{"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":"美国破产法院（UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT）\n康涅狄格联邦地区（DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT）\n布里奇波特分庭（BRIDGEPORT DIVISION）\n\n关于\n\nCase No. 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n债务人。\nAugust 4, 2022\n\n庭审记录\n\n于尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官前\n美国破产法院法官\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·A·亨齐律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼律师）\nSTUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nPATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·伯尼律师）\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代表债权人委员会：IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·戈德曼律师） Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n庭审程序由电子录音记录，笔录由速记服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 3 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 4 页，共 106\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 5 页，共 106\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 6 页，共 106\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n我未看到就第11章受托人关于延长民事诉讼移送期限的动议提出任何异议或答复。该动议及拟议命令在我看来均无问题。是否有人希望就受托人延长民事诉讼移送期限的动议发表意见？\n\n（无可听见的答复）\n\n法庭：好的。未听到答复——\n\n林西先生（MR. LINSEY）：法官阁下。\n\n法庭：是。\n\n林西先生：是的。如果该动议在您看来没有问题，我就不多说了。\n\n法庭书记员：林西律师——\n\n林西先生：我是代表受托人的帕特里克·林西（Patrick Linsey）。仅说明——\n\n法庭书记员：对不起。林西律师，请您报一下姓名。\n\n林西先生：我是代表受托人的帕特里克·林西。\n\n法庭书记员：谢谢。\n\n法庭：请继续。\n\n林西先生：鉴于法官阁下表示该动议可以接受，我不会——我不会多说。我仅指出，债务人此前提出了一项动议，我认为没有人对此提出异议，但该动议尚未得到处理。并且，假定法庭签发我们随动议提交的命令，将导致债务人的动议被撤回。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 7 页，共 106\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022\n\n法庭：是。你们的动议中已对此作出说明。因此，谢谢。待本命令，即与该动议一并提交、见于 ECF 672 第10页和第11页的拟议命令签发时，债务人先前的动议将被撤回；现已由受托人在记录中予以撤回。\n\n林西先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。因此，该动议获准，拟议命令可以签发。这样便处理完了今日日程上的第一项事项。\n\n第二项事项显然是——此前从1日星期一延期至今日审理的事项，即受托人请求作出命令、确认受托人持有债务人的全部经济权利和公司治理权利的动议。\n\n该事项延期至今日，是为了给予债务人提交答复的机会；债务人今晨已提交答复。我还注意到——债务人提出了异议，随后第11章受托人就该异议提交了答复。\n\n因此，我从文件中理解，或者至少我已经——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 8 页，共 106\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 9 页，共 106\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022\n\n接受这一点，其含义是，您知道，您知道，认为法庭的管辖权仅是美国问题。我的意思是，如您所知，在美国，我们认为您，法官阁下，对债务人的全部资产享有全球管辖权。\n\n但暂且搁置这一点，我认为我们不必就管辖权进行美英之间的辩论。\n\n因此，我们采用了她的信函并作了些许修改，而这基本上就是我们现在请求法庭指示债务人向她发送的信函；该信函基本上写明，应给予他完全访问权限。\n\n但是，债务人依照她——英国律师的请求表示，他的同意，如信函所载，并不延及我放弃任何特权。\n\n这不是问题；我的意思是，我本来也无意这样做。但我认为，放弃特权始终是我的权利。不过，我的观点是，我们不必讨论这些问题。\n\n重要的是获得对文件的访问权并了解案件情况，以便获得完整说明。根据该信函，我认为，尽管他们非常谨慎地表示不能保证该信函对他们具有约束力，而我们说没问题，但我认为根据该信函，我们应当能够完全访问这些文件。这就是目标。\n\n因此，您知道，我们将不再追究限制法庭管辖权及诸如此类的问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 10 页，共 106\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022\n\n这就是我们在该问题上的立场。因此，从我的角度看，就英国律师而言，我认为我们已经处理完毕。但我不知道债务人在该问题上的立场如何。\n\n法庭：亨齐律师？\n\n亨齐先生：我们在该问题上尚未处理完毕，法官阁下。有几点。\n\n第一，德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）提到了英国律师，而他和我一直在沟通的人是 Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克律师事务所）的珍妮·莫里西（Jenny Morrissey）。\n\n作为债务人的律师，我只是想明确一点。我不确定这是否正确，法官阁下，我坦率地说。美国法与英国法的衔接对我来说有些不明确。\n\n我知道，根据《破产法》，德斯平斯先生在获任命后自动取代成为该英国诉讼中的原告。\n\n我从莫里西律师处获悉，《破产法》所规定的内容，无论如何，并不是她的看法。我并非——我并不——我对英国法一无所知，因此，她是对是错，但那——那是她的观点。\n\n我相信，她的观点也是，德斯平斯先生尚不是该诉讼的一方。根据英国法，仍有一些步骤必须采取。再次说明，我不就此发表意见。我是在向您转述莫里西律师所——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 11 页，共 106\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 12 页，共 106\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022\n\n并非依据美国法，而是依据英国法。\n\n据我从莫里西律师处的沟通所理解，可能存在某些事项——我认为美国法下也是如此——受托人被任命后，公司债务人与自然人之间适用不同标准。即使在受托人获任命后，自然人仍可能保有某些特权。据我所知，英国的情况也类似。\n\n因此，Harcus Parker 所持有的某些事项，可能是郭先生个人仍对其享有特权的事项，而非根据英国法他不享有该等特权的事项。\n\n而我——再次说明，我不了解英国法。我不认为德斯平斯先生了解英国法。那正是我不知道的。\n\n法官阁下，我认为处理此事有正确的方法。德斯平斯先生需要采取措施，使其本人被认可为英国诉讼的一方，然后我认为应当处理该特权问题。\n\n我不知道债务人——我不知道郭先生如何能够说，我将放弃我享有的任何特权权利。再次说明，是他所享有的任何特权权利。\n\n法官阁下，我不知道。莫里西律师可能作出判断，认为他没有任何特权权利。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 13 页，共 106\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022\n\n她也可能作出判断，认为就其持有的文件而言，他享有大量特权权利。\n\n我不知道，在他不知道自己就何种事项放弃特权的情况下，如何能够公平地要求他放弃其仍然享有的任何特权。\n\n因此，我不知道莫里西律师会认为哪些文件属于郭先生根据英国法仍享有特权的事项范围。\n\n再次说明，我认为存在处理这一问题的方法。莫里西律师可能会确定一些具体文件，并表示这些是郭先生享有特权的文件；并且，可能需要由我审阅，如果这些文件完全无害——那很好——但必须经过一个程序。\n\n郭先生在不知道自己放弃什么的情况下，无法作出知情且自愿的放弃。他不能这样做，也不会这样做。\n\n并且，再次说明，恕我直言，我不认为您可以强制他这样做。我不认为您可以通过签署该信函，强制他放弃其——无论他根据英国法享有何种律师—当事人保密特权。