{"id":"court_ctb_847_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":847,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-09-11","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* August 30, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF ORDER SCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE; MOTION FOR ORDER ESTABLISHING REPAIR RESERVE FOR LADY MAY; MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARING; MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL ESTABLISHING REPAIR RESERVE FOR THE LADY MAY; MOTION TO STAY SECS.523/727 ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS; MOTION FOR ORDER PROVIDING THAT CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES PASSED TO TRUSTEE UPON APPOINT AND FOR RELATED RELIEF 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 LAURA ARONSSON, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 PATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ. Robinson & Cole 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY CLAIBORN, 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 Verdolino & Lowey: WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ. Brown Rudnick Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\n2\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 1:06 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins with the -- for the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, local counsel for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BIRNEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Birney, Robinson & Cole, on behalf of PAX. With me in person is Attorney Laura Aronsson, from O'Melveny, and via Zoom Attorney Stuart Sarnoff. THE COURT: Yes. Good afternoon. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. MS. CLAIBORN: Sorry. Good afternoon. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 3 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 4 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 4 THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, representing the Creditors Committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. ROMNEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Aaron Romney, Zeisler & Zeisler, on behalf of the debtor, as well as HK International and Ms. Guo individually. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. HENZY: Eric Henzy of Zeisler & Zeisler for the same parties. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. KINDSETH: And Stephen Kindseth, Zeisler & Zeisler, again for those three parties. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BALDIGA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. William Baldiga, Brown Rudnick. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Okay. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I'm sorry, I did not -- THE COURT: Mr. Baldiga, you didn't hear -- is that who you -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I don't think -- I don't think it picked up. THE COURT: Oh, it didn't pick up? Can you just say your name again?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 5 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>5                          |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>William Baldiga, Brown Rudnick.             |\n| 2  | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>Thank you.                         |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                    |\n| 4  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Thank you.                                  |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>With regard to this afternoon,       |\n| 6  | there are several matters on the calendar.<br>I did take a  |\n| 7  | look at the calendar in the -- from a standpoint of seeing  |\n| 8  | if there was -- if there were possibly one or more matters  |\n| 9  | that we might want to take in a different order than they   |\n| 10 | appear on the calendar, and I was looking first at the      |\n| 11 | motion to stay the adversary proceedings that were filed on |\n| 12 | -- that was filed on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee to    |\n| 13 | which I did not see any objections filed.                   |\n| 14 | Attorney Linsey?                                            |\n| 15 | MR. LINSEY:<br>That's correct, Your Honor.                  |\n| 16 | In fact, in the motion, we had stated that all but          |\n| 17 | one of the parties to the adversary proceedings had either  |\n| 18 | consented or stated that they had no objection after we     |\n| 19 | filed the motion.<br>It's now all of the parties --         |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                         |\n| 21 | MR. LINSEY:<br>-- who either have affirmatively             |\n| 22 | consented or affirmatively stated they have no objection to |\n| 23 | the relief sought.                                          |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Great.<br>Thank you.                          |\n| 25 | So now I just -- I have reviewed the motion.<br>I           |\n|    |                                                             |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 6 just need to look at the proposed order for a moment if I can find it. (Pause) MR. LINSEY: It should be page -- ECF 763, page 9. THE COURT: Thank you. I'm just having difficulty getting there for a second, but I'll get there in a minute. (Pause) THE COURT: Okay. I'm looking at the proposed order granting the motion for stay of adversary proceedings seeking determination of nondischargeability of debts and/or denial of discharge. And the extension would run through October 22nd, 2022, Attorney Linsey, correct? MR. LINSEY: I believe it was through October 21st, 2022. That was the day that's referred to. You know, I apologize for noticing this now. There's a discrepancy between the order and the -- and the motion, so -- THE COURT: What day -- well, we'll look at a calendar. How's that? Hold on just a second. MR. LINSEY: That's fine. THE COURT: October 21st is a Friday, so October 22nd is a Saturday. So October 21st then is the date. MR. LINSEY: My guess is that was a typo. I apologize, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So looking at the order, then Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 6 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 7 in the first -- I'm turning to the courtroom deputy -- in the first paragraph of the proposed order, that's on page 9 -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: -- it just says -- at the end of that first paragraph it says through October 22nd, but it should say 21st. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. Can we also add to the end of the first paragraph where it says and good cause having been shown, do you see that language? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: And then just enter and after a hearing held on August 30, 2022 so it's clear there was a hearing. And then the proposed order can enter, Attorney Linsey. Is that fine, those changes that I've stated on the record? MR. LINSEY: That is, Your Honor. The order itself provides for the order to enter in the main case and in the individual adversary proceedings that are at issue. For clarity of the record, this does not implicate the HK International adversary proceeding. This only implicates the 523 and 727 adversary proceedings.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 7 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 8 THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: I appreciate you noting that for the record. So we will just enter the order -- the order will entered in the main case and in the 523 and 727 adversary proceedings. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: Okay? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yeah. MR. LINSEY: And those are -- those are in bullet points on the first two pages of the motion. THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. MR. LINSEY: For ease of reference. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. So that addresses the motion to -- the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion for a stay of those specific adversary proceedings that we just talked about. So that's ECF 763 is granted. Now, there obviously are some other matters on today's calendar. I think it might make sense to talk about the reserve motion first because we're just -- it's a status conference. And I scheduled it because I think, Attorney Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 8 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 9 Kindseth, I read your papers properly that you're seeking an evidentiary hearing. Is that correct? MR. KINDSETH: That's correct. THE COURT: Okay. So tell me about what your thoughts are with regard to an evidentiary hearing. What kind of time frame do you need? What witnesses and/or exhibits are you going to be submitting? And then obviously I'm going to hear from other parties about their position as well. MR. KINDSETH: Thank you, Your Honor. First, Your Honor, I would like to say that I think just scheduling the hearing will facilitate conversations between the parties in more earnest and so we may be able to narrow the issues. But to answer your question directly, I anticipate a day. It should not take more than a day. I do believe we'll be able to narrow the issues considerably. There are basically two buckets of repairs. There's the repairs that the creditors committee, PAX, and the other creditors are not insisting on being done before the release of the \\$37 million. And there's the engine repair which they are insisting on being performed before the release of the \\$37 million. And I -- so I think that once the hearing is scheduled and we engage in these conversations and we narrow Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 9 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 10 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>10                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | the numbers down, we'll just be talking about the -- and, of |\n| 2  | course, counsel for PAX can speak to this point -- what are  |\n| 3  | the issues with respect to the engine repair and what are    |\n| 4  | the risks, and whether or not the stipulation expressly      |\n| 5  | contemplated such repairs and, therefore, the repair reserve |\n| 6  | should be established in an estimated amount and then that   |\n| 7  | component can be satisfied and presumably the other issues   |\n| 8  | will be resolved and the \\$37 million can be released.       |\n| 9  | So with that said, I think it's going to be a day.           |\n| 10 | I would have the captain and the chief engineer testify as   |\n| 11 | to the proposals received and the work that needs to be      |\n| 12 | performed.<br>And I believe PAX has an expert -- I know they |\n| 13 | have an expert who would, again, address this particular     |\n| 14 | issue.<br>So I don't anticipate it being more, more than a   |\n| 15 | day.                                                         |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>And what kind of documentation                 |\n| 17 | exhibits are you going to have?                              |\n| 18 | MR. LINSEY:<br>It would simply be the proposals --           |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 20 | MR. LINSEY:<br>-- with respect to the work that              |\n| 21 | needs to be performed and the cost.<br>But I don't think the |\n| 22 | cost is at issue.<br>We've provided multiple quotes for the  |\n| 23 | cost of the repairs.                                         |\n| 24 | The only issue, as I see it, Your Honor, is                  |\n| 25 | whether or not the circumstances necessitate withholding an  |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 11 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 11 order on the repair reserve pending the completion of the engine repairs which unfortunately are going to take probably 45 to 60 days. We're trying to schedule the Lady May being hauled from the water and dry docked on September 7th or 8th. And because of the other time frames and the stipulation, if the engine repairs have to be completed first, we're talking about a three to four month delay in the release of the repair reserve, I'm sorry, the release of the \\$37 million escrow funds. THE COURT: The escrow. Yeah. MR. LINSEY: And so that's the crux of the issue. I have conferred with the captain and the chief engineer. They're available anytime in September. I have a conflict on September 14th and 15th as well as the 22nd and 23rd. But other than that, I'm available anytime, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LINSEY: Thank you. THE COURT: Counsel? MS. ARONSSON: Good morning, Your Honor. Laura Aronsson from O'Melveny for PAX. In our view, the stipulation gives Your Honor some discretion for the way in which these repairs will be conducted. And the issue with the engine was not\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 12 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 12 contemplated at the time we entered into the stipulation. As it stands, the extent of the repairs to the starboard engine are unknown at this time. So in our view the repair to the engine should be completed. At that point, PAX's expert can go in and do a sea trial and determine whether there are any other repairs that need to be conducted to restore the Lady May to good working order. So at this time the Lady May is not in good working order. It's not seaworthy. The starboard engine as I think it failed. The fuel pump failed when it entered the New York Harbor. And there are concerns that -- from PAX's point of view and our expert's point of view that these repairs -- this issue is indicative of a broader issue with the engine. So that said, we will agree to a hearing at Your Honor's convenience. We need a couple of weeks I think to put together our full position on this. But in sum we oppose the setting of a reserve at this time in principle. We think that the repairs should be conducted first. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. With regard to Mr. Kindseth's idea for time of a hearing, he's saying one day. And he's got two witnesses and some documents. What, if anything, is PAX's proposal\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 13 with regard to an evidentiary hearing? MS. ARONSSON: So in the first instance we would appreciate the opportunity to respond in writing to the motion, but we would -- I anticipate our experts -- possibly some exhibits. To be honest, we're still reviewing the evidence. Last week we conducted a dive hull inspection of the Lady May to gather additional evidence about the current condition, so we're still putting together what our evidence would look like at that hearing. THE COURT: Okay. I understand. So you -- so in answer to my question, you would like the Court to set a deadline for anyone to file a written objection or a response to the reserve motion and then conduct the evidentiary hearing after that time frame? MS. ARONSSON: That's right. THE COURT: Okay. And do you anticipate that one day will be enough time for you to present the case on behalf of PAX after the debtor, excuse me, after HK International presents its case with regard to the reserve motion? MS. ARONSSON: Yes. I think one day should suffice. THE COURT: Okay. MS. ARONSSON: Just for our schedule we are not Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 13 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 14 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>14                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | available September 10th through the 22nd and the 25th         |\n| 2  | though the 27th.                                               |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                              |\n| 4  | MS. ARONSSON:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                        |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                       |\n| 6  | Mr. Despins?                                                   |\n| 7  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.                    |\n| 8  | I'm just seeking clarification because Mr.                     |\n| 9  | Kindseth said something about the fact that the creditors      |\n| 10 | were willing to allow for some repairs to take place after     |\n| 11 | the return of the \\$37 million?                                |\n| 12 | I never understood that to be the case.<br>I thought           |\n| 13 | the point was that there's a cosmetic or what looks like a     |\n| 14 | cosmetic issue that needs to be fixed.<br>The sea trial does   |\n| 15 | not need to wait for that to be repaired.<br>But I never       |\n| 16 | understood that people were actually talking about sending     |\n| 17 | back the 37 million even though that repair is not done.       |\n| 18 | So that's a clarification I'm seeking.                         |\n| 19 | And the other point is I want to be clear about                |\n| 20 | the hearing.<br>At the hearing, I want to make sure Mr.        |\n| 21 | Kindseth understands this is that there will be a position     |\n| 22 | taken that repairs must be done regardless of the estimates    |\n| 23 | given before there's a test as to the seaworthiness of the     |\n| 24 | ship.<br>And, therefore, you know, as long as that issue is up |\n| 25 | for determination at that hearing, I have no issues going      |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 15 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 15 forward. But I wouldn't want to be in a position where it's a fait accompli that a -- that the sole purpose of the hearing is to determine a reserve. I understand Mr. Kindseth will take the position that that's what should happen. I get that. Absolutely. But the issue of whether the repairs should be done first should still be a live issue. That's just a clarification I'm seeking from the Court, Your Honor. THE COURT: Attorney Goldman? MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, for the committee, the committee subscribes to the view of PAX and the trustee. This was a lately discovered problem in terms of the repair of the engine, which was a rather foundational part of the operation of the boat. And I think the order is broad enough to encompass what has been proposed by PAX, in particular that the engine repair be done and that the yacht be tested for seaworthiness to make sure that there isn't an additional problem as a result of what happened to the engine. That was not before any party when the stipulated order was entered into. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Kindseth? MR. KINDSETH: Yes, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 16 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 16 With respect to the distinction I drew, there were known repairs that had to be performed, such as the sea valve work that needed to be done. It was always contemplated that the repair reserve would be established to fund that and then that would trigger the release of the \\$37 million. The only issue that is being argued from the other side is that the engine issue, which arose on the way when the yacht was being returned to Connecticut, creates some sort of extenuating circumstance through which the stipulation can be interpreted to permit or require those repairs to be done before the release of the \\$37 million, which we adamantly dispute because we believe the stipulation expressly contemplated unknown repairs. But regardless, that is for the hearing. And I agree with the trustee. This is a status conference. I understand the arguments. The arguments are not going to be precluded, even my distinction between the two types of repairs. If they want to argue that the parties contemplated always having all the repairs done before the \\$37 million was released, they can argue that. It's all going to be set down for a hearing. I would also note, Your Honor, that PAX's request to block out most of the month of September is not\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 17 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>17                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | reasonable, Your Honor.<br>My client is incurring 3 percent    |\n| 2  | per month interest on the \\$37 million it borrowed.<br>We have |\n| 3  | returned the boat more than a month ago.<br>This was supposed  |\n| 4  | to be an expedited process.<br>And we're asking the Court to   |\n| 5  | schedule a hearing.                                            |\n| 6  | And counsel, the firm, has plenty of lawyers that              |\n| 7  | should be available that could present this very discrete      |\n| 8  | issue of these repairs and most of September should not be     |\n| 9  | blocked off.<br>Thank you.                                     |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Go ahead, counsel?                               |\n| 11 | MS. ARONSSON:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                        |\n| 12 | I think we can stand down on the 10th to the 22nd,             |\n| 13 | so I think we can be more flexible, but we cannot do the       |\n| 14 | 25th to the 27th of September.                                 |\n| 15 | Apologies.<br>I'm coordinating with counsel                    |\n| 16 | remotely.                                                      |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Understood.                                      |\n| 18 | MS. ARONSSON:<br>Thank you.                                    |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                       |\n| 20 | So the purpose of setting the status conference                |\n| 21 | was to talk about the fact that HK International wanted an     |\n| 22 | evidentiary hearing on its motion.                             |\n| 23 | There is nothing in any of the orders that I've                |\n| 24 | entered that said that that means all they have to do is       |\n| 25 | come forth and establish that a reserve should be X.           |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 18 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 18 Anybody can argue that it shouldn't have to happen right now. I think that's pretty clear. And, you know, whatever is going to happen I have no idea. We'll see what you all have to say. But the purpose of the -- well, you all entered -- obviously the trustee -- the trustee was not a party to any of this. He was not in the case when the parties agreed to forego a hearing on relief from stay and a ruling on relief from stay. And, Mr. Kindseth, I don't have it in front of me, but my recollection is you filed I don't know if you called it a reply or an objection to relief from stay saying we're going to bring the boat back so that moots the I think that's what you said, right, that it moots the request for relief that PAX had made in its motion for relief from stay. And we had, you know, some discussions about that at hearings. And then there was this stipulated order. And what -- and Mr. Baldiga's here. And I recall having a conversation with him when he was representing the debtor about posting a bond. And then the issue was, no, we won't post a bond, we'll just post cash and we'll put it in an escrow, right? So it's in escrow, and it has been in escrow, and it will remain in escrow unless and until there's an order\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 19 that says it can be released from escrow. Everyone's agreed to that. Whether or not there was -- my recollection of the stipulation isn't that there was a need for an expedited process to release the funds. And I haven't -- I mean, I can pull it up. We can go through it. We can do whatever you'd like. My recollection is that the \\$37 million was essentially security for getting the boat back to Connecticut, the navigable waters of Connecticut -- not back, it never was here, or at least it wasn't during this case -- subject to further order of the Court. And that the reason that that was -- and you will recall, Attorney Kindseth, at that time, there was a plan where this boat was going to be part of a plan for creditors. Well, there is no plan anymore. So what happens? I'm not sure, and that's why I'm asking you the question. If you're correct, if you can establish that there's a reserve, you know, you're going to put it -- I don't know if you're going to deduct it from the 37 million or put it in another account or how that would work, but -- and then the 37 million is released, then what happens to the boat? It's just it's still a boat that's not part of a Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 19 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 20 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 20 plan or anything at this point. It was at the time that the stipulation was entered into in April of this year. There was a plan that was filed and it said that the boat would be pledged to the estate. Now, it had different conditions. And I understand all the terms. I don't understand, but I recall all the terms of the plan, and there were issues about releases and whether or not the creditors would really ever agree to that plan, but at least there was a format of how the case was going to proceed. Whether or not it ever would get to confirmation is a different issue, right? But at this point, if the \\$37 million is released, so what happens to the boat? MR. KINDSETH: Yes, Your Honor. The boat stays here. And just to clarify some things, this was heavily negotiated and took an extended period of time and we went over all of the provisions exhaustively. Okay? And that's what's probably so infuriating about the situation that we're in and the positions that are being taken against my client, because this, it's all in the stipulation. So the first clarification I'd like to point out, Your Honor, is that if the boat is returned, if the captain is served with a copy of the order, and YACHTZOO is served\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 21 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 21 with a copy of the order -- and the captain's been served already -- and if they sign a declaration acknowledging certain things -- THE COURT: Yeah. Aren't they supposed to sign a declaration that says they're -- MR. KINDSETH: Yeah. THE COURT: -- they acknowledge they're restrained from removing the boat? MR. KINDSETH: Correct. Correct. THE COURT: But I haven't seen that, have I? MR. KINDSETH: Correct. The process which is laid out in here -- THE COURT: I'm just asking. MR. KINDSETH: Yeah. It hasn't been filed yet. THE COURT: Because I remember that was part of the stipulation and I don't think I've seen anything -- MR. KINDSETH: Correct. THE COURT: -- that shows me. The boat's been here since -- MR. KINDSETH: Yeah. THE COURT: -- I don't know, June, July? MR. KINDSETH: July. THE COURT: That's right. July. And I don't -- I haven't seen anything on the docket of the case anyway -- MR. KINDSETH: Yeah.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 22 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 22 THE COURT: -- where the harbor master and the captain have, and I believe those were the entities, that agreed that they would be restrained from removing the boat from the navigable waters of Connecticut. MR. KINDSETH: The captain signed the declaration. The captain's been served. But the process that's laid out here, Your Honor -- and this is why it's a certainty that the repair reserve was established and then the \\$37 million would be released -- because the order is return the boat, serve the captain and YACHTZOO, have them sign declarations, have this court, after noticing a hearing establishing a repair reserve, then I -- once that's done, I serve a certification. No further order of this court is required, Your Honor. I serve a certification on the applicable parties. They have 15 days to run to court if they have a problem with my certification. And they have to attest to the fact that my certification is inaccurate. If they don't do that within 15 days, I then provide the certification to the escrow agent, simultaneously copying everybody on the other side and then the escrow agent, upon receipt of that certification, releases the \\$37 million back to my client. And this is precisely what the stipulated order provides. There was -- and the repair reserve contemplated\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 23 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>23                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | reserving with respect to repairs, known and unknown.<br>It is |\n| 2  | -- and so -- because we would never want to hold up the        |\n| 3  | release of \\$37 million, which is almost twice the value of    |\n| 4  | the boat, while repairs were being performed.                  |\n| 5  | We could -- if they were acting in good faith, we              |\n| 6  | could agree to a number.<br>Okay?<br>There's a number that's   |\n| 7  | enough to cover the anticipated costs to the repairs.          |\n| 8  | Additionally, Your Honor, the engine is covered by             |\n| 9  | insurance and so we have insurance to cover the cost.<br>And   |\n| 10 | yet, we're still proposing to reserve sufficient funds for     |\n| 11 | that cost and then enhancing that.<br>But that's not           |\n| 12 | sufficient.                                                    |\n| 13 | And so, Your Honor, the process is laid out here.              |\n| 14 | And then at the end of this process -- because they don't      |\n| 15 | get the boat and \\$37 million -- so when the \\$37 million is   |\n| 16 | released, the repairs are done, and the boat stays here,       |\n| 17 | subject to further order of this court.                        |\n| 18 | And so YACHTZOO, the yacht management company, is              |\n| 19 | restrained, the captain is restrained, by service of this      |\n| 20 | court's order.<br>They sign a declaration acknowledging that   |\n| 21 | they're subject to this court's order.<br>I've spoken to the   |\n| 22 | captain.<br>I've explained this all to the captain.<br>The     |\n| 23 | captain understands, you know, literally the boat is not       |\n| 24 | going anywhere subject to further order of this court, but     |\n| 25 | the \\$37 million can be released.                              |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 24 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 24 THE COURT: Okay. I'm not sure I completely -- that's completely accurate, but you may be correct. I mean, we can pull up the -- we can pull up the stipulation and go through it. MR. KINDSETH: But, Your Honor, the process that I'm proposing, Your Honor, is that we're going to hash all this out at the hearing. But in fairness to my client, in fairness to the process that we agreed upon, we're asking for a hearing where Your Honor hears the experts, understands the issues, we call up the stipulation, I explain my position, they explain their position,\\ and Your Honor decides. THE COURT: I understand what you're saying. I'm just -- I am -- I mean, I think that is what's going to happen essentially. I didn't really think anything different from that was going to happen. But I do think that there are provisions in the stipulation that have not, at least on the record of the case, been clearly complied with, including the harbor master and the captain's acknowledgment. Because that's what the stipulation says, that they're restrained. And if there isn't something on the docket that says they're restrained, acknowledged by them, then they're not restrained. So that has to happen. I don't understand how\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 25 that can't happen. That was one of the conditions that we did talk about extensively when the stipulation was presented to the Court. The motion for relief from stay that was filed by PAX was actually, you know, was a motion saying there was no stay, or in the alternative for relief from stay. And then you filed, on behalf of HK International, somebody who's not a debtor in this case, the reply that said we'll give you the -- we'll get the boat back here and we'll pledge it. It's going to be part of the plan. But, again, we don't have a plan. We don't have that now. So when you say the boat's going to stay here, well, it might, it might not. I don't even have an acknowledgment from the captain or the harbor master, you know, as to that they acknowledge they're restrained. And without that, I'm not going to do anything. I mean, that's the very least that needs to happen, because otherwise what's the point? We have gone through all this and for what? MR. KINDSETH: Just so you -- THE COURT: Right? MR. KINDSETH: Yes. But just to be very, very clear, and I can file it as a preliminary matter, the process that was contemplated was after I completed all four things I then serve that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 25 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 26 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 26 certification. The repair reserve is the fourth of those four things. The only reason why I've waited to file it is because all four things need to be complete before I file it under the terms of the stipulation. So once the repair reserve is established, I will file it. If Your Honor wants me to file it or serve it sooner, I can do that. THE COURT: All right. Let me just look at the stipulation. Why don't we pull up ECF 299. Again, the trustee was not in the case at this time, so -- and the trustee is now in control of the -- of this estate, so let's look at it, where you think that is. MR. KINDSETH: Paragraph 3, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Paragraph 3 on page 3 of 29 of ECF 299. MR. KINDSETH: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Can we pull that up? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Sure, Your Honor. One moment. (Pause) THE COURT: All right. So, one, HK USA timely satisfying the delivery obligation. I think that did happen. In fact, it happened early is my recollection, because the delivery obligation I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 27 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>27                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | think was July 15 and the boat was here before then.         |\n| 2  | Due and proper service of a true and genuine copy            |\n| 3  | of this order being effectuated upon the then master captain |\n| 4  | of the Lady May and the yacht management company.            |\n| 5  | I don't know that -- I mean, you've told that's              |\n| 6  | happened, but I don't have that in the record, right?        |\n| 7  | MR. KINDSETH:<br>I can file something, Your Honor.           |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>A certificate of service              |\n| 9  | attesting to such service as required hereby being filed     |\n| 10 | with the Court.                                              |\n| 11 | Haven't seen that.                                           |\n| 12 | A declaration made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 by             |\n| 13 | the captain and the yacht management company consenting that |\n| 14 | each shall be subject to the jurisdiction of this court with |\n| 15 | respect to this order acknowledging that they are bound by   |\n| 16 | the provisions of this order, which are applicable to them,  |\n| 17 | including specifically that they are restrained from         |\n| 18 | removing the Lady May from the navigable waters of           |\n| 19 | Connecticut until further order of this court or until       |\n| 20 | dismissal of the bankruptcy case is provided in Section 9,   |\n| 21 | which didn't happen, because the dismissal was in accordance |\n| 22 | with PAX's motion to dismiss, which wasn't granted.          |\n| 23 | MR. KINDSETH:<br>Correct.                                    |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>And attesting to the contemporaneous           |\n| 25 | presence of the Lady May in the navigable waters of          |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 28 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 28 Connecticut and that the Lady May is in good working order. It's not in good -- I mean, I'm hearing that it's not in good working order. MR. KINDSETH: But that's the parenthetical, Your Honor. Subject -- THE COURT: Well, it says subject to the outstanding service and maintenance. Nobody thought you'd have to get a whole engine. I mean, look -- MR. KINDSETH: It's otherwise -- THE COURT: -- the boat's very big. I understand that. And I'm sure it has more than one engine. I don't know. MR. KINDSETH: Correct. THE COURT: Right? MR. KINDSETH: It's -- THE COURT: So how many engines does it have? MR. KINDSETH: Two. THE COURT: And both of them are not working or just one? MR. KINDSETH: No. So just to be very clear on what transpired, the gears in the fuel pump, small little shards of metal were stripped off a few gears and that -- those gears, then entered the lubrication system. And so the entire lubrication system of the engine needs to be flushed. That's what happened. And so theoretically it may\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 29 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 29 need another repair or component as part of that, but it's just a theory and we can reserve for that. But so what we're talking about in terms of the engine failure is shards of metal came off these little gears and went into the lubrication system of the engine. THE COURT: Okay. So you're saying the entire engine doesn't need to be replaced. MR. KINDSETH: No. THE COURT: It only needs to be flushed? MR. KINDSETH: No. It's just -- but -- yes, that's the problem. THE COURT: But if you wanted to get on the yacht right now and take it out into the water you can't do that because the engine isn't properly -- the engine or engines are not properly working? MR. KINDSETH: It's not good practice at this point. I mean, you could fire it up and go, but it's not prudent. THE COURT: Okay. All right. So let's look at section 11 of this order, the repair reserve, which is on page what, let's see, page 8 of 29, paragraph 11. Page 8 of 29 actually. And if we could make it a little bigger, like, you know, there you go. Thank you. Okay. HK USA shall at its sole expense -- shall cause at its sole expense the service and maintenance identified in\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 30 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>30                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | the declaration and otherwise if necessary to restore the      |\n| 2  | Lady May to good working order to be performed either prior    |\n| 3  | to the satisfaction or the delivery obligation or thereafter   |\n| 4  | upon order entered by this court.<br>Okay?                     |\n| 5  | So don't I have to enter an order?                             |\n| 6  | MR. KINDSETH:<br>That's the motion.                            |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Right.<br>But, I mean, don't -- but I            |\n| 8  | think what you were saying before was -- I thought what you    |\n| 9  | were saying is there is no need for a further court order.     |\n| 10 | If you comply with all of the four steps in the prior          |\n| 11 | paragraph, you just give them a certification and they've      |\n| 12 | got 15 days to object and come to the Court?                   |\n| 13 | MR. KINDSETH:<br>The fourth item is an order from              |\n| 14 | this court establishing the repair reserve.<br>Once those four |\n| 15 | items, including an order from this court establishing the     |\n| 16 | repair reserve are satisfied, I can serve the certification.   |\n| 17 | I was saying the \\$37 million does not necessarily             |\n| 18 | need an order to be released.                                  |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                            |\n| 20 | MR. KINDSETH:<br>As long as I get the order from               |\n| 21 | this court establishing a repair reserve.                      |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Your Honor, that's not what this               |\n| 23 | paragraph says.                                                |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>I'm not sure it does either, but I               |\n| 25 | don't know if we want to fight about that this afternoon.