{"id":"court_ctb_761_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":761,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2022-08-17","title":"|","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"| | UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUL
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Re
in | *
Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n| HO WAN KWOK, | ★
*
Bridgeport, Connecticut |\n| Debtor. | *
August 4, 2022
* |\n| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | * |\n| | TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE |\n| APPEARANCES : | |\n| For the Debtor: | ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.
Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.
10 Middle Street, 15th Floor
Bridgeport, CT 06604 |\n| For the Creditor, Pacific
Alliance Asia Opportunity
Fund L.P.: | PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.
O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036 |\n| | PATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ.
Robinson & Cole
28 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT 06103 |\n| For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. | Pullman & Comley
850 Main Street
Bridgeport, CT 06601 |\n| Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording,
transcript produced by transcription service. | |\n| Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.
4 Research Drive, Suite 402
Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992 | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 3 of\n\n106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 4 of 106\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 5 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 6 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
5 |\n|-------|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | I did not see any objection or response to the |\n| 2 | Chapter 11 trustee's motion for extension of time with |\n| 3 | regard to the removal of civil actions. The motion looks |\n| 4 | fine to me, as does the proposed order. |\n| 5 | Does anyone wish to be heard on the trustee's |\n| 6 | motion to extend the deadline for removal of civil actions? |\n| 7 | (No audible response) |\n| 8 | THE COURT: Okay. Hearing no response -- |\n| 9 | MR. LINSEY:
Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Yes . |\n| 11 | MR. LINSEY: Yeah. I won't say much if the motion |\n| 12 | looks fine to you. |\n| 13 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Attorney Linsey -- |\n| ਹੈ ਕੇ | MR. LINSEY: This is Patrick Linsey for the |\n| 15 | trustee.
Just note -- |\n| 16 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Excuse me. Attorney |\n| 17 | Linsey, if you could just state your name. |\n| 18 | MR. LINSEY: This is Patrick Linsey for the |\n| 19 | trustee. |\n| . ೧ | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. |\n| . I | THE COURT: Go right ahead. |\n| 2 | MR. LINSEY: I won't -- I won't say much |\n| 3 | considering Your Honor said the motion looks acceptable. |\n| 4 | I will just note there was a prior motion that had |\n| 5 | been filed by the debtor that I do not believe there were |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 7 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
6 |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | any objections to that's not been acted upon. And presuming |\n| 2 | the Court enters the order that we filed with our motion |\n| 3 | will then be causing the debtor's motion to be withdrawn. |\n| 4 | THE COURT: Yes. That was noted in your motion. |\n| 5 | So thank you. |\n| 6 | And when this order enters, that -- the proposed |\n| 7 | order that was submitted with the motion, as appears at |\n| 8 | pages 10 and 11 of ECF 672,and when that order enters, then |\n| 9 | the prior motion of the debtor will be withdrawn is on the |\n| 10 | record now withdrawn by the trustee. |\n| 11 | MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. |\n| 13 | So that motion is granted and the proposed order |\n| । | can enter. So that takes care of the first matter on |\n| 15 | today's calendar. |\n| 1 6 | The second matter obviously is the -- was |\n| 17 | continued from Monday, the 1st, to today, and it is the |\n| 18 | trustee's motion for an order confirming that the trustee |\n| - 9 | holds all the debtor's economic and corporate governance |\n| . O | rights. |\n| . İ | And this was continued to today to give the debtor |\n| 2 | an opportunity to file a response, which the debtor did this |\n| 3 | morning. And I also --- the debtor objected and then the |\n| 4 | Chapter 11 Trustee filed a reply to the objection. |\n| 5 | So I understand in the papers, or at least I've |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 8 of 106\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 9 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
00 |\n|------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| l | to accept in the sense that, you know, you know, to say |\n| 2 | that, you know, that the Court's jurisdiction is a U.S. |\n| 3 | issue only. I mean, as you know in the U.S. we view you, |\n| 4 | Your Honor, as having worldwide jurisdiction over all assets |\n| 5 | the debtor.
of |\n| రా | But putting that aside I figure let's not have a, |\n| 7 | you know, US/UK debate over jurisdiction. |\n| 8 | And so we took her letter with some minor changes |\n| ੀ | and basically that's the letter that we're now asking the |\n| 1 0 | Court to direct the debtor to send to her that basically |\n| 11 | says give him full access. |\n| 12 | But the debtor, per her -- U.K. counsel's request |\n| 13 | is saying that his consent, and this is in the letter, does |\n| 14 | not extend to me waiving a privilege. |\n| 15 | And that's not an issue meaning, I didn't intend |\n| ાં ર | to do that anyways. But I thought it's always my privilege |\n| 17 | to waive. But my point is let's not get into those issues. |\n| . 8 | The important thing is to get access to the files |\n| ್ತಾ | and understand the case, to get a full briefing. And based |\n| : ೧ | on the letter I think, although they were very careful about |\n| । | saying we cannot guarantee that this letter will bind us, |\n| 2 | and we said fine, but I think that based on that letter we |\n| 3 | should have full access to the files. And that's the goal. |\n| 4 | And, therefore, you know, we're going to look the |\n| 5 | other way on the issues of limiting the Court's jurisdiction |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 10 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
ி |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | and all that. So that's where we are on that, |\n| 2 | So from my point of view, vis-a-vis U.K. counsel, |\n| 3 | I think we're done. But I don't know where the debtor is at |\n| 4 | that issue.
on |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Attorney Henzy? |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY: We're not done on that issue. A |\n| 7 | couple of points, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | First, Mr. Despins referred to U.K. counsel, which |\n| 9 | the person that he and I both have been communicating with |\n| 1 0 | is Jenny Morrissey of the Harcus Parker firm. |\n| 11 | As debtor's counsel, I just want to be clear. I'm |\n| 12 | not sure that that is correct. I'll be honest with you, |\n| 13 | Your Honor. The convergence of U.S. and U.K. law is a |\n| 14 | little bit unclear to me. |\n| 15 | I know that under the bankruptcy code that upon |\n| 16 | his appointment Mr. Despins was automatically substituted as |\n| 17 | the plaintiff in that U.K. action. |\n| 18 | What I've heard from Attorney Morrissey is that |\n| 1 | what the bankruptcy code says, that's not her view anyway. |\n| 2 O | And I'm not -- I don't -- I know zero about U.K. law, so |\n| 2 I | she's right, she's wrong, but that -- that is her view. |\n| . 2 | I believe it's also her view that Mr. Despins is |\n| 3 | not yet a party in that action. There are some steps that |\n| . 4 | have to be taken under U.K. law. Again, I don't opine as to |\n| ப் | that. I'm reporting to you what Attorney Morrissey |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 11 of 106\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 12 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
11 |\n|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | not under U.S. law. It's under U.K. law. |\n| 2 | And as I understand my communications from |\n| 3 | Attorney Morrissey, there may be items that -- I think this |\n| 4 | is true under U.S. law too, a trustee is appointed and |\n| 5 | there's different standards between a corporate debtor and |\n| రా | an actual person. An actual person may maintain certain |\n| 7 | privilege even after the appointment of a trustee. And as I |\n| 8 | understand it, it is similar in the U.K. |\n| 9 | So there may be items that are in the possession |\n| 10 | of Harcus Parker that Mr. Kwok personally still has a |\n| 11 | privilege with respect to, as opposed to items that under |\n| 12 | U.K. law he doesn't. |\n| । ਤੇ | And I -- again, I don't know U.K. law. I don't |\n| । এ ব | think Mr. Despins knows U.K. law. What's what I do not |\n| 15 | know. |\n| 1 6 | There's a right way to do this, Your Honor, I |\n| 17 | think. Mr. Despins needs to take steps to have himself |\n| ਼ 8 | recognized as a party in the U.K. action and that privilege |\n| - 9 | issue then I think needs to be worked through. |\n| ್ತಿ ೧ | I don't know how the debtor -- I don't know how |\n| . T | Mr. Kwok can say I'm going to grant a waiver of any |\n| 2 | privilege rights I have. Again, it's any privilege rights |\n| 3 | that he has. |\n| 4 | Your Honor, I don't know. Attorney Morrissey may |\n| 5 | make a judgment that he doesn't have any privilege rights. |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 13 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
12 |\n|------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| l | She may make a judgment that he has a lot of privilege |\n| 2 | rights with respect to what's in her possession. |\n| 3 | I don't know how he can fairly be asked to waive |\n| 4 | any privilege that he still has when he doesn't know what |\n| 5 | he's waiving it with respect to. |\n| రా | So I don't know what documents Attorney Morrissey |\n| 7 | would say would come under an umbrella of things that Mr. |\n| 8 | Kwok under U.K. law still has a privilege in. |\n| 9 | Again, I think there is a way to work through |\n| 1 0 | this. It may be that Attorney Morrissey would identify some |\n| 11 | discrete number of documents that she would say these are |\n| 12 | documents that Mr. Kwok has privilege in and possibly |\n| 13 | subject to me reviewing and they're completely innocuous -- |\n| 14 | and that's great -- but there has to be a process gone |\n| 15 | through. |\n| 16 | Mr. Kwok cannot make a knowing and voluntary |\n| 17 | waiver when he doesn't know what he's waiving. He can't do |\n| 18 | that. And he's not going to do that. |\n| 1 9 | And, again, with all due respect, I don't believe |\n| 20 | you can compel him to do that. I do not believe that you |\n| 21 | can compel him by signing this letter to waive his -- |\n| 22 | whatever his attorney/client privilege is under U.K. law. |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may? |\n| ਨ ਕੇ | THE COURT: Yes. |\n| 5 | MR. DESPINS: You know, there's an attempt to |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 14 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 15 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