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，我可以说几句吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\n德斯平斯先生：您知道，有一种试图——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 14 页，共 106\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 15 页，共 106\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022\n\n很久以前曾告知他们，我拥有基本上涉及德斯平斯先生的请求权。郭先生已完全脱离此事——脱离该项请求权。他确实这样说过。\n\n那么，如果律师不能就该请求权的是非曲直向我作出说明，我拥有该请求权又有何意义？再次说明，这就是能让我开动汽车的钥匙。我绝对需要它。\n\n法官阁下，判例法明确规定，受托人可以获得与债务人资产有关的债务人特权信息。\n\n这里甚至不存在争议。这不像游艇或 Sherry-Netherland 公寓，在那些事项中他说，哦，我不拥有它。他说——他提交了一项请求权。他说，我拥有这个。现在受托人拥有该请求权是明确的。显然，我有权获得对其的访问。\n\n这并非未知或无限制的放弃。因此，我们认为法庭可以强制。这是 521(a) (3) (a) (4) 。法庭绝对可以这样做，因为这等同于债务人说，是的，汽车在这里，但我不会把钥匙给你。\n\n如果不了解该请求权的是非曲直，或者不知道是否曾达成任何和解，我就无法开动汽车。我无法出售汽车。您知道，这就是类比。我们需要获得对此的访问权。\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 16 页，共 106\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？\n\n法官：可以。\n\n亨齐先生：我想澄清一点，莫里西律师已向我明确说明，这里还有另外两名原告，且该项特权为共同享有。\n\n莫里西律师已明确表示，就与其他当事人共同持有的信息而言，郭先生不能主张该特权。因此，她已非常、非常明确地说明，理论上郭先生唯一可以主张的，是关于据我所知其为唯一所有人的财产所涉及的特权。\n\n因此，再次说明，Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克）可能表示他们将会交出的信息范围究竟为何，我不知道。\n\n但我想向您提供两项我未在异议中列出的引证。法官阁下，我确实只有相对较短的时间完成该异议。我确实援引了一宗案件，其中第二巡回上诉法院表示，不能强迫某人放弃其律师—委托人特权。\n\n再次说明，法官阁下，如郭先生已不再拥有该特权，根据——我认为是根据 U.K.（英国）法律，而非 U.S.（美国）法律——英国的律师—委托人特权为何，以及该特权在何种程度上归属于郭先生而非德斯平斯先生，均属英国法律问题，并非美国法律问题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 17 of 106\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022\n\n亨齐先生：但还有两宗第二巡回上诉法院的案件。其中一宗是 Highland Capital Management（高地资本管理公司）诉 United States（美国）案，载于 626 F. App'x——我从来不知道那个东西怎么念——324。这是一项 2015 的裁决。\n\n法官阁下，如可允许，我引述如下：“在未放弃特权或不存在可接受例外的情况下，强制披露受律师—委托人特权保护的通信，违反了确立已久的判例。当事人对某项特权是否适用存在争议时，法院通常会进行秘密审查。相反，在未就该项主张的是非作出司法裁定的情况下，要求诉讼当事人将受律师—委托人特权主张约束的文件交给对方律师，将会损害律师—委托人特权，因此是不允许的。”\n\n因此，再次说明，郭先生在此拥有哪些特权以及不拥有哪些特权，很可能仍存在争议。此外，在解决该争议之前，您不能命令他放弃特权。\n\n我再次指出，法官阁下，这件事有正确的处理方式。如果德斯平斯先生不试图通过在此取得一项命令来强行推进，而是与英国律师及我合作，尝试确定这里实际涉及的文件范围，那么她可以审阅其文件，并对您说：我不能向你提供任何东西，因为其他这些人享有特权，我不会向你提供任何东西。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 18 of 106\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022\n\n她也可能会说，有五份文件，郭先生是唯一所有人，我可以向你交出的也只有这五份。那五份文件是他孩子的照片。没有人——也不会有人在意那些照片——会告诉我们任何数量的事情。但这有一个必须完成的程序。\n\n第二巡回上诉法院表示，未经就具体文件作出认定，不能命令作出这种概括性放弃。\n\n法官：Highland 案中哪一部分是这样说的？我正在看该案。\n\n而且 Highland 案不是破产案件。它是涉及 IRS（美国国税局）问题的第三方传票案件。\n\n那么它在哪里这样说？它在哪里说，法院不能强迫一名非占有债务人就该债务人在伪证处罚下声明为其破产财产资产的一项资产放弃特权？\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，这个——您是对的。这不是债务人案件。\n\n但我不认为——我不——我不知道有任何案件。法官阁下，我要说的是，我不知道有任何案件是这样说的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 19 of 106\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022\n\n因为第二巡回上诉法院所说的是，在存在适用的例外之后。我认为案件中通常出现的例外，是一方当事人——在刑事案件中——称其未获得有效律师协助的情形。\n\n规则是，除非你愿意放弃与律师的相关通信，否则你不能声称未获得有效律师协助。\n\n我不知道有任何案件认为，对债务人存在适用的例外。\n\n但我要回应我在此提出的另一点。我不认为由在场债务人来证明否定事实。不是通过动议，而是通过提交拟议命令，德斯平斯先生正在寻求救济。他正寻求让您强迫债务人——\n\n法官：尚未。\n\n亨齐先生：——放弃其特权。\n\n法官：尚未。如果债务人不签署该文件，那么——我前几天向德斯平斯先生问过这个问题——届时他将提交一项动议。\n\n问题在于，你的判例法说，在未放弃特权或不存在适用例外的情况下，强制披露受律师—委托人特权保护的通信，违反确立已久的判例。\n\n可是，这里是——这里是——郭先生在其财产申报表中已在伪证处罚下作出声明——而且你已联系英国的律师，表示德斯平斯先生是当事人，并且你已承认，在英国的该项诉讼中，德斯平斯先生取代郭先生的地位。因此，你不能随后又主张，曾代理郭先生的律师不能将该信息交给德斯平斯先生供其审阅。我的意思是，你可以提出该主张，但没有说服力。\n\n你正在——\n\n亨齐先生：好的。没有任何——\n\n法官：对不起。让我——让我说完。\n\n你来到本法院。你的当事人自愿来到本法院，将其资产置于本破产财产债权人的审查之下，并声明该项诉因是其诉因，且是破产财产的一项资产。\n\n第 11 章受托人一经获任命，第 11 章受托人即取代郭先生的地位。因此，第 11 章受托人享有郭先生在该诉讼中的特权。\n\n因此，你的论点没有说服力。那么，让我们转到下一个问题，即是否——因为该命令——\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，我能不能——我能不能——我可以吗——\n\n法官：对不起。我还没说完。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 21 of 106\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022\n\n亨齐先生：好的。\n\n法官：那封信——德斯平斯先生刚刚表示，如果他不正确，他将受到 Rule 11 制裁，亨齐先生。他从伦敦的律师——从出庭律师或事务律师——那里取得了这封信。\n\n他们愿意签署该文件。他们作了标注修改。这就是将要发生的事。这就是将要发生的事。\n\n那么我们转到下一个问题，即关于 Genever（杰尼弗）的问题，以及你所主张的郭先生——你知道——对 Genever 没有任何控制权这一事实。\n\n但是，当你查看受托人今天上午对你的异议所作答复时，其中附有证据材料，郭先生在其中承认——这是当事人自认——他拥有持有该公寓的合作社股份。\n\n那么你对此有何回应？\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，如果我可以先回到刚才的问题片刻。为记录在案，您将不会听到我就特权问题提出任何进一步论点。\n\n法官：正确。\n\n亨齐先生：我只是想作出——\n\n法官：我已决定该问题。\n\n亨齐先生：我想保留记录。\n\n法官：我已决定该问题。正确。你关于特权的论点没有——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 22 of 106\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 23 of 106\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022\n\n那么我可以将它们作为证据提交。我可以说，它们现在是与受托人动议有关的证据，因为它们都已提交，其中许多——我们可以逐一审查——是在 Genever Holdings（杰尼弗控股）的破产案件中提交的。法院可以根据 Federal Rules of Evidence（联邦证据规则）对此进行司法认知，因为其可靠性显而易见。\n\n所以，说它们不在证据中，好吧，我现在裁定它们属于证据。今日为回应你的异议而提交的、附于受托人答复的证据材料 A 至 G，均作为证据，并将标记为证据。因此，如果你想上诉——这些证据材料将作为证据。\n\n（附于受托人命令动议的证据材料 A 至 G 已作为受托人证据材料 A 至 G 收入证据。）\n\n亨齐先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n仅为记录在案，以便保留我的记录，我反对接纳它们。\n\n法官：明白。\n\n亨齐先生：此外，我处于一个困难境地，难以按证据规则要求的那样提出具体异议，因为我几乎没有时间审阅这些文件。