<br>I |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 31 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 31 mean, I haven't looked back at it for a while. I haven't. I'd have to read it again. But, again, what I see, and maybe your call can work it out, but this was in a different context. The context of this stipulation, the entry of this stipulation, was to stop -- and fine, absolutely fine by the way, I'm not saying stop in any negative way, but to stop the relief from stay motion from going forward and being ruled on. Right? The way -- it was a resolution of the relief from stay motion. Because what you did was, you said, your client said, in connection with the plan that the debtor had on file and was prosecuting and saying to this court, we're here, we want to -- we want to pay all of our creditors, you know, we want to treat everybody fairly, and here's the asset that we're going to use. At least this one asset, maybe more, but we're going to use this yacht to do that. Then that's what the stipulation contemplated. Because that's what the facts were at the time. MR. KINDSETH: I would say -- THE COURT: The facts have -- the facts have changed. MR. KINDSETH: Your Honor, I look at this stipulation much more in isolation. This stipulation resolved getting the boat back to the United States, to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 32 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 32 Connecticut, so that the parties can then dispute and have their dispute adjudicated with respect to whether the yacht is property of the estate. THE COURT: But it had already been pledged to be to the plan. It didn't -- we didn't need to have an argument about whether it was property of the estate at that time because your client -- MR. KINDSETH: Correct. THE COURT: -- already pledged it in a plan that was signed by Mr. Kwok. MR. KINDSETH: I know. And it's subject to court order. And, Your Honor, to respond to the trustee's comment with respect to what paragraph 11 provides, I was actually referring to paragraph 4, which provides that PAX, the committee, and the debtor and the United States Trustee shall have 15 days from the filing of HK USA certification to object, and this is the paragraph that provides that if they don't object, I can provide the certification to the escrow. So the stipulation in its entirety provides, as I represented. Paragraph 11 just addresses the repair reserve which is the fourth component of the elements that my client has to satisfy to enable it to then, pursuant to paragraph 4, to file the certification and receive the \\$37 million.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 33 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 33 THE COURT: Well, paragraph 11 also says that there has to be -- after delivery, there has to be an order entered by this court specifically delineating the time, place and manner by which such service and maintenance shall be performed, including, but not limited to, a separate cash reserve in an amount sufficient to pay the estimated costs of uncompleted service and maintenance tasks identified in the declaration and otherwise to restore, if necessary, the Lady May to good working order. And that such funds in the repair reserve should not be released until the service and maintenance tasks have been completed. Okay. Completed. So you were saying, I think, or I believe I'm accurate in that I heard you, if I didn't hear you properly, you'll correct me, that you believe that the \\$37 million can be released even if the repairs aren't done? MR. KINDSETH: Correct. And so let's say for example we establish that the repairs are going to cost \\$783,000. Again, it's all about insuring that the parties are not prejudiced. And we negotiated that as long as we reserved enough money for the repairs then the \\$37 million can be released. Because the \\$37 million was really a performance bond to ensure that the Lady May comes back to Connecticut. And so the concept was, well, what if it comes\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 34 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 34 back to Connecticut and needs repairs, both known repairs and unknown repairs? And that's why it says service and maintenance identified in the declaration and otherwise if necessary. And otherwise if necessary in paragraph 11 expressly contemplated something may happen on the trip back. And that was something insisted upon by the other parties. THE COURT: Yeah. I understand that. MR. KINDSETH: Right. THE COURT: But I don't -- I'm not sure what that means ultimately. MR. KINDSETH: So once the \\$783,000 is put in a reserve for the repairs, and we've proposed that the trustee can hold the \\$783,000 or such other amount that this court determines, there's no prejudice to the estate in releasing the \\$37 million because we've performed. We've got the Lady May here. THE COURT: I understand that argument. I do. I understand your argument. I get that. What I'm more concerned about is the issue that I've identified today which is you say that this was done, the 37 million was posted just to get the boat back. I don't think that's true that it was just to get the boat back, because the boat was pledged to be an asset of the estate available to creditors. And there wasn't\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 35 going to be a dispute over the ownership of the boat. MR. KINDSETH: But that was if we went forward with the -- or the debtor went forward with the plan -- THE COURT: And that's what the state of the affairs were at the time. MR. KINDSETH: I know. But that didn't happen. And there was no -- a proposed plan, Your Honor, is obviously until confirmed, not a commitment, it's proposed. And the -- as I understand -- THE COURT: I don't agree with that. But I hear you. But I don't agree with that. MR. KINDSETH: Right. So -- THE COURT: And I'll tell you why I don't agree with that. Just for -- just for this case, I just want to explain it. Okay? Because this debtor came in and said, on numerous occasions, and we can go back and go through all the transcripts, that they came here to consolidate their -- the issues of claims against this debtor, this person, consolidate the claims against this person and provide a fair and meaningful distribution to unsecured creditors. Now he says he doesn't own the boat, yet HK International pledged it to the plan and he signed that. And you as their counsel came in and said, yeah, and we'll be subject to this court's jurisdiction. You said Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 35 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 36 that the very first day. You'll be subject to this court's jurisdiction and that you will act in accordance with what the debtor's plan provides. Well, as we know, the case progressed and the debtor decided to change course, no pun intended, with the boat. So here's the problem with that. You can't then take this stipulation and say, well, it doesn't matter that things have changed. We're going to -- all we can do is get our money back. Well, what -- and that was what my question was and you -- I said to you so what happens to the boat? And you said, well, it stays here. And I said, well, it may or may not stay here. I've got two people who haven't shown me on the record that they've agreed to be restrained or subject to the jurisdiction of this court. And you want to get the money. I understand why you want to get the money out of escrow. You get the money out of escrow and these people decide, oh, I think we'll just take the boat. MR. KINDSETH: But, Your Honor, I can't -- THE COURT: And then what do we do? MR. KINDSETH: I can't get the \\$37 million out of escrow until I file the certificate of service and the declaration. And I can -- I'm representing to the Court the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 36 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 37 captain has signed the declaration. It has been served. Okay? And so I can file that certification of service. THE COURT: I think you should file the certification. MR. KINDSETH: Okay. And so it is not possible under the heavily negotiated stipulation for my client to get the \\$37 million back without having the captain and YACHTZOO served and signing the required declaration. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. Then just file it. MR. KINDSETH: We will file it. THE COURT: I would like to see it. Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 37 of 150\n\n MR. KINDSETH: But getting back to the plan of reorganization that was proposed, Your Honor, I think it's very important that was an offer. That was a sincere, good- faith offer that we -- that my client had agreed to contribute the Lady May on behalf of her father's bankruptcy case in the hopes of bringing peace to this entire situation. Okay?\n\n It was an offer. It was -- it was not confirmed. It was not -- the disclosure statement wasn't approved. It was an offer. And it didn't work.\n\n And so that's just -- there's no binding consequence on my client. Right? My client doesn't lose a \\$20 million yacht because my client was willing to propose\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 38 to offer it up as part of a plan -- THE COURT: I didn't -- MR. KINDSETH: -- that was rejected. Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 38 of 150\n\n THE COURT: I didn't say -- first of all, the plan wasn't rejected. We never got to that point.\n\n MR. KINDSETH: No. The negotiations didn't go well.\n\n THE COURT: But that's not the point. I didn't say that it was binding on your client. I asked the question so what happens to the boat? That was my question, wasn't it?\n\nMR. KINDSETH: So very clearly --\n\n THE COURT: And the answer is I don't know, Judge. It may stay. It may not stay.\n\n MR. KINDSETH: No, it's not that. It is a hundred percent staying here. The captain and the yacht management company are holding it.\n\n What was contemplated was that this court would move forward with the litigation over whether the yacht is property of the estate. If the Court determines by final order that the yacht's property of the estate, it will be here.\n\n If Your Honor rules that it's not property of the estate, and Your Honor releases it accordingly from this court's jurisdiction, then the yacht will go on its way.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 39 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 39 But that is exactly what the parties contemplated. It wasn't to get the \\$37 million and the yacht. THE COURT: I agree with you on that. MR. KINDSETH: Right. THE COURT: I'm not having a disagreement on that issue. MR. KINDSETH: Right. So the only question is -- THE COURT: I'm having -- all I'm asking you is -- I should stop. I don't -- I agree with you. I don't -- I believe and I agree that the stipulation was not that \\$37 million and the yacht -- MR. KINDSETH: So we will lock up the yacht. THE COURT: -- are being contributed by HK International. I agree with that. MR. KINDSETH: Right. THE COURT: Okay? MR. KINDSETH: Yeah. Thank you. THE COURT: So I agree. MR. KINDSETH: So I'd like to have a hearing on the repairs or where these issues, rather than at a status conference, can be fully vetted and Your Honor can decide them. THE COURT: I understand. And that's why we had a status conference because I want to understand what the parameters of your evidentiary hearing proposal is and\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 40 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 40 you've told me now. MR. KINDSETH: Thank you. THE COURT: So I appreciate that. Okay? So now -- and I've heard from -- I have to see if anyone else wishes to be heard. And then we'll talk about what we're going to do to schedule the evidentiary hearing on the reserve motion. Okay? MR. KINDSETH: Thank you. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard before we start scheduling the hearing? (No response) THE COURT: Okay. So I need to take a look at the calendar obviously, so you can, Attorney Kindseth, you can have a seat. It may take me minute or two to figure out some dates. And I heard people talk about dates that don't work for them, so let me see what works for the Court given that -- those parameters. (Pause) THE COURT: I'm looking at your dates again. (Pause) THE COURT: So you think you need an entire day? You couldn't start at noon? I'm just asking. Because I'm trying to fit in dates here. But with -- with the dates that you've described and others have described there's --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 41 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 41 we're going to the beginning of October. MR. KINDSETH: Because there's going to be three witnesses and argument, I really do believe it's probably going to be a full day. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. MR. KINDSETH: I mean, we could divide it up between two half days, Your Honor, if that works for your calendar. THE COURT: Hold on. Let me just continue to take a look here. (Pause) MR. KINDSETH: Just to be clear, Your Honor, I believe that PAX's counsel said that they can do the 10th to the 22nd. THE COURT: I understood. MR. KINDSETH: Okay. THE COURT: I understood that. MR. KINDSETH: Just clarifying. THE COURT: But there's problems from -- there's already other things scheduled too that we can't do those, some of those dates. And there aren't full days. There are different things scheduled. (Pause) MR. BIRNEY: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 42 MR. BIRNEY: I apologize. Patrick Birney on behalf of PAX. Just so the record is clear, Your Honor, PAX also wished to respond to -- THE COURT: Oh, yes. You're going to have a response date. MR. BIRNEY: Okay. Thank you. THE COURT: There's going to be a response date. I'm just going to work backwards just from the hearing date. It's not just PAX. It's anybody that wants to file a response. (Pause) THE COURT: The first full day that really works for everyone's schedule is Friday, October 7th. We can start at 10:00 a.m. And then parties will have until Friday, September 23rd to file a response. Also though any party that wishes to call witnesses and exhibits must file the witness and exhibit list on or before September -- 5:00 p.m. on September 28th. Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, if I just may make a comment about the scheduling? The U.S. Trustee may not be available on that October 7th date. I know that I will be out of the country. At this point in time, the U.S. Trustee did not\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 42 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 43 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>43                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | intend to take an active role in the dispute, but I just      |\n| 2  | want to make you aware that to the extent that that remains   |\n| 3  | the situation, we don't take an active role, there's a        |\n| 4  | possibility that someone may not be here.                     |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.<br>I appreciate that.       |\n| 6  | All right.<br>So with regard to the motion for an             |\n| 7  | order to establish the reserve, repair reserve, the           |\n| 8  | evidentiary hearing will be held on October 7 at 10:00 a.m.   |\n| 9  | Objections or responses to the motion must be filed on or     |\n| 10 | before September 23rd.<br>And any party who intends to call   |\n| 11 | witnesses and exhibits, and introduce exhibits, must file     |\n| 12 | the list of witnesses and exhibits at or before 5:00 p.m. on  |\n| 13 | September 28th.                                               |\n| 14 | And those exhibits need to be in PDF format.<br>And,          |\n| 15 | for example, Mr. Kindseth, your exhibits would be -- you      |\n| 16 | could just say HK or HK International, whatever you want to   |\n| 17 | do, with numbers, one.<br>And then PAX, again, I don't use    |\n| 18 | letters.<br>I use numbers.<br>So it would be PAX-1 through    |\n| 19 | whatever.<br>Chapter 11 Trustee, whatever, you know, numbers. |\n| 20 | Okay?                                                         |\n| 21 | But they need to be in PDF format and filed on the            |\n| 22 | docket as well.<br>If there's some reason that any party who  |\n| 23 | is proposing to introduce an exhibit thinks that that         |\n| 24 | exhibit should be filed under seal, then you file your        |\n| 25 | motion for under seal with that exhibit and the Court will    |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 44 review that prior to the hearing. Okay? So that takes care of the reserve motion hearing for this afternoon. Then we have the motion for stay pending appeal and the motion for an order providing that the privileges pass to the trustee upon appointment, which I think are related quite frankly. Although I know, Attorney Henzy, you may disagree with me on that insofar as you need to know whether you can get a stay pending appeal. And I understand that. I think that the ultimate issue that you're asking the Court to stay is the issue about the letter and what you have argued is a waiver of whatever privileges Mr. Kwok may have with regard to that letter and the privileges that attach to the action in London against UBS. Is that correct? MR. HENZY: Yes. Yes. The two are connected because of some of the arguments that are made. I would argue that they really don't connect and I can tell you why. But -- THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. HENZY: They don't connect because the order that you entered that we've appealed assumes that Mr. Kwok continues to own some privilege. The motion that the trustee has filed is a motion Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 44 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 45 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>45                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | for an order, I'll call it delineating what privilege passed |\n| 2  | to the trustee, and didn't pass to the trustee, but in -- I  |\n| 3  | would argue that that is irrelevant to our appeal because if |\n| 4  | Your Honor were to hold, which I think you'd -- I would      |\n| 5  | argue anyway you didn't hold in connection with the          |\n| 6  | corporate governance motion, that any and all privilege,     |\n| 7  | whether under U.S. law or under U.K. law, lock, stock and    |\n| 8  | barrel, that Mr. Kwok owned passed to the trustee upon his   |\n| 9  | appointment, then the relief that you granted in the         |\n| 10 | corporate governance order was unnecessary.                  |\n| 11 | Because what the corporate governance order -- and           |\n| 12 | I -- in the motion, Your Honor, I think I misstated or badly |\n| 13 | stated maybe the -- what the concern is.                     |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>The motion for stay pending appeal you         |\n| 15 | mean?                                                        |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:<br>Yeah.<br>Yeah.                                 |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Go ahead.                             |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:<br>Whether you call it a waiver, I think          |\n| 19 | the better way to put it here is there's a compelled         |\n| 20 | disclosure so this order directs Mr. Kwok to sign a letter   |\n| 21 | that tells his, I believe anyway, former lawyers in the      |\n| 22 | U.K., although I guess that's a little bit unclear, if he    |\n| 23 | doesn't own the claim anymore, which he doesn't, then I      |\n| 24 | don't know how -- I don't know how those lawyers could       |\n| 25 | represent him in that action.                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 46 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 46 And I guess analogous, Your Honor, is when a debtor files and has a personal injury action pending, that action is then owned by the Chapter 7 Trustee. And I know there are some state court decisions that say that it becomes the subject matter jurisdiction problem in the state court because that debtor/plaintiff in that PI action is now no longer the true party interest. So I don't know, but -- because I don't know U.K. law, it's possible that there's a similar principle under U.K. law. But I -- so either the U.K. lawyers are his former lawyers or they're still his lawyers depending on what U.K. law says. But this directs him to send his lawyers a letter that says you are to communicate with the trustee irrespective of any attorney/client privilege, work product privilege, or other privilege. So there is a compelled disclosure of privileged information. Again, if the trustee owns all the privilege, this order is -- wasn't necessary. It's -- the order is just irrelevant because the trustee owns the privilege so Mr. Kwok doesn't need to tell the lawyers anything about talking to the trustee or -- irrespective of any privilege because he owns the privilege. So I think that they connect. But, again, I think that they connect because the trustee has made the argument\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 47 that the order you entered is okay because he owns all the privilege. And, again, I think that's wrong because if that's true then he didn't -- he didn't need this, he didn't need this part of the order. So, again, I think they connect because the trustee makes this argument, but actually I don't -- I really don't think that they do connect. THE COURT: Okay. I'm not sure -- I think I follow what you're saying. I think what you're saying is with regard to your stay pending appeal, meaning that you want this court to stay the appeal of an order already entered which has a provision that requires -- I think you're only appealing the provision that requires the -- isn't that -- is that true? MR. HENZY: We're appealing two provisions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: But we've asked for a stay pending appeal on only one. THE COURT: Okay. On only -- on only the letter issue? MR. HENZY: That's correct. THE COURT: I mean, that's what I'm calling it for lack of a better term. MR. HENZY: That's correct. Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 47 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 48 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>48                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>The letter/privilege issue.<br>Okay.           |\n| 2  | MR. HENZY:<br>So for full -- we did file our                 |\n| 3  | designation and statement of issues. And in addition to this |\n| 4  | issue, this issue being what's in the motion for a stay      |\n| 5  | pending appeal we're --                                      |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.                                          |\n| 7  | MR. HENZY:<br>-- we are appealing the I guess I'll           |\n| 8  | call it the grant of corporate governance rights to the      |\n| 9  | trustee.<br>But, again, we have not sought a stay pending    |\n| 10 | appeal --                                                    |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:<br>-- on that issue.                              |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Have you been able to find       |\n| 14 | any -- I didn't see it, but maybe I missed it, have you been |\n| 15 | able to find any cases that talk -- that stay pending appeal |\n| 16 | and issues similar to this such as an individual privilege   |\n| 17 | issue as opposed to a corporate privilege issue?             |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:<br>Your Honor, I've -- I mean, I've made          |\n| 19 | the argument in the motion.<br>And courts, you know --       |\n| 20 | certainly a lot of the cases I've cited, you know, show      |\n| 21 | where courts have reversed --                                |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>And even in the bankruptcy context?<br>I       |\n| 23 | guess I should have asked that question.<br>I don't remember |\n| 24 | seeing them any -- and I'm not saying they have to be, I'm   |\n| 25 | just asking the question.                                    |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 49 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 49 MR. HENZY: Well, I don't -- and I guess my answer is I don't think they have to be. THE COURT: I understand. MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: But I still would like you to answer my question to make sure I didn't miss any. MR. HENZY: I have not -- I have not cited a specific case where the issue was, you know, a court compelled a party to disclose. No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I just want to make sure I didn't miss something in your papers, that's why I'm -- MR. HENZY: You didn't. You didn't. You did not miss that. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: No, Your Honor. No. THE COURT: All right. So you're asking under the factors that I have to weigh that whether a stay pending appeal should be granted. And you're saying that it should be granted because you meet all of the factors or just some of the factors? MR. HENZY: I believe we meet all of the factors, Your Honor. And, again, to be clear, the -- and to the extent that I misstated or was less than clear in the motion, the focus of the motion, focus of the appeal, is on the third\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 50 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 50 and fourth paragraphs of the letter. And generally what they do is they direct Mr. Kwok to sign a letter that would authorize the U.K. lawyers to have full and complete discussions with the trustee regardless of any attorney/client privilege, work product, or other privilege that belongs to him and would authorize the firm to turn over all memoranda, advice and other communications regarding the UBS litigation and any other information regarding the UBS litigation and give full access to the U.K. firm's files, to the parts of the file that he's entitled to anyway. The trustee's position, as I understand it, is that there really is no waiver. There was -- initially the word waiver was in the letter but that was -- that was changed, but it doesn't -- it doesn't fix the problem, because the debtor is being compelled to authorize disclosure of communications or documents regardless of any attorney/client privilege, work product, or other privilege which belongs to him. Again, the order and the letter assume that there is a privilege that belongs to the debtor. So I think to say that there's not a compelled disclosure or waiver or whatever phrase you want to use issue, I think is incorrect. There's a compelled disclosure issue whatever the words that\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nare being used.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 51 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 51 But I don't have a case that involves a stay pending appeal on a waiver issue like this. But, Your Honor, the general rule is that compelled disclosure of privileged attorney-client communications absent waiver of applicable exception is not permitted. I mean, it just isn't. By definition, the attorney-client privilege protects the privilege owner from compelled disclosure of privileged information. And there are -- I cite in my motion there are Supreme Court cases that say that. There are Second Circuit Court of Appeals cases that say that. The trustee also argues, and I think this was argued at the hearing, that it's because it's just the trustee that sees it it's not a problem. The idea is that if there's not a wider waiver that there's no issue. If it's just trustee's eyes on the documents, that's okay. But the -- again, cases I cited in the motion, the *Dow Corning* case, it's a Second Circuit case, the *Chase Manhattan Bank vs. Turner Newall* case, make clear that if an adverse party is provided access to privileged material, then a pertinent aspect of confidentiality is lost. So it's if anybody other than the debtor gets to see the privileged communications that is a compelled disclosure, that is a waiver of the privilege. There is no authority -- and, again, this came up\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 52 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 52 at the hearing and the way that the order is phrased is that this relief is granted under 521(a)(3) and/or 521(a)(4), the idea being that a court can compel a debtor to authorize a disclosure like this because the debtor is a debtor. There's nothing in the bankruptcy code or in case law that provides that an individual debtor automatically waives or must waive or must agree to a compelled disclosure just because they're a debtor. The only case I could find, Your Honor, it's cited in the motion, says to the contrary. It's *Coyle v. Coyle*. It's a bankruptcy subject of District of Illinois case from 2015 that flat out says that a debtor's duty to cooperate with a trustee does not specifically require a debtor to waive a privilege. Your Honor, that point that a debtor is not -- can't be compelled under 521(a)(3) to have privileged information disclosed, that has to be the rule I think. If it weren't the rule, then the Supreme Court's decision in *Commodity Futures* Trading Commission vs. Weintraub and all of the cases that Mr. Despins is going to argue on the privilege passing or not passing to a trustee become nonsensical, because you wouldn't -- you wouldn't need to think about whether a privilege is passed because under 521(a)(3) a debtor can just be made to give a waiver or to agree to a compelled disclosure. That just doesn't --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 53 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 53 that just does not make any sense. Again, Your Honor, at the hearing on August 4th, it was argued, and Mr. Despins argues again in his objection to the motion for stay, that the trustee has stepped into the shoes of the debtor. And you're going to hear more about that on the motion, the privilege motion, but the order assumes the debtor still owns the privilege. I'll say it again. If he does not, then the relief granted by paragraph 3(b) of the order is unnecessary. At the very least, Your Honor, because there is not any broad based exception like a testamentary exception, like a crime fraud exception, merely because the debtor is a debtor, the cases are clear that if the Court is going to order a disclosure, it can only do so after a review of relevant documents. And, again, I cite the Second Circuit cases that find that it is error for a court to order disclosure of information without doing a, if necessary, a document-by- document review. And, Your Honor, I point to the things that you said in the hearing on 2004 motion, that is, that the process is that a subpoena is served or another document request is served and people then have an obligation to produce documents or to seek protection from a court.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 54 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 54 But it's not appropriate for a court to say I'm going to order production here without people having the ability or the right to challenge with respect to specific documents. And I will -- I said this at the August 4 hearing on this, Your Honor, and I've said it multiple other times to the trustee, what should be happening here is that this should be getting done the right way. We should be working with U.K. counsel to figure out what documents U.K. counsel has, what documents there is no issue with respect to, and my guess is that there are documents that there's no issue with respect to. Certainly case file documents, documents that have been filed with the Court over there. And the trustee has just -- has chosen not to do that. There is a -- according to U.K. counsel, the trustee, notwithstanding what the bankruptcy rules and the Bankruptcy Code say, is not yet a party to that action. The trustee has to take steps to make himself a party. Right now the trustee is not a party in that action. The party -- the trustee is not represented in that action. I think what has to happen is he needs to take whatever steps that he needs to take to make himself a party to the action and he needs to work with Mr. Kwok's I believe it's former counsel and Mr. Kwok's counsel here to narrow\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 55 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>55                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | the issues, do the things that you typically do when you're  |\n| 2  | talking about production of privileged information.          |\n| 3  | So, again, Your Honor, the cases are I think clear           |\n| 4  | that you cannot order a blanket waiver, which essentially is |\n| 5  | what this does, including bankruptcy cases.<br>And this is a |\n| 6  | case that we cite in our objection to the privilege motion.  |\n| 7  | It's In re: Foster, 188 F.3d. at 1259.                       |\n| 8  | It's a Tenth Circuit case from 1999 that just says           |\n| 9  | a court can only resolve privilege disputes with a specific  |\n| 10 | -- are based on a review of specific facts and documents if  |\n| 11 | necessary.                                                   |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>So are you saying that Mr. Kwok should         |\n| 13 | produce all the documents in London from his lawyers to me   |\n| 14 | and I should review them and determine whether or not        |\n| 15 | there's a privilege?                                         |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:<br>No.<br>Actually, I'm not sure.<br>Again,       |\n| 17 | it is a little unclear, Your Honor, what --                  |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Well, I understand it's unclear, but           |\n| 19 | you're making an argument there has to be some other way to  |\n| 20 | do it.<br>Well, then, what other way is there to do it?      |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:<br>My argument is that Mr. Despins has to         |\n| 22 | go to the U.K. and he's got to sort it out.                  |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>And do what?<br>Where do you have              |\n| 24 | authority that says that?                                    |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:<br>My authority that says that, Your              |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 56 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>56                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Honor, is that there are cases, and I cite them in the        |\n| 2  | motion, that make clear that --                               |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>In the motion for stay pending appeal?          |\n| 4  | MR. HENZY:<br>Yes.                                            |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Or the objection?                               |\n| 6  | MR. HENZY:<br>In the motion for stay pending appeal.          |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Go ahead.<br>Okay.                     |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>And they make clear that it's the law           |\n| 9  | of the predominant or compelling interest that governs        |\n| 10 | privilege issues.                                             |\n| 11 | And I suppose, Your Honor, that you could -- we               |\n| 12 | could try to put before you what we think the privilege law   |\n| 13 | -- so I think it's the U.K. law that governs privilege        |\n| 14 | issues here.                                                  |\n| 15 | It governs what attorney/client privilege, if any,            |\n| 16 | Mr. Kwok continues to own, what work product privilege is     |\n| 17 | there.<br>I understand there is a work product privilege      |\n| 18 | there.<br>It absolutely is U.K. law that governs that.<br>And |\n| 19 | the -- again, I think the cases I cite in the motion are      |\n| 20 | very clear on that.                                           |\n| 21 | I suppose in theory we could try to put before you            |\n| 22 | what the U.K. law on privilege is and ask you to resolve any  |\n| 23 | disputes over specific documents.<br>I think that that is --  |\n| 24 | not that you couldn't do that, Your Honor, I know that you    |\n| 25 | could, I think that would be very impractical.                |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 57 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 57 I think what has to happen here is that Mr. Despins needs to make himself a party to that action in the U.K. and he needs to sort through getting whatever information he needs in the action in the U.K. This order, Your Honor, has set off a I think a unique I'll call it dynamic. There's a lawsuit pending in the U.K. that's governed by U.K. law. It's in front of a U.K. court. And someone who today is a stranger, according to U.K. counsel, to that action -- Mr. Despins has not made himself a party -- is going to show up and tell a lawyer involved in that action you have to give me documents that are subject to potentially various privileges. And I'm trying to imagine, Your Honor, you know, a trustee from a U.K. bankruptcy shows up here where a party to an action is involved and says I'm now going to demand that I get to see documents even though that may be inconsistent with U.S. law on privilege and I may not even be a party to the action here. I don't -- that would be I think unique. That's a unique and extraordinary dynamic I think. So there are cases, Your Honor, they're cited in the motion, that say it's the U.K. law that would govern the privilege here. Again, I think you could decide that. I think it would be better to have it decided by the court\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 58 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 58 where the action is pending. I don't think it's a good idea for you to be deciding privilege issues that might prejudice rights of parties or change rights of parties in a litigation that's pending in the U.K. Again, not to say you couldn't, but I don't think that that would be an optimal result. Again, there's a UBS action. It's a legal proceeding in the U.K. pending before a U.K. judge governed by U.K. law and U.K. law governs the privilege issues. Your Honor, so I -- my argument is that on the likelihood of success I think I have a high likelihood of success because this is a compelled disclosure of privileged information. Again, the assumption is that there is privileged information. If there is no privileged information, then the order is unnecessary. And I think the law is clear that you cannot compel disclosure absent an applicable exception or a waiver and there's been no claim here at all that there's any waiver by Mr. Kwok. On irreparable harm, Your Honor, there are cases, I cite them in the motion, that courts have held -- where courts have held that the forced disclosure of privileged material may bring about irreparable harm. It may -- it may not, but courts have held that it may bring about\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 59 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 59 irreparable harm. As Your Honor knows, the four factors, it's kind of a sliding scale, if one factor is particularly strong, other factors can be less strong, I think our likelihood of success is very strong based on the clear language of the U.S. Supreme Court and Second Circuit decisions. But courts have held that a compelled disclosure of privileged information may cause irreparable harm. Here, the Court is compelling the debtor to make, again, a blanket waiver in the sense that there's a compelled disclosure without any consideration of specific documents of any privilege that he continues to own in connection with the UBS action. And he's, therefore, being deprived of rights to assert privileges. On substantial injury, Your Honor, and, again, I cite in the motion cases that say that where a party is saying I need to investigate and this is going to slow me down if I don't get this privileged information that that constitutes -- that that does not constitute substantial injury. In fact, Your Honor, I think, and I didn't cite this in the motion, but the *Swidler & Berlin vs. United States* case, is at 524 U.S. 399, states balancing ex-post the importance of the information against interests introduces substantial uncertainty into the privileges\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 60 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>60                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | application.<br>For just that reason, we have rejected use of  |\n| 2  | a balancing test in defining contours of the privilege.        |\n| 3  | And what the Supreme Court did there was reject                |\n| 4  | the Government's argument that it really, really needed the    |\n| 5  | information in question and that, therefore, the Supreme       |\n| 6  | Court should extend the reach of an exception, of the          |\n| 7  | testamentary exception, to the privilege.<br>That case -- and  |\n| 8  | you'll hear more about these cases I think on the privilege    |\n| 9  | motion.                                                        |\n| 10 | There's a -- there is a bankruptcy case, the In re             |\n| 11 | Ginsburg case, at 517 B.R. 175, which is cited in our          |\n| 12 | objection to the privilege motion.<br>I did not cite it in the |\n| 13 | motion for stay.                                               |\n| 14 | But it states following the Swidler & Berlin case,             |\n| 15 | so the Supreme Court case, while the need for a bankruptcy     |\n| 16 | trustee to marshal assets and properly investigate the         |\n| 17 | affairs of a debtor provide a strong basis for the balancing   |\n| 18 | test, here the Supreme Court has clearly prohibited such a     |\n| 19 | one more exception approach.                                   |\n| 20 | So I think the cases say that the trustees need to             |\n| 21 | do an investigation, and I cite other cases in the motion,     |\n| 22 | does not militate against a stay where the privilege is at     |\n| 23 | issue.                                                         |\n| 24 | Your Honor, there are I think many cases, and I                |\n| 25 | cite cases in the motion, that say on the fourth factor, the   |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 61 public interest factor, that where the privilege is at issue that protecting the attorney-client privilege does militate in favor of a stay. And, again, there, I cite the cases, but including the *Upjohn* Supreme Court case that emphasizes how critical to our system it is that the stay is protected. And then again, the *Swidler & Berlin* case, which I talked about earlier, it's same thing. There's a strong public policy in favor of protecting the privilege. One point, and I think I'm reiterating a little bit, Your Honor, but in response to something the trustee put in his objection, there's the argument that by asserting his rights the debtor is creating problems in the U.K. action. And I think we can agree to this is that U.K. counsel has reached out to me and to the trustee asking for our consent or authority, although I don't think the debtor has any authority at this point, to ask for an adjournment on an appeal that is -- has been made in connection with that litigation. And the reason is that things still haven't been sorted out as to exactly who has what status over there. And in particular what -- what the status is going to be with privilege. So that is -- there's no dispute that that is happening.\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 61 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 62 And now, the U.K. counsel doesn't -- is not making it sound like it's a crisis that an adjournment would get asked for. I think that from her perspective there might be a crisis if she can't get an answer from I would argue in particular the trustee on is an adjournment okay, but I don't think the fact that she's -- an adjournment is being asked for itself is a -- is a crisis. To argue that that is the debtor's fault, the trustee essentially is manufacturing that argument. What has to happen here, according to U.K. counsel, is the trustee has to go over there and make himself a party to the action. He needs to retain counsel, whether it's the existing law firm, assuming that they want to be retained by him, or is a different law firm and he needs to sort out what is happening in that action over there. He is entitled to be, as I understand it, a party in that action under U.K. law, but there are steps he needs to take and to try to get at information or get at at what's going on there. By the way he's done it through this court is -- it really is trying -- I think a big problem here is it's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. So, Your Honor, with that, unless you have any Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 62 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 63 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 63 questions, that's all I have. THE COURT: The only thing -- you mentioned when you were talking you were appealing the third and fourth paragraphs of the letter, but your motion says that you want to stay only with regard to paragraph 3(b). MR. HENZY: So, Your Honor, so paragraph 3(b) is of the -- I'm sorry, thank you, Your Honor, for asking that because I want to be clear. So paragraph 3(b) of the order is what we're appealing, but that implicates I guess I'll call it that because it pulls in the third and fourth paragraphs of the letter that's attached to the order. THE COURT: Okay. I understand. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I just wanted to make -- I wasn't sure if that was correct and -- okay. MR. HENZY: Thank you. Because I think I probably was not clear. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Despins? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. For the record, Luc Despins, trustee in the case. What was clear from this discussion is that the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 64 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>64                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | two issues are closely intertwined and I would urge the        |\n| 2  | Court not to rule on this motion until you also hear and       |\n| 3  | decide the other motion, which my colleague, my partner, Mr.   |\n| 4  | Bassett, will argue on the issue of who has the privilege,     |\n| 5  | who controls the privilege.                                    |\n| 6  | But just to address this aspect of the issue                   |\n| 7  | because it's all related, because it goes to the issue of      |\n| 8  | under U.S. law did the trustee get control of the privilege,   |\n| 9  | that's the argument, that's the issue that Mr. Bassett will    |\n| 10 | argue.                                                         |\n| 11 | But what happened -- and the genesis of the                    |\n| 12 | letter, is because counsel in the U.K. said, well, we have     |\n| 13 | our own recent, semi-recent, case in the U.K. called           |\n| 14 | Avonwick or Avonwick and that's attached to their motion to    |\n| 15 | stay pending appeal.                                           |\n| 16 | And I understand that generally we try to shy away             |\n| 17 | from interpreting foreign law, although U.S. courts do it      |\n| 18 | all the time, but in this case, it's a pretty                  |\n| 19 | straightforward decision written in English.                   |\n| 20 | And basically what that says is that -- what                   |\n| 21 | happened there is this, the trustee got access to the          |\n| 22 | privilege.<br>Because under -- before that decision, there was |\n| 23 | a full waiver in favor of the trustee.<br>That decision dials  |\n| 24 | that back.<br>So the trustee had full access.                  |\n| 25 | And what he did, it would be the equivalent of                 |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 65 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 65 myself passing on to Mr. Sarnoff the privileged information so he can sue Mr. Kwok personally. That's what happened in that case. And the Court said, no, you can't do that. But there's nothing in that decision that says that the trustee cannot have access -- they refer to sight of -- basically access to all the privileged information and to use it in doing what he has to do, which is to evaluate the claims or other things. There's nothing in the decision about that. It's all about this waiver that the trustee did to give to the equivalent of PAX in this case. And of course, there's no discussion of us, not even a suggestion, that we would do this here. I've repeated this before and I'll repeat it again, the sole purpose here is to review the merits of those claims so that I can make a determination as to whether I want to participate in this. And what's happening with U.K. counsel and that kind of -- I hesitate to call it a Kabuki dance with Mr. Henzy, U.K. counsel and all that, it's very clear that they're trying to push me in a certain direction, which is you need to be a party to that action tomorrow. And of course, if I do that, I become liable or the estate becomes liable for fees because it loser pays. And we're talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 66 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 66 So, you know, \\$200,000 easily involved here. Well, I'm not going to become a party to the action before I see what's behind the curtain. And what's behind the curtain is what's the advice? Is this a slam- dunk claim? Is this a roll the dice kind of claim? I need to know that before I do that. And that's why this whole thing is really a problem because the debtor controls the other plaintiff called Ace Decade. That's controlled by the debtor. Actually in the complaint in the U.K. they say that Mr. Kwok acquired that company. So he would like this litigation to go forward and for the benefit of Ace Decade as well on my watch. And my point is I may be interested in that, but I need to see what's behind the curtain first. It would be irresponsible of us to do otherwise. So what's happening here also is that there's no harm to the debtor. Why? Because we only want to see documents relating to the merits of the litigation. That's a claim that he brought against UBS saying they gave me bad advice or they misrepresented things. I don't know if that's true or not, but the point is I need to be able to see what their counsel said about that. And from their point of view, what's the harm? There's no criminal -- there's no -- this is not a claim\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 67 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 67 involving him hiding assets. He says I was badly advised or there were misrepresentations made to me, Mr. Kwok, by UBS. So there's no harm. So when you look at balancing, what Mr. Bassett will talk to you about, the balancing exercise here, you know, this is not like the issue of a rape or forcible confinement that the debtor is accused of. It has nothing to do with that. This is a garden variety, misrepresentation claim. And the downside to the debtor, as long as I do not waive the privilege -- and that's why the letter was very specific, I do not authorize you, trustee, to waive the privilege. It says that in here. That's why U.K. counsel drafted that language. And that is why -- and also we intend to abide by that. We do not want to waive the privilege without a further court order. And there may never be another court order. So that's very important to understand that. I would urge the Court to look at the *Avonwick* decision. Again, the consent of the debtor was nowhere required in there to have access to privileged information. The evil in that case was the use by the trustee to help another party, a creditor, sue the debtor for -- based on the privileged information received. And that's what the Court said you cannot do.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 68 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 68 There's no blanket waiver. First of all, there's no waiver and there's no blanket. What I mean by no blanket. The issue is limited, again, to the merits of that claim. That's the only issue that I want access to. And also whether they -- and that goes without saying -- whether they receive any settlements, whether they made any settlements. That is something I should have right now because that's not privileged information. And if UBS made an offer to settle this, I do not understand under what theory that is being withheld from us because that's not privileged. I mean, in a sense it's privileged in a sense that that offer, if it was ever made, cannot be used in court. Of course, we all know that, 408, but that's not what we're talking about. How is that personal to the debtor in any way? That's an offer made by a third party or vice versa. If they made an offer of settlement to UBS, I should have full access to that. And that's what this letter does. That's very important as well. And so, Your Honor, again, I would urge you from a process point of view to air out the other issues relating to the privilege that Mr. Bassett will address because it's all related at the end of the day. And for these reasons, Your Honor, we think that\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 69 the stay pending appeal should be denied. The other point on the stay pending appeal is we have not sought to hold the debtor in contempt at this point. So in terms of the harm to the debtor, what is the harm today? You know, they have a decision they don't like. There's a letter they're not writing. They're not signing that letter, right? That's what they said. That's what Mr. Henzy said several times at the August 4th hearing. So the stay pending appeal is kind of a sideshow until we decide to seek contempt. At that point, then there's an issue that he doesn't have today. But today, there's no contempt proceedings pending against the debtor with respect to the failure to sign this letter and send this letter. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Goldman? MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, just a few brief points. We joined in the trustee's objection to the stay pending appeal. On behalf of the committee, Irve Goldman. On the element of irreparable harm, the debtor has identified no communication which the trustee would be receiving by virtue of Your Honor's order that would result Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 69 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 70 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 70 in any harm to the debtor, let alone irreparable harm. And for irreparable harm, as we know, the alleged harm can't be remote or speculative. And that really is what they are trying to satisfy the settlement with, that the general notion that compelled disclosure on attorney- client privilege constitutes irreparable harm. I think they need to be more specific as to what harm actually would befall the debtor if that letter were signed. And on the element of public interest, I don't believe any case Attorney Henzy cited on the importance in terms of the public interest of the attorney/client privilege was in the context of a bankruptcy case where the trustee was looking to get information to determine what to do with a significant asset of the estate, which is what we have here, the cause of action in that context. There is an equally compelling public interest of not interfering with the trustee's expeditious handling and administration of property of the estate. And that's -- that interference would occur if the stay pending appeal were granted. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: That's all I have. THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Henzy?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 71 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 71 MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. On Mr. Despins' first point, again, Your Honor certainly can read the *Avonwick* decision. I actually attached it to the motion. That decision was provided to Mr. Despins and me by U.K. counsel to point out, to support her statement to Mr. Despins that without a knowing and voluntary waiver or agreement from Mr. Kwok, that under U.K. law, and that's -- that is the case that she gave us, she was not going to give him any privileged information. So I can read the *Avonwick* decision. Mr. Despins can read it. And you can read it, Your Honor. And back to my point is I'm not sure that the people in this courtroom are the right people to sort out what the law of privilege is in the U.K. My understanding of that decision is, again, there it was a couple of issues. One, did the trustee step into the shoes of the debtor there for privilege purposes? But, again, U.K. counsel has made clear that without a knowing and voluntary waiver, supported by that decision, she's not -- she's not producing anything. You know, in terms of Mr. Despins' point about the Kabuki dance with U.K. counsel, just so that the Court's clear, the debtor is in a difficult position here because under the Bankruptcy Code and bankruptcy rules he doesn't\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 72 own that claim anymore. And he's been criticized for lots and lots of things, so he doesn't want to be criticized for purporting to give instruction or advice or anything to the U.K. counsel when he's no longer a party in that -- in that action. So to the extent that anything that I'm communicating that Mr. Despins is seeing that sounds like a Kabuki dance, I'm not trying to be tricky or anything like that. I've said to Mr. Despins we want to cooperate with him as long as it's not involving a waiver of a right of the debtor to -- in any way that he needs so that he can do what he needs to do there. As Your Honor has said, I took the debtor as he came. The Court took the debtor as he came. Mr. Despins takes the debtor as he came. He's a plaintiff in an action in the U.K. And there may be difficulties with that. There may be inconveniences with that. There may be risks with that. But that's what it is. It's an asset of the estate and the trustee has to administer it the best way that he can. We may not -- we may not like it or think it's a good idea, but the U.K. law provides, for example, that loser pays. But that's what it is. He's got to -- he's got Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 72 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 73 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 73 to deal with that. Again, the answer is the trustee should be working with U.K. counsel and debtor's counsel to see what are the documents that are going to be a problem here, what can be worked through to make this work and the trustee has chosen not to do that. The trustee has chosen to get this order that really just bulldozes the situation I think unnecessarily. On Mr. Despins' no harm to the debtor point, the Supreme Court just rejected that as a basis for extending or for waiving or creating an exception to the privilege in the *Swidler & Berlin* case. That is -- that's exactly what was at issue. The Government was saying you should extend the testamentary privilege. Again, Your Honor, that's *Swidler & Berlin vs. United States*, 524 U.S. 399. I did not cite it in the motion. It is cited in -- it's cited in our objection to the privilege motion. Again, that argument was made by the Government. There's no harm. Your Honor, this is -- I don't want to sound crude, but essentially the argument there was that the person who had the privilege was dead. It was -- it was the Vince Foster situation. And the Supreme Court -- so how could there be any harm to him by having the privilege waived? And the Supreme Court\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 74 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 74 rejected that. THE COURT: But waived how, Attorney Henzy? As to whom? A party that could bring an action against him? MR. HENZY: In that case, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: It was actually -- THE COURT: I haven't read it obviously. MR. HENZY: Actually, Your Honor, it was a criminal investigation and the government was taking the position -- what had happened was that prior to his passing, Mr. Foster had gone and met with a lawyer and the lawyer had taken three pages of notes. And Mr. Foster died. And the Government, in connection with the criminal investigation, wanted the notes from the lawyer to see what it was that -- THE COURT: But who was the criminal investigation going to be brought against? MR. HENZY: Not against Mr. Foster. THE COURT: Right. Right. MR. HENZY: Right. THE COURT: So it's not -- it's not the same thing. I mean, see, I think the issue that I'm having is I understand all -- I at least have an understanding. I haven't read the case. But I have an understanding of your -- understanding of your argument, but your argument is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 75 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 75 presupposing or relying on cases where the privilege, if waived, would be used against the party to -- for some other party to bring a cause of action against them or somehow incriminate them in a process that would be detrimental to them. What Mr. Despins is seeking to do, at least so far, and I'm going to listen to everyone, is that he -- your client, as you said, we all take your client as we find him, filed this case and said that this action is an asset of his estate. And you just confirmed that. You confirmed that it's an asset of this case. MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: Mr. Despins was appointed as the Chapter 11 Trustee. You now just said that your client isn't the plaintiff anymore, but maybe is. And if he's not the plaintiff, then what happens to the cause of action? The only party that can step into your client's shoes is Mr. Despins by order of this court and by your client voluntarily consenting to the jurisdiction of this court. If Mr. Despins -- if what I take Mr. Despins to say is correct, that all he's asking for is to see what the merits or the claim are to determine whether or not the estate is going to continue to prosecute that claim, then I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 76 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>76                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | don't know that the cases that you cited are on point with    |\n| 2  | regard to the privilege.                                      |\n| 3  | Because what you're -- what the cases you're                  |\n| 4  | talking about talk about, the one other bankruptcy case that  |\n| 5  | you cited, was about turning over the billing records of a    |\n| 6  | law firm to other parties to see -- to other parties that     |\n| 7  | would be adverse to the debtor and the law firm to see what   |\n| 8  | the law firm and the debtor talked about to -- in             |\n| 9  | determining causes of action.<br>That's when parties are      |\n| 10 | adverse.<br>Correct?                                          |\n| 11 | Mr. Despins, as the Chapter 11 Trustee, isn't                 |\n| 12 | adverse to your client in connection with this lawsuit in     |\n| 13 | the United Kingdom.<br>He is -- he is your client.<br>He has  |\n| 14 | become your client.                                           |\n| 15 | So how is it -- how is it that -- that the                    |\n| 16 | privilege -- on the one hand you say, yeah, we can't do       |\n| 17 | anything because we're not -- we're not the plaintiff         |\n| 18 | anymore.                                                      |\n| 19 | But Mr. Despins can't do anything either because              |\n| 20 | we're not going to let him do that.<br>We're going to say we  |\n| 21 | have a privilege and you can't exercise that privilege.       |\n| 22 | That's what you're saying.<br>And I understand.               |\n| 23 | I don't see that there's any case law that is                 |\n| 24 | clear on this issue, unfortunately, from what I've seen so    |\n| 25 | far.<br>Okay?<br>From what I've seen so far.<br>I think it is |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 77 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 77 clear on the corporate side. It's maybe not clear on the -- apparently not clear on the individual side. But the problem that it seems to be at least from my perspective at this point is the cases that you're relying on, which absolutely say what you say they say, are in the context of using that privileged information against the person who has the privilege. Mr. Despins is seeking the information to determine whether, which ultimately should help your client, if this is an asset of the estate that could bring money into the estate to pay creditors. Because that's what your client said that he wanted to do when he came to this court. So that's where I'm having an issue and I'm struggling with your argument is because ultimately the determination -- you've just said you can't -- your client can't prosecute the case, right? Okay. So if your client can't prosecute the case, and your client says it's an asset of the estate, and you've told me, you told me last hearing, understandably we were having a conversation about the solvency and the standing of the debtor to raise all these issues, you said, oh, but it's a \\$500 million claim, Judge. And I said, well, that's interesting. MR. HENZY: Well, I don't know it's a -- I don't know anything about it.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 78 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 78 THE COURT: Well, you did. You said it's a \\$500 million claim. MR. HENZY: There's been -- that's what's been asserted. Yes. THE COURT: Right. That's what you said. MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: I mean, that's fine. MR. HENZY: Yeah. I don't -- THE COURT: It's a \\$500 million claim. And your point was that this might make this debtor solvent. And I said, well, I'm not sure about that because PAX's claim is 240 million. And if there's two other defendants that you have to split the claim with, I'm not sure your client's solvent. But beyond all that, Mr. Despins has to make -- you can't prosecute -- your client can't prosecute the case. But your client says it's an asset of the case. So we're in a catch 22. That doesn't work. It's going to -- that's got to be broken somehow. And how it has to be broken is Mr. Despins has to be able to figure out whether or not the estate for the benefit of the creditors that your client said that he came to this court to address and deal with, whether they should prosecute that action to determine whether there's money that can be brought in this estate.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 79 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>79                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | And how can they do that if you are saying -- if               |\n| 2  | your client is saying I'm never going to allow Mr. Despins     |\n| 3  | to look at the documents that the attorneys I hired have.      |\n| 4  | MR. HENZY:<br>I'm not saying that.                             |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Then what are you saying?               |\n| 6  | MR. HENZY:<br>I'm saying that he -- in fact,                   |\n| 7  | probably, I don't know, a month ago or more, I sent an email   |\n| 8  | to the lawyer in the U.K. saying Mr. Kwok doesn't own this     |\n| 9  | anymore.<br>You should -- you need to talk to Mr. Despins.     |\n| 10 | And I'm not saying, Mr. Kwok is not saying --                  |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>So then -- but you're saying -- you're           |\n| 12 | appealing an order that would -- that would require your       |\n| 13 | client to sign a letter that says I'm not waiving my           |\n| 14 | privilege, but let Mr. Despins talk to you about the case.     |\n| 15 | That's what you're appealing.                                  |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:<br>Sure.<br>But what it -- but that -- but          |\n| 17 | that's not what the letter says.                               |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>That's a disagreement as to what your            |\n| 19 | interpretation of the letter is.<br>That's not a legal issue.  |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:<br>Well --                                          |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>You're making a legal argument on a              |\n| 22 | factual issue.<br>You're saying -- and that's fine.<br>I won't |\n| 23 | --                                                             |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:<br>Can I read the -- can I read it, Your            |\n| 25 | Honor?                                                         |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 80 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 80 THE COURT: Sure. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: We can pull it up and everybody can read it. And remember there's some issue about what version is actually sent, so I've got to know which version are you looking at? MR. HENZY: I'm looking at the -- THE COURT: Are you looking at the one that's attached to the order? MR. HENZY: I'm looking at the version that's attached to the order. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: What's the order's ECF number? MR. HENZY: It's 717. THE COURT: 717. Can we pull up 717 please so we can all look at it at the same time. It will take a minute. But I think it's helpful. I want to make sure I'm understanding everything everyone is saying in regard to these arguments. (Pause) THE COURT: Is it a -- what page number is it, Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: So it's 717, and it's the exhibit, so it's page 23 of 24.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 81 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>81                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>23 of 24.<br>Okay.<br>So this is the --          |\n| 2  | all right.<br>So can we scroll down a little bit.              |\n| 3  | So it's starting with in furtherance, right,                   |\n| 4  | Attorney Henzy?<br>Is that the --                              |\n| 5  | MR. HENZY:<br>Yes.                                             |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                            |\n| 7  | MR. HENZY:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                                 |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>So that paragraph, we're going to look           |\n| 9  | at that.                                                       |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:<br>Yes.                                             |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>So tell me what -- where it says that            |\n| 12 | he's waiving the privilege in that paragraph.                  |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.<br>So it says I expressly                  |\n| 14 | authorize you to have full and complete discussions on my      |\n| 15 | behalf with Mr. Despins regarding the UBS litigation -- may    |\n| 16 | use a couple of tweaks, I'd actually be okay with that --      |\n| 17 | the merits thereof, any related settlement discussions on      |\n| 18 | any other topics related to the prosecution of the UBS         |\n| 19 | litigation and to take instructions from him.                  |\n| 20 | Actually, I'm not sure that that is -- I don't                 |\n| 21 | think that is okay because I'm not sure that at this point     |\n| 22 | Mr. Kwok can tell the lawyer what to do.<br>And I'm also not   |\n| 23 | sure that that lawyer has to take instruction from Mr.         |\n| 24 | Despins.<br>The lawyer could say I don't want to represent Mr. |\n| 25 | Despins.<br>And then he doesn't have to take -- doesn't have   |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 82 to take any instruction at all -- in relation to my claim in the UBS litigation. Because, again, to be clear, Your Honor, that -- Mr. Despins hasn't hired that lawyer so I don't know how Mr. Despins can give that lawyer instruction. But in the UBS litigation -- THE COURT: He isn't giving him instruction. MR. HENZY: Well, but this lawyer -- THE COURT: No. No. The letter says I hereby authorize you, meaning the U.K. lawyers, to have full and complete discussions and to take instructions from him. It's directed to the U.K. lawyers. It's not -- MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: But that's not -- MR. HENZY: So, don't -- but again, look it, this isn't -- I'm not appealing this okay, because if I'm -- THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm asking you where does it say he's waiving -- MR. HENZY: Yeah. Okay. Okay. THE COURT: You just said it's a complete waiver. MR. HENZY: And then it's -- it's regardless of any attorney/client privilege, work product or other privilege which belongs to me. Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 82 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 83 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 83 THE COURT: Right. MR. HENZY: So I'm instructing you to tell him everything regardless of any -- THE COURT: No. I'm not instructing you. You're authorized to do this. MR. HENZY: So I'm -- THE COURT: You're authorizing. MR. HENZY: Okay. So I'm authorizing -- THE COURT: You're authorizing. Your client's the only one with the contractual relationship with the lawyers right now, correct? MR. HENZY: Well, I'm not sure. Again, I'm not sure there is a contractual relationship anymore, but. THE COURT: Well, why wouldn't there be? He had to hire them, right? So where's the retention letter? MR. HENZY: He's not a party to the action anymore. But, again, that -- THE COURT: But that's not my question. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: Where's the retention letter? You're telling me he didn't have an agreement with these lawyers -- MR. HENZY: I'm sure he -- THE COURT: -- to represent him? THE COURT: I'm sure he did, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So where's the retention\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 84 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 84 letter? MR. HENZY: I don't know, Your Honor, where the retention letter is. THE COURT: Well, but, you may have to find that. MR. HENZY: I don't think I do. I don't think -- I don't think -- THE COURT: Why? MR. HENZY: I don't think that that is the point, Your Honor. This -- and you -- I understand you disagree with this, I think, okay, that that last clause, regardless of any attorney-client privilege, work product or other privilege which belongs to me, okay, that is the problem. Okay. This is -- this is -- you know, you're practicing law and a third party -- and you get a letter from your client that says I authorize you to speak to a third party -- THE COURT: He's not a third party. MR. HENZY: He is -- well -- THE COURT: He's not a third party. MR. HENZY: Well, to the lawyer in the U.K. he's a third party. THE COURT: Well, the lawyer in the U.K. will understand that he's not. He's not a third party. MR. HENZY: I don't know -- THE COURT: He's your client now.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 85 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>85                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. HENZY:<br>No.                                              |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>He is your client.                               |\n| 3  | MR. HENZY:<br>No.                                              |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Yeah, he is.                                     |\n| 5  | MR. HENZY:<br>No.<br>He's --                                   |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>He is.                                           |\n| 7  | MR. HENZY:<br>He's not a party to that action and              |\n| 8  | he's not represented by the U.K. lawyer.<br>Those two things   |\n| 9  | -- I don't think Mr. Despins would say that those two things   |\n| 10 | are.<br>I don't think anyway.<br>I don't think he would say -- |\n| 11 | he just told you he's not a party to the action and he         |\n| 12 | doesn't want to be a party to the action until --<br>because   |\n| 13 | he's concerned about loser pays.<br>So he -- I think he agrees |\n| 14 | he's not a party to that action.                               |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>I didn't say he was a party to his               |\n| 16 | action.<br>I said he's your client.<br>You just said your      |\n| 17 | client's not a party to the action anymore.                    |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:<br>No.<br>Mr. Kwok is my client.                    |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.                                            |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:<br>Yeah.                                            |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>And he's not a party to the action               |\n| 22 | anymore.<br>That's what you just said.                         |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:<br>I think --                                       |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>So Mr. Despins isn't a party either.             |\n| 25 | He's just your client.                                         |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 86 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 86 MR. HENZY: Mr. Despins -- THE COURT: He's not a party to the action anymore. MR. HENZY: Mr. Despins is not my client. THE COURT: No. You said in our argument that your client isn't a party to the action anymore. You sent an email to the U.K. lawyers saying I don't own this anymore. MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: I'm not a party to the action anymore. MR. HENZY: Right. THE COURT: Right? MR. HENZY: Right. THE COURT: And I said, okay, that's fine. But Mr. Despins is your client. He doesn't have to be a party to the action right now. He has -- but he has the right to find out this information. Because otherwise you say you're not trying to insert roadblocks, but that's exactly what you're doing. MR. HENZY: No. He -- THE COURT: You're stopping the trustee from finding out about the merits of a claim of a cause of action that your client listed as an asset of this estate. MR. HENZY: Well, he -- we're really not. THE COURT: Okay.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 87 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>87                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. HENZY:<br>I think there's a lot he can find out           |\n| 2  | probably about the action without --                          |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>From whom?                                      |\n| 4  | MR. HENZY:<br>-- without -- from this U.K. lawyer,            |\n| 5  | but without violating Mr. Kwok's privilege rights under U.K.  |\n| 6  | law.<br>There's pleadings that have been filed in the case.   |\n| 7  | I've never said, Mr. Kwok has never said you can't            |\n| 8  | talk to this U.K. lawyer.<br>I don't know if the U.K. lawyer, |\n| 9  | you know, what's she's going to be willing to say and not     |\n| 10 | say.<br>I assume to the extent that something's not           |\n| 11 | privileged, it's public, it's not confidential, that she      |\n| 12 | would have no problem at all talking about it.<br>I mean,     |\n| 13 | people do that all the time.<br>Lawyers do that all the time. |\n| 14 | And the only issue here is that to the extent that            |\n| 15 | Mr. Kwok continues to have a privilege, okay, this order      |\n| 16 | constitutes a compelled disclosure.                           |\n| 17 | And I understand you may disagree with the way I'm            |\n| 18 | reading that phrase regardless of any attorney/client         |\n| 19 | privilege, work product or other privilege which belongs to   |\n| 20 | me, but that's -- if that's not -- if that doesn't mean       |\n| 21 | compelled disclosure, then we should just be able to strike   |\n| 22 | it from the letter.                                           |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Well, how can it be compelled                   |\n| 24 | disclosure when your client has determined under penalty of   |\n| 25 | perjury that he signed on his schedules and statements that   |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 88 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>88                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | this claim is a cause of action of -- is an asset of his     |\n| 2  | estate, but yet he won't provide the trustee, who's now      |\n| 3  | become him for purposes of the estate, with the information  |\n| 4  | for the trustee to determine whether or not this is a viable |\n| 5  | claim that the trustee should -- can prosecute on behalf of  |\n| 6  | the estate?                                                  |\n| 7  | MR. HENZY:<br>Your Honor, that's why we're                   |\n| 8  | appealing.                                                   |\n| 9  | I understand your view that a debtor -- again, not           |\n| 10 | does the privilege pass to the trustee, it's a privilege     |\n| 11 | owned by the debtor.<br>Does the -- can the debtor be        |\n| 12 | compelled to make disclosure because the debtor is a debtor? |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Well, so, if you're right then, if             |\n| 14 | you're right, then in every single case when there's a       |\n| 15 | debtor and there's a trustee and a debtor lists an asset of  |\n| 16 | the estate and that asset involves the representation of     |\n| 17 | counsel or an accountant or something to which a privilege   |\n| 18 | could attach, then the trustee could never have that         |\n| 19 | information?                                                 |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:<br>To the extent it's privileged?<br>That's       |\n| 21 | right.<br>That is -- that is my position.                    |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Where does the case law say that?              |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:<br>Your Honor, I've cited --                      |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>You've got one bankruptcy case and             |\n| 25 | it's about billing records that would show the work product  |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 89 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>89                             |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | and the strategies, for lack of a better term, of that law      |\n| 2  | firm in representing that debtor that was going to be used      |\n| 3  | by a third party against that debtor.                           |\n| 4  | MR. HENZY:<br>Sure.                                             |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Where's this fact pattern?                        |\n| 6  | MR. HENZY:<br>So, Your Honor, the case law is clear             |\n| 7  | that a disclosure may not be compelled outside of a very        |\n| 8  | short list of recognized exceptions.<br>Okay.<br>So the crime   |\n| 9  | fraud testamentary exception.<br>Okay.<br>You're creating, this |\n| 10 | court would be creating an exception to that rule.              |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>I think the Bankruptcy Code --                    |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:<br>So you're --                                      |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Your client -- your client has said               |\n| 14 | that this is an asset of the estate.<br>So you're saying        |\n| 15 | you're never -- your client's never going to have to give to    |\n| 16 | Attorney -- to Trustee Despins the discussions that your        |\n| 17 | client had with the lawyers in London, and essentially what     |\n| 18 | Mr. Despins would have to do is start a whole new cause of      |\n| 19 | action and figure out whether or not it's viable?               |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:<br>That is not what I'm saying at all.               |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Then what are you saying?                         |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:<br>What I'm saying --                                |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>You're not going to give him the                  |\n| 24 | information.                                                    |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:<br>What I'm saying is there's -- this                |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 90 order assumes there's privileged information. You say to me show me the case that says that I'm right, okay, that there is no -- I'm going to say bankruptcy exception to the general rule that courts cannot compel disclosure. Okay. I guess I think under Supreme Court precedent, under the *Swindler & Berlin*, case, I think it's the other way around, Your Honor. Unless there's a recognized exception, the general rule applies. And there is not a case that says that a debtor loses privilege because they are a debtor, I'm sorry, an individual debtor. Now, again, there are -- there's cases that talk about, and this is going to be the subject of the privilege motion, whether a debtor, I'm sorry, a trustee steps into the shoes of a debtor. Again, that's not what this order assumes. This order assumes that the debtor continues to own a privilege. Because otherwise, like I said, the order is -- it's not necessary. I understand that Your Honor disagrees with that, but -- THE COURT: I don't know if I disagree. I just don't -- I mean, what's the solution? You're saying that a debtor can come in to a bankruptcy case, have an individual debtor, have a cause of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 90 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 91 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>91                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | action that he asserts is an asset of the estate, then a      |\n| 2  | trustee gets appointed, and he doesn't have to let the        |\n| 3  | trustee know what's going on with that action because he has  |\n| 4  | a privilege with that lawyer?<br>That's what you're -- that's |\n| 5  | what you're -- ultimately if you distill it to its essence,   |\n| 6  | that's what your argument is.                                 |\n| 7  | MR. HENZY:<br>It is -- that is not --                         |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>And do you really think that's --               |\n| 9  | MR. HENZY:<br>That is not my argument.                        |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Then what is your argument?                     |\n| 11 | MR. HENZY:<br>So in any -- in any situation, in any           |\n| 12 | lawsuit, any situation a debtor files --                      |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>It doesn't have to be a lawsuit.                |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:<br>Well, but --                                    |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>It can be -- it can be a consultation.          |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.<br>You're going to -- there's             |\n| 17 | always going to be --                                         |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>A privilege.<br>Right?                          |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:<br>-- different -- well, there's going to          |\n| 20 | be different categories of documents.<br>There may be things  |\n| 21 | that aren't privileged that -- so that's fine.<br>And this is |\n| 22 | going to be an argument.<br>It may be that that the trustee   |\n| 23 | succeeds to the privilege in certain circumstances.<br>Okay.  |\n| 24 | And there's -- again, that's going to be the subject of the   |\n| 25 | privilege motion.                                             |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 92 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 92 But if there's a slice of documents that, in fact, the debtor has retained the privilege, there's no case that says that merely by being a debtor you lose that privilege. And, again, Your Honor, do I have cases that say that? I don't. THE COURT: I'm not saying merely by being a debtor. I'm saying by being a debtor who now has a trustee standing in his shoes. MR. HENZY: Well, but, that, again, you're -- I think you're conflating the two issues. THE COURT: I don't think I am conflating the two issues. MR. HENZY: Is does the trustee step into the debtor's shoes? THE COURT: Because otherwise the debtor can obstruct the whole administration of the estate. MR. HENZY: I don't think that -- I don't think that's what I'm saying and I don't think that's true. Are you -- well -- THE COURT: Then what's the problem with him turning over the information? What's the problem with Mr. Kwok giving the trustee the information that he has from the United -- from the United Kingdom lawyers that he must have written, have some kind of written agreement, retainer agreement with? Which, you know, by the way is a contract\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 93 which can be assumed. I mean, there's all kinds of things we can talk about, right? Then what's the problem? What is the problem? Why is Mr. Kwok not cooperating and providing that information to the trustee? MR. HENZY: So you know what a big part of the problem is, Your Honor, it's the way the trustee decided to do this. Okay? He -- THE COURT: But that doesn't answer the question. MR. HENZY: It does answer the question. Because how can -- how can any -- does anyone -- does anyone waive privilege when they don't even know what it is that they're -- that is being waived? Or can anyone? Again, I'm going to agree these documents are going to get disclosed or produced when I don't even know -- I don't know what the documents that are going to get produced are? I don't know. I haven't had time to consult with a lawyer in the U.K. about privilege. I haven't had time to do anything because this wasn't even the subject of a motion, Your Honor. It wasn't. This was a -- THE COURT: It was -- MR. HENZY: This was -- THE COURT: We're not going to -- you didn't appeal that part of it. Move on from that. Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 93 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 94 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 94 MR. HENZY: Well, but you're -- THE COURT: Listen, we need to figure out what we're going to do. I don't think we're going to spend the next three months going in circles. Okay? And if you're -- and if -- and if I get overturned on appeal because I said that, okay, fine, then we'll just move on. But there -- your client has an issue. You're raising all these issues. And whether or not it's intentional, it's obstructing the administration of this estate. The Chapter 11 Trustee motion was pending since the first I think three weeks of the case, whether it was from the United States Trustee or PAX, whatever it was. It was -- it's been pending for a -- this isn't anything new. And then we go through the hearing and we -- everybody presents their arguments and the Court rules and makes a ruling that a Chapter 11 Trustee should be appointed. And since that time, all the arguments that you have made has been to stop the trustee from trying to do what the trustee is going to do. If you don't like what the trustee does, then you can sue him. You can do that. There's a remedy. You have a remedy. You can sue him. But you are now obstructing the administration of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 95 this estate that all the other creditors have been waiting to have administered. And that your client said, when you weren't here, but when your client said, he came to this court to have a fair distribution to unsecured creditors, to the creditors that he needs to deal with. Yet he won't even allow the Chapter 11 Trustee to have communications with a lawyer in the United Kingdom on an action he brought and that he asserts is an asset of the estate. MR. HENZY: That -- THE COURT: There's something wrong with that. MR. HENZY: That's not a correct statement, factual statement, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then why isn't he just -- MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: Why are we having this argument? MR. HENZY: But -- THE COURT: Just give him the information. MR. HENZY: Okay. But you have said several times that he's somehow obstructing Mr. Despins from talking to the lawyer in the U.K. and that simply is not true. Mr. Despins is talking to the lawyer in the U.K. THE COURT: No, I didn't say that. I said provide the information with regard to the claims. And you're Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 95 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 96 of 150\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>96                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | saying he's not going to do that because it's privileged.     |\n| 2  | That's what you're saying.                                    |\n| 3  | MR. HENZY:<br>That's right.<br>There's nothing that           |\n| 4  | says that because I filed bankruptcy I give up privileges     |\n| 5  | that I have.                                                  |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>How would it harm him to waive the              |\n| 7  | privilege with, if there is one, with regard to these         |\n| 8  | documents?<br>What would be the harm, Mr. Henzy?              |\n| 9  | MR. HENZY:<br>You know what, Your Honor?<br>Swindler &        |\n| 10 | Berlin vs. United States says that that is not the test.      |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>I don't care if it's the test.<br>I'm           |\n| 12 | asking you a practical question.<br>What's the harm here?     |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:<br>So --                                           |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>It would help him.<br>It would bring            |\n| 15 | money into this estate, right?<br>And it would pay creditors. |\n| 16 | How could there be harm?                                      |\n| 17 | MR. HENZY:<br>I understand, Your Honor, that you and          |\n| 18 | the other parties might like Mr. Kwok to agree to a           |\n| 19 | compelled disclosure and to waive his privilege --            |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>I'm not -- I don't -- I don't like or           |\n| 21 | dislike anything.                                             |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:<br>-- but he's --                                  |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>I'm trying to not waste more time that          |\n| 24 | takes away from the administration of this Chapter 11 case.   |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:<br>He's not going to do it.                        |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 97 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 97 THE COURT: I know he's not. MR. HENZY: Okay. And he doesn't have to. THE COURT: But you haven't given me any reason why other than he's not going to do it. MR. HENZY: So -- THE COURT: So there must -- there must be something he's concerned about -- MR. HENZY: He doesn't -- THE COURT: -- being disclosed then. MR. HENZY: No. That's unfair. THE COURT: Then why is he doing -- then what's the problem? MR. HENZY: That's an unfair I think, Your Honor, way to approach privilege ever because -- so that's anybody who doesn't waive their privilege, they're the problem. So I have a right to not have my attorney tell you something. And if I don't waive that right -- THE COURT: I'm not -- MR. HENZY: -- I'm the problem? THE COURT: But the problem with your fact pattern is I'm not you, but Mr. Despins is. MR. HENZY: No, he's -- no, he's not. I don't think that's right. THE COURT: Okay. All right. MR. HENZY: Okay.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 98 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 98 THE COURT: Well, we'll agree to disagree then. MR. HENZY: Okay. I understand. And thank you, Your Honor. I think Pat was -- thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HENZY: On the -- Mr. Despins' point that they have not sought to hold the debtor in contempt, if -- that's right, they haven't sought to hold the debtor in contempt. They certainly could do that at any time. But they could also take this letter and go to the U.K. and try to do things there. And I don't think they should be able to do that. So the -- if the trustee is going to stipulate that while the appeal is pending he's not going to take action based on paragraph 3(b) of the order, then that's fine. I would agree then that the debtor is not experiencing any harm. If the trustee is not going to do anything with this paragraph 3(b), then I don't know how I could argue that there would be irreparable harm. In response to Mr. Goldman's point that we've identified no threat, again, I cited -- I cite cases in the motion that say that that -- a compelled disclosure in and of itself constitutes harm. So I -- we do -- I do cite cases that say that. That's all I have, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 99 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 99 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Just very briefly, Your Honor. Mr. Henzy stopped in the middle of the paragraph. Next sentence. Any waiver of privilege is limited to the provision of this information to the trustee. Okay. My consent is limited to giving access to the trustee to the extent I'm entitled and contains no wider waiver of privilege and is not consent by me to the trustee to waive any privilege. Your Honor, I don't know how clearer it could be that there's no waiver of the privilege here. There's just it's a U.K. rule. There's access. The trustee has access to the information, but the trustee cannot waive it. And, in fact, another case they cited, the *Lord* case that's attached to their pleading, I would direct you to paragraph 260 of that opinion, a U.K. opinion -- THE COURT: Okay. Hold on a second. Let me -- of which case are you talking about? MR. DESPINS: The *Lord* case. David Lord. No. That's, sorry, that's the -- I can't pronounce that -- ECF 761-3. THE COURT: Okay. Hold on a second. I'll catch up with you. MR. DESPINS: Yeah, 761-3. (Pause)\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 100 of\n\n|    | 150                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>100                           |\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>The Michael Thomas Leeds and Kevin               |\n| 2  | John Hilliard, is that what you're talking about?<br>Is that   |\n| 3  | three?<br>I can't -- yes, I think it is.                       |\n| 4  | Attorney Henzy, do you know, is that right?                    |\n| 5  | MR. DESPINS:<br>So if you go to page 35 of -- yeah,            |\n| 6  | I'm sorry, it is Leeds, yes, correct, Your Honor.              |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                            |\n| 8  | MR. DESPINS:<br>If you go to page 35 of 41,                    |\n| 9  | subparagraph 260 --                                            |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>260, okay.                                       |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- the second sentence.<br>\"There can          |\n| 12 | be no dispute that the trustees are entitled to see the        |\n| 13 | privileged information and to use it for the purpose of        |\n| 14 | carrying out their statutory functions, provided, as the       |\n| 15 | Court of Appeals has held in Avonwick, that they do not        |\n| 16 | waive legal professional privilege without the bankrupt's      |\n| 17 | consent.\"                                                      |\n| 18 | That's exactly what this letter does.<br>It does not           |\n| 19 | -- it doesn't allow to waive it.<br>It just gives us access to |\n| 20 | it.                                                            |\n| 21 | But I believe, Your Honor, again, that you should              |\n| 22 | not rule on this motion until the motion regarding privilege   |\n| 23 | is heard because it's all intertwined.<br>Thank you.           |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                              |\n| 25 | Anything further, Mr. Henzy, on the motion for                 |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 101 stay pending appeal? MR. HENZY: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard any further on the motion for stay pending appeal? (No response) THE COURT: Okay. All right. So let's turn to the privileges motion, please. Go right ahead, Counsel. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon. Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. Your Honor, the motion that we filed at docket number 777 concerning the issue of the privileges that we've been discussing is both very important to the trustee and also I want to point out is a motion that seeks relief that is limited in nature. The motion is very important to the trustee both in its substance and its timing because we are at the beginning stages of an investigation of a debtor who as the Court knows has professed to have \\$3,000 to his name, but there is an extensive record from the New York State Court litigation, from public statements, from the debtor's own statements, about assets that he has, about entities he has interests in, about things he has done to set up LLC's and other mechanisms to as we believe keep his assets away from Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 101 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 102 of<br>150 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>102                                                          |\n| 1  | the reach of his creditors.                                                                   |\n| 2  | And, of course, to the extent the debtor has done                                             |\n| 3  | those things, he could not have done that alone.<br>He would                                  |\n| 4  | have had to have had conversations with legal counsel and                                     |\n| 5  | advisors.<br>He would have had to have used that type of                                      |\n| 6  | advice in order to do these types of things and construct                                     |\n| 7  | this web of entities that has been referred to.                                               |\n| 8  | So it is critically important when we conduct a                                               |\n| 9  | 2004 investigation that we are able to seek discovery from                                    |\n| 10 | these parties and to do so in a way that allows the trustee                                   |\n| 11 | to have control over the debtor's privileges in accordance                                    |\n| 12 | with the existing case law which I will get into.                                             |\n| 13 | The other point that I wanted to make at the                                                  |\n| 14 | outset, as I said, is that the relief we are seeking is                                       |\n| 15 | limited.                                                                                      |\n| 16 | Specifically based on all the case law we are                                                 |\n| 17 | relying upon, we're asking this court to issue an order that                                  |\n| 18 | the trustee now controls all privileges previously belonging                                  |\n| 19 | to the debtor that relate to three topics.                                                    |\n| 20 | One, to potential assets of the estate.<br>Two,                                               |\n| 21 | otherwise related to the debtor's financial condition.<br>Or,                                 |\n| 22 | three, that relate to the administration of his estate                                        |\n| 23 | during the post-petition period.                                                              |\n| 24 | That's all the relief we're seeking.<br>And I                                                 |\n| 25 | believe, as we'll discuss, it's perfectly consistent with                                     |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 103 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 103 the overwhelming weight of the case law on this issue. Unfortunately, as has been a common practice of this debtor, whether it's in the other motion we were just discussing, relying upon a different version of an order and making arguments, there's another effort to, I don't know if it's purposeful or not, but to mischaracterize and misconstrue the relief that we're seeking and to make arguments on that basis. So the debtor begins in his objection by contending that what the trustee is seeking is a, quote, \"blanket waiver\" of all privileges ever held by the debtor regardless of subject matter. He also contends, as I read the objection, that the trustee is seeking control over all privileges held by third parties who are the subject of our discovery requests, including his relatives and other parties with whom he has relationships. Neither of these things is true, Your Honor. The motion, as I said, is limited. It's not seeking a waiver of anything at all. So this idea of waiver that we keep hearing about is simply a made up construct that is not relevant to and not being sought in this motion. This motion is about the passage of control of privileges to the trustee. And as I said, we are not seeking an order saying that control of all privileges on\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nevery subject matter passes to the trustee. We specifically\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 104 of<br>150 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>104                                                          |\n| 1  | are limiting that.                                                                            |\n| 2  | If you look at the request for release section of                                             |\n| 3  | our motion, which we cited again in our reply, we're looking                                  |\n| 4  | specifically for assets of the estate, his financial                                          |\n| 5  | condition and matters relating to administration.                                             |\n| 6  | The debtor identifies his concerns about                                                      |\n| 7  | potentially privileged documents related to criminal issues                                   |\n| 8  | such as allegations of rape and false imprisonment and other                                  |\n| 9  | things that have been made against him as well as his asylum                                  |\n| 10 | application.<br>We are not, in our investigation at this time,                                |\n| 11 | seeking any documents related to those issues.                                                |\n| 12 | Again, we're focused on assets and an                                                         |\n| 13 | investigation that hopefully be used to augment this estate.                                  |\n| 14 | Second, Your Honor, we're not asking for a waiver                                             |\n| 15 | or any control over privileges that belong to other parties.                                  |\n| 16 | And, in fact, I don't know how one could even read our                                        |\n| 17 | motion to be requesting that relief.                                                          |\n| 18 | We are, to be clear, seeking a determination that                                             |\n| 19 | the trustee has succeeded to any privileges that the debtor                                   |\n| 20 | holds with other parties in terms of a common interest or a                                   |\n| 21 | joint defense privilege.<br>And we cite case law for that in                                  |\n| 22 | our motion.<br>And I don't think that's contested, frankly.                                   |\n| 23 | But what we're not seeking, what the debtor seems                                             |\n| 24 | to suggest we are seeking, but we're not, is an order from                                    |\n| 25 | the Court that the trustee now controls any privilege that                                    |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 105 of<br>150 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>105                                                          |\n| 1  | may legitimately be owned exclusively by some third party                                     |\n| 2  | who's the target of our discovery.                                                            |\n| 3  | For example, we served discovery on Mr. Kwok's                                                |\n| 4  | immediately family.<br>You know, to the extent that his wife                                  |\n| 5  | has a privilege that she legitimately owns and controls in                                    |\n| 6  | her own right, that's not subject to our motion and all                                       |\n| 7  | rights are reserved as to any privileges she may assert.                                      |\n| 8  | We may take issue with those privileges down the                                              |\n| 9  | line, but that's not something we're trying to address                                        |\n| 10 | today.                                                                                        |\n| 11 | The final sort of procedural argument that the                                                |\n| 12 | debtor makes, Your Honor, and you heard frankly quite a bit                                   |\n| 13 | about this during the discussion of the last motion, is that                                  |\n| 14 | it is inappropriate for the Court to issue the ruling that                                    |\n| 15 | we've requested under the circumstances and in the manner                                     |\n| 16 | that we've requested it.                                                                      |\n| 17 | Specifically, what I hear the debtor to be saying                                             |\n| 18 | is that the only way the Court can rule on these privilege                                    |\n| 19 | issues is to actually review on a document by document basis                                  |\n| 20 | every document that any discovery recipient is purporting to                                  |\n| 21 | hold on the basis of privilege.<br>That's not what the law                                    |\n| 22 | requires.                                                                                     |\n| 23 | But before getting into what the law requires, I                                              |\n| 24 | think it's important to point out that the debtor, through                                    |\n| 25 | an affidavit submitted by his counsel on August 11th, in                                      |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 106 of<br>150 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>106                                                          |\n| 1  | connection with our Rule 2004 motion took the exact opposite                                  |\n| 2  | position.                                                                                     |\n| 3  | He said in paragraph 18 of his affidavit that it                                              |\n| 4  | would be impossible to conduct a privilege analysis on a                                      |\n| 5  | document by document basis and that the only way to do it                                     |\n| 6  | would be on omnibus fashion consistent with exactly what                                      |\n| 7  | we're asking the Court to do.                                                                 |\n| 8  | But even if the issue hadn't been waived, the                                                 |\n| 9  | articulation of the law that the debtor has provided is not                                   |\n| 10 | correct.                                                                                      |\n| 11 | The debtor cites to and referenced in earlier                                                 |\n| 12 | argument the Tenth Circuit's decision in 1999 in the In re                                    |\n| 13 | Foster case, which he contends stands for the proposition                                     |\n| 14 | that the only way to issue any decision on privilege is by                                    |\n| 15 | conducting a document by document review, but that's not                                      |\n| 16 | what that case says.                                                                          |\n| 17 | That case criticized the bankruptcy court, which                                              |\n| 18 | if you read the bankruptcy court's opinion, conducted                                         |\n| 19 | virtually no analysis to determine why privilege of a broad                                   |\n| 20 | category should have passed -- the control of that privilege                                  |\n| 21 | should have passed to the trustee using the balancing test.                                   |\n| 22 | That was not a case where there was an actual                                                 |\n| 23 | analysis or a fact specific balancing test conducted                                          |\n| 24 | involving individual document requests like we have here.                                     |\n| 25 | We have attached subpoenas with document requests                                             |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 107 of\n\n|    | 150                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>107                           |\n| 1  | that very specifically seek documents related to assets of     |\n| 2  | the estate, other transactional matters involving the debtor   |\n| 3  | prior to the bankruptcy, and other things that simply do not   |\n| 4  | implicate the types of concerns regarding criminal             |\n| 5  | liability, et cetera, that this debtor is worried about.       |\n| 6  | So there's nothing in the approach that the Foster             |\n| 7  | case was concerned about that we're trying to ask the Court    |\n| 8  | to do here.                                                    |\n| 9  | And frankly, if you look at other cases, there are             |\n| 10 | plenty of other cases that have issued the type of order       |\n| 11 | that we're asking this court to issue, including one of the    |\n| 12 | cases we cite is the In re Tarkington case from the Eastern    |\n| 13 | District of North Carolina in 2010.                            |\n| 14 | There, there was an investigation into potential               |\n| 15 | estate assets.<br>The trustee wanted to depose an attorney who |\n| 16 | represented the debtor prior to the bankruptcy, and what the   |\n| 17 | Court ended up doing was, all right, I'm going to let the      |\n| 18 | deposition go forward, here is what I consider to be within    |\n| 19 | the scope of the privilege.                                    |\n| 20 | All of the privilege related to assets of the                  |\n| 21 | estate, et cetera, has passed to the trustee.<br>Anything that |\n| 22 | could go under criminal liability or those things could        |\n| 23 | still be covered by a privilege.                               |\n| 24 | So you can go take the deposition, and counsel to              |\n| 25 | the debtor can interpose objections consistent with that,      |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 108 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 108 you know, those parameters surrounding the privilege. You know, that's no different from the type of order that we're asking the Court to issue here. As to -- as to the substance, and I started talking about this a little bit already I guess, of the motion, you know, I'm not -- I'm not sure how much disagreement there really is in terms of the governing law that applies to the question of passage of an individual debtor's privilege to a trustee. I'll address the *Swidler* Supreme Court decision and the *Ginsburg* case briefly, because the debtor does briefly in his opposition cite to those cases purportedly for the idea that this court could adopt a blanket rule that a privilege never passes to the trustee. I don't think that the *Ginsburg* case or the *Swidler* case from the Supreme Court comes close to dictating that resolve. The *Swidler* case involved a situation where, as counsel had mentioned, the debtor ended up passing away. Or it wasn't a, sorry, it was not a -- it was not a bankruptcy case at all, Your Honor. The *Swidler* case involved a situation where the individual whose privilege was at issue ended up passing away. And after that, the question was whether a grand jury could have access to documents formally covered by the attorney-client privilege for purposes of investigating\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 109 criminal charges. And the Supreme Court said in that situation it wasn't appropriate to apply a sort of balancing test. It had nothing to do with bankruptcy. It certainly had nothing to do with the situation where the question is whether a trustee succeeds to control of a debtor's privileges. And I think it's noteworthy that that was a 1999 or '98 case I believe. And the only case we've ever seen in the debtor/trustee context that is even cited to is this one outlier *Ginsburg* case. All the other cases post-dating that have rightfully not looked at it at all because it simply is not relevant to the situation. So as I said, and as we said in our paper, Your Honor, I think if you look at the weight of the case law, it's pretty clear that the vast majority of cases out there -- and there's three approaches -- there are some who have like *Ginsburg* and some other older cases that have said privilege doesn't pass, there are others that said it always passes, but the vast majority of the case law is in the middle and applies this balancing test. And we cited a number of those cases in our papers. I direct the Court to the *Bazemore* decision, to the *Bain* decision, to the *Horvath* decision, and to the *Tarkington* decision, that I've already mentioned. Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 109 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 110 of\n\n|    | 150                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>110                           |\n| 1  | These are cases where the issue was the trustee                |\n| 2  | was trying to investigate assets of the estate that would      |\n| 3  | potentially relate in, you know, augmenting the estate, of     |\n| 4  | the value of those assets.                                     |\n| 5  | And what the courts held in those cases is that                |\n| 6  | this is a situation where the debtor would benefit from        |\n| 7  | that.                                                          |\n| 8  | These are -- when the debtor's estate is augmented             |\n| 9  | by additional -- the location of causes of action or the       |\n| 10 | identification of other assets he benefits.<br>He's not harmed |\n| 11 | by that.                                                       |\n| 12 | So, you know, the debtor contends, well, as I said             |\n| 13 | before, there's a concern that, you know, it's possible        |\n| 14 | documents that the trustee is seeking to have access to        |\n| 15 | could involve potential criminal liability, whether it's the   |\n| 16 | rape allegations that he mentioned, false imprisonment, or     |\n| 17 | completely unrelated issues like his asylum application,       |\n| 18 | but, again, as I said before, we're not seeking to get those   |\n| 19 | documents through our discovery requests.                      |\n| 20 | The debtor has identified one request in our                   |\n| 21 | subpoena directed to the debtor's former law firms and         |\n| 22 | professionals, Request 17, that asks for information about     |\n| 23 | legal disputes which could be read to include criminal         |\n| 24 | actions against him, to the extent there are any, or his       |\n| 25 | asylum application, we're willing to make clear on the         |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 111 of\n\n|    | 150                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>111                         |\n| 1  | record that we're not seeking to get that type of            |\n| 2  | information and we'll limit that request accordingly.        |\n| 3  | I mean, the only plausible scenario where the                |\n| 4  | debtor could say that he has a document that is responsive   |\n| 5  | to our subpoena, but also could result in harm to him, is    |\n| 6  | that there's some document that relates to his assets,       |\n| 7  | relates to the topics that we're seeking to explore, and     |\n| 8  | also somehow implicates his criminal liability.              |\n| 9  | But the debtor has not even offered one hint of              |\n| 10 | what that could be.<br>He's come forward with nothing to     |\n| 11 | suggest other than, as he said in his opposition,            |\n| 12 | allegations of false imprisonment and the like.              |\n| 13 | There is no reason to believe that he's given of             |\n| 14 | that we have that I could even imagine as to why the         |\n| 15 | documents we're seeking related to, for example, his         |\n| 16 | interest in the New York condominium, the Lady May, to all   |\n| 17 | the other private jets and things like that that he's talked |\n| 18 | about, there's no conceivable scenario where those documents |\n| 19 | would relate to these types of issues.                       |\n| 20 | So this idea that the balancing test would weigh             |\n| 21 | in favor of not passing control over of these privileges to  |\n| 22 | the estate is just -- I think there's no weight to that.     |\n| 23 | The debtor also raises, Your Honor, the non                  |\n| 24 | dischargeability actions that have been filed against him.   |\n| 25 | And he says that while there's a concern there I could be    |\n|    |                                                              |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 112 of<br>150 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>112                                                          |\n| 1  | harmed if the debtor -- or that the trustee gets documents                                    |\n| 2  | that could relate to those actions, a couple of responses to                                  |\n| 3  | that.                                                                                         |\n| 4  | First, again, the trustee is not a party to those                                             |\n| 5  | actions.<br>In fact, the debtor has taken the position that                                   |\n| 6  | the trustee does not have standing to be a party in those                                     |\n| 7  | actions.                                                                                      |\n| 8  | The trustee has told us that under Section 1106(a)                                            |\n| 9  | of the Bankruptcy Code that, you know, the trustee is able                                    |\n| 10 | to perform certain duties that are laid out in Section 704                                    |\n| 11 | of the Bankruptcy Code, but not including the duty in                                         |\n| 12 | Section 704 that relates to potentially challenging the                                       |\n| 13 | debtor's discharge.                                                                           |\n| 14 | So the debtor has taken the position that we don't                                            |\n| 15 | even have standing to participate in those actions, number                                    |\n| 16 | one.                                                                                          |\n| 17 | Number two, all the non-dischargeability actions                                              |\n| 18 | that have been filed seek an exception to discharge under                                     |\n| 19 | 523(a)(6) which relates to willful and malicious injury by                                    |\n| 20 | the debtor to another entity or to the property of another                                    |\n| 21 | entity.<br>There's also a couple of -- I think one non                                        |\n| 22 | dischargeability action also flags some of the 523(a)                                         |\n| 23 | subsections that relate to securities fraud.                                                  |\n| 24 | If you look at our document requests, we're not                                               |\n| 25 | seeking any information related to any of those topics at                                     |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 113 of<br>150 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>113                                                          |\n| 1  | all.<br>So there's just no legitimate concern at all that                                     |\n| 2  | somehow we're going to get information related to these                                       |\n| 3  | actions.                                                                                      |\n| 4  | And by the way, we're not going to share the                                                  |\n| 5  | documents we get with the plaintiffs to those actions, so                                     |\n| 6  | this idea of a concern on the 523 actions, again, I think is                                  |\n| 7  | just -- it's really nonexistent.                                                              |\n| 8  | A couple -- a couple more points, Your Honor,                                                 |\n| 9  | before I wrap up.<br>At least on my opening remarks.                                          |\n| 10 | The debtor in his objection, although he initially                                            |\n| 11 | says the Court shouldn't issue any ruling here, he says,                                      |\n| 12 | well, if the Court does, it could issue certain guidance.                                     |\n| 13 | And the way I think the debtor frames that                                                    |\n| 14 | guidance is to say that the Court could direct the                                            |\n| 15 | recipients -- and this is in paragraph 33 of the objection -                                  |\n| 16 | - the Court could direct the recipients of the subpoenas to                                   |\n| 17 | withhold documents on the basis of privilege, quote, \"Only                                    |\n| 18 | documents that they believe potentially implicate harm to                                     |\n| 19 | the debtor such as criminal allegations, facts relating to                                    |\n| 20 | non-dischargeability, or facts that have nothing to do with                                   |\n| 21 | the debtor's estate, such as his pending asylum application.                                  |\n| 22 | Now, some of that actually sounds consistent with                                             |\n| 23 | the remarks I've given today, but I think it also highlights                                  |\n| 24 | sort of what we're also worried about and the mischief that                                   |\n| 25 | could result if an order specific to that language is                                         |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 847 | Filed 09/11/22 | Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 | Page 114 of |\n|---------------|---------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|---------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 114 granted, because the debtor cannot have free rein to determine what documents to withhold on the basis that in his view they could, quote/unquote, \"Harm him.\" You know, in particular, the debtor cannot be and should not be allowed to take the position that documents related to assets that he would prefer not be property of the estate, such as the Lady May, his apartment, the many homes he has boasted about owning, the two private jets he's claimed to have, he cannot take the position that he would be harmed if we get discovery related to those assets because he would prefer that they stay with his relatives or whoever else. As I said before, the cases make absolutely clear the opposite is true. That type of discovery benefits the estate. It benefits the debtor because if there are assets that are properly part of the estate they should be brought into the estate. The very -- the very last point I'll make, Your Honor, which I think is an important one, is that there's a separate discussion in the case law that we cited in our brief on the issue of whether the control of privilege passes to the trustee as it relates to the post-petition administration of the estate. I think if you look at the *Bain* case, there's a good discussion of this at page 375, and basically what the\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 115 of<br>150 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>115                                                          |\n| 1  | courts hold is that you don't even need to conduct a                                          |\n| 2  | balancing test in that situation.                                                             |\n| 3  | If there was counsel who was representing the                                                 |\n| 4  | debtor in his capacity as a Chapter 11 debtor or Chapter 7                                    |\n| 5  | debtor, then those documents, the control or the privilege                                    |\n| 6  | over those documents, properly passes to the Chapter 11                                       |\n| 7  | Trustee.                                                                                      |\n| 8  | So as applied here, because there's no -- they're                                             |\n| 9  | not representing him as an individual, there's no, you know,                                  |\n| 10 | criminal charges or anything else like that that could be of                                  |\n| 11 | a concern.                                                                                    |\n| 12 | But as applied here, what that means is the                                                   |\n| 13 | documents that we've sought from the debtor's initial                                         |\n| 14 | counsel in this case, part of the trustee's employment of                                     |\n| 15 | Brown Rudnick, those documents are documents over which                                       |\n| 16 | control of the privilege has passed to the trustee.                                           |\n| 17 | And it's also critical that we get those documents                                            |\n| 18 | because those documents would, for example, relate to the                                     |\n| 19 | preparation of his schedules.<br>You know, what assets were                                   |\n| 20 | decided to be included on the schedules or not decided to be                                  |\n| 21 | included on the schedules.                                                                    |\n| 22 | Those are documents that we're entitled to under                                              |\n| 23 | the case law and that we would ask to be subject to this                                      |\n| 24 | court's order.                                                                                |\n| 25 | So that's -- those are the opening comments that I                                            |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 116 had, Your Honor. I'll obviously reserve time to respond to anything that the debtor has to say, but also happy to answer any questions you might have. THE COURT: Okay. I don't have any questions at the moment. Thank you. Attorney Romney, you're going to respond? MR. ROMNEY: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, I'm here to argue on behalf of the debtor in response to the trustee's motion. It's docket number 777. It's the motion that the trustee filed and it concerns the proposed order that the trustee filed granting that order. The trustee has made numerous efforts to characterize that relief to say that the concerns the debtor has about that relief will never come to fruition and the trustee has no desire to cause them to come to fruition, but the reality is the debtor's counsel, I am here to argue the motion that the trustee filed and against the relief that the trustee is seeking. The trustee has served at least 14 subpoenas on the debtor's prior professionals. Those subpoenas seek a tremendously broad scope of information, including all document concerning any claim, legal dispute, concerning the debtor. There is no limited information. Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 116 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 117 of\n\n|    | 150                                                        |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>117                       |\n| 1  | Now the trustee filed docket 777, the attorney,            |\n| 2  | concerning the scope of privilege and submitted a proposed |\n| 3  | order.<br>That's at page 27 at docket 777.                 |\n| 4  | And if we could pull that up and --                        |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Sure.<br>So we want to go to page 27 of      |\n| 6  | ECF 777, correct?                                          |\n| 7  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Correct.                                    |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>So we'll pull that up.                       |\n| 9  | (Pause)                                                    |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>How we doing?                                |\n| 11 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>One minute.                       |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>You're getting it?<br>Okay.                  |\n| 13 | Here we go.<br>All right.<br>Where do you want us to       |\n| 14 | go, Attorney Romney?<br>Just start with the first page?    |\n| 15 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>If we go onto the second, the so            |\n| 16 | ordered language.                                          |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                        |\n| 18 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Paragraph 2 would say control of any        |\n| 19 | attorney/client privilege, work product protection or any  |\n| 20 | related privilege or protection, arising under any law     |\n| 21 | concerning the documents and information requested in the  |\n| 22 | attachments to the Rule 2004 subpoenas passes to the       |\n| 23 | trustee.                                                   |\n| 24 | We go on to paragraph 3, neither the debtor nor            |\n| 25 | his counsel, based on instructions from the debtor or      |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 118 of\n\n|    | 150                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>118                           |\n| 1  | otherwise, nor any of the examinees, which is the recipients   |\n| 2  | of the subpoenas, is entitled to withhold any of the           |\n| 3  | requested materials on the basis of the attorney/client        |\n| 4  | privilege, work product doctrine or any related privilege or   |\n| 5  | protection.                                                    |\n| 6  | The order goes on to paragraph 4, neither the                  |\n| 7  | debtor nor his counsel, based on instructions from the         |\n| 8  | debtor or otherwise, nor any examinee, shall interfere with,   |\n| 9  | hinder or delay the trustee's exercise of the authority        |\n| 10 | under this order.                                              |\n| 11 | And paragraph 5, the trustee is authorized,                    |\n| 12 | empowered to take all actions necessary to effectuate the      |\n| 13 | relief granted in this order.                                  |\n| 14 | Now, the proposed subpoenas, Your Honor, are not               |\n| 15 | attached to the motion notwithstanding that the motion         |\n| 16 | grants or compels compliance with the subpoenas.               |\n| 17 | And when we were here on August 12th, we discussed             |\n| 18 | the fact in the context of the motion 2004 exams that at       |\n| 19 | that time the Court was authorizing service of subpoenas.      |\n| 20 | We were not addressing the scope of those                      |\n| 21 | subpoenas.<br>And that the recipients of those subpoenas would |\n| 22 | do what happens in the ordinary course under the Federal       |\n| 23 | Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy          |\n| 24 | Procedure, and our local rules, which is if they have an       |\n| 25 | objection with the contents of the subpoenas, they would       |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 119 of<br>150 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>119                                                          |\n| 1  | object.<br>They would move to quash.<br>They would move to do                                 |\n| 2  | what recipients of subpoenas do when they don't agree with                                    |\n| 3  | them.                                                                                         |\n| 4  | Yet, here we are again standing before you with                                               |\n| 5  | the trustee seeking to circumvent that process that is                                        |\n| 6  | mandated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Bankruptcy                                  |\n| 7  | Procedure, and the local rules, trying to get an order                                        |\n| 8  | compelling compliance with subpoenas this time specifically                                   |\n| 9  | saying nobody can assert the attorney/client privilege on                                     |\n| 10 | behalf of the debtor or anybody else.                                                         |\n| 11 | And I also understand that Mr. Bassett is here                                                |\n| 12 | before you with the, I'm sure with the best of intentions,                                    |\n| 13 | arguing that nobody has any intention of infringing on any                                    |\n| 14 | other privilege, but that is not what the subpoenas and it's                                  |\n| 15 | not what the proposed order that they would like Your Honor                                   |\n| 16 | to enter granting them say.                                                                   |\n| 17 | It compels -- the subpoenas would compel the                                                  |\n| 18 | production of documents of -- I honestly haven't counted                                      |\n| 19 | them.<br>It's north of 50 individuals and entities.                                           |\n| 20 | And Your Honor's proposed order granting docket                                               |\n| 21 | number 777 would require the recipients of those subpoenas                                    |\n| 22 | to produce documents concerning those entities without                                        |\n| 23 | regard to any privilege or law.                                                               |\n| 24 | It is there is no authority anywhere cited by the                                             |\n| 25 | trustee or anyone else that would permit such an order under                                  |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 120 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 120 these circumstances that would be directing no less than 14 professional firms to produce documents without regard to any privilege. The debtor's position on the most efficient way to resolve what is admittedly a complex, case specific issue has been consistent and consistently stated since the meet and confer on August 2nd, in the hearing on August 12th, despite me saying on the record, or consistent with me stating on the record that I was not going to get into that position at that time because I didn't think it was before the Court. The debtor, through me as the counsel constantly referred to and the signatory of the affidavit that's been cited, how many times I don't know, stated that I did not believe and the debtor did not believe that it was possible to get into a document by document review concerning privilege in connection with the motion for Rule 2004 exams. And nobody need take my word for it or even go past the docket beyond the reply that was filed yesterday because that's exactly what it says. It says the debtor is not prepared to undertake a document by document review process in connection with the Rule 2004 motions. I stand by that statement today and I will stand by that statement forever in connection with any motion for Rule 2004 exams.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 121 of\n\n|    | 150                                                             |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>121                            |\n| 1  | I also stated on behalf of the debtor that given                |\n| 2  | the number of professionals, given the number of documents      |\n| 3  | out there, given the number of issues, different litigations    |\n| 4  | and entities, that notwithstanding that there will come --      |\n| 5  | there will come times where people are going to assert          |\n| 6  | privilege, there may be disagreements on that, and the Court    |\n| 7  | will have to figure out a mechanism for resolving it, but       |\n| 8  | that as the parties all agree, different courts have            |\n| 9  | approached this very complicated issue differently.             |\n| 10 | There is authority for the proposition in an                    |\n| 11 | individual case that the debtor would simply hold the           |\n| 12 | privilege.<br>No one's disputing that.<br>Retain the privilege. |\n| 13 | There is a majority of case law holding a                       |\n| 14 | balancing test.<br>Nobody disputes that.                        |\n| 15 | But there is no authority, none that I'm aware of               |\n| 16 | or that I have seen cited by the trustee in this case,          |\n| 17 | simply stating that an individual retains no privilege that     |\n| 18 | existed before their bankruptcy petition or before a            |\n| 19 | trustee's appointment in a Chapter 11.<br>None.                 |\n| 20 | So if we go to the balancing test, which has been               |\n| 21 | applied differently in other cases, yes, I have said on my      |\n| 22 | -- on behalf of the debtor my view that in the interest of      |\n| 23 | making this as efficient as possible, not slowing the           |\n| 24 | trustee down, in fact, doing the opposite, in fact, of          |\n| 25 | getting to where we need to go as efficiently as possible,      |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 122 it would help if this court entered an order at least establishing a standard that would govern how the -- how these issues should be handled. Now, I could understand if the Court would not entertain such an order. It's arguably an advisory opinion, though I don't think so given that we have this very real situation that we're really talking about right now. And that there's 14 subpoenas served on professionals alone. If people knew what standard to apply, they could then do their best, in their professional judgment, to apply it in accordance with the Court's order. And having the benefit of the Court's order might substantially limit the number of items on any given professional's log. Maybe it wouldn't. Nobody here knows until we get there. But there's nothing inconsistent about saying that a process could benefit by such a ruling if the Court would entertain it and forfeiting the right of a professional or party to assert privilege with respect to a particular document and have a particular judicial ruling. So where we are right now is the trustee is asking this court to enter an order directing no less than 14 professional firms to comply with 14 subpoenas without respect to any legal applicable privilege which would thereby deprive their right to assert it or presumably be in Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 122 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 123 of<br>150 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>123                                                          |\n| 1  | contempt of Your Honor's order.                                                               |\n| 2  | I don't think it would be Your Honor's intent to                                              |\n| 3  | enter such an order, though I don't want to be presumptuous,                                  |\n| 4  | and there are a whole laundry list of issues that have been                                   |\n| 5  | thrown at the Court in the parties' papers today.                                             |\n| 6  | And at this point, the baseline position is it                                                |\n| 7  | would be unfair and inappropriate to enter an order                                           |\n| 8  | directing anybody to produce documents without a right to                                     |\n| 9  | assert an attorney/client privilege.                                                          |\n| 10 | I want to clarify one last point before I sit                                                 |\n| 11 | down, unless the Court has any questions, naturally too.                                      |\n| 12 | One, is one thing that I agree with Mr. Bassett is                                            |\n| 13 | I did use the incorrect word.<br>The motion is not for a                                      |\n| 14 | blanket waiver of privilege.<br>They are asking for a blanket                                 |\n| 15 | transfer of the privilege, which there is a difference, and                                   |\n| 16 | I apologize for that in our wording on Saturday afternoon                                     |\n| 17 | when our objection was filed.                                                                 |\n| 18 | Second, the trustee characterizes what the debtor                                             |\n| 19 | is asking as free rein for the debtor to determine what is                                    |\n| 20 | privileged and what is not.<br>And to the extent that is not                                  |\n| 21 | clear from everything I have said and everything I've                                         |\n| 22 | written on the debtor's behalf, that is just not what we                                      |\n| 23 | were asking.                                                                                  |\n| 24 | Every litigant or party that is served with a                                                 |\n| 25 | subpoena or discovery request, the initial burden is on them                                  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 124 of\n\n|    | 150                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>124                          |\n| 1  | to make an initial determination do I assert a privilege and  |\n| 2  | log it, disclose it to the Court so that the Court can agree  |\n| 3  | or disagree after the parties have been heard, or do I        |\n| 4  | simply produce it because I make the determination that the   |\n| 5  | privilege doesn't apply.                                      |\n| 6  | That's not called free rein, Your Honor, that is              |\n| 7  | discovery in accordance with the federal rules.<br>And all we |\n| 8  | are asking is that the debtor and the debtor's 14             |\n| 9  | professionals receive the same right to make an initial       |\n| 10 | determination and not be faced with an order that they're     |\n| 11 | required to produce documents without regard to privilege     |\n| 12 | notwithstanding that the requests, much less the documents    |\n| 13 | themselves, have never been anywhere near this court.         |\n| 14 | And as I said, it's unfair.<br>And all that we're             |\n| 15 | asking you today is to deny the order that would allow that   |\n| 16 | to happen.<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                          |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                      |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:<br>Your Honor, I think I can be                  |\n| 19 | hopefully relatively brief in response.                       |\n| 20 | The first thing is I would like to address the                |\n| 21 | proposed order that Mr. Romney had gone over with the Court.  |\n| 22 | I actually had, in anticipation of hearing Mr.                |\n| 23 | Romney raise some of those points, I'd started even before    |\n| 24 | he started speaking marking up some potential                 |\n| 25 | clarifications.                                               |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 125 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 125 As I said in my opening remarks and as I think is perfectly clear when you read our motion and when you read the way we describe the relief requested, what we're seeking is just how I described it. It's an order from this court determining that control over the privileges passed to the trustee with respect to privileges owned by the debtor related to his assets, to his financial condition and to the administration of his estate during the post-petition period prior to Mr. Despins' appointment. And we're also not seeking to waive any privileges or -- waive -- we're not seeking control over any privileges related to privileges that other individuals may hold in their own individual right. So I think if it would be helpful to resolve some, if not all, of the debtor's objections, I think there are changes we could propose to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the proposed order. In particular in paragraph 2 -- THE COURT: Let's scroll up for a minute -- MR. BASSETT: Sure. THE COURT: -- so we're all looking at the same thing. Can we scroll up to paragraph 2? Okay. Go ahead.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 126 of\n\n|    | 150                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>126                         |\n| 1  | MR. BASSETT:<br>So control of any attorney/client            |\n| 2  | privilege, work product protection, or any related privilege |\n| 3  | or protection, asserted by the debtor -- and I'm doing this  |\n| 4  | on -- I'm doing this somewhat on the fly so I may need to    |\n| 5  | confer as to final language with my colleagues and others -- |\n| 6  | but the concept would be to include some language that       |\n| 7  | clarifies that this relates to privileges allegedly held by  |\n| 8  | the debtor arising under any applicable law on matters       |\n| 9  | concerning potential estate assets, the debtor's financial   |\n| 10 | condition, or matters related to the post-petition           |\n| 11 | administration of the estate concerning documents requested  |\n| 12 | in the subpoenas.<br>And we would -- we would be happy to    |\n| 13 | attach the subpoenas.                                        |\n| 14 | And just to be clear, the reason we had framed the           |\n| 15 | order originally or drafted it the way we did is because our |\n| 16 | view is that the document requests themselves and the        |\n| 17 | subpoenas are, in fact, targeted to seeking information      |\n| 18 | that's in the three categories that I've described.          |\n| 19 | The debtor has taken issue with some of the                  |\n| 20 | requests, including Request 17, saying it goes beyond that.  |\n| 21 | I think this language will clear up that concern by making   |\n| 22 | clear that the passage of control over privilege relates to  |\n\n the matters that is consistent with the case law we've relied upon in our -- in our motion.\n\nAnd then paragraph 3, Your Honor, I think we would\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 127 of\n\n|   | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>127                         |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | just need similar clarifying language that neither the       |\n| 2 | debtor nor his counsel, based on instructions from the       |\n| 3 | debtor or otherwise, nor any other examinee is entitled to   |\n| 4 | withhold any of the requested materials on the basis of any  |\n| 5 | attorney/client privilege, work product doctrine, or any     |\n| 6 | related privilege or protection, allegedly held by the       |\n| 7 | debtor that relates to estate assets, the debtor's financial |\n| 8 | condition, or post-petition administration of the estate.    |\n|   |                                                              |\n\n So, again, that's the concept, the proposed fix. I would have to, you know, maybe discuss that with colleagues and make sure that that particular language works.\n\n But I did want to make clear that that is the intent of the trustee and the motion that we filed is to seek an order that provides that relief, not to seek the types of blanket waivers that the debtor has expressed so much concern about.\n\n Just to address a couple of other points raised by Mr. Romney. He, again, took the position that despite what he had said in his affidavit, you know, what we are trying to do with this motion is to circumvent the normal process that would apply under applicable rules when you're dealing with discovery disputes in a typical litigation.\n\n Again, I think he said -- I think he suggested that we do just the opposite. He didn't only say that it\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 128 was impossible to do a document-by-document review in his affidavit. He also expressly said that it was the debtor's preference in an omnibus fashion. I don't know what that means other than what we're attempting to do here. In any event, we've joined issue on this. There's a clear dispute. It's something the Court can issue and decide now. And I'd also point out that in paragraph 33 of their objection, the debtor, as I mentioned before, does, in fact, suggest that the Court issue an order prior to documents being produced and logged and all of that as to the extent that privilege is passed to the trustee. Last point. You know, similar -- on a similar note, I think Mr. Romney took issue with, you know, the statement that I made that it would be problematic to give the debtor sort of free rein to determine what's privileged or not. And then he again cited, well, the way this should normally work is they would eventually produce or not produce documents, put documents on a log, and then we could have a back and forth about that. I think, Your Honor, we have a deep concern that that is an invitation for further delay and obstruction in this case, especially if there is not advanced -- an advanced order from the Court as to the scope of the Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 128 of\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 847 | Filed 09/11/22 | Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 | Page 129 of |\n|---------------|---------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|---------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n|    | 150                                                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>129                          |\n| 1  | privilege that continues to exist.                            |\n| 2  | In a normal litigation, the question is is a                  |\n| 3  | document privileged?<br>And typically what would happen is    |\n| 4  | parties would log documents on a privilege log, fight about   |\n| 5  | individual documents and whether or not they're privileged.   |\n| 6  | That's not the question here.<br>Again, the question          |\n| 7  | is what -- whether control of certain privileges has passed   |\n| 8  | to the trustee?                                               |\n| 9  | And that is an issue that all the courts we have -            |\n| 10 | - in many of the decisions we have cited, including the       |\n| 11 | Tarkington decision that I mentioned earlier, they have not   |\n| 12 | hesitated to issue that kind of order defining the scope of   |\n| 13 | the privilege that is passed to the trustee so that games     |\n| 14 | can't be played and there's not a dispute about a debtor      |\n| 15 | trying to assert privileges that he no longer owns in a       |\n| 16 | deposition.<br>And that's the kind of thing that we're trying |\n| 17 | to get out ahead of, Your Honor.                              |\n| 18 | The Court, I think, has rightfully mentioned this             |\n| 19 | time and time again, this case has been pending for way too   |\n| 20 | long.                                                         |\n| 21 | The trustee was appointed at the beginning of                 |\n| 22 | July.<br>Immediately, upon our appointment, we immediately    |\n| 23 | tried to begin coordinating with counsel to the debtor to     |\n| 24 | get documents and information on an informal basis.           |\n| 25 | We finally got one PDF full of some documents this            |\n|    |                                                               |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 130 of<br>150 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>130                                                          |\n| 1  | morning and from the debtor in response to a request that we                                  |\n| 2  | made on July 11th for basic corporate governance documents.                                   |\n| 3  | We have otherwise gotten absolutely nothing from them.                                        |\n| 4  | And we are deeply concerned about the debtor                                                  |\n| 5  | taking any opportunity it can to delay our investigation and                                  |\n| 6  | to delay progress.                                                                            |\n| 7  | And that's why, you know, that's the motivating                                               |\n| 8  | factor behind us filing this order which we think is                                          |\n| 9  | entirely appropriate.                                                                         |\n| 10 | That's all I have, Your Honor.                                                                |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>I just have a question --                                                       |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:<br>Sure.                                                                         |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>-- that I didn't -- if you addressed                                            |\n| 14 | it, then I missed it in your comments just now.                                               |\n| 15 | But the debtor's counsel objected to the language                                             |\n| 16 | in paragraphs 4 and 5, as well as 2 and 3 and I don't know                                    |\n| 17 | if you're suggesting there's some changes or clarifications                                   |\n| 18 | that have to be made to those paragraphs as well?                                             |\n| 19 | MR. BASSETT:<br>I don't -- I think that those -- the                                          |\n| 20 | debtor's counsel can correct me if I'm wrong, but my                                          |\n| 21 | understanding was that his concern with those paragraphs                                      |\n| 22 | flowed from, his concerns with paragraphs 2 and 3, so I                                       |\n| 23 | think if the issues are in 2 and 3 that I had mentioned are                                   |\n| 24 | corrected, that those concerns would no longer exist, but                                     |\n| 25 | I'll let him speak to that.                                                                   |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 131 THE COURT: Okay. That was my final question. Thank you. MR. BASSETT: Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Romney, can we start with the answer to that question? I know you have -- I'm sure you have other things that you want to address, but I just want to be clear on the -- your arguments on paragraphs 4 and 5 of the proposed order. I just asked counsel is -- I'm not saying you agree. I'm just -- I'm just trying to make sure I understand your position. Okay? MR. ROMNEY: And I appreciate Your Honor's interest and clarification. Looking at this, I think it's probably accurate to say that if we agreed on everything else that paragraphs 4 and 5 would probably not be problematic because they do, they flow from everything else. If the order is otherwise -- yes. We would agree that the debtor and the trustee's -- I'm sorry, the debtor's counsel should not be interfering with the Court's order. So, yes, that's really what those say. I do take issue with immediate effectiveness, which I didn't raise before, just because we didn't get Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 131 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 132 of<br>150 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>132                                                          |\n| 1  | there, to the extent that there is a non-consensual order                                     |\n| 2  | entered.                                                                                      |\n| 3  | I would -- the debtor would want to reserve its                                               |\n| 4  | rights to oppose that, to, you know, appeal or seek a stay                                    |\n| 5  | of that order.                                                                                |\n| 6  | But, again, it's -- the major issues, Your Honor,                                             |\n| 7  | are the issues in the substantive paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.                                      |\n| 8  | And I guess I have not yet directed my focus too much in the                                  |\n| 9  | last five minutes to the rest of the issues that could be                                     |\n| 10 | arising because for the reasons I would like the opportunity                                  |\n| 11 | to be heard on I don't think we're there or anywhere                                          |\n| 12 | particularly close.                                                                           |\n| 13 | We're certainly -- there are certainly some major                                             |\n| 14 | improvements.<br>And I will certainly acknowledge that some of                                |\n| 15 | the concerns I raised when I was heard earlier would be                                       |\n| 16 | addressed by that, by those modifications or substantively                                    |\n| 17 | similar ones.                                                                                 |\n| 18 | The primary issue that I have remaining with the                                              |\n| 19 | proposed revisions are they don't provide for a balancing                                     |\n| 20 | test.<br>And I don't think they provide for any meaningful                                    |\n| 21 | guidance.<br>I think they actually, if anything, would create                                 |\n| 22 | confusion.                                                                                    |\n| 23 | The trustee's position, as I understand it, is                                                |\n| 24 | that the order should be permitting or compelling the                                         |\n| 25 | production of information that would otherwise be subject to                                  |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 133 of\n\n| 150<br>Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022                           |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 133<br>the debtor's privileges if they concern the assets or   |\n| administration of the estate.<br>That's not a balancing test.  |\n|                                                                |\n| What needs to be considered is balancing the                   |\n| trustee's legitimate interest in administering assets of the   |\n| estate, administering the estate and maximizing the value of   |\n| the estate to its creditors.<br>I agree that the trustee has a |\n| legitimate interest in doing all of those things.              |\n| What the balancing test, Your Honor, is, depending             |\n| on the circumstance whether a privilege should be              |\n| transferred to the trustee and controlled by the trustee, is   |\n| after considering that legitimate interest, which exists       |\n| without regard to whether a particular document is             |\n| privileged, that is the trustee's job and that's the           |\n| trustee's duty -- there's no dispute about that -- but         |\n| balancing the harm to the debtor of producing a particular     |\n| document and that's what the trustee's proposed order and      |\n| the trustee's motion does not even attempt to do.              |\n| And I am not speaking to knowledge of any                      |\n| particular documents, but I think we can all agree that        |\n| there could be a document that identifies something that       |\n| could affect the administration of the estate, even an asset   |\n| of the estate, but also contain information that could be      |\n| incredibly harmful, yet privileged, you know, against the      |\n| debtor -- harmful to the debtor and privileged.                |\n| And what I am saying, Your Honor, is that how                  |\n|                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 134 of\n\n|    | 150                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>134                           |\n| 1  | courts deal with this issue -- and I understand it can --      |\n| 2  | it's not black and white in any given issue, but there can     |\n| 3  | be documents that both concern the administration of assets    |\n| 4  | of the estate but are both subject to a legitimate privilege   |\n| 5  | that the debtor owns.                                          |\n| 6  | Because on balance the harm to the debtor of                   |\n| 7  | losing control of that attorney/client privileged              |\n| 8  | information is outweighed by the trustee's legitimate          |\n| 9  | interest in maximizing the estate.                             |\n| 10 | And for that reason, the proposed language by the              |\n| 11 | trustee, while an improvement, is objectionable and in the     |\n| 12 | debtor's view impermissible.<br>It goes too far.               |\n| 13 | It deprives the parties of the opportunity to                  |\n| 14 | present specific facts in specific circumstances when those    |\n| 15 | specific facts and specific circumstances justify it.          |\n| 16 | And it doesn't mean that an order from this court              |\n| 17 | today or following this hearing or any other time wouldn't     |\n| 18 | substantially reduce the number of incidents that we have to   |\n| 19 | go to the Court.                                               |\n| 20 | But the proposed language by the trustee only                  |\n| 21 | considers the trustee's interest, Your Honor.<br>It does not   |\n| 22 | consider the debtor's.<br>And for that it is not the balancing |\n| 23 | test that the majority of courts to address this issue have    |\n| 24 | followed.                                                      |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>So what language would you propose               |\n|    |                                                                |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 135 of<br>150 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>135                                                          |\n| 1  | then?<br>You're not agreeing with the language that was just                                  |\n| 2  | proposed?                                                                                     |\n| 3  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>I am not, Your Honor.                                                          |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                                                           |\n| 5  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>The debtor is not.                                                             |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>So what language would you propose                                              |\n| 7  | that would then address the debtor's interests?                                               |\n| 8  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Well, as stated in the debtor's                                                |\n| 9  | objection, I don't think it's as simple as modifying the                                      |\n| 10 | proposed order I think because it's not black and white.                                      |\n| 11 | And for there to benefit from a standard, I do                                                |\n| 12 | think it needs to have more than simply, you know, directing                                  |\n| 13 | parties to conduct their own balancing tests because then                                     |\n| 14 | we're in such a subjective universe that we're going to be                                    |\n| 15 | back here with everything else.                                                               |\n| 16 | I do think that it's -- to the extent that -- that                                            |\n| 17 | there are -- the examples that we provided on our objection                                   |\n| 18 | that I think are the most significant is to the extent that                                   |\n| 19 | the privilege documents contain information that concern the                                  |\n| 20 | possibility of criminal, asylum issues, or dischargeability                                   |\n| 21 | the scales should tip in balance of the debtor and those                                      |\n| 22 | things should not under any circumstances be produced.                                        |\n| 23 | Now, that's not giving the debtor --                                                          |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Who's going to make that                                                        |\n| 25 | determination?                                                                                |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 136 MR. ROMNEY: I was just getting to that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. There you go. MR. ROMNEY: And this is exactly to the free reign point. It doesn't mean that if -- so that if a particular professional has a document that they determine in their professional judgment concerns an issue that implicates a harm of the debtor, that they get to stick it in the garbage or stick it wherever. They stick it on a privilege log. And the trustee and his competent counsel will raise the issue. And whether that will require in camera review by the Court or in camera review by somebody who the Court designates to review, I think that is a question for another day. But for an order -- THE COURT: Why is it a question for another day? Why isn't it a question for today? MR. ROMNEY: Because the document isn't before the Court. That's what I was saying by that. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: And with that unless the Court has any further questions, I have nothing further. THE COURT: Okay. I don't have any further Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 136 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 137 of<br>150 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>137                                                          |\n| 1  | questions.<br>Thank you.                                                                      |\n| 2  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                                                         |\n| 3  | MR. BASSETT:<br>Your Honor, just briefly in                                                   |\n| 4  | response.<br>I think I might stay here this time if that's                                    |\n| 5  | okay.                                                                                         |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>That's fine.                                                                    |\n| 7  | MR. BASSETT:<br>So Mr. Romney, in addressing our                                              |\n| 8  | proposed changes to the language, I think his position was                                    |\n| 9  | that, well, we're still not providing for the application of                                  |\n| 10 | a balancing test because if what we're saying is that                                         |\n| 11 | privileges related to the debtor's assets, financial                                          |\n| 12 | condition, or the administration of his estate, pass to the                                   |\n| 13 | trustee, it doesn't account for the possibility that there's                                  |\n| 14 | some other personal, individual interest, criminality or                                      |\n| 15 | otherwise that the debtor might have.                                                         |\n| 16 | And I think the fallacy in that logic is that                                                 |\n| 17 | there is no basis that's been provided as to why documents                                    |\n| 18 | would relate to assets, financial condition, or the                                           |\n| 19 | administration of the estate, would have anything to do with                                  |\n| 20 | the debtor's asylum application, with criminal allegations                                    |\n| 21 | that are made against -- that have been made against him for                                  |\n| 22 | rape or false imprisonment.                                                                   |\n| 23 | I mean, if the debtor's concern is that there                                                 |\n| 24 | could be hypothetically a document where the debtor was                                       |\n| 25 | having a conversation with his counsel about both false                                       |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 138 of\n\n|    | 150                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>138                         |\n| 1  | imprisonment allegations that have been made against him and |\n| 2  | his property, that he shouldn't have to turn over the        |\n| 3  | portion of that document that talks about false imprisonment |\n| 4  | allegations, then I think that's fine because we're not      |\n| 5  | seeking that.                                                |\n| 6  | But if what the debtor is trying to say is that he           |\n| 7  | wants to have the ability to determine for himself when and  |\n| 8  | under what circumstances the debtor might be, quote/unquote, |\n| 9  | \"Harmed by the disclosure of documents to the trustee,\" I    |\n| 10 | think that is a huge problem.                                |\n| 11 | Because we already know this debtor is going to              |\n| 12 | take a position that he does not want these assets that he's |\n| 13 | referred to, all over the place in the past, to become       |\n| 14 | property of the estate.                                      |\n| 15 | And if he's going to take the position that, well,           |\n| 16 | a communication that I had with counsel about those assets   |\n| 17 | is privileged and I'll be harmed by its disclosure because   |\n| 18 | that's a result I don't want, that is completely             |\n| 19 | inconsistent with the case law.                              |\n| 20 | That is not something that would be considered in            |\n| 21 | the balancing test as weighing in the favor or non           |\n| 22 | disclosure.<br>And it's not something that should be in any  |\n| 23 | way incorporated into this proposed order.                   |\n| 24 | But, again, if there is language we could work out           |\n| 25 | to make clear if there's a document that talks about         |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 139 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 139 unrelated criminal liability or, you know, the particular things, again, that he's mentioned, his asylum application, things like that, in his objection, I think we could work out language to put in the proposed order to again make clear that we're not seeking that. I think there are other tweaks we would need, including to reserve our right to the extent of any withheld documents that we think might be relevant to the trustee's investigation on a crime-fraud exception to the attorney- client privilege, for example, but I do think there is a way to work out some language that could address some of the debtor's concerns. But, again, it cannot be a situation where the debtor gets to decide when he's harmed by the disclosure of a document because that is an open invitation for him to just withhold documents that he doesn't want us to see. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: Yes. MR. ROMNEY: Very, very briefly. I've already said creating a privilege log is not deciding. But I do want to make one perhaps significant clarification, which is, these order -- the proposed order\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 140 of<br>150 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>140                                                          |\n| 1  | and this motion is directed towards the recipients of                                         |\n| 2  | subpoenas.                                                                                    |\n| 3  | This order would deprive them of in their                                                     |\n| 4  | professional judgments the ability to exercise a privilege                                    |\n| 5  | on behalf of their client which is their professional duty                                    |\n| 6  | unless the privilege is waived or their client directs them                                   |\n| 7  | to do so.                                                                                     |\n| 8  | So no one has proposed here, I have not proposed,                                             |\n| 9  | the debtor has not proposed, anything other than responding                                   |\n| 10 | to the motion that the trustee filed, which is don't direct                                   |\n| 11 | the debtor's professionals that they can't exercise their                                     |\n| 12 | judgment that a document remains privileged, and that's what                                  |\n| 13 | their proposed order would do.                                                                |\n| 14 | And if the result of this motion ultimately allows                                            |\n| 15 | the debtor's professionals who have been served with their                                    |\n| 16 | subpoenas to continue to exercise their professional                                          |\n| 17 | judgment in accordance with their legal and ethical duties,                                   |\n| 18 | that's really what we're asking for, Your Honor.                                              |\n| 19 | And I understand articulating, putting that into                                              |\n| 20 | words in an order may be more difficult than articulating it                                  |\n| 21 | from my standpoint at 4:20 on a Tuesday afternoon after                                       |\n| 22 | we've been here for hours, you know, so it may take some                                      |\n| 23 | wordsmithing, but I do just want to make clear no one's                                       |\n| 24 | asking for the debtor to have free rein.<br>It's this is a                                    |\n| 25 | motion about 14 subpoenas on 14 professionals.                                                |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 141 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 141 Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, just one point on this. THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: There are at least five, probably six, law firms that are defendants in malpractice actions commenced by the debtor. What this order does, it frees these people from the threat of that. I guarantee you what's going to happen is that they will go to the debtor and say do you consent? No, we're not, you know. And then we'll drag on Brown Rudnick and all the other firms into court because they're afraid of a malpractice claim. And that's why this order has to be crystal clear on that. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Anything further on the motion from anyone? (No response) THE COURT: Okay. So with regard to this motion that we're speaking about right now, as opposed to the motion for stay pending appeal, we're talking about right now the motion for the order providing that control of the privileges pass to the trustee upon appointment, what I -- I've reviewed your papers and I've listened to you this\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 142 of<br>150 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>142                                                          |\n| 1  | afternoon and I've heard some suggestions that may or may                                     |\n| 2  | not be acceptable to all parties, but I'm going to order you                                  |\n| 3  | to have further discussions about it and see where we stand                                   |\n| 4  | on the order.                                                                                 |\n| 5  | And I'm going to continue the hearing on the                                                  |\n| 6  | motion for the order providing that the privileges passed to                                  |\n| 7  | the trustee upon appointment to next Tuesday, the 6th, at                                     |\n| 8  | 1:00 p.m.                                                                                     |\n| 9  | There were scheduled at 2:00 p.m. a series of                                                 |\n| 10 | pretrial conferences in the adversary proceedings but                                         |\n| 11 | they're all stayed as of today.<br>All those adversary -- the                                 |\n| 12 | HK International adversary proceeding was not scheduled for                                   |\n| 13 | a pretrial conference next week.                                                              |\n| 14 | And what we're going to talk about at next week's                                             |\n| 15 | hearing at 1 o'clock is whether or not there is agreement on                                  |\n| 16 | the order.<br>And if there aren't I want you both to have                                     |\n| 17 | proposed orders.<br>Yours could be denied, whatever it is.<br>I                               |\n| 18 | want you to have proposed orders that I will take a look at                                   |\n| 19 | and I'll decide what to do.                                                                   |\n| 20 | I may agree with you.<br>I may not agree with either                                          |\n| 21 | one of you.<br>But I am ordering you, as you have the duties                                  |\n| 22 | under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Federal                                   |\n|    | Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and our local rules, to                                        |\n| 23 |                                                                                               |\n| 24 | discuss these issues with regard to discovery disputes.<br>And                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 143 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 143 And the Court suggests that you take the time and review these matters and see if there is any agreement that can be reached. If there isn't, then the Court will rule. But I've heard -- I heard there -- from the Court's perspective, there should be able to be issues that can be agreed upon with regard to this motion and I'm hoping that I'm going to see some progress on that next Tuesday at 1:00. With regard to the motion for stay pending appeal, I'm going to take that matter under advisement. But I'm not going to take it under advisement for a substantial period of time. I know, Attorney Henzy, you're asking first day pending appeal, one way or another, either grant or deny, but I need to look at some of the things that you talked about today during your argument and some of the cases that, you know, you cited. You did tell me that one of the cases that you wanted me to look at was not in your motion to for stay pending appeal. As you know, I didn't look at it and so I need to look at that. I need to understand and make sure I fully appreciate all of your arguments as is true with the parties who oppose the stay pending appeal. So I'm going to take the stay pending appeal under\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 144 of<br>150 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>144                                                          |\n| 1  | advisement and then continue the hearing on the privileges                                    |\n| 2  | motion to next Tuesday at 1:00.                                                               |\n| 3  | The one other thing I would note, and we -- and we                                            |\n| 4  | don't have to do it today, we're not going to do it today,                                    |\n| 5  | but I did look, just because I do think it's important and                                    |\n| 6  | it's important for all of us in the bankruptcy court,                                         |\n| 7  | because our record is audio and because the transcriber can                                   |\n| 8  | only do as well as the transcriber can do, they're not in                                     |\n| 9  | the courtroom, they hear an audio, I did look at the hearing                                  |\n| 10 | on April -- August 4th, because I know that's what you're                                     |\n| 11 | appealing, and there's a couple of changes in that                                            |\n| 12 | transcript that I don't think are substantial, but they're                                    |\n| 13 | still some -- a couple of changes where there are things I                                    |\n| 14 | think were improperly, not purposefully, but that the court                                   |\n| 15 | reporter didn't get.                                                                          |\n| 16 | So I'm going to probably, you know, give you all                                              |\n| 17 | an errata sheet again where you can add whatever you want,                                    |\n| 18 | but there have been some occasions that we've had where the                                   |\n| 19 | district court on appeal has not -- has relied on something                                   |\n| 20 | in the transcript that was not accurate.                                                      |\n| 21 | And I just don't think that's good for anybody,                                               |\n| 22 | including the parties that are appealing, because if it's                                     |\n\n not an accurate transcription of what occurred and what the Court -- what the -- what the bankruptcy court is at that point, the trial court, analyzing to rule on, then I think\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 145 that it does everyone a disservice. It's the way -- we have no choice. We have no choice. We cannot do anything other than have audio recordings, but there's a downside to audio recordings. So you -- so you may see something about that. Attorney Goldman, there's still two pending motions that the committee had prior to the appointment of the Chapter 11 Trustee that I don't know where those stand, but they're still pending. Are you going to be prosecuting those motions? MR. GOLDMAN: There are two retention applications of -- THE COURT: Right. MR. GOLDMAN: -- our financial advisor and the foreign investigator. And what I would like to do with those is, if the Court could put them on the calendar, we would like to have those professionals retained for two reasons. Number one, they did perform some amount of work before it became clear that there would be no funding and that the debtor was consenting to dismissal, at which point they stopped. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDMAN: So I -- THE COURT: So you want them retained so they can Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 145 of\n\n| Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 146 of<br>150 |  |  |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>146                                                          |  |  |\n| ultimately have a claim?                                                                      |  |  |\n| MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Correct.                                                                      |  |  |\n| And also I think it is beneficial from the                                                    |  |  |\n| committee's point of view to have those professionals                                         |  |  |\n| retained in the event, during the administration of the                                       |  |  |\n| case, we need to call upon them for their assistance.                                         |  |  |\n| And we would only do so, and I ran this by the                                                |  |  |\n| trustee, in cooperation with the trustee.                                                     |  |  |\n| We are not looking to have our professionals                                                  |  |  |\n| duplicate any work that would be undertaken by the trustee                                    |  |  |\n| or his professionals.                                                                         |  |  |\n| But it could be the case that they might be needed                                            |  |  |\n| for the administration of the case and we'd be happy to have                                  |  |  |\n| them perform work if the trustee was in agreement.<br>So                                      |  |  |\n| that's kind of the protocol that I would propose for their                                    |  |  |\n| retention.                                                                                    |  |  |\n| THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Does anyone -- I mean, of all                                          |  |  |\n| the parties that are here, no one has had an ability -- I                                     |  |  |\n| don't remember, was there an objection period for those                                       |  |  |\n| applications before?<br>No?                                                                   |  |  |\n| So does any -- I mean, I know we've talked about a                                            |  |  |\n| lot of things today, but does anybody know right now or does                                  |  |  |\n| anybody ask, is asking the Court to set an objection date so                                  |  |  |\n| they can determine whether they want to object to the                                         |  |  |\n| committee's retention of these professionals?                                                 |  |  |\n|                                                                                               |  |  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 147 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 147 MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee would prefer to have an objection deadline. THE COURT: Would prefer? MS. CLAIBORN: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Well, then I guess we'll have an objection deadline. All right. So then I'll have to go back and look at it, Attorney Goldman. We'll set it for another probably not for two weeks or so since there's going to be an objection deadline. And I guess it really isn't that much harm at this point because they haven't been doing any -- MR. GOLDMAN: No. THE COURT: -- rendering any services? MR. GOLDMAN: They haven't. And I don't -- I don't perceive -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDMAN: -- that to be -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDMAN: -- an undue period of time. THE COURT: All right. Then we'll take a look and the clerk's office will schedule that and issue a notice of hearing with an objection deadline. MR. GOLDMAN: Great. THE COURT: All right?\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 148 MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Despins, did you want other dates for status conferences? MR. DESPINS: We had asked for September 7th. But since we're going to be here on the 6th, we might as well use that time. THE COURT: I think that's correct. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: And then we can talk on the 6th about I think you had some further dates as well. We can see where things stand at that point. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. BASSETT: One other question, suggestion about the continued hearing on the 6th. For any proposed orders that the parties file, either competing proposed orders or a joint proposed order, would it be helpful to have a deadline for that so the Court has -- THE COURT: Well, I mean, I would like -- if you have an agreed-upon order, it makes it kind of easy, so -- but I have a feeling that might not happen. But the -- the deadline, I think the problem is I don't even know if I'm going to have time to look at them Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 148 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 847<br>Filed 09/11/22<br>Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38<br>Page 149 of<br>150 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022<br>149                                                          |\n| 1  | between now and then, so -- but then, of course, isn't this                                   |\n| 2  | weekend a long weekend?<br>Yeah.                                                              |\n| 3  | So I think -- you know, if you have competing, if                                             |\n| 4  | you don't have an agreement, if you could file something on                                   |\n| 5  | the docket by noon that day, I'll try to take a look at it.                                   |\n| 6  | I mean, we have other hearings that morning, whether or not                                   |\n| 7  | I'll have an ability to look at it.                                                           |\n| 8  | I don't think it's unfair to ask both of you to                                               |\n| 9  | have something by noon because you're going to have to have                                   |\n| 10 | it by 1:00 anyway because I'm going to have to look at it.                                    |\n| 11 | Right?<br>So hopefully that gives me the ability to look at                                   |\n| 12 | it.                                                                                           |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:<br>That's fine with us.                                                          |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>I don't know that it will though.<br>I                                          |\n| 15 | can't promise you that I -- that I will have the ability to                                   |\n| 16 | look at it.                                                                                   |\n| 17 | But I do -- I do know that you will comply with                                               |\n| 18 | the requirement to discuss it with each other, and act and                                    |\n| 19 | see if you can try to come up with some resolution.                                           |\n| 20 | And I do think that there could be, and I'm not                                               |\n| 21 | suggesting -- I understand all the issues that you both are                                   |\n| 22 | thinking of and have thought through to the extent that you                                   |\n| 23 | have thought them through, but otherwise -- I just -- I                                       |\n| 24 | think -- I appreciate the parties' time and I'm hopeful that                                  |\n| 25 | there can be some form of an agreement.<br>Okay?                                              |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 150 MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Is there anything else that we can address today in the case? (No response) THE COURT: Okay. This was the last matter on today's calendar, so we will see you next Tuesday at 1:00 p.m., and court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 4:29 p.m.) I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above- entitled matter. 16 September 10, 2022 17 Christine Fiore, CERT Transcriber Case 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 150 of","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n关于　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），　　　　　　　　　　　*　Bridgeport, Connecticut\n\n债务人。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*　August 30, 2022\n\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n\n关于安排状态会议的命令记录；关于为 LADY MAY（梅女士号）设立维修准备金的命令动议；关于加快举行听证会的动议；关于在上诉待决期间中止执行为 THE LADY MAY（梅女士号）设立维修准备金的命令之动议；关于中止依据第 523/727 条提起的对抗程序之动议；关于作出命令确认特权控制权于受任命时转移给受托人及给予相关救济之动议\n\n于尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官阁下之前\n\n美国联邦破产法官\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：\n\nSTEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ.（斯蒂芬·M·金德塞思律师）\nHK International（HK国际公司）及\nMei Guo（郭梅）：\n\nAARON ROMNEY, ESQ.（亚伦·罗姆尼律师）\nERIC HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·亨齐律师）\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）\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）：\n\nLAURA ARONSSON, ESQ.（劳拉·阿伦松律师）\nSTUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ.（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（欧麦律师事务所）\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诉讼程序通过电子录音记录，庭审记录由转录服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\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：\n\nIRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·戈德曼律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表美国受托人：\n\nHOLLEY CLAIBORN, ESQ.（霍莉·克莱伯恩律师）\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n第 11 章受托人：\n\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（卢克·A·德斯平律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n第 11 章受托人的律师：\n\nNICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·巴塞特律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林西律师）\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂斯律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表 Verdolino & Lowey（韦尔多利诺与洛伊）：\n\nWILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ.（威廉·巴尔迪加律师）\nBrown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022\n\n（庭审于下午 1:06 开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok。\n\n法庭：好的。下午好。请先由第 11 章受托人进行备案出庭陈述。\n\nDESPINS 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Luc Despins，代表第 11 章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nBASSETT 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Nick Bassett，来自 Paul Hastings，代表第 11 章受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nLINSEY 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Patrick Linsey，受托人的本地律师。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nBIRNEY 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Patrick Birney，来自 Robinson & Cole，代表 PAX。与我一同亲自出庭的是来自 O'Melveny 的 Laura Aronsson 律师，Stuart Sarnoff 律师则通过 Zoom 出庭。\n\n法庭：是。下午好。\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：下午好。\n\nGOLDMAN 律师：下午好，法官阁下。\n\nCLAIBORN 律师：抱歉。下午好。我是 Holley Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 3 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 4 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nGOLDMAN 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Irve Goldman，来自 Pullman & Comley，代表债权人委员会。