] 4 |\n|-------|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | them a long time ago that said I own the claims basically |\n| 2 | dealing with Mr. Despins. Mr. Kwok is completely out of |\n| 3 | this -- out of that claim. He did say that. |\n| 4 | So what would be the point of me being, you know, |\n| 5 | having the claim if I cannot be briefed by the lawyers about |\n| రు | the merits of the claim? Again, it's the key that gets me |\n| 7 | the car. And I absolutely need that. |\n| 8 | And case law is clear, Your Honor, that the |\n| 9 | trustee can have access to privileged information of the |\n| 10 | debtor with respect to assets of the debtor. |\n| II | Here there's not even a dispute. This is not like |\n| 12 | the yacht or the Sherry-Netherland apartment where he says, |\n| 1 3 | oh, I don't own it. He says -- he filed a claim. He said I |\n| ਹੈ ਕੇ | own this. It's clear that the trustee owns the claim now. |\n| 15 | And clearly I have the right to have access to that. |\n| 16 | There's not an unknown or unlimited waiver. And so, |\n| 17 | therefore, we believe the Court can compel. This is |\n| 18 | 521(a) (3) (a) (4) . The Court can absolutely do that because |\n| 1 9 | this is equal to the debtor saying, yeah, here's the car, |\n| 20 | but I'm not giving you the key. |\n| 21 | Without the briefing on the merits of the claim or |\n| 22 | knowing whether there has been any settlement, I cannot |\n| 23 | drive the car. I cannot sell the car. You know, that's the |\n| 2 4 | analogy. And we need access to that. |\n| 25 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 16 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
15 |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| l | MR. HENZY: Your Honor, if I may? |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Yes . |\n| 3 | MR. HENZY: One point I want to be clear on, that |\n| 4 | Attorney Morrissey's clear with me on, is that there's two |\n| 5 | other plaintiffs here and the privilege is joint. |\n| 6 | And Attorney Morrissey's been clear that Mr. Kwok |\n| 7 | cannot raise the privilege with respect to information that |\n| రి | is the joint information of -- along with those other |\n| 9 | parties. So she's been very, very clear that the only thing |\n| 1 0 | that in theory Mr. Kwok could raise with respect to -- with |\n| 1 1 | the property that as I understand it he is the sole owner |\n| 12 | of. |\n| 13 | So, again, what the -- the universe of information |\n| J 4 | here is that Harcus Parker would ever say that they're going |\n| 1 5 | to release is that, you know, I don't know. |\n| 1 6 | But I want to give you two cites that were not in |\n| 17 | my objection. I did have a relatively short time to get the |\n| 18 | objection done, Your Honor. I did cite one case where the |\n| 19 | Second Circuit says that you cannot compel a person to waive |\n| 2 O | their attorney/client privilege. |\n| 21 | And, again, I want to be clear here, Your Honor, |\n| . 2 | to the extent that Mr. Kwok no longer owns the privilege, |\n| . 3 | under -- I think it's under U.K. law -- not under U.S. law |\n| 4 | -- whether -- what the attorney-client privilege is in the |\n| 5 | U.K. and what -- to what extent the privilege belongs to him |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 17 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
16 |\n|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | versus belongs Mr. Despins, that's -- that's -- that's a matter |\n| 2 | of U.K. law. It's not U.S. law. |\n| 3 | But two other Second Circuit Court of Appeals |\n| 4 | cases. One is Highland Capital Management vs. United |\n| 5 | States. It's at 626 F. App'x -- I never know how to |\n| రు | pronounce that thing, 324. It's a 2015 decision. |\n| 7 | If I could quote, Your Honor. \"Compelled |\n| 8 | disclosure of privileged attorney/client communications |\n| 9 | absent waiver or acceptable exception is contrary to well- |\n| 10 | established precedent. When parties disagree whether a |\n| 11 | privilege applies, courts often review the contested |\n| 12 | material in camera. In contrast, requiring a litigant to |\n| 1 3 | turn over documents subject to claims of attorney/client |\n| । | privilege to opposing counsel without a judicial ruling on |\n| 15 | the merits of the claim will undermine the attorney/client |\n| 16 | privilege and it's, therefore, impermissible.\" |\n| 17 | So, again, what privilege Mr. Kwok has here and |\n| 18 | what privilege he doesn't have may well be subject to |\n| 19 | dispute. Plus you can't order him to waive privilege |\n| 20 | without working through that dispute. |\n| 21 | And I'll say again, Your Honor, there's a right |\n| 22 | way to do this. If Mr. Despins, rather than trying to |\n| 23 | bulldoze through an order here, would work with U.K. counsel |\n| 24 | and me to try to identify what potentially is the universe |\n| 25 | of documents that even are at issue here she may go through |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 18 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
17 |\n|------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| । | her documents, Your Honor, and say I can't give you anything |\n| 2 | because these other people have privilege and I'm not goinq |\n| 3 | to -- I'm not going to give you anything. |\n| 4 | She may say there's five pieces of paper that Mr. |\n| 5 | Kwok is the sole owner of that I could ever release to you. |\n| 6 | And the five pieces of paper are pictures of his kids. And |\n| 7 | no one -- and no one's going to care about that -- to tell |\n| 8 | us any number of things. But there's a -- there's a process |\n| 9 | that has to be worked through. |\n| 1. O | The Second Circuit says that you cannot order this |\n| 1 T | kind of blanket waiver without making findings with respect |\n| 12 | to specific documents. |\n| 13 | THE COURT: Where does it say that in the Highland |\n| । | I'm looking at it.
case? |\n| 15 | And the Highland case is not a bankruptcy case. |\n| 1 6 | It's a third-party subpoena with regard to an IRS issue. |\n| 17 | So where does it say that? Where does it say that |\n| 18 | a court cannot compel a debtor out of possession to waive a |\n| 19 | privilege with regard to an asset that the debtor has stated |\n| 2 O | under penalty of perjury is an asset of his estate? |\n| 다. 이 | MR. HENZY: Your Honor, this is -- you're right. |\n| 22 | This is not a debtor case. |\n| 23 | But I don't think -- I don't -- I'm not aware of |\n| ਨ ਕੋ | any case. And I will say this, Your Honor. I'm not aware |\n| 25 | of any case that says that. |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 19 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
18 |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Because what the Second Circuit says is that after |\n| 2 | an applicable exception. And I think the typical exception |\n| 3 | that comes up in cases is where a party -- in criminal cases |\n| 4 | where a party says it had ineffective assistance of counsel. |\n| 5 | And the rule is that you can't say you haven't had |\n| ర | effective assistance counsel unless you're going to be |\n| 7 | willing to waive relevant communications with counsel. |\n| 00 | I'm not aware of any case that says that a -- that |\n| ੀ | there's an applicable exception for a debtor. |\n| 10 | But I'm going to push back to one of the other |\n| 11 | points I've made here. I don't think it's up to the debtor |\n| 12 | that's here to prove the negative. Not by motion. But by |\n| 13 | submitting a proposed order Mr. Despins is seeking relief |\n| 1 4 | from it. He is seeking to have you compel the debtor -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Not yet. |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY: -- to waive his privilege. |\n| 17 | THE COURT: Not yet. If the debtor doesn't sign |\n| 18 | the document, then -- I asked that question of Mr. Despins |\n| 1 9 | the other day, and then he will file a motion. |\n| 20 | The problem is your case law says compel |\n| 21 | disclosure of privileged attorney/client communications |\n| 22 | absent waiver or applicable exceptions contrary to well- |\n| 23 | established precedent. |\n| 24 | Well, this is -- this is -- Mr. Kwok has stated |\n| 25 | under penalty of perjury in his schedules -- and you've |\n| | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 20 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
19 |\n|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | reached out to the lawyer in the U.K. saying that Mr. |\n| 2 | Despins is the party, and you've acknowledged that Mr. |\n| ട് | Despins steps into the shoes of Mr. Kwok in the action in |\n| 4 | the U.K. And so you can't then argue that Mr. Kwok -- the |\n| 5 | lawyers who represented Mr. Kwok can't turn over that |\n| రా | information to Mr. Despins for his review. I mean, you can |\n| 7 | make that argument, but it's not persuasive. |\n| 8 | You're having -- |\n| 9 | MR. HENZY: Okay. There's nothing -- |\n| 1 0 | THE COURT: Excuse me. Let me -- let me just |\n| 11 | finish. |\n| 12 | You are coming to this court. Your client |\n| । ਤੇ | voluntarily came to this court and put his assets in |\n| 14 | question for creditors of this estate and has stated that |\n| 15 | this cause of action is his cause of action and an asset of |\n| 16 | the estate. |\n| 17 | The minute the Chapter 11 trustee was appointed, |\n| 18 | the Chapter 11 trustee steps into the shoes of Mr. Kwok. So |\n| 19 | the Chapter 11 trustee has the privilege of Mr. Kwok in that |\n| 20 | lawsuit. |\n| 21 | And so your arguments are not persuasive.
So |\n| 22 | let's move onto the next issue about whether -- because that |\n| 23 | order |\n| ਨ ਕੇਂ | MR. HENZY: Your Honor, can I -- can I -- may I -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT: Excuse me. I'm not finished. |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 21 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
20 |\n|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | HENZY :
MR.
Okay. |\n| 2 | THE COURT: That letter -- Mr. Despins has just |\n| 3 | stated he's a -- he is subject to Rule 11 sanctions if he's |\n| 4 | incorrect, Mr. Henzy. That he got this letter from the |\n| 5 | lawyers in -- from the barristers or solicitors in London. |\n| రా | They're willing to sign it. They marked it up. That's |\n| 7 | what's going to happen. That's what's going to happen. |\n| 8 | So let's go to the next issue which has to do with |\n| 9 | the Genever issue and the fact that you've argued that Mr. |\n| 1 0 | Kwok, you know, doesn't have any control over Genever. |\n| ਜ ਜੋ ਵਿੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਸਿੰਘ ਸੀ। ਇਸ ਦੀ ਸਾਰ ਦੀ ਸਾਹਿਤ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਦੀ ਸਾਹਿਤ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਸਿੰਘ ਸੀ। ਸੀ। ਇਸ ਦੀ ਸਾਹਿਤ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਸਿੰਘ ਸੀ। ਇਸ ਦੀ ਸਾਹਿਤ ਕੀਤੀ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਇੱਕ ਸ | But when you look at the trustee's reply to your |\n| 12 | objection this morning, there are exhibits attached to it |\n| 13 | where Mr. Kwok admits --- it's an admission of a party, that |\n| 14 | he owns the shares of the cooperative that owns the |\n| 1 5 | apartment. |\n| 1 6 | So what's your response to that? |\n| 17 | MR. HENZY: Your Honor, just if I could go back |\n| 18 | for a second. For the record, you're not going to hear any |\n| । ਰੇ | further arguments from me on the privilege issue. |\n| 20 | That is correct.
