{"id":"court_ctb_3974_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":3974,"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) . . Courtroom 123 Debtors. . Brien McMahon Federal Building . 915 Lafayette Boulevard . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 . . Wednesday, January 8, 2025 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:08 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 Nicholas A. Bassett, Esquire PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 (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 3974 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 Page 1 of 50 Case 22-50073 Doc 3974 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 Page 2 of 50\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 For Anthem Health Plans, Inc.; Anthem HealthChoice Assurance, Inc.; Direct Persuasion LLC; Sedgwick Realty Corp.; Federal Express Corporation; and On the Spot Home Improvement, Inc.: Eric S. Goldstein, Esquire SHIPMAN & GOODWIN, LLP One Constitution Plaza Hartford, Connecticut 06103 For Liberty Jet: Gerard R. Luckman, Esquire FORCHELLI DEEGAN TERRANA, LLP 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard Suite 100 Uniondale, New York 11553 For Harcus Parker Limited: Peter C. Netburn, Esquire CLYDE & CO. US, LLP 265 Franklin Street Suite 802 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 For FFP (BVI) Limited; Weddle Law PPLLC; V.X. Cerda & Associates P.A.; The Francis Law Firm; Lawall & Mitchell LLC; Aaron Mitchell; Berkeley Rowe Limited; ACASS Canada LTD; and G4S Security Systems (Hong Kong) Ltd.: Jeffrey M. Sklarz, Esquire GREEN & SKLARZ, LLC One Audubon Street 3rd Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06511\n\n 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 For Apple, Inc., and Meta Platforms, Inc.: George P. Angelich, Esquire Jin Yan, Esquire ARENTFOX SCHIFF, LLP Avenue of the Americas 42nd Floor New York, New York 10019 For Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.: Stephen M. Kindseth, Esquire ZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C. 10 Middle Street 15th Floor Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 For Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc.: Brian T. Peterson, Esquire K&L GATES, LLP 925 4th Avenue Suite 2900 Seattle, Washington 98104 Case 22-50073 Doc 3974 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 Page 3 of 50\n\n| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 3974 | Filed 01/16/25 | Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 | Page 4 of 50 |\n|---------------|----------|----------|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|\n| | | | | | 4 |\n| 1 | | | | INDEX | |\n| 2 | MOTIONS: | | | | PAGE |\n| 3 | Matter | | | | |\n| 4 | | | | No. 3923 Chapter 11 Trustee for Status Conference
Regarding January 15, 2025 Hearings | 5 |\n| 5 | | | Court's Ruling: | | -- |\n| 6 | | | | | |\n| 7 | | | Transcriptionist's Certificate | | 50 |\n| 8 | | | | | |\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(Proceedings commenced at 12:11 p.m.)\n\n1\n\n2 3 4 THE DEPUTY: The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut is now in session, the Honorable Julie Manning presiding.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I will now call the case, 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: All of you. We are here today on a status conference that was requested by the trustee in connection with the hearing scheduled for next week, January 15, to address issues raised by parties to the joint brief that we discussed back at a hearing on September 24th, 2024, and also with regard to motions to dismiss or motions for judgment on the pleadings in adversary proceedings, which are not subject to mediation and are not part of the joint brief, but which the parties raised with the Court, their requests to be heard at the same time on the issues that were raised in the joint brief.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I've seen a few documents that were filed, I believe, today, so I haven't really read them fully about the status conference and issues related to logistics for next week's hearing. And from the start, I just want to be clear that the hearing on January 15 will address only the issues in the joint brief, whether the parties are parties to the joint brief or are Defendants in other adversary proceedings. That is what we discussed extensively during the hearing on September 24th and the Defendants who are not parties to the\n\n1 2 3 4 joint brief and are not subject to mediation raised before this Court, their desire to have their motions to dismiss heard at the same time, with regard to those issues and that is what the Court will address.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Any other issues raised in motions to dismiss or motions for judgment on the pleadings that do not pertain to the issues, the four issues that the Court ordered, would be allowed to be briefed, will be scheduled for some date in the future. So I want to note that there may be parties, and we can talk about it during this conference, that do not need to be part of the hearing next week; if they have issues raised in their briefs that have nothing to do with the joint issues in the joint brief, then the Court is not going to hear or entertain those issues next week.\n\n15 16 17 18 19 Also, with regard to -- and I understand, people have worked very hard and I appreciate that, to try to help with logistics in this case and in these numerous adversary proceedings, but I want to state that there's no need for anyone to further file --\n\n20 21 22 23 Please everyone turn off your microphones if you're not talking, because I can hear things in the backgrounds of yours offices or wherever you may be, so please put yourself on mute.\n\n24 25 There's no need for people to file motions to be excused to attend for local counsel, because what we're going\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to determine today is who and how many, if more than one people will argue issues before the Court next week. So, in order to stop -- and not that any of you are trying to -- but in order to stop the docket of this case from going into the ten thousands, we can stop filing motions to be excused as local counsel. It's not going to be necessary and I will address all of those matters as they need to be addressed.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 So, as I noted already, the only issues that will be heard next week at the hearing on the 15th will be the four issues that were listed in the order that this Court entered, which is ECF 3577, paragraphs 2(b), number (i) through (iv). All the other issues that any party has raised, whether they're a party to the joint brief or the non-joint brief Defendants, those issues will be scheduled for some time in the future for a date to be determined.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Also, as I noted, there are two adversary proceedings, at least, that it appears that have no issues asserted in those briefs that are the four legal issues that the parties asked this Court to entertain, that's 24-05163, which is the adversary proceeding against Harcus Parker Limited and 24-05219, Jason Miller. I understand Jason Miller signed onto the joint brief, but in the adversary proceeding, the brief that was filed in support of the motion to dismiss has nothing to do with the four issues that are the common issues that are part of the order that set this\n\n1 2 3 briefing and hearing schedule. So I'll wait to hear from those people, but I would certainly entertain those matters being removed from the calendar for next week.