{"id":"court_ctb_440_20","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":440,"sub_number":20,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-05-25","title":"EXHIBIT PAX 22 January 14, 2022 Hearing Transcript, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 1120","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT PAX 22**\n\nJanuary 14, 2022 Hearing Transcript, *PAX v. Kwok*, Index. No. 652077/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), Dkt. 1120\n\n| | | 22-50073 | |\n|--------|-----|----------------------------|--|\n| IN RE: | | Ho Wan Kwok | |\n| | | | |\n| | PAX | 22 | |\n| | | | |\n| | | 5/25/2022 Admitted in Full | |\n| | | P.E. | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n\n1\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - CIVIL TERM - PART 61 ----------------------------------------------X PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P. Plaintiff, -against-KWOK HO WAN, a/k/a KWOK HO, a/k/a GWO WEN GUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, a/k/a GUO WENGUI, A/k/a WAN GUE HAOYUN, a/k/a MILES KWOK, a/k/a HAOYUN GUO, GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC Defendants. ----------------------------------------------X Index # 652077/2017 REMOTE TEAMS PROCEEDINGS January 14, 2022 B E F O R E: HONORABLE BARRY R. OSTRAGER, Supreme Court Justice. A P P E A R A N C E S: O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036 BY: STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP 32 Old Slip New York, New York 10005 BY: EDWARD MOSS, ESQ. DAVID JANUSZEWSKI, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff (Continued next page.)\n\n2\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -Proceedings-DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER A P P E A R A N C E S: (Continued) PHILLIPS NIZER, LLP 485 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 BY: MATTHEW L. LEVINE, ESQ. JEREMY BACHRACH SIEGFRIED, ESQ. Attorneys for Non-Party Lamb Capital BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 BY: JOHN SIEGAL, ESQ. ERICA BARROW, ESQ. NICHOLAS ROSE, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant Kwok Ho Wan FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ, PC 28 Liberty Street New York, New York 10005 BY: NICOLE HYLAND, ESQ. RONALD C. MINKOFF, ESQ. JESSE KLINGER, ESQ. Attorneys for Intervenor-Movant GTV DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK, RPR Official Court Reporter\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 440-20 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 4 of\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n3\n\n-Proceedings- THE COURT: With respect to the last hearing, I directed the parties to order a copy of the transcript in my written order. All right. I have four motions. The first motion I want to hear is the motion to confirm the contempt order against Mr. Kwok. MR. MOSS: Thank you, your Honor, that is our motion. Edward Moss from Cahill for Pacific Alliance. Your Honor, there's lot of briefing on this motion and there's a lot of briefs here and it goes back a long time. I would like to start briefly with the background of how we got here. THE COURT: I think I know how we got here. I have one question. MR. MOSS: Sure, your Honor. THE COURT: Why is O'Melveny involved in this case any more? MR. SARNOFF: Yes, your Honor. This is Stuart Sarnoff on behalf of O'Melveny. I represent Pacific NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 85\n\nAlliance, as we always have, I'm here.\n\n21 22 23 THE COURT: All right. There's a motion to disqualify Cahill. I was hoping and expecting that O'Melveny would present the argument --\n\n24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER MR. SARNOFF: I'm happy to do so, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Let's do that then.\n\n4\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n85\n\n-Proceedings-\n\n| 1 | MR. SARNOFF:
Yes, your Honor.
This is Stuart |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Sarnoff on behalf of Pacific Alliance. |\n| 3 | Mr. Kwok violated this Court's order by
moving the |\n| 4 | yacht out of the jurisdiction, we did not know that at that |\n| 5 | time.
After he moved it out of the jurisdiction, Mr. Siegal |\n\nasked you if the yacht could be moved. And Mr. Siegal said it was routine, the yacht goes to warm weather every year as it had over the last several and then comes back. Your Honor said, no, make a motion. No motion was made.\n\nInstead, we did some research and we found out the yacht had already been moved and your Honor ordered the yacht back.\n\nMr. Kwok had not done so and your Honor found him in conditional contempt; noting that he disregarded your orders and you noted that we had made more than a prima facie showing that all of these entities that allegedly control the yacht are controlled by Mr. Kwok, those are your words.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 In early November, the First Department affirmed the bulk of your Honor's order, finding that PAX has established by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kwok had disregarded your lawful order and that PAX's rights that thus been prejudiced.\n\n24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER The First Department remanded only to conduct a hearing to dissolve a dispute as to ownership and control of\n\n85\n\n5\n\n| 1 | the yacht and to assess appropriate penalties.
I note that |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | they didn't say whether to assess penalties. |\n| 3 | After remained, your Honor asked for short |\n| 4 | supplemental briefings. |\n| 5 | In our January 4th brief, we established |\n| 6 | conclusively that Mr. Kwok beneficially owns and controls |\n| 7 | the Lady May.
Very
briefly, your Honor, here is an overview |\n| 8 | of our evidence: |\n| 9 | In 2006, Mr. Kwok forms a company called Hong Kong |\n| 10 | International Funds Investments Limited, which we have been |\n| 11 | referring to as Hong Kong International, or HKI Hong Kong. |\n| 12 | At the time he's the sole shareholder and sole |\n| 13 | director at all times between 2006 and 2014, October, when |\n| 14 | he transfers ownership to one of his employees for zero |\n| 15 | consideration when the authorities are closing in on him and |\n| 16 | he flees Asia; |\n| 17 | In 2015, when Mr. Kwok is setting up shop in New |\n| 18 | York City, he buys The Sherry-Netherland apartment through |\n| 19 | Geneva and yacht through Hong Kong International. |\n| 20 | And what we now know through discovery here, and |\n| 21 | filings in the BVI proceedings, your Honor, is that Hong |\n| 22 | Kong International is the source of the money for both the |\n| 23 | apartment and the yacht and after that there are a number of |\n| 24 | machinations. |\n| 25 | Ownership of Hong Kong International Hong Kong is |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n85\n\n6\n\n| 1 | transferred from Kwok's lackey to Mr. Kwok's 20-something |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | year old daughter for a single dollar. |\n| 3 | And then Hong Kong International Delaware is formed |\n| 4 | with its address as Mr. Kwok's office. |\n| 5 | Mr. Kwok's daughter then gets 100 percent of that |\n| 6 | equity and it acquires the yacht, gets the yacht transferred |\n| 7 | from Hong Kong International Hong Kong for zero |\n| 8 | consideration; all the while, well after all of these |\n| 9 | purported transfers, Mr. Kwok is tweeting and making YouTube |\n| 10 | videos about how it is his boat; |\n| 11 | Even when his employee, supposedly, owns it, even |\n| 12 | when his quarter, supposedly, owns it.
We have him on video |\n| 13 | saying it.
Let's just take, for example, it is in evidence, |\n| 14 | your Honor, it is Docket Number 710, two minutes two hours |\n| 15 | 50 seconds to 4:15.
We have him on October 17, 2017 saying |\n| 16 | on YouTube, that he bought the boat
back in 2014, and then |\n| 17 | he decided to list it for sale, he got an offer close to his |\n| 18 | asking price
but he decided not to take it. |\n| 19 | I mean, common sense tells you that if you
buy |\n| 20 | something, then you have the sole authority to decide when |\n| 21 | and whether to sell it, you
beneficially own and control the |\n| 22 | asset, it is yours; but wait, there's more.
Mr. Kwok filed |\n| 23 | a complaint in New York State Court repeatedly saying it is |\n| 24 | his boat.
And he choose to attach an article to that |\n| 25 | complaint that says -- that that refers to the yacht as his |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n7\n\n85\n\n| 1 | own yacht.
That was in late 2020, your Honor, well after |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | all of these transfers. |\n| 3 | And
your Honor, who is paying for the boat?
Our |\n| 4 | old friends at Golden Spring. |\n| 5 | Who
pays Hong Kong International Delaware, the |\n| 6 | entity that technically holds the boat, who is paying their |\n| 7 | legal fees in this litigation?
Well, that is Kwok's new |\n| 8 | shell company Lamp Capital that you'll hear about in a |\n| 9 | little while. |\n| 10 | And what is Hong Kong Delaware?
The technical |\n| 11 | legal owner of the yacht?
What is it by the way?
It is |\n| 12 | nothing. |\n| 13 | We have a letter from their lawyer that we |\n| 14 | submitted to the Court representing it has no employees, it |\n| 15 | has no directors, it has no e-mail, it has no bank accounts, |\n| 16 | it has no tax returns, it is a piece of paper.
And when you |\n| 17 | combine this and other circumstantial evidence from this |\n| 18 | very proceeding, your Honor, what do you have? |\n| 19 | You have Mr. Kwok's counsel and the ship captain |\n| 20 | who both say the boat goes away every year, since 2017, to |\n| 21 | warm water for a few months and then it returns.
Not |\n| 22 | anymore it doesn't.
Not since the orders that your Honor |\n| 23 | issued restraining it. |\n| 24 | Now it is in Genova Italy.
It was in the 40's |\n| 25 | degrees in Genova Italy this morning.
That is not warm |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n8\n\n85\n\n| 1 | weather.
It is not hard to figure out who is controlling |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | the ship and why it is not back here. |\n| 3 | In the face of this un rebutted evidence, Mr. Kwok |\n| 4 | really only has two arguments. |\n| 5 | First, he claims he can't control the boat
because |\n| 6 | he's not its technical owner, that is Hong Kong Delaware -- |\n| 7 | and that his daughter is the person who owns Hong Kong |\n| 8 | Delaware.
Well, your Honor, the facts we just went through |\n| 9 | make it clear, that he controls the yacht, a point I noted |\n| 10 | at the outset that you had already found by clear and |\n| 11 | convincing evidence. |\n| 12 | As for ownership.
Well, technical legal title is |\n| 13 | not required.
CPLR 5225, the turnover statute discusses the |\n| 14 | judgment debtor's interest in the property.
Which is the |\n| 15 | applicable standard for a judgment creditor to levy on a |\n| 16 | asset.
New York Law is clear that the beneficial interest |\n| 17 | meets the standard.
You don't need technical legal |\n| 18 | ownership. |\n| 19 | Weinstein Korn & Miller, as we cited in our brief |\n| 20 | make it clear that quote \"it is not necessary that a |\n| 21 | judgment debtor have legal title to the property.
A |\n| 22 | beneficial interest is sufficient.\" |\n| 23 | The Glid Clade (phonetic) case, from the First |\n| 24 | Dept., 2015, which we cite says the same thing.
There, the |\n| 25 | judgment debtor said his daughter owned the asset.
And the |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n9\n\n85\n\n| 1 | court said, no, it is really yours for turnover levying |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | purposes, a beneficial interest is sufficient. |\n| 3 | Now, Mr. Kwok's second and really only argument, |\n| | |\n| 4 | you need to hold an evidentiary hearing, and some of our |\n| 5 | evidence maybe inadmissible.
Well, we submit, if your Honor |\n| 6 | wants to hold an evidentiary hearing, that is obviously |\n| 7 | within your Honor's prerogative, but we submit it is wrong |\n| 8 | for two reasons. |\n| 9 | First, our evidence is admissible.
It is pages of |\n| 10 | Hong Kong International's -- it is literally pages from Hong |\n| 11 | Kong International Delaware from their stamped document |\n| 12 | production.
It is based on official public records from |\n| 13 | Hong Kong. |\n| 14 | We have affidavits of those documents.
If your |\n| 15 | Honor is interested, we can send them to you, the Court can |\n| 16 | take judicial notice of those Hong Kong documents, which are |\n| 17 | public records that we submitted to your Honor. |\n| 18 | We also have the September, 2020, New York State |\n| 19 | complaint that Mr. Kwok filed, referring to it as his yacht. |\n| 20 | That is judicial admission. |\n| 21 | Mr. Kwok's own tweets and video recordings are |\n| 22 | party admissions.
In those videos we see Mr. Kwok speaking. |\n| 23 | He know what he looks like, we know what he sounds like. |\n| 24 | The response will be, your Honor, well, they are |\n| 25 | not authenticate.
Well, how do we authenticate, your Honor? |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n85\n\n10\n\n# -Proceedings-\n\nMr. Kwok invoking the Fifth. They have confirmed that as recently as an e-mail from counsel for Mr. Kwok to us on November 10th. He will not show up, he will not testify about his assets, and he will not bring any documents. We're entitled to an adverse inference there.\n\nThat brings me to the second problem with Mr. Kwok's argument with respect to wanting an evidentiary hearing. Again, if your Honor wants one, again, we will have one.\n\nThere's really nothing else to hear. We're using already whatever very little documents were provided to us from the other side, as well as judicially noticeable public filings.\n\nHong Kong International, the technical owner-- Hong Kong International Delaware -- excuse me -- the technical owner of the yacht, has represented to us. And we submitted that they have nothing else. They have no other documents, they have no employees and they have no officers.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER Hong Kong International also represented to us--and this is very important --that Mr. Kwok's daughter May Kwok, the only shareholder, and only person in any way we can find in anyway associated with Hong Kong International Delaware check, and they have represented to us that she also has nothing, absolutely nothing. Never sent an e-mail or a text message about the multi-million dollar yacht, apparently.\n\n| | 11
-Proceedings |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And Hong Kong International actually told us to go |\n| 2 | to Golden Spring, believe it or not, to get yacht-related to |\n| 3 | documents.
Well, guess what, we did. |\n| 4 | We talked to Golden Spring and they represented to |\n| 5 | us that they have nothing.
I mean, this is a yacht that, |\n| 6 | literally, must
moved around the globe by telepathy.
Not a |\n| 7 | single person has a single written communication about who |\n| 8 | uses it, who instructs the captain and where and when it |\n| 9 | moves.
And as I mentioned a moment ago, your Honor, of |\n| 10 | course Mr. Kwok is taking the Fifth. |\n| 11 | He's refused to submit documents about his assets, |\n| 12 | including the yacht, or to allow us to depose him.
His |\n| 13 | lawyer confirmed this to us, as I mentioned, this is the |\n| 14 | middle of November. |\n| 15 | So, we're happy to have an evidentiary hearing if |\n| 16 | the Court wants one.
But, respectfully, there's nothing to |\n| 17 | hear, your Honor. |\n| 18 | The only thing you
might hear is Mr. Kwok's |\n| 19 | daughter come in and testify it is her boat.
Well, they are |\n| 20 | already saying that. |\n| 21 | We can assume, for purposes of today and proffer |\n| 22 | that is what she will say, it is her boat, without having |\n| 23 | produced a single document, text, e-mail we can cross her |\n| 24 | with.
If you assume that, your Honor, then we have met our |\n| 25 | burden on the written submissions in evidence that we have |\n\n85\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n\n12\n\n| 1 | provided. |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | And I just want to take one more
moment, your |\n| 3 | Honor.
I know there's some confusion about whether an |\n| 4 | evidentiary hearing is needed.
I know there was language in |\n| 5 | the Appellate Division's remand to you about an evidentiary |\n| 6 | hearing. |\n| 7 | Again, that is entirely up to your Honor, we |\n| 8 | understand that; |\n| 9 | But the First Department decision in Glid Clade, |\n| 10 | from 2015, is really as close to being on all fours as you |\n| 11 | could get. |\n| 12 | In Glid Clade, the judgment debtor was a gentleman |\n| 13 | named Mr. Chirnoid (phonetic), he had \\$500 million judgment |\n| 14 | entered against him.
Ironically, he was represented in that |\n| 15 | case by
Ms. Hyland's firm Frankfurt Kurnit. |\n| 16 | Plaintiff in Glid Clade brought a turnover |\n| 17 | proceeding under Section 5225 of the CPLR, with respect to |\n| 18 | Mr. Chirnoid's interest in a LLC.
Chirnoid had referred to |\n| 19 | that interest throughout the litigation, that LLC as his. |\n| 20 | He said he funded it with his money.
He was the investor. |\n| 21 | When it came time for turnover, however, your |\n| 22 | Honor, he said, no, actually, I gave it previously to my |\n| 23 | daughters.
And he belatedly
produced an agreement to that |\n| 24 | effect and of course his daughter put in an affidavit saying |\n| 25 | that the LLC was herself.
The trial court said, no, they |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n13\n\n-Proceedings-\n\n85\n\nfound for the Plaintiff and it didn't have evidentiary hearing because it had been dealing with the parties for years and it knew of their practices and it deemed a hearing unnecessary.\n\n5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 And, critically, your Honor, here is what the First Department said in affirming the State Courts trial court's decision, quote \"the motion court, which was quite familiar with this drawn out dispute, granted the petition. Stating --internal quotes, this is lower court now, \"this turnover proceeding is the latest proceeding in a litigation fraught with questionable behavior by Mr. Chirnoid.\" After reviewing past depositions and affidavits, as well as submissions in opposition to the turnover motion, the Court concluded that the 2007 Agreement, and the surrounding tales raises nothing but famed issues of fact. We concur with the Court's assessment that no hearing was necessary on the issue.\n\nThis all sounds very similar, your Honor. These are famed issues of fact. And here, there's even less of a need of a hearing because Mr. Kwok is going to take the Fifth and wouldn't and can't testify.\n\nAnd, finally, if I might, your Honor, before I close, I would like to make one last point.\n\n24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER Mr. Kwok's counsel, no doubt, is going to tell you, as they have in the past, that Mr. Kwok would have followed\n\n85\n\n14\n\n# -Proceedings-\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER the Court's order if it could, but it couldn't follow the Court's order, your Honor, because, respectfully, it didn't control the yacht. You just can't do it in this case. That is flat out not so. Before closing, I would like to make one last point. I anticipate, as they have in the past, Mr. Kwok's counsel will say, of course Mr. Kwok will abide by the Court's order if he could, but since he doesn't control the yacht, he just can't in this case. That is not going to be true, your Honor. All you have to do is look to Mr. Kwok's recent failure to comply your Genova, BVI share turnover order. That is an asset that he readily admits he fully controls. In fact, it is the only asset he says he owns. As your Honor knows, Mr. Kwok's outright refusal to follow your turnover order, just forced PAX last Friday night to file another civil contempt motion. So it doesn't matter if he technically owns something or not, he just chooses not to follow your orders, your Honor. This has to stop. For these reasons, we submit it is finally time to hold Mr. Kwok in contempt with respect to his yacht and for your Honor to order whatever sanction the Court believes is appropriate to actually get him to comply with the order. Thank you, sir. I'm available to answer any questions of\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n85\n\n-Proceedings-15 course. THE COURT: I'll hear from whoever is opposing this motion after we take a three-minute break. (Pausing.) (Whereupon, a short recess is taken.) THE COURT: On the record. Could I hear from the opposition on the motion for contempt. MR. SIEGAL: Yes, your Honor. Good afternoon. John Siegal with the Baker & Hostetler law firm. THE COURT: Mr. Siegel, what I would like you to start with is making an offer of proof that you would make at any evidentiary hearing. MR. SIEGAL: Certainly, your Honor, and I intend to do that. I do, however, want to address a legal standard here. Because the Appellate Division remanded for the specific expressed purpose of an evidentiary hearing on quote, \"the dispute as to ownership and control of the yacht, as well as any appropriate penalties.\" THE COURT: I understand that. That is why I asked for an offer of proof as to what you would adduce at a hearing. MR. SIEGAL: To be frank, your Honor, it depends on what the Plaintiff submits and we would be the Respondent at such is hearing. And for reasons --\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER THE COURT: Respectfully, Mr. Siegel, you just\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n| 85 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 16 |\n| -Proceedings |\n| heard Mr. Sarnoff explain for 20 plus
minutes his offer of |\n| proof at the hearing -- |\n| MR. SIEGAL:
Yes. |\n| THE COURT:
--if we were to have a hearing. |\n| MR. SIEGAL:
Right. |\n| THE COURT:
Now I want to know how you would rebut |\n| that and with what witnesses and what documents you would |\n| introduce at the hearing.
I'm happy to have a hearing next |\n| week and I'm happy to give Mr. Kwok all due process to which |\n| he is due.
But I don't want to have a hearing where Mr. |\n| Sarnoff presents everything that he's just outlined and |\n| everything that contained in his moving
papers and you can't |\n| tell me what it is that you have that might rebut what he is |\n| claiming. |\n| MR. SIEGAL:
Surely, your Honor, I appreciate the |\n| question and I intend to answer.
But surely the Court is |\n| not prejudging either the admissibility, reliability, or |\n| accuracy of anything that counsel just said. |\n| And I submit, your Honor, that the legal issue that |\n| counsel just addressed is the wrong legal issue under a |\n| statute that doesn't apply, that is contrary to the remand |\n| direction of the Appellate Division. |\n\n23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER The factual argument that he just made, combined with the documents submitted in the Sarnoff affidavit actually support Mr. Kwok's position on the motion.\n\n85\n\n17\n\n| 1 | This is not a motion for turnover against the |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | judgment debtor; |\n| 3 | The Appellate Division remanded a contempt motion |\n| 4 | to determine ownership and control of the asset and, |\n| 5 | therefore, whether the Defendant could have complied with |\n| 6 | the Court's conditional order. |\n| 7 | This motion is governed by Judicial Law 753(a)(3), |\n| 8 | it is a contempt motion.
It requires a showing by clear and |\n| 9 | convincing evidence that Mr. Kwok had ownership and control |\n| 10 | of the asset. |\n| 11 | Plaintiffs' briefed the issue and argued it under |\n| 12 | CPLR 5225 which governs turnover and asset by a judgment |\n| 13 | debtor.
That is not the remand issue here. |\n| 14 | The beneficial interest issue under 5225 that they |\n| 15 | have argued does not apply on this motion.
And they have |\n| 16 | not cited to the Court a single legal authority on a |\n| 17 | contempt motion, the issue that was remanded.
We have |\n| 18 | searched and we have found no case law reported in New York |\n| 19 | applying the issue of beneficial interests under the |\n| 20 | turnover statute to a determination of ownership and control |\n| 21 | of an asset and ability to comply with a Court Order on |\n| 22 | contempt motion.
They are literally urging the wrong |\n| 23 | statute and wrong legal issues on this Court. |\n| 24 | Against that backdrop, let me address the proffered |\n| 25 | factual arguments and the question the Court has asked of |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n18\n\n-Proceedings-\n\nwhat a hearing would adduce.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\nThe Sarnoff affirmation exhibits support Mr. Kwok's position that Plaintiff has not offered any proof, let alone the required clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kwok owned or controlled the yacht at the time of the conditional order.\n\nThe Sarnoff exhibits established: One, Mr. Kwok has never owned the Lady May. I want to repeat that -- I want to repeat that. The exhibits to the Sarnoff affirmation if credited and admitted establish that Mr. Kwok never owned the boat, period, full stop;\n\nIt was purchased by a Hong Kong entity, Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited in 2015, that is their Exhibit 12.\n\nAt that time, in 2015, that entity was owned by a person --and I don't know how to pronounce this Qu Guo Aiao, QU GUO AIAO. Exhibit 10 shows that that person assumed ownership of that entity in the year before the yacht was purchased, 2014. Kwok never owned the boat, period full stop.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER Two, there is no admissible evidence in the record of who Qu Guo Aiao is, none. I'm advised that she is not a relative of Mr. Kwok. Plaintiff's contend in their brief, at Page 2, that she was quote \"reportedly his employer.\" But that reportedly contention is sourced only to a Chinese\n\n19\n\n85\n\n| 1 | newspaper report, that is Exhibit 11, on an allegation, not |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | a finding or a ruling, reportedly filed in a Hong Kong court |\n| 3 | proceeding.
That newspaper report of an allegation does not |\n| 4 | specify whose employee the person reportedly is.
There's |\n| 5 | nothing in the record establishing a basis to tie that owner |\n| 6 | of the yacht, in any meaningful way, to ownership or control |\n| 7 | of the vessel by
Mr. Kwok. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Just out of curiosity, Mr. Siegel, what |\n| 9 | about Mr. Kwok's 2020 filing in the Supreme Court in which |\n| 10 | he claimed ownership of the yacht? |\n| 11 | MR. SIEGAL:
I think that that is obviously a |\n| 12 | factor that the Court would have to consider. |\n| 13 | There are numerous statements, most inadmissible |\n| 14 | hearsay, in which he loosely refers to his ownership of the |\n| 15 | boat.
And -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
That is not a hearsay statement.
That |\n| 17 | is a judicial admission. |\n| 18 | MR. SIEGAL:
Well, if to the extent it was a |\n| 19 | statement regarding ownership, your Honor, it was wrong.
He |\n| 20 | never owned the boat. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
In other words, you're telling me that |\n| 22 | Mr. Kwok filed a document with the New York Supreme Court in |\n| 23 | which he erroneously declared that he owned the boat? |\n| 24 | MR. SIEGAL:
First of all, your Honor, that |\n| 25 | statement is not in the record on this current motion. |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n20\n\nownership in any capacity. And --\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n85\n\n-Proceedings-And, secondly, it is their burden of proof. That statement that it is his boat, was not a statement of legal\n\nTHE COURT: What was it a statement of?\n\nMR. SIEGAL: I don't have it.\n\nTHE COURT: What is it? What is the definition of \"his?\"\n\nMR. SIEGAL: It is not in the record on the current application. I don't have it in front of me.\n\nThey have referred to the purchaser of the boat -- Mr. Sarnoff just did, as Mr. Kwok's quote/unquote \"lackey.\" Your Honor, rhetoric is not a record. That is not evidence. And it is not evidence of how this unrelated person's purchase of the yacht constitutes ownership or control of the asset.\n\nThen Plaintiff offers documents supporting to show that two years after that person purchased the vessel, this unrelated person transferred ownership of the Lady May to May Guo, Mr. Kwok's adult daughter; that transfer was made three months after Plaintiffs filed the litigation.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER It was hardly an effort to secrete the asset or avoid any potential judgment. If Mr. Kwok were pulling the strings here, it is not logical or conceivable that, in the midst of this litigation, he would have transferred it from an unrelated third-party, a nonrelative third-party to his\n\n| | -Proceedings |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | daughter. |\n| 2 | There's nothing in the record on this motion tying |\n| 3 | any of these transactions, even having to do with the |\n| 4 | Plaintiff in this case, Pacific Alliance. |\n| 5 | Next, they offer a BVI Court finding that does not |\n| 6 | even mention the Lady May, or any entity that has ever owned |\n| 7 | it, that is Exhibit 13.
That filing, regarding an entity |\n| 8 | called Ronald Luck Limited (phonetic) pleads in Paragraph 14 |\n| 9 | that quote \"the funds generally raised by Ronald Luck were |\n| 10 | from Mr. Zhang Wei, Z-H-A-N-G
W-E-I, the husband of Miles |\n| 11 | Sun's cousin.
Miles Sun is the son of the Defendant.
And |\n| 12 | from Mr. Zhang's wife, Ms. Guo Lijie, Miles' cousin and a |\n| 13 | lawyer based in China. |\n| 14 | Again, that has no apparent factual connection |\n| 15 | whatsoever to the Lady May or the entities that have owned |\n| 16 | it and it identifies a source of funds that is not Miles |\n| 17 | Kwok. |\n| 18 | The last document that it offered by Plaintiffs |\n| 19 | does nothing except show the undisputed fact that May Guo, |\n| 20 | the Defendant's daughter, put ownership of her yacht in the |\n| 21 | U.S. entity called HK International Funds Investments USA |\n| 22 | Limited, LLC in 2020. |\n| 23 | HK's lawyer Lee Vartan (phonetic) informed the |\n| 24 | Court of that completely unremarkable fact last year. |\n| 25 | A
person's use of a single purpose entity for |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n22\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n85\n\n-Proceedings-\n\n1 2 valuable asset is hardly proof of anything other than common employees typical business planning.\n\nThe argument that there's no documents regarding the whereabouts of this yacht may reflect the fact that we're dealing with a Defendant who is an assignee from People's Public of China facing very substantial security concerns; and members of his family, including his daughter, who owns the yacht, lived in a similar environment. None of us has ever lived in a totalitarian society or been the target of one, and I hope we never will be; but let's not conflate security concerns that people living in that society environment face as proof of anything other than their care and caution.\n\nTHE COURT: Mr. Siegel --\n\nMR. SIEGEL: These documents, your Honor, don't make out a prima facie case that Mr. Kwok owned the vessel at the time of the Court order. They show that he has never --\n\n> THE COURT: Mr. Siegel, can you hear me? MR. SIEGEL: Yes.\n\nTHE COURT: You want me to conduct a hearing and Mr. Kwok's daughter is going to appear at the hearing.\n\n23 24 25 MR. SIEGEL: I do not know if Mr. Kwok's daughter is going to appear at the hearing. That is Mr. Sarnoff's assertion. He has asked you to assume:\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n\n85\n\n23\n\n| 1 | Number one, that we will be
producing a certain |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | witness; |\n| 3 | Number two, that he preferred what he believed she |\n| 4 | would say; |\n| 5 | And, three, extraordinarily, he asked you in |\n| 6 | advance to discredit that testimony. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
I'm not prejudging anything. |\n| 8 | MR. SIEGEL:
I know you're not. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
We're going to have a hearing.
And the |\n| 10 | hearing will be in three weeks.
And this will be resolved |\n| 11 | on a full evidentiary record --forgive me for being |\n| 12 | skeptical about the presentation
you're going to make; |\n| 13 | because in response to three of my inquires about the offer |\n| 14 | of proof that you would make -- |\n| 15 | MR. SIEGEL:
Your Honor -- I did not get to the |\n| 16 | issue of control.
Your Honor, there is testimony in the |\n| 17 | record with control.
As of now it is un rebutted.
That is |\n| 18 | the affidavit of the boat's captain.
That in which he |\n| 19 | attests that HK International, that is owned by
May Guo owns |\n| 20 | the vessel and that that is who he reported to and that he |\n| 21 | did not take direction from Mr. Kwok. |\n| 22 | There is no evidence at this point rebutting that |\n| 23 | prima facie showing of lack of control.
And it is their |\n| 24 | burden.
It is a hybrid.
Beneficial address is not the test |\n| 25 | here. |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n25\n\n24\n\n# -Proceedings-\n\n85\n\nBut based on this record, whether these transactions that they attempted to document by and between, essentially, unidentified third-party nonfamily member, and Mr. Kwok's adult daughter, do not establish that he had a beneficial interest. That is both an irrelevant question and a triable issue.\n\nMuch of the rest of the showing is inadmissible hearsay. Establishing the undisputed facts that Mr. Kwok has from time to time enjoyed from being on his daughter's boat and reported to loosely have referred to it as his boat. But it is not clear and convincing evidence of ownership and control.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Ownership or control by a family member, or perhaps or by a third-party is not ownership and control by Mr. Kwok; close enough doesn't apply in a legal proceeding. That is why the Appellate Division remanded that the Plaintiff be put to its proof. And we're prepared to respond to that, given to the extent that the Court holds at the hearing that they have established their prima facie case, we'll attempt to rebut it.\n\n21 22 23 24 MR. SARNOFF: If I may be briefly heard so that the record is complete. I totally appreciate it is within your complete prerogative to hold evidentiary hearing and I'm not quarreling with that.\n\n> DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER THE COURT: It is your benefit that I hold an\n\n85\n\n25\n\n| 1 | evidentiary hearing because the Appellate Division remanded |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | and indicated that there should be an evidentiary hearing. |\n| 3 | MR. SARNOFF:
I understand, your Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
It is on the papers.
There will be |\n| 5 | further appeals asserting that I failed to comply with the |\n| 6 | direction of the Appellate Division. |\n| 7 | MR. SARNOFF:
Yes, your Honor.
I appreciate that. |\n| 8 | There are just two or three things that I would like to put |\n| 9 | on the record, if I might, I will be very very brief. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I have all afternoon. |\n| 11 | MR. SARNOFF:
First, the reason that we have |\n| 12 | discussed the standard under 5225, the standard under which |\n| 13 | a judgment creditor gets to levy on an asset is very clear |\n| 14 | and understandable, your Honor.
It is because that is the |\n| 15 | standard that, if we can show the beneficial interest |\n| 16 | sufficient to levy, then that is the standard under the |\n| 17 | Judicial Law 753 that establishes prejudice. |\n| 18 | If we can levy on the boat, then Mr. Kwok's moving |\n| 19 | the boat has prejudiced our right and it is a component |\n| 20 | piece of 753.
That is why we referred to the Beneficial |\n| 21 | Interest Standard as the relevant standard under 5225, |\n| 22 | first -- |\n| 23 | By the way, I just note, that if your Honor looks |\n| 24 | at the Appellate order.
The Appellate order says that we |\n| 25 | have shown -- that we have already shown --that you were |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n26\n\n# -Proceedings-\n\n| 1 | correct in finding that we have shown that by clear and |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | convincing evidence Mr. Kwok violated a lawful order about |\n| 3 | which he had knowledge, interestingly, and that Plaintiff's |\n| 4 | rights were prejudiced.
They already found that. |\n| 5 | On the issue of control, your Honor has already |\n| 6 | found that we have made
more than a prima facie showing of |\n| 7 | control. |\n| 8 | So I just did want to point out, that is why that |\n| 9 | 5225 Beneficial Interest Standard in the turnover context, |\n| 10 | which is the levying context is directly the relevant |\n| 11 | standard. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Look, I understand. |\n| 13 | Mr. Sarnoff, Mr. Kwok is being find \\$500,000 a day |\n| 14 | every day this boat is not where it is to be. |\n| 15 | MR. SARNOFF:
I understand. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
So Mr. Sarnoff wants to protract these |\n| 17 | proceedings another three weeks, that is another million |\n| 18 | dollars in contempt sanctions; if he fails to overcome all |\n| 19 | of the issues that you've outlined in your
papers. |\n| 20 | MR. SARNOFF:
For completeness, I would be very |\n| 21 | brief. |\n| 22 | I believe
Mr. Kwok testified that the woman that we |\n| 23 | referred to as his employee, I believe he testified at his |\n| 24 | deposition, way, way earlier, before he clammed up and |\n| 25 | invoked the Fifth Amendment was his employee.
I believe |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n27\n\n| 1 | that is in the record.
We'll be ready to have that citation |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | at the appropriate time. |\n| 3 | Two, if she was some unknown unrelated person to |\n| 4 | Mr. Kwok, please explain as a logical matter that he gives |\n| 5 | her his company for no consideration and then mordaciously, |\n| 6 | three years later, she ends up giving it to Kwok's daughter. |\n| 7 | That is a fantastic coincidence. |\n| 8 | Let me
make one more note.
Mr. Siegel said |\n| 9 | something about the September 20th complaint -- 2020 |\n| 10 | complaint that with referenced not being in our papers.
We |\n| 11 | cited at Page 4 of our brief and it was Featured Far and |\n| 12 | Wide in our earlier contemporary.
That whole issue has |\n| 13 | always been
before the Court. |\n| 14 | And one other point.
There was a mention
made |\n| 15 | about un rebutted testimony by
Mr. Hasland.
Mr. Hasland |\n| 16 | says, I take direction from Hong Kong International.
That |\n| 17 | is what his affidavit says.
It doesn't mention a human |\n| 18 | being. |\n| 19 | We know from Hong Kong International's Delaware's |\n| 20 | lawyer that Hong Kong International is a piece of paper. |\n| 21 | Its got no -- he has made no showing of who he's taking -- |\n| 22 | he's taking direction from a piece of paper.
He has not |\n| 23 | said me, he has not said it to anyone. |\n| 24 | I will just ask, your Honor, if May Guo is going to |\n| 25 | testify, I'm not sure she is.
We would have the opportunity |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n28\n\n85\n\n-Proceedings-\n\nto take her deposition before any such hearing, as well as perhaps Mr. Hasland's deposition if he's going to testify as well. THE COURT: You preserved Mr. Hasland's testimony for trial by deposition. And if I need to sign a subpoena, and you have to jump thru hoops to have him sit for a deposition, I'll do that. And since Mr. Hasland is clearly in the control of the owner of the boat, if he fails to submit to deposition or fails to show up at the hearing, I'll take that into consideration. MR. SARNOFF: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Anything else on the motion? MR. SIEGAL: Yes, your Honor, I have a couple of questions. First of all, on the issue of the legal standard, Mr. Sarnoff did correctly report that the Appellate Division held that the issue of prejudice has been affirmed. So, that is part of the reason why we argued the 5225 does not apply here. And so the question is, your Honor, do you want additional briefing before the hearing on the legal standard that does apply? THE COURT: The parties can submit in this case\n\n23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER whatever they want. I've been dealing with Mr. Sarnoff for a very long time and I've been dealing with Mr. Kwok and his\n\n29\n\n| 1 | residence of the share for a very long time and I'll be very |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | surprised if substantial evidence is produced that Mr. Kwok |\n| 3 | has no involvement with this boat. |\n| 4 | MR SIEGEL:
Understood, your Honor.
Couple other |\n| 5 | questions. |\n| 6 | We had indicated in our supplemental brief of five |\n| 7 | page, if there's going to be a hearing, we would like to |\n| 8 | opportunity to submit mini
motions, would that be something |\n| 9 | beneficial with the Court or just deal with the hearing. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
You can submit anything you want to |\n| 11 | submit.
I'm going to give you a hearing date in three |\n| 12 | weeks, plus or minus two or three days. |\n| 13 | MR. SIEGEL:
That is the other issue I want to |\n| 14 | address.
I'm scheduled for trial at the end of February, as |\n| 15 | is Ms. Carvallo. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Why don't you tell me the date that you |\n| 17 | would like to have this hearing, which I would be very |\n| 18 | surprised would last more than a day. |\n| 19 | MR. SIEGEL:
Well, given my schedule, I would ask |\n| 20 | for a date in March when that trial ends.
The pre-trial |\n| 21 | conference is the 10th of February and scheduled to go to |\n| 22 | the end of the first week of March. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Pick a day in the next three weeks that |\n| 24 | you can interrupt certain other scheduled issues you have to |\n| 25 | deal with this long pressing
matter with everything about |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n30\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -Proceedingsthis issue. MR. SIEGEL: May I confer with my colleague and with opposing counsel and get back to the Court quickly with a date that works in the next three weeks. THE COURT: Let's just do it here and now on the record. I'll adjust my schedule to accommodate everyone's schedule. I'm told that I'm completely free on February 2nd and February 7th. MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, I'm actually defending depositions in a class-action those two days -- THE COURT: We're not going to have colloquy about the date; depositions can be adjourned, firm trial dates can't be adjourned, let's pick a date that you both can live with and let's move on. There's three other motions I have to hear. MR. SIEGEL: I would propose, your Honor, February 3rd, Thursday, February 3rd if that works. THE COURT: Mr. Sarnoff. MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, I will make it work. I will have to get out of my deposition and I will make it work. THE COURT: Well, if you could get out of your deposition to make it work, would February 2nd be because that wouldn't require my staff to --\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n20\n\n21\n\n31\n\n# -Proceedings-\n\nMR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, if you would like to do it on February 2nd. There's a certain harmony in that, in that we've been here a long-time and February 2nd is Groundhog Day. This might be a good day to hear a motion hearing of this nature.\n\n> THE COURT: Is that good for you Mr. Siegel? MR. SIEGEL: Yes, your Honor.\n\n8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THE COURT: February 2nd will be the date that we will have this hearing and it will be on Microsoft Teams and trial testimony from out of jurisdiction witnesses will be admitted by deposition. All direct testimony, other than deposition testimony, will be by affidavit. And I wouldn't consider the affidavits of anyone who doesn't submit himself or herself for cross-examination. So we will have sworn testimony from deponents who are prepared to be cross-examined at the hearing and we'll have trial testimony of deponent outside the jurisdiction with adverse inferences drawn against individuals who might have relevant testimony who refuse to be deposed.\n\nMR. SARNOFF: We get a deposition, your Honor, of anyone who will testify --we'll get advanced notice?\n\n22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER THE COURT: You'll get a deposition of anybody who is out of the jurisdiction whose testimony is relevant to the issue in the case. And if witnesses outside the jurisdiction, who are under the control of any party,\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n32\n\n-Proceedings-\n\n85\n\n| 1 | decline to sit for a deposition, I'll draw whatever |\n|---|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | inferences from that I choose.
I'm not going to go through |\n| 3 | a circus-like exercise of people who have relevant testimony |\n| 4 | refusing to provide it. |\n\nMR. SARNOFF: By way of clarification. We have been told that Mr. Kwok is going to invoke his Fifth Amendment Privilege and not testify. Can we -- we will be able, I assume, to get adverse inferences when he doesn't show up. If he does shows up, we would have asked already for his deposition as to assets and we have been foreclosed from getting any documents or any deposition from him in that regard. I'm assuming he's precluded from --\n\nTHE COURT: Mr. Kwok wants to show up and testify he doesn't own the boat, he's free to do so and you're free to cross-examine him. You don't get a deposition of him he's within the jurisdiction.\n\n17 18 19 20 MR. SARNOFF: We did try to get deposition testimony from him in the discovery when we served postjudgment discovery and we were foreclosed because of his Fifth Amendment and location.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: He previously took the Fifth Amendment. I understand that. I'm not depending on Mr. Kwok to show up at the February 2nd hearing; but if he choses to, submit direct testimony affidavit and be subject cross-examination, so be it.\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n\n33\n\n85\n\n| 1 | MR. SIEGAL:
Of course, for the sake of |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | completeness.
The deposition requirement applies the other |\n| 3 | way too right, that we get to depose any out-of-state |\n| 4 | witnesses they're going to proffer -- they're going to offer |\n| 5 | in direct testimony by affidavit. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Not if their witnesses are going to |\n| 7 | submit direct testimony and appear for cross-examination. |\n| 8 | Look, this is very simple. |\n| 9 | MR. SIEGAL:
It is clear.
I understand. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
The witnesses will submit direct |\n| 11 | testimony affidavits.
And those witnesses who submit direct |\n| 12 | testimony affidavits must
be
made available for |\n| 13 | cross-examination or testify to their affidavits. |\n| 14 | People who are outside the jurisdiction, who want |\n| 15 | to give testimony and are in the control of any party, can |\n| 16 | do so by deposition in which each side gets to question the |\n| 17 | witness.
And the deposition transcript will be
part of the |\n| 18 | evidentiary hearing. |\n| 19 | MR. SARNOFF:
I was going to ask whether the |\n| 20 | directs will be
put in at the hearing or in advance? |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
At advance.
I will issue a short form |\n| 22 | order that will give you dates by which the direct testimony |\n| 23 | affidavits have to be submitted and I'll give you the dates |\n| 24 | in a short form order the dates by which any exhibits that |\n| 25 | the parties want to be considered at the evidentiary hearing |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n34\n\n| 1 | after being submitted in the joint exhibit book.
This will |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | be just like a bench trial, except it is an evidentiary |\n| 3 | hearing instead of a bench trial. |\n| 4 | So there will be an exhibit book, there will be |\n| 5 | direct testimony affidavits that refer to the exhibits in |\n| 6 | the exhibit book, and there'll be cross-examination of the |\n| 7 | affiants who submit direct testimony affidavits. |\n| 8 | With respect to individuals under the control of |\n| 9 | the parties whose testimony is deemed relevant, those |\n| 10 | individuals have to submit to depositions.
If they don't |\n| 11 | submit to depositions and they're in control of the parties, |\n| 12 | then their testimony is of no value to the hearing that |\n| 13 | we're conducting. |\n| 14 | Are we completely clear? |\n| 15 | MR. SIEGEL:
Yes, I think so, your Honor. |\n| 16 | MR. SARNOFF:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
All right. |\n| 18 | Let's do the two motions to quash subpoenas. |\n| 19 | MR. SARNOFF:
Excuse me, it is Mr. Levine's |\n| 20 | motions. |\n| 21 | MR. LEVINE:
Thank you, your Honor.
This is |\n| 22 | Matthew Levine, Phillips Nizer and we're counsel to nonparty |\n| 23 | Lamp Capital. |\n| 24 | Can you hear me. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Yes, I can. |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n85\n\n35\n\n| 1 | MR. LEVINE:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | I understand you have another motion
behind this so |\n| 3 | I'll try to be as brief as possible. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I have all afternoon. |\n| 5 | MR. LEVINE:
Thank you, your Honor. |\n| 6 | As we have sought to quash two subpoenas and also, |\n| 7 | to the extent that there are other bank subpoenas out there |\n| 8 | for our information to have those withdrawn. |\n| 9 | Briefly, what we have established, your Honor, that |\n| 10 | Lamp Capital a nonparty duly formed Delaware LLC licensed to |\n| 11 | do business in New York.
It is wholly-owned by another |\n| 12 | Delaware company called Infinity Treasury Management, which |\n| 13 | is a single member; |\n| 14 | In turn, Infinity Management is wholly-owned by |\n| 15 | Qiang Guo.
As
you have heard, Mr. Guo, the son of the |\n| 16 | judgment debtor, Miles Kwok. |\n| 17 | Lamp Capital is not owned, controlled, or managed |\n| 18 | by the judgment debtor; |\n| 19 | The judgment debtor is not an officer or director |\n| 20 | of Lamp. |\n| 21 | Infinity Management is not owned, controlled or |\n| 22 | managed
by the judgment debtor, nor is the judgment debtor |\n| 23 | an officer or director of Infinity Management.
We have |\n| 24 | established this through the affidavits of Mr. Enriquez, who |\n| 25 | is an employee of Lamp Capital. |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n36\n\n-Proceedings-\n\n| 1 | We have not sought to conceal any of this. |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | We
proactively discussed Mr. Guo's indirect |\n| 3 | ownership state in Lamp Capital in our pre-motion conference |\n| 4 | letter submitted to the Court in early October, Document |\n| 5 | number 908. |\n| 6 | Lamp essentially provides funding of payment |\n| 7 | services to several companies, pursuant to a written |\n| 8 | management agreement with each one; one of those companies |\n| 9 | is Golden Spring New York. |\n| 10 | As indicated in our papers, and further shown in |\n| 11 | the bank records provided to Plaintiff, in its opposition, |\n| 12 | Lamp Capital has loaned funds to Golden Spring in the amount |\n| 13 | of millions of dollars; |\n| 14 | Based on this, the Plaintiff believes that it is |\n| 15 | game over and that Lamp has to turnover every single |\n| 16 | business and financial document that Lamp has to Plaintiff. |\n| 17 | That is essentially what Plaintiff's counsel told us during |\n| 18 | our first meet and confer that we held within in late |\n| 19 | September. |\n| 20 | They told us right from the beginning that Lamp is |\n| 21 | quote \"the new Golden Spring\" close quote. |\n| 22 | That Lamp Capital is effectively the alterego of |\n| 23 | the judgment debtor Miles Kwok.
And thus, Lamb's assets are |\n| 24 | really the assets of Miles Kwok.
And, therefore, that is |\n| 25 | the basis for them to properly demand every single business |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n## 36 of 84\n\n37\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\nmiddle ground.\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n-Proceedingsand financial document of Lamp. And we had agreed in the meat and confer process to produce documents that we're tailored to locating the assets of, or the information about the judgment debtor Miles Kwok. And we also proposed important modifications to other Plaintiff requests, in a good faith effort, to reach Plaintiff declined to respond to our proposals and, essentially, taken the my way or highway approach to the meet and confer process;\n\nAnd because it was all or nothing with the Plaintiff, because we couldn't reach accommodations, we were compelled to file motions. And so Plaintiff now, in response to our motion to\n\nquash both these subpoenas. And, again, one subpoena is that Lamp Capital directly, your Honor and one subpoena is to the accounting firm for Lamp Capital, a firm Janover. We sought to quash four at a minimum, have modified those subpoenas.\n\n20 21 22 23 And what the Plaintiff says is that you've already ruled on the instant motion today. And in their response they say quote \"the Court has already decided this issue in Plaintiff's favor.\"\n\n24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER And what the Plaintiff is referring to when they say that is your ruling last May, May 27th, on the motion to\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n38\n\n-Proceedings-\n\n1 2 compel Golden Spring to provide a large amount of their documents.\n\nIn other words, your Honor, Plaintiff has argued that at this point the Court need only rubber stamp Plaintiff's effort to enforce these two subpoenas that seek every conceivable financial and business document from Lamp. And we, respectfully, disagree, your Honor.\n\nAnd I would like to focus on an important distinction between the situation with Golden Spring last may and the situation instantly before your Honor, and, particularly, a focus for me because I thought you found it meaningful when you made your decision last May in connection with the Golden Spring matter.\n\nIn arguing now that Lamp is the new Golden Spring and that Lamp and Kwok's efforts are, effectively, one of the same, by doing so they are arguing, essentially, Lamp is the new Golden Spring but there's an important difference as I mentioned.\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER Last May, the Plaintiffs argued to you that the reason that you should find that their motion for discovery was appropriate was because Miles Kwok had sworn in a 2016 Affidavit, that he was the one who quote \"set up Golden Spring by transferring funds from one of his accounts at UBS to Golden Springs' JP Morgan Chase account in New York. That is at Docket Number 750, Page 6 and also Docket 764,\n\n39\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -Proceedings-DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER Paragraph 36. Similarly, Plaintiff's counsel argued to you, during the oral argument on that motion, that Miles Kwok quote \"already said it is his money at Golden Spring and he's using it to pay all of his expenses\" close quote. That is at Page 7 on May 27th, your Honor. Unlike those arguments to you in the Golden Spring litigation, Plaintiff here has not shown that Miles Kwok, the judgment debtor, has funded Lamp Capital, there's no proof of that whatsoever. THE COURT: Plaintiff determined that without getting these records. MR. LEVINE: Well, I think, your Honor, the Plaintiff has a burden to have some kind of showing that it is, in fact, the judgment debtor's funds. THE COURT: Those demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that Mr. Kwok has six, eight, ten or twelve different shell companies that he utilizes to evade his creditors. MR. LEVINE: Your Honor, I think that the analysis has to be applied to our particular case and the particular facts here. And if it is simply the case that the Plaintiff's counsel can point to an entity or person, declare that person somehow affiliated with the judgment debtor and, therefore, succeed on a motion to compel on\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n24\n\n25\n\n40\n\n-Proceedings-\n\ncourt and that the CPLR requires nothing more than that, I don't think that is a correct view of the law and what the CPLR requires.\n\nAnd I would just point to one more thing about your comment Last May. I understand you're concerned this. I do understand your Honor's frustration and how long this has gone on;\n\nBut your Honor stated in the hearing last May, the best evidence that has been made available to the Court compellingly suggests that any asset that Golden Spring has provided to Golden Spring by Mr. Kwok close quote. That is what your Honor said. Your Honor used that in order to grant the motion.\n\nSo, you thought that having seen that evidence, that affidavit, which was already existing, which was submitted to you by the Plaintiffs, that was the basis there was actual evidence.\n\n18 19 So I would say, your Honor, that is the answer to your question.\n\n20 21 There has to be some evidence that justifies the invasive discovery of a nonparty.\n\n22 23 THE COURT: All right. Let me hear from the Plaintiff's counsel.\n\nMR. SARNOFF: I will try to keep this brief.\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER Mr. Levine suggests that we're arguing that it is\n\n41\n\nargument, your Honor.\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n85\n\ncollateral estoppel here or res judicata.\n\n-Proceedings-\n\nI mean, given the interconnection between Lamp and Golden Spring, that is not far off but that is not our\n\nYou found in the context of the Golden Spring hearing that quote \"Plaintiff is a judgment creditor. Plaintiff knows that Golden Spring is funding expenses of Mr. Kwok, not minor in consequential expense. And the judgment creditor is entitled to have discovery of the entity that is funding Mr. Kwok's expenses.\" That is the hearing transcript on the Golden Spring motion at Page 10.\n\nThat is the exact same analysis, your Honor, that applies here. Not because it is collateral estoppel or res judicata. We did not argue that. But because it is correct.\n\nThe Lamp motion is even less compelling than Golden Springs, your Honor. Because in this instance, we're not seeking a restraining order as we did against Golden Spring.\n\n19 20 21 We are only seeking relevant asset related documents under the broad standard for postjudgment discovery of CPLR 5223.\n\n22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER Now, Mr. Levine mentioned that we pointed out that between October of 2020 and January of 2021, through nine separate transfers, Lamp transfers over \\$6 million to Golden Spring. He points out that some of those documents, some of\n\n42\n\n# -Proceedings-\n\n| 1 | the documents we've produced and submitted to the Court |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | indicate that they may have been loans.
