{"id":"court_ctb_864_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":864,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-09-17","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 \\* September 6, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR ORDER PROVIDING THAT CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES PASSED TO TRUSTEE UPON APPOINTMENT AND FOR RELATED RELIEF BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor, ERIC HENZY, ESQ. HK International and AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. Mei Guo: Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity O'Melveny & Myers LLP Fund L.P.: Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Robinson & Cole 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Creditors Committee: 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 For the Chapter 11 NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ. 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 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 3 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
3 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | (Proceedings commenced at 1:04 p.m.) |\n| 2 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan |\n| 3 | Kwok. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 5 | If we could have appearances for the record, |\n| 6 | starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
Luc Despins, Trustee. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 9 | MR. LINSEY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Patrick |\n| 10 | Linsey, local counsel for the trustee. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 12 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Irve |\n| 13 | Goldman. |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Oh. |\n| 16 | MR. BASSETT:
Sorry.
Sorry, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
That's okay. |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
It's Nick Bassett, from Paul |\n| 19 | Hastings, appearing remotely and thank you for allowing me |\n| 20 | to do that today. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
You're welcome.
And good afternoon. |\n| 22 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Irve |\n| 23 | Goldman, Pullman and Comley, representing the Creditors |\n| 24 | Committee. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 4 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
4 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Holley |\n| 2 | Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 4 | MS. SMITH:
Good -- |\n| 5 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
It's |\n| 6 | Peter Friedman, from O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of PAX. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 8 | MS. SMITH:
And Annecca Smith, of Robinson & Cole, |\n| 9 | also on behalf of PAX. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 11 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
I'm sorry.
Could you |\n| 12 | repeat your name?
I couldn't hear you. |\n| 13 | MS. SMITH:
Annecca Smith. |\n| 14 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Thank you. |\n| 15 | MS. SMITH:
Thank you. |\n| 16 | MR. ROMNEY:
Aaron Romney, Zeisler and Zeisler, on |\n| 17 | behalf of the debtor, HK International, and Mei Guo. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:
Eric Henzy, Zeisler and Zeisler, for |\n| 20 | the same three parties. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Today we're here on a few |\n| 24 | matters, but the status -- I did get the agenda submitted by |\n| 25 | the Chapter 11 Trustee, which I appreciate. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 5 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 5 And if no one has any different view, I'd like to proceed with the agenda. And then there's a couple of minor housekeeping matters from the Court's perspective before we talk about -- more about the privileges issue. And I know you both submitted an order that I asked you to around noon or a little before and I, you know, have looked at it for about 15 seconds so you'll have to bear with me. We did have hearings this morning. But in any event, we'll get there. So, Mr. Despins, if you want to start with your status conference report and then I can talk. I just -- when you're done, there's two or three minor things that came to my attention that I just need some confirmation from the parties on after you're done with your presentation. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. May I approach to give you -- THE COURT: Please. MR. DESPINS: -- a hard copy of the -- THE COURT: Yes. Please. Thank you. You may approach. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. For the record, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. We just wanted first to give the Court and the parties in interest an update on Genever BVI. Remember,\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 6 that's the holding company that owns the LLC that in turn owns the apartment. So the shares have been transferred. I now hold them as trustee. But there's one matter that we are taking care of now which is we need to appoint a director for that entity. And the way it's done in the BVI is that there are professional directors. And we have that in the U.S. as well where we pay them and that's their job. And that company that provides these services is an affiliate of our proposed BVI counsel called Harneys. So it's called Harneys Fiduciaries. And so we -- and we filed an application to retain Harneys. And I believe last week we filed a supplemental declaration saying, oh, by the way, we're going to retain these folks as, you know, professional directors. And the issue I want to mention first is a compensation issue. We have to pay them 6,000 and change. And they've agreed to defer all their other costs until -- their fees until we receive funding in this estate. So that's a very good thing, but we need to pay them 6,667. There's a technical issue here, which we've discussed with the U.S. Trustee. Those folks, the director, not those folks, there's one person who would be the director is not providing legal services, is not being Case 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 6 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 7 retained by this estate. It's being retained by the non- debtor called Genever BVI. The U.S. Trustee feels that nevertheless we should file some kind of retention application that would cover both Harneys as the lawyers and their affiliate as directors. I always hesitate to say that I disagree with the U.S. Trustee, but I disagree with the U.S. Trustee on this. But, nevertheless, there should be full disclosure of all the connections that both have. We've already done that for Harneys, the law firm. That has not been done for Harneys Fiduciaries. They're the entity providing the trust, sorry, the director services. We will do that just in an abundance of caution. But we don't want -- and I've had the discussions with the U.S. Trustee on this, we don't want our efforts of full disclosure to be interpreted as us agreeing that, in fact, they're subject to a disinterestedness standard. Again, they're just acting as a director for a non-debtor entity. 21 But I can't disagree with the concept that more disclosure is always better, so we will supplement the disclosure and refile this, you know, hopefully, you know, tomorrow or something like that. But I wanted to mention this to the Court because\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 7 of 110\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 8 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 8 that's something we need to go forward with to have that director in place. And so that's, you know, an update. I don't know if the U.S. Trustee will want to be heard about this, but that's really the issue at this point. We've committed to them to provide full disclosure on the director role in terms of their connection with the case, although we think that that's not the controlling standard, but we've agreed to do that. So that's the update on the director issue. On page 2, there's another issue that's coming up. I always say there's an issue every day in this case. And so we had the Labor Day Weekend so there was no issue every day. But Bravo Luck, you'll remember that entity that is controlled or allegedly controlled by Mr. Kwok's son, has sent a notice to reactivate the litigation pending in the BVI that predates this case. It's a litigation that involves Mr. Kwok, Bravo Luck, PAX. Because remember they were in state court trying to get control of these shares, and so there was litigation pending in the BVI over who owns the shares, with Bravo Luck taking the position that they can rely on this trust agreement and PAX arguing the opposite. That litigation never really practically got off the ground, but now they send a notice, you know, three or\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 9 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 9 four days ago, saying we want to reactivate this. But the point we're making here is that we believe that's a clear violation of the automatic stay. To be clear, this is Bravo Luck doing this. And Bravo Luck is a BVI entity, but they filed the claim in the New York case as a creditor and they've appeared in that case and we believe it's a violation of the stay. And I would say on this stay tuned. I think we will need to deal with this sooner rather than later because we can't just let this litigation, which is an issue that Your Honor should decide, but -- go forward. Moving on to page 3, update on other debtor related entities. You may remember, well, I know you remember the UBS litigation. And you always mention, well, there are two other plaintiffs in that litigation. And those are not like third parties, they're entities controlled by Mr. Kwok. They're called Ace Decade and Dawn State. And if you read that 2020 complaint, which is signed by Mr. Kwok, verified as to the facts by Mr. Kwok, and verified as to the facts by a representative of Dawn State and Ace Decade, it basically says that he owns first Ace Decade. He owns it. And that the entity below it, Dawn State, is controlled a hundred percent by Ace Decade. So we sent a letter to Mr. Henzy last week saying\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 10 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
10 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | this is like Genever.
I want all the books and records.
I |\n| 2 | want the stock transferred to us.
And we had asked for a |\n| 3 | response by this morning.
We didn't get one.
And, you |\n| 4 | know, I understand, you know, a holiday weekend, et cetera, |\n| 5 | et cetera, but we need to take control of these -- of these |\n| 6 | two entities. |\n| 7 | There's no doubt that they are owned by Mr. Kwok, |\n| 8 | because he said so and so did the representatives for these |\n| 9 | two entities in the U.K. litigation that was sworn to in |\n| 10 | 2020, not in 2015, very recently in 2020.
So, you know, |\n| 11 | we'll hear from the debtor on this. |\n| 12 | But clearly that's an issue that needs to be |\n| 13 | resolved because then I should have control of this.
And I |\n| 14 | control all the plaintiffs in that litigation which would |\n| 15 | really minimize a lot of issues going on with U.K. counsel |\n| 16 | in that litigation. |\n| 17 | Page 4, just to mention debtor's whereabouts, |\n| 18 | we've been informed that Mr. Kwok has moved out of the |\n| 19 | Sherry-Netherland.
This is where he had his GETTR feed |\n| 20 | taping every day, sometimes twice a day. |\n| 21 | And he's moved his personal effects out of there |\n| 22 | and the furniture that he put in when he moved in 2015.
And |\n| 23 | what they did is they moved in the furniture of the previous |\n| 24 | owner that he had acquired as part of a -- of the |\n| 25 | acquisition of the Sherry-Netherland. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 11 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 11 I'm a little bit concerned about that, Your Honor, because that could be an indication that he's leaving the jurisdiction. Mr. Henzy, you know, told me that no. In fact, that he's residing in Greenwich, Connecticut, so we'll take that representation. But the fact that he's moving out of the apartment with his personal effects and the furniture could be another sign. And, you know, unfortunately, the Chapter 11 Trustee does not have an ankle bracelet program. I'd love to have that, but we don't have that, and we don't have a LoJack, so we can't keep track of the debtor, but, you know, we know we have the power and the Court has the power to force the debtor to appear for examination. So we may, in fact, use that to -- not only to verify that he is still in the country, but also to verify other issues such as Ace Decade and Dawn State. Now moving onto page 5, the housekeeping matters, I just want to remind Your Honor that right now this is -- we're now on the Lady May, you know, the action filed by the Hong Kong entity or the subsidiary of the Hong Kong entity to -- for a declaration that they own -- that that entity owns the yacht. The answer deadline was I believe the 29th of August. We moved to extend. They opposed that. Also there\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 12 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 12 was in theory a pretrial conference that was supposed to take place. We moved to adjourn that. So that's pending. I wanted to make sure Your Honor was aware of that, that these requests and objections are pending and there's no scheduled hearing. THE COURT: Let me take a look at that at the moment because that might be one of the things that I was thinking I needed to talk with you about. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: There was -- I know one of the issues was that -- I don't -- let me look before I say something that's inaccurate. (Pause.) THE COURT: So in the HK International adversary, which is 5003, this is the adversary I wanted to talk about. But I actually was not focusing on what you're saying, which is that there's a motion for extension of time -- MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: -- to respond. Oh, no, no. That was PAX's. But it appears to me that the debtor has withdrawn, not the debtor, excuse me. HK International, the plaintiff, has withdrawn the adversary proceeding or dismissed it, excuse me, as to PAX. That I've seen. Okay? MR. DESPINS: That's correct.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 13 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
13 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
And I think that's self-effectuating |\n| 2 | under Rule 41, so I don't think there's anything that the |\n| 3 | Court needs to do on that. |\n| 4 | MR. DESPINS:
That's correct. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So with regard to -- |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
Our motion to enlarge the time would |\n| 7 | be docket 28, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
28.
And then the motion to continue |\n| 9 | the pretrial conference. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Would be -- well -- and the |\n| 11 | objection by the debtor was 31.
Then the motion to continue |\n| 12 | the pretrial would be 32. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Right.
Right. |\n| 14 | (Pause) |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
All right.
I have not -- I did not |\n| 16 | see that objection yet, but I can -- I will definitely look |\n| 17 | at that after we are concluded today in the matters today. |\n| 18 | All that being said, let me just go back to one |\n| 19 | other thing in this adversary proceeding that you're |\n| 20 | speaking about.
I just want to make sure that I am |\n| 21 | reviewing the right -- |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
By the way, I misspoke.
The |\n| 23 | pretrial was scheduled for September 13th, not for today. |\n| 24 | My mistake.
But same concept. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 14 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 14 MR. ROMNEY: If I may? The confusion on the date may have been the pretrial order in that action. The parties' joint pretrial order would be due today unless the Court grants the trustee's extension on that deadline, which HK -- given the circumstances that there's an outstanding motion for an extension of time, HK would not object to, in any event, pushing out the date for the pretrial conference, if that helps, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So then what I'm going to do is after we're done with the more substantive matters that I think we're going to address this afternoon, then I will look back at this adversary proceeding and enter appropriate orders with regard to the pending matters that are -- the pending motions that are -- and the objection that you've just pointed out to me, both of you, Trustee Despins and Attorney Romney. I'll take a look at that. I have not -- MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: I have not had an opportunity to look at that yet, but that won't take me long after we -- we're completed today. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. Moving on to page 5, monthly operating reports, the debtors are still -- are still in default of filing their May, June and the first few days of July reports. So\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 15 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 15 that needs to happen. Then page 6, continuing failure to produce documents. The debtor and HK counsel had made a representation at the July 21st hearing that they would provide books and records, for example, for HK International. There's a quote here in the report that's a quote from the transcript. Still haven't produced anything regarding HK International and still haven't produced, you know, hardly anything regarding the debtor's books and records. Next item is trustee's application to retain BVI counsel. I've already addressed that. That's scheduled for September 27th. But we will file a supplement to that hopefully in the next 48 hours. Page 7, just to mention that we have a status conference in the Genever USA case before Judge Garrity, currently scheduled for September 27th, but we're trying to move that up because of the inability of some counsel to attend. Next, number 6, remember Paul Derecktor, the expert. I had raised the issue and you had told me rightly so did you talk to anyone about this and I said no. So now we did. And the U.S. Trustee has agreed, and we appreciate their flexibility on this, that we can expense that \\$2,500\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 16 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
16 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | and not file a separate application for the retention of Mr. |\n| 2 | Derekctor as an expert.
This was a one shot deal.
He just |\n| 3 | was there to come for the inspection with PAX's expert, so |\n| 4 | he's not going to serve as an expert going forward.
If he |\n| 5 | did, we would have to file a retention application.
So it's |\n| 6 | just \\$2,500. |\n| 7 | Ultimately, that's Your Honor's call.
But I |\n| 8 | wanted to let you know that the U.S. Trustee had no |\n| 9 | objection to that approach because -- and of course from the |\n| 10 | cost point of view for us to file and prepare an application |\n| 11 | would cost much more than the 2,500, so we would really love |\n| 12 | to be able to dispense with that requirement. |\n| 13 | Of course, there's no money in the estate now. |\n| 14 | Well, there is -- I shouldn't say that --- there's \\$14,000 |\n| 15 | in the estate.
So we -- Paul Hastings, is fronting the bill |\n| 16 | for that and will not be reimbursed from the estate until |\n| 17 | there's a fee and expense reimbursement application, which |\n| 18 | is not going to happen for a while until there is |\n| 19 | substantial money in the estate. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I understand. |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS:
And the last point was scheduling |\n| 22 | the next status conference.
We had mentioned -- we had |\n| 23 | proposed September 21st and October 3rd, so I don't remember |\n| 24 | -- we have never -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
September 21st is absolutely fine. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 17 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 17 MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: We can start at whatever time the parties would like to start. I mean, if you want to start in the morning, you want to start at lunchtime, you want to start in the afternoon, whatever anyone -- MR. DESPINS: I think it's always good to start in the afternoon in the event that we -- that other matters are tagged on so people can -- from Washington, or Mr. Friedman, for example. THE COURT: Is 1:00 p.m. a good time for everyone for a status conference on the 21st? Now, October 3rd is possible, but it's also there's something scheduled that might need to change. I don't know yet, but -- MR. DESPINS: Well, we can play that by ear then. We can -- THE COURT: Or if it's October -- yeah, we might -- it might be more helpful honestly to do it on that week. And I'm just looking, if you don't mind bearing with me for a moment, the afternoon of October 4th. If we started it at 1:00 p.m. on October 4, which is a Tuesday, not a Monday, does that present problems to anyone? MR. DESPINS: Not for me. But there are people on the phone. I don't know. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, if I'd be permitted to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 18 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
18 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | attend remotely, that would be fine.
It's Yom Kippur. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Oh. |\n| 3 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
It is Yom Kippur that -- on the |\n| 4 | 4th. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I'm sorry.
Okay. |\n| 6 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
So as long as I can attend |\n| 7 | remotely, that would be fine. |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
And, Your Honor, remember that our |\n| 9 | goal is not to have those if we can dispense with them. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:
So we will try our best not to have |\n| 12 | them.
And then we need to cancel them if we're going to do |\n| 13 | that or at least advise the Court that we won't require them |\n| 14 | at least 24 hours before so Your Honor can cancel them if |\n| 15 | you deem it appropriate. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Attorney Friedman, what time are you |\n| 17 | available until on October 4th? |\n| 18 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
5:00. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
I would let you appear remotely, I'm |\n| 20 | just asking what time. |\n| 21 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
5:00 p.m., Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So then why don't we set it for |\n| 23 | noon on October 4th.
That way, in case there's some reason |\n| 24 | that we have to spend time, it won't -- it will not take -- |\n| 25 | I mean, we won't run into your holiday, which obviously I |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 19 didn't realize it was -- I thought it was the next day, the 5th, so it's my mistake. But we do have court hearings on the 4th, but we have them in the morning. So if we schedule it -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- at noon on October 4th -- and you can, you don't have to file a request to appear remotely. I'm granting that right now on the record. Okay? MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. You're welcome. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: You're welcome. And then we'll see what happens. You know, if for some reason everyone agrees there isn't a need for a conference on the 4th, that's fine too, but let's schedule it so it's a date that we have set aside. May I -- may I ask a question before we get to the substantive issues? MR. DESPINS: Of course. THE COURT: Okay. So I guess I would ask Attorney Henzy and Attorney Romney and Attorney Claiborn, so there aren't any monthly operating reports for a few months. Is that right? Are we missing monthly operating reports did you say?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 19 of 110\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 20 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 20 MR. DESPINS: For May and June and the first part of July until the trustee was appointed. THE COURT: Okay. So, Attorney Henzy or Attorney Romney, have you -- what's your position with regard to these monthly operating reports, because they need to be filed? MR. HENZY: My position is they will be filed. They have not been filed yet. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm going to give you a date by which you need to file them. Do you have a suggested date? MR. HENZY: I would like three weeks, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, I don't know that I can give you three weeks because they're overdue, at least the May and June are well overdue. And let me look -- let me look at the calendar. How about if you get, well, I will order you, the debtor, to submit May and June by September 23rd. And then July -- when's -- August will be due on September 20, right? MR. HENZY: That's not the debtor that will be filing that. THE COURT: Oh, you're right. Only until the date. I'm sorry. I'm thinking of the time frame the U.S. Trustee uses. But, you're right. So May and June by September 23rd. And then what\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 21 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
21 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | else do we need?
Do we need part of July, to July 8th, |\n| 2 | right? |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
9th.
Yeah. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
9th? |\n| 5 | MR. DESPINS:
Yeah. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
I'll give you that until the following |\n| 7 | week, September 30. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
I would ask for September 30 for all |\n| 9 | three, Your Honor.
Frankly, the issue we face is that the |\n| 10 | Verdolino and Lowey firm was doing those operating reports. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
They were never retained officially |\n| 12 | though.
Just so you know. |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:
I understand that. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
You weren't involved in that -- in |\n| 15 | that. |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:
I understand that, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:
But they were doing the operating |\n| 19 | reports. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I'm just -- I'm just -- |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
Yeah. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
I was only telling you that because |\n| 23 | you weren't involved in the case and so I didn't know if you |\n| 24 | were aware of that. |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
I was aware of that, Your Honor. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 22 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 22 THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: And as sometimes is the case, you know, I or my office is going to have to take a very active part in getting these operating reports done. And, you know, frankly, I have an extremely busy next couple of weeks with other matters. I have other clients. And it would -- I'm concerned just about am I going to have time to get to these in the next two weeks. So I don't know that a week would make a difference in the grand scheme of things. It would make a significant difference for me and for my workload this month. THE COURT: Trustee Despins, do you have any opposition to September 30? MR. DESPINS: That's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. We'll give you to September 30, Attorney Henzy. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. But if he doesn't comply with that, then we're going to have to address that issue. MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, then the last point is, is the point I made before, you've already entered the corporate governance order. It's on appeal, but there's no\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 23 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 23 stay pending appeal under that order. They're supposed to give us all the shares and the documents regarding the entities they control. And these two entities, Ace Decade and Dawn State, they've stated unequivocally under oath that Mr. Kwok owns the first one who then controls the second one. You know, we would like a date by which they need to comply. There's already an order in place. It's just a question of making it clear that -- it's very clear it applies to all such controlled entities and these are the two. And so we would like the Court to impose a deadline by which they need to do that. Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. So just to give you the timeline, so the trustee sent by email, me, a letter end of day this past Wednesday. I was tied up on other client -- and by other client, I don't mean other client matters, not other matters for Mr. Kwok, but for other clients that I have all day Thursday. I had long planned to take a long weekend, including Friday, which I did, so I didn't change my family plans to comply with the trustee's demand that by 10:00 a.m. this morning that what they're asking be done. I did not do that. I don't know right now that this issue is as clear Case 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 24 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 24 cut as the trustee is telling you that it is. I can lay eyes on what's in the UBS complaint and understand what's in the complaint, but I don't know that the issue is as simple as what the trustee is telling you. I think I'm going to have to interface with U.K. counsel to understand why what's in the complaint is in the complaint and what -- how that came to be. I don't know how long that is going to take. And you certainly -- of course, Your Honor, you can impose a deadline, but I'm not going to agree to a deadline because I just -- I do not know the facts here and I don't know how long it's going to take me to drill down on the facts. You know, I'm going to move with all due speed, but I just -- I don't know how long it's going to take me to understand all of the facts. And I'm not going to advise Mr. Kwok to sign documents when I don't know that the documents being proposed are appropriate or they're the correct documents, how they might impact the U.K. litigation. I don't know any of those things right now. So I'm -- again, I'm going to look into it. I'm going to work on it. I'm going to move with all due speed, but I don't know how long it's going to take me. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, Mr. Kwok knows if he owns this company or not. Actually, he swore to it and so\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 25 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 25 did the representatives from these two entities. The U.K. counsel has no involvement in this. And the impact on the UBS litigation is irrelevant. The question is today who is the owner of that entity? We have a sworn statement, 2020. Unless he's going to come in and say I transferred it and then obviously we'd want to know to who he transferred it, that's a sworn statement by all of these entities. It doesn't take more than four or five days to figure that out. Thank you. THE COURT: May I just ask -- I don't -- I am not certain if the UBS complaint is on -- in the record of this case. Is it in the record of this case somewhere? MR. HENZY: I think that either I or the trustee attached it to -- THE COURT: To the issue of the governance motion or to the privileges motion? MR. HENZY: I don't think it would have been the privileges motion, Your Honor. I think it may have been the governance motion. I'm highly confidant that one of us -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: And I don't think either of us -- UNIDENTIFIED: It might have been the motion to stay somewhere -- MR. DESPINS: No, it was before that. MR. HENZY: Yeah. I know we --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 26 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 26 THE COURT: Okay. All right. That's what -- MR. HENZY: I believe we have absolutely, yeah, put it -- THE COURT: I just wanted -- I need to take a look at it obviously. MR. HENZY: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. THE COURT: And I'm not going to do anything today, Mr. Despins, with regard to Ace Decade and Dawn State, but I'm going to look after we're done with our hearing today to see what's in the record of this case and then determine what steps will be taken and if a deadline will be set to -- and it's likely that it will be, but I don't know that until I review everything, after I review what's in the record of this case. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Yes. And just to save Your Honor time, in the -- there's a -- something called Particulars of Claims, well, that's a complaint by U.K. standard. Page 1, paragraph 2, it says Ace Decade was incorporated in June 2014 and acquired by Mr. Kwok on or about November 10, 2014. And then paragraph 3 talks about -- and 4 talks about the fact that Dawn State was acquired by Ace Decade in September of 2015. And if you go to the last page, on page 38, this is where the second claimant and the third claimant, meaning Ace Decade and Dawn State, swear that all the facts in the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 27 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 27 particular claims are true and that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to make a false statement in a document verified by a statement of a truth. And on page 37, there's a signature by Mr. Kwok, and 38, the other two entities have signed. So just to save Your Honor some time. MR. HENZY: Just to save -- by -- it's another status conference where we're putting evidence into the record. But, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Well, I don't agree with that though. The only thing I'll say, Attorney Henzy, is I don't agree that's evidence putting in the record. If the complaint is in the record, then all Mr. Despins is doing is pointing to me where it is. MR. HENZY: Understood. THE COURT: So I'll get there. We'll get there. MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, so we're talking about -- the complaint refers to something that happened seven years ago. I've been told -- I don't -- I haven't done any diligence on this, Your Honor, so I want to be very careful, okay, that at some point that got changed at the insistence of UBS in connection with this transaction. I don't -- I don't know if that's true. I don't know anything.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 28 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
28 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY:
But I need to do some diligence. |\n| 3 | Okay?
Again, I know what's in the complaint.
I put eyes on |\n| 4 | it and I can read so I know what's there, but I don't know |\n| 5 | today that Mr. Kwok is the -- is the owner of this entity. |\n| 6 | And I'm not going to have him, you know, sign a document |\n| 7 | that's not -- that's not an appropriate document.
That's |\n| 8 | all. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
And I'm not making any ruling that you |\n| 10 | have to do anything today. |\n| 11 | MR. HENZY:
Understood. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
I have to look at what's in the record |\n| 13 | of this case.
And I will do that.
And then I will |\n| 14 | determine what next steps need to happen -- |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
-- with regard to that issue.
Okay? |\n| 17 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
All right.
Now, let me just make sure |\n| 19 | that there is nothing else that I thought I needed to |\n| 20 | address as far as a housekeeping side of the equation. |\n| 21 | But I think the only thing that is not -- has not |\n| 22 | been addressed, other than the motion that we're here for on |\n| 23 | today, which is a different issue, is the status of the |\n| 24 | extensions motions and the objection in that -- in the HK |\n| 25 | adversary proceeding.
So that's -- is there something else |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 29 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 29 on the house -- MR. HENZY: I would like to be heard on a couple of points in the status report, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sure. Go right ahead. MR. HENZY: Thank you. Your Honor, on the page 2 on the update on Genever BVI, the debtor has done everything he was asked or required to do. What happens with that now is not the debtor's problem or my problem. I will point out -- and Bravo Luck is very well represented and they'll take whatever position they take if and when the trustee decides to take action on some asserted violation of the automatic stay. I will point out that in connection with the corporate governance motion, I think both in pleading and in open -- statement in open court, the trustee represented that he had no intention to and he would not interfere or seek to change the settlement order that Judge Garrity entered in the Genever BVI Chapter 11 case in the Southern District of New York. That order expressly contemplates that this equitable ownership issue would be resolved either in the pending New York State Court action or in litigation in the BVI. Now, that -- I suppose both things could be true,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 30 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
30 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | that there's an order from Judge Garrity that contemplates |\n| 2 | that this is going to get resolved in litigation in the BVI |\n| 3 | or in New York State Court, and the trustee can make a claim |\n| 4 | that -- to do that, to do what's contemplated under Judge |\n| 5 | Garrity's order, constitutes a violation of the automatic |\n| 6 | stay. |\n| 7 | But I do think it's important to point out that |\n| 8 | that -- Judge Garrity did enter that order and the trustee |\n| 9 | here expressly said that he was not planning or intending to |\n| 10 | interfere with the operation of that order, or at least |\n| 11 | that's what I understood that he said. |\n| 12 | Your Honor, on the debtor's whereabouts, it's hard |\n| 13 | to respond when what the trustee says to you is he has been |\n| 14 | informed.
I have no idea what the source of his information |\n| 15 | is.
I don't know if he's having someone spy on the debtor |\n| 16 | or he's just sort of asking around.
I don't -- I don't know |\n| 17 | where that information comes from. |\n| 18 | To be clear, you know, I haven't -- I'm not going |\n| 19 | to, I can't represent or vouch for where the debtor is |\n| 20 | living.
