{"id":"court_ctb_404_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":404,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-05-20","title":"EXHIBIT PAX 01 Transcript of April 27, 2022 Hearing","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT PAX 01**\n\nTranscript of April 27, 2022 Hearing\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 2 of\n\n#### 247\n\nIn Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* April 27, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\n# APPEARANCES:\n\nFor the Debtor: WILLIAM R. BALDIGA, ESQ. BENNETT S. SILVERBERG, ESQ. KENNETH AULET, ESQ. JEFFREY L. JONAS, ESQ. Brown Rudnick, LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity LAURA S. ARONSSON, ESQ. Fund L.P.: DAVID V. HARBACH, II, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP\n\n> 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 PATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ. Robinson & Cole LLP 280 Trumbull Street\n\nTimes Square Tower\n\nHartford, CT 06103\n\nProceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service.\n\n> **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES Cont'd:\n\nFor the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.\n\nOffice of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510\n\nFor Golden Spring TIMOTHY MILTENBERGER, ESQ. Party: 100 Pearl Street\n\nFor HK International Funds STEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ. Investments (USA) Limited, AARON A. ROMNEY, ESQ. LLC, Interested Party: Zeisler & Zeisler\n\nProposed counsel for the IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Creditors Committee: JOHN KAPLAN, ESQ.\n\nFor Rui Ma, Zheng Wu and KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.\n\n (New York), Interested Cohn Birnbaum & Shea, P.C. Hartford, CT 06103\n\n> 10 Middle Street Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\nPullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601\n\n Weican Meng, Creditors: McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter 30 Jeliff Lane Southport, CT 06890\n\n| 247 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | 3 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | (Proceedings commenced at 9:46 a.m.) |\n| 2 | THE CLERK:
Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Good morning.
If we could have |\n| 4 | appearances for the record, starting with the debtor's |\n| 5 | counsel, please. |\n| 6 | MR. BALDIGA:
Good morning, Your Honor.
William |\n| 7 | Baldiga, Brown Rudnick, for the debtor.
With me, my |\n| 8 | colleagues, Ben Silverberg, Ken Aulet, and Jeff Jonas. |\n| 9 | Thank you. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 11 | MR. JONAS:
Good morning. |\n| 12 | THE CLERK:
I'm sorry.
I heard Bennett |\n| 13 | Silverberg, but there was someone else I didn't -- |\n| 14 | MR. BALDIGA:
Ben Silverberg, Kenneth Aulet. |\n| 15 | THE CLERK:
Thank you. |\n| 16 | MR. BALDIGA:
And I believe his motion pro hac was |\n| 17 | allowed a week or two ago. |\n| 18 | MR. AULET:
Yesterday. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
I think just the other day. |\n| 20 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yesterday.
I'm sorry. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Just the other day, yes. |\n| 22 | MR. BALDIGA:
And Jeffrey Jonas. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. |\n| 25 | MR. KINDSETH:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Stephen |\n| | |\n\n| | 4 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Kindseth, Zeisler & Zeisler.
And with me, my colleague |\n| 2 | Aaron Romney, representing HK International Funds |\n| 3 | Investments (USA) Limited, LLC. |\n| 4 | MR. ROMNEY:
Good morning, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 6 | MR. MILTENBERGER:
Good morning, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | Timothy Miltenberger for Golden Spring (New York). |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 9 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Peter |\n| 10 | Friedman of O'Melveny & Myers on behalf of Pacific Alliance |\n| 11 | Group.
I'm here with my colleagues Laura Aronsson, who's |\n| 12 | had a pro hac entered, and David Harbach, who is back there, |\n| 13 | but will be joining us at the bar. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 15 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
And Mr. Birney is here as well from |\n| 16 | the Robinson & Cole firm. |\n| 17 | MR. BIRNEY:
Good morning, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 19 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Irve |\n| 20 | Goldman, Pullman & Comley, with my colleague, Jonathan |\n| 21 | Kaplan.
Our application is pending to represent the |\n| 22 | Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 24 | MR. KAPLAN:
Good morning. |\n| 25 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Holley |\n| | |\n\n| | 5 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 3 | MS. MAYHEW:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Kristin |\n| 4 | Mayhew, McElroy, Deutsche, Mulvaney & Carpenter, on behalf |\n| 5 | of creditors Rui Ma and Zheng Wu. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 7 | MS. MAYHEW:
Good morning. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Does anyone else wish to note their |\n| 9 | appearance for today's hearings? |\n| 10 | (No audible response.) |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
As you all know we scheduled |\n| 12 | the hearings today.
There are many matters on the calendar, |\n| 13 | but the two matters that are scheduled for an evidentiary |\n| 14 | hearing today are the application to employ Verdolino & |\n| 15 | Lowey, ECF No. 90, and the motion for DIP financing -- I've |\n| 16 | shortened the titled, but that's what it essentially is -- |\n| 17 | ECF 117. |\n| 18 | I know there are many other matters on the |\n| 19 | calendar.
I know you all took a few minutes before we |\n| 20 | started this morning.
I don't know if there's anything that |\n| 21 | anyone wants to report to the Court before we begin. |\n| 22 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes, Your Honor.
Thank you.
Again, |\n| 23 | William Baldiga for the debtor. |\n| 24 | Your Honor, we're delighted to have made great |\n| 25 | progress not only this morning, but over the course of the |\n| | |\n\n last two weeks. And if I could just report briefly, not argue, but just report as to where we are as to each matter? THE COURT: Sure. Please, go right ahead. MR. BALDIGA: As to the motion to lift stay involving the boat, there is a resolution. You may remember that the owner of the boat, AK International -- HK International, filed a proposed order some time ago. That order has been negotiated. As you would expect, it's somewhat longer than first submitted, but those -- that's what happens with this things, and the parties need some time to finalize some language over the course of the next -- well, it's being done now, but it's not ready to be handed up -- but they believe that sometime this morning that language will have been reviewed by everyone and that there will be a consent, fully-consented-to order resolving the lift stay motion with the boat being returned and fully resolving it. The \\$37 million is already at the Zeisler Client Trust Fund Account, so that is no longer a concern, if it ever was. So great progress in that regard. In no particular order, the Brown Rudnick retention, all objections have been resolved. I believe that PAX wants to put on the record a reservation of rights, but we'll hear them say whatever they want in that regard. With Verdolino & Lowey, all objections have been\n\n resolved other than that of PAX and I guess PAX will decide whether they want to go forward with that. But all other objections have been resolved. With the fee procedures, interim fee procedures motion, all objections have been resolved. With the -- THE COURT: Hold on. Let me just -- I'm with -- MR. BALDIGA: I'm sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: No, that's okay. I'm just trying to make sure I'm following you. MR. BALDIGA: I guess I should be giving docket numbers. THE COURT: No. That's okay. I'm fine with that. I just -- I can figure that out. Okay. Go ahead. So the -- MR. BALDIGA: There is -- THE COURT: -- the interim -- the interim procedures has been resolved, is that what you're saying? MR. BALDIGA: Yes, Your Honor. (Pause.) MR. BALDIGA: We'll add PAX as a noticed party as part of the resolution. So we have work to do on the order, but no objections outstanding, just clean up the order. Thank you. With respect to the DIP loan, there is still an\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 9 of\n\n| 247 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | 8 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | objection, but I believe only of PAX I believe.
I'm sorry. |\n| 2 | The U.S. Trustee also continues to have an objection.
So |\n| 3 | that appears that we will go forward on -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
With evidence on that? |\n| 5 | MR. BALDIGA:
-- on presentations today -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 7 | MR. BALDIGA:
-- including evidence if the parties |\n| 8 | wish. |\n| 9 | And then we have the motion to dismiss.
And we -- |\n| 10 | we'll need some time with you today to work out the |\n| 11 | scheduling on that with the Court's calendar and the |\n| 12 | calendars of other parties, but there's been a lot of |\n| 13 | discussion around that. |\n| 14 | There's an open issue as to whether we're going to |\n| 15 | have the 341 continue during that time, and we'll argue if |\n| 16 | that is necessary as to how that affects the scheduling and |\n| 17 | complicates the proceeding, but we may be able to resolve |\n| 18 | that as well. |\n| 19 | So I think that's the full agenda, Your Honor, |\n| 20 | I've addressed briefly. |\n| 21 | Mr. Kindseth may want to give further detail as to |\n| 22 | where we are with the boat, but obviously all parties can |\n| 23 | correct any part of that or make additional comment, but -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
I have a couple of things -- |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:
Of course. |\n| | |\n\n THE COURT: -- before you go. You all go ahead, and then I'll -- maybe you'll answer my questions. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. I'll turn it over to others. THE COURT: Mr. Friedman, what were you going -- MR. BALDIGA: But I'm delighted with the progress, Your Honor. I reported at the last hearing that there's been an inability to engage with the parties and that has changed dramatically. We've had really good engagement with the committee, with the Office of the United States Trustee, with committee members, and it's good to see the case now proceeding in a good direction with most things that were filed fully resolved and a few things still remaining. So we feel good that we're heading in the right direction. Now I'll turn it over to other people for whatever questions the Court may have. THE COURT: Mr. Friedman, go right ahead. You still have an objection to the DIP motion, but what other objection does your client have? MR. FRIEDMAN: We also have an objection to the -- the retention of a financial advisor in this case, Your Honor, which we will examine the proposed financial advisor who would -- in connection. THE COURT: Okay.\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1 | Filed 05/20/22 | Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 | Page 11 of |\n|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 10 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
I want to make a couple of |\n| 2 | comments.
You know, the stay motion is obviously our |\n| 3 | motion, so I thought I should address the status. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 5 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
We have had extensive discussions |\n| 6 | with HK.
We've had extensive discussions with the |\n| 7 | committee.
I do think we are in a place where we have |\n| 8 | agreed to, in principle, an order.
It is an order that has |\n| 9 | a lot of belts and suspenders because we obviously, you |\n| 10 | know, came in to this case with concerns and still have |\n| 11 | them. |\n| 12 | It should be -- we should be getting a final draft |\n| 13 | from counsel for HK shortly I think because we have ironed |\n| 14 | out the relevant points. |\n| 15 | I would -- what I would say is once the -- once |\n| 16 | the order is in your hands -- we obviously have tremendous |\n| 17 | respect for the Court's time. |\n| 18 | The date of the stay runs out on Monday, that will |\n| 19 | be the day ordinarily the Court would have to enter an |\n| 20 | order.
Out of respect for the Court, if the Court needs |\n| 21 | more time once it's in the Court's hands, we would agree |\n| 22 | that there's an extenuating circumstance.
We would not have |\n| 23 | agreed to that without an agreement. |\n| 24 | But I'm obviously very sensitive to overloading |\n| 25 | the Court or trying to jam the Court, which is nobody's |\n\n intention, so we will provide it to the -- it will be provided to the Court. And when the Court -- if the Court has follow-up questions after that and needs to schedule something, I just want to make it clear to the Court that we will accommodate whatever the Court needs and not try to rush the schedule in any ways to make your life more difficult. THE COURT: Well, I appreciate that. And I appreciate the efforts of the parties. And obviously once I see the order, I will take a look at it -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. THE COURT: -- and then see if there's any concerns that I have. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. And then, what I would say, Your Honor, is that's progress. It's a discrete form of progress. We still have, you know, a lot of concerns about the case and those have not receded. Mr. Baldiga is correct. We will just reserve some rights with respect to the Brown Rudnick retention. We actually think it's important that Mr. Kwok have competent counsel, and Brown Rudnick certainly is competent counsel. And not having them retained would -- A) we heard what you said at the last hearing that they will be retained, and B) whatever form this case takes, they're necessary.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 13 of\n\n We do have two other objections. We will be prosecuting them today. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Goldman? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. I'd like to put some finer points on the resolution of the committee's objections to the DIP loan and the Verdolino loan, their retention rather. I think it's important that we put the terms of the settlement on the record and advise the Court that we do have it documented. We had been working on it late into last night and we're finally able to reach final agreement this morning. So if I can report those terms to the Court, I think it would be helpful to the Court and the parties. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. GOLDMAN: As to the DIP motion, we have agreed that the debtor and Golden Spring will remove as termination events the filing by the debtor of a motion to dismiss or a motion for the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee or a motion to convert. They will also remove as termination events the termination of exclusivity for the debtor provided that the committee agrees not to seek to terminate exclusivity before the initial 120-day period expires which would be on or\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1 | Filed 05/20/22 | Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 | Page 14 of |\n|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n| | | 247 | | |\n\n| 13 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| about June 15th.
So we do agree that we will not seek to |\n| terminate that exclusivity before then. |\n| THE COURT:
So how are these agreements going to |\n| be noted?
Are there going to be -- is there going to be an |\n| amended DIP loan agreement, or is this going to be part of |\n| the order, or both? |\n| MR. GOLDMAN:
Both. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead. |\n| MR. GOLDMAN:
Yeah.
They're revisions to both. |\n| The termination events reside in the DIP |\n| agreement, not the order.
The order just refers to -- |\n| THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| MR. GOLDMAN:
-- the credit agreement. |\n| The initial \\$2 million loan that is -- we would |\n| ask the Court to approve on an interim basis -- is going to |\n| be paid into our firm's trust account.
We will set up a |\n| segregated deposit account that bears interest for that. |\n| And I didn't expressly discuss this with the |\n| debtor's counsel, but we are going to need a W-9 form filled |\n| out by the debtor because the estate will be entitled to the |\n| -- whatever interest is on that money.
And that's a bank |\n| requirement, not our firm's requirement.
So we'll need that |\n| to be filled out if the Court does approve this resolution. |\n| And that \\$2 million will be used to pay the |\n| committee's professionals and any examiner that might be |\n| |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 15 of\n\n appointed or the examiner's professionals. And of course that's without prejudice to the additional loans that are being requested on a final basis. And I expect we'll be able to work those out as well.\n\n The other provision we negotiated and which was of great concern to the committee relates to the termination event that would be based on the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. We were highly concerned -- and that was a point of -- one of the points of our objection -- that that tilted the process.\n\n And so what we were able to work out is a commitment from the debtor and Golden Spring that the -- of the \\$500,000 that Golden Spring agreed to make available upon a termination event -- and that would include the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee -- they would agree to make an addition to all fees of professionals that had been approved up to that date, the date of the appointment of a trustee, an additional \\$500,000. Of that, 400 would be dedicated to a -- the fees of a Chapter 11 trustee, his or her professionals, as well as the committee's professionals to the extent they would continue to have a role post-trustee.\n\n So the committee was satisfied that if a Chapter 11 trustee had to take over, there would be a fund for the trustee to continue on with the investigation and recovery\n\n of assets. THE COURT: Is that 500,000 or 400,000 of which you're talking about part of the two million or in addition to the two million? MR. GOLDMAN: Well, that would be in -- actually in addition to any fees that were accrued up to the date of the appointment of a trustee, so my conception of it was that it would be in addition to the loan. UNIDENTIFIED: In addition to? MR. GOLDMAN: In addition to the two million if the trustee appointment occurred during the interim period. Or if it incurred -- if it occurred in the final period, it would be an addition. That's my understanding. THE COURT: Okay. I'm not sure everybody agrees on that side, but we'll see. That's why I asked the question. (Pause.) MR. BALDIGA: On that point, if you still have un- incurred amounts in the two million, it wouldn't double count that. MR. GOLDMAN: I agree with that. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDMAN: The debtor had requested a finding\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 17 of\n\n| 247 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n of good faith in the interim order. And we had no problem with that as long as it was\n\n subject to a very strict caveat, and that would be that it would be strictly limited to the extension of the DIP loan and it would not be construed in any way or used to defend against claims that the committee or another estate representative or a creditor might assert against Golden Spring based on theories such as alter ego, veil piercing, fraudulent transfer.\n\n In other words, that they couldn't use the good- faith finding to say, here, Your Honor, you've already held that we were a separate entity and we proceeded in good faith with the DIP, so how could you pierce the corporate veil.\n\n So that is being accepted out of the good-faith finding and the good-faith finding will only relate to the extension of the interim DIP fees -- DIP funds rather.\n\n And there's a similar caveat for the no-waiver provision that is in the current order. It's in paragraph 15. We'll just make that more explicit to match the caveat I just gave Your Honor about the good-faith finding, that the entry of the order doesn't impair or prejudice in any way the claims that might exist against Golden Spring. And I think that that sums it up. I think there's -- there's one point we agree with\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 18 of\n\n| | 17 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | the debtor on and that's the point that was made in the |\n| 2 | declaration, that this proceeding should serve as a ground |\n| 3 | for giving creditors a fair opportunity to investigate what |\n| 4 | assets the debtor has, to conclusively determine what those |\n| 5 | assets are, and to use the DIP financing as a means to do |\n| 6 | that.
That's all in his declaration and that's all being |\n| 7 | served, we think, if this resolution is approved. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 9 | Mr. Kindseth, did you want to say something? |\n| 10 | MR. KINDSETH:
Yes.
There is some logistical |\n| 11 | issues, timing issues, that we have, and so revising the |\n| 12 | order and having it circulated as soon as possible is very |\n| 13 | important, so I'd like to be excused to go back to my office |\n| 14 | to finish the draft order. |\n| 15 | I'm also -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Of the DIP order? |\n| 17 | MR. KINDSETH:
Sorry? |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Of the DIP order? |\n| 19 | MR. KINDSETH:
No.
This is concerning the Lady |\n| 20 | May, the -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Oh, you're -- okay. |\n| 22 | MR. KINDSETH:
Correct.
My -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Well, there isn't really a -- there |\n| 24 | isn't really a motion underlying that then, right? |\n| 25 | I mean -- |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 19 of\n\n| 247 | |\n|-----|--|\n|-----|--|\n\n| 18 |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| MR. KINDSETH:
Actually -- |\n| THE COURT:
-- you're saying it's the resolution |\n| of the relief from stay order? |\n| MR. KINDSETH:
Correct. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay.
Okay. |\n| MR. KINDSETH:
And I can provide Your Honor with a |\n| summary of -- |\n| THE COURT:
No, that's fine. |\n| MR. KINDSETH:
Great. |\n| THE COURT:
I don't need to see it. |\n| MR. KINDSETH:
Perfect. |\n| THE COURT:
I mean, I think -- I'll read it -- |\n| MR. KINDSETH:
Yes. |\n| THE COURT:
-- when I see it, right? |\n| MR. KINDSETH:
Okay.
Very good. |\n| THE COURT:
And so I think that's fine. |\n| MR. KINDSETH:
So may I be excused? |\n| THE COURT:
Yes.
Yes.
You certainly may.
Thank |\n| you. |\n| MR. KINDSETH:
Thank you very much, Your Honor. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay.
Then the only other thing that |\n| I was going to ask questions about was the -- |\n| The only thing, Mr. Baldiga, you didn't speak |\n| about that's on the calendar today, other than the examiner |\n| and the dismissal motion which you did speak about in some |\n| |\n\n| | 19 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | ways, was the proof of claim bar date motion. |\n| 2 | What's the status of that motion? |\n| 3 | MR. BALDIGA:
I'm sorry.
I did forget that. |\n| 4 | That's also fully resolved I believe.
We've agreed to all |\n| 5 | the requests of the U.S. Trustee in that regard to basically |\n| 6 | pare down what creditors must do to comply with the bar |\n| 7 | date. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
And what is the bar date proposed to |\n| 9 | be? |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
I don't -- I don't -- it comes out |\n| 11 | to 52 days after service of the bar date. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, I'll have to look at that |\n| 13 | because I'm not sure 52 days is enough time. |\n| 14 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I might -- you know, right now, the |\n| 16 | code, you know, has changed a few times over the last few |\n| 17 | years, but the least amount of time I think there is after a |\n| 18 | 341 meeting is 70 days, and it's 7 or something, but this is |\n| 19 | an 11 where -- |\n| 20 | MR. BALDIGA:
Right. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
-- there doesn't always have to be a |\n| 22 | bar date set, right? |\n| 23 | But if there is, if you ask for one, that's fine, |\n| 24 | but I don't know if 52 days -- I'll have to look at whatever |\n| 25 | you propose, but I'm -- |\n\n MR. BALDIGA: Okay. That's fair enough, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- I'm suggesting to you that I'm not sure if 52 days will be ample time in this case or any Chapter 11 case quite frankly because of many reasons, including the impact of the ability to object or receive a distribution under a plan. MR. BALDIGA: I hear that. THE COURT: So that would be my only concern. I mean, I don't know what other concerns I might have, but I'm just saying to you 52 days to me seems short. I'm not saying I'm going to 180 or anything like that, but I think that, you know, I would expect the bar date to be, you know, somewhere at least in the 75-day range. Is that a problem from the management of this case's perspective? MR. BALDIGA: Well, it depends. I mean, it's -- it's helpful to know what claims there are as we go through a plan process. THE COURT: I understand that. MR. BALDIGA: And we're anxious to do a plan process. We're two months into the case. And if we give creditors another essentially two months to file claims, it doesn't seem like a big burden, but let's put a date in and get it served, whatever date the Court feels is appropriate,\n\n| | 247 |\n|---|-------------------------------------------------------|\n| | |\n| 1 | it will -- but it will help the plan process along -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
And you could certainly -- |\n| 3 | MR. BALDIGA:
-- to know what claims there are. |\n\n THE COURT: You know, you can certainly prepare your disclosure statement and plan based on different eventualities, right?\n\n MR. BALDIGA: It's not the disclosure statement as much as the financial transactions that underpin the plan. This is a -- we -- claims, the amount of claims matter. And to go forward --\n\n THE COURT: I completely agree and that's the point, right?\n\nMR. BALDIGA: Right.\n\n THE COURT: And the -- you don't have a prepackaged Chapter 11, so you have to have time for solicitation and voting, and you have to have people give people an opportunity, meaningful opportunity, to file proofs of claim.\n\n MR. BALDIGA: Yes. And I know the rules says there's a presumption that 45 days is sufficient, and we accept that it can be more --\n\n THE COURT: What rule? MR. BALDIGA: Local Rule 3003-1. THE COURT: Says 45 days for filing -- setting a proof of claim bar date? Maybe it does.\n\n MR. BALDIGA: Let me take a look at it again. (Pause.) MR. BALDIGA: But, again, we're not -- we're not even suggesting 45 days, but that's a point of reference I guess. But if the Court feels that it shouldn't be 45, it should be 52 or 60, then -- THE COURT: I just don't see 45 days as -- or any time frame Local Rule 3001-1. MR. BALDIGA: I'm sorry. I misspoke, 3003-1. THE COURT: Those are creditors whose claims are listed as disputed contingent on liquidating. That rule applies to creditors with claims that are disputed contingent on liquidated with a notice of a deadline for filing proofs of claims. The purpose of that rule is so that a debtor who files a case and lists in their statements and schedules of affairs all the claims as -- or any claim, it doesn't have to be all -- as disputed or contingent on liquidated. We have a process here in Connecticut where the debtor is required to provide notice to that claimant that their claim is listed as disputed contingent on liquidated, and that if they don't file a proof of claim, that they will not be able to object and they will not receive any distribution under the plan. MR. BALDIGA: I understand. I didn't -- I didn't Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 23 of\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 24 of\n\n| | 23 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | say that that rule dictates what we're doing here. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 3 | MR. BALDIGA:
It provides a reference point as to |\n| 4 | what -- it's a deadline for certain creditors to get their |\n| 5 | claims in.
I'm not saying that that dictates what we do.
I |\n| 6 | am saying that as in pretty much every other Chapter 11 case |\n| 7 | involving tens of millions of dollars conceivably getting |\n| 8 | claims, having a deadline on which claims are filed helps to |\n| 9 | push the case -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I completely agree.
I'm not |\n| 11 | suggesting there isn't going to be a -- |\n| 12 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay.
So that's all I'm saying.
So |\n| 13 | we'll -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
I'm not suggesting there isn't going |\n| 15 | to be a deadline.
I'm just not sure it's going to be 52 |\n| 16 | days. |\n| 17 | MR. BALDIGA:
And as I said, let's put a day in |\n| 18 | that you're comfortable with and keep the show moving |\n| 19 | forward, and we'll do that. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
All right.
So, Mr. Friedman, this is |\n| 23 | your objections to the application to employ Verdolino & |\n| 24 | Lowey and the -- your clients' -- and the DIP financing |\n| 25 | order. |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 25 of\n\n Now, I did see everyone's list of witnesses and exhibits. And I saw that last night there was a joint exhibit grid with regard to different exhibits. How do you plan on proceeding this morning? Are you -- are you going -- are we going to start with your objection or is Mr. Baldiga going to start with his -- or his motions? MR. BALDIGA: I was going to put -- to establish the evidentiary foundation that -- I was going to put Mr. Craig Jalbert on the stand. That's the witness that PAX intends to cross-examine. Direct would be very short, but -- THE COURT: That's fine with me if it's fine with Mr. Friedman. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: I mean, you two I'm sure have spoken about this, right? MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, my colleague, Ms. Aronsson, will handle any objections to direct and the cross-examination and we'll make argument after the witness is -- has been relieved. THE COURT: Okay. All right. So, Mr. Baldiga, you may call your first witness. And this -- to be clear on the record, we are now -- is this evidence going to be applicable to both Verdolino Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 26 of\n\n| | 25 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | & Lowey and the DIP motion or are we just starting with the |\n| 2 | Verdolino & Lowey application? |\n| 3 | MR. BALDIGA:
With Verdolino & Lowey. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 5 | MR. BALDIGA:
Mr. Jalbert. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Mr. Jalbert, when you -- when you sit |\n| 7 | down, just let me know what you can see, okay?
If you have |\n| 8 | a screen in front of you, you know. |\n| 9 | I'm just going to say my screen is showing |\n| 10 | nothing.
Should it be showing at least the calendar? |\n| 11 | THE CLERK:
No. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
It shouldn't be showing |\n| 13 | anything.
Okay. |\n| 14 | MR. JALBERT:
It is blank, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Can you see anything? |\n| 16 | MR. JALBERT:
It is blank. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Good.
Mine is too.
So then |\n| 18 | we're on the same page.
But hopefully we'll be on a |\n| 19 | different page soon. |\n| 20 | MR. JALBERT:
Good morning. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Good morning. |\n| 22 | CRAIG JALBERT, WITNESS FOR THE DEBTOR, SWORN |\n| 23 | THE CLERK:
State your name and business address |\n| 24 | for the record, please. |\n| 25 | THE WITNESS:
My name is Craig R. Jalbert, J-A-L- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 27 of\n\n| | 26 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | B, as in boy, E, as in Eric, R-T, as in Tom.
I work at |\n| 2 | Verdolino & Lowey.
Our business address is 124 Washington |\n| 3 | Street, Foxboro, Massachusetts 02035. |\n| 4 | THE CLERK:
Thank you. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Good morning, Mr. Jalbert. |\n| 6 | THE WITNESS:
Good morning, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
You okay in there?
You've got what |\n| 8 | you need? |\n| 9 | THE WITNESS:
(No audible response.) |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
I don't think we |\n| 11 | even have any water, but if you do get to a point where you |\n| 12 | need some, let us know.
Okay? |\n| 13 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
I appreciate it. |\n| 14 | DIRECT EXAMINATION |\n| 15 | BY MR. BALDIGA: |\n| 16 | Q
Good morning, Mr. Jalbert. |\n| 17 | A
Good morning. |\n| 18 | Q
You said in your introduction that you were affiliated |\n| 19 | with the firm of Verdolino & Lowey? |\n| 20 | A
Yes. |\n| 21 | Q
Could you tell the Court what that firm does. |\n| 22 | A
It's styled as an accounting firm.
Most of our work is |\n| 23 | specialty work.
Pretty much the only accounting service |\n| 24 | that we do not provide is the test type services, audits, |\n| 25 | reviews, compilations, but we do a lot of litigation support |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 28 of\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Jalbert - Direct
27 |\n| 1 | work in insolvency.
We do federal election reporting for |\n| 2 | federal senators and congressmen and presidential |\n| 3 | candidates, and we do what we call high-net-worth |\n| 4 | babysitting and tax preparation. |\n| 5 | Q
And what is your position in the firm? |\n| 6 | A
I'm a principal. |\n| 7 | Q
And were you a co-founder of the firm? |\n| 8 | A
Well, the firm was started back in 1979.
The Verdolino |\n| 9 | or Verdolino & Lowey bought half the firm in 1986.
I bought |\n| 10 | the other half in 1987.
And it's just morphed into |\n| 11 | Verdolino & Lowey over the years. |\n| 12 | Q
So you've been with that firm now for? |\n| 13 | A
Thirty-five years. |\n| 14 | Q
Thirty-five 35 years. |\n| 15 | And within Verdolino and -- and what is your title |\n| 16 | at the firm? |\n| 17 | A
Principal. |\n| 18 | Q
And does that mean that you're in charge of at least -- |\n| 19 | co-charge of the firm with someone else? |\n| 20 | A
Yes.
So I'm not an owner because a CPA can't be an |\n| 21 | owner, but I am treated as an equal 50 percent partner.
And |\n| 22 | 100 percent of my time not spent running the firm -- and I'm |\n| 23 | the \"managing partner\" -- is spent in this insolvency and |\n| 24 | related issues. |\n| 25 | Q
So you have experience in insolvency cases? |\n\nJalbert - Direct 28 A I do. Q For how many years? A Started somewhere in 1988 or 1989. Q Okay. And before you joined Verdolino & Lowey, did -- what was your schooling, starting with college? A I graduated in 1983 with a bachelor of science and degree in accountancy from Boston College. And since then, I've done 35 -- 38 or 39 years of continuing professional education in the accounting and related areas. Q Okay. And as you -- I think as you said Verdolino & Lowey is not an auditor, correct? A Correct. Q Describe what you have done in bankruptcy cases and in about how many bankruptcy cases over the years? A I last did my count five or ten years ago, and at that time, I had been in 7,000 Chapter 7's and 500 Chapter 11's. I've been appointed as a Chapter 11 trustee three times. I've been a federal -- state -- federal receiver, a state court receiver, an assignee for the assignment of benefitted creditors in four states. I've done -- I've been a post-confirmation fiduciary -- pick a title -- liquidating supervisor, liquidating manager, whatever, numerous times. I work with trustees, debtors in possessions, creditors committees, equity committees, secured creditors, unsecured creditors, Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 29 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 30 of\n\n| | 247 | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Jalbert - Direct
29 | |\n| 1 | pretty much any constituency to a bankruptcy case over the | |\n| 2 | years we've represented in all of these cases. | |\n| 3 | I think that's all I have off the top of my head. | |\n| 4 | Q
And do yo provide assistance to debtors in connection | |\n| 5 | with plan formulation and negotiation? | |\n| 6 | A
Yes. | |\n| 7 | Q
Do you provide assistance with financial reporting? | |\n| 8 | A
Yes. | |\n| 9 | Q
Here, you know that the debtor obviously is an | |\n| 10 | individual? | |\n| 11 | A
Yes. | |\n| 12 | Q
In fact, Mr. Kwok is in the courtroom, and you've met | |\n| 13 | him on several occasions now? | |\n| 14 | A
Yes. | |\n| 15 | Q
He has lawyers obviously that help him, correct? | |\n| 16 | A
Yes. | |\n| 17 | Q
Other than Brown Rudnick, are they bankruptcy lawyers? | |\n| 18 | A
Not to my knowledge. | |\n| 19 | Q
Okay.
Does he have a financial staff individually that | |\n| 20 | is well versed in bankruptcy reporting? | |\n| 21 | A
No. | |\n| 22 | Q
How do you know that? | |\n| 23 | A
I've been told.
And over the last -- what date are we | |\n| 24 | -- 45 or so days, there's been lots of interaction and all | |\n| 25 | of the information necessary for us to do our work has come | |\n| | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 31 of
247 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Jalbert - Direct
30 |\n| 1 | through the legal team. |\n| 2 | Q
Okay.
But you and your staff have more than a little |\n| 3 | experience with financial reporting in bankruptcy cases, |\n| 4 | correct? |\n| 5 | A
Yes. |\n| 6 | Q
What type of reporting is required in this case? |\n| 7 | A
Well, there's two pieces of reporting that come to mind |\n| 8 | initially.
Aide from the schedules and the SOFAs, putting |\n| 9 | those aside, that's the start of the case, on an ongoing |\n| 10 | basis, there's the monthly operative reports that are filed |\n| 11 | nowadays on the docket with additional information supplied |\n| 12 | to the United States Trustee. |\n| 13 | It's the United States Trustee's form and rules. |\n| 14 | And there's also a Form 426 which is related to Rule 2015.3 |\n| 15 | for reporting related to entities -- I think the term is -- |\n| 16 | that are substantially controlled by the debtor. |\n| 17 | Q
Okay.
And were you involved in the preparation of the |\n| 18 | first MORs filed in this case? |\n| 19 | A
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q
What did you do?
Or when I say you, you and your |\n| 21 | staff, please. |\n| 22 | A
We, at Verdolino & Lowey, were -- initiated the |\n| 23 | preparation.
We used the form that is supplied by the |\n| 24 | United States Trustee.
It's a PDF that you fill out.
It |\n| 25 | has lots of instructions.
And we worked with the debtor's |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 32 of
247 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Jalbert - Direct
31 |\n| 1 | attorneys in order to obtain the information necessary to |\n| 2 | prepare the form.
And that has been done for February and |\n| 3 | March. |\n| 4 | We needed assistance in getting input from Golden |\n| 5 | Spring and that was arranged for through counsel.
And we |\n| 6 | did have initial few emails with Golden Spring to obtain |\n| 7 | information and most everything has come through counsel. |\n| 8 | Q
Okay.
With respect to the schedules and statements, |\n| 9 | were you involved in that process? |\n| 10 | A
Yes. |\n| 11 | Q
What did you and your staff do in that regard? |\n| 12 | A
So in order to file the SOFAs and the schedules, |\n| 13 | there's an awful lot of historical information necessary, so |\n| 14 | we participated on numerous telephone calls and emails with |\n| 15 | the legal team in order to obtain the information. |\n| 16 | We populated initially the draft forms of both the |\n| 17 | -- all of the schedules -- and as we all know, there's a |\n| 18 | number of them -- and the statement of financial affairs. |\n| 19 | We were -- initially crafted the first draft of |\n| 20 | what I'll call the specific notes, there were global notes, |\n| 21 | that were filed as part and parcel to the SOFAs and the |\n| 22 | schedules.
And the general notes were I believe created and |\n| 23 | drafted by the attorneys. |\n| 24 | I did the first pass at trying to file the |\n| 25 | specific notes that responded to the various particular |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 33 of
247 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Jalbert - Direct
32 |\n| 1 | questions in the SOFAs and the schedules after receiving and |\n| 2 | obtaining and organizing the information received from the |\n| 3 | legal team. |\n| 4 | Q
Were you involved in the establishment by this debtor |\n| 5 | in possession of the so-called DIP deposit account? |\n| 6 | A
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q
What did you do? |\n| 8 | A
There were only a number of institutions that the |\n| 9 | United States Trustee's Office has -- permits to be -- to |\n| 10 | hold funds in a bankruptcy case so we identified that group |\n| 11 | of banks and we tried to see who would participate.
We have |\n| 12 | a relationship with three of the banks that frequently do |\n| 13 | work in bankruptcy. |\n| 14 | Initially, and no longer, I was going to be the |\n| 15 | actual signatory, so we went and presented it that way. |\n| 16 | When that became clear that that was not going to happen, we |\n| 17 | made arrangements to be able to get debtor in possession to |\n| 18 | be the sole signatory on the account and to have a bank |\n| 19 | account that would meet the requirements of the United |\n| 20 | States Trustee's Office. |\n| 21 | It's a bank that's done it in other cases in this |\n| 22 | jurisdiction and others.
It happens to be a bank that we've |\n| 23 | worked for -- with -- in a number of matters over the last |\n| 24 | couple of years. |\n| 25 | Q
What bank is that? |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 34 of
247 | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Jalbert - Direct
33 | |\n| 1 | A
Well, we went with both People's and M&T.
And in the | |\n| 2 | middle of our discussions, they merged.
So we talked from | |\n| 3 | both sides, but eventually it will be in the -- it will be | |\n| 4 | an account in M&T. | |\n| 5 | Q
Okay.
All right.
Did you use your personal experience | |\n| 6 | and relationships to help establish that account? | |\n| 7 | A
Yes. | |\n| 8 | Q
And, again, you are, yourself, your firm and you, will | |\n| 9 | not be a fiduciary, but you're just providing advisory | |\n| 10 | assistance in that regard, correct? | |\n| 11 | A
Correct. | |\n| 12 | Q
And you're not going to act as a fiduciary in this | |\n| 13 | case, correct? | |\n| 14 | A
Correct. | |\n| 15 | Q
So all work is advisory? | |\n| 16 | A
Well -- | |\n| 17 | Q
Accounting or -- | |\n| 18 | A
Yes.
I don't know what the term would be, but there | |\n| 19 | will be accounting and reporting.
The information coming | |\n| 20 | out of the bank account will have to be reported in the MLR. | |\n| 21 | the debtor doesn't have an accounting staff.
I assume that | |\n| 22 | we will have some role in making sure that checks are | |\n| 23 | written, checks are signed by the debtor. | |\n| 24 | And then the reporting, the committee and others | |\n| 25 | might have.
And the U.S. Trustee might want weekly or | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 35 of\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Jalbert - Direct
34 |\n| 1 | monthly reporting or bi-weekly reporting.
I don't know what |\n| 2 | they'll want.
Different cases, people do different things. |\n| 3 | And of course there will be the monthly reporting through |\n| 4 | the MLR, so I'm assuming we will assist and facilitate that. |\n| 5 | Q
And have you had direct -- you and your staff had |\n| 6 | direct communications with the Office of the United States |\n| 7 | Trustee regarding reporting in this case? |\n| 8 | A
Yes. |\n| 9 | Q
And how has that gone? |\n| 10 | A
Well, it started out with -- everyone probably knows in |\n| 11 | June of 2021 the United States Trustee started a requirement |\n| 12 | with the monthly -- the MLRs are much different beasts than |\n| 13 | they used to be.
They used to be in a -- all in Excel and |\n| 14 | you would prepare it and it was fairly simple. |\n| 15 | It's now done on a -- on a PDF that is -- you can |\n| 16 | keypunch directly into the PDF.
And once the form is filled |\n| 17 | and populated with all the information that is required and |\n| 18 | appropriate for that particular case, you actually hit a |\n| 19 | button and it uploads the data to the cloud in the United |\n| 20 | States Trustee's Office. |\n| 21 | And it sends back a form that is no longer |\n| 22 | watermarked as draft or whatever the watermark was.
That's |\n| 23 | then signed by the debtor and filed on the docket.
And any |\n| 24 | supplemental information goes to the U.S. Trustee separately |\n| 25 | by email either by my firm or the -- or attorneys. |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 36 of\n\n| | 247 | | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Jalbert - Direct
35 | | | | | |\n| 1 | Well, when -- since January -- and I have a number | | | | | |\n| 2 | of cases undergoing Chapter 11s where this reporting is | | | | | |\n| 3 | required -- without any word that came down, the form | | | | | |\n| 4 | changed dramatically.
It used to be a straight four or five | | | | | |\n| 5 | pages.
All of a sudden it had a whole bunch of other pages | | | | | |\n| 6 | and some markings, you know, like when you go to a | | | | | |\n| 7 | restaurant and you do the menu button to see what the menu | | | | | |\n| 8 | is, this form had those -- those kind of symbols and | | | | | |\n| 9 | markings. | | | | | |\n| 10 | I didn't know what it was.
No one could figure it | | | | | |\n| 11 | out.
And I talked to someone in the accounting side of the | | | | | |\n| 12 | U.S. Trustee's Office who happened to be in New York | | | | | |\n| 13 | handling this case and he explained to me that that's the | | | | | |\n| 14 | way the form is supposed to be which allowed us to then | | | | | |\n| 15 | quickly wrap up the form.
And during that, that's when he | | | | | |\n| 16 | made a request for additional information on the monthly | | | | | |\n| 17 | operating report which we've been providing since then. | | | | | |\n| 18 | Q
Did you feel that your 35 years of experience with you | | | | | |\n| 19 | and your staff helped to get that done efficiently? | | | | | |\n| 20 | A
Of course. | | | | | |\n| 21 | Q
Do you think this debtor alone without your office's | | | | | |\n| 22 | assistance would have been able to get that done? | | | | | |\n| 23 | A
No. | | | | | |\n| 24 | Q
How about the instructions and definitions in the | | | | | |\n| 25 | schedules and statements, how did your experience affect how | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 37 of\n\nJalbert - Direct 36 that work was done? A Well, obviously it was very helpful. This is a unique case in a number of areas. One of the uniquenesses -- and at least Your Honor probably knows -- is not a large amount of individual Chapter 11 cases by comparison to corporate or Chapter 7 cases it's a relatively minor amount. We have done a number of them in the past. We had -- we've had different types of cases. This one is very unique. And so as we were going through this, well, we had a lot of historical knowledge and history and basis to understand what the SOFAs and the schedules are looking for, we had to make sure we educated everybody to what the rules were, what the definitions were. Frankly, some times what is on the SOFA or a schedule, the actual question, doesn't entirely and completely relate to what the instructions say. The definitions can differ a bit. So we assisted everybody in those -- in those areas. And the attorneys, as well as us, haven't had lots of individual Chapter 11s, so we all made sure that we reviewed those instructions to make sure that we filed and did everything we possibly could, and to be abundantly clear that the attorneys drafted general and specific global notes to accompany the schedules and the SOFAs where there was any issues that needed additional addressing and describing.\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 38 of
247 |\n|----|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Jalbert - Direct
37 |\n| 1 | Q | Was your experience helpful in that regard? |\n| 2 | A | Yes. |\n| 3 | Q | Do you think this debtor could have done that without |\n| 4 | | your assistance? |\n| 5 | A | No. |\n| 6 | Q | You mentioned earlier that your firm does not provide |\n| 7 | | auditing services, correct? |\n| 8 | A | Yes. |\n| 9 | Q | And while your firm does serve, and while you have |\n| 10 | | served as a fiduciary, you're not serving as a fiduciary |\n| 11 | | here, correct? |\n| 12 | A | Correct. |\n| 13 | Q | Do you remember being deposed by PAX -- |\n| 14 | A | Yes. |\n| 15 | Q | -- a few weeks ago, I guess? |\n| 16 | A | Yes. |\n| 17 | Q | Okay.
Did you try to make clear during your testimony |\n| 18 | | that you were not doing auditing or forensic work or |\n| 19 | | verification work here? |\n| 20 | A | I think -- I think -- I thought I did.
I think the key |\n| 21 | | word that they used was investigate. |\n| 22 | Q | Okay. |\n| 23 | A | I didn't investigate anything, and the answer to that |\n| 24 | | question is no. |\n| 25 | Q | Okay.
So are you being asked to be an examiner in this |\n\nJalbert - Direct 38 case? A No. Q Are you being asked to be a trustee? A No. Q Are you being asked to do an investigation? A No. Q But you are being asked to work with the debtor and the debtor's team to provide financial information in a manner required by the bankruptcy code and the rules and the Office of the United States Trustee? A Among other services, yes. Q Okay. But you feel capable to do that? A Yes. Q And you feel -- and, again, can the debtor do that without your help? A No. Q Okay. MR. BALDIGA: No other questions, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. Cross-examination, Counsel? (Pause.) MS. ARONSSON: Good morning. THE WITNESS: Good morning. MS. ARONSSON: Laura Aronsson from O'Melveny & Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 39 of\n\nJalbert - Cross 39 Myers. THE COURT: Good morning. You may proceed. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ARONSSON: Q Good morning, Mr. Jalbert. I'd like to discuss the work that V&L has done in this matter to date. V&L was contacted sometime in February, is that right? A Late February, early March. Q After retention, you turned to the SOFAs and the schedules, working on them simultaneously? A Well, I'm not retained yet, so. Q After you were contacted? Thank you. A After we were contacted, yes. I think -- aside from drafting an engagement letter and providing background information on the firm, I think our first tasks were to begin working on the SOFAs and the schedules. Q Did you finish that work? A So far, yes. Q Then V&L started preparing the first monthly operating report? A Yes. Q This was the report for the second half of February? A Well, it was a report for the month of February. But it just so happens the debtor filed on February 15th, so. Q Since then, the debtor has filed one additional Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 40 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 41 of\n\n| | | 247 | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| | | Jalbert - Cross | 40 |\n| 1 | | operating report? | |\n| 2 | A | The month of March, yes. | |\n| 3 | Q | This was filed on April 20th? | |\n| 4 | A | If you say so.
I know it's around that date. | |\n| 5 | Q | Turning to the work you've performed so far in | |\n| 6 | connection with these categories, I'm going to start with | | |\n| 7 | | the SOFAs and schedules, you prepared these filings based on | |\n| 8 | | the information you received from others? | |\n| 9 | A | Yes. | |\n| 10 | Q | These people included Brown Rudnick, right? | |\n| 11 | A | Yes. | |\n| 12 | Q | Aaron Mitchell? | |\n| 13 | A | Yes. | |\n| 14 | Q | Is that Kwok's personal attorney? | |\n| 15 | A | He's debtor's counsel.
I don't know what you mean by | |\n| 16 | | personal attorney. | |\n| 17 | Q | And Melissa Francis? | |\n| 18 | A | Yes.
I did receive information from her. | |\n| 19 | Q | Is that Kwok's personal attorney? | |\n| 20 | A | My understanding is she's -- well, she's part of the | |\n| 21 | | bankruptcy team.
I don't know whether she's just his | |\n| 22 | | personal attention attorney. | |\n| 23 | Q | Anyone else? | |\n| 24 | A | Yes.
We received a spreadsheet which was I think | |\n| 25 | | amended or changed a couple of times from someone from | |\n| | | | |\n\nJalbert - Cross 41 Golden Spring. Q Was this in connection with the SOFAs and the schedules or the monthly operating report work? A With the operating report. Q Okay. We can turn to that. Did you communicate with anyone else regarding the SOFAs and the schedules besides Brown Rudnick, Aaron Mitchell and Melissa Francis? A No. Q I think I heard you testify on direct Verdolino & Lowey got all of the relevant information from the people we just talked about. I note -- you didn't do any other independent work or to verify the facts? A Correct. Q You didn't do any investigating -- investigation into the ownership interests, if any, of Mr. Kwok in the assets listed in the SOFAs and the schedules? A Correct. Q For example, no investigation of Kwok's interest in the Lady May? A Correct. Q You did no work to value the items listed in the SOFAs and the schedules, right? A If you're asking if we did valuation work, no. But there was questions. That the answers to those questions was checks issued by the State of New York and I think the Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 42 of\n\nJalbert - Cross 42 federal government that on the face of those checks had a number. I don't know if you call that valuing, but we read the check and we determined what that number was and put it in the schedules. Q Verdolino & Lowey has no experience valuing luxury items like the Lady May? A Correct. Q You did no investigation into the debtor's income information? A Correct. Q You have not spoken to the debtor about any of the filings Verdolino & Lowey has prepared in this matter? A Correct. Q Verdolino & Lowey used best case to help prepare the SOFAs and the schedules, right? A Yes. Q That's industry software? A Well, it is. I don't know what else to do besides bankruptcy, but best case is a -- and I don't know what the real name of the company is, but they manufacture, prepare a software, that provides pretty much every bankruptcy form that I'm aware of that has to be filed in a bankruptcy. Q V&L simply plugged that information that you received into the software to create the filings? A Well, first we got the information, understood the Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 43 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 44 of
247 | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Jalbert - Cross
43 |\n| 1 | | information, and then, yes, we did keypunch it. |\n| 2 | Q | You did not review any of the debtor's books and |\n| 3 | | records in connection with the engagement? |\n| 4 | A | Correct. |\n| 5 | Q | You do not know where those books and records are kept? |\n| 6 | A | Correct. |\n| 7 | Q | You did not ask to review them? |\n| 8 | A | Correct. |\n| 9 | Q | Turning to the work in connection with the monthly |\n| 10 | | operating report, again, like with the SOFAs and the |\n| 11 | | schedules, Verdolino relied on information it received from |\n| 12 | | the third parties to assist in the preparation? |\n| 13 | A | Correct. |\n| 14 | Q | You mentioned a summary of expenses earlier, is this a |\n| 15 | | summary of expenses you received from someone at Golden |\n| 16 | | Spring breaking down the debtor's monthly expenses? |\n| 17 | A | Well, they're breaking down the expenses paid on behalf |\n| 18 | | of the debtor, paid by a third party on behalf of the |\n| 19 | | debtor, yes. |\n| 20 | Q | This was about seven categories? |\n| 21 | A | About that. |\n| 22 | Q | To your knowledge, Golden Spring is the debtor's family |\n| 23 | | office in New York City? |\n| 24 | | MR. BALDIGA:
Objection. |\n| 25 | | THE COURT:
What's your basis -- |\n| | | |\n\nJalbert - Cross 44 THE WITNESS: That's not my understanding. THE COURT: Hold on a second, sir. What's your objection? MR. BALDIGA: Well, the witness answered the question, so I'll withdraw the objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Ask the question again. BY MS. ARONSSON: Q To your knowledge, Golden Spring is the debtor's family office in New York City? A No. That's not my understanding. MS. ARONSSON: Okay. Madam Clerk, can we please pull up PAX Exhibit 14. (Pause.) BY MS. ARONSSON: Q So just to confirm -- THE CLERK: On the screen -- MS. ARONSSON: Sorry. THE CLERK: On the screen is Exhibit 14, page 1. MS. ARONSSON: Thank you. THE CLERK: PAX Exhibit 14, page 1. BY MS. ARONSSON: Q So just to confirm -- A No. That's not what mine says. Mine says I'm on page 171. Does it -- does it have a whole bunch of -- Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 45 of\n\nJalbert - Cross 45 THE CLERK: Yes. THE WITNESS: -- exhibits all in one PDF? Okay. THE CLERK: That's page 1 in Exhibit 14. THE WITNESS: And if you say it's page 1, it's page 1. BY MS. ARONSSON: Q So just to confirm, what is your understanding of Golden Spring? A My understanding is it's the debtor's son's company/family office. MS. ARONSSON: All right. You can take those down. Thank you. THE COURT: So you're not moving for the admission of Exhibit 14, Counsel? MS. ARONSSON: No, I'm not. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. BY MS. ARONSSON: Q You communicated with one person at Golden Spring regarding the information contained in the monthly operating report, right? A Yes. Q That provided -- that person provided you certain information relevant to the monthly operating report? A Yes. Q Who was that person? Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 46 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 47 of
247 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Jalbert - Cross
46 |\n| 1 | A
I only know his first name. |\n| 2 | THE WITNESS:
Am I permitted to say it? |\n| 3 | MR. BALDIGA:
Objection, Your Honor.
Well, I'll |\n| 4 | let Golden Spring argue. |\n| 5 | MR. MILTENBERGER:
Your Honor, this came up at Mr. |\n| 6 | Jalbert's deposition.
My client's concerned about the |\n| 7 | harassment, intimidation of its employees.
And unless |\n| 8 | there's a specific reason why an employee's name needs to be |\n| 9 | said on the record, we would like the identification of the |\n| 10 | employees to remain confidential and be kept off of the |\n| 11 | record. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Well, you'd have to file a motion for |\n| 13 | that, Counsel, I think.
You know, that's a -- if you want |\n| 14 | something under seal or confidential, you have to seek that |\n| 15 | through an appropriate motion. |\n| 16 | But I think what counsel was asking was -- and |\n| 17 | maybe I'm wrong, we can play back the recording -- was you |\n| 18 | were asking about a specific person that was providing |\n| 19 | information from Golden Spring.
I thought that was the |\n| 20 | question. |\n| 21 | MS. ARONSSON:
That's right. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
You know, don't answer it yet |\n| 23 | though, sir, okay, because we have to figure out what the -- |\n| 24 | what the issue is here. |\n| 25 | So what is the need to know the specific person's |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 48 of
247 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Jalbert - Cross
47 |\n| 1 | name from Golden Spring? |\n| 2 | MS. ARONSSON:
Sure.
In connection with this |\n| 3 | particular motion, the retention of V&L, Pacific Alliance, |\n| 4 | we sought discovery to understand the purpose of Verdolino & |\n| 5 | Lowey's retention and why it's in the best interest of the |\n| 6 | estate. |\n| 7 | We believe we're entitled to explore that, the way |\n| 8 | in which Verdolino & Lowey prepared the SOFAs, the |\n| 9 | schedules, the monthly operating reports, including who |\n| 10 | provided Verdolino with the underlying facts, and what those |\n| 11 | facts are, is important to uncovering whether this retention |\n| 12 | is in the best interest of the estate. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
All right.
Well, let me ask you a |\n| 14 | question if we're -- and I'm not -- I'm not ruling on |\n| 15 | anything at the moment -- but does -- do you have an |\n| 16 | opposition to us putting the witness answering the question |\n| 17 | -- but has the witness already answered this question at the |\n| 18 | deposition? |\n| 19 | MS. ARONSSON:
He did not. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Was the question asked at the |\n| 21 | deposition? |\n| 22 | MS. ARONSSON:
Yes.
And we also sought discovery |\n| 23 | and we received a redacted email, so that was the root of |\n| 24 | the question. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I see.
So you received an email from |\n| | |\n\nJalbert - Cross 48 someone at Golden Spring, but it had redacted people's names? MS. ARONSSON: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. And what's your concern, Attorney Miltenberger? 6 MR. MILTENBERGER: My client's concerned about the privacy of their employees, Your Honor. And in the proffer by PAX's attorney, I didn't see anything that made it clear that the identity of the person that provided the information to Verdolino & Lowey is important. We don't have any issue with the disclosure of the information that was provided and when that happened. The only concern that we have is the privacy of our employees and we would ask that the employee name be kept confidential. THE COURT: Well, wouldn't somebody from Golden Spring have to testify at some point? I mean, what are you going to -- are you going to designate a Rule 30(b) representative or what -- you're not going -- I mean, someone's going to have to, it can't just be the corporate entity. There has to be an individual at some point. 23 MR. MILTENBERGER: That's correct, Your Honor. Golden Spring has been examined. We did have the president of Golden Spring testify and answer all questions. Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 49 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 50 of\n\nJalbert - Cross 49 THE COURT: So the person that provided the information to Mr. Jalbert is not the president of Golden Spring, is that the -- is that the issue? 4 MR. MILTENBERGER: That's the issue, Your Honor. It was a rank and file employee of Golden Spring who was just passing information over to Verdolino & Lowey. And, again, we don't have any objection to inquiry about what that information was or why Verdolino & Lowey wanted it, just as to the identity of the employee to protect that individual's privacy. THE COURT: Well, you'd have to have sought a protective order I think. But the other way we could handle it is -- I mean, you didn't do that. What did you do at the deposition when this question was asked? 16 MR. MILTENBERGER: I objected to it, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And did you say that you were going to seek some form of a protective order? 19 MR. MILTENBERGER: No, Your Honor. I objected and the questioner moved on. THE COURT: Okay. MS. ARONSSON: Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead. MS. ARONSSON: Two more quick points. Even if the name were not relevant -- we dispute that it's not relevant\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 51 of
247 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Jalbert - Cross
50 |\n| 1 | -- I'm not just aware of any applicable rule that allows the |\n| 2 | debtor of Golden Spring to redact for relevancy.
That's |\n| 3 | just not something that I've ever seen happen. |\n| 4 | I'm also not aware of any rule that allows the |\n| 5 | debtor to redact otherwise discoverable information, the |\n| 6 | name and the email address of a person based on the STAG |\n| 7 | security threat. |\n| 8 | And I would also point out that, you know, we've |\n| 9 | seen Golden Spring employees be identified on LinkedIn, |\n| 10 | which is publicly available. |\n| 11 | MR. MILTENBERGER:
Your Honor, the argument is is |\n| 12 | that the probative value of this individual's name is |\n| 13 | outweighed by the prejudicial effect of disclosing it. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Well, I don't know if that's true.
I |\n| 15 | understand your argument, but I don't know if that's true. |\n| 16 | Maybe what we need to do is, you know, set this |\n| 17 | issue aside for some further discussion and/or -- I mean, |\n| 18 | what we could do in the short term -- but I don't know if |\n| 19 | it's acceptable to PAX, it may not be -- is the question |\n| 20 | could be asked and answered, whatever the answer might be, |\n| 21 | and we could put that part of the record under seal pending |\n| 22 | a ruling on the issue, but that's I think the best that we |\n| 23 | can do right now. |\n| 24 | I don't have anything in front of me to make an |\n| 25 | educated evidentiary ruling on this issue, right? |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 52 of\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Jalbert - Cross
51 |\n| 1 | But if we're going to do that, we have to give the |\n| 2 | courtroom deputy a moment because we'd have to -- our |\n| 3 | software, that is, the recording that is the record of the |\n| 4 | case, does allow us to put certain parts of the record |\n| 5 | underseal. |\n| 6 | And I'd have to orally rule that there -- because |\n| 7 | there is no motion pending, no written motion -- that |\n| 8 | because there's an objection to a question that is an |\n| 9 | evidentiary objection in nature, and because I don't have |\n| 10 | anything in front of me to allow me to make an educated |\n| 11 | ruling, that I would have to rule at this point that if we |\n| 12 | want to proceed this way, that the record for this question |\n| 13 | and answer would be under seal until further order of the |\n| 14 | Court. |\n| 15 | Mr. Baldiga? |\n| 16 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | For the debtor, our objection is -- in addition to |\n| 18 | Mr. Miltenberger's -- just on relevance. |\n| 19 | You gave PAX an opportunity to say how the name is |\n| 20 | relevant and there was no reason given.
The name is simply |\n| 21 | not relevant to anything here. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, again, I'm not sure I |\n| 23 | agree with you, but I'm not prepared to rule on that at the |\n| 24 | moment. |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:
But there could be at least some |\n| | |\n\nJalbert - Cross 52 showing as to why that is relevant. THE COURT: Well, there is -- I mean, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery is broad, evidence is broad. She's asking a question about the preparation of the financial information that forms the basis of this Chapter 11 case where -- and Mr. Jalbert has testified quite, you know, admirably about what he's done, what he hasn't done, and what -- how the information has come to him from third parties and not from the debtor directly. So I do think it's relevant. If that's your -- on that objection, I think it's relevant. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: I think that's relevant. But whether or not it should be confidential or protected is a different issue at least from the Court's view. Again, this is an individual Chapter 11 case. The debtor has duties under the bankruptcy code. Apparently those -- I shouldn't say -- that's not fair -- let me make Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 53 of\n\n sure I say this properly -- from what I've heard today, and that's all I've heard so, the debtor has not directly communicating with the party who is preparing and submitting the financial information that is the basis for this case. If that's the case, which it appears to be --\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 54 of
247 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Jalbert - Cross
53 |\n| 1 | which is fine, but, I mean, there's nothing -- but that |\n| 2 | doesn't -- that does not preclude then a party from asking |\n| 3 | who provided the information.
I think it is relevant. |\n| 4 | And even -- but it may ultimately be not material. |\n| 5 | I could see that it's relevant, but you could argue at some |\n| 6 | point possibly that it's immaterial who it is because it was |\n| 7 | just somebody at Golden Spring. |\n| 8 | Now, that doesn't mean that the -- that PAX as the |\n| 9 | objection party -- objecting party shouldn't know who that |\n| 10 | is because maybe PAX wants to depose that person. |\n| 11 | Now, you could -- you could object to that and you |\n| 12 | could file a protective order and motion to quash and all |\n| 13 | kinds of things, but that doesn't mean it's not relevant |\n| 14 | under the facts of this case that have been established so |\n| 15 | far this morning. |\n| 16 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay.
My second point, Your Honor, |\n| 17 | is that before we go through all these other machinations, |\n| 18 | it's possible that the witness simply doesn't know the name. |\n| 19 | And perhaps the Court could inquire as to whether we're all |\n| 20 | just sort of wasting time because the -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
I mean, that's a possibility, but -- |\n| 22 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
-- you know, I think there is a |\n| 24 | pending question, right? |\n| 25 | There's a pending objection. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 55 of\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Jalbert - Cross
54 |\n| 1 | So Golden Spring is trying to -- not trying, is |\n| 2 | asserting that the answer to that question is confidential |\n| 3 | and they don't want it disclosed -- |\n| 4 | MR. BALDIGA:
I understand that fully. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
-- even though they haven't filed any |\n| 6 | documents or anything with this court with regard to this |\n| 7 | examination.
So why don't I -- |\n| 8 | Well, how would you like to proceed, Counsel? |\n| 9 | MS. ARONSSON:
Pacific Alliance is happy to |\n| 10 | proceed under seal as you suggested. |\n| 11 | I just wanted to also note that we have relevancy |\n| 12 | arguments, and that Mr. Friedman will address in connection |\n| 13 | with the DIP objection on this very point. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Well, I just ruled that I think it is |\n| 15 | relevant. |\n| 16 | MS. ARONSSON:
Thank you.
Yeah. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay?
I think it is relevant.
So, |\n| 18 | you know.
And Mr. Baldiga may find that objectionable and |\n| 19 | may, you know, note the objection for the record for appeal |\n| 20 | purposes, whatever he needs, but I think it is relevant in |\n| 21 | this case. |\n| 22 | Under the specific facts and circumstances of this |\n| 23 | case, I think it's relevant to know who provided the |\n| 24 | information to the party -- that the financial advisor that |\n| 25 | is preparing and submitting all the financial information |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 56 of
247 | | | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | Jalbert - Cross
55 | | | | |\n| 1 | that is the basis for this case. | | | | |\n| 2 | So that is the Court's ruling. | | | | |\n| 3 | With regard to the -- placing it under seal, now, | | | | |\n| 4 | if you'd all just give me a minute. | | | | |\n| 5 | I don't want to burden the courtroom deputy, but, | | | | |\n| 6 | how much time do you need to get that set up to turn on the | | | | |\n| 7 | -- to make sure that this question that's been pending -- | | | | |\n| 8 | and I'm going to make -- I'm going to ask you to ask it | | | | |\n| 9 | again once we go under seal -- and Mr. Jalbert's answer be | | | | |\n| 10 | placed under seal? | | | | |\n| 11 | THE CLERK:
As soon as you say this is under seal, | | | | |\n| 12 | it's just flipping the buttons. | | | | |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Great. | | | | |\n| 14 | THE CLERK:
(Indiscernible.) | | | | |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Hold on a minute, Mr. | | | | |\n| 16 | Miltenberger.
Just hold on. | | | | |\n| 17 | THE CLERK:
So are you saying put it under -- | | | | |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
No, not yet.
I'll tell you. | | | | |\n| 19 | THE CLERK:
Okay. | | | | |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I'll say when to start.
I just want | | | | |\n| 21 | to hear from -- I still want to hear from counsel for PAX | | | | |\n| 22 | and then I'm going to let Mr. Miltenberger speak again too. | | | | |\n| 23 | THE CLERK:
Okay. | | | | |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Is there anything further you wanted | | | | |\n| 25 | to add for the record before I let Mr. Miltenberger talk for | | | | |\n\nJalbert - Cross 56 a moment? MS. ARONSSON: No. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Miltenberger? 5 MR. MILTENBERGER: Your Honor, just to inquire, the public access line would be active during the question and answer? THE COURT: I guess that's a good point, isn't it, Mr. Miltenberger? THE CLERK: We would put it in the waiting room, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So that's what we'd have to do first. We'd have to put -- we'd have to turn off the phone too, right? We've got a phone line going, don't we? THE CLERK: That's the public access line. THE COURT: Yeah. But then who else -- is there anybody else beside -- people in the courtroom are all here, so how are we -- how are we going to do that? (Pause.) THE COURT: We'd have to -- you know what? We'll have to think about this for a second because we'd have to have everybody be excused from the courtroom, which I don't know how much sense this makes right now. Because if it's under seal, but everybody hears it, then it's not under seal. Then it becomes public Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 57 of\n\nJalbert - Cross 57 record. MS. ARONSSON: Could I just have one moment, please, Your Honor? THE COURT: Certainly. (Pause.) THE COURT: Go ahead, Counsel. MS. ARONSSON: I think we're happy to proceed with this. THE COURT: Yeah. The only problem is there is a -- there is a problem, right? We'd have to put everybody that's in the public access line out of the -- out of this session right now. And there's all these people in the courtroom, right? So how do I deal with that? If it's under seal and everybody's just heard it, then it's not under seal, right? MS. ARONSSON: Another option, Your Honor, the witness could write the name on a piece of paper and mark it as Court's Exhibit 1. THE COURT: That would be placed under seal? MS. ARONSSON: Correct. THE COURT: Yes. Okay. I think that's a good solution. That's what we're going to do, Attorney Miltenberger, so then we don't have to -- But of course Mr. Jalbert probably doesn't have Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 58 of\n\nJalbert - Cross 58 any paper or a pen. THE WITNESS: Your Honor is correct. THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. All right. So, Mr. Jalbert, don't write anything down yet. I'm going to ask counsel to ask the question again. I'm going to note that there are two objections to the question, one of which was relevance that I've overruled. And one of which is from Golden Spring with regard to confidentiality, which I'm not prepared to rule on at the moment because I don't have anything in front of me to address that in an educated manner. So then I'm going to instruct you to answer the question by writing the answer on the paper and then we'll have to mark that as an exhibit under seal. Okay? So you're not going to say anything into the microphone. You're not going to say anything on the record. It's just going to be on that piece of paper. Okay? THE WITNESS: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Counsel, if you would please ask your question again that was the subject of two objections. BY MS. ARONSSON: Q Who is the person from Golden Spring who provided you Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 59 of\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 60 of
247 | | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | Jalbert - Cross
59 | | | |\n| 1 | certain information relevant to the monthly operating | | | |\n| 2 | reports? | | | |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So that the record is clear, | | | |\n| 4 | Mr. Baldiga, on behalf of the debtor, has objected to your | | | |\n| 5 | question, Counsel, on the basis of relevance. | | | |\n| 6 | I have stated that I believe it is -- your | | | |\n| 7 | question is relevant given the prior testimony of Mr. | | | |\n| 8 | Jalbert that the information that he and his office has | | | |\n| 9 | compiled and filed in this court, the financial information | | | |\n| 10 | in the statements and schedules of affairs, and the monthly | | | |\n| 11 | operating reports, were provided to him by third parties, | | | |\n| 12 | not directly from the debtor, and that one of those third | | | |\n| 13 | parties was Golden Spring. | | | |\n| 14 | So I've overruled the objection to relevance. | | | |\n| 15 | There was a further objection by Mr. Miltenberger, | | | |\n| 16 | on behalf of Golden Spring, arguing that the disclosure or | | | |\n| 17 | answer to that question of an individual's name could -- is | | | |\n| 18 | a -- Golden Spring would like to keep confidential. | | | |\n| 19 | And I've said that I can't rule on that right now | | | |\n| 20 | without appropriate paperwork in compliance with the Federal | | | |\n| 21 | Rules of Civil Procedure. | | | |\n| 22 | So what we all discussed, and what we're going to | | | |\n| 23 | do is, Mr. Jalbert is going to write an answer to that | | | |\n| 24 | question.
He's going to hand you that document.
And then | | | |\n| 25 | you're going to hand it to the courtroom deputy and it's | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 61 of
247 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Jalbert - Cross
60 |\n| 1 | going to be marked as Court's Exhibit 1 under seal.
And it |\n| 2 | will stay under seal until further order of the Court. |\n| 3 | Attorney Claiborn? |\n| 4 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Yes, Your Honor.
If I may just |\n| 5 | interject -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
We can't hear you.
Can you just pull |\n| 7 | that towards you? |\n| 8 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee has a |\n| 9 | right to access to everything in the Court's file. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Yes.
You will have that.
Yes. |\n| 11 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I just wanted to make sure we would |\n| 12 | have access to the -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
It's required that the U.S. Trustee |\n| 14 | has access to everything under seal.
And I'm sure counsel |\n| 15 | knows that, so -- but good point to make for the record. |\n| 16 | And, yes, the United States Trustee's Office will have |\n| 17 | access to that document. |\n| 18 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 20 | All right.
So, Mr. Jalbert, could you -- |\n| 21 | THE WITNESS:
Your Honor, if I could just make |\n| 22 | sure I follow your directions quickly? |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Sure. |\n| 24 | THE WITNESS:
I'm going to write down, as you -- |\n| 25 | as you said.
