{"id":"court_ctb_766_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":766,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-08-18","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 1 of 43\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* August 12, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR 2004 EXAMINATION OF THE DEBTOR; MOTION FOR 2004 EXAMINATION OF OMNIBUS RE: DEBTOR'S PROFESSIONALS; MOTION FOR 2004 EXAMINATION OF OMNIBUS RE: RELATED PERSONS; ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor, STEPHEN M. KINDSETH. ESQ. HK International and AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. Mei Guo: ERIC HENZY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Robinson & Cole 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Creditors Committee: JONATHAN KAPLAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the Creditors, Rui Ma, KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Weican Meng and Zheng Wu: McElroy Deutsch 225 Liberty Street 36th Floor New York, NY 10281 For the U.S. Trustee: KIM McCABE, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Counsel for the NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ. Chapter 11 Trustee: Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 For Creditor Logan Cheng: JAY M. WOLMAN, ESQ. Randazza Legal Group, PLLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 For the Creditors, Rui Ma, KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Weican Meng and Zheng Wu: McElroy Deutsch 225 Liberty Street 36th Floor New York, NY 10281 For Verdolino and Lowey: TRISTAN AXELROD, ESQ. Brown Rudnick Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 3 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 10:00 a.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good morning. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. And then if we could have the appearances for the Office of the United States Trustee. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, for the trustee, this is Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, counsel for the Chapter 11 trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. LINSEY: Good morning, Your Honor. For the trustee, local counsel Patrick Linsey. THE COURT: Good morning. And then if we could have -- go ahead. Whoever wants to jump in next. Go right ahead. MS. McCABE: Kim McCabe on behalf of the United States Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MS. McCABE: Good morning. MR. FRIEDMAN: It's Peter Friedman on behalf of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 4 PAX. I see Mr. Sarnoff and I see Annecca Smith from the Robinson Cole firm. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. AXELROD: Your Honor, Tristan Axelrod for Brown Rudnick, LLP, and Verdolino and Lowey, PC. I filed a pro hac vice motion yesterday that has yet to be granted and I'd ask to be heard to the extent appropriate today, notwithstanding the pending motion. THE COURT: You are welcome to be heard and I believe the order -- the motion is going to be granted. It's probably just that there hasn't been ample time to enter the order yet since it was filed yesterday afternoon. MR. AXELROD: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. KINDSETH: Good morning, Your Honor. Stephen Kindseth, Zeisler and Zeisler, for the debtor Ho Wan Kwok, as well as HK International Funds Investments USA Limited and Mei Guo. MR. ROMNEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Aaron Romney, Zeisler and Zeisler, also for the debtor, HK International and May Guo. MR. HENZY: And Eric Henzy, Your Honor, Zeisler and Zeisler, for the same parties. MS. MAYHEW: Good morning, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew on behalf of creditors Rui Ma, Zheng Wu and Weican Meng and also with me is Carolynn Callari. Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 4 of 43\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 5 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 5 THE COURT: Good morning. MR. KAPLAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Jonathan Kaplan, of Pullman and Comley, on behalf of the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. WOLMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Jay Wolman, of Randazza Legal Group, for creditor Logan Cheng. THE COURT: Good morning. Has everyone noted their appearance for the record? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Despins, this is a status conference that you requested, and there are also issues with regard to three motions for 2004 Examinations. So please proceed. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. For the record, Luc Despins, the Chapter 11 Trustee. Your Honor, we filed with the Court, our PowerPoint presentation regarding the status report, so I don't want to burden the Court for very long by reading every page. We're not going to do that. I assume Your Honor has had a chance to at least peek at it. But most of the PowerPoint presentation deals with what we raised with Your Honor at the last hearing, which is the need to coordinate the two cases, the *Kwok* case before Your Honor, and the *Genever U.S.* case that's before Judge\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 6 Garrity. So just very briefly, on Page 2 we talked about the fact that the same issues are present in the same case. Yes, they're two different types of assets, but -- and they involve, you know, two different individuals. One is the daughter, one is the son of the debtor. But the issues are all the same, meaning we believe the same or likely the same witnesses would appear at the hearing on the issue of ownership of these assets, the same documents or similar documents would be introduced into evidence and for these reasons, we believe it is critical to have one court handle both of these cases. We explain how these cases -- on Page 4, how these cases got to be two courts. That's all -- and I'm not faulting PAX, but as a result of PAX's litigation, both cases were started to foreclose or to stop litigation by PAX against Mr. Kwok, or with respect to some of his assets, the Sherry Netherland apartment. And one point that we make, Your Honor, is that we've recently learned, although as I said in the past, we have to verify information because we never know how accurate it is, but that, in fact, Bravo Luck -- and you'll\n\n remember Bravo Luck is the entity that was allegedly owned by the son of Mr. Kwok. But that entity was also involved in the various Lady May transactions. So that's even\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 7 of 43\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>7                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | additional evidence and additional reason why these two        |\n| 2  | cases should be handled together.                              |\n| 3  | And I know, Your Honor, it's not your decision, so             |\n| 4  | I'm not arguing the motion.<br>I just want to make sure you    |\n| 5  | have the background on why we're doing this.                   |\n| 6  | Very quickly on page 8, the bar date issue in the              |\n| 7  | Genever case, is a real mess in the sense that probably just   |\n| 8  | five or six creditors that filed claims and that got notice.   |\n| 9  | The folks that are in our case and that have similar or        |\n| 10 | perhaps identical claims to PAX in terms of alter ego          |\n| 11 | against the Sherry Netherland apartment were not notified,     |\n| 12 | and you know, all of that needs to be coordinated and et       |\n| 13 | cetera, et cetera.                                             |\n| 14 | On page 9, we explain what we described to the                 |\n| 15 | court last time, which is that right now, without the          |\n| 16 | ability of these creditors to file claims directly in the      |\n| 17 | Genever U.S. case, they would be structurally subordinated     |\n| 18 | to the five or six debtors that filed claims in that case,     |\n| 19 | and the trustee -- this is on page 10 -- opposes that.         |\n| 20 | And you know, so for all these reasons, we think               |\n| 21 | the transfer of venue is appropriate.<br>We say there are no - |\n| 22 | - this is on page 11 -- there are no assurances that the       |\n| 23 | transfer, if any, would be granted.<br>On the other hand, and  |\n| 24 | we said this at the prior hearing, (indiscernible) the         |\n| 25 | trustee appointed in your court.                               |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 8 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 8 I do not want to go down that road if Your Honor sees a lot of red flags, and I -- so I'm not asking for any opinion like that. But -- and I want to tell you that this is our next step to go in front of Judge Garrity. So to the extent Your Honor would see red flags, you know, we would love to hear them at this stage, because the next stage is to go in front of Judge Garrity and seek that transfer of venue. And on page 13, we address the fact that the venue transfer is not incompatible with the settlement agreement regarding the sale of the Sherry Netherland apartment. As you know, there's a process to sell that apartment. We're not trying to stop that or -- at this time, and this is not a ploy to stop that. In the event, it's really -- and by the way, that settlement agreement did not say at the end of the day that there was an agreement between the parties to litigate in one forum or another. But it's very clear at this point, given that we're making progress every week, we're pretty sure that there will be a fraudulent transfer challenge to some of these transfers, or some of the documentation that's been provided to sustain an argument that Mr. Kwok is not the owner of either of these main assets and, therefore, it makes no sense to have that -- to have that heard in the BVI.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 9 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 9 It just makes sense for that to be heard in the bankruptcy court, and we believe given that we have a -- you know, we've already begun the process with the 2004, et cetera, that it makes sense for this Court to be the court where venue of both cases would be residing. So at this point, Your Honor, I flew through this very quickly, but I'm happy to entertain questions or comments the Court may have before we turn to the last two pages, 15, 16, that are in the nature of housekeeping matters before we get to the 2004 matters. THE COURT: I do not have any questions at this time. Thank you. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, may I be heard briefly? THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: Thank you. Your Honor, I just want to be clear and confirm this is a status conference. The PowerPoint that Mr. Despins filed is not in evidence. I don't take a position right now on transfer of venue in -- of either case, to either court. As Mr. Despins recognizes, that whether the case in New York is transferred to Bridgeport is going to be up to Judge Garrity, so that all of this is just -- is not before you right now. I have no problem with him telling you what he's going to do in the Southern District of New York, but I think it is not before you.