{"id":"court_ctb_479_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":479,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-06-21","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* June 9, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF SCHEDULING ORDER TO DISCUSS OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: JEFFREY L. JONAS, ESQ. Brown Rudnick, LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund L.P.: LAURA ARONSSON, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Robinson & Cole 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\n|              | APPEARANCES Cont'd:       |                              |                                                                                                                                                           |\n|--------------|---------------------------|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|              |                           | For the Creditors Committee: | IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.<br>Pullman & Comley<br>850 Main Street<br>Bridgeport, CT<br>06601                                                                      |\n|              | For the Creditor, Rui Ma: |                              | CAROLLYNN CALLARI, ESQ.<br>Callari Partners LLC<br>1 Rockafeller Plz Floor 10<br>New York, NY<br>10020-2073                                               |\n|              |                           |                              | KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.<br>McElroy Deutsch<br>225 Liberty Street<br>36th Floor<br>New York, NY<br>10281                                                      |\n|              | For the U.S. Trustee:     |                              | HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.<br>Office of the United States<br>Trustee<br>The Giaimo Federal Building<br>150 Court Street, Room 302<br>New Haven, CT<br>06510 |\n| Logan Cheng: | For the Creditor,         |                              | JAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ.<br>Randazza Legal Group, PLLC<br>100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor<br>Hartford, CT<br>06103                                          |\n|              | International:            | For the Creditor, Hong Kong  | AARON ROMNEY, ESQ.<br>Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.<br>10 Middle Street, 15th Floor<br>Bridgeport, CT<br>06604                                                  |\n|              |                           |                              |                                                                                                                                                           |\n\n (Proceedings commenced at 2:04 p.m.) THE CLERK: Case Number 2022-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, please, starting with the debtor's counsel? MR. JONAS: This is Jeff Jonas, from Brown Rudnick, for the debtor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And counsel for PAX? MR. FRIEDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. It's Peter Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers. I believe Ms. Smith is here from the Robinson & Cole firm and Ms. Aronsson and Mr. Sarnoff are also here from O'Melveny & Myers. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Thank you. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Counsel for the creditors committee? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman and Comley, representing the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. The Office of the United States Trustee, please? MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And counsel for the creditor, Rui Ma, and I may not say everyone's name, but I can see both of the attorneys present. If you would just\n\n note your appearance for the record? MS. CALLARI: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Go ahead, Kris. MS. MAYHEW: Go ahead. MS. CALLARI: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Carollynn Callari, with Callari Partners, here with my colleague, Kristen Mayhew. Thank you. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And the creditors, Attorney Wolman, I apologize, I don't have your client's name in front of me at the moment, but if you would note your appearance for the record and your client's name, please? MR. WOLMAN: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is Jay Wolman, of Randazza Legal Group, for creditor Logan Cheng. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Is there any appearance that I have not -- that has not been noted for the record? MR. ROMNEY: Yes, Your Honor. Aaron Romney, Zeisler and Zeisler, on behalf of Hong Kong International. THE COURT: Thank you. I didn't see you there for a second, Mr. Romney, but I see you now, so thank you very much. MR. ROMNEY: You're welcome, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Again, I appreciate everyone\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 479 Filed 06/21/22 Entered 06/21/22 11:05:19 Page 4 of 28\n\n making themselves available for this status conference this afternoon.\n\n As you all know, the court's in the process of working on the decision on the motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, the joinder on the Chapter 11 Trustee motion that we had an evidentiary hearing on on May 25th.\n\n Two of the parties in the case, the debtor and PAX, ordered official transcripts of that hearing, That evidentiary hearing on May 25th and the court is able to look at that transcript, not everyone else, to assist in the production of any decision that the court is making.\n\n And obviously the decision that is in process is on the motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for the appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee.\n\n So we had the hearing and I started to review the transcript and I noticed that there were several things in the -- I don't want to say mistakes, because it's the way that the court reporter heard the audio, then it's not necessarily a mistake, but there are things that, in my opinion, need to be corrected in this transcript. I mean, this is the official transcript.