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 24 of 106\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 25 of 106\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022\n\n法官：好的。\n\n亨齐先生：我未收到通知。\n\n法官：你将如何反驳——你当事人在纽约州法院提交并由其签署的对书面质询的答复，即证据材料 A？你将如何反驳？对于你当事人在纽约一项已持续多年的诉讼中签署的那些书面质询答复，你究竟能提出什么来反驳？\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，我将尝试具体回答该问题，但我认为——实际上，我会尝试回答您的问题。好的。\n\n首先——我不知道。我不——我不在纽约州从事庭审法律业务，因此我不知道书面质询是否会提交。例如，在联邦法院或康涅狄格州法院，书面质询并不提交。因此，也许会提交，也许不会提交。我不知道。因此，如果它们不提交，我不认为您可以进行司法认知。这是一个问题。\n\n法官：嗯，其顶部有纽约的提交印章，写明于 4/28/2021, 10:54 p.m. 向 New York County Clerk（纽约县书记员）提交。文件顶部就是这样写的。\n\n亨齐先生：抱歉。我再次说明，法官阁下，我不——我不在纽约从事庭审法律业务，因此我不知道程序是什么。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 26 of 106\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n我想指出，法官阁下，如果您看第3页，那里有“利益”的定义。\n\n法庭：附件A第3页？您是这个意思吗？\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：据我的理解，您现在已经将此作为附件A接纳。\n\n法庭：是的。\n\nHENZY先生：好的。为明确起见，法官阁下，我确实对此提出异议。我理解您驳回了我的异议，但是——第3页的定义2——我可能弄错了，法官阁下——再次说明，我尚未——我理解，法官阁下。\n\n我并不是告诉您，我没有责任事先审阅这些内容，但今天上午就此提交了大量材料。\n\n但是，“利益”的定义在该处非常、非常宽泛。利益一词是指任何直接或间接的利益，无论是部分、全部或潜在利益，等等。因此，这是一个非常、非常宽泛的“利益”定义。\n\n再次，如果我看对询问书第1项答复，其中尤其有一个小方框写着“承认所有权”——法官阁下，我不知道该项从何而来。我不知道——我不知道那是否属于向纽约州法院提交的材料的一部分。我对此表示怀疑，而不是认为这以某种方式……\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 27 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 28 页，共 106 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n……关键在于，我——我无法提交证据，法官阁下，来解释这一点、解释声明中的内容以及解释综合注释中的内容。这——这从根本上说是不公平的。\n\n本案原本并未安排进行证据审理。我——这甚至不是——此处请求的救济，正如我在异议中指出的，法官阁下，它甚至不是实际提交的动议中所请求的救济。\n\n这是——这是新的救济。而据我理解，我们现在在几乎未获通知的情况下，就新的救济进行审理；我绝对没有能力应对目前提出的主张。而且，这——再次说明，我认为这从根本上说是不公平的，我对此绝对提出异议。\n\nSARNOFF先生（萨诺夫先生）：Manning法官（曼宁法官），我是Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）。我能否非常简短地陈述意见？因为我或许能够就与此有关的一个问题协助法庭。\n\n法庭：请讲。\n\nSARNOFF先生：那么，我——Manning法官，我一直是PAX（PAX公司）在州法院诉讼中的主办律师。我代表其提交了起诉状。\n\n法官阁下，我只想指出，PAX就Genever BVI（英属维尔京群岛Genever）股份作为判决后执行程序，提交并胜诉了一项交付动议。\n\n我还想提出，此前从未向法庭提交过所谓的信托契据。但无论如何，该法官——于2021年9月22日，Ostrager法官（奥斯特拉格法官），即Ostrager大法官，在其庭审记录中的裁决里，随后又在当日作出的命令中确认，命令将Kwok先生的Genever BVI股份所有权交付给PAX，因为他在2021年9月22日庭审记录第16页中表示，引用如下：“Kwok先生在答复PAX的判决后询问书时，将其在Genever Holdings BVI（英属维尔京群岛Genever Holdings）的所有权利益确认为其唯一价值超过$10,000的资产”，该文件为本案第756号文件第9页。\n\n该等所有权股份——随后他继续说，所有权——因此，他已承认这是他的唯一资产。\n\n并且，由于PAX当时拥有金额为130多万美元的判决，即$126,000 million，他们有权获得交付。\n\n我们不得不提出后续的藐视法庭动议；在Kwok先生申请破产时，该动议尚在审理中，因为Kwok先生当然没有按其应做的那样办理交付。\n\n但是——您知道，已有司法裁定认定，为了能够将这些股份交付，或者在本案中由Despins先生（德斯平斯先生）承接其地位并取得同一组权利，该等股份属于Kwok先生。\n\n我还想指出，法官阁下，Kwok先生……\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 29 页，共 106 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n……已在Genever破产案件中提交的文件。我不会——我不会对此提出争议。\n\n法庭：是的。但您必须依据联邦证据规则这么做，Henzy律师。我不能只是说我予以司法认知。我必须依据——有关司法认知的适用证据规则这么做。因此，这属于证据，正如您提交的有关和解协议的文件一样。\n\nHENZY先生：是的。我理解，法官阁下。我理解您的裁定。\n\n但是，法官阁下，关于所有权存在争议。现在，Despins先生确实提交了——我认为，根据适用法律，该争议必须通过对抗程序解决。我援引了许多、许多判例说明这一点。\n\n法庭：Henzy先生，让我就在对抗程序问题上打断您。\n\n我认为您对7004——7001(a)中的措辞有问题，您没有——您把句子截断了。我的意思是，我今天上午回头看了三遍，因为我认为您所说的——那并不是准确的表述。它规定——(a)(1)规定，为追收金钱或财产而进行的程序，但要求债务人向受托人交付财产的程序除外。您——您没有看到这段措辞吗？如何……\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 38 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 39 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 40 页，共 106 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\nHENZY先生：对不起——7001(1)适用——我承认其适用于要求债务人向受托人交付财产的程序。但是，我认为那是针对不存在争议、该财产属于破产财产的财产。而本案存在争议。\n\n这与363动议是一样的，法官阁下。包括Tancredi法官（坦克雷迪法官）在内的法院已裁定，在决定拟出售的财产是否属于破产财产之前，您不能批准363动议。而这需要对抗程序。\n\n法庭：我们目前并未出售财产。\n\n第一点。\n\n第二点，该财产的出售受纽约破产法院出售该财产的命令约束。因此，该事项已经完成了，这是第一点。\n\n其次，您的当事人承认，该资产以某种形式属于他，Henzy先生。我不必认定他拥有的是法律利益、衡平利益还是受益利益。我不必认定其中任何一点。您的当事人已经承认，这是他的资产。\n\n因此，我不——所以我不——您仍未回答7001(a)如何要求Despins先生提起对抗程序的问题。\n\nHENZY先生：那么，法官阁下，我认为不存在——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 41 页，共 106 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n法庭：是7001(1)，其规定——\n\n7001(a)\n\n法庭：好的。抱歉，是7001(1)。\n\nHENZY先生：——有一项除外规定——它排除——\n\n法庭：抱歉。\n\nHENZY先生：——它排除了交付。但是，再次说明，那是针对破产财产。必须先作出认定，确认该财产事实上属于破产财产。而且——\n\n法庭：您的当事人已经在声明中表示，该财产属于破产财产。即使他说他是以受托方式持有，他仍然拥有这些股份。他在我们前几天讨论过的第107号声明中这样说过。因此，他已经这样说过。\n\nHENZY先生：他说的是，他拥有——他拥有法律所有权，作为——\n\n法庭：好的。您知道，破产财产的定义包括您对任何财产拥有的一切利益，包括法律利益、受益利益和衡平利益。因此，他拥有。\n\nHENZY先生：但是，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：这是破产财产。\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，Despins先生在听证会开始前，我认为是九分钟——或者九分半钟，提交了第三份修订拟议命令。我没有机会审阅。如果其中有适当的保护措施……\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 42 页，共 106 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n……那么债务人很可能不会反对该命令的登记，但我希望有机会，而不是在本次听证会进行到一半时，审阅该命令。\n\n法庭：好的。您是否希望休庭一小时，以便您去阅读该命令？