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 10 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 10 There are characterizations in the PowerPoint that I don't agree with. I'm not asking you to let me plow through this and tell you each and every place where I don't agree, because again, my understanding is this is a status conference and this is not in evidence. So what -- but again, I just want to have that on the record so that somewhere down the road, this isn't pointed to as, oh, we didn't -- we didn't walk through this point by point and tell you where we disagree and somehow there's been a waiver or something binding, or Mr. Kwok should have said something. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor -- Your Honor, just to briefly to respond. We agree with Mr. Henzy's position. This is not evidence. This is a status report. (Indiscernible) general denial is sufficient to deny every statement contained in (indiscernible), understand (indiscernible). THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Let's move on to the Rule 2004 Examination issues before we do this housekeeping, Mr. Despins, because I think there are some other matters that you -- I would just like to know what the Court -- what you are going to do with applications and motions that were pending before your appointment too. So why don't we address the 2004 Examination issues, and\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 11 then we'll go back to the housekeeping matters, please. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the trustee. I'll be addressing the 2004 motion today. First of all, Your Honor, I'd just like to say, it's nice to be before you for the first time. In this case, I've been kind of in the background on some of the hearings in the past, but it's nice to be actually before the Court, albeit virtually today. As I believe the Court is aware, we filed three 2004 motions on July 28th seeking to conduct examinations of approximately 34 different examinees. There's one motion that's directed to the debtor that seeks an examination of the debtor. There's another motion that seeks an examination of approximately 14 professional firms by either law firms or other advisory firms who kind of provided advice to the debtor in the past. And then there's a third motion that's directed to approximately 19 relatives, related persons and related entities who we think may have information that's important to these cases and to the trustee's investigation. So each of these three motions, Your Honor, is geared very specifically toward identifying information and getting documents related to potential assets of the estate. As we've articulated in the motions, we think there is an Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 11 of 43\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 12 of 43\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>12                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | abundance of evidence based on news reports, based on        |\n| 2  | findings of other courts that the debtor does, in fact, have |\n| 3  | interest in valuable property and at various LLC's that are  |\n| 4  | holding companies that he is trying to keep beyond the reach |\n| 5  | of his creditors, and we think the targets of these motions  |\n| 6  | are the types of people who are likely to have that          |\n| 7  | information, whether it's advisors that were used in forming |\n| 8  | legal entities and protecting assets, whether it's relatives |\n| 9  | who hold those assets, or related companies, those are       |\n| 10 | really the targets of our motion.                            |\n| 11 | Your Honor, I won't summarize what we're seeking             |\n| 12 | any further today because I think the issue before the Court |\n| 13 | in light of the responses received is very narrow.           |\n| 14 | I mean, there's really -- there really is not much           |\n| 15 | opposition at all.<br>I think, you know, of the 34 proposed  |\n| 16 | examinees, there were only three responses filed.<br>Two of  |\n| 17 | those were by Brown Rudnick on its own behalf, and for the   |\n| 18 | other debtors, former local counsel in this case, and those  |\n| 19 | two responses are really in the way of reservation of        |\n| 20 | rights, but I don't think actually raise that objection to   |\n| 21 | that motion, so I won't address those up front although to   |\n| 22 | the extent Mr. Axelrod has comments ready to respond to it,  |\n| 23 | I may do that later.                                         |\n| 24 | What I'll instead do is just respond briefly to              |\n| 25 | the limited objections that the debtor has filed to the 2004 |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 13 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 13 motion. The debtor's objection really, as far as I understand it, makes two points. The first is that it addresses a privilege issue that it concedes is not actually before the Court today. The debtor articulates in its objection that it believes there is a split of authority and a question of whether or not the trustee controls the debtor's privileges, attorney/client privilege and otherwise. Your Honor, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time responding to those issues, but I do want to make a few points. First, suffice it to say the trustee disagrees wholeheartedly with the debtor's position as to the state of the law on this issue. We think it is very clear, based on the weight of the authority of cross-jurisdictions, that the trustee does in fact succeed to the debtor's privilege, in particular on issues related to assets of the estate, to the administration of the estate and to the debtor's financial condition. And as I said before, all of the discovery requests that we have included in our 2004 motions really go to those issues, so we don't think there is really any room for the assertion of a privilege by the debtor on those issues. We think it passes to the trustee and the trustee\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 14 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 14 is entitled to those documents. The other thing I would like to do is just briefly correct the record with respect to an affidavit that the debtor's counsel filed yesterday. That affidavit talks about the meet and confer that we held with the debtor's counsel on August 2nd. And one thing that I noticed the debtor says in there is that, during that meet and confer, we the trustee -- trustee's counsel had refused to be willing to address this issue of the privilege, other than on a document by document basis. Your Honor, I think that is not correct. That's not what we said. What we had said on that call is that we need to understand the debtor's position on the issue of what privileges it continues to retain that it can assert vis-a- vis the trustee. And what we heard in response to that was basically that the debtor's counsel was still new to the case, they really had no idea what types of documents the debtor has. They didn't know what kind of communicates the debtor had with his former counsel. They really had done none of that initial legwork. In fact, I think the comment that was made at one point was that we, the trustee and his counsel, probably had a better idea of the debtor's documents than they do.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 15 of 43\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>15                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | And it's needless to say, that was a very                    |\n| 2  | concerning comment, because it really seems to be setting    |\n| 3  | the stage for more delays in this case, and another way to   |\n| 4  | prevent the trustee from making meaningful progress with     |\n| 5  | this investigation, and that's something that just can't     |\n| 6  | happen.                                                      |\n| 7  | I mean, this debtor, as Your Honor knows, filed              |\n| 8  | his case back in February.<br>It's been embroiled in         |\n| 9  | litigation with PAX and other parties for years, so issues   |\n| 10 | concerning what documents he has, what documents might be    |\n| 11 | privileged, all of that should be well known to the debtor.  |\n| 12 | So the bottom line on this issue, Your Honor, is             |\n| 13 | contrary to what was described in the affidavit, we do think |\n| 14 | this issue of privilege needs to be teed up as soon as       |\n| 15 | possible with the Court.                                     |\n| 16 | So what we plan to do, and I believe the trustee             |\n| 17 | previewed this during last week's status conference, is we   |\n| 18 | intend to file a motion, likely on short notice, to have the |\n| 19 | Court issue a ruling as to the scope of all the privileges   |\n| 20 | that pass to the trustee so we have clarity on that and it's |\n| 21 | not something that is used to delay our investigation going  |\n| 22 | forward.                                                     |\n| 23 | The second thing that the debtor raises in its               |\n| 24 | objection, Your Honor, is -- and this is really actually the |\n| 25 | only -- the only argument or issue that can be characterized |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 16 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 16 as an actual objection to the relief that we're asking the Court to grant in the proposed orders that we provided. But they take issue with the fact that we have included in the proposed order a 30-day deadline for responding to the subpoenas. Your Honor, we think that is appropriate and is something that should remain part of the proposed orders. For the reasons I just discussed, and as the Court well knows, given the history of this case, we think it is imperative to do whatever we can at the outset to prevent any arguments or avenues for delay. We think it is critically important that the debtor be compelled and other parties to be required to provide documents to us, and to get back to us on our subpoenas within 30 days. And we don't think this is at all inconsistent with either Rule 2004 itself, or the local rule. Local Rule 2004-1 actually requires the moving party to attach to its motion and proposed order form subpoenas. And obviously a form subpoena, we as the party serving that subpoena, are entitled to indicate at date and a place for compliance. So rather than put it in our subpoenas, we have simply asked the Court to include that 30-day deadline in the proposed order. I would also note that I think this is perfectly\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 17 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 17 consistent with Rule 2004(c), which is specific to investigations of the debtor, and it specifically says that the Court may, for cause shown and on terms as it may impose, order the debtor to be examined under this rule at any time or place it designates. So the Court specifically has the power under Rule 2004 -- I think I said 2004(c), but I believe it's 2004(d). The Court specifically has the ability to order compliance by the debtor at a particular time. You know, we're not -- I think one of the issues that the debtor raised is that they think we're trying to prevent it from raising objections that it might have to individual document requests. Your Honor, we're not doing that. To the extent that the debtor or any other party believes they have meritorious arguments with respect to individual requests that they want to raise in response to - - or as part of the motion to quash or otherwise, they can do that. We're just seeking to ensure that this all happens expeditiously, and that's the reason we've included that 30- day deadline in our order. That's all I had at the outset, Your Honor, but obviously I'll be happy to answer any questions and reserve the right to respond to any comments made by other parties. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 18 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 18 wish to be heard? MR. AXELROD: Yes, Your Honor. Tristan Axelrod, Brown and Rudnick. May I be heard very briefly? THE COURT: Yes, go right ahead. MR. AXELROD: Just two very quick points. One, Mr. Bassett mentioned Verdolino and Lowey as local counsel to the debtor. Not entirely true. They're the proposed financial advisor. There is actually an application pending to date. Second point, just would agree with Mr. Bassett that issues of privilege and work product protection are probably going to be central to the discovery that is proposed to be served, and once that is served, I think we would appreciate the Court's guidance on that issue. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Would you just -- what guidance are you looking for? I'm sorry. I don't think I heard what you said at the end. MR. AXELROD: Well, not looking for any today, but once discovery is served, I think all the parties are signaling that there may be a disagreement on the boundaries of privilege that have been transferred to the trustee, and the extent of work product protection that remains in the hands of professionals or the debtor. And I think the professionals who are being served Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 19 of 43\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>19                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | at this point will need some guidance or appreciate some       |\n| 2  | guidance once those issues come up.<br>I think Mr. Bassett was |\n| 3  | saying the same thing.<br>He'll correct me if I'm wrong about  |\n| 4  | that, but I think we anticipate that being an issue and will   |\n| 5  | appreciate the Court's guidance down the road.                 |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Well, I think what will happen under             |\n| 7  | both Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004, and our        |\n| 8  | local rule 2004-1, is that it -- when a subpoena is served,    |\n| 9  | the party who receives the subpoena can take whatever          |\n| 10 | actions it deems appropriate under the Federal Rules of        |\n| 11 | Civil Procedure, meaning --                                    |\n| 12 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>Your Honor, I'm having                |\n| 13 | trouble hearing you.<br>I don't know if anybody else is.       |\n| 14 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>I (indiscernible) but I               |\n| 15 | cannot hear either, Your Honor.                                |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Well, and that's one of the reasons              |\n| 17 | why we're going to have all of our future hearings in          |\n| 18 | person.<br>This is -- it's very difficult when there is so     |\n| 19 | many of us, and we're going to have the hearings in person.    |\n| 20 | Today you ask -- this was asked ons short order, but we need   |\n| 21 | to be in the courtroom so I can see and hear you, and you      |\n| 22 | can see and hear me.                                           |\n| 23 | So what I said, counsel, was when you asked for                |\n| 24 | guidance -- I don't think the Court will give guidance.<br>I   |\n| 25 | think the Court will rule on whatever the issue may be.        |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 20 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 20 And when a subpoena is served under -- in connection with a Rule 2004 examination and under our local rules, the party who is served with the subpoena has whatever rights it has under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with regard to that subpoena. And Mr. Despins said he's going to file a motion on the privilege issue, so that would be the time when the Court would make a ruling, and/or the Court would rule on connect -- in connection with any motions to quash or any protective orders. So I don't really view it as guidance. I view it -- you all have obligations as lawyers under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- MR. AXELROD: Yes. THE COURT: -- to attempt to resolve these issues. If you don't resolve these issues, then you file the appropriate documents under the appropriate rules and the Court will rule. Okay? MR. AXELROD: Thank you, Your Honor. I was perhaps inartful in my speech, but a ruling will be helpful. Thank you. THE COURT: It wasn't -- I don't mean to say you were inartful. I just -- I don't think it's an area of the law where the Court -- I don't think the Court can provide guidance. I think it's -- would have to rule, right? This\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 21 of 43\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>21                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | is discovery.<br>The lawyers have -- you all have obligations  |\n| 2  | to attempt to resolve these issues, and if you don't, then     |\n| 3  | the way that they're resolved is a ruling from the Court.      |\n| 4  | Okay?<br>All right.<br>So no one else wishes to be heard on    |\n| 5  | the Rule 2004 Examination motions?                             |\n| 6  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Your Honor, Aaron Romney, Zeisler and           |\n| 7  | Zeisler in support of the debtor.<br>Limited objections.<br>I  |\n| 8  | apologize, I attempted to speak after Mr. Bassett and I was    |\n| 9  | on mute.                                                       |\n| 10 | But very briefly, I think that the -- you used the             |\n| 11 | term limited objection and it is limited, and as I listened    |\n| 12 | to Mr. Bassett speak, I'm not sure what the dispute is.<br>We  |\n| 13 | are not objecting to the 30-day time parameters.               |\n| 14 | The objection is solely that the proposed order                |\n| 15 | granting the Rule 2004 motion directs the parties to produce   |\n| 16 | the documents.<br>The purpose of Rule 2004 in the scope of the |\n| 17 | Rule 2004 motion is to permit the service of subpoenas which   |\n| 18 | is what the second soordered paragraph in the proposed order   |\n| 19 | said.                                                          |\n| 20 | The third so ordered paragraph in the proposed                 |\n| 21 | order --                                                       |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Let -- Attorney Romney, let's stop for           |\n| 23 | a minute and pull up the order so we can all look at it the    |\n| 24 | same time, because I want to make sure I'm following your      |\n| 25 | argument.<br>Okay?                                             |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 22 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 22 So which -- which one -- you're talking -- does it matter which one we pull up is -- that's on the calendar today? MR. ROMNEY: Correct. I'm specifically looking at 637. THE COURT: Okay. Let's look at -- MR. ROMNEY: But -- yeah. THE COURT: Let's look at 637, then. Let's pull that up, and we'll go to the proposed order and then you can show me where in the proposed order -- you know, we'll go through the paragraphs that you were starting to talk about, okay? MR. ROMNEY: Thank you very much, Your Honor. (Pause) THE CLERK: It will just be one moment, Your Honor. (Pause) THE COURT: Okay. It looks like we are looking at the proposed order on ECF 637. So, Attorney Romney, you want me to go to the next page, I assume, where we start to have numbered paragraphs. Or is that -- or should I stay on this page? MR. ROMNEY: That is the page we're looking at, Your Honor, what's on the screen. THE COURT: All right. So stay on this page?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 23 of 43\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>23                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Correct.                                        |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>So tell me what you want           |\n| 3  | me to look at, please.                                         |\n| 4  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>The third ordered paragraph, and in             |\n| 5  | particular the first sentence of that paragraph, that says,    |\n| 6  | \"The professionals are hereby directed to produce all          |\n| 7  | documents within 30 days of the service of the subpoena.\"      |\n| 8  | And again, the issue is not so much the 30 days,               |\n| 9  | it's the court order directing the production of documents     |\n| 10 | as distinguished from the preceding paragraph which permits    |\n| 11 | the trustee to serve the subpoenas and then pursuant to        |\n| 12 | Local Rule 2014, the parties who receive them would have the   |\n| 13 | right to raise substantive objective -- objections then.       |\n| 14 | Our issue is that quite literally -- and it                    |\n| 15 | doesn't seem ambiguous.<br>This is a court order directing the |\n| 16 | production of documents which exceeds the scope of the         |\n| 17 | relief that can be granted on a motion for Rule 2004 Exam.     |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Well, why -- what if we just qualify             |\n| 19 | the paragraph by saying, subject to the applicable Federal     |\n| 20 | Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy       |\n| 21 | Procedure, because I think what you're saying, Attorney        |\n| 22 | Romney, although I could be wrong, is that you're thinking     |\n| 23 | this is overriding your right to file a motion to quash or a   |\n| 24 | motion for a protective order?                                 |\n| 25 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Correct, Your Honor.                            |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 24 THE COURT: So what if we just did what I -- MR. ROMNEY: And, Your Honor -- THE COURT: -- did what I just said? What if we just qualify it with that language? I'm not saying that's going to be the final result. I'm just asking you the question. MR. ROMNEY: That is what I'm here asking for today, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: Is either removing that language, that paragraph, or qualifying it. Either one would work, as long as it's clear to the people receiving this order and the subpoenas, that their rights to object under the local rules and Rules of Civil Procedure are being preserved and not circumvented by this order. THE COURT: Attorney Bassett, were you about to respond to that argument? MR. BASSETT: I was, Your Honor. Thank you. I don't think we really have a disagreement on this issue. As I said in my remarks at the outset, we're not -- we understand that as per the local rule and a practice, parties do have the opportunity to move to quash or otherwise raise issues in response to a subpoena issued pursuant to the Court's Rule 2004 order. All we want to make sure happens is that unless\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 24 of 43\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 25 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 25 the Court orders otherwise, based on, for example, a successful motion to quash, parties responding to the discovery requests do have to do so within 30 days. Otherwise, we're just very worried about this process dragging out for much longer than necessary under circumstances where we really do need to move things forward and make progress. THE COURT: Okay. So you have no issue then if -- Attorney Bassett, if the beginning of the third ordered paragraph says subject to the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure? Something along those lines? MR. BASSETT: In concept, I think that is fine, Your Honor, because that's specifically with the intention of (indiscernible). THE COURT: Well, I think what -- the point that's being made, and I think it's fine, and so I think we should just add the additional language so that there's no controversy. Okay? And then we can move on. And then parties will have to take whatever steps they feel are necessary and appropriate. So I would ask you with regard to these three 2004 Examination motions that are on the calendar today to submit a revised proposed order changing -- adding that language to\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 26 the beginning of paragraph -- the third ordered paragraph. Okay? And then those motions are granted. Then the subpoenas can be served and then we'll see what response you get. Okay? MR. BASSETT: Thank you. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. The only other thing is I do take some issues with the characterization of our meet and confer. I'm not suggesting any disingenuousness or dishonesty, but I certainly perceived that conversation differently. I don't think there's any issues before the Court right now and I don't want to take up the Court's time getting into these issues, but I did want to put on the record that we do dispute those characterizations. THE COURT: There is nothing before the Court and there won't probably be anything before the Court on the meet and confer issues. Okay? All right. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: So now that we've resolved the three Rule 2004 Examination motions, which are now granted subject to the submission of revised proposed orders -- and, Attorney Bassett, how much time do you need to get the revised proposed order to the Court? Orders, I should say, to the Court? Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 26 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 27 MR. BASSETT: We'll do that today, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Well, they may not enter today. But if they don't enter today, they'll on Monday assuming that they're received today. Then we can go back, Mr. Despins, to the housekeeping matters that you had in your -- at the end of your report that you filed on the docket this morning. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. And by the way, you had raised questions before we actually did that. You had raised questions regarding motions that had been filed by the debtors but then were sort of dormant since the appointment of a trustee, so I -- I can address those. To the best of my knowledge, I think the first -- one of them that you had raised was the application to retain Verdolino. I recall that you had raised that. And I understand that Mr. Kindseth -- sorry, yeah, Mr. Linsey, pardon me, just filed a notice of withdrawal of that -- of that application. I also understand that there was a motion to schedule or to set up an interim compensation process. I think we should just table that because unfortunately there's no money and, therefore, no interim comps to be had in the current regime. So I think we have to wait -- Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 27 of 43\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 28 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 28 THE COURT: Well, I'd like to have that motion withdrawn. You know. You could refile it again if there's some ability to discuss that -- MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: -- but I'd like that motion withdrawn because from the clerk's office standpoint it's still an outstanding motion. MR. DESPINS: Okay. We will, Your Honor. The other one that was kind of floating out there was there was a motion to retain Stretto as claims agent. So I'm not sure if that was withdrawn or just them -- THE COURT: I think that already was withdrawn actually. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: I think the Stretto motion was withdrawn by the debtor-in-possession actually. MR. DESPINS: Okay. And the last -- THE COURT: By the debtor-in-possession some time ago. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. And the last one I have on my list that I think has been resolved is the motion to extend time to the remove actions, but I believe that was withdrawn by the debtor, and was supplanted by the order that you ordered on our request last week.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 29 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 29 So that I think that covers what we have on our list of matters that were sort of in limbo, but you may have others, other motions -- THE COURT: Well, if we have others, we can -- I'll point them out at the next conference. I know that there was -- in connection with the DIP financing motion, which has been withdrawn by the debtor, which was withdrawn by the debtor-in-possession prior to the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, there were two motions for Rule 2004 Examination of HK International and Golden Spring that were filed by the committee. And I don't -- I think that those basically are moot due to the withdrawal of the motion, the DIP motion. But I don't know if the committee has a different view on that. MR. KAPLAN: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Can you repeat the motion that you were asking about? THE COURT: There are two motions for Rule 2004 Examination that were filed by the committee some time ago, ECF 295 and 297. And I believe they were filed in connection with the motion filed by the debtor-in-possession for debtor-in-possession financing. So I think those motions are moot since the financing motion was withdrawn, but I need the committee to withdraw those or report that they're moot at the next\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 30 status conference. And then the committee was seeking to employ two professionals as well. Those applications were filed on May 4th, 321 and 325. And I think those should either be withdrawn or moot or if you're proceeding with them, then we need to do something to proceed with them. Okay? MR. KAPLAN: Understood. And we'll -- if we intend to withdraw, we'll do so before the next status conference. THE COURT: Okay. All right. I think if there's anything else, we can talk about that at the next status conference. I'm just looking at a list of issues here. Just give me a second, please. I just want to make sure that -- before we talk about what Mr. Despins wants to talk about, that I want to just see one other thing here. (Pause) THE COURT: Okay. Let me just -- I am not sure, but I could be wrong, so that's why you'll all need to correct me if I'm wrong, which is very possible, did we address fully at the last hearing the Chapter 11 trustee's motion to quash subpoenas served by the debtor on the Chapter 11 trustee, which was 608? I'm not sure if we have. I don't recall. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, I think you did. You Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 30 of 43\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 31 of 43\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>31                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | denied them as moot, if I -- if I remember correctly.         |\n| 2  | MR. HENZY:<br>I agree with that, Your Honor.                  |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                           |\n| 4  | MR. HENZY:<br>You denied that as moot.                        |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Thank you.<br>I'm just not        |\n| 6  | sure I see that on our docket, but it may be there.<br>And,   |\n| 7  | you know, there are 700 and some odd docket entries, so I     |\n| 8  | could be missing it.                                          |\n| 9  | MR. LINSEY:<br>Your Honor, I believe that's at 670.           |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.<br>Yes, I     |\n| 11 | see that.<br>I appreciate your help on that.<br>Thank you.    |\n| 12 | All right.<br>So then, Mr. Despins, let's turn to             |\n| 13 | your last housekeeping issues that you wanted to discuss,     |\n| 14 | please.                                                       |\n| 15 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes.<br>And I'm not going to cover all        |\n| 16 | of them because some of them are self-explanatory.<br>But the |\n| 17 | one that I think we need to cover is the motion to establish  |\n| 18 | a reserve -- a repair reserve with respect to the Lady May,   |\n| 19 | and (indiscernible) merits of that, but rather the request    |\n| 20 | to expedite that matter.<br>The trustee opposes that          |\n| 21 | expedition.<br>There are a lot of issues relevant to this in  |\n| 22 | the sense that I'll explain.                                  |\n| 23 | I'm not an expert on engines or yachts, but what I            |\n| 24 | understand from my expert is that you cannot rely only on     |\n| 25 | estimates given, because once you start opening up that       |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 32 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 32 engine box, there could be extensive damage beyond what is apparent to the eye initially.\n\n And, therefore, our view, and I believe the view of the other parties and the committee and PAX, is that what needs to happen is that repairs have to be made, and then there should be a sea trial, because if the repairs are made and there's a sea trial then that's -- it's subject to sending the scuba divers to check the hull of the yacht. That's the end of the process from the engine's point of view because -- but to say let's establish a reserve, to have the lawyers and the judge say, okay, well, this engine repair should cost XY and Z based on invoices is really imprudent and that's why we believe this shouldn't be expedited.