I'm not -- I'm not tracking the debtor around. |\n| 21 | What I told the trustee, and I'll state in court, |\n| 22 | is that Mr. Kwok's residence right now is, his legal |\n| 23 | residence, is at his wife's home in Greenwich.
That is the |\n| 24 | basis for the case being here.
That's what he said in a |\n| 25 | sworn statement. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 31 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 31 He does spend some number of days or nights, I've been told it's four or five, at the Sherry-Netherland in New York. I have no information, okay, and I have inquired and I have been told, that he hasn't -- he may have moved some personal possessions from the Sherry-Netherland to the house in Greenwich. I don't know. But I guess my reaction to that is so what? I don't think that there's anything in the bankruptcy code or bankruptcy rules or anything else I'm aware of that says because you're a debtor in a bankruptcy case that you can't move personal possessions or you can't sleep in a different bed some number of nights in a month. I have no information. I have no reason to believe Mr. Kwok is somehow fleeing the jurisdiction or fleeing the country. I think that if Mr. Despins is going to continue with the attempts to sort of smear or make Mr. Kwok look like a bad guy or he's doing something sinister or he's doing something wrong, that he -- on something like this where he's got to come in and say to you he's concerned Mr. Kwok is fleeing the jurisdiction or he's leaving the jurisdiction and he's going to be outside of the jurisdiction of this court, that he really needs to do better than that. He has been informed.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 32 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 32 I think he should come in and tell the Court here's my source of information. There's some concrete, hard information, so that I maybe -- can actually go back and talk to my client or I can actually have something to respond to. But right now his official residence, his legal residence, is his wife's home in Greenwich. And he does spend some number of nights per month at the apartment at the Sherry-Netherland. On the production of documents, Your Honor, this is -- this is -- the statement was by Mr. Kindseth, not by me, the statement that's quoted, so I, you know, I don't remember this. Mr. Kindseth -- THE COURT: What page are you looking at? MR. HENZY: I'm on page 6 where he has a two- paragraph quote about -- I believe -- I hope I didn't say this, Your Honor, because I don't remember saying it. And I am getting older, but I think I would remember this, I hope. But Mr. Despins just said to me it was Mr. Kindseth. But I would expect that what he was referring to on the HK International piece of it was -- the assumption is that HK International is going to get a subpoena. And, in fact, I think it has gotten a subpoena, right? Yeah. I mean, it's been served with a subpoena. It's going to produce documents pursuant to a subpoena. I don't know that\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 33 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 33 there was ever an intention that we're just going to just produce documents outside of a process. On Mr. Kwok, again, I haven't been in the middle of that, but I know that we have gotten documents and we have forwarded those documents. At issue may be, not that documents were being withheld, I think the issue is that that's the documents that are in Mr. Kwok's possession. Whether there should be more documents in his possession maybe is a question. But I think -- I'm going to go back and check and make sure the documents that are in his possession or that he has control of have been produced, but I think anyway that that is what is happening. There's not been an intention to just withhold documents that he has access to or possession of or control over. So thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, very briefly. First, on the Sherry-Netherland, I never said that -- the only thing I said is that I wouldn't stop the sale of the apartment. And the sale is done pursuant to that stipulation. And that's perfectly all right. That stipulation does not contain an agreement by anyone to that stipulation that matters will be tried in the BVI. There's a reservation of rights in paragraph 7(b) of that stipulation that says that nothing herein shall\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 34 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 34 preclude people from doing that. By the way, that's an order that was entered pre this bankruptcy, so it has no binding affect on this court. But I want to be very clear there's no agreement in that order that matters will be litigated in the BVI. There's a reservation of rights. 7 Mr. Friedman was a party, well, not himself personally, but PAX was a party to that stipulation and order so he can speak to it, but it does -- there's no agreement to litigate in BVI. And, in fact, it says that it can be litigated in the bankruptcy court. At that time, the bankruptcy court, there's only one, that was the one in New York. But, again, that's a pre-petition order. And the only thing I've said is that I am not going to try to stop the sale of the Sherry-Netherland. So that's -- I want to be clear about that. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, may I be heard for a moment? THE COURT: Yes. Go right ahead. MR. FRIEDMAN: It's Peter Friedman on behalf of PAX. I think this highlights that there needs to be a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 35 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 35 resolution of this issue regarding the BVI. Obviously, trustee's position that Bravo Luck is in violation of the automatic stay which kind of puts PAX in an extremely difficult position. It does not wish to violate the automatic stay, but it can be prejudiced if someone is pursuing claims against it in the BVI. I'll note that obviously we're in a very different situation now. The claims that PAX is asserting, you know, are claims that Mr. Kwok owns an asset, which makes the BVI also a difficult place to litigate this claim because they're really claims for which the cost ought to be borne by the estate as a whole, not PAX. And PAX really, you know, does not want to be in a position where somebody accuses it of pursuing claims that are really estate claims. And, you know, that puts -- for both of those reasons, we would just urge the trustee to come to a resolution very quickly of how it is going to bring those claims into an appropriate forum so that, again, PAX isn't required to incur costs. PAX isn't in a position where somebody is going to assert (indiscernible) violating the automatic stay either under, you know, trying to pursue claims that belong to the estate or interfering with assets of the estate. So we really think it's imperative this gets addressed quickly. We agree on both counts with Mr. Despins that we\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 36 don't think that there is a specific place agreed to as to jurisdiction over claims resolving ownership of the Sherry- Netherland. And, again, we also agree that it was a stipulation agreed to where at least, in our view, in the Genever New York case you really had a faceless debtor that had no interest in serving as a neutral fiduciary, which forced PAX into asserting claims that we now I think are hopeful and believe that we have a fiduciary trustee in charge of the Genever estate that's able to pursue claims or defenses to claims in a true debtor capacity. So we shouldn't have to be in the middle of that. THE COURT: Understood. Thank you. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard on the issue of the cause of action that we've just been speaking about? (No response) THE COURT: Okay. I note Attorney Friedman's concerns and I know parties will take all appropriate actions they deem necessary and we'll -- Court will address them in due course. Right now there's nothing in front of me that is -- that I would need to act upon. But I understand that one of the reasons we have these status conferences is to not\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 36 of 110\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 37 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 37 only update where things stand in the case as a whole, but also to highlight issues that may be coming forth to the Court. And so I think that's appropriate. Parties will file whatever they think is appropriate and there will be an opportunity to object and be heard on all of those issues. So we'll continue to proceed in that manner. With regard to existing orders, again, we'll see where things stand. But I did say and I would -- I did say that I would go back and look at -- I think it's in the record, and both counsel for the debtor and the trustee believe it is, the UBS litigation complaint or bill of particulars. I forget what you said it was called, Trustee Despins. Obviously, I haven't looked at it, but I'll look at that and we'll see where things stand. We're going to have another status conference on September 21st, which is not that far away. And we will, you know, people may file things before that conference, and there may be things that get added to that conference that actually get heard or not. We'll have to -- we'll have to see. But I understand the positions of the parties. Before we turn to the substantive motion that we continued to -- that was continued until today, in which you both filed orders on, there's one matter that I -- it is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 38 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 38 housekeeping from the Court's perspective, but it's an important housekeeping. Again, I know I've said this to all the parties that have been involved in the case from the start, and you're probably tired of hearing it, but because the Court's record, official record, is audio and because there are appeals pending, I think it's important to make sure that the transcript is accurate. In the August 4th transcript of the hearing of the governance motion, which Attorney Henzy has filed a notice of appeal, I've found some things in that transcript that I -- you know, may seem insignificant to all of us, but when you have a district court reviewing the case and know nothing about it, I think the transcript needs to be accurate. So long story short, in the next day or two, I'll submit on the record, you know, the errata sheet that we think has issues. You all have a time to respond. And then we'll get that worked out. Because, as you know, in this case, there's already been, you know, a situation where the transcript was inaccurate and it had a substantive effect of being inaccurate. And I just -- I don't -- I'm not going to proceed to allow a transcript to go forward. And it's not anyone's fault by the way. The court\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 39 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 39 reporter who transcribes can only do what she can do -- it happens to be a she in this case -- when she hears what she hears. It's an audio, you know, so she does the best she can. But I want the transcript to be accurate. So, in any event, that will be coming for all of you to take a look at. Okay? For example, there's places where somebody cites to Section 353. There is no Section 353. I mean, it was obviously a cite to Section 363. None of us may think that's relevant, but it could be relevant to a district court judge. And so I want that to be corrected. So I don't know if anybody has any questions about that, but that's what I'm going to do. MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. And I'll state outright that I'm the first violator of that rule. So, Luc Despins, Trustee, for the record. The transcript often misstates who is talking. Like they would say Mr. Skalka was talking, but it was Mr. Kindseth or vice -- well, no -- THE COURT: Well, you can make all those corrections. See I don't always pick up on that issue, but I appreciate that you're saying that. I think that should be clear. MR. DESPINS: But my point is that I think we need going forward to always either --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 40 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 40 THE COURT: Say your name when you speak. Yeah. MR. DESPINS: Every time, because otherwise we're going to create this -- THE COURT: I mean, that's the problem. It is the problem from the bankruptcy court's perspective. We're not allowed -- the budget of the Congress does not allow us have a transcriber in the courtroom and so it's the audio recording. So I understand what you're saying. And I do think that in this case, you know, from the beginning of this case, we asked the debtor's prior counsel to submit a list of names just to get the names right in the transcript. That happened. People may think this is overkill. And if you do, I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with you because the district court has no idea when they get this case. And they're going to read the words the way that the words are transcribed, even if that is inaccurate. And it's not inaccurate on purpose. At least I don't find that it is. I just think we need to be clear. So, in any event, you'll see something in the next day or two which will give you all time to review and make whatever changes you feel should be made to the transcript as well. Okay? Does anybody have any questions about that?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 41 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 41 (No response) THE COURT: Okay. All right. So before -- I was in a hearing at noon. And I know that the parties submitted -- when I say the parties, the Chapter 11 Trustee and counsel for the debtor, submitted, as I asked you to do, orders regarding the motion that I would call the, you know, privilege control motion for lack of a better moniker. We can just call it that. And we had an argument on it last week. Each party made their arguments. Attorney Romney did for the debtor and Mr. Despins and Mr. Bassett for the Chapter 11 Trustee. I haven't had a real chance to study all this. Okay? I did -- I have it in my hands. I have what was filed by the Chapter 11 Trustee at 11:41, and then what was filed by the debtor at 11:51. I haven't looked at them to see how they overlap or anything. Although I think the Chapter 11 Trustee tried to show me that. But I don't know, Mr. Romney, did you happen to look at what the Chapter 11 Trustee submitted in? Is that accurate? I think it would be Exhibit C to the Chapter 11 Trustee's order. Is that the order that you've submitted? MR. ROMNEY: Yes. Aaron Romney, Zeisler & Zeisler, on behalf of the debtor. I looked at it very quickly and I believe there is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 42 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 42 only one discrepancy between the redline submitted by counsel for the trustee and that which we ended up filing. To be clear, through absolutely no fault of counsel for the trustee, there was just one addition made due to time constraints. It was sent over to counsel for the trustee shortly before their document was filed or potentially moments after it was filed, shortly before ours was filed. But the one discrepancy between the redline submitted by the trustee and what the debtor actually submitted at docket number 824 is that docket number 24 [sic] has a new paragraph which is now paragraph 11, so the final paragraph before the retention of jurisdiction. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: Which that paragraph states, just for the record, and, again, this is the debtor's proposed language, nothing herein shall purport to impact the rights of any holder of a joint or common interest privilege along with the debtor or the counsel of any such holder to assert its rights with respect to such joint or common interest privilege. THE COURT: Okay. And now with regard to that language, which I don't know what the trustee's position is yet, but I'll ask them in a minute, Mr. Romney, are you saying to the Court -- I just want to make sure because, you\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 43 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 43 know, we haven't talked about this yet today -- that the debtor is prepared to agree that the order submitted at 824, ECF 824, can enter with regard to the privilege motion? MR. ROMNEY: That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. I just want to -- I just want to be sure. Okay. So, Trustee Despins, did you happen to see, or Mr. Bassett, did you happen to see the paragraph 11 that Mr. Romney just talked about on the record that was added to the order he submitted, or I don't know if he submitted, but was submitted on behalf of the debtor at ECF 824? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, it's Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the trustee for the record. I just pulled that up so I do see it. I do see it now. THE COURT: Do you all need time to talk about that? Or do -- you mean, you haven't seen it. I don't think that you've had time to think about it. I have another question regardless of all this, but I do appreciate the parties have made some progress given what we talked about last week. Attorney Romney, you feel that this order addresses some of the concerns that you raised during the hearing last week, correct? MR. ROMNEY: Yes, Your Honor. Aaron Romney.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 44 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 44 I agree with your perception, Your Honor, that both sides put forward a genuine effort. I don't think that either side -- either proposed order submitted by either party, well, certainly speaking for myself, is not the debtor's wish list. It's not our ideal order on this issue, but we did make genuine efforts to get to narrow the issues. There are still some differences, potentially relatively substantial ones, but the parties -- the parties are closer together. And I think they've gone -- they've gone as far as I think each was prepared to go in the spirit of compromise. I will represent to the Court that as late as approximately 7:30 last night Attorney Bassett, Attorney Linsey and myself were on the phone putting our heads together in what I perceived to be genuine efforts to get closer. But as Your Honor will see from the redline and from reading the orders, there are some -- there are some substantive differences between the parties' orders. THE COURT: And the reason I asked the question is are there -- and from -- and the trustee may disagree with you, Mr. Romney, but I want to understand from the debtor's perspective, are there substantive issues in the motion then you believe are still unresolved even if ECF 824 were to enter?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 45 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
45 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. ROMNEY:
I want to make sure I'm speaking and |\n| 2 | articulating myself correctly. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Go ahead. |\n| 4 | MR. ROMNEY:
The debtor consents to the entry of |\n| 5 | 824 if that answers your question. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
No, it doesn't. |\n| 7 | MR. ROMNEY:
Then I -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
My question is when you -- and, again, |\n| 9 | I'm not saying this is easy, right, but you raised a lot of |\n| 10 | issues last week in opposition to the trustee's motion to |\n| 11 | have an order enter saying he owns all the privileges, |\n| 12 | right, that's what the -- that's what the motion is.
You |\n| 13 | raised a lot of issues with regard to that. |\n| 14 | I asked the parties, and you obviously did, and |\n| 15 | the Court appreciates it, to spend time reviewing those |\n| 16 | issues, as you're obligated to do. |\n| 17 | And so what I need to understand is if this order |\n| 18 | enters, 824, are you still going to be arguing about |\n| 19 | privileges?
That's what I need to understand.
And what -- |\n| 20 | and on what basis?
Right?
Because then there has to be |\n| 21 | some kind of a ruling.
That's what I'm trying to figure |\n| 22 | out. |\n| 23 | MR. ROMNEY:
Correct. |\n| 24 | And so with respect -- if docket number 824 |\n| 25 | entered, the only remaining outstanding issues -- and I -- |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 46 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
46 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | speaking from my own perceptions, I believe this would be |\n| 2 | true if docket number 823 entered too. |\n| 3 | There could still be disputes as to whether a |\n| 4 | particular document fell within a -- within a scope of what |\n| 5 | was ordered as retained by the debtor versus transferred to |\n| 6 | the trustee.
It wouldn't eliminate all of the issues. |\n| 7 | And I don't think it's possible for this court, |\n| 8 | given the applicable standard of a balancing test, to enter |\n| 9 | an order that would preclude disagreements as to which |\n| 10 | bucket something dropped into.
And I think the Court would |\n| 11 | need to resolve those issues as they arose. |\n| 12 | What I can say from my perception, and it's under |\n| 13 | the assumption that all of the professionals who received |\n| 14 | the subpoenas will do their best to both fulfill their duty |\n| 15 | to their clients and comply with the order and in good faith |\n| 16 | attempt to apply it, I think it will substantially reduce |\n| 17 | the amount of discovery disputes that would -- that would |\n| 18 | occur going forward because everyone would have a standard |\n| 19 | to apply, as opposed to a body of law that has different |\n| 20 | standards. |\n| 21 | So does that sense, Your Honor? |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Yes, it does to an extent.
It makes |\n| 23 | sense to a large extent. |\n| 24 | But there's still the issue of from the debtor's |\n| 25 | perspective are there issues raised in the trustee's |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 47 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
47 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | privileges motion that you believe that the Court has to |\n| 2 | rule on at this time?
Assuming one of these orders enters. |\n| 3 | MR. ROMNEY:
I believe that if docket number 824 |\n| 4 | entered that the debtor's proposed trustee -- that it would |\n| 5 | address the issues raised in the trustee's motion as well as |\n| 6 | the debtor's objection. |\n| 7 | Again, not in a manner that either party would |\n| 8 | prefer it to be, or certainly not the debtor's ideal, but in |\n| 9 | the interest of, you know, understanding that there are |\n| 10 | varying authorities. |\n| 11 | And, yes, there would be no more issues that I can |\n| 12 | identify raised by the trustee's motion and the debtor's |\n| 13 | objection insofar as the debtor certainly is not going to |\n| 14 | argue that this order would not be applicable.
And I |\n| 15 | believe it covers the issues raised in the trustee's motion |\n| 16 | and the debtor's objection. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I understand what you're |\n| 18 | saying. |\n| 19 | Mr. Despins, do you have anything you want to say |\n| 20 | with regard to Mr. Romney, what -- the questions I asked Mr. |\n| 21 | Romney?
Do you have any different opinion? |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
Mr. Bassett will handle that. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Mr. Bassett.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead. |\n| 24 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, again, it's Nick Bassett |\n| 25 | from Paul Hastings for the Chapter 11 Trustee. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 48 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 48 I guess from the debtor's perspective the order that we believe the Court should enter is the order that we filed, docket number 823, Exhibit A. I think -- I think I agree with Mr. Romney that to the extent an order -- to the extent that order is entered, that grants the trustee the relief that he is seeking on this motion. However, I also agree that, you know, there could be privilege issues down the line that the Court still needs to consider. I think those could fall into one of two buckets. You know, the purpose of this order and the motion that we filed is to obtain a ruling from the Court as to the scope of the privileges over which the trustee now has control and, therefore, the debtor is not entitled to assert in responding to discovery. That includes any privileged communications related to assets of the estate, to the debtor's financial condition and to matters involving the post-petition administration of the estate. So it's possible if the -- if the debtor were to respond to our subpoena by listing on a privilege log documents that fall into one of those buckets, then we would have to come back to the Court and I think that would be a violation of this order and we would have to seek to enforce\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 49 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 49 this order because this order is designed to prevent the debtor from doing that.\n\n Another bucket I think that could exist that could generate future disputes as to privileged communications is that, as we've made clear in our order, you know, there are carve outs designed to address specifically the concerns that the debtor has raised concerning privileged communications that relate to criminal allegations that have been made against him or that relate to his asylum application. And I'm happy to and I'm prepared to walk through our changes in more detail.\n\n But, again, if the debtor were to assert a privilege over those documents on a privilege log, then we could be back before the Court disputing those privileges because the point of the order is to reserve all rights with respect to those privileges.\n\n It could be that the debtor asserts a privilege over criminal allegations. Then, you know, we would argue that there's a crime fraud exception and we would otherwise argue that the document is just not privileged. So that could be back before the Court.\n\n But to answer the Court's question, if this order is entered, it does resolve what we are asking the Court to do today.\n\nAnd, again, Your Honor, what we filed was a copy\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 50 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 50 of our revised proposed order, a redline to the initial order that we had filed with the motion, a redline to Mr. Romney's proposal subject to the new paragraph 11 that he mentioned. And then at the end to the extent it would be helpful as we walk through issues that we have with the debtor's changes, we have an annotated version of their proposed order that I could walk through. So I'm happy to -- I'm happy to walk through our changes as they appear in the redline against the order as filed. I'm also happy to just address the differences between our order and the debtor's order. I'm also happy to answer any questions. I'll proceed however Your Honor would like. THE COURT: Well, when I looked -- as I said to you, to both you and Mr. Romney and everyone else, I've looked at this very quickly. Okay? Understandably. I mean, I asked you to file it by noon and you did that. Unfortunately a hearing at noon went until about five minutes before this hearing so I didn't have enough time to review it as thoroughly as I would normally. But I do have a question that I don't -- I just want to make sure I'm understanding. You say -- I think it says, when I say it, let me -- let me tell you exactly where I am so the record is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 51 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
51 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | clear, paragraph 2 on -- let me tell you where we are -- on |\n| 2 | page 15 of 24 on 823 says \"The trustee has exclusive control |\n| 3 | of any attorney-client privilege and work product protection |\n| 4 | that could otherwise be asserted by the debtor's counsel.\" |\n| 5 | And that's defined as the trustee privileges.
Okay? |\n| 6 | And that's also in Mr. Romney's version in |\n| 7 | paragraph 2, on page 2 of 4, of ECF 824.
Okay? |\n| 8 | MR. ROMNEY:
I'm sorry, what was the page number, |\n| 9 | Your Honor? |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Which one do you need me to talk to |\n| 11 | you about, Mr. Romney?
Theirs first?
Or yours? |\n| 12 | MR. ROMNEY:
Either one. |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
But, Your Honor -- and, Your Honor, |\n| 14 | Nick Bassett again. |\n| 15 | Just to be clear, I think the document you were |\n| 16 | referring to at page 15 of 24 on ECF 823 -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
-- that is the redline of the |\n| 19 | debtor's proposal compared to the trustee's proposal showing |\n| 20 | the changes that the debtor wants to make to our proposal. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Understood. |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
Okay. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
That's why I'm saying your document at |\n| 24 | 15 of 24 says the same thing. That's why I'm comparing them, |\n| 25 | this is what the debtor wants, but the debtor is agreeing |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 52 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 52 that the trustee has exclusive control over any attorney/client privilege or work product doctrine that could otherwise be asserted by the debtor or his counsel, okay, with respect to documents. Now, documents is a capitalized term but there's no definition for it. And what about the communications with the lawyers that aren't documented, what happens there? MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, the debtor's intention with regard to this was to limit it to documents and that is largely because when we looked at the title, including the original proposed order submitted by the trustee, was that this was an order that was always captioned as applying to documents and that, therefore, our proposed changes -- THE COURT: Mr. Bassett, is that your position, that this order only applies to documents in connection with Rule 2004 subpoenas? MR. BASSETT: That is not our -- Your Honor, again, Nick Bassett. That is not our position. I think it's pretty clear, if you look at the relief that we're seeking in our motion and you look at the subpoenas that are attached to the Rule 2004 motion and order, we are, of course, seeking both document discovery and depositions from the parties subject to the 2004 orders. And we think it's critically important that this\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 53 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 53 order resolve privilege issues that apply both to documents subject to production, as well as to information that may be obtained via deposition testimony. I think otherwise we're just, you know, not making enough progress as we can. We're only going to end up back before the court on issues related to deposition testimony that could otherwise be resolved by this order. THE COURT: Mr. Romney? MR. BASSETT: And to -- THE COURT: Oh, sorry, go ahead. MR. BASSETT: And to be clear, Your Honor, you know, the scope -- the scope of the privilege is the same, right? I mean, there's no -- there's no reason it would be different and we're not asking for it to be different. The scope of the privilege that passes to the trustee is that which is set forth in our proposed order. It's just applied equally to depo testimony and to documents. THE COURT: Well, the reason I'm asking the question is I only see the word \"documents\". And it's not - - and it's capitalized and it's not a defined term. And I didn't think -- MR. BASSETT: So I -- THE COURT: -- or I should put in, I thought that the trustee was asking for an order to have the Court determine that the privileges, whatever the debtor's\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 54 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 54 privileges are, are now the trustee's and that they weren't limited to documents produced in accordance with a subpoena. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may? I think there's confusion here. That document you're looking at is our order with their changes -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. DESPINS: -- so the document thing is not what we want. THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: We want -- we don't want documents. That's their change. THE COURT: Right. No. I understand that. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: I understand that. That's why I'm asking the question. That's why I asked Mr. Romney the question that I asked him, which is do you believe that this order, if I were to enter the order that he submitted resolves all the issues? I understand, Mr. Despins. That's why I'm saying. So we still have a disagreement on whether or not the -- or do we have a disagreement that the debtor's privileges pass to the trustee, whatever privileges that the debtor may have outside from these documents and the Rule 2004 subpoenas. MR. ROMNEY: I want to make sure I --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 55 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 55 THE COURT: Here's what -- maybe I should ask a better question. Maybe it's my problem and I'm not framing it properly. What I want to know, and why I asked you what you thought was resolved or unresolved, is am I going to continue to have hearings after hearings about whether the privilege applies, whether the trustee can exercise the debtor's privilege? And I think what you're saying is yes. And that's okay if that's what you're saying. I want to understand it. I may not agree with you, but that's what I'm -- I'm trying to understand. Right now it seems as though we're limiting this privilege issue to these subpoenas that were issued in connection with 2004 Examinations. I don't think the trustee thinks that, but I think you think that. I just want to make sure I understand your position. Because otherwise in my -- it seems to me that if you're saying that you'll -- and I don't mean you, Mr. Romney -- MR. ROMNEY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- I'm saying on behalf of the debtor, that you'll agree to this order being entered, but it's only with regard to documents that only relate to these Rule 2004 subpoenas, then I think you are saying what I am saying, which is you're only agreeing to it in the limited scope.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 56 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 56 And I'm not sure if that makes -- I'm not sure if that makes the most sense that we do this on a piecemeal basis. And I'm not saying you agree with me. And I'm not saying you should have to. You don't have to agree with me. I am speaking out loud given what I've looked at for five minutes before this hearing, right, and my review of your order, the order submitted on behalf of the debtor, that the debtor would agree can enter, at least initially, and you can convince me that I'm wrong, looks like it's limited to these subpoenas and the -- and the production of documents. And if it is, then I just want to understand that. I want to make sure I understand your client's perspective. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, I think that that is an accurate read of the proposed order that the debtor submitted. I believe that change was made in response to our read of the caption of the document which we understood to state that it was with regard to Rule 2004 subpoenaed documents and the directing that the debtor and other examinees not withhold documents on account of such privileges. We were tracking the order to relate to that caption of the proposed order. Now, there's other -- the prong granting related relief, which on its face, I don't know what that means.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 57 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 57 I will, in all candor, say that this particular issue, meaning the -- that we're discussing right now, the documents on the one hand versus documents information as it's characterized in the trustee's proposed order, that was not one of the issues that we discussed during our telephone meet and confer last night. I wish we had only because I'm saying, and I don't want to say anything out of turn here without communicating with anybody else on our side of the fence, as I stand here right now. 11 I imagine the parties would be able to work out that issue because I do agree that with respect to a privilege on a particular issue, I can't articulate a basis as I stand here why the privilege would transfer with respect to a document and not a communication on the identical subject if that makes sense. THE COURT: Okay. Yes, it does. Because that's part of my question, right? It's the privilege transfers, whatever it is, it transfers. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about a communication or a document or at least from the perspective of the Court at this point, that's the perspective. That's why I'm asking the question. Because me, when I looked at your order, your proposed order, Attorney Romney, it seemed much more pointed than what I just said. It seemed to only apply to documents\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 58 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
58 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | that were subject of subpoenas and that's why I raised the |\n| 2 | concern because I don't want us -- I don't think it makes |\n| 3 | sense for any of us to spend time having hearing after |\n| 4 | hearing about whether the privilege applies to a document or |\n| 5 | a communication. |\n| 6 | Now, you still have rights to assert whatever |\n| 7 | you're going to assert, right, with regard to subpoenas? |\n| 8 | People still -- nobody's filed motions to quash yet that I'm |\n| 9 | aware of.
