{"id":"court_ctb_610_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":610,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2022-07-26","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 \\* July 21, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: DYLAN P. KLETTER, ESQ. Brown Rudnick, LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 ERIC HENZY, ESQ. AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For HK International Funds STEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ. Investments (USA) Limited, Zeisler & Zeisler LLC: 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund, L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 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\nAPPEARANCES Cont'd: For the Creditor, Pacific PATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ. Asia Alliance Opportunity Robinson & Cole LLP Fund, L.P.: 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street, 8th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Rui Ma, KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Zheng Wu and Weican Meng: McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter 30 Jeliff Lane Southport, CT 06890 CAROLLYNN H.G. CALLARI, ESQ. Law firm of Callari Partners One Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Fl. New York, NY 10020 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: DOUGLAS S. SKALKA, ESQ. PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 3 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 10:06 a.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good morning. If we could have appearances for the record starting with the debtor's counsel, please. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, for Ho Wan Kwok, Eric Henzy, of Zeisler & Zeisler. THE COURT: Hold on just one second. Where's Mr. Baldiga or someone from -- MR. KLETTER: Hi. Good morning. Dylan Kletter, from Brown Rudnick, here to deal with the motion to withdraw as counsel. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. And who else? I'm sorry, sir. Go ahead. MR. ROMNEY: Aaron Romney, Zeisler & Zeisler, also for the debtor, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. KINDSETH: And Stephen Kindseth for the debtor, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Go right ahead, Counsel. MR. DESPINS: Good morning, Your Honor. Nice to meet you in person. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Despins. I'm sorry.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 4 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 4 We only did see each other on Zoom, so I didn't meet you in person before today, so welcome. MR. SKALKA: Good morning, Your Honor. Douglas Skalka, of Newbury, Pepi and Monteith, as proposed local counsel for the Chapter 11 trustee. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Attorney Skalka, I cannot hear you. MR. SKALKA: I am sorry. THE COURT: That's okay. If you could say that again, please. MR. SKALKA: Yes, Your Honor. Douglas Skalka, Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, as proposed local counsel for the Chapter 11 trustee. MR. LINSEY: And Patrick Linsey, also Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, local counsel for the trustee, Your Honor. Good morning. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. SKALKA: Good morning. MS. CLAIBORN: Good morning. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. FRIEDMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Peter Friedman, from O'Melveny & Meyers, on behalf of Pacific Alliance Group. THE CLERK: I'm sorry, Attorney Friedman, I can't\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 5 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 5 hear you. MR. FRIEDMAN: I'm sorry. THE COURT: It's kind of hard because we only have a few microphones and we have a lot of people. So, I'm sorry. MR. FRIEDMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. It's Peter Friedman, from O'Melveny & Meyers, on behalf of Pacific Asia Alliance. I'm joined by Mr. Sarnoff. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. FRIEDMAN: And Mr. Birney from the Robinson & Cole firm, our Connecticut counsel, is also here. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. GOLDMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, representing the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good morning. MS. MAYHEW: Good morning, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew, McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter, on behalf of creditors Rui Ma, Zheng Wu and Weican Meng. And with me is co-counsel Carollyn Callari. THE COURT: Good morning to both of you. Okay. The Court scheduled a status conference today in accordance with the memorandum of decision denying the motion to dismiss without prejudice and appointing a Chapter 11 trustee.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 6 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 6\n\n That memorandum of decision indicated that within 14 days of the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee that a status conference would be held so that the Chapter 11 trustee could report to the Court on where things stand from the Chapter 11 trustee's perspective and to also talk about specific issues that the Chapter 11 trustee may be addressing, reviewing, analyzing and to give the Court some idea of where you think, Mr. Despins, we're heading with regard to this case.\n\n I also set the status conference because there was a flurry of papers filed after the appointment that -- the order appointing you, Mr. Despins, about your firm's application -- your application to employ your firm, Paul Hastings, and then also the motion to withdraw attorney filed by Brown Rudnick, which was filed after the order entered appointing Mr. Despins.\n\n So I would like to hear from you, Mr. Despins, first about the status of what you've been able to do, what you would -- what you're intending to do, what the next steps might in this case.\n\n We will address the application insofar as to discuss at least the application to employ your firm.\n\n And then we will discuss the motion to withdraw as counsel -- the debtor's counsel who's been involved in the case since the beginning, Brown Rudnick. Okay?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 7 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 7 So, Mr. Despins, if you would proceed, please. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: And if you'd like to come forward. And the other thing, Mr. Despins, if you -- if you want at any time, if it would be helpful to you at any time, for the Court to pull up any pleadings that you need to look at, you can just let us know and the courtroom deputy can do that for you. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. So we have a presentation for the Court. THE COURT: Please. MR. DESPINS: I expect that it would take no more than 15 minutes, but we have a visual aid, meaning that -- in written form -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: -- that would help the Court in following the presentation. So if we could, distribute -- we have copies for everyone in the courtroom and for -- THE COURT: Sure. That would be great if you would do that. And then we can -- we can mark the presentation as Trustee Exhibit 1. (Trustee written presentation copy marked Trustee Exhibit 1.) MR. DESPINS: Yeah. I want to be clear, this is not evidence. It's just a work plan --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 8 of 116\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
8 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Understood. |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
It's just demonstrative, but it's |\n| 4 | something that will help the Court, and we can put it in the |\n| 5 | record.
Okay? |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
Absolutely, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | And if -- Your Honor, would you like us to file it |\n| 8 | as well? |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
No.
It's all right. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
We can take care of that.
Thank you. |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | Okay.
So I -- first of all, thank you, Your Honor, for |\n| 14 | hearing from us on this matter. |\n| 15 | So I will start with -- on page 2 with |\n| 16 | administrative matters.
And some of this stuff, Your Honor, |\n| 17 | is fairly routine and boring so I will not spend a lot of |\n| 18 | time on it.
You know it already. |\n| 19 | But just to confirm, we posted the bond for |\n| 20 | \\$25,000.
We opened the bank account, that's item number |\n| 21 | two.
Number three is just a reminder that there were three |\n| 22 | Section 341 meetings on March 21st, on April 6th, but they |\n| 23 | were not completed, so another one needs to be scheduled by |\n| 24 | the U.S. Trustee.
So I wanted you to be aware of that. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 9 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 9\n\n MR. DESPINS: And then still in this list of matters, the monthly operating reports, there are two reports that are still due by the debtor prior to our appointment and, therefore, these need -- I don't know if it goes to the Brown Rudnick motion to be recused or somebody else is going to pick that up, but this needs to be done. And that's listed on page 2.\n\n I just want to point out though at the bottom of page 2 is the monthly operating reports, this is in bold there, reflect that a third party has made disbursements for the benefit of the debtor in amounts that averages approximately 115,000 per month. I think that's an important data point.\n\n Next page, Your Honor, bar date. There was a lot of back and forth on a bar date. And I know you were considering at that time the dismissal of the case so it made no sense to enter an order for a bar date when the case might be dismissed, but at this point the case is not being dismissed and I think the bar date order should be entered.\n\n I think you have the revised -- I'm told that you have a revised version and we would encourage the Court to enter the order because we need to know who's out there, especially in terms of governmental entity, we need to understand that. So that's the bar date order.\n\nUnder item number six, that's the update on the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 10 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 10 Lady May inspection. So there was an inspection, Your Honor, on July 13th with PAX's expert and an expert I hired to basically oversee PAX's expert. So let me explain this. Obviously, we have no money and the estate has zero dollars. And PAX was doing its own review with a very reputable expert and they're paying for that and we appreciate that. However, given the dynamic of this case, I could not go to the inspection and say I'm relying on PAX's expert alone, even though directionally we're aligned in the same direction in the sense that both we and PAX want to know if this yacht has problems or not. So what I did is I hired Mr. Paul Derecktor, who is a -- I don't know if Your Honor is aware of this -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: -- that company was in -- THE COURT: I am aware. MR. DESPINS: Were you -- THE COURT: I mean, once you said the name. I didn't know you hired that person, but I -- I'm aware of the company. MR. DESPINS: I don't know. Were you the judge on that case? THE COURT: No. MR. DESPINS: Okay.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 11 of 116\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
11 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
No, I was not. |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay.
So he's a -- he has a |\n| 3 | shipyard in the area.
He really knows boats.
But he agreed |\n| 4 | to look over the shoulder of PAX's expert for the sum of |\n| 5 | \\$2,500.
I figured that that was a modest sum to invest just |\n| 6 | to make sure nobody would criticize us relying entirely on |\n| 7 | PAX's expert.
So we've done that. |\n| 8 | There are still discussions that need to happen, |\n| 9 | and let me tell you the nature of these discussions. |\n| 10 | Basically, what Mr. Derecktor has told me is, he, |\n| 11 | said, look, anybody buying a ship of this size would |\n| 12 | actually take it off -- out of the water to inspect the |\n| 13 | hull.
And I said, well, how much does that cost?
Oh, |\n| 14 | \\$400,000.
Forget about that.
We can't do that.
Is there a |\n| 15 | plan B? |\n| 16 | He said, well, you could send divers to go |\n| 17 | underneath and inspect the hull because the ship came back |\n| 18 | from Europe and often in the ocean you hit, you know, all |\n| 19 | sorts of things, potentially.
And that would cost \\$2,500, |\n| 20 | the divers.
So we were having discussions with PAX as to |\n| 21 | does that make sense to do that. |\n| 22 | And the second thing he mentioned is that we |\n| 23 | should really do a sea trial.
And at first I thought we're |\n| 24 | not going to take the ship out at sea.
He said, no, just |\n| 25 | basically it's like -- it's like for a car.
Take it out for |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 12 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 12 a spin for half an hour just to make sure -- THE COURT: I'm familiar with a sea trial. MR. DESPINS: Okay. I was not. And so that's still being considered, Your Honor. So at this stage we need to get together with PAX's expert to combine our common views and go back to the entity that's the registered ship owner. So that's the status of the inspection at this time, Your Honor. But it was obvious, you know I'm not a ship expert, that there's damage to the boat because you could see when you just walked by it there's a, you know, a portion of the front of the boat that was hit by something. But, anyway, we'll -- that's proceeding. Still, on the list of matters, you know, page 4, automatic stay letters. I directed my firm to send more than 20 letters to various parties that are at the periphery of this case. So, for example, an entity called Golden Spring New York, which Your Honor may recall has been providing some of the funding in some situations. I'm not -- I don't want to go into the details, but they're clearly within the universe of debtor related companies. And then Bravo Luck, that's the entity that allegedly has a trust agreement that provides that they own the Sherry Netherland apartment.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 13 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 13 So they're all listed there. Well, some of them are listed there. But we also sent the same thing to Brown Rudnick, which was acknowledged by them, and a firm in Greenwich, Connecticut, Whitman Breed. That was actually very interesting because I received permission from the person who sold the house to the debtor to get access to the closing statements, the wire transfers, et cetera. But when I called Whitman Breed, there's all we can't give that to you because we're representing the debtor on other matters. I said, well, what does that have to do with anything? You didn't represent them in the sale, did you? No. But we're not going to give you any documents. So that means they are representing the debtor on other matters. And obviously we want them to preserve those documents and us to get access to that. So there were a number of these letters that were sent, this is since our appointment, probably 20 of those. Page 5, still (indiscernible) matters. Just so Your Honor knows, reaching out to key parties, obviously, we started with the debtor. So on the first day after the appointment, I called Brown Rudnick and I said -- and by the way, I'm not going to reveal any settlement discussion other than to say\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 14 of 116\n\n| | 14
Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 | | | | | | | |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 1 | that my first approach was to reach out to them and say why | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | don't we have a meeting to see if there's a global | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | settlement that could be done before we get into this very | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | expensive and very extensive process, and the next thing I | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | heard after that is that they were no longer counsel to Mr. | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | -- to the debtor. | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | But I want to make sure the approach -- our | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | approach is we don't have to spend money on this if we don't | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | -- if we don't have to.
I know it's going to be really | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | expensive if we have to go to all these jurisdictions | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | because there are a bunch of jurisdictions involved. | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | But we wanted to see if there was a number at | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | which there could be a global settlement and that didn't -- | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | at least, to date, has not panned out. | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | So we reached out to counsel for the debtor.
We | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | reached out obviously to Mr. Goldman, counsel to the | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | committee, who has given us very good advice on the case and | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | all that.
Same with Pacific Alliance, Mr. Friedman. | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | We reached out to counsel to Genever Holdings, | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | that's the Chapter 11 entity, Your Honor.
Another | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | interesting conversation because I asked him who do you take | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | direction from in that case?.
He said, oh, Miles.
I didn't | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | know that was the way he used names -- he's known.
So I | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | said, who's Miles?
He said, oh, that's the Chapter 11 | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | debtor. | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 15 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 15 So he's taking direction in that case from this debtor. So I said, well, I'm the Chapter 11 trustee now. So he said, well, I guess I'm taking directions from you. I said, well, we'll -- you know, to be continued. But, you know, I'll come back to that later, but there's a lot of things to be discussed about that issue. But I'll come back to it in a second. So we reached out to him. We also reached out to former Judge Cyganowski who was the court-appointed sales agent in that case. And I want it to be clear -- and I'll cover that later -- the trustee is not taking the position that the sale should be halted. So that's not part of our game plan. But I wanted to reach out to her to introduce myself and also to get feedback on what's happening with the property. And she did tell me, by the way, that the debtor is occupying that property, the Sherry-Netherland in New York. Then counsel to creditors. Rui Ma and Zheng Wu and, Carollyn Callari, obviously, we reached out to her as one of the important constituency. Since the failed attempt with Brown Rudnick, we've asked new debtor's counsel to have a meeting with the debtor, not necessarily to discuss settlement, but because we need to have a serious discussion with the debtor to make sure the debtor understands the regime he's operating under\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 16 of 116\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
16 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | now.
And we've asked for that last Friday.
We haven't |\n| 2 | heard back a response to date.
Maybe we will soon. |\n| 3 | Next, Your Honor, still on page -- now at page 6, |\n| 4 | still administrative matters, management of pending |\n| 5 | adversary proceedings. |\n| 6 | So there are a number of adversary proceedings, |\n| 7 | Your Honor.
Most of them relate to non-dischargeability. |\n| 8 | And I want to be clear, because we approached the debtor to |\n| 9 | say, hey, we would like to -- I'm not sure -- it's not |\n| 10 | informal intervention, we would like a stay of these |\n| 11 | proceedings.
And the initial reaction, well, it's not your |\n| 12 | business.
This is a fight between the creditors and the |\n| 13 | debtor. |\n| 14 | And generally that's probably right, so maybe |\n| 15 | they'll like that concession, except that from a court |\n| 16 | efficiency and a point of view I think it would be a really |\n| 17 | poor investment of the Court's time, and we would need to be |\n| 18 | involved, and our time to go through now a non |\n| 19 | dischargeability complaint.
Because in order to do that, |\n| 20 | you need to go through the claim.
And essentially you need |\n| 21 | to say I have a claim, a good claim and it's non |\n| 22 | dischargeable.
Well, that would be duplicative of the |\n| 23 | process that could take place later on on claims allowance. |\n| 24 | And my point is why go through that brain damage |\n| 25 | when there's no assets in the estate today, meaning when |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 17 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 17 there are assets to fight over, then by all means all these proceedings should happen. But to do that today would be, you know -- obviously, you are the judge, you will decide your calendar, but to us it seems like a really bad use of the Court's time and of our time as well because we might be in a position where we now need to go through the claims allowance process while there are no assets in the estate, which, you know, I believe firmly that there will be assets in the estate one day, but today there are none. And I think it would be, you know -- anyways. So that's our view, Your Honor. So I wanted to make sure you understood why we filed this motion for a stay.\n\n But we're not going to go and get involved against a particular creditor on the issue of non-dischargeability or for or against the debtor on that. That's not our goal. Our goal is from the case management point of view to make sure that there's a good use of everyone's time including Your Honor's time on these matters.\n\n Page 7, number nine, there's another adversary proceeding, and that's the one by the registered ship owner, HK International. They filed -- and that was the Zeisler firm that represented the plaintiff and now they represent the plaintiff and the defendant -- that's a little joke -- until now I'm going to be substituted as the defendant in that action. And I'll come back to that towards the end,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 18 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 18 but they gave us a 30-day extension to answer or to otherwise move in that case. Page 8, Your Honor, number ten, intervention appearance and other litigation. The debtor has 25 active lawsuits. I'm not -- and I don't want to be cavalier about this -- I'm not that concerned today about the ones where he's a defendant because the stay, you know, applies. It's the litigation where he's a plaintiff. We need to get our arms around value if any of those claims and we've started reaching out to those people. But I don't mislead, Your Honor. We have not made a lot of progress on that. That is something that we need to do over the next, you know, month or so. So the concept there is to go and talk to counsel for the debtor in -- where the debtor's a plaintiff to see what is the nature of litigation. Is there value there for example? If there is, I want to know sure Your Honor knows this. There's a, I think, a \\$1 billion -- that's the asserted number -- where he's suing UBS in the U.K., and so obviously I reached out to counsel and hopefully we'll have a discussion with them to say what is the litigation about, understanding that, et cetera. So that's one example of those. Next, number eleven, is contact with the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 19 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 19 Securities and Exchange Commission. So I don't know if Your Honor saw this -- you probably don't spend your time looking at the claims docket -- but there was a claim filed by the SEC and basically -- and it's described there -- they are saying they've conducted an investigation for, you know, where they may -- for violation of securities laws. And that's not good news, not only for -- THE COURT: They didn't assert any dollar amount? They said that they're investigating, is that what it says? MR. DESPINS: Yeah. Well, it's -- we have the quote there I think, but, you know, they're investigating, and they may actually file a civil action against the debtor to seek disgorgement and all that. So I've dealt with the SEC before, and I'm saying this with all due respect to them, my concern is the diluted effect that could have on claims of, you know, Mr. Goldman represents for example. And so I've reached out to the SEC and we're at a very preliminary stage. There have been no substantive discussions, but I want to understand exactly what is their issue, what is it related to, and also whether they're aware of any assets that we're not aware of. So that is -- and, again, I don't want to mislead you -- that just started this week so not a lot of progress on that front. That's the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 20 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 20 SEC. THE COURT: Didn't they just -- and this claim that they filed, it was recent, wasn't it? MR. DESPINS: Yes. It was I'm going to say five days ago, six days ago. THE COURT: Right. Okay. MR. DESPINS: Something like that. Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Okay. Moving on to page 9, number twelve, dealing with inbound inquiries. We've received inquiries, Your Honor, from people saying -- basically tips saying this guy is hiding assets here or there. And I want to be clear with Your Honor. I've done a lot of these cases and I would say these often fall into three categories. The first category, what I'll call the crazies. Meaning these types of cases attract all sorts of people, some of them are completely irrational. So that could be door number one. Door number two -- I'm not saying this applies in this case but in that case, the target itself sends these things anonymously just to send us to Africa, for example, to spend money there when there's nothing to be -- to be looked at. Door number three, you can get a real tip, and\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 21 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 21\n\n that's what we're investigating. Some of them are very specific as to persons holding funds. And as I said, I cannot validate those now. I don't want to mislead the Court and say, oh, well, we have -- we found \\$5 billion here. No, I can't say that.\n\n But it shows that the Chapter 11 trustee process is working because people are coming out of the woodwork to say you should check the following things, things that we would have never found ourselves initially at this stage anyway. As I said, these could be made up so we have to be very careful about that, so I don't want to exaggerate the importance of these.\n\n Next, Your Honor, retention of professionals. Well, you know we filed for the retention of Paul Hastings. And obviously we retained Mr. Skalka and Linsey. And the point there is we're going to try -- and you'll see there's no Paul Hastings lawyer other than myself here -- we're going to rely heavily on them to handle a lot of the -- of the matters before Your Honor. And, you know, obviously you know that firm very well.\n\n Page 10, this is where we get into really more meaty matters, Your Honor. They titled theirs Exercising Corporate Governance Rights. The debtor lists various entities as 100 percent owned by the debtor. And one of these entities is the Genever BVI entity, the British Virgin\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 22 of 116\n\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 | | | | 22 |\n|---|----------------|-----------------------------|--|-------------------------------------------|--|----|\n| 1 | Island entity. | | | And we've asked the debtor's counsel, all | | |\n\n three of them, meaning Brown Rudnick, the one in between, and now, the Zeisler firm, to produce to us the corporate governance documents relating to that entity. To date, nothing.\n\n But that entity, you'll recall, BVI, owns the Genever in the U.S., the Chapter 11 debtor. And as I told you, debtor's counsel believes he's taking instructions from the debtor, at least until now.\n\n And our point is we have -- the trustee jumps into the corporate governance rights of the debtor. That's horn book law. But nevertheless we probably will have to file something with the Court to seek a confirmation of that, but there are many cases that hold that. And that means that we can participate eventually in the Genever USA Chapter 11 case. Obviously, we would never ask you to grant us relief with respect to that. We would go to Judge Garrity.\n\n And one of the things we mention here is that we will ask for a status conference in front of Judge Garrity to say we're here, it's not the same landscape anymore. We need to complete our analysis of the Sherry-Netherland and this issue of the trust that was -- for the son's company, and we need to finalize that. But the likelihood is that we will appear there and say, Judge, this is a different landscape.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 23 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 23 But as I said at the beginning, we're not trying to change the sale. That's been preordained. There's a sale process. We're not going to try to touch that. But he might say so what could you be doing? Well, as I told you, Judge -- former Judge Cyganowski told me that the debtor is still in that apartment. Well, if I control that entity that owns the apartment, I want rental income from whoever I can get rental income for. So if the debtor doesn't want to pay rental income -- by the way that would be thousands of dollars. It's not like \\$5,000 a month. It would be -- you know, I don't want to exaggerate, but it would be a very large amount. If the debtor wants to occupy the property, he needs to pay the piper. The piper is Genever and that's the company we now control. If the -- and if he doesn't want to pay, then somebody else will rent this property for -- subject to approval by the board of the Sherry-Netherland, et cetera, but this is a property that would pay top dollars to rent, because this -- this apartment is not going to be sold tomorrow. These are very expensive apartments. You need to -- you know, I don't how to say that, but the market for that is a very different market and it could take several\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 24 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 24 months before it's sold. And by several months I mean really several months. So I'm not making a prediction as to when it's going to sell, but it would be incredible for this estate not to enjoy the benefit of rental income of a -- through a subsidiary that we control. So I'm not asking you to comment or to rule on that. I'm sure my friends at Zeisler will have different views of that, but I want to tell you that that's coming. And by the way, Genever is an example, but there are other companies as well. And the issue there is we need to get all the documents to understand exactly what's going on. We need to get bank accounts for these entities. We need to understand all the transfers that were made. And that's, you know, that's something that we certainly started with the corporate governance documents. And we have not received anything at this point, but we intend to pursue that. Page 11, number two, is what I just said. We will seek relief from this court to -- for the Court to confirm that. And on top of that, Your Honor, we would like to be appointed under Section 1505. And this is a bizarre section in the sense that Chapter 15 -- what does this have to do with this? We're not in Chapter 15. But that's a\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 25 section -- and I'm embarrassed to say I learned that -- I relearned that recently -- that doesn't apply only in Chapter 15. That basically says, and it's quoted on page 11 there, \"That a trustee may be authorized by the Court to act in a foreign country on behalf of an estate created under Section 541. And an entity authorized to act under this section may act in any way permitted by the applicable foreign law.\" So that would mean us going to the BVI to do whatever we have to do there to get control of that entity. And obviously we're trying to avoid going to court if we have to because, you know, there's no money, but it's not limited to the BVI. There are other -- and that depends on the targets, the tips we've gotten -- there are other potential countries where we would seek discovery from parties and, therefore, we will seek a broad ruling from the Court appointing us under 1505 as the foreign representative, but for the sole purpose of either getting documents or recovering assets. Again, that's to come. I just want to give you a heads-up on our plans on that. At the bottom of 11, Your Honor, we would also mention that it is typical in these cases for the Court, meaning Your Honor, to enter a paragraph seeking the assistance of foreign courts in getting the relief that a\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 25 of 116\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 26 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 26 trustee would seek. And you might say, well, why would -- why do I need to do that? First of all, it's kind of a gratuitous, you know, request because it doesn't bind the Court in anyway. But it's -- in foreign courts, it's hugely important to be able to point to a paragraph to say, look, the Court is asking you or asking for your assistance in proceeding as quicky as possible. So you might say why is that necessary? I'll give you an example. BVI, god bless them, they have a summer recess. August, nothing happens. I'd love to have that system here too, but we don't. So the only exception to that is if we can move on an emergency basis. So I'm not asking -- I'm just telling you that if you ever see that, you'll know why we're asking for that -- because that's the only way to get their attention on an emergency basis during the month of August. And, by the way, you know, August is just around the corner. We may not need that for BVI, but in other countries we might need it. So we'll obviously come back to court on that. Page 12, the request for corporate governance. I've already covered that. We've asked for that. This has not been produced. Page 13, item C, identify and if appropriate seek turn over estate assets. This is important. You know, a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 27 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 27 Rule 2004 motion, obviously we'll do that. But Mr. Goldman has already obtained that relief so we are -- we're going to try to piggyback off of that to avoid duplication of effort because he's already done a lot of that work. So that's certainly directionally what we want to do. But the next point is the more important point, Your Honor, which is that as part of this, we will seek attorney/client privilege and work product of firms like Brown Rudnick because the courts are pretty clear on that that the trustee controls the privilege, especially for the period where the debtor was a debtor in possession. So you might say why do you want that? Well, for example, the prepared schedules of assets and liabilities, there may have been some exchanges there that would be interesting to us. And it's not limited to Brown Rudnick. By the way, I'm not -- I don't want to point fingers at Brown Rudnick. It's not a -- it's just an example. But certainly the firm in Greenwich, we -- you know, they represent the debtor. By the way, they didn't say we represent the wife of the debtor or that company called Greenwich Land Trust. They said they represented the debtor. We want to understand what they're working on and what's the work product there because we believe that the trustee controls\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 28 that. I'm sure that my colleagues will have different views on that, but I want to make sure you know that's coming, because I believe that as part of the investigation that could produce results. Now, page 14, still on identifying assets and seeking turnover of assets for the estate. The Lady May. So I'm not going to read everything that's there, but basically, Your Honor, we're quoting from Judge Ostrager's decision in the New York Supreme Court. And they're pretty -- and I don't want to be -- I'm not here to argument this thing because we're still reviewing this and we will review it one more time, but it appears that there are pretty strong findings there as to the daughter, who of course is the sole shareholder of the registered owner of the ship, and the debtor in terms of control and beneficial ownership of the ship. And what we're saying on page 15 is that subject to finalizing our review, we believe that these findings should be found to be binding by this court on the ship, the registered shipowner company, even though that company itself was not a party to that action. But the daughter was the witness. Her lawyer cross-examined witnesses, et cetera, et cetera, was a full participant in that trial. And the New York Appellate Division had sent back\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 29 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 29 the case to Judge Ostrager asking that he make finding on ownership of the ship. So they had clear, clear, you know, notice that the judge was going to do that. And, in fact, he did. And at that point, again, subject to further review, we believe that there's collateral estoppel even though the company that's the registered owner was not a party to the action because there privity. It's the same parties. And the fact that -- sorry for my friends at Zeisler & Zeisler, but they -- now they represent the registered owner and Mr. Kwok that, you know, it's almost like -- I'm joking -- almost summary judgment on that point -- meaning that, yes, they are the same, they're all together in this. So in terms of collateral estoppel we believe that should be binding. Again, this is for later, but I wanted to give you a heads-up because we don't believe they get to do a do-over and like a ten-day trial here to put the same people on, et cetera, et cetera, for the same issue. Page 16, Your Honor, the Sherry-Netherland, I've mentioned. I told you what the game plan is there. The Greenwich homes. You know, these are recent, you know, 2020 purchases by a company owned 100 percent by the wife of the debtor. Two houses. And of course we want to know the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 30 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 30 details of where the money came from. And then point five, other assets. I want to be clear that we're not limiting ourselves to these three buckets. I will come back to the Court and update our work product on that later, but I want to be clear the message is not left that it's only the Sherry-Netherland and the yacht. There are -- there are other assets that need to -- and the Greenwich properties -- there are other assets that need to be -- to be investigated. Page 17, Your Honor, the claims review and allowance process. This is the same thing as I said before. Everyone would like to have their claims allowed tomorrow in the dream world, but it would be so counter productive to go through that at this stage in terms of, you know, no money to do that and to what end if we -- unless -- until we bring money to fight over, let's not fight over that, but that's just our view of the world. So the timing of that, Your Honor, I would say that's months away. I don't want to mislead you and say, oh, we'll get that done next month. No. We're going to try not to focus on that in the coming months because the sole focus is on bringing assets into the estate. The sole, short-term focus. And then the last page is really a Chapter 11 plan. The same thing, Your Honor, we're -- I don't want to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 31 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 31 -- you know, I've always been told by my boss when I was a young lawyer, you know, under promise and over deliver. I don't want to mislead you. This will take -- unless there's a global settlement, which we would welcome, this is going to take months. I don't want to mislead the Court on that. I wish that were not the case, but I have a sense of how things are going to go and I think that's the way it's going to go unfortunately. So that completes our presentation, Your Honor. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. THE COURT: Okay. Well, at the moment, I do have a question or two, but I do appreciate very much the presentation. One of the reasons that in the memorandum of decision that there was a status conference to be scheduled was to have the trustee do exactly what you've done, which is to come in and tell the Court where the trustee believes things stand, what issues need to be addressed and what will be coming, and what the ultimate goal may be. And even if it's not reachable, I understand that, you know, we're in Chapter 11, so obviously the ultimate goal is some form of a plan if we get to that point. So I appreciate it. Given what you've said it seems to me from your\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 32 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 32 perspective one of the most important things you'd like the Court to address is to get an order issued setting a bar date for claims.\n\n And that was on hold somewhat during the -- before your appointment because of issues regarding the possible dismissal of the case, as you indicated in your presentation, and because there was also a possibility of conversion of the case.\n\n There were other issues that the Court had to consider, and so the bar date issue -- there were two issues with regard to it.\n\n There was -- there was an issue that the Court was concerned that it was too short at that point in time because the case was developing. But now the case is five months old. There's a Chapter 11 trustee appointed because of the information and pleadings submitted by various parties in the case and the evidence presented during the case. And the record supported that.\n\n So I agree with you that the Court will turn in short order to that setting of a bar date. And my thought on that is the service of that order, who gets served?\n\n You know, we can do publication and we might do publication. That might be something that you're interested in.\n\nBut one of the things that I am concerned about is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 33 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 33 the schedules and statements of affairs that were filed had many qualifications associated with them. I don't know if the -- and I'm not sure you know either, so I'm not suggesting that you would -- if the list of people who would actually get served with the notice of bar date would be sufficient in this matter? So I think what we may do, and I'd like to think about it, is consider how that order would be served, and whether or not publication is appropriate in addition to service and how publication would be accomplished, where publication would actually be made? And I'd ask you to think about that. I don't know the answer to those questions. As I sit here right now, I'm raising those issues in order for all of us to think about the fulsomeness of the notice that would be provided on a bar date for filing claims. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, you raise a very good point. I would like to be able to revert back to the Court on that, especially the publication aspect and where, how. So I said that it would be important to (indiscernible) order, but it's not a matter of days. You know, but we will revert back to the Court on that point. THE COURT: I appreciate that. And I will think about it as well. You know, there have been cases over the years and cases recently issued in different circuits about\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 34 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 34 actual notice versus constructive notice and -- on a bar date and things of that nature, so I want to make sure that we are all thinking -- we're doing the best we can under the circumstances as presented so that people have appropriate notice with regard to the filing of a proof of claim. So with regard to the rest of the information that you've submitted, again, I appreciate it very much. This is what the Court was looking for with regard to the -- I haven't looked yet, but I see in your report or your presentation the adversary proceeding issues. So have you filed a motion to stay in every adversary proceeding? There was just an adversary proceeding filed yesterday. MR. DESPINS: Yesterday. THE COURT: And the day before. MR. DESPINS: So we filed in three, but we will file a supplemental -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: -- motion to stay in the others. THE COURT: And I'll have to look at those obviously. And the way that our motion practice works in adversary proceedings under our local rules is that parties have 21 days to -- there's a responsive -- there's a responsive date of 21 days to object or not object, you know, to do whatever they feel is appropriate with regard to Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 35 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 35 a motion and then the Court would determine whether or not there would need to be a hearing. Now, I believe in some of the earlier adversary proceedings that 21-day period might run into a time frame that might present a problem. So I will take a look at those adversary proceedings. And if there's some issue as to waiting for that response period to pass, I could I believe issue some kind of order either extending the response period or extending the periods of time that are already in existence subject to a ruling on the motion to stay the proceeding. Or, of course, if you have the consent of the parties on the staying of the adversary proceeding, then I would not understand -- or I would be surprised as to why I would not grant a stay of those adversary proceedings. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. And to be -- to be fair, we just started with the stay process. But for the life of me, I don't know why the debtor would want to forward with that or why the people seeking the non-dischargeability want a ruling on that today or spend a lot of money on that today. But it's their prerogative, so we will seek the consent. THE COURT: Right. But if you are able -- if the parties in each of the adversary proceedings consent to the stay, then the stay will be granted --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 36 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 36 MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: -- subject to, you know, further order of the Court and the progress of the case. I agree with you that it is not the goal of the Court to have the party -- all parties, no matter what their issues may be, to spend money needlessly. No one wants that. But we need -- but we need to just make sure that the process is properly followed and that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are properly followed. But if you obtain the agreement of the parties in those adversary proceedings to stay the adversary proceedings, then they will be stayed. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I'm not sure that there's anything else I have a question about. I understand that there are a lot of things that you're reviewing and different steps that you may be taking in short order and the Court will attempt to address those as quickly as they come before the Court. I'm just looking to make sure that there's nothing else that I have any questions about. I'm just looking at your presentation again. (Pause) THE COURT: I think those were the two issues that stuck out to me, were the bar date order and the stay -- the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 37 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 37 stay motions in the adversary proceedings. Because I do agree with you that many of the other things that you've discussed are developing and that you're addressing them in due course, and that you will be seeking relief from the Court when it -- you believe it's necessary to do so and appropriate to do so. So I don't have any other questions at the moment, sir. Thank you very much. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, may I be heard? THE COURT: Mr. Henzy, you may be heard, but we still have some issues that I -- we need to resolve from the Court's perspective and the United States Trustee's Office's perspective on the issue of who represents the debtor. And right now, Brown Rudnick represents the debtor. Brown Rudnick didn't state any reason in its motion to withdraw as to why it's withdrawing its appearance. And Brown Rudnick had to go through the process that every debtor's counsel has to go through which is to file an application to be employed, to submit a disinterested affidavit, to comply with Bankruptcy Section 327(a) and Rule 2014, and our local Rule 2014. And there's nothing in the order appointing them that says that they can file a motion to withdraw as debtor's counsel. So while I understand you want to be heard, you\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 38 are not at this point debtor's counsel. And -- MR. HENZY: No. I am. I absolutely am, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, you're not in the -- how are you debtor's counsel under the bankruptcy code -- MR. HENZY: The debtor -- the debtor -- THE COURT: -- Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: The debtor's now out of possession and does not need to file an application under 327 to -- THE COURT: Where's the case law that says that, Mr. Henzy? THE COURT: It's, Your Honor, 327 itself provides -- 327(a) provides -- THE COURT: So you can be counsel even if you're disinterested and you have a conflict just because the debtor's no longer in possession? MR. HENZY: Absolutely. THE COURT: I'd like to see a case law that says that. MR. HENZY: I'm not going to be able to have case law for you, Your Honor, because 327 -- I think 327(a) makes us the trustee, and in parens, debtor in possession, because debtor in possession has powers of a trustee -- has to -- has to retain counsel pursuant to court order. But there is no requirement -- and, Your Honor, in Chapter 7 cases,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 38 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 39 debtors are not retained -- THE COURT: We're not in a Chapter 7 case, Mr. Henzy. MR. HENZY: I understand. But this is -- this is now a debtor out of possession. I don't think -- I mean, I don't -- I hate to -- I want to be careful, Your Honor, and with all due respect, you're asking me to give you cases that say 327(a) says what it says, but I'm not aware of any cases -- THE COURT: No. I'm asking you to give me a case where there's a Chapter 11 trustee appointed and debtor's counsel, who was debtor's counsel, can just withdraw and someone else can step in without having to meet any of the requirements of the bankruptcy code -- MR. HENZY: The -- THE COURT: -- let me just finish, please -- of the bankruptcy code and the rules and have a conflict of interest where they represent an entity that's owned by the debtor's daughter who's clearly an insider under the bankruptcy code. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, there are cases -- I don't believe that there are cases that I'm aware of which -- let me put it this way. I'm not aware of any cases that say that a debtor out of possession does not need to file a retention application with respect to its counsel. Because, again, I Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 39 of 116\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 40 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 40 think the plain language of 327(a), and I don't know if any counsel here would say the contrary, only provides a debtor in possession has to do that. I do know that there are cases, and we can get those to you, dealing with whether a counsel for a debtor post appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee may be paid by the bankruptcy estate. And generally the answer to that question is no. And the basis for that is that debtor's -- counsel for debtor out of possession is not retained pursuant to 327(a) and is not covered by 330 and 331. There are cases where courts haves said that counsel for a debtor out of possession may be paid, but really on a substantial contribution type of basis as opposed to their counsel retained under 327(a) and subject to the requirements of 330 and 331. And I can get you those cases, Your Honor. But I -- that's a little bit different. Those cases are saying that counsel for a debtor out of possession is not 327 counsel and not subject to 333, 330 and 331 in the context of saying usually you can't get paid by the bankruptcy estate. So I will get you those cases. THE COURT: Okay. Is that the Office of the United States Trustee's position? There's no conflict here? Zeisler & Zeisler can represent the debtor because the debtor's no longer a debtor in possession?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 41 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 41 MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee is still evaluating that issue. I do think there's one issue that I want to raise with the Court that I don't think Attorney Henzy would dispute which is that as counsel to a debtor they have an obligation to disclose the compensation agreements or otherwise that they have with the debtor. THE COURT: That's absolutely going to happen, so you don't have to make that argument. MR. HENZY: Yeah. I don't -- I don't -- THE COURT: Mr. Henzy, if you're -- if you're accurate, if you're correct, then whomever pays you could take whatever money that might be available to creditors of the estate and just continue to pay you. MR. HENZY: That's not true. I think that's not correct. THE COURT: How is that not true? MR. HENZY: So I can't -- I a hundred percent agree we need to file our 329 2016(b) statement. My understanding is I have 14 days from the time I filed my appearance to do that and we will do that. I can't -- again, back to the cases that I'm mentioning, I can't get paid from estate assets. THE COURT: Where in 329 does it say you file an application to be employed?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 42 of 116\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
42 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. HENZY:
Oh, it doesn't, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 3 | MR. HENZY:
No.
I'm not -- I'm sorry. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
So how is 329 applicable? |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY:
Oh, I -- under 329, I believe what |\n| 6 | Attorney Claiborn was referring to, I still have to file the |\n| 7 | statement required by 329 and Rule 2016(b). |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
So if you're a debtor -- let's carry |\n| 9 | your thought process out.
If you're no longer a debtor-in |\n| 10 | possession and you don't have to be subject to any of the |\n| 11 | Court, any of the oversight of the Court that's in the |\n| 12 | bankruptcy code or the rules, then why do you have standing |\n| 13 | to say anything? |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:
Because I represent the debtor out of |\n| 15 | possession.
The debtor out of possession -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay.
You represent the debtor out of |\n| 17 | possession.
In your Chapter 7 cases that you're talking |\n| 18 | about, the Chapter 7 debtor has no standing unless and until |\n| 19 | it's proven that there be some surplus for the Chapter 7 |\n| 20 | debtor. |\n| 21 | And at this point, we all know -- everybody knows |\n| 22 | -- Mr. Despins knows, he took on this assignment knowing |\n| 23 | that there's no money in this estate, so how do you have |\n| 24 | standing to argue anything.
If you take your argument to |\n| 25 | its fullest extent, you're not subject to disinterestedness, |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 43 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 43 you're not subject to conflicts, all you have to do is disclose where your money -- the money you pay -- get came from, then why do you get to say anything? MR. HENZY: I think on certain issues, Your Honor, I don't disagree with you. The debtor may have no standing. And you may tell me to the extent I want to be heard on such issues that you're not going to listen to me. And I would understand that. I think that a debtor out of possession does have standing with respect to certain issues. THE COURT: Which ones? MR. HENZY: Mr. Despins addressed the 523 actions that are pending and his motion for stay with respect to those actions and made certain representations to the Court about the debtor's position on those. Certainly Mr. Kwok has standing in the -- THE COURT: I don't think he made any representations -- MR. HENZY: Oh, he -- THE COURT: -- about the debtor's positions. He said that -- MR. HENZY: I think he did. He did. THE COURT: This is a -- this was a -- this is a -- I didn't say this was evidence, number one. I said it was a demonstrative pleading that I would allow to be admitted on -- in the record as Exhibit 1. That's all. I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 44 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 44 didn't say I'm going to make any findings or rulings or anything based upon what Mr. Despins provided to us today. MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. I was answering your question. I don't think that you would say that the debtor doesn't have standing in the 523 actions. THE COURT: Okay. But if the actions are stayed, let's -- let me just -- presume the actions are stayed, then there's nothing for the debtor to worry about until they're not stayed, correct? MR. HENZY: I don't agree with that necessarily. But I -- THE COURT: Well, there's no pleadings requirement or anything that the debtor would need to undertake while the actions are stayed, correct? MR. HENZY: If the actions get stayed, that may be correct. I was trying to answer your question, Your Honor, on standing. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: There may be matters that the debtor does not have standing to be heard on. I don't disagree with you. And there -- I think there will be matters that the debtor does have standing to be heard on. And the example -- because it was in Mr. Despins' presentation -- was talking about the 523 actions. If we're talking about\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 45 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 45 the 523 actions, I don't think that Your Honor would say that the debtor does not have standing. THE COURT: Well, we're not talking about the 523 actions right now, right? You didn't rise to talk to me about the 523 actions. MR. HENZY: Actually, I did. THE COURT: Oh, you did. Okay. MR. HENZY: I did. THE COURT: Then go right ahead. MR. HENZY: Okay. I rose to make a very few points. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. MR. HENZY: Okay. One point, I want to be clear because I have not been involved in this case. I have reviewed some of the record, but my sense is that people are or parties want to make certain characterizations about Mr. Kwok and about his approach to things. On the 523 actions, what the trustee's asked us, the trustee's position to us initially was that upon his appointment he was substituted into the 523 actions. That's just -- I believe that's just incorrect, Your Honor. I don't think that the trustee becomes a defendant -- the defendant in the 523 action. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: So our response to counsel for the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 46 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 46 trustee was we think you're -- because we were being asked what's -- we want the -- we want a stay, what's your position? And our response -- because we're now the defendant in these actions -- and our response was no, you're not. In some sense, we don't -- we don't know what you're talking about. Okay. So it's not that -- Mr. Kwok is not refusing to answer sort of a basic question like that or trying to be difficult just for difficulties' sake. I think that point is important to make. Again, I think the parties are -- have or are going to characterize Mr. Kwok's approach in certain ways that I think are not fair. Again, with respect to the 523 actions, we were asked will you agree to a stay are actions that creditors have filed against Mr. Kwok. And to your point, Your Honor, if those actions are stayed, you said Mr. Kwok would have nothing to worry about. Okay. I don't know that I necessarily want to agree with the trustee that these actions are going to be stayed and be criticized by the people who filed them. Again, my point here is not to litigate or argue whether a stay should enter, or the basis for those 523 actions, or what rights the trustee may or may not have in those actions. I just wanted to respond to Mr. Despins' presentation on the 523 actions because to the extent\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 47 possible I want to avoid an unfair characterization of how Mr. Kwok is approaching things. We do -- we are counsel for HK International, okay, which is the title owner of the Lady May. And notwithstanding that Mr. Despins said he was not going to argue, he argued. I just want to be clear. And Your Honor made the point, there's been no evidence taken today that the document, that was handed up is not in evidence, Mr. Despins' presentation is not evidence. So that's all fine. I do want to make the point that we absolutely, HK International, absolutely disputes that anything that happened in New York is binding in this court. You know, the document handed up takes snippets out of lengthy proceedings and lengthy rulings by the judge there. The ownership of the Lady May is going to be litigated. So I just want that to be -- MR. HENZY: How are you going to represent both HK International and Mr. Kwok in that adversary proceeding that HK International filed against Mr. Kwok and the bankruptcy estate as to the title to the Lady May? Isn't that an absolute and obvious conflict of interest? MR. HENZY: Here it is not, Your Honor. THE COURT: How is that? MR. HENZY: And one thing I absolutely agree with\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 47 of 116\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 48 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 48 Mr. Despins on is that upon his appointment he automatically became the defendant in that action and Mr. Kwok is no longer a defendant in that action. THE COURT: But you still represented -- it doesn't matter. You represent HK International and now you represent Mr. Kwok. How is -- whether you're no longer involved in that adversary proceeding doesn't matter. MR. HENZY: No. He's no longer involved. THE COURT: It doesn't matter. MR. HENZY: It does matter. THE COURT: No. It actually doesn't. MR. HENZY: Under the rules of -- THE COURT: It's an actual conflict of interest. You are -- you cannot represent -- you took on the representation of Mr. Kwok when there was an adversary proceeding pending against Mr. Kwok that your firm filed on behalf of HK International. MR. HENZY: We took on the representation of Mr. Kwok after Mr. Despins -- THE COURT: But, see, you want to have it both ways. You want to say, oh, in that adversary proceeding, Mr. Despins is automatically the defendant, but in the 523's, he's not. MR. HENZY: Well, I -- THE COURT: That's what you're arguing, right?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 49 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 49 MR. HENZY: That is what I'm arguing. And I think that that is black letter law, Your Honor. THE COURT: Where? Really? MR. HENZY: I don't -- THE COURT: I'd like you to show me that black letter law. MR. HENZY: I don't think Mr. Despins is going to tell you that he is a defendant -- THE COURT: I'm not asking Mr. Despins. I'm asking you. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, he is not the defendant in the 523 actions. I think that that is black letter law. THE COURT: Okay. I'd love to see that black letter law, please. MR. HENZY: I don't know if I'm going to find cases that say that because I don't know that -- I don't know that anybody would take the position that a trustee becomes -- is the defendant in a 523 action, Your Honor. I don't -- that doesn't even make any sense to me. Again, with all due respect, Your Honor, that -- I don't know how a trustee could ever be a defendant in a 523 action. THE COURT: Okay. I understand what you said. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. HENZY: Okay. So I -- Mr. Kwok is no longer\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 50 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 50 the defendant in the Lady May adversary proceeding. I think Mr. Despins' position is that he now is the party that -- THE COURT: All right. Well, let's move on from the 523. There's a stipulation regarding the Lady May in which the debtor and HK are parties to. MR. HENZY: Mm-hmm. THE COURT: Okay. Are you -- so Mr. -- you're saying you're not representing the debtor anymore in connection with that stipulation, that it's Mr. Despins? MR. HENZY: I think the answer is yes and I think that's Mr. Despins' position is that. THE COURT: Okay. So you're saying your conflict of interest is non-existent because Mr. Despins was appointed as a Chapter 11 trustee? MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: And you can, therefore -- okay, that's your argument? MR. HENZY: That's my argument. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Under Rule 1.7 in the Rules of Professional Responsibility that -- that is my argument. And I -- THE COURT: I'm not looking at 1.7 in the Rules of Professional Responsibility. I'm looking at the bankruptcy\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 51 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 51 code and the bankruptcy rules. MR. HENZY: I'm not aware of anything in the bankruptcy code and the bankruptcy rules, Your Honor, that would -- that would govern this at this point. I think it is -- THE COURT: So the only place you have standing right now is in a 523 cause of action, isn't that correct? MR. HENZY: I don't -- I'm not prepared, Your Honor, to think about every issue that might come up in this case and tell you the debtor does or doesn't have standing. THE COURT: Well, you've argued that Mr. Despins shouldn't be the Chapter 11 trustee. MR. HENZY: And I think -- I think the debtor does have standing -- THE COURT: Where do you have standing to argue that? MR. HENZY: I don't know how a debtor would not have standing to take a position that a trustee should not be the trustee or that a trustee should be removed. THE COURT: I'd like to see some case law on that because I don't think you're -- I understand your argument, but I don't see support for your argument. You're not persuading me that you have a right -- that the debtor has a right. You had a right to object to the appointment of a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 52 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 52 Chapter 11 trustee, which Brown Rudnick did. They objected to it. They actually asked that the case be dismissed. I considered all of their arguments. I considered all of the arguments of all the creditors on conversion, appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, whatever the issue may be. The Court decided, rightfully or wrongfully, to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee. No one appealed that order. Brown Rudnick even made a point of that that they didn't appeal that order. You're now attacking that order after the appeal period has run. And you're saying that you can do that because you don't have to be subject to -- and when I say you, I mean the law firm now supposedly representing the debtor. Which, by the way, Brown Rudnick's motion hasn't been granted, so just understand that, that you don't have to be -- you don't have to submit yourself to the same standards that Brown Rudnick did because the Chapter 11 trustee's been appointed. And the Chapter 11 trustee steps into your shoes in all these other situations, including in the HK adversary versus Mr. Kwok and PAX, but that you have standing to say he can't be the trustee. That's your argument? MR. HENZY: I think, Your Honor -- I think you're\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 53 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 53 conflating two issues. THE COURT: Okay. Well, tell me how I'm conflating them, please. MR. HENZY: So I don't think the standing issue is about do I have standing or -- THE COURT: No. No. On behalf of Mr. Kwok. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I'm not -- MR. HENZY: So does -- THE COURT: But I -- MR. HENZY: -- the -- THE COURT: I'm not sure you're Mr. Kwok's lawyer yet. I'm not sure yet. MR. HENZY: I'm sure I'm Mr. Kwok's lawyer. THE COURT: I know you are. MR. HENZY: I understand you're -- I understand you're not. THE COURT: I know you are, but I'm not sure you are for purposes of this case. You might be for other purposes. MR. HENZY: I believe, Your Honor, that a debtor has standing to challenge the appointment of a trustee. And let me say I understand that the appeal period on the order -- I guess I'll call it granting the trustee motion, okay -- that's passed and no one appealed and Mr.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 54 Kwok is not challenging that order in any way, shape or form. There's a separate order that Your Honor entered -- THE COURT: I agree with you. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I agree. MR. HENZY: -- approving Mr. Despins' appointment by the U.S. Trustee. And the 60(b) motion was filed. I believe it was within seven days after. THE COURT: No. I agree. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I mean, if I -- if I accept your argument, I'm not suggesting your 60(b) motion was untimely. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: Okay? MR. HENZY: I believe that a debtor has standing to challenge the appointment of a trustee or to seek to remove a trustee. I mean, among other things, there is case law that says that a trustee may not have any bias or prejudice towards any party including a debtor. And if that is correct -- and, again, I think the case law is clear on that -- then I don't know how a debtor couldn't have standing to tell a court I think this trustee has a bias or prejudice\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 54 of 116\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 55 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 55 against me. And that's a basis to remove a trustee. The U.S. Trustee's handbook on panel trustees -- and I understand Mr. Despins is not a panel trustee -- states that trustees may have no bias or prejudice towards anybody involved in the case. So if there's a -- as debtor, debtor has a right to have a trustee who is not biased or prejudiced against debtor. Where there is a right, there is a remedy. I don't know how a debtor could not have standing to raise that issue with the Court. So I -- THE COURT: Did you -- did you -- why didn't you file a removal of the trustee under section 324 of the code then? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, our judgment was that this was an easier way, a quicker way. I don't think there's anything wrong with -- THE COURT: Well, what happens if I deny it? If I deny your motion, then all you can do is file a notice of appeal at that point. MR. HENZY: Yes. That's right. I think the basis -- the basis for the 60(b) motion, Your Honor, is the same basis that there would be for a 324 motion. If you -- if you said I'm going to deny this -- THE COURT: I'm not sure that's true actually. I\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 56 think the standards under those sections are different. MR. HENZY: Actually, I agree with you. So I misspoke. And, look -- look, the reason we filed the 60(b) motion is because we think that there is information that should have been put in front of the Court that was not put in front of the Court. And -- THE COURT: Okay. I understand that. And we're not having a hearing on ultimately that today. Okay? MR. HENZY: We're not. THE COURT: So you rose to tell me that you believe that the debtor -- you are debtor's counsel regardless of the actual conflict of interest that exists -- MR. HENZY: I didn't -- I didn't rise to tell you that because I wasn't questioning that. THE COURT: Okay. I'm sorry. MR. HENZY: But you told me that I might not be. THE COURT: I apologize. MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: You rose to tell me what then? That you believe that Mr. Despins made arguments that characterize Mr. Kwok that you think are unfair? MR. HENZY: That's right. THE COURT: Okay. And then -- and that your client has standing in the -- because I had asked Mr. Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 56 of 116\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 57 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 57 Despins questions about the adversary proceedings and the stay issue, that your client has standing in the 523 actions, and doesn't -- and you -- and your assertion is that Mr. Despins does not automatically become the defendant in the 523 actions, but does in the action brought by HK International? MR. HENZY: Absolutely. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: And then what else did you want to tell me? MR. HENZY: And on behalf of HK International, I wanted to tell you, because I think Mr. Despins did make argument that, just for the record, that HK International agrees with -- sorry -- disagrees with his argument. That's all. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: All right. Is there anything further that you wanted to tell me? MR. HENZY: Not right now, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Kindseth? MR. KINDSETH: Your Honor, on behalf of HK\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 58 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 58 International, I would just like to just clarify some -- with respect to the inspection of the Lady May, I just would like to make sure there's no misunderstanding. The trustee used the term that the yacht was damaged and I think that left a lot open. And I think it's appropriate for Your Honor to hear with respect to the particular issues that the yacht was not damaged in the crossing. And we permitted the inspection on a very short order. Pacific Alliance had three inspectors there. The trustee had one inspector there. They were allowed unfettered access to the entire ship. Our chief engineer and the captain were available. The chief engineer was with all the inspectors continuously answering their questions. Additionally, they were permitted unfettered access to the books and records of the yacht. And they went through the records and obtained all the information they sought. And to my knowledge, being present and witnessing what transpired, the only known issues with respect to the Lady May are first the sea valves, which we've been apprising the Court of for quite some time. We had an estimate to do the work in France, but time did not permit it. So we know there's some rusted bolts on some sea valves that need to be replaced and we fully intend to reserve for\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 59 that. Unfortunately, one of the fuel pumps broke outside New York. We disclosed that before the inspection. And we're getting quotes for that and we intend to reserve for that. And, additionally, the boat being damaged was that some paint came off the hull during the crossing. And we're fully intending to have that inspected and an estimate received for the cost of that. So those are the three items. And, again, I was personally there. The inspectors discussed, the chief engineer discussed, there were no other issues. That is the extent of the, quote, \"damage\" that was referred to by the trustee. And in accordance with the stipulation, we're going to come to -- with an estimate. We'll present the estimates to Your Honor and we'll ask Your Honor to order that the -- those amounts be reserved. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. With regard to HK's -- the books and records of HK as a whole, I -- apparently -- I shouldn't say apparently -- none of what's happened today is evidence before the Court obviously. We're hearing different reports, which is what the Court wanted to hear. But HK International is going to\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 60 be subject to some requirement to turn over those records to the trustee. MR. SKALKA: Yes. My apologies, Your Honor. And I'm sure, you know, Attorney Henzy meant to address this. With respect to the corporate books and records and so forth, we received the request from the trustee. We fully understand our obligations and the debtor understands the debtor's obligations post trustee appointment while the debtor is out of possession under the code and the bankruptcy rules to cooperate with the trustee. And we're in the process of assembling information and records. And HK International, although not a debtor entity, it's owed -- it's owned by the daughter. As counsel, I understand that the records will need to be produced and we fully intend to cooperate with the trustee in that process. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Now, with regard to the status conference, the other matter -- two other matters -- we turn first to Brown Rudnick on the motion to withdraw as attorney. So, counsel, I'm not sure which of the two of you would like to be heard, but there is no -- unless I missed something, which is very possible --- I don't see any reason set forth in the motion to be -- to withdraw as debtor's counsel in the case.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 60 of 116\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 61 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 61 So I'd ask you why -- why is it that you believe that you are entitled -- your firm is entitled -- and all the individuals who filed appearances in the case entitled to withdraw as debtor's counsel at this point? MR. KLETTER: Sure. And just to clarify, Mr. Romney is with the Zeisler firm. Again, this is Dylan Kletter. THE COURT: Oh, yes. I'm sorry, Mr. Romney. MR. KLETTER: That's okay. This is Dylan Kletter from Brown Rudnick. You're right. It does not go into detail for why, but I believe the Zeisler firm has accurately described now that he's out of possession it's his prerogative to terminate his counsel and that is what he did. And he has replaced it with substitute counsel of the Zeisler firm, a Mr. Mitchell. And then it is our position that the Zeisler firm, as you can tell, is obviously working the file and we have an unobjected to motion to withdraw as counsel. THE COURT: Well, I don't know that you have an unobjected to motion to withdraw as counsel because it hasn't been set for a hearing and no one's been required to file any response to your motion. And even if you have an unobjected to motion to withdraw as counsel, that doesn't mean that the Court\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 62 doesn't have an independent duty to determine whether or not that motion should be granted or denied or granted with conditions. Your firm subjected itself to the Court and to the processes of the bankruptcy case. Your firm received a million dollar retainer from some source that I'm not -- I don't recall -- maybe there is evidence in the record about the source, I don't recall -- and I'm sorry at the moment that I don't -- but you also, you know, would need to file a fee application and you'd have to have those fees approved and you'd have to establish that the retainer has not been drawn down on and all of those kinds of things. So while maybe it ultimately will be a motion -- and unopposed motion to withdraw as attorney, it is not at that -- this point in time because it was not brought before the Court properly as far as getting it either through our contested matter procedure or on the calendar for a hearing. That's how our local rules work in Connecticut. So we can -- I'm going to hear from other parties, sir, but there will be a process. And maybe it will be granted. But at the very least, if it is granted, you will -- your firm will be obligated to comply with the requirements of the bankruptcy code and the rules and that Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 62 of 116\n\nwould be at the very least filing a fee application which\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 63 of 116\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
