{"id":"court_ctb_714_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":714,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2022-08-10","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073(JAM) \\* HO WAN KWO","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 1 of 158\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073(JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* August 1, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. STEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ. Brown Rudnick, LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 PATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ. Robinson & Cole 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES Cont'd: For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the Creditors, Rui Ma, KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Weican Meng and Zheng Wu: McElroy Deutsch 225 Liberty Street 36th Floor New York, NY 10281 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 For HK International and STEPHEN M. KINDSETH. ESQ. Mei Guo: Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Proposed Counsel for the DOUGLAS SKALKA, ESQ. Chapter 11 Trustee: Neubert, Pepe & Monteith 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510\n\n ((Proceedings commenced at 12:15 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. SKALKA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Douglas Skalka as proposed local counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, representing the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. GOLDMAN: If I can ask where I might get a mask from the Court? Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 3 of 158\n\n THE COURT: There's some right on the table here, Attorney Goldman, right in front of Attorney Henzy. MR. GOLDMAN: Oh, okay. Thank you. THE COURT: Sure.\n\n MR. FRIEDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Peter Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. THE COURT: And with your is your co-counsel and local counsel? MR. SARNOFF: Stuart Sarnoff also of O'Melveny & Myers. MR. BIRNEY: And Patrick Birney, Robinson & Cole. Good afternoon. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: Eric Henzy for Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. ROMNEY: Aaron Romney also on behalf of debtor, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. KINDSETH: Stephen Kindseth on behalf of Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: And what about your other clients, Mr. Kindseth? MR. KINDSETH: I don't know if it would be necessary for us to appear on behalf of HK International, but also on behalf of HK International, Stephen Kindseth,\n\n Zeisler & Zeisler. THE COURT: And Mei Guo? MR. KINDSETH: And Mei Guo. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew, McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter, on behalf of Creditors Rui Ma, Zheng Wu and Weican Meng. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Mr. Baldiga, I saw you back there, but please go ahead and announce -- MR. BALDIGA: Yes, Your Honor. William Baldiga, Brown Rudnick. Thank you. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Does anyone else wish to make an appearance on the record today? (No audible response.) THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Baldiga, we're going to take up your application, your motion to withdraw as attorney, first, if you'd like to come forward, please. You can come up to the lectern if that's easier, whatever is easier for you. MR. BALDIGA: I'll do that. Thank you. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BALDIGA: Good afternoon. Well, Your Honor, our motion was filed on July 13. We supplemented it with a\n\n further submission at docket 623 last week. THE COURT: I did see that. Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. And I think there were possibly at least two concerns with the court or among other parties. One is a matter of law, whether we are entitled to withdraw, especially now that there has been the appearance of two other firms for Mr. Kwok as debtor out of possession. And then second, we anticipated, I think appropriately and had conversations with Ms. Claiborn and Mr. Despins, as to our continuing responsibilities as to our retainer and as former counsel to the debtor. We just wanted there to be no mystery or no question about the fact that we understand the rules. We've complied with the rules throughout and would continue to. And if -- if there were any concerns, I wanted to be proactive in addressing those, including with the court today. We have no benefit from holding the retainer. And so we -- other than security for our fee obviously -- and so we're happy to have whatever arrangements -- I think the current arrangements are fine with Ms. Claiborn and her office and with the trustee and his office -- THE COURT: For your firm to retain the -- or to keep the retainer subject to an order granting your fees, is\n\n that the current -- is that -- MR. BALDIGA: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. Sure. Okay. Go ahead. That's fine. MR. BALDIGA: And, I mean, it's with a very wellregarded bank. It's not the firm's funds. THE COURT: Right. MR. BALDIGA: It's we keep retainers in a segregated account. We're a firm in -- fortunately in good standing financially and otherwise so I don't think they're at risk in any way. As to replacement counsel, I unfortunately was on vacation at the last hearing, but I've read the -- THE COURT: Well, hopefully it was a good vacation. MR. BALDIGA: -- transcript and I understand the dialog. THE COURT: Hopefully, it wasn't unfortunate that you were on vacation. Hopefully -- MR. BALDIGA: I wasn't going to say that, but I appreciate that comment. I think that's right. I'm not going to take a position as to the Zeisler retention. THE COURT: Understood. MR. BALDIGA: That's a matter for other parties to address. But Mr. Mitchell has appeared. The Zeisler firm\n\n has appeared. I think our motion to withdraw should be allowed as a matter of law whether or not actually there is replacement counsel. But with the replacement counsel, I think it should be, hopefully, routinely addressed. I'm happy to answer any questions from any party or the court, but otherwise I would just rest on those papers. THE COURT: Thank you. I want to hear from everyone else as -- I haven't seen anyone object to your motion and I don't know of any objection. So if anyone has an objection I'd like them to raise it now. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, it's not an objection, but we had subject to, so if we could be heard at the appropriate time? THE COURT: Well, subject to -- I'm going to make Brown Rudnick -- they're going to have to file a fee application. They know that. That's already -- that's not a problem. Is the issue -- when you say -- are you concerned about Brown Rudnick holding onto the funds? I thought there was no problem with that. MR. DESPINS: No, Your Honor. The issue is that we want them to confirm that they will make themselves\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n available. And may I approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. Yes. Yes, please. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: I'm sorry. I understand what your point is now that I forgot to mention. You had said in your papers that you would like them to be available and to assist you if necessary. MR. DESPINS: Subject to whatever protective order Your Honor would enter. THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: We filed a 2004 -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: -- last week. They're one of the targets. THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: So we don't need to debate the merits of that. Just that -- THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: -- I want to make sure that they're not sailing into the sunset. That's all. THE COURT: Okay. And have you and Mr. Baldiga had any -- I don't know that you've had an opportunity, but have you had any conversations about what you've just said on the record?\n\n MR. DESPINS: Not about that point. MR. BALDIGA: I'd be happy to address it, Your Honor. Well, we have obligations, obviously, to the Court under the rules and under law. Former counsel is in an awkward position when it comes to matters as to privilege. We don't want to be whipsawed in that I don't want to make a commitment to do something that could violate a privilege here. And so, for example, of course, I've already had conversations with Mr. Despins. Will continue to be available. I'm not hard to find. I certainly don't want to make a commitment that would put our firm at risk for a claim by a former client that we've somehow invaded a privilege or put them in a position where they couldn't defend a privilege. This is really I don't think an issue for Brown Rudnick as much as it is for the trustee and counsel, replacement counsel, to the debtor to navigate. These, in my experience, have been challenging issues to navigate in the few other cases I've been in where there's a debtor out of -- out of possession. So I'm pleased to continue to be available to Paul Hastings as they -- as they wish, but I will not commit to do something that will put our firm at risk.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 11 of 158\n\n THE COURT: Understood. I have a question for you though too. MR. BALDIGA: Certainly. THE COURT: And I'll hear from Mr. Despins if he wants to respond to what you've said. What I would ask is -- and I -- I would assume this would not be a problem from your perspective, that the firm will, you know, accept service. There won't be any issue of service if -- Mr. Despins going to serve probably a subpoena, right, on your records. He's going to want to see your records. And you're going to -- you're going to either -- you or other counsel object on privilege grounds and then we'll have to see how it all works out at the end of the day, whether there can be some form of protective order that's agreed to or that the Court has to enter. I just don't want to have an issue that you wouldn't accept service or something along -- because, to me, that's rudimentary. You have every right, your firm has every right to file whatever documents they think are appropriate with regard to any discovery requests that are made upon you and anything like that. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm just talking about I don't want us all to spend time on issues of service or something that I would\n\n consider, you know, fundamental. There is every -- you have every right to raise any issue you feel is appropriate under applicable law and rules with regard to your attorney/client privilege and any other privilege that you may assert, but I just want -- that would be the commitment that the Court would -- I don't want to spend any time on that and I don't think you do either. MR. BALDIGA: So two commitments, Your Honor. One, as is customary and appropriate, the trustee as one of his first orders of business -- I think as he said in his papers, sent a simple letter, a document hold letter -- THE COURT: Right. MR. BALDIGA: -- which is customary in investigations more generally. And we have -- and I told the trustee this, we have implemented our hold internally, so we've been responsible in that regards. So nothing will be lost. That's step number one and frankly basics. Step number two, there will not need to be service or constables or any type of thing. If there's a 2004 order entered, we'll comply with it. We don't need a subpoena or other formal process as long as the debtor is not challenging whether this trustee has gone through the appropriate steps. That's really up for the debtor to say --\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n THE COURT: I understand. MR. BALDIGA: -- that something is lacking, but it won't be Brown Rudnick standing in the way. THE COURT: That's my question and my request and I appreciate that. Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: Now, Mr. Despins, do you have anything else you want to add to what Mr. Baldiga just stated? MR. DESPINS: No, Your Honor. You covered my point. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. So, Mr. Baldiga, as you said in your remarks, we haven't had that many cases where -- in recent past, where the debtor has been removed from possession and so the issues about whether -- you know, I don't even understand the two counsel yet. I'm going to talk to Mr. Henzy about that. But I agree with you that your motion should be granted. And it is going to be granted on the grounds that other parties, other lawyers, have filed an appearance on behalf of the debtor, and the debtor is out of possession. So that's fine. What I need to know from you, and I don't know if you've had any conversations with Attorney Claiborn about this, or anybody else, and I'm not saying you should have --\n\n how much time do you need to file a fee application? MR. BALDIGA: On that point, Your Honor, I have not had discussions, but I've had quite a bit of thought about it. At the -- at the last couple of hearings, one of the Court's comments, which I thought was very well taken by everyone, is that what you would hate to do is put people through a lot of work needlessly. I think the same goes -- there will be a time and a place for a fee application. Given the criteria for the allowance of fees, especially as counsel for the estate, is so what did your work come to? I think it would be very difficult for the Court or any party to assess today. For example, in your memorandum of decision appointing a trustee, you cited to two of the things that we brought about. One was we filed a plan. Whether that is stillborn or ends up being the basis for a plan that's confirmed in this case, time will tell. I don't think it's possible to assess that today and maybe not for some time. Second, the boat. We don't know where the boat -- the whole issue with the boat is going. Not just procedurally, but does that become part of the estate or not? Is it voluntary or by court decision? Is it part of the deal or not?\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n We take some pride in what we've done, substantial pride in what we've done. The case, for us, is not ending in the way that we had intended, but I think the Court, and especially the trustee, the Office of the United States Trustee, the replacement counsel, the committee, will all be able to assess the value of what we've done with the benefit of some hindsight once the dust has settled here. So I -- and it's a lot of work to put together a fee application. The other problem with doing a fee application today is it's very hard to go further than what I just did without concerns of privilege and confidentiality. Those will be lessened over time as discovery plays out. So I would ask that given the recognition, that I confirm again, that the money doesn't go anywhere without a fee application that we just table that for this -- at this point. And at some point any party can say to the Court or to me, hey, I think we need to get this going. But I just don't think it's today. And I think as the case proceeds it will become more obvious when that will be. THE COURT: Okay. I would like to hear from others about that point. Okay? MR. BALDIGA: Of course. THE COURT: But I understand your point. Thank you.\n\n All right. Does anybody -- MR. BALDIGA: Anything else from me right now, Your Honor? THE COURT: Say that again? MR. BALDIGA: Anything else right now from -- THE COURT: I don't have any questions right now. I understand what your position is. And I'm curious to hear what other parties think about that. MR. BALDIGA: I'll stand back for a moment. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I'd like to know what the other parties think about Mr. Baldiga's suggestion that while the motion to withdraw the appearance would be granted at this time that there wouldn't be a need to file a fee application at this time? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. I think Attorney Baldiga makes some fair and valid points about the process and about where we are in this case. And perhaps the easiest way to do it is to put it on a tickler say four to six months out and we can revisit the issue, where we are in the case and whether or not it's an appropriate time to file a fee application. Because as Attorney Baldiga noted there would be a difficulty at this point in assessing the value to the\n\n estate of the services that were provided because we don't know all the facts and we aren't anywhere near the finish line. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, the trustee agrees with Mr. Baldiga's proposal. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Friedman? MR. FRIEDMAN: It's Peter Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers. PAX agrees that this is a sensible way to proceed. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, for the committee, Irve Goldman. We have no problem with the proposal suggested by the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: And Mr. Baldiga? MR. GOLDMAN: Correct. THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? (No audible response) THE COURT: Okay. So, Mr. Baldiga, the motion to withdraw as attorney filed on behalf of Brown Rudnick, and obviously all the individuals from Brown Rudnick who filed notices of appearance, in the case is granted. And there will not be a need to file a fee\n\n application at this time. So the order, probably just do some firm of a virtual order that says the motion to withdraw is granted for the reasons stated on the record, and that further order of the Court will enter with regard to the filing of a fee application by Brown Rudnick. Does that make sense to you? MR. BALDIGA: It does, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, I'm sorry to see you go. But it is an unusual case. And I understand the position that you and your firm have taken on the parties, all of the parties who have been intimately involved in the case, and newly involved in the case, agree with your position and so I have no reason to think it should move in any other direction at this point. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: May I take my leave? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: Very good. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much. All right. So the motion to withdraw as attorney is granted and an order will enter, but it will most likely\n\n be just a virtual order. Okay? So that's ECF 543. 2 All right. Just if everyone could give me one moment and then we'll turn to the rest of the matters. (Pause) THE COURT: Now, with regard the rest of the matters on the calendar, I'm sure people have an idea of how they think they should proceed, as far as the order, in which they should go. I have an idea of how I think they should proceed. Mr. Despins, what is your position as to what we should address next today? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. Very briefly, as an initial matter I want to say that at the end of the hearing we have a lot of -- not a lot -- but we have a number of housekeeping matters that we will want to cover. THE COURT: Well, do you want to cover them now? Are we talking about motions that have been pending by the debtor since the beginning of the case, or are you -- MR. DESPINS: No. But, for example, the bar date order. There's a -- I don't want to cover it now because it's actually more involved than initially thought. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: So the bar date order is one of them. Also we would want the Court to -- so I'm not going\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 20 of 158\n\n to cover all of them -- but to schedule status conferences on a regular basis in the case. THE COURT: That's fine. MR. DESPINS: So things like that. THE COURT: I will say one thing that's not relevant to you actually -- or it might be -- Mr. Baldiga, as counsel, and his firm, filed several motions some time ago that never were resolved because of the change of the circumstance of the case when the debtor decided to withdraw the motion for funding. There are still outstanding motions out there that we're -- we can talk about later -- but the committee also has outstanding applications to employ professionals. There's a lot of things that maybe we do just address at a status conference or later today, but we're going to resolve those one way or another. I would want to know whether or not you, as the trustee, are going to, you know, step into the shoes of any of those pending motions that were -- for example, they were -- the debtor was -- we had an evidentiary hearing about a financial advisor. You know, I was about to rule when all of that changed, everything changed, the motion to withdraw the funding came. You know, it was withdrawn. And then I think that the reality is that that is a motion at least if Brown\n\n Rudnick stayed in the case they were no longer going to pursue. I have no idea if you're going to do that. But in any event we can talk about it later. With regard to where we are today -- MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: -- I mean, the most important things -- everything's important, but -- including the bar date order -- and I did look at -- I have to say I haven't scoured, but I looked at the proposed order that you submitted with redlining and things like that and I have a couple of thoughts on that but nothing substantial. Okay? With regard to whether or not -- so the things that have to be decided today are -- everything has to -- has to be handled -- but as we had our last hearing, I know there's a lot of discovery that's been served on you because you filed motions to quash. So I understand that. Mr. Henzy's pursuing this -- his motion for relief from judgment order. That's been objected to by several parties. I have some concerns about the motion and the process that we'll all need to talk about. And then you -- and then it's the Paul Hastings' retention and the -- and the local counsel retention. MR. DESPINS: Correct. And then there was also -- but I'm not sure you're going to take that up -- you had asked the Zeisler firm and the U.S. Trustee to brief some\n\n issue. THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: We didn't get involved in that -- THE COURT: No. MR. DESPINS: -- so I don't know where that stands. THE COURT: That has -- that's where we're going to turn next I believe. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. But let's do the housekeeping, for what we call housekeeping, although it has substantive impact at the end then. MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: Let's hope. MR. DESPINS: There's a lot -- there's a lot to cover in a sense that -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: -- for example, the bar date, we did mark it up because you asked us to do that. THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: And that's going to sound bizarre, but I don't think we should proceed with that for reasons related to the *Genever* case. There's a whole thing -- THE COURT: Oh, okay. MR. DESPINS: -- that I want to explain to Your\n\n Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: -- so we'll do that at the end of the hearing -- THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. So, Attorney Claiborn and Attorney Henzy, the last hearing I did ask you both -- and I know you did brief the issue on whether or not 327(a) applies to Zeisler & Zeisler and whether or not there's an actual conflict of interest because of the representation of three parties in this case at the same time. Before we get to that though, I don't understand the other lawyer, Attorney Henzy, who has filed an appearance and what his role is going to be and why there's a need for another attorney? MR. HENZY: I'm going to take my mask off just when I speak, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. HENZY: I apologize for that. I just -- So Attorney Mitchell appeared -- as I understand it, Your Honor, there was this window, I'll call it, between Brown Rudnick exiting and one -- I don't think it makes any difference to Mr. Baldiga's presentation, but the debtor had\n\n|    | 24                                                           |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | --<br>I'm told -- I was not part of it, but made an          |\n| 2  | affirmative decision to terminate --                         |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>That's what we were told by someone            |\n| 4  | from Brown Rudnick last week.<br>And I don't remember who it |\n| 5  | was, so I apologize.                                         |\n| 6  | MR. HENZY:<br>And, of course, subject to any                 |\n| 7  | bankruptcy code, bankruptcy rules issue, under the Rules of  |\n| 8  | Professional Conduct, if a client terminates a lawyer, the   |\n| 9  | lawyer is ethically prohibited from representing a client    |\n| 10 | any further.                                                 |\n| 11 | So there was this window where Brown Rudnick was             |\n| 12 | no longer representing -- again, putting the bankruptcy      |\n| 13 | code, bankruptcy rules and the need to withdraw aside -- but |\n| 14 | I could understand them taking the position they were no     |\n| 15 | longer representing the debtor and my firm was not -- was    |\n| 16 | not at that point retained by the debtor and Mr. Mitchell    |\n| 17 | appeared really solely for the purpose -- I think at the     |\n| 18 | time of that -- the July 8 hearing that Your Honor held on   |\n| 19 | the U.S. Trustee's motion to appoint Mr. Despins as trustee, |\n| 20 | to put something on the record that the debtor in fact was   |\n| 21 | objecting to Mr. Despins' appointment as trustee.            |\n| 22 | And my recollection is that it was done by filing            |\n| 23 | a kind of a letter as opposed to a formal pleading that you  |\n| 24 | typically would see.                                         |\n| 25 | But I believe that the debtor does not have any              |\n\n intention of having Attorney Mitchell be in court representing him. That's why he's retained -- he's retained us. THE COURT: Well, then, will Mr. Mitchell be withdrawing his appearance? MR. HENZY: I'd certainly discuss that with the debtor and with Mr. Mitchell, yes. THE COURT: Because Mr. Mitchell said in the letter that he understood all the rules in the bankruptcy court, but yet he filed this letter. So I -- I don't think that there should be two lawyers for the debtor in this court. I don't see the need for it. And I don't -- and Mr. Mitchell, who says he understood, does not understand how it works here apparently. So I would think that it would be wise for Mr. Mitchell to withdraw his appearance. MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: And we'll get that cleaned up. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Now, turning to the 327(a) issue, and Attorney Claiborn as well, and, you know, Attorney Henzy, I went back when you said, you know, it was black letter law. And of course it's not really black letter law.\n\n It says it in a line in *Collier's* that -- and it doesn't cite to any cases. And then the cases that cite to the proposition that says that a debtor out of possession, 327(a), doesn't apply, cite to the *Collier's* cite. So it's very interesting actually because you would think there would have been more out there than there really is. And the cases that cite for the proposition that say you are out of possession and, therefore, the chapter -- I'm sorry -- therefore, the 327(a) does not apply all rely on a sentence in *Collier's* which is fairly interesting to me. But in any event there's other things in *Collier's* that are interesting as well with regard to the status of this case. Attorney Claiborn, your motion talks about whether the debtor's acting on behalf of the estate or on his individual -- in an individual way as to why -- whether 327(a) should apply. So where do things stand from the U.S. Trustee's standpoint at this point? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I don't think we're any further than we were when we filed our brief except to say that the debtor's brief filed by the Zeisler firm did acknowledge the fact that there have been conflict waivers\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n executed amongst the parties. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Attorney Claiborn, you're a little low. THE COURT: She can't -- yeah. You have to speak up a little bit. She can't you. I'm sorry. MS. CLAIBORN: I am actually speaking loudly, but I'll try again. I wanted to point the court to the fact that in the Zeisler brief at ECF 620 there is a representation that conflict waivers have been executed by and between the debtor, HK International and Ms. Guo. We have not seen those conflict waivers and we're not privy to any discussions that may have happened by and among the debtor, HK, and Ms. Guo and Zeisler's office. So as we are at the moment not any further along in the analysis than we were when we filed our brief back on July 27th, so in our viewpoint it very much depends on what the debtor is aiming towards and what the debtor is doing as to whether or not the Zeisler firm must comply with Section 327(a). And as part of that it has a lot to do with their role with respect to the three different parties, the debtor, HK and Ms. Guo. THE COURT: Okay. So you're -- you don't know whether 327(a) applies? Or you're saying it's not -- it's not discernible because you don't know what role they're\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 28 of 158\n\n playing? MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the conflict issue? The 327(a) issue, I have to say, again, *Collier* says in one line that it doesn't apply to a debtor not in possession. That's all it says. But that issue, you know, could be continually raised depending upon what happens in the case just because -- if I find 327(a) doesn't apply at this time, it doesn't mean I couldn't find 327(a) doesn't apply at some other time. But that's aside from the fact that the Zeisler firm represents now Mr. Kwok, HK International and Ms. Guo, and says that because the trustee now is automatically substituted as a party in the adversary proceeding that HK brought against Mr. Kwok that there's no conflict. Do you agree with that? MS. CLAIBORN: I don't think it's as pure as that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, that's their argument though. MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. And so what do you think? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee -- the brief that we filed sets out the opinions that have been issued in various different jurisdictions, and obviously not\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 29 of 158\n\n this one, as to the applicability of 327 and I think there is support for the idea that depending on what counsel is doing and what their role really is in the case, that they are subject to 327. To the extent that the debtor is pursuing the debtor's Rule 60(b) motion here today with the mind set and the goal that that trustee appointment is invalid because Trustee Despins does not satisfy the disinterested status that is required, that position is being taken and advocated for the apparent benefit of the estate. And so to the extent that that is the debtor's objective and that is the debtor's goal, there is an interpretation that can be made that 327(a) does in fact imply to Zeisler. THE COURT: Okay. Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: On the two points, Your Honor, I -- I did not recollect that all of the cases that I cited on the 327(a) issue that I -- I know for sure several of them did cite the *Collier's*, but I'm not sure all of them did. I could not find any case that said to the contrary, that a debtor out of possession is required to retain -- THE COURT: I think you're right. I couldn't either. I looked. I agree with you. I don't -- and I think the references in those cases to *Collier* is it.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 30 of 158\n\n There's other cases -- there's other issues about whether you can be compensated under 330. That's a different issue. MR. HENZY: Yeah. Yeah. Which I think the Supreme Court -- THE COURT: But I agree. The 327(a), there's nothing that says that a debtor in -- a debtor out of possession's counsel must abide by 327(a). I wasn't able to find anything. And then the only thing is whether or not you had to disclose your compensation. And you disclosed your compensation. But I don't understand what an evergreen retainer means from your perspective. I think I know what it means, but I assume that means when you're done with your hundred thousand you get another -- it's evergreen, it's always blooming, it never loses it's -- MR. HENZY: It always -- it's always blooming. THE COURT: It's always blooming. MR. HENZY: It's always blooming, yes. THE COURT: So you -- so you go -- you use the hundred thousand -- I'm just saying -- and then you get another hundred thousand. MR. HENZY: Or whatever has been used that particular billing period. Yeah.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. And so -- MR. HENZY: So let's say in a month we billed \\$10,000, we would bill the client -- we would send the client an invoice for \\$10,000. We would take the \\$10,000 from the retainer and the client would be obligated to replenish the retainer. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: That's the idea. THE COURT: And the -- and how would -- how would the Court know when your retainer is -- has -- is about to lose its bloom and needs to be replenished? MR. HENZY: I don't know that the Court would know that. I don't know that the Court under the rules needs to know that. I suppose they're not -- I'm just saying in theory, say take a hypothetical, if the -- if a -- in a situation like that, the retainer stopped blooming, the way the Court might find out about it is that counsel might be filing a motion to withdraw on the basis that the client -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: -- is not satisfying its obligations. THE COURT: That's possible. But, again, the debtor's son has provided you with the hundred thousand dollars, correct? MR. HENZY: Yeah. That's correct. THE COURT: Okay. And so the debtor's son -- you\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n represent the debtor, the debtor's daughter, the entity that asserts -- MR. HENZY: Says that it owns the boat. THE COURT: -- that they're the registered owner of the boat, and now -- now you're getting money from the debtor's son? MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. And you don't think any of that's a conflict? MR. HENZY: I do not believe that any of it is a non-waivable conflict other -- THE COURT: Well, there's other things you have to meet under Rule 1.7. It's not just that you got an informed consent waiver in writing. It's four things. That you reasonably believe that you'll be able to provide competent and diligent representation. I'm not suggesting you don't. You may believe that. Somebody might not agree with you, but you may reasonably believe that. The representation is not prohibited by law. Well, I'm not sure about that if the bankruptcy code sections apply, as Attorney Claiborn asserts they might. MR. HENZY: Which I would like to come back to that. THE COURT: Yeah. We'll come back to that. The representation does not involve the assertion\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal. So we're not just talking about the adversary proceeding here, right? We're talking about the case as a whole, the Chapter 11 case, where the entity -- Mr. Friedman reminded me last hearing, because I couldn't remember the entity who was loaning the money to the estate, was also an entity I believe controlled by the son, and now who's paying you, I guess not through an entity but by himself. That's what your disclosure says, correct? MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: That the money came directly from the son, not from any other entity? MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. And so you have four things you have to meet under Rule 1.7, not just -- not just the waiver of the conflict. And there's plenty of cases out there -- and I don't -- I'm not saying we're going to go through them today, okay -- but there's plenty of cases out there, bankruptcy judges saying you can assert all those things, but that doesn't mean that the conflict is truly waivable. Just because you got them to sign a letter that says they waive the conflict doesn't mean it's actually waivable.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n That's the issue that you have -- or one of the issues that I think you have.\n\n And given what has occurred outside of this court before the filing of this case, there's a lot of information that could become fact in this case to the contrary, that there's -- they're all one in the same. And some people could argue that your representation of all of them just supports that they're all one in the same, because Mr. Despins said last time we were here that -- and he may be filling more of this in later -- that with regard to the New York bankruptcy case that the direction came from Mr. Kwok, not from the corporate entity.\n\n13 And, you know, I mean, Mr. Friedman's papers, as you know, Mr. Henzy, I'm sure you've read them, go through extensively all the findings that have been made outside of this court.\n\n So Mr. Friedman says, you know, you may need to think about that, Judge, because maybe this is all just a continuation of what was going on back in New York, that through this weave and this web of issues that we just continue to do the same thing, just in another court.