{"id":"court_ctb_871_2","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":871,"sub_number":2,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-09-23","title":"EXHIBIT B DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT B**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 2 of\n\n#### 117\n\nDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\nIn Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* July 21, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\*\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT\n\nTRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE\n\nAPPEARANCES:\n\nFor the Debtor: DYLAN P. KLETTER, ESQ. Brown Rudnick, LLP 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103\n\n> ERIC HENZY, ESQ. AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\nFor HK International Funds STEPHEN M. KINDSETH, ESQ. Investments (USA) Limited, Zeisler & Zeisler\n\n\\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\*\n\nFor the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund, L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP\n\n LLC: 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\n> Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\nProceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service.\n\n> **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES Cont'd: For the Creditor, Pacific PATRICK M. BIRNEY, ESQ. Asia Alliance Opportunity Robinson & Cole LLP Fund, L.P.: 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street, 8th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Rui Ma, KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Zheng Wu and Weican Meng: McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter 30 Jeliff Lane Southport, CT 06890 CAROLLYNN H.G. CALLARI, ESQ. Law firm of Callari Partners One Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Fl. New York, NY 10020 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: DOUGLAS S. SKALKA, ESQ. PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510\n\n2\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 10:06 a.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good morning. If we could have appearances for the record starting with the debtor's counsel, please. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, for Ho Wan Kwok, Eric Henzy, of Zeisler & Zeisler. THE COURT: Hold on just one second. Where's Mr. Baldiga or someone from -- MR. KLETTER: Hi. Good morning. Dylan Kletter, from Brown Rudnick, here to deal with the motion to withdraw as counsel. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. And who else? I'm sorry, sir. Go ahead. MR. ROMNEY: Aaron Romney, Zeisler & Zeisler, also for the debtor, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. KINDSETH: And Stephen Kindseth for the debtor, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Go right ahead, Counsel. MR. DESPINS: Good morning, Your Honor. Nice to meet you in person. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Despins. I'm sorry. Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 4 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 4 We only did see each other on Zoom, so I didn't meet you in person before today, so welcome. MR. SKALKA: Good morning, Your Honor. Douglas Skalka, of Newbury, Pepi and Monteith, as proposed local counsel for the Chapter 11 trustee. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Attorney Skalka, I cannot hear you. MR. SKALKA: I am sorry. THE COURT: That's okay. If you could say that again, please. MR. SKALKA: Yes, Your Honor. Douglas Skalka, Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, as proposed local counsel for the Chapter 11 trustee. MR. LINSEY: And Patrick Linsey, also Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, local counsel for the trustee, Your Honor. Good morning. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. SKALKA: Good morning. MS. CLAIBORN: Good morning. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. FRIEDMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Peter Friedman, from O'Melveny & Meyers, on behalf of Pacific Alliance Group. THE CLERK: I'm sorry, Attorney Friedman, I can't Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 5 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 5 hear you. MR. FRIEDMAN: I'm sorry. THE COURT: It's kind of hard because we only have a few microphones and we have a lot of people. So, I'm sorry. MR. FRIEDMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. It's Peter Friedman, from O'Melveny & Meyers, on behalf of Pacific Asia Alliance. I'm joined by Mr. Sarnoff. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. FRIEDMAN: And Mr. Birney from the Robinson & Cole firm, our Connecticut counsel, is also here. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. GOLDMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, representing the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good morning. MS. MAYHEW: Good morning, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew, McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter, on behalf of creditors Rui Ma, Zheng Wu and Weican Meng. And with me is co-counsel Carollyn Callari. THE COURT: Good morning to both of you. Okay. The Court scheduled a status conference today in accordance with the memorandum of decision denying the motion to dismiss without prejudice and appointing a Chapter 11 trustee. Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 6 of\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 7 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 6 That memorandum of decision indicated that within 14 days of the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee that a status conference would be held so that the Chapter 11 trustee could report to the Court on where things stand from the Chapter 11 trustee's perspective and to also talk about specific issues that the Chapter 11 trustee may be addressing, reviewing, analyzing and to give the Court some idea of where you think, Mr. Despins, we're heading with regard to this case. I also set the status conference because there was a flurry of papers filed after the appointment that -- the order appointing you, Mr. Despins, about your firm's application -- your application to employ your firm, Paul Hastings, and then also the motion to withdraw attorney filed by Brown Rudnick, which was filed after the order entered appointing Mr. Despins. So I would like to hear from you, Mr. Despins, first about the status of what you've been able to do, what you would -- what you're intending to do, what the next steps might in this case. We will address the application insofar as to discuss at least the application to employ your firm. And then we will discuss the motion to withdraw as counsel -- the debtor's counsel who's been involved in the case since the beginning, Brown Rudnick. Okay?\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 871-2
Filed 09/23/22
Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35
Page 8 of
117 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
7 |\n| 1 | So, Mr. Despins, if you would proceed, please. |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
And if you'd like to come forward. |\n| 4 | And the other thing, Mr. Despins, if you -- if you |\n| 5 | want at any time, if it would be helpful to you at any time, |\n| 6 | for the Court to pull up any pleadings that you need to look |\n| 7 | at, you can just let us know and the courtroom deputy can do |\n| 8 | that for you. |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | So we have a presentation for the Court. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Please. |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
I expect that it would take no more |\n| 13 | than 15 minutes, but we have a visual aid, meaning that -- |\n| 14 | in written form -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
-- that would help the Court in |\n| 17 | following the presentation.
So if we could, distribute -- |\n| 18 | we have copies for everyone in the courtroom and for -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Sure.
That would be great if you |\n| 20 | would do that.
And then we can -- we can mark the |\n| 21 | presentation as Trustee Exhibit 1. |\n| 22 | (Trustee written presentation copy marked Trustee |\n| 23 | Exhibit 1.) |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
Yeah.
I want to be clear, this is |\n| 25 | not evidence.
It's just a work plan -- |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 871-2
Filed 09/23/22
Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35
Page 9 of
117 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
8 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Understood. |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
It's just demonstrative, but it's |\n| 4 | something that will help the Court, and we can put it in the |\n| 5 | record.
Okay? |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
Absolutely, Your Honor. |\n| 7 | And if -- Your Honor, would you like us to file it |\n| 8 | as well? |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
No.
It's all right. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
We can take care of that.
Thank you. |\n| 12 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | Okay.
So I -- first of all, thank you, Your Honor, for |\n| 14 | hearing from us on this matter. |\n| 15 | So I will start with -- on page 2 with |\n| 16 | administrative matters.
And some of this stuff, Your Honor, |\n| 17 | is fairly routine and boring so I will not spend a lot of |\n| 18 | time on it.
You know it already. |\n| 19 | But just to confirm, we posted the bond for |\n| 20 | \\$25,000.
We opened the bank account, that's item number |\n| 21 | two.
Number three is just a reminder that there were three |\n| 22 | Section 341 meetings on March 21st, on April 6th, but they |\n| 23 | were not completed, so another one needs to be scheduled by |\n| 24 | the U.S. Trustee.
So I wanted you to be aware of that. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 10 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 9 MR. DESPINS: And then still in this list of matters, the monthly operating reports, there are two reports that are still due by the debtor prior to our appointment and, therefore, these need -- I don't know if it goes to the Brown Rudnick motion to be recused or somebody else is going to pick that up, but this needs to be done. And that's listed on page 2.\n\n I just want to point out though at the bottom of page 2 is the monthly operating reports, this is in bold there, reflect that a third party has made disbursements for the benefit of the debtor in amounts that averages approximately 115,000 per month. I think that's an important data point.\n\n Next page, Your Honor, bar date. There was a lot of back and forth on a bar date. And I know you were considering at that time the dismissal of the case so it made no sense to enter an order for a bar date when the case might be dismissed, but at this point the case is not being dismissed and I think the bar date order should be entered.\n\n I think you have the revised -- I'm told that you have a revised version and we would encourage the Court to enter the order because we need to know who's out there, especially in terms of governmental entity, we need to understand that. So that's the bar date order.\n\nUnder item number six, that's the update on the\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 10 Lady May inspection. So there was an inspection, Your Honor, on July 13th with PAX's expert and an expert I hired to basically oversee PAX's expert. So let me explain this. Obviously, we have no money and the estate has zero dollars. And PAX was doing its own review with a very reputable expert and they're paying for that and we appreciate that. However, given the dynamic of this case, I could not go to the inspection and say I'm relying on PAX's expert alone, even though directionally we're aligned in the same direction in the sense that both we and PAX want to know if this yacht has problems or not. So what I did is I hired Mr. Paul Derecktor, who is a -- I don't know if Your Honor is aware of this -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: -- that company was in -- THE COURT: I am aware. MR. DESPINS: Were you -- THE COURT: I mean, once you said the name. I didn't know you hired that person, but I -- I'm aware of the company. MR. DESPINS: I don't know. Were you the judge on that case? THE COURT: No. MR. DESPINS: Okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 11 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 12 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
11 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
No, I was not. |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay.
So he's a -- he has a |\n| 3 | shipyard in the area.
He really knows boats.
But he agreed |\n| 4 | to look over the shoulder of PAX's expert for the sum of |\n| 5 | \\$2,500.
I figured that that was a modest sum to invest just |\n| 6 | to make sure nobody would criticize us relying entirely on |\n| 7 | PAX's expert.
So we've done that. |\n| 8 | There are still discussions that need to happen, |\n| 9 | and let me tell you the nature of these discussions. |\n| 10 | Basically, what Mr. Derecktor has told me is, he, |\n| 11 | said, look, anybody buying a ship of this size would |\n| 12 | actually take it off -- out of the water to inspect the |\n| 13 | hull.
And I said, well, how much does that cost?
Oh, |\n| 14 | \\$400,000.
Forget about that.
We can't do that.
Is there a |\n| 15 | plan B? |\n| 16 | He said, well, you could send divers to go |\n| 17 | underneath and inspect the hull because the ship came back |\n| 18 | from Europe and often in the ocean you hit, you know, all |\n| 19 | sorts of things, potentially.
And that would cost \\$2,500, |\n| 20 | the divers.
So we were having discussions with PAX as to |\n| 21 | does that make sense to do that. |\n| 22 | And the second thing he mentioned is that we |\n| 23 | should really do a sea trial.