63 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | would be subject to objections and further hearing and |\n| 2 | determination by the Court the fees and expenses incurred by |\n| 3 | the firm. Okay? |\n| 4 | MR. SKALKA:
Understood. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Mr. Friedman, I see you have risen. |\n| 6 | Go right ahead, please. |\n| 7 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | Madam Court Reporter Deputy, can you hear me from |\n| 9 | here or do you want me to go -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Maybe it would make sense if you don't |\n| 11 | mind, Mr. Friedman. |\n| 12 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
It's |\n| 13 | Peter Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 15 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
I want to make three quick points |\n| 16 | on things you've heard from -- on so far and then I would |\n| 17 | like to come back to address any issues related to the |\n| 18 | scheduling with respect to the retention motion and the |\n| 19 | 60(b) motion. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| 21 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
First is to answer your question. |\n| 22 | Lamp Capital made a loan -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 24 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
-- which is where the funding came |\n| 25 | from. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 64 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 64\n\n The second is with respect to 523 and those complaints. My view -- obviously everybody's offered what they think is the right answer -- is we don't even know if this debtor is going to propose, I'm sorry, the trustee is going to propose a plan that has a discharge so it seems to me like a stay is particularly warranted in light of that.\n\n Why waste time litigating over an action that may be constitutionally not ripe. I think it's actually to me like a pretty serious question as to ripeness for any of those claims if we don't know if the debtor -- if a discharge is going to be proposed.\n\n I have a hard time seeing one being proposed by the trustee unless there's something pretty close to full satisfaction of claims. I don't know what the trustee is going to do on that. But that seems to me an independent reason to consider the parties potentially agreeing to stay those matters.\n\n With respect to the HK lawsuit over the boat, you know, PAX is a defendant. I'm hoping that we can stipulate that PAX doesn't need to be a defendant. We never claimed to own the boat. We can't assert the debtor's rights. We can't levy because of the automatic stay which remains in place.\n\n So, you know, PAX has had to spend a lot of resources already in this case. It would be great if we Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 65 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 65 cannot have to spend resources on a suit where we're not really appropriately a defendant given sort of the current context of this case. So those are the three points I wanted to make. I do want to be heard on the retention issues and the 60(b) motion because we do have some things to say. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. FRIEDMAN: When it's time. You know. I don't know if you want me to -- THE COURT: Well, you can -- you can tell me what you'd like to tell me now. I mean, we are going to -- you go right ahead. MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. So, Your Honor, a couple of -- a couple of things. On the -- on both of them, whether it's with respect to Paul Hastings or with respect to Mr. Despins, I think our big concern is -- with respect to the issues Mr. Kwok has raised in his letters and on his social media account, which I don't know if you've had -- maybe it's not appropriate for the Court to look at it -- but on those things like PAG has committed fraud by colluding with DOJ is littered all over his Gettr account. I think his most recent Gettr post is, you know, Mr. Miles Guo will initiate a series of motions and appeals to expose the CCP's infiltration of the U.S. Judiciary and\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 66 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 66 the black hands of the U.S. Judiciary. There's an accusation that I've colluded with the CCP. I certainly want to say with respect to PAG and with respect to me -- THE COURT: With respect to PAG, P-A-G? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: -- and all of its affiliates, and me, if there is any repetition of those in a pleading signed by counsel, we will seek Rule 11 sanctions. I just want to put people on notice of that. Okay? As an officer of the Court I will tell you that I'm the only person who spoke -- maybe Mr. Sarnoff did, but our client never spoke to the Department of Justice about the appointment. We actually recommended people other than Mr. Despins. We, for reasons having to do with costs, didn't actually want somebody from a big law firm to be involved in this case as a trustee because of expense. We were very clear that there were people we supported to be trustee. They were not selected. Either of the people who were selected, neither one was selected. We would have been okay with Mr. Whitley. We're not thrilled with Mr. Despins for the cost reasons, for the fact they put in now our client is a former Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 67 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 67 client of ours that I think is, you know, wasn't something that our client thought was so great to be deemed a former client, but it is what it is. But I just want to be really clear that if anybody makes those allegations in a signed pleading it will be Rule 11 sanctionable because it's just not true. More broadly speaking on both though, Your Honor, the Court obviously has control over how it deals with those motions and what it permits to be raised. If it involves subjecting us to discovery, obviously, you know, we think that's extremely unfair and unwise. We think that if it involves frankly forcing people to go down rabbit holes to deal with, you know, Paul Hastings' connection with companies that operate in China on the sort of rabbit hole, crazy theories that are being raised about collusion with the CCP, that the Court should just consider going in a different direction, if it's going to indulge that kind of discovery because it's a -- you know, Paul Hastings, they're going to bill for that -- that eats into creditor recoveries. It distracts us from the intention -- attention to what ought to be done in this case. And I don't think it's right to give Mr. Kwok the ability to do that. That will be -- discovery, et cetera,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 68 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 68 will all be argued later. But if the Court's going to -- we would rather see the Court go in a different direction with the trustee because it's not in the best interest of the estate rather than go down those rabbit holes because of the expense issue and because of the delay issues. Again, I think the allegations are not -- are frivolous allegations that could subject counsel and clients and anybody who's sort of sponsoring them to real problems. But we just, you know -- as you know, PAX has been waiting since 2009 to get paid. Spending more time on a war over these issues which really aren't germane to what are Mr. Kwok's assets and how can they get into the hands of creditors seems just -- you know, can't possibly be in the interest of the estate. As to cost more broadly -- and, you know, I've expressed this to Mr. Despins, you know, we are concerned about the rate structure and the expense. He's obviously done a lot of work, which is great, and I think his presentation was important, but, you know, we are concerned. I think to the extent that we can and we will, you know, if we need to, we will file an objection with respect to -- if we have to -- with respect to the costs and perhaps propose something. I'm not sure. But I don't want anybody to be surprised about that. I try not to surprise people, you know, particularly other, you know, members of the bar\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 69 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 69 on sensitive -- I understand fees are sensitive issues, rates are sensitive issues, but it is important to PAX as a party with, you know, \\$260 million plus in judgments and the largest creditor. I think that's really all I wanted to say, Your Honor. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to speak. THE COURT: Okay. Before you step back, I -- as you know, this is a status conference so we are going to be setting some hearings on different matters, specifically on Brown Rudnick's motion to withdraw. And I have to look at -- there's a lot of thing that have been filed since Mr. Despins was appointed as the Chapter 11 trustee that we will look at. Are you asking the Court to do anything different than what the Court is planning on doing or you're just asking that you reserve your rights to be heard on whatever happens? MR. FRIEDMAN: The latter. And the other thing I would just ask is if the Court can -- I would be unavailable I think on August 5th. I think the -- THE COURT: The 5th? MR. FRIEDMAN: -- the Friday, that Friday of that week is -- I'm unavailable. Other than that, I'm available at the Court's disposal. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 70 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 70 MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Goldman? MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll be -- THE COURT: Would you come up here too, please. MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. Certainly. THE COURT: Just because I think it's easier for the courtroom deputy to pick up your voice. Please. Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: Just a few brief points, Your Honor. The committee is aligned with PAX in terms of the cross concerns that Mr. Friedman articulated with respect to the trustee and his firm. We want to reserve our rights on that application. We're also aligned in terms of how we view the 9024 motion that the debtor filed, which we view as a complete distraction and without merit. We need to get on to the business of administering this five month old case and we've had enough litigation thus far. These issues that are raised in our view are just not meritorious and we shouldn't be spending a lot of -- a lot of time on that. Just in terms of giving Your Honor an idea of the magnitude of the claims thus far in the case, even though a proof of claim deadline hasn't been set, the claims register\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 71 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 71 shows 80 -- approximately \\$83 million in proofs of claim that have already been filed. That doesn't include PAX's claim of approximately 254 million. The class action 523 complaint that was just filed yesterday states that their claim is in the collective amount of \\$114 million. That relates to I believe the securities, the alleged securities violations, with respect to GTV. That may also be the same claim that the SEC filed a proof for although I'm not completely sure. And so if you include those two claims, which haven't been filed yet, we're up to around \\$450 million in gross amount of claims. And so we really do need to get on with the business of trying to get a recovery for those claims. And I don't want to minimize we have a great deal of confidence in Mr. Despins and what he's done thus far, but there is a correlative concern about the magnitude of the rates and the fees, which of course he will be getting as trustee under section 326 based on what he recovers. And if his firm is hired they'll be getting compensated that way as well. So with -- THE COURT: A question about -- and I meant to ask Mr. Kindseth this as well -- and probably should have asked Mr. Despins this as well -- the stipulation with regard to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 72 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 72 the Lady May, there are still other obligations that have to be met. There's still \\$37 million being held in escrow. There are -- the other stipulation provisions have not been met yet that I see. Only the stipulation provision that has been met is the reporting that HK has done, and they have done that timely, and the return of the boat, the yacht, prior to the date in the stipulation. But there are other provisions in that stipulation that have not been resolved yet. And so when you talk about getting on with the administration of the estate, which is what the Court found when determining that a Chapter 11 trustee should be appointed -- there needs to be some attention to what is going to happen here with regard to the yacht and/or the \\$37 million. That money is still subject to the jurisdiction of this court. And there are -- there are still issues with regard to certifications and things that I think need to be filed in which there are time frames to object. And so it would seem to me that the parties need to focus on those issues. Because the longer those issues lay dormant, the longer it's going to take to administer the estate. MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah. We are certainly aligned with Your Honor on that.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 73 of 116\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
73 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
All right.
I |\n| 2 | appreciate what you've said.
And is there anything further |\n| 3 | you'd like to state for the record this afternoon? |\n| 4 | MR. GOLDMAN:
No, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 6 | Does the Office of the United States Trustee wish |\n| 7 | to be heard? |\n| 8 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Not at this time, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, I am going to ask the |\n| 10 | Office of the United States Trustee to file a brief on why |\n| 11 | -- and I'm going to -- actually, I'm going to have Attorney |\n| 12 | Henzy's firm do the same thing simultaneously -- and anyone |\n| 13 | else that wants to, you may, but you don't have to -- as to |\n| 14 | why the debtor is entitled to retain Attorney Henzy's firm |\n| 15 | without that firm having to comply with the provisions of |\n| 16 | the bankruptcy code 327(a) and 2014. |\n| 17 | And at some point, after this status conference, |\n| 18 | I'm going to schedule a hearing on the motion to withdraw |\n| 19 | filed by Brown Rudnick which will have an objection deadline |\n| 20 | for parties to file an objection, if any, to Brown Rudnick's |\n| 21 | motion. |\n| 22 | And then, Mr. Despins, with regard to the bar date |\n| 23 | issue and the publication issue, you indicated when we |\n| 24 | talked on the record that you'd like to think about those |\n| 25 | issues.
I think it may make sense to schedule a hearing, a |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 74 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 74 further hearing, on that motion so we can finalize it and get that order entered. And I can do that. I would assume I can do that in short order in the next week or two. Would that give you enough time to analyze the issue, Mr. Despins? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. With regard to Mr. Despins' application to employ Paul Hastings and to employ Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, I think those have to be set for a hearing as well with an objection deadline. The likelihood is -- but I don't know this until I go back and review everything, that we will have a day set in the future to address all of these matters, which obviously will be a day because there's a lot of matters to address. I agree that we need to move ahead with the administration of this case which is why the Court made a determination about the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. I want to look at the calendar for a moment if everyone would bear with me, please, for a moment. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, if I could be heard on timing? THE COURT: Sure. Please. MR. DESPINS: So we had filed -- thank you, Your\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 75 Honor. We had filed a motion to expedite which obviously has not been granted. Understand that the reason being is that we're going full out right now. And the 30day rule doesn't help us if the Court, you know, in the future says, well -- by the way, I'm making this up as a slight joke -- but if the Court says, well, we think you're a member of the communist party so we're not going to approve the retention -- it's a joke, Your Honor -- so then I'm not protected by the 30 day rule. So there's a real prejudice to the firm in being -- and that's, by the way, that's exactly why the debtor has not scheduled -- has not moved for a hearing on their motion to recuse me or to remove me because they love the uncertainty and to continue that. So for us, you know, we filed our motion on the 12th. Even under regular, non-accelerated days, that would bring us to August 1st or something like that, on the 20-day -- so personally from the 3rd to the 22nd, I'm -- I could not be in court. I mean, I could participate by Zoom. But if there -- if there's a real contested hearing, I could not be there. So we would urge the Court -- you know, PAX had said they were okay with a hearing next Monday. Of course, that's probably too short at this point. But anytime next\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 76 of 116\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
76 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | week or August 1st, we would urge the Court, if it's at all |\n| 2 | possible, to schedule it then because that will have been |\n| 3 | plenty of time for these issues to have been figured out. |\n| 4 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, may I be heard? |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | Just to be clear, I will file a motion to expedite |\n| 10 | right away on our 9024 motion.
We're not trying to have |\n| 11 | that float out there.
We think it should be taken up at the |\n| 12 | same time as the Paul Hastings application will be taken up |\n| 13 | because there will be a lot of overlap. |\n| 14 | We do need to take discovery in connection with |\n| 15 | our motion and the Paul Hastings application.
We're |\n| 16 | prepared to serve discovery immediately. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
I'm not sure you're entitled to |\n| 18 | discovery, Attorney Henzy. |\n| 19 | It's a motion for relief for a judgment order. |\n| 20 | Based upon, again, an issue of whether or not your client |\n| 21 | actually has standing to oppose this person being appointed |\n| 22 | as a Chapter 11 trustee in a case where your client has |\n| 23 | stated under penalty of perjury that they have \\$3,400 and |\n| 24 | some odd dollars as assets. |\n| 25 | So I understand your assertion, but I'm not sure I |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 77 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 77 agree with it at this point. I also -- as I started to say, I'm not sure that you don't have to meet the requirements of debtor -- a debtor's counsel under 327(a). I understand your argument, but no one has put forth anything in front of me to show me why you don't have to meet that requirement. Number one. Number two, even if you didn't have to meet the requirement, there's -- I don't know why it isn't a conflict of interest that you represent both HK International and Mr. Kwok. I don't -- I don't understand that. I'm having difficulty understanding that. And I'm having difficulty understanding that because of many reasons, including the fact that there is an adversary proceeding pending filed by your firm on behalf of HK International claiming that Mr. Kwok has no -- well, asking for a declaratory judgment that it owns the boat. So there's a lot of issues here and we're not going to get derailed on discovery on the presumption that you're entitled to do all these things to begin with. Those issues have to be addressed first. And I'm not going to allow discovery to drag out what was clearly before the debtor and Brown Rudnick as debtor's counsel since the U.S. Trustee filed a motion for\n\n the appointment of an examiner or in the alternative a trustee I believe back in February or early March. I can\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 78 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 78 look at the docket. It won't take me very long to find it. So that's not going to happen in this case. This case -- your client voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this court with all the benefits and burdens associated with that and that doesn't mean that your client, who as you have stated now on the record a few times, who's no longer in possession -- can now stall the process by insisting that you need discovery in connection with your allegations that Mr. Despins -- Mr. Despins -- now, we're talking about -- I made this point at the last hearing but you weren't here because you weren't counsel -- even though the trustee had -- the motion to appoint the trustee had been granted, that the difference between a conflict of Mr. Despins acting as the Chapter 11 trustee and Paul Hastings acting as Mr. Despins' counsel are two different things. And no one has put forth any information in this record to show that Mr. Despins has a conflict of interest. No one. And Mr. Despins has stated and sworn under penalty of perjury that he has no conflict, that the issues with regard to Paul Hastings that have been raised by you in your brief in your -- not your brief, but in your motion -- are things he did not know of and was not aware of personally. But, yes, his firm has offices in China. And,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 79 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 79 yes, they represent parties that somehow are related -- could be related to Mr. Kwok, but not in connection with this case in any way. I'm not going to allow discovery to derail the process of the Chapter 11 trustee appointment and his duties and responsibilities to carry out his affairs in this case. And I'm certainly not going to do that unless and until I determine whether you're correct or not that you can represent the debtor without having to address the disinterestedness issues. Even if you can, I still have no understanding of -- I'm having very -- it's very difficult for me to understand how your firm does not have an actual conflict of interest in the simultaneous representation of HK International and Mr. Kwok. MR. HENZY: Thee's a lot -- THE COURT: There is a lot there. MR. HENZY: -- to unpack there, Your Honor. THE COURT: I agree with you. MR. HENZY: If I could -- if I could -- THE COURT: There is -- this case has a lot. It always has a lot. MR. HENZY: To show that I can joke too, I like it that you refer to Mr. Kwok as, you said, your client. You're not bound by it. But --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 80 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 80 THE COURT: Well, that's what you assert. That's what you assert, Mr. Henzy. MR. HENZY: That's what I assert. But, again, to show I can -- I can joke too. There's a lot to unpack there, Your Honor. I mean, in the sense that -- and I understand you're not agreeing with this but, you know, I believe Mr. Kwok does have standing to challenge the appointment of Mr. Despins. And just to be clear -- THE COURT: I didn't -- I didn't even say -- I didn't even argue with you on that -- MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: -- at this point. MR. HENZY: If he -- THE COURT: At this point. All I said is you're not getting discovery. MR. HENZY: Well, but if -- THE COURT: It's not being derailed with discovery. It's not happening. MR. HENZY: But if he -- if he has standing -- the rule 60 motion is a contested matter -- if he has standing to press that motion, and he has standing to object -- THE COURT: It's not a new trial. It's not a new trial. Right? Rule 60 isn't a new trial. MR. HENZY: This is not a new trial.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 81 of 116\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
81 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Rule 60 is you want relief -- |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY:
That's right. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
-- from a judgment or order. |\n| 4 | MR. HENZY:
That is correct. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
That's right. |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY:
That's correct. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
So it's not a new trial.
You're not |\n| 8 | saying there's newly discovered evidence that -- |\n| 9 | MR. HENZY:
But it -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
-- the Court didn't consider when |\n| 11 | taking this all into effect -- into account. |\n| 12 | And Mr. Despins has, as you know, as any party |\n| 13 | does, a continuing obligation to disclose issues, which he |\n| 14 | did.
Which he did.
He filed a supplemental affidavit.
He |\n| 15 | filed that. |\n| 16 | And so there is no new -- this isn't -- the |\n| 17 | standard under Rule 60 and the standard under Rule 59 are |\n| 18 | completely different. |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:
It's a Rule 60(b)(2), Your Honor. |\n| 20 | It's -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
I understand what it is. |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
It's newly discovered evidence.
And |\n| 23 | this is -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
It's not newly discovered evidence. |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
How could the debtor -- how could the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 82 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 82 debtor -- THE COURT: What's the evidence? MR. HENZY: Given -- THE COURT: Tell me what the evidence is. MR. HENZY: Sure. And counsel can say that this is all frivolous, but -- THE COURT: I'm don't want to -- I don't -- I'm not worried about him right now. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I'm worried about you. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: Tell me what the evidence is. MR. HENZY: There is a public record that the government of China, the Communist Party of China, Mr. Kwok is on the wrong side of the government of China. I don't think -- I don't know that anybody would dispute that. Okay? I think that it is now known -- and I don't know that Mr. Kwok knew or could have known this given the time line on Mr. Despins' appointment -- I think there was one day between the U.S. Trustee filing that motion and the hearing taking place that Paul Hastings -- THE COURT: I agree with you. MR. HENZY: -- Paul Hastings has offices as I understand it in China. Paul Hastings represents companies\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 83 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 83 that are affiliated with the Chinese government. That is -- I believe that is true. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: I also, from reading the newspaper, okay, have an understanding that being a citizen of the world, that China exercises a different degree of influence over entities doing business in China than let's say the United States government exercises over entities doing business in the United States. I think that is a fair statement for me to make. So I don't think it's frivolous or crazy or baseless -- THE COURT: But where's the evidence? What's your evidence? MR. HENZY: I -- THE COURT: That the newspaper says that China exerts control over -- and I'm not trying to be flip, Mr. Henzy, but -- MR. HENZY: Well, do you -- do you disagree with that, Your Honor, that the -- THE COURT: I don't -- I don't have to agree or disagree with anything. MR. HENZY: -- that the government of China -- I mean -- THE COURT: All I have to do is make findings of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 84 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 84 fact, right? And I made those findings of fact when I appoint -- when I granted the motion for the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. I made those findings. Okay? Now, Mr. Despins has stated in the -- on the record, subject to penalty of perjury, that he personally has no conflict, doesn't represent the government of China. Yes, works for an international firm that has offices in China. Yes, the firm has business -- has as a past client, I believe is the exact language -- PAG, P-A-G, which is related to and/or -- Mr. Friedman can correct me -- but I think is the -- may be described as the parent company of PAX. What's the evidence there? How is that -- how is that enough evidence for this court to say he should be -- Mr. Despins should be removed? MR. HENZY: I can't give you the evidence -- THE COURT: Right. MR. HENZY: -- unless I can do discovery. THE COURT: But I'm not going to derail the process -- MR. HENZY: Unless -- THE COURT: -- so you can go make -- do discovery. What discovery? What possible -- what are you going to do? Are you going to depose people from the government of China? MR. HENZY: If Mr. Despins wants to stipulate as to all of Paul Hastings' connections in China, who they --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 85 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 85 how many parties they represent -- THE COURT: Why would he have to do that? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, you can, today, tell me that I'm just wrong, that Paul Hastings -- and Mr. Despins is a partner at Paul Hastings. I don't -- I don't think you just separate him and say if Paul Hastings is not -- is not disinterested, that Mr. -- I don't see how Paul Hastings could be not disinterested and have Mr. Despins not be disinterested. That doesn't make sense to me. Okay? But if you're going to say that notwithstanding these apparent connections that Paul Hastings hasn't -- with the Chinese government, with -- THE COURT: That have nothing to do with Mr. Kwok. Where's the connection? MR. HENZY: The connection is that the Chinese government -- the allegation is that the Chinese government is -- has persecuted Mr. Kwok and has persecuted his family. The allegation is that the Chinese government exercises a great deal of influence over entities that do business in China and that that puts Paul Hastings in a compromised position. And Mr. Despins, as a partner of Paul Hastings, in a compromised position. Your Honor, you can say I don't -- I don't agree\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 86 of 116\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
86 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | with you that the Chinese government exercises influence |\n| 2 | over entities in China that are doing business in China. |\n| 3 | You could say that.
Okay.
And I -- I'm not going to go do |\n| 4 | discovery on that.
But this raises a significant issue. |\n| 5 | I don't -- I don't know if someone's going to |\n| 6 | stand up and say -- and defend -- in this court and defend |\n| 7 | the way the Chinese government deals with entities that do |\n| 8 | business in China and say, no, that's not true.
The Chinese |\n| 9 | government doesn't exercise any influence over people -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
If your client didn't -- if your |\n| 11 | client -- if you're allowed to represent this client in this |\n| 12 | court didn't want to subject himself to the jurisdiction of |\n| 13 | this court then he shouldn't have filed a Chapter 11 case. |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:
I don't think, Your Honor, that has |\n| 15 | anything to do -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, how does it not have anything to |\n| 17 | do with it?
Because you're saying that he -- the Chinese |\n| 18 | government influences everything that happens with regard to |\n| 19 | Mr. Kwok.
That's what you're saying. |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:
No, I'm not saying that. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Then what are you saying? |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
What I'm saying is that the Chinese |\n| 23 | government exercises a great deal of influence over anybody |\n| 24 | who does business in China.
I think that's a fair statement |\n| 25 | for me to make. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 87 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 87 THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Okay. And Paul -- THE COURT: And how does that result in a conflict of interest that allows that Mr. Despins can't -- can't be the Chapter 11 trustee? MR. HENZY: And Paul Hastings does business in China. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: And the Chinese government -- THE COURT: And so what -- what control -- you have no evidence of what control they have. You just make a blanket -- and I'm not saying you just -- but the statement that you just made is the Chinese government has control over people who do business with them. Well, the control might be that they want the company to produce 12 cars as opposed to 20. How does that affect Mr. Kwok and Paul Hastings? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, the argument is that Paul Hastings does business in China. It represents entities connected with the Chinese government, therefore, the Chinese government is going to have influence or control -- THE COURT: So you're saying Mr. Despins is a -- is a puppet of the Chinese government?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 88 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 88 MR. HENZY: No. That's completely unfair, Your Honor. I didn't say -- THE COURT: Well, then what are you saying? MR. HENZY: I did not say that. THE COURT: Well, then -- but then what are you saying? MR. HENZY: What I'm saying is that there's a disinterestedness issue here and we have a right to explore that issue. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I'm not sure I agree with you. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: But I understand your point. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I could, could I be heard for two seconds? THE COURT: Certainly. Certainly. MR. DESPINS: This argument is insane. Why? Let's assume he's right. Let's assume he's right on all -- so what's the discussion? So the Chinese communist party comes to our office in China and says what? Go easy on him or go hard on him? I'm going to go -- let me be very clear, I'm going to go and try to get all his assets. That's my job as the trustee.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 89 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 89 So what's the conflict? Meaning, first of all, I'm not agreeing for a second that they would do that or that we would be susceptible to that. But let's assume that's the case, let's follow that to its logic. Unless I -- unless his point is that we would somehow work with them to arrest him or to bring him -- that's insane. This is a civil case. My job is not retribution. It's collection. I want to collect -- I want to be clear -- as much as I can for the holders of valid claims. That's the (indiscernible). And Paul Hastings will do the same. So this argument that we're subject to the influence, which way does that cut? Meaning that they would -- one way or another, they would say go harder? I'm going to -- I don't need the CCP to tell me that. I'm going to go hard to get all his assets. That's my job. So I don't understand the influence. I'm sorry. MR. HENZY: Can I -- can I just -- can I respond to that quickly, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, you can. MR. HENZY: Okay. And, again, this is public record. THE COURT: Public record where? MR. HENZY: I can give you -- I'll give you citations, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 90 of 116\n\n| | 90
Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
But tell me what it is.
Are we |\n| 2 | talking about a social media website? |\n| 3 | MR. HENZY:
Absolutely not, Your Honor.