\n\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Also, Trustee Despins and your counsel, what I'm going to need you to do both, for today and for purposes of next week, is I understand that you filed a list, Exhibit A and I think Exhibit B -- I'm not even sure; it was filed this morning -- but, with regard to the parties to the joint brief and then the Defendants in the non-joint brief adversary proceedings that are set for hearing next week. I'm going to need your office to prepare a list of everyone who attended today and all of you are going to be required to send an email to the trustee and he's going to tell you, or someone is going to tell you where that should be sent, of who you are, whether you filed a notice of appearance, because many parties that are in the mediation that not filed a notice of appearance in the adversary proceedings, in their corresponding adversary proceedings yet and you need to do so.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 It is not -- and filing a notice of appearance is not going to start the clock running on anything while you're in mediation. But in order to have an accurate record for this Court and for anyone who seeks a transcript of this status conference and next week's hearing, we need to have a list of attendees on today's hearing, who you represent; if\n\n1 2 3 4 5 you filed a notice of appearance; what adversary proceeding you are involved in. All of that is going to need to be prepared and then filed on the docket of this case because it's going to need to be part of a transcript and also to reflect, as I said, an accurate record in this case.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 There are several parties in the joint brief that have not filed an appearance yet. They may have someone in their firm that's filed an appearance, but they signed the brief and didn't file an appearance. You have to file a notice of appearance; it's that simple. Anyone that has signed the brief and/or that is appearing today that has not filed a notice of appearance, must file a notice of appearance with regard to this situation and that is true of next Thursday, as well. I can look at a list and see that there's at least 10, if not more, parties that have not filed a notice of appearance with regard to the joint brief and with regard to the other Defendants in the non-joint brief adversary proceedings, they're in Adversary 24-05188, Weddle Law. There's no appearance filed on behalf of the lawyer, the Law Offices of Richard Corby, so that needs to be done as well. And I know you'll all do that, I'm just making clear that that needs to occur so that the record is accurate.\n\n23 24 25 With regard to how the matter will proceed next week, we're going to talk about that, obviously. But the only thing I'm going to hear are the four issues and those\n\n1 2 3 4 5 four issues will be argued by the joint brief Defendants by one or possibly more than one lawyer and we'll talk about that. Those arguments will be advanced first and will apply to all of the adversary proceedings and then the trustee will respond.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 With regard to the non-joint brief Defendants and what arguments they can advance, they can advance possibly -- I will allow -- and when I look at the non-joint Defendants, there are essentially, at this point, five to six lawyers who could possibly make an argument on behalf of the non-joint Defendants and those parties will not -- I will not allow a regurgitation of the arguments, but I will allow you to make some form of a statement, but you're going to have a time limit, as will the parties that make the arguments on behalf of the joint Defendants that have signed on to the brief.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 But right now, I see that with regard to the nonjoint brief Defendants, there are six, at the most, lawyers that would be making an argument and two of those might even drop out, given what I've said today that I see no issues in the briefs in their support of their motion to dismiss that are the same, one or all of the four joint issues that this Court agreed to allow the parties to brief as legal issues.\n\n23 24 25 Let me just see if there's anything else I wanted to say before -- oh, yes, the last thing I'll say, then I'll talk to the trustee and then I'll hear from others, is that\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 who is going to argue the issues and on what issue they're going to argue, assuming I let more than one person argue, needs to be identified to the trustee by this Friday, the 10th. And then the trustee and those people must file a list of those people on the docket of the case by January 13th.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 So, Trustee Despins, you requested this status conference. The status conference request was granted. As I said, I attempted -- I think I -- I mean, I read your status report this morning and I see -- I know Attorney Sklarz filed one shortly before this hearing. I didn't read it thoroughly, but I understand, as for the non-joint brief Defendants he's representing, he filed a report.\n\n14 15 16 17 18 I will turn first to you, Trustee Despins, and ask you what are your thoughts on what I've just said and what other thoughts, if any, do you want the Court to address in connection with how the hearing will proceed next week on the 15th with regard to the joint brief legal issues.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor, and good afternoon. I will turn the mic over to Mr. Bassett in one second, but just to deal with the procedural issue you raised, which is that people on this call should email someone representing the trustee. To make things easy, you know, for the participants on this hearing, Mr. Patrick Linsey sent an email to all of the joint Defendants and also 1 2 3 the other Defendants at 8:14 this morning. If you could just respond to that, that's the best way to communicate to us who was on this call.\n\n4 5 6 7 If you did not receive that email this morning at 8:14 or so, then you can email Mr. Linsey directly. But with that technical issue, Your Honor, I will turn it over to Mr. Bassett to address the Court.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Before we turn it over to Mr. Bassett, with regard to everyone sending an email to Attorney Linsey, whether it be a reply email or a new email, you need to - that email has to have the following information: your name, who you represent, what adversary proceeding you represent that party in, and whether or not you've filed a notice of appearance, and your firm's full name, address, email, everything that you would put on a pleading that would look like a notice of appearance, as required by the District Court Rules and our Local Rules. Just to be clear, it's not just I represent -- and I'm not saying you would say this, I'm just making an example -- it's not, \"I represent the Smith Company.\" It's, \"I represent the Smith Company in adversary whatever it is. I have filed a notice of appearance. I have not filed a notice of appearance. This is my entire firm's name, address, phone number, email address,\" okay? Just to be clear about that, that's the information that needs to be provided.\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3974
Filed 01/16/25
Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01
Page 13 of 50 |\n|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 13 |\n| 1 | And then, Trustee Despins, your office will have |\n| | |\n| 2 | to file that information on the docket so that it will be |\n| 3 | part of an accurate record of today's status conference, |\n| 4 | okay? |\n| 5 | MR. DESPINS:
Will do, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | And I will now turn it over to Mr. Bassett. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 8 | Okay.
Attorney Bassett? |\n| 9 | MR. BASSETT:
Yes, good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | And for the record, Nick Bassett from Paul |\n| 11 | Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| 12 | Your Honor's comments at the outset of the |\n| 13 | conference today were quite helpful because I think it takes |\n| 14 | care of a lot of what I was planning to address and what we |\n| 15 | had addressed in the status report that we filed this |\n| 16 | morning, and by the way, we apologize for not getting that on |\n| 17 | file earlier.