Am I to fold the piece of paper or just hand |\n\nJalbert - Cross 61 it over? THE COURT: You can just hand it to her. It's fine. THE WITNESS: Okay. THE COURT: Thank you. You can -- now, whenever you're done writing it down, just let her know, please. Let counsel know. And then I'm going to allow her to approach and take that from you. And then she's going to approach the courtroom deputy and hand it to the courtroom deputy who will then mark it as Court's Exhibit 1 under seal. Mr. Baldiga? MR. BALDIGA: All right, Your Honor. I'd just like to see it before it's handed up. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you. THE COURT: The U.S. Trustee, you can show it to the U.S. Trustee after you show it to Mr. Miltenberger too. (Pause.) MR. BALDIGA: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Yes. Would you approach, please -- and thank you -- and hand that to the courtroom deputy and she will mark that. So we just need a minute to give the courtroom Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 62 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 63 of
247 | | | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | Jalbert - Cross
62 | | | | |\n| 1 | deputy time to make that exhibit. | | | | |\n| 2 | And I am indicating on the record it's 11:03 a.m. | | | | |\n| 3 | I'm marking Court's Exhibit 1 under seal until further order | | | | |\n| 4 | of the Court and that is so ordered on the record.
Okay? | | | | |\n| 5 | So we just need a minute if you don't mind. | | | | |\n| 6 | (Pause.) | | | | |\n| 7 | (Mr. Jalbert's written answer to PAX attorney's | | | | |\n| 8 | question marked Court's Exhibit No. 1 under seal.) | | | | |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
One other thing I will mention while | | | | |\n| 10 | the courtroom deputy is marking the exhibit, as I mentioned | | | | |\n| 11 | to all the parties -- and I don't think you were here, | | | | |\n| 12 | Counsel, the last time, but maybe you were and I apologize | | | | |\n| 13 | if you were -- we have another hearing at 12:00 p.m., so we | | | | |\n| 14 | have to take a break at 12:00 p.m.
And that hearing may | | | | |\n| 15 | last a little while, but I don't know that for sure.
So | | | | |\n| 16 | that's all.
I just wanted to let you know that. | | | | |\n| 17 | Obviously, we have not a tremendous amount of time | | | | |\n| 18 | between now and 12:00 p.m., but I wasn't sure if you were | | | | |\n| 19 | here, and I just wanted to remind everyone that we do have | | | | |\n| 20 | to take a break in the hearing today at that point in time. | | | | |\n| 21 | MS. ARONSSON:
Understood. | | | | |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Are we ready to go?
You're all | | | | |\n| 23 | set? | | | | |\n| 24 | THE CLERK:
Yes. | | | | |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. | | | | |\n\nJalbert - Cross 63 So go ahead. Continue your cross-examination, Counsel. BY MS. ARONSSON: Q Without mentioning the name, you received at least one email from this person at Golden Spring? A The firm did. I was cc'd on one or two of them, but I was not the direct. Q You testified that Melissa Francis was part of the debtor's bankruptcy team, right? A Yes. Q Are you aware whether Ms. Francis works at Golden Spring? A That's my understanding. Q Turning back to your work in connection with the monthly operating report, do you recall Verdolino & Lowey removing certain line item expenses from the draft expense report that you received from Golden Spring? A Yes. Q Is this -- was this in connection with Sherry Netherland expenses? A Yes. Q Because the debtor did not live there? A Correct. Q Is it your understanding that the debtor still does not reside at the Sherry Netherland? Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 64 of\n\nJalbert - Cross 64 A Yes. MS. ARONSSON: Madam Clerk, will you please display PAX Exhibit 4. THE CLERK: On the screen is the Exhibit 4, page 1 of PAX Exhibit 4. On the screen is page 1 of PAX Exhibit 4. MS. ARONSSON: I'd like to turn to page 14 of PAX Exhibit 4. (Pause.) MS. ARONSSON: Thank you. BY MS. ARONSSON: Q Mr. Jalbert, do you recognize this document? A I do. Q This is the engagement letter filed in this case? A I think it was filed as an exhibit to our motion to be employed. MS. ARONSSON: I'm having a little trouble scrolling. THE COURT: Is the mouse -- yeah, try the mouse. (Pause.) BY MS. ARONSSON: Q Looking at these bullet points here, the first one we covered I think. We talked about the SOFAs and the schedules? A Yes. Q Looking at the second bullet point, if retained, Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 65 of\n\nJalbert - Cross 65 Verdolino would provided services related to cash flow and budget projections, right? A Yes. Q You discussed earlier you set up an account? A We set up the debtor's account. Q And you used your relationships to establish this account? A Yes. Q If the DIP loan is approved, Verdolino anticipates preparing a budget for committee counsel, financial advisors, and other ordinary course professionals to effectuate disbursements? A Conceptually. We'd have to be asked actually to do it, but it's something we could do. Q Are you aware that no ordinary course professionals have been approved? A Yes. Q Are you -- are you aware of any other financial advisors besides yourself involved in this case? A No. Q Do you understand the committee would need your help in preparing a budget for its counsel? A I don't know that they would need my help, but they certainly can ask. Q Turning to the third bullet point here related to Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 66 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 67 of\n\n| | | 247 |\n|----|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Jalbert - Cross
66 |\n| 1 | | monthly operating reports, we have covered that, right? |\n| 2 | A | I see the third bullet is being a need to opening and |\n| 3 | | maintaining a DIP. |\n| 4 | Q | Sorry.
The fourth bullet point.
Thank you. |\n| 5 | A | Yes. |\n| 6 | Q | In addition, Verdolino would review the quarterly |\n| 7 | | reports provided by the U.S. Trustee? |\n| 8 | A | Well, the U.S. Trustee, when they do their quarterly |\n| 9 | | report, it's really a bill based on the disbursements in the |\n| 10 | | preceding calendar quarter.
We would just verify its |\n| 11 | | accuracy.
And in the first quarter, they're never accurate. |\n| 12 | | It's not their fault.
They're making an estimate in |\n| 13 | advance. | |\n| 14 | Q | This is pretty straightforward, right? |\n| 15 | A | Well, if you have experience, yes. |\n| 16 | Q | The fifth bullet relating to estate, federal tax and |\n| 17 | | state income tax, you haven't performed any connection -- |\n| 18 | | any work in connection with this item? |\n| 19 | A | In actual preparation, no. |\n| 20 | Q | But you would suggest that the debtor and the estate |\n| 21 | | file tax returns? |\n| 22 | A | I absolutely would, but there's other services related |\n| 23 | | to that too. |\n| 24 | Q | The estate may come as currently zero? |\n| 25 | A | Well, I don't know technically whether that's true or |\n| | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 68 of
247 | | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | Jalbert - Cross
67 | | | |\n| 1 | not because I don't know what -- I don't know exactly, | | | |\n| 2 | legally, where the boat is.
And when the boat comes in, how | | | |\n| 3 | it's going to come in and how that's going to impact the | | | |\n| 4 | debtor, so I don't -- | | | |\n| 5 | THE WITNESS:
I'm talking -- referring to the Lady | | | |\n| 6 | May, Your Honor, so I don't know what implications that's | | | |\n| 7 | going to have.
It might have to be reviewed by someone with | | | |\n| 8 | a tax background. | | | |\n| 9 | BY MS. ARONSSON: | | | |\n| 10 | Q
So this assume the Lady May as part of the estate? | | | |\n| 11 | A
No, I don't assume that.
If someone determined that it | | | |\n| 12 | was part of the estate, then it would be an issue.
If it's | | | |\n| 13 | going to be contributed to the estate at some point in time, | | | |\n| 14 | it's an issue.
I'm not making a declaration of whether it's | | | |\n| 15 | property or not.
I don't know that. | | | |\n| 16 | Q
Turning to the sixth bullet, assistance with the | | | |\n| 17 | reviewing, reconciling, analyzing, and if necessary | | | |\n| 18 | objecting to proofs of claims, Verdolino has not performed | | | |\n| 19 | any investigation into the pending litigation claims in this | | | |\n| 20 | matter, right? | | | |\n| 21 | A
Correct. | | | |\n| 22 | Q
Verdolino has no experience analyzing pending | | | |\n| 23 | litigation claims? | | | |\n| 24 | A
Correct. | | | |\n| 25 | Q
Regarding the seventh bullet, we already talked about | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 69 of
247 |\n|----|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Jalbert - Cross
68 |\n| 1 | | Verdolino has not reviewed the debtor's books and records? |\n| 2 | A | Correct. |\n| 3 | Q | Are you aware that there are 21 professional service |\n| 4 | | providers who have received a pre-petition payment in the 90 |\n| 5 | | days before filing? |\n| 6 | A | Yes. |\n| 7 | Q | Verdolino has not performed any work in connection with |\n| 8 | | those services? |\n| 9 | A | Can you -- I'm confused by your question. |\n| 10 | Q | Has Verdolino prepared -- withdrawn. |\n| 11 | | Has Verdolino performed any work in connection |\n| 12 | | with the 21 pre-petition service providers? |\n| 13 | A | Besides ensuring that they were disclosed in the proper |\n| 14 | | SOFA schedule, no. |\n| 15 | Q | This is a pretty straightforward process you described? |\n| 16 | A | Yes. |\n| 17 | Q | Regarding the eighth bullet, the assistance with |\n| 18 | | necessary litigation support, Verdolino has not performed |\n| 19 | | any work in connection with this line item, but anticipates |\n| 20 | | potential miscellaneous tasks as requested by counsel? |\n| 21 | A | Miscellaneous what? |\n| 22 | Q | Tasks? |\n| 23 | A | Tasks.
Yes. |\n| 24 | Q | The final bullet, assistance with plan developments and |\n| 25 | | preparation, including feasibility, you are aware that the |\n| | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1 | Filed 05/20/22
247 | Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 | Page 70 of |\n|----|---------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|------------|\n| | | | Jalbert - Cross | | 69 |\n| 1 | | debtor already filed a plan? | | | |\n| 2 | A | I am. | | | |\n| 3 | Q | | | Verdolino did not do any work in connection with that | |\n| 4 | filing? | | | | |\n| 5 | A | | | In connection with the original plan, correct. | |\n| 6 | Q | | | You are aware that the estate purports to have | |\n| 7 | | | | approximately 3,800 in assets other than the litigation | |\n| 8 | claims? | | | | |\n| 9 | A | Correct. | | | |\n| 10 | Q | | | Do you know what a best interest test is in connection | |\n| 11 | | | | with the confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan? | |\n| 12 | A | I think so. | | | |\n| 13 | Q | | | Do you anticipate you would do a liquidation valuation | |\n| 14 | | | | of the \\$3,800 in assets for a best interest test analysis? | |\n| 15 | A | | | Well, we don't know what the assets of the estate are | |\n| 16 | | | | going to be at the time that someone's going to do the best | |\n| 17 | | interest test. | | | |\n| 18 | | | | And when it comes time to do the best interest test, we | |\n| 19 | | | | will not be part of the team that does value those assets to | |\n| 20 | | | | the extent that they're not already reduced to cash. | |\n| 21 | | | | But we would, I'm sure, participate in preparing the | |\n| 22 | | | | analysis that would be the best interest test using | |\n| 23 | | | | information from an expert that is a valuation of whatever | |\n| 24 | | the assets that need valuing. | | | |\n| 25 | Q | | | The only other potential asset besides the \\$3800 would | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 71 of
247 |\n|----|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Jalbert - Cross
70 |\n| 1 | | be future litigation claims? |\n| 2 | A | So far. |\n| 3 | Q | Again, Verdolino has no experience valuing litigation |\n| 4 | claims? | |\n| 5 | A | Correct. |\n| 6 | Q | So if the estate consisted only of litigation claims, |\n| 7 | | Verdolino would have a very small role in any plan? |\n| 8 | A | I don't know you could draw that conclusion. |\n| 9 | Q | Verdolino billed on an hourly basis, is that right? |\n| 10 | A | Yes. |\n| 11 | Q | As a principal, your hourly rate is \\$515? |\n| 12 | A | Correct. |\n| 13 | | MS. ARONSSON:
No more questions. |\n| 14 | | THE COURT:
So, Counsel, you're not moving for the |\n| 15 | | admission of PAX Exhibit 4? |\n| 16 | | MS. ARONSSON:
We'll move for the admission of |\n| 17 | | Exhibit 4.
It was filed on the docket as Exhibit 90, Docket |\n| 18 | No. 90. | |\n| 19 | | MR. BALDIGA:
No objection. |\n| 20 | | THE COURT:
Well, it will be -- all the exhibits |\n| 21 | | will ultimately be marked as what you've indicated their |\n| 22 | | numbers are on your list of witnesses and exhibits. |\n| 23 | | So PAX Exhibit 4, there's no objection to, |\n| 24 | | according to the joint grid of the admission of that -- of |\n| 25 | | exhibit in full. |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 72 of\n\n| | 71 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And so after today's hearing, what the courtroom |\n| 2 | deputy will do is we'll compile the list of admitted |\n| 3 | exhibits -- and this would be one of them -- and it will |\n| 4 | have a -- the Administrative Office of the United States |\n| 5 | Courts form of sticker on it that essentially says it's been |\n| 6 | admitted as an exhibit full.
Okay? |\n| 7 | Mr. Baldiga, did you have an -- |\n| 8 | MR. BALDIGA:
No objection. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Good.
Because it said you |\n| 10 | didn't have one -- |\n| 11 | MR. BALDIGA:
That's right. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
-- so I just jumped to that |\n| 13 | conclusion. |\n| 14 | MR. BALDIGA:
No.
There was a motion, so I -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
All right. |\n| 16 | Nothing further? |\n| 17 | MS. ARONSSON:
Nothing further. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 19 | MS. ARONSSON:
Thank you. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Any redirect? |\n| 21 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | Thank you. |\n| 23 | REDIRECT EXAMINATION |\n| 24 | BY MR. BALDIGA: |\n| 25 | Q
Mr. Jalbert, do you speak Mandarin? |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 73 of
247 |\n|----|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Jalbert - Redirect
72 |\n| 1 | A | No. |\n| 2 | Q | Do you understand that the debtor speaks some English? |\n| 3 | A | Some, yes. |\n| 4 | Q | But are you able to converse directly with the debtor |\n| 5 | | regarding financial matters? |\n| 6 | A | I've not tried, but I don't think so. |\n| 7 | Q | Okay.
You know that the debtor pre the work that you |\n| 8 | | did did not have a checkbook, correct? |\n| 9 | A | Yes. |\n| 10 | Q | And that the debtor's needs on a daily basis, security, |\n| 11 | | food and so forth, were provided by the love and goodwill of |\n| 12 | | his son through Golden Spring, correct? |\n| 13 | A | Yes. |\n| 14 | Q | You've worked with debtors that have general ledgers? |\n| 15 | A | Yes. |\n| 16 | Q | Does this debtor have a general ledger? |\n| 17 | A | No. |\n| 18 | Q | Okay.
Does this debtor have a check register? |\n| 19 | A | No. |\n| 20 | Q | But it will going forward? |\n| 21 | A | Yes. |\n| 22 | Q | Okay.
Has this debtor been subject to audits? |\n| 23 | A | Not to my knowledge. |\n| 24 | Q | All right.
Does this debtor keep inventories? |\n| 25 | A | Again, not to my knowledge. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 74 of\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Jalbert - Redirect
73 |\n| 1 | Q
So does this debtor have the type of assets that you |\n| 2 | would have discussed directly with the debtor, such as |\n| 3 | equipment, inventories and accounts receivable? |\n| 4 | A
Not those type of business assets, no. |\n| 5 | Q
Right.
So in the -- in the ordinary case, where you |\n| 6 | represent or where you're assisting a corporate debtor, you |\n| 7 | would sit down and talk to the controller or chief financial |\n| 8 | officer or someone like that about the various assets that |\n| 9 | the company has, correct? |\n| 10 | MS. ARONSSON:
Objection, Your Honor.
He's |\n| 11 | leading the witness. |\n| 12 | MR. BALDIGA:
I am, but it's -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
I'm going to allow -- |\n| 14 | MR. BALDIGA:
-- foundation I guess. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I'm going -- |\n| 16 | MR. BALDIGA:
And so based -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
I'm going to allow it.
Go ahead. |\n| 18 | THE WITNESS:
Yes. |\n| 19 | BY MR. BALDIGA: |\n| 20 | Q
Okay.
And the debtor's assets here are comprised |\n| 21 | primarily -- other than the clothes on his back -- of two |\n| 22 | lawsuits, correct? |\n| 23 | A
Two lawsuits.
And a third possible, I think. |\n| 24 | Q
Okay.
A possible lawsuit? |\n| 25 | A
Yes. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 75 of
247 |\n|----|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Jalbert - Redirect
74 |\n| 1 | Q | Okay.
So you understand that the assets, the primary |\n| 2 | | assets, that you were disclosing on the schedules and SOFAs |\n| 3 | | were three litigation claims, two pending and one possible, |\n| 4 | | correct? |\n| 5 | A | Yes. |\n| 6 | Q | And you talked about those legal claims with lawyers, |\n| 7 | | correct? |\n| 8 | A | Yes. |\n| 9 | Q | Okay.
And do you understand that the debtor's primary |\n| 10 | | debts here are litigation claims against him, correct? |\n| 11 | A | Yes. |\n| 12 | Q | PAX for example? |\n| 13 | A | Yes. |\n| 14 | Q | And others here in the courtroom and not in the |\n| 15 | | courtroom have 20 or 30 other litigation claims against the |\n| 16 | debtor? | |\n| 17 | A | Yes. |\n| 18 | Q | Okay.
And about these legal litigation claims against |\n| 19 | | the debtor, you spoke to the debtor's lawyers or the people |\n| 20 | | who handled his legal claims against him, correct? |\n| 21 | A | Yes. |\n| 22 | Q | So did you speak to the people for the debtor who you |\n| 23 | | thought had the most relevant and concrete information |\n| 24 | | regarding the debtor's assets and liabilities? |\n| 25 | A | Yes. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 76 of
247 | | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | | Jalbert - Redirect/Recross
75 | | |\n| 1 | Q | And did you get the information you thought you needed | | |\n| 2 | | to do a professional job in this case? | | |\n| 3 | A | Yes. | | |\n| 4 | Q | And obviously this case is a lot different from a | | |\n| 5 | | business with inventory and receivables and financial | | |\n| 6 | | statements and so forth, but did you go through the same | | |\n| 7 | | process, but here, talking to the people who had the most | | |\n| 8 | | relevant information? | | |\n| 9 | A | Well, I wasn't looking for financial statements and | | |\n| 10 | | general ledgers and the like.
I was just looking for | | |\n| 11 | | information. | | |\n| 12 | Q | Because the debtor doesn't have any? | | |\n| 13 | A | I've never seen an individual debtor have those. | | |\n| 14 | | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay.
Nothing else, Your Honor. | | |\n| 15 | | Thank you. | | |\n| 16 | | THE COURT:
Thank you. | | |\n| 17 | | Any recross? | | |\n| 18 | | (Pause.) | | |\n| 19 | | THE COURT:
Go ahead, Counsel.
I'm sorry. | | |\n| 20 | | MS. ARONSSON:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Just a few | | |\n| 21 | | quick questions. | | |\n| 22 | | RECROSS-EXAMINATION | | |\n| 23 | | BY MS. ARONSSON: | | |\n| 24 | Q | Could the debtor obtain an interpreter to communicate | | |\n| 25 | | with Verdolino & Lowey? | | |\n| | | | | |\n\nJalbert - Recross 76 A Yes. I'm sure it could. Q Are you aware that the debtor has an interpreter? A I am. Q I just want to ask about the basis for your understanding that Golden Spring provided money out of the love and support of a family member. What's the basis of your understanding of that knowledge? A From talking with the legal team. MS. ARONSSON: Thank you. Nothing further. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. You can step down, Mr. Jalbert. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you very much. (Witness excused.) THE COURT: Mr. Baldiga, do you have another witness? MR. BALDIGA: I do not, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Friedman? MR. FRIEDMAN: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: So both sides are resting other than your arguments? MR. BALDIGA: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, one moment. We're just Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 77 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 78 of
247 | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | 77 | | |\n| 1 | conferring to see if there's anything else we'd seek to move | | |\n| 2 | into evidence. | | |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Yes.
That is -- as I think | | |\n| 4 | I've told everyone at the last hearing, I'm happy to have -- | | |\n| 5 | and I appreciate that the parties took the time and complied | | |\n| 6 | with the Court order to submit lists of witnesses and | | |\n| 7 | exhibits, which you're required to do -- but the Court is | | |\n| 8 | not going to look at any exhibits unless they're admitted as | | |\n| 9 | full exhibits. | | |\n| 10 | And even if they are admitted as full exhibits, | | |\n| 11 | I'm not bound to look at anything that you didn't point out | | |\n| 12 | to me that was important in your presentation with regard to | | |\n| 13 | these issues.
Okay? | | |\n| 14 | Does any -- so I'm -- if anyone has anything they | | |\n| 15 | want to make sure is in the record, then now would be the | | |\n| 16 | time to take care of that issue. | | |\n| 17 | (Pause.) | | |\n| 18 | MS. ARONSSON:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Nothing | | |\n| 19 | further from us. | | |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. | | |\n| 21 | Nothing further from the debtor? | | |\n| 22 | MR. BALDIGA:
Correct, Your Honor. | | |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
So then the | | |\n| 24 | application to retain Verdolino & Lowey is ripe for | | |\n| 25 | adjudication.
I'm not going to adjudicate it right now.
I | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 79 of\n\n| 247 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | 78 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | obviously have to look at what you all just talked about on |\n| 2 | the record, but I'm sure that it's something that I will be |\n| 3 | able to do in short order.
Okay? |\n| 4 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 6 | Now, with regard to the DIP financing motion. |\n| 7 | Again, that is a matter that I don't know how long you |\n| 8 | anticipate the questioning and the evidence to be on the DIP |\n| 9 | financing motion, so I have a couple of questions. |\n| 10 | One of the other matters on today's calendar is |\n| 11 | the application to employ the creditors committee counsel. |\n| 12 | I didn't see any objections to that application. |\n| 13 | Is that correct? |\n| 14 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee filed |\n| 15 | a statement of no objection, but that just asked for two |\n| 16 | small edits to the order that -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 18 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- were to include language that |\n| 19 | was in the supplement filed by Attorney Goldman in support |\n| 20 | of the application. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
So is there a revised order on the |\n| 22 | docket? |\n| 23 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I haven't seen one, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So I'm asking any party, does |\n| 25 | any party have an objection to the application to employ |\n| | |\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 79 |\n| 1 | Pullman & Comley as counsel to the Official Committee of |\n| 2 | Unsecured Creditors, ECF 157? |\n| 3 | MR. BALDIGA:
Not by the debtor.
We support the |\n| 4 | application. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 6 | None by Pax? |\n| 7 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
No, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Anyone else wish to be heard on |\n| 9 | the application to employ Pullman & Comley? |\n| 10 | Attorney Goldman, you're going to be submitting a |\n| 11 | new order, is that what Attorney Claiborn is saying? |\n| 12 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Yes, Your Honor.
As long as it's in |\n| 13 | my supplemental declaration, then no problem in revising the |\n| 14 | order to comport with what's in the supplement. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
How much time would you like to |\n| 16 | submit that order? |\n| 17 | You can have as much time -- I mean, I'm going to |\n| 18 | grant the application subject to the submission of a revised |\n| 19 | order. |\n| 20 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Your Honor, I could submit it by |\n| 21 | tomorrow. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Sure.
I'll give you until Friday, |\n| 23 | how's that? |\n| 24 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Thank you. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
The 29th.
All right. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 80 of\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 81 of\n\n Then, the other thing that I didn't mention to Mr. Kindseth -- and I'm going to mention to Mr. Goldman and Attorney Claiborn -- with regard to the monies that we talked about this morning, the \\$37 million that's at the Zeisler & Zeisler client funds account and the monies that will be held by Attorney Goldman if the DIP loan is approved, bank statements every month have to be submitted at least to the Office of the United States Trustee and among the parties to evidence that those funds are there. Every month. And I'm so ordering that on the record right now. And I can go back to this hearing. And if someone fails to comply with that, then they'll be in violation of a court order. We need to ensure that the funds are there in the amount that are supposed to be there. Now, with regard to the \\$37 million, there shouldn't be any change in that amount other than a gain of some interest hopefully unless and until there's a further order when the boat is returned. That's my understanding. Mr. Kindseth's working on the order, but that's what -- that's the mechanics. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. And the order that you see -- that you will see, Your Honor, provides that there is a national bank that will be acting as co-agent. So Mr. Kindseth is holding the money just so there\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 82 of\n\n| | 81 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | wouldn't be any concern in the courtroom today whether the |\n| 2 | money was really coming or whatever there were -- from the |\n| 3 | last hearing, we spent way too long on those types of |\n| 4 | concerns, so no one has to have that concern.
But it's not |\n| 5 | the permanent solution.
The permanent solution for a month |\n| 6 | or two is to have the money go into a bank as more |\n| 7 | customary. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
However it works is fine.
I just want |\n| 9 | evidence -- |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
Understood. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
-- that's submitted to demonstrate |\n| 12 | that those funds are there.
And it's got to be submitted, |\n| 13 | you know, every month. |\n| 14 | And I guess we will figure out -- it might not be |\n| 15 | as cumbersome with the 37 million if the boat is returned in |\n| 16 | two months, but with regard to the DIP financing, there's |\n| 17 | going to be in that order, if there is an order, it's going |\n| 18 | to say that I need -- the Court -- there has to be evidence |\n| 19 | supplied of the amount of the funds in the account every |\n| 20 | month. |\n| 21 | I know the DIP orders may have some more specifics |\n| 22 | with regard to what's being paid and drawn down and all |\n| 23 | that, all those issues, but that was the other thing that I |\n| 24 | wanted to raise. |\n| 25 | Now, with regard to the DIP financing evidentiary |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 83 of
247 | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | 82 | |\n| 1 | hearing, I'm happy to start right now, but we have to end at | |\n| 2 | noon. | |\n| 3 | So the other thing we can do is you mentioned at | |\n| 4 | the beginning of the hearing that there is some discussion | |\n| 5 | about how we were going to set up the hearing on the motion | |\n| 6 | to dismiss, so I don't -- whatever way you want to proceed, | |\n| 7 | I have no problem. | |\n| 8 | MR. BALDIGA:
Well, this might be a good time just | |\n| 9 | to clear up the Brown Rudnick application, that there's no | |\n| 10 | evidence on that, and that could be taken care of.
I think | |\n| 11 | there's a -- | |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
I thought there was -- | |\n| 13 | MR. BALDIGA:
-- reservation of rights that wants | |\n| 14 | to be made. | |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay. | |\n| 16 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yeah.
I think -- | |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
But isn't there an order that you need | |\n| 18 | to fix or did you fix that order yet?
Or you agreed to? | |\n| 19 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
I think the order is on the docket, | |\n| 20 | Your Honor.
We have a very short reservation of rights and | |\n| 21 | then I think we could do the pre-trial -- the pre-motion, | |\n\n you know, conference before noon. And then we're afternoon to --\n\n MR. BALDIGA: I think that that's right. MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay.\n\n MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. MR. FRIEDMAN: So -- THE COURT: I didn't hear what you said now. MR. FRIEDMAN: Sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: Peter Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers. We don't have an objection to Brown Rudnick's retention per se. We just want to make clear that, you know, we do believe that Lamp -- that Mr. Kwok was restrained by Judge -- Justice Ostrager's retraining order pre-petition from transferring his assets. We believe that by encumbering himself with the Lamp loan to pay Brown Rudnick's retainer that he violated that restraining order. Brown Rudnick reads Justice Ostrager's order differently than we do. We believe that his order was specific as to two assets, but also had a broader, sweeping clause that made it clear that any outside of the ordinary course transaction was prohibited. Brown Rudnick, Mr. Baldiga, has cited to a portion of a transcript that he believes supports his view of the language that was specific as to two assets. We believe that page 24 of that transcript, which was attached to their response, says that Justice Ostrager Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 84 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 85 of
247 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 84 |\n| 1 | says I want to know if any transaction is going to take |\n| 2 | place in which Mr. Kwok is the guiding hand that's something |\n| 3 | other than an ordinary course of business transaction.
So |\n| 4 | it wasn't so limited. |\n| 5 | And so we just want to reserve rights that to the |\n| 6 | extent, you know, there's litigation in the future over |\n| 7 | whether there was a breach of that and whether there's any |\n| 8 | damages or there's any liability for anybody who |\n| 9 | participated in that breach or is tort related to the |\n| 10 | breach, that nothing in the retention order absolves anybody |\n| 11 | of liability for that. |\n| 12 | We have no objection to retention if it's to the |\n| 13 | reasonable staffing in light of this case.
We just want to |\n| 14 | make clear that, you know, we believe it was one final act |\n| 15 | of contempt, one last finger in the eye, right before filing |\n| 16 | of bankruptcy. |\n| 17 | And note that we've never received the Lamp |\n| 18 | Capital loan despite numerous requests to Mr. Lamp's -- I'm |\n| 19 | sorry -- to Lamp Capital's lawyers.
They've produced |\n| 20 | nothing.
We'll go back at it. |\n| 21 | But, you know, the whole circumstances around that |\n| 22 | episode we believe are very troubling and that's why I |\n| 23 | wanted to make a reservation of our rights. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
And you're going to -- my |\n| 25 | understanding -- and I didn't look at it, okay -- but |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 86 of\n\n sometime last night or this morning, there was an order submitted with regard to the Brown Rudnick application? Is that -- is Attorney Friedman in agreement with that or not -- that order? If not, then you both have to talk and tell me when you're going to -- you think you're going to resolve that order. (Pause.) MR. FRIEDMAN: (Indiscernible.) THE COURT: Certainly. Take your time. (Pause.) MR. FRIEDMAN: So, Your Honor, I think we do have an issue with the order. We just want a reservation of rights with respect to any party for receipt of those funds. We have no objection to the retention and to their filing fee applications, but we don't think the retention should wipe out the prospect that there might be liability for having received these funds. THE COURT: So you're going to have to add that reservation of rights language to the order, correct? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. Unless that reservation is acceptable on the record? MR. BALDIGA: If I could address it, Your Honor, please. THE COURT: Sure.\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 87 of
247 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 86 |\n| 1 | MR. BALDIGA:
Unless Mr. Goldman wants to argue |\n| 2 | first. |\n| 3 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Well, I was just going to say, |\n| 4 | speaking of reservations, we -- our resolution of the DIP |\n| 5 | motion -- I should have mentioned this at the outset -- is |\n| 6 | really based on a resolution of the boat delivery order I'll |\n| 7 | call it -- which they're working on -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry.
I didn't hear you.
Of the |\n| 9 | what order? |\n| 10 | MR. GOLDMAN:
The boat delivery. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
The relief from stay agreed |\n| 12 | upon order? |\n| 13 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Correct.
Correct.
Which we're |\n| 14 | confident they'll be able to do.
It still hasn't been inked |\n| 15 | so to speak, and so before we actually formally withdraw |\n| 16 | objections, I would like to see that on the record. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Well, right now we're talking about |\n| 18 | Brown Rudnick. |\n| 19 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Well, aren't we -- that is linked to |\n| 20 | the resolution of the DIP motion.
In other words, we |\n| 21 | resolve the DIP motion and we also agree to withdraw our |\n| 22 | objections to all the retentions. |\n| 23 | Of course the resolution of the DIP motion depends |\n| 24 | on the resolution of this boat delivery order that we're |\n| 25 | working on.
So they're all linked together is basically |\n\n what I'm saying. And so I would just appreciate if we could wait until after the lunch break when we are absolutely certain that the boat -- the PAX motion for relief from stay has been resolved and then we can formally withdraw all these objections. That's all I'm saying. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Baldiga? MR. BALDIGA: Well, we've been trying to work and have actually been able to work hand in hand with Mr. Goldman on so many things that I don't want to -- I mean, I accept his premise that it would be easier perhaps to know that we are all in accord on the boat order. It won't affect PAX's objection because PAX's position on everything, right, will continue to be the same regardless. So the -- I can address PAX's reservation of rights if the Court so wishes or if the Court wants to wait until after lunch, after the boat issue, to do that, we're happy to do that. Whatever the Court -- THE COURT: All right. Why don't we just see what happens after the -- what will -- what should be essentially an agreed-upon order resolving PAX's motion for relief from stay, correct, that's what it is? That's what Mr. Kindseth is working on? MR. BALDIGA: Yes.\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 88 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So why don't we wait for that. |\n| 2 | So then the only other issue is the -- the interim |\n| 3 | professionals, everything, Mr. Goldman, you reserve your |\n| 4 | rights on everything until -- all right. |\n| 5 | So let's just start with the DIP financing |\n| 6 | evidentiary hearing. |\n| 7 | Or if you -- if all of you would rather take a |\n| 8 | break and not start, we can do that too.
Whatever works for |\n| 9 | all of you. |\n| 10 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Your Honor, may we do the pre-trial |\n| 11 | discussion of the dates? |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
On the motion to dismiss? |\n| 13 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Well, that's what -- that's what I had |\n| 15 | said a few minutes ago I thought made some sense. |\n| 16 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes.
So, Your Honor, we have -- |\n| 17 | obviously pending the Court's schedule, we have -- we've |\n| 18 | reached out to counsel for other parties this week and we |\n| 19 | made a proposal.
We got some feedback.
People asked us for |\n| 20 | a little more time, which we were -- you know, even though I |\n| 21 | don't think we have a statutory obligation to provide it, we |\n| 22 | were willing to do that. |\n| 23 | What we would propose is that there be a -- and I |\n| 24 | tried to accommodate as many people as I could -- May 16th |\n| 25 | would the date on which parties need to file oppositions if |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 89 of\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 89 |\n| 1 | acceptable to the Court. |\n| 2 | We would ask for the ability to file a reply on |\n| 3 | May 25th.
We would ask to be able to file a reply on the |\n| 4 | 25th of May. |\n| 5 | And then we would ask for a hearing on the -- to |\n| 6 | reserve the 1st, 2nd and 3rd -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
All right.
I have a take a look at |\n| 8 | the calendar. |\n| 9 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
-- if that works for the Court. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Just let me take a look at the |\n| 11 | calendar before we go any further. |\n| 12 | (Pause.) |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
I have some time on the 1st. |\n| 14 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Okay. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
But there's a period of time where I'd |\n| 16 | have to take a break again.
I have time on the 2nd.
And I |\n| 17 | have at least the morning of the 3rd. |\n| 18 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Okay.
That certainly works for us, |\n| 19 | Your Honor. |\n| 20 | I would also ask, given the potential complexity, |\n| 21 | if it would be okay to propose a submission of post-trial |\n| 22 | findings of fact and conclusions of law for any party the |\n| 23 | 10th.
Or if the hearing lasts longer than the 3rd, you |\n| 24 | know, seven days after the conclusion of the hearing if the |\n| 25 | Court believes that would be helpful. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 91 of\n\n| | 90 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
I certainly think it could be, so I |\n| 2 | will tell you at the end of the hearing if I would like |\n| 3 | that, but I think it's a possibility.
Sure. |\n| 4 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
And, Your Honor, what I would also |\n| 5 | propose is that the parties, you know, by the 20 -- Friday |\n| 6 | the 27th, if this works for the Court, if the Court would |\n| 7 | like it to be the 26th, that the parties exchange, you know, |\n| 8 | witness lists and exhibits and provide the Court with a -- |\n| 9 | you know, the appropriate grid if possible by that date as |\n| 10 | well and listing objections, and that the parties be ordered |\n| 11 | to meet and confer on all pre-trial procedures in good |\n| 12 | faith. |\n| 13 | You know, my understanding is that Mr. -- that Mr. |\n| 14 | Kwok's counsel believes that this schedule, which we believe |\n| 15 | is actually a substantial accommodation to people, should be |\n| 16 | contingent on no more 341 hearings, a cessation of Mr. |\n| 17 | Kwok's 341 obligations, which is due -- which is expected to |\n| 18 | continue this Friday -- I don't see why that should be an |\n| 19 | issue. |\n| 20 | We certainly are seeking to depose Mr. Kwok again |\n| 21 | in connection with the -- with the motion to dismiss or |\n| 22 | motion to appoint a trustee.
We're seeking some other |\n| 23 | discovery. |\n| 24 | I'd note that one issue we've had -- and I'm not |\n| 25 | asking the Court to do anything other than to know about it |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 92 of\n\n -- is we asked Golden Spring last Thursday if they would express -- if they would accept service of the subpoena on Miles Kwok's son. We've heard crickets. And so not a surprise, but given the purported centrality of Miles' son to this case and his support of beneficence and love, I guess if they don't want to accept a subpoena, we can try to do it in the Hague. And if we have to maybe we won't complete on that time, but the Court can draw whatever conclusions it wants to from Mr. Kwok's son's refusal to participate in good faith in discovery. So that shouldn't take six days to find out from somebody if a subpoena can be accepted. That's our proposed schedule. You know, we hope we don't have discovery disputes to bring to the Court's attention. If we do, we will. We'll work with Mr. Birney on how to tee those up correctly for you. And I believe we've provided everybody with copies of the discovery we've served. If anybody hasn't, please let me know. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. The U.S. Trustee, as you know, has a pending motion for an examiner or in the alternative the appointment of Chapter 11 trustee.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 93 of\n\n| | 92 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And the dates that Attorney Friedman has just |\n| 2 | outlined are fine for the U.S. Trustee.
And I would assume |\n| 3 | that scheduling is applicable to both PAX's motion and the |\n| 4 | U.S. Trustee's motion. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Except I will be addressing the |\n| 6 | PAX's motion first. |\n| 7 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 9 | MS. CLAIBORN:
With respect to the point about the |\n| 10 | 341 meeting, that request was just made to me this morning. |\n| 11 | I haven't had a chance to confer with my office.
I haven't |\n| 12 | had a chance to confer with counsel for the parties who are |\n| 13 | here today.
So I don't have an answer as to whether or not |\n| 14 | the U.S. Trustee is willing to delay that 341 meeting to a |\n| 15 | different date. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 17 | MR. BALDIGA:
I'm sorry.
I missed what you just |\n| 18 | said.
I couldn't hear.
I'm sorry. |\n| 19 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I don't have an answer for you as |\n| 20 | to the 341 meeting date. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
All right.
Anyone else wish to be |\n| 22 | heard on the scheduling of the motion to dismiss and the -- |\n| 23 | I'm going to reiterate it, but go right ahead. |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
Well, the -- I think the debtor is |\n| 25 | not available the first week of June so, I think, |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 94 of
247 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 93 |\n| 1 | unfortunately, like so many other things, we're probably |\n| 2 | going to have to spend some time over the lunch break to try |\n| 3 | to pin those dates down. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
All right.
Well, why don't you talk |\n| 5 | about because I'm not sure why the debtor would need to be |\n| 6 | here on the motion, I mean, unless you're going to call him |\n| 7 | as a witness. |\n| 8 | MR. PERLMAN:
We certainly are, but this is news |\n| 9 | to me because I proposed this schedule to Mr. Aulet before. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, then I'll let you all |\n| 11 | talk about it. |\n| 12 | But I will say one thing in particular, that it's |\n| 13 | going to be shortly thereafter if it's not those days.
I've |\n| 14 | already said to Attorney Friedman -- |\n| 15 | MR. BALDIGA:
We understand that. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
-- Attorney Friedman the last hearing, |\n| 17 | and he's agreed, and I don't know if he's expressly |\n| 18 | consented on the record again today, but under the -- under |\n| 19 | the code, I have to hold that hearing within 30 days unless |\n| 20 | the movant, the movant expressly consents to the extension |\n| 21 | of time, to a continuance for a specific period of time, |\n| 22 | which Attorney Friedman has done right now, but I don't know |\n| 23 | if he's going to do it when you have your discussions.
So |\n| 24 | you're going to have to have your discussions. |\n| 25 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Honestly, Your Honor, given that |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 95 of
247 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 94 |\n| 1 | the debtor doesn't have a job, doesn't have a business to |\n| 2 | operate, I can't imagine if there's a justifiable reason for |\n| 3 | not being here. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Well, I'm going to let you all talk |\n| 5 | about that. |\n| 6 | MR. BALDIGA:
I'd appreciate a chance just to talk |\n| 7 | with the client, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
I'm going to let you all talk about |\n| 9 | that. |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay? |\n| 12 | So let me just again go through what is on our |\n| 13 | calendar today.
I think it makes complete sense at this |\n| 14 | point not to start the DIP evidentiary hearing if we're only |\n| 15 | going to have 15 minutes. |\n| 16 | Does that make sense to anyone? |\n| 17 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes.
Correct. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
I think you can take the break and use |\n| 19 | the time. |\n| 20 | Now, I don't know, you've all been here in the |\n| 21 | hallway longer than I've been sitting here, but I assume the |\n| 22 | conference rooms are unlocked.
There's, you know -- there |\n| 23 | is a hallway to talk in except there are other agencies so |\n| 24 | you have to be somewhat quiet if possible.
There's a room |\n| 25 | back here with vending machines, but it has no tables and |\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 95 |\n| 1 | chairs.
There's a place next door to eat with tables. |\n| 2 | I mean, you know, I would think that I would be |\n| 3 | surprised if I'm ready to see you again before one o'clock. |\n| 4 | Okay? |\n| 5 | MR. BALDIGA:
Understood. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
It may be even a little longer, but I |\n| 7 | don't think it should be much longer than that. |\n| 8 | I'm just checking to make sure we have -- we are |\n| 9 | addressing in one way -- some way, shape or form everything |\n| 10 | on today's calendar, and I think we have.
Although we need |\n| 11 | to -- a lot of it is linked to Mr. Kindseth's revisions to |\n| 12 | that order. |\n| 13 | So does anyone else wish to be heard before we |\n| 14 | recess in this case, in the Kwok case? |\n| 15 | (No audible response.) |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
No?
Okay. |\n| 17 | Well, then I'm going to take a recess until 12 |\n| 18 | noon for the other matter.
Again, I would be surprised if I |\n| 19 | was available to see you before one o'clock.
I think that |\n| 20 | you should expect one o'clock at the earliest. |\n| 21 | If you are all talking and you need more time and |\n| 22 | we are completed with the other hearing, then you can let |\n| 23 | the courtroom deputy or someone in the clerk's office know, |\n| 24 | and I will, you know, take that into consideration. |\n| 25 | But if we are going to have the evidentiary |\n| | |\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 96 |\n| 1 | hearing this afternoon on the DIP, which I think we are, |\n| 2 | then I would like to start sooner as opposed to later |\n| 3 | understanding that you all may be talking about different |\n| 4 | things. |\n| 5 | MR. BALDIGA:
Understood. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay? |\n| 7 | MR. BALDIGA:
We'll keep the courtroom deputy |\n| 8 | posted, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Great. |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
All right.
All right.
Thank you, |\n| 12 | all. |\n| 13 | Then Court is in recess until 12 p.m. |\n| 14 | (Recess from 11:45 a.m. until 1:10 p.m.) |\n| 15 | THE CLERK:
Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Sorry about that.
We're back on the |\n| 17 | record after taking a recess in the Kwok case, which we left |\n| 18 | the court about 11:45 or so a.m.
It's now 11:12 [sic] p.m. |\n| 19 | and we're back after the morning session where we had some |\n| 20 | evidence presented in connection with the application of |\n| 21 | Verdolino & Lowey. |\n| 22 | And, Attorney Baldiga, are we moving to go forward |\n| 23 | with the evidentiary hearing on the DIP financing motion? |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes, Your Honor.
But before we do, |\n| 25 | we can report as to the boat, because remember how that |\n| | |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 97 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 98 of\n\n| | 97 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | affected everybody? |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 3 | MR. BALDIGA:
It was sort of a -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Oh, Mr. Kindseth is back. |\n| 5 | MR. BALDIGA:
-- connective string. |\n| 6 | We do have, and Mr. Kindseth can report, and |\n| 7 | should, a fully conformed, agreed order as to the boat that |\n| 8 | resolves the lift stay motion. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 10 | MR. BALDIGA:
And that in turn resolves all |\n| 11 | objections I believe that the committee has to everything |\n| 12 | else today.
And so we proceed in full accord.
But he |\n| 13 | should -- Mr. Goldman should report and Mr. Kindseth should |\n| 14 | report. |\n| 15 | And then -- and then I think we do move to the |\n| 16 | relief from stay. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Mr. Goldman and Mr. Friedman? |\n| 18 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Yeah.
I would -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
So everyone's in agreement with this |\n| 20 | order on the relief from stay?
I mean, that's wonderful if |\n| 21 | it's true. |\n| 22 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Yeah. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
I just want to make sure that's |\n| 24 | accurate. |\n| 25 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes.
We're in agreement, Your |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 99 of\n\n| | 98 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Honor.
We have reached an agreement.
An order can be |\n| 2 | submitted.
We're pleased with the outcome. |\n| 3 | MR. KINDSETH:
Yes.
Just in terms of the |\n| 4 | logistics, Your Honor, we're actually not going to be in a |\n| 5 | position to submit it to this court at this moment.
We're |\n| 6 | submitting it to the escrow agent, U.S. Bank, for their |\n| 7 | counsel, Shipman & Goodwin, to review it and ensure that |\n| 8 | they don't have any issue with it.
I'm hoping to hear back |\n| 9 | later today or tomorrow. |\n| 10 | Once they're good with it, we're going to fund the |\n| 11 | escrow, and we will submit the order hopefully Friday or |\n| 12 | Monday at the very latest. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I mean, I think that's fine. |\n| 14 | And that's -- that's a positive development obviously in the |\n| 15 | case. |\n| 16 | So, Attorney Goldman? |\n| 17 | MR. GOLDMAN:
I was going to say would it be |\n| 18 | appropriate to put just the basic terms of the order on the |\n| 19 | record so we -- the Court is aware and we have an enforcable |\n| 20 | agreement here? |\n| 21 | MR. KINDSETH:
I'm prepared to do that, Your |\n| 22 | Honor, if you'd like. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| 24 | MR. KINDSETH:
So the proposed, stipulated order |\n| 25 | provides that my client will return the vessel known as the |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 100 of\n\n| 247 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n Lady May to the navigable waters of Connecticut by July 15th. That may or may not address the various repairs that are being performed now. We're going to try to complete as much as possible. The repairs that are not complete will be\n\n addressed through a reserve, a repair reserve, a separate one entirely, and there's a process through which that reserve will be established.\n\n To secure my client's performance of the delivery, we will be posting \\$37 million with a third-party escrow agent, U.S. Bank. We've worked out the terms of an escrow agreement.\n\n And subject to final approval by U.S. Bank and the party's signature, we'll be providing bi-monthly progress reports with respect to the location of the yacht, and the repairs, status of arrangements for the delivery of the yacht, and the anticipated delivery date.\n\n The way the escrow is going to be handled is that my client will file a certification with this court and there will be a period of time for parties to object to the certification. The certification, you know -- the certification is pertaining really just to the delivery of the yacht timely to Connecticut.\n\n As well as an order to ensure that the yacht stays in Connecticut, we've agreed in that certification that\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 101 of\n\n| | 100 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | would be certifying that we served the then captain of the |\n| 2 | vessel as well as the yacht management company with that and |\n| 3 | we'll be filing the certification of service with the Court |\n| 4 | as part of that process. |\n| 5 | We'll also have the repair reserve in place and |\n| 6 | that is a requirement of the certification. |\n| 7 | So if those elements, which are described as |\n| 8 | certification conditions, are met and we certify it, we'll |\n| 9 | provide 15 days to object.
And if nobody objects, my client |\n| 10 | will be allowed to provide that HK certification to the |\n| 11 | escrow agent, which is the triggering event for the return |\n| 12 | of the \\$37 million. |\n| 13 | If there is an objection, then we'll appear before |\n| 14 | Your Honor. |\n| 15 | And there's -- depending upon the severity of the |\n| 16 | default, there are different consequences.
Obviously if the |\n| 17 | boat's not here, it's the most severe consequence.
The |\n| 18 | other consequence -- consequences for the other conditions |\n| 19 | if they're not met, there's remedies in place that are |\n| 20 | proportionate to the default. |\n| 21 | My client will maintain insurance and provide |\n| 22 | proof of insurance.
There's a provision in here requiring |\n| 23 | my client and agents and representatives and so forth to |\n| 24 | continue to maintain the boat here in Connecticut and |\n| 25 | subject to further order of this court. |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 102 of\n\n| | 101 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And there is a provision in here that says that if |\n| 2 | the boat isn't delivered timely and we are unable to |\n| 3 | establish extenuating circumstances -- and they're |\n| 4 | delineated very clearly -- then the funds, the 37 million |\n| 5 | escrow agent will be directed by order of this court to turn |\n| 6 | over those funds to an account designated by this court to |\n| 7 | be held in substitution for whatever the estate's rights are |\n| 8 | in the Lady May, those rights will be against the \\$37 |\n| 9 | million. |\n| 10 | And then, as I said, we're establishing the repair |\n| 11 | reserve in accordance with the process set forth in the |\n| 12 | order.
And so I believe that is the most salient terms of |\n| 13 | the agreed-upon order. |\n| 14 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Yeah.
I appreciate the recitation. |\n| 15 | The committee is in agreement with those terms and we'll |\n| 16 | follow it up obviously with the written order. |\n| 17 | And I'll leave it to PAX. |\n| 18 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
They're saying, Your Honor, there |\n| 19 | are also provisions of what happens upon dismissal, if the |\n| 20 | case is dismissed while the boat is in the jurisdiction or |\n| 21 | the escrow's jurisdiction.
Those are also in there. |\n| 22 | I do want to say -- not to mix metaphors -- but |\n| 23 | the boat is not -- I mean, the boat should never be the tail |\n| 24 | that wags the dog in this case.
The boat is important |\n| 25 | because it's an asset.
This is not the end all and be all |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1 | Filed 05/20/22 | Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 | Page 103 of |\n|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n| 247 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | 102 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | of what Mr. Kwok has to pay his creditors. |\n| 2 | I just want to be really clear from our |\n| 3 | perspective that this is important, but this is just a |\n| 4 | beginning step in the pursuit of getting paid for people who |\n| 5 | have substantial judgments against Mr. Kwok. |\n| 6 | MR. KINDSETH:
It's still progress. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Understood. |\n| 8 | MR. GOLDMAN:
So with that, Your Honor, the |\n| 9 | committee can formerly withdraw its objections to the DIP |\n| 10 | motion as well as the retention applications and lend our |\n| 11 | support to the interim DIP order that's being advanced for |\n| 12 | today. |\n| 13 | I can say with certainty, Your Honor, that it is |\n| 14 | absolutely critical that the committee have this funding in |\n| 15 | place in order to function properly and do what it's |\n| 16 | supposed to do in a case like this, especially in a case |\n| 17 | with this profile. |\n| 18 | We're expected to investigate potential assets of |\n| 19 | this estate.
And I can ensure Your Honor that we have been |\n| 20 | actively engaged in interviewing financial advisors to |\n| 21 | assist us in that endeavor and we will be submitting an |\n| 22 | application shortly to get the Court's approval to retain |\n| 23 | one who will be highly capable, skilled and experienced in |\n| 24 | what we need them to do. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1 | Filed 05/20/22 | Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 | Page 104 of |\n|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n| | 103 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Mr. Kindseth, I know you said this already, but I |\n| 2 | don't think I -- I didn't write it down, so I don't remember |\n| 3 | -- what date do you think you're going to submit this order |\n| 4 | to the Court? |\n| 5 | MR. KINDSETH:
Friday or Monday. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
All right.
So I'll give you until |\n| 7 | Monday.
What is Monday?
May 1st of 2nd?
Oh, it's the 2nd. |\n| 8 | Is it the 2nd?
Yeah.
It has to be in by Monday.
See, |\n| 9 | yeah, you have to because -- all right.
Yeah.
On or before |\n| 10 | May 2nd.
Okay?
All right. |\n| 11 | But what were you going to say?
I'm sorry. |\n| 12 | MR. KINDSETH:
May I be excused?
My client |\n| 13 | doesn't have a stake in the afternoon's proceedings. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
You can be excused if everybody else |\n| 15 | thinks that you don't need to be here. |\n| 16 | MR. BALDIGA:
Just with the clarification, I think |\n| 17 | it's assumed in all of the comments of everybody so far, but |\n| 18 | the stay will continue in force until entry of the order? |\n| 19 | Okay.
Assuming that it does get submitted on a |\n| 20 | timely basis? |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 22 | MR. BALDIGA:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
I mean, but it -- |\n| 24 | MR. BALDIGA:
I just wanted the record to be |\n| 25 | clear. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 105 of\n\n| 247 | |\n|-----|--|\n| | |\n\n| | 104 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
-- but if it doesn't get timely |\n| 2 | entered, then there isn't any stay anymore under 362(e)(2), |\n| 3 | so I would assume you are motivated to get it timely |\n| 4 | entered. |\n| 5 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Thank you. |\n| 7 | No one else wants -- needs to have Mr. Kindseth |\n| 8 | here for this afternoon's hearing, is that correct? |\n| 9 | (No audible response.) |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Kindseth. |\n| 11 | MR. KINDSETH:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
All right.
So let's go back before we |\n| 13 | start the evidentiary hearing given the committee's position |\n| 14 | now of withdrawing its oppositions to certain things. |\n| 15 | So the application to employ Brown Rudnick, the |\n| 16 | committee has withdrawn its objection. |\n| 17 | PAX still wants to reserve its rights, correct? |\n| 18 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes, Your Honor.
I've conveyed to |\n| 19 | Mr. Baldiga we have no issue with the order.
Actually |\n| 20 | looking at the order I don't think the order releases the |\n| 21 | kind of claims that we want to reserve, and so I'm not going |\n| 22 | to ask Mr. Baldiga to agree in the order to the language. |\n| 23 | I just want to note for the Court and for |\n| 24 | everybody else that that's our position. |\n| 25 | And, you know, Brown Rudnick has their own |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 106 of\n\n| | 105 | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| 1 | position with the order as proposed is fine. | | |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
So the order that was submitted -- | | |\n| 3 | Thank you, Attorney Friedman. | | |\n| 4 | So the order that was submitted sometime last | | |\n| 5 | night or -- I don't -- I know there was several, but is that | | |\n| 6 | the order that you're looking to have entered? | | |\n| 7 | MR. BALDIGA:
Yes.
Unless it's -- yes, Your | | |\n| 8 | Honor.
And just for the record, we're -- we don't, the | | |\n| 9 | debtor doesn't, and Brown Rudnick doesn't agree to anything | | |\n| 10 | that's not in the order.
And it's that simple. | | |\n| 11 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, just to complete the | | |\n| 12 | record, I just wanted to let the Court know that the U.S. | | |\n| 13 | Trustee has reviewed the order that was uploaded last night | | |\n| 14 | and it does resolve the U.S. Trustee's objections. | | |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Thank you. | | |\n| 16 | So if I'm correct, that's ECF No. 259 that was | | |\n| 17 | filed last night, correct? | | |\n| 18 | (No audible response.) | | |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
If you just give me one minute, | | |\n| 20 | please. | | |\n| 21 | (Pause.) | | |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
All right.
So I haven't looked at ECF | | |\n| 23 | 259 because it was submitted last night, which is fine.
I'm | | |\n| 24 | going to take a look at it right now and then tell you | | |\n| 25 | whether I think there's any issues. | | |\n\n| | 106 | | |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| 1 | (Pause.) | | |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
The order looks fine to me.
So ECF | | |\n| 3 | 259 will enter and the application to approve Brown Rudnick | | |\n| 4 | as counsel to the debtor is approved -- is granted. | | |\n| 5 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you, Your Honor. | | |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. | | |\n| 7 | So let me just make sure we're getting to | | |\n| 8 | everything we need to get to before we get to the | | |\n| 9 | evidentiary hearing on the DIP motion. | | |\n| 10 | (Pause.) | | |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
So the bar date order then, everyone's | | |\n| 12 | fine with that other than the Court putting in a bar date? | | |\n| 13 | MR. BALDIGA:
I believe so, Your Honor. | | |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So I'll take a look at that | | |\n| 15 | after today.
That will enter though tomorrow or Friday at | | |\n| 16 | the latest.
Okay? | | |\n| 17 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. | | |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
I would assume -- I shouldn't say | | |\n| 19 | that.
I haven't looked at the order, Attorney Baldiga, but | | |\n| 20 | is -- who's serving that bar date order?
Are you serving | | |\n| 21 | it?
Is the debtor serving it? | | |\n| 22 | MR. BALDIGA:
The debtor. | | |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Okay.
I'll take a look at | | |\n| 24 | that. | | |\n| 25 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. | | |\n| | | | |\n\n THE COURT: And I think it probably will have no problem other than me possibly changing your bar date for a little bit more time. MR. GOLDMAN: I just wanted to mention the committee did have a limited objection to that. And I hadn't been following the variations of the proposed orders, but did they take into account our objections? MR. BALDIGA: We did. MR. GOLDMAN: Okay. All right. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you. THE COURT: The motion to establish procedures for entering compensation and reimbursement expenses, is everyone in agreement with that now as well? The committee, you had an objection, did you, or not? MR. GOLDMAN: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Could you repeat that. THE COURT: The motion to establish procedures for interim compensation and reimbursement of expenses. MR. GOLDMAN: No objection. THE COURT: Did the U.S. Trustee have an objection? Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 108 of\n\n MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, we have been looking on some language. And I haven't had a chance to review what\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 109 of
247 | | | |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| | 108 | | | |\n| 1 | just got uploaded in the last hour.
And subject to me | | | |\n| 2 | reporting back to Your Honor maybe by the end of today, I'm | | | |\n| 3 | not -- I think we probably could lose that loop.
I'd just | | | |\n| 4 | need to read it. | | | |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
So leave that matter open essentially | | | |\n| 6 | for now? | | | |\n| 7 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Yes. | | | |\n| 8 | MR. BALDIGA:
That's right.
But we all think it's | | | |\n| 9 | just a matter of looking at language. | | | |\n| 10 | MS. CLAIBORN:
It's just a matter of me looking at | | | |\n| 11 | their language. | | | |\n| 12 | MR. BALDIGA:
We've worked out everything. | | | |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
So you're going to -- everyone, you | | | |\n| 14 | know, I will tell you these matters, these motions, I'll | | | |\n| 15 | look at the language.
But, you know, I know the parties are | | | |\n| 16 | asking the Court to do something that's -- essentially | | | |\n| 17 | shorten the time and the procedures that are required by the | | | |\n| 18 | code for fee applications.
I'm reluctant to do that in a | | | |\n| 19 | lot of cases for many, many reasons. | | | |\n| 20 | I'll do it in this case if everyone is in | | | |\n| 21 | agreement.
But I will tell you if there's -- if I see that | | | |\n| 22 | there's anything of any concern at any point, I may schedule | | | |\n| 23 | a status conference and/or vacate any order entered if I | | | |\n| 24 | think that there's any issue. | | | |\n| 25 | I mean, you know, what you don't want to have is a | | | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 110 of\n\n| | 109 | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| 1 | situation where everybody believes that we're just seeing | | | |\n| 2 | how much fees are incurred.
And I'm not saying that that's | | | |\n| 3 | happening in this case.
I'm saying you want to guard | | | |\n| 4 | against that. | | | |\n| 5 | And entry of these types of orders sometimes gives | | | |\n| 6 | -- give people arguments that that's the major concern.
And | | | |\n| 7 | I'm not suggesting it is, but all I'm saying is if this | | | |\n| 8 | enters, and it apparently will subject to some language, | | | |\n| 9 | that doesn't mean that I'm not going to look at it in the | | | |\n| 10 | future. | | | |\n| 11 | MR. BALDIGA:
Of course.
Of course. | | | |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
And if I think -- | | | |\n| 13 | MR. BALDIGA:
And, Your Honor, you've seen from | | | |\n| 14 | day one that we're -- we're trying to spend as little as | | | |\n| 15 | possible, but we need to be responsive to a particular | | | |\n| 16 | creditor that is not funded from the estate.
And we can't | | | |\n| 17 | control how many motions with what enthusiasm they bring so | | | |\n| 18 | we're -- we're trying to keep up and do the right thing and | | | |\n| 19 | responsibly represent the estate. | | | |\n| 20 | Mr. Goldman has a lot of work to do himself in | | | |\n| 21 | that regard as we've already talked about. | | | |\n| 22 | We've all agreed there has to be an examination | | | |\n| 23 | before people are comfortable confirming a plan.
The debtor | | | |\n| 24 | has supported that from day one.
And this motion helps to | | | |\n| 25 | do that and the DIP helps to do that.
They go hand in hand. | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 111 of\n\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Understood. |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | MR. BALDIGA:
Thank you. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 4 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, if I just could make a |\n| 5 | quick comment? |\n| 6 | I wanted to preview for the Court that the order |\n| 7 | that was uploaded is different than the original proposal. |\n| 8 | But what it does have is the obligation to file interim fee |\n| 9 | applications at a 90-day interval.
So there will be an |\n| 10 | actual -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 12 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- fee application process -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 14 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- that's a component of it. |\n| 15 | But there was also the existing monthly option |\n| 16 | where the professionals get paid 80 percent of their fees |\n| 17 | and 100 percent of their expenses upon there being no |\n| 18 | objection from any of the parties. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
I appreciate that. |\n| 20 | So that motion will be granted. |\n| 21 | But we have to wait and see what -- if there's any |\n| 22 | minor -- any final comments to the proposed order, Attorney |\n| 23 | Claiborn, correct? |\n| 24 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Yes, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay.
The only thing -- the only |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 112 of\n\n| 247 | |\n|-----|--|\n| | |\n\n| | 111 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | other matter I'd like to discuss before we turn to the |\n| 2 | evidentiary hearing on the DIP motion is the scheduling on |\n| 3 | the motion to dismiss. |\n| 4 | Were you able to discuss that during the break? |\n| 5 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
We were, Your Honor.
With respect |\n| 6 | to our motion, we I guess propose to begin -- so we would -- |\n| 7 | oppositions, we would ask to be set for the 11th of May. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
All right.
So that's a change, right? |\n| 9 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
So let me just make a note.
Okay?
I |\n| 11 | just want to make sure I have the right things in my -- on |\n| 12 | my notes. |\n| 13 | (Pause.) |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
May 11th did you say? |\n| 15 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 17 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
We would ask for our reply to be |\n| 18 | filed on the 18th, and to commence the hearing on the 25th. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
All right.
Let me take a look at |\n| 20 | that.
I haven't looked at that date obviously.
Hold on. |\n| 21 | (Pause.) |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I can commence the hearing on |\n| 23 | the 25th.
I can even have some time on the 26th, but no |\n| 24 | time on the 27th. |\n| 25 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Okay.
And so, Your Honor, we would |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 113 of\n\n| | 112 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | ask the 25th and 26th.
We will submit witness statements. |\n| 2 | I'm sorry.
We will submit exhibits.
We will -- we will |\n| 3 | meet and confer and propose a schedule for exhibits over -- |\n| 4 | hopefully, Mr. Jonas and I can have some discussions.
We'll |\n| 5 | submit something by early next week on those, on when we'll |\n| 6 | submit exhibit lists and witness lists. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Well, I can tell you when you need to |\n| 8 | submit exhibit lists. |\n| 9 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Even better.
Thank you, Your |\n| 10 | Honor. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I think that will help you.
There's |\n| 12 | no need to meet. |\n| 13 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Just give me one second, please. |\n| 15 | (Pause.) |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
You'll submit your list of witnesses |\n| 17 | and exhibits by 12 p.m. on May 20. |\n| 18 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 20 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
I can't anticipate now how long it |\n| 21 | will take.
We will endeavor to examine Mr. Kwok on the |\n| 22 | first day.
Because I've been advised there are some dates |\n| 23 | the following week, if we have to go into the following |\n| 24 | week, that he's unavailable, so we will endeavor to have him |\n| 25 | examined on the first day of the hearing. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 114 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 113 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Go ahead, Counsel. |\n| 2 | MR. JONAS:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Jeff |\n| 3 | Jonas from Brown Rudnick.
A pleasure to be before you |\n| 4 | again. |\n| 5 | Those are all acceptable, and I appreciate Mr. |\n| 6 | Friedman's courtesies with respect to Mr. Kwok. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 8 | MR. JONAS:
Thank you. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Attorney Goldman? |\n| 10 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Your Honor, yes, thank you. |\n| 11 | I just wanted to mention obviously we are not a |\n| 12 | formal party to this motion.
Not a movant or respondent, |\n| 13 | but we do intend to most decidedly oppose this motion and |\n| 14 | may want to participate in the evidentiary phase as well as |\n| 15 | discovery. |\n| 16 | So I just wanted to make clear I think the moving |\n| 17 | party doesn't have a problem with our formally intervening |\n| 18 | as a party to the extent that's necessary, but if everybody |\n| 19 | could be in agreement that we would be treated as a party |\n| 20 | for discovery and evidentiary hearing purposes, then I don't |\n| 21 | think it's necessary. |\n| 22 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
At least, Your Honor, on behalf of |\n| 23 | PAX, we certainly consent.
We've provided discovery or the |\n| 24 | discovery we've served is I believe on both the committee |\n| 25 | and the U.S. Trustee.
We recognize the committee's and the |\n| | |\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 114 |\n| 1 | trustee's statutory right as well.
There's overlap with the |\n| 2 | motion of the U.S. Trustee, so that's certainly fine by us. |\n| 3 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, the dates proposed are |\n| 4 | fine with the U.S. Trustee. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 6 | Mr. Jonas? |\n| 7 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, not that it's necessary -- |\n| 8 | Jeff Jonas from Brown Rudnick -- but of course we welcome |\n| 9 | the committee's involvement in connection with the motion to |\n| 10 | dismiss. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
All |\n| 12 | right. |\n| 13 | So then what will happen either today or tomorrow |\n| 14 | is a scheduling order will issue setting forth the dates we |\n| 15 | just discussed on the record this afternoon. |\n| 16 | Obviously, those are different from this |\n| 17 | mornings', and that's fine.
You all indicated that you |\n| 18 | wanted to talk about the dates at the break, and you did, so |\n| 19 | a scheduling order will enter with the dates and the times. |\n| 20 | We'll start at 10 a.m. on the 25th and the 26th. |\n| 21 | And the scheduling order, Attorney Friedman, will |\n| 22 | say that the moving party expressly consents to a |\n| 23 | continuance of the hearing to the specific dates, okay, in |\n| 24 | accordance with 1112(b)(3). |\n| 25 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 115 of\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 116 of
247 |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 115 |\n| THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| And the other thing I should note is that the U.S. |\n| Trustee's motion for the appointment of an examiner or a |\n| trustee will also be continued to those dates, the dates of |\n| the motion to dismiss.
Okay? |\n| MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| THE COURT:
So the only thing left on the |\n| calendar, today's calendar, that we have not addressed is |\n| the debtor's motion for entry of interim final DIP orders |\n| for which we are going to conduct an evidentiary hearing. |\n| So, Mr. Jonas, you may proceed. |\n| MR. JONAS:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Jeff Jonas |\n| from Brown Rudnick on behalf of the debtor. |\n| Your Honor, one -- perhaps I should call it |\n| housekeeping matter.
I think as you're aware Mr. Kwok has |\n| the need of an interpreter.
We have brought an interpreter |\n| with us.
Her name is Una Wilkinson.
She's a 19 -- |\n| THE COURT:
Could you spell her first name for us? |\n| MR. JONAS:
Sure.
U-N-A. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| MR. JONAS:
It's pronounced Una. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| MR. JONAS:
But it's U-N-A.
And her last name is |\n| Wilkinson, W-I-L-K-I-N-S-O-N. |\n| THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| |\n\n MR. JONAS: She's a 1995 graduate of the Westminster University in the U.K. with a degree in translation. In terms of her qualifications, the United Court System of New York State, she's a certified interpreter in both Mandarin and Cantonese. She's on the list of interpreters of the Eastern and Southern District Courts of New York. She's interpreted for the grand jury in multiple trial cases in the Eastern and Southern District Courts, state criminal, New York State Criminal, and New York Civil courts. She has a long list of notable assignments that I won't go through here, Your Honor, but I did want to provide the Court with some background with respect to Ms. Wilkinson's qualifications. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, my suggestion -- although I've never done this before this way, so what do I know -- but perhaps Ms. Wilkinson could sit next to the witness. THE COURT: Yeah. The box is very small, but we can move a chair over there. MR. JONAS: That's what I was thinking, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I don't think we could put two people in the box.\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 118 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 117 |\n| 1 | MR. JONAS:
No.
I don't think so.
But I'm happy |\n| 2 | to wheel this chair over if you'd -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
That would be great. |\n| 4 | MR. JONAS:
Okay. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Sure. |\n| 6 | MR. JONAS:
Thank you. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
And then does any party have any |\n| 8 | objection or issue with the qualifications of the |\n| 9 | interpreter that have just been noted on the record by |\n| 10 | Attorney Jonas? |\n| 11 | MR. HARBACH:
Your Honor, David Harbach for |\n| 12 | Pacific Alliance. |\n| 13 | We have no quarrel with Ms. Wilkinson's |\n| 14 | qualifications and no reason to question them.
However, it |\n| 15 | is also our understanding that Ms. Wilkinson is Mr. Kwok's |\n| 16 | personal interpreter and that she has worked with him for |\n| 17 | quite some time.
And we have some concern about bias. |\n| 18 | And we brought a similarly certified interpreter |\n| 19 | for use today, one that is -- we hired -- and this is the |\n| 20 | first time I believe we're using this person.
