 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳）。\n\n法庭：琼斯律师，您是否已提交出庭代理声明？\n\nJONES 先生：没有，法官阁下。我只是想为记录说明我的姓名，但我预计不会发言或进行辩论。\n\n法庭：但是，琼斯律师，除非您已提交出庭代理声明，否则您不能代表当事人。因此，我的意思是，您可以旁听本次听证会，但根据本庭地方法规、地区法院地方法规以及《联邦民事诉讼规则》，如您将代表任何当事人，就必须提交出庭代理声明。因此，如您不提交出庭代理声明，您就不代表任何当事人，可以吗？\n\nJONES 先生：我明白。很好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：下午好，法官阁下，新年快乐。Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），代表美国受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好，也祝您新年快乐。\n\nSMITH 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Annecca Smith（安妮卡·史密斯），债权人 PAX 的康涅狄格州律师。我今天只计划旁听。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢，下午好。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3973 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:39:19 Page 7 of 29\n\n好的。德斯平斯受托人，在主第11章合并管理案件的日程中有两项事项：一项修改命令的动议和一项聘用申请。您希望如何进行？\n\nDESPINS 先生：关于这两项事项，法官阁下，为继续进行，我想先处理聘用 Kobre & Kim（科布雷与金律师事务所）一事，即案卷编号 3911。\n\n法庭：请继续。\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。因此，我们提交了一项申请，聘用 Kobre & Kim 律师事务所担任特别法律顾问，处理 UAE，即阿拉伯联合酋长国事项。正如我们在申请中说明的，我们聘用的是 Kobre & Kim 的分所——尽管 Kobre & Kim 是一家总部设在美国的律师事务所，但我们聘用其 UAE 分所，就我们在 UAE 可能采取的追偿行动或其他相关行动向我们提供意见。法官阁下可能知道，也可能不知道，公开记录显示，William Che（威廉·谢，音译）是刑事审判中的共同被告之一，其虽未受审，但被起诉，且未出庭也未被逮捕；他位于 UAE。此外，据我们了解，债务人的儿子在 UAE 停留过相当长的时间。还有其他可能相关的公司设于或在 UAE 经营，而我们不具备确定可在该地提起何种类型请求或行动的专业能力，这就是我们提交聘用 Kobre & Kim 动议的原因。\n\n没有债权人对该申请中请求的救济提出异议，法官阁下。美国受托人提交了一份陈述，提出三项关切。我们通过在案卷编号 3936 中提交修订后的命令，处理了其中两项；该提交文件第 15 页中的第 11 页起载有标示修改版本，以显示我们为处理美国受托人关切而作出的两项修改，涉及管理费用，也明确本庭对处理任何可能与 Kobre & Kim 产生的报酬争议享有排他且唯一的管辖权。因此，我认为这两项问题已得到解决。\n\n美国受托人提出的第三项问题是责任上限问题，该上限在委托书中规定为每一事件或每一原始原因五百万美元。让我非常明确地说，如果我们是在美国聘用 Kobre & Kim，我们绝不会接受该项规定。您知道，美国的律师事务所在尝试限制其责任方面并未成功，但在欧洲和世界各地，这非常普遍；实际上，法官阁下在聘用我们的瑞士法律顾问时处理过这一问题，他们的责任上限也是五百万美元。该事项见案卷编号 3034。该上限显然不适用于基于欺诈、欺诈性失实陈述、人身伤害或类似事项的请求。法官阁下，我们的观点是，基于具体情况，我们是否喜欢这个上限？不喜欢。但实际上，这如今是欧洲和世界各地的标准条款。我们基于在瑞士律师事务所案件中能够获得并经法官阁下批准的条件，协商达成了 $5 million 的上限，因此，我们请求法官阁下驳回受托人就该点提出的异议。我相信——我希望与美国受托人相关的另外两点已经解决，但——我认为确是如此，但美国受托人的律师可以确认这一点。