Maybe that's coming.
You know, I don't know. |\n| 10 | We'll see. |\n| 11 | But it's one of the reasons why I said the other |\n| 12 | day rightfully or wrong -- I might be right or wrong why I |\n| 13 | think this motion that the trustee filed is related to the |\n| 14 | issue on appeal from the governance motion, which is who has |\n| 15 | the privilege? |\n| 16 | And I understand, and Attorney Henzy can be heard |\n| 17 | on it if he wants to be heard. I understand the point that |\n| 18 | Attorney Henzy has raised on the appeal that he believes |\n| 19 | that the governance order compels disclosure of information |\n| 20 | and that you can't do that.
No court can do that. |\n| 21 | But you could also argue that if that's the issue, |\n| 22 | if the issue that Attorney Henzy is raising on appeal, and |\n| 23 | he has raised on appeal, is the compel disclosure, it's |\n| 24 | almost as if you've already jumped over the issue of whether |\n| 25 | Mr. Kwok actually has a privilege to assert anymore even in |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 59 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 59 the U.K. litigation. Okay? And I understand the arguments about the U.K. law may be different or whatever, but I don't know that because nobody's put anything in front of me to say it is different. I've seen cases that you both have attached to your, you know, submissions, but the issue about the privilege and who has the right to exercise the privilege has not been ruled on yet by this court and that's what I'm asking you. Is that what you want or do you want -- or do you want to proceed -- and I'm not -- piecemeal is not a -- I'm not using that term as if it's a -- you're doing something wrong, so just let me -- maybe that's not the best word. You want to proceed incrementally. I don't know that it makes sense to proceed incrementally. And I think their motion -- I think the trustee -- I think the trustee's motion is seeking broader relief than what this -- and I'm not saying you think it doesn't, but your order narrows the relief. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. That's the position you take. You have absolutely every right to take that position. MR. ROMNEY: That is correct, Your Honor. The proposed order, docket number 824, would narrow the proposed relief that the trustee sought through the -- THE COURT: And so it's my fault that maybe I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 60 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 60 didn't ask the question very artfully at the beginning of this, but that was my point. So do you think that there's still unresolved issues in the trustee's motion? And your answer is yes, because they're seeking broader relief than you're agreeing to that they're entitled to have. MR. ROMNEY: Correct. And there are substantive differences between 823 and 824. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. ROMNEY: I guess I interpreted the question of if, you know, 824 were to enter, it would be an order of this court. And the debtor and the debtor's professionals would do their -- would do their best to follow it because it would be an order of a court. THE COURT: Understood. I understand. But, no, that's why I asked you did you believe all the issues were resolved? And maybe I just didn't ask the question as well as I could have. MR. ROMNEY: Well, I believe it would resolve them in the sense of the Court would be ordering some things that the trustee's motion sought and it would be denying some things that the trustee -- THE COURT: Well, but, it doesn't say anywhere that it denies it. See, that's the point. It just says it's granted in part. It doesn't say that the rest of the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 61 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 61 relief that the trustee sought is denied. And that's where -- again, I'm telling you, I spent five minutes on this, okay? So just, you know, I could be completely wrong about everything I'm saying, but I'm telling you your language is -- what you changed it -- I think the trustee had -- the motion is granted to the extent of or the -- you know, in the way that whatever follows. And yours was it was granted in part as set forth herein. It doesn't say that the rest of the relief that the trustee was seeking is denied. MR. ROMNEY: Well, I suppose that was inartful drafting on my part. THE COURT: No, it doesn't -- I'm not sure it's inartful drafting. I'm just saying I need to figure out what it is you want me to do. Right? You need -- you want me to say it's granted to the extent that you agree to and denied, and there's nothing wrong with that -- and denied, all the other relief should be denied. MR. ROMNEY: I suppose that's correct. The way this was drafted was it had -- it had new provisions that entitled expressly the debtor to retain the right to control the privilege with respect to certain issues, and so I suppose implicitly -- THE COURT: I don't think anybody disputes that,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 62 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
62 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | right?
I think there's one thing we can agree on, at least |\n| 2 | I think, is I don't think anyone is disputing, at least I |\n| 3 | haven't heard, even from the trustee -- and Mr. Bassett, |\n| 4 | you'll have to correct me -- I don't think anyone is |\n| 5 | disputing that the privilege, the trustee's agreeing that |\n| 6 | he's not going to exercise the privilege with regard to the |\n| 7 | asylum issue and with regard to the tort issues that someone |\n| 8 | has raised in different -- with regard to -- and I forget |\n| 9 | the language here, but I have to find it -- with regard to |\n| 10 | these allegations of serious personal torts occurring |\n| 11 | without, you know, having to state them all, right? |\n| 12 | And that -- and that nothing's going to impact the |\n| 13 | debtor's right against his Fifth Amendment right.
I think |\n| 14 | everybody agrees to that, I believe.
I think that's the |\n| 15 | trustee's position. |\n| 16 | But with regard to everything else, other than |\n| 17 | those carve outs, the trustee's position is that he has the |\n| 18 | privilege.
He can exercise the privilege.
I think you |\n| 19 | don't agree with that. |\n| 20 | And I think Mr. Henzy, I don't know if I'm right |\n| 21 | on this, but I know Mr. Henzy definitely felt that that |\n| 22 | letter compelled disclosure. |\n| 23 | And my point about that issue was if Mr. Kwok |\n| 24 | doesn't hold the privilege, there's nothing -- he's not |\n| 25 | being compelled to do anything. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 63 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 63 All he was doing was sending a letter saying can you cooperate with -- cooperate with the trustee because the trustee's now appointed. Now, I know Attorney Henzy doesn't agree with that. I'm not suggesting he does. But that's why I'm saying I think they are related, these two matters are related, and we have to decide what -- and you -- and I could be wrong in whatever decision I make. If I disagree with you, then you have a right to appeal it. If I disagree with the trustee, then they have a right to appeal it. And when you talk about it -- and you're right, Attorney Romney, that the law, at least as far as I've seen, is not conclusive on these issues, on the individual bankruptcy debtor regardless of chapter by the way, right? It's not as etched in stone as it could be with regard to the trustee's right to exercise the privilege in an individual bankruptcy case. And, you know, we can go through that. I've looked very carefully at what both of you have cited on those issues. And my point is, I think, you know, if you -- you want me to say without -- I don't think this order clearly says that you want me to deny that the trustee has the right to those other -- that other scope of the privilege, that the scope is only going to be what\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 64 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
64 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | you've agreed to in this order.
And then anything else |\n| 2 | we're going to have to fight about in the future. |\n| 3 | Which is -- I'm not saying that's wrong either. |\n| 4 | I'm just trying to understand your position so that I'm |\n| 5 | clear if I rule, and I rule one way or another, that I'm |\n| 6 | ruling appropriately. |\n| 7 | MR. ROMNEY:
So the language in proposed paragraph |\n| 8 | 2 in the debtor's order, docket number -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
In 824? |\n| 10 | MR. ROMNEY:
In 824. |\n| 11 | Is while the first portion of the phrase, similar |\n| 12 | if not identical in the debtor's and the trustee's, the |\n| 13 | Romanettes as to what we are agreeing, the language in the |\n| 14 | Romanettes I, II, III, are materially different in the |\n| 15 | debtor's proposed -- materially narrower in the debtor's |\n| 16 | proposed order. |\n| 17 | And I will say that the reason why they're |\n| 18 | narrower is taking in mind that despite the somewhat murky |\n| 19 | case law on this issue, the majority of the case law, while |\n| 20 | applying this standard differently, does try to balance the |\n| 21 | trustee's legitimate interest in administering the estate |\n| 22 | and identifying the assets with the individual debtor's, you |\n| 23 | know, privilege and the, you know, interest in free |\n| 24 | communications between attorneys and clients, as well as the |\n| 25 | fact that there are some issues that the individual debtor |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 65 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 65 could be discussing with counsel that simply don't relate to the discharge of the trustee's duties in administering the estate. For example, the asylum application, which it's not an asset. It's different. So to highlight the differences in the language with the Court, understanding that it's only had these orders for less than I think 15 seconds was the Court's language on the record, was rather than saying the trustee has the right to control the privilege on anything concerning assets without regard to anything else, because documents could concern assets and they could concern something else. Documents concerning assets could have issues in other proceedings such as dischargeability. And what this language said was documents that are sufficient to identify the debtor's bankruptcy estate's assets, you know, are necessary to identify the debtor's estate's liabilities and relate solely to the administration of the estate. Now, I could -- one could disagree what exactly that -- whether a particular document applies to that standard or doesn't, but the point is is that once -- once sufficient information, privileged or not, has been provided to the trustee to administer its duties, to identify assets, to identify liabilities, and to effectively prosecute causes of action that are assets of the estate, then that is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 66 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
66 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | satisfying the trustee's legitimate interest in doing the |\n| 2 | job that this court appointed him to do and that, therefore, |\n| 3 | further documentation, privileged documentation, would not |\n| 4 | need to be produced by the debtor or the debtor's |\n| 5 | professionals. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
That's helpful.
But what about |\n| 7 | when they look at a document, say Trustee Despins gets a |\n| 8 | document and it says Verdolino and Lowey, because we talked |\n| 9 | about them today, we'll just bring them up, had a discussion |\n| 10 | with the debtor about how to characterize an asset, they -- |\n| 11 | I think what you're saying is that the trustee doesn't get a |\n| 12 | right to go talk to Verdolino and Lowey and talk about the |\n| 13 | discussions that Mr. Kwok had with Verdolino and Lowey.
Is |\n| 14 | that what you're saying? |\n| 15 | MR. ROMNEY:
I think that's what document 824 |\n| 16 | says.
And, again, that was -- meaning insofar as it |\n| 17 | contains the word document, not documents or information. |\n| 18 | Is that -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
Or communications.
It doesn't |\n| 20 | have to be a document. |\n| 21 | MR. ROMNEY:
Court documents or -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Verdolino and Lowey could be deposed, |\n| 23 | right? |\n| 24 | MR. ROMNEY:
Correct. |\n| 25 | And as I intended to articulate, that language, |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 67 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 67 the reference to documents, was tying in the order to the -- to what we perceived to be the caption of the order insofar as it referred to subpoenaed documents and not withholding documents and, therefore, our proposed order tracked that language. THE COURT: I understand. But I want to get to the heart of the matter, which is I don't want to do this every time there's a controversy, right? Or if we do, if that's what's going to happen, I want to know that's what's going to happen in advance, right? I don't want to enter an order that I think does one thing and you think does something other than that. So the issue is, as you said already, and I think you're correct, that how could it be that the trustee would succeed to the privileges with regard to documents and not with regard to communications? MR. ROMNEY: I don't think I asked the question, but I did acknowledge that I couldn't answer the question, if that distinction is one without a difference. THE COURT: Well, I'm trying to figure out how we should proceed. And right now this was a continued hearing on the trustee's motion to have this court determine that he holds all the privileges of the debtor. My understanding of that motion was that even though the trustee wants that order, he would agree to carve Case 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 68 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 68 out anything with regard to the asylum issue, anything with regard to these alleged tort issues and, obviously, with regard to the Fifth Amendment. I mean, he was -- he's not asserting and never has asserted that he's going to exercise that right. MR. ROMNEY: Yeah. Well, there is a discrepancy, as I read the orders on the -- what I would describe as tort issue. THE COURT: Well, I -- I mean -- MR. ROMNEY: Yeah. THE COURT: -- I'm talking about the allegations of rape and things like that. I don't know what those are about, but that's what's been put forth, right, in this -- in the record of this case. Before the trustee was even appointed there were people that said that they -- these causes of action were out there. Those creditors filed motions in this case. They said a lot of things, obviously, none of which have been substantiated in this court at this point and maybe never will be. Okay? So that's what I'm talking about when I'm talking -- I'm talking about some of the alleged very difficult to discuss torts, not, you know, if there was some other -- like maybe you claimed the -- I don't even know. As you know, I didn't read the UBS complaint. Is\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 69 there a tort cause of action in that including a breach of contract? I don't know. There might be. I have no idea. Right? But my point is is that I -- while there's no question that you all have worked hard to try to narrow the scope of this disagreement, I need to understand if there's still a disagreement, and I think there is. I think there's still a disagreement from the debtor's point -- standpoint, that the trustee controls all of the privileges regardless of the 2004 motions and subpoenas. MR. ROMNEY: There is -- the trustee and the debtor don't agree -- have an agreed stipulated order on this. And what I mean by that is the material difference between 823 and 824. THE COURT: Right. MR. ROMNEY: So there still is a -- there still is -- the Court would have to still pick a side in terms of somebody's -- somebody's getting what they're, you know, what they're willing to live with and somebody else is getting what they're willing to live with. And I chose those words rather than somebody's getting what they want and the other person's getting what they want -- THE COURT: I understand.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 69 of 110\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 70 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 70 MR. ROMNEY: -- because both of these reflect a compromise. THE COURT: I understand. MR. ROMNEY: But the answer is yes. I think that there could be unresolved issues following the application of either order. I suppose -- and I think the intention from both sides was to narrow the scope of those potential future issues to the extent -- and perhaps maybe it is, maybe it was wishful thinking and maybe the better approach is to deal with this on a subpoena by subpoena basis, because I can't stand here today and say that with any degree of certainty that either of these proposed orders will resolve privilege related discovery down the road. THE COURT: Okay. That's fair. I appreciate the response. Okay. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I -- if I may be heard on this briefly? THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: I'll take the blame for this, but it's not fair to put you in this position where with five minutes' notice you have to go through these orders. Yes, I would like the order to be entered three days ago, but that's not going to happen. And it's not\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 71 going to be entered today because it shouldn't be entered today because I want Your Honor to have a clear picture of what's happening. I believe, Mr. Bassett may correct me if I'm wrong, there's no more than ten issues that I could put on a list of differences. And this is like the game we used to play when we were kids called Battleship where, you know, I'm shooting, I don't know where the submarine is, but they know. And so everything that, all those changes, if you see them -- just, for example, they deleted or any related privilege or protection. They're telling you they're going to hang their hat on that. I don't know why or how. Or, for example, when they say that they deleted actual or potential causes of action, so it's only a cause of action. So, therefore, it's potential, no discovery. Also they've added the word necessary, necessary to identify. So they will argue, I guarantee you, that it's not necessary for us to get this to identify causes of action. This is a Battleship game, Your Honor. And I think I would like to put on a piece of paper ten open issues and for Your Honor to have time to digest this, because at the end of the day, you know, let's remember who we're dealing with here and go back to Ostrager, you know, basically first steps.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 71 of 110\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 72 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 72 You know, we know they're good at this. They did it for four years in front of Ostrager. And this is all about this, meaning live another day so I can object to the production of documents another day and we'll be back in front of Your Honor every week. And that's what the purpose of that is. Of course, we're trying to avoid that. But my point is that there's probably ten points maximum on this. You should have them in a bullet point before hearing, not five minutes before the hearing. And as I said, I'll take the hit for that. THE COURT: Well, I set that time frame so it's not -- I set that time frame. MR. DESPINS: No. But I -- THE COURT: I did it because I thought we would have more time this morning before the hearing at 1 o'clock. And I continued this, so I don't think it's -- I think it's -- I understand what you're saying, but I said why don't you both submit an order within an hour of the hearing. And it just didn't happen that I had time to look at it. So, you know, I don't think the blame lies -- I don't think there's an issue of blame. It was an issue of trying to advance the ball with enough time and there wasn't enough time. But what I'm hearing is that the debtor -- and I do appreciate the parties talking and trying to resolve the\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 73 issue, but I don't think there is a resolution. MR. DESPINS: There won't be. THE COURT: I think there is not a resolution. I think that the resolution that I was wondering if could be reached can't -- I guess can't be reached. And that's fine. If that doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. Then we'll have to rule accordingly. But I think that at least the way, Attorney Romney, I read the order that you submitted at ECF 824 is that it's limited to the documents and it's limited to these 2004 examination and subpoenas. And I don't know that I think that makes -- I don't know yet, but I don't know that I think that makes sense. I mean, the debtor -- the case law is not clear. And, you know, it may be that I have to rule so you guys can appeal. Maybe that's what has to happen. Maybe you go direct appeal to the Second Circuit and you say, look, there's no controlling case law here. We need to have it. The trustee needs -- the trustee may be the person who wants to appeal. Who knows? But how else am I going to be able to rule on these pivotal issues in this estate to allow the trustee to do his investigation to determine whether or not there's anything here for creditors if there's a disagreement on the privilege. Case 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 73 of 110\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 74 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 74 I'm not suggesting you don't have the right to disagree. You absolutely do. And you have the right to do whatever you think is appropriate under the law. But I just don't know how. What are we going to do? I don't think incremental steps makes sense. I think there has to be a definitive way that this is going to be dealt with. And unfortunately for all of us, in my opinion, there is no clear law. I couldn't find any. You all didn't bring any. You haven't brought anything before me that says it doesn't pass to the trustee. 12 You haven't brought anything to me, before me, because there isn't, that says automatically it passes to the trustee in the individual case. The only case that talks about it in the bankruptcy context, aside from all the other cases that you've cited, is the *Weintraub* case that talks about a corporate transfer of the -- of the privilege to the trustee in 1986. And then they didn't address what would happen in an individual case. They purposefully didn't address it, okay, the Supreme Court. And where's -- there's no circuit case. Where's the circuit case? There's nothing here that's controlling. So every single time we do this, we could have another appeal, we could have another appeal, we could have\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 75 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
75 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | another appeal.
It doesn't make sense, to me anyway.
And |\n| 2 | maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't make sense. |\n| 3 | MR. BASSETT:
I suppose -- |\n| 4 | MR. ROMNEY
Your Honor -- I apologize. |\n| 5 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, it's Nick Bassett from |\n| 6 | Paul Hastings on behalf of the trustee. |\n| 7 | I think we certainly agree with that sentiment |\n| 8 | insofar as the objective of this motion and our proposed |\n| 9 | order, the revised proposed order, is to give as much |\n| 10 | guidance to the parties and set parameters that will |\n| 11 | eliminate the need as much as possible for future disputes |\n| 12 | as to privilege. |\n| 13 | And I think the language, and we don't need to |\n| 14 | belabor it, Mr. Despins addressed it, Mr. Romney addressed |\n| 15 | it, but the language that the debtor has added to paragraph |\n| 16 | 2 of it's proposed order I think would kind of do the |\n| 17 | opposite in that it, you know, including the word necessary, |\n| 18 | which would give all kinds of grounds for disputes and, you |\n| 19 | know, would allow the debtor to make judgments as to what |\n| 20 | documents he thinks are necessary for the trustee to |\n| 21 | identify potential assets of the estate.
You know, that |\n| 22 | kind of language I think is just a recipe for all kinds of |\n| 23 | sorts of disputes. |\n| 24 | What we tried to do with our proposed order -- and |\n| 25 | I don't disagree with the Court that there is no binding |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 76 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
76 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Second Circuit authority on this question -- but I do think, |\n| 2 | as we tried to marshal in our papers and talk about at last |\n| 3 | week's hearing, there are many bankruptcy cases out there |\n| 4 | that have tried to address the issue of the individual |\n| 5 | privileges passing to a trustee in the wake of Weintraub. |\n| 6 | And I think the overwhelming majority of those |\n| 7 | cases and the clear trend of the case law is to say that the |\n| 8 | trustee passes when the privilege relates to efforts by the |\n| 9 | trustee to identify estate assets, to investigate the |\n| 10 | debtor's financial condition, and certainly with respect to |\n| 11 | any post-petition matters affecting the administration of |\n| 12 | his estate prior to the appointment of a trustee. |\n| 13 | And that is exactly how we tried to craft our |\n| 14 | revised proposed order is to track those categories in that |\n| 15 | weight of the case law and then to also make clear to |\n| 16 | address the debtor's concerns that he is still able to |\n| 17 | assert privileges over documents related to criminal |\n| 18 | allegations or to his asylum application but are not related |\n| 19 | to those four -- to those three categories that I just |\n| 20 | mentioned. |\n| 21 | So to address the particular comment that Attorney |\n| 22 | Romney made, I think he said, you know, there may be a |\n| 23 | document that talks about estate assets, but it also, you |\n| 24 | know, is a privileged communication related to criminal |\n| 25 | allegations against the debtor, you know, that have been |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 77 brought to the Court's attention in this case, and that type of document. The debtor would still be able to assert the privilege related to any discussion about the criminal allegations, so I don't think that's a concern. But, again, I just wanted to respond to some of the points that have come up during the discussion Attorney Romney and to clarify, you know, sort of our perspective on what makes the most sense here and what we were trying to accomplish with our order. THE COURT: Understood. Thank you. And I do -- I do appreciate the efforts of the parties in seeing what you can -- what you could do. And you obviously spent time, and that's important, but I don't -- I do not see that there's an agreement. And so I don't know that it makes sense to enter either one of these orders at the moment. I have to think about it. I have to figure out whether or not I have to just issue a ruling and then let you both decide what you want to do. I mean, the problem is, if I enter -- if I enter the Chapter 11 Trustee's order, you're going to appeal it. I know that. We all know that. And if I enter your order, I think the Chapter 11 Trustee is going to appeal it. So I -- you know, I'm searching for you to tell me Case 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 77 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 78 some other way to proceed, but it's a pivotal issue in the case right now. I mean, without a determination as to where this goes, I don't know how -- I don't know how we won't be here every week arguing about the same thing. Not the same thing. I mean, in general the issue, not what might be with regard to a different document request or testimony in a 2004 Examination or whatever, but that was my -- that's my concern. MR. ROMNEY: And, Your Honor, the difficult thing obviously with privilege issues is, once the -- you know, once the privileged document is out and about, you know, it's kind of hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube, particularly in a situation such as this where it seems that the debtor's position and the trustee's position are very different from each other on many things. We keep discussing Judge Ostrager's decision, which obviously had some choice words about the debtor, though in many respects wasn't really relevant to the issue before the Court. But my point here is that we have a situation where we have a trustee, and I'm not casting judgment or placing -- I'm trying to state an objective view of the situation. We have a trustee who is, if not already technically, likely to be in an adversarial position with Case 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 78 of 110\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 79 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 79 the debtor. And that's different for many cases where it's easier to apply what is necessary -- what is balanced between the trustee, you know, administering the estate and protecting the debtor's interest against, you know, protecting his or her privileged information. And maybe the answer is unfortunately that this does need to be dealt with, you know, as issues arise regarding particular documents because the standard is murky. I think both sides did their best to try and come up with something that balances the competing interests here, but the reality is in a case like this they're competing interests and sometimes it's hard to balance competing interests. So, as I said, the debtor is -- has submitted 824. It's something it would consent to. The debtor certainly is not waiving its right to appeal anything else though it's not something I'm prepared to, you know, state one way or another. And, you know, the only other point I would like to add, obviously, as the Court has pointed out, the parties are not in agreement. They've each -- they've each presented narrowed, but still competing orders. The Court is the Court. The Court's job is to\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 80 decide the dispute. And there is still a dispute before the Court. To the extent that the Court were otherwise inclined to enter 824, but the issue is that it refers to documents and not documents and communications and information, that would certainly be within the Court's right if that were the Court's major concern with document 824. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Anything -- MR. BASSETT: -- Nick Bassett again for the trustee. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. BASSETT: I guess I would just say to go back to the comments that Your Honor was making earlier, I do think it is -- it is clear that we are -- we have not reached an agreement on a proposed order and there are issues that I think have created a gap that cannot be bridged. So the Court has our proposed order and the debtor's proposed order. And, you know, as Mr. Despins said I think you can distill down the remaining points of disagreement into, you know, a dozen or so. If you look at Exhibit B to what we filed, we tried to flag those and provide sort of the key issues that we have with the remaining areas of Case 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 80 of 110\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 81 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 81 disagreement. So, you know, from my perspective, I think that is where we are. The Court has two orders. We think that the order we proposed is both consistent with the case law and will most appropriately give the parties the instruction that they need to proceed with discovery in the case. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, Irve Goldman for the committee. I just didn't want our silence to be taken as being a neutral bystander, which we're not. We're in favor of the trustee's proposed order for a couple of reasons, which he's mentioned some of them. I do think that their proposed order that was advanced by the debtor provides too much of a window of opportunity to resist further discovery. And I think that if past history is any indication, meaning the litigation that took place before Judge Ostrager, that is likely to happen with the type of malleable language that they've used in their order. The trustee mentioned the word \"necessary,\" that whatever might be necessary to discovery of assets. I can envision an argument that it's not necessary for the trustee to obtain certain information because it might be easier to\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 82 get it elsewhere. That shouldn't be the result here. And so I think that word -- that word should at a minimum be removed. The other problem that we have is this word \"solely\" that they introduced, that the information can only relate to documents that are solely related to the administration of the case. Well, a document could certainly have dual purposes and yet that invites an argument that it's not solely, doesn't solely relate to the administration of the case. That's an absurd result. And on the issue of -- in that regard, a document could relate to criminal activity. For example, under 18 U.S.C., Section 157, it's a bankruptcy crime to conceal and misrepresent assets in a bankruptcy case. So I can envision a document that might provide evidence of that. It clearly also relates to the administration of the estate. Yet it could invite an objection that they're trying to reserve with their proposed order, which I think is improper. So for those reasons we support the trustee's proposed order. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? MR. DESPINS: As a final word, Your Honor, Luc\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 82 of 110\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 83 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 83 Despins, Trustee. Would it make sense -- obviously for Your Honor to review this, which you will, but to have an adjourned hearing so we can address any open questions you may have, Because as Mr. Bassett said there's probably 10, 12 issues. I think they're cut and dry from our perspective. And you may rule against us on some of them. But the point is I think it might be beneficial too. And I know your docket is very full, but if we could adjourn it to a date not too far in the future, I think that would be great. THE COURT: What kind of time frame are you thinking? Later this week or early next week? MR. DESPINS: You mean how long the hearing would be or -- THE COURT: No. When would you like to adjourn it to? Are you talking, you know, later this week or early next week? MR. DESPINS: If Your Honor has time, let's say on Thursday or Friday of this week. Whatever will allow the Court enough time to really review and have a -- I'm sure, knowing you, that you'll have a series of questions. And I think that whatever gives you enough time to do that we're prepared to roll with that. THE COURT: I'm just looking at the calendar.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 84 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 84 (Pause) THE COURT: So, Mr. Despins, if you're going to file this document that shows, you know, a bullet point of the differences, when can you do that? How quickly could you do that? MR. DESPINS: Yes. I'm looking for Mr. Bassett for an answer. THE COURT: Mr. Bassett, how quickly could you do that? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, it's Nick Bassett. We could do that today. If not today, you know, tomorrow certainly. THE COURT: I don't -- I don't think it needs to be done today. We have another hearing at 3 o'clock. So, I mean, I think -- MR. DESPINS: By 10 o'clock tomorrow I'm sure. THE COURT: You could do it by noon tomorrow. I don't have to have it by 10:00 a.m. But what I'm going to do is, I will continue this hearing one last time to Monday, the 12th of September. And I can -- I will -- actually, because we've talked about this three times now or twice anyway, I will let it be remote so people don't have to get dragged into this because I'm going to just tell you what I'm going to do at that point. So instead of dragging you into court, what I'll\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 85 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
85 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | do is -- what time do you -- you want to start at 1:30 or |\n| 2 | 2:00 on Monday the 12th?