We were having some ECF issues yesterday. |\n| 18 | In that status report, Your Honor, essentially, we |\n| 19 | walked through sort of where things stand with the various |\n| 20 | parties whose motions are set for hearing next week and then |\n| 21 | we proposed proceeding, effectively, in the manner in which |\n| 22 | Your Honor has just instructed, which is to have a hearing |\n| 23 | next Wednesday only on the issues raised in the joint |\n| 24 | briefing, with the parties who are not part of the joint |\n| 25 | briefing being able to be heard on those same issues, subject |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to there being an efficient process for presenting argument where there's not duplication and only a limit number of counsel are able to be heard. So I think we have all sort of arrived at the same place, which, as Your Honor noted, I think, is fully consistent with the September 25th order that the Court entered describing the process for the joint briefing and how that sort of overlaps with the other motions to dismiss that were pending at that time and that are now also set for hearing next week.\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 A couple of issues, Your Honor, that I wanted to point out. If you look at our joint status report, again, the one that we filed this morning, it's at ECF 3943, what we articulated -- and this is in -- this is on the second page of our status report -- we endeavored to articulate the joint issues raised by the briefing in our first full paragraph on that page. And what you may note is that the articulation of those issues is slightly different from how they were set forth in the Court's September 25th order.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The reason for that, Your Honor, is that, in our view, the issues, as set forth in the Court's September 25th order were kind of, I guess I would describe them as the kind of summary of the issue that would be raised in the joint briefing. And then when the joint briefing Defendants actually submitted their brief, they ended up articulating their specific arguments and legal theories related to those\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 issues in a particular way. And, therefore, it's -- and, basically, what we have identified on page 2 of our status report is really the way that we understand the joint briefing Defendants to have articulated their issues and it really sort of tracks the table of contents of their joint motion to dismiss.\n\n7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 And then what we have further done, Your Honor, in our status report in Exhibit A, is we listed all of the other motions to dismiss, separate from the joint briefing and the issues that those joint briefs raise. Many of them, as Your Honor noted, do raise issues that overlap with the issues raised by the joint briefing, as we have articulated those issues in our status report, but almost all of them also raise other issues that are different and fall outside of those issues.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So the only -- what all this means and the relevance of what I'm saying, Your Honor, is I think that the one issue that we all need to be clear on is for all of the non-joint movants, we need to be clear which of the issues raised in their motions to dismiss are actually consistent with and the same as the issues raised in the joint briefing because I don't want -- I don't think the Court would want a scenario where, you know, based on the joint briefing, we all understand the issues to be A, B, C, and D, but a joint movant may have sort of articulated its theory related to an\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 issue in a much different way and if so, that could greatly expand, I think, the scope of next week's hearing and lead to the kind of messiness that we're all trying to avoid. So, again, what we endeavored to do in Exhibit A to our status report is identify more precisely by looking at each motion to dismiss, which of the issues in that motion to dismiss are overlapping with the joint briefing and, therefore, should be heard next week and which of those fall outside of it. And I think it may be important to have that Exhibit A to our status report as a guide just so we are all, again, on the same page as to specifically what issues raised in the non-joint motions to dismiss will be subject to argument next week. The other issue I wanted to identify, Your Honor, is that certain of the non-joint movants are parties who partially stayed avoidance actions. And as the Court will recall those partially-stayed avoidance actions are actions that involve some transferor entities, alleged alter-ego entities that are subject to the ongoing omnibus alter-ego litigation and as to which the Court has entered a partial stay, which has not been lifted. So the reason I raise that is because some of the movants in their motions to dismiss have raised legal arguments, which may overlap with the joint briefing issues, such as, you know, retroactivity of the alter-ego ruling,\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 whether or not the alter-ego ruling or alter-ego release is available to the trustee under applicable law. But they have often raised that issue as to not only the non-stayed entities at issue in their complaint, but also the partiallystayed entities at issue in their complaint. Now, it's argued that they should not have even raised those issues because they were stayed, but I just want to be clear that for purposes of next week's hearing, when those other Defendants are offering argument as to joint issues, they can only do so as those issues apply to nonstayed entities in their complaint and not the partially stayed ones. So those are the kind of two caveats or clarifications that I would offer that I think for everyone's benefit, probably need to be resolved as part of today's status conference. I'm happy to answer any questions. THE COURT: Well, with regard to the first issue that you raised, that the manner or the wording of the issues that you see as the joint brief issues, obviously, I looked at this today. I haven't thought about it very much, but I can tell you, I do see that it's different. It's worded differently than the way the order setting forth the briefing schedule listed the common issues, number one. Number two, as I said back during our hearing in\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 September, when we -- I'm looking at some of the wording and some of the things that we've talked about. What I agreed to do was to address purely legal issues, that's it. And whether anybody wants to recharacterize or restate the issues, that's your prerogative, but I'm going to decide the four issues that I said I was going to decide in the manner in which I said it would be decided, meaning the four issues that were raised are the four issues that are going to be decided. So, whether or not someone has evolved an argument\n\n10 11 12 13 14 15 based upon their agreement as to what the four issues would be, may or may not be addressed by the Court. I'm addressing the four issues only that have been argued to be legal issues that the Court can determine as a matter of law. I'm not doing anything more than that.\n\n16 17 18 19 Does anyone have any questions -- well, I'm not going to open it up to 40 people. I've already said all this. I've already said it. I said it during the hearing on the 24th. I said it in the order. That's where we are.\n\n20 21 22 23 24 25 And all the non-joint brief Defendants who are on the calendar asked specifically to be part of this process because they claimed that their due process rights would be violated if they weren't part of this process where these joint brief issues would be decided. So the issues are clear in the Court's eyes and those are the issues that I'm\n\n| 1 | determining. |\n|---|--------------|\n| | |\n\n25\n\n2 3 4 5 Do you have any response, Attorney Bassett? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, I understand the Court's order loud and clear. I understand how the Court wants to proceed.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Just to help put an example on it to understand why we had kind of recast the issues in the way that we did, if you look at, for example, the second issue in the September 25th order, which is whether applicable law allows for a reverse veil-piercing in your alter-ego determinations, one way that that issue had been argued in the joint briefing is, you know, the trustee's view, of course, is that the Court has already decided this issue on numerous prior occasions and that the Court's prior rulings about the applicability of reverse veil-piercing and alter-ego are law of the case, right.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 And so the joint briefing Defendants have argued in their motion to dismiss that the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable. So that is a way in which the joint briefing Defendants have articulated that argument and it's a sort of sub-issue, I would call it in that argument.\n\n22 23 24 THE COURT: Well, and if that's how they've articulated it, then I will address that articulation appropriately.\n\nMR. BASSETT: Understood, Your Honor.\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
But that's not the issue that they all |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | agreed that was going to be briefed.
So if someone is |\n| 3 | arguing something separate from the four issues that the |\n| 4 | Court agreed to hear upon the agreement of the parties, as |\n| 5 | presented by the parties at a hearing on September 24th -- |\n| 6 | and I talked about this at that time and I said, you know, |\n| 7 | you're trying, and I understand, to promote judicial economy, |\n| 8 | but we're not promoting judicial economy when we're raising |\n| 9 | factual issues and issues that are not purely legal issues. |\n| 10 | And if parties want to make that presentation, they're |\n| 11 | entitled to do so, but whether or not that will be |\n| 12 | successful, they'll see. |\n| 13 | I am not -- I was very clear.
I don't think I |\n| 14 | could have been more clear on September 24th that I thought |\n| 15 | these issues that the parties wanted to bring forth to the |\n| 16 | Court had -- I wasn't sure they were purely legal issues, but |\n| 17 | I allowed it to happen.