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nROMNEY 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Aaron Romney，来自 Zeisler & Zeisler，代表债务人，以及 HK International 和郭女士本人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nHENZY 律师：我是 Zeisler & Zeisler 的 Eric Henzy，代表同一当事人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：我是 Stephen Kindseth，来自 Zeisler & Zeisler，同样代表该三方当事人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：下午好，法官阁下。我是 William Baldiga，来自 Brown Rudnick。\n\n法庭：下午好。好的。\n\n法庭书记员：抱歉，我没有——\n\n法庭：Baldiga 先生，您没有听到——是您——\n\n法庭书记员：我认为——我认为没有录到。\n\n法庭：哦，没有录到吗？您能再说一遍您的姓名吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 5 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022\n\nBALDIGA 律师：William Baldiga，Brown Rudnick。\n\n法庭书记员：谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。关于今天下午，日程中有数项事项。我从日程安排的角度查看了一下，看看是否可能有一项或多项事项我们希望按与其在日程中所列不同的顺序处理；我首先查看的是关于中止对抗程序的动议，该动议由第 11 章受托人代表提交，我没有看到任何已提交的反对意见。\n\nLinsey 律师？\n\nLINSEY 律师：确实如此，法官阁下。事实上，在动议中，我们陈述，在我们提交动议后，对抗程序中的除一方以外的所有当事人，均已同意或表示其不持异议。现在是所有当事人——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLINSEY 律师：——均已明确同意，或明确表示其对所请求的救济不持异议。\n\n法庭：很好。谢谢。因此，现在我只是——我已审阅该动议。我只需要看一下拟议命令，若我能找到它的话。（暂停）\n\nLINSEY 律师：应当在第 9 页——ECF 763，第 9 页。\n\n法庭：谢谢。我暂时有些难以找到那里，但我很快会找到。（暂停）\n\n法庭：好的。我正在查看准许中止寻求裁定债务不可免责和/或拒绝免责之对抗程序的动议的拟议命令。该延期将持续至 October 22nd, 2022，Linsey 律师，正确吗？\n\nLINSEY 律师：我相信是持续至 October 21st, 2022。所提及的是那一天。您知道，我为现在才注意到这一点而道歉。该命令与——与动议之间存在不一致，因此——\n\n法庭：哪一天——好，我们看一下日历。如何？请稍等片刻。\n\nLINSEY 律师：好的。\n\n法庭：October 21st 是星期五，因此 October 22nd 是星期六。因此，日期就是 October 21st。\n\nLINSEY 律师：我猜那是笔误。我向您致歉，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么查看该命令——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 6 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022\n\n法庭：在第一——我转向法庭书记员——拟议命令的第一段，在第 9 页——\n\n法庭书记员：好的。\n\n法庭：——其中只是写道——在第一段末尾写的是持续至 October 22nd，但应当写 21st。\n\n法庭书记员：好的。\n\n法庭：好的。我们还可以在第一段末尾“and good cause having been shown”之处添加内容吗？您看到这句话了吗？\n\n法庭书记员：看到了。\n\n法庭：然后加入“and after a hearing held on August 30, 2022”，以明确已经举行了听证会。然后，拟议命令可以录入，Linsey 律师。这样可以吗，即我在记录中陈述的这些修改？\n\nLINSEY 律师：可以，法官阁下。该命令本身规定，该命令将在主案以及所涉各个对抗程序中录入。为澄清记录，这并不涉及 HK International 对抗程序。这仅涉及第 523 条和第 727 条对抗程序。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 7 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022\n\n法庭：是。谢谢。\n\nLINSEY 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：感谢您为记录指出这一点。因此，我们将仅录入该命令——该命令将在主案以及第 523 条和第 727 条对抗程序中录入。\n\n法庭书记员：好的。\n\n法庭：好的？\n\n法庭书记员：是的。\n\nLINSEY 律师：这些程序——这些程序列在该动议前两页的项目符号中。\n\n法庭：是。谢谢。\n\nLINSEY 律师：为便于查阅。谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。好的。因此，这处理了关于——第 11 章受托人就我们刚才谈到的那些特定对抗程序提出的中止动议。因此，ECF 763 获准。现在，显然今天的日程中还有其他一些事项。我认为或许先讨论准备金动议是合理的，因为我们只是——这是一次状态会议。我安排它是因为我认为，Kindseth 律师，我是否正确理解了您的文件，即您请求举行证据听证会？正确吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 8 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022\n\nKINDSETH 律师：正确。\n\n法庭：好的。那么请告诉我，您对于证据听证会有什么想法。您需要何种时间安排？您将提交哪些证人和/或证物？显然，随后我也会听取其他当事人关于其立场的意见。\n\nKINDSETH 律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。首先，法官阁下，我想说，我认为仅仅安排听证会就会促进当事人之间更认真地进行讨论，因此我们可能能够缩小争议事项。但直接回答您的问题，我预计需要一天。应当不会超过一天。我确实相信我们将能够大幅缩小争议事项。维修基本上分为两类。一类是债权人委员会、PAX 和其他债权人并不坚持在发放 $37 million 之前完成的维修。另一类是发动机维修，他们坚持在发放 $37 million 之前进行该项维修。因此，我认为，一旦安排听证会，并且我们进行这些讨论且缩小——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 9 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 10 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022\n\n数额范围，我们将只讨论——当然，PAX 的律师可以就此发言——关于发动机维修的争议事项和风险是什么，以及该约定是否明确预期了此类维修，因此是否应以估算金额设立维修准备金；这样，该组成部分可以得到满足，并且推定其他争议事项将得到解决，$37 million 可以发放。\n\n因此，话虽如此，我认为将需要一天。我会让船长和总轮机长就收到的方案以及需要进行的工作作证。我相信 PAX 有一名专家——我知道他们有一名专家——同样会就这一具体争议事项作证。因此，我预计不会超过一天。\n\n法庭：您将提交何种文件证物？\n\nLINSEY 律师：仅仅会是这些方案——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nLINSEY 律师：——涉及需要进行的工作及其成本。但我不认为成本是争议事项。我们已提供了多份关于维修成本的报价。就我看来，法官阁下，唯一的争议事项是这些情况是否需要扣留一项——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 11 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月30日 11 关于维修准备金的命令，待发动机维修完成后再行处理；遗憾的是，发动机维修可能需要45至60天。我们正试图安排于9月7日或8日将Lady May（五月夫人号）从水中吊起并进入干船坞。由于其他时间安排以及该项约定，如果必须先完成发动机维修，那么维修准备金的释放将延迟三至四个月，对不起，是$37 million托管资金的释放。法院：托管资金。是的。林西先生（Mr. Linsey）：因此，这就是问题的关键所在。我已与船长和轮机长商议过。他们在9月的任何时间都可以出席。我在9月14日和15日以及22日和23日有时间冲突。但除此之外，我任何时间都有空，法官阁下。法院：好的。谢谢。林西先生：谢谢。法院：律师？阿隆松女士（Ms. Aronsson）：早上好，法官阁下。我是代表PAX的O'Melveny（欧麦文）律师事务所的Laura Aronsson（劳拉·阿隆松）。我们认为，该项约定赋予法官阁下对于这些维修将如何进行的一定裁量权。而且，在我们签订该项约定时，发动机问题尚未被考虑到。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 847 于09/11/22提交，于09/11/22 12:34:38录入，第12页，共150页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月30日 12 在签订该项约定时，发动机问题尚未被考虑到。目前，右舷发动机维修的范围尚不清楚。因此，我们认为应先完成发动机维修。届时，PAX的专家可以进行海试，并确定是否需要进行任何其他维修，以使Lady May恢复良好工作状态。因此，目前Lady May并不处于良好工作状态。其不具备适航性。我认为右舷发动机发生了故障。其在驶入纽约港时燃油泵发生故障。PAX及我们的专家担心，这些维修——这一问题表明发动机可能存在更广泛的问题。尽管如此，我们同意在法官阁下方便时举行听证会。我认为我们需要几周时间来形成我们对此事的完整立场。但总而言之，我们原则上反对目前设定准备金。我们认为应先进行维修。法院：好的。谢谢。关于Kindseth先生（金塞斯先生）提出的听证会时长方案，他说一天。他有两名证人和一些文件。PAX对于证据听证会有何提议，如有的话？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月30日 13 关于证据听证会？阿隆松女士：首先，我们希望有机会就该动议作出书面回应，但我们将——我预计会有我们的专家——可能还会有一些证物。坦白说，我们仍在审查证据。上周，我们对Lady May进行了潜水船体检查，以收集有关其目前状况的更多证据，因此我们仍在准备届时听证会上的证据将为何种形式。法院：好的。我明白。那么——所以，回答我的问题，您希望法院设定期限，供任何人就准备金动议提交书面异议或答复，然后在该期限之后举行证据听证会？阿隆松女士：正是如此。法院：好的。您是否预计，在债务人——请原谅——在HK International（HK国际）就准备金动议陈述其主张之后，一天时间足以让您代表PAX陈述案件？阿隆松女士：是的。我认为一天应当足够。法院：好的。阿隆松女士：仅就我们的日程安排而言，我们无法——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 847 于09/11/22提交，于09/11/22 12:34:38录入，第13页，共150页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 847 于09/11/22提交，于09/11/22 12:34:38录入，第14页，共150页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月30日\n1　于9月10日至22日，以及25日至\n2　27日出席。\n3　法院：好的。谢谢。\n4　阿隆松女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n5　法院：谢谢。\n6　德斯潘先生（Mr. Despins）？\n7　德斯潘先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n8　我只是寻求澄清，因为Kindseth先生说过，似乎债权人\n9　愿意允许在返还\n10　$37 million之后进行某些维修？\n11　\n12　我从未理解为是这种情况。我认为\n13　关键在于有一项外观上的，或者看起来是外观上的\n14　问题需要修复。海试\n15　无需等待该项维修完成。但我从未\n16　理解为人们实际上在讨论\n17　即使该项维修尚未完成，也返还37 million。\n18　因此，这是我寻求澄清之处。\n19　另一点是，我想澄清\n20　听证会事项。在听证会上，我想确保Kindseth先生\n21　明白，将会提出一种立场，\n22　即无论先前给出的估算如何，均必须完成维修，\n23　之后才能检验该船是否具有适航性。\n24　因此，只要该问题\n25　在该听证会上待决，我便不存任何异议，继续进行即可。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 847 于09/11/22提交，于09/11/22 12:34:38录入，第15页，共150页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月30日 15 但我不希望处于这样一种境地：即已成既定事实——即听证会的唯一目的仅是确定一项准备金。我理解Kindseth先生将主张这就是应当发生的事。我明白。完全明白。但是否应先进行维修的问题仍应是一个尚待裁定的问题。这只是我向法院寻求的一项澄清，法官阁下。法院：Goldman律师？戈德曼先生（Mr. Goldman）：法官阁下，我代表委员会，委员会赞同PAX和受托人的观点。这是最近才发现的发动机维修问题，而发动机是该船运行中相当基础的一部分。我认为该命令的范围足以涵盖PAX提出的方案，尤其是应完成发动机维修，并对该游艇进行适航性测试，以确保不存在因发动机发生的问题而导致的其他问题。在作出约定命令时，任何一方均未面临该问题。法院：谢谢。Kindseth先生？金塞斯先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 847 于09/11/22提交，于09/11/22 12:34:38录入，第16页，共150页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月30日 16 关于我所作的区分，存在一些已知必须进行的维修，例如必须进行的海底阀门作业。始终预期将设立维修准备金为其提供资金，随后便会触发$37 million的释放。另一方所主张的唯一问题是，在游艇被送回康涅狄格州途中发生的发动机问题，造成了某种特殊情形，据此可将该项约定解释为允许或要求在释放$37 million之前完成这些维修；我们对此坚决反对，因为我们认为该项约定明确预见了未知维修。但无论如何，那是听证会要处理的事项。我同意受托人的意见。这是一次状态会议。我理解这些论点。这些论点不会被排除，包括我对两类维修所作的区分。如果他们想主张各方始终预期在释放$37 million之前完成所有维修，他们可以提出该主张。所有这些都将在听证会上予以安排。我还要指出，法官阁下，PAX要求排除9月大部分时间的做法并不——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 847 于09/11/22提交，于09/11/22 12:34:38录入，第17页，共150页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月30日\n1　合理，法官阁下。我的当事人就其借入的$37 million\n2　每月承担3%的利息。我们已于一个多月前\n3　返还该船。这本应是\n4　一项快速程序。我们请求法院\n5　安排听证会。\n6　而且，律师及其律师事务所拥有足够多\n7　应可出席的律师，他们可以就这一非常明确的\n8　维修问题进行陈述，不应排除9月的大部分时间。\n9　谢谢。\n10　法院：请继续，律师？\n11　阿隆松女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n12　我认为我们可以撤回对10日至22日的安排限制，\n13　因此我认为我们可以更具灵活性，但我们无法在\n14　9月25日至27日出席。\n15　抱歉。我正在与律师\n16　远程协调。\n17　法院：明白。\n18　阿隆松女士：谢谢。\n19　法院：谢谢。\n20　因此，安排这次状态会议的目的\n21　是讨论HK International希望就其动议\n22　举行证据听证会这一事实。\n23　我所作出的任何命令中均未载明，\n24　这意味着他们只需出庭并证明准备金应为X\n25　即可。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 847 于09/11/22提交，于09/11/22 12:34:38录入，第18页，共150页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月30日 18 任何人都可以主张目前不应当发生。我认为这相当清楚。而且，您知道，无论将会发生什么，我不得而知。我们将看看各位有什么要说的。但该——嗯，各位订立了——显然，受托人——受托人并非其中任何事项的当事人。在各方同意放弃就自动中止救济举行听证会及就自动中止救济作出裁决时，他并不在本案中。而且，Kindseth先生，我手头没有相关文件，但我记得您提交过——我不知道您称之为答复还是对自动中止救济的异议——称我们将把该船带回，因此这使得——我想这就是您所说的，对吧——这使PAX在其自动中止救济动议中提出的救济请求失去意义。我们曾在听证会上对此进行过一些讨论。随后便有了这项约定命令。而且——Baldiga先生（巴尔迪加先生）在场。我记得他代表债务人时，我曾与他讨论过提供保证金。后来问题是，不，我们不会提供保证金，我们只会提供现金，并将其存入托管账户，对吗？因此，该笔资金处于托管状态，且一直处于托管状态；除非且直至有命令规定可将其从托管中释放，否则仍将处于托管状态。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月30日 19 每个人都同意这一点。至于是否曾有——我对该项约定的记忆并不是为了释放资金而需要快速程序。而且我尚未——我是说，我可以调出来。我们可以逐条审阅。您希望怎样做，我们都可以做。我的记忆是，$37 million实质上是为了将该船送至康涅狄格州、康涅狄格州的可航行水域——不是送回，因为它从未在这里，或者至少在本案期间未在这里——而提供的担保，须遵从法院进一步命令。其原因是——而且您会记得，Kindseth律师，当时有一项计划，这艘船将成为债权人计划的一部分。但现在已不存在任何计划。那么会发生什么？我不确定，这就是我向您提出这个问题的原因。如果您是正确的，如果您能够证明存在一项准备金，您知道，您将把它——我不知道您是从37 million中扣除，还是存入另一个账户，或者具体如何操作，但是——然后37 million被释放，那么该船会怎样？它仍然只是一艘并非某项——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 847 于09/11/22提交，于09/11/22 12:34:38录入，第19页，共150页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 847 于09/11/22提交，于09/11/22 12:34:38录入，第20页，共150页\n\n郭文贵 - 2022年8月30日 20　目前并无任何计划或其他安排。在今年4月达成该项约定时，存在一项计划已经提交，其中称该游艇将被质押给破产财产。现在，该计划附有不同条件。我了解所有条款。我并不理解，但我记得该计划的所有条款，其中涉及免责事项，以及债权人是否真的会同意该计划的问题；但至少已有案件将如何进行的框架。该计划是否最终会获得确认是另一回事，对吗？但目前，如果这 $37 million 被释放，那么游艇怎么办？金德塞斯律师：是的，法官阁下。游艇留在这里。并且，为澄清一些事项，这曾经过大量谈判，并历时较长，我们详尽审阅了所有条款。好吗？这大概正是我们目前所处情形以及针对我当事人所采取立场如此令人愤怒的原因，因为这些内容都载于该约定中。因此，我想指出的第一项澄清是，若游艇被返还，若船长被送达该命令副本，并且 YACHTZOO（游艇管理公司）被送达\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 21 页，共 150 页\n\n郭文贵 - 2022年8月30日 21　该命令副本——而船长已被送达——并且若其签署一份确认若干事项的声明——法庭：是。他们不是应当签署一份声明，说明他们——金德塞斯律师：是。法庭：——确认他们被禁止将游艇移走吗？金德塞斯律师：正确。正确。法庭：但我还没有看到那份声明，对吗？金德塞斯律师：正确。这里载明的程序——法庭：我只是在问。金德塞斯律师：是。尚未提交。法庭：因为我记得那是该约定的一部分，而且我认为我还没有看到任何——金德塞斯律师：正确。法庭：——向我表明这一点的材料。该游艇自——金德塞斯律师：是。法庭：——我不知道，6月、7月？金德塞斯律师：7月。法庭：对。7月。而且我——无论如何，我在本案案卷中没有看到任何——金德塞斯律师：是。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 22 页，共 150 页\n\n郭文贵 - 2022年8月30日 22　法庭：——港务长和船长已作出确认的材料，我相信那是相关主体；他们同意受到限制，不得将游艇移出康涅狄格州通航水域。金德塞斯律师：船长已签署声明。船长已被送达。但此处载明的程序，法官阁下——这也正是设立维修准备金后 $37 million 将被释放乃属确定之事的原因——因为命令要求返还游艇，向船长和 YACHTZOO 送达，让他们签署声明，在通知后由本法庭举行听证以设立维修准备金；随后，我——一旦完成上述事项，我就送达一份证明。无需本法庭作出进一步命令，法官阁下。我向适用的当事方送达一份证明。如果他们对我的证明有异议，他们有15天时间向法庭提出。他们必须证明我的证明不准确。若他们未在15天内这样做，我随后便向托管代理人提供该证明，同时向另一方所有人抄送；托管代理人在收到该证明后，即向我的当事人返还 $37 million。这正是约定命令所规定的内容。存在——该维修准备金所设想的是\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 23 页，共 150 页\n\n郭文贵 - 2022年8月30日\n1　就已知及未知的维修事项预留资金。其\n2　——因此——因为我们绝不希望在进行维修期间\n3　拖延释放 $37 million，该金额几乎是\n4　游艇价值的两倍。\n5　我们可以——如果他们本着善意行事，我们\n6　可以就数额达成一致。好吗？有一个数额\n7　足以覆盖预计的维修成本。\n8　此外，法官阁下，发动机受\n9　保险保障，因此我们有保险来承担该成本。而\n10　我们仍提议为该成本预留充足资金，\n11　并在此基础上增加数额。但这还\n12　不够。\n13　因此，法官阁下，程序载明于此。\n14　并且在该程序结束时——因为他们\n15　不能同时获得游艇和 $37 million——所以当 $37 million 被\n16　释放时，维修完成，游艇留在此处，\n17　须服从本法庭的进一步命令。\n18　因此，YACHTZOO，即游艇管理公司，受到限制，\n19　船长亦因被送达本法庭的命令而受到限制。\n20　他们签署声明，确认\n21　他们受本法庭命令约束。我已与\n22　船长谈过。我已向船长说明这一切。该\n23　船长明白，换言之，游艇不会去任何地方，\n24　除非本法庭另有命令，但\n25　$37 million 可以被释放。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 24 页，共 150 页\n\n郭文贵 - 2022年8月30日 24　法庭：好。我不确定我完全——那是否完全准确，但你或许是对的。我的意思是，我们可以调出——我们可以调出该约定并逐项审阅。金德塞斯律师：但是，法官阁下，我所提议的程序是，我们将在听证会上把这一切解决。但为了公平对待我的当事人，为了公平对待我们同意的程序，我们请求举行听证会，由法官阁下听取专家意见，了解问题，调出该约定，我说明我的立场，他们说明他们的立场，而法官阁下作出决定。法庭：我明白你的意思。我只是——我是——我的意思是，我认为这实质上就是将要发生的事情。我原本并未认为会发生任何不同的事情。但我确实认为，该约定中有些条款至少在本案记录上尚未得到明确遵守，其中包括港务长和船长的确认。因为该约定称，他们受到限制。如果案卷中没有任何材料表明他们受到限制且由他们确认，那么他们就未受限制。因此，这必须发生。我不明白为什么\n\n郭文贵 - 2022年8月30日 25　这不能发生。在向本法庭提交该约定时，这是我们确实曾广泛讨论的条件之一。PAX 提交的解除自动中止动议实际上，嗯，是一项主张不存在自动中止的动议，或备选地请求解除自动中止。随后，你代表 HK International（香港国际）提交答复；该主体并非本案债务人，答复称我们会将游艇带回这里并将其质押。它将成为该计划的一部分。但是，再次说明，我们没有计划。我们现在没有该计划。因此，当你说游艇将留在这里时，嗯，它可能会，也可能不会。我甚至没有船长或港务长的确认，嗯，确认他们受到限制。没有这个，我不会采取任何行动。我的意思是，这是至少必须发生的事情，因为否则有什么意义？我们经历了这一切，又是为了什么？金德塞斯律师：只是为了让您——法庭：对吗？金德塞斯律师：是。但是，为了非常、非常明确起见，我可以作为初步事项提交，所设想的程序是，在我完成所有四项事项后，我再送达那份\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 25 页，共 150 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 26 页，共 150 页\n\n郭文贵 - 2022年8月30日 26　证明。维修准备金是这四项事项中的第四项。我之所以一直等待提交，是因为按照该约定的条款，所有四项事项都必须完成后我才能提交。因此，一旦设立维修准备金，我就会提交。如果法官阁下希望我更早提交或送达，我可以这样做。法庭：好的。让我看看该约定。我们为何不调出 ECF 299。再次说明，当时受托人尚未参与本案，因此——而受托人现已控制该——该破产财产，所以让我们看看你认为相关内容在哪里。金德塞斯律师：第3段，法官阁下。法庭：好。ECF 299 共29页中的第3页第3段。金德塞斯律师：正确，法官阁下。法庭：我们能调出该部分吗？法庭书记员：当然，法官阁下。请稍候。 （暂停）法庭：好。那么，第一项，HK USA 及时履行交付义务。我认为确实如此。事实上，据我记忆，它是提前履行的，因为该交付义务我\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 27 页，共 150 页\n\n郭文贵 - 2022年8月30日\n1　认为是7月15日，而游艇在此之前已在这里。\n2　向当时的 Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）船长\n3　及游艇管理公司适当且有效送达\n4　本命令的真实、完整副本。\n5　我不知道——我的意思是，你已告知我这\n6　已经发生，但我没有在记录中看到，对吗？\n7　金德塞斯律师：我可以提交一些材料，法官阁下。\n8　法庭：好。一份送达证明，\n9　证明已按本命令要求完成该等送达，\n10　并向本法庭提交。\n11　我还没有看到。\n12　由船长及游艇管理公司依照 28 U.S.C. 1746 作出的\n13　声明，同意各自就本命令\n14　受本法庭管辖，并确认\n15　其受本命令中适用于其的条款约束，\n16　包括特别确认他们受到限制，\n17　不得将 Lady May 移出\n18　康涅狄格州通航水域，\n19　直至本法庭作出进一步命令或\n20　该破产案件依第9节规定被驳回，\n21　而该情形没有发生，因为驳回系依照\n22　PAX 的驳回动议，该动议未获准许。\n23　金德塞斯律师：正确。\n24　法庭：并证明 Lady May 当时\n25　位于康涅狄格州通航水域内，以及\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 28 页，共 150 页\n\n郭文贵 - 2022年8月30日 28　Lady May 状况良好、可正常运作。它并非处于良好——我的意思是，我听说它并非处于良好、可正常运作的状态。金德塞斯律师：但那是括号中的内容，法官阁下。以——法庭：嗯，其中写的是以尚未完成的检修和维护为限。没人想到你们需要更换整台发动机。我的意思是，看——金德塞斯律师：除此以外——法庭：——游艇非常大。我明白。我相信它有不止一台发动机。我不知道。金德塞斯律师：正确。法庭：对吗？金德塞斯律师：它——法庭：那么它有多少台发动机？金德塞斯律师：两台。法庭：两台都不能运作，还是仅一台？金德塞斯律师：不是。因此，为非常明确说明发生的情况，燃油泵中的齿轮，有几颗齿轮被剥落了细小金属碎片，而那些齿轮随后进入润滑系统。因此，发动机的整个润滑系统都需要冲洗。这就是发生的情况。因此，理论上它可能\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 29 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 29 可能还需要另一项维修或部件，但这只是一种理论，我们可以为此预留资金。但关于发动机故障，我们所说的是，这些小齿轮上脱落的金属碎片进入了发动机的润滑系统。法庭：好的。所以你是说，不需要更换整个发动机。KINDSETH先生（金德塞斯先生）：不需要。法庭：只需要冲洗？KINDSETH先生：不。只是——但是——是的，这就是问题。法庭：但是，如果你现在想登上游艇并驶入水中，你不能这么做，因为发动机没有正常——发动机或多台发动机均未正常运转？KINDSETH先生：目前这样做并非良好做法。我的意思是，你可以启动它然后开走，但这不审慎。法庭：好的。好。那么我们来看这项命令的第11节，即维修准备金，在第几页，让我看看，第29页中的第8页，第11段。实际上是第29页中的第8页。如果我们能把它放大一点，比如，你知道，那里。谢谢。好的。HK USA应自行承担费用——应自行承担费用安排进行本声明中确定的维修和保养，以及在必要时为使Lady May（“五月夫人”号）恢复良好工作状态所需的其他维修和保养，该等工作应在履行完毕或交付义务之前完成，或者此后依本法庭作出的命令完成。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 847 提交 09/11/22 录入 09/11/22 12:34:38 第30页，共150页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022\n1　本声明中所确定的，以及在必要时为使\n2　Lady May（“五月夫人”号）恢复良好工作状态所需的维修和保养，\n3　应在履行完毕或交付义务之前完成，\n4　或者此后依本法庭作出的命令完成。\n好的？\n5　那么我不是必须作出一项命令吗？\n6　KINDSETH先生：\n这就是该动议。\n7　法庭：\n对。\n但是，我的意思是，难道——但是我\n8　认为你之前所说的是——我以为你所\n9　说的是，不需要进一步的法庭命令。\n10　如果你遵守前一段中的全部四个步骤，\n11　你只需向他们提供一份证明，而他们有\n12　15天时间提出异议并向法庭提出？\n13　KINDSETH先生：\n第四项是由\n14　本法庭作出一项设立维修准备金的命令。一旦这四\n15　项，包括本法庭作出设立\n16　维修准备金的命令，均已满足，我就可以送达该证明。\n17　这$37 million并不一定\n18　需要命令才能释放。\n19　法庭：\n好的。\n20　KINDSETH先生：\n只要我取得\n21　本法庭作出的设立维修准备金的命令。\n22　DESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：\n法官阁下，这并不是本\n23　段所说的内容。\n24　法庭：\n我也不确定它是否如此，但我\n25　不知道我们今天下午是否要就此争论。我\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 847 提交 09/11/22 录入 09/11/22 12:34:38 第31页，共150页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 31 的意思是，我有一段时间没有回头看它了。我没有。我得再读一遍。但再说一次，我所看到的是，也许你们的通话可以解决这个问题，但这处于不同的背景下。这项协议的背景，即该协议被作出之时，是为了阻止——而且很好，顺便说一句，完全没问题，我并非以任何负面含义使用“阻止”一词——但为了阻止解除自动中止动议继续进行并获得裁决。对吗？这项协议是解除自动中止动议的一项解决方案。因为你们所做的是，你们说，你们的客户说，就债务人已经提交、正在推进并向本法庭陈述的重整计划而言，我们在这里，我们想要——我们想要偿还所有债权人，你知道，我们想公平对待每一个人，而这就是我们将要使用的资产。至少是这项资产，也许还有更多，但我们将使用这艘游艇来做到这一点。当时这正是该协议所设想的。因为当时事实情况就是如此。KINDSETH先生：我会说——法庭：事实已经——事实已经改变。KINDSETH先生：法官阁下，我看待这项协议时更为孤立。这项协议解决的是把船带回美国，带回Connecticut（康涅狄格州），以便各方随后可以就该游艇是否属于破产财产发生争议并由法院裁决。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 847 提交 09/11/22 录入 09/11/22 12:34:38 第32页，共150页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 32 法庭：但它已经被承诺用于该计划。它并不——当时我们不需要就它是否属于破产财产进行争论，因为你的客户——KINDSETH先生：正确。法庭：——已经在一项由Kwok先生（郭先生）签署的计划中承诺了它。KINDSETH先生：我知道。而且它受法庭命令约束。法官阁下，为回应受托人就第11段规定内容所作的评论，我实际上指的是第4段，该段规定PAX、委员会、债务人和United States Trustee（美国受托人）自提交HK USA证明之日起有15天时间提出异议；而本段规定，如果他们不提出异议，我可以向第三方托管机构提供该证明。因此，整体而言，该协议如我所陈述的那样作出规定。第11段仅涉及维修准备金，这是我的客户为使其随后能够根据第4段提交证明并取得$37 million而须满足要件中的第四项。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 847 提交 09/11/22 录入 09/11/22 12:34:38 第33页，共150页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 33 法庭：嗯，第11段还规定，在交付后，本法庭必须作出一项命令，具体界定应当通过何种时间、地点和方式进行该等维修和保养，包括但不限于设立一项单独的现金准备金，其数额足以支付本声明中确定的尚未完成的维修和保养任务的预计成本，并在必要时使Lady May（“五月夫人”号）恢复良好工作状态。而且，维修准备金中的该等资金在维修和保养任务完成之前不应予以释放。好的。完成。因此，我认为，或者我相信我准确听到你所说的是，如果我没有正确听到，你会纠正我，即你认为即使维修尚未完成，$37 million也可以释放？KINDSETH先生：正确。那么，例如，假设我们确定维修将花费$783,000。再说一次，关键在于确保各方不受损害。我们协商约定，只要我们为维修预留足够资金，$37 million就可以释放。因为$37 million实际上是一项履约保证金，以确保Lady May（“五月夫人”号）回到Connecticut（康涅狄格州）。因此，当时的设想是，如果它回来了——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 847 提交 09/11/22 录入 09/11/22 12:34:38 第34页，共150页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 34 回到Connecticut（康涅狄格州），而且需要维修，无论是已知维修还是未知维修，那怎么办？这就是为什么其中写的是本声明中确定的维修和保养，以及在必要时的其他维修和保养。第11段中“以及在必要时的其他维修和保养”明确设想到，在返程途中可能发生某些情况。这是其他当事方坚持要求加入的内容。法庭：是的。我理解这一点。KINDSETH先生：对。法庭：但我不——我不确定这最终意味着什么。KINDSETH先生：因此，一旦将$783,000存入维修准备金，而且我们已提议受托人可以持有$783,000或本法庭确定的其他数额，则释放$37 million不会对破产财产造成损害，因为我们已经履行。Lady May（“五月夫人”号）已经在这里。法庭：我理解该论点。我理解。我理解你的论点。我明白。不过，我更关注的是我今天指出的问题，即你说这是为了把船带回来才作出的，$37 million仅仅是为了把船带回来才缴存的。我不认为这是真的，即它不仅仅是为了把船带回来，因为该船被承诺作为可供债权人使用的破产财产资产。而且并不存在——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 35 关于该船所有权的争议。KINDSETH先生：但那是在我们继续推进——或者债务人继续推进该计划的前提下——法庭：而那正是当时的事实状态。KINDSETH先生：我知道。但这并未发生。而且没有——法官阁下，一项拟议计划在获得确认之前，显然不是承诺，它只是拟议的。而且——据我理解——法庭：我不同意。但我听到了你的意见。不过我不同意。KINDSETH先生：对。所以——法庭：我来告诉你为什么我不同意。只是为了——只是就本案而言，我想解释一下。好吗？因为该债务人多次来到这里并表示，我们可以回顾并审阅全部庭审记录，他们来到这里是为了整合对该债务人、该个人提出的债权争议，整合对该个人的债权，并向无担保债权人作出公平且有实质意义的分配。现在他说他不拥有该船，但HK International（郭文贵国际公司）将其承诺用于该计划，而且他签署了该计划。作为其律师的你来到这里并说，是的，而且我们将服从本法庭的管辖。你说——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 847 提交 09/11/22 录入 09/11/22 12:34:38 第35页，共150页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 36 这是在第一天就说的。你们将服从本法庭的管辖，并将依照债务人计划的规定行事。嗯，如我们所知，本案推进后，债务人决定改变航向——对船只而言，这个双关语无意为之。因此，这就产生了问题。你不能随后援引这项协议并说，嗯，情况已经改变并不重要。我们将要——我们所能做的只是拿回我们的钱。嗯，什么——这正是我的问题，而你——我对你说，那么船怎么办？你说，嗯，它留在这里。我说，嗯，它可能留在这里，也可能不留在这里。我面前有两个人，他们没有在记录中向我表明他们已同意受到限制或服从本法庭管辖。你却想拿回这笔钱。我理解你为什么想把钱从第三方托管中取出。你把钱从第三方托管中取出，而这些人决定，哦，我想我们就把船开走吧。KINDSETH先生：但是，法官阁下，我不能——法庭：那我们怎么办？KINDSETH先生：在我提交送达证明和声明之前，我不能从第三方托管中取出$37 million。而且我可以——我向法庭陈述——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 847 提交 09/11/22 录入 09/11/22 12:34:38 第36页，共150页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 37 船长已经签署了该声明。该声明已完成送达。好的？因此，我可以提交该送达证明。法庭：我认为你应当提交该证明。KINDSETH先生：好的。因此，根据这项经过广泛协商的协议，我的客户不可能在未向船长和YACHTZOO完成送达且未签署所要求声明的情况下取回$37 million。法庭：好的。那很好。那么就提交它。KINDSETH先生：我们会提交。法庭：我希望看到它。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 847 提交 09/11/22 录入 09/11/22 12:34:38 第37页，共150页\n\nKINDSETH先生：但是，法官阁下，回到拟议的重整计划，我认为这非常重要，那是一项要约。那是一项真诚、善意的要约，即我的客户已同意代表其父亲的破产案件贡献Lady May（“五月夫人”号），希望为整个局面带来和平。好吗？\n\n那是一项要约。它——它未经确认。披露声明未经批准。那是一项要约。而且它没有成功。\n\n因此，这就是——这不会对我的客户产生任何具有约束力的后果。对吗？我的客户不会因为愿意提议——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 38 将其作为一项计划的一部分提供——法庭：我没有——KINDSETH先生：——而该计划已被否决，就失去一艘价值$20 million的游艇。法庭：我没有——KINDSETH先生：——该计划已被否决。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 847 提交 09/11/22 录入 09/11/22 12:34:38 第38页，共150页\n\n本院：我没有说——首先，该方案并未被否决。我们从未进行到那一步。\n\nKINDSETH先生（金德塞思）：没有。谈判进展并不顺利。\n\n本院：但那不是重点。我没有说该方案对你的当事人具有约束力。我问的问题是，船会怎么样？那是我的问题，不是吗？\n\nKINDSETH先生：所以非常明确——\n\n本院：而答案是，我不知道，法官。它可能会留在这里，也可能不会留在这里。\n\nKINDSETH先生：不，不是那样。它百分之百会留在这里。船长和游艇管理公司正持有它。\n\n原先设想的是，本院将继续审理该游艇是否属于破产财产的问题。如果本院通过终局命令认定该游艇属于破产财产，它将留在这里。\n\n如果阁下裁定其不属于破产财产，并据此将其从本院管辖权中释放，那么该游艇将自行离去。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 847 于 09/11/22 提交 于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入 第 39 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 39 但这正是各方原先设想的情况。并不是既取得 $37 million 又取得该游艇。本院：我同意你关于这一点的意见。KINDSETH先生：对。本院：我在这个问题上没有分歧。KINDSETH先生：对。所以唯一的问题是——本院：我有——我所问的只是——我应该停止。我不——我同意你。我不——我相信并同意，该约定并非指 $37 million 和该游艇——KINDSETH先生：所以我们将把该游艇扣住。本院：——由 HK International（HK国际）出资。我同意这一点。KINDSETH先生：对。本院：好吗？KINDSETH先生：是的。谢谢。本院：所以我同意。KINDSETH先生：所以，我希望就维修事项举行听证会，或使这些问题能够得到充分审查并由阁下作出裁定，而不是在一次状态会议上处理。本院：我明白。这正是我们举行状态会议的原因，因为我想了解你提出的证据听证会方案的范围是怎样的，而且\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 847 于 09/11/22 提交 于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入 第 40 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 40 你现在已经告诉我了。KINDSETH先生：谢谢。本院：所以我对此表示感谢。好吗？那么现在——而且我已经听取了——我必须看看是否还有其他人希望发言。然后我们将讨论如何安排就准备金动议举行证据听证会。好吗？KINDSETH先生：谢谢。本院：在我们开始安排听证会之前，还有其他人希望发言吗？（无人回应）本院：好的。因此，显然我需要查看日程，所以金德塞思律师，你可以坐下。我可能需要一两分钟来确定一些日期。我听到有人提到对他们不合适的日期，因此，鉴于——这些条件，让我看看哪些日期对本院合适。（暂停）本院：我正在再次查看你们的日期。（暂停）本院：所以你认为你需要整整一天？不能从中午开始吗？我只是问一下。因为我正试图安排日期。但是，按照你所说的日期以及其他人所说的日期——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 847 于 09/11/22 提交 于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入 第 41 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 41 我们将排到十月初。KINDSETH先生：因为将有三名证人和辩论，我确实认为这很可能需要一整天。本院：好的。没问题。KINDSETH先生：我的意思是，如果这符合您的日程安排，我们可以将其分为两个半天，阁下。本院：等等。让我继续看看。（暂停）KINDSETH先生：为澄清起见，阁下，我相信 PAX（PAX）的律师说他们在10日至22日期间可以出席。本院：我明白。KINDSETH先生：好的。本院：我明白这一点。KINDSETH先生：只是澄清一下。本院：但是存在问题，因为已经安排了其他事项，我们无法在其中某些日期进行。也没有完整的一天。已经安排了不同的事项。（暂停）BIRNEY先生（伯尼）：阁下？本院：是。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 42 BIRNEY先生：抱歉。我是代表 PAX 出席的 Patrick Birney（帕特里克·伯尼）。为使记录清楚，阁下，PAX 也希望就——作出回应。本院：哦，是的。你们将有一个回应日期。BIRNEY先生：好的。谢谢。本院：将会有一个回应日期。我将仅从听证日期倒推。这不只是针对 PAX。任何希望提交回应的人都一样。（暂停）本院：真正符合所有人日程的第一个整日是 Friday, October 7th。我们可以从 10:00 a.m. 开始。各方须在 Friday, September 23rd 之前提交回应。此外，任何希望传唤证人并提交证物的当事人，必须在 September 28th 5:00 p.m. 当日或之前提交证人和证物清单。Claiborn律师（克莱伯恩）？CLAIBORN女士：阁下，我是否可以就日程安排发表意见？U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）可能无法在 October 7th 当日出席。我知道我将出国。目前，U.S. Trustee 并未\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 847 于 09/11/22 提交 于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入 第 42 页，共 150 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 847 于 09/11/22 提交 于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入 第 43 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022\n1　打算在该争议中发挥积极作用，但我只是\n2　想让您知道，只要该情形仍然存在，\n3　即我们不发挥积极作用，就有一种\n4　可能，即可能有人无法到场。\n5　本院：\n好的。\n谢谢。\n我对此表示感谢。\n6　好的。关于请求作出命令以设立准备金、维修准备金的\n7　动议，\n8　证据听证会将于 October 7 at 10:00 a.m. 举行。\n9　对该动议的异议或回应必须在\n10　September 23rd 当日或之前提交。任何打算传唤\n11　证人和证物，并提交证物的当事人，\n12　必须在 September 28th 5:00 p.m. 当日或之前提交\n13　证人和证物清单。\n14　该等证物必须为 PDF 格式。而且，\n15　例如，Kindseth先生，你的证物应当——你\n16　可以写 HK 或 HK International，按你的意愿\n17　办理，并使用数字，从 1 开始。然后 PAX，同样，我不使用\n18　字母。我使用数字。因此，应为 PAX-1 至\n19　任何相应编号。Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人），同样，使用数字。\n20　好吗？\n21　但该等证物必须为 PDF 格式，并且还必须在\n22　案卷中提交。如果任何拟提交证物的\n23　当事人因某种原因认为该\n24　证物应当密封提交，那么你应当就密封提交提出动议，\n25　并附上该证物，本院将\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 44 在听证会之前审查该事项。好吗？因此，这就处理了今天下午关于准备金动议的听证会。接下来是上诉期间中止执行动议，以及请求作出命令、规定特权在受托人获任命时转移给受托人的动议；坦率地说，我认为这两项动议相关。尽管我知道，Henzy律师（亨齐），就你是否需要知道能否获得上诉期间中止执行而言，你可能不同意我对此的看法。我明白这一点。我认为，你请求本院中止执行的最终问题，是关于该函件的问题，以及你所主张的 Kwok先生就该函件可能享有的任何特权之放弃，以及附随于在 London（伦敦）对 UBS（瑞银）提起诉讼的特权。对吗？HENZY先生：是。是。这两者因所提出的一些论点而相关。我会主张它们实际上并不相关，我可以告诉您原因。但是——本院：请讲。HENZY先生：它们并不相关，因为您作出的、我们已提起上诉的命令，假定 Kwok先生仍然拥有某些特权。受托人已提交的动议，是一项请求作出命令的动议\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 847 于 09/11/22 提交 于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入 第 44 页，共 150 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 847 于 09/11/22 提交 于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入 第 45 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022\n1　我将其称为界定哪些特权已转移给\n2　受托人、哪些未转移给受托人的命令，但——我\n3　会主张，这与我们的上诉无关，因为如果\n4　阁下作出如下认定，我认为您会——无论如何，我会主张您在\n5　公司治理动议相关事项中并未作出该认定，\n6　即不论依据美国法还是英国法，\n7　Kwok先生所拥有的一切特权，完整无缺地\n8　在受托人获任命时转移给受托人，\n9　那么您在\n10　公司治理命令中给予的救济便无必要。\n11　因为公司治理命令——而且\n12　我——在该动议中，阁下，我认为我错误地或措辞不当\n13　地陈述了——争议所在。\n14　本院：\n你是指上诉期间中止执行动议？\n15　HENZY先生：\n是。\n是。\n16　本院：\n好的。请继续。\n17　HENZY先生：\n无论你将其称为放弃，我认为\n18　在此更恰当的说法是存在一项被强制的\n19　披露，因此该命令指示 Kwok先生签署一封函件，\n20　该函件告知他的、我认为是其在\n21　英国的前律师，尽管如果他不再拥有该请求权，\n22　而他确实不再拥有，那么这点大概有些不清楚，\n23　我便不知道——我不知道那些律师如何\n24　能够在该诉讼中代表他。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 847 于 09/11/22 提交 于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入 第 46 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 46 我想，类似的情况是，阁下，当债务人提出申请且有一宗人身伤害诉讼正在进行时，该诉讼随后即由 Chapter 7 Trustee（第7章受托人）所有。我知道有一些州法院判决认为，这会在州法院产生事项管辖权问题，因为该人身伤害诉讼中的债务人／原告现在已不再是真正利益当事人。因此我不知道，但——因为我不了解英国法，英国法下可能存在类似原则。但是我——所以，那些英国律师究竟是他的前律师，还是仍是他的律师，取决于英国法如何规定。但是，该命令指示他向其律师发送一封函件，称你们应当与受托人沟通，不论是否存在律师—当事人特权、工作成果特权或其他特权。因此，存在受特权保护信息的被强制披露。再者，如果受托人拥有全部特权，该命令便——并非必要。该命令毫无关系，因为受托人拥有该特权，所以 Kwok先生无需就与受托人交谈一事告知律师任何事情，也无需——不论任何特权如何，因为他拥有该特权。因此，我认为二者相关。但是，再次说明，我认为二者相关，是因为受托人提出如下论点\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 47，即您作出的命令没有问题，因为他拥有全部特权。再者，我认为这是错误的，因为如果这是真的，那么他就不——他就不需要这个，他不需要命令的这一部分。所以，再次说明，我认为二者相关，是因为受托人提出这一论点，但实际上我不——我确实不认为二者相关。本院：好的。我不确定——我想我明白你的意思。我想你的意思是，关于你请求上诉期间中止执行，也就是说，你希望本院中止执行一项已经作出的命令，而该命令有一项规定要求——我认为你只对要求——的那项规定提起上诉，不是吗——这是真的吗？HENZY先生：我们对两项规定提起上诉，阁下。本院：好的。HENZY先生：但我们仅就其中一项请求上诉期间中止执行。本院：好的。仅就——仅就函件问题？HENZY先生：正确。本院：我的意思是，由于没有更好的称呼，我是这样称呼它的。HENZY先生：正确。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 847 于 09/11/22 提交 于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入 第 47 页，共 150 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 847 于 09/11/22 提交 于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入 第 48 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022\n\n1　法庭：\n信函/特权问题。\n好的。\n\n2　HENZY先生（亨齐先生）：\n因此，为完整起见——我们确已提交了我们的\n\n3　问题指定书和陈述书。除这一\n\n4　问题外，即待上诉期间中止执行动议中所涉及的这一问题，我们——\n\n5\n\n6　法庭：\n是。\n\n7　HENZY先生：\n——我们正在就我想我会\n\n8　称之为向受托人授予公司治理权一事提出上诉。\n\n但是，再次说明，我们尚未请求待\n\n9　上诉期间中止执行——\n\n10\n\n11　法庭：\n好的。\n\n12　HENZY先生：\n——关于该问题。\n\n13　法庭：\n好的。你是否能够找到\n\n14　任何——我没有看到，但也许是我遗漏了——你是否\n\n15　能够找到任何讨论待上诉期间中止执行\n\n16　以及与此类似问题的案件，例如个人特权\n\n17　问题，而非公司特权问题？\n\n18　HENZY先生：\n法官阁下，我曾——我是说，我已在\n\n19　该动议中提出论证。而各法院，您知道——\n\n20　当然，我援引的许多案件，您知道，表明了\n\n21　法院曾在何种情况下撤销——\n\n22　法庭：\n即使是在破产情境下也是如此吗？我\n\n23　想我本应提出这个问题。我不记得\n\n24　看到过任何此类案件——我并不是说它们必须是，但我\n\n25　只是提出这个问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 49 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022 49\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：嗯，我不——我想我的回答是，我认为它们不必如此。\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\nHENZY先生：是。\n\n法庭：但我仍希望你回答我的问题，以确保我没有遗漏任何案件。\n\nHENZY先生：我没有——我没有援引一个具体案件，其中的问题是，您知道，法院强制一方披露。没有，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。我只是想确保我没有遗漏你书面材料中的某些内容，这就是我——\n\nHENZY先生：您没有。您没有。您没有遗漏这一点。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nHENZY先生：没有，法官阁下。没有。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，你是依据我必须权衡的各项因素，请求裁定是否应准予待上诉期间中止执行。你主张应当准予，是因为你满足所有因素，还是仅满足其中一些因素？\n\nHENZY先生：我相信我们满足所有因素，法官阁下。并且，再次明确说明，——以及在我在动议中表述错误或不够清楚的范围内，动议的重点、上诉的重点，是该信函的第三\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 50 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022 50\n\n和第四段。其总体内容是指示Kwok先生签署一封信，该信将授权英国律师无论其享有的任何律师—委托人特权、工作成果特权或其他特权如何，均可与受托人进行充分、完整的讨论，并将授权该律师事务所交出有关UBS诉讼的所有备忘录、意见及其他通信，以及任何其他有关UBS诉讼的信息，并允许充分查阅英国律师事务所的档案，即他本来就有权查阅的那部分档案。\n\n据我所理解，受托人的立场是，实际上并不存在放弃。最初，信中有“放弃”一词，但后来——后来修改了，但这——这并未解决问题，因为债务人被强制授权披露属于他的通信或文件，而不论其享有的任何律师—委托人特权、工作成果特权或其他特权如何。\n\n再次说明，该命令和该信函均假定存在属于债务人的特权。因此，我认为，说不存在强制披露或放弃——或无论您想使用何种措辞——的问题，是不正确的。无论\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥尔记录与速记服务公司）\n\n所使用的措辞为何，均存在强制披露问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 51 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022 51\n\n但我没有涉及此类放弃问题的待上诉期间中止执行案件。不过，法官阁下，一般规则是，除非放弃或存在适用例外，不得强制披露受特权保护的律师—委托人通信。我的意思是，确实不得如此。根据定义，律师—委托人特权保护特权权利人免于被强制披露受特权保护的信息。并且——我在动议中援引了——有最高法院案件如此说明。有第二巡回上诉法院案件如此说明。\n\n受托人还主张，我认为在听证会上也曾提出这一主张，即因为只是受托人看到这些材料，所以不存在问题。其观点是，只要不存在更广泛的放弃，就不存在问题。如果只是受托人看到文件，那是可以的。\n\n但是——再次说明，我在动议中援引的案件，即Dow Corning案，这是第二巡回上诉法院案件，以及Chase Manhattan Bank v. Turner Newall案，明确指出，如果不利一方获准查阅受特权保护的材料，保密性的一个重要方面即告丧失。因此，如果债务人以外的任何人得以查看受特权保护的通信，这就是强制披露，这就是对特权的放弃。不存在任何依据——再次说明，这一点在听证会上也被提出\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 52 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022 52\n\n——而且该命令的措辞是，该救济依据521(a)(3)和/或521(a)(4)予以准许，其观点是，法院可以因为债务人是债务人，便强制债务人授权作出此类披露。无论《破产法典》还是判例法，均未规定个人债务人仅因其是债务人，便自动放弃特权、必须放弃特权，或必须同意被强制披露。\n\n法官阁下，我能找到的唯一案件，我在动议中援引了该案，其结论恰恰相反。该案是Coyle v. Coyle（科伊尔诉科伊尔案）。这是2015年伊利诺伊州北区破产法院的一项判决，明确指出，债务人与受托人合作的义务并未特别要求债务人放弃特权。\n\n法官阁下，债务人不能依据521(a)(3)被强制披露受特权保护的信息，这一点必须是规则，我认为。如果不是该规则，那么最高法院在Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weintraub（商品期货交易委员会诉温特劳布案）中的裁决，以及Despins先生（德斯平斯先生）将就特权是否转移给受托人提出论证的所有案件，都会变得毫无意义，因为你——你根本无须考虑特权是否已经转移，因为依据521(a)(3)，可以直接要求债务人作出放弃，或同意被强制披露。这根本不——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 53 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022 53\n\n那根本——那绝对没有任何意义。再次说明，法官阁下，在August 4的听证会上，有人提出论证，Despins先生在其对中止执行动议的异议中再次主张，受托人已经代位成为债务人。你将在该动议，即特权动议中听到更多有关该问题的内容，但该命令假定债务人仍拥有该特权。我再说一遍。如果他并不拥有该特权，那么该命令第3(b)段准予的救济便无必要。\n\n至少，法官阁下，由于并不存在诸如遗嘱例外或犯罪欺诈例外之类的广泛例外，仅因债务人是债务人，案件明确表明，如果法院要命令披露，只能在审查相关文件之后方可这样做。再次说明，我援引了第二巡回上诉法院的案件，这些案件认定，法院如未进行——如有必要——逐份文件审查即命令披露信息，构成错误。\n\n并且，法官阁下，我提请注意您在关于2004动议的听证会上所说的内容，即程序是送达传票或其他文件请求，随后相关人员有义务提交文件，或向法院寻求保护。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 54 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022 54\n\n但法院不宜在相关人员无能力或无权就具体文件提出异议的情况下，说我要在此命令提交材料。我将在August 4就此问题举行的听证会上说过这一点，法官阁下，而且我也曾多次向受托人说过，当前应当发生的是，应当以正确方式处理此事。我们应当与英国律师合作，弄清英国律师持有哪些文件，哪些文件不存在争议，我猜确有一些文件不存在争议。当然包括案件档案文件，即已向当地法院提交的文件。\n\n而受托人只是——选择不这样做。据英国律师所述，尽管破产规则和《破产法典》有何规定，受托人尚不是该诉讼的一方。受托人必须采取措施使其本人成为一方。目前，受托人不是该诉讼的一方。该当事人——受托人在该诉讼中并无代理。我认为必须发生的是，他需要采取一切必要步骤使其本人成为该诉讼的一方，并且他需要与我相信是Kwok先生前任律师的律师以及Kwok先生在此的律师合作，以缩小\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 55 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022\n\n1　争议范围，完成在讨论提交受特权保护信息时通常\n\n2　会做的事项。\n\n3　因此，再次说明，法官阁下，我认为案件明确\n\n4　表明，你不能命令一项全面放弃，而这实质上\n\n5　正是本案所做之事，包括破产案件。并且这是我们\n\n6　在对特权动议的异议中援引的一个案件。\n\n7　该案是In re: Foster, 188 F.3d. at 1259。\n\n8　这是1999年第二巡回上诉法院的一项判决，其仅仅指出，\n\n9　法院只能基于具体——\n\n10　如有必要，对具体事实和文件进行审查，才能解决特权争议。\n\n11\n\n12　法庭：\n那么，你是否是在说，Kwok先生应当\n\n13　将其伦敦律师持有的所有文件提交给我，\n\n14　然后我应当审查这些文件，并确定是否\n\n15　存在特权？\n\n16　HENZY先生：\n不是。实际上，我不确定。再次说明，\n\n17　法官阁下，什么——这一点有些不清楚。\n\n18　法庭：\n嗯，我明白这一点不清楚，但\n\n19　你主张必须有其他方式\n\n20　处理。那么，还有什么其他方式？\n\n21　HENZY先生：\n我的主张是，Despins先生必须\n\n22　前往英国，并且他必须理清此事。\n\n23　法庭：\n然后做什么？你有什么\n\n24　权威依据这样说？\n\n25　HENZY先生：\n我的如此主张的权威依据，法官阁下——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 56 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，存在一些案件，我在该动议中援引了这些案件，它们明确指出——\n\n法庭：是在上诉待决期间暂停执行动议中吗？\n\n亨齐先生：是。\n\n法庭：还是在异议中？\n\n亨齐先生：在上诉待决期间暂停执行动议中。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。好的。\n\n亨齐先生：这些案件明确指出，适用的是占主导地位或具有决定性利益的法律，该法律管辖特权问题。\n\n我想，法官阁下，您可以——我们可以向您提交我们认为的特权法——因此，我认为此处管辖特权问题的是英国（U.K.）法律。\n\n其管辖郭先生仍享有何种（如有）律师—当事人特权，以及存在哪些工作成果特权。我理解存在工作成果特权。绝对是英国法律管辖该问题。而且——再次，我认为我在动议中援引的案件对此非常明确。\n\n理论上，我想我们可以向您提交英国关于特权的法律，并请您裁决就具体文件产生的任何争议。我认为这——并非您不能这样做，法官阁下，我知道您可以，但我认为这将极不切实际。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 57 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022 57 我认为此处必须发生的是，德斯潘先生需要使自己成为英国该诉讼的一方，并且他需要在英国该诉讼中理清取得其所需任何信息的问题。法官阁下，这项命令引发了一种——我认为独特的——姑且称之为态势。英国有一宗待决诉讼，受英国法律管辖，正在英国法院审理。而某个根据英国律师的说法目前仍是该诉讼外人的人——德斯潘先生尚未使自己成为当事人——将会出现，并告诉参与该诉讼的一名律师：你必须向我提供可能受各种特权保护的文件。我试图设想，法官阁下，您知道，英国破产程序中的一名受托人在此出现，在某一诉讼当事人参与的情况下说：我现在将要求查阅文件，即使这可能与美国关于特权的法律不一致，而且我甚至可能不是此处该诉讼的一方。我不认为——我认为那将是独特的。我认为那是一种独特且非同寻常的态势。因此，法官阁下，存在一些案件，已在该动议中援引，它们指出此处管辖特权问题的将是英国法律。再次，我认为您可以作出该裁决。我认为最好由该诉讼待决所在的法院作出裁决。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 58 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022 58 我不认为由您裁决可能损害当事人权利或改变英国待决诉讼中当事人权利的特权问题是一个好主意。再次，并不是说您不能这样做，但我不认为那会是最优结果。再次，存在一宗UBS（瑞银）诉讼。这是受英国法律管辖、在一名英国法官面前待决的英国法律程序，而英国法律管辖特权问题。法官阁下，因此，我——我的论点是，就胜诉可能性而言，我认为我有很高的胜诉可能性，因为这是对受特权保护信息的强制披露。再次，假定存在受特权保护的信息。如果不存在受特权保护的信息，则该命令没有必要。我认为法律明确规定，除非存在适用的例外或放弃，否则不得强制披露；此处完全没有主张郭先生作出了任何放弃。关于不可弥补损害，法官阁下，存在一些案件，我在动议中援引了这些案件，其中法院认定——在法院认定的案件中——强制披露受特权保护的材料可能造成不可弥补的损害。它可能——可能不会，但法院认定它可能造成不可弥补的损害。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 59 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022 59 不可弥补的损害。如法官阁下所知，这四项因素有点像一种滑动尺度；如果一项因素特别强，其他因素可以较弱。我认为，基于美国最高法院和第二巡回法院判决的明确措辞，我们的胜诉可能性非常高。但法院认定，强制披露受特权保护的信息可能造成不可弥补的损害。此处，法院正强制债务人作出——再次——一项全面放弃，因为该强制披露并未对他就UBS诉讼仍享有的任何特权所涉具体文件进行任何考量。因此，他被剥夺了主张特权的权利。关于重大损害，法官阁下，而且再次，我在动议中援引了一些案件，这些案件指出，当一方表示我需要调查，而且如果我得不到这些受特权保护的信息，调查就会被拖慢时，这构成——这不构成重大损害。事实上，法官阁下，我认为，而且我没有在动议中援引此案，但Swidler & Berlin v. United States（Swidler & Berlin诉美国）一案，载于524 U.S. 399，指出，事后将信息的重要性与相关利益进行权衡，会给特权的适用带来重大不确定性。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 60 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022\n\n仅因该理由，我们已拒绝在界定特权范围时采用平衡测试。\n\n该案中最高法院所做的是驳回政府的论点，即政府确实、确实需要所涉信息，因此最高法院应当扩大遗嘱例外对该特权的适用范围。该案——我认为您将在特权动议中进一步听取有关这些案件的意见。\n\n有一宗破产案件，即In re Ginsburg（Ginsburg案）一案，载于517 B.R. 175，该案在我们对特权动议提出的异议中被援引。我没有在暂停执行动议中援引该案。\n\n但该案援引Swidler & Berlin案，即最高法院的案件，指出：尽管破产受托人归集资产并适当调查债务人事务的需要，为平衡测试提供了强有力的依据，但最高法院在此已明确禁止这种逐一增加例外的方法。\n\n因此，我认为这些案件表明，受托人需要进行调查——而我在动议中援引了其他案件——在特权存在争议时，并不不利于暂停执行。\n\n法官阁下，我认为有许多案件，而且我在动议中援引了案件，它们指出，就第四项因素而言，即公共利益因素，当特权存在争议时，保护律师—当事人特权确实有利于暂停执行。再次，我在那里援引了这些案件，包括Upjohn最高法院案，该案强调保护该特权对我们制度而言何其关键。随后再次是我先前谈到的Swidler & Berlin案，也是同样的道理。存在一项强有力的公共政策，支持保护特权。有一点，法官阁下，我想我稍有重复，但这是回应受托人在其异议中提出的内容，即有人主张债务人通过主张其权利，在英国诉讼中制造了问题。我认为我们可以同意的是，英国律师已联系我和受托人，请求我们同意或授权——尽管我不认为债务人在此时有任何授权权限——就与该诉讼有关的一项上诉请求延期。原因是，对于究竟谁在那边具有什么身份，事情仍未理清。尤其是——特权的身份将会是什么。因此，正在发生这一点并无争议。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司）\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 61 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022 62 现在，英国律师并未——并没有说请求延期会造成危机。我认为，从她的角度看，如果她无法获得——我特别认为是受托人——对于延期是否可以的答复，可能会出现危机；但我不认为她正在请求延期这一事实本身是——是一场危机。主张那是债务人的过错，受托人实质上是在制造该论点。根据英国律师的说法，此处必须发生的是，受托人必须到那边去使自己成为该诉讼的一方。他需要聘请律师，无论是现有律师事务所——假定其愿意受其聘请——还是另一家律师事务所；他需要理清那边该诉讼中发生的情况。据我了解，根据英国法律，他有权成为该诉讼的一方，但他需要采取步骤，尝试取得信息，或者了解那里正在发生什么。他通过本法院所采取的做法是——确实是在试图——我认为此处的一个大问题是，试图把方榫塞进圆孔。因此，法官阁下，除非您有任何——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 62 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 63 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022 63 问题，我要说的就这些。\n\n法庭：唯一一点——您刚才陈述时提到，您正在对该函件的第三和第四段提出上诉，但您的动议称，您只希望就第3(b)段暂停执行。\n\n亨齐先生：因此，法官阁下，第3(b)段是——抱歉，感谢法官阁下提出这个问题，因为我希望说清楚。因此，我们正在上诉的是该命令第3(b)段，但它牵涉——我姑且这样称呼——因为它将附于该命令的函件第三和第四段纳入其中。\n\n法庭：好的。我明白了。\n\n亨齐先生：好的。\n\n法庭：我只是想确认——我不确定那是否正确，而且——好的。\n\n亨齐先生：谢谢。因为我认为我可能没有说清楚。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n亨齐先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。德斯潘先生？\n\n德斯潘先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。为记录在案，我是卢克·德斯潘（Luc Despins），本案受托人。这次讨论清楚表明，这两个问题密切交织；我敦请法院，在您也听取并裁决另一项动议之前，不要就本动议作出裁决。我的同事、我的合伙人巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）将就谁享有特权、谁控制特权的问题就该动议进行陈述。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 64 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022\n\n但仅就该问题的这一方面作出回应，因为这一切都有关联，因为它涉及根据美国法律受托人是否获得特权控制权的问题；这就是巴塞特先生将要陈述的论点和问题。\n\n但事情发生的情况——以及该函件的起因——是因为英国律师说，嗯，我们在英国有一宗近期、相对近期的案件，称为Avonwick（Avonwick），该案附于他们的上诉待决期间暂停执行动议。\n\n我理解，通常我们会尽量避免解释外国法律，尽管美国法院一直都在这样做，但在本案中，这是一个以英文写成、相当直接明了的判决。\n\n基本上，该判决所说的是——那里发生的事情是，受托人获得了特权的访问权。因为在——在该判决作出之前，受托人获得了全面放弃。该判决缩小了这一范围。因此，受托人曾享有完全访问权。\n\n而他所做的，将相当于——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 2022/09/11 提交 2022/09/11 录入 12:34:38 第65页（共150页）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 30, 2022 65 我本人将受特权保护的信息转交给 Sarnoff先生（萨诺夫先生），以便他亲自起诉郭先生。这就是该案中发生的事情。法庭表示，不，你不能这样做。但该裁决中没有任何内容表明受托人不能接触——其中提到“查阅”——基本上是接触所有受特权保护的信息，并在履行其必须履行的职责时使用该等信息，即评估请求权或其他事项。该裁决对此没有任何论述。它完全是关于受托人作出的这一豁免，以向本案中相当于 PAX 的一方提供信息。当然，其中完全没有讨论我们，甚至没有任何暗示称我们会在此处这样做。我此前已重复过这一点，我将再次重复：此处唯一的目的是审查这些请求权的是非曲直，以便我能够决定是否要参与其中。而英国律师（U.K. counsel）正在做的事情，以及与 Henzy先生（亨齐先生）之间那种——我犹豫是否称之为歌舞伎式的周旋——英国律师等等，很明显，他们正试图推动我朝某一方向行事，即你明天需要成为该诉讼的一方。当然，如果我这样做，我将承担费用责任，或者破产财产将承担费用责任，因为败诉方承担费用。我们谈的是数十万英镑。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 2022/09/11 提交 2022/09/11 录入 12:34:38 第66页（共150页）\n\n郭文贵 - August 30, 2022 66 因此，你知道，这里很容易涉及 \\$200,000。好吧，在我看到幕布后面有什么之前，我不会成为该诉讼的一方。而幕布后面是什么？意见是什么？这是一个稳赢的请求权吗？还是一个碰运气的请求权？在我这样做之前，我需要知道这些。这就是为什么整件事确实是个问题，因为债务人控制另一名原告 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）。该公司受债务人控制。事实上，他们在英国的起诉状中称郭先生收购了该公司。因此，他希望在我的任期内，该诉讼继续推进，并且也使 Ace Decade 受益。我的观点是，我可能对此感兴趣，但我首先需要看到幕布后面有什么。否则我们将是不负责任的。因此，此处还发生的是，债务人并未受到任何损害。为什么？因为我们只想查看与该诉讼的是非曲直有关的文件。这是他对 UBS（瑞银）提出的请求权，称他们向我提供了不当建议，或者他们作出了虚假陈述。我不知道那是否属实，但关键是我需要能够看到他们的律师就此作出了什么意见。从他们的角度看，损害是什么？不存在刑事——不存在——这不是一项\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 2022/09/11 提交 2022/09/11 录入 12:34:38 第67页（共150页）\n\n郭文贵 - August 30, 2022 67 涉及他隐匿资产的请求权。他称，我，郭先生，受到 UBS 的不当建议，或者 UBS 向我作出了虚假陈述。因此不存在损害。所以，当你审视权衡时，Bassett先生（巴塞特先生）将向您说明的，即此处的利益权衡，你知道，这不像债务人被指控强奸或非法拘禁的问题。这与此毫无关系。这是一项普通的虚假陈述请求权。只要我不放弃特权——这就是为什么该信函非常具体：我不授权你，受托人，放弃特权。这里就是这样写的。这就是为什么英国律师起草了该措辞。这也是为什么——而且我们也打算遵守这一点。未经进一步法院命令，我们不希望放弃特权。也可能永远不会有另一项法院命令。因此，理解这一点非常重要。我敦请法庭审阅 Avonwick 判决。再次强调，债务人的同意在该案中绝非取得受特权保护信息的必要条件。该案中的不当之处在于，受托人利用该等受特权保护的信息协助另一方，即债权人，基于所收到的受特权保护信息起诉债务人。这正是法庭所说不得为之的事情。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 2022/09/11 提交 2022/09/11 录入 12:34:38 第68页（共150页）\n\n郭文贵 - August 30, 2022 68 不存在全面豁免。首先，不存在豁免，也不存在所谓全面。我所说的不存在全面豁免，是指该问题再次仅限于该请求权的是非曲直。这是我唯一希望接触的问题。此外，还有他们是否——这无需赘言——收到任何和解款项，是否达成任何和解。这是我现在应当获得的信息，因为这不是受特权保护的信息。如果 UBS 曾提出和解要约，我不理解基于何种理论该信息被向我们隐瞒，因为那不受特权保护。我的意思是，从某种意义上说它是受特权保护的，因为该要约，如果曾经作出，不能在法庭上使用。当然，我们都知道，408，但这不是我们正在讨论的事情。这在任何方面如何属于债务人个人？那是第三方提出的要约，或者反过来。如果他们向 UBS 提出了和解要约，我应当完全接触该信息。这正是该信函所做的事情。这一点也非常重要。因此，法官阁下，我再次敦请您，从程序角度出发，充分审理 Bassett先生将要说明的其他与特权有关的问题，因为归根结底它们都是相关的。基于这些理由，法官阁下，我们认为\n\n郭文贵 - August 30, 2022 69 应驳回上诉待决期间中止执行的请求。关于上诉待决期间中止执行的另一点是，截至目前，我们尚未寻求以藐视法庭罪追究债务人。因此，就对债务人的损害而言，今天的损害是什么？你知道，他们有一项他们不喜欢的裁决。有一封他们没有撰写的信。他们没有签署那封信，对吗？这就是他们所说的。这就是 Henzy先生在 August 4th 听证会上多次所说的。因此，在我们决定寻求追究藐视法庭罪之前，上诉待决期间中止执行有点像一场旁枝末节的戏码。到那时，他才会面临他今天并不存在的问题。但今天，针对债务人未签署并寄送该信函，尚无任何藐视法庭程序在进行。谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：谢谢。Goldman律师（戈德曼律师）？GOLDMAN先生：法官阁下，仅有几点简要说明。我们加入受托人对上诉待决期间中止执行的异议。代表委员会（committee），我是 Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼）。就不可弥补损害这一要素而言，债务人并未指出，受托人因法官阁下的命令而将收到的任何通信，会导致\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 2022/09/11 提交 2022/09/11 录入 12:34:38 第69页（共150页）\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 2022/09/11 提交 2022/09/11 录入 12:34:38 第70页（共150页）\n\n郭文贵 - August 30, 2022 70 对债务人造成任何损害，更不用说不可弥补的损害。至于不可弥补的损害，正如我们所知，所称损害不能是遥远的或推测性的。而他们真正试图藉以满足这一要素的，是一种一般性主张，即强制披露受律师—委托人保密特权保护的信息即构成不可弥补的损害。我认为，他们需要更具体地说明，如果该信函被签署，债务人实际将遭受何种损害。就公共利益这一要素而言，我不认为 Henzy律师所引用的任何关于律师—委托人保密特权在公共利益方面的重要性的案件，是发生在破产案件的背景下，即受托人正寻求获得信息，以决定如何处置破产财产的一项重大资产，这正是我们这里的情形，即在该背景下的诉因。不干扰受托人迅速处理和管理破产财产，同样具有令人信服的公共利益。如果准许上诉待决期间中止执行，就会发生这种干扰。法庭：谢谢。GOLDMAN先生：我没有其他陈述。法庭：谢谢。Henzy律师？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 2022/09/11 提交 2022/09/11 录入 12:34:38 第71页（共150页）\n\n郭文贵 - August 30, 2022 71 HENZY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。关于 Despins先生（德斯潘先生）的第一点，法官阁下当然可以阅读 Avonwick 判决。实际上我将其附于动议。英国律师向 Despins先生和我提供了该判决，以指出并支持她向 Despins先生所作的陈述：在郭先生知情且自愿作出豁免或同意之前，根据英国法律——这就是她向我们提供的案件——她不会向他提供任何受特权保护的信息。因此，我可以阅读 Avonwick 判决。Despins先生可以阅读它。法官阁下您也可以阅读它。回到我的观点，我不确定本法庭中的人是否是厘清英国特权法为何的合适人选。我对该判决的理解是，再次强调，其中涉及几个问题。第一，受托人是否为特权目的而取代该案债务人的地位？但是，再次强调，英国律师已经明确表示，没有知情且自愿的豁免，并以该判决为支持，她不会——她不会提供任何材料。你知道，关于 Despins先生所说与英国律师之间的歌舞伎式周旋，为使法庭清楚，债务人处境艰难，因为根据《破产法典》和破产规则，他不再\n\n郭文贵 - August 30, 2022 72 拥有该请求权。他因许多许多事情受到批评，因此当他不再是该——该诉讼的一方时，他不希望因声称向英国律师作出指示、提供建议或采取任何类似行为而受到批评。因此，就我正在传达的任何内容而言，如果 Despins先生所看到的内容听起来像歌舞伎式周旋，我并非试图耍花招或做任何类似的事。我已向 Despins先生说过，只要不涉及以任何方式放弃债务人的权利，我们希望与他合作，使他能够在那里履行其需要履行的职责。正如法官阁下所说，我接受债务人原本的样子。法庭接受债务人原本的样子。Despins先生也接受债务人原本的样子。他是在英国一项诉讼中的原告。这可能存在困难。这可能存在不便。这可能存在风险。但事实就是如此。这是破产财产的一项资产，受托人必须尽其所能管理它。我们可能不喜欢这一点，或者不认为这是个好主意，但例如，英国法律规定败诉方承担费用。但事实就是如此。他必须——他必须\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 2022/09/11 提交 2022/09/11 录入 12:34:38 第72页（共150页）\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 2022/09/11 提交 2022/09/11 录入 12:34:38 第73页（共150页）\n\n郭文贵 - August 30, 2022 73 应对这一点。再次强调，解决办法是受托人应与英国律师和债务人的律师合作，了解哪些文件会在此处造成问题，可以通过哪些方式使这一安排得以运作，但受托人选择不这样做。受托人选择取得这一裁定，我认为该裁定只是粗暴地压过这一局面，实属不必要。关于 Despins先生所称对债务人不存在损害这一点，最高法院（Supreme Court）刚刚在 Swidler & Berlin vs. United States, 524 U.S. 399 一案中否定了该理由作为延伸、放弃或创设特权例外的依据。这正是——这正是争议所在。政府（Government）当时主张，你应当延伸遗嘱特权。再次强调，法官阁下，那是 Swidler & Berlin vs. United States, 524 U.S. 399。我没有在动议中引用该案。该案被引用于——被引用于我们对特权动议的异议中。再次强调，政府提出了该论点：不存在损害。法官阁下，这——我不想显得粗俗，但实质上其论点是，享有该特权的人已经死亡。那是——那是 Vince Foster（文斯·福斯特）的情形。最高法院——那么，通过放弃该特权，他又怎么会受到任何损害呢？而最高法院\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 847　于 09/11/22 提交　于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入　第 74 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022　74　拒绝了这一点。法庭：但是如何放弃，Henzy（亨齐）律师？是针对谁？针对可能对他提起诉讼的一方？HENZY 律师：在那个案件中，法官阁下？法庭：是。HENZY 律师：实际上——法庭：显然我还没有读过。HENZY 律师：实际上，法官阁下，那是一项刑事调查，政府当时的立场是——事情是这样的：在他去世之前，Foster（福斯特）先生曾与一名律师会面，该律师记了三页笔记。随后 Foster 先生去世了。政府在该刑事调查中，希望从该律师处取得笔记，以了解究竟是什么——法庭：但该刑事调查将针对谁提起？HENZY 律师：不是针对 Foster 先生。法庭：对。对。HENZY 律师：对。法庭：所以这不是——这不是同一回事。我的意思是，我认为我所遇到的问题是，我理解全部——至少我有所理解。我还没有读过该案。但我理解你——理解你的论点，但你的论点是\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 847　于 09/11/22 提交　于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入　第 75 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022　75　以如下案件为前提或依赖于如下案件：在那些案件中，如放弃特权，该特权将被用于对抗享有特权的一方，以便其他方对其提起诉因，或以某种方式在对其不利的程序中使其自证其罪。就目前而言，而我将听取各方意见，Despins（德斯平斯）先生所寻求的是——正如你所说，我们都接受你当事人的现状——你的当事人提起了本案，并称该诉讼是其破产财产的一项资产。而你刚刚确认了这一点。你确认其为本案的一项资产。HENZY 律师：是。法庭：Despins 先生被指定为第 11 章受托人。你刚刚说你的当事人不再是原告，但也许仍是。如果他不是原告，那么该诉因如何处理？根据本庭的命令以及你的当事人自愿同意本庭管辖，唯一能够代替你当事人位置的一方是 Despins 先生。如果 Despins 先生——如果我对 Despins 先生所述内容的理解正确，即他所请求的只是了解该项请求权的实体情况，以决定破产财产是否将继续追诉该请求权，那么我\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 847　于 09/11/22 提交　于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入　第 76 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022\n1　不知道你所援引的案件就该特权而言是否切题。\n2　\n3　因为你所——你所谈论的案件，即你援引的另一宗破产案件，所涉及的是向其他当事人移交一家律师事务所的计费记录，以便让——让那些与债务人和该律师事务所相对立的其他当事人了解该律师事务所与债务人谈论了什么，从而\n4　确定诉因。那是在当事人相对立时的情形。\n5　对吗？\n6　\n7　作为第 11 章受托人的 Despins 先生，在与本案于英国进行的诉讼有关的方面，并不与你的当事人相对立。他是——他就是你的当事人。他已经成为你的当事人。