{"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":"美国破产法院（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT）\n康涅狄格地区（DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT）\n布里奇波特分院（BRIDGEPORT DIVISION）\n\n关于：\n\n第11章\n\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，\n\n（合并管理）\n\n法庭 123\n\n债务人。\n\nBrien McMahon 联邦大楼\n\n915 Lafayette Boulevard\n\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特 06604\n\n2025年1月8日，星期三\n\n下午1时08分\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官主持下举行的听证会记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第11章受托人：\n\nLuc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯潘），律师\n\nNicholas A. Bassett（尼古拉斯·A·巴塞特），律师\n\nPAUL HASTINGS, LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n\n200 Park Avenue\n\n纽约州纽约市 10166\n\n（出庭人员续）\n\n音频操作员：电子录音\n\n记录公司：Reliable（可靠记录公司）\n\nThe Nemours Building\n\n1007 N. Orange Street，110室\n\n特拉华州威尔明顿 19801\n\n电话：(302)654-8080\n\n电子邮件：gmatthews@reliable-co.com\n\n庭审程序通过电子声音录制，记录由速记服务机构制作。\n\n案卷 22-50073，文件 3974，提交于 01/16/25，登记于 01/16/25 09:42:01，第 1 页，共 50 页\n\n案卷 22-50073，文件 3974，提交于 01/16/25，登记于 01/16/25 09:42:01，第 2 页，共 50 页\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表第11章受托人：\n\nPatrick R. Linsey（帕特里克·R·林赛），律师\n\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩及蒙泰思律师事务所）\n\n195 Church Street\n\n13层\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 06510\n\n代表 Anthem Health Plans, Inc.（安森健康计划公司）；Anthem HealthChoice Assurance, Inc.（安森健康优选保险公司）；Direct Persuasion LLC（直接说服有限责任公司）；Sedgwick Realty Corp.（塞奇威克房地产公司）；Federal Express Corporation（联邦快递公司）；及 On the Spot Home Improvement, Inc.（现场家居改造公司）：\n\nEric S. Goldstein（埃里克·S·戈尔茨坦），律师\n\nSHIPMAN & GOODWIN, LLP（希普曼与古德温律师事务所）\n\nOne Constitution Plaza\n\n康涅狄格州哈特福德 06103\n\n代表 Liberty Jet（自由喷气公司）：\n\nGerard R. Luckman（杰拉德·R·拉克曼），律师\n\nFORCHELLI DEEGAN TERRANA, LLP（福切利、迪根及特拉纳律师事务所）\n\n333 Earle Ovington Boulevard\n\n100室\n\n纽约州尤宁代尔 11553\n\n代表 Harcus Parker Limited（哈克斯·帕克有限公司）：\n\nPeter C. Netburn（彼得·C·内特伯恩），律师\n\nCLYDE & CO. US, LLP（克莱德律师事务所美国分所）\n\n265 Franklin Street\n\n802室\n\n马萨诸塞州波士顿 02110\n\n代表 FFP (BVI) Limited；Weddle Law PPLLC；V.X. Cerda & Associates P.A.；The Francis Law Firm；Lawall & Mitchell LLC；Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）；Berkeley Rowe Limited；ACASS Canada LTD；及 G4S Security Systems (Hong Kong) Ltd.：\n\nJeffrey M. Sklarz（杰弗里·M·斯克拉茨），律师\n\nGREEN & SKLARZ, LLC（格林与斯克拉茨律师事务所）\n\nOne Audubon Street\n\n3层\n\n康涅狄格州纽黑文 06511\n\n代表 Apple, Inc.（苹果公司）及 Meta Platforms, Inc.（元平台公司）：\n\nGeorge P. Angelich（乔治·P·安杰利奇），律师\n\nJin Yan（金燕），律师\n\nARENTFOX SCHIFF, LLP（阿伦特福克斯·希夫律师事务所）\n\nAvenue of the Americas\n\n42层\n\n纽约州纽约市 10019\n\n代表 Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）：\n\nStephen M. Kindseth（斯蒂芬·M·金德塞思），律师\n\nZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）\n\n10 Middle Street\n\n15层\n\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特 06604\n\n代表 Amazon.com, Inc.（亚马逊公司）及 Amazon Web Services, Inc.