She's here in |\n| 21 | the courtroom.
She's also qualified and certified. |\n| 22 | And the procedure that we had used in the past, |\n| 23 | Your Honor, is to utilize the neutral interpreter as the |\n| 24 | primary interpreter.
And then to the extent necessary use |\n| 25 | Ms. Wilkinson as a check interpreter to the extent there is |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 119 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 118 |\n| 1 | an issue with how something is being interpreted or perhaps |\n| 2 | a peculiar way how -- in which Mr. Kwok's speaks or |\n| 3 | something. |\n| 4 | But that's how we would propose we proceed today. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
And have you talked about that with |\n| 6 | Attorney Jonas? |\n| 7 | MR. HARBACH:
No, ma'am. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right. |\n| 9 | Well, Attorney Jonas, what's your response to what |\n| 10 | we just heard from -- |\n| 11 | MR. JONAS:
Yeah.
My response, Your Honor, is as |\n| 12 | follows.
First of all, Ms. Wilkinson, I don't think it's |\n| 13 | fair, and I think she would take some umbrage to any |\n| 14 | allegation of bias.
That's number one. |\n| 15 | Number two, she's not Mr. -- I don't know what it |\n| 16 | means to say she's Mr. Kwok's personal interpreter.
Has she |\n| 17 | worked with him quite a bit over the years? |\n| 18 | And he's been involved in a number of litigation |\n| 19 | matters as you know or as I think the Court's aware, yes, |\n| 20 | absolutely. |\n| 21 | But that being said, my suggestion -- and we fully |\n| 22 | welcome subject to learning a little bit about the |\n| 23 | qualifications of the -- PAX's interpreter, I suspect we'll |\n| 24 | have no objection. |\n| 25 | But what I would suggest, Your Honor, is that Ms. |\n| | |\n\n| | 119 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Wilkinson will translate for Mr. Kwok.
I'll ask the |\n| 2 | questions, she'll translate.
She will translate his |\n| 3 | answers. |\n| 4 | And of course I would -- we would welcome what |\n| 5 | I'll call the check interpreter to the extent there's any |\n| 6 | issue to raise those.
And we'll do the same, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | They may have -- if they'd like, they can have |\n| 8 | their interpreter for the I guess I'll call it the cross and |\n| 9 | we'll have Ms. Wilkinson check if you will.
That would be |\n| 10 | my suggestion, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
But wouldn't the check essentially |\n| 12 | just be an objection?
I mean, wouldn't it be? |\n| 13 | I mean, I'm not -- I haven't had two interpreters |\n| 14 | at one time.
I've had one interpreter. |\n| 15 | But I understand the issue that Attorney Harbach |\n| 16 | raises.
I understand the issue you raise. |\n| 17 | So in order to try to have the issue proceed, |\n| 18 | wouldn't it be appropriate for -- for example, if you are |\n| 19 | going to do a -- conduct a direct examination of the debtor |\n| 20 | and use Ms. Wilkinson to be translating whatever the debtor |\n| 21 | is saying in response to your answer? |\n| 22 | Mr. Harbach, wouldn't it be appropriate to have |\n| 23 | your translator if she believes it's inaccurate to tell you |\n| 24 | that and you can object to that and we can address the issue |\n| 25 | of whether or not that testimony stays part of the record? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 120 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 121 of\n\n MR. HARBACH: That's certainly one way to proceed, Your Honor. All we're talking about now is who's doing the primary interpretation in the first instance. THE COURT: Right. MR. HARBACH: And all I can represent to the Court is that on multiple occasions at the 341, and also at the deposition of other witnesses, Ms. Wilkinson has been on standby as the check interpreter and it has worked just fine. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, with all due respect, I don't think saying that the 341 worked just fine is a fair representation. It was a mess. The level of interpretation at the 341, in my opinion, was not good. Ms. Wilkinson was required quite a bit to intervene if you will. We got through it. But I really -- it did not work, that I can assure you. And if you were to read the record, I think you'd agree with me. THE COURT: Well, I don't get the record of the 341 meeting -- MR. JONAS: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- unless you all decide to get it transcribed and docket it, so I can't speak to that. But the United States Trustee's Office has stood, so I'd like to hear from you, Attorney Claiborn. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I wanted to confirm\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 122 of\n\n| | 121 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | what Attorney Harbach has represented to the Court. |\n| 2 | And that is that during the course of this case |\n| 3 | thus far, Ms. Wilkinson has participated on a number of |\n| 4 | occasions as the personal interpreter to the debtor, and |\n| 5 | that Ms. Wilkinson did very capably interrupt the |\n| 6 | proceedings to correct and/or criticize and/or elaborate on |\n| 7 | the interpretations provided by the interpreter who was the |\n| 8 | official interpreter for both the meetings.
And that |\n| 9 | happened during both sections of the 341 meeting. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
So we're not talking about that |\n| 11 | happening though, are we? |\n| 12 | I mean, I thought you were saying Ms. Wilkinson |\n| 13 | was going to be the main interpreter. |\n| 14 | MR. JONAS:
That's what our -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
So what happened?
I wasn't at -- I |\n| 16 | mean, I have no idea what happened at the 341 meeting. |\n| 17 | You had -- the office had an interpreter? |\n| 18 | MS. CLAIBORN:
We hired an interpreter. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
That I didn't understand until |\n| 20 | just now.
Okay. |\n| 21 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Correct. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
So -- |\n| 23 | MS. CLAIBORN:
So the U.S. Trustee's preference |\n| 24 | would be that we have an independent corroborated -- I mean |\n| 25 | -- sorry -- an independent interpreter who has no |\n\n affiliation whatsoever to anything be the primary interpreter. THE COURT: Okay. And that person is the person that PAX has brought today? MS. CLAIBORN: I'm not -- I'm not privy to the qualifications or the interactions between that interpreter and PAX, but I'm sure that Mr. Harbach can address that. THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Harbach, go ahead. MR. HARBACH: We have someone who can fill that role here today, Your Honor, and I'm happy to do a brief voir dire of her and allow counsel also to elaborate on her qualifications. I don't have them committed to memory. THE COURT: I'm not suggesting you should. I'm just trying to figure out how to proceed, right? MR. HARBACH: Yes. Yes. THE COURT: That's what -- that's what I'm trying to do. MR. HARBACH: So the record -- THE COURT: I have obviously no knowledge until you just all told me about what happened at a 341 meeting, right? The 341 meeting transcript isn't in the record. The Court doesn't participate in the 341 meetings, so I have no idea about these issues. And as I had said, you know, a few hearings ago, the issue of the interpreter is an important issue. I\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 124 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 123 |\n| 1 | raised the issue -- I raised it at some point because it is |\n| 2 | an important issue. |\n| 3 | So if the parties don't have an agreement as to |\n| 4 | how this is going to proceed, then unfortunately I'm going |\n| 5 | to have to determine how that's going to proceed.
And it |\n| 6 | sounds -- |\n| 7 | The U.S. Trustee's Office, you hired an |\n| 8 | interpreter from where? |\n| 9 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, the first meeting of |\n| 10 | creditors I used an interpreter who was provided over the |\n| 11 | telephone through I think the service is called |\n| 12 | INTERPRETALK.
And then there's a service that the U.S. |\n| 13 | Trustee Program provides nationwide.
You're able to call in |\n| 14 | and get an interpreter in whatever language you need and |\n| 15 | that interpreter gets placed onto the telephone line and |\n| 16 | then interprets. |\n| 17 | So one of the challenges we had with that process |\n| 18 | was the fact that the telephone line doesn't always lend |\n| 19 | itself to the best hearing on either end of it. |\n| 20 | The second 341 meeting was an in-person |\n| 21 | interpreter who we hired from another third party in an |\n| 22 | effort to get somebody in person. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Was it in-person?
Yes. |\n| 24 | MS. CLAIBORN:
It was. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| | |\n\n| | 124 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MS. CLAIBORN:
It was an improvement.
I'm sure |\n| 2 | that no one would tell you that their experience was 100 |\n| 3 | percent awesome, but we tried to accommodate the idea that |\n| 4 | an in-person was a better product than on the telephone |\n| 5 | line. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, it's clear -- as I told |\n| 7 | all of you I think at a hearing, one or two hearings ago, |\n| 8 | the Court does not have -- the judiciary is not -- the |\n| 9 | bankruptcy court anyway is not allowed to spend money to |\n| 10 | hire an interpreter in a case.
It's not allowed by the |\n| 11 | United States Judicial Conference, the Administrative |\n| 12 | Office, and then essentially Congress, so the Court can't |\n| 13 | hire anybody.
The issue then becomes the parties having to |\n| 14 | hire people. |\n| 15 | We've got two people here today, one of whom two |\n| 16 | parties have said -- have suggested I should say -- might |\n| 17 | not be the person that the Court wants to use as the primary |\n| 18 | interpreter.
That's the suggestion. |\n| 19 | And, Mr. Jonas, you're -- |\n| 20 | I didn't know any of this, right, that there was a |\n| 21 | problem with the interpretation or at least a perceived |\n| 22 | problem with the interpretation by parties who are objecting |\n| 23 | to the DIP financing motion and that financing coming from a |\n| 24 | third party.
Okay? |\n| 25 | So it's hard for me to say that -- to agree with |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 126 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 125 |\n| 1 | what you've just said, Mr. Jonas, when I didn't know that |\n| 2 | there was a problem. |\n| 3 | So the issue that I would assume, Mr. Harbach, |\n| 4 | that you're saying is you want your interpreter to be the |\n| 5 | primary interpreter? |\n| 6 | MR. HARBACH:
Yes, Your Honor.
That's right.
And |\n| 7 | I'll add a couple of other facts for your consideration in |\n| 8 | making this decision. |\n| 9 | Number one, that the person who we've arranged to |\n| 10 | be in court today is from TransPerfect Legal Services.
They |\n| 11 | provide interpreters like this as a matter of course for all |\n| 12 | different sorts of languages.
And the person who was |\n| 13 | assigned, as I said earlier, I don't believe we even knew |\n| 14 | her identity until today. |\n| 15 | So the point is the obvious one, that although we |\n| 16 | are paying for her, she is not in any way affiliated with us |\n| 17 | or anything, doesn't know anything about this case other |\n| 18 | than some names that we've given her ahead of time to listen |\n| 19 | for. |\n| 20 | The second thing that I should mention is that Ms. |\n| 21 | Wilkinson also performed the check interpretation role at |\n| 22 | our deposition of Yvette Wang, who was the Golden Spring |\n| 23 | 30(b)(6) representative.
And at that deposition, the |\n| 24 | primary interpreter we hired through a similar agency, not |\n| 25 | TransPerfect, but I believe it was called Veritext, another |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 127 of\n\n| 247 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | 126 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | agency, and that interpreter performed extremely well. |\n| 2 | There were not the same problems, some of which we |\n| 3 | encountered at the 341 hearing. |\n| 4 | So I mention all this to say -- and the reason I |\n| 5 | mentioned the track record of what we've done thus far is to |\n| 6 | hopefully illuminate for the Court why we obviously |\n| 7 | erroneously assumed we would do something similar today. |\n| 8 | So apologies for this rearing its head without any |\n| 9 | notice to the Court, but that's our position. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 11 | Attorney Jonas? |\n| 12 | MR. JONAS:
Yes, Your Honor.
Jeff Jonas, Brown |\n| 13 | Rudnick for the debtor. |\n| 14 | I'll just add, Your Honor, first of all, I take no |\n| 15 | offense -- I don't think the Court should either -- with |\n| 16 | what PAX has had to say.
We heard the Court's instruction |\n| 17 | that the Court couldn't provide interpreters.
We both went |\n| 18 | out -- obviously it would have been great if we had spoken, |\n| 19 | unfortunately we didn't -- but we both went out and hired |\n| 20 | interpreters.
So that's just the way it is. |\n| 21 | And, again, I have no reason without further |\n| 22 | information to question the capabilities of their |\n| 23 | interpreter. |\n| 24 | What I would say, Your Honor, in addition to my |\n| 25 | prior comments, is, as you can imagine, Mandarin is a |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1 | Filed 05/20/22 | Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 | Page 128 of |\n|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n complicated language I've learned in the few weeks I've had to deal with it. And, yes, Mr. Kwok, there has been -- he's used -- and Ms. Wilkinson is familiar with Mr. Kwok, the way he speaks, and I think it would be particularly helpful to him. Obviously this is a critical hearing. And he's going to be testifying live for the first time in this case. And I think that level, having some level of -- again, without bias -- but simply a level of comfort and understanding as to his tone, his inflection, how he speaks, I think that ultimately will benefit the trier of fact in terms of getting the most accurate translation. I'm not really sure of the relevance of what's happened before. We're here now. He's going to testify for the first time. And on that basis, Your Honor, we, again respectfully -- happy to leave it up to the Court if it comes to that -- but respectfully would prefer and suggest that Ms. Wilkinson be the primary interpreter. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. JONAS: Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Harbach, anything else you'd like to add? MR. HARBACH: No, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 129 of\n\n Well, again, under the circumstances of this case and the arguments that have been advanced with regard to the interpreters, and the fact that the United States Trustee's Office has highlighted some concerns it had -- it experienced is a better term -- word -- I suppose at the 341 meetings, I think -- well, the Court will rule that the interpreter hired by PAX will be the main interpreter and Ms. Wilkinson can be the check interpreter. But we all have to understand that means there's going to be three people up here, okay, and so we're going to have to figure out a way that I think we're going to have the interpreters understand that the questioning is probably going to have to move a little slowly. MR. JONAS: Yes. THE COURT: Okay? That you're going to ask a question, Mr. Jonas, and then Mr. Harbach will answer -- ask a question on cross-exam, and we're going to have to wait for the debtor to respond, then we're going to have to wait for the -- and this is all fine, I'm just explaining to everyone how it's going to work -- that we're going to have to wait for the interpreter. And I don't remember the person's name that PAX has hired. What's the interpreter's name? MR. HARBACH: It's because I haven't put her on the record, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 130 of\n\n| | 247 | |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|---------|\n| | | 129 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay. | |\n| 2 | MR. HARBACH:
It's not an issue of memory. | |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Okay. | |\n| 4 | MR. HARBACH:
To be honest, I do not even know her | |\n| 5 | name. | |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay. | |\n| 7 | MR. HARBACH:
But I know she's in here. | |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Well, then the interpreter to tell us | |\n| 9 | the answer that Mr. Kwok has given in English.
And then | |\n| 10 | we'll have to wait to see if Ms. Wilkinson has a problem | |\n| 11 | with it.
And if she does, then, you know, we'll have to | |\n| 12 | address it.
I think that's all we can do.
Okay? | I think |\n| 13 | that's the best we can do given the circumstances of today. | |\n| 14 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, one question? | |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Yes. | |\n| 16 | MR. JONAS:
And I very much appreciate and respect | |\n| 17 | the Court's ruling.
Thank you, Your Honor. | |\n| 18 | Just a suggestion so we understand the ground | |\n| 19 | rules, would it be okay if the lawyers step back a little | |\n| | | |\n\nand --\n\n THE COURT: Yes. MR. JONAS: Yeah. And let the -- to the extent -- THE COURT: Absolutely. MR. HARBACH: -- there's an interpretation by the primary of an answer, to the extent Ms. Wilkinson, she can\n\n speak for herself and raise it, I just -- I don't -- I'd prefer we not be on the front lines of it because -- THE COURT: No, I agree. MR. HARBACH: Okay. THE COURT: I think you should step back. And I think we might need another chair too. MR. HARBACH: Yes. Yes. THE COURT: And I don't know if we have another chair readily available at the moment. MR. JONAS: I can provide mine, Your Honor, for now. THE COURT: Okay. You're going to stand the whole time? MR. JONAS: Yes. Well, at least for my direct, and then we'll figure it out. THE COURT: Okay. All right. MR. JONAS: I'll take somebody else's chair. THE COURT: All right. I think that's fair under the circumstances. And just we'll note for the record that once Mr. Jonas -- Someone's bringing in another chair too, so if anybody needs another chair, we'll be all set. Thank you very much. I don't know if we're going to need it, but that's okay. I appreciate you doing that,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 131 of\n\n| 131 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| so thank you. |\n| UNIDENTIFIED:
I'll return it if you don't need |\n| it. |\n| THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| So what's -- so everyone's clear, Mr. Jonas is |\n| going to start his presentation on behalf of the debtor on |\n| the debtor's -- and I keep calling it shorthand -- but a DIP |\n| motion, a DIP motion -- and then he will call his first |\n| witness, which I'll -- |\n| And then we'll have the interpreters come forward. |\n| The interpreters are going to have to note their names for |\n| the record.
And I'm going to have to make sure that both -- |\n| every party -- no one is challenging the qualifications of |\n| either one of the interpreters. |\n| And then, Mr. Jonas, you'll be able to proceed. |\n| Okay? |\n| MR. JONAS:
Absolutely.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| THE COURT:
All right.
You can -- you may start, |\n| please. |\n| MR. JONAS:
Well, may we call the interpreters, |\n| Your Honor? |\n| THE COURT:
Sure.
Absolutely. |\n| MR. JONAS:
And we would obviously ask Ms. |\n| Wilkinson to come up and I guess take the second chair, |\n| right? |\n| |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 133 of\n\n| | 132 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Yes.
So, Ms. Wilkinson, are you in |\n| 2 | the courtroom? |\n| 3 | MS. WILKINSON:
Yes. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Would you please come forward. |\n| 5 | (Pause.) |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
All right.
So one at a time, I'm |\n| 7 | going to -- the courtroom staff is going to make sure that |\n| 8 | that microphone can capture at least both the people. |\n| 9 | Ms. Wilkinson, just because you came first, the |\n| 10 | courtroom deputy is going to swear you in.
Okay? |\n| 11 | (The check interpreter is sworn.) |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 13 | THE CLERK:
Can you just state your name and a |\n| 14 | business address for the record, please. |\n| 15 | THE CHECK INTERPRETER:
Yes.
My name is -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
We can't hear you. |\n| 17 | THE CLERK:
I need Ms. Wilkinson. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
We need Ms. Wilkinson's first.
Why |\n| 19 | don't you come to the microphone.
Yeah. |\n| 20 | THE CHECK INTERPRETER:
Name, Una, U-N-A, |\n| 21 | Wilkinson, W-I-L-K-I-N-S-O-N. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Just your business address. |\n| 23 | THE CHECK INTERPRETER:
My business address is my |\n| 24 | home. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 134 of\n\n| 247 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | 133 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE CHECK INTERPRETER:
6818 Juno Street, J-U-N-O, |\n| 2 | Forest Hills, New York, New York 01375. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
Thank you very much. |\n| 4 | Now, if I could have you come home --
I don't |\n| 5 | know your name.
I'm sorry.
If you could tell me your name. |\n| 6 | THE MAIN INTERPRETER:
Sure.
Your Honor, my name |\n| 7 | is I Ching Ng, the spelling is I-C-H-I-N-G, last name is N |\n| 8 | G. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
N-G.
Okay.
And could you tell us |\n| 10 | your business address, please. |\n| 11 | THE MAIN INTERPRETER:
Sure.
It's 450 Lexington |\n| 12 | Avenue, Unit 3294, New York, New York 10163. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
And the company you work for? |\n| 14 | THE MAIN INTERPRETER:
Today I'm representing |\n| 15 | TransPerfect. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
TransPerfect.
Okay. |\n| 17 | THE MAIN INTERPRETER:
Yes. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
The courtroom deputy is going to swear |\n| 19 | you in.
Okay. |\n| 20 | THE CLERK:
Raise your right hand, please. |\n| 21 | (The main interpreter is sworn.) |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 23 | You can take off your coat.
You know.
You don't |\n| 24 | have to be -- whatever you're more comfortable in, but I'm |\n| 25 | going to have you sit right next to the witness chair.
And |\n\n| | 134 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Ms. Wilkinson is going to sit to your right.
Okay? |\n| 2 | And now, both of you, what I'm going to ask you to |\n| 3 | do -- you don't know this, but we only -- our record comes |\n| 4 | through the microphone.
So once the witness, Mr. Kwok, |\n| 5 | speaks, after he speaks and you interpret, you're going to |\n| 6 | have to speak into the microphone. |\n| 7 | And so, Ms. Wilkinson, it might be that you have |\n| 8 | to come up and stand at this microphone if Mr. Jonas steps |\n| 9 | (indiscernible) -- because if we can't hear you, we're going |\n| 10 | to have to stop you.
Don't worry about that, that happens |\n| 11 | sometimes.
We have -- this is -- our only record is through |\n| 12 | a microphone.
So if I stop you, it's not because you've |\n| 13 | done anything wrong, it's because we weren't able to hear or |\n| 14 | for whatever reason.
Okay? |\n| 15 | I just want to -- I know you haven't done this |\n| 16 | before -- or maybe not in this courtroom -- but we can only |\n| 17 | -- we don't have a transcriber.
We don't.
We have to get |\n| 18 | everything on the record this way.
And if we don't get it, |\n| 19 | then we have to stop and make sure it's on the record. |\n| 20 | Okay? |\n| 21 | THE CHECK INTERPRETER:
Okay. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
So do either of you have any |\n| 23 | questions? |\n| 24 | THE MAIN INTERPRETER:
So that means I can use |\n| 25 | this microphone, right? |\n| | |\n\n| 247 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n THE COURT: Yeah. You can. And it will be after -- there's another microphone here too. Okay. Great. Okay. That will be helpful for Ms. Wilkinson too. Great. Thank you. After Mr. Kwok has answered the question, then, yes, you can -- that's why we turned the microphone a little bit so it will be able to pick up your voice as well. If for some reason we're wrong and it doesn't pick up your voice, we'll figure out where to get you to stand so we can understand what you're saying as well. THE MAIN INTERPRETER: Okay. THE COURT: Okay? Does that make sense to both of you? (No audible response.) THE COURT: Okay. I just want to make sure. If you have any questions, please let me know before we begin. Okay? All right. All right. Hearing no questions, then what else do we need to do? THE CLERK: I have a note here we're going to have the witness (indiscernible). THE COURT: I think Mr. Jonas is going to call his witness, so there you go. MR. JONAS: Yes, Your Honor. If we're ready, I'm happy to do that.\n\n THE COURT: Yes. Go right ahead. MR. JONAS: Thank you. Your Honor, we would -- the debtor would call Ho Wan Kwok to the witness stand. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Kwok, if you'd come forward, please. MR. KWOK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon, sir. Now, Mr. Kwok, you can just stand when you get in there, please. And then you're going to raise your right hand and listen to the courtroom deputy. She's going -- You'll interpret it -- but this is the person who is speaking to you right now. THE CLERK: I'm sorry. You know. THE COURT: It's okay. It's not a problem. THE CLERK: Let me just get my notes. I'm so sorry. THE COURT: And you can break it down if you would like so that the interpreter can break it down for Mr. Kwok. Okay? THE CLERK: Okay. THE COURT: You can say a few words at a time, and that will be helpful I think for Mr. Kwok to understand as well. HO WAN KWOK, SWORN THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 137 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 138 of\n\n| | 137 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE CLERK:
State your name and address for the |\n| 2 | record, please. |\n| 3 | THE MAIN INTERPRETER:
The interpreter would like |\n| 4 | to get a spelling for the address from Mr. Kwok. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
The spelling? |\n| 6 | THE MAIN INTERPRETER:
Yeah. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
Go ahead.
You can ask him. |\n| 8 | THE WITNESS:
The name is Kwok, K-W-O-K.
First |\n| 9 | name is Ho Wan, H-A -- I'm sorry -- H-O W-A-N.
The address |\n| 10 | is in Technic(ph)[sic], Connecticut, but I don't know how to |\n| 11 | spell it. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
I didn't hear what you said.
What |\n| 13 | Connecticut?
I think it's Greenwich, Connecticut.
Is that |\n| 14 | what you think you heard? |\n| 15 | THE WITNESS:
The street number is 373, but I |\n| 16 | don't remember the street name.
That's in Greenwich, |\n| 17 | Connecticut. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 19 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, I believe it's Taconic. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I think it's Taconic, yes. |\n| 21 | Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right. |\n| 22 | You may be seated. |\n| 23 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 25 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, may I -- is the microphone |\n\nKwok - Direct 138 -- I'm just wondering if it will pick up Mr. Kwok? THE COURT: I think if he just leans a little toward it -- MR. JONAS: Okay. THE COURT: -- so that we can get both of them. MR. JONAS: Okay. Okay. THE COURT: Okay. (Pause.) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. JONAS: Q Good afternoon, Mr. Kwok. Mr. Kwok, why did you file this Chapter 11 bankruptcy case? A First of all, I would like to take the opportunity -- first of all, I would like to say that I'm very excited today. This is the first time I get to appear in this case. It's been going on for five years. And I appreciate this opportunity. And also excited that I couldn't sleep last night. THE COURT: Thank you. BY MR. JONAS: Q I'll just -- I'll repeat my question. Mr. Kwok, why did you file this Chapter 11 bankruptcy case? A In early February this year, at the Southern District Court, the judge made a judgment asking me to pay \\$120 million in five days. Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 139 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 140 of\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Direct
139 |\n| 1 | THE CLERK:
Excuse me, Your Honor.
I need to |\n| 2 | interrupt to the extent that there's a message that we're |\n| 3 | not hearing the interpreter.
Although I can hear |\n| 4 | (indiscernible), we're getting messages that we cannot hear. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 6 | MR. JONAS:
May I make a suggestion, Your Honor? |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Sure. |\n| 8 | MR. JONAS:
I'm not sure that what -- I think all |\n| 9 | we really need to hear is the interpreter as long as she |\n| 10 | hears Mr. Kwok.
So my suggestion would be that I can turn |\n| 11 | the microphone directly to the interpreter and we'll pick up |\n| 12 | the interpreter since that's really all that's I think |\n| 13 | important. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
I think that makes -- let's try it. |\n| 15 | MR. JONAS:
Okay. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 17 | MR. JONAS:
We'll try it. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Let's try that.
Okay. |\n| 19 | MR. JONAS:
Thank you for your patience. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
No.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | (Pause.) |\n| 22 | MR. JONAS:
I just want to -- I don't know where |\n| 23 | we left off. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 25 | MR. JONAS:
I can -- I think he was in the middle |\n| | |\n\nKwok - Direct 140 of the answer, so shall we start again? THE MAIN INTERPRETER: If you wouldn't mind. MR. JONAS: Be happy to. THE COURT: That would be helpful. Thank you. MR. JONAS: Sure. BY MR. JONAS: Q Let's just go back, Mr. Kwok. Mr. Kwok, why did you file this Chapter 11 bankruptcy case? A In February of 2020, the judge at the Southern District Court made a judgment for my case with PAX and the judgment asked me to pay \\$120 million of fines within five days. THE MAIN INTERPRETER: Let me clarify the figure with Mr. Kwok. Okay. Let me clarify. That should be 124 million. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Under such circumstances, I had no choice. And in order to quickly resolve and fairly to resolve the debt issues with my debtors -- I have many debtors -- that's one of the choices I had to make, even though I have no choices, to resolve the issues of the creditors. THE COURT: Okay. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, I just want to make sure. I actually think it's working okay. I just want to make sure the Court's satisfied and -- Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 141 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 142 of\n\n| | 247 | | | | |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| | Kwok - Direct
141 | | | | |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
I can hear.
It's really the courtroom | | | | |\n| 2 | deputy and the recordings that make sure that it's getting | | | | |\n| 3 | picked up. | | | | |\n| 4 | THE CLERK:
Yes. | | | | |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay. | | | | |\n| 6 | MR. JONAS:
But I think also the corrections from | | | | |\n| 7 | Ms. Wilkinson, I think this is -- the system is working. | | | | |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
That's fine.
Yes, I agree. | | | | |\n| 9 | MR. JONAS:
Okay.
Thank you, Your Honor. | | | | |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. | | | | |\n| 11 | BY MR. JONAS: | | | | |\n| 12 | Q
Were you finished with your answer?
I just want to | | | | |\n| 13 | make sure, Mr. Kwok, as to why you filed this Chapter 11 | | | | |\n| 14 | case? | | | | |\n| 15 | A
Yes, I'm done. | | | | |\n| 16 | Q
Okay.
Thank you.
Mr. Kwok, have you taken public | | | | |\n| 17 | positions critical of the Chinese Communist Party or what's | | | | |\n| 18 | commonly referred to as the CCP? | | | | |\n| 19 | A
Yes. | | | | |\n| 20 | Q
And why have you done that? | | | | |\n| 21 | A
During the Tiananmen Square democratic protest in 1989 | | | | |\n| 22 | in China, I funded the students.
Because of that, I was | | | | |\n| 23 | arrested and I was jailed for 22 months, and my younger | | | | |\n| 24 | brother was killed. | | | | |\n| 25 | And since my parents were tortured by the CCP, and | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 143 of\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Direct
142 |\n| 1 | during my arrest I've witnessed that many student protesters |\n| 2 | were being killed, and because of that I've sworn that I |\n| 3 | need to eliminate the Chinese Communist Party. |\n| 4 | Q
Mr. Kwok, in connection with your activities opposing |\n| 5 | the CCP, have you done and do you do broadcasts in |\n| 6 | opposition to the CCP? |\n| 7 | A
In the past five years, I've made more than 5,000 live |\n| 8 | broadcasts with thousands of hours of air time to criticize |\n| 9 | the CCP regarding the corruptions and to expose them to the |\n| 10 | world. |\n| 11 | And I also talked about the massacre in |\n| 12 | (indiscernible) and also in Hong Kong and how they conducted |\n| 13 | spying activities in the West, in U.S., and human right |\n| 14 | violations. |\n| 15 | Q
How many people have watched or viewed your broadcasts? |\n| 16 | A
I feel tens of millions, hundreds of millions. |\n| 17 | Q
Does being an outspoken public critic of the CCP put |\n| 18 | you at risk? |\n| 19 | A
It has a huge risk. |\n| 20 | Q
And what are those risks? |\n| 21 | A
On January 10, 2015, these people behind me, the two |\n| 22 | people who (indiscernible), and they also paid the lawyer's |\n| 23 | fee, by the name of Wu Zheng (ph), he spied on me. |\n| 24 | And my family members were arrested, including my |\n| 25 | wife, my daughter, and hundreds of my colleagues were |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 144 of\n\nKwok - Direct 143 arrested as well, and my family assets were being seized. And they said to me that if I don't collaborate with the Chinese Communist Party they would kill me. THE MAIN INTERPRETER: The interpreter would like to clarify a few names with the witness. THE COURT: Sure. Go right ahead. THE WITNESS: Bernard Wu, he was the former partner of an investigation company called CGI and he worked with (indiscernible) and also they were involved in this investigation. And also they were -- THE MAIN INTERPRETER: Let me clarify a term with Mr. -- MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, I realize that interpretation is being clarified, but we'll interpose an objection as to relevance and non-responsiveness. The question, if memory serves, were what are the risks? And it's not clear at all to me that this answer is responsive to that question or relevant to the purposes of this hearing. THE COURT: I understand. I'm going to allow this question and the answer and then we'll move on to the relevant issues for the DIP filings. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, I couldn't agree more. I was just trying to provide some background and this was the last question on this topic.\n\nKwok - Direct 144 THE COURT: Okay. Go right -- go right ahead. But may I ask you, the interpreter -- THE MAIN INTERPRETER: Yes. THE COURT: -- there was a name that you said. I don't know if I heard you. Was it Bernard Wu, is that the name? THE MAIN INTERPRETER: Yes. Mm-hmm. THE COURT: All right. Can we -- can you just spell that for the Court, please. THE MAIN INTERPRETER: Let me clarify the spelling with Mr. Kwok. THE COURT: Sure. THE WITNESS: Bruno Wu. THE COURT: Bruno. THE WITNESS: B-R-U-N-O, last name is W-U. THE COURT: Thank you. BY MR. JONAS: Q Thank you, Mr. Kwok. THE MAIN INTERPRETER: Yeah. I'm sorry. I haven't finished my translation already. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. JONAS: My apologies. THE WITNESS: And regarding the Puff (ph) case, Bruno Wu Partners was also involved, and also concerning the case with the Department of Justice about trying to get Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 145 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 146 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Direct
145 |\n| 1 | President Trump to extradite me. |\n| 2 | And I would like to say that in the past five |\n| 3 | years I was in dire, extreme risky situation.
There were |\n| 4 | numerous moments where somebody came to my residence and |\n| 5 | wanted to harm me.
And I don't want to take the time to |\n| 6 | elaborate on that. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 8 | BY MR. JONAS: |\n| 9 | Q
Thank you, Mr. Kwok.
Let's move on.
Do you have the |\n| 10 | financial ability to satisfy all of the liabilities asserted |\n| 11 | against you in this case? |\n| 12 | A
No. |\n| 13 | Q
Are you aware of allegations that you have the |\n| 14 | appearance of being a wealthy man? |\n| 15 | A
Yes. |\n| 16 | Q
And in this case, you've disclosed that you have very |\n| 17 | few -- is it true that in this case you've disclosed very |\n| 18 | few assets? |\n| 19 | A
Yes. |\n| 20 | Q
Can you explain that contradiction? |\n| 21 | A
In 1989, I was arrested during the (indiscernible) |\n| 22 | movement because I participated in a campaign.
And then I |\n| 23 | emigrated to Hong Kong in the year 2000. |\n| 24 | And then from 2015 until now, I have mobilized |\n| 25 | campaigns to eliminate the Chinese Communist Party, |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 147 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Direct
146 |\n| 1 | therefore, I'm the notably known number one enemy of the |\n| 2 | CCP.
And because of that, there's no way I can hold any |\n| 3 | assets. |\n| 4 | Q
But, sir, you -- again, I want to come back to my |\n| 5 | question about the alleged appearance that you have the |\n| 6 | means to live well and yet you've disclosed very few assets. |\n| 7 | Where are you -- where are you getting the means to support |\n| 8 | yourself? |\n| 9 | A
Right now, I'm in a very special circumstances.
It's |\n| 10 | very unique.
I'm in the phase of the campaign to eliminate |\n| 11 | the Chinese Communist Party. |\n| 12 | And my son and my daughter and my family business |\n| 13 | have been very successful.
And these are very unique |\n| 14 | (indiscernible).
And my family loves me and they are |\n| 15 | supporting me with my living expenses and with the campaign |\n| 16 | to rejoin that is necessary. |\n| 17 | And in the past five years, the Chinese Communist |\n| 18 | Party have conducted multiple investigations against my |\n| 19 | family, and also publicly scandalized me.
However, they |\n| 20 | never said -- they never disclosed my assets or cited that I |\n| 21 | committed any crime. |\n| 22 | Q
Mr. Kwok, are you familiar with your request for debtor |\n| 23 | in possession or DIP financing in this case? |\n| 24 | A
Yes. |\n| 25 | Q
And who is the proposed DIP lender? |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 148 of
247 | |\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | | Kwok - Direct
147 | |\n| 1 | A | New York Golden Spring. | |\n| 2 | Q | And let me ask you, what is Golden Spring New York, | |\n| 3 | | Limited? | |\n| 4 | A | This is a company owned by my son.
He set up that | |\n| 5 | | company to invest in New York, and also to help the family, | |\n| 6 | | and also to handle family affairs in the west. | |\n| 7 | Q | Okay.
And did you assist him in setting up Golden | |\n| 8 | Spring? | | |\n| 9 | A | Yes. | |\n| 10 | Q | And were any of your funds used to set up Golden | |\n| 11 | Spring? | | |\n| 12 | A | I was at one point authorized to transfer funds to help | |\n| 13 | | Golden Spring and to transfer funds to J.P. Morgan. | |\n| 14 | Q | But those funds -- strike that. | |\n| 15 | | Were those funds yours? | |\n| 16 | A | No. | |\n| 17 | Q | Whose funds were they? | |\n| 18 | A | My son's. | |\n| 19 | Q | Do you own Golden Spring? | |\n| 20 | A | No. | |\n| 21 | Q | Do you control Golden Spring? | |\n| 22 | A | No. | |\n| 23 | Q | Do you work for Golden Spring? | |\n| 24 | A | No. | |\n| 25 | Q | Has Golden Spring lent money to you in the past? | |\n| | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 149 of\n\n| | 247 | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Kwok - Direct
148 | |\n| 1 | A
Yes. | |\n| 2 | Q
And for what purpose? | |\n| 3 | A
It was because in the past few years there were many | |\n| 4 | lawsuits, numerous lawsuits, from the Chinese Communist | |\n| 5 | Party against me, so I had to get the loan, the borrowings, | |\n| 6 | from New York Golden Spring to pay these lawyers' fees. | |\n| 7 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, may I -- I know I'm | |\n| 8 | parched.
May I provide this to Mr. Kwok?
Thank you.
Thank | |\n| 9 | you, Your Honor. | |\n| 10 | BY MR. JONAS: | |\n| 11 | Q
Mr. Kwok, does Golden Spring pay your living expenses? | |\n| 12 | A
Yes. | |\n| 13 | Q
Why?
Why would Golden Spring do that? | |\n| 14 | A
It is because during this time I am in this campaign to | |\n| 15 | eliminate Chinese Communist Party and of course there's no | |\n| 16 | choice. | |\n| 17 | And at the same time, my son loves me very much. | |\n| 18 | I am his only father.
So that's why the company has been to | |\n| 19 | pay the living expenses. | |\n| 20 | Q
And are you familiar with Lamp Capital? | |\n| 21 | A
That is my son's company. | |\n| 22 | Q
And do you work for Lamp Capital? | |\n| 23 | A
No. | |\n| 24 | Q
Do you control Lamp Capital? | |\n| 25 | A
No. | |\n| | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 150 of
247 |\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Kwok - Direct
149 |\n| 1 | Q | Has Lamp Capital lent you money in the past? |\n| 2 | A | Yes. |\n| 3 | Q | For what purpose? |\n| 4 | A | Yes.
To pay one million U.S. dollars to be our law |\n| 5 | | firm to handle my bankruptcy case. |\n| 6 | Q | Are you aware that certain pleadings have been filed in |\n| 7 | | this case alleging that you have a connection to G Music? |\n| 8 | A | I am a volunteer for G Music.
I sing many songs about |\n| 9 | | eliminating the Chinese Communist Party for G Music. |\n| 10 | Q | And are you -- strike that. |\n| 11 | | What is your connection, if any, to Himalayan |\n| 12 | | Exchange? |\n| 13 | A | I am the advisor and promoter. |\n| 14 | Q | And what is your connection, if any, to GETTR, G-E-T-T |\n| 15 | R? | |\n| 16 | A | I am the advisor and one of their promoters. |\n| 17 | Q | And is your -- is the activities that you take in |\n| 18 | | connection with these entities all part of your public |\n| 19 | | opposition to the CCP? |\n| 20 | A | Regarding all these companies that have been mentioned, |\n| 21 | | I work with my (indiscernible) for the purpose of |\n| 22 | | eliminating the Chinese Communist Party, so I sort of the |\n| 23 | | promoter for the cause. |\n| 24 | Q | Do you get paid from any of these entities? |\n| 25 | A | No. |\n| | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 151 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Kwok - Direct
150 |\n| 1 | Q | Do you dispute some of your creditors' claims against |\n| 2 | you? | |\n| 3 | A | Yes. |\n| 4 | Q | Prior to this bankruptcy, do you recall being examined |\n| 5 | under oath in connection with some of the litigations that | |\n| 6 | you're involved with? | |\n| 7 | A | Yes. |\n| 8 | Q | Do you recall invoking your Fifth Amendment right |\n| 9 | against self-incrimination in connection with some of those | |\n| 10 | examinations? | |\n| 11 | A | Yes. |\n| 12 | Q | At your recent 341 meetings, did you assert your Fifth |\n| 13 | | Amendment right at all? |\n| 14 | A | No.
I did not use it at all. |\n| 15 | Q | And why is that? |\n| 16 | A | Because with the bankruptcy case, there's a need for |\n| 17 | | more transparency and fairness.
And also the fact that |\n| 18 | | disclosing more of my financial information can help handle |\n| 19 | | the relationship with various debtors, so I hope the judge |\n| 20 | | -- I'm sorry -- creditors -- and I hope the judge and also |\n| 21 | | all the creditors can know all this information so that we |\n| 22 | | can do it in an open manner. |\n| 23 | Q | And I want to return to the DIP.
Can you briefly |\n| 24 | | describe how the DIP loan initially was arranged? |\n| 25 | A | When I learned that the judge at the Southern District |\n| | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 152 of\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Direct
151 |\n| 1 | Court imposed a fine of 124 million and asked me to pay it |\n| 2 | off in five days, I asked my lawyer and my son to make |\n| 3 | contacts to help me to resolve this loan. |\n| 4 | Q
And was that what resulted ultimately in the DIP loan |\n| 5 | that's before the Court today? |\n| 6 | A
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q
And briefly, what is your understanding of the current |\n| 8 | proposed terms of the DIP loan? |\n| 9 | A
Regarding the loan amount, that is an \\$8 million and an |\n| 10 | \\$1 million, the \\$8 million and the \\$1 million were being |\n| 11 | prioritized to fairly to pay all the creditors, and also any |\n| 12 | fees that incurred for other third parties due to this |\n| 13 | bankruptcy case, such as the lawyers and other |\n| 14 | professionals.
And to add onto that -- and the one million |\n| 15 | is the donation. |\n| 16 | Q
And do you understand whether the DIP loan can be paid |\n| 17 | back before creditors or ahead of creditors?
I'm not sure |\n| 18 | how that translates, but. |\n| 19 | A
No.
That is not allowed. |\n| 20 | Q
And do you understand whether the DIP loan can be
used |\n| 21 | to fund an examiner if an examiner is appointed in this |\n| 22 | case? |\n| 23 | A
Yes.
That is feasible. |\n| 24 | Q
And do you understand whether the DIP loan can be used |\n| 25 | to pay the creditors committee's professionals in this case? |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 153 of
247 |\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Kwok - Direct
152 |\n| 1 | A | Yes. |\n| 2 | Q | And do you understand whether the DIP loan can be used |\n| 3 | | to pay the United States Trustee fees that will be due in |\n| 4 | | this case? |\n| 5 | A | Yes. |\n| 6 | Q | As you sit here today, do you think it's likely that |\n| 7 | | the DIP loan will be repaid? |\n| 8 | A | (Indiscernible.) |\n| 9 | Q | And why would Golden Spring do this? |\n| 10 | | MR. HARBACH:
Objection.
That calls for |\n| 11 | | speculation. |\n| 12 | | THE COURT:
I'll allow it. |\n| 13 | | THE WITNESS:
Regarding Golden Spring, that is a |\n| 14 | | company owned by my son.
And he has only one father.
And |\n| 15 | | our family has gone through many hardships.
And in facing |\n| 16 | | the suppression of the Chinese Communist Party. |\n| 17 | | And also because of his personal considerations |\n| 18 | | and Chinese family values, he wants to safeguard of the |\n| 19 | | interest of the family and me and his mother.
Otherwise, I |\n| 20 | | would have been thrown into jail and been killed. |\n| 21 | | BY MR. JONAS: |\n| 22 | Q | Do you know if the \\$9 million of DIP loan proceeds are |\n| 23 | | now available? |\n| 24 | A | I know that the money has arrived yesterday, but I'm |\n| 25 | | not sure whether it has landed in the escrow account of the |\n| | | |\n\nKwok - Direct 153 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 154 of\n\n lawyer. I know that the money has started to arrive yesterday. I'm not sure whether it has already reached the escrow account of the counselors. Q Do you believe that any other party, that is, other than Golden Spring, would provide a DIP loan on better terms than are provided here? MR. HARBACH: Objection. Speculative. THE COURT: I'm going to allow it, and I'll give it whatever weight I think is appropriate. THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. JONAS: Q Mr. Kwok, you mentioned an examiner, do you support the appointment of an examiner in this case? A Yes. Q And why is that? A And since the first day of this case until now, this is the only moment that I feel secure, I feel safe, because I have a chance to speak for myself here. And also because my goal to eliminate the Chinese Communist Party, I need the chance to voice, to make noise, and this judicial system provided that platform. And I understand the U.S. legal system and -- so that it will offer a chance to have a fair and transparent and more professional way to resolve my debt issues with the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 155 of\n\nKwok - Direct 154 creditors. Q If the DIP financing is not approved, do you have any other source to pay the costs and expenses of this Chapter 11 case? A No. Q Have you filed a proposed plan of reorganization? A Yes. Q And do you believe having the DIP loan in place is necessary and will facilitate the prosecution or your plan moving forward? A Yes. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, I have no further questions right now on direct. I would ask, if it's convenient for the Court at some point, just to take a short break? `I do appreciate Mr. Kwok needs to be instructed not to speak with anyone, and that's fine. I just want to make sure he and I have an opportunity to take a quick break if we may. THE COURT: Opposing counsel have an objection to that? MR. HARBACH: Not at all, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. Then if there's no objection, that's fine. So how much time would you like?\n\nKwok - Direct/Cross 155 MR. JONAS: Oh, just five or ten minutes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, it's ten of three. Would you like to come back at three? MR. JONAS: That would be fine. And I appreciate the courtesy, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. We're going to take a quick recess until 3 p.m. Okay? All right. All right. Court is in recess until three. (Recess from 2:47 p.m. until 3 p.m.) THE COURT: All right. So we can go back on the record after recess, please. THE CLERK: Yes. We're still on case Number 22- 50073 Ho Wan Kwok. We are in court after (indiscernible). THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Harbach, you ready to proceed? MR. HARBACH: Yes, Your Honor. May I inquire? THE COURT: Yes, please. Go right ahead. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. HARBACH: Q Good afternoon, Mr. Kwok. I'd like to start by talking about an entity Mr. Jonas asked you about, called GETTR. Do you know the entity I'm talking about, sir? A First of all I want to say, good afternoon, sir, and I do know GETTR. Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 156 of\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 156 Q Okay. What is GETTR? A It's a social media platform. Q I believe you testified on direct that you were an advisor and promoter to GETTR. Is that right? A Yes. Q When did GETTR launch its platform? A 2021. Q Does the -- approximately the summer of 2021 sound about right to you? A I cannot remember. Q Okay. How was GETTR funded initially? A I don't know. Q Were you involved in donating any money to GETTR? A No. Q Did you help raise any money for GETTR from others? A No. Q Did your family make any donations or payments to GETTR related to the startup? A No. Q What's Himalayan Exchange? A It's an online company for the trading or the exchange of digital currency. Q Did you found it? A No. Q Were you among those who helped found it? Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 157 of\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 157 A No. Q Okay. What's Himalaya Coin? A That is a digital currency on the Himalaya Exchange. Q So Himalaya Exchange is a platform that supports trading of Himalaya Coin. Is that fair? A Yes. Q Okay. And do you know about a music video called HCoin to the Moon? THE MAIN INTERPRETER: I'm sorry, counselor, can you repeat -- BY MR. HARBACH: Q HCoin -- oh, the witness knows. A I know. Q Okay. That was a successful and popular music video, wasn't it? A Yes. Q And it features you, does it not? A I was a small portion of it. Q You feature prominently in the video, don't you, sir? A I only spoke -- I only spoke one line. Q And did you have any role in producing the song? A I only sang one line. In fact, this song, HCoin to the Moon, took 30,000 people to complete. Q Isn't it true that HCoin to the Moon has been a very popular download on iTunes for example? Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 158 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 159 of
247 |\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
158 |\n| 1 | A | What do you mean by a lot or very popular? |\n| 2 | Q | Wasn't HCoin to the Moon at one point in the top 10 |\n| 3 | | downloads on Apple iTunes? |\n| 4 | A | Yes. |\n| 5 | Q | Okay.
So it made lots of money. |\n| 6 | A | I don't know. |\n| 7 | Q | And I take it then, your testimony will be that you |\n| 8 | | received no money in connection with royalties from that |\n| 9 | song? | |\n| 10 | A | Yes. |\n| 11 | Q | You mentioned your invocation of the Fifth Amendment |\n| 12 | | earlier.
Do you recall that testimony? |\n| 13 | A | Yes. |\n| 14 | Q | And you understand, do you not, that the purpose of the |\n| 15 | | Fifth Amendment is a protection in circumstances where |\n| 16 | | truthful testimony might incriminate you. |\n| 17 | | MR. JONAS:
Objection, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | | THE COURT:
What basis? |\n| 19 | | MR. JONAS:
He's asking for legal conclusion.
I |\n| 20 | | don't think the witness is -- |\n| 21 | | THE COURT:
No, I think he was asking for -- he |\n| 22 | | asked him what his understanding is, so I'll -- |\n| 23 | | MR. HARBACH:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | | THE COURT:
-- overrule that objection. |\n| 25 | | THE WITNESS:
No, that's not the case. |\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 159 BY MR. HARBACH: Q Okay. What is your understanding of the purpose of invocation of the Fifth Amendment? A I requested to use the Fifth Amendment under the advice of my counsel. Q Well, I understand that and believe me, I'm not intending to ask about communications with your counsel about whether you should invoke it or not, that's privileged. But I -- but your counsel made a point of establishing on direct examination that you had evoked the Fifth Amendment in the past but did not do so at the 341 meeting. And you said it was because you wanted to be more transparent. MR. JONAS: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: On what basis? MR. JONAS: I don't think there have been questions the last two -- he's -- Mr. Harbach has made statements, but there's been no question in the last two alleged questions. MR. HARBACH: I'm just pausing for the interpreter, Your Honor, instead of asking one great big long question, I'm leaving time for her to -- THE COURT: I'm not sure it's not a question. I mean, you're asking him what he said. I don't -- I'm not Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 160 of\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 160 sure it's not a question, so I think let's let it go and see how we -- where we get to, okay? BY MR. HARBACH: Q The question, sir, is, what is your understanding of the reason one would invoke the Fifth Amendment? A I don't understand this question. Q Do you understand what -- do you have an understanding of what the Fifth Amendment is? A I know. Q Do you know what it means to invoke the Fifth Amendment? A The U.S. law gives the right to the people to do so. Q That's absolutely right, and what I'm trying to understand is a right to do what? What is it -- what is the reason that one might invoke the Fifth Amendment, according to your understanding? MR. JONAS: Objection, Your Honor. Again, I -- and I respectfully -- I -- I'm not trying to interrupt, but I do need to preserve my objections for the record. I don't think it's appropriate to ask a witness -- he's now asked, I don't know, 10 questions relating to the Fifth Amendment, his understanding. Obviously, some of that is privileged to the extent his understanding comes from us. THE COURT: He's not asking for privileged Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 161 of\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 161 information. He made that clear. And I think it's a relevant question and I'm overruling your objection. MR. JONAS: Fair enough. Thank you. THE COURT: You did open the door on direct examination to this issue. MR. JONAS: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. JONAS: And that's why I -- at the beginning, I let it go but we're kind of deep into this and I'm not sure where it's going. THE COURT: I -- but he hasn't gotten an answer yet. MR. JONAS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. BY MR. HARBACH: Q Would you like me to repeat the question, sir? THE MAIN INTERPRETER: Yes. Yes, please. This is the interpreter. MR. HARBACH: Sure. BY MR. HARBACH: Q What is your understanding of what it means to invoke the Fifth Amendment? A I listen to my counsel -- I listened to my counsel's advice. Q Okay. Well, I think I'll move on. Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 162 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 163 of\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
162 |\n| 1 | At the very beginning of your examination, when you |\n| 2 | were asked why you filed this Chapter 11 case, you mentioned |\n| 3 | that it was because a judge in New York ordered you to pay a |\n| 4 | \\$124 million fine in five days.
Do you recall that |\n| 5 | testimony? |\n| 6 | A
Yes. |\n| 7 | Q
And I don't want to go too deep into this, except to |\n| 8 | say that there was a judgment in place against you because |\n| 9 | of a decision that was made by the judge against your side |\n| 10 | of the lawsuit, correct? |\n| 11 | A
Are you talking about a judgment from the Seventh |\n| 12 | District of New York?
I know that one. |\n| 13 | Q
Well, I'm talking about a judgment from the Supreme |\n| 14 | Court of the State of New York, Justice Barry Ostrager |\n| 15 | presiding. |\n| 16 | A
Yes, I know that. |\n| 17 | Q
Okay.
And so, there were actually -- there are two |\n| 18 | judgments that have been issued.
One was a partial summary |\n| 19 | judgment in connection with PAX's breach of contract claim. |\n| 20 | Do you remember that? |\n| 21 | A
Are you talking about me breaching the contract? |\n| 22 | Q
I'm merely trying to illustrate that there are two |\n| 23 | judgments against you from the New York Supreme Court.
I'm |\n| 24 | not asking you to admit whether you agree with them or not. |\n| 25 | I'm just asking if you know of their existence. |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 164 of
247 |\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
163 |\n| 1 | A | Yes. |\n| 2 | Q | Okay.
You understand that one of them is a judgment in |\n| 3 | | connection with a contempt finding, right? |\n| 4 | A | Yes. |\n| 5 | Q | Okay.
And did you attempt to file an appeal bond in |\n| 6 | | connection with that contempt judgment? |\n| 7 | A | Yes. |\n| 8 | Q | How much was it? |\n| 9 | A | Are you talking about appeal bond? |\n| 10 | Q | Yes. |\n| 11 | A | I don't understand what you mean by appeal bond. |\n| 12 | Q | Do you know what an appeal bond is? |\n| 13 | A | So are you asking about me -- about the case of |\n| 14 | | contempt of court issued by Justice Ostrager? |\n| 15 | Q | That is correct.
And my question is, did you file or |\n| 16 | | attempt to file an appeal bond in connection with that |\n| 17 | | judgment? |\n| 18 | A | My counsel is working on it, but I don't know the |\n| 19 | | details. |\n| 20 | Q | So as far as you understand, it has not been done yet, |\n| 21 | | to your knowledge. |\n| 22 | A | We already appealed against a judgment of Justice |\n| 23 | | Ostrager. |\n| 24 | Q | I understand that. |\n| 25 | | MR. HARBACH:
And I'll move on very shortly, Your |\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 164 Honor. BY MR. HARBACH: Q Just so we're clear, my question is not about whether you appealed the decision, it's about whether you posted an appeal bond. Now, a moment ago you said that you believed your attorneys were working on it, which is fine. A Yes. Q Okay. And so all I want to establish is that they're working on it. To your knowledge, it hasn't been done yet, correct? A My counsel is handling this matter. Q Understood. Thank you. One other piece of cleanup from direct. Mr. Jonas asked you about the risks to you as a result of your opposition to the CCP, and among the things you said was that your family was arrested and that the CCP seized your family's assets. Do you recall that testimony? A Yes. Q Some of those assets were yours as well, correct? A No. Q So is it your testimony that the CCP has seized none of your assets? A Yes. Q Okay. Only your family's assets. Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 165 of\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 165 A Yes. Q Because of your conduct. A Yes. Q Golden Spring New York was set up in March of 2015, correct? A Yes. Q And I believe you said on direct that it's -- it was an investment firm? A At the time, one of the functions served by this company was to look for investment opportunities in the US for the family. Q And since March of 2015, how many successful investment opportunities have -- has Golden Spring carried out? A We had some cases whereby we were almost successful. However, because of Bruno Wu representing the Chinese Communist Party to make phone calls and make threats, so they were in futile. Q I didn't hear the last word. They were -- A In futile. Q They were futile? THE INTERPRETER: Yeah. BY MR. HARBACH: Q Okay. So is the answer to my question that there have been no successful investments by Golden Spring since it was set up in March of 2015?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 166 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 167 of
247 |\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
166 |\n| 1 | A | I don't know what happened after 2015. |\n| 2 | Q | Okay.
So is the answer to my question that you have no |\n| 3 | | idea whether Golden Spring has had any successful |\n| 4 | | investments since 2015? |\n| 5 | A | Yes. |\n| 6 | Q | This is the company that you say is owned by your son? |\n| 7 | A | Yes. |\n| 8 | Q | The son whose love and goodwill has resulted in their |\n| 9 | | generosity to you, according to you? |\n| 10 | A | Yes. |\n| 11 | Q | A son with, given that, you're pretty close? |\n| 12 | A | Yes. |\n| 13 | Q | You've never asked him about how the business is going |\n| 14 | | or what they're interested in investing in? |\n| 15 | A | That has to do with his partner, Bruno Wu, who went to |\n| 16 | | London and -- with many people, there were Chinese spies |\n| 17 | | from the Chinese Communist Party and try to kill them. |\n| 18 | | And in 2015, my daughter, my wife were arrested and -- |\n| 19 | | because of this -- these issues, and the fact that I'm being |\n| 20 | | chased and was -- and they were attempted -- they attempted |\n| 21 | | to kill me, and therefore they did not want to tell me much |\n| 22 | | about their personal affairs or what happened, and I do |\n| 23 | | respect that. |\n| 24 | Q | So your answer is, you've never asked him. |\n| 25 | A | I did. |\n| | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 168 of
247 |\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
167 |\n| 1 | Q | And he refused to answer your question.
Is that it? |\n| 2 | A | Because I was threatened to be killed and because of |\n| 3 | | me, many problems has risen.
Therefore, they did not want |\n| 4 | | to answer that. |\n| 5 | Q | I didn't hear the tail end of the answer.
I'm sorry. |\n| 6 | A | Because I was being threatened and because many |\n| 7 | | problems has risen because of me, they did not want to |\n| 8 | | answer that. |\n| 9 | Q | Out of fear that what, that the Chinese Communist Party |\n| 10 | | would come after their assets? |\n| 11 | A | It was not just about seizing the assets.
My son in |\n| 12 | | fact was arrested by the Chinese Communist Party before, and |\n| 13 | | he was being threatened to be killed, so he has been in this |\n| 14 | process. | And also, many of his assets in Hong Kong and in |\n| 15 | | Mainland China have been seized or confiscated by them. |\n| 16 | Q | And you've testified before, have you not, that you, |\n| 17 | | yourself, do not have any bank accounts, right? |\n| 18 | A | Yes. |\n| 19 | Q | And the reason for that, according to you, is because |\n| 20 | | of the Chinese Communist Party, right? |\n| 21 | A | Yes. |\n| 22 | Q | And the -- you can't hold on to any assets for the same |\n| 23 | | reason, right? |\n| 24 | A | As I mentioned in the beginning, because of the 1989 |\n| 25 | | incidents, I was arrested for 22 months, and then I became a |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 169 of\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
168 |\n| 1 | personality that is anti Communist Party, and then in year |\n| 2 | 2000, I had a Hong Kong passport, and in 2015, I became anti |\n| 3 | Chinese Communist Party.
Therefore, for these three |\n| 4 | different stages and because of the political climate at the |\n| 5 | time, I could not own or hold any assets. |\n| 6 | Q
Okay.
And let me get to one of the points, hopefully. |\n| 7 | You seem to have no trouble swearing in very public filings |\n| 8 | that your son owns Golden Spring New York, right?
Isn't |\n| 9 | that true, that you have sworn in very public filings that |\n| 10 | your son is the owner of Golden Spring New York? |\n| 11 | A
Yes. |\n| 12 | Q
Okay.
And it's also true, is it not, that Golden |\n| 13 | Spring has millions of dollars at its disposal? |\n| 14 | A
I don't know how much money they have. |\n| 15 | Q
Well, you know they have millions of dollars, right, |\n| 16 | because you just testified a few minutes ago that they've |\n| 17 | pledged to give you eight, or the estate, eight.
Right? |\n| 18 | MR. JONAS:
Objection, Your Honor.
That's |\n| 19 | actually not accurate.
He -- when he was asked about the |\n| 20 | terms of the DIP, I believe he said \\$9 million. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
I think he can answer the question. |\n| 22 | THE WITNESS:
Yes, the testimony I gave earlier |\n| 23 | stated \\$9 million. |\n| 24 | BY MR. HARBACH: |\n| 25 | Q
And my question to you was, you know, don't you, that |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 170 of
247 |\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
169 |\n| 1 | | Golden Spring has millions of dollars at its disposal? |\n| 2 | A | Yes. |\n| 3 | Q | Isn't it true that you owned Golden Spring when it was |\n| 4 | | set up in 2015? |\n| 5 | A | No. |\n| 6 | Q | Do you recall on April 6th of this year, at the 341 |\n| 7 | | hearing that was held in New Haven, the one that was in |\n| 8 | person? | |\n| 9 | A | Yes. |\n| 10 | Q | Do you recall testifying that at one time you held a |\n| 11 | | title at Golden Spring but you couldn't remember what the |\n| 12 | | title was? |\n| 13 | A | Yes. |\n| 14 | Q | Is that still the case that sitting here today, you do |\n| 15 | | not remember what the title was? |\n| 16 | A | Yes. |\n| 17 | Q | Or when you held it? |\n| 18 | A | That was in the very beginning in early 2015, when the |\n| 19 | | company just founded. |\n| 20 | Q | For approximately how long? |\n| 21 | A | I don't remember. |\n| 22 | Q | On direct examination you were asked some questions |\n| 23 | | about Golden Springs being set up, and I believe you |\n| 24 | | testified that you assisted your son in setting up Golden |\n| 25 | Spring. | Is that right? |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 171 of
247 |\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
170 |\n| 1 | A | Yes. |\n| 2 | Q | And if we could just take a brief detour and put your |\n| 3 | | son's name on the record.
It is Qiang Guo, is that correct? |\n| 4 | A | Yes. |\n| 5 | Q | Okay.
And I'll spell that for the record.
Q-I-A-N-G, |\n| 6 | | last name G-U-O. |\n| 7 | A | Yes. |\n| 8 | Q | Thank you.
Now, you also testified on direct that none |\n| 9 | | of your funds were used to set up Golden Spring, right? |\n| 10 | A | It did not use money that was owned by me. |\n| 11 | Q | Okay.
It was used by money contained in an account you |\n| 12 | | owned, wasn't it? |\n| 13 | A | I was authorized to use the account under my name. |\n| 14 | Q | Do you recall, Mr. Kwok, preparing an affidavit in the |\n| 15 | | case of Ace Decade Holdings Limited v. UBS AG in New York |\n| 16 | | State Court in February of 2016? |\n| 17 | A | I remember. |\n| 18 | | MR. HARBACH:
Madam Clerk, could you please |\n| 19 | | display PAX's Exhibit 18?
Actually, my mistake.
Could we |\n| 20 | | start with PAX's 19, please?
Sorry, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | | THE COURT:
That's okay. |\n| 22 | | THE CLERK:
On the screen is PAX Exhibit 19. |\n| 23 | | MR. HARBACH:
Thank you, ma'am. |\n| 24 | | BY MR. HARBACH: |\n| 25 | Q | I'd like to go to the next to last page of 19, which is |\n| | | |\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 171 -- looks like it should be 17. It's the page that -- well, it may be -- it may be a different page number, but it's the page with Mr. Kwok's signature on it. And for the record, Exhibit 19 is the Chinese version of the affidavit I referenced earlier, and so what's on the screen for the witness right now is the signature page for that affidavit, and the question to the witness is whether that is your signature, sir. A Yes. Q Okay. MR. HARBACH: Now, if we could, Madam Clerk, rewind in that document to paragraph 36? And, Your Honor, this is a little cumbersome because of the Chinese, but what PAX intends to offer -- well, what PAX intends to do is to question the witness using the version with Chinese characters that he signed, and then we'll offer to the Court, the Chinese version as well as the English translation that is also certified and is a separate exhibit. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. BY MR. HARBACH: Q So, Mr. Kwok, I'd like you to take a look at paragraph 36, please. And so, could you please read paragraph 36 to yourself and then just let me know when you're finished? A I'm done. Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 172 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 173 of
247 |\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
172 |\n| 1 | Q | Isn't it true that in this affidavit, in February of |\n| 2 | | 2016, you swore that in April 2015, Mr. Wong, W-O-N-G, Ms. |\n| 3 | | Fu, F-U, and Ms. Lam, L-A-M, assisted me with setting up |\n| 4 | | Golden Spring New York by transferring funds from one of my |\n| 5 | | accounts at UBS to Golden Spring New York's JP Morgan Chase |\n| 6 | | Bank account in New York? |\n| 7 | A | Yes. |\n| 8 | Q | Okay.
In your affidavit, you didn't say anything about |\n| 9 | | your son setting up Golden Spring New York, did you? |\n| 10 | A | Yes. |\n| 11 | Q | Okay.
In fact, isn't it true that you set up Golden |\n| 12 | | Spring with your own money? |\n| 13 | A | That money was my son's money, but my account was being |\n| 14 | | used to transfer funds to his account.
And that is not my |\n| 15 | money. | |\n| 16 | Q | How much money was it? |\n| 17 | A | I cannot remember clearly.
However, after that -- |\n| 18 | | well, I cannot remember. |\n| 19 | | MR. HARBACH:
Can I just have one moment, Judge? |\n| 20 | | THE COURT:
Certainly. |\n| 21 | | (Pause) |\n| 22 | | MR. HARBACH:
Thanks for the indulgence, Your |\n| 23 | Honor. | I hope we've streamlined things a little bit. |\n| 24 | | THE COURT:
That's fine. |\n| 25 | | BY MR. HARBACH: |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 174 of
247 |\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
173 |\n| 1 | Q | Mr. Kwok, isn't it true that in November or December of |\n| 2 | | 2014, you had \\$1 billion at your disposal? |\n| 3 | A | Yes. |\n| 4 | Q | Okay.
That wasn't your son's money, was it? |\n| 5 | A | That was family's money, including my son's money. |\n| 6 | Q | Okay.
That was, as you said a moment ago, at your |\n| 7 | | disposal. |\n| 8 | A | I was authorized to use that money. |\n| 9 | Q | Did I hear you correctly earlier to say today that you |\n| 10 | | never -- you never worked at Golden Spring New York? |\n| 11 | A | Yes. |\n| 12 | Q | Okay. |\n| 13 | A | As I mentioned earlier, at one point, I did have a |\n| 14 | title. | |\n| 15 | Q | Okay.
Did you do any work in connection with that |\n| 16 | title? | |\n| 17 | A | I did get a salary. |\n| 18 | Q | You got a salary.
How much was the salary? |\n| 19 | A | \\$300,000 U.S. dollars. |\n| 20 | Q | For what time period? |\n| 21 | A | 2015. |\n| 22 | Q | So for the calendar year 2015, you earned \\$300,000 from |\n| 23 | | Golden Spring? |\n| 24 | A | Around that, but I cannot remember clearly. |\n| 25 | Q | Okay.
For doing what? |\n| | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 175 of
247 |\n|----|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
174 |\n| 1 | A | At the time it was to help setting up Golden Spring New |\n| 2 | | York, and also to serve as an advisor to find investment |\n| 3 | | opportunities. |\n| 4 | Q | Okay.
An advisor to whom? |\n| 5 | A | Golden Spring. |\n| 6 | Q | Who at Golden Spring?
Who did you give advice to? |\n| 7 | A | My son. |\n| 8 | Q | According to you, the Golden Spring New York has |\n| 9 | | advanced you loans to fund various lawsuits that you're |\n| 10 | | involved in, some \\$21 million, right? |\n| 11 | A | Yes. |\n| 12 | Q | Okay.
Now I'm not -- I'm talking about those loans |\n| 13 | | now, the 21 million.
Okay?
Isn't it true that you |\n| 14 | | requested those loans yourself from your son? |\n| 15 | A | Yes. |\n| 16 | Q | Okay.
And what did he say? |\n| 17 | A | He just loaned it to me. |\n| 18 | Q | Okay.
Did he say anything about needing to consult |\n| 19 | | with the other directors of Golden Spring? |\n| 20 | A | That was handled by my son. |\n| 21 | Q | Did he say anything about needing to convene a vote of |\n| 22 | | the other directors of Golden Spring, a vote of the board, |\n| 23 | | before lending you millions of dollars? |\n| 24 | A | It was because my son and the family office in Europe, |\n| 25 | | including other family members, would hold meetings to talk |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 176 of\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
175 |\n| 1 | about that.
So my son would convene meetings to handle that |\n| 2 | issue, but I don't know the details. |\n| 3 | Q
My question is what he told you, and I think a moment |\n| 4 | ago you said he just told you that he would do it. |\n| 5 | A
That was a long time ago and there are too many |\n| 6 | details, but he would consult family members and their |\n| 7 | lawyers, and then they would hold meetings and I don't |\n| 8 | handle all the nitty gritty details. |\n| 9 | Q
So is your testimony that when you asked your son for |\n| 10 | loans to cover your litigation expenses, he told you that he |\n| 11 | needed to consult with the family first?
Is that your |\n| 12 | testimony? |\n| 13 | A
Yes. |\n| 14 | Q
Okay.
Isn't it true that you don't know how many loans |\n| 15 | you have had from Golden Spring? |\n| 16 | A
I know. |\n| 17 | Q
You know or you don't know? |\n| 18 | A
I know. |\n| 19 | Q
Okay.
How many loans have you had from Golden Spring? |\n| 20 | A
210 million. |\n| 21 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
21 million. |\n| 22 | THE MAIN INTERPRETER:
I'm sorry.