I would note that |\n| 3 | some of them have no indication that they're loans, some of |\n| 4 | those transfers; they maybe loans, they may not be loans. |\n| 5 | That is discovery is for.
We're piecing this together |\n| 6 | without the opportunity to see what Lamp has. |\n| 7 | Now, it was very interesting to me that Mr. Levine, |\n| 8 | in listing what our evidence is, he left out a very very |\n| 9 | fundamental fact: |\n| 10 | Your Honor will remember in the Golden Spring |\n| 11 | context, that we showed that Golden Spring was funding Mr. |\n| 12 | Kwok's lifestyle and funding, specifically, his very |\n| 13 | sizeable legal bills, as well as the Sherry-Netherland |\n| 14 | maintenance and a lot of other expenses. |\n| 15 | Well, your Honor, I think if you will recall from |\n| 16 | our papers -- and Mr. Levine left this out -- we had |\n| 17 | demonstrated for you and Mr. Kwok's myriad legal counsel |\n| 18 | have confirmed, that it is now Lamp that is paying
Mr. |\n| 19 | Kwok's mounting legal fees. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
I've heard enough.
I've read the |\n| 21 | papers.
The motion to quash is denied. |\n| 22 | Let's go onto the next motion. |\n| 23 | MR. LEVINE:
Thank you.
One point of |\n| 24 | clarification. |\n| 25 | We also asked separate relief that any subpoenas to |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n85\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -Proceedings-DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 43 bank be withdrawn. Is that also denied? THE COURT: Yes, that is also denied. MR. LEVINE: Thank you, your Honor. I did not leave anything out, I just wanted to give Mr. Sarnoff his opportunity. If there's any other questions you have, I would appreciate you submitting them to me. Thank you. THE COURT: I don't have any questions on this motion, it is denied. MR. LEVINE: Thank you. THE COURT: Let's go to the next motion. MR. SIEGEL: Thank you. Again, John Siegel for Mr. Kwok from Baker & Hostetler. And with me in this case is Nicholas Rose, as well as ethics expert Roy Simon. We appreciate your Honor patience and diligence through this series of motions this afternoon. I will be addressing Mr. Kwok's motion to disqualify the Cahill firm. Nicole Hyland from Frankfurt Kurnit firm will address GTV motion which raises different issues and is a different motion. THE COURT: All right. MR. SIEGEL: I want to say at the outset to express our and our firm's respect for the Cahill firm. This is an important legal issue of attorney duties and\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n85\n\n-Proceedings-44 responsibilities, it raises novel issues. THE COURT: Let me ask you one question. MR. SIEGEL: Yes. THE COURT: Was Mr. Kwok ever a client of the Cahill Gordon firm; yes or no? MR. SIEGEL: He was an implied client with a fiduciary duty. He was not a directly engaged client. THE COURT: He never engaged Cahill? MR. SIEGEL: Correct. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. SIEGEL: Just to say, you know, we wish Mr. Moss well and Cahill, we respect the firm's desire to support their new partner. It is a rare thinking that someone joins that firm laterally and we wish them the best. We think they have taken an incorrect position on the facts here. So I want to start, your Honor, with the undisputed facts. And the undisputed facts established Cahill's fiduciary duty. It is indeed, as your Honor has asked, undisputed that Kwok personally did not directly engage Cahill Gordon; But the fiduciary duty that firm owed Mr. Kwok, and the substantial relationship between Cahill's confidential relationship with Mr. Kwok, in the government\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n\n45\n\n| 1 | investigations, and the Plaintiffs asset tracing and |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | judgment enforcement efforts in this case, are established |\n| 3 | by the following, all of which are undisputed in the record. |\n| 4 | First, a common interest agreement existed between |\n| 5 | Mr. Kwok and Cahill. |\n| 6 | MR. MOSS:
I apologize, Mr. Siegel, I want to make |\n| 7 | sure you're okay with me staying here.
I wanted to make |\n| 8 | sure that my
presence was known and that you're not going to |\n| 9 | be covering any that is confidential and you don't think I |\n| 10 | should be here as you start to get into the facts. |\n| 11 | MR. SIEGEL:
I think we're in an open court |\n| 12 | proceeding that we are going to be --that there are aspects |\n| 13 | of the record here that everybody sealed. |\n| 14 | My intention is not to directly address sealed |\n| 15 | material in open court.
I can't say I can control what I |\n| 16 | say and I think I know where that line is. |\n| 17 | If I think it is being approached, I'll so indicate |\n| 18 | and I'll give others to do so, I guess I will object.
I |\n| 19 | think the safer thing is if you're not in court, but I can't |\n| 20 | -- that is for you and your firm to decide. |\n| 21 | MR. SARNOFF:
I would also like to say that I am |\n| 22 | counsel for PAG and I'm on the video.
I have no intention |\n| 23 | of either being
prejudiced
by anything discussed here.
So I |\n| 24 | put
myself at the mercy of the Court and ask for guidance. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I don't have any problem with everyone |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n46\n\n| 1 | who is on this Teams call continue to be on the Teams call. |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | MR. SARNOFF:
Okay. |\n| 3 | MR. SIEGEL:
The common interest agreement between |\n| 4 | Kwok and Cahill, it is undisputed, including in Paragraph 5 |\n| 5 | of the affidavits submitted by the Cahill firm. |\n| 6 | It is undisputed that there was no provision in |\n| 7 | that Agreement, which was an oral agreement.
There was no |\n| 8 | warning or caution or condition imposed by Cahill as firms |\n| 9 | customarily do disclaiming a fiduciary relationship with Mr. |\n| 10 | Kwok, as a result of that common interest agreement in |\n| 11 | sharing the confidential information that was shared.
And |\n| 12 | Cahill never reserved the right to be adversed to Mr. Kwok |\n| 13 | in this or any other proceedings substantially related |\n| 14 | subsequently. |\n| 15 | So the existence of the common interest agreement |\n| 16 | and the fiduciary confidential relationship is undisputed. |\n| 17 | It is undisputed that in Cahill's communications |\n| 18 | with Mr. Kwok and his counsel, and his team, that all but |\n| 19 | one of those communications was very prominently labeled |\n| 20 | attorney-client communication, privileged and confidential |\n| 21 | attorney client, attorney work-product, common interest |\n| 22 | communication.
Those are not mer words, your Honor. |\n| 23 | That is not just some form rhetoric that lawyers |\n| 24 | put on e-mails.
I'll tell you I, myself, virtually never |\n| 25 | put that on, unless I know I'm dealing with a situation |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n25\n\n47\n\n-Proceedings-\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 where it may become an issue. My practice does not matter, Cahill did that. They promised Mr. Kwok, in all of their communications the essence of an attorneys's promise of confidentiality, that is pinnacle of the attorney's duty and why in law of society we invest attorneys with privileges, like attorney-client privilege, and that people bring\n\nattorneys within the confidence of their circle that they entrust them with confidential information, reasonably understanding that those attorneys are not going to turn around and use it against them.\n\nIt is undisputed that Cahill confirmed with Mr. Kwok's counsel concerning his decision to invoke the protection of the Fifth Amendment.\n\nCahill doesn't even address the fact that they had a common interest arrangement on sensitive government subpoenas and investigations with a person that consulted with them and that they were intermittently involved in the decision, his decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege. This is not an ordinary situation;\n\n21 22 23 24 This is at the height of the constitutional protection of a party's confidence and protection of those confidences and Cahill was on the confidential side of that circle.\n\n> DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER It is undisputed --and I will show that the SEC\n\n85\n\n48\n\n| 1 | subpoena to Mr. Kwok, not to GTV, the SEC subpoena to Mr. |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Kwok that Cahill participated in the response to, that |\n| 3 | Cahill vetted documents in response to, that Cahill advised |\n| 4 | on. |\n| 5 | The SEC subpoena and the subpoena served by the |\n| 6 | Plaintiff in this case called for a nearly universal-- a |\n| 7 | nearly coterminous identical universal of documents |\n| 8 | concerning assets held by or on behalf of Mr. Kwok. |\n| 9 | The SEC was seeking the exact same discovery that |\n| 10 | PAX is seeking here. |\n| 11 | Cahill advised confidentially on Mr. Kwok's |\n| 12 | response to that subpoena.
And Cahill is still in |\n| 13 | possession of those documents.
And they are the same |\n| 14 | documents that PAX is seeking and still seeking in this |\n| 15 | litigation. |\n| 16 | Cahill knew that that issue was common to both the |\n| 17 | SEC matter in this case.
Guy Petrillo, who represents Mr. |\n| 18 | Kwok in the government investigations, and who is the former |\n| 19 | Chief, U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of |\n| 20 | New York, tested in his affirmation that Brad Bondon |\n| 21 | (phonetic) stated to the Kwok Team quote \"our lawyers have |\n| 22 | been keeping the government from doing anything aggressive,\" |\n| 23 | close quote with regard to any SEC effort to seize Mr. Guo's |\n| 24 | purported assets.
That is Petrillo reply affidavit in |\n| 25 | Paragraph 2.
Not
me saying it, that is Guy Petrillo, a |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n49\n\n# -Proceedings-\n\nreliable lawyer who was intermittently involved working with Cahill on a day-to-day basis saying that Cahill told him they were aware that the SEC issues were the same issues in terms of asset tracing and asset enforcement that PAX is undertaking here, and that Cahill lawyers have been working on them.\n\nAnd it is undisputed, your Honor, that Cahill had and apparently still has unfettered access to Mr. Kwok's confidential information. The same information that the Plaintiff is seeking in this case. It is in a document portal to which Cahill had complete access.\n\nCahill devoted substantial time to reviewing and analyzing the encrypted confidential communications of Mr. Kwok. That is Mr. Petrillo's testimony at Paragraph 8.\n\nCahill analyzed Mr. Kwok's documents, not GTV's, Mr. Kwok's confidential documents and materials relating to other business entities that the Plaintiff in this case would likely deem relevant to its litigation efforts. And that fall within the scope of Mr. Kwok's Fifth Amendment invitation, that is Guy Petrillo's testimony, Paragraph 8.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER We just argued a motion touching on a range of entities and an allegation by the Plaintiff that Mr. Kwok owns or controls, or has a beneficial interest in a variety of entities. Some, numerous of those, are entities about which the SEC served a subpoena and Mr. Kwok provided\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n25\n\n50\n\n# -Proceedings-\n\n1 2 3 4 confidential information to Cahill regarding, and that he ultimately, with Cahill's participation, decided to invoke his Fifth Amendment privileges against any other disclosure regarding those entities.\n\nYour Honor, it is just not a situation in which the firm can then turn around and be adverse to Mr. Kwok, on the very same issues, involving the very same entities, in which the Plaintiff here that they would now be representing, seeking discovery on the very same documents and issues and information.\n\nTHE COURT: All right. I have heard enough. I'm going to give the Court Reporter ten minutes. You've been going for an hour and-a-half and then we will resume.\n\nMR. LEVINE: Thank you. When we resume, I would to like to, within the parameters to sealing, among other things, take the Court specifically through the overlap of the subpoenas, if I may when we return.\n\n18 19 THE COURT: I think I take your point there is an overlap.\n\n(Pausing.)\n\n(Recess taken.)\n\nTHE COURT: Okay.\n\n23 24 MR. SIEGAL: I would like to clarify one thing I said before the break.\n\n> DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER If I argued that, when I suggested that there were\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-20 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 52 of\n\n85\n\n51\n\n# -Proceedings-\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 entities discussed in the prior motion, that were entity subpoenaed by the SEC and by the Plaintiff here, I did not mean to state that all of the entities discussed in the prior motion are within that. I don't want to specify because it is sealed, but I don't want to overstate the case either. There are entities that have to be raised in this litigation that were subpoenaed by the SEC that PAX sought discovery on.\n\n9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 What happened was that the SEC subpoena sought documents sufficient to identify all assets held by or on behalf of Mr. Kwok. They sought documents sufficient to identify all current accounts held by or on behalf of Mr. Kwok and requested all documents concerning a list of specific entities; that is sealed. So I don't want to get into the specifics, but the Pacific Alliance document request pending in this case also seek documents relating to any assets of Mr. Kwok, or for any debtor related person; documents relating to any accounts of Mr. Kwok or any debtor related person; and they seek the documents regarding nearly all of the entities sought by the SEC. THE COURT: Mr. Siegel, I understand your position. Let me hear from GTV's counsel. MR. SIEGEL: May I discuss the case law or you want to defer that.\n\n> DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER THE COURT: I want to hear from GTV's counsel.\n\n52\n\n| 1 | MR. SIEGEL:
Certainly.
I don't want to take time. |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Let me just say this: |\n| 3 | Cahill makes a big deal about the fact there's no |\n| 4 | New York case directly on point regarding disqualification |\n| 5 | of a firm due to a fiduciary duty arising under a common |\n| 6 | interest agreement.
It is a unique set of facts. |\n| 7 | Let me suggest one reason there's no such case law |\n| 8 | is because this is not something that firms do. |\n| 9 | You don't sit, confidentially, with a common |\n| 10 | interest party and all their documents advising them on |\n| 11 | sensitive matters and turn around and six months later and |\n| 12 | appear against them. |\n| 13 | There's no New York rule.
But the majority rule |\n| 14 | across the country favors disqualification. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Mr. Siegel, I've practiced law for |\n| 16 | 45 years.
I want to hear from GTV's counsel. |\n| 17 | MR. SIEGEL:
Okay.
I hear you.
It is your turn. |\n| 18 | MS. HYLAND:
Can you hear me okay? |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 20 | MS. HYLAND:
My name is Nicole Hyland and I am with |\n| 21 | the firm Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz and we represent GTV |\n| 22 | Media in connection with its motion to intervene in this |\n| 23 | action for the purpose of disqualifying its former lawyer |\n| 24 | Cahill Gordon & Randall. |\n| 25 | We are, obviously, in a slightly different position |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n53\n\n# -Proceedings-\n\n85\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER from Mr. Kwok. We are the former clients of the Cahill firm. GTV was represented by Cahill. And, in fact, paid them approximately a million dollars in legal fees for that representation. And, so, we very easily meet that first element of establishing there's a attorney-client relationship here. So I'm going to move very quickly onto the second and third element of disqualification. The second element being that we would show and we are able to show that either the two follow things exists: Either Cahill possesses confidential information, it could be used either to the advantage of PAX or the disadvantage of GTV, or --not and --you don't have to have both --or that the two matters substantially related. Only one of those prongs has to be fulfilled to warrant disqualification. Here, in fact, both prongs are satisfied. And then the third element that I am going to get to at the end is the adversity element, that the two matters, the two representations are adverse. So, first, moving to the confidentiality issue, the substantial relationship issue. In the course of representing GTV, Cahill came into the possession of reams of confidential information relating to GTV's financials, assets, corporate structure and more. We layout in our motion papers descriptions --general\n\n85\n\n54\n\n# -Proceedings-\n\n| 1 | descriptions without going into detail and disclosing the |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | very confidential information GTV is trying to protect.
In |\n| 3 | broad terms we layout categories of information that really |\n| 4 | demonstrate the relevance of those documents to the judgment |\n| 5 | enforcement efforts of PAX that they have been conducting |\n| 6 | all along in this case. |\n| 7 | I know that PAX has -- can you still hear me? |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Yes -- |\n| 9 | MS. HYLAND:
I know that PAX has indicated --I |\n| 10 | understand two PAX's argument in response of this are that |\n| 11 | A, there's a screen and B, there's stipulation.
I'm going |\n| 12 | to get to those and address those. |\n| 13 | So, no question though that this confidential |\n| 14 | information is information that PAX has sought in discovery |\n| 15 | in this matter.
It is identified GTV as debtor related |\n| 16 | entity.
We have referenced two examples of just two |\n| 17 | subpoenas.
They have served multiple subpoenas which attach |\n| 18 | the schedule of so called debtor related entities, or I |\n| 19 | would say 80 to 100 people entities on that list that they |\n| 20 | have served subpoenas on various entities seeking |\n| 21 | information and GTV is one of those debtor related entities, |\n| 22 | according to PAX; |\n| 23 | Not only is this confidential information at risk, |\n| 24 | but, in addition, Cahill actually did represent GTV in |\n| 25 | connection with the very issue that came up in connection |\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n\n55\n\n| 1 | with this action. |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | The one that I first got involved in, which was |\n| 3 | that disclosure, which we still don't know how it got out of |\n| 4 | the very sensitive banking and financial information that |\n| 5 | ended up that one of PAX's document subpoenas. |\n| 6 | I have --if your Honor reviews my affirmation.
I |\n| 7 | had a lengthy conversation with partners of Cahill, Mr. |\n| 8 | Bondi and Mr. Bossin, about that incident while they were |\n| 9 | still representing GTV and the commencement of my |\n| 10 | representation, to handle that specific discrete issues; |\n| 11 | We had a long conversation.
We talked about all |\n| 12 | aspects of this case, about document requests, of how that |\n| 13 | information got out.
They informed me that they believe |\n| 14 | there were only one possible source for that information and |\n| 15 | that was a schedule that they had in their possession that |\n| 16 | was submitted to the SEC. |\n| 17 | They gave us advice on what they thought we should |\n| 18 | do.
I shared with them extensive information about our |\n| 19 | strategy. |\n| 20 | There's no question that we were jointing advising |\n| 21 | GTV with respect to that issue at that time. |\n| 22 | So, the substantial relationship test is also met |\n| 23 | here. |\n| 24 | Now, disqualification is warranted when either of |\n| 25 | those prongs are met, either there's confidential |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n1\n\n25\n\n56\n\n85\n\n-Proceedings-\n\ninformation that the lawyers have, could be used against\n\n2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 former client or to the advantage of the current client, or there is a substantial relationship between the two matters, as there is here. Now Cahill implicitly concedes there's a conflict here. They establish this so called ethical wall. Extensively to screen this extensive amount of confidential information from Mr. Moss and his team. Now, the problem with that is that New York rules do not permit what we call nonconsensual screening. What Cahill should have done is come to GTV, reach out to us, or reach out directly to GTV and take on newly represented GTV, and explain that there was conflict and ask us, or GTV, if GTV would waive it, or if they would waive it at least with some type of a screen. They never did that. They never notified GTV of this conflict, they never notified GTV of any intent to put up any screen and they just went ahead and did it without any input from GTV and without even the courtesy of reaching out to their former client. That is not the rule permits. The rule only permits a screen to be used to cure this type of conflict when the client consents to it. And GTV has never consented to it, does not consent to it, not was asked to consent to\n\nit. That is not an effective way to cure this conflict.\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER\n\n57\n\n| 1 | Beyond the fact that it simply-- a screen simply |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | does not apply and appropriate here to cure the conflict, it |\n| 3 | is also a deficient screen.
It wasn't erected until two |\n| 4 | weeks after Mr. Moss joined Cahill.
It is a very late |\n| 5 | screen. |\n| 6 | Screens are, if they're appropriate at all, they |\n| 7 | have to be established at the inception of the |\n| 8 | representation.
When Cahill first started representing PAX |\n| 9 | in this case, that is when you set up a screen.
Even |\n| 10 | assuming a screen would have been appropriate. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I understand your argument. |\n| 12 | I'm granting your
motion to intervene to a limited |\n| 13 | purpose of seeking the disqualification of Cahill Gordon. |\n| 14 | I'll hear counsel for Cahill Gordon. |\n| 15 | MR. MOSS:
Thank you, your Honor.
Edward Moss. |\n| 16 | I'll be handling this. |\n| 17 | Your Honor, as you know Mr. Kwok and GTV have what |\n| 18 | the First Department called heavy burden to overcome PAX's |\n| 19 | right to be represented by Counsel of his choice. |\n| 20 | It is a three prong test they have to meet to |\n| 21 | establish a rebuttable pry assumes rebuttable for |\n| 22 | disqualification. |\n| 23 | First requirement we talked about is a prior |\n| 24 | attorney-client relationship.
Mr. Kwok can't meet it.
We |\n| 25 | all agree he was never Cahill's client. |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n58\n\n# -Proceedings-\n\n| 1 | So Kwok argues that he had a de facto |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | attorney-client relationship with Cahill because there was |\n| 3 | joint defense group.
Cahill represented GTV.
And Kwok |\n| 4 | shared certain information with Cahill. |\n| 5 | The problem which was alluded to before, is that |\n| 6 | there's no basis in New York Law for disqualification under |\n| 7 | this type of joint defense argument. |\n| 8 | Professor Simon, who your Honor has recognized, is |\n| 9 | perhaps the leading expert in this field.
His 2000 Ph |\n| 10 | treatise doesn't have anything to support this in New York |\n| 11 | Law under this type of a setting. |\n| 12 | The best Professor Simon can say, that is in |\n| 13 | Paragraph 45 of his opening report, is that Courts rule on |\n| 14 | disqualification motions, in this context, on a case by case |\n| 15 | basis.
That is the best he can do here. |\n| 16 | But what Professor Simon doesn't say, is that no |\n| 17 | New York case ever disqualified a lawyer in this context. |\n| 18 | Mr. Kwok cites cases it can be done, but they don't |\n| 19 | do it.
Their key case they focused on is the William versus |\n| 20 | Abraham Construction Corporation case, cited at Page 11 of |\n| 21 | Mr. Kwok's opening brief.
It is a Fifth Circuit case from |\n| 22 | 1977.
It is obviously not binding on your Honor. |\n| 23 | Mr. Kwok and Professor Simon talk about the case |\n| 24 | being seminal.
What they don't mention is the key fact that |\n| 25 | makes it entirely different from the case here, your Honor. |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n85\n\n59\n\n| 1 | They are the same lawyer switch sides.
It is would be like |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | Mr. Bondi the Cahill lawyer who represented GTV coming into |\n| 3 | this case to represent PAX.
I don't know what Mr. Bondi |\n| 4 | learned.
Whatever he learned, I agree, he could not unlearn |\n| 5 | it.
There would be no possibility in the screen. |\n| 6 | Here, as we discussed, there's a screen.
Everyone |\n| 7 | has put in affidavits saying that I, and my only one team |\n| 8 | member, this is not a far reaching out-- my one team member, |\n| 9 | we don't have any confidential information and never |\n| 10 | discussed this case. |\n| 11 | So the lack of an attorney-client relationship with |\n| 12 | Mr. Kwok is dispositive.
That is why they have GTV in here. |\n| 13 | We do agree GTV was a Cahill client. |\n| 14 | GTV, however, can't meet the other prongs.
Let's |\n| | |\n| 15 | go through those. |\n| 16 | Substantial relationship.
It is that Cahill's |\n| 17 | prior representation of GTV and its current representation |\n| 18 | of PAX must
be substantially related and the First |\n| 19 | Department has said that means the issues might
be identical |\n| 20 | to or, essentially, the same as those in the prior case. |\n| 21 | On their face these matters have nothing to do with |\n| 22 | each other.
The government investigation was about GTV and |\n| 23 | Mr. Kwok allegedly committing some sort of investor fraud. |\n| 24 | This is a breach of contract case against only Mr. |\n| 25 | Kwok.
DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n60\n\n# -Proceedings-\n\n85\n\n| GTV also makes the argument that that special |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| proceeding somehow is substantially related.
Well, that was |\n| a proceeding about the information league.
You remember, |\n| that didn't turn out to be information league.
It was |\n| information that was available on the Internet. |\n\nAnd when GTV argued before you, your Honor, on that very proceeding, because they were trying to keep the case away from you. They said the cases weren't related. They said the cases have nothing to do with each other because they involved different facts, different claims, and different parts.\n\nIn any event, your Honor, Cahill did not represent GTV in the special proceeding. You know, I was arguing against Ms. Hyland in the special proceeding.\n\nSo, because they can't meet substantial relationship, they move to sort of another way that we agree, another way to meet this prong, is by arguing that the material is --the information is material and necessary to the collection efforts in this case. And it is not, your Honor.\n\n21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER In order for information about GTV --and that is the only specific information that I've heard about in any of these papers --it is GTV related information. Mr. Siegel said well, there may be information about some other entities that may be relevant at some point. We're talking\n\n61\n\n85\n\n| 1 | about GTV.
That, to my understanding, is what they have |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | identified -- |\n| 3 | MR. SIEGEL:
--I need to make clear -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Don't interrupt Mr. Siegel -- |\n| 5 | MR. SIEGEL:
--that I did not mention other items |\n| 6 | because they're sealed. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Don't interrupt. |\n| 8 | MR. MOSS:
In order for the information to be |\n| 9 | material and necessary PAX must
be trying to enforce against |\n| 10 | GTV.
Mr. Kwok and GTV double down on that argument.
They |\n| 11 | say that is happening here, Judge, right. |\n| 12 | Page 15 of his opening brief, Mr. Kwok says quite |\n| 13 | incredibly the government investigations and the PAX action |\n| 14 | both center on Kwok's purported relationship with GTV. |\n| 15 | They say our case centers on the relationship with |\n| 16 | GTV. |\n| 17 | GTV says quote \"PAX is laying the groundwork to |\n| 18 | enforce the judgment or take other affirmative actions |\n| 19 | against GTV and is targeting --targeting GTV's assets for |\n| 20 | judgment collection under an alterego theory.\" |\n| 21 | The problem with the argument, your Honor, is that |\n| 22 | it doesn't have a basis in reality.
Because if PAX were |\n| 23 | pursuing GTV, PAX would be
pursuing GTV.
We know what that |\n| 24 | looks like.
We're pursuing the yacht and we just spent an |\n| 25 | hour on the yacht and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n62\n\n-Proceedings-\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER the yacht. We're pursuing the apartment and we have a vail piercing trial coming up at some point on the apartment. And your Honor said I've been talking about the yacht and the apartment for years. Mr. Siegel did not say Cahill has information about those assets, about those assets. That is what this case is about and has been about for the last year. And, importantly, your Honor, PAX has not pursued GTV. Even though it had a really good opportunity to do so. The special proceeding Ms. Hyland is talking about - remember, we had information about bank accounts. We thought they were Mr. Kwok's. We asked Mr. Kwok about them. Then GTV came on and said actually, no they are my bank accounts, they belong to GTV not Mr. Kwok. We had one special proceeding, still had the information, and never ever ever did anything with it, your Honor, ever. PAX has never pursued GTV. And it is stipulating in an agreed order that we put in front of the Court that it will not pursue GTV. We take orders of the Court seriously on our side, your Honor. And we are willing to put this into a Court Order. I'm going to add that GTV made statements that we\n\n63\n\n# -Proceedings-\n\n| 1 | are targeting it, and that we are pursuing its assets and |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2 | laying the ground work after we put in our stipulation that |\n| 3 | said we're not doing that precise thing.
They read our |\n| 4 | brief and said it anyway. |\n| 5 | The third prong is material adversity.
There has |\n| 6 | to be adversity between GTV and PAX.
For the reasons I just |\n| 7 | covered, Judge, there isn't. |\n| 8 | In terms of the rebuttable presumption, even if Mr. |\n| 9 | Kwok could satisfied these elements or GTV could satisfy |\n| 10 | these elements, we can rebut the presumption with a screen. |\n| 11 | We have five affidavits from officers of the Court |\n| 12 | saying that me, Ms. Rydell, the only two members of the team |\n| 13 | never received GTV confidential information, we don't plan |\n| 14 | to. |\n| 15 | Everyone agrees Professor Simon does not rebut |\n| 16 | this.
And he actually wrote an article on this.
Everyone |\n| 17 | agrees a screen can suffice under certain circumstances. |\n| 18 | He wrote an article in 2002 asking if screens can |\n| 19 | cure ethical conflicts in New York.
He admitted that the |\n| 20 | Court of Appeals implied the presumption can be rebutted. |\n| 21 | We have a large firm and ethical wall.
They don't touch |\n| 22 | that issue on reply after we cite the article. |\n| 23 | You have the affidavits here.
And here you have |\n| 24 | the added safeguard that in December of 2020 there was |\n| 25 | actually an information wall put in place, where everyone at |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER |\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n25\n\n85\n\n64\n\n# -Proceedings-\n\n1 2 3 4 5 Cahill who was working on GTV, they were the only people who had access to the GTV information. Nobody did. That screen was in place a year before I got there. If I joined Cahill a year earlier I wouldn't even have been able to access GTV's information, if I wanted to.\n\nFinally, your Honor, on the balance of the equities. PAX has a strong right to counsel of its choice. It is a five year old case. I've been doing this for a long-time, I have a lot of institutional knowledge. Things come up like an evidentiary hearing in two weeks time --in two weeks time that PAX needs to prepare for.\n\n12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 On the other side of the coin, your Honor, there's no legitimate interest. It is gamesmanship. I've said it before I'll say it again the Mayors (phonetic) case, First Department, cited on Page 20 of our opposition says gamesmanship is not legit interest. We know it is gamesmanship based on the history of the actors in this case. We know it is gamesmanship because we are still here talking about this, even though we have sworn that we have no confidential information and that even if anything had, PAX will agree in a Court Order to not go after GTV. Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I'll hear the movement five minutes each to respond.\n\n> DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER I want to address a few points raised by Mr. Moss.\n\n85\n\n65\n\n| 1 | First of all, this idea that PAX wasn't targeting | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | GTV for judgment enforcement is belied by PAX's own | | | | | |\n| 3 | documents.
All of the subpoena attached as debtor-related | | | | | |\n| 4 | entity lists and GTV is right on the list. | | | | | |\n| 5 | I would also add when I -- when we became involved | | | | | |\n| 6 | in that special proceeding, I had multiple conversations | | | | | |\n| 7 | with Mr. Moss about the leak of that confidential | | | | | |\n| 8 | information and how it got into PAX's hands and never once | | | | | |\n| 9 | did Mr. Moss ever assure me that PAX was not going after | | | | | |\n| 10 | GTV.
He said the opposite.
He said -- | | | | | |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Counsel, he's stipulating that PAX will | | | | | |\n| 12 | take no action against GTV. | | | | | |\n| 13 | MS. HYLAND:
Thank you. | | | | | |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
There's a stipulation on the Court | | | | | |\n| 15 | record that PAX will not pursue GTV in any way, shape, or | | | | | |\n| 16 | form either with respect to discovery or with respect to | | | | | |\n| 17 | enforcement.
That is correct, Mr. Moss? | | | | | |\n| 18 | MS. HYLAND:
I don't agree with characterization. | | | | | |\n| 19 | MR. MOSS:
Yes, your Honor, that's correct. | | | | | |\n| 20 | MS. HYLAND:
Can I address that? | | | | | |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Yes. | | | | | |\n| 22 | MS. HYLAND:
What I disagree with in that | | | | | |\n| 23 | characterization in any way, shape, or form.
Because they | | | | | |\n| 24 | have --PAX has left itself a huge out from that stipulation | | | | | |\n| 25 | by saying, if they ever determine that indirectly or | | | | | |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER | | | | | |\n\n66\n\n| 1 | directly Kwok has, in their view, transferred assets | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | directly or indirect to GTV, they can then drag GTV into | | | | | |\n| 3 | court. | | | | | |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Let's clarify something.
Okay.
I want | | | | | |\n| 5 | to be clear. | | | | | |\n| 6 | I have the highest regard for Mr. Moss, I have the | | | | | |\n| 7 | highest regard for his advocacy and his integrity. | | | | | |\n| 8 | I'm understanding Mr. Moss to be stipulating on | | | | | |\n| 9 | behalf of PAX that there are no circumstances under which | | | | | |\n| 10 | PAX will take any action whatsoever with respect to GTV | | | | | |\n| 11 | irrespective of whether PAX believes that Mr. Kwok is | | | | | |\n| 12 | misusing GTV, or has assets with GTV, or is acting in | | | | | |\n| 13 | concert with GTV.
I want to be clear about this, Mr. Moss. | | | | | |\n| 14 | MR. MOSS:
Yes, let me
be clear. | | | | | |\n| 15 | The stipulation is that we will not take any action | | | | | |\n| 16 | against GTV.
There is a carveout that we put in.
The | | | | | |\n| 17 | carveout is after today, if Mr. Kwok, to take advantage of | | | | | |\n| 18 | our stipulation transfers assets to GTV to try to hide them, | | | | | |\n| 19 | and we have information based on that, we have to come to | | | | | |\n| 20 | the Court and ask for permission to go after him.
If the | | | | | |\n| 21 | Court doesn't want to decides that issue we'll go to an | | | | | |\n| 22 | arbitrator and we will live with that decision, it will not | | | | | |\n| 23 | be in our discretion.
I cannot agree to something where | | | | | |\n| 24 | tomorrow Mr. Kwok says, let me
pledge every asset that I | | | | | |\n| 25 | have to GTV now that PAX has made this stipulation. | | | | | |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER | | | | | |\n\n1\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n67\n\n-Proceedings-\n\nMR. SARNOFF: One more clarification.\n\nCahill would not be involved in any aspect of that proceeding.\n\nIf Mr. Kwok, to take advantage of this situation, were to transfer, thereafter, and, you know, it would have to be extraordinary circumstances and the Court would find that, Cahill would be walled off entirely and O'Melveny alone would pursue that. I think that is the way the stipulate is intended to be prepared. If I am mistaken, please correct me.\n\nMR. MOSS: That is correct.\n\nTHE COURT: I want to be very clear Mr. Moss.\n\n13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I'm mildly concerned that my high regard and respect for you is -- my judgment about this -- you are about as close to the line as you could possibly be with respect to this issue. So, insofar as this stipulation is concerned, from my perspective, the disposition of the motion depends on you having nothing whatsoever to do with GTV in any way, shape, or form; including collaborating with O'Melveny, including discussions with third parties, including any court filings, including sharing any information; zip, zero, nada.\n\n23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER MR. MOSS: I understand that, your Honor. I don't even anticipate that O'Melveny will need to be involved with GTV. I personally will not be. I'm saying that right here\n\n85\n\n68\n\n| 1 | absolutely 100 percent, your Honor, nothing to do with them. | | | | | | |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | THE COURT:
All right.
I interrupted counsel. | | | | | | |\n| 3 | MS. HYLAND:
The concern that we have is not fully | | | | | | |\n| 4 | resolved by the stipulation even with that Mr. Moss' | | | | | | |\n| 5 | statement because there's two concerns here. | | | | | | |\n| 6 | One is that there are 25, 26 lawyers at Cahill in | | | | | | |\n| 7 | the New York office that have access to all of this | | | | | | |\n| 8 | extensive information.
In this very proceeding where Cahill | | | | | | |\n| 9 | was defending itself from a disqualification motion, it | | | | | | |\n| 10 | filed publicly on the Court System incorrectly confidential | | | | | | |\n| 11 | information without even checking the correct box for | | | | | | |\n| 12 | sealing.
Information could be disclosed inadvertently by | | | | | | |\n| 13 | mistakes.
And that is very possible and very likely to | | | | | | |\n| 14 | happen in an office where 25 attorneys or 26 lawyers have | | | | | | |\n| 15 | access to that information.
And that is exactly why the | | | | | | |\n| 16 | rule doesn't permit screening to cure this conflict. | | | | | | |\n| 17 | GTV is the client who is -- who needs to be | | | | | | |\n| 18 | protected here and they shouldn't have to rely on, you know, | | | | | | |\n| 19 | Cahill being
perfectly able to execute this process
because | | | | | | |\n| 20 | they have not done so so far. | | | | | | |\n| 21 | It is not fair to require GTV to rely on all of | | | | | | |\n| 22 | these assurances.
They have no way of testing them or | | | | | | |\n| 23 | making sure that these are being handled correctly.
And | | | | | | |\n| 24 | everything that we have seen so far points to the opposite. | | | | | | |\n| 25 | That is why the stipulation is inappropriate.
Because it is | | | | | | |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER | | | | | | |\n\n69\n\n| 1 | not a contract waiver from a client.
It is stipulation | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | between PAX's two lawyers that they're agreeing to | | | | | | |\n| 3 | something.
It is not a conflict waiver that would be | | | | | | |\n| 4 | necessary to waive this. | | | | | | |\n| 5 | In our view, on behalf of GTV, we don't believe the | | | | | | |\n| 6 | stipulation or screen cures this conflict and | | | | | | |\n| 7 | disqualification is required. | | | | | | |\n| 8 | MR. MOSS:
If I may in people can make
mistakes. | | | | | | |\n| 9 | There's a difference between
making
mistakes | | | | | | |\n| 10 | internally, when you have screens set up in place and when | | | | | | |\n| 11 | you're required to actually file information pubically on a | | | | | | |\n| 12 | Docket System and have sealing.
We -- the mistake happened, | | | | | | |\n| 13 | nobody saw the information and the mistake happened because | | | | | | |\n| 14 | we were in the position of having to make this filing in | | | | | | |\n| 15 | response to the motion.
Mistakes are not happening | | | | | | |\n| 16 | internally. | | | | | | |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Look, Mr. Moss, I really do have utmost | | | | | | |\n| 18 | respect for you as an advocate and the utmost respect for | | | | | | |\n| 19 | you in terms of your integrity; and I recognize and accept | | | | | | |\n| 20 | that it is prejudicial to PAX for PAX to be deprived of your | | | | | | |\n| 21 | extensive experience and knowledge about the issues in this | | | | | | |\n| 22 | case.
But I just think that, in the long run, it is in the | | | | | | |\n| 23 | interest of judicial economy, certainty, and appearance of | | | | | | |\n| 24 | propriety, for Cahill to be not involved in the further | | | | | | |\n| 25 | prosecution of this case; I say that with regret.
But this | | | | | | |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER | | | | | | |\n\n70\n\n| | -Proceedings | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | may in fact be tactical, but there are just a couple of red | | | | | |\n| 2 | flags here.
And the worse thing that can happen in this | | | | | |\n| 3 | case would be for the case to be
prosecuted for another year | | | | | |\n| 4 | and then for GTV and/or Mr. Kwok to successfully argue that | | | | | |\n| 5 | Cahill should have been disqualified.
And, so, I | | | | | |\n| 6 | reluctantly come to that conclusion and I'm going to grant | | | | | |\n| 7 | GTV TV's motion. | | | | | |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Anything else before the Court today? | | | | | |\n| 9 | MS. HYLAND:
No, your Honor. | | | | | |\n| 10 | MR. SIEGEL:
No, your Honor I think that is more | | | | | |\n| 11 | than enough. | | | | | |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
All right.
We'll issue an order | | | | | |\n| 13 | MEMORALIZING everything that took place during the preceding | | | | | |\n| 14 | two hours.
There's a lot of gamesmanship in this case, | | | | | |\n| 15 | which I don't appreciate.
But one way or the another we're | | | | | |\n| 16 | going to search for the truth and resolve this case. | | | | | |\n| 17 | MR. MOSS:
I do have one thing.
I just wanted to | | | | | |\n| 18 | thank the Court for its kind words.
And to say that it has | | | | | |\n| 19 | been a privileged to be
before the Court so many times. | | | | | |\n| 20 | Thank you. | | | | | |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Thank you, Mr. Moss.
You're an | | | | | |\n| 22 | exceptional advocate, among the very best I've ever seen | | | | | |\n| 23 | both in private
practice and on the bench.
And it is with | | | | | |\n| 24 | deep frustration that I'm issuing the order that I've just | | | | | |\n| 25 | described. | | | | | |\n| | DEBORAH
A.