Anyone have a preference? |\n| 3 | (No response) |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
All right.
Let's say 2:00 p.m. on the |\n| 5 | 12th we'll continue this hearing.
Mr. Despins is going to |\n| 6 | file something on the docket, or his counsel is, tomorrow by |\n| 7 | noon with regard to the differences between the two orders. |\n| 8 | And then on the 12th -- |\n| 9 | I'm sorry, Mr. Romney, did you want to file |\n| 10 | something? |\n| 11 | MR. ROMNEY:
Well, I was just a little unclear on |\n| 12 | whether -- if we're talking about differences, is this to be |\n| 13 | a joint pleading or should we submit differing views of our |\n| 14 | -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
I'm going to let you work that out. |\n| 16 | I'm going to let you both talk about that.
How's that?
And |\n| 17 | you can do what you think is appropriate. |\n| 18 | MR. ROMNEY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 19 | And what was the time by which -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
By noon tomorrow.
I can give you |\n| 21 | until 1:00 p.m. if that's easier.
Another extra hour might |\n| 22 | be helpful to people, right? |\n| 23 | MR. ROMNEY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
All right.
1:00 p.m. tomorrow.
That |\n| 25 | will give me some time to look at it. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 86 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 86 And then I will tell you on Monday what I'm going to do. And that's what -- and I will have that hearing remotely. No one has to come to court for that because this is now the -- that will be the third hearing on the motion. And I'm either going to -- I'm going to tell you what I'm going to do. I don't know what I'm going to do right now, but I'll know by then. So I think that's the best way to proceed. I think that I do -- I don't want to discourage the parties from talking, because I do appreciate that you did do that. If that doesn't result in a resolution, it doesn't result in a resolution. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But I do appreciate the efforts that were made. I just think at this point there still is not an agreement and there probably will not be. If there is, you'll let me know. But if there isn't, I'm going to proceed as, you know, that there is not an agreement. And that I will be reviewing the matters in that light. And I'll be ready to tell you at 2:00 p.m. on September 12th where things stand. Now, maybe I have some questions of both of you, both the debtor and the Chapter 11 Trustee, and anybody else that wishes to be heard, but I may not. I may not have any questions at that point. I really don't know. So I will\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 87 let you know. Okay? Is there anything that anyone else would like to address this afternoon? MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, if I may, just in less than two minutes respond to a few of the points that Attorney Goldman made? THE COURT: Sure. MR. ROMNEY: I just want to say with regard to the concept of bankruptcy fraud or anything like that under 157, I'm aware of no evidence in this record to suggest the debtor has engaged in any type of bankruptcy fraud. To the extent that anybody has probable cause for that allegation and that attorney communications were used in furtherance of it, that's what the crime fraud exception is for. It's a separate issue as to whether the trustee has a privilege or not, because that is one of the few items or exceptions to privilege even if -- where the debtor retains it. Second, with regard to the verbiage used by the debtor, and certainly Your Honor is going to rule and Your Honor could accept some of the debtor's points and revise some of the language to the extent it has concerns or vice versa with respect to the trustee's issues. However, the concept -- the changing of the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 87 of 110\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 88 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 88 language to necessary to identify is -- was done for the purpose of allowing the trustee sufficient information to identify assets and liabilities without a complete waiver of any communication. And I think the courts all the time in the context of discovery recognize -- and this is beyond the scope of privilege, but recognize that asking for all documents concerning, insert any subject, is overly broad. And many times courts on discovery orders change language to something like sufficient -- sufficient to identify items of this topic. And I just wanted to clarify for the Court that is the purpose of that revised language. It's not to be cure or create avenues to dispute issues. It is a -- in the future. It is a genuine attempt to try and balance the trustee's right to information with the debtor's, you know, right to free communication with his counsel. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, just if I could briefly respond. Nick Bassett for Paul Hastings again -- to a couple of those comments? THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. BASSETT: So the discovery that the trustee is seeking is pursuant to an order issued under Rule 2004,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 89 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
89 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | which, of course, entitles the trustee to conduct a broad |\n| 2 | investigation, akin to a fishing expedition, and the breadth |\n| 3 | of the investigation that the trustee is able to conduct |\n| 4 | under 2004, and is entitled to conduct, is particularly |\n| 5 | critical in this case because as the Court knows, and as |\n| 6 | everyone knows, from the record that's been established in |\n| 7 | the New York Court and elsewhere there are serious concerns |\n| 8 | that we all have regarding whether or not the schedules that |\n| 9 | the debtor has filed in this court are accurate in setting |\n| 10 | forth the assets that he has.
We think they absolutely are |\n| 11 | not. |\n| | |\n\n And in order to explore thoroughly where assets of the debtor might be and to explore thoroughly other matters relating to the administration of this estate, we absolutely need the ability to obtain discovery that is broadly related to not only assets of the estate, of the debtor, that the debtor has had previously, but assets of others that the trustee is investigating for the purpose of determining whether they are, in fact, assets of the estate.\n\n And this language that the debtor would have the Court add to the proposed order that says we only have control of the privilege to the extent that the communication at issue is, you know, quote/unquote, \"Necessary,\" for the trustee to identify assets of the estate provides way too much ambiguity and opportunity for\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 90 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 90 the debtor to decide what he does and does not want to provide in discovery. To just respond to one other point that Mr. Romney had raised earlier, he raised this concept of there being an adversarial relationship between the trustee and the debtor. I don't know if he is suggesting that to the extent the debtor does not want assets of his relatives, for example, to become property of the estate, that there is suddenly an adversarial relationship when we seek discovery related to an issue like that, but if that is what he is suggesting, then I think we absolutely disagree as to whether or not the trustee controls the privilege in that situation. I think we absolutely control the privilege as it relates to the trustee's efforts to identify potential assets of the estate, even if the debtor is taking the position that he'd prefer for these assets to remain with relatives or in LLC's or other shell companies that he's created. That is not a basis for the debtor to retain a privilege in that situation. I think -- I think those are the comments that I wanted to make, Your Honor, but happy, of course, to answer any questions. THE COURT: I don't have any questions at this time. Thank you.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 91 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
91 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
And, Your Honor, you recall we |\n| 2 | talked about the U.K. complaint.
We found the docket |\n| 3 | number. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 5 | MR. DESPINS:
It's 622-1.
It's called Particulars |\n| 6 | of Claims. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 8 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Your Honor, for the committee, just |\n| 9 | a few brief comments if I may? |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Sure. |\n| 11 | MR. GOLDMAN:
The fact that something might relate |\n| 12 | or be covered by the crime-fraud exception to the |\n| 13 | attorney/client privilege would not also mean necessarily |\n| 14 | that it could not relate to the administration of the case. |\n| 15 | And that's where I think the word \"solely\" is just |\n| 16 | improper.
You can't just say that, hey, if it's subject to |\n| 17 | crime fraud exception, you'll get it that way, even though |\n| 18 | it also can relate to the administration of the estate. |\n| 19 | And on the word \"concerning,\" I would just note |\n| 20 | it's a specifically defined term in the local district court |\n| 21 | rules in fashioning discovery requests.
So there's nothing |\n| 22 | improper about using the term here. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:
Last point for the debtor, Your Honor. |\n| 25 | This is why courts don't like entering advisory |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 92 opinions and that is what this is. There is a normal process -- THE COURT: But that is what -- wait a minute. Let me just -- let me step back. That is what what is? MR. HENZY: What the trustee -- THE COURT: If I rule on this motion, I'll be issuing an advisory opinion? MR. HENZY: You will. THE COURT: Why? MR. HENZY: You are giving an advisory opinion as to -- you're being asked to issue a decision. And I think - - I think this is where you're, in some sense where you're going, Your Honor. You're being asked to give a decision or to rule -- how you would rule on this muddle of case law. So where you'd come out -- THE COURT: Well, but there's a motion pending in front of me. It's been brought to me. It's a controversy. MR. HENZY: I don't -- THE COURT: I'm not doing it as an advisory opinion. MR. HENZY: I don't think it is a controversy. Right now there's no discovery dispute before you. There's not. There's not. THE COURT: No. No. What is before me is the trustee's motion to enter an order saying he controls the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 92 of 110\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 93 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 93 privilege. And you've responded to that. MR. HENZY: But that's a very -- and that's the muddle of the case law. That's a very fact sensitive analysis. It just is. Because -- I mean, as Mr. Romney has pointed out -- THE COURT: But what facts do I need that I don't have? MR. HENZY: You don't -- THE COURT: Of whether or not -- no, let me just hear you out. What facts do I need that I don't have to determine whether or not the trustee should control the privilege? MR. HENZY: I think though the question is does the trustee control the privilege with respect to particular documents. THE COURT: I don't think that's what his motion says. MR. HENZY: Well, I think he's -- like I said, Your Honor, I didn't want to -- I didn't want to -- I think what he's -- what you're being asked to do is give an advisory opinion in a vacuum. Because right now there is no one in front of you saying I'm claiming a privilege on this document and you now need to rule on whether with respect to this document the privilege passed to the trustee --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 94 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 94 THE COURT: No. I don't think that's accurate though. But I understand your point. But I -- MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: Here's the problem. Then why did you respond by saying that he couldn't get all the information from Brown Rudnick and, you know, all these other people that you don't represent? Your response, your objection to his motion, starts talking about things that have nothing to do with your client. I mean, insofar as -- MR. HENZY: Well -- THE COURT: -- they're parties that your client dealt with. But they have the right to assert their -- MR. HENZY: Oh, they do. THE COURT: -- their issues, don't they? MR. HENZY: Yeah. But that doesn't mean the debtor doesn't. THE COURT: Well, that doesn't mean that the trustee can't seek an order from this court. You may disagree -- MR. HENZY: The -- THE COURT: -- you may disagree, but listen, at this point, here's the problem, right? The trustee is trying to conduct an investigation. He's not able to do that. He's been told that -- by at least with regard to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 95 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 95 the London situation that -- when I say situation, the case pending in London -- that your client is not going to try to cooperate with him and tell the lawyers in London that he can talk to them. And -- MR. HENZY: That's not true. That's not true. But, okay. THE COURT: Well, you wouldn't -- you said you wouldn't send the letter saying that because you believe that one part of it says it's compelled disclosure. That's what you're saying. Isn't that what you're appealing? You're appealing the 3(b) section of the -- MR. HENZY: I didn't mean to get -- I didn't mean to get off on a -- I'm going to answer your question. THE COURT: But that's what you're -- but that's what you're doing. I mean, and that's fine. MR. HENZY: No. THE COURT: I don't have a problem with it. MR. HENZY: No. THE COURT: But here's the point. How's the trustee going to continue -- how's the trustee going to carry out his duties in this case right now when every -- when your client has argued to this point that the attorney/client privilege issue does not pass automatically to the trustee? That's what you've argued. MR. HENZY: No. No, it is not.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 96 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 96 THE COURT: Okay. What have you argued then? MR. HENZY: I -- THE COURT: Then why did you cite to *Weintraub*? MR. HENZY: I think that what we -- THE COURT: That's what *Weintraub*'s all about, the automatic passing of the privilege to the trustee in a corporate bankruptcy case. MR. HENZY: What we've argued is that there -- the cases say that there is this balancing test. I don't -- I don't think any of us disagree about that. And what we -- but what we've argued is that that analysis -- and we've cited case law that says that that balance has to be done on a case by case basis. THE COURT: Right. Right. MR. HENZY: That's -- THE COURT: So what facts don't I have in this case to make a case by case analysis if you're right? MR. HENZY: You don't have the facts that courts always have when resolving discovery disputes, which is specific privilege that has been claimed with respect to a specific document or communication. I don't know -- Your Honor, I've -- maybe it's just me, I've never seen an order like this in any case that I've been involved in. I'm not -- it's -- THE COURT: Well, here's the problem. You\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 97 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 97 wouldn't need one in a corporate case because it automatically happens. And the problem with the law is there aren't very many, if any, Chapter 11 individual cases where this has become an issue, where the individual has said that the trustee doesn't have the right to assert the privilege. So -- MR. HENZY: We haven't said that. THE COURT: Well, yeah, I think you have. You have. MR. HENZY: No. I think what we said is that there's a balancing test and that that balancing test has to be analyzed on a case by case basis. THE COURT: So you're saying the trustee's motion is not ripe because there isn't anything in front of this court as far as somebody asserting a privilege? MR. HENZY: I guess that is what I'm saying, Your Honor. Yeah. I don't know how -- look, I probably shouldn't have said anything. It was more commentary because you're wrestling with this. I think the reason you're wrestling with it is because the motion asks for you to rule in a vacuum. I've never been involved in a case, not even bankruptcy cases, where -- I do litigation in state court\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 98 of 110\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
98 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | and federal court that has nothing to do with bankruptcy |\n| 2 | cases where a discovery dispute has been resolved outside of |\n| 3 | the normal process where people ask for things and either |\n| 4 | they get them, or they get a privilege log, and people |\n| 5 | assert whatever privileges they're going to assert, and then |\n| 6 | there's an obligation to meet and confer, and maybe you'd |\n| 7 | get it down to some small subset of documents. |\n| 8 | And if you have to you then go in front of the |\n| 9 | judge.
And everybody knows you better try really, really |\n| 10 | hard to work through whatever you've got to work through |\n| 11 | because judges really don't want to spend all their time |\n| 12 | resolving discovery disputes.
Right? |\n| 13 | And I think, to Mr. Romney's point, where does the |\n| 14 | -- where does let's the necessary analysis come in?
You may |\n| 15 | get down to where there's three documents and the trustee is |\n| 16 | convinced, you know, what, I really don't need those |\n| 17 | documents. |\n| 18 | The privilege is being claimed, but I have all |\n| 19 | these other documents so I really don't need those |\n| 20 | documents.
So now we don't have to go in front of the judge |\n| 21 | and argue about those documents.
That's the only way that |\n| 22 | I've ever resolved a discovery dispute. |\n| 23 | So I probably shouldn't have done it, was telling |\n| 24 | myself don't do it, to stand up and say I think the problem |\n| 25 | here and the reason you're wrestling with this is because |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 99 you don't have that. You're being asked to issue an order in a vacuum, outside of that case by case analysis. And you can -- THE COURT: I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure you're correct about that. Because if that's your position, then why did you present an order? MR. HENZY: Because we're trying -- because, Your Honor, we're trying hard to be cooperative. We are. We are. In the right situation, we are trying. You asked that we go and see if we could work to a consensual order. And we did that. And that's what ECF 824 -- as Mr. Romney has told you, if you enter that order, we're agreeing to that. The debtor is consenting to that order. But that doesn't mean that it's not still problematic, and that's the reason I think we're having this, as I'll say, we're wrestling with this. Because I -- because we're trying to fashion an order that's going to cover a controversy that right now is not in front of you. But we have tried to work through this. THE COURT: Well, I think -- I think it is in front of me in some respects though. And I'd have to think about what you're saying, Attorney Henzy. But, as I said before, before you got involved,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 99 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 100 the trustee was appointed. The motion was granted. And your client didn't appeal it. MR. HENZY: Oh -- THE COURT: It didn't appeal the appointment of a trustee. But now, when the trustee's trying to carry out the duties, you're trying to limit the trustee's ability to do that and by asserting that you have a privilege that the trustee is not able to exercise. And now you're saying, okay, well, we'll let you exercise it with regard to documents and these 2004 subpoenas that have been served. Okay? And the trustee is saying I think I need an order telling me that I have this -- I have the privilege. And whether or not that -- I mean, I'm not sure you're correct about everything you've said, but I'll go back and look at it. But the point is is that I'm not going to -- whatever we do, we're not going to do it on a piecemeal basis. We're not going to do it on an incremental basis. Because that is -- you know, the reason that the trustee was appointed was for the best interest of the creditors. And your client, before you, consented on the record, in writing, that cause existed to either appoint a Chapter 11 Trustee, dismiss the case or convert. Case 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 100 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 101 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 101 Cause, as you know, is not defined. But to find that cause existed to appoint a Chapter 11 Trustee, there has -- there has to be a reason why that happened, right? And the reason why that happened is because there's a controversy over all these assets, whether they really belong to the debtor or not. And at one point, as I said I think last week, to maybe Mr. Kindseth and maybe to you, the entity had pledged the boat to the creditors, but now it's not, because there's no plan. So everything's changed in this case. Every single time we get to some point, the road curves. And what I think Mr. Despins is trying to do is say, okay, well, maybe the road can curve, but I need to know what it is I can do. The code says I can do all this stuff, but I'm getting met with resistance and I don't need resistance. I need to figure out for the benefit of the creditors whether or not these assets, or maybe even assets we don't know about yet, are property of the estate to pay these creditors. MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, again, I apologize to the extent that I've gotten us off topic. But I may be wrong on this. My understanding was the debtor -- and it doesn't matter at this point, I don't think it matters -- the debtor agreed that there was cause\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 102 for dismissal. But -- THE COURT: That's not accurate. I'll tell you why. MR. HENZY: Okay. Okay. That's fine. THE COURT: Because I asked that question -- MR. HENZY: But we did -- but he didn't appeal. THE COURT: -- four times. MR. HENZY: He didn't appeal. He didn't appeal -- THE COURT: He didn't appeal it. MR. HENZY: -- the order. THE COURT: Didn't appeal it. MR. HENZY: No controversy whatsoever. But I don't think, Your Honor, that because a debtor files bankruptcy and a debtor then has a trustee appointed that whatever rights that that debtor has under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Bankruptcy Code just go away. The debtor still has rights. The debtor, for example -- THE COURT: That may be. That may be. MR. HENZY: And that's -- so it's not -- I'm not saying that Mr. Despins doesn't get to conduct his investigation. The debtor's not saying that. That's absolutely not saying that. The debtor is not saying -- to the extent that\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 102 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 103 with respect to a document either Mr. Despins has inherited the privilege or to the extent there's no privilege, to the extent there's an exception, or whatever it is, he gets the document. There's no controversy there. But to the extent that -- THE COURT: So you're only agreeing -- your only concern is about communications, not documents? MR. HENZY: No. No. THE COURT: Then what is it? MR. HENZY: With respect to anything to the extent that the debtor still does own the privilege, and hasn't been waived, and there's no exception, then the debtor has a right to say this is -- this is my privileged document and I don't have to give it to anybody. That doesn't go away because he consented to a trustee being appointed. And because he didn't appeal the Court's order, that doesn't -- it doesn't go away. THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure that you're -- that case law would support that blanket of a statement, Mr. Henzy. MR. HENZY: I'm saying if you get past the test, assume there's a document where the privilege does apply -- I'm not -- to go back to your point about the U.K. order, Your Honor, to the extent that under some law, whether it's U.K. law, whatever the law is, Mr. Despins has inherited the Case 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 103 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 864
Filed 09/17/22
Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02
Page 104 of
110 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
104 |\n| 1 | privilege, then he should just -- he just can go to the U.K. |\n| 2 | and say give me the documents.
What that order does do is, |\n| 3 | it says, it does compel a waiver of documents which is |\n| 4 | privilege.
So that's the issue. |\n| 5 | So I'm just saying to the extent that there's a |\n| 6 | slice of the world, that under the applicable case law, the |\n| 7 | debtor and anybody else still has rights.
They don't -- |\n| 8 | they don't -- they get to assert those rights.
That's all. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Well, then given what you just said, |\n| 10 | then why doesn't your client tell Mr. Despins what's |\n| 11 | privileged in the London litigation? |\n| 12 | MR. KINDSETH:
Well, that -- Your Honor, that |\n| 13 | circles back on the problem about the way that motion and |\n| 14 | that order came down. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
No.
No.
But that's -- |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:
Okay.
Remember -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
No.
No. |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:
Remember, that was a -- not in the |\n| 19 | motion.
It got stuck onto a revised order. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
We had five hearings on it.
You can |\n| 21 | argue that it wasn't in the motion.
We had hearings and you |\n| 22 | had an opportunity to be heard.
You asked for an extension. |\n| 23 | I gave you that extension.
We went through all that time. |\n| 24 | You had an opportunity to be heard. |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
Okay. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 105 of\n\n| | 110 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
105 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
And remember, we're still in a |\n| 2 | situation where the standing of the debtor is in question |\n| 3 | here.
If this is an insolvent debtor, which the debtor was |\n| 4 | insolvent at the time that he filed, and he's still |\n| 5 | insolvent, and now there's a trustee.
So have -- you have |\n| 6 | circular issues here. |\n| 7 | And the problem is why don't you just give him a |\n| 8 | list of what you say is privileged?
Why don't you just -- |\n| 9 | why can't you just produce that?
Why can't you say, you |\n| 10 | know what, Trustee Despins, I'm not giving you anything in |\n| 11 | London and here's the documents why I'm not giving them to |\n| 12 | you.
These are all privileged.
Why can't you do that? |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:
So I've said this before, Your Honor, |\n| 14 | I think, and I think the U.K. counsel has said this, there's |\n| 15 | a process that's supposed to be gone through and Mr. Despins |\n| 16 | is trying to short circuit that. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
What's the process?
Nobody's put it |\n| 18 | in front of me to tell -- show me what the process is.
I |\n| 19 | keep hearing about process, but I don't have anything in the |\n| 20 | record to support that there's a process. |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
I'm not a U.K. lawyer, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | I'm not -- I'm not in that litigation over there. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
I understand that, but your client has |\n| 24 | an asset -- |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
Okay. |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 864
Filed 09/17/22
Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02
Page 106 of
110 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
106 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
-- in the United Kingdom that this |\n| 2 | trustee is trying to find out about. |\n| 3 | MR. HENZY:
Okay.
Someone who -- the lawyer over |\n| 4 | there does not represent, and right now is not a party in |\n| 5 | that action, is going to that lawyer and demanding that |\n| 6 | documents be handed over.
Okay? |\n| 7 | And I don't -- maybe I'm -- again, maybe I'm the |\n| 8 | only one in the room -- if a lawyer from the U.K. comes, if |\n| 9 | it's flipped around, and says to me give me these documents, |\n| 10 | my answer is absolutely not.
Absolutely not, no way, not |\n| 11 | doing it.
Okay?
And that is the dynamic here. There's a |\n| 12 | litigation, not here, in the U.K. and -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
But the U.K. lawyer would do that if |\n| 14 | Mr. Kwok said here's the list and tell them it's all |\n| 15 | privileged.
Wouldn't they?
Wouldn't they? |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:
I'm not -- there's no way that I'm in |\n| 17 | a position to do that given the way that this came down the |\n| 18 | pike. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right. |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:
And I've said -- hold on -- I've said |\n| 21 | to Mr. Despins multiple times that I would work with him and |\n| 22 | U.K. counsel to do exactly what Your Honor is talking about |\n| 23 | and that offer has been rejected.
Okay? |\n| 24 | So if there's responsibility here, I'll accept |\n| 25 | responsibility when it's my responsibility.
But the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 107 of\n\n| | 110 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
107 |\n| 1 | responsibility here that is not being worked through what I |\n| 2 | think is the right way is not on me or on the debtor. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Anything further, Mr. Despins? |\n| 4 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes.
Very briefly, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | This argument that you cannot review -- you cannot |\n| 6 | decide this issue because it's not ripe because you don't |\n| 7 | have individual documents before you, one, their declaration |\n| 8 | regarding the meet and confer process said that it couldn't |\n| 9 | be done that way, that guidance from the Court was required. |\n| 10 | These are their words. |\n| 11 | Second, courts have said that the balancing test |\n| 12 | can be done on a category of documents.
If we went to Your |\n| 13 | Honor and we said the privilege has passed on everything, |\n| 14 | that's a different story. |\n| 15 | But we are limiting it to administration of the |\n| 16 | estate, assets, and claims.
And the point there is that |\n| 17 | these are categories that are narrow, well defined. |\n| 18 | And, for example, let's take the administration of |\n| 19 | the estate.
Mr. Kwok was debtor-in-possession.
And Your |\n| 20 | Honor knows that that means.
He was a fiduciary.
He has no |\n| 21 | privilege over that once a trustee gets appointed. |\n| 22 | The issue of whether he has a privilege over pre |\n| 23 | bankruptcy discussions, okay, I can see the debate there.