And at first I thought we're |\n| 24 | not going to take the ship out at sea.
He said, no, just |\n| 25 | basically it's like -- it's like for a car.
Take it out for |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 871-2
Filed 09/23/22
Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35
Page 13 of
117 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
12 |\n| 1 | a spin for half an hour just to make sure -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
I'm familiar with a sea trial. |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay.
I was not.
And so that's |\n| 4 | still being considered, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | So at this stage we need to get together with |\n| 6 | PAX's expert to combine our common views and go back to the |\n| 7 | entity that's the registered ship owner.
So that's the |\n| 8 | status of the inspection at this time, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | But it was obvious, you know I'm not a ship |\n| 10 | expert, that there's damage to the boat because you could |\n| 11 | see when you just walked by it there's a, you know, a |\n| 12 | portion of the front of the boat that was hit by something. |\n| 13 | But, anyway, we'll -- that's proceeding. |\n| 14 | Still, on the list of matters, you know, page 4, |\n| 15 | automatic stay letters.
I directed my firm to send more |\n| 16 | than 20 letters to various parties that are at the periphery |\n| 17 | of this case. |\n| 18 | So, for example, an entity called Golden Spring |\n| 19 | New York, which Your Honor may recall has been providing |\n| 20 | some of the funding in some situations.
I'm not |\n| 21 | -- I don't want to go into the details, but they're clearly |\n| 22 | within the universe of debtor related companies. |\n| 23 | And then Bravo Luck, that's the entity that |\n| 24 | allegedly has a trust agreement that provides that they own |\n| 25 | the Sherry Netherland apartment. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 14 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 13 So they're all listed there. Well, some of them are listed there. But we also sent the same thing to Brown Rudnick, which was acknowledged by them, and a firm in Greenwich, Connecticut, Whitman Breed. That was actually very interesting because I received permission from the person who sold the house to the debtor to get access to the closing statements, the wire transfers, et cetera. But when I called Whitman Breed, there's all we can't give that to you because we're representing the debtor on other matters. I said, well, what does that have to do with anything? You didn't represent them in the sale, did you? No. But we're not going to give you any documents. So that means they are representing the debtor on other matters. And obviously we want them to preserve those documents and us to get access to that. So there were a number of these letters that were sent, this is since our appointment, probably 20 of those. Page 5, still (indiscernible) matters. Just so Your Honor knows, reaching out to key parties, obviously, we started with the debtor. So on the first day after the appointment, I called Brown Rudnick and I said -- and by the way, I'm not going to reveal any settlement discussion other than to say\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 15 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
14 |\n| 1 | that my first approach was to reach out to them and say why |\n| 2 | don't we have a meeting to see if there's a global |\n| 3 | settlement that could be done before we get into this very |\n| 4 | expensive and very extensive process, and the next thing I |\n| 5 | heard after that is that they were no longer counsel to Mr. |\n| 6 | -- to the debtor. |\n| 7 | But I want to make sure the approach -- our |\n| 8 | approach is we don't have to spend money on this if we don't |\n| 9 | -- if we don't have to.
I know it's going to be really |\n| 10 | expensive if we have to go to all these jurisdictions |\n| 11 | because there are a bunch of jurisdictions involved. |\n| 12 | But we wanted to see if there was a number at |\n| 13 | which there could be a global settlement and that didn't -- |\n| 14 | at least, to date, has not panned out. |\n| 15 | So we reached out to counsel for the debtor.
We |\n| 16 | reached out obviously to Mr. Goldman, counsel to the |\n| 17 | committee, who has given us very good advice on the case and |\n| 18 | all that.
Same with Pacific Alliance, Mr. Friedman. |\n| 19 | We reached out to counsel to Genever Holdings, |\n| 20 | that's the Chapter 11 entity, Your Honor.
Another |\n| 21 | interesting conversation because I asked him who do you take |\n| 22 | direction from in that case?.
He said, oh, Miles.
I didn't |\n| 23 | know that was the way he used names -- he's known.
So I |\n| 24 | said, who's Miles?
He said, oh, that's the Chapter 11 |\n| 25 | debtor. |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 16 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 15 So he's taking direction in that case from this debtor. So I said, well, I'm the Chapter 11 trustee now. So he said, well, I guess I'm taking directions from you. I said, well, we'll -- you know, to be continued. But, you know, I'll come back to that later, but there's a lot of things to be discussed about that issue. But I'll come back to it in a second. So we reached out to him. We also reached out to former Judge Cyganowski who was the court-appointed sales agent in that case. And I want it to be clear -- and I'll cover that later -- the trustee is not taking the position that the sale should be halted. So that's not part of our game plan. But I wanted to reach out to her to introduce myself and also to get feedback on what's happening with the property. And she did tell me, by the way, that the debtor is occupying that property, the Sherry-Netherland in New York. Then counsel to creditors. Rui Ma and Zheng Wu and, Carollyn Callari, obviously, we reached out to her as one of the important constituency. Since the failed attempt with Brown Rudnick, we've asked new debtor's counsel to have a meeting with the debtor, not necessarily to discuss settlement, but because we need to have a serious discussion with the debtor to make sure the debtor understands the regime he's operating under\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 17 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
16 |\n| 1 | now.
And we've asked for that last Friday.
We haven't |\n| 2 | heard back a response to date.
Maybe we will soon. |\n| 3 | Next, Your Honor, still on page -- now at page 6, |\n| 4 | still administrative matters, management of pending |\n| 5 | adversary proceedings. |\n| 6 | So there are a number of adversary proceedings, |\n| 7 | Your Honor.
Most of them relate to non-dischargeability. |\n| 8 | And I want to be clear, because we approached the debtor to |\n| 9 | say, hey, we would like to -- I'm not sure -- it's not |\n| 10 | informal intervention, we would like a stay of these |\n| 11 | proceedings.
And the initial reaction, well, it's not your |\n| 12 | business.
This is a fight between the creditors and the |\n| 13 | debtor. |\n| 14 | And generally that's probably right, so maybe |\n| 15 | they'll like that concession, except that from a court |\n| 16 | efficiency and a point of view I think it would be a really |\n| 17 | poor investment of the Court's time, and we would need to be |\n| 18 | involved, and our time to go through now a non |\n| 19 | dischargeability complaint.
Because in order to do that, |\n| 20 | you need to go through the claim.
And essentially you need |\n| 21 | to say I have a claim, a good claim and it's non |\n| 22 | dischargeable.
Well, that would be duplicative of the |\n| 23 | process that could take place later on on claims allowance. |\n| 24 | And my point is why go through that brain damage |\n| 25 | when there's no assets in the estate today, meaning when |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 18 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
17 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | there are assets to fight over, then by all means all these |\n| 2 | proceedings should happen.
But to do that today would be, |\n| 3 | you know -- obviously, you are the judge, you will decide |\n| 4 | your calendar, but to us it seems like a really bad use of |\n| 5 | the Court's time and of our time as well because we might be |\n| 6 | in a position where we now need to go through the claims |\n| 7 | allowance process while there are no assets in the estate, |\n| 8 | which, you know, I believe firmly that there will be assets |\n| 9 | in the estate one day, but today there are none.
And I |\n| 10 | think it would be, you know -- anyways.
So that's our view, |\n| 11 | Your Honor.
So I wanted to make sure you understood why we |\n| 12 | filed this motion for a stay. |\n| | |\n\n But we're not going to go and get involved against a particular creditor on the issue of non-dischargeability or for or against the debtor on that. That's not our goal. Our goal is from the case management point of view to make sure that there's a good use of everyone's time including Your Honor's time on these matters.\n\n Page 7, number nine, there's another adversary proceeding, and that's the one by the registered ship owner, HK International. They filed -- and that was the Zeisler firm that represented the plaintiff and now they represent the plaintiff and the defendant -- that's a little joke -- until now I'm going to be substituted as the defendant in that action. And I'll come back to that towards the end,\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 18 but they gave us a 30-day extension to answer or to otherwise move in that case. Page 8, Your Honor, number ten, intervention appearance and other litigation. The debtor has 25 active lawsuits. I'm not -- and I don't want to be cavalier about this -- I'm not that concerned today about the ones where he's a defendant because the stay, you know, applies. It's the litigation where he's a plaintiff. We need to get our arms around value if any of those claims and we've started reaching out to those people. But I don't mislead, Your Honor. We have not made a lot of progress on that. That is something that we need to do over the next, you know, month or so. So the concept there is to go and talk to counsel for the debtor in -- where the debtor's a plaintiff to see what is the nature of litigation. Is there value there for example? If there is, I want to know sure Your Honor knows this. There's a, I think, a \\$1 billion -- that's the asserted number -- where he's suing UBS in the U.K., and so obviously I reached out to counsel and hopefully we'll have a discussion with them to say what is the litigation about, understanding that, et cetera. So that's one example of those. Next, number eleven, is contact with the Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 19 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 20 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
19 |\n| 1 | Securities and Exchange Commission. |\n| 2 | So I don't know if Your Honor saw this -- you |\n| 3 | probably don't spend your time looking at the claims docket |\n| 4 | -- but there was a claim filed by the SEC and basically -- |\n| 5 | and it's described there -- they are saying they've |\n| 6 | conducted an investigation for, you know, where they may -- |\n| 7 | for violation of securities laws.
And that's not good news, |\n| 8 | not only for -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
They didn't assert any dollar amount? |\n| 10 | They said that they're investigating, is that what it says? |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:
Yeah.
Well, it's -- we have the |\n| 12 | quote there I think, but, you know, they're investigating, |\n| 13 | and they may actually file a civil action against the debtor |\n| 14 | to seek disgorgement and all that. |\n| 15 | So I've dealt with the SEC before, and I'm saying |\n| 16 | this with all due respect to them, my concern is the diluted |\n| 17 | effect that could have on claims of, you know, Mr. Goldman |\n| 18 | represents for example. |\n| 19 | And so I've reached out to the SEC and we're at a |\n| 20 | very preliminary stage.
There have been no substantive |\n| 21 | discussions, but I want to understand exactly what is their |\n| 22 | issue, what is it related to, and also whether they're aware |\n| 23 | of any assets that we're not aware of.