ROTHROCK
-
OFFICIAL
COURT
REPORTER | | | | | |\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -Proceedings-DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 71 Be well, stay safe. I'll see some of you on February 7th. You could order the transcript. THE COURT: (Whereupon, the proceedings concluded.) \\* \\* \\* It is hereby certified that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of the proceedings. \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_ DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK, RPR Official Court Reporter REMOTE SO ORDERED January 25, 2022\n\n1\n\n85\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-20 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 73 of\n\n| \\$ | 4 | accommodations [1] | 55:20 | 49:19, 50:3 |\n|------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|\n| | | - 37:12 | advocacy [1] - 66:7 | amount [3] - 36:12, |\n| \\$500 [1] - 12:13 | 4 [1] - 27:11 | according [1] - 54:22 | advocate [2] - 69:18, | 38:1, 56:7 |\n| \\$500,000 [1] - 26:13 | 40's [1] - 7:24 | account [1] - 38:24 | 70:22 | analysis [2] - 39:20, |\n| | 45 [3] - 2:6, 52:16, | accounting [1] - 37:17 | affiants [1] - 34:7 | 41:12 |\n| 1 | 58:13 | accounts [6] - 7:15, | Affidavit [1] - 38:22 | analyzed [1] - 49:15 |\n| | 485 [1] - 2:2 | 38:23, 51:12, 51:18, | affidavit [9] - 12:24, | analyzing [1] - 49:13 |\n| 10 [2] - 18:17, 41:11
100 [3] - 6:5, 54:19, | 4:15 [1] - 6:15 | 62:12, 62:15 | 16:24, 23:18, 27:17, | and-a-half [1] - 50:13 |\n| 68:1 | 4th [1] - 5:5 | accuracy [1] - 16:18 | 31:12, 32:24, 33:5, | answer [3] - 14:25, |\n| 10005 [2] - 1:21, 2:11 | | accurate [1] - 71:8
acquires [1] - 6:6 | 40:15, 48:24
affidavits [14] - 9:14, | 16:16, 40:18
anticipate [2] - 14:6, |\n| 10017 [1] - 2:3 | 5 | acting [1] - 66:12 | 13:12, 31:13, 33:11, | 67:24 |\n| 10036 [1] - 1:18 | 5 [1] - 46:4 | action [7] - 30:11, | 33:12, 33:13, 33:23, | anyway [2] - 10:22, |\n| 10111 [1] - 2:6 | 50 [1] - 6:15 | 52:23, 55:1, 61:13, | 34:5, 34:7, 35:24, | 63:4 |\n| 10th [2] - 10:3, 29:21 | 5223 [1] - 41:21 | 65:12, 66:10, 66:15 | 46:5, 59:7, 63:11, | apartment [5] - 5:18, |\n| 11 [2] - 19:1, 58:20 | 5225 [8] - 8:13, 12:17, | actions [1] - 61:18 | 63:23 | 5:23, 62:2, 62:3, |\n| 12 [1] - 18:14 | 17:12, 17:14, 25:12, | actors [1] - 64:17 | affiliated [1] - 39:24 | 62:5 |\n| 13 [1] - 21:7 | 25:21, 26:9, 28:18 | actual [1] - 40:17 | affirmation [4] - 18:2, | apologize [1] - 45:6 |\n| 14 [2] - 1:11, 21:8 | | add [2] - 62:25, 65:5 | 18:10, 48:20, 55:6 | apparent [1] - 21:14 |\n| 15 [1] - 61:12 | 6 | added [1] - 63:24 | affirmed [2] - 4:19, | Appeals [1] - 63:20 |\n| 17 [1] - 6:15 | 6 [2] - 38:25, 41:24 | addition [1] - 54:24 | 28:17 | appeals [1] - 25:5 |\n| 1977 [1] - 58:22 | 61 [1] - 1:1 | additional [1] - 28:21 | affirming [1] - 13:6 | appear [4] - 22:22, |\n| | 652077/2017 [1] - 1:10 | address [11] - 6:4, | afternoon [4] - 15:8,
25:10, 35:4, 43:16 | 22:24, 33:7, 52:12 |\n| 2 | | 15:14, 17:24, 23:24, | aggressive [1] - 48:22 | appearance [1] -
69:23 |\n| 2 [2] - 18:24, 48:25 | 7 | 29:14, 43:20, 45:14,
47:15, 54:12, 64:25, | ago [1] - 11:9 | Appellate [10] - 12:5, |\n| 20 [2] - 16:1, 64:15 | | 65:20 | agree [7] - 57:25, | 15:15, 16:22, 17:3, |\n| 20-something [1] - 6:1 | 7 [2] - 1:17, 39:6 | addressed [1] - 16:20 | 59:4, 59:13, 60:17, | 24:16, 25:1, 25:6, |\n| 2000 [1] - 58:9 | 710 [1] - 6:14 | addressing [1] - 43:17 | 64:21, 65:18, 66:23 | 25:24, 28:16 |\n| 2002 [1] - 63:18 | 750 [1] - 38:25 | adduce [2] - 15:20, | agreed [2] - 37:2, | applicable [1] - 8:15 |\n| 2006 [2] - 5:9, 5:13 | 753 [2] - 25:17, 25:20
753(a)(3 [1] - 17:7 | 18:1 | 62:20 | application [1] - 20:9 |\n| 2007 [1] - 13:14 | 764 [1] - 38:25 | adjourned [2] - 30:13, | agreeing [1] - 69:2 | applied [1] - 39:21 |\n| 2014 [3] - 5:13, 6:16, | 7th [2] - 30:9, 71:2 | 30:14 | agreement [8] - 12:23, | applies [2] - 33:2, |\n| 18:19 | | adjust [1] - 30:6 | 36:8, 45:4, 46:3, | 41:13 |\n| 2015 [5] - 5:17, 8:24,
12:10, 18:13, 18:15 | 8 | admissibility [1] - | 46:7, 46:10, 46:15, | apply [6] - 16:21, |\n| 2016 [1] - 38:21 | | 16:17 | 52:6
Agreement [2] - | 17:15, 24:15, 28:19, |\n| 2017 [2] - 6:15, 7:20 | 8 [2] - 49:14, 49:20 | admissible [2] - 9:9, | 13:14, 46:7 | 28:22, 57:2
applying [1] - 17:19 |\n| 2020 [7] - 7:1, 9:18, | 80 [1] - 54:19 | 18:21
admission [2] - 9:20, | agrees [2] - 63:15, | appreciate [6] - 16:15, |\n| 19:9, 21:22, 27:9, | | 19:17 | 63:17 | 24:22, 25:7, 43:7, |\n| 41:23, 63:24 | 9 | admissions [1] - 9:22 | ahead [2] - 44:10, | 43:15, 70:15 |\n| 2021 [1] - 41:23 | 908 [1] - 36:5 | admits [1] - 14:13 | 56:18 | approach [1] - 37:9 |\n| 2022 [1] - 1:11 | | admitted [3] - 18:10, | Aiao [2] - 18:16, 18:22 | approached [1] - |\n| 20th [1] - 27:9 | A | 31:11, 63:19 | AIAO [1] - 18:17 | 45:17 |\n| 25 [2] - 68:6, 68:14 | | adult [2] - 20:19, 24:4 | allegation [3] - 19:1, | appropriate [8] - 5:1, |\n| 26 [2] - 68:6, 68:14 | a/k/a [7] - 1:6, 1:6, 1:7, | advance [3] - 23:6, | 19:3, 49:22 | 14:24, 15:18, 27:2, |\n| 27th [2] - 37:25, 39:6 | 1:7 | 33:20, 33:21 | allegedly [2] - 4:16, | 38:21, 57:2, 57:6, |\n| 28 [1] - 2:10
2nd [6] - 30:8, 30:24, | abide [1] - 14:7 | advanced [1] - 31:21 | 59:23
ALLIANCE [1] - 1:2 | 57:10 |\n| 31:2, 31:3, 31:8, | ability [1] - 17:21 | advantage [4] - 53:12, | Alliance [5] - 3:8, | arbitrator [1] - 66:22
argue [2] - 41:14, 70:4 |\n| 32:23 | able [4] - 32:8, 53:10,
64:4, 68:19 | 56:2, 66:17, 67:4 | 3:20, 4:2, 21:4, | argued [9] - 17:11, |\n| | Abraham [1] - 58:20 | adverse [5] - 10:5,
31:17, 32:8, 50:6, | 51:15 | 17:15, 28:18, 38:3, |\n| 3 | absolutely [2] - 10:24, | 53:19 | allow [1] - 11:12 | 38:19, 39:2, 49:21, |\n| | 68:1 | adversed [1] - 46:12 | alluded [1] - 58:5 | 50:25, 60:6 |\n| 32 [1] - 1:20 | accept [1] - 69:19 | adversity [3] - 53:18, | alone [2] - 18:3, 67:8 | argues [1] - 58:1 |\n| 36 [1] - 39:1 | access [6] - 49:8, | 63:5, 63:6 | alterego [2] - 36:22, | arguing [5] - 38:14, |\n| 3rd [2] - 30:18 | 49:11, 64:2, 64:4, | advice [1] - 55:17 | 61:20 | 38:16, 40:25, 60:13, |\n| | 68:7, 68:15 | advised [3] - 18:22, | Amendment [8] - | 60:17 |\n| | accommodate [1] - | 48:3, 48:11 | 26:25, 32:7, 32:20, | argument [13] - 3:23, |\n| | 30:6 | advising [2] - 52:10, | 32:21, 47:14, 47:19, | 9:3, 10:7, 16:23, |\n| | | dar | | |\n\n2\n\n| 22:3, 39:3, 41:4, | Attorneys [5] - 1:19, | 58:12, 58:15, 70:22 | | 46:8 |\n|----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|\n| 54:10, 57:11, 58:7, | 1:22, 2:4, 2:8, 2:13 | between [12] - 5:13, | C | center [1] - 61:14 |\n| 60:1, 61:10, 61:21 | attorneys [4] - 47:6, | 24:2, 38:9, 41:2, | Cahill [61] - 3:8, 3:22, | centers [1] - 61:15 |\n| arguments [3] - 8:4, | 47:8, 47:10, 68:14 | 41:23, 44:24, 45:4, | 43:18, 43:24, 44:5, | certain [5] - 23:1, |\n| 17:25, 39:7 | attorneys's [1] - 47:4 | 46:3, 56:3, 63:6, | 44:8, 44:12, 44:22, | 29:24, 31:2, 58:4, |\n| arising [1] - 52:5 | authenticate [2] - 9:25 | 69:2, 69:9 | 45:5, 46:4, 46:5, | 63:17 |\n| arrangement [1] - | authorities [1] - 5:15 | beyond [2] - 39:16, | 46:8, 46:12, 47:2, | certainly [2] - 15:13, |\n| 47:16 | authority [2] - 6:20, | 57:1 | 47:12, 47:15, 47:23, | 52:1 |\n| article [4] - 6:24, | 17:16 | big [1] - 52:3 | 48:2, 48:3, 48:11, | certainty [1] - 69:23 |\n| 63:16, 63:18, 63:22 | available [4] - 14:25, | bills [1] - 42:13 | 48:12, 48:16, 49:2, | certified [1] - 71:7 |\n| Asia [1] - 5:16 | 33:12, 40:9, 60:5 | binding [1] - 58:22 | 49:5, 49:7, 49:11, | characterization [2] - |\n| ASIA [1] - 1:2 | Avenue [1] - 2:2 | boat [24] - 6:10, 6:16, | 49:12, 49:15, 50:1, | 65:18, 65:23 |\n| aspect [1] - 67:2 | avoid [1] - 20:22 | 6:24, 7:3, 7:6, 7:20, | 52:3, 52:24, 53:1, | Chase [1] - 38:24 |\n| aspects [2] - 45:12, | aware [1] - 49:3 | 8:5, 11:19, 11:22, | 53:2, 53:11, 53:22, | check [1] - 10:23 |\n| 55:12 | | 18:11, 18:19, 19:15, | 54:24, 55:7, 56:5, | checking [1] - 68:11 |\n| asserting [1] - 25:5 | B | 19:20, 19:23, 20:2, | 56:11, 57:4, 57:8, | Chief [1] - 48:19 |\n| assertion [1] - 22:25 | | 20:10, 24:10, 24:11, | 57:13, 57:14, 58:2, | China [2] - 21:13, 22:6 |\n| assess [2] - 5:1, 5:2 | BACHRACH [1] - 2:4 | 25:18, 25:19, 26:14, | 58:3, 58:4, 59:2, | Chinese [1] - 18:25 |\n| assessment [1] - | backdrop [1] - 17:24 | 28:8, 29:3, 32:14 | 59:13, 60:12, 62:5, | Chirnoid [3] - 12:13, |\n| 13:16 | background [1] - 3:11 | boat's [1] - 23:18 | 64:1, 64:3, 67:2, | 12:18, 13:11 |\n| asset [19] - 6:22, 8:16, | Baker [2] - 15:9, 43:13 | Bondi [3] - 55:8, 59:2, | 67:7, 68:6, 68:8, | Chirnoid's [1] - 12:18 |\n| 8:25, 14:13, 14:14, | BAKER [1] - 2:5 | 59:3 | 68:19, 69:24, 70:5 | choice [2] - 57:19, |\n| 17:4, 17:10, 17:12, | balance [1] - 64:6 | Bondon [1] - 48:20 | CAHILL [1] - 1:20 | 64:7 |\n| 17:21, 20:15, 20:21, | bank [6] - 7:15, 35:7, | book [3] - 34:1, 34:4, | Cahill's [6] - 44:19, | choose [2] - 6:24, |\n| 22:1, 25:13, 40:10, | 36:11, 43:1, 62:12, | 34:6 | 44:24, 46:17, 50:2, | 32:2 |\n| 41:19, 45:1, 49:4, | 62:14 | Bossin [1] - 55:8 | 57:25, 59:16 | chooses [1] - 14:19 |\n| 66:24 | banking [1] - 55:4 | bought [1] - 6:16 | cannot [1] - 66:23 | choses [1] - 32:23 |\n| assets [18] - 10:4, | BARROW [1] - 2:7 | box [1] - 68:11 | capacity [1] - 20:3 | circle [2] - 47:8, 47:24 |\n| 11:11, 32:10, 36:23, | BARRY [1] - 1:14 | Brad [1] - 48:20 | Capital [12] - 2:4, 7:8, | Circuit [1] - 58:21 |\n| 36:24, 37:3, 48:8, | based [6] - 9:12, | breach [1] - 59:24 | 34:23, 35:10, 35:17,
35:25, 36:3, 36:12, | circumstances [3] - |\n| 48:24, 51:10, 51:17, | 21:13, 24:1, 36:14, | break [2] - 15:3, 50:24 | 36:22, 37:16, 37:17, | 63:17, 66:9, 67:6 |\n| 53:24, 61:19, 62:6, | 64:17, 66:19 | brief [12] - 5:5, 8:19, | 39:9 | circumstantial [1] - |\n| 63:1, 66:1, 66:12, | basis [7] - 19:5, 36:25, | 18:23, 25:9, 26:21, | captain [3] - 7:19, | 7:17 |\n| 66:18 | 40:16, 49:2, 58:6, | 27:11, 29:6, 35:3, | 11:8, 23:18 | circus [1] - 32:3 |\n| assignee [1] - 22:5 | 58:15, 61:22 | 40:24, 58:21, 61:12, | care [1] - 22:13 | circus-like [1] - 32:3 |\n| associated [1] - 10:22 | became [1] - 65:5 | 63:4 | Carvallo [1] - 29:15 | citation [1] - 27:1 |\n| assume [4] - 11:21, | become [1] - 47:1 | briefed [1] - 17:11 | carveout [2] - 66:16, | cite [2] - 8:24, 63:22 |\n| 11:24, 22:25, 32:8 | beginning [1] - 36:20 | briefing [2] - 3:9, | 66:17 | cited [5] - 8:19, 17:16, |\n| assumed [1] - 18:17 | behalf [7] - 3:19, 4:2, | 28:21 | case [52] - 3:16, 8:23, | 27:11, 58:20, 64:15 |\n| assumes [1] - 57:21
assuming [2] - 32:12, | 48:8, 51:11, 51:12,
66:9, 69:5 | briefings [1] - 5:4
briefly [4] - 3:11, 5:7, | 12:15, 14:3, 14:9, | cites [1] - 58:18 |\n| 57:10 | behavior [1] - 13:11 | 24:21, 35:9 | 17:18, 21:4, 22:16, | City [1] - 5:18 |\n| assurances [1] - | behind [1] - 35:2 | briefs [1] - 3:10 | 24:20, 28:23, 31:24, | civil [1] - 14:17 |\n| 68:22 | belatedly [1] - 12:23 | bring [2] - 10:4, 47:7 | 39:21, 39:22, 43:13, | CIVIL [1] - 1:1 |\n| assure [1] - 65:9 | belied [1] - 65:2 | brings [1] - 10:6 | 45:2, 48:6, 48:17, | Clade [4] - 8:23, 12:9, |\n| attach [2] - 6:24, | believes [3] - 14:23, | broad [2] - 41:20, 54:3 | 49:10, 49:17, 51:5, | 12:12, 12:16 |\n| 54:17 | 36:14, 66:11 | brought [1] - 12:16 | 51:16, 51:23, 52:4, | claimed [1] - 19:10 |\n| attached [1] - 65:3 | belong [1] - 62:15 | bulk [1] - 4:20 | 52:7, 54:6, 55:12, | claiming [1] - 16:14 |\n| attempt [1] - 24:20 | bench [3] - 34:2, 34:3, | burden [5] - 11:25, | 57:9, 58:14, 58:17, | claims [2] - 8:5, 60:10 |\n| attempted [1] - 24:2 | 70:23 | 20:1, 23:24, 39:14, | 58:19, 58:20, 58:21, | clammed [1] - 26:24 |\n| attests [1] - 23:19 | beneficial [10] - 8:16, | 57:18 | 58:23, 58:25, 59:3, | clarification [3] - 32:5, |\n| attorney [9] - 43:25, | 8:22, 9:2, 17:14, | business [6] - 22:2, | 59:10, 59:20, 59:24, | 42:24, 67:1 |\n| 46:20, 46:21, 47:7, | 17:19, 23:24, 24:5, | 35:11, 36:16, 36:25, | 60:7, 60:19, 61:15, | clarify [2] - 50:23, 66:4 |\n| 53:5, 57:24, 58:2, | 25:15, 29:9, 49:23 | 38:6, 49:17 | 62:7, 64:8, 64:14, | class [1] - 30:11 |\n| 59:11 | Beneficial [2] - 25:20, | buy [1] - 6:19 | 64:18, 69:22, 69:25, | class-action [1] - |\n| attorney's [1] - 47:5 | 26:9 | buys [1] - 5:18 | 70:3, 70:14, 70:16 | 30:11
clear [17] - 4:21, 8:9, |\n| Attorney's [1] - 48:19 | beneficially [2] - 5:6, | BVI [3] - 5:21, 14:12, | cases [3] - 58:18, | 8:10, 8:16, 8:20, |\n| attorney-client [6] - | 6:21 | 21:5 | 60:8, 60:9 | 17:8, 18:4, 24:11, |\n| 46:20, 47:7, 53:5, | benefit [1] - 24:25 | BY [5] - 1:18, 1:21, | categories [1] - 54:3 | 25:13, 26:1, 33:9, |\n| 57:24, 58:2, 59:11 | best [5] - 40:9, 44:14, | 2:3, 2:7, 2:11 | caution [2] - 22:13, | |\n| | | dar | | |\n| | | | | |\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-20 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 75 of\n\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\n| 3 |\n|---|\n| |\n| |\n\n| 34:14, 61:3, 66:5,
66:13, 66:14, 67:12 | 21:24, 30:8, 34:14
completeness [2] - | conflicts [1] - 63:19
confusion [1] - 12:3 | 24:11, 26:2
copy [1] - 3:2 | 70:21, 71:4
court [11] - 9:1, 12:25, |\n|-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|\n| clearly [1] - 28:7 | 26:20, 33:2 | connection [5] - | corporate [1] - 53:24 | 13:7, 13:9, 19:2, |\n| client [18] - 44:4, 44:6, | complied [1] - 17:5 | 21:14, 38:13, 52:22, | CORPORATION [1] - | 40:1, 45:11, 45:15, |\n| 44:7, 46:20, 46:21, | comply [4] - 14:12, | 54:25 | 1:8 | 45:19, 66:3, 67:21 |\n| 47:7, 53:5, 56:2, | 14:24, 17:21, 25:5 | consent [2] - 56:24 | Corporation [1] - | Court [46] - 1:14, 2:22, |\n| 56:20, 56:23, 57:24, | component [1] - 25:19 | consented [1] - 56:23 | 58:20 | 6:23, 7:14, 9:15, |\n| 57:25, 58:2, 59:11, | conceal [1] - 36:1 | consents [1] - 56:23 | correct [9] - 26:1, | 11:16, 13:13, 14:23, |\n| 59:13, 68:17, 69:1 | concedes [1] - 56:5 | consequential [1] - | 40:2, 41:15, 44:9, | 16:16, 17:16, 17:21, |\n| clients [1] - 53:1 | conceivable [2] - | 41:8 | 65:17, 65:19, 67:10, | 17:23, 17:25, 19:9, |\n| close [9] - 6:17, 12:10, | 20:23, 38:6 | consider [2] - 19:12, | 67:11, 68:11 | 19:12, 19:22, 21:5, |\n| 13:23, 24:15, 36:21, | concern [1] - 68:3 | 31:13 | correctly [2] - 28:16, | 21:24, 22:17, 24:18, |\n| 39:5, 40:11, 48:23, | concerned [3] - 40:5, | consideration [4] - | 68:23 | 27:13, 29:9, 30:3, |\n| 67:15 | 67:13, 67:17 | 5:15, 6:8, 27:5, | coterminous [1] - | 36:4, 37:22, 38:4, |\n| closing [2] - 5:15, | concerning [3] - | 28:10 | 48:7 | 40:9, 42:1, 45:24, |\n| 14:5 | 47:13, 48:8, 51:13 | considered [1] - 33:25 | counsel [23] - 7:19, | 50:12, 50:16, 62:20, |\n| coin [1] - 64:12 | concerns [3] - 22:7, | constitutes [1] - 20:14 | 10:2, 13:24, 14:7, | 62:22, 62:23, 63:11, |\n| coincidence [1] - 27:7 | 22:11, 68:5 | constitutional [1] - | 16:18, 16:20, 30:3, | 63:20, 64:21, 65:14,
66:20, 66:21, 67:6, |\n| collaborating [1] - | concert [1] - 66:13 | 47:21 | 34:22, 36:17, 39:2, | 68:10, 70:8, 70:18, |\n| 67:19 | concluded [2] - 13:14, | Construction [1] - | 39:23, 40:23, 42:17, | 70:19, 71:13 |\n| collateral [2] - 41:1,
41:13 | 71:5 | 58:20 | 45:22, 46:18, 47:13,
51:22, 51:25, 52:16, | court's [1] - 13:6 |\n| colleague [1] - 30:2 | conclusion [1] - 70:6 | consulted [1] - 47:17 | 57:14, 64:7, 65:11, | Court's [6] - 4:3, |\n| collection [2] - 60:19, | conclusively [1] - 5:6 | contained [1] - 16:12 | 68:2 | 13:16, 14:1, 14:2, |\n| 61:20 | concur [1] - 13:15 | contemporary [1] - | Counsel [1] - 57:19 | 14:8, 17:6 |\n| colloquy [1] - 30:12 | condition [1] - 46:8 | 27:12
contempt [10] - 3:5, | country [1] - 52:14 | courtesy [1] - 56:19 |\n| combine [1] - 7:17 | conditional [3] - 4:14,
17:6, 18:5 | 4:14, 14:17, 14:22, | COUNTY [1] - 1:1 | Courts [2] - 13:6, |\n| combined [1] - 16:23 | conduct [2] - 4:24, | 15:7, 17:3, 17:8, | couple [3] - 28:13, | 58:13 |\n| coming [2] - 59:2, | 22:21 | 17:17, 17:22, 26:18 | 29:4, 70:1 | cousin [2] - 21:11, |\n| 62:3 | conducting [2] - | contend [1] - 18:23 | course [6] - 11:10, | 21:12 |\n| commencement [1] - | 34:13, 54:5 | contention [1] - 18:25 | 12:24, 14:7, 15:1, | covered [1] - 63:7 |\n| 55:9 | confer [4] - 30:2, | context [6] - 26:9, | 33:1, 53:22 | covering [1] - 45:9 |\n| comment [1] - 40:5 | 36:18, 37:2, 37:10 | 26:10, 41:5, 42:11, | COURT [85] - 1:1, 3:1, | CPLR [6] - 8:13, |\n| committing [1] - 59:23 | conference [2] - | 58:14, 58:17 | 3:13, 3:16, 3:21, | 12:17, 17:12, 40:1, |\n| common [11] - 6:19, | 29:21, 36:3 | continue [1] - 46:1 | 3:25, 15:2, 15:6, | 40:3, 41:21 |\n| 22:1, 45:4, 46:3, | confidence [2] - 47:8, | Continued [2] - 1:23, | 15:10, 15:19, 15:25, | credited [1] - 18:10 |\n| 46:10, 46:15, 46:21, | 47:22 | 2:1 | 16:4, 16:6, 19:8, | creditor [4] - 8:15, |\n| 47:16, 48:16, 52:5, | confidences [1] - | contract [2] - 59:24, | 19:16, 19:21, 20:4, | 25:13, 41:6, 41:9 |\n| 52:9 | 47:23 | 69:1 | 20:6, 22:14, 22:19, | creditors [1] - 39:19 |\n| communication [3] - | confidential [23] - | contrary [1] - 16:21 | 22:21, 23:7, 23:9, | critically [1] - 13:5 |\n| 11:7, 46:20, 46:22 | 44:24, 45:9, 46:11, | control [26] - 4:17, | 24:25, 25:4, 25:10, | cross [8] - 11:23, |\n| communications [4] - | 46:16, 46:20, 47:9, | 4:25, 6:21, 8:5, 14:3, | 26:12, 26:16, 28:4,
28:12, 28:23, 29:10, | 31:14, 31:16, 32:15, |\n| 46:17, 46:19, 47:4, | 47:23, 49:9, 49:13, | 14:8, 15:17, 17:4, | 29:16, 29:23, 30:5, | 32:24, 33:7, 33:13,
34:6 |\n| 49:13 | 49:16, 50:1, 53:11, | 17:9, 17:20, 19:6, | 30:12, 30:19, 30:23, | cross-examination [5] |\n| companies [3] - 36:7, | 53:23, 54:2, 54:13, | 20:15, 23:16, 23:17, | 31:6, 31:8, 31:22, | - 31:14, 32:24, 33:7, |\n| 36:8, 39:18 | 54:23, 55:25, 56:7, | 23:23, 24:12, 24:13, | 32:13, 32:21, 33:6, | 33:13, 34:6 |\n| company [4] - 5:9,
7:8, 27:5, 35:12 | 59:9, 63:13, 64:20, | 24:14, 26:5, 26:7, | 33:10, 33:21, 34:17, | cross-examine [1] - |\n| compel [2] - 38:1, | 65:7, 68:10
confidentiality [2] - | 28:8, 31:25, 33:15,
34:8, 34:11, 45:15 | 34:25, 35:4, 39:11, | 32:15 |\n| 39:25 | 47:5, 53:20 | controlled [4] - 4:17, | 39:16, 40:22, 42:20, | cross-examined [1] - |\n| compelled [1] - 37:13 | confidentially [2] - | 18:5, 35:17, 35:21 | 43:2, 43:8, 43:11, | 31:16 |\n| compelling [1] - 41:16 | 48:11, 52:9 | controlling [1] - 8:1 | 43:22, 44:2, 44:4, | cure [5] - 56:22, |\n| compellingly [1] - | confirm [1] - 3:5 | controls [4] - 5:6, 8:9, | 44:8, 44:10, 45:25, | 56:25, 57:2, 63:19, |\n| 40:10 | confirmed [4] - 10:1, | 14:13, 49:23 | 50:11, 50:18, 50:22, | 68:16 |\n| complaint [5] - 6:23, | 11:13, 42:18, 47:12 | conversation [2] - | 51:21, 51:25, 52:15, | cures [1] - 69:6 |\n| 6:25, 9:19, 27:9, | conflate [1] - 22:11 | 55:7, 55:11 | 52:19, 54:8, 57:11, | curiosity [1] - 19:8 |\n| 27:10 | conflict [9] - 56:5, | conversations [1] - | 61:4, 61:7, 64:23, | current [5] - 19:25, |\n| complete [3] - 24:22, | 56:13, 56:16, 56:22, | 65:6 | 65:11, 65:14, 65:21, | 20:8, 51:12, 56:2, |\n| 24:23, 49:11 | 56:25, 57:2, 68:16, | convincing [6] - 4:21, | 66:4, 67:12, 68:2, | 59:17 |\n| completely [3] - | 69:3, 69:6 | 8:11, 17:9, 18:4, | 69:17, 70:8, 70:12, | customarily [1] - 46:9 |\n| | | dar | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n4\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 440-20 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 76 of\n\n85\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022\n\n| D | 68:9
defense [2] - 58:3, | directed [1] - 3:2
direction [5] - 16:22, | Docket [4] - 6:14,
38:25, 69:12 | efforts [5] - 38:15,
45:2, 49:18, 54:5, |\n|--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|\n| date [7] - 29:11, 29:16, | 58:7 | 23:21, 25:6, 27:16, | document [12] - 9:11, | 60:19 |\n| 29:20, 30:4, 30:13, | defer [1] - 51:24 | 27:22 | 11:23, 19:22, 21:18, | eight [1] - 39:17 |\n| 30:14, 31:8 | deficient [1] - 57:3 | directly [9] - 26:10, | 24:2, 36:16, 37:1, | either [9] - 16:17, |\n| dates [4] - 30:13, | definition [1] - 20:6 | 37:16, 44:7, 44:21, | 38:6, 49:10, 51:15, | 45:23, 51:6, 53:10, |\n| 33:22, 33:23, 33:24 | degrees [1] - 7:25 | 45:14, 52:4, 56:12, | 55:5, 55:12 | 53:11, 53:12, 55:24, |\n| daughter [15] - 6:2, | Delaware [10] - 6:3, | 66:1, 66:2 | Document [1] - 36:4 | 55:25, 65:16 |\n| 6:5, 8:7, 8:25, 10:20, | 7:5, 7:10, 8:6, 8:8, | director [3] - 5:13, | documents [34] - | element [5] - 53:5, |\n| 11:19, 12:24, 20:19, | 9:11, 10:15, 10:22, | 35:19, 35:23 | 9:14, 9:16, 10:5, | 53:8, 53:9, 53:17, |\n| 21:1, 21:20, 22:7, | 35:10, 35:12 | directors [1] - 7:15 | 10:11, 10:17, 11:3, | 53:18 |\n| 22:22, 22:23, 24:4, | Delaware's [1] - 27:19 | directs [1] - 33:20 | 11:11, 16:7, 16:24, | elements [2] - 63:9, |\n| 27:6 | demand [1] - 36:25 | disadvantage [1] - | 20:16, 22:3, 22:15, | 63:10 |\n| daughter's [1] - 24:9 | demonstrate [1] - 54:4 | 53:13 | 32:11, 37:3, 38:2, | employee [5] - 6:11, |\n| daughters [1] - 12:23 | demonstrated [2] - | disagree [2] - 38:7, | 41:20, 41:25, 42:1, | 19:4, 26:23, 26:25, |\n| DAVID [1] - 1:22 | 39:16, 42:17 | 65:22 | 48:3, 48:7, 48:13, | 35:25 |\n| day-to-day [1] - 49:2 | denied [4] - 42:21, | disclaiming [1] - 46:9 | 48:14, 49:15, 49:16, | employees [4] - 5:14, |\n| days [2] - 29:12, 30:11 | 43:1, 43:2, 43:9 | disclosed [1] - 68:12 | 50:9, 51:10, 51:11, | 7:14, 10:18, 22:2 |\n| de [1] - 58:1 | Department [7] - 4:19, | disclosing [1] - 54:1 | 51:13, 51:16, 51:18, | employer [1] - 18:24 |\n| deal [3] - 29:9, 29:25, | 4:24, 12:9, 13:6, | disclosure [2] - 50:3, | 51:19, 52:10, 54:4, | encrypted [1] - 49:13 |\n| 52:3 | 57:18, 59:19, 64:15 | 55:3 | 65:3 | end [3] - 29:14, 29:22, |\n| dealing [5] - 13:2, | deponent [1] - 31:17 | discovery [13] - 5:20, | dollar [2] - 6:2, 10:25 | 53:18 |\n| 22:5, 28:24, 28:25, | deponents [1] - 31:15 | 32:18, 32:19, 38:20, | dollars [3] - 26:18, | ended [1] - 55:5 |\n| 46:25 | depose [2] - 11:12, | 40:21, 41:9, 41:21, | 36:13, 53:3 | ends [2] - 27:6, 29:20 |\n| DEBORAH [2] - 2:22, | 33:3 | 42:5, 48:9, 50:9, | done [4] - 4:13, 56:11, | enforce [3] - 38:5, |\n| 71:13 | deposed [1] - 31:19 | 51:8, 54:14, 65:16 | 58:18, 68:20 | 61:9, 61:18 |\n| debtor [20] - 8:21, | deposition [20] - | discredit [1] - 23:6 | double [1] - 61:10 | enforcement [5] - |\n| 8:25, 12:12, 17:2, | 26:24, 28:1, 28:2, | discrete [1] - 55:10 | doubt [2] - 13:24,
39:17 | 45:2, 49:4, 54:5, |\n| 17:13, 35:16, 35:18, | 28:5, 28:7, 28:9, | discretion [1] - 66:23 | down [1] - 61:10 | 65:2, 65:17 |\n| 35:19, 35:22, 36:23,
37:4, 39:9, 39:25, | 30:21, 30:24, 31:11, | discuss [1] - 51:23 | drag [1] - 66:2 | engage [1] - 44:21 |\n| 51:17, 51:18, 54:15, | 31:12, 31:20, 31:22, | discussed [7] - 25:12, | draw [1] - 32:1 | engaged [2] - 44:7,
44:8 |\n| 54:18, 54:21, 65:3 | 32:1, 32:10, 32:11,
32:15, 32:17, 33:2, | 36:2, 45:23, 51:1,
51:3, 59:6, 59:10 | drawn [2] - 13:8, | enjoyed [1] - 24:9 |\n| debtor's [2] - 8:14, | 33:16, 33:17 | discusses [1] - 8:13 | 31:18 | Enriquez [1] - 35:24 |\n| 39:15 | depositions [5] - | discussions [1] - | due [3] - 16:9, 16:10, | entered [1] - 12:14 |\n| debtor-related [1] - | 13:12, 30:11, 30:13, | 67:20 | 52:5 | entirely [3] - 12:7, |\n| 65:3 | 34:10, 34:11 | disposition [1] - 67:17 | duly [1] - 35:10 | 58:25, 67:7 |\n| December [1] - 63:24 | deprived [1] - 69:20 | dispositive [1] - 59:12 | during [3] - 36:17, | entities [18] - 4:16, |\n| decide [2] - 6:20, | Dept [1] - 8:24 | dispute [3] - 4:25, | 39:3, 70:13 | 21:15, 49:17, 49:22, |\n| 45:20 | described [1] - 70:25 | 13:8, 15:17 | duties [1] - 43:25 | 49:24, 50:4, 50:7, |\n| decided [4] - 6:17, | descriptions [2] - | disqualification [11] - | duty [5] - 44:7, 44:20, | 51:1, 51:3, 51:6, |\n| 6:18, 37:22, 50:2 | 53:25, 54:1 | 52:4, 52:14, 53:8, | 44:23, 47:5, 52:5 | 51:14, 51:20, 54:18, |\n| decides [1] - 66:21 | desire [1] - 44:12 | 53:16, 55:24, 57:13, | | 54:19, 54:20, 54:21, |\n| decision [7] - 12:9, | detail [1] - 54:1 | 57:22, 58:6, 58:14, | E | 60:25 |\n| 13:7, 38:12, 47:13, | determination [1] - | 68:9, 69:7 | | entitled [2] - 10:5, |\n| 47:19, 66:22 | 17:20 | disqualified [2] - | e-mail [4] - 7:15, 10:2,
10:24, 11:23 | 41:9 |\n| declare [1] - 39:24 | determine [2] - 17:4, | 58:17, 70:5 | e-mails [1] - 46:24 | entity [13] - 7:6, 18:12, |\n| declared [1] - 19:23 | 65:25 | disqualify [2] - 3:22, | early [2] - 4:19, 36:4 | 18:15, 18:18, 21:6, |\n| decline [1] - 32:1 | determined [1] - 39:11 | 43:18 | easily [1] - 53:4 | 21:7, 21:21, 21:25, |\n| declined [1] - 37:8 | devoted [1] - 49:12 | disqualifying [1] - | economy [1] - 69:23 | 39:23, 41:10, 51:1, |\n| deem [1] - 49:18 | difference [2] - 38:17, | 52:23 | EDWARD [1] - 1:21 | 54:16, 65:4
entrust [1] - 47:9 |\n| deemed [2] - 13:3,
34:9 | 69:9 | disregarded [2] - | Edward [2] - 3:8, | environment [2] - |\n| deep [1] - 70:24 | different [8] - 39:18, | 4:14, 4:22 | 57:15 | 22:8, 22:12 |\n| Defendant [4] - 2:8, | 43:20, 43:21, 52:25,
58:25, 60:10, 60:11 | dissolve [1] - 4:25
distinction [1] - 38:9 | effect [1] - 12:24 | equities [1] - 64:7 |\n| 17:5, 21:11, 22:5 | diligence [1] - 43:15 | District [1] - 48:19 | effective [1] - 56:25 | equity [1] - 6:6 |\n| Defendant's [1] - | direct [9] - 31:11, | Division [7] - 15:15, | effectively [2] - 36:22, | erected [1] - 57:3 |\n| 21:20 | 32:24, 33:5, 33:7, | 16:22, 17:3, 24:16, | 38:15 | ERICA [1] - 2:7 |\n| Defendants [1] - 1:9 | 33:10, 33:11, 33:22, | 25:1, 25:6, 28:16 | effort [4] - 20:21, 37:6, | erroneously [1] - |\n| defending [2] - 30:10, | 34:5, 34:7 | Division's [1] - 12:5 | 38:5, 48:23 | 19:23 |\n| | | dar | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n5\n\n| ESQ [11] - 1:18, 1:21, | 34:4, 34:6 | family [2] - 22:7, 24:13 | flags [1] - 70:2 | general [1] - 53:25 |\n|-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------|\n| 1:22, 2:3, 2:4, 2:7, | exhibits [5] - 18:2, | fantastic [1] - 27:7 | flat [1] - 14:4 | generally [1] - 21:9 |\n| 2:7, 2:8, 2:11, 2:12, | 18:7, 18:9, 33:24, | far [4] - 41:3, 59:8, | flees [1] - 5:16 | Geneva [1] - 5:19 |\n| 2:12 | 34:5 | 68:20, 68:24 | focus [2] - 38:8, 38:11 | GENEVER [2] - 1:7, |\n| essence [1] - 47:4 | existed [1] - 45:4 | Far [1] - 27:11 | focused [1] - 58:19 | 1:8 |\n| essentially [6] - 24:3, | existence [1] - 46:15 | favor [1] - 37:23 | follow [4] - 14:1, | Genova [3] - 7:24, |\n| 36:6, 36:17, 37:9, | existing [1] - 40:15 | favors [1] - 52:14 | 14:16, 14:19, 53:10 | 7:25, 14:12 |\n| 38:16, 59:20 | exists [1] - 53:10 | Featured [1] - 27:11 | followed [1] - 13:25 | gentleman [1] - 12:12 |\n| establish [4] - 18:10, | expecting [1] - 3:22 | February [12] - 29:14, | following [1] - 45:3 | given [3] - 24:18, |\n| 24:4, 56:6, 57:21 | expense [1] - 41:8 | 29:21, 30:8, 30:9, | forced [1] - 14:16 | 29:19, 41:2 |\n| established [9] - 4:21, | expenses [4] - 39:5, | 30:18, 30:24, 31:2, | foreclosed [2] - 32:10, | Glid [4] - 8:23, 12:9, |\n| 5:5, 18:7, 24:19, | 41:7, 41:10, 42:14 | 31:3, 31:8, 32:23, | 32:19 | 12:12, 12:16 |\n| 35:9, 35:24, 44:19, | experience [1] - 69:21 | 71:2 | foregoing [1] - 71:7 | globe [1] - 11:6 |\n| 45:2, 57:7 | expert [2] - 43:14, | fees [3] - 7:7, 42:19, | forgive [1] - 23:11 | Golden [26] - 7:4, |\n| establishes [1] - | 58:9 | 53:3 | form [6] - 33:21, | 11:2, 11:4, 36:9, |\n| 25:17 | explain [3] - 16:1, | few [2] - 7:21, 64:25 | 33:24, 46:23, 65:16, | 36:12, 36:21, 38:1, |\n| establishing [3] - | 27:4, 56:13 | fiduciary [6] - 44:7, | 65:23, 67:19 | 38:9, 38:13, 38:14, |\n| 19:5, 24:8, 53:5 | express [1] - 43:23 | 44:20, 44:23, 46:9, | formed [2] - 6:3, 35:10 | 38:17, 38:22, 38:24, |\n| estoppel [2] - 41:1, | expressed [1] - 15:16 | 46:16, 52:5 | former [5] - 48:18, | 39:4, 39:7, 40:10, |\n| 41:13 | extensive [4] - 55:18, | field [1] - 58:9 | 52:23, 53:1, 56:2, | 40:11, 41:3, 41:5, |\n| ethical [3] - 56:6, | 56:7, 68:8, 69:21 | Fifth [12] - 10:1, 11:10, | 56:20 | 41:7, 41:11, 41:16, |\n| 63:19, 63:21 | extensively [1] - 56:7 | 13:21, 26:25, 32:6, | forms [1] - 5:9 | 41:18, 41:24, 42:10, |\n| ethics [1] - 43:14 | extent [3] - 19:18, | 32:20, 32:21, 47:14, | four [2] - 3:4, 37:18 | 42:11 |\n| evade [1] - 39:18 | 24:18, 35:7 | 47:19, 49:19, 50:3, | fours [1] - 12:10 | Gordon [5] - 44:5, |\n| event [1] - 60:12 | extraordinarily [1] - | 58:21 | frank [1] - 15:22 | 44:22, 52:24, 57:13, |\n| evidence [23] - 4:21, | 23:5 | figure [1] - 8:1 | FRANKFURT [1] - | 57:14 |\n| 5:8, 6:13, 7:17, 8:3, | extraordinary [1] - | file [3] - 14:17, 37:13, | 2:10 | GORDON [1] - 1:20 |\n| 8:11, 9:5, 9:9, 11:25, | 67:6 | 69:11 | Frankfurt [3] - 12:15, | governed [1] - 17:7 |\n| 17:9, 18:4, 18:21, | | filed [6] - 6:22, 9:19, | 43:19, 52:21 | government [6] - |\n| 20:13, 23:22, 24:11, | F | 19:2, 19:22, 20:20, | fraud [1] - 59:23 | 44:25, 47:16, 48:18, |\n| 26:2, 29:2, 40:9, | | 68:10 | fraught [1] - 13:10 | 48:22, 59:22, 61:13 |\n| 40:14, 40:17, 40:20, | face [3] - 8:3, 22:12, | filing [3] - 19:9, 21:7, | free [3] - 30:8, 32:14 | governs [1] - 17:12 |\n| 42:8 | 59:21 | 69:14 | Friday [1] - 14:16 | grant [2] - 40:13, 70:6 |\n| evidentiary [18] - 9:4, | facie [5] - 4:16, 22:16, | filings [3] - 5:21, | friends [1] - 7:4 | granted [1] - 13:8 |\n| 9:6, 10:7, 11:15, | 23:23, 24:19, 26:6 | 10:13, 67:21 | front [2] - 20:9, 62:20 | granting [1] - 57:12 |\n| 12:4, 12:5, 13:1, | facing [1] - 22:6 | finally [3] - 13:22, | frustration [2] - 40:6, | ground [2] - 37:7, 63:2 |\n| 15:12, 15:16, 23:11, | fact [15] - 13:15, | 14:21, 64:6 | 70:24 | Groundhog [1] - 31:4 |\n| 24:23, 25:1, 25:2,