我的意思是，如果这是您希望做的，那没有问题。\n\n但Despins先生刚刚已经解释，他如何在该命令中设置了保障措施。\n\nHENZY先生：我不知道他设置了哪些保障措施，也不知道这些措施是否足够。\n\n法官阁下，问题在于，Despins先生向您提交的内容似乎是——要求完整转让这些股份。好的。这是我的理解。好的。他说这些股份仅以其作为第11章受托人的身份转让给他。\n\n那么，如果Kwok先生仅仅是作为受托人的法定所有人，而这些股份现在被转让给Despins先生，我认为Despins先生将成为该信托的受托人。如果存在有效的——如果存在有效信托，就必须有一名受托人。而如果Despins先生现在是这些股份的法定所有人，我认为他是作为该信托的受托人拥有这些股份。因此，再次说明，如果我们都明确情况确实如此，那么我们可能就没有问题。\n\n我不确定Despins先生真的希望成为一名……\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交，于 08/17/22 16:12:24 登记，第 43 页，共 106 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n作为该信托的受托人，以及由此可能产生的对该信托受益人的一切义务，但您不能两头兼得。\n\n正如法官阁下多次所言，您必须按债务人的既有状态接受债务人——在本案中——就是他本来的状态。论点是，就该项资产而言，他原有的状态是法律上的所有人，即为第三方利益担任信托受托人。\n\n因此，如果——如果——他所拥有的只是作为受托人的法律所有权权益，而该权益正被转移给Despins（德斯平斯）先生作为该信托的受托人，那么这或许可以。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下。\n\n法庭：是。请讲。\n\nDESPINS先生：该论点予以保留。我们并未请求您作出最终认定，认为该信托无效。我们将该问题保留至日后处理。\n\n但是，他不能取得一份确认该信托有效的咨询性意见。\n\n正如您在书面质询中指出的，问题不在于该等文件是否已在纽约州提交。该等文件由Kwok（郭文贵）先生在伪证处罚下签署。\n\n而他从未提及该信托，即五年前或四年前已经存在的该信托。\n\n因此，这就是法律上的状况。这就是我们如何接受债务人。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 44 页，共 106 页\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022\n\n债务人对该信托只字未提。而且我——我认为我们已经很宽厚。\n\n我们保留其关于存在信托的论点，以待日后处理；这意味着，要求您裁定该信托无效将是不公平的。我们对其存有严重疑虑，但那是另一个日子要处理的事。这正是该命令所规定的。它将该问题留待日后处理。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，Henzy（亨齐）先生，您是否——\n\nSARNOFF先生：法官阁下，我是Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）。\n\n法庭：好的。请稍等一下。\n\nSARNOFF先生：法官阁下，我刚才正要——\n\n法庭：请讲，Sarnoff先生。请讲。\n\nSARNOFF先生：法官阁下，我只是想指出，关于PAX就交付提出的动议，本庭的裁判以及——关于动议的裁定和命令，不是庭审记录，而是书面裁判和命令，已经提交。\n\n我相信，我们于2022年3月1日将其提交至本庭案卷，案卷编号应为57-2。如果我的——如果我的信息不正确，请原谅。我们当时很匆忙。但我认为该信息正确。\n\n那是Supreme Court in the State of New York（纽约州最高法院）的裁判和命令，即本庭——Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官就我方交付动议所作的裁决。该——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 45 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 46 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 47 页，共 106 页\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022\n\n法庭：显示出来了吗？\n\n法警：是。\n\n法庭：我看不见，因为我无法知道自己是否正在共享。\n\n好的。那么，这就是第9段，Despins先生？\n\nDESPINS先生：是。正确，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：是。每个人都能看到吗？\n\n（无可听见的回应）\n\n法庭：好的。至少每个人都能查看到吗？\n\nHenzy律师，您看到了吗？我并不是说您不能休庭来查阅整份命令。我只是问您是否看到了第9段？\n\nHENZY先生：我看到了，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。那么，Henzy律师，您是否——您是否请求法庭休庭，以便您审阅此事，还是您此时请求法庭采取何种行动？\n\nHENZY先生：我认为我并未请求法庭采取任何行动，法官阁下。如果法庭愿意，我很乐意休庭并仔细审阅此事。我不知道是否会需要一个小时。我不知道是否需要与Despins先生或其他任何人讨论。\n\n但是——我想明确说明，法官阁下，我坚持提出异议，即该事项并未载于已提交的动议中。根据Rule 9013及相关判例法，我认为该事项并未适当地提交至法庭审理。\n\n因此，我的主要论点是，您不应就此作出裁定，而应告知Despins先生提交一项动议，以便能够有序地处理此事，而不是像现在这样，法官阁下，该事项最初是在周日晚上10:09提交并提出的。好的。\n\n因此，再次说明，这——这不公平。通知并不充分。他所请求救济的依据没有在任何地方具体说明。\n\n当然，该依据不在动议中。而且我认为——他所持有的修订后拟议命令，本身并不能说明问题。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，我们提交了一项范围很广的动议，请求所有公司治理权，并且我们具体提及了BVI（英属维尔京群岛）。\n\nHenzy先生答复称，关于BVI，已经太晚了。不存在——您不能就BVI作出这样一项没有限定范围的命令。\n\n我们答复说，好，我们会非常明确。这正是我们从BVI所需要的内容。这已包含在所请求的救济之中。因此，我不理解——但他在周日已经收到。\n\n再次说明，该项救济非常简单。有一辆车，我们需要钥匙。如果我们要取得Genever（杰尼弗）的钥匙，我们需要债务人签署所有这些文件，以便完成转让手续。这与动议完全一致。原本无需比这更具体，但现在它非常、非常具体，而且自周日起就一直非常具体。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 49 页，共 106 页\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022\n\nHENZY先生：我不同意，法官阁下。我认为这并非——现在所请求的救济，并非已出示并提交的动议的一部分。\n\n因此，我将——我将坚持该异议。\n\n再次说明，如果法庭或各方认为我们休庭一小时有意义，以便我查看该命令并至少可能与我的当事人交谈，我很乐意这样做。\n\n但是，我不——我不希望出现这样的意外：如果我回来后表示，不论该命令中写了什么，我都反对准予该项救济。\n\n法庭：还有其他人希望发言吗？\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，此事不必以这种方式进行。但在Genever U.S.案件中，目前的状况是，该财产正在Melanie Cyganowski（梅拉妮·齐加诺夫斯基）的监督下出售。据我所知，该案中的债务人实际上已将该程序的控制权交给Melanie Cyganowski。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 50 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 51 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 52 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 53 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 54 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 55 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 56 页，共 106 页\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022\n\n如果可以的话，我们今天不会就此试图推敲该信函的措辞。而且我并不天真。我知道这——这可能是一个安排，事实上帷幕后可能毫无内容，而我将再次来到法官阁下面前。\n\n法官阁下并未裁定该特权不属于我。法官阁下只是指示债务人发送该信函。\n\n所以我想——\n\n所以，Goldman（戈德曼）先生，我完全理解他的观点，但我敦促法庭在此阶段不要对措辞进行斟酌。\n\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：法官阁下，我认为在附带该项保留的情况下，您知道，我认为我可以接受，只要我们确认此处没有裁定——没有裁定受托人是否持有特权，和——或者该特权是否属于Kwok先生。\n\n我认为，鉴于这是美国破产财产的一项资产，存在一个问题，即，您知道，是美国法还是英国法规范该特权——但我们——我同意Despins先生的意见，即今天无须作出该项认定。