So that is -- and, |\n| 24 | again, I don't want to mislead you -- that just started this |\n| 25 | week so not a lot of progress on that front.
That's the |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 20 SEC. THE COURT: Didn't they just -- and this claim that they filed, it was recent, wasn't it? MR. DESPINS: Yes. It was I'm going to say five days ago, six days ago. THE COURT: Right. Okay. MR. DESPINS: Something like that. Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Okay. Moving on to page 9, number twelve, dealing with inbound inquiries. We've received inquiries, Your Honor, from people saying -- basically tips saying this guy is hiding assets here or there. And I want to be clear with Your Honor. I've done a lot of these cases and I would say these often fall into three categories. The first category, what I'll call the crazies. Meaning these types of cases attract all sorts of people, some of them are completely irrational. So that could be door number one. Door number two -- I'm not saying this applies in this case but in that case, the target itself sends these things anonymously just to send us to Africa, for example, to spend money there when there's nothing to be -- to be looked at. Door number three, you can get a real tip, and Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 21 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 22 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 21 that's what we're investigating. Some of them are very specific as to persons holding funds. And as I said, I cannot validate those now. I don't want to mislead the Court and say, oh, well, we have -- we found \\$5 billion here. No, I can't say that.\n\n But it shows that the Chapter 11 trustee process is working because people are coming out of the woodwork to say you should check the following things, things that we would have never found ourselves initially at this stage anyway. As I said, these could be made up so we have to be very careful about that, so I don't want to exaggerate the importance of these.\n\n Next, Your Honor, retention of professionals. Well, you know we filed for the retention of Paul Hastings. And obviously we retained Mr. Skalka and Linsey. And the point there is we're going to try -- and you'll see there's no Paul Hastings lawyer other than myself here -- we're going to rely heavily on them to handle a lot of the -- of the matters before Your Honor. And, you know, obviously you know that firm very well.\n\n Page 10, this is where we get into really more meaty matters, Your Honor. They titled theirs Exercising Corporate Governance Rights. The debtor lists various entities as 100 percent owned by the debtor. And one of these entities is the Genever BVI entity, the British Virgin\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 23 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
22 |\n| 1 | Island entity.
And we've asked the debtor's counsel, all |\n| 2 | three of them, meaning Brown Rudnick, the one in between, |\n| 3 | and now, the Zeisler firm, to produce to us the corporate |\n| 4 | governance documents relating to that entity.
To date, |\n| 5 | nothing. |\n| 6 | But that entity, you'll recall, BVI, owns the |\n| 7 | Genever in the U.S., the Chapter 11 debtor.
And as I told |\n| 8 | you, debtor's counsel believes he's taking instructions from |\n| 9 | the debtor, at least until now. |\n| 10 | And our point is we have -- the trustee jumps into |\n| 11 | the corporate governance rights of the debtor.
That's horn |\n| 12 | book law.
But nevertheless we probably will have to file |\n| 13 | something with the Court to seek a confirmation of that, but |\n| 14 | there are many cases that hold that.
And that means that we |\n| 15 | can participate eventually in the Genever USA Chapter 11 |\n| 16 | case.
Obviously, we would never ask you to grant us relief |\n| 17 | with respect to that.
We would go to Judge Garrity. |\n| 18 | And one of the things we mention here is that we |\n| 19 | will ask for a status conference in front of Judge Garrity |\n| 20 | to say we're here, it's not the same landscape anymore.
We |\n| 21 | need to complete our analysis of the Sherry-Netherland and |\n| 22 | this issue of the trust that was -- for the son's company, |\n| 23 | and we need to finalize that.
But the likelihood is that we |\n| 24 | will appear there and say, Judge, this is a different |\n| 25 | landscape. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 24 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 23 But as I said at the beginning, we're not trying to change the sale. That's been preordained. There's a sale process. We're not going to try to touch that. But he might say so what could you be doing? Well, as I told you, Judge -- former Judge Cyganowski told me that the debtor is still in that apartment. Well, if I control that entity that owns the apartment, I want rental income from whoever I can get rental income for. So if the debtor doesn't want to pay rental income -- by the way that would be thousands of dollars. It's not like \\$5,000 a month. It would be -- you know, I don't want to exaggerate, but it would be a very large amount. If the debtor wants to occupy the property, he needs to pay the piper. The piper is Genever and that's the company we now control. If the -- and if he doesn't want to pay, then somebody else will rent this property for -- subject to approval by the board of the Sherry-Netherland, et cetera, but this is a property that would pay top dollars to rent, because this -- this apartment is not going to be sold tomorrow. These are very expensive apartments. You need to -- you know, I don't how to say that, but the market for that is a very different market and it could take several\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 25 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 24 months before it's sold. And by several months I mean really several months. So I'm not making a prediction as to when it's going to sell, but it would be incredible for this estate not to enjoy the benefit of rental income of a -- through a subsidiary that we control. So I'm not asking you to comment or to rule on that. I'm sure my friends at Zeisler will have different views of that, but I want to tell you that that's coming. And by the way, Genever is an example, but there are other companies as well. And the issue there is we need to get all the documents to understand exactly what's going on. We need to get bank accounts for these entities. We need to understand all the transfers that were made. And that's, you know, that's something that we certainly started with the corporate governance documents. And we have not received anything at this point, but we intend to pursue that. Page 11, number two, is what I just said. We will seek relief from this court to -- for the Court to confirm that. And on top of that, Your Honor, we would like to be appointed under Section 1505. And this is a bizarre section in the sense that Chapter 15 -- what does this have to do with this? We're not in Chapter 15. But that's a\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 871-2
Filed 09/23/22
Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35
Page 26 of
117 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
25 |\n| 1 | section -- and I'm embarrassed to say I learned that -- I |\n| 2 | relearned that recently -- that doesn't apply only in |\n| 3 | Chapter 15. |\n| 4 | That basically says, and it's quoted on page 11 |\n| 5 | there, \"That a trustee may be authorized by the Court to act |\n| 6 | in a foreign country on behalf of an estate created under |\n| 7 | Section 541.
And an entity authorized to act under this |\n| 8 | section may act in any way permitted by the applicable |\n| 9 | foreign law.\"
So that would mean us going to the BVI to do |\n| 10 | whatever we have to do there to get control of that entity. |\n| 11 | And obviously we're trying to avoid going to court |\n| 12 | if we have to because, you know, there's no money, but it's |\n| 13 | not limited to the BVI. |\n| 14 | There are other -- and that depends on the |\n| 15 | targets, the tips we've gotten -- there are other potential |\n| 16 | countries where we would seek discovery from parties and, |\n| 17 | therefore, we will seek a broad ruling from the Court |\n| 18 | appointing us under 1505 as the foreign representative, but |\n| 19 | for the sole purpose of either getting documents or |\n| 20 | recovering assets.
Again, that's to come.
I just want to |\n| 21 | give you a heads-up on our plans on that. |\n| 22 | At the bottom of 11, Your Honor, we would also |\n| 23 | mention that it is typical in these cases for the Court, |\n| 24 | meaning Your Honor, to enter a paragraph seeking the |\n| 25 | assistance of foreign courts in getting the relief that a |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 26 trustee would seek. And you might say, well, why would -- why do I need to do that? First of all, it's kind of a gratuitous, you know, request because it doesn't bind the Court in anyway. But it's -- in foreign courts, it's hugely important to be able to point to a paragraph to say, look, the Court is asking you or asking for your assistance in proceeding as quicky as possible. So you might say why is that necessary? I'll give you an example. BVI, god bless them, they have a summer recess. August, nothing happens. I'd love to have that system here too, but we don't. So the only exception to that is if we can move on an emergency basis. So I'm not asking -- I'm just telling you that if you ever see that, you'll know why we're asking for that -- because that's the only way to get their attention on an emergency basis during the month of August. And, by the way, you know, August is just around the corner. We may not need that for BVI, but in other countries we might need it. So we'll obviously come back to court on that. Page 12, the request for corporate governance. I've already covered that. We've asked for that. This has not been produced. Page 13, item C, identify and if appropriate seek turn over estate assets. This is important. You know, a Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 27 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 28 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
27 |\n| 1 | Rule 2004 motion, obviously we'll do that.
But Mr. Goldman |\n| 2 | has already obtained that relief so we are -- we're going to |\n| 3 | try to piggyback off of that to avoid duplication of effort |\n| 4 | because he's already done a lot of that work.
So that's |\n| 5 | certainly directionally what we want to do. |\n| 6 | But the next point is the more important point, |\n| 7 | Your Honor, which is that as part of this, we will seek |\n| 8 | attorney/client privilege and work product of firms like |\n| 9 | Brown Rudnick because the courts are pretty clear on that |\n| 10 | that the trustee controls the privilege, especially for the |\n| 11 | period where the debtor was a debtor in possession. |\n| 12 | So you might say why do you want that? |\n| 13 | Well, for example, the prepared schedules of assets and |\n| 14 | liabilities, there may have been some exchanges there that |\n| 15 | would be interesting to us.
And it's not limited to Brown |\n| 16 | Rudnick. |\n| 17 | By the way, I'm not -- I don't want to point |\n| 18 | fingers at Brown Rudnick.
It's not a -- it's just an |\n| 19 | example.
But certainly the firm in Greenwich, we -- you |\n| 20 | know, they represent the debtor. |\n| 21 | By the way, they didn't say we represent the wife |\n| 22 | of the debtor or that company called Greenwich Land Trust. |\n| 23 | They said they represented the debtor.
We want to |\n| 24 | understand what they're working on and what's the work |\n| 25 | product there because we believe that the trustee controls |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 28 that. I'm sure that my colleagues will have different views on that, but I want to make sure you know that's coming, because I believe that as part of the investigation that could produce results. Now, page 14, still on identifying assets and seeking turnover of assets for the estate. The Lady May. So I'm not going to read everything that's there, but basically, Your Honor, we're quoting from Judge Ostrager's decision in the New York Supreme Court. And they're pretty -- and I don't want to be -- I'm not here to argument this thing because we're still reviewing this and we will review it one more time, but it appears that there are pretty strong findings there as to the daughter, who of course is the sole shareholder of the registered owner of the ship, and the debtor in terms of control and beneficial ownership of the ship. And what we're saying on page 15 is that subject to finalizing our review, we believe that these findings should be found to be binding by this court on the ship, the registered shipowner company, even though that company itself was not a party to that action. But the daughter was the witness. Her lawyer cross-examined witnesses, et cetera, et cetera, was a full participant in that trial. And the New York Appellate Division had sent back\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 871-2
Filed 09/23/22
Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35
Page 30 of
117 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
29 |\n| 1 | the case to Judge Ostrager asking that he make finding on |\n| 2 | ownership of the ship.