33:18, 33:25, 34:2, | 13:19, 14:14, 21:19, | financial [4] - 36:16, | fulfilled [1] - 53:15 | groundwork [1] - |\n| 61:25, 64:10 | 21:24, 22:4, 39:15, | 37:1, 38:6, 55:4 | full [3] - 18:11, 18:19, | 61:17 |\n| exact [2] - 41:12, 48:9 | 42:9, 47:15, 52:3, | financials [1] - 53:24 | 23:11 | group [1] - 58:3 |\n| exactly [1] - 68:15 | 53:2, 53:16, 57:1, | firm [18] - 12:15, 15:9, | fully [2] - 14:13, 68:3 | GTV [77] - 2:13, 43:20, |\n| examination [5] - | 58:24, 70:1
facto [1] - 58:1 | 30:13, 37:17, 43:18, | FUND [1] - 1:2 | 48:1, 52:21, 53:2, |\n| 31:14, 32:24, 33:7, | factor [1] - 19:12 | 43:19, 43:24, 44:5, | fundamental [1] - 42:9 | 53:13, 53:22, 54:2, |\n| 33:13, 34:6 | facts [9] - 8:8, 24:8, | 44:14, 44:23, 45:20, | funded [2] - 12:20, | 54:15, 54:21, 54:24, |\n| examine [1] - 32:15 | 39:22, 44:15, 44:18, | 46:5, 50:6, 52:5, | 39:9 | 55:9, 55:21, 56:11, |\n| examined [1] - 31:16 | 44:19, 45:10, 52:6, | 52:21, 53:2, 63:21 | funding [5] - 36:6, | 56:12, 56:13, 56:14, |\n| example [1] - 6:13 | 60:10 | firm's [2] - 43:24, | 41:7, 41:10, 42:11, | 56:16, 56:17, 56:18, |\n| examples [1] - 54:16 | factual [3] - 16:23, | 44:12 | 42:12 | 56:23, 57:17, 58:3, |\n| except [2] - 21:19, | 17:25, 21:14 | firms [2] - 46:8, 52:8 | funds [5] - 21:9, | 59:2, 59:12, 59:13, |\n| 34:2 | failed [1] - 25:5 | First [8] - 4:19, 4:24, | 21:16, 36:12, 38:23, | 59:14, 59:17, 59:22,
60:1, 60:6, 60:13, |\n| exceptional [1] - | fails [3] - 26:18, 28:8, | 8:23, 12:9, 13:5,
57:18, 59:18, 64:14 | 39:15 | 60:21, 60:23, 61:1, |\n| 70:22 | 28:9 | first [16] - 3:4, 8:5, 9:9, | Funds [3] - 5:10, | 61:10, 61:14, 61:16, |\n| excuse [2] - 10:15, | failure [1] - 14:12 | 19:24, 25:11, 25:22, | 18:13, 21:21 | 61:17, 61:19, 61:23, |\n| 34:19 | fair [1] - 68:21 | 28:15, 29:22, 36:18, | | 62:10, 62:14, 62:15, |\n| execute [1] - 68:19 | faith [1] - 37:6 | 45:4, 53:4, 53:20, | G | 62:19, 62:21, 62:25, |\n| exercise [1] - 32:3 | fall [1] - 49:19 | 55:2, 57:8, 57:23, | | 63:6, 63:9, 63:13, |\n| Exhibit [4] - 18:14, | famed [2] - 13:15, | 65:1 | game [1] - 36:15 | 64:1, 64:2, 64:21, |\n| 18:17, 19:1, 21:7 | 13:19 | five [4] - 29:6, 63:11, | gamesmanship [5] - | 65:2, 65:4, 65:10, |\n| exhibit [3] - 34:1, | | 64:8, 64:23 | 64:13, 64:16, 64:17, | 65:12, 65:15, 66:2, |\n| | familiar [1] - 13:7 | | 64:18, 70:14 | |\n| | | dar | | |\n\n6\n\n| 66:10, 66:12, 66:13, | 25:2, 28:1, 28:9, | 30:20, 31:1, 31:7, | inadmissible [3] - 9:5, | integrity [2] - 66:7, |\n|-------------------------|--------------------------|----------------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|\n| 66:16, 66:18, 66:25, | 28:21, 29:7, 29:9, | 31:20, 34:15, 34:16, | 19:13, 24:7 | 69:19 |\n| 67:19, 67:25, 68:17, | 29:11, 29:17, 31:5, | 34:21, 35:1, 35:5, | inadvertently [1] - | intend [2] - 15:13, |\n| 68:21, 69:5, 70:4, | 31:9, 31:16, 32:23, | 35:9, 37:16, 38:3, | 68:12 | 16:16 |\n| 70:7 | 33:18, 33:20, 33:25, | 38:7, 38:10, 39:6, | inappropriate [1] - | intended [1] - 67:9 |\n| GTV's [7] - 49:15, | 34:3, 34:12, 40:8, | 39:13, 39:20, 40:8, | 68:25 | intent [1] - 56:17 |\n| 51:22, 51:25, 52:16, | 41:6, 41:11, 61:25, | 40:12, 40:18, 41:4, | inception [1] - 57:7 | intention [2] - 45:14, |\n| 53:24, 61:19, 64:5 | 64:10 | 41:12, 41:17, 42:10, | incident [1] - 55:8 | 45:22 |\n| GUE [1] - 1:7 | hearsay [3] - 19:14, | 42:15, 43:3, 43:15, | including [7] - 11:12, | interconnection [1] - |\n| guess [2] - 11:3, 45:18 | 19:16, 24:8 | 44:17, 44:20, 46:22, | 22:7, 46:4, 67:19, | 41:2 |\n| GUI [1] - 1:6 | heavy [1] - 57:18 | 49:7, 50:5, 55:6, | 67:20, 67:21 | interest [21] - 8:14, |\n| guidance [1] - 45:24 | height [1] - 47:21 | 57:15, 57:17, 58:8, | incorrect [1] - 44:15 | 8:16, 8:22, 9:2, |\n| Guo [9] - 18:16, 18:22, | held [5] - 28:17, 36:18, | 58:22, 58:25, 60:6, | incorrectly [1] - 68:10 | 12:18, 12:19, 17:14, |\n| 20:19, 21:12, 21:19, | 48:8, 51:10, 51:12 | 60:12, 60:20, 61:21, | incredibly [1] - 61:13 | 24:5, 25:15, 45:4, |\n| 23:19, 27:24, 35:15 | hereby [1] - 71:7 | 62:4, 62:9, 62:18, | | 46:3, 46:10, 46:15, |\n| GUO [4] - 1:6, 1:7, | herself [2] - 12:25, | 62:23, 64:6, 64:12, | indeed [1] - 44:20 | |\n| | 31:14 | 64:22, 65:19, 67:23, | Index [1] - 1:10 | 46:21, 47:16, 49:23, |\n| 18:17 | | 68:1, 70:9, 70:10 | indicate [2] - 42:2, | 52:6, 52:10, 64:13, |\n| Guo's [2] - 36:2, 48:23 | hide [1] - 66:18 | Honor's [3] - 4:20, 9:7, | 45:17 | 64:16, 69:23 |\n| guy [1] - 48:17 | high [1] - 67:13 | 40:6 | indicated [4] - 25:2, | Interest [2] - 25:21, |\n| Guy [2] - 48:25, 49:20 | highest [2] - 66:6, | | 29:6, 36:10, 54:9 | 26:9 |\n| GWO [1] - 1:6 | 66:7 | HONORABLE [1] - | indication [1] - 42:3 | interested [1] - 9:15 |\n| | highway [1] - 37:9 | 1:14 | indirect [2] - 36:2, | interesting [1] - 42:7 |\n| H | himself [1] - 31:13 | hoops [1] - 28:6 | 66:2 | interestingly [1] - 26:3 |\n| | history [1] - 64:17 | hope [1] - 22:10 | indirectly [1] - 65:25 | interests [1] - 17:19 |\n| half [1] - 50:13 | HK [2] - 21:21, 23:19 | hoping [1] - 3:22 | individuals [3] - | intermittently [2] - |\n| handle [1] - 55:10 | HK's [1] - 21:23 | HOSTETLER [1] - 2:5 | 31:18, 34:8, 34:10 | 47:18, 49:1 |\n| handled [1] - 68:23 | HKI [1] - 5:11 | Hostetler [2] - 15:9, | inference [1] - 10:5 | internal [1] - 13:9 |\n| handling [1] - 57:16 | HO [2] - 1:6 | 43:13 | inferences [3] - 31:17, | internally [2] - 69:10, |\n| hands [1] - 65:8 | Ho [1] - 2:8 | hour [2] - 50:13, 61:25 | 32:2, 32:8 | 69:16 |\n| HAOYUN [2] - 1:7, 1:7 | hold [5] - 9:4, 9:6, | hours [2] - 6:14, 70:14 | Infinity [4] - 35:12, | International [19] - |\n| happy [4] - 3:24, | 14:22, 24:23, 24:25 | huge [1] - 65:24 | 35:14, 35:21, 35:23 | 5:10, 5:11, 5:19, |\n| 11:15, 16:8, 16:9 | HOLDINGS [2] - 1:8, | human [1] - 27:17 | information [50] - | 5:22, 5:25, 6:3, 6:7, |\n| hard [1] - 8:1 | 1:8 | husband [1] - 21:10 | 35:8, 37:4, 46:11, | 7:5, 9:11, 10:14, |\n| hardly [2] - 20:21, | holds [2] - 7:6, 24:18 | hybrid [1] - 23:24 | 47:9, 49:9, 50:1, | 10:15, 10:19, 10:22, |\n| 22:1 | Hong [29] - 5:9, 5:11, | Hyland [4] - 43:19, | 50:10, 53:11, 53:23, | 11:1, 18:13, 21:21, |\n| harmony [1] - 31:2 | | 52:20, 60:14, 62:11 | | 23:19, 27:16, 27:20 |\n| Hasland [3] - 27:15, | 5:19, 5:21, 5:25, 6:3, | HYLAND [10] - 2:11, | 54:2, 54:3, 54:14, | International's [2] - |\n| 28:7 | 6:7, 7:5, 7:10, 8:6, | 52:18, 52:20, 54:9, | 54:21, 54:23, 55:4, | 9:10, 27:19 |\n| | 8:7, 9:10, 9:13, 9:16, | 65:13, 65:18, 65:20, | 55:13, 55:14, 55:18, | |\n| Hasland's [2] - 28:2, | 10:14, 10:19, 10:22, | 65:22, 68:3, 70:9 | 56:1, 56:8, 58:4, | Internet [1] - 60:5 |\n| 28:4 | 11:1, 18:12, 19:2, | | 59:9, 60:3, 60:4, | interrupt [3] - 29:24, |\n| hear [20] - 3:5, 7:8, | 27:16, 27:19, 27:20 | Hyland's [1] - 12:15 | 60:5, 60:18, 60:21, | 61:4, 61:7 |\n| 10:10, 11:17, 11:18, | Honor [116] - 3:7, 3:9, | | 60:22, 60:23, 60:24, | interrupted [1] - 68:2 |\n| 15:2, 15:6, 22:19, | 3:15, 3:18, 3:24, 4:1, | I | 61:8, 62:6, 62:12, | intervene [2] - 52:22, |\n| 30:16, 31:4, 34:24, | 4:9, 4:11, 4:13, 5:3, | idea [1] - 65:1 | 62:17, 63:13, 63:25, | 57:12 |\n| 40:22, 51:22, 51:25, | 5:7, 5:21, 6:14, 7:1, | identical [2] - 48:7, | 64:2, 64:5, 64:20, | Intervenor [1] - 2:13 |\n| 52:16, 52:17, 52:18, | 7:3, 7:18, 7:22, 8:8, | | 65:8, 66:19, 67:22, | Intervenor-Movant [1] |\n| 54:7, 57:14, 64:23 | 9:5, 9:15, 9:17, 9:24, | 59:19
identified [2] - 54:15, | 68:8, 68:11, 68:12, | - 2:13 |\n| heard [6] - 16:1, | 9:25, 10:8, 11:9, | | 68:15, 69:11, 69:13 | introduce [1] - 16:8 |\n| 24:21, 35:15, 42:20, | 11:17, 11:24, 12:3, | 61:2 | informed [2] - 21:23, | invasive [1] - 40:21 |\n| 50:11, 60:22 | 12:7, 12:22, 13:5, | identifies [1] - 21:16 | 55:13 | invest [1] - 47:6 |\n| hearing [52] - 3:1, | 13:18, 13:22, 14:2, | identify [2] - 51:10, | input [1] - 56:18 | investigation [1] - |\n| 4:25, 9:4, 9:6, 10:8, | 14:10, 14:15, 14:20, | 51:12 | inquires [1] - 23:13 | 59:22 |\n| 11:15, 12:4, 12:6, | 14:23, 15:8, 15:13, | implicitly [1] - 56:5 | insofar [1] - 67:16 | investigations [4] - |\n| 13:2, 13:3, 13:16, | 15:22, 16:15, 16:19, | implied [2] - 44:6, | instance [1] - 41:17 | 45:1, 47:17, 48:18, |\n| 13:20, 15:12, 15:16, | 19:19, 19:24, 20:12, | 63:20 | instant [1] - 37:21 | 61:13 |\n| 15:21, 15:24, 16:2, | 22:15, 23:15, 23:16, | important [5] - 10:20, | instantly [1] - 38:10 | Investments [3] - |\n| 16:4, 16:8, 16:10, | 25:3, 25:7, 25:14, | 37:5, 38:8, 38:17, | instead [2] - 4:10, | 5:10, 18:13, 21:21 |\n| 18:1, 22:21, 22:22, | 25:23, 26:5, 27:24, | 43:25 | 34:3 | investor [2] - 12:20, |\n| 22:24, 23:9, 23:10, | 28:11, 28:13, 28:20, | importantly [1] - 62:9 | institutional [1] - 64:9 | 59:23 |\n| 24:19, 24:23, 25:1, | 29:4, 30:10, 30:17, | imposed [1] - 46:8 | instructs [1] - 11:8 | invitation [1] - 49:20 |\n| | | | | |\n| | | dar | | |\n\n85\n\n## 77 of 84\n\n85\n\n| | 35:22, 36:23, 37:4, | 28:25, 29:2, 32:6, | | 18:13, 21:8, 21:22 |\n|--------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|\n| invoke [4] - 32:6, | | | Last [2] - 38:19, 40:5 | |\n| 47:13, 47:19, 50:2 | 39:9, 39:15, 39:24, | 32:13, 32:22, 35:16, | late [3] - 7:1, 36:18, | limited [1] - 57:12 |\n| invoked [1] - 26:25 | 41:6, 41:9, 45:2, | 36:23, 36:24, 37:4, | 57:4 | line [2] - 45:16, 67:15 |\n| invoking [1] - 10:1 | 54:4, 61:18, 61:20, | 38:21, 39:3, 39:8, | laterally [1] - 44:14 | list [4] - 6:17, 51:13, |\n| involved [9] - 3:16, | 65:2, 67:14 | 39:17, 40:11, 41:8, | latest [1] - 13:10 | 54:19, 65:4 |\n| 47:18, 49:1, 55:2, | judicata [2] - 41:1, | 43:13, 44:4, 44:21, | law [7] - 15:9, 17:18, | listing [1] - 42:8 |\n| 60:10, 65:5, 67:2, | 41:14 | 44:23, 44:25, 45:5, | 40:2, 47:6, 51:23, | lists [1] - 65:4 |\n| 67:24, 69:24 | judicial [4] - 9:16, | 46:4, 46:10, 46:12, | 52:7, 52:15 | literally [3] - 9:10, |\n| involvement [1] - 29:3 | 9:20, 19:17, 69:23 | 46:18, 47:3, 48:1, | Law [5] - 8:16, 17:7, | 11:6, 17:22 |\n| involving [1] - 50:7 | Judicial [2] - 17:7, | 48:2, 48:8, 48:18, | 25:17, 58:6, 58:11 | litigation [9] - 7:7, |\n| ironically [1] - 12:14 | 25:17 | 48:21, 49:14, 49:22, | lawful [2] - 4:22, 26:2 | 12:19, 13:10, 20:20, |\n| irrelevant [1] - 24:5 | judicially [1] - 10:12 | 49:25, 50:6, 51:11, | lawyer [10] - 7:13, | 20:24, 39:8, 48:15, |\n| irrespective [1] - | jump [1] - 28:6 | 51:13, 51:17, 51:18, | 11:13, 21:13, 21:23, | 49:18, 51:7 |\n| 66:11 | jurisdiction [8] - 4:4, | 53:1, 57:17, 57:24, | 27:20, 49:1, 52:23, | live [2] - 30:14, 66:22 |\n| issue [30] - 13:17, | 4:5, 31:10, 31:17, | 58:1, 58:3, 58:18, | 58:17, 59:1, 59:2 | lived [2] - 22:8, 22:9 |\n| 16:19, 16:20, 17:11, | 31:23, 31:25, 32:16, | 58:23, 59:12, 59:23, | lawyers [7] - 46:23, | living [1] - 22:11 |\n| 17:13, 17:14, 17:17, | 33:14 | 59:25, 61:10, 61:12, | 48:21, 49:5, 56:1, | LLC [6] - 1:8, 12:18, |\n| 17:19, 23:16, 24:6, | Justice [1] - 1:14 | 62:13, 62:15, 63:9, | 68:6, 68:14, 69:2 | 12:19, 12:25, 21:22, |\n| 26:5, 27:12, 28:15, | justifies [1] - 40:20 | 66:1, 66:11, 66:17, | laying [2] - 61:17, 63:2 | 35:10 |\n| 28:17, 29:13, 30:1, | | 66:24, 67:4, 70:4 | layout [2] - 53:25, 54:3 | LLP [4] - 1:17, 1:20, |\n| 31:24, 33:21, 37:22, | K | Kwok's [40] - 6:1, 6:4, | leading [1] - 58:9 | 2:2, 2:5 |\n| 43:25, 47:1, 48:16, | | 6:5, 7:7, 7:19, 9:3, | league [2] - 60:3, 60:4 | loaned [1] - 36:12 |\n| 53:20, 53:21, 54:25, | keep [2] - 40:24, 60:7 | 9:21, 10:7, 10:20, | leak [1] - 65:7 | loans [4] - 42:2, 42:3, |\n| 55:21, 63:22, 66:21, | keeping [1] - 48:22 | 11:18, 13:24, 14:6, | learned [2] - 59:4 | 42:4 |\n| 67:16, 70:12 | key [2] - 58:19, 58:24 | 14:11, 14:15, 16:25, | least [1] - 56:15 | locating [1] - 37:3 |\n| issued [1] - 7:23 | kind [2] - 39:14, 70:18 | 18:2, 19:9, 20:11, | leave [1] - 43:4 | location [1] - 32:20 |\n| issues [14] - 13:15, | KLEIN [1] - 2:10 | 20:19, 22:22, 22:23, | Lee [1] - 21:23 | logical [2] - 20:23, |\n| 13:19, 17:23, 26:19, | Klein [1] - 52:21 | 24:4, 25:18, 27:6, | left [3] - 42:8, 42:16, | 27:4 |\n| 29:24, 43:20, 44:1, | KLINGER [1] - 2:12 | 38:15, 41:10, 42:12, | 65:24 | long-time [2] - 31:3, |\n| 49:3, 50:7, 50:9, | knowledge [3] - 26:3, | 42:17, 42:19, 43:17, | legal [19] - 7:7, 7:11, | 64:9 |\n| 55:10, 59:19, 69:21 | 64:9, 69:21 | 47:13, 48:11, 49:8, | | |\n| | | | 8:12, 8:17, 8:21, | look [4] - 14:11, 26:12, |\n| issuing [1] - 70:24 | known [1] - 45:8 | 49:15, 49:16, 49:19, | 15:14, 16:19, 16:20, | 33:8, 69:17 |\n| Italy [2] - 7:24, 7:25 | knows [2] - 14:15, | 58:21, 61:14, 62:13 | 17:16, 17:23, 20:2, | looks [3] - 9:23, 25:23, |\n| items [1] - 61:5 | 41:7 | | 24:15, 28:15, 28:21, | 61:24 |\n| itself [2] - 65:24, 68:9 | Kong [29] - 5:9, 5:11, | L | 42:13, 42:17, 42:19, | loosely [2] - 19:14, |\n| | 5:19, 5:22, 5:25, 6:3, | | 43:25, 53:3 | 24:10 |\n| | 6:7, 7:5, 7:10, 8:6, | L.P [1] - 1:2 | legit [1] - 64:16 | lower [1] - 13:9 |\n| J | 8:7, 9:10, 9:11, 9:13, | labeled [1] - 46:19 | legitimate [1] - 64:13 | Luck [2] - 21:8, 21:9 |\n| Janover [1] - 37:17 | 9:16, 10:14, 10:15, | lack [2] - 23:23, 59:11 | lengthy [1] - 55:7 | |\n| January [3] - 1:11, | 10:19, 10:22, 11:1, | lackey [2] - 6:1, 20:11 | | |\n| 5:5, 41:23 | 18:12, 19:2, 27:16, | Lady [5] - 5:7, 18:8, | less [2] - 13:19, 41:16 | M |\n| JANUSZEWSKI [1] - | 27:19, 27:20 | 20:18, 21:6, 21:15 | letter [2] - 7:13, 36:4
Levine [5] - 34:22, | machinations [1] - |\n| 1:22 | Korn [1] - 8:19 | Lamb [1] - 2:4 | 40:25, 41:22, 42:7, | 5:24 |\n| JEREMY [1] - 2:4 | Kurnit [3] - 12:15, | Lamb's [1] - 36:23 | 42:16 | mail [4] - 7:15, 10:2, |\n| JESSE [1] - 2:12 | 43:19, 52:21 | Lamp [26] - 7:8, 34:23, | LEVINE [10] - 2:3, | 10:24, 11:23 |\n| John [2] - 15:9, 43:12 | KURNIT [1] - 2:10 | 35:10, 35:17, 35:20, | 34:21, 35:1, 35:5, | mails [1] - 46:24 |\n| JOHN [1] - 2:7 | KWOK [3] - 1:6, 1:7 | 35:25, 36:3, 36:6, | 39:13, 39:20, 42:23, | maintenance [1] - |\n| joined [2] - 57:4, 64:3 | Kwok [101] - 2:8, 3:6, | 36:12, 36:15, 36:16, | 43:3, 43:10, 50:14 | 42:14 |\n| joins [1] - 44:14 | 4:3, 4:13, 4:17, 4:21, | 36:20, 36:22, 37:1, | Levine's [1] - 34:19 | majority [1] - 52:13 |\n| joint [3] - 34:1, 58:3, | 5:6, 5:9, 5:17, 6:9, | 37:16, 37:17, 38:6, | levy [4] - 8:15, 25:13, | managed [2] - 35:17, |\n| 58:7 | 6:22, 8:3, 9:19, 9:22, | 38:14, 38:15, 38:16, | 25:16, 25:18 | 35:22 |\n| jointing [1] - 55:20 | 10:1, 10:2, 10:20, | 39:9, 41:2, 41:16, | levying [2] - 9:1, 26:10 | Management [4] - |\n| JP [1] - 38:24 | 11:10, 13:20, 13:25, | 41:24, 42:6, 42:18 | Lexington [1] - 2:2 | 35:12, 35:14, 35:21, |\n| Judge [2] - 61:11, | 14:7, 14:22, 16:9, | language [1] - 12:4 | Liberty [1] - 2:10 | 35:23 |\n| 63:7 | 17:9, 18:4, 18:7, | large [2] - 38:1, 63:21 | licensed [1] - 35:10 | management [1] - |\n| judgment [28] - 8:14, | 18:10, 18:19, 18:23, | last [13] - 3:1, 4:8, | lifestyle [1] - 42:12 | 36:8 |\n| 8:15, 8:21, 8:25, | 19:7, 19:22, 20:22, | 13:23, 14:5, 14:16, | | March [2] - 29:20, |\n| 12:12, 12:13, 17:2, | 21:17, 22:16, 23:21, | 21:18, 21:24, 29:18, | Lijie [1] - 21:12 | 29:22 |\n| 17:12, 20:22, 25:13, | 24:8, 24:15, 26:2, | 37:25, 38:9, 38:12, | likely [2] - 49:18, | material [5] - 45:15, |\n| 35:16, 35:18, 35:19, | 26:13, 26:22, 27:4, | 40:8, 62:7 | 68:13 | 60:18, 61:9, 63:5 |\n| | | dar | Limited [4] - 5:10, | |\n\n85\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022\n\n| materials [1] - 49:16 | MINKOFF [1] - 2:12 | Movant [1] - 2:13 | 69:4 | 19:5, 21:2, 21:19, |\n|-------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------|\n| | | | need [7] - 8:17, 9:4, | 37:11, 40:1, 59:21, |\n| matter [7] - 14:18, | minor [1] - 41:8 | move [3] - 30:15, 53:7, | | |\n| 27:4, 29:25, 38:13, | minus [1] - 29:12 | 60:16 | 13:20, 28:5, 38:4, | 60:9, 67:18, 68:1 |\n| 47:1, 48:17, 54:15 | minute [1] - 15:3 | moved [4] - 4:5, 4:6, | 61:3, 67:24 | notice [2] - 9:16, |\n| matters [5] - 52:11, | minutes [4] - 6:14, | 4:11, 11:6 | needed [1] - 12:4 | 31:21 |\n| 53:14, 53:19, 56:3, | 16:1, 50:12, 64:24 | movement [1] - 64:23 | needs [2] - 64:11, | noticeable [1] - 10:12 |\n| 59:21 | mistake [2] - 69:12, | moves [1] - 11:9 | 68:17 | notified [2] - 56:16, |\n| Matthew [1] - 34:22 | 69:13 | moving [4] - 4:3, | Netherland [2] - 5:18, | 56:17 |\n| MATTHEW [1] - 2:3 | mistaken [1] - 67:9 | 16:12, 25:18, 53:20 | 42:13 | noting [1] - 4:14 |\n| | | | | |\n| Mayors [1] - 64:14 | mistakes [4] - 68:13, | MR [84] - 3:7, 3:15, | never [20] - 10:24, | novel [1] - 44:1 |\n| mean [4] - 6:19, 11:5, | 69:8, 69:9, 69:15 | 3:18, 3:24, 4:1, 15:8, | 18:8, 18:11, 18:19, | November [3] - 4:19, |\n| 41:2, 51:3 | misusing [1] - 66:12 | 15:13, 15:22, 16:3, | 19:20, 22:10, 22:18, | 10:3, 11:14 |\n| meaningful [2] - 19:6, | modifications [1] - | 16:5, 16:15, 19:11, | 44:8, 46:12, 46:24, | number [3] - 5:23, |\n| 38:12 | 37:5 | 19:18, 19:24, 20:5, | 56:15, 56:16, 56:17, | 23:1, 36:5 |\n| means [1] - 59:19 | modified [1] - 37:18 | 20:8, 22:15, 22:20, | 56:23, 57:25, 59:9, | Number [3] - 6:14, |\n| meat [1] - 37:2 | moment [2] - 11:9, | 22:23, 23:8, 23:15, | 62:17, 62:19, 63:13, | 23:3, 38:25 |\n| Media [1] - 52:22 | | 24:21, 25:3, 25:7, | 65:8 | numerous [2] - 19:13, |\n| | 12:2 | 25:11, 26:15, 26:20, | NEW [2] - 1:1, 1:1 | |\n| meet [8] - 36:18, | money [3] - 5:22, | | | 49:24 |\n| 37:10, 53:4, 57:20, | 12:20, 39:4 | 28:11, 28:13, 29:4, | new [5] - 7:7, 36:21, | |\n| 57:24, 59:14, 60:15, | months [3] - 7:21, | 29:13, 29:19, 30:2, | 38:14, 38:17, 44:13 | O |\n| 60:17 | 20:20, 52:11 | 30:10, 30:17, 30:20, | New [28] - 1:18, 1:21, | |\n| meets [1] - 8:17 | mordaciously [1] - | 31:1, 31:7, 31:20, | 2:3, 2:6, 2:11, 5:17, | O'Melveny [6] - 3:16, |\n| member [5] - 24:3, | 27:5 | 32:5, 32:17, 33:1, | 6:23, 8:16, 9:18, | 3:19, 3:23, 67:7, |\n| 24:13, 35:13, 59:8 | Morgan [1] - 38:24 | 33:9, 33:19, 34:15, | 17:18, 19:22, 35:11, | 67:20, 67:24 |\n| | | 34:16, 34:19, 34:21, | 36:9, 38:24, 48:20, | object [1] - 45:18 |\n| members [2] - 22:7, | morning [1] - 7:25 | 35:1, 35:5, 39:13, | 52:4, 52:13, 56:9, | obviously [4] - 9:6, |\n| 63:12 | MOSS [12] - 1:21, 3:7, | | | |\n| MEMORALIZING [1] - | 3:15, 45:6, 57:15, | 39:20, 40:24, 42:23, | 58:6, 58:10, 58:17, | 19:11, 52:25, 58:22 |\n| 70:13 | 61:8, 65:19, 66:14, | 43:3, 43:10, 43:12, | 63:19, 68:7 | October [4] - 5:13, |\n| mention [5] - 21:6, | 67:11, 67:23, 69:8, | 43:23, 44:3, 44:6, | newly [1] - 56:12 | 6:15, 36:4, 41:23 |\n| 27:14, 27:17, 58:24, | 70:17 | 44:9, 44:11, 45:6, | newspaper [2] - 19:1, | OF [3] - 1:1, 1:1 |\n| 61:5 | Moss [15] - 3:8, 44:12, | 45:11, 45:21, 46:2, | 19:3 | offer [7] - 6:17, 15:11, |\n| mentioned [4] - 11:9, | 56:8, 57:4, 57:15, | 46:3, 50:14, 50:23, | next [7] - 1:23, 16:8, | 15:20, 16:1, 21:5, |\n| 11:13, 38:18, 41:22 | | 51:23, 52:1, 52:17, | 21:5, 29:23, 30:4, | 23:13, 33:4 |\n| | 64:25, 65:7, 65:9, | 57:15, 61:3, 61:5, | 42:22, 43:11 | offered [2] - 18:3, |\n| mer [1] - 46:22 | 65:17, 66:6, 66:8, | 61:8, 65:19, 66:14, | | 21:18 |\n| mercy [1] - 45:24 | 66:13, 67:12, 69:17, | 67:1, 67:11, 67:23, | Nicholas [1] - 43:14 | |\n| message [1] - 10:25 | 70:21 | | NICHOLAS [1] - 2:8 | offers [1] - 20:16 |\n| met [3] - 11:24, 55:22, | moss' [1] - 68:4 | 69:8, 70:10, 70:17 | Nicole [2] - 43:19, | office [3] - 6:4, 68:7, |\n| 55:25 | most [1] - 19:13 | MS [8] - 52:18, 52:20, | 52:20 | 68:14 |\n| Microsoft [1] - 31:9 | motion [52] - 3:4, 3:5, | 54:9, 65:13, 65:18, | NICOLE [1] - 2:11 | Office [1] - 48:19 |\n| middle [2] - 11:14, | 3:8, 3:9, 3:21, 4:9, | 65:20, 68:3, 70:9 | night [1] - 14:17 | officer [2] - 35:19, |\n| | 13:7, 13:13, 14:17, | multi [1] - 10:25 | nine [1] - 41:23 | 35:23 |\n| 37:7 | | multi-million [1] - | Nizer [1] - 34:22 | officers [2] - 10:18, |\n| midst [1] - 20:24 | 15:3, 15:7, 16:25, | 10:25 | | |\n| might [7] - 11:18, | 17:1, 17:3, 17:7, | multiple [2] - 54:17, | NIZER [1] - 2:2 | 63:11 |\n| 13:22, 16:13, 25:9, | 17:8, 17:15, 17:17, | | nobody [2] - 64:2, | Official [2] - 2:22, |\n| 31:4, 31:18, 59:19 | 17:22, 19:25, 21:2, | 65:6 | 69:13 | 71:13 |\n| | 28:12, 31:4, 35:2, | must [4] - 11:6, 33:12, | Non [1] - 2:4 | official [1] - 9:12 |\n| | | | | |\n| mildly [1] - 67:13 | 36:3, 37:14, 37:21, | 59:18, 61:9 | Non-Party [1] - 2:4 | Old [1] - 1:20 |\n| Miles [9] - 21:10, | | MYERS [1] - 1:17 | | |\n| 21:16, 35:16, 36:23, | 37:25, 38:20, 39:3, | myriad [1] - 42:17 | nonconsensual [1] - | old [3] - 6:2, 7:4, 64:8 |\n| 36:24, 37:4, 38:21, | 39:25, 40:13, 41:11, | | 56:10 | once [1] - 65:8 |\n| 39:3, 39:8 | 41:16, 42:21, 42:22, | | none [2] - 18:22, 22:8 | one [38] - 3:14, 5:14, |\n| MILES [1] - 1:7 | 43:9, 43:11, 43:17, | N | nonfamily [1] - 24:3 | 10:8, 10:9, 11:16, |\n| miles [1] - 21:11 | 43:20, 43:21, 49:21, | | nonparty [3] - 34:22, | 12:2, 13:23, 14:5, |\n| Miles' [1] - 21:12 | 51:1, 51:4, 52:22, | nada [1] - 67:22 | 35:10, 40:21 | 18:7, 22:10, 23:1, |\n| | 53:25, 57:12, 67:18, | name [1] - 52:20 | nonrelative [1] - 20:25 | 27:8, 27:14, 36:8, |\n| Miller [1] - 8:19 | 68:9, 69:15, 70:7 | named [1] - 12:13 | | 37:15, 37:16, 38:15, |\n| million [5] - 10:25, | | nature [1] - 31:5 | note [4] - 5:1, 25:23, | 38:22, 38:23, 40:4, |\n| 12:13, 26:17, 41:24, | motions [8] - 3:4, | nearly [3] - 48:6, 48:7, | 27:8, 42:2 | |\n| 53:3 | 29:8, 30:15, 34:18, | 51:19 | noted [2] - 4:15, 8:9 | 42:23, 44:2, 46:19, |\n| millions [1] - 36:13 | 34:20, 37:13, 43:16, | | nothing [17] - 7:12, | 50:23, 52:7, 53:15, |\n| mini [1] - 29:8 | 58:14 | necessary [5] - 8:20, | 10:10, 10:17, 10:24, | 54:21, 55:2, 55:5, |\n| minimum [1] - 37:18 | mounting [1] - 42:19 | 13:16, 60:18, 61:9, | 11:5, 11:16, 13:15, | 55:14, 59:7, 59:8, |\n| | | dar | | |\n\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 Case 22-50073 Doc 440-20 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 81 of\n\n9\n\n| 62:16, 67:1, 68:6, | 28:8 | 50:20 | PHILLIPS [1] - 2:2 | practice [2] - 47:1, |\n|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|\n| 70:15, 70:17 | ownership [22] - 4:25, | PAX [37] - 4:20, 14:16, | phonetic [6] - 8:23, | 70:23 |\n| open [2] - 45:11, | 5:14, 5:25, 8:12, | 48:10, 48:14, 49:4, | 12:13, 21:8, 21:23, | practiced [1] - 52:15 |\n| 45:15 | 8:18, 15:17, 17:4, | 51:7, 53:12, 54:5, | 48:21, 64:14 | practices [1] - 13:3 |\n| opening [3] - 58:13, | 17:9, 17:20, 18:18, | 54:7, 54:9, 54:14, | pick [2] - 29:23, 30:14 | pre [2] - 29:20, 36:3 |\n| 58:21, 61:12 | 19:6, 19:10, 19:14, | 54:22, 57:8, 59:3, | piece [4] - 7:16, 25:20, | pre-motion [1] - 36:3 |\n| opportunity [5] - | 19:19, 20:3, 20:14, | 59:18, 61:9, 61:13, | 27:20, 27:22 | pre-trial [1] - 29:20 |\n| 27:25, 29:8, 42:6, | 20:18, 21:20, 24:12, | 61:17, 61:22, 61:23, | piecing [1] - 42:5 | preceding [1] - 70:13 |\n| 43:5, 62:10 | 24:13, 24:14, 36:3 | 62:9, 62:19, 63:6, | piercing [1] - 62:3 | precise [1] - 63:3 |\n| OPPORTUNITY [1] - | owns [9] - 5:6, 6:11, | 64:7, 64:11, 64:21, | pinnacle [1] - 47:5 | precluded [1] - 32:12 |\n| 1:2 | 6:12, 8:7, 14:14, | 65:1, 65:9, 65:11, | place [4] - 63:25, 64:3, | preferred [1] - 23:3 |\n| opposing [2] - 15:2, | 14:18, 22:8, 23:19, | 65:15, 65:24, 66:9, | 69:10, 70:13 | prejudging [2] - |\n| 30:3 | 49:23 | 66:10, 66:11, 66:25, | plaintiff [4] - 12:16, | 16:17, 23:7 |\n| opposite [2] - 65:10, | O'MELVENY [1] - 1:17 | 69:20 | 37:8, 39:11, 41:7 | prejudice [2] - 25:17, |\n| 68:24 | | PAX's [7] - 4:22, | Plaintiff [27] - 1:4, | 28:17 |\n| opposition [4] - 13:13, | P | 54:10, 55:5, 57:18, | 1:19, 1:22, 13:1, | prejudiced [4] - 4:23, |\n| 15:7, 36:11, 64:15 | | 65:2, 65:8, 69:2 | 15:23, 18:3, 20:16, | 25:19, 26:4, 45:23 |\n| oral [2] - 39:3, 46:7 | Pacific [5] - 3:8, 3:19, | pay [1] - 39:5 | 21:4, 24:17, 36:11, | prejudicial [1] - 69:20 |\n| Order [3] - 17:21, | 4:2, 21:4, 51:15 | paying [3] - 7:3, 7:6, | 36:14, 36:16, 37:6, | prepare [1] - 64:11 |\n| 62:24, 64:21 | PACIFIC [1] - 1:2 | 42:18 | 37:12, 37:14, 37:20, | prepared [3] - 24:17, |\n| order [29] - 3:2, 3:3, | PAG [1] - 45:22 | payment [1] - 36:6 | 37:24, 38:3, 39:8, | 31:15, 67:9 |\n| 3:5, 4:3, 4:20, 4:22, | page [2] - 1:23, 29:7 | pays [1] - 7:5 | 39:14, 41:6, 48:6, | prerogative [2] - 9:7, |\n| 14:1, 14:2, 14:8, | Page [8] - 18:24, | PC [1] - 2:10 | 49:10, 49:17, 49:22, | 24:23 |\n| 14:12, 14:16, 14:23, | 27:11, 38:25, 39:6, | penalties [3] - 5:1, | 50:8, 51:2 | presence [1] - 45:8 |\n| 14:24, 17:6, 18:6, | 41:11, 58:20, 61:12, | 5:2, 15:18 | Plaintiff's [7] - 26:3, | present [1] - 3:23 |\n| 22:17, 25:24, 26:2, | 64:15 | pending [1] - 51:16 | 36:17, 37:23, 38:5, | presentation [1] - |\n| 33:22, 33:24, 40:12, | pages [2] - 9:9, 9:10 | people [7] - 22:11, | 39:2, 39:23, 40:23 | 23:12 |\n| 41:18, 60:21, 61:8, | paid [1] - 53:2 | 32:3, 33:14, 47:7, | plaintiff's [1] - 18:23 | presents [1] - 16:11 |\n| 62:20, 70:12, 70:24, | paper [3] - 7:16,
27:20, 27:22 | 54:19, 64:1, 69:8 | Plaintiffs [5] - 20:20, | preserved [1] - 28:4 |\n| 71:3 | papers [9] - 16:12, | People's [1] - 22:6 | 21:18, 38:19, 40:16, | pressing [1] - 29:25 |\n| ordered [1] - 4:11 | 25:4, 26:19, 27:10, | percent [2] - 6:5, 68:1 | 45:1 | presumption [3] - |\n| orders [4] - 4:15, 7:22, | 36:10, 42:16, 42:21, | perfectly [1] - 68:19 | plaintiffs' [1] - 17:11 | 63:8, 63:10, 63:20 |\n| 14:19, 62:22 | 53:25, 60:23 | perhaps [3] - 24:13, | plan [1] - 63:13 | previously [2] - 12:22, |\n| ordinary [1] - 47:20
OSTRAGER [1] - 1:14 | Paragraph [7] - 21:8, | 28:2, 58:9 | planning [1] - 22:2 | 32:21 |\n| out-of-state [1] - 33:3 | 39:1, 46:4, 48:25, | period [2] - 18:11,
18:19 | Plaza [1] - 2:6 | price [1] - 6:18 |\n| outlined [2] - 16:11, | 49:14, 49:20, 58:13 | permission [1] - 66:20 | pleads [1] - 21:8 | prima [5] - 4:15, |\n| 26:19 | parameters [1] - 50:15 | permit [2] - 56:10, | pledge [1] - 66:24
plus [2] - 16:1, 29:12 | 22:16, 23:23, 24:19, |\n| outright [1] - 14:15 | PART [1] - 1:1 | 68:16 | point [14] - 8:9, 13:23, | 26:6 |\n| outset [2] - 8:10, | part [2] - 28:18, 33:17 | permits [2] - 56:21, | 14:6, 23:22, 26:8, | private [1] - 70:23 |\n| 43:23 | participated [1] - 48:2 | 56:22 | 27:14, 38:4, 39:23, | privilege [2] - 47:7, |\n| outside [3] - 31:17, | participation [1] - | person [14] - 8:7, | 40:4, 42:23, 50:18, | 47:20 |\n| 31:24, 33:14 | 50:2 | 10:21, 11:7, 18:16, | 52:4, 60:25, 62:3 | Privilege [1] - 32:7 |\n| overcome [2] - 26:18, | particular [2] - 39:21 | 18:17, 19:4, 20:17, | pointed [1] - 41:22 | privileged [2] - 46:20,
70:19 |\n| 57:18 | particularly [1] - 38:11 | 20:18, 27:3, 39:23, | points [3] - 41:25, | privileges [2] - 47:6, |\n| overlap [2] - 50:16, | parties [7] - 3:2, 13:2, | 39:24, 47:17, 51:17, | 64:25, 68:24 | 50:3 |\n| 50:19 | 28:23, 33:25, 34:9, | 51:19 | portal [1] - 49:11 | proactively [1] - 36:2 |\n| overstate [1] - 51:5 | 34:11, 67:20 | person's [2] - 20:14, | position [6] - 16:25, | problem [5] - 10:6, |\n| overview [1] - 5:7 | partner [1] - 44:13 | 21:25 | 18:3, 44:15, 51:21, | 45:25, 56:9, 58:5, |\n| owed [1] - 44:23 | partners [1] - 55:7 | personally [2] - 44:21, | 52:25, 69:14 | 61:21 |\n| own [5] - 6:21, 7:1, | parts [1] - 60:11 | 67:25 | possesses [1] - 53:11 | proceeding [17] - |\n| 9:21, 32:14, 65:2 | Party [1] - 2:4 | perspective [1] - | possession [3] - | 7:18, 12:17, 13:10, |\n| owned [16] - 8:25, | party [8] - 9:22, 20:25, | 67:17 | 48:13, 53:23, 55:15 | 19:3, 24:15, 45:12, |\n| 18:5, 18:8, 18:11, | 24:3, 24:14, 31:25, | petition [1] - 13:8 | possibility [1] - 59:5 | 60:2, 60:3, 60:7, |\n| 18:15, 18:19, 19:20, | 33:15, 52:10 | Petrillo [3] - 48:17, | possible [3] - 35:3, | 60:13, 60:14, 62:11, |\n| 19:23, 21:6, 21:15, | party's [1] - 47:22 | 48:24, 48:25 | 55:14, 68:13 | 62:16, 65:6, 67:3, |\n| 22:16, 23:19, 35:11, | past [3] - 13:12, 13:25, | Petrillo's [2] - 49:14, | possibly [1] - 67:15 | 68:8 |\n| 35:14, 35:17, 35:21 | 14:6 | 49:20 | postjudgment [2] - | proceedings [5] - |\n| owner [6] - 7:11, 8:6, | patience [1] - 43:15 | Ph [1] - 58:9 | 32:19, 41:20 | 5:21, 26:17, 46:13, |\n| 10:14, 10:16, 19:5, | Pausing [2] - 15:4, | Phillips [1] - 34:22 | potential [1] - 20:22 | 71:5, 71:8 |\n| | | dar | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 440-20 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 82 of\n\n85\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022\n\n| 37:12, 56:11, 56:12
10:16, 10:19, 10:23,
PROCEEDINGS [1] -
purchased [3] - 18:12,
regarding [7] - 19:19,
1:10
18:19, 20:17
reaching [2] - 56:19,
21:7, 22:3, 50:1,
11:4, 12:14, 53:2,
56:13, 57:19, 58:3,
59:8
50:4, 51:19, 52:4
process [4] - 16:9,
purchaser [1] - 20:10
59:2
37:2, 37:10, 68:19
read [2] - 42:20, 63:3
regret [1] - 69:25
purported [3] - 6:9,
representing [5] -
produce [1] - 37:3
readily [1] - 14:13
REINDEL [1] - 1:20
48:24, 61:14
7:14, 50:8, 53:22,
produced [4] - 11:23,
purpose [4] - 15:16,
ready [1] - 27:1
related [14] - 11:2,
55:9, 57:8
12:23, 29:2, 42:1
21:25, 52:23, 57:13
41:19, 46:13, 51:17,
reality [1] - 61:22
represents [1] - 48:17
producing [1] - 23:1
purposes [2] - 9:2,
51:19, 53:14, 54:15,
really [9] - 8:4, 9:1,
request [1] - 51:16
11:21
54:18, 54:21, 59:18,
product [1] - 46:21