If the parties are going to go off |\n| 18 | course, then the likelihood is they're not going to get a |\n| 19 | ruling on that issue. |\n| 20 | I will said, these are the four issues that I'll |\n| 21 | ruling on.
That's it.
It's in an order.
So it's that |\n| 22 | simple. |\n| 23 | MR. BASSETT:
Understood, Your Honor.
Understood. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
If the parties don't want to be part |\n| 25 | of it and they want to withdraw and they want to proceed |\n| | |\n\n1 their own way, they're welcome to do so.\n\n5\n\n20\n\n2 3 4 But, you know, everyone came to this Court with, supposedly, an agreement as to how we were going to proceed on these issues and that's how we are proceeding.\n\nMR. BASSETT: Understood, Your Honor.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 So we'll be prepared at next week's hearing to argue the issues as set out in the Court's September 25th order. To the extent parties raise issues that fall outside of that, you know, we are not going to be prepared to address those issues because they are not within the scope of the hearing.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 And just to be clear, for the avoidance of doubt, we absolutely agree with Your Honor that some, if not all, of the issues that have been raised are factual issues that are not appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss or otherwise that now will be part of our response to the arguments.\n\n18 19 But we understand the Court's order and we will be prepared to proceed accordingly on the 15th.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 Now, did you discuss -- Attorney Goldstein happened to be the person who had the pleasure of making the argument during the September 24th hearing. Did, Attorney Bassett and Attorney Goldstein, have you discussed who's going to be making these arguments and what arguments are\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 going to be made? I saw that there was a suggestion that there might be three people making the arguments on behalf of the issues in the joint brief, although, there are four, which is fine. I mean, I just want to know, has there been any discussion with regard to who's making the arguments and if not -- I'll turn to you, Attorney Goldstein, since you were the person who made the arguments on behalf of all the parties at the last hearing -- I know you were asked to do so -- and ask you what your proposal is, if there isn't already some type of discussion you've had with Attorney Bassett or someone representing the trustee. MR. BASSETT: So, Your Honor, I'll respond to that first. We have generally discussed with counsel for the joint movants, their proposal that three separate counsel divide up and argue the issues in the joint briefing. We told them that we didn't conceptually have a problem with that, necessarily, subject to them telling us who those attorneys are and which particular issues they intend to argue. We have not heard a response to that, so I think that goes directly to Your Honor's question and then I would assume that Attorney Goldstein or another member of the joint group could answer that question. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. The -- yes, so we had reached out to Attorney\n\n25\n\nBassett and Attorney Linsey. The joint defense group, the\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30-some of us had mutual conversations about how to organize the oral argument and the thinking that we'd have no more than three, I think it would be a combination of myself, Brian Peterson, who I think should be on this conference - he's the lawyer for Amazon from the K&L Gates firm -- and Scott Charmoy, who's another lawyer for one of the joint Defendants.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 We have -- it's a little fluid yet on who's going to be doing what, but what we had talked about with Attorney Linsey and Attorney Bassett is that each person would have a discrete, particular legal issue and that's how we were going to approach the hearing and how we'd work that among the 30 some joint Defendants.\n\n14 15 THE COURT: But one of you would have two issues, then; is that correct? There are four.\n\n16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Right. So there would be -- one of -- we would each take one or more issues and that's kind of how we would approach it. You know, when we were looking at it, Your Honor, we were looking kind of at our table of contents of the brief and that's how we were thinking about it. But, yes, fitting it within those four, one of us would probably be taking two of those issues and then the other two would be taking one.\n\n24 25 But we'd be -- I think Your Honor said, and I want to make sure I got it right -- that we would be sending a\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 note to the trustee's counsel by Friday, again, defining who would be making those arguments and on what issue. I just want to make sure I have that right in my notes. THE COURT: Yes, you do. MR. GOLDSTEIN: Okay. THE COURT: And I'm going to impose time limits, as well, on both, the presentations of the four issues and the trustee's reply, and also time limits on any of the six counsel, if there even still will be six at that point, who represent the non-joint brief Defendants, as well. So, I will say that the likelihood is that -- and I'm going to stick to time limits -- that there will be a 15 minute time limit for each issue and then the trustee will have a half-an-hour response, with regard to the joint brief issues. With regard to the Defendants who are the nonjoint brief Defendants, you'll have 10 minutes, one lawyer for each. It'll be, for example, you know -- and I know, Attorney Sklarz, you filed something today and as I've said, I haven't really had a chance to look at it very much, but I know you filed something. My review -- MR. SKLARZ: Your Honor, if I want me to summarize it -- THE COURT: Yeah, hold on one second, Attorney Sklarz.\n\n| 1 | My review of the matters on the calendar for next |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | week that are not joint brief Defendants, you represent the |\n| 3 | Defendants in one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight |\n| 4 | of those adversary proceedings.
And then ArentFox represents |\n| 5 | two Defendants in two adversary proceedings.
Then another |\n| 6 | firm represents Liberty Jet Management.
Another firm, Clyde, |\n| 7 | represents Harcus Parker, which maybe they're going to not be |\n| 8 | part of this, given what I've said today, but we'll see. |\n| 9 | Zeisler & Zeisler represents itself in its adversary |\n| 10 | proceeding.
And Attorney Hellman represents Mr. Miller in |\n| 11 | that adversary proceeding; although, again, Mr. Miller joined |\n| 12 | the joint brief, but doesn't raise any issues that I can see |\n| 13 | in the motion to dismiss that are the four issues that the |\n| 14 | Court is going to hear next week.