\n\n We have talked about it and I have to ensure -- and we've talked about it since the beginning of this case actually, that since the bankruptcy court's record is audio only, that when something is transcribed and there is an\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 479 Filed 06/21/22 Entered 06/21/22 11:05:19 Page 6 of 28\n\n official transcript, as there is now in this case, we need to make sure it's accurate because if it's not accurate then it doesn't really help us all if it's not accurate. So I talked to the clerk of the court about this issue because I was somewhat concerned that there doesn't seem to be a process for either the court or any other party, other than a party that -- well, I don't even know if the parties that ordered the transcript know -- would do this, but to make sure that if there was a mistake or something that needed to be corrected in the record, that there was a process by which those corrections could be brought to the attention of the reporter and then a new official transcript could be produced. And I'll explain to you all what my concerns are, starting with the very first page, on page 3 of the transcript, the official transcript it says, proceedings commenced at 10:05 p.m. Well, I don't think any of us were here at 10:05 p.m. on May 25th, so that's a problem right there. And you know, as is true in every single decision that the bankruptcy court enters, every -- and the record of any proceedings regarding a decision or an order that the bankruptcy court enters they're subject to appeal. And I would certainly hate for this to be appealed\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nand have the court, whoever is looking at it say, they\n\n started the proceedings at 10:05 p.m.? I mean, it just doesn't make sense. It's not accurate. This is not an accurate reflection of what occurred on May 25th. So that's -- number one, I thought that was interesting on the very fist page.\n\n Then there are a number places in the transcript in which the reporter writes the word indiscernible. Well, I'm not sure it's indiscernible completely. I mean, it might be, but if all of us listened to it, we might understand what the word is that the reporter couldn't understand. I think that's a relevant concern.\n\n Then there are several places in the transcript where parties speak about the status quo, and the reporter spells the word quo as a capital -- I'll tell you in a second. I'll give you an example. Capital K-U-O, and it happens about 15 times throughout the course of this transcript. That concerned me.\n\n I didn't think -- I mean, I am not going to make a presumption that some appellate court looking at this on appeal is going to understand that that should be status quo, Q-U-O. I don't think that's fair.\n\n Then there's a couple of times where PAX's counsel says the words, there's a through line, and the reporter spells it T-H-R-U. I don't know if that's what -- I think it was you, Attorney Friedman, were talking at that time, is\n\n -- that's what you said, but I don't even know what T-H-R-U means. I don't think it's a word. If it's a word, it's a new word to me. There is another point in the transcript where there's a discussion about a quality of distribution in bankruptcy cases, and the reporter transcribes it as, a quality in distribution. Again, not accurate. The reporter seems to have gotten a lot of the case names that the parties cited in their arguments correct, but not every one and not every spelling of the case name. And again, if we are -- and I will be insisting that the transcript be accurate. I want to make sure that all those references are accurate so that when whomever it is that's looking at this, if there is an appeal, can understand what actually happened with accuracy in this court. There's one -- there is one situation where the reporter -- someone spoke about Jevic, and they spell -- and it was spelled G-E-V-I-C, as opposed to J-E-V-I-C. Again, that's a -- could be material to a court on appeal looking for that case. You know, I can't presume to know what an appellate court would do with this. There is another situation where the transcript refers to the statute that people were talking about,\n\n including the court, 157(b)(2)(B), and it's cited as 156(b)(2)(B), and then it's also sited as 128 instead of 28. I think that's an issue that needs to be fixed. In one place, there's just a specific typo. It says in front, F-O, instead of in front of. There is a -- there -- you know, you all may think -- and I'm not saying you do, but you may think that, oh, well, somebody could figure that out, but I'm not make -- I'm not in the job of presuming that someone can figure that out. I'm in the job of making sure the record is accurate. So I asked the clerk of the court about it and while there's a notice that goes out to all the parties who appear at a hearing, and I think it goes out to more than that quite frankly, but it at least goes out to the parties that appear at a hearing, of -- a notice of filing of transcripts and deadlines to restrictions and redaction, that notice is supposed to only -- although I don't think it says it clearly enough, but it's supposed to only apply to personally identifiable information and other information that someone could claim should not be part of the public record. I've already talked about -- to the clerk's office, about revising that notice in the procedure because I don't think it's clear at all what that means and I don't\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nknow if any of you even read that. Maybe you did, but I\n\n read it and I didn't really understand what it meant. And it's part -- it's included with the transcript, but apparently is still served on everybody even though the transcript is not.\n\n The issue of the transcript is that it's locked for 90 days by policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and there appear to be several reasons why the Judicial Conference of the United States made a determination some time ago that transcripts should be locked for a period of 90 days unless ordered -- you know, unless someone places an order for that transcript, like the debtor did and PAX did, because it's protective of the transcriber and the transcriber's business, because as I said to you all a million times in this case, we don't have -- Congress has not authorized or approved or appropriated funds to the bankruptcy court to have a transcriber keep the record in this case.