We're |\n| 4 | talking about statements from the United States Department |\n| 5 | of Justice. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY:
Okay. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
What part of the United States |\n| 9 | Department of Justice? |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:
Different parts. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:
And I can -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Go ahead. |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:
And I can tell -- okay. |\n| 15 | Mr. Steven Wynn, who is I think a well-known |\n| 16 | casino/hotel person, has -- the DOJ has filed a civil |\n| 17 | enforcement action against him to compel him to register |\n| 18 | under the Foreign Registration Act as an agent of the |\n| 19 | Peoples Republic of China and a senior official of the PRC's |\n| 20 | Ministry of Public Security, and the citation is -- it's a |\n| 21 | Justice Department -- it's in our motion -- it's a web, ww |\n| 22 | -- I can try to give it to you, but I -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
No, it's all right. |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:
Okay. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
You don't have to give it to me. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 91 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 91 MR. HENZY: And -- THE COURT: And how does that impact Mr. Wynn, I mean -- Mr. Wynn, I know how it impacts Mr. Wynn -- MR. HENZY: Okay. I'm -- THE COURT: -- how does it impact Mr. Despins and Paul Hastings? MR. HENZY: I'm responding to Mr. Despins' statement that it's insane to say that the Chinese government would exercise influence over someone doing business in China. THE COURT: That's not what he said. MR. HENZY: Okay. I think it is what he said. THE COURT: No. MR. DESPINS: No. THE COURT: That's actually not what he said. MR. HENZY: Okay. But if I could finish? THE COURT: He said your argument is insane. Because here's what he said. This is at least the way I interpret it. And you can disagree with me. He said your argument is insane because what -- the only two things that could happen is the Chinese government either tells him to go hard and get all of Mr. Kwok's assets or to do nothing and leave him alone. And Mr. Despins said, but I -- my job is to go hard and get all of his assets. So what's the problem?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 92 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 92 MR. HENZY: So then the argument is that Mr. Despins -- Mr. Despins' interest and the Chinese government's interest are aligned and, therefore, to the extent -- THE COURT: That doesn't mean there's a conflict. MR. HENZY: -- to the extent -- wait -- to the extent that there otherwise would be a disinterestedness issue, there's no issue, because if anything the Chinese government would tell him go hard, go hard, go hard. That's not the analysis though, Your Honor. That's not -- THE COURT: How is he -- how is he not disinterested even if his -- even if his goals are aligned with the Chinese government, how is he not disinterested? MR. HENZY: If there is -- if there is a party that exercises any kind of undue influence over a trustee, then that trustee is not disinterested. THE COURT: How are -- where is the proof that they're exercising undue influence over Mr. Despins? MR. HENZY: I don't have proof today -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: -- and I don't know how I could have proof today because -- THE COURT: Well, the bankruptcy code -- MR. HENZY: -- because I have --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 93 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 93 THE COURT: Here's what happens. The bankruptcy code allows you to bring that issue forth if you believe it to be true and then it will be addressed appropriate. A Rule 60(b) motion is not the appropriate way for that to happen. There is no newly discovered evidence. The only thing that came out is the continuing obligation -- and first of all, we're talking about Mr. Despins. I raised this at the first hearing. Maybe you could argue, but we're not arguing that today, there's a problem with Paul Hastings. Maybe you can argue that. But we're not arguing that. We're talking about Mr. Despins individually acting as a trustee. So your argument is that no matter who was the Chapter 11 trustee, whatever individual, if that individual works for a firm that somehow has business relationships with China, so had a purchase and sale agreement to buy toys from China, that they would be not -- they would disinterested because -- because every single person that does business with the Chinese government is unduly influenced by the Chinese government. That's your argument. MR. HENZY: Depends on facts and circumstances, but potentially, yes. THE COURT: Well, what's the facts and -- well, how are the facts and circumstances of the scenario I just\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 94 of 116\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
94 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | presented to you any different from what Mr. Despins has |\n| 2 | said in his -- in his disclosures? |\n| 3 | MR. HENZY:
I might say that that party is unduly |\n| 4 | influenced by the Chinese government. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Buying toys? |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY:
Yes.
I might -- yes. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
I might say that.
Yeah. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
You can say that, but I might |\n| 10 | disagree with you. |\n| 11 | MR. HENZY:
And you might disagree with me. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:
Yeah. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
All right. |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY:
Look, I think we're not arguing the |\n| 16 | 60(b) motion today.
I think.
I think anyway we're arguing |\n| 17 | is does Mr. Kwok have a right to take discovery and I think |\n| 18 | he does. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Yes.
And I'm finding he does not have |\n| 20 | the right to take discovery.
And you can appeal that if |\n| 21 | you'd like -- |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
Yeah. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
-- when I rule on the motion, but |\n| 24 | we're not going to do this. |\n| 25 | See, here's the problem.
There's \\$37 million in |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 95 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 95 an escrow account. And there's a boat, a yacht, somewhere over there, right, that your client stipulated to would come to this jurisdiction. And before the Court didn't acquiesce to the plan of how the professionals were going to be paid \\$8 million in a very short amount of time without establishing the need to pay them and to pay them on a weekly basis outside of the provisions of the bankruptcy code. The boat was going to be pledged as -- to the plan to creditors. Now we're in a situation where your alleged client -- and it may be it may be he may be your client doesn't want anything else to happen. Doesn't want the boat to become part of the estate, but doesn't want the \\$37 million to become part of the estate either. And the way that that's going to be accomplished is to challenge Mr. Despins through a Rule 30(c) -- Rule 60 motion. That's not going to happen. MR. HENZY: I disagree with that, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may disagree. MR. HENZY: I just disagree. THE COURT: But that's not what's going to happen. MR. HENZY: Mr. -- THE COURT: You take your client, your client that you claim is your client, as you find him, correct? And you found him, as did Brown Rudnick, subject to orders of a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 96 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 96 state court of New York that found after evidentiary hearings -- and I'm not saying they have collateral estoppel effect, I'm not saying any of that, I'm talking about how you found your client -- that found that not only was he -- did he take the Fifth -- and the inferences could be drawn in favor of the creditors with regard to him taking the Fifth -- but that he established and created a network of corporations to keep his assets out of the reach of creditors, including PAX, who's been fighting with him since 2009. Then your client decides to file a Chapter 11 case at the time that the sanction imposition by Justice Ostrager is continuing to accrue. And the point -- and the argument is, well, the accrual, that's stayed. I filed a Chapter 11, the accrual of that is stayed. So the argument then becomes that your client in some way, shape or form, depending upon the relief sought by the creditors, should either have an examiner appointed, a Chapter 11 trustee appointed, or there be a conversion of the case. Then your client says, no, no, we'll agree to dismissal. After coming to this court, negotiating -- being part of a negotiation, which allegedly a separate and distinct corporate entity owned by his daughter also participated in, to bring the boat here, and then says, no,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 97 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 97 you know what, why don't you just dismiss the case, judge. We'll agree to dismissal. Well, that -- you know, your client made a decision, an informed decision, when he decided to file Chapter 11. That's what he did. He could have addressed all of this through the state court process and could have appealed everything, and did appeal things and lost, got -- it was referred back to Justice Ostrager for Justice Ostrager to make a determination about the ownership of the boat. And then Chapter 11 case gets filed, and HK International, the alleged separate and distinct legal entity that is alleged to be the registered owner of the boat, files an adversary proceeding against your client, Mr. Kwok, saying that it wants a declaratory judgment that HK International owns the boat and it's not property of this debtor's estate. I already addressed all those issues by finding that a Chapter 11 trustee should be appointed. Your argument is that Mr. Despins is disinterested -- is not a disinterested person because his firm, not him, but his firm has offices in China and the Chinese government is out to get -- and by the way, maybe the Chinese government is out to get Mr. Kwok. I don't need to make findings about that, okay. Maybe they are, but that doesn't\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 98 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 98 impact Mr. Despins' role and his responsibilities under the bankruptcy code. And to argue otherwise is to attempt to derail Mr. Despins from carrying out his responsibilities. So I guess what you need from me at some point -- and maybe, you know, as I said, I've got to look at all these thing that were filed since July 8th. I'm going to set hearings on different matters -- the motion to withdraw as attorney -- I want you and the United States Trustee's Office to submit a brief on -- as to why you don't need to comply with 327(a). Maybe you're right, but I -- I don't see anything in front of me that convinces me of that at the moment. And then, we're -- and we'll probably have a hearing on your Rule 60(b) motion. And I think we should have it quickly, because if I'm going to deny it, you need to appeal. You need to appeal. And then you need to figure out how you're going to proceed from there. But this case cannot be stalled any longer. This court has a responsibility, as does Mr. Despins now at this point, to try to protect the interests of creditors in connection the parameters of the bankruptcy code, the bankruptcy rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and applicable non-bankruptcy law. And to argue that Mr. Despins is disinterested because the Chinese government influences every party with\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 99 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 99 whom it does business is not persuasive to me at this point. MR. HENZY: I understood. And just a couple points, Your Honor. I wasn't involved in Mr. Kwok's decision to file Chapter 11. THE COURT: I didn't say you were. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I said you took your client as you found him. MR. HENZY: I took -- THE COURT: That's what I said. Didn't I start the whole thing off by saying that? MR. HENZY: Yeah. And we are where we are today. But I don't think that Mr. Kwok decided to file Chapter 11. And just to be clear, he didn't appeal your decision on -- that a trustee would be appointed. And I'll state on the record if Mr. Whitley had been the appointed person, he would not have -- we would not be having this discussion, okay, because his understanding is some of the issues that we think exist with Paul Hastings and Mr. Despins do not exist with Mr. Whitley. So this is not -- this is not that Mr. Kwok was going to oppose anybody who got appointed and wants to obstruct a Chapter 11 trustee from doing his or her job. He understands completely that there is going to be a Chapter\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 100 11 trustee. So I think it's not correct to say that he's just trying to obstruct -- THE COURT: I didn't say -- I said -- MR. HENZY: -- for those purposes. THE COURT: I didn't say he was trying to obstruct. I said I'm not going to let this be derailed. That's what I said. Those were the words I used. MR. HENZY: I think -- I think if a different person had been appointed we wouldn't be having this discussion. And I -- and there are -- THE COURT: Well -- MR. HENZY: Look, you can disagree, Your Honor. We think there are bona fide significant issues here. I understand you may disagree, but I don't -- it's not correct. I don't think that because Mr. Kwok decided to file Chapter 11 that he doesn't have a right to say, wait a second, there's been a trustee appointed, understood, but he should just have to accept whoever gets appointed even when he believes that there are significant conflicts that that person has. I mean, just because you file Chapter 11 doesn't mean -- and subject yourself to the jurisdiction of the Court -- doesn't mean that you have to just sort of accept any and everything that comes along, even if you believe that it is not fair and is prejudicial to you. Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 100 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 101 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HENZY: So I guess, Your Honor, are you ruling today -- THE COURT: No, I'm not ruling. MR. HENZY: -- that we cannot take discovery in connection with -- THE COURT: If you take any discovery before I rule on the 60(b) motion, then I will -- I'm not allowing you to take any discovery before I rule on the 60(b) motion. MR. HENZY: And on the Paul Hastings retention application? THE COURT: And on the Paul Hastings retention application. MR. HENZY: Okay. So you're ruling that today. THE COURT: That's correct. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: There is going to be no discovery. This is not -- these are not matters that are -- we're going to allow to have happen. That's not going to happen. We'll have a hearing. We'll hear your matter. And if we rule against you, then -- if I rule against you, then you'll appeal. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I would ask that there be at least a docket entry on that so ordering that we do not -- Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 101 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 102 THE COURT: Well, this is a status conference, so I'm not going to enter a docket entry on that right now. I'm telling you -- MR. HENZY: But if I don't have -- THE COURT: I'm telling you if you seek discovery before I rule on these matters, then I'm not going to make the other side comply. MR. HENZY: Okay. But, Your Honor, I don't want to go through the exercise of -- I don't know -- anybody -- THE COURT: This motion isn't even on the calendar -- MR. HENZY: I understand. THE COURT: -- so it's inappropriate to start discovery with regard to something that's not even -- This is a status conference. This was -- this was specifically scheduled as a status conference in connection with the motion, excuse me, the memorandum of decision and order appointing the Chapter 11 trustee. You filed documents after that -- this status conference was scheduled. None of your documents have been set for a hearing. Okay? So you can do whatever you think is appropriate once those matters are set for a hearing. MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. What I don't want to do is have us serve discovery and put other parties in a position of having to file motions with this court and Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 102 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 103 the Court then ruling on those motions and saying you don't get to take the discovery. I want to, I guess, just end -- THE COURT: You can do whatever you think is appropriate, Mr. Henzy. I am not -- this was not a hearing on which rulings were going to come out of it other than what I told you. I'm going to back and I'm going to issue -- I'm going to schedule hearings indifferent matters. And I'm going to require you in one of those orders to file briefs as to why you can represent this debtor without complying with 327 and when you have -- when you have what appears to be an actual conflict of interest. MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: And when I say you, I mean Zeisler & Zeisler. Okay? MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. On the discovery issue, okay, what I don't -- what I don't want to do -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. HENZY: -- I don't want to serve discovery after you've told me I'm not going to get discovery -- THE COURT: You can serve discovery at your own -- your decision. You do whatever you think, Counsel, but -- MR. HENZY: I thought you were about to say you Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 103 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 104 can serve discovery at your own peril, but -- THE COURT: I almost did actually. MR. HENZY: -- which I don't -- THE COURT: Yeah. MR. HENZY: -- which, again, I don't want to do that. But I don't think it's fair to tell me I -- I'm not going to let you serve discovery, but go do whatever you're going to do -- THE COURT: Where does it say under Rule 60 that you're entitled to discovery by the way? MR. HENZY: I think the motion is governed by Rule 9014, Your Honor. THE COURT: Right. 9014 means people have an opportunity to respond. And that until that response is filed, why would you be entitled to discovery? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I'm trying to not delay a hearing on these matters. I'm trying to have this go as fast as it can. Mr. Kwok's goal is not to delay the final appointment of a trustee. It's not to delay final retention of counsel for a trustee. We want to get to the issues as much as everybody else wants to get to the issues. Okay. So I understand that until someone files an objection to my Rule 60 motion, arguably, why am I taking discovery? I've a pretty good Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 104 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 610
Filed 07/26/22
Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31
Page 105 of
116 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
105 |\n| 1 | idea that there are going to be objections to my Rule 60 |\n| 2 | motion and I'm trying to move this along as quickly as I |\n| 3 | possibly can. |\n| 4 | I don't want to serve discovery and put people in |\n| 5 | a position of having to file motions with the Court and have |\n| 6 | the Court potentially have a hearing or not have a hearing |\n| 7 | and rule on the motion to give me then whatever rights I |\n| 8 | have with respect to the Court's ruling. |\n| 9 | Which is why I -- for me, it would be much |\n| 10 | preferable -- it may be preferable for other parties -- if |\n| 11 | the Court's going to rule that is to rule that today and get |\n| 12 | it out of the way. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Well, I'll consider that. |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 16 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Your Honor? |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 18 | MR. GOLDMAN:
May I be heard briefly? |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Can you -- make sure you can speak |\n| 20 | into the microphone. |\n| 21 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Yeah.
Can you hear me? |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Thank you. |\n| 23 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Yeah.
One idea I'd like to offer |\n| 24 | for the Court's consideration as a potential way to resolve |\n| 25 | this motion -- |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 106 of\n\n| | 116 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
106 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
What concern? |\n| 2 | MR. GOLDMAN:
-- and concern -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
The 60(b) motion? |\n| 4 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Yes.
Yes.
And the concern about |\n| 5 | the Chinese government, not that that's an issue that I |\n| 6 | think -- I don't want to give it credence by proposing a |\n| 7 | solution, but the Court could simply provide that if Mr. |\n| 8 | Despins or Paul Hastings is contacted by the Chinese |\n| 9 | government with a threat of adverse action for purposes of |\n| 10 | influencing in any way the administration of this case that |\n| 11 | they would file a supplemental affidavit with the Court so |\n| 12 | indicating and we could take it from there because we are |\n| 13 | simply dealing with speculation. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Mr. Despins already has that |\n| 15 | obligation, Mr. Goldman.
He already has that obligation |\n| 16 | under his disclosure requirements under the code and the |\n| 17 | rules. |\n| 18 | I mean, I understand what you're saying, but I |\n| 19 | think it does give it credence where I haven't ruled on |\n| 20 | anything yet. |\n| 21 | And I'll consider what you said and I appreciate |\n| 22 | the -- raising the issue, but every lawyer, every trustee, |\n| 23 | has a continuing obligation. |\n| 24 | Mr. Despins has already stated under penalty of |\n| 25 | perjury that he doesn't have these connections. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 107 of\n\n| | 116 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
107 |\n| 1 | So I appreciate it.
I'm not sure how far that |\n| 2 | will go.
If you all want to talk about it, that would be |\n| 3 | something that would work out for you, that's fine.
I'm |\n| 4 | happy to entertain it if that's something that everybody |\n| 5 | wants to have entertained. |\n| 6 | But I'm not -- we're going to move this case |\n| 7 | forward and it's not going to be held up by matters that |\n| 8 | can't be addressed in other ways under the bankruptcy code |\n| 9 | and rules. |\n| 10 | Mr. Despins and any other person that would serve |\n| 11 | in that role understands the responsibilities of the role, |\n| 12 | understands the disclosures made under penalty of perjury, |\n| 13 | And if someone comes forth with some evidence that |\n| 14 | Mr. Despins is being influenced by the Chinese government, |\n| 15 | then they can bring that evidence forward. |\n| 16 | But to argue that without any evidence in the |\n| 17 | record and then say -- and I want discovery to stop the |\n| 18 | process I find that very unlikely that that will happen. |\n| 19 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Well, I certainly am in agreement |\n| 20 | with Your Honor's position on that.
I was just trying to |\n| 21 | address the Zeisler speculation. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
No.
I appreciate the offer. |\n| 23 | As I said, you know, it doesn't look like anybody |\n| 24 | wants to go to talk together, right?
I mean, I can take a |\n| 25 | recess if you want to have a discussion. |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 108 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 108 But this is -- we've been here now for almost two and a half hours. We need to let Mr. Despins go do his job. Okay? That's what this is all about. That's why a Chapter 11 trustee was appointed so that this could happen. What is in the record, whether or not it impacts any decision that is made by this court, Mr. Henzy, is what I started off my discussion with you a few minutes ago, which is you took your client as you found him. I'm sure you've read everything that has occurred in the New York State Court. Those are allegations that continue to be made here by the parties that were in that proceeding and by other parties. Your client has to make some decisions. And, you know, this court is here to support parties as much as the Court can, but the Court also has to move things forward if parties aren't moving together down the same path. And I'm not saying you should. I'm not saying that should happen. I'm saying otherwise why am I here? You can all go fight it out outside. Right? I mean, the point is we have to move the case along one way or another. Either your client makes decisions about trying to come up with a way to make this case work or not. And if he doesn't want to, that's fine. That is his prerogative. And I agree with you on that that that is his right. But he\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 109 takes those steps with the understanding that the Court may not agree with him. MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And that's -- that's where we are. I don't want to spend any more time today -- I mean, I will if you want to talking about it, but I think it's important to understand we have to move forward. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, Mr. Kwok does not disagree with that, but we have -- I think -- I think the Court would agree we have to move forward the right way. THE COURT: I have to give everybody an opportunity to respond to these different motions, right? So what I'm looking at -- and I think I heard Mr. Friedman and Mr. Despins tell me, and everybody else is going to have to make themselves available, that we're going to have a hearing on August 1st. That's a Monday. Okay? That's a week and a day from today, business days. We're going to have a hearing on August 1st and I'm going to rule on these issues if there isn't agreement. With regard to the motion to withdraw as attorney, with regard to Brown Rudnick's, again, whether or not that's going to be allowed, I don't know. But if it is, it's definitely with conditions. And I think the U.S. Trustee should be opining on Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 109 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 110 of\n\n| 116 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
110 |\n| that.
I don't know how the U.S. Trustee -- the U.S. Trustee |\n| has to opine on that.
There's a -- there's a -- that's what |\n| the role of the U.S. Trustee is with regard to professionals |\n| in a Chapter 11 case.
In every case, but certainly in a |\n| Chapter 11 case. |\n| With regard to the Rule 60(b) motion, I'm going to |\n| give everybody an -- but you all have to understand, you all |\n| don't -- I'm not getting pleadings filed on Friday the 29th |\n| and you're expecting me to read them and be ready to rule on |\n| Monday the 1st.
That's not going to happen.
So you're |\n| going to have to address these issues in short order whether |\n| you agree with that or not.
That's what's going to happen. |\n| Okay? |\n| With regard to the application to employ Paul |\n| Hastings and Neubert, Pepe, that's going to be set for a |\n| hearing as well.
All that's going to be set for hearing. |\n| I understand -- I have to look at the stay |\n| motions.
I don't remember whether I think those should be |\n| set for hearing.
I might be setting 20 things for hearing |\n| on August 1st.
Okay?
But we need to move this case along. |\n| It's just that simple.
And that's what's going to happen. |\n| So if I look at the docket -- and I did try to |\n| look at it before we came out today, but we had another |\n| hearing -- I mean, we do have other hearings as I know you |\n| all know.
And the problem with why I want you to get -- why |\n| |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 111 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 111 I'm going to make you all respond earlier than the 29th, and probably by the 27th, which is next Wednesday, which isn't a lot of time, we have Chapter 13 day on the 28th. I mean, there are other issues that the Court has to address. Even though this case is extremely important to all of you -- and I completely appreciate that -- we do have other matters that we have to address. Okay? So I see that there are, you know, motions to appear pro hac vice in connection with these pending motions. Motions to appear pro hac vice are routinely granted. But if there's really going to be an objection to -- I'm going to let whoever wants to talk talk. Whether I think you're the lawyer or not, Mr. Henzy, I obviously let you talk today, right? I'm going to let you speak. But we have to make rulings on who represents what and in what context and who's going to appear in this case on a going forward basis. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, just to be clear, there will be no objection to the pro hac motions. I've never objected to a pro hac motion in my career and I don't expect I ever will. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HENZY: So those I think probably -- THE COURT: Well, then, maybe we can at least move\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 112 those along. Okay? MR. HENZY: So, Your Honor, evidence that I want to move this case along, there it is. MR. LINSEY: Those are, Your Honor, 530 -- rather 533 -- THE COURT: I have them. MR. LINSEY: Yes. THE COURT: I have them, Attorney Linsey. Thank you. All right. Is there anything else that anyone would like to state for the record this afternoon? (No audible response.) THE COURT: All right. I don't see anyone. Oh, Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: So I just want to be clear -- THE COURT: I didn't -- I didn't leave as fast as I should have I suppose. MR. HENZY: I just want to be clear on what's on the schedule for August 1st. Is it everything? Everything? THE COURT: I don't know yet. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: That's what I said. Well, I can tell you what's going to be on. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: What I think is going to be on. The Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 112 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 113 of\n\n| | 116 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
113 |\n| 1 | motion to withdraw as attorney, Brown Rudnick.
Mr. Despins' |\n| 2 | application to employ Paul Hastings and Neubert, Pepe.
Your |\n| 3 | Rule 60(b) motion.
Anything else, I'm not sure about yet. |\n| 4 | The stay motions, things like that, I've got to go back. |\n| 5 | Unless somebody is telling me -- I'm giving you |\n| 6 | all the opportunity right now to tell me what else should be |\n| 7 | heard on August 1st.
I don't know if I'll agree with you, |\n| 8 | but I'm giving -- |\n| 9 | And you, Attorney Henzy, and the U.S. Trustee's |\n| 10 | Office are going to have to file briefs by -- I think the |\n| 11 | response date on everything is going to the 27th, on why you |\n| 12 | can -- you have to convince me of your argument that you |\n| 13 | don't need to comply with 327 because you're -- because the |\n| 14 | debtor's no longer a debtor in possession.
And why you |\n| 15 | don't -- and regardless of that, why you don't have an |\n| 16 | actual conflict of interest in representing HK International |\n| 17 | and Mr. Kwok simultaneously. |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:
I just want to be -- when you said |\n| 19 | you'll let me speak on August 1t, I mean, I wouldn't want to |\n| 20 | get here -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
You're going -- I'm going to |\n| 22 | let you make your argument. |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:
I wouldn't want to get here on August |\n| 24 | 1st and have you say I've decided you can't represent Mr. |\n| 25 | Kwok and then Mr. Kwok is not ready -- he's not -- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 114 of\n\n| 116 | | | | |\n|------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
114 | | | | |\n| 1 | THE COURT: | We're not going to do that. | | |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY: | He's not represented. | | |\n| 3 | THE COURT: | It's a hearing on whether or not you | | |\n| 4 | can do that.
Okay? | | | |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY: | Okay. | | |\n| 6 | THE COURT: | I'm not going to -- I would never say | | |\n| 7 | | that you were not going to be allowed to speak. | | |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY: | I didn't think you would, Your Honor. | | |\n| 9 | THE COURT: | Okay. | | |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY: | But I just don't want him to be not | | |\n| 11 | represented at that hearing. | | | |\n| 12 | THE COURT: | I understand.