\n\n Because what should happen here is that this should be -- the repairs should be done, whatever they are, then we can inspect them and do a sea trial and then come back to Your Honor with any remaining disputes.\n\n So I wanted to state for the record that the trustee opposes expedition of that motion.\n\n And that's all I'm going to cover regarding the housekeeping matters, Your Honor.\n\n THE COURT: I'm looking at the docket now and I see that this motion was filed -- the motion for an order establishing a reserve for the Lady May was filed yesterday\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 33 of 43\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>33                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | with a motion to expedite.<br>So I haven't reviewed either one |\n| 2  | of those two documents at this point in time, but I            |\n| 3  | understand your point.                                         |\n| 4  | Mr. Kindseth, did you want to be heard?                        |\n| 5  | MR. KINDSETH:<br>Yes.<br>Thank you very much, Your             |\n| 6  | Honor.                                                         |\n| 7  | The request being made by the trustee is directly              |\n| 8  | contrary to the stipulated order that we reached which         |\n| 9  | contemplated a repair reserve in advance of the repairs so     |\n| 10 | that the repairs would not hold up the release of the \\$37     |\n| 11 | million.<br>I understand that estimates are estimates.         |\n| 12 | My client is willing to significantly enhance the              |\n| 13 | amount of the reserve to cover the anticipated repairs and     |\n| 14 | any reasonably projected, worst case scenario.<br>I mean,      |\n| 15 | significantly enhance.                                         |\n| 16 | But what's unfair and what's completely contrary               |\n| 17 | to the agreement reached and inappropriate is simply holding   |\n| 18 | up the release of the \\$37 million pending the completion of   |\n| 19 | the repairs which is directly contrary to the agreement we     |\n| 20 | reached.                                                       |\n| 21 | Your Honor, as I know you appreciate, this                     |\n| 22 | stipulated order resolved a very significant and heavily       |\n| 23 | contested issue that transpired over the course of more than   |\n| 24 | a year, if not years.                                          |\n| 25 | There's a process that's been laid out, including              |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 34 my client depositing \\$37 million in an escrow agent to secure the return of the Lady May. The Lady May has been returned. We have permitted, as required by the stipulated order, the trustee, as well as PAX and the committee, and their experts, on July 13th to inspect the Lady May, which is about a month ago. We've provided all of the estimates that we have been provided. We've used the highest of the estimates in coming up with the repair reserve. Additionally, Your Honor, with respect to the engine, that -- this damage is covered by insurance and so the risk of this engine issue costing more is not a repair reserve issue because there's insurance to cover it. And we would at the repair reserve hearing put on evidence of that, Your Honor. Notwithstanding our proposal is to fund the full cost of the engine repair as well as the \\$100,000 deductible. So we basically have done everything plus to protect the estate, protect the trustee's interests. And I really -- Your Honor, I really want to emphasize, because I think this is the point where the trustee, PAX and the committee are acting in bad faith. We have said to them for weeks what amount do you want? \\$37 million is the original purchase price of the Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 34 of 43\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 35 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 35 yacht. The yacht is worth far less now. The engine damage is covered by insurance. We're posting that cost anyways. What amount do you want and they've refused to provide it. So what I'd ask that Your Honor do is schedule a hearing, and I'm suggesting the last week of August, on the repair reserve, hear from the experts and decide at that time. We believe we will be able to establish a reasonable estimate. And you can even take a reasonable estimate and double it and fund that. That would satisfy this requirement. And then all of our requirements will have been satisfied, and the \\$37 million could be released to my client and the estate will be fully protected. And so all I'm asking at this time, Your Honor, is that the Court, consistent with the stipulated order, enter a hearing on the repair reserve so Your Honor can hear from the surveyors, and perhaps the captain and the chief engineer, as to the reasonable costs and the reasonable risks with respect to making these repairs. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, very, very briefly. The issue -- we have no problems with that motion being heard. But I'm sorry if it sounded like that. But rather it's the expedition that we're concerned about.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 36 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 36 I mean, this can wait until I guess the first week of September, something like that. I'm not sure it needs to be resolved by the end of August. So that's all. That's the only point we're making for today, because -- simply because you don't have hearings regarding expedition. And I want to make sure you have the trustee's view. The trustee was not around when this stipulation was entered into. There was really, you know -- we're not a party to that stipulation. We don't have visiting rights. But I would say to Mr. Kindseth very kindly gave us those visitation rights, (indiscernible). Thank you. We appreciate that. But the trustee is not a party to that agreement. But in any event, the only issue that's before the Court today is the expedition, actually coming before the Court today, but we would -- you know, we would consider too we want you to know that we oppose the expedition (indiscernible). Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else we need to address today? MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, it's Peter Friedman. I do want to make two points. Obviously with respect to expedition, you know, we do have rights to submit, and I think an obligation if we're going to object to it, a specified amount of time that\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 37 shouldn't be truncated. Our own proposal on the repair reserve, if we believe that's appropriate, that it shouldn't be truncated now that the debtor has gone before, I'm sorry, HK International has gone before the Court. To the extent that somebody's going to put on opposing evidence, we need to be able to review all opposing evidence. Mr. Kindseth said that they intend to put on opposing evidence, perhaps potentially declarations to various people. Obviously our rights shouldn't be truncated with respect to that. Our view is that, you know, the condition of the ship has multiple facets. There may be something that parties can agree on a reserve rate with respect to. On the other hand, when the ship is, as we understand it, not able to be sea tested, that poses a different kind of challenge to how we assess ultimately whether the boat can be made operable, which is a condition of the stipulation. So I think, you know, we don't necessarily view every component of this as falling into the same bucket. There may be issues or repairs that we can agree on estimates for. But because we can't do a sea test because of the condition of the engine, that poses a different and Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 37 of 43\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 38 of 43\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>38                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | meaningful kind of challenge to setting a reserve.             |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                              |\n| 3  | Anyone else wish to be heard?                                  |\n| 4  | MR. KINDSETH:<br>Just one point, Your Honor.                   |\n| 5  | Under the stipulated order, it clearly permits                 |\n| 6  | them to inspect the Lady May.<br>They can inspect it again.    |\n| 7  | It was already inspected a month ago.<br>We'll continue to     |\n| 8  | permit it to be inspected.                                     |\n| 9  | It was never required, and it was specifically                 |\n| 10 | negotiated, the repairs would not be done before the repair    |\n| 11 | reserve was established.<br>And, therefore, the whole sea test |\n| 12 | is an after the repairs requirement, not part of the           |\n| 13 | inspection requirement.                                        |\n| 14 | And I urge Your Honor to enforce the terms of the              |\n| 15 | stipulated order and schedule a repair reserve hearing so      |\n| 16 | Your Honor can hear from everybody.                            |\n| 17 | And I would also like to say, Your Honor, I have               |\n| 18 | repeatedly for weeks tried to get the trustee and PAX's        |\n| 19 | counsel to communicate with me as to their issues and          |\n| 20 | they've refused to work with me.<br>They've refused to provide |\n| 21 | information.<br>They've refused to negotiate a reasonable      |\n| 22 | number.                                                        |\n| 23 | And my client is willing to significantly enhance              |\n| 24 | the number, but they're playing games.<br>They don't -- they   |\n| 25 | don't want a repair reserve.<br>They want to hold up this      |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 39 whole process. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, I just -- I cannot disagree with that more vociferously. We just got the final estimate late last week from counsel, so I don't think it can be said that we're playing games or acting in bad faith. We were waiting for a comprehensive set of all estimate reserve repairs or estimate -- estimating work orders that include time and labor and all material conditions. And we have made requests. They were out. I'm not -- Mr. Kindseth has supplied the information as it's come in, but it's not like we received a full set of information a month ago and haven't responded. So I just -- I don't agree that there's been anything other than good faith in discussion. By the way, including on Mr. Kindseth's side in supplying this information. I'm not impugning his motives and I don't think ours should be impugned either. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? (No response) THE COURT: I note that this morning there was a motion to withdraw as attorney filed by counsel for Golden Spring which will be set for a hearing. Mr. Despins, I just have a question for you about Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 39 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 40 is there a need, given that today's August 12th, to have another conference on August 24th as opposed to August 7th[sic]? And if there is, that's fine. I'm just asking the question. MR. DESPINS: The problem, Your Honor, is that this case has an issue, what I call issue du jour. Every day there's a new issue. But it's very hard for me to tell you today whether we need one on the 24th. But we will be on -- I think as we said to the Court before is that 24 hours before I need to provide an agenda, and if -- and if we have nothing, we will ask the Court to cancel the status conference. THE COURT: Okay. That's fair. That's fine. MR. DESPINS: But, I mean, we would try our best not to have -- let's put it this way -- from a directional point of view, we will try our best not to have one on the 24th. But the problem is that in this case we move very fast and I would feel really bad if there was some kind of emergency and then we only had September 7th. THE COURT: I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have one on the 24th. I was just asking if you felt there was a need. And I understand your point that you'd like to keep those dates that you've proposed, August 24th, Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 40 of 43\n\nSeptember 7th, September 21st and October 3rd as dates for\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 41 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 41 status conferences. And that's fine. We'll do that. But we're going to need to have these conferences in person or at least the local counsel in Connecticut have to appear. It's very difficult -- well, I just think it's more appropriate in this case to be in person. If people want to make requests to appear remotely, there's a process we have in our court to make that request. And that's what I -- that's the opinion of the Court at this moment. If people tell me there's a reason why they can't appear in person, we have allowed that to happen, but I -- this case has, as you've all pointed out, many issues going on at all times, and I don't find -- I find it is not as effective for me to understand the issues when I'm looking at a screen versus when the people are in the courtroom. Obviously, if there's a change in COVID situations and we're required to do something different in this courthouse, then that would -- obviously we wouldn't be in person. But we're not under that directive from the district court at this point. So in any event, the status conferences that you're looking for I believe, Mr. Despins, since they're going to be in person, at least, unless people obtain an order allowing them to appear remotely, that we can start them later in the day.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 42 of 43\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>42                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | We can start them -- we can have it at 11 or 12 or             |\n| 2  | something like that if that's more helpful for people, or in   |\n| 3  | the afternoon if that's -- but the 24th actually would have    |\n| 4  | to start at noon or 1:00.<br>I have to attend to something in  |\n| 5  | the afternoon of the 24th, so it would have to be noon or 1    |\n| 6  | o'clock.<br>Do people have a preference?                       |\n| 7  | Mr. Despins, do you have a preference?                         |\n| 8  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Your Honor, I'm just five stops down           |\n| 9  | the Metro North.<br>I can be there at noon, 1:00, whatever you |\n| 10 | want.                                                          |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                       |\n| 12 | Does anyone else have a preference on timing?                  |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:<br>Not for the debtor, Your Honor.                  |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>Hearing nothing,          |\n| 15 | then we'll set the Wednesday, 24th, August 24th, status        |\n| 16 | conference at 1:00 p.m.<br>And then we'll address the times of |\n| 17 | the other conferences.                                         |\n| 18 | I'm going to have to review the matters that were              |\n| 19 | discussed, the motion to expedite and the repair reserve.<br>I |\n| 20 | haven't even looked at those motions, so I'd have to review    |\n| 21 | that.                                                          |\n| 22 | We've already discussed the three 2004 Examination             |\n| 23 | motions, which are granted subject to the submission of a      |\n| 24 | revised proposed order for each one of those motions.          |\n| 25 | And I believe that's all we can address today.                 |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 43 Okay. Thank you, all. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. (Proceedings concluded at 10:58 a.m.) I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above- entitled matter. 11 August 16, 2022 12 Christine Fiore, CERT Transcriber Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 43 of 43","body_zh":"案件 22-50073，文件 766，于 08/18/22 提交，于 08/18/22 11:30:43 录入，第 1 页，共 43 页\n\n美国破产法院\n康涅狄格联邦地区\n布里奇波特分庭\n\n关于\n*\n案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n*\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n*\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n*\n2022年8月12日\n债务人。\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n\n债务人 2004 审查动议；关于债务人专业人士的综合 2004 审查动议；关于关联人士的综合 2004 审查动议；在美国破产法官 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）阁下面前举行状态会议的命令之庭审记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：\nSTEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ.（史蒂芬·M·金德塞思，律师）\nHK International（HK 国际公司）及\nAARON ROMNEY, ESQ.（亚伦·罗姆尼，律师）\nMei Guo（梅郭）：\nERIC HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·亨齐，律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒专业公司）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表债权人 Pacific\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼，律师）\nAlliance Asia Opportunity\nSTUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫，律师）\nFund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美伟伦律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.（安妮卡·史密斯，律师）\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n庭审程序由电子录音记录，庭审记录由速记服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷庭审记录与速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nJONATHAN KAPLAN, ESQ.（乔纳森·卡普兰，律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表债权人 Rui Ma（马睿）、\nKRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯滕·梅休，律师）\nWeican Meng（孟维灿）及 Zheng Wu（吴征）：\nMcElroy Deutsch（麦克尔罗伊·多伊奇律师事务所）\n225 Liberty Street\n36th Floor\nNew York, NY 10281\n\n代表美国受托人：\nKIM McCABE, ESQ.（金·麦凯布，律师）\n美国受托人办公室\nGiaimo Federal Building（贾伊莫联邦大楼）\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n第 11 章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（吕克·A·德斯潘，律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n第 11 章受托人之律师：\nNICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·巴塞特，律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林赛，律师）\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思专业公司）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债权人 Logan Cheng（郑洛根）：\nJAY M. WOLMAN, ESQ.（杰伊·M·沃尔曼，律师）\nRandazza Legal Group, PLLC（兰达扎法律集团专业有限责任公司）\n100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代表债权人 Rui Ma（马睿）、\nKRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.（克里斯滕·梅休，律师）\nWeican Meng（孟维灿）及 Zheng Wu（吴征）：\nMcElroy Deutsch（麦克尔罗伊·多伊奇律师事务所）\n225 Liberty Street\n36th Floor\nNew York, NY 10281\n\n代表 Verdolino and Lowey（韦尔多利诺与洛伊）：\nTRISTAN AXELROD, ESQ.（特里斯坦·阿克塞尔罗德，律师）\nBrown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 766，于 08/18/22 提交，于 08/18/22 11:30:43 录入，第 3 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月12日\n\n3\n\n（庭审于上午 10:00 开始）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法官：早上好。请各方为记录目的说明出庭身份，先由第 11 章受托人开始。\n\nDESPINS 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（吕克·德斯潘），第 11 章受托人。\n\n法官：早上好。接下来，请美国受托人办公室的人员说明出庭身份。\n\nBASSETT 先生：法官阁下，代表受托人，我是 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），来自 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所），担任第 11 章受托人的律师。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nLINSEY 先生：早上好，法官阁下。代表受托人，当地律师 Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛）。\n\n法官：早上好。接下来请——继续。下一位想发言的人请直接发言。\n\nMcCABE 女士：Kim McCabe（金·麦凯布），代表美国受托人。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nMcCABE 女士：早上好。\n\nFRIEDMAN 先生：我是 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼），代表\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月12日\n\n4\n\nPAX。我看到 Sarnoff 先生，也看到来自 Robinson Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）的 Annecca Smith（安妮卡·史密斯）。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nAXELROD 先生：法官阁下，Tristan Axelrod（特里斯坦·阿克塞尔罗德），代表 Brown Rudnick, LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）以及 Verdolino and Lowey, PC（韦尔多利诺与洛伊专业公司）。我昨天提交了一项临时出庭许可动议，尚未获准；尽管该动议仍在待决中，我请求在今日于适当范围内获准陈述意见。\n\n法官：欢迎您陈述意见，我相信该命令——该动议将会获准。由于该动议是昨天下午提交的，可能只是尚未有充足时间录入命令。\n\nAXELROD 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nKINDSETH 先生：早上好，法官阁下。Stephen Kindseth（史蒂芬·金德塞思），Zeisler and Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所），代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵），以及 HK International Funds Investments USA Limited（HK 国际基金投资美国有限公司）和 Mei Guo（梅郭）。\n\nROMNEY 先生：早上好，法官阁下。Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼），Zeisler and Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所），亦代表债务人、HK International（HK 国际公司）及 May Guo（梅郭）。\n\nHENZY 先生：以及 Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐），法官阁下，Zeisler and Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所），代表同一批当事人。\n\nMAYHEW 女士：早上好，法官阁下。Kristen Mayhew（克里斯滕·梅休）代表债权人 Rui Ma（马睿）、Zheng Wu（吴征）和 Weican Meng（孟维灿），Carolynn Callari（卡罗琳·卡拉里）也与我一同出庭。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 766，于 08/18/22 提交，于 08/18/22 11:30:43 录入，第 4 页，共 43 页\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 766，于 08/18/22 提交，于 08/18/22 11:30:43 录入，第 5 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月12日\n\n5\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nKAPLAN 先生：早上好，法官阁下。Jonathan Kaplan（乔纳森·卡普兰），来自 Pullman and Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所），代表债权人委员会。\n\n法官：早上好。\n\nWOLMAN 先生：早上好，法官阁下。Jay Wolman（杰伊·沃尔曼），来自 Randazza Legal Group（兰达扎法律集团），代表债权人 Logan Cheng（郑洛根）。\n\n法官：早上好。各位是否都已为记录目的说明出庭身份？好的。谢谢。Despins 先生，这是您请求举行的状态会议，并且还有三项关于 2004 审查的动议。因此，请继续。\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。为记录目的，我是第 11 章受托人 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯潘）。法官阁下，我们已向法院提交关于状态报告的 PowerPoint 演示文稿，因此我不想通过逐页宣读来长时间占用法院时间。我们不会那样做。我假定法官阁下至少已有机会浏览一下。但是，PowerPoint 演示文稿的大部分内容涉及我们在上次庭审中向法官阁下提出的事项，即有必要协调这两个案件：即法官阁下面前的 Kwok（郭文贵）案件，以及 Garrity 法官面前的 Genever U.S.（杰尼弗美国）案件。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月12日\n\n6\n\nGarrity 法官。非常简要地说，在第 2 页，我们谈到同一案件中存在相同问题。是的，这是两类不同的资产，但是——它们涉及两名不同的个人，其中一人是债务人的女儿，另一人是债务人的儿子。但问题完全相同，也就是说，我们认为，在关于这些资产所有权问题的庭审中，将会出庭相同或很可能相同的证人；将作为证据提交相同或类似的文件。因此，基于这些原因，我们认为，至关重要的是由一个法院处理这两个案件。\n\n我们在第 4 页说明了这些案件——这些案件为何会由两个法院审理。