I |\n| 24 | think the case law supports us. |\n| 25 | But on the issue of Brown Rudnick advice or |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 108 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 108 communications with Brown Rudnick when he was a debtor-in- possession, there's no debate in the case law that we have access to that. It's narrow. It's a demonstration of the case. And he was acting as a fiduciary, not in his own capacity. And he was getting -- you know, shame on Brown Rudnick if they were giving him advice on his personal situation. They were giving advice to him as a debtor-in-possession. And that's fundamental, Your Honor.\n\n So the balancing -- you're doing the balancing. You're doing it on a category-by-category document with some very specific carve outs regarding the -- what do we call the crime, I want to be precise about this, although it's unfortunate, but the rape and confinement allegations carved out, the asylum issue carved out, you're doing the balancing.\n\n And courts, that's the way they've done it, by categories of documents. Where courts have been reversed, the only circuit court that reversed, and in that case, it's the same as here, where both sides agreed there should be a balancing test, is that the Court did not look at any documents or any category of documents.\n\n And here the Court has right in front of it the very narrow categories that we're raising. And on that basis you have the power to do this.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. Anything further from anyone\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 109 else? (No response) THE COURT: All right. Thank you all for your thoughts and I will continue to look at this. We'll continue this hearing to Monday, September 12th at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Romney, did you say you were going to submit something, you might submit something by 1 o'clock tomorrow? I know Trustee Despins and Attorney Bassett are going to submit something with regard to the difference of the two orders. MR. ROMNEY: I will confer with them and either submit something on behalf of the debtor or we can agree on an accurate or objective description of the issues, you know, that are disputed. I think it would be more efficient to do it together, but time will tell if that will be possible. THE COURT: Okay. That's fair. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you. THE COURT: That's fair. Is there anything else we need to address this afternoon? (No response) THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. That concludes the Case 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 109 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 864
Filed 09/17/22
Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02
Page 110 of
110 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
110 |\n| 1 | hearing today on the Kwok matter. |\n| 2 | MR. BASSETT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 4 | (Proceedings concluded at 3:31 p.m.) |\n| 5 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court |\n| 6 | Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a |\n| 7 | correct transcript from the official electronic sound |\n| 8 | recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. |\n| 9 | |\n| 10 | |\n| 11 | September 14, 2022 |\n| 12 | Christine Fiore, CERT |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| | |\n| | |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院\n布里奇波特分庭\n关于 * 案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n * HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， * Bridgeport, Connecticut\n * September 6, 2022\n债务人。 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n关于作出命令确认特权控制权于受托人获任命时移转给受托人及相关救济的动议庭审记录\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官阁下前\n美国联邦破产法院法官\n出庭人员：\n代表债务人：\nERIC HENZY, ESQ.（埃里克·亨齐律师）\nHK International（HK 国际公司）及\nAARON ROMNEY, ESQ.（阿伦·罗姆尼律师）\nMei Guo（郭美）：\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表债权人：\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.（彼得·弗里德曼律师）\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\nANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.（安妮卡·史密斯律师）\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n庭审程序由电子录音记录，庭审记录由记录服务机构制作。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与庭审记录服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.（欧文·戈德曼律师）\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n代表美国受托人：\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代表第 11 章受托人：\nNICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ.（尼古拉斯·巴塞特律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.（帕特里克·R·林西律师）\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（诺伊伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂斯律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n第 11 章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.（吕克·A·德斯平律师）\nPaul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 3 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n1 （庭审于下午 1:04 开始。）\n2 法庭书记员：\n案号 22-50073，Ho Wan\n3 Kwok（郭文贵）。\n4 法庭：\n下午好。\n5 请各方作庭审记录出庭陈述，\n6 请先由第 11 章受托人开始。\n7 DESPINS 先生：\nLuc Despins（吕克·德斯平），受托人。\n8 法庭：\n下午好。\n9 LINSEY 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Patrick\n10 Linsey（帕特里克·林西），受托人的本地律师。\n11 法庭：\n下午好。\n12 GOLDMAN 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Irve\n13 Goldman（欧文·戈德曼）。\n14 BASSETT 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n15 GOLDMAN 先生：\n哦。\n16 BASSETT 先生：\n抱歉。抱歉，法官阁下。\n17 法庭：\n没关系。\n18 BASSETT 先生：\n我是来自 Paul\n19 Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），远程出庭，感谢您\n20 今天允许我以此方式出庭。\n21 法庭：\n不客气。下午好。\n22 GOLDMAN 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Irve\n23 Goldman（欧文·戈德曼），Pullman and Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所），代表债权人\n24 委员会。\n25 法庭：\n下午好。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 4 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n1 CLAIBORN 女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。Holley\n2 Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）代表美国受托人。\n3 法庭：\n下午好。\n4 SMITH 女士：\n下午——\n5 FRIEDMAN 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。我是\n6 来自 O'Melveny & Myers（奥美律师事务所）的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼），代表 PAX。\n7 法庭：\n下午好。\n8 SMITH 女士：\n我是来自 Robinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）的 Annecca Smith（安妮卡·史密斯），\n9 也代表 PAX。\n10 法庭：\n下午好。\n11 法庭书记员：\n抱歉。您能否\n12 再说一遍您的姓名？我没有听清。\n13 SMITH 女士：\nAnnecca Smith（安妮卡·史密斯）。\n14 法庭书记员：\n谢谢。\n15 SMITH 女士：\n谢谢。\n16 ROMNEY 先生：\nAaron Romney（阿伦·罗姆尼），Zeisler and Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所），代表\n17 债务人、HK International（HK 国际公司）及 Mei Guo（郭美）。\n18 法庭：\n下午好。\n19 HENZY 先生：\nEric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐），Zeisler and Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所），代表\n20 同三方当事人。\n21 法庭：\n下午好。\n22 HENZY 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n23 法庭：\n好的。今天我们审理几项\n24 事项，但关于进展情况——我已收到第 11 章受托人提交的议程，\n25 对此我表示感谢。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 5 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n如果没有人持不同意见，我希望按照该议程进行。然后，在我们进一步讨论特权问题之前，从法院的角度，还有几项小的事务性事项。我知道你们双方在中午或稍早些时候提交了我要求你们提交的命令，而且，我已经看了大约 15 秒钟，所以请你们体谅。我今天上午有开庭。但无论如何，我们会处理到该事项。因此，Despins 先生，如果您愿意，可以先作您的进展会议报告，然后我可以发言。我只是——在您结束后，有两三件引起我注意的小事，在您陈述结束后，我需要各方当事人就此予以确认。好吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。我可以上前向您递交——\n\n法庭：\n请。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n——一份纸质副本——\n\n法庭：\n是。请。谢谢。您可以上前。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。为作记录，我是 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平），第 11 章受托人。我们首先想向法院及利害关系方通报 Genever BVI（Genever 英属维尔京群岛公司）的情况。请记得，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n那是一家持股公司，拥有一家 LLC，而该 LLC 进而拥有该公寓。因此，股份已经转让。我现在以受托人身份持有该等股份。但我们现在正在处理一件事项，即我们需要为该实体任命一名董事。在英属维尔京群岛的做法是，由职业董事担任董事。美国也有这种安排，我们向他们支付报酬，那就是他们的工作。提供该等服务的公司是我们拟聘英属维尔京群岛律师 Harneys（哈尼律师事务所）的关联方。该公司名为 Harneys Fiduciaries（哈尼受托服务公司）。因此，我们——我们已提交申请，申请聘用 Harneys。我相信上周我们提交了一份补充声明，说明，哦，顺便说一下，我们将聘用这些人士担任职业董事。我要首先提及的问题是报酬问题。我们必须向他们支付 6,000 and change。他们同意将其所有其他成本——其费用——延后至本破产财产获得资金后再支付。这是一件非常好的事情，但我们需要向他们支付 6,667。这里有一个技术性问题，我们已与美国受托人讨论过。那些人士，即董事，不是那些人士——将由一人担任董事——并不提供法律服务，也不是由本破产财产聘用。该人是由名为 Genever BVI 的非债务人聘用。美国受托人认为，尽管如此，我们仍应提交某种聘用申请，涵盖既作为律师的 Harneys 及其作为董事的关联方。我一向不愿说我不同意美国受托人的意见，但我在此问题上不同意美国受托人。不过，双方之间的所有关联关系应得到充分披露。对于律师事务所 Harneys，我们已经这样做了。对于 Harneys Fiduciaries，尚未这样做。它们是提供信托服务——抱歉，董事服务——的实体。为慎重起见，我们将这样做。但我们不希望——而且我已就此与美国受托人进行了讨论——我们的充分披露努力被解释为我们同意其事实上受制于无利害关系标准。再次强调，他们只是在为一家非债务人实体担任董事。\n\n21 但我不能不同意披露越多总是越好的这一理念，因此我们将补充披露并重新提交该申请，希望在明天或类似时间完成。但我想向法院提及此事，因为\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 7 of 110\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 8 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n这是我们为使该董事到位而需要推进的事项。因此，这就是一项进展更新。我不知道美国受托人是否希望就此发表意见，但目前真正的问题就是这个。我们已向其承诺，就董事角色以及其与本案的关联关系作充分披露，尽管我们认为这并非适用的控制性标准，但我们同意这样做。因此，这就是董事问题的更新。\n\n第 2 页，还有另一个正在出现的问题。我总是说本案每天都有问题。后来是 Labor Day Weekend，所以不是每天都有问题。但 Bravo Luck（好运公司），你们会记得该实体，据称由 Kwok 先生的儿子控制，已发出通知，要求恢复在英属维尔京群岛待决、早于本案的诉讼。该诉讼涉及 Kwok 先生、Bravo Luck 及 PAX。因为请记得，他们当时在州法院试图取得这些股份的控制权，所以在英属维尔京群岛有一宗关于谁拥有这些股份的待决诉讼，Bravo Luck 的立场是其可依赖该信托协议，而 PAX 主张相反立场。该诉讼实际上从未真正启动，但现在他们在大约三四天前发出通知，称我们希望恢复该诉讼。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 9 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n但我们在此提出的观点是，我们认为那明显违反自动中止。为明确起见，是 Bravo Luck 在这样做。Bravo Luck 是一家英属维尔京群岛实体，但他们在纽约案件中作为债权人提交了债权申报，并且已在该案中出庭，我们认为这违反了中止。我想说的是，请继续关注此事。我认为我们需要尽早处理此事，因为我们不能任由该诉讼——这是法官阁下应当裁决的问题——继续进行。\n\n转至第 3 页，关于其他与债务人有关实体的更新。您可能记得，嗯，我知道您记得 UBS（瑞银）诉讼。您总是提到，嗯，该诉讼中还有两名其他原告。而且他们不是第三方，而是由 Kwok 先生控制的实体。它们名为 Ace Decade（艾斯十年公司）和 Dawn State（黎明州公司）。如果您阅读那份由 Kwok 先生签署、由 Kwok 先生核实事实、并由 Dawn State 和 Ace Decade 的代表核实事实的 2020 起诉书，基本上称他首先拥有 Ace Decade。他拥有该实体。而且，其下属实体 Dawn State 由 Ace Decade 百分之百控制。因此，我们上周向 Henzy 先生发出一封信，称\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 10 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n1 这与 Genever 一样。我需要全部账簿和记录。我\n2 希望将股票转让给我们。我们曾要求在今天上午前作出\n3 答复。我们没有收到答复。而且，我理解，假日期间，等等，\n4 等等，但我们需要取得对这——这\n5 两个实体的控制权。\n6 毫无疑问，它们由 Kwok 先生所有，\n7 因为他如此表示，而且这两个实体的代表也在英国诉讼中如此表示；该诉讼宣誓材料作于\n8 2020 年，不是 2015 年，是最近的 2020 年。\n9 因此，我们将听取债务人对此事的意见。\n10 但显然，这是一项需要解决的问题，因为届时我应当控制此事。而且我\n11 控制该诉讼中的所有原告，这将确实减少该诉讼中与英国律师有关的大量\n12 问题。\n13 第 4 页，仅提及债务人的下落，\n14 我们获悉 Kwok 先生已搬离\n15 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-内德兰酒店）。\n这里是他每天录制 GETTR\n16 直播的地点，有时一天两次。\n17 他已将个人物品搬离该处，\n18 以及他在 2015 年搬入时置入的家具。而且\n19 他们所做的是搬入前任所有人的家具，该家具是他作为——的一部分取得的\n20 ——取得 Sherry-Netherland 时取得的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 11 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 11 我对此有一点担忧，法官阁下，因为这可能表明他正离开本辖区。您知道，Henzy先生告诉我并非如此。实际上，他居住在康涅狄格州格林尼治，因此我们将接受这一陈述。但他携带个人物品和家具搬离公寓这一事实，可能是另一个迹象。而且，遗憾的是，第11章受托人没有电子脚镯项目。我很希望有，但我们没有，也没有LoJack，因此我们无法追踪债务人。不过，您知道，我们知道我们有权，法院也有权强制债务人到场接受询问。因此，我们实际上可能会利用这一权力——不仅核实他是否仍在国内，也核实诸如Ace Decade和Dawn State等其他问题。现在转到第5页，关于事务性事项，我只想提醒法官阁下，目前这是——我们现在谈的是Lady May，您知道，由香港实体或该香港实体的子公司提起的诉讼，请求作出确认性判决，确认该实体拥有该游艇。我相信答辩截止日期是August 29th。我们提出了延期动议。对方反对该动议。此外，还有\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 12 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 12 原定应当举行的一次审前会议。我们提出了延期举行该会议的动议。因此，该事项尚待处理。我想确保法官阁下知悉，这些请求和异议尚待处理，且尚未安排听证会。\n\n法庭：让我现在看一下，因为这可能是我认为需要与各位讨论的事项之一。\n\nDESPINS先生：好的。\n\n法庭：有一件事——我知道其中一个问题是——我不——在我说出不准确的话之前，让我看一下。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：因此，在HK International（香港国际）的对抗程序中，案号为5003，这正是我想讨论的对抗程序。但我实际上并未关注您所说的，即有一项延期动议——\n\nDESPINS先生：正确。\n\n法庭：——延长答辩期限。哦，不，不。那是PAX的。但在我看来，债务人已撤回，并非债务人，抱歉。原告HK International已就PAX撤回或驳回了该对抗程序，抱歉。这一点我已看到。好吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：正确。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 13 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n1 法庭：\n而且我认为根据规则41，这一事项自动生效，因此我认为法院无需就此采取任何行动。\n4 DESPINS先生：\n正确。\n5 法庭：\n好的。那么，关于——\n6 DESPINS先生：\n法官阁下，我们延长期限的动议应为案卷编号28。\n8 法庭：\n28。然后是延期举行审前会议的动议。\n10 DESPINS先生：\n应为——嗯——债务人的异议是31。然后延期举行审前会议的动议是32。\n13 法庭：\n对。对。\n14 （暂停）\n15 法庭：\n好的。我尚未——我还没有看到该异议，但我可以——我今天在本案各项事项结束后一定会看。\n18 话虽如此，让我回到您所谈及的这一对抗程序中的另一件事。我只是想确保我正在审查正确的——\n22 DESPINS先生：\n顺便说一下，我说错了。审前会议安排在September 13th，不是今天。是我的错误。但概念相同。\n25 法庭：\n是的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 14 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 14 ROMNEY先生：我可以说几句吗？关于日期的混淆，可能是源于该诉讼中的审前命令。除非法院准许受托人延长该截止期限，否则各方的联合审前命令应于今日到期。鉴于存在一项尚待裁决的延长期限动议，HK无论如何不会反对推迟审前会议日期，如果这对您有帮助的话，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。谢谢。好的。那么，我将要做的是，在我们处理完我认为今天下午将要处理的更具实质性的事项后，我将回过头审查这一对抗程序，并就尚待处理的事项——即尚待处理的动议——以及你们两位，Despins受托人和Romney律师，刚刚向我指出的异议，作出适当命令。我会看一下。我尚未——\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：我尚未有机会审查该事项，但在我们今天结束后，这不会花我很长时间。好吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢，法官阁下。转到第5页，月度经营报告，债务人仍然——仍未提交其May、June和July前几日的报告。因此，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 15 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 15 这需要完成。然后第6页，持续未能提供文件。债务人及HK律师在July 21st听证会上陈述，他们将提供账簿和记录，例如HK International的账簿和记录。报告中此处有一段引文，系庭审记录的引文。迄今仍未提供任何有关HK International的材料，且仍未提供——您知道——几乎任何有关债务人账簿和记录的材料。下一项是受托人聘任BVI律师的申请。我已经谈过这一事项。该事项安排在September 27th。但我们希望在接下来的48小时内就此提交补充材料。第7页，仅提及我们在Genever USA（杰内弗美国）案件中、由Garrity法官主持的一次状态会议，目前安排在September 27th，但由于部分律师无法出席，我们正试图提前举行。接下来，第6项，请记得专家Paul Derecktor（保罗·德雷克特）吗。我曾提出该问题，而您正确地问我，您是否就此与任何人谈过，我说没有。所以现在我们谈过了。美国受托人已同意，我们感谢其在此事上的灵活处理，我们可以将该笔$2,500列为费用，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 16 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n1 而无需就聘任Derekctor先生担任专家另行提交申请。这是一次性事项。他只是与PAX的专家一同前来进行检查，因此今后不会担任专家。若他将担任专家，我们就必须提交聘任申请。因此，这仅为$2,500。\n7 最终，这由法官阁下决定。但我想让您知道，美国受托人并不反对这种处理方式，因为——当然，从成本角度而言，我们提交和准备一份申请所花的费用将远高于2,500，因此我们确实希望能够免除该项要求。\n13 当然，目前破产财团中没有资金。嗯，有——我不该这么说——破产财团中有$14,000。因此，我们——Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）正在垫付该笔费用，且在提出费用和支出报销申请之前，不会从破产财团获得偿还；在破产财团中有大量资金之前，该申请暂时不会提出。\n20 法庭：\n好的。我明白。\n21 DESPINS先生：\n最后一点是安排下一次状态会议。我们曾提到——我们曾提议September 21st和October 3rd，所以我不记得——我们从未——\n25 法庭：\nSeptember 21st绝对可以。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 17 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 17 DESPINS先生：好的。\n\n法庭：我们可以在各方希望的任何时间开始。我的意思是，如果你们想在上午开始，想在午餐时间开始，想在下午开始，无论任何人——\n\nDESPINS先生：我认为在下午开始总是好的，以便如果我们——如果其他事项被一并安排，人们可以——来自华盛顿的人，或者例如Friedman先生。\n\n法庭：21日举行状态会议，下午1:00对所有人来说是合适的时间吗？现在，October 3rd是可能的，但也有一件已安排的事项可能需要变更。我还不知道，但是——\n\nDESPINS先生：那么，我们届时再看情况。我们可以——\n\n法庭：或者如果是在October——是的，我们可能——坦率地说，在那一周举行可能更有帮助。我正在看，如果各位不介意稍等我片刻，October 4th下午。如果我们于October 4（星期二，不是星期一）下午1:00开始，是否会给任何人带来问题？\n\nDESPINS先生：对我没有问题。但电话里还有其他人。我不知道。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：法官阁下，如果允许我远程出席，那将可以。那天是赎罪日。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 18 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n1 法庭：\n哦。\n3 FRIEDMAN先生：\n4日是赎罪日。\n5 法庭：\n抱歉。好的。\n6 FRIEDMAN先生：\n所以，只要我可以远程出席，那就可以。\n8 DESPINS先生：\n而且，法官阁下，请记得我们的目标是，如果可以免除这些会议，就不举行这些会议。\n10 法庭：\n对。\n11 DESPINS先生：\n所以我们将尽力不举行这些会议。然后，如果我们要这样做，我们需要取消会议，或者至少在24小时之前告知法院我们不需要这些会议，以便法官阁下在您认为适当的情况下取消它们。\n16 法庭：\nFriedman律师，October 4th您最晚可出席至什么时间？\n18 FRIEDMAN先生：\n5:00。\n19 法庭：\n我会允许您远程出席，我只是问时间。\n21 FRIEDMAN先生：\n下午5:00，法官阁下。\n22 法庭：\n好的。那么我们何不将其定在October 4th中午。这样，如果有某种原因我们必须花时间，就不会——不会占用——我的意思是，我们不会撞上您的节日，而我显然\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 19 没有意识到是那一天——我以为是在第二天，即5th，所以是我的错误。但我们4日确实有法庭听证会，不过是在上午。因此，如果我们安排——\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：——在October 4th中午举行——并且您无需提交远程出席的请求。我现在当庭准许该请求。好吗？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。不客气。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：不客气。然后我们看看情况。您知道，如果因某种原因所有人都同意4日不需要举行会议，那也可以，但我们还是安排上，以便有一个预留日期。在我们进入实质性问题之前，我可以问一个问题吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：当然。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，我想我要问Henzy律师、Romney律师和Claiborn律师，由于有几个月没有月度经营报告。是这样吗？你们说的是缺少月度经营报告吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 19 of 110\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 20 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 20 德斯潘先生：适用于5月、6月以及7月的前一部分，直至受托人被任命为止。法院：好的。那么，亨齐律师或罗姆尼律师，你们对于这些月度经营报告有什么立场，因为它们需要提交？亨齐先生：我的立场是，它们将被提交。它们尚未提交。法院：好的。嗯，我将给你们一个必须提交它们的日期。你们有建议的日期吗？亨齐先生：法官阁下，我希望有三周时间。法院：嗯，我不知道我能否给你三周，因为它们已经逾期，至少5月和6月的报告已严重逾期。让我看看——让我看看日历。这样如何，嗯，我将命令债务人于September 23rd之前提交5月和6月的报告。然后7月——8月的报告何时——是在September 20到期，对吗？亨齐先生：提交该报告的并非债务人。法院：哦，你说得对。仅截至该日期为止。抱歉。我想到的是美国受托人所采用的时间范围。不过，你说得对。因此，5月和6月的报告于September 23rd之前提交。然后还需要什么\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 21 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n1 别的？\n我们是否需要截至July 8th的7月部分报告，\n2 对吗？