\n\n So I have been told by the clerk of the court that the only way people on this call who have not reviewed the -- who have not ordered the transcript, made an official order for an official transcript, can review the transcript within 90 days of the transcript being created, which was May 31st, is my understanding, is to go to a clerk's office of the bankruptcy court in Hartford, New Haven or Bridgeport and read it there. The only other thing you can do is order\n\n the transcript. So that -- I don't know what the answer to that is. I'm just explaining to you what the status is. There also doesn't appear to be any process for the court when the court finds a problem in a transcript, to correct that, other than possibly Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024, which incorporates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which says if a court finds a mistake, it can correct it. But I'm not going to correct that mistake without all you knowing that I think there's a mistake, right? Otherwise, that doesn't make a lot of sense because you may disagree that there's a mistake and you should have an opportunity to review the transcript to see if you think there's a mistake. And we don't seem to have any process in place for that. And I don't know that any court does, quite\n\n frankly. I really don't know. If you all know of any process in place, let me know, because we don't have one apparently.\n\n So I'm going to make -- I'm going to tell you that there is several problems I see with this transcript, and our clerk's office has tried to put together what would be -- and has put together, and it's not an official local form yet, but it would be an errata sheet regarding a -- an official transcript that could be used by any party to indicate if they believe that there's a problem with the\n\nofficial transcript.\n\n Now if there's an appeal filed, the appellate rule -- the 8000 rule has attempted to address this issue, but they don't really address it fully because they -- it says in 8000 -- now I've got to open it up. Sorry. I don't remember if it's 8 or 9. I think it's 9. 8009. Yes. Correcting or modifying the record, 8009(e), and it talks about if there's a difference that arises about whether the record accurately discloses what occurred in the bankruptcy court, the difference must be submitted to and settled by the bankruptcy court. That, of course, presumes people read everything and that they bring it to the bankruptcy court. And it doesn't say what the bankruptcy court can do if they find a problem with the record. But that's if there's an appeal. There isn't an appeal, at least not yet, because there isn't anything to appeal because I haven't ruled yet. So I think the only basis upon which I can do this at this point is under corrections based on a clerical mistake under Rule 60. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission when everyone has found in a judgment order or other part of the record. The court may do so on its own -- on motion or on its own with or without notice. But after an appeal has\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 479 Filed 06/21/22 Entered 06/21/22 11:05:19 Page 13 of 28\n\n been docketed, and while the appeal is pending, such a mistake may only be corrected with the appellate court's leave. Okay? So I don't know what everybody thinks about this but I -- there are things in this transcript that I want to have corrected and I'm going to share all that with you. I already shared some of it with you. I didn't share the exact page and line number where they exist. And there is another -- there's another place in the transcript where I was talking about that 157(b)(2)(B), and I said it's not a core proceeding, C-O-R-E, and it was transcribed as a court proceeding. I think that's a major difference, actually, especially when an appellate court looks at that. They would have no idea that that should say core as opposed to court. And there's a couple of other -- there's a -- there's a point when somebody said made, said the words made first, and it was transcribed as May, like the month, first, with a number 1 with an S-T. So I don't know how you all want to proceed, but I'm going to -- and I'm happy to hear what your thoughts are, but I think we all need to review this transcript and come up with a process by which we submit to everybody what we think our changes are and then go from there. I'm going to make those changes, whether -- and\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 479 Filed 06/21/22 Entered 06/21/22 11:05:19 Page 14 of 28\n\n you all can disagree, obviously, but I'm going to do that, because the record is inaccurate from my perspective. So I'm going to pick on you, Attorney Jonas, first, since you represent the debtor, and see if you have any thoughts about what I've just said. MR. JONAS: Thank you, Your Honor, and thank you, obviously, for being so conscientious about all of these things. Frankly, more conscientious than me, because I did read it and I noted some of the things you've mentioned, but didn't really -- didn't really think about, you know, the next step. I'll just speak frankly, you know, from the debtor's perspective. We've been looking forward to like -- I think tomorrow is the -- I think is the 15th day, and so we've been obviously looking forward to a decision. Our hope obviously being that the case would be dismissed and things could move on. So I'm just concerned about, again selfishly, how any of what you've suggested, which I can't disagree with, you're 100 percent correct, and as I said, we noted many of the same things but I just kind of -- I guess glossed over them. 23 And so I'm just wondering if I should be concerned that what you're suggesting might impact the timing on a decision. That's frankly my question so --\n\n THE COURT: Well, that's a fair question. That's a fair question. And I can tell you, if it impacts it, it will impact it minimally. The -- MR. JONAS: Okay. THE COURT: I am working actively on the decision. Okay? MR. JONAS: Okay. THE COURT: It's not -- I'm not suggesting we set up some process that's going to stop the decision from being issued. Whether the decision is going to be issued tomorrow or not, that might be a little bit -- it might not happen, just depend -- we were in court all day this morning until this hearing, and that's why I didn't have this hearing until 2:00, so I've lost a little of time that I was hoping I had, so I don't -- I cannot say that the -- here's the interesting thing about the 15 days. I agree with you, Attorney Jonas, it's tomorrow, number one. Number two, apparently there's no real consequence if the Court doesn't issue that by tomorrow, but I still am trying to do that. I don't want to delay this either. Attorney Claiborn was correct in her statement -- or she made many statements, but she made a statement that there needs to be a swift decision in this case. So I have -- I'm not raising this to stop the clock from running or anything like that. I don't know that\n\n I will decide by tomorrow though, but I am very confident that it will be a few days after that if it's not by tomorrow. So this is not being raised to derail any timing. Okay? It's being raised because