So that's six lawyers. |\n| 15 | So, if we -- and I would give the trustee, also, |\n| 16 | an ability to respond to those arguments, since they are |\n| 17 | somewhat different -- but they're in the different, actually. |\n| 18 | I actually think that's not right what I just said, so let me |\n| 19 | correct that. |\n| 20 | What I'm going to do is 15 minutes for each one of |\n| 21 | the four issues by the parties to the joint brief, 10 minutes |\n| 22 | to each one of those groups of lawyers I just -- there's six, |\n| 23 | that's it -- 10 minutes for those, and then I will give the |\n| 24 | trustee half an hour to respond, and that's going to be the |\n| | |\n\n25\n\nhearing.\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 So, does anybody have any questions? MR. LUCKMAN: Your Honor? THE COURT: Attorney Sklarz? Who was that, that just spoke? MR. LUCKMAN: Oh, no, Your Honor. It's Gerard Luckman for Liberty Jet. We do not intend to argue on the 15th, but I would like to have one of my colleagues be able to monitor the hearing. THE COURT: Sure. Well, it's in person, so they can come and listen. MR. LUCKMAN: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. But you will not be arguing, so thank you. Do you have an appearance in the case, Counsel? MR. LUCKMAN: I -- my firm has -- I have an appearance for both me and my partners, but we would hope to be able to send someone that's maybe not admitted to monitor. Not admitted in Connecticut, but just to monitor -- THE COURT: Well, it's a public hearing, so anybody can come in and listen. MR. LUCKMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: So I'll take Liberty Jet off, so now we're down to 50 minutes, because each of you will get 10. I don't know about counsel for -- I don't know if counsel for Case 22-50073 Doc 3974 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 Page 26 of 50\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 Harcus Parker is on the call today. Is anyone from Harcus Parker on the call? MR. NETBURN: I am, Your Honor. My name is Peter Netburn. I represent Harcus Parker. Given what the Court has said the issues that will be addressed next week are, I will not be arguing. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Then, I'm going to take that matter off the calendar, as well. And, obviously, you're welcome to attend the hearing or have someone else attend the hearing, but I'm going to remove that adversary proceeding off the calendar, as well, okay? MR. NETBURN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Hellman -- is Attorney Hellman here? MR. SKLARZ: Your Honor, he's not. I spoke with Attorney Hellman. He has -- I believe he had to be elsewhere, but he is not here. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I may not allow him to argue next week on the issue, other than he already joined the joint brief, so maybe someone can pass that along to him. MR. SKLARZ: I believe his intention was not to argue. I think he only raised an issue not within the four -- THE COURT: Okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 3974 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 Page 27 of 50\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 MR. SKLARZ: -- and I just need to let him know. MR. LINSEY: That's what Mr. Hellman said to me yesterday and he said that he had had a death in his family -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: -- and he was unable to attend today for that reason, so I just wanted to pass that information on. THE COURT: Attorney Linsey, let's just -- and Attorney Sklarz, I'm sorry, since we're on Zoom, we have to say who's speaking so the recording picks it up. So, Attorney Linsey, you were saying what? MR. LINSEY: I had spoken with Attorney Hellman yesterday and he had said the same to me that Mr. Sklarz reported. He also had mentioned that he had a death in his family and a wake to attend today, so he would not be able to be on the hearing. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but I will, given what you've said, both you, Attorney Linsey, and Attorney Sklarz, I will remove that adversary proceeding from the calendar for next week and will not allow -- allot, excuse me, time for argument on that adversary proceeding. So, then, that only leaves three lawyers that will argue after the joint brief argument and that would be Case 22-50073 Doc 3974 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 Page 28 of 50\n\n 29 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 Attorney Sklarz on behalf of all of the Defendants he represents in the adversary proceedings that are on the calendar. Is counsel -- is ArentFox on the hearing today? MR. YAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is Jin Yan from ArentFox, on behalf of Meta and Apple. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. YAN: I just wanted to (indiscernible) to two clarifying issues, Your Honor. First of all, we are not parties to the joint brief. THE COURT: I know that. MR. YAN: Your order at -- okay. And the other -- so I don't think, you know, to the extent that (indiscernible) raised the issues in the Defendants' brief, I'm not sure that some of our arguments would pertain to that, particularly, the non-joint issues. The other point that we wanted to raise, just for purposes of clarifying the record, is that Your Honor had entered orders in the -- and our respective adversary proceedings indicate that our motions would go forward and there wasn't any language about, you know, that those would go forward, only with respect to issues that overlap with the issues made by the joint Defendants. So we just want a clarification as to whether Your Case 22-50073 Doc 3974 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 Page 29 of 50\n\n1 2 3 Honor is going to, you know, revise this to say that we're not going forward at all or are we only going forward on certain issues?\n\n4 5 THE COURT: Well, Counsel, thank you for your questions.\n\n6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 The issues are as follows: you and others were at prior hearings -- I believe you were there -- with regard to the joint brief issues and the issues that you and other Defendants raised that were non-joint brief Defendants were that somehow your due process rights, your clients' due process rights are going to be violated if the Court did not at least hear the motions to dismiss at the same time because they're the same issues. So your motion was set for hearing because you had filed that motion. It was already -- and you had argued it, as did other lawyers, that there'd be a due process concern on behalf of your clients.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 What I did say already today, and I will say, if necessary in another order, but I don't think that it is necessary, is that your issues will be decided in the ordinary course of business. As you know, Counsel, there are almost 300 adversary proceedings and we're going to have to address those in the best way that we can, as far as case management is concerned. And what we've been trying to do is do that.\n\n25\n\nThe trustee has made proposals, with regard to\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 mediation, partially-stayed, fully-stayed, all different kinds of issues. Those matters have been brought forth in every adversary proceeding and you've had an opportunity to respond to any and all of the procedures and processes that have been put in place in connection with the case management of these adversary proceedings. So, if you're saying -- are you saying you don't want to participate in the hearing next week? MR. ANGELICH: Your Honor, this is George Angelich of ArentFox. I'm here alongside my colleague Jin Yan, for both, Apple and Meta. To be clear, Your Honor, we're not saying we don't want to participate next week. We do. What we are simply saying, however, is this is a matter for -- I think that is important enough that we clarify precisely the orders that govern Apple and Meta and which orders govern the joint Defendants. The joint Defendants are governed by two orders concerning the January 15th -- at least two -- and those are docket entries 35 (audio interference) as well as 3577 --\n\n21 22 23 THE COURT: You're cutting out, Counsel. You've cut out, Counsel. You'll have to say that again. Docket number what?\n\n24 25 MR. ANGELICH: Sorry, Your Honor. 3587 and 3577 govern the joint Defendants. They\n\n| 1 | do not govern Apple or Meta.
Apple and Meta, however, are |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | governed by the Docket Entry orders 38 and 63, okay, and I'll |\n| 3 | elaborate in a moment.
63 is the docket entry applicable on |\n| 4 | the Apple docket and 38 is the docket entry on the Meta |\n| 5 | docket.
Those two docket entries on the Meta and Apple |\n| 6 | adversary proceedings are identical.
They make no mention of |\n| 7 | the joint Defendants' briefing.
They make no motion of any |\n| 8 | of the issues that are limited and defined to the joint |\n| 9 | Defendants. |\n| 10 | Apple and Meta did not appear at the |\n| 11 | September 24th conference. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Are you sure about that?
I thought |\n| 13 | Mr. Yan was there? |\n| 14 | MR. ANGELICH:
We were not, Your Honor.
We |\n| 15 | observed, but we did not enter an appearance.
We did not |\n| 16 | speak.
We did not take any positions.
We are not part of |\n| 17 | the joint Defendants group and we have taken great care -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
I understand that you're not part of |\n| 19 | the joint Defendants group.
That's not what -- I understand |\n| 20 | that, Counsel.