So they had clear, clear, you know, |\n| 3 | notice that the judge was going to do that.
And, in fact, |\n| 4 | he did. |\n| 5 | And at that point, again, subject to further |\n| 6 | review, we believe that there's collateral estoppel even |\n| 7 | though the company that's the registered owner was not a |\n| 8 | party to the action because there privity.
It's the same |\n| 9 | parties. |\n| 10 | And the fact that -- sorry for my friends at |\n| 11 | Zeisler & Zeisler, but they -- now they represent the |\n| 12 | registered owner and Mr. Kwok that, you know, it's almost |\n| 13 | like -- I'm joking -- almost summary judgment on that point |\n| 14 | -- meaning that, yes, they are the same, they're all |\n| 15 | together in this. |\n| 16 | So in terms of collateral estoppel we believe that |\n| 17 | should be binding.
Again, this is for later, but I wanted |\n| 18 | to give you a heads-up because we don't believe they get to |\n| 19 | do a do-over and like a ten-day trial here to put the same |\n| 20 | people on, et cetera, et cetera, for the same issue. |\n| 21 | Page 16, Your Honor, the Sherry-Netherland, I've |\n| 22 | mentioned.
I told you what the game plan is there.
The |\n| 23 | Greenwich homes.
You know, these are recent, you know, 2020 |\n| 24 | purchases by a company owned 100 percent by the wife of the |\n| 25 | debtor.
Two houses.
And of course we want to know the |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 31 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 30 details of where the money came from. And then point five, other assets. I want to be clear that we're not limiting ourselves to these three buckets. I will come back to the Court and update our work product on that later, but I want to be clear the message is not left that it's only the Sherry-Netherland and the yacht. There are -- there are other assets that need to -- and the Greenwich properties -- there are other assets that need to be -- to be investigated. Page 17, Your Honor, the claims review and allowance process. This is the same thing as I said before. Everyone would like to have their claims allowed tomorrow in the dream world, but it would be so counter productive to go through that at this stage in terms of, you know, no money to do that and to what end if we -- unless -- until we bring money to fight over, let's not fight over that, but that's just our view of the world. So the timing of that, Your Honor, I would say that's months away. I don't want to mislead you and say, oh, we'll get that done next month. No. We're going to try not to focus on that in the coming months because the sole focus is on bringing assets into the estate. The sole, short-term focus. And then the last page is really a Chapter 11 plan. The same thing, Your Honor, we're -- I don't want to\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 871-2
Filed 09/23/22
Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35
Page 32 of
117 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
31 |\n| 1 | -- you know, I've always been told by my boss when I was a |\n| 2 | young lawyer, you know, under promise and over deliver.
I |\n| 3 | don't want to mislead you. |\n| 4 | This will take -- unless there's a global |\n| 5 | settlement, which we would welcome, this is going to take |\n| 6 | months.
I don't want to mislead the Court on that.
I wish |\n| 7 | that were not the case, but I have a sense of how things are |\n| 8 | going to go and I think that's the way it's going to go |\n| 9 | unfortunately. |\n| 10 | So that completes our presentation, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, at the moment, I do have |\n| 13 | a question or two, but I do appreciate very much the |\n| 14 | presentation. |\n| 15 | One of the reasons that in the memorandum of |\n| 16 | decision that there was a status conference to be scheduled |\n| 17 | was to have the trustee do exactly what you've done, which |\n| 18 | is to come in and tell the Court where the trustee believes |\n| 19 | things stand, what issues need to be addressed and what will |\n| 20 | be coming, and what the ultimate goal may be. |\n| 21 | And even if it's not reachable, I understand that, |\n| 22 | you know, we're in Chapter 11, so obviously the ultimate |\n| 23 | goal is some form of a plan if we get to that point.
So I |\n| 24 | appreciate it. |\n| 25 | Given what you've said it seems to me from your |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 32 perspective one of the most important things you'd like the Court to address is to get an order issued setting a bar date for claims. And that was on hold somewhat during the -- before your appointment because of issues regarding the possible dismissal of the case, as you indicated in your presentation, and because there was also a possibility of conversion of the case. There were other issues that the Court had to consider, and so the bar date issue -- there were two issues with regard to it. There was -- there was an issue that the Court was concerned that it was too short at that point in time because the case was developing. But now the case is five months old. There's a Chapter 11 trustee appointed because of the information and pleadings submitted by various parties in the case and the evidence presented during the case. And the record supported that. So I agree with you that the Court will turn in short order to that setting of a bar date. And my thought on that is the service of that order, who gets served? You know, we can do publication and we might do publication. That might be something that you're interested in. But one of the things that I am concerned about is Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 33 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 34 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
33 |\n| 1 | the schedules and statements of affairs that were filed had |\n| 2 | many qualifications associated with them.
I don't know if |\n| 3 | the -- and I'm not sure you know either, so I'm not |\n| 4 | suggesting that you would -- if the list of people who would |\n| 5 | actually get served with the notice of bar date would be |\n| 6 | sufficient in this matter? |\n| 7 | So I think what we may do, and I'd like to think |\n| 8 | about it, is consider how that order would be served,
and |\n| 9 | whether or not publication is appropriate in addition to |\n| 10 | service and how publication would be accomplished, where |\n| 11 | publication would actually be made? |\n| 12 | And I'd ask you to think about that.
I don't know |\n| 13 | the answer to those questions.
As I sit here right now, I'm |\n| 14 | raising those issues in order for all of us to think about |\n| 15 | the fulsomeness of the notice that would be provided on a |\n| 16 | bar date for filing claims. |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, you raise a very good |\n| 18 | point.
I would like to be able to revert back to the Court |\n| 19 | on that, especially the publication aspect and where, how. |\n| 20 | So I said that it would be important to (indiscernible) |\n| 21 | order, but it's not a matter of days.
You know, but we will |\n| 22 | revert back to the Court on that point. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
I appreciate that.
And I will think |\n| 24 | about it as well.
You know, there have been cases over the |\n| 25 | years and cases recently issued in different circuits about |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 35 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
34 |\n| 1 | actual notice versus constructive notice and -- on a bar |\n| 2 | date and things of that nature, so I want to make sure that |\n| 3 | we are all thinking -- we're doing the best we can under the |\n| 4 | circumstances as presented so that people have appropriate |\n| 5 | notice with regard to the filing of a proof of claim. |\n| 6 | So with regard to the rest of the information that |\n| 7 | you've submitted, again, I appreciate it very much.
This is |\n| 8 | what the Court was looking for with regard to the -- I |\n| 9 | haven't looked yet, but I see in your report or your |\n| 10 | presentation the adversary proceeding issues. |\n| 11 | So have you filed a motion to stay in every |\n| 12 | adversary proceeding?
There was just an adversary |\n| 13 | proceeding filed yesterday. |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:
Yesterday. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
And the day before. |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
So we filed in three, but we will |\n| 17 | file a supplemental -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
-- motion to stay in the others. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
And I'll have to look at those |\n| 21 | obviously.
And the way that our motion practice works in |\n| 22 | adversary proceedings under our local rules is that parties |\n| 23 | have 21 days to -- there's a responsive -- there's a |\n| 24 | responsive date of 21 days to object or not object, you |\n| 25 | know, to do whatever they feel is appropriate with regard to |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 35 a motion and then the Court would determine whether or not there would need to be a hearing. Now, I believe in some of the earlier adversary proceedings that 21-day period might run into a time frame that might present a problem. So I will take a look at those adversary proceedings. And if there's some issue as to waiting for that response period to pass, I could I believe issue some kind of order either extending the response period or extending the periods of time that are already in existence subject to a ruling on the motion to stay the proceeding. Or, of course, if you have the consent of the parties on the staying of the adversary proceeding, then I would not understand -- or I would be surprised as to why I would not grant a stay of those adversary proceedings. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. And to be -- to be fair, we just started with the stay process. But for the life of me, I don't know why the debtor would want to forward with that or why the people seeking the non-dischargeability want a ruling on that today or spend a lot of money on that today. But it's their prerogative, so we will seek the consent. THE COURT: Right. But if you are able -- if the parties in each of the adversary proceedings consent to the stay, then the stay will be granted -- Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 36 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 36 MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: -- subject to, you know, further order of the Court and the progress of the case. I agree with you that it is not the goal of the Court to have the party -- all parties, no matter what their issues may be, to spend money needlessly. No one wants that. But we need -- but we need to just make sure that the process is properly followed and that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are properly followed. But if you obtain the agreement of the parties in those adversary proceedings to stay the adversary proceedings, then they will be stayed. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I'm not sure that there's anything else I have a question about. I understand that there are a lot of things that you're reviewing and different steps that you may be taking in short order and the Court will attempt to address those as quickly as they come before the Court. I'm just looking to make sure that there's nothing else that I have any questions about. I'm just looking at your presentation again. (Pause) THE COURT: I think those were the two issues that stuck out to me, were the bar date order and the stay -- the Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 37 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 38 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
37 |\n| 1 | stay motions in the adversary proceedings.
Because I do |\n| 2 | agree with you that many of the other things that you've |\n| 3 | discussed are developing and that you're addressing them in |\n| 4 | due course, and that you will be seeking relief from the |\n| 5 | Court when it -- you believe it's necessary to do so and |\n| 6 | appropriate to do so. |\n| 7 | So I don't have any other questions at the moment, |\n| 8 | sir.
Thank you very much. |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, may I be heard? |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Mr. Henzy, you may be heard, but we |\n| 12 | still have some issues that I -- we need to resolve from the |\n| 13 | Court's perspective and the United States Trustee's Office's |\n| 14 | perspective on the issue of who represents the debtor. |\n| 15 | And right now, Brown Rudnick represents the |\n| 16 | debtor.