Well, Brown Rudnick's | | |\n| 13 | going to be here anyway. | | | |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY: | I don't think Brown Rudnick is | | |\n| 15 | | intending to prepare for that -- a hearing on August 1st. | | |\n| 16 | THE COURT: | They may not be intending to prepare | | |\n| 17 | | for that hearing, but they're going to have to be here on | | |\n| 18 | their motion to withdraw as attorney. | | | |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY: | Understood. | | |\n| 20 | THE COURT: | Okay. | | |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY: | Understood. | | |\n| 22 | THE COURT: | And so if I don't grant their motion | | |\n| 23 | | to withdraw as attorney, then they're still his attorney. | | |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY: | Okay. | | |\n| 25 | THE COURT: | Okay? | | |\n| | | | | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 115 MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: All right. Anything further from anyone? (No audible response.) THE COURT: All right. That concludes the Kwok matter for today. That is the last matter on today's calendar. Court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 1:28 p.m.) I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 16 July 25, 2022 17 Christine Fiore, CERT Transcriber Case 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 115 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 610
Filed 07/26/22
Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31
116 | Page 116 of |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 | 116 |\n| 1 | | |\n| 2 | I N D E X | |\n| 3 | | PAGE |\n| 4 | EXHIBITS FOR THE TRUSTEE: | |\n| 5 | 1
Trustee written presentation copy | 7 |\n| 6 | | |\n| 7 | | |\n| 8 | | |\n| 9 | | |\n| 10 | | |\n| 11 | | |\n| 12 | | |\n| 13 | | |\n| 14 | | |\n| 15 | | |\n| 16 | | |\n| 17 | | |\n| 18 | | |\n| 19 | | |\n| 20 | | |\n| 21 | | |\n| 22 | | |\n| 23 | | |\n| 24 | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分院\n\n关于\n\n案件编号：22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\nJuly 21, 2022\n\n债务人。\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状态会议庭审记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：\nDYLAN P. KLETTER, ESQ.（迪伦·P·克莱特，律师）\nBrown Rudnick, LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\n185 Asylum Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\nERIC HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·亨齐，律师）\nAARON ROMNEY, ESQ.（亚伦·罗姆尼，律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited（HK国际基金投资（美国）有限公司）：\nSTEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ.（斯蒂芬·M·金德塞思，律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler LLC（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒有限责任公司）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Asia Alliance Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋亚洲联盟机会基金，有限合伙企业）：\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼，律师）\nSTUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫，律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n诉讼程序由电子录音记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷庭审记录与速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Asia Alliance Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋亚洲联盟机会基金，有限合伙企业）：\nPATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·M·伯尼，律师）\nRobinson & Cole LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·戈德曼，律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street, 8th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）、Zheng Wu（吴铮）及 Weican Meng（孟伟灿）：\nKRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯滕·梅休，律师）\nMcElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter（麦克尔罗伊·多伊奇·马尔瓦尼与卡彭特律师事务所）\n30 Jeliff Lane\nSouthport, CT 06890\n\nCAROLLYNN H.G. CALLARI, ESQ.（卡罗琳·H.G.·卡拉里，律师）\nLaw firm of Callari Partners（卡拉里合伙人律师事务所）\nOne Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Fl.\nNew York, NY 10020\n\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（吕克·A·德斯平，律师）\nPaul Hastings, LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nDOUGLAS S. SKALKA, ESQ.（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡，律师）\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林赛，律师）\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙泰思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩，律师）\n美国受托人办公室\nGiaimo 联邦大楼\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 于 07/26/22 提交 于 07/26/22 09:23:31 登录 第 3 页，共 116 页\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\n（庭审于上午10:06开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案件编号 22-50073，HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）。\n\n法官：早上好。请先由债务人代理律师开始，为记录说明出庭情况。\n\nHENZY 律师：法官阁下，我代表 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），我是 Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）的 Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐）。\n\n法官：请稍等一下。Baldiga 先生或——\n\nKLETTER 律师：您好，早上好。我是 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）的 Dylan Kletter（迪伦·克莱特），到庭处理退出代理的动议。\n\n法官：好的。好的。还有谁？对不起，先生。请继续。\n\nROMNEY 律师：Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼），Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所），亦代表债务人，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：Stephen Kindseth（斯蒂芬·金德塞思），代表债务人 HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。律师，请继续。\n\nDESPINS 律师：早上好，法官阁下。很高兴亲自见到您。我是第11章受托人 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平）。\n\n法官：早上好，Despins 先生。抱歉。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 于 07/26/22 提交 于 07/26/22 09:23:31 登录 第 4 页，共 116 页\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\n我们此前只在 Zoom 上见过，因此在今天之前并未亲自见过您，欢迎。\n\nSKALKA 律师：早上好，法官阁下。我是 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙泰思律师事务所）的 Douglas Skalka（道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡），拟担任第11章受托人的本地代理律师。\n\n法庭书记员：Skalka 律师，我听不见您。\n\nSKALKA 律师：抱歉。\n\n法官：没关系。请您再说一遍。\n\nSKALKA 律师：是，法官阁下。我是 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙泰思律师事务所）的 Douglas Skalka（道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡），拟担任第11章受托人的本地代理律师。\n\nLINSEY 律师：我是 Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛），同样来自 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙泰思律师事务所），担任受托人的本地代理律师，法官阁下。早上好。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nSKALKA 律师：早上好。\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：早上好。我是代表美国受托人的 Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nFRIEDMAN 律师：早上好，法官阁下。我是 O'Melveny & Myers（奥美律师事务所）的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼），代表 Pacific Alliance Group（太平洋联盟集团）。\n\n书记员：抱歉，Friedman 律师，我听不见您。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 于 07/26/22 提交 于 07/26/22 09:23:31 登录 第 5 页，共 116 页\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\nFRIEDMAN 律师：抱歉。\n\n法官：这有点困难，因为我们只有几个麦克风，而现场人数很多。所以，抱歉。\n\nFRIEDMAN 律师：早上好，法官阁下。我是 O'Melveny & Myers（奥美律师事务所）的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼），代表 Pacific Asia Alliance（太平洋亚洲联盟）。Sarnoff 先生与我一同出庭。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nFRIEDMAN 律师：Robinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）的 Birney 先生，我们的康涅狄格州代理律师，也在场。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nGOLDMAN 律师：早上好，法官阁下。我是 Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）的 Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼），代表债权人委员会。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nMAYHEW 律师：早上好，法官阁下。我是 McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter（麦克尔罗伊·多伊奇·马尔瓦尼与卡彭特律师事务所）的 Kristen Mayhew（克里斯滕·梅休），代表债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）、Zheng Wu（吴铮）和 Weican Meng（孟伟灿）。与我共同出庭的是共同代理律师 Carollyn Callari（卡罗琳·卡拉里）。\n\n法官：两位早上好。好的。本院根据驳回无偏见撤诉动议并任命第11章受托人的决定备忘录，安排今日举行状态会议。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 于 07/26/22 提交 于 07/26/22 09:23:31 登录 第 6 页，共 116 页\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\n该决定备忘录指出，应在任命第11章受托人后的14日内举行状态会议，以便第11章受托人向本院报告，从第11章受托人的角度看目前的进展情况，并讨论第11章受托人可能正在处理、审查及分析的具体问题，以及向本院说明，Despins 先生，您认为本案将如何推进。\n\n我安排状态会议也是因为，在任命后、即任命您 Despins 先生的命令作出后，提交了大量文件，包括贵所的申请——您聘用 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的申请——以及 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）提交的退出代理动议；该动议是在任命 Despins 先生的命令作出后提交的。\n\n因此，我想先听取您的陈述，Despins 先生，说明您已能够完成的工作、您打算进行的工作，以及本案下一步可能采取的措施。\n\n我们将处理该申请，至少讨论聘用贵所的申请。\n\n随后我们将讨论退出代理的动议——即自案件开始以来一直参与本案的债务人代理律师 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）的动议。好吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 于 07/26/22 提交 于 07/26/22 09:23:31 登录 第 7 页，共 116 页\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\n那么，Despins 先生，请您继续。\n\nDESPINS 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法官：如果您愿意，可以到前面来。还有一件事，Despins 先生，如果您在任何时候认为有帮助，需要本院调出任何您需要查看的诉状，您可以告知我们，法庭书记员可以为您办理。\n\nDESPINS 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。因此，我们为本院准备了一份陈述材料。\n\n法官：请。\n\nDESPINS 律师：我预计不会超过15分钟，但我们有一份辅助视觉材料，也就是说——书面材料——\n\n法官：好的。\n\nDESPINS 律师：——该材料将有助于本院跟随陈述。因此，如果我们可以分发——我们为法庭内的每个人及——准备了副本。\n\n法官：当然。如果您这样做会很好。然后我们可以——可以将该陈述材料标记为受托人证物1。\n\n（受托人书面陈述材料副本标记为受托人证物1。）\n\nDESPINS 律师：是的。我想澄清，这不是证据。这只是一份工作计划——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 于 07/26/22 提交 于 07/26/22 09:23:31 登录 第 8 页，共 116 页\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\n法官：明白。\n\nDESPINS 律师：好的。\n\n法官：这只是说明性材料，但它将有助于本院，我们可以将其列入记录。好吗？\n\nDESPINS 律师：当然，法官阁下。\n\n并且，如果——法官阁下，您是否希望我们也将其提交备案？\n\n法官：不必。这样就可以。\n\nDESPINS 律师：好的。\n\n法官：我们可以处理此事。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS 律师：谢谢。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n好的。因此，我首先感谢法官阁下就此事听取我们的陈述。\n\n因此，我将从第2页的行政事项开始。其中部分事项，法官阁下，相当常规且乏味，因此我不会花太多时间。您已经知晓。但为确认起见，我们已缴纳 $25,000 的保证金。我们已开立银行账户，这是第二项。第三项只是提醒，曾于 March 21st、April 6th 举行过三次第341条会议，但未完成，因此美国受托人需要另行安排一次会议。我希望您注意到这一点。\n\n法官：谢谢。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 于 07/26/22 提交 于 07/26/22 09:23:31 登录 第 9 页，共 116 页\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\nDESPINS 律师：此外，在这份事项清单中，关于月度经营报告，债务人在我们获任前仍有两份报告到期未提交，因此这些报告需要——我不知道这是否涉及 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）退出代理的动议，还是由其他人接手，但这项工作需要完成。这列于第2页。\n\n不过，我想指出，第2页底部以粗体标示的月度经营报告反映，有第三方为债务人的利益作出付款，平均每月金额约为 115,000。我认为这是一项重要数据。\n\n下一页，法官阁下，申报截止日期。关于申报截止日期曾有很多来回讨论。我知道当时您正在考虑撤销本案，因此在案件可能被撤销时作出关于申报截止日期的命令没有意义，但目前本案不会被撤销，我认为应当作出申报截止日期命令。\n\n我认为您已有修订稿——有人告诉我您有一份修订版本——我们鼓励本院作出该命令，因为我们需要知道有哪些债权人，尤其是关于政府实体，我们需要了解这一点。因此，这就是申报截止日期命令。\n\n在第六项下，是关于 Lady May（“五月夫人”号）检查的最新情况。因此，法官阁下，7月13日进行了检查，由 PAX（PAX）的专家以及我聘请的一名专家进行，后者基本上负责监督 PAX 的专家。让我解释一下。显然，我们没有资金，破产财产为零美元。PAX 正在由一位声誉极佳的专家进行其自身审查，并由其支付费用，我们对此表示感谢。然而，鉴于本案的情况，我不能到检查现场后称我仅依赖 PAX 的专家，尽管从方向上说，我们的立场一致，即我们和 PAX 都想知道这艘游艇是否存在问题。因此，我聘请了 Paul Derecktor（保罗·德雷克特），他是——我不知道法官阁下是否知道这一点——\n\n法官：是。\n\nDESPINS 律师：——该公司曾涉及——\n\n法官：我知道。\n\nDESPINS 律师：您是否——\n\n法官：我的意思是，您一说出这个名字。我不知道您聘请了那个人，但我——我知道该公司。\n\nDESPINS 律师：我不知道。您是该案的法官吗？\n\n法官：不是。\n\nDESPINS 律师：好的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 于 07/26/22 提交 于 07/26/22 09:23:31 登录 第 11 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 21, 2022\n\n1 法庭：\n不，我并不熟悉。\n\n2 DESPINS先生：\n好的。因此，他是——他在该地区有一家船厂。\n\n3 他确实非常了解船只。但他同意以\n\n4 \\$2,500 的费用审查 PAX 专家的工作。\n\n5 我认为这是一笔适度的投入，\n\n6 只是为了确保没有人会批评我们完全依赖\n\n7 PAX 的专家。因此，我们已经这样做了。\n\n8 仍有一些讨论需要进行，\n\n9 让我告诉您这些讨论的性质。\n\n10 基本上，Derecktor先生告诉我，他\n\n11 说，听着，任何购买如此规模船只的人\n\n12 实际上都会将其从水中——移出水面，以检查\n\n13 船体。我说，那么，这要花多少钱？哦，\n\n14 \\$400,000。别想了。我们做不了。有没有\n\n15 备选方案？\n\n16 他说，嗯，你可以派潜水员\n\n17 到船底检查船体，因为该船从欧洲返回，\n\n18 而在海上，你经常会撞到——您知道——各种\n\n19 可能的东西。潜水员的费用是 \\$2,500。\n\n20 因此，我们一直在与 PAX 讨论\n\n21 这样做是否合理。\n\n22 他提到的第二件事是，我们\n\n23 确实应当进行一次海试。起初我认为我们\n\n24 不会把船开到海上去。他说，不，基本上\n\n25 这就像——就像汽车一样。开出去\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 12 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 21, 2022 12 转一圈，开半个小时，只是为了确保——\n\n法庭：\n我熟悉海试。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n好的。我原先并不熟悉。因此，此事仍在考虑中，法官阁下。因此，在这个阶段，我们需要与 PAX 的专家会面，整合我们的共同意见，然后回复登记船东实体。这就是目前检查工作的状况，法官阁下。但显然——您知道，我不是船舶专家——船只存在损坏，因为仅仅从旁边走过时，您就可以看到船首有一部分被某物撞击过。不过，无论如何，我们将会——此事正在推进中。\n\n仍在事项清单上的是，您知道，第 4 页，自动停止函。我指示我的律所向本案外围的各方发送了超过 20 封函件。例如，有一个名为 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）的实体，法官阁下可能记得，该实体在某些情况下提供过部分资金。我不——我不想详述，但它们显然属于与债务人有关联的公司范围。还有 Bravo Luck（好运），即据称拥有一份信托协议、该协议规定其拥有 Sherry Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）公寓的实体。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 13 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 21, 2022 13 因此，它们都列在那里。嗯，其中一些列在那里。但我们也向 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）发送了同样的函件，该律所已予确认；我们还向康涅狄格州格林尼治的一家律所 Whitman Breed（惠特曼·布里德）发送了同样的函件。这实际上非常有意思，因为我获得了将房屋出售给债务人的人的许可，从而取得交割结算单、电汇记录等等。但当我致电 Whitman Breed 时，对方说，我们不能把这些交给您，因为我们在其他事项上代表债务人。我说，这与任何事情有什么关系？你们并未在该项出售中代理他们，对吗？对方说，没有。但我们不会向您提供任何文件。因此，这意味着他们在其他事项中代表债务人。显然，我们希望他们保全这些文件，并希望我们能够取得这些文件。因此，自我们获任以来，已经发出了若干此类函件，大概有 20 封。\n\n第 5 页，仍是（听不清）事项。仅供法官阁下知悉，我们正在联系关键当事方。显然，我们首先联系了债务人。因此，在获任后的第一天，我致电 Brown Rudnick，我说——顺便说一句，我不会披露任何和解讨论，只是要说\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 14 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 21, 2022\n\n1 我的第一种做法是联系他们，并说为什么\n\n2 我们不开会看看，在进入这一极其昂贵、\n\n3 极其广泛的程序之前，是否能够达成一项整体\n\n4 和解；而在那之后，我听到的下一件事\n\n5 是，他们不再担任郭先生——\n\n6 即债务人的律师。\n\n7 但我想确保这种做法——我们的\n\n8 做法是，如果没有必要，我们不必为此花钱。\n\n9 我知道，如果我们不得不前往所有这些司法辖区，\n\n10 费用将会非常高昂，\n\n11 因为涉及多个司法辖区。\n\n12 但我们想看看是否存在一个金额，\n\n13 在该金额下可以达成整体和解；而这并未——\n\n14 至少截至目前——取得成果。\n\n15 因此，我们联系了债务人的律师。我们\n\n16 显然联系了委员会律师 Goldman先生，\n\n17 他就本案及其他事项向我们提供了非常好的建议。\n\n18 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）的 Friedman先生也是如此。\n\n19 我们联系了 Genever Holdings（杰尼弗控股）的律师，\n\n20 即该 Chapter 11 实体，法官阁下。这又是一次\n\n21 有意思的谈话，因为我问他，在该案中你接受谁的\n\n22 指示？他说，哦，Miles。我不知道他是这样使用名字的——\n\n23 这是他所知的名字。因此我说，谁是 Miles？他说，哦，\n\n24 那是 Chapter 11 债务人。\n\n25 \n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 15 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 21, 2022 15 因此，他在该案中接受这名债务人的指示。因此我说，嗯，我现在是 Chapter 11 受托人。他说，嗯，我想我是在接受您的指示。我说，嗯，我们将会——您知道，此事待续。但您知道，我稍后会再谈这一点，不过关于该问题，有很多事情需要讨论。但我马上会回到这一点。\n\n因此，我们联系了他。我们也联系了 Cyganowski（西加诺夫斯基）前法官，她是该案中法院指定的出售代理人。我想明确说明——我稍后会谈到这一点——受托人并未主张应当停止出售。因此，这不是我们行动计划的一部分。但我想联系她，自我介绍，并就该财产的情况获取反馈。顺便说，她确实告诉我，债务人正在占用位于纽约的该财产，即 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）。\n\n然后是债权人的律师。Rui Ma（马睿）、Zheng Wu（吴征）以及 Carollyn Callari（卡罗琳·卡拉里）；显然，我们联系了她，作为重要利益相关方之一。自与 Brown Rudnick 的尝试失败以来，我们已要求债务人的新律师安排与债务人会面，不一定是讨论和解，而是因为我们需要与债务人进行严肃讨论，以确保债务人了解他目前所处的制度\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 16 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 21, 2022\n\n1 之下运作。我们上周五已提出该请求。迄今尚未\n\n2 收到答复。或许很快会收到。\n\n3 接下来，法官阁下，仍在第——现在是第 6 页，\n\n4 仍是行政事项，未决对抗程序的管理。\n\n5 \n\n6 有若干对抗程序，法官阁下。\n\n7 其中大多数涉及不可豁免性。我想明确说明，\n\n8 因为我们联系债务人说，嘿，我们希望——我不确定——\n\n9 这并非非正式介入，我们希望这些\n\n10 程序暂停。最初的反应是，这不关你们的事。\n\n11 这是债权人与债务人之间的争议。\n\n12 \n\n13 通常而言，这大概是对的，因此他们或许会喜欢这一让步，\n\n14 但从法院效率的角度看，我认为现在\n\n15 审理一项不可\n\n16 豁免性诉状，会是对法院时间的一项非常不好的投入，\n\n17 我们也将需要参与其中。因为为了这样做，\n\n18 你需要审查债权。而实质上，\n\n19 你需要说，我有一项债权，一项有效债权，而且它不可\n\n20 豁免。嗯，这将与其后可能在债权核准中进行的\n\n21 程序重复。\n\n22 \n\n23 我的观点是，在今日遗产中没有资产的情况下，\n\n24 为什么要经历这种伤脑筋的麻烦，也就是说，当\n\n25 \n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 17 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 21, 2022 17 存在可供争夺的资产时，那么当然，所有这些程序都应当进行。但今天这样做将会是——您知道——显然，您是法官，您将决定您的日程安排，但对我们而言，这似乎是对法院时间以及我们时间的极其不当使用，因为我们现在可能需要经历债权核准程序，而遗产中并无资产。我坚信，有一天遗产中会有资产，但今天没有。我认为这将会是——您知道——无论如何。这就是我们的观点，法官阁下。因此，我想确保您明白我们为何提出这项暂停动议。\n\n但我们不会就不可豁免性问题，针对某一特定债权人介入，也不会支持或反对债务人。那不是我们的目标。我们的目标是从案件管理角度，确保每个人的时间，包括法官阁下在这些事项上的时间，得到良好使用。\n\n第 7 页，第九项，还有另一项对抗程序，即登记船东 HK International（香港国际）提起的程序。他们提出了——代表原告的是 Zeisler（蔡斯勒）律师事务所，而现在他们同时代表原告和被告——这是个小玩笑——直到现在，我将在该诉讼中被替代为被告。我将在最后部分回到这一点，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 18 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - July 21, 2022 18 但他们给予我们 30 天延期，以便在该案中提交答辩或以其他方式提出动议。\n\n第 8 页，法官阁下，第十项，介入出庭及其他诉讼。债务人有 25 起在审诉讼。我并非——我不想对此掉以轻心——今天我对他作为被告的案件并不那么担心，因为自动停止——您知道——适用。问题在于他作为原告的诉讼。我们需要掌握这些请求权可能存在的价值，并且已经开始联系那些人。但我不想误导您，法官阁下。我们在这方面尚未取得很多进展。这是我们在接下来大约一个月内需要做的事情。因此，其构想是与债务人在其作为原告的案件中的律师交谈，以了解诉讼的性质。例如，其中是否有价值？如果有，我想确保法官阁下知道这一点。有一项——我认为——\\$1 billion 的案件——这是主张的数额——他在英国起诉 UBS，因此我显然已联系其律师，并希望与他们讨论，以了解该诉讼的内容，等等。这只是其中一个例子。\n\n接下来，第十一项，是与\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 19 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 19 美国证券交易委员会（Securities and Exchange Commission，以下简称“SEC”）。所以我不知道法官阁下是否看到了这个——您可能不会花时间查看债权申报案卷——但 SEC 提交了一项债权申报，基本上——其中已有说明——他们称已就可能违反证券法的事项开展调查。对此而言，这并非好消息，不仅对——法庭：他们没有主张任何具体金额？他们说他们正在调查，是这样写的吗？DESPINS 律师：是的。嗯，我们在那里引用了相关表述，我认为是这样，但他们正在调查，并且实际上可能会对债务人提起民事诉讼，以寻求追缴不当得利及其他救济。因此，我以前曾与 SEC 打过交道，我怀着对他们充分尊重的态度这样说，我担心的是这可能会对例如 Goldman 先生所代表的债权产生稀释效应。因此，我已与 SEC 联系，我们目前处于非常初步的阶段。尚未进行实质性讨论，但我想准确了解他们的问题是什么、与何事有关，以及他们是否知悉我们尚不知悉的任何资产。因此，这就是——再次说明，我不想误导您——这件事本周才刚刚开始，所以在这方面尚未取得很大进展。这就是 SEC。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 20 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 20 SEC。法庭：他们刚刚——他们提交的这项债权申报，是最近提交的，对吗？DESPINS 律师：是的。大概是五天前、六天前。法庭：对。好的。DESPINS 律师：大概是这样。是的。法庭：好的。谢谢。DESPINS 律师：好的。接着看第 9 页，第十二项，关于收到的线索。法官阁下，我们收到了一些人的询问，基本上是一些线索，说这个人在这里或那里藏匿资产。我想向法官阁下说明清楚。我处理过很多这类案件，我认为这些通常分为三类。第一类，我称之为疯子。意思是，这类案件会吸引各种各样的人，其中有些人完全不理性。因此，这可能是第一种情形。第二种情形——我并不是说本案存在这种情况——在那种案件中，目标对象本人匿名发送这些信息，只是为了让我们比如跑到非洲去花钱，而那里根本没有任何值得调查的事情。第三种情形，您可能会得到一条真实线索，而这正是我们正在调查的。有些线索对于持有资金的人员非常具体。如我所说，我现在无法核实这些线索。我不想误导法庭，说，哦，我们在这里发现了 $5 billion。不，我不能这么说。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 21 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 21\n\n但这表明，第 11 章受托人程序正在发挥作用，因为人们纷纷出现，告诉我们应当核查下列事项；这些事项无论如何在目前这个阶段，我们一开始本来绝不会自行发现。如我所说，这些线索也可能是编造的，因此我们必须对此非常谨慎，所以我不想夸大这些线索的重要性。\n\n接下来，法官阁下，关于聘用专业人士。嗯，您知道我们已申请聘用 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）。而且显然，我们已聘用了 Skalka 先生和 Linsey。关键在于，我们将努力——您会看到，除我本人之外，没有其他 Paul Hastings 律师在场——我们将主要依靠他们处理许多提交至法官阁下面前的事项。而且，您显然非常了解该律师事务所。\n\n第 10 页，法官阁下，这里我们开始进入更为实质的事项。他们将其命名为“行使公司治理权利”。债务人列举了若干由债务人 100 percent 持有的实体。其中一个实体是 Genever BVI entity（Genever 英属维尔京群岛实体），即英属维尔京群岛实体。我们已要求债务人的三家律师事务所——即 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）、中间那一家，以及现在的 Zeisler firm（蔡斯勒律师事务所）——向我们提供与该实体有关的公司治理文件。截至目前，什么也没有。\n\n但您应当记得，该 BVI 实体持有美国的 Genever，即第 11 章债务人。