\n3 德斯潘先生：\n对。\n9th。\n4 法院：\n9th？\n5 德斯潘先生：\n对。\n6 法院：\n我给你们延至下一\n7 周，即September 30。\n8 亨齐先生：\n法官阁下，我请求三份报告\n9 均延至September 30。\n坦率地说，我们面临的问题是，\n10 Verdolino and Lowey firm（韦尔多利诺和洛伊律师事务所）一直在编制这些经营报告。\n11 法院：\n不过，他们从未被正式聘任。\n12 只是让你知道。\n13 亨齐先生：\n我明白。\n14 法院：\n你没有参与那件事——那\n15 件事。\n16 亨齐先生：\n法官阁下，我明白。\n17 法院：\n对。\n18 亨齐先生：\n但他们一直在编制经营\n19 报告。\n20 法院：\n好的。\n我只是——我只是——\n21 亨齐先生：\n对。\n22 法院：\n我只是告诉你这一点，因为\n23 你没有参与本案，所以我不知道你是否\n24 知晓此事。\n25 亨齐先生：\n法官阁下，我知晓此事。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 22 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 22 法院：好的。亨齐先生：而且，如同有时的情况，我或我的办公室将不得不在完成这些经营报告方面发挥非常积极的作用。而且，坦率地说，接下来的几周我因其他事项会极其繁忙。我还有其他客户。而且——我担心的是，我是否有时间在接下来的两周内处理这些报告。所以我不知道，从整体情况来看，多一周是否会有什么区别。对我以及我本月的工作量而言，这将产生重大区别。法院：德斯潘受托人，你是否反对延期至September 30？德斯潘先生：可以，法官阁下。法院：好的。亨齐律师，给你延期至September 30。亨齐先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法院：好的。但如果他未遵守，我们就必须处理该问题。亨齐先生：明白，法官阁下。法院：好的。德斯潘先生：法官阁下，那么最后一点，就是我之前提出的一点，您已经作出了公司治理命令。该命令正在上诉中，但该命令项下不存在上诉待决期间中止。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 23 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 23 他们应当向我们交付他们所控制实体的全部股份及相关文件。而这两个实体，Ace Decade（艾斯十年）和Dawn State（道恩州），已在宣誓后明确表示，Kwok先生拥有第一个实体，继而控制第二个实体。我们希望确定一个他们必须遵守的日期。现已有一项命令。问题仅在于明确——该命令显然适用于所有此类受控制实体，而这两个就是。因此，我们希望法院设定一个他们必须完成此事的期限。谢谢。法院：亨齐律师？亨齐先生：谢谢，法官阁下。为向您说明时间线，受托人在上周三当日结束时通过电子邮件向我发送了一封信。周四一整天我都在忙于其他客户——所谓其他客户，我不是指其他客户事项，不是指Kwok先生的其他事项，而是指我所代理的其他客户。我早已计划休一个长周末，包括周五，而我确实这样做了，所以我没有改变我的家庭计划，以遵守受托人的要求，即在今天上午10:00之前完成他们所要求的事项。我没有这样做。我现在不知道这一问题是否如受托人向您所说的那样明确。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 24 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 24 我可以查看UBS起诉状中的内容并理解起诉状中的内容，但我不知道这一问题是否像受托人向您所说的那样简单。我认为我将不得不与英国律师沟通，以了解起诉状中的内容为何会被写入起诉状，以及——这是如何形成的。我不知道这将花多长时间。当然——法官阁下，您当然可以设定期限，但我不会同意某个期限，因为我只是——我不了解这里的事实，也不知道我需要多长时间来深入查明这些事实。您知道，我会尽一切应有的速度推进，但我只是——我不知道需要多长时间才能了解全部事实。当我不知道拟议文件是否适当、是否为正确文件，以及它们可能如何影响英国诉讼时，我不会建议Kwok先生签署文件。我目前不知道其中任何一项。因此，我——再次说明，我会调查此事。我会处理此事。我会尽一切应有的速度推进，但我不知道需要多长时间。德斯潘先生：法官阁下，Kwok先生知道他是否拥有这家公司。事实上，他已就此宣誓，这两个实体的代表也已如此。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 25 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 25 英国律师并未参与此事。对UBS诉讼的影响无关紧要。问题是，该实体目前的所有人是谁？我们有一份2020年的宣誓陈述。除非他将出庭并称我已转让它，而届时我们显然会想知道他把它转让给了谁，否则这是一份由所有这些实体作出的宣誓陈述。查明此事不需要超过四五天。谢谢。法院：我能否问一下——我不——我不确定UBS起诉状是否已列入本案记录。它是否已在本案记录中的某处？亨齐先生：我认为要么是我，要么是受托人，将其附在了——法院：附在公司治理动议问题中，还是附在特权动议中？亨齐先生：我认为不会是特权动议，法官阁下。我认为可能是公司治理动议。我非常确信我们其中一方——法院：好的。亨齐先生：而且我认为我们其中任何一方都没有——身份不明者：它可能在某处附于中止动议——德斯潘先生：不，在那之前。亨齐先生：对。我知道我们——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 26 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 26 法院：好的。好吧。那就是——亨齐先生：我相信我们绝对已经，是的，提交了它——法院：我只是想——显然我需要查看它。亨齐先生：对。对。对。法院：今天我不会就Ace Decade和Dawn State采取任何行动，德斯潘先生，但在我们今天的听证结束后，我将查看本案记录中有哪些内容，然后确定将采取哪些步骤，以及是否会设定一个期限——很可能会设定，但在我审查完全部内容、审查本案记录中的内容之前，我不能确定。好吗？德斯潘先生：是的。为节省法官阁下的时间，在——有一份称为Particulars of Claims的文件，嗯，按照英国标准，那是一份起诉状。第1页第2段写道，Ace Decade于June 2014成立，并于November 10, 2014前后由Kwok先生收购。接着第3段——以及第4段——提到Dawn State于September of 2015由Ace Decade收购这一事实。如果您看最后一页，即第38页，这里第二申请人和第三申请人，也就是Ace Decade和Dawn State，宣誓称该Particulars of Claims中的全部事实均为真实，并且可对任何在经真实陈述核实的文件中作出或促使作出虚假陈述的人提起藐视法庭程序。而在第37页，有Kwok先生的签名，第38页，另外两个实体已经签署。因此，只是为了节省法官阁下的一些时间。亨齐先生：只是为了节省——通过——这是又一次我们向记录中提交证据的状态会议。但是，法官阁下——法院：不过，我不同意这一点。我唯一要说的是，亨齐律师，我不同意这是向记录中提交证据。如果起诉状已在记录中，那么德斯潘先生所做的只是向我指出它在哪里。亨齐先生：明白。法院：所以我会看到它。我们会处理到那里。亨齐先生：而且，法官阁下，所以我们谈的是——起诉状提到的是七年前发生的事情。有人告诉我——我没有——法官阁下，我尚未就此作任何尽职调查，所以我想非常谨慎，好吗，据说某个时候，应UBS的坚持，这一情况因该交易而发生了变更。我不——我不知道这是否属实。我什么都不知道。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 28 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n1 法院：\n我明白。\n2 亨齐先生：\n但我需要进行一些尽职调查。\n3 好吗？再次说明，我知道起诉状中写了什么。我亲眼看过\n4 它，而且我能阅读，所以我知道其中有什么，但我今天并不知道\n5 Kwok先生是否是——是否是该实体的所有人。\n6 而且我不会让他，您知道，签署一份并非——并非适当文件的\n7 文件。\n仅此而已。\n8 法院：\n而且我没有作出任何裁定，要求你今天\n9 必须做任何事情。\n10 亨齐先生：\n明白。\n11 法院：\n我必须查看本案记录中\n12 有哪些内容。\n我会这样做。\n然后我将\n13 确定下一步需要采取什么措施——\n14 亨齐先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n15 法院：\n——关于该问题。\n好吗？\n16 亨齐先生：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n17 法院：\n好的。\n现在，让我确认一下\n18 我认为还需要处理的事项中，是否没有别的\n19 关于程序性方面的问题。\n20 但我认为，除我们今天在此所处理的动议外——\n21 该动议是另一问题——尚未处理的唯一事项，\n22 是延期动议的状态，以及HK对抗程序中的\n23 异议。\n所以——是否还有其他事项\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 29 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 29 关于该房屋——亨齐先生（MR. HENZY）：法官大人，我想就状态报告中的几个问题发言。法庭：当然。请讲。亨齐先生：谢谢。法官大人，在第2页关于 Genever BVI（英属维尔京群岛 Genever）的更新部分，债务人已完成其被要求或被规定完成的一切事项。此后会如何处理，并非债务人或我的问题。我想指出——Bravo Luck（好运公司）有很好的代理律师，他们将在受托人决定就所称自动中止违反行为采取行动时，视情况采取其认为适当的立场。我想指出，就公司治理动议而言，我认为无论是在书面陈述中还是在公开法庭上的陈述中，受托人均表示，他无意且不会干涉或寻求变更 Garrity 法官（加里蒂法官）在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）的 Genever BVI Chapter 11 case（Genever BVI 第11章案件）中作出的和解命令。该命令明确预期，这一衡平所有权问题将通过正在进行的 New York State Court（纽约州法院）诉讼或在 BVI（英属维尔京群岛）的诉讼予以解决。现在，我想这两种说法可能都成立，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 864 于 09/17/22 提交 于 09/17/22 10:41:02 登记 第 30 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日\n1 即，有 Garrity 法官的一项命令预期\n2 此事将在 BVI 的诉讼中\n3 或在纽约州法院得到解决，而受托人可以主张\n4 为实现该目的，即为实施 Garrity 法官命令所预期的事项，\n5 构成对自动中止的\n6 违反。\n7 但我确实认为，重要的是指出，\n8 Garrity 法官确实作出了该命令，而此处的受托人\n9 明确表示，他并不计划或意图\n10 干涉该命令的执行，或者至少\n11 这是我所理解的其陈述。\n12 法官大人，关于债务人的行踪，\n13 当受托人对您说他获悉了某些情况时，很难作出回应。\n14 我不知道其信息来源是什么。\n15 我不知道他是否派人监视债务人，\n16 还是只是四处打听。我不知道\n17 该信息来自何处。\n18 为明确起见，您知道，我没有——我不会\n19 也无法就债务人居住在何处作出陈述或保证。\n20 我没有——我没有跟踪债务人。\n21 我告诉受托人的，并且我将在法庭上说明的是，\n22 Kwok 先生目前的住所，即其法定\n23 住所，是其妻子位于 Greenwich（格林尼治）的住宅。这是\n24 本案在此审理的依据。这也是他在\n25 宣誓陈述中所说的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 864 于 09/17/22 提交 于 09/17/22 10:41:02 登记 第 31 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 31 据告知，他会在 New York（纽约）的 Sherry-Netherland（莎莉-荷兰酒店）住若干天或若干夜，据说是四五天。我没有任何信息，好吗，我也曾询问过，并被告知，他没有——他可能已将一些个人物品从 Sherry-Netherland 搬到了 Greenwich 的房子里。我不知道。但我想，我对此的反应是：那又怎样？我认为，在《破产法》或《破产规则》中，或在我所知的任何其他规定中，没有任何规定说，因为你是破产案件中的债务人，你就不能搬动个人物品，或者不能在一个月中的若干夜晚睡在另一张床上。我没有任何信息。我没有理由相信 Kwok 先生正在以某种方式逃离本辖区或逃离本国。我认为，如果 Despins 先生（德斯平斯先生）要继续试图诋毁 Kwok 先生，或使其看起来像是坏人，或者在做某些险恶或错误的事情，那么，对于这类事项——当他来到法庭并对您说，他担心 Kwok 先生正在逃离本辖区，或正在离开本辖区并将处于本法庭辖区之外时——他确实需要拿出比这更充分的依据。他只是获悉了某些情况。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 864 于 09/17/22 提交 于 09/17/22 10:41:02 登记 第 32 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 32 我认为他应当来到法庭并告诉法庭：这是我的信息来源。应当有某些具体、确凿的信息，这样我或许——才能实际回去与我的当事人交谈，或者我才能实际有内容作出回应。但目前，他的正式住所、法定住所，是其妻子位于 Greenwich 的住宅。他每月也会在 Sherry-Netherland 的公寓住若干夜。法官大人，关于文件提交，这——这——被引用的那项陈述是 Kindseth 先生（金塞斯先生）所作，不是我所作，所以我，您知道，我不记得这件事。Kindseth 先生——法庭：你看的是哪一页？亨齐先生：我看的是第6页，其中有一段两段式引文，内容是关于——我相信——我希望这不是我说的，法官大人，因为我不记得说过这话。我确实年纪大了，但我想我会记得此事，希望如此。不过，Despins 先生刚刚对我说，那是 Kindseth 先生说的。但我预计，他就 HK International（香港国际）部分所指的应当是——假定 HK International 将收到传票。事实上，我认为它已经收到传票了，对吗？是的。我的意思是，传票已经向其送达。它将根据传票提交文件。我不知道\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 864 于 09/17/22 提交 于 09/17/22 10:41:02 登记 第 33 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 33 是否曾经有意图在程序之外直接提交文件。关于 Kwok 先生，我再次说明，我没有参与其中，但我知道我们已经收到文件，并已转交该等文件。争议之处可能不是文件被扣留，我认为问题在于，那些是 Kwok 先生持有的文件。其是否应当持有更多文件，或许是一个问题。但我认为——我会回去核查，并确保其持有或控制的文件均已提交，但我认为，无论如何，这正在发生。不存在有意扣留其可获取、持有或控制的文件的情况。因此，谢谢，法官大人。法庭：谢谢。Despins 先生：法官大人，非常简短地说。首先，关于 Sherry-Netherland，我从未说过——我唯一说过的是，我不会阻止出售该公寓。该出售是依照该项协议进行的。这完全没有问题。该协议并不包含该协议的任何一方同意在 BVI 审理这些事项。该协议第7(b)段保留了权利，其中规定，本协议中的任何内容均不应\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 864 于 09/17/22 提交 于 09/17/22 10:41:02 登记 第 34 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 34 排除任何人这样做的权利。顺便说一句，这是在本破产案之前作出的命令，因此对本法庭没有约束效力。但我想非常明确地说明，该命令中没有任何协议规定这些事项将在 BVI 诉讼。存在权利保留。Friedman 先生（弗里德曼先生）是该协议和命令的一方，嗯，不是他本人，而是 PAX（PAX 公司）是该协议的一方，因此他可以对此发言，但其中确实——没有在 BVI 诉讼的协议。事实上，其中说可以在破产法院诉讼。当时的破产法院，只有一个，即纽约的那一个。但再次说明，那是一项申请破产前命令。而我唯一说过的是，我不会试图阻止出售 Sherry-Netherland。因此，这一点——我想对此作出明确说明。谢谢，法官大人。法庭：谢谢。Friedman 先生：法官大人，我可以发言片刻吗？法庭：可以。请讲。Friedman 先生：我是代表 PAX 的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。我认为，这突出表明需要\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 864 于 09/17/22 提交 于 09/17/22 10:41:02 登记 第 35 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 35 解决这一关于 BVI 的问题。显然，受托人的立场是 Bravo Luck 违反了自动中止，这使 PAX 处于极其困难的境地。它不希望违反自动中止，但如果有人在 BVI 对其主张权利，它可能会受到不利影响。我指出，显然我们现在处于非常不同的情况。PAX 所主张的权利，您知道，是 Kwok 先生拥有一项资产的权利主张，这也使 BVI 成为审理该项权利主张的困难地点，因为这些实际上是应由整个破产财团，而不是 PAX，承担成本的权利主张。而 PAX 确实，您知道，不希望处于有人指控其主张实际上属于破产财团的权利的境地。因此，基于这两个理由，我们仅敦促受托人尽快就其将如何把这些权利主张提交至适当审理地作出解决，以便再次避免 PAX 被要求承担费用。PAX 不会处于有人将主张其（听不清）违反自动中止的境地，无论是因为，您知道，试图主张属于破产财团的权利，还是干涉破产财团资产。因此，我们确实认为，必须迅速处理此事。我们在这两点上都同意 Despins 先生的意见，即我们\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 36 不认为对于解决 Sherry-Netherland 所有权的权利主张，已经就管辖权约定了具体地点。再次说明，我们也同意，这是一项达成的协议，至少在我们看来，在 Genever New York case（Genever 纽约案件）中，你实际上面对的是一个没有面目的债务人，其无意担任中立的受托义务人，这迫使 PAX 提出我们现在认为——并且希望且相信——由负责 Genever 破产财团的受托义务受托人能够以真正债务人的身份主张权利或对权利主张进行抗辩的权利主张。因此，我们不应当被卷入其中。法庭：明白。谢谢。Friedman 先生：谢谢，法官大人。法庭：还有其他人希望就我们刚刚讨论的诉因问题发言吗？（无人回应）法庭：好的。我注意到 Friedman 律师的关切，我知道各方将采取其认为必要的一切适当行动，而我们——法庭将适时处理这些事项。目前，我面前没有任何需要我采取行动的事项。但我理解，我们举行这些状态会议的原因之一是为了不\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 864 于 09/17/22 提交 于 09/17/22 10:41:02 登记 第 36 页，共 110 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 864 于 09/17/22 提交 于 09/17/22 10:41:02 登记 第 37 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 37 不仅更新整个案件目前的进展情况，而且突出可能提交给法院的问题。因此，我认为这是适当的。各方将提交其认为适当的任何材料，并且将有机会就所有这些问题提出异议和陈述意见。因此，我们将继续以该方式进行。关于现有命令，再次说明，我们将视情况而定。但我确实说过，而且我会——我确实说过我将回去查看——我认为记录中有，而且债务人律师和受托人均认为有——UBS（瑞银）诉讼的起诉状或详述书。我忘了您称其为何物，Despins受托人。显然，我尚未看过它，但我会查看它，然后我们将视情况而定。我们将于9月21日再次举行状态会议，时间并不远。在该会议之前，当事人可以提交材料，也可能有一些事项被加入该会议，实际得到审理，也可能不会。我们将——我们将拭目以待。但我理解各方的立场。在转向我们继续审理至今日、你们双方均就其提交了命令的实体动议之前，有一件事项，我——它是\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 864 提交日期 09/17/22 录入日期 09/17/22 10:41:02 第38页，共110页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 38 从法院的角度而言属于事务性事项，但这是重要的事务性事项。再次说明，我知道我从案件开始起就已对所有参与本案的当事人说过这一点，你们可能已厌倦听到它，但由于法院记录，即正式记录，是音频，而且上诉正在进行，我认为确保庭审记录准确十分重要。在关于治理动议听证会的8月4日庭审记录中，Henzy律师已就该听证会提交上诉通知；我在该庭审记录中发现了一些事项，我——你们知道，对我们所有人而言可能看似无关紧要，但当地区法院审查本案且对其一无所知时，我认为庭审记录必须准确。因此，长话短说，在未来一两天内，我将在记录中提交我们认为存在问题的勘误表。你们所有人都有时间作出回应。然后我们会解决该问题。因为，如你们所知，在本案中已经出现过庭审记录不准确的情形，而该不准确具有实质性影响。我只是——我不——我不会允许一份庭审记录以这种方式继续有效。顺便说，这不是任何人的过错。法院\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 864 提交日期 09/17/22 录入日期 09/17/22 10:41:02 第39页，共110页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 39 书记员在进行誊录时只能在她听到其所听到的内容的基础上尽力而为——本案中恰好是一位女性——这是音频记录，所以她尽其所能。但我希望庭审记录准确。因此，无论如何，相关材料将提交给你们所有人查阅。明白吗？例如，某些地方有人引用第353条。不存在第353条。我的意思是，那显然是对第363条的引用。我们当中没有人可能认为这有相关性，但对地区法院法官而言可能具有相关性。因此，我希望予以更正。因此，我不知道是否有人对此有任何问题，但这就是我将要做的。DESPINS先生：是，法官阁下。我坦率说明，我是第一个违反该规则的人。因此，为记录在案，Luc Despins（卢克·德斯平斯），受托人。庭审记录经常错误记载发言人。例如，记录会说是Skalka先生在发言，但其实是Kindseth先生，或者反过来——嗯，不是——法院：那么，你们可以作出所有这些更正。您看，我并不总能注意到这个问题，但我感谢您提出这一点。我认为这应当明确。DESPINS先生：但我的观点是，我认为今后我们需要始终要么——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 864 提交日期 09/17/22 录入日期 09/17/22 10:41:02 第40页，共110页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 40 法院：发言时说出您的姓名。是。DESPINS先生：每次都这样，因为否则我们会造成这种——法院：我的意思是，这就是问题所在。从破产法院的角度来看，这确实是问题。国会预算不允许我们在法庭内配备一名誊录员，因此采用音频记录。所以我理解您的意思。而且我确实认为，在本案中，从案件开始起，我们就要求债务人的前任律师提交一份姓名清单，以便仅仅确保庭审记录中的姓名正确。这一点已经做到了。有人可能认为这是矫枉过正。如果你们这样认为，我很抱歉，但我谨表示不同意，因为地区法院在收到本案时对此一无所知。他们将按照文字被誊录的方式阅读这些文字，即使誊录并不准确。这并非故意不准确。至少我并未发现是如此。我只是认为我们需要明确。因此，无论如何，在未来一两天内，你们将看到某些材料，这将给予你们所有人时间审查，并就你们认为也应当对庭审记录作出的任何修改提出意见。明白吗？有人对此有任何问题吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 864 提交日期 09/17/22 录入日期 09/17/22 10:41:02 第41页，共110页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 41 （无人回应）法院：好的。好。那么，在此之前——我中午参加了一场听证会。我知道各方已提交——当我说各方时，是指第11章受托人和债务人律师——按照我要求你们做的那样，提交了关于我会称之为——你们知道，为方便起见称为特权控制动议——的命令。我们就称其为该动议。我们上周就此进行了辩论。各方均提出了论点。Romney律师代表债务人提出论点，Despins先生和Bassett先生代表第11章受托人提出论点。我还没有真正的机会研究所有这些内容。明白吗？我确实——我手上已有这些材料。我有第11章受托人于11:41提交的材料，也有债务人于11:51提交的材料。我尚未查看它们如何重叠或其他任何情况，尽管我认为第11章受托人曾试图向我说明这一点。但是我不知道，Romney先生，您是否恰好查看了第11章受托人提交的材料？那准确吗？我想这应当是第11章受托人命令的附件C。这是您提交的命令吗？ROMNEY先生：是。为记录在案，Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼），Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒律师事务所），代表债务人。我非常快速地看了一下，我相信受托人律师提交的红线稿与我们最终提交的版本之间只有一处差异。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 864 提交日期 09/17/22 录入日期 09/17/22 10:41:02 第42页，共110页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 42 为明确起见，绝非因受托人律师的任何过错，只是由于时间限制作出了一项补充。该补充在其文件提交前不久，或者可能在其文件提交后的片刻、而在我方文件提交前不久，已发送给受托人律师。但是，受托人提交的红线稿与债务人实际在案卷编号824提交的文件之间的唯一差异在于，案卷编号24 [原文如此]新增了一段，即现为第11段，亦即保留管辖权条款之前的最后一段。法院：好的。ROMNEY先生：为记录在案，该段表述如下，并且再次说明，这是债务人建议的措辞：本文件中的任何内容均不得意图影响债务人或任何该等权利持有人之律师，就任何共同或普通利益特权主张其与债务人共同享有的该等共同或普通利益特权权利。法院：好的。现在，关于该措辞，我尚不知道受托人的立场，但我稍后会询问他们，Romney先生，您是在向法院表示——我只是想确认，因为我们今天还没有讨论这一点——债务人准备同意，就特权动议而言，所提交的824号命令，即ECF 824，可以录入吗？ROMNEY先生：是的，法官阁下。法院：好的。好。我只是想——我只是想确认。好的。那么，Despins受托人，或者Bassett先生，您是否恰好看到了Romney先生刚才在记录中谈到、其所提交命令中新增的第11段，或者我不知道是否由他提交，但该段是代表债务人在ECF 824提交的？BASSETT先生：法官阁下，为记录在案，我是Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特），Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所），代表受托人。我刚刚调出了该文件，因此我看到了。我现在看到了。法院：你们需要时间讨论吗？或者——您的意思是，您此前没有看到。我不认为你们有时间考虑它。不论这些情况如何，我还有另一个问题，但我确实感谢各方鉴于我们上周讨论的内容取得了一些进展。Romney律师，您认为该命令解决了您在上周听证会期间提出的一些关切，对吗？ROMNEY先生：是，法官阁下。Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼）。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 864 提交日期 09/17/22 录入日期 09/17/22 10:41:02 第44页，共110页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 44 我同意您所认为的，即双方都作出了真诚努力，法官阁下。我认为任何一方——任何一方提交的任何拟议命令，至少就我本人而言，都不是债务人的愿望清单。这并非我们就该问题所理想的命令，但我们确实作出了真诚努力，以缩小争议事项。仍然存在一些差异，可能是相对重大的差异，但各方——各方的立场更为接近。我认为他们已经——他们已经在妥协精神下尽其所愿意做到的程度。我向法院陈述，截至昨晚大约7:30，Bassett律师、Linsey律师和我本人仍在通电话，共同研究，我认为这是为进一步接近而作出的真诚努力。但正如法官阁下将从红线稿和命令文本中看到的，各方命令之间存在一些——一些实质性差异。法院：我提出这个问题的原因是，是否存在——而且——受托人可能不同意您的意见，Romney先生，但我想从债务人的角度了解，即使ECF 824获得录入，您是否认为动议中仍有尚未解决的实质性问题？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 864 提交日期 09/17/22 录入日期 09/17/22 10:41:02 第45页，共110页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日\n\n1 ROMNEY先生：我想确保自己发言和表述准确。\n\n2 法院：请讲。\n\n3 ROMNEY先生：如果这回答了您的问题，债务人同意录入824。\n\n4 法院：不，这没有回答。\n\n5 ROMNEY先生：那么我——\n\n6 法院：我的问题是，当您——再次说明，我并不是说这很容易，对吗——您上周曾就受托人请求录入一项命令、声明其拥有所有特权的动议提出很多反对问题，对吗，那就是——那就是该动议。您就此提出了很多问题。\n\n7 我要求各方，而且您显然已经这样做了，法院对此表示感谢，花时间审查这些问题，这是你们应尽的义务。\n\n8 因此，我需要了解的是，如果该命令，即824，获得录入，您是否仍将就特权进行争论？这是我需要了解的。以及——依据是什么？对吗？因为届时必须作出某种裁定。这是我正试图弄清楚的。\n\n9 ROMNEY先生：正确。\n\n10 因此，就——如果案卷编号824获得录入，唯一仍未解决的问题——而我——\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 864 提交日期 09/17/22 录入日期 09/17/22 10:41:02 第46页，共110页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n1 根据我本人的观察，我相信如果也录入案卷编号823，这将是\n2 真实的。\n3 对于某一特定文件是否属于——是否属于\n4 被命令由债务人保留而非移交给\n5 受托人的范围之内，仍可能存在争议。\n这并不会消除所有问题。\n7 鉴于适用的利益衡量标准，我认为本院不可能\n8 作出一项命令，以排除对于某项事物应归入\n9 哪个类别的分歧。\n我认为法院将\n11 需要在这些问题出现时予以解决。\n12 根据我的观察，并且假定所有收到\n13 传票的专业人士都将尽力履行其对\n14 客户的职责、遵守该命令，并本着善意\n15 尝试适用该命令，我认为这将大幅减少\n16 今后可能发生的证据开示争议，\n17 因为每个人都有一个可以适用的标准，\n18 而不是一套具有不同标准的法律体系。\n21 这样说有道理吗，法官阁下？\n22 法官：\n是的，在一定程度上有道理。\n在很大\n23 程度上是有道理的。\n24 但从债务人的角度来看，仍存在一个问题，即受托人提出的\n25 特权动议中是否存在本院目前必须作出裁决的问题？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 47 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n1 特权动议中是否存在您认为本院目前必须\n2 作出裁决的问题？假定上述命令之一获得作出。\n3 ROMNEY先生（罗姆尼先生）：\n我认为，如果录入案卷编号824，\n4 债务人提出的受托人命令——其将\n5 处理受托人动议以及\n6 债务人异议中提出的问题。\n7 再次说明，并非以任何一方希望的方式，\n8 当然也不是债务人理想的方式，但这是为了\n9 理解存在不同的权威意见。\n11 而且，是的，就我能够识别的范围而言，受托人动议和债务人\n12 异议所提出的问题将不再存在，因为债务人当然不会\n13 主张该命令不适用。\n我相信该命令涵盖了\n15 受托人动议和债务人异议中提出的问题。\n17 法官：\n好的。我明白您的\n18 意思。\n19 Despins先生（德斯平斯先生），对于Romney先生、我向\n20 Romney先生提出的问题，您有什么要说的吗？\n21 您是否持有不同意见？\n22 DESPINS先生：\nBassett先生将处理该问题。\n23 法官：\nBassett先生。抱歉。请继续。\n24 BASSETT先生：\n法官阁下，再次说明，我是Paul Hastings（保尔·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）代表\n25 第11章受托人的Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 48 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 48 我想，从债务人的角度看，我们认为法院应当作出的命令是我们提交的命令，即案卷编号823，附件A。我认为——我认为我同意Romney先生的意见，即如果该命令在一定程度上——如果该命令获得作出，那么它将给予受托人其在本动议中寻求的救济。但是，我也同意，今后仍可能出现需要法院考虑的特权问题。我认为这些问题可能属于两类之一。我们提交的本命令和动议的目的，是取得法院关于受托人现已控制、因此债务人在答复证据开示时无权主张的特权范围的裁决。这包括与遗产资产、债务人的财务状况以及破产申请后遗产管理事项有关的任何特权通信。因此，如果——如果债务人在答复我们的传票时，在特权清单上列出属于上述任一类别的文件，那么我们将不得不回到法院；我认为这将违反本命令，我们将不得不寻求执行\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 49 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 49 本命令，因为本命令旨在防止债务人这样做。\n\n我认为，另一类可能存在并可能就特权通信引发未来争议的情形是，正如我们在命令中已明确说明的，存在专门旨在处理债务人就与针对其提出的刑事指控有关或者与其庇护申请有关的特权通信所提出关切的例外规定。我很愿意并且已准备好更详细地说明我们的修改。\n\n但是，再次说明，如果债务人在特权清单上对这些文件主张特权，那么我们可能会再次到法院就这些特权发生争议，因为该命令的要点是保留与这些特权有关的所有权利。\n\n债务人可能会就刑事指控主张特权。届时，我们将主张存在犯罪—欺诈例外，并且还将主张该文件根本不享有特权。因此，该问题可能会再次提交法院。\n\n但是，为回答法院的问题，如果作出本命令，它确实解决了我们今日请求法院采取的行动。\n\n再次说明，法官阁下，我们提交的是一份副本\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 50 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 50，即我们修订后的拟议命令、一份相对于我们随动议提交的初始命令的红线版本、一份相对于Romney先生拟议版本的红线版本，但以其提到的新增第11段为准。