\n\n And what I'm having difficulty with is I don't see how you can represent all three of those entities and now get paid by the son and say that you don't have a concurrent conflict of interest under Rule 1.7, which is different from\n\n the 327(a) issue. Okay? I'm not -- I'm saying even if I agree with you that 327a doesn't apply, and I think you might be right -- although I hear Attorney Claiborn's argument. I think the argument with that though is that it has to be raised when the issue has obviously come up. I don't -- I don't think she's -- her office is able to at this point show that this issue that you're really -- that it's -- you're really representing the estate, because I'm not sure I agree with that at this point either. It's complex, obviously, as you know, and this has been going on for a long time. So I just don't see how it's not a conflict of interest. There is -- there are claims in the estate that are going to -- how are you going to provide advice to Mr. Kwok individually, and HK and Ms. Guo, individually without being -- without having their interests overlap and/or conflict, which they can and very well may do? MR. HENZY: So I guess a couple of preliminary points, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. HENZY: Absolutely court has the authority to enforce the rules of professional conduct when it involves proceedings in their court. Absolutely, no -- I don't question that in any way, shape or form.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n However, the principal -- in the first instance, it's up to the lawyer to be aware of and to -- their own conflicts and to make sure that they're in compliance with the rules of professional conduct. And, again, if something is in front fo the Court and the Court says that that's a conflict, the Court certainly has the authority and maybe the obligation to do something.\n\n Courts are, the Second Circuit says, to be somewhat deferential to a client's choice of counsel because there's a generally recognized right of people to retain counsel and to retain counsel of their choosing. And I think the 1.7(a) rules don't recognize that or address that or deal with that.\n\n On 1.7(a)(1), right now, there is no adversity. We represent HK International and I think -- and Mei Guo. And there may be other issues that we end up representing them on in the case, but principally, and I don't want to say almost exclusively, it's been on the Lady May.\n\n Now, I understand we filed appearances in the case -- and in theory could an issue come up other than with respect to the Lady May where they're adverse to each other -- but all we've done so far for those two -- those two -- the person and the entity is with respect to the Lady May. I think it is generally recognized, Your Honor,\n\nthat where there is no existing concurrent conflict -- and\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n that's what Rule 1.7 says, is a concurrent conflict of interest exists that the fact that there may be a conflict sometime in the future does not disqualify counsel and you potentially have to deal with that. And it certainly is our practice, and I think most firms' practice, to -- in any joint representation -- to advise clients if there -- if you end up with adverse -- end up adverse to each other, we're going to have to deal with that and that may have consequences to you. We may have to resign for one, both, all three, it's -- but you don't know that until you get to that concurrent conflict and you have to deal with it. Really, same theme on 1.7(a)(2), there is no -- THE COURT: I'm not talking about (a) though. I'm talking about (b). MR. HENZY: I'm going to -- I'm going to get to (b) because (b) follows (a). It's -- THE COURT: Yeah. But it says notwithstanding. MR. HENZY: But you don't get to (b) -- if there's no concurrent conflict of interest, you don't get to (b). THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. HENZY: (b) is notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under subsection (a). A lawyer may represent a client, yes, but you don't get to (b) unless you fail (a).\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n THE COURT: How can you fail -- how do you get by (a)(1) then? You represent HK and Mr. Kwok. The boat -- the trustee wants the boat to be property of the estate. MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: HK's got a different interest in that boat than Mr. Kwok does according to you. So how is it right now that there is -- they're not directly adverse to each other? MR. HENZY: Well, Mr. Kwok is no longer a party to that adversary proceeding -- THE COURT: That's not what I'm saying. MR. HENZY: -- and has no -- THE COURT: I don't care if he's not a party to the adversary proceeding. He still has an adverse interest with regard to the boat because he -- because they're still going to have to be -- if Mr. Despins is successful, right, in saying that the boat is property of the estate, then that is an -- then it's an adverse interest to your client and to HK because then HK doesn't have the boat and the debtor does. How are they not -- how are they not -- how is it not adverse? MR. HENZY: Certainly it would be adverse to HK if the Court said -- THE COURT: Right. And you represent HK and the\n\n debtor. MR. HENZY: Yeah. But I'm not sure I agree with you. Mr. Kwok's position is that HK owns the boat so they're not adverse. He does not believe that he owns the boat. He does not believe that it's property of the bankruptcy estate. I'll say that unequivocally on the record. So I don't see how they can be adverse if they take the same position. I think he's -- he would -- I know he would contemplate not being involved in that fight. That's a fight between presumably the trustee and HK International. But I don't -- Mr. Kwok -- again, I'll say this on the record, he will not be -- I suppose he might be involved if someone wants to call him as a witness or something like that, but he will not be taking positions. That will be a fight between the trustee and HK International, so there's no adversity, Your Honor. THE COURT: I don't agree with you, but go ahead. MR. HENZY: Okay. When you get to (b), as you said, we do believe that we can provide competent, diligent representation to each client. I'm not concerned that we're going to be pulling punches on behalf of HK International or having what's going on with the boat impact our representation of Mr. Kwok at all. On (b)(2), the 327 issue, again, we can talk more\n\n about. I've made the point in the papers -- I don't want to belabor it, Mr. Kwok is no longer a party to the adversary proceeding. I believe Mr. Despins said that at the last hearing. He was automatically substituted as the party in that -- in that adversary proceeding. And I cited the rule and cases that say that, that upon appointment of a trustee, he is automatically substituted for the debtor in that action. And all three clients have given consent. We did advise them, if they wanted to, to consult with other counsel and they've confirmed their consent in writing. So even assuming that there is a concurrent conflict under 1.7(a) -- and, Your Honor, to your point, it may be that at some point in this case a concurrent conflict does arise. I don't think one exists today -- there may be at some point a concurrent conflict arises. And if it does, then in compliance with the rules of professional responsibility, we will have a professional responsibility to address that. And, again, typically when you have a joint representation you advise clients if a concurrent conflict arises we may need to withdraw or otherwise address it. But if and when a conflict -- concurrent conflict\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n arises, we'll -- we will have to address it. And the clients have been informed of that. And, again, they have -- they have given their consent. THE COURT: Well, we -- I don't know how they gave their consent. So, I mean, you could have just said I consent. I don't know what they said. I know what you're saying they said, but just by saying I consent doesn't mean that's a -- that is a waiveable conflict -- MR. HENZY: Well, the only -- THE COURT: -- because you have to know what they're consenting to. MR. HENZY: The only non-waiveable conflict under this rule is if we represent two parties in the same litigation. And because Mr. Kwok is no longer a party to the adversary proceeding, I believe that we do not represent two parties to the same litigation. So they can consent -- THE COURT: But it's not just to the litigation that -- you keep focusing on the issue of the adversary -- it's the case. It's the case. It's still Mr. Kwok is in the case. It's his case whether he's not -- out of possession or not. It doesn't just go away because he's out of possession. It's still an issue in the case. You know, it's too convenient to say Mr. Despins steps into the shoes of Mr. Kwok in that adversary but not in any of the 523 adversaries. And I understand the\n\n argument. I'm not -- I understand the argument. But it doesn't -- you just don't have a conflict and then it doesn't -- it just doesn't -- it goes away. It doesn't exist anymore. That's not how it works. The conflict as I think we talked about it the last time, you know, you take the client as you find him. You know, you may argue you don't have a conflict at the moment, but the parties have a conflict with each other. There's some issues here. MR. HENZY: I don't -- I don't see where the parties right now are directly adverse to each other. THE COURT: Well, you may not see it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. MR. HENZY: But if -- THE COURT: The problem is in this case, and in the case before this case, that there were -- there were many, many findings made with regard to this -- these number of family -- closely -- and they're all insiders by the way so let's just -- we didn't raise that either. They're all insiders. MR. HENZY: None of it before you, Your Honor. THE COURT: No. No. No. I'm talking -- MR. HENZY: None of it before you. THE COURT: No. No. No. I'm talking about in this case right now. Ms. Guo is an insider of Mr. Kwok.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n|    | 43                                                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. HENZY:<br>Yes.                                             |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>The son who paid you a hundred                   |\n| 3  | thousand dollars is an insider of Mr. Kwok.<br>HK              |\n| 4  | International may or may not be an insider of Mr. Kwok, but    |\n| 5  | it's close.                                                    |\n| 6  | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.                                            |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Okay?<br>So how is that not a conflict?          |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>Because they are not adverse -- they             |\n| 9  | are not directly adverse to each other.<br>Your Honor, if a -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>If Mr. Despins sues Ms. Guo right now            |\n| 11 | --                                                             |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:<br>Yeah.                                            |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>-- and says she got paid whatever she            |\n| 14 | got -- I'm making -- I'm giving a hypothetical. She got paid   |\n| 15 | by Mr. Kwok a hundred thousand dollars 90 days before the      |\n| 16 | filing, then how are they not adverse?                         |\n| 17 | MR. HENZY:<br>I think that Mr. Despins and Ms. Guo             |\n| 18 | would be adverse.                                              |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>No.<br>Because the money's got to come           |\n| 20 | back from Mr. Kwok and Mr. -- you've got -- you keep --        |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:<br>If Ms. -- if Ms. Guo is sued for --              |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>What's the -- you're not going to --             |\n| 23 | are you going to raise a defense on her part?<br>What's her    |\n| 24 | defense?                                                       |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:<br>Hold on.<br>Assume -- I apologize, Your          |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n Honor. THE COURT: No. That's okay. It's okay. MR. HENZY: No. No, that was not okay. I apologize. THE COURT: That's okay. MR. HENZY: If Mr. Despins sues Ms. Guo for a preference, which I think is what you were positing, or for whatever, for whatever -- THE COURT: For whatever. MR. HENZY: -- then the money would come back I think from Ms. Guo, not from Mr. -- THE COURT: But what's her defense? She's going to have a defense. She's not going to just turn it over. If she can, she can turn it over today then. MR. HENZY: I don't know -- THE COURT: How are you going to represent her? MR. HENZY: I don't know what claim Mr. Despins is bringing against her, so I don't -- THE COURT: I understand that. MR. HENZY: -- I don't know what her defense would be. It's possible. I suppose he would bring a claim, I don't know what it would be, that would create some direct adversity, in which case we would have to deal with that. But that doesn't exist today. THE COURT: Okay.\n\n|    | 45                                                            |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. HENZY:<br>It may exist, Your Honor, sometime in           |\n| 2  | the future, but it doesn't exist today.<br>And for the 1.7(a) |\n| 3  | analysis, it's a concurrent conflict of interest exists.      |\n| 4  | Today, is there a conflict?<br>If a conflict -- and           |\n| 5  | the rules specifically contemplate -- I think it's in the     |\n| 6  | comments to 1.7 where it addresses joint representation --    |\n| 7  | that a conflict -- a conflict may arise in the future.<br>And |\n| 8  | if it does, counsel has an ethical responsibility to address  |\n| 9  | it.                                                           |\n| 10 | But today, Ms. Guo hasn't been sued by Mr. Despins            |\n| 11 | for anything.<br>She may get sued by him for something and    |\n| 12 | that, whatever that suit is, may or may not raise -- put Ms.  |\n| 13 | Guo and Mr. Kwok in a directly adverse position.<br>But I --  |\n| 14 | but I don't know.<br>I can't know that today.                 |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Well, (a) doesn't talk about the fact           |\n| 16 | that there has to be a lawsuit by the way.                    |\n| 17 | MR. HENZY:<br>Oh, no.<br>It's any -- it's any adverse         |\n| 18 | --                                                            |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>So it doesn't talk about it.                    |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:<br>No.<br>It's any -- I was just -- I was          |\n| 21 | addressing your --                                            |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>(b) talks about it, not (a).                    |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:<br>I was addressing Your Honor's comment           |\n| 24 | about what if --                                              |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>I understand.<br>So I'm saying there            |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n doesn't have to be a lawsuit in (a). It's if you have the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another. MR. HENZY: And I -- THE COURT: There doesn't have to be a lawsuit to have that issue. MR. HENZY: And today I don't see how Ms. Guo and Mr. Kwok are directly adverse -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: -- on anything. I don't see how HK International and Mr. Kwok are directly adverse on anything. Again, Mr. Despins is going to bring whatever claims he brings and we're going to go -- we're going to go from there ormake whatever claims he makes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I could be heard for two minutes on this? THE COURT: Yes. Yes, please. MR. DESPINS: Not on 327. I don't have a view on that. But on the issue of waivable conflict or not, 521, debtor's duties, 521(a)(3), if there's a trustee appointed, the debtor's duty is to cooperate with the trustee as necessary to enable the trustee to perform the trustee's duties. (a)(4), if there's a trustee serving, they must\n\n surrender all properties, et cetera. Of course their view is, oh, you know, he's a billionaire, but he has no assets so, therefore, we're on the same side of the V. But that duty that a -- statutory duty that the debtor has exists today. And you know that there are criminal provisions in 18 U.S.C. that tie into these obligations to do these things. So I'm -- so I'm not so sure this is a waivable conflict despite the fact that there's consent because the debtor has a statutory duty to do certain things that are in direct conflict with the other party that they're representing. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DESPINS: And also, by the way, I want to mention that chart that they said the son paid, they also checked the box that the debtor would -- might pay in the future. I want to be very clear under 549 we reserve all rights. If the debtor is paying Zeisler, I don't want them to think that because they checked that box that somehow we're looking the other way. I don't see how the debtor is paying -- would be paying them during the case. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. HENZY: I'm pretty sure that Mr. Despins is\n\n not looking the other way on anything, Your Honor. THE COURT: But it's a good point about the debtor making future payments for fees. I think that would be tremendously problematic. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, the debtor is not going to make any payments at the very least out of any -- Mr. Despins references to 549 and any property that's property of the bankruptcy estate. And we wouldn't -- we wouldn't take any such payments, certainly not knowingly anyway. So I'll say again, Your Honor, the debtor -- so the debtor has duties under 521, but I'm not seeing how that -- and Mr. Despins already has made in the corporate governance motion some proposals, but I'm still not seeing that today that there's any directly adverse -- that anyone's directly adverse. Again, it may be that something happens in the future where there is adversity. The only conflict -- expressly under the rules, the only conflict that is not waivable is the (b)(3). So we may think that a client should not -- THE COURT: I'm not sure that's true by the way. I mean, that's not -- case law doesn't really support that completely. I understand that's your argument. But when do -- where -- what authority are you relying on that says the only thing that's not waivable is (b)(3)? MR. HENZY: I think that that's the plain language\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 49 of 158\n\n of the rule. That is the -- unless it's prohibited by law, which is back to the 327(a) issue. THE COURT: Which is (2). Yeah. MR. HENZY: Okay. But I'm not aware of any prohibition in any law -- THE COURT: Well, actually there's a lot -- believe it or not, I've seen some case law that the -- even when the informed consent is in writing, the bankruptcy court has found that it's not a waivable conflict no matter what, you know, was written in that consent. Okay? There's cases, and there's recent cases about it, throughout the country that talk about, you know, the -- that it's -- you know, you can waive -- you can say whatever you want and waive it, but just because you said it doesn't mean it's enforceable and it's waivable. MR. HENZY: Yeah. I -- THE COURT: And at this point, you know, I'm not sure that it is. But go ahead. MR. HENZY: I don't understand I guess that point. THE COURT: Well -- MR. HENZY: If there's no prohibition by law and it's not claims made against each other -- THE COURT: Because it impacts the estate as a whole. This isn't just about the one adversary proceeding in which HK International sued Mr. Kwok. It's what Mr.\n\n Despins is saying and more. The debtor still has -- he may be a debtor out of possession, but he still has obligations under the bankruptcy code.\n\n He voluntarily came to this court and subjected himself to the jurisdiction of this court. And with that, you know, he gets all the benefits, but he also has the burdens. And he has to cooperate and turn over to the trustee all of his -- all property of the estate, whatever equitable or legal interest he has in a -- in a -- any piece of -- any property, whatever it is, whether it's real, personal, whatever. And when there are --\n\n We still haven't gotten to the issue of what HK is doing with regard to the certification on the boat. That seems to have gone by the wayside for a while. But there's \\$37 million in an escrow account that Mr. Despins is going to argue one way or another either that money or the boat's the estate. And that money --\n\n Now Mr. Friedman's going to have to remind me again, was that Golden Spring who funded that 37 million or was it somebody else?\n\n MR. HENZY: But, Your Honor, a couple of points. THE COURT: No. But wait a minute. Let me just finish my thought process first and I'll get back to you. But the point is Mr. Kwok is going to argue that something different -- how could Mr. Kwok -- is he -- he's\n\n|    | 51                                                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | going to say, oh, yeah, go ahead HK, give the boat over to     |\n| 2  | the estate or don't?<br>Go ahead, Mr. -- escrow agent.<br>Give |\n| 3  | the 37<br>-- who's going to fight that fight?                  |\n| 4  | MR. HENZY:<br>Not Mr. Kwok.                                    |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Well, who's going to fight the fight?            |\n| 6  | HK International.<br>And you represent HK International and    |\n| 7  | Mr. Kwok.                                                      |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>And Mr. Kwok's not fighting that fight           |\n| 9  | at all.                                                        |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>He's not going to fight the fight.               |\n| 11 | MR. HENZY:<br>No.                                              |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>So then I could find today -- I could            |\n| 13 | make a ruling that the boat is property of the estate and      |\n| 14 | Mr. Kwok's not going to fight that fight?                      |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY:<br>Mr. Kwok is out of that fight.                   |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>He's not going to fight it?                      |\n| 17 | MR. HENZY:<br>He is --                                         |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>So you're going to represent HK                  |\n| 19 | International in that fight?                                   |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:<br>He is out of that fight.<br>That fight           |\n| 21 | is now Mr. Despins' fight with HK International.<br>It's not   |\n| 22 | Mr. Kwok's fight.                                              |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>What about the \\$37 million        |\n| 24 | in escrow?                                                     |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:<br>Same answer, that's not Mr. Kwok's               |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 52 of 158\n\n fight. That is HK International's fight. And Mr. -- I'm not sure that's even a fight. THE COURT: So how can you represent HK International in a fight against the estate in which the estate is your client's estate? MR. HENZY: But the estate is not my client. The Supreme Court says that in the *Baker Botts* decision and the -- THE COURT: Yes. But the estate is the responsibility of your client. MR. HENZY: No. THE COURT: Yeah. Yes, it is under 521. MR. HENZY: No. I think that's wrong. THE COURT: Yes. He's got to turn it over. He's got to cooperate and turn it over. MR. HENZY: He has responsibilities -- THE COURT: So is he going to cooperate right now and say that, yeah, you know what, HK International really doesn't own the boat. I do according to the New York State Court. So why don't you just move it over here now? Is that how he's going to cooperate? And then how does that make sense for him to say that and then have HK say, no, I'm the -- I'm the record owner of the boat? MR. HENZY: So he -- he has his obligations under\n\n 521, but that doesn't mean -- 521 doesn't mean that he has to say -- get on the witness stand and say something is true that he doesn't believe is true. So if Mr. Despins is pursuing that action or that action is being pursued and Mr. Kwok is put on the witness stand and Mr. Despins says, isn't it true that you own the boat? And Mr. Kwok says, no. That's not -- he's not violating his obligations under 521 of the bankruptcy code. He's giving truthful testimony. So I'm not -- THE COURT: Well, whether it's true or not isn't for Mr. Kwok to decide. That's the point. Otherwise why are we here? MR. HENZY: Oh. I agree with you. But he's obligated to give truthful testimony. THE COURT: He's obligated to give testimony. MR. HENZY: To give truthful -- THE COURT: He makes the determination of whether or not it's truthful. MR. HENZY: Well, but -- but no one would say, well, Mr. Kwok you believe that you don't own the boat? That's right, I believe I don't own the boat. Well, you can't give that answer. You have to testify that you do own the boat because 521 says you have to testify -- THE COURT: Nobody would suggest -- nobody's suggesting that.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n MR. HENZY: Then I'm missing -- I'm missing the point. THE COURT: Okay. Maybe I'm not articulating it well. I don't understand how this can continue, but we'll talk about it. Does anyone else wish to be heard on whether or not the Zeisler firm can represent these three entities at the same time and not have it be deemed to be a conflict of interest? MR. HENZY: One point, Your Honor. If you're going to rule that we have a conflict of interest, or you're not going to rule, then I don't believe anything else should go forward today. You can't -- because the debtor is then -- THE COURT: I agree with you and that's why I asked to hear what everybody else -- MR. HENZY: Okay. Because then the debtor is not -- THE COURT: That's why we're talking about this right now. MR. HENZY: The debtor is not represented. And to the extent you haven't ruled -- THE COURT: Well, he is represented. He's got another lawyer. He's got Mr. -- whatever -- MR. HENZY: No one's here in court today Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 54 of 158\n\n representing the debtor. THE COURT: I understand that. But that -- you know, this is not news that the issue was raised about the conflict of interest. So just hold on. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I hear you. I hear you. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard on this conflict of interest issue? MR. DESPINS: I would just say, Your Honor, that I'm not sure. We need a genie to decide that issue today. I think the issue is still live, will continue to be live, you know, later. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I agree the issue does not die today if the Court decides not to rule on it today. The only other issue that I would throw into the mix is that looking into the future and cognizant of the past, the debtor's position on things has changed over time. And to the extent that the debtor uses this particular conflict, albeit resolved at the moment as a future sword, then we have a problem in this case. THE COURT: What do you mean? MS. CLAIBORN: To the extent that he takes the\n\n position in the future that his guidance and his advice from his now current counsel, Zeisler, was conflicted and that he should not be bound by any of the outcomes of that, that's going to cause a problem in this case in the future. The debtor does have a history of parting ways with counsel. THE COURT: Okay. I think I understand your point. I might -- I might not be understanding it fully at the moment, but that's fine. Anyone else wish to be heard? (No audible response) THE COURT: Okay. So, Mr. Henzy, with regard to the concurrent representation of these three parties, Mr. Kwok, who has continuing and remaining and continuous obligations under the bankruptcy code, even if he is a debtor out of possession, and HK International, and Mei Guo, the debtor's daughter, I agree with you that at the moment there is -- you appear to be complying with all of the provisions of Rule 1.7. But I do agree that things can change very quickly and parties, including you, and/or the Court, and/or others, need to bring this to the Court's attention if there are issues that are happening in this case. I think your client, as I said to you the other day, you take your client as you found them. And as your client has some issues with regard to\n\n litigation that has occurred outside of this court, that at some point's going to come back to this court somehow. Mr. Despins is going to have to do what Mr. Despins has to do and so do all the other creditors. I have no idea what any of the other creditors are going to do. They have their rights too. And they -- they can seek whatever relief they think is appropriate with regard to your clients, all three of them. So I -- given the positions that have been taken, and that the U.S. Trustee believes that 327(a) may apply and that you may have a conflict, I think the issue is continuing before this court and there won't -- you know, could be a problem as early as tomorrow. Who knows? And we'll have to deal with that. With regard to your motion for relief from judgment order under -- MR. HENZY: Your Honor, can I -- can I just ask a question? THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: I'd like to think anyway that I take my obligations under the rules of professional responsibility pretty seriously. THE COURT: No one's questioning that. MR. HENZY: Okay. I'll accept that. But -- THE COURT: But you have to understand that the\n\n issues that have been raised in this case are every day -- every week it changes, right? We're going down one path, then we go down another path, now we're down an other path. Now you're filing a motion to try to remove the trustee after, you know, you said -- after your client came in and wanted the boat to be part of the \\$8 million, have the boat be part of the estate, move forward, try to -- who Mr. Baldiga said on many occasions wants to have -- and it says it in the papers, so it's an admission of your party, of your client, whether or not you represent your client or Mr. Baldiga represented your client, that they wanted this case to be a place where everyone could come together and resolve all the issues and have a fair and equal distribution to creditors. And that's not what's happening. Okay? That's not what's happening. There wouldn't have been an appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee if that was what was happening. So I'm not trying to challenge your personal seriousness about the Rule 1.7. As I keep saying to you, you don't represent yourself. You represent your clients. And your clients already have some negative rulings against them that the\n\n And your client has come in and said he wanted to do all these things and then immediately changes course and\n\nCourt has heard about time and time again.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n pulls the plug on everything and leaves everybody in a completely different -- on a completely different path than he came in here and said that he was going to pursue. That's what I'm talking about. Okay? MR. HENZY: The point I was going to make, Your Honor, is I think I take my obligations pretty seriously. And if I ever believe that I have a concurrent conflict, I'm going to address it, with the clients if necessary, with the Court. So I would -- I would always do that. A second point is, Mr. -- Ms. Claiborn's point that she doesn't want to see the debtor using a purported conflict of my firm as a sword, I make the same point back at people. To have this sort of weird maybe three -- so if 327 applies, if the debtor is asserting his rights, and if I'm arguing too vigorously about some issue, then 327(a) applies. But if the debtor just sits and doesn't -- quietly and doesn't push back on anything, then 327 doesn't apply. I would hope that parties aren't going to use that in the future when the debtor potentially is objecting to something to stand up and say now he's under 327, he's got to go. A third point, Your Honor, the -- what happened outside of this court in pre-bankruptcy litigation I'm not sure what that has to do with whether or not my firm has a\n\n conflict under Rule 1.7 or 327(a) is implicated. I don't -- I don't think that it does. This is a tough case. I don't think anybody would disagree with that. This is a -- this is a tough, tough case. But the toughness of the issues isn't the driver on I have a conflict or I don't have a conflict. I either have a conflict or I don't have a conflict. And what I -- what I don't want to do, Your Honor, is go away from today with you having -- because I -- when you -- I think anyway, okay -- I never would intend to put words in Your Honor's mouth, that's why I'm going to say what I thought I heard -- what I thought I heard was you agree with me that today you believe I don't have an issue under Rule 1.7. But then you said -- I think anyway -- again, I want to be very careful -- but maybe you do. And if the Court is going to determine that today I have a concurrent conflict of interest and I should not be representing the debtor, I need to know that, because then if that's the case, from the time the Court says that every word that comes out of my mouth I am violating my obligations under the rules of professional responsibility. So either the Court finds I have a concurrent conflict of interest today or it doesn't. And recognizing that if something comes up in the future that creates that conflict, we're going to have to\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n deal with it. But I -- I kind of need to know that today. THE COURT: I think I said you didn't have a concurrent conflict of interest today, but you might in the future. MR. HENZY: Agreed. THE COURT: And that parties needed to bring that to the Court's attention. MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay? MR. HENZY: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. With regard to Rule 9024 motion, as I mentioned to you last time, I didn't understand why you weren't moving under section 324, the removal of the trustee. And the case law that I've looked at says that a rule -- and *Collier*, again, says that Rule 60 is not the appropriate way to challenge the appointment of a trustee under -- that the United States -- because the Court's not involved in the appointment. Remember. Right? The Court's not involved in the appointment. The U.S. Trustee's involved in the appointment. And the U.S. Trustee is only simply asking that the appointment be approved and the Court approved it. No one was able to put forth any evidence as to why it shouldn't be approved.\n\n And so -- then it's -- then that appointment stands. And the way that you have to proceed is a motion of 324. And if that motion is denied, it's not a final appealable order. Which obviously you want the Rule 60 to be an appealable order. So we're not -- we're not proceeding down the Rule 60 road, because according to sources that I've looked at, it's not appropriate. Mr. Despins was appointed as the Chapter 11 Trustee. And the only way he can be removed is under 324. So if you want to file a motion under 324 and meet those requirements, you're entitled to do so. MR. HENZY: I think or under 1105, Your Honor. But the -- THE COURT: Under what? MR. HENZY: I think also 1105 provides for the termination of trustee's appointment. THE COURT: But it refers back to 324. MR. HENZY: 1105 doesn't, but that's neither here nor there. THE COURT: The rules do. MR. HENZY: I understand. Just to be clear, is Your Honor denying our -- THE COURT: Yes.\n\n MR. HENZY: -- 60(b) motion? THE COURT: I'm denying your 60(b) motion. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: And all discovery that was related to the 60(b) motion is denied because the motion -- because it's moot. MR. HENZY: Can I have one moment, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. (Pause) MR. HENZY: So, Your Honor, the motion -- the motion to quash is granted? THE COURT: It doesn't need to be granted. It's moot. The Rule 60(b) motion is denied. MR. HENZY: Very well. Understood. THE COURT: Any discovery with it, associated with it, is moot. MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. Understood. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: -- may I be heard on this? THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: I know your reaction might be, you just won, why don't you sit down. But, Your Honor, I know in this case what's going to happen. Everything is going to get appealed. And I wonder whether the Court would\n\n entertain alternative findings on this, which is that you've already ruled it's not procedurally proper. But in any event, the concept of disinterestedness under 101.54 or 59, I forget which subsection -- MR. HENZY: 14. MR. DESPINS: 14. Sorry. 101.14 deals with the estate, not the debtor. And there's nothing that's been alleged in anything they've produced that would somehow affect the disinterestedness of the trustee vis-a-vis the estate as an alternative finding. Just because what I -- you know what I'm -- I don't want to go back and forth, back and forth -- THE COURT: Well, I haven't -- I haven't written an order -- MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: -- denying the Rule 60 motion yet, which would have to happen before there could even be an appeal. Number one. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: And number two, if there was an appeal, they'd have to be a bond posted. MR. HENZY: And I don't know whether there will be an appeal or not. But, Your Honor, I think those alternative findings should not be made. And I actually disagree with Mr. Despins that a\n\n trustee does not have to be disinterested vis-a-vis a debtor. And there is case law that says a trustee has to be disinterested vis-a-vis a debtor. But, again, I don't think you need to make alternative findings. You've denied the motion. I understand the basis for the denial. And I think that should be it. THE COURT: Well, there's still going to be a written order. There has to be a written order. MR. HENZY: I mean, if you're going to go beyond denying on the I'll call it the 324 ground, which I understand, then I am aware Collier says a 324 or 1105 motion is preferable to a 60(b). But there -- I would -- if you're going to make alternative findings, I would at least like an opportunity to argue because -- THE COURT: You put that argument in your papers. Your argument is in the papers. You stated why you think the trustee should be removed and why the relief from the order should enter. And your papers say all that. You say -- you talk about all that in your papers. MR. HENZY: I think you can -- I would argue you can -- you can deny -- again, that sounds funny because you can do what you obviously decide to do. But denial based on that you need to bring a\n\n motion under 324, I think you -- THE COURT: I didn't say -- I didn't say just that. That's not appropriate. I said you have to bring a -- and I said to you at the last hearing that the standards under Rule 60 and the standards under 324 are completely different. And so I didn't just say it's denied because you didn't bring it under 324. That's not what I said. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: Okay? I said that the motion is denied because you didn't bring it under 324 because that's the appropriate section to bring it under. Number one. And number two, I don't-- I don't have any -- there's no -- you didn't bring forth anything to me under a Rule 60 motion that met the standard under a Rule 60 motion, which is that under your 60(b) motion, you would have to find -- I would have had to have found that there was inadvertent mistakes, surprise or excusable neglect. That's doesn't apply. Newly discovered evidence that with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial. That doesn't apply. Fraud, which doesn't apply. You brought forth no evidence of that. That the judgment is void. That doesn't apply. The judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged. That doesn't apply.\n\n Or any other reason that justifies relief. There is no other reason that you've set forth that justifies relief under Rule 60. So if you want to file a motion and try to meet the requirements of 324, you're welcome to do so. But you already argued all of those issues in your Rule 60(b) motion and I'm denying it. There are no grounds for relief that you have presented to the Court under Rule 60 and bankruptcy Rule 9024, to grant relief under those rules. MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. So now we can move on to the application to employ Paul Hastings. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. There were two -- one statement and one objection. And the first, the objection, is filed by the debtor. And we cited a Fifth Circuit decision -- although we don't need a Fifth Circuit decision, but the technical decision that says a debtor out of possession cannot -- does not have standing to object to the retention of counsel. So I believe that's hornbook law. Actually, you had hinted at that at the last hearing without talking about the retention of counsel specifically.\n\n But that case applies to the retention of counsel because it's a case administration matter and the debtor out of possession does not have standing unless there's a surplus. And in this case, they're saying there's no surplus because they have no assets.\n\n Now, I think it's still important again, for appellate purposes, to just assume standing for two minutes and address the debtor's objection. And I go back to the definition of disinterestedness. It's keyed off to the word estate. And it's true that it talks about creditors, equity holders, and the debtor, but the test is vis-a-vis the estate. And none of what's been alleged here has anything to do with the estate.\n\n The issue of Mr. Wynn, you know, has nothing to do with the estate. And I want to be clear about this. My firm was retained after Mr. Wynn was sued by the DOJ, did not advise Mr. Wynn in any way regarding what to do or not to do vis-a-vis Mr. Kwok. There's none of that. Mr. Wynn is not a creditor. The Wynn litigation will not affect the estate up or down in any way and that's very important.\n\n And it's the same thing with the Chinese offices. I mean, that the fact that we have offices in China first of all was well known from the beginning.\n\n But it all falls on the basic point I made before -- and I want to explain this concept where I used insanity\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n -- in their papers. They say that's outrageous that he says it was insane. I've always been very precise that what is insane is the lack of a link that they're establishing between what's happening between the debtor, his immigration status and the Chinese Communist Party, and this estate. Your Honor is not dealing with an immigration matter. Your Honor is not -- we are not dealing with that. We have no position on that. It's not our issue and we're not going to be involved in these issues. And that's where everything falls apart because there's no link between all of this and the -- and the estate and the job we have to do, which is to get the maximum assets possible and to the holders of allowed claims in this case. The other point is the UBS matter. That's another distraction. First, they've known about UBS from the beginning. That was in the first declaration we said that we represent UBS affiliates. I think I said predominantly or primarily regarding financing matters. We didn't say exclusively. But what does it matter whether we represent them regarding traffic tickets or financing matters or bankruptcy matters? I've said clearly that I've never represented them. I'm not representing them. I am able to be\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 70 of 158\n\n litigation adverse, meaning as trustee against them. And, in fact, the litigation against them is pending in England. And as Your Honor knows, you know, in England to be appearing in court and to argue a case you have to be a barrister. Paul Hastings are not barristers in the U.K. So practially the people will use -- if you look for example -- at their objection, attached to the complaint that filed against UBS, if you go to the end, there are three signatures there. These are three barristers. We don't have barristers. And those are the people I would think that would continue to handle this matter given they've been handling it for two years, with some success by the way. Well, procedural success I should say. So the issue of UBS is a non-issue because in any event I'm the one as trustee who will handle this. I will supervise the work of U.K. barristers -- who are not Paul Hastings people because we don't have barristers -- and that, again, resolves that issue. And I believe the rest is all the same as the 60(b). PAX also filed a response. I think it would probably make sense to deal with the debtor's issues first, and then we'll come back to PAX after that. Thank you. THE COURT: That's fine. Thank you. Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor.\n\n So if I could address the standing issue first. With standing, first point, 1109(b) says the debtor has a right to raise, appear and be heard on any issue in a Chapter 11 case. That's very, very clear. I recognize that 1109, courts hold that a debtor still has to have -- you may be able to raise, appear and be heard, but that doesn't necessarily mean listening to me talk is the equivalent of an objection that the Court needs to rule on. So you can maybe painfully have to listen to me, but then say, thank you, Mr. Henzy, but I don't -- you don't have standing to object. And you've raised, appeared and been heard, but I don't have to rule on anything. So I understand that there's -- there's really just two levels to the analysis. There's 1109(b) and then there's do you have standing. The traditional standing analysis is you have to -- you either have to be classically aggrieved -- and I don't think that's what's at issue here, because we're dealing with a statute -- or you have to have statutory standing. So you have to have a statute that Congress has passed where the argument is that Congress intended to give a party a right to be heard in connection with that. And that is all very well laid out in many Supreme Court\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n decisions, Your Honor. The standard that the Supreme Court has laid out in those decisions -- so the principal decisions being *Association of Data Processing Service vs. Camp,* that's at 397 U.S. 150, and then *Clarke vs. Security Industry Association, t*hat's at 479 U.S. 388, where they lay out that it is a party within the zone of interest to be protected by the statute in question. The standard that the Supreme Court has laid out is a -- it's a pretty low bar. It's a quote from the *Clarke* decision. The Court to say there's no standing would have to find that the zone of interest denies a right to participate of the parties because the parties' interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purpose implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to permit participation. The *Clarke* court further says the test is not meant to be especially demanding. In particular, there be no indication of congressional purpose to benefit the would- be plaintiff. And back to *Collier's*, the -- discussing those cases, *Collier's* at Volume 7, 1109.04, subparagraph (4)(b), says given the nature of Section 1109(b) because courts have said that in thinking about that zone of interest analysis\n\n under the Supreme Court case law you plug that in together with 1109(b). And so *Collier's* says given the nature of section 1109(b) and the purposes that it was designed to serve the zone of interest has to be liberally construed in favor of participation in Chapter 11 cases. There are cases, Your Honor, that say that a debtor has a right to object to the retention of counsel. Among other cases, Judge Krechevsky, *in In re Pappas*, at 216 B.R. 87, it's a 1997 decision, ruled that -- he actually ruled that Rule 2002 refers to a debtor as a party in interest and the debtor had standing to object under 327. And then Judge Brozman in a case, the *Vebeliunas -- it's V-E-B-E-L-I-U-N-A-S --* it's 231 B.R. -- give me one second, Your Honor -- 181. And actually, Your Honor, there Judge Brozman disqualified trustee's counsel on the basis that trustee's counsel, before the 341 had occurred, before ever examining the debtor, had made public statements that indicated an extreme bias against the debtor. He called the debtor a liar and other inappropriate things. And Judge Brozman found that the debtor there both had standing to and, in fact, disqualified counsel on that basis. Also I point, Your Honor, to a Second Circuit decision, *Savage & Associates, P.C. vs. K&L Gates*, 640 F.3d 53, where the Second Circuit made clear that a debtor has\n\n standing to -- I'm sorry -- that a party may have standing not just based -- not based on a financial interest alone, but also based on having a legal interest. And, again, both Judge Krechevsky and Judge Brozman found that a debtor did have a legal interest in objecting to a 327(a) application where counsel was not disinterested. On the financial interest, look, I have no idea where this case is going to come out, Your Honor. And I understand that at filing the debtor had some very small amount of money in his possession. But speaking of the U.K. litigation, the amount demanded there is \\$500 million. And I don't know anything really about the status other than I think I may have heard a comment that maybe sounds like something similar to what Mr. Despins has heard that that litigation apparently has gone reasonably well. So it may well be that this estate is not solvent. And it may be that there's a \\$500 million recovery against UBS in the U.K. And that would be terrific for everyone, including the debtor. So I believe that the debtor does have standing here to -- to object to Paul Hastings' retention. In terms of the conflicts and -- I did, you know, file a witness and exhibit list with exhibits. I'm prepared\n\n to put on evidence. Although with respect to much of the evidence I would put on, I'm not sure that there's any disputed issue. And I don't want to belabor or take up a lot of time that we don't need to take up. I don't think it's disputed that Paul Hastings does work for various UBS entities. The initial declaration that Mr. Despins filed states that and names the entities. Actually the Paul Hastings financial restructuring web page says that they have done -- I don't know if they do today -- but that they have done work for UBS entities. I don't think it's disputed that the defendant in the U.K. action is UBS AG. That the -- in the debtor's schedules, and I don't know why -- in the statement of financial affairs I don't know why this was done, but it was disclosed there was an action against UBS AG, and then, in parens, it says London branch. And in the initial declaration filed by Mr. Despins the UBS AG that he is talking about in the declaration is defined to be that UBS AG, in parens, London Branch. But if you look at the complaint, which I actually attached to our objection -- again, I could -- I'm happy to put it into evidence, Your Honor, but it's attached to our objection and I don't think there's any dispute that it is -- it is the complaint -- it's clear that the defendant\n\n there is UBS AG -- I'm going to say the big UBS AG -- the one that's headquartered in Switzerland and presumably is the parent of a whole bunch of other UBS entities. Again, the damages there asserted is \\$500 million. So this is not an insignificant claim. And that's in, again, in the complaint that I attached to the -- to the objection that we filed. Mr. Despins says he's never represented any UBS entity -- this is in his -- in his initial declaration -- and that he in his capacity as trustee is able to be adverse to UBS AG and to be named plaintiff. A couple of points. In the declaration, because of the way he's defined UBS AG, again, to be just UBS AG, in parens, London Branch, close parens, I don't think his declaration as filed actually covers the actual defendant in that lawsuit because his declaration -- he does say in the declaration that he can be adverse to any -- he's never represented any UBS -- what the declaration says is he's never represented any UBS entity. That's easy to understand. In my capacity as trustee, I'm able to be adverse to UBS AG and to be named plaintiff as Chapter 11 Trustee in any lawsuit against UBS AG. But, again, his definition of UBS AG is UBS AG, London Branch, and that's not -- the principal defendant in that action is UBS -- big UBS AG I'll\n\n call it. And so his declaration just -- it just does not -- other than that he's never represented any UBS entity, it does not address the actual defendant in that lawsuit. The actual -- THE COURT: Why does it need to address the actual defendant if he said he didn't represent any UBS entity ever? MR. HENZY: Well, Your Honor, because it's not clear from all of that whether Paul Hastings has represented -- if we were talking about my denied 60(b) motion, that would be important. But we're not. We're talking about Paul Hastings. And so the issue is whether -- not whether Mr. Despins has ever represented any UBS entity. It's whether any UBS entity is a former or current client of Paul Hastings. And I don't think that his declaration addresses that. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Mr. Bassett -- in the actual application to retain Paul Hastings, it's Mr. Despins' application, but there's a declaration by his partner, Mr. Bassett, that's attached. And Mr. Bassett's declaration does not address that representation at all. What it does is it points to Mr. Despins' declaration, his first declaration and just\n\n says when it comes to connections, I'm just relying on his declaration. Which I actually under Rule -- under the rule, I'm not really sure that you can do that. I'm not sure counsel -- in a retention application, I'm not sure that the firm affidavit or declaration that's attached to the application can point to something else and say I'm not -- I'm not disclosing any conflicts. I'm pointing you to somebody -- a different declaration that somebody else has filed and go look at that. But I guess in some sense I'm not -- I'm not swearing to anything here other than what Mr. Despins said over there is true. So Mr. Bassett doesn't himself in his declaration address the UBS issue at all. So I think the bottom line of all of that is that I'm sure the UBS issue has been addressed by the existing declarations. And I'm also not sure how you get around -- or maybe you can get around Paul Hastings representing the trustee here, but I don't think that what is on file now does that. It doesn't carve out Paul Hastings from representing UBS. It just -- it just doesn't. They're being retained as general bankruptcy counsel to the trustee and I think that that's a significant conflict for them.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n That UBS is a client of Paul Hastings I think is admitted. And UBS is a defendant in a major asset of this bankruptcy estate. And I'm a -- I'm a little -- I could keep -- I don't know if we're going to address the PAX/PAG issue separately. Or I can keep going on the issues that I've raised. Because I guess I think the issues that Attorney Friedman has raised are actually different than the ones I would raise with respect to PAX and PAG. So should I keep going, Your Honor? THE COURT: Well, I don't know. Maybe we should hear from Mr. Despins first on this issue and then keep going. I mean, otherwise we're going to be here all day. Right? I mean, what -- you know, the issue is, Mr. Despins, Mr. Henzy's saying your firm has a conflict because they represent UBS. It's not clear that they represent UBS. And they're -- UBS is a defendant in the adversary -- in the case in London. So, you know, he's saying that Mr. Barnett I believe -- MR. DESPINS: Bassett. THE COURT: Bassett, I'm sorry, his affidavit isn't -- doesn't answer that question. MR. DESPINS: May I, Your Honor?\n\n THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. DESPINS: So the application to retain Paul Hastings, which I signed, incorporates by reference my declaration, and the declaration addresses both the trustee appointment and Paul Hastings. It says that expressly, that the disclosures in that declaration cover both the trustee and Paul Hastings. That declaration says that we don't represent London, sorry, UBS AG currently. We've represented them in the past, but we represent other UBS entities. And I don't think -- I'll check this -- but I don't think that the fact that it said, open paren, London Branch verses non-London Branch changes the analysis. I think that from my point of view it's the same thing. Luc Despines as Trustee can be trustee and handle as trustee litigation against any UBS entity, London Branch of not, and practically -- that's why Mr. Henzy has not -- he makes all of these great points, but doesn't die into reality. The reality here is that there is counsel involved in the case. They're barristers. These are the people that have been handling this case for two years. And I'm -- I think they will continue to do that. It would be not a good idea to replace them with new counsel. In any event, even if I wanted to do that, Paul Hastings are not barristers in\n\n London, therefore, cannot handle that litigation. So Paul Hastings, it's a false issue. Paul Hastings cannot handle that litigation. So that's really the crux of the issue, Your Honor, is that it's a non-issue for that reason. And, you know -- you know, I'm sure Your Honor knows the difference between solicitors and barristers. But we are solicitors in London, we're not barristers, cannot file a complaint or handle a trial. I'd love to be able to do that, but we're not equipped to do that. So that, to me, deals with that issue completely. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Henzy. MR. HENZY: So just -- so just to be clear, Your Honor, the only place where the UBS issue is addressed is in the U.S. Trustee's application for order approving appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee, which attached to that was Mr. Despins' declaration of disinterestedness. And paragraph 7(c) of that declaration provides while Paul Hastings previously represented UBS AG, in parens, London Branch, defined -- it's in quotes -- \"UBS AG.\" So in -- in his declaration, UBS AG means UBS AG, London Branch. That's not my definition. I'm not -- I\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 82 of 158\n\n don't think I'm parsing things, words, or anything like that. That's how he has defined UBS AG. And what the declaration says is then I have never represented any UBS entity, including UBS AG. I, in my capacity as trustee, am able to be adverse to UBS AG -- again, substitute for that UBS AG, London Branch -- and to be named the plaintiff as Chapter 11 Trustee in a lawsuit against UBS AG -- again, substitute UBS AG, London Branch. What the declaration says about Paul Hastings is Paul Hastings does not currently represent UBS AG. But, again, that-- the way he's defined it UBS AG means UBS AG, London Branch. It doesn't mean big UBS AG. That may -- I don't know. It may or may not be true that Paul Hastings doesn't represent big UBS AG, but that's not what this says. Paul Hastings does currently represent certain UBS entities, namely UBS Securities, LLC, UBS Securities, Limited, Seoul Branch, UBS Investment Bank, that are affiliates of UBS AG, which again I think means UBS AG, London Branch, in unrelated matters. And so I don't think Mr. Despins' declaration addresses Paul Hastings' representation of big -- what I'm calling big UBS AG, which is the defendant in the U.K. action, at all. It just doesn't. And Mr. Bassett's declaration does no more than refer to Mr. Despins's declaration.\n\n Mr. Despins' declaration may be adequate with respect to his being disinterested with respect to this issue. And he says that he is able to be adverse to UBS AG, and meaning London Branch, and to be the named plaintiff against UBS AG, London Branch, but it doesn't say anything about Paul Hastings. So right now I don't think there's been any disclosure, Your Honor. And, again, I don't know if it's -- I've never seen in an application to retain a professional that the declaration with the affidavit attached to the affidavit simply makes reference to somebody else's declaration. But that -- maybe there's something out there that says that's okay. So the application is for Paul Hastings to be general bankruptcy counsel. There's no -- there's no carve out. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, I'm happy to put a carve out. Paul Hastings will not handle the U.K. litigation. That's the end -- that's the end of it. I mean, we can -- because we can't. We're not barristers, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything further on that point, Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: I don't have anything further on that point, Your Honor.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. So what's your next point? MR. HENZY: With respect to PAX/PAG that was the subject of -- I understand there was disclosure right at the time of the July 8 hearing, and then there was a supplemental disclosure. There has been no disclosure with respect to the common officers, common directors, common control between the PAG, the so-called PAG entities, that Paul Hastings until very recently represented and apparently terminated that relationship. There's no disclosure of the circumstances of the termination of the relationship. And I -- Mr. Friedman can certainly correct this, but based on the statement that he made at the July 21\n\n hearing, my sense was that PAG may not have understood that it was a former client of Paul Hastings.\n\n And, again, Mr. Bassett's declaration does not address PAX or PAG at all. It just refers to Mr. Despins' -- actually his initial declaration.\n\n So I don't think that the disclosure here has been adequate. And as the Court is obviously very, very aware, the -- PAX is a major creditor in this -- in this bankruptcy case. THE COURT: Mr. Despins?\n\n MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, the first supplemental declaration, again, says it's filed in support of the\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n trustee appointment and the Paul Hastings retention. That's paragraph one. So that issue is addressed. My declaration covers both. So I don't understand why going back to Bassett -- Bassett is irrelevant for the purpose of conflict. There's only one conflict disclosure. They're my declarations. Number one, number two, number three. So Bassett, the fact that he's incorporated by reference is of no meaning because the application to employ Paul Hastings says we -- Paul Hastings is relying on the declarations of Luc Despins. Plural. Now, on the issue of PAX, he's saying we don't know if they're the same officers and all that, paragraph 4 of the declaration says, and in any event assuming without conceding the point that PAG entities and PAX would be treated as one for conflict purposes, meaning assuming that they have the same directors and officers, which we didn't get into, I'm still able to be adverse to them because they're a former client. So that's the end of the inquiry, meaning I'm assuming the worst here, that they are all the same, which I'm not sure is the case. But assuming it is the case, we are able to be adverse because they're former clients on a -- on a related matter.\n\n There was -- the last transaction is a transaction that closed in May -- I forget the exact date -- May 15th, 17th, something like that. And it's a corporate transaction, and there was a closing, and that was the closing transaction. That was in May of 2022. So I'm not sure I see the point there. THE COURT: Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: I mean, again, Your Honor, the only declaration that was actually attached to the application to retain Paul Hastings was Mr. Bassett's. But, I mean, it's always the case, Your Honor, where you have a transactional client there's going to be periods of time where there's no transaction that's pending, and it sounds like PAG, these PAG entities, were transactional clients of Paul Hastings. And I don't -- I don't doubt that in I guess it was May that whatever transaction they were working on closed, but, I mean, at least it appears that there was a relationship. And Paul Hastings certainly can take the position that, well, right now we're not representing any of the PAG entities on any matter and, therefore, they're a former client. Now, that -- and that's always a sort of discussion thing. If you have a client and you're doing\n\n work for that client on a regular basis, but at a point in time you don't have any matter you're actively working on, is the client a former client or is the client a current client? I think I understand the technical argument is a former client, but I think often times clients don't understand the technical argument and might not always agree with that. I still think that there is a disclosure issue though. What were the -- what were the circumstances of PAG, the PAG entities, becoming former clients? I mean, did Paul Hastings inform them we are not going to represent you anymore? I think that is -- I think that's relevant. How many -- how long did the relationship exist? How many transactional matters did Paul Hastings represent the PAG entities on? I think that is all relevant disclosure, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything further? MR. HENZY: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything further on the application to employ Paul Hastings as a whole? MR. HENZY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: What? What's next? MR. HENZY: Okay. Next is I'll call it the\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n broadly Paul Hastings' connections with China. I don't think, Your Honor, that it's disputed that Paul Hastings has a presence in China. It has offices in Beijing, in Shanghai, and it also has an office in Hong Kong. I don't know if it's -- would be disputed today that Paul Hastings does do work for Chinese state owned entities and it also does work for businesses. They're doing business in China. I don't expect anyone to agree with me today that China exercises significant review, control, over businesses in China. I will admit that I'm not going to be able to prove that today. I'm not sure how I would have prove it. I did cite a statement by the Director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, in the objection. I did not subpoena Mr. Wray to court here today to say in court today what he has said publicly in terms of China's -- the degree of control China exercises over -- over businesses in China, including their license to do business in China. I also believe, Your Honor -- I don't know if this would be disputed or not -- there's a pretty good public record of this, that to put it mildly, Mr. Kwok got on the wrong side of the government of China. He had to leave the country. He is seeking asylum here. The Peoples -- the Chinese government and/or the Hong Kong government seized billions of dollars of assets of\n\n family members, and others and potentially very significant dollars that I don't think he would dispute were in entities that he did control, like the Pangu Plaza, which my understanding is that that was actually PAX's -- connected with PAX's loan and kind of was the part anyway of the reason that a lot that unraveled. Mr. Kwok may have claims against the government of Hong Kong or the Peoples Republic of China based on the seizure of those assets. I am not obviously an expert in that world, but my understanding is that there at least in form is a procedure that a person can go through if their assets have been seized. I don't know of Mr. Despins has done any analysis of that at all in terms of is there a claim to be made by the estate based on the seizure of assets. So there's -- that's a specific concern. The general concern is that the Chinese government I think it has demonstrated that it is -- it is going after Mr. Kwok. Again, we cite Department of Justice documents in the objection, Your Honor, that make it clear that the government of China has attempted in various ways to remove Mr. Kwok from this country. And so there's a couple of concerns with that. One is that the Chinese government will seek to\n\n exercise influence over Paul Hastings. Paul Hastings cannot do business in China if -- unless China allows it to do business there. And, again, according to the FBI director, the government of China does exercise control over businesses that are doing business there. Very recent and up front is -- and Mr. Despins made reference to this, the United States Department of Justice has sued Mr. Stephen Wynn for failing to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. And the allegation is that Mr. Wynn acted as an agent for the Chinese government in seeking to have Mr. Kwok removed from -- from this country. On July 15, Paul Hastings appeared on behalf of Mr. Wynn in that District of Columbia action and they are seeking to dismiss that action. Mr. Despins -- after we put this in the objection, he filed a second supplemental disclosure, and among other things, in paragraph 3 of that disclosure, he said I did not disclose Paul Hastings' representation of Mr. Wynn in the prior declaration because he first learned about it by -- via the objection. Well, obviously the firm knew about its representation of Mr. Wynn and I think it's the firm has an obligation to make their adequate disclosure. In the paragraph 4 of the declaration, Mr. Despins\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n also says that he believes the Wynn representation has no bearing on the retention of Paul Hastings as counsel, and essentially it's just -- it's completely unconnected, irrelevant. I think it's connected in a number of ways. Or the Chinese government's actions are certainly connected in a number of ways. One, if Mr. Kwok is removed from this country that obviously has significant impact on this bankruptcy case if he's not here. Mr. Despins states in the -- in his declaration that the debtor will not be a witness in the action that's pending in -- in the District of Columbia. I don't know how Mr. Despins could know that to be true. I don't know how anyone, unless they talk to someone at the DOJ, could know whether or not the DOJ is going to decide, or maybe Mr. Wynn is going to decide, that Mr. Kwok should be called as a witness. Mr. Despins also states the debtor's estate will not be increased or decreased based on the action that's pending in the District of Columbia. I don't know if Mr. Despins has concluded that the debtor has no claim against Mr. Wynn. And if you -- if you read the complaint filed in the District of Columbia action, it essentially alleges a pretty broad, you know, pattern of behavior put it.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n Someone might -- you know, someone might say it looks like a conspiracy amongst a group of people to have Mr. Kwok removed from the country. So he may well have a claim or there may well be a claim against Mr. Wynn on account of Mr. Wynn's conduct related to Mr. Kwok. So that is it, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Despins, did you want to respond to that last point? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. First, you know, the -- Mr. Henzy talks about claims the debtors may have. The schedules don't mention any of this. Claims against the Chinese government is not in the schedules. And here, again, the point about exercising pressure is, you know, there's always a failure to connect to the conduct by the trustee of this case. How is that going to be influenced by any pressure that the -- that could be put on. It's really not there. He's not going to be a witness because it has -- as my partner told me -- it could have been lobbying to sell Chinese technology or Chinese tea or something or anything like that. It's you need to register if you are acting as a foreign agent. The subject matter of the discussion is not\n\n part of the case. The fact is you did make representation or not -- don't know -- regarding -- on behalf of a foreign entity. And if that's the case, you need to register. That's the end of it. So that's why he's not going to be a witness.\n\n As to the Kwok claims against Mr. Wynn, you know, I hesitate to say this because -- but have at it. I mean, meaning Paul Hastings is not going to represent Mr. Wynn in defending him against claims asserted by Mr. Kwok because clearly they're trying to create a scenario of some kind where somehow Mr. Kwok, you know, has a legitimate concern.\n\n I'm telling you right now if Mr. Kwok decides to sue Mr. Wynn for whatever, Paul Hastings will not defend Mr. Wynn in that litigation. So there's no animosity or issue there. So I think that answers those questions. Thank you.\n\n MR. HENZY: I'll be brief. I probably was not clear. I think the concern is does the trustee and Paul Hastings representing the trustee have an obligation to investigate what claims might exist against Mr. Wynn or other people who were involved in this behavior where they were seeking to assist the Chinese government in having Mr. Kwok deported.\n\n I mean, in terms of a claim against either the government of Hong Kong or the government of China, the debtor did not schedule that. But presumably Mr. Despins\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n and Paul Hastings representing Mr. Despins would want to investigate that. Again, this Pangu Plaza was worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and it was -- and it was seized. And I think whatever assets that either indirectly or directly may have been owned by a debtor go away that that's something that needs to be looked at an investigated. THE COURT: Anything further? MR. DESPINS: Just one last point on this, Your Honor. If the debtor gets into a car accident tomorrow and has a claim against the other driver, am I supposed to pursue that or is that -- that's another, you know -- so the claims against Mr. Wynn have nothing to do with -- it's not a -- it's a post-petition claim by the debtor. I'm not sure that's for the trustee to prosecute. MR. HENZY: This is -- all the conduct here occurred pre-petition, Your Honor. All of the conduct. The lawsuit was filed by the DOJ post-petition, but all the conduct that occurred occurred pre-petition. And the same thing with the seizure of assets. So it's -- to the extent that there are assets, they're pre-petition. I think those would be property of the bankruptcy estate I believe. THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Henzy, on your objection to Paul Hastings being retained as counsel to the\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n Chapter 11 trustee? Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: I'm sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: I said is there anything further that you want to state with regard to your objection of -- for Paul Hastings being retained as counsel to the trustee? MR. HENZY: No, Your Honor. No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Friedman, didn't you file an objection or a limited objection with regard to the retention of Paul Hastings? MR. FRIEDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. It's Peter Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. FRIEDMAN: So we noted our concern that if there's going to be a circus around this that that is a problem. Obviously, there are other routes that could have been gone in terms of a trustee. But I don't -- we don't think, having looked at the issues, there's a statutory reason other than it not being potentially in the best interest of the estate to have Paul Hastings retained. Our objections were mostly fee- oriented and cost-structurally oriented. The colloquy back and forth though did sort of remind me of an issue you talked about, which is, you know,\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 96 of 158\n\n you take the debtor as you find them. And it is a little weird to hear the debtor now talking about all these potentially valuable assets he has that weren't in the schedules and when it was convenient for him to say I have \\$3,850 or, no, the assets were never mine. They were always my families'. But now he claims he maybe does have lawsuits against the Chinese government. There is sort of this very weird miasma around -- it's almost like an -- the case is almost like an etch a sketch from the debtor's perspective.