I have no problem understanding that. |\n| 21 | MR. ANGELICH:
Thank you. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
What I'm saying is Mr. Yan was at the |\n| 23 | September 24th conference, because -- |\n| 24 | MR. ANGELICH:
He was not, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
-- every Defendant in every adversary |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3974 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 Page 33 of 50\n\n33\n\n| 1 | proceeding got notice of it.
Every Defendant -- |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | MR. ANGELICH:
Your Honor -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Hold on a second, Counsel. |\n| 4 | Every Defendant in every adversary proceeding got |\n| 5 | notice of that hearing and Mr. Yan was there.
And whether |\n| 6 | you decided not to raise an issue, that's your decision. |\n| 7 | If you're saying you want a different order in |\n| 8 | this, then file something in your adversary proceeding. |\n| 9 | MR. ANGELICH:
We do have (audio interference). |\n| 10 | First, Your Honor, if I may, thank you for that, |\n| 11 | Your Honor.
I appreciate your explanation. |\n| 12 | Mr. Yan was not at that hearing.
He did not |\n| 13 | appear.
He did not attend.
He did not speak.
He is not -- |\n| 14 | we are not authorized to be part of the joint Defendants |\n| 15 | group. |\n| 16 | The orders that Your Honor entered that are |\n| 17 | applicable to Apple to Meta are on the Apple and Meta |\n| 18 | dockets. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
I understand.
Then, why don't you |\n| 20 | file something else if you'd like a clarifying order. |\n| 21 | If you don't want to be part of the hearing -- you |\n| 22 | just said you don't want to be part of the hearing, but you |\n| 23 | do want to be part of the hearing.
So, what is it, do you |\n| 24 | want to be part of the hearing or not? |\n| 25 | MR. ANGELICH:
Your Honor, I'm not saying that we |\n\n1 2 3 4 don't want to be part of the hearing. What I'm trying to get to, Your Honor, I'm simply laying what I think is unassailable, the facts, as they've been stated on the dockets.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 And so, if I may get to the point, and I'm going to try to get there as quickly as I can. Your Honor, the current procedural posture for Apple and Meta is that all issues in our motions to dismiss are scheduled to go forward on January 15th. What I have heard today is very different from what the actual dockets and the records state and I'm a little concerned, Your Honor, that we're kind of losing, you know, sort of focus on our clients who actually have all issues in their motions to dismiss currently scheduled to go forward on January 15th. That is what Your Honor has ordered and we are prepared to go forward on all issues, on behalf of Meta and Apple, that are in our motions to dismiss.\n\n17 18 19 20 21 22 If Your Honor is asking that we, today, agree that you will order that something different happens, that's fine, but as of right now, the record is clear. All issues on our motions to dismiss are scheduled to proceed on January 15th. We're happy to modify that. We want to work with Your Honor. We're prepared to work with the trustee.\n\n23 24 25 But the current procedural posture is that Apple and Meta are not bound by the definition of the issues that are scheduled for January 15th at all. We have our own\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 motion and our issues, as they're articulated in our motions, and those are teed up for January 15th. If Your Honor is saying that our motions are going to be adjourned to another day, I'm happy to hear that. I'm willing to work with the parties. I'm willing to work with the Court to proceed in a logical, economic, and efficient manner. But to say that we are part of this group or we are part of the issues is not accurate. THE COURT: Okay. I hear you, Counsel. Attorney Bassett, do you have any response? MR. BASSETT: Just to note, Your Honor, that I - well, first of all, I think the Court had already, and to my understanding, at least, clearly addressed all the issues that counsel is raising by, I think, stating pretty clearly that the way this is going to proceed is to the extent parties had raised or joined in joint briefing issues, those issues will be heard next week; the others will not and we will address a time for hearing those issues in due course, including, with respect to the Apple and Meta. The other thing I wanted to note, and my colleague Attorney Linsey can keep me honest here, but I believe -- and I'm not sure if Counsel had noted this or not just now, but I believe that Apple and Meta had expressly joined in all of\n\n25 as to those issues, their opportunity to be heard would be\n\nthe arguments raised in the joint briefing. So, certainly,\n\n24\n\n| | 36 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | next week. |\n| 2 | MR. ANGELICH:
Your Honor, we're happy to |\n| 3 | participate at next week's hearing and speak on issues if |\n| 4 | that is what I'm hearing Mr. Bassett suggest that we should |\n| 5 | do, but that is not what the record states so far. |\n| 6 | And to the broader point that the other parties |\n| 7 | that have matters on for January 15th should somehow be |\n| 8 | restricted or limited, I'm simply raising the broader point, |\n| 9 | Your Honor, that from a procedural standpoint, we need some |\n| 10 | clarification.
And I think, you know, if Your Honor wants to |\n| 11 | go forward on the limited issues, as you've defined them, |\n| 12 | that's fine, but they are not binding on us. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
I didn't define them, Counsel.
I |\n| 14 | didn't define them.
The joint brief Defendants defined them. |\n| 15 | I did not define them. |\n| 16 | MR. ANGELICH:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | The order that you entered defines them; that's |\n| 18 | your order, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
No, that's their definition, though, |\n| 20 | Counsel.
That is the -- would you like to read the |\n| 21 | transcript of the hearing?
Those are the exact words that |\n| 22 | were set forth during the hearing by counsel.
I didn't |\n| 23 | define them.