关于 Kobre & Kim，我要说的就是这些，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。克莱伯恩律师？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：谢谢，法官阁下。德斯平斯受托人正确说明，修订后的命令解决了美国受托人提出的三项问题中的两项。剩余问题正是德斯平斯受托人刚刚谈到的，即与申请所附标准聘用条款第 13 段有关，该段将 Kobre & Kim 的责任限制为 $5 million。美国受托人反对对代表受托人及破产财产的任何专业人士设置任何责任限制，认为这并不适当。正如受托人所指出的，我们此前在其他聘用申请中已就此进行过争论，美国受托人在这一立场上始终一致，当时反对，现在也反对。尽管这在美国境外可能是标准做法，但在美国境内肯定不是标准做法，而且它将问题风险置于破产财产之上，这是不适当的；美国受托人请求本庭驳回该项请求，并从协议中删除该条款。\n\n法庭：好的。修订后的拟议命令并未具体处理该问题，因为其仅称协议有效，但克莱伯恩律师，您的意思是希望本庭从协议中删除该条款，正确吗？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。德斯平斯受托人，您是否有任何回应？\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的，非常简短。如果不聘用 Kobre & Kim，我将不得不另找一家律师事务所，这会使我们倒退，因为他们已经开始工作，而且同样的问题还会出现。因此，如我所说，我宁愿没有上限，但问题是，先例对我不利。\n\n在\n\n在欧洲，律师事务所一直成功地施加此类上限。多数情况下，上限远低于此，因此我们请求法院驳回美国受托人提出的异议。这并非我们所能控制，以要求他们同意不设上限的协议。他们若无该上限便不会开展工作，而这在欧洲就是市场情况。因此，遗憾的是，我们目前的处境就是如此。\n\n法庭：好的。Claiborn（克莱伯恩）律师，还有其他补充吗？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。我得回去再看一下，因为当我看到提交经修订拟议命令的通知时，我以为相关问题已经解决。显然，我需要回去再看一下。我将对此留待审议，但我预计将很快就该申请作出裁定，可以吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nDESPINS 先生：那么，我们现在转到修订事项，即修订聘用我们的英国律师 Pallas Partners（帕拉斯律师事务所）的动议；该动议于 December 12th 提交，案卷编号为 3884。\n\n这相当简单。他们向我们指出，我们就 UBS（瑞银集团）事项聘用了他们，因为所有（听不清），这是事实；而我们最近扩大了对他们的聘用范围，以处理英国一家名为 Hamilton Capital Holdings Ltd.（汉密尔顿资本控股有限公司）的公司的——我称之为“破产程序”，但其被称为“管理程序”——事项。他们表示，好吧，我们需要取得法院命令，因为 UBS 的聘用范围并不涵盖该事项；他们完全正确。因此，这丝毫不改变其聘用条款，法官阁下；只是明确他们也获授权代表我们，就在英国待决的 Hamilton Capital Holdings 破产事项采取行动。我相信美国受托人已在 3933 提交不反对声明，因此请求法官阁下批准对其聘用的修订。\n\n法庭：谢谢。Claiborn（克莱伯恩）律师？\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：我没有任何补充，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。我只是想——再次说明，我面前有该文件——我已经审阅了拟议命令，但我想再次审阅，以确保除法庭书记员所作的修改外，我没有其他修改——修订批准并聘用 Pallas Partners（帕拉斯律师事务所）申请的命令的拟议命令载于 ECF 3884，第 8 页（共 14 页）开始。我们需要做的只是，在命令第一页底部，删除“拟议”一词，并在原留空处填入今天的听证日期。除此之外，我对该命令没有其他修改，该命令可以签发，因此该动议获准。\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nDESPINS 先生：我没有其他事项，除非提及我们正在为明天的听证会准备一份拟议议程；如法官阁下选择，也可不予采纳，但鉴于有如此多的人希望参与，且明天将讨论如此多的事项，我们希望借此组织听证会。