\n\n法庭：而且该动议并未请求——\n\nHENZY先生：我认为这确实没有必要，因为——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 57 页，共 106 页\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022\n\n法庭：该动议并未请求——\n\nHENZY先生：——正如我所说——\n\n法庭：请稍等，Henzy律师。\n\n而且该动议并未请求作出该项认定。因此，我不会作出该项认定。\n\n抱歉，Henzy律师。请讲。\n\nHENZY先生：嗯，法官阁下，实际上，该动议根本没有以任何方式、任何形式涉及Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克）问题。\n\n我们可以争论关于BVI的行动是否是已提交动议的附带事项，而我认为并非如此；但我认为实际上不存在任何争议，即Harcus Parker问题并非该动议的一部分。它根本不在其中，法官阁下。\n\n我再次表示，我认为处理此事的正确方式是，您知道，我们或许可以达到一个（听不清）的位置，但这——这不是。\n\n就讨论该信函内容而言，Kwok先生不会放弃、不会自愿放弃律师—当事人特权。他不会这样做。而且正如我所说，我不会强迫他这样做。因此，如果您要作出命令，我们可能会——我们可能会走到藐视法庭这一步，但他不会这样做。\n\n因此，我不知道我们还需要花多少时间在——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 58 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 59 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 60 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 61 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 62 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 63 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 64 页，共 106 页\n\n郭文贵 - August 4, 2022\n\n但是，这里所请求的救济，就未被指明的实体而言，请求极为广泛的救济，包括替换任何现任高级人员、董事、经理或类似人员的权限。\n\n因此，Despins先生请求本庭授予他对未被指明实体的权限，而不考虑该等特定实体、规范该等实体的适用非破产法，以及该等实体的组织文件可能作出的规定。\n\n我认为，法官阁下，这行不通。\n\n我认为此类权限——就Despins先生而言，我认为他拥有其现有的权限，而这涉及——我并不质疑他就任何特定实体所拥有的任何权限，因为我不知道我们在谈论哪些实体。但该条款将赋予他可能并未由适用非破产法及特定实体治理文件规定的权限。\n\n法庭：这难道不能——\n\nHENZY先生：而Despins先生所援引的判例——\n\n法庭：这难道不能——我们不能仅仅通过说明——您说的是为免生疑的措辞，即那一句？\n\n为免生疑，前述权利包括受托人所主张的权限。他主张他——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 于 08/17/22 提交 于 08/17/22 16:12:24 录入 第 65 页，共 106 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— August 4, 2022\n\n拥有该权限。如果他没有该权限却做了错误的事情，那么你可以起诉他。\n\nHENZY先生（HENZY）：实际上，法官阁下，我的意思是，我想我在答复中已写明，即如果本段仅规定须遵守适用的非破产法以及这些实体的管理文件，那么我——那么我将不会反对该项规定。\n\n再说一次，我并不是想——我并不是想在此制造争议。我确实不是。但我认为这才是对法律的正确陈述。他作为受托人享有其所享有的任何权限，但就任何特定实体而言，该等权限须遵守适用的非破产法以及该实体的管理文件。仅此而已。\n\nDESPINS先生（DESPINS）：法官阁下，如果我们有，我们就有；如果没有，我们就没有。但我不想就这些问题与债务人展开附带诉讼，因为那样本案的费用将会——您知道——失去控制。\n\n我们请求概括授权的原因，是除非我们经审慎调查认为自己有权这样做，否则我们不会行使该项权利。如果我们存有疑问，我们将返回法庭。\n\n但是，我们不能处于这样一种境地，即就——州法规定什么、外国法规定什么——是否展开附带诉讼，因为那是——\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 761-1，提交于 08/17/22，登记于 08/17/22 16:12:24，第 66 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 761-1，提交于 08/17/22，登记于 08/17/22 16:12:24，第 67 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 761-1，提交于 08/17/22，登记于 08/17/22 16:12:24，第 68 页，共 106 页\n\n郭文贵 — August 4, 2022\n\n例如，举一个极端的例子，郭先生在该陈述的背景下说，哦，顺便说一下，我已将一架私人飞机的权益转让给了我的女儿。\n\n我并不是——我并不是在寻求该项内容。那并非郭先生针对 UBS（UBS）提出的积极请求的一部分。\n\n因此，法官阁下指示他就此致函的该项特权，仅涉及该诉讼、该项积极诉讼。我希望确保记录在这一点上明确。\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，我也想澄清。我理解 Despins 先生的立场。我想澄清，我认为 Despins 先生拥有他所拥有的任何——我再次假定，我不了解英国法律——他所拥有的任何特权，而郭先生拥有其所拥有的任何特权（如有）。\n\n并且，郭先生——就其拥有任何特权而言——不会放弃该特权。但是，再次强调，我认为我们已经——我已经提出了我必须提出的论点，就是这样。\n\n法庭：好的。对拟议命令第 3 页第 (b) 段措辞的异议予以驳回。\n\nHENZY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么你的下一项异议是什么？\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，在第 4 页第 4 段中，该段实质上是对受托人的概括授权。\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 761-1，提交于 08/17/22，登记于 08/17/22 16:12:24，第 69 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 761-1，提交于 08/17/22，登记于 08/17/22 16:12:24，第 70 页，共 106 页\n\n郭文贵 — August 4, 2022\n\n我们需要该开头措辞的原因是，我们不想处于这样一种境地，即就“嗯，您终止了或免除了某名董事、某名高级职员。您不应当那样做。那不是——那不是日常经营活动中的行为”，以及我们是否在——在（听不清）范围内行事，展开所有这些附带诉讼。\n\n我们认为，只要其中包含保护破产财产的安全阀，即未经法庭命令不得出售或出租财产，我们就应当获得这两项救济。\n\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：还有其他人——\n\nHENZY先生：我看到——我看到该限制，法官阁下，但我仍然认为——我不认为根据 353 存在在日常经营活动范围外行事的概括授权这一回事。\n\nDESPINS先生：那仅仅是为了行使公司治理权利，法官阁下。没有其他内容。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生（FRIEDMAN）：法官阁下，我可以发言——我是 Peter Friedman——片刻吗？\n\n最初提出的命令并未包含 Despins 先生加入的那项措辞，而我们认为该措辞极为重要。\n\n而且，您知道，我认为如果没有该措辞，作为债权人，我们本会提出异议。但我们认为，该补充体现了受托人为平衡债权人的经济利益——我认为这必须居于首要地位——与效率所作出的极具善意的举措。\n\n因此，我们强烈支持纳入该特定段落及应我们请求加入的保护性措辞。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n还有其他人希望就第 4 段发言吗？\n\n（无可听见的回应）\n\n法庭：好的。我再读一遍该措辞。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：好的。还有任何人就第 4 段有进一步意见吗？\n\n（无可听见的回应）\n\n法庭：Henzy 律师，尽管我理解你的异议，但我予以驳回，因为我认为该措辞——其具体针对债务人控制实体的经济权利和治理权利。而且，您知道，如果就此产生诉讼，那就可以产生诉讼。但我们不会——其受最后一句限制，我认为这对债务人的保护已足够。\n\nHENZY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 761-1，提交于 08/17/22，登记于 08/17/22 16:12:24，第 71 页，共 106 页\n\n郭文贵 — August 4, 2022\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 761-1，提交于 08/17/22，登记于 08/17/22 16:12:24，第 72 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 761-1，提交于 08/17/22，登记于 08/17/22 16:12:24，第 73 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 761-1，提交于 08/17/22，登记于 08/17/22 16:12:24，第 74 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 761-1，提交于 08/17/22，登记于 08/17/22 16:12:24，第 75 页，共 106 页\n\n郭文贵 — August 4, 2022\n\n74\n\nHENZY先生：我想我同意。