（亚马逊网络服务公司）：\n\nBrian T. Peterson（布赖恩·T·彼得森），律师\n\nK&L GATES, LLP（凯安路律师事务所）\n\n925 4th Avenue\n\n2900室\n\n华盛顿州西雅图 98104\n\n案卷 22-50073，文件 3974，提交于 01/16/25，登记于 01/16/25 09:42:01，第 3 页，共 50 页\n\n案卷 22-50073，文件 3974，提交于 01/16/25，登记于 01/16/25 09:42:01，第 4 页，共 50 页\n\n目录\n\n动议：页码\n\n事项\n\n第 3923 号：第11章受托人就有关 2025年1月15日听证会的状态会议事项 5\n\n法院裁定：--\n\n速记员证明 50\n\n（庭审于下午12时11分开始。）\n\n书记员：康涅狄格地区美国破产法院现开庭，由尊敬的 Julie Manning（朱莉·曼宁）法官主持。\n\n我现在传唤案件，22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法院：各位。今天我们在此举行状态会议，该会议由受托人提出请求，涉及定于下周1月15日举行的听证会，以处理各方在我们于2024年9月24日举行的听证会上讨论的联合陈述中提出的问题，以及涉及对抗诉讼中的驳回动议或依诉状作出判决的动议；该等动议不受调解程序约束，亦不属于联合陈述的一部分，但各方向法院提出请求，要求就联合陈述中提出的问题同时进行审理。\n\n我看到几份已提交的文件，我相信是今天提交的，因此我尚未完全阅读其中关于状态会议及下周听证会后勤安排相关问题的内容。从一开始，我想明确说明，1月15日的听证会将仅处理联合陈述中的问题，无论各方是联合陈述的当事方，还是其他对抗诉讼中的被告。这正是我们在9月24日听证会上广泛讨论的内容；未参与联合陈述且不受调解程序约束的被告在本法院提出了其希望就这些问题同时审理其驳回动议的请求，而这正是本法院将要处理的事项。\n\n驳回动议或依诉状作出判决的动议中提出的、与法院命令允许陈述的四项问题无关的任何其他问题，可予以提交书面陈述，并将在未来某日安排审理。因此，我要指出，可能有一些当事方——我们可在本次会议期间讨论此事——无须参加下周的听证会；如果其书面陈述中提出的问题与联合陈述中的共同问题毫无关系，法院下周将不会审理或受理该等问题。\n\n此外，关于——我理解，大家已非常努力地协助处理本案及这些众多对抗诉讼中的后勤事项，我对此表示感谢——但我想说明，无须任何人进一步提交——\n\n请各位在未发言时关闭麦克风，因为我能听到你们办公室或你们所在任何地点的背景声音，因此请将自己设为静音。\n\n地方律师无须提交申请免于出席的动议，因为我们今天将要确定的是，下周由谁以及有多少人——如超过一人——将在法院面前就问题进行辩论。因此，为了阻止——并不是说你们中任何人正试图这样做——但为了阻止本案案卷条目达到上万条，我们可以停止以地方律师身份提交申请免于出席的动议。这并无必要，我将根据需要处理所有这些事项。\n\n因此，正如我已指出，下周15日听证会将审理的唯一问题，是本法院作出的命令，即 ECF 3577，第2(b)段第(i)至(iv)项所列的四项问题。任何一方提出的所有其他问题，无论其为联合陈述的当事方，还是未参与联合陈述的被告，该等问题将在未来某个待定日期安排审理。\n\n此外，正如我指出的，至少有两起对抗诉讼，其书面陈述中似乎没有提出属于当事方请求本法院审理的四项法律问题的问题，即针对 Harcus Parker Limited（哈克斯·帕克有限公司）的对抗诉讼 24-05163，以及 Jason Miller（杰森·米勒）的对抗诉讼 24-05219。我理解 Jason Miller 已加入联合陈述，但在该对抗诉讼中，为支持驳回动议而提交的书面陈述，与构成设定本书面陈述及听证会日程命令之共同问题的四项问题毫无关系。因此，我将听取这些人员的意见，但我当然会考虑将这些事项从下周日程中移除。\n\n此外，Despins 受托人以及你们的律师，我今天及为下周所需要你们双方做的是：我理解你们提交了一份清单，即证据 A，且我认为还有证据 B——我甚至不确定；它是今天上午提交的——但就联合陈述的当事方，以及定于下周举行听证会的未参与联合陈述的对抗诉讼被告而言。我需要你们的办公室编制一份今日所有出席人员的名单，并且你们所有人都将被要求向受托人发送电子邮件，他或其他人将告知你们应发送至何处，说明你们是谁、是否已提交出庭通知，因为许多参与调解的当事方尚未在其相应的对抗诉讼中提交出庭通知，而你们需要这样做。\n\n在你们处于调解程序期间，提交出庭通知不会启动任何事项的期限计算。但是，为了使本法院以及任何寻求本次状态会议和下周听证会记录的人获得准确记录，我们需要有一份今天听证会出席人员的名单，列明你们代表谁、是否已提交出庭通知、参与何项对抗诉讼。所有这些都需要编制并提交至本案案卷，因为其需要成为记录的一部分，并且如我所说，也需要反映本案中的准确记录。\n\n联合陈述中有数个当事方尚未提交出庭通知。他们可能有其律所中的某人已经提交出庭通知，但他们签署了该陈述而未提交出庭通知。你们必须提交出庭通知；就是这么简单。任何签署该陈述和/或今天出庭但尚未提交出庭通知的人，均必须就此情形提交出庭通知；下周四也是如此。我可以查看一份清单，并看到至少有10个，甚至更多当事方尚未就联合陈述提交出庭通知；至于未参与联合陈述的对抗诉讼中的其他被告，他们涉及对抗诉讼 24-05188，Weddle Law，没有代表该律师即 Law Offices of Richard Corby（理查德·科比律师事务所）提交的出庭通知，因此也需要完成该事项。我知道你们都会这样做；我只是明确说明，为使记录准确，这必须发生。\n\n关于下周该事项将如何进行，我们显然将对此进行讨论。但是，我将审理的唯一事项是这四项问题，而这四项问题将由联合陈述被告的一名或可能多名律师进行辩论，我们将对此进行讨论。这些论点将首先提出，并适用于所有对抗诉讼，随后受托人将作出回应。\n\n关于未参与联合陈述的被告及其可以提出何种论点，他们可能可以提出——我将允许——当我查看未参与联合陈述的被告时，目前实质上有五至六名律师可能代表该等未参与联合陈述的被告提出论点，而我不会允许这些当事方重复陈述论点，但我会允许你们作出某种形式的陈述；不过，你们将受到时间限制，代表已签署该陈述的联合被告提出论点的当事方亦将受到时间限制。\n\n但目前，我看到就未参与联合陈述的被告而言，最多有六名律师会提出论点，其中两名甚至可能退出，鉴于我今天所说的，我看到其支持驳回动议的书面陈述中没有与本法院同意允许各方作为法律问题进行书面陈述的四项共同问题中的一项或全部相同的问题。\n\n让我看看，在——哦，是的，在我与受托人交谈并听取其他人意见之前，我还想说什么；我最后要说的是：\n\n如我允许不止一人进行辩论，则将由谁就哪些问题进行辩论，须在本周五即10日前向受托人确定。随后，受托人及该等人员必须在1月13日前将该等人员名单提交至本案案卷。\n\n因此，Despins受托人（德斯平斯受托人），是您请求召开本次状态会议。该状态会议请求已获准。如我所言，我曾尝试——我想我——我的意思是，我今天上午阅读了您的状态报告，并且我看到——我知道Sklarz律师（斯克拉兹律师）在本次听证前不久提交了一份报告。