I want the record to be accurate and I -- and when we had our hearing, our evidentiary hearing on the 25th, you know, we talked -- everybody talked in general about -- not everybody. I mean, it was mentioned in general about an appeal. Well, you know, this has made me think about every case I deal with, right? It's not just this case. It's every case, how accurate the record really is in a bankruptcy case and if anybody is really looking at it for that purpose. Okay? So to -- it's a fair question. Am I trying to rule by tomorrow? Yes, I certainly am. I have been working on this decision. Will I rule by tomorrow? I don't know. But if I don't rule by tomorrow, it's not going to be very much longer. It will be a few -- a day or two, you know, longer. Make sure I don't make typographical errors. Make sure my case cites are accurate. Make sure I don't put May 1st for made first. So -- MR. JONAS: And the only -- THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. JONAS: Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Your\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 479 Filed 06/21/22 Entered 06/21/22 11:05:19 Page 16 of 28\n\n Honor. I mean, just from a -- just to explain myself a little more from a very, very practical standpoint. There is a continued 341 meeting from Monday. THE COURT: Oh. I didn't know that. Okay. MR. JONAS: And -- yeah. And that's why I wanted to advise you of that. Obviously, if the UST was willing to continue that for -- that that -- that would alleviate at least this particular concern. To be honest, you know, we didn't want to -- both from a Brown Rudnick standpoint and -- we didn't want to expend resources unnecessarily, so we -- but there would -- we would need to get the debtor ready, obviously, and be at the 341, et cetera. So, you know, there's a fair amount of time and effort that -- that was my main concern with -- you said there may be no consequence and you may very well be right. And frankly, I -- other than just wanting to move on, my main concern was in fact the 341 meeting, just so you know - - THE COURT: Well -- MR. JONAS: -- where I'm coming from. THE COURT: -- I'm glad you raised it, because as you know, the Court isn't involved in the 341 meeting scheduling or conducting the meeting or anything, so no, I didn't know that, and if it's on the docket, then I missed\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n it. So that's -- whatever. Attorney Claiborn, is the U.S. Trustee's office willing to continue the 341 meeting pending the ruling on this decision? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I believe so, but I would need to confirm and get actual authority to make that statement. THE COURT: Okay. All right. I would appreciate it if you would do that. I think it's a fair point that Attorney Jonas raises, and I don't think that if the decision isn't rendered tomorrow, which it might not be, that the debtor should have to go forward with a 341 meeting at this point. I mean, waiting another week shouldn't matter, at least from the Court's perspective. Maybe everybody else disagrees with that but -- and so tell me if you do, but as I said to you, if this order -- if this decision doesn't issue tomorrow, it's going to issue early next week. It's not -- we're not -- I'm not raising this issue about the record to stop that issue -- that decision from being issued. So, Attorney Claiborn -- MR. JONAS: Your Honor, just to -- THE COURT: -- how much time do you think you -- MR. JONAS: I'm sorry.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n THE COURT: -- would need to find out and get back to Attorney Jonas as to whether or not the 341 meeting could be continued, at least for a week? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I'm trying to communicate as we are in the midst of this hearing to see if I can get an answer. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. So what does everybody else think about this issue that I've raised on this record? Attorney Friedman? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. PAX is amendable to a -- to the 341 being postponed for a week in order to permit the Court to reach its determination. I guess our view, Your Honor, is that obviously it's important to have a good transcript and a clean transcript in light of the court's -- the issues the court's raised. I will say I've not been before a judge who is just as diligent on this as you are, and so I've never seen anybody do it and so I'm not familiar with the mechanism, but it certainly is important. I don't know, Your Honor. We did order the transcripts. I don't know if it's verboten for us to give it to other creditors or parties in interest so that they may see a copy of it so they don't have to schlep to Hartford. I certainly would be willing to.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n|    | 20                                                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>And I appreciate that.                           |\n| 2  | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>And --                                        |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>I don't know.<br>It might be,                    |\n| 4  | unfortunately.<br>That's the problem with this Judicial        |\n| 5  | Conference policy is that -- I'll let you all decide what      |\n| 6  | you want to do, but I'll tell you that the point is --         |\n| 7  | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Okay.                                         |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>-- on the docket, it says that the               |\n| 9  | transcript is locked for 90 days unless you purchase an        |\n| 10 | official transcript, or as I've been informed by the clerk     |\n| 11 | of the court, go to a clerk's office and actually review it.   |\n| 12 | And I understand, Attorney Friedman, why you're                |\n| 13 | saying what you're saying, because I would have probably       |\n| 14 | said the same thing in a case with other lawyers when I was    |\n| 15 | practicing, right?<br>But it's an --                           |\n| 16 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>I mean, Your Honor, we --                     |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>-- odd, odd situation.                           |\n| 18 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>We also might need to file it,                |\n| 19 | honestly, as an exhibit, which obviously other counsel would   |\n| 20 | be entitled to see if we're going to put an errata on.