9:3, 10:10, 12:10,
60:2, 60:8, 60:23,
requested [1] - 51:13
pursuant [1] - 36:7
production [1] - 9:12
36:24, 54:3, 62:10,
65:3
requests [2] - 37:6,
69:17
professor [1] - 58:8
pursue [3] - 62:21,
relating [4] - 49:16,
55:12
65:15, 67:8
reams [1] - 53:23
Professor [4] - 58:12,
51:16, 51:18, 53:23
require [2] - 30:25,
pursued [2] - 62:9,
reason [4] - 25:11,
58:16, 58:23, 63:15
relationship [15] -
68:21
62:19
28:18, 38:20, 52:7
proffer [2] - 11:21,
44:24, 44:25, 46:9,
required [4] - 8:13,
pursuing [5] - 61:23,
reasonable [1] - 39:17
33:4
46:16, 53:6, 53:21,
18:4, 69:7, 69:11
61:24, 62:2, 63:1
proffered [1] - 17:24
reasonably [1] - 47:9
55:22, 56:3, 57:24,
requirement [2] -
put [15] - 12:24, 21:20,
reasons [4] - 9:8,
prominently [1] -
58:2, 59:11, 59:16,
33:2, 57:23
24:17, 25:8, 33:20,
46:19
14:21, 15:24, 63:6
60:16, 61:14, 61:15
requires [3] - 17:8,
45:24, 46:24, 46:25,
promise [1] - 47:4
rebut [5] - 16:6, 16:13,
relative [1] - 18:23
56:17, 59:7, 62:20,
40:1, 40:3
24:20, 63:10, 63:15
promised [1] - 47:3
relevance [1] - 54:4
62:23, 63:2, 63:25,
res [2] - 41:1, 41:13
rebuttable [3] - 57:21,
prong [3] - 57:20,
66:16
relevant [9] - 25:21,
research [1] - 4:10
63:8
60:17, 63:5
26:10, 31:18, 31:23,
reserved [1] - 46:12
rebutted [4] - 8:3,
prongs [4] - 53:15,
Q
32:3, 34:9, 41:19,
residence [1] - 29:1
23:17, 27:15, 63:20
53:16, 55:25, 59:14
49:18, 60:25
rebutting [1] - 23:22
resolve [1] - 70:16
pronounce [1] - 18:16
Qiang [1] - 35:15
reliability [1] - 16:17
resolved [2] - 23:10,
received [1] - 63:13
proof [10] - 15:11,
Qu [2] - 18:16, 18:22
reliable [1] - 49:1
68:4
recent [1] - 14:11
15:20, 16:2, 18:3,
QU [1] - 18:17
relief [1] - 42:25
respect [15] - 3:1,
20:1, 22:1, 22:12,
recently [1] - 10:2
quarreling [1] - 24:24
reluctantly [1] - 70:6
10:7, 12:17, 14:22,
23:14, 24:17, 39:10
recess [2] - 15:5,
quarter [1] - 6:12
rely [2] - 68:18, 68:21
34:8, 43:24, 44:12,
properly [1] - 36:25
50:21
quash [5] - 34:18,
remained [1] - 5:3
55:21, 65:16, 66:10,
property [2] - 8:14,
recognize [1] - 69:19
35:6, 37:15, 37:18,
remand [3] - 12:5,
67:14, 67:16, 69:18
8:21
recognized [1] - 58:8
42:21
16:21, 17:13
respectfully [4] -
proposals [1] - 37:8
record [17] - 15:6,
questionable [1] -
remanded [6] - 4:24,
11:16, 14:2, 15:25,
propose [1] - 30:17
18:21, 19:5, 19:25,
13:11
15:15, 17:3, 17:17,
38:7
20:8, 20:12, 21:2,
proposed [1] - 37:5
questions [5] - 14:25,
24:16, 25:1
respond [3] - 24:18,
23:11, 23:17, 24:1,
propriety [1] - 69:24
28:14, 29:5, 43:6,
remember [3] - 42:10,
37:8, 64:24
24:22, 25:9, 27:1,
prosecuted [1] - 70:3
43:8
60:3, 62:12
Respondent [1] -
30:6, 45:3, 45:13,
prosecution [1] -
quickly [2] - 30:3, 53:7
REMOTE [2] - 1:10,
15:23
65:15
69:25
quite [2] - 13:7, 61:12
71:14
response [9] - 9:24,
recordings [1] - 9:21
protect [1] - 54:2
quote [16] - 8:20, 13:7,
repeat [2] - 18:8, 18:9
23:13, 37:14, 37:21,
records [4] - 9:12,
protected [1] - 68:18
15:17, 18:24, 21:9,
repeatedly [1] - 6:23
48:2, 48:3, 48:12,
9:17, 36:11, 39:12
protection [3] - 47:14,
36:21, 37:22, 38:22,
54:10, 69:15
reply [2] - 48:24, 63:22
red [1] - 70:1
47:22
39:4, 39:5, 40:11,
responsibilities [1] -
report [4] - 19:1, 19:3,
refer [1] - 34:5
protract [1] - 26:16
41:6, 48:21, 48:23,
44:1
28:16, 58:13
referenced [2] - 27:10,
provide [2] - 32:4,
61:17
rest [1] - 24:7
reported [3] - 17:18,
54:16
38:1
quote/unquote [1] -
restraining [2] - 7:23,
23:20, 24:10
referred [5] - 12:18,
provided [5] - 10:11,
20:11
41:18
reportedly [4] - 18:24,
20:10, 24:10, 25:20,
12:1, 36:11, 40:11,
quotes [1] - 13:9
result [1] - 46:10
18:25, 19:2, 19:4
26:23
49:25
resume [2] - 50:13,
Reporter [3] - 2:22,
referring [3] - 5:11,
provides [1] - 36:6
R
50:14
50:12, 71:13
9:19, 37:24
provision [1] - 46:6
return [1] - 50:17
represent [5] - 3:19,
refers [2] - 6:25, 19:14
pry [1] - 57:21
raised [3] - 21:9, 51:6,
52:21, 54:24, 59:3,
returns [2] - 7:16, 7:21
reflect [1] - 22:4
pubically [1] - 69:11
64:25
60:12
reviewing [2] - 13:12,
refusal [1] - 14:15
Public [1] - 22:6
raises [3] - 13:15,
representation [5] -
49:12
refuse [1] - 31:19
public [3] - 9:12, 9:17,
43:20, 44:1
53:4, 55:10, 57:8,
reviews [1] - 55:6
refused [1] - 11:11
10:12
Randall [1] - 52:24
59:17
rhetoric [2] - 20:12,
refusing [1] - 32:4
publicly [1] - 68:10
range [1] - 49:21
representations [1] -
46:23
regard [5] - 32:12,
pulling [1] - 20:22
rare [1] - 44:13
53:19
rights [2] - 4:22, 26:4
48:23, 66:6, 66:7,
purchase [1] - 20:14
reach [4] - 37:6,
represented [10] -
risk [1] - 54:23
67:13 | | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|-----|--|\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | | |\n| | | dar | |\n\n11\n\n| Rockefeller [1] - 2:6 | screening [2] - 56:10, | shared [3] - 46:11, | Simon [6] - 43:14, | stamped [1] - 9:11 |\n|--------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------|\n| Ronald [2] - 21:8, 21:9 | 68:16 | 55:18, 58:4 | 58:8, 58:12, 58:16, | standard [12] - 8:15, |\n| RONALD [1] - 2:12 | screens [3] - 57:6, | shareholder [2] - | 58:23, 63:15 | 8:17, 15:14, 25:12, |\n| Rose [1] - 43:14 | 63:18, 69:10 | 5:12, 10:21 | simple [1] - 33:8 | 25:15, 25:16, 25:21, |\n| ROSE [1] - 2:8 | sealed [5] - 45:13, | sharing [2] - 46:11, | simply [3] - 39:22, | 26:11, 28:15, 28:21, |\n| ROTHROCK [2] - | 45:14, 51:5, 51:14, | 67:21 | 57:1 | 41:20 |\n| 2:22, 71:13 | 61:6 | shell [2] - 7:8, 39:18 | single [9] - 6:2, 11:7, | Standard [2] - 25:21, |\n| routine [1] - 4:7 | sealing [3] - 50:15, | Sherry [2] - 5:18, | 11:23, 17:16, 21:25, | 26:9 |\n| Roy [1] - 43:14 | 68:12, 69:12 | 42:13 | 35:13, 36:15, 36:25 | start [4] - 3:11, 15:11, |\n| RPR [2] - 2:22, 71:13 | search [1] - 70:16 | Sherry-Netherland [2] | sit [3] - 28:6, 32:1, | 44:17, 45:10 |\n| rubber [1] - 38:4 | searched [1] - 17:18 | - 5:18, 42:13 | 52:9 | started [1] - 57:8 |\n| rule [6] - 52:13, 56:21, | SEC [13] - 47:25, 48:1, | ship [2] - 7:19, 8:2 | situation [6] - 38:9, | State [3] - 6:23, 9:18, |\n| 58:13, 68:16 | 48:5, 48:9, 48:17, | shop [1] - 5:17 | 38:10, 46:25, 47:20, | 13:6 |\n| ruled [1] - 37:21 | 48:23, 49:3, 49:25, | short [4] - 5:3, 15:5, | 50:5, 67:4 | STATE [1] - 1:1 |\n| rules [1] - 56:9 | 51:2, 51:7, 51:9, | 33:21, 33:24 | six [2] - 39:17, 52:11 | state [3] - 33:3, 36:3, |\n| ruling [2] - 19:2, 37:25 | 51:20, 55:16 | show [12] - 10:3, | sizeable [1] - 42:13 | 51:3 |\n| run [1] - 69:22 | second [4] - 9:3, 10:6, | 20:16, 21:19, 22:17, | skeptical [1] - 23:12 | statement [7] - 19:16, |\n| Rydell [1] - 63:12 | 53:7, 53:9 | 25:15, 28:9, 32:9, | slightly [1] - 52:25 | 19:19, 19:25, 20:2, |\n| | secondly [1] - 20:1 | 32:13, 32:22, 47:25, | Slip [1] - 1:20 | 20:4, 68:5 |\n| | seconds [1] - 6:15 | 53:9, 53:10 | society [3] - 22:9, | statements [2] - |\n| S | secrete [1] - 20:21 | showed [1] - 42:11 | 22:12, 47:6 | 19:13, 62:25 |\n| safe [1] - 71:1 | Section [1] - 12:17 | showing [7] - 4:16, | sole [3] - 5:12, 6:20 | stating [1] - 13:8 |\n| safeguard [1] - 63:24 | security [2] - 22:6, | 17:8, 23:23, 24:7, | someone [1] - 44:14 | statute [4] - 8:13, |\n| safer [1] - 45:19 | 22:11 | 26:6, 27:21, 39:14 | son [2] - 21:11, 35:15 | 16:21, 17:20, 17:23 |\n| sake [1] - 33:1 | see [3] - 9:22, 42:6, | shown [5] - 25:25, | sort [2] - 59:23, 60:16 | stay [1] - 71:1 |\n| sale [1] - 6:17 | 71:1 | 26:1, 36:10, 39:8 | sought [8] - 35:6, | staying [1] - 45:7 |\n| sanction [1] - 14:23 | seek [3] - 38:5, 51:16, | shows [2] - 18:17, | 36:1, 37:18, 51:7, | still [8] - 48:12, 48:14, |\n| sanctions [1] - 26:18 | 51:19 | 32:9 | 51:9, 51:11, 51:20, | 49:8, 54:7, 55:3, |\n| SARNOFF [24] - 1:18, | seeking [10] - 41:18, | side [5] - 10:12, 33:16, | 54:14 | 55:9, 62:16, 64:18 |\n| 3:18, 3:24, 4:1, | 41:19, 48:9, 48:10, | 47:23, 62:22, 64:12 | sounds [2] - 9:23, | stipulate [1] - 67:9 |\n| 24:21, 25:3, 25:7, | 48:14, 49:10, 50:9, | sides [1] - 59:1 | 13:18 | stipulating [3] - 62:19, |\n| 25:11, 26:15, 26:20, | 54:20, 57:13 | Siegal [3] - 4:5, 4:6, | source [3] - 5:22, | 65:11, 66:8 |\n| 28:11, 30:10, 30:20, | seize [1] - 48:23 | 15:9 | 21:16, 55:14 | stipulation [12] - |\n| 31:1, 31:20, 32:5, | sell [1] - 6:21 | SIEGAL [16] - 2:7, | sourced [1] - 18:25 | 54:11, 63:2, 65:14, |\n| 32:17, 33:19, 34:16, | SELZ [1] - 2:10 | 15:8, 15:13, 15:22, | Southern [1] - 48:19 | 65:24, 66:15, 66:18, |\n| 34:19, 40:24, 45:21, | Selz [1] - 52:21 | 16:3, 16:5, 16:15, | speaking [1] - 9:22 | 66:25, 67:16, 68:4, |\n| 46:2, 67:1 | seminal [1] - 58:24 | 19:11, 19:18, 19:24, | special [6] - 60:1, | 68:25, 69:1, 69:6 |\n| Sarnoff [15] - 3:19, | send [1] - 9:15 | 20:5, 20:8, 28:13, | 60:13, 60:14, 62:11, | stop [3] - 14:20, |\n| 4:2, 16:1, 16:11, | sense [1] - 6:19 | 33:1, 33:9, 50:23 | 62:16, 65:6 | 18:11, 18:20 |\n| 16:24, 18:2, 18:7, | sensitive [3] - 47:16, | SIEGEL [26] - 22:15, | specific [4] - 15:16, | strategy [1] - 55:19 |\n| 18:9, 20:11, 26:13, | 52:11, 55:4 | 22:20, 22:23, 23:8, | 51:14, 55:10, 60:22 | Street [1] - 2:10 |\n| 26:16, 28:16, 28:24, | sent [1] - 10:24 | 23:15, 29:4, 29:13, | specifically [2] - | strings [1] - 20:23 |\n| 30:19, 43:4 | separate [2] - 41:24, | 29:19, 30:2, 30:17, | 42:12, 50:16 | strong [1] - 64:7 |\n| Sarnoff's [1] - 22:24 | 42:25 | 31:7, 34:15, 43:12, | specifics [1] - 51:15 | structure [1] - 53:24 |\n| satisfied [2] - 53:16, | September [3] - 9:18, | 43:23, 44:3, 44:6, | specify [2] - 19:4, 51:4 | Stuart [2] - 3:18, 4:1 |\n| 63:9 | 27:9, 36:19 | 44:9, 44:11, 45:11, | spent [1] - 61:24 | STUART [1] - 1:18 |\n| satisfy [1] - 63:9 | series [1] - 43:16 | 46:3, 51:23, 52:1, | Spring [24] - 7:4, 11:2, | subject [1] - 32:24 |\n| saw [1] - 69:13 | seriously [1] - 62:22 | 52:17, 61:3, 61:5, | 11:4, 36:9, 36:12, | submissions [2] - |\n| schedule [5] - 29:19, | served [5] - 32:18, | 70:10 | 36:21, 38:1, 38:9, | 11:25, 13:13 |\n| 30:6, 30:7, 54:18, | 48:5, 49:25, 54:17, | Siegel [14] - 15:10, | 38:13, 38:14, 38:17, | submit [18] - 9:5, 9:7, |\n| 55:15 | 54:20 | 15:25, 19:8, 22:14, | 38:23, 39:4, 39:7, | 11:11, 14:21, 16:19, |\n| scheduled [4] - 29:14, | services [1] - 36:7 | 22:19, 27:8, 31:6, | 40:10, 40:11, 41:3, | 28:9, 28:23, 29:8, |\n| 29:21, 29:24, 61:25 | set [4] - 38:22, 52:6, | 43:12, 45:6, 51:21, | 41:5, 41:7, 41:11, | 29:10, 29:11, 31:13, |\n| scope [1] - 49:19 | 57:9, 69:10 | 52:15, 60:23, 61:4, | 41:18, 41:25, 42:10, | 32:23, 33:7, 33:10, |\n| screen [16] - 54:11, | setting [2] - 5:17, | 62:5 | 42:11 | 33:11, 34:7, 34:10, |\n| 56:7, 56:15, 56:17, | 58:11 | SIEGFRIED [1] - 2:4 | Springs [1] - 41:17 | 34:11 |\n| 56:22, 57:1, 57:3, | several [2] - 4:8, 36:7 | sign [1] - 28:5 | Springs' [1] - 38:24 | submits [1] - 15:23 |\n| 57:5, 57:9, 57:10, | shape [3] - 65:15, | similar [2] - 13:18, | Square [1] - 1:17 | submitted [11] - 7:14, |\n| 59:5, 59:6, 63:10, | 65:23, 67:19 | 22:8 | staff [1] - 30:25 | 9:17, 10:16, 16:24, |\n| 63:17, 64:2, 69:6 | share [2] - 14:12, 29:1 | similarly [1] - 39:2 | stamp [1] - 38:4 | 33:23, 34:1, 36:4, |\n| | | | | |\n| | | dar | | |\n\n85\n\n## 82 of 84\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 440-20 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 84 of\n\nINDEX NO. 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022\n\n12\n\n| 40:16, 42:1, 46:5, | tailored [1] - 37:3 | 43:2, 43:8, 43:11, | treatise [1] - 58:10 | 49:7 |\n|-------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------------|\n| 55:16 | tales [1] - 13:14 | 43:22, 44:2, 44:4, | triable [1] - 24:6 | unfettered [1] - 49:8 |\n| submitting [1] - 43:7 | | 44:8, 44:10, 45:25, | | |\n| | target [1] - 22:10 | 50:11, 50:18, 50:22, | trial [12] - 12:25, 13:6, | unidentified [1] - 24:3 |\n| subpoena [11] - 28:5, | targeting [4] - 61:19, | | 28:5, 29:14, 29:20, | unique [1] - 52:6 |\n| 37:15, 37:16, 48:1, | 63:1, 65:1 | 51:21, 51:25, 52:15, | 30:13, 31:10, 31:16, | universal [2] - 48:6, |\n| 48:5, 48:12, 49:25, | tax [1] - 7:16 | 52:19, 54:8, 57:11, | 34:2, 34:3, 62:3 | 48:7 |\n| 51:9, 65:3 | Team [1] - 48:21 | 61:4, 61:7, 64:23, | true [2] - 14:10, 71:7 | unknown [1] - 27:3 |\n| subpoenaed [2] - | team [5] - 46:18, 56:8, | 65:11, 65:14, 65:21, | truth [1] - 70:16 | unlearn [1] - 59:4 |\n| 51:2, 51:7 | 59:7, 59:8, 63:12 | 66:4, 67:12, 68:2, | try [4] - 32:17, 35:3, | unless [1] - 46:25 |\n| subpoenas [13] - | TEAMS [1] - 1:10 | 69:17, 70:8, 70:12, | 40:24, 66:18 | unlike [1] - 39:7 |\n| 34:18, 35:6, 35:7, | Teams [3] - 31:9, 46:1 | 70:21, 71:4 | trying [3] - 54:2, 60:7, | unnecessary [1] - |\n| 37:15, 37:19, 38:5, | technical [6] - 7:10, | theory [1] - 61:20 | 61:9 | 13:4 |\n| 42:25, 47:17, 50:17, | 8:6, 8:12, 8:17, | there'll [1] - 34:6 | turn [6] - 35:14, 47:10, | unrelated [4] - 20:13, |\n| 54:17, 54:20, 55:5 | 10:14, 10:15 | thereafter [1] - 67:5 | 50:6, 52:11, 52:17, | 20:18, 20:25, 27:3 |\n| subsequently [1] - | technically [2] - 7:6, | therefore [3] - 17:5, | 60:4 | unremarkable [1] - |\n| 46:14 | 14:18 | 36:24, 39:25 | turnover [13] - 8:13, | 21:24 |\n| substantial [9] - 22:6, | telepathy [1] - 11:6 | thinking [1] - 44:13 | 9:1, 12:16, 12:21, | up [18] - 5:17, 10:3, |\n| 29:2, 44:24, 49:12, | ten [2] - 39:17, 50:12 | third [8] - 20:25, 24:3, | 13:9, 13:13, 14:12, | 12:7, 26:24, 27:6, |\n| 53:21, 55:22, 56:3, | TERM [1] - 1:1 | 24:14, 53:8, 53:17, | 14:16, 17:1, 17:12, | 28:9, 32:9, 32:13, |\n| 59:16, 60:15 | | 63:5, 67:20 | 17:20, 26:9, 36:15 | 32:22, 38:22, 54:25, |\n| substantially [4] - | terms [4] - 49:4, 54:3, | third-party [4] - 20:25, | TV's [1] - 70:7 | |\n| 46:13, 53:14, 59:18, | 63:8, 69:19 | 24:3, 24:14 | | 55:5, 56:17, 57:9, |\n| 60:2 | test [3] - 23:24, 55:22, | three [14] - 15:3, | tweeting [1] - 6:9 | 62:3, 64:10, 69:10 |\n| succeed [1] - 39:25 | 57:20 | 20:20, 23:5, 23:10, | tweets [1] - 9:21 | urging [1] - 17:22 |\n| | tested [1] - 48:20 | | twelve [1] - 39:17 | USA [1] - 21:21 |\n| successfully [1] - 70:4 | testified [2] - 26:22, | 23:13, 25:8, 26:17, | two [29] - 6:14, 8:4, | uses [1] - 11:8 |\n| suffice [1] - 63:17 | 26:23 | 27:6, 29:11, 29:12, | 9:8, 18:21, 20:17, | utilizes [1] - 39:18 |\n| sufficient [5] - 8:22, | testify [9] - 10:4, | 29:23, 30:4, 30:15, | 23:3, 25:8, 27:3, | utmost [2] - 69:17, |\n| 9:2, 25:16, 51:10, | 11:19, 13:21, 27:25, | 57:20 | 29:12, 30:11, 34:18, | 69:18 |\n| 51:11 | 28:2, 31:21, 32:7, | three-minute [1] - | 35:6, 38:5, 53:10, | |\n| suggest [1] - 52:7 | 32:13, 33:13 | 15:3 | 53:14, 53:18, 53:19, | V |\n| suggested [1] - 50:25 | testimony [26] - 23:6, | throughout [1] - 12:19 | 54:10, 54:16, 56:3, | |\n| suggests [2] - 40:10, | 23:16, 27:15, 28:4, | Thursday [1] - 30:18 | 57:3, 63:12, 64:10, | vail [1] - 62:2 |\n| 40:25 | 31:10, 31:11, 31:12, | tie [1] - 19:5 | 64:11, 68:5, 69:2, | valuable [1] - 22:1 |\n| Sun [1] - 21:11 | 31:15, 31:16, 31:18, | title [2] - 8:12, 8:21 | 70:14 | value [1] - 34:12 |\n| Sun's [1] - 21:11 | | today [4] - 11:21, | | |\n| | | | tying [1] - 21:2 | variety [1] - 49:23 |\n| supplemental [2] - | 31:23, 32:3, 32:18, | 37:21, 66:17, 70:8 | type [4] - 56:15, 56:22, | various [1] - 54:20 |\n| | 32:24, 33:5, 33:7, | together [1] - 42:5 | | |\n| 5:4, 29:6 | 33:11, 33:12, 33:15, | | 58:7, 58:11 | Vartan [1] - 21:23 |\n| support [4] - 16:25, | 33:22, 34:5, 34:7, | tomorrow [1] - 66:24 | typical [1] - 22:2 | versus [1] - 58:19 |\n| 18:2, 44:13, 58:10 | 34:9, 34:12, 49:14, | took [2] - 32:21, 70:13 | | vessel [4] - 19:7, |\n| supporting [1] - 20:16 | 49:20 | totalitarian [1] - 22:9 | U | 20:17, 22:16, 23:20 |\n| supposedly [2] - 6:11, | testing [1] - 68:22 | totally [1] - 24:22 | U.S [2] - 21:21, 48:19 | vetted [1] - 48:3 |\n| 6:12 | text [2] - 10:24, 11:23 | touch [1] - 63:21 | | video [3] - 6:12, 9:21, |\n| SUPREME [1] - 1:1 | THE [85] - 1:1, 3:1, | touching [1] - 49:21 | UBS [1] - 38:23 | 45:22 |\n| Supreme [3] - 1:14, | 3:13, 3:16, 3:21, | tracing [2] - 45:1, 49:4 | ultimately [1] - 50:2 | videos [2] - 6:10, 9:22 |\n| 19:9, 19:22 | 3:25, 15:2, 15:6, | transactions [2] - | under [18] - 12:17, | view [3] - 40:2, 66:1, |\n| surely [2] - 16:15, | 15:10, 15:19, 15:25, | 21:3, 24:2 | 16:20, 17:11, 17:14, | 69:5 |\n| 16:16 | 16:4, 16:6, 19:8, | transcript [5] - 3:2, | 17:19, 25:12, 25:16, | violated [2] - 4:3, 26:2 |\n| surprised [2] - 29:2, | 19:16, 19:21, 20:4, | 33:17, 41:11, 71:3, | 25:21, 31:25, 34:8, | virtually [1] - 46:24 |\n| 29:18 | 20:6, 22:14, 22:19, | 71:8 | 41:20, 52:5, 58:6, | |\n| surrounding [1] - | 22:21, 23:7, 23:9, | transfer [2] - 20:19, | 58:11, 61:20, 63:17, | W |\n| 13:14 | 24:25, 25:4, 25:10, | 67:5 | 66:9 | |\n| switch [1] - 59:1 | 26:12, 26:16, 28:4, | transferred [5] - 6:1, | understandable [1] - | wait [1] - 6:22 |\n| sworn [3] - 31:14, | 28:12, 28:23, 29:10, | 6:6, 20:18, 20:24, | 25:14 | waive [3] - 56:14, 69:4 |\n| 38:21, 64:19 | 29:16, 29:23, 30:5, | 66:1 | understood [1] - 29:4 | waiver [2] - 69:1, 69:3 |\n| System [2] - 68:10, | 30:12, 30:19, 30:23, | transferring [1] - | undertaking [1] - 49:5 | wall [3] - 56:6, 63:21, |\n| 69:12 | 31:6, 31:8, 31:22, | 38:23 | undisputed [13] - | 63:25 |\n| | 32:13, 32:21, 33:6, | transfers [7] - 5:14, | 21:19, 24:8, 44:17, | walled [1] - 67:7 |\n| | 33:10, 33:21, 34:17, | 6:9, 7:2, 41:24, 42:4, | 44:19, 44:21, 45:3, | Wan [1] - 2:8 |\n| T | 34:25, 35:4, 39:11, | 66:18 | 46:4, 46:6, 46:16, | WAN [2] - 1:6, 1:7 |\n| tactical [1] - 70:1 | 39:16, 40:22, 42:20, | | 46:17, 47:12, 47:25, | |\n| | | Treasury [1] - 35:12
dar | | wants [5] - 9:6, 10:8, |\n\n13\n\n| 11:16, 26:16, 32:13
warm [3] - 4:7, 7:21,
7:25
warning [1] - 46:8
warrant [1] - 53:15
warranted [1] - 55:24
water [1] - 7:21
weather [2] - 4:7, 8:1
week [2] - 16:9, 29:22
weeks [8] - 23:10,
26:17, 29:12, 29:23,
30:4, 57:4, 64:10,
64:11
WEI [1] - 21:10
Wei [1] - 21:10
Weinstein [1] - 8:19
WEN [1] - 1:6
WENGUI [2] - 1:6
whatsoever [4] -
21:15, 39:10, 66:10,
67:18
whereabouts [1] -
22:4
whole [1] - 27:12
wholly [2] - 35:11,
35:14
wholly-owned [2] -
35:11, 35:14
Wide [1] - 27:12
wife [1] - 21:12
William [1] - 58:19
willing [1] - 62:23
wish [2] - 44:11, 44:14
withdrawn [2] - 35:8,
43:1
witness [2] - 23:2,
33:17
witnesses [7] - 16:7,
31:10, 31:24, 33:4,
33:6, 33:10, 33:11
woman [1] - 26:22
words [5] - 4:18,
19:21, 38:3, 46:22,
70:18
work-product [1] -
46:21
works [2] - 30:4, 30:18
worse [1] - 70:2
written [4] - 3:3, 11:7,
11:25, 36:7
wrote [2] - 63:16,
63:18 | 11:2, 11:5, 11:12,
14:3, 14:9, 14:22,
15:18, 18:5, 18:18,
19:6, 19:10, 20:14,
21:20, 22:4, 22:8,
61:24, 61:25, 62:1,
62:4
yacht-related [1] -
11:2
year [10] - 4:7, 6:2,
7:20, 18:18, 21:24,
62:8, 64:3, 64:4,
64:8, 70:3
years [5] - 13:3, 20:17,
27:6, 52:16, 62:5
YORK [2] - 1:1, 1:1
York [28] - 1:18, 1:21,
2:3, 2:6, 2:11, 5:18,
6:23, 8:16, 9:18,
17:18, 19:22, 35:11,
36:9, 38:24, 48:20,
52:4, 52:13, 56:9,
58:6, 58:10, 58:17,
63:19, 68:7
YouTube [2] - 6:9,
6:16
Z
zero [3] - 5:14, 6:7,
67:22
Zhang [1] - 21:10
ZHANG [1] - 21:10
Zhang's [1] - 21:12
zip [1] - 67:22 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Y | |\n| yacht [37] - 4:4, 4:6, | |\n| 4:7, 4:11, 4:12, 4:17,
5:1, 5:19, 5:23, 6:6,
6:25, 7:1, 7:11, 8:9,
9:19, 10:16, 10:25, | |\n\ndar","body_zh":"证据 PAX 22\n\n2022年1月14日庭审记录，PAX v. Kwok（PAX诉郭文贵案），Index. No. 652077/2017（N.Y. Sup. Ct.），Dkt. 1120\n\n22-50073\n\n关于：Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）\n\nPAX 22\n\n5/25/2022 全部准予接纳\nP.E.\n纽约州最高法院（SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK）纽约县（COUNTY OF NEW YORK）—民事庭—第61部分\nPACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙）\n原告，\n—诉—\nKWOK HO WAN（郭文贵），又名 KWOK HO，又名 GWO WEN GUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 GUO WENGUI，又名 WAN GUE HAOYUN，又名 MILES KWOK，又名 HAOYUN GUO，GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION（GENEVER 控股公司）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC（GENEVER 控股有限责任公司）\n被告。\nIndex # 652077/2017\n远程 Teams 程序\n2022年1月14日\n审判长：\n尊敬的 BARRY R. OSTRAGER（巴里·R·奥斯特拉格）法官，纽约州最高法院法官。\n出庭人员：\nO'MELVENY & MYERS LLP（奥迈律师事务所）\n7 Times Square\nNew York, New York 10036\n出庭律师：STUART SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·萨诺夫，律师）\n原告代理律师\nCAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP（凯易律师事务所）\n32 Old Slip\nNew York, New York 10005\n出庭律师：EDWARD MOSS, ESQ.（爱德华·莫斯，律师）\nDAVID JANUSZEWSKI, ESQ.（大卫·亚努谢夫斯基，律师）\n原告代理律师\n（续下页。）\n\n—庭审程序—\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯罗克）—官方法庭记录员\n出庭人员：（续）\nPHILLIPS NIZER, LLP（菲利普斯·尼泽律师事务所）\n485 Lexington Avenue\nNew York, New York 10017\n出庭律师：MATTHEW L. LEVINE, ESQ.（马修·L·莱文，律师）\nJEREMY BACHRACH SIEGFRIED, ESQ.（杰里米·巴赫拉赫·西格弗里德，律师）\n非当事人 Lamb Capital（兰姆资本）代理律师\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP（贝克·霍斯泰特勒律师事务所）\n45 Rockefeller Plaza\nNew York, New York 10111\n出庭律师：JOHN SIEGAL, ESQ.（约翰·西格尔，律师）\nERICA BARROW, ESQ.（埃丽卡·巴罗，律师）\nNICHOLAS ROSE, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·罗斯，律师）\n被告 Kwok Ho Wan（郭文贵）代理律师\nFRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ, PC（法兰克福·库尔尼特·克莱因与塞尔兹律师事务所）\n28 Liberty Street\nNew York, New York 10005\n出庭律师：NICOLE HYLAND, ESQ.（妮可·海兰，律师）\nRONALD C. MINKOFF, ESQ.（罗纳德·C·明科夫，律师）\nJESSE KLINGER, ESQ.（杰西·克林格，律师）\n介入动议人 GTV 代理律师\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK, RPR（黛博拉·A·罗斯罗克，注册专业记录员）\n官方法庭记录员\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 440-20 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 4 of\n—庭审程序—\n法庭：关于上一次听证会，我在书面命令中指示各方订购一份庭审记录副本。好。我面前有四项动议。我想先审理的第一项动议，是确认针对 Kwok 先生的藐视法庭命令的动议。\n\n莫斯律师：谢谢您，法官阁下，那是我方的动议。我是 Cahill 律师事务所代表 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）的 Edward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）。法官阁下，就该动议已有大量书面陈述，也有许多书状，而且事情由来已久。我想先简要说明我们如何走到这一步的背景。\n\n法庭：我想我知道我们如何走到这一步。我有一个问题。\n\n莫斯律师：当然，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：O'Melveny 为何还参与本案？\n\n萨诺夫律师：是的，法官阁下。我是代表 O'Melveny 的 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）。我一向代表 Pacific Alliance，我在此出庭。NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120\nRECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022 85\n\n法庭：好。现有一项要求取消 Cahill 资格的动议。我原本希望并预期由 O'Melveny 提出论证——\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK—官方法庭记录员\n\n萨诺夫律师：我很乐意这样做，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。那就这样办。\n\n—庭审程序—\n\n萨诺夫律师：是的，法官阁下。我是代表 Pacific Alliance 的 Stuart Sarnoff。Kwok 先生将该游艇移出本法院管辖范围，违反了本法院的命令；当时我们并不知道这一点。在他将其移出管辖范围后，Siegal 律师询问您是否可以移动该游艇。Siegal 律师说这属例行做法，该游艇如同过去数年一样，每年都会前往温暖地区，然后返回。法官阁下您说，不可以，提出动议。没有提出任何动议。\n\n相反，我们进行了一些调查，发现该游艇已经被移走，法官阁下遂命令将游艇带回。\n\nKwok 先生没有这样做，法官阁下认定其构成附条件的藐视法庭；您指出他无视您的命令，并指出我们已初步证明，据称控制游艇的所有这些实体均由 Kwok 先生控制——这是您使用的措辞。\n\n11月初，第一部门维持了法官阁下命令的大部分内容，认定 PAX 已以清楚且令人信服的证据证明，Kwok 先生无视了法官阁下的合法命令，并且 PAX 的权利因此受到损害。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK—官方法庭记录员\n\n第一部门仅发回重审，以就游艇所有权及控制权争议举行听证会，并评估适当的处罚。我注意到，他们并未说明是否应评估处罚。\n\n发回重审后，法官阁下要求提交简短的补充书面陈述。\n\n在我们1月4日的书面陈述中，我们已确凿证明 Kwok 先生实益拥有并控制 Lady May（梅女士号）。\n\n法官阁下，简要而言，以下是我方证据概述：\n\n2006年，Kwok 先生成立一家名为 Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited（香港国际基金投资有限公司）的公司，我们一直称其为 Hong Kong International，或 HKI Hong Kong。当时，他是唯一股东，并在2006年至2014年10月期间始终是唯一董事；2014年10月，当局逐渐逼近他、他逃离亚洲时，他以零对价将所有权转让给其一名雇员；\n\n2015年，Kwok 先生在纽约市立足时，他通过 Geneva 购买 The Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-荷兰人公寓）的公寓，并通过 Hong Kong International 购买游艇。\n\n法官阁下，我们现在通过本案证据开示以及英属维尔京群岛程序中的申报文件得知，Hong Kong International 是该公寓及该游艇两者的资金来源；其后发生了一系列操作。\n\nHong Kong International Hong Kong 的所有权以一美元从 Kwok 的亲信转移给 Kwok 先生二十多岁的女儿。\n\n随后成立 Hong Kong International Delaware，其地址为 Kwok 先生的办公室。\n\n随后，Kwok 先生的女儿取得该实体100%的股权，该实体收购该游艇，以零对价从 Hong Kong International Hong Kong 受让该游艇；而在所有这些所谓转让发生很久之后，Kwok 先生始终在推文和 YouTube 视频中称该游艇是他的；\n\n即便据称是其雇员拥有该游艇时，即便据称是其女儿拥有该游艇时。我们有他在视频中作出此类陈述。举例而言，法官阁下，该证据载于 Docket Number 710，从2小时50分至4:15。我们有他于2017年10月17日在 YouTube 上称，他在2014年购入该游艇，之后决定挂牌出售，收到了一份接近其要价的报价，但他决定不接受。\n\n我的意思是，常识告诉您，如果您购买了某物，那么您就拥有决定何时以及是否出售它的唯一权力；您实益拥有并控制该资产，它属于您；但还有更多。Kwok 先生向纽约州法院提交了一份起诉状，反复称该游艇是他的游艇。他还选择在该起诉状中附上一篇文章，该文章称——该文章将该游艇称为他的私人游艇。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK—官方法庭记录员\n\n那是在2020年末，法官阁下，远在所有这些转让之后。\n\n法官阁下，谁在支付游艇费用？我们的老朋友 Golden Spring（黄金泉）。\n\n谁向 Hong Kong International Delaware 支付费用，即名义上持有该游艇的实体；谁在支付其在本诉讼中的律师费？嗯，那是 Kwok 的新空壳公司 Lamp Capital，您稍后会听到有关它的情况。\n\n而 Hong Kong Delaware 是什么？该游艇的名义法定所有人？顺便问一句，它是什么？它什么都不是。\n\n我们有其律师的一封信，已提交给本法院，信中称该实体没有雇员、没有董事、没有电子邮件、没有银行账户、没有纳税申报表，它只是一张纸。\n\n法官阁下，当您将这些情况与本程序中的其他间接证据结合起来时，您会得出什么结论？\n\n您有 Kwok 先生的律师和船长，两人都称，自2017年以来，该游艇每年都会前往温暖水域数月，然后返回。\n\n现在它不再返回了。自法官阁下发布限制其行动的命令后，就不再返回。\n\n现在它位于意大利热那亚。今天早上，意大利热那亚气温为华氏40多度。那不是温暖的天气。\n\n不难看出是谁在控制该船，以及它为何没有返回此处。\n\n面对这些未经反驳的证据，Kwok 先生实际上只有两个论点。\n\n第一，他称他无法控制该游艇，因为他并非其名义所有人，名义所有人是 Hong Kong Delaware——并且其女儿才是拥有 Hong Kong Delaware 的人。法官阁下，我们刚才审阅的事实清楚表明，他控制该游艇；正如我一开始指出的，您已以清楚且令人信服的证据认定这一点。\n\n至于所有权。名义法定产权并非必要。CPLR 5225，即交付法，论及判决债务人对财产所享有的权益。\n\n这是判决债权人对资产进行执行所适用的标准。纽约州法律明确规定，实益权益符合该标准。您不需要名义法定所有权。\n\n正如我们在书面陈述中引用的 Weinstein Korn & Miller 所明确指出的，“判决债务人无须拥有该财产的法定产权。实益权益即已足够。”\n\n我们引用的第一部门2015年 Glid Clade（按音记录）案也表达了相同观点。在该案中，判决债务人称其女儿拥有该资产。法院说，不，为交付执行之目的，该资产实际上属于你；实益权益已足够。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK—官方法庭记录员\n\n现在，Kwok 先生第二个、也实际上唯一的论点是，您需要举行证据听证会，而我方的部分证据或许不可采纳。我们认为，法官阁下，如果您希望举行证据听证会，那显然属于您的裁量权范围，但我们认为这样做是错误的，原因有二。\n\n第一，我方证据可采纳。这些是 Hong Kong International 的文件页——确切地说，是 Hong Kong International Delaware 经盖章文件出示所提供的数页文件。其依据是香港的官方公共记录。\n\n我们有这些文件的宣誓书。如果法官阁下感兴趣，我们可以将其提交给您；法院可对我们已向法官阁下提交的那些香港文件予以司法认知，它们属于公共记录。\n\n我们还有 Kwok 先生于2020年9月向纽约州法院提交的起诉状，其中将该游艇称为其游艇。\n\n那属于司法自认。\n\nKwok 先生自己的推文和视频录像属于当事人自认。在那些视频中，我们看到 Kwok 先生讲话。他知道自己长什么样，我们知道他的声音是什么样。\n\n对方将会答复，法官阁下，说这些并未经过认证。那么，我们如何认证，法官阁下？\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK—官方法庭记录员\n\n—庭审程序—\n\nKwok 先生援引第五修正案。他们最晚已在11月10日 Kwok 先生的律师向我方发送的一封电子邮件中确认这一点。他不会出庭，不会就其资产作证，也不会提供任何文件。我们有权据此作出不利推定。\n\n这引出了 Kwok 先生关于要求举行证据听证会的论点所存在的第二个问题。再次强调，如果法官阁下希望举行，我们就会举行。\n\n实际上没有其他内容可供审理。我们已经在使用对方提供给我们的极少数文件，以及可予司法认知的公开申报文件。\n\n香港国际公司（Hong Kong International）即游艇的技术所有人——香港国际特拉华公司（Hong Kong International Delaware）——请原谅，即游艇的技术所有人，已向我们表示。我们主张其没有其他任何资料。他们没有其他文件，没有雇员，也没有高级管理人员。\n\n香港国际公司还向我们表示——这一点非常重要——Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）先生的女儿May Kwok（郭美），即唯一股东，以及我们能够找到的以任何方式与香港国际特拉华公司有关联的唯一人员，他们向我们表示，她也一无所有，绝对一无所有。显然，她从未就这艘价值数百万美元的游艇发送过电子邮件或短信。\n\n——庭审记录——\n\n香港国际公司实际上告诉我们，信不信由你，要向Golden Spring（金泉）索取与游艇有关的文件。猜怎么着，我们照做了。我们与金泉交谈过，他们向我们表示，他们什么都没有。我的意思是，这艘游艇显然只能通过心灵感应在全球各地移动。没有任何一个人就谁使用该游艇、谁指示船长、以及它在何时何地移动，留有任何书面通信记录。正如我刚才提到的，法官阁下，当然，郭先生援引第五修正案权利。他拒绝提交有关其资产的文件，包括该游艇的文件，也拒绝允许我们对其进行证言录取。正如我提到的，他的律师在11月中旬向我们确认了这一点。因此，如果法院希望举行证据听证会，我们乐意参加。但是，恭敬地说，并无任何事项可供听取，法官阁下。\n\n法官阁下，您可能听到的唯一事项，是郭先生的女儿出庭作证称这是她的船。好吧，他们已经在这样说了。就今日之目的而言，我们可以假定并预先陈述她将会这样作证，即这是她的船，而她却没有提供任何文件、短信或电子邮件供我们据以对其交叉询问。如果作此假定，法官阁下，那么基于我们已提交作为证据的书面材料，我们已完成我们的举证责任。\n\n法官阁下，我还想再占用一点时间。我知道，对于是否需要证据听证会存在一些困惑。我知道上诉分庭（Appellate Division）发回案件时曾就证据听证会使用相关措辞。再次说明，这完全由法官阁下决定，我们理解这一点；但第一部门（First Department）2015年的Glid Clade（Glid Clade）判决，确实是最为直接切题的判例。\n\n在Glid Clade案中，判决债务人是一名名为Chirnoid（音）先生的人，他被判承担$500 million的判决债务。具有讽刺意味的是，他在该案中由Hyland（海兰）女士所在的Frankfurt Kurnit（法兰克福特·库尔尼特）律师事务所代理。Glid Clade案的原告就Chirnoid先生在一家有限责任公司中的权益，根据《民事诉讼法与规则》（CPLR）第5225条提起交付程序。在整个诉讼过程中，Chirnoid一直将该权益、该有限责任公司称为他的。他说自己用其资金注资。他是投资者。然而，在需要交付时，法官阁下，他却说，不，实际上，我此前已将其赠与我的女儿们。他迟延提交了一份据称证明此事的协议，当然，他的女儿提交了一份宣誓书，称该有限责任公司属于她本人。初审法院认为不然，作出有利于原告的裁定，且未举行证据听证会，因为该法院已与各方打交道多年，了解其行为做法，并认定无需举行听证会。\n\n至关重要的是，法官阁下，以下是第一部门在维持州法院初审法院裁定时所说的话，引用：“审理动议的法院对这一旷日持久的争议非常熟悉，故准予该申请。”其表示——以下为内部引文，此处是下级法院的表述——“本交付程序是一起充斥着Chirnoid先生可疑行为的诉讼中的最新程序。”在审查先前的证言录取和宣誓书，以及对交付动议提出异议的提交材料后，法院认定，2007年协议及其周边事实仅提出了虚假的事实争议。我们同意该法院的评估，即就该问题无需举行听证会。\n\n这一切都非常相似，法官阁下。这些都是虚假的事实争议。而且，在本案中更无举行听证会的必要，因为郭先生将援引第五修正案权利，并且既不愿也无法作证。\n\n最后，如果可以的话，法官阁下，在我结束之前，我想再提出最后一点。\n\n毫无疑问，郭先生的律师将会像他们过去所说的那样告诉您，如果郭先生能够遵从法院的命令，他本会遵从；但法官阁下，恭敬地说，他无法遵从法院命令，因为他不控制该游艇。您在本案中根本无法做到这一点。这完全不是事实。在结束之前，我想再提出最后一点。我预计，正如他们过去所说的那样，郭先生的律师会说，当然，如果郭先生能够遵守法院的命令，他会遵守；但因为他不控制该游艇，所以在本案中他根本无法遵守。这并不属实，法官阁下。您只需看看郭先生近期未遵守您关于Genova, BVI股份交付的命令即可。那是一项他坦承完全控制的资产。事实上，这是他所称自己拥有的唯一资产。法官阁下，如您所知，郭先生公然拒绝遵守您的交付命令，刚刚迫使PAX（PAX）于上周五晚再次提出民事藐视法庭动议。因此，他是否在技术上拥有某项财产并不重要；他只是选择不遵守您的命令，法官阁下。这必须停止。基于上述理由，我们主张，现在终于到了就其游艇问题认定郭先生构成藐视法庭的时候，并请法官阁下命令法院认为适当的任何制裁措施，以实际促使他遵守命令。谢谢，法官阁下。当然，我愿意回答任何问题。\n\n法庭：在休庭三分钟后，我将听取反对该动议一方的陈述。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n（随后，进行短暂休庭。）\n\n法庭：现在恢复记录。请反对藐视法庭动议的一方陈述意见。\n\nSiegal（西格尔）先生：是，法官阁下。下午好。我是Baker & Hostetler（贝克·霍斯泰特勒）律师事务所的John Siegal（约翰·西格尔）。\n\n法庭：Siegel（西格尔）先生，我希望你首先说明，在任何证据听证会上你将提出何种证据。\n\nSiegal先生：当然，法官阁下，我打算这样做。不过，我确实想讨论此处适用的法律标准。因为上诉分庭为特定且明确的目的发回案件，即就“有关游艇所有权和控制权的争议，以及任何适当的处罚”举行证据听证会。\n\n法庭：我明白。因此，我才要求你说明在听证会上将提出何种证据。\n\nSiegal先生：坦率地说，法官阁下，这取决于原告提交什么材料，而在该等听证会上我们将是被申请人。并且，出于以下理由——\n\n法庭：恭敬地说，Siegel先生，你刚刚听Sarnoff（萨诺夫）先生用二十多分钟说明了他在听证会上的证据陈述——\n\nSiegal先生：是。\n\n法庭：——如果我们举行听证会。\n\nSiegal先生：对。\n\n法庭：现在我想知道你将如何反驳该等证据，以及你将在听证会上提出哪些证人和文件。我很乐意下周举行听证会，也很乐意给予郭先生其应享有的一切正当程序保障。但我不希望举行一场听证会，在该听证会上Sarnoff先生提出他刚刚概述的一切以及其动议文件中所载的一切，而你却无法告诉我你拥有什么材料能够反驳他的主张。\n\nSiegal先生：当然，法官阁下，我理解这个问题，也打算回答。但法院当然不会预先判断律师刚才所说任何内容的可采性、可靠性或准确性。而且，法官阁下，我主张律师刚刚讨论的法律问题，是依据一项并不适用的法条提出的错误法律问题，且有悖于上诉分庭的发回指示。\n\n他刚刚提出的事实论点，加上Sarnoff宣誓陈述中提交的文件，实际上支持郭先生在该动议中的立场。\n\n这不是针对判决债务人的交付动议；上诉分庭发回的是一项藐视法庭动议，以确定该资产的所有权和控制权，以及因此被告是否能够遵守法院的附条件命令。\n\n本动议受《司法法》第753(a)(3)条管辖；这是一项藐视法庭动议。该动议要求以明确且令人信服的证据证明郭先生对该资产拥有所有权和控制权。原告依据管辖判决债务人交付及资产问题的CPLR 5225条陈述和辩论该问题。这并非本案发回审理的问题。他们所主张的第5225条下受益权益问题不适用于本动议。