I said that these are the agreed issues to be |\n| 24 | decided, Counsel. |\n| 25 | So, please, if you want to be accurate about the |\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 record, please don't put words in my mouth. Those are the issues -- MR. ANGELICH: I would never do such a thing. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ANGELICH: I apologize, Your Honor, if that - if it came across that way. I'm simply looking at Your Honor's order and that is the extent of it. THE COURT: So, let's do this. I understand what your point is, okay. I have recognizes of Mr. Yan saying that they were going to be bound by this. Maybe I'm wrong. Could be. Let's, as I said at the beginning of the hearing, what are we up to, 4,000 docket entries in the main case and 300 adversary proceedings? I don't think anyone can keep this completely straight, Counsel, so we're trying very hard to do that. MR. ANGELICH: Absolutely. THE COURT: If you feel that your, your two adversary proceedings are not procedurally accurate, then file a motion or a proposed order. There was a request for a status conference filed in both of these adversary proceedings on December 20 and you didn't file any response to that, Counsel, nothing. So -- MR. ANGELICH: Your Honor, I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood. Case 22-50073 Doc 3974 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 Page 37 of 50\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 3974 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 Page 38 of 50\n\n38\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 status conference request and then the subsequent report that was filed, I heard you say at the outset of this hearing that, you know, filing more things in connection with that hearing is not necessary for January 15th. THE COURT: I said filing requests to be excused as local counsel was not necessary, Counsel; that's what I said. MR. ANGELICH: My apologies, Your Honor. Again, I thought you made a broader statement immediately preceding that, where you actually mentioned the filings, with respect to local counsel. Here's what I'm driving at, Judge. We want to be cooperative. We want to be helpful. We want to make sure that this hearing goes off in a way that it has as little secondary issues as possible. The things that I heard today explained by Mr. Bassett, some of them are just wrong. Some of the things that were presented to you this morning, just mere hours before today's status conference, defining issues are completely incorrect and we object to the definitions being used and the descriptions of issues, with respect to Meta and Apple, and perhaps others would like to object. THE COURT: How can you object if you're not bound by it, Counsel?\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 MR. ANGELICH: Your Honor -- THE COURT: You just argued you're not bound by it. So, what is it -- MR. ANGELICH: Your Honor -- THE COURT: -- what do you want to do? Do you want to be part of this or not? If you don't, that's fine. It doesn't matter to the Court either way, okay, but don't make an argument that you're not bound and then object to the framing of the issues, which, by the way, I've already said the issues are what I said the issues are because that's what the parties have presented. So, what, Counsel, do you want to do? MR. ANGELICH: I'm talking about the issues where they say they are not the issues for hearing next week. I'm talking about the issues where they are -- THE COURT: Oh, okay. MR. ANGELICH: -- describing for Your Honor -- THE COURT: You're talking about exhibit -- MR. ANGELICH: -- the secondary issues -- exactly, Your Honor -- that I had thought -- and, obviously, things are moving very quickly today and Your Honor is trying to get through a lot of topics, but to the extent that those definitions are Mr. Bassett described, which he referred back to the status report in support of his description of those Case 22-50073 Doc 3974 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 Page 39 of 50\n\n 40 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 issues, I think a lot of people would probably take issue with how -- THE COURT: Well, they might. And you might be right, Counsel -- MR. ANGELICH: -- he's described the non-joint issues. THE COURT: -- but let's cut to the chase. I'm not hearing those anyway, I've already said that, so you don't have to worry, right. Those issues are reserved for another day and you can argue all you -- both of you can argue about what the issues are and what the issues aren't. The only issues I am deciding are the four issues that came before the Court on September 24th on representations and agreements by parties that are in mediation that wanted to have certain legal issues decided during the course of the mediation. The other parties who filed motions to dismiss and motions for judgment on the pleadings, then said that they wanted to be heard as well, because it would impact their due process rights. If Your Honor clients are saying -- and they're absolutely entitled to say so -- that they're not bound by the joint brief and they don't want to be, that's fine; we can deal with it completely separately. I have no problem and do -- and it doesn't matter one way or another, but I Case 22-50073 Doc 3974 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 Page 40 of 50\n\n1 need to know what you want to do.\n\n| 2 | Do you want to be part of the hearing or not?
If |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 3 | you're not, no problem; we'll schedule your hearings on your |\n| 4 | motions to dismiss at another date and time and you can file |\n| 5 | whatever motions or proposed orders or whatever you think is |\n| 6 | appropriate in your respective adversary proceedings. |\n| 7 | MR. ANGELICH:
Thank you, Judge. |\n| 8 | There's one thing that I just want to clarify |\n| 9 | about what you just said and that is Your Honor said that |\n| 10 | folks wanted to join in the briefing because they didn't want |\n| 11 | to have their rights prejudiced. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
No, that's not what I said, Counsel. |\n| 13 | MR. ANGELICH:
Apple and Meta filed their |\n| 14 | motions -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Counsel, stop. |\n| 16 | You keep pointing -- you're not listening to what |\n| 17 | I'm saying.
I didn't say Counsel wanted to join in the |\n| 18 | briefing because they didn't want their rights prejudiced.
I |\n| 19 | said the other motions to dismiss of the parties who are not |\n| 20 | in mediation and who did not join the joint brief said they |\n| 21 | wanted to be part of the hearing on the joint brief because |\n| 22 | they believed their due process rights would be violated if |\n| 23 | they weren't allowed to make some kind of argument with |\n| 24 | regard to those four issues that the joint brief Defendants |\n| 25 | were making.
That's what I said. |\n\n 42 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. ANGELICH: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. And Apple and Meta's motions to dismiss were filed long before the joint Defendants came forward. THE COURT: I know that. I know that, Counsel. I've paid attention. MR. ANGELICH: Your Honor, we're going to have to talk to our -- THE COURT: You still haven't answered my question. What do you want to do? MR. ANGELICH: Your Honor, we'll have to speak to our client as to whether we want to go forward on January 15th or not. THE COURT: All right. Well, I need to know by January 13th. You need to file -- MR. ANGELICH: We will. THE COURT: -- something in your adversary proceedings as to whether or not you want your motions to dismiss -- well, I don't know if you want them. I'm not going to address the issues that aren't the four issues, so let's just be clear about that. So, then, you decide how you want to proceed, okay? MR. ANGELICH: Thank you, Your Honor. And my apologies if I tried to lay out a lot quickly and there's quite a bit that's happening today, so Case 22-50073 Doc 3974 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 Page 42 of 50\n\n| | 43 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | thank you for indulging us today. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 3 | Attorney Sklarz, I was talking to you a bit ago, |\n| 4 | since you are the party who represents most of the Defendants |\n| 5 | who are not parties to the joint brief, but whose motions to |\n| 6 | dismiss are scheduled for hearing next week.
Did you wish to |\n| 7 | be heard? |\n| 8 | MR. SKLARZ:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | And you've articulated that the four issues laid |\n| 10 | out in the order are what will be argued and other issues |\n| 11 | we've raised in our brief.
And the trustee has bullet |\n| 12 | pointed some of those.
Again, we may disagree on how issues |\n| 13 | are framed, but those issues will be argued at a later time, |\n| 14 | so we understand the scope of the hearing on the 15th. |\n| 15 | So I think I had laid out three other issues that |\n| 16 | I think are a part, that should be heard on the 15th.
Two of |\n| 17 | them will be heard at a later date, which is fine, if that's |\n| 18 | Your Honor's ruling.
Those two issues were the redaction |\n| 19 | issue and then if the trustee is permitted to retroactively |\n| 20 | consolidate or whatever they're claiming, with the payments |\n| 21 | that were made to my clients, be viewed as approved, ordinary |\n| 22 | course-type payments or Court-approved payments.
I think |\n| 23 | Your Honor was clear that those issues will be reserved. |\n| 24 | The third issue I outlined in our status report |\n| 25 | has to do with standing.