THE COURT : |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY: I just want to make -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT: I've decided the issue. |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY: I want to make a record. |\n| 2 4 | THE COURT: I've decided the issue. That is |\n| 25 | correct. Your arguments about the privilege are not |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 22 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 23 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
22 |\n|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| ਾਜੋ | then I can make them in evidence. I can say that they are |\n| 2 | now evidence in connection with the trustee's motion because |\n| 3 | they were all filed, many of them -- and we can go through |\n| বা | each one -- in the -- in the bankruptcy case of Genever |\n| 5 | Holdings. And the Court can take judicial notice under the |\n| రా | federal rules of evidence of that because the reliability of |\n| 7 | that is obvious. |\n| 8 | So to say that they're not in evidence, well, |\n| 9 | okay, I'm going to now rule that they are in evidence. That |\n| 1 0 | the exhibits attached to the trustee's reply that was filed |\n| 11 | today in response to your objection, Exhibits A through G, |\n| 12 | are in evidence and they will be marked as exhibits. So |\n| 13 | that if you want to appeal you can -- these exhibits will be |\n| I d | in evidence. |\n| 15 | (Exhibits A through G attached to Trustee's motion |\n| ા | for an order received into evidence as Trustee Exhibits A |\n| 17 | through G.) |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| ਼ ਭੇ | Just for the record, so I make my record, I do |\n| 2 O | object to their admission. |\n| 2 T | Understood.
THE COURT : |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY: And in addition to -- I'm in a |\n| ੇ ਤੇ | difficult position to give you specific objections as I'm |\n| ે ને | required to do under the rules of evidence as I've --- as |\n| 5 | that I've had almost no time to go through these documents |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 24 of 106\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 25 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
24 |\n|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY:
I have no notice |\n| 3 | THE COURT: How would you rebut the -- your |\n| 4 | client's answers to interrogatories that were filed in the |\n| 5 | New York State Court, which is Exhibit A and which he |\n| రా | signed? How would you rebut that? What could you possibly |\n| 7 | put forth that could rebut that -- those interrogatory |\n| ರಿ | answers that your client signed in an action in New York |\n| ் | that has been pending for years? |\n| 1 0 | MR. HENZY: I'm going to try to answer that |\n| ਰ 1 | specifically, Your Honor, but I think -- and actually I'm |\n| 12 | going to try to answer your question. Okay. |\n| 13 | The first -- I don't know. I'm not -- I don't - |\n| 14 | I do not practice trial law in New York State so I don't |\n| 15 | know if interrogatories are filed. They're not filed, for |\n| 1 6 | example, in federal court or state court in Connecticut.
SO |\n| 17 | maybe they are and maybe they aren't. I don't know that. |\n| 18 | So that if they're not, I don't think you could take |\n| 19 | judicial notice. That's one issue. |\n| 20 | THE COURT: Well, there's a file stamp on the top |\n| 21 | of it from New York filed New York County Clerk 4/28/2021, |\n| 22 | 10:54 p.m. That states that on the top of the document. |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY: Sorry. I don't -- again, Your Honor, |\n| 24 | I'm not -- I don't practice trial law in New York so I don't |\n| 25 | know what the procedure is. |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 26 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
25 |\n|-------|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | I will point out, Your Honor, if you go to page 3, |\n| 2 | the definition of interest. |\n| 3 | THE COURT: Page 3 of Exhibit A? Is that what |\n| 4 | you're saying? |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY: Of what I -- what I'm understanding is |\n| 6 | now you've admitted this as Exhibit A. |\n| 7 | That is correct.
THE COURT: |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY: Okay. And just to be clear, I do |\n| 9 | object to that, Your Honor. I understand you're overruling |\n| 10 | my objection, but the -- on page 3, definition 2 -- I might |\n| 11 | I might be getting this wrong, Your Honor -- again, I
l |\n| 12 | have not -- I understand Your Honor. |\n| 13 | I'm not telling you that I don't have a |\n| J d | responsibility to have gone through things, but there is a |\n| 1 5 | lot that was put on in connection with this this morning. |\n| 16 | But the definition of interest is very, very |\n| 17 | broadly defined there. The term interest means any direct, |\n| 18 | indirect interest, whether partial, whole or potential, et |\n| । ਤੇ | cetera. So it's a very, very broad definition of interest. |\n| 20 | Again, if I go to response interrogatory number |\n| 21 | one, where, among other things, there's a little box that |\n| 22 | says admission of ownership -- and I don't, Your Honor, |\n| 23 | where that came from. I don't -- I don't know if that was |\n| 24 | part of what was filed with the New York State Court. I'm |\n| 25 | going to doubt it, as opposed to this is somehow |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 27 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 28 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
27 |\n|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | point is I'm -- I am not able to put on evidence, Your |\n| 2 | Honor, to explain this and to explain what's in the |\n| 3 | declaration and to explain what's in the global notes. And |\n| 4 | that's not -- that's fundamentally unfair. |\n| 5 | This was not scheduled to have an evidentiary |\n| ర | trial. I have -- this is not even -- what the relief sought |\n| 7 | here -- as I pointed out in my objection, Your Honor, it is |\n| ರಿ | not even relief that's sought in the motion that was |\n| 9 | actually filed. |\n| 10 | This is -- this is new relief. And we're now |\n| 1 1 | having, as I understand it, a trial on almost no notice on |\n| 12 | new relief where I have absolutely no ability to meet the |\n| 1 3 | claim that is now being made. And that is -- again, I think |\n| । ਕੇ | that's fundamentally unfair and I absolutely object to it. |\n| 15 | MR. SARNOFE: Judge Manning, this is Stuart |\n| 16 | Sarnoff. May I be very, very briefly heard, because I might |\n| 17 | be able to help the Court on an issue relating to this? |\n| 18 | THE COURT: Go right ahead. |\n| । | MR. SARNOFE: So I -- Judge Manning, I've been the |\n| 20 | lead counsel for PAX in the state court litigation. I filed |\n| 2 T | the complaint on its behalf. |\n| 22 | All I want to do, Your Honor, is to point out that |\n| 23 | PAX filed and won a turnover motion with respect to Genever |\n| 24 | BVI shares as a post judgment enforcement action. |\n| 25 | And I would just raise that never proffered before |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 29 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
28 |\n|------|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | the Court was the alleged deed of trust. But in any event, |\n| 2 | the judge -- on September 22nd, 2021, Judge Ostrager, |\n| 3 | Justice Ostrager, in his ruling on the record, and then |\n| 4 | confirmed in an order dated that day, ordered the turnover |\n| 5 | to PAX of Mr. Kwok's Genever BVI share ownership because he |\n| 6 | said, quote, on page 16 of the September 22nd, 2021 |\n| 7 | transcript, \"Mr. Kwok identified his ownership interest in |\n| 8 | Genever Holdings BVI as his only asset worth more than |\n| 9 | \\$10,000 in response to PAX's post-judgment interrogatories,\" |\n| 10 | which is the document at number 756 in this case at page 9. |\n| 11 | The ownership shares -- and then he goes on to say the |\n| 12 | ownership -- so he's admitted that this is his one asset. |\n| 13 | And because PAX ha a judgment of 130-something |\n| 1 | million dollars at that time, \\$126,000 million, they're |\n| 15 | entitled to get turnover. |\n| 16 | We had to bring a subsequent contempt motion which |\n| 17 | was pending when Mr. Kwok filed for bankruptcy because of |\n| 18 | course Mr. Kwok didn't do what he was supposed to do, vis-a- |\n| 19 | vis, the turning over. |\n| 2 0 | But there is -- you know, there's a judicial |\n| 다. 이 | ruling that the shares belong to Mr. Kwok for purposes of |\n| 22 | being able to turn them over or for, in this case, for Mr. |\n| 23 | Despins to step into those shoes to have that same bundle of |\n| 2 4 | rights. |\n| 25 | And I would also note, Your Honor, that Mr. Kwok |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 30 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 31 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 32 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 33 of 106\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 34 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 35 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 36 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 37 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
36 |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| l | document that's been filed in the Genever bankruptcy case. |\n| 2 | I'm not going to -- I'm not going to dispute that. |\n| 3 | THE COURT: Yeah. But you have to do that under |\n| 4 | the federal rules of evidence, Attorney Henzy. I don't just |\n| 5 | say I take judicial notice. I have to do that under the -- |\n| 6 | the applicable rule of evidence regarding judicial notice. |\n| 7 | So it's evidence, as is the documents you've submitted with |\n| 8 | regard to the settlement agreement. |\n| 9 | MR. HENZY: Yeah. I understand, Your Honor. I |\n| 1 0 | understand your ruling. |\n| 11 | But there is a dispute, Your Honor, as to the |\n| 12 | ownership. Now, Mr. Despins did file -- and that dispute I |\n| 13 | believe under applicable law has to be resolved by an |\n| 1 4 | adversary proceeding. And I've cited lots and lots of cases |\n| 1 5 | that say that. |\n| 16 | THE COURT: Mr. Henzy, let me stop you right there |\n| 17 | on the adversary proceeding issue. |\n| 18 | I think you have a problem with the language in |\n| 1 9 | 7004 -- 7001(a) that you didn't -- you stopped the sentence. |\n| 20 | I mean, I looked back at it three times this morning because |\n| 21 | I thought that you were -- that was not an accurate |\n| 22 | statement. And it says -- (a)(1) says a proceeding to |\n| 23 | recover money or property other than a proceeding to compel |\n| 24 | the debtor to deliver property to the trustee. |\n| 25 | How do you -- do you not see that language? How |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 38 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 39 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 40 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
ਤੋਂ ਉ |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | I'm sorry -- 7001(1) applies -- I recognize it applies to a |\n| 2 | proceeding to compel the debtor to deliver property to the |\n| 3 | trustee. But where -- I think that is with respect to |\n| 4 | property where there's no dispute that the property is |\n| 5 | property of the estate. And here there is a dispute. |\n| రు | It's the same as with the 363 motion, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | The courts have held, including Judge Tancredi, that you |\n| 8 | can't grant a 363 motion until you've decided whether the |\n| 9 | property that's sought to be sold is property of the |\n| 10 | bankruptcy estate. And that requires an adversary |\n| 11 | proceeding. |\n| 12 | THE COURT: We're not selling property at this |\n| 13 | time.