我没有仔细阅读，但我了解到，就其所代理的非联合简报被告而言，他提交了一份报告。\n\n我将首先请您发言，Despins受托人，并请您说明您对我刚才所述内容有何看法，以及就下周15日有关联合简报法律问题的听证将如何进行，您是否希望法院处理任何其他事项。\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢您，法官阁下，下午好。我马上会把麦克风交给Bassett先生（巴西特先生），但先处理您提出的程序问题，即本次电话会议中的人员应向代表受托人的人员发送电子邮件。为了便于本次听证的参与人，Patrick Linsey先生（帕特里克·林西先生）于今天上午8:14向所有联合被告及其他被告发送了一封电子邮件。如各位能够回复该邮件，这将是向我们说明本次电话会议参与人员的最佳方式。\n\n如果您今天上午约8:14未收到该电子邮件，则可直接向Linsey先生发送电子邮件。不过，就该技术问题而言，法官阁下，我将把发言交给Bassett先生，由其向法院陈述。\n\n法院：在交由Bassett先生发言之前，关于每个人向Linsey律师（林西律师）发送电子邮件，无论是回复邮件还是新邮件，您需要——该电子邮件必须包含以下信息：您的姓名、您所代表的对象、您在哪一宗对抗程序中代表该当事人、您是否已提交出庭通知，以及您律师事务所的全称、地址、电子邮件及您会在诉状中载明的一切信息，其格式应如同出庭通知，并符合地区法院规则及本院地方法院规则的要求。为明确起见，这不仅仅是“我代表——我并不是说您会这么说，我只是举例说明——我代表Smith Company（史密斯公司）。”而是：“我在某一对抗程序中代表Smith Company。我已提交出庭通知。我未提交出庭通知。这是我所在律师事务所的全称、地址、电话号码、电子邮件地址。”明白吗？为明确起见，这就是需要提供的信息。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3974\n提交日期 01/16/25\n录入日期 01/16/25 09:42:01\n\n然后，Despins受托人，您的办公室将必须把该信息提交至案卷，以便其成为今日状态会议准确记录的一部分，明白吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：会照办，法官阁下。现在我将把发言交给Bassett先生。\n\n法院：谢谢。好的。Bassett律师？\n\nBASSETT先生：是，下午好，法官阁下。为记录在案，我是Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的Nick Bassett（尼克·巴西特），代表第11章受托人。法官阁下今天在会议开始时的意见非常有帮助，因为我认为这解决了我原计划陈述的许多事项，也解决了我们在今天上午提交的状态报告中所述的事项。顺便说一句，我们对于未能更早提交该报告表示歉意。我们昨天遇到了一些ECF问题。\n\n法官阁下，在该状态报告中，我们实质上梳理了其动议定于下周听证的各方目前的情况，随后我们提议实际上按照法官阁下刚刚指示的方式进行，即下周三仅就联合简报提出的问题举行听证，而不属于联合简报的各方可以就相同问题陈述意见，但须有一个高效的陈述程序，以避免重复，并且仅允许有限数量的律师发言。因此，我认为我们大致都达成了相同结论，即如法官阁下所指出的，这完全符合法院于9月25日作出的命令，该命令说明了联合简报的程序以及该程序如何与当时待决、现亦定于下周听证的其他驳回动议相衔接。\n\n法官阁下，我想指出几个问题。如果您查看我们的联合状态报告，即我们今天上午提交的那份，编号为ECF 3943，我们在其中阐明的内容——这在我们状态报告的第二页——我们努力在该页第一段完整段落中阐明联合简报所提出的共同问题。您可能会注意到，对该等问题的表述与法院9月25日命令中的表述略有不同。\n\n法官阁下，原因在于，依我们看来，法院9月25日命令所列问题可谓是对将在联合简报中提出的问题的概括。其后，当联合简报被告实际提交其简报时，他们以特定方式阐述了与该等问题有关的具体论点及法律理论。因此——基本上，我们在状态报告第2页所确定的内容，确实是我们理解联合简报被告如何阐述其问题的方式，并且其大致对应于其联合驳回动议的目录。\n\n此外，法官阁下，我们在状态报告附件A中列出了除联合简报及该等联合简报所提出问题之外的所有其他驳回动议。其中许多动议，如法官阁下所指出，确实提出了与联合简报所提出问题重叠的问题，正如我们在状态报告中对该等问题的阐述，但几乎所有动议还提出了其他不同且不属于该等问题范围的问题。\n\n因此，这一切的含义以及我所言的相关性，法官阁下，是我认为我们都必须明确的一项问题：对于所有非联合动议人，我们需要明确其驳回动议所提出的问题中，哪些实际上与联合简报提出的问题一致且相同，因为我不希望——我认为法院也不会希望出现这样的情况：即基于联合简报，我们都理解问题是A、B、C和D，但某一联合动议人可能以截然不同的方式阐述了其与某一问题有关的理论；若是如此，我认为这可能会大幅扩大下周听证的范围，并导致我们都试图避免的混乱。因此，我们在状态报告附件A中所努力做的，是通过审查每一项驳回动议，更准确地确定该驳回动议中的哪些问题与联合简报重叠，因而应于下周进行听审，以及哪些问题不属于其范围。我认为，将我们状态报告的附件A作为指引可能很重要，以便我们再次就非联合驳回动议所提出的哪些具体问题将在下周接受辩论达成一致。法官阁下，我想指出的另一问题是，某些非联合动议人是部分中止的撤销诉讼的当事人。正如法院所记得，该等部分中止的撤销诉讼涉及某些转让方实体、被指称的另我实体，而该等实体受正在进行的综合另我诉讼约束，且法院已就其作出部分中止，尚未解除。因此，我提出这一点，是因为一些动议人在其驳回动议中提出了可能与联合简报问题重叠的法律论点，例如另我裁定的溯及力，或者根据适用法律，另我裁定或另我解除是否可供受托人援引。但他们经常不仅就其起诉书所涉未中止实体，也就其起诉书所涉部分中止实体提出该问题。现有人主张，他们本不应提出该等问题，因为其已被中止；但我只是希望明确，为下周听证之目的，当其他被告就联合问题提出论点时，他们只能在该等问题适用于其起诉书中的未中止实体的范围内提出论点，而不得就部分中止实体提出论点。因此，这是我提出的两项保留或澄清事项，我认为为所有人的利益，可能需要作为今日状态会议的一部分予以解决。我很乐意回答任何问题。\n\n法院：那么，关于您提出的第一项问题，即您认为属于联合简报问题的表述或措辞，显然，我今天看了这一点。我还没有对此进行过多思考，但我可以告诉您，我确实看到其有所不同。其措辞不同于规定简报时间表的命令列出共同问题的方式，这是第一点。第二点，正如我在9月份我们举行听证时所说——我正在查看一些措辞和我们讨论过的一些事项。我同意处理的纯粹是法律问题，仅此而已。任何人是否希望重新定性或重述问题，属于你们的权利，但我将按照我所说的方式，就我所说将要裁决的四个问题作出裁决，也就是说，提出的四个问题就是将要裁决的四个问题。