\n\n What he said in the past literally doesn't matter to what he feels today. I think that's sort of a troubling portion of this case, that it simply just doesn't matter what he said in the past in other context. Something else that comes up new that sort he thinks he can ride on the back -- like a blank slate, if it advantages him today and that is sort of a troubling pattern that we've seen over the years.\n\n Look, on fees, Your Honor, we were in a situation where the U.S. Trustee picked somebody who had a lower fee structure, much lower fee structure, which we do think is appropriate for the case overall, particularly if you wind up with either a non-consensual plan or low recoveries. We are concerned about eating into creditor recoveries, you know, if substantial costs are run up by the\n\ntrustee and his counsel.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n The trustee sort of, you know, has a response. One of the points of the response is, well, on the other hand, we're not acting like a true contingency counsel fee firm because the upside isn't so great.\n\n And to be fair, Your Honor, if the upside turns out to be even better, right, maybe our proposals on the upside aren't as generous as they could be. If the trustee recovers \\$150 million, I think we, you know, we might be open to substantial fee enhancements.\n\n We just -- our real concern is, you know, if there is a low end or if some money gets exhausted after running after Mr. Kwok for many years. And Mr. Despins may well not.\n\n But, you know, and you end up with 60 or 70 million dollars of recovery, but you also wind up with 10 or 15 million dollars in legal fees, that would be a real loss from the PAX perspective and I think the perspective of other creditors, particularly where there was an option at the outset of the case for lower costs. So that's our concern.\n\n And so, you know, I think the Court has it in her power either to evaluate costs now, evaluate costs in the context of what value is given to the estate as things come up. Obviously, you know, people may prefer for it to be dealt with now. We would. But, you know, that's where we\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n stand. This is -- you know, I think you've heard from me over the course of years. This isn't like a -- over the last six months. This isn't like I'm going to pound the table because there are immediate factual issues that have to be addressed. But there are real concerns from PAX about how much money is PAX going to wind up with at the end of the day versus how much is going to be paid to professionals. So I think, and said, we've -- we've put forward. Beyond that, you know, our specific concerns and specific proposal, I think we're amenable to making the upside better from our perspective if that's enticing and appealing to the trustee and his law firm. But whether it's dealt with now or whether it has to be dealt with in the future when asset -- when cash comes in, we think it's really important to address. Thanks, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Despins. Would you like to respond first? MR. DESPINS: No. Maybe others want to be heard. MR. GOLDMAN: Just briefly, Your Honor. Irve Goldman for the creditors committee, Your Honor.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n On the -- this newly raised potential claim that the debtor says he may have against Steve Wynn, as Mr. Friedman pointed out, that's a claim that should have been but was not listed on the schedules.\n\n As Mr. Henzy said it's based on pre-petition conduct so it would have had to have been listed on the schedules as an asset of the estate.\n\n8 There is well settled case law that when a debtor doesn't list a claim on its schedules and then tries to bring an action post confirmation, for example, it's going to be judicially estopped from pursuing that claim. And that's the situation here. It should be judicially estopped from making the argument that he has a claim that the trustee needs to investigate against Mr. Wynn.\n\n As to the Paul Hastings application, we did file a statement indicating that we had certain understandings concerning how the Paul Hastings firm would represent the trustee in this case, which were formed based on discussions with Mr. Despins.\n\n And that is that they would, whenever possible, economize by using local counsel, whose rates are much lower than the Paul Hastings firm, and that also they would not be seeking litigation funding for the causes of action that we believe exist and which results in a savings in the sense of it would have been an expensive proposition to obtain\n\n litigation funding. So I think it's important that these understandings at least be confirmed on the record here today. Another one of those understandings was that the trustee himself, in the capacity as trustee, would not be seeking percentage compensation under Section 326 for assets that may be recovered and distributed in this case, but that he would be just looking for his hourly rate as counsel for Paul Hastings for -- in lieu of any percentage compensation that he might claim under section 326 at the end of the day. So I would just appreciate if he can confirm those understandings on the record. As we said in our papers, we have no objection to the retention. THE COURT: Okay. And just why do you think that he should not be receiving a statutory percentage of any recovery? MR. GOLDMAN: Well, because if he's going to be compensated as a lawyer for Paul Hastings at these rates -- THE COURT: Oh, if he's going to be as -- working as a lawyer? MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. All right. MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: I didn't understand. I got it now.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 101 of\n\n Okay. MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: Sorry. MR. GOLDMAN: And that he -- THE COURT: I got you. MR. GOLDMAN: Okay. THE COURT: I didn't understand it. I just didn't hear you properly I guess. MR. GOLDMAN: Okay. Thank you. THE COURT: I'm sorry. MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee has no objection to the employment of Paul Hastings based upon the documentation filed thus far in the case. I just would note, as we observed this previously in this case, that the continuing obligation to disclose exists today, tomorrow, into the future. And then with respect to the issue of the compensation, the U.S. Trustee's position is that attorneys carry their firm's fees and their own hourly rates with them from their home market. And that this is a complex case. It's got a lot of moving parts and it requires experienced counsel and that\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 102 of\n\n necessarily sometimes translates into higher fees. The work that's got to get done in this case does need to get done in a cost effective manner. I think everyone has made that clear to Trustee Despins and he's aware of it and I'm sure that he's going to do his best to make sure that the skills match the services and that we are doing them in a cost effective manner. And that when we get to a place of fee application that is the appropriate place and the time to debate the cost effectiveness of the services rendered and the benefit to the estate. THE COURT: Thank you. Trustee Despins, is there -- would you like to respond? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll pick up where counsel for the committee, you know, left off, which is I've made that commitment to try to be as nimble as possible. First of all, it's our job to do that, but -- and that means practically relying on local counsel, on Mr. Skalka and Mr. Linsey, as much as we can. 22 And also leverage what PAX has done in the state court, because there's three years, maybe four years, of learning there and there's no point in us reinventing that wheel. Us as lawyers. We can just borrow from that and we\n\n|    | 158                                                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 103                                                              |\n| 1  | intend to do that.<br>And that combined together should lower    |\n| 2  | the cost.                                                        |\n| 3  | But I don't want to mislead you.<br>This is going to             |\n| 4  | be an expensive process.<br>And I want to touch on the point     |\n| 5  | that I've agreed there will be no litigation funding.<br>That    |\n| 6  | is correct.                                                      |\n| 7  | But I did get a quote just to give Your Honor a                  |\n| 8  | sense.<br>A litigation funder -- let's assume we wanted \\$5      |\n| 9  | million to pursue claims -- they -- the fee they will charge     |\n| 10 | will be two to four times the amount.<br>So you have to repay    |\n| 11 | the 5 million.<br>Then it would be a 10 to 20 million dollar     |\n| 12 | fee.<br>Just to put that in perspective.                         |\n| 13 | We're not asking for any of this.<br>We're not                   |\n| 14 | asking for 30 percent, 40 percent.<br>We're asking for our       |\n| 15 | rates.                                                           |\n| 16 | I understand that our rates are high compared to                 |\n| 17 | local rates.<br>I understand that, Your Honor.<br>But here I     |\n| 18 | could end up with a zero recovery.                               |\n| 19 | I know we all know and we believe what should                    |\n| 20 | happen.<br>And I believe that too.<br>But from that to reality   |\n| 21 | is going to take a lot of time and a lot of effort.              |\n| 22 | And we are bearing the risk of that because the                  |\n| 23 | debtor has unlimited resources and they will fight us on         |\n| 24 | everything.<br>It will be appealed to the Second Circuit.<br>And |\n| 25 | if they can, to the Supreme Court.<br>I've no doubt about        |\n\n that. And that's what we're facing in terms of getting paid. And, therefore, we believe in light of that it would be really inappropriate to say, oh, we're going to discount your rates if you don't collect more than X dollars. Because, for example, let's assume tomorrow I wave a magic wand in my dreams and I get the Sherry-Netherland and the yacht here, how much do they sell for? I don't know. What if they sell -- and this is not my goal -- I want them to sell for 70 million for the apartment and 40 million for the yacht. But let's assume they sell for 20 each. Well, under Mr. Friedman's proposal I'm taking a hit because even though I've obtained a good result in bringing these two assets in, I didn't get the value that people thought would be obtained from the assets. I've become an insurer of the value of the assets. That's really wrong. So I understand PAX's frustration. They've spent millions of dollars chasing this debtor in a kind of a catch me if you can caper. And they almost, almost got it. Almost got it, but they didn't. And now they have -- they have this fear -- and I share the fear -- which is is this the beginning of another\n\n# catch me if you can? And my job is to make sure that the movie is shorter this time or more successful. But I -- but the point is that that should not translate into we're going to -- we're frustrated and we're going to hurt you on your fees. I just -- I don't want to sound arrogant about this, Judge, but if I came back to the office and said it's a contingent case and I took a discount on my hours, they would say what did you do? They would just say they would have to have my head examined. So I don't want to be arrogant about this, Judge, but -- and I wish -- I feel Mr. Friedman and his client's pain on this, but there's nothing I can do on the hourly rates. And I would urge Your Honor to look at this as a contingency fee transaction. And in that context, it's a very reasonable rate. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: So the -- on the Wynn claim, this action was just filed by the Department of Justice on May 17. So approximately three months after the petition was filed and after the schedules were filed. So a lot of -- THE COURT: But you said it was all pre-petition conduct. MR. HENZY: I'm basing that on -- I'm reading the Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 105 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 106 of\n\n|    | 106                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | complaint, Your Honor. I'm saying the complaint was filed -- |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Well, your client would know or not            |\n| 3  | know whether it was pre-petition conduct.<br>That's --       |\n| 4  | MR. HENZY:<br>No, Your Honor.                                |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Yes, he would.                                 |\n| 6  | MR. HENZY:<br>That's not -- the facts of what                |\n| 7  | happened here became public on May 17.<br>They all occurred  |\n| 8  | years ago.<br>They became public on May 17, 2022 when the    |\n| 9  | government filed it's complaint against Mr. Wynn. So I'm     |\n| 10 | just -- I'm pointing out that many of the facts which        |\n| 11 | occurred years ago became public for the first time when     |\n| 12 | this complaint was filed.<br>That's all.                     |\n| 13 | So three months after the case was filed and after           |\n| 14 | the schedules were filed.                                    |\n| 15 | A second point --                                            |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Well, the trustee didn't get appointed         |\n| 17 | until July 8th.<br>So your client could have amended his     |\n| 18 | schedules before that.                                       |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:<br>I suppose he could have, Your Honor.           |\n| 20 | I'm not sure --                                              |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Well, he has a duty to do that.                |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:<br>I'm not sure in this case --                   |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>It's not just a supposition.                   |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:<br>Yeah, given all that was going on I            |\n| 25 | don't know --                                                |\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 714<br>Filed 08/10/22 | Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10<br>Page 107 of |\n|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|\n|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|\n\n|    | 107                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    |                                                                |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>What was going on?<br>Your client wasn't         |\n| 2  | doing anything.<br>They weren't fighting anything.<br>They     |\n| 3  | decided that the case should be dismissed.                     |\n| 4  | MR. HENZY:<br>Yeah.                                            |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Right.<br>So he then just decided what           |\n| 6  | he thought should happen and he doesn't have any other         |\n| 7  | obligations under the code?                                    |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>No, I don't think that's fair, Your              |\n| 9  | Honor.                                                         |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Well, I don't think it's fair to say             |\n| 11 | that he could have maybe amended his schedules.                |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:<br>Maybe.                                           |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>He had an obligation to amend his                |\n| 14 | schedules.                                                     |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY:<br>Your Honor, I'm pointing out the facts           |\n| 16 | here became public well after the case was filed and also --   |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>It wasn't well after the case was                |\n| 18 | filed, by the way.<br>The schedules weren't filed until March. |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:<br>Mr. Despins I don't think is                     |\n| 20 | judicially estopped by what's in the debtor's schedules.<br>So |\n| 21 | whether there's a claim against Mr. Wynn or not I don't        |\n| 22 | know, but I do know that Mr. Despins is not estopped.          |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Your Honor, two seconds on that.               |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                             |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Just to show you -- you know, Mr.              |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n|    | 158                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 108                                                           |\n| 1  | Henzy's very creative.<br>We'll give him that.<br>So we could |\n| 2  | have a claim.<br>Let's look at his motion to remove me as     |\n| 3  | trustee.                                                      |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Why don't we do that.                           |\n| 5  | MR. DESPINS:<br>It says --                                    |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Hold on a second. Let's look at it all          |\n| 7  | together because it's a lot easier for me when we're all      |\n| 8  | looking at it together.                                       |\n| 9  | So his motion to remove you --                                |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Is 561.                                       |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>561.<br>Let's look at that.                     |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Paragraph 21.                                 |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Just give the courtroom deputy a                |\n| 14 | second and we'll pull it up.                                  |\n| 15 | (Pause.)                                                      |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>What page?                                      |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Paragraph 21, page 7, Your Honor.             |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.<br>Can we make that bigger,          |\n| 19 | please?<br>Thank you.                                         |\n| 20 | Okay.                                                         |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS:<br>So the point there, Your Honor, as            |\n| 22 | you'll see, it talks about a former DOJ official pleaded      |\n| 23 | guilty to facilitating the transfer of millions of dollars    |\n| 24 | from foreign bank accounts to the United States to fund a     |\n| 25 | lobbying campaign to pressure a high ranking U.S. official    |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 108 of\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 109 of\n\n| 158 |  |  |\n|-----|--|--|\n\n to unlawfully remove the debtor from the United States. Whoa, that's pretty bad. And is that claim in the schedules anywhere? That's 2018. Is that in the schedule? It's not in the schedules. Why? Because, again, I give credit to Mr. Henzy to come up with these theories, but the debtor had a beautiful claim apparently here against this person but is not pursuing that claim. So the claims against Wynn are all of the same ilk, meaning obviously, if the debtor thought they had a claim against Wynn, they would have asserted this one for sure against the DOJ -- ex DOJ official. So it's just to show you that this all pretends to try to bounce Paul Hastings from the case, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Anyone else wish to be heard? All right. The application -- go ahead, Mr. Friedman. I'm sorry. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, the only thing I would say is just in response to Attorney Claiborn's position is obviously they also thought that the first counsel they hired was sophisticated and capable and just came in with a different set of rates. That's all I have to say, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 110 of\n\n Now Mr. Despins, I just have to look back at -- with your application did you file a proposed order? I think you did. I'm not sure it was filed with it or subsequent. MR. DESPINS: It should have been. Let me -- THE COURT: I've looked at -- I may even have it right here. As you can imagine -- MR. DESPINS: Let me find it. (Pause.) THE COURT: I'll look. Don't worry. I can take a look. It will just take me a second. (Pause.) MR. DESPINS: It's document 539. THE COURT: Yeah, it's there. It is there. It's Exhibit -- it's -- proposed order is five pages. MR. DESPINS: Yes. 531 -- 539-1. THE COURT: Yes, I'm looking at it right now. Thank you. (Pause.) When do -- Mr. Despins, do hourly rate increases go into effect in your firm? Does it happen at the beginning of the year or -- is it normally when that happens? MR. DESPINS: Typically, yes, Your Honor, but we have a fiscal year that starts in February, February 1st. So\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 111 of\n\n| 158 |\n|-----|\n|-----|\n\n|    | 111                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | typically it would be at that time.                            |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Because I think -- and one of           |\n| 3  | the things that I tend to do in cases where people are         |\n| 4  | concerned about hourly rates is to make sure that I'm aware    |\n| 5  | of whatever rate increases there are before they would be      |\n| 6  | binding on anyone in this case.                                |\n| 7  | So, for example, in your proposed order you say                |\n| 8  | that you would give no less than ten business day's notice     |\n| 9  | about any increases in rates.<br>And you'll file such notice   |\n| 10 | with the court. I think that's fine, because it may be that    |\n| 11 | depending upon where we are, that maybe the rate will not be   |\n| 12 | increased in the case, okay?<br>It's possible.                 |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Understood.                                    |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>And then I just want to look at         |\n| 15 | one other thing and then I'll --                               |\n| 16 | (Pause.)                                                       |\n| 17 | I know that -- as everybody has acknowledged                   |\n| 18 | today, that this is a difficult case.<br>There are many issues |\n| 19 | and I understand everyone's concerns. I think people have a    |\n| 20 | right to -- raise the concerns that they've raised and I       |\n| 21 | have listened to them. I have looked at the documents that     |\n| 22 | have been filed in the connection with the application to      |\n| 23 | employ Paul Hastings.                                          |\n| 24 | I know that Paul Hastings and Trustee Despins have             |\n| 25 | a continuing duty, as does everyone in the case, to address    |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 112 of\n\n issues that may impact conflicts or disinterestedness. I at this point find that Paul Hastings is disinterested. That the arguments that have been set forth by the debtor through counsel are not persuasive and that the application to employ Paul Hastings will be granted. The proposed order, Mr. Despins, if there's any minor change to it, it will be minor, but I note, as I note for all counsel, or at least try to remember to. I don't know if I do it as well as I think I do or should, but Section 330 of the bankruptcy code allows the court after a hearing on reimbursement of compensation and expenses to award and amount less than that sought and, therefore, while these rates and issues are before the court are -- you've set forth what you're going to charge, that those are your rates, that the court could make a different finding in the future. But I'm not suggesting that that's what's going to happen. I'm just suggesting the code -- I like to make sure that counsel knows that the code says that. The code says, and I think it's 330(b), that compensation can be awarded in an amount of less than that sought. And I do understand your point with regard to this\n\n case and how to view it, but at this point the application is granted. The proposed order with some minor change may - - I think the only change it will be -- a reference to rule\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 113 of\n\n|    | 113                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | -- I mean, excuse me, Section 330 and that, you know, the    |\n| 2  | court may not enforce an increase in rates if one is filed   |\n| 3  | with the court. It may not be enforced against the estate or |\n| 4  | it may, depending upon the circumstances of what happens.    |\n| 5  | Again, I think this case has a lot of issues and,            |\n| 6  | you know, I think we just have to see what happens. I think  |\n| 7  | the flexibility is there in the code to give the court as    |\n| 8  | the oversight body the ability to make a determination on    |\n| 9  | the fees and expenses.                                       |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Understood, Your Honor. Our only             |\n| 11 | point is that we didn't want that discretion, which is       |\n| 12 | normal, meaning if it costs us \\$500,000 to obtain a bond,   |\n| 13 | you should disallow that.<br>Okay?                           |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Right?                                         |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:<br>But I want to be clear is that               |\n| 16 | that's not going to be a back door way to bring local rates, |\n| 17 | or anything like that --                                     |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>No, I'm not doing that. I agree with           |\n| 19 | that.                                                        |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                       |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>That is not happening.<br>The only thing       |\n| 22 | that would happen is if an application is filed and the      |\n| 23 | court finds that there's some reason why the services        |\n| 24 | rendered should not be reimbursed.                           |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Absolutely.<br>Understood, Your Honor.       |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 114 of\n\n THE COURT: And not an increase in rates. I'm not sure that an increase in rates will be -- we'll have to see where we stand at that point. MR. DESPINS: Understood. THE COURT: Mr. Friedman. MR. FRIEDMAN: I just want to make clear, and I don't think we need to add this to the order because I think it's always part of the procedure that, for example, if we want to object to compensability for sideshows about whether a disclosure was appropriate, or if there's an appeal to the Supreme Court that somebody brings, we always have the right in connection with each application, whether interim or final, to assert that a specific time entry was not for value to the estate. THE COURT: Absolutely. Everybody has that right. That is correct. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you very much. THE COURT: Okay. And the court could make that determination as well, upon review of the fee application. So the application to employ Paul Hastings is granted and the order will enter with minor changes, Trustee Despins, okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Now we can move onto the application\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 115 of\n\n|    | 115                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | to employ Neubert, Pepe and Monteith.                        |\n| 2  | MR. SKALKA:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.                   |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.                                |\n| 4  | MR. SKALKA:<br>Douglas Skalka on behalf of Neubert,          |\n| 5  | Pepe and Monteith's application.                             |\n| 6  | Your Honor, as you I think are aware, the trustee            |\n| 7  | filed an application to retain my firm as his local counsel. |\n| 8  | The application was dated July 19th. It's docket no. 569.    |\n| 9  | We received no objections or responses to the application.   |\n| 10 | We did get a request from the U.S. Trustee's                 |\n| 11 | Office to submit a supplemental declaration, which we did on |\n| 12 | July 26th.                                                   |\n| 13 | As part of that supplemental application we                  |\n| 14 | indicated that we no objection to amending our order to add  |\n| 15 | a paragraph indicating that we would need seek compensation  |\n| 16 | for trustee related services.<br>So that's not in the order  |\n| 17 | that's on file, Your Honor.                                  |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 19 | MR. SKALKA:<br>I can submit a revised order to that          |\n| 20 | effect and certainly would be willing to do that later today |\n| 21 | or tomorrow.                                                 |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>And does anyone else wish to be heard          |\n| 23 | in connection with the trustee's application to employ       |\n| 24 | Neubert, Pepe and Monteith?                                  |\n| 25 | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>Your Honor, just briefly.<br>Holley         |\n|    |                                                              |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 116 of\n\n| 1  | Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee.                              |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | The paragraph to which Attorney Skalka's referring          |\n| 3  | is also found in the application to employ Paul Hastings in |\n| 4  | that proposed order for Paul Hastings at paragraph 5.       |\n| 5  | And it limits the compensation that might be                |\n| 6  | awarded to the firm and excludes compensation for trustee   |\n| 7  | services.                                                   |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                    |\n| 9  | So you're saying Attorney Skalka just needs to              |\n| 10 | have that language in the proposed order.                   |\n| 11 | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>Correct.                                   |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>That's fine.                         |\n| 13 | MS. CLAIBORN: And with that the U.S. Trustee has            |\n| 14 | no objection.                                               |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                           |\n| 16 | MR. SKALKA:<br>And it's completely acceptable to            |\n| 17 | Your Honor -- to my firm, Your Honor.                       |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Does anyone else wish to be heard on          |\n| 19 | the application to employ Neubert, Pepe, Monteith?          |\n| 20 | Okay.<br>Hearing nothing from anyone else and having        |\n| 21 | reviewed the application and the desire of all parties to   |\n| 22 | attempt to make this case as efficient as possible,         |\n| 23 | including fees and expenses, I understand the trustee's     |\n| 24 | reason for seeking to employ Neubert, Pepe and Monteith.    |\n| 25 | I think that Neubert, Pepe and Monteith has                 |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 117 of\n\n demonstrated that they are disinterested and that no one else has any objection to the application. Neubert, Pepe and Monteith has stated that they will submit a new proposed order with the qualifications set forth on the record by the United States Trustee's Office and that were in the order approving the application to employ Paul Hastings. So for all those reasons the application to employ Neubert, Pepe and Monteith is granted and the proposed order -- Attorney Skalka, how much time do you need to submit that proposed order? MR. SKALKA: I think I'll have it by tomorrow, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'll give you -- so it's easier for the clerk's office I'll say till August 3rd. How's that? That's Wednesday. MR. SKALKA: That's fine. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SKALKA: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: If everyone could just give me one moment, please. (Pause.) Okay. So that application is granted. Then just so we're clear on what's on the calendar today, then -- I already said that the motion to quash is moot due to the denial of the Rule 60 motion.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 118 of\n\n So then we just have left on the calendar the motion for order confirming that the Chapter 11 trustee holds all the debtor's economic and corporate governance rights and debtor controlled entities and authorizing the trustee to act in a foreign country. So Mr. Despins, would you like to be heard on that? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Please. Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: And also remember that we have housekeeping matters. THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: Okay. So the corporate governance motion is basically to confirm that we step into the shoes of the debtor. And I'm glad we filed the motion because the debtor's response made clear that it's unclear to the extent they will cooperate with us. So basically they raised issues regarding BVI -- sorry. Genever BVI. Remember, that's the parent holding company in BVI that holds the interest in the Chapter 11 debtor that's in front of Judge Garrity. And to address their concern about what would happen there we actually provided yesterday, last night fairly late, we filed an amended proposed order that says okay, this is what we need from the debtor.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 119 of\n\n We look at this, to be kind of colloquial about it, the debtor has a car. We want the keys to the car. Or the debtor has stock. We want the debtor to endorse the stock essentially to give it to us. So the way to do that under BVI law is that he needs to sign certain documents, which we have attached drafts thereof, which our BVI counsel has drafted, and basically the order says Mr. Kwok will within I guess two business days sign these documents, assigning his rights to those share to the trustee. And there's a lot of text, but that's really what it is. In addition to that, because of an issue that was unresolved with the UK lawyers that I mentioned that represent Mr. Kwok in the litigation against UBS, basically, I reached out to them a long time ago, I think two days or three days after being appointed, and they called Mr. Henzy -- actually it would have been later because Mr. Henzy was not appointed til Friday the 14th or something like that. In any event, they reached out to Mr. Henzy saying this guy, meaning the trustee, is calling us. Should we talk to him. Mr. Henzy, to his credit, wrote a very nice email to them saying the trustee owns all the rights in the litigation. Mr. Kwok doesn't control any of this. Talk to\n\n| 1  | him.                                                          |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | So we got on the phone with them and they said                |\n| 3  | well, that may be the U.S. view of the law, but that's not    |\n| 4  | the U.K. view.<br>You may have to file a motion to be         |\n| 5  | recognized as a foreign -- and I said, no. I need to do that  |\n| 6  | if I want to start a foreign insolvency proceeding against    |\n| 7  | someone. But if I just want to be substituted as a plaintiff  |\n| 8  | I don't need to do that.                                      |\n| 9  | Not to make the story too long, Your Honor, they              |\n| 10 | said well, actually, what we need is a letter from Mr. Kwok,  |\n| 11 | because they're afraid of getting sued for -- they haven't    |\n| 12 | used those terms getting sued but it's clear from the body    |\n| 13 | language that they don't want to do anything with a letter    |\n| 14 | from Mr. Kwok.                                                |\n| 15 | So that's the same analogy here. I need the keys              |\n| 16 | to the car and the keys to the car, Mr. Kwok has it.<br>He    |\n| 17 | just needs to send a letter to them. It's basically --        |\n| 18 | parrots what Mr. Henzy has written to them already but it     |\n| 19 | would be under the debtor's signature that says this          |\n| 20 | litigation is owned by the Chapter 11 Trustee now.<br>He has  |\n| 21 | all the rights.<br>You should tell him everything, privileged |\n| 22 | or not.<br>You should communicate everything with him.        |\n| 23 | So that's really what we're doing with this                   |\n| 24 | motion. The criticism we've received is by the debtors that   |\n| 25 | -- first of all there's a standing issue and the debtor be    |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 121 of\n\n heard on these issues. They raised the rights of others like Bravo Luck, although we gave notice to Bravo Luck. We served Bravo Luck's counsel. So that's not an issue. But the debtor's standing on this is questionable. But putting aside the standing yes, we're seeking broad relief, Your Honor. Why, because cost. We don't want to come back to the court saying hey, could you authorize this for Australia, please? Could you authorize this for Canada? I'm making those up. And come back to court all the time. So, yes, we're asking for something that's broad. The idea is that the trustee will use his discretion to do this in a way that makes sense and if not, you're going to get me basically. You're going to tell me that I shouldn't have done these things. But I think that it is standard, and we cited cases to that effect, to have the trustee's authority to act from a corporate governance point of view recognized. For example, we need to see Judge Garrity in the Genever case. I don't want to be in a situation where Bravo Luck, which is the son's alleged company, shows up to say he's not authorized to speak. He didn't get the shares from BVI, et cetera. We can't deal with that. And that's what this accomplishes. Basically, it makes it very clear that we hold all these rights and that's why we would ask Your Honor to enter the order.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 122 of\n\n But I'm happy to answer any questions, Your Honor, or respond to any remaining criticism by the debtor. THE COURT: I just have a question about this -- again, the order was filed yesterday. So I looked at it I would say not as intently as I might otherwise. But that's fine. I've looked at it. I would assume, but I shouldn't assume, but I won't assume. What -- if this order enters and Mr. Kwok doesn't sign these documents, then what's the next step? MR. DESPINS: You're getting to a point that we'll get to in this case eventually, which is contempt. THE COURT: So we need to have another hearing. MR. DESPINS: Well, there'll be a motion to hold them in contempt. THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. So that's -- I mean, that's my read of it but, again, as I'm saying to you, I read it not as thoroughly as I might have otherwise because I just had a little bit of time this morning to look at it, but that's fine. I understand the terms and conditions of it in general and I understand that you are asking the court to enter an order under specific sections of the bankruptcy code, including the sections that --\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 714<br>Filed 08/10/22<br>Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10<br>Page 123 of<br>158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 123                                                                                           |\n| 1  | MR. DESPINS:<br>521.                                                                          |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>The debtor's duties under the code,                                             |\n| 3  | whether the debtor's in possession or not.<br>And that you                                    |\n| 4  | need this for different -- not only in the United States but                                  |\n| 5  | for different matters that are pending and were pending at                                    |\n| 6  | the time that Mr. Kwok filed his Chapter 11 case here in                                      |\n| 7  | Connecticut.                                                                                  |\n| 8  | So I have no further questions. I just was asking                                             |\n| 9  | about that issue.                                                                             |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                                                        |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.<br>Mr. Henzy?                                                        |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:<br>So, Your Honor --                                                               |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>So you wish to be heard on this?                                                |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:<br>I do, Your Honor.                                                               |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Go ahead.                                                              |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:<br>On the two what I'm going to call new                                           |\n| 17 | pieces of relief that are now being sought, they were not in                                  |\n| 18 | the motion.                                                                                   |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>You mean the letters?                                                           |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:<br>So the letter that he's asking you to                                           |\n| 21 | order Mr. Kwok to sign that would be sent to the Harcus                                       |\n| 22 | Parker law firm in the U.K., that was not addressed in the                                    |\n| 23 | motion in any way, shape or form.                                                             |\n| 24 | So I don't know how Mr. Despins gets that relief                                              |\n| 25 | today.<br>That's new.                                                                         |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 124 of\n\n With respect to the substance there, Mr. Despins is right. I tried to get out front on that because the Harcus Parker people were trying to contact me and my position was I don't want to talk to you because Mr. Kwok is no longer party in that action. You need to talk to Mr. Despins. And I copied him on the email that I sent him and I have not been part of any communication between them and him since I sent that email. I don't know what the law is in the U.K. I don't know what requirements there are for a court over there. I don't know what privilege issues they live under. I do know -- I mean, I don't represent these people but Mr. Kwok is being asked to sign a letter that may impact other people's rights. I don't know -- the Harcus Parker firm I believe represents other people in that action as well. So I'm in a position where Mr. Despins is adding relief to what was in the motion and I don't know what -- and the relief -- with respect to this anyway would direct Mr. Kwok to do something and I have no idea whether -- what Mr. Kwok is being directed to do is appropriate in the facts and circumstances. THE COURT: Well, let me ask you a question. MR. HENZY: Sure.\n\n THE COURT: You are objecting to Mr. Kwok even signing the share transfer instrument of the Genever Holdings Corporation? MR. HENZY: Well, let me get to that. THE COURT: That's my question. Are you objecting to that. MR. HENZY: So that was not part of the relief sought either. THE COURT: Let me just ask the question. You now have come in and you articulated very clearly that Mr. Kwok is no longer a debtor in possession. MR. HENZY: That's right. THE COURT: Okay. So he still has obligations under the bankruptcy code and Mr. Despins has asked him to provide information to him, including turning over the shares of Genever Holdings Corporation, correct? Didn't you say you got a letter -- Mr. Despins sent you a letter or sent Mr. Kwok a letter saying he wanted all the information? MR. HENZY: I don't -- MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, we sent a letter to Mr. Baldiga before he was terminated. We sent a letter to Mr. Mitchell? And then we copied -- when they were appointed we copied saying we need all this. And it asked for all the corporate governance documents regarding BVI.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 125 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 126 of\n\n|    | 126                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Right.<br>So wait a minute. So my              |\n| 2  | question to you is why would Mr. Kwok not sign over the      |\n| 3  | shares of a company that he owns to this trustee?            |\n| 4  | MR. HENZY:<br>I didn't know if you were done, Your           |\n| 5  | Honor.                                                       |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>I am, actually.<br>So go right ahead.          |\n| 7  | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.<br>So the background is that             |\n| 8  | there's this apartment in New York at the Sherry Netherland  |\n| 9  | Hotel.<br>That's owned by an entity that is in a Chapter 11  |\n| 10 | before Judge Garrity.                                        |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>I understand.                                  |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.<br>And my understanding, okay,           |\n| 13 | because I haven't spent a bunch of time looking at           |\n| 14 | everything that's gone in that case is that the ownership of |\n| 15 | then the BVI parent is -- has been disputed.                 |\n| 16 | And actually, Judge Garrity -- there was a                   |\n| 17 | settlement -- an order, a settlement type of order I guess   |\n| 18 | I'll call it, by Judge Garrity where he -- it basically      |\n| 19 | provides for the sale of the apartment and it's to be        |\n| 20 | overseen by Melanie Cyganowski.                              |\n| 21 | And as I understand it the debtor in the Chapter             |\n| 22 | 11 case really signed away almost most of its -- or maybe    |\n| 23 | all of its ability to control that sale.                     |\n| 24 | So everybody agreed the apartment's going to get             |\n| 25 | sold and we're going to put it in Melanie Cyganowski's hands |\n\n to do that. So that -- the apartment's not going anywhere. It's going to get sold. And I assume the money is going to be in a DIP account in that case and nothing bad is going to happen. But again, the ownership of the parent is in dispute. The allegation is that a trust owns the parent and Mr. Kwok holds the shares as trustee. Your Honor, I want to be clear, that's the allegation that has been made, again, in the Chapter 11 case in front of Judge Garrity. I haven't spent any time on it. My concern is that Mr. Kwok with -- this is -- I saw these documents for the first time -- actually I think I saw them this morning when I woke up because they were filed at 10:09 last night and, frankly, I turned my phone off probably not long before that. So Mr. Kwok -- Mr. Despins has asked you to enter an order directing Mr. Kwok to sign these documents. I have no idea, Your Honor, whether these documents are the appropriate documents. I have no idea how this impacts what's going on in Judge Garrity's case. How it impacts anything. I have no idea. I'm not a BVI lawyer. I don't know if these are the correct documents. I don't know what BVI law says. I've never seen the trust agreement that allegedly exists that\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 128 of\n\n would control anybody's rights here. So if Mr. Despins wants to get an order from the court directing Mr. Kwok to sign specific documents and here -- these specific documents, my argument is that he should have to file a motion and that -- I should have some time to review the motion and to review these documents and try to get an understanding about whether or not these documents are appropriate documents. Again, these documents were not attached to the motion that was filed with the court, Your Honor. This is new relief that is being sought. All that was sought -- what was sought with respect to the corporate governance was just this confirmation that the trustee has all of the economic and governance rights of the debtor. It wasn't -- there was nothing in the motion that said please give me an order that directs the order to sign specific documents. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Despins? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. The history there, as you relate is, is that we've been asking for documents since July 14th. They have not produced one single document, and the document on corporate governance of this entity. So when we filed this motion they said oh, we're not sure this works under BVI law, I said fine. We'll make\n\n|    | 158                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 129                                                            |\n| 1  | it work.<br>That's why the order actually provides what it     |\n| 2  | provides.                                                      |\n| 3  | And it's true that it's on short notice, but 1021              |\n| 4  | says that -- I'm sorry.<br>Which section says after notice and |\n| 5  | a hearing --                                                   |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>1021                                             |\n| 7  | MR. DESPINS:<br>1021.<br>It is whatever notice is              |\n| 8  | appropriate under the particular circumstances.                |\n| 9  | So if Your Honor wanted to -- and I think you have             |\n| 10 | -- Tuesday are bad days for you, right?<br>You have a full     |\n| 11 | calendar or -- I don't know -- or Wednesday morning, so he     |\n| 12 | can respond but I want before we close on this to provide an   |\n| 13 | exhibit to, Your Honor, if I may approach.                     |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Is it something in the record already?           |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:<br>No.<br>It's something in the record of         |\n| 16 | the New York court where Mr. Kwok --                           |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Judge Garrity's case?                            |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:<br>No.<br>It's in the New York Ostrager           |\n| 19 | case.<br>Where Mr. Kwok swore that he's the only owner of the  |\n| 20 | shares.<br>So may --                                           |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Yes, you could approach the courtroom            |\n| 22 | deputy, please.<br>Thank you.                                  |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:<br>Your Honor, I'm not -- I'm going to              |\n| 24 | object to the admission here.<br>This is an affidavit by --    |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:<br>It's more than that.<br>It's a                 |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 129 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 130 of\n\n|    | 130                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | compilation of documents, but in the first affidavit you'll    |\n| 2  | see it's highlighted.<br>And it says Mr. -- this is an         |\n| 3  | affidavit by and entity that is related to Mr. Kwok.<br>And it |\n| 4  | says Mr. Kwok is a sole shareholder of BVI.                    |\n| 5  | But let's assume that doesn't exist.<br>Let's                  |\n| 6  | continue flipping the pages.<br>Then we get to Defendant       |\n| 7  | Kwok's responses and objections to plaintiff Pacific           |\n| 8  | Alliance set of interrogatories.                               |\n| 9  | Then you go to a page, page 6, responses to                    |\n| 10 | interrogatories.<br>Subject to general, dah, dah, dah, I       |\n| 11 | respond that I am the legal owner of the issued shares of      |\n| 12 | Genever Holdings Corporation.                                  |\n| 13 | And then if you go to the end of that document                 |\n| 14 | it's signed by Kwok Ho Wan, December 4th, 2020.                |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>And actually, he says it again on page           |\n| 16 | 9 in response to interrogatory number 5.                       |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:<br>So yes, there's this issue of --               |\n| 18 | okay, I'm not trying to be cute here.<br>There is an issue of  |\n| 19 | a trust agreement that would render the son the beneficial     |\n| 20 | owner of the apartment.                                        |\n| 21 | But that does not -- that does not affect the fact             |\n| 22 | that Kwok is the sole shareholder of the BVI holding entity.   |\n| 23 | And, in fact, the fact that he has -- him, not his son, has    |\n| 24 | continued to exercise control over the debtor entity.<br>For   |\n| 25 | example, when the debtor in front of Judge Garrity enters      |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 714<br>Filed 08/10/22<br>Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10<br>Page 131 of<br>158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 131                                                                                           |\n| 1  | into an agreement, it's signed by Mr. Kwok on behalf of the                                   |\n| 2  | debtor entity.                                                                                |\n| 3  | So the only thing we're asking is to have the same                                            |\n| 4  | rights at BVI and at the debtor entity level so that we can                                   |\n| 5  | be recognized by Judge Garrity in that case.                                                  |\n| 6  | So -- and I've said this before. We're not trying                                             |\n| 7  | to stop the sale.<br>But there are things I will address                                      |\n| 8  | during the housekeeping issues that are fundamental issues                                    |\n| 9  | that we need to address in that case that makes this a time                                   |\n| 10 | sensitive issue.                                                                              |\n| 11 | MR. HENZY:<br>I'm not clear.<br>Are we having a trial,                                        |\n| 12 | Your Honor, on the issues -- the ownership issues on this                                     |\n| 13 | that have been in front of Judge Garrity and that I think                                     |\n| 14 | the order he entered contemplates that are going to get                                       |\n| 15 | resolved in litigation someplace else, that's not -- none of                                  |\n| 16 | this is before the court.<br>None of this was in the motion                                   |\n| 17 | that was filed by Mr. Despins.<br>He asked for a broad                                        |\n| 18 | confirmation of whatever governance and economic rights he                                    |\n| 19 | has.<br>And this is -- none of this is in that motion.                                        |\n| 20 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Your Honor?                                                                  |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                                                            |\n| 22 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>It's Peter Friedman. I just want to                                          |\n| 23 | be heard for two seconds on this.                                                             |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                                                            |\n| 25 | MR. FRIEDMAN: I just think, again, there's a lot                                              |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 132 of\n\n of etch-a-sketch and just to go back to one of the issues we talked about a moment ago, if you look at -- I think it's docket no. 107, I think it's paragraph 16, just to be clear and I think you should take into this account the etch-a- sketch nature of everything that happens from that side. Mr. Kwok actually says under oath in that declaration that he knew in May, 2021 about Steve Wynn, right? And now you hear he didn't know until May, 2022. I just think you need to be really careful with everything you hear connected to Mr. Kwok. And that goes to who owns the Genever shares. The one thing I wanted to add is that one of the thing we won in addition to the contempt order, in addition to the judgment, was a turnover the shares from Justice Ostrager who said that Mr. Kwok was actually required to turn over the shares of Genever BVI to PAX. So this is just another -- as we see it as this is another attempt to frustrate legitimate creditor access to the shares of valuable entities. And we think it should stop and we think that the shares should be ordered to be turned -- that the shares have already been ordered to be turned over and that should be effectuated by the relief sought today. And it's just -- it's just a continued pattern of really trying to thwart every effort of creditors to recover\n\n|    | 158                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 133                                                            |\n| 1  | assets.<br>And that's just so important from PAX's perspective |\n| 2  | that that not be delayed any further.<br>Thank you, Your       |\n| 3  | Honor.                                                         |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.<br>Mr. Henzy?                         |\n| 5  | MR. HENZY:<br>I never said that Mr. Kwok didn't know           |\n| 6  | about Mr. Wynn prior to the case being filed.<br>What I said   |\n| 7  | was that a lot of the facts came out after the case was        |\n| 8  | filed, when the DOJ filed it's complaint.                      |\n| 9  | And so I think that to keep going back to that,                |\n| 10 | it's twisting I think what I said.<br>I said when I stood up,  |\n| 11 | Your Honor, that it may be that signing these documents,       |\n| 12 | that there's no objection.                                     |\n| 13 | What there's an objection to is that the --                    |\n| 14 | there's nothing in the motion that asks for this relief.       |\n| 15 | The first --                                                   |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Well, it asks for it generally. I                |\n| 17 | understand your point.<br>There were --                        |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:<br>The --                                           |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>I understand your point.<br>There                |\n| 20 | weren't two letters attached to the motion for Mr. Kwok to     |\n| 21 | sign. I understand that.                                       |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:<br>That would be egregious, Your Honor.             |\n| 23 | To say that the relief sought in that motion translates to -   |\n| 24 | - and you have to sign these specific documents --             |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Well, I don't know if it's egregious             |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 133 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 134 of\n\n|    | 134                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | though.<br>I don't know if I agree with you completely, okay,  |\n| 2  | insofar as there's been a trustee in place since July 8th.     |\n| 3  | It's August 1st.<br>The debtor has obligations.<br>The debtor  |\n| 4  | stated in prior documents in different cases that he owns      |\n| 5  | certain things.                                                |\n| 6  | There's a share certificate that has been                      |\n| 7  | produced.<br>There's -- this isn't anything new. It may be new |\n| 8  | to you, but it's not new.<br>And looking at what Mr. Friedman  |\n| 9  | just pointed out to me again the declaration of Mr. Kwok       |\n| 10 | that was entered on March 20, 2022, where he references the    |\n| 11 | article -- and article about Steve Wynn facing Justice         |\n| 12 | Department action.                                             |\n| 13 | You know, there comes a point where the arguments              |\n| 14 | start to not be credible.<br>And the problem is Mr. Kwok       |\n| 15 | thought his case was going to get dismissed.<br>I don't know   |\n| 16 | why he thought that, but he thought that.                      |\n| 17 | After -- you know, when there was a potential --               |\n| 18 | two other things happening.<br>Appointment of Chapter 11       |\n| 19 | trustee or conversion to Chapter 7.                            |\n| 20 | He has obligations.<br>He doesn't -- he hasn't met             |\n| 21 | those obligations.<br>With regard to your argument --          |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:<br>In what way?<br>In what way?                     |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Hold on a second.                                |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:<br>In what way, Your Honor, has he not              |\n| 25 | met -- since the --                                            |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 714<br>Filed 08/10/22<br>Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10<br>Page 135 of<br>158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 135                                                                                           |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>He hasn't turned over to Mr. Despins                                            |\n| 2  | what Mr. Despins' asked him to turn over.                                                     |\n| 3  | MR. HENZY:<br>Mr. Despins sent a letter --                                                    |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Hold on.<br>Wait a minute.<br>Wait a                                            |\n| 5  | minute. Now you're not answering my question.                                                 |\n| 6  | MR. HENZY:<br>Well, what's your --<br>I don't --                                              |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>He hasn't turned over to Mr. Despins                                            |\n| 8  | what Mr. Despins rightfully under the Bankruptcy Code told                                    |\n| 9  | him to turn over.                                                                             |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay. I don't have the letter in front                                          |\n| 11 | of me and I -- and what I don't want --                                                       |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Well, your client should have provided                                          |\n| 13 | it to you.                                                                                    |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:<br>What I don't -- no, I've seen the                                               |\n| 15 | letter, Your Honor.<br>And what I don't want is for Mr.                                       |\n| 16 | Friedman to jump up and say -- and twist my words and say I                                   |\n| 17 | said something I didn't say, okay?                                                            |\n| 18 | But I don't have the letter in front of me.<br>I                                              |\n| 19 | don't --                                                                                      |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Well, no, but --                                                                |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:<br>I don't have the letter in front of                                             |\n| 22 | me, Your Honor.                                                                               |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.                                                                           |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:<br>I think what Mr. Despins asked for in                                           |\n| 25 | the letter, and Mr. Despins has the letter out and he's                                       |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 714<br>Filed 08/10/22<br>Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10<br>Page 136 of<br>158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 136                                                                                           |\n| 1  | going to tell you if I'm wrong, is it was a very broad -- we                                  |\n| 2  | want to see a whole bunch of information about specific                                       |\n| 3  | entities, okay?                                                                               |\n| 4  | So I don't remember right now, was there a                                                    |\n| 5  | demanding that letter that these documents, okay, but --                                      |\n| 6  | which I don't know if these documents even exist.                                             |\n| 7  | I don't remember there being a demand in that                                                 |\n| 8  | letter that said anything other than we want you to turn                                      |\n| 9  | over a whole bunch of stuff to us, which I will tell you,                                     |\n| 10 | Your Honor, the debtor -- we are working on that.<br>We are                                   |\n| 11 | trying to collect those documents to send them to Mr.                                         |\n| 12 | Despins.<br>We are doing that, okay?                                                          |\n| 13 | I have no doubt that Mr. Despins and maybe Your                                               |\n| 14 | Honor thinks that that should go faster and fine.<br>But we                                   |\n| 15 | are working on that.                                                                          |\n| 16 | But I don't remember in that letter a document                                                |\n| 17 | that said -- okay. Mr. Kindseth is telling me, and I think                                    |\n| 18 | he has a better knowledge of that letter than I do, that                                      |\n| 19 | there was no such request, okay?                                                              |\n| 20 | So I'm not --                                                                                 |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>No specific letter or with regard to                                            |\n| 22 | Genever? I mean, that's a different -- you're parsing things                                  |\n| 23 | differently.                                                                                  |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:<br>I'm not parsing things.<br>There was a                                          |\n| 25 | letter that Mr. Despins sent that appropriately -- okay,                                      |\n\n there's no push back -- said you've got to send me this stuff, okay? That hasn't happened yet. I admit that. The debtor -- we're working on that. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Should it go more quickly? Maybe it should. THE COURT: But let me just say why your argument is failing, okay? Mr. Kwok submitted an affidavit in this court on May -- March 20, ECF 107, paragraph -- I'll tell you what page. Page 16 or 108. Cooperative shares in the Sherry Netherland apartment are held by Genever Holdings, LLC. The membership interests in Genever U.S. are in turn held by Genever Holdings Corporation, Genever BVI. I hold all of the equity of Genever BVI. That's Mr. Kwok. MR. HENZY: But you have to keep going. I think -- I would suggest -- THE COURT: No, I don't. MR. HENZY: However -- THE COURT: No, I really don't. Not when it matters with regard to Genever BVI and that's what the trustee's asking about. MR. HENZY: However, pursuant to a declaration of trustee agreement dated February 17, 2015 I hold such equity in trust for Bravo Luck Limited. My son owns the equity of\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 137 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 138 of\n\n the apartment owner. THE COURT: Well, guess what? You don't get to Bravo Luck, Limited till you get to Genever BVI. You can't -- all you have to do is look at the chain. You don't get to Bravo Luck Limited until you get to Genever BVI because he holds all the equity but then he holds it in a trust. I mean, it's going to be very difficult. We can do a chart. We can make a nice little chart. We can draw the lines from entity to entity. But this -- MR. HENZY: What this -- I apologize, Your Honor. THE COURT: This is what he said. And he said it also bears noting that any interest I have in Genever BVI has been ordered by Justice Ostrager to be turned over to PAX, provided that such a turnover does not interfere with pending litigation in the British Virgin Islands or Genever U.S. bankruptcy. Okay? So Mr. Kwok said this on March 20. It's August 1st. For him to be -- I'm not saying I'm not going to give you an opportunity to respond, because I am going to give you one, okay? It's not going to be long. And the point is this -- to make an argument that you don't -- not that you, not about you. That counsel for Mr. Kwok doesn't know whether this will have an impact and other parties, worried about other third parties, that's all\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 139 of\n\n|    | 139                                                             |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | irrelevant because Mr. Kwok already swore to this court that    |\n| 2  | he holds all the equity of Genever BVI.                         |\n| 3  | MR. HENZY:<br>I think that you and I are reading                |\n| 4  | this differently, Your Honor.<br>I'm sorry.                     |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Then we're reading it                    |\n| 6  | differently.<br>But then guess what?<br>Then you'll have -- I'm |\n| 7  | going to rule that he has to do this ultimately.<br>This is     |\n| 8  | what he said.<br>This is what he said.<br>My son owns -- the    |\n| 9  | apartment owner.                                                |\n| 10 | However, pursuant to a declaration of trust, I                  |\n| 11 | hold such equity in trust for Bravo Limited.                    |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:<br>He still holds it.                              |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:<br>He holds it in --                                 |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>He's still --                                     |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY:<br>He holds it in trust for Bravo                    |\n| 16 | Limited.                                                        |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                             |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:<br>Look, I --                                        |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>And how did Bravo Limited pay for that            |\n| 20 | apartment?<br>Are we just going to go through all the -- this   |\n| 21 | is what -- we're going to follow the money, right?<br>Is that   |\n| 22 | what we're going to do?<br>Isn't that what we're doing?         |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:<br>I have no idea.                                   |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>That's what we're doing.<br>That's why            |\n| 25 | there was a Chapter 11 trustee appointed.<br>That's what we're  |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 140 of\n\n|    | 140                                                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | doing.                                                           |\n| 2  | What's happened here is --                                       |\n| 3  | MR. HENZY:<br>There's a bunch of things here that                |\n| 4  | seem to me like they're not connected, Your Honor.               |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Well, how can they not be connected?               |\n| 6  | He said they're connected.<br>He wrote it in his own             |\n| 7  | declaration.<br>This is what he -- he is saying.<br>So --        |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>He says he holds it in trust for                   |\n| 9  | someone else.<br>And look, again, I haven't had -- I have not    |\n| 10 | had time to analyze this because this was --                     |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Let's look at the certificate.            |\n| 12 | Let's look at the certificate that was in the New York State     |\n| 13 | action, which is dated some time in -- February 13, 2015.        |\n| 14 | He holds the -- it says \"I certify that I am the registered      |\n| 15 | holder of 1,000 share of U.S. dollar, one penny par value,       |\n| 16 | each being fully paid in the above company subject to the        |\n| 17 | memorandum and article association of the company.\"              |\n| 18 | So that's February 13, 2015.<br>This trust was dated             |\n| 19 | four days later.<br>So then he took his equity.<br>So then maybe |\n| 20 | it's a fraudulent transfer.                                      |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:<br>It might be. It might, Judge.                      |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>It might be.                                       |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.<br>But we're not -- I don't think            |\n| 24 | we can resolve that on essentially 14 hours notice.              |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>I just told you I'm going to give you              |\n\n|    | 141                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | time to respond.                                             |\n| 2  | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>I'm going to give you time to respond.         |\n| 4  | MR. HENZY:<br>To circle all the way back here, I             |\n| 5  | said, Your Honor, it may be completely appropriate, the      |\n| 6  | debtor may have no objection to signing these documents, but |\n| 7  | I don't know because this was filed at 10:09 last night.     |\n| 8  | And it wasn't in the motion that had previously been filed.  |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Well, I'm going to give you an        |\n| 10 | opportunity to ask your client if he's going to sign the     |\n| 11 | documents, okay?                                             |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                         |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:<br>Can I have enough time to do the               |\n| 15 | diligence?<br>Because I have -- I would like to find out --  |\n| 16 | for me to advise my client I think I need to do some         |\n| 17 | diligence and understand this, okay?<br>So I'm hoping I'm    |\n| 18 | going to get more than 24 or 36 hours. I heard Mr. Despins   |\n| 19 | say Wednesday morning.<br>Nothing is happening here, Your    |\n| 20 | Honor.<br>The apartment --                                   |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>That's the point. Nothing is happening         |\n| 22 | here.                                                        |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:<br>No, no, no, no.<br>On the apartment --         |\n| 24 | and everybody --                                             |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>And we've got to get some stuff to             |\n|    |                                                              |\n\n move forward. MR. HENZY: I don't know what I said that was funny. I'm generally not viewed as being a funny guy, but the apartment is going to get sold under a process that's being supervised by Melanie Cyganowski. The apartment, the money, it's all going to be property of that bankruptcy estate in the Southern District under Judge Garrity's supervision. It's not going anywhere. I don't know -- is the idea that Mr. Kwok is going to somehow abscond with the apartment, he's going to take the Sherry Netherland apartment and go away with it or he's going to take the money from the apartment and go away with it. That's not going to happen. So I think it's fair given the complexity here. And you and I do read this paragraph differently. I think that -- I don't know, Your Honor, what the structure is here. I do know that property that's held in trust for another is not property of a bankruptcy estate, depending on -- THE COURT: I'm not so sure about that. MR. HENZY: Depending on facts and circumstances. THE COURT: I'm not so sure about that. MR. HENZY: So maybe sometimes it is. I think often times it is not. So I don't know what all of the facts are here because as I said, this was not part of a\n\n|    | 158                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 143                                                          |\n| 1  | motion that had been filed.<br>This was in an order that was |\n| 2  | filed at 10:09 last night.                                   |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>I understand.                                  |\n| 4  | MR. DESPINS:<br>And, Your Honor, I'll provide Mr.            |\n| 5  | Henzy more documents.<br>Actually, there's one which is --   |\n| 6  | MR. HENZY:<br>Don't hand -- I don't want you to hand         |\n| 7  | me documents. We're in court.                                |\n| 8  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Okay.                                        |\n| 9  | MR. HENZY:<br>You can get me documents.                      |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Okay.<br>But the point, Your Honor, is       |\n| 11 | that Mr. Kwok is exercising control over that entity.<br>So  |\n| 12 | ti's not his son.                                            |\n| 13 | So, for example, when the Genever U.S. wanted to             |\n| 14 | file for bankruptcy the authorization is signed by Mr. Kwok. |\n| 15 | It's not signed by the son or Bravo Luck. It's signed by Mr. |\n| 16 | Kwok.                                                        |\n| 17 | So I guess, Your Honor, we're talking about                  |\n| 18 | scheduling since --                                          |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Yes, we are.<br>We're talking about            |\n| 20 | scheduling. I'm going to give Mr. Henzy some time to look at |\n| 21 | this and file a response.                                    |\n| 22 | I'm looking at -- hold on one second, okay?<br>I             |\n| 23 | just need to look at the calendar.                           |\n| 24 | (Pause.)                                                     |\n| 25 | All right.<br>With regard to the motion filed by the         |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 143 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 144 of\n\n|    | 144                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | trustee, the motion for order confirming that the Chapter 11 |\n| 2  | trustee holds all the debtor's economic and corporate        |\n| 3  | governance rights, ECF 598, and the order -- revised         |\n| 4  | proposed order with regard to that motion that appears at    |\n| 5  | ECF 645, for the reasons stated on the record that matter    |\n| 6  | will -- this matter will be continued to Thursday, August    |\n| 7  | 4th at 1:00 p.m.                                             |\n| 8  | Now with regard to the -- so that I think takes              |\n| 9  | care of all of our matters, other than the housekeeping      |\n| 10 | matters, Trustee Despins, which includes the proof of claim  |\n| 11 | bar date order.                                              |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:<br>Can I have one point or question, Your         |\n| 13 | Honor?                                                       |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                           |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.<br>On the letter to the Harcus           |\n| 16 | Parker firm, I'm not talking to Harcus Parker without Mr.    |\n| 17 | Despins being on the phone because I think I'm going to get  |\n| 18 | -- probably I'm going to get accused of saying something I   |\n| 19 | shouldn't have said or my words are going to get twisted.    |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Well, you and Mr. Despins work that            |\n| 21 | out. I'm not ordering that you be on the phone.              |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:<br>I don't know what their availability           |\n| 23 | is. I don't know -- you know, so I don't know if that can    |\n| 24 | happen by August 4 at 1 o'clock.<br>That's all.              |\n| 25 | I certainly will make myself available and use               |\n\n|    | 158                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 145                                                            |\n| 1  | best efforts, but we're talking about talking to lawyers in    |\n| 2  | London and I don't know what -- how much time that's going     |\n| 3  | to take.                                                       |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>I don't think anybody's talking about            |\n| 5  | talking to lawyers in London other than you.                   |\n| 6  | MR. HENZY:<br>We have to.                                      |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Then that's your issue. You can figure           |\n| 8  | it out. We're having a hearing on Thursday at 1:00 p.m.        |\n| 9  | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.<br>So I don't know how I figure it         |\n| 10 | out if I --                                                    |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Well, you'll try.<br>You can figure it           |\n| 12 | out.<br>You'll try to.                                         |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Your Honor, Thursday at 1:00 is that           |\n| 14 | in person or a Zoom?                                           |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Well, what do you -- do you have a               |\n| 16 | conflict with Thursday?<br>Is that what you're telling me?     |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes, I'm out of the country.                   |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Oh, you're out of the country.<br>Well,          |\n| 19 | that's --                                                      |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:<br>But I can do Zoom.                             |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Well, then we can -- I guess --         |\n| 22 | when are you going to be back?<br>Are you out for a long time? |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes.                                           |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>So then we'll do it       |\n| 25 | by Zoom then.                                                  |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 145 of\n\n|  | Case 22-50073 | Doc 714 | Filed 08/10/22 | Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 | Page 146 of |\n|--|---------------|---------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|--|---------------|---------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n|    | 146                                                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                           |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>We'll do it by Zoom.                               |\n| 3  | MR. DESPINS:<br>So now I would go into the                       |\n| 4  | housekeeping matters, but --                                     |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Last point and I'll be quiet, Your                 |\n| 6  | Honor.<br>I promise. I just want to be clear.                    |\n| 7  | There's other relief sought in that motion that                  |\n| 8  | the debtor objected to.<br>So I don't want the court to think    |\n| 9  | that -- and I'm fine if that goes to --                          |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>I don't know -- we're going to talk                |\n| 11 | all about that on Thursday.                                      |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:<br>So everything is getting carried to --             |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>I will tell you, I -- my initial                   |\n| 14 | review, subject to further argument on Thursday, is I don't      |\n| 15 | know what the basis for the objection of the debtor would be     |\n| 16 | to any other relief set forth in that motion.                    |\n| 17 | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.<br>Understood, Your Honor.                   |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                              |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:<br>So, Your Honor, we've been at it for             |\n| 20 | three hours and 45 minutes.<br>I don't know if you want to       |\n| 21 | take a break before we go into the -- because there's a good     |\n| 22 | 20 --                                                            |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Well, I'll ask the courtroom staff.                |\n| 24 | Would you like to take a break?<br>I'm sure they would,          |\n| 25 | actually.<br>Would you like to take a few minute break?<br>Okay. |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 147 of\n\n Thank you. So it's 3:40. What, do you want to come back at 3:50 or you want longer than that? MR. DESPINS: No, that's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: Does that work for you -- all of us? I mean, it works for me. So court will be in recess until 3:50. (Recess from 3:37 p.m. until 3:50 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: We're still on case no. 22- 50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Despins. Before the recess we were going to talk about a few -- MR. DESPINS: Housekeeping. THE COURT: -- housekeeping matters, so go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: The first one, Your Honor, was the request to have the status conference every ten days or so. And the trustee would have an obligation to file an agenda 24 hours before. I may be that sometimes we'll say no need for the status conference, but I think it's really important, especially in the first few months of the case, to stay in touch with the court and so, therefore, we would ask that we could just -- THE COURT: That's fine. That's absolutely fine.\n\n|    | 158                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 148                                                            |\n| 1  | Do you have proposed dates in mind or --                       |\n| 2  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Not yet.<br>I'll discuss this with Mr.         |\n| 3  | Skalka and we'll come back to Your Honor but I just want to    |\n| 4  | --                                                             |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Certainly.                                       |\n| 6  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 7  | The next item -- this is more complicated.<br>And I            |\n| 8  | know last time we talked about the bar date and I said we      |\n| 9  | would mark it up and we did.                                   |\n| 10 | But I started looking deeper into this and                     |\n| 11 | realized that there's a fundamental problem here and it is     |\n| 12 | as follows.                                                    |\n| 13 | You've go the Genever U.S. case that was filed                 |\n| 14 | before this case --                                            |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                             |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- and what's at state there is who            |\n| 17 | owns the Sherry Netherland.<br>And there was a bar date set in |\n| 18 | that case, but notice was not given -- first of all, there     |\n| 19 | was no publication notice and there was no notice given to     |\n| 20 | potential creditors of Mr. Kwok.<br>It was given to a few      |\n| 21 | people and Mr. Friedman and his colleagues, of course, were    |\n| 22 | around the hoop because they were already involved.            |\n| 23 | And God bless them from their point of view.<br>They           |\n| 24 | did file a claim of PAX against Genever there but my           |\n| 25 | position vis-a-vis that entity is I'm an equity holder         |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 148 of\n\n because I'm -- I own the shares. Well, I own the shares not personally, but this estate owns the share. And that doesn't work because the bar date has passed in that case. My Goldman's clients were never on notice of this because he didn't exist then because there was no case here. So there is a need -- a pretty important need to coordinate these two cases, not only because of that issue, because there are many ways of fixing that issue. One would be expand the bar date in that case, reopen it to allow Mr. Goldman's clients to file claims. I'm not saying that's a preferred course, but that's one. Another one would be for us to file a piercing the veil or alter ego claim in that case, et cetera, et cetera. But the point is there's a need for coordination because right now that case is going on its merry way. The sale is not an issue. That's not a problem. It's going on its merry way where at the end of the day assuming the best thing, which is the Sherry Netherland is owned by Mr. Kwok, that money would be shared with those creditors around the hoop there only and that's PAX and the Sherry Netherland, the hotel itself and very few other people. Well, that's -- a fiduciary to the creditors in this case to me that can't work. So -- and there's a second thing that's\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 150 of\n\n fundamental. We should not have two courts, two separate courts, deciding the issue of the Sherry Netherland -- the ownership of the Sherry Netherland and the issue of who owns the yacht. And you might say well, the yacht is different than the hotel, yes. But at the end of the day, one is the daughter, one is the son. It's all the same issues. Yes, there'll be different timing issues, but at the end of the day the arguments will all be the same. To have two separate courts decide that issue would be a huge waste of judicial resources and professional fees. So you might say well, that's a lot to process and to digest and I've been struggling with this. And I've talked to the committee and to PAX about this and they're proceeding it too. But I think what needs to happen is there should be - - because I would appear in front of Judge Garrity and tell him the same things. But I think you and him need to either -- I don't know how you feel about that, have a conversation about this or have a joint status conference, which is very unusual, but it's been done. But that issue needs to be tackled in one way or another in the next month or so because it is unfair to the people who have claims against Mr. Kwok to have missed out on the bar date in that case because they have no greater or worse\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 151 of\n\n right than PAX had. PAX claim against Genever is a piercing the veil, an alter ego claim. And, again, I'm not criticizing them. They're doing their job. They're not a fiduciary for anyone and for some reason the debtor -- well, the debtor was controlled by Mr. Kwok so obviously not interested in publicizing -- having publication notice et cetera, et cetera, and that's why I told you the bar date, even though we marked it up an all that.\n\n I think until that issue is resolved we should park it because what I don't want to do is do two publication notice and we need to resolve this issue one way or another and my job is to propose a path forward which I'm not ready to do without talking again to the committee and to PAX and to debtor's counsel in the Genever case.\n\n And I want to be clear, this does not affect the sale. I'm not trying to say oh, we're not going to sell the -- that's not the case.\n\n But there's a nee for coordination and I wanted to put that in front of Your Honor. I don't expect you to have a response on the spot because there's a lot of moving pieces to this but I think that -- and I know you have a full docket, so I'm not trying to put another case on your plate. I understand that.\n\n Judge Garrity is also very busy so that's why I think there needs to be either a call between the two of you or a\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 152 of\n\n joint status conference but I think that makes sense to happen once we have a path forward to recommend. THE COURT: Well, so what I think you're saying is you think that both of the cases should be in front of the same judge. So isn't there a way to do that by filing a motion? MR. DESPINS: Yeah, there is. But I -- THE COURT: Because I don't know that a judge should have a conversation with another judge about -- I mean, I -- THE COURT: Well, especially do you want to -- one of the reasons I would be not inclined to do that is I don't want to open up any allegations that there was something improper or -- MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: I mean, what -- you know, but if you think that's appropriate, then you can file -- anyone can file a motion. MR. DESPINS: Well, but to be clear, that motion would have to be filed in front of Judge Garrity, because he's the first to file. THE COURT: I understand. And so this case may go there is what you're saying. MR. DESPINS: What I'm saying is that, first of all, I would never file that motion without talking to you first because you might say what did you just do? And so I'm socializing the issue with you. You should think about it and\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 153 of\n\n|    | 153                                                                |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | we will come back to the court probably at our next status         |\n| 2  | conference on this.                                                |\n| 3  | But I want to make sure that is something that you're              |\n| 4  | thinking about because it needs to be resolved in one way or       |\n| 5  | another.<br>So that's really the issue regarding the bar date in   |\n| 6  | Genever.                                                           |\n| 7  | The next thing I wanted to mention very briefly the                |\n| 8  | Lady May inspection.<br>Mr. Kindseth last time described the fact  |\n| 9  | that they were very -- well, I won't say very minor, but fairly    |\n| 10 | discreet issues that need to be resolved.                          |\n| 11 | It turns out that that's not the case.<br>As Your Honor            |\n| 12 | will remember even though I'm not a party to the stipulation,      |\n| 13 | they allowed me visiting rights or inspection right and it         |\n| 14 | turns out that there are more issues.                              |\n| 15 | But the parties are talking and we're hopeful that                 |\n| 16 | that will be resolved.<br>But I wanted to make sure that you knew  |\n| 17 | that that dialogue was ongoing.<br>We had a call I think last      |\n| 18 | week about this with the Zeisler firm and with PAX's counsel.      |\n| 19 | Your Honor, you will recall that we hired Paul                     |\n| 20 | Derektor as an expert to assist us with that, \\$2,500.<br>And it's |\n| 21 | a request for Your Honor, and I know the rules and the U.S.        |\n| 22 | Trustee will probably scream about this, but would it be okay      |\n| 23 | if we just expensed it.                                            |\n| 24 | What I mean by that is not file a motion to retain                 |\n| 25 | him as an expert?<br>We can do that but it's going to cost more    |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 154 of\n\n|    | 154                                                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | than the \\$2,500 and my point is -- expensive meaning right now  |\n| 2  | there are no assets.<br>So I mean we're paying for it.           |\n| 3  | Eventually we hope that there'll be money to be paid but we      |\n| 4  | would put that as a line item expense rather than filing a       |\n| 5  | motion to retain Mr. Derektor in the case as an expert.<br>But I |\n| 6  | don't feel strongly. It's just from a cost savings point of      |\n| 7  | view I think it would make sense.                                |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Well, I think you should talk to the               |\n| 9  | parties about that too.<br>I mean, if people don't have an       |\n| 10 | objection, then it's likely to be fine.                          |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Okay.<br>We'll table that. You're                |\n| 12 | absolutely right, Your Honor.                                    |\n| 13 | Lady May we talked about.<br>Just housekeeping, the              |\n| 14 | debtors are still -- their monthly operating reports from May    |\n| 15 | and June still haven't been filed.<br>The debtor still is under  |\n| 16 | obligation to file that so I want to remind everyone of that     |\n| 17 | and that's all I have from a housekeeping point of view, Your    |\n| 18 | Honor.                                                           |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                              |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Thank you.                                       |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Let me just take one look for a second             |\n| 22 | and see if there's anything else that I think I had any          |\n| 23 | questions about.                                                 |\n| 24 | (Pause.)                                                         |\n| 25 | So with regard to the bar date motion and the                    |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 155 of\n\n proposed order then, we're just going to continue those to a future status conference? Is that what you're thinking? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So to a date to be determined essentially. MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. (Pause.) THE COURT: Mr. Kindseth? MR. KINDSETH: Yes, Your Honor. In the interest of just basically updating Your Honor and the other parties with respect to the Lady May, Your Honor, for HK International, no one is more interested in expediting the satisfaction of the requirements set forth in the stipulation with respect to the Lady May more than my client. We've been working very diligently to satisfy those obligations. Your Honor made reference to the certification. My client is unable to file the certification until the other elements are satisfied, one of which is this court's establishment of the repair reserve. The repair reserve requires my client to provide proposals with respect to the repairs that need to be done for the Lady May to be returned in good working order. There's been some delay with respect to finding and getting proposals from entities just because they're very busy right now.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 156 of\n\n As we've received proposals we've circulated them with the trustee, creditors committee counsel and PAX counsel. With respect to the actual repairs that need to be performed, unbeknownst to me at the time before Your Honor last there was an additional repair that needs to be performed. Apparently when the fuel pump failed, which I did disclose to the court, it caused the gears, some gears to basically get stripped. And so there are tiny shards of metal that you can see from the gears -- and, again, this was produced to everybody -- that were circulated in the oil system within the engine. So the oil needs to be cleaned out. The shards need to be reduced. We's just talking about little pieces but obviously it needs to be repaired and we received a quote for that. And so we're in communications with the trustee and counsel for the creditors committee and counsel for PAX to try to come up with an agreed up number for the repair reserve which would then enable us, once this court orders the repair reserve, to file the certification. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? MR. HENZY: Not on the Lady Mae, Your Honor, but am I to file a replay before Thursday at 1 o'clock on the -- THE COURT: Yes. Yes.\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 714<br>Filed 08/10/22<br>Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10<br>Page 157 of<br>158 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | 157                                                                                           |\n| 1  | MR. HENZY:<br>And I didn't write it down --                                                   |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>I didn't give you a time frame, but I can                                       |\n| 3  | give you till Thursday morning at 9 o'clock, if you'd like.                                   |\n| 4  | But I can't give you any longer than that. I've got to be able                                |\n| 5  | to read it before the hearing or there's no point in the                                      |\n| 6  | hearing.                                                                                      |\n| 7  | MR. HENZY:<br>I'll get it -- thank you, Your Honor.<br>I                                      |\n| 8  | expect I'll get it filed before then but thank you.                                           |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Anyone else wish to be heard?                                          |\n| 10 | (No audible response.)                                                                        |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Okay. I think that takes care of all the                                        |\n| 12 | matters today then in this case and we will reconvene on                                      |\n| 13 | Thursday, via Zoom at 1:00 p.m.<br>And the debtor has until 9:00                              |\n| 14 | a.m. on Thursday morning to file the response to the corporate                                |\n| 15 | governance motion, okay?                                                                      |\n| 16 | That takes care of all the matters on the calendar so                                         |\n| 17 | court is adjourned.                                                                           |\n| 18 | (Proceedings adjourned at 4:05 p.m.)                                                          |\n| 19 |                                                                                               |\n| 20 |                                                                                               |\n| 21 |                                                                                               |\n| 22 |                                                                                               |\n| 23 |                                                                                               |\n| 24 |                                                                                               |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\n| 1  |                                                                 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 2  | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and              |\n| 3  | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the |\n| 4  | foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic  |\n| 5  | sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled        |\n| 6  | matter.                                                         |\n| 7  |                                                                 |\n| 8  |                                                                 |\n| 9  | August 9, 2022                                                  |\n| 10 | Christine Fiore, CERT                                           |\n| 11 | Transcriber                                                     |\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":"案号 22-50073 文件 714 提交日期 08/10/22 登记日期 08/10/22 11:13:10 第 1 页，共 158 页\n\n美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分部\n关于：                                                *    案号 22-50073(JAM)\n                                                     *\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），                              *    康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n                                                     *    2022年8月1日\n债务人。                                             *\n                                                     *\n                                                     *\n                                                     *\n                                                     *\n                                                     *\n                                                     *\n                                                     *\n                                                     *\n                                                     *\n                                                     *\n                                                     *\n                                                     *\n                                                     *\n                                                     *\n                                                     *\n                                                     *\n\n尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING 美国联邦破产法官主持的动议听证会记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：\nAARON ROMNEY, ESQ.\nERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.\nSTEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ.\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\nWILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ.\nBrown Rudnick, LLP（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.\nSTUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nPATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ.\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n庭审程序由电子录音记录，记录文本由速记服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷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代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表债权人 Rui Ma（马锐）、Weican Meng（孟伟灿）及 Zheng Wu（吴峥）：\nKRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.\nMcElroy Deutsch（麦克尔罗伊·多伊奇律师事务所）\n225 Liberty Street\n36th Floor\nNew York, NY 10281\n\n代表 United States Trustee（美国受托人）：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表 HK International（香港国际）及 Mei Guo（郭梅）：\nSTEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ.\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\nChapter 11 Trustee（第 11 章受托人）：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings LLP（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n第 11 章受托人的拟议代理律师：\nDOUGLAS SKALKA, ESQ.\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith（诺伊伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n（庭审于下午 12:15 开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n法官：好的。下午好。请各位为记录目的报明身份，先请第 11 章受托人。\n\nDESPINS 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第 11 章受托人。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nSKALKA 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Douglas Skalka，作为第 11 章受托人的拟议本地代理律师。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：下午好。Holley Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Irve Goldman，Pullman & Comley 律师事务所，代表债权人委员会。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：我能否请问，在哪里可以从法院领取口罩？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 714 提交日期 08/10/22 登记日期 08/10/22 11:13:10 第 3 页，共 158 页\n\n法官：就在这张桌子上，Goldman 律师，在 Henzy 律师正前方。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：哦，好的。谢谢。\n\n法官：不客气。\n\nFRIEDMAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Peter Friedman，来自 O'Melveny & Myers，代表 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund, L.P.\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nFRIEDMAN 先生：谢谢。\n\n法官：与您一同出庭的是您的共同代理律师和本地代理律师吗？\n\nSARNOFF 先生：Stuart Sarnoff，同样来自 O'Melveny & Myers。\n\nBIRNEY 先生：还有 Patrick Birney，来自 Robinson & Cole。下午好。\n\n法官：下午好。Henzy 律师？\n\nHENZY 先生：Eric Henzy，代表 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nROMNEY 先生：Aaron Romney，同样代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nKINDSETH 先生：Stephen Kindseth，代表 Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n法官：那么您的其他委托人呢，Kindseth 先生？\n\nKINDSETH 先生：我不知道我们是否有必要代表 HK International 出庭，但我也代表 HK International，Stephen Kindseth，\n\nZeisler & Zeisler。\n\n法官：还有 Mei Guo 呢？\n\nKINDSETH 先生：还有 Mei Guo。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\nMAYHEW 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Kristen Mayhew，McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter，代表债权人 Rui Ma、Zheng Wu 及 Weican Meng。\n\n法官：下午好。Baldiga 先生，我看到您在后面，但请继续报明身份——\n\nBALDIGA 先生：是，法官阁下。William Baldiga，Brown Rudnick。谢谢。\n\n法官：下午好。今天还有其他人希望为记录目的报明身份吗？\n\n（无可听见的答复。）\n\n法官：好的。Baldiga 先生，我们将首先审理您的申请，即您作为律师退出代理的动议；如您愿意，请走到前面来。若这样更方便，您可以到讲台前；以您方便为准。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：我会这样做。谢谢。\n\n法官：下午好。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：下午好。法官阁下，我们的动议于 7 月 13 日提交。上周我们以案卷编号 623 的进一步提交材料对其作了补充。\n\n法官：我看到了。谢谢。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：好的。我认为法院或其他当事人可能至少有两项关切。其一是法律问题，即我们是否有权退出代理，尤其是既然已有另外两家律师事务所作为 Kwok 先生——作为不占有财产的债务人——的代理律师出庭。其二是，我们认为适当地预见到，并已与 Claiborn 女士及 Despins 先生讨论了我们就预付聘金以及作为债务人前代理律师所持续承担的责任。我们只是希望不存在任何疑问或问题，即我们理解相关规则。我们始终遵守这些规则，并将继续遵守。并且，如——如存在任何关切，我希望积极主动地处理这些问题，包括今日向法院处理。我们持有预付聘金并无任何益处。因此，我们——显然，除将其作为我们律师费的担保外——因此，我们乐于作出任何安排——我认为目前的安排已获 Claiborn 女士及其办公室，以及受托人及其办公室认可——\n\n法官：贵所保留——或者继续持有该预付聘金，但须以准许您律师费的命令为条件；这就是目前的——是这样吗——\n\nBALDIGA 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法官：是的。当然。好的。请继续。这样可以。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：而且，我是说，这笔款项存放在一家声誉很好的银行。它不是本所的资金。\n\n法官：对。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：我们将预付聘金存放于独立账户中。幸运的是，本所在财务及其他方面均状况良好，因此我认为它们不会以任何方式面临风险。至于替任代理律师，我不幸在上次听证会时休假，但我已经阅读了——\n\n法官：那么希望那是一次愉快的休假。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：——记录文本，而且我理解了相关对话。\n\n法官：希望您休假并非不幸。希望——\n\nBALDIGA 先生：我本来不打算这么说，但我感谢您的这番话。我认为您说得对。我不会就 Zeisler 律师事务所的聘任采取立场。\n\n法官：明白。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：那是应由其他当事人处理的事项。但 Mitchell 先生已出庭。Zeisler 律师事务所已出庭。我认为，无论实际上是否已有替任代理律师，依法均应准许我们退出代理的动议。但既然已有替任代理律师，我认为这应当、希望能够按惯常方式处理。我乐于回答任何当事人或法院的任何问题，但除此之外，我仅依赖该等书面材料。\n\n法官：谢谢。我想听取其他所有人的意见，因为——我尚未看到有人反对您的动议，也不知道有任何反对意见。因此，如有人反对，我希望其现在提出。\n\nDESPINS 先生：法官阁下，这不是反对，但我们有一项保留意见，因此能否请允许我们在适当时候陈述意见？\n\n法官：嗯，保留意见——我将要求 Brown Rudnick——他们必须提交律师费申请。他们知道这一点。这已经——这不是问题。问题是否是——当您说——您是否担心 Brown Rudnick 持有该笔资金？我原以为对此没有问题。\n\nDESPINS 先生：不是，法官阁下。问题是我们希望他们确认会使自己\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n可供联系。法官阁下，我可以走近吗？\n\n法官：可以。可以。可以，请。\n\nDESPINS 先生：好的。\n\n法官：抱歉。我现在明白您的意思了，我刚才忘了提到。您在书面材料中说，您希望他们能够随时提供协助，并在必要时协助您。