Number one. |\n| 1 4 | And number two, it is being sold subject to the |\n| 15 | New York Bankruptcy Court's order selling the property. So |\n| 1 ୧ | that's already been done, number one. |\n| 17 | And then your client admits that it is his asset |\n| 18 | in some way, shape or form, Mr. Henzy. I don't have to find |\n| 1 9 | whether he -- it's a legal interest, an equitable interest, |\n| 20 | a beneficial interest. I don't have to find any of that. |\n| 21 | Your client has already admitted it, that it's his asset. |\n| 22 | So I don't -- so I don't -- you still haven't |\n| 23 | answered the question of how 7001(a) requires Mr. Despins to |\n| 24 | bring an adversary proceeding. |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY: Well, Your Honor, I think there is no |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 41 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
40 |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| l | It's 7001(1), which does provide --
7001 (a) |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Sorry, 7001 (1) . |\n| 3 | MR. HENZY: -- a carve -- it carves out -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Sorry. |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY: -- it carves out turnover. But, |\n| ర | again, that's for property of the estate. There has to be a |\n| 7 | determination that that, in fact, is property of the estate. |\n| ರಿ | And that |\n| 9 | THE COURT: Your client has already said it is |\n| 10 | property of the estate in the declaration. Even if he says |\n| 11 | he's holding it in trust, he still owns the shares. He says |\n| 12 | that in the declaration 107 that we talked about the other |\n| 13 | day. So he's already said that. |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY: What he said is that he has -- he has |\n| 15 | legal title as -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT: Okay. And guess what, as you know, |\n| 17 | the definition of property of the estate includes all |\n| 18 | interests, legal, beneficial, equitable, that you have in |\n| 1 9 | any property that you have. And so he has. |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:
But, Your -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT: It's property of the estate. |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY: Your Honor, Mr. Despins filed the -- |\n| 23 | the third revised proposed order, I think, nine -- or nine |\n| 24 | and a half minutes before the hearing. I did not have a |\n| 25 | chance to look at it. If there are appropriate protections |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 42 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
ਕੇ । |\n|------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | in there, then it may well be that the debtor won't object |\n| 2 | to the entry of that order, but I would like an opportunity, |\n| ਤੇ | and not in the middle of this hearing, to review that order. |\n| 4 | THE COURT: Okay. Would you like to take a recess |\n| 5 | for an hour and you can go read the order? I mean, that's |\n| ర | fine if that's what you'd like to do. |\n| 7 | But Mr. Despins just explained how he did put in |\n| 8 | safeguards in that order. |\n| 9 | MR. HENZY: I don't know what safeguards he put in |\n| 1 0 | and I don't know if they're sufficient. |\n| 11 | The issue, Your Honor, the problem, is that what |\n| 12 | Mr. Despins put in front of you would appear to be a -- |\n| । ਤੇ | require a transfer of the shares in full. Okay. That's the |\n| 1 | way I understood it. Okay. Where he said these shares get |\n| 15 | transferred to him solely in his capacity as Chapter 11 |\n| 16 | trustee. |\n| 17 | Well, if Mr. Kwok is the mere legal owner, as |\n| 18 | trustee, and these are now being transferred to Mr. Despins, |\n| 1 9 | I think Mr. Despins is becoming the trustee of that trust. |\n| 2 0 | If there's a valid -- if there's a valid trust, there has to |\n| 2 I | be a trustee. And if Mr. Despins is now the legal owner of |\n| 22 | the shares, I think he's owning them as trustee of that |\n| 23 | trust. So, again, if we're all clear that that is the case, |\n| ਨ ਕੋ | then maybe we don't have a problem. |\n| 25 | I'm not sure Mr. Despins really wants to be a |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 43 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
42 |\n|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | trustee of that trust with all that that might bring in |\n| 2 | terms of duties to the beneficiary of the trust, but you |\n| ತ | can't have it both ways. |\n| র্ব | As Your Honor has said multiple times, you take |\n| 5 | the debtor as -- in this case -- he comes. And the argument |\n| 6 | is that with respect to this asset the way he came was as |\n| 7 | the legal owner, as trustee of a trust, for the benefit of a |\n| ರಿ | third party. |\n| 9 | So if -- if the -- all that he has is that leqal |\n| 1 0 | ownership interest as trustee is what's being transferred, |\n| 다. F | and it's being transferred to Mr. Despins as trustee of that |\n| 12 | trust, then maybe that's okay. |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS: Your Honor. |\n| । ਰੋ | THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead. |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS: That arqument is preserved. We're |\n| । | not asking you to go all the way and find that the trust is |\n| 17 | not valid. We're preserving that issue for another date. |\n| 18 | But he cannot have an advisory opinion saying that a trust |\n| 19 | is valid. |\n| 20 | As you pointed out in the interrogatories, it's |\n| 21 | not question whether they've been filed or not in New York |\n| 22 | State. They're signed under penalty of perjury by Mr. Kwok. |\n| ನ ತ | And he never mentioned the trust, the trust that existed |\n| 24 | five years or four years before. |\n| 25 | So that's the state of the law. That's how we |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 44 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
ਕੇ ਤੋਂ |\n|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| । | take our debtor. The debtor said nothing about that trust. |\n| 2 | And I'm -- I think we're being kind. |\n| 3 | We're preserving their argument that there's a |\n| 4 | trust for a later date, meaning it would be unfair to ask |\n| 5 | you to rule that the trust is not valid. We have serious |\n| రా | issues about it, but that's for another day. That's what |\n| 7 | the order provides. It leaves that issue open for another |\n| 8 | day . |\n| 9 | THE COURT: All right. So, Mr. Henzy, did you -- |\n| 10 | MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, it's Stuart Sarnoff. |\n| 11 | THE COURT: Okay. Hold on one second. |\n| 12 | MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, I was just going -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Sarnoff. Go ahead. |\n| । ਕੈ | MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, I was merely going to |\n| 15 | point out that the Court's decision and -- decision and |\n| 16 | order on motion with respect to PAX's motion for turnover, |\n| 17 | not the transcript, but the written decision and order, was |\n| 18 | filed. |\n| 1 9 | We filed it in this court's docket on March 1st, |\n| 20 | 2022 as I believe docket number 57-2. If I have my -- |\n| 21 | forgive me if my information is incorrect. We were |\n| 22 | scrambling. But I think that's the correct information. |\n| 23 | It's a Supreme Court in the State of New York |\n| 24 | decision and order, and that would be the court's -- Justice |\n| 25 | Ostrager's ruling on our motion for a turnover. The |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 45 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 46 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 47 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
46 |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Is it showing? |\n| 2 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Yes. |\n| 3 | THE COURT: I can't see because I can't know that |\n| 4 | I'm sharing. |\n| 5 | All right. So this is the paragraph, Mr. Despins, |\n| రు | paragraph
9 ? |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS: Yes. Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT: Yeah. Can everyone see that? |\n| 9 | (No audible response) |\n| 10 | THE COURT: Okay. Everyone can at least view |\n| 11 | that? |\n| 12 | Attorney Henzy, do you see that? I'm not |\n| 13 | suggesting that you can't have a recess to look at the whole |\n| 1 4 | order. I'm just asking do you see paragraph 9? |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY: I see it, Your Honor. |\n| 1 ୧ | THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. So, |\n| 17 | Attorney Henzy, are you -- are you asking the Court for a |\n| 18 | recess so that you can review this matter, or what are you |\n| 1 9 | asking the Court to do at this point? |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY: I don't think I was asking the Court |\n| 21 | to do anything, Your Honor. If the Court would like, I'm |\n| 22 | happy to take a recess and review this carefully. I don't |\n| 23 | know if it will take an hour. I don't know if it will |\n| 24 | require discussions with Mr. Despins or anyone else. |\n| 25 | I will though -- I want to be clear, Your Honor, |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 48 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
47 |\n|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| । | that I am pressing my objection that this was not in the |\n| 2 | motion that was filed. And under Rule 9013 and relevant |\n| 3 | case law, I think it's not properly before the Court. |\n| 4 | So principally my argument is that you should not |\n| 5 | rule on this and that you should tell Mr. Despins to file a |\n| రు | motion so that this can be done in an orderly way, as |\n| 7 | opposed to this was first filed and raised at 10:09 on |\n| 8 | Sunday night, Your Honor. Okay. |\n| 9 | So, again, this is -- this is not fair. There's |\n| 1 O | not sufficient notice. His support for the relief he's |\n| 11 | seeking is not stated with particularity anywhere. |\n| 12 | Certainly it's not in the motion. And I don't think it's -- |\n| 13 | the revised proposed order that he has, it does not speak |\n| । ਜੋ | itself.
for |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, we filed a very broad |\n| 1 | motion seeking all corporate governance rights and we |\n| 17 | mention BVI specifically. |\n| 18 | Mr. Henzy responded saying BVI, it's too late. |\n| 19 | There's no -- you can't just -- you can't give an open-ended |\n| 2 O | order like that with respect to BVI. |\n| 2 I | We responded by saying, okay, we'll be very |\n| 22 | precise. That's exactly what we need from BVI. That's |\n| 3 | subsumed in the relief sought. So I don't understand the -- |\n| . 4 | but he got it Sunday. |\n| 5 | The relief, again, this is very simple. There's a |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 49 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
ರ್ 8 |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | car, we need the key. If we're to get the keys to Genever, |\n| 2 | we need the debtor to sign all these documents so that the |\n| 3 | transfer is processed. That's very consistent with the |\n| 4 | motion. It didn't have to be more specific than that, but |\n| 5 | now it's very, very specific and it's been very specific |\n| 6 | since Sunday. |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY: I disagree, Your Honor. I think it's |\n| ರಿ | not -- it was not -- the relief that's sought now was not |\n| 9 | part of the motion that was -- that was produced and filed. |\n| 10 | So I'm going to -- I'm going to press that objection. |\n| 1 T | Again, if the Court or the parties think it makes |\n| 12 | sense for us to take an hour recess so I can look at the |\n| 13 | order and potentially talk to my client at least, I'm happy |\n| । | to do that. |\n| 15 | But I don't -- I don't want there to be a surprise |\n| 16 | if I come back and I say something like irrespective of |\n| 17 | what's in this order I'm objecting to the relief being |\n| 18 | entered. |\n| 1 9 | THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY: Your Honor, this doesn't need to |\n| 21 | happen this way. But the status in the Genever U.S. case is |\n| 22 | the property is being sold under the supervision of Melanie |\n| 23 | Cyganowski. As I understand it the debtor there has |\n| 24 | essentially handed control of that process over to Melanie |\n| 25 | Cyganowski. |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 50 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 51 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 52 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 53 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 54 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 55 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 56 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
55 |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| । | would not try to wordsmith the letter today on this if we |\n| 2 | can. And I am not naive. I know this -- this could be a |\n| 3 | setup where, in fact, there's nothing behind the curtain and |\n| 4 | I'll be back before Your Honor. |\n| 5 | Your Honor is not ruling that the privilege does |\n| ర | not belong to me. It's just directing the debtor to send |\n| 7 | that letter.