这完全是——我并非要指责 PAX，但由于 PAX 的诉讼，这两个案件均是为对 Mr. Kwok（郭先生）提起止赎或阻止 PAX 针对其或其部分资产，即 Sherry Netherland apartment（谢里荷兰公寓），的诉讼而开始的。\n\n法官阁下，我们提出的一点是，我们最近得知，尽管如我过去所说，我们必须核实信息，因为我们永远不知道其准确性如何，但事实上，Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）——您会记得，Bravo Luck 是据称由 Kwok 先生之子拥有的实体——该实体也参与了各种 Lady May（梅夫人）交易。因此，这更是\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 766，于 08/18/22 提交，于 08/18/22 11:30:43 录入，第 7 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月12日\n\n1　进一步的证据和进一步的理由，说明这两个\n2　案件应当一并处理。\n3　而且我知道，法官阁下，这不是您的决定，因此\n4　我不是在就该动议进行辩论。我只是想确保您\n5　了解我们这样做的背景。\n6　非常简要地说，第 8 页中的\n7　Genever（杰尼弗）案件的申报债权截止日期问题确实一团糟，因为大概只有\n8　五、六名提交了债权申报并获得通知的债权人。\n9　我们案件中的那些人士，以及对 PAX 具有类似或\n10　可能相同的、针对 Sherry Netherland apartment（谢里荷兰公寓）的另我主张的债权人，均未获得通知，\n11　\n12　而且，您知道，所有这些都需要协调，等等，\n13　等等。\n14　在第 9 页，我们说明了上次向\n15　法院所述的情况，即目前，在这些债权人无法直接在\n16　Genever U.S.（杰尼弗美国）案件中提交债权申报的情况下，\n17　他们在结构上将从属于在该案件中提交债权申报的\n18　五、六名债务人，\n19　而受托人——这一点在第 10 页——反对这种情况。\n20　您知道，因此基于所有这些理由，我们认为\n21　变更审理地是适当的。我们说没有——\n22　——这一点在第 11 页——不能保证\n23　任何审理地变更都会获准。另一方面，\n24　而且我们在先前庭审中已说过，（听不清）由您的法院任命的\n25　受托人。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 766，于 08/18/22 提交，于 08/18/22 11:30:43 录入，第 8 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月12日\n\n8\n\n如果法官阁下看到许多危险信号，我不希望沿着那条路走下去，而且我——因此，我并不是要求您发表那样的意见。但是——我想告诉您，我们的下一步是到 Garrity 法官面前。因此，若法官阁下看到任何危险信号，您知道，我们希望在此阶段听到，因为下一阶段是到 Garrity 法官面前寻求该项审理地变更。\n\n在第 13 页，我们论及审理地变更与关于出售 Sherry Netherland apartment（谢里荷兰公寓）的和解协议并不冲突。如您所知，出售该公寓有一个程序。我们并非试图阻止该程序，或者——目前不是，而且这不是阻止该程序的策略。事实上——顺便说一句，该和解协议最终并未表明当事人之间已达成协议，在某一法院或另一法院进行诉讼。\n\n但目前非常清楚的是，鉴于我们每周都在取得进展，我们相当确信，将会对其中某些转让提出欺诈性转让异议，或者对为支持 Kwok 先生并非这两项主要资产中任何一项的所有人的论点而提供的某些文件提出异议；因此，让 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）审理该事项毫无意义。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 766，于 08/18/22 提交，于 08/18/22 11:30:43 录入，第 9 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月12日\n\n9\n\n让破产法院审理该事项才合乎情理，而且我们认为，鉴于我们已经开始了 2004 审查程序等等，由本法院作为两个案件审理地所在的法院是合乎情理的。因此，法官阁下，此时此刻，我非常迅速地讲完了这些内容，但在我们转向最后两页，即第 15、16 页的事务性事项，并在处理 2004 审查事项之前，我乐意接受法院可能提出的问题或意见。\n\n法官：我目前没有任何问题。谢谢。\n\nHENZY 先生：法官阁下，我可以简要陈述意见吗？\n\n法官：可以。\n\nHENZY 先生：谢谢。法官阁下，我只是想明确并确认这是一次状态会议。Despins 先生提交的 PowerPoint 演示文稿并非证据。我目前不对将任一案件变更审理地至任一法院采取立场。如 Despins 先生所承认，纽约的案件是否转移至布里奇波特将由 Garrity 法官决定，因此，所有这些目前——目前并不在您面前。我不反对他告诉您他将要在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）做什么，但我认为这并不在您面前。\n\n案件 22-50073，文件 766，于 08/18/22 提交，于 08/18/22 11:30:43 录入，第 10 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022 10 幻灯片中有一些表述我不同意。我并不是要求您让我逐一讲完，告诉您每一处我不同意的地方，因为再说一次，我理解这是一次状态会议，这些内容并非证据。所以——但是，再说一次，我只是想把这一点记入记录，以便日后不会有人指称，哦，我们没有——我们没有逐点说明我们在哪些地方存在分歧，因而不知怎的构成了放弃，或具有某种约束力，或者 Kwok 先生本应说些什么。法庭：还有其他人希望发言吗？DESPINS 先生：法官阁下——法官阁下，仅作简要回应。我们同意 Henzy 先生（亨齐）的立场。这不是证据。这是一份状态报告。（听不清）一般性否认足以否认（听不清）中所载的每一项陈述，理解（听不清）。法庭：好的。谢谢。好。在处理这些事务性事项之前，我们先讨论《破产程序规则》第 2004 条审查问题，Despins 先生（德斯平斯），因为我认为还有一些其他事项，您——我只是想知道法庭——您将如何处理在您获任之前尚待处理的申请和动议。因此，我们先处理第 2004 条审查问题，然后\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022 11 请再回到事务性事项。BASSETT 先生：法官阁下。我是代表受托人的 Paul Hastings（保罗·哈斯廷斯）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。今天我将就第 2004 条动议发言。首先，法官阁下，我想说，很高兴首次在您面前出庭。在本案中，我过去在一些听证会上一直处于幕后，但很高兴今天能够实际在法庭面前出庭，尽管是以远程方式。如我相信法庭所知，我们于 July 28th 提交了三项第 2004 条动议，寻求对约 34 名不同的受审查人进行审查。其中一项动议针对债务人，寻求审查债务人。另一项动议寻求审查约 14 家专业机构，包括过去向债务人提供建议的律师事务所或其他咨询机构。第三项动议则针对约 19 名亲属、关联人员及关联实体，我们认为他们可能掌握对这些案件及受托人调查至关重要的信息。因此，法官阁下，这三项动议均专门旨在查明信息并取得与破产财产潜在资产有关的文件。如我们在动议中所述，我们认为存在大量证据\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 766 提交于 08/18/22 录入于 08/18/22 11:30:43 第 11 页，共 43 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 766 提交于 08/18/22 录入于 08/18/22 11:30:43 第 12 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022\n1　表明，基于新闻报道以及其他法院的认定，\n2　债务人实际上确实对有价值的财产及多个 LLC（有限责任公司）\n3　享有权益，\n4　而这些有限责任公司是其试图使之置于\n5　债权人追索范围之外的控股公司；我们认为这些动议\n6　所针对的对象，正是可能掌握该等\n7　信息的人员，无论是曾被用于设立\n8　法律实体和保护资产的顾问，还是持有该等资产的\n9　亲属或关联公司，\n10　这些确实是我们动议的目标。\n11　法官阁下，我今天不再进一步概述我们所寻求的内容，\n12　因为鉴于收到的答复，我认为法庭面前的争议\n13　非常狭窄。\n14　我的意思是，确实——实际上几乎\n15　没有任何反对意见。我认为，在拟议的 34 名\n16　受审查人中，仅提交了三份答复。其中两份\n17　由 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）代表其自身以及\n18　本案其他债务人的前任本地律师提交，\n19　而该两份答复实质上只是保留\n20　权利，但我认为实际上并未对\n21　该动议提出异议，因此我暂不对此作出回应，尽管\n22　如果 Axelrod 先生（阿克塞尔罗德）已准备好就此发表评论，\n23　我稍后可能会处理。\n24　我将改为仅简要回应\n25　债务人就第 2004 条所提出的有限异议\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 766 提交于 08/18/22 录入于 08/18/22 11:30:43 第 13 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022 13 动议。就我理解，债务人的异议实际上提出两点。第一点涉及一项特权问题，而其承认该问题实际上今日并不在法庭面前。债务人在其异议中称，其认为对此存在不同的权威观点，并且存在受托人是否控制债务人的特权，包括律师—当事人特权及其他特权的问题。法官阁下，我不会花太多时间回应这些问题，但我确实想提出几点。首先，只需指出，受托人完全不同意债务人对于该问题法律现状的立场。我们认为，根据跨司法辖区的多数权威观点，十分明确的是，受托人确实承继债务人的特权，尤其是关于破产财产资产、破产财产管理及债务人财务状况的问题。正如我先前所说，我们在第 2004 条动议中提出的所有取证请求确实都涉及这些问题，因此我们认为，债务人就这些问题主张特权实际上没有任何余地。我们认为，该特权转移给受托人，而受托人\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 766 提交于 08/18/22 录入于 08/18/22 11:30:43 第 14 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022 14 有权取得该等文件。我还想做的是，就债务人律师昨天提交的一份宣誓书，简要纠正记录。该宣誓书谈及我们于 August 2nd 与债务人律师举行的会面协商。其中，我注意到债务人称，在该会面协商期间，我们受托人——受托人的律师拒绝愿意处理该特权问题，除非逐份文件处理。法官阁下，我认为那不正确。那不是我们所说的。我们在该次通话中所说的是，我们需要了解债务人就其仍保留哪些可针对受托人主张的特权这一问题所持的立场。我们对此得到的答复基本上是，债务人的律师刚刚接手本案，他们确实不知道债务人持有何种文件。他们不知道债务人与其前任律师之间有何种通信。他们实际上尚未完成任何该等初步准备工作。事实上，我认为曾有人评论说，我们，即受托人及其律师，可能比他们更了解债务人的文件。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 766 提交于 08/18/22 录入于 08/18/22 11:30:43 第 15 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022\n1　毋庸置疑，那是一项非常\n2　令人担忧的评论，因为它似乎确实在为本案中进一步拖延\n3　铺路，并构成另一种阻止\n4　受托人在本调查中取得实质性进展的方式，\n5　而这是绝不能发生的。\n6　我的意思是，如法官阁下所知，这名债务人\n7　早在 February 就提交了本案。\n8　其已与 PAX（帕克斯）及其他当事人卷入\n9　诉讼多年，因此有关其持有哪些文件、\n10　哪些文件可能受特权保护等问题，\n11　债务人理应十分清楚。\n12　因此，法官阁下，就这一问题而言，关键在于，\n13　与宣誓书中所述相反，我们确实认为\n14　这一特权问题需要尽快提交\n15　法庭处理。\n16　因此，我们计划采取的做法——我相信受托人\n17　在上周的状态会议期间已经预告过——是我们\n18　拟提交一项动议，可能会在短时间通知下提出，以请求\n19　法庭就转移给受托人的全部特权的范围\n20　作出裁定，从而使我们对此明确，\n21　并避免其在今后被用于拖延我们的调查\n22　进展。\n23　债务人在其异议中提出的第二点，\n24　法官阁下，是——而这实际上确实是\n25　唯一——唯一可以被定性为\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 766 提交于 08/18/22 录入于 08/18/22 11:30:43 第 16 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022 16 对我们请求法庭在所提交拟议命令中给予的救济提出实际异议的论点或问题。但他们对我们在拟议命令中纳入传票答复期限为 30 天一事提出异议。法官阁下，我们认为这是适当的，并且应继续作为拟议命令的一部分。基于我刚刚讨论的理由，且如法庭鉴于本案的历史所深知，我们认为从一开始即竭尽所能防止任何拖延的论点或途径至关重要。我们认为，强制债务人以及要求其他当事人向我们提供文件，并在 30 天内就我们的传票向我们作出答复，极为重要。我们并不认为这与第 2004 条本身或地方法规中的任何一项不一致。地方法规 2004-1 实际上要求动议方将空白格式传票作为附件附于其动议和拟议命令。显然，作为送达该传票的一方，我们有权注明履行的日期和地点。因此，我们没有将其写入传票，而只是请求法庭将该 30 天期限纳入拟议命令。我还要指出，我认为这完全\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 766 提交于 08/18/22 录入于 08/18/22 11:30:43 第 17 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022 17 符合第 2004(c) 条，该条专门针对债务人调查，并明确规定，法庭可以基于显示的理由并按照其可能施加的条件，命令债务人在其指定的任何时间或地点依本规则接受审查。因此，法庭根据第 2004 条明确拥有该项权力——我想我刚才说的是 2004(c)，但我相信应当是 2004(d)。法庭明确有能力命令债务人在特定时间履行义务。您知道，我们并非——我认为债务人提出的问题之一是，他们认为我们试图阻止其对个别文件请求提出可能存在的异议。法官阁下，我们不是这样做的。如果债务人或任何其他当事人认为，他们就个别请求有实质理由充分的论点，希望作为对——或者作为撤销传票动议的一部分或以其他方式提出，他们可以这样做。我们只是寻求确保这一切能够迅速发生，这就是我们在命令中纳入该 30 天期限的原因。这就是我一开始要说的全部内容，法官阁下，但显然我很乐意回答任何问题，并保留回应其他当事人所作任何评论的权利。法庭：好的。谢谢。还有其他人\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月12日 18　希望发言吗？\n\n阿克塞尔罗德律师：是的，法官阁下。特里斯坦·阿克塞尔罗德（Tristan Axelrod），Brown and Rudnick（布朗与拉德尼克律师事务所）。我可以非常简短地发言吗？\n\n法院：可以，请讲。\n\n阿克塞尔罗德律师：仅有两点非常简短的说明。第一，巴塞特先生提到 Verdolino and Lowey（维尔多利诺和洛伊）是债务人的本地律师。这并不完全正确。他们是拟任财务顾问。截至目前，实际上仍有一项申请待决。第二点，我同意巴塞特先生的看法，即特权及工作成果保护问题很可能将成为拟送达的证据开示中的核心问题；一旦送达，我认为我们将感谢法院就该问题提供指引。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：您能否——您是在寻求何种指引？抱歉。我想我没有听清您最后说了什么。\n\n阿克塞尔罗德律师：嗯，并非今天寻求任何指引，但一旦送达证据开示材料，我认为各方都表示，对于已转移给受托人的特权边界，以及仍由专业人士或债务人持有的工作成果保护范围，可能会存在分歧。我认为，此时被送达材料的专业人士将需要一些指引，或者在这些问题出现后将感谢得到一些指引。我想巴塞特先生说的也是同样的意思。如果我对此理解有误，他会纠正我，但我认为我们预期这将成为一个问题，并将感谢法院日后提供指引。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 于 08/18/22 提交 于 08/18/22 11:30:43 登记 第 19 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月12日\n\n法院：嗯，我认为，根据《联邦破产程序规则》第 2004 条以及本院地方法规则 2004-1，将会发生的是——当传票送达时，收到传票的一方可以根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》采取其认为适当的任何行动，意思是——\n\n身份不明的发言人：法官阁下，我听不清您说话。我不知道其他人是否也是如此。\n\n身份不明的发言人：我（听不清），但我也听不清，法官阁下。\n\n法院：嗯，这也是我们今后所有听证会都将亲自举行的原因之一。我们人数这么多时，这非常困难，我们将亲自举行听证会。今天你们提出请求——这项请求是在短时间通知下提出的，但我们需要在法庭内进行，以便我能够看到并听到你们，你们也能够看到并听到我。\n\n因此，律师们，我刚才所说的是，当你们请求指引时——我认为法院不会提供指引。我认为法院将就任何可能出现的问题作出裁决。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 于 08/18/22 提交 于 08/18/22 11:30:43 登记 第 20 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月12日 20　并且，当传票根据——与第 2004 条审查有关并根据本院地方法规则送达时，被送达传票的一方就该传票享有其根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》所享有的一切权利。德斯平斯先生表示他将就特权问题提出动议，因此届时法院将作出裁决，并且／或者法院将就任何撤销传票动议或任何保护令作出裁决。因此，我并不真正将其视为指引。我将其视为——你们作为律师，在《联邦民事诉讼规则》下负有义务——\n\n阿克塞尔罗德律师：是。\n\n法院：——努力解决这些问题。如果你们不能解决这些问题，那么你们就应依据适用规则提交适当文件，法院将作出裁决。好吗？\n\n阿克塞尔罗德律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。也许我的措辞不够恰当，但裁决将会有所帮助。谢谢。\n\n法院：并不是——我并不是说你的措辞不恰当。我只是——我不认为这是法律上的一个领域，法院——我不认为法院能够提供指引。我认为这——必须作出裁决，对吗？这属于证据开示。律师们——你们都负有努力解决这些问题的义务；如果不能解决，那么解决方式就是由法院作出裁决。好吗？好的。那么，没有其他人希望就第 2004 条审查动议发言吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 于 08/18/22 提交 于 08/18/22 11:30:43 登记 第 21 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月12日\n\n罗姆尼律师：法官阁下，亚伦·罗姆尼（Aaron Romney），Zeisler and Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所），支持债务人。提出有限异议。我表示歉意，我曾试图在巴塞特先生之后发言，但我的麦克风处于静音状态。\n\n但非常简短地说，我认为——您使用了“有限异议”这一术语，而异议确实是有限的；听了巴塞特先生的发言后，我不确定争议何在。我们并不反对 30 天的期限安排。\n\n异议仅在于，准予第 2004 条动议的拟议命令指示各方提交文件。第 2004 条的目的及第 2004 条动议的范围，是允许送达传票，这正是拟议命令中第二个“据此命令”段落所述。\n\n拟议命令中的第三个“据此命令”段落——\n\n法院：让我们——罗姆尼律师，我们先停一下，把命令调出来，以便我们能同时查看，因为我想确保我理解了您的论点。好吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 于 08/18/22 提交 于 08/18/22 11:30:43 登记 第 22 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月12日 22　那么，哪一份——哪一份——您说的是——调出今天日程表上的哪一份是否重要？\n\n罗姆尼律师：是的。我具体看的是 637。\n\n法院：好的。我们来看看——\n\n罗姆尼律师：但是——是的。\n\n法院：那么我们看 637。把它调出来，然后我们查看拟议命令，随后您可以向我指出拟议命令中的哪一处——您知道，我们将逐段查看您刚才开始谈到的内容，好吗？\n\n罗姆尼律师：非常感谢您，法官阁下。\n\n（暂停）\n\n书记员：马上就好，法官阁下。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法院：好的。看来我们正在查看 ECF 637 上的拟议命令。那么，罗姆尼律师，我想您是希望我翻到下一页，即开始出现编号段落的那一页。还是——或者我应留在这一页？\n\n罗姆尼律师：法官阁下，正是我们正在看的这一页，即屏幕上的内容。\n\n法院：好的。那么留在这一页？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 于 08/18/22 提交 于 08/18/22 11:30:43 登记 第 23 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月12日\n\n罗姆尼律师：是的。\n\n法院：好的。请告诉我您希望我看什么。\n\n罗姆尼律师：第三个“据此命令”段落，尤其是该段的第一句，其中写道：“特此指示专业人士于传票送达后 30 天内提交所有文件。”\n\n再次说明，问题并不在于 30 天，而在于法院命令指示提交文件；这有别于前一段，前一段允许受托人送达传票，之后依照地方法规则 2014，收到传票的各方届时有权提出实体性异议。\n\n我们的问题是，这完全是字面上的——而且似乎并不含糊。这是一项指示提交文件的法院命令，超出了在第 2004 条审查动议中可以授予的救济范围。\n\n法院：嗯，为什么——如果我们仅通过如下措辞限定该段落，即“受适用的《联邦民事诉讼规则》和《联邦破产程序规则》约束”，会怎样？因为我认为您所说的是，罗姆尼律师，尽管我可能理解有误，您认为这剥夺了您提出撤销传票动议或保护令动议的权利？\n\n罗姆尼律师：是的，法官阁下。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月12日 24　法院：那么，如果我们只是做我——\n\n罗姆尼律师：并且，法官阁下——\n\n法院：——做我刚才所说的呢？如果我们仅以该措辞加以限定，会怎样？我并不是说这将是最终结果。我只是向您提出这个问题。\n\n罗姆尼律师：法官阁下，这正是我今天来请求的。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n罗姆尼律师：即删除该措辞、该段落，或者对其加以限定。两种方式都可以，只要向收到该命令和传票的人明确表明，其根据地方法规则和《民事诉讼规则》提出异议的权利得到保留，而未被该命令规避。\n\n法院：巴塞特律师，您正要回应该论点吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：是的，法官阁下。谢谢。我认为我们在这个问题上实际上没有分歧。正如我在开场陈述中所说，我们并非——我们理解，根据地方法规则和惯例，各方确实有机会就依据法院第 2004 条命令发出的传票提出撤销动议或以其他方式提出问题。我们只想确保的是，除非——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 于 08/18/22 提交 于 08/18/22 11:30:43 登记 第 24 页，共 43 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 于 08/18/22 提交 于 08/18/22 11:30:43 登记 第 25 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月12日 25　法院另有命令，例如基于成功的撤销传票动议，回应证据开示请求的各方确实必须在 30 天内作出回应。