21 million. |\n| 23 | BY MR. HARBACH: |\n| 24 | Q
Yeah.
I'm not asking about the total amount.
I'm |\n| 25 | asking about the number of loans. |\n| | |\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 176 A I cannot remember clearly. Q Okay. And you don't know which of the loans were put in writing? A I remember a few of them. Q But you don't know which ones or how many? A I know parts of them related to the litigations, but I cannot remember all of them. That is impossible. Q Well, all I'm asking is whether of the -- however many loans there are, do you know how many of them were in writing? A I believe more than 10 were in writing, but I cannot be sure at all. Q And isn't it also true that you don't know whether the written agreements were in English or Chinese? A They must have been all in English. Some of them have Chinese versions. MR. HARBACH: Just a -- just a moment, please, Judge. THE COURT: Certainly. (Pause) BY MR. HARBACH: Q Do you recall giving testimony at a meeting of creditors on March 21st, 2022, by telephone? A I remember. MR. HARBACH: And I'll ask for PAX 17 to be Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 177 of\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 177 displayed please, Madam Clerk. THE CLERK: On the screen is Exhibit 17, PAX Exhibit 17. MR. HARBACH: Thank you, ma'am. I'd like to go to page 73 of the transcript. Maybe I can try and control it myself. THE COURT: She has to give it to you first. MR. HARBACH: Oh, okay. THE COURT: But if you'd rather do that, she's -- she can do that for you. THE CLERK: It's up to you, whatever you -- I just gave you control. MR. HARBACH: Okay. I think that will work. Thank you. THE COURT: Are you having trouble moving it? MR. HARBACH: I think I've got it. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HARBACH: Okay. So we're in that. That's behind 30. Okay. One off. Okay. For the record, I'm displaying Page 73 of PAX 17, and I'm going to direct the witness's attention to Lines 4 through 8. BY MR. HARBACH: Q Mr. Kwok, isn't it true that you were asked this question, were any of the loans that were put in writing in Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 178 of\n\nKwok - Cross - Harbach 178 English, and your answer was, I don't remember? And then you were asked, were any of them in Chinese, and your answer was, I don't remember. And my question to you is, do you have a different memory of that today? A I cannot read English so I have to rely on the interpretation. Of course, my memory today is different from before. Q Okay. And if I had you correctly, your memory today is that most of the loans in writing were in English? A Yes, that's what I remember. Q Okay. Now isn't it also true that you did not know the \\$21 million total amount until lawyers told you that's how much it was? A What do you mean by that? Q Well, before lawyers told you that the total was \\$21 million that Lamp -- excuse me, that Golden Spring had loaned you in litigation funding, did you know that that's Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 179 of\n\nwhat the total was?\n\nA I know.\n\n Q Okay. Let's stick with where we are on the transcript, which is again, PAX's 17 at Page 73. Directing your attention to Line -- starting at Line 22 of that page. Question: \"If you don't know -- \" sorry. Withdrawn. Isn't it true that you were asked this question and you gave this answer? \"If you don't know how many times you\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 180 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Cross - Harbach
179 |\n| 1 | took out loans from Golden Spring, not all of which were in |\n| 2 | writing, how do you know how much you owe them?\" |\n| 3 | MR. HARBACH:
I'll let you interpret the question, |\n| 4 | then I'll give the answer. |\n| 5 | BY MR. HARBACH: |\n| 6 | Q
And your answer was, \"My lawyer an the lawyer of Golden |\n| 7 | Spring, they communicate with each other, tells me the |\n| 8 | amount they can define is 21 million.\" |\n| 9 | Isn't that what you said, sir? |\n| 10 | A
Well, I cannot read English and through the |\n| 11 | interpretations earlier, from my recollection, at the time |\n| 12 | through the counsels I knew that the figure was 21 million. |\n| 13 | Q
And that's all I'm trying to establish is that your |\n| 14 | knowledge about the amount, the 21 million, that came from |\n| 15 | your lawyers, correct? |\n| 16 | A
I confirmed that with my lawyer. |\n| 17 | Q
Okay. |\n| 18 | MR. HARBACH:
Thank you, Your Honor, for your |\n| 19 | patience.
I have no further questions. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I appreciate that.
Thank you. |\n| 21 | MR. HARBACH:
Oh, well, I suppose I could do it at |\n| 22 | the end, but I intended to offer PAX's 17, 18, and 19. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Any objection?
Let me look at |\n| 24 | your list?
PAX's 17, 18, and 19 -- 17 has no objection. |\n| 25 | MR. HARBACH:
Correct. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 181 of\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Kwok - Cross - Claiborn
180 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
It's the transcript of the 341 |\n| 2 | meeting.
So that will be admitted as a full exhibit. |\n| 3 | With regard -- go ahead. |\n| 4 | MR. HARBACH:
18 is the ACE Decade affidavit that |\n| 5 | I used for impeachment purposes.
18 is the English version |\n| 6 | and 19 is the Chinese version. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And does the debtor still have |\n| 8 | an opposition with regard to the admission of exhibits -- |\n| 9 | PAX Exhibits 18 and 19 in full? |\n| 10 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, we have no objection to |\n| 11 | obviously the portions that were used, such that Mr. Kwok |\n| 12 | had an opportunity to respond to them.
We have -- we'll |\n| 13 | withdraw any objections and have no further objection. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So then, Exhibits 17, 18, and |\n| 15 | 19 are admitted as full exhibits.
PAX's Exhibits 17, 18, |\n| 16 | and 19 are admitted as full exhibits in connection with the |\n| 17 | evidentiary hearing on the DIP financing motions. |\n| 18 | MR. HARBACH:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 20 | (PAX Exhibit Nos. 17 through 19 admitted into |\n| 21 | evidence.) |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Attorney Claiborn? |\n| 23 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, if I could, I have a |\n| 24 | few questions. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Certainly.
And then, Mr. Jonas, are |\n| | |\n\nKwok - Cross - Claiborn 181 you going to have some redirect? MR. JONAS: I doubt it, Your Honor, but -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. JONAS: -- I'd like to consider that after. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. Just curious. Thank you. Go ahead, Attorney Claiborn. BY MS. CLAIBORN: Q Good afternoon, Mr. Kwok. Did you negotiate the terms of the debtor in possession loan with your son? A First of all, I would like to say, good afternoon. And regarding the exact terms of the loans, it was my lawyer and their lawyers had negotiations. Q Before you filed your Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, did you ask your son to loan you money to fund your bankruptcy case? A Yes. Q And when you asked your son to give you money, did you ask him to loan it to you or to gift it to you? A It was a loan. Q And why did you ask for it to be a loan? A It was because Golden Spring, the company of my son, is also a family company and that money is not just my son's money. Q Mr. Kwok, do you know the source of the money that Golden Spring is using to loan to the estate if the loan is Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 182 of\n\nKwok - Cross - Claiborn 182 approved? THE MAIN INTERPRETER: Okay. I'm sorry. Counsel, do you mind repeating the question again? BY MS. CLAIBORN: Q Do you know what the source is of the money that Golden Spring is going to loan to your bankruptcy estate? A I don't know. Q Did you ask? A Yes, I did. Q And what was the answer? A My son asked me not to deal with it. He would communicate with my lawyer. Q Do you know whether or not your son told your lawyer what the source of the money would be? A I don't know. Q Did you ask your lawyers? MR. JONAS: Objection, Your Honor. She's asking for direct communication with counsel. THE COURT: No, she just asked -- the question was, did he ask his lawyers about the source of the funds. That's -- he can answer that question, just yes or no. MR. JONAS: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. THE WITNESS: My lawyer did not answer that. BY MS. CLAIBORN: Q The money that Golden Spring uses to fund your life Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 183 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 184 of
247 | | | | | | |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Kwok - Cross - Claiborn
183 | | | | | | |\n| 1 | expenses, your personal living expenses, is that a loan or a | | | | | | |\n| 2 | gift? | | | | | | |\n| 3 | A
It's a gift. | | | | | | |\n| 4 | Q
Why is that a gift and not a loan? | | | | | | |\n| 5 | A
Because I could not repay it, and regarding supporting | | | | | | |\n| 6 | my daily living, as his dad, well I had my son when I was | | | | | | |\n| 7 | 18, and from the Eastern culture, that is normal and also | | | | | | |\n| 8 | the fact that right now I'm being threatened for my life. | | | | | | |\n| 9 | Q
So why is it that the debtor in possession loan that | | | | | | |\n| 10 | Golden Spring is not a gift?
Why isn't it just given to you | | | | | | |\n| 11 | as money as a gift? | | | | | | |\n| 12 | A
It was because since they loaned me \\$21 million before, | | | | | | |\n| 13 | and also including this one, it's a huge sum of money and I | | | | | | |\n| 14 | wish I could repay that, and that was the result of the | | | | | | |\n| 15 | communication between his lawyer and my lawyer. | | | | | | |\n| 16 | Q
If the Court approves the loan from Golden Spring, | | | | | | |\n| 17 | where will the money be held? | | | | | | |\n| 18 | A
Where that money would be placed, that would be decided | | | | | | |\n| 19 | by the judge and my counsel. | | | | | | |\n| 20 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you.
I don't have any | | | | | | |\n| 21 | further questions. | | | | | | |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. | | | | | | |\n| 23 | MR. JONAS:
Nothing further, Your Honor. | | | | | | |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Are you calling any other | | | | | | |\n| 25 | witness, Mr. Jonas? | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n\n MR. JONAS: No, we're not, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Kwok, you can step down. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Certainly, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. THE WITNESS: I would like to say that I really appreciate Your Honor to give me the chance to sit here today. THE COURT: Okay. THE WITNESS: Because the fact that I cannot speak English, I cause more troubles for you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any -- no further witnesses for the debtor, correct? MR. JONAS: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Witnesses for PAX? Any further witnesses? MR. HARBACH: Your Honor, we have no additional witnesses. We do have one additional exhibit we would offer to the Court, and it's PAX's 15. THE COURT: Okay. Take a minute. MR. HARBACH: It's the deposition transcript of Xiaoping Wang, also know as Yvette Wang. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HARBACH: It was the -- sorry. THE COURT: Go right ahead.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 185 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 186 of\n\n MR. HARBACH: I should also say that it was the 30(b)(6) deposition of Golden Spring. She was testifying in that capacity, and I mentioned to counsel during the meet and confer process that I would tender the entire exhibit, and we had marked the entire exhibit, anticipating a possible completeness objection were we to only offer portions. So that's why we offered the whole thing. But if counsel would prefer that we only offer the precise pieces that we want Your Honor to focus on, I'm prepared to put those in the record, and so, I don't know how the Court wants to proceed. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I want to just hear the objection from the debtor first, because apparently the debtor objects to this transcript. MR. JONAS: Yes, Your Honor. Jeff Jonas, Brown Rudnick for the Debtor. Your Honor has noted, we have objected. We continue to object on hearsay grounds. The witness is, as I understand it, within subpoena power. They certainly could have brought her here if they intended to have her as a witness at trial. We didn't have any agreement that they would -- we'd permit transcripts in place of live testimony. I think it's inappropriate and it's just not a decision somebody gets to make that we're not going to bring a witness when\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 186 |\n| 1 | the witness is available and could be brought to trial.
So |\n| 2 | I'll object. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
And where is the witness located? |\n| 4 | MR. JONAS:
My understanding is the witness is in |\n| 5 | New York within 100 -- I actually asked the question, Your |\n| 6 | Honor.
Within -- it might be 60 miles, but I believe it is |\n| 7 | within 100 miles.
I'm not sure.
I wanted to be prepared in |\n| 8 | case you asked me, so they certainly could have served a |\n| 9 | subpoena and she could have been here. |\n| 10 | We didn't think it's necessary, and having the |\n| 11 | record come in, I continue to think it's not necessary.
But |\n| 12 | again, I don't think counsel just gets to make a choice in a |\n| 13 | case when you're having a trial and a witness is available, |\n| 14 | to substitute in a transcript. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Your -- according to the joint |\n| 16 | grid, your basis of your exhibit -- excuse me, of the |\n| 17 | objection was hearsay, but that's not what I'm hearing.
I'm |\n| 18 | hearing you say they could have brought the witness in and |\n| 19 | we're not going to allow, under the Federal Civil -- Rules |\n| 20 | of Civil Procedure, you shouldn't allow the introduction of |\n| 21 | a transcript when the witness could be here in person. |\n| 22 | MR. JONAS:
I think that -- may apologies if |\n| 23 | somehow my vernacular is not correct.
I think that's |\n| 24 | exactly what hear -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Well, I mean, it could -- |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 188 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 187 |\n| 1 | MR. JONAS:
-- hearsay is, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
-- it can and it may and it may not |\n| 3 | be.
I mean, this is the Rule 30(b)(6) person that you |\n| 4 | designated to be the 30(6)(b) person, right?
So you could |\n| 5 | argue it -- we want to be very clear about it.
I mean, |\n| 6 | hearsay usually is not the testimony of the 30(b)(6) |\n| 7 | representative. |\n| 8 | But I understand what you're saying about your |\n| 9 | issue of why didn't the PAX subpoena and bring this |\n| 10 | individual to the court.
That's your -- that's your |\n| 11 | concern, so I'm going to -- I'm going -- not your concern, |\n| 12 | your objection.
So I am going to ask Mr. Harbach, what is |\n| 13 | his response to the fact that this witness was not |\n| 14 | subpoenaed and brought to court today? |\n| 15 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, may I -- I apologize.
I |\n| 16 | just want to correct the record. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Sure. |\n| 18 | MR. JONAS:
Not argue.
It's not the -- |\n| 19 | technically, it's not the debtor's 30(b)(6) witness, it's |\n| 20 | the Golden Spring 30(b)(6) witness.
I just -- just for the |\n| 21 | record, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Oh, okay.
I misunderstood.
See, I |\n| 23 | haven't seen anything, so -- |\n| 24 | MR. JONAS:
Understood. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay?
So I thought that this was the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 189 of\n\n| | 188 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | debtor's 30(b)(6) representative.
So this is -- |\n| 2 | MR. JONAS:
Mr. Kwok is obviously -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
-- Golden -- |\n| 4 | MR. JONAS:
-- the debtor and is here. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Well, I understand, but I don't know |\n| 6 | what happened in your discovery. |\n| 7 | MR. JONAS:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
So I -- but I'm glad you corrected the |\n| 9 | record.
Thank you.
So -- well, wouldn't the appropriate |\n| 10 | person to be objecting to that be Golden Spring? |\n| 11 | MR. JONAS:
I don't think so, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Why? |\n| 13 | MR. JONAS:
It's -- I mean, again, we processed, |\n| 14 | if you will, the exhibits with counsel.
We raised the |\n| 15 | objection.
I'm raising the objection here.
It's our trial |\n| 16 | if you will, on our motion regarding the DIP, and if they |\n| 17 | want to use a 30(b)(6) witness -- another party, if you |\n| 18 | will, 30(b)(6) transcript, I think it's inappropriate. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Mr. Harbach, what's your |\n| 20 | response to that, Mr. Harbach? |\n| 21 | MR. HARBACH:
I'll direct the Court to Rule 32 of |\n| 22 | the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Because they're not a party?
Is that |\n| 24 | what you're trying to tell me? |\n| 25 | MR. HARBACH:
No, to the contrary.
I think they |\n| | |\n\n| 1 | are a party. |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Hold on.
I meant the debtor. |\n| 3 | See, I didn't know who -- I -- as you all would expect, I |\n| 4 | would think -- oh yes.
See, I'm sorry.
You can -- I |\n| 5 | apologize.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
I don't -- I didn't look |\n| 6 | at any of your exhibits, you know?
So I don't know what |\n| 7 | they're about until and unless you introduce them. |\n| 8 | So, all right.
I'm looking at -- |\n| 9 | MR. HARBACH:
Mr. -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
-- 32. |\n| 11 | MR. HARBACH:
Sure.
And first of all, Mr. Jonas |\n| 12 | is quite correct, of course.
Ms. Wang was the 30(b)(6) |\n| 13 | witness designated by Golden Spring. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 15 | MR. HARBACH:
That's correct. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 17 | MR. HARBACH:
So our basis for offering it, as you |\n| 18 | can see, the 32(a) is captioned using depositions, and so we |\n| 19 | believe that we satisfy all of A, B, and C, right there in |\n| 20 | general.
It says that all -- at a hearing or trial, all or |\n| 21 | part of a deposition may be used against a party on these |\n| 22 | conditions. |\n| 23 | A, the party was present or represented at the |\n| 24 | taking of the deposition, or had reasonable notice of it. |\n| 25 | Well, the -- I would hope that counsel would be willing to |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1 | Filed 05/20/22 | Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 | Page 191 of |\n|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n accept my proffer that Ms. Wang was represented at the deposition, and indeed, the transcript makes it quite clear that she was, or that Golden Spring was. So A should be noncontroversial.\n\n B, that it is used to the extent it would be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence if the deponent were present and testifying. Well, that's plainly true insofar as it is essentially a sworn out-of-court statement of a live witness.\n\n C, you have to satisfy one of these subsections, Rule 32(a)(2) through (8), and where we believe we squarely fall is in 32(a)(3), which is captioned, Deposition of Party, Agent, or Designee.\n\n So we think that Golden Spring, by virtue of being a proposed financier for the debtor in possession, and in light of the fact that they are, to quote Section 8B of the agreement, seeking rights, remedies, powers, and privileges, and in addition to that are seeking a good faith finding from the Court, for all of those reasons, we think it's imminently reasonable for the Court to treat Golden Spring as a party, at a minimum for purposes of this rule.\n\n I'll just note finally, insofar as the impropriety, leaving aside whether it falls within the rules, is the impropriety of this, of course the debtor had a lawyer present at the deposition of Golden Spring's\n\n| | 191 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 30(b)(6) witness and had an opportunity to cross her; chose |\n| 2 | not to.
And I'll also note that at one point, Ms. Wang |\n| 3 | herself was on the debtor's witness list for this very |\n| 4 | hearing today, and they removed her. |\n| 5 | So I think that the suggestion that this is |\n| 6 | improper isn't quite as strong as it otherwise might sound |\n| 7 | under those circumstances.
But I think candidly, that's all |\n| 8 | beside the point.
We think that, for the reasons that I |\n| 9 | said earlier, that the entirety of the transcript is |\n| 10 | admissible under Rule 32. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
Any response, |\n| 12 | Attorney Jonas? |\n| 13 | MR. JONAS:
Yes, Your Honor.
May I just have one |\n| 14 | minute? |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 16 | MR. JONAS:
Thank you.
Just want to check one |\n| 17 | thing. |\n| 18 | (Pause) |\n| 19 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 21 | MR. JONAS:
One point I wanted to add on to that |\n| 22 | is, this is a rule that is incorporated into the contested |\n| 23 | matter rules under Rules 9014.
So this -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Oh, yes. |\n| 25 | MR. JONAS:
-- this is also Bankruptcy Rule 7032. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 193 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 192 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Yes.
Yep.
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 2 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
No objection in that respect, Your |\n| 3 | Honor.
Just give me one moment, please. |\n| 4 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, Jeff Jonas from Brown |\n| 5 | Rudnick on behalf of the debtor. |\n| 6 | Your Honor, I'll renew my objection, just make a |\n| 7 | couple quick comments.
And let me just say, Your Honor, |\n| 8 | we're not particularly concerned about the deposition.
That |\n| 9 | being said, I just, I think we're entitled to have a fair |\n| 10 | trial, and from our perspective, again, they are not a |\n| 11 | party.
This was -- this is effectively our motion, the |\n| 12 | debtor's motion.
We're prosecuting it and we're a party. |\n| 13 | Certainly, PAX, the objector, is a party, and I think those |\n| 14 | are the parties for purposes and I think -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Well, Golden Spring is the lender. |\n| 16 | MR. JONAS:
I understand that, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
So how are they not a party to -- |\n| 18 | MR. JONAS:
I don't think they're -- they've put |\n| 19 | the money up, the money is available, they're the lender. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Right.
But the Court can -- the Court |\n| 21 | can -- the Court has the obligation to understand what the |\n| 22 | lender is or is not willing to do, and that may include the |\n| 23 | testimony of the lender with regard to that issue.
I mean, |\n| 24 | I've -- |\n| 25 | MR. JONAS:
And let me say, Your Honor -- |\n| | |\n\n THE COURT: -- and every other -- and any other contested debtor in possession financing hearing that I've seen, the lender does -- you know, if there's a -- if there's a contested issue, the issue of the lender -- what - - is the lender ready, willing, and able to loan? Is the -- what are the terms and conditions all -- MR. JONAS: Exactly, Your Honor. The money is here, so -- THE COURT: Well, I don't know that it's here. Where is the proof in the record that's here? MR. JONAS: Well, you had -- you had testimony from Mr. Kwok. THE COURT: Well, I had testimony from Mr. Kwok that says he believes it's all here. He's not sure if it's all here, and -- but he believes it's here. MR. JONAS: There was no -- it's uncontroverted. THE COURT: I didn't say it was controverted. I'm just saying it -- he said he believes it's all here. I don't -- MR. JONAS: Oh, okay. THE COURT: -- there's no record in the -- there's no document in the record that says it's here. MR. JONAS: I don't -- with all due respect, Your Honor, I don't think -- we have put on our case. We have had a witness. He has testified. It was -- he could have\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 195 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 194 |\n| 1 | been crossed.
He wasn't.
It's uncontroverted.
That is a |\n| 2 | fact.
I don't think -- I appreciate you -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
I think it's a fact insofar as what he |\n| 4 | said. |\n| 5 | MR. JONAS:
Fair.
Fair enough, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
And he said, I believe it's here.
He |\n| 7 | doesn't know if it's here. |\n| 8 | MR. JONAS:
I understand, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 10 | MR. JONAS:
And so I -- look, as I said, if the |\n| 11 | Court feels I need to -- I need to stand on my objection for |\n| 12 | the record, however, I certainly respect the Court very |\n| 13 | much.
If the Court feels it's necessary to take in the |\n| 14 | transcript, my only comment would be, we'd ask the whole |\n| 15 | transcript come in. |\n| 16 | We haven't been -- there's nothing been designated |\n| 17 | to us.
It's a little unfair to designate portions now on |\n| 18 | the fly.
So if they want to put the transcript in, so be |\n| 19 | it, Your Honor.
I pre -- I want to -- I don't want to |\n| 20 | belabor this with the Court, and I want to respect the |\n| 21 | Court's opinion on that. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
I haven't ruled on anything.
I've |\n| 23 | really just been asking questions at this point. |\n| 24 | MR. JONAS:
Understood. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay?
To understand the parties' |\n| | |\n\n positions. MR. JONAS: And our position is, we continue the objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Harbach, anything else you want to add? MR. HARBACH: I don't have anything else to add, Your Honor. Just let us know how you'd like to proceed. THE COURT: Okay. Well, the -- when I'm look -- you know, I haven't looked at Rule 32 in the last few weeks so I -- you know, I'm looking at the -- I'm looking at the language of 32. The only part that is a problem for PAX, if it is a problem, is 32(a)(4), because 32(a)(1) -- 32(a)(2) -- 32(a)(4) could be a problem because it says -- 32(a)(1)(C) says, \"And the use is allowed by Rule 32(a)(2) through (8).\" So does that mean it's got to be allowed on all eight? All of those? I mean, I'm looking at this. I know 7 doesn't apply because there isn't a substitution of a party. Deposition taken in an earlier action doesn't apply because that's not what you're trying to do. You're not trying to enter a deposition taken in an earlier action. Using part of the deposition, you may -- that might be fine. Limitations on use, that at this point, no one is arguing that the deposition was taken on short notice or the\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 197 of\n\n| 196 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| deponent was unavailable at the time of the deposition. |\n| Nobody has a problem with impeachment and other uses, or |\n| deposition of a party agent or designee, but the problem is |\n| -- I mean, I don't know, I haven't looked in a long time. |\n| Does A -- does 32(a)(2) through (8) mean you have to meet |\n| all those requirements?
It can't, because all those |\n| requirements don't exist all at the same time. |\n| MR. HARBACH:
Yeah.
And I think that that is in - |\n| - perhaps in starkest relief, Your Honor.
If you look at 2 |\n| and 4, because 2 says, any party.
Four says -- oh, I'm |\n| sorry.
That's a witness whether or not a party.
That's |\n| true. |\n| Well, in any event, Your Honor, I -- all right. |\n| So, Your Honor, PAX concedes that Ms. Wang is not |\n| unavailable. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| MR. HARBACH:
So, conceded. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| MR. HARBACH:
Notwithstanding that, if -- |\n| (Pause) |\n| MR. HARBACH:
If you look at -- sorry, I said 2 |\n| earlier.
If you look at 3, Your Honor, an adverse party may |\n| use, for any purpose, the deposition of a party -- |\n| THE CLERK:
Attorney Harbach, you're a little low. |\n| MR. HARBACH:
Oh, sorry. |\n| |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 198 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 197 |\n| 1 | THE CLERK:
We're not picking you up. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Go ahead. |\n| 3 | MR. HARBACH:
Thank you, Judge.
If you look at |\n| 4 | 32(a)(3), it says, \"An adverse party may use, for any |\n| 5 | purpose, the deposition of a party or anyone who when |\n| 6 | deposed was the party's 30(b)(6) representative.\"
And -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
It does say that.
I mean, 4 does not |\n| 8 | say that. |\n| 9 | MR. HARBACH:
It does.
That's true. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Which is why I asked the question, |\n| 11 | not knowing that the 30(b)(6) representative wasn't the |\n| 12 | debtor, but it was the debtor's representative, the Golden |\n| 13 | Spring, which is when I started the conversation I said, you |\n| 14 | mean you're opposing a 30(b)(6) representative's deposition, |\n| 15 | but not knowing that it wasn't the debtor, it was Golden |\n| 16 | Spring. |\n| 17 | MR. HARBACH:
Well, I think maybe one observation |\n| 18 | that helps is that it can't be that Rule 32 is restricted to |\n| 19 | situations -- to 30(b)(6) depositions. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I agree with you. |\n| 21 | MR. HARBACH:
And if it -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
That's why -- that's why I said, I |\n| 23 | don't think (a)(1)(C) means that you have to comply -- that |\n| 24 | the use of it has to comply with every situation in 32(a)(2) |\n| 25 | through (8). |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 199 of\n\n MR. HARBACH: I think -- I agree with you, because otherwise, if 3 were required, then it would effectively restrict the rule to 30(b)(6) situation. Now, I also agree with the Court that, for example, 5, caption limitations on use, I mean, I think that would plainly apply, but -- THE COURT: If that situation was present, but it's not. MR. HARBACH: If it was -- if it were present, yes. In other words, you know, 2, 3, and 4, are all permissive. Those are different means by which a party can do something, and then 5 is limitations, and 6, 7, and 8 are other unique circumstances. THE COURT: Right. MR. HARBACH: So I don't think it's necessarily -- you have to put blinders on and only look at 2 through 8 and not any of the others, but I do think that 2, 3, and 4 cannot all apply at the same time. THE COURT: Right. I agree. They all can't apply at the same time. It doesn't make sense. So the debtor's objection to the introduction of PAX Exhibit 15, the 30(b)(6) representative of Golden Spring is overruled. MR. JONAS: Thank you for your consideration, Your Honor. (PAX Exhibit No. 15 admitted into evidence)\n\n THE COURT: Thank you. All right. So are we now -- what are we -- are we moving to closing arguments based upon the evidence that's submitted? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. That concludes our evidentiary submission, if I may -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: -- make some remarks about the DIP? THE COURT: Yes, please. CLOSING ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF CREDITOR PAX MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. So, Your Honor, I have really three areas I want to address. Sort of, one is big picture, two is some of what you heard today and why you shouldn't believe it, and the third is the order, the proposed order. And to be fair -- I don't know if fair is the right word, but to be clear about the order, I'm going to refer to the current version of the order. There is an updated version of the order, apparently based on the proposed settlement between the committee and the debtor. I'm going to be -- THE COURT: When you say the current version, do you mean the version attached to the original DIP financing motion? MR. FRIEDMAN: No, the version that was filed with the Court on -- the redlined version -- Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 200 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 201 of\n\n| 247 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | 200 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Yesterday? |\n| 2 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
-- that was filed -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Last night? |\n| 4 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
-- I thought the most recent |\n| 5 | version of the DIP financing was on the 10th of April. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Oh, okay.
Well, then I would like to |\n| 7 | get there if you would give me a -- |\n| 8 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I think it's ECF 198. |\n| 9 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 11 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
And if you would let me get there, |\n| 13 | then -- give me one moment, then I'll be able to follow you |\n| 14 | -- |\n| 15 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Okay. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
-- much better than if I'm trying to |\n| 17 | find it so -- |\n| 18 | (Pause) |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
So you would like me -- would you like |\n| 20 | me to be looking at the redlined version of that order?
Is |\n| 21 | that what you're suggesting, counsel? |\n| 22 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yes, Your Honor, when I get to that |\n| 23 | point.
That's -- when I get to that portion of my remarks. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Let me -- then I think I'm |\n| 25 | there. |\n| | |\n\n MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. THE COURT: I just want to make sure I am there. (Pause) THE COURT: Okay. So what I'm looking at, when you get to the point that you were actually asking me to consider the terms and conditions of the order, I'm looking at ECF 198, starting at page 29. Does that sound right? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then go right ahead, please. MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. So, Your Honor, we have here a proposed DIP between Golden Spring and Mr. Kwok. It was very subtle. I'm not sure if you heard it. The record will reflect it. These are not independent entities. Mr. Kwok referred today during his testimony, to Golden Spring as \"we\". Small word, enormous consequences. Mr. Jalbert also testified that there was a member of Mr. Kwok's legal team, Melissa Francis. Who is Melissa Francis, he was asked? Somebody he thinks works for Golden Spring. There's no separation between these two entities, Your Honor. This is a sham transaction. And I realize it's appealing. It looks appealing because in some respects it has some potentially salutary goals, but it doesn't work. It doesn't make sense. Who would spend \\$8 million, maybe \\$9 to defend \\$3,850 in assets? Brown Rudnick alone's time today is probably cost\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 203 of\n\n infinitely more than the \\$3,850 that Mr. Kwok asserts he has in assets. So this DIP is designed to do one of two things. Either protect Mr. Kwok's massive assets that he sat there and said he didn't have, or to protect Golden Spring's assets from a variety -- which is a non-debtor, from people coming straight after it, for really being Mr. Kwok's money. Neither one of those is an appropriate use of a debtor in possession financing.\n\n This case shouldn't be run for Golden Spring's benefit, and we shouldn't be spending, not just the 9 million because it's really not -- 9 million to \\$3,850 vastly understates the amount of assets that have been put into defending Mr. Kwok, because there's also the \\$21 million loan that you heard about, loan, with quotes, and the million dollars from Lamp.\n\n So when you add that up, you have \\$31 million to protect \\$3,850. It doesn't make any sense unless something much more than meets the eye is happening here, and the debtor and Golden Spring are asking this Court to bless a transaction that is furthering that inappropriate scheme.\n\n Now, Your Honor, PAX, in its reply brief to our papers, and you heard it sort of from Mr. Kwok today, attempts to blame PAX as -- the debtor attempt to blame PAX as the catalyst of this case, and he needs to, you know, straighten things out because of things PAX did.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 204 of\n\n The debtor's own conduct forced him here today. He, I think effectively conceded that he had never been transparent before.\n\n Now, I don't know if what you heard today was transparent, but his testimony today was, I didn't assert the Fifth Amendment today because I wanted to be transparent, which begs the question, because he gave no other answer, why didn't he want to be transparent before? Is that an -- is it appropriate to start borrowing money under a debtor in possession financing because you've been non-transparent in the past and all of a sudden you're going to turn a new leaf over? I realize some of this has overlap with our dismissal motion, but that's the reason he gave today. That's not an appropriate use of 364 authority.\n\n You heard testimony from Mr. Kwok today, that this needed to be a DIP because he wanted to protect his family resources.\n\n Go look at the MORS, they're spending millions of dollars to support Mr. Kwok. That wasn't a loan, it was a gift. This is a strategic effort by Golden Spring and Mr. Kwok, to use 364 for nefarious purposes. This -- as Ms. Claiborn's examatination clearly established, if this is going to be anything, it ought to be a gift just like everything else that's purportedly done for Mr. Kwok is. We don't believe it, but he should be held, and Golden Spring\n\n| | 204 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | should be held to their pattern of conduct. |\n| 2 | You heard some, I think what can best be described |\n| 3 | as far-fetched testimony from Mr. Kwok.
Mr. Kwok said, I |\n| 4 | never asked my son about where the money from Golden Spring |\n| 5 | came from. |\n| 6 | I guess we are meant to believe that Golden Spring |\n| 7 | is really scared and this Miles son is really scared about |\n| 8 | telling Mr. Kwok where his money comes from, but not scared |\n| 9 | about making a very public debtor in possession financing |\n| 10 | loan for \\$9 million in a case where the evidence is on the |\n| 11 | docket. |\n| 12 | These are public documents where Mr. Kwok filed |\n| 13 | his declaration that talks about his purported crusade |\n| 14 | against the CCP.
I mean, this is just not credible |\n| 15 | testimony that somebody would be afraid. |\n| 16 | Or Mr. Kwok, as he testified, I won't ask my son |\n| 17 | for money, Your Honor.
However, I will use my own money and |\n| 18 | -- or I will be used by my son to manage accounts for his |\n| 19 | benefit very publically. |\n| 20 | I put in a declaration in the Ace Decade case that |\n| 21 | said, you know, this is my money, when it's really my son's |\n| 22 | money, and my son was fine with that.
I just can't ask him |\n| 23 | where his money comes from.
I don't think you have to |\n| 24 | believe that, because it's just not credible.
And if that's |\n| 25 | not credible, I think you begin to unwind the threads of why |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 206 of\n\n this entire case isn't credible, but also why this is an inappropriate use of Section 364.\n\n Your Honor, I want to turn to the DIP, which is a little bit of a yo-yo from what I understand. Particularly as it relates -- oh, I should note. Why did we try to put Ms. Wang's deposition in? Well, she was a 30(b)(6) witness for Golden Spring, which is asking the Court for a good faith finding. I'll get to the really confusing part about that in a moment.\n\n They're asking the Court for an allowed subordinated claim. They're asking the Court for things. She was their designated witness. What did she say? On page 133, she wasn't involved in the negotiation of a DIP loan, has no knowledge of how the \\$8 million figure was arrived at. Unfamiliar with the terms of the DIP loan. Didn't pay attention to the DIP loan agreement until the day before the deposition.\n\n The first time she heard where the DIP loan dollars were coming from was the day before the deposition. When I asked her understanding of how the DIP loan was going to be repaid she said, I don't know. So, Your Honor, this is the designated witness who binds Golden Spring, that knows nothing about this loan.\n\n So turning to the order, I don't think there's anything to support the finding in E that there is an\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 207 of\n\n immediate need for financing. I certainly don't think that there's anything to support the finding that there's any value to the debtor seeking confirmation of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, given that we've seen, I think the outrageous nature of the plan proposed by the debtor. There's good cause in Section H on page 4. The entry of this interim order that says, we'll\n\n preserve the assets of the debtor's estate for the benefit of creditors. There's no evidence that that's true. There are no assets, according to Mr. Kwok, other than \\$3,850 and certain litigation claims which the DIP loan isn't being used to fund.\n\n He says it's in the interest -- it's an exercise of the debtor -- debtor's exercise of the prudent business judgment. You didn't hear any testimony on that.\n\n Your Honor, I think the same issue on the next page, page -- the top 335, good cause, the ability of the debtor to obtain financing is vital to the estate of the debtor and his creditors so that the debtor can maximize the value of his estate and confirm a plan or reorganization.\n\n Again, no -- you've, I think, heard what creditors think of this purported plan, and I believe that language should be struck.\n\nThen there's stuff I just don't know -- I just\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 208 of\n\n| | 207 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | don't understand, right?
Page 35.
Page 6.
Permitted uses |\n| 2 | of loan proceeds and cash collateral.
There's no cash |\n| 3 | collateral under this agreement, unless it's being snuck in |\n| 4 | somewhere.
I don't know why the loan refers to cash |\n| 5 | collateral.
There isn't any.
They didn't seek approval of |\n| 6 | any -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
I'm missing where you are at the |\n| 8 | moment on the cash collateral.
I've followed you all along, |\n| 9 | but I don't see -- |\n| 10 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Page 35, it's the -- for the top |\n| 11 | underlining is Amendments and Modifications. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
I see.
Okay.
Yep. |\n| 13 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
And then permitted uses of loan |\n| 14 | proceeds and cash collateral. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I see.
I see. |\n| 16 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Now maybe it's a typo.
I don't |\n| 17 | know, but it makes me nervous.
Shouldn't be in there. |\n| 18 | Sub A, issues with respect to budgets.
I would |\n| 19 | note that there's never been a budget. |\n| 20 | Mr. Jalbert basically testified there can't -- he |\n| 21 | would have no idea how to put together the budget, but if |\n| 22 | there's going to be a dip, and there's going to be budgets, |\n| 23 | and there's going to be uses, and accruals, then PAX should |\n| 24 | get copies of it. |\n| 25 | Page 36, I think PAX should be added to subsection |\n| | |\n\n -- what's currently subsection C, that was added after we filed our objection, we should certainly be entitled to receive copies of bank accounts.\n\n In E, which was added as well, after we filed an objection, you know, I'm really troubled by the notion in this kind of case that no money can be spent in pursuing money damages or equitable relief from DIP lender. Not DIP lender in DIP lender's capacity as DIP lender, but DIP lender. If this case goes forward and Mr. -- you know, and Pullman and Comley as Committee counsel has the right to be pursuing estate actions, then they should be able to use whatever money for whatever purpose they see fit.\n\n I have an issue on page 38-C. This is -- I think is where, in the second sentence, the notwithstanding any language to the contrary contained in this interim DIP order, I think it should be added, or the DIP loan, because the DIP loan can -- should be clear.\n\n It says, \"The rights of the DIP lender shall be subject and subordinate to the claims of all other creditors of the debtor existing as of the petition date.\" Well, what if we seek a substantial contribution motion for our work getting the boat back? We should be senior to this bogus loan. It shouldn't be creditors existing as of the petition date. It should be all creditors, any creditors. And the same -- you know, I think -- so I think\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 210 of\n\n| | 209 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | there are some other places in paragraph 8, termination of |\n| 2 | events.
Certainly PAX should get notice of that. |\n| 3 | At the beck end of that on page 40, in the revised |\n| 4 | language they said the DIP lender shall provide notice to |\n| 5 | the U.S. Trustee of its election to charge interest of the |\n| 6 | default rate.
That's no reason that should just be to the |\n| 7 | U.S. Trustee, it should be to everyone. |\n| 8 | And where I really get concerned, Your Honor, is |\n| 9 | to -- to flip back, and this is where I just have trust |\n| 10 | issues -- the debtor took out, on page 33, the good faith |\n| 11 | finding, right?
Now my understanding is, it may be back in. |\n| 12 | But they took out the good faith finding. |\n| 13 | So I thought, okay, that's sort of progress.
But |\n| 14 | then I looked at page 40, and I looked at page -- paragraph |\n| 15 | 10, which has 364(e) baked into it.
It's, by its terms, a |\n| 16 | good faith provision. |\n| 17 | So when people ask, you know, why are -- why are |\n| 18 | you so suspicious, that's one of the reasons we're really |\n| 19 | suspicious, because you take out a good faith finding but |\n| 20 | you keep in a 364(e) provision, you're not really taking out |\n| 21 | the good faith finding. |\n| 22 | So we -- and then we look at, on page 41, no |\n| 23 | deemed control.
By consenting to this interim DIP order, |\n| 24 | the DIP lender shall not be deemed in control of the debtor |\n| 25 | to be acting as a responsible person, managing agent, or |\n| | |\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 210 |\n| 1 | owner or operator as such terms are defined in Circla (ph) |\n| 2 | as amended or any similar federal -- similar state or |\n| 3 | federal statute.\" |\n| 4 | How could that be appropriate in a case where the |\n| 5 | debtor says he doesn't own anything except the suits on his |\n| 6 | back and a couple of dogs?
It's just overreach and it |\n| 7 | doesn't make any sense.
And I think it -- it gives us a lot |\n| 8 | of pause when these things are put into orders. |\n| 9 | Paragraph 15, no waiver.
Again, I think PAX |\n| 10 | should be included in the notice parties.
Those are the |\n| 11 | points that are important to us.
Your Honor, I just want to |\n| 12 | be clear about something. |\n| 13 | The fact that I spent so much time on the order, I |\n| 14 | just don't want the Court to think that we're okay with the |\n| 15 | order.
I realize the Court will do what it does.
People |\n| 16 | will put forward arguments as to why maybe this does benefit |\n| 17 | the estate.
We strongly disagree.
But if the Court's |\n| 18 | inclined to go in a different direction, we do have very |\n| 19 | substantial concerns with the order and with the credibility |\n| 20 | of what you heard today. |\n| 21 | I have nothing further, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 23 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Thank you. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Does the debtor wish to respond to the |\n| 25 | arguments of PAX? |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 211 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 212 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 211 |\n| 1 | MR. JONAS:
I just wondered, Your Honor, whether |\n| 2 | there were any other parties that wished to be heard. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Oh, that's a good point.
I'm sorry. |\n| 4 | Attorney Claiborn? |\n| 5 | CLOSING ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE |\n| 6 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you, Your Honor.
I do have a |\n| 7 | few comments. |\n| 8 | I had hoped that after today's testimony I'd have |\n| 9 | a better understanding of what money is being loaned, where |\n| 10 | it's coming from, why it's really being loaned, and why |\n| 11 | can't it be a gift.
Unfortunately, I don't feel any more |\n| 12 | informed than I did at the beginning of today. |\n| 13 | There may be a dilution of the events of default |\n| 14 | that were raised earlier today by Attorney Goldman, and |\n| 15 | that's progress.
But at the end of the day, I see no reason |\n| 16 | why this couldn't just be a gift.
The debtor's lifestyle is |\n| 17 | being funded by Golden Spring.
Why is it different for this |\n| 18 | loan?
Why couldn't it just be a gift? |\n| 19 | But there is control mechanism left over that I |\n| 20 | didn't hear being removed from this suggested order as to |\n| 21 | how you can use the funds.
To the extent that the funds are |\n| 22 | being used to help facilitate this Chapter 11, they need to |\n| 23 | be unrestricted so that anyone who needs to do something |\n| 24 | with it can do so, and that includes the committee. |\n| 25 | So hamstringing the committee, as I think the |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 213 of\n\n order is currently proposed, hamstringing its ability to use it to investigate and/or pursue appropriate actions as a result of investigations, is not something that makes this a loan that's worth giving. The other thing I wanted to say to the Court is\n\n that earlier today, Attorney Goldman posited that one of the areas of consensus that prompted the withdrawal of their objection to the loan was that the money -- the first initial traunch of the loan, \\$2 million, would be held by Pullman and Comley.\n\n And I wanted to let the Court know that the U.S. Trustee opposes that, to the extent it's based on a lack of trust of the debtor holding funds, and that in and of itself is demonstratable that this case needs a Chapter 11 trustee.\n\n The loan, to the extent the Court approves it, should go to the debtor's funds account, the debtor in possession account, and if that's not comfortable for everybody else in this case, then that speaks volumes.\n\n So based on all of what I've heard today, and then the comments I think that Mr. Friedman just eloquently made about concern are well taken, and I think that thus far to date, as of now, the debtor has not met its burden to demonstrate that this is an appropriate loan for the estate to be involved in.\n\nTHE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Goldman.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 214 of\n\n CLOSING ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED CREDITORS MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. Just to respond to a few of the points that Mr. Friedman made, and let me just say at the outset that the committee certainly shares the skepticism and, you know, outright disbelief that PAX has as to where these so-called family assets really reside, and who really controls them, which I think cries out for the need for funding for the disinterested committee in this case, and an examiner to do a proper investigation and uncover the rocks that need to be uncovered in this case to get the -- get at the bottom of what these assets are. Now Mr. Friedman referred to the idea that this is designed to protect Golden Spring from parties pursuing it. To the contrary. There's a specific carve out that we negotiated in the most recent version of the order that provides just the contrary. It states in the new paragraph 16 of the proposed order, that this interim DIP order shall not be construed in any way as a waiver or relinquishment of any rights that the debtor, the DIP lender, the committee, any creditor, or any estate representative may have to bring or be heard on any matter brought before this Court, including without limitation, any claims that may be asserted by the committee, any creditor, or any other estate representative\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 215 of\n\n against the DIP lender based on any conduct, act, or omission relating to the debtor, other than an extension of the interim DIP loan.\n\n And then it goes on to list a litany of examples of what claims could be asserted, notwithstanding the reentry of this order, including veil piercing, substantive consolidation, fraudulent transfer.\n\n So there's no protection in this order for Golden Spring against actions that a creditor or an estate -- a representative would bring.\n\n I would point out that PAX is the only creditor of this estate that I'm aware of that has a judgment. And consequently, they have a substantial head start over every other non-insider creditor of this estate, which is why they want this case dismissed, so that they can sail off with the boat and wave in the rearview mirror to the other creditors of this estate.\n\n All the other creditors are in the middle of litigation and they aren't certainly close to getting judgments, which is another reason why we need this loan to do a proper investigation for the benefit of all creations, not just the judgment creditors.\n\n And PAX, like -- unlike the committee, is funded by a well-healed litigant, whereas the committee obviously has on funding to do anything in this case.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 216 of\n\n| | 215 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | So we considered it a win for the estate, this DIP |\n| 2 | loan, where we are being given the resources to get the |\n| 3 | tools we need to get to the bottom of where the assets are. |\n| 4 | And so, the -- so the case isn't -- so the case is used |\n| 5 | properly. |\n| 6 | Yes, the debtor only has -- or claims \\$3,900 in |\n| 7 | assets and no income, but this bankruptcy case is |\n| 8 | legitimately used to discover where the assets are and to |\n| 9 | see if we can negotiation if, once they're encumbered, we |\n| 10 | can negotiate a plan that's acceptable to the creditor body. |\n| 11 | So I think that I would urge the Court to grant the DIP loan |\n| 12 | with the limitations and revisions that we've managed to |\n| 13 | negotiate with the debtor. |\n| 14 | As far as holding the funds, I find it anomalous |\n| 15 | that the U.S. Trustee would rather have the funds held by a |\n| 16 | debtor who they say should be replaced by a trustee as |\n| 17 | opposed to Pullman and Comley, which has been a firm that's |\n| 18 | been around since the early 1900s, and certainly the money |\n| 19 | is going nowhere. |\n| 20 | It is the functional equivalent of a retainer and |\n| 21 | they have no problem with Brown Rudnick holding \\$1 million |\n| 22 | in their account. |\n| 23 | So there -- I would maintain, a complete |\n| 24 | disconnect between their position about wanting to appoint a |\n| 25 | trustee for the debtor, yet wanting him to hold the \\$2 |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1 | Filed 05/20/22 | Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 | Page 217 of |\n|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n| | | | | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 217 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 216 |\n| 1 | million.
So I think it's entirely proper for the Court to |\n| 2 | authorize us to hold money and be subject to all the orders |\n| 3 | of the Court, the interim compensation procedures, et |\n| 4 | cetera, and we'll be bound to hold the money in trust until |\n| 5 | authorized to disburse it by the Court. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 7 | MR. GOLDMAN:
And that's all I have. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Thank you.
Mr. Jonas. |\n| 9 | MR. JONAS:
Oh, I'm sorry.
Your Honor -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Oh, Mr. Miltenberger. |\n| 11 | MR. JONAS:
Yeah.
Thank you. |\n| 12 | CLOSING ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF GOLDEN SPRING NEW YORK |\n| 13 | MR. MILTENBERGER:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Timothy |\n| 14 | Miltenberger for Golden Spring New York. |\n| 15 | I'd just like to follow up briefly on some of the |\n| 16 | comments that Attorney Goldman made.
As the Court knows, my |\n| 17 | client is interested in making a loan for the benefit of the |\n| 18 | estate. |\n| 19 | The position of PAX was, as it said earlier, |\n| 20 | something much more than meets the eye is happening here, |\n\n and that's not something the Court's going to be able to decide today.\n\n And the way it's going to be decided is if there's money available to fund a committee and to fund an examiner so that everybody can understand what has or has not\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 218 of\n\n| | 217 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | happened, and that's what Golden Springs would like to see |\n| 2 | happen.
That's What the debtor would like to see happen. |\n| 3 | The big picture, as Attorney Friedman says, |\n| 4 | clearly points to the fact that a bankruptcy estate with \\$9 |\n| 5 | million is better than a bankruptcy estate with zero |\n| 6 | dollars, and that's what this motion is about.
It's not a |\n| 7 | close call.
Having \\$9 million is really in the benefit of |\n| 8 | the estate and all of its creditors. |\n| 9 | I can report to the Court that as of 3:30 |\n| 10 | yesterday, my client was wiring money to my firm.
It has |\n| 11 | not yet been received by my firm, but it is in transit. |\n| 12 | When we have it, we'll make arrangements with the U.S. |\n| 13 | Trustee and all the parties as to where to warehouse that |\n| 14 | money after we give \\$2 million to the committee. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Are you saying that the entire \\$9 |\n| 16 | million is coming to your firm? |\n| 17 | MR. MILTENBERGER:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I just want to be clear, |\n| 19 | because we've talked to a lot of -- about a lot of different |\n| 20 | things happening at different points, so -- okay.
Mr. |\n| 21 | Jonas? |\n| 22 | CLOSING ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEBTOR |\n| 23 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, Jeff Jonas from Brown |\n| 24 | Rudnick on behalf of the debtor.
First let me say, Your |\n| 25 | Honor, I know it's been a long day, and on behalf of myself |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 219 of\n\n and the firm and the debtor, I want to thank you. I think it's been under difficult circumstances. I actually think it came off pretty well and we thank the Court and the Court staff for accommodating us today.\n\n That said, Your Honor, let me make a few remarks. Mr. Kwok filed this case, bankruptcy, to deal with his many alleged creditors, and he wants to do that during the breathing spell that bankruptcy affords. That's the whole purpose of bankruptcy.\n\n Mr. Kwok is here in good faith. He's not only saying he wants to do that, but let's review the proof of that. He has arranged an unsecured subordinated \\$9 million DIP loan to fund this case. Among other things, that will fund the creditor's committee to do their work. It will fund U.S. Trustee fees, and it will fund, if appointed, which we support, an independent examiner to investigate the allegations against him.\n\n He also has obtained a commitment as set forth in the -- as filed in the proposed plan, to have a boat costing \\$37 million contributed to creditors as set forth therein. There's been a lot of allegations against Mr. Kwok. Today, they're just that, allegations. There will be a time and a place for these allegations to be determined. In fact, Mr. Kwok, or the DIP lender is paying the cost of determining those allegations, and he welcomes that.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 220 of\n\n There is no basis for the DIP loan, which all creditors as represented by the creditor's committee, support, except for one single creditor, PAX, which has a long history of litigating with Mr. Kwok. Your Honor, it would truly be a travesty if this debtor, on the basis and the record before this Court, can't go forward with this bankruptcy case, which would be the result if the DIP loan is not approved.\n\n Let me respond to a number of the comments that were made. Mr. Friedman focuses on the alleged \\$3,000 or so in assets. Your Honor, there's \\$400 million, or thereabouts, I think it's 370-something, in claims asserted in this case. \\$400 million. That should be the focus. That's what we're here -- we'll deal with those. Yes, there's disputes. That's what bankruptcy is for, to resolve on a financial basis, claims asserted against the debtor.\n\n Mr. Kwok referred to -- I want to make one comment, Your Honor, which might be a little unusual, but Mr. Kwok referred to Chinese or Eastern culture, which I've learned during my career is very different than our Western culture.\n\n And so, yes, a son may be prepared to lose millions of dollars in order to help and protect his father. And there was also a comment by Mr. Friedman that certain -- he said far-fetched testimony about communications between\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 221 of\n\n| 247 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n| | 220 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Mr. Kwok and his son.
I would suggest, Your Honor, that's |\n| 2 | easy for Mr. Friedman to say.
His physical safety and his |\n| 3 | life and the life of his family are not at risk every day. |\n| 4 | By the way, Your Honor, with respect to the |\n| 5 | comments Mr. Friedman made on the DIP loan, had he called |\n| 6 | us, we'd be happy to accommodate many of his changes, which |\n| 7 | I'm about to do right now, but that didn't happen.
So let |\n| 8 | me address them. |\n| 9 | First -- well, first he said there was no |\n| 10 | immediate need for financing.
I think the evidence is |\n| 11 | uncontroverted on that by Mr. Kwok.
Without the DIP there |\n| 12 | will be no creditor's committee to carry out its work, there |\n| 13 | will be no examiner, or at least funding for an examiner, if |\n| 14 | and when appointed to carry out its work. |\n| 15 | The DIP documents, Your Honor, were heavily |\n| 16 | negotiated with the creditor's committee.
I think -- it's a |\n| 17 | little bit of a guess, but based on the drafts, and I wasn't |\n| 18 | in the weeds on it, but I think there were literally |\n| 19 | hundreds of changes made to accommodate creditor's |\n| 20 | committee's request.
It was not -- it was in negotiation. |\n| 21 | It went probably until not that long ago today and into the |\n| 22 | night or nights, but nevertheless, there were many, many |\n| 23 | changes, and unfortunately, occasionally there will be a |\n| 24 | typo when that happens and the cash collateral reference is |\n| 25 | just that.
It's a typo, it can be removed. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 222 of\n\n In terms of reporting, we're happy to provide PAX with reporting notices, et cetera, that's not a problem. We're happy to, as we've represented, if Mr. Friedman feels there needs to be better language making the loan fully subordinate to all creditors, we're happy to do that. There was a reference to *Circla* not being deemed an owner and having done a few DIPs in my day, I think that's -- I'm guessing that's probably in our form and it just got carried over. Again, creditor's committee didn't have an objection to it, but we'll remove it. Not a problem. Let me address the issue the U.S. Trustee made, and others, which is why not a gift. Your Honor, while the DIP loan may effectively be a gift in that it's unlikely to be repaid, the DIP lender gets to decide on what terms it will advance funds. Not creditors. Not the United States Trustee. You know, I have to say it's I think -- I'm not sure anybody has ever seen a DIP where the DIP lender has agreed to be fully subordinate, not be secured. Effectively, doesn't expect to get paid. Nevertheless, it's their -- they get to determine on what basis. They determine to do it as a loan. That's the basis on which we're before the Court. Your Honor, the Committee asked us to -- that it\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 223 of\n\n hold the funds, and again, on the basis set forth in the order. And in an effort -- in the many efforts we took to resolve disputes, which I think is our charge in many bankruptcy cases, an effort to get to an agreement, a consensual resolution, within my opinion, perhaps the most important creditor body in this case, the creditor's committee, we made many concessions. One of them was, okay, if you want to hold the money, hold the money. And now we're being criticized for that, and effectively it's being used as a basis for the DIP to not be approved. Again, Your Honor, we are here. We've agreed to a schedule to move forward on the motion to dismiss. I think you heard Mr. Kwok. He intends to be as open as possible. I think sometimes there are translation issues, but nevertheless, I think his testimony was honest today. He intends to continue down that road. He welcomes the opportunity to have an independent examiner take a look at everything and inform creditors and the Court. He's going to pay for that, and we welcome that day. I don't think today, unfounded allegations should be the basis to deny the DIP. And with that, Your Honor, we'd ask that the Court, with the changes which were -- I represented we're happy to make, approve the DIP. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Let me just ask you what version of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 224 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 223 |\n| 1 | the order you want me to be looking at, because I'm looking |\n| 2 | at a version of an order that was filed on April 10th. |\n| 3 | MR. JONAS:
May I just consult, Your Honor? |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 5 | MR. ROMNEY:
And again, Your Honor, we would be |\n| 6 | prepared to make the changes I've mentioned, but let me |\n| 7 | check. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Just a second, Attorney Friedman, |\n| 9 | okay? |\n| 10 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, and I think Mr. Goldman |\n| 11 | can confirm this.
The actual form we would have asked to, |\n| 12 | even before make -- agreeing to make changes to respond to |\n| 13 | Mr. Friedman hasn't been filed because we were working on |\n| 14 | it. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Well, that's what I'm asking. |\n| 16 | MR. JONAS:
Yeah. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
So there's nothing else that I should |\n| 18 | be looking at right now. |\n| 19 | MR. JONAS:
No, but we will -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 21 | MR. JONAS:
-- promptly, Your Honor, get that |\n| 22 | before the Court. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Before I let others talk again, |\n| 24 | I think I may have said this to Attorney Baldiga in the |\n| 25 | beginning part of this case at a prior hearing. |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 225 of\n\n| | 224 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | You know, there's a lot -- obviously, I understand |\n| 2 | I think -- not as well as all of you do, but I understand |\n| 3 | what's happened among the parties, between obviously the |\n| 4 | debtor and PAX, but with other parties now involved, and one |\n| 5 | of the things I mentioned early on was when we have interim |\n| 6 | DIP orders in Connecticut, we often don't make a lot of the |\n| 7 | findings that you're asking -- at last that's -- that are in |\n| 8 | the April 10 version of this order, okay, because what we do |\n| 9 | we enter interim orders is we say, the debtor has |\n| 10 | demonstrated, or someone has demonstrated, or people agree, |\n| 11 | or whatever the situation may be, that for a period of time, |\n| 12 | whatever period of time it is, until we have another hearing |\n| 13 | and whether that's another interim order or a final order, |\n| 14 | this is what's going to happen. |\n| 15 | This much money is going to be loaned, this amount |\n| 16 | of money could be spent, doesn't necessarily have to be. |\n| 17 | There's some form of a budget that people all understand |\n| 18 | what's going to be spent. |\n| 19 | I understand all the issues about the employment |\n| 20 | of professionals and this process about getting people paid |\n| 21 | differently, and I understand what you're saying about |\n| 22 | funding the committee and paying for an examiner, but I want |\n| 23 | to be clear, and I tried to be clear at the beginning, so if |\n| 24 | I wasn't, that's my fault.
I'm not going to enter an order |\n| 25 | that makes findings that are binding through the end of this |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 226 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 225 |\n| 1 | case when it's an interim order.
That's just not going to |\n| 2 | happen because it's -- I don't think it's appropriate, |\n| 3 | right?
I don't think that's appropriate.
That's not what |\n| 4 | the bankruptcy code says. |\n| 5 | I understand why people have asked for that on |\n| 6 | many occasions, have fought for that, and often the Courts |\n| 7 | have allowed it.
But we're in a unique situation here, |\n| 8 | right? |\n| 9 | We have an individual Chapter 11 debtor who has no |\n| 10 | income, doesn't have a -- well, maybe he does now have a |\n| 11 | bank account.
I'm sorry.
I'm trying to remember what Mr. |\n| 12 | Kwok testified about.
And -- but there's going to be \\$8 |\n| 13 | million that comes in. 9 million, actually. |\n| 14 | I don't know if that's -- I don't know if that's |\n| 15 | the way things should proceed at this point, that it may be |\n| 16 | that the parties should discuss this more incrementally to - |\n| 17 | - because I am not going to make all these findings.
I |\n| 18 | don't know why I'd need to make a finding of good cause at |\n| 19 | this point in time when there -- all we would be doing on an |\n| 20 | interim basis is -- you know, we're talking about the |\n| 21 | immediate need for funding. |\n| 22 | Well, what needs to be funded?
Mr. Kwok's living |\n| 23 | expenses don't, because that doesn't -- that's not part of |\n| 24 | this.
So what needs to be funded to keep this estate open? |\n| 25 | What needs to be funded is the payment of professional fees. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 227 of\n\n| | 226 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | That's -- I mean, and tell me what else, because I |\n| 2 | could be missing something and I -- |\n| 3 | MR. JONAS:
That's largely -- that's -- |\n| 4 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Quarterly fees. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I mean
-- |\n| 6 | MR. JONAS:
And U.S. Trustee fees. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
But -- okay.
I'd consider that |\n| 8 | somewhat professional fees, Attorney Claiborn, even though I |\n| 9 | know they're not, but they're a fee of the estate.
They're |\n| 10 | an expense of the estate, right? |\n| 11 | So we have -- we have a lot of issues here.
We |\n| 12 | have a lot of findings that I'm being made to -- you know, I |\n| 13 | have to say -- I'd have to say, you met your burden of proof |\n| 14 | on all that.
I don't know if you want me to do that at this |\n| 15 | point, number one. |\n| 16 | Number 2, there's a hearing coming up on a motion |\n| 17 | to dismiss, which is only -- it's less than a month away, |\n| 18 | we're going to start that hearing.
Okay?
There's also this |\n| 19 | issue of the -- in the alternative, the appointment of a |\n| 20 | trustee, in the alternative, the U.S. Trustee's motion for |\n| 21 | an appointment of an examiner. |\n| 22 | I understand, and you've said it and everyone's |\n| 23 | said it on the debtor's side, that the debtor will pay for |\n| 24 | the examiner.
But I want to know what is examiner going to |\n| 25 | -- what power does the examiner have?
It doesn't have any |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 228 of\n\n| | 227 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | power.
It just has the ability, if there is an examiner, to |\n| 2 | collect information and prepare a report, right? |\n| 3 | Not that that's not -- not that that can't be |\n| 4 | helpful in a case, but I'm not sure that's helpful in this |\n| 5 | case.
We already know what the examiner is going to find, I |\n| 6 | think, based upon the testimony of Mr. Kwok and apparently - |\n| 7 | - and I haven't looked -- as I said, I haven't looked at any |\n| 8 | of the exhibits which is why I didn't know who the 30(b)(6) |\n| 9 | representative was. |\n| 10 | MR. JONAS:
Uh-huh. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
But there isn't anything here in this |\n| 12 | estate, other than the loans that could be made, and the |\n| 13 | fact that Mr. Kwok can continue to live, so that's a good |\n| 14 | thing.
We're not worried about the debtor not being able to |\n| 15 | live, which often is a situation in this cases.
We don't |\n| 16 | have that issue. |\n| 17 | But what we do have is we have -- whether or not |\n| 18 | it's only one creditor, we have a creditor who has asserted |\n| 19 | certain issues in this case that have to be addressed one |\n| 20 | way or another, and the long story short is, if we start -- |\n| 21 | when you say there's \\$400 million in claims
-- |\n| 22 | MR. JONAS:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
-- I think you said, but isn't half of |\n| 24 | that PAX's with the judgment and the contempt judgment?
I |\n| 25 | mean, so that's half -- half of the claims here are -- |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 229 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 228 |\n| 1 | belong to one creditor.
And it's an individual Chapter 11 |\n| 2 | case, so that one creditor has a lot of power, which is |\n| 3 | different than it would be if we were in a corporate Chapter |\n| 4 | 11 case. |\n| 5 | So what -- all I'm suggesting to you, all of you |\n| 6 | today, is I don't even know what -- I mean, I do.
I looked |\n| 7 | at the order Mr. Friedman asked me to look at, and he wants |\n| 8 | to say something else, and Attorney Claiborn wants to say |\n| 9 | something else, and of course I'm going to allow that to |\n| 10 | happen. |\n| 11 | But if there isn't an agreement on to some kind of |\n| 12 | form and order, then I'm going to make rulings that may not |\n| 13 | be what the debtor is looking for, and I don't -- and maybe |\n| 14 | not be what PAX or the creditor committee is looking for |\n| 15 | either. |\n| 16 | But as Mr. -- one thing Mr. Goldman said that is |\n| 17 | correct is, they're all intertwined, right?
Everything that |\n| 18 | happened today is intertwined, and to enter orders other |\n| 19 | than the -- I would say the Brown Rudnick order, which I |\n| 20 | would say is more what I would say, routine, versus some of |\n| 21 | the other orders that I'm being asked to enter, including |\n| 22 | the payment of professionals on an ongoing basis that is |\n| 23 | allowed to happen in less time than the bankruptcy code |\n| 24 | provides, then I think there has to be some understanding |\n| 25 | that there should be some incremental review and analysis of |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1 | Filed 05/20/22 | Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 | Page 230 of |\n|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n what you're asking the Court to do. Now, that may be no problem because you're working on this order, and you may be able to say all those things. But there's a lot of findings I'm being made to find in this order that I'm not sure I'm prepared to make at an interim basis, with everything else that's going on in this case. I have to look at it that way. Whether or not you agree with that, and I don't mean you personally, I don't mean the debtor or -- whether or not anybody agrees with it, I mean, I -- you -- absolutely, we can agree to disagree. But that's what I have to do, right? I have to think about the case as a whole. I think you parties have made very good progress, and I don't think that every single case has to be consensual. That's not what I'm saying. But I'm not sure that I'm going to enter the order that I've looked at that Mr. -- that Friedman has pointed out to me with any kind of binding findings in it, in this case. So while I understand everything everyone has said, or at least I've tried to. I'm not saying I couldn't have made a mistake, but I've tried to, I'm going to still have to look at whatever you all negotiate. MR. JONAS: Absolutely. THE COURT: And I may disagree. And so, if I disagree, we'll have to have -- you know, we'll have some\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 231 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 230 |\n| 1 | kind of conference and we'll talk about it, but I think that |\n| 2 | you need to think about that. |\n| 3 | I did hear -- and, Mr. Friedman, I did hear Mr. |\n| 4 | Jonas say that a lot of -- not all, but a lot of the issues |\n| 5 | that you raised, they'll accommodate, which I think is |\n| 6 | again, progress.
Whether you are all going to come to an |\n| 7 | agreement completely, I don't know. |\n| 8 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, may I just make two |\n| 9 | points? |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Sure. |\n| 11 | MR. JONAS:
First, I'll just say this.
As he said |\n| 12 | about me, Your Honor, I respect Mr. Friedman a great deal, |\n| 13 | but unfortunately I -- my impression, maybe he'll tell me |\n| 14 | I'm wrong -- we will never -- there's no way to reach a |\n| 15 | consensual resolution because there -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
On this order, right? |\n| 17 | MR. JONAS:
On this order, because -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
I think that's right. |\n| 19 | MR. JONAS:
-- they're -- you know, we could give |\n| 20 | them everything -- all of it specific points, and then he |\n| 21 | said, well, but I don't want you to lose track, Your Honor, |\n| 22 | that we're still opposing this.
So that's just number one. |\n| 23 | We can try, and we'll continue to try. |\n| 24 | Point number 2, Your Honor, is let me apologize |\n| 25 | because I do remember you early on talking about findings of |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 232 of\n\n fact, and we didn't -- maybe we didn't hear you well enough. I certainly hear you now, and we would -- I welcome the opportunity to take up many of the findings. I have to -- obviously, we have to talk to our DIP lender, but let us take those up. I'm guessing we will be able to streamline and eliminate many of them now having heard the Court better, and I hope when we submit -- and obviously, we'll provide it to all other parties, I hope when we next submit a revised draft, it will be much more something you'd be prepared to sign. Again, we may need another conference. We're happy to do that, but those are my comments, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And that's more than fair, and I -- all I'm suggesting to you is that as, I said a few weeks ago when we were talking about the relief from stay timing and the motion to dismiss timing, that I can't look at this DIP motion as the only motion in the case. I can't. MR. JONAS: Uh-huh. THE COURT: It affects other things. Mr. Goldman, as I said, I keep pointing to Mr. Goldman, but he was right. They're all intertwined. And so, I'm happy to hear what you all -- look at what you all come up with. MR. JONAS: Very good, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay?\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 233 of | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n| 232 | |\n| MR. JONAS:
Thank you. | |\n| THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you.
Mr. Friedman? | |\n| MR. FRIEDMAN:
Thanks, Mr. Jonas.
I appreciate | |\n| it. | |\n| MR. JONAS:
Okay. | |\n| MR. FRIEDMAN:
I always do.
I have three quick | |\n| things to say.
First, Your Honor, it's true, we can't tell | |\n| Golden Spring it has to make a loan, but you can.
You can | |\n| tell them that this proposed -- I'm sorry, that they can't - | |\n| - it doesn't have to be a gift.
You can.
You don't have to | |\n| approve this as a loan. | |\n| The second thing, Your Honor, is yes, PAX has a | |\n| long history of litigating against Mr. Kwok.
Has a long | |\n| history of winning its litigation.
It has \\$268 million in | |\n| claims. | |\n| It is the only creditor with a liquidated claim | |\n| that is non-insider as far as I'm aware.
And the third | |\n| point is, just like I said, listen to the small word, we.
I | |\n| would say, at the end of Mr. Jonas's remakes he said, he | |\n| wants to pay for it.
Right.
He.
Mr. Kwok, which is again, | |\n| I just think a tell about ultimately where the money is | |\n| coming from.
Thank you, Your Honor. | |\n| THE COURT:
Thank you.