因此，某人是否基于其对四个问题应为何的理解而发展出某一论点，法院可能会也可能不会处理。我只处理被主张为法院可依法裁决的法律问题的那四个问题。我不会做更多的事。\n\n是否有人有任何问题——好吧，我不会向40个人开放发言。我已经说过这一切。我已经说过了。我在24日的听证中说过。我在命令中说过。这就是目前的情况。\n\n而且，所有列入日程的非联合简报被告都特别请求参与该程序，因为他们声称，如不参与该联合简报问题将获裁决的程序，其正当程序权利将受到侵犯。因此，在法院看来，这些问题是明确的，而这就是我正在裁决的问题。\n\nBassett律师，您有什么回应吗？\n\nBASSETT先生：法官阁下，我清楚明确地理解法院的命令。我理解法院希望如何进行。\n\n为帮助举例说明我们为何以目前的方式重新界定争点，例如，如果您查看 9 月 25 日命令中的第二个争点，即适用法律是否允许在您的替身实体认定中进行反向揭开公司面纱，则该争点在联合书面意见中曾被论述的一种方式是，您知道，受托人的观点当然是，法院此前已在多次场合裁定过该争点，而法院此前关于反向揭开公司面纱及替身实体适用性的裁定构成案件既判规则，对吗。\n\n因此，联合书面意见被告在其驳回动议中主张，案件既判规则不适用。因此，这是联合书面意见被告阐述该论点的一种方式，我会称其为该论点中的一个次级争点。\n\n法院：那么，如果这是他们阐述该论点的方式，我将适当地处理该阐述。\n\n巴塞特律师：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：但这并不是他们全体同意将要进行书面论述的争点。因此，如果有人主张有别于法院根据当事人协议同意审理的四个争点之外的事项——如当事人在 9 月 24 日听证会上向法院提出的那样——而我当时谈到过这一点，并且我说过，您知道，你们是在试图，而且我理解，是为了促进司法经济，但当我们提出事实争点以及并非纯法律争点的问题时，我们并未促进司法经济。若当事人希望作出该等陈述，他们有权这样做，但其是否会成功，他们将会看到。我并非——我当时非常明确。我认为我在 9 月 24 日不可能说得更明确：我认为当事人希望提交法院的这些争点——我不确定它们是否为纯法律争点，但我允许其进行。如果当事人偏离轨道，那么他们很可能不会就该争点获得裁定。我会说，这四个争点是我将要裁定的争点。仅此而已。命令中已有规定。因此，就是这么简单。\n\n巴塞特律师：明白，法官阁下。明白。\n\n法院：如果当事人不希望参与其中，想要撤回并自行推进，他们可以这样做。\n\n但是，您知道，所有人来到本法院时，据称，对于我们将如何就这些争点进行程序已有协议，而这正是我们正在进行的方式。\n\n巴塞特律师：明白，法官阁下。\n\n因此，我们将在下周的听证会上准备就法院 9 月 25 日命令所列的争点进行辩论。如当事人提出超出该范围的争点，您知道，我们将不会准备回应这些争点，因为它们不属于听证范围。\n\n为明确起见，避免疑义，我们完全同意法官阁下的意见，即已经提出的部分争点，即使不是全部，均为事实争点，不宜在驳回动议中或以其他方式解决；这些现在将构成我们对相关论点的回应的一部分。\n\n但我们理解法院的命令，并将准备于 15 日据此进行。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n现在，你们是否讨论过——戈尔茨坦律师恰好是在 9 月 24 日听证会上有幸进行陈述的人。巴塞特律师和戈尔茨坦律师，你们是否讨论过谁将提出这些论点，以及将提出哪些论点？我看到有人建议，就联合书面意见中的争点而言，可能由三人代表提出论点，尽管有四个争点，这没有问题。我的意思是，我只是想知道，是否就谁将提出论点进行过讨论；如未讨论——我将请戈尔茨坦律师回答，因为您是在上次听证会上代表所有当事人提出论点的人——我知道有人请您这样做——若您尚未与巴塞特律师或代表受托人的其他人进行某种讨论，请说明您的提议是什么。\n\n巴塞特律师：因此，法官阁下，我先对此作出回应。我们大致已与联合动议人律师讨论过他们的提议，即由三名不同律师分担并就联合书面意见中的争点进行辩论。我们告知他们，原则上我们对此未必有异议，但前提是他们告知我们这些律师是谁，以及他们打算就哪些具体争点进行辩论。我们尚未收到对此的回复，因此我认为这直接回答了法官阁下的问题；随后我认为戈尔茨坦律师或联合组的另一成员可以回答该问题。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：下午好，法官阁下。是的，我们已联系巴塞特律师和林赛律师。联合辩护组，我们三十多人，已就如何组织口头辩论进行过共同讨论，考虑是人数不超过三人。我认为将由我本人、布赖恩·彼得森（Brian Peterson）——我认为他应当参加本次会议，他是 K&L Gates（凯易律师事务所）中代表 Amazon（亚马逊）的律师——以及斯科特·查莫伊（Scott Charmoy），他是另一名联合被告的律师组成。\n\n关于谁将负责什么事项，目前仍有些变动，但我们与林赛律师和巴塞特律师讨论的是，每个人将负责一个独立、具体的法律争点；这将是我们处理听证会的方式，也是我们在三十多名联合被告之间安排此事的方式。\n\n法院：那么，你们其中一人将负责两个争点，对吗？共有四个。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：对。因此，我们将会——我们每人将承担一个或多个争点，这大致就是我们处理的方式。您知道，法官阁下，我们审阅时是根据书面意见目录考虑的，这就是我们的思路。但是，是的，在这四个争点的框架内，我们其中一人可能会承担其中两个争点，另外两人各承担一个。\n\n但是，我们将会——我认为法官阁下说过，我想确保我记录无误——我们将在周五前再次向受托人律师发送一份说明，明确谁将就何项争点提出该等论点。我只是想确保我的笔记记录正确。\n\n法院：是的，正确。\n\n戈尔茨坦律师：好的。\n\n法院：我还将对双方就四个争点所作陈述以及受托人的答复施加时间限制，并且也将对代表非联合书面意见被告的六名律师中的任何一人施加时间限制——如果届时仍有六名律师的话。因此，我会说，很可能——而且我将严格执行时间限制——每个争点的时间限制为 15 分钟，随后受托人就联合书面意见争点有半小时答复时间。至于非联合书面意见被告，每组律师有 10 分钟，每组一名律师。例如，您知道——而且我知道，斯克拉兹律师，您今天提交了一些文件，正如我所说，我实际上还没有机会仔细查看，但我知道您提交了文件。我的审查——\n\n斯克拉兹律师：法官阁下，如果您希望我作一概述——\n\n法院：好的，请稍等一下，斯克拉兹律师。\n\n我对下周日程表中不属于联合书面意见被告的事项进行审查后发现，您代表其中一、二、三、四、五、六、七、八项对抗程序中的被告。随后，ArentFox（阿伦特福克斯律师事务所）在两项对抗程序中代表两名被告。然后，另一家律师事务所代表 Liberty Jet Management（自由喷气机管理公司）。