如我告诉您的，债务人的律师认为他在接受债务人的指示，至少截至目前如此。\n\n而我们的立场是，我们作为受托人承继债务人的公司治理权利。这是基础法律。但尽管如此，我们可能仍须向法庭提交某项申请，以寻求对此予以确认，但有很多判例均作此认定。这意味着，我们最终可以参与 Genever USA 的第 11 章案件。显然，我们绝不会要求您就该事项给予我们救济。我们会向 Garrity 法官提出申请。\n\n我们在此提到的一件事是，我们将请求在 Garrity 法官面前举行一次状态会议，以说明我们在这里，情况已不再相同。我们需要完成对 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-荷兰酒店）的分析，以及对为儿子公司设立的信托这一问题的分析，并需要将其最终确定。但很可能我们会出庭并说，法官，情况已经不同。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 23 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 23 但如我一开始所说，我们并非试图改变出售事宜。那已是预先确定的。有一个出售程序。我们不会试图触碰该程序。但他可能会说，那你们能做什么？嗯，如我告诉您的，法官——前法官 Cyganowski（西加诺夫斯基）告诉我，债务人仍住在那套公寓里。那么，如果我控制了拥有该公寓的实体，我就希望从任何能够支付租金收入的人那里获得租金收入。因此，如果债务人不想支付租金收入——顺便说一下，那将是数千美元。这不是每月 $5,000。那将会是——我不想夸大，但会是非常大的一笔金额。如果债务人想占用该房产，他就需要付出代价。收取该代价的是 Genever，而这正是我们现在控制的公司。如果他——如果他不想支付，那么其他人就会租赁该房产——当然须经 Sherry-Netherland 董事会等的批准——但这是一处出租可获得最高租金的房产，因为这——这套公寓不会明天就出售。这些都是非常昂贵的公寓。您需要——我不知道该怎么说，但其市场是一个完全不同的市场，可能要数月后才会出售。而我所说的数月，是真正的数月。因此，我并非预测它何时会出售，但对于本财产而言，无法通过我们控制的一家子公司享有租金收入的利益，将是不可思议的。所以，我并非要求您就此发表评论或作出裁定。我相信 Zeisler 律师事务所的朋友们对此会有不同看法，但我想告诉您，这件事将会到来。顺便说一下，Genever 只是一个例子，还有其他公司。该问题在于，我们需要取得所有文件，以准确了解正在发生什么。我们需要取得这些实体的银行账户。我们需要了解所作出的全部转账。这就是——我们当然已经从公司治理文件开始着手了。截至目前，我们尚未收到任何文件，但我们打算继续推进此事。第 11 页，第二项，就是我刚才所说的。我们将向本法庭请求救济，以便由法庭确认该事项。此外，法官阁下，我们希望根据 Section 1505 获得指定。这是一个奇怪的条款，因为第 15 章——这与本案有什么关系？我们不是处于第 15 章程序中。但这是一个条款——我不好意思地说，我最近才了解到——重新了解到——它并非仅适用于第 15 章。其基本规定是，如第 11 页所引述：“受托人可经法庭授权，代表根据 Section 541 设立的财产在外国行事。根据本条获授权行事的实体，可以适用外国法所允许的任何方式行事。”因此，这将意味着我们前往 BVI，在那里采取为取得对该实体控制权所必须采取的一切行动。显然，如果可以避免诉诸法庭，我们正试图避免这样做，因为，您知道，没有钱，但这并不限于 BVI。还有其他——这取决于我们的目标对象及我们获得的线索——还有其他潜在国家，我们会在那里向当事人寻求证据开示，因此，我们将请求法庭作出一项广泛裁定，根据 1505 将我们指定为外国代表，但唯一目的是取得文件或追回资产。同样，这些尚待进行。我只是想向您预先说明我们在这方面的计划。在第 11 页底部，法官阁下，我们还提到，在这类案件中，法庭——即法官阁下——通常会作出一段命令，请求外国法院协助获得受托人将寻求的救济。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 记录及誊写服务公司）\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 25 of 116\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 26 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 26 受托人将寻求的救济。您可能会说，嗯，为什么——我为什么需要这样做？首先，这有点是一个无偿的请求，因为它不会以任何方式约束法庭。但在外国法院，能够指出某一段文字并说，看，法庭正在请求您或请求您的协助，以尽快推进程序，这极其重要。所以您可能会说，为什么有此必要？我给您举一个例子。愿上帝保佑 BVI，他们有夏季休庭期。8 月，什么都不发生。我也很希望这里有这样的制度，但我们没有。唯一的例外是我们能以紧急方式提出申请。因此，我并不是请求——我只是告诉您，如果您日后看到这一点，您就会知道我们为什么提出该请求——因为这是在 8 月期间以紧急方式获得他们关注的唯一办法。顺便说一下，您知道，8 月就要到了。我们可能不需要针对 BVI 这样做，但在其他国家我们可能需要。因此，我们显然会就此回到法庭。第 12 页，公司治理请求。我已说明过此事。我们已提出该请求。尚未获得提供。第 13 页，项目 C，识别并在适当情况下寻求移交财产资产。这很重要。您知道，一个\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 27 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 27 关于《破产规则》第2004条的动议，显然，我们会这样做。但Goldman先生（戈德曼）已经获得了该项救济，因此我们将——我们会努力借助该项救济，以避免重复劳动，因为他已经完成了大量该方面的工作。因此，这当然是我们希望采取的大致方向。但下一点更为重要，法官阁下，即作为此事的一部分，我们将寻求取得Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）等律所的律师—当事人特权材料及工作成果，因为法院对此已相当明确：受托人控制该等特权，尤其是在债务人为占有中债务人的期间。您或许会问，为何需要这些？例如，已编制的资产和负债清单，其中可能存在一些令我们感兴趣的往来信息。这并不限于Brown Rudnick。顺便说一句，我并非——我不想指责Brown Rudnick。这并非——这只是一个例子。但当然，位于Greenwich（格林尼治）的那家律所，我们——您知道，他们代表债务人。顺便说一句，他们并未称其代表债务人的妻子，或名为Greenwich Land Trust（格林尼治土地信托）的公司。他们称其代表债务人。我们希望了解他们正在处理什么事项，以及其中有哪些工作成果，因为我们认为受托人控制\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 28 该等材料。我确信我的同事对此会持不同看法，但我想确保您知道此事即将提出，因为我认为，作为调查的一部分，这可能产生结果。现在，第14页，仍然涉及识别资产并寻求将资产移交破产财团。Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）。我不会宣读其中的全部内容，但基本上，法官阁下，我们引用的是Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格）在New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）作出的裁判。他们相当——我不想——我今天并非来就此进行辩论，因为我们仍在审查此事，并将再审查一次，但看来其中就女儿——其当然是该船登记所有人唯一股东——以及债务人对该船的控制权和受益所有权，作出了相当有力的认定。我们在第15页所称的是，在完成审查的前提下，我们认为本院应认定这些认定对该船及该登记船东公司具有约束力，尽管该公司本身并非该诉讼的当事人。但女儿是证人；她的律师交叉询问了证人，诸如此类，她是该审判的完整参与者。New York Appellate Division（纽约州上诉分院）已将案件发回\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交日期 07/26/22 录入日期 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 29 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 29 Ostrager法官，要求其就该船的所有权作出认定。因此，他们清楚、清楚地——您知道——获悉法官将会这样做。而事实上，他确实这样做了。在这一点上，同样以进一步审查为前提，我们认为存在争议排除效力，尽管作为登记所有人的公司并非该诉讼的当事人，因为双方具有法律上的密切关系。这是相同的当事方。并且，尽管对Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）的我的朋友们表示歉意，但他们——如今代表登记所有人和Kwok先生——您知道，这几乎就像——我是在开玩笑——在这一点上几乎可作出简易判决——也就是说，是的，他们是同一方，他们都在共同参与此事。因此，就争议排除而言，我们认为这应具有约束力。同样，这是以后的事，但我想先向您通报，因为我们不认为他们可以重新来过，并在这里进行类似为期十天的审判，让同样的人出庭，诸如此类，就同一争议事项重新审理。第16页，法官阁下，我已提到Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内德兰）。我已向您说明了该事项的计划。Greenwich的住宅。您知道，这些是由债务人妻子100%持有的一家公司于2020年近期购买的。两栋房屋。当然，我们希望知道该等资金的\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交日期 07/26/22 录入日期 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 30 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 30 来源详情。然后是第五点，其他资产。我想明确说明，我们并未将自身限定于这三类。我稍后将向法院汇报并更新我们在此方面的工作成果，但我想明确，所传达的信息并非只有Sherry-Netherland和该游艇。还有——还有其他需要——以及Greenwich房产——还有其他需要调查的资产。第17页，法官阁下，债权审查与准许程序。这与我此前所说相同。在理想世界中，每个人都希望其债权明天便获准许，但在现阶段进行该程序将适得其反，因为，您知道，没有资金这样做；而且目的何在？如果我们——除非——在我们取得可供争夺的资金之前，让我们不要为此争夺，但这只是我们的看法。因此，法官阁下，关于其时间安排，我会说这要在数月之后。我不想误导您说，哦，我们下个月就能完成。不。未来数月我们会尽量不将重点放在此事上，因为唯一的重点是将资产纳入破产财团。这是唯一的短期重点。最后一页确实是第11章重整计划。同样，法官阁下，我们——我不想\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交日期 07/26/22 录入日期 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 31 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 31 ——您知道，我年轻时担任律师，我的上司一直告诉我，少作承诺，多交成果。我不想误导您。这将需要——除非达成全球性和解，而我们欢迎这种和解——这将需要数月。我不想在此事上误导法院。我希望情况并非如此，但我对事情将如何发展有所判断，而且遗憾的是，我认为这就是其将要发展的方式。因此，法官阁下，我们的陈述至此结束。我很乐意回答您可能提出的任何问题。法院：好的。目前，我确实有一两个问题，但我非常感谢这份陈述。裁判备忘录中要求安排一次状况会议的原因之一，是让受托人恰恰完成您所做之事，即到庭向法院说明受托人认为案件目前处于何种状态、需要处理哪些问题、接下来将会提出什么，以及最终目标可能是什么。即使该目标无法实现，我理解，您知道，我们处于第11章程序中，因此显然，最终目标是某种形式的计划，前提是我们能走到那一步。因此，我表示感谢。鉴于您所陈述的内容，在我看来，从您的\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交日期 07/26/22 录入日期 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 32 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 32 角度而言，您希望法院处理的最重要事项之一，是作出一项命令，确定债权申报截止日期。\n\n而在您获任之前，鉴于如您在陈述中所指出的该案件可能被驳回的问题，以及该案件亦可能转换程序，该事项在一定程度上被搁置。\n\n法院还必须考虑其他问题，因此，关于债权申报截止日期的问题——涉及两个问题。\n\n其中一个——其中一个问题是，法院担心在当时该期限过短，因为案件正在发展。但现在该案件已历时五个月。鉴于案件中各方提交的信息和诉状，以及案件审理期间提出的证据，已任命第11章受托人。案卷记录支持这一点。\n\n因此，我同意您的意见，法院将很快着手确定该债权申报截止日期。对此，我的考虑是该命令的送达，即应向谁送达？\n\n您知道，我们可以公告送达，也可能会公告送达。那可能是您感兴趣的事项。\n\n但我所担心的事项之一是\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交日期 07/26/22 录入日期 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 33 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 33 已提交的资产负债清单及财务状况说明附有许多保留条件。我不知道——我也不确定您是否知道，因此我并非暗示您会知道——实际收到债权申报截止日期通知的人员名单，在本案中是否足够？所以，我认为我们可能会做的事，而且我想对此加以思考，是考虑该命令应如何送达，以及除送达之外是否适宜公告送达，以及公告将如何进行，实际应在何处刊登公告？我请您对此进行思考。我不知道这些问题的答案。此刻我提出这些问题，是为了让我们所有人思考，就债权申报截止日期而言，拟提供通知的充分程度。DESPINS先生（德斯平斯）：法官阁下，您提出了非常好的观点。我希望能够就此向法院回复，尤其是公告的方面，以及在何处、如何公告。因此，我说作出该命令将很重要，但这不是几天内的事。您知道，但我们将就此向法院回复。法院：我对此表示感谢。我也会加以思考。您知道，多年来已有案件，且近期不同巡回区也作出了关于\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交日期 07/26/22 录入日期 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 34 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 34 实际通知与推定通知，以及——债权申报截止日期及诸如此类事项的裁判，因此我想确保我们都在思考——我们在既有情形下尽最大努力，以便人们就提交债权证明获得适当通知。因此，关于您提交的其余信息，我再次非常感谢。这正是法院就——我尚未查看，但我在您的报告或陈述中看到对抗程序事项——所寻找的内容。那么，您是否已在每一宗对抗程序中提交中止动议？昨天刚刚提起了一宗对抗程序。DESPINS先生：昨天。法院：还有前一天。DESPINS先生：因此，我们已在三宗案件中提交，但我们将提交一项补充——法院：好的。DESPINS先生：——中止其他案件的动议。法院：当然，我必须查看这些动议。并且，根据我们当地规则，对抗程序中的动议程序是，当事方有21天时间——有21天的答复——答复期限，以提出异议或不提出异议，您知道，就案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交日期 07/26/22 录入日期 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 35 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 35 一项动议，然后由法院决定是否需要举行听证会。现在，我认为在较早提起的一些对抗程序中，该21日期限可能会与可能造成问题的时间框架相冲突。因此，我将审查那些对抗程序。如果对于等待该答复期限届满存在任何问题，我相信我可以发布某种命令，延长答复期限，或者延长现有期限，但须以就中止程序动议作出裁定为条件。当然，如果你们已取得各方当事人对中止对抗程序的同意，那么我不理解——或者说，我会感到惊讶——为什么我不会批准中止那些对抗程序。DESPINS先生：谢谢。并且，为了——为了公平起见，我们才刚刚启动中止程序。但无论如何，我不知道债务人为什么会想推进此事，或者寻求裁定债务不得免责的人为什么想在今天就此获得裁定，或者在今天为此花费大量资金。但这是他们的特权，所以我们将寻求同意。法院：对。但是，如果你能够——如果每个对抗程序中的各方当事人均同意中止，那么该中止将获准——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 36 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 36 DESPINS先生：是。法院：——但须遵从法院进一步命令及案件进展。我同意你的看法，即法院的目标并不是让当事人——无论其争议为何，让所有当事人不必要地花钱。没有人希望如此。但我们需要——我们需要确保程序得到适当遵循，并且《联邦民事诉讼规则》得到适当遵循。但是，如果你取得那些对抗程序中各方当事人关于中止对抗程序的同意，那么这些程序将被中止。好吗？DESPINS先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法院：好的。我不确定是否还有其他需要询问的事项。我理解你们正在审查许多事项，并且可能很快会采取不同步骤；法院将尽力在这些事项提交法院后尽快处理。我只是查看一下，以确保没有其他我需要询问的事项。我再看一下你们的陈述。（暂停）法院：我认为令我注意到的是两个问题，即申报截止日期命令和中止——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 37 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 37 对抗程序中的中止动议。因为我确实同意你的看法，即你所讨论的许多其他事项仍在发展中，并且你正在适时处理这些事项；当你认为有必要并适宜这样做时，你将向法院寻求救济。因此，我目前没有其他问题，先生。非常感谢。DESPINS先生：谢谢。谢谢您，法官阁下。HENZY先生：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？法院：Henzy先生，你可以发言，但从法院及美国受托人办公室的角度来看，我们仍有一些问题需要解决，即由谁代表债务人的问题。目前，Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）代表债务人。Brown Rudnick在其退出代理的动议中没有说明其退出代理的任何理由。Brown Rudnick必须经历每一名债务人律师都必须经历的程序，即提交受聘申请，提交无利害关系宣誓书，遵守《破产法》第327(a)条和规则2014，以及我们的地方法则2014。任命他们的命令中没有任何内容表明，他们可以作为债务人律师提交退出动议。因此，尽管我理解你希望发言，但你目前并非债务人律师。而且——HENZY先生：不，我是。我绝对是，法官阁下。法院：那么，你并未按照——根据《破产法》，你如何成为债务人律师——HENZY先生：债务人——债务人——法院：——Henzy先生？HENZY先生：债务人现已不再占有财产，无须根据第327条提交申请以——法院：支持这一点的判例法在哪里，Henzy先生？HENZY先生：法官阁下，是第327条本身规定——第327(a)条规定——法院：因此，即使你并非无利害关系人且存在利益冲突，你也可以担任律师，仅仅因为债务人不再占有财产？HENZY先生：绝对可以。法院：我希望看到支持这一点的判例法。HENZY先生：我无法向您提供判例法，法官阁下，因为第327条——我认为第327(a)条使我们成为受托人，并在括号中注明债务人占有，因为债务人占有享有受托人的权力——必须——必须依据法院命令聘任律师。但是，并无此项要求——而且，法官阁下，在第7章案件中，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 38 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 39 债务人并不被聘任——法院：我们不是第7章案件，Henzy先生。HENZY先生：我明白。但这——这现在是一名不占有财产的债务人。我不认为——我的意思是，我不——我不愿意——我想谨慎一些，法官阁下，并且恕我直言，您要求我向您提供案例，说明第327(a)条的含义就是其所明定的含义，但我不知道有任何案例——法院：不。我要求你向我提供一个案例，其中指定了一名第11章受托人，而曾任债务人律师的债务人律师可以直接退出，另一人可以接替，而无须满足《破产法》的任何要求——HENZY先生：这——法院：——请让我说完——《破产法》和规则的要求，并且该人存在利益冲突，因为其代表一个由债务人女儿所有的实体，而该女儿显然是《破产法》规定的内部人。HENZY先生：法官阁下，有一些案例——我相信我所知并没有案例——让我这样说。我不知道有任何案例认为，不占有财产的债务人就其律师无需提交聘任申请。因为，仍然，我\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 39 页，共 116 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 40 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 40 认为第327(a)条的明文规定，而且我不知道这里是否有任何律师会持相反意见，仅规定债务人占有必须这样做。我确实知道有一些案例，我们可以向您提交，涉及在指定第11章受托人后，债务人的律师是否可以由破产财产支付报酬。对此问题的通常答案是否定的。其依据是，不占有财产的债务人的律师并非依第327(a)条聘任，且不受第330条和第331条涵盖。有些案例中，法院曾认为不占有财产的债务人的律师可以获得报酬，但实际上是基于实质性贡献类型的依据，而非作为依第327(a)条聘任并受第330条和第331条要求约束的律师。我可以向您提交那些案例，法官阁下。但我——这稍有不同。那些案例是在通常不能从破产财产获得报酬的语境下，说明不占有财产的债务人的律师不是第327条律师，且不受第333条、第330条和第331条约束。因此，我将向您提交那些案例。法院：好的。这是美国受托人办公室的立场吗？此处不存在利益冲突？Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒）可以代表债务人，因为债务人不再是债务人占有？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 41 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 41 CLAIBORN女士：法官阁下，美国受托人仍在评估该问题。我确实认为有一个问题需要向法院提出，我认为Henzy律师不会对此提出异议，即作为债务人的律师，他们有义务披露其与债务人之间的报酬协议或其他安排。法院：这绝对会发生，所以你不必提出该论点。HENZY先生：是，我不——我不——法院：Henzy先生，如果你——如果你的说法准确，如果你是正确的，那么无论是谁向你付款，都可能动用原本可供破产财产债权人取得的任何资金，并继续向你付款。HENZY先生：那不是真的。我认为那不正确。法院：这怎么不是真的？HENZY先生：因此，我不能——我百分之百同意，我们需要提交我们的329 2016(b)声明。我的理解是，自我提交出庭代理文件之时起，我有14天提交该声明，我们将会这样做。我不能——再次回到我所提到的案例，我不能从破产财产资产中获得报酬。法院：第329条的哪个地方说你要提交受聘申请？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 42 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\nHENZY先生：哦，它没有这样说，法官阁下。\n法院：对。\nHENZY先生：没有。我不是——抱歉。\n法院：那么第329条如何适用？\nHENZY先生：哦，我——根据第329条，我相信Claiborn律师所指的是，我仍须提交第329条及规则2016(b)所要求的声明。\n法院：那么，如果你是一名债务人——让我们将你的思路推演到底。如果你不再是债务人占有，并且无须受到《破产法》或规则中规定的任何法院监督，那么你为什么有资格发表任何意见？\nHENZY先生：因为我代表不占有财产的债务人。不占有财产的债务人——\n法院：好的。你代表不占有财产的债务人。在你所谈及的第7章案件中，第7章债务人没有诉讼资格，除非并直至证明第7章债务人将有任何剩余财产。而目前，我们都知道——每个人都知道——Despins先生知道，他接受这项任命时就知道该破产财产中没有钱，那么你怎么有资格对任何事项提出论辩。如果将你的论点推至极致，你不受无利害关系要求约束，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 43 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 43 你不受利益冲突约束，你所需要做的只是披露你的钱——你获得的报酬来自何处，那么你为什么有资格发表任何意见？HENZY先生：我认为，就某些问题而言，法官阁下，我不反对您的看法。债务人可能没有诉讼资格。并且您可能会告诉我，就我希望就此类问题发言的范围而言，您不会听取我的意见。我会理解这一点。我认为，不占有财产的债务人就某些问题确有诉讼资格。法院：哪些问题？HENZY先生：Despins先生谈及尚在审理中的第523条诉讼以及其就那些诉讼提出的中止动议，并就债务人对这些事项的立场向法院作出某些陈述。当然，Kwok先生在——法院：我不认为他作出过任何陈述——HENZY先生：哦，他——法院：——有关债务人的立场。他说的是——HENZY先生：我认为他作出了。他作出了。法院：这是一份——这曾是一份——这是一份——首先，我没有说这是证据。我说这是一份示证性诉状，我将允许其作为证物1纳入记录。仅此而已。我\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 44 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 44 我并没有说我将根据Despins先生今天向我们提供的内容作出任何认定、裁决或其他决定。亨齐先生：明白，法官大人。我是在回答您的问题。我不认为您会说债务人在第523条诉讼中不具有诉讼资格。法庭：好的。但如果这些诉讼被中止，那么——让我这样——假定这些诉讼被中止，那么在它们不再被中止之前，债务人没有什么需要担心的，对吗？亨齐先生：我不一定同意这一点。但是我——法庭：嗯，在这些诉讼被中止期间，债务人无需履行任何答辩要求或其他任何事项，对吗？亨齐先生：如果这些诉讼被中止，那可能是正确的。法官大人，我当时是在就诉讼资格回答您的问题。法庭：好的。亨齐先生：可能有些事项债务人没有资格就其发表意见。我不反对您的看法。而且——我认为也会有些事项债务人有资格就其发表意见。这个例子——因为Despins先生在其陈述中提到了——就是第523条诉讼。如果我们谈论的是\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 45 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 45 第523条诉讼，我不认为法官大人会说债务人不具有诉讼资格。法庭：嗯，我们现在并不是在谈第523条诉讼，对吗？你起身并不是为了和我谈第523条诉讼。亨齐先生：实际上，我正是为此。法庭：哦，你是。好的。亨齐先生：是的。法庭：那就请继续。亨齐先生：好的。我起身是为了提出极少数几点。法庭：好的。请继续。亨齐先生：好的。第一点，我想澄清，因为我此前没有参与本案。我审阅了一些案卷材料，但我的感觉是，人们或者当事人想要对Kwok先生及其处理事情的方式作出某些定性。关于第523条诉讼，受托人要求我们作出的——受托人最初向我们表明的立场是，在其获任后，他被替代进入第523条诉讼。这只是——法官大人，我认为这只是错误的。我不认为受托人成为被告——第523条诉讼中的被告。法庭：好的。亨齐先生：因此，我们对受托人的律师的答复是\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 46 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 46 我们认为你们——因为对方正在问我们是什么——我们希望——我们希望中止诉讼，你们的立场是什么？而我们的答复——因为我们现在是这些诉讼中的被告——我们的答复是，不，你们不是。在某种意义上，我们——我们不知道你们在说什么。好的。因此，并不是——Kwok先生并非拒绝回答这类基本问题，或者只是为了制造困难而故意为难。我认为这一点很重要。再次，我认为当事人已经或将要以某些我认为不公平的方式定性Kwok先生的处理方式。再次，就第523条诉讼而言，对方问我们是否同意中止债权人针对Kwok先生提起的诉讼。就您所说的这一点，法官大人，如果那些诉讼被中止，您说Kwok先生就没有什么需要担心的。好的。我不知道我是否一定要同意受托人关于这些诉讼将被中止的看法，然后受到提起这些诉讼之人的批评。再次，我在此并非要就是否应当作出中止、这些第523条诉讼的依据，或者受托人在这些诉讼中可能拥有或不拥有何种权利进行诉讼或辩论。我只是想回应Despins先生关于第523条诉讼的陈述，因为在可能的范围内\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 47 我想避免对Kwok先生处理事情的方式作出不公平的定性。我们确实——我们是HK International（香港国际）的律师，好的，该公司是Lady May（“梅夫人号”）的登记所有人。尽管Despins先生说他不会进行辩论，但他进行了辩论。我只想澄清。法官大人已经指出，今天没有采纳任何证据；提交上来的那份文件不属于证据，Despins先生的陈述也不是证据。因此，这都没有问题。我确实想指出，我们绝对地，HK International绝对地，对任何在纽约发生的事情对本法庭具有约束力这一点提出异议。您知道，提交上来的文件从该法官作出的冗长程序和冗长裁决中摘取了片段。Lady May的所有权将通过诉讼解决。因此，我只想让这一点——亨齐先生：你将如何在HK International就Lady May所有权对Kwok先生和破产财产提起的那项对抗诉讼中，同时代理HK International和Kwok先生？这难道不是绝对且明显的利益冲突吗？亨齐先生：在此并不是，法官大人。法庭：为什么不是？亨齐先生：而且，有一点我绝对同意\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 47 页，共 116 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 48 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 48 Despins先生的，那就是在其获任后，他自动成为该诉讼中的被告，而Kwok先生不再是该诉讼中的被告。法庭：但你仍然代理——这无关紧要。你代理HK International，现在又代理Kwok先生。如何——你是否不再参与该对抗诉讼无关紧要。亨齐先生：不。他不再参与。法庭：无关紧要。亨齐先生：这有关系。法庭：不，实际上没有关系。亨齐先生：根据规则——法庭：这是实际利益冲突。你——在有一项由你们律师事务所代表HK International对Kwok先生提起的对抗诉讼尚未结案时，你接受了对Kwok先生的代理。亨齐先生：我们是在Despins先生之后接受对Kwok先生的代理——法庭：但是，你看，你想两边都占。你想说，哦，在那项对抗诉讼中，Despins先生自动成为被告，但在第523条诉讼中，他不是。亨齐先生：嗯，我——法庭：这就是你的主张，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 49 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 49 亨齐先生：这就是我的主张。而且，法官大人，我认为那是明确的法律规则。法庭：在哪里？真的吗？亨齐先生：我不——法庭：我希望你向我出示那项明确的法律规则。亨齐先生：我不认为Despins先生会告诉您他是被告——法庭：我不是在问Despins先生。我是在问你。亨齐先生：法官大人，他不是第523条诉讼中的被告。我认为那是明确的法律规则。法庭：好的。请向我出示那项明确的法律规则，我很想看。亨齐先生：我不知道我是否能找到说明这一点的案例，因为我不知道——我不知道是否有人会主张受托人成为——是第523条诉讼中的被告，法官大人。我不——这对我来说甚至毫无道理。再次，恕我直言，法官大人，那个——我不知道受托人怎么可能成为第523条诉讼中的被告。法庭：好的。我明白你说的。亨齐先生：好的。法庭：继续。亨齐先生：好的。因此，我——Kwok先生不再是\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 50 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 50 Lady May对抗诉讼中的被告。我认为Despins先生的立场是，他现在是当事人，即——法庭：好了。我们先不谈第523条。关于Lady May有一份协议书，债务人和HK均为其当事方。亨齐先生：嗯哼。法庭：好的。你——那么，先生——你是说，你不再就该协议书代理债务人，而是由Despins先生代理？亨齐先生：我认为答案是肯定的，而且我认为Despins先生的立场也是如此。法庭：好的。所以你是说，由于Despins先生被任命为Chapter 11受托人，你们的利益冲突不存在？亨齐先生：是。法庭：因此你可以——好的，这就是你的论点？亨齐先生：这就是我的论点。法庭：好的。亨齐先生：根据职业责任规则第1.7条，那——那就是我的论点。而且我——法庭：我看的不是职业责任规则第1.7条。我看的是破产\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 51 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 51 法典和破产规则。亨齐先生：法官大人，我不知道破产法典和破产规则中有什么规定会——会在此时规范这一问题。我认为这是——法庭：那么，你现在唯一具有诉讼资格的地方是在第523条诉因中，对吗？亨齐先生：法官大人，我没有准备好考虑本案中可能出现的每一个问题，并告诉您债务人是否具有诉讼资格。法庭：嗯，你主张Despins先生不应担任Chapter 11受托人。亨齐先生：而且我认为——我认为债务人确实具有诉讼资格——法庭：你在哪里具有诉讼资格来主张这一点？亨齐先生：我不知道债务人怎么会没有资格主张受托人不应担任受托人，或受托人应当被免职。法庭：我希望看到一些相关判例，因为我不认为你——我明白你的论点，但我看不到支持你论点的依据。你没有说服我你有权利——债务人有权利。你曾有权反对任命一名\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 610 提交于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 52 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 52 Chapter 11受托人，Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）曾这样做。他们对此提出异议。他们实际上请求驳回本案。我审议了他们的全部论点。我审议了所有债权人就转换程序、任命Chapter 11受托人以及无论可能涉及何种问题提出的全部论点。法庭作出决定，无论正确与否，任命一名Chapter 11受托人。没有人对该命令提出上诉。Brown Rudnick甚至特别指出他们没有对该命令提出上诉。你现在在上诉期限届满后攻击该命令。而你说你可以这样做，因为你不必受制于——当我说“你”时，我指的是现在据称代理债务人的律师事务所。顺便说一下，Brown Rudnick的动议尚未获准，所以请明白这一点，即你不必——你不必服从Brown Rudnick所服从的同一标准，因为Chapter 11受托人已经被任命。并且Chapter 11受托人在所有这些其他情形中取代了你的位置，包括在HK对Kwok先生和PAX的对抗诉讼中，但你却具有诉讼资格主张他不能担任受托人。这就是你的论点？亨齐先生：法官大人，我认为——我认为您——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 610 提交于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 53 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 53 混淆了两个问题。法院：好的。那么，请告诉我，我是如何混淆它们的。HENZY 先生：所以，我认为主体资格问题并不是我是否具有主体资格，或者——法院：不，不。是代表 Kwok 先生。HENZY 先生：好的。法院：我并不——HENZY 先生：所以是否——法院：但是我——HENZY 先生：——这个——法院：我尚不确定你是否是 Kwok 先生的律师。我还不确定。HENZY 先生：我确信我是 Kwok 先生的律师。法院：我知道你是。HENZY 先生：我明白您——我明白您并不——法院：我知道你是，但我不确定就本案而言你是否是。就其他目的而言，你可能是。HENZY 先生：法官阁下，我认为债务人有主体资格对受托人的任命提出异议。我要说的是，我明白关于该命令的上诉期间——我想我会称其为准许受托人动议的命令，好吗——已经届满，没有人提出上诉，而且 Kwok 先生并未以任何方式、形式或途径对该命令提出异议。法官阁下另行作出了一项命令——法院：我同意你的看法。HENZY 先生：好的。法院：我同意。HENZY 先生：——批准美国受托人对 Despins 先生的任命。并且已提交 Rule 60(b) 动议。我认为是在其后七日内提交的。法院：不，我同意。HENZY 先生：好的。法院：我的意思是，如果我——如果我接受你的论点，我并不是说你的 Rule 60(b) 动议不及时。HENZY 先生：好的。法院：好吗？HENZY 先生：我认为债务人有主体资格对受托人的任命提出异议，或者寻求解除受托人的职务。我的意思是，除其他事项外，有判例法规定，受托人不得对包括债务人在内的任何一方存有任何偏见或歧视。而如果这是正确的——再说一次，我认为判例法在这方面是明确的——那么我不知道债务人怎么可能没有主体资格向法院表示，我认为该受托人对我存有偏见或歧视。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 54 而这就是解除受托人职务的理由。美国受托人关于名单受托人的手册——我明白 Despins 先生不是名单受托人——规定，受托人不得对参与案件的任何人存有偏见或歧视。因此，如果存在一项——作为债务人，债务人有权获得一名对债务人不存在偏见或歧视的受托人。有权利即有救济。我不知道债务人怎么可能没有主体资格向法院提出该问题。所以我——法院：你是否——你是否——那么你为何当时没有根据法典第 324 条提交解除受托人职务的申请？HENZY 先生：法官阁下，我们的判断是，这是一种更容易、更快捷的方式。我认为这并没有任何不当——法院：那么，如果我驳回呢？如果我驳回你的动议，那么届时你所能做的只是提交上诉通知。