最后，如在我们说明我们对债务人修改所持问题时有所帮助，我们还有一份附注的其拟议命令版本，可以加以说明。因此，我很愿意——我很愿意说明我们在相对于已提交命令的红线版本中所作的修改。我也很愿意仅说明我们的命令与债务人命令之间的差异。我也很愿意回答任何问题。我将依照法官阁下希望的方式继续。法官：嗯，正如我对您、Romney先生和其他所有人所说，我非常迅速地审阅了这些材料。好的？可以理解。我的意思是，我要求你们在中午前提交，而你们做到了。遗憾的是，中午的一场听证会一直持续到本次听证会前大约五分钟，因此我没有足够时间像通常那样彻底审阅。但是我有一个问题，我只是想确保自己理解无误。你们说——我认为上面写着，我说“上面”时，让我——让我准确说明我看到的位置，以便记录\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 51 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n1 清楚，即823号文件第24页中的第15页——让我说明我们所在的位置——\n2 第2段写道：“受托人对本可由债务人律师主张的任何律师—委托人特权\n3 及工作成果保护享有专属控制权。”\n4 该等特权被定义为受托人特权。好吗？\n6 而这也出现在Romney先生的版本中，\n7 即ECF 824第4页中的第2页第2段。好吗？\n8 ROMNEY先生：\n抱歉，法官阁下，是第几页？\n10 法官：\n您需要我向您说明哪一份，Romney先生？\n11 先说他们的？还是您的？\n12 ROMNEY先生：\n任何一份都可以。\n13 BASSETT先生：\n但是，法官阁下——法官阁下，\n14 我是Nick Bassett。\n15 为明确起见，我认为您所指的是ECF 823\n16 第24页中的第15页的文件——\n17 法官：\n是的。\n18 BASSETT先生：\n——那是将债务人的提议与受托人的提议进行比较的\n19 红线版本，显示债务人希望对我们提议作出的\n20 修改。\n21 法官：\n明白。\n22 BASSETT先生：\n好的。\n23 法官：\n这就是为什么我说你们的文件\n24 在第24页中的第15页写的是同样内容。这就是为什么我在比较它们，\n25 这是债务人希望的，但债务人同意\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 52 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 52 受托人对本可由债务人或其律师主张的任何律师—委托人特权或工作成果原则享有专属控制权，好的，就文件而言。现在，“文件”是一个首字母大写的术语，但没有对此作出定义。那么，与律师之间未被记录成文件的通信如何处理？ROMNEY先生：法官阁下，债务人就此的意图是将其限于文件，这在很大程度上是因为我们查看标题时，包括受托人提交的原始拟议命令在内，该命令的标题一贯表明其适用于文件，因此，我们拟议的修改——法官：Bassett先生，这是你们的立场吗，即该命令仅适用于与Rule 2004传票相关的文件？BASSETT先生：这不是我们的——法官阁下，再次说明，我是Nick Bassett。这不是我们的立场。我认为，如果您查看我们在动议中寻求的救济，并查看附于Rule 2004动议和命令的传票，我们当然是在寻求向受2004命令约束的当事人取得文件证据开示和证言。我们认为，本命令解决同时适用于应提交文件以及可通过证言取得的信息的特权问题，至关重要。我认为否则我们就只是，没有取得我们能够取得的足够进展。我们最终只会就原本可由本命令解决的、与证言有关的问题再次来到法院。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 53 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 53 法官：Romney先生？BASSETT先生：并且——法官：哦，抱歉，请继续。BASSETT先生：并且为明确起见，法官阁下，特权的范围——特权的范围是相同的，对吗？我的意思是，没有——没有理由使其不同，我们也没有要求使其不同。转移给受托人的特权范围，如我们的拟议命令所载。只是同等适用于证言和文件。法官：嗯，我提出这个问题的原因是，我只看到“文件”一词。而且它不是——它是首字母大写的，而且不是一个定义术语。我原以为——BASSETT先生：所以我——法官：——或者我应当这样说，我原以为受托人是在请求一项命令，由法院裁定特权，无论债务人的\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 54 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 54 特权为何，现归受托人所有，而并非限于依照传票提交的文件。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，如果可以？我认为这里存在混淆。您正在看的那份文件是我们的命令加上他们的修改——法官：我明白。DESPINS先生：——因此，文件这一事项并非我们所希望的。法官：对。DESPINS先生：我们希望——我们不希望限于文件。那是他们的修改。法官：对。不，我明白。DESPINS先生：好的。法官：我明白。这就是为什么我提出这个问题。这就是为什么我向Romney先生提出我所提出的问题，即您是否认为，如果我作出他所提交的命令，该命令解决了所有问题？我明白，Despins先生。这就是我所说的。因此，我们对于债务人的特权是否转移给受托人仍有分歧，还是说对于债务人在这些文件和Rule 2004传票之外可能拥有的任何特权是否转移给受托人，我们并无分歧。ROMNEY先生：我想确保我——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 55 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 55 法院：事情是这样的——也许我应该问一个更好的问题。也许问题在于我，我没有恰当地表述。我想知道的是，也是我问你认为哪些问题已经解决、哪些尚未解决的原因，是不是我将要一次又一次地举行听证，以确定特权是否适用、受托人是否可以行使债务人的特权？我想你所说的是“是”。如果你说的是这个，也没有问题。我想弄明白。我未必同意你的观点，但这正是我——我试图弄明白的事情。目前看来，我们正将这一特权问题限于与 Rule 2004 审查有关而发出的这些传票。我不认为受托人是这么想的，但我认为你是这么想的。我只是想确保我理解你们的立场。因为否则，在我看来——如果你是在说你们将会——我不是指你，Romney先生（罗姆尼先生）——\n\nRomney先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法院：——我是说代表债务人，如果你们同意录入这项命令，但它只涉及仅与这些 Rule 2004 传票有关的文件，那么我认为你所说的正是我所说的，即你们仅同意在该有限范围内作出该命令。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 864 于 09/17/22 提交 于 09/17/22 10:41:02 录入 第 56 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 56 而且我不确定——我不确定以零散方式处理此事是否最为合理。我并不是说你同意我，也不是说你必须同意我。你不必同意我。鉴于我在本次听证前仅用五分钟审阅的内容，对吧，以及我对你们命令、即代表债务人提交且债务人同意至少初步录入的命令的审阅，在我看来，它似乎限于这些传票以及——以及文件的提交。如果是这样，我只是想弄明白。我想确保我理解你当事人的观点。\n\nRomney先生：法官阁下，我认为这准确地理解了债务人提交的拟议命令。我相信，该修改是针对我们对该文件标题的理解作出的；我们理解该标题称，其涉及依据 Rule 2004 被传唤的文件，并指示债务人及其他受审查人不得因该等特权而扣留文件。我们使该命令与拟议命令的该标题相对应。现在，其中还有一项——授予相关救济的条款，就其表面而言，我不知道那是什么意思。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 864 于 09/17/22 提交 于 09/17/22 10:41:02 录入 第 57 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 57 我将坦诚地说，这一具体问题，即——我们现在正在讨论的问题，一方面是文件，另一方面是如受托人拟议命令中所表述的文件信息，并不是我们昨晚电话会商期间讨论的问题之一。我希望当时讨论过，因为我现在要说的是——而且我不想在未与我方其他任何人沟通的情况下在此发表不当言论——就我现在站在这里而言，我设想各方能够解决该问题，因为我确实同意，就某一具体问题上的特权而言，如果是同一主题，我现在无法说明为何该特权会就文件发生转移、却不就通信发生转移，如果这说得通的话。\n\n法院：好的。是的，说得通。因为这正是我的问题的一部分，对吧？特权一旦转移，不论它是什么，它就转移。无论你说的是通信还是文件，都无关紧要；或者至少从法院目前的角度来看，这是法院的观点。这就是我提出这个问题的原因。因为在我看来，当我审阅你们的命令、你们的拟议命令时，Romney律师，它似乎比我刚才所说的更为明确。它似乎仅适用于\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 864 于 09/17/22 提交 于 09/17/22 10:41:02 录入 第 58 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 仅适用于传票标的文件，这就是我提出关切的原因，因为我不希望我们——我不认为让我们任何人花时间一次又一次地举行听证，以确定特权是否适用于某一文件或某一通信，是合理的。\n\n现在，就传票而言，你们仍有权提出你们将要提出的任何主张，对吧？据我所知，尚无人提出撤销传票的动议。也许这会发生。你知道，我不知道。我们拭目以待。\n\n但这也是我前几天说——无论对错，我可能是对的，也可能是错的——我为何认为受托人提出的这项动议与针对治理动议所提上诉中的问题有关的原因之一；该问题是谁拥有该特权？\n\n而且我理解，如果亨齐律师（Henzy律师）希望就此陈述，可以听取他的意见。我理解亨齐律师在上诉中提出的观点，即他认为治理命令强制披露信息，而你不能这样做。任何法院都不能这样做。\n\n但你也可以主张，如果那是问题，如果亨齐律师在上诉中提出、且他确已在上诉中提出的问题是强制披露，那么这几乎就像你们已经跨过了郭先生即使在\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 864 于 09/17/22 提交 于 09/17/22 10:41:02 录入 第 59 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 59 英国诉讼中是否仍实际拥有可主张的特权这一问题。好的？我理解有关英国法律可能不同之类的论点，但我不知道这一点，因为没有人向我提交任何材料说明它确有不同。我看过你们双方附于各自——你知道——提交材料中的判例，但关于特权以及谁有权行使该特权的问题，本院尚未作出裁定，这就是我问你们的事情。那是你们想要的吗，还是你们想要——还是你们想要继续——而且我不是——“零散”不是一个——我使用这个词并不是说你们做错了什么，所以让我——也许那不是最好的词。你们想逐步推进。我不知道逐步推进是否合理。而且我认为他们的动议——我认为受托人——我认为受托人的动议所寻求的救济比这个更广泛——我并不是说你认为不是这样——但你们的命令缩小了该救济范围。再说一次，这没有任何问题。这是你们采取的立场。你们绝对有权采取该立场。\n\nRomney先生：这是正确的，法官阁下。拟议命令，案卷编号 824，将缩小受托人通过——所寻求的拟议救济。\n\n法院：所以，可能是我的问题，即我在一开始没有非常恰当地提出问题，但那就是我的意思。因此，你认为受托人的动议中仍有未解决的问题吗？而你的回答是“是”，因为他们寻求的救济比你们同意他们有权获得的救济更广泛。\n\nRomney先生：正确。而且 823 与 824 之间存在实质性差异。\n\n法院：是。\n\nRomney先生：我想我把这个问题理解为，如果——你知道——录入 824，它将成为本院的命令。而债务人及债务人的专业人士将尽其——将尽其所能遵守该命令，因为它将是一项法院命令。\n\n法院：明白。我理解。但不，这就是我为什么问你是否认为所有问题均已解决。也许我没有尽可能恰当地提出这个问题。\n\nRomney先生：嗯，我认为它会在这样的意义上解决这些问题，即法院将命令作出受托人动议所寻求的某些事项，并将拒绝受托人——\n\n法院：嗯，但是，它没有在任何地方说它予以拒绝。看，这就是重点。它只是说部分准许。它没有说受托人所寻求的其余\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 864 于 09/17/22 提交 于 09/17/22 10:41:02 录入 第 61 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 61 救济被驳回。而这就是——再说一次，我告诉你，我在这上面只花了五分钟，好吗？所以，你知道，我对所说的一切都可能完全错了，但我告诉你们，你们的措辞是——你们对它作出的修改——我认为受托人的措辞是——该动议在以下范围内获准，或者——你知道，无论其后接什么。而你们的措辞是，按照本命令所载，部分准许。它没有说受托人所寻求的其余救济被驳回。\n\nRomney先生：嗯，我想那是我起草得不够严谨。\n\n法院：不，它并不——我不确定那是起草得不够严谨。我只是说，我需要弄清楚你们希望我做什么。对吧？你们需要——你们希望我说，在你们同意的范围内予以准许，并且——这没有任何问题——并且驳回所有其他救济。\n\nRomney先生：我想这是正确的。该命令的起草方式是，它有——它有新条款，明确赋予债务人保留就某些问题控制特权之权利，因此我想默示地——\n\n法院：我认为没有人对此提出异议，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 864 于 09/17/22 提交 于 09/17/22 10:41:02 录入 第 62 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 对吧？我认为至少有一件事我们可以达成一致，我认为，至少我认为，是我不认为任何人对此提出异议，至少我没有听到，即使是受托人也没有——Bassett先生（巴塞特先生），你得纠正我——我不认为任何人对以下事项提出异议：关于庇护问题，以及关于有人以不同方式提出的侵权问题——关于——我忘了这里的措辞，但我得找出来——关于这些发生的严重人身侵权指控，无须——你知道——把它们一一说明，对吧？受托人同意，他不会行使该特权。\n\n而且——而且没有任何事情会影响债务人依据第五修正案享有的权利。我认为每个人都同意这一点。我相信这是受托人的立场。\n\n但是，除这些保留事项外，就其他一切事项而言，受托人的立场是他拥有该特权。他可以行使该特权。我认为你不同意这一点。\n\n而且我认为亨齐先生，我不知道我在这一点上是否正确，但我知道亨齐先生明确认为那封信强制披露。\n\n而我关于该问题的观点是，如果郭先生不持有该特权，那么就没有任何事情——他没有被强制做任何事情。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 864 于 09/17/22 提交 于 09/17/22 10:41:02 录入 第 63 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 63 他所做的只是发出一封信，称你们能否与——与受托人合作，因为受托人现已获任命。现在，我知道 Henzy 律师（亨齐）不同意这一点。我并非暗示他同意。但这就是为什么我说，我认为这两项事项有关联，这两项事项相互关联，而且我们必须决定什么——而你——而我作出的任何决定都可能是错误的。如果我不同意你，那么你有权对此提出上诉。如果我不同意受托人，那么他们有权对此提出上诉。当你谈到这一点时——而且你是对的，Romney 律师（罗姆尼），至少就我所见，法律对于这些问题并无定论，对于个人破产债务人而言，不论属于哪个章节，顺便说一句，对吗？关于受托人在个人破产案件中行使该项保密特权的权利，这并不像本可那样确凿无疑。而且，你知道，我们可以讨论这一点。我已非常仔细地审阅了你们二人就这些问题所援引的全部材料。我的意思是，我认为，你知道，如果你——你希望我在没有——我认为本命令并未明确表明你希望我否定受托人对其他——该等其他范围内保密特权的权利，即该范围仅限于\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 64 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日\n1 你们在本命令中已同意的内容。\n然后，其他任何事项\n2 我们将不得不在未来争议。\n3 这并不是说——我也并非说那是错误的。\n4 我只是试图理解你们的立场，以便我\n5 明确，如果我作出裁定，而且我作出这样或那样的裁定，我\n6 是在适当地作出裁定。\n7 ROMNEY 先生：\n因此，债务人命令草案中拟议第\n8 2 段的措辞，案卷编号——\n9 法院：\n824？\n10 ROMNEY 先生：\n824。\n11 虽然该短语的前一部分，在债务人和受托人的\n12 命令中相似，甚至相同，即\n13 关于我们同意内容的罗马数字编号条款，但\n14 罗马数字编号 I、II、III 中的措辞存在实质差异，\n15 债务人的拟议命令中措辞——在债务人的\n16 拟议命令中实质上更为狭窄。\n17 我要说的是，其之所以更为狭窄，\n18 是因为考虑到，尽管本问题的判例法多少有些\n19 模糊，多数判例法尽管\n20 以不同方式适用该标准，仍试图平衡\n21 受托人管理破产财产并识别资产的正当利益，\n22 与个人债务人的——你知道——保密特权以及\n23 律师与当事人之间自由沟通的——你知道——\n24 利益，以及以下事实：个人债务人可能存在一些\n25 与律师讨论的事项，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 65 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 65 而这些事项根本与受托人履行其管理破产财产职责无关。例如，庇护申请，它不是一项资产。它不同。因此，为向法院突出说明措辞上的差异，同时理解法院——按法院在记录中的说法——认为其持有这些命令不足 15 秒，与其说受托人有权控制涉及资产的任何事项的保密特权，而不考虑其他任何事项，因为文件可能涉及资产，也可能涉及其他事项。涉及资产的文件可能涉及其他程序中的问题，例如债务可免除性。本措辞所述的是，足以识别债务人破产财产资产的、为识别债务人破产财产负债所必需的且仅与破产财产管理有关的文件。现在，人们可以不同意究竟什么——某一特定文件是否符合该标准，但关键在于，一旦——一旦已向受托人提供足够的信息，无论是否享有保密特权，以便其履行职责、识别资产、识别负债，并有效追诉作为破产财产资产的诉因，那么这就\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 66 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日\n1 满足了受托人为履行本法院任命其从事的工作所具有的正当利益，因此，\n2 进一步的文件，即享有保密特权的文件，\n3 无需由债务人或债务人的\n4 专业人员提交。\n5 法院：\n好的。这很有帮助。但如果\n6 他们审阅一份文件，例如 Despins 受托人（德斯平斯）取得一份\n7 文件，上面写着 Verdolino（维尔多利诺）和 Lowey（洛伊），因为我们今天谈到了\n8 他们，我们就以他们为例，他们曾\n9 与债务人讨论如何界定一项资产，他们——\n10 我认为你的意思是，受托人无权去与\n11 Verdolino 和 Lowey 交谈，并谈论 Kwok 先生与\n12 Verdolino 和 Lowey 所作的讨论。是\n13 这样吗？\n14 ROMNEY 先生：\n我认为这正是文件 824\n15 所述内容。而且，重申一下，那是——意即在其\n16 包含“文件”一词而非“文件或信息”的范围内。\n17 是这样——\n18 法院：\n是。或者通信。它不\n19 必是一份文件。\n20 ROMNEY 先生：\n法院文件或——\n21 法院：\nVerdolino 和 Lowey 可以被取证，\n22 对吗？\n23 ROMNEY 先生：\n正确。\n24 而且，如我意图阐明的，该措辞，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 67 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 67 对文件的提及，是将该命令与——与我们认为的命令标题相联系，因为该标题提及被传唤提交的文件，而非扣留文件，因此，我们的拟议命令沿用了该措辞。法院：我明白。但我想直击问题核心，即我不希望每次发生争议时都这样做，对吗？或者，如果我们要这样做，如果这将会发生，我希望预先知道这将会发生，对吗？我不希望签发一项命令，而我认为它做了一件事，你却认为它做的是另一件事。因此，正如你已经所说，而且我认为你是正确的，问题在于，受托人如何可能就文件承继保密特权，却不就通信承继保密特权？ROMNEY 先生：我认为我没有提出这个问题，但我确实承认，我无法回答该区别是否没有实质差异。法院：那么，我正在试图弄清楚我们应当如何继续。目前，这是就受托人要求本法院裁定其持有债务人全部保密特权之动议所进行的续审。根据我对该动议的理解，即使受托人希望获得该命令，他也会同意排除有关庇护问题的任何事项、有关这些被指称侵权问题的任何事项，并且显然排除有关第五修正案的任何事项。我的意思是，他——他并未主张，也从未主张，他将行使该项权利。ROMNEY 先生：是的。嗯，我阅读这些命令后，对于——我所称的侵权问题，存在不一致。法院：嗯，我——我的意思是——ROMNEY 先生：是。法院：——我说的是强奸指控及诸如此类的事情。我不知道那些事项是怎么回事，但这就是在本案记录中提出的内容，对吗？甚至在受托人获任命之前，就有人称他们——这些诉因存在。那些债权人在本案中提出了动议。他们说了很多事情，显然，其中没有任何事情目前已在本法院得到证实，而且可能永远也不会。好吗？所以，当我谈到——我说的是一些被指称的、非常难以讨论的侵权行为，而不是，你知道，如果存在某种其他——例如，也许你主张——我甚至不知道。正如你所知，我没有阅读 UBS（瑞银集团）起诉书。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 69 其中是否存在包括违约在内的侵权诉因？我不知道。可能有。我毫无头绪，对吗？但我的意思是，尽管毫无疑问你们都为缩小这一分歧的范围付出了努力，我需要了解是否仍存在分歧，而我认为确实存在。从债务人的观点——立场来看，关于受托人是否控制全部保密特权，不论 2004 动议和传票如何，仍存在分歧。ROMNEY 先生：确实存在——受托人与债务人对此并无已同意的约定命令。我的意思是，823 与 824 之间存在实质差异。法院：对。ROMNEY 先生：因此，仍然存在——仍然存在——就某一方——某一方得到其愿意接受的内容、另一方得到其愿意接受的内容而言，法院仍必须作出选择。我选择这些措辞，而不是说某一方得到其想要的内容，另一方得到其想要的内容——法院：我明白。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 69 of 110\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 70 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 70 ROMNEY 先生：——因为这两者都反映了妥协。法院：我明白。ROMNEY 先生：但答案是肯定的。我认为，在适用任一命令之后，可能仍存在未解决的问题。我想——而且我认为双方的意图是，在可能的范围内缩小那些潜在未来问题的范围——或许确实如此，也或许只是一个一厢情愿的想法，也许更好的方法是逐份传票处理此事，因为我今天无法以任何程度的确定性说，这两份拟议命令中的任一份，是否能够解决未来与保密特权有关的证据开示问题。法院：好的。这很公允。我感谢你的答复。好的。ROMNEY 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。DESPINS 先生：法官阁下，如果我——如果我可以就此简要陈述？法院：可以。DESPINS 先生：这应由我承担责任，但让您在仅提前五分钟通知的情况下审阅这些命令，是不公平的。是的，我希望该命令在三天前就已签发，但这不会发生。而且它今天也不会签发，因为它今天不应签发，因为我希望法官阁下清楚了解正在发生的情况。我相信，如果我错了，Bassett 先生（巴塞特）可以纠正我，至多不超过十项问题，我可以将它们列为差异。这就像我们小时候玩过的一种叫“战舰”的游戏，你知道，我在射击，我不知道潜艇在哪里，但他们知道。因此，所有那些改动，如果您看到它们——举例而言，他们删除了“或任何相关保密特权或保护”。他们是在告诉您，他们将据此主张立场。我不知道为什么或如何。又例如，他们说删除了“实际或潜在诉因”，所以只剩下“诉因”。因此，既然是潜在的，就不进行证据开示。此外，他们增加了“必要”一词，即“识别所必需”。因此，我向您保证，他们会主张，我们取得这些材料对于识别诉因并非必要。法官阁下，这是一场“战舰”游戏。我认为，我希望将十项未决问题写在一张纸上，并让法官阁下有时间消化这些内容，因为归根结底，你知道，让我们记住我们正在面对的是谁，并回到 Ostrager（奥斯特拉格），你知道，基本上是第一步。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 71 of 110\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 72 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年9月6日 72 你知道，我们知道他们很擅长这个。他们在 Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官面前这样做了四年。而这一切都是为了这个，也就是说，再拖一天，这样我就能在另一天对文件出示提出异议，然后我们每周都会回到法官阁下面前。这就是其目的。当然，我们正试图避免这种情况。但我的意思是，这件事最多大概有十个要点。你们应当在听证会前以要点形式提交，而不是在听证会前五分钟提交。正如我所说，这一点我承担责任。法院：嗯，我设定了那个时间框架，所以这不是——是我设定了那个时间框架。DESPINS 律师：不。但是我——法院：我这样做是因为我认为今天上午、下午1点听证会之前，我们会有更多时间。而且我延期了此事，所以我不认为这是——我认为这是——我明白你在说什么，但我说过，你们双方为何不在听证会后一小时内提交一份命令。只是我没有时间查看它。所以，你知道，我不认为责任在于——我不认为存在责任问题。这是一个试图在有足够时间的情况下推进事情的问题，而时间并不够。但我听到的是，债务人——我确实感谢各方进行沟通并试图解决这个问题，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年9月6日 73 争议，但我不认为存在解决方案。DESPINS 律师：不会有。法院：我认为不存在解决方案。我认为，我原本想知道是否能够达成的解决方案，不能——我想是不能达成。这没关系。如果没有发生，就没有发生。那么我们将必须据此作出裁定。但我认为，至少按照我对 Romney（罗姆尼）律师在 ECF 824 提交的命令的理解，它仅限于文件，也仅限于这些 2004 审查和传票。我不知道我是否认为这——我还不知道，但我不知道我是否认为这有道理。我的意思是，债务人——判例法并不明确。而且，你知道，可能我必须作出裁定，这样你们才能上诉。也许这就是必须发生的事。也许你们直接上诉至 Second Circuit（第二巡回法院），并说，看，这里没有具有约束力的判例法。我们需要有这样的判例法。受托人需要——受托人可能是想要上诉的人。谁知道呢？但是，如果对特权存在分歧，我又如何能够就本破产财产中这些关键问题作出裁定，以使受托人能够进行调查，从而确定是否存在任何可供债权人受偿的财产。案件 22-50073 文书 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 73 页，共 110 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 74 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年9月6日 74 我并不是说你们无权表示异议。你们当然有。而且你们有权采取你们认为法律允许的任何适当行动。但我只是不了解该如何做。我们要怎么办？我不认为逐步推进有道理。我认为必须以一种确定的方式处理此事。而且不幸的是，依我看，对我们所有人而言，并没有明确的法律规定。我找不到任何。你们也没有提出任何。你们没有向我提交任何表明该特权不会转移给受托人的材料。你们没有向我提交任何材料，因为根本不存在这样的材料，表明在个人案件中该特权当然转移给受托人。除你们援引的所有其他案件外，唯一在破产语境中谈及此事的案件，是 1986 年 Weintraub（温特劳布）案，该案谈及公司将该——该特权转移给受托人。之后，他们没有处理在个人案件中将会发生什么。他们有意没有处理，明白吗，最高法院。巡回法院的案件在哪里——没有巡回法院的案件。这里没有任何具有约束力的内容。因此，每次我们这样做时，都可能再有一次上诉，可能再有一次上诉，可能再有\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 75 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年9月6日\n再有一次上诉。这对我而言没有道理。而且，也许我错了，但这没有道理。\nBASSETT 律师：我想——\nROMNEY 律师：法官阁下——我很抱歉。\nBASSETT 律师：法官阁下，我是代表受托人的 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。\n我认为，我们当然同意这一看法，即本动议和我们拟议命令、经修订的拟议命令的目标，是尽可能向各方提供指引并设定界限，从而尽可能消除日后就特权问题产生争议的必要。\n而且我认为，无须对此赘述，Despins 律师谈到了这一点，Romney 律师也谈到了这一点，但债务人在其拟议命令第 2 段中增加的措辞，我认为可能会产生相反效果，因为其中包括“必要”一词，这将为争议提供各种依据，并且将允许债务人就其认为受托人识别潜在破产财产所必需的文件作出判断。你知道，我认为这种措辞正是引发各种争议的根源。\n我们试图通过我们的拟议命令——我并不反对法院的意见，即 Second Circuit（第二巡回法院）对于这一问题没有具有约束力的判例——但我确实认为，正如我们在书面材料中试图梳理并在上周听证会上谈到的，有许多破产案件试图处理 Weintraub 案之后个人特权转移给受托人的问题。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 76 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年9月6日\n而且我认为，这些案件中的绝大多数以及判例法的明确趋势是，当该特权涉及受托人为识别破产财产资产所作的努力、调查债务人的财务状况，以及当然涉及在受托人获任命之前影响其破产财产管理的任何破产申请后事项时，该特权转由受托人行使。\n而这正是我们试图制定经修订的拟议命令的方式，即遵循该大量判例中的这些类别，同时也明确回应债务人的关切，即对于与刑事指控或其庇护申请有关、但与我刚才提到的那四项——那三项类别无关的文件，他仍能够主张特权。\n因此，就 Romney 律师提出的具体意见而言，我认为他说过，你知道，可能有一份文件谈及破产财产资产，但它同时也是与针对债务人的刑事指控有关的受特权保护的通信，这些刑事指控已经在本案中提请法院注意，以及此类文件。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年9月6日 77 债务人仍然能够就任何关于刑事指控的讨论主张特权，因此我不认为这是一个问题。但是，再次说明，我只是想回应在讨论期间 Romney 律师提出的一些观点，并澄清我们认为这里最有道理的做法，以及我们试图通过我们的命令实现的目标。法院：明白了。谢谢。我确实——我确实感谢各方努力看看你们能够——你们可以做些什么。你们显然花了时间，这很重要，但我不——我并不认为已经达成协议。因此，我不知道目前作出这两份命令中的任一份是否有意义。我必须考虑一下。我必须确定是否必须直接作出裁定，然后让你们双方决定你们想做什么。我的意思是，问题是，如果我作出——如果我作出 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）的命令，你们将会上诉。我知道这一点。我们都知道这一点。而如果我作出你们的命令，我认为第11章受托人将会上诉。所以我——你知道，我在寻求你们告诉我另一种推进方式，但目前这是本案中的一个关键问题。案件 22-50073 文书 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 77 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年9月6日 78 我的意思是，在确定这件事的归属之前，我不知道该如何——我不知道我们如何才能不每周都在这里就同一个问题进行争论。不是同一个问题。我的意思是，泛指这个问题，而不是可能与不同的文件请求或 2004 审查中的证言或其他事项有关的问题，但那是我——那是我的担忧。ROMNEY 律师：而且，法官阁下，特权问题显然困难之处在于，一旦——你知道，一旦受特权保护的文件已经公开传播，你知道，就很难把牙膏重新塞回牙膏管，尤其是在像本案这样的情形中，债务人的立场与受托人的立场似乎在许多事项上相去甚远。我们一直在讨论 Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官的裁决，该裁决显然对债务人有一些尖锐的措辞，尽管在许多方面与法院面前的问题实际上并不相关。但我在此的要点是，我们面临一种情形，其中有一名受托人，我并非在作出判断或归咎于——我试图客观陈述该情形。我们有一名受托人，即使在技术上尚未如此，也很可能与\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 78 页，共 110 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 79 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年9月6日 79 债务人处于对立地位。这与许多案件不同，在那些案件中，更容易适用何为必要——何为受托人管理破产财产与保护债务人利益之间的平衡，同时保护其受特权保护的信息。也许不幸的是，答案在于，由于标准并不明确，确实需要在有关具体文件的问题出现时逐一处理。我认为双方都尽力尝试提出某种能平衡此处相互竞争利益的方案，但现实是，在像这样的案件中，这些是相互竞争的利益，而有时很难平衡相互竞争的利益。因此，正如我所说，债务人已经提交了 824。这是其会同意的内容。债务人当然并未放弃对任何其他事项提出上诉的权利，尽管我尚未准备好，你知道，以任何一种方式表明立场。而且，你知道，我唯一还想补充的一点是，显然，正如法院所指出，各方并未达成一致。他们各自——他们各自提出了范围缩窄但仍然相互竞争的命令。法院就是法院。法院的职责是\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 80 裁决该争议。而且目前法院面前仍存在争议。如果法院原本倾向于作出第824号文件所载裁定，但问题在于其提及的是文件，而不是文件、通信和信息，若第824号文件是法院的主要顾虑所在，则这当然属于法院的权限范围。巴塞特先生：法官阁下——法院：还有什么——巴塞特先生：——我是代表受托人的尼克·巴塞特。法院：请讲。巴塞特先生：我想我只是想回到法官阁下先前所作的评论，我确实认为——很明显我们——我们尚未就拟议命令达成一致，而且我认为存在一些造成无法弥合之鸿沟的问题。因此，法院已收到我们的拟议命令和债务人的拟议命令。而且，如德斯平斯先生所说，我认为您可以将剩余分歧点归纳为大约十几个。如果您查看我们提交文件的附件B，我们试图标明这些问题，并就案件剩余分歧领域的核心问题提供说明。Case 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 80 of 110\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 81 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 81 因此，从我的角度看，我认为目前情况就是这样。