Attorney Claiborn? | |\n| MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, I just wanted to let | |\n| the Court know that I haven't seen a revised draft of the | |\n| | |\n| | 247 |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 234 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 233 |\n| 1 | order, so therefore, I don't know whether or not there are |\n| 2 | other concerns that I would like to bring to the Court's |\n| 3 | attention. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Yeah, I mean, I think -- |\n| 5 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I might -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
-- that Mr. Jonas has made that clear, |\n| 7 | and that's why I think we're going to have to have another |\n| 8 | conference most likely, if there isn't an agreement, and I'm |\n| 9 | not -- I don't believe there will be an agreement, so I |\n| 10 | think there has to be another conference. |\n| 11 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you for that opportunity.
I |\n| 12 | just wanted to let the Court know that I might have some |\n| 13 | thoughts. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
I thank you.
And see, what I normally |\n| 15 | do, is when we have an interim order, we have a date.
The |\n| 16 | order goes into effect one day, and it expires on a date in |\n| 17 | the future, and there's a budget that is connected to that. |\n| 18 | You know, and it may not be a budget in the sense of a cash |\n| 19 | collateral budget, you know, but how much money is coming in |\n| 20 | and what could -- what is authorized to be spent during that |\n| 21 | period of time, and for what. |\n| 22 | And then that -- then if you want to talk about |\n| 23 | transparency, that's transparency.
Everybody knows that X |\n| 24 | amount was approved.
X amount came in, and then the line |\n| 25 | items on the -- whatever the -- you don't have to call it a |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 404-1 | Filed 05/20/22 | Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 | Page 235 of |\n|---------------|-----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n| | | | | |\n\n budget. You can call it whatever you want to call it. Authorization for payments during interim DIP loan period, then we know what's going on. Then no one is questioning what's happening. And then you get approval, Mr. Jonas, for certain things that apply to that interim period, which is better than not getting approval to anything at all. And that, I could do, but I'm not in a position -- and I -- when I say I, I mean the bank -- the person who happens to be sitting here as the judge in this case, feels it's inappropriate at this point in time, at this point in time, to make findings that will be binding throughout the case. So I think I've made that clear. So the issue is, how much time do we need -- are we continuing -- we're not -- the evidence is done with regard to the DIP financing motion. Are we continuing the hearing solely to work out what essentially is -- are the terms and conditions of an interim DIP financing order which should have, as part of it, a period of time that this financing would be applicable to, and what amounts would Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 235 of\n\n come in through the funding, and I want to say to the estate, but we have an issue here of where the funds are going still, and so I won't quite say that, and what amounts are authorized to be paid or accrued against that loan during that period of time. That's what I think is\n\n appropriate under those -- under these circumstances. So what are the parties thoughts. Are we talking about -- today's what? Wednesday? Are we talking about coming back, you know, Friday? Are we talking about coming back Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday of next week? What are we talking about? MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, I know for the committee, I was planning to be at the ABS Spring meeting Thursday and Friday, so I would say -- THE COURT: Meaning tomorrow and the next day? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. Yes. Yes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDMAN: And so, any time next week. You know, on this budget concept, so I can give some clarity -- THE COURT: Well, it may not -- I said budget isn't exactly the right word, but it's authorized accruals or payments or whatever you want to call it against what's funded, right? \\$400,000 comes in. I'm just pulling a name, it doesn't mean anything. And during -- for the next four weeks, these amount of monies can be accrued against those dollars for these reasons. MR. GOLDMAN: So -- THE COURT: I mean, we don't have to worry about funding Mr. Kwok's life. That's a good thing. But if everything else is going to be about every -- the parties\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 237 of\n\n| | 236 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | getting paid, then I want to know what it is everybody |\n| 2 | thinks they're going to get paid for the next four weeks, |\n| 3 | even if you're not authorized to draw it out yet. |\n| 4 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Yeah.
And, Your Honor, I think the |\n| 5 | most we could expect to have is an estimate, really. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
I understand that.
I'm not -- oh, I'm |\n| 7 | not -- a budget is a budget.
It doesn't always meet -- you |\n| 8 | don't always meet it.
I'm not asking for an accounting |\n| 9 | that's audited.
I'm asking for -- I want to know.
You |\n| 10 | know, the order says there's an immediate need for funding. |\n| 11 | What's the immediate need?
Show me what it is and how much, |\n| 12 | and what it is for. |\n| 13 | I mean, this is not -- this is not a case where |\n| 14 | you have a company that is producing some form of a product |\n| 15 | that is generating revenue that continues -- that's not what |\n| 16 | we have.
We all know that.
So there has to be some |\n| 17 | control, or at least oversight by the Court with regard to |\n| 18 | these issues, right?
Otherwise, why am I here?
You can all |\n| 19 | go do this out in the hallway -- |\n| 20 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Yeah. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
-- and see how that works out. |\n| 22 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Well, I'm just -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
But that's why I'm here, right?
To |\n| 24 | make sure that we -- this doesn't go awry, and we also have |\n| 25 | other motions pending that may -- may completely -- you |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 238 of\n\n| | 237 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | know, who knows, have the case be dismissed in five weeks. |\n| 2 | I don't know.
That could happen.
I haven't heard any |\n| 3 | arguments on that yet.
I haven't seen your papers. |\n| 4 | Nobody's -- nor should you.
You just all agreed today when |\n| 5 | you're going to file your papers. |\n| 6 | So I don't know what they're going to say, but I |\n| 7 | have to -- I have to be -- I think you have to treat it |\n| 8 | practically and not theoretically. |\n| 9 | And the practical reality of this case is, from |\n| 10 | the moment it started, there is opposition and there's |\n| 11 | strong opposition, and I'm not passing on whether that's |\n| 12 | warranted or not.
It's a reality.
It's a reality that |\n| 13 | there is -- there are all kinds of things that happened |\n| 14 | before this case came here, which is often the case, but I |\n| 15 | can't ignore that either.
Okay.
I can't ignore that. |\n| 16 | So all I'm suggesting is, you come up with a |\n| 17 | period of time that there's this first wave of monies come |\n| 18 | in, whatever it may be.
And maybe there isn't going to be |\n| 19 | agreement, and then I'll finally have to decide what it's |\n| 20 | going to be.
But then -- and you tell me, and the world, |\n| 21 | because it's going to be public, what the monies are going |\n| 22 | to be spent on, even if they're not drawn down during that |\n| 23 | period of time, right? |\n| 24 | So anyway, I think that's pretty clear.
Maybe |\n| 25 | it's not. |\n\n MR. GOLDMAN: So -- no, understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, so we have a theological objection. It's -- we have practical objections. I'm going to express, actually, a pretty high degree of confidence that we can work out our practical issues, right? The DIP issue is theological to us. We don't believe it should be entered. I also realize bankruptcy exists on your deep rooted beliefs on the one hand, and the nitty-gritty practical on the other. I will work with Mr. Jonas, Mr. Goldman, Ms. Claiborn, to deal with our practical issues where we can compromise and where we can't, but -- THE COURT: Right. I have to rule. I understand. MR. FRIEDMAN: So -- THE COURT: And I'm happy to do that. MR. FRIEDMAN: -- so I guess the question I have is, if we need a further hearing, or really it sounds like a conference, I'm in California next week. Is it doable by Zoom? I'm going to -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. THE COURT: Yes. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. THE COURT: See, and the problem is, I'm looking\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 240 of\n\n| | 239 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | at an order that is now two weeks old, so it's stale.
So |\n| 2 | I'm not going to just enter an order that somebody presents |\n| 3 | when there's nobody here to talk to me about it, right? |\n| 4 | I'm not going to do that.
I -- you know, |\n| 5 | unfortunately, someone's name has to be on that order and |\n| 6 | I'm going to read the order before I enter it, and I have to |\n| 7 | make sure that it complies with the bankruptcy code and |\n| 8 | rules and all those things. |\n| 9 | So -- but yes, we can absolutely do it.
I'm not |\n| 10 | going to drag you all back in here.
We've had the |\n| 11 | evidentiary hearing, but I do want to see the order before |\n| 12 | we have a conference, otherwise, I don't think it's a |\n| 13 | meaningful conference.
Okay. |\n| 14 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Yep.
Yep. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
So you can even all tell me tomorrow. |\n| 16 | I mean, you know, I don't -- whatever works for you.
I'm |\n| 17 | not trying to stand here and say, you need to tell me right |\n| 18 | now and we have to make a date on all those things.
And I |\n| 19 | say that, but I should look and see what's on next week, |\n| 20 | although I don't think it's bad.
I don't -- I could be |\n| 21 | wrong, though, so let me just -- let me just take a five |\n| 22 | second look, okay? |\n| 23 | Tuesday is not good.
Wednesday is definitely a |\n| 24 | possibility without question, except for the middle of the |\n| 25 | day.
Thursday, we have Chapter 13 hearings.
We could do it |\n| | |\n\n in the afternoon on Thursday. MR. JONAS: Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. MR. JONAS: Could I suggest that we just put a placeholder on it? I think you said Wednesday sounded like the best day. THE COURT: Other than between -- MR. JONAS: By Zoom, to -- THE COURT: Yeah. MR. JONAS: -- certainly to accommodate everyone. I think that might make -- and then we'll all work towards that. THE COURT: Yes. MR. JONAS: Obviously try and, you know, report to the Court. Hopefully submit as early in advance, as much in advance of that as possible, submit a form of order, maybe even agreed, who knows, but I think that would be very helpful, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Well, on -- that's fine, but I'm going to want the order -- MR. JONAS: Yes. THE COURT: -- if we're going to have a conference on Wednesday, I can do it in the morning or the afternoon, but I can't do it between 12:30 and 2:00 p.m. MR. JONAS: Your Honor, I think to accommodate Mr.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 241 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 242 of\n\n| 1 | Friedman, who's going to -- |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Oh, you're going to be in California. |\n| 3 | MR. JONAS:
-- in California -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
So -- |\n| 5 | MR. JONAS:
-- the afternoon will be fine. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
-- 2:00 p.m.
You want -- you want |\n| 7 | later than 2:00 p.m.? |\n| 8 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
2:00 p.m. is perfect.
Thank you, |\n| 9 | Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
All right.
So -- and if I'm five or |\n| 11 | ten minutes late, don't worry about it, I'm -- just have to |\n| 12 | do something with a school, so I could be five or ten |\n| 13 | minutes late, and if we are -- if you have to hold on the |\n| 14 | Zoom call, you'll have to hold on the Zoom call, okay? |\n| 15 | But I would like -- I would like the order by 2:00 |\n| 16 | p.m. the day before.
I mean, I've got to be able to read |\n| 17 | it, right? |\n| 18 | MR. JONAS:
Understood, Your Honor, and thank you |\n| 19 | for that. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
All right.
So then I'll just block |\n| 21 | off the rest of that afternoon for now, and hopefully we |\n| 22 | won't take the all -- but if we do, we do. |\n| 23 | I mean, so the only thing left on the calendar |\n| 24 | today that wasn't resolved was -- subject to the submission |\n| 25 | of revised proposed orders or a scheduling order on the |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 243 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 242 |\n| 1 | motion to dismiss was this DIP financing motion, which is |\n| 2 | 117, I believe. |\n| 3 | Yes, so then, 117 is continued.
The hearing is |\n| 4 | continued to Wednesday -- to May 4th at 2:00 p.m. remotely, |\n| 5 | via Zoom, okay?
You'll have to reach out to the courtroom - |\n| 6 | - there's a courtroom -- what is the address?
I forget. |\n| 7 | There's an email address that you would have to reach out to |\n| 8 | to get the Zoom information.
Is that Court Connect? |\n| 9 | Calendar Connect? |\n| 10 | THE CLERK:
Calendar. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Calendar Connect.
Did you have a |\n| 12 | question, Attorney Claiborn? |\n| 13 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, I did promise to report |\n| 14 | back to the Court on the monthly compensation order -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 16 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- before we ended today, and I can |\n| 17 | do that now, which is that I have looked at that and the |\n| 18 | U.S. Trustee is okay with that order that was uploaded. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
And is that on the docket? |\n| 20 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Yes. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
What's the -- what number is that?
Or |\n| 22 | do you know?
If you don't know, we can look.
I'm just |\n| 23 | saying, I thought maybe you had it at your disposal. |\n| 24 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I didn't write it down, but it was |\n| 25 | docketed earlier today. |\n\n THE COURT: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your Honor, it's Docket Number 263. THE COURT: 263. Okay. Thank you. All right. So I'll take a look. I've got a few of your orders to take a look at. And, you know, I'm sure they're fine, so we'll - - and if there aren't -- if they aren't for some reason, we'll let you know. But in the meantime, is there anything else that we should be doing today, because I think we've addressed everything, unless I'm forgetting something. MR. JONAS: Nothing further here, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, I do appreciate the cooperation of the parties and the progress that has been made. I again want to be clear, I'm not suggesting that everything has to be consented to. That's not how it works. I understand that. But I still appreciate when things -- some issues, and many issues today were resolved upon agreement, which is helpful, very helpful. And I appreciate the parties efforts in trying to resolve these matters. I will take a look at all the orders that we discussed on the record today that were submitted either yesterday or today and try to get those entered tomorrow, and then with regard to the DIP financing motion, that's\n\n| | 247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 244 |\n| 1 | continued to next week at 2:00 p.m. remotely.
Okay? |\n| 2 | MR. JONAS:
Your Honor, I just, I guess -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Who am I missing?
Okay. |\n| 4 | MR. JONAS:
-- the Verdolino and Lowey submission |\n| 5 | is like -- I guess you said you were just going to consider |\n| 6 | the evidence before -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
I took it under advisement. |\n| 8 | MR. JONAS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
So I have to review -- I want to |\n| 10 | review the evidence that was submitted today, and I will -- |\n| 11 | and it will note on the -- it will note on the docket -- |\n| 12 | should note on the docket that it was taken under |\n| 13 | advisement.
Okay? |\n| 14 | MR. JONAS:
Better -- I'm sorry.
Just one quick |\n| 15 | comment. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Sure. |\n| 17 | MR. JONAS:
I just looked at my calendar.
I may |\n| 18 | need to do next -- because I'm before Judge Kaplan in the |\n| 19 | Johnson and Johnson case in Trenton in the morning, I may |\n| 20 | have to do it remotely, but since it's Zoom it shouldn't |\n| 21 | matter, but I -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Shouldn't matter.
That's right. |\n| 23 | MR. JONAS:
-- just wanted to let you know.
Thank |\n| 24 | you. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I'm sure Judge Kaplan can find a room |\n| | |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 245 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 246 of
247 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 245 |\n| 1 | for you. |\n| 2 | MR. JONAS:
Yes, I'm sure.
Thank you. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Okay.
All right.
Anything |\n| 4 | further from anyone? |\n| 5 | All right.
So since we've addressed all the |\n| 6 | matters in the Kwok case today, court is adjourned. |\n| 7 | (Proceedings adjourned at 5:34 p.m.) |\n| 8 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and |\n| 9 | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that |\n| 10 | the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official |\n| 11 | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above |\n| 12 | entitled matter. |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | May 3, 2022 |\n| 16 | Christine Fiore, CERT-410 |\n| 17 | Transcriber |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 404-1
Filed 05/20/22
Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18
Page 247 of
247 | | |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|---------|\n| | | 246 |\n| 1 | | |\n| 2 | INDEX | |\n| 3 | | |\n| 4 | WITNESSES
DIRECT
CROSS
REDIRECT | RECROSS |\n| 5 | FOR THE DEBTOR: | |\n| 6 | Craig R. Jalbert
26
39
71 | 75 |\n| 7 | | |\n| 8 | Ho Wan Kwok
138
155,181 | |\n| 9 | | |\n| 10 | | |\n| 11 | COURT EXHIBITS:
ID | Rec'd |\n| 12 | 1
Craig answer to Aronsson question under seal
62 | |\n| 13 | | |\n| 14 | PAX EXHIBITS: | |\n| 15 | 17
Transcript of 341 Meeting | 180 |\n| 16 | 18
Ace Decade Affidavit in English | 180 |\n| 17 | 19
Ace Decade Affidavit in Chinese | 180 |\n| 18 | 15
Wang Deposition Transcript | 198 |\n| 19 | | |\n| 20 | CLOSING ARGUMENT: | |\n| 21 | On Behalf of PAX | 199 |\n| 22 | On Behalf of the United States Trustee | 211 |\n| 23 | On Behalf of the Unsecured Creditors | 213 |\n| 24 | On Behalf of Golden Springs New York | 216 |\n| 25 | On Behalf of the Debtor | 217 |","body_zh":"证物 PAX 01\n\n2022年4月27日听证会记录\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 2 of\n\n关于 * 案号 22-50073 (JAM) * HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， * 康涅狄格州布里奇波特 * 2022年4月27日\n债务人。 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官面前进行的程序记录\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格地区 布里奇波特分院\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：WILLIAM R. BALDIGA, ESQ.（威廉·R·鲍尔迪加，律师） BENNETT S. SILVERBERG, ESQ.（本内特·S·西尔弗伯格，律师） KENNETH AULET, ESQ.（肯尼斯·奥莱特，律师） JEFFREY L. JONAS, ESQ.（杰弗里·L·乔纳斯，律师） Brown Rudnick, LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所） Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机遇基金有限合伙企业）：PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼，律师） LAURA S. ARONSSON, ESQ.（劳拉·S·阿伦松，律师） DAVID V. HARBACH, II, ESQ.（戴维·V·哈巴赫二世，律师） O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥梅尔文尼与迈尔斯律师事务所）\n\n7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 PATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·M·伯尼，律师） Robinson & Cole LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所） 280 Trumbull Street\n\nTimes Square Tower\n\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n程序通过电子录音记录，记录文本由速记服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司） 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员续：\n\n代表美国受托人：HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩，律师）\n\n美国受托人办公室 The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表 Golden Spring Party（黄金之春当事人）：TIMOTHY MILTENBERGER, ESQ.（蒂莫西·米尔滕伯格，律师） 100 Pearl Street\n\n代表利害关系方 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资〈美国〉有限责任公司）：STEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ.（斯蒂芬·M·金塞思，律师） AARON A. ROMNEY, ESQ.（亚伦·A·罗姆尼，律师） Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）\n\n拟任债权人委员会律师：IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·戈德曼，律师） JOHN KAPLAN, ESQ.（约翰·卡普兰，律师）\n\n代表 Rui Ma（马锐）、Zheng Wu（吴峥）及（纽约）利害关系方：KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯汀·梅休，律师） Cohn Birnbaum & Shea, P.C.（科恩、伯恩鲍姆与谢伊律师事务所） Hartford, CT 06103\n\n10 Middle Street Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所） 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601\n\nWeican Meng（孟维灿），债权人：McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter（麦克尔罗伊、多伊奇、马尔瓦尼与卡彭特律师事务所） 30 Jeliff Lane Southport, CT 06890\n\n1 （程序于上午9时46分开始。）\n2 书记员：\n案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n3 法庭：\n早上好。请债务人的律师先为记录说明出庭情况。\n6 BALDIGA 律师：\n早上好，法官阁下。William Baldiga（威廉·鲍尔迪加），Brown Rudnick，代表债务人。与我一同出庭的有我的同事 Ben Silverberg（本·西尔弗伯格）、Ken Aulet（肯·奥莱特）和 Jeff Jonas（杰夫·乔纳斯）。谢谢。\n10 法庭：\n早上好。\n11 JONAS 律师：\n早上好。\n12 书记员：\n抱歉。我听到 Bennett Silverberg（本内特·西尔弗伯格）的名字，但还有一位我没有听清——\n14 BALDIGA 律师：\nBen Silverberg（本·西尔弗伯格），Kenneth Aulet（肯尼斯·奥莱特）。\n15 书记员：\n谢谢。\n16 BALDIGA 律师：\n我相信其 pro hac 动议在一两周前已获准。\n18 AULET 律师：\n昨天。\n19 法庭：\n我想就是前几天。\n20 BALDIGA 律师：\n昨天。抱歉。\n21 法庭：\n对，就是前几天。\n22 BALDIGA 律师：\n还有 Jeffrey Jonas（杰弗里·乔纳斯）。\n23 法庭：\n早上好。\n24 BALDIGA 律师：\n谢谢。\n25 KINDSETH 律师：\n早上好，法官阁下。Stephen Kindseth（斯蒂芬·金塞思），Zeisler & Zeisler。与我一同出庭的是我的同事 Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼），代表 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（香港国际基金投资〈美国〉有限责任公司）。\n4 ROMNEY 律师：\n早上好，法官阁下。\n5 法庭：\n早上好。\n6 MILTENBERGER 律师：\n早上好，法官阁下。\n7 MILTENBERGER 律师：\nTimothy Miltenberger（蒂莫西·米尔滕伯格），代表 Golden Spring (New York)（黄金之春〈纽约〉）。\n8 法庭：\n早上好。\n9 FRIEDMAN 律师：\n早上好，法官阁下。Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼），O'Melveny & Myers，代表 Pacific Alliance Group（太平洋联盟集团）。与我一同出庭的是我的同事 Laura Aronsson（劳拉·阿伦松），她已获准 pro hac 出庭，还有 David Harbach（戴维·哈巴赫），他在后面，但将到律师席参与。\n14 法庭：\n早上好。\n15 FRIEDMAN 律师：\nRobinson & Cole 律师事务所的 Birney 律师也在场。\n17 BIRNEY 律师：\n早上好，法官阁下。\n18 法庭：\n早上好。\n19 GOLDMAN 律师：\n早上好，法官阁下。Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼），Pullman & Comley，与我的同事 Jonathan Kaplan（乔纳森·卡普兰）一同出庭。我们代表无担保债权人正式委员会的申请尚待裁定。\n23 法庭：\n早上好。\n24 KAPLAN 律师：\n早上好。\n25 CLAIBORN 律师：\n早上好，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），代表美国受托人。\n2 法庭：\n早上好。\n3 MAYHEW 律师：\n早上好，法官阁下。Kristin Mayhew（克里斯汀·梅休），McElroy, Deutsche, Mulvaney & Carpenter，代表债权人 Rui Ma（马锐）和 Zheng Wu（吴峥）。\n6 法庭：\n早上好。\n7 MAYHEW 律师：\n早上好。\n8 法庭：\n还有其他人希望就今日听证会说明出庭吗？\n10 （无可听见的回应。）\n11 法庭：\n好的。如各位所知，我们安排了今日的听证会。日程上有许多事项，但今日安排证据听证的两项事项是聘用 Verdolino & Lowey（维尔多利诺与洛伊）的申请，ECF No. 90，以及债务人占有期间融资动议——我已将标题缩短，但其本质上就是如此——ECF 117。\n18 我知道日程上还有许多其他事项。我知道各位今天早上开始前花了几分钟时间。我不知道在我们开始前，是否有人希望向法庭报告任何事项。\n22 BALDIGA 律师：\n是，法官阁下。谢谢。再次说明，William Baldiga（威廉·鲍尔迪加），代表债务人。\n24 法官阁下，我们很高兴不仅在今天早上，而且在过去两周中取得了重大进展。若我可以仅作简要报告而不进行论辩，报告一下我们就每项事项所处的阶段？\n\n法庭：\n当然。请继续。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：\n就涉及该船舶的解除自动中止动议而言，已有解决方案。您或许记得，该船舶的所有人 AK International——HK International，先前提交了一份拟议命令。该命令已通过协商达成。正如您所预料的，它比最初提交时长了一些，但这——此类事情就是如此，当事人需要一些时间在接下来的——嗯，目前正在进行，但尚未准备好提交——期间最终确定一些措辞；但他们相信，今天上午某个时候，该措辞将由所有人审阅，并将有一份经完全同意的命令，以解决解除中止动议，返还船舶并彻底解决该事项。$37 million 已经存入 Zeisler Client Trust Fund Account，因此这不再是一个问题，即使它曾经是问题。故在这方面取得了很大进展。无特定顺序地说，Brown Rudnick 的聘任，所有异议均已解决。我相信 PAX 希望在记录中保留权利，但我们将听取他们就此希望说的任何内容。关于 Verdolino & Lowey，除 PAX 的异议外，所有异议均已解决，我想 PAX 将决定他们是否希望继续推进该项异议。但其他所有异议均已解决。关于费用程序，即临时费用程序动议，所有异议均已解决。关于——\n\n法庭：\n等等。让我——我在跟——\n\nBALDIGA 律师：\n抱歉，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n不，没关系。我只是想确保我在跟上您的意思。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：\n我想我应当提供案卷编号。\n\n法庭：\n不，没关系。我对此没有问题。我只是——我可以弄清楚。好的。请继续。那么——\n\nBALDIGA 律师：\n有——\n\n法庭：\n——临时——临时程序已经解决，您的意思是这样吗？\n\nBALDIGA 律师：\n是，法官阁下。\n\n（停顿。）\n\nBALDIGA 律师：\n作为解决方案的一部分，我们将把 PAX 列为通知当事人。因此，我们还需处理命令，但没有尚未解决的异议，只需整理命令。谢谢。关于 DIP 贷款，仍有一项——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 9 of\n\n1 异议，但我相信仅有 PAX 的异议。抱歉。\n2 美国受托人也仍有异议。因此，\n3 看来我们将继续进行——\n4 法庭：\n就此进行证据听证？\n5 BALDIGA 律师：\n——今天的陈述——\n6 法庭：\n好的。\n7 BALDIGA 律师：\n——包括证据，如当事人希望。\n9 然后我们还有驳回动议。我们——\n10 今天需要与您花一些时间，结合\n11 法庭的日程和其他当事人的日程，\n12 确定该事项的排期，但对此已进行了大量\n13 讨论。\n14 存在一个未决问题，即在该期间我们是否\n15 继续进行 341 会议；如有必要，我们将就\n16 这如何影响排期并使程序复杂化进行论辩，\n17 但我们也可能能够解决该问题。\n19 因此，我认为这就是全部日程，法官阁下，\n20 我已作简要说明。\n21 Kindseth 律师可能希望就船舶事项\n22 进一步详细说明我们目前的情况，但显然所有当事人都可以\n23 纠正其中任何部分或作出补充评论，不过——\n24 法庭：\n我有几件事——\n25 BALDIGA 律师：\n当然。\n\n法庭：\n——在您继续之前。各位请继续，然后我——也许你们会回答我的问题。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：\n好的。我将交由其他人发言。\n\n法庭：\nFriedman 律师，您原本要——\n\nBALDIGA 律师：\n但我对进展感到高兴，法官阁下。我在上次听证会上报告过，无法与各方进行沟通，而这已发生显著变化。我们与委员会、美国受托人办公室以及委员会成员进行了非常良好的沟通，很高兴看到本案现在正朝着良好方向推进，大部分已提交的事项均已彻底解决，仍有少数事项待决。因此，我们认为我们正朝着正确方向前进。现在，我将交由其他人回答法庭可能提出的任何问题。\n\n法庭：\nFriedman 律师，请继续。您仍对 DIP 动议有异议，但您的委托人还有何其他异议？\n\nFRIEDMAN 律师：\n法官阁下，我们还对本案聘用一名财务顾问提出异议；我们将询问拟任财务顾问，他将会——与此相关。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 11 of\n1 FRIEDMAN 律师：\n我想作几点评论。您知道，\n2 中止动议显然是我们提出的\n3 动议，因此我认为我应当说明其状态。\n4 法庭：\n是。\n5 FRIEDMAN 律师：\n我们已与 HK 进行了广泛讨论。\n6 我们已与委员会进行了广泛讨论。\n7 我确实认为，我们目前已\n8 原则上同意一项命令。这项命令\n9 包含大量保障措施，因为我们显然，\n10 您知道，进入本案时存在担忧，\n11 且目前仍有担忧。\n12 我认为我们应当很快会从\n13 HK 的律师处收到最终草案，因为我们已解决\n14 相关要点。\n15 我会——我想说的是，一旦该——一旦\n16 该命令提交至您手中——我们显然极为\n17 尊重法庭的时间。\n18 中止期限将于周一届满，届时通常将是\n19 法庭必须作出命令之日。\n20 出于对法庭的尊重，如果该命令提交至法庭手中后\n21 法庭需要更多时间，我们会同意\n22 存在特殊情形。若无协议，我们本不会\n23 同意这一点。\n24 但我显然对给法庭增加过多负担或试图迫使法庭仓促处理极为敏感，\n25 这不是任何人的\n\n意图，因此我们将把它提供给——它将被提供给本院。如果本院——如果本院此后有后续问题并需要安排某些事项，我只是想向本院明确表示，我们将配合本院的一切需要，不会试图以任何方式催促进度，从而使您的工作更加困难。法庭：嗯，我对此表示感谢。我也感谢各方所作的努力。显然，一旦我看到该命令，我会审阅它——弗里德曼先生（Mr. Friedman）：好的。法庭：——然后看看我是否有任何疑虑。弗里德曼先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。然后，我想说，法官阁下，这是进展。这是一种有限的进展。我们仍然对本案存在许多担忧，这些担忧并未消退。巴尔迪加先生（Mr. Baldiga）是正确的。我们仅就聘用布朗·拉德尼克（Brown Rudnick）保留某些权利。我们实际上认为，郭先生（Mr. Kwok）拥有称职的律师很重要，而布朗·拉德尼克当然是称职的律师。不聘用他们将会——A）我们在上次听证会上听到您说他们将被聘用；以及B）无论本案采取何种形式，他们都是必要的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交于 05/20/22 登记于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 13 页，共\n\n我们还有另外两项异议。我们将于今日提出。法庭：好的。谢谢。戈德曼先生（Mr. Goldman）？戈德曼先生：是的，法官阁下。谢谢。我想就委员会对DIP贷款和Verdolino贷款——更准确地说，对其聘用——所提异议的解决作进一步说明。我认为，将和解条款载入记录并告知本院我们已将其形成书面文件，是很重要的。我们一直工作到昨晚很晚，终于能够在今天上午达成最终协议。因此，如果我可以向本院报告这些条款，我认为这将有助于本院和各方。法庭：请讲。戈德曼先生：关于DIP动议，我们已同意，债务人和Golden Spring（黄金泉）将删除以下终止事件：债务人提出驳回动议、申请任命第11章受托人的动议，或转换程序动议。他们还将删除债务人专属权终止这一终止事件，条件是委员会同意在最初120日期限届满前不寻求终止专属权，该期限将于\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交于 05/20/22 登记于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 14 页，共\n\n6月15日前后届满。\n因此，我们确实同意，在此之前我们不会寻求\n终止该专属权。\n法庭：\n那么，这些协议将如何\n予以记载？是否将会有——是否将有一份\n修订后的DIP贷款协议，还是这将成为\n命令的一部分，或者两者兼有？\n戈德曼先生：\n两者兼有。\n法庭：\n好的。\n请继续。\n戈德曼先生：\n是。\n两者均有修订。\n终止事件载于DIP\n协议中，而非命令中。\n该命令仅提及——\n法庭：\n好的。\n戈德曼先生：\n——信贷协议。\n最初的$2 million贷款——我们将请求\n本院以临时方式批准——将被支付至\n本所的信托账户。\n我们将为此设立一个\n计息的独立存款账户。\n我未曾就此与\n债务人的律师明确讨论过，但我们将需要债务人填写\n一份W-9表格，因为破产财产将有权取得\n——该笔款项所产生的任何利息。\n这是银行\n的要求，而非本所的要求。\n因此，如本院确实批准该项解决方案，我们将需要\n填写该表格。\n该$2 million将用于支付委员会的\n专业人士以及可能被任命的任何审查员，或者该审查员的专业人士。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交于 05/20/22 登记于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 15 页，共\n\n被任命的任何审查员或审查员的专业人士。当然，这不影响以最终方式请求的额外贷款。我预计我们也将能够就此达成安排。\n\n我们协商的另一项条款，也是委员会极为关切的一项，涉及以任命第11章受托人为依据的终止事件。我们深感关切——那也是我们异议的一个要点——该条款使程序失衡。\n\n因此，我们能够达成的是债务人和Golden Spring作出的承诺，即对于Golden Spring同意在发生终止事件时提供的$500,000——其中包括任命第11章受托人——他们同意在截至该日，即任命受托人之日，已获批准的所有专业人士费用之外，额外提供$500,000。其中，400将专门用于支付第11章受托人、其专业人士以及委员会专业人士的费用，只要后者在受托人任命后仍继续发挥作用。\n\n因此，委员会确信，如果第11章受托人必须接管，将有一笔资金供受托人继续进行调查和资产追收。\n\n法庭：您所说的500,000或400,000，是$2 million的一部分，还是在$2 million之外？戈德曼先生：嗯，那实际上是在截至任命受托人之日已累积的任何费用之外，因此我对此的理解是，它将在该贷款之外。未具名人士：在……之外？戈德曼先生：如果受托人的任命发生在临时期内，则在$2 million之外。或者如果其发生——如果其发生在最终期内，则为额外增加。这是我的理解。法庭：好的。我不确定那一方的每个人是否都同意这一点，但我们会看到。这就是我提出这个问题的原因。（暂停。）巴尔迪加先生：关于这一点，如果$2 million中仍有未发生的金额，就不会对此重复计算。戈德曼先生：我同意。巴尔迪加先生：好的。谢谢。戈德曼先生：是。法庭：好的。戈德曼先生：债务人曾请求在临时命令中作出善意认定。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交于 05/20/22 登记于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 17 页，共\n\n对此我们没有异议，只要其受制于一项非常严格的限制条件，即该认定将严格限于DIP贷款的提供，且不得以任何方式被解释或用于抗辩委员会、其他破产财产代表或债权人可能基于诸如替身实体、揭开公司面纱、欺诈性转让等理论向Golden Spring提出的索赔。\n\n换言之，他们不能利用善意认定主张，法官阁下，您已经认定我们是独立实体，而且我们在DIP安排中是善意行事的，因此您怎能揭开公司面纱。\n\n因此，这一点被排除在善意认定之外，善意认定将仅涉及临时DIP费用——更正，是DIP资金的提供。\n\n现行命令中的不放弃条款也有类似的限制条件。该条款载于第15段。我们将使其更加明确，以与我刚才向您说明的关于善意认定的限制条件相一致，即该命令的作出不会以任何方式减损或不利影响可能针对Golden Spring存在的索赔。我认为这概括了全部内容。我认为——有一点我们与债务人一致同意。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交于 05/20/22 登记于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 18 页，共\n1 这就是声明中提出的要点，即本\n2 程序应当为债权人提供公平机会，以调查\n3 债务人拥有哪些资产，\n4 最终确定这些资产为何，并\n5 将DIP融资作为实现该目的的手段。\n6 上述内容均载于其声明中，如果该项解决方案获得批准，我们认为，这些目的均将\n7 得到实现。\n8 法庭：\n好的。\n谢谢。\n9 金德塞思先生（Mr. Kindseth），您想说些什么吗？\n10 金德塞思先生：\n是的。\n我们存在一些后勤\n11 问题和时间安排问题，因此，尽快修订\n12 命令并使其传阅非常\n13 重要，所以我想获准返回我的办公室\n14 完成命令草案。\n15 我还——\n16 法庭：\n是DIP命令吗？\n17 金德塞思先生：\n抱歉？\n18 法庭：\n是DIP命令吗？\n19 金德塞思先生：\n不是。\n这是关于Lady\n20 May（梅夫人号）的——\n21 法庭：\n哦，您是——好的。\n22 金德塞思先生：\n对。\n我的——\n23 法庭：\n那么实际上并没有——\n24 实际上并没有一项以此为基础的动议，对吗？\n25 我的意思是——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交于 05/20/22 登记于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 19 页，共\n\n金德塞思先生：\n实际上——\n法庭：\n——您是说，这是对解除自动中止命令所给予救济的\n解决？\n金德塞思先生：\n对。\n法庭：\n好的。\n好的。\n金德塞思先生：\n我可以向法官阁下提供一份\n摘要——\n法庭：\n不，没关系。\n金德塞思先生：\n太好了。\n法庭：\n我不需要看它。\n金德塞思先生：\n很好。\n法庭：\n我的意思是，我想——我会阅读它——\n金德塞思先生：\n是。\n法庭：\n——当我看到它时，对吗？\n金德塞思先生：\n好的。\n很好。\n法庭：\n因此，我认为这没有问题。\n金德塞思先生：\n那么我可以获准离开吗？\n法庭：\n可以。\n可以。\n当然可以。\n谢谢。\n金德塞思先生：\n非常感谢您，法官阁下。\n法庭：\n好的。\n那么我原本要就其提问的唯一另一件事是——\n巴尔迪加先生，除审查员事项和驳回动议外，您没有谈及的、今天排期审理的唯一事项——您已在某些\n1 方面谈及该两项事项——是债权证明申报截止日期动议。\n2 该动议目前状态如何？\n3 巴尔迪加先生：\n抱歉。\n我确实忘记了。\n4 我认为该事项也已完全解决。\n我们已同意\n5 美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）在这方面提出的所有请求，基本上\n6 是简化债权人为遵守申报\n7 截止日期所必须采取的措施。\n8 法庭：\n提议的申报截止日期\n9 是什么时候？\n10 巴尔迪加先生：\n我不——我不——其结果是自送达申报截止日期通知后52天。\n11 \n12 法庭：\n好的。\n嗯，我必须审阅该事项，\n13 因为我不确定52天是否有足够的时间。\n14 巴尔迪加先生：\n好的。\n15 法庭：\n我可能——您知道，目前，法典\n16 ——您知道，在过去几年中已数次修改，\n17 但我认为，341会议后的最短期限是70天，\n18 而且是7天或其他时间，但这是第11章案件，其中——\n19 巴尔迪加先生：\n对。\n20 法庭：\n——并不总是必须设定\n21 申报截止日期，对吗？\n22 但是，如果设定，如果您提出请求，那没有问题，\n23 但我不知道52天——我必须查看您\n24 提出的任何方案，不过我——\n25 \n\n巴尔迪加先生：好的。这很公平，法官阁下。法庭：——我只是向您表示，我不确定52天是否会成为本案或任何第11章案件的充足时间，说实话，原因很多，包括对在计划下提出异议或获得分配之能力的影响。巴尔迪加先生：我明白。法庭：所以这将是我唯一的担忧。我的意思是，我不知道我可能还有什么其他担忧，但我只是告诉您，在我看来52天太短了。我并不是说我会设为180天或诸如此类，但我认为，您知道，我预期申报截止日期至少应在75天左右。从本案管理的角度而言，这会有问题吗？巴尔迪加先生：嗯，这取决于。我的意思是——在我们推进计划程序时，了解有哪些债权是有帮助的。法庭：我理解。巴尔迪加先生：而且我们急于推进计划程序。本案已进行两个月。如果我们再给债权人实质上两个月来申报债权，这似乎并不是很大的负担，但请确定一个日期并予以送达，无论本院认为何种日期适当，\n\n1 这将——但这将有助于推进计划程序——\n2 法庭：\n而且您当然可以——\n3 巴尔迪加先生：\n——以了解有哪些债权。\n\n法庭：您知道，当然可以根据不同的可能结果准备您的披露声明和计划，对吗？\n\n巴尔迪加先生（Baldiga）：与其说是披露声明，不如说是支撑该计划的金融交易。这是一个——我们——债权，债权金额很重要。而且，要继续推进——\n\n法庭：我完全同意，这正是关键所在，对吗？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：对。\n\n法庭：而且——您没有预先打包的 Chapter 11，因此必须有时间进行征集和投票，并且必须给人们提供机会，即有实质意义的机会，提交债权证明。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：是的。而且我知道规则规定，45 天被推定为充分，我们也接受期限可以更长——\n\n法庭：什么规则？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：地方规则 3003-1。\n\n法庭：规定 45 天提交——设定债权证明的截止日期？也许是这样。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：让我再看一下。（停顿。）巴尔迪加先生：但是，再说一次，我们——我们甚至并未建议 45 天，但我想这算是一个参考点。不过，如果法庭认为不应当是 45 天，而应当是 52 天或 60 天，那么——\n\n法庭：我只是看不出 45 天——或地方规则 3001-1 中的任何期限。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：抱歉。我说错了，是 3003-1。\n\n法庭：那些是其债权被列为有争议、附条件或未清算的债权人。该规则适用于债权被列为有争议、附条件或未清算的债权人，并向其发出提交债权证明截止日期的通知。该规则的目的在于，使提出案件并在其财务状况说明和清单中将所有债权——或者任何债权，不必是全部——列为有争议、附条件或未清算的债务人，在康涅狄格州适用的一项程序中，被要求通知该债权人：其债权被列为有争议、附条件或未清算；如果其未提交债权证明，则其将无法提出异议，也不会根据计划获得任何分配。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：我明白。我并未——我并未说该规则决定我们在此所做之事。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 23 of\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 24 of\n1 说该规则决定我们在此所做之事。\n2 法庭：\n是。\n3 巴尔迪加先生：\n它提供了一个参考点，即\n4 某些债权人提交其\n5 债权的截止日期。我并不是说这决定了我们的做法。我\n6 所说的是，正如几乎所有其他涉及数千万美元、可设想会收到\n7 债权申报的 Chapter 11 案件一样，\n8 设定提交债权的截止日期有助于\n9 推动案件——\n10 法庭：\n我完全同意。我并非\n11 表示不会有——\n12 巴尔迪加先生：\n好的。所以这就是我所说的。因此\n13 我们将——\n14 法庭：\n我并非表示不会\n15 有截止日期。我只是不确定会是 52\n16 天。\n17 巴尔迪加先生：\n正如我所说，确定一个您\n18 觉得合适的日期，让事情继续\n19 推进，我们就照办。\n20 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n21 巴尔迪加先生：\n谢谢。\n22 法庭：\n好的。那么，弗里德曼先生（Friedman），这是\n23 您对聘用 Verdolino & Lowey（韦尔多利诺及洛伊）\n24 申请的异议，以及——您客户的——对 DIP 融资\n25 命令的异议。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 25 of\n\n现在，我看到了各方的证人和证物清单。我还看到昨晚就不同证物形成了一份联合证物表格。你们打算今天上午如何进行？您——您要——我们是从您的异议开始，还是由巴尔迪加先生从他的——或他的动议开始？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：为了建立证据基础——我原本打算传唤 Craig Jalbert（克雷格·贾尔伯特）先生出庭。该证人是 PAX（PAX）拟进行交叉询问的证人。直接询问会很简短，但是——\n\n法庭：如果弗里德曼先生没有异议，我没有问题。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：好的。\n\n法庭：我的意思是，我相信你们二位已经就此沟通过了，对吗？\n\n弗里德曼先生：法官阁下，我的同事 Aronsson 女士（阿伦松）将处理对直接询问的任何异议以及交叉询问；证人——已被准许退庭后，我们将进行辩论。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。那么，巴尔迪加先生，您可以传唤您的第一位证人。并且，为明确记录起见，我们现在——该证据是否将同时适用于 Verdolino\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 26 of\n1 & Lowey 和 DIP 动议，还是我们仅从\n2 Verdolino & Lowey 申请开始？\n3 巴尔迪加先生：\n从 Verdolino & Lowey 开始。\n4 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n5 巴尔迪加先生：\nJalbert 先生。\n6 法庭：\nJalbert 先生，您——您坐下时，\n7 请告诉我您能看到什么，好吗？如果您\n8 面前有屏幕，您知道。\n9 我只是想说，我的屏幕显示\n10 什么都没有。至少应当显示日程表吗？\n11 书记员：\n不。\n12 法庭：\n好的。不应当显示\n13 任何内容。好的。\n14 Jalbert 先生：\n是空白的，法官阁下。\n15 法庭：\n您能看到任何内容吗？\n16 Jalbert 先生：\n是空白的。\n17 法庭：\n好的。很好。我的也是。因此\n18 我们处于同一页上。不过，希望我们很快会处于\n19 不同的一页上。\n20 Jalbert 先生：\n早上好。\n21 法庭：\n早上好。\n22 CRAIG JALBERT，债务人证人，经宣誓\n23 书记员：\n请陈述您的姓名和营业地址，\n24 以供记录。\n25 证人：\n我的姓名是 Craig R. Jalbert，J-A-L-\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 27 of\n1 B，B 如 boy，E 如 Eric，R-T，T 如 Tom。我在\n2 Verdolino & Lowey 工作。我们的营业地址是 124 Washington\n3 Street, Foxboro, Massachusetts 02035。\n4 书记员：\n谢谢。\n5 法庭：\n早上好，Jalbert 先生。\n6 证人：\n早上好，法官阁下。\n7 法庭：\n您在那里还好吗？您有\n8 所需的一切吗？\n9 证人：\n（无可听见的回答。）\n10 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。我想我们\n11 甚至没有水，但如果您到了\n12 需要水的时候，请告诉我们。好吗？\n13 证人：\n谢谢。我很感激。\n14 直接询问\n15 由巴尔迪加先生进行：\n16 问\n早上好，Jalbert 先生。\n17 答\n早上好。\n18 问\n您在介绍中说，您与\n19 Verdolino & Lowey 律师事务所有关联？\n20 答\n是。\n21 问\n您能否向法庭说明该机构从事什么业务。\n22 答\n其称为一家会计师事务所。我们的大部分工作是\n23 专业性工作。我们几乎唯一不提供的会计服务\n24 是鉴证类服务，包括审计、\n25 复核、汇编，但我们提供大量破产诉讼支持\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 28 of\n\nJalbert - 直接询问\n\n1 工作。我们为联邦参议员、众议员和总统\n2 候选人提供联邦选举报告服务，\n3 并且我们从事我们所谓的高净值人士\n4 照护及税务申报准备工作。\n5 问\n您在该机构担任何职务？\n6 答\n我是负责人。\n7 问\n您是否是该机构的共同创始人？\n8 答\n该机构于 1979 年创立。Verdolino\n9 或 Verdolino & Lowey 于 1986 年购买了该机构的一半。我购买了\n10 另一半，时间是 1987 年。此后多年，\n11 它逐渐演变为 Verdolino & Lowey。\n12 问\n那么，您至今已在该机构工作了多久？\n13 答\n三十五年。\n14 问\n三十五，35 年。\n15 那么，在 Verdolino——以及您在该机构的\n16 职称是什么？\n17 答\n负责人。\n18 问\n这是否意味着您至少负责——\n19 与其他人共同负责该机构？\n20 答\n是。因此，我不是所有者，因为注册会计师不能成为\n21 所有者，但我被视为享有平等的 50% 合伙人地位。而且，\n22 我所有未用于管理该机构的时间——我是“管理合伙人”——\n23 均投入于破产清偿能力及\n24 相关事项。\n25 问\n那么，您具有破产清偿能力案件方面的经验吗？\n\nJalbert - 直接询问 28 答 我有。问 有多少年？答 大约从 1988 年或 1989 年开始。问 好的。在您加入 Verdolino & Lowey 之前，您——您的教育经历是什么，从大学开始？答 我于 1983 年从 Boston College（波士顿学院）毕业，获得会计学理学学士学位。此后，我已完成 35——38 或 39 年的会计及相关领域继续专业教育。问 好的。而且，正如您——我想您说过，Verdolino & Lowey 不是审计师，对吗？答 正确。问 请描述您在破产案件中所从事的工作，以及多年来您参与过大约多少宗破产案件？答 我上一次统计是在五年或十年前，当时我参与过 7,000 宗 Chapter 7 案件和 500 宗 Chapter 11 案件。我曾三次被任命为 Chapter 11 受托人。我曾担任联邦——州——联邦接管人、州法院接管人，以及四个州为债权人利益转让的受让人。我曾——我曾担任确认后受托人——随便选一个称谓——清算监督人、清算管理人，或其他称谓，多次如此。我与受托人、占有中的债务人、债权人委员会、股东权益委员会、有担保债权人、无担保债权人合作，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 29 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 30 of\n\nJalbert - 直接询问\n\n1 多年来，我们在所有这些案件中代表过\n2 几乎所有破产案件的利益相关方。\n3 我想我暂时能想到的就是这些。\n4 问\n您是否就计划制定和谈判向债务人提供协助？\n5 答\n是。\n6 问\n您是否协助进行财务报告？\n7 答\n是。\n8 问\n在本案中，您知道债务人显然是个人？\n9 答\n是。\n10 问\n事实上，Kwok 先生（郭文贵）在法庭内，您目前已多次\n11 见过他？\n12 答\n是。\n13 问\n显然，他有律师协助他，对吗？\n14 答\n是。\n15 问\n除 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）外，他们是破产律师吗？\n16 答\n据我所知不是。\n17 问\n好的。他个人是否有一支精通\n18 破产报告的财务团队？\n19 答\n没有。\n20 问\n您如何知道？\n21 答\n有人告诉我的。而且在过去——今天是几号\n22 ——大约 45 天内，已经有很多互动，且我们开展工作所需的全部\n23 信息均来自\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 404-1\nFiled 05/20/22\nEntered 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nJalbert - 直接询问\n\n1 法律团队。\n2 问\n好的。但是，您和您的员工在破产案件\n3 财务报告方面具有相当丰富的经验，\n4 对吗？\n5 答\n是。\n6 问\n本案需要何种报告？\n7 答\n嗯，最初想到的是两部分报告。\n8 除清单和 SOFAs 外，暂且不谈\n9 这些；那是案件开始时的事项。在持续进行的基础上，\n10 有现今提交于案卷、并向\n11 美国受托人提供额外信息的月度经营报告。\n12 这是美国受托人的表格和规则。\n13 此外，还有一份与 Rule 2015.3 有关的 Form 426，\n14 用于报告与——我认为术语是——\n15 受债务人实质控制的实体有关的事项。\n16 问\n好的。您是否参与了本案首次提交的\n17 MORs 的准备工作？\n18 答\n是。\n19 问\n您做了什么？\n或者说，我说“您”时，请包括您和您的\n20 员工。\n21 答\n我们 Verdolino & Lowey——启动了\n22 准备工作。我们使用了\n23 美国受托人提供的表格。这是一份需要填写的 PDF。\n24 其中有许多说明。我们与债务人的\n25 合作。\n\n1 为获取编制该表格所需的信息而与律师沟通。\n该工作已就2月和3月完成。\n我们需要协助从Golden Spring（黄金春天）获取信息，并已通过律师作出安排。\n我们确实与Golden Spring进行了最初几次电子邮件往来以获取信息，而绝大多数信息均通过律师提供。\n问 好的。关于附表和声明，你是否参与了该过程？\n答 是。\n问 你和你的工作人员在这方面做了什么？\n答 因此，为提交SOFA和附表，需要大量历史信息，因此我们通过多次电话和电子邮件与法律团队沟通，以获取该等信息。\n我们最初填写了两类表格的草案——所有附表——众所周知，附表数量很多——以及财务状况声明。\n我们最初起草了我所称的具体说明；另有一般性说明，作为SOFA和附表不可分割的一部分一并提交。\n我相信一般性说明是由律师编制和起草的。\n在从法律团队接收、获取并整理信息后，我首次尝试编写具体说明，以回应SOFA和附表中的各种特定问题。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—直接询问\n\n1 问 你是否参与了该占有中的债务人设立所谓DIP存款账户？\n答 是。\n问 你做了什么？\n答 美国受托人办公室仅允许若干金融机构在破产案件中持有资金，因此我们确定了该组银行，并试图了解哪些银行愿意参与。我们与其中三家经常办理破产业务的银行有合作关系。\n最初，但现已不再如此，我将担任实际签字人，因此我们按该方式进行了陈述。\n当明确这不会发生后，我们作出安排，使占有中的债务人成为该账户的唯一签字人，并设立符合美国受托人办公室要求的银行账户。\n该银行曾在本辖区及其他辖区的其他案件中办理过此类业务。恰好也是我们过去几年在多项事务中与之合作过的银行。\n问 是哪家银行？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—直接询问\n\n1 答 我们选择了People's（人民银行）和M&T（M&T银行）。在我们讨论期间，它们合并了。因此，我们与双方都进行了沟通，但最终该账户将设于M&T。\n问 好的。明白。你是否利用自己的个人经验和关系协助设立该账户？\n答 是。\n问 并且，再次确认，你本人和你的事务所不会担任受托人，但仅在这方面提供咨询协助，对吗？\n答 正确。\n问 你不会在本案中担任受托人，对吗？\n答 正确。\n问 因此，所有工作都是咨询性质的？\n答 嗯——\n问 会计或者——\n答 是。我不知道应当如何称呼，但将会有会计和报告工作。银行账户中的信息必须在MLR中报告。债务人没有会计人员。我预计我们将承担一定职责，确保支票开具，并由债务人签署支票。\n此外，还有委员会及其他人士可能要求的报告。美国受托人可能要求每周或\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第35页，共\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—直接询问\n\n1 每月报告，或每两周报告。我不知道他们会要求什么。不同案件中，人们做法不同。