这是关于定于 January 15th 进行的听证会的听证会——我应称其为状态会议。因此，我只是想通知法官阁下，我们正在最后确定一份将向法院提交的拟议议程。\n\n法庭：当你说“有很多人想发言”时，我们谈的是多少人？\n\nDESPINS 先生：嗯，有我所称的“共同被告”，他们将会——现在，我们说的是 February 15th——January 15th 的听证会吗？\n\n法庭：是的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：他们指定了三名发言人，所以这不是问题，但是——\n\n法庭：嗯，从法院的角度来看，这可能是问题，但我们再看。\n\nDESPINS 先生：嗯，显然，应由（听不清）尽力（听不清）他们，因此该群体希望有三名发言人，但是——这一切明天都会处理。此外，还有若干其他当事人，例如 Zeisler firm（蔡斯勒律师事务所）及其他人——\n\n法庭：不，我明白。我明白。\n\nDESPINS 先生：——他们也被排定在那一天出庭，而这些问题并非完全——\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\nDESPINS 先生：——一致。好的。很好。因此，这是我们需要处理的事项。\n\n法庭：但我肯定会感谢这份议程，这肯定是值得感谢的；但我要说的是，那些当事人——首先，共同摘要当事人已经通过一名人员发言。因此，他们是否将通过三名人员发言，将由我决定。至于其他对抗程序中、并非调解撤销程序对抗程序的被告，那些列入日程的驳回动议，其中有数个由同一律师代理，我认为只有一两个仅由另一名律师代理。那些当事人都主张，他们希望在就共同摘要举行听证会时获得陈述机会。如果他们的问题并不一致，我将鉴于我已听到他们表示希望获得陈述机会，按我认为在此情况下适当的方式处理这些问题。但我认为该议程将非常有帮助，所以谢谢。\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我可能说错了，因为我说它们并不一致——那不是我的意思——我的意思是，其中一些提出了不同的问题。例如，他们说受托人并未（听不清）实际欺诈——\n\n法庭：我会处理该问题。\n\nDESPINS 先生：——充分。\n\n法庭：我会处理该问题——\n\nDESPINS 先生：因此，那与（听不清）无关——\n\n法庭：我会处理所有这些事项，因为听证会是关于——\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——一份共同摘要以及共同摘要中的四个问题；这就是——而所有希望其驳回动议在同一时间获得审理的当事人，他们所主张的正是，他们在其驳回动议中也提出了那些——部分或全部问题；我将作为对这些对抗程序进行案件管理的一部分，适当地处理这些问题。但再次说明，我理解并感谢你的意思，我只是想非常明确。这不是——我们不会——\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——在此花费数小时。问题就是那些问题。它们已经得到书面陈述，我将听取当事人的意见，这是第一点。\n\n第二点，我们明天将讨论的一件事是，我也不会花一个小时逐一确认出庭人员，因为所有在共同摘要上签字的当事人都已经在共同摘要上签字。所有提交了驳回动议的当事人，都已经——他们已经提交出庭登记，且相关记录已经在案。法庭书记员会负责汇总这些事项，因为我们不会在记录中花费大量时间做这件事。然后我们再继续。一切都会没问题。\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：但在我们转到——我不知道 Chorches（乔切斯）律师发生了什么，我想 Jones（琼斯）律师刚才在通话中，但是——\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 3973\n提交日期 01/16/25\n登记日期 01/16/25 09:39:19\n\n我想是 Jones（琼斯）律师在通话中，但他们——我不知道他们在哪里，因为那些是接下来的事项。\n\n乔切斯律师在那里。好的。那么，乔切斯律师，琼斯律师在哪里？\n\nCHORCHES 先生：我相信他仍在通话中。\n\n法庭：好的。很好。\n\n那么，我们只需要再等一分钟，然后就转到你们在对抗程序中的问题。\n\nCHORCHES 先生：好的。\n\n法庭：那么，Despins（德斯平斯）受托人，我有一个问题要问你，你不一定要现在回答，但你终究需要回答。假日前刚刚提交了一宗新的对抗程序，即 Despins v AA Global Venture Ltd.