另一家律师事务所 Clyde（克莱德律师事务所）代表 Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克）；鉴于我今天所说的内容，他们或许将不参与此事，但我们将拭目以待。Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）在其对抗程序中代表其自身。海尔曼律师在该对抗程序中代表米勒先生；但是，再次说明，米勒先生加入了联合书面意见，但我从其驳回动议中看不出他提出了任何属于法院下周将审理的四个争点的问题。因此，共有六名律师。因此，如果我们——我也会给予受托人回应这些论点的机会，因为它们略有不同——但实际上是在不同方面。我实际上认为我刚才所说的并不正确，所以让我更正一下。\n\n我将采取的做法是：联合书面意见当事人就四个争点中的每一个各有 15 分钟；我刚才所说的每组律师——共有六组，仅此而已——每组 10 分钟；随后我将给予受托人半小时答复时间，这就是听证会的安排。\n\n那么，任何人有问题吗？\n\n拉克曼律师：法官阁下？\n\n法院：斯克拉兹律师？刚才发言的是谁？\n\n拉克曼律师：不，法官阁下。我是代表 Liberty Jet（自由喷气机）的杰拉德·拉克曼（Gerard Luckman）。我们无意在 15 日进行辩论，但我希望我的一位同事能够旁听听证会。\n\n法院：当然。听证会是现场举行，所以他们可以到场聆听。\n\n拉克曼律师：谢谢。\n\n法院：谢谢。但您将不进行辩论，所以谢谢。律师，您是否已在本案中登记出庭？\n\n拉克曼律师：我——我的律所已——我和我的合伙人均已登记出庭，但我们希望能够派遣一名可能未获准执业的人员旁听。未获准在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）执业，但仅是旁听——\n\n法院：这是公开听证会，因此任何人都可以进来聆听。\n\n拉克曼律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：那么我会将 Liberty Jet 从名单中移除，因此现在降至 50 分钟，因为你们每人将有 10 分钟。我不知道代表——我不知道代表案件 22-50073 ECF 3974 已提交 01/16/25 已录入 01/16/25 09:42:01 第 26 页，共 50 页\n\nHarcus Parker 的律师今天是否参加电话会议。Harcus Parker 有人参加电话会议吗？\n\n内特伯恩律师：是我，法官阁下。我叫彼得·内特伯恩（Peter Netburn）。我代表 Harcus Parker。鉴于法院已说明下周将处理的争点，我将不进行辩论。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。那么，我也将把该事项从日程表中移除。当然，您可以参加听证会，或者让其他人参加听证会，但我也将把该对抗程序从日程表中移除，好吗？\n\n内特伯恩律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。海尔曼——海尔曼律师在吗？\n\n斯克拉兹律师：法官阁下，他不在。我与海尔曼律师谈过。他——我相信他必须前往其他地方，但他不在这里。\n\n法院：好的。那么，我下周可能不会允许他就该争点进行辩论，除了他已加入联合书面意见外，因此也许有人可以把这点转达给他。\n\n斯克拉兹律师：我相信他无意进行辩论。我认为他只提出了一个不属于那四个争点的问题——\n\n法院：好的。案件 22-50073 ECF 3974 已提交 01/16/25 已录入 01/16/25 09:42:01 第 27 页，共 50 页\n\n斯克拉兹先生：——我只是需要通知他。\n\n林西律师：这正是海尔曼先生昨天对我说的，他说他的家中有人去世了——\n\n法院：好的。\n\n林西律师：——因此他无法出席今天的庭审，所以我只是想转达这一信息。\n\n法院：好的。林西律师，还有——斯克拉兹律师，抱歉，因为我们是在 Zoom 上进行，所以我们必须说明是谁在发言，以便录音能够记录下来。因此，林西律师，您刚才说什么？\n\n林西律师：我昨天与海尔曼律师谈过，他对我说的内容与斯克拉兹先生所报告的相同。他还提到其家中有人去世，今天要参加守灵仪式，因此无法参加听证。\n\n法院：好的。嗯，听到这个消息我很遗憾，但鉴于林西律师和斯克拉兹律师二位所说，我将把该对抗程序从下周的排期表中移除，并且不会为该对抗程序安排——抱歉，预留——辩论时间。因此，在联合书状辩论之后，只有三名律师将进行辩论，其中包括代表其在排期所列对抗程序中所代理的全部被告的斯克拉兹律师。律师在吗——ArentFox（阿伦特福克斯）今天参加听证了吗？\n\n严先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是来自 ArentFox（阿伦特福克斯）的 Jin Yan（严进），代表 Meta（元宇宙）和 Apple（苹果）。\n\n法院：下午好。\n\n严先生：我只是想就两个澄清事项——（听不清）——法官阁下。首先，我们不是联合书状的当事人。\n\n法院：我知道。\n\n严先生：您的命令——好的。另一点是——因此，我认为，在（听不清）提出被告书状中的争点的范围内，我不确定我们的某些论点是否与此相关，尤其是非联合争点。我们想提出的另一点，仅为澄清记录之目的，是法官阁下已在我们各自的对抗程序中作出命令，表明我们的动议将继续进行，其中并无任何措辞说明这些动议仅就与联合被告所提出争点重叠的事项继续进行。因此，我们希望澄清，法官阁下是否将修改这一安排，说明我们完全不再继续进行，还是仅就某些争点继续进行？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3974 于 01/16/25 提交，于 01/16/25 09:42:01 登记，第 29 页，共 50 页\n\n法院：好的，律师，感谢您的问题。\n\n争点如下：您和其他人在先前的听证会上——我相信您当时在场——就联合书状争点，以及您和其他提出非联合书状争点的被告所提出的争点，主张如果法院不至少同时审理驳回动议，因为它们属于相同争点，则您的正当程序权利、您客户的正当程序权利将受到侵犯。因此，您的动议被安排进行听证，是因为您已提交该动议。该动议已经——而且您曾主张，与其他律师一样，您的客户方面会存在正当程序方面的担忧。\n\n我今天已经说过的，并且如有必要我会在另一份命令中说明——但我认为没有必要——是你们的争点将按照通常程序作出裁决。正如您所知，律师，这里有近 300 项对抗程序，而就案件管理而言，我们将不得不以我们所能采取的最佳方式处理这些程序。我们一直在努力这样做。受托人就调解、部分中止、完全中止以及各种不同的问题提出了建议。这些事项已在每一项对抗程序中提出，而且对于与这些对抗程序案件管理有关的已实施的任何及所有程序和流程，您都有机会作出回应。因此，如果您是在说——您是在说您不想参加下周的听证吗？\n\n安杰利奇先生：法官阁下，我是来自 ArentFox（阿伦特福克斯）的 George Angelich（乔治·安杰利奇）。