<br>So I |\n| 21 | think there may be some ways to skin the cat --                |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Right.                                           |\n| 23 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>-- which -- with your blessing.               |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Right.                                           |\n| 25 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>But --                                        |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n THE COURT: I don't think I can give my blessing. I think I can -- you can all figure out what you think -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. THE COURT: -- is appropriate. MR. FRIEDMAN: We understand, Your Honor, and we will confer. I think we share Mr. Jonas's just general concern about time. I guess what I would say is, the court can issue its decision, and obviously there's a time in which people can appeal, and maybe that time can be used for people to file any errata or to review the -- MR. GOLDMAN: You froze. THE COURT: Yeah, Attorney Friedman, you -- we lost you after you said there's -- we can use the time during the appeal to deal with the errata and then you froze. MR. FRIEDMAN: I guess it -- so can you hear me now? Am I unfrozen? THE COURT: Yes. Yes. MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. So I would submit that the court, if it's -- with whatever opinion it renders, issues an errata, and the other parties can then use the intervening time in which they have to file an appeal to meet and confer about any additional errata that the parties may propose are necessary to see if we can come to a\n\n consensual understanding as to anything. And obviously see if we can have an agreed to transcript. And if not, I guess submit to the Court any -- any areas where there are differentiations, and we're happy to undertake to put together, you know, a document which includes where the parties agree and where they may disagree, if anywhere, about what the errata ought to reflect. THE COURT: Anyone else wish to be heard on the issue? I'd like ideas, honestly. I mean, it is a very interesting situation, I think. That should be between -- MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, Irve Goldman. THE COURT: -- all cases by the way. MR. GOLDMAN: I apologize for interrupting, Your Honor. Irve Goldman for the committee. We have no objection to marking over the 341 meeting that's scheduled for Monday. In terms of a process, I was thinking maybe that if Your Honor had already done an errata sheet for the court, which I would expect would be thorough and comprehensive, but perhaps it could be circulated among the parties and that, you know, if anyone had any objection or any additions to it, they would be given a certain amount of time to do that, absent which that would become the, you know, official errata sheet so to speak.\n\n THE COURT: Well, I plan -- the way I'm going to circulate it is I'm going to put it on the docket. You know, I'm going to -- I'm going to file it on the docket and say this is what the court believes are the corrections or changes that must be made to the transcript, and then I agree, Attorney Goldman, that there would also be associated with that a time frame for people to object or submit their own errata sheets. But you know, whether or not you want to do your own review is up to you. So I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to be able -- in a position to complete and file the errata sheet until after the decision is entered, or I'm going to spend time on an errata sheet, which I don't want to do, right? I've got to get the decision entered first. But that's why I wanted to have this conference today, to tell you all in the preparation of this decision, I found a lot of issues with the -- with the transcript. Attorney Claiborn has her hand up, that I can see, so she may have something to report to us. MS. CLAIBORN: Yes, Your Honor. I can report that the U.S. Trustee is willing to continue the 341 meeting. I don't have a date to offer the court or the parties today, but I will be in communication with the parties. THE COURT: Okay. Good. Thank you very much and thank you for your quick attention to that issue.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n MS. CLAIBORN: You're welcome. THE COURT: All right. So, Attorney Jonas, you don't have to prepare your client for a continued 341 meeting on Monday. MR. JONAS: Thank you, Your Honor, and thank you to the United States Trustee's office. THE COURT: All right. Does any -- I'm going to -- unless you all have some other ideas, concerns, thoughts, I'm not going to prepare this errata sheet until after I issue the decision, but then I am going to finalize this errata sheet, put it on the docket, have some kind of time frame -- and the errata sheet's got to go to the reporter by the way. So it doesn't make sense to get it to the reporter until everybody has a chance to review it and see if they have any opposition or additional changes that should be made, because you can't make the reporter do it three times, right? We're either -- this is going to be the whole change\n\n or not. So does anyone else have any thoughts or concerns or desires to file something on their own?\n\n MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, this is Stewart Sarnoff also of -- also on behalf of PAX, and I would just say, maybe I am an optimist, but I think although our parties might have divergent views as to how they would like to see Your Honor's decision come out, my guess is that we will all\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n be able to agree that status quo is not spelled Q [sic] U-O, that a meeting that took place in the morning did not take place in the evening, and that by and large we're not going to be advocating the modification of the errata sheet, but just sort of confirming like, of course that's the right spelling and it shouldn't be -- you know, it shouldn't be court, it should be core.\n\n And my guess is that we'll all be able to come up harmoniously with an errata sheet that will accurately reflect what occurred on that date, and this will be less of a problem hopefully than perhaps we're envisioning it to be.\n\n THE COURT: I don't see it as a problem. I see it as accuracy, and I don't -- and I understand that you all might agree and that's great.\n\n But you're not going to be deciding the appeal and -- or -- and none of the people here on this call are going to be part of the deliberations on the appeal when the, whatever court it is, has to review the transcript of that evidentiary hearing.