So I want to be -- |\n| 8 | So, Mr. Goldman, I understand his point |\n| 9 | completely, but I would urge the Court not at this stage to |\n| 1 0 | play with the language. |\n| 11 | Thank you. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 1 3 | MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, I think with that, with |\n| 1 4 | that caveat, you know, I think I would be fine as long as we |\n| 15 | recognize that no ruling here -- there's no ruling on |\n| 1 6 | whether the trustee holds a privilege and -- or whether it's |\n| 17 | Kwok.
Mr. |\n| 18 | I think there is an issue, given that this is an |\n| 1 9 | asset of a bankruptcy estate in the U.S., whether, you know, |\n| 20 | it's U.S. or U.K. law that governs a privilege -- but we -- |\n| 21 | I agree with Mr. Despins that it's not necessary to make |\n| 22 | that determination today. |\n| 23 | THE COURT: And the motion doesn't ask -- |\n| 2 4 | MR. HENZY: I think it's really not necessary |\n| 25 | because -- |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 57 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
56 |\n|------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | The motion doesn't ask for --
THE COURT: |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY:
-- as I said -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT: Hold on a second, Attorney Henzy. |\n| 4 | And the motion doesn't ask for that determination |\n| 5 | to be made. So I'm not making that determination. |\n| ర | Sorry, Attorney Henzy. Go ahead. |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY: Well, Your Honor, actually the motion |\n| ರಿ | doesn't address the Harcus Parker issue at all in any way, |\n| 9 | shape or form. |\n| 10 | We can argue about whether the action on BVI is |\n| । ਹ | incidental to the motion that was filed, and I think it |\n| 12 | wasn't, but I don't think there really is an argument that |\n| 13 | the Harcus Parker issue is part of that motion. It's just |\n| 14 | not there, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | And I'll say again I think that the right way to |\n| 16 | do this where, you know, it may be that we can qet to |\n| 17 | (indiscernible) place, and this -- this is not it. |\n| 18 | In terms of talking about the contents of the |\n| 19 | letter, Mr. Kwok is not going to waive, voluntarily waive, |\n| 20 | attorney-client privilege. He's not going to do it. And as |\n| 21 | I said I'm not going to compel him to do it. So it may be |\n| 22 | that if you're going to enter an order we're going to qet to |\n| 23 | -- we're going to get to a contempt, but he's not going to |\n| 24 | do it. |\n| 25 | So I don't know how much time we need to spend on |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 58 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 59 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 60 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 61 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 62 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 63 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 64 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
63 |\n|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | But this, the relief sought here asks for very |\n| 2 | broad relief with respect to entities that are not |\n| 3 | specified, the authority to replace any existing officer, |\n| 4 | director, manager or similar person. |\n| 5 | So Mr. Despins is seeking this court to give him |\n| 6 | authority over entities that are not specified without |\n| 7 | regard to those particular entities, what applicable law, |\n| 8 | non-bankruptcy law governs those entities and what the |\n| 9 | organization documents of those entities might provide. |\n| 1 0 | I don't think, Your Honor, that this works.
ﻠ |\n| 11 | think that this type of authority -- with Mr. Despins, I |\n| 12 | think he has the authority that he has, and this goes -- and |\n| 13 | I'm not disputing any particular authority he has with |\n| । ਪੈ | respect to any entities because I don't know what entities |\n| 1 5 | we're talking about. But what this provision would do is |\n| 16 | give him authority that may not be provided for under |\n| 17 | applicable non-bankruptcy law and the governing documents of |\n| 18 | particular entities. |\n| 1 9 | THE COURT: Can't that just be -- |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY: And the cases that Mr. |\n| 21 | THE COURT: Can't that just -- can't we just fix |\n| 22 | that problem by saying that -- you're talking about for the |\n| 23 | avoidance of doubt language, that sentence? |\n| 24 | For the avoidance of doubt, that foregoing rights |\n| 25 | include the trustee's asserted authority. He's asserting he |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 65 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
64 |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| ਜ | has the authority. If he doesn't and he does something |\n| 2 | wrong, then you can sue him. |\n| 3 | MR. HENZY: Actually, Your Honor, I mean, I think |\n| 4 | I put this in my response, which is, if this paragraph had |\n| 5 | just been made -- made subject to applicable non-bankruptcy |\n| 6 | law and the governing documents of these entities, then I -- |\n| 7 | then I would have no objection to this provision. |\n| 8 | Again, I'm not trying -- I'm not trying to create |\n| 9 | an issue here. I really am not. But I think that is |\n| 1 0 | the correct statement of law. He has whatever authority he |\n| ਜ ਕ | has as trustee, but with respect to any particular entity, |\n| 12 | it is subject to applicable non-bankruptcy law and the |\n| 13 | governing documents of that entity. That's all. |\n| J | MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if we do, we do. If we |\n| 15 | don't, we don't. But I don't want to open satellite |\n| 16 | litigation over these issues with the debtor because that's |\n| 17 | how the fees are going to be -- you know, going to get out |\n| 18 | of control in this case. |\n| 1 9 | The reason we asked for blanket authority is |\n| 20 | because we will not exercise that right unless we believe |\n| 21 | through due diligence we have the power to do it. And if |\n| 22 | we're doubtful, we'll come back to the Court. |\n| 23 | But we cannot be in a position where there's a |\n| 24 | satellite litigation open whether -- what state law |\n| 25 | provides, what foreign law provides, because that's a -- |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 66 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 67 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 68 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
67 |\n|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | So, for example, crazy example, Mr. Kwok, in the |\n| 2 | context of that representation, said, oh, by the way, I've |\n| 3 | transferred an interest in a private jet to my daughter. |\n| ਹੈ | I'm not -- I'm not seeking that. That's not part of the |\n| 5 | affirmative claim of Mr. Kwok against UBS. |\n| ర | So that privilege that the -- that Your Honor is |\n| 7 | directing him to send a letter about is the privilege |\n| 8 | regarding that litigation, that affirmative litiqation, |\n| 9 | only. I want to make sure the record is clear about that. |\n| 1 0 | MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, I'd like to be clear. |\n| 11 | I understand Mr. Despins' position. I'd like to be clear |\n| 12 | that I believe Mr. Despins owns whatever -- I assume, again, |\n| । ਤੇ | I don't know U.K. law -- he owns whatever privilege he owns |\n| 14 | and Mr. Kwok has whatever privilege he has, if any. |\n| 15 | And Mr. Kwok is -- to the extent he has any |\n| 16 | privilege, he is not going to waive it. But, again, I think |\n| 17 | we've made -- I've made the argument that I have to make on |\n| 18 | I think.
that. |\n| 1 9 | THE COURT: Okay. The objection to the language |\n| 20 | in paragraph (b) on page 3 of the proposed order is |\n| 21 | overruled. |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT: So what's your next objection? |\n| ਨ ਪੈਂ | MR. HENZY: On paragraph 4, on page 4, Your Honor, |\n| 2 5 | that essentially is a blanket authorization to the trustee |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 69 of 106\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 70 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
ਦ ਹੈ |\n|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | The reason we need the opening language is we |\n| 2 | don't to be in a position where we're litigating over, well, |\n| 3 | you know, you terminated or you removed a director, an |\n| 4 | officer. You shouldn't have done that. That's not -- |\n| 5 | that's not in the ordinary course of business, and we have |\n| 6 | all these satellite litigation over whether we acted within |\n| 7 | -- with (indiscernible). |\n| 8 | We believe that we should get both reliefs as long |\n| 9 | as the safety valve is in there which protects the estate, |\n| 1 0 | no sale, no lease of property without a court order. |\n| 1 T | Thank you. |\n| 12 | THE COURT :
Does anyone else -- |\n| ਹੈ ਤੋ | MR. HENZY: I see -- I see the limitation, Your |\n| । ਪ੍ਰੋ | Honor, but I still think -- I don't think there's any such |\n| 15 | thing as blanket authorization to act out of the ordinary |\n| 16 | course under 353. |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS: That solely to exercise corporate |\n| 18 | governance rights, Your Honor. Nothing else. |\n| 1 | MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, may I be heard -- it's |\n| 2 0 | Peter Friedman -- for just a moment? |\n| 2 I | The order that was originally proposed did not |\n| 22 | include that language that Mr. Despins put in and we thought |\n| 23 | it was extremely important. |\n| ਨ ਕੇ | And, you know, I think had that language not been |\n| 25 | in there, as creditors, we would have objected. But we |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 71 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
70 |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | found that that addition to be -- to represent I think an |\n| 2 | extremely good faith move by the trustee in balancing the |\n| 3 | economic interests of creditors, which I think has to be |\n| 4 | paramount, with efficiency. |\n| 5 | So we strongly support the inclusion of that |\n| 6 | particular paragraph with the protective language that was |\n| 7 | added at our request. |\n| రి | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 9 | Does anyone else wish to be heard on paragraph 4? |\n| 10 | (No audible response) |\n| ] I | THE COURT: Okay. I'm just reading the language |\n| 12 | again. |\n| 1 3 | (Pause) |\n| 1 4 | THE COURT: Okay. Anything further from anyone on |\n| 1 5 | paragraph 4 ? |\n| 16 | (No audible response) |\n| 17 | THE COURT: While I understand the objection, |\n| 18 | Attorney Henzy, I'm overruling it because I think that the |\n| 1 9 | language -- it is specific to the economic and governance |\n| 20 | rights with respect to the debtor-controlled entities. And, |\n| 21 | you know, if litigation ensues about that, then it can |\n| 22 | ensue. But we're not going to -- it is -- it is qualified |\n| 23 | by the last sentence and I think it's protective enough of |\n| 24 | the debtor. |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 72 of 106\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 73 of 106\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 74 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 75 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