Brown Rudnick didn't state any reason in its motion |\n| 17 | to withdraw as to why it's withdrawing its appearance. |\n| 18 | And Brown Rudnick had to go through the process |\n| 19 | that every debtor's counsel has to go through which is to |\n| 20 | file an application to be employed, to submit a |\n| 21 | disinterested affidavit, to comply with Bankruptcy Section |\n| 22 | 327(a) and Rule 2014, and our local Rule 2014.
And there's |\n| 23 | nothing in the order appointing them that says that they can |\n| 24 | file a motion to withdraw as debtor's counsel. |\n| 25 | So while I understand you want to be heard, you |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 38 are not at this point debtor's counsel. And -- MR. HENZY: No. I am. I absolutely am, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, you're not in the -- how are you debtor's counsel under the bankruptcy code -- MR. HENZY: The debtor -- the debtor -- THE COURT: -- Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: The debtor's now out of possession and does not need to file an application under 327 to -- THE COURT: Where's the case law that says that, Mr. Henzy? THE COURT: It's, Your Honor, 327 itself provides -- 327(a) provides -- THE COURT: So you can be counsel even if you're disinterested and you have a conflict just because the debtor's no longer in possession? MR. HENZY: Absolutely. THE COURT: I'd like to see a case law that says that. MR. HENZY: I'm not going to be able to have case law for you, Your Honor, because 327 -- I think 327(a) makes us the trustee, and in parens, debtor in possession, because debtor in possession has powers of a trustee -- has to -- has to retain counsel pursuant to court order. But there is no requirement -- and, Your Honor, in Chapter 7 cases, Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 39 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 39 debtors are not retained -- THE COURT: We're not in a Chapter 7 case, Mr. Henzy. MR. HENZY: I understand. But this is -- this is now a debtor out of possession. I don't think -- I mean, I don't -- I hate to -- I want to be careful, Your Honor, and with all due respect, you're asking me to give you cases that say 327(a) says what it says, but I'm not aware of any cases -- THE COURT: No. I'm asking you to give me a case where there's a Chapter 11 trustee appointed and debtor's counsel, who was debtor's counsel, can just withdraw and someone else can step in without having to meet any of the requirements of the bankruptcy code -- MR. HENZY: The -- THE COURT: -- let me just finish, please -- of the bankruptcy code and the rules and have a conflict of interest where they represent an entity that's owned by the debtor's daughter who's clearly an insider under the bankruptcy code. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, there are cases -- I don't believe that there are cases that I'm aware of which -- let me put it this way. I'm not aware of any cases that say that a debtor out of possession does not need to file a retention application with respect to its counsel. Because, again, I Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 40 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 40 think the plain language of 327(a), and I don't know if any counsel here would say the contrary, only provides a debtor in possession has to do that. I do know that there are cases, and we can get those to you, dealing with whether a counsel for a debtor post appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee may be paid by the bankruptcy estate. And generally the answer to that question is no. And the basis for that is that debtor's -- counsel for debtor out of possession is not retained pursuant to 327(a) and is not covered by 330 and 331. There are cases where courts haves said that counsel for a debtor out of possession may be paid, but really on a substantial contribution type of basis as opposed to their counsel retained under 327(a) and subject to the requirements of 330 and 331. And I can get you those cases, Your Honor. But I -- that's a little bit different. Those cases are saying that counsel for a debtor out of possession is not 327 counsel and not subject to 333, 330 and 331 in the context of saying usually you can't get paid by the bankruptcy estate. So I will get you those cases. THE COURT: Okay. Is that the Office of the United States Trustee's position? There's no conflict here? Zeisler & Zeisler can represent the debtor because the debtor's no longer a debtor in possession? Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 41 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 41 MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee is still evaluating that issue. I do think there's one issue that I want to raise with the Court that I don't think Attorney Henzy would dispute which is that as counsel to a debtor they have an obligation to disclose the compensation agreements or otherwise that they have with the debtor. THE COURT: That's absolutely going to happen, so you don't have to make that argument. MR. HENZY: Yeah. I don't -- I don't -- THE COURT: Mr. Henzy, if you're -- if you're accurate, if you're correct, then whomever pays you could take whatever money that might be available to creditors of the estate and just continue to pay you. MR. HENZY: That's not true. I think that's not correct. THE COURT: How is that not true? MR. HENZY: So I can't -- I a hundred percent agree we need to file our 329 2016(b) statement. My understanding is I have 14 days from the time I filed my appearance to do that and we will do that. I can't -- again, back to the cases that I'm mentioning, I can't get paid from estate assets. THE COURT: Where in 329 does it say you file an application to be employed? Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 42 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 43 of\n\n| | 117 | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
42 | | |\n| 1 | MR. HENZY:
Oh, it doesn't, Your Honor. | | |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Right. | | |\n| 3 | MR. HENZY:
No.
I'm not -- I'm sorry. | | |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
So how is 329 applicable? | | |\n| 5 | MR. HENZY:
Oh, I -- under 329, I believe what | | |\n| 6 | Attorney Claiborn was referring to, I still have to file the | | |\n| 7 | statement required by 329 and Rule 2016(b). | | |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
So if you're a debtor -- let's carry | | |\n| 9 | your thought process out.
If you're no longer a debtor-in | | |\n| 10 | possession and you don't have to be subject to any of the | | |\n| 11 | Court, any of the oversight of the Court that's in the | | |\n| 12 | bankruptcy code or the rules, then why do you have standing | | |\n| 13 | to say anything? | | |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:
Because I represent the debtor out of | | |\n| 15 | possession.
The debtor out of possession -- | | |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay.
You represent the debtor out of | | |\n| 17 | possession.
In your Chapter 7 cases that you're talking | | |\n| 18 | about, the Chapter 7 debtor has no standing unless and until | | |\n| 19 | it's proven that there be some surplus for the Chapter 7 | | |\n| 20 | debtor. | | |\n| 21 | And at this point, we all know -- everybody knows | | |\n| 22 | -- Mr. Despins knows, he took on this assignment knowing | | |\n| 23 | that there's no money in this estate, so how do you have | | |\n| 24 | standing to argue anything.
If you take your argument to | | |\n| 25 | its fullest extent, you're not subject to disinterestedness, | | |\n| | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 44 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 43 you're not subject to conflicts, all you have to do is disclose where your money -- the money you pay -- get came from, then why do you get to say anything? MR. HENZY: I think on certain issues, Your Honor, I don't disagree with you. The debtor may have no standing. And you may tell me to the extent I want to be heard on such issues that you're not going to listen to me. And I would understand that. I think that a debtor out of possession does have standing with respect to certain issues. THE COURT: Which ones? MR. HENZY: Mr. Despins addressed the 523 actions that are pending and his motion for stay with respect to those actions and made certain representations to the Court about the debtor's position on those. Certainly Mr. Kwok has standing in the -- THE COURT: I don't think he made any representations -- MR. HENZY: Oh, he -- THE COURT: -- about the debtor's positions. He said that -- MR. HENZY: I think he did. He did. THE COURT: This is a -- this was a -- this is a -- I didn't say this was evidence, number one. I said it was a demonstrative pleading that I would allow to be admitted on -- in the record as Exhibit 1. That's all. I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 45 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 44 didn't say I'm going to make any findings or rulings or anything based upon what Mr. Despins provided to us today. MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. I was answering your question. I don't think that you would say that the debtor doesn't have standing in the 523 actions. THE COURT: Okay. But if the actions are stayed, let's -- let me just -- presume the actions are stayed, then there's nothing for the debtor to worry about until they're not stayed, correct? MR. HENZY: I don't agree with that necessarily. But I -- THE COURT: Well, there's no pleadings requirement or anything that the debtor would need to undertake while the actions are stayed, correct? MR. HENZY: If the actions get stayed, that may be correct. I was trying to answer your question, Your Honor, on standing. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: There may be matters that the debtor does not have standing to be heard on. I don't disagree with you. And there -- I think there will be matters that the debtor does have standing to be heard on. And the example -- because it was in Mr. Despins' presentation -- was talking about the 523 actions. If we're talking about\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 45 the 523 actions, I don't think that Your Honor would say that the debtor does not have standing. THE COURT: Well, we're not talking about the 523 actions right now, right? You didn't rise to talk to me about the 523 actions. MR. HENZY: Actually, I did. THE COURT: Oh, you did. Okay. MR. HENZY: I did. THE COURT: Then go right ahead. MR. HENZY: Okay. I rose to make a very few points. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. MR. HENZY: Okay. One point, I want to be clear because I have not been involved in this case. I have reviewed some of the record, but my sense is that people are or parties want to make certain characterizations about Mr. Kwok and about his approach to things. On the 523 actions, what the trustee's asked us, the trustee's position to us initially was that upon his appointment he was substituted into the 523 actions. That's just -- I believe that's just incorrect, Your Honor. I don't think that the trustee becomes a defendant -- the defendant in the 523 action. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: So our response to counsel for the Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 46 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 47 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
46 |\n| 1 | trustee was we think you're -- because we were being asked |\n| 2 | what's -- we want the -- we want a stay, what's your |\n| 3 | position?
And our response -- because we're now the |\n| 4 | defendant in these actions -- and our response was no, |\n| 5 | you're not.
In some sense, we don't -- we don't know what |\n| 6 | you're talking about.
Okay. |\n| 7 | So it's not that -- Mr. Kwok is not refusing to |\n| 8 | answer sort of a basic question like that or trying to be |\n| 9 | difficult just for difficulties' sake.
I think that point |\n| 10 | is important to make.
Again, I think the parties are -- |\n| 11 | have or are going to characterize Mr. Kwok's approach in |\n| 12 | certain ways that I think are not fair. |\n| 13 | Again, with respect to the 523 actions, we were |\n| 14 | asked will you agree to a stay are actions that creditors |\n| 15 | have filed against Mr. Kwok. |\n| 16 | And to your point, Your Honor, if those actions |\n| 17 | are stayed, you said Mr. Kwok would have nothing to worry |\n| 18 | about.
Okay.
I don't know that I necessarily want to agree |\n| 19 | with the trustee that these actions are going to be stayed |\n| 20 | and be criticized by the people who filed them. |\n| 21 | Again, my point here is not to litigate or argue |\n| 22 | whether a stay should enter, or the basis for those 523 |\n| 23 | actions, or what rights the trustee may or may not have in |\n| 24 | those actions.