否则，我们非常担心，在我们确实需要推进事项并取得进展的情形下，该程序会拖延远超必要的时间。\n\n法院：好的。那么，如果——巴塞特律师，如果第三个“据此命令”段落开头写明“受《联邦民事诉讼规则》、《联邦破产程序规则》及《破产程序地方法规则》适用条款的约束”，您对此没有异议？大致类似的措辞？\n\n巴塞特律师：从原则上说，我认为可以，法官阁下，因为这正是为了（听不清）。\n\n法院：嗯，我认为——所提出的要点，而且我认为这没有问题，因此我认为我们应当加上该附加措辞，以便不存在争议。好吗？然后我们就可以继续。之后，各方将必须采取其认为必要且适当的任何措施。因此，就今天日程表上的这三项第 2004 条审查动议，我要求你们提交一份修订后的拟议命令，修改——在第三个“据此命令”段落开头加入该措辞。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月12日 26　好吗？那么，这些动议获准。之后可以送达传票，然后我们再看你们得到何种回应。好吗？\n\n巴塞特律师：谢谢。\n\n罗姆尼律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。唯一另外一点是，我确实对我们会面协商的描述有一些异议。我并非暗示任何不真诚或不诚实，但我对那次谈话的理解确实不同。我认为目前法院面前没有任何问题，也不想占用法院时间讨论这些问题，但我确实希望记录在案，我们对那些描述存有异议。\n\n法院：法院面前没有任何问题，而且就会面协商问题而言，可能也不会有任何问题提交到法院面前。好吗？好的。\n\n罗姆尼律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：因此，既然我们已经解决了这三项第 2004 条审查动议，这些动议现已获准，但须提交修订后的拟议命令——而且，巴塞特律师，您需要多少时间向法院提交修订后的拟议命令？我应该说，向法院提交修订后的拟议命令们？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 于 08/18/22 提交 于 08/18/22 11:30:43 登记 第 26 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022 27\n\n巴塞特先生：我们今天就会处理，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。嗯，他们今天可能不会提交。但如果他们今天没有提交，假定今天收到，他们将在星期一提交。然后，德斯潘先生，我们可以回到您今天早上提交至案卷的报告末尾所列的事务性事项。好吗？\n\n德斯潘先生：是，法官阁下。谢谢。顺便说一下，您在我们实际处理该事项之前提出过一些问题。您曾就债务人提出、但自指定受托人以来一直处于搁置状态的动议提出问题，所以我可以对此作出说明。据我所知，我认为您提出的第一个——其中之一，是聘用 Verdolino（韦尔多利诺）的申请。我记得您提出过这一点。我了解到 Kindseth 先生——抱歉，是 Linsey 先生，请原谅，刚刚提交了撤回该申请的通知。我还了解到，有一项动议请求安排或设立临时补偿程序。我认为我们应当暂缓处理该事项，因为不幸的是，目前没有资金，因此在现行体制下没有任何临时补偿可供取得。所以我认为我们必须等待——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 提交于 08/18/22 录入于 08/18/22 11:30:43 第 27 页，共 43 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 提交于 08/18/22 录入于 08/18/22 11:30:43 第 28 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022 28\n\n法庭：嗯，我希望该动议被撤回。您知道，如果有能力讨论该事项，您可以再次提交——\n\n德斯潘先生：好的。\n\n法庭：——但我希望该动议被撤回，因为从书记官办公室的角度看，它仍是一项未决动议。\n\n德斯潘先生：好的，法官阁下。我们会这样做。另一项仍悬而未决的事项是，有一项聘用 Stretto（斯特雷托）作为债权代理人的动议。因此，我不确定该动议是已被撤回，还是仅仅他们——\n\n法庭：我认为该动议实际上已经被撤回了。\n\n德斯潘先生：好的。\n\n法庭：我认为 Stretto 动议实际上已由占有中的债务人撤回。\n\n德斯潘先生：好的。\n\n法庭：占有中的债务人在一段时间前撤回的。\n\n德斯潘先生：谢谢，法官阁下。我的清单上最后一项、我认为已得到解决的事项，是延长移送诉讼期限的动议，但我相信该动议已由债务人撤回，并由您上周根据我们的请求作出的命令所取代。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 提交于 08/18/22 录入于 08/18/22 11:30:43 第 29 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022 29\n\n因此，我认为这涵盖了我们清单上那些处于搁置状态的事项，但您可能还有其他动议——\n\n法庭：嗯，如果还有其他事项，我们可以——我会在下次会议上指出。我知道，就 DIP 融资动议而言，该动议已由债务人撤回，即在指定 Chapter 11 受托人之前由占有中的债务人撤回，委员会曾提交两项针对 HK International（香港国际）和 Golden Spring（金泉）的 Rule 2004 Examination 动议。我不——我认为，由于该动议，即 DIP 动议已被撤回，这些动议基本上已无实际意义。但我不知道委员会对此是否持不同看法。\n\n卡普兰先生：抱歉，法官阁下。您能否重复一下您所询问的动议？\n\n法庭：委员会在一段时间前提交了两项 Rule 2004 Examination 动议，ECF 295 和 297。我相信它们是与占有中的债务人就债务人占有融资所提交的动议有关。因此，我认为既然融资动议已被撤回，这些动议已无实际意义，但我需要委员会在下次\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022 30\n\n状态会议之前撤回这些动议，或报告它们已无实际意义。然后，委员会还寻求聘用两名专业人士。这些申请于 May 4th 提交，321 和 325。我认为这些申请应当被撤回、视为无实际意义，或者如果你们要继续推进，则我们需要采取措施推进它们。好吗？\n\n卡普兰先生：明白。如果我们打算撤回，我们将在下次状态会议之前这样做。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。我认为如果还有其他事项，我们可以在下次状态会议上讨论。我正在看这里的一份问题清单。请给我一点时间。我只是想确保——在我们讨论德斯潘先生想讨论的事项之前，我只是想看看这里的另一件事。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：好的。让我——我不确定，但我可能错了，所以如果我错了——这很有可能——你们都需要纠正我：在上次听证会上，我们是否已充分处理了 Chapter 11 受托人提出的撤销债务人向 Chapter 11 受托人送达的传票的动议，即 608？我不确定我们是否处理过。我不记得了。\n\n德斯潘先生：法官阁下，我认为您处理过。您——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 提交于 08/18/22 录入于 08/18/22 11:30:43 第 30 页，共 43 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 提交于 08/18/22 录入于 08/18/22 11:30:43 第 31 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022\n\n1　以无实际意义为由驳回了它们，如果我——如果我记得没错。\n\n2　亨齐先生：我同意，法官阁下。\n\n3　法庭：好的。\n\n4　亨齐先生：您以无实际意义为由驳回了该动议。\n\n5　法庭：好的。谢谢。我只是——\n\n6　不确定我是否在我们的案卷中看到这一点，但它可能在那里。而且，\n\n7　您知道，案卷中有七百多项记录，所以我\n\n8　可能遗漏了它。\n\n9　林西先生：法官阁下，我相信那是 670。\n\n10　法庭：谢谢。好的。谢谢。是的，我\n\n11　看到了。我感谢您在此方面的协助。谢谢。\n\n12　好的。那么，德斯潘先生，现在请转到\n\n13　您想讨论的最后几项事务性事项。\n\n14　请。\n\n15　德斯潘先生：是。我不会涵盖\n\n16　所有事项，因为其中一些不言自明。但我认为\n\n17　需要处理的一项，是设立一项准备金的动议——\n\n18　即就 Lady May（梅夫人号）设立维修准备金，\n\n19　以及该事项的（听不清）实体理由，而是\n\n20　加快处理该事项的请求。受托人反对\n\n21　加快处理。与此相关的问题很多，\n\n22　我将予以说明。\n\n23　我不是发动机或游艇专家，但我\n\n24　从我的专家那里了解到，不能仅依赖所提供的\n\n25　估算，因为一旦开始打开该——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 提交于 08/18/22 录入于 08/18/22 11:30:43 第 32 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022 32\n\n发动机舱，可能存在初看无法发现的广泛损坏。\n\n因此，我们的观点，以及我相信其他各方、委员会和 PAX（PAX）的观点是，必须进行维修，然后应进行海试，因为如果维修完成并进行了海试，那么——这还须派遣水肺潜水员检查游艇船体。就发动机而言，这就是程序的终点，因为——但若说让我们根据发票设立一项准备金，由律师和法官来决定，好吧，这项发动机维修应当花费 XY 和 Z，这实在不审慎，这就是我们认为不应加快处理的原因。\n\n因为这里应当发生的是——应完成维修，无论维修内容为何，然后我们可以检查维修结果并进行海试，随后就任何剩余争议回到法官阁下面前。\n\n因此，我想记录在案，受托人反对加快处理该动议。\n\n法官阁下，关于事务性事项，我要说的就是这些。\n\n法庭：我现在正在查看案卷，我看到这项动议已经提交——为 Lady May 设立准备金的命令动议于昨天提交——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 提交于 08/18/22 录入于 08/18/22 11:30:43 第 33 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022\n\n1　并附有加快处理的动议。因此，截至目前，我尚未审阅\n\n2　这两份文件中的任何一份，但我\n\n3　理解您的观点。\n\n4　Kindseth 先生，您想发表意见吗？\n\n5　金塞斯先生：是。非常感谢您，法官\n\n6　阁下。\n\n7　受托人提出的请求直接\n\n8　与我们达成的约定命令相悖，该命令设想在维修前\n\n9　设立维修准备金，以便\n\n10　维修不会延迟释放 $37\n\n11　million。我理解估算终究只是估算。\n\n12　我的当事人愿意大幅提高\n\n13　准备金数额，以涵盖预期维修费用以及\n\n14　任何合理预测的最坏情形。我的意思是，\n\n15　大幅提高。\n\n16　但是，不公平且完全违背\n\n17　所达成协议并且不适当的做法，仅仅是\n\n18　在维修完成之前延迟释放 $37 million，\n\n19　这直接违背了我们达成的协议。\n\n20　法官阁下，如我知道您所理解的，这项\n\n21　约定命令解决了一项非常重大且激烈争议的\n\n22　问题，该问题历经超过\n\n23　一年，即使不是多年。\n\n24　已有一项程序被制定，其中包括——\n\n25　我的当事人将 $37 million 存入托管代理人处，以担保返还 Lady May。Lady May 已被返还。我们已依约定命令的要求，允许受托人以及 PAX 和委员会及其专家于 July 13th 对 Lady May 进行检查，距今约一个月。我们已提供我们所获得的所有估算。我们在确定维修准备金时采用了其中最高的估算。此外，法官阁下，就发动机而言，该——该损坏由保险承保，因此该发动机问题花费更多的风险并非维修准备金问题，因为有保险予以保障。我们将在维修准备金听证会上就此提交证据，法官阁下。尽管如此，我们的提议是为发动机维修的全部费用以及 $100,000 免赔额提供资金。因此，我们基本上已采取一切额外措施，以保护财产、保护受托人的利益。而且我确实——法官阁下，我确实想强调，因为我认为这是受托人、PAX 和委员会恶意行事之处。数周以来，我们一直对他们说，你们想要什么数额？$37 million 是该——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 提交于 08/18/22 录入于 08/18/22 11:30:43 第 34 页，共 43 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 提交于 08/18/22 录入于 08/18/22 11:30:43 第 35 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022 35\n\n游艇的原始购买价格。该游艇现在价值低得多。发动机损坏由保险承保。无论如何我们都在提供该费用。你们想要什么数额，而他们拒绝提供。因此，我请求法官阁下采取的做法是安排一次听证会，我建议在 August 的最后一周，就维修准备金举行听证，听取专家意见，并在当时作出决定。我们相信将能够确定一个合理估算。您甚至可以采用一个合理估算并将其加倍，然后为该数额提供资金。这将满足该项要求。届时，我们所有的要求都将得到满足，$37 million 可以释放给我的当事人，并且财产将得到充分保护。因此，我此时请求的全部内容，法官阁下，是法庭依照约定命令，就维修准备金安排听证会，以便法官阁下能够听取验船师，以及或许船长和总工程师，就进行这些维修的合理费用和合理风险所作的意见。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n德斯潘先生：法官阁下，非常非常简要地说。问题是——我们对审理该动议没有任何异议。但如果听起来像是那样，我很抱歉。相反，我们所担忧的是加快处理。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 766 提交于 08/18/22 录入于 08/18/22 11:30:43 第 36 页，共 43 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022 36 我的意思是，我想这可以等到9月的第一周左右。我不确定是否需要在8月底之前解决。所以就这些。这是我们今天要提出的唯一一点，因为——仅仅因为你们没有就加速事项举行听证。我想确保你们了解受托人的观点。达成该项协议时，受托人并不在场。实际上，您知道——我们不是该协议的当事人。我们没有探视权。但我要说，Kindseth 先生非常友好地给予了我们这些探视权，（听不清）。谢谢。我们对此表示感谢。但受托人不是该协议的当事人。不过无论如何，今天提交法庭的唯一问题是加速事项，实际上是今天提交法庭的事项，但我们——您知道，我们也认为您应当知道，我们反对加速（听不清）。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。今天还有其他需要处理的事项吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN 先生：法官阁下，我是 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。我确实想提出两点。显然，就加速事项而言，您知道，我们有权提交材料，而且我认为，如果我们要提出异议，我们也有义务在规定的期限内提交，而该期限不应被缩短。我们自己关于维修准备金的提议，如果我们认为适当，也不应在债务人已经向法庭提出申请之后被缩短——抱歉，是 HK International（香港国际）已经向法庭提出申请之后。在有人将提交反对证据的范围内，我们需要能够审阅所有反对证据。Kindseth 先生称，他们打算提交反对证据，可能包括若干人的声明。显然，我们在这方面的权利不应被缩短。我们的观点是，您知道，船舶的状况有多个方面。对于其中某些方面，当事人或许可以就准备金金额达成一致。另一方面，据我们了解，当船舶无法进行海试时，这对我们最终评估该船是否能够恢复可操作状态构成了另一种挑战，而这是该协议的一项条件。因此，我认为，您知道，我们并不一定认为其中每一项内容都属于同一类别。对于某些问题或维修项目，我们可能可以就估算达成一致。但由于发动机状况，我们无法进行海试，这就对确定准备金构成了另一种具有实质意义的挑战。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 37 of 43\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 38 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？\n\nKINDSETH 先生：法官阁下，只有一点。根据协议命令，该命令明确允许他们检查 Lady May。他们可以再次检查。该船一个月前已经被检查过。我们将继续允许其被检查。从未要求过、且经明确协商确定的是，在维修准备金确定之前不得进行维修。因此，整个海试是在维修之后的要求，而不是检查要求的一部分。\n\n我敦请法官阁下执行该协议命令的条款，并安排举行维修准备金听证会，以便法官阁下听取各方意见。\n\n我还想说，法官阁下，数周以来，我一再试图让受托人和 PAX 的律师就其问题与我沟通，但他们拒绝与我合作。他们拒绝提供信息。他们拒绝就合理的金额进行谈判。\n\n而我的当事人愿意大幅提高该金额，但他们在玩弄手段。他们不——他们不想要维修准备金。他们想拖延整个程序。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022 39\n\nFRIEDMAN 先生：法官阁下，我只是——我再强烈不过地不同意这一说法。我们直到上周末才从律师处收到最终估算，因此我认为不能说我们在玩弄手段或恶意行事。我们一直在等待一套完整的关于所有估算准备金维修或估算——估算工作订单的材料，其中包括时间、人工以及所有材料条件。我们也提出了请求。他们当时不在。我并不是说——Kindseth 先生在收到信息后一直提供给我们，但并不是说我们一个月前就收到了一整套信息却没有作出回应。因此，我只是——我不同意讨论中存在任何不诚信行为。顺便说一句，这也包括 Kindseth 先生一方在提供该信息方面的行为。我并未质疑他的动机，我认为我们的动机也不应受到质疑。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？\n\n（无人回应）\n\n法庭：我注意到，今天上午 Golden Spring（金泉）的律师提交了一项撤回代理律师资格的动议，该动议将安排听证。Despins 先生，我有一个问题要问您，即鉴于今天是 August 12th，是否有必要在 August 24th 而非 August 7th［原文如此］再举行一次会议？如果有必要，也没问题。我只是提出这个问题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 39 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022 40\n\nDESPINS 先生：法官阁下，问题在于，本案存在一个我称之为“当日问题”的问题。每天都有一个新问题。但我今天很难告诉您我们是否需要在24日举行会议。不过我们将在——我认为正如我们此前向法庭所说，提前24小时我需要提供议程，如果——如果我们没有任何事项，我们将请求法庭取消该状态会议。\n\n法庭：好的。这很公平。没问题。\n\nDESPINS 先生：但是，我的意思是，我们会尽最大努力不举行——这样说吧——从方向上来说，我们将尽最大努力不在24日举行会议。但问题是，本案进展非常快，如果出现某种紧急情况，而我们下次只能到 September 7th 才开会，我会感到非常不妥。\n\n法庭：我并不是说我们不应在24日举行会议。我只是问您是否认为有此必要。我理解您的观点，即您希望保留您提出的那些日期，即 August 24th、\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 40 of 43\n\nSeptember 7th、September 21st 和 October 3rd，作为状态会议的日期。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 41 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022 41\n\n状态会议。这样很好。我们将如此办理。但是，我们需要亲自举行这些会议，或者至少康涅狄格州的当地律师必须出庭。这样很困难——嗯，我只是认为在本案中亲自出庭更为适当。如果有人希望请求远程出庭，我们法庭有一项程序可以提出该请求。这就是我——这是法庭目前的意见。如果有人告诉我其无法亲自出庭的理由，我们允许过这种情况，但我——正如你们都指出的，本案始终存在许多问题，而我不认为——我认为，相较于当事人在法庭内出庭，当我看着屏幕时，不能同样有效地理解问题。显然，如果 COVID 情况发生变化，我们被要求在本法院采取不同措施，那么——显然，我们就不会亲自出庭。但目前我们尚未收到地区法院的该项指示。因此，无论如何，我相信，Despins 先生，既然您们希望举行的状态会议将亲自举行，至少除非有人获得允许其远程出庭的命令，我们可以在当天较晚时间开始举行。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 42 of 43\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022\n\n我们可以开始举行——如果这对大家更有帮助，我们可以在11点或12点左右举行，或者在下午举行，如果那样——但24日实际上必须在中午或1:00开始。我必须在24日下午处理某件事情，因此必须在中午或1点举行。大家有偏好吗？\n\nDespins 先生，您有偏好吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：法官阁下，我只需乘坐 Metro North 五站。我可以在中午、1:00，您决定的任何时间到场。\n\n法庭：谢谢。其他人对时间安排有偏好吗？\n\nHENZY 先生：债务人方面没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。好。那么，没有听到任何意见，我们将把 Wednesday, 24th, August 24th 的状态会议安排在下午1:00。随后我们将处理其他会议的时间。\n\n我将必须审阅已讨论的事项，即加速动议和维修准备金。我甚至还没有看过那些动议，所以我必须审阅。\n\n我们已经讨论了三项 2004 Examination 动议，现予准许，但以就每项动议提交经修订的拟议命令为条件。\n\n我相信，这就是我们今天所能处理的全部事项。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 12, 2022 43\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢各位。\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n（程序于上午10:58结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），法庭核准的记录转写员及认证电子记录员和转写员，证明前述内容是从上述案件程序的官方电子录音中转写的正确记录。\n\nAugust 16, 2022\n\nChristine Fiore, CERT 转写员\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 43 of 43","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je","Guo","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":295,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":637,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":10964,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-08-18 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-08-18","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:58:59"}