7 4 |\n|-------|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. HENZY: I think I agree. I didn't -- I don't |\n| 2 | think I said Mr. Despins became Mr. Kwok. And I'm qoing to |\n| 3 | guess Mr. Despins doesn't want to be Mr. Kwok, but he |\n| 4 | absolutely is substituted for Mr. Kwok in any pending |\n| 5 | litigation. |\n| ర | But I don't think that the way this order is set |\n| 7 | up it's not just pending litigation, Mr. Despins can |\n| 8 | commence new litigation that the debtor might or might not |\n| 9 | even be a party to. |\n| 10 | Now, what rights in particular in a foreign |\n| 11 | jurisdiction Mr. Kwok might have as a debtor out of |\n| 1.2 | possession? Your Honor, I don't know. He may or may not |\n| 13 | have any. He may not have any rights. So I don't know |\n| । ਪੁ | because I don't know what jurisdiction we're talking about. |\n| 15 | I don't know what entity we're talking about. I don't know |\n| 16 | what action it is that Mr. Despins would be taking. |\n| 17 | So I'm perfectly -- look, the way, again, this is |\n| 18 | set up is Mr. Despins can go do whatever he's going to do, |\n| 1 9 | only to the extent that under some applicable foreign law |\n| 20 | Mr. Kwok would have a right to show up and do something -- |\n| 21 | and he might not, he might not, Your Honor, he should be |\n| 22 | able to do that. I don't -- I don't think he should have to |\n| 23 | come back to this court to find out whether or not he has a |\n| 24 | right to show up in another court under non-bankruptcy -- |\n| 25 | applicable non-bankruptcy law. |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 76 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
75 |\n|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, may I be heard for a |\n| 2 | moment on this issue? It's Peter Friedman. |\n| 3 | I think it is really important because I think the |\n| 4 | issue is, you know, in any premise, Mr. Kwok's going to have |\n| 5 | to determine if he has standing given the insolvency of his |\n| 6 | estate. |\n| 7 | So I think it's actually critical, given that he |\n| 8 | said he has \\$3,850, that before he goes to another court and |\n| 9 | be permitted to litigate, that he actually would show that |\n| 1 0 | he would have permission to interfere with the trustee's use |\n| 11 | of debtor property given his economic -- where the economics |\n| 12 | of this exist. I think that's an issue that really has to |\n| 13 | be made to determine with reference to U.S. bankruptcy law |\n| 1 4 | and his rights. |\n| । | So I actually think what Mr. Despins as proposed |\n| 1 6 | is extremely appropriate. It certainly is a prudent measure |\n| 17 | and when the (indiscernible) bankruptcy determination as to |\n| 18 | whether he even has standing to have standing to be heard. |\n| 1 d | MR. HENZY: Your Honor, just to pose a |\n| 20 | hypothetical. |\n| 21 | Let's say Mr. Despins goes to a foreign court and |\n| 22 | in the foreign court seeks to compel Mr. Kwok to do the kind |\n| 23 | of things that he sought to do with this order. He seeks to |\n| 2 4 | compel him to execute a document, let's say a corporate |\n| 25 | document. Then I don't -- I mean, would anyone say that Mr. |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 77 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 78 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
77 |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | to Australia, for example, to defend some action to see that |\n| 2 | (indiscernible) . |\n| 3 | The point is that he should not be roaming around |\n| 4 | and having the ability to disrupt what we're doing around |\n| 5 | the world without coming to Your Honor to say this is what |\n| ర | I'm doing. I have (indiscernible) particularized injury |\n| 7 | that somehow I'm able to assert even though I'm out of |\n| 8 | possession. Well, that argument should only be made to Your |\n| 9 | Honor. |\n| 10 | And then if you find it compelling, you'll send -- |\n| 11 | you'll authorize him to do whatever he wants abroad. But |\n| 12 | you cannot have him running around in this. It's just |\n| 13 | fundamental, Your Honor. |\n| । | MR. HENZY: But, Your Honor, arguably what this |\n| 15 | order is doing though you are giving up a certain degree of |\n| 1 6 | jurisdiction to Mr. Despins, meaning you're telling him that |\n| 17 | he can act out of the ordinary course of business without |\n| 18 | coming and asking permission from you. |\n| 1 9 | But then what Mr. Despins and Mr. Friedman are |\n| 20 | essentially arguing is but you -- but you hang on with |\n| 21 | respect -- let's say to the same matter, you hang on to |\n| 22 | jurisdiction with respect to the debtor. |\n| 23 | So Mr. Despins can do whatever he wants to do, but |\n| 24 | Mr. Kwok can't respond to that. And that seems it should be |\n| 25 | one way or the other. |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 79 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 80 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
7 9 |\n|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| l | estate because there won't be any -- a full payment to |\n| 2 | creditors in this case. And so there will not be any |\n| 3 | surplus to which the debtor would have standing to raise |\n| 4 | such arguments. |\n| 5 | And if Mr. Despins does something outside of his |\n| ర | authority, then the debtor still has the right to make that |\n| 7 | argument. But he has to make it here in this court subject |\n| రం | to this court's authority over this estate. And that's one |\n| 9 | of the, you know, results of the appointment of a Chapter 11 |\n| 10 | trustee. |\n| II | So, again, while I understand your arqument, it |\n| 12 | doesn't foreclose the debtor from opposing the trustee's |\n| 13 | exercise of authority, but he has to do it in this court. |\n| । ਰੋ | And so I'm going to overrule your objection to |\n| 15 | paragraph 6. |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | Just as an aside, just saying, the damage claim in |\n| 18 | the UBS litigation in the U.K. is \\$500 million. I have no |\n| 19 | knowledge of the strength -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT: That claim wasn't listed as an asset |\n| 21 | of this estate, Mr. Henzy. |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY: Oh, no, it was. |\n| 23 | THE COURT: No. It actually wasn't originally. |\n| 24 | I believe it was.
MR. HENZY: |\n| 25 | THE COURT: No. I think it was not. |\n| | |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 81 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
80 |\n|------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. HENZY: Okay. I'll go -- I'll go back and |\n| 2 | check, but I thought that it was. |\n| 3 | But in any event, I don't -- I don't think the |\n| 4 | debtor would dispute at all that to the extent that it |\n| 5 | wasn't in the schedules, Your Honor, it should have been. |\n| ර | And I think the debtor absolutely -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT: Well, maybe it was. So let me just -- |\n| ರಿ | let me go back in the global notes which aren't really notes |\n| 9 | -- which, again, there's no authority for any debtor, that |\n| 10 | I'm aware of under the bankruptcy code, under case law, |\n| JT | under statute, under local rules, under the federal rules, |\n| 12 | to file global notes to your -- to your schedules to disavow |\n| 1 3 | what you say in your schedules under penalty of perjury. |\n| ੀ 4 | I've never seen or heard of such a thing, but I understand |\n| 15 | that's now becoming something that people do. |\n| 16 | But that doesn't -- that doesn't mean that the |\n| 17 | global notes have any bearing on whether or not Mr. Kwok |\n| 18 | accurately completed his schedules. |\n| 1 ਤੇ | All that being said, even if he did list it, it's |\n| 20 | a \\$500 million claim with two other plaintiffs, correct? |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
Yes, but -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT: So it would be split three ways, |\n| 23 | correct ? |\n| 24 | MR .
HENZY:
Under -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT: And the claim of -- the claim of PAX |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 82 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 83 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
82 |\n|-------|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | just discussed on the record. |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | THE COURT :
So what is your next objection? |\n| 4 | MR. HENZY:
The last objection is on paragraph 7. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| ర | MR. HENZY: So this asks for an order where -- |\n| 7 | that provides that you request the assistance of foreign |\n| 8 | courts, including the assistance of the BVI court regarding |\n| 9 | any request of the trustee for relief with respect to the |\n| 1 0 | trustee exercising corporate control over Genever BVI. |\n| 11 | I would -- I'm absolutely not going to tell the |\n| 12 | Court what it ought to be telling other judges, but I just |\n| 13 | -- I think that is very, very broad. |\n| । ਰੋ | And the way I read this is it would sort of qive |\n| 1 5 | Mr. Despins this court's impromatur to go in front of |\n| 16 | another judge and say please give this to me -- and Judge |\n| 17 | Manning tells you that you ought to give it to me, even if |\n| 18 | you, Your Honor, don't know that -- what it is that he's |\n| 1 9 | telling another judge that it is that he wants. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS: So, Your Honor, this type of |\n| 22 | language is often used in the foreign, you know, foreign |\n| 23 | representative context. |\n| 24 | I'm happy -- obviously, you don't know me and you |\n| 25 | may not be comfortable giving me a blank check and I don't |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 84 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
83 |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | think this is a blank check -- but it's really an indication |\n| 2 | to foreign courts that it may not be (indiscernible) as U.S. |\n| 3 | courts that this court is requesting their assistance not to |\n| 4 | do something illegal or inappropriate, but in requesting |\n| 5 | their assistance. |\n| ర | That's kind of run of the mill language, but I was |\n| 7 | always told never raise section 105 in front of Judge |\n| ರಿ | Manning, so I'm not going to raise it. |\n| 9 | But it's something along those lines. So if you |\n| 1 0 | -- I'm happy with it or without it. I'd rather have it in, |\n| 11 | but I'm not going to -- I don't want to put you in a |\n| 12 | position where you don't feel 100 percent comfortable with |\n| 13 | that. |\n| 1 4 | THE COURT: Well, I mean, I think that the section |\n| 15 | in Chapter 15 -- you know, the whole purpose of Congress |\n| 16 | making Chapter 15 part of the code in 2005 was to |\n| 17 | acknowledge, you know, cross border cases and try to have |\n| 18 | cooperation between the foreign courts and foreign |\n| 1 9 | representatives.