我没有——我不认为我说过 Despins 先生变成了郭先生。而且我猜 Despins 先生不想成为郭先生，但在任何待决诉讼中，他绝对替代郭先生。\n\n但我不认为，该命令的设置方式并不仅限于待决诉讼；Despins 先生可以提起债务人甚至可能不是当事人的新诉讼。\n\n现在，郭先生作为失去财产控制权的债务人，在某一外国司法管辖区究竟可能拥有何种权利？法官阁下，我不知道。他可能有，也可能没有。他可能根本没有任何权利。因此，我不知道，因为我不知道我们谈论的是哪个司法管辖区。我不知道我们谈论的是哪个实体。我不知道 Despins 先生将采取什么行动。\n\n因此，我完全——您看，再次强调，这样设置的方式是，Despins 先生可以去做他要做的任何事情，但仅限于依据某项适用的外国法律，郭先生有权出庭并采取某种行动的范围内——而他可能没有，他可能没有，法官阁下——他应当能够这样做。我不——我不认为他应当必须回到本法庭，以确定他是否有权依据非破产——适用的非破产法在另一法庭出庭。\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 761-1，提交于 08/17/22，登记于 08/17/22 16:12:24，第 76 页，共 106 页\n\n郭文贵 — August 4, 2022\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：法官阁下，我可以就此问题发言片刻吗？我是 Peter Friedman。\n\n我认为这确实很重要，因为我认为无论如何，鉴于其破产财产无力偿债，郭先生都必须确定他是否具有诉讼资格。\n\n因此，我认为，鉴于他表示自己拥有 \\$3,850，在他前往另一法庭并获准进行诉讼之前，他实际上应当证明，鉴于本案的经济状况，他有权干预受托人对债务人财产的使用。我认为，这是确实必须参照美国破产法及其权利来作出认定的问题。\n\n因此，我实际上认为 Despins 先生所提议的内容极为适当。这无疑是一项审慎措施，并且在（听不清）破产裁定其是否甚至具有出庭陈述资格时适用。\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，仅提出一个假设。\n\n假设 Despins 先生前往外国法庭，并在该外国法庭请求强制郭先生做他试图通过本命令要求其做的那类事情。他请求强制其签署一份文件，比如一份公司文件。那我不——我的意思是，难道有人会说郭先生——\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 761-1，提交于 08/17/22，登记于 08/17/22 16:12:24，第 77 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 761-1，提交于 08/17/22，登记于 08/17/22 16:12:24，第 78 页，共 106 页\n\n郭文贵 — August 4, 2022\n\n例如前往澳大利亚，就某项诉讼进行抗辩，以确认（听不清）。\n\n关键是，他不应当四处活动，并有能力在世界各地扰乱我们正在做的事情，而不来到法官阁下面前说明：这就是我正在做的事情。我有（听不清）的特定化损害，即使我已失去财产控制权，我仍以某种方式能够主张该损害。嗯，该论点只能向法官阁下提出。\n\n然后，如果您认为其有说服力，您将会——您将授权他在国外做他想做的任何事情。但不能让他在这件事中四处活动。这是基本原则，法官阁下。\n\nHENZY先生：但是，法官阁下，可以说该命令所做的是，您向 Despins 先生让渡了一定程度的管辖权，这意味着您告诉他，他可以在日常经营活动范围外行事，而无需前来请求您的许可。\n\n但随后 Despins 先生和 Friedman 先生实质上主张的是，您——但您仍保留——假设就同一事项而言，您保留对债务人的管辖权。\n\n因此，Despins 先生可以做他想做的任何事情，但郭先生不能对此作出回应。而且这似乎应当二者择一。\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 761-1，提交于 08/17/22，登记于 08/17/22 16:12:24，第 79 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 761-1，提交于 08/17/22，登记于 08/17/22 16:12:24，第 80 页，共 106 页\n\n郭文贵 — August 4, 2022\n\n79\n\n破产财产，因为本案中不会对债权人进行全额清偿。因此，不会有债务人有资格据以提出此类论点的剩余财产。\n\n如果 Despins 先生作出超出其权限的行为，那么债务人仍有权提出该论点。但他必须在本法庭、受本法庭对该破产财产的管辖权约束的情况下提出。这也是指定 Chapter 11 受托人的结果之一。\n\n因此，再次强调，尽管我理解你的论点，但这并未阻止债务人反对受托人行使权限；但他必须在本法庭这样做。\n\n因此，我将驳回你对第 6 段的异议。\n\nHENZY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n顺便说一句，仅作说明，英国 UBS 诉讼中的损害赔偿请求为 \\$500 million。我不了解其强度——\n\n法庭：该请求未被列为该破产财产的资产，Henzy 先生。\n\nHENZY先生：哦，不，是列了的。\n\n法庭：不。实际上最初并未列入。\n\nHENZY先生：我相信列入了。\n\n法庭：不。我认为没有。\n\n案件 22-50073，文书 761-1，提交于 08/17/22，登记于 08/17/22 16:12:24，第 81 页，共 106 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022\n\n亨齐先生：好的。我会——我会回去核实，但我原以为是这样的。\n\n但无论如何，我不——我不认为债务人会对以下一点提出任何异议：阁下，若该事项未列入申报表，就本应列入。\n\n而且我认为债务人绝对——\n\n法院：嗯，也许已经列了。那么让我——让我回到那些全局注释中；那些其实并不是真正的注释——而且，再说一次，据我所知，《破产法》、判例法、成文法、地方法院规则或联邦规则中，并无任何授权债务人在其申报表中提交全局注释，以否认其在宣誓保证下于申报表中所作陈述。\n\n我从未见过或听说过这种事，但我理解这如今正在成为人们所做的一种事情。\n\n但这并不——这并不意味着全局注释会对 Kwok 先生是否准确完成其申报表产生任何影响。\n\n话虽如此，即使他确实列出了该事项，那也是一项由另外两名原告共同提出的 $500 million 债权，对吗？\n\n亨齐先生：是的，但是——\n\n法院：那么这将三等分，对吗？\n\n亨齐先生：根据——\n\n法院：而 PAX（PAX）的债权——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 提交日期 08/17/22 登记日期 08/17/22 16:12:24 第 82 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 提交日期 08/17/22 登记日期 08/17/22 16:12:24 第 83 页，共 106 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022\n\n即刚才在庭审记录中讨论的。\n\n亨齐先生：谢谢，阁下。\n\n法院：那么你的下一项异议是什么？\n\n亨齐先生：最后一项异议涉及第 7 段。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n亨齐先生：因此，该请求要求作出一项裁定，其中——该裁定规定您请求外国法院提供协助，包括就受托人有关行使对 Genever BVI（Genever BVI）公司控制权的救济请求，请求 BVI 法院提供协助。\n\n我绝对不会告诉法院应当如何向其他法官表述，但我只是——我认为这非常、非常宽泛。\n\n而且我对此的理解是，它某种程度上会给予 Despins 先生（德斯平斯）本院的背书，使其可以到另一位法官面前说，请把这个给我——曼宁法官（Judge Manning）告诉您，您应当把它给我，即便您，阁下，并不知道——他告诉另一位法官他想要的究竟是什么。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：那么，阁下，这类措辞经常用于外国——您知道，外国代表的情境中。\n\n我很乐意——显然，您不了解我，您或许不愿意给我全权授权，而且我不认为这是一项全权授权——但这实际上是向外国法院表明，它们可能不像美国法院那样了解，本院是在请求其协助，而非请求其实施违法或不当之事。\n\n这是一种相当常规的措辞，但我一向被告知，绝不要在曼宁法官面前援引第 105 条，所以我不会援引它。\n\n但大致是这个意思。因此，如果您——有或没有这项内容，我都可以。我宁愿保留它，但我不会——我不想让您处于您并非百分之百对此感到放心的境地。\n\n法院：嗯，我的意思是，我认为第 15 章中的那一部分——您知道，国会于 2005 年将第 15 章纳入法典的整个目的，就是承认——您知道，跨境案件，并努力实现外国法院与外国代表之间的合作。明白吗？\n\n所以我认为我们可以——我们可以说，为促进受托人行使本裁定所赋予的权限，本院谨请求外国法院就受托人行使对债务人实体，包括 Genever BVI 的公司控制权提供协助。我不认为存在——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 提交日期 08/17/22 登记日期 08/17/22 16:12:24 第 84 页，共 106 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022\n\n这对于使一个司法管辖区的案件得以在本国境外另一司法管辖区的相关程序中实施，可能是必要的。\n\n因此，按照我刚才所述的修改，我对此没有异议。