我与我的同事 Jin Yan（严进）一同出席，代表 Apple（苹果）和 Meta（元宇宙）。为明确起见，法官阁下，我们并不是说我们不想参加下周的程序。我们确实想参加。然而，我们只是说，我认为此事足够重要，必须准确澄清哪些命令适用于 Apple 和 Meta，哪些命令适用于联合被告。联合被告受关于 January 15th 的两份命令——至少两份——约束，即案卷条目 3587（音频干扰）以及 3577——\n\n法院：您的声音断断续续，律师。您断线了，律师。您必须再说一遍。案卷编号是多少？\n\n安杰利奇先生：抱歉，法官阁下。3587 和 3577 适用于联合被告。它们不适用于 Apple 或 Meta。可是，Apple 和 Meta 受案卷条目命令 38 和 63 约束，好的，我稍后说明。63 是适用于 Apple 案卷的案卷条目，38 是 Meta 案卷中的案卷条目。Meta 和 Apple 对抗程序中的这两项案卷条目完全相同。它们完全没有提及联合被告的书状。它们没有提及任何限于并界定给联合被告的争点。Apple 和 Meta 未出席 September 24th 会议。\n\n法院：您确定吗？我以为严先生当时在那里？\n\n安杰利奇先生：我们当时不在，法官阁下。我们进行了旁听，但没有提交出庭代理通知。我们没有发言。我们没有采取任何立场。我们不是联合被告团体的一部分，并且我们已非常谨慎地——\n\n法院：我理解你们不是联合被告团体的一部分。这不是——我理解这一点，律师。我理解这一点没有任何困难。\n\n安杰利奇先生：谢谢。\n\n法院：我所说的是，严先生在 September 24th 会议上，因为——\n\n安杰利奇先生：他当时不在，法官阁下。\n\n法院：——每一项对抗程序中的每一名被告都收到了该会议的通知。每一名被告——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 3974 于 01/16/25 提交，于 01/16/25 09:42:01 登记，第 33 页，共 50 页\n\n安杰利奇先生：法官阁下——\n\n法院：稍等一下，律师。每一项对抗程序中的每一名被告都收到了该听证的通知，而且严先生当时在那里。至于你们是否决定不提出某一争点，那是你们的决定。如果你们是说想就此取得不同的命令，那么就在你们的对抗程序中提交文件。\n\n安杰利奇先生：我们确实有（音频干扰）。首先，法官阁下，如我可以说一句，谢谢您，法官阁下。我感谢您的说明。严先生没有参加该听证。他没有出庭。他没有到场。他没有发言。他不是——我们没有获授权成为联合被告团体的一部分。法官阁下作出的适用于 Apple 和 Meta 的命令，载于 Apple 和 Meta 的案卷中。\n\n法院：我明白。那么，如果你们希望获得澄清命令，何不再提交一些文件？如果你们不想参加听证——你们刚才说不想参加听证，但又想参加听证。那么，究竟如何，你们想参加听证还是不想？\n\n安杰利奇先生：法官阁下，我并不是说我们不想参加听证。我想说明的是，法官阁下，我只是在陈述我认为无可争议的事实，正如案卷中所载明的那样。\n\n因此，如果我可以说到重点，我会尽量尽快说明。法官阁下，Apple 和 Meta 目前的程序状况是，我们驳回动议中的所有争点均被安排于 January 15th 继续进行。我今天听到的内容与实际案卷和记录所载内容非常不同，而且我有些担心，法官阁下，我们似乎正在失去对我们客户的关注，因为他们的驳回动议中的所有争点目前实际上均被安排于 January 15th 继续进行。这是法官阁下所作的命令，我们已准备好代表 Meta 和 Apple，就我们的驳回动议中所列的全部争点继续进行。\n\n如果法官阁下要求我们今天同意您将下令作出不同安排，那没有问题，但截至目前，记录很明确。我们驳回动议中的所有争点均被安排于 January 15th 继续进行。我们乐意修改该安排。我们希望与法官阁下合作。我们准备与受托人合作。\n\n但是，目前的程序状况是，Apple 和 Meta 根本不受 January 15th 所安排争点定义的约束。我们有自己的动议和我们的争点，正如我们在动议中所陈述的那样，这些事项已为 January 15th 作好准备。如果法官阁下是说我们的动议将延期至另一日期，我乐意听取这一安排。我愿意与各方合作。我愿意与法院合作，以合乎逻辑、经济且高效的方式继续进行。但说我们是该团体的一部分，或者我们是这些争点的一部分，并不准确。\n\n法院：好的，律师，我听到了。Bassett（巴塞特）律师，您有什么回应吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：法官阁下，我只是想指出，我——首先，我认为法院已经，而且至少据我理解，已通过相当明确地说明本案将按如下方式进行，处理了律师提出的所有争点：在当事人提出或加入联合书状争点的范围内，这些争点将于下周审理；其他争点则不会审理，我们将在适当时候安排这些争点的听证时间，包括就 Apple 和 Meta 而言。我还想指出，林西律师可以核实我的说法，但我相信——我不确定律师刚才是否提到这一点——但我相信 Apple 和 Meta 已明确加入联合书状中提出的全部论点。因此，就这些争点而言，它们将有机会于下周陈述意见。\n\n安杰利奇先生：法官阁下，我们很乐意参加下周的听证，并就争点发言，如果我所听到的是巴塞特律师建议我们应当这样做，但这并非目前记录所载的内容。至于更广泛的一点，即其他被安排于 January 15th 处理事项的当事人应以某种方式受到限制，我只是提出更广泛的一点，法官阁下，即从程序角度而言，我们需要一些澄清。我认为，如果法官阁下希望就您所界定的有限争点继续进行，那没有问题，但它们对我们不具有约束力。\n\n法院：我没有界定它们，律师。我没有界定它们。联合书状被告界定了它们。我没有界定它们。\n\n安杰利奇先生：明白，法官阁下。您作出的命令界定了它们；那是您的命令，法官阁下。\n\n法院：不，那是他们的定义，律师。那是——您想阅读听证笔录吗？那些是律师在听证期间所陈述的原话。我没有界定它们。我说这些是同意作出裁决的争点，律师。因此，请您，如果您想要准确说明这——\n\n记录在案，请不要把话强加于我。问题就在于此——\n\nANGELICH（安杰利奇）先生：我绝不会做这种事。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nANGELICH先生：如果让您感觉是那样，我向您道歉，法官阁下。我只是查看法官阁下的命令，仅此而已。\n\n法庭：那么，我们这样办。我明白你的观点，好吗。我记得Yan（闫）先生说过，他们将受此约束。也许我错了，可能如此。正如我在听证会开始时所说的，我们现在有多少了，主案中有4,000个案卷条目，另有300个对立程序？我认为没有人能把这些完全理清，律师，所以我们正非常努力地这样做。\n\nANGELICH先生：当然。\n\n法庭：如果你认为你们的两项对立程序在程序上不准确，那么就提交一项动议或拟议命令。