I think that's subsumed within the |\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 four issues that are set forth in the order, so I think that would be fair game, regardless of how the trustee articulates the issues versus how I articulated the issues. So I understand what will be happening on the 15th and we will proceed, as ordered. And I've reviewed the transcript from, I think it was the September 24th hearing, if I have my dates correct. We reserved rights, as Your Honor indicated already, and as we've done in our status report. So I think I understand where we're going next week. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does any -- the only other Defendant, then, who is a non-joint brief Defendant who had indicated they wanted to proceed with their motion to dismiss, as it related to the four issues is Zeisler & Zeisler. Is there anything Zeisler & Zeisler, Attorney Kindseth, you want to add today or are we just proceeding next? MR. KINDSETH: No, I think it's very clear, Your Honor, and I appreciate your guidance on how the 15th is going to proceed. We will be prepared to address those issues that were identified in the Court's order that pertain to Zeisler & Zeisler; in fact, there's just one. It's the law of the case. There are some specific points I'd like to make with respect to the \"law of the case\" argument that\n\n 45 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 pertain only to Zeisler. THE COURT: The \"law of the case\" argument isn't one of the four issues that are on the joint brief, Attorney Kindseth. MR. KINDSETH: Well, it was -- that's fine. THE COURT: You can reserve that for another day. That's not one of the issues I will be addressing next week. MR. KINDSETH: Okay. Just to be clear, in Exhibit A, which we don't agree with -- THE COURT: I'm not -- Exhibit A doesn't matter. As I said, that's -- the trustee's counsel put that together, right? All of those issues will be resolved at some other day. What I'm hearing are the four issues that all the parties came before this Court -- I didn't make them up - they came here and asked this Court to address four issues. We had an extensive hearing on it on September 24th. I, then, agreed to do what the parties asked and that's what we're doing. MR. KINDSETH: Thank you, Your Honor. We will stick to the four issues. We may or may not have a comment. We will reserve the 10 minutes. We appreciate that time and we will stick to the four issues. All other issues, obviously, are reserved. THE COURT: Great. Thank you very much. Case 22-50073 Doc 3974 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 Page 45 of 50\n\n| 1 | All right.
I think that Trustee Despins, Attorney |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Goldstein, Attorney Bassett, unless there's something other |\n| 3 | than that, that you want to discuss -- I'm not sure that |\n| 4 | there is anything else we need to discuss this afternoon. |\n| 5 | MR. PETERSON:
Your Honor, one housekeeping item, |\n| 6 | if I could be heard just very briefly? |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Who's talking? |\n| 8 | MR. PETERSON:
This is Brian Peterson, K&L Gates, |\n| 9 | on behalf of Amazon Web Services, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Are you a party to the joint brief? |\n| 11 | MR. PETERSON:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go right ahead. |\n| 13 | MR. PETERSON:
So, as Mr. Goldstein articulated |\n| 14 | earlier, there have been some preliminary discussions about |\n| 15 | how the argument on the 15th will be divvied up between |\n| 16 | counsel for the joint Defendants and he referred to the fact |\n| 17 | that I may be one of the three joint Defendants counsel |\n| 18 | making argument. |\n| 19 | We have filed a motion to excuse local counsel |\n| 20 | from participation at that hearing.
We filed that prior to |\n| 21 | today's hearing.
I just want to make sure that in light of |\n| 22 | the fact that I'm preliminarily planning on making argument |\n| 23 | at the 15th, that the Court doesn't have any concerns and I |\n| 24 | just want some guidance on whether or not our local counsel |\n| 25 | can be excused. |\n\n 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Your local counsel is excused. Thank you. MR. PETERSON: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. BASSETT: And, Your Honor, if I may? I have just two points of clarification concerning the -- excuse me -- time allocations for the argument next week and I rise only to make sure that we're -- THE COURT: Yep, go ahead. MR. BASSETT: -- all on the same page and to identify one potential concern. In terms of the time allocations to the Defendants and then the trustee, the way that the Court described it was there would be a total of, I think it's now based on Defendants who have been dropped, about an hour and a half of argument for the Defendants and then 30 minutes for the trustee. Is Your Honor intending that to just be an hour and a half for us and then the trustee responds or -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. BASSETT: -- would there be a reservation of time? THE COURT: Yeah, that's all we're going to do. No, that's all we're going to do. The arguments in favor of the issues raised in the joint brief will be made by the joint brief Defendants and Case 22-50073 Doc 3974 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 Page 47 of 50\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 then I will give the non-joint brief Defendants, Attorney Sklarz -- well, ArentFox, we don't know yet what they're doing, but we will now, and Zeisler & Zeisler, I guess that's really it, right, as far as the non-Defendants at this point, because the other parties have said that they are not going to make any argument. And so that would actually be an hour and 20 minutes and then I would give you a half-an-hour response and that will conclude the hearing. We have briefs on all the issues. Oral argument is allowed to that extent and in those time frames. MR. BASSETT: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. The only other point I was going to raise is that if it's, I guess, an hour and 20 minutes for the Defendants, you know, obviously, it may be somewhat challenging for us to adequately respond to all of that in a half hour, but we will do our best to be efficient. If there are issues that we're not addressing that the Court wants us to address, you know, perhaps it would be good to have us have a little bit more time, but, again, if the Court thinks an hour and 20 followed by a half hour with the trustee is fine, we will make that work. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I do think that's fine for now. If I -- if something changes during the hearing, I will let you know, but I don't anticipate that it will.\n\n 49 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 We have reviewed the pleadings. We have reviewed the law. We understand the issues. And so that's how we are proceeding. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Trustee Despins, is there anything else we need to address this afternoon, with regard to next week's hearing? MR. DESPINS: Not at this time, Your Honor. Thank you very much for your time. THE COURT: Okay. Everyone, please, make sure you get that information to the trustee so that this record can be accurate as to who appeared -- and I don't mean spoke - but who participated, even just by viewing this hearing, because it does impact all of these adversary proceedings, your full name, your firm's full name, whether you filed a notice of appearance or not, and which adversary proceeding that you are involved in. All right. Thank you all. We will see you next week. That is the last matter on today's calendar, so court is adjourned. COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honor. THE DEPUTY: Court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 1:27 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 3974 Filed 01/16/25 Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 Page 49 of 50\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 3974 | Filed 01/16/25 | Entered 01/16/25 09:42:01 | Page 50 of 50 |\n|---------------|------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|---------------------------|------------------|\n| | | | | 50 |\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":null,"key_entities":["Je","Despins","CIPA","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Paul Hastings"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":3577,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":3943,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":13252,"status":"published","published_at":"2025-01-16 00:00:00","created_at":"2025-01-16","updated_at":"2026-07-07 08:19:06"}