I just wanted to respond to Mr. Despins' |\n| 25 | presentation on the 523 actions because to the extent |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 871-2
Filed 09/23/22
Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35
Page 48 of
117 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
47 |\n| 1 | possible I want to avoid an unfair characterization of how |\n| 2 | Mr. Kwok is approaching things. |\n| 3 | We do -- we are counsel for HK International, |\n| 4 | okay, which is the title owner of the Lady May.
And |\n| 5 | notwithstanding that Mr. Despins said he was not going to |\n| 6 | argue, he argued.
I just want to be clear. |\n| 7 | And Your Honor made the point, there's been no |\n| 8 | evidence taken today that the document, that was handed up |\n| 9 | is not in evidence, Mr. Despins' presentation is not |\n| 10 | evidence.
So that's all fine. |\n| 11 | I do want to make the point that we absolutely, HK |\n| 12 | International, absolutely disputes that anything that |\n| 13 | happened in New York is binding in this court. |\n| 14 | You know, the document handed up takes snippets |\n| 15 | out of lengthy proceedings and lengthy rulings by the judge |\n| 16 | there.
The ownership of the Lady May is going to be |\n| 17 | litigated.
So I just want that to be -- |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:
How are you going to represent both HK |\n| 19 | International and Mr. Kwok in that adversary proceeding that |\n| 20 | HK International filed against Mr. Kwok and the bankruptcy |\n| 21 | estate as to the title to the Lady May?
Isn't that an |\n| 22 | absolute and obvious conflict of interest? |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:
Here it is not, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
How is that? |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
And one thing I absolutely agree with |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 48 Mr. Despins on is that upon his appointment he automatically became the defendant in that action and Mr. Kwok is no longer a defendant in that action. THE COURT: But you still represented -- it doesn't matter. You represent HK International and now you represent Mr. Kwok. How is -- whether you're no longer involved in that adversary proceeding doesn't matter. MR. HENZY: No. He's no longer involved. THE COURT: It doesn't matter. MR. HENZY: It does matter. THE COURT: No. It actually doesn't. MR. HENZY: Under the rules of -- THE COURT: It's an actual conflict of interest. You are -- you cannot represent -- you took on the representation of Mr. Kwok when there was an adversary proceeding pending against Mr. Kwok that your firm filed on behalf of HK International. MR. HENZY: We took on the representation of Mr. Kwok after Mr. Despins -- THE COURT: But, see, you want to have it both ways. You want to say, oh, in that adversary proceeding, Mr. Despins is automatically the defendant, but in the 523's, he's not. MR. HENZY: Well, I -- THE COURT: That's what you're arguing, right? Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 49 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 49 MR. HENZY: That is what I'm arguing. And I think that that is black letter law, Your Honor. THE COURT: Where? Really? MR. HENZY: I don't -- THE COURT: I'd like you to show me that black letter law. MR. HENZY: I don't think Mr. Despins is going to tell you that he is a defendant -- THE COURT: I'm not asking Mr. Despins. I'm asking you. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, he is not the defendant in the 523 actions. I think that that is black letter law. THE COURT: Okay. I'd love to see that black letter law, please. MR. HENZY: I don't know if I'm going to find cases that say that because I don't know that -- I don't know that anybody would take the position that a trustee becomes -- is the defendant in a 523 action, Your Honor. I don't -- that doesn't even make any sense to me. Again, with all due respect, Your Honor, that -- I don't know how a trustee could ever be a defendant in a 523 action. THE COURT: Okay. I understand what you said. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. HENZY: Okay. So I -- Mr. Kwok is no longer Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 50 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 50 the defendant in the Lady May adversary proceeding. I think Mr. Despins' position is that he now is the party that -- THE COURT: All right. Well, let's move on from the 523. There's a stipulation regarding the Lady May in which the debtor and HK are parties to. MR. HENZY: Mm-hmm. THE COURT: Okay. Are you -- so Mr. -- you're saying you're not representing the debtor anymore in connection with that stipulation, that it's Mr. Despins? MR. HENZY: I think the answer is yes and I think that's Mr. Despins' position is that. THE COURT: Okay. So you're saying your conflict of interest is non-existent because Mr. Despins was appointed as a Chapter 11 trustee? MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: And you can, therefore -- okay, that's your argument? MR. HENZY: That's my argument. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Under Rule 1.7 in the Rules of Professional Responsibility that -- that is my argument. And I -- THE COURT: I'm not looking at 1.7 in the Rules of Professional Responsibility. I'm looking at the bankruptcy Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 51 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 51 code and the bankruptcy rules. MR. HENZY: I'm not aware of anything in the bankruptcy code and the bankruptcy rules, Your Honor, that would -- that would govern this at this point. I think it is -- THE COURT: So the only place you have standing right now is in a 523 cause of action, isn't that correct? MR. HENZY: I don't -- I'm not prepared, Your Honor, to think about every issue that might come up in this case and tell you the debtor does or doesn't have standing. THE COURT: Well, you've argued that Mr. Despins shouldn't be the Chapter 11 trustee. MR. HENZY: And I think -- I think the debtor does have standing -- THE COURT: Where do you have standing to argue that? MR. HENZY: I don't know how a debtor would not have standing to take a position that a trustee should not be the trustee or that a trustee should be removed. THE COURT: I'd like to see some case law on that because I don't think you're -- I understand your argument, but I don't see support for your argument. You're not persuading me that you have a right -- that the debtor has a right. You had a right to object to the appointment of a Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 52 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 52 Chapter 11 trustee, which Brown Rudnick did. They objected to it. They actually asked that the case be dismissed. I considered all of their arguments. I considered all of the arguments of all the creditors on conversion, appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, whatever the issue may be. The Court decided, rightfully or wrongfully, to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee. No one appealed that order. Brown Rudnick even made a point of that that they didn't appeal that order. You're now attacking that order after the appeal period has run. And you're saying that you can do that because you don't have to be subject to -- and when I say you, I mean the law firm now supposedly representing the debtor. Which, by the way, Brown Rudnick's motion hasn't been granted, so just understand that, that you don't have to be -- you don't have to submit yourself to the same standards that Brown Rudnick did because the Chapter 11 trustee's been appointed. And the Chapter 11 trustee steps into your shoes in all these other situations, including in the HK adversary versus Mr. Kwok and PAX, but that you have standing to say he can't be the trustee. That's your argument? MR. HENZY: I think, Your Honor -- I think you're Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 53 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 54 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 53 conflating two issues. THE COURT: Okay. Well, tell me how I'm conflating them, please. MR. HENZY: So I don't think the standing issue is about do I have standing or -- THE COURT: No. No. On behalf of Mr. Kwok. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I'm not -- MR. HENZY: So does -- THE COURT: But I -- MR. HENZY: -- the -- THE COURT: I'm not sure you're Mr. Kwok's lawyer yet. I'm not sure yet. MR. HENZY: I'm sure I'm Mr. Kwok's lawyer. THE COURT: I know you are. MR. HENZY: I understand you're -- I understand you're not. THE COURT: I know you are, but I'm not sure you are for purposes of this case. You might be for other purposes. MR. HENZY: I believe, Your Honor, that a debtor has standing to challenge the appointment of a trustee. And let me say I understand that the appeal period on the order -- I guess I'll call it granting the trustee motion, okay -- that's passed and no one appealed and Mr.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 54 Kwok is not challenging that order in any way, shape or form. There's a separate order that Your Honor entered -- THE COURT: I agree with you. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I agree. MR. HENZY: -- approving Mr. Despins' appointment by the U.S. Trustee. And the 60(b) motion was filed. I believe it was within seven days after. THE COURT: No. I agree. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I mean, if I -- if I accept your argument, I'm not suggesting your 60(b) motion was untimely. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: Okay? MR. HENZY: I believe that a debtor has standing to challenge the appointment of a trustee or to seek to remove a trustee. I mean, among other things, there is case law that says that a trustee may not have any bias or prejudice towards any party including a debtor. And if that is correct -- and, again, I think the case law is clear on that -- then I don't know how a debtor couldn't have standing to tell a court I think this trustee has a bias or prejudice Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 55 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 55 against me. And that's a basis to remove a trustee. The U.S. Trustee's handbook on panel trustees -- and I understand Mr. Despins is not a panel trustee -- states that trustees may have no bias or prejudice towards anybody involved in the case. So if there's a -- as debtor, debtor has a right to have a trustee who is not biased or prejudiced against debtor. Where there is a right, there is a remedy. I don't know how a debtor could not have standing to raise that issue with the Court. So I -- THE COURT: Did you -- did you -- why didn't you file a removal of the trustee under section 324 of the code then? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, our judgment was that this was an easier way, a quicker way. I don't think there's anything wrong with -- THE COURT: Well, what happens if I deny it? If I deny your motion, then all you can do is file a notice of appeal at that point. MR. HENZY: Yes. That's right. I think the basis -- the basis for the 60(b) motion, Your Honor, is the same basis that there would be for a 324 motion. If you -- if you said I'm going to deny this -- THE COURT: I'm not sure that's true actually. I Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 56 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 871-2
Filed 09/23/22
Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35
Page 57 of
117 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
56 |\n| 1 | think the standards under those sections are different. |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY:
Actually, I agree with you.
So I |\n| 3 | misspoke. |\n| 4 | And, look -- look, the reason we filed the 60(b) |\n| 5 | motion is because we think that there is information that |\n| 6 | should have been put in front of the Court that was not put |\n| 7 | in front of the Court.
And -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I understand that.
And we're |\n| 9 | not having a hearing on ultimately that today.
Okay? |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:
We're not. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
So you rose to tell me that you |\n| 12 | believe that the debtor -- you are debtor's counsel |\n| 13 | regardless of the actual conflict of interest that exists -- |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:
I didn't -- I didn't rise to tell you |\n| 15 | that because I wasn't questioning that. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I'm sorry. |\n| 17 | MR. HENZY:
But you told me that I might not be. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
I apologize. |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:
Yeah. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
You rose to tell me what then?