\n\n So my point is I'd think there are some -- I understand your point about status quo, but that's not the only problem with the transcript. And that -- and that shouldn't exist regardless. That's what you pay a transcriber for, right?\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 479 Filed 06/21/22 Entered 06/21/22 11:05:19 Page 26 of 28\n\n And if it was a deposition, you would have gone through it with your -- with the witness and you would have filled out an errata sheet. So it's really not -- I think the accuracy of the record is paramount and I don't want a court reviewing this -- a record of our court making a decision based upon an inaccurate record, because as you all know, the intricacies of what we deal with with the bankruptcy code and rules, you know, have to come across clear and accurate or there might be an incorrect ruling. So is there any -- anyone else wish to be heard? And if not, I'll leave you all alone, but I just wanted you to understand where I was coming from. MS. CALLARI: Your Honor, this is Attorney Callari. Just wanted to clarify my understanding, because I do agree that what counsel have said. I think what I heard is Your Honor will file the errata sheet after the decision, whenever that is and then we can comment. I agree with everybody that I think the counsel can work together to respond one time or not at all, but we all agree. But I also want to note, I am not aware of any limitation on counsel who ordered the transcript from sharing it in that as Mr. Friedman says, if for some reason he had to file the transcript in connection with something, there's nothing prohibiting him from doing that.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n So we will work with them (indiscernible) information than you want. I'm just saying that I don't think this will be an issue, so I'm just echoing everybody and we'll look for your errata sheet. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? (No audible response) THE COURT: Okay. Well, then you will get the decision on the pending motion, which we had the evidentiary hearing, as soon as possible. Possibly tomorrow. And if not, it will be early next week. And then after that, I'll deal with the errata sheet. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay? MR. JONAS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you -- MS. CALLARI: Thank you, Your Honor. MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you. THE COURT: -- all for making yourselves available on short notice. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. THE COURT: Thanks to the United States Trustee's office for continuing the 341 meeting during this process. Okay? MR. JONAS: Thank you.\n\n|    | 28                                                          |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>That concludes the hearing      |\n| 2  | today.<br>Court is adjourned.                               |\n| 3  | THE CLERK:<br>Court is adjourned.                           |\n| 4  | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>Thank you.                         |\n| 5  | (Proceedings concluded at 2:42 p.m.)                        |\n| 6  | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and          |\n| 7  | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that |\n| 8  | the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official     |\n| 9  | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above  |\n| 10 | entitled matter.                                            |\n| 11 |                                                             |\n| 12 |                                                             |\n| 13 | June 17, 2022                                               |\n| 14 | Christine Fiore, CERT                                       |\n| 15 | Transcriber                                                 |\n| 16 |                                                             |\n| 17 |                                                             |\n| 18 |                                                             |\n| 19 |                                                             |\n| 20 |                                                             |\n| 21 |                                                             |\n| 22 |                                                             |\n| 23 |                                                             |\n| 24 |                                                             |\n| 25 |                                                             |\n|    |                                                             |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n关于\n\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n\n2022年6月9日\n\n债务人。\n\n为讨论证据听证会正式庭审记录而作出的排期命令庭审记录\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国联邦破产法官面前举行的证据听证会正式庭审记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：\n\nJEFFREY L. JONAS, ESQ.（杰弗里·L·乔纳斯律师）\nBrown Rudnick, LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）\nSeven Times Square（时代广场7号）\nNew York, NY 10036（纽约州纽约市 10036）\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：\n\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼律师）\nSTUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·M·萨尔诺夫律师）\nLAURA ARONSSON, ESQ.（劳拉·阿伦松律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥梅尔文尼与迈尔斯律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower（时代广场大厦）\n7 Times Square（时代广场7号）\nNew York, NY 10036（纽约州纽约市 10036）\n\nANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.（安妮卡·史密斯律师）\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n28 Trumbull Street（特朗布尔街28号）\nHartford, CT 06103（康涅狄格州哈特福德 06103）\n\n庭审程序由电子录音记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402（研究大道4号，402室）\nShelton, Connecticut 06484（康涅狄格州谢尔顿 06484）\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员续：\n\n代表债权人委员会：\n\nIRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·戈德曼律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street（主街850号）\nBridgeport, CT（康涅狄格州布里奇波特）\n\n代表债权人 Rui Ma（马锐）：\n\nCAROLLYNN CALLARI, ESQ.（卡罗琳·卡拉里律师）\nCallari Partners LLC（卡拉里合伙人有限责任公司）\n1 Rockefeller Plaza（洛克菲勒广场1号）10层\nNew York, NY（纽约州纽约市）\n10020-2073\n\nKRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯滕·梅休律师）\nMcElroy Deutsch（麦克尔罗伊·多伊奇律师事务所）\n225 Liberty Street（自由街225号）\n36层\nNew York, NY（纽约州纽约市）\n\n代表美国受托人：\n\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍利·L·克莱伯恩律师）\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building（贾伊莫联邦大楼）\n150 Court Street, Room 302（法院街150号，302室）\nNew Haven, CT（康涅狄格州纽黑文）\n\n代表债权人 Logan Cheng（程洛根）：\n\nJAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ.（杰伊·马歇尔·沃尔曼律师）\nRandazza Legal Group, PLLC（兰达扎法律集团专业有限责任公司）\n100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor（珍珠街100号，14层）\nHartford, CT（康涅狄格州哈特福德）\n\n代表债权人 Hong Kong International（香港国际）：\n\nAARON ROMNEY, ESQ.（亚伦·罗姆尼律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒专业公司）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor（米德尔街10号，15层）\nBridgeport, CT（康涅狄格州布里奇波特）\n\n（庭审于下午2时04分开始。）\n\n书记员：案号 2022-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法院：好的。下午好。请各位为记录在案说明出庭身份，先由债务人的律师开始？\n\nJONAS 律师：我是 Jeff Jonas（杰夫·乔纳斯），来自 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所），代表债务人。\n\n法院：下午好。PAX 的律师呢？\n\nFRIEDMAN 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼），来自 O'Melveny & Myers（奥梅尔文尼与迈尔斯律师事务所）。我相信 Robinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）的 Smith 女士，以及 O'Melveny & Myers（奥梅尔文尼与迈尔斯律师事务所）的 Aronsson 女士和 Sarnoff 先生也在场。\n\n法院：下午好。谢谢。\n\nFRIEDMAN 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：债权人委员会的律师？\n\nGOLDMAN 律师：是的。下午好，法官阁下。Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼），来自 Pullman and Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所），代表债权人委员会。\n\n法院：下午好。请美国受托人办公室发言？\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：下午好，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn（霍利·克莱伯恩）代表美国受托人。\n\n法院：下午好。还有债权人 Rui Ma（马锐）的律师；我可能无法念出每个人的名字，但我可以看到两位律师均已出席。请为记录在案说明你们的出庭身份？\n\nCALLARI 律师：下午好，法官阁下。Kris，你先请。\n\nMAYHEW 律师：你先请。\n\nCALLARI 律师：下午好，法官阁下。Carollynn Callari（卡罗琳·卡拉里），来自 Callari Partners（卡拉里合伙人公司），与我的同事 Kristen Mayhew（克里斯滕·梅休）一同出席。谢谢。\n\n法院：下午好。还有债权人一方，Wolman 律师，很抱歉，我此刻手头没有您当事人的姓名；请为记录在案说明您的出庭身份及您当事人的姓名？\n\nWOLMAN 律师：是的。下午好，法官阁下。我是 Randazza Legal Group（兰达扎法律集团）的 Jay Wolman（杰伊·沃尔曼），代表债权人 Logan Cheng（程洛根）。\n\n法院：谢谢。好的。是否有任何我尚未——尚未为记录在案确认的出庭人员？\n\nROMNEY 律师：有，法官阁下。Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼），Zeisler and Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所），代表 Hong Kong International（香港国际）。\n\n法院：谢谢。Romney 先生，我刚才一时没有看到您，不过现在看到了，所以非常感谢。\n\nROMNEY 律师：不客气，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。再次感谢各位\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 479，提交日期 06/21/22，录入日期 06/21/22 11:05:19，第 4 页，共 28 页\n\n今天下午抽出时间参加本次状态会议。\n\n各位都知道，法院正在就驳回动议，或作为替代方案，就我们于 5月25日举行证据听证会的第 11 章受托人动议的共同加入，拟定裁决。\n\n本案的两方当事人，即债务人和 PAX，订购了该听证会的正式庭审记录，即5月25日的该次证据听证会；法院能够查阅该庭审记录，而其他人不能，以协助作出法院正在拟定的任何裁决。\n\n显然，正在拟定的裁决涉及驳回动议，或者作为替代方案，任命一名第 11 章受托人。\n\n因此，我们举行了听证会，我开始审阅庭审记录，并注意到其中有几处——我不想说是错误，因为那是法庭记录员听到音频的方式，所以未必是错误——但我认为该庭审记录中有些内容需要更正。我的意思是，这是正式庭审记录。\n\n我们已经讨论过这个问题，实际上自本案开始以来我们一直在讨论；我必须确保，由于破产法院的记录仅为音频记录，当某项内容被转录并形成正式庭审记录时，如本案现在所具有的正式庭审记录，我们需要确保其准确，因为如果它不准确，那么它对我们所有人都没有真正的帮助。所以我就此问题与法院书记员进行了交谈，因为我有些担心，似乎并不存在供法院或其他任何一方使用的程序——除当事人之外；嗯，我甚至不知道订购庭审记录的当事人是否知道——可以确保如果记录中存在错误或需要更正的内容，能够通过某种程序将该等更正提请记录员注意，然后制作一份新的正式庭审记录。现在我将向各位说明我的疑虑，从第一页开始，即庭审记录第3页，正式庭审记录写道，庭审于晚上10时05分开始。嗯，我认为我们没有任何人在5月25日晚上10时05分在这里，所以这本身就是一个问题。而且，正如破产法院作出的每一份裁决都是如此，破产法院作出的裁决或命令相关的任何程序记录，均可能被上诉。我当然不希望本案被上诉\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 479，提交日期 06/21/22，录入日期 06/21/22 11:05:19，第 6 页，共 28 页\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n\n而审查该案的法院，不论是谁，说，他们在晚上10时05分开始庭审？我的意思是，这毫无道理。它不准确。这并非对5月25日所发生情况的准确反映。所以，这是第一点；我认为在第一页上看到这个很有意思。\n\n此外，庭审记录中有若干处记录员写的是“无法辨认”。嗯，我不确定那是否完全无法辨认。我的意思是，也许是，但如果我们所有人都听一听，我们或许可以理解记录员无法听懂的那个词是什么。我认为这是一个相关的顾虑。\n\n此外，庭审记录中有几处当事人谈到“status quo（现状）”，而记录员将 quo 拼写为大写——我马上告诉你。我给你们举个例子。大写 K-U-O，并且在整份庭审记录中大约出现了15次。这令我担忧。\n\n我不认为——我的意思是，我不会假定某个上诉法院在上诉审查时会理解那应当是 status quo，Q-U-O。我认为这不公平。\n\n还有几次 PAX 的律师说了“there's a through line（存在一条贯穿始终的主线）”这几个词，而记录员将其拼写为 T-H-R-U。我不知道那是否是——我认为当时是您，Friedman 律师，正在发言——那是否是您所说的，但我甚至不知道 T-H-R-U 是什么意思。我认为它不是一个词。如果它是一个词，那对我而言是个新词。庭审记录中还有另一处讨论的是破产案件中的分配质量，而记录员将其转录为“a quality in distribution（分配中的一种质量）”。同样，不准确。记录员似乎正确记录了当事人在其辩论中援引的许多案件名称，但并非每一个案件名称，也并非每一个案件名称的拼写。再次强调，如果我们——而且我将坚持庭审记录必须准确。我希望确保所有这些引用都准确无误，以便于如果发生上诉，审查此事的任何人都能准确理解本院实际发生的情况。有一处——有一种情形，记录员——有人提到 Jevic（杰维克），其拼写为 G-E-V-I-C，而不是 J-E-V-I-C。同样，这——对于在上诉审查中查找该案件的法院而言可能具有实质性意义。你知道，我不能想当然地认为上诉法院会如何处理这个问题。还有一种情形，庭审记录提到人们正在讨论的法规，\n\n包括法院在内，157(b)(2)(B)，但其被引作 156(b)(2)(B)，并且还将 28 写作 128。我认为这是需要修正的问题。有一处只是一个具体的打字错误。其写作 in front, F-O，而不是 in front of。存在一个——那里——你们可能会认为——我并不是说你们确实如此认为，但你们可能会认为，哦，好吧，某人能弄明白这一点，但我不从事假定某人能弄明白这一点的工作。我的工作是确保记录准确。因此，我询问了法院书记员；虽然会向所有出席听证会的当事人发出通知，我认为坦率地说该通知发给的人不止这些，但至少会发给出席听证会的当事人，一份关于提交庭审记录以及限制和删节期限的通知；该通知应当仅——尽管我认为它表述得不够清楚——适用于个人身份可识别信息及其他有人可能主张不应成为公开记录一部分的信息。我已经与书记员办公室讨论过修订该通知和程序，因为我认为其中的含义一点也不清楚，而且我不知道你们是否有人甚至读过它。也许你们读过，但我读过，而且我并不真正理解它的意思。它是庭审记录的一部分——与庭审记录一同附送——但显然即使庭审记录未送达，仍会向每个人送达。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n\n庭审记录的问题是，根据 United States Judicial Conference（美国司法会议）的政策，该记录被锁定90天；美国司法会议作出庭审记录应当锁定90天的决定似乎有若干理由，除非有人——你知道，除非有人订购该庭审记录，如债务人和 PAX 所做的那样，因为这保护了转录员及转录员的业务；因为正如我在本案中已经对各位说过无数次的那样，国会并未授权、批准或拨款给破产法院，以让一名转录员保存本案的记录。\n\n法院书记员已告知我，在本次电话会议上的、未审阅——未订购庭审记录、未正式订购正式庭审记录的人员，若要在庭审记录制作之日起90天内审阅该庭审记录——据我理解，该日期是5月31日——唯一的方式是前往位于 Hartford（哈特福德）、New Haven（纽黑文）或 Bridgeport（布里奇波特）的破产法院书记员办公室并在那里阅读。你们能做的另一件事就是订购\n\n庭审记录文本。因此——我不知道对此的答案是什么。我只是在向你们说明现状。而且，当法院发现庭审记录文本存在问题时，法院似乎也没有任何程序可以予以更正，可能只有《联邦破产程序规则》第9024条，该条纳入了《联邦民事诉讼规则》第60条，其中规定，如果法院发现错误，可以予以更正。但在未让你们都知悉我认为存在错误的情况下，我不会更正该错误，对吗？否则，这样做并不太合理，因为你们可能不同意存在错误，并且应当有机会查阅庭审记录文本，以判断你们是否认为存在错误。而我们似乎并没有为此建立任何程序。坦率地说，我也不知道任何法院是否有这样的程序。如果你们知道有任何现行程序，请告诉我，因为显然我们没有。\n\n因此，我将要——我将告诉你们，我在这份庭审记录文本中看到若干问题，而我们的书记官办公室已经尝试制定，并且已经制定了一份可能成为——虽尚非正式地方法院表格——但可供任何一方当事人用于表明其认为正式庭审记录文本存在问题的勘误表。\n\n正式庭审记录文本。\n\n现在，如果已经提起上诉，上诉规则——8000系列规则已尝试处理这一问题，但它们实际上并未完全处理，因为它——8000中规定——现在我得打开看看。抱歉。我不记得是8还是9。我认为是9。8009。是的。《记录的更正或修改》，第8009(e)条，其中谈到，如果就案卷记录是否准确反映破产法院中发生的事项产生分歧，该分歧必须提交破产法院并由其裁决。当然，这以人们阅读所有内容并将其提交破产法院为前提。它也没有说明，如果破产法院发现案卷记录存在问题，可以采取何种措施。但那是在存在上诉的情况下。不存在上诉，至少目前不存在，因为没有任何可上诉的事项，因为我尚未作出裁定。因此，我认为目前我能够这样做的唯一依据，是依据第60条关于书记员错误的更正规定。法院可以在判决书、命令或案卷记录的其他部分中发现书记员错误或因疏忽或遗漏而产生的错误时予以更正。法院可以依动议自行作出，或不经通知自行作出。但是，在上诉已经\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 479 提交日期 06/21/22 登记日期 06/21/22 11:05:19 第 13 页，共 28 页\n\n登记在案且上诉正在审理期间，此类错误只能经上诉法院许可后予以更正。明白吗？所以，我不知道各位对此有何看法，但我——这份庭审记录文本中有些内容我希望得到更正，我将与你们分享全部内容。我已经与你们分享了其中一些。我没有分享这些内容所在的确切页码和行号。庭审记录文本中还有另一处——还有一处我当时谈到第157(b)(2)(B)条，我说这不是核心程序，C-O-R-E，却被转录成了法院程序。我认为这实际上是重大差别，尤其是当上诉法院审阅时。他们完全不会知道那里应当是“核心”，而不是“法院”。还有其他几个——有一处有人说了“made”，说的是“made first”这几个词，却被转录为“May first”，即像月份 May，再加一个带有 S-T 后缀的数字1。因此，我不知道各位希望如何推进，但我将——我很乐意听取你们的想法，但我认为我们都需要审阅这份庭审记录文本，并形成一个程序，据此向所有人提交我们认为应作出的更改，然后再继续推进。我将作出这些更改，不论——并且\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 479 提交日期 06/21/22 登记日期 06/21/22 11:05:19 第 14 页，共 28 页\n\n你们显然可以不同意，但我将这样做，因为依我看来，案卷记录并不准确。因此，我先请你，Attorney Jonas（乔纳斯律师）发言，因为你代表债务人，看看你对我刚才所说是否有任何想法。\n\n乔纳斯律师：谢谢您，法官阁下，显然也感谢您对所有这些事项如此认真负责。坦率地说，您比我更认真负责，因为我确实读了它，也注意到了您提到的一些事项，但实际上并未——并未考虑，您知道，下一步。我就坦率地说说债务人的立场。我们一直期待着——我认为明天是第——我认为是第15天，因此我们显然一直期待能有一项裁定。我们当然希望案件会被驳回，事情可以继续推进。