（德斯平斯诉 AA 环球创投有限公司），其中有数名被告，很多被告位于美国境外。过去，我们签发过传票，或者书记官办公室签发过传票，给予所有人、所有被告 60 天作出回应，不论其是否在美国境内。\n\n你曾提出——有人曾提出一个问题，即那是否为适当的传票。除非你认为另有其他做法——应当设置两个期限，否则我准备这样做——让书记官办公室这样做。但我们过去在其他对抗程序中就是这样做的，因此我并不——我只是希望避免先签发一种传票，然后又有人提出应当签发其他种类传票的问题。\n\nDESPINS 先生：明白，法官阁下。就该事项，如可以，我们将通过法庭书记员的电子邮件地址回复法院。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。这非常有帮助。那么，就今天的日程而言，我们现在转到两宗对抗程序：24-05042 和 24-05182。乔切斯律师，关于你代表被告 Krasner（克拉斯纳）撤回出庭登记的动议；以及法院在这两项事项中安排状态会议，在这两项事项中你已提交出庭登记，并且提交了同样的撤回出庭登记动议。法院安排状态会议的原因是，因为情况并不清楚——嗯，实际上，根据你在撤回出庭登记动议中所写的内容，情况是清楚的——即你与客户没有联系，而你所代理的客户与你之间唯一的联系，是通过琼斯律师。你说你将提出动议，申请琼斯律师以 pro hac vice（临时准许出庭）身份获准出庭，但该事项尚未——\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 3973　提交日期 01/16/25　登记日期 01/16/25 09:39:19　第 19 页，共 29 页\n\n——发生。\n\n随后，我今天问琼斯律师他是否将出庭，他说不会。因此，我不会准许你的动议。我知道你已撤回该动议，但我不明白这里发生了什么。你如何能代理一个你没有任何直接联系的客户，而琼斯律师又无需通过提交出庭登记对法院承担任何义务？\n\nCHORCHES 先生：我理解法院的担忧，法官阁下，请允许我解释。当我最初参与该案时，尽管我未与客户联系，但我确实曾——我与琼斯律师合作，直至法官阁下所提及的（听不清）动议提交之时。我对该案的了解远多于琼斯律师，因为我已代理在不同对抗程序中参与的多名被告。我曾与受托人的律师通话。我起草了答辩状。琼斯律师会表示，我当时犯了一个错误，将他的签名附在上面，因为我当时尚未提交 pro hac vice 动议。\n\n当时，琼斯律师因计费方面的担忧而希望退出该案；在我提出动议后，我曾就我继续在这两项事项中代理 Krasner（克拉斯纳）先生一事，与克拉斯纳先生及其律师进行了数次交谈。\n\n对抗程序。\n\n法庭：好的。请你先停在这里。你刚才说你与 Krasner 先生及其律师进行过交谈。他的律师是谁？\n\nCHORCHES 律师（乔奇斯）：抱歉。他有一位类似总法律顾问的人——\n\n法庭：那么是谁？\n\nCHORCHES 律师：他的名字——我手头没有资料——他的名字是 Louis。我得——抱歉，我不知道他的姓氏，但我可以查到并提供。Louis Freeman（路易斯·弗里曼）。他叫 Louis Freeman，来自纽约，并且——\n\n法庭：他是 Krasner 先生的总法律顾问；这是他向你所作的表示吗？\n\nCHORCHES 律师：我相信他在一项——嗯，关于刑事事项的法律顾问方面代表他。\n\n法庭：好的。那么你需要知道，对吗？你对本法庭负有义务；你已提交出庭通知。你需要知道你凭何授权行事，以及你是通过何人行事。显然，当你提交出庭通知时，你没有获得 Krasner 先生直接授权，代表他提交出庭通知；是否正确？\n\nCHORCHES 律师：当时的意图是，我将代表 Jones 律师（琼斯）的律师事务所提交一项 pro hac vice 动议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3973 提交于 01/16/25 录入于 01/16/25 09:39:19 第 21 页，共 29 页\n\n法庭：好的。那么你为什么尚未这样做？\n\nCHORCHES 律师：首先，原因是我本应更早这样做，而且当时进行了一些交谈，试图迅速解决两项对抗程序，以我们认为受托人会——\n\n法庭：Chorches 律师，我不想听任何有关和解的内容。我问了你一个非常具体的问题。因此，当你代表 Krasner 先生提交出庭通知时，你没有与他直接沟通；是否正确？这是我问你的问题。\n\nCHORCHES 律师：这是正确的，但我当时确有提交 pro hac vice 动议的意图。