而且，他们未向法院援引任何有关藐视法庭动议的法律依据，即本案被发回审理的问题。我们进行了检索，未发现任何纽约已公布判例，将交付法条下的受益权益问题适用于藐视法庭动议中对资产所有权、控制权以及遵守法院命令能力的认定。他们实际上是在敦促本法院适用错误的法条和错误的法律问题。\n\n在此背景下，请允许我回应所提出的事实论点，以及法院所问及的听证会将提出何种证据的问题。Sarnoff宣誓陈述的附件支持郭先生的立场，即原告没有提出任何证据，更遑论所要求的明确且令人信服的证据，以证明郭先生在附条件命令作出时拥有或控制该游艇。\n\nSarnoff附件证明：第一，郭先生从未拥有Lady May（Lady May）号。我想重复一遍——我想重复一遍。如果Sarnoff宣誓陈述的附件被采信并获准作为证据，则其证明郭先生从未拥有该船，句号，至此为止；\n\n该游艇于2015年由一家香港实体Hong Kong International Funds Investments Limited（香港国际基金投资有限公司）购买，即其附件12。\n\n在2015年，当时该实体由一人拥有——我不知道如何发音，Qu Guo Aiao（屈国爱奥），QU GUO AIAO。附件10显示，该人在游艇购买前一年即2014年取得该实体的所有权。郭先生从未拥有该船，句号，至此为止。\n\n第二，记录中没有任何可采证据说明Qu Guo Aiao是谁，完全没有。据告知，她不是郭先生的亲属。原告在其书状第2页主张，她被引述为“据报道是他的雇主”。但该“据报道”的主张仅来源于一篇中文报纸报道，即附件11，该报道仅就一项指控进行报道，并非\n\n据称是在香港法院程序中提交的一项认定或裁定。\n\n该报纸关于一项指控的报道，并未明确据称该人为谁的雇员。案卷中没有任何内容能够确立任何依据，从而以任何有意义的方式将该游艇的所有人，与Kwok先生（郭文贵）对该船只的所有权或控制权联系起来。\n\n法庭：出于好奇，Siegel先生，Kwok先生在2020年向纽约州最高法院（New York Supreme Court）提交的文件中声称拥有该游艇一事，如何解释？\n\nSIEGAL先生：我认为，那显然是法庭必须考虑的一个因素。有许多陈述，其中大多数是不可采纳的传闻证据，他在其中笼统地提及自己拥有该船。并且——\n\n法庭：那不是传闻陈述。那是司法承认。\n\nSIEGAL先生：如果该陈述涉及所有权，法官阁下，那么该陈述是错误的。他从未拥有过该船。\n\n法庭：换言之，你是说Kwok先生向纽约州最高法院提交了一份文件，并在其中错误地声明自己拥有该船？\n\nSIEGAL先生：首先，法官阁下，该陈述不在本次动议的案卷中。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK－官方法庭书记员\n\n庭审记录——其次，举证责任在于他们。该陈述称该船是他的船，并非关于任何身份下法律所有权的陈述。并且——\n\n法庭：那它是什么陈述？\n\nSIEGAL先生：我没有该文件。\n\n法庭：“他的”是什么意思？“他的”定义为何？\n\nSIEGAL先生：该文件不在本次申请的案卷中。我现在没有放在面前。\n\n他们提到该船的购买人——Sarnoff先生刚才称其为Kwok先生所谓的“跟班”。法官阁下，修辞不是案卷材料。那不是证据，也不是证明该无关人员购买游艇如何构成对该资产的所有权或控制权的证据。\n\n随后，原告提交文件，试图证明，在该人购买该船两年后，该无关人员将Lady May的所有权转让给May Guo（郭美），即Kwok先生的成年女儿；该转让发生于原告提起诉讼三个月后。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK－官方法庭书记员\n\n这几乎不可能是试图隐藏资产或规避任何潜在判决的行为。如果Kwok先生在此操控一切，那么在本案诉讼期间，他将该船从一名无关第三方、非亲属第三方转让给自己的女儿，在逻辑上既不合理也不可想象。\n\n庭审记录——\n\n女儿。\n\n本次动议的案卷中没有任何内容将上述任何交易与本案原告Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）联系起来。\n\n接下来，他们提交了一项英属维尔京群岛法院（BVI Court）的认定，该认定甚至未提及Lady May或任何曾拥有该船的实体，即证据13。该文件涉及一家名为Ronald Luck Limited（朗纳德·勒克有限公司，音译）的实体，并在第14段主张，引用称：“Ronald Luck筹集的资金通常来自Zhang Wei（张伟），即Miles Sun（孙力军）的表亲之夫。Miles Sun是被告之子。以及来自Zhang先生的妻子Guo Lijie（郭丽杰）女士，即Miles的表亲及一名驻中国律师。”\n\n同样，该文件与Lady May或曾拥有该船的实体之间没有任何明显的事实联系，而且其确认的资金来源并非Miles Kwok。\n\n原告提交的最后一份文件，除证明一项无争议事实外，未能证明任何内容：被告之女May Guo于2020年将其游艇的所有权置于一家名为HK International Funds Investments USA Limited, LLC的美国实体名下。\n\nHK的律师Lee Vartan（李·瓦尔坦，音译）去年已向法庭告知该完全不足为奇的事实。\n\n个人使用单一目的实体持有有价值资产，除证明常见雇员的典型商业规划外，几乎不能证明任何事情。\n\n关于没有文件说明该游艇下落的论点，可能反映出我们所面对的是一名来自People's Republic of China（中华人民共和国）的异见人士被告，其面临极其严重的安全顾虑；其家庭成员，包括拥有该游艇的女儿，也生活在类似环境中。我们之中无人曾生活在极权社会，或成为其目标，我希望我们永远不会；但我们不要将生活在该社会环境中的人所面临的安全顾虑，混同为其谨慎和小心以外任何事情的证明。\n\n法庭：Siegel先生——\n\nSIEGEL先生：法官阁下，这些文件并未初步证明Kwok先生在法庭命令作出时拥有该船。它们表明他从未——\n\n法庭：Siegel先生，你能听见我吗？\n\nSIEGEL先生：能。\n\n法庭：你希望我举行听证会，而Kwok先生的女儿将出席该听证会。\n\nSIEGEL先生：我不知道Kwok先生的女儿是否会出席听证会。那是Sarnoff先生的断言。他要求您假定：\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK－官方法庭书记员\n\n第一，我们将出示某一证人；\n\n第二，他预先判断她会作何陈述；\n\n第三，尤其不寻常的是，他要求您预先否定该证词。\n\n法庭：我没有预先裁断任何事情。\n\nSIEGEL先生：我知道您没有。\n\n法庭：我们将举行听证会。听证会将在三周后举行。此事将基于完整的证据记录予以解决——请原谅我对你们将作出的陈述持怀疑态度；因为，对于你将提出的证据要约，我已三次询问——\n\nSIEGEL先生：法官阁下——我还没有谈到控制权问题。法官阁下，案卷中有关于控制权的证词。截至目前，该证词未被反驳。那是该船船长的宣誓书，其中他证明，由May Guo拥有的HK International拥有该船，并且那是他汇报对象，且他不接受Kwok先生的指示。\n\n目前没有任何证据反驳这一关于缺乏控制权的初步证明。举证责任在于他们。这是一个混合问题。受益所有权并非此处的判断标准。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK－官方法庭书记员\n\n庭审记录——\n\n但基于本案案卷，他们试图记录的、本质上发生在身份不明的非家庭成员第三方与Kwok先生成年女儿之间的这些交易，并不能证明他享有受益权益。那既是一个无关的问题，也是一个可审理的争议问题。\n\n其余大部分主张均为不可采纳的传闻证据。其所确立的无争议事实是，Kwok先生不时享受在其女儿的船上，并据报道曾笼统地将其称为自己的船。但这并不是关于所有权和控制权的清楚且令人信服的证据。\n\n家庭成员的所有权或控制权，或者可能第三方的所有权或控制权，并非Kwok先生的所有权和控制权；“差不多就行”不适用于法律程序。这就是上诉分庭将案件发回，要求原告承担其举证责任的原因。对此我们已准备作出回应；如法庭在听证会中认定他们已初步证明其主张，我们将尝试予以反驳。\n\nSARNOFF先生：如可允许我简要陈述，以使案卷完整。我完全理解举行证据听证会完全属于您的裁量权，我对此并无异议。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK－官方法庭书记员\n\n法庭：举行证据听证会对你有利，因为上诉分庭已将案件发回，并表示应当举行证据听证会。\n\nSARNOFF先生：我明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：案件现已基于书面材料提交。今后还会有上诉，主张我未遵守上诉分庭的指示。\n\nSARNOFF先生：是的，法官阁下。我理解这一点。如可允许，我只想将两三件事记入案卷，我会非常非常简短。\n\n法庭：我整个下午都有时间。\n\nSARNOFF先生：首先，我们讨论5225项下标准的原因，即判决债权人得以对资产实施执行的标准，非常清楚且容易理解，法官阁下。因为这项标准是：如果我们能够证明足以实施执行的受益权益，那么这就是Judicial Law 753项下确立损害的标准。\n\n如果我们能够对该船实施执行，那么Kwok先生转移该船已损害了我们的权利，这构成753的一部分。这就是我们将受益权益标准称为5225项下相关标准的原因，首先——\n\n顺便说一句，我仅指出，如果法官阁下查看上诉裁定，上诉裁定称，我们已经证明——已经证明——您认定我们已通过清楚且令人信服的证据证明Kwok先生违反了其知悉的一项合法命令，并且原告权利受到损害，这一认定是正确的。他们已经作出了该认定。\n\n就控制权问题而言，法官阁下已经认定，我们就控制权所作的证明超过了初步证明标准。\n\n因此，我只是想指出，这就是为什么5225项下、在交付程序即执行程序中的受益权益标准，正是直接相关的标准。\n\n法庭：听着，我明白。\n\nSarnoff先生，只要该船未处于其应在的位置，Kwok先生每天被罚款$500,000。\n\nSARNOFF先生：我明白。\n\n法庭：因此，Sarnoff先生希望将这些程序再拖延三周，如果他未能克服你在书面材料中概述的所有问题，那将是另外一百万美元的藐视法庭制裁。\n\nSARNOFF先生：为求完整，我会非常简短。\n\n我相信，Kwok先生曾证实，我们称为其雇员的那名女子，我相信他在很早以前、在他拒绝回答并援引第五修正案之前的证言录取中曾证实，她是其雇员。我相信该内容在案卷中。届时我们将准备好提出该引证。\n\n第二，如果她是与Kwok先生毫无关系的身份不明之人，请从逻辑上解释，他为何无偿将自己的公司交给她，而后，三年后，她又将该公司交给Kwok先生的女儿。这是一个惊人的巧合。\n\n让我再说明一点。Siegel先生提到有关9月20日的起诉状——2020年起诉状——并称该文件不在我们的书面材料中。我们在书状第4页援引了该文件，并且它在我们先前同期提交的材料中被广泛突出提及。该整个问题一直都在法庭审理范围内。\n\n还有一点。有人提到Hasland先生未被反驳的证词。Hasland先生说：“我接受Hong Kong International的指示。”这就是他的宣誓书所说的内容。它没有提到任何自然人。\n\n我们从Hong Kong International在特拉华州的律师处得知，Hong Kong International只是一张纸。它没有——他没有证明他从谁那里接受指示——他是在从一张纸那里接受指示。他没有说是我，也没有说是任何人。\n\n我只请求，法官阁下，如果May Guo将作证，我不确定她是否会作证。我们将有机会——\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK－官方法庭书记员\n\n庭审记录——\n\n为在任何此类听证会之前对她进行证言录取，以及如果 Hasland先生（哈斯兰德）也将作证，或许还要对其进行证言录取。法庭：你们已通过证言录取为 Hasland 先生保全其在审判中的证言。如果需要我签发传票，而你们必须费尽周折让他接受证言录取，我会这样做。而且，既然 Hasland 先生显然受该船所有人控制，如其不接受证言录取或未出席听证会，我会将此纳入考量。\n\nSARNOFF先生（萨诺夫）：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：关于该动议还有其他事项吗？\n\nSIEGAL先生（西格尔）：有，法官阁下，我有几个问题。首先，关于法律标准问题，Sarnoff 先生确实正确地说明，上诉分庭已确认损害问题。因此，这也是我们主张 5225 不适用于本案的部分原因。因此，问题是，法官阁下，您是否希望双方在听证会前就适用的法律标准提交补充书面意见？\n\n法庭：双方可以在本案中提交任何其希望提交的材料。我与 Sarnoff 先生打交道已很长时间，也与 Kwok先生（郭文贵）及其相关住所事宜打交道已很长时间；如果有实质性证据证明 Kwok 先生与这艘船毫无关联，我会非常惊讶。\n\nSIEGEL先生（西格尔）：明白了，法官阁下。还有几个问题。\n\n我们在五页的补充书面意见中表示，如果将举行听证会，我们希望有机会提交简短动议；这对法庭是否有益，还是只处理听证会即可？\n\n法庭：你们可以提交任何希望提交的材料。我将在大约三周后、前后相差两三天，为你们确定一个听证日期。\n\nSIEGEL先生：这正是我想处理的另一个问题。我和 Carvallo女士（卡瓦略）均安排于二月底开庭审理案件。\n\n法庭：你何不告诉我你希望何时举行本听证会；我会非常惊讶它会持续超过一天。\n\nSIEGEL先生：鉴于我的日程安排，我请求在三月该审判结束时安排日期。审前会议是在 2 月 10 日，审判预计持续至三月第一周末。\n\n法庭：在接下来三周内挑选一天，你可以中断你必须处理的某些其他既定事项，以处理这一长期悬而未决的事项及与该问题相关的一切。\n\nSIEGEL先生：我可以与我的同事和对方律师商议，并迅速向法庭回复一个在接下来三周内可行的日期吗？\n\n法庭：我们就在此时此地记入庭审记录处理此事。我会调整我的日程以适应各方日程。有人告诉我，我在 2 月 2 日和 2 月 7 日完全有空。\n\nSARNOFF先生：法官阁下，那两天我实际上正在为一宗集体诉讼中的证言录取进行辩护——\n\n法庭：我们不就日期进行讨论；证言录取可以延期，确定的审判日期不能延期。让我们挑选一个你们双方都能接受的日期，然后继续进行。我还有另外三项动议需要审理。\n\nSIEGEL先生：法官阁下，我提议 2 月 3 日，星期四，2 月 3 日，如果这一天可行。\n\n法庭：Sarnoff 先生。\n\nSARNOFF先生：法官阁下，我会设法安排。我将不得不离开我的证言录取，但我会设法安排。\n\n法庭：那么，如果你可以离开你的证言录取来配合，2 月 2 日是否可以，因为那样不会要求我的工作人员——\n\nSARNOFF先生：法官阁下，如果您希望在 2 月 2 日进行，这有某种和谐之处，因为我们在这里已经很久了，而 2 月 2 日是土拨鼠日。这可能是审理此类动议听证会的好日子。\n\n法庭：Siegel 先生，这对你可以吗？\n\nSIEGEL先生：可以，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：2 月 2 日将是我们举行本次听证会的日期，听证会将通过 Microsoft Teams 进行，来自管辖区外证人的审判证言将通过证言录取予以采纳。除证言录取证言外，所有直接证言均应以宣誓书形式提交。我不会考虑任何未接受交叉询问者的宣誓书。因此，我们将听取准备在听证会上接受交叉询问的证言录取证人的宣誓证言，并将采纳管辖区外证言录取证人的审判证言；对于可能拥有相关证言却拒绝接受证言录取的个人，将作出不利推定。\n\nSARNOFF先生：法官阁下，我们可以对任何将作证的人进行证言录取——我们将提前收到通知吗？\n\n法庭：对于任何身处管辖区外且其证言与本案争议相关的人，你们将可以对其进行证言录取。如果受任何一方控制的管辖区外证人拒绝接受证言录取，我将作出我认为适当的任何推定。我不会进行相关证人拒绝提供证言这种类似马戏团的程序。\n\nSARNOFF先生：为澄清起见。我们被告知 Kwok 先生将援引其第五修正案特权且不会作证。我们能否——我假定，如果他不出席，我们将能够获得不利推定。如果他确实出席，我们此前已要求就其资产对其进行证言录取，但我们被阻止就此从其取得任何文件或任何证言录取。我假定他被禁止——\n\n法庭：如果 Kwok 先生希望出席并作证称他不拥有该船，他可以这样做，而你们可以对他进行交叉询问。你们不能对他进行证言录取；他在本管辖区内。\n\nSARNOFF先生：我们确实曾在证据开示阶段、送达判决后证据开示请求时尝试取得他的证言录取证言，但因其第五修正案权利和所在地而被阻止。\n\n法庭：他此前援引了第五修正案。我明白这一点。我并不依赖 Kwok 先生出席 2 月 2 日听证会；但如果他选择提交直接证言宣誓书并接受交叉询问，那就如此。\n\nSIEGAL先生：当然，为求完整起见。证言录取要求也适用于另一方，对吗？即我们可以对他们将提出——将以宣誓书形式作为直接证言提出的任何州外证人进行证言录取。\n\n法庭：如果其证人将提交直接证言并出席接受交叉询问，则不需要。听着，这很简单。\n\nSIEGAL先生：很清楚。我明白。\n\n法庭：证人将提交直接证言宣誓书。提交直接证言宣誓书的证人必须可供交叉询问，或者就其宣誓书作证。身处管辖区外、希望作证且受任何一方控制的人，可以通过证言录取作证，双方均可询问该证人。证言录取笔录将成为证据听证会的一部分。\n\nSARNOFF先生：我本来想问，直接证言将在听证会上提交，还是提前提交？\n\n法庭：提前提交。我将发布一份简式命令，规定必须提交直接证言宣誓书的日期，并在简式命令中规定双方希望在证据听证会上被考虑的任何证据、在联合证据册中提交后的提交日期。这将完全像法官独任审判，只不过是证据听证会而不是法官独任审判。\n\n因此，将有一份证据册，将有引用证据册中证据的直接证言宣誓书，并将对提交直接证言宣誓书的宣誓人进行交叉询问。\n\n对于受当事人控制且其证言被认为相关的个人，这些个人必须接受证言录取。如果他们不接受证言录取且受当事人控制，那么其证言对我们正在进行的听证会毫无价值。\n\n我们是否完全清楚了？\n\nSIEGEL先生：是的，我想是的，法官阁下。\n\nSARNOFF先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。让我们审理两项撤销传票的动议。\n\nSARNOFF先生：抱歉，这是 Levine 先生的动议。\n\nLEVINE先生（马修·莱文）：谢谢您，法官阁下。我是 Phillips Nizer（菲利普斯·尼泽律师事务所）的 Matthew Levine，我们是非当事人 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）的律师。您能听到我说话吗？\n\n法庭：可以，能听到。\n\nLEVINE先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我知道您后面还有另一项动议，因此我会尽量简短。\n\n法庭：我整个下午都有时间。\n\nLEVINE先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我们寻求撤销两份传票，并且，在还有其他要求提供我方信息的银行传票的范围内，要求撤回这些传票。\n\n简要而言，法官阁下，我们已证明，Lamp Capital 是一家依法设立于 Delaware（特拉华州）并获准在 New York（纽约州）开展业务的非当事人有限责任公司。它由另一家名为 Infinity Treasury Management（无限财政管理公司）的 Delaware 公司全资拥有，该公司只有一名成员；\n\n反过来，Infinity Management（无限管理公司）由 Qiang Guo（郭强）全资拥有。如您所听到的，Guo 先生是判决债务人 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）的儿子。\n\nLamp Capital 不由判决债务人拥有、控制或管理；\n\n判决债务人不是 Lamp 的高级管理人员或董事。\n\nInfinity Management 不由判决债务人拥有、控制或管理，判决债务人也不是 Infinity Management 的高级管理人员或董事。我们通过 Lamp Capital 雇员 Enriquez先生（恩里克斯）的宣誓书证明了这一点。\n\n我们从未试图隐瞒其中任何事项。\n\n我们在十月初提交给法庭的审前动议会议函中，主动讨论了 Guo 先生对 Lamp Capital 的间接所有权情况，即第 908 号文件。\n\nLamp 根据与每家公司签订的书面管理协议，实质上为数家公司提供支付服务资金；其中一家公司是 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）。\n\n如我方文件所示，并如向原告提供的银行记录及其异议材料进一步显示，Lamp Capital 已向 Golden Spring 出借数百万美元资金；\n\n基于此，原告认为事情已经结束，Lamp 必须向原告移交 Lamp 持有的每一份商业及财务文件。这基本上就是原告律师在我们于九月底举行的首次会面协商中告诉我们的内容。\n\n他们从一开始就告诉我们，Lamp 是引述“新的 Golden Spring”结束引述。\n\nLamp Capital 实际上是判决债务人 Miles Kwok 的另一个自我。因此，Lamp 的资产实际上是 Miles Kwok 的资产。因此，这就是他们据以适当要求每一份商业文件的依据。\n\n折中方案。\n\n—程序记录及 Lamp 的财务文件。我们已在会面协商程序中同意出示经适当限定的文件，以查找判决债务人 Miles Kwok（郭文贵）的资产或有关其信息。我们还本着诚信努力，对原告的其他请求提出了重要修改建议，以达成——原告拒绝回应我们的建议，实质上在会面协商程序中采取了“不接受就算了”的态度；\n\n而且，由于原告坚持全有或全无，我们无法达成协调安排，因而被迫提出动议。因此，原告现就我们提出的撤销——\n\n撤销这两份传票的动议作出回应。再次说明，一份传票直接针对 Lamp Capital（兰普资本），法官阁下；另一份传票则针对 Lamp Capital 的会计师事务所，即 Janover（贾诺弗）。我们寻求撤销，或者至少对这两份传票作出修改。\n\n20 21 22 23 原告所称的是，您今天已经就本动议作出了裁定。他们在回应中称：“法院已经就此问题作出了有利于原告的决定。”\n\n24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员 原告所指的是您去年五月，即 5 月 27 日，就以下动议所作的裁定：\n\n—程序记录—\n\n1 2 强制 Golden Spring（金泉）提供其大量文件。\n\n换言之，法官阁下，原告主张，此时法院只需对原告执行这两份传票的努力予以橡皮图章式批准；该等传票要求 Lamp 提供所有可以想见的财务和商业文件。对此，我们谨表示不同意，法官阁下。\n\n我想重点说明去年五月 Golden Spring 情形与目前法官阁下面前情形之间的一项重要区别；尤其是这一重点，因为我认为您去年五月在就 Golden Spring 事项作出决定时，曾认为该事项具有意义。\n\n原告如今主张 Lamp 是新的 Golden Spring，且 Lamp 与 Kwok 的努力实质上是一回事；因此，他们实质上是在主张 Lamp 是新的 Golden Spring，但正如我所提到的，二者之间存在重要区别。\n\n19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员 去年五月，原告向您主张，您应当认定其取证动议适当，理由是 Miles Kwok 曾在一份 2016 年宣誓书中宣誓称，他是通过将资金从其在 UBS 的一个账户转入 Golden Spring 在纽约的 JP Morgan Chase 账户，从而“设立了 Golden Spring”的人。该内容载于案卷编号 750 第 6 页，以及案卷编号 764，\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 —程序记录—DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员 第 36 段。同样，原告律师在该动议的口头辩论中向您主张，Miles Kwok“已经说过 Golden Spring 里的钱是他的，他正用这些钱支付其全部开支”。引号结束。该内容载于 5 月 27 日的第 7 页，法官阁下。不同于其在 Golden Spring 诉讼中向您提出的那些主张，原告在此并未表明判决债务人 Miles Kwok 曾向 Lamp Capital 提供资金，完全没有任何此类证据。法庭：原告在未取得这些记录的情况下如何能够确定？LEVINE 先生：法官阁下，我认为原告负有责任，应当作出某种表明，证明这确实是判决债务人的资金。法庭：已有超出任何合理怀疑的证据表明，Kwok 先生拥有六家、八家、十家或十二家不同的空壳公司，他利用这些公司逃避债权人。LEVINE 先生：法官阁下，我认为分析必须适用于我们的具体案件及此处的具体事实。如果仅仅是原告律师可以指向某个实体或个人，宣称该个人以某种方式与判决债务人有关联，并因此在强制执行动议中胜诉，\n\n—程序记录—\n\n法庭，并称 CPLR 除此之外并无更多要求，我认为这并非对法律以及 CPLR 所要求内容的正确理解。\n\n关于您去年五月的评论，我还想指出一点。我理解您对此感到关切。我确实理解法官阁下对此事拖延如此之久所感到的挫折；\n\n但是，法官阁下，您在去年五月的听证会上称，提交给法院的最佳可得证据有力地表明，Golden Spring 所拥有的任何资产均由 Kwok 先生提供给 Golden Spring。引号结束。这是法官阁下所说的话。法官阁下正是据此准许了该动议。\n\n因此，您认为，在审阅了该证据、该已经存在且由原告提交给您的宣誓书后，该项裁定的基础是存在实际证据。\n\n18 19 因此，法官阁下，我认为这就是对您问题的回答。\n\n20 21 必须存在某些证据，才能证明对非当事人进行侵入性取证具有正当性。\n\n22 23 法庭：好的。让我听取原告律师的陈述。\n\nSARNOFF 先生：我会尽量简短。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员 Levine 先生暗示我们主张这是——\n论点，法官阁下。\n禁止反言或既判力。\n\n—程序记录—\n\n我的意思是，鉴于 Lamp 与 Golden Spring 之间的关联性，这并非相去甚远，但这不是我们的论点。\n\n您在 Golden Spring 听证会的背景下认定：“原告是判决债权人。原告知道 Golden Spring 正在为 Kwok 先生的开支提供资金，并非金额不大或无关紧要的开支。判决债权人有权对为 Kwok 先生开支提供资金的实体进行取证。”该内容载于 Golden Spring 动议听证会记录第 10 页。\n\n法官阁下，这正是适用于本案的分析。并非因为这是禁止反言或既判力。我们并未作此主张，而是因为该分析是正确的。\n\n法官阁下，Lamp 动议的说服力甚至弱于 Golden Spring。因为在本案中，我们并未如同针对 Golden Spring 时那样寻求限制令。\n\n19 20 21 我们仅根据 CPLR 5223 判决后取证的宽泛标准，寻求与资产有关的相关文件。\n\n22 23 24 25 DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员 现在，Levine 先生提到，我们指出，在 2020 年 10 月至 2021 年 1 月期间，通过九笔单独转账，Lamp 向 Golden Spring 转账逾 $6 million。他指出，其中部分文件，即我们已出示并提交给法院的部分文件，\n\n—程序记录—\n\n1 表明这些款项可能是贷款。我想指出，\n\n2 其中部分转账并无表明其为贷款的任何迹象；部分\n\n3 转账可能是贷款，也可能不是贷款。\n\n4 这正是取证的目的。我们是在未有机会查阅 Lamp 所持资料的情况下\n\n5 拼凑这些情况。\n\n6\n\n7 现在，对我来说非常有意思的是，Levine 先生\n\n8 在列举我们的证据时，遗漏了一项非常、非常\n\n9 基本的事实：\n\n10 法官阁下会记得，在 Golden Spring 的\n\n11 背景下，我们表明 Golden Spring 正在为 Kwok 先生的生活方式提供资金，并且具体\n\n12 为其数额巨大的律师费、\n\n13 Sherry-Netherland（谢里—内瑟兰）维持费以及许多其他开支提供资金。\n\n14\n\n15 嗯，法官阁下，我认为如果您回顾我们的文件——Levine 先生遗漏了这一点——我们已经\n\n16 向您表明，而且 Kwok 先生的众多律师均已确认，\n\n17 现在是 Lamp 正在支付 Kwok\n\n18 先生不断累积的律师费。\n\n19 法庭：我已经听得够多了。我已经阅读了\n\n20 文件。撤销传票的动议驳回。\n\n21 我们继续审理下一项动议。\n\n22 LEVINE 先生：谢谢。有一点\n\n23 需要澄清。\n\n24 我们还请求另一项救济，即要求向\n\n25 银行发出的任何传票均予撤回。这项请求也被驳回吗？\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员\n\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 —程序记录—DEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员 43 法庭：是，该请求也予驳回。LEVINE 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我没有遗漏任何内容，我只是想给 Sarnoff 先生陈述的机会。如果您还有其他问题，我恳请您将问题提交给我。谢谢。法庭：关于这项动议，我没有任何问题；该动议驳回。LEVINE 先生：谢谢。法庭：我们继续审理下一项动议。SIEGEL 先生：谢谢。再次说明，我是 Baker & Hostetler（贝克·霍斯特勒）律师事务所代表 Kwok 先生的 John Siegel（约翰·西格尔）。本案中与我共同出庭的还有 Nicholas Rose（尼古拉斯·罗斯）以及伦理专家 Roy Simon（罗伊·西蒙）。我们感谢法官阁下在今天下午审理这一系列动议时所展现的耐心和审慎。我将就 Kwok 先生请求取消 Cahill 律师事务所代理资格的动议进行陈述。Frankfurt Kurnit（法兰克福·库尼特）律师事务所的 Nicole Hyland（妮可·海兰）将就 GTV 动议进行陈述，该动议提出不同问题，且系另一项动议。法庭：好的。SIEGEL 先生：首先，我想表达我们及本所对 Cahill 律师事务所的尊重。这是一个关于律师义务和\n\n—程序记录—44 责任的重要法律问题，提出了新的问题。法庭：让我问你一个问题。SIEGEL 先生：是。法庭：Kwok 先生是否曾是 Cahill Gordon（卡希尔·戈登）律师事务所的客户？是或否？SIEGEL 先生：他是负有信义义务关系的默示客户。他并非直接委聘的客户。法庭：他从未聘请 Cahill？SIEGEL 先生：正确。法庭：请继续。SIEGEL 先生：只是想说，您知道，我们祝 Moss 先生一切顺利，也祝 Cahill 一切顺利；我们尊重该所希望支持其新合伙人的愿望。有人横向加入该所是罕见之事，我们祝愿他们一切顺利。我们认为，他们就此处事实采取了不正确的立场。因此，法官阁下，我想从无争议的事实开始。无争议的事实确立了 Cahill 的信义义务。确实，如法官阁下所问，Kwok 本人未直接聘请 Cahill Gordon 一事不存在争议；但是，该所对 Kwok 先生负有的信义义务，以及 Cahill 与 Kwok 先生在政府\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员\n\n1 调查中所形成的保密关系，与本案中原告的资产追踪和\n\n2 判决执行努力之间的实质性关联，由以下事项\n\n3 确立，而所有这些事项在记录中均无争议。\n\n4 第一，Kwok 先生与 Cahill 之间存在共同利益协议。\n\n5\n\n6 MOSS 先生：抱歉，Siegel 先生，我想确认\n\n7 您是否同意我继续留在这里。我想确保\n\n8 各方知悉我的在场，并确认您不会涉及任何\n\n9 保密内容，且您并不认为在您开始陈述事实时\n\n10 我不应在场。\n\n11 SIEGEL 先生：我认为这是公开法庭\n\n12 程序；我们将会——本案记录中有些方面\n\n13 已被全部密封。\n\n14 我的意图并非在公开法庭上直接讨论密封\n\n15 材料。我不能说我能够控制自己所说的每一句话，\n\n16 但我认为我知道那条界线在哪里。\n\n17 如果我认为将要触及该界线，我会作出说明，\n\n18 也会给其他人作出说明的机会；我想，我会提出异议。\n\n19 我认为更稳妥的做法是您不在法庭内，但我不能——\n\n20 那由您和您所在律所决定。\n\n21 SARNOFF 先生：我还想说明，我是 PAG 的律师，\n\n22 我正在通过视频参加会议。我无意因在此讨论的任何事项\n\n23 而受到不利影响。因此，我将自己交由法院裁量，并请求指示。\n\n24\n\n25 法庭：我不反对所有\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员\n\n1 参加此次 Teams 通话的人员继续留在 Teams 通话中。\n\n萨诺夫先生：\n好的。\n\n西格尔先生：\nKwok（郭文贵）与Cahill（凯希尔）之间的共同利益协议，包括Cahill律师事务所提交的宣誓书第5段所述内容，均无争议。\n\n该协议为口头协议，毋庸置疑，其中没有任何规定。Cahill并未如律师事务所通常所做的那样，就因该共同利益协议而共享的保密信息，作出任何警示、告诫或条件，以否认其与Kwok先生之间存在受信关系。Cahill亦从未保留在本案或此后任何实质相关程序中与Kwok先生对立的权利。\n\n因此，共同利益协议及受信保密关系的存在均无争议。\n\n毋庸置疑，在Cahill与Kwok先生、其律师及其团队的通信中，除一份外，所有通信均极为醒目地标注为律师—当事人通信、特权及保密律师—当事人通信、律师工作成果、共同利益通信。这些并非仅是空泛措辞，法官阁下。\n\n这并非只是律师写在电子邮件上的套话。我可以说，我本人几乎从不作此标注，除非我知道自己正在处理一个可能成为争议的问题。我的执业做法并不重要；Cahill这样做了。他们在所有通信中向Kwok先生作出律师保密承诺的核心承诺；这正是律师义务的最高体现，也是社会法律制度为何赋予律师诸如律师—当事人特权等特权，以及人们为何将律师纳入其信赖圈、委托其保密信息的原因，因为人们合理地理解，这些律师不会反过来利用这些信息对付他们。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（德博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员\n—庭审记录—\n\n毋庸置疑，Cahill曾就Kwok先生决定援引美国宪法第五修正案保护一事，与其律师予以确认。\n\nCahill甚至没有回应这一事实：其曾与一名向其咨询的人，就敏感的政府传票及调查达成共同利益安排，并且其间歇性参与了该人作出援引其第五修正案特权的决定。这并非一般情形；这正处于对当事人信赖及对该等信赖予以保护的宪法保障的最高层面，而Cahill处于该信赖圈的保密一方。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（德博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员\n毋庸置疑——我将证明这一点——美国证券交易委员会（SEC）向Kwok先生而非GTV发出的传票，是Cahill参与作出回应、审查为回应而提交的文件并就此提供意见的传票。\n\nSEC传票以及本案原告送达的传票，要求提供几乎普遍性的——几乎在时间上重合且相同的——有关由Kwok先生持有或代其持有资产的文件。\n\nSEC寻求的正是PAX在本案中寻求的同一证据开示。\n\nCahill曾就Kwok先生对该传票的回应提供保密意见。Cahill仍持有该等文件。而这些正是PAX在本案诉讼中正在并持续寻求的同一文件。\n\nCahill知道，该问题同时涉及SEC事项及本案。Guy Petrillo（盖伊·彼得里洛）在政府调查中代表Kwok先生，并曾任Southern District of New York（纽约南区）美国检察官办公室主任；其在宣誓陈述中证明，Brad Bondon（布拉德·邦登，音译）曾向Kwok团队表示：“我们的律师一直在阻止政府采取任何激进行动。”此言系针对SEC试图没收Guo先生所谓资产的任何行动。该内容见Petrillo答复宣誓书第2段。这并非我所说，而是Guy Petrillo所说；他是一名可靠的律师，曾间歇性地与Cahill进行日常合作。他表示，Cahill告诉他，他们知道SEC问题与PAX在本案中进行的资产追踪和资产执行所涉问题相同，且Cahill律师一直在处理这些问题。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（德博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员\n—庭审记录—\n\n法官阁下，毋庸置疑，Cahill曾经并且显然至今仍不受限制地接触Kwok先生的保密信息。该等信息正是原告在本案中寻求的信息。该等信息位于一个Cahill拥有完全访问权限的文件门户中。\n\nCahill投入了大量时间审阅和分析Kwok先生经加密的保密通信。这是Petrillo先生在第8段中的证言。\n\nCahill分析了Kwok先生的文件，而非GTV的文件；分析了Kwok先生的保密文件及与其他商业实体有关的材料，本案原告很可能会认为该等材料与其诉讼工作有关。该等材料亦属于Kwok先生援引第五修正案特权的范围；这是Guy Petrillo在第8段中的证言。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（德博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员\n我们刚刚就一项涉及一系列实体的动议进行了辩论，以及原告提出的一项主张，即Kwok先生拥有、控制或在多种实体中享有受益权益。该等实体中有一些，且数量众多，是SEC曾向其送达传票、Kwok先生曾就其向Cahill提供保密信息、并且他最终在Cahill参与下决定就与该等实体有关的任何进一步披露援引其第五修正案特权的实体。\n\n—庭审记录—\n\n法官阁下，这绝非律师事务所随后可以反过来在完全相同的问题上与Kwok先生对立的情形；该等问题涉及完全相同的实体，而他们如今将代表的本案原告正就完全相同的文件、问题及信息寻求证据开示。\n\n法庭：\n好的。我已经听得够多了。我将给法庭记录员十分钟休息时间。你们已经进行了一个半小时，之后我们将继续。\n\n莱文先生：\n谢谢。恢复庭审后，如获准许，我希望在密封程序的范围内，尤其具体向法庭说明这些传票之间的重合之处。\n\n法庭：\n我认为我理解你的观点，即存在重合。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n（休庭。）\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n西格尔先生：\n我想澄清一件我在休庭前所说的事情。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（德博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员\n如果我曾作出如下辩论，即当我提出先前动议中讨论的实体，是受到SEC及本案原告传票要求的实体时，我并非意在表示先前动议中讨论的所有实体都属于这一范围。我不想具体说明，因为相关内容已被密封，但我也不想夸大案情。有些必须在本案中提出的实体，曾被SEC传唤，且PAX曾就其寻求证据开示。\n\nNYSCEF文件编号1120；NYSCEF收到日期：01/25/2022；Case 22-50073 Doc 440-20 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 52 of\n\n—庭审记录—\n\n实际情况是，SEC传票要求提供足以识别由Kwok先生持有或代其持有的全部资产的文件。其要求提供足以识别由Kwok先生持有或代其持有的全部现有账户的文件，并要求提供有关一系列具体实体的全部文件；该内容已被密封。因此，我不想涉及具体细节，但本案中尚待处理的Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）文件请求同样寻求与Kwok先生或任何债务人关联人士的任何资产有关的文件；与Kwok先生或任何债务人关联人士的任何账户有关的文件；并且寻求有关SEC所要求的几乎全部实体的文件。\n\n法庭：\n西格尔先生，我理解你方立场。让我听取GTV律师的陈述。\n\n西格尔先生：\n我可以讨论判例法吗，还是您希望暂缓讨论？\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（德博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员\n法庭：\n我希望听取GTV律师的陈述。\n\n西格尔先生：\n当然。我不想占用时间。让我只说一点：\n\nCahill对以下事实大做文章：纽约没有关于因共同利益协议产生的受信义务而取消律师事务所代理资格的直接相关判例。这是一组独特的事实。\n\n我认为不存在此类判例法的一个原因是，律师事务所不会这样做。\n\n你不会在保密状态下，与一名共同利益方一同审阅其所有文件、就敏感事项向其提供意见，然后在六个月后反过来出庭与其对立。\n\n纽约没有此项规则。但全国多数规则支持取消代理资格。\n\n法庭：\n西格尔先生，我已执业45年。我希望听取GTV律师的陈述。\n\n西格尔先生：\n好的。我明白。现在轮到您了。\n\n海兰女士：\n您能听清我说话吗？\n\n法庭：\n能。\n\n海兰女士：\n我的名字是Nicole Hyland（妮科尔·海兰），我来自Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz（法兰克福特·库尔尼特·克莱因与塞尔兹律师事务所）。我们代表GTV Media（GTV传媒），就其为取消其前律师Cahill Gordon & Randall（凯希尔·戈登与兰德尔律师事务所）代理资格之目的而申请介入本案的动议提供代理。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（德博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员\n—庭审记录—\n\n显然，我们与Kwok先生的处境略有不同。我们是Cahill律师事务所的前客户。GTV曾由Cahill代理。事实上，GTV为该代理支付了约一百万美元的律师费。因此，我们非常容易满足证明本案存在律师—当事人关系的第一项要件。因此，我将很快转至取消代理资格的第二项和第三项要件。第二项要件是，我们将证明并且能够证明以下两种情况之一存在：Cahill持有保密信息，该等信息可被用于PAX的利益或GTV的不利；或者——不是“并且”——不需要两者兼具——或者两项事务实质相关。只须满足其中一项分支，即足以支持取消代理资格。在本案中，事实上两个分支均已满足。第三项要件，我将在最后讨论，即对立要件：两项事务、两项代理关系彼此对立。因此，首先谈保密性问题和实质相关性问题。在代理GTV的过程中，Cahill取得了大量与GTV财务状况、资产、公司结构及其他事项有关的保密信息。我们在动议文件中列明了概括性描述——在不详细说明和披露该等内容的情况下。\n\n2 GTV 试图保护的极为机密的信息。\n\n概括而言，我们列明了若干类信息，这些信息确实表明，该等文件与 PAX 一直在本案中开展的判决执行工作具有相关性。\n\n我知道 PAX 已经——你们还能听到我吗？\n\n法庭：可以——\n\nHYLAND 女士：我知道 PAX 已表示——我理解 PAX 对此的答复提出两点论据：A，存在隔离措施；B，存在一项约定。我将谈到并回应这些问题。\n\n不过，毫无疑问，该等机密信息是 PAX 在本案证据开示中寻求获取的信息。GTV 被确定为与债务人有关联的实体。我们仅提到了两份传票作为例子。他们已送达多份传票，所附清单列有所谓与债务人有关联的实体，或者我会说，该清单上约有 80 至 100 名个人或实体；他们已向各类实体送达传票以寻求信息，而据 PAX 称，GTV 是该等与债务人有关联的实体之一。\n\n该等机密信息不仅面临风险，此外，Cahill（凯希尔）实际上曾就本诉讼中出现的这一问题代理 GTV。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（德博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员\n\n就我最初介入的那一事项而言，即该次披露，我们至今仍不知道极为敏感的银行和财务信息是如何泄露的，而该等信息最终出现在 PAX 的一份文件传票中。\n\n如果法官阁下审阅我的宣誓陈述，我曾就该事件与 Cahill 的合伙人 Bondi 先生和 Bossin 先生进行过长时间交谈；当时他们仍在代理 GTV，而我也刚开始代理 GTV，以处理该一具体且独立的问题。\n\n我们进行了长时间交谈。我们讨论了本案的所有方面、文件请求，以及该等信息如何泄露。他们告知我，他们认为该等信息只有一个可能来源，即他们持有并提交给 SEC 的一份清单。\n\n他们就他们认为我们应当采取的措施向我们提供了意见。我与他们分享了有关我们策略的大量信息。\n\n毫无疑问，当时我们是在就该问题共同向 GTV 提供意见。\n\n因此，实质关联性检验在此也已满足。\n\n现在，只要上述任一要件得到满足，即应当取消代理资格：要么律师掌握的机密信息可能被用于不利于前委托人，或有利于现委托人；要么两项事务之间存在实质关联，如本案即是如此。现在，Cahill 默示承认此处存在利益冲突。他们设立了所谓的伦理隔离墙，旨在将大量机密信息与 Moss 先生及其团队隔离。问题在于，纽约州规则不允许我们所称的非经同意的隔离。Cahill 本应当联系 GTV，联系我们，或者直接联系 GTV，并向新近代理的 GTV 说明存在利益冲突，询问我们或 GTV，GTV 是否会放弃该项利益冲突，或者是否至少会同意采取某种隔离措施。他们从未这样做。他们从未通知 GTV 存在该利益冲突，从未通知 GTV 其拟设立任何隔离措施；他们仅在未征求 GTV 任何意见、甚至未礼貌地联系其前委托人的情况下径行这样做。这并非规则所允许。该规则仅允许在委托人同意时，以隔离措施补救此类利益冲突。而 GTV 从未同意，现亦不同意，也从未被要求同意。这并非补救该利益冲突的有效方式。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（德博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员\n\n除隔离措施本身根本不适用、也不适宜用于补救该利益冲突这一事实之外，该隔离措施亦存在缺陷。直至 Moss 先生加入 Cahill 两周后才设立该隔离措施。这是一项严重迟延设立的隔离措施。\n\n隔离措施，即使其本身适当，也必须在开始代理时即予设立。当 Cahill 首次开始在本案中代理 PAX 时，那才是应当设立隔离措施的时候。即便假定隔离措施本可适当。\n\n法庭：我理解你的论点。我准许你为寻求取消 Cahill Gordon（凯希尔·戈登）代理资格这一有限目的而提出的介入动议。我将听取 Cahill Gordon 律师的陈述。\n\nMOSS 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。Edward Moss（爱德华·莫斯）。此事将由我处理。\n\n法官阁下，如您所知，Kwok 先生和 GTV 负有 First Department（第一部门）所称的沉重负担，以克服 PAX 获得其自行选择的律师代理的权利。\n\n他们必须满足一项三要件检验，才能建立一项可推翻的取消代理资格推定。\n\n我们已讨论过的第一项要求是先前存在律师—委托人关系。Kwok 先生无法满足该要求。我们都同意，他从未是 Cahill 的委托人。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（德博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员\n—庭审记录—\n\n因此，Kwok 主张，由于存在共同辩护小组，他与 Cahill 之间存在事实上的律师—委托人关系。Cahill 代理 GTV，而 Kwok 向 Cahill 分享了某些信息。\n\n如先前所提到的，问题在于，纽约州法律并无依据支持根据此类共同辩护论点取消代理资格。\n\nSimon 教授，法官阁下已认可他或许是该领域首屈一指的专家。他 2000 年的论著中，没有任何内容支持在此类情形下依据纽约州法律作出此种结论。\n\nSimon 教授所能说的最好情况，载于其开篇报告第 45 段，即法院在此背景下逐案裁决取消代理资格动议。这已是他在此所能提出的最强论点。\n\n但 Simon 教授没有说的是，纽约州从未有任何案件在此种背景下取消律师的代理资格。\n\nKwok 先生援引若干案件称这可以做到，但那些案件并未如此处理。他们着重援引的关键案件是 William 诉 Abraham Construction Corporation（亚伯拉罕建筑公司）案，见 Kwok 先生开篇陈述第 11 页所引。该案是 Fifth Circuit（第五巡回法院）1977 年的一项判决。显然，该案对法官阁下不具有约束力。\n\nKwok 先生和 Simon 教授称该案具有开创性。他们没有提及的是，使该案与本案完全不同的关键事实，法官阁下。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（德博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员\n\n该案是同一律师转换阵营。这就如同曾代理 GTV 的 Cahill 律师 Bondi 先生来到本案中代理 PAX。我不知道 Bondi 先生获知了什么。无论他获知了什么，我同意，他不可能忘却。隔离措施不可能解决该问题。\n\n本案中，如我们所讨论，存在隔离措施。每个人均已提交宣誓书，说明我和我唯一的一名团队成员——这并非一个范围广泛的团队——我唯一的团队成员，我们不掌握任何机密信息，且从未讨论过本案。\n\n因此，不存在与 Kwok 先生的律师—委托人关系这一点具有决定性意义。这就是他们将 GTV 纳入本案的原因。\n\n我们确实同意 GTV 曾是 Cahill 的委托人。\n\n然而，GTV 无法满足其他要件。让我们逐一说明。\n\n实质关联性。Cahill 先前对 GTV 的代理与其目前对 PAX 的代理必须具有实质关联性，而 First Department（第一部门）已表示，这意味着争议问题可能与先前案件中的问题相同或实质上相同。\n\n从表面上看，这些事项彼此毫无关系。政府调查涉及 GTV 和 Kwok 先生被指涉嫌实施某种投资者欺诈。本案仅是针对 Kwok 先生的违约案件。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（德博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员\n—庭审记录—\n\nGTV 还主张，该特别程序不知何故具有实质关联性。嗯，那是一项关于信息泄露的程序。您记得，最终证明那并非信息泄露。那是互联网公开可得的信息。\n\n当 GTV 就该特别程序在您面前提出论点时，法官阁下，因为他们试图使该案避开您审理，他们称这些案件并无关联。他们称这些案件彼此毫无关系，因为它们涉及不同的事实、不同的请求和不同的当事方。\n\n无论如何，法官阁下，Cahill 并未在该特别程序中代理 GTV。您知道，在该特别程序中，我是在与 Hyland 女士进行辩论。\n\n因此，由于他们无法满足实质关联性要求，他们转而提出另一种我们也承认的满足该要件的方式，即主张该材料——该信息——对本案的执行工作具有重要性和必要性。而事实并非如此，法官阁下。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（德博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员\n\n为使有关 GTV 的信息——而这正是我在所有这些文件中听到的唯一具体信息——即与 GTV 有关的信息，具有重要性和必要性，PAX 必须正试图向 GTV 执行。Siegel 先生说，嗯，可能存在关于其他实体的信息，在某个时候可能相关。我们谈论的是 GTV。据我理解，这就是他们所确定的——\n\nSIEGEL 先生：——我需要澄清——\n\n法庭：不要打断，Siegel 先生——\n\nSIEGEL 先生：——我没有提到其他事项，因为它们被封存了。\n\n法庭：不要打断。\n\nMOSS 先生：为使该信息具有重要性和必要性，PAX 必须正试图向 GTV 执行。Kwok 先生和 GTV 加强了该项论点。他们说，法官，这正在本案中发生，对吧。\n\n在其开篇陈述第 15 页，Kwok 先生相当令人难以置信地称，政府调查和 PAX 诉讼均集中于 Kwok 与 GTV 所称的关系。\n\n他们称，我们的案件集中于与 GTV 的关系。\n\nGTV 称：“PAX 正在为向 GTV 执行判决或对 GTV 采取其他积极行动奠定基础，并且正依据人格混同理论，针对——针对 GTV 的资产进行判决追偿。”\n\n该论点的问题在于，法官阁下，它没有现实依据。因为如果 PAX 正在追究 GTV，PAX 就会追究 GTV。我们知道那是什么样子。我们正在追究游艇，刚刚就游艇问题进行了一个小时的审理，并已安排就游艇举行证据听证会。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（德博拉·A·罗斯洛克）—官方法庭记录员\n—庭审记录—\n\n我们正在追究公寓，并将在某个时候就该公寓进行揭开公司面纱审判。法官阁下，您说过，我多年来一直在谈论游艇和公寓。Siegel 先生并未称 Cahill 掌握有关那些资产的信息，有关那些资产的信息。这就是本案在过去一年中所涉及、也一直所涉及的内容。\n\n而且，重要的是，法官阁下，PAX 并未追究 GTV，尽管其曾有一个很好的机会这样做。Hyland 女士谈到的特别程序——请记得，我们掌握了有关银行账户的信息。我们认为那是 Kwok 先生的账户。我们向 Kwok 先生询问了这些账户。随后 GTV 出面称，实际上，不，那些是我的银行账户，属于 GTV 而非 Kwok 先生。我们进行了一次特别程序，仍掌握该等信息，却从未、从未、从未对其采取任何行动，法官阁下，从未。PAX 从未追究 GTV。\n\n并且，PAX 正在一项提交至法庭的同意裁定中约定，其不会追究 GTV。法官阁下，我们这一方严肃对待法庭裁定。我们愿意将此写入法庭裁定。\n\n我要补充的是，GTV 曾作出如下陈述：\n\n正在针对其采取行动，并且我们正在追查其资产，同时在我们提交了明确说明我们不会采取该等具体行动的协议后，为此铺路。他们阅读了我方书面陈述后仍作此说法。\n\n第三项要件是实质性不利。GTV（GTV）与 PAX（PAX）之间必须存在不利关系。基于我刚才所述的理由，法官阁下，并不存在。\n\n关于可反驳推定，即使 Kwok 先生（郭文贵）或 GTV 能够满足这些要件，我们也可以通过隔离措施推翻该推定。\n\n我们有五份来自本院工作人员的宣誓书，说明我、Rydell 女士（里德尔女士）——团队中仅有的两名成员——从未收到过 GTV 的保密信息，我们也无此计划。\n\n各方均同意 Simon 教授（西蒙教授）并未反驳这一点。他实际上还就此撰写过文章。各方均同意，在某些情况下，隔离措施可以足够有效。\n\n他在 2002 年撰文讨论隔离措施是否能够补救纽约州的职业道德冲突。他承认，上诉法院暗示该推定可以被推翻。\n\n我们是一家大型律所，并设有伦理隔离墙。在我们引用该文章后，对方在答复中未再涉及该问题。\n\n宣誓书就在这里。此外，还有一项额外保障：2020 年 12 月，实际上已设立信息隔离墙，当时 Cahill（凯希尔）中所有处理 GTV 事务的人员，是唯一能够接触 GTV 信息的人员。其他任何人均不能接触。该隔离措施在我加入之前一年就已实施。即便我提前一年加入 Cahill，我也无法接触 GTV 的信息，即使我想要接触也是如此。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯罗克）—官方法庭书记员\n\n—庭审记录—\n\n最后，法官阁下，关于衡平因素的权衡。PAX 有权选择其自行选定的律师。这是一起已有五年之久的案件。我长期处理此案，掌握大量机构性知识。两周后将举行证据听证会等事项——两周后 PAX 需要为此作准备。\n\n从另一方面看，法官阁下，并不存在合法利益。这是在进行策略性操作。我以前说过，现在再说一遍，Mayers（音）案，即我方答辩书第 20 页所引用的第一部门判例，认定策略性操作并非合法利益。根据本案相关人员的过往情况，我们知道这是策略性操作。我们也知道这是策略性操作，因为即使我们已经宣誓我们没有任何保密信息，并且即使存在任何情况，PAX 也同意在法院命令中承诺不追究 GTV，我们仍在这里讨论此事。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。我将听取动议方陈述，双方各有五分钟答复。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯罗克）—官方法庭书记员\n\n我想回应 Moss 先生（莫斯先生）提出的几点。\n\n首先，PAX 未针对 GTV 进行判决执行的说法，被 PAX 自己的文件所否定。所有传票均附有债务人关联实体名单，而 GTV 就在该名单上。\n\n我还要补充的是，当我——当我们参与该特别程序时，我曾多次与 Moss 先生讨论该保密信息的泄露，以及该信息如何落入 PAX 之手，而 Moss 先生从未向我保证 PAX 不会追究 GTV。他说的恰恰相反。他说——\n\n法庭：律师，他正在约定 PAX 不会对 GTV 采取任何行动。\n\nHyland 女士（海兰女士）：谢谢。\n\n法庭：庭审记录中已有一项约定：PAX 不会以任何方式、任何形式就取证或执行事项追究 GTV。是这样吗，Moss 先生？\n\nHyland 女士：我不同意这种表述。\n\nMoss 先生：是的，法官阁下，正确。\n\nHyland 女士：我可以回应吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nHyland 女士：我不同意该表述中“以任何方式、任何形式”的部分。因为 PAX 通过表示，如果其日后认定 Kwok 先生直接或间接向 GTV 转移资产，便可将 GTV 拉入法庭，从而为自己在该约定中留下了一个巨大的例外。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯罗克）—官方法庭书记员\n\n法庭：让我们澄清一件事。好的。我希望明确。\n\n我对 Moss 先生极为敬重，对他的代理能力和诚信也极为敬重。\n\n我理解 Moss 先生代表 PAX 约定，不存在任何情形会使 PAX 就 GTV 采取任何行动，无论 PAX 是否认为 Kwok 先生滥用 GTV、在 GTV 持有资产，或与 GTV 共同行动。Moss 先生，我希望就此明确。\n\nMoss 先生：是的，让我明确说明。\n\n约定是我们不会对 GTV 采取任何行动。我们加入了一项例外。该例外是：在今天之后，如果 Kwok 先生为利用我方约定而向 GTV 转移资产以试图隐匿资产，并且我们因此获得相关信息，我们必须向法院申请许可，才能追究他。如果法院不希望裁决该问题，我们将提交仲裁员，并接受该决定；这不由我们自行决定。我不能同意这样一种安排，即明天 Kwok 先生说，既然 PAX 作出了这项约定，让我现在将我拥有的全部资产质押给 GTV。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯罗克）—官方法庭书记员\n\n—庭审记录—\n\nSarnoff 先生（萨诺夫先生）：还有一点澄清。\n\nCahill 不会参与该程序的任何方面。\n\n如果 Kwok 先生为利用这一情况而在此后进行转移，且——您知道——那必须是非常特殊的情形，并且法院会作出该认定，Cahill 将被完全隔离，仅由 O'Melveny（欧麦律师事务所）追究该事项。我认为这就是拟订该约定的意图。如果我有误，请予纠正。\n\nMoss 先生：正确。\n\n法庭：Moss 先生，我希望非常明确。\n\n我有些担心，我对您的高度评价和尊重会影响我对此事的判断——就此问题而言，您已经尽可能地接近界限。因此，就该约定而言，在我看来，对该动议的处置取决于您以任何方式、任何形式均不得与 GTV 有任何关系；包括与 O'Melveny 合作，包括与第三方讨论，包括任何法院提交文件，包括分享任何信息；完全没有，零，毫无。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯罗克）—官方法庭书记员\n\nMoss 先生：我理解，法官阁下。我甚至预计 O'Melveny 也不需要参与 GTV 的事务。我本人不会参与。我现在在此绝对、百分之百地声明，法官阁下，与他们毫无关系。\n\n法庭：好的。我打断了律师。\n\nHyland 女士：我们担心的是，即使有 Moss 先生的上述陈述，该约定仍未完全解决问题，因为这里有两个担忧。\n\n其一，Cahill 纽约办公室有 25 或 26 名律师能够接触所有这些大量信息。在本程序中，Cahill 就其自身应否因回避动议而被取消代理资格进行抗辩时，未经核对正确的密封选项，便错误地在法院系统中公开提交了保密信息。信息可能因错误而被无意披露。在一个有 25 或 26 名律师能够接触该信息的办公室中，这种情况很可能发生。而这正是该规则不允许通过隔离措施补救该利益冲突的原因。\n\nGTV 是本案中需要受到保护的客户，他们不应被要求依赖于——您知道——Cahill 能够完美执行这一程序，因为他们迄今尚未做到。\n\n要求 GTV 依赖所有这些保证并不公平。他们无法检验这些保证，也无法确保这些事项得到正确处理。而我们迄今所见的一切都指向相反的结论。这就是该约定不适当的原因。因为这并非客户作出的合同性豁免。这是 PAX 的两名律师之间同意某些事项的约定。这并非为放弃该利益冲突所必需的利益冲突豁免。\n\n我们代表 GTV 认为，该约定或隔离措施均无法补救该利益冲突，必须取消代理资格。\n\nMoss 先生：如果我可以说，人们会犯错误。在已设置隔离措施的内部犯错，与必须在案卷系统中公开提交信息并进行密封时犯错，两者存在区别。我们确实犯了错误，没有人看到该信息；该错误是因为我们为了回应该动议而不得不进行该项提交。内部并未发生错误。\n\n法庭：听着，Moss 先生，我确实极为尊重您作为代理人的能力，也极为尊重您的诚信；我承认并接受，PAX 因无法获得您就本案争议问题所具备的丰富经验和知识而受到不利影响。但是，我认为，从长远来看，为了司法经济、确定性以及正当性外观，Cahill 不应参与本案的进一步诉讼；我怀着遗憾作此表示。但这实际上可能是策略性的，不过这里确实有几个危险信号。本案最糟糕的情况，将是案件再继续诉讼一年，之后 GTV 和／或 Kwok 先生成功主张 Cahill 本应被取消代理资格。因此，我虽不情愿，仍得出该结论，并将准许 GTV 的动议。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯罗克）—官方法庭书记员\n\n—庭审记录—\n\n法庭：今天在法庭前还有其他事项吗？\n\nHyland 女士：没有，法官阁下。\n\nSiegel 先生（西格尔先生）：没有，法官阁下，我认为这已经绰绰有余。\n\n法庭：好的。我们将发布一项命令，记载此前两小时内发生的一切。本案存在许多策略性操作，我对此并不欣赏。但无论如何，我们将寻求真相并解决本案。\n\nMoss 先生：我还有一件事。我只是想感谢法院的赞誉之词。并且想说，能够如此多次在法院面前出庭，是一种荣幸。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢，Moss 先生。您是一名卓越的代理人，无论在私人执业期间还是在担任法官期间，您都是我见过的最优秀的代理人之一。对于作出我刚才所述的命令，我深感遗憾。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯罗克）—官方法庭书记员\n\n—庭审记录—\n\n保重，注意安全。2 月 7 日我会见到你们中的一些人。你们可以订购庭审记录。\n\n法庭：（至此，庭审程序结束。）\n\n* * *\n\n兹证明，上述内容系庭审程序真实、准确的记录。\n\nDEBORAH A. ROTHROCK（黛博拉·A·罗斯罗克），RPR\n官方法庭书记员\n\n远程裁定如上。