\n\n亨齐先生：明白，阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：我们会作出修改，阁下。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\n亨齐先生：最后一个问题，阁下——我并不是想回头争论——\n\n德斯平斯先生：我以为那——那就是最后一个问题。\n\n亨齐先生：还有一个。我不是——我不是想回头。在第 3 段，也就是回到第 3 页，这封 Harcus Parker（哈卡斯·帕克）函件所说的是，债务人被指示在本裁定登记后不迟于两个工作日交付。嗯，这里面有几个问题，阁下。\n\n作为提交给您材料中证物 B 附件的该函件及表格副本——据我了解，Harcus Parker 尚未同意该版本。因此，您某种意义上——\n\n法院：不过，我对此有一个问题，因为 Despins 受托人说这是他从他们那里收到的函件，那么他们怎么会不同意呢？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 提交日期 08/17/22 登记日期 08/17/22 16:12:24 第 85 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 提交日期 08/17/22 登记日期 08/17/22 16:12:24 第 86 页，共 106 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022\n\n德斯平斯先生：这是一封函件。我所说的是，我们从他们那里收到的函件，我们对其作出了一些轻微修改。但无论如何，我会处理这个问题；也就是说，如果他们——如果他们说——我认为我们作出的修改是——顺便说一句，我们今天早些时候确实把——我们作出的修改发给了他们，所以他们已经看过。我们尚未收到他们的回复。\n\n但如果这是一个问题，我们会解决它；也就是说，这不是 Kwok 先生的问题；也就是说，我们已将该函件以提交给阁下的形式提交，我们将看看他们怎么说。\n\n如果需要修改，我们只会提交一份补充文件。实际上将会是非常、非常——非常轻微的修改。\n\n亨齐先生：我想——所以我不清楚是否——所以他将会——Kwok 先生将被命令签署一封英国律师可能告诉我们不可接受的函件。\n\n我不想出现这样一种情况：Despins 先生与英国律师就函件可能如何措辞协商三天，而这里却说他必须签署——\n\n法院：所以我认为你的意思是，亨齐律师，你只是不希望法院在你看到函件最终版本之前作出该裁定。你是这个意思吗？\n\n亨齐先生：或者至少在——是的，在有最终版本之前。是的，在有——目前，据我了解，并没有最终版本。\n\n但第二点是——如我先前所说，Kwok 先生不会签署这封函件。本裁定规定，他必须在函件实际最终确定并完成后的两个工作日内如此做。\n\n而且我只是——您知道，我——我们将提出上诉。我们将寻求上诉期间暂缓执行。\n\n我只是——我不想因为 Kwok 先生未——未签署本裁定而使其构成藐视法庭。我只是想——所以我只是想提醒法院。\n\n我——我想我不知道为什么要如此急迫地规定两个工作日。我不知道两个工作日内会发生什么，您知道，也不知道为何不能有更长一点的期限，使 Kwok 先生能够提交上诉，并提交他将要提出的任何上诉期间暂缓执行动议。\n\n我只是不想引发不必要的紧急状况，阁下。如果该裁定最终未被暂缓执行，而他——而他不签署，那么由此产生的任何后果将随之产生。\n\n但我不——我不知道我们能否在两个工作日内就上诉期间暂缓执行动议在阁下面前开庭审理，这有多现实。仅此而已。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 提交日期 08/17/22 登记日期 08/17/22 16:12:24 第 87 页，共 106 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022\n\n而且，再说一次，我不——我请求期限长于两天。\n\n德斯平斯先生：那么，阁下，我们——我理解您的担忧，我也同样担忧，以确保我们作出的修改仅是文体上的。\n\n但您知道，鉴于此事的发展方向，我们应当做到精确。因此，我们应当做的是——我只是在思考处理此事的最佳方式——我的意思是，会有一封函件。应当有一封函件。\n\n也许裁定可以规定，我们将在 X 天内提供最终形式的函件，而债务人将有 Y 天——来完成此事。Y 天来完成此事。该函件将与所附形式实质相同。因此，我们可以提交一项裁定，以处理该问题，也就是那个确切问题，阁下。\n\n并且请理解，精确性——我们不应当——我们应当谨慎处理此事，并做到更为精确，而不是不够精确。我理解您的观点，阁下。\n\n法院：你是否反对将债务人的两日期限延长至更长期间？他不会签署它，但我想他的意思是，他想要——他将提出上诉，所以——我不——\n\n德斯平斯先生：当然。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 提交日期 08/17/22 登记日期 08/17/22 16:12:24 第 88 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 提交日期 08/17/22 登记日期 08/17/22 16:12:24 第 89 页，共 106 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022\n\n法院：关键在于，你的当事人已经表示他不会签署。他不会。他已经通过你表示，他不会遵从本院命令。\n\n亨齐先生：而且，阁下——\n\n法院：该命令甚至尚未作出，但他不会遵从。\n\n亨齐先生：他不会自愿放弃其特权，阁下，若他拥有任何此类特权。\n\n但我认为——我想表达的要点是，我理解 Despins 先生将在某个时候向您提交一封函件，而该函件可能未获 Harcus Parker 律所同意。仅此而已。因为 Harcus Parker——\n\n法院：他不会向我提交一封未获该律所同意的函件。是他们起草的。\n\n亨齐先生：不，他们没有。\n\n法院：是他们对其作出了最终意见。\n\n亨齐先生：阁下，我不知道他们会做什么。如果他们理解债务人并未自愿放弃，他们可能会采取这样的立场：我们不——我们就是不做。好的。我不知道这一点，阁下。\n\n法院：那么，Despins 先生将不得不——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 提交日期 08/17/22 登记日期 08/17/22 16:12:24 第 90 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 提交日期 08/17/22 登记日期 08/17/22 16:12:24 第 91 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 提交日期 08/17/22 登记日期 08/17/22 16:12:24 第 92 页，共 106 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 提交日期 08/17/22 登记日期 08/17/22 16:12:24 第 93 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 提交日期 08/17/22 登记日期 08/17/22 16:12:24 第 94 页，共 106 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 提交日期 08/17/22 登记日期 08/17/22 16:12:24 第 95 页，共 106 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022\n\n并且，法官阁下不会让一名英国律师控制本案中的特权问题。\n\n因此，我们愿意与他们合作，而且正在这样做。但是，您知道，亨齐先生不能以他们有能力阻挠程序为其本人或其当事人不签署该函件的辩解。\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，我并没有利用任何事情来阻挠这里的程序。\n\n法官阁下，如果您——我理解，如果有一封函件，而您下令——无论英国律师事务所是否同意该函件，并且您命令郭先生签署该函件，那么他的五日期限就会开始计算。我理解这一点。\n\n德斯平斯先生：这正是我所请求的。\n\n而且，法官阁下，我们建议修改该命令，以处理该函件及所有相关事项。因此，如果法官阁下授权我们，我们将这样做，因为我们需要修正该命令。您在别处建议了更好的措辞，因此我们需要这样做；经您许可，我们将这样做。\n\n法院：是。你们获准这样做。你认为你们能在明天将该命令提交法院吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：可以，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。或者星期一？\n\n德斯平斯先生：从我们的角度而言，可以。我们会尽最大努力这样做，可以。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 96 of 106\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n法院：或者星期一。\n\n亨齐先生：我能否有一些时间——法官阁下，我想要一些时间，仅仅审阅该命令。\n\n德斯平斯先生：可以。\n\n亨齐先生：好的。\n\n法院：嗯，我们刚刚已经逐项审议了该命令将要载明的内容。我们审议了每一段，包括你的每一项异议；这些异议均被驳回。我已当庭作出了所有裁决。\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，我只是想看一看该命令——我并不是——我完全信任德斯平斯先生，他会准确作出我们讨论过的修改，但我只是习惯于想看最终命令。仅此而已。我并不是说我会对此提出异议或诸如此类。\n\n法院：但是，如果你不同意，我们就要再举行一次听证会。这就是——这就是你试图——这就是你的意思。你的意思是，如果某些内容——如果某些内容不符合你认为应有的内容，那么我们就要再举行一次听证会。这就是你的意思。\n\n亨齐先生：是。但是这完全是因为——\n\n法院：嗯，我不会再举行听证会。我已经裁定了。