\n\n法庭：那么，你的——你的意图为何改变？你刚刚代表被告提交了一项撤回出庭的动议，而你承认，直到我想是最近，才与该被告有直接联系。我不明白发生了什么。你要么代表被告，要么不代表。如果你已经代表他并已出庭，你就涉及《规则》第 11 条的问题。我的意思是，我们不会这样做。\n\nCHORCHES 律师：法官阁下——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3973 提交于 01/16/25 录入于 01/16/25 09:39:19 第 22 页，共 29 页\n\n法庭：这不会是这样：一开始，你为某人提交出庭通知，然后你就离开。我的意思是，这些是严肃事项。此人是一名被告。你已代表他提交出庭通知，并且你已根据《规则》第 11 条在记录中陈述，你将为 Jones 律师提交一项 pro hac vice 动议，而现在 Jones 律师今天在这里，他说，不，不，不，嗯，他代表 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳），他不会提交出庭通知。那么，这不是运作方式。\n\nCHORCHES 律师：法官阁下，我不知道我是否说完了，但 Krasner 先生希望我继续在本程序中代表他。\n\n法庭：你与他有过直接沟通，授权你代表他联系吗？\n\nCHORCHES 律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：你亲自见过 Krasner 先生吗？\n\nCHORCHES 律师：我与他有过一次电话交谈——\n\n法庭：所以你甚至不知道他长什么样？\n\nCHORCHES 律师：我没有见过他，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：Chorches 律师，你知道他长什么样吗？如果他站在本法庭这里，你能认出他吗？\n\nCHORCHES 律师：我不能认出他，法官阁下。我没有与他进行 Zoom 视频会议，但我可以告诉您，我对本案极为熟悉。从一开始就是如此。我不认为这——我相信，出庭通知经常会在提交 pro hac vice 动议之前提交，或者并非总是在提交 pro hac vice 动议之前提交，而且我不会——再次说明，我非常、非常熟悉抗辩理由，提出了众多抗辩理由。\n\n法庭：Chorches 律师，你提交了对起诉状的答辩，你不只是提交了出庭通知。你提交了答辩。\n\nCHORCHES 律师：这是正确的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：这是正确的。因此，你涉及《规则》第 11 条的问题。你现已向法庭及所有当事人作出陈述，即你代表该被告签署了文件。\n\n我并不是说你不能继续参与，但你不能进来然后说——首先，你进来并说——你提交了出庭通知。你说你将提交一项 pro hac 动议。你从未这样做。你提交了一份答辩，是去年 5 月提交的答辩，随后你又提交一项撤回出庭的动议，说，嗯，我不能再出庭，因为 Jones 律师联系了我，而律师——我认识 Jones 律师多年，但你甚至不认识被告，也没有从被告处获得任何直接授权。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3973 提交于 01/16/25 录入于 01/16/25 09:39:19 第 25 页，共 29 页\n\n那是你于 12 月 10 日提交的动议，其中完全没有提及与 Krasner 先生有任何沟通，完全没有，除了向他发送通知之外。\n\nCHORCHES 律师：当时我没有——我的意图是担任本地律师。\n\n法庭：Chorches 律师，你在 2024 年 5 月提交了一份答辩，一份答辩，然后七个月后你又进来说，哦，我想撤回，因为 Jones 先生——你甚至没有说任何关于——你说，在提交之后，Jones 律师联系了你，请你担任本地律师。动议人认识 Jones 律师多年，并且长期担任本地律师。\n\n那么，问题是什么？pro hac vice 动议在哪里？也许不会有这样的动议。这没问题，你是被告的律师，但你现在已在记录中、向法庭以及向所有当事人表示，你与 Krasner 先生有过直接沟通，并且你正接受他的指示，尽管你从未见过他，而且如果他站在本法庭这里，你也无法认出他。\n\nCHORCHES 律师：法官阁下，我将继续在本案中代表他，并且我将始终与 Krasner 先生直接沟通。而且我还——\n\n我曾经——如果法官阁下（听不清）对本案一无所知，我可能比 Jones 律师更了解本案。