HENZY 先生：是的。没错。我认为，法官阁下，Rule 60(b) 动议的依据——其依据与第 324 条动议的依据相同。如果您——如果您说我要驳回此项——法院：实际上，我不确定这是真的。我认为那些条款下的标准不同。HENZY 先生：实际上，我同意您的看法。所以我刚才表述有误。并且，听着——听着，我们提交 Rule 60(b) 动议的原因是，我们认为有一些本应提交法院审阅的信息没有提交法院审阅。而且——法院：好的。我明白。今天我们并未就其最终问题举行听证会。好吗？HENZY 先生：没有。法院：所以你起身告诉我，你认为债务人——无论实际存在的利益冲突为何，你都是债务人的代理律师——HENZY 先生：我——我起身并不是要告诉您这一点，因为我并未质疑该问题。法院：好的。抱歉。HENZY 先生：但您告诉我，我可能不是。法院：我道歉。HENZY 先生：是。法院：那么，你起身是要告诉我什么？你认为 Despins 先生提出了某些描述 Kwok 先生的论点，而你认为这些论点不公平？HENZY 先生：正是。法院：好的。然后——并且你的当事人在——因为我曾就对抗程序和中止问题询问 Despins 先生——你的当事人在第 523 条诉讼中具有主体资格，并且不——还有你——你的主张是，Despins 先生不会自动成为第 523 条诉讼中的被告，但在 HK International 提起的诉讼中会成为被告？HENZY 先生：完全正确。法院：好的。HENZY 先生：是。法院：那么你还想告诉我什么？HENZY 先生：我还想代表 HK International 告诉您，因为我认为 Despins 先生确实提出了一项论点，为记录在案，HK International 同意——抱歉——不同意他的论点。仅此而已。法院：好的。HENZY 先生：是。法院：好。你还有什么想告诉我的吗？HENZY 先生：目前没有，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。HENZY 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法院：Kindseth 先生？KINDSETH 先生：法官阁下，代表 HK International，我仅想澄清一些——关于对 Lady May 的检查，我只是想确保不存在任何误解。受托人使用了该游艇受损这一表述，我认为这留下了很多未明确之处。我认为，让法官阁下听取有关该游艇在横渡过程中并未受损的具体问题是恰当的。我们在非常短的通知期内允许进行检查。Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）有三名检查员在场。受托人有一名检查员在场。他们获准不受限制地进入整艘船。我们的轮机长和船长均可供问询。轮机长始终与所有检查员在一起，回答他们的问题。此外，他们获准不受限制地查阅该游艇的账簿和记录。他们审阅了记录，并获得了他们寻求的全部信息。据我所知，作为在场并目睹所发生情况的人，关于 Lady May 已知的唯一问题，第一是海阀，我们已就此向法院说明相当长一段时间。我们曾取得在法国完成该工程的估价，但时间不允许。因此，我们知道某些海阀上有一些生锈的螺栓需要更换，我们完全打算为此预留资金。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 54 of 116\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 55 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 55 不幸的是，其中一个燃油泵在纽约外海损坏。我们在检查前已披露该情况。我们正在为此获取报价，并且打算为此预留资金。此外，所称船只受损是指，在横渡期间船体有一些油漆脱落。我们完全打算对此进行检查，并取得该项费用的估价。因此，这就是三项事项。再说一次，我本人在场。检查员进行了讨论，轮机长进行了讨论，并无其他问题。这就是受托人所提及的所谓“损坏”的全部范围。根据该约定，我们将提出——附带一份估价。我们将向法官阁下提交估价，并请求法官阁下命令将——该等金额予以预留。谢谢您，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。关于 HK 的——HK 整体的账簿和记录，我——显然——我不应该说显然——今天发生的任何事情显然均不是法院面前的证据。我们正在听取不同的报告，这正是法院希望听到的。但 HK International 将须遵守某项要求，将这些记录交付给受托人。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 56 of 116\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 57 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 56 SKALKA 先生：是的。法官阁下，我道歉。我确信，您知道，Henzy 律师本意是要说明这一点。关于公司账簿、记录等等，我们收到了受托人的请求。我们完全明白我们的义务，债务人也明白，在根据法典和破产规则任命受托人后、债务人不再占有财产期间，债务人有义务与受托人合作。我们正在汇集信息和记录。HK International 虽不是债务实体，但其由女儿所有。作为代理律师，我明白这些记录将需要提交，我们完全打算在该过程中与受托人合作。法院：好的。谢谢。现在，关于情况会议，另一事项——另外两项事项——我们首先处理 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克）提出的撤回律师代理资格的动议。因此，各位律师，我不确定你们两人中哪位希望发言，但除非我遗漏了什么——这很有可能——我没有看到动议中列明任何理由，说明为何——为何要在本案中撤回作为债务人代理律师的资格。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 58 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 58 所以我想问你们，为什么——为什么你们认为你们有权——你们的律师事务所有权——以及在本案中提交出庭通知的所有个人均有权在此时撤回作为债务人代理律师的资格？KLETTER 先生：当然。并且澄清一下，Romney 先生来自 Zeisler 律师事务所。再说一次，我是 Dylan Kletter。法院：哦，是的。抱歉，Romney 先生。KLETTER 先生：没关系。我是 Brown Rudnick 的 Dylan Kletter。您说得对。动议未详细说明原因，但我认为 Zeisler 律师事务所已准确说明，既然他不再占有财产，终止其代理律师是其特权，而这正是他所做的。他已以 Zeisler 律师事务所的一名 Mitchell 先生作为替任律师。我们的立场是，正如您所见，Zeisler 律师事务所显然正在处理本案卷宗，而我们提出的撤回代理律师资格动议无人提出异议。法院：嗯，我不知道你们是否有一项无人提出异议的撤回代理律师资格动议，因为该动议尚未排期举行听证会，也尚未要求任何人对你们的动议提交任何回应。即使你们有一项无人提出异议的撤回代理律师资格动议，也不意味着法院\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 59 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 59\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 记录与转录服务公司）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 60 of 116\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 610 Filed 07/26/22 Entered 07/26/22 09:23:31 Page 61 of 116\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年7月21日 62 并不负有独立义务来确定该动议是否应予批准、驳回，或附条件批准。贵所已使自身接受本院及破产案件程序的管辖。贵所从某一来源收取了100万美元的预付聘金，我并不——我不记得——或许案卷中有关于该来源的证据，我不记得——我很抱歉，此刻我并不——但是，您还需要提交费用申请，且必须使该等费用获得批准，并且必须证明该预付聘金尚未被动用，诸如此类。因此，尽管最终这或许会成为一项无人反对的代理律师退出动议，但目前尚非如此，因为就通过我院的争议事项程序提出该动议，或将其排入听证日程而言，该动议并未被适当地提交至本院。这就是康涅狄格州地方规则的运作方式。因此，我们可以——先生，我将听取其他当事人的意见，但将会有一个程序。该动议或许会获准。但至少，如果获准，您——贵所将有义务遵守《破产法典》和规则的要求，而这\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第62页，共116页\n\n至少包括提交一份费用申请，该申请\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第63页，共116页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年7月21日\n将受到异议、进一步听证，以及由本院对该律所产生的费用和开支作出裁定。好吗？\n\nSKALKA先生：\n明白。\n\n法院：\nFriedman先生，我看到您已经起身。\n请讲。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n副法庭记录员女士，您在这里能听到我吗，还是希望我——\n\n法院：\n如果您不介意，Friedman先生，或许那样更合适。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。我是来自 O'Melveny & Myers（奥睿律师事务所）的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。\n\n法院：\n下午好。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n我想就您迄今所听到的事项提出三个简要观点，然后我想回来就与聘用动议和60(b)动议有关的任何排期问题发表意见。\n\n法院：\n请讲。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n第一点是回答您的问题。Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）发放了一笔贷款——\n\n法院：\n谢谢。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n——资金正是来自该笔贷款。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第64页，共116页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年7月21日 64\n\n第二点涉及523及那些诉状。我的看法是——显然每个人都提出了他们认为正确的答案——我们甚至不知道该债务人是否会提出，我很抱歉，受托人是否会提出一项包含免责的计划，因此在此情形下，我认为中止尤其具有依据。\n\n何必浪费时间就一项可能在宪法上尚未成熟的诉讼进行争讼。对我而言，我认为如果我们不知道债务人——是否会提出免责，那么任何该等请求权是否成熟，实际上是一个相当严肃的问题。\n\n除非请求权几乎获得全额清偿，否则我很难预见受托人会提出这样的计划。我不知道受托人将如何处理该问题。但对我而言，这似乎是考虑由当事人可能同意中止该等事项的一个独立理由。\n\n至于香港关于该船只的诉讼，您知道，PAX（PAX）是被告。我希望我们可以约定PAX无需作为被告。我们从未主张拥有该船只。我们不能主张债务人的权利。由于自动中止仍然有效，我们不能执行扣押。\n\n因此，您知道，PAX在本案中已经不得不投入大量资源。如果我们\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第65页，共116页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年7月21日 65\n\n无需在一宗诉讼中投入资源，那将很好；鉴于本案目前的大致背景，我们实际上并非该案适当的被告。因此，这就是我想提出的三点。我确实希望就聘用问题和60(b)动议发表意见，因为我们对此有一些要说的。\n\n法院：\n请讲。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n到适当的时候。您知道。我不知道您是否希望我——\n\n法院：\n嗯，您可以——您现在可以告诉我您想告诉我的事情。我的意思是，我们将会——请讲。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n好的。因此，法官阁下，有几件——几件事。关于这两项事项，无论是涉及 Paul Hastings（保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）还是涉及 Despins先生，我认为我们最主要的关切是——涉及Kwok先生在其信函及其社交媒体账户上提出的问题；我不知道您是否曾经——或许本院审阅该账户并不适当——但诸如PAG（PAG）通过与 DOJ（美国司法部）串通而实施欺诈之类的说法，遍布他的Gettr账户。我认为他最近一篇Gettr帖子是，您知道，Miles Guo（郭文贵）先生将提出一系列动议和上诉，以揭露CCP（中国共产党）对美国司法机构的渗透以及美国司法机构的黑手。有一项指控称我与CCP串通。关于PAG以及关于我本人，我当然想说——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第66页，共116页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年7月21日 66\n\n法院：\n关于PAG，P-A-G？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n是的。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n——以及其所有关联方和我本人，如果该等说法中的任何一项在由律师签署的诉状中被重复提出，我们将请求依第11条实施制裁。我只是想提醒大家注意这一点。好吗？作为法院工作人员，我要告诉您，我是唯一与司法部谈过的人——也许Sarnoff先生也谈过，但我们的客户从未就该任命与司法部交谈。我们实际上推荐了Despins先生以外的人选。出于与成本有关的原因，我们实际上并不希望大型律师事务所的人作为受托人参与本案，因为费用太高。我们非常明确地表示，有我们支持担任受托人的人选。他们没有被选中。两位被选中的人选中，任何一位都没有被选中。我们原本可以接受Whitley先生。出于成本原因，出于他们现在认定我们客户为我们前客户这一事实——我们的客户认为被认定为前客户并不是什么令人满意的事情——我们并不特别满意Despins先生，但事实就是如此。不过，我只是想非常明确地说明，如果任何人在已签署的诉状中作出这些指控，就将受到第11条制裁，因为那根本不是真的。\n\n不过，更广泛地说，就这两项事项而言，法官阁下，本院显然掌控其如何处理这些动议以及允许提出哪些问题。如果这涉及使我们接受证据开示，显然，您知道，我们认为这极其不公平且不明智。我们认为，如果这涉及坦率地迫使人们钻进死胡同，以处理，您知道，Paul Hastings与在中国经营的公司之间的联系，处理那些关于与CCP串通而提出的死胡同式、荒谬理论，那么本院如果要容许那种证据开示，就应考虑采取不同的方向，因为这是一项——您知道，Paul Hastings会为此计费——这会侵蚀债权人的受偿。它使我们偏离对本案应当处理事项的关注。我不认为赋予Kwok先生这样做的能力是正确的。那将是——证据开示等问题，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第68页，共116页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年7月21日 68\n\n都将在以后辩论。但是，如果本院将会——与其因为费用问题和延误问题而钻进那些死胡同，我们宁愿看到本院在受托人问题上采取不同的方向，因为这不符合破产财产的最佳利益。再次，我认为这些指控并非——而是轻率的指控，可能使律师、客户以及任何在某种程度上支持这些指控的人面临真正的问题。但是，我们只是，您知道——如您所知，PAX自2009年以来一直在等待获得付款。花更多时间围绕这些与Kwok先生有哪些资产以及如何使该等资产进入债权人之手并无真正关联的问题进行争战，似乎只是——您知道，不可能符合破产财产的利益。\n\n至于更广泛的成本问题——而且，您知道，我已经向Despins先生表达过这一点——我们对费率结构和费用感到关切。他显然已经做了大量工作，这很好，我认为他的陈述也很重要，但是，您知道，我们感到关切。我认为，在我们能够并且我们将会的范围内，您知道，如果有必要，我们将就——如果我们必须——有关费用提出异议，也许提出某种建议。我不确定。但我不希望任何人对此感到意外。我尽量不让人感到意外，您知道，尤其是其他的，您知道，律师界成员。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第69页，共116页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年7月21日 69\n\n关于敏感问题——我理解费用是敏感问题，费率是敏感问题，但这对PAX而言很重要，PAX是拥有超过$260 million判决额且为最大债权人的一方。我想这确实就是我想说的一切，法官阁下。感谢您给我发言的机会。\n\n法院：\n好的。在您退下之前，我——如您所知，这是一次状态会议，因此我们将为不同事项安排一些听证，具体包括Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）的退出动议。而且，自Despins先生被任命为第11章受托人以来，已经提交了很多文件，我们将审阅这些文件。您是在要求本院采取与本院计划采取的行动不同的任何行动，还是仅要求保留您就任何后续事项发表意见的权利？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n后者。我唯一想请求的是，如果本院可以——我想我在8月5日无法出席。我想——\n\n法院：\n5日？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n——该周的星期五，我无法出席。除此之外，我可随时听候本院安排。\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第70页，共116页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年7月21日 70\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\nGoldman先生？\n\nGOLDMAN先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。我将会——\n\n法院：\n也请您到这里来，好吗。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：\n好的，当然。\n\n法院：\n只是因为我认为法庭书记员更容易听清您的声音。请。谢谢。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：\n仅几点简要意见，法官阁下。委员会认同PAX就Friedman先生有关受托人及其律所所阐述的相互关切。我们希望就该申请保留我们的权利。我们也认同我们对债务人提出的9024动议的看法；我们认为该动议完全分散注意力且毫无根据。我们需要着手处理这宗已有五个月的案件的管理事务，而且迄今为止我们已经有了足够多的诉讼。在我们看来，所提出的这些问题根本没有依据，我们不应在此花费大量——大量时间。仅就让法官阁下了解本案迄今请求权的规模而言，尽管尚未设定提交债权证明的截止日期，债权登记册\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 录入于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第71页，共116页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 71 第71页显示，已提交的债权证明共有80项，金额约为 $83 million。这不包括 PAX 的约 254 million 债权。昨天刚刚提交的集体诉讼 523 起诉状称，其债权总额为 $114 million。我相信这与 GTV 有关的证券以及被指称的证券违法行为有关。该债权也可能与 Securities and Exchange Commission（证券交易委员会，SEC）提交债权证明的债权相同，尽管我并不完全确定。因此，如果将这两项尚未提交的债权计算在内，债权总额将达到约 $450 million。因此，我们确实需要着手推进为这些债权寻求追偿的工作。我不想低估这一点；我们对 Despins 先生及其迄今所做的工作非常有信心，但对于费率和费用的规模，也存在相应的担忧，因为他当然将作为受托人，根据 section 326，按其追偿所得取得报酬。如果聘用其所在律师事务所，该所也将以该种方式获得报酬。因此，关于——\n\n法院：有一个问题——我本来还打算问 Kindseth 先生，也可能本应问 Despins 先生——关于 Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）的协议，仍有其他义务须予履行。仍有 $37 million 被托管。还有——据我所见，该协议中的其他条款尚未履行。唯一已经履行的协议条款是 HK 已完成报告，且其及时完成了报告，以及在协议所定日期之前返还该船，即该游艇。但该协议中还有其他条款尚未解决。因此，当你谈及着手推进破产财产的管理时，这正是法院在决定应指定 Chapter 11 受托人时所认定的——对于该游艇和/或 $37 million 将如何处理，必须给予一些关注。该款项仍受本院管辖。并且——对于认证及我认为需要提交的其他事项，仍存在问题，而提出异议亦有相应的期限。因此，在我看来，各方需要聚焦于这些问题。因为这些问题搁置不决的时间越长，管理破产财产所需的时间就越长。\n\nGoldman 先生：是的。我们当然在这一点上与法官阁下意见一致。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 610 于 07/26/22 提交，于 07/26/22 09:23:31 登记 第 73 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n1 法院：\n好的。好。好。我\n2 感谢你所说的内容。今天下午，你是否还有其他事项\n3 希望载入记录？\n4 Goldman 先生：\n没有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n5 法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n6 美国受托人办公室是否希望\n7 陈述意见？\n8 Claiborn 女士：\n目前没有，法官阁下。\n9 法院：\n好的。那么，我将要求\n10 美国受托人办公室就为何\n11 ——而且我将——实际上，我还将要求 Henzy 律师事务所同时做同样的事情——任何其他希望这样做的人也可以，但并非必须——就为何\n14 债务人有权保留 Henzy 律师事务所，而无需该所遵守\n15 破产法典 327(a) 和 2014 的规定，提交书面意见。\n17 在本次状态会议之后的某个时候，\n18 我将就 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）提交的退出代理动议安排听证会，\n19 并设定异议期限，以便各方就 Brown Rudnick 的\n20 动议提交异议，如有。\n22 然后，Despins 先生，关于债权申报截止日期\n23 问题和公告问题，你在我们作记录的谈话中表示，\n24 你希望考虑这些\n25 问题。我认为安排一次听证会或许合理，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 610 于 07/26/22 提交，于 07/26/22 09:23:31 登记 第 74 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 74 就该动议举行进一步听证，以便我们可以最终确定并录入该命令。我可以这样做。我想我可以在接下来一两周内迅速这样做。Despins 先生，这会给你足够的时间分析该问题吗？\n\nDespins 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。关于 Despins 先生聘用 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）以及聘用 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith 的申请，我认为也必须安排听证会，并设定异议期限。很可能——但在我回去审阅全部材料之前，我尚无法确定——我们将来会安排一天处理所有这些事项；显然需要占用一天，因为有许多事项需要处理。我同意我们需要推进本案的管理，这正是法院作出指定 Chapter 11 受托人决定的原因。请各位稍候片刻，我想查看一下日程安排。\n\nDespins 先生：法官阁下，关于时间安排，我是否可以陈述意见？\n\n法院：当然。请讲。\n\nDespins 先生：那么，我们已经提交了——谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 75 我们已经提交了加速审理动议，而该动议显然尚未获准。请理解，原因是我们目前正在全力以赴地工作。如果法院在将来，比如说——顺便说一下，我这是在略作玩笑——但如果法院说，好吧，我们认为你是共产党党员，因此我们不会批准聘用——这是个玩笑，法官阁下——那么我就不受 30-day rule 的保护。因此，对本所而言，存在实际不利影响；而且，顺便说，这正是债务人尚未安排——尚未就其要求我回避或撤换我的动议申请听证的原因，因为他们喜欢这种不确定性并希望让其继续下去。因此，对我们而言，我们是在 12th 提交动议的。即使按照通常的、非加速的期限计算，依据 20-day，这将使我们到达 August 1st 左右。所以，就我个人而言，从 3rd 到 22nd，我无法出庭。我是说，我可以通过 Zoom 参加。但是，如果举行实质性争议听证会，我无法到场。因此，我们敦请法院——PAX 曾表示他们可以接受下周一举行听证会。当然，到目前为止，那可能时间太短。但下周任何时间或 August 1st，如果完全可能，我们敦请法院届时安排听证会，因为届时将有充分时间解决这些问题。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 610 于 07/26/22 提交，于 07/26/22 09:23:31 登记 第 76 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n1 法院：\n谢谢。\n6 Henzy 先生：\n法官阁下，我是否可以陈述意见？\n7 法院：\n可以。\n8 Henzy 先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n9 为明确起见，我将立即就我们的 9024 动议提交加速审理动议。\n10 我们并非试图让该动议悬而未决。\n11 我们认为，该动议应与 Paul Hastings 的申请同时处理，\n12 因为两者将有许多重叠之处。\n14 我们确实需要就\n15 我们的动议和 Paul Hastings 的申请进行证据开示。\n16 我们已准备好立即送达证据开示请求。\n17 法院：\n我不确定你有权进行\n18 证据开示，Henzy 律师。\n19 这是一项寻求解除判决命令的动议。\n20 再者，这取决于你的委托人是否确实有资格对\n21 此人在一宗案件中被指定为 Chapter 11 受托人提出异议；在该案件中，\n22 你的委托人已在伪证处罚的约束下声明，\n23 其资产为 $3,400 及若干美元。\n25 因此，我理解你的主张，但我不确定我\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 610 于 07/26/22 提交，于 07/26/22 09:23:31 登记 第 77 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 77 目前同意该主张。我还——如我刚才开始说的，我不确定你是否无需符合债务人——债务人律师根据 327(a) 所须满足的要求。我理解你的论点，但没有人向我提交任何材料说明你为何无需满足该项要求。这是第一。第二，即使你无需满足该项要求，我也不知道为何你同时代理 HK International（HK国际）和 Kwok 先生不会构成利益冲突。我不——我不理解这一点。我难以理解这一点。之所以难以理解，是出于诸多原因，其中包括：你所在律所代表 HK International 提起的对抗程序目前正在进行，该程序主张 Kwok 先生没有——嗯，寻求一项确认判决，确认其拥有该船。因此，这里存在许多问题，我们不会因为假定你从一开始就有权进行所有这些事项而被证据开示带偏。这些问题必须首先得到处理。我不会允许证据开示拖延债务人及 Brown Rudnick 作为债务人律师自美国受托人提出指定审查员或备选指定受托人的动议以来——我相信是在 February 或 early March——本已明确面对的问题。我可以查看案卷。我不需要很长时间就能找到它。因此，这在本案中不会发生。本案——你的委托人自愿服从本院管辖，并承担由此带来的一切利益和负担；这并不意味着你的委托人，正如你现已数次载入记录所称，其已不再占有财产——现在可以通过坚持认为你需要就你关于 Despins 先生——Despins 先生——的指称进行证据开示而拖延程序。现在，我们谈的是——我在上一次听证会上已经指出这一点，但你当时不在场，因为你当时不是律师——尽管指定受托人的动议已经获准，Despins 先生作为 Chapter 11 受托人的利益冲突，与 Paul Hastings 作为 Despins 先生律师的利益冲突，是两回事。没有人向本案记录提交任何资料，表明 Despins 先生存在利益冲突。没有人。Despins 先生已声明并在伪证处罚的约束下宣誓，他不存在利益冲突；至于你在你的书面意见中——不是你的书面意见，而是在你的动议中——提出的关于 Paul Hastings 的问题，是他个人并不知悉、也未曾意识到的事情。但是，是的，他所在的律所在中国设有办事处。并且，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 610 于 07/26/22 提交，于 07/26/22 09:23:31 登记 第 79 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 79 是的，他们代理一些以某种方式与——可能与 Kwok 先生有关联的当事人，但绝非与本案有关。我不会允许证据开示妨碍 Chapter 11 受托人的指定程序，以及其在本案中履行职责和责任。我当然不会在我确定你关于你可代理债务人而无需处理无利害关系人问题的说法是否正确之前这样做。即使你可以这样做，我仍然无法理解——我非常——我极难理解你所在律所为何在同时代理 HK International 和 Kwok 先生时不存在实际利益冲突。\n\nHenzy 先生：这里有很多——\n\n法院：确实有很多。\n\nHenzy 先生：——需要梳理，法官阁下。\n\n法院：我同意你的看法。\n\nHenzy 先生：如果我可以——如果我可以——\n\n法院：确实——本案有很多问题。一直以来都有很多问题。\n\nHenzy 先生：为表明我也会开玩笑，我喜欢你称 Kwok 先生为——你说的是——你的委托人。你并不受此约束。但是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 610 于 07/26/22 提交，于 07/26/22 09:23:31 登记 第 80 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 80 法院：嗯，那是你的主张。这是你的主张，Henzy（亨齐）先生。HENZY先生：这是我的主张。但是，再说一次，表明我也可以开玩笑。法官阁下，这里面有很多需要厘清的内容。我的意思是，就这一点而言——我理解您并不同意这一点——但我认为Kwok先生确实具有对Despins（德斯平斯）先生的任命提出异议的诉讼资格。并且，澄清一下——法院：我没有——我甚至没有——我甚至没有就此和你争论——HENZY先生：好的。法院：——目前。HENZY先生：如果他——法院：目前。我所说的只是你不会获得证据开示。HENZY先生：嗯，但是如果——法院：此事不会因证据开示而偏离轨道。这不会发生。HENZY先生：但如果他——如果他具有诉讼资格——第60条动议是一项争议事项——如果他具有提出该动议的诉讼资格，并且有资格提出异议——法院：这不是重新审判。这不是重新审判。对吗？第60条不是重新审判。HENZY先生：这不是重新审判。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 81 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\n法院：第60条是你寻求——\n\nHENZY先生：没错。\n\n法院：——摆脱某项判决书或裁定。\n\nHENZY先生：正确。\n\n法院：没错。\n\nHENZY先生：正确。\n\n法院：所以这不是重新审判。你并不是说存在新发现的证据，而该等证据——\n\nHENZY先生：但是它——\n\n法院：——法院在审理这一切时没有考虑——没有计入考量之中。\n\n而且，如你所知，Despins先生与任何一方一样，持续负有披露相关问题的义务，他已经履行了。\n\n他已经履行了。他提交了一份补充宣誓书。他提交了该文件。\n\n因此不存在新的——这不是——第60条下的标准与第59条下的标准完全不同。\n\nHENZY先生：这是第60(b)(2)条动议，法官阁下。它是——\n\n法院：我明白它是什么。\n\nHENZY先生：这是新发现的证据。而且这——\n\n法院：这不是新发现的证据。\n\nHENZY先生：债务人怎么可能——债务人怎么可能——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 82 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 82 债务人——法院：证据是什么？HENZY先生：鉴于——法院：告诉我证据是什么。HENZY先生：当然。对方律师可以说这一切都是毫无根据的，但是——法院：我不想——我不——我现在不担心他。HENZY先生：好的。法院：我担心的是你。HENZY先生：好的。法院：告诉我证据是什么。HENZY先生：有公开记录表明，中国政府、中国共产党，Kwok先生站在中国政府的对立面。我认为——我不知道会有人对此提出异议。好的？我认为现在已经知道——而且鉴于Despins先生的任命时间线，我不知道Kwok先生是否知道或能够知道此事——我认为美国受托人提交该动议与举行听证会之间只有一天，Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）——法院：我同意你的看法。HENZY先生：——据我了解，Paul Hastings在中国设有办事处。Paul Hastings代理一些公司——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 83 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 83 这些公司与中国政府有关联。那是——我相信那是真的。法院：好的。HENZY先生：此外，根据阅读报纸，好的，作为一个世界公民，我了解到，中国对在中国经营业务的实体施加影响的程度，与比如说美国政府对在美国经营业务的实体施加影响的程度不同。我认为这是我可以作出的公允陈述。因此，我不认为这毫无根据、荒谬或毫无依据——法院：但证据在哪里？你的证据是什么？HENZY先生：我——法院：报纸说中国对——施加控制，这就是你的证据吗——我并非想轻率对待此事，Henzy先生，但是——HENZY先生：那么，法官阁下，您是否——您是否不同意这一点，即——法院：我不——我没有必要同意或不同意任何事情。HENZY先生：——中国政府——我的意思是——法院：我所要做的只是作出事实认定——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 84 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 84 对吗？我在任命——在准许任命第11章受托人的动议时，已经作出了那些事实认定。我已经作出了那些认定。好的？现在，Despins先生已在记录中、在伪证处罚的约束下陈述，他个人不存在利益冲突，也不代理中国政府。是的，他在一家在中国设有办事处的国际律所工作。是的，该律所有业务——我相信准确措辞是曾经的客户——PAG，P-A-G，其与PAX有关联和/或——Friedman（弗里德曼）先生可以纠正我——但我认为其是——可能被描述为PAX的母公司。这有什么证据？这如何——这如何足以让本院认定他应当被——Despins先生应当被免职？HENZY先生：我无法向您提供证据——法院：对。HENZY先生：——除非我能进行证据开示。法院：但我不会让程序偏离轨道——HENZY先生：除非——法院：——以便你可以去进行——做证据开示。什么证据开示？你可能——你要做什么？你要对中国政府人员进行证言录取吗？HENZY先生：如果Despins先生愿意就Paul Hastings在中国的所有关联作出约定，包括他们——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 85 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 85 他们代理哪些当事人——代理多少当事人——法院：他为什么必须这么做？HENZY先生：法官阁下，您今天可以告诉我，我完全错了，即Paul Hastings——而Despins先生是Paul Hastings的合伙人。我不——我不认为你可以仅将他与律所分开，并说如果Paul Hastings不是无利害关系的，那么Despins先生——我看不出Paul Hastings如何可能不是无利害关系的，而Despins先生却是无利害关系的。这对我而言没有道理。好的？但如果您要说，尽管Paul Hastings与中国政府存在这些表面上的关联——法院：这些关联与Kwok先生毫无关系。关联在哪里？HENZY先生：关联在于，中国政府——指控是中国政府一直——一直迫害Kwok先生并迫害其家人。指控是中国政府对在中国经营业务的实体施加巨大影响，而这使Paul Hastings处于受制约的地位。作为Paul Hastings的合伙人，Despins先生也处于受制约的地位。法官阁下，您可以说我不——我不同意——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 86 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\n你的看法，即中国政府对在中国经营业务的中国实体施加影响。\n\n您可以这么说。好的。而且我——我不会就此进行证据开示。但是这提出了一个重大问题。\n\n我不——我不知道是否有人会站出来说——并在本院为中国政府对待在中国经营业务实体的方式辩护，并说，不，那不是真的。中国政府并不对任何人施加影响——\n\n法院：如果你的客户没有——如果你的客户——如果你获准在本院代理这名客户——不想使自己受本院管辖，那么他就不应当提交第11章案件。\n\nHENZY先生：我不认为，法官阁下，这与此有任何关系——\n\n法院：那么，这怎么会与此毫无关系？