\n当然，还将通过MLR进行月度报告，因此我预计我们将协助并促成该项工作。\n问 你和你的工作人员是否曾就本案报告事宜与美国受托人办公室直接沟通？\n答 是。\n问 进展如何？\n答 嗯，事情开始于——大家可能都知道，2021年6月，美国受托人开始提出一项要求，月度MLR与过去大不相同。过去全部使用Excel，你编制起来相当简单。\n现在是在PDF上完成——可以直接在PDF中键入内容。一旦表格填妥，并录入该特定案件所需且适当的全部信息，你实际上按下一个按钮，数据便上传至美国受托人办公室的云端。\n随后会返回一份不再带有“草案”或任何原有水印的表格。然后由债务人签署并提交至案卷。任何补充信息则由我的事务所或律师通过电子邮件另行发送给美国受托人。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第36页，共\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—直接询问\n\n1 嗯，自1月以来——我有若干正在进行第11章程序并须提交该等报告的案件——在未收到任何通知的情况下，表格发生了重大变化。过去只是直接的四五页。\n突然之间，增加了许多其他页面和一些标记；你知道，就像你去餐厅时按菜单按钮查看菜单一样，该表格有那种符号和标记。\n我不知道那是什么。没有人能弄明白。我与美国受托人办公室会计部门的一位人士交谈，他恰好在纽约处理本案；他向我解释，那就是该表格应有的形式，这使我们能够迅速完成表格。在此期间，他要求在月度经营报告中提供额外信息，自那以后我们一直在提供。\n问 你是否认为你和你的工作人员35年的经验有助于高效完成该工作？\n答 当然。\n问 你认为该债务人在没有你们办公室协助的情况下，能够完成该工作吗？\n答 不能。\n问 附表和声明中的说明及定义呢？你的经验如何影响该项工作的完成方式？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第37页，共\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—直接询问\n\n36 答 嗯，显然非常有帮助。本案在多个方面具有独特性。其中一个独特之处——至少法官阁下可能知道——与公司第11章案件或第7章案件相比，个人第11章案件数量并不多，相对而言数量较少。我们过去办理过若干此类案件。我们曾经——我们办理过不同类型的案件。本案非常独特。\n因此，在处理本案时，尽管我们拥有大量历史知识、经验和基础，能够理解SOFA和附表所要求的内容，但我们必须确保让每个人了解规则和定义。\n坦率地说，有时SOFA或附表中的实际问题，并不完全对应于说明所述内容。定义可能略有不同。因此，我们在这些方面协助了所有人。\n律师以及我们都没有办理过大量个人第11章案件，因此我们都确保审阅这些说明，以确保我们完成提交，并尽一切可能完成应做的事情；并且，为避免任何疑义，在存在任何需要进一步处理和说明的问题时，律师起草了一般性说明和具体的一般性说明，以随附于附表和SOFA。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—直接询问\n\n1 问 你的经验在这方面是否有帮助？\n答 是。\n问 你认为该债务人在没有你协助的情况下能够完成该工作吗？\n答 不能。\n问 你先前提到，你的事务所不提供审计服务，对吗？\n答 是。\n问 尽管你的事务所曾经担任、并且你也曾担任受托人，但你在此处并未担任受托人，对吗？\n答 正确。\n问 你记得几周前接受PAX（PAX）讯问吗？\n答 是。\n问 好的。在你的证言中，你是否试图明确说明你在此处并未从事审计、法务或核实工作？\n答 我认为——我认为——我以为我说明了。我认为他们使用的关键词是“调查”。\n问 好的。\n答 我没有调查任何事情，对该问题的回答是否定的。\n问 好的。那么，你是否被要求在本案中担任审查员？\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—直接询问\n\n38 答 否。\n问 你是否被要求担任受托人？\n答 否。\n问 你是否被要求进行调查？\n答 否。\n问 但你被要求与债务人及债务人团队合作，以《破产法》、规则及美国受托人办公室所要求的方式提供财务信息？\n答 是，除其他服务外。\n问 好的。但你认为自己有能力做到这一点？\n答 是。\n问 你认为——再次确认，债务人没有你的帮助能做到这一点吗？\n答 不能。\n问 好的。\nBALDIGA先生（巴尔迪加）：没有其他问题，法官阁下。谢谢。\n法庭：谢谢。交叉询问，律师？\n（暂停。）\nARONSSON女士（阿伦松）：早上好。\n证人：早上好。\nARONSSON女士：我是来自O'Melveny & Myers（奥美律师事务所）的Laura Aronsson（劳拉·阿伦松）。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第39页，共\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—交叉询问\n\n39 法庭：早上好。你可以开始。\n由ARONSSON女士进行交叉询问：\n问 早上好，Jalbert先生。我想讨论V&L（V&L）迄今在本案中完成的工作。V&L是在2月某个时候被联系的，对吗？\n答 2月底，3月初。\n问 在受聘后，你们着手处理SOFA和附表，同时开展这两项工作？\n答 嗯，我尚未受聘，所以。\n问 在你们被联系后？谢谢。\n答 在我们被联系后，是。我认为——除起草聘用函和提供事务所背景信息外，我认为我们的首要任务是开始处理SOFA和附表。\n问 你们完成该工作了吗？\n答 截至目前，是。\n问 随后V&L开始编制第一份月度经营报告？\n答 是。\n问 这是2月后半月的报告？\n答 嗯，这是2月份的报告。但债务人恰好于2月15日提交申请，所以。\n问 自那以后，债务人又提交了一份额外的\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第40页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第41页，共\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—交叉询问\n\n40 经营报告？\n答 3月份的，是。\n问 这是在4月20日提交的？\n答 如果你这么说的话。我知道大约是在那个日期。\n问 转到你迄今就这些类别所完成的工作，我先从SOFA和附表开始；你根据从他人收到的信息编制了这些提交文件？\n答 是。\n问 这些人包括Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克），对吗？\n答 是。\n问 Aaron Mitchell（亚伦·米切尔）？\n答 是。\n问 他是Kwok（郭文贵）的个人律师吗？\n答 他是债务人的律师。我不知道你所说的个人律师是什么意思。\n问 还有Melissa Francis（梅丽莎·弗朗西斯）？\n答 是。我确实从她那里收到过信息。\n问 她是Kwok的个人律师吗？\n答 据我了解，她是——嗯，她是破产团队的一部分。我不知道她是否只是他的个人律师。\n问 还有其他人吗？\n答 是。我们收到了一份电子表格，我认为该表格曾由某人修改或变更过几次。\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—交叉询问 41\n\nGolden Spring（黄金泉）。问：这是否与财务状况说明书（SOFAs）和附表，或者月度经营报告工作有关？答：与经营报告有关。问：好的。我们可以谈谈那个。除 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）、Aaron Mitchell（阿伦·米切尔）和 Melissa Francis（梅利莎·弗朗西斯）外，您是否就财务状况说明书和附表与其他任何人沟通过？答：没有。问：我想我听到您在直接询问中作证称，Verdolino & Lowey（韦尔多利诺与洛伊）从我们刚才谈到的人员那里获得了所有相关信息。我注意到——您没有进行任何其他独立工作或核实事实？答：正确。问：您没有就 Kwok（郭文贵）先生在财务状况说明书和附表所列资产中可能拥有的所有权权益进行任何调查——调查？答：正确。问：例如，没有调查 Kwok 对 Lady May（莱迪·梅）的权益？答：正确。问：您没有就财务状况说明书和附表中所列项目进行任何估值工作，对吗？答：如果您问我们是否进行了估值工作，没有。但是有一些问题。那些问题的答案是纽约州签发的支票，而且我认为联邦政府签发的支票；从那些支票的表面上有一个数字。我不知道您是否将其称为估值，但我们阅读了支票，确定了该数字是多少，并将其填入附表中。案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 记入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第42页，共\n\nJalbert—交叉询问 42\n\n联邦政府签发的支票；从那些支票的表面上有一个数字。我不知道您是否将其称为估值，但我们阅读了支票，确定了该数字是多少，并将其填入附表中。问：Verdolino & Lowey 没有评估像 Lady May 这样的奢侈品的经验？答：正确。问：您没有对债务人的收入信息进行任何调查？答：正确。问：您没有就 Verdolino & Lowey 在本案中编制的任何申报文件与债务人交谈过？答：正确。问：Verdolino & Lowey 使用 Best Case（最佳案例）协助编制财务状况说明书和附表，对吗？答：是。问：那是行业软件？答：嗯，是的。除了破产事项外，我不知道它还能做什么，但 Best Case 是一家——我不知道该公司的真正名称——但他们制造、编制一种软件，提供据我所知必须在破产案件中提交的几乎所有破产表格。问：V&L 只是将您收到的信息输入该软件，以生成申报文件？答：嗯，首先我们获得了信息，理解了该信息，然后，是的，我们将其键入。案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 记入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第43页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n记入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nJalbert—交叉询问\n\n问：您没有结合该项委任审查债务人的任何账簿和记录？答：正确。\n\n问：您不知道那些账簿和记录保存在何处？答：正确。\n\n问：您没有要求审阅它们？答：正确。\n\n问：转到与月度经营报告有关的工作，再次，如同财务状况说明书和附表一样，Verdolino 依赖其从第三方收到的信息来协助编制？答：正确。\n\n问：您先前提到了一份费用汇总，这是否是您从 Golden Spring 的某人那里收到的一份费用汇总，其中分列了债务人的月度费用？答：嗯，它们分列的是代表债务人支付的费用，即第三方代表债务人支付的费用，是的。\n\n问：这大约有七个类别？答：大约如此。\n\n问：据您所知，Golden Spring 是债务人在纽约市的家族办公室？答：Baldiga先生（鲍尔迪加）：异议。\n\n法庭：您的依据是什么——\n\nJalbert—交叉询问 44\n\n证人：那不是我的理解。\n\n法庭：请稍等，先生。您的异议是什么？\n\nBaldiga先生：嗯，证人已经回答了问题，因此我撤回异议，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n证人：抱歉。请再问一遍。\n\n由 Aronsson女士（阿伦松）询问：\n\n问：据您所知，Golden Spring 是债务人在纽约市的家族办公室？答：不是。那不是我的理解。\n\nAronsson女士：好的。书记员女士，请调出 PAX（PAX）证物14。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n由 Aronsson女士询问：\n\n问：那么，仅为确认——\n\n书记员：屏幕上——\n\nAronsson女士：抱歉。\n\n书记员：屏幕上显示的是证物14，第1页。\n\nAronsson女士：谢谢。\n\n书记员：PAX证物14，第1页。\n\n由 Aronsson女士询问：\n\n问：那么，仅为确认——\n\n答：不是。我的文件上不是这么写的。我的文件写的是我在第171页。它——它是否有一大堆——案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 记入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第45页，共\n\nJalbert—交叉询问 45\n\n书记员：是的。\n\n证人：——全部证物都在一个PDF中？好的。\n\n书记员：那是证物14的第1页。\n\n证人：如果您说那是第1页，那就是第1页。\n\n由 Aronsson女士询问：\n\n问：那么，仅为确认，您对 Golden Spring 的理解是什么？答：我的理解是，它是债务人儿子的公司／家族办公室。\n\nAronsson女士：好的。请把那些撤下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：因此，律师，您并不申请接纳证物14，是吗？\n\nAronsson女士：不，我不申请。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n由 Aronsson女士询问：\n\n问：您就月度经营报告所载信息与 Golden Spring 的一人沟通过，对吗？答：是。\n\n问：该人向您提供了与月度经营报告相关的某些信息？答：是。\n\n问：那个人是谁？案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 记入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第46页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n记入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nJalbert—交叉询问\n\n答：我只知道他的名字。\n\n证人：我可以说出来吗？\n\nBaldiga先生：异议，法官阁下。嗯，我让 Golden Spring 来主张。\n\nMiltenberger先生（米尔滕贝格）：法官阁下，这个问题在 Jalbert 先生的证言录取中出现过。我的当事人担心其员工受到骚扰、恐吓。除非有具体理由需要在记录中说出一名员工的姓名，否则我们希望员工的身份保持保密并不载入记录。\n\n法庭：嗯，我认为您必须为此提交一项动议，律师。您知道，这是——如果您希望某些内容被密封或保密，您必须通过适当的动议寻求该项救济。\n\n但我认为律师所问的是——也许我错了，我们可以回放录音——您问的是一名从 Golden Spring 提供信息的具体人员。我认为那是问题所在。\n\nAronsson女士：正是如此。\n\n法庭：好的。不过，先生，暂时不要回答，好吗，因为我们必须弄清楚这里的——问题是什么。\n\n那么，知道 Golden Spring 的具体人员姓名有什么必要？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n记入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nJalbert—交叉询问\n\nAronsson女士：当然。就本项具体动议而言，即对 V&L 和 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）的聘任，我们寻求了证据开示，以了解聘任 Verdolino & Lowey 的目的，以及为何这符合破产财产的最佳利益。\n\n我们认为，我们有权探究这一点；Verdolino & Lowey 编制财务状况说明书、附表和月度经营报告的方式，包括是谁向 Verdolino 提供了基础事实，以及那些事实是什么，对于查明该项聘任是否符合破产财产的最佳利益具有重要意义。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，让我问您一个问题，如果我们——我此刻并未——并未就任何事项作出裁定——但是——您是否反对我们让证人回答该问题——但证人是否已经在证言录取中回答过这个问题？\n\nAronsson女士：他没有。\n\n法庭：好的。该问题是否在证言录取中被问过？\n\nAronsson女士：是的。我们还寻求了证据开示，并收到了一封经过遮盖的电子邮件，因此那就是该问题的根源。\n\n法庭：我明白了。所以您收到了一封来自 Golden Spring 某人的电子邮件，但其中人员姓名被遮盖了？案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 记入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第48页，共\n\nJalbert—交叉询问 48\n\nAronsson女士：正确。\n\n法庭：好的。Miltenberger律师，您的担忧是什么？\n\nMiltenberger先生：法官阁下，我的当事人担心其员工的隐私。在 PAX 律师的陈述中，我没有看到任何明确说明：向 Verdolino & Lowey 提供信息之人的身份为何重要。我们不反对披露所提供的信息以及提供时间。我们唯一的担忧是员工的隐私，我们请求对员工姓名予以保密。\n\n法庭：嗯，Golden Spring 的某人最终不是必须作证吗？我的意思是，您打算做什么——您会指定一名《联邦民事诉讼规则》第30(b)条代表，还是怎样——您不会——我是说，总得有人，不能只是该公司实体。在某个时候必须有一名个人。\n\nMiltenberger先生：正确，法官阁下。Golden Spring 已经接受询问。我们确实让 Golden Spring 的总裁作证并回答了所有问题。案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 记入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第49页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 记入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第50页，共\n\nJalbert—交叉询问 49\n\n法庭：所以，向 Jalbert 先生提供信息的人不是 Golden Spring 的总裁，这就是——这就是问题所在？\n\nMiltenberger先生：这就是问题所在，法官阁下。那是一名 Golden Spring 的普通员工，只是向 Verdolino & Lowey 转交信息。并且，再次说明，我们不反对就该信息是什么或 Verdolino & Lowey 为何需要它进行询问，只是反对披露该员工的身份，以保护该个人的隐私。\n\n法庭：嗯，我认为您本应寻求一项保护令。但我们也可以这样处理——我的意思是，您没有这样做。在证言录取中被问及这个问题时，您做了什么？\n\nMiltenberger先生：我对此提出异议，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。您是否说过您将寻求某种形式的保护令？\n\nMiltenberger先生：没有，法官阁下。我提出了异议，提问者便继续问下一个问题。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nAronsson女士：法官阁下，如果可以？\n\n法庭：可以。请说。\n\nAronsson女士：还有两点简要说明。即使该姓名不具相关性——我们对此有争议——案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 记入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第51页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n记入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nJalbert—交叉询问\n\n——我不知道有任何适用规则允许债务人或 Golden Spring 以相关性为由进行遮盖。我从未见过这种情况发生。\n\n我也不知道有任何规则允许债务人基于 STAG 安全威胁，遮盖原本可通过证据开示获得的信息，即某人的姓名和电子邮件地址。\n\n我还要指出，我们看到 Golden Spring 员工在公开可得的 LinkedIn（领英）上被标明身份。\n\nMiltenberger先生：法官阁下，论点是，该个人姓名的证明价值被披露该姓名的偏见性影响所超过。\n\n法庭：嗯，我不知道那是否正确。我理解您的论点，但我不知道那是否正确。\n\n也许我们需要做的是，您知道，将这一问题搁置以作进一步讨论和／或——我是说，我们短期内可以做的是——但我不知道 PAX 是否接受，可能不会——可以提出并回答该问题，无论答案是什么，我们可以在就该问题作出裁定之前将记录的该部分予以密封，但我认为这是我们目前所能做的最好的办法。\n\n我面前没有任何材料可就这一问题作出有根据的证据裁定，对吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 记入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第52页，共\n\nJalbert—交叉询问\n\n但是，如果我们要这样做，就必须给书记员一点时间，因为我们必须——也就是说，我们的软件，即构成本案记录的录音，允许我们将记录的某些部分予以密封。\n\n而且我必须作出口头裁定，即——因为目前没有待决动议，也没有书面动议——由于对某一问题提出了异议，而该异议在性质上属于证据异议，并且我面前没有任何材料使我能够作出审慎裁定，因此，我此时必须裁定，如果我们希望以这种方式进行，那么该问题及回答的记录将予以密封，直至法院另行命令。\n\n巴尔迪加先生（Mr. Baldiga）？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n代表债务人，除米尔滕伯格先生（Mr. Miltenberger）的异议外，我们的异议仅基于关联性。\n\n您曾给予PAX（太平洋联盟）机会说明该姓名如何具有相关性，但并未给出任何理由。该姓名与本案任何事项均无关。\n\n法院：好的。再次说明，我不确定我是否同意您的意见，但我目前尚未准备好就此作出裁定。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：但是，至少应当有所说明，为什么这具有相关性。\n\n杰尔贝特（Jalbert）—交叉询问 52\n\n法院：嗯，确实如此——我的意思是，根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》，发现程序范围广泛，证据范围也广泛。她正在询问有关构成本第11章案件基础的财务信息编制情况的问题；而杰尔贝特先生已相当——您知道——令人钦佩地作证说明了他做过什么、没有做过什么，以及该信息如何由第三方而非债务人直接提供给他。因此，我确实认为这具有相关性。如果这是您——就该异议而言，我认为它具有相关性。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：好的。\n\n法院：我认为这具有相关性。但该信息是否应当保密或受到保护，则是一个不同的问题，至少从法院的角度来看是如此。再次说明，这是一个个人第11章案件。债务人依《破产法》负有义务。显然，这些——我不该这么说——这不公平——让我确保我说得准确——根据我今天所听到的情况，而这也是我目前所听到的全部情况，债务人并未直接与编制和提交作为本案基础的财务信息的一方进行沟通。如果情况确实如此，而目前看来也是如此——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 404-1\nFiled 05/20/22\nEntered 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nJalbert（杰尔贝特）—交叉询问\n\n这没有问题，但是，我的意思是，没有任何事情——但这并不——这并不排除一方询问是谁提供了该信息。我认为这具有相关性。\n\n而且即使——但最终它可能并不具有实质性。我可以理解它具有相关性，但您可以在某个时候主张，可能是谁并不重要，因为那只是Golden Spring（金泉）的人。\n\n现在，这并不意味着，作为提出异议方——异议方的PAX不应当知道此人是谁，因为PAX可能希望对该人进行证言录取。\n\n现在，您可以——您可以对此提出异议，也可以申请保护令和提出撤销传票的动议，以及各种其他事项，但根据今晨迄今已经确立的本案事实，这并不意味着该事项不具有相关性。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：好的。法官阁下，我的第二点是，在我们进行所有这些其他繁琐程序之前，证人有可能根本不知道该姓名。也许法院可以询问一下，我们是否只是在浪费时间，因为——\n\n法院：我的意思是，这是一种可能性，但是——\n\n巴尔迪加先生：谢谢您。\n\n法院：——您知道，我认为有一个待决问题，对吗？\n\n有一个待决异议。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 55 of\n\nJalbert（杰尔贝特）—交叉询问\n\n所以，Golden Spring正在——并非试图，而是正在主张，该问题的答案属于保密信息，他们不希望予以披露——\n\n巴尔迪加先生：我完全理解这一点。\n\n法院：——尽管他们尚未就本次询问向本法院提交任何文件或任何材料。那么我为什么不——\n\n那么，各位律师希望如何进行？\n\n阿伦松女士（Ms. Aronsson）：Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）乐意按照您建议的方式在密封状态下继续进行。\n\n我还想指出，我们有关于相关性的论点，而弗里德曼先生（Mr. Friedman）将就这一具体问题结合DIP异议加以陈述。\n\n法院：嗯，我刚刚已裁定我认为这具有相关性。\n\n阿伦松女士：谢谢。是的。\n\n法院：好的？我认为这具有相关性。所以，您知道。巴尔迪加先生可能认为该裁定令人反对，并且可能——您知道——为上诉目的在记录中记载异议，或采取他所需的任何措施，但我认为它在本案中具有相关性。\n\n根据本案的具体事实和情形，我认为，知悉是谁向该方——即编制和提交所有财务信息的财务顾问——提供信息，具有相关性。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 404-1\nFiled 05/20/22\nEntered 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nJalbert（杰尔贝特）—交叉询问\n\n而该等财务信息构成本案的基础。\n\n因此，这就是法院的裁定。\n\n关于——将其置于密封状态，现在，如果各位能给我一分钟。\n\n我不想增加书记员的负担，但是，您需要多长时间来设置并开启——以确保这个一直待决的问题——\n\n而且我将——一旦我们进入密封状态，我将要求您再次提出该问题——以及杰尔贝特先生的回答，被置于密封状态？\n\n书记员：只要您说现在处于密封状态，就只需切换按钮。\n\n法院：好的。很好。\n\n书记员：（听不清。）\n\n法院：好的。等一下，米尔滕伯格先生。请稍等。\n\n书记员：所以您的意思是要将其置于——\n\n法院：不，还没有。我会告诉您。\n\n书记员：好的。\n\n法院：我会说何时开始。我只是想听取——我仍想听取PAX代理律师的意见，然后我也会让米尔滕伯格先生再次发言。\n\n书记员：好的。\n\n法院：在我让米尔滕伯格先生发言片刻之前，您是否还有任何想补充到记录中的内容？\n\nJalbert（杰尔贝特）—交叉询问 56\n\n阿伦松女士：没有。谢谢您。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。米尔滕伯格先生？\n\n米尔滕伯格先生：法官阁下，我想询问一下，在提问和回答期间，公众接入电话线是否仍会处于开启状态？\n\n法院：我想这是个好问题，不是吗，米尔滕伯格先生？\n\n书记员：我们会把他们放进等候室，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么这就是我们必须首先做的。我们必须——我们也必须关闭电话，对吗？我们有一条电话线在接通，不是吗？\n\n书记员：那是公众接入电话线。\n\n法院：是的。但还有谁——除——法庭内的人都在这里，那么我们——我们该如何处理？\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法院：我们必须——您知道吗？我们必须先想一下，因为我们必须让法庭内的所有人离开，而我不知道目前这样做有多大意义。因为如果它被密封，但每个人都听到了，那么它就不是密封的。那样它就成为公开的\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 57 of\n\nJalbert（杰尔贝特）—交叉询问 57\n\n记录。\n\n阿伦松女士：法官阁下，我可以占用片刻吗？\n\n法院：当然可以。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法院：请继续，律师。\n\n阿伦松女士：我认为我们乐意按此方式进行。\n\n法院：是的。唯一的问题是存在一个——确实存在一个问题，对吗？我们必须将所有在公众接入电话线上的人移出——移出本次庭审。并且法庭内还有所有这些人，对吗？那么我该如何处理？如果处于密封状态而每个人刚刚都听到了，那么它就不是密封的，对吗？\n\n阿伦松女士：法官阁下，另一个选择是，证人可以将该姓名写在一张纸上，并将其标记为法院证物1。\n\n法院：那将被置于密封状态？\n\n阿伦松女士：正确。\n\n法院：是。好的。我认为这是一个好的解决方案。我们就这么做，米尔滕伯格律师（Attorney Miltenberger），这样我们就不必——但是，当然，杰尔贝特先生可能没有\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 58 of\n\nJalbert（杰尔贝特）—交叉询问 58\n\n任何纸或笔。\n\n证人：法官阁下说得对。\n\n法院：是。谢谢。好的。那么，杰尔贝特先生，先不要写任何东西。我要请律师再次提出该问题。我要说明，对该问题有两项异议，其中一项是关于相关性，我已予以驳回。\n\n另一项是Golden Spring就保密性提出的异议，我目前尚未准备好就此作出裁定，因为我面前没有任何材料，使我能够以审慎方式处理该问题。因此，我将指示您通过将答案写在纸上来回答该问题，然后我们必须将该纸作为密封证物加以标记。好的？\n\n所以您不要对着麦克风说任何话。您不要在记录中说任何话。答案只会写在那张纸上。好的？\n\n证人：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。好的。律师，请您再次提出作为两项异议对象的那个问题。\n\n阿伦松女士询问：\n\n问：Golden Spring中向您提供与月度经营报告有关的某些信息的人是谁？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 59 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 404-1\nFiled 05/20/22\nEntered 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nJalbert（杰尔贝特）—交叉询问\n\n法院：好的。为使记录清楚，巴尔迪加先生代表债务人，以相关性为由对您的问题提出了异议，律师。\n\n我已说明，鉴于杰尔贝特先生先前的证词，即他和其办公室汇编并向本法院提交的信息、事务说明和明细表中的财务信息以及月度经营报告，均由第三方而非债务人直接向他提供，并且该等第三方之一为Golden Spring，我认为您的问题具有相关性。\n\n因此，我驳回了关于相关性的异议。\n\n米尔滕伯格先生代表Golden Spring进一步提出异议，主张披露或回答该有关个人姓名的问题可能——属于——Golden Spring希望保密的信息。\n\n而我已表示，若无符合《联邦民事诉讼规则》的适当书面材料，我目前不能就此作出裁定。\n\n因此，我们共同讨论并将要采取的做法是，杰尔贝特先生将写下对该问题的答案。他将把该文件交给您。然后您将把它交给书记员，并且它\n\n将作为法院证物1号在密封状态下标记。并且\n\n其将持续密封，直至法院另行命令。\n\n克莱伯恩律师？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n是，法官阁下。请允许我插一句——\n\n法院：\n我们听不见您说话。您能把那个拉向您吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n法官阁下，美国受托人有权查阅法院卷宗中的全部文件。\n\n法院：\n是。您将会获得查阅权。是。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n我只是想确认我们将能查阅——\n\n法院：\n美国受托人必须能够查阅所有密封文件。而且我相信律师知道这一点，所以——不过，为记录在案提出这一点很好。是的，美国受托人办公室将能够查阅该文件。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n谢谢。\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n好的。那么，贾尔伯特先生（Jalbert），您能否——\n\n证人：\n法官阁下，我能否快速确认我遵循您的指示？\n\n法院：\n当然。\n\n证人：\n我将按照您所说的写下来。我是应当把这张纸折起来，还是直接交给她？\n\n贾尔伯特——交叉询问 61\n\n法院：\n您可以直接交给她。没问题。\n\n证人：\n好的。\n\n法院：\n谢谢。您可以——现在，您写完后，请告知她。请告知律师。然后我将允许她走近并从您处取走该文件。之后，她将走近法庭书记员并将其交给法庭书记员，由法庭书记员将其作为法院证物1号在密封状态下标记。巴尔迪加先生（Baldiga）？\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n好的，法官阁下。我只想在其提交之前先看一下。\n\n法院：\n请便。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法院：\n美国受托人，您向米尔滕伯格先生（Miltenberger）出示后，也可以向美国受托人出示。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n巴尔迪加先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。是。请您走近——谢谢——并将其交给法庭书记员，她将对其进行标记。因此，我们只需要给法庭书记员一点时间来制作该证物。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n贾尔伯特——交叉询问\n\n给法庭书记员一点时间来制作该证物。\n\n我在庭审记录中说明，现在是上午11:03。\n\n我将法院证物1号标记为密封，直至法院另行命令，并在庭审记录中作出该项命令。好吗？\n\n因此，如果各位不介意，我们只需要一点时间。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n（贾尔伯特先生对PAX律师问题的书面回答被标记为密封状态下的法院证物1号。）\n\n法院：\n在法庭书记员标记该证物期间，我还要提及一件事。正如我向所有当事人提到的——我认为您上次不在场，律师，但或许您在场，如果是这样，我表示歉意——我们在中午12:00还有另一场听证会，因此我们必须在中午12:00休庭。该听证会可能会持续一段时间，但我不确定。因此就是这些。我只是想让您知道这一点。\n\n显然，从现在到中午12:00，我们没有很多时间，但我不确定您是否在场，我只是想提醒各位，今天的听证会届时必须休庭。\n\n阿伦松女士（Aronsson）：\n明白。\n\n法院：\n好的。我们准备好继续了吗？各位都准备好了吗？\n\n书记员：\n是。\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n贾尔伯特——交叉询问 63\n\n请继续。律师，请继续进行交叉询问。\n\n阿伦松女士询问：\n\n问：在不提及姓名的情况下，您从金泉（Golden Spring）的这个人那里至少收到过一封电子邮件，对吗？\n\n答：该事务所收到了。我在其中一两封中被抄送，但并非直接收件人。\n\n问：您作证称，梅丽莎·弗朗西斯（Melissa Francis）是债务人破产团队的一员，对吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您是否知晓弗朗西斯女士是否在金泉工作？\n\n答：据我了解是这样。\n\n问：回到您就月度经营报告所做的工作，您是否记得韦尔多利诺与洛伊（Verdolino & Lowey）从您收到的金泉费用报告草稿中删除了某些分项费用？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：这——是否与谢里·内瑟兰（Sherry Netherland）的费用有关？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：因为债务人并不居住在那里？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：您是否了解债务人目前仍未居住在谢里·内瑟兰？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n贾尔伯特——交叉询问 64\n\n答：是。\n\n阿伦松女士：\n书记员女士，请显示PAX证物4。\n\n书记员：\n屏幕上显示的是证物4，即PAX证物4的第1页。屏幕上显示的是PAX证物4的第1页。\n\n阿伦松女士：\n我想翻到PAX证物4的第14页。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n阿伦松女士：\n谢谢。\n\n阿伦松女士询问：\n\n问：贾尔伯特先生，您认得这份文件吗？\n\n答：认得。\n\n问：这是在本案中提交的聘任函？\n\n答：我认为它是作为我们申请受聘动议的证物提交的。\n\n阿伦松女士：\n我在滚动页面时遇到一点困难。\n\n法院：\n鼠标是否——对，试试鼠标。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n阿伦松女士询问：\n\n问：看这里的这些要点，我认为我们已经谈过第一项。我们谈过财务状况声明和清单了？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：看第二个要点，如获聘用，韦尔多利诺将提供与现金流及预算预测有关的服务，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n贾尔伯特——交叉询问 65\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您此前谈到您设立了一个账户？\n\n答：我们设立了债务人的账户。\n\n问：而且您利用您的关系建立了这个账户？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：如果DIP贷款获批，韦尔多利诺预计将为委员会律师、财务顾问及其他正常业务过程专业人士编制预算，以实施付款？\n\n答：从概念上说是。实际执行时必须有人要求我们去做，但这是我们能够做的事情。\n\n问：您是否知晓尚未有任何正常业务过程专业人士获得批准？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您——您是否知晓除您之外，还有其他财务顾问参与本案？\n\n答：不知道。\n\n问：您是否理解委员会在为其律师编制预算时将需要您的帮助？\n\n答：我不知道他们是否需要我的帮助，但他们当然可以提出请求。\n\n问：转到这里有关月度经营报告的第三个要点，我们已经谈过这一点了，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n贾尔伯特——交叉询问\n\n答：我看到第三个要点是需要开立并维持一个DIP账户。\n\n问：抱歉。第四个要点。谢谢。\n\n答：是。\n\n问：此外，韦尔多利诺将审查美国受托人提供的季度报告？\n\n答：嗯，美国受托人在编制季度报告时，实际上是根据前一日历季度的付款额开具账单。我们只会核实其准确性。而在第一季度，它们从来都不准确。这不是他们的过错。他们是在预先作出估算。\n\n问：这相当直接明了，对吗？\n\n答：如果您有经验，是的。\n\n问：有关遗产、联邦税和州所得税的第五个要点，您没有就该项目开展任何——任何工作？\n\n答：就实际编制而言，没有。\n\n问：但您会建议债务人和遗产提交纳税申报表？\n\n答：我绝对会，但还有与此有关的其他服务。\n\n问：遗产目前可能为零？\n\n答：嗯，我不清楚从技术上讲这是否属实，因为我不知道——我不确切知道，从法律上讲，那艘船归属何处。以及当该船到来时，它将如何到来，又将如何影响债务人，所以我不——\n\n证人：\n我说的是——指的是“梅夫人号”（Lady May），法官阁下，所以我不知道这将产生何种影响。这可能需要由具有税务背景的人审查。\n\n阿伦松女士询问：\n\n问：因此，这假定“梅夫人号”是遗产的一部分？\n\n答：不，我不作此假定。如果有人认定它是遗产的一部分，那么这将成为一个问题。如果其将在某个时间点被注入遗产，这也是一个问题。我并未声明它是否为财产。我不知道。\n\n问：转到第六个要点，即协助审查、核对、分析以及在必要时对债权证明提出异议，韦尔多利诺没有就本案未决诉讼请求开展任何调查，对吗？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：韦尔多利诺没有分析未决诉讼请求的经验？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：关于第七个要点，我们已经谈过韦尔多利诺没有审查债务人的账簿和记录？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n贾尔伯特——交叉询问\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：您是否知晓，在提交申请前90天内，有21家专业服务提供者收到了破产申请前付款？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：韦尔多利诺没有就这些服务开展任何工作？\n\n答：您能否——我对您的问题感到困惑。\n\n问：韦尔多利诺是否已准备——撤回。韦尔多利诺是否就这21家破产申请前服务提供者开展过任何工作？\n\n答：除确保其在适当的财务状况声明清单中被披露外，没有。\n\n问：您所描述的这是一项相当直接明了的程序？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：关于第八个要点，即协助必要的诉讼支持，韦尔多利诺没有就该分项开展任何工作，但预计将按律师要求承担潜在的杂项任务？\n\n答：什么杂项？\n\n问：任务？\n\n答：任务。是。\n\n问：最后一个要点，协助计划制定和编制，包括可行性，您知晓债务人已经提交了一项计划？\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n247\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n贾尔伯特——交叉询问 69\n\n答：我知晓。\n\n问：韦尔多利诺没有就该提交开展任何工作？\n\n答：就原计划而言，正确。\n\n问：您知晓遗产声称除诉讼请求外，约有3,800的资产？\n\n答：正确。\n\n问：您知道在第11章计划确认中何谓最佳利益测试吗？\n\n答：我想我知道。\n\n问：您是否预计会就该3,800的资产进行清算价值评估，以作最佳利益测试分析？\n\n答：嗯，我们不知道在有人进行最佳利益测试时遗产将拥有何种资产。\n\n而到进行最佳利益测试的时候，我们将不会是对那些尚未变现为现金的资产进行估值的团队成员。但我相信，我们会利用专家提供的有关任何需要估值资产的估值信息，参与编制构成最佳利益测试的分析。\n\n问：除该$3800外，唯一其他潜在资产将是\n\n1 将来会有诉讼请求吗？\n2 答 截至目前。\n3 问 再说一次，Verdolino（韦尔多利诺）没有评估诉讼\n4 请求的经验？\n5 答 正确。\n6 问 所以，如果破产财产仅由诉讼请求构成，\n7 Verdolino 在任何计划中所发挥的作用都会很小？\n8 答 我不知道您是否可以得出这一结论。\n9 问 Verdolino 按小时计费，对吗？\n10 答 是。\n11 问 作为负责人，您的小时费率为 $515？\n12 答 正确。\n13 ARONSSON 女士：\n没有更多问题。\n\n14 法庭：\n那么，律师，您并未申请将\n15 PAX 证物 4 接纳为证据？\n16 ARONSSON 女士：\n我们将申请接纳\n17 证物 4。其已作为证物 90 提交至案卷，\n18 案卷编号 90。\n19 BALDIGA 先生：\n无异议。\n20 法庭：\n嗯，最终将会——所有证物\n21 都将按照您在证人及证物清单中所标示的\n22 编号予以标记。\n23 因此，对于 PAX 证物 4，并无异议，\n24 根据双方关于接纳该——该\n25 证物全文的联合表格。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 72 页，共\n\n1 因此，在今天的听证会后，法庭\n2 书记员将会编制已接纳\n3 证物的清单——这将是其中之一——并且其上\n4 将贴有美国法院行政办公室\n5 制式标签，实质上说明该证物已\n6 作为完整证物获准接纳。可以吗？\n7 Baldiga 先生，您是否有——\n8 BALDIGA 先生：\n无异议。\n9 法庭：\n好的。很好。因为上面写着您\n10 没有异议——\n11 BALDIGA 先生：\n没错。\n12 法庭：\n——所以我就直接作出了该\n13 结论。\n14 BALDIGA 先生：\n不是。有一项动议，所以我——\n15 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。好。\n16 没有其他事项了吗？\n17 ARONSSON 女士：\n没有其他事项。\n18 法庭：\n好的。\n19 ARONSSON 女士：\n谢谢。\n20 法庭：\n是否复询？\n21 BALDIGA 先生：\n是，法官阁下。\n22 谢谢。\n23 复询\n24 由 BALDIGA 先生进行：\n25 问 Jalbert 先生（贾尔贝尔），您会说普通话吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—复询\n\n1 答 不会。\n2 问 您是否了解债务人会说一些英语？\n3 答 会一些，是。\n4 问 但您能否就财务事项直接与债务人\n5 交谈？\n6 答 我没有尝试过，但我认为不能。\n7 问 好的。您知道，在您开展工作之前，债务人\n8 没有支票簿，正确吗？\n9 答 是。\n10 问 并且，债务人的日常需求，包括安保、\n11 食物等等，均由其儿子通过 Golden Spring（黄金泉）\n12 出于亲情和善意提供，对吗？\n13 答 是。\n14 问 您曾与设有总账的债务人合作过？\n15 答 是。\n16 问 该债务人有总账吗？\n17 答 没有。\n18 问 好的。该债务人有支票登记簿吗？\n19 答 没有。\n20 问 但今后将会有？\n21 答 是。\n22 问 好的。该债务人曾接受审计吗？\n23 答 据我所知，没有。\n24 问 好的。该债务人保存存货清单吗？\n25 答 再说一次，据我所知，没有。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 74 页，共\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—复询\n\n1 问 那么，该债务人是否拥有您本会\n2 直接与债务人讨论的那类资产，例如\n3 设备、存货和应收账款？\n4 答 没有那类营业资产。\n5 问 对。因此，在通常情形下，当您\n6 代表公司债务人或为其提供协助时，\n7 您会坐下来，与财务总监、首席财务官\n8 或类似人员讨论该公司拥有的各种资产，\n9 正确吗？\n10 ARONSSON 女士：\n异议，法官阁下。他在\n11 诱导证人。\n12 BALDIGA 先生：\n我是，但这是——\n13 法庭：\n我将准许——\n14 BALDIGA 先生：\n——我想是为了奠定基础。\n15 法庭：\n我将——\n16 BALDIGA 先生：\n因此，根据——\n17 法庭：\n我将准许。请继续。\n18 证人：\n是。\n19 由 BALDIGA 先生进行：\n20 问 好的。此处债务人的资产，主要\n21 是——除其身上的衣物外——两项\n22 诉讼，正确吗？\n23 答 两项诉讼。我认为还有第三项可能的诉讼。\n24 问 好的。一项可能的诉讼？\n25 答 是。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—复询\n\n1 问 好的。因此，您了解，您在财产清单和 SOFA 中\n2 披露的资产，即主要\n3 资产，是三项诉讼请求，两项正在进行，一项可能发生，\n4 正确吗？\n5 答 是。\n6 问 您曾与律师讨论过这些法律请求，\n7 正确吗？\n8 答 是。\n9 问 好的。您是否了解，债务人在此的主要\n10 债务是针对其提出的诉讼请求，正确吗？\n11 答 是。\n12 问 例如 PAX？\n13 答 是。\n14 问 在座人士以及不在\n15 法庭内的人士，对债务人另有 20 或 30 项其他诉讼请求？\n16 \n17 答 是。\n18 问 好的。关于这些针对债务人的法律诉讼请求，\n19 您曾与债务人的律师或处理\n20 针对其的法律请求的人员交谈，正确吗？\n21 答 是。\n22 问 因此，您是否与您认为掌握有关债务人\n23 资产和负债的最相关、最具体信息的\n24 债务人方面人员交谈？\n25 答 是。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—复询/再次交叉询问\n\n1 问 您是否获得了您认为在本案中开展专业工作\n2 所需的信息？\n3 答 是。\n4 问 显然，本案与拥有存货、应收账款和财务报表\n5 等的企业大不相同，但您是否经历了相同\n6 的程序，不过在这里，是与掌握最相关\n7 信息的人员交谈？\n8 答 嗯，我并非在寻找财务报表和\n9 总账之类的资料。我只是在寻找\n10 信息。\n11 问 因为债务人没有这些资料？\n12 答 我从未见过个人债务人拥有这些资料。\n13 BALDIGA 先生：\n好的。没有其他事项，法官阁下。\n14 谢谢。\n15 法庭：\n谢谢。\n16 是否再次交叉询问？\n17 （暂停。）\n18 法庭：\n请继续，律师。抱歉。\n19 ARONSSON 女士：\n谢谢，法官阁下。只问几个\n20 简短问题。\n21 再次交叉询问\n22 由 ARONSSON 女士进行：\n23 问 债务人能否聘请一名口译员与\n24 Verdolino & Lowey（韦尔多利诺与洛伊）沟通？\n\nJalbert（贾尔贝尔）—再次交叉询问 76 答 是。我确信可以。问 您是否知道债务人有一名口译员？答 我知道。问 我想问一下，您认为 Golden Spring 出于家庭成员的亲情和支持而提供资金，这一理解的依据是什么？您了解这一点的依据是什么？答 来自与法律团队的交谈。ARONSSON 女士：谢谢。没有其他事项。法庭：好的。谢谢。Jalbert 先生，您可以退席。谢谢。证人：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：非常感谢。（证人退席。）法庭：Baldiga 先生，您还有其他证人吗？BALDIGA 先生：没有，法官阁下。谢谢。法庭：好的。谢谢。Friedman 先生（弗里德曼）？FRIEDMAN 先生：没有，法官阁下。法庭：那么，除陈述意见外，双方均已举证完毕？BALDIGA 先生：是，法官阁下。法庭：好的。FRIEDMAN 先生：法官阁下，请稍等。我们正在\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 77 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n1 商议，以确认是否还有任何其他材料需要申请\n2 作为证据提交。\n3 法庭：\n好的。是的。正如我想\n4 在上次听证会已告知各位，我很乐意——\n5 并且我感谢各方花时间遵守法庭命令，\n6 提交证人和证物清单，这是你们必须做的——但\n7 除非证物作为完整证物获准接纳，\n8 法庭不会审阅任何证物。\n9 \n10 即使证物作为完整证物获准接纳，\n11 对于你们未在就这些问题进行陈述时向我指出\n12 重要性的任何内容，我也没有义务审阅。\n13 可以吗？\n14 是否有人——所以，我——如果任何人有任何事项\n15 希望确保纳入记录，那么现在就是\n16 处理该问题的时候。\n17 （暂停。）\n18 ARONSSON 女士：\n谢谢，法官阁下。我们没有\n19 其他事项。\n20 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n21 债务人方面没有其他事项？\n22 BALDIGA 先生：\n正确，法官阁下。\n23 法庭：\n好的。好。那么，\n24 聘请 Verdolino & Lowey 的申请已具备\n25 裁判条件。我现在不会裁判该申请。我\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 79 页，共\n\n1 显然必须审阅你们刚才在庭审记录中所讨论的内容，\n2 但我确信我将能够在短期内\n3 完成。可以吗？\n4 BALDIGA 先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n5 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n6 现在，关于 DIP 融资动议。\n7 再次说明，这是一个我不知道你们预计就 DIP\n8 融资动议进行多久询问和举证的事项，\n9 所以我有几个问题。\n10 今天日程中的另一事项是\n11 聘请债权人委员会律师的申请。\n12 我没有看到对该申请的任何异议。\n13 这是否正确？\n14 CLAIBORN 女士（克莱伯恩）：\n法官阁下，美国受托人已提交\n15 一份不持异议声明，但其中仅要求对该\n16 命令作两处小修改，即——\n17 法庭：\n好的。\n18 CLAIBORN 女士：\n——加入\n19 Goldman 律师（戈德曼）为支持该申请而提交的补充材料中\n20 所载的措辞。\n21 法庭：\n那么，案卷上是否有修订后的命令？\n22 \n23 CLAIBORN 女士：\n我尚未看到，法官阁下。\n24 法庭：\n好的。那么我询问任何一方，当事人中是否有任何一方\n25 反对聘请\n\n1 Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利）担任无担保债权人官方委员会\n2 律师的申请，ECF 157？\n3 BALDIGA 先生：\n债务人不反对。我们支持该\n4 申请。\n5 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n6 Pax（帕克斯）方面也没有？\n7 FRIEDMAN 先生：\n没有，法官阁下。\n8 法庭：\n好的。还有其他人希望就\n9 聘请 Pullman & Comley 的申请发表意见吗？\n10 Goldman 律师，您将提交一份\n11 新命令，Claiborn 律师所说的是这个意思吗？\n12 GOLDMAN 先生：\n是，法官阁下。只要其内容在\n13 我的补充声明中，那么修订该命令以符合补充材料\n14 所载内容没有问题。\n15 法庭：\n好的。您希望在多长时间内\n16 提交该命令？\n17 您可以有尽可能多的时间——我的意思是，我将\n18 批准该申请，但以提交修订后的\n19 命令为条件。\n20 GOLDMAN 先生：\n法官阁下，我可以在\n21 明天之前提交。\n22 法庭：\n当然。我给您到星期五，\n23 怎么样？\n24 GOLDMAN 先生：\n谢谢。\n25 法庭：\n29 日。好的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 80 页，共\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 81 页，共\n\n随后，我没有向 Kindseth 先生提及的另一件事——我现在将向 Goldman 先生和 Claiborn 律师提及——是关于我们今天上午谈到的款项，即存放在 Zeisler & Zeisler 客户资金账户中的 $37 million，以及如果 DIP 贷款获批将由 Goldman 律师持有的款项，必须至少向 United States Trustee Office（美国受托人办公室）以及各方每月提交银行对账单，以证明这些资金确实存在。每月一次。我现在当庭作出该命令。我可以回溯至本次听证会。如果有人未遵守该要求，那么其将违反法院命令。我们需要确保资金以应有的金额存在。现在，关于该 $37 million，除非并直至船舶返还时另有命令，否则该数额不应发生任何变化，希望仅会增加一些利息。这是我的理解。Kindseth 先生正在拟定该命令，但这就是——这就是具体操作方式。BALDIGA 律师：是。而且您将会看到的命令规定，将有一家全国性银行担任共同代理人。因此，Kindseth 先生持有该笔款项，只是为了使得\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 82 页，共\n\n1 在今天的法庭上不会有人担心该\n2 笔款项是否真的会到账，或者其他什么情况——在\n3 上一次听证会上，我们在这类\n4 担忧上花费了太多时间，因此没有人需要再有这种担忧。\n但这并非\n5 永久性解决方案。\n一两个月的永久性\n6 解决方案是让该笔款项进入一家银行，这更符合\n7 惯常做法。\n8 法院：\n无论以何种方式运作都可以。\n我只是希望有\n9 证据——\n10 BALDIGA 律师：\n明白。\n11 法院：\n——提交以证明\n12 该等资金确实存在。并且必须提交，\n13 你知道，每月一次。\n14 我想我们将会弄清楚——如果船舶在\n15 两个月内返还，那么关于该 37 million 的程序可能不会\n16 那么繁琐；但关于 DIP 融资，\n17 将在该命令中——如果有命令——写明，\n18 我需要——法院——必须有证据\n19 证明账户中资金的数额，每\n20 月一次。\n21 我知道 DIP 命令可能会就支付、支用\n22 以及所有相关事项作出更具体的规定，\n23 但那是我\n24 想提出的另一件事。\n25 现在，关于 DIP 融资证据\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n1 听证会，我现在就可以开始，但我们必须在\n2 中午结束。\n3 所以，我们还可以做的另一件事是，你们在\n4 听证会开始时提到，对于如何安排\n5 驳回动议的听证会存在一些讨论，\n6 因此我不——无论你们想以何种方式推进，\n7 我都没有问题。\n8 BALDIGA 律师：\n那么，现在或许是澄清\n9 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）申请的好时机，该申请没有\n10 证据问题，并且可以处理。\n我认为存在一项——\n11 \n12 法院：\n我以为有一项——\n13 BALDIGA 律师：\n——拟作出的权利保留。\n14 \n15 法院：\n好的。\n16 FRIEDMAN 律师：\n是。我认为——\n17 法院：\n但你们是否有一项命令需要\n18 修改，还是你们已经修改了该命令？或者你们已同意？\n19 FRIEDMAN 律师：\n我认为该命令已在案卷中，\n20 法官阁下。我们有一项非常简短的权利保留，然后我认为我们可以在中午前进行审前——动议前，\n你知道，会议。然后我们下午再——\n\nBALDIGA 律师：我认为是这样。FRIEDMAN 律师：好的。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：是。FRIEDMAN 律师：那么——法院：我刚才没有听清你说的话。FRIEDMAN 律师：抱歉，法官阁下。法院：没关系。FRIEDMAN 律师：我是来自 O'Melveny & Myers（奥麦文尼律师事务所）的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。我们本身不反对聘用 Brown Rudnick。我们只是希望明确指出，我们认为，Kwok 先生在提交破产申请前，受到 Ostrager 法官的限制令约束，不得转移其资产。我们认为，他通过使自己承担 Lamp 贷款以支付 Brown Rudnick 的预付聘用费，违反了该限制令。Brown Rudnick 对 Ostrager 法官的命令作出了与我们不同的解读。我们认为，他的命令就两项资产作出了具体规定，但还包含一项更广泛、全面的条款，明确任何正常经营过程以外的交易均被禁止。Brown Rudnick 的 Baldiga 律师援引了部分庭审记录，他认为该部分支持其对关于两项资产的具体措辞的看法。我们认为，附于其答复的该庭审记录第 24 页表明，Ostrager 法官\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 84 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n1 说，我想知道是否将发生任何交易，其中\n2 Kwok 先生是主导者，而该交易并非\n3 正常经营过程中的交易。因此，\n4 该命令并非如此受限。\n5 因此，我们只是希望保留权利，即在\n6 未来就是否存在违反该命令，以及是否存在任何\n7 损害，或者任何参与\n8 该违反行为或与该违反行为构成侵权关联之人的任何责任\n9 的诉讼中，\n10 聘用命令中的任何内容均不免除任何人\n11 对此承担的责任。\n12 如果聘用符合本案情况下的\n13 合理人员配置，我们不反对该聘用。我们只是希望\n14 明确指出，我们认为这是一项最后的\n15 藐视法庭行为，是在提交\n16 破产申请前最后一次公然挑衅。\n17 并请注意，尽管我们曾多次向 Lamp 先生的——\n18 抱歉——向 Lamp Capital（兰普资本）的律师提出请求，我们从未收到\n19 Lamp Capital 贷款文件。他们\n20 什么也没有提供。我们将再次追究此事。\n21 但是，我们认为围绕该事件的全部情形\n22 都非常令人担忧，这就是我\n23 希望保留我们权利的原因。\n24 法院：\n而且你们将要——据我的\n25 理解——我没有看过，好吗——但是\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 86 页，共\n\n昨晚某个时候或今天上午，是否已就 Brown Rudnick 申请提交了一项命令？是这样吗——Friedman 律师是否同意该命令？如果不同意，那么你们双方必须协商，并告诉我你们认为何时将解决该命令。（暂停。）FRIEDMAN 律师：（无法辨认。）法院：当然。请慢慢来。（暂停。）FRIEDMAN 律师：那么，法官阁下，我认为我们确实对该命令存在一个问题。我们只是希望就任何一方收取这些资金保留权利。我们不反对聘用，也不反对其提交费用申请，但我们认为该聘用不应消除因收取这些资金而可能承担责任的可能性。法院：那么，你们必须将该权利保留措辞加入命令，对吗？FRIEDMAN 律师：是。除非该项保留可以在庭审记录中被接受？BALDIGA 律师：如果我可以就此发言，法官阁下。法院：当然。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n1 BALDIGA 律师：\n除非 Goldman 律师想先\n2 进行辩论。\n3 GOLDMAN 律师：\n嗯，我只是想说，\n4 说到保留权利，我们——我们对 DIP\n5 动议的解决——我本应在一开始提到这一点——\n6 实际上基于对船舶交付命令的解决，我姑且这样称呼——该命令他们正在拟定——\n7 \n8 法院：\n抱歉。我没听清你说什么。\n关于\n9 什么命令？\n10 GOLDMAN 律师：\n船舶交付。\n11 法院：\n好的。经同意的\n12 解除自动停止命令？\n13 GOLDMAN 律师：\n正确。正确。\n我们有信心他们\n14 能够完成。可以说，该命令尚未正式签署，\n15 因此，在我们实际上正式撤回\n16 异议之前，我希望看到该事项记入庭审记录。\n17 法院：\n嗯，现在我们讨论的是\n18 Brown Rudnick。\n19 GOLDMAN 律师：\n嗯，难道我们不是——那与\n20 对 DIP 动议的解决有关。换言之，我们\n21 解决 DIP 动议，并且还同意撤回我们对所有\n22 聘用事项的异议。\n23 当然，对 DIP 动议的解决取决于\n24 对我们正在拟定的这项船舶交付命令的解决。\n25 所以，基本上它们全都相互关联，这就是\n\n我想说的。因而，我只希望我们可以等到午休之后，届时我们绝对确定船舶——PAX（PAX）提出的解除自动停止动议已得到解决，然后我们可以正式撤回所有这些异议。这就是我想说的全部。法院：好的。Baldiga 律师？BALDIGA 律师：嗯，我们一直在努力，而且实际上已经能够在很多事情上与 Goldman 律师密切合作，因此我不想——我的意思是，我接受他的前提，即也许确认我们就船舶命令达成一致会更容易。这不会影响 PAX 的异议，因为 PAX 对一切事项的立场，对吧，无论如何都将保持不变。因此，如果法院愿意，我可以回应 PAX 的权利保留；或者，如果法院希望午餐后、船舶问题解决后再处理该事项，我们也乐意如此。无论法院——法院：好的。为什么我们不就等着看在——本质上应当是一项经同意的命令、解决 PAX 的解除自动停止动议之后会发生什么，正确吗，那就是它？那就是 Kindseth 先生正在拟定的命令？BALDIGA 律师：是。\n\n1 法院：\n好的。那么我们就等着看。\n2 那么唯一的另一问题是——临时\n3 专业人士，所有事项，Goldman 律师，你就所有事项保留\n4 权利，直至——好的。\n5 那么我们就开始进行 DIP 融资\n6 证据听证会。\n7 或者，如果你们——如果你们所有人宁愿休息而\n8 不开始，我们也可以这样做。无论对\n9 你们所有人怎样合适。\n10 FRIEDMAN 律师：\n法官阁下，我们可以进行关于日期的\n11 审前讨论吗？\n12 法院：\n关于驳回动议？\n13 FRIEDMAN 律师：\n是。\n14 法院：\n嗯，这就是——这就是我几分钟前\n15 所说的、我认为有些道理的做法。\n16 FRIEDMAN 律师：\n是。那么，法官阁下，我们——\n17 显然取决于法院的日程安排，我们——我们本周已联系\n18 其他各方的律师，并提出了一项建议。\n19 我们收到了一些反馈。有人要求我们给予\n20 更多一点时间，尽管我——你知道，尽管我\n21 不认为我们有法定的义务提供该时间，\n22 我们仍愿意这样做。\n23 我们建议设定一个——而且我努力\n24 尽可能迁就更多人——5 月 16 日\n25 将是各方需要提交反对意见的日期，如果\n\n1 为法院所接受。\n\n2 我们请求准许于 May 25th 提交答复。\n\n3 我们请求能够于 May 25th 提交答复。\n\n5 然后，我们请求举行听证会——预留 1st、2nd 和 3rd——\n\n7 法庭：\n好的。我得看一下日程安排。\n\n9 FRIEDMAN先生（弗里德曼）：\n——如果这对法庭可行的话。\n\n10 法庭：\n在我们继续之前，先让我看一下日程安排。\n\n12 （暂停。）\n\n13 法庭：\n我在 1st 有一些时间。\n\n14 FRIEDMAN先生：\n好的。\n\n15 法庭：\n但有一段时间我还得再次休庭。我在 2nd 有时间，而且 3rd 至少上午有时间。\n\n18 FRIEDMAN先生：\n好的。这当然对我们可行，法官阁下。\n\n20 鉴于潜在的复杂性，我还请求，是否可以要求任何一方于 10th 提交审后事实认定和法律结论；或者，如果听证会持续超过 3rd，则在听证会结束后七天提交，如果法院认为这会有所帮助。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 于 05/20/22 提交 于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记 第 91 页，共\n\n1 法庭：\n我当然认为这可能会有帮助，因此我会在听证会结束时告诉你我是否希望这样做，但我认为这是一种可能性。当然。\n\n4 FRIEDMAN先生：\n而且，法官阁下，我还建议，各方于 27th，即星期五——如果这对法院可行；如果法院希望是 26th——交换证人名单和证物，并且如有可能，也在该日期前向法院提交适当的清单并列明异议，以及命令各方就所有审前程序进行善意协商。\n\n13 据我了解，Kwok先生（郭文贵）的律师认为，该日程安排——我们认为这实际上已是对相关人士的重大便利——应以不再举行 § 341 听证会、停止 Kwok先生的 § 341 义务为条件；该义务本应于本周五继续进行——我看不出这为什么会成为问题。\n\n20 我们当然寻求就驳回动议或指定受托人动议，再次对 Kwok先生进行证言录取。我们还在寻求其他证据开示。\n\n24 我注意到我们遇到的一个问题——我并非要求法院采取任何行动，只是让法院知悉此事——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 于 05/20/22 提交 于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记 第 92 页，共\n\n——是我们上周四询问 Golden Spring（戈尔登斯普林）是否愿意表示——是否愿意代 Miles Kwok（郭文贵之子）之子接受传票送达。我们毫无回音。因此这并不令人意外，但鉴于 Miles 之子据称对本案具有核心重要性，以及他对仁爱和爱的支持，我想，如果他们不愿接受传票，我们可以尝试通过《海牙公约》送达。如果必须如此，也许我们无法在该时间内完成；但法院可以就 Kwok先生之子拒绝善意参与证据开示，作出其认为适当的任何推论。因此，要弄清某人是否可以接受传票送达，不应花六天时间。这是我们提出的日程安排。我们希望不会有证据开示争议需要提请法院注意；如果有，我们会提出。我们将与 Birney先生（伯尼先生）合作，确定如何正确地向您提出这些问题。我相信我们已经向所有人提供了我们已送达的证据开示材料副本。如有人未收到，请告知我。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。Claiborn律师（克莱伯恩律师）？\n\nCLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩）：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。正如您所知，美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）现有一项待决动议，请求指定审查员，或作为替代，请求指定 Chapter 11 受托人。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 于 05/20/22 提交 于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记 第 93 页，共\n\n1 Friedman律师刚才概述的日期，对美国受托人而言可以接受。我认为该日程安排同时适用于 PAX（PAX）的动议和美国受托人的动议。\n\n5 法庭：\n是。但我将首先处理 PAX 的动议。\n\n7 CLAIBORN女士：\n明白，法官阁下。\n\n8 法庭：\n好的。\n\n9 CLAIBORN女士：\n关于 § 341 会议的问题，该请求今天上午才向我提出。我还没有机会与我的办公室协商。我也还没有机会与今天到场各方的律师协商。因此，关于美国受托人是否愿意将该 § 341 会议推迟至其他日期，我目前无法答复。\n\n16 法庭：\n好的。\n\n17 BALDIGA先生（巴尔迪加）：\n抱歉。我错过了您刚才说的话。我听不见。抱歉。\n\n19 CLAIBORN女士：\n关于 § 341 会议日期，我无法答复您。\n\n21 法庭：\n好的。还有其他人希望就驳回动议的日程安排以及——我将重申这一点，但请继续——发表意见吗？\n\n24 BALDIGA先生：\n嗯，我认为债务人在 June 的第一周没有时间，因此，我认为，\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n于 05/20/22 提交\n于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记\n\n1 不幸的是，和许多其他事项一样，我们可能得利用午休时间，花些时间确定那些日期。\n\n4 法庭：\n好的。那么你们为什么不谈一谈，因为我不确定为什么债务人需要就该动议到庭，我是说，除非你们打算传唤他作为证人。\n\n8 PERLMAN先生（珀尔曼）：\n我们当然会，但这对我来说是新消息，因为我之前已向 Aulet先生（奥莱特先生）提出这一日程安排。\n\n10 法庭：\n好的。那么我就让你们都谈谈这个问题。\n\n12 但我特别要说一点，如果不是那些日期，听证会将在其后不久举行。我已向 Friedman律师说过——\n\n15 BALDIGA先生：\n我们明白。\n\n16 法庭：\n——Friedman律师在上次听证会上说过，他已同意；我不知道他今天是否再次在记录中明确同意，但根据法典，除非动议提出人明确同意延长期限、在特定期间内延期，否则我必须在 30 天内举行该听证会。Friedman律师现在已经这样做了，但我不知道你们讨论时他是否仍会这样做。因此，你们需要进行讨论。\n\n25 FRIEDMAN先生：\n坦白说，法官阁下，鉴于\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n于 05/20/22 提交\n于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记\n\n1 债务人没有工作，也没有要经营的业务，我无法想象有什么正当理由不在这里。\n\n4 法庭：\n那么，我会让你们都谈谈这个问题。\n\n6 BALDIGA先生：\n我希望有机会与当事人谈一谈，法官阁下。\n\n8 法庭：\n我会让你们都谈谈这个问题。\n\n10 BALDIGA先生：\n谢谢。\n\n11 法庭：\n好的？\n\n12 那么，让我再一次说明今天日程安排上的事项。我认为，此时如果我们只有 15 分钟，就不开始 DIP 证据听证会，这完全合理。\n\n16 这对各位来说合理吗？\n\n17 BALDIGA先生：\n是的。正确。\n\n18 法庭：\n我认为你们可以休庭并利用这段时间。\n\n20 现在，我不知道，你们在走廊里待的时间比我坐在这里的时间还长，但我假定会议室没有上锁。这里有——有一条走廊可以谈话，只是还有其他机构，因此如有可能你们必须稍微安静一些。后面有一间有自动售货机的房间，但没有桌子和\n\n1 椅子。隔壁有一个用餐的地方，那里有桌子。\n\n2 我的意思是，我会认为，如果我在一点钟之前准备好再次见你们，我会感到惊讶。\n\n4 好的？\n\n5 BALDIGA先生：\n明白。\n\n6 法庭：\n甚至可能再长一点，但我认为不会长太多。\n\n8 我只是核对一下，以确保我们已经以某种方式处理了今天日程安排上的所有事项，而我认为我们已经处理了。尽管其中很多事项与 Kindseth先生（金塞思先生）对该命令的修订有关。\n\n13 那么，在本案，即 Kwok 案中，我们休庭之前，还有其他人希望发表意见吗？\n\n15 （无可听见的回应。）\n\n16 法庭：\n没有？好的。\n\n17 那么，我将就另一事项休庭至 12 noon。再说一次，如果我在一点钟之前可以见你们，我会感到惊讶。我认为你们应预计最早一点钟。\n\n21 如果你们都在谈话并且需要更多时间，而我们已完成另一场听证会，那么你们可以通知法庭书记员或书记官办公室的某人，我将会予以考虑。\n\n25 但如果我们今天下午要就 DIP 举行证据\n\n1 听证会——我认为我们会举行——那么我希望早些开始，而不是晚些开始，同时理解你们可能在讨论不同的事项。\n\n5 BALDIGA先生：\n明白。\n\n6 法庭：\n好的？\n\n7 BALDIGA先生：\n我们会让法庭书记员随时知悉情况，法官阁下。\n\n9 法庭：\n好的。很好。\n\n10 BALDIGA先生：\n谢谢。\n\n11 法庭：\n好的。好的。谢谢各位。\n\n13 那么，法庭休庭至 12 p.m.\n\n14 （自 11:45 a.m. 休庭至 1:10 p.m.。）\n\n15 书记员：\n案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n16 法庭：\n对此抱歉。我们在 Kwok 案中休庭后，现在重新开庭记录。我们大约在 11:45 a.m. 离开法庭。现在是 11:12 [原文如此] p.m.，在上午庭审中就 Verdolino & Lowey（韦尔多利诺与洛伊）的申请提交了一些证据后，我们现在重新开庭。\n\n22 而且，Baldiga律师，我们是否将继续进行 DIP 融资动议的证据听证会？\n\n24 BALDIGA先生：\n是的，法官阁下。但在此之前，我们可以就船只事项作出报告，因为请记得那是如何\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录及庭审记录服务公司）\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 于 05/20/22 提交 于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记 第 97 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 于 05/20/22 提交 于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记 第 98 页，共\n\n1 影响到所有人的？\n\n2 法庭：\n是的。\n\n3 BALDIGA先生：\n它有点像——\n\n4 法庭：\n哦，Kindseth先生回来了。\n\n5 BALDIGA先生：\n——连接线。\n\n6 我们确实已有，而且 Kindseth先生可以并且应当报告，一份关于该船只、已完全符合形式并经同意的命令，该命令解决了解除自动停止动议。\n\n9 法庭：\n好的。\n\n10 BALDIGA先生：\n而且，我相信这继而解决了委员会对今天其他所有事项提出的全部异议。因此，我们完全一致地继续进行。但他应当——Goldman先生（戈德曼先生）应当报告，Kindseth先生也应当报告。\n\n15 然后——然后我认为我们转到解除自动停止事项。\n\n17 法庭：\n好的。Goldman先生和 Friedman先生？\n\n18 GOLDMAN先生（戈德曼）：\n是的。我会——\n\n19 法庭：\n那么所有人都同意这项关于解除自动停止的命令？我是说，如果确实如此，那太好了。\n\n22 GOLDMAN先生：\n是的。\n\n23 法庭：\n我只是想确保这准确无误。\n\n25 FRIEDMAN先生：\n是的。我们同意，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 99 页，共\n\n法官阁下。\n\n我们已达成协议。\n\n可以提交一份命令。\n\n我们对结果感到满意。\n\n金德塞思先生（Mr. Kindseth）：\n\n是的。仅就程序安排而言，法官阁下，我们目前实际上尚无法向本院提交该命令。我们正将其提交给第三方托管代理人 U.S. Bank（美国银行），供其律师 Shipman & Goodwin（希普曼与古德温律师事务所）审阅，并确保其对此没有任何异议。我希望今天晚些时候或明天收到回复。\n\n一旦他们认可该命令，我们将向托管账户注入资金，并希望在周五或最迟周一提交该命令。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。我认为这没有问题。而且，这显然是本案的积极进展。\n\n那么，戈德曼律师（Attorney Goldman）？\n\n戈德曼先生（Mr. Goldman）：\n\n我本想问，是否适宜将该命令的基本条款记入庭审记录，以便我们——法庭——知悉，并且我们在此有一份可执行的协议？\n\n金德塞思先生：\n\n如果您愿意，法官阁下，我准备这样做。\n\n法庭：\n\n请讲。\n\n金德塞思先生：\n\n拟议的、经约定的命令规定，我的当事人将于 7 月 15 日前将名为 Lady May（“Lady May”号）的船只送回康涅狄格州的通航水域。这可能会或可能不会解决目前正在进行的各项维修。我们将尽力完成尽可能多的维修。尚未完成的维修将通过一项准备金，即一项完全独立的维修准备金予以处理，并且设有确定该准备金的程序。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 100 页，共\n\n为确保我的当事人履行交付义务，我们将向第三方托管代理人 U.S. Bank（美国银行）存入 $37 million。我们已经商定了托管协议的条款。\n\n在获得 U.S. Bank 的最终批准及各方签署后，我们将就游艇的位置、维修情况、游艇交付安排的状况以及预计交付日期，每月两次提供进度报告。\n\n托管资金的处理方式是，我的当事人将向本院提交一份证明，并将给予各方一段时间对该证明提出异议。该证明，您知道——该证明实际上仅涉及及时将游艇交付至康涅狄格州。\n\n此外，为确保游艇留在康涅狄格州，我们已同意在该证明中说明：\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 101 页，共\n\n将证明我们已将该文件送达当时的船长以及游艇管理公司，并且我们将作为该程序的一部分向法庭提交送达证明。\n\n我们还将落实维修准备金，而这也是该证明的一项要求。\n\n因此，如满足这些被称为证明条件的要素，且我们作出证明，我们将提供 15 天的异议期限。如果无人提出异议，我的当事人将获准向托管代理人提供该 HK 证明，这将触发返还该 $37 million 的事件。\n\n如果存在异议，那么我们将出庭向法官阁下陈述。\n\n并且，根据违约的严重程度，将产生不同后果。显然，如果船不在这里，这将是最严重的后果。对于其他条件，如未满足，则已设有与违约相称的救济措施。\n\n我的当事人将维持保险并提供保险证明。此处有一项条款要求我的当事人及其代理人、代表等继续将该船留在康涅狄格州，并遵守本院的进一步命令。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 102 页，共\n\n此处还有一项条款规定，如果未能及时交付该船，且我们无法证明存在特殊情形——该等情形已明确列明——那么托管资金，即 37 million，将由本院命令托管代理人转入本院指定的账户，以代替破产财产就 Lady May 所享有的任何权利予以持有；该等权利将针对该 $37 million。\n\n然后，如我所述，我们正依照命令中规定的程序设立维修准备金。因此，我认为这就是经同意命令中最重要的条款。\n\n戈德曼先生：\n\n是的。我感谢刚才的陈述。委员会同意这些条款，并且我们显然将随后提交书面命令。\n\n至于 PAX（PAX），我交由其发言。\n\n弗里德曼先生（Mr. Friedman）：\n\n他们表示，法官阁下，如案件在船只位于本司法管辖区内或托管资金处于司法管辖范围内时被驳回，其中也规定了届时如何处理。这些内容也在其中。\n\n我确实想说——不要混用比喻——但这艘船不应当——我的意思是，在本案中，这艘船绝不应成为摇尾巴的狗。这艘船很重要，因为它是一项资产。这并非郭先生必须向其债权人支付款项的一切或终局。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 103 页，共\n\n我只是想从我们的角度非常明确地说明，这很重要，但这只是为取得对郭先生享有重大判决债权之人的偿付而采取的初步步骤。\n\n金德塞思先生：\n\n这仍然是进展。\n\n法庭：\n\n明白。\n\n戈德曼先生：\n\n那么，法官阁下，据此，委员会可以正式撤回其对 DIP 动议以及聘任申请的异议，并支持今日拟推进的临时 DIP 命令。\n\n我可以肯定地说，法官阁下，委员会必须具备这笔资金，才能正常运作并履行其在此类案件中应履行的职责，尤其是在具有如此特征的案件中。\n\n我们应当调查该破产财产的潜在资产。我可以向法官阁下保证，我们一直积极面试财务顾问，以协助我们开展该项工作；我们将很快提交申请，请求法庭批准聘任一名在我们所需工作方面极具能力、技能和经验的人士。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。谢谢。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 104 页，共\n\n金德塞思先生，我知道您已经说过这个，但我想我——我没有记下来，所以我不记得——您认为将在什么日期向法庭提交该命令？\n\n金德塞思先生：\n\n周五或周一。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。那么我给您到周一。周一是几号？5 月 1 日还是 2 日？哦，是 2 日。是 2 日吗？是的。必须在周一之前提交。您看，是的，您必须这样做，因为——好的。是的。在 5 月 2 日或之前。好吗？好的。\n\n不过，您刚才想说什么？抱歉。\n\n金德塞思先生：\n\n我可以退庭吗？我的当事人与下午的程序没有利害关系。\n\n法庭：\n\n如果其他所有人都认为您无需在场，您可以退庭。\n\n鲍尔迪加先生（Mr. Baldiga）：\n\n仅作澄清，我认为截至目前所有人的意见中都假定了这一点，但在命令录入前，中止措施将继续有效，是吗？好的。假定该命令确实被及时提交？\n\n法庭：\n\n是的。\n\n鲍尔迪加先生：\n\n好的。谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n\n我的意思是，但是它——\n\n鲍尔迪加先生：\n\n我只是希望记录明确。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 105 页，共\n\n法庭：\n\n——但如果未能及时录入，那么根据 362(e)(2)，中止措施将不再有效，因此我认为您有动力确保其被及时录入。\n\n鲍尔迪加先生：\n\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。好的。谢谢。\n\n没有其他人希望——需要金德塞思先生出席今天下午的听证会，对吗？\n\n（无可听见的回应。）\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。谢谢您，金德塞思先生。\n\n金德塞思先生：\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。那么，在我们开始就 DIP 动议举行证据听证会前，鉴于委员会现在已撤回其对某些事项的异议，让我们回过头来处理。\n\n因此，关于聘用 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）的申请，委员会已撤回其异议。\n\nPAX 仍希望保留其权利，对吗？\n\n弗里德曼先生：\n\n是的，法官阁下。我已向鲍尔迪加先生转达，我们对该命令没有异议。实际上，查看该命令后，我认为该命令并未解除我们希望保留的那类请求权，因此我不会要求鲍尔迪加先生同意在命令中加入该措辞。\n\n我只是想向法庭和其他所有人说明，这是我们的立场。\n\n而且，您知道，Brown Rudnick 有其自身的立场，按拟议的命令办理即可。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 106 页，共\n\n法庭：\n\n那么，已提交的命令——谢谢您，弗里德曼律师。\n\n那么，昨晚某个时候提交的命令，或者——我不——我知道有好几份，但那是否是您希望录入的命令？\n\n鲍尔迪加先生：\n\n是的。除非它是——是的，法官阁下。并且为记入记录，我们——我们不，债务人不，Brown Rudnick 也不，同意任何未载于该命令中的事项。