Okay? |\n| 20 | So I think we could -- we could say in furtherance |\n| 21 | of the trustee's exercise of authority of this order, the |\n| 22 | Court respectfully requests the assistance of foreign courts |\n| 23 | with respect to the trustee's exercise of corporate control |\n| 24 | over debtor entities, including Genever BVI. I don't think |\n| 25 | there's -- |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 85 of 106\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 86 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
85 |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| l | that might be necessary for a case in one jurisdiction to be |\n| 2 | carried out with respect to related proceedings in another |\n| 3 | jurisdiction outside of this country. |\n| 4 | So I don't have a problem with it, with the |\n| 5 | changes as I've just described them. |\n| ర | MR. HENZY:
Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay . |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS: We'll make the change, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY: Last issue, Your Honor -- and I'm not |\n| 11 | trying to go back and argue the -- |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS: I thought it was the -- that was the |\n| 13 | last issue. |\n| J | MR. HENZY: There's one more. I'm not -- I'm not |\n| 15 | trying to go back. On paragraph 3, so back on page 3, this |\n| 1 6 | is the Harcus Parker letter, what this says is that the |\n| 17 | debtor is directed to deliver no later than two business |\n| 18 | days after the entry of this order. Well, there's a couple |\n| 1 9 | of issues with that, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | The copy of the letter and the form attached as to |\n| 21 | Exhibit B to what's in front of you has -- as I understand |\n| 22 | it, that has not been agreed to by Harcus Parker. So you're |\n| 23 | kind of in some sense -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT: I just have a question about that |\n| 25 | though because Trustee Despins said that this is the letter |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 87 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
8 6 |\n|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| ने | he got back from them, so how would they not agree to it? |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS: It's a letter. What I said is the |\n| 3 | letter we got back from them with some minor changes that we |\n| র্ব | made. But in the event, I'll deal with that, meaning if |\n| 5 | they -- if they say -- I think the changes we made are -- |\n| б | and by the way, we did send them earlier today a -- the |\n| 7 | changes we made, so they've seen them. We haven't heard |\n| ರಿ | back from them. |\n| ್ತಾ | But if it's an issue, we'll fix it, meaning, |\n| 1 0 | that's not Mr. Kwok's issue, meaning, we have the letter as |\n| ਜ ਹ | we submitted it to Your Honor and we'll see what they say. |\n| 12 | And if it needs to be modified, we'll just file a |\n| । ਤੇ | supplement. It would be very, very -- a very minor change |\n| l d | really. |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY: I guess -- so I'm not clear if -- so |\n| 1 ୧ | he's going to be -- Mr. Kwok's going to be ordered to sign a |\n| 17 | letter that U.K. counsel may tell us is not acceptable. |\n| 18 | I don't want to be in a situation where Mr. |\n| 19 | Despins is negotiating for three days with the U.K. counsel |\n| 20 | on what a letter might say and this says he has to sign -- |\n| 2 I | THE COURT: So I think what you're saying, |\n| 22 | Attorney Henzy, is you just don't want the Court to enter |\n| 23 | the order until you see the final version of the letter. Is |\n| ਨ ਪੈਂ | that what you're saying? |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY: Or at least until there -- yes, until |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 88 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
8 1 |\n|------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | there is a final version. Yes, until there is -- right now, |\n| 2 | as I understand it, there is no final version. |\n| 3 | But then the second point is -- as I said earlier, |\n| 4 | Mr. Kwok is not going to sign this letter. This provides |\n| 5 | that he must do so within two business days of whenever the |\n| 6 | letter is actually finalized and complete. |\n| 7 | And I just -- you know, I -- we will be filing an |\n| 8 | appeal. We will seek a state pending appeal. |\n| 9 | I just -- I don't want Mr. Kwok to be in contempt |\n| 10 | because he has not -- he has not signed this order. I just |\n| 11 | want -- so I just wanted to alert the Court. |\n| 12 | I would -- I guess I don't know why there's a rush |\n| 13 | of two business days. I don't know what's going to happen |\n| J | in two business days, you know, and why there couldn't be a |\n| 15 | little longer period of time so that Mr. Kwok can get his |\n| 1 6 | appeal filed and file whatever motion for stay pending |\n| 17 | appeal he's going to file. |\n| 18 | I just don't want to have an unnecessary fire |\n| 1 ਤੇ | drill, Your Honor. If the order ends up not being stayed |\n| 20 | and he -- and he's not signing it, then whatever |\n| 21 | consequences from that will flow from that. |\n| 22 | But I don't -- I don't know how realistic it is |\n| 23 | going to be that we're going to be able to get in front of |\n| 24 | Your Honor within two business days on a motion for a stay |\n| 25 | pending appeal. That's all. |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 89 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
88 |\n|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| । | And, again, I don't -- I would ask that this be a |\n| 2 | longer period than two days. |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS: So, Your Honor, we -- I understand |\n| 4 | your concern and I share your concern to be sure that the |\n| 5 | changes we made were stylistic only. |\n| ర | But, you know, given where this is heading, we |\n| 7 | should have precision. So what we should do is -- I'm just |\n| ರಿ | kind of thinking out loud here what's the best way to handle |\n| ਰੇ | this -- I mean, there will be a letter. There should be a |\n| 10 | letter.
final |\n| 11 | And maybe the order can provide that we will |\n| 12 | provide the letter in the final form within X days and the |\n| 13 | debtor will have Y days to -- to do it. Y number of days to |\n| । ਪੈ | do it. And the letter will be substantially in the form |\n| 1 5 | attached. So we can submit an order that will address that |\n| 16 | issue, that exact issue, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | And understand that precision -- we shouldn't -- |\n| 18 | we should be careful about this and have more precision |\n| 1 9 | rather than that. I understand your point, Your Honor. |\n| 20 | THE COURT: Do you have any objection to extending |\n| 21 | the two days to a longer period of time for the debtor? |\n| 22 | He's not going to sign it, but I guess what he's saying is |\n| 23 | he wants the -- he's going to be filing an appeal so -- I |\n| 2 पे | don't -- |\n| 25 | MR .
DESPINS :
Sure. |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 90 of 106\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 91 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 92 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
ਰੇ 1 |\n|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| ਜ | The point is your client's already stating he's not going to |\n| 2 | sign it. He's not. He's already stating through you that |\n| 3 | he's not going to comply with this court order. |\n| 4 | And, Your Honor --
MR. HENZY: |\n| 5 | THE COURT: And it hasn't even entered yet, but |\n| ర | he's not going to comply with it. |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY: He's not going to voluntarily waive |\n| ರಿ | his privilege, Your Honor, to the extent he has any. |\n| 9 | But I think -- the point I'm trying to make is a |\n| 10 | letter, I understand Mr. Despins at some point is going to |\n| 11 | put a letter in front of you and that letter may not be |\n| 12 | agreed to by the Harcus Parker firm. That's all. Because |\n| 13 | the Harcus Parker -- |\n| 1 4 | THE COURT: He's not going to put a letter in |\n| 15 | front of me that's not agreed to by that firm. They're the |\n| 16 | ones that have prepared it. |\n| 17 | MR. HENZY: No, they haven't. |\n| 18 | THE COURT: They're the ones who have made the |\n| 1 d | final comments to it. |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I don't know what they're |\n| 21 | going to do. If they understand that the debtor is not |\n| 22 | voluntarily waiving, they make take the position we're not |\n| 23 | -- we're just not doing it. Okay. I don't know that, Your |\n| ਨ ਪੈਂ | Honor. |\n| 25 | THE COURT: Well, then, Mr. Despins will have to |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 93 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 94 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 95 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
ਰੇ ਪੈ |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And Your Honor is not going to give a U.K. lawyer |\n| 2 | control over privilege in this case. |\n| 3 | So we're willing to work with them. And we're |\n| 4 | doing that. But, you know, Mr. Henzy cannot use their |\n| 5 | ability to derail the process as a defense for him, his |\n| 6 | client, not signing the letter. |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY: I'm not using anything to derail the |\n| ರಿ | process here, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | Your Honor, if you -- I understand that if there |\n| 10 | is a letter and you order -- whether the U.K. firm has |\n| 1 T | agreed to the letter or not, and you order Mr. Kwok to sign |\n| 12 | that letter that his five days will start to run. I |\n| 13 | understand that. |\n| J 4 | MR. DESPINS: That's all I'm asking. |\n| 15 | And, Your Honor, we would propose to revise the |\n| 16 | order to deal with the letter and all that. So we will do |\n| 17 | that if Your Honor will authorize us because we need to fix |\n| 18 | the order. You suggested better language elsewhere so we |\n| । | need to do that and we will do that with your permission. |\n| 20 | THE COURT: Yes. You have my permission to do |\n| 21 | that. And do you think you will get that order to the Court |\n| 22 | tomorrow? |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 2 4 | THE COURT: Okay. Or Monday? |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS: From our point of view, yes. We |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 96 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | ರ 5 |\n| 1 | will do our best to do that, yes. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Or Monday. |\n| 3 | MR. HENZY: Can I have some time -- I would like |\n| 4 | some time just to review the order, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | MR.
DESPINS :
Yes . |\n| రు | MR. HENZY:
Okay. |\n| 7 | THE COURT: Well, we've just gone through what the |\n| 8 | order is going to say. We've gone through every paragraph |\n| 9 | including every one of your objections, which were |\n| 10 | overruled. I've stated all the rulings on the record. |\n| 11 | MR. HENZY: I would like to just put eyes on the |\n| 12 | order, Your Honor, just -- I'm not --- I completely trust Mr. |\n| 13 | Despins, that he's going to accurately make the changes that |\n| 14 | we talked about, but I just am in the practice of wanting to |\n| 15 | see the final order. That's all. I'm not saying I'm going |\n| 16 | to object to it or anything like that. |\n| 17 | THE COURT: But then if you disagree, we're going |\n| 18 | to have another hearing. That's what -- that's what you're |\n| । | trying -- that's what you're saying. You're saying you -- |\n| 20 | if something -- if something doesn't comport with what you |\n| 21 | think it is, then we're going to have another hearing. |\n| 22 | That's what you're saying. |\n| 23 | Yes. But that's all because --
MR. HENZY: |\n| 24 | THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to have another |\n| 25 | hearing. I've ruled. I've ruled what the order's -- what |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 97 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
96 |\n|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | the order needs to say. We've gone through it. |\n| 2 | You just spent the time. You said to me -- this |\n| 3 | is what you said -- I asked you what your objections were to |\n| 4 | the relief. And I went back and I started with so you're |\n| 5 | objecting about the fact that Mr. Despins didn't cite to |\n| ర | 521.