我已经裁定了该命令——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 97 of 106\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n该命令需要载明什么。我们已经审议过了。\n\n你刚刚已经花了时间。你对我说——这是你说的——我问你对所请求的救济有何异议。然后我回过头来，从“所以你反对德斯平斯先生没有援引 521”这一点开始。\n\n而你说，不，不。让我们——让我们审议该命令。让我们审议我原先的异议，并审议该命令。因此，这正是我们刚刚所做的。\n\n我们不会为此再回到法院。这就是我们刚刚所做的。\n\n亨齐先生：那么，法官阁下，如果——如果——如果提交的命令——再次说明，我并不是在说我认为德斯平斯先生会这样做——如果提交的命令与今天当庭记录不一致，怎么办？\n\n法院：那么我不会签发该命令。我会阅读该命令。\n\n亨齐先生：抱歉，法官阁下。我认为，惯例是所有律师在命令签发之前都有机会审阅该命令。但我理解。\n\n法院：但这正是我们刚刚所做的。我们刚刚花费了本应花在审查命令上的时间。\n\n亨齐先生：我理解法院的意思。\n\n法院：事实上，我们刚刚花了相当多的时间，逐项审议该命令中的每一段。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 98 of 106\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，如果您裁定我将没有机会审阅最终命令——\n\n法院：德斯平斯先生——\n\n亨齐先生：——那么我理解法院的——\n\n法院：您知道，我——\n\n德斯平斯先生，你们的律师事务所是否会——\n\n这是我希望大家这样做的。这将是处理方式，因为我们并不经常这样做。\n\n德斯平斯先生，请你们向法庭书记官邮箱发送一封电子邮件；你们的律师事务所会知道，林西先生（Mr. Linsey）如有必要可协助你们，并将该命令抄送给所有当事方。\n\n我不会在一段时间内签发该命令——我不知道多久——但可能会是几个小时。好吗？然后我会签发该命令。\n\n我不会再就审议该命令的措辞举行听证会。我们刚刚已经这样做了。\n\n该命令唯一不会被签发的原因，是如果德斯平斯先生写了诸如“法院允许我住在法庭里”之类的话。那我就不会签发该命令，好吗？原因有很多。无论如何，他住在那里也不会舒服。\n\n但重点就在这里。我们不会这样做。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 99 of 106\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n这是我们就该问题举行的第二次听证会。该动议于 July 23rd 提出。现在是 August 4th。\n\n你的当事人已不再是占有中的债务人。有人必须认识到这一点。好吗？如我刚刚裁定，受托人有权实施他正在实施的行为。\n\n而且，这就是——我们已经审议了该命令的每一段，并且我已就这些段落作出裁决。\n\n而且，将作出修改。因此，这就是我们将要做的。\n\n德斯平斯先生，你们办公室或通过林西先生将发送——\n\n德斯平斯先生：可以。\n\n法院：——一封电子邮件至布里奇波特（Bridgeport）的法庭书记官邮箱，并说明该命令——这是在 August 4th 听证会后，作出当庭讨论的全部修改后准备的命令。你们将抄送所有当事方，包括亨齐先生。\n\n然后，在经过一段时间后，我会适时签发该命令。但我不会再举行听证会。本次听证会结束。\n\n德斯平斯先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：我已经作出裁定。好吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，有两项程序性事项。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 100 of 106\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 101 of 106\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n就有关律师等专业人士的证据开示问题下的 Rule 2004（第2004条规则）证据开示，与债务人的律师会商。而该问题将会成为问题，因为他们的观点是——至少按向我阐明的方式——我们无权查阅特权文件，涉及债务人的资产，或者我们认为应属于债务人的资产，例如 Lady May（“Lady May”号）或 Sherry-Netherland（“Sherry-Netherland”），因为债务人认为它们不是资产，因此，为取得这些文件将侵害其特权。\n\n因此，我告诉您这件事的原因——我并不是——因为我并非请求您对此作出裁定，但我们需要尽早提出这一问题，因为他们希望在收到传票后 30 days 提出该问题，这将使我们进入 September/October。\n\n这里有一个明确的问题，即受托人承继何种特权的问题。我认为判例法很明确：在处理破产财产的资产时，无论是已经属于破产财产的资产，还是有人主张属于破产财产的资产，例如 Lady May 和 Sherry-Netherland，受托人均有权查阅有关这些资产的特权通信，或者有关案件管理的特权通信，例如 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）编制清单的相关通信。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 102 of 106\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n我并非请求您作出裁定，但我们需要提出这一问题。我们现在不会这样做，但我们想告诉您，我们将请求确定一个早于送达传票后 30 days 的日期，因为那可能使我们进入 September 或 October。\n\n因此，这是一个尚待处理的问题。\n\n最后一个问题，法官阁下，是，您知道，您此前向我们提出过这一利益冲突问题，我们那天没有继续讨论。您说，大家需要留意这个问题。\n\n但这次会商使我们或我的合伙人意识到，问题并非 Zeisler（蔡斯勒）的问题。问题是，受托人调查的对象，即债务人的儿子，正在支付律师费用。\n\n律师不可能对支付其费用的人持不利立场，或者以任何方式认为其与自己利益相悖。\n\n理论上可能如此，但我不会要求任何人达到那种标准。\n\n因此，我们并非请求——这里并没有什么结论说我们请求您取消 Zeisler 的代理资格。我认为这不是 Zeisler 的问题。\n\n我认为，对于任何代理债务人且对破产财产负有义务的律师事务所而言，由受托人主张的对象支付费用，是非常困难的。而——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 103 of 106\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n这里的损害涉及 Sherry-Netherland、Bravo Luck（“Bravo Luck”）等等。\n\n因此，您知道，再次说明，我没有什么结论。我们仍在思考这个问题，但我想——我们有义务将该问题告知法院。\n\n我不希望数周后有人说你们对此置之不理。实际上，这个问题就是由调查对象向债务人律师支付费用。\n\n仅此而已，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：我们这边就这些。\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？\n\n法院：可以。\n\n亨齐先生：谢谢。\n\n关于 2004，我不知道为什么现在要提出这个问题。我们谈论的是 2004，而不是已获签发的事项。\n\n至于对已提出的 2004 动议的异议日期，甚至还没有到。是在明天。因此，我们谈论的是尚未签发的 2004 命令和尚未发出的传票。我不知道这将如何发展，但我想现在预先讨论它是有意思的，不过我不知道这将如何发展。\n\n关于我律师事务所的利益冲突问题，如果德斯平斯先生想提出动议，要求取消我律师事务所的代理资格，他应当这样做。任何当事方想提出动议，要求取消我律师事务所的代理资格，他们——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 104 of 106\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 761-1 Filed 08/17/22 Entered 08/17/22 16:12:24 Page 105 of 106\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n关于破产财产并给予相关救济的动议，基于当庭陈述的理由获准；受托人律师将拟定命令，并通知所有其他当事方，命令提交法院时，他们将收到副本。随后，法院将审阅该命令并在其后签发。\n\n好吗？好的。谢谢各位。这是日程中的最后一项事项，因此现在休庭。\n\n全体律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n（程序于 4:35 p.m. 结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），经法院批准的记录誊写员及认证电子记录员和誊写员，证明上述内容系根据上述案件程序的官方电子录音制作的正确誊本。\n\nChristine Fiore（克里斯廷·菲奥雷）\n\nAugust 12, 2022\n\nChristine Fiore（克里斯廷·菲奥雷）, CERT\n\n誊写员\n\n2 4\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 761-1 已提交 08/17/22 已录入 08/17/22 16:12:24 第 106 页，共 106 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 8 月 4 日 105\n\n目录\n\n受托人证物： 页码\nA-G\n受托人动议的附件 33\n\n英文","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":"2026-08-23 21:59:02"}