That |\n| 21 | you believe that Mr. Despins made arguments that |\n| 22 | characterize Mr. Kwok that you think are unfair? |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:
That's right. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
And then -- and that your |\n| 25 | client has standing in the -- because I had asked Mr. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 58 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
57 |\n| 1 | Despins questions about the adversary proceedings and the |\n| 2 | stay issue, that your client has standing in the 523 |\n| 3 | actions, and doesn't -- and you -- and your assertion is |\n| 4 | that Mr. Despins does not automatically become the defendant |\n| 5 | in the 523 actions, but does in the action brought by HK |\n| 6 | International? |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY:
Absolutely. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 9 | MR. HENZY:
Yeah. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
And then what else did you want to |\n| 11 | tell me? |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:
And on behalf of HK International, I |\n| 13 | wanted to tell you, because I think Mr. Despins did make |\n| 14 | argument that, just for the record, that HK International |\n| 15 | agrees with -- sorry -- disagrees with his argument.
That's |\n| 16 | all. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 18 | MR. HENZY:
Yeah. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
All right.
Is there anything further |\n| 20 | that you wanted to tell me? |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
Not right now, Your Honor. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Mr. Kindseth? |\n| 25 | MR. KINDSETH:
Your Honor, on behalf of HK |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 59 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
58 |\n| 1 | International, I would just like to just clarify some -- |\n| 2 | with respect to the inspection of the Lady May, I just would |\n| 3 | like to make sure there's no misunderstanding. |\n| 4 | The trustee used the term that the yacht was |\n| 5 | damaged and I think that left a lot open.
And I think it's |\n| 6 | appropriate for Your Honor to hear with respect to the |\n| 7 | particular issues that the yacht was not damaged in the |\n| 8 | crossing.
And we permitted the inspection on a very short |\n| 9 | order. |\n| 10 | Pacific Alliance had three inspectors there.
The |\n| 11 | trustee had one inspector there.
They were allowed |\n| 12 | unfettered access to the entire ship.
Our chief engineer |\n| 13 | and the captain were available.
The chief engineer was with |\n| 14 | all the inspectors continuously answering their questions. |\n| 15 | Additionally, they were permitted unfettered |\n| 16 | access to the books and records of the yacht.
And they went |\n| 17 | through the records and obtained all the information they |\n| 18 | sought. |\n| 19 | And to my knowledge, being present and witnessing |\n| 20 | what transpired, the only known issues with respect to the |\n| 21 | Lady May are first the sea valves, which we've been |\n| 22 | apprising the Court of for quite some time.
We had an |\n| 23 | estimate to do the work in France, but time did not permit |\n| 24 | it.
So we know there's some rusted bolts on some sea valves |\n| 25 | that need to be replaced and we fully intend to reserve for |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 59 that. Unfortunately, one of the fuel pumps broke outside New York. We disclosed that before the inspection. And we're getting quotes for that and we intend to reserve for that. And, additionally, the boat being damaged was that some paint came off the hull during the crossing. And we're fully intending to have that inspected and an estimate received for the cost of that. So those are the three items. And, again, I was personally there. The inspectors discussed, the chief engineer discussed, there were no other issues. That is the extent of the, quote, \"damage\" that was referred to by the trustee. And in accordance with the stipulation, we're going to come to -- with an estimate. We'll present the estimates to Your Honor and we'll ask Your Honor to order that the -- those amounts be reserved. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. With regard to HK's -- the books and records of HK as a whole, I -- apparently -- I shouldn't say apparently -- none of what's happened today is evidence before the Court obviously. We're hearing different reports, which is what the Court wanted to hear. But HK International is going to Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 60 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
60 |\n| 1 | be subject to some requirement to turn over those records to |\n| 2 | the trustee. |\n| 3 | MR. SKALKA:
Yes.
My apologies, Your Honor.
And |\n| 4 | I'm sure, you know, Attorney Henzy meant to address this. |\n| 5 | With respect to the corporate books and records |\n| 6 | and so forth, we received the request from the trustee.
We |\n| 7 | fully understand our obligations and the debtor understands |\n| 8 | the debtor's obligations post trustee appointment while the |\n| 9 | debtor is out of possession under the code and the |\n| 10 | bankruptcy rules to cooperate with the trustee.
And we're |\n| 11 | in the process of assembling information and records. |\n| 12 | And HK International, although not a debtor |\n| 13 | entity, it's owed -- it's owned by the daughter. |\n| 14 | As counsel, I understand that the records will |\n| 15 | need to be produced and we fully intend to cooperate with |\n| 16 | the trustee in that process. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 18 | Now, with regard to the status conference, the |\n| 19 | other matter -- two other matters -- we turn first to Brown |\n| 20 | Rudnick on the motion to withdraw as attorney. |\n| 21 | So, counsel, I'm not sure which of the two of you |\n| 22 | would like to be heard, but there is no -- unless I missed |\n| 23 | something, which is very possible --- I don't see any reason |\n| 24 | set forth in the motion to be -- to withdraw as debtor's |\n| 25 | counsel in the case. |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 61 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 62 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 61 So I'd ask you why -- why is it that you believe that you are entitled -- your firm is entitled -- and all the individuals who filed appearances in the case entitled to withdraw as debtor's counsel at this point? MR. KLETTER: Sure. And just to clarify, Mr. Romney is with the Zeisler firm. Again, this is Dylan Kletter. THE COURT: Oh, yes. I'm sorry, Mr. Romney. MR. KLETTER: That's okay. This is Dylan Kletter from Brown Rudnick. You're right. It does not go into detail for why, but I believe the Zeisler firm has accurately described now that he's out of possession it's his prerogative to terminate his counsel and that is what he did. And he has replaced it with substitute counsel of the Zeisler firm, a Mr. Mitchell. And then it is our position that the Zeisler firm, as you can tell, is obviously working the file and we have an unobjected to motion to withdraw as counsel. THE COURT: Well, I don't know that you have an unobjected to motion to withdraw as counsel because it hasn't been set for a hearing and no one's been required to file any response to your motion. And even if you have an unobjected to motion to withdraw as counsel, that doesn't mean that the Court\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 62 doesn't have an independent duty to determine whether or not that motion should be granted or denied or granted with conditions. Your firm subjected itself to the Court and to the processes of the bankruptcy case. Your firm received a million dollar retainer from some source that I'm not -- I don't recall -- maybe there is evidence in the record about the source, I don't recall -- and I'm sorry at the moment that I don't -- but you also, you know, would need to file a fee application and you'd have to have those fees approved and you'd have to establish that the retainer has not been drawn down on and all of those kinds of things. So while maybe it ultimately will be a motion -- and unopposed motion to withdraw as attorney, it is not at that -- this point in time because it was not brought before the Court properly as far as getting it either through our contested matter procedure or on the calendar for a hearing. That's how our local rules work in Connecticut. So we can -- I'm going to hear from other parties, sir, but there will be a process. And maybe it will be granted. But at the very least, if it is granted, you will -- your firm will be obligated to comply with the requirements of the bankruptcy code and the rules and that would be at the very least filing a fee application which Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 63 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 64 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
63 |\n| 1 | would be subject to objections and further hearing and |\n| 2 | determination by the Court the fees and expenses incurred by |\n| 3 | the firm. Okay? |\n| 4 | MR. SKALKA:
Understood. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Mr. Friedman, I see you have risen. |\n| 6 | Go right ahead, please. |\n| 7 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | Madam Court Reporter Deputy, can you hear me from |\n| 9 | here or do you want me to go -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Maybe it would make sense if you don't |\n| 11 | mind, Mr. Friedman. |\n| 12 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
It's |\n| 13 | Peter Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 15 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
I want to make three quick points |\n| 16 | on things you've heard from -- on so far and then I would |\n| 17 | like to come back to address any issues related to the |\n| 18 | scheduling with respect to the retention motion and the |\n| 19 | 60(b) motion. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| 21 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
First is to answer your question. |\n| 22 | Lamp Capital made a loan -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 24 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
-- which is where the funding came |\n| 25 | from. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 65 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 64 The second is with respect to 523 and those complaints. My view -- obviously everybody's offered what they think is the right answer -- is we don't even know if this debtor is going to propose, I'm sorry, the trustee is going to propose a plan that has a discharge so it seems to me like a stay is particularly warranted in light of that. Why waste time litigating over an action that may be constitutionally not ripe. I think it's actually to me like a pretty serious question as to ripeness for any of those claims if we don't know if the debtor -- if a discharge is going to be proposed. I have a hard time seeing one being proposed by the trustee unless there's something pretty close to full satisfaction of claims. I don't know what the trustee is going to do on that. But that seems to me an independent reason to consider the parties potentially agreeing to stay those matters. With respect to the HK lawsuit over the boat, you know, PAX is a defendant. I'm hoping that we can stipulate that PAX doesn't need to be a defendant. We never claimed to own the boat. We can't assert the debtor's rights. We can't levy because of the automatic stay which remains in place. So, you know, PAX has had to spend a lot of resources already in this case. It would be great if we\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 66 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
65 |\n| 1 | cannot have to spend resources on a suit where we're not |\n| 2 | really appropriately a defendant given sort of the current |\n| 3 | context of this case. |\n| 4 | So those are the three points I wanted to make. |\n| 5 | I do want to be heard on the retention issues and |\n| 6 | the 60(b) motion because we do have some things to say. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| 8 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
When it's time.
You know.
I don't |\n| 9 | know if you want me to -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Well, you can -- you can tell me what |\n| 11 | you'd like to tell me now.
I mean, we are going to -- you |\n| 12 | go right ahead. |\n| 13 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Okay.