法院面前有两份命令。我们认为，我们提出的命令既符合判例法，也最适当地为当事人提供其在本案中继续进行证据开示所需的指引。法院：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望发言吗？戈德曼先生：法官阁下，我是代表委员会的厄夫·戈德曼。我只是不希望我们的沉默被理解为我们是中立旁观者，而我们并非如此。我们支持受托人的拟议命令，理由有几个，他已提到其中一些。我确实认为，债务人提出的拟议命令为抵制进一步证据开示提供了过大的机会窗口。而且我认为，如果过往经历可以作为指引，即奥斯特拉格法官面前进行的诉讼，那么他们在其命令中使用这种具有弹性的措辞，很可能会导致这种情况发生。受托人提到了“必要”一词，即任何可能为发现资产所必需的事项。我可以预见一种论点，即受托人无需取得某些信息，因为可能更容易从其他地方取得。这不应是此处的结果。因此，我认为该词——至少应当删除该词。我们面临的另一个问题是他们引入的“仅”一词，即该信息只能涉及仅与案件管理有关的文件。嗯，一份文件当然可能具有双重目的，但这会引发一种论点，即它并非仅仅、并非只与案件管理有关。这是荒谬的结果。而且就该问题而言，一份文件可能与犯罪活动有关。例如，根据18 U.S.C. Section 157，在破产案件中隐瞒和虚假陈述资产构成破产犯罪。因此，我可以预见一份文件可能提供该等行为的证据。它显然也与破产财产管理有关。然而，这可能引发他们试图通过其拟议命令保留的一项异议，我认为这是不适当的。因此，基于这些理由，我们支持受托人的拟议命令。法院：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望发言吗？德斯平斯先生：最后补充一句，法官阁下，我是受托人卢克·德斯平斯。是否有必要——显然法官阁下会审阅此事，您也将会审阅——但安排一次延期听证，以便我们可以处理您可能尚存的任何问题？因为如巴塞特先生所说，可能有10个、12个问题。从我们的角度来看，我认为它们是明确的。您可能在其中一些问题上作出不利于我们的裁决。但关键是，我认为这或许也会有益。我知道您的案件日程非常满，但如果我们能够将其延期至不久之后的某个日期，我认为那将非常好。法院：您考虑的时间框架是什么？本周晚些时候还是下周初？德斯平斯先生：您的意思是听证会要持续多久，还是——法院：不是。您希望延期至何时？您是说本周晚些时候还是下周初？德斯平斯先生：如果法官阁下有时间，比如本周四或周五。无论何时能让法院有足够时间真正审阅并且——我相信，以我对您的了解，您会有一系列问题。我认为，无论什么安排能给您足够时间这样做，我们都准备配合。法院：我正在看日历。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 84 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 84 （暂停）法院：那么，德斯平斯先生，如果您要提交这份列有差异要点的文件，您何时可以提交？您能多快提交？德斯平斯先生：可以。我正在向巴塞特先生寻求答复。法院：巴塞特先生，您能多快提交？巴塞特先生：法官阁下，我是尼克·巴塞特。我们今天就可以提交。即使不是今天，当然明天也可以。法院：我不——我认为不必今天完成。我们下午3点还有另一场听证会。所以，我的意思是，我认为——德斯平斯先生：我相信明天10点前可以。法院：您可以在明天中午前完成。我不必在上午10:00前收到。但我要做的是，我将最后一次延续本次听证会至9月12日星期一。而且我可以——我将——实际上，因为我们现在已经讨论过三次，或者不管怎样两次，我将允许远程举行，这样人们就不必被拉到这里来，因为届时我只会告诉你们我要怎么做。因此，与其把你们拉到法院来，我将——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 85 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022\n1 要做的是——你们希望在12日星期一下午1:30还是\n2 2:00开始？\n有人有偏好吗？\n3 （无人回应）\n4 法院：\n好的。\n那么我们定在\n5 12日下午2:00继续本次听证会。\n德斯平斯先生将\n6 于明天中午前就两份命令之间的差异向案卷提交某些文件，\n7 或者由其律师提交。\n8 然后在12日——\n9 抱歉，罗姆尼先生，您想提交\n10 某些文件吗？\n11 罗姆尼先生：\n嗯，我只是有点不清楚，\n12 如果我们谈论的是差异，这是否应当是\n13 一份联合诉状，还是我们应当提交我们各自不同的\n14 ——\n15 法院：\n我会让你们自行解决。\n我会让你们双方讨论此事。\n怎么样？\n而且\n16 你们可以做你们认为适当的事。\n17 \n18 罗姆尼先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n19 以及截止时间是——\n20 法院：\n明天中午前。\n如果那样更方便，我可以给你们\n21 到下午1:00。\n多一个小时可能\n22 对大家有帮助，对吧？\n23 罗姆尼先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n24 法院：\n好的。\n明天下午1:00。\n那\n25 将给我一些时间审阅。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 86 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 86 然后，我会在星期一告诉你们我要怎么做。届时我将远程举行该听证会。没有人必须为此到法院来，因为这现在是——那将是就该动议举行的第三次听证会。而我将会——我将告诉你们我要怎么做。我现在不知道我要怎么做，但到那时我会知道。因此，我认为这是推进此事的最佳方式。我确实认为——我不想阻止当事人继续交谈，因为我确实感谢你们已经这样做了。如果那没有带来解决方案，那就没有带来解决方案。这没关系。这没有任何问题。但我确实感谢已经作出的努力。我只是认为，此时仍然没有达成协议，而且很可能也不会达成。如果达成了，你们会告诉我。但如果没有，我将按——如你们所知——不存在协议来继续处理。并且我将据此审阅相关事项。我将在9月12日下午2:00准备好告诉你们事情的进展情况。现在，或许我会向你们双方、债务人和第11章受托人，以及其他任何希望发言的人提出一些问题，但也可能不会。届时我可能没有任何问题。我确实不知道。因此，我会告知你们。好的？今天下午还有其他人希望处理任何事项吗？罗姆尼先生：法官阁下，如果可以，我能否用不超过两分钟回应戈德曼律师提出的几个观点？法院：当然。罗姆尼先生：我只想说，就第157条项下破产欺诈或类似概念而言，我不知道本案记录中有任何证据表明债务人实施过任何类型的破产欺诈。如果任何人对该指控具有相当理由，并且律师通信被用于促进该行为，这正是犯罪—欺诈例外所适用的情形。这与受托人是否享有特权是一个独立问题，因为即使——债务人保有该特权——这也是特权少数例外之一。第二，关于债务人所使用的措辞，当然，法官阁下将作出裁决，您可以接受债务人的某些观点，并在您有所顾虑的范围内修改某些措辞，或者就受托人的问题作出相反处理。然而，这一概念——将措辞改为“足以识别所必需”——是为了使受托人获得足以识别资产和负债的信息，而不完全放弃任何通信。我认为，法院在证据开示的情境中一贯认识到——这超出了特权范围，但仍认识到——要求提供与任何主题有关的全部文件，都是范围过宽的。法院在证据开示命令中多次将措辞改为类似“足以——足以识别本主题项目”的表述。我只是想向法院澄清，这就是该修订措辞的目的。其目的不是治愈或在未来制造争议问题的途径。这是——在未来——为努力平衡受托人的信息权与债务人——如您所知——与其律师自由通信的权利而作出的真诚尝试。谢谢。法院：谢谢。巴塞特先生：法官阁下，如果我可以简要回应一下。再次说明，我是代表Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的尼克·巴塞特——回应其中几项意见？法院：请讲。巴塞特先生：因此，受托人寻求的证据开示是根据Rule 2004项下作出的命令进行的，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 89 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022\n\n当然，这使受托人有权进行广泛调查，类似于漫无目的的探查；并且，受托人根据 Rule 2004 所能够进行且有权进行的调查范围，在本案中尤为关键，因为正如法院所知，且众所周知，根据在 New York Court（纽约法院）及其他地方形成的记录，我们均严重担忧债务人在本院提交的财产清单是否准确列明了其所拥有的资产。我们认为其绝对不准确。\n\n而且，为了彻底查明债务人的资产可能位于何处，并彻底查明与管理本遗产有关的其他事项，我们绝对需要能够取得广泛涉及以下事项的证据开示：不仅是遗产资产、债务人现有或先前拥有的资产，也包括受托人为确定其是否实际上属于遗产资产而正在调查的他人资产。\n\n债务人要求法院加入拟议命令中的这段措辞称，我们仅在所涉通信，即所谓为使受托人识别遗产资产所“必要”的范围内，才控制特权；这为债务人决定其希望或不希望在证据开示中提供何种材料留下了过多的模糊空间和机会。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 90 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 90\n\n债务人。仅回应 Romney先生（罗姆尼先生）先前提出的另一点，他提出受托人与债务人之间存在对抗关系这一概念。我不知道他是否在暗示，例如，如果债务人不希望其亲属的资产成为遗产财产，那么当我们寻求与此类问题有关的证据开示时，就突然产生了对抗关系；但如果这正是他的暗示，那么我认为我们绝对不同意在该情形下是否由受托人控制特权。我认为，就受托人为识别潜在遗产资产所作的努力而言，受托人绝对控制该特权，即便债务人持有这样的立场：他宁愿这些资产仍由亲属持有，或仍在其设立的 LLC 或其他空壳公司名下。这并不是债务人在该情形下保留特权的依据。我想——我想这就是我想发表的意见，法官阁下；但当然，我很乐意回答任何问题。\n\n法院：目前我没有任何问题。谢谢。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 91 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：而且，法官阁下，您记得我们谈过 U.K. complaint（英国起诉状）。我们找到了案卷编号。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：是 622-1。其名称为 Particulars of Claims（索赔细节）。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nGOLDMAN先生（戈德曼先生）：法官阁下，如获准许，我代表委员会仅作几项简短说明？\n\n法院：当然。\n\nGOLDMAN先生（戈德曼先生）：某事项可能与律师—当事人特权的犯罪—欺诈例外有关或受其涵盖，并不必然意味着其也不能与本案管理有关。我认为这正是“solely”一词不当之处。不能只是说，嘿，如果它受犯罪—欺诈例外的约束，你们就会以该方式取得它，尽管它也可能与遗产管理有关。至于“concerning”一词，我只想指出，它是在地方法院地方法规中为拟定证据开示请求而专门定义的术语。因此，在此使用该术语并无不当。\n\n法院：谢谢。\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：法官阁下，代表债务人的最后一点意见。这就是为什么法院不愿作出咨询意见，而这正是目前的情况。存在一个正常程序——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 92\n\n法院：但这就是——等一下。让我——让我退一步说。这是什么？\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：受托人所——\n\n法院：如果我就这项动议作出裁定，我就是在作出咨询意见？\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：是的。\n\n法院：为什么？\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：您是在就——您被要求作出一项决定。我认为——我认为，从某种意义上说，这正是您的思路，法官阁下。您被要求作出决定或裁定——您将如何就这一混乱的判例法作出裁定。因此，您将得出何种结论——\n\n法院：不过，我面前有一项尚待裁决的动议。它已提交给我。这是一项争议。\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：我不——\n\n法院：我不是把它作为咨询意见来处理。\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：我认为这不是一项争议。目前您面前没有任何证据开示争议。没有。没有。\n\n法院：不，不。我面前的是受托人提出的一项动议，请求作出命令，称其控制该特权。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 92 of 110\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 93 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 93\n\n而您对此作出了回应。\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：但那是非常——而且那正是判例法的混乱之处。这是一项对事实高度敏感的分析。确实如此。因为——我是说，正如 Romney先生所指出的——\n\n法院：但我还需要哪些我没有的事实？\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：您不——\n\n法院：关于是否——不，让我先听您说完。我还需要哪些我没有的事实，以确定是否应由受托人控制该特权？\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：不过，我认为问题是，受托人是否就特定文件控制特权。\n\n法院：我认为他的动议并非如此表述。\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：嗯，我认为他——正如我所说，法官阁下，我不想——我不想——我认为他——您被要求做的是在真空中作出咨询意见。因为现在没有任何人在您面前说，我就这份文件主张特权，而您现在需要裁定，就这份文件而言，该特权是否已转移给受托人——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 94 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 94\n\n法院：不，不过我认为那并不准确。但我理解您的观点。不过我——\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：好的。\n\n法院：问题在这里。那么，为什么您回应称他无法从 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）以及您并不代理的所有其他人那里获得全部信息？您对其动议的回应、您的异议，一开始就在谈论与您的当事人毫无关系的事情。我的意思是，就——\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：嗯——\n\n法院：——他们是您的当事人曾与之交往的当事方而言。但他们有权主张他们自己的——\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：哦，他们有。\n\n法院：——他们自己的问题，不是吗？\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：是的。但这并不意味着债务人没有。\n\n法院：嗯，这并不意味着受托人不能向本院寻求命令。您可能不同意——\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：这——\n\n法院：——您可能不同意，但听着，目前的问题是，对吧？受托人正试图进行调查。他无法做到这一点。至少就——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 95 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 95\n\n伦敦的情况而言，他被告知——当我说情况时，是指正在伦敦审理的案件——您的当事人不会试图与他合作，也不会告知伦敦的律师他可以与他们交谈。而且——\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：那不是真的。那不是真的。不过，好吧。\n\n法院：嗯，您不会——您说您不会发那封信说明这一点，因为您认为其中一部分写的是强制披露。这就是您的说法。这不正是您正在上诉的内容吗？您正在上诉该——的第 3(b) 条——\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：我不是有意偏离——我不是有意偏离话题——我会回答您的问题。\n\n法院：但那正是您——但那正是您在做的事。我的意思是，这没问题。\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：不。\n\n法院：我对此没有意见。\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：不。\n\n法院：但重点在这里。当每——当您的当事人至今主张律师—当事人特权问题不会自动转移给受托人时，受托人目前在本案中如何继续——受托人如何履行其职责？这就是您所主张的。\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：不。不，不是这样。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 96 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 96\n\n法院：好的。那么您主张了什么？\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：我——\n\n法院：那么您为什么引用 Weintraub（温特劳布案）？\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：我认为我们——\n\n法院：Weintraub 案说的就是这一点，即在公司破产案件中，特权自动转移给受托人。\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：我们所主张的是，存在——判例表明存在这种利益衡量检验。我不——我不认为我们任何人对此有异议。但是我们——但我们所主张的是，该分析——而且我们引用了判例法，表明该衡量必须逐案进行。\n\n法院：对。对。\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：这——\n\n法院：那么，如果您是对的，我在本案中还缺少哪些事实，无法作出逐案分析？\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：您没有法院在解决证据开示争议时通常所具有的事实，也就是就特定文件或通信所主张的具体特权。我不知道——法官阁下，我——也许只是我，我从未在我参与的任何案件中见过这样的命令。我不是——这——\n\n法院：嗯，问题在这里。您——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 97 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 97\n\n在公司案件中不需要这种命令，因为它会自动发生。法律上的问题在于，即使有，也没有很多 Chapter 11 个人案件出现过这一问题，即个人称受托人无权主张该特权。因此——\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：我们没有这样说。\n\n法院：嗯，是的，我认为您说过。您说过。\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：不。我认为我们所说的是，存在一项利益衡量检验，而且该利益衡量检验必须逐案分析。\n\n法院：所以您是说，受托人的动议尚不成熟，因为就有人主张特权而言，本院面前没有任何事项？\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐先生）：我想这就是我所说的，法官阁下。是的。我不知道如何——听着，我可能本不该说任何话。这更多是评论，因为您正在为此纠结。我认为您之所以为此纠结，是因为该动议要求您在真空中作出裁定。我从未参与过任何案件，甚至是破产案件，其中——我在州法院从事诉讼——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 864 Filed 09/17/22 Entered 09/17/22 10:41:02 Page 98 of 110\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n而且是在与破产案件毫无关系的联邦法院中，在那里，证据开示争议已在正常程序之外得到解决；正常程序中，人们提出所需材料，要么取得材料，要么取得特权清单，当事人主张其拟主张的任何特权，随后有义务进行会面协商，也许最终会将范围缩小至少量文件。\n\n如有必要，随后你们便到法官面前解决。而且每个人都知道，你们最好非常、非常努力地解决必须解决的问题，因为法官确实不愿将所有时间都花在解决证据开示争议上。对吗？\n\n而且我认为，就 Romney 先生所言，必要的分析究竟在何处进行？最终可能只剩三份文件，而受托人确信，你知道吗，我确实不需要那些文件。有人主张特权，但我已有所有这些其他文件，因此我确实不需要那些文件。这样，我们就无需到法官面前就那些文件进行争论。这是我唯一曾经解决证据开示争议的方式。\n\n所以我可能不该这么做，我当时告诉自己不要这么做，即站起来说，我认为这里的问题，以及你们之所以在这个问题上苦苦斟酌的原因，是因为你们没有那种情况。你们被要求在真空中作出命令，在个案分析之外作出命令。而你们可以——\n\n法庭：我不确定——我不确定你在这一点上是正确的。因为如果这是你的立场，那么你为何提出一项命令？\n\nHENZY 先生（亨齐先生）：因为我们正在努力——因为，法官阁下，我们正在努力合作。我们确实如此。我们确实如此。在适当的情况下，我们正在努力。您要求我们去看看能否就一项协商一致的命令达成安排。我们也这么做了。这就是 ECF 824——正如 Romney 先生已向您说明的那样，如果您作出该命令，我们同意该命令。债务人同意该命令。但这并不意味着它仍然不存在问题，这也是我认为我们会有这个问题的原因，正如我所说，我们正在为此苦苦斟酌。因为我——因为我们正在努力拟定一项命令，以涵盖目前尚未提交到您面前的一项争议。但我们确实已努力解决这个问题。\n\n法庭：嗯，不过我认为——我认为在某些方面它确实已提交到我面前。我必须考虑一下你所说的内容，Henzy 律师。但正如我先前所说，在你介入之前，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 99 页，共 110 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n受托人已获指定。该动议已获准。你的客户没有对此提出上诉。\n\nHENZY 先生：哦——\n\n法庭：其没有对指定受托人提出上诉。但现在，当受托人试图履行职责时，你们试图限制受托人履行职责的能力，并主张你们拥有受托人无法行使的特权。现在你们说，好吧，关于已送达的文件和这些 2004 传票，我们将允许你行使该特权。明白吗？而受托人说，我认为我需要一项命令，告知我拥有这项——我拥有该特权。至于是否如此——我的意思是，我不确定你所说的一切是否正确，但我会回去审查。关键在于，我不会——无论我们做什么，我们都不会零碎地处理。我们不会渐进式地处理。因为那是——你知道，指定受托人的原因是为了债权人的最大利益。而你的客户，在你之前，已在记录中以书面同意，存在理由指定 Chapter 11 受托人、驳回案件或转换程序。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 100 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 101 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n如你所知，“理由”并无定义。但是，要认定存在指定 Chapter 11 受托人的理由，必须——必须存在该项指定发生的原因，对吗？而发生该项指定的原因，是对所有这些资产是否确实属于债务人存在争议。并且在某一时点，正如我想我在上周曾对 Kindseth 先生或许还有对你所说的，该实体曾将该船只质押给债权人，但现在并非如此，因为没有计划。因此，本案的一切都已改变。每次我们走到某个节点，道路就会转弯。我认为 Despins 先生正试图做的是说，好吧，道路或许会转弯，但我需要知道我可以做什么。《法典》说我可以做所有这些事情，但我遇到了阻力，而我不需要阻力。我需要为了债权人的利益查明，这些资产，或者甚至我们尚未知悉的资产，是否为破产财产，以偿付这些债权人。\n\nHENZY 先生：而且，法官阁下，再次，如果我使我们偏离了主题，我表示歉意。但我在这一点上可能错了。我的理解是，债务人——而且此时无关紧要，我认为无关紧要——债务人同意存在驳回案件的理由。但是——\n\n法庭：这不准确。我会告诉你原因。\n\nHENZY 先生：好的。好的。没关系。\n\n法庭：因为我问过那个问题——\n\nHENZY 先生：但我们确实——但他没有上诉。\n\n法庭：——四次。\n\nHENZY 先生：他没有上诉。他没有上诉——\n\n法庭：他没有对此上诉。\n\nHENZY 先生：——该命令。\n\n法庭：没有对此上诉。\n\nHENZY 先生：不存在任何争议。但我不认为，法官阁下，仅仅因为债务人申请破产，而后又为债务人指定受托人，债务人依据《联邦证据规则》、《联邦民事诉讼规则》、《联邦破产程序规则》和《破产法典》所享有的任何权利就会消失。债务人仍享有权利。例如，债务人——\n\n法庭：或许如此。或许如此。\n\nHENZY 先生：而且这就是——所以并不是——我并非说 Despins 先生无权进行其调查。债务人并非如此主张。绝对不是如此主张。债务人并非主张——在以下范围内，\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 102 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n就某份文件而言，无论 Despins 先生已承继特权，还是不存在特权，或者存在例外情况，或无论为何种情况，他都可取得该文件。对此不存在争议。但在以下范围内——\n\n法庭：所以你们只同意——你们唯一关切的是通信内容，而不是文件？\n\nHENZY 先生：不。不是。\n\n法庭：那是什么？\n\nHENZY 先生：就任何事项而言，只要债务人仍拥有该特权，且该特权尚未被放弃，也不存在例外，那么债务人就有权说，这是——这是我的特权文件，我无需向任何人提供。该权利不会因为他同意指定受托人而消失。也不会因为他没有对法院命令提出上诉而消失——它不会消失。\n\n法庭：嗯，我不确定判例法是否会支持你如此概括的陈述，Henzy 先生。\n\nHENZY 先生：我是说，如果通过了该项检验，假定存在一份适用特权的文件——我不是——回到您关于英国命令的观点，法官阁下，只要根据某项法律，无论是英国法还是任何其他法律，Despins 先生已承继该项\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 103 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 864\n提交于 09/17/22\n录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n特权，那么他就应当——他只需前往英国并说，把文件给我。该命令的作用是，它确实强制放弃具有特权的文件。所以这就是问题所在。\n\n所以我只是说，只要在某个范围内，根据适用判例法，债务人和任何其他人仍享有权利，他们就不会——他们不会——他们有权主张这些权利。仅此而已。\n\n法庭：那么，鉴于你刚才所说，为何你的客户不告诉 Despins 先生伦敦诉讼中哪些内容享有特权？\n\nKINDSETH 先生：嗯，法官阁下，这就又回到了该动议及该命令作出方式的问题。\n\n法庭：不。不。但那是——\n\nHENZY 先生：好的。请记住——\n\n法庭：不。不。\n\nHENZY 先生：请记住，那并未——不在动议中。它被附加到一项修订命令中。\n\n法庭：我们就此举行了五次听证。你可以辩称它不在动议中。我们举行过听证，而且你有机会陈述意见。你请求延期。我批准了该延期。我们经历了所有那些时间。你有机会陈述意见。\n\nHENZY 先生：好的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 105 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n法庭：并且请记住，我们仍处于债务人的主体资格在此受到质疑的情形。如果这是一个无力偿债的债务人，而债务人在申请时即为无力偿债，并且其现在仍无力偿债，而现在又有一名受托人。因此——你们这里存在循环性问题。\n\n而问题是，你为何不直接向他提供一份你认为享有特权的内容清单？你为何不——你为何不能直接提供该清单？你为何不能说，你知道吗，Despins 受托人，我不会向你提供伦敦的任何材料，以下是我不向你提供这些材料的文件。这些都享有特权。你为何不能这么做？\n\nHENZY 先生：所以我此前说过这一点，法官阁下，我认为，而且我认为英国律师也说过，存在一项应当遵循的程序，而 Despins 先生正试图绕过该程序。\n\n法庭：什么程序？没有人把它提交到我面前，告诉——向我展示该程序是什么。我不断听到程序一词，但记录中没有任何材料支持确实存在一项程序。\n\nHENZY 先生：我不是英国律师，法官阁下。我不——我并不参与那边的诉讼。\n\n法庭：我理解，但你的客户有一项资产——\n\nHENZY 先生：好的。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 864\n提交于 09/17/22\n录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n法庭：——位于英国，该受托人正试图查明该资产的情况。\n\nHENZY 先生：好的。那边的一名律师，其并不代表、且目前并非该诉讼当事人的某人，正前往该律师处要求交出文件。明白吗？\n\n而且我不——也许我——再次，也许我是房间内唯一这样想的人——如果一名英国律师来到这里，如果情形反过来，并对我说，把这些文件给我，我的答复绝对是否定的。绝对不是，绝不，不会这么做。明白吗？而这就是这里的动态。英国存在一项诉讼，不在这里，并且——\n\n法庭：但如果 Kwok 先生提供清单并告诉他们全部享有特权，英国律师就会这么做。不是吗？不是吗？\n\nHENZY 先生：鉴于事情发生的方式，我绝不处于可以这么做的位置。\n\n法庭：好的。好吧。\n\nHENZY 先生：而且我已经——等等——我已多次对 Despins 先生说过，我会与他及英国律师合作，完全按照法官阁下所说的去做，而该提议已被拒绝。明白吗？\n\n所以，如果这里存在责任，我会在责任属于我时承担责任。但是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 864 提交于 09/17/22 录入于 09/17/22 10:41:02 第 107 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n此处未以我认为正确的方式加以处理的责任，不在我或债务人身上。\n\n法庭：\n还有其他事项吗，Despins先生（德斯平斯先生）？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n有。\n非常简要地说，法官阁下。\n\n这种主张，即您不能审查——您不能裁决这一问题，因为它尚不成熟，因为您面前没有单独的文件，第一，他们关于会面协商程序的声明称，不能以该种方式进行，需要法院的指导。这是他们的原话。\n\n第二，法院已表示，衡量测试可以针对一类文件进行。如果我们向法官阁下主张，特权已转移至所有事项，那就是另一回事了。\n\n但我们将其限定于破产财产、资产和债权的管理。而关键在于，这些类别狭窄且界定明确。\n\n例如，就拿破产财产的管理来说。Kwok先生（郭文贵）是占有中的债务人。法官阁下知道这意味着什么。他是受托人。一旦受托人被任命，他对此不享有任何特权。\n\n至于他是否对破产前讨论享有特权这一问题，好吧，我可以理解其中存在争议。我认为判例法支持我们。\n\n但就Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）的意见，或者他作为占有中的债务人期间与Brown Rudnick的沟通而言，判例法对此毫无争议，即我们有权查阅这些内容。范围很窄。这体现了本案的情况。他是以受托人身份行事，而非以其个人身份行事。他获得的是——您知道，如果Brown Rudnick向他就其个人情况提供意见，那Brown Rudnick实在不应该。但他们是以其占有中的债务人身份向他提供意见。这是根本性的，法官阁下。\n\n因此，衡量——您正在进行衡量。您正按文件类别进行衡量，并就——我们怎么称呼该罪行，我想对此准确表述，尽管这很令人遗憾——强奸及非法拘禁指控作出明确的排除，对庇护问题作出排除，您正在进行衡量。\n\n而法院正是按文件类别这样做的。法院被撤销的情形中，唯一作出撤销的巡回上诉法院，在该案中，与本案相同，双方均同意应当进行衡量测试，原因是法院没有审查任何文件或任何类别的文件。\n\n而在本案中，法院面前就有我们提出的极为狭窄的类别。基于此，您有权这样做。\n\n法庭：好的。还有其他人有进一步意见吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年9月6日 108\n\n（无人回应）\n\n法庭：好的。感谢各位的意见，我将继续审议此事。我们将把本次听证延期至9月12日星期一下午2:00。Romney先生（罗姆尼先生），您是否说过您将提交某些材料，您可能会在明日1点前提交某些材料？我知道受托人Despins和Bassett律师（巴塞特律师）将就两份命令之间的差异提交某些材料。\n\nROMNEY先生：我将与他们协商，并代表债务人提交某些材料，或者我们可以就存在争议的问题达成准确或客观的说明。我认为共同处理会更有效率，但时间会证明这是否可行。\n\n法庭：好的。这很公平。\n\nROMNEY先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：这很公平。今天下午我们还有其他需要处理的事项吗？\n\n（无人回应）\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。至此，Kwok事项今日的听证结束。\n\nBASSETT先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n（程序于下午3:31结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），认证电子法庭记录员及誊录员，证明上述内容系根据上述案件程序的官方电子录音制作的正确誊本。\n\n2022年9月14日\n\nChristine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins","Guo","GETTR"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":823,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":824,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":28403,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-09-17 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-09-17","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:15:46"}