就是这么简单。\n\n克莱伯恩女士（Ms. Claiborn）：\n\n法官阁下，仅为完整记录，我想让法庭知悉，美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）已审阅昨晚上载的命令，该命令确实解决了美国受托人的异议。\n\n法庭：\n\n谢谢。\n\n那么，如果我没弄错，那是昨晚提交的 ECF No. 259，对吗？\n\n（无可听见的回应。）\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。请给我一分钟。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。因此，我尚未查看 ECF 259，因为它是昨晚提交的，这没有问题。我现在将查看它，然后告诉各位我认为是否存在任何问题。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：\n\n该命令对我而言没有问题。因此，ECF 259 将予以录入，批准 Brown Rudnick 担任债务人律师的申请获准。\n\n鲍尔迪加先生：\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。谢谢。\n\n因此，在我们就 DIP 动议举行证据听证会前，让我确认我们是否已处理所有需要处理的事项。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：\n\n那么，关于债权申报截止日期命令，除由法庭确定债权申报截止日期外，所有人对此都没有异议？\n\n鲍尔迪加先生：\n\n我相信是这样，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。那么我将在今天之后查看该命令。不过，该命令将于明天，或最迟周五予以录入。好吗？\n\n鲍尔迪加先生：\n\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n\n我想——我不应该这么说。我还没有查看该命令，鲍尔迪加律师，但——由谁送达该债权申报截止日期命令？是您送达吗？是债务人送达吗？\n\n鲍尔迪加先生：\n\n债务人。\n\n法庭：\n\n好的。好的。我会查看它。\n\n鲍尔迪加先生：\n\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：我认为这大概不会有任何问题，除非我可能会将贵方的申报债权截止日再延长一段时间。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生（戈德曼）：我只是想提一下，委员会对此提出了有限异议。我一直没有跟进拟议命令的不同版本，但它们是否考虑了我们的异议？\n\nBALDIGA 先生（巴尔迪加）：我们考虑了。\n\n戈德曼先生：好的。好。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n戈德曼先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：关于确立录入报酬及费用偿还程序的动议，现在各方也都同意了吗？委员会，你们是否提出了异议，还是没有？\n\n戈德曼先生：抱歉，法官阁下。您能重复一下吗？\n\n法庭：关于确立临时报酬及费用偿还程序的动议。\n\n戈德曼先生：没有异议。\n\n法庭：美国受托人是否提出了异议？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 108 页，共\n\nCLAIBORN 女士（克莱伯恩）：法官阁下，我们一直在研究一些措辞。我还没有机会审阅在过去一小时内刚刚上传的内容。待我可能在今天结束前向法官阁下回复后，我并不——我认为我们大概可以解决该问题。我只需要阅读一下。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n法庭：那么，实质上暂时搁置该事项？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：是。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：对。但我们都认为这只是审阅措辞的问题。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：这只是我审阅其措辞的问题。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：我们已经解决了一切问题。\n\n法庭：那么，你们将会——各位，我要告诉你们，对于这些事项、这些动议，我会审阅措辞。但是，你们知道，我知道各方当事人要求法院采取某种措施——实质上是缩短法典对费用申请所要求的期限和程序。基于许多、许多理由，我在很多案件中不愿这样做。如果各方都同意，我会在本案中这样做。但我要告诉你们，如果——如果我在任何时候看到任何令人关切之处，我可能会安排一次情况会议和/或撤销已作出的任何命令，如果我认为存在任何问题。\n\n我的意思是，你们知道，你们不希望出现这样一种情况，即每个人都认为我们只是在看看产生了多少费用。我并不是说本案正在发生这种情况。我是说，你们要防范这种情况。\n\n作出这类命令有时会给人们提供论据，认为那是主要关切。并不是说我认为是这样，但我要说的只是，如果该命令作出，并且显然会在某些措辞条件下作出，这并不意味着我今后不会审查它。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：当然。当然。\n\n法庭：如果我认为——\n\n巴尔迪加先生：而且，法官阁下，您从第一天起就看到，我们——我们正尽力少花钱，但我们需要对某一并非由破产财产提供资金的特定债权人作出回应。我们无法控制他们以何种热情提出多少动议，因此我们——我们正努力跟上进度、做正确的事，并负责任地代表破产财产。\n\n正如我们已经谈过的，戈德曼先生在这方面也有很多工作要做。\n\n我们都同意，在人们能够安心确认一项计划之前，必须进行审查。债务人从第一天起就支持这一点。这项动议有助于做到这一点，DIP 也有助于做到这一点。二者相辅相成。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 111 页，共\n\n法庭：明白。\n\n巴尔迪加先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，我可以简要评论一下吗？\n\n我想向法院预先说明，已上传的命令与最初的提案不同。但其确实规定了每隔 90 天提交临时费用申请的义务。因此，将会有一个实际的——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：——费用申请程序——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：——这是其中的一个组成部分。\n\n但同时还保留了现有的每月选择，即在任何一方当事人均未提出异议的情况下，专业人士获得其费用的 80% 和其支出的 100%。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。我对此表示感谢。\n\n因此，该动议将获准。但是，我们必须等待并看看——克莱伯恩律师，对拟议命令是否有任何轻微的——任何最终意见，正确吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：是的，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。唯一——我想在我们转入关于 DIP 动议的证据听证会之前讨论的唯一其他事项，是关于驳回动议的排期。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 112 页，共\n\n你们是否在休庭期间讨论了这个问题？\n\nFRIEDMAN 先生（弗里德曼）：我们讨论了，法官阁下。就我们的动议而言，我想我们建议开始——也就是说，我们请求将异议文件的提交日期定为 5 月 11 日。\n\n法庭：好。那么这是一个变更，对吗？\n\n弗里德曼先生：是。\n\n法庭：那么让我记一下。好吗？我只是想确保我的——我的笔记中记载的是正确事项。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：你刚才说 5 月 11 日？\n\n弗里德曼先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n弗里德曼先生：我们请求将答复文件于 18 日提交，并于 25 日开始听证会。\n\n法庭：好。让我看一下。我显然还没有看过那个日期。请稍等。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：好的。我可以在 25 日开始听证会。我在 26 日甚至也可以安排一些时间，但 27 日没有时间。\n\n弗里德曼先生：好的。那么，法官阁下，我们请求安排在 25 日和 26 日。我们将提交证人陈述。抱歉。我们将提交证据。我们将——我们将会面协商，并就证据安排提出时间表——希望 Jonas 先生和我能够进行一些讨论。我们将在下周初就这些事项提交一些材料，说明何时提交证据清单和证人清单。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 113 页，共\n\n法庭：我可以告诉你们何时需要提交证据清单。\n\n弗里德曼先生：那就更好了。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我认为那会对你们有帮助。没有必要会面。\n\n弗里德曼先生：是。\n\n法庭：请给我一秒钟。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：你们将在 5 月 20 日中午 12 点前提交证人和证据清单。\n\n弗里德曼先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：对。\n\n弗里德曼先生：我现在无法预见这将需要多长时间。我们将努力在第一天询问 Kwok（郭文贵）先生。因为我获知，如果我们必须延至下一周，他在下一周有一些日期无法出席，所以我们将努力在听证会第一天完成对他的询问。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n法庭：好的。律师，请继续。\n\nJONAS 先生（杰夫·乔纳斯）：下午好，法官阁下。来自 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）的杰夫·乔纳斯。很高兴再次在您面前出庭。\n\n这些安排均可接受，我感谢弗里德曼先生就 Kwok 先生所作的礼让。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n乔纳斯先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：戈德曼律师？\n\n戈德曼先生：法官阁下，是的，谢谢。\n\n我只是想提一下，显然我们不是该动议的正式当事人。不是动议提出方，也不是被申请方，但我们确实明确打算反对该动议，并且可能希望参与证据阶段和证据开示。\n\n因此，我只是想明确，我认为动议提出方不反对我们在必要范围内正式作为当事人介入，但如果各方都能同意，为证据开示和证据听证会之目的将我们视为当事人，那么我认为没有必要这样做。\n\n弗里德曼先生：至少就 PAX（PAX）而言，法官阁下，我们当然同意。我们已提供证据开示，或者我们送达的证据开示材料，我相信已送达委员会和美国受托人。我们也承认委员会和受托人的法定权利。与美国受托人的动议存在重叠，因此对我们当然没有问题。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，所提议的日期对美国受托人没有问题。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nJonas 先生？\n\n乔纳斯先生：法官阁下，尽管这并非必要——我是来自布朗·拉德尼克的杰夫·乔纳斯——但我们当然欢迎委员会参与驳回动议。\n\n法庭：好的。好。谢谢。好。\n\n那么，今天或明天将会发布一项排期命令，列出我们今天下午刚刚在记录中讨论的日期。\n\n显然，这些日期与今天早上的日期不同，这没有问题。各位表示想在休庭期间讨论日期，你们也确实这样做了，因此将作出一项载明日期和时间的排期命令。我们将在 25 日和 26 日上午 10 点开始。\n\n而且，弗里德曼律师，排期命令将说明，动议提出方明确同意根据 1112(b)(3) 将听证会延期至具体日期，好吗？\n\n弗里德曼先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 115 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。我还应当指出，关于指定审查员或受托人的美国受托人动议，也将延期至这些日期，即驳回动议的日期。好吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：因此，今天的日程中唯一尚未处理的事项，是债务人关于作出临时及最终 DIP 命令的动议，我们将就此进行证据听证会。那么，Jonas 先生，您可以继续。\n\n乔纳斯先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我是代表债务人的布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所的杰夫·乔纳斯。\n\n法官阁下，有一项——或许我应称之为事务性事项。我想如您所知，Kwok 先生需要一名口译员。我们带来了一名口译员。她的名字是 Una Wilkinson（乌娜·威尔金森）。她是 19——\n\n法庭：您能为我们拼写她的名字吗？\n\n乔纳斯先生：当然。U-N-A。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n乔纳斯先生：发音为 Una。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n乔纳斯先生：但拼写是 U-N-A。她的姓是 Wilkinson，W-I-L-K-I-N-S-O-N。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nJonas 先生：她于 1995 年毕业于英国的 Westminster University（威斯敏斯特大学），获得翻译学位。就其资格而言，她是 New York State Unified Court System（纽约州统一法院系统）认证的普通话和粤语口译员。她在 Eastern and Southern District Courts of New York（纽约东区及南区法院）的口译员名单中。她曾在东区及南区法院的多起审判案件中为大陪审团提供口译，也曾在州刑事法院、纽约州刑事法院及纽约民事法院提供口译。她有一长串值得注意的受任经历，我不会在这里逐一说明，法官阁下，但我确实想向法院提供一些有关 Wilkinson 女士资格的背景资料。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n乔纳斯先生：法官阁下，我的建议是——虽然我以前从未以这种方式做过，所以我懂什么呢——或许 Wilkinson 女士可以坐在证人旁边。\n\n法庭：可以。证人席很小，但我们可以搬一把椅子过去。\n\n乔纳斯先生：我正是这么想的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。我认为我们无法在证人席里安排两个人。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nJONAS先生（乔纳斯）：\n不用。我不这么认为。不过，如果您需要，我很乐意把这把椅子推过去——\n\n法庭：\n那就太好了。\n\nJONAS先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n当然。\n\nJONAS先生：\n谢谢您。\n\n法庭：\n那么，对于Jonas律师刚刚在庭审记录中说明的口译员资质，任何一方是否有异议或问题？\n\nHARBACH先生（哈巴赫）：\n法官阁下，David Harbach（大卫·哈巴赫）代表Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）。\n\n我们对Wilkinson女士（威尔金森）的资质没有异议，也没有理由质疑其资质。然而，我们也了解到，Wilkinson女士是Kwok先生（郭文贵）的个人口译员，并且已与他合作相当长时间。我们对偏见问题有所担忧。\n\n我们还带来了一名同样获得认证的口译员供今天使用，此人是——由我们聘请的——我相信这是我们第一次使用此人。她就在法庭内。她同样具备资质并获得认证。\n\n法官阁下，我们过去采用的程序是使用中立口译员作为主要口译员。然后，在必要时使用Wilkinson女士作为核校口译员，以便在对某些内容的口译存在问题，或者Kwok先生的说话方式较为特殊或存在其他情况时进行核校。\n\n但这就是我们建议今天采用的程序。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 404-1\nFiled 05/20/22\nEntered 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n法庭：\n您是否已就此与Jonas律师讨论过？\n\nHARBACH先生：\n没有，女士。\n\n法庭：\n好的。明白了。\n\n那么，Jonas律师，您对我们刚刚听到的内容有何回应——\n\nJONAS先生：\n是的。法官阁下，我的回应如下。首先，我认为这不公平，而且我认为Wilkinson女士会对任何有关偏见的指控感到不满。这是第一点。\n\n第二点，她并非Kwok先生的——我不知道说她是Kwok先生的个人口译员是什么意思。她这些年来是否经常与他合作？\n\n如您所知，或者我认为法庭知道，他参与过多项诉讼事务，是的，绝对如此。\n\n但即便如此，我的建议是——在我们进一步了解PAX口译员的资质后，我们完全欢迎该安排，我预计我们不会有异议。\n\n但是，法官阁下，我建议由Wilkinson女士为Kwok先生口译。我会提问，她会翻译。她会翻译他的回答。\n\n当然，若有任何问题需要提出，我——我们欢迎我称之为核校口译员的人提出这些问题。我们也会同样处理，法官阁下。\n\n如果他们愿意，他们可以让其口译员负责——我想我会称之为交叉询问——而我们则由Wilkinson女士进行核校。这将是我的建议，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n但核校本质上不就是一种异议吗？我的意思是，不就是这样吗？\n\n我的意思是，我——我没有同时使用过两名口译员。我只使用过一名口译员。\n\n但我理解Harbach律师提出的问题。我理解您提出的问题。\n\n因此，为了尝试推进此事——例如，如果您要对债务人进行直接询问，并使用Wilkinson女士翻译债务人对您问题所作的任何回答——\n\nHarbach先生，如果您的翻译人员认为翻译不准确，由她告知您，您对此提出异议，然后我们处理该证言是否仍作为记录一部分的问题，这样做是否合适？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 120 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 121 of\n\nHARBACH先生：法官阁下，这当然是一种进行方式。我们现在讨论的只是，最初由谁担任主要口译员。\n\n法庭：对。\n\nHARBACH先生：我只能向法庭陈述，在多次341会议中，以及在对其他证人的证言录取中，Wilkinson女士一直作为核校口译员待命，而且运作得很好。\n\nJONAS先生：法官阁下，恕我直言，我认为说341会议运作得很好并非公平的表述。那是一团糟。我认为，341会议中的口译水平并不好。Wilkinson女士不得不多次介入。我们完成了会议。但我确实认为——那并没有奏效，这一点我可以向您保证。如果您阅读记录，我认为您会同意我的看法。\n\n法庭：嗯，我没有341会议的记录——\n\nJONAS先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——除非各方决定将其转录并提交至案卷，因此我无法就此发表评论。但United States Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）已起立，因此我想听听您的意见，Claiborn律师（克莱伯恩）。\n\nCLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩）：法官阁下，我想确认Harbach律师向法庭所作的陈述。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 122 of\n\n即，在本案迄今的过程中，Wilkinson女士曾多次作为债务人的个人口译员参与，并且Wilkinson女士确实非常干练地中断程序，以纠正和／或批评和／或补充由担任两次会议正式口译员的口译人员所提供的翻译。该情况发生在341会议的两个阶段。\n\n法庭：\n但我们并不是在讨论发生那种情况，对吗？\n\n我的意思是，我以为您说Wilkinson女士将担任主要口译员。\n\nJONAS先生：\n这正是我们的——\n\n法庭：\n那么发生了什么？我当时不在——我的意思是，我完全不知道341会议发生了什么。\n\n你们——该办公室有一名口译员？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n我们聘请了一名口译员。\n\n法庭：\n好的。直到刚才我才明白这一点。好的。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n正确。\n\n法庭：\n所以——\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n因此，美国受托人办公室倾向于由一名独立、得到佐证的——我是说——抱歉——与任何事物均无任何隶属关系的独立口译员担任主要口译员。\n\n法庭：好的。那个人就是PAX今天带来的人吗？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：我——我不了解该口译员的资质，也不了解该口译员与PAX之间的互动情况，但我相信Harbach先生可以说明。\n\n法庭：好的，Harbach先生，请继续。\n\nHARBACH先生：法官阁下，我们今天在场有一位可以担任该角色的人，我很乐意对她进行简短的资格询问，并允许律师也进一步说明她的资质。我没有把这些资质牢记在心。\n\n法庭：我并不是说您应该牢记。我只是试图弄清楚该如何进行，对吗？\n\nHARBACH先生：是的。是的。\n\n法庭：这就是——这就是我正试图做的事。\n\nHARBACH先生：因此，记录——\n\n法庭：显然，在你们刚刚都告诉我341会议发生的事情之前，我对此毫无了解，对吗？341会议的庭审记录不在案卷中。法庭不参与341会议，因此我对这些问题毫无所知。正如我在几次庭审前所说，口译员的问题是一个重要问题。我——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 404-1\nFiled 05/20/22\nEntered 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n提出了这个问题——我曾在某个时候提出它，因为这是一个重要问题。\n\n因此，如果各方对如何进行此事没有达成协议，那么很遗憾，我将不得不决定如何进行。而且听起来——\n\n美国受托人办公室，你们从哪里聘请了口译员？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n法官阁下，在第一次债权人会议中，我使用了一名通过电话提供的口译员，我认为该服务名为INTERPRETALK。然后，美国受托人计划在全国范围内提供一项服务。您可以拨入并获得您所需任何语言的口译员，该口译员会被接入电话线路，然后进行口译。\n\n因此，我们在该过程中面临的挑战之一是，电话线路并不总是有利于线路两端获得最佳听觉效果。\n\n第二次341会议使用的是我们从另一家第三方聘请的现场口译员，以便安排一名现场人员。\n\n法庭：\n是现场的吗？是。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n这是一次改进。我相信没有人会告诉您他们的体验百分之百完美，但我们试图适应这样一种观点，即现场口译员比电话线路上的口译员效果更好。\n\n法庭：\n好的。嗯，很明确——正如我想我在一次或两次庭审前告诉过各位，法庭没有——司法系统没有——无论如何，破产法院不得在案件中花钱聘请口译员。United States Judicial Conference（美国司法会议）、Administrative Office（行政办公室）以及实质上的Congress（国会）均不允许这样做，因此法庭不能聘请任何人。于是问题就变成了各方必须聘请人员。\n\n今天我们这里有两个人，其中一人，两方当事人已经表示——我应当说建议——她可能不是法庭希望用作主要口译员的人。这是他们的建议。\n\n而且，Jonas先生，您——\n\n我对此一无所知，对吗？即，对口译存在问题，或者至少对提出异议于DIP融资动议及该融资来自第三方的当事人而言，存在其所认为的口译问题。好吗？\n\n因此，在我不知道存在问题的情况下，我很难说——很难同意您刚才所说的，Jonas先生。\n\n所以，我假定您所说的问题，Harbach先生，是您希望由您的口译员担任主要口译员？\n\nHARBACH先生：\n是的，法官阁下。正是如此。我再补充几个事实，供您作出这一决定时考虑。\n\n第一，今天我们安排到庭的人员来自TransPerfect Legal Services（泛语法律服务）。该机构一贯为各种不同语言提供此类口译员。正如我先前所说，我相信直到今天我们甚至都不知道她的身份。\n\n因此，显而易见的一点是，尽管我们支付她的费用，她与我们或任何事物均无任何关联，除了我们提前告知她须留意的一些姓名之外，她对本案一无所知。\n\n我还应提到的第二点是，Wilkinson女士在我们对Yvette Wang（王逸飞）的证言录取中也担任了核校口译员；Yvette Wang是Golden Spring（黄金泉）的30(b)(6)代表。在该证言录取中，我们通过一家类似机构聘请的主要口译员，并非TransPerfect，而我相信其名为Veritext（维瑞文本），另一家\n\n机构，而且那名口译员表现得极其出色。我们没有遇到同样的问题，其中一些问题我们在 341 听证会上曾遇到过。\n\n因此，我提及所有这些是为了说明——我提及我们迄今所做事项的记录的原因，是希望向法院阐明，为什么我们显然错误地假定今天会采取类似的做法。\n\n因此，对于此事在未事先通知法院的情况下突然出现，我们表示歉意，但这就是我们的立场。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\n乔纳斯律师？\n\n乔纳斯先生：是，法官大人。杰夫·乔纳斯（Jeff Jonas），代表债务人的布朗·拉德尼克（Brown Rudnick）律师事务所。\n\n法官大人，我仅补充一点，首先，我对 PAX 所说的内容并不介意——我认为法院也不应介意。我们听到了法院关于法院不能提供口译员的指示。我们双方都外出——显然，如果我们曾经沟通过会很好，但遗憾的是我们没有——但我们双方都聘请了口译员。因此，情况就是如此。\n\n而且，再次说明，在没有进一步信息的情况下，我没有理由质疑其口译员的能力。\n\n法官大人，除我先前的意见外，我想说的是，正如您可以想象的那样，普通话是一门复杂的语言，这是我在过去几周不得不处理此事期间所了解的。而且，是的，郭先生——他曾使用过——威尔金森女士熟悉郭先生，也熟悉他的说话方式，我认为这对他尤其有帮助。显然，这是一次关键的听证会。而且他将在本案中首次现场作证。我认为，在不带偏见的前提下，对其语调、语音抑扬以及说话方式具有某种程度的熟悉和理解，最终将有助于事实裁判者获得最准确的翻译。我不太确定此前发生的事情有何相关性。我们现在在这里。他将首次作证。基于此，法官大人，我们再次恭敬地——如果情况至此，我们乐意交由法院决定——但我们恭敬地希望并建议由威尔金森女士担任主口译员。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\n乔纳斯先生：谢谢。\n\n法官：哈巴赫律师，您还有其他想补充的吗？\n\n哈巴赫先生：没有，法官大人。谢谢。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 128 页，共\n\n鉴于本案的情形、就口译员提出的论点，以及美国受托人办公室强调其在 341 会议上所持有的——“所经历的”是更恰当的术语——措辞——我想——一些关切，我认为——那么，法院裁定，由 PAX 聘请的口译员担任主口译员，威尔金森女士可以担任复核口译员。但我们都必须明白，这意味着这里将有三个人，好吗？因此，我们必须设法让口译员理解，提问可能必须进行得稍微慢一些。\n\n乔纳斯先生：是。\n\n法官：好吗？乔纳斯先生，您将提出一个问题，然后哈巴赫先生将在交叉询问中提出一个问题，我们将不得不等待债务人作答，然后我们将不得不等待——这一切都没有问题，我只是向所有人说明其运作方式——我们将不得不等待口译员。我不记得 PAX 所聘请人员的姓名。口译员叫什么名字？\n\n哈巴赫先生：这是因为我尚未让她在记录中说明身份，法官大人。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 130 页，共\n\n法官：好的。\n\n哈巴赫先生：这不是记忆问题。\n\n法官：好的。\n\n哈巴赫先生：坦白说，我甚至不知道她的名字。\n\n法官：好的。\n\n哈巴赫先生：但我知道她在这里。\n\n法官：那么，口译员应当用英语告诉我们郭先生作出的回答。然后我们必须等待，看看威尔金森女士是否对此有异议。如果她有异议，那么，我们就必须处理。我认为这是我们所能做的一切。好吗？我认为，鉴于今天的情况，这是我们所能做的最好的办法。\n\n乔纳斯先生：法官大人，一个问题？\n\n法官：可以。\n\n乔纳斯先生：我非常感谢并尊重法院的裁定。谢谢您，法官大人。\n\n仅作一项建议，以便我们理解基本规则，律师们稍微后退一些是否可以——\n\n法官：可以。\n\n乔纳斯先生：是的。并让——在一定程度上——\n\n法官：当然可以。\n\n哈巴赫先生：——如果主口译员对某一回答作出翻译，在威尔金森女士认为必要的范围内，她可以自行发言并提出异议，我只是——我不——我希望我们不要站在前线，因为——\n\n法官：不，我同意。\n\n哈巴赫先生：好的。\n\n法官：我认为你们应当后退一些。而且我认为我们可能还需要一把椅子。\n\n哈巴赫先生：是。是。\n\n法官：我不知道目前是否有另一把椅子可以立即使用。\n\n乔纳斯先生：法官大人，目前我可以提供我的椅子。\n\n法官：好的。您将全程站着吗？\n\n乔纳斯先生：是。嗯，至少在我的直接询问期间，然后我们再想办法。\n\n法官：好的。好吧。\n\n乔纳斯先生：我会坐别人的椅子。\n\n法官：好吧。我认为在此情形下这很公平。并且我们将在记录中注明，乔纳斯先生一旦——也有人正在搬进另一把椅子，因此如果任何人需要另一把椅子，我们就都准备好了。非常感谢。我不知道我们是否会需要它，但没关系。我感谢您这样做，因此谢谢您。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 131 页，共\n\n身份不明者：如果您不需要，我会把它还回去。\n\n法官：谢谢。\n\n那么——为了让大家清楚，乔纳斯先生将代表债务人，就债务人的——我一直用简称称呼它——但一项 DIP 动议，一项 DIP 动议——开始陈述，然后他将传唤其第一名证人，我将——\n\n然后我们将请口译员上前。口译员必须在记录中说明其姓名。\n\n而且，我必须确认双方——每一方——均未质疑两名口译员中任何一人的资格。\n\n然后，乔纳斯先生，您即可继续。好吗？\n\n乔纳斯先生：当然。谢谢您，法官大人。\n\n法官：好。请您——可以开始了。\n\n乔纳斯先生：那么我们可以传唤口译员吗，法官大人？\n\n法官：当然可以。绝对可以。\n\n乔纳斯先生：而且我们显然会请威尔金森女士上前，我想坐第二把椅子，对吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 133 页，共\n\n法官：是。那么，威尔金森女士，您在法庭内吗？\n\n威尔金森女士：是。\n\n法官：请您上前。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法官：好。那么，一次一人，我将——法庭工作人员将确保该麦克风至少能够收录两人的声音。\n\n威尔金森女士，因为您先过来，法警书记员将为您宣誓。好吗？\n\n（复核口译员宣誓。）\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\n书记员：请您为记录说明您的姓名和营业地址。\n\n复核口译员：好的。我的名字是——\n\n法官：我们听不见您。\n\n书记员：我需要威尔金森女士。\n\n法官：我们需要先听威尔金森女士的。您何不上麦克风前来。对。\n\n复核口译员：名字，乌娜，U-N-A，姓氏，威尔金森，W-I-L-K-I-N-S-O-N。\n\n法官：只需说明您的营业地址。\n\n复核口译员：我的营业地址是我家。\n\n法官：好的。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 134 页，共\n\n复核口译员：6818 Juno Street，J-U-N-O，Forest Hills，New York，New York 01375。\n\n法官：谢谢。非常感谢。\n\n现在，如果我可以请您上前——我不知道您的名字。抱歉。如果您可以告诉我您的名字。\n\n主口译员：当然可以。法官大人，我的名字是 I Ching Ng（伊庆·吴），拼写为 I-C-H-I-N-G，姓氏是 N-G。\n\n法官：N-G。好的。请您告诉我们您的营业地址。\n\n主口译员：当然可以。是 450 Lexington Avenue，Unit 3294，New York，New York 10163。\n\n法官：您所工作的公司呢？\n\n主口译员：今天我代表 TransPerfect（特朗斯珀菲克特）。\n\n法官：TransPerfect。好的。\n\n主口译员：是。\n\n法官：法警书记员将为您宣誓。好吗？\n\n书记员：请举起您的右手。\n\n（主口译员宣誓。）\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\n您可以脱下外套。您知道，您不必——您穿什么更舒适都可以，但我将让您就坐在证人席旁边。而且\n\n威尔金森女士将坐在您的右侧。好吗？\n\n现在，我想请你们两位做的是——你们不知道这一点，但我们只有——我们的记录只能通过麦克风取得。因此，一旦证人郭先生发言，在他发言后并由您翻译后，您必须对着麦克风说话。\n\n所以，威尔金森女士，如果乔纳斯先生后退（听不清），您可能必须上前站在这个麦克风前——因为如果我们听不见您，我们将不得不叫停您。不要担心，这有时会发生。我们有——这是——我们唯一的记录只能通过麦克风取得。因此，如果我叫停您，并不是因为您做错了任何事，而是因为我们无法听到，或者出于任何原因。好吗？\n\n我只是想——我知道您以前没有这样做过——或者可能没有在这个法庭这样做过——但我们只能——我们没有速记员。我们没有。我们必须以这种方式将一切记入记录。如果我们没有记入记录，那么我们必须暂停，并确保其记入记录。好吗？\n\n复核口译员：好的。\n\n法官：那么你们中任何一人有问题吗？\n\n主口译员：那么，这意味着我可以使用这个麦克风，对吗？\n\n法官：是，您可以。而且将在——这里还有另一个麦克风。好的。很好。好的。这对威尔金森女士也会有帮助。很好。谢谢。在郭先生回答问题后，那么，是的，您可以——这就是为什么我们稍微转动了麦克风，以便它也能够收录您的声音。如果我们出于某种原因弄错了，而它没有收录您的声音，我们会确定您应当站在哪里，以便我们也能听懂您所说的话。\n\n主口译员：好的。\n\n法官：好吗？这对你们两人都有意义吗？\n\n（无可听见的回答。）\n\n法官：好的。我只是想确认。如果您有任何问题，请在我们开始之前告诉我。好吗？好。好。既然没有听到问题，那么我们还需要做什么？\n\n书记员：我这里有一条记录，说我们将让证人（听不清）。\n\n法官：我认为乔纳斯先生将传唤他的证人，所以就这样。\n\n乔纳斯先生：是，法官大人。如果我们准备好了，我很乐意这样做。\n\n法庭：是。请继续。\n\n乔纳斯先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我们将——债务人将传唤Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）到证人席作证。\n\n法庭：好的。郭先生，请上前。\n\n郭文贵：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：下午好，先生。现在，郭先生，进去后您只需站着即可。然后请您举起右手，并听从法庭书记员的指示。她将要——您会翻译——但现在正在对您讲话的是这个人。\n\n书记员：抱歉。您知道。\n\n法庭：没关系。这不是问题。\n\n书记员：让我拿一下我的笔记。非常抱歉。\n\n法庭：如果您愿意，您可以分段说，以便口译员可以为郭先生分段翻译。好吗？\n\n书记员：好的。\n\n法庭：您一次可以说几句话，我想这也有助于郭先生理解。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）宣誓完毕\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 137 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 138 页，共\n\n书记员：请陈述您的姓名和地址，以供记录。\n\n首席口译员：口译员希望请郭先生拼写地址。\n\n法庭：拼写？\n\n首席口译员：是的。\n\n法庭：是的。请继续。您可以问他。\n\n证人：姓是Kwok，K-W-O-K。名是Ho Wan，H-A——抱歉——H-O W-A-N。地址在康涅狄格州Taconic，但我不知道怎么拼写。\n\n法庭：我没有听清您说的。康涅狄格州的什么地方？我想是康涅狄格州格林威治。您认为您听到的是这个吗？\n\n证人：门牌号是373，但我不记得街道名称。是在康涅狄格州格林威治。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n乔纳斯先生：法官阁下，我相信是Taconic。\n\n法庭：我想是Taconic，是的。好的。谢谢。谢谢。好。您可以坐下。\n\n证人：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n乔纳斯先生：法官阁下，我可以——麦克风——\n\n郭文贵—直接询问 138\n\n我只是想知道它是否能收录到郭先生的声音？\n\n法庭：我想如果他稍微靠近一点——\n\n乔纳斯先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——这样我们就能收录到他们两人的声音。\n\n乔纳斯先生：好的。好的。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n乔纳斯先生直接询问：\n\n问：下午好，郭先生。郭先生，您为何提交这起Chapter 11破产案件？\n\n答：首先，我想借此机会——首先，我想说我今天非常激动。这是我第一次能够在本案中出庭。本案已经进行了五年。我感谢这次机会。而且我也很激动，以至于昨晚无法入睡。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n乔纳斯先生继续询问：\n\n问：我将——我重复一下我的问题。郭先生，您为何提交这起Chapter 11破产案件？\n\n答：今年二月初，在Southern District Court（纽约南区法院），法官作出判决，要求我在五天内支付$120 million。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 139 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 140 页，共\n\n郭文贵—直接询问\n\n书记员：对不起，法官阁下。我需要中断一下，因为有消息称我们听不到口译员的声音。虽然我能听到（听不清），但我们收到消息说无法听到。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n乔纳斯先生：法官阁下，我可以提一个建议吗？\n\n法庭：当然。\n\n乔纳斯先生：我不确定——我想我们真正需要听到的只是口译员，只要她能听到郭先生。因此，我的建议是，我可以将麦克风直接转向口译员，这样我们就能收录到口译员的声音，因为我认为这才是真正重要的全部内容。\n\n法庭：我想这样做——我们试试吧。\n\n乔纳斯先生：好的。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n乔纳斯先生：我们试试。\n\n法庭：就这样试试。好的。\n\n乔纳斯先生：感谢您的耐心。\n\n法庭：好的。不。谢谢您。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n乔纳斯先生：我只是想——我不知道我们进行到哪里了。\n\n法庭：是的。\n\n乔纳斯先生：我可以——我想他回答到一半，那么我们重新开始吗？\n\n郭文贵—直接询问 140\n\n首席口译员：如果您不介意。\n\n乔纳斯先生：很乐意。\n\n法庭：那会有帮助。谢谢。\n\n乔纳斯先生：当然。\n\n乔纳斯先生继续询问：\n\n问：我们回到刚才的问题，郭先生。郭先生，您为何提交这起Chapter 11破产案件？\n\n答：2020年二月，Southern District Court（纽约南区法院）的法官就我与PAX（PAX公司）的案件作出判决，该判决要求我在五天内支付$120 million罚款。\n\n首席口译员：让我向郭先生核实这个数额。好的。让我核实一下。应当是124 million。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n证人：在这种情况下，我别无选择。为了迅速且公平地解决我与债务人的债务问题——我有很多债务人——这是我为解决债权人问题不得不作出的选择之一，尽管我没有选择。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n乔纳斯先生：法官阁下，我只是想确认一下。我实际上认为现在运行得还可以。我只是想确认法庭是否满意，并且——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 141 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 142 页，共\n\n郭文贵—直接询问\n\n法庭：我能听到。真正需要确认能够收录到声音的是法庭书记员和录音记录。\n\n书记员：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n乔纳斯先生：但我想，加上Wilkinson女士（威尔金森女士）的更正，我认为——系统正在运行。\n\n法庭：没问题。是的，我同意。\n\n乔纳斯先生：好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n乔纳斯先生继续询问：\n\n问：您回答完了吗？郭先生，我只是想确认一下，您为何提交这起Chapter 11案件？\n\n答：是的，我说完了。\n\n问：好的。谢谢。郭先生，您是否曾公开持批评中国共产党的立场，或者批评通常被称为CCP的组织？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您为何这样做？\n\n答：在1989年中国的天安门民主抗议活动期间，我资助了学生。因此，我被逮捕并被监禁22个月，我的弟弟被杀害。\n\n而且，由于我的父母遭到CCP的酷刑，并且在我被逮捕期间，我目睹许多学生抗议者被杀害，因此我发誓必须铲除中国共产党。\n\n问：郭先生，就您反对CCP的活动而言，您是否曾经并且现在是否仍在进行反对CCP的广播？\n\n答：在过去五年中，我进行了超过5,000次直播，播出时间数千小时，批评CCP的腐败行为，并向全世界揭露这些行为。\n\n我还谈到（听不清）发生的大屠杀，以及香港的情况，以及他们如何在西方、美国开展间谍活动和侵犯人权。\n\n问：有多少人观看或收看了您的广播？\n\n答：我觉得是数千万、数亿人。\n\n问：作为公开直言批评CCP的人，您是否面临风险？\n\n答：风险极大。\n\n问：这些风险是什么？\n\n答：2015年1月10日，我身后的这些人，那两个人（听不清），他们还支付了一名名为Wu Zheng（按发音记录）的律师的费用，他对我进行了监视。\n\n我的家人被逮捕，包括我的妻子、女儿，以及数百名同事也被逮捕，我的家庭资产被查封。他们告诉我，如果我不与中国共产党合作，他们就会杀了我。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 143 页，共\n\n郭文贵—直接询问\n\n首席口译员：口译员希望向证人核实几个姓名。\n\n法庭：当然。请继续。\n\n证人：Bernard Wu（伯纳德·吴）曾是一家名为CGI（CGI）的调查公司的前合伙人，他与（听不清）合作，他们也参与了这项调查。而且他们还——\n\n首席口译员：让我向郭——先生核实一个术语——\n\nHarbach先生（哈尔巴赫先生）：法官阁下，我知道正在核实口译内容，但我们对关联性和答非所问提出异议。如果我没有记错，问题是风险是什么？对我而言，这一回答完全不清楚是否回应了该问题，或是否与本次听证的目的相关。\n\n法庭：我理解。我将允许这个问题和回答，然后我们将转向与DIP申报有关的事项。\n\n乔纳斯先生：法官阁下，我完全同意。我只是试图提供一些背景，这是关于这一主题的最后一个问题。\n\n郭文贵—直接询问 144\n\n法庭：好的。请继——请继续。不过，我可以问您，口译员——\n\n首席口译员：是。\n\n法庭：——刚才有一个您说出的姓名。我不知道我是否听清了。是Bernard Wu吗？是这个姓名吗？\n\n首席口译员：是。嗯。\n\n法庭：好的。我们能否——您能否为法庭拼写一下？\n\n首席口译员：让我向郭先生核实拼写。\n\n法庭：当然。\n\n证人：Bruno Wu（布鲁诺·吴）。\n\n法庭：Bruno。\n\n证人：B-R-U-N-O，姓氏是W-U。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n乔纳斯先生继续询问：\n\n问：谢谢，郭先生。\n\n首席口译员：是的。抱歉。我还没有完成翻译。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\n乔纳斯先生：是我失礼了。\n\n证人：关于Puff（按发音记录）案件，Bruno Wu Partners（布鲁诺·吴合伙人事务所）也参与其中，也涉及与Department of Justice（司法部）有关的案件，试图让——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n郭文贵—直接询问\n\n特朗普总统将我引渡。\n\n我想说，在过去五年中，我处于严峻、极端危险的境地。有许多次，有人来到我的住所，想要伤害我。我不想花时间详述此事。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n乔纳斯先生继续询问：\n\n问：谢谢，郭先生。我们继续。您是否有经济能力清偿本案中针对您主张的全部债务？\n\n答：没有。\n\n问：您是否知道有人声称您看起来像是一名富有的人？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：并且在本案中，您披露您拥有极少——在本案中，您披露拥有极少资产，这是真的吗？\n\n答：是。\n\n问：您能解释这一矛盾吗？\n\n答：1989年，我因参加一项运动而在（听不清）运动期间被逮捕。之后，我于2000年移居香港。\n\n此后，从2015年至今，我发动了铲除中国共产党的运动，\n\n因此，我是众所周知的中国共产党（CCP）的头号敌人。\n\n正因如此，我不可能持有任何资产。\n\n问 但是，先生，您——我还是想回到我的问题：据称您看起来有能力过得很好，但您披露的资产却极少。您——您从哪里获得维持生活的资金？\n\n答 目前，我处于非常特殊的情形。这非常独特。我正处于消灭中国共产党的运动阶段。\n\n而且，我的儿子、女儿和家族企业都非常成功。这些都是非常独特的（听不清）。我的家人爱我，他们正在支持我的生活开支，以及为重新加入所必需的运动。\n\n而在过去五年中，中国共产党对我的家人进行了多项调查，也公开诋毁我。然而，他们从未说过——他们从未披露我的资产，或称我犯有任何罪行。\n\n问 郭先生，您是否熟悉您在本案中提出的债务人持有融资或 DIP 融资申请？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 拟议的 DIP 贷款人是谁？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n登记日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—直接询问\n\n答 New York Golden Spring（纽约金泉）。\n\n问 那么请问，Golden Spring New York, Limited（纽约金泉有限公司）是什么？\n\n答 这是一家由我儿子拥有的公司。他设立该公司是为了在纽约投资，也为了帮助家庭，并处理家庭在西方的事务。\n\n问 好的。您是否协助他设立 Golden Spring（纽约金泉）？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 是否有任何您的资金被用于设立 Golden Spring？\n\n答 我曾一度获授权转移资金，以帮助 Golden Spring，并向 J.P. Morgan（摩根大通）转移资金。\n\n问 但是那些资金——撤回该问题。那些资金是您的吗？\n\n答 不是。\n\n问 那些是谁的资金？\n\n答 我儿子的。\n\n问 您拥有 Golden Spring 吗？\n\n答 不拥有。\n\n问 您控制 Golden Spring 吗？\n\n答 不控制。\n\n问 您为 Golden Spring 工作吗？\n\n答 不工作。\n\n问 Golden Spring 过去是否曾借钱给您？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 登记日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 149 页，共\n\nKwok—直接询问\n\n答 是。\n\n问 用途为何？\n\n答 因为过去几年中，中国共产党对我提起了许多诉讼、大量诉讼，因此我不得不从 New York Golden Spring 获得贷款、借款，以支付这些律师费。\n\nJONAS 先生：法官阁下，我是否可以——我知道我口很渴。我是否可以把这个给郭先生？谢谢。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nJONAS 先生询问：\n\n问 郭先生，Golden Spring 是否支付您的生活开支？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 为什么？Golden Spring 为什么会这样做？\n\n答 因为在这段时间里，我正在进行消灭中国共产党的运动，当然别无选择。\n\n同时，我的儿子非常爱我。我是他唯一的父亲。因此，该公司一直在支付生活开支。\n\n问 您是否熟悉 Lamp Capital（兰普资本）？\n\n答 那是我儿子的公司。\n\n问 您为 Lamp Capital 工作吗？\n\n答 不工作。\n\n问 您控制 Lamp Capital 吗？\n\n答 不控制。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n登记日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nKwok—直接询问\n\n问 Lamp Capital 过去是否曾借钱给您？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 用途为何？\n\n答 是。支付一百万美元给我们的律师事务所，以处理我的破产案件。\n\n问 您是否知悉，本案中已提交某些书状，称您与 G Music（G音乐）存在关联？\n\n答 我是 G Music 的志愿者。我为 G Music 演唱许多有关消灭中国共产党的歌曲。\n\n问 而您是否——撤回该问题。您与 Himalayan Exchange（喜马拉雅交易所）有何关联，如有？\n\n答 我是顾问和推广人。\n\n问 那么，您与 GETTR（GETTR，G-E-T-T-R）有何关联，如有？\n\n答 我是顾问和其推广人之一。\n\n问 您——您与这些实体有关联而进行的活动，是否都属于您公开反对中国共产党的行为的一部分？\n\n答 关于所有这些已被提及的公司，我与我的（听不清）合作，目的是消灭中国共产党，因此我算是这一事业的推广人。\n\n问 您从这些实体中的任何一家获得报酬吗？\n\n答 没有。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n登记日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nKwok—直接询问\n\n问 您是否对部分债权人向您提出的债权主张有异议？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 在本次破产之前，您是否记得曾就您所涉的一些诉讼接受宣誓询问？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 您是否记得曾在其中一些询问中援引第五修正案规定的反对自证其罪权？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 在您最近的 341 会议上，您是否曾主张第五修正案权利？\n\n答 没有。我完全没有使用。\n\n问 为什么？\n\n答 因为在破产案件中，需要更多透明度和公平。而且，披露更多我的财务信息有助于处理与各债务人的关系，因此我希望法官——抱歉——债权人——我希望法官和所有债权人都能知道所有这些信息，以便我们能够以公开的方式处理。\n\n问 我想回到 DIP。您能否简要说明最初如何安排 DIP 贷款？\n\n答 当我得知纽约南区（Southern District）法院的法官处以 124 million 的罚款，并要求我在五天内付清时，我请我的律师和儿子联系他人，帮助我解决这笔贷款。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 登记日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 152 页，共\n\nKwok—直接询问\n\n问 那是否最终促成了现今提交至法院的 DIP 贷款？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 您对目前拟议的 DIP 贷款条款有何理解？请简要说明。\n\n答 关于贷款金额，那是 \\$8 million 和 \\$1 million，这 \\$8 million 和 \\$1 million 将优先用于公平地支付所有债权人，以及支付因本破产案件而向其他第三方产生的任何费用，例如律师及其他专业人士。除此以外——那一百万是捐赠。\n\n问 您是否了解，DIP 贷款能否在债权人之前或优先于债权人偿还？我不确定这如何翻译，不过。\n\n答 不能。这是不允许的。\n\n问 您是否了解，如果本案任命审查员，DIP 贷款能否用于资助审查员？\n\n答 是。可行。\n\n问 您是否了解，DIP 贷款能否用于支付本案债权人委员会专业人士的费用？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n登记日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nKwok—直接询问\n\n答 是。\n\n问 您是否了解，DIP 贷款能否用于支付本案应付的美国受托人费用？\n\n答 是。\n\n问 就您今天坐在这里而言，您认为 DIP 贷款很可能会得到偿还吗？\n\n答 （听不清。）\n\n问 Golden Spring 为什么会这样做？\n\nHARBACH 先生：反对。该问题要求推测。\n\n法庭：我允许。\n\n证人：关于 Golden Spring，那是一家由我儿子拥有的公司。他只有一个父亲。我们家庭经历了许多艰难困苦，并面对中国共产党的压制。\n\n而且，出于他的个人考虑和中国家庭价值观，他希望维护家庭、我和他母亲的利益。否则，我早已被投入监狱并被杀害。\n\nJONAS 先生询问：\n\n问 您是否知道 \\$9 million 的 DIP 贷款款项现在是否可用？\n\n答 我知道这笔钱昨天已经到账，但我不确定它是否已进入律师的托管账户。\n\nKwok—直接询问 153 案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 登记日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 154 页，共\n\n律师。我知道这笔钱昨天已经开始到账。我不确定它是否已经到达律师的托管账户。问 您是否认为，除 Golden Spring 外的任何其他方，会以比此处提供的条件更优的条件提供 DIP 贷款？HARBACH 先生：反对。推测性。法庭：我将允许，并将给予其我认为适当的权重。证人：不会。JONAS 先生询问：问 郭先生，您提到了审查员，您支持在本案中任命审查员吗？答 支持。问 为什么？答 自本案第一天至今，这是我唯一感到安心、感到安全的时刻，因为我有机会在此为自己发声。而且，因为我消灭中国共产党的目标，我需要发声、制造声响的机会，而这一司法制度提供了那个平台。我理解美国法律制度，并且——因此它将提供机会，以公平、透明且更专业的方式，与债权人解决我的债务问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 登记日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 155 页，共\n\nKwok—直接询问 154 债权人。问 如果 DIP 融资未获批准，您是否有任何其他资金来源支付本 Chapter 11 案件的成本和费用？答 没有。问 您是否已提交拟议重整计划？答 是。问 您是否认为落实 DIP 贷款是必要的，并将有助于推进您的计划？答 是。JONAS 先生：法官阁下，就直接询问而言，我目前没有进一步问题。如果法庭方便，我请求在某个时候短暂休庭？我确实明白需要指示郭先生不得与任何人交谈，这没有问题。我只是想确保，如果可以的话，他和我有机会短暂休息。法庭：对方律师对此有异议吗？HARBACH 先生：完全没有，法官。法庭：好的。那么，如果没有异议，就可以。那么您想要多长时间？\n\nKwok—直接询问／交叉询问 155 JONAS 先生：噢，只需五或十分钟，法官阁下。法庭：现在是差十分三点。您想在三点回来吗？JONAS 先生：可以。感谢法官阁下的礼遇。法庭：好的。我们将短暂休庭至下午 3 点，好吗？好的。好的。法庭休庭至三点。（下午 2:47 至下午 3 点休庭。）法庭：好的。请在休庭后恢复记录。书记员：是。我们仍在审理案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）案。我们在（听不清）后开庭。法庭：好的。Harbach 先生，您准备好继续了吗？HARBACH 先生：是，法官阁下。我可以询问吗？法庭：可以，请。请开始。HARBACH 先生交叉询问：问 下午好，郭先生。我想先谈谈 Jonas 先生问过您的一家实体，名为 GETTR。先生，您知道我所说的实体吗？答 首先，我想说，先生，下午好，我确实知道 GETTR。案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 登记日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 156 页，共\n\nKwok—交叉询问—Harbach 156 问 好的。GETTR 是什么？答 它是一个社交媒体平台。问 我相信您在直接询问中作证称，您是 GETTR 的顾问和推广人。对吗？答 是。问 GETTR 何时推出其平台？答 2021。问 大约在 2021 年夏季，您觉得这大致正确吗？答 我不记得。问 好的。GETTR 最初是如何获得资金的？答 我不知道。问 您是否参与向 GETTR 捐赠任何资金？答 没有。问 您是否帮助从其他人为 GETTR 筹集任何资金？答 没有。问 您的家人是否为 GETTR 的初创相关事宜作出任何捐赠或付款？答 没有。问 Himalayan Exchange 是什么？答 它是一家从事数字货币交易或兑换的在线公司。问 您创立了它吗？答 没有。问 您是否属于帮助创立它的人之一？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 登记日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 157 页，共\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫） 157 A 不。Q 好。什么是 Himalaya Coin？A 那是 Himalaya Exchange 上的一种数字货币。Q 那么 Himalaya Exchange 是一个支持交易 Himalaya Coin 的平台。这样说对吗？A 对。Q 好。你知道有一部名为 HCoin to the Moon 的音乐视频吗？首席口译员：对不起，律师，您能重复一下吗——Harbach 先生：Q HCoin——哦，证人知道。A 我知道。Q 好。那是一部成功且广受欢迎的音乐视频，对吗？A 对。Q 它有你出镜，对吗？A 我只占其中很小一部分。Q 先生，你在视频中出镜很突出，对吗？A 我只说了——我只说了一句台词。Q 你在制作这首歌方面是否发挥了任何作用？A 我只唱了一句。事实上，这首歌 HCoin to the Moon 是由 30,000 人完成的。Q 例如，HCoin to the Moon 在 iTunes 上是不是曾是非常热门的下载内容？案号 22-50073 文档 404-1 于 05/20/22 提交 于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记 第 158 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 404-1\n于 05/20/22 提交\n于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 A 你所说的“很多”或“非常热门”是什么意思？\n2 Q HCoin to the Moon 是否曾一度位列 Apple iTunes\n3 下载量前 10 名？\n4 A 是。\n5 Q 好。\n因此它赚了很多钱。\n6 A 我不知道。\n7 Q 那么我理解，你的证词将是，你\n8 没有因该歌曲的版税而\n9 获得任何钱款？\n10 A 是。\n11 Q 你刚才提到你援引第五修正案\n12 的事。你记得该证词吗？\n13 A 记得。\n14 Q 你是否理解，第五修正案的目的\n15 是在如实作证可能使你\n16 自证其罪的情形下提供保护。\n17 Jonas 先生：反对，法官阁下。\n18 法庭：依据是什么？\n19 Jonas 先生：他是在要求作出法律结论。我\n20 不认为证人——\n21 法庭：不，我认为他是在询问——他\n22 问的是他的理解是什么，所以我将——\n23 Harbach 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n24 法庭：——驳回该反对意见。\n25 证人：不，情况不是这样。\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）159 Harbach 先生：Q 好。你对援引第五修正案之目的的理解是什么？A 我是在律师的建议下请求援引第五修正案。Q 嗯，我理解，而且请相信我，我并不打算询问你与律师之间关于你是否应援引该修正案的沟通，那是受保密特权保护的。但是我——但是你的律师在直接询问中着重确立，你过去曾援引第五修正案，但在第 341 会议上并未这样做。你说这是因为你想更加透明。Jonas 先生：反对，法官阁下。法庭：依据是什么？Jonas 先生：我认为在最近两次——他——Harbach 先生一直在作陈述，但在最近两个所谓的问题中并没有提问。Harbach 先生：法官阁下，我只是为口译员停顿一下，而不是提出一个非常冗长的大问题，我是在留出时间让她——法庭：我不确定这不是一个问题。我的意思是，你是在问他他说了什么。我不——我不——案号 22-50073 文档 404-1 于 05/20/22 提交 于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记 第 160 页，共\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）160 确定这不是一个问题，所以我想就让它继续，看看我们——会到哪里，好吗？Harbach 先生：Q 先生，问题是，你理解一个人援引第五修正案的理由是什么？A 我不理解这个问题。Q 你是否理解——你是否了解第五修正案是什么？A 我知道。Q 你知道援引第五修正案是什么意思吗？A 美国法律赋予人民这样做的权利。Q 这完全正确，而我试图了解的是，行使什么权利？也就是说——根据你的理解，一个人可能援引第五修正案的理由是什么？Jonas 先生：反对，法官阁下。再次，我——而且我恭敬地——我——我并非想打断，但我确实需要为记录保留我的反对意见。我认为不适宜询问一名证人——他现在已经就第五修正案及其理解提出了，我不知道，10 个问题。显然，如果他的理解来自我们，其中一些内容受保密特权保护。法庭：他并非在询问受保密特权保护的——案号 22-50073 文档 404-1 于 05/20/22 提交 于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记 第 161 页，共\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）161 信息。他已明确说明这一点。我认为这是一个相关问题，我驳回你的反对意见。Jonas 先生：可以。谢谢。法庭：你确实在直接询问中就此问题打开了话题。Jonas 先生：明白，法官阁下。法庭：好。Jonas 先生：这就是为什么我——一开始，我没有反对，但我们对此已经讨论得相当深入，我不确定会发展到何处。法庭：我——但他还没有得到答案。Jonas 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：好。Harbach 先生：Q 先生，你希望我重复这个问题吗？首席口译员：是。是的，请重复。我是口译员。Harbach 先生：当然。Harbach 先生：Q 你对援引第五修正案是什么意思的理解是什么？A 我听从我律师——我听从律师的建议。Q 好。我想我会转到下一个问题。案号 22-50073 文档 404-1 于 05/20/22 提交 于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记 第 162 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 404-1 于 05/20/22 提交 于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记 第 163 页，共\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 在对你询问的一开始，当被问及你为何提出本\n2 Chapter 11 案件时，你提到\n3 这是因为纽约的一名法官命令你在五天内支付\n4 \\$124 million 罚款。你记得该\n5 证词吗？\n6 A 记得。\n7 Q 我不想对此过于深入，只想指出，\n8 因法官作出了对你在该诉讼中一方\n9 不利的决定，已有一份针对你的判决书\n10 生效，对吗？\n11 A 你是在说纽约第七区的判决书吗？\n12 我知道那一份。\n13 Q 嗯，我说的是纽约州最高法院，\n14 由 Barry Ostrager（巴里·奥斯特拉格）法官主持的\n15 判决书。\n16 A 是，我知道。\n17 Q 好。那么，实际上已经——有两份\n18 判决书作出。其中一份是与 PAX 违约主张有关的\n19 部分简易判决书。\n20 你记得吗？\n21 A 你是在说我违反了合同吗？\n22 Q 我只是想说明，纽约州最高法院作出了两份\n23 针对你的判决书。我\n24 不是要你承认你是否同意这些判决。\n25 我只是问你是否知道它们的存在。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 404-1\n于 05/20/22 提交\n于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 A 是。\n2 Q 好。你理解其中一份是与藐视法庭认定有关的\n3 判决书，对吗？\n4 A 是。\n5 Q 好。你是否曾就该藐视法庭判决书提交或\n6 试图提交上诉保证金？\n7 A 是。\n8 Q 金额是多少？\n9 A 你是在说上诉保证金吗？\n10 Q 是。\n11 A 我不明白你所说的上诉保证金是什么意思。\n12 Q 你知道什么是上诉保证金吗？\n13 A 那么你是在问我——关于\n14 Ostrager 法官作出的藐视法庭案件吗？\n15 Q 正是。我的问题是，你是否就该\n16 判决书提交或试图提交\n17 上诉保证金？\n18 A 我的律师正在处理此事，但我不知道\n19 细节。\n20 Q 那么据你所知，尚未完成，\n21 对吗？\n22 A 我们已经就 Ostrager 法官的一份判决书\n23 提起上诉。\n24 Q 我理解。\n25 Harbach 先生：法官阁下，我很快就会转到下一个问题。\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）164 Harbach 先生：Q 为明确起见，我的问题不是你是否就该决定提出上诉，而是你是否缴纳了上诉保证金。刚才你说你相信你的律师正在处理此事，这没问题。A 是。Q 好。因此，我只想确认他们正在处理此事。据你所知，尚未完成，对吗？A 我的律师正在处理此事。Q 明白。谢谢。还有一项对直接询问的补充。Jonas 先生询问了你因反对中国共产党（CCP）而面临的风险，而你所说的事项包括你的家人被逮捕，以及中国共产党没收了你家人的资产。你记得该证词吗？A 记得。Q 其中一些资产也是你的，对吗？A 不是。Q 那么你的证词是，中国共产党没有没收你的任何资产？A 是。Q 好。只没收了你家人的资产。案号 22-50073 文档 404-1 于 05/20/22 提交 于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记 第 165 页，共\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）165 A 是。Q 因为你的行为。A 是。Q Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）于 2015 年 3 月设立，对吗？A 是。Q 我相信你在直接询问中说过，它是——曾是一家投资公司？A 当时，该公司的职能之一是为家人在美国寻找投资机会。Q 自 2015 年 3 月以来，Golden Spring 已实施了多少项成功的投资机会？A 我们有一些案件几乎成功。然而，由于 Bruno Wu（吴征）代表中国共产党打电话并作出威胁，因此它们都徒劳无功。Q 我没听清最后一个词。它们是——A 徒劳无功。Q 它们是徒劳无功？口译员：是。Harbach 先生：Q 好。那么，对我的问题的回答是否是，自 Golden Spring 于 2015 年 3 月设立以来，没有任何成功的投资？案号 22-50073 文档 404-1 于 05/20/22 提交 于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记 第 166 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 404-1\n于 05/20/22 提交\n于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 A 我不知道 2015 年之后发生了什么。\n2 Q 好。那么，对我的问题的回答是否是，你完全\n3 不知道 Golden Spring 自 2015 年以来是否有任何成功的\n4 投资？\n5 A 是。\n6 Q 这就是你说由你儿子拥有的公司？\n7 A 是。\n8 Q 按照你的说法，正是这位儿子对你的爱和善意\n9 促成了他们对你的慷慨？\n10 A 是。\n11 Q 考虑到这一点，你和这位儿子的关系相当亲近？\n12 A 是。\n13 Q 你从未问过他生意进展如何，\n14 或他们有意投资什么？\n15 A 那与他的合伙人 Bruno Wu（吴征）有关，他去了\n16 伦敦，并且——与许多人一起，那里有来自\n17 中国共产党的中国间谍，试图杀害他们。\n18 2015 年，我的女儿、我的妻子被逮捕，而且——\n19 因为这些——这些问题，以及我正在被追捕并且——\n20 他们曾试图——他们曾试图杀害我这一事实，\n21 因此他们不想告诉我太多有关他们个人事务\n22 或所发生事情的情况，而我\n23 尊重这一点。\n24 Q 所以你的回答是，你从未问过他。\n25 A 我问过。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 404-1\n于 05/20/22 提交\n于 05/20/22 11:52:18 登记\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 问 他拒绝回答你的问题。\n是这样吗？\n\n2 答 因为我受到死亡威胁，而且由于我，\n\n3 出现了很多问题。因此，他们不想\n\n4 回答那个问题。\n\n5 问 我没有听清答案的后半部分。很抱歉。\n\n6 答 因为我受到威胁，而且由于我\n\n7 出现了很多问题，他们不想\n\n8 回答那个问题。\n\n9 问 是出于何种恐惧？是担心中国共产党\n\n10 会追索他们的资产吗？\n\n11 答 这不只是关于扣押资产。我儿子\n\n12 事实上此前被中国共产党逮捕，而且\n\n13 他受到死亡威胁，因此他一直处于这一\n\n14 过程中。此外，他在香港和\n\n15 中国大陆的许多资产已被他们扣押或没收。\n\n16 问 而且你此前曾作证，不是吗，即你\n\n17 本人没有任何银行账户，对吗？\n\n18 答 是。\n\n19 问 而你所称的原因是因为\n\n20 中国共产党，对吗？\n\n21 答 是。\n\n22 问 而且——出于同样的原因，你不能\n\n23 持有任何资产，对吗？\n\n24 答 正如我一开始提到的，由于 1989 年\n\n25 事件，我被拘押了 22 个月，之后我成为了一个\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 169 页，共\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 反共产党的人士；随后在 2000 年，我持有香港护照；2015 年，我成为反\n\n2 中国共产党的人士。因此，基于这三个\n\n3 不同阶段以及当时的政治环境，\n\n4 我无法拥有或持有任何资产。\n\n5\n\n6 问 好的。希望让我谈到其中一点。\n\n7 你似乎毫无困难地在公开提交的文书中宣誓称\n\n8 你的儿子拥有 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉公司），对吗？难道\n\n9 不是真的，你曾在公开提交的文书中宣誓称\n\n10 你的儿子是 Golden Spring New York 的所有人吗？\n\n11 答 是。\n\n12 问 好的。而且 Golden\n\n13 Spring 可支配数百万美元，这也是事实，对吗？\n\n14 答 我不知道他们有多少钱。\n\n15 问 可是，你知道他们有数百万美元，对吗，\n\n16 因为你几分钟前刚刚作证说，他们\n\n17 承诺给你 eight，或者给破产财产 eight。对吗？\n\n18 JONAS 先生（乔纳斯）：异议，法官阁下。这\n\n19 实际上并不准确。他——当被问及\n\n20 DIP 的条款时，我相信他说的是 $9 million。\n\n21 法庭：我认为他可以回答该问题。\n\n22 证人：是的，我先前作出的证词\n\n23 说的是 $9 million。\n\n24 由 HARBACH 先生：\n\n25 问 而我问你的问题是，你知道吗，难道不是\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 Golden Spring 可支配数百万美元？\n\n2 答 是。\n\n3 问 Golden Spring 在 2015 年设立时，是你拥有它的，\n\n4 对吗？\n\n5 答 不是。\n\n6 问 你是否记得今年 4 月 6 日在 New Haven（纽黑文）举行的\n\n7 第 341 条听证会，即那次现场\n\n8 举行的听证会？\n\n9 答 记得。\n\n10 问 你是否记得曾作证称，你一度在 Golden Spring 担任\n\n11 某一职务，但你记不起该\n\n12 职务是什么？\n\n13 答 记得。\n\n14 问 今天坐在这里，你仍然不记得该职务\n\n15 是什么吗？\n\n16 答 是。\n\n17 问 或者你何时担任该职务？\n\n18 答 那是在 2015 年初公司刚刚\n\n19 成立之时。\n\n20 问 大约持续了多久？\n\n21 答 我不记得。\n\n22 问 在主询问中，你被问到了一些\n\n23 有关 Golden Spring 设立的问题，我相信你\n\n24 作证称，你协助儿子设立 Golden\n\n25 Spring。对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 答 是。\n\n2 问 如果我们可以稍作岔开，将你\n\n3 儿子的姓名记入记录。他是 Qiang Guo（郭强），对吗？\n\n4 答 是。\n\n5 问 好的。我为记录拼写一下。Q-I-A-N-G，\n\n6 姓氏为 G-U-O。\n\n7 答 是。\n\n8 问 谢谢。现在，你还在主询问中作证称，没有\n\n9 使用你的任何资金设立 Golden Spring，对吗？\n\n10 答 没有使用属于我的钱。\n\n11 问 好的。使用的是存放在你所拥有账户中的\n\n12 钱，不是吗？\n\n13 答 我获授权使用以我名义开立的账户。\n\n14 问 Kwok 先生，你是否记得于 2016 年 2 月在\n\n15 New York State Court（纽约州法院）审理的 Ace Decade Holdings Limited（艾斯十年控股有限公司）诉 UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司）一案中\n\n16 准备过一份宣誓书？\n\n17 答 我记得。\n\n18 HARBACH 先生：书记官女士，您能否\n\n19 展示 PAX 的 Exhibit 18（证物 18）？实际上，是我弄错了。我们能否\n\n20 先从 PAX 的 19 开始？抱歉，法官阁下。\n\n21 法庭：没关系。\n\n22 书记官：屏幕上显示的是 PAX Exhibit 19。\n\n23 HARBACH 先生：谢谢您，女士。\n\n24 由 HARBACH 先生：\n\n25 问 我想看 19 的倒数第二页，即\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）171——看起来应当是 17。这一页——嗯，可能是——可能是不同的页码，但这是有 Kwok 先生签名的一页。为记录起见，证物 19 是我先前提及的宣誓书的中文版本，因此目前为证人显示在屏幕上的，是该宣誓书的签名页；向证人提出的问题是，那是否是你的签名，先生。\n\n答 是。\n\n问 好的。\n\nHARBACH 先生：现在，书记官女士，能否请您在该文件中回到第 36 段？法官阁下，由于这是中文，稍显繁琐，但 PAX 打算提交的——嗯，PAX 打算做的是使用证人签署的带有汉字的版本询问证人，然后我们将向法庭提交中文版本以及同样经过认证、作为单独证物的英文译本。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n由 HARBACH 先生：\n\n问 那么，Kwok 先生，请你看一下第 36 段。请你默读第 36 段，然后在读完时告诉我？\n\n答 我读完了。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 172 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 问 难道不是事实，即在这份 2016 年 2 月的\n\n2 宣誓书中，你宣誓称，2015 年 4 月，Wong 先生，W-O-N-G，Fu 女士，F-U，以及\n\n3 Lam 女士，L-A-M，协助我设立\n\n4 Golden Spring New York，方式是将资金从我在 UBS 的一个\n\n5 账户转入 Golden Spring New York 在纽约的 JP Morgan Chase\n\n6 Bank（摩根大通银行）账户？\n\n7 答 是。\n\n8 问 好的。在你的宣誓书中，你没有提及\n\n9 你的儿子设立 Golden Spring New York，是吗？\n\n10 答 是。\n\n11 问 好的。事实上，难道不是你用自己的钱设立了 Golden\n\n12 Spring 吗？\n\n13 答 那笔钱是我儿子的钱，但使用我的账户向他的\n\n14 账户转移资金。那不是我的\n\n15 钱。\n\n16 问 是多少金额？\n\n17 答 我记不清楚。不过，在那之后——\n\n18 嗯，我不记得了。\n\n19 HARBACH 先生：法官，我能否占用片刻？\n\n20 法庭：当然可以。\n\n21 （暂停）\n\n22 HARBACH 先生：感谢您的宽容，\n\n23 法官阁下。我希望我们已经稍微简化了事情。\n\n24 法庭：没问题。\n\n25 由 HARBACH 先生：\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 问 Kwok 先生，难道不是在 2014 年 11 月或 12 月，\n\n2 你可支配 $1 billion？\n\n3 答 是。\n\n4 问 好的。那不是你儿子的钱，对吗？\n\n5 答 那是家族的钱，包括我儿子的钱。\n\n6 问 好的。正如你刚才所说，那些钱由你\n\n7 支配。\n\n8 答 我获授权使用那笔钱。\n\n9 问 我刚才是否正确听到你今天说，\n\n10 你从未——你从未在 Golden Spring New York 工作过？\n\n11 答 是。\n\n12 问 好的。\n\n13 答 正如我先前提到的，我一度确实担任过\n\n14 某一职务。\n\n15 问 好的。你是否从事过与该职务有关的\n\n16 任何工作？\n\n17 答 我确实领取过薪水。\n\n18 问 你领取过薪水。薪水是多少？\n\n19 答 $300,000 U.S. dollars。\n\n20 问 是哪一期间？\n\n21 答 2015 年。\n\n22 问 那么，在 2015 日历年度，你从\n\n23 Golden Spring 赚取了 $300,000？\n\n24 答 大约是那个数额，但我记不清楚。\n\n25 问 好的。是为了做什么？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 答 当时是为了协助设立 Golden Spring New\n\n2 York，并担任顾问以寻找投资\n\n3 机会。\n\n4 问 好的。为谁担任顾问？\n\n5 答 Golden Spring。\n\n6 问 Golden Spring 中的谁？你向谁提供建议？\n\n7 答 我儿子。\n\n8 问 据你所称，Golden Spring New York 已向你\n\n9 预支贷款，以资助你所涉的各项诉讼，\n\n10 约 $21 million，对吗？\n\n11 答 是。\n\n12 问 好的。现在我不是——我现在说的是那些贷款，\n\n13 即 21 million。好的？难道不是你\n\n14 自己向你儿子请求那些贷款？\n\n15 答 是。\n\n16 问 好的。他怎么说？\n\n17 答 他就把钱借给我了。\n\n18 问 好的。他是否说过需要与 Golden Spring 的其他董事\n\n19 协商？\n\n20 答 那由我儿子处理。\n\n21 问 在借给你数百万美元之前，他是否说过需要召集\n\n22 Golden Spring 其他董事投票，即董事会\n\n23 投票？\n\n24 答 因为我儿子和欧洲的家族办公室，\n\n25 包括其他家族成员，会召开会议讨论\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 176 页，共\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）\n\n1 该事项。因此我儿子会召集会议处理该\n\n2 问题，但我不知道细节。\n\n3 问 我的问题是他告诉你的内容，我认为\n\n4 你刚才说，他只是告诉你他会办这件事。\n\n5 答 那是很久以前了，细节太多，\n\n6 但他会与家族成员及其\n\n7 律师协商，然后他们会召开会议，而我不处理所有这些\n\n8 细枝末节。\n\n9 问 那么，你的证词是否是，当你请求儿子提供贷款\n\n10 以支付你的诉讼费用时，他告诉你，他\n\n11 需要先与家族协商？这是你的\n\n12 证词吗？\n\n13 答 是。\n\n14 问 好的。难道不是你不知道\n\n15 你从 Golden Spring 获得过多少笔贷款？\n\n16 答 我知道。\n\n17 问 你知道还是不知道？\n\n18 答 我知道。\n\n19 问 好的。你从 Golden Spring 获得过多少笔贷款？\n\n20 答 210 million。\n\n21 身份不明的发言人：21 million。\n\n22 主译员：抱歉。21 million。\n\n23 由 HARBACH 先生：\n\n24 问 对。我问的不是总金额。我\n\n25 问的是贷款的笔数。\n\nKwok（郭文贵）—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）176\n\n答 我记不清楚。\n\n问 好的。而且你不知道哪些贷款被书面记录下来？\n\n答 我记得其中几笔。\n\n问 但你不知道是哪几笔或有多少笔？\n\n答 我知道其中与诉讼有关的部分，但我无法记得全部。这是不可能的。\n\n问 我所问的只是，在——无论有多少笔贷款中，你是否知道其中有多少笔是书面的？\n\n答 我相信超过 10 笔是书面的，但我完全不能确定。\n\n问 而且难道不是你也不知道书面协议是英文还是中文？\n\n答 它们一定全是英文。有些有中文版本。\n\nHARBACH 先生：法官，请稍等片刻。\n\n法庭：当然可以。\n\n（暂停）\n\n由 HARBACH 先生：\n\n问 你是否记得于 2022 年 3 月 21 日通过电话在债权人会议上作证？\n\n答 我记得。\n\nHARBACH 先生：我请求展示 PAX 17，案件 22-50073 文书 404-1 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 177 页，共\n\n郭文贵—交叉询问—Harbach（哈巴赫）177\n\n请展示。书记员女士。书记员：屏幕上显示的是证物17，即 PAX（PAX）证物17。HARBACH 先生：谢谢您，女士。我想看笔录第73页。也许我可以尝试自行控制。法庭：她必须先把控制权交给你。HARBACH 先生：哦，好的。法庭：但如果你更愿意这么做，她——她可以为你这样做。书记员：由你决定，不管你——我刚刚已经把控制权交给你了。HARBACH 先生：好的。我想这样可以。谢谢。法庭：你移动它时有困难吗？HARBACH 先生：我想我已经弄好了。法庭：好的。谢谢。HARBACH 先生：好的。所以我们在那个位置。那是在30之后。好的。差一页。好的。为记录在案，我正在展示 PAX 17 的第73页，并将请证人注意第4至第8行。