\n\nJanuary 25, 2022\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1120\nNYSCEF 收件日期：01/25/2022\n案号 22-50073，文件 440-20，提交日期 05/25/22，录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37，第 73 页，共\n\n$ 4 accommodations [1] 55:20 49:19, 50:3\n\n- 37:12 辩护[1] - 66:7 金额[3] - 36:12,\n\\$500 [1] - 12:13 4 [1] - 27:11 根据[1] - 54:22 倡导[2] - 69:18, 38:1, 56:7\n\\$500,000 [1] - 26:13 40多岁[1] - 7:24 账户[1] - 38:24 70:22 分析[2] - 39:20,\n45 [3] - 2:6, 52:16, 会计核算[1] - 37:17 宣誓陈述人[1] - 34:7 41:12\n1 58:13 账户[6] - 7:15, 宣誓书[1] - 38:22 已分析[1] - 49:15\n485 [1] - 2:2 38:23, 51:12, 51:18, 宣誓书[9] - 12:24, 正在分析[1] - 49:13\n10 [2] - 18:17, 41:11\n100 [3] - 6:5, 54:19, 4:15 [1] - 6:15 62:12, 62:15 16:24, 23:18, 27:17, 半[1] - 50:13\n68:1 4日[1] - 5:5 准确性[1] - 16:18 31:12, 32:24, 33:5, 答复[3] - 14:25,\n10005 [2] - 1:21, 2:11 准确[1] - 71:8\n取得[1] - 6:6 40:15, 48:24\n宣誓书[14] - 9:14, 16:16, 40:18\n预计[2] - 14:6,\n10017 [1] - 2:3 5 代理[1] - 66:12 13:12, 31:13, 33:11, 67:24\n10036 [1] - 1:18 5 [1] - 46:4 诉讼[7] - 30:11, 33:12, 33:13, 33:23, 无论如何[2] - 10:22,\n10111 [1] - 2:6 50 [1] - 6:15 52:23, 55:1, 61:13, 34:5, 34:7, 35:24, 63:4\n10日[2] - 10:3, 29:21 5223 [1] - 41:21 65:12, 66:10, 66:15 46:5, 59:7, 63:11, 公寓[5] - 5:18,\n11 [2] - 19:1, 58:20 5225 [8] - 8:13, 12:17, 诉讼行为[1] - 61:18 63:23 5:23, 62:2, 62:3,\n12 [1] - 18:14 17:12, 17:14, 25:12, 行为人[1] - 64:17 关联[1] - 39:24 62:5\n13 [1] - 21:7 25:21, 26:9, 28:18 实际[1] - 40:17 确认书[4] - 18:2, 道歉[1] - 45:6\n14 [2] - 1:11, 21:8 添加[2] - 62:25, 65:5 18:10, 48:20, 55:6 明显[1] - 21:14\n15 [1] - 61:12 6 已添加[1] - 63:24 确认[2] - 4:19, 上诉法院[1] - 63:20\n17 [1] - 6:15 6 [2] - 38:25, 41:24 补充[1] - 54:24 28:17 上诉[1] - 25:5\n1977 [1] - 58:22 61 [1] - 1:1 额外[1] - 28:21 确认[1] - 13:6 出庭[4] - 22:22,\n652077/2017 [1] - 1:10 地址[11] - 6:4, 下午[4] - 15:8,\n25:10, 35:4, 43:16 22:24, 33:7, 52:12\n2 15:14, 17:24, 23:24, 激进[1] - 48:22 出庭[1] -\n69:23\n2 [2] - 18:24, 48:25 7 29:14, 43:20, 45:14,\n47:15, 54:12, 64:25, 以前[1] - 11:9 上诉[10] - 12:5,\n20 [2] - 16:1, 64:15 65:20 同意[7] - 57:25, 15:15, 16:22, 17:3,\n二十多岁[1] - 6:1 7 [2] - 1:17, 39:6 已处理[1] - 16:20 59:4, 59:13, 60:17, 24:16, 25:1, 25:6,\n2000 [1] - 58:9 710 [1] - 6:14 处理[1] - 43:17 64:21, 65:18, 66:23 25:24, 28:16\n2002 [1] - 63:18 750 [1] - 38:25 提出证据[2] - 15:20, 已同意[2] - 37:2, 适用[1] - 8:15\n2006 [2] - 5:9, 5:13 753 [2] - 25:17, 25:20\n753(a)(3 [1] - 17:7 18:1 62:20 申请[1] - 20:9\n2007 [1] - 13:14 764 [1] - 38:25 延期[2] - 30:13, 同意[1] - 69:2 已适用[1] - 39:21\n2014 [3] - 5:13, 6:16, 7日[2] - 30:9, 71:2 30:14 协议[8] - 12:23, 适用[2] - 33:2,\n18:19 调整[1] - 30:6 36:8, 45:4, 46:3, 41:13\n2015 [5] - 5:17, 8:24,\n12:10, 18:13, 18:15 8 可采性[1] - 46:7, 46:10, 46:15, 适用[6] - 16:21,\n2016 [1] - 38:21 16:17 52:6\n协议[2] - 17:15, 24:15, 28:19,\n2017 [2] - 6:15, 7:20 8 [2] - 49:14, 49:20 可采纳[2] - 9:9, 13:14, 46:7 28:22, 57:2\n适用[1] - 17:19\n2020 [7] - 7:1, 9:18, 80 [1] - 54:19 18:21\n承认[2] - 9:20, 同意[2] - 63:15, 感谢[6] - 16:15,\n19:9, 21:22, 27:9, 19:17 63:17 24:22, 25:7, 43:7,\n41:23, 63:24 9 承认事项[1] - 9:22 继续[2] - 44:10, 43:15, 70:15\n2021 [1] - 41:23 908 [1] - 36:5 承认[1] - 14:13 56:18 方法[1] - 37:9\n2022 [1] - 1:11 已承认[3] - 18:10, Aiao（艾奥）[2] - 18:16, 18:22 接近[1] -\n20日[1] - 27:9 A 31:11, 63:19 AIAO（艾奥）[1] - 18:17 45:17\n25 [2] - 68:6, 68:14 成年人[2] - 20:19, 24:4 指控[3] - 19:1, 适当[8] - 5:1,\n26 [2] - 68:6, 68:14 又名[7] - 1:6, 1:6, 1:7, 推进[3] - 23:6, 19:3, 49:22 14:24, 15:18, 27:2,\n27日[2] - 37:25, 39:6 1:7 33:20, 33:21 据称[2] - 4:16, 38:21, 57:2, 57:6,\n28 [1] - 2:10\n2日[6] - 30:8, 30:24, 遵守[1] - 14:7 已推进[1] - 31:21 59:23\nALLIANCE（联盟）[1] - 1:2 57:10\n31:2, 31:3, 31:8, 能力[1] - 17:21 优势[4] - 53:12, Alliance（联盟）[5] - 3:8, 仲裁员[1] - 66:22\n主张[2] - 41:14, 70:4\n32:23 能够[4] - 32:8, 53:10,\n64:4, 68:19 56:2, 66:17, 67:4 3:20, 4:2, 21:4, 已主张[9] - 17:11,\nAbraham（亚伯拉罕）[1] - 58:20 不利[5] - 10:5,\n31:17, 32:8, 50:6, 51:15 17:15, 28:18, 38:3,\n3 绝对[2] - 10:24, 53:19 允许[1] - 11:12 38:19, 39:2, 49:21,\n68:1 不利[1] - 46:12 提及[1] - 58:5 50:25, 60:6\n32 [1] - 1:20 接受[1] - 69:19 逆境[3] - 53:18, 单独[2] - 18:3, 67:8 主张[1] - 58:1\n36 [1] - 39:1 接触[6] - 49:8, 63:5, 63:6 另一个自我[2] - 36:22, 辩称[5] - 38:14,\n3日[2] - 30:18 49:11, 64:2, 64:4, 建议[1] - 55:17 61:20 38:16, 40:25, 60:13,\n68:7, 68:15 已告知[3] - 18:22, 修正案[8] - 60:17\n容纳[1] - 48:3, 48:11 26:25, 32:7, 32:20, 论点[13] - 3:23,\n30:6 提出建议[2] - 52:10, 32:21, 47:14, 47:19, 9:3, 10:7, 16:23,\ndar\n22:3, 39:3, 41:4, 律师[5] - 1:19, 58:12, 58:15, 70:22 46:8\n\n54:10, 57:11, 58:7, 1:22, 2:4, 2:8, 2:13 之间[12] - 5:13, C 中心[1] - 61:14\n60:1, 61:10, 61:21 律师[4] - 47:6, 24:2, 38:9, 41:2, Cahill（卡希尔）[61] - 3:8, 3:22, 中心[1] - 61:15\n论点[3] - 8:4, 47:8, 47:10, 68:14 41:23, 44:24, 45:4, 43:18, 43:24, 44:5, 某些[5] - 23:1,\n17:25, 39:7 律师的[1] - 47:4 46:3, 56:3, 63:6, 44:8, 44:12, 44:22, 29:24, 31:2, 58:4,\n产生于[1] - 52:5 认证[2] - 9:25 69:2, 69:9 45:5, 46:4, 46:5, 63:17\n安排[1] - 权威资料[1] - 5:15 超出[2] - 39:16, 46:8, 46:12, 47:2, 当然[2] - 15:13,\n47:16 权限[2] - 6:20, 57:1 47:12, 47:15, 47:23, 52:1\n文章[4] - 6:24, 17:16 重大[1] - 52:3 48:2, 48:3, 48:11, 确定性[1] - 69:23\n63:16, 63:18, 63:22 可获得[4] - 14:25, 账单[1] - 42:13 48:12, 48:16, 49:2, 经认证[1] - 71:7\nAsia（亚洲）[1] - 5:16 33:12, 40:9, 60:5 有约束力[1] - 58:22 49:5, 49:7, 49:11, 定性[2] -\nASIA（亚洲）[1] - 1:2 Avenue（大道）[1] - 2:2 船[24] - 6:10, 6:16, 49:12, 49:15, 50:1, 65:18, 65:23\n方面[1] - 67:2 避免[1] - 20:22 6:24, 7:3, 7:6, 7:20, 52:3, 52:24, 53:1, Chase（大通）[1] - 38:24\n方面[2] - 45:12, 知悉[1] - 49:3 8:5, 11:19, 11:22, 53:2, 53:11, 53:22, 核对[1] - 10:23\n55:12 18:11, 18:19, 19:15, 54:24, 55:7, 56:5, 核查[1] - 68:11\n主张[1] - 25:5 B 19:20, 19:23, 20:2, 56:11, 57:4, 57:8, 首席[1] - 48:19\n主张[1] - 22:25 20:10, 24:10, 24:11, 57:13, 57:14, 58:2, China（中国）[2] - 21:13, 22:6\n评估[2] - 5:1, 5:2 BACHRACH（巴赫拉赫）[1] - 2:4 25:18, 25:19, 26:14, 58:3, 58:4, 59:2, Chinese（中国人）[1] - 18:25\n评估[1] - 背景[1] - 17:24 28:8, 29:3, 32:14 59:13, 60:12, 62:5, Chirnoid（奇尔诺伊德）[3] - 12:13,\n13:16 背景[1] - 3:11 船的[1] - 23:18 64:1, 64:3, 67:2, 12:18, 13:11\n资产[19] - 6:22, 8:16, Baker（贝克）[2] - 15:9, 43:13 Bondi（邦迪）[3] - 55:8, 59:2, 67:7, 68:6, 68:8, Chirnoid的[1] - 12:18\n8:25, 14:13, 14:14, BAKER（贝克）[1] - 2:5 59:3 68:19, 69:24, 70:5 选择[2] - 57:19,\n17:4, 17:10, 17:12, 余额[1] - 64:6 Bondon（邦登）[1] - 48:20 CAHILL（卡希尔）[1] - 1:20 64:7\n17:21, 20:15, 20:21, 银行[6] - 7:15, 35:7, 书[3] - 34:1, 34:4, Cahill的[6] - 44:19, 选择[2] - 6:24,\n22:1, 25:13, 40:10, 36:11, 43:1, 62:12, 34:6 44:24, 46:17, 50:2, 32:2\n41:19, 45:1, 49:4, 62:14 Bossin（博辛）[1] - 55:8 57:25, 59:16 选择[1] - 14:19\n66:24 银行业务[1] - 55:4 购买[1] - 6:16 不能[1] - 66:23 选择[1] - 32:23\n资产[18] - 10:4, BARROW（巴罗）[1] - 2:7 箱[1] - 68:11 能力[1] - 20:3 圈子[2] - 47:8, 47:24\n11:11, 32:10, 36:23, BARRY（巴里）[1] - 1:14 Brad（布拉德）[1] - 48:20 Capital（资本）[12] - 2:4, 7:8, Circuit（巡回区）[1] - 58:21\n36:24, 37:3, 48:8, 基于[6] - 9:12, 违约[1] - 59:24 34:23, 35:10, 35:17,\n35:25, 36:3, 36:12, 21:13, 24:1, 36:14, 中断[2] - 15:3, 50:24 36:22, 37:16, 37:17, 情形[3] -\n48:24, 51:10, 51:17, 64:17, 66:19 简报[12] - 5:5, 8:19, 39:9 63:17, 66:9, 67:6\n53:24, 61:19, 62:6, 依据[7] - 19:5, 36:25, 18:23, 25:9, 26:21, 船长[3] - 7:19, 间接证据的[1] -\n63:1, 66:1, 66:12, 40:16, 49:2, 58:6, 27:11, 29:6, 35:3, 11:8, 23:18 7:17\n66:18 58:15, 61:22 40:24, 58:21, 61:12, 马戏团[1] - 32:3\n受让人[1] - 22:5 成为[1] - 65:5 63:4 关怀[1] - 22:13 马戏团般的[1] - 32:3\n关联[1] - 10:22 变成[1] - 47:1 已作简报[1] - 17:11 Carvallo（卡瓦略）[1] - 29:15 引证[1] - 27:1\n假定[4] - 11:21, 开始[1] - 36:20 简报程序[2] - 3:9, 保留事项[2] - 66:16, 引用[2] - 8:24, 63:22\n11:24, 22:25, 32:8 代表[7] - 3:19, 4:2, 28:21 66:17 已引用[5] - 8:19, 17:16,\n假定[1] - 18:17 48:8, 51:11, 51:12,\n66:9, 69:5 书面陈述[1] - 5:4\n简要地[4] - 3:11, 5:7, 12:15, 14:3, 14:9, 案件[52] - 3:16, 8:23, 27:11, 58:20, 64:15\n57:10 行为[1] - 13:11 24:21, 35:9 17:18, 21:4, 22:16, 引用[1] - 58:18\n保证[1] - 之后[1] - 35:2 简报[1] - 3:10 24:20, 28:23, 31:24, City（市）[1] - 5:18\n68:22 迟延地[1] - 12:23 提出[2] - 10:4, 47:7 39:21, 39:22, 43:13, 民事[1] - 14:17\n保证[1] - 65:9 否定[1] - 65:2 提出[1] - 10:6 45:2, 48:6, 48:17, CIVIL（民事）[1] - 1:1\n附上[2] - 6:24, 相信[3] - 14:23, 广泛[2] - 41:20, 54:3 49:10, 49:17, 51:5, Clade（克莱德）[4] - 8:23, 12:9,\n54:17 36:14, 66:11 提出[1] - 12:16 51:16, 51:23, 52:4, 12:12, 12:16\n已附上[1] - 65:3 属于[1] - 62:15 大量[1] - 4:20 52:7, 54:6, 55:12, 主张[1] - 19:10\n尝试[1] - 24:20 法官席[3] - 34:2, 34:3, 举证责任[5] - 11:25, 57:9, 58:14, 58:17, 声称[1] - 16:14\n试图[1] - 24:2 70:23 20:1, 23:24, 39:14, 58:19, 58:20, 58:21, 请求[2] - 8:5, 60:10\n证明[1] - 23:19 受益所有权的[10] - 8:16, 57:18 58:23, 58:25, 59:3, 声称[1] - 26:24\n律师[9] - 43:25, 8:22, 9:2, 17:14, 业务[6] - 22:2, 59:10, 59:20, 59:24, 澄清[3] - 32:5,\n46:20, 46:21, 47:7, 17:19, 23:24, 24:5, 35:11, 36:16, 36:25, 60:7, 60:19, 61:15, 42:24, 67:1\n53:5, 57:24, 58:2, 25:15, 29:9, 49:23 38:6, 49:17 62:7, 64:8, 64:14, 澄清[2] - 50:23, 66:4\n59:11 Beneficial（受益所有权的）[2] - 25:20, 购买[1] - 6:19 64:18, 69:22, 69:25, 类别[1] - 30:11\n律师的[1] - 47:5 26:9 购买[1] - 5:18 70:3, 70:14, 70:16 集体诉讼[1] -\n清楚[17] - 4:21, 8:9,\nAttorney's（律师的）[1] - 48:19 受益地[2] - 5:6, BVI（英属维尔京群岛）[3] - 5:21, 14:12, 案件[3] - 58:18, 8:10, 8:16, 8:20,\n律师—当事人[6] - 6:21 21:5 60:8, 60:9 17:8, 18:4, 24:11,\n46:20, 47:7, 53:5, 利益[1] - 24:25 BY（由）[5] - 1:18, 1:21, 类别[1] - 54:3 25:13, 26:1, 33:9,\n57:24, 58:2, 59:11 最佳[5] - 40:9, 44:14, 2:3, 2:7, 2:11 谨慎[2] - 22:13,\ndar\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1120 NYSCEF 收到：01/25/2022 案件 22-50073 文件 440-20 提交日期 05/25/22 录入日期 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 75 页，共\n\n索引编号 652077/2017\n34:14, 61:3, 66:5,\n66:13, 66:14, 67:12 21:24, 30:8, 34:14\n完整性[2] - 冲突[1] - 63:19\n混淆[1] - 12:3 24:11, 26:2\n副本[1] - 3:2 70:21, 71:4\n法院[11] - 9:1, 12:25,\n\n明确地 [1] - 28:7 26:20, 33:2 关联 [5] - 公司 [1] - 53:24 13:7, 13:9, 19:2,\n\n客户 [18] - 44:4, 44:6, 已遵守 [1] - 17:5 21:14, 38:13, 52:22, CORPORATION（公司）[1] - 40:1, 45:11, 45:15,\n\n44:7, 46:20, 46:21, 遵守 [4] - 14:12, 54:25 1:8 45:19, 66:3, 67:21\n\n47:7, 53:5, 56:2, 14:24, 17:21, 25:5 同意 [2] - 56:24 Corporation（公司）[1] - Court（法院）[46] - 1:14, 2:22,\n\n56:20, 56:23, 57:24, 组成部分 [1] - 25:19 已同意 [1] - 56:23 58:20 6:23, 7:14, 9:15,\n\n57:25, 58:2, 59:11, 隐瞒 [1] - 36:1 同意书 [1] - 56:23 正确 [9] - 26:1, 11:16, 13:13, 14:23,\n\n59:13, 68:17, 69:1 承认 [1] - 56:5 后果性的 [1] - 40:2, 41:15, 44:9, 16:16, 17:16, 17:21,\n\n客户 [1] - 53:1 可设想的 [2] - 41:8 65:17, 65:19, 67:10, 17:23, 17:25, 19:9,\n\n接近 [9] - 6:17, 12:10, 20:23, 38:6 考虑 [2] - 19:12, 67:11, 68:11 19:12, 19:22, 21:5,\n\n13:23, 24:15, 36:21, 关切 [1] - 68:3 31:13 正确地 [2] - 28:16, 21:24, 22:17, 24:18,\n\n39:5, 40:11, 48:23, 关切的 [3] - 40:5, 考虑 [4] - 68:23 27:13, 29:9, 30:3,\n\n67:15 67:13, 67:17 5:15, 6:8, 27:5, 同期限的 [1] - 36:4, 37:22, 38:4,\n\n结束 [2] - 5:15, 有关 [3] - 28:10 48:7 40:9, 42:1, 45:24,\n\n14:5 47:13, 48:8, 51:13 已考虑 [1] - 33:25 律师 [23] - 7:19, 50:12, 50:16, 62:20,\n\n硬币 [1] - 64:12 关切事项 [3] - 22:7, 构成 [1] - 20:14 10:2, 13:24, 14:7, 62:22, 62:23, 63:11,\n\n巧合 [1] - 27:7 22:11, 68:5 宪法性的 [1] - 16:18, 16:20, 30:3, 63:20, 64:21, 65:14,\n\n协作 [1] - 共同 [1] - 66:13 47:21 34:22, 36:17, 39:2, 66:20, 66:21, 67:6,\n\n67:19 已得出结论 [2] - 13:14, Construction（建筑）[1] - 39:23, 40:23, 42:17, 68:10, 70:8, 70:18,\n\n附带的 [2] - 41:1,\n\n41:13 71:5 58:20 45:22, 46:18, 47:13,\n\n同事 [1] - 30:2 结论 [1] - 70:6 已咨询 [1] - 47:17 51:22, 51:25, 52:16, 法院的 [1] - 13:6\n\n收集 [2] - 60:19, 决定性地 [1] - 5:6 载有 [1] - 16:12 57:14, 64:7, 65:11, Court’s（法院的）[6] - 4:3,\n\n61:20 同意 [1] - 13:15 当代的 [1] - 68:2 13:16, 14:1, 14:2,\n\n问答 [1] - 30:12 条件 [1] - 46:8 27:12\n\n藐视法庭 [10] - 3:5, 国家 [1] - 52:14 礼遇 [1] - 56:19\n\n合并 [1] - 7:17 附条件的 [3] - 4:14,\n\n17:6, 18:5 4:14, 14:17, 14:22, COUNTY（县）[1] - 1:1 Courts（法院）[2] - 13:6,\n\n合并的 [1] - 16:23 行为 [2] - 4:24, 15:7, 17:3, 17:8, 夫妇 [3] - 28:13, 58:13\n\n即将到来 [2] - 59:2, 22:21 17:17, 17:22, 26:18 29:4, 70:1 堂兄弟姐妹 [2] - 21:11,\n\n62:3 进行 [2] - 主张 [1] - 18:23 过程 [6] - 11:10, 21:12\n\n开始 [1] - 34:13, 54:5 主张 [1] - 18:25 12:24, 14:7, 15:1, 涵盖 [1] - 63:7\n\n55:9 商议 [4] - 30:2, 语境 [6] - 26:9, 33:1, 53:22 涵盖 [1] - 45:9\n\n评论 [1] - 40:5 36:18, 37:2, 37:10 26:10, 41:5, 42:11, COURT（法院）[85] - 1:1, 3:1, CPLR [6] - 8:13,\n\n实施 [1] - 59:23 会议 [2] - 58:14, 58:17 3:13, 3:16, 3:21, 12:17, 17:12, 40:1,\n\n普通 [11] - 6:19, 29:21, 36:3 继续 [1] - 46:1 3:25, 15:2, 15:6, 40:3, 41:21\n\n22:1, 45:4, 46:3, 信心 [2] - 47:8, 续 [2] - 1:23, 15:10, 15:19, 15:25, 已采信 [1] - 18:10\n\n46:10, 46:15, 46:21, 47:22 2:1 16:4, 16:6, 19:8, 债权人 [4] - 8:15,\n\n47:16, 48:16, 52:5, 保密事项 [1] - 合同 [2] - 59:24, 19:16, 19:21, 20:4, 25:13, 41:6, 41:9\n\n52:9 47:23 69:1 20:6, 22:14, 22:19, 债权人 [1] - 39:19\n\n通信 [3] - 保密的 [23] - 相反 [1] - 16:21 22:21, 23:7, 23:9, 关键地 [1] - 13:5\n\n11:7, 46:20, 46:22 44:24, 45:9, 46:11, 控制 [26] - 4:17, 24:25, 25:4, 25:10, 交叉询问 [8] - 11:23,\n\n通信 [4] - 46:16, 46:20, 47:9, 4:25, 6:21, 8:5, 14:3, 26:12, 26:16, 28:4,\n\n28:12, 28:23, 29:10, 47:23, 49:9, 49:13, 14:8, 15:17, 17:4, 29:16, 29:23, 30:5, 32:24, 33:7, 33:13,\n\n34:6\n\n49:13 49:16, 50:1, 53:11, 17:9, 17:20, 19:6, 30:12, 30:19, 30:23, 交叉询问 [5]\n\n公司 [3] - 36:7, 53:23, 54:2, 54:13, 20:15, 23:16, 23:17, 31:6, 31:8, 31:22, - 31:14, 32:24, 33:7,\n\n36:8, 39:18 54:23, 55:25, 56:7, 23:23, 24:12, 24:13, 32:13, 32:21, 33:6, 33:13, 34:6\n\n公司 [4] - 5:9,\n\n7:8, 27:5, 35:12 59:9, 63:13, 64:20, 24:14, 26:5, 26:7, 33:10, 33:21, 34:17, 交叉询问 [1] -\n\n强制 [2] - 38:1, 65:7, 68:10\n\n保密性 [2] - 28:8, 31:25, 33:15,\n\n34:8, 34:11, 45:15 34:25, 35:4, 39:11, 32:15\n\n39:25 47:5, 53:20 受控制的 [4] - 4:17, 39:16, 40:22, 42:20, 接受交叉询问 [1] -\n\n被强制 [1] - 37:13 保密地 [2] - 18:5, 35:17, 35:21 43:2, 43:8, 43:11, 31:16\n\n有说服力的 [1] - 41:16 48:11, 52:9 控制性的 [1] - 8:1 43:22, 44:2, 44:4, 补救 [5] - 56:22,\n\n令人信服地 [1] - 确认 [1] - 3:5 控制 [4] - 5:6, 8:9, 44:8, 44:10, 45:25, 56:25, 57:2, 63:19,\n\n40:10 已确认 [4] - 10:1, 14:13, 49:23 50:11, 50:18, 50:22, 68:16\n\n诉状 [5] - 6:23, 11:13, 42:18, 47:12 谈话 [2] - 51:21, 51:25, 52:15, 补救 [1] - 69:6\n\n6:25, 9:19, 27:9, 混同 [1] - 22:11 55:7, 55:11 52:19, 54:8, 57:11, 好奇心 [1] - 19:8\n\n27:10 冲突 [9] - 56:5, 谈话 [1] - 61:4, 61:7, 64:23, 当前 [5] - 19:25,\n\n完整 [3] - 24:22, 56:13, 56:16, 56:22, 65:6 65:11, 65:14, 65:21, 20:8, 51:12, 56:2,\n\n24:23, 49:11 56:25, 57:2, 68:16, 令人信服的 [6] - 4:21, 66:4, 67:12, 68:2, 59:17\n\n完全地 [3] - 69:3, 69:6 8:11, 17:9, 18:4, 69:17, 70:8, 70:12, 惯常地 [1] - 46:9\n\ndar\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 440-20 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 76 of\n\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022\n\nD 68:9\n\n辩护 [2] - 58:3, 指示 [1] - 3:2\n\n方向 [5] - 16:22, Docket（案卷）[4] - 6:14,\n\n38:25, 69:12 努力 [5] - 38:15,\n\n45:2, 49:18, 54:5,\n\n日期 [7] - 29:11, 29:16, 58:7 23:21, 25:6, 27:16, 文件 [12] - 9:11, 60:19\n\n29:20, 30:4, 30:13, 延期 [1] - 51:24 27:22 11:23, 19:22, 21:18, 八 [1] - 39:17\n\n30:14, 31:8 有缺陷的 [1] - 57:3 直接地 [9] - 26:10, 24:2, 36:16, 37:1, 任一 [9] - 16:17,\n\n日期 [4] - 30:13, 定义 [1] - 20:6 37:16, 44:7, 44:21, 38:6, 49:10, 51:15, 45:23, 51:6, 53:10,\n\n33:22, 33:23, 33:24 程度 [1] - 7:25 45:14, 52:4, 56:12, 55:5, 55:12 53:11, 53:12, 55:24,\n\n女儿 [15] - 6:2, Delaware（特拉华州）[10] - 6:3, 66:1, 66:2 Document（文件）[1] - 36:4 55:25, 65:16\n\n6:5, 8:7, 8:25, 10:20, 7:5, 7:10, 8:6, 8:8, 董事 [3] - 5:13, 文件 [34] -\n\n11:19, 12:24, 20:19, 9:11, 10:15, 10:22, 35:19, 35:23 9:14, 9:16, 10:5, 要素 [5] - 53:5,\n\n21:1, 21:20, 22:7, 35:10, 35:12 董事 [1] - 7:15 10:11, 10:17, 11:3, 53:8, 53:9, 53:17,\n\n22:22, 22:23, 24:4, Delaware’s（特拉华州的）[1] - 27:19 指示 [1] - 33:20 11:11, 16:7, 16:24, 53:18\n\n27:6 要求 [1] - 36:25 不利条件 [1] - 20:16, 22:3, 22:15, 要素 [2] - 63:9,\n\n女儿的 [1] - 24:9 证明 [1] - 54:4 53:13 32:11, 37:3, 38:2, 63:10\n\n女儿们 [1] - 12:23 已证明 [2] - 不同意 [2] - 38:7, 41:20, 41:25, 42:1, 雇员 [5] - 6:11,\n\nDAVID（大卫）[1] - 1:22 39:16, 42:17 65:22 48:3, 48:7, 48:13, 19:4, 26:23, 26:25,\n\n日常 [1] - 49:2 被驳回 [4] - 42:21, 免责声明 [1] - 46:9 48:14, 49:15, 49:16, 35:25\n\n天数 [2] - 29:12, 30:11 43:1, 43:2, 43:9 已披露 [1] - 68:12 50:9, 51:10, 51:11, 雇员 [4] - 5:14,\n\nde [1] - 58:1 Department（部门）[7] - 4:19, 披露 [1] - 54:1 51:13, 51:16, 51:18, 7:14, 10:18, 22:2\n\n交易 [3] - 29:9, 29:25, 4:24, 12:9, 13:6, 披露 [2] - 50:3, 51:19, 52:10, 54:4, 雇主 [1] - 18:24\n\n52:3 57:18, 59:19, 64:15 55:3 65:3 加密的 [1] - 49:13\n\n处理 [5] - 13:2, 证人 [1] - 31:17 证据开示 [13] - 5:20, 美元 [2] - 6:2, 10:25 结束 [3] - 29:14, 29:22,\n\n22:5, 28:24, 28:25, 证人 [1] - 31:15 32:18, 32:19, 38:20, 美元 [3] - 26:18, 53:18\n\n46:25 取证 [2] - 11:12, 40:21, 41:9, 41:21, 36:13, 53:3 已结束 [1] - 55:5\n\nDEBORAH（黛博拉）[2] - 2:22, 33:3 42:5, 48:9, 50:9, 已完成 [4] - 4:13, 56:11, 结束 [2] - 27:6, 29:20\n\n71:13 已取证 [1] - 31:19 51:8, 54:14, 65:16 58:18, 68:20 执行 [3] - 38:5,\n\n债务人 [20] - 8:21, 证言 [20] - 贬损可信度 [1] - 23:6 双倍 [1] - 61:10 61:9, 61:18\n\n8:25, 12:12, 17:2, 26:24, 28:1, 28:2, 独立的 [1] - 55:10 疑问 [2] - 13:24, 执行 [5] -\n\n17:13, 35:16, 35:18, 28:5, 28:7, 28:9, 酌处权 [1] - 66:23 65:2, 65:17\n\n35:19, 35:22, 36:23,\n\n37:4, 39:9, 39:25, 30:21, 30:24, 31:11, 讨论 [1] - 51:23 向下 [1] - 61:10 从事 [1] - 44:21\n\n51:17, 51:18, 54:15, 31:12, 31:20, 31:22, 已讨论 [7] - 25:12, 拖延 [1] - 66:2 已从事 [2] - 44:7,\n\n44:8\n\n54:18, 54:21, 65:3 32:1, 32:10, 32:11,\n\n32:15, 32:17, 33:2, 36:2, 45:23, 51:1,\n\n51:3, 59:6, 59:10 绘制 [1] - 32:1 享有 [1] - 24:9\n\n债务人的 [2] - 8:14, 证言 [5] - 讨论 [1] - 67:20 形成 [2] - 13:8, Enriquez（恩里克斯）[1] - 35:24\n\n39:15 13:12, 30:11, 30:13, 处置 [1] - 67:17 31:18 已录入 [1] - 12:14\n\n与债务人相关的 [1] - 34:10, 34:11 决定性 [1] - 59:12 到期 [3] - 16:9, 16:10, 完全地 [3] - 12:7,\n\n65:3 被剥夺 [1] - 69:20 争议 [3] - 4:25, 52:5 58:25, 67:7\n\nDecember（十二月）[1] - 63:24 Dept（部门）[1] - 8:24 13:8, 15:17 正式地 [1] - 35:10 实体 [18] - 4:16,\n\n决定 [2] - 6:20, 描述 [1] - 70:25 取消资格 [11] - 期间 [3] - 36:17, 21:15, 49:17, 49:22,\n\n45:20 描述 [2] - 52:4, 52:14, 53:8, 39:3, 70:13 49:24, 50:4, 50:7,\n\n已决定 [4] - 6:17, 53:25, 54:1 53:16, 55:24, 57:13, 职责 [1] - 43:25 51:1, 51:3, 51:6,\n\n6:18, 37:22, 50:2 意愿 [1] - 44:12 57:22, 58:6, 58:14, 义务 [5] - 44:7, 44:20, 51:14, 51:20, 54:18,\n\n作出决定 [1] - 66:21 细节 [1] - 54:1 68:9, 69:7 44:23, 47:5, 52:5 54:19, 54:20, 54:21,\n\n决定 [7] - 12:9, 裁定 [1] - 被取消资格 [2] - 54:19, 54:20, 54:21,\n\n13:7, 38:12, 47:13, 17:20 58:17, 70:5 E 60:25\n\n47:19, 66:22 确定 [2] - 17:4, 取消资格 [2] - 3:22, 电子邮件 [4] - 7:15, 10:2,\n\n声明 [1] - 39:24 65:25 43:18 电子邮件 [1] - 46:24 有权 [2] - 10:5,\n\n已声明 [1] - 19:23 已确定 [1] - 39:11 构成取消资格的 [1] - 早期 [2] - 4:19, 36:4 41:9\n\n拒绝 [1] - 32:1 致力于 [1] - 49:12 52:23 容易地 [1] - 53:4 实体 [13] - 7:6, 18:12,\n\n已拒绝 [1] - 37:8 差异 [2] - 38:17, 未予考虑 [2] - 经济 [1] - 69:23 18:15, 18:18, 21:6,\n\n视为 [1] - 49:18 69:9 4:14, 4:22 EDWARD（爱德华）[1] - 1:21 21:7, 21:21, 21:25,\n\n被视为 [2] - 13:3,\n\n34:9 不同的 [8] - 39:18, 57:15 Edward（爱德华）[2] - 3:8, 39:23, 41:10, 51:1,\n\n深入 [1] - 70:24 43:20, 43:21, 52:25, 解散 [1] - 4:25 4:14, 4:22 54:16, 65:4\n\nDefendant（被告）[4] - 2:8, 58:25, 60:10, 60:11 区别 [1] - 38:9 效力 [1] - 12:24 委托 [1] - 47:9\n\n17:5, 21:11, 22:5 勤勉 [1] - 43:15 District（地区）[1] - 48:19 有效的 [1] - 56:25 环境 [2] -\n\nDefendant’s（被告的）[1] - 直接 [9] - 31:11, Division（分庭）[7] - 15:15, 有效地 [2] - 36:22, 22:8, 22:12\n\n21:20 32:24, 33:5, 33:7, 16:22, 17:3, 24:16, 38:15 衡平 [1] - 64:7\n\nDefendants（被告方）[1] - 1:9 33:10, 33:11, 33:22, 25:1, 25:6, 28:16 努力 [4] - 20:21, 37:6, 衡平法 [1] - 6:6\n\n辩护 [2] - 30:10, 34:5, 34:7 Division’s（分庭的）[1] - 12:5 38:5, 48:23 建立 [1] - 57:3\n\ndar\n\nESQ（律师）[11] - 1:18, 1:21, 34:4, 34:6 家庭 [2] - 22:7, 24:13 标志 [1] - 70:2 一般 [1] - 53:25\n\n1:22，2:3，2:4，2:7，证物 [5] - 18:2，精彩的 [1] - 27:7 平坦的 [1] - 14:4 通常 [1] - 21:9\n\n2:7，2:8，2:11，2:12，18:7，18:9，33:24，遥远 [4] - 41:3，59:8，逃离 [1] - 5:16 Geneva（日内瓦）[1] - 5:19\n\n2:12 34:5 68:20，68:24 重点 [2] - 38:8，38:11 GENEVER（杰内弗）[2] - 1:7，\n\n实质 [1] - 47:4 存在过 [1] - 45:4 Far [1] - 27:11 聚焦 [1] - 58:19 1:8\n\n本质上 [6] - 24:3，存在 [1] - 46:15 有利 [1] - 37:23 遵循 [4] - 14:1，Genova（热那亚）[3] - 7:24，\n\n36:6，36:17，37:9，现有的 [1] - 40:15 有利于 [1] - 52:14 14:16，14:19，53:10 7:25，14:12\n\n38:16，59:20 存在 [1] - 53:10 精选 [1] - 27:11 随后 [1] - 13:25 先生 [1] - 12:12\n\n确立 [4] - 18:10，预期 [1] - 3:22 February（2月）[12] - 29:14，随后 [1] - 45:3 已给予 [3] - 24:18，\n\n24:4，56:6，57:21 费用 [1] - 41:8 29:21，30:8，30:9，强迫 [1] - 14:16 29:19，41:2\n\n已确立 [9] - 4:21，费用 [4] - 39:5，30:18，30:24，31:2，已丧失赎回权 [2] - 32:10，Glid（格利德）[4] - 8:23，12:9，\n\n5:5，18:7，24:19，41:7，41:10，42:14 31:3，31:8，32:23，32:19 12:12，12:16\n\n35:9，35:24，44:19，经验 [1] - 69:21 71:2 前述 [1] - 71:7 地球 [1] - 11:6\n\n45:2，57:7 专家 [2] - 43:14，费用 [3] - 7:7，42:19，宽恕 [1] - 23:11 Golden（戈尔登）[26] - 7:4，\n\n确立 [1] - 58:9 53:3 形式 [6] - 33:21，11:2，11:4，36:9，\n\n25:17 解释 [3] - 16:1，少数 [2] - 7:21，64:25 33:24，46:23，65:16，36:12，36:21，38:1，\n\n正在确立 [3] - 27:4，56:13 受托 [6] - 44:7，65:23，67:19 38:9，38:13，38:14，\n\n19:5，24:8，53:5 明确表示 [1] - 43:23 44:20，44:23，46:9，成立 [2] - 6:3，35:10 38:17，38:22，38:24，\n\n禁止反言 [2] - 41:1，已表示 [1] - 15:16 46:16，52:5 前任 [5] - 48:18，39:4，39:7，40:10，\n\n41:13 广泛的 [4] - 55:18，领域 [1] - 58:9 52:23，53:1，56:2，40:11，41:3，41:5，\n\n伦理的 [3] - 56:6，56:7，68:8，69:21 第五 [12] - 10:1，11:10，56:20 41:7，41:11，41:16，\n\n63:19，63:21 广泛地 [1] - 56:7 13:21，26:25，32:6，形式 [1] - 5:9 41:18，41:24，42:10，\n\n伦理 [1] - 43:14 范围 [3] - 19:18，32:20，32:21，47:14，四 [2] - 3:4，37:18 42:11\n\n规避 [1] - 39:18 24:18，35:7 47:19，49:19，50:3，四人组 [1] - 12:10 Gordon（戈登）[5] - 44:5，\n\n事件 [1] - 60:12 极其 [1] - 58:21 坦率 [1] - 15:22 44:22，52:24，57:13，\n\n证据 [23] - 4:21，23:5 数字 [1] - 8:1 FRANKFURT（法兰克福）[1] - 57:14\n\n5:8，6:13，7:17，8:3，非同寻常的 [1] - 67:6 文件 [3] - 14:17，37:13，2:10 GORDON（戈登）[1] - 1:20\n\n8:11，9:5，9:9，11:25，F 19:2，19:22，20:20，Frankfurt（法兰克福）[3] - 12:15，受管辖 [1] - 17:7\n\n17:9，18:4，18:21，面对 [3] - 8:3，22:12，43:19，52:21 欺诈 [1] - 59:23 政府 [6] -\n\n20:13，23:22，24:11，59:21 提交 [3] - 19:9，21:7，危险重重 [1] - 13:10 44:25，47:16，48:18，\n\n26:2，29:2，40:9，表面上 [5] - 4:16，22:16，69:14 自由 [3] - 30:8，32:14 48:22，59:22，61:13\n\n40:14，40:17，40:20，23:23，24:19，26:6 Friday（星期五）[1] - 14:16 管辖 [1] - 17:12\n\n42:8 面临 [1] - 22:6 提交文件 [3] - 5:21，朋友 [1] - 7:4 准许 [2] - 40:13，70:6\n\n证据上的 [18] - 9:4，事实 [15] - 13:15，10:13，67:21 前方 [2] - 20:9，62:20 已准许 [1] - 13:8\n\n9:6，10:7，11:15，13:19，14:14，21:19，最终 [3] - 13:22，挫折 [2] - 40:6，准许 [1] - 57:12\n\n12:4，12:5，13:1，21:24，22:4，39:15，14:21，64:6 70:24 理由 [2] - 37:7，63:2\n\n15:12，15:16，23:11，42:9，47:15，52:3，财务的 [4] - 36:16，已履行 [1] - 53:15 Groundhog（土拨鼠）[1] - 31:4\n\n24:23，25:1，25:2，53:2，53:16，57:1，37:1，38:6，55:4 完全 [3] - 18:11，18:19，基础工作 [1] -\n\n33:18，33:25，34:2，58:24，70:1 财务资料 [1] - 53:24 23:11 61:17\n\n精确 [2] - 41:12，48:9 事实上的 [1] - 58:1 律师事务所 [18] - 12:15，15:9，完全地 [2] - 14:13，68:3 团体 [1] - 58:3\n\n恰好 [1] - 68:15 因素 [1] - 19:12 30:13，37:17，43:18，FUND（基金）[1] - 1:2 GTV（GTV）[77] - 2:13，43:20，\n\n审查 [5] - 事实 [9] - 8:8，24:8，43:19，43:24，44:5，基本的 [1] - 42:9 48:1，52:21，53:2，\n\n31:14，32:24，33:7，39:22，44:15，44:18，44:14，44:23，45:20，已注资 [2] - 12:20，53:13，53:22，54:2，\n\n33:13，34:6 44:19，45:10，52:6，46:5，50:6，52:5，39:9 54:15，54:21，54:24，\n\n审查 [1] - 32:15 60:10 52:21，53:2，63:21 资金 [5] - 36:6，55:9，55:21，56:11，\n\n已审查 [1] - 31:16 事实性的 [3] - 16:23，律师事务所的 [2] - 43:24，41:7，41:10，42:11，56:12，56:13，56:14，\n\n示例 [1] - 6:13 17:25，21:14 44:12 42:12 56:16，56:17，56:18，\n\n示例 [1] - 54:16 未能 [1] - 25:5 律师事务所 [2] - 46:8，52:8 资金 [5] - 21:9，56:23，57:17，58:3，\n\n除外 [2] - 21:19，未能 [3] - 26:18，28:8，第一 [8] - 4:19，4:24，21:16，36:12，38:23，59:2，59:12，59:13，\n\n34:2 39:15 8:23，12:9，13:5，Funds（资金）[3] - 5:10，59:14，59:17，59:22，\n\n60:1，60:6，60:13，\n\n特殊的 [1] - 57:18，59:18，64:14 39:15 60:21，60:23，61:1，18:13，21:21 61:10，61:14，61:16，\n\n70:22 28:9 第一 [16] - 3:4，8:5，9:9，G 61:17，61:19，61:23，\n\n免责 [2] - 10:15，失误 [1] - 14:12 19:24，25:11，25:22，游戏 [1] - 36:15 62:10，62:14，62:15，\n\n34:19 公平 [1] - 68:21 28:15，29:22，36:18，玩弄程序 [5] - 62:19，62:21，62:25，\n\n执行 [1] - 68:19 诚信 [1] - 37:6 45:4，53:4，53:20，64:13，64:16，64:17，63:6，63:9，63:13，\n\n行使 [1] - 32:3 属于 [1] - 49:19 55:2，57:8，57:23，64:18，70:14\n\n证物 [4] - 18:14，著名的 [2] - 13:15，五 [4] - 29:6，63:11，\n\n18:17，19:1，21:7 13:19 64:8，64:23 达尔\n\n证物 [3] - 34:1，熟悉的 [1] - 13:7 64:18，70:14\n\n66:10，66:12，66:13，25:2，28:1，28:9，30:20，31:1，31:7，不可采纳的 [3] - 9:5，诚信 [2] - 66:7，\n\n66:16，66:18，66:25，28:21，29:7，29:9，31:20，34:15，34:16，19:13，24:7 69:19\n\n67:19，67:25，68:17，29:11，29:17，31:5，34:21，35:1，35:5，无意中 [1] - 68:12 意图 [2] - 15:13，\n\n68:21，69:5，70:4，31:9，31:16，32:23，35:9，37:16，38:3，不适当的 [1] - 68:25 16:16\n\n70:7 33:18，33:20，33:25，38:7，38:10，39:6，开始 [1] - 57:7 意图中的 [1] - 67:9\n\nGTV 的 [7] - 49:15，34:3，34:12，40:8，39:13，39:20，40:8，事件 [1] - 55:8 意图 [1] - 56:17\n\n51:22，51:25，52:16，41:6，41:11，61:25，40:12，40:18，41:4，包括 [7] - 11:12，意向 [2] - 45:14，\n\n53:24，61:19，64:5 64:10 41:12，41:17，42:10，22:7，46:4，67:19，45:22\n\nGUE（GUE）[1] - 1:7 传闻证据 [3] - 19:14，42:15，43:3，43:15，67:20，67:21 相互联系 [1] -\n\n猜测 [2] - 11:3，45:18 19:16，24:8 44:17，44:20，46:22，不正确 [1] - 44:15 41:2\n\nGUI（GUI）[1] - 1:6 沉重的 [1] - 57:18 49:7，50:5，55:6，不正确地 [1] - 68:10 利息 [21] - 8:14，\n\n指导 [1] - 45:24 高度 [1] - 47:21 57:15，57:17，58:8，难以置信地 [1] - 61:13 8:16，8:22，9:2，\n\nGuo（郭）[9] - 18:16，18:22，持有 [5] - 28:17，36:18，58:22，58:25，60:6，确实 [1] - 44:20 12:18，12:19，17:14，\n\n20:19，21:12，21:19，48:8，51:10，51:12 60:12，60:20，61:21，46:3，46:10，46:15，\n\n23:19，27:24，35:15 兹 [1] - 71:7 62:4，62:9，62:18，索引 [1] - 1:10 46:21，47:16，49:23，\n\nGUO（郭）[4] - 1:6，1:7，自己 [2] - 12:25，62:23，64:6，64:12，表明 [2] - 42:2，52:6，52:10，64:13，\n\n31:14 64:22，65:19，67:23，64:16，69:23\n\n18:17 68:1，70:9，70:10 已表明 [4] - 25:2，利息 [2] - 25:21，\n\nGuo 的 [2] - 36:2，48:23 隐藏 [1] - 66:18 Honor（法官阁下）的 [3] - 4:20，9:7，29:6，36:10，54:9 26:9\n\n家伙 [1] - 48:17 高的 [1] - 67:13 40:6 迹象 [1] - 42:3 有利害关系的 [1] - 9:15\n\nGuy（盖伊）[2] - 48:25，49:20 最高的 [2] - 66:6，HONORABLE（尊敬的）[1] - 间接的 [2] - 36:2，有趣的 [1] - 42:7\n\nGWO（GWO）[1] - 1:6 66:7 1:14 66:2 有趣地 [1] - 26:3\n\n公路 [1] - 37:9 本人 [1] - 31:13 障碍 [1] - 28:6 间接地 [1] - 65:25 利益 [1] - 17:19\n\nH 历史 [1] - 64:17 希望 [1] - 22:10 个人 [3] - 间歇地 [2] -\n\n一半 [1] - 50:13 HK（香港）[2] - 21:21，23:19 希望 [1] - 3:22 31:18，34:8，34:10 47:18，49:1\n\n处理 [1] - 55:10 HK 的 [1] - 21:23 HOSTETLER（霍斯特特勒）[1] - 2:5 推论 [1] - 10:5 内部的 [1] - 13:9\n\n已处理 [1] - 68:23 HKI（HKI）[1] - 5:11 Hostetler（霍斯特特勒）[2] - 15:9，推论 [3] - 31:17，内部地 [2] - 69:10，\n\n处理 [1] - 57:16 HO（何）[2] - 1:6 43:13 32:2，32:8 69:16\n\n手 [1] - 65:8 Ho（何）[1] - 2:8 小时 [2] - 50:13，61:25 Infinity（无限）[4] - 35:12，International（国际）[19] -\n\nHAOYUN（昊云）[2] - 1:7，1:7 持有 [5] - 9:4，9:6，小时 [2] - 6:14，70:14 35:14，35:21，35:23 5:10，5:11，5:19，\n\n高兴 [4] - 3:24，14:22，24:23，24:25 巨大的 [1] - 65:24 信息 [50] - 5:22，5:25，6:3，6:7，\n\n11:15，16:8，16:9 HOLDINGS（控股）[2] - 1:8，人类 [1] - 27:17 35:8，37:4，46:11，7:5，9:11，10:14，\n\n困难的 [1] - 8:1 1:8 丈夫 [1] - 21:10 47:9，49:9，50:1，10:15，10:19，10:22，\n\n几乎不 [2] - 20:21，持有 [2] - 7:6，24:18 混合的 [1] - 23:24 50:10，53:11，53:23，11:1，18:13，21:21，\n\n22:1 Hong（香港）[29] - 5:9，5:11，Hyland（海兰）[4] - 43:19，54:2，54:3，54:14，International 的 [2] -\n\n和谐 [1] - 31:2 52:20，60:14，62:11 23:19，27:16，27:20\n\nHasland（哈斯兰）[3] - 27:15，5:19，5:21，5:25，6:3，HYLAND（海兰）[10] - 2:11，54:21，54:23，55:4，9:10，27:19\n\n28:7 6:7，7:5，7:10，8:6，52:18，52:20，54:9，55:13，55:14，55:18，\n\n8:7，9:10，9:13，9:16，65:13，65:18，65:20，56:1，56:8，58:4，Internet（互联网）[1] - 60:5\n\nHasland 的 [2] - 28:2，10:14，10:19，10:22，65:22，68:3，70:9 59:9，60:3，60:4，打断 [3] - 29:24，\n\n28:4 11:1，18:12，19:2，Hyland 的 [1] - 12:15 60:5，60:18，60:21，61:4，61:7\n\n听取 [20] - 3:5，7:8，27:16，27:19，27:20 Honor（法官阁下）[116] - 3:7，3:9，60:22，60:23，60:24，已被打断 [1] - 68:2\n\n10:10，11:17，11:18，3:15，3:18，3:24，4:1，I 61:8，62:6，62:12，介入 [2] - 52:22，\n\n15:2，15:6，22:19，4:9，4:11，4:13，5:3，想法 [1] - 65:1 62:17，63:13，63:25，57:12\n\n30:16，31:4，34:24，5:7，5:21，6:14，7:1，相同的 [2] - 48:7，64:2，64:5，64:20，Intervenor（介入人）[1] - 2:13\n\n40:22，51:22，51:25，7:3，7:18，7:22，8:8，59:19 64:2，64:5，64:20，Intervenor-Movant（介入动议人）[1]\n\n52:16，52:17，52:18，9:5，9:15，9:17，9:24，已识别 [2] - 54:15，64:5，64:20，- 2:13\n\n54:7，57:14，64:23 9:25，10:8，11:9，54:21 64:2，64:5，64:20，提出 [1] - 16:8\n\n已听取 [6] - 16:1，11:17，11:24，12:3，识别 [1] - 21:16 64:2，64:5，64:20，已获告知 [2] - 21:23，\n\n24:21，35:15，42:20，12:7，12:22，13:5，识别 [2] - 51:10，64:2，64:5，64:20，55:13\n\n50:11，60:22 13:18，13:22，14:2，51:12 64:2，64:5，64:20，输入 [1] - 56:18 侵入性的 [1] - 40:21\n\n听证 [52] - 3:1，14:10，14:15，14:20，暗示地 [1] - 56:5 64:2，64:5，64:20，询问 [1] - 23:13 投资 [1] - 47:6\n\n4:25，9:4，9:6，10:8，14:23，15:8，15:13，暗示的 [2] - 44:6，64:2，64:5，64:20，只要 [1] - 67:16 调查 [1] -\n\n11:15，12:4，12:6，15:22，16:15，16:19，63:20 64:2，64:5，64:20，实例 [1] - 41:17 59:22\n\n13:2，13:3，13:16，19:19，19:24，20:12，重要的 [5] - 10:20，64:2，64:5，64:20，立即 [1] - 37:21 调查 [4] -\n\n13:20，15:12，15:16，22:15，23:15，23:16，37:5，38:8，38:17，64:2，64:5，64:20，即刻 [1] - 38:10 45:1，47:17，48:18，\n\n15:21，15:24，16:2，25:3，25:7，25:14，43:25 64:2，64:5，64:20，而非 [2] - 4:10，61:13\n\n16:4，16:8，16:10，25:23，26:5，27:24，重要的是 [1] - 62:9 64:2，64:5，64:20，34:3 Investments（投资）[3] -\n\n18:1，22:21，22:22，28:11，28:13，28:20，已施加 [1] - 46:8 64:2，64:5，64:20，5:10，18:13，21:21\n\n22:24，23:9，23:10，29:4，30:10，30:17，指示 [1] - 11:8 64:2，64:5，64:20，投资者 [2] - 12:20，\n\n24:19，24:23，25:1，28:25，29:2，32:6，18:13，21:8，21:22 59:23\n\n35:22，36:23，37:4，28:25，29:2，32:6，18:13，21:8，21:22\n\n援引 [4] - 32:6，最后 [2] - 38:19, 40:5\n47:13, 47:19, 50:2 39:9, 39:15, 39:24， 32:13, 32:22, 35:16， 迟 [3] - 7:1, 36:18， 有限 [1] - 57:12\n被援引 [1] - 26:25 41:6, 41:9, 45:2， 36:23, 36:24, 37:4， 57:4 行 [2] - 45:16, 67:15\n援引 [1] - 10:1 54:4, 61:18, 61:20， 38:21, 39:3, 39:8， 横向地 [1] - 44:14 列出 [4] - 6:17, 51:13,\n涉及 [9] - 3:16， 65:2, 67:14 39:17, 40:11, 41:8， 最新 [1] - 13:10 54:19, 65:4\n47:18, 49:1, 