在这两项对立程序中，均于December 20提交了召开状态会议的请求，而你对此没有提交任何答复，律师，什么都没有。所以——\n\nANGELICH先生：法官阁下，抱歉。我一定是误解了。\n\n状态会议请求，以及随后提交的报告，我听到您在本次听证会开始时说，您知道，就January 15而言，没有必要就该听证会再提交更多文件。\n\n法庭：我说的是，没有必要提交请求获准免除担任本地律师的申请，律师；我说的是这个。\n\nANGELICH先生：我向您道歉，法官阁下。再说一次，我以为您在那之前立即作出了一个更广泛的陈述，您实际上提到了与本地律师有关的文件提交。法官，我想说的是，我们希望合作。我们希望有所帮助。我们希望确保本次听证会以尽可能少的次要争议进行。今天我听到Bassett（巴塞特）先生说明的一些事情，根本就是错误的。今天状态会议仅在数小时前向您提交的一些内容，对问题所作的界定完全不正确；我们反对所使用的界定以及对问题的描述，就Meta（Meta公司）和Apple（苹果公司）而言，或许其他人也希望提出异议。\n\n法庭：如果你们不受其约束，你们怎么能提出异议，律师？\n\nANGELICH先生：法官阁下——\n\n法庭：你刚才论证说你们不受其约束。那么，这是怎么回事——\n\nANGELICH先生：法官阁下——\n\n法庭：——你们想怎么做？你们想成为其中一部分，还是不想？如果不想，也没关系。无论如何，对法庭都没有影响，好吗，但不要一方面主张你们不受约束，另一方面又反对对问题的界定；而且，顺便说一句，我已经说过，问题就是我所说的问题，因为那是当事人向我提出的问题。那么，律师，你们想怎么做？\n\nANGELICH先生：我说的是他们称之为不是下周听证事项的问题。我说的是他们正在——\n\n法庭：哦，好的。\n\nANGELICH先生：——向法官阁下描述的——\n\n法庭：你说的是附件——\n\nANGELICH先生：——次要问题——正是如此，法官阁下——我原以为——而且显然，今天事情进展得非常快，法官阁下正试图处理许多议题，但在这些界定如Bassett先生所描述的范围内，他援引状态报告来支持他对这些问题的描述，我认为很多人可能会对他如何——\n\n法庭：嗯，他们可能会。而且你可能是对的，律师——\n\nANGELICH先生：——描述非联合问题的方式提出异议。\n\n法庭：——但我们直入主题吧。无论如何，我不会审理那些问题，我已经说过这一点，所以你不必担心，对吧。这些问题留待日后处理，你们可以——你们双方都可以就什么是问题、什么不是问题进行争论。我唯一要裁决的问题，是September 24提交法庭的四个问题；这些问题是由正在调解中的当事人基于陈述和协议提出的，他们希望在调解过程中对某些法律问题作出裁决。随后提交驳回动议和依诉状判决动议的其他当事人表示，他们也希望获得听审，因为这将影响其正当程序权利。如果法官阁下的委托人表示——而且他们完全有权如此表示——他们不受联合书状约束并且不希望受其约束，这没有问题；我们可以完全分开处理。我没有任何问题，而且——无论如何都没有影响，但我需要知道你们想怎么做。\n\n你们想参加听证会，还是不想？\n\n如果不想，也没有问题；我们将在其他日期和时间安排就你们驳回动议举行听证会，而你们可以在各自的对立程序中提交任何动议、拟议命令，或任何你们认为适当的文件。\n\nANGELICH先生：谢谢您，法官。关于您刚才所说的话，我只想澄清一件事，那就是法官阁下说，有人希望加入书状程序，因为他们不想其权利受到不利影响。\n\n法庭：不，律师，我不是这么说的。\n\nANGELICH先生：Apple和Meta提交了其动议——\n\n法庭：律师，停下。你一直在指——你没有听我在说什么。我没有说律师希望加入书状程序，因为他们不想其权利受到不利影响。我说的是，那些未参加调解、也未加入联合书状的当事人的其他驳回动议称，他们希望参加就联合书状举行的听证会，因为他们认为，如果不允许他们就联合书状被告所提出的那四个问题进行某种形式的论证，其正当程序权利将受到侵害。这就是我所说的。\n\nANGELICH先生：好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。Apple和Meta的驳回动议早在联合被告提出之前就已提交。\n\n法庭：我知道。我知道，律师。我一直在关注。\n\nANGELICH先生：法官阁下，我们将不得不与我们的——\n\n法庭：你仍未回答我的问题。你想怎么做？\n\nANGELICH先生：法官阁下，我们将不得不与我们的委托人商议，决定我们是否希望在January 15继续进行。\n\n法庭：好。那么，我需要在January 13之前知道。你们需要提交——\n\nANGELICH先生：我们会的。\n\n法庭：——一些文件至你们的对立程序中，说明你们是否希望就你们的驳回动议——嗯，我不知道你们是否希望这样做。我不会处理不属于那四个问题的问题，所以我们对此说清楚。那么，你们决定希望如何进行，好吗？\n\nANGELICH先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。如果我试图迅速陈述许多事项，我向您道歉；今天发生了相当多的事情，所以感谢您今天对我们的包容。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。Sklarz（斯克拉兹）律师，刚才我与您谈了一会儿，因为您代表大多数并非联合书状当事人、但其驳回动议已安排于下周听证的被告。您希望发言吗？\n\nSKLARZ先生：是的，法官阁下。您已阐明，命令中列出的四个问题将予以论证，而我们在书状中提出的其他问题，以及受托人以要点列出的其中一些问题，尽管我们可能不同意问题如何界定，但这些问题将在日后予以论证，因此我们明白15日听证会的范围。\n\n因此，我认为我提出了另外三个我认为构成一部分、应在15日听审的问题。其中两个将在日后听审；如果这是法官阁下的裁定，也没有问题。这两个问题是删节问题，以及如果允许受托人追溯性地合并，或无论他们所主张的为何，对向我的委托人支付的款项是否应被视为获批准的、正常经营过程类型的付款，或经法庭批准的付款。我认为法官阁下已经明确，这些问题将予保留。\n\n我在我们的状态报告中概述的第三个问题涉及诉讼资格。我认为这包含在命令所列的四个问题之内，因此，我认为这将是可以审理的事项，无论受托人如何阐述问题，还是我如何阐述问题。因此，我明白15日将发生什么，我们将依命令进行。我已审阅记录，我想是September 24的听证会记录，如果我的日期无误。正如法官阁下已经指出的，以及我们在状态报告中所做的，我们保留权利。因此，我认为我明白下周的进展方向。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。那么，唯一另一名非联合书状被告、曾表示希望就与四个问题相关的驳回动议继续进行的，是Zeisler & Zeisler（Zeisler & Zeisler律师事务所）。Zeisler & Zeisler，Kindseth（金德塞斯）律师，您今天有什么要补充的，还是我们接下来直接继续？