And you said, no, no. Let's go -- let's go through |\n| 7 | the order. Let's go through my original objections and |\n| 8 | let's go through the order. So that's what we just did. |\n| 9 | We're not coming back to court on this. This is |\n| 1 0 | what we just did. |\n| 11 | MR. HENZY: So, Your Honor, what if -- what if -- |\n| 12 | what if the order that's submitted -- again, I am not |\n| । ਤ | telling -- saying I think Mr. Despins is going to do this -- |\n| ] | what if the order that's submitted is not consistent with |\n| 1 5 | what's been on the record today? |\n| 1 6 | THE COURT: Then I'm not going to enter it. I'm |\n| 17 | going to read the order. |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I think it's |\n| 1 9 | customary for all counsel to have an opportunity to review |\n| 20 | an order before it's entered. But I understand. |\n| 21 | THE COURT: But that's what we just did. We just |\n| 22 | spent the time that you would spend going over an order. |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY: I understand what the Court's saying. |\n| 24 | THE COURT: We just spent a substantial amount of |\n| 25 | time, as a matter of fact, going through every paragraph in |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 98 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
97 |\n|------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | the order. |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY: Your Honor, if you're ruling I'm not |\n| 3 | going to have an opportunity to review the final order -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Mr. Despins -- |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY: -- then I understand the Court's -- |\n| రు | THE COURT:
You know, I'm -- |\n| 7 | Mr. Despins, is your firm going to have -- |\n| 8 | This is what I would want everyone to do. This is |\n| 9 | how it's going to work out because we are not doing this on |\n| 1 0 | a regular basis. |\n| 11 | Mr. Despins, would you please send an email to the |\n| 12 | courtroom deputy box, your firm will know and Mr. Linsey can |\n| । ਤੇ | help you if necessary, with the order CC'ing all the |\n| 1 4 | parties. |\n| 15 | I'm not going to enter that order for some period |\n| 1 6 | of time -- I don't know what -- but several hours probably. |\n| 17 | Okay? And then I'm going to enter the order. |\n| 18 | I'm not going to have another hearing going |\n| । ਤੇ | through the language of the order. We just did that. |\n| 20 | The only reason that that order will not enter is |\n| 21 | if Mr. Despins wrote something like the Court has allowed me |\n| 22 | to live in the courtroom. Then I wouldn't enter that order, |\n| 23 | Okay? For many reasons. It wouldn't be comfortable for him |\n| 24 | anyway . |\n| 25 | But that's the point. We're not going to do this. |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 99 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
ರಿ 8 |\n|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | We've had -- this is the second hearing on this issue. This |\n| 2 | motion was filed on July 23rd. It's August 4th. |\n| 3 | Your client is no longer a debtor in possession. |\n| 4 | Someone has to come to that realization. Okay? The trustee |\n| 5 | has that authority to do what he's doing as I have just |\n| రా | ruled. |\n| 7 | And that's -- we've gone through every paragraph |\n| 8 | of the order and I have made rulings on those paragraphs. |\n| 9 | And there are changes that will be made. And so that's what |\n| 10 | we re going to do. |\n| 11 | Mr. Despins, your office or through Mr. Linsey |\n| 12 | will send -- |\n| 13 | DESPINS :
MR.
Yes . |\n| 1 4 | THE COURT: -- an email to the courtroom deputy |\n| 15 | box in Bridgeport and indicate that the order -- this is the |\n| 16 | order that has been prepared after the hearing on August 4th |\n| 17 | with all the changes discussed on the record. And you will |\n| 18 | CC all the parties, including Mr. Henzy. |\n| ਹੈ ਤੇ | And then I will enter that order in due course |\n| 20 | after some period of time. But I am not having a further |\n| 21 | hearing. This hearing is concluded. |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS: Understood, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT: I have ruled. Okay? |\n| 2 4 | MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, two housekeeping |\n| 25 | matters. |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 100 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 101 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
100 |\n|------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | confer with the debtor's counsel regarding the Rule 2004 |\n| 2 | discovery on the issue of discovery of professionals, like |\n| 3 | lawyers. And that issue is going to be a problem in the |\n| 4 | sense that they -- their view is that we don't have access |\n| 5 | to the -- at least the way it was articulated to me, that we |\n| 6 | don't have access to the privilege documents when the debtor |\n| 7 | -- with respect to assets of the debtor or assets we think |\n| రి | should be the debtor's such as the Lady May or Sherry- |\n| 9 | Netherland because the debtor believes they're not assets |\n| 10 | and, therefore, they would be invading his privilege to go |\n| 11 | after these documents. |\n| 12 | So the reason I'm telling you this -- I'm not -- |\n| 13 | because I'm not asking you to rule on this, but we need to |\n| 14 | tee that up sooner rather than later because they want to |\n| 15 | tee it up 30 days after they receive the subpoena which |\n| 1 6 | would get us into September/October. |\n| 17 | There's a clear issue here which is an issue of |\n| 18 | what privilege the trustee succeeds to. And I think the |\n| 19 | case law is clear that when dealing with assets of the |\n| 2 0 | estate, either assets that are already in the estate or |\n| 21 | assets that there is a claim they belong to the estate, such |\n| 22 | as the Lady May and the Sherry-Netherland, that the trustee |\n| 3 | have access to privileged communications regarding these |\n| ે તે | assets, or with respect to administration of the case, for |\n| ട് | example, preparation of schedules by Brown Rudnick. |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 102 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
101 |\n|-------|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| I | I'm not asking you to rule, but we need to tee |\n| 2 | that up. And we're not going to do that now, but we want to |\n| 3 | tell you we're going to ask for a date earlier than 30 days |\n| 4 | after the service of subpoena because that could bring us to |\n| 5 | September or October. |\n| రు | So that's an issue that's out there. |\n| 7 | The last issue, Your Honor, is, you know, you've |\n| ರಿ | asked us, you raised this issue of conflict before and we |\n| 9 | left it the other day. And you said, hey, people need to be |\n| 10 | attuned to this. |\n| 11 | But this meet and confer just made us or my |\n| 12 | partners realize that the issue is not a Zeisler issue. The |\n| । ਤੇ | issue is that a target of the trustee's investigation, which |\n| । ਕੇ | is his son, the debtor's son, is paying for the fees of |\n| 15 | counsel. |\n| 16 | It's impossible for counsel to be adverse or to |\n| 17 | think in any way adverse to somebody paying their fees. |\n| 18 | It's theoretically possible, but I wouldn't hold anyone to |\n| 1 9 | that standard. |\n| 20 | So we're not asking -- there's no punch line here |\n| 21 | where we're saying we're asking you to disqualify Zeisler. |\n| 22 | I don't think it's Zeisler issue. |\n| 23 | I think that it is very difficult for any firm |\n| 24 | that represents the debtor, that has duties to the estate, |\n| 25 | to be paid by the targets of the trustee's claims. And the |\n| | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 103 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
102 | | |\n|------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| l | harm here, that's the Sherry-Netherland, Bravo Luck, et | | |\n| 2 | cetera. | | |\n| 3 | And so, you know, again, I don't have a punch | | |\n| 4 | line. We're still thinking about it, but I wanted to -- we | | |\n| 5 | have a duty to relay the issue to the Court. | | |\n| రు | I don't want somebody weeks from now to say you | | |\n| 7 | sat on this. Really, that's the issue, is the payment of | | |\n| 8 | fees by a target of the investigation to debtor's counsel. | | |\n| 9 | That is all, Your Honor. | | |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. | | |\n| 11 | That's all we have.
MR. DESPINS: | | |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY: May I be heard, Your Honor? | | |\n| 13 | COURT :
THE
Yes . | | |\n| ﺗﺎ ﮨ | MR. HENZY:
Thank you. | | |\n| 15 | On the 2004, I don't know why that's coming up | | |\n| 16 | We're talking about 2004 versus having been entered.
now. | | |\n| 17 | As to the objection date to the 2004 motions that | | |\n| 18 | were filed hasn't even come up. It's tomorrow. So we're | | |\n| 19 | talking about 2004 orders that haven't entered and subpoenas | | |\n| 20 | that haven't issued. I don't know how that's going to play | | |\n| 21 | out, but right now it's interesting to preview it I suppose, | | |\n| 22 | but I have no idea how that's going to play out. | | |\n| 23 | On my firm's conflict issue, if Mr. Despins wants | | |\n| 24 | to file a motion disqualifying my firm, he should do that. | | |\n| 25 | Any party wants to file a motion to disqualify my firm, they | | |\n| | | | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 104 of 106\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 105 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022
104 | | | |\n|------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|\n| 1 | of the estate and granting related relief is granted for the | | | |\n| 2 | reasons stated on the record with an order to be submitted | | | |\n| 3 | by trustee's counsel on notice to all other parties who will | | | |\n| 4 | be -- receive a copy of that when it's submitted to the | | | |\n| 5 | Court. And then the Court will review it and enter it after | | | |\n| రు | fact.
the | | | |\n| 7 | Okay? All right. Thank you, all. This is the | | | |\n| 8 | last matter on the calendar, so court is adjourned. | | | |\n| 9 | ALL COUNSEL: Thank you, Your Honor. | | | |\n| 10 | (Proceedings concluded at 4:35 p.m.) | | | |\n| 11 | | | | |\n| 12 | | | | |\n| 13 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and | | | |\n| । | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that | | | |\n| 1 5 | the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official | | | |\n| 16 | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above- | | | |\n| 17 | entitled matter. | | | |\n| 18 | | | | |\n| । ਰੇ | Chiction Fiore | | | |\n| 20 | August 12, 2022 | | | |\n| 21 | Christine Fiore, CERT | | | |\n| 22 | Transcriber | | | |\n| 23 | | | | |\n| 2 4 | | | | |\n| 25 | | | | |\n| | | | | |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 106 of 106\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 | | 105 |\n|-----|----------------------------------------|------|-----|\n| 1 | INDEX | | |\n| 2 | | | |\n| 3 | TRUSTEE EXHIBITS: | PAGE | |\n| 4 | A-G
Attachments to Trustee's motion | 33 | |\n| 5 | | | |\n| б | | | |\n| 7 | | | |\n| 8 | | | |\n| 9 | | | |\n| 10 | | | |\n| 11 | | | |\n| 12 | | | |\n| 13 | | | |\n| 14 | | | |\n| 15 | | | |\n| 1 ୧ | | | |\n| 17 | | | |\n| 18 | | | |\n| 19 | | | |\n| 20 | | | |\n| 21 | | | |\n| 22 | | | |\n| 23 | | | |\n| 2 4 | | | |\n| 25 | | | |\n| | | | |","body_zh":null,"key_entities":["Kwok","Despins","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":672,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":20637,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-08-17 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-08-17","updated_at":"2026-07-07 08:28:49"}