55:2， 既判力 [2] - 41:1， 43:13, 44:4, 44:21， 法律 [7] - 15:9, 17:18， 列举 [1] - 42:8\n60:10, 65:5, 67:2， 41:14 44:23, 44:25, 45:5， 40:2, 47:6, 51:23， 清单 [1] - 65:4\n67:24, 69:24 司法的 [4] - 9:16， 46:4, 46:10, 46:12， 52:7, 52:15 按字面 [3] - 9:10,\n参与 [1] - 29:3 9:20, 19:17, 69:23 46:18, 47:3, 48:1， 法律 [5] - 8:16, 17:7， 11:6, 17:22\n涉及 [1] - 50:7 司法 [2] - 17:7， 48:2, 48:8, 48:18， 25:17, 58:6, 58:11 诉讼 [9] - 7:7,\n讽刺地 [1] - 12:14 25:17 48:21, 49:14, 49:22， 合法的 [2] - 4:22, 26:2 12:19, 13:10, 20:20,\n无关紧要的 [1] - 24:5 经司法认定地 [1] - 10:12 49:25, 50:6, 51:11， 律师 [10] - 7:13， 20:24, 39:8, 48:15,\n不论 [1] - 跳跃 [1] - 28:6 51:13, 51:17, 51:18， 11:13, 21:13, 21:23， 49:18, 51:7\n66:11 管辖权 [8] - 4:4， 4:5, 31:10, 31:17， 53:1, 57:17, 57:24， 58:17, 59:1, 59:2 现存 [2] - 30:14, 66:22\n争点 [30] - 13:17， 4:5, 31:10, 31:17， 58:1, 58:3, 58:18， 律师 [7] - 46:23， 已居住 [2] - 22:8, 22:9\n16:19, 16:20, 17:11， 31:23, 31:25, 32:16， 58:23, 59:12, 59:23， 48:21, 49:5, 56:1， 居住 [1] - 22:11\n17:13, 17:14, 17:17， 33:14 59:25, 61:10, 61:12， 68:6, 68:14, 69:2 有限责任公司 [6] - 1:8, 12:18,\n17:19, 23:16, 24:6， 司法部 [1] - 1:14 62:13, 62:15, 63:9， 铺设 [2] - 61:17, 63:2 12:19, 12:25, 21:22,\n26:5, 27:12, 28:15， 证明正当性 [1] - 40:20 66:1, 66:11, 66:17， 布局 [2] - 53:25, 54:3 35:10\n28:17, 29:13, 30:1， 66:24, 67:4, 70:4 L.P. [1] - 1:2 领先 [1] - 58:9 有限责任合伙企业 [4] - 1:17, 1:20,\n31:24, 33:21, 37:22， K Kwok's [40] - 6:1, 6:4， 联盟 [2] - 60:3, 60:4 2:2, 2:5\n43:25, 47:1, 48:16， 保持 [2] - 40:24, 60:7 6:5, 7:7, 7:19, 9:3， 泄露 [1] - 65:7 出借 [1] - 36:12\n53:20, 53:21, 54:25， 维持 [1] - 48:22 9:21, 10:7, 10:20， 获悉 [2] - 59:4 贷款 [4] - 42:2, 42:3,\n55:21, 63:22, 66:21， 关键 [2] - 58:19, 58:24 11:18, 13:24, 14:6， 至少 [1] - 56:15 42:4\n67:16, 70:12 种类 [2] - 39:14, 70:18 14:11, 14:15, 16:25， 离开 [1] - 43:4 定位 [1] - 37:3\n签发 [1] - 7:23 KLEIN（克莱因）[1] - 2:10 18:2, 19:9, 20:11， Lee（李）[1] - 21:23 地点 [1] - 32:20\n争点 [14] - 13:15， Klein（克莱因）[1] - 52:21 20:19, 22:22, 22:23， 留下 [3] - 42:8, 42:16， 逻辑的 [2] - 20:23,\n13:19, 17:23, 26:19， KLINGER（克林格）[1] - 2:12 24:4, 25:18, 27:6， 65:24 27:4\n29:24, 43:20, 44:1， 知情 [3] - 26:3， 38:15, 41:10, 42:12， 法律的 [19] - 7:7, 7:11， 长期 [2] - 31:3,\n49:3, 50:7, 50:9， 64:9, 69:21 42:17, 42:19, 43:17， 8:12, 8:17, 8:21， 64:9\n55:10, 59:19, 69:21 已知 [1] - 45:8 47:13, 48:11, 49:8，\n8:12, 8:17, 8:21， 看 [4] - 14:11, 26:12，\n签发 [1] - 70:24 知道 [2] - 14:15， 49:15, 49:16, 49:19， 15:14, 16:19, 16:20， 33:8, 69:17\n意大利 [2] - 7:24, 7:25 41:7 58:21, 61:14, 62:13 17:16, 17:23, 20:2， 看起来 [3] - 9:23, 25:23,\n项目 [1] - 61:5 Kong（孔）[29] - 5:9, 5:11， 24:15, 28:15, 28:21， 61:24\n本身 [2] - 65:24, 68:9 5:19, 5:22, 5:25, 6:3， L 42:13, 42:17, 42:19， 宽泛地 [2] - 19:14,\n5:19, 5:22, 5:25, 6:3， 6:7, 7:5, 7:10, 8:6， 43:25, 53:3 24:10\nJ 8:7, 9:10, 9:11, 9:13， L.P. [1] - 1:2 合法 [1] - 64:16 下级 [1] - 13:9\nJanover（贾诺弗）[1] - 37:17 9:16, 10:14, 10:15， 标签为 [1] - 46:19 合法的 [1] - 64:13 Luck（拉克）[2] - 21:8, 21:9\nJanuary（1月）[3] - 1:11， 10:19, 10:22, 11:1， 缺乏 [2] - 23:23, 59:11 冗长的 [1] - 55:7\n5:5, 41:23 18:12, 19:2, 27:16， 随从 [2] - 6:1, 20:11\nJANUSZEWSKI（亚努谢夫斯基）[1] - 27:19, 27:20 Lady（女士）[5] - 5:7, 18:8， 较少 [2] - 13:19, 41:16 M\n1:22 Korn（科恩）[1] - 8:19 20:18, 21:6, 21:15 信件 [2] - 7:13, 36:4\nJEREMY（杰里米）[1] - 2:4 Kurnit（库尔尼特）[3] - 12:15， Lamb（兰姆）[1] - 2:4 阴谋诡计 [1] -\nJESSE（杰西）[1] - 2:12 43:19, 52:21 Lamb's（兰姆的）[1] - 36:23 40:25, 41:22, 42:7， 5:24\nJohn（约翰）[2] - 15:9, 43:12 KURNIT（库尔尼特）[1] - 2:10 Lamp（兰普）[26] - 7:8, 34:23， 42:16 邮件 [4] - 7:15, 10:2,\nJOHN（约翰）[1] - 2:7 KWOK（郭）[3] - 1:6, 1:7 35:10, 35:17, 35:20， LEVINE（莱文）[10] - 2:3， 10:24, 11:23\n加入 [2] - 57:4, 64:3 Kwok（郭文贵）[101] - 2:8, 3:6， 35:25, 36:3, 36:6， 34:21, 35:1, 35:5， 寄送邮件 [1] - 46:24\n加入 [1] - 44:14 4:3, 4:13, 4:17, 4:21， 36:12, 36:15, 36:16， 39:13, 39:20, 42:23， 维护 [1] -\n联合 [3] - 34:1, 58:3， 5:6, 5:9, 5:17, 6:9， 36:20, 36:22, 37:1， 43:3, 43:10, 50:14 42:14\n58:7 6:22, 8:3, 9:19, 9:22， 37:16, 37:17, 38:6， Levine's（莱文的）[1] - 34:19 多数 [1] - 52:13\n联合 [1] - 55:20 10:1, 10:2, 10:20， 38:14, 38:15, 38:16， 征收 [4] - 8:15, 25:13， 管理 [2] - 35:17,\nJP [1] - 38:24 11:10, 13:20, 13:25， 39:9, 41:2, 41:16， 25:16, 25:18 35:22\nJudge（法官）[2] - 61:11， 14:7, 14:22, 16:9， 41:24, 42:6, 42:18 征收 [2] - 9:1, 26:10 Management（管理）[4] -\n63:7 17:9, 18:4, 18:7， 语言 [1] - 12:4 Lexington（列克星敦）[1] - 2:2 35:12, 35:14, 35:21,\n判决书 [28] - 8:14， 18:10, 18:19, 18:23， 大型 [2] - 38:1, 63:21 Liberty（自由）[1] - 2:10 35:23\n8:15, 8:21, 8:25， 19:7, 19:22, 20:22， 最后 [13] - 3:1, 4:8， 获许可 [1] - 35:10 管理 [1] -\n12:12, 12:13, 17:2， 21:17, 22:16, 23:21， 13:23, 14:5, 14:16， 生活方式 [1] - 42:12 36:8\n17:12, 20:22, 25:13， 24:8, 24:15, 26:2， 21:18, 21:24, 29:18， Lijie（丽洁）[1] - 21:12 March（3月）[2] - 29:20,\n35:16, 35:18, 35:19， 26:13, 26:22, 27:4， 37:25, 38:9, 38:12， 可能 [2] - 49:18， 29:22\ndar Limited（有限）[4] - 5:10，\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1120 由 NYSCEF 接收：01/25/2022\n\n材料 [1] - 49:16 MINKOFF（明科夫）[1] - 2:12 动议人 [1] - 2:13 69:4 19:5, 21:2, 21:19,\n\n需要 [7] - 8:17, 9:4， 37:11, 40:1, 59:21，\n事项 [7] - 14:18， 轻微 [1] - 41:8 提出动议 [3] - 30:15, 53:7，\n27:4, 29:25, 38:13， 减去 [1] - 29:12 60:16 13:20, 28:5, 38:4, 60:9, 67:18, 68:1\n47:1, 48:17, 54:15 分钟 [1] - 15:3 已移送 [4] - 4:5, 4:6， 需要的 [1] - 12:4 通知 [2] - 9:16,\n事项 [5] - 52:11， 分钟 [4] - 6:14， 4:11, 11:6 需求 [2] - 64:11, 31:21\n53:14, 53:19, 56:3， 16:1, 50:12, 64:24 移动 [1] - 64:23 68:17 显著的 [1] - 10:12\n59:21 错误 [2] - 69:12， 提出动议 [1] - 11:9 荷兰 [2] - 5:18， 已通知 [2] - 56:16,\nMatthew（马修）[1] - 34:22 69:13 移动 [4] - 4:3， 42:13 56:17\nMATTHEW（马修）[1] - 2:3 错误的 [1] - 67:9 16:12, 25:18, 53:20 对象 [1] - 45:18\nMayors（市长）[1] - 64:14 错误 [4] - 68:13， MR（先生）[84] - 3:7, 3:15， 从未 [20] - 10:24， 新颖的 [1] - 44:1\n意思 [4] - 6:19, 11:5， 69:8, 69:9, 69:15 3:18, 3:24, 4:1, 15:8， 18:8, 18:11, 18:19， November（11月）[3] - 4:19,\n41:2, 51:3 滥用 [1] - 66:12 15:13, 15:22, 16:3， 19:20, 22:10, 22:18， 10:3, 11:14\n有意义的 [2] - 19:6， 修改 [1] - 16:5, 16:15, 19:11， 44:8, 46:12, 46:24， 编号 [3] - 5:23,\n38:12 37:5 19:18, 19:24, 20:5， 56:15, 56:16, 56:17， 23:1, 36:5\n手段 [1] - 59:19 已修改 [1] - 37:18 20:8, 22:15, 22:20， 56:23, 57:25, 59:9， 编号 [3] - 6:14,\n肉 [1] - 37:2 时刻 [2] - 11:9, 22:23, 23:8, 23:15， 62:17, 62:19, 63:13， 23:3, 38:25\nMedia（媒体）[1] - 52:22 24:21, 25:3, 25:7， 65:8 众多 [2] - 19:13,\n12:2 25:11, 26:15, 26:20， NEW（纽约）[2] - 1:1, 1:1\n会见 [8] - 36:18， 金钱 [3] - 5:22， 49:24\n37:10, 53:4, 57:20， 12:20, 39:4 28:11, 28:13, 29:4，\n57:24, 59:14, 60:15， 月 [3] - 7:21， 29:13, 29:19, 30:2， 新 [5] - 7:7, 36:21,\n60:17 20:20, 52:11 30:10, 30:17, 30:20， 38:14, 38:17, 44:13 O\n符合 [1] - 8:17 尖刻地 [1] - 31:1, 31:7, 31:20， New（纽约）[28] - 1:18, 1:21,\n成员 [5] - 24:3， 27:5 32:5, 32:17, 33:1， 2:3, 2:6, 2:11, 5:17， O'Melveny（欧麦威）[6] - 3:16,\n24:13, 35:13, 59:8 Morgan（摩根）[1] - 38:24 33:9, 33:19, 34:15， 6:23, 8:16, 9:18， 3:19, 3:23, 67:7,\n34:16, 34:19, 34:21， 早晨 [1] - 7:25 35:1, 35:5, 39:13， 17:18, 19:22, 35:11， 67:20, 67:24\n成员 [2] - 22:7， MOSS（莫斯）[12] - 1:21, 3:7， 39:20, 40:24, 42:23， 52:4, 52:13, 56:9， 异议 [1] - 45:18\n63:12 3:15, 45:6, 57:15， 43:3, 43:10, 43:12， 58:6, 58:10, 58:17， 显然 [4] - 9:6,\nMEMORALIZING（记录）[1] - 61:8, 65:19, 66:14， 43:23, 44:3, 44:6， 63:19, 68:7 19:11, 52:25, 58:22\n70:13 67:11, 67:23, 69:8， 44:9, 44:11, 45:6， 新近 [1] - 56:12 October（10月）[4] - 5:13,\n提及 [5] - 21:6， 70:17 45:11, 45:21, 46:2， 报纸 [2] - 19:1， 6:15, 36:4, 41:23\n27:14, 27:17, 58:24, Moss（莫斯）[15] - 3:8, 44:12， 46:3, 50:14, 50:23， 19:3 OF（的）[3] - 1:1, 1:1\n61:5 56:8, 57:4, 57:15， 21:5, 29:23, 30:4， 下一项 [7] - 1:23, 16:8， 提出 [7] - 6:17, 15:11,\n已提及 [4] - 11:9， 51:23, 52:1, 52:17， 42:22, 43:11 21:5, 29:23, 30:4， 15:20, 16:1, 21:5,\n11:13, 38:18, 41:22 57:15, 61:3, 61:5， 61:8, 65:19, 66:14， 42:22, 43:11 23:13, 33:4\n64:25, 65:7, 65:9， 65:17, 66:6, 66:8， Nicholas（尼古拉斯）[1] - 43:14\nmer [1] - 46:22 66:13, 67:12, 69:17， NICHOLAS（尼古拉斯）[1] - 2:8 提议 [1] - 20:16\n宽恕 [1] - 45:24 70:21 NICOLE（妮可）[1] - 2:11 办公室 [3] - 6:4, 68:7,\n消息 [1] - 10:25 moss'（莫斯的）[1] - 68:4 69:8, 70:10, 70:17 68:14\n会见 [3] - 11:24, 55:22, 大多数 [1] - 19:13 Nicole（妮可）[2] - 43:19, Office（办公室）[1] - 48:19\n55:25 动议 [52] - 3:4, 3:5， 52:20 官员 [2] - 35:19,\nMicrosoft（微软）[1] - 31:9 3:8, 3:9, 3:21, 4:9， NICOLE（妮可）[1] - 2:11 35:23\n中间 [2] - 11:14， 3:8, 3:9, 3:21, 4:9， 夜间 [1] - 14:17 官员 [2] - 10:18,\n13:7, 13:13, 14:17， 3:8, 3:9, 3:21, 4:9， 九 [1] - 41:23 10:25\n37:7 3:8, 3:9, 3:21, 4:9， Nizer（尼泽）[1] - 34:22 官方的 [2] - 2:22,\n在……之中 [1] - 20:24 3:8, 3:9, 3:21, 4:9， 10:25 71:13\n可能 [7] - 11:18， 3:8, 3:9, 3:21, 4:9， NIZER（尼泽）[1] - 2:2 正式的 [1] - 9:12\n13:22, 16:13, 25:9， 3:8, 3:9, 3:21, 4:9， 63:11 Old（旧）[1] - 1:20\n31:4, 31:18, 59:19 3:8, 3:9, 3:21, 4:9， 必须 [4] - 11:6, 33:12， 非 [1] - 2:4 旧的 [3] - 6:2, 7:4, 64:8\n28:12, 31:4, 35:2， 36:3, 37:14, 37:21， 59:18, 61:9 非当事人 [1] - 2:4 一旦 [1] - 65:8\n轻微地 [1] - 67:13 37:25, 38:20, 39:3， 无数 [1] - 42:17 非自愿的 [1] - 一个 [38] - 3:14, 5:14,\nMiles（迈尔斯）[9] - 21:10， 39:25, 40:13, 41:11， 无 [2] - 18:22, 22:8 56:10 10:8, 10:9, 11:16,\n21:16, 35:16, 36:23， 41:16, 42:21, 42:22， N 非家庭成员 [1] - 24:3 12:2, 13:23, 14:5,\n36:24, 37:4, 38:21， 43:9, 43:11, 43:17， nada（毫无）[1] - 67:22 非当事人 [3] - 34:22， 18:7, 22:10, 23:1,\n39:3, 39:8 43:20, 43:21, 49:21， 姓名 [1] - 52:20 35:10, 40:21 27:8, 27:14, 36:8,\nMILES（迈尔斯）[1] - 1:7 51:1, 51:4, 52:22， 被指定 [1] - 12:13 非亲属 [1] - 20:25 37:15, 37:16, 38:15,\nmiles（英里）[1] - 21:11 53:25, 57:12, 67:18， 性质 [1] - 31:5 注 [4] - 5:1, 25:23， 38:22, 38:23, 40:4,\nMiles'（迈尔斯的）[1] - 21:12 68:9, 69:15, 70:7 几乎 [3] - 48:6, 48:7， 27:8, 42:2\nMiller（米勒）[1] - 8:19 动议 [8] - 3:4， 51:19 已注明 [2] - 4:15, 8:9 42:23, 44:2, 46:19，\n百万 [5] - 10:25， 29:8, 30:15, 34:18， 无 [17] - 7:12， 50:23, 52:7, 53:15，\n12:13, 26:17, 41:24， 34:20, 37:13, 43:16， 10:10, 10:17, 10:24， 54:21, 55:2, 55:5，\n53:3 58:14 必要的 [5] - 8:20， 11:5, 11:16, 13:15， 55:14, 59:7, 59:8，\n数百万 [1] - 36:13 堆积 [1] - 42:19 13:16, 60:18, 61:9， 50:20\n迷你 [1] - 29:8 28:8 28:8 PHILLIPS（菲利普斯）[1] - 2:2 惯例 [2] - 47:1,\n最低限度 [1] - 37:18 动议 [52] - 3:4, 3:5，\ndar\n\n索引号 652077/2017 NYSCEF 文件编号 1120 由 NYSCEF 接收：01/25/2022 Case 22-50073 文件 440-20 于 05/25/22 提交，于 05/26/22 15:30:37 录入，第 81 页，共\n62:16, 67:1, 68:6, 28:8 50:20 PHILLIPS（菲利普斯）[1] - 2:2 惯例 [2] - 47:1,\n\n70:15, 70:17 所有权 [22] - 4:25, PAX [37] - 4:20, 14:16, 语音的 [6] - 8:23, 70:23\n公开 [2] - 45:11, 5:14, 5:25, 8:12, 48:10, 48:14, 49:4, 12:13, 21:8, 21:23, 执业 [1] - 52:15\n45:15 8:18, 15:17, 17:4, 51:7, 53:12, 54:5, 48:21, 64:14 惯例 [1] - 13:3\n开庭陈述 [3] - 58:13, 17:9, 17:20, 18:18, 54:7, 54:9, 54:14, 选择 [2] - 29:23, 30:14 审前 [2] - 29:20, 36:3\n58:21, 61:12 19:6, 19:10, 19:14, 54:22, 57:8, 59:3, 部分 [4] - 7:16, 25:20, 庭前动议 [1] - 36:3\n机会 [5] - 19:19, 20:3, 20:14, 59:18, 61:9, 61:13, 27:20, 27:22 审前 [1] - 29:20\n27:25, 29:8, 42:6, 20:18, 21:20, 24:12, 61:17, 61:22, 61:23, 拼凑 [1] - 42:5 先前的 [1] - 70:13\n43:5, 62:10 24:13, 24:14, 36:3 62:9, 62:19, 63:6, 刺破 [1] - 62:3 准确的 [1] - 63:3\n机会 [1] - 拥有 [9] - 5:6, 6:11, 64:7, 64:11, 64:21, 顶峰 [1] - 47:5 被排除 [1] - 32:12\n1:2 6:12, 8:7, 14:14, 65:1, 65:9, 65:11, 地点 [4] - 63:25, 64:3, 优先的 [1] - 23:3\n反对 [2] - 15:2, 14:18, 22:8, 23:19, 65:15, 65:24, 66:9, 69:10, 70:13 预先判断 [2] -\n30:3 49:23 66:10, 66:11, 66:25, 原告 [4] - 12:16, 16:17, 23:7\n相反 [2] - 65:10, O'MELVENY [1] - 1:17 69:20 37:8, 39:11, 41:7 不利影响 [2] - 25:17,\n68:24 PAX 的 [7] - 4:22, 原告 [27] - 1:4, 28:17\n反对意见 [4] - 13:13, P 54:10, 55:5, 57:18, 1:19, 1:22, 13:1, 受不利影响 [4] - 4:23,\n15:7, 36:11, 64:15 65:2, 65:8, 69:2 15:23, 18:3, 20:16, 25:19, 26:4, 45:23\n口头的 [2] - 39:3, 46:7 Pacific [5] - 3:8, 3:19, 支付 [1] - 39:5 21:4, 24:17, 36:11, 有不利影响的 [1] - 69:20\n命令 [3] - 17:21, 4:2, 21:4, 51:15 付款 [3] - 7:3, 7:6, 36:14, 36:16, 37:6, 准备 [1] - 64:11\n62:24, 64:21 PACIFIC [1] - 1:2 42:18 37:12, 37:14, 37:20, 已准备 [3] - 24:17,\n命令 [29] - 3:2, 3:3, PAG [1] - 45:22 付款 [1] - 36:6 37:24, 38:3, 39:8, 31:15, 67:9\n3:5, 4:3, 4:20, 4:22, 页 [2] - 1:23, 29:7 付款 [1] - 7:5 39:14, 41:6, 48:6, 特权 [2] - 9:7,\n14:1, 14:2, 14:8, 第 [8] 页 - 18:24, PC [1] - 2:10 49:10, 49:17, 49:22, 24:23\n14:12, 14:16, 14:23, 27:11, 38:25, 39:6, 处罚 [3] - 5:1, 50:8, 51:2 出席 [1] - 45:8\n14:24, 17:6, 18:6, 41:11, 58:20, 61:12, 5:2, 15:18 原告的 [7] - 26:3, 现有的 [1] - 3:23\n22:17, 25:24, 26:2, 64:15 待决的 [1] - 51:16 36:17, 37:23, 38:5, 陈述 [1] -\n33:22, 33:24, 40:12, 页数 [2] - 9:9, 9:10 人员 [7] - 22:11, 39:2, 39:23, 40:23 23:12\n41:18, 60:21, 61:8, 已支付 [1] - 53:2 32:3, 33:14, 47:7, 原告的 [1] - 18:23 提出 [1] - 16:11\n62:20, 70:12, 70:24, 文件 [3] - 7:16,\n27:20, 27:22 54:19, 64:1, 69:8 原告 [5] - 20:20, 保存 [1] - 28:4\n71:3 文件 [9] - 16:12, 人民的 [1] - 22:6 21:18, 38:19, 40:16, 施压 [1] - 29:25\n已命令 [1] - 4:11 25:4, 26:19, 27:10, 百分比 [2] - 6:5, 68:1 45:1 推定 [3] -\n命令 [4] - 4:15, 7:22, 36:10, 42:16, 42:21, 完全地 [1] - 68:19 原告方的 [1] - 17:11 63:8, 63:10, 63:20\n14:19, 62:22 53:25, 60:23 或许 [3] - 24:13, 计划 [1] - 63:13 先前 [2] - 12:22,\n通常的 [1] - 47:20\nOSTRAGER [1] - 1:14 段落 [7] - 21:8, 28:2, 58:9 计划 [1] - 22:2 32:21\n州外的 [1] - 33:3 39:1, 46:4, 48:25, 期间 [2] - 18:11,\n18:19 Plaza [1] - 2:6 价格 [1] - 6:18\n概述 [2] - 16:11, 49:14, 49:20, 58:13 许可 [1] - 66:20 答辩称 [1] - 21:8 初步 [5] - 4:15,\n26:19 参数 [1] - 50:15 准许 [2] - 56:10, 质押 [1] - 66:24\n加上 [2] - 16:1, 29:12 22:16, 23:23, 24:19,\n彻底地 [1] - 14:15 PART [1] - 1:1 68:16 要点 [14] - 8:9, 13:23, 26:6\n开端 [2] - 8:10, 部分 [2] - 28:18, 33:17 准许 [2] - 56:21, 14:6, 23:22, 26:8, 私人的 [1] - 70:23\n43:23 参与 [1] - 48:2 56:22 27:14, 38:4, 39:23, 特权 [2] - 47:7,\n外部 [3] - 31:17, 参与 [1] - 人 [14] - 8:7, 40:4, 42:23, 50:18, 47:20\n31:24, 33:14 50:2 10:21, 11:7, 18:16, 52:4, 60:25, 62:3 特权 [1] - 32:7\n克服 [2] - 26:18, 特定的 [2] - 39:21 18:17, 19:4, 20:17, 指出 [1] - 41:22 享有特权的 [2] - 46:20,\n70:19\n57:18 尤其 [1] - 38:11 20:18, 27:3, 39:23, 要点 [3] - 41:25, 特权 [2] - 47:6,\n重叠 [2] - 50:16, 当事人 [7] - 3:2, 13:2, 39:24, 47:17, 51:17, 64:25, 68:24 50:3\n50:19 28:23, 33:25, 34:9, 51:19 门户网站 [1] - 49:11 立场 [6] - 16:25, 主动地 [1] - 36:2\n夸大 [1] - 51:5 34:11, 67:20 个人的 [2] - 20:14, 18:3, 44:15, 51:21, 问题 [5] - 10:6,\n概览 [1] - 5:7 合伙人 [1] - 44:13 21:25 52:25, 69:14 45:25, 56:9, 58:5,\n所欠 [1] - 44:23 合伙人 [1] - 55:7 亲自 [2] - 44:21, 拥有 [1] - 53:11 61:21\n自己的 [5] - 6:21, 7:1, 部分 [1] - 60:11 67:25 占有 [3] - 程序 [17] -\n9:21, 32:14, 65:2 当事人 [1] - 2:4 视角 [1] - 48:13, 53:23, 55:15 7:18, 12:17, 13:10,\n拥有的 [16] - 8:25, 当事人 [8] - 9:22, 20:25, 67:17 可能性 [1] - 59:5 19:3, 24:15, 45:12,\n18:5, 18:8, 18:11, 24:3, 24:14, 31:25, 请愿书 [1] - 13:8 可能的 [3] - 35:3, 60:2, 60:3, 60:7,\n18:15, 18:19, 19:20, 33:15, 52:10 Petrillo [3] - 48:17, 55:14, 68:13 60:13, 60:14, 62:11,\n19:23, 21:6, 21:15, 当事人的 [1] - 47:22 48:24, 48:25 可能地 [1] - 67:15 62:16, 65:6, 67:3,\n22:16, 23:19, 35:11, 过去 [3] - 13:12, 13:25, Petrillo 的 [2] - 49:14, 判决后 [2] - 68:8\n35:14, 35:17, 35:21 14:6 49:20 32:19, 41:20 程序 [5] -\n所有人 [6] - 7:11, 8:6, 耐心 [1] - 43:15 Ph [1] - 58:9 潜在的 [1] - 20:22 5:21, 26:17, 46:13,\n10:14, 10:16, 19:5, 暂停 [2] - 15:4, Phillips [1] - 34:22 71:5, 71:8\ndar\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 440-20 Filed 05/25/22 Entered 05/26/22 15:30:37 Page 82 of\nNYSCEF DOC. NO. 1120 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/25/2022\n\n37:12, 56:11, 56:12\n10:16, 10:19, 10:23,\n程序 [1] -\npurchased [3] - 18:12,\n关于 [7] - 19:19,\n1:10\n18:19, 20:17\n达成 [2] - 56:19,\n21:7, 22:3, 50:1,\n11:4, 12:14, 53:2,\n56:13, 57:19, 58:3,\n59:8\n50:4, 51:19, 52:4\n过程 [4] - 16:9,\n购买人 [1] - 20:10\n59:2\n37:2, 37:10, 68:19\n阅读 [2] - 42:20, 63:3\n遗憾 [1] - 69:25\n据称 [3] - 6:9,\n代表 [5] -\n迅速地 [1] - 14:13\nREINDEL [1] - 1:20\n48:24, 61:14\n7:14, 50:8, 53:22,\n准备就绪 [1] - 27:1\n相关的 [14] - 11:2,\n41:19, 46:13, 51:17,\n55:9, 57:8\n现实 [1] - 61:22\n21:25, 52:23, 57:13\n51:19, 53:14, 54:15,\n确实 [9] - 8:4, 9:1,\n请求 [1] - 51:16\n产生 [4] - 11:23,\n54:18, 54:21, 59:18,\n9:3, 10:10, 12:10,\n已请求 [1] - 51:13\n12:23, 29:2, 42:1\n60:2, 60:8, 60:23,\n36:24, 54:3, 62:10,\n请求 [2] - 37:6,\n产生 [1] - 23:1\n65:3\n69:17\n教授 [1] - 58:8\n依照 [1] - 36:7\n追求 [3] - 62:21,\n关系 [4] - 49:16,\n制作 [1] - 9:12\n55:12\n65:15, 67:8\n纸张 [1] - 53:23\n教授 [4] - 58:12,\n追求 [2] - 62:9,\n理由 [4] - 25:11,\n关系 [15] -\n58:16, 58:23, 63:15\n62:19\n28:18, 38:20, 52:7\n证据陈述 [2] - 11:21,\n合理的 [1] - 39:17\n44:24, 44:25, 46:9,\n33:4\n要求 [2] - 30:25,\n追求 [5] - 61:23,\n46:16, 53:6, 53:21,\n已提出证据陈述 [1] - 17:24\n68:21\n61:24, 62:2, 63:1\n55:22, 56:3, 57:24,\n显著地 [1] -\n必要的 [4] - 8:13,\n置于 [15] - 12:24, 21:20,\n58:2, 59:11, 59:16,\n46:19\n18:4, 69:7, 69:11\n24:17, 25:8, 33:20,\n60:16, 61:14, 61:15\n承诺 [1] - 47:4\n要求 [2] -\n45:24, 46:24, 46:25,\n相对的 [1] - 18:23\n57:23\n56:17, 59:7, 62:20,\n已承诺 [1] - 47:3\n要求 [3] - 17:8,\n相关性 [1] - 54:4\n62:23, 63:2, 63:25,\n要件 [3] - 57:20,\n60:17, 63:5\n66:16\n相关的 [9] - 25:21,\n要件 [4] - 53:15,\nQ\n32:3, 34:9, 41:19,\n反驳 [5] - 16:6, 16:13,\n53:16, 55:25, 59:14\n49:18, 60:25\n反驳性 [3] - 57:21,\n63:8\n已反驳 [4] - 8:3,\nQiang [1] - 35:15\n救济 [1] - 42:25\n23:17, 27:15, 63:20\n宣读 [1] - 18:16\nQu [2] - 18:16, 18:22\n不情愿地 [1] - 70:6\n反驳 [1] - 23:22\n证明 [10] - 15:11,\nQU [1] - 18:17\n依赖 [2] - 68:18, 68:21\n已收到 [1] - 63:13\n15:20, 16:2, 18:3,\n仍然 [1] - 5:3\n最近的 [1] - 14:11\n20:1, 22:1, 22:12,\n发回重审 [3] - 12:5,\n最近 [1] - 10:2\n23:14, 24:17, 39:10\n16:21, 17:13\n休庭 [2] - 15:5,\n适当的 [1] - 36:25\n已发回重审 [6] - 4:24,\n50:21\n财产 [2] - 8:14,\n13:11\n承认 [1] - 69:19\n8:21\n记录 [17] - 15:6,\n已承认 [1] - 58:8\n提议 [1] - 37:8\n18:21, 19:5, 19:25,\n10:7, 12:17, 14:22,\n档案 [4] - 9:12,\n提议 [1] - 30:17\n20:8, 20:12, 21:2,\n34:8, 43:24, 44:12,\n9:17, 36:11, 39:12\n已提议 [1] - 37:5\n23:11, 23:17, 24:1,\n55:21, 65:16, 66:10,\n拒绝回应 [1] - 14:15\n适当性 [1] - 69:24\n24:22, 25:9, 27:1,\n67:14, 67:16, 69:18\n拒绝 [1] - 31:19\n被起诉 [1] - 70:3\n30:6, 45:3, 45:13,\n恭敬地 [4] -\n拒绝 [1] - 11:11\n起诉 [1] -\n65:15\n11:16, 14:2, 15:25,\n拒绝 [1] - 32:4\n71:14\n17:3, 17:17,\n回应 [3] - 24:18,\n关于 [5] - 32:12,\n录音 [1] - 9:21\n24:16, 25:1\n37:8, 64:24\n48:23, 66:6, 66:7,\n档案 [4] - 9:12,\n回答者 [1] -\n记得 [3] - 42:10,\n67:13\n9:17, 36:11, 39:12\n15:23\n43:8\n洛克菲勒 [1] - 2:6 筛查 [2] - 56:10, 共享 [3] - 46:11, Simon [6] - 43:14, 盖章 [1] - 9:11\n\nRonald（罗纳德）[2] - 21:8, 21:9 68:16 55:18, 58:4 58:8, 58:12, 58:16, 标准 [12] - 8:15,\nRONALD [1] - 2:12 屏幕 [3] - 57:6, 股东 [2] - 58:23, 63:15 8:17, 15:14, 25:12,\nRose（罗斯）[1] - 43:14 63:18, 69:10 5:12, 10:21 简单 [1] - 33:8 25:15, 25:16, 25:21,\nROSE [1] - 2:8 密封 [5] - 45:13, 分享 [2] - 46:11, 仅仅 [3] - 39:22, 26:11, 28:15, 28:21,\nROTHROCK（罗思罗克）[2] - 45:14, 51:5, 51:14, 67:21 57:1 41:20\n2:22, 71:13 61:6 空壳 [2] - 7:8, 39:18 单一 [9] - 6:2, 11:7, 标准 [2] - 25:21,\n常规 [1] - 4:7 密封 [3] - 50:15, Sherry（谢丽）[2] - 5:18, 11:23, 17:16, 21:25, 26:9\nRoy（罗伊）[1] - 43:14 68:12, 69:12 42:13 35:13, 36:15, 36:25 开始 [4] - 3:11, 15:11,\nRPR [2] - 2:22, 71:13 搜索 [1] - 70:16 Sherry-Netherland（谢丽-内瑟兰）[2] 坐 [3] - 28:6, 32:1, 44:17, 45:10\n橡胶 [1] - 38:4 搜查 [1] - 17:18 - 5:18, 42:13 52:9 开始了 [1] - 57:8\n规则 [6] - 52:13, 56:21, SEC（美国证券交易委员会）[13] - 47:25, 48:1, 船 [2] - 7:19, 8:2 情况 [6] - 38:9, 州 [3] - 6:23, 9:18,\n58:13, 68:16 48:5, 48:9, 48:17, 商店 [1] - 5:17 38:10, 46:25, 47:20, 13:6\n裁定 [1] - 37:21 48:23, 49:3, 49:25, 短 [4] - 5:3, 15:5, 50:5, 67:4 州 [1] - 1:1\n规则 [1] - 56:9 51:2, 51:7, 51:9, 33:21, 33:24 六 [2] - 39:17, 52:11 说明 [3] - 33:3, 36:3,\n裁决 [2] - 19:2, 37:25 51:20, 55:16 显示 [12] - 10:3, 规模可观的 [1] - 42:13 51:3\n运行 [1] - 69:22 第二 [4] - 9:3, 10:6, 20:16, 21:19, 22:17, 怀疑的 [1] - 23:12 陈述 [7] - 19:16,\nRydell（赖德尔）[1] - 63:12 53:7, 53:9 25:15, 28:9, 32:9, 略微 [1] - 52:25 19:19, 19:25, 20:2,\n其次 [1] - 20:1 秒 [1] - 6:15 32:13, 32:22, 47:25, Slip（单页）[1] - 1:20 20:4, 68:5\nS 隐匿 [1] - 20:21 显示了 [1] - 42:11 22:12, 47:6 社会 [3] - 22:9, 陈述 [2] -\n安全 [1] - 71:1 条 [1] - 12:17 显示 [7] - 4:16, 17:8, 23:23, 24:7, 唯一 [3] - 5:12, 6:20 19:13, 62:25\n保障 [1] - 63:24 安全 [2] - 22:6, 26:6, 27:21, 39:14 某人 [1] - 44:14 陈述 [1] - 13:8\n更安全 [1] - 45:19 22:11 显示的 [5] - 25:25, 儿子 [2] - 21:11, 35:15 法规 [4] - 8:13,\n缘故 [1] - 33:1 见 [3] - 9:22, 42:6, 26:1, 36:10, 39:8 种类 [2] - 59:23, 60:16 16:21, 17:20, 17:23\n出售 [1] - 6:17 71:1 显示 [2] - 18:17, 寻求 [8] - 35:6, 暂缓 [1] - 71:1\n制裁 [1] - 14:23 寻求 [3] - 38:5, 51:16, 32:9 36:1, 37:18, 51:7, 暂缓执行 [1] - 45:7\n制裁 [1] - 26:18 51:19 侧 [5] - 10:12, 33:16, 51:9, 51:11, 51:20, 仍然 [8] - 48:12, 48:14,\nSARNOFF（萨尔诺夫）[24] - 1:18, 寻求 [10] - 41:18, 47:23, 62:22, 64:12 54:14 49:8, 54:7, 55:3,\n3:18, 3:24, 4:1, 41:19, 48:9, 48:10, 双方 [1] - 59:1 听起来 [2] - 9:23, 55:9, 62:16, 64:18\n24:21, 25:3, 25:7, 48:14, 49:10, 50:9, Siegal（西格尔）[3] - 4:5, 4:6, 13:18 约定 [1] - 67:9\n25:11, 26:15, 26:20, 54:20, 57:13 15:9 来源 [3] - 5:22, 约定 [3] - 62:19,\n28:11, 30:10, 30:20, 扣押 [1] - 48:23 SIEGAL [16] - 2:7, 21:16, 55:14 65:11, 66:8\n31:1, 31:20, 32:5, 出售 [1] - 6:21 15:8, 15:13, 15:22, 来源于 [1] - 18:25 约定 [12] -\n32:17, 33:19, 34:16, SELZ（塞尔茨）[1] - 2:10 16:3, 16:5, 16:15, Southern（南部）[1] - 48:19 54:11, 63:2, 65:14,\n34:19, 40:24, 45:21, Selz [1] - 52:21 19:11, 19:18, 19:24, 发言 [1] - 9:22 65:24, 66:15, 66:18,\n46:2, 67:1 开创性的 [1] - 58:24 20:5, 20:8, 28:13, 特别 [6] - 60:1, 66:25, 67:16, 68:4,\nSarnoff [15] - 3:19, 发送 [1] - 9:15 33:1, 33:9, 50:23 60:13, 60:14, 62:11, 68:25, 69:1, 69:6\n4:2, 16:1, 16:11, 意思 [1] - 6:19 SIEGEL（西格尔）[26] - 22:15, 62:16, 65:6 停止 [3] - 14:20,\n16:24, 18:2, 18:7, 敏感 [3] - 47:16, 22:20, 22:23, 23:8, 具体 [4] - 15:16, 18:11, 18:20\n18:9, 20:11, 26:13, 52:11, 55:4 23:15, 29:4, 29:13, 51:14, 55:10, 60:22 策略 [1] - 55:19\n26:16, 28:16, 28:24, 发送 [1] - 10:24 29:19, 30:2, 30:17, 具体而言 [2] - Street（街）[1] - 2:10\n30:19, 43:4 分开 [2] - 41:24, 31:7, 34:15, 43:12, 42:12, 50:16 字符串 [1] - 20:23\nSarnoff's [1] - 22:24 42:25 43:23, 44:3, 44:6, 具体内容 [1] - 51:15 强有力的 [1] - 64:7\n满意 [2] - 53:16, September（九月）[3] - 9:18, 44:9, 44:11, 45:11, 指明 [2] - 19:4, 51:4 结构 [1] - 53:24\n63:9 27:9, 36:19 46:3, 51:23, 52:1, 花费 [1] - 61:24 Stuart（斯图尔特）[2] - 3:18, 4:1\n满足 [1] - 63:9 系列 [1] - 43:16 52:17, 61:3, 61:5, Spring（斯普林）[24] - 7:4, 11:2, STUART [1] - 1:18\n看见 [1] - 69:13 严重地 [1] - 62:22 70:10 11:4, 36:9, 36:12, 主题 [1] - 32:24\n日程安排 [5] - 29:19, 送达 [5] - 32:18, Siegel [14] - 15:10, 36:21, 38:1, 38:9, 提交材料 [2] -\n30:6, 30:7, 54:18, 48:5, 49:25, 54:17, 15:25, 19:8, 22:14, 38:13, 38:14, 38:17, 11:25, 13:13\n55:15 54:20 22:19, 27:8, 31:6, 38:23, 39:4, 39:7, 提交 [18] - 9:5, 9:7,\n已安排 [4] - 29:14, 服务 [1] - 36:7 43:12, 45:6, 51:21, 40:10, 40:11, 41:3, 11:11, 14:21, 16:19,\n29:21, 29:24, 61:25 确定 [4] - 38:22, 52:6, 52:15, 60:23, 61:4, 41:5, 41:7, 41:11, 28:9, 28:23, 29:8,\n范围 [1] - 49:19 57:9, 69:10 62:5 41:18, 41:25, 42:10, 29:10, 29:11, 31:13,\n屏幕 [16] - 54:11, 设定 [2] - 5:17, SIEGFRIED（西格弗里德）[1] - 2:4 42:11 32:23, 33:7, 33:10,\n56:7, 56:15, 56:17, 58:11 若干 [2] - 4:8, 36:7 Springs（斯普林斯）[1] - 41:17 33:11, 34:7, 34:10,\n56:22, 57:1, 57:3, 形态 [3] - 65:15, 签署 [1] - 28:5 Springs' [1] - 38:24 34:11\n57:5, 57:9, 57:10, 65:23, 67:19 类似 [2] - 13:18, Square（广场）[1] - 1:17 提交 [1] - 15:23\n59:5, 59:6, 63:10, 分享 [2] - 14:12, 29:1 22:8 工作人员 [1] - 30:25 已提交 [11] - 7:14,\n63:17, 64:2, 69:6 类似地 [1] - 39:2 印章 [1] - 38:4 33:23, 34:1, 36:4,\n\ndar\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 440-20 提交日期 05/25/22 登记日期 05/26/22 15:30:37 第 84 页，共\n\n索引号 652077/2017\n\nNYSCEF 文件编号 1120 NYSCEF 收到日期：01/25/2022\n40:16, 42:1, 46:5, 量身定制的 [1] - 37:3 43:2, 43:8, 43:11, 论著 [1] - 58:10 49:7\n\n传票 [11] - 28:5, 37:15, 37:16, 48:1, 48:5, 48:12, 49:25, 51:9, 65:3 已被传唤 [2] - 51:2, 51:7 传票 [13] - 34:18, 35:6, 35:7, 37:15, 37:19, 38:5, 42:25, 47:17, 50:17, 54:17, 54:20, 55:5, 55:16 随后 [1] - 46:14 实质性的 [9] - 22:6, 29:2, 44:24, 49:12, 53:21, 55:22, 56:3, 59:16, 60:15 实质上 [4] - 46:13, 53:14, 59:18, 60:2 成功 [1] - 39:25 已测试 [1] - 48:20 成功地 [1] - 70:4 足以 [1] - 63:17 充分的 [5] - 8:22, 9:2, 25:16, 51:10, 51:11 建议 [1] - 52:7 建议的 [1] - 50:25 表明 [2] - 40:10, 40:25 Sun（孙）[1] - 21:11 Sun 的 [1] - 21:11 补充性的 [2] - 32:24, 33:5 支持 [4] - 16:25, 18:2, 44:13, 58:10 支持性的 [1] - 20:16 据称 [2] - 6:11, 6:12 最高 [1] - 1:1 Supreme（最高法院）[3] - 1:14, 19:9, 19:22 当然 [2] - 16:15, 16:16 感到惊讶 [2] - 29:2, 29:18 周围的 [1] - 13:14 转换 [1] - 59:1 宣誓的 [3] - 31:14, 38:21, 64:19 系统 [2] - 68:10, 69:12 T 战术性的 [1] - 70:1 故事 [1] - 13:14 提交 [1] - 43:7 目标 [1] - 22:10 针对 [4] - 61:19, 63:1, 65:1 税 [1] - 7:16 Team（团队）[1] - 48:21 团队 [5] - 46:18, 56:8, 59:7, 59:8, 63:12 TEAMS（团队）[1] - 1:10 Teams（团队）[3] - 31:9, 46:1 技术性的 [6] - 7:10, 8:6, 8:12, 8:17, 10:14, 10:15 从技术上说 [2] - 7:6, 14:18 心灵感应 [1] - 11:6 十 [2] - 39:17, 50:12 TERM（期限）[1] - 1:1 条款 [4] - 49:4, 54:3, 63:8, 69:19 测试 [3] - 23:24, 55:22, 57:20 已测试 [1] - 48:20 作证 [2] - 26:22, 26:23 作证 [9] - 10:4, 11:19, 13:21, 27:25, 28:2, 31:21, 32:7, 32:13, 33:13 证词 [26] - 23:6, 23:16, 27:15, 28:4, 31:10, 31:11, 31:12, 31:15, 31:16, 31:18, 31:23, 32:3, 32:18, 33:11, 33:12, 33:15, 33:22, 34:5, 34:7, 34:9, 34:12, 49:14, 49:20 测试 [1] - 68:22 文本 [2] - 10:24, 11:23 该 [85] - 1:1, 3:1, 3:13, 3:16, 3:21, 3:25, 15:2, 15:6, 15:10, 15:19, 15:25, 16:4, 16:6, 19:8, 19:16, 19:21, 20:4, 20:6, 22:14, 22:19, 22:21, 23:7, 23:9, 24:25, 25:4, 25:10, 26:12, 26:16, 28:4, 28:12, 28:23, 29:10, 29:16, 29:23, 30:5, 30:12, 30:19, 30:23, 31:6, 31:8, 31:22, 32:13, 32:21, 33:6, 33:10, 33:21, 34:17, 34:25, 35:4, 39:11, 39:16, 40:22, 42:20 理论 [1] - 61:20 将会有 [1] - 34:6 此后 [1] - 67:5 因此 [3] - 17:5, 36:24, 39:25 思考 [1] - 44:13 第三 [8] - 20:25, 24:3, 24:14, 53:8, 53:17, 63:5, 67:20 第三方 [4] - 20:25, 24:3, 24:14 三个 [14] - 15:3, 20:20, 23:5, 23:10, 23:13, 25:8, 26:17, 27:6, 29:11, 29:12, 29:23, 30:4, 30:15, 57:20 三分钟 [1] - 15:3 贯穿始终 [1] - 12:19 星期四 [1] - 30:18 联系 [1] - 19:5 标题 [2] - 8:12, 8:21 今天 [4] - 11:21, 37:21, 66:17, 70:8 捆绑 [1] - 21:2 共同 [1] - 42:5 明天 [1] - 66:24 采取 [2] - 32:21, 70:13 极权主义的 [1] - 22:9 完全地 [1] - 24:22 触及 [1] - 63:21 涉及 [1] - 49:21 追踪 [2] - 45:1, 49:4 交易 [2] - 21:3, 24:2 庭审记录 [5] - 3:2, 33:17, 41:11, 71:3, 71:8 转移 [2] - 20:19, 67:5 已转移 [5] - 6:1, 6:6, 20:18, 20:24, 66:1 正在转移 [1] - 38:23 转移 [7] - 5:14, 6:9, 7:2, 41:24, 42:4, 66:18 Treasury（财政部）[1] - 35:12 可审理的 [1] - 24:6 审判 [12] - 12:25, 13:6, 28:5, 29:14, 29:20, 30:13, 31:10, 31:16, 34:2, 34:3, 62:3 真实的 [2] - 14:10, 71:7 真相 [1] - 70:16 尝试 [4] - 32:17, 35:3, 40:24, 66:18 试图 [3] - 54:2, 60:7, 61:9 转向 [6] - 35:14, 47:10, 50:6, 52:11, 52:17, 60:4 移交 [13] - 8:13, 9:1, 12:16, 12:21, 13:9, 13:13, 14:12, 14:16, 17:1, 17:12, 17:20, 26:9, 36:15 TV 的 [1] - 70:7 发推文 [1] - 6:9 推文 [1] - 9:21 二 [29] - 6:14, 8:4, 9:8, 18:21, 20:17, 23:3, 25:8, 27:3, 29:12, 30:11, 34:18, 35:6, 38:5, 53:10, 53:14, 53:18, 53:19, 54:10, 54:16, 56:3, 57:3, 63:12, 64:10, 64:11, 68:5, 69:2, 70:14 类型 [4] - 56:15, 56:22, 58:7, 58:11 典型的 [1] - 22:2 U U.S.（美国）[2] - 21:21, 48:19 UBS（瑞银集团）[1] - 38:23 最终 [1] - 50:2 在……之下 [18] - 12:17, 16:20, 17:11, 17:14, 17:19, 25:12, 25:16, 25:21, 31:25, 34:8, 41:20, 52:5, 58:6, 58:11, 61:20, 63:17, 66:9 可理解的 [1] - 25:14 已理解 [1] - 29:4 承担 [1] - 49:5 无争议的 [13] - 21:19, 24:8, 44:17, 44:19, 44:21, 45:3, 46:4, 46:6, 46:16, 46:17, 47:12, 47:25 不受限制的 [1] - 49:8 身份不明的 [1] - 24:3 独特的 [1] - 52:6 普遍的 [2] - 48:6, 48:7 未知的 [1] - 27:3 摒弃 [1] - 59:4 除非 [1] - 46:25 不同于 [1] - 39:7 不必要的 [1] - 13:4 无关的 [4] - 20:13, 20:18, 20:25, 27:3 平淡无奇的 [1] - 21:24 向上 [18] - 5:17, 10:3, 12:7, 26:24, 27:6, 28:9, 32:9, 32:13, 32:22, 38:22, 54:25, 55:5, 56:17, 57:9, 62:3, 64:10, 69:10 敦促 [1] - 17:22 USA（美国）[1] - 21:21 使用 [1] - 11:8 利用 [1] - 39:18 最大限度 [2] - 69:17, 69:18 V 有效 [1] - 62:2 有价值的 [1] - 22:1 价值 [1] - 34:12 各种各样的 [1] - 49:23 Vartan（瓦尔坦）[1] - 21:23 对 [1] - 58:19 船舶 [4] - 19:7, 20:17, 22:16, 23:20 已审查的 [1] - 48:3 视频 [3] - 6:12, 9:21, 45:22 视频 [2] - 6:10, 9:22 观点 [3] - 40:2, 66:1, 69:5 违反 [2] - 4:3, 26:2 实际上 [1] - 46:24 W 等待 [1] - 6:22 放弃 [3] - 56:14, 69:4 放弃 [2] - 69:1, 69:3 墙 [3] - 56:6, 63:21, 63:25 封闭 [1] - 67:7 Wan（万）[1] - 2:8 WAN（万）[2] - 1:6, 1:7 希望 [5] - 9:6, 10:8, 11:16, 26:16, 32:13 温暖的 [3] - 4:7, 7:21, 7:25 警告 [1] - 46:8 搜查令 [1] - 53:15 有正当理由的 [1] - 55:24 水 [1] - 7:21 天气 [2] - 4:7, 8:1 周 [2] - 16:9, 29:22 数周 [8] - 23:10, 26:17, 29:12, 29:23, 30:4, 57:4, 64:10, 64:11 WEI（魏）[1] - 21:10 Wei（魏）[1] - 21:10 Weinstein（温斯坦）[1] - 8:19 WEN（文）[1] - 1:6 WENGUI（文贵）[2] - 1:6 无论什么 [4] - 21:15, 39:10, 66:10, 67:18 下落 [1] - 22:4 整体 [1] - 27:12 完全地 [2] - 35:11, 35:14 全资拥有的 [2] - 35:11, 35:14 广泛的 [1] - 27:12 妻子 [1] - 21:12 William（威廉）[1] - 58:19 愿意 [1] - 62:23 希望 [2] - 44:11, 44:14 已撤回 [2] - 35:8, 43:1 证人 [2] - 23:2, 33:17 证人 [7] - 16:7, 31:10, 31:24, 33:4, 33:6, 33:10, 33:11 女性 [1] - 26:22 文字 [5] - 4:18, 19:21, 38:3, 46:22, 70:18 工作成果 [1] - 46:21 工作 [2] - 30:4, 30:18 更糟 [1] - 70:2 书面的 [4] - 3:3, 11:7, 11:25, 36:7 写道 [2] - 63:16, 63:18 Y 游艇 [37] - 4:4, 4:6, 4:7, 4:11, 4:12, 4:17, 5:1, 5:19, 5:23, 6:6, 6:25, 7:1, 7:11, 8:9, 9:19, 10:16, 10:25, 11:2, 11:5, 11:12, 14:3, 14:9, 14:22, 15:18, 18:5, 18:18, 19:6, 19:10, 20:14, 21:20, 22:4, 22:8, 61:24, 61:25, 62:1, 62:4 与游艇有关的 [1] - 11:2 一年 [10] - 4:7, 6:2, 7:20, 18:18, 21:24, 62:8, 64:3, 64:4, 64:8, 70:3 数年 [5] - 13:3, 20:17, 27:6, 52:16, 62:5 YORK（约克）[2] - 1:1, 1:1 York（约克）[28] - 1:18, 1:21, 2:3, 2:6, 2:11, 5:18, 6:23, 8:16, 9:18, 17:18, 19:22, 35:11, 36:9, 38:24, 48:20, 52:4, 52:13, 56:9, 58:6, 58:10, 58:17, 63:19, 68:7 YouTube（优兔）[2] - 6:9, 6:16 Z 零 [3] - 5:14, 6:7, 67:22 Zhang（张）[1] - 21:10 ZHANG（张）[1] - 21:10 Zhang 的 [1] - 21:12 邮政编码 [1] - 67:22","key_entities":["Kwok","GTV","Guo","Je","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":1120,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":36269,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-05-25 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-05-25","updated_at":"2026-08-23 23:38:12"}