\n8　\n9　那么，这如何——这如何能——该特权——一方面你说，是的，我们不能做任何事，因为我们不再是原告了。\n10　\n11　但 Despins 先生也不能做任何事，因为我们不会让他那么做。我们将说我们享有特权，而你不能行使该特权。这就是你所说的。我理解。\n12　\n13　遗憾的是，根据我目前所见，我没有看到任何判例法在这个问题上是明确的。明白吗？根据我目前所见。我认为在公司方面是\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 847　于 09/11/22 提交　于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入　第 77 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022　77　明确的。在——显然在个人方面可能并不明确。但至少就我目前的看法而言，问题在于你所依赖的案件，虽然绝对如你所说地表明其含义，但其背景是将该等受特权保护的信息用于对抗享有该特权之人。Despins 先生正在寻求该信息，以确定是否——如果这是一项能够为破产财产带来资金以偿付债权人的破产财产资产，最终应当会有助于你的当事人。因为这正是你的当事人来到本庭时所称他希望做的事情。因此，我所遇到的问题以及我难以接受你的论点之处在于，归根结底的决定——你刚刚说你的当事人不能追诉该案件，对吗？好的。因此，如果你的当事人不能追诉该案件，而你的当事人称其为破产财产的一项资产，并且你告诉我——你在上次庭审时告诉我，可以理解，当时我们正在讨论债务人的偿付能力及其提出所有这些问题的资格——你说，哦，但法官，这是一个 \\$500 million 的请求权。我说，嗯，这很有意思。HENZY 律师：嗯，我不知道它是——我对此一无所知。\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 847　于 09/11/22 提交　于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入　第 78 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022　78　法庭：嗯，你确实说过。你说这是一个 \\$500 million 的请求权。HENZY 律师：有人——这就是所主张的。是。法庭：对。这就是你所说的。HENZY 律师：是。法庭：我的意思是，这没问题。HENZY 律师：是。我不——法庭：这是一个 \\$500 million 的请求权。你的观点是，这可能使该债务人恢复偿付能力。我说，嗯，我不确定，因为 PAX（PAX）的请求权是 240 million。如果还有另外两名被告，你必须与其分配该请求权，我不确定你的当事人是否具有偿付能力。但除此之外，Despins 先生必须作出——你无法追诉——你的当事人无法追诉该案件。但你的当事人称其为本案的一项资产。因此，我们陷入了一个两难困境。这行不通。必须以某种方式打破这一困境。而打破的方式是，Despins 先生必须能够弄清楚，破产财产是否应当为了债权人的利益——你的当事人称他来到本庭是为了处理和解决这些债权人的问题——追诉该项诉讼，以确定是否有资金可以被带入该破产财产。\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 847　于 09/11/22 提交　于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入　第 79 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022\n1　而如果你说——如果你的当事人说，我绝不会允许 Despins 先生查阅我所聘请律师持有的文件，他们又如何做到这一点？\n2　\n3　HENZY 律师：我没有这么说。\n4　法庭：好的。那么你在说什么？\n5　HENZY 律师：我在说，他——事实上，大概一个月或更早之前，我向英国的律师发送了一封电子邮件，说 Kwok 先生不再拥有这个了。你应当——你需要与 Despins 先生谈。\n6　而且我并不是说，Kwok 先生也不是说——\n7　法庭：那么——但你是在说——你正在对一项命令提出上诉，该命令将——将要求你的当事人签署一封信，称我并未放弃我的特权，但允许 Despins 先生就该案件与你交谈。这就是你正在上诉的内容。\n8　HENZY 律师：当然。但它——但那——但那并不是该信所说的内容。\n9　法庭：那是对你如何解释该信存在分歧。这不是法律问题。\n10　HENZY 律师：嗯——\n11　法庭：你是在就一个事实问题提出法律论点。你是在说——而且这没问题。我不会——\n12　HENZY 律师：法官阁下，我能读一下——我能读一下吗？\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 847　于 09/11/22 提交　于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入　第 80 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022　80　法庭：当然。HENZY 律师：好的。法庭：我们可以把它调出来，让大家都读一读。并且请记住，实际发送的是哪个版本存在一些问题，因此我必须知道你看的是什么版本？HENZY 律师：我看的是——法庭：你看的是附在该命令后的那一份吗？HENZY 律师：我看的是附在该命令后的版本。法庭：好的。HENZY 律师：好的。法庭：该命令的 ECF 编号是多少？HENZY 律师：是 717。法庭：717。请把 717 调出来，以便我们大家同时查看。需要一点时间。但我认为这很有帮助。我想确保我理解大家就这些论点所说的一切。（暂停）法庭：Henzy 律师，是——在哪一页？HENZY 律师：是 717，是附件，因此是第 23 页，共 24 页。\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 847　于 09/11/22 提交　于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入　第 81 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022\n1　法庭：24 页中的第 23 页。好的。那么这是——好。我们能稍微向下滚动一点吗？\n2　那么，是从“为促进”开始，对吗，Henzy 律师？那是——\n3　HENZY 律师：是。\n4　法庭：好的。\n5　HENZY 律师：是，法官阁下。\n6　法庭：那么那一段，我们要看那一段。\n7　HENZY 律师：是。\n8　法庭：那么请告诉我，在那一段中哪里说他放弃了特权。\n9　HENZY 律师：好的。因此其中写道，我明确授权你代表我与 Despins 先生就 UBS（瑞银）诉讼进行充分和完整的讨论——可能需要作几处修改，我实际上可以接受——就其实体、任何相关和解讨论或与追诉 UBS 诉讼有关的任何其他事项进行讨论，并接受他的指示。\n10　实际上，我不确定那是否——我认为那不可以，因为我不确定在此时 Kwok 先生是否可以告诉该律师该怎么做。我也不确定该律师是否必须接受 Despins 先生的指示。该律师可以说，我不想代表 Despins 先生。然后他无需接受——无需接受任何指示\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 847　于 09/11/22 提交　于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入　第 82 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022　82　——就我在 UBS 诉讼中的请求权而言，无需接受任何指示。因为再次澄清，法官阁下，Despins 先生并未聘请该律师，因此我不知道 Despins 先生如何能够向该律师作出指示。但在 UBS 诉讼中——法庭：他并未向他作出指示。HENZY 律师：嗯，但该律师——法庭：不。不。该信写道，我特此授权你，即英国律师，与他进行充分和完整的讨论，并接受他的指示。它是写给英国律师的。它不是——HENZY 律师：是。法庭：是。HENZY 律师：是。法庭：但那并不是——HENZY 律师：那么，不要——但再次，请看，这不是——我并未就此提出上诉，好的，因为如果我——法庭：好的。那么，我在问你，哪里说他放弃了——HENZY 律师：是。好的。好的。法庭：你刚刚说这是完全放弃。HENZY 律师：然后——然后是不论属于我的任何律师—当事人特权、工作成果或其他特权。\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 847　于 09/11/22 提交　于 09/11/22 12:34:38 录入　第 83 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—August 30, 2022 83\n\n法院：对。\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐）：因此，我指示您，无论任何——\n\n法院：不。我没有指示您。您获授权这样做。\n\n亨齐先生：所以我——\n\n法院：您是在授权。\n\n亨齐先生：好的。因此，我授权——\n\n法院：您是在授权。您目前的委托人是唯一与这些律师存在合同关系的人，对吗？\n\n亨齐先生：嗯，我不确定。再次说明，我不确定是否还存在合同关系，但是。\n\n法院：那么，为什么不会存在？他必须聘请他们，对吧？那么委聘函在哪里？\n\n亨齐先生：他不再是该诉讼的当事人。但是，再次说明，那——\n\n法院：但那不是我的问题。\n\n亨齐先生：好的。\n\n法院：委聘函在哪里？您是告诉我，他与这些律师没有协议——\n\n亨齐先生：我确信他——\n\n法院：——由他们代理他？\n\n亨齐先生：我确信他有，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。那么委聘函在哪里？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 84 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—August 30, 2022 84\n\n法院：委聘函在哪里？\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，我不知道委聘函在哪里。\n\n法院：不过，您可能必须找到它。\n\n亨齐先生：我认为我不必。我认为——我认为——\n\n法院：为什么？\n\n亨齐先生：我认为那不是重点，法官阁下。这——而且您——我理解您不同意这一点，我认为，好的，即最后那一项，“regardless of any attorney-client privilege, work product or other privilege which belongs to me”，好的，这就是问题所在。好的。这是——这是——您知道，您在执业，而有一名第三方——而且您收到您委托人的一封信，信中说我授权您与第三方交谈——\n\n法院：他不是第三方。\n\n亨齐先生：他是——嗯——\n\n法院：他不是第三方。\n\n亨齐先生：嗯，对英国律师而言，他是第三方。\n\n法院：嗯，英国律师会明白他不是。他不是第三方。\n\n亨齐先生：我不知道——\n\n法院：他现在是您的委托人。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 85 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—August 30, 2022\n\n亨齐先生：不。\n\n法院：他是您的委托人。\n\n亨齐先生：不。\n\n法院：是的，他是。\n\n亨齐先生：不。他——\n\n法院：他是。\n\n亨齐先生：他不是该诉讼的当事人，而且他并未由英国律师代理。这两件事——我认为Despins先生（德斯平斯）不会说这两件事是如此。我无论如何不认为。他不会说——他刚才告诉您，他不是该诉讼的当事人，而且他不想成为该诉讼的当事人，直到——因为他担心败诉方承担费用。因此，他——我认为他同意他不是该诉讼的当事人。\n\n法院：我并没有说他是其诉讼的当事人。我说他是您的委托人。您刚才说您的委托人不再是该诉讼的当事人。\n\n亨齐先生：不。Kwok先生是我的委托人。\n\n法院：是的。\n\n亨齐先生：是的。\n\n法院：而他不再是该诉讼的当事人。这正是您刚才所说的。\n\n亨齐先生：我认为——\n\n法院：那么Despins先生也不是当事人。他只是您的委托人。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 86 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—August 30, 2022 86\n\n亨齐先生：Despins先生——\n\n法院：他不再是该诉讼的当事人。\n\n亨齐先生：Despins先生不是我的委托人。\n\n法院：不。您在我们的辩论中说，您的委托人不再是该诉讼的当事人。您给英国律师发送了一封电子邮件，说我不再拥有这个了。\n\n亨齐先生：是的。\n\n法院：我不再是该诉讼的当事人。\n\n亨齐先生：对。\n\n法院：对吗？\n\n亨齐先生：对。\n\n法院：而我说，好的，那没问题。但Despins先生是您的委托人。他目前不必是该诉讼的当事人。他有——但他有权获知这些信息。因为否则，您说您并未试图设置障碍，但这正是您正在做的。\n\n亨齐先生：不。他——\n\n法院：您正在阻止受托人查明一项诉因请求权的是非曲直，而您的委托人将该项请求权列为本破产财产的一项资产。\n\n亨齐先生：嗯，他——我们实际上并没有。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 87 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—August 30, 2022\n\n亨齐先生：我认为，他可能可以在不——\n\n法院：从谁那里？\n\n亨齐先生：——不——从这名英国律师那里，了解到很多有关该诉讼的事情，但不得违反Kwok先生根据英国法律享有的特权权利。该案中已有已提交的诉状。我从未说过，Kwok先生从未说过您不能与这名英国律师交谈。我不知道这名英国律师，您知道，她愿意说什么、不愿意说什么。我假定，在某事不受特权保护、属于公开信息、并非保密信息的范围内，她完全不会介意谈论它。我的意思是，人们一直都这么做。律师一直都这么做。\n\n而这里唯一的问题是，在Kwok先生继续享有特权的范围内，好的，该命令构成强制披露。\n\n我理解您可能不同意我对该措辞的解读，即“regardless of any attorney/client privilege, work product or other privilege which belongs to me”，但这——如果这不是——如果这并不意味着强制披露，那么我们应当能够直接从信中删去它。\n\n法院：那么，当您的委托人在伪证处罚的约束下确认他已在其财产清单及陈述上签字，称该项请求权是一项诉因——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 88 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—August 30, 2022\n\n法院：——是其破产财产的一项资产，但他却不向受托人提供信息，而受托人现就破产财产而言已取代其地位，以便受托人确定这是否是一项可成立的请求权，以及受托人是否应当——能否代表破产财产提起诉讼，这怎么会是强制披露？\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，这就是我们正在上诉的原因。\n\n我理解您的观点，即债务人——再次说明，并非特权是否转移给受托人，而是该特权由债务人享有。问题是——债务人能否因为其是债务人而被强制作出披露？\n\n法院：那么，如果您是对的，如果您是对的，那么在每一个存在债务人和受托人的案件中，只要债务人列出一项破产财产资产，而该资产涉及律师、会计师或其他可能附着特权的事项，受托人就永远无法获得该信息？\n\n亨齐先生：在其受特权保护的范围内？正是如此。那——那是我的立场。\n\n法院：判例法在哪里这样说？\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，我已经援引——\n\n法院：您只有一个破产案件，而且它涉及会显示该律师事务所代理该债务人时的工作成果——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 89 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—August 30, 2022\n\n法院：——以及策略的计费记录，姑且这样称，而这些记录将被第三方用于对抗该债务人。\n\n亨齐先生：当然。\n\n法院：这种事实情形在哪里？\n\n亨齐先生：因此，法官阁下，判例法明确规定，除一份极短的已获承认的例外清单外，不得强制披露。好的。例如犯罪—欺诈例外、遗嘱例外。好的。您正在——本法院将正在为该规则创设一项例外。\n\n法院：我认为《破产法》——\n\n亨齐先生：所以您——\n\n法院：您的委托人——您的委托人已表示这是破产财产的一项资产。因此，您是说，您永远——您的委托人永远无需向Despins受托人提供您的委托人与伦敦律师之间的讨论内容，而Despins先生实质上必须另行提起一项全新的诉因，并查明其是否可成立？\n\n亨齐先生：我完全不是这个意思。\n\n法院：那么您是什么意思？\n\n亨齐先生：我的意思是——\n\n法院：您不会向他提供该信息。\n\n亨齐先生：我的意思是，存在——该命令假定存在受特权保护的信息。您对我说，向我出示判例，证明我是对的，好的，即不存在——我称之为破产例外——对法院不得强制披露这一一般规则的例外。好的。我想，根据Swindler & Berlin案的最高法院判例，我认为情况恰恰相反，法官阁下。除非存在获承认的例外，否则一般规则适用。并且没有任何案件认为，债务人因其是债务人而丧失特权，抱歉，是个人债务人。\n\n再次说明，有——有些案件讨论的是，而且这将成为特权动议的主题，即债务人，抱歉，受托人是否取代债务人的地位。再次说明，这不是该命令所假定的。该命令假定债务人继续拥有一项特权。因为否则，正如我所说，该命令——并无必要。我理解法官阁下不同意这一点，但是——\n\n法院：我不知道我是否不同意。我只是——我的意思是，解决办法是什么？您是说，一名债务人可以进入破产案件，有一名个人债务人，有一项诉因——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—August 30, 2022 90\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 90 页，共 150 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 91 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—August 30, 2022\n\n法院：——他主张该诉因是破产财产的一项资产，随后任命一名受托人，而他不必让受托人知道该诉因的进展情况，因为他与该律师之间存在特权？这就是您——这就是您——归根结底，这就是您的论点。\n\n亨齐先生：它是——那不是——\n\n法院：而您真的认为那是——\n\n亨齐先生：那不是我的论点。\n\n法院：那么您的论点是什么？\n\n亨齐先生：所以，在任何——在任何情形下，在债务人提起的任何诉讼中——\n\n法院：不一定是诉讼。\n\n亨齐先生：嗯，但是——\n\n法院：可以是——可以是咨询。\n\n亨齐先生：好的。您将会——总会有——\n\n法院：一项特权。对吗？\n\n亨齐先生：——不同的——嗯，将会有不同类别的文件。可能有不受特权保护的事项——所以那没问题。而且这将成为一个争论。可能在某些情形下，受托人继受该特权。好的。而且——再次说明，那将成为特权动议的主题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 录入于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 92 页，共 150 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 30, 2022 92 但是，如果实际上存在一部分文件，债务人仍保有该项特权，则没有任何判例认为，仅仅因为作为债务人就丧失该项特权。再次说明，法官阁下，我是否有判例支持这一点？没有。法庭：我并不是说仅仅因为作为债务人。我是说，因为作为一名债务人，而现在有一名受托人代其行事。HENZY先生：但是，您又一次——我认为您混淆了两个问题。法庭：我不认为我混淆了两个问题。HENZY先生：受托人是否代位于债务人的地位？法庭：因为否则债务人就可以阻碍整个破产财产的管理。HENZY先生：我不认为——我不认为这是我所说的，也不认为这是真的。您是——嗯——法庭：那么，他移交该信息有什么问题？Kwok先生向受托人提供他从英国律师那里获得的信息有什么问题？他必定曾经与该等律师签订书面协议，某种书面协议、聘任协议？顺便说一句，那是一份合同。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 30, 2022 93 该合同可以被承接。我的意思是，我们可以讨论各种事情，对吗？那么问题是什么？问题到底是什么？为什么Kwok先生不配合并向受托人提供该信息？HENZY先生：法官阁下，您知道问题的很大一部分是什么吗？是受托人决定采取这种做法的方式。好吗？他——法庭：但这并未回答问题。HENZY先生：这回答了问题。因为，当任何人甚至不知道其正在放弃的到底是什么特权时，任何人怎么能够——任何人会放弃特权吗？或者任何人能够吗？再次说，我要同意披露或提交这些文件，而我甚至不知道——我不知道将要提交的文件是什么？我不知道。我没有时间就特权问题咨询英国律师。我没有时间做任何事情，因为这甚至不是一项动议的主题，法官阁下。不是。这是一个——法庭：它是——HENZY先生：这是——法庭：我们不会——您没有就那部分提出上诉。不要再谈那个问题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 93 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 94 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 30, 2022 94 HENZY先生：但是，您——法庭：听着，我们需要弄清楚我们要怎么做。我不认为接下来三个月我们要原地兜圈子。好吗？如果您——如果——如果我因为我这样说而在上诉中被推翻，好吧，那我们就继续往前。但——您的当事人存在一个问题。您提出了所有这些问题。不论是否有意，这都在阻碍该破产财产的管理。Chapter 11 受托人动议自本案开始后的前三周左右起一直处于待决状态，无论是由United States Trustee（美国受托人）还是PAX提出，抑或其他什么人提出。它——一直处于待决状态——这并不是什么新事。随后我们进行了听证，各方提出论点，法庭作出裁定并决定应当指定一名Chapter 11受托人。自那时起，您提出的所有论点，都是为了阻止受托人尝试从事受托人将要从事的工作。如果您不喜欢受托人的做法，那么您可以起诉他。您可以这样做。您有救济途径。您有救济途径。您可以起诉他。但您现在正在阻碍对该破产财产的管理。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 30, 2022 95 其他所有债权人一直在等待对该破产财产进行管理。并且，您的当事人曾说过——当时您不在场——但您的当事人说过，他来到本法庭是为了让无担保债权人、让他需要处理的债权人获得公平分配。然而，他甚至不允许Chapter 11受托人与英国律师就其提起并主张为破产财产资产的一项诉讼进行沟通。HENZY先生：那——法庭：这有问题。HENZY先生：法官阁下，那不是正确的事实陈述。法庭：好的。那么为什么他不只是——HENZY先生：好的。法庭：我们为什么要进行这场争论？HENZY先生：但是——法庭：就把信息给他。HENZY先生：好的。但是，您已数次说他以某种方式阻碍Despins先生与英国律师交谈，而那根本不是真的。Despins先生正在与英国律师交谈。法庭：不，我没有那么说。我说的是，提供有关该等请求权的信息。而您——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 95 of 150\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 96 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 30, 2022\n法庭：您说他不会那样做，因为这受到特权保护。这就是您所说的。\n\nHENZY先生：没错。没有任何规定说，因为我申请破产，我就放弃我拥有的特权。\n\n法庭：如果存在特权，他放弃与这些文件有关的特权会如何损害他？会有什么损害，Henzy先生？\n\nHENZY先生：您知道吗，法官阁下？Swindler & Berlin v. United States（Swindler & Berlin诉美国）案说，那不是检验标准。\n\n法庭：我不在乎那是不是检验标准。我是在问您一个实际问题。这里的损害是什么？\n\nHENZY先生：那么——\n\n法庭：这会帮助他。这会为该破产财产带来资金，对吗？而且会支付债权人。怎么会有损害？\n\nHENZY先生：我理解，法官阁下，您和其他当事人可能希望Kwok先生同意被强制披露并放弃其特权——\n\n法庭：我不是——我不——我不喜欢或不喜欢任何事情。\n\nHENZY先生：——但是他——\n\n法庭：我是在努力不浪费更多会从该Chapter 11案件管理中占用的时间。\n\nHENZY先生：他不会这样做。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 97 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 30, 2022 97 法庭：我知道他不会。HENZY先生：好的。而且他不必这样做。法庭：但除了他不会这样做之外，您没有给我任何理由。HENZY先生：那么——法庭：那么必定——必定有某些他担心会被——HENZY先生：他没有——法庭：——披露的事情。HENZY先生：不。这不公平。法庭：那么他为什么这样做——那么问题是什么？HENZY先生：我认为，法官阁下，那是对待特权的一种不公平方式，因为——那么，任何不放弃其特权的人，他们就是问题所在。所以，我有权不让我的律师告诉您某件事情。而如果我不放弃该权利——法庭：我不是——HENZY先生：——我就是问题所在？法庭：但您的事实模式存在的问题是，我不是您，但Despins先生是。HENZY先生：不，他——不，他不是。我不认为这是正确的。法庭：好的。好。HENZY先生：好的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 98 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 30, 2022 98 法庭：那么，我们就同意保留分歧。HENZY先生：好的。我明白了。谢谢您，法官阁下。我想Pat——谢谢。法庭：好的。谢谢。HENZY先生：关于Despins先生所说的他们并未寻求认定债务人藐视法庭这一点，如果——没错，他们没有寻求认定债务人藐视法庭。他们当然可以随时这样做。但他们也可以拿着这封信去英国，并尝试在那里采取行动。我认为他们不应当能够这样做。因此，如果受托人愿意约定，在上诉待决期间，他不会根据命令第3(b)段采取行动，那么这没有问题。那么，我会同意债务人并未遭受任何损害。如果受托人不会就第3(b)段采取任何行动，那么我不知道我如何能够主张存在不可弥补的损害。针对Goldman先生所说我们未指出任何威胁这一点，我再次援引——我在动议中援引的判例表明，被强制披露本身即构成损害。所以，我——我们确实——我确实援引了这样说的判例。我的陈述完毕，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 99 of 150\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 30, 2022 99 法庭：好的。谢谢。DESPINS先生：非常简短地说，法官阁下。Henzy先生在该段中途停下了。下一句。任何对特权的放弃仅限于向受托人提供该信息。好的。我的同意仅限于在我有权的范围内给予受托人访问权限，不包含任何更广泛的特权放弃，也不构成我同意受托人放弃任何特权。法官阁下，我不知道还有什么能更清楚地表明这里不存在对特权的放弃。这只是英国的一项规则。存在访问权限。受托人可以访问该信息，但受托人不能放弃该特权。事实上，他们援引的另一案件，即附于其诉状中的Lord案，我请您注意该意见第260段，这是一份英国意见——法庭：好的。等一下。让我——您说的是哪个案件？DESPINS先生：Lord案。David Lord（戴维·洛德）。不，抱歉，那是——我无法发音——ECF 761-3。法庭：好的。等一下。我会跟上您的。DESPINS先生：是，761-3。 （暂停）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 100 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 30, 2022\n\n法庭：您说的是Michael Thomas Leeds（迈克尔·托马斯·利兹）和Kevin John Hilliard（凯文·约翰·希利亚德），是吗？是第三个吗？我不能——是的，我想是的。Henzy律师，您知道吗，是这样吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：所以，如果您翻到第35页——是的，抱歉，是Leeds，没错，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：如果您翻到41页中的第35页，第260子段——\n\n法庭：260，好的。\n\nDESPINS先生：——第二句。“毫无争议，受托人有权查阅该受特权保护的信息，并为履行其法定职能之目的使用该信息，但前提是，如上诉法院在Avonwick案中所裁定的，他们未经破产人同意不得放弃法律专业特权。”\n\n这正是这封信所做的。它并不——它不允许放弃该特权。它只是给予我们访问权限。\n\n但是，法官阁下，我再次认为，您不应在有关特权的动议得到审理之前就该动议作出裁定，因为两者完全相互关联。谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\nHenzy先生，就该动议，您还有什么要补充的吗？\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— August 30, 2022 101 暂缓执行，等待上诉期间？\n\nHENZY先生：不，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望就等待上诉期间暂缓执行的动议进一步发表意见吗？\n\n（无人回应）\n\n法院：好的。好。那么请转到特权动议。律师，请开始。\n\nBASSETT先生：谢谢，法官阁下。下午好。我是来自 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴西特），代表第11章受托人。法官阁下，我们在案卷编号777提交的、涉及我们一直在讨论的特权问题的动议，对受托人极为重要；我还想指出，该动议所请求的救济范围有限。该动议无论在实质内容还是时机上，对受托人都极为重要，因为我们正处于对一名债务人进行调查的初期阶段；如本院所知，该债务人曾声称其名下仅有 $3,000，但纽约州法院诉讼记录、公开声明以及债务人本人的陈述中，都有大量关于其拥有的资产、其持有权益的实体，以及其为设立 LLCs 和其他机制所采取行动的记载；我们认为，这些行动旨在使其资产不受其债权人追索。案号 22-50073 文件 847 于 09/11/22 提交，于 09/11/22 12:34:38 登记，第101页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 847\n于 09/11/22 提交\n于 09/11/22 12:34:38 登记\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— August 30, 2022\n\n当然，若债务人确实做了这些事情，他不可能独自完成。他必定与法律顾问和顾问进行过沟通。他必定利用过该类建议，才能实施这些行为并构建出此前所提及的这一实体网络。因此，在我们进行2004调查时，至关重要的是，我们能够向这些当事方寻求证据开示，并以使受托人能够根据我将要谈及的现有判例法，对债务人的特权享有控制权的方式进行。\n\n我一开始还想指出的另一点，如我所说，我们所请求的救济范围有限。\n\n具体而言，基于我们所援引的全部判例法，我们请求本院作出命令，认定受托人现已控制此前属于债务人的、涉及以下三个主题的全部特权：第一，破产财产的潜在资产；第二，与债务人的财务状况相关的事项；或者第三，与其在申请破产后期间对其破产财产进行管理相关的事项。这就是我们所请求的全部救济。我相信，正如我们将讨论的那样，这完全符合该问题上绝大多数判例法。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 847 于 09/11/22 提交，于 09/11/22 12:34:38 登记，第103页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— August 30, 2022 103 不幸的是，如同该债务人一贯的做法，无论是在我们刚才讨论的另一项动议中依赖某一命令的不同版本并据此提出论点，还是在此处，又有人试图——我不知道是否是有意为之——歪曲和误解我们所请求的救济，并在此基础上提出论点。因此，债务人在其异议中首先主张，受托人所寻求的是对债务人曾经享有的、无论主题为何的一切特权作出所谓“全面放弃”。根据我对异议的理解，他还主张，受托人寻求控制由作为我们证据开示请求对象的第三方所持有的全部特权，包括其亲属及与其存在关系的其他当事方。这两种说法均不属实，法官阁下。正如我所说，该动议范围有限。它根本没有寻求放弃任何事项。因此，我们不断听到的这种放弃说法，纯属捏造，与本动议无关，本动议也并未寻求该等救济。本动议涉及的是特权控制权向受托人的移转。如我所说，我们并未请求作出命令，认定所有主题事项上的全部特权控制权均移转给受托人。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 847\n于 09/11/22 提交\n于 09/11/22 12:34:38 登记\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— August 30, 2022\n\n我们明确限定了这一范围。\n\n如果您查看我们动议中的请求救济部分——我们在答复中再次引用了该部分——我们具体寻求的是破产财产的资产、其财务状况以及与管理相关的事项。\n\n债务人指出，他担心可能享有特权的、与刑事问题有关的文件，例如针对其提出的强奸和非法拘禁指控以及其他事项，还有其庇护申请。我们目前在调查中并未寻求任何与该等问题有关的文件。\n\n再次强调，我们关注的是资产，以及一项希望能够用于增加本破产财产的调查。\n\n第二，法官阁下，我们并未要求放弃或控制属于其他当事方的任何特权。事实上，我不知道如何能够将我们的动议解读为请求该等救济。\n\n为明确起见，我们寻求认定，受托人已承继债务人与其他当事方之间基于共同利益或共同辩护特权而享有的任何特权。我们在动议中援引了支持这一点的判例法。坦率地说，我认为这并无争议。\n\n但我们并未寻求的是——债务人似乎暗示我们正在寻求，但事实并非如此——本院作出命令，认定受托人现已控制任何可能合法地仅由作为我们证据开示对象的某第三方专属拥有的特权。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 847\n于 09/11/22 提交\n于 09/11/22 12:34:38 登记\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— August 30, 2022\n\n例如，我们已向郭先生的直系亲属送达证据开示请求。若其妻子享有其依法独立拥有并控制的特权，则该等特权不属于我们动议的范围；对于她可能主张的任何特权，均保留所有权利。\n\n我们日后可能会对该等特权提出异议，但这不是我们今天试图处理的事项。\n\n债务人提出的最后一种程序性论点，法官阁下，而且坦率地说，您在讨论上一项动议期间已听到不少相关内容，是在当前情形下，并以我们所请求的方式，由本院作出我们所请求的裁定是不适当的。\n\n具体而言，我理解债务人的意思是，本院对这些特权问题作出裁定的唯一方式，是逐份审查任何证据开示接收方声称基于特权而持有的每一份文件。这并非法律所要求的。\n\n但在讨论法律所要求的内容之前，我认为重要的是指出，债务人通过其律师于 August 11th 就我们的规则2004动议提交的宣誓书，采取了完全相反的立场。\n\n其在宣誓书第18段中称，逐份文件进行特权分析是不可能的，唯一可行方式是以综合方式进行，这与我们正请求本院采取的做法完全一致。\n\n但即使该问题未被放弃，债务人所提出的法律表述也是不正确的。\n\n债务人在先前的论证中援引并提及第十巡回法院于1999年在 In re Foster（福斯特案）中作出的裁决；其主张该案确立的命题是，作出任何有关特权的裁定的唯一方式是逐份文件进行审查，但该案并非如此规定。\n\n该案批评了破产法院；如果您阅读破产法院的意见书，便会发现其几乎没有进行任何分析，以确定为何某一广泛类别的特权——该特权的控制权——应通过利益衡量测试移转给受托人。\n\n该案并非像本案一样，对个别文件请求进行了实际分析或事实具体的利益衡量测试。\n\n我们附上了传票及文件请求，这些请求非常具体地寻求与破产财产资产、债务人在破产前参与的其他交易事项以及其他根本不涉及该债务人所担心的刑事责任等问题的事项有关的文件。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 847 于 09/11/22 提交，于 09/11/22 12:34:38 登记，第107页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— August 30, 2022\n\n因此，Foster案所担心的做法中，没有任何一项是我们在此请求本院采取的做法。\n\n坦率地说，如果您查看其他案件，会发现有许多其他案件作出了我们请求本院作出的此类命令，包括我们所援引的、2010年北卡罗来纳东区（Eastern District of North Carolina）作出的 In re Tarkington（塔金顿案）。\n\n在该案中，法院正在调查潜在的破产财产资产。受托人希望询问一名在破产前代理债务人的律师，法院最终所做的是：好，我将允许该询问继续进行；以下是我认为属于特权范围的事项。\n\n与破产财产资产等有关的一切特权均已移转给受托人。任何可能涉及刑事责任或该等事项的内容，仍可能受到特权保护。\n\n因此，你可以进行询问，债务人的律师可以按照特权的该等范围提出异议。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 847 于 09/11/22 提交，于 09/11/22 12:34:38 登记，第108页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— August 30, 2022 108 您知道，这与我们请求本院在此作出的命令并无不同。至于——至于该动议的实质内容，我想我已经开始稍微谈到这一点了；您知道，我不确定对于适用于个人债务人特权向受托人移转问题的准据法，实际上究竟存在多少分歧。我将简要谈及 Swidler（斯维德勒）最高法院裁决和 Ginsburg（金斯伯格）案，因为债务人在其反对意见中也简要援引这些案件，据称是为了说明本院可以采纳一项一概规则，即特权永远不会移转给受托人。我认为，Ginsburg案或最高法院的Swidler案都远不足以要求作出该结论。Swidler案涉及这样一种情形，正如律师提到的，债务人最终去世了。或者，不是，对不起，这根本不是一宗破产案件，法官阁下。Swidler案涉及这样一种情形：其特权成为争议焦点的个人最终去世。此后，问题是大陪审团是否可以为调查之目的获取先前受律师—当事人特权保护的文件。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月30日：109项刑事指控。而且最高法院表示，在该种情形下，采用某种利益衡量测试并不适当。这与破产毫无关系。当然也与这样一种情形毫无关系，即问题在于受托人是否承继对债务人特权的控制权。我认为值得注意的是，我相信那是1999年或1998年的案件。而且，在债务人/受托人语境下，我们所见过的唯一被援引的案件，就是这一异常的 Ginsburg（金斯伯格）案。此后所有其他案件都理所当然地根本没有考察该案，因为它与本案情形完全无关。因此，如我所言，亦如我们在书面文件中所述，法官阁下，我认为，如果您考察判例法的整体分量，就会十分清楚，绝大多数现有案件——存在三种处理方法——有些案件，如 Ginsburg 案及其他一些较早案件，认为特权不移转；另一些案件认为特权始终移转；但绝大多数判例法处于两者之间，并适用这一利益衡量测试。我们在书面文件中援引了其中若干案件。我请法院注意 Bazemore（贝兹莫尔）判决、Bain（贝恩）判决、Horvath（霍尔瓦特）判决，以及我已经提到的 Tarkington（塔金顿）判决。案号 22-50073，文件 847，提交日期 09/11/22，登记日期 09/11/22 12:34:38，第109页，共\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 847，提交日期 09/11/22，登记日期 09/11/22 12:34:38，第110页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月30日\n\n1　这些案件中，问题是受托人\n2　试图调查遗产中的资产，而这些资产可能会\n3　涉及，您知道，增加遗产，\n4　即增加这些资产的价值。\n5　法院在这些案件中裁定的是，\n6　这是债务人将会从中受益的情形。\n7　\n8　这些是——当债务人的遗产因额外的——诉因的发现\n9　或其他资产的识别而增加时，\n10　他便会受益。他不会\n11　因此受到损害。\n12　因此，您知道，债务人主张，正如我先前所说，\n13　存在一种担忧，即，您知道，受托人寻求\n14　查阅的文件可能涉及潜在的刑事责任，无论是\n15　他所提到的强奸指控、非法拘禁，还是\n16　\n17　诸如其庇护申请等完全无关的问题，\n18　但再次强调，如我先前所说，我们并未寻求通过\n19　我们的证据开示请求取得那些文件。\n20　债务人已经指出，我们向债务人先前的律师事务所及\n21　专业人士发出的传票中有一项请求，\n22　第17项请求，要求提供有关\n23　法律争议的信息，该请求可能被理解为包括针对他的刑事\n24　诉讼，如存在任何此类诉讼，或其\n25　庇护申请；我们愿意在记录中明确说明，\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 847，提交日期 09/11/22，登记日期 09/11/22 12:34:38，第111页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月30日\n\n1　我们并不寻求取得该类型的\n2　信息，并将相应限制该项请求。\n3　我的意思是，债务人能够声称他拥有一份对我们的传票具有响应性的文件、\n4　但该文件也可能对他造成损害的唯一合理情形，\n5　是存在某份与其资产有关、\n6　与我们寻求探究的事项有关，\n7　并且还以某种方式\n8　牵涉其刑事责任的文件。\n9　但债务人甚至没有提供任何一点线索，\n10　说明那可能是什么。他没有提出任何内容，\n11　除如其在异议书中所述的\n12　非法拘禁指控及类似事项外，没有任何内容可供说明。\n13　他没有给出任何理由，使我们有理由相信，\n14　或使我甚至能够想象，为何我们寻求取得的、例如与其\n15　对纽约公寓、Lady May（“五月花”号），以及他谈及的\n16　所有其他私人飞机和类似事项的\n17　权益有关的文件，\n18　会与这些类型的问题有关，这不存在任何可以设想的情形。\n19　\n20　因此，这种认为利益衡量测试将会支持不将\n21　这些特权的控制权移交给遗产的观点，\n22　实在是——我认为毫无分量。\n23　债务人还提出，法官阁下，针对他提起的\n24　不予免责诉讼。\n25　他表示，虽然对此存在担忧，即我可能会\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 847\n提交日期 09/11/22\n登记日期 09/11/22 12:34:38\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月30日\n\n1　受到损害，如果债务人——或者受托人取得了可能与\n2　那些诉讼有关的文件，对此有几个回应。\n3　\n4　第一，再次强调，受托人并非那些\n5　诉讼的当事人。事实上，债务人已采取立场认为，\n6　受托人不具备作为那些\n7　诉讼当事人的诉讼资格。\n8　受托人已告知我们，根据《破产法》第1106(a)\n9　条，您知道，受托人能够履行《破产法》第704条\n10　规定的某些职责，\n11　但不包括第704条中与可能质疑\n12　债务人免责有关的职责。\n13　\n14　因此，债务人已采取立场认为，我们甚至没有参与\n15　那些诉讼的诉讼资格，这是第一点。\n16　\n17　第二，所有已提起的不予免责诉讼\n18　均寻求根据523(a)(6)规定获得免责例外，\n19　该规定涉及债务人故意且恶意地对另一实体\n20　或另一实体的财产造成损害。\n21　还有几项——我认为有一项不予免责诉讼还指出了\n22　与证券欺诈有关的若干\n23　523(a)款项。\n24　如果您查看我们的文件请求，我们并未寻求任何与\n25　这些事项中的任何一项有关的信息，\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 847\n提交日期 09/11/22\n登记日期 09/11/22 12:34:38\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月30日\n\n1　完全没有。因此，根本不存在任何正当担忧，认为\n2　我们会以某种方式取得与这些\n3　诉讼有关的信息。\n4　而且顺便说一句，我们不会将我们取得的文件与那些诉讼的\n5　原告分享，因此，再次而言，关于第523条诉讼的这种担忧，\n6　\n7　我认为实质上根本不存在。\n8　法官阁下，在我结束之前，\n9　至少在我的开场陈述方面，还有——还有几点。\n10　债务人在其异议中，尽管最初表示\n11　法院不应在此作出任何裁定，但他说，\n12　如果法院确实作出裁定，可以提供某些指引。\n13　而我认为债务人界定该等\n14　指引的方式是，法院可以指示\n15　收件人——这是异议书第33段所载——\n16　法院可以指示传票收件人基于特权\n17　暂不提供文件，即，引用原文，“仅限于他们认为可能对\n18　债务人造成损害的文件，例如刑事指控、与\n19　不予免责有关的事实，或者与\n20　债务人遗产毫无关系的事实，例如其尚未结案的庇护申请。”\n21　\n22　现在，其中部分内容实际上听起来与我今天的陈述一致，\n23　但我认为这也凸显了我们所担忧的情况，以及如果一项针对该等措辞的\n24　具体命令得到批准，\n25　可能导致的不当后果，因为债务人不能拥有自行决定\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 847　提交日期 09/11/22　登记日期 09/11/22 12:34:38　第114页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月30日 114 是否以在其看来可能会，引用原文，“损害他”为由暂不提供文件的完全自由。您知道，尤其是，债务人不能、也不应获准采取如下立场：与其宁愿不成为遗产财产的资产有关的文件，例如 Lady May、其公寓、他曾夸耀拥有的众多住宅、他声称拥有的两架私人飞机，如果我们取得与这些资产有关的证据开示材料，他便会受到损害，因为他宁愿这些资产留在其亲属或其他任何人手中。如我先前所说，判例明确表明恰恰相反。该类型的证据开示有利于遗产。有利于债务人，因为如果存在适当属于遗产的资产，则应将其纳入遗产。法官阁下，我要提出的最——最后一点，我认为是重要的一点，是我们在书面陈述中援引的判例法中，另有一项讨论，涉及就破产申请提交后对遗产的管理而言，特权控制权是否移转给受托人的问题。我认为，如果您查看 Bain（贝恩）案，第375页对此有很好的讨论，法院基本上\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 847\n提交日期 09/11/22\n登记日期 09/11/22 12:34:38\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月30日\n\n1　裁定，在该种情形下甚至无需进行\n2　利益衡量测试。\n3　如果曾有律师以第11章债务人或第7章债务人的身份\n4　代理债务人，\n5　那么，该等文件、对该等文件的特权控制权\n6　将适当地移转给第11章\n7　受托人。\n8　因此，适用于本案，因为不存在——他们并非以个人身份代理他，也不存在，\n9　您知道，\n10　可能引起担忧的刑事指控或其他任何类似事项。\n11　\n12　但适用于本案，这意味着我们从债务人在本案中的\n13　最初律师处寻求取得的文件，\n14　作为受托人聘任 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克）的一部分，\n15　该等文件是特权控制权已移转给受托人的文件。\n16　\n17　而且，我们取得这些文件也至关重要，\n18　因为这些文件例如会涉及其资产清单的\n19　编制。您知道，哪些资产被决定列入\n20　资产清单，或被决定不列入\n21　资产清单。\n22　根据判例法，我们有权取得这些文件，\n23　并且我们请求使其受本法院命令的约束。\n24　\n25　因此，这就是——这就是我的开场陈述，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月30日 116 法官阁下。我当然会保留时间回应债务人可能提出的任何意见，但也很乐意回答您可能提出的任何问题。\n\n法庭：好的。我目前没有问题。谢谢。Romney（罗姆尼）律师，您要回应吗？\n\nROMNEY先生：是。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\nROMNEY先生：法官阁下，我代表债务人出庭，就受托人的动议提出答辩。这是案卷编号777。该动议由受托人提出，涉及受托人提交的拟议命令，即批准该命令。受托人多次试图界定该项救济，并表示债务人对该项救济的担忧绝不会成为现实，受托人也无意使其成为现实，但事实是，作为债务人的律师，我在此是就受托人提出的动议，以及受托人所寻求的救济提出论辩。受托人已向债务人先前的专业人士送达至少14份传票。这些传票寻求范围极其广泛的信息，包括有关针对债务人的任何请求、任何法律争议的全部文件。不存在任何有限的信息。案号 22-50073，文件 847，提交日期 09/11/22，登记日期 09/11/22 12:34:38，第116页，共\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 847，提交日期 09/11/22，登记日期 09/11/22 12:34:38，第117页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月30日\n\n现受托人已提交第777号案卷记录，即关于保密特权范围的事项，并提交了一份拟议命令。\n\n该内容见第777号案卷记录第27页。\n\n如果我们可以调出该页，并且——\n\n法庭：好的。那么我们要查看 ECF 777 的第27页，对吗？\n\nROMNEY（罗姆尼）律师：对。\n\n法庭：那么我们调出该页。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法庭：进展如何？\n\n法庭书记员：一分钟。\n\n法庭：你们正在调出吗？好的。\n\n好了。好的。ROMNEY（罗姆尼）律师，您希望我们看哪里？从第一页开始吗？\n\nROMNEY（罗姆尼）律师：如果我们翻到第二页，即“so ordered”的措辞部分。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nROMNEY（罗姆尼）律师：第2段规定，对因 Rule 2004 传票附件中所请求的文件和信息而依据任何法律产生的任何律师—当事人保密特权、工作成果保护或任何相关特权或保护的控制权，转归受托人。\n\n接着看第3段，债务人或其律师，无论是基于债务人的指示还是其他原因，或任何受询问人，即传票接收人，均无权以律师—当事人保密特权、工作成果原则或任何相关特权或保护为由扣留任何所请求的材料。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 118 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022\n\n该命令在第4段进一步规定，债务人或其律师，无论是基于债务人的指示还是其他原因，或任何受询问人，均不得干预、阻碍或拖延受托人行使本命令项下的权限。\n\n第5段规定，受托人获授权并有权采取一切必要行动，以实现本命令授予的救济。\n\n现在，法官阁下，拟议传票并未附于该动议，尽管该动议授予或强制遵从该等传票。\n\n而且，8月12日我们在此出庭时，就 Rule 2004 询问动议的背景讨论了这样一个事实：当时法庭是在授权送达传票。\n\n我们当时并未处理该等传票的范围。而且，该等传票的接收人将依照《联邦民事诉讼规则》、《联邦破产程序规则》及本地规则的通常程序行事，即如其对传票内容有异议，便会提出异议。他们会提出撤销传票的动议。他们会采取传票接收人在不同意传票时通常会采取的做法。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 847\nFiled 09/11/22\nEntered 09/11/22 12:34:38\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022\n\n然而，我们如今再次站在阁下面前，受托人试图规避《联邦民事诉讼规则》、《联邦破产程序规则》及本地规则所规定的程序，试图取得一项强制遵从传票的命令，而该命令此次特别规定，任何人均不得代表债务人或其他任何人主张律师—当事人保密特权。\n\n我还理解，BASSETT（巴塞特）先生在阁下面前——我确信是出于最善意的意图——主张任何人均无意侵犯任何其他特权，但这并非传票所载内容，也并非他们希望阁下作出并准予其请求的拟议命令所载内容。\n\n该命令会强制——该等传票将强制——提交涉及……我确实没有计算过的文件。涉及50多个个人和实体。\n\n阁下拟议的准予第777号案卷记录的命令，将要求该等传票的接收人提交有关这些实体的文件，而不考虑任何特权或法律。\n\n受托人或其他任何人均未援引任何依据，允许在本案情形下作出此类命令，指示至少14家专业事务所不考虑任何特权而提交文件。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 120 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022 120 债务人对于以最有效方式解决这一公认复杂且针对本案的争议的立场，自8月2日的协商会议以来一直保持一致并一再明确陈述；在8月12日的听证会上亦是如此，尽管我在庭审记录中表示，或者说与我在庭审记录中所述一致，即我当时不会就该立场展开，因为我认为该问题当时并未提交法庭。债务人通过我——即债务人的律师以及已被援引的宣誓书签署人——不断提及并陈述，我不知道已陈述多少次：我不认为，债务人也不认为，可以就与 Rule 2004 询问动议有关的保密特权进行逐份文件审查。没有人需要相信我的话，甚至无需查看昨日提交的答复以外的任何案卷材料，因为该答复正是如此表述的。其称，债务人尚未准备好就 Rule 2004 动议开展逐份文件审查程序。我今天坚持该陈述，并且对于任何 Rule 2004 询问动议，我将永远坚持该陈述。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 121 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022\n\n我还代表债务人陈述，鉴于专业人士的数量、现有文件的数量、争议事项的数量、不同的诉讼和实体，尽管将会出现——将会出现人们主张特权的情形，对此可能存在分歧，法庭将不得不确定一种解决机制，但正如各方均同意的，不同法院对这一极其复杂的问题采取了不同做法。\n\n有判例支持如下主张：在个人案件中，债务人仅持有该特权。无人对此提出争议。保留该特权。\n\n有多数判例采用利益衡量标准。无人对此提出争议。\n\n但据我所知，或据我所见受托人在本案中援引的依据，并无任何依据仅仅规定，个人对其破产申请前或第11章程序中受托人获任命前已存在的特权不再享有任何特权。没有。\n\n因此，如果我们采用在其他案件中以不同方式适用的利益衡量标准，是的，我曾代表债务人陈述，我的观点是，为了尽可能高效地处理此事，不拖慢受托人的进程，事实上恰恰相反，事实上是尽可能高效地达到我们需要达到的结果，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022 122 如果本法庭作出一项命令，至少确立一项规范这些问题应如何处理的标准，将会有所帮助。现在，我可以理解法庭若不审理此类命令。可以说这是一项咨询意见，尽管鉴于我们目前正在真正讨论的这一非常现实的情形，我并不这么认为。而且，仅向专业人士就已送达14份传票。如果人们知道应适用何种标准，他们便可以依其专业判断，尽最大努力按照法庭命令予以适用。获得法庭命令的益处，可能会大幅减少任何特定专业人士特权日志上的项目数量。也可能不会。在我们实际进行之前，此处无人知晓。但若法庭愿意审理，称一项程序可因这样的裁定而受益，与放弃专业人士或一方就某一特定文件主张特权并获得具体司法裁定的权利，两者之间并无不一致之处。因此，我们目前的情况是，受托人请求本法庭作出命令，指示至少14家专业事务所遵从14份传票，而不顾任何适用的法律特权，从而剥夺其主张该特权的权利，或者推定其将因不遵从而构成\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847\nFiled 09/11/22\nEntered 09/11/22 12:34:38\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022\n\n藐视阁下命令。\n\n我认为这不会是阁下作出此类命令的意图，尽管我不想妄加揣测，而且各方今天提交的文件已向法庭提出了一长串问题。\n\n此时，基本立场是，作出一项命令，指示任何人在无权主张律师—当事人保密特权的情况下提交文件，将是不公平且不恰当的。\n\n在我结束陈述前，除非法庭当然还有任何问题，我想澄清最后一点。\n\n第一点，我同意BASSETT（巴塞特）先生的一件事是：我确实使用了不正确的词语。该动议并非请求全面放弃特权。他们请求的是全面移转特权，两者存在区别；对于我们在周六下午提交异议时所使用的措辞，我表示歉意。\n\n第二点，受托人将债务人的请求描述为，债务人可自由决定何者享有特权、何者不享有特权。倘若我所说的一切以及我代表债务人所写的一切尚未足以明确说明，这绝非我们所请求的内容。\n\n每一名收到传票或证据开示请求的诉讼当事人或一方，最初的负担在于其作出初步判断：我是否主张某项特权并将其记入特权日志、向法庭披露，以便法庭在听取各方意见后同意或不同意；还是我仅予提交，因为我认定该特权不适用。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 124 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022\n\n法官阁下，这不叫自由裁量，这就是依照联邦规则进行的证据开示。我们所请求的，仅是让债务人及债务人的14名专业人士获得同样作出初步判断的权利，而不是面对一项命令，要求他们不考虑特权而提交文件，尽管该等请求，更不用说文件本身，从未接近提交给本法庭。\n\n正如我所说，这不公平。我们今天请求阁下做的一切，就是驳回会使该情形发生的命令。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nBASSETT（巴塞特）先生：法官阁下，我认为作为回应，我或许可以相对简短地陈述。\n\n第一点，我想处理ROMNEY（罗姆尼）律师刚才与法庭讨论的拟议命令。\n\n实际上，我预料到会听到ROMNEY（罗姆尼）律师提出其中一些观点，甚至在他开始发言之前，我就已经开始标注一些可能的澄清内容。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 125 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 30, 2022 125 如我在开场陈述中所说，且如你们阅读我们的动议以及我们对所请求救济的描述时应当完全清楚的那样，我们所寻求的正是我刚才所述的内容。即由本院作出命令，确定就债务人所享有的、与其资产、财务状况以及在申请破产后至Despins先生获任命前期间其破产财产管理有关的特权而言，对该等特权的控制权已移转给受托人。我们也并非寻求放弃任何特权，或者——放弃——我们并非寻求控制其他个人可能以其自身个人权利享有的任何特权。因此，我认为，如有助于解决债务人的部分乃至全部异议，我们可以建议对拟议命令第2和第3段作出修改。具体而言，就第2段——\n\n法院：请向上滚动一下——\n\n巴塞特先生：当然。\n\n法院：——以便我们都在看同一内容。能否向上滚动到第2段？好的。请继续。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 126 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022\n\n1　巴塞特先生：\n因此，对债务人所主张的任何律师—当事人特权、工作成果保护，或任何相关特权或保护的控制权——我这是——我是在即席组织措辞，因此可能需要就最终措辞与我的同事及其他人协商——但其概念是加入某些措辞，以澄清这涉及债务人根据任何适用法律就有关潜在破产财产资产、债务人财务状况或与传票所要求文件有关的申请破产后破产财产管理事项而据称享有的特权。\n\n我们会——我们很乐意附上该等传票。\n\n为明确起见，我们最初如此构建或起草该命令的原因在于，我们认为文件请求本身及传票实际上旨在寻求属于我所述三类信息的信息。\n\n债务人对其中一些请求提出异议，包括第17项请求，称其超出该范围。\n\n我认为，该措辞将通过明确特权控制权的移转涉及与我们在动议中所援引判例法一致的事项，从而消除该项疑虑。\n\n然后，法官阁下，就第3段，我认为我们只需要加入类似的澄清性措辞，即债务人、债务人的律师（无论是基于债务人的指示还是其他原因），以及任何其他被审查人，均无权以债务人据称享有的、与破产财产资产、债务人财务状况或申请破产后破产财产管理有关的任何律师—当事人特权、工作成果原则或任何相关特权或保护为由，扣留任何被请求的材料。\n\n因此，再次说明，这就是概念，即拟议的修正方案。我需要，您知道，可能与同事讨论，并确保该具体措辞可行。\n\n但我确实想明确，受托人的意图以及我们提交的动议，是寻求一项提供该等救济的命令，而不是寻求债务人对此极为担忧的那种全面放弃。\n\n仅回应罗姆尼先生提出的另外几点。他再次主张，尽管他在其宣誓陈述中所说的内容，您知道，我们试图通过该动议所做的是规避在典型诉讼中处理证据开示争议时适用规则下本应适用的正常程序。\n\n再次，我认为他表示——我认为他建议我们恰恰相反。他在宣誓陈述中不仅说无法逐份文件进行审查。他还明确表示，这是债务人以一揽子方式的偏好。我不知道这除了我们在此试图做的事情之外还能意味着什么。无论如何，我们已就此形成争议。存在明确争议。本院现在可以作出该项命令并作出裁决。我还要指出，如我先前所提到，债务人在其异议第33段中确实建议，本院在文件被提交、列入清单及完成所有相关程序之前，就特权在何种范围内移转给受托人作出命令。\n\n最后一点。您知道，类似地——基于类似考虑，我认为罗姆尼先生对我所作的陈述提出异议，即让债务人拥有某种自由裁量权以决定哪些内容享有特权、哪些内容不享有特权会存在问题。然后他再次援引，嗯，通常这应如何进行，即他们最终会提交或不提交文件，将文件列入清单，然后我们可以就此进行往来讨论。法官阁下，我认为，我们深切担忧，这将构成对本案进一步拖延和阻挠的邀请，尤其是在本院未就仍然存在的特权范围预先作出命令的情况下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 128 of\n\nCase 22-50073　Doc 847　Filed 09/11/22　Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38　Page 129 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022\n\n1　特权。\n\n2　在通常诉讼中，问题是某一文件是否享有特权？通常会发生的是，各方会在特权清单中列明文件，并就个别文件及其是否享有特权进行争议。\n\n6　这不是这里的问题。再次，问题是，某些特权的控制权是否已移转给受托人？\n\n9　而这正是我们所援引的许多判决——包括我先前提到的Tarkington判决——中所有法院均未曾犹豫作出此类命令、界定移转给受托人的特权范围的问题，以便不能玩弄手段，也不会在讯问中就债务人试图主张其已不再拥有的特权产生争议。这正是我们试图预先防范的事情，法官阁下。\n\n18　本院，我认为，已一再恰当地指出，本案拖延已久。\n\n21　受托人在7月初获任命。我们一经获任命，便立即尝试与债务人律师协调，以非正式方式取得文件和信息。\n\n25　今天上午，我们终于从债务人处收到一份载有一些文件的PDF，这是对我们于July 11th就基本公司治理文件提出请求的回应。除此之外，我们没有从他们那里得到任何东西。\n\n我们深切担忧债务人会抓住任何机会拖延我们的调查并拖延进展。\n\n这就是，您知道，这正是促使我们提交该命令的因素，而我们认为该命令完全适当。\n\n我没有别的了，法官阁下。\n\n法院：我只有一个问题——\n\n巴塞特先生：当然。\n\n法院：——如果您刚才已经谈到，我可能在您刚才的陈述中漏听了。\n\n但是，债务人的律师对第4段和第5段的措辞提出异议，也对第2段和第3段提出异议；我不知道您是否建议也需要对这些段落作出某些修改或澄清？\n\n巴塞特先生：我不——我认为，债务人的律师可以在我有误时纠正我，但我的理解是，他对那些段落的担忧源于其对第2段和第3段的担忧，因此我认为，如果我刚才提到的第2段和第3段中的问题得到纠正，那些担忧将不复存在，但我让他就此发言。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022 131\n\n法院：好的。这是我的最后一个问题。谢谢。\n\n巴塞特先生：好的。谢谢。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：罗姆尼先生，我们能否先从这个问题的答复开始？我知道您——我确信您还有其他想要谈及的事项，但我只是想明确您对拟议命令第4段和第5段的论点。我刚才问律师的是——我不是说您同意。我只是——我只是想确保我理解您的立场。好吗？\n\n罗姆尼先生：我感谢法官阁下对此的关注和澄清。就此来看，我认为，若我们在其他所有事项上达成一致，那么第4段和第5段可能不会构成问题，因为它们确实，它们源自其他所有事项。如果该命令在其他方面——是的。我们会同意债务人和受托人的——抱歉，债务人的律师不应妨碍本院命令。因此，是的，这确实是那些段落所表达的内容。我确实对立即生效提出异议，我此前没有提出，只是因为我们尚未达到如下程度：如作出一项非经同意的命令。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 847 Filed 09/11/22 Entered 09/11/22 12:34:38 Page 131 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 847\nFiled 09/11/22\nEntered 09/11/22 12:34:38\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 30, 2022\n\n1　在作出一项非经同意的命令的范围内。\n\n3　我会——债务人希望保留其反对此事的权利，您知道，对该命令提起上诉或寻求中止执行。\n\n6　但是，再次说明，法官阁下，主要问题是实体性第2、第3和第4段中的问题。\n\n8　而且我想，在过去五分钟内，我尚未将太多注意力集中于可能出现的其余问题，因为基于我希望有机会陈述意见的理由，我认为我们尚未达到该程度，甚至远未接近。\n\n13　当然——当然已有一些重大改进。我当然承认，我先前陈述意见时提出的一些疑虑，将会因该等修改或实质上类似的修改而得到解决。\n\n18　我对拟议修订仍存的主要问题是，它们没有规定利益衡量测试。我认为它们也没有提供任何有意义的指导。实际上，我认为，即便有任何效果，它们也会造成混乱。\n\n23　据我理解，受托人的立场是，如果信息涉及破产财产的资产或管理，该命令应允许或强制提交本应受债务人特权保护的信息。这不是利益衡量测试。\n\n需要考虑的是，在管理破产财产、管理破产财产本身以及为其债权人最大化破产财产价值方面，受托人的合法利益之间如何平衡。\n\n我同意，受托人在从事所有这些事项方面具有合法利益。\n\n法官阁下，平衡测试所涉及的是，视具体情况而定，某项特权是否应当移转给受托人并由受托人控制；在考虑该项合法利益之后——无论某一特定文件是否享有特权，该项利益均存在，管理破产财产是受托人的职责和义务，对此并无争议——还须衡量出示某一特定文件将对债务人造成的损害，而受托人拟议的命令及受托人的动议甚至未尝试这样做。\n\n我并非就任何特定文件的知情情况发言，但我认为我们都可以同意，可能存在这样一份文件：它标明了可能影响破产财产管理的事项，甚至是破产财产的一项资产，但其中也包含可能对债务人极其有害、却享有特权的信息——即对债务人有害且享有特权。\n\n法官阁下，我所说的是，法院如何处理这一问题——我明白这可能——在任何特定问题上都并非非黑即白，但可能存在既涉及破产财产资产管理、又受债务人所拥有的合法特权保护的文件。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 847 提交日期 09/11/22 登记日期 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 134 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022（2022年8月30日）\n\n1　因为总体而言，债务人失去对该等受律师—委托人特权保护的信息的控制权所受损害，超过了受托人为破产财产价值最大化的合法利益。\n\n2　因此，受托人拟议的措辞虽然有所改进，仍然令人反对，并且债务人认为其不可接受。\n\n其范围过宽。\n\n3　它剥夺了当事人在具体事实和具体情形足以证明其正当性的情况下，就该等具体事实和具体情形提出陈述的机会。\n\n4　这并不意味着，本院今天、在本次听证会之后或其他任何时候作出的命令，不会大幅减少我们必须向本院提出的事项数量。\n\n5　但是，受托人拟议的措辞只考虑受托人的利益，法官阁下。\n\n它没有考虑债务人的利益。因此，它并非审理过这一问题的大多数法院所遵循的平衡测试。\n\n6　法庭：那么，您会提出什么措辞？\n\n案号 22-50073\n文档 847\n提交日期 09/11/22\n登记日期 09/11/22 12:34:38\n\n郭文贵—2022年8月30日\n\n1　那么？您不同意刚刚提出的措辞？\n\n2　ROMNEY先生（罗姆尼）：我不同意，法官阁下。\n\n3　法庭：好的。\n\n4　ROMNEY先生：债务人不同意。\n\n5　法庭：那么，您会提出什么措辞来处理债务人的利益？\n\n6　ROMNEY先生：嗯，如债务人的异议中所述，我认为这并非仅仅修改拟议命令那么简单，我认为是因为这不是非黑即白的问题。\n\n7　而且，为使某项标准能够发挥作用，我确实认为它不能仅仅要求当事人自行进行平衡测试，因为那样我们就会处于如此主观的情形中，以至于会就一切问题都再次回到这里。\n\n8　我确实认为，凡是——在我们异议中所列举的例子中，我认为最重要的是——享有特权的文件含有涉及刑事事项、庇护问题或可免责性可能性的信息时，天平应当倾向于债务人，且在任何情况下均不应出示该等文件。\n\n9　当然，这并非赋予债务人——\n\n10　法庭：谁来作出该项认定？\n\n郭文贵—2022年8月30日\n\n136　ROMNEY先生：法官阁下，我正要谈到这一点。\n\n法庭：好的。您继续。\n\nROMNEY先生：这恰恰涉及自由裁量权的问题。这并不意味着，如果某一专业人士凭其专业判断认定某一文件涉及会对债务人造成损害的问题，他们就可以把它扔进垃圾桶或随意放到任何地方。他们应当将其列入特权清单。\n\n受托人及其称职的律师将提出该问题。至于这是否需要本院进行不公开审查，或者由本院指定的人员进行不公开审查，我认为这是另日再议的问题。\n\n但是，对于一项命令——\n\n法庭：为什么这是另日再议的问题？为什么不是今天要解决的问题？\n\nROMNEY先生：因为该文件目前不在本院面前。这就是我所说的意思。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nROMNEY先生：因此，除非法庭还有进一步的问题，否则我没有其他要补充的。\n\n法庭：好的。我没有其他问题。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 847 提交日期 09/11/22 登记日期 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 136 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文档 847\n提交日期 09/11/22\n登记日期 09/11/22 12:34:38\n\n郭文贵—2022年8月30日\n\n1　问题。谢谢。\n\n2　ROMNEY先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n3　BASSETT先生（巴塞特）：法官阁下，我仅作简短回应。\n\n4　如果可以的话，我想这次我可以留在这里。\n\n5　法庭：可以。\n\n6　BASSETT先生：因此，Romney先生在谈及我们对措辞提出的修改时，我认为他的立场是：嗯，我们仍未规定适用平衡测试，因为如果我们所说的是，与债务人的资产、财务状况或其破产财产管理有关的特权移转给受托人，那么这并未考虑债务人可能拥有某种其他个人、个体利益、刑事责任或其他利益的可能性。\n\n7　我认为该逻辑的谬误在于，并未提出任何依据说明，为何与资产、财务状况或破产财产管理有关的文件，会与债务人的庇护申请、针对他提出的强奸或非法拘禁刑事指控有任何关系。\n\n8　我的意思是，如果债务人担心，假设存在一份文件，其中债务人与其律师讨论了针对他的非法拘禁指控以及其财产，那么他不应被迫交出该文件中谈及非法拘禁指控的部分，我认为这是可以的，因为我们并不寻求该部分。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 847 提交日期 09/11/22 登记日期 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 138 页，共\n\n郭文贵—2022年8月30日\n\n1　非法拘禁指控以及其财产，那么他不应被迫交出该文件中谈及非法拘禁指控的部分，我认为这是可以的，因为我们并不寻求该部分。\n\n2　但是，如果债务人试图表达的是，他希望能够自行决定债务人何时、在何种情形下可能会——引号——“因向受托人披露文件而受到损害”，我认为这将是一个重大问题。\n\n3　因为我们已经知道，该债务人将采取立场，称他过去在各处提及的这些资产不应成为破产财产。\n\n4　如果他采取这样的立场，即，嗯，我与律师就这些资产进行的沟通享有特权，而披露该等沟通将对我造成损害，因为那是我不希望看到的结果，那么这与判例法完全不一致。\n\n5　这并非在平衡测试中会被视为支持不披露的因素。\n\n这也不是应以任何方式纳入该拟议命令的事项。\n\n6　但是，再说一次，如果我们能够拟定措辞，以明确说明，若存在一份文件谈及——\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 847 提交日期 09/11/22 登记日期 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 139 页，共\n\n郭文贵—2022年8月30日\n\n139　与刑事责任无关的事项，或者您知道，他在异议中再次提及的特定事项、其庇护申请之类的事项，我认为我们可以拟定措辞纳入拟议命令，再次明确我们并不寻求这些内容。\n\n我认为还需要作出其他调整，包括保留我们的权利：对于任何被扣留、而我们认为可能与受托人依据律师—委托人特权的犯罪—欺诈例外进行调查相关的文件，例如，我们保留相关权利；但我确实认为，可以拟定某些措辞来回应债务人的部分关切。\n\n但是，再说一次，不能形成债务人可以决定其何时因披露某一文件而受到损害的情形，因为这等于公开邀请他扣留他不希望我们看到的文件。\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nROMNEY先生：法官阁下，我可以说一句吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nROMNEY先生：非常非常简短。我已经说过，编制特权清单并非作出决定。\n\n但是，我确实想作出一项或许重要的澄清，即，这些命令——拟议命令——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文档 847\n提交日期 09/11/22\n登记日期 09/11/22 12:34:38\n\n郭文贵—2022年8月30日\n\n1　和本动议针对的是传票的受送达人。\n\n2　该命令将剥夺他们凭借其专业判断代表其客户主张特权的能力；除非该特权被放弃，或者其客户指示他们这样做，否则这正是他们的专业职责。\n\n3　因此，没有任何人在这里提出——我没有提出，债务人也没有提出——除对受托人提出的动议作出回应以外的任何主张；该回应是，不要指示债务人的专业人士不得行使其判断，认定某一文件仍享有特权，而这正是他们拟议命令将会做的事情。\n\n4　如果本动议的结果最终允许已收到传票的债务人专业人士，继续依照其法律和职业道德义务行使专业判断，那么这确实就是我们所请求的，法官阁下。\n\n5　我明白，将其表述并写入命令，可能比我在一个星期二下午4:20、我们已在这里待了数小时之后从我的角度将其表述出来更困难，所以可能需要一些措辞上的斟酌；但我确实想明确，没有人要求让债务人拥有不受限制的自由裁量权。\n\n这是关于向14名专业人士发出的14份传票的动议。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 847 提交日期 09/11/22 登记日期 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 141 页，共\n\n郭文贵—2022年8月30日\n\n141　谢谢。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯）：法官阁下，关于此事仅一点。\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nDESPINS先生：至少有五家、可能有六家律师事务所，是债务人提起的专业失当诉讼中的被告。这项命令的作用是，使这些人免受该等威胁。\n\n我向您保证，将会发生的是，他们会去问债务人：您同意吗？不，我们不会，您知道的。\n\n然后，我们将把Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）和所有其他律师事务所拖进法庭，因为他们害怕专业失当索赔。这就是为什么这项命令在这一点上必须绝对明确。\n\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。好的。关于该动议，还有任何人需要补充吗？\n\n（无回应）\n\n法庭：好的。因此，就我们现在正在讨论的这项动议而言，而非上诉期间暂缓执行动议，我们现在讨论的是请求作出命令的动议，该命令规定特权的控制权在受托人被任命时移转给受托人。我——我已经审阅了你们的书面材料，并且听取了你们今天的陈述。\n\n下午，我已听到一些建议，这些建议未必能为各方全体接受，但我将命令你们就此进一步讨论，并了解关于该裁定的进展情况。\n\n我将把关于请求作出裁定以规定特权于任命时移转给受托人的动议的听证会续期至下周二，即 6th，下午 1:00。\n\n原定于下午 2:00 就对抗程序举行一系列审前会议，但截至今日均已中止。所有这些对抗程序——HK International（香港国际）对抗程序原本并未安排于下周举行审前会议。\n\n我们将在下周下午 1 点的听证会上讨论的事项，是关于该裁定是否已达成一致。如果未能达成一致，我希望你们双方均提交拟议裁定。你们的裁定，无论其内容为何，都可能被驳回。我希望你们提交拟议裁定，供我审阅，然后我将决定如何处理。\n\n我可能同意你们的意见。我也可能不同意你们任何一方的意见。但我命令你们，鉴于你们根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》、《联邦破产程序规则》及本院地方法规所负有的义务，就与证据开示争议有关的这些问题进行讨论。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 登记于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 143 页（共 150 页）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 143\n\n法院建议你们花时间审查这些事项，看看是否能够达成任何一致意见。如果不能，法院将作出裁定。但是，我听到——从法院的角度来看，就该动议而言，应当存在一些可以达成一致的问题；我希望在下周二下午 1:00 看到这方面取得一些进展。\n\n关于上诉待决期间中止执行的动议，我将对此事项保留裁决。但我不会在很长一段时间内保留裁决。亨齐律师（Attorney Henzy），我知道您请求在第一天就对上诉待决期间中止执行作出决定，无论是准许还是驳回，但我需要审阅您今天在陈述中谈到的一些事项，以及您所援引的一些判例。您确实告诉我，您希望我审阅的其中一个判例并未载于您关于上诉待决期间中止执行的动议中。如您所知，我没有审阅该判例，因此我需要审阅它。我需要理解并确保我充分领会你们的全部论点，对反对上诉待决期间中止执行各方的论点亦然。因此，我将对上诉待决期间中止执行事项保留裁决，并将特权动议的听证会续期至下周二下午 1:00。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 847\n提交于 09/11/22\n登记于 09/11/22 12:34:38\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022\n\n我还要指出另一件事；我们——我们今天不必处理，也不会在今天处理，但我确实进行了查看，因为我认为这很重要，而且这对破产法院的我们所有人都很重要。由于我们的记录是音频记录，而书记员只能尽其所能进行记录；他们并不在法庭内，他们听到的是音频。因此，我查看了 April——August 4th 的听证会，因为我知道那是你们正在上诉的事项。该笔录中有几处改动，我认为并不重大，但仍有几处——有几处改动，涉及我认为记录有误的内容，并非故意为之，而是法庭记录员未能记录到。\n\n因此，我可能会再次向你们所有人提供一份勘误表，你们可以在其中添加任何你们希望添加的内容。但过去曾有一些情形，上诉中的地区法院依据了笔录中不准确的内容。\n\n而我认为这对任何人都没有好处，包括正在上诉的各方，因为如果该笔录未准确记载所发生的情况，以及法院——破产法院在当时作为审理法院所分析并据以作出裁定的内容，那么我认为这会损害所有人的利益。这是我们不得不采用的方式——我们没有选择。我们没有选择。我们除了使用音频记录外，不能采取任何其他方式，但音频记录存在缺点。因此，你们可能会看到有关此事的内容。\n\n戈德曼律师（Attorney Goldman），委员会在任命 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）之前提出的两项动议仍在待决，我不知道这些动议目前进展如何，但它们仍在待决。您是否将继续推进这些动议？\n\n戈德曼先生：有两项关于聘任——\n\n法院：对。\n\n戈德曼先生：——我们财务顾问和外国调查员的申请。关于这些申请，我希望，如果法院能够将其排入日程，我们希望聘任这些专业人士，理由有二。第一，在明确不会有资金，并且债务人同意驳回之后，他们确实完成了一定工作；届时他们停止了工作。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n戈德曼先生：所以我——\n\n法院：所以您希望聘任他们，以便他们最终可以提出债权？\n\n戈德曼先生：正确。而且，我认为从委员会的角度来看，聘任这些专业人士也是有益的，以便在案件管理期间我们需要请求他们协助时，可以调用他们。\n\n我们只会在与受托人合作的情况下这样做；我已就此与受托人沟通过。\n\n我们并不寻求让我们的专业人士重复受托人或其专业人士将要开展的任何工作。\n\n但在案件管理中，他们可能被需要；如果受托人同意，我们很乐意让他们开展工作。\n\n因此，这就是我拟议的关于聘任他们的程序。\n\n法院：好的。是否有人——我是说，在场的所有各方中，没有人曾有机会——我不记得了，先前这些申请是否设有异议期限？没有？\n\n那么，是否有人——我是说，我知道我们今天讨论了许多事情，但现在是否有人知道，或者是否有人请求——正在请求法院设定一个异议日期，以便其可以决定是否希望反对委员会聘任这些专业人士？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 登记于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 147 页（共 150 页）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 147\n\n克莱伯恩女士（Ms. Claiborn）：法官阁下，美国受托人希望设定一个异议截止日期。\n\n法院：希望？\n\n克莱伯恩女士：是。\n\n法院：好的。好的。那么，我想我们将设定一个异议截止日期。好。那么，戈德曼律师，我得回去审阅一下。我们将另行安排，可能不会在两周左右内举行，因为将设有异议截止日期。而且我想，目前确实不会造成太大损害，因为他们尚未——\n\n戈德曼先生：没有。\n\n法院：——提供任何服务？\n\n戈德曼先生：他们没有。而且我不——我不认为——\n\n法院：好的。\n\n戈德曼先生：——那会构成——\n\n法院：好的。\n\n戈德曼先生：——不当长的期间。\n\n法院：好的。那么我们将审阅，书记官办公室将安排该事项，并发出载有异议截止日期的听证通知。\n\n戈德曼先生：很好。\n\n法院：好的？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022 148\n\n戈德曼先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。德斯潘斯先生（Mr. Despins），您是否希望另定其他状态会议日期？\n\n德斯潘斯先生：我们曾请求定在 September 7th。但既然我们将在 6th 到庭，不妨利用那段时间。\n\n法院：我认为这是正确的。好的？\n\n德斯潘斯先生：谢谢您。\n\n法院：然后我们可以在 6th 讨论，我认为您还有一些其他日期。届时我们可以看看进展情况。好的？\n\n德斯潘斯先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n巴塞特先生（Mr. Bassett）：法官阁下？\n\n法院：是。\n\n巴塞特先生：关于 6th 续期听证会的另一个问题和建议。对于各方提交的任何拟议裁定，无论是相互竞争的拟议裁定还是共同拟议裁定，设定一个提交截止日期是否有帮助，以便法院能够——\n\n法院：嗯，我是说，如果你们有一份双方同意的裁定，那就会比较容易，所以——但我感觉这可能不会发生。不过，关于截止日期，我认为问题在于，我甚至不知道从现在到那时我是否有时间审阅它们，所以——不过，当然，这个周末不是长周末吗？是。\n\n因此，我认为——你知道，如果你们有相互竞争的裁定，如果你们无法达成一致，你们可以在当天中午前在案卷中提交某些内容，我会尽量审阅。我是说，我们那天上午还有其他听证会，我是否有能力审阅它。\n\n我认为要求你们双方在中午前提交内容并不不公平，因为无论如何你们都必须在 1:00 前提交，因为我将必须审阅它。对吗？所以希望这能让我有能力审阅。\n\n巴塞特先生：我们对此没有异议。\n\n法院：不过我不知道是否能够做到。我不能向你保证，我——我会有能力审阅它。\n\n但是，我确实——我确实知道你们将遵守彼此讨论该事项的要求，并采取行动，看看是否能够设法提出某种解决方案。\n\n而且我确实认为可能会有某种解决方案；我并不是在暗示——我理解你们双方正在考虑且已经考虑过的所有问题，考虑到你们已经思考过这些问题的程度，但除此之外——我只是——我认为——我感谢各方投入的时间，并希望能够达成某种形式的协议。好的？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 登记于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 148 页（共 150 页）\n\n案件 22-50073\n文书 847\n提交于 09/11/22\n登记于 09/11/22 12:34:38\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 30, 2022\n\n巴塞特先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：今天我们在本案中还有其他事项可以处理吗？\n\n（无人答复）\n\n法院：好的。这是今日日程中的最后一项事项，因此我们将于下周二下午 1:00 再见，现休庭。\n\n（程序于下午 4:29 结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯廷·菲奥雷），经法院批准的书记员及经认证电子记录员和书记员，特此证明，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笔录。\n\nSeptember 10, 2022\n\nChristine Fiore，CERT 书记员\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 847 提交于 09/11/22 登记于 09/11/22 12:34:38 第 150 页（共 150 页）","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Despins","CIPA","Paul Hastings","Guo","Luc Despins"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":299,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":761,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":763,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":777,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":39795,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-09-11 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-09-11","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:48:19"}