\n\nKINDSETH先生：没有，我认为这非常清楚，法官阁下，并且我感谢您就15日将如何进行所提供的指引。我们将准备就法庭命令中所确定、与Zeisler & Zeisler有关的问题作出回应；事实上，只有一个，即本案既判力原则。对于仅涉及Zeisler的“本案既判力”论点，我希望提出一些具体观点。\n\n法庭：“本案既判力”论点并不是联合书状中的四个问题之一，Kindseth律师。\n\nKINDSETH先生：嗯，它是——这没关系。\n\n法庭：你可以留待日后再说。这不是我下周将要处理的问题之一。\n\nKINDSETH先生：好的。为明确起见，在我们并不同意的附件A中——\n\n法庭：我不——附件A无关紧要。正如我所说，那是——受托人的律师整理的，对吧？所有这些问题将在其他日期得到解决。我将听审的是，所有当事人来到本法庭——不是我编造的——他们来到这里，请求本法庭处理四个问题。我们在September 24就此举行了广泛的听证会。随后，我同意按当事人所请求的方式行事，而这正是我们正在做的。\n\nKINDSETH先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我们将限于这四个问题。我们可能会或可能不会发表意见。我们将保留10分钟。我们感谢这段时间，并且将限于这四个问题。所有其他问题显然均予保留。\n\n法庭：很好。非常感谢。\n\n好的。我认为受托人Despins（迪斯平），律师\n\nGoldstein先生，Bassett律师，除非你们还有其他想讨论的事项——我不确定今天下午我们是否还有其他需要讨论的事项。\n\nPETERSON先生：法官阁下，我有一项事务性事项，能否请允许我非常简短地发言？\n\n法庭：谁在说话？\n\nPETERSON先生：我是Brian Peterson（布莱恩·彼得森），K&L Gates（凯易律师事务所），代表Amazon Web Services, Inc.（亚马逊云服务公司）和Amazon.com, Inc.（亚马逊公司）。\n\n法庭：你是联合书状的一方当事人吗？\n\nPETERSON先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。请讲。\n\nPETERSON先生：因此，正如Goldstein先生先前所述，关于15日的辩论将如何在联合被告的律师之间分配，已有一些初步讨论；他提到，我可能是进行辩论的三名联合被告律师之一。\n\n我们已提交一项动议，请求准许本地律师免于参加该次听证。我们在今天的听证会之前已提交该动议。我只是想确认，鉴于我初步计划在15日进行辩论，法庭对此没有任何顾虑；我也想请法庭指示，我们的本地律师是否可以免于参加。\n\n法庭：你们的本地律师获准免于参加。谢谢。\n\nPETERSON先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nBASSETT先生：法官阁下，如获准许？关于下周辩论的——抱歉——时间分配，我只有两点需要澄清；我起立发言只是为了确保我们——\n\n法庭：好的，请讲。\n\nBASSETT先生：——都达成一致，并指出一个潜在顾虑。关于分配给被告方以及受托人的时间，法庭所述的安排是，被告方将获得总计——我认为现在基于已被撤出的被告——约一个半小时的辩论时间，然后受托人有30分钟。法官阁下的意思是，我们仅有一个半小时，然后由受托人回应，还是——\n\n法庭：是。\n\nBASSETT先生：——是否会保留时间？\n\n法庭：是的，这就是我们将要做的。不是，这就是我们将要做的。支持联合书状所提出问题的辩论，将由联合书状被告作出；然后我将给予未参与联合书状的被告——Sklarz律师——嗯，ArentFox（艾睿律师事务所），我们尚不清楚他们要做什么，但现在会知道；以及Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所），我想，就目前未参与联合书状的被告而言，这确实就是全部了，对吗？因为其他当事人已表示他们不会进行任何辩论。因此，实际上将是1小时20分钟，然后我将给予你们半小时回应时间，听证会即告结束。我们已就所有问题收到书状。口头辩论仅在该等范围和时间框架内获准进行。\n\nBASSETT先生：好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。我原本要提出的唯一另一点是，如果被告方有1小时20分钟，显然，我们可能会在半小时内充分回应所有这些内容方面面临一定挑战，但我们会尽力提高效率。如果有我们未予回应、但法庭希望我们回应的问题，或许让我们多一些时间会比较好；但再次说明，如果法庭认为由被告方进行1小时20分钟的辩论，随后由受托人进行半小时的辩论是合适的，我们将予以配合。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。我认为目前这样是合适的。如果我——如果在听证期间情况有所变化，我会通知你们，但我预计不会如此。\n\n我们已审阅诉状。我们已审阅法律。我们理解相关问题。因此，这就是我们将如何进行。\n\nBASSETT先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。Despins受托人，关于下周的听证会，今天下午我们是否还有其他需要处理的事项？\n\nDESPINS先生：目前没有，法官阁下。非常感谢您拨冗。\n\n法庭：好的。各位，请务必将该等信息提供给受托人，以便本记录能够准确载明谁出庭——我并不是指谁发言——而是谁参与了，即使只是观看本次听证会，因为这确实会影响所有这些对抗程序；请提供你们的全名、你们律师事务所的全名、是否已提交出庭通知，以及你们参与的是哪一项对抗程序。好的。谢谢各位。我们下周见。那是今日日程表上的最后一项事项，现休庭。\n\n律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n书记员：现休庭。\n\n（程序于下午1:27结束。）\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3974 提交日期 01/16/25 录入日期 01/16/25 09:42:01 第49页，共50页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 3974 提交日期 01/16/25 录入日期 01/16/25 09:42:01 第50页，共50页\n\n证明\n\n本人证明，据本人所知及能力所及，上述内容是对上述标题事项程序电子录音的准确誊本。\n\n/s/ William J. Garling（威廉·J·加林） January 13, 2025\n\nWilliam J. Garling（威廉·J·加林）, CET-543\n\n认证法庭记录员\n\n为 Reliable（瑞莱布尔）","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":"2026-08-23 21:26:08"}