所以，我只是担心，再次自私地说，您所建议的任何事项——我无法对此表示异议，您百分之百正确，而且如我所说，我们注意到了许多相同的问题，但我只是有点——我想我忽略了它们。23 因此，我只是想知道，我是否应当担心您所建议的事项可能影响作出裁定的时间。这坦率地说就是我的问题，所以——\n\n法庭：嗯，这是个公平的问题。这是个公平的问题。我可以告诉你，如果会有影响，影响也将极小。这个——乔纳斯律师：好的。法庭：我正在积极处理这项裁定。明白吗？乔纳斯律师：好的。法庭：并不是——我并不是建议我们建立某种会阻止裁定作出的程序。裁定是否会在明天作出，那可能有点——可能无法实现，只是取决于——今天上午直到本次听证会之前，我们都在法庭上待了一整天，这就是为什么我直到2:00才举行本次听证会，所以我失去了一些原本希望拥有的时间，因此我——我不能说——关于这15天，有趣的是：第一，乔纳斯律师，我同意你，明天就是期限。第二，显然即使法庭未在明天前作出裁定，也没有真正的后果，但我仍在努力这样做。我也不想拖延此事。Attorney Claiborn（克莱伯恩律师）在其陈述中是正确的——或者说她作出了许多陈述，但她说过，本案需要迅速作出裁定。因此，我并非提出此事来让期限停止计算或诸如此类。我不知道我是否会在明天作出裁定，但我非常确信，如果不是明天，也会在其后几天内作出。因此，提出此事并非为了扰乱任何时间安排。明白吗？提出此事是因为我希望案卷记录准确，而且我——在我们于25日举行听证会，即证据听证会时，你们知道，我们谈到——所有人都大致谈到——不是所有人。我的意思是，当时笼统提到过上诉。嗯，这件事使我开始思考我处理的每一个案件，对吗？不只是本案。是每一个案件：破产案件中的案卷记录究竟有多准确，以及是否有人确实为此目的审阅它。明白吗？所以——这是个公平的问题。我是否试图在明天前作出裁定？是的，当然如此。我一直在处理这项裁定。我会在明天作出裁定吗？我不知道。但如果我未在明天作出裁定，也不会拖延很久。会再多几——一两天，您知道。确保我不犯排版错误。确保我的判例引用准确。确保我不会把“made first”写成“May 1st”。所以——乔纳斯律师：而唯一——法庭：请说。乔纳斯律师：谢谢。是的。谢谢您，法官阁下。我的意思是，只是从——只是从非常、非常实际的角度再稍微解释一下自己。有一个从周一延续至今的341会议。法庭：哦。我不知道。好的。乔纳斯律师：而且——是的。这就是我想告知您的原因。显然，如果UST愿意将其延期——如果那个——那将至少消除这一具体担忧。坦率地说，我们不希望——无论从Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）的立场，还是——我们不希望不必要地耗费资源，所以我们——但我们显然需要让债务人做好准备，并出席341会议等等。因此，您知道，需要投入相当多的时间和精力——这就是我对您所说可能没有后果一事的主要担忧，而您很可能是正确的。坦率地说，除了只是希望继续推进之外，我的主要担忧实际上是341会议，只是让您知道——法庭：嗯——乔纳斯律师：——我的考虑所在。法庭：——我很高兴你提出此事，因为如你所知，法庭不参与341会议的安排或主持，或任何相关事项，所以，不，我不知道此事，如果它已列入案卷，那么我遗漏了\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 记录与转录服务公司）\n\n它。所以，那——不管怎样。克莱伯恩律师，美国受托人办公室是否愿意在本项裁定作出之前延期举行341会议？\n\n克莱伯恩律师：法官阁下，我相信可以，但我需要确认并获得实际授权，才能作出该陈述。\n\n法庭：好的。好。我将感谢你这样做。我认为乔纳斯律师提出的是一个合理观点，而且我认为，如果裁定未在明天作出——而它可能不会——债务人在此时不应被要求继续进行341会议。我的意思是，至少从法庭的角度来看，再等一周应当无关紧要。或许其他所有人不同意，但——如果不同意，请告诉我，但如我对你们所说，如果该命令——如果该裁定不在明天作出，将在下周初作出。并不是——我们不是——我提出案卷记录问题并非要阻止该问题——该裁定作出。所以，克莱伯恩律师——乔纳斯律师：法官阁下，只是——法庭：——你认为你——乔纳斯律师：抱歉。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 记录与转录服务公司）\n\n法庭：——需要多少时间才能查明并回复乔纳斯律师，341会议是否可以延期，至少延期一周？\n\n克莱伯恩律师：法官阁下，在本次听证会进行期间，我正尝试联系相关人员，看看能否获得答复。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。好。那么，大家对我就这份案卷记录提出的问题有什么看法？Attorney Friedman（弗里德曼律师）？\n\n弗里德曼律师：是，法官阁下。PAX（PAX）愿意将341会议延期一周，以便法庭作出裁定。我想，我们的观点是，法官阁下，鉴于法庭提出的问题，显然拥有一份良好的、清晰的庭审记录文本很重要。我会说，我从未在一位如您这般勤勉处理此事的法官面前出庭过，因此我从未见过任何人这样做，所以我不熟悉相关机制，但这当然很重要。我不知道，法官阁下。我们确实订购了庭审记录文本。我不知道我们是否被禁止将其提供给其他债权人或利害关系方，以便他们可以查看副本，而无需辛苦跑到Hartford（哈特福德）。我当然愿意这样做。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 记录与誊写服务公司）\n1　法庭：\n对此我表示感谢。\n2　FRIEDMAN 先生：\n而且——\n3　法庭：\n我不知道。\n不幸的是，\n4　可能会这样。这项司法会议\n5　政策的问题在于——我会让各位决定\n6　你们想怎么做，但我要告诉各位，关键在于——\n7　FRIEDMAN 先生：\n好的。\n8　法庭：\n——案卷上写明，该\n9　庭审记录被锁定 90 天，除非您购买\n10　正式庭审记录，或者如我从法院书记官处\n11　获悉，前往书记官办公室实际查阅该记录。\n12　我理解，Friedman 律师，您为何\n13　如此表述，因为如果我在执业期间处理一个有其他律师参与的案件，\n14　我可能也会\n15　说同样的话，对吧？但这是一种——\n16　FRIEDMAN 先生：\n我的意思是，法官阁下，我们——\n17　法庭：\n——奇怪、奇怪的情形。\n18　FRIEDMAN 先生：\n坦率地说，我们也可能需要\n19　将其作为证物提交，如果我们要提交勘误，\n20　其他律师显然有权查阅。因此我\n21　认为可能有一些变通办法——\n22　法庭：\n是的。\n23　FRIEDMAN 先生：\n——如果得到您的许可。\n24　法庭：\n是的。\n25　FRIEDMAN 先生：\n但是——\n\n法庭：我认为我不能给予许可。我想我可以——各位可以自行判断你们认为——FRIEDMAN 先生：好的。法庭：——什么是适当的。FRIEDMAN 先生：我们理解，法官阁下，我们将进行协商。我认为我们与 Jonas 先生一样，普遍关切时间问题。我想说的是，法庭可以作出裁决，而显然人们可以在一定期限内提出上诉，也许这段时间可供人们提交任何勘误或审阅——GOLDMAN 先生：您卡住了。法庭：是的，Friedman 律师，您——在您说到存在——我们可以在上诉期间处理勘误，然后您就卡住了。FRIEDMAN 先生：我想——那么您现在能听到我吗？我恢复了吗？法庭：是。是。FRIEDMAN 先生：好的。因此，我谨陈述，法庭如就其作出的任何意见书发布一份勘误表，其他各方即可利用其提出上诉之前的这段期间，就各方可能提议且认为必要的任何额外勘误进行会商，以确定我们能否就任何事项达成一致意见。当然，也可看看我们是否能形成一份经一致同意的庭审记录。若不能，我想可向法庭提交任何——任何存在差异之处；我们乐意着手编制一份文件，其中载明各方一致之处，以及各方就勘误表应反映何种内容可能存在分歧之处，如有。法庭：还有人希望就此问题发言吗？坦率地说，我希望听到一些建议。我的意思是，我认为这确实是一个非常有意思的情形。这应当适用于——GOLDMAN 先生：法官阁下，我是 Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼）。法庭：——所有案件，顺便说一句。GOLDMAN 先生：抱歉打断您，法官阁下。我是代表委员会的 Irve Goldman。我们不反对将定于周一举行的 341 会议延期。关于程序，我在想，也许如果法官阁下已经为法庭制作了一份勘误表，我预期它会是全面且周详的，但或许可以将其传阅给各方；如果任何人对此有异议或需要增补，可给予其一定时间完成该事项；如无人提出，则该表将成为所谓的正式勘误表。\n\n法庭：嗯，我计划——我将通过以下方式传阅：我会将其提交至案卷。您知道，我会——我会将其登记于案卷，并说明这是法庭认为必须对庭审记录作出的更正或修改；我同意，Goldman 律师，与此相应也应设定一个期限，供各方提出异议或提交其自身的勘误表。但您是否想自行审阅，由您决定。因此，我不会这样做。我将无法——在裁决录入之后才有条件完成并提交勘误表，否则我就要花时间处理一份勘误表，而我不想这样做，对吧？我必须先将裁决录入。但这正是我今天希望召开此次会议的原因：在准备该裁决时，我发现庭审记录存在许多——许多问题。我看到 Claiborn 律师举手了，因此她可能有事项向我们报告。CLAIBORN 女士：是的，法官阁下。我可以报告，美国受托人（United States Trustee）愿意将 341 会议延期。我今天无法向法庭或各方提供日期，但我将与各方保持沟通。法庭：好的。很好。非常感谢，也感谢您迅速关注该问题。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：不客气。法庭：好的。那么，Jonas 律师，您不必为您的当事人准备周一继续举行的 341 会议。JONAS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下，也感谢美国受托人办公室。法庭：好的。是否有任何——我将——除非各位还有其他想法、关切或意见，否则我不会在作出裁决之前准备这份勘误表；但随后我会完成该勘误表，将其登记于案卷，并设定某种期限——顺便说一句，勘误表必须交给速记员。因此，在每个人都有机会审阅并查看其是否有异议或应作出的额外修改之前，将其交给速记员没有意义，因为您不能让速记员做三次，对吧？我们要么——这将是全部修改，要么不是。因此，还有人有任何想法、关切，或者希望自行提交某些材料吗？\n\nSARNOFF 先生：法官阁下，我是 Stewart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），同样代表 PAX。我只想说，也许我是个乐观主义者，但我认为，尽管我们各方可能对于希望法官阁下的裁决如何作出存在不同观点，但我猜想我们大家都将能够——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n——一致认为，status quo 并非拼作 Q [原文如此] U-O，上午举行的会议并非在晚上举行，而且总体而言，我们不会主张修改勘误表，而只是确认，例如，这当然是正确拼写，它不应当是——您知道，它不应当是 court，而应当是 core。\n\n我猜想我们将都能和谐地形成一份准确反映当日实际情况的勘误表，而且希望这将比我们目前所设想的问题要小。\n\n法庭：我不认为这是一个问题。我认为这是准确性，而且我不——我理解各位可能会达成一致，那很好。\n\n但你们不会裁决上诉，而且——或者——本次通话中的任何人，都不会在无论哪个法院必须审阅该证据听证会庭审记录时参与上诉审议。\n\n所以我的观点是，我认为其中存在一些——我理解您关于 status quo 的观点，但那并非庭审记录唯一的问题。而且——无论如何，那种问题本不应存在。这正是你们付钱给誊写员的原因，对吧？\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\nCase 22-50073 Doc 479 Filed 06/21/22 Entered 06/21/22 11:05:19 Page 26 of 28\n\n如果这是一次证言录取，您本会与您——与证人一起审阅，并填写一份勘误表。因此，这实际上并非——我认为记录的准确性至关重要，我不希望审阅本庭该记录的法院基于不准确的记录作出裁决，因为正如各位所知，我们处理的《破产法典》和规则中的细微复杂之处，必须清晰、准确地呈现，否则可能作出错误裁定。因此，是否有——还有人希望发言？如没有，我就不再打扰各位，但我只是希望各位理解我的出发点。CALLARI 女士：法官阁下，我是 Callari 律师。我只是想澄清我的理解，因为我同意律师们所说的内容。我认为我听到的是，法官阁下将在裁决之后提交勘误表，无论那是什么时候，然后我们可以发表意见。我同意大家的看法，我认为律师们可以共同合作，一次作出回应或完全不作回应，但我们都同意。不过，我还想指出，我并不知道对于订购庭审记录的律师分享该记录存在任何限制；正如 Friedman 先生所说，如果他因某种原因必须就某事项提交庭审记录，并没有任何规定禁止他这样做。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n因此，我们将与他们合作（听不清）比您想要的更多信息。我只是说，我认为这不会成为问题，所以我只是附和大家，我们将等待您的勘误表。法庭：好的。谢谢。还有人希望发言吗？（无可听见的回应）法庭：好的。那么，各位将尽快收到就未决动议作出的裁决，我们已经就该动议举行了证据听证会。可能是明天。如不是，也会在下周初。随后，我将处理勘误表。身份不明的发言者：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：好的？JONAS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢——CALLARI 女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。CLAIBORN 女士：谢谢。法庭：——各位在短时间通知后仍能腾出时间。身份不明的发言者：谢谢。法庭：感谢美国受托人办公室在此过程中将 341 会议延期。好的？JONAS 先生：谢谢。\n1　法庭：\n好的。今天的听证会\n2　至此结束。法庭休庭。\n3　书记官：\n法庭休庭。\n4　身份不明的发言者：\n谢谢。\n5　（程序于下午 2:42 结束。）\n6　本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的誊写员及\n7　认证电子记录员和誊写员，特此证明，\n8　上述内容系根据上述\n9　案件程序的官方电子录音制作的正确庭审记录。\n\n13　June 17, 2022\n14　Christine Fiore, CERT\n15　誊写员","key_entities":["Je","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":6346,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-06-21 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-06-21","updated_at":"2026-08-23 19:11:08"}