So, Your Honor, a couple of |\n| 14 | -- a couple of things. |\n| 15 | On the -- on both of them, whether it's with |\n| 16 | respect to Paul Hastings or with respect to Mr. Despins, I |\n| 17 | think our big concern is -- with respect to the issues Mr. |\n| 18 | Kwok has raised in his letters and on his social media |\n| 19 | account, which I don't know if you've had -- maybe it's not |\n| 20 | appropriate for the Court to look at it -- but on those |\n| 21 | things like PAG has committed fraud by colluding with DOJ is |\n| 22 | littered all over his Gettr account. |\n| 23 | I think his most recent Gettr post is, you know, |\n| 24 | Mr. Miles Guo will initiate a series of motions and appeals |\n| 25 | to expose the CCP's infiltration of the U.S. Judiciary and |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 66 the black hands of the U.S. Judiciary. There's an accusation that I've colluded with the CCP. I certainly want to say with respect to PAG and with respect to me -- THE COURT: With respect to PAG, P-A-G? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: -- and all of its affiliates, and me, if there is any repetition of those in a pleading signed by counsel, we will seek Rule 11 sanctions. I just want to put people on notice of that. Okay? As an officer of the Court I will tell you that I'm the only person who spoke -- maybe Mr. Sarnoff did, but our client never spoke to the Department of Justice about the appointment. We actually recommended people other than Mr. Despins. We, for reasons having to do with costs, didn't actually want somebody from a big law firm to be involved in this case as a trustee because of expense. We were very clear that there were people we supported to be trustee. They were not selected. Either of the people who were selected, neither one was selected. We would have been okay with Mr. Whitley. We're not thrilled with Mr. Despins for the cost reasons, for the fact they put in now our client is a former Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 67 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 67 client of ours that I think is, you know, wasn't something that our client thought was so great to be deemed a former client, but it is what it is. But I just want to be really clear that if anybody makes those allegations in a signed pleading it will be Rule 11 sanctionable because it's just not true. More broadly speaking on both though, Your Honor, the Court obviously has control over how it deals with those motions and what it permits to be raised. If it involves subjecting us to discovery, obviously, you know, we think that's extremely unfair and unwise. We think that if it involves frankly forcing people to go down rabbit holes to deal with, you know, Paul Hastings' connection with companies that operate in China on the sort of rabbit hole, crazy theories that are being raised about collusion with the CCP, that the Court should just consider going in a different direction, if it's going to indulge that kind of discovery because it's a -- you know, Paul Hastings, they're going to bill for that -- that eats into creditor recoveries. It distracts us from the intention -- attention to what ought to be done in this case. And I don't think it's right to give Mr. Kwok the ability to do that. That will be -- discovery, et cetera, Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 68 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 69 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
68 |\n| 1 | will all be argued later.
But if the Court's going to -- we |\n| 2 | would rather see the Court go in a different direction with |\n| 3 | the trustee because it's not in the best interest of the |\n| 4 | estate rather than go down those rabbit holes because of the |\n| 5 | expense issue and because of the delay issues. |\n| 6 | Again, I think the allegations are not -- are |\n| 7 | frivolous allegations that could subject counsel and clients |\n| 8 | and anybody who's sort of sponsoring them to real problems. |\n| 9 | But we just, you know -- as you know, PAX has been |\n| 10 | waiting since 2009 to get paid.
Spending more time on a war |\n| 11 | over these issues which really aren't germane to what are |\n| 12 | Mr. Kwok's assets and how can they get into the hands of |\n| 13 | creditors seems just -- you know, can't possibly be in the |\n| 14 | interest of the estate. |\n| 15 | As to cost more broadly -- and, you know, I've |\n| 16 | expressed this to Mr. Despins, you know, we are concerned |\n| 17 | about the rate structure and the expense.
He's obviously |\n| 18 | done a lot of work, which is great, and I think his |\n| 19 | presentation was important, but, you know, we are concerned. |\n| 20 | I think to the extent that we can and we will, you |\n| 21 | know, if we need to, we will file an objection with respect |\n| 22 | to -- if we have to -- with respect to the costs and perhaps |\n| 23 | propose something.
I'm not sure.
But I don't want anybody |\n| 24 | to be surprised about that.
I try not to surprise people, |\n| 25 | you know, particularly other, you know, members of the bar |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 69 on sensitive -- I understand fees are sensitive issues, rates are sensitive issues, but it is important to PAX as a party with, you know, \\$260 million plus in judgments and the largest creditor. I think that's really all I wanted to say, Your Honor. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to speak. THE COURT: Okay. Before you step back, I -- as you know, this is a status conference so we are going to be setting some hearings on different matters, specifically on Brown Rudnick's motion to withdraw. And I have to look at -- there's a lot of thing that have been filed since Mr. Despins was appointed as the Chapter 11 trustee that we will look at. Are you asking the Court to do anything different than what the Court is planning on doing or you're just asking that you reserve your rights to be heard on whatever happens? MR. FRIEDMAN: The latter. And the other thing I would just ask is if the Court can -- I would be unavailable I think on August 5th. I think the -- THE COURT: The 5th? MR. FRIEDMAN: -- the Friday, that Friday of that week is -- I'm unavailable. Other than that, I'm available at the Court's disposal. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 70 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 71 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 70 MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Goldman? MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll be -- THE COURT: Would you come up here too, please. MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. Certainly. THE COURT: Just because I think it's easier for the courtroom deputy to pick up your voice. Please. Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: Just a few brief points, Your Honor. The committee is aligned with PAX in terms of the cross concerns that Mr. Friedman articulated with respect to the trustee and his firm. We want to reserve our rights on that application. We're also aligned in terms of how we view the 9024 motion that the debtor filed, which we view as a complete distraction and without merit. We need to get on to the business of administering this five month old case and we've had enough litigation thus far. These issues that are raised in our view are just not meritorious and we shouldn't be spending a lot of -- a lot of time on that. Just in terms of giving Your Honor an idea of the magnitude of the claims thus far in the case, even though a proof of claim deadline hasn't been set, the claims register\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 71 shows 80 -- approximately \\$83 million in proofs of claim that have already been filed. That doesn't include PAX's claim of approximately 254 million. The class action 523 complaint that was just filed yesterday states that their claim is in the collective amount of \\$114 million. That relates to I believe the securities, the alleged securities violations, with respect to GTV. That may also be the same claim that the SEC filed a proof for although I'm not completely sure. And so if you include those two claims, which haven't been filed yet, we're up to around \\$450 million in gross amount of claims. And so we really do need to get on with the business of trying to get a recovery for those claims. And I don't want to minimize we have a great deal of confidence in Mr. Despins and what he's done thus far, but there is a correlative concern about the magnitude of the rates and the fees, which of course he will be getting as trustee under section 326 based on what he recovers. And if his firm is hired they'll be getting compensated that way as well. So with -- THE COURT: A question about -- and I meant to ask Mr. Kindseth this as well -- and probably should have asked Mr. Despins this as well -- the stipulation with regard to Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 72 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 73 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
72 |\n| 1 | the Lady May, there are still other obligations that have to |\n| 2 | be met.
There's still \\$37 million being held in escrow. |\n| 3 | There are -- the other stipulation provisions have |\n| 4 | not been met yet that I see.
Only the stipulation provision |\n| 5 | that has been met is the reporting that HK has done, and |\n| 6 | they have done that timely, and the return of the boat, the |\n| 7 | yacht, prior to the date in the stipulation. |\n| 8 | But there are other provisions in that stipulation |\n| 9 | that have not been resolved yet. |\n| 10 | And so when you talk about getting on with the |\n| 11 | administration of the estate, which is what the Court found |\n| 12 | when determining that a Chapter 11 trustee should be |\n| 13 | appointed -- there needs to be some attention to what is |\n| 14 | going to happen here with regard to the yacht and/or the \\$37 |\n| 15 | million.
That money is still subject to the jurisdiction of |\n| 16 | this court. |\n| 17 | And there are -- there are still issues with |\n| 18 | regard to certifications and things that I think need to be |\n| 19 | filed in which there are time frames to object. |\n| 20 | And so it would seem to me that the parties need |\n| 21 | to focus on those issues.
Because the longer those issues |\n| 22 | lay dormant, the longer it's going to take to administer the |\n| 23 | estate. |\n| 24 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Yeah.
We are certainly aligned with |\n| 25 | Your Honor on that. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 74 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
73 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay.
All right.
All right.
I |\n| 2 | appreciate what you've said.
And is there anything further |\n| 3 | you'd like to state for the record this afternoon? |\n| 4 | MR. GOLDMAN:
No, Your Honor.
Thank you. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 6 | Does the Office of the United States Trustee wish |\n| 7 | to be heard? |\n| 8 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Not at this time, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Well, I am going to ask the |\n| 10 | Office of the United States Trustee to file a brief on why |\n| 11 | -- and I'm going to -- actually, I'm going to have Attorney |\n| 12 | Henzy's firm do the same thing simultaneously -- and anyone |\n| 13 | else that wants to, you may, but you don't have to -- as to |\n| 14 | why the debtor is entitled to retain Attorney Henzy's firm |\n| 15 | without that firm having to comply with the provisions of |\n| 16 | the bankruptcy code 327(a) and 2014. |\n| 17 | And at some point, after this status conference, |\n| 18 | I'm going to schedule a hearing on the motion to withdraw |\n| 19 | filed by Brown Rudnick which will have an objection deadline |\n| 20 | for parties to file an objection, if any, to Brown Rudnick's |\n| 21 | motion. |\n| 22 | And then, Mr. Despins, with regard to the bar date |\n| 23 | issue and the publication issue, you indicated when we |\n| 24 | talked on the record that you'd like to think about those |\n| 25 | issues.
I think it may make sense to schedule a hearing, a |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 74 further hearing, on that motion so we can finalize it and get that order entered. And I can do that. I would assume I can do that in short order in the next week or two. Would that give you enough time to analyze the issue, Mr. Despins? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. With regard to Mr. Despins' application to employ Paul Hastings and to employ Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, I think those have to be set for a hearing as well with an objection deadline. The likelihood is -- but I don't know this until I go back and review everything, that we will have a day set in the future to address all of these matters, which obviously will be a day because there's a lot of matters to address. I agree that we need to move ahead with the administration of this case which is why the Court made a determination about the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. I want to look at the calendar for a moment if everyone would bear with me, please, for a moment. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, if I could be heard on timing? THE COURT: Sure. Please. MR. DESPINS: So we had filed -- thank you, Your Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 75 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 75 Honor. We had filed a motion to expedite which obviously has not been granted. Understand that the reason being is that we're going full out right now. And the 30day rule doesn't help us if the Court, you know, in the future says, well -- by the way, I'm making this up as a slight joke -- but if the Court says, well, we think you're a member of the communist party so we're not going to approve the retention -- it's a joke, Your Honor -- so then I'm not protected by the 30 day rule. So there's a real prejudice to the firm in being -- and that's, by the way, that