因为你是在说，他——中国政府影响与Kwok先生有关的一切事情。这就是你所说的。\n\nHENZY先生：不，我不是这个意思。\n\n法院：那么你是什么意思？\n\nHENZY先生：我的意思是，中国政府对任何在中国经营业务的人施加巨大影响。我认为这是我可以作出的公允陈述。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 87 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 87 法院：好的。HENZY先生：好的。而Paul——法院：这如何导致一项利益冲突，以至于Despins先生不能——不能担任第11章受托人？HENZY先生：而且Paul Hastings在中国经营业务。法院：好的。HENZY先生：好的。法院：好的。HENZY先生：而中国政府——法院：那么又如何——他们有什么控制权——你没有任何证据证明他们有什么控制权。你只是作出一项笼统的——我并不是说你只是——但你刚才所作的陈述是，中国政府控制与其开展业务的人。嗯，这种控制可能是他们希望公司生产12辆汽车而非20辆。这如何影响Kwok先生和Paul Hastings？HENZY先生：法官阁下，论点是Paul Hastings在中国经营业务。它代理与中国政府有关联的实体，因此，中国政府将会具有影响力或控制权——法院：所以你是说Despins先生是——是中国政府的傀儡？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 88 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 88 HENZY先生：不。这完全不公平，法官阁下。我没有说——法院：那么你在说什么？HENZY先生：我没有那么说。法院：那么——但那么你到底在说什么？HENZY先生：我所说的是，这里存在无利害关系问题，而我们有权探究该问题。法院：好的。HENZY先生：好的。法院：我不确定我同意你的看法。HENZY先生：好的。法院：但我理解你的观点。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，如果可以，我能否发言两秒钟？法院：当然。当然。DESPINS先生：这一论点荒谬。为什么？假设他是对的。假设他在所有方面都是对的——那么讨论是什么？那么，中国共产党来到我们在中国的办公室，然后说什么？对他宽松一点，还是严厉一点？我要——让我非常明确地说，我要去尽力取得他所有的资产。这是我作为受托人的职责。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 89 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 89 那么利益冲突在哪里？也就是说，首先，我绝不承认他们会这么做，也不承认我们会受到这种影响。但假设确实如此，让我们将此推演至其逻辑结论。除非我——除非他的观点是，我们会以某种方式与他们合作逮捕他或将他带来——这太荒谬了。这是一个民事案件。我的职责不是报复。是收取资产。我想收取——我想明确说明——尽可能多的资产，以供有效债权持有人受偿。这就是（听不清）。Paul Hastings也会这样做。因此，关于我们受到影响的这一论点，这会朝哪个方向发展？也就是说，他们会——以某种方式说要更严厉？我——我不需要中共来告诉我这一点。我要尽力取得他所有的资产。这是我的职责。因此，我不理解所谓的影响。抱歉。HENZY先生：我能否——我能否简要回应一下，法官阁下？法院：可以。HENZY先生：好的。而且，再说一次，这属于公开记录。法院：哪里的公开记录？HENZY先生：我可以给您——我会给您引注，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 610 提交于 07/26/22 登记于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 90 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\n法官：\n但请告诉我那是什么。\n我们是在谈论一个社交媒体网站吗？\n\n亨齐律师：\n绝对不是，法官阁下。我们谈论的是美国司法部（United States Department of Justice）的声明。\n\n法官：\n好的。\n\n亨齐律师：\n好的。\n\n法官：\n美国司法部的哪个部门？\n\n亨齐律师：\n不同部门。\n\n法官：\n好的。\n\n亨齐律师：\n而且我可以——\n\n法官：\n请继续。\n\n亨齐律师：\n而且我可以告诉您——好的。Steven Wynn（史蒂夫·永利）先生，我认为他是一位知名的赌场／酒店业人士，司法部已对他提起民事执法诉讼，以强制其根据《外国代理人登记法》登记为中华人民共和国（People's Republic of China）及中华人民共和国公安部一名高级官员的代理人；引文是——那是一份司法部——它在我们的动议中——它是一个网页，ww——我可以尝试提供给您，但我——\n\n法官：\n不，没关系。\n\n亨齐律师：\n好的。\n\n法官：\n您不必提供给我。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 已提交 07/26/22 已录入 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 91 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 91\n\n亨齐律师：\n并且——\n\n法官：\n而这如何影响 Wynn 先生，我是说——Wynn 先生，我知道这如何影响 Wynn 先生——\n\n亨齐律师：\n好的。我——\n\n法官：\n——这如何影响 Despins（德斯平斯）先生和 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯）？\n\n亨齐律师：\n我是在回应 Despins 先生的说法，即称中国政府会对在中国从事商业活动的人施加影响，这种说法是荒谬的。\n\n法官：\n那不是他所说的。\n\n亨齐律师：\n好的。我认为那就是他所说的。\n\n法官：\n不是。\n\nDespins 律师：\n不是。\n\n法官：\n实际上那不是他所说的。\n\n亨齐律师：\n好的。但我能说完吗？\n\n法官：\n他说你的论点荒谬。因为他所说的是这样。这至少是我对其的理解。你可以不同意我。他说你的论点荒谬，因为——可能发生的仅有两种情况是，中国政府要么告诉他全力以赴，取得郭先生的全部资产，要么什么也不做，让他不受打扰。Despins 先生说，但我——我的工作就是全力以赴，取得他的全部资产。那么问题何在？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 已提交 07/26/22 已录入 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 92 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 92\n\n亨齐律师：\n那么论点就是，Despins 先生——Despins 先生的利益与中国政府的利益一致，因此，在——\n\n法官：\n那并不意味着存在利益冲突。\n\n亨齐律师：\n——在——等一下——在原本会存在无利害关系资格问题的范围内，并不存在问题，因为即使有，中国政府也会告诉他全力以赴、全力以赴、全力以赴。但这不是分析方法，法官阁下。这不是——\n\n法官：\n即使他的——即使他的目标与中国政府一致，他怎么会不具有无利害关系人资格？\n\n亨齐律师：\n如果存在——如果存在任何一方对受托人施加任何形式的不当影响，那么该受托人就不具有无利害关系人资格。\n\n法官：\n证明他们正在对 Despins 先生施加不当影响的证据在哪里？\n\n亨齐律师：\n我今天没有证据——\n\n法官：\n好的。\n\n亨齐律师：\n——而且我不知道我今天如何能够有证据，因为——\n\n法官：\n那么，《破产法》——\n\n亨齐律师：\n——因为我有——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 已提交 07/26/22 已录入 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 93 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 93\n\n法官：\n情况是这样的。《破产法》允许你在相信该问题属实的情况下提出该问题，随后将得到适当处理。根据 Rule 60(b) 提出的动议并不是实现此事的适当方式。不存在新发现的证据。唯一出现的是持续性义务——首先，我们谈论的是 Despins 先生。我在第一次听证会上提出过这一点。或许你可以主张，但我们今天并未主张，Paul Hastings 存在问题。也许你可以这样主张。但我们并未主张这一点。我们谈论的是 Despins 先生个人作为受托人行事。因此，你的论点是，无论谁担任 Chapter 11 受托人，无论是哪一位个人，如果该个人供职于一家以某种方式与中国存在商业关系的律师事务所，例如有一份从中国购买和销售玩具的协议，那么他们将不——他们将不具有无利害关系人资格，因为——因为每一个与中国政府开展业务的人都受到中国政府的不当影响。这就是你的论点。\n\n亨齐律师：\n这取决于事实和情形，但有可能是。\n\n法官：\n那么，事实和——那么，我刚才向你提出的情形中的事实和情形，与 Despins 先生在其——在其披露中所说的有何不同？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 已提交 07/26/22 已录入 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 94 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n亨齐律师：\n我可能会说，该方受到了中国政府的不当影响。\n\n法官：\n购买玩具？\n\n亨齐律师：\n是的。我可能会——是的。\n\n法官：\n好的。\n\n亨齐律师：\n我可能会这样说。是的。\n\n法官：\n好的。你可以这样说，但我可能不同意你。\n\n亨齐律师：\n而且您可能不同意我。\n\n法官：\n好的。\n\n亨齐律师：\n是的。\n\n法官：\n好吧。\n\n亨齐律师：\n听着，我认为我们今天并不是在审理 60(b) 动议。我认为。我认为无论如何我们正在争论的是，郭先生是否有权进行证据开示，而我认为他有。\n\n法官：\n是的。而我认定他无权进行证据开示。如果你愿意，在我就该动议作出裁定时，你可以对此提起上诉——\n\n亨齐律师：\n是的。\n\n法官：\n——但我们不会这样做。你看，问题在于，有 $37 million 存在一个托管账户中。而且，在那边的某个地方有一艘船，一艘游艇，对吧，你的当事人约定该游艇将进入本辖区。在法院没有同意关于如何在极短时间内向专业人士支付 $8 million 的方案之前，且并未证明有必要向他们付款，以及有必要在《破产法》规定之外按周向他们付款之前，该游艇将被质押给该方案项下的债权人。现在，我们处于这样一种情况：你所称的当事人——也可能，他可能是你的当事人——不希望再发生任何事情。不希望该游艇成为破产财产的一部分，但也不希望 $37 million 成为破产财产的一部分。而实现这一目标的方式，是通过一项 Rule 30(c)——Rule 60 动议质疑 Despins 先生。那不会发生。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 已提交 07/26/22 已录入 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 95 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 95\n\n亨齐律师：\n法官阁下，我不同意这一点。\n\n法官：\n你可以不同意。\n\n亨齐律师：\n我只是不同意。\n\n法官：\n但那不会发生。\n\n亨齐律师：\n郭——\n\n法官：\n你是按现状接受你的当事人，即你声称是你当事人的当事人，对吗？你接受他时，他和 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克）一样，均受纽约州法院命令的约束；该法院在证据听证会后认定——我并不是说它们具有争议排除效力，我并不是在说这些，我说的是你接受你的当事人时的状况——认定他不仅——他援引了第五修正案特权——并且可以就他援引第五修正案特权一事作出有利于债权人的推断——而且他建立并创建了一个公司网络，以使其资产不受债权人追索，包括自 2009 年以来一直与他争讼的 PAX（派克斯）。随后，你的当事人在 Ostrager 法官（Justice Ostrager）施加的制裁仍在持续累积之时决定提交 Chapter 11 案件。关键在于——论点是，嗯，累积已被中止。我提交了 Chapter 11，制裁累积已被中止。因此，论点随后变成，你的当事人以某种方式、形式或形态，视债权人所请求的救济而定，应当被指定一名审查员、指定一名 Chapter 11 受托人，或者将案件转换程序。随后你的当事人说，不，不，我们同意撤销案件。在来到本法院、进行谈判——参与一项谈判后，据称由其女儿拥有的一个独立且不同的法人实体也参与了该谈判——以将游艇带到这里，然后又说，不，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 已提交 07/26/22 已录入 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 96 页，共 116 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 96\n\n法官：\n你知道吗，法官，何不直接撤销案件。我们同意撤销案件。嗯，那——你知道，你的当事人在决定提交 Chapter 11 时作出了一个决定，一个知情决定。那是他所做的。他本可以通过州法院程序处理所有这些事情，并且本可以对一切事项提起上诉；他确实对一些事项提起上诉并败诉，案件被发回 Ostrager 法官，以便 Ostrager 法官就游艇所有权作出裁定。随后提交了 Chapter 11 案件，而 HK International（HK 国际公司）——据称独立且不同、并据称为游艇登记所有人的法人实体——对你的当事人郭先生提起对抗程序，称其要求作出确认判决，确认 HK International 拥有该游艇，该游艇并非本债务人破产财产。通过认定应当指定一名 Chapter 11 受托人，我已经处理了所有这些问题。你的论点是，Despins 先生不具有无利害关系人资格——不是无利害关系人，因为他的律所，不是他本人，而是他的律所在中国设有办事处，而中国政府正试图对付——顺便说一句，也许中国政府确实在试图对付郭先生。我不需要就此作出认定，好的。也许他们是，但这并不影响 Despins 先生的角色及其在《破产法》下的职责。作出相反主张，就是试图阻挠 Despins 先生履行其职责。因此，我想你在某个时候需要从我这里得到的——而且也许，如我所说，我必须审阅自 July 8th 以来提交的所有这些文件。我将就不同事项安排听证会——关于撤回作为律师的动议——我希望你和 United States Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）就——为何你不需要遵守 327(a) 提交书面意见。也许你是对的，但我——目前我面前没有任何东西能够使我相信这一点。然后，我们——我们可能会就你的 Rule 60(b) 动议举行听证会。我认为我们应当尽快举行，因为如果我要驳回该动议，你需要提起上诉。你需要提起上诉。然后你需要弄清楚此后将如何继续进行。但本案不能再被拖延。与此时的 Despins 先生一样，本法院有责任在《破产法》、《破产规则》、《联邦民事诉讼规则》以及适用的非破产法所规定的范围内，努力保护债权人的利益。而主张 Despins 先生不具有无利害关系人资格，因为中国政府影响每一方与\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 99 与其有业务往来的对象，在目前这一点上并未令我信服。\n\nHENZY（亨齐）先生：我明白了。法官阁下，还有几点。我没有参与郭先生决定申请 Chapter 11（第11章）的决定。\n\n法庭：我没说你参与了。\n\n亨齐先生：好的。\n\n法庭：我说的是，你接受当事人时，他就是这个状态。\n\n亨齐先生：我接受——\n\n法庭：这就是我说的。难道我不是一开始就这么说的吗？\n\n亨齐先生：是的。我们现在的情况就是这样。但我不认为郭先生决定申请 Chapter 11。并且，为明确起见，他没有就您作出的——将任命一名受托人的决定提出上诉。我在记录中声明，如果获任命的人是 Whitley（惠特利）先生，他不会——我们就不会进行这场讨论，明白吗？因为他的理解是，我们认为 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）和 Despins（德斯平斯）先生存在的一些问题，在惠特利先生身上并不存在。因此，这并不是——并不是说郭先生会反对任何获任命的人，并想要阻挠 Chapter 11 受托人履行其职责。他完全明白将会有一名 Chapter\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 100 11 受托人。因此，我认为说他只是试图阻挠——并不正确。\n\n法庭：我没有说——我说的是——\n\n亨齐先生：——出于那些目的。\n\n法庭：我没有说他试图阻挠。我说的是，我不会让这件事被搅乱。这就是我说的。这是我使用的措辞。\n\n亨齐先生：我认为——我认为如果任命的是不同的人，我们就不会进行这场讨论。而且我——并且有——\n\n法庭：嗯——\n\n亨齐先生：听着，您可以不同意，法官阁下。我们认为这里存在真诚而重大的问题。我理解您可能不同意，但我不——这不正确。我不认为，因为郭先生决定申请 Chapter 11，他就无权说，等等，已经任命了一名受托人，明白了，但即使他认为该人存在重大利益冲突，他也只能接受任何获任命的人。我的意思是，仅仅因为你申请 Chapter 11——并接受法院管辖——并不意味着你必须接受随之而来的一切，即使你认为这对你不公平且对你不利。案件 22-50073 文件 610 已提交 07/26/22 已录入 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 100 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 101\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n亨齐先生：那么，法官阁下，我想问您今天是否作出裁定——\n\n法庭：不，我不作出裁定。\n\n亨齐先生：——我们不能就以下事项进行证据开示——\n\n法庭：如果你在我就 60(b) 动议作出裁定前进行任何证据开示，那么我将——我不允许你在我就 60(b) 动议作出裁定前进行任何证据开示。\n\n亨齐先生：还有关于 Paul Hastings 聘任申请呢？\n\n法庭：还有关于 Paul Hastings 聘任申请。\n\n亨齐先生：好的。那么您今天是在就此作出裁定。\n\n法庭：正确。\n\n亨齐先生：好的。\n\n法庭：不会有任何证据开示。这不是——这些并非我们将允许发生的事项。这不会发生。我们将举行听证会。我们将审理你的事项。如果我们作出不利于你的裁定，那么——如果我作出不利于你的裁定，那么你就上诉。\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，我请求至少就此作出一项案卷记录，以命令我们不得——案件 22-50073 文件 610 已提交 07/26/22 已录入 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 101 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 102\n\n法庭：嗯，这是一次状态会议，所以我现在不会就此录入案卷记录。我是在告诉你——\n\n亨齐先生：但如果我没有——\n\n法庭：我是在告诉你，如果你在我就这些事项作出裁定前寻求证据开示，那么我不会要求另一方予以配合。\n\n亨齐先生：好的。但是，法官阁下，我不想走这样一个程序——我不知道——任何人——\n\n法庭：这项动议甚至还没有排期——\n\n亨齐先生：我明白。\n\n法庭：——所以就一件甚至尚未——的事情开始证据开示并不适当。这是一次状态会议。这次会议——这次会议被专门安排为一次与该动议相关的状态会议，抱歉，是与任命 Chapter 11 受托人的裁决备忘录和命令相关的状态会议。该状态会议安排后，你提交了文件。你的任何文件都尚未安排听证。明白吗？一旦这些事项安排了听证，你可以做任何你认为适当的事。\n\n亨齐先生：明白，法官阁下。我不想做的是，我们送达证据开示请求，使其他当事人不得不向本院提出动议，并且——案件 22-50073 文件 610 已提交 07/26/22 已录入 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 102 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 103 法庭随后就那些动议作出裁定，并说你无权进行证据开示。我想，我想就此结束——\n\n法庭：亨齐先生，你可以做任何你认为适当的事。我并不——这不是一次将会作出裁定的听证会，除了我已经告诉你的事项之外。我将回去并发布——我将就不同事项安排听证会。而且我将在其中一项命令中要求你提交书面陈述，说明为何你可以在不遵守 327 的情况下代理该债务人，以及在你存在看似实际利益冲突的情况下为何可以代理。\n\n亨齐先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我说的“你”，是指 Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）。明白吗？\n\n亨齐先生：明白，法官阁下。关于证据开示问题，好的，我不——我不想做的是——\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\n亨齐先生：——我不想在您已告诉我我不会获得证据开示后再送达证据开示请求——\n\n法庭：你可以自行——由你自己决定送达证据开示请求。律师，你做任何你认为适当的事，但是——\n\n亨齐先生：我以为您正要说，你可以自行承担风险送达证据开示请求，但是——案件 22-50073 文件 610 已提交 07/26/22 已录入 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 103 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 104\n\n法庭：其实我差点这么说了。\n\n亨齐先生：——而我不——\n\n法庭：是的。\n\n亨齐先生：——而且，再说一次，我不想那么做。但我不认为告诉我“我不会让你进行证据开示”，却又说“但你去做你要做的任何事”，这是公平的——\n\n法庭：顺便问一句，Rule 60 中哪里规定你有权进行证据开示？\n\n亨齐先生：我认为该动议受 Rule 9014 管辖，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：对。9014 的意思是各方有机会作出回应。而且在提交该回应之前，你为什么有权进行证据开示？\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，我正试图不延误就这些事项举行听证会。我正试图让这件事尽可能快地推进。郭先生的目标不是延误对受托人的最终任命。也不是延误对受托人律师的最终聘任。我们和其他所有人一样希望尽快处理这些问题。好的。因此，我明白，在有人对我的 Rule 60 动议提出异议之前，可以说，我为什么要进行证据开示？我相当确定——案件 22-50073 文件 610 已提交 07/26/22 已录入 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 104 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 610\n已提交 07/26/22\n已录入 07/26/22 09:23:31\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\n我相当确定，会有人对我的 Rule 60 动议提出异议，而我正试图尽可能快地推进此事。\n\n我不想送达证据开示请求，使人们不得不向法庭提出动议，并让法庭可能举行或不举行听证会，然后就该动议作出裁定，以便确定我就法庭裁定所享有的任何权利。\n\n这就是为什么——对我而言，最好是——对其他当事人也可能最好是——如果法庭将作出这样的裁定，那么今天就作出裁定，免得再拖延。\n\n法庭：嗯，我会考虑这一点。\n\n亨齐先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nGOLDMAN（戈德曼）先生：法官阁下？\n\n法庭：是。\n\n戈德曼先生：我可以简要陈述吗？\n\n法庭：你能——请确保你对着麦克风说话。\n\n戈德曼先生：好的。您能听见我吗？\n\n法庭：能。谢谢。\n\n戈德曼先生：好的。我想提出一个供法庭考虑的想法，作为解决这项动议的潜在方式——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 已提交 07/26/22 已录入 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 106 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\n法庭：什么担忧？\n\n戈德曼先生：——以及担忧——\n\n法庭：60(b) 动议？\n\n戈德曼先生：是。是。以及对中国政府的担忧，并不是说我认为那是一个问题——我不想因为提出解决办法而赋予其可信度，但法庭可以简单规定，如果德斯平斯先生或 Paul Hastings 受到中国政府联系，并受到不利行动的威胁，以影响本案管理的任何方面，他们将向法庭提交一份补充宣誓书说明该情况，然后我们可以据此处理，因为我们现在只是面对推测。\n\n法庭：戈德曼先生，德斯平斯先生已经负有该义务。根据法典和规则中的披露要求，他已经负有该义务。\n\n我的意思是，我理解你所说的，但我认为在我尚未作出任何裁定的情况下，这确实赋予了它可信度。\n\n我会考虑你所说的，我也感谢你——提出这个问题，但每一位律师、每一位受托人，都负有持续性义务。\n\n德斯平斯先生已经在伪证处罚的约束下声明，他不存在这些关联。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 已提交 07/26/22 已录入 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 107 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\n所以我表示感谢。我不确定这会有多大作用。如果你们都想讨论此事，如果那会对你们有效，那没问题。如果这是每个人都希望我考虑的事情，我乐于考虑。\n\n但是我不会——我们将推进本案，它不会因可依破产法典和规则中的其他方式处理的事项而被搁置。\n\n德斯平斯先生以及任何将担任该角色的其他人，都理解该角色的职责，理解在伪证处罚约束下作出的披露。如果有人提出一些证据，证明德斯平斯先生正受到中国政府的影响，那么他们可以提出该证据。\n\n但是，在记录中没有任何证据的情况下提出该主张，然后说——而且我想要证据开示来停止这一程序——我认为这极不可能发生。\n\n戈德曼先生：嗯，我当然同意法官阁下在该问题上的立场。我只是试图回应 Zeisler 的推测。\n\n法庭：不。我感谢这一提议。\n\n正如我所说，你知道，看来没有人想一起去谈谈，对吗？我的意思是，如果你们想讨论，我可以休庭。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 610 已提交 07/26/22 已录入 07/26/22 09:23:31 第 108 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 108 但是，这件事——我们现在已经在这里待了将近两个半小时。我们需要让 Despins 先生去做他的工作。好吗？这正是此事的全部意义所在。这也是指定 Chapter 11 trustee（第11章受托人）的原因，以便此事能够进行。记录中有什么，无论其是否影响本院作出的任何裁决，Henzy 先生，这正是我几分钟前与你讨论时开头所说的：你是在接受你委托人现状的基础上代理他的。我相信你已经阅读了纽约州法院发生的一切。参与该程序的当事人以及其他当事人仍在此处提出那些指控。你的委托人必须作出一些决定。而且，你知道，本院会在其能够做到的范围内支持当事人，但如果当事人没有沿着同一路径共同推进，本院也必须推动事项向前进行。我并不是说你应当这样做。我并不是说这应当发生。我是说，否则我为什么会在这里？你们完全可以到外面自行争斗。对吗？我的意思是，关键在于我们必须以某种方式推进本案。要么你的委托人作出决定，尝试找到使本案得以进行的方法，要么不这样做。如果他不想这样做，也没有问题。那是他的自主选择。我同意你所说的，这是他的权利。但是他\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 109 采取这些步骤时，须理解本院未必会同意他的意见。HENZY 先生：明白，法官阁下。法庭：好的。这——这就是我们目前的情况。我今天不想再花更多时间——我的意思是，如果你想谈，我会谈，但我认为重要的是要理解，我们必须向前推进。HENZY 先生：法官阁下，Kwok 先生并不反对这一点，但是我们——我认为——我认为法庭会同意，我们必须以正确的方式向前推进。法庭：我必须给予每个人对这些不同动议作出回应的机会，对吗？所以我所考虑的是——而且我认为我听到 Friedman 先生和 Despins 先生告诉我，以及其他每个人都必须确保自己能够出席——我们将在 August 1st 举行听证会。那是星期一。好吗？从今天起，按工作日计算是一周零一天。我们将在 August 1st 举行听证会；如未达成一致，我将就这些问题作出裁定。关于撤回作为律师的动议，关于 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）的事项，同样地，是否会获准，我不知道。但如果获准，肯定会附带条件。我认为 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）应当就此发表意见。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 610 提交于 07/26/22 登录于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第109页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 610 提交于 07/26/22 登录于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第110页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n关于该事项，我不知道美国受托人——美国受托人必须就该事项发表意见。这是——这是——这正是美国受托人在 Chapter 11（第11章）案件中就专业人员所承担的职责。在每个案件中都是如此，但在 Chapter 11 案件中尤其如此。\n\n关于 Rule 60(b) 动议，我将给予每个人一个——但你们都必须明白，你们不能——我不会接受在 Friday the 29th 提交的书状，然后你们期待我阅读并准备在 Monday the 1st 作出裁定。这不会发生。因此，无论你们是否同意，你们都必须迅速处理这些问题。这就是将会发生的事。好吗？\n\n关于聘用 Paul Hastings（博浩律师事务所）和 Neubert, Pepe（纽伯特·佩佩律师事务所）的申请，也将安排举行听证会。所有这些事项都将安排听证会。\n\n我明白——我必须查看中止动议。我不记得我是否认为那些动议应当安排听证会。我可能会安排 20 项事项在 August 1st 举行听证会。好吗？但我们需要推进本案。就是这么简单。这就是将会发生的事。\n\n所以，如果我查看案卷——而且我今天出来之前确实尝试查看了，但我们还有另一次听证会——我的意思是，正如你们都知道的，我们确实还有其他听证会。而我希望你们更早——我将要求你们比 29th 更早作出回应的原因，并且可能是在 27th，即下周三，虽然时间并不充裕，是因为我们在 28th 有 Chapter 13（第13章）日。我的意思是，本院还有其他问题必须处理。尽管本案对你们所有人极其重要——对此我完全理解——我们确实还有其他事项必须处理。好吗？所以我看到，就这些待决动议而言，有一些 pro hac vice（临时出庭）申请。pro hac vice 出庭申请通常都会获准。但如果确实会有人对——我会让任何想发言的人发言。无论我是否认为你是律师，Henzy 先生，我今天显然让你发言了，对吗？我会让你发言。但我们必须就谁代理何人、在何种情形下代理，以及今后谁将出庭参与本案作出裁定。HENZY 先生：法官阁下，为澄清起见，不会对 pro hac 动议提出异议。我在职业生涯中从未反对过 pro hac 动议，我预计今后也不会。法庭：好的。谢谢。HENZY 先生：所以，我认为那些大概——法庭：那么，至少我们或许可以推进那些事项。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 112 好吗？HENZY 先生：所以，法官阁下，证明我希望推进本案的证据就在这里。LINSEY 先生：那些是，法官阁下，530——更正，是 533——法庭：我有了。LINSEY 先生：是的。法庭：我有了，Linsey 律师。谢谢。好。今天下午还有任何人希望为记录作任何陈述吗？（无可听见的回应。）法庭：好。我没有看到任何人。哦，Henzy 先生？HENZY 先生：所以，我只是想澄清——法庭：我想，我没有像本应那样快地离开。HENZY 先生：我只是想澄清 August 1st 的日程安排。是全部事项吗？全部事项？法庭：我现在还不知道。HENZY 先生：好的。法庭：这就是我所说的。不过，我可以告诉你将有哪些事项。HENZY 先生：好的。法庭：我认为将会有哪些事项。即：\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 610 提交于 07/26/22 登录于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第112页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 610 提交于 07/26/22 登录于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第113页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n撤回作为律师的动议，Brown Rudnick 的动议。Despins 先生聘用 Paul Hastings 和 Neubert, Pepe 的申请。你方的 Rule 60(b) 动议。其他事项，我目前尚不确定。\n\n中止动议之类的事项，我需要回去查看。\n\n除非有人现在告诉我——我现在给予你们所有人机会，告诉我还有哪些事项应当在 August 1st 审理。我不知道我是否会同意你们，但我正在给予——\n\n而且，你，Henzy 律师，以及美国受托人办公室，必须在——我认为所有事项的回应截止日期都将是 27th——之前提交书状，说明为何你能够——你必须使我相信你方的论点，即由于 debtor（债务人）不再是 debtor in possession（占有中的债务人），你不需要遵守 327；以及为何你不——并且无论该事项如何，为何你在同时代理 HK International（香港国际）和 Kwok 先生时不存在实际利益冲突。\n\nHENZY 先生：我只是想——当您说您会让我在 August 1t 发言时，我的意思是，我不希望到了那里——\n\n法庭：是的。你将会——我会让你陈述你的论点。\n\nHENZY 先生：我不希望到了 August 1st，您说您已决定我不能代理 Kwok 先生，然后 Kwok 先生没有准备好——他没有——\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 610 提交于 07/26/22 登录于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第114页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n法庭：我们不会那样做。\n\nHENZY 先生：他没有受到代理。\n\n法庭：这是一次关于你是否可以这样做的听证会。好吗？\n\nHENZY 先生：好的。\n\n法庭：我不会——我绝不会说不允许你发言。\n\nHENZY 先生：我并不认为您会这样做，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nHENZY 先生：但我只是不希望他在那次听证会上未受代理。\n\n法庭：我明白。嗯，Brown Rudnick 无论如何都会到场。\n\nHENZY 先生：我认为 Brown Rudnick 并不打算为 August 1st 的那次听证会作准备。\n\n法庭：他们或许不打算为那次听证会作准备，但他们必须就其撤回作为律师的动议到场。\n\nHENZY 先生：明白。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nHENZY 先生：明白。\n\n法庭：因此，如果我不准许其撤回作为律师的动议，那么他们仍然是他的律师。\n\nHENZY 先生：好的。\n\n法庭：好吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 115 HENZY 先生：好的。法庭：好。还有任何人要补充吗？（无可听见的回应。）法庭：好。今日有关 Kwok 的事项至此结束。这是今日日程表上的最后一项事项。现在休庭。（程序于下午 1:28 结束。）本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），经法院批准的庭审记录员及认证电子记录员和庭审记录员，兹证明，上述内容是根据上述案件程序的正式电子录音制作的准确笔录。16 July 25, 2022 17 Christine Fiore, CERT Transcriber（认证庭审记录员）\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 610 提交于 07/26/22 登录于 07/26/22 09:23:31 第115页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 610\n提交于 07/26/22\n登录于 07/26/22 09:23:31\n第116页，共116页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 116\n\n索引\n\n页码\n\n受托人的证物：\n\n1\n受托人书面陈述副本 7","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je","Paul Hastings","CCP","CIPA","GETTR","Guo","Miles Guo","Luc Despins","GTV","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":29032,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-07-26 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-07-26","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:17:36"}