\n\n法庭：这不是——Chorches 律师，你不断回到你对本案的了解。这不是问题所在。问题是，作为法庭工作人员，你已提交出庭通知和答辩。随后，你提出动议撤回该出庭通知，称你需要撤回出庭通知。动议是这样写的：Jones 律师联系动议人，并通知他，Jones 先生之间的律师—客户关系已不可挽回地破裂。嗯，Jones 先生今天在这里，而且他刚刚告诉我，他代表 Krasner 先生。尽管他不会提交出庭通知，他刚刚告诉我，他将代表 Krasner 先生，或者他确实——请原谅——我们可以回去听录音。因此，我不知道你在这里做什么，但我不会在本案这些对抗程序中再看到另一项撤回出庭通知的动议。你已参与，而且不能退出。\n\nCHORCHES 律师：我明白。而且通过该动议——\n\n法庭：而且你已提交答辩，如果本案中发生任何其他不合情理的事情，那么，你知道，某人将会提出某项诉因。这不是游戏。\n\nCHORCHES 律师：法官阁下，我的——我明白，而且我的意图是，在这两项对抗程序中始终积极维护 Krasner 先生的权益。\n\n法庭：好的。那么这没问题。但如果 Jones 先生不代表 Krasner 先生，我不知道他为什么会在这里，不过他实际上确实代表他，所以显然你将与 Jones 先生合作？\n\nCHORCHES 律师：不，法官阁下。不，法官阁下。我将直接与 Krasner 先生合作。\n\n法庭：嗯，也许你应该见见他，这样如果你必须——你知道，你不想在法庭里见你的客户，对吧。也许你应该见见他，并确保你有直接的行事授权，因为截至目前，你甚至还没有见过他。\n\nCHORCHES 律师：我将不得不——我正在向他转发聘任协议，而且我显然会按照《职业责任规则》的要求与我的客户沟通。\n\n法庭：还有《联邦民事诉讼规则》、地方法院地方法规则，以及破产法院地方法规则。\n\nCHORCHES 律师：我明白，法官阁下，而且这正是撤回该动议的主要原因。\n\n法庭：撤回该动议的主要原因是什么？\n\nCHORCHES 律师：嗯，因为我想继续代表他。\n\n法庭：好的。我不会审理任何其他撤回动议。我只想让这一点非常明确。那不会发生。你可以提交它们，但它们将被驳回。你已参与——\n\nCHORCHES 律师：我明白。\n\n法庭：——你已提交出庭通知，并且你已提交答辩，这就是这些对抗程序将如何继续进行。关于本次状态会议及这些对抗程序，我没有其他事项。还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生（德斯平斯）：受托人没有事项，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，这些对抗程序的状态会议至此结束。目前不会安排进一步的状态会议。今日日程上的所有事项至此结束。因此，谢谢各位。现在休庭。\n\n（程序于下午 1:40 结束。）\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 3973 提交于 01/16/25 录入于 01/16/25 09:39:19 第 28 页，共 29 页\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 3973　提交于 01/16/25　录入于 01/16/25 09:39:19　第 29 页，共 29 页\n\n证明\n\n本人证明，据本人所知及能力范围，前述内容是上述案件程序电子录音的准确笔录。\n\n/s/ William J. Garling（威廉·J.·加林）　January 13, 2025\n\nWilliam J. Garling, CET-543\n\n认证法庭记录员\n\n代表 Reliable（瑞莱布尔）","key_entities":["Despins","Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA","Luc Despins","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":3884,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":7338,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-01-16 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-01-16","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:59:47"}