由 HARBACH 先生询问：问：郭先生，您是否曾被问过这个问题，即在 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 178 of 中，任何被写成书面形式的贷款是否是用英文，而您的回答是，我不记得？随后您又被问到，其中是否有任何贷款是用中文写的，而您的回答是，我不记得。我要问您的是，您今天对此是否有不同的记忆？答：我不能阅读英文，因此我必须依靠口译。当然，我今天的记忆与之前不同。问：好的。如果我没理解错，您今天的记忆是，大多数书面贷款都是英文的？答：是的，这是我所记得的。问：好的。现在，您是否直到律师告诉您总额是 $21 million，才知道该总金额？答：您这是什么意思？问：那么，在律师告诉您 Lamp——抱歉，Golden Spring（金泉）向您提供的诉讼资金贷款总额为 $21 million 之前，您是否知道这就是 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 179 of 所述的总额？\n\n答：我知道。\n\n问：好的。让我们继续看笔录中的当前位置，仍然是 PAX 的证物17第73页。请您注意该页第22行开始处。问题：“如果您不知道——”抱歉。撤回。您是否确实被问过这个问题，并作出了如下回答？“如果您不知道您从 Golden Spring 获得贷款的次数，其中并非所有贷款都是书面的，您如何知道您欠他们多少钱？”\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 404-1\nFiled 05/20/22\nEntered 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n郭文贵—交叉询问—Harbach\n\n1 您从 Golden Spring 获得贷款，其中并非所有贷款都是\n2 书面形式的，您如何知道您欠他们多少钱？”\n3 HARBACH 先生：我先让口译员翻译问题，\n4 然后我会给出答案。\n5 由 HARBACH 先生询问：\n6 问：而您的回答是，“我的律师和 Golden\n7 Spring 的律师，他们彼此沟通，告诉我\n8 他们所能确定的金额是 21 million。”\n9 先生，您是这么说的吗？\n10 答：嗯，我不能阅读英文，并且根据此前的\n11 口译，就我的记忆而言，当时\n12 我通过律师得知该数额为 21 million。\n13 问：而我试图确认的只是，您对该金额，即 21 million 的\n14 了解，来自\n15 您的律师，对吗？\n16 答：我向我的律师确认过。\n17 问：好的。\n18 HARBACH 先生：感谢阁下的\n19 耐心。我没有其他问题。\n20 法庭：对此我表示感谢。谢谢。\n21 HARBACH 先生：哦，我想我可以在\n22 最后再做，但我本打算提交 PAX 的证物17、18和19。\n23 法庭：好的。有异议吗？让我看一下\n24 你们的清单？PAX 的证物17、18和19——17没有异议。\n25 HARBACH 先生：正确。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 181 of\n\n郭文贵—交叉询问—Claiborn（克莱伯恩）\n\n1 法庭：这是第341次\n2 会议的笔录。因此，该证物将作为完整证物准予采纳。\n3 关于——请继续。\n4 HARBACH 先生：18是 ACE Decade（ACE Decade）的宣誓书，\n5 我曾将其用于质证。18是英文版本，\n6 19是中文版本。\n7 法庭：好的。对于准予接纳证物——\n8 即完整接纳 PAX 证物18和19，债务人是否仍有\n9 异议？\n10 JONAS 先生：阁下，我们显然对于已被使用的部分没有异议，\n11 因为郭先生\n12 已有机会对其作出回应。我们将——\n13 撤回任何异议，并且不再有异议。\n14 法庭：好的。那么，证物17、18和\n15 19作为完整证物准予接纳。PAX 的证物17、18\n16 和19，作为与占有债务人融资动议证据听证会有关的\n17 完整证物，准予接纳。\n18 HARBACH 先生：谢谢您，阁下。\n19 法庭：谢谢。\n20 （PAX 证物编号17至19准予作为\n21 证据接纳。）\n22 法庭：Claiborn 律师？\n23 CLAIBORN 女士：阁下，如果可以的话，我有\n24 几个问题。\n25 法庭：当然可以。那么，JONAS 先生，您是否\n\n郭文贵—交叉询问—Claiborn 181 将进行一些复询？JONAS 先生：我想不会，阁下，但是——法庭：好的。JONAS 先生：——我想在之后考虑一下。法庭：好的。没问题。只是好奇。谢谢。请继续，Claiborn 律师。由 CLAIBORN 女士询问：问：下午好，郭先生。您是否与您的儿子协商了占有债务人贷款的条款？答：首先，我想说，下午好。关于贷款的具体条款，是我的律师和他们的律师进行了协商。问：在您提交 Chapter 11 破产案之前，您是否请求您的儿子借钱给您，以资助您的破产案？答：是。问：当您请求您的儿子给您钱时，您是请求他借给您，还是赠与您？答：是贷款。问：您为什么要求这是贷款？答：因为 Golden Spring，即我儿子的公司，也是一家家族公司，而且那笔钱不只是我儿子的钱。问：郭先生，如果该贷款获得批准，您是否知道 Golden Spring 将用于借给破产财产的钱的来源是什么？Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 182 of\n\n郭文贵—交叉询问—Claiborn 182\n\n首席口译员：好的。抱歉。律师，您介意再重复一遍问题吗？由 CLAIBORN 女士询问：问：您知道 Golden Spring 将借给您的破产财产的资金来源是什么吗？答：我不知道。问：您问过吗？答：是，我问过。问：回答是什么？答：我儿子让我不要处理这件事。他会与我的律师沟通。问：您是否知道您的儿子是否告诉过您的律师资金的来源将是什么？答：我不知道。问：您问过您的律师吗？JONAS 先生：异议，阁下。她在询问与律师的直接沟通。法庭：不，她刚刚问的是——问题是，他是否问过他的律师资金来源的事。这——他可以回答这个问题，只回答是或否。JONAS 先生：好的。谢谢您，阁下。证人：我的律师没有回答。由 CLAIBORN 女士询问：问：Golden Spring 用于资助您的生活 Case 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 183 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 404-1\nFiled 05/20/22\nEntered 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n郭文贵—交叉询问—Claiborn\n\n1 开支，即您的个人生活开支的资金，是贷款还是\n2 赠与？\n3 答：是赠与。\n4 问：为什么这是赠与而不是贷款？\n5 答：因为我无法偿还，而且关于支持\n6 我的日常生活，作为他的父亲，我在18岁时就有了我的儿子，\n7 按照东方文化，这是正常的，另外\n8 目前我的生命正受到威胁。\n9 问：那么，为什么 Golden Spring 的占有债务人贷款\n10 不是赠与？为什么不只是作为赠与\n11 把钱给您？\n12 答：因为他们此前借给我 $21 million，\n13 并且包括这笔贷款在内，这是一笔巨额款项，而我\n14 希望能够偿还，这也是他的律师与我的律师沟通的\n15 结果。\n16 问：如果法庭批准 Golden Spring 的贷款，\n17 该资金将存放在哪里？\n18 答：该资金将放在哪里，将由\n19 法官和我的律师决定。\n20 CLAIBORN 女士：谢谢。我没有其他\n21 问题。\n22 法庭：好的。谢谢。\n23 JONAS 先生：没有其他问题，阁下。\n24 法庭：好的。JONAS 先生，您是否传唤其他\n25 证人？\n\nJONAS 先生：没有，阁下。法庭：好的。郭先生，您可以退庭。谢谢。证人：当然，阁下。法庭：谢谢。证人：我想说，我非常感谢阁下给我今天坐在这里的机会。法庭：好的。证人：由于我不会说英文，我给您造成了更多麻烦。法庭：好的。谢谢。谢谢。好。那么，债务人没有其他证人，对吗？JONAS 先生：正确，阁下。法庭：好的。PAX 的证人？还有其他证人吗？HARBACH 先生：阁下，我们没有其他证人。我们还有一份拟向法庭提交的补充证物，即 PAX 的证物15。法庭：好的。请稍等片刻。HARBACH 先生：这是 Xiaoping Wang（王小平），又名 Yvette Wang（王伊薇特）的证言笔录。法庭：好的。HARBACH 先生：这是——抱歉。法庭：请继续。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 185 of\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 186 of\n\nHARBACH 先生：我还应当说明，这是对 Golden Spring 的 30(b)(6) 证言录取。她是以该身份作证，我在会谈协商过程中向律师提到，我将提交整个证物，并且我们已标记整个证物，预见到若我们仅提交部分内容，可能会提出完整性异议。因此，这就是我们提交整份证物的原因。但如果律师希望我们只提交希望阁下重点审阅的确切部分，我准备将那些部分记入记录，因此，我不知道法庭希望如何进行。法庭：好的。那么，我想先听取债务人的异议，因为显然债务人反对这份笔录。JONAS 先生：是的，阁下。我是 Jeff Jonas（杰夫·乔纳斯），Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克）律师事务所，为债务人代理。正如阁下所注意到的，我们提出了异议。我们继续以传闻证据为由提出异议。据我了解，该证人在传票送达权范围内。如果他们打算让她在审判中作为证人作证，他们当然可以把她带到这里来。我们没有任何协议同意他们——我们会允许以笔录代替现场证言。我认为这不适当，而且这并不是任何人可以自行决定的，即当\n\n1 该证人可以出席并且可以被带到审判时，\n2 我们不把证人带来。所以我提出异议。\n3 法庭：该证人在哪里？\n4 JONAS 先生：据我了解，该证人在\n5 纽约，距离在100——实际上，我问过这个问题，阁下。\n6 在——可能是60英里以内，但我相信是在\n7 100英里以内。我不确定。我想在\n8 您问我时做好准备，因此他们当然可以送达\n9 传票，她本可以出席。\n10 我们认为这没有必要，而让该记录被接纳，我仍然认为没有必要。但是，\n11 再说一次，我认为在一个案件审判中，当证人可以出席时，\n12 律师不能只是作出选择，\n13 用笔录\n14 代替证人。\n15 法庭：好的。根据联合清单，\n16 你方证物的依据——抱歉，是异议的\n17 依据是传闻证据，但这不是我所听到的。我\n18 听到您说，他们本可以把证人带来，而我们不会根据《联邦民事——\n19 诉讼规则》，允许在\n20 证人可以亲自到庭时\n21 提交笔录。\n22 JONAS 先生：我认为——如果\n23 我的措辞有什么不正确之处，请接受我的歉意。我认为这\n24 正是我所说的——\n25 法庭：嗯，我的意思是，这可能——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 404-1\nFiled 05/20/22\nEntered 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nJONAS先生：\n——这是传闻证据，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n——它可以是，也可能是，也可能不是。\n\n我的意思是，这是你们指定作为 Rule 30(b)(6) 代表的人，对吗？因此，你们可以提出这一论点——我们希望对此非常明确。我的意思是，传闻证据通常并非 Rule 30(b)(6) 代表的证言。\n\n但我理解你们所说的，即为什么 PAX（PAX）没有传唤并将此人带到法庭的问题。这是你们的——这是你们的顾虑，因此我将要——我将要——不是你们的顾虑，是你们的异议。因此，我要问 Harbach先生（Harbach），对于该证人今天未被传唤并带到法庭这一事实，他有何回应？\n\nJONAS先生：\n法官阁下，我可以——我很抱歉。我只是想更正记录。\n\n法庭：\n当然可以。\n\nJONAS先生：\n不是提出论点。这不是——严格来说，这不是债务人的 30(b)(6) 证人，而是 Golden Spring（黄金泉）的 30(b)(6) 证人。我只是——仅为记录在案，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n哦，好的。我误解了。你看，我什么都没看过，所以——\n\nJONAS先生：\n明白。\n\n法庭：\n好的？所以我以为这是债务人的 30(b)(6) 代表。因此这是——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第189页，共\n\n债务人的 30(b)(6) 代表。因此这是——\n\nJONAS先生：\nKwok先生（郭文贵）显然是——\n\n法庭：\n——Golden——\n\nJONAS先生：\n——债务人，并且在场。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我明白，但我不知道你们的证据开示中发生了什么。\n\nJONAS先生：\n明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n所以我——但我很高兴你更正了记录。谢谢。那么——对此提出异议的适当主体难道不应是 Golden Spring 吗？\n\nJONAS先生：\n我不这么认为，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n为什么？\n\nJONAS先生：\n这是——我的意思是，再说一次，我们与律师处理了证物。我们提出了异议。我在这里提出异议。如果你愿意，这是我们就 DIP 所提动议的审判，而如果他们想使用一名 30(b)(6) 证人——如果你愿意，另一方的 30(b)(6) 笔录，我认为这不适当。\n\n法庭：\n好的。Harbach先生，对此你有什么回应，Harbach先生？\n\nHARBACH先生：\n我请法庭注意《联邦民事诉讼规则》Rule 32。\n\n法庭：\n因为他们不是一方当事人？这是你想告诉我的吗？\n\nHARBACH先生：\n不，恰恰相反。我认为他们是当事人。\n\n法庭：\n好的。等一下。我指的是债务人。你看，我不知道谁——我——正如各位所预期的，我会认为——哦，是的。你看，我很抱歉。你可以——我道歉。谢谢。我很抱歉。我没有——我没有看过你们任何人的证物，知道吗？所以除非且直到你们将其作为证据提交，我不知道它们是关于什么的。那么，好的。我正在看——\n\nHARBACH先生：\n先生——\n\n法庭：\n——32。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n当然。首先，JONAS先生当然完全正确。Wang女士（Wang）是由 Golden Spring 指定的 30(b)(6) 证人。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n这是正确的。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n因此，我们提出该证据的依据，如您所见，32(a) 的标题是使用证言笔录，因此我们认为，总体而言，我们满足了其中 A、B 和 C 的全部条件。它规定，在听证或审判中，可以在下列条件下针对一方当事人使用证言笔录的全部或部分。\n\nA，在录取证言时，该当事人到场或由他人代理，或者已获得合理通知。嗯，我希望律师愿意接受我所作的陈述，即 Wang女士在该证言录取中由他人代理；事实上，笔录非常明确地表明她或 Golden Spring 确实由他人代理。因此，A 应当不存在争议。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第191页，共\n\nB，该证言笔录的使用范围，如该作证人到场并作证时，依《联邦证据规则》本可准许，则可使用。嗯，这显然属实，因为它实质上是现场证人所作的经宣誓庭外陈述。\n\nC，你必须满足这些分项中的一项，即 Rule 32(a)(2) 至 (8)；而我们认为我们明确符合的是 32(a)(3)，其标题为“当事人、代理人或指定代表的证言笔录”。\n\n因此，我们认为，Golden Spring 作为拟向占有中的债务人提供融资的一方，并鉴于其——引用协议第 8B 节的话——正在寻求权利、救济、权限和特权，此外还正在寻求法庭作出善意认定，基于所有这些理由，我们认为法庭至少为适用本规则之目的将 Golden Spring 视为当事人，是极为合理的。\n\n最后我仅指出，就此事的不当性而言，暂且不论其是否属于规则范围，当然，债务人在录取 Golden Spring 的\n\n30(b)(6) 证人证言时有律师在场，并且有机会对她进行交叉询问；但其选择不这么做。我还要指出，Wang女士本人曾一度被列入债务人今天本次听证的证人名单中，但他们将她删除了。\n\n因此，我认为，在这些情形下，认为此举不当的说法并不像其乍听起来那样有力。但坦率地说，我认为那都无关紧要。我们认为，基于我先前所述理由，整个笔录均可依 Rule 32 准许作为证据。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。JONAS律师，有什么回应吗？\n\nJONAS先生：\n有，法官阁下。我可以用一分钟吗？\n\n法庭：\n可以。\n\nJONAS先生：\n谢谢。只是想核对一件事。\n\n（停顿）\n\nJONAS先生：\n法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\nJONAS先生：\n我想就此补充的一点是，该规则通过 Rules 9014 纳入争议事项规则。因此，这——\n\n法庭：\n哦，是的。\n\nJONAS先生：\n——这也是 Bankruptcy Rule 7032。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n法庭：\n是。是。对。好的。谢谢。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生（Friedman）：\n在这方面没有异议，法官阁下。请给我一点时间。\n\nJONAS先生：\n法官阁下，我是 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）的 Jeff Jonas，代表债务人出庭。\n\n法官阁下，我重申我的异议，只作几项简短评论。让我说，法官阁下，我们并不特别担心该证言笔录。话虽如此，我只是认为我们有权获得公平审判；从我们的角度看，再说一次，他们不是当事人。这是——这实际上是我们的动议，即债务人的动议。我们正在推进该动议，并且我们是当事人。当然，异议人 PAX 是当事人，我认为，为此目的的当事人就是这些，我认为——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，Golden Spring 是贷款人。\n\nJONAS先生：\n我明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n那么他们怎么不是——的当事人？\n\nJONAS先生：\n我不认为他们是——他们已经出资，资金可用，他们是贷款人。\n\n法庭：\n对。但法庭可以——法庭可以——法庭有义务了解贷款人愿意或不愿意做什么，而这可能包括贷款人就该问题所作的证言。我的意思是，我——\n\nJONAS先生：\n让我说，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：\n——以及我所见过的所有其他——任何其他有争议的占有中债务人融资听证中，贷款人都会——你知道，如果存在——如果存在争议问题，关于贷款人的问题——什么——贷款人是否准备好、愿意并能够出借？——条款和条件是什么，所有这些——\n\nJONAS先生：\n正是如此，法官阁下。资金在这里，所以——\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我不知道它在这里。记录中有什么证据表明它在这里？\n\nJONAS先生：\n嗯，您——您听取了 Kwok先生的证言。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，Kwok先生向我作证称，他相信资金都在这里。他不确定是否全都在这里，但是——他相信在这里。\n\nJONAS先生：\n没有——这没有争议。\n\n法庭：\n我没有说存在争议。我只是说——他说他相信资金都在这里。我不——\n\nJONAS先生：\n哦，好的。\n\n法庭：\n——记录中没有——记录中没有文件表明资金在这里。\n\nJONAS先生：\n我不——恕我冒昧，法官阁下，我不认为——我们已经陈述了我们的案情。我们已经传唤了一名证人。他已经作证。他本可以被\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n交叉询问。但没有。这没有争议。这是一项事实。我不认为——我感谢您——\n\n法庭：\n我认为就他所说的内容而言，这是一项事实。\n\nJONAS先生：\n公平。很公平，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n而且他说，我相信资金在这里。他不知道资金是否在这里。\n\nJONAS先生：\n我明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nJONAS先生：\n所以我——您看，正如我所说，如果法庭认为我需要——我需要为记录而坚持我的异议，不过，我当然非常尊重法庭。如果法庭认为有必要接纳该笔录，我唯一的意见是，我们请求接纳整个笔录。\n\n没有向我们指定任何内容。现在临时指定部分内容有些不公平。因此，如果他们想将该笔录作为证据提交，那就如此吧，法官阁下。我尊——我想要——我不想就此向法庭过多纠缠，并且我希望尊重法庭对此的意见。\n\n法庭：\n我尚未作出任何裁定。截至目前，我实际上只是在提问。\n\nJONAS先生：\n明白。\n\n法庭：\n好的？为了了解各方的立场。\n\nJONAS先生：\n而我们的立场是，我们继续坚持异议，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。Harbach先生，你还有什么要补充的吗？\n\nHARBACH先生：\n我没有其他要补充的，法官阁下。请告知我们您希望如何继续进行。\n\n法庭：\n好的。嗯，当我在看——你知道，我过去几周没有看过 Rule 32，所以我——你知道，我正在看——我正在看 32 的措辞。对 PAX 而言唯一可能构成问题的部分，如果这确实是问题，就是 32(a)(4)，因为 32(a)(1)——32(a)(2)——32(a)(4) 可能是问题，因为它说——32(a)(1)(C) 规定：“并且该使用为 Rule 32(a)(2) 至 (8) 所允许。”那么，这是否意味着必须在全部八项下均获允许？所有这些？我的意思是，我正在看这个。我知道第 7 项不适用，因为没有当事人替代。先前诉讼中录取的证言笔录不适用，因为那不是你们试图做的事。你们并非试图提交先前诉讼中录取的证言笔录。使用证言笔录的一部分，你们可以——那可能没问题。关于使用的限制，截至目前，没有人主张该证言笔录是在短通知下录取，或者作证人在录取证言时无法出席。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交日期 05/20/22 录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18 第197页，共\n\n没有人对弹劾及其他用途，或者当事人代理人或指定代表的证言笔录有意见，但问题是——我的意思是，我不知道，我很久没看过了。A——32(a)(2) 至 (8) 是否意味着你必须满足所有这些要求？不可能，因为这些要求不会在同一时间全部存在。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n是。我认为这——也许是最鲜明的说明，法官阁下。如果您看第 2 项和第 4 项，因为第 2 项说，任何当事人。第 4 项说——哦，我很抱歉。那是证人，无论是否为当事人。是的。嗯，无论如何，法官阁下，我——好。因此，法官阁下，PAX 承认 Wang女士并非无法出席。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n所以，已承认。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n尽管如此，如果——\n\n（停顿）\n\nHARBACH先生：\n如果您看——抱歉，我先前说的是第 2 项。如果您看第 3 项，法官阁下，不利当事人可为任何目的使用当事人的证言笔录——\n\n书记员：\nHarbach律师，你的声音有点低。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n哦，抱歉。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交日期 05/20/22\n录入日期 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n书记员：\n我们不会接您。\n\n法庭：\n请继续。\n\nHARBACH先生（哈巴赫）：\n谢谢您，法官。\n如果您看\n32(a)(3)，其中写道：“对方当事人可以为任何\n目的使用当事人或者在作证时系该当事人的\n30(b)(6)代表人的任何人的证言。”\n而且——\n\n法庭：\n它确实是这么写的。我的意思是，第4项并没有\n这么写。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n它写了。\n没错。\n\n法庭：\n这就是我提出该问题的原因，\n因为我当时不知道30(b)(6)代表人并非债务人，\n而是债务人的代表人，即Golden\nSpring（黄金泉）；这也是为什么我在开始谈话时说，\n你是说你反对30(b)(6)代表人的证言，\n但我当时不知道该代表人不是债务人，而是Golden\nSpring。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n嗯，我认为或许有一点观察\n会有所帮助，那就是规则32不可能仅限于\n30(b)(6)证言的情形。\n\n法庭：\n我同意你的看法。\n\nHARBACH先生：\n而且如果它——\n\n法庭：\n这就是——这就是我说的，我\n不认为(a)(1)(C)意味着你必须遵守——即其使用必须\n符合32(a)(2)\n至(8)中的每一种情形。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 404-1，提交于 05/20/22，录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18，第199页，共\n\nHARBACH先生：我认为——我同意您的看法，因为否则，如果第3项是必需的，那么它实际上会将该规则限制于30(b)(6)情形。现在，我也同意法庭的看法，例如第5项，即使用限制，我认为该项显然适用，但是——\n\n法庭：如果该情形存在，但它并不存在。\n\nHARBACH先生：如果它存在——如果它确实存在，是的。换言之，您知道，第2、3和4项均为许可性规定。它们是当事人可以采取某种行动的不同方式，而第5项是限制，第6、7和8项则是其他独特情形。\n\n法庭：对。\n\nHARBACH先生：因此，我不认为一定是——你必须戴上眼罩，只看第2至第8项，而不看其他任何项；但我确实认为，第2、3和4项不可能同时适用。\n\n法庭：对。我同意。它们不可能同时适用。这没有道理。因此，债务人对将PAX证物15，即Golden Spring的30(b)(6)代表人的证言，作为证据提出的异议被驳回。\n\nJONAS先生（乔纳斯）：感谢您的审慎考虑，法官阁下。\n\n（PAX第15号证物获准作为证据）\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。好的。那么我们现在——我们要做什么——我们是否根据已提交的证据进入结案陈词？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生（弗里德曼）：\n是的，法官阁下。我们的证据提交至此结束，如果我可以——\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n——就DIP（占有债务人融资）发表一些意见？\n\n法庭：\n可以，请讲。\n\n代表债权人PAX的结案陈词\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n谢谢。因此，法官阁下，我实际上有三个方面想要谈。大致而言，一是总体情况，二是您今天听到的一些内容及为何您不应相信这些内容，三是该命令，即拟议命令。为求公平——我不知道公平是否是恰当的词，但为明确起见，关于该命令，我将援引该命令的现行版本。显然，根据委员会与债务人之间拟议和解，已有更新版本的命令。我将——\n\n法庭：\n当你说现行版本时，你是指附于最初DIP融资动议的版本吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n不是，是向法庭提交的版本——红线版本——\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 404-1，提交于 05/20/22，录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18，第200页，共\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 404-1，提交于 05/20/22，录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18，第201页，共\n\n法庭：\n昨天？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n——已提交的——\n\n法庭：\n昨晚？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n——我认为DIP融资的最新\n版本是在4月10日。\n\n法庭：\n哦，好的。那么我希望\n能找到它，如果你能给我——\n\nCLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩）：\n我认为是ECF 198。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n如果你让我找到它，\n那么——给我一点时间，我就能更好地跟上你的陈述，\n而不是我一边试图\n寻找它，所以——\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：\n那么，你希望我——你希望\n我查看该命令的红线版本吗？\n这是你的建议吗，律师？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n是的，法官阁下，等我谈到那个\n部分时。那就是——等我谈到我陈述的那一部分时。\n\n法庭：\n好的。让我——那么我想我\n已经找到了。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：好的。\n\n法庭：我只是想确认我已经找到了。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：好的。因此，当你谈到你实际上要求我考虑该命令的条款和条件时，我查看的是ECF 198，从第29页开始。这样对吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么请继续。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：好的。因此，法官阁下，我们这里有一项Golden Spring与Kwok先生（郭文贵）之间拟议的DIP。它非常微妙。我不确定您是否听到了。记录会反映这一点。这些不是独立实体。Kwok先生今天在其证言中将Golden Spring称为“我们”。一个小词，后果巨大。Jalbert先生（贾尔伯特）还作证称，Kwok先生法律团队的一名成员是Melissa Francis（梅丽莎·弗朗西斯）。有人问他，Melissa Francis是谁？他认为是为Golden Spring工作的人。这两个实体之间没有分隔，法官阁下。这是一项虚假交易。我知道它很有吸引力。它看起来很有吸引力，因为在某些方面，它具有一些可能有益的目标，但它行不通。它没有道理。谁会花费$8 million，或许$9，来为$3,850的资产辩护？仅Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）今天的时间成本，可能就远远超过Kwok先生声称其拥有的$3,850资产。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 404-1，提交于 05/20/22，录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18，第203页，共\n\n因此，这项DIP旨在实现两者之一：要么保护Kwok先生坐在那里声称其并不拥有的巨额资产；要么保护Golden Spring的资产，使其免受各种——该实体并非债务人——直接追索它的人，因为那些资产实际上是Kwok先生的钱。这两种情形均非占有债务人融资的适当用途。\n\n本案不应为Golden Spring的利益而运作，而且我们不应花费，不仅仅是9 million，因为实际上并非如此——9 million与$3,850相比，极大低估了为Kwok先生辩护所投入的资产数额，因为还有您听到的$21 million“贷款”，加引号的贷款，以及来自Lamp的百万美元。\n\n因此，当你把这些加起来时，是以$31 million来保护$3,850。这毫无道理，除非这里发生了远超表面所见的事情，而债务人和Golden Spring正在请求本法庭认可一项推进该不当方案的交易。\n\n现在，法官阁下，PAX在对我方文件的答复状中，而且您今天也从Kwok先生那里听到了，试图将PAX归咎为——债务人试图将PAX归咎为本案的诱因，并称他需要，您知道，因PAX所做的事情而拨乱反正。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 404-1，提交于 05/20/22，录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18，第204页，共\n\n债务人自身的行为迫使他今天来到这里。我认为，他实际上承认了他此前从未保持透明。\n\n现在，我不知道您今天听到的内容是否透明，但他今天的证言是，我今天没有援引第五修正案，因为我想保持透明，这就引出了一个问题，因为他没有给出其他答案：他此前为什么不想保持透明？因为你过去一直不透明，而突然间要改过自新，就开始依据占有债务人融资借钱，这合适吗？我知道其中有些内容与我们的驳回动议重叠，但这就是他今天给出的理由。这不是对第364条授权的适当使用。\n\n您今天听到Kwok先生的证言，称这需要是DIP，因为他想保护其家庭资源。\n\n去看看MORs，他们正在花费数百万美元支持Kwok先生。那不是贷款，而是赠与。这是Golden Spring和Kwok先生为不正当目的使用第364条的一项策略性努力。这——正如Claiborn女士的询问清楚确立的，如果这要被定性为任何东西，它应当是赠与，就像据称为Kwok先生所做的一切其他事情一样。我们并不相信这一点，但他应受其约束，Golden Spring也应受其一贯行为模式的约束。\n\n你们听到了一些，我认为最恰当的描述是，来自Kwok先生的牵强证言。Kwok先生说，我从未问过我儿子Golden Spring的钱来自哪里。\n\n我想我们应当相信，Golden Spring真的很害怕，而这个Miles儿子真的很害怕告诉Kwok先生他的钱来自哪里，但却不害怕在一个证据均已列入案卷的案件中，公开作出一笔$9 million的占有债务人融资贷款。\n\n这些是公开文件，其中Kwok先生提交了他的声明，谈及他所谓反对CCP的运动。我的意思是，称某人会害怕的这种证言根本不可信。\n\n或者，正如Kwok先生作证称，法官阁下，我不会向我儿子要钱。然而，我会使用自己的钱，并且——或者我会被我儿子用于为其利益管理账户，而且是非常公开地。\n\n我在Ace Decade（艾斯十年）案件中提交了一份声明，其中称，您知道，这是我的钱，而实际上这是我儿子的钱，而我儿子对此并无异议。我只是不能问他的钱来自哪里。我不认为您必须相信这一点，因为这根本不可信。如果这不可信，我认为你就开始揭开为何整个案件不可信的线索，也揭开为何这属于对第364条的不当使用。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 404-1，提交于 05/20/22，录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18，第206页，共\n\n法官阁下，我想谈谈DIP，据我所知，它有些反复无常。特别是就其相关——哦，我应当指出。我们为什么试图将Wang女士（王女士）的证言作为证据提出？嗯，她是Golden Spring的30(b)(6)证人，而Golden Spring正在请求法庭作出善意认定。我稍后会谈到其中真正令人困惑的部分。\n\n他们正在请求法庭确认一项获准的次级债权。他们正在请求法庭给予某些事项。她是他们指定的证人。她说了什么？在第133页，她没有参与DIP贷款的谈判，不知道$8 million这一数字是如何得出的。不熟悉DIP贷款的条款。在作证前一天之前，没有关注DIP贷款协议。\n\n她第一次听说DIP贷款资金来自何处，是在作证前一天。当我问她对DIP贷款将如何偿还的理解时，她说，我不知道。因此，法官阁下，这位对Golden Spring具有约束力的指定证人，对这笔贷款一无所知。\n\n因此，谈到该命令，我认为没有任何内容支持E项中的认定，即存在对融资的即时需要。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 404-1，提交于 05/20/22，录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18，第207页，共\n\n我当然不认为有任何内容支持这样的认定：鉴于我们已经看到，我认为，债务人提出的计划具有骇人听闻的性质，债务人依据《破产法》第11章寻求确认重整计划具有任何价值。第4页H项中有正当理由。该临时命令的作出，其中称，我们将\n\n为债权人的利益保全债务人财产。没有证据表明这一点属实。根据郭文贵先生的说法，除$3,850及某些诉讼请求权外，并无其他资产，而DIP贷款并未用于资助该等诉讼请求权。\n\n他说，这符合利益——这是债务人行使审慎商业判断的体现。对此你们没有听到任何证词。\n\n法官阁下，我认为下一页，即第335页顶部所述的同一问题，正当理由，即债务人获得融资的能力，对债务人及其债权人的财产至关重要，以使债务人能够最大化其财产价值，并确认一项重整计划。\n\n再次，没有——我认为，您已经听到了债权人对这一所谓计划的看法，我相信该措辞应予删除。\n\n然后还有一些我根本不知道的内容——我就是不明白，对吗？\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 208 of\n\n第35页。\n第6页。\n贷款所得款项和现金担保物的允许用途。本协议项下并无现金担保物，除非它被偷偷塞在某个地方。我不知道为什么贷款提及现金担保物。根本没有。他们也没有寻求批准任何——\n\n法庭：我没有跟上您此刻关于现金担保物所说的内容。我一直都跟上了，但我没有看到——\n\n弗里德曼先生：第35页，顶部下划线部分是“修订和修改”。\n\n法庭：我看到了。好的。是的。\n\n弗里德曼先生：然后是贷款所得款项和现金担保物的允许用途。\n\n法庭：我看到了。我看到了。\n\n弗里德曼先生：现在，也许这是一个笔误。我不知道，但这让我感到不安。不应当出现在那里。A项，关于预算的问题。我想指出，从未有过预算。贾尔伯特先生基本上证称，他不可能——他根本不知道如何编制预算；但如果将有一笔DIP融资，并且将有预算、用途和应计项目，那么PAX应当获得其副本。\n\n第36页，我认为PAX应被加入C分项——即目前的C分项；该分项是在我们提出异议后添加的。我们当然应有权获得银行账户副本。\n\n在E项中，该项同样是在我们提出异议后添加的，您知道，我确实对这样一种案件中的观念感到困扰，即不得将任何资金用于向DIP贷款人追索金钱损害赔偿或衡平法救济。不是以DIP贷款人的DIP贷款人身份向DIP贷款人追索，而是向DIP贷款人追索。如果本案继续进行，而——您知道，作为委员会律师的Pullman and Comley（普尔曼和康利）有权追索财产请求权，那么他们应能够将任何资金用于其认为适当的任何目的。\n\n我对第38页C项有异议。这是——我认为是在第二句中，“尽管本临时DIP命令中载有任何相反措辞”，我认为应当加上“或DIP贷款”，因为DIP贷款可以——应当明确。\n\n其内容是：“DIP贷款人的权利应受制于并从属于截至申请日存在的债务人所有其他债权人的债权。”那么，如果我们就为取回船只所做的工作提出实质性贡献动议呢？我们的权利应优先于这笔虚假贷款。不应当是截至申请日存在的债权人。应当是所有债权人，任何债权人。同样——您知道，我认为——所以我认为\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 210 of\n\n第8段，即终止事件中还有一些其他地方。当然，PAX应当收到相关通知。\n\n在第40页末尾，经修订的措辞称，DIP贷款人应向美国受托人发出其选择按违约利率计收利息的通知。没有理由仅向美国受托人发出该通知，而应向所有人发出。\n\n而我真正感到担忧之处，法官阁下，是——回到前面，这也是我存在信任问题的地方——债务人在第33页删除了善意认定，对吗？现在，据我了解，它可能又被加回来了。但他们删除了善意认定。因此我想，好吧，这算是某种进展。但是，我随后查看了第40页和第10段，其中内置了364(e)。就其条款而言，这是一项善意条款。\n\n所以，当人们问，您知道，为什么——为什么你们如此怀疑，这就是我们真正怀疑的原因之一，因为你删除了一项善意认定，却保留了一项364(e)条款，你实际上并没有删除善意认定。\n\n因此，我们——然后我们看第41页，“不视为控制”。通过同意本临时DIP命令，DIP贷款人不得被视为控制债务人，或作为经修订的CERCLA（《综合环境应对、赔偿和责任法》）或任何类似州或联邦法规所界定的责任人、管理代理人或所有人或经营者。\n\n在债务人称其除了身上的衣服和几条狗之外什么也不拥有的案件中，这怎么可能恰当？这纯属过度延伸，毫无道理。我认为，当这些内容被写入命令时，会令我们十分犹豫。\n\n第15段，不放弃。再次，我认为PAX应被纳入通知当事人。以上是对我们重要的要点。法官阁下，我只想澄清一点。\n\n我花了这么多时间讨论该命令，并不希望法庭认为我们接受该命令。我意识到法庭将作出其决定。人们将提出论点，说明为何这或许有利于债务人财产。我们强烈不同意。但是，如果法庭倾向于作出不同决定，我们确实对该命令以及您今天所听到内容的可信度存在极其重大的关切。\n\n我没有其他陈述了，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n弗里德曼先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：债务人是否希望对PAX的论点作出回应？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 211 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 404-1\nFiled 05/20/22\nEntered 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n乔纳斯先生：我只是想知道，法官阁下，是否还有其他当事人希望发言。\n\n法庭：哦，这是个好问题。抱歉。克莱伯恩律师？\n\n代表美国受托人的结案陈词\n\n克莱伯恩女士：谢谢，法官阁下。我确实有几项意见。\n\n我原本希望，在今天的证词之后，我能更好地了解所贷出的是什么资金、资金来自何处、为何确实要提供贷款，以及为何不能是赠与。遗憾的是，我并不觉得自己比今天开始时了解得更多。\n\n对于今天早些时候高盛律师提出的违约事件，可能已有所淡化，这是一种进展。但归根结底，我看不出为何这不能只是赠与。债务人的生活方式由Golden Spring（黄金之泉）资助。为何这笔贷款有所不同？为何不能只是赠与？\n\n但是，关于如何使用资金，拟议命令中仍保留着我没有听到被删除的控制机制。在资金被用于协助推进本第11章案件的范围内，该资金必须不受限制，以便任何需要使用它做事的人都能够这样做，其中包括委员会。\n\n因此，如我认为该命令目前所拟议的那样，限制委员会使用该资金调查及／或因调查结果追索适当诉讼的能力，并不会使这成为一笔值得提供的贷款。我还想向法庭说明的是，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 213 of\n\n今天早些时候，高盛律师提出，促使他们撤回对该贷款异议的共识领域之一，是贷款的首笔初始款项$2 million将由Pullman and Comley保管。\n\n我想让法庭知道，美国受托人反对这种安排，因为该安排是基于对债务人持有资金的不信任；仅此一点本身即表明，本案需要一名第11章受托人。\n\n在法庭批准该贷款的范围内，贷款应进入债务人的资金账户，即占有中债务人账户；如果本案中其他所有人对此都感到不安，那就说明了很多问题。\n\n因此，基于我今天听到的一切，以及我认为弗里德曼先生刚才就关切所作的雄辩评论确有道理，我认为，截至目前、就现在而言，债务人尚未履行其举证责任，证明这是一笔适合由债务人财产参与的贷款。\n\n法庭：谢谢。高盛律师。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 214 of\n\n代表无担保债权人的结案陈词\n\n高盛先生：是的。谢谢，法官阁下。仅回应弗里德曼先生提出的几点，并且让我首先说明，委员会当然与PAX一样，对这些所谓家族资产实际位于何处以及实际由谁控制持怀疑态度，您知道，甚至完全不相信；我认为，这正说明本案需要为无利害关系委员会提供资金，并需要一名审查员进行适当调查，揭开本案中需要揭开的所有疑点，以查明这些资产究竟是什么。\n\n现在，弗里德曼先生提到，这旨在保护Golden Spring免受各方对其提起追索。恰恰相反。我们在命令最新版本中协商了一项具体的例外规定，其规定正好相反。拟议命令新增第16段规定，本临时DIP命令不得以任何方式被解释为，债务人、DIP贷款人、委员会、任何债权人或任何财产代表可能拥有的、就提交本法庭审理的任何事项提出诉讼或获得陈述机会的任何权利之放弃或让与，包括但不限于委员会、任何债权人或任何其他财产代表可能提出的任何请求权，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 215 of\n\n即基于与债务人有关的任何行为、作为或不作为而针对DIP贷款人提出的请求权，但临时DIP贷款的提供除外。\n\n随后，该命令还列举了大量例子，说明尽管重新作出该命令，仍可提出何种请求权，包括揭开公司面纱、实质合并、欺诈性转让。\n\n因此，该命令并未为Golden Spring提供保护，使其免受债权人或财产代表可能提起的诉讼。\n\n我要指出，据我所知，PAX是本债务人财产中唯一拥有判决书的债权人。因此，他们比本债务人财产中每一名其他非内部人债权人都拥有相当大的先发优势；这就是他们希望驳回本案的原因，以便他们可以带着船扬长而去，并在后视镜中向本债务人财产的其他债权人挥手告别。\n\n所有其他债权人均处于诉讼过程中，显然尚未接近取得判决书；这也是我们需要这笔贷款以开展适当调查、使所有债权人而不仅仅是判决债权人受益的另一原因。\n\n而且，PAX与委员会不同，获得了一名财力雄厚的诉讼当事人的资助；而委员会显然没有任何资金在本案中开展任何工作。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 216 of\n\n因此，我们认为这项 DIP 贷款对破产财产而言是一项胜利；它为我们提供取得所需工具的资源，以查明资产所在。因此——因此该案件并非——因此该案件得到了适当运用。是的，债务人仅有——或者声称有——$3,900 的资产且没有收入，但本破产案件被正当地用于查明资产所在，并在这些资产被设定负担后，审视我们能否协商出一项债权人群体可以接受的计划。因此，我认为，我敦请法院批准该 DIP 贷款，但须遵守我们与债务人协商达成的限制和修订。\n\n至于持有资金，我认为，美国受托人宁愿让他们声称应由受托人取代的债务人持有资金，而不是由 Pullman and Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）持有，这很反常；该律所自 1900 年代初便已存在，而且资金当然不会去向任何地方。\n\n这在功能上等同于一笔预付聘用费，而他们对于 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）在其账户中持有 $1 million 并无异议。\n\n因此——我认为，他们一方面主张应为债务人指定受托人，另一方面又希望他持有该 $2 million，这两种立场之间完全脱节。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 217 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n\n文件 404-1\n\n提交 05/20/22\n\n录入 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n因此，我认为，法院授权我们持有该笔资金，并受法院所有命令、临时报酬程序等的约束，是完全适当的；在获得法院授权支付之前，我们将受约束以信托方式持有该笔资金。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\nGoldman（戈德曼）先生：我就这些。\n\n法官：谢谢。Jonas（乔纳斯）先生。\n\nJonas（乔纳斯）先生：哦，对不起。法官阁下——\n\n法官：哦，Miltenberger（米尔滕贝格）先生。\n\nJonas 先生：是的。谢谢。\n\n代表 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）的结案陈词\n\nMiltenberger（米尔滕贝格）先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我是代表 Golden Spring New York 的 Timothy Miltenberger。\n\n我只想简要跟进 Goldman 律师所作的一些评论。如法院所知，我的当事人有意为破产财产的利益提供贷款。\n\nPAX（帕克斯）的立场是，如其先前所言，此处正在发生的事情远不止表面所见，而这并非法院今天能够作出裁决的事情。\n\n作出裁决的方式，是要有可用资金来资助委员会并资助审查员，使每个人都能了解已经发生或尚未发生的事情，而这正是 Golden Spring 希望看到发生的事情。这也是债务人希望看到发生的事情。\n\n正如 Friedman（弗里德曼）律师所言，大局显然表明，拥有 $9 million 的破产财产优于拥有 zero dollars 的破产财产，而这正是本动议所涉事项。这毫无疑问。拥有 $9 million 确实符合破产财产及其全体债权人的利益。\n\n我可以向法院报告，截至昨日下午 3:30，我的当事人正在向我的律所电汇资金。我的律所尚未收到该笔资金，但其正在转账途中。我们收到后，在向委员会提供 $2 million 后，我们将与美国受托人及所有当事方就该笔资金应在何处保管作出安排。\n\n法官：你是说，全部 $9 million 都将汇入你的律所吗？\n\nMiltenberger 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。我只是想澄清，因为我们已经谈到许多——在不同时间发生的许多不同事情，所以——好的。Jonas 先生？\n\n代表债务人的结案陈词\n\nJonas（乔纳斯）先生：法官阁下，我是 Brown Rudnick 的 Jeff Jonas，代表债务人。首先，请允许我说，法官阁下，我知道今天很漫长；我代表我本人、律所和债务人感谢您。我认为这是在困难的情形下进行的。我实际上认为进行得相当顺利，我们感谢法院和法院工作人员今天为我们作出的安排。\n\n话虽如此，法官阁下，请允许我作几点说明。Kwok（郭文贵）先生提交了本破产案件，以处理其众多所谓债权人，并且他希望在破产程序所提供的喘息期内这样做。这正是破产程序的全部目的。\n\nKwok 先生是善意来到这里的。他不仅表示自己希望这样做，而且让我们审视证明这一点的证据。他已安排一项无担保、次级的 $9 million DIP 贷款，以资助本案。除其他事项外，这将资助债权人委员会开展工作，将支付美国受托人费用，并将资助——如获指定，而我们支持该指定——一名独立审查员调查针对他的指控。\n\n他还按照拟议计划中所提交的规定，取得了一项承诺，将一艘价值 $37 million 的船舶按其中规定贡献给债权人。针对 Kwok 先生已有许多指控。今天，它们仅仅是指控。这些指控将有时间和地点得到认定。事实上，Kwok 先生或 DIP 贷款人正在支付认定这些指控的费用，而他对此表示欢迎。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 218 页，共\n\n不存在不批准该 DIP 贷款的依据；除一名单一债权人 PAX 外，由债权人委员会代表的所有债权人均支持该贷款，而 PAX 与 Kwok 先生有着长期的诉讼历史。法官阁下，如果本债务人基于本院面前的依据和记录，不能继续进行本破产案件——而如果 DIP 贷款未获批准，结果便将如此——那将确实是一场不公。\n\n让我回应若干已经作出的评论。Friedman 先生着重于所谓约 $3,000 的资产。法官阁下，本案中已申报约 $400 million——我认为是三亿七千多万——的债权。$400 million。这应当是关注重点。这就是我们在这里——我们将处理这些债权。是的，存在争议。这正是破产程序的作用，即在财务层面解决针对债务人提出的债权。\n\nKwok 先生提到了——我想作一项评论，法官阁下，这可能有些不同寻常，但 Kwok 先生提到了中国或东方文化；我在职业生涯中了解到，该文化与我们的西方文化非常不同。\n\n因此，是的，一名儿子可能准备损失数百万美元，以帮助并保护其父亲。Friedman 先生还评论称，关于 Kwok 先生与其儿子之间通信的某些——他称为牵强的证词。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 221 页，共\n\n我认为，法官阁下，Friedman 先生这样说很容易。他本人及其家人的人身安全和生命并非每天都处于风险之中。\n\n顺便说一句，法官阁下，关于 Friedman 先生就 DIP 贷款所作的评论，如果他曾致电我们，我们本会很乐意接受他的许多修改意见；我现在正准备这样做，但这并未发生。因此，请允许我回应这些意见。\n\n首先——嗯，首先，他称并无立即融资的必要。我认为，Kwok 先生就此提供的证据是无可争议的。没有 DIP，就不会有债权人委员会来开展其工作；如果审查员获指定，在其获指定时和之后，也不会有审查员或至少资助审查员开展其工作的资金。\n\n法官阁下，DIP 文件曾与债权人委员会进行大量协商。我认为——这有一点推测成分，但根据各份草案，而且我并未深入参与其中——我认为确实作出了数百项修改，以满足债权人委员会的要求。这不是——它一直在协商中。协商可能一直持续到今天不久前，并持续至夜间或数个夜晚；但无论如何，作出了许多、许多修改，而且不幸的是，在这种情况下，偶尔会有打印错误，现金担保物的提述正是如此。那是一个打印错误，可以删除。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 222 页，共\n\n就报告而言，我们乐意向 PAX 提供报告通知等，这不是问题。正如我们已表示的，如果 Friedman 先生认为需要使用更完善的措辞，使该贷款完全次于所有债权人，我们乐意这样做。曾提及 Circla（瑟克拉）不被视为所有人；我这些年做过几项 DIP，我认为——我猜测这可能在我们的表格中，只是被沿用了。同样，债权人委员会对此并无异议，但我们会将其删除。没有问题。让我回应美国受托人及其他人提出的问题，即为何不是赠与。法官阁下，虽然 DIP 贷款实际上可能等同于赠与，因为其不大可能获得偿还，但 DIP 贷款人有权决定其将以何种条件预付资金。不是债权人。不是美国受托人。您知道，我必须说，我认为——我不确定是否有人曾见过 DIP 贷款人同意完全次级、不取得担保、实际上不期待获得偿付的 DIP。然而，这仍是他们的——他们有权决定其依据何种基础进行。其决定将其作为贷款进行。这正是我们提交法院审理的基础。法官阁下，委员会要求我们——我们\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交 05/20/22 录入 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 223 页，共\n\n持有该笔资金，并且同样依据裁定中所规定的基础。为了——在我们为解决争议所作的诸多努力中，我认为在许多破产案件中这正是我们的职责——为了达成协议、达成合意解决方案，在我看来可能是本案中最重要的债权人群体，即债权人委员会，我们作出了许多让步。其中之一是，好，如果你们想持有这笔钱，就持有这笔钱。现在我们却因此受到批评，而且实际上这被用作不批准 DIP 的依据。\n\n再次强调，法官阁下，我们在这里。我们已同意一项时间表，以推进驳回动议。您认为听到了 Kwok 先生的陈述。他打算尽可能公开。我认为有时存在翻译问题，但尽管如此，我认为他今天的证词是诚实的。他打算继续沿着这条道路前进。他欢迎有机会让一名独立审查员审查一切，并向债权人和法院说明情况。他将为此支付费用，而我们欢迎那一天。我认为，今天无根据的指控不应成为拒绝 DIP 的依据。因此，法官阁下，我们请求法院在作出我已表示我们乐意作出的修改后，批准 DIP。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法官：让我问一下，你们所指的是哪个版本的\n\n你希望我审阅的那份命令，因为我正在审阅一份于 April 10th 提交的命令版本。\n\nJONAS先生（乔纳斯）：法官阁下，我可以先商议一下吗？\n\n法院：可以。\n\nROMNEY先生（罗姆尼）：而且再次说明，法官阁下，我们准备作出我刚才提到的修改，但请让我核实一下。\n\n法院：请稍等，FRIEDMAN律师（弗里德曼），好吗？\n\nJONAS先生：法官阁下，我想GOLDMAN先生（戈德曼）可以确认这一点。实际上，我们本会请求采用的文本，即使在同意作出修改以回应FRIEDMAN先生之前，尚未提交，因为我们当时正在拟定。\n\n法院：这正是我在问的。\n\nJONAS先生：是的。\n\n法院：所以，目前没有其他我应当审阅的内容。\n\nJONAS先生：没有，但我们将——\n\n法院：好。\n\nJONAS先生：——立即将其提交法院，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好。在再次让其他人发言之前，我想我可能在本案开始阶段的一次先前听证会上对BALDIGA律师（巴尔迪加）说过这一点。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 225 页，共\n\n你知道，显然，我理解——我想，不像你们各位那样理解得透彻，但我理解各方之间发生的情况，显然是债务人与PAX之间的情况，也包括目前卷入其中的其他各方；而我早先提到的一点是，在Connecticut（康涅狄格州），当我们作出临时DIP命令时，我们通常不会作出你们所要求的许多认定——至少是该命令 April 10 版本中所载的那些认定，好吗？因为我们作出临时命令时所做的是，我们会说，债务人已经证明，或者某人已经证明，或者各方同意，或者视具体情况而定，在一段期间内，无论该期间为何，在我们举行下一次听证会之前，以及无论届时是另一项临时命令还是最终命令，以下安排将会发生。\n\n将借出这么多资金，可以支出该数额的资金，但并非必须支出。存在某种预算安排，各方都明白将会支出什么。\n\n我理解有关聘用专业人员的所有问题，也理解以不同方式向人员付款的这一程序；我也理解你们关于为委员会提供资金以及支付审查员费用的说法，但我想明确一点，而且我在一开始时曾努力说明这一点；如果我没有说明清楚，那是我的责任。我不会作出一项在本案结束前均具有约束力认定的命令，而该命令却是一项临时命令。这不会发生，因为——我认为这并不适当，对吗？我不认为这适当。这不是《破产法》所规定的。\n\n我理解为何人们多次提出该请求，并为此争取，而且法院经常会予以允许。但我们这里处于一种独特情形，对吗？\n\n我们有一名没有收入的个人 Chapter 11（第11章）债务人，他没有——嗯，也许他现在有银行账户。我很抱歉。我在试着回忆KWOK先生（郭文贵）作了什么证言。而且——将会有 $8 million 汇入。实际上是 $9 million。\n\n我不知道——我不知道目前事情是否应当以这种方式推进；或许各方应当更渐进地讨论此事，因为我不会作出所有这些认定。我不知道为何此时需要作出具有正当理由的认定，因为——在临时阶段，我们所要做的只是——你知道，我们谈的是对资金的即时需求。\n\n那么，需要为哪些事项提供资金？KWOK先生的生活开支不需要，因为那不属于本案的一部分。那么，为使该破产财产继续存续，需要为哪些事项提供资金？需要提供资金的是支付专业人员费用。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n也就是说——我是说，请告诉我还有什么，因为我可能遗漏了什么，而我——\n\nJONAS先生：主要是——那是——\n\nCLAIBORN女士（克莱伯恩）：季度费用。\n\n法院：我是说——\n\nJONAS先生：以及美国受托人费用。\n\n法院：是的。但是——好。我会将其在某种程度上视为专业人员费用，CLAIBORN律师，尽管我知道它们并不是，但它们是破产财产的一项费用。它们是破产财产的一项支出，对吗？\n\n因此，我们这里有许多问题。有许多认定要求我作出——你知道，我必须说——我必须说，你们已经就所有这些事项履行了举证责任。我不知道你们现在是否希望我这么做，这是第一点。\n\n第二点，即将举行一场关于驳回动议的听证会，距离现在只有——不到一个月，我们将开始该听证会。好吗？还有这个问题，即作为备选方案任命一名受托人，作为备选方案，美国受托人关于任命一名审查员的动议。\n\n我理解，而且你们已经说过，债务人一方的每个人都已经说过，债务人将支付审查员的费用。但我想知道，审查员将会——审查员拥有什么权力？他没有任何权力。如果有审查员，他只是能够收集信息并准备一份报告，对吗？\n\n并不是说那不能——并不是说那在案件中不能有所帮助，但我不确定那在本案中是否有帮助。我认为，根据KWOK先生的证言，以及显然——我还没有审阅——正如我所说，我没有审阅任何证物，这就是为什么我不知道谁是30(b)(6)代表人。\n\nJONAS先生：嗯哼。\n\n法院：但该破产财产中没有任何东西，除可能作出的贷款以及KWOK先生能够继续生活这一事实之外，因此那是一件好事。我们不担心债务人无法生活，而这在此类案件中经常是一种情况。我们没有这个问题。\n\n但我们确实有的是——无论是否只有一名债权人，我们有一名债权人在本案中提出了某些问题，必须以某种方式予以处理；长话短说，如果我们开始——当你说有 $400 million 的债权时——\n\nJONAS先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：——我想你是这么说的，但其中难道不是有一半是PAX基于判决书和藐视法庭判决书提出的债权吗？我是说，因此这里一半——一半的债权属于一名债权人。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n而且这是一个个人 Chapter 11 案件，因此该一名债权人拥有很大的权力，这与公司 Chapter 11 案件中的情形不同。\n\n因此，我今天向你们各位所建议的——我甚至不知道什么——我是说，我知道。我审阅了FRIEDMAN先生要求我审阅的命令，他想再说一些事情，CLAIBORN律师也想再说一些事情，当然，我会允许他们这样做。\n\n但是，如果对于某种形式和命令没有达成一致，那么我将作出裁定，而该裁定可能不是债务人所希望的，而且我不——也可能不是PAX或债权人委员会所希望的。\n\n但是，GOLDMAN先生所说的一件正确的事情是，它们都是相互交织的，对吗？今天发生的一切都是相互交织的；而作出命令——我会说，除Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）命令以外，我会认为该命令更为常规——与要求我作出的其他某些命令不同，包括允许在比《破产法》规定的更短期间内持续支付专业人员费用，那么我认为应当有一种共识，即应当对你们要求法院作出的事项进行某种渐进式审查和分析。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 404-1 提交于 05/20/22 录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18 第 230 页，共\n\n这可能不会有任何问题，因为你们正在拟定该命令，而且你们或许能够说明所有那些事项。但该命令中有许多认定要求我作出，而我不确定，在临时阶段并考虑到本案中正在发生的其他一切，我是否准备作出这些认定。我必须以这种方式看待它。无论你们是否同意这一点，我不是指你个人，我不是指债务人或——无论是否有任何人同意，我是说，我——你们——当然，我们可以同意彼此保留不同意见。但这是我必须做的，对吗？我必须从整体上考虑该案件。我认为你们各方已经取得了非常好的进展，而且我并不认为每一个案件都必须经协商一致解决。我不是这个意思。但我不确定，我是否会在本案中作出我已审阅、由FRIEDMAN先生向我指出的那项命令，其中包含任何具有约束力的认定。因此，尽管我理解每个人所说的一切，或者至少我已努力去理解。我并非说我不可能犯错，但我已努力去理解，我仍然必须审阅你们各方协商的任何内容。\n\nJONAS先生：当然。\n\n法院：而且我可能不同意。因此，如果我不同意，我们将不得不举行——你知道，我们将举行某种——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 404-1\n提交于 05/20/22\n录入于 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n形式的会议并讨论此事，但我认为你们需要考虑这一点。\n\n我确实听到了——而且，FRIEDMAN先生，我确实听到JONAS先生说，你提出的许多——不是全部，但许多——问题，他们会予以配合；我认为这再次是进展。至于你们是否将完全达成协议，我不知道。\n\nJONAS先生：法官阁下，我可以只提出两点吗？\n\n法院：当然。\n\nJONAS先生：首先，我只想说这一点。正如他对我所说的那样，法官阁下，我非常尊重FRIEDMAN先生，但不幸的是，我——我的印象是，也许他会告诉我我错了——我们永远不会——不可能达成协商一致的解决方案，因为——\n\n法院：就这项命令而言，对吗？\n\nJONAS先生：就这项命令而言，因为——\n\n法院：我认为是这样。\n\nJONAS先生：——他们——你知道，我们可以给他们一切——所有具体事项，然后他说，好吧，但我不希望您忽略这一点，法官阁下，我们仍然反对这一点。因此，这只是第一点。我们可以尝试，而且我们会继续尝试。\n\n第二点，法官阁下，请允许我致歉，因为我确实记得您在一开始时谈到关于认定的……\n\n事实上，而且我们并没有——也许我们没有充分听清您的意见。我现在当然听清了，而且我们将会——我欢迎有机会处理其中许多认定。我必须——显然，我们必须与我们的 DIP 贷款人沟通，但让我们处理这些问题。我猜想，现在既然更好地听取了法庭的意见，我们将能够简化并取消其中许多内容；我希望，当我们提交时——显然，我们会提供给所有其他当事方——我希望我们下次提交修订后的草案时，它将更接近于您愿意签署的版本。再次，我们可能需要另行举行一次会议。我们乐意如此办理，但这就是我的意见，法官阁下。法庭：好的。这完全公平，而且我——我只是向您建议，正如几周前我们讨论解除自动中止的时限和驳回动议的时限时所说，我不能将这项 DIP 动议视为本案中唯一的动议。我不能。JONAS 先生（乔纳斯先生）：嗯哼。法庭：它会影响其他事项。Goldman 先生（戈德曼先生），正如我所说，我一直在提到 Goldman 先生，但他是对的。它们全都相互关联。因此，我乐意听取诸位——看看诸位提出什么方案。JONAS 先生：很好，法官阁下。法庭：好的？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 404-1\nFiled 05/20/22\nEntered 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\nJONAS 先生：\n谢谢。\n法庭：\n好的。\n谢谢。\nFriedman 先生（弗里德曼先生）？\nFRIEDMAN 先生：\n谢谢，Jonas 先生。\n我对此表示感谢。\nJONAS 先生：\n好的。\nFRIEDMAN 先生：\n我一向如此。\n我有三点简短事项要说。\n第一，法官阁下，确实，我们不能要求 Golden Spring（黄金泉）必须提供贷款，但您可以。您可以告诉他们，这项拟议的——抱歉，他们不能——这不必是一项赠与。您可以。您不必将此作为一项贷款予以批准。\n第二点，法官阁下，是的，PAX（PAX）与 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）诉讼的历史很长。其胜诉的历史也很长。它拥有 \\$268 million 的债权。就我所知，它是唯一拥有已确定金额债权的非内部人债权人。第三点，正如我刚才所说，请听那个小词，“我们”。我会说，在 Jonas 先生发言结束时，他说，他想为此付款。对。他。Kwok 先生，这再次——我只是认为，这表明资金最终来自何处。谢谢，法官阁下。\n法庭：\n谢谢。\nClaiborn 律师（克莱伯恩律师）？\nCLAIBORN 女士（克莱伯恩女士）：\n法官阁下，我只是想让法庭知道，我尚未看到经修订的\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 404-1\nFiled 05/20/22\nEntered 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n1 命令草案，因此，我不知道是否存在我希望提请法庭注意的其他问题。\n2 \n3 \n4 法庭：\n是的，我的意思是，我认为——\n5 CLAIBORN 女士：\n我可能——\n6 法庭：\n——Jonas 先生已经明确说明了这一点，\n7 这就是为什么我认为，如果不能达成协议，我们很可能必须另行举行一次会议，而且我不——我不相信会达成协议，所以我\n8 认为必须另行举行一次会议。\n9 \n10 \n11 CLAIBORN 女士：\n谢谢您提供这个机会。我\n12 只是想让法庭知道，我可能有一些\n13 想法。\n14 法庭：\n我谢谢您。您看，我通常\n15 所做的是，在我们作出临时命令时，我们会确定一个日期。该\n16 命令于某日生效，并在未来某一日期届满，而且有一项预算与之相关联。\n17 \n18 您知道，这可能不是现金担保物预算意义上的预算，\n19 但会说明有多少资金进入，\n20 以及在该期间内可以——获授权支出什么，\n21 以及为此支出。\n22 然后，如果您想谈透明度，\n23 那就是透明度。每个人都知道获批准的是 X\n24 金额。X 金额进入，然后——无论其为何——各个\n25 项目列于——您不必将其称为\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 235 of\n\n预算。您可以随意称呼它。临时 DIP 贷款期间付款授权，然后我们便知道正在发生什么。这样就没有人会质疑正在发生的事情。然后，Jonas 先生，您获得针对该临时期间适用的某些事项的批准，这总比完全得不到任何事项的批准要好。这一点，我可以做，但我不处于——而且我——当我说“我”时，我是指银行——恰巧在本案中坐在这里担任法官的人，认为在此时此刻，在此时此刻，作出将在全案期间具有约束力的认定是不适当的。所以我认为我已明确说明了这一点。因此，问题是，我们需要多少时间——我们是否继续——我们不——关于 DIP 融资动议的证据已经结束。我们是否仅为拟定实质上属于——即临时 DIP 融资命令的条款和条件而继续开庭；该命令应当包括该融资适用的期间，以及将通过该融资进入的金额，以及我想说是进入财产，但我们这里仍然存在资金去向的问题，因此我不完全这么说，以及在该期间内获授权从该贷款中支付或计提的金额。这就是我认为在那些——在这些情形下适当的做法。那么各方有何想法？我们是在说——今天是星期几？星期三？我们是在说周五回来吗？我们是在说下周一、周二、周三回来吗？我们在说什么？GOLDMAN 先生：法官阁下，我知道委员会方面，我原计划周四和周五参加 ABS 春季会议，所以我会说——法庭：意思是明天和后天？GOLDMAN 先生：是。是。是。法庭：好的。GOLDMAN 先生：所以，下周任何时间。您知道，关于这一预算概念，我可以作些澄清——法庭：嗯，它可能不——我说过，预算并不完全是恰当的词，但它是针对已拨付资金的获授权计提或付款，或无论您想怎么称呼，对吗？\\$400,000 进入。我只是随便举个名称，它不代表任何含义。而在——接下来的四周内，为了这些理由，可以从这些款项中计提这些金额。GOLDMAN 先生：所以——法庭：我的意思是，我们不必担心资助 Kwok 先生的生活。这是件好事。但如果其他一切都将是关于——各方\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 237 of\n\n1 获得付款，那么我想知道每个人认为他们在接下来的四周将获得何种付款，\n2 即使您尚未获授权将其提取。\n3 \n4 GOLDMAN 先生：\n是的。而且，法官阁下，我认为\n5 我们最多只能有一项估算，实际上。\n6 法庭：\n我明白。我不是——哦，我不是——\n7 预算就是预算。它不总是符合——您不总是符合它。\n8 我不是要求一份经过审计的账目。\n9 我是在要求——我想知道。\n10 您知道，命令说存在立即的融资需求。\n11 立即需求是什么？向我说明它是什么、金额多少，\n12 以及用于什么。\n13 我的意思是，这不是——这不是一个拥有正在生产某种产品、\n14 且持续产生收入的公司的案件——\n15 这不是我们所面临的情况。\n16 我们都知道这一点。所以对于这些问题，必须有某种\n17 控制，或者至少有法庭的监督，\n18 对吗？否则，我为何在这里？诸位可以全都\n19 到走廊外去办这件事——\n20 GOLDMAN 先生：\n是的。\n21 法庭：\n——看看结果如何。\n22 GOLDMAN 先生：\n嗯，我只是——\n23 法庭：\n但这就是我在这里的原因，对吗？为了\n24 确保我们——本案不会偏离正轨，而且我们还有\n25 其他尚待裁决的动议，可能——可能完全——您\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 238 of\n\n1 知道，谁知道，会使本案在五周后被驳回。\n2 我不知道。那可能发生。我尚未\n3 就此听取任何辩论。我还没有看到诸位的书面材料。\n4 没有人——而且诸位也不应当。诸位今天才刚刚一致同意\n5 何时提交书面材料。\n6 所以我不知道它们会说什么，但我必须——我必须——我认为诸位必须以实际而非理论的方式处理此事。\n7 \n8 \n9 本案的实际情况是，自其开始之时起，就存在反对，而且存在强烈反对；我并未裁定该反对是否有依据。\n10 \n11 这是一项现实。其现实是，\n12 存在——在本案来到这里之前发生过各种事情，\n13 这通常也是如此，但我也不能忽视这一点。\n14 \n15 我不能忽视这一点。\n16 所以，我只是建议，诸位提出一个期间，在此期间第一批资金进入，\n17 \n18 无论金额为何。也许不会达成\n19 协议，然后我最终将不得不决定它应当是什么。\n20 但随后——而且诸位要告诉我，也要告诉全世界，\n21 因为这将是公开的，这些资金将\n22 用于什么，即使在该期间内未被提取，\n23 对吗？\n24 所以，无论如何，我认为这已经相当明确。\n25 也许不是。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：所以——不，我明白，法官阁下。法庭：好的。FRIEDMAN 先生：法官阁下，所以我们有一项原则性异议。它是——我们有实际性异议。实际上，我将表示，我相当有把握我们能够解决实际问题，对吗？DIP 问题对我们而言是原则性的。我们认为不应当作出该命令。我也意识到，破产法一方面建立在您根深蒂固的信念之上，另一方面建立在细枝末节的实际问题之上。我将与 Jonas 先生、Goldman 先生、Claiborn 女士合作，在可以妥协之处及不能妥协之处处理我们的实际问题，但是——法庭：对。我必须作出裁定。我明白。FRIEDMAN 先生：所以——法庭：而且我乐意如此办理。FRIEDMAN 先生：——所以我想我有的问题是，如果我们需要进一步开庭，或者听起来实际上像是一次会议，我下周在加州。可以通过 Zoom 进行吗？我将——法庭：可以。FRIEDMAN 先生：好的。法庭：可以。FRIEDMAN 先生：谢谢。法庭：您看，问题是，我正在看一项如今已有两周之久的命令，所以它已经过时了。因此，我不会仅仅在没有人在这里就此与我沟通的情况下，作出某人提交的命令，对吗？我不会那么做。我——您知道，不幸的是，必须有人在该命令上署名，而且我会在作出该命令前阅读它，我必须确保它符合破产法典和规则以及所有那些事项。所以——但是，是的，我们绝对可以这样做。我不会把诸位都拖回这里。我们已经举行了证据听证，但我确实希望在举行会议前看到该命令，否则我认为那不是一次有意义的会议。好的。FRIEDMAN 先生：是。是。法庭：所以诸位甚至可以明天告诉我。我的意思是，您知道，我不——无论什么对诸位合适。我不是想站在这里说，诸位必须现在告诉我，我们必须就所有这些事项确定一个日期。我这么说，但我应该看看下周安排了什么，尽管我认为情况不差。不过，我也可能错了，所以让我——让我快速看五秒钟，好吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 240 of\n\n1 周二不行。周三毫无疑问完全有可能，除了\n2 中午时段。\n3 周四，我们有 Chapter 13 hearings（第 13 章听证会）。我们可以进行。\n\n周四下午。乔纳斯先生：法官阁下。法庭：是。乔纳斯先生：我是否可以建议我们先为此预留一个时间？我想您说周三似乎是最合适的一天。法庭：除了在——乔纳斯先生：通过 Zoom，以便——法庭：是。乔纳斯先生：——当然是为了方便所有人。我想这样或许可以——然后我们都会朝着这个目标努力。法庭：是。乔纳斯先生：显然，我们会努力，您知道，向法庭报告。希望尽可能提前提交，尽量在那之前提前提交一份命令草案，甚至可能是双方同意的，谁知道呢，但我认为这会非常有帮助，法官阁下。法庭：好的。那么，关于——没问题，但我将需要该命令——乔纳斯先生：是。法庭：——如果我们周三举行会议，我可以在上午或下午进行，但我不能在下午 12:30 至 2:00 之间进行。乔纳斯先生：法官阁下，我想为了方便弗里德曼先生——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 报告与转录服务公司）\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 241 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 242 of\n\n1 弗里德曼先生，他将要——\n2 法庭：哦，您将会在加利福尼亚州。\n3 乔纳斯先生：——在加利福尼亚州——\n4 法庭：那么——\n5 乔纳斯先生：——下午可以。\n6 法庭：——下午 2:00。您想要——您想要\n7 晚于下午 2:00 吗？\n8 弗里德曼先生：下午 2:00 非常合适。谢谢您，\n9 法官阁下。\n10 法庭：好的。那么——如果我晚了五或\n11 十分钟，不必担心，我——只是必须\n12 处理一件与学校有关的事情，所以我可能会晚五或十\n13 分钟，如果我们——如果你们必须在\n14 Zoom 通话中等待，你们就必须在 Zoom 通话中等待，好吗？\n15 但我希望——我希望在前一天\n16 下午 2:00 前收到该命令。我的意思是，我必须能够阅读\n17 它，对吗？\n18 乔纳斯先生：明白，法官阁下，并感谢您\n19 对此的安排。\n20 法庭：好的。那么我暂时将\n21 封出那天下午余下的时间，希望我们\n22 不会用掉全部时间——但如果用了，也就用了。\n23 我的意思是，今天日程表上唯一尚未解决的事项\n24 是——以提交修订后的拟议命令或就\n25 驳回动议作出排期命令为前提的——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 404-1\nFiled 05/20/22\nEntered 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n1 这项 DIP 融资动议，我认为是 117。\n2 是，因此，117 延期审理。听证会\n3 延期至周三——即 May 4th 下午 2:00，以远程方式\n4 通过 Zoom 进行，好吗？你们必须联系法庭书记员办公室——\n5 有一个法庭书记员办公室——电子邮件地址是什么？我忘了。\n6 有一个电子邮件地址，你们必须联系该地址\n7 以获取 Zoom 信息。是 Court Connect 吗？\n8 Calendar Connect？\n9 书记员：Calendar。\n10 法庭：Calendar Connect。克莱伯恩律师，\n11 您有问题吗？\n12 克莱伯恩女士：法官阁下，我确实承诺要就\n13 每月报酬命令向法庭报告——\n14 法庭：是。\n15 克莱伯恩女士：——在我们今天结束之前，我现在\n16 可以这样做，即我已审阅该命令，\n17 美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）同意已上传的该命令。\n18 法庭：那份命令已记入案卷吗？\n19 克莱伯恩女士：是。\n20 法庭：编号是多少——是什么编号？\n21 或者您知道吗？如果您不知道，我们可以查。我只是\n22 说，我原以为您可能手头有。\n23 克莱伯恩女士：我没有记下来，但它已于\n24 今天早些时候记入案卷。\n25 \n\n法庭：好的。身份不明的发言人：法官阁下，是案卷编号 263。法庭：263。好的。谢谢。好的。那么我会看一看。我有几份你们的命令需要审阅。而且，您知道，我相信它们没有问题，所以我们将——如果它们因某种原因有问题，我们会通知你们。但与此同时，今天我们还有其他应当处理的事项吗？因为我认为我们已经处理了一切，除非我遗漏了什么。乔纳斯先生：此处没有其他事项，法官阁下。法庭：好的。好的。那么，我确实感谢各方的合作以及已经取得的进展。我再次明确说明，我并不是暗示所有事项都必须经同意。这不是运作方式。我理解这一点。但我仍然感谢当事情——某些问题，以及今天的许多问题，经由协议得到解决，这很有帮助，非常有帮助。我感谢各方为尝试解决这些事项所作的努力。我将审阅我们今天在庭上讨论的、于昨天或今天提交的所有命令，并努力在明天将其录入；然后，关于 DIP 融资动议，该动议——\n\n1 延期至下周下午 2:00 远程审理。好吗？\n2 乔纳斯先生：法官阁下，我只是，我想——\n3 法庭：我遗漏了谁？好的。\n4 乔纳斯先生：——Verdolino 和 Lowey 的提交材料\n5 是——我想您说您只是会审议此前的\n6 证据——\n7 法庭：我已留待裁决。\n8 乔纳斯先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n9 法庭：所以我必须审阅——我想要\n10 审阅今天提交的证据，我将——\n11 而且案卷上将会注明——将会在案卷上\n12 注明——该事项已留待\n13 裁决。好吗？\n14 乔纳斯先生：更正——抱歉。仅一项简短\n15 意见。\n16 法庭：当然。\n17 乔纳斯先生：我刚看了我的日程。我可能\n18 下周需要——因为我上午要在特伦顿的\n19 Johnson and Johnson 案件中出庭于 Kaplan 法官面前，我可能\n20 必须远程参加，但既然是 Zoom，\n21 这应该无关紧要，不过我——\n22 法庭：应该无关紧要。没错。\n23 乔纳斯先生：——只是想让您知道。谢谢\n24 您。\n25 法庭：我相信 Kaplan 法官能找到一个房间\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 报告与转录服务公司）\nCase 22-50073 Doc 404-1 Filed 05/20/22 Entered 05/20/22 11:52:18 Page 245 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 404-1\nFiled 05/20/22\nEntered 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n1 给您。\n2 乔纳斯先生：是，我相信。谢谢您。\n3 法庭：好的。好的。好。还有\n4 任何人有其他事项吗？\n5 好的。既然我们今天已处理 Kwok（郭文贵）案件中的所有\n6 事项，现休庭。\n7 （庭审于下午 5:34 休庭。）\n8 本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的转录员及\n9 认证电子记录员和转录员，证明\n10 上述内容系根据上述\n11 案件诉讼程序的官方电子录音制作的正确笔录。\n12 \n\n15 May 3, 2022\n16 Christine Fiore, CERT-410\n17 转录员\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 404-1\nFiled 05/20/22\nEntered 05/20/22 11:52:18\n\n2 索引\n\n4 证人\n直接询问\n交叉询问\n复询 再交叉询问\n5 代表债务人：\n6 Craig R. Jalbert（克雷格·R·贾尔伯特）\n\n71 75\n\n8 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\n155,181\n\n11 法庭证物：\n编号 收到\n12 1\nCraig 对 Aronsson 问题的密封答复\n\n14 PAX（PAX）证物：\n15 17\n341 会议笔录 180\n16 18\nAce Decade 宣誓书英文版 180\n17 19\nAce Decade 宣誓书中文版 180\n18 15\nWang 证词笔录 198\n\n20 结案陈词：\n21 代表 PAX 199\n22 代表美国受托人 211\n23 代表无担保债权人 213\n24 代表 Golden Springs New York（纽约金泉） 216\n25 代表债务人 217","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","CIPA","Chinese Communist Party","CCP","GETTR","Ho Wan Kwok","Himalaya","Himalaya Exchange","Guo"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":90,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":117,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":157,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":198,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":259,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":68124,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-20 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-20","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:36:58"}