\n\nDESPINS 先生：但须遵守法官阁下将作出的任何保护令。\n\n法官：对。\n\nDESPINS 先生：我们提交了一项 2004——\n\n法官：是。\n\nDESPINS 先生：——上周。他们是对象之一。\n\n法官：对。\n\nDESPINS 先生：所以我们无需辩论其实体问题。只是——\n\n法官：对。\n\nDESPINS 先生：——我想确保他们不会一走了之。仅此而已。\n\n法官：好的。您和 Baldiga 先生是否曾经——我不知道您是否有机会，但您是否就您刚才记录在案所说的事项进行过任何交谈？\n\nDESPINS 先生：没有就那个问题进行过交谈。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：法官阁下，我乐于对此作出回应。我们显然依规则和法律对法院负有义务。前代理律师在涉及特权事项时处境尴尬。我们不希望受到两面夹击，因为我不想承诺做可能在此违反特权的事情。因此，例如，我当然已经与 Despins 先生进行过交谈，并将继续随时提供协助。我并不难找。当然，我不希望作出会使本所面临前委托人提出索赔风险的承诺，即声称我们以某种方式侵犯了特权，或使他们无法维护特权。这实际上，我认为，与其说是 Brown Rudnick 的问题，不如说是受托人和债务人的替任代理律师须处理的问题。根据我的经验，在我参与过的另外少数债务人不占有财产的案件中，这些都是难以处理的问题。因此，我很乐意继续按 Paul Hastings 的意愿向其提供协助，但我不会承诺做会使本所面临风险的事情。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 714 提交日期 08/10/22 登记日期 08/10/22 11:13:10 第 11 页，共 158 页\n\n法官：明白。不过我也有一个问题要问您。\n\nBALDIGA 先生：当然。\n\n法官：我将听取 Despins 先生是否希望回应您所说的话。我想要求的是——而且我——我假定，从您的角度看这不会有问题，即贵所将会接受送达。如——Despins 先生可能会向您的记录送达传票，对吧，送达方面不会有任何问题。他会希望查阅贵所的记录。然后您将会——您或其他代理律师将基于特权理由提出异议，之后我们将不得不在最终阶段了解一切如何处理，是否能够达成某种保护令，或者是否必须由法院作出保护令。我只是希望不要出现您不接受送达之类的问题——因为，对我而言，那是最基本的。贵所拥有一切权利，就向贵所提出的任何证据开示请求以及任何类似事项，提交贵所认为适当的任何文件。我说的不是这个。我只是说，我不希望我们都将时间花在送达问题或我会\n\n考虑到，你知道，这是根本性的。对于与您的律师—当事人特权以及您可能主张的任何其他特权有关的事项，您完全有权依据适用法律和规则提出您认为适当的任何问题，但我只是想——这将是法院所作出的承诺——我不想在这方面花费任何时间，我认为您也不想。BALDIGA 律师：那么有两项承诺，法官阁下。第一，按照惯例并且适当的是，受托人作为其首要事务之一——我认为正如他在其文件中所述——发出了一封简单的信函，即文件保全通知函——法院：对。BALDIGA 律师：——这在更广泛的调查中是惯常做法。并且我们已经——我已向受托人说明这一点——我们已在内部实施保全措施，因此我们在这方面一直负起责任。因而不会有任何材料遗失。这是第一步，坦率地说也是基本事项。第二步，不需要送达人员、执达员或任何此类安排。如果作出了 2004 命令，我们将予以遵守。只要债务人不质疑该受托人是否已采取适当步骤，我们不需要传票或其他正式程序。这确实应由债务人来说明——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 报告与转录服务公司）\n\n法院：我明白。BALDIGA 律师：——即存在某些不足之处，但不会是 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）从中阻挠。法院：这就是我的问题和请求，我对此表示感谢。谢谢。BALDIGA 律师：好的。法院：现在，Despins 先生，您是否还有任何内容想补充 Baldiga 先生刚才所述？DESPINS 先生：没有，法官阁下。您已涵盖了我的观点。谢谢。法院：好的。谢谢。好。那么，Baldiga 先生，正如您在陈述中所说，我们近来没有那么多案件——在这些案件中债务人被剥夺占有权，因此有关是否——您知道，我甚至还不了解两位律师的情况。我会就此与 Henzy 先生谈谈。但我同意您应获准所提动议。并且将基于以下理由予以准许：其他当事人、其他律师已代表债务人提交出庭登记，且债务人已不再占有财产。因此这没有问题。我需要知道的是，而且我不知道您是否就此与 Claiborn 律师或其他任何人进行过交谈，我并不是说您应当进行过交谈——\n\n您需要多长时间提交费用申请？BALDIGA 律师：关于这一点，法官阁下，我尚未进行讨论，但我已对此作了相当多的思考。在最近几次听证会上，法院的一项意见——我认为所有人都认为很有道理——是您所不愿看到的是让人们无谓地投入大量工作。我认为同样适用于此处——提交费用申请会有适当的时间和场合。鉴于准许费用的标准，特别是作为遗产律师，其关键在于您的工作最终产生了什么结果？我认为法院或任何当事人在今天都将很难作出评估。例如，在您指定受托人的裁定备忘录中，您引用了我们促成的两件事。其中之一是我们提交了一项计划。该计划是夭折，还是最终成为本案获确认计划的基础，时间会给出答案。我认为今天不可能评估这一点，或许在一段时间内也无法评估。第二，是那艘船。我们不知道关于该船的整个问题将如何发展。不仅在程序上如此，而且它是否会成为遗产的一部分？是自愿的还是依据法院决定？是否属于交易的一部分？\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 报告与转录服务公司）\n\n我们对自己所做的工作感到自豪，对所做的工作感到非常自豪。对我们而言，本案并未以我们原本预期的方式结束，但我认为法院，特别是受托人、Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）、替代律师以及委员会，在此处尘埃落定后，都将能够凭借事后回顾来评估我们工作的价值。因此，我——而且整理一份费用申请需要大量工作。今天提交费用申请的另一个问题是，在不引发特权和保密问题的情况下，很难比我刚才所说的内容说得更多。随着证据开示的进行，这些问题会随时间而减轻。因此，我请求，鉴于我再次确认，在没有费用申请的情况下资金不会流失，我们目前暂缓处理此事。届时任何一方均可向法院或向我表示，嘿，我认为我们需要开始推进此事。但我只是不认为今天就是适当时候。我认为随着案件进展，何时适宜将变得更加明显。法院：好的。我想听取其他人对该问题的意见。好吗？BALDIGA 律师：当然。法院：但我明白您的观点。谢谢。\n\n好的。还有任何人——BALDIGA 律师：法官阁下，目前我还有其他事项吗？法院：请再说一遍？BALDIGA 律师：目前还有其他事项——法院：我目前没有问题。我明白您的立场是什么。我想听听其他当事人对此有何看法。BALDIGA 律师：我暂时退到一边。法院：好的。谢谢。我想知道其他当事人如何看待 Baldiga 先生的建议，即目前将准许退出代理的动议，但目前无需提交费用申请？CLAIBORN 女士：法官阁下，我是代表 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）的 Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）。我认为 Baldiga 律师就程序以及我们在本案中所处阶段提出了一些公允且有效的观点。或许最容易的做法是设定一个提醒期限，例如四至六个月后，我们可以重新审视该问题、本案所处阶段，以及届时是否适宜提交费用申请。因为正如 Baldiga 律师指出的，由于我们不了解全部事实，也远未接近终点，目前难以评估所提供服务对遗产的价值。法院：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望发言吗？DESPINS 先生：法官阁下，受托人同意 Baldiga 先生的提议。法院：好的。谢谢。Friedman 先生？FRIEDMAN 先生：我是来自 O'Melveny & Myers（奥美律师事务所）的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。PAX（PAX）同意这是合理的推进方式。法院：好的。谢谢。GOLDMAN 先生：法官阁下，我是代表委员会的 Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼）。我们对美国受托人提出的建议没有异议。法院：以及 Baldiga 先生的建议？GOLDMAN 先生：正确。法院：是的。谢谢。还有其他人希望发言吗？（无可听见的回应）法院：好的。那么，Baldiga 先生，代表 Brown Rudnick 提交的律师退出代理动议，以及显然由所有提交出庭登记的 Brown Rudnick 个人在本案中提交的律师退出代理动议，均获准。并且目前无需提交费用\n\n申请。因此，该命令可能只需作出某种形式的电子命令，载明基于记录中所述理由，退出代理动议获准，并且法院将就 Brown Rudnick 提交费用申请作出进一步命令。您认为这有道理吗？BALDIGA 律师：有，法官阁下。谢谢。法院：好的。好吧。我很遗憾看到您离开。但这是一个不寻常的案件。我理解您和贵所对当事人所采取的立场，所有与本案密切相关的当事人，以及新近参与本案的当事人，都同意您的立场，因此目前我没有理由认为此事应朝任何其他方向推进。BALDIGA 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。BALDIGA 律师：我可以告退吗？法院：可以。BALDIGA 律师：好的。法院：好的。BALDIGA 律师：很好。谢谢，法官阁下。法院：好的。非常感谢。好。因此，律师退出代理动议获准，并将作出命令，但最有可能只是电子命令。好吗？因此，这是 ECF 543。2 好。请大家给我一点时间，然后我们将转入其余事项。（暂停）法院：现在，关于日程表上的其余事项，我相信大家对于应如何推进、应按何种顺序处理，都有自己的想法。我也有我认为应当如何推进的想法。Despins 先生，关于我们今天接下来应处理什么，您的立场是什么？DESPINS 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。非常简要地说，首先我想指出，在听证会结束时，我们有很多——不是很多——但有若干程序性事项需要处理。法院：那么您现在想处理这些事项吗？我们说的是自案件开始以来债务人尚未处理的动议，还是您——DESPINS 先生：不是。但例如，债权申报截止日期命令。这项——我现在不想处理，因为它实际上比最初设想的更为复杂。法院：好的。DESPINS 先生：因此，债权申报截止日期命令是其中之一。此外，我们还希望法院——所以我不会\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 20 of 158\n\n处理所有这些事项——但希望在本案中定期安排状态会议。法院：可以。DESPINS 先生：诸如此类的事项。法院：我想说一件实际上与您无关的事——或者可能有关——Baldiga 先生作为律师及其律所，在一段时间前提交了数项动议，但由于债务人决定撤回融资动议后案件情势发生变化，这些动议从未得到解决。仍有尚未处理的动议——我们稍后可以讨论——但委员会也有尚未处理的聘用专业人士申请。有许多事项我们也许会在状态会议上或今天稍后处理，但我们将以某种方式解决它们。我想知道，您作为受托人是否将——您知道——接替处理其中任何尚未裁决的动议，例如，它们是——债务人曾经——我们曾就一名财务顾问举行证据听证会。您知道，在所有这些情况发生、所有事情改变、撤回融资的动议提出之前，我正准备作出裁决。您知道，该动议被撤回了。然后我认为现实情况是，至少如果 Brown Rudnick 继续留在本案中，他们将不再继续推进该动议。我完全不知道您是否会这样做。但无论如何，我们稍后可以讨论。关于我们今天所处的阶段——DESPINS 先生：是。法院：——我的意思是，最重要的事项——一切都很重要，但是——包括债权申报截止日期命令——而且我确实看过——我必须说我没有细查，但我看过您提交的附有修订标记等内容的拟议命令，我对此有一些想法，但没有实质性问题。好吗？关于是否——因此，今天必须作出决定的事项是——所有事项都必须——必须得到处理——但正如我们在上次听证会上所知，我知道因为您提交了撤销动议，已有大量证据开示送达给您。因此我明白这一点。Henzy 先生正在推进其免除判决书动议。数方当事人已对此提出异议。我对该动议以及我们都需要讨论的程序存有一些顾虑。然后您——然后是 Paul Hastings（保尔·黑斯廷斯）律师事务所的聘任以及——以及当地律师的聘任。DESPINS 先生：正确。还有——但我不确定您是否会处理该事项——您曾要求 Zeisler 律师事务所和美国受托人就一些问题提交书面陈述。\n\n争议。法庭：是。DESPINS 律师：我们没有参与其中——法庭：没有。DESPINS 律师：——所以我不知道目前进展如何。法庭：那件事——我相信接下来我们就要处理那件事。DESPINS 律师：好的。法庭：好的。但我们先处理所谓的程序性事项，尽管它最终会产生实质性影响。DESPINS 律师：是。法庭：但愿如此。DESPINS 律师：从某种意义上说，有很多——有很多事项需要处理——法庭：是。DESPINS 律师：——例如，债权申报截止日期，因您要求我们这样做，我们确实对其作了标注。法庭：对。DESPINS 律师：这听起来可能很奇怪，但我认为，出于与 Genever（热内韦尔）案有关的原因，我们不应继续处理该事项。这里面有整件事——法庭：哦，好的。DESPINS 律师：——我想向法官阁下说明。法庭：好的。DESPINS 律师：——因此我们将在听证会结束时处理此事——法庭：好的。没问题。DESPINS 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。好的。那么，Claiborn 律师（克莱伯恩律师）和 Henzy 律师（亨齐律师），在上次听证会上，我确实要求你们二位——而且我知道你们已就 327(a) 是否适用于 Zeisler & Zeisler（赛斯勒及赛斯勒律师事务所），以及由于同时代理本案三方当事人是否存在实际利益冲突这一问题提交了书面意见。但在讨论该问题之前，我不明白另一位已提交出庭代理声明的律师，Henzy 律师，他将扮演什么角色，以及为什么需要另一位律师？HENZY 律师：法官阁下，我只在发言时摘下口罩。法庭：请便。HENZY 律师：对此我很抱歉。我只是——据我理解，法官阁下，在 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）退出与——我认为这对 Baldiga 先生（巴尔迪加先生）的陈述没有任何影响——债务人之间存在这么一段时期——据告知——我并未参与其中，但债务人作出了积极决定，要终止——法庭：这是我们上周从 Brown Rudnick 的某人那里得知的。我不记得是谁，所以抱歉。HENZY 律师：当然，在不考虑任何《破产法典》或《破产规则》问题的前提下，根据《职业行为规则》，如果委托人终止委托律师，该律师在职业伦理上被禁止继续代理该委托人。因此，在 Brown Rudnick 不再代理——再次强调，暂且不谈《破产法典》、《破产规则》以及需要退出代理的问题——但我可以理解他们采取不再代理债务人的立场，而我的律师事务所当时尚未受债务人聘请，Mitchell 律师（米切尔律师）出庭确实只是为了——我认为是在法官阁下于 July 8 就美国受托人申请任命 Despins 先生为受托人所举行的听证会上——载入记录，表明债务人实际上反对任命 Despins 先生为受托人。我的记忆是，这件事是通过提交某种信函而非通常会看到的正式诉状完成的。\n\n但我相信，债务人无意让 Mitchell 律师在法庭上代理他。这就是他聘请——他聘请我们所的原因。法庭：那么，Mitchell 先生会撤回其出庭代理声明吗？HENZY 律师：是的，我当然会与债务人及 Mitchell 先生讨论此事。法庭：因为 Mitchell 先生在信中说，他了解破产法院的所有规则，但他却提交了这封信。因此，我——我认为本庭不应有两名律师代理债务人。我看不出有此必要。而且我不——Mitchell 先生声称他了解，但显然并不了解这里的运作方式。因此，我认为 Mitchell 先生撤回其出庭代理声明将是明智之举。HENZY 律师：明白，法官阁下。法庭：好的。HENZY 律师：我们会处理妥当。法庭：好的。好的。现在，转向 327(a) 问题，也包括 Claiborn 律师，而且，你知道，Henzy 律师，当你说这属于明确法条规定时，我回去查了一下。当然，这其实并不是明确法条规定。\n\nCollier's（科利尔破产法论著）中有一处写道——而且没有引用任何判例——非占有财产债务人不适用 327(a)。随后，援引该命题、即非占有财产债务人不适用 327(a) 的判例，又援引了 Collier's。因此，这实际上非常有意思，因为你会认为现有材料应当比实际更多。援引该命题的判例称，你不占有财产，因此该章——抱歉——因此 327(a) 不适用，均依赖于 Collier's 中的一句话，这对我而言相当有意思。但无论如何，关于本案的状态，Collier's 中还有其他同样有意思的内容。Claiborn 律师，你的动议谈到债务人是代表破产财产行事，还是以其个人身份行事，以及这与 327(a) 是否应适用有关。那么，目前从美国受托人的立场来看，情况如何？CLAIBORN 律师：法官阁下，我认为与我们提交书面意见时相比，我们没有更多进展；但债务人由 Zeisler 律师事务所提交的书面意见确实承认，当事人之间已签署利益冲突豁免文件。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与庭审速记服务公司）\n\n法庭书记员：Claiborn 律师，您的声音有点低。法庭：她听不见——是的。您得稍微大声一点。她听不见您。抱歉。CLAIBORN 律师：实际上我说得很大声，但我再试一次。我想请法庭注意，Zeisler 律师事务所在 ECF 620 提交的书面意见中陈述，债务人、HK International（HK 国际公司）与 Guo 女士（郭女士）之间已签署利益冲突豁免文件。我们没有见过这些利益冲突豁免文件，也未参与债务人、HK、Guo 女士与 Zeisler 律师事务所之间可能进行过的任何讨论。因此，截至目前，我们的分析与我们在 July 27th 提交书面意见时相比，没有任何进一步进展。因此，从我们的观点来看，Zeisler 律师事务所是否必须遵守第 327(a) 条，在很大程度上取决于债务人的目标是什么，以及债务人正在做什么。作为其中一部分，这也与他们就债务人、HK 及 Guo 女士这三个不同当事人所扮演的角色密切相关。法庭：好的。因此，你们——你们不知道 327(a) 是否适用？还是说，由于你们不知道他们扮演什么角色，因此无法确定？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 28 of 158\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：正确。法庭：好的。还有其他人希望就利益冲突问题发表意见吗？关于 327(a) 问题，我必须再次指出，Collier's 只用一句话说它不适用于非占有财产债务人。它仅此而已。但该问题，你知道，可能会根据本案进展持续被提出，因为——如果我认定 327(a) 目前不适用，并不意味着我不能在其他时候认定 327(a) 不适用。但这还不涉及这样一个事实：Zeisler 律师事务所目前代理 Kwok 先生（郭文贵先生）、HK International 及 Guo 女士，并且称，因为受托人现已自动替代 HK 在针对 Kwok 先生提起的对抗程序中成为当事人，所以不存在利益冲突。你同意这一点吗？CLAIBORN 律师：我认为事情并非如此简单，法官阁下。法庭：不过那是他们的论点。CLAIBORN 律师：正确。法庭：好的。那么你怎么认为？CLAIBORN 律师：法官阁下，美国受托人——我们提交的书面意见列出了各个不同司法辖区作出的意见，显然不包括本辖区，涉及 327 的适用性；我认为，有观点支持这样一种看法，即取决于律师在做什么以及其在案件中实际扮演什么角色，他们受 327 约束。在债务人今天提出债务人的 Rule 60(b) 动议时，其思路和目标是认为该受托人任命无效，因为 Despins 受托人不符合所要求的无利害关系人身份，在此范围内，该立场是为了破产财产的表面利益而采取和主张的。因此，如果这确实是债务人的目的和目标，则可以作出一种解释，即 327(a) 事实上适用于 Zeisler。\n\n法庭：好的。Henzy 律师？HENZY 律师：关于这两点，法官阁下，我——我不记得我所援引的关于 327(a) 问题的所有判例——我确知其中有数个援引了 Collier's，但我不确定是否全部如此。我找不到任何相反的判例，即要求非占有财产债务人必须聘请——法庭：我认为你是对的。我也找不到。我查过了。我同意你的看法。我不——而且我认为那些判例对 Collier's 的援引就是全部依据。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 30 of 158\n\n还有其他判例——还有其他关于你是否可以根据 330 获得报酬的问题。那是不同的问题。HENZY 律师：是。是。我认为最高法院——法庭：但我同意。关于 327(a)，没有任何规定表明非占有财产债务人的律师必须遵守 327(a)。我没有找到任何规定。然后唯一的问题是，你是否必须披露你的报酬。你披露了你的报酬。但我不明白，从你的角度而言，“常青预付聘金”是什么意思。我想我知道是什么意思，但我假定这意味着，当你的十万美元用完时，你又会得到另一笔——它是常青的，始终繁茂，永不失去它的——HENZY 律师：它始终——始终繁茂。法庭：始终繁茂。HENZY 律师：是的，始终繁茂。法庭：因此，你——你用掉十万美元——我只是说——然后你又得到十万美元。HENZY 律师：或者在该计费期间所用的任何金额。是。法庭：好的。那么——HENZY 律师：因此，假设我们一个月计费 $10,000，我们会向委托人开具 $10,000 的账单。我们会从预付聘金中提取 $10,000，而委托人有义务补足预付聘金。法庭：好的。HENZY 律师：这就是这个安排的含义。法庭：那么——法庭将如何知道你的预付聘金——已经——即将不再繁茂并需要补足？HENZY 律师：我不知道法庭会知道这一点。我不知道根据规则法庭是否需要知道这一点。我想他们并不——我只是理论上说，举一个假设，如果——如果在那种情形下，预付聘金不再繁茂，法庭可能获知此事的方式是，律师可能会以委托人——法庭：好的。HENZY 律师：——未履行其义务为由提交退出代理的动议。法庭：这有可能。但是，再说一次，债务人的儿子向你们提供了十万美元，对吗？HENZY 律师：是。这是正确的。法庭：好的。那么，债务人的儿子——你\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n代理债务人、债务人的女儿以及声称——亨齐先生（Mr. Henzy）：称其拥有该船的实体。法庭：——其为该船登记所有人的实体，而现在——现在您又从债务人的儿子那里收钱？亨齐先生：是。法庭：好的。您不认为其中任何一点构成利益冲突吗？亨齐先生：我不认为其中任何一点构成不可放弃的利益冲突，除此以外——法庭：嗯，根据规则1.7，您还必须满足其他条件。这不仅仅是您取得了一份书面的知情同意放弃书。共有四项条件。即您合理相信自己能够提供胜任且勤勉的代理。我并不是说您不能。您可能相信自己能够做到。其他人可能不同意您的看法，但您可能合理地相信自己能够做到。该代理并未被法律禁止。嗯，如果如克莱伯恩律师（Attorney Claiborn）所主张的那样，《破产法典》的有关条款可能适用，我不确定是否如此。亨齐先生：我希望回头讨论这一点。法庭：是的。我们会回头讨论这一点。该代理并不涉及由律师在同一诉讼或法庭前其他程序中所代理的一名客户向另一名客户提出请求权。\n\n菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n\n由一名客户针对另一名由该律师代理的客户提出请求权。因此，我们现在谈论的不仅仅是这个对抗程序，对吧？我们谈论的是整个案件，即第11章案件。其中，该实体——弗里德曼先生（Mr. Friedman）在上次听证时提醒了我，因为我记不起向破产财产出借资金的实体——我相信也是一个由儿子控制的实体，而现在支付您费用的，我猜不是通过某个实体，而是由他本人支付。您的披露文件是这么说的，对吗？亨齐先生：是。法庭：这笔钱直接来自儿子，而非任何其他实体？亨齐先生：是。法庭：好的，好的。因此，根据规则1.7，您必须满足四项条件，而不仅仅是——不仅仅是放弃利益冲突。外面有大量判例——我并不是说我们今天要逐一审查它们，好吗——但有大量破产法官的判例称，您可以主张所有这些事项，但这并不意味着该利益冲突确实可以放弃。仅仅因为您让他们签署了一封称其放弃利益冲突的信，并不意味着它实际上可以放弃。\n\n菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司\n\n这就是您面临的问题——或者说，我认为您面临的问题之一。\n\n鉴于在本案提交之前本庭之外发生的事情，可能有大量信息会成为本案中相反事实的依据，即——他们全都是一体的。有人可能会主张，您对他们所有人的代理恰恰支持了他们全都是一体这一点，因为德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）在我们上次出庭时说过——他之后可能会进一步补充此事——就纽约破产案件而言，指令来自郭文贵先生（Mr. Kwok），而非公司实体。\n\n而且，您知道，弗里德曼先生的文件，如您所知，亨齐先生，我相信您已经读过，详细列出了本庭之外已经作出的所有认定。\n\n因此，弗里德曼先生说，您知道，法官，您可能需要考虑这一点，因为这可能只是纽约当时发生之事的延续，即通过这一层层交织的问题网络，我们只是继续做同样的事情，只不过换了一个法院。\n\n我感到困难的是，我看不出您如何能够代理那三个实体，现在又由儿子支付费用，同时称您在规则1.7下不存在同时利益冲突，这与327(a)问题不同。好吗？我不是——我是说，即使我同意您认为327(a)不适用的观点，而且我认为您可能是对的——尽管我听到了克莱伯恩律师的论点。不过，我认为其中的论点是，当该问题显然已经出现时，就必须提出该问题。我不——我不认为她——她的办公室目前能够证明这个问题，即您实际上——您确实是在代理破产财产，因为在这一点上我也不确定我是否同意这一点。显然，正如您所知，这很复杂，而且已经持续很长时间。因此，我就是看不出这怎么会不是利益冲突。破产财产中存在一些请求权，而这些请求权将会——您将如何在不使其利益重叠和／或冲突的情况下，向郭先生本人、HK International（HK国际）以及郭梅女士（Ms. Guo）本人提供意见？这些利益可以并且很可能会发生重叠和／或冲突。亨齐先生：那么，我想先提出几点初步意见，法官阁下。法庭：是。亨齐先生：当然，法院有权在涉及其法院程序时执行职业行为规则。当然，我绝不会以任何方式、形式或程度对此提出质疑。\n\n菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司\n\n但是，主要的是——首先，由律师自行注意并处理其自身的利益冲突，并确保其遵守职业行为规则。再次，如果某件事提交到法庭面前，而法庭认定那构成利益冲突，法庭当然有权，而且可能有义务采取行动。\n\n第二巡回法院（Second Circuit）表示，法院应当在一定程度上尊重客户选择律师，因为人们普遍公认有权聘请律师，并聘请其自行选择的律师。我认为规则1.7(a)并未承认、涉及或处理这一点。\n\n就1.7(a)(1)而言，目前不存在对立。我们代理HK International，我认为——还有郭梅女士。我们最终可能会在本案中就其他事项代理他们，但主要地，而且我不想说几乎完全地，一直都是就Lady May号（Lady May）一事。\n\n现在，我明白我们已在本案中提交出庭代理声明——而且理论上，除Lady May号以外，可能出现他们彼此对立的问题——但迄今为止，我们为那两方——那两方——即该个人和该实体所做的一切，都是就Lady May号而言。我认为这通常被承认，法官阁下，\n\n即在不存在现有同时利益冲突的情况下——\n\n菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司\n\n而这正是规则1.7所说的，即存在同时利益冲突——未来某个时候可能发生利益冲突这一事实，并不使律师丧失代理资格，而您可能必须处理该问题。这当然是我们的做法，我认为也是大多数律所的做法，即——在任何共同代理中——告知客户，如果您们最终彼此对立，我们将不得不处理该问题，而这可能会给您们带来后果。我们可能必须辞去对其中一方、双方或全部三方的代理，情况是——但在发生该同时利益冲突之前，您并不知道这一点，届时您必须处理它。就1.7(a)(2)而言，实际上是同一主题，不存在——法庭：不过我不是在谈(a)。我在谈(b)。亨齐先生：我会——我会谈到(b)，因为(b)在(a)之后。它是——法庭：是，但它写的是“尽管如此”。亨齐先生：但您不会进入(b)——如果不存在同时利益冲突，您就不会进入(b)。法庭：好的。请继续。亨齐先生：(b)是指，尽管根据(a)款存在同时利益冲突。律师可以代理客户，是的，但除非您不符合(a)，否则您不会进入(b)。\n\n菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司\n\n法庭：那么您如何不符合——您又如何满足(a)(1)？您代理HK和郭先生。该船——受托人希望该船成为破产财产。亨齐先生：是。法庭：根据您的说法，HK对该船具有与郭先生不同的利益。那么，他们目前怎么会——怎么会并非彼此直接对立？亨齐先生：嗯，郭先生不再是该对抗程序的一方——法庭：我说的不是这个。亨齐先生：——而且没有——法庭：我不在乎他是否是该对抗程序的一方。他就该船而言仍然具有对立利益，因为他——因为他们仍将不得不——如果德斯平斯先生成功，对吧，成功主张该船是破产财产，那么这就是——那么这对您的客户和HK而言就是对立利益，因为届时HK不拥有该船，而债务人拥有。它们怎么会不是——它们怎么会不是——这怎么会不是对立的？亨齐先生：如果法庭裁定——那当然会对HK不利。法庭：对。而您代理HK和\n\n债务人。亨齐先生：是。但我不确定我同意您的看法。郭先生的立场是HK拥有该船，因此他们并不对立。他不认为自己拥有该船。他不认为该船是破产财产的一部分。我将在记录中明确无误地这样说。因此，如果他们采取相同立场，我看不出他们如何能够对立。我认为他——他会——我知道他会考虑不参与那场争议。那场争议大概是受托人与HK International之间的争议。但我不——郭先生——再次，我将在记录中这样说，他不会——我想，如果有人想传唤他作为证人或类似情况，他可能会参与，但他不会采取立场。那将是受托人与HK International之间的争议，因此不存在对立，法官阁下。法庭：我不同意您的看法，但请继续。亨齐先生：好的。正如您所说，当谈到(b)时，我们确实相信我们能够向每位客户提供胜任、勤勉的代理。我不担心我们会代表HK International有所保留，或船舶相关情况会以任何方式影响我们对郭先生的代理。关于(b)(2)，327问题，我们同样可以进一步讨论。我已在文件中指出这一点——我不想赘述，郭先生已不再是该对抗程序的一方。我相信德斯平斯先生在上次听证时说过这一点。他在该——该对抗程序中自动被替代为当事人。我引用了规则和判例，它们表明，在任命受托人后，他自动替代债务人成为该诉讼中的当事人。三位客户均已给予同意。我们确实建议他们，如有意愿，可咨询其他律师，他们已书面确认其同意。因此，即使假定在1.7(a)下存在同时利益冲突——而且，法官阁下，如您所言，本案在某个时候可能确实出现同时利益冲突。我认为今天并不存在——某个时候可能出现同时利益冲突。如果确实出现，那么根据职业责任规则，我们将负有职业责任来处理该问题。再次，通常在共同代理时，您会告知客户，如果出现同时利益冲突，我们可能需要退出代理或以其他方式处理。但如果且当利益冲突——同时利益冲突\n\n菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司\n\n如发生该等情形，我们将——我们将必须予以处理。并且客户已获告知此事。再次，他们已——他们已给予同意。法院：嗯，我们——我不知道他们如何给予同意。我的意思是，您本可以只是说“我同意”。我不知道他们说了什么。我知道您说他们说了什么，但仅仅说“我同意”并不意味着那是——那是一项可放弃的利益冲突——亨齐先生（Mr. Henzy）：嗯，唯一的——法院：——因为您必须知道他们同意的是什么。亨齐先生：根据本规则，唯一不可放弃的利益冲突是我们在同一诉讼中代理两方当事人。由于郭先生（Mr. Kwok）不再是对抗程序的当事人，我认为我们并未在同一诉讼中代理两方当事人。因此，他们可以同意——法院：但这不仅仅是关于该诉讼——您一直聚焦于对抗程序的问题——而是本案。是本案。郭先生仍在本案中。无论他是否——不再占有财产，这仍然是他的案件。他不再占有财产，并不意味着这件事就消失了。这仍然是本案中的一个问题。您知道，说德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）在该对抗程序中取代郭先生的地位，但在任何第523条对抗程序中却不如此，这未免太方便了。我理解该论点。我并非——我理解该论点。但这并不意味着——您刚刚存在利益冲突，然后它并不——它就这样——消失了。它不再存在了。这不是其运作方式。如我认为我们上次谈到的那样，您知道，您须按客户现状接受客户。您知道，您可以主张您目前不存在利益冲突，但当事人之间存在利益冲突。这里存在一些问题。亨齐先生：我不——我看不出目前当事人之间何处彼此直接对立。法院：嗯，您可能看不出来，但这并不意味着它不存在。亨齐先生：但是如果——法院：问题在于本案以及本案之前的案件中，曾就这一——这些家族成员作出许多、许多认定——关系密切——顺便说一句，他们都是内部人，所以让我们——我们也没有提出这一点。他们都是内部人。亨齐先生：没有一项在您面前，法官阁下。法院：不，不，不。我说的是——亨齐先生：没有一项在您面前。法院：不，不，不。我说的是目前在本案中。郭女士（Ms. Guo）是郭先生的内部人。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n1　亨齐先生：\n是。\n2　法院：\n向您支付十万美元的儿子\n3　是郭先生的内部人。HK\n4　International（HK国际）可能是，也可能不是郭先生的内部人，但\n5　很接近。\n6　亨齐先生：\n好的。\n7　法院：\n好的？\n那么这怎么会不是利益冲突？\n8　亨齐先生：\n因为他们并不对立——他们\n9　并非彼此直接对立。法官阁下，如果——\n10　法院：\n如果德斯平斯先生现在起诉郭女士\n11　——\n12　亨齐先生：\n是。\n13　法院：\n——并称她收到了无论她\n14　收到的任何款项——我是在——我是在举例。她在提交申请前\n15　90天收到了郭先生支付的十万美元，\n16　那么他们怎么会不是对立的？\n17　亨齐先生：\n我认为德斯平斯先生和郭女士\n18　会是对立的。\n19　法院：\n不。因为这笔钱必须\n20　从郭先生那里返还，而且郭先生——您必须——您一直——\n21　亨齐先生：\n如果郭女士——如果郭女士因——\n22　法院：\n什么——您不会——\n23　您会代表她提出抗辩吗？她的\n24　抗辩是什么？\n25　亨齐先生：\n请稍等。假定——我很抱歉，法官\n\n阁下。法院：不，没关系。没关系。亨齐先生：不，不，那不可以。我很抱歉。法院：没关系。亨齐先生：如果德斯平斯先生因优先受偿起诉郭女士，我认为这就是您所设想的情形，或者因任何事由，因任何——法院：因任何事由。亨齐先生：——那么我认为该笔款项将由郭女士返还，而不是由郭先生——法院：但她的抗辩是什么？她会有抗辩。她不会就这样交出来。如果可以，她今天就可以交出来。亨齐先生：我不知道——法院：您将如何代理她？亨齐先生：我不知道德斯平斯先生对她提出的是什么请求，因此我不——法院：我明白。亨齐先生：——我不知道她的抗辩会是什么。这是可能的。我推测他会提出某项请求，我不知道那会是什么，而该请求会造成某种直接对立，在此情形下我们将必须处理此事。但目前并不存在。法院：好的。\n\n1　亨齐先生：\n法官阁下，这可能在未来某个时候存在，\n2　但目前并不存在。并且就第1.7(a)\n3　项分析而言，存在同时利益冲突。\n4　目前，是否存在利益冲突？如果存在利益冲突——并且\n5　规则明确设想——我认为是在\n6　第1.7条的评注中，其涉及共同代理——\n7　即利益冲突——利益冲突可能在未来发生。并且\n8　如果发生，律师负有处理\n9　该问题的伦理责任。\n10　但是目前，郭女士尚未被德斯平斯先生\n11　就任何事项起诉。她可能因某事被他起诉，而\n12　无论该诉讼为何，可能会或可能不会造成——使郭\n13　女士和郭先生处于直接对立的地位。但我——\n14　但我不知道。我今天不可能知道这一点。\n15　法院：\n嗯，顺便说一下，(a)并未规定\n16　必须存在一宗诉讼。\n17　亨齐先生：\n哦，不。任何——任何不利\n18　——\n19　法院：\n所以它没有这样规定。\n20　亨齐先生：\n不。任何——我只是——我是在\n21　回应您的——\n22　法院：\n(b)谈到这一点，而不是(a)。\n23　亨齐先生：\n我是在回应法官阁下关于\n24　如果发生什么情况的评论——\n25　法院：\n我明白。所以我要说的是，\n\n(a)中不必存在一宗诉讼。问题在于，您代理一名客户将与另一名客户直接对立。亨齐先生：而我——法院：不必存在诉讼才会有该问题。亨齐先生：而且目前我看不出郭女士和郭先生如何彼此直接对立——法院：好的。亨齐先生：——在任何事项上。我看不出HK International和郭先生在任何事项上如何彼此直接对立。再次，德斯平斯先生将提出他提出的任何请求，我们将——我们将据此继续，或者针对他提出的任何请求采取应对。法院：好的。德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，我能否就此陈述两分钟？法院：可以。可以，请。德斯平斯先生：不是关于327。我对此没有看法。但就利益冲突是否可放弃的问题而言，第521条，债务人的义务，第521(a)(3)条，如果指定了受托人，债务人有义务在必要范围内与受托人合作，以使受托人能够履行受托人的职责。(a)(4)项，如果有受托人在任，他们必须交出全部财产，等等。当然，他们的观点是，哦，您知道，他是亿万富翁，但他没有资产，因此，我们站在V的同一方。但债务人负有的该项——法定义务目前即已存在。并且您知道，18 U.S.C.中有与履行这些义务相关的刑事条款。因此，我——因此，尽管存在同意，我不太确定这是否属于可放弃的利益冲突，因为债务人负有法定义务须履行某些事项，而这些事项与他们所代理的另一方当事人直接冲突。谢谢您，法官阁下。法院：谢谢。德斯平斯先生：还有，顺便说一句，我想提及他们所说由儿子支付的那张表，他们还勾选了债务人将——可能在未来支付的方框。我想根据第549条明确说明，我们保留一切权利。如果债务人正在支付Zeisler（蔡斯勒），我不希望他们认为，由于他们勾选了该方框，我们不知何故对此视而不见。我看不出债务人在案件进行期间如何正在——会向他们付款。谢谢您，法官阁下。法院：谢谢。亨齐先生：我非常确定德斯平斯先生\n\n不会对任何事情视而不见，法官阁下。法院：但债务人就费用作出未来付款确实是个好观点。我认为那将极具问题。亨齐先生：法官阁下，债务人不会作出任何付款，至少不会从任何——德斯平斯先生提及第549条以及属于破产财团财产的任何财产中付款。并且我们不会——我们不会接受任何此类付款，当然无论如何不会在明知的情况下接受。因此，我再次说明，法官阁下，债务人——因此债务人在第521条下负有义务，但我看不出这如何——而且德斯平斯先生已在公司治理动议中提出了一些建议，但我仍然看不出目前存在任何直接对立——任何人彼此直接对立。再次，未来可能发生某事，从而存在对立。唯一的利益冲突——规则明确规定，唯一不可放弃的利益冲突是(b)(3)。因此，我们可能认为某一客户不应——法院：顺便说一句，我不确定这是否正确。我的意思是，这并非——判例法并不完全支持这一点。我理解这是您的论点。但何时——何处——您依据什么权威认为唯一不可放弃的是(b)(3)？亨齐先生：我认为这是该规则的明确文义\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 49 of 158\n\n。即——除非法律禁止，这又回到了第327(a)条的问题。法院：即(2)。是。亨齐先生：好的。但我不知道有任何法律禁止——法院：嗯，实际上有很多——信不信由您，我见过一些判例法，即使知情同意是书面作出的，破产法院仍认定无论该同意中写了什么，这都不是可放弃的利益冲突。好的？全国各地都有判例，而且还有近期判例谈到，您知道，这——即——您知道，您可以放弃——您可以说任何您想说的并放弃它，但仅因为您这样说，并不意味着它可执行且可放弃。亨齐先生：是，我——法院：而在此时，您知道，我不确定它是否如此。但请继续。亨齐先生：我想我不理解这一点。法院：嗯——亨齐先生：如果不存在法律禁止，且并非彼此提出的请求——法院：因为它影响整个破产财团。这不仅仅是关于HK International起诉郭先生的那一项对抗程序。这是德斯平斯先生所说的以及更多问题。债务人仍然——他可能是不再占有财产的债务人，但他仍然负有破产法规定的义务。\n\n他自愿来到本法院，并使自己受本法院管辖。随之而来，您知道，他获得所有利益，但也承担负担。他必须与受托人合作，并向受托人交出其所有——破产财团的全部财产，无论他对任何——任何一项——任何财产享有何种衡平或法定权益，无论是何物，无论是不动产、动产，还是其他任何财产。而当存在——\n\n我们仍未谈及HK就该船只认证所采取的行动问题。这似乎暂时被搁置了。但托管账户中有$37 million，德斯平斯先生将以某种方式主张，该笔款项或该船只属于破产财团。而该笔款项——\n\n现在弗里德曼先生（Mr. Friedman）将不得不再次提醒我，提供该37 million资金的是Golden Spring（金泉）还是其他人？\n\n亨齐先生（Mr. Henzy）：但是，法官大人，有几点。法庭（THE COURT）：不。不过等一下。先让我把我的思路说完，然后我会再听你说。但关键是，Kwok先生（Ho Wan Kwok，郭文贵）会主张某种不同的说法——Kwok先生怎么会——他是否——他会说，哦，是的，继续吧，HK，把船交给破产财产，还是不交？继续吧，先生——托管代理人。把那 $37——谁会就此争辩？\n\n亨齐先生：不是Kwok先生。\n\n法庭：那么，谁会就此争辩？HK International（HK国际公司）。而你代表HK International和Kwok先生。\n\n亨齐先生：而且Kwok先生根本不会就此争辩。\n\n法庭：他不会就此争辩。\n\n亨齐先生：不会。\n\n法庭：那么我今天就可以认定——我可以裁定该船属于破产财产，而Kwok先生不会就此争辩？\n\n亨齐先生：Kwok先生不参与这场争议。\n\n法庭：他不会争辩？\n\n亨齐先生：他会——\n\n法庭：那么你将在这场争议中代表HK International？\n\n亨齐先生：他不参与这场争议。这场争议现在是Despins先生（Mr. Despins）与HK International之间的争议。这不是Kwok先生的争议。\n\n法庭：好。那么托管中的 $37 million 呢？\n\n亨齐先生：同样的回答，那不是Kwok先生的争议。那是HK International的争议。而且，先生——我甚至不确定这是否构成争议。法庭：那么，你怎么能在HK International与破产财产之间的争议中代表HK International，而该破产财产是你当事人的破产财产？亨齐先生：但是，破产财产不是我的当事人。最高法院在Baker Botts判决中这样说，而且——法庭：是的。但破产财产是你当事人的责任。亨齐先生：不是。法庭：是的。根据521，是的。亨齐先生：不是。我认为那是错误的。法庭：是。他必须移交。他必须合作并予以移交。亨齐先生：他有责任——法庭：那么他现在会合作并说，是的，你知道吗，HK International实际上并不拥有该船。根据纽约州法院，我拥有。因此你们为什么不现在就把它移交到这里？这就是他要如何合作吗？那么，他这样说之后，又让HK说，不，我是——我是该船的登记所有人，这怎么说得通？\n\n亨齐先生：所以他——他在521项下有其义务，但这并不意味着——521并不意味着他必须说——上证人席并说某事是真实的，而他并不相信其真实。因此，如果Despins先生在推进该诉讼，或者该诉讼正在被推进，而Kwok先生被传唤上证人席，Despins先生问：“你拥有该船，这是真的吗？”而Kwok先生说：“不。”这并不——他并未违反《破产法》521项下的义务。他是在作如实证言。所以我并非——法庭：嗯，是否真实并不由Kwok先生决定。这就是关键。否则我们为什么在这里？\n\n亨齐先生：哦。我同意您的看法。但他有义务作如实证言。\n\n法庭：他有义务作证。\n\n亨齐先生：作如实——\n\n法庭：由他决定该证言是否真实。\n\n亨齐先生：嗯，但是——但是，没有人会说，嗯，Kwok先生，你相信你不拥有该船吗？是的，我相信我不拥有该船。嗯，你不能作出那个回答。你必须作证称你确实拥有该船，因为521规定你必须作证——\n\n法庭：没有人会提出这种说法——没有人正在提出这种说法。\n\n亨齐先生：那么我没有理解——我没有理解要点。\n\n法庭：好。也许是我没有表达清楚。我不明白这如何能够继续下去，但我们会讨论。是否还有其他人希望就Zeisler律师事务所（Zeisler firm）能否同时代表这三个实体而不被视为存在利益冲突发表意见？\n\n亨齐先生：一点，法官大人。如果您要裁定我们存在利益冲突，或者您不作出裁定，那么我认为今天不应再继续进行任何其他事项。您不能——因为债务人届时——\n\n法庭：我同意你，这就是我为什么要求听取其他所有人的意见——\n\n亨齐先生：好。因为届时债务人没有——\n\n法庭：这就是我们现在正在讨论此事的原因。\n\n亨齐先生：债务人没有代理律师。而且，只要您尚未作出裁定——\n\n法庭：嗯，他有代理律师。他还有另一位律师。他有那位——不管叫什么——\n\n亨齐先生：今天没有人在法庭上代表债务人。\n\n法庭：我明白。但你知道，利益冲突问题被提出，这并不是什么新消息。所以请稍等。\n\n亨齐先生：好。\n\n法庭：我听到了。我听到了。\n\n亨齐先生：好。\n\n法庭：是否还有其他人希望就这一利益冲突问题发表意见？\n\nDespins先生：我只想说，法官大人，我不确定。我们需要一个精灵今天来决定该问题。我认为该问题仍然存在，并且稍后仍将继续存在。\n\n法庭：好。谢谢。Claiborn律师（Attorney Claiborn）？\n\n克莱伯恩女士（Ms. Claiborn）：法官大人，我同意，如果法庭决定今天不就此作出裁定，该问题今天不会消失。我想加入讨论的唯一另一问题是，着眼未来并顾及过去，债务人对诸事项的立场随着时间推移发生了变化。如果债务人将这一特定利益冲突——尽管目前已得到解决——作为未来的武器使用，那么本案就会出现问题。\n\n法庭：你是什么意思？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：如果他日后采取这样的立场，即其现任律师Zeisler提供的指导和建议存在利益冲突，且他不应受由此产生的任何结果约束，这将在未来给本案造成问题。债务人确有与律师分道扬镳的历史。\n\n法庭：好。我想我明白你的意思。我目前可能——可能还没有完全理解，但没关系。还有其他人希望发表意见吗？\n\n（无可听见的回应）\n\n法庭：好。那么，亨齐先生，关于对这三方的同时代理，即Kwok先生——即使他是非占有中的债务人，他在《破产法》下仍负有持续、未履行且连续的义务——以及HK International和债务人的女儿Mei Guo（郭美），我同意你所说，目前看来你遵守了规则1.7的所有规定。但我确实同意，情况可能迅速变化，各方，包括你，及/或法庭，及/或其他人，如本案发生问题，均需提请法庭注意。我认为你的当事人，正如我前几天对你说的，你是按当事人现有的状况接受其委托。而且，由于你的当事人在本庭之外发生的诉讼方面存在一些问题，那些问题在某个时候会以某种方式回到本庭。Despins先生必须做Despins先生必须做的事，所有其他债权人也是如此。我不知道其他任何债权人会做什么。他们也有其权利。他们可以就你的当事人——三人全部——寻求其认为适当的任何救济。因此，鉴于已经采取的立场，以及美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）认为327(a)可能适用并且你可能存在利益冲突，我认为该问题仍在本庭审理之中，并且——你知道，可能最早明天就会出现问题。谁知道呢？我们届时必须处理。关于你根据——提出的请求免除判决书的动议——\n\n亨齐先生：法官大人，我能否——我能否问一个问题？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n亨齐先生：无论如何，我愿意认为自己相当认真地履行职业责任规则下的义务。\n\n法庭：没有人质疑这一点。\n\n亨齐先生：好。我接受这一点。但是——\n\n法庭：但你必须明白，本案中提出的问题每天——每周都在变化，对吗？我们沿着一条路径前进，然后又沿着另一条路径前进，现在又走上另一条路径。现在你在提交一项动议，试图撤换受托人，此前，你知道，在你的当事人来到这里并希望该船作为 $8 million 的一部分、让该船成为破产财产的一部分、继续推进、试图——Baldiga先生（Mr. Baldiga）多次说他希望——而且文件中也写明了，因此这是你方、你当事人的承认，无论是你代表你的当事人，还是Baldiga先生代表你的当事人，他们都希望本案成为一个让所有人聚在一起、解决所有问题并向债权人进行公平和平等分配的场所。而这并非正在发生的情况。好吧？这并非正在发生的情况。如果确实正在发生这种情况，就不会任命第11章受托人。因此，我并不是要质疑你对规则1.7的个人认真态度。正如我一直对你说的，你并不代表你自己。你代表你的当事人。而你的当事人已经受到一些不利裁定，本庭已经一再听说过这些裁定。\n\n而且你的当事人来到这里，说他想做所有这些事情，随后立即改变方向，终止一切，使所有人走上一条与他来到这里时所称将要追求的路径完全不同的道路。这就是我所说的。好吧？\n\n亨齐先生：法官大人，我本来要说的是，我认为我相当认真地履行自己的义务。如果我曾经相信自己存在同时利益冲突，我会处理它，必要时与当事人处理，必要时与法庭处理。所以我——我始终会这样做。第二点，Claiborn女士所说她不希望看到债务人将我所的所谓利益冲突作为武器使用，我向其他人提出同样的观点。出现这种奇怪的、也许三——因此，如果327适用，如果债务人正在主张其权利，而我就某一问题争辩得过于积极，那么327(a)就适用。但如果债务人只是坐着，不——安静地，并且不对任何事项提出异议，那么327就不适用。我希望各方日后不会在债务人可能反对某项事项时利用这一点，站起来说现在他受327约束，他必须离开。第三点，法官大人，本庭之外在破产前诉讼中发生的事情，我不确定那与我所是否存在一项有何关系。\n\n根据 Rule 1.7 或 327(a) 不存在利益冲突。我不——我不认为存在。这是一个棘手的案件。我认为没有人会不同意这一点。这是一个——这是一个非常、非常棘手的案件。但问题的棘手程度并不是决定我是否存在利益冲突的因素。我要么存在利益冲突，要么不存在利益冲突。而且，法官阁下，我——我不希望今天结束时让您产生——因为我——当您——无论如何我认为，好吗——我绝不会有意把话强加到法官阁下口中，因此我将说明我以为我听到的内容——我以为我听到的是，您同意我，即您今天认为我在 Rule 1.7 下不存在问题。但随后您说——无论如何我这么认为——再说一次，我希望非常谨慎——但也许您认为存在。如果法院今天认定我存在同时利益冲突，且我不应代理债务人，我需要知道这一点，因为如果是这样，自法院作出该认定之时起，我所说的每一句话都将违反我在职业责任规则下的义务。因此，法院要么认定我今天存在同时利益冲突，要么不作此认定。而且，我们承认，如果今后发生造成该利益冲突的情况，我们将不得不\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n处理。但我——我今天需要知道这一点。法院：我认为我说过，你今天不存在同时利益冲突，但你将来可能会存在。HENZY 先生：同意。法院：而且各方需要将此事提请法院注意。HENZY 先生：明白，法官阁下。法院：好吗？HENZY 先生：谢谢。法院：好。关于 Rule 9024 动议，正如我上次向你提到的，我不明白你为什么不依据第324条提出动议，即请求撤换受托人。我查阅的判例法称，一项规则——而 Collier（科利尔）再次指出，Rule 60 不是对——美国受托人的任命提出异议的适当方式，因为法院并不参与任命。请记住。对吧？法院并不参与任命。美国受托人参与任命。美国受托人只是请求批准该任命，而法院批准了它。没有人能够提出任何证据说明为何不应批准。\n\n因此——那么——该任命即告成立。你必须通过第324条动议来推进。如果该动议被驳回，它不是可上诉的终局命令。而你显然希望 Rule 60 成为一项可上诉的命令。因此，我们不会沿着 Rule 60 的路径继续，因为根据我查阅的资料，这并不适当。Despins 先生被任命为 Chapter 11 受托人。他只能依据第324条被撤换。因此，如果你希望依据第324条提出动议并满足那些要求，你有权这样做。HENZY 先生：我认为也可依据第1105条，法官阁下。但是——法院：依据什么？HENZY 先生：我认为第1105条也规定终止受托人的任命。法院：但它援引第324条。HENZY 先生：第1105条没有援引，但这无关紧要。法院：规则有。HENZY 先生：我明白。为明确起见，法官阁下是否驳回我们的——法院：是。\n\nHENZY 先生：——60(b) 动议？法院：我驳回你们的 60(b) 动议。HENZY 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法院：与 60(b) 动议相关的所有证据开示均被驳回，因为该动议——因为它已无实际意义。HENZY 先生：法官阁下，我能否有片刻时间？法院：可以。（暂停）HENZY 先生：那么，法官阁下，撤销动议——撤销传票动议获准？法院：无需获准。它已无实际意义。Rule 60(b) 动议已被驳回。HENZY 先生：很好。明白。法院：与其有关的任何证据开示均已无实际意义。HENZY 先生：明白，法官阁下。明白。DESPINS 先生：法官阁下——法院：是。DESPINS 先生：——我可以就此发表意见吗？法院：可以。DESPINS 先生：我知道您的反应可能是，你刚刚赢了，为什么不坐下。但法官阁下，我知道本案将会发生什么。一切都会被上诉。我想知道法院是否会\n\n作出替代性认定，即您已经裁定其在程序上不适当。但无论如何，第101(14)条或第59条下的无利害关系人概念——我忘了是哪一款——HENZY 先生：14。DESPINS 先生：14。抱歉。第101(14)条涉及的是财产，而非债务人。他们提交的任何材料中均未主张任何可能以某种方式影响受托人相对于财产的无利害关系人资格的事项，作为替代性认定。因为我——您知道我的意思——我不想来回争论，来回争论——法院：嗯，我尚未——我尚未写出——DESPINS 先生：好的。法院：——驳回 Rule 60 动议的命令，必须先有该命令，才可能提出上诉。第一。DESPINS 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。谢谢。法院：第二，即使有上诉，他们也必须提供保证金。HENZY 先生：我不知道是否会有上诉。但是，法官阁下，我认为不应作出那些替代性认定。而且，我实际上不同意 Despins 先生所称\n\n受托人无需相对于债务人保持无利害关系人资格。判例法表明，受托人必须相对于债务人保持无利害关系人资格。但再说一次，我认为您无需作出替代性认定。您已经驳回该动议。我明白驳回的依据。我认为到此为止即可。法院：但仍将有一份书面命令。必须有一份书面命令。HENZY 先生：我的意思是，如果您将超出——姑且称之为第324条依据——而不仅仅是驳回，我理解这一点，那么我知道 Collier（科利尔）称第324条或第1105条动议优于 60(b)。但是——我会——如果您要作出替代性认定，我至少希望有机会进行辩论，因为——法院：你已在书面材料中提出该论点。你的论点在书面材料中。你说明了为何你认为应撤换受托人，以及为何应准许免除该命令的救济。你的书面材料中写明了所有这些。你说——你在书面材料中谈及了所有这些。HENZY 先生：我认为您可以——我会主张您可以——您可以驳回——再说一次，这听起来很奇怪，因为您显然可以作出您决定作出的裁定。但基于你需要提出一项\n\n第324条动议而驳回，我认为您——法院：我没有说——我没有只说这一点。那不适当。我说你必须提出一项——而且我在上次听证时对你说过，Rule 60 下的标准与第324条下的标准完全不同。因此，我并非只是说因为你没有依据第324条提出动议而驳回。这不是我所说的。HENZY 先生：好的。法院：好吗？我说，该动议被驳回，是因为你没有依据第324条提出动议，而那是提出该动议的适当条款。第一。第二，我不——我没有任何——没有——你没有在 Rule 60 动议下向我提出任何符合 Rule 60 动议标准的内容，即就你的 60(b) 动议而言，你必须认定——我本必须认定存在非故意错误、意外或可原谅的疏忽。这并不适用。经合理勤勉仍无法及时发现以提出重新审判动议的新发现证据。这并不适用。欺诈，也不适用。你没有提出任何此类证据。判决书无效。这并不适用。判决书已获履行、解除或免除。这并不适用。\n\n或者任何证明救济正当的其他理由。你没有提出任何其他可证明 Rule 60 下救济正当的理由。因此，如果你希望提出动议并尝试满足第324条的要求，欢迎你这样做。但你已经在你的 Rule 60(b) 动议中辩论了所有这些问题，我现在驳回该动议。你没有向法院提出任何依据 Rule 60 和破产 Rule 9024 可据以准许救济的理由。HENZY 先生：明白，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。好。那么现在我们可以转到聘用 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯）的申请。DESPINS 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。有两项——一项陈述和一项异议。第一项，即该异议，由债务人提出。我们援引了一项 Fifth Circuit（第五巡回法院）的判决——虽然我们并不需要第五巡回法院的判决，但该技术性判决称，占有外债务人不能——不具有对聘用律师提出异议的诉讼资格。因此，我认为这是教科书式的法律。实际上，您在上次听证中曾暗示这一点，虽然没有具体谈及聘用律师。\n\n但该判决适用于聘用律师，因为这属于案件管理事项，而且占有外债务人不具有诉讼资格，除非存在剩余财产。在本案中，他们称不存在剩余财产，因为他们没有资产。\n\n现在，我认为出于上诉目的，再次暂且假定其具有诉讼资格两分钟，并回应债务人的异议，仍然很重要。我回到无利害关系人资格的定义。它以“财产”一词为关键。诚然，它谈到债权人、股权持有人和债务人，但判断标准是相对于财产。他们在此主张的内容均与财产无关。\n\nWynn 先生的问题——您知道——与财产无关。我想明确说明这一点。我的律所在 Wynn 先生被 DOJ（美国司法部）起诉后受聘，并未以任何方式就 Wynn 先生相对于 Kwok 先生应做什么或不应做什么向其提供建议。没有这种情况。Wynn 先生不是债权人。Wynn 诉讼不会以任何方式对财产产生向上或向下的影响，这一点非常重要。\n\n中国办事处也是同样的情况。我的意思是，我们在中国设有办事处这一事实，首先从一开始就广为人知。\n\n但一切都归结于我此前提出的基本观点——我想解释我在他们的书面材料中使用“荒谬”一词的这一概念。他们说，他称其荒谬是令人愤慨的。我一贯非常明确地指出，荒谬之处在于，他们所建立的债务人、其移民身份和中国共产党之间发生的事情，与本项财产之间缺乏关联。法官阁下处理的不是移民事项。法官阁下并非——我们并非在处理该事项。我们对此没有立场。这不是我们的问题，我们也不会参与这些问题。这正是所有论述失去基础之处，因为这一切与——与财产及我们必须完成的工作之间不存在关联；我们的工作是尽可能取得最多资产，并向本案获准债权的持有人分配。另一点是 UBS（瑞银）事项。那是另一种干扰。首先，他们从一开始就知道 UBS。我们在第一份声明中说明，我们代理 UBS 关联方。我认为我说的是主要或首要涉及融资事项。我们并没有说仅限于此。但无论我们就交通罚单、融资事项还是破产事项代理他们，又有什么关系？我已经明确说过，我从未代理过他们。我没有代理他们。我能够\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 提交日期 08/10/22 录入日期 08/10/22 11:13:10 第 70 页，共 158 页\n\n不利诉讼，即以受托人身份对其提起的诉讼。事实上，针对他们的诉讼正在英格兰审理。如法官阁下所知，在英格兰，要出庭并辩论案件，必须是出庭律师。Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）在英国没有出庭律师。因此，实际上，人们会使用——例如，如果您查看他们对针对 UBS（瑞银）提起的诉讼所附投诉提出的异议，在末尾有三个签名。这是三名出庭律师。我们没有出庭律师。我认为，鉴于他们已经处理此事两年，并且取得了一些成功——顺便说一下，我应当说是程序上的成功——他们将继续处理此事。因此，UBS 问题并不是问题，因为无论如何，作为受托人，将由我处理此事。我将监督英国出庭律师的工作——他们不是 Paul Hastings 的人员，因为我们没有出庭律师——而且，这再次解决了该问题。我认为其余内容都与 60(b) 相同。PAX 也提交了答复。我认为先处理债务人的问题可能更合理，然后我们再回到 PAX。谢谢。法院：可以。谢谢。Henzy 先生？HENZY 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n那么，如果可以，我先谈谈诉讼资格问题。关于诉讼资格，第一点，1109(b) 规定，债务人有权在第 11 章案件中的任何问题上提出意见、出庭并获得听取。这是非常、非常明确的。我承认，关于 1109，法院认为债务人仍然必须具备——您可能能够提出意见、出庭并获得听取，但这并不必然意味着听我发言就等同于一项需要法院裁决的异议。因此，您或许不得不痛苦地听我说完，但随后可以说，谢谢您，Henzy 先生，但我不——您没有提出异议的诉讼资格。您已经提出意见、出庭并获得听取，但我不必对任何事项作出裁决。因此，我理解——分析实际上只有两个层面。一个是 1109(b)，另一个是您是否具有诉讼资格。传统的诉讼资格分析是，您必须——您要么必须在传统意义上受到不利影响——而我认为这不是此处的问题，因为我们处理的是一项法规——要么必须具有法定诉讼资格。因此，您必须有一项由国会通过的法规，而论点是国会意图赋予某一方与该事项相关的获得听取的权利。这一点在许多最高法院的判决中都有非常充分的阐述，法官阁下。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司）\n\n这些判决中最高法院阐明的标准——主要判决是 Association of Data Processing Service v. Camp，载于 397 U.S. 150，以及 Clarke v. Security Industry Association，载于 479 U.S. 388——其中阐明，当事人须属于涉案法规意图保护的利益范围内。最高法院在这些判决中阐明的标准是——门槛相当低。这是对 Clarke 判决的引述。法院若要认定不存在诉讼资格，就必须认定，利益范围拒绝当事人参与的权利，因为当事人的利益与法规所隐含的目的仅有极其边缘的关联，或者与之不一致，以至于不能合理地认为国会意图允许参与。Clarke 法院进一步指出，该检验并非意在具有特别高的要求。尤其是，无需显示国会意图使拟议原告受益。回到 Collier's，——其讨论这些案件时，Collier's 第 7 卷，1109.04，第 (4)(b) 分段指出，鉴于第 1109(b) 条的性质，因为法院认为，在根据最高法院判例法考虑该利益范围分析时，\n\n应当将其与 1109(b) 一并适用。因此，Collier's 指出，鉴于第 1109(b) 条的性质及其拟服务的目的，在第 11 章案件中，利益范围必须作有利于参与的宽泛解释。有判例认为，债务人有权对聘任律师提出异议。在其他判例中，Krechevsky 法官在 In re Pappas，载于 216 B.R. 87，这是一项 1997 年的判决，裁定——他实际上裁定，《规则》2002 将债务人称为利害关系方，而债务人有权根据 327 对此提出异议。随后，Brozman 法官在一宗案件中，即 Vebeliunas——拼写是 V-E-B-E-L-I-U-N-A-S——载于 231 B.R.——请稍等，法官阁下——181。实际上，法官阁下，在该案中，Brozman 法官取消了受托人律师的资格，理由是受托人律师在 341 会议举行之前、在从未询问债务人之前，已发表公开声明，表明其对债务人存在极端偏见。他称债务人为骗子，并说了其他不恰当的话。Brozman 法官认定，该案的债务人既具有诉讼资格，而且事实上据此取消了该律师的资格。此外，法官阁下，我还指出第二巡回上诉法院在 Savage & Associates, P.C. v. K&L Gates，640 F.3d 53 一案中的判决，其中第二巡回上诉法院明确指出，债务人具有\n\n诉讼资格——抱歉——当事人可能不仅基于——并非仅基于经济利益，还可基于具有法律利益而拥有诉讼资格。再者，Krechevsky 法官和 Brozman 法官均认定，债务人对于律师并非无利害关系人时对 327(a) 申请提出异议，具有法律利益。关于经济利益，法官阁下，坦白说，我不知道本案将如何结案。我理解，在申请提交时，债务人持有少量资金。但谈到英国诉讼，该案中请求的金额是 $500 million。我对其状态确实一无所知，只是我认为我可能听到过一项评论，听起来可能类似于 Despins 先生所听到的，即该诉讼显然进行得相当顺利。因此，该遗产很可能并非无偿付能力。并且，英国可能会对 UBS 作出 $500 million 的追偿。这将对所有人都非常有利，包括债务人。因此，我相信债务人有诉讼资格在此——对聘任 Paul Hastings 提出异议。关于利益冲突，以及——我确实，您知道，提交了一份证人及证物清单，附有证物。我已准备好\n\n提交证据。不过，就我将提交的大部分证据而言，我不确定是否存在任何争议事项。我不想拖延或占用大量我们无须占用的时间。我认为并无争议的是，Paul Hastings 为多个 UBS 实体提供服务。Despins 先生提交的初始声明说明了这一点，并列出了这些实体。实际上，Paul Hastings 的金融重组网页称，他们曾经——我不知道他们今天是否仍然——但他们曾为 UBS 实体提供服务。我认为英国诉讼中的被告是 UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司），这并无争议。在债务人的财产清单中，我不知道为什么——在财务状况说明书中，我不知道为什么如此处理，但其中披露了针对 UBS AG 的诉讼，随后在括号中注明 London branch（伦敦分行）。而在 Despins 先生提交的初始声明中，他在该声明中所指的 UBS AG 被定义为 UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司，London Branch（伦敦分行））。但如果您查看该起诉状——我实际上将其附在我们的异议中——再说一次，我可以——我很乐意将其作为证据提交，法官阁下，但它附在我们的异议中，我认为并无争议它就是——它就是该起诉状——可以清楚看出，该案被告\n\n是 UBS AG——我将其称为大型 UBS AG——即总部位于瑞士、推定为许多其他 UBS 实体母公司的那一家。再说一次，该案主张的损害赔偿额是 $500 million。因此，这不是一项无关紧要的请求。这一点也载于我附于——我们所提交异议的起诉状中。Despins 先生表示，他从未代理过任何 UBS 实体——这在他的——他的初始声明中——并且他以受托人身份能够与 UBS AG 对立，并作为具名原告。几点说明。在该声明中，由于他将 UBS AG 定义为仅指 UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司，London Branch（伦敦分行）），我认为他提交的声明实际上并未涵盖该诉讼中的实际被告，因为他的声明——他确实在声明中说，他可以与任何——他从未代理过任何 UBS——该声明所说的是，他从未代理过任何 UBS 实体。这很容易理解。以受托人身份，我可以与 UBS AG 对立，并在任何针对 UBS AG 的诉讼中作为第 11 章受托人担任具名原告。但是，再次强调，他对 UBS AG 的定义是 UBS AG，London Branch（伦敦分行），而该案的主要被告是 UBS——我将其称为大型 UBS AG。因此，他的声明——除表示他从未代理过任何 UBS 实体以外——并未涉及该诉讼中的实际被告。实际——法院：如果他说他从未代理过任何 UBS 实体，为什么还需要涉及实际被告？HENZY 先生：嗯，法官阁下，因为从所有这些内容中并不清楚 Paul Hastings 是否曾代理过——如果我们讨论的是我被驳回的 60(b) 动议，那会很重要。但我们不是。我们讨论的是 Paul Hastings。因此，问题是——不是 Despins 先生是否曾代理过任何 UBS 实体。而是任何 UBS 实体是否为 Paul Hastings 的前客户或现客户。我认为他的声明并未涉及该问题。法院：好的。HENZY 先生：Bassett 先生——在实际聘任 Paul Hastings 的申请中，虽是 Despins 先生的申请，但附有其合伙人 Bassett 先生的声明。Bassett 先生的声明完全未涉及该代理关系。它所做的是援引 Despins 先生的声明，即他的第一份声明，并且只是\n\n说，涉及关联关系时，我只是依赖他的声明。实际上，根据规则——根据该规则，我并不确定您是否可以如此做。我不确定律师——在聘任申请中，我不确定附于申请的律师事务所宣誓书或声明能否指向其他文件并称，我并非——我并未披露任何利益冲突。我指向他人——由其他人提交的另一份声明，请您去看那里。但我想，从某种意义上说，我并未——我并未就任何事项宣誓，除了 Despins 先生在那边所说的是真实的。因此，Bassett 先生本人在其声明中根本没有涉及 UBS 问题。因此，我认为所有这些的归结点是，我确信现有声明已经处理了 UBS 问题。我也不确定您如何回避——或者也许您可以回避 Paul Hastings 在此代理受托人的问题，但我认为目前存档的材料并未做到这一点。它并未排除 Paul Hastings 代理 UBS。它只是——它就是没有。他们被聘任为受托人的一般破产律师，我认为这对他们构成重大利益冲突。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司）\n\n我认为，UBS（瑞银集团）是Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的客户这一点已获承认。UBS是涉及本破产财产一项重大资产的案件中的被告。而我——我有点——我可以继续——我不知道我们是否会另行处理PAX/PAG问题。或者我可以继续谈我已经提出的问题。因为我想，Friedman律师（弗里德曼律师）提出的问题，实际上不同于我就PAX和PAG会提出的问题。那么，法官阁下，我应当继续吗？法庭：嗯，我不知道。或许我们应当先就这个问题听取Despins先生（德斯平斯先生）的意见，然后再继续。我的意思是，否则我们会在这里待上一整天。对吗？我的意思是，那个——您知道，问题是，Despins先生，Henzy先生（亨齐先生）称你们律所有利益冲突，因为他们代理UBS。目前尚不清楚他们是否代理UBS。而且——UBS是在对抗性诉讼中——在伦敦案件中的被告。所以，您知道，他说Barnett先生（巴尼特先生），我相信——Despins先生：Bassett。法庭：Bassett先生（巴塞特先生），抱歉，他的宣誓书没有——没有回答这个问题。Despins先生：法官阁下，我可以说几句吗？\n\n法庭：可以，请讲。Despins先生：我签署的聘任Paul Hastings的申请，通过援引纳入了我的声明，而该声明同时涉及受托人的任命和Paul Hastings。该声明明确说明，该声明中的披露同时涵盖受托人和Paul Hastings。该声明称，我们目前不代理UBS AG, London Branch（瑞银集团股份公司伦敦分行），抱歉，UBS AG。我们过去曾代理过他们，但我们代理其他UBS实体。我不认为——我会核实这一点——但我不认为其中所称的左括号，伦敦分行对非伦敦分行，会改变分析结果。我认为，从我的角度来看，这是同一回事。Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）作为受托人，可以担任受托人，并以受托人身份处理针对任何UBS实体的诉讼，无论是否为伦敦分行；而在实践中——这就是为什么Henzy先生没有——他提出所有这些很好的观点，但没有深入现实。这里的现实是，该案件已有律师参与。他们是出庭律师。这些人已经处理该案两年了。而且我——我认为他们将继续这样做。用新的律师替换他们并不是一个好主意。无论如何，即便我想这么做，Paul Hastings也不是伦敦的出庭律师，因此不能处理该诉讼。所以，Paul Hastings，这是假问题。Paul Hastings不能处理该诉讼。因此，法官阁下，这确实是问题的核心，即因此这是一个不存在的问题。而且，您知道——您知道，我相信法官阁下知道事务律师和出庭律师之间的区别。但我们在伦敦是事务律师，不是出庭律师，不能提交起诉状或处理审判。我很希望能够这样做，但我们并不具备这样做的条件。所以，对我而言，这完全解决了该问题。法庭：好的。Despins先生：谢谢。法庭：谢谢。请继续，Henzy先生。Henzy先生：那么——那么，为明确起见，法官阁下，唯一处理UBS问题的地方，是美国受托人关于批准任命Chapter 11受托人的命令申请，该申请所附的是Despins先生的无利害关系声明。该声明第7(c)段规定，Paul Hastings此前代理过UBS AG，括号内为London Branch，并将其定义——引号内为——“UBS AG”。因此，在——在他的声明中，UBS AG意指UBS AG, London Branch。这不是我的定义。我并非——我\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore报告与转录服务公司）\n案件22-50073，文书714，提交日期08/10/22，录入日期08/10/22 11:13:10，第82页，共158页\n\n不认为我是在抠细节、字词，或诸如此类的事情。这就是他对UBS AG作出的定义。而该声明随后称，我从未代理过任何UBS实体，包括UBS AG。我以受托人身份，能够与UBS AG相对抗——再次，将UBS AG替换为UBS AG, London Branch——并能够在针对UBS AG的诉讼中以Chapter 11受托人的身份被列为原告——再次，将UBS AG替换为UBS AG, London Branch。该声明就Paul Hastings所称的是，Paul Hastings目前不代理UBS AG。但是，再次强调——按照他所作的定义，UBS AG意指UBS AG, London Branch。它并不意指大型UBS AG。那可能——我不知道。Paul Hastings可能代理，也可能不代理大型UBS AG，但这不是该声明所说的内容。Paul Hastings目前确实代理某些UBS实体，即UBS Securities, LLC（瑞银证券有限责任公司）、UBS Securities, Limited, Seoul Branch（瑞银证券有限公司首尔分行）、UBS Investment Bank（瑞银投资银行），它们是UBS AG的关联方；而UBS AG，我再次认为，是指UBS AG, London Branch，且该等代理涉及无关事项。因此，我不认为Despins先生的声明完全涉及Paul Hastings代理大型——我所称的大型UBS AG，即英国诉讼中的被告。它根本没有涉及。Bassett先生的声明也只不过援引了Despins先生的声明。\n\nDespins先生的声明对于他在该问题上是否无利害关系，可能是充分的。他称，他能够与UBS AG相对抗，即指伦敦分行，并能够作为针对UBS AG, London Branch的具名原告，但其中没有就Paul Hastings作任何说明。因此，目前我认为尚未作出任何披露，法官阁下。再次，我不知道是否——我从未见过在聘任专业人士的申请中，所附的宣誓书只是援引他人的声明。但这——也许有某些规定认为这样可以。因此，该申请是要求Paul Hastings担任一般破产法律顾问。没有——没有任何排除事项。Despins先生：法官阁下，我很乐意加入排除事项。Paul Hastings不会处理英国诉讼。事情就到此为止——就到此为止。我的意思是，我们可以这样做——因为我们不能处理。法官阁下，我们不是出庭律师。法庭：关于这一点，还有什么要说的吗，Henzy先生？Henzy先生：关于这一点，我没有其他要说的，法官阁下。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore报告与转录服务公司）\n\n法庭：好的。那么你的下一点是什么？Henzy先生：关于PAX/PAG，这是——我理解，在7月8日的听证会当时已有披露，随后又有补充披露。对于PAG，即所谓PAG实体，与PAX之间的共同高级管理人员、共同董事、共同控制关系，尚未作出任何披露；Paul Hastings直到最近仍代理这些PAG实体，并且显然已终止该关系。对于终止该关系的具体情形，没有任何披露。而且我——Friedman先生当然可以纠正我，但根据他在7月21日\n\n听证会上所作的陈述，我的理解是，PAG可能并不知道其曾是Paul Hastings的客户。\n\n再次，Bassett先生的声明完全没有涉及PAX或PAG。它只是援引了Despins先生的——实际上是他的最初声明。\n\n因此，我不认为这里的披露是充分的。而且正如法庭显然非常、非常清楚的，PAX是本——本破产案件中的一名主要债权人。法庭：Despins先生？\n\nDespins先生：法官阁下，第一份补充声明再次称，该声明是为支持\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore报告与转录服务公司）\n\n受托人任命和聘任Paul Hastings而提交。这是第一段。因此，该问题已经得到处理。我的声明同时涵盖两者。所以我不理解为什么又回到Bassett——Bassett对于利益冲突而言无关紧要。只有一项利益冲突披露。那就是我的声明。第一号、第二号、第三号。所以，Bassett援引纳入这一事实没有任何意义，因为聘用Paul Hastings的申请称，我们——Paul Hastings依赖Luc Despins的多份声明。现在，关于PAX问题，他说我们不知道它们是否有相同的高级管理人员等等，声明第4段称，无论如何，在不承认该观点的前提下，假定PAG实体和PAX就利益冲突而言被视为同一方，即假定它们具有相同的董事和高级管理人员——我们没有深入讨论这一点——我仍能够与它们相对抗，因为它们是前客户。所以，这就是审查的终点，即我在这里假定最坏情况，即它们全都相同，尽管我不确定是否确实如此。但即使假定确实如此，我们仍能够与其相对抗，因为它们是在一项——一项相关事项上的前客户。\n\n最后一项交易是一项于5月完成的交易——我忘记确切日期了——5月15日、17日，诸如此类。而且那是一项公司交易，且已完成交割，那就是该项交割交易。那是在2022年5月。因此，我不确定我看到了其中的要点。法庭：Henzy先生？Henzy先生：我的意思是，再次，法官阁下，实际附于聘任Paul Hastings申请的唯一声明是Bassett先生的。但是，我的意思是，法官阁下，对于交易性客户，始终都会存在一段时间没有待决交易，而听起来PAG、这些PAG实体，是Paul Hastings的交易性客户。而且我并不怀疑，我想是在5月，他们正在处理的任何交易已经完成，但我的意思是，至少看起来双方存在一种关系。Paul Hastings当然可以采取这样的立场，即，嗯，目前我们并未在任何事项上代理任何PAG实体，因此它们是前客户。现在，那——而且这始终是一种需要讨论的问题。如果你有一个客户，并且你定期为该客户开展\n\n工作，但在某一时点你没有任何正在积极处理的事项，该客户是前客户，还是现客户？我认为我理解其技术性论点是前客户，但我认为客户往往并不理解这种技术性论点，也未必总会同意它。我仍然认为存在披露问题。PAG、这些PAG实体成为前客户的具体情形是什么？我的意思是，Paul Hastings是否通知它们，我们将不再代理你们？我认为这——我认为这具有相关性。该关系持续了多久？Paul Hastings就多少项交易事项代理过PAG实体？我认为这些都是相关披露，法官阁下。法庭：还有什么要说的吗？Henzy先生：没有了，法官阁下。法庭：关于整体聘用Paul Hastings的申请，还有什么要说的吗？Henzy先生：有，法官阁下。法庭：什么？下一点是什么？Henzy先生：好的。下一点我会称之为——\n\n广泛而言，Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）与中国的关联。我认为，法官阁下，Paul Hastings 在中国设有业务机构这一点并无争议。它在北京、上海设有办公室，并且在香港也设有办公室。我不知道如今是否会有人争议 Paul Hastings 确实为中国国有实体提供服务，也为企业提供服务。它们在中国开展业务。我不指望今天会有人同意我的看法，即中国对在中国的企业行使重大审查和控制。我承认，我今天无法证明这一点。我不确定我该如何证明。我在异议中援引了 FBI 局长 Christopher Wray（克里斯托弗·雷）的一项陈述。我今天没有传唤 Wray 先生到法庭上，来陈述他就中国——中国对在中国经营的企业所行使的控制程度，包括其在中国经营的许可——已经公开发表过的言论。我还认为，法官阁下——我不知道这是否会有争议——对此有相当充分的公开记录，即轻描淡写地说，Kwok 先生站到了中国政府的对立面。他不得不离开该国。他正在此地寻求庇护。人民——中国政府和/或香港政府没收了数十亿美元的资产，属于\n\n其家庭成员、其他人，以及可能数额极其重大的资金；我认为他不会否认，这些资金位于由其控制的实体中，例如 Pangu Plaza（盘古大观）。据我了解，该项目实际上与 PAX（PAX）的贷款有关，并且在某种程度上是后来诸多事项瓦解的部分原因。Kwok 先生可能因这些资产被没收而对香港政府或中华人民共和国政府提出请求权。我显然不是该领域的专家，但据我了解，至少在形式上，资产被没收的人可以遵循一项程序。我不知道 Despins 先生是否就此作过任何分析，即基于资产被没收，破产财产是否可以提出请求权。因此，这是一个具体关切。总体关切是，中国政府，我认为，已经表明其正在——正在追查 Kwok 先生。再次，法官阁下，我们在异议中援引了美国司法部文件，这些文件明确表明，中国政府曾试图以各种方式将 Kwok 先生从这个国家带走。因此，这方面有若干关切。其中之一是，中国政府将试图\n\n对 Paul Hastings 施加影响。除非中国允许 Paul Hastings 在当地开展业务，否则 Paul Hastings 无法在中国开展业务。而且，再次根据 FBI 局长所言，中国政府确实对在当地开展业务的企业行使控制。最近且直接相关的是——Despins 先生提到了这一点——United States Department of Justice（美国司法部）已起诉 Stephen Wynn（史蒂芬·永利）先生，指控其未根据 Foreign Agent Registration Act（外国代理人登记法）登记。指控称，Wynn 先生在试图将 Kwok 先生从——从这个国家带走时，充当了中国政府的代理人。7 月 15 日，Paul Hastings 代表 Wynn 先生在该项 District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区）诉讼中出庭，并寻求驳回该诉讼。Despins 先生——在我们将此写入异议之后——提交了第二份补充披露，其中包括，在该披露的第 3 段中，他说，他此前在声明中没有披露 Paul Hastings 对 Wynn 先生的代理，因为他是通过——经由该异议才首次得知此事。显然，该律所知道其对 Wynn 先生的代理，我认为该律所有义务作出充分披露。在该声明第 4 段中，Despins 先生\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 记录与庭审速记服务公司）\n\n还说，他认为代理 Wynn 先生一事与聘任 Paul Hastings 担任律师无关，本质上完全没有关联，也无关紧要。我认为它在若干方面有关联。或者说，中国政府的行为当然在若干方面有关联。第一，如果 Kwok 先生被从这个国家带走，显然会对本破产案件产生重大影响，因为他不在这里。Despins 先生在——在其声明中称，债务人不会成为在——在哥伦比亚特区待决诉讼中的证人。我不知道 Despins 先生如何能够知道这是真的。我不知道任何人，除非他们与 DOJ 的某人交谈过，否则如何能够知道 DOJ 是否会决定，或者 Wynn 先生是否会决定，应当传唤 Kwok 先生作为证人。Despins 先生还称，债务人的破产财产不会因哥伦比亚特区待决诉讼而增加或减少。我不知道 Despins 先生是否已得出结论，认为债务人对 Wynn 先生没有任何请求权。如果你——如果你阅读在哥伦比亚特区诉讼中提交的起诉状，它实质上指称一种相当广泛的，你知道的，行为模式，姑且如此称之。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 记录与庭审速记服务公司）\n\n有人可能——你知道的，有人可能会说，这看起来像是一群人之间的共谋，意图将 Kwok 先生从这个国家带走。因此，他很可能有请求权，或者很可能基于 Wynn 先生与 Kwok 先生有关的行为而对 Wynn 先生存在请求权。就这些，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。Despins 先生，您想就最后一点作出回应吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：是的，法官阁下。首先，你知道的，Henzy 先生谈到债务人可能拥有的请求权。财产申报表没有提及其中任何事项。对中国政府的请求权不在财产申报表中。而且，这里再次，关于施加压力的问题是，你知道的，始终未能将其与本案受托人的行为联系起来。其将如何受到任何可能施加的压力影响？实际上并不存在这种联系。他不会成为证人，因为如我的合伙人告诉我的——这本可能是为出售中国技术或中国茶叶或类似任何事项进行游说。若您作为外国代理人行事，就需要登记。讨论的主题不是\n\n本案的一部分。事实是，您确实作出代理或没有——不知道——就代表外国实体而言。如果是这样，您就需要登记。仅此而已。因此，这就是他不会成为证人的原因。\n\n至于 Kwok 对 Wynn 先生的请求权，你知道的，我犹豫要不要这样说，不过——尽管去做。我的意思是，Paul Hastings 不会代理 Wynn 先生，就 Kwok 先生提出的请求权为其进行抗辩，因为显然他们正试图构建某种情形，使得不知为何 Kwok 先生，你知道的，具有合理关切。\n\n我现在告诉你，如果 Kwok 先生决定因任何事由起诉 Wynn 先生，Paul Hastings 不会在该诉讼中为 Wynn 先生辩护。因此，不存在敌意或争议。我认为这回答了这些问题。谢谢。\n\nHENZY 先生：我会简短说明。我可能没有说清楚。我认为关切在于，受托人以及代表受托人的 Paul Hastings 是否有义务调查，对 Wynn 先生或其他参与该等行为、试图协助中国政府将 Kwok 先生驱逐出境的人，可能存在哪些请求权。\n\n我的意思是，就针对香港政府或中国政府的请求权而言，债务人没有将其列入财产申报表。但推定 Despins 先生\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 记录与庭审速记服务公司）\n\n和代表 Despins 先生的 Paul Hastings 会希望对此进行调查。再次，Pangu Plaza 价值数亿美元，并且它——它被没收了。我认为，任何可能由债务人间接或直接拥有的资产消失，都是需要审查和调查的事项。\n\n法庭：还有什么要补充的吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：法官阁下，就此最后再说一点。如果债务人明天发生车祸并对另一名驾驶人拥有请求权，我是否应当追诉该请求权，还是那——那是另一回事，你知道的——因此，对 Wynn 先生的请求权与——它不是——它是债务人的一项破产申请后请求权。我不确定那是否应由受托人提起诉讼。\n\nHENZY 先生：法官阁下，这里的全部行为均发生在破产申请前。全部行为。DOJ 在破产申请后提起诉讼，但已发生的全部行为均发生在破产申请前。资产被没收也是一样。因此，就存在资产而言，它们属于破产申请前资产。我认为它们将构成破产财产。\n\n法庭：Henzy 先生，关于您反对聘任 Paul Hastings 担任\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 记录与庭审速记服务公司）\n\n第 11 章受托人律师一事，还有什么要补充的吗？Henzy 先生？\n\nHENZY 先生：抱歉，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：我是说，关于您反对——聘任 Paul Hastings 担任受托人律师一事，您还有什么想陈述的吗？\n\nHENZY 先生：没有，法官阁下。没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。还有其他人吗？Friedman 先生，您不是就聘任 Paul Hastings 提交了一项异议或有限异议吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是来自 O'Melveny & Myers（欧麦律师事务所）的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nFRIEDMAN 先生：因此，我们指出了我们的关切，即如果这件事会围绕着一场闹剧，那将是个问题。显然，就受托人而言，本可以采取其他途径。但是，我——我们在审查这些问题后认为，除可能并非最符合破产财产利益外，不存在法定理由不聘任 Paul Hastings。我们的异议主要围绕费用以及成本结构。尽管如此，来回的讨论确实使我想起了您谈到的一个问题，也就是，你知道的，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 96 of 158\n\n你得接受你所面对的债务人。现在听到债务人谈论他拥有所有这些可能极具价值、却未列入财产申报表的资产，确实有些奇怪；而在方便他声称自己有 \\$3,850，或者说不，这些资产从来不是我的，它们一直是我家人的时候。但现在他声称，他或许确实可以对中国政府提起诉讼。从债务人的角度看，围绕此案存在一种非常奇怪的迷雾——几乎就像一幅——此案几乎像一块神奇画板。\n\n他过去所说的话，完全不影响他今天的想法。我认为这是本案中一个令人担忧的部分，即他过去在其他情境中说过什么，根本不重要。出现了其他新的事项，他认为只要今天对他有利，就可以像在一张白纸上那样借此行事；这是一种我们多年来看到的令人担忧的模式。\n\n请看，法官阁下，就费用而言，我们当时的情况是，美国受托人选择了一位费用结构更低、低得多的人，我们确实认为这就本案整体而言是适当的，特别是如果最终形成一项非协商一致的计划或者回收额较低。我们担心，如果受托人及其律师产生大量成本，会侵蚀债权人的回收额。\n\n受托人及其律师。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 记录与庭审速记服务公司）\n\n受托人有点，你知道的，作出了回应。回应中的一点是，嗯，另一方面，我们并不像真正的风险代理律师费律所那样行事，因为上行空间并不那么大。\n\n而且，为公平起见，法官阁下，如果上行结果最终更好，对吧，也许我们针对上行结果提出的方案并不像本可以做到的那样慷慨。如果受托人追回 \\$150 million，我想，我们或许愿意大幅提高费用。\n\n只是——我们真正担心的是，您知道，如果结果处于低端，或者在多年追索 Kwok（郭文贵）之后，一些资金被耗尽。而 Despins（德斯平斯）先生很可能不会。\n\n但是，您知道，如果最终追回 60 或 70 million dollars，但同时又产生 10 或 15 million dollars 的律师费，那么从 PAX（PAX）的角度以及我认为其他债权人的角度来看，这将是真正的损失，特别是在本案开始时本有降低成本的选择。因此，这是我们的担忧。\n\n因此，您知道，我认为法院有权选择现在评估成本，或者在相关事项出现时，结合为破产财产提供的价值来评估成本。显然，您知道，人们可能更希望现在处理。我们是这样。但，您知道，这就是我们\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore记录与转录服务公司）\n\n的立场。这是——您知道，我认为您多年来一直听我这样说。这并不是像——过去六个月里。这并不是说我会拍桌子，因为存在必须立即处理的事实问题。但 PAX 对于最终将获得多少资金、又将向专业人士支付多少资金，确实存在担忧。因此，我认为，如我所说，我们已经——我们已经提出了建议。除此之外，您知道，除我们具体的担忧和具体方案外，我认为，如果这对受托人及其律师事务所有吸引力和吸引效果，我们愿意从我们的角度使上行结果更好。但是，无论现在处理，还是必须在将来资产——现金到账时处理，我们认为解决这一问题确实很重要。谢谢，法官阁下。法院：谢谢。还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？哦，抱歉，Despins 先生。您想先作回应吗？DESPINS 先生：不。也许其他人想陈述意见。GOLDMAN 先生：简要说几句，法官阁下。我是债权人委员会的 Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼），法官阁下。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore记录与转录服务公司）\n\n关于债务人称其可能对 Steve Wynn（史蒂夫·永利）提出的这项新近提出的潜在请求权，正如 Friedman（弗里德曼）先生指出的，这是一项本应但未被列入财产清单的请求权。\n\n正如 Henzy（亨齐）先生所说，该请求权基于申请前行为，因此本应作为破产财产的一项资产列入财产清单。\n\n8　已有确立的判例法表明，当债务人未在其财产清单中列明某项请求权，随后又试图在确认后提起诉讼，例如，其将因司法禁止反言而不得追索该请求权。这里就是这种情况。他应因司法禁止反言而不得主张其拥有一项需要受托人调查的、针对 Wynn 先生的请求权。\n\n至于 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的申请，我们确实提交了一份声明，表明我们对于 Paul Hastings 律师事务所将在本案中如何代表受托人有某些理解，这些理解是基于与 Despins 先生的讨论形成的。\n\n即，他们将在可能的情况下通过聘用本地律师来节省开支，本地律师的费率远低于 Paul Hastings 律师事务所；并且，他们也不会就我们认为存在的诉因寻求诉讼融资，这构成一种节省，因为取得\n\n诉讼融资本会是一项昂贵的安排。因此，我认为，至少应在今天的记录中确认这些理解。另一项此类理解是，受托人本人以受托人身份，不会就本案中可能追回并分配的资产根据第 326 条寻求按比例计算的报酬，而只会寻求其作为 Paul Hastings 律师的小时费率——以此替代其最终可能根据第 326 条主张的任何比例报酬。因此，如其能够在记录中确认这些理解，我将不胜感激。如我们在书面文件中所述，我们不反对聘任。法院：好的。那么，您为什么认为他不应获得任何追回款项的法定比例报酬？GOLDMAN 先生：嗯，因为如果他将作为 Paul Hastings 的律师按这些费率获得报酬——法院：哦，如果他将以——作为律师工作？GOLDMAN 先生：是。法院：好的。好吧。GOLDMAN 先生：是。法院：我刚才没有理解。我现在明白了。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 714　提交于 08/10/22　录入于 08/10/22 11:13:10　第 101 页，共\n\n好的。GOLDMAN 先生：是。法院：抱歉。GOLDMAN 先生：而且他——法院：我明白您的意思。GOLDMAN 先生：好的。法院：我没有理解。我想我只是没有听清您说的话。GOLDMAN 先生：好的。谢谢。法院：抱歉。GOLDMAN 先生：谢谢。法院：好的。谢谢。Claiborn（克莱伯恩）律师？CLAIBORN 女士：法官阁下，U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）基于迄今在本案中提交的文件，不反对聘用 Paul Hastings。我只想指出，正如我们此前在本案中所观察到的，持续披露的义务今天存在，明天存在，并且将来仍然存在。至于报酬问题，美国受托人的立场是，律师从其本地市场带来其所在律师事务所的费用和其自身的小时费率。本案是一宗复杂案件，涉及许多环节，需要有经验的律师，因此\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 714　提交于 08/10/22　录入于 08/10/22 11:13:10　第 102 页，共\n\n这必然有时会转化为较高费用。本案必须完成的工作确实需要以具成本效益的方式完成。我认为每个人都已向受托人 Despins 明确了这一点，他也知悉此事，我相信他将尽其所能确保技能与服务相匹配，并确保我们以具成本效益的方式提供服务。当我们进入费用申请阶段时，那才是就所提供服务的成本效益以及对破产财产的利益进行辩论的适当地点和时间。法院：谢谢。受托人 Despins，您是否——想作回应？DESPINS 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我将从委员会律师刚才，您知道，结束的地方说起，即我已经作出承诺，将尽可能灵活应对。首先，这是我们的职责，但是——这在实践中意味着，尽可能依赖本地律师，依赖 Skalka（斯卡尔卡）先生和 Linsey（林赛）先生。22　并且利用 PAX 在州法院所做的工作，因为那里已有三年，也许四年的经验积累，我们没有必要重复造轮子。作为律师的我们。我们可以借鉴那些工作，并且我们\n\n1　打算这样做。\n\n这两者结合起来应当降低\n\n2　成本。\n\n3　但是我不想误导您。这将会是一个\n\n4　昂贵的过程。我想谈及\n\n5　我已同意不会有诉讼融资这一点。这\n\n6　是正确的。\n\n7　但我确实获得了一份报价，只是让法官阁下\n\n8　有所了解。假设一家诉讼融资方——假设我们想要 \\$5\n\n9　million 来追索请求权——他们——其收取的费用\n\n10　将是该金额的两到四倍。因此，您必须偿还\n\n11　这 5 million。然后将会有一笔 10 至 20 million dollar 的\n\n12　费用。只是为了让您了解这一点。\n\n13　我们没有要求其中任何一种。我们没有\n\n14　要求 30 percent、40 percent。我们要求的是我们的\n\n15　费率。\n\n16　我明白，与本地费率相比，我们的费率较高。\n\n17　我明白这一点，法官阁下。但在这里，我\n\n18　最终可能一无所获。\n\n19　我知道，我们都知道，而且我们相信应当\n\n20　发生什么。我也相信。但从那一点到现实\n\n21　将需要大量时间和大量努力。\n\n22　而我们正在承担这一风险，因为\n\n23　债务人拥有无限资源，他们将就\n\n24　一切与我们抗争。这将上诉至第二巡回法院。而且\n\n25　如果他们可以，还会诉至最高法院。我对此毫不怀疑。\n\n这就是我们在获得报酬方面所面对的情况。因此，我们认为，鉴于此，说“哦，如果你们收回的金额不超过 X dollars，我们就降低你们的费率”，将极不恰当。因为，例如，假设明天我在梦中挥动魔杖，把 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰）和这里的游艇拿回来，它们能卖多少钱？我不知道。如果它们卖出——这并非我的目标——我希望公寓卖 70 million，游艇卖 40 million。但假设它们各卖 20 million。那么，按照 Friedman 先生的方案，我将遭受损失，因为尽管我通过收回这两项资产取得了良好结果，我却没有获得人们认为这些资产应当实现的价值。我变成了这些资产价值的保险人。这确实是错误的。因此，我理解 PAX 的挫败感。他们花费了数百万 dollars，以一种“抓我呀，如果你能”的把戏追索这个债务人。他们几乎，几乎成功了。几乎成功了，但他们没有。现在他们——他们有这种担忧——我也有同样的担忧——即，这是否是又一场\n\n“抓我呀，如果你能”的开始？而我的职责是确保这部电影这次更短，或者更成功。但是我——但关键在于，这不应转化为“我们很挫败，所以我们要在你们的费用上让你们受损”。我只是——法官，我不想对此显得傲慢，但如果我回到办公室说这是一宗风险代理案件，而且我降低了我的工时费率，他们会说你做了什么？他们只会说，他们必须让人检查一下我的脑袋。因此，法官，我不想对此显得傲慢，但是——我希望——我感受到 Friedman 先生及其客户在此问题上的痛苦，但对于小时费率，我无能为力。我恳请法官阁下将此视为一项风险代理收费交易。在这种背景下，这是一个非常合理的费率。谢谢，法官阁下。法院：谢谢。Henzy 先生？HENZY 先生：那么——关于永利请求权，该诉讼刚刚由 Department of Justice（司法部）于 May 17 提起。因此，大约是在破产申请提交和财产清单提交三个月后。所以很多——法院：但您说那全都是申请前行为。HENZY 先生：我依据的是——我在阅读\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 714　提交于 08/10/22　录入于 08/10/22 11:13:10　第 105 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 714　提交于 08/10/22　录入于 08/10/22 11:13:10　第 106 页，共\n\n1　起诉状，法官阁下。我是说起诉状是在——\n\n2　法院：嗯，您的当事人会知道或不知道\n\n3　那是否为申请前行为。那是——\n\n4　HENZY 先生：不，法官阁下。\n\n5　法院：是的，他会知道。\n\n6　HENZY 先生：不是——这里发生之事的\n\n7　事实是在 May 17 才公开的。它们全都发生在\n\n8　多年前。它们是在 May 17, 2022 政府对 Wynn 先生\n\n9　提起起诉状时才公开的。所以我只是——我指出，许多\n\n10　发生于多年前的事实是在\n\n11　这份起诉状提交时首次公开的。\n\n12　仅此而已。\n\n13　因此，是在本案提交及\n\n14　财产清单提交三个月后。\n\n15　第二点——\n\n16　法院：嗯，受托人直到 July 8th 才被任命。\n\n17　因此，在此之前，您的当事人本可以修改其\n\n18　财产清单。\n\n19　HENZY 先生：我想他本可以，法官阁下。\n\n20　我不确定——\n\n21　法院：嗯，他有义务这样做。\n\n22　HENZY 先生：我不确定在本案中——\n\n23　法院：这不只是一个推测。\n\n24　HENZY 先生：是的，鉴于当时发生的一切，我\n\n25　不知道——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 714\n提交于 08/10/22　录入于 08/10/22 11:13:10\n\n法庭：\n当时是怎么回事？\n你的当事人没有做任何事。\n他们没有对任何事项提出异议。\n他们决定应当驳回该案。\n\n亨齐先生（Mr. Henzy）：\n是的。\n\n法庭：\n对。那么，他随后就自行决定他认为应当如何处理，而且他在《法典》下没有任何其他义务吗？\n\n亨齐先生：\n不，法官阁下，我认为这样说不公平。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我认为说他或许可以修改其申报清单，也不公平。\n\n亨齐先生：\n或许。\n\n法庭：\n他有义务修改其申报清单。\n\n亨齐先生：\n法官阁下，我指出的是，这些事实是在案件提交后很久才公开的，而且——\n\n法庭：\n顺便说一句，并不是在案件提交后很久才公开的。申报清单直到三月份才提交。\n\n亨齐先生：\n我认为，德斯潘先生（Mr. Despins）并未因债务人申报清单中的内容而受到司法禁止。因此，是否存在针对韦恩先生（Mr. Wynn）的请求权，我不知道，但我确实知道，德斯潘先生并未受到禁止。\n\n德斯潘先生：\n法官阁下，就此请允许我说两秒钟。\n\n法庭：\n可以。\n\n德斯潘先生：\n只是为了向您说明——您知道，亨齐先生非常有创意。我们承认这一点。因此，我们可能有一项请求权。让我们看看他要求解除我受托人职务的动议。\n\n法庭：\n那我们就这么做吧。\n\n德斯潘先生：\n其中写道——\n\n法庭：\n请稍等。我们一起看完整份文件，因为大家一起看，对我而言会容易得多。所以，他要求解除你职务的动议——\n\n德斯潘先生：\n是第561号。\n\n法庭：\n561。让我们看一下。\n\n德斯潘先生：\n第21段。\n\n法庭：\n给法庭书记员一点时间，我们把它调出来。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：\n第几页？\n\n德斯潘先生：\n第7页第21段，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。请把它放大一些，可以吗？谢谢。好的。\n\n德斯潘先生：\n因此，法官阁下，如您所见，其中提到一名前司法部（DOJ）官员认罪答辩，承认协助将数百万美元从外国银行账户转移至美国，以资助一项游说活动，向一名美国高级官员施压，要求非法将债务人从美国移除。这很严重。那么，该项请求权在申报清单中的任何地方吗？那是2018年的事。该项请求权在申报清单中吗？不在申报清单中。为什么？因为，再次说明，我赞赏亨齐先生提出这些理论，但债务人显然对这个人拥有一项很好的请求权，却没有追究该项请求权。因此，针对韦恩的请求权全属同一性质，也就是说，显然，如果债务人认为其对韦恩拥有一项请求权，他们肯定会针对这名前司法部官员主张这一项请求权。所以，这只是为了向您说明，这一切都是假借此事试图将保罗·黑斯廷斯（Paul Hastings）排除出本案，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 于 08/10/22 提交 于 08/10/22 11:13:10 登记 第108页（共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 于 08/10/22 提交 于 08/10/22 11:13:10 登记 第109页（共\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。好的。还有其他人希望发言吗？好的。该申请——请讲，弗里德曼先生（Mr. Friedman）。抱歉。\n\n弗里德曼先生：\n法官阁下，我唯一想说的是，回应克莱伯恩律师（Attorney Claiborn）的立场，显然，他们也认为他们聘请的第一家律师事务所具有专业能力和胜任能力，只是提出了不同的费率。我的陈述仅此而已，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 于 08/10/22 提交 于 08/10/22 11:13:10 登记 第110页（共\n\n法庭：\n现在，德斯潘先生，我只需要回过头看一下——关于你的申请，你是否提交了一份拟议命令？我想你提交了。我不确定它是与申请一并提交，还是后来提交的。\n\n德斯潘先生：\n应该提交了。让我——\n\n法庭：\n我已经看过——我甚至可能就在这里有它。你可以想象——\n\n德斯潘先生：\n让我找一下。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：\n我来找。别担心。我可以看一下。只需要一点时间。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n德斯潘先生：\n是文件539。\n\n法庭：\n是的，在那里。确实在那里。它是附件——它是——拟议命令共五页。\n\n德斯潘先生：\n是。531——539-1。\n\n法庭：\n是，我现在正在看。谢谢。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：\n德斯潘先生，你们律所的小时费率上调何时生效？是在年初发生，还是——通常是在什么时候发生？\n\n德斯潘先生：\n通常是，法官阁下，但我们的财政年度从二月份开始，即2月1日。因此，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 于 08/10/22 提交 于 08/10/22 11:13:10 登记 第111页（共\n\n通常会在那个时候生效。\n\n法庭：\n好的。因为我认为——而且在当事人关切小时费率的案件中，我通常会做的一件事，是确保在任何费率上调对本案任何人产生约束力之前，我已知悉该等费率上调。因此，例如，在你的拟议命令中，你说对于任何费率上调，你将至少提前十个工作日发出通知。你将向法院提交该通知。我认为这没有问题，因为视我们当时所处的阶段而定，费率可能不会在本案中上调，好吗？这是可能的。\n\n德斯潘先生：\n明白。\n\n法庭：\n好的。然后我还想看一件事，然后我将——\n\n（暂停。）\n\n我知道——正如今天每个人都承认的，这是一个复杂的案件。存在许多问题，我理解每个人的关切。我认为，人们有权提出他们已提出的关切，我也听取了这些关切。我审阅了就聘用保罗·黑斯廷斯的申请而提交的文件。\n\n我知道，保罗·黑斯廷斯和受托人德斯潘（Trustee Despins）均有持续义务，如同本案中的每一个人一样，处理可能影响利益冲突或无利害关系人资格的问题。目前，我认定保罗·黑斯廷斯是无利害关系人。债务人通过律师提出的论点没有说服力，因此，聘用保罗·黑斯廷斯的申请将获准。德斯潘先生，拟议命令如有任何轻微修改，也将只是轻微修改，但我注意到，如同我对所有律师所注意到的，或者至少我尽量记得这样做。我不知道我是否做得像我认为自己做得那样好，或者像我应当做得那样好，但《破产法典》第330条允许法院在就报销报酬和费用举行听证后，裁定的金额低于所请求的金额。因此，尽管这些费率和问题现已提交法院——你们已说明将收取什么费用，即这些是你们的费率——法院日后可能作出不同认定。但我并不是说这将会发生。我只是说《法典》——我希望确保律师知道《法典》有此规定。《法典》规定，我认为是第330(b)条，可以裁定低于所请求金额的报酬。我确实理解你关于本案以及应如何看待本案的观点，但目前，该申请获准。拟议命令经作一些轻微修改后可能——我认为唯一的修改将是——提及规则\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷速记和转录服务公司）\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 于 08/10/22 提交 于 08/10/22 11:13:10 登记 第113页（共\n\n——我的意思是，抱歉，第330条，以及，如果向法院提交费率上调，该上调可能不会被执行。其可能不会对财产产生执行效力，也可能会，取决于届时发生情况的具体情形。再次，我认为本案有许多问题，而且，我认为我们只能看看会发生什么。《法典》提供了这种灵活性，使法院作为监督机构能够就费用和支出作出决定。\n\n德斯潘先生：\n明白，法官阁下。我们唯一的观点是，我们并不想取消该项通常的裁量权，也就是说，如果我们为了取得保证金花费 \\$500,000，您就应当不予准许。好吗？\n\n法庭：\n对？\n\n德斯潘先生：\n但我想明确的是，这不会成为以变相方式引入本地费率或任何类似做法的途径——\n\n法庭：\n不，我不会这样做。我同意这一点。\n\n德斯潘先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n这不会发生。唯一可能发生的情况是，如果提交了一项申请，且法院认定有某种理由说明所提供的服务不应获得报销。\n\n德斯潘先生：\n完全明白，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 于 08/10/22 提交 于 08/10/22 11:13:10 登记 第114页（共\n\n法庭：\n而不是费率上调。我不确定费率上调是否会——届时我们必须看当时的情况。\n\n德斯潘先生：\n明白。\n\n法庭：\n弗里德曼先生。\n\n弗里德曼先生：\n我只是想明确一点，而且我认为无需将此加入命令，因为我认为这始终是程序的一部分。例如，如果我们想对与披露是否适当有关的枝节事项的可补偿性提出异议，或者有人向最高法院提起上诉，我们始终有权在与每一项申请相关时，无论是临时申请还是最终申请，主张某一具体时间记录未给财产带来价值。\n\n法庭：\n完全正确。每个人都有该项权利。这是正确的。\n\n弗里德曼先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。非常感谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的。法院在审查费用申请后，也可以作出该项决定。因此，聘用保罗·黑斯廷斯的申请获准，命令将作轻微修改后签发，受托人德斯潘，好吗？\n\n德斯潘先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n现在我们可以转至聘用纽伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂思（Neubert, Pepe and Monteith）的申请。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 于 08/10/22 提交 于 08/10/22 11:13:10 登记 第115页（共\n\n斯卡尔卡先生（Mr. Skalka）：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n下午好。\n\n斯卡尔卡先生：\n我代表纽伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂思就其申请发言，我是道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡（Douglas Skalka）。\n\n法官阁下，正如我认为您所知，受托人提交了一项申请，要求聘用我的律所担任其本地律师。该申请日期为7月19日，案卷编号为569。我们没有收到对该申请的异议或回应。\n\n我们确实收到美国受托人办公室（U.S. Trustee's Office）要求提交补充声明的请求，我们已于7月26日提交。\n\n作为该补充申请的一部分，我们表示，我们不反对修改我们的命令，增加一段，说明我们将需要为与受托人有关的服务寻求报酬。因此，该内容并未载于已提交的命令中，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\n斯卡尔卡先生：\n我可以提交一份具有该等效力的修订命令，当然，我愿意在今天晚些时候或明天这样做。\n\n法庭：\n还有其他人希望就受托人聘用纽伯特、佩佩和蒙蒂思的申请发言吗？\n\n克莱伯恩女士（Ms. Claiborn）：\n法官阁下，简要说几句。霍利·克莱伯恩（Holley Claiborn）代表美国受托人。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 于 08/10/22 提交 于 08/10/22 11:13:10 登记 第116页（共\n\n2　Skalka 律师所指的段落，也载于拟聘用 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的申请中，载于该拟定的 Paul Hastings 命令第 5 段。\n\n5　该段限制可能授予该律所的报酬，并排除对受托人服务的报酬。\n\n8　法庭：\n谢谢。\n\n9　因此，您的意思是，Skalka 律师只需将该措辞载入拟定命令中。\n\n11　CLAIBORN 女士（克莱本）：\n正确。\n\n12　法庭：\n好的。可以。\n\n13　CLAIBORN 女士：\n在此情况下，美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）不提出异议。\n\n15　法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n16　SKALKA 律师（斯卡尔卡）：\n而且，这对本律所而言完全可以接受，审判长。\n\n18　法庭：\n还有其他人希望就聘用 Neubert, Pepe, Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩、蒙蒂斯）的申请发表意见吗？\n\n20　好的。未听到其他任何人的意见，并且已审阅该申请以及各方希望尽可能提高本案效率、包括在费用和支出方面提高效率的意愿后，我理解受托人寻求聘用 Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 的理由。\n\n25　我认为，Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 已证明其为无利害关系方，且无人对该申请提出任何其他异议。Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 已声明，其将提交一份新的拟定命令，其中载有美国受托人办公室在记录中提出、并已载入批准聘用 Paul Hastings 申请的命令中的限制条件。因此，基于上述所有理由，批准聘用 Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 的申请。至于拟定命令——Skalka 律师，您需要多长时间提交该拟定命令？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 117 of\n\nSKALKA 律师：\n我想我明天就能提交，审判长。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么，为便于书记官办公室处理，我将期限定为 8 月 3 日。如何？那是星期三。\n\nSKALKA 律师：\n可以。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n\nSKALKA 律师：\n谢谢您，审判长。\n\n法庭：\n请大家给我一点时间。（暂停。）\n\n好的。因此，该申请获准。接着，为明确今日庭审日程——我此前已说明，因驳回 Rule 60 动议，撤销动议已无实际意义。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 118 of\n\n因此，日程上剩余的仅是以下动议：确认 Chapter 11（第 11 章）受托人持有债务人的全部经济权利和公司治理权利及债务人控制实体的全部该等权利，并授权受托人在外国行事的命令动议。Despins 先生（德斯平斯），您希望就此发表意见吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n是的，审判长。\n\n法庭：\n请。请直接开始。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n还请记得，我们也有一些程序性事项。\n\n法庭：\n是。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n好的。因此，公司治理动议基本上是为了确认我们取代债务人的地位。我很高兴我们提交了该动议，因为债务人的答复明确表明，他们在何种程度上会与我们合作尚不清楚。因此，他们基本上提出了关于 BVI——抱歉，Genever BVI（杰内弗英属维尔京群岛公司）的问题。请记住，那是在 BVI 的母控股公司，其持有目前在 Garrity 法官（加里蒂法官）面前的 Chapter 11 债务人的权益。为回应他们对那里将会发生何事的担忧，我们实际上昨天、昨晚相当晚时提交了一份经修订的拟定命令，其中说明：好的，这就是我们需要债务人做的事。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 119 of\n\n用较为通俗的说法，我们是这样看待此事的：债务人有一辆车。我们想要这辆车的钥匙。或者，债务人有股票。我们希望债务人在实质上背书转让该股票给我们。因此，根据 BVI 法律，实现这一点的方式是，他需要签署某些文件；我们已附上这些文件的草案，由我们的 BVI 律师拟定。该命令基本上规定，Kwok 先生（郭文贵）将在我想是两个营业日内签署这些文件，将其对该等股份的权利转让给受托人。文本很多，但实质上就是如此。此外，关于我提到的代表 Kwok 先生参与针对 UBS（瑞银集团）诉讼的英国律师存在一个未解决的问题，基本上，我很早就联系过他们，我想是在获任命后两三天，他们就联系了 Henzy 先生（亨齐）——事实上，那应当更晚些，因为 Henzy 先生直到 14 日星期五左右才获任命。无论如何，他们联系 Henzy 先生说，这个人，也就是受托人，正在联系我们。我们应当和他谈吗？值得称赞的是，Henzy 先生给他们写了一封非常友善的电子邮件，称受托人拥有该诉讼中的全部权利。Kwok 先生不控制其中任何事项。请与他沟通。\n\n1　因此，我们与他们通了电话，他们说，好吧，那可能是美国对法律的看法，但不是英国的看法。您可能必须提交一项动议，以被承认为外国——我说，不。如果我想对某人启动外国破产程序，我需要这样做。但如果我只是想作为原告获得替代，我就不需要这样做。\n\n9　审判长，为免使事情讲得太长，他们说，实际上，我们需要一封来自 Kwok 先生的信，因为他们担心被起诉——他们没有使用“被起诉”这些措辞，但从肢体语言明显可以看出，他们不想在没有 Kwok 先生来信的情况下做任何事情。\n\n15　因此，这里的类比也是一样。我需要汽车钥匙，而汽车钥匙由 Kwok 先生持有。他只需给他们寄一封信。该信基本上——重复了 Henzy 先生已经写给他们的内容，但将由债务人签署，并说明该诉讼现由 Chapter 11 受托人拥有。他拥有全部权利。你们应当向他告知一切，无论是否享有特权。你们应当与他沟通一切事项。\n\n23　因此，这就是我们提出该动议所要做的事。债务人对我们提出的批评是——首先，存在诉讼资格问题，债务人应当就这些问题发表意见。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 121 of\n\n他们提出了其他人的权利，例如 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·勒克），尽管我们已向 Bravo Luck 发出通知。我们已向 Bravo Luck 的律师送达。因此，这不是问题。但债务人在此问题上的诉讼资格值得质疑。不过，撇开诉讼资格不谈，是的，审判长，我们正在寻求广泛的救济。为什么？因为成本。我们不希望不断回到法庭说，嘿，您能否授权澳大利亚的这件事？您能否授权加拿大的这件事？我只是随便举例。并且一直回到法庭。因此，是的，我们请求的是广泛的救济。其理念是，受托人将酌情以合理的方式行使该权力；否则，基本上您会来处理我。您会告诉我，我本不应做这些事。但我认为，承认受托人从公司治理角度行事的权力是标准做法，而且我们援引了具有该效力的判例。例如，我们需要在 Genever 案中见 Garrity 法官。我不希望出现这种情况：Bravo Luck，也就是儿子据称拥有的公司，出庭说他无权发言。他没有从 BVI 获得股份，等等。我们无法处理这种情况。这正是该命令所实现的目的。基本上，它非常明确地表明我们持有所有这些权利，这就是我们请求审判长签发该命令的原因。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 122 of\n\n但我很乐意回答任何问题，审判长，或回应债务人任何尚未回应的批评。\n\n法庭：\n我对此有一个问题——再次说明，该命令是昨天提交的。因此，我看过它，但我想说，没有像我在其他情况下可能会做的那样仔细看。不过没关系。我已看过它。我本会假定，但我不应假定，所以我不会假定。如果——如果该命令签发，而 Kwok 先生不签署这些文件，那么下一步是什么？\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n您触及了我们最终将在本案中谈到的一点，即藐视法庭。\n\n法庭：\n因此，我们需要再举行一次听证会。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n嗯，将会有一项请求认定他们藐视法庭的动议。\n\n法庭：\n对。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n是。\n\n法庭：\n好的。因此，这——我的意思是，这是我对它的理解，但再次说明，正如我对您所说，我没有像在其他情况下那样彻底阅读它，因为今天早上我只有一点时间查看它，但没关系。我大体理解其条款和条件，也理解您请求法院依据《破产法》的具体条款签发命令，包括以下条款——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 714\nFiled 08/10/22\nEntered 08/10/22 11:13:10\n\n1　DESPINS 先生：\n521。\n\n2　法庭：\n即法典规定的债务人义务，无论债务人是否为占有中的债务人。并且，您不仅在美国需要此项命令，也为在 Kwok 先生在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）提出其 Chapter 11 案件时正在进行和已经进行的不同事项需要此项命令。\n\n8　因此，我没有其他问题。我只是询问那个问题。\n\n10　DESPINS 先生：\n谢谢您，审判长。\n\n11　法庭：\n谢谢。Henzy 先生？\n\n12　HENZY 先生：\n因此，审判长——\n\n13　法庭：\n所以您希望就此发表意见？\n\n14　HENZY 先生：\n是的，审判长。\n\n15　法庭：\n好的。请继续。\n\n16　HENZY 先生：\n关于现在请求的、我将称之为两项新的救济，它们并未包含在该动议中。\n\n19　法庭：\n您是指那些信函？\n\n20　HENZY 先生：\n因此，他请求您命令 Kwok 先生签署、将寄送给英国 Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克）律师事务所的那封信，在该动议中完全没有以任何方式被提及。\n\n24　因此，我不知道 Despins 先生今天如何能够获得该项救济。这是新的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 714 Filed 08/10/22 Entered 08/10/22 11:13:10 Page 124 of\n\n就其实体而言，Despins 先生是对的。我试图先行处理该事项，因为 Harcus Parker 的人员正试图联系我，而我的立场是，我不想与你们谈，因为 Kwok 先生已不再是该诉讼的当事人。你们需要与 Despins 先生谈。我向他发送的电子邮件中抄送了他，自我发送该电子邮件后，我未参与他们与他之间的任何沟通。我不知道英国的法律是什么。我不知道那里的法院有哪些要求。我不知道他们适用何种特权问题。我确实知道——我的意思是，我不代表这些人，但 Kwok 先生被要求签署一封可能影响其他人权利的信。我不知道——我相信 Harcus Parker 律所也代表该诉讼中的其他人。因此，Despins 先生正在就该动议中已有的内容增加救济，而我不知道——而且该救济——至少就此而言，将指示 Kwok 先生做某事，而我完全不知道——指示 Kwok 先生做的事情，在该等事实和情形下是否适当。\n\n法庭：\n那么，让我问您一个问题。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n当然。\n\n法庭：你反对郭文贵先生（Ho Wan Kwok）甚至签署 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever控股公司）的股份转让文件吗？\n\n亨齐先生：好的，让我谈到这一点。\n\n法庭：这就是我的问题。你反对这一点吗？\n\n亨齐先生：因此，这也不属于所请求救济的一部分。\n\n法庭：让我直接问这个问题。你现在到庭并且非常明确地表述，郭先生不再是自行管理的债务人。\n\n亨齐先生：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，他在破产法典下仍负有义务，而德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）要求他向其提供信息，包括交出 Genever Holdings Corporation 的股份，对吗？你不是说你收到了一封信——德斯平斯先生给你或给郭先生寄了一封信，说他想要所有信息吗？\n\n亨齐先生：我不——\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，我们在巴尔迪加先生（Mr. Baldiga）被解除职务之前向他寄了一封信。我们向米切尔先生（Mr. Mitchell）寄了一封信？随后，我们抄送——在他们被任命时，我们抄送并表示我们需要所有这些材料。信中要求提供与 BVI 公司治理有关的所有文件。\n\n菲奥雷速记和转录服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 于 08/10/22 提交 于 08/10/22 11:13:10 登记 第 125 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 于 08/10/22 提交 于 08/10/22 11:13:10 登记 第 126 页，共\n\n1　法庭：对。那么请等一下。因此，我问你的问题是，为什么郭先生不将他拥有的一家公司的股份转让给这位受托人？\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4　亨齐先生：我不知道您是否已经说完了，法官阁下。\n\n5\n\n6　法庭：实际上，我说完了。请继续。\n\n7　亨齐先生：好的。因此，背景是，纽约雪莉-内德兰酒店（Sherry Netherland Hotel）有一套公寓。\n\n8\n\n9　该公寓由一个实体拥有，该实体正在加里蒂法官（Judge Garrity）面前进行 Chapter 11 程序。\n\n10\n\n11　法庭：我明白。\n\n12　亨齐先生：好的。据我了解，好的，\n\n13　因为我没有花很多时间查看\n\n14　该案中已经发生的一切，BVI 母公司的所有权\n\n15　一直——已经存在争议。\n\n16　实际上，加里蒂法官——曾有一项\n\n17　和解——一项命令，我想我会称其为一种和解性质的命令，\n\n18　由加里蒂法官作出，其中他——其基本上\n\n19　规定出售该公寓，并由\n\n20　梅拉妮·齐加诺夫斯基（Melanie Cyganowski）监督。\n\n21　据我了解，Chapter 11 案件中的债务人\n\n22　实际上已放弃其几乎大部分——或者可能\n\n23　全部控制该出售的能力。\n\n24　因此，每个人都同意该公寓将被出售，我们将把它交由梅拉妮·齐加诺夫斯基\n\n负责办理。因此，该公寓不会出任何问题。它将被出售。我假定款项将存入该案的 DIP 账户，而且不会发生任何不利情况。但再次强调，母公司的所有权存在争议。所称情况是，一个信托拥有该母公司，而郭先生以受托人身份持有股份。法官阁下，我想明确指出，这是在加里蒂法官面前的 Chapter 11 案件中再次提出的主张。我没有花任何时间研究此事。我的担忧是，郭先生——这是——我第一次看到这些文件——实际上，我想我今天早上醒来时才看到它们，因为它们昨晚 10:09 提交，而坦率地说，我大概在那之前不久就关掉了手机。因此，郭先生——德斯平斯先生请求您作出命令，指示郭先生签署这些文件。法官阁下，我完全不知道这些文件是否为适当文件。我完全不知道这会如何影响加里蒂法官案件中正在发生的事情，或如何影响任何事情。我完全不知道。我不是 BVI 律师。我不知道这些是否为正确文件。我不知道 BVI 法律如何规定。我从未见过据称存在、将\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 于 08/10/22 提交 于 08/10/22 11:13:10 登记 第 128 页，共\n\n控制任何人在此权利的信托协议。因此，如果德斯平斯先生想从法庭取得一项命令，指示郭先生签署特定文件，即这里的这些特定文件，我的主张是，他应当提交一项动议，而我应当有一些时间审查该动议并审查这些文件，努力了解这些文件是否为适当文件。再次强调，法官阁下，这些文件并未附在向法庭提交的动议中。这是正在请求的新救济。所请求的全部救济——就公司治理而言所请求的救济——仅是确认受托人拥有债务人的全部经济及治理权利。动议中并未——没有任何内容说，请给我一项命令，指示其签署特定文件。\n\n法庭：好的。德斯平斯先生？\n\n德斯平斯先生：是，法官阁下。如您所述，那里的经过是，我们自 July 14th 起一直要求提供文件。他们一份文件也没有提交，包括关于该实体公司治理的文件。因此，当我们提交这项动议时，他们说，哦，我们不确定这是否符合 BVI 法律，我说，好的。我们会使其\n\n1　生效。这就是该命令实际规定其所规定内容的原因。\n\n2\n\n3　确实，这是临时通知，但 1021\n\n4　规定——抱歉。哪一条规定，在通知及\n\n5　听证后——\n\n6　法庭：\n\n7　德斯平斯先生：1021。它规定在具体情形下\n\n8　适当的任何通知。\n\n9　因此，如果法官阁下希望——而且我认为您——\n\n10　星期二对您来说是繁忙的日子，对吗？您的日程很满，\n\n11　或者——我不知道——或者星期三上午，因此他\n\n12　可以作出回应，但在我们就此结束之前，我希望向\n\n13　法官阁下提交一份证物，如果我可以走近的话。\n\n14　法庭：该材料已经在本案记录中吗？\n\n15　德斯平斯先生：没有。它在纽约法院的记录中，\n\n16　其中郭先生——\n\n17　法庭：加里蒂法官的案件中？\n\n18　德斯平斯先生：不。它在纽约奥斯特拉格法官（Judge Ostrager）\n\n19　的案件中。郭先生在其中宣誓称，他是这些\n\n20　股份的唯一所有人。因此，我可以——\n\n21　法庭：可以，请走近法庭书记员。谢谢。\n\n22\n\n23　亨齐先生：法官阁下，我不——我将反对接纳该材料。\n\n24　这是由——作出的宣誓书。\n\n25　德斯平斯先生：不止如此。这是一份\n\n菲奥雷速记和转录服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 于 08/10/22 提交 于 08/10/22 11:13:10 登记 第 129 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 于 08/10/22 提交 于 08/10/22 11:13:10 登记 第 130 页，共\n\n1　文件汇编，但在第一份宣誓书中，您会看到该处已标出。其称，郭先生——这是一家与郭先生有关联的实体作出的宣誓书。其称郭先生是 BVI 的唯一股东。\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5　但假定该材料不存在。我们继续翻页。随后我们看到\n\n6　被告郭先生对原告 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）提出的一组书面质询的答复及异议。\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9　然后您看到第 6 页，即对书面质询的答复。\n\n10　在不放弃一般性、诸如此类的前提下，\n\n11　我答复，我是 Genever Holdings Corporation 已发行股份的法定所有人。\n\n12\n\n13　然后，如果您翻到该文件末尾，\n\n14　其由 Kwok Ho Wan 于 December 4th, 2020 签署。\n\n15　法庭：实际上，他在第 9 页对第 5 项书面质询的答复中又作了同样陈述。\n\n16\n\n17　德斯平斯先生：因此，是的，存在这个问题——\n\n18　好的，我并非试图耍小聪明。确实存在一份\n\n19　信托协议的问题，该协议将使其儿子成为该公寓的受益所有人。\n\n20\n\n21　但是，这并不——这并不影响郭先生作为 BVI 控股实体唯一股东这一事实。\n\n22\n\n23　实际上，郭先生本人——而非其儿子——一直继续对债务人实体行使控制权这一事实，\n\n24　也说明了这一点。例如，当加里蒂法官面前的债务人\n\n25　订立一项协议时，该协议由郭先生代表\n\n案件 22-50073\n\n文件 714\n\n于 08/10/22 提交\n\n于 08/10/22 11:13:10 登记\n\n1　债务人实体签署。\n\n2\n\n3　因此，我们所请求的仅仅是在 BVI 及债务人实体层面拥有相同权利，\n\n4　以便我们能够在该案中获得加里蒂法官的认可。\n\n5\n\n6　因此——我以前也说过。我们并非试图阻止出售。\n\n7　但在处理事务性问题时，我将处理一些\n\n8　我们需要在该案中解决的根本性问题，\n\n9　这使得此事具有时间紧迫性。\n\n10\n\n11　亨齐先生：我不明白。法官阁下，我们是否正在就\n\n12　该等所有权问题进行审判——这些问题一直在加里蒂法官面前，\n\n13　而且我认为他所作命令预期这些问题将\n\n14　在其他地方的诉讼中得到解决，这并非——这些事项\n\n15　均不在本法庭审理范围内。这些事项均未载于\n\n16　德斯平斯先生提交的动议中。他请求对其\n\n17　所拥有的任何治理及经济权利作出广泛确认。\n\n18\n\n19　而这些事项均不在该动议中。\n\n20　弗里德曼先生（Mr. Friedman）：法官阁下？\n\n21　法庭：是。\n\n22　弗里德曼先生：我是彼得·弗里德曼（Peter Friedman）。我只想就此陈述两秒钟。\n\n23\n\n24　法庭：是。\n\n25　弗里德曼先生：我只是认为，再次强调，其中存在大量反复改口；回到我们刚才谈到的问题之一，如果您查看——我认为是案卷第 107 号，我认为是第 16 段，为明确起见，我认为您应当将对方所作一切反复改口的性质纳入考量。郭先生实际上在该声明中宣誓称，他在 May, 2021 就知道史蒂夫·永利（Steve Wynn）的事情，对吗？而现在您听说，他直到 May, 2022 才知道。我只是认为，您需要非常谨慎地对待与郭先生有关的一切。这涉及谁拥有 Genever 的股份。我想补充的是，除藐视法庭命令及判决书外，我们获得的另一项救济是奥斯特拉格法官下令交付股份；他称郭先生实际上必须将 Genever BVI 的股份交付给 PAX。因此，这只是另一个——我们认为，这是又一次试图阻挠合法债权人取得有价值实体股份的行为。我们认为这应当停止，并且应当命令交付这些股份——这些股份已经被命令交付，而今天所请求的救济应当使该命令得到执行。这只是——这只是持续试图阻挠债权人收回\n\n1　资产的一种模式。从 PAX 的角度而言，不应再进一步拖延此事，这一点极其重要。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4　法庭：谢谢。亨齐先生？\n\n5　亨齐先生：我从未说过郭先生在案件提起之前不知道永利先生的事情。我所说的是，在案件提起后，当司法部（DOJ）提交其起诉状时，许多事实才披露出来。\n\n6\n\n7\n\n8\n\n9　因此，我认为不断回到这一点，是在歪曲我所说的话。我当时起身时说过，法官阁下，签署这些文件或许并无异议。\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13　所反对的是——动议中没有任何内容请求该项救济。\n\n14\n\n15　首先——\n\n16　法庭：嗯，该动议笼统地请求了该救济。我理解你的观点。并未——\n\n17\n\n18　亨齐先生：该——\n\n19　法庭：我理解你的观点。动议中没有附上两封供郭先生签署的信件。我理解。\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22　亨齐先生：法官阁下，那样说将是令人震惊的。称该动议中请求的救济可等同于——\n\n23\n\n24　——你必须签署这些特定文件——\n\n25　法庭：嗯，我不知道这是否令人震惊。\n\n不过。\n\n我不完全同意你的观点，好吗？\n\n就自 7 月 8 日以来已有受托人到位而言。\n\n现在是 8 月 1 日。债务人负有义务。债务人\n\n在不同案件的先前文件中陈述，他拥有\n\n某些物品。\n\n已出示了一份股票证书。\n\n还有——这不是什么新情况。对你来说可能是新的，\n\n但它并不新。而且再看一下 Friedman（弗里德曼先生）\n\n刚才再次向我指出的 Kwok（郭文贵）先生的声明，\n\n该声明于 2022 年 3 月 20 日提交，其中他提及了\n\n那篇文章——一篇关于 Steve Wynn（史蒂夫·韦恩）面临司法部\n\n行动的文章。\n\n你知道，到了某个时候，这些论点\n\n开始变得不可信。问题是 Kwok 先生\n\n认为他的案件会被驳回。我不知道\n\n他为什么这么认为，但他就是这么认为。\n\n在——你知道，当存在可能——\n\n另外两件事情发生时。指定第 11 章\n\n受托人，或转换为第 7 章程序。\n\n他负有义务。他没有——他尚未履行\n\n这些义务。关于你的论点——\n\nHENZY（亨齐）先生：\n具体是哪方面？具体是哪方面？\n\n法院：\n等一下。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n具体是哪方面，法官阁下，他没有\n\n履行——自从——\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 714\n提交于 08/10/22\n录入于 08/10/22 11:13:10\n\n法院：\n他没有向 Despins（德斯平斯）先生交出\n\n德斯平斯先生要求他交出的材料。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n德斯平斯先生寄了一封信——\n\n法院：\n等一下。等一下。等一\n\n下。现在你没有回答我的问题。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n嗯，您的——我不——\n\n法院：\n他没有向德斯平斯先生交出\n\n德斯平斯先生依《破产法》正当地要求\n\n他交出的材料。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n好的。我手头没有那封信，而且我——而且我不希望——\n\n法院：\n那么，你的当事人本应向你提供\n\n该信。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n我不希望——不，我看过那封\n\n信，法官阁下。而且我不希望 Friedman\n\n先生跳出来说——并歪曲我的话，说我\n\n说了我没有说过的话，好吗？\n\n但我手头没有那封信。我\n\n不——\n\n法院：\n嗯，不，但是——\n\nHENZY 先生：\n我手头没有那封信，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n是的。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n我认为德斯平斯先生在\n\n信中要求的内容，而且德斯平斯先生拿着那封信，他会\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 714\n提交于 08/10/22\n录入于 08/10/22 11:13:10\n\n告诉您如果我说错了，是一个非常宽泛的要求——我们\n\n想查看有关特定实体的大量信息，\n\n好吗？\n\n所以我现在不记得，那封要求信中是否\n\n要求提供这些文件，好吗，但——\n\n我不知道这些文件是否甚至存在。\n\n我不记得那封信中有一项要求\n\n说了除“我们要你向我们交出\n\n一大堆东西”以外的任何内容；我会告诉您，\n\n法官阁下，债务人——我们正在处理此事。我们\n\n正试图收集这些文件，以交给\n\n德斯平斯先生。我们正在这么做，好吗？\n\n我毫不怀疑，德斯平斯先生以及或许法官阁下\n\n认为此事应当进展得更快，这没问题。但我们\n\n正在处理此事。\n\n但我不记得那封信中有一份文件\n\n写道——好的。Kindseth（金塞思）先生告诉我，而且我认为\n\n他比我更了解那封信，\n\n其中没有这样的要求，好吗？\n\n所以我并不是——\n\n法院：\n没有具体的信函，还是关于\n\nGenever（吉纳弗）？我是说，那是不同的——你是在以不同方式\n\n咬文嚼字。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n我不是在咬文嚼字。有一封\n\n德斯平斯先生寄出的信，恰当地——好的，\n\n没有人提出异议——写道你必须把这些东西寄给我，好吗？这尚未发生。我承认这一点。债务人——我们正在处理此事。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n是否应当更快？也许应当。\n\n法院：\n但让我说一下你的论点为何站不住脚，好吗？Kwok 先生于 5 月——3 月 20 日在本院提交了一份宣誓书，ECF 107，第——我告诉你页码。第 16 页或第 108 页。Sherry Netherland（希尔瑞-内德兰）公寓的合作公寓股份由 Genever Holdings, LLC（吉纳弗控股有限责任公司）持有。Genever U.S.（吉纳弗美国）的成员权益则由 Genever Holdings Corporation, Genever BVI（吉纳弗控股公司，吉纳弗英属维尔京群岛）持有。我持有 Genever BVI 的全部股权。这是 Kwok 先生所述。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n但您必须继续往下看。我认为——我建议——\n\n法院：\n不，我不必。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n但是——\n\n法院：\n不，我确实不必。在涉及 Genever BVI 时不必，而这正是受托人所询问的。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n但是，根据日期为 February 17, 2015 的信托声明协议，我为 Bravo Luck Limited（布拉沃·拉克有限公司）信托持有该等股权。我的儿子拥有\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷庭审记录和誊写服务公司）\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 提交于 08/10/22 录入于 08/10/22 11:13:10 第 137 页，共\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 提交于 08/10/22 录入于 08/10/22 11:13:10 第 138 页，共\n\n该公寓所有人的股权。\n\n法院：\n好吧，你猜怎么着？在到达 Genever BVI 之前，你到不了 Bravo Luck Limited。你不能——你只需查看这条链条。在到达 Genever BVI 之前，你到不了 Bravo Luck Limited，因为他持有全部股权，但随后他以信托方式持有该等股权。我的意思是，这会非常困难。我们可以制作一张图。我们可以制作一张漂亮的小图。我们可以从一个实体到另一个实体画出连线。但这个——\n\nHENZY 先生：\n这个——我道歉，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n这是他所说的。他还说，还应指出，我在 Genever BVI 中拥有的任何权益，均已被 Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官命令移交给 PAX（PAX），前提是该移交不干扰英属维尔京群岛待决诉讼或 Genever U.S. 破产程序。好吗？所以 Kwok 先生在 3 月 20 日说了这话。现在是 8 月 1 日。对于他——我并不是说我不会给你答复的机会，因为我会给你一个，好吗？时间不会很长。关键在于——提出这样的论点，即你不知道——不是指你，不是关于你。即 Kwok 先生的律师不知道这是否会产生影响，以及其他当事人担心其他第三方，这些全都\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 提交于 08/10/22 录入于 08/10/22 11:13:10 第 139 页，共\n\n无关紧要，因为 Kwok 先生已经向本院宣誓称，\n\n他持有 Genever BVI 的全部股权。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n我认为您和我对\n\n此的理解不同，法官阁下。对不起。\n\n法院：\n好的。那么我们的理解不同。但你猜怎么着？那么你将会——我最终会裁定他必须这么做。这是他所说的。这是他所说的。我的儿子拥有——该公寓所有人。\n\n但是，根据一份信托声明，我为 Bravo Limited（布拉沃有限公司）信托持有该等股权。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n他仍然持有它。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n他以——方式持有它。\n\n法院：\n他仍然——\n\nHENZY 先生：\n他为 Bravo Limited 信托持有它。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n看，我——\n\n法院：\nBravo Limited 如何支付那套公寓的费用？我们是不是要逐一追查所有——这就是——我们要追踪资金流向，对吧？这就是我们要做的吗？难道这不正是我们正在做的吗？\n\nHENZY 先生：\n我完全不知道。\n\n法院：\n这正是我们正在做的。这就是为什么指定了第 11 章受托人。这就是我们\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 714 提交于 08/10/22 录入于 08/10/22 11:13:10 第 140 页，共\n\n正在做的。\n\n这里发生的情况是——\n\nHENZY 先生：\n这里有一堆事情，在我看来彼此之间\n\n并没有关联，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n它们怎么可能没有关联？他说它们有关联。他在自己的\n\n声明中写下了这一点。这就是他——他所说的。所以——\n\nHENZY 先生：\n他说他为\n\n他人信托持有它。而且，看，再次说明，我没有——我尚未\n\n有时间分析这个问题，因为这件事是——\n\n法院：\n好的。我们来看这份证书。我们来看\n\n纽约州诉讼中那份证书，日期是在——February 13, 2015 的某个时候。\n\n他持有——上面写着：“我证明，我是上述公司\n\n1,000 股面值为一美分、均已全额缴付的美元股份的登记\n\n持有人，受该公司章程大纲及组织章程细则的约束。”\n\n所以那是 February 13, 2015。这份信托文件的日期\n\n在四天之后。所以随后他转让了自己的股权。所以随后也许\n\n这是一项欺诈性转让。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n可能是。可能是，法官。\n\n法院：\n可能是。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n好的。但我们不是——我认为我们不能在实质上仅提前 14 小时通知的情况下\n\n解决此事。\n\n法院：\n我刚刚告诉你，我会给你\n\n时间作出答复。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n好的。\n\n法院：\n我会给你时间作出答复。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n回到这里最初的问题，我说过，法官阁下，这完全可能是适当的，债务人可能不会反对签署这些文件，但\n\n我不知道，因为这份文件是昨晚 10:09 提交的。\n\n而且它不在先前已提交的动议中。\n\n法院：\n好的。那么，我将给你一个机会询问你的\n\n当事人是否会签署这些文件，好吗？\n\nHENZY 先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n我能否有足够的时间进行\n\n尽职审查？因为我——我想弄清楚——\n\n为了向我的当事人提供意见，我认为我需要进行一些\n\n尽职审查并理解这一点，好吗？所以我希望\n\n我能获得超过 24 或 36 小时的时间。我听到 Despins 先生说是周三上午。\n\n这里并没有发生任何事情，法官阁下。该公寓——\n\n法院：\n这正是关键。这里并没有发生任何事情。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n不，不，不，不。关于该公寓——\n\n以及所有人——\n\n法院：\n而且我们必须取得一些材料，以便\n\n继续推进。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n我不知道我说了什么好笑的话。我通常不被认为是个有趣的人，但该公寓将通过由 Melanie Cyganowski（梅拉妮·西加诺夫斯基）监督的程序出售。该公寓、该笔资金，所有这些都将成为纽约南区破产财产的一部分，受 Garrity（加里蒂）法官监督。它不会去任何地方。我不知道——难道设想是 Kwok 先生会以某种方式携带该公寓潜逃，他会带着希尔瑞-内德兰公寓离开，或者他会带着出售该公寓所得的资金离开吗？这不会发生。因此，鉴于这里的复杂性，我认为这是公平的。而且您和我确实对这一段有不同的理解。我认为——我不知道，法官阁下，这里的结构是什么。我确实知道，为他人信托持有的财产不是破产财产，取决于——\n\n法院：\n我对此不太确定。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n取决于事实和情况。\n\n法院：\n我对此不太确定。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n所以也许有时是。我认为很多时候不是。因此，我不知道这里所有的事实是什么，因为如我所说，这不是一项\n\n已提交的动议。这是在昨晚10:09提交的一项命令中载明的。\n\n法院：\n我明白。\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯）：\n而且，法官大人，我会向HENZY先生（亨齐）提供更多文件。事实上，有一份文件是——\n\nHENZY先生：\n不要递——我不希望你在法庭上递给我文件。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n好的。\n\nHENZY先生：\n你可以把文件给我。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n好的。但关键在于，法官大人，Kwok先生（郭文贵）对该实体行使控制权。因此，这并不是其儿子的实体。\n\n因此，例如，当Genever U.S.（吉纳弗美国）希望申请破产时，授权书由Kwok先生签署。该授权书并非由其儿子或Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）签署，而是由Kwok先生签署。\n\n所以，我想，法官大人，我们现在是在讨论排期，因为——\n\n法院：\n是的，正是。我们在讨论排期。我将给予HENZY先生一些时间审阅此事并提交答复。\n\n我正在查看——请稍等一下，好吗？我需要查看日历。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n好的。关于受托人提交的动议，即确认第11章受托人持有债务人全部经济权利及公司治理权利的动议，ECF 598，以及与该动议有关、载于ECF 645的经修订拟议命令，基于记录中陈述的理由，该事项将——本事项将延期至8月4日星期四下午1:00。\n\n现在，关于——因此，我认为这处理了我们所有事项，除了一些事务性事项，Despins受托人，其中包括债权申报截止日期命令。\n\nHENZY先生：\n法官大人，我可以提出一点意见或问题吗？\n\n法院：\n可以。\n\nHENZY先生：\n好的。关于致Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克）律师事务所的信函，如果Despins先生不在电话上，我不会与Harcus Parker沟通，因为我认为我将会——很可能会被指称说了不该说的话，或者我的话将被曲解。\n\n法院：\n嗯，你和Despins先生自行解决此事。我并未命令你必须在电话上。\n\nHENZY先生：\n我不知道他们何时有空。我不知道——您知道，所以我不知道这是否能在8月4日下午1点前完成。就这些。\n\n我当然会安排自己有空并尽最大努力，但我们说的是与伦敦的律师交谈，我不知道——这将花费多少时间。\n\n法院：\n我认为，除你之外，没有人在谈论与伦敦的律师交谈。\n\nHENZY先生：\n我们必须这样做。\n\n法院：\n那么那是你的问题。你可以想办法解决。我们将在星期四下午1:00举行听证会。\n\nHENZY先生：\n好的。那么，如果我——我不知道该如何解决。\n\n法院：\n嗯，你会尝试。你可以解决。你会努力去解决。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n法官大人，星期四下午1:00是现场进行，还是通过Zoom？\n\n法院：\n嗯，你——你与星期四有时间冲突吗？你是在告诉我这个吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n是的，我在国外。\n\n法院：\n哦，你在国外。嗯，那——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n但我可以通过Zoom参加。\n\n法院：\n好的。嗯，那么我们可以——我想——你什么时候回来？你会在外面很久吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n是的。\n\n法院：\n好的。好吧。那么我们就通过Zoom进行。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n谢谢您，法官大人。\n\n法院：\n我们将通过Zoom进行。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n那么现在我将转入事务性事项，但是——\n\nHENZY先生：\n最后一点，然后我就不说了，法官大人。我保证。我只是想澄清。有其他救济请求载于该动议中，债务人对此提出了异议。因此，我不希望法院认为——而且如果该事项转至——我也没有意见。\n\n法院：\n我不知道——我们将在星期四详细讨论这些问题。\n\nHENZY先生：\n所以一切都延期至——\n\n法院：\n我告诉你，我——在初步审阅后，并以星期四进一步辩论为准，我不知道债务人对该动议中列明的任何其他救济提出异议的依据是什么。\n\nHENZY先生：\n好的。明白了，法官大人。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n那么，法官大人，我们已经进行了三小时四十五分钟。我不知道您是否希望在我们进入——之前休息一下，因为还有整整20——\n\n法院：\n嗯，我会问问法庭工作人员。你们想休息一下吗？我确信他们实际上会想。你们想休息几分钟吗？好的。\n\n谢谢。那么现在是3:40。怎么样，你们想在3:50回来，还是想要更长一些的休息时间？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n不用，这样可以，法官大人。\n\n法院：\n这对你们——对我们所有人都合适吗？我的意思是，对我合适。因此，法庭休庭至3:50。\n\n（下午3:37休庭至下午3:50。）\n\n法庭书记员：\n我们仍在审理案号22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）案。\n\n法院：\n好的。Despins先生。休庭前，我们准备讨论一些——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n事务性事项。\n\n法院：\n——事务性事项，那么请继续。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n第一项，法官大人，是要求大约每十天举行一次状态会议。受托人有义务在会议前24小时提交议程。有时我们可能会说不需要状态会议，但我认为，特别是在案件最初几个月，保持与法院的联系确实很重要，因此，我们请求我们可以——\n\n法院：\n可以。这绝对可以。\n\n你是否已考虑拟议日期，还是——\n\nDESPINS先生：\n尚未。我会与Skalka先生（斯卡尔卡）讨论，然后再向法官大人回复，但我只是想——\n\n法院：\n当然。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n好的。\n\n下一项——这更为复杂。我知道上次我们谈过债权申报截止日期，我说我们会对其进行修订，而我们也确实这样做了。\n\n但我开始更深入地审视此事，并意识到这里存在一个根本性问题，具体如下。\n\nGenever U.S.案在本案之前提交——\n\n法院：\n是的。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n——而该案中的争议是，谁拥有Sherry Netherland（雪莉内德兰）。该案设定了债权申报截止日期，但没有发出通知——首先，没有发布公告通知，也没有向Kwok先生的潜在债权人发出通知。通知只发给了少数人；而Friedman先生（弗里德曼）及其同事当然已经参与该程序，因为他们此前已介入。\n\n从他们的角度来看，这无可厚非。他们确实代表PAX向Genever提交了一项债权申报，但我相对于该实体的立场是，我是一个股权持有人，因为我——我拥有该等股份。嗯，我并非以个人身份拥有该等股份，而是本破产财产拥有该等股份。\n\n而这行不通，因为该案的债权申报截止日期已经过去。我的Goldman先生（戈德曼）客户从未获知此事，因为当时他还不存在，因为这里还没有案件。\n\n因此，有必要——相当有必要协调这两个案件，不仅因为这个问题，因为有很多方式可以解决该问题。一种方式是延长该案的债权申报截止日期，重新开启该案，以允许Goldman先生的客户提交债权申报。我并不是说这是优选方案，但这是其中一种方案。\n\n另一种方案是我们在该案中提出刺破公司面纱或另我主张，诸如此类。但关键在于，有必要进行协调，因为目前该案正照常推进。出售不是问题。这并非问题。该案正照常推进，而最终，假定最好的结果，即Sherry Netherland由Kwok先生所有，则该笔资金将仅与该程序中参与的债权人分享，即PAX、Sherry Netherland酒店本身以及极少数其他人。\n\n嗯，这样——作为本案债权人的受托人，对我而言这是行不通的。因此——还有第二个根本性问题。\n\n我们不应让两个法院、两个不同的法院，裁决Sherry Netherland的所有权问题以及谁拥有该游艇的问题。你可能会说，嗯，游艇与酒店不同，是的。但归根结底，一个是女儿，一个是儿子。这些都是同样的问题。是的，会有不同的时间问题，但归根结底，论点全都会相同。\n\n让两个不同的法院裁决该问题，将是对司法资源和专业费用的巨大浪费。因此，你可能会说，嗯，这需要大量处理和消化，而我一直在为此苦思。我已与委员会及PAX讨论过此事，他们也在推进此事。\n\n但我认为需要发生的是，应当——因为我会出庭到Garrity法官（加里蒂）面前，向他陈述同样的事情。但我认为您和他需要，要么——我不知道您对此有何看法——就此事进行交谈，或者举行联合状态会议，这非常不寻常，但曾经有过先例。\n\n但这一问题需要在未来一个月左右以某种方式加以解决，因为对于那些对Kwok先生享有债权的人而言，由于他们错过了该案的债权申报截止日期而蒙受损失是不公平的，因为他们并不比PAX拥有更大或更小的权利。\n\nPAX对Genever的债权是刺破公司面纱、另我债权。而且，我再次说明，我并不是在批评他们。他们是在履行自己的职责。他们并非任何人的受托人，而由于某些原因，债务人——嗯，债务人受Kwok先生控制，因此显然不愿公开——发布公告通知等等。这就是我向您说明债权申报截止日期的原因，尽管我们对其进行了修订等等。\n\n我认为，在该问题解决之前，我们应暂缓处理，因为我不希望发布两次公告通知。我们需要以某种方式解决这个问题，而我的职责是提出前进路径；在再次与委员会、PAX以及Genever案中债务人的律师沟通之前，我尚未准备好这样做。\n\n我想明确说明，这不影响出售。我不是试图说，哦，我们不会出售——并非如此。\n\n但确实需要协调，我希望将此提交法官大人考虑。我并不期待您当场作出答复，因为这涉及许多变动因素，但我认为——而且我知道您的案卷已满，所以我不是试图给您再增加一个案件。我理解这一点。\n\nGarrity法官也非常忙，因此我认为你们二人之间需要进行一次电话沟通，或者举行一次\n\n联合状态会议，但我认为一旦我们有了可建议的推进路径，再举行该会议是合理的。法庭：那么，我认为您的意思是，您认为这两个案件都应由同一位法官审理。那么，难道不能通过提交一项动议来实现吗？DESPINS 先生：可以。但是我——法庭：因为我不知道一位法官是否应当就——我的意思是，我——法庭：尤其是，您是否希望——我不倾向于这样做的原因之一，是我不希望引发任何关于存在不当行为或——的指控。DESPINS 先生：是。法庭：我的意思是，什么——您知道，但如果您认为这适当，那么您可以提交——任何人都可以提交一项动议。DESPINS 先生：但需要澄清的是，该动议必须向 Garrity 法官（加里蒂法官）提交，因为他是先提交的。法庭：我明白。所以您的意思是，本案可能会转到那里。DESPINS 先生：我的意思是，首先，在先与您交谈之前，我绝不会提交该动议，因为您可能会说，您刚才做了什么？因此，我是在向您介绍这个问题。您应当考虑此事，而且\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 714　提交日期 08/10/22　录入日期 08/10/22 11:13:10　第 153 页（共）\n\n1　我们可能会在下一次就此举行的状态会议上回到法庭。\n\n2　但我想确保这是您正在考虑的事项，因为无论以何种方式，都需要予以解决。\n\n因此，这实际上就是关于 Genever（Genever）中申报截止日期的问题。\n\n6　我接下来想非常简要提及的是 Lady May（“梅夫人”号）的检查问题。\n\nKindseth 先生上次说明，存在一些非常——嗯，我不说是非常轻微，但相当有限的问题需要解决。\n\n11　事实证明，情况并非如此。正如法官阁下会记得的，尽管我不是该协议的当事方，\n\n12　他们允许我享有探视权或检查权，而事实证明还存在更多问题。\n\n15　但各方正在交谈，我们希望该问题将得到解决。但我想确保您知道该沟通仍在进行中。我们上周，我想，是就此与 Zeisler 律师事务所（Zeisler firm）及 PAX（PAX）的律师举行了一次电话会议。\n\n19　法官阁下，您会记得，我们聘请了 Paul Derektor（保罗·德雷克托）作为专家协助我们，费用为 $2,500。我们请求法官阁下允许，尽管我知道相关规则，而且美国受托人可能会对此强烈反对，但我们是否可以直接将其列为费用支出。\n\n24　我的意思是，不提交动议以聘请他担任专家？我们可以这样做，但这将花费超过 $2,500，而且我的意思是——“费用支出”是指，目前没有资产。因此，我的意思是，我们正在支付这笔钱。最终我们希望会有资金可以支付，但我们会将其列为一项费用支出，而不是提交动议以在本案中聘请 Derektor 先生担任专家。但我对此并不坚持。我只是认为，从节省成本的角度来看，这样做是合理的。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 714　提交日期 08/10/22　录入日期 08/10/22 11:13:10　第 154 页（共）\n\n8　法庭：我认为您也应当与各方讨论此事。我的意思是，如果没有人提出异议，那么很可能没有问题。\n\n11　DESPINS 先生：好的。我们暂缓处理该问题。您完全正确，法官阁下。\n\n13　我们已经谈过 Lady May。仅就例行事项而言，债务人仍然——其 5 月和 6 月的月度经营报告仍未提交。债务人仍负有提交该报告的义务，因此我想提醒各位这一点。从例行事项的角度来看，法官阁下，我要说的就是这些。\n\n19　法庭：好的。\n\n20　DESPINS 先生：谢谢。\n\n21　法庭：让我稍微看一下，看看是否还有我认为需要询问的事项。\n\n24　（暂停。）\n\n25　那么，关于申报截止日期动议及拟议命令，我们只是将其延至未来的状态会议处理？这是您的想法吗？DESPINS 先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。因此，实质上延至一个待定日期。DESPINS 先生：是的，法官阁下。（暂停。）法庭：Kindseth 先生？KINDSETH 先生：是，法官阁下。为了基本上向法官阁下及其他各方更新有关 Lady May 的情况，法官阁下，就 HK International（香港国际）而言，没有人比我的当事人更希望加快满足协议中就 Lady May 规定的要求。我们一直非常勤勉地努力履行这些义务。法官阁下提到了证明文件。在满足其他要素之前，我的当事人无法提交该证明文件，其中一项是本法庭设立维修准备金。维修准备金要求我的当事人就为使 Lady May 恢复良好工作状态而需进行的维修提供方案。目前，由于相关实体非常繁忙，寻找并取得其方案方面出现了一些延迟。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 714　提交日期 08/10/22　录入日期 08/10/22 11:13:10　第 156 页（共）\n\n随着我们收到方案，我们已将其发送给受托人、债权人委员会律师和 PAX 律师。关于实际需要进行的维修，在我上次出庭于法官阁下面前之前，我并不知道还有一项额外维修需要进行。显然，当燃油泵发生故障时——我确实已向法庭披露该故障——它导致齿轮，某些齿轮基本上被磨坏。因此，您可以看到一些来自齿轮的微小金属碎片——而且，再次说明，这些材料已向所有人提供——这些碎片在发动机内的机油系统中循环。因此，需要清理机油。需要减少碎片。我们说的只是小碎片，但显然仍需要维修，而且我们已收到该项维修的报价。因此，我们正在与受托人、债权人委员会律师和 PAX 律师沟通，试图就维修准备金达成一个一致数额；一旦本法庭命令设立维修准备金，这将使我们能够提交证明文件。谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：谢谢。还有其他人希望陈述吗？HENZY 先生：不是就 Lady May 而言，法官阁下，但我是否应当在星期四下午 1 点之前就该——提交一份答复？法庭：是。是。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 714\n提交日期 08/10/22\n录入日期 08/10/22 11:13:10\n\n1　HENZY 先生：我没有记下来——\n\n2　法庭：我没有给您规定时间，但如果您愿意，我可以给您到星期四上午 9 点。\n\n4　但我不能给您更长时间。我必须能够在听证会之前阅读它，否则举行听证会就没有意义。\n\n7　HENZY 先生：我会提交——谢谢，法官阁下。我预计会在那之前提交，但谢谢。\n\n9　法庭：好的。还有其他人希望陈述吗？\n\n10　（无可听见的回应。）\n\n11　法庭：好的。我认为这就处理完了本案今天的所有事项；我们将于星期四下午 1:00 通过 Zoom 再次开庭。债务人须于星期四上午 9:00 前提交对公司治理动议的答复，可以吗？\n\n16　这就处理完了日程表上的所有事项，法庭休庭。\n\n18　（程序于下午 4:05 休庭。）\n\n2　本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯蒂娜·菲奥雷），经法院批准的速录员及认证电子记录员兼速录员，证明上述内容系就上述案件程序官方电子录音制作的正确笔录。\n\n9　2022 年 8 月 9 日\n\n10　Christine Fiore，CERT\n\n11　速录员","key_entities":["Despins","Kwok","Paul Hastings","Je","Guo","CIPA","Ho Wan Kwok","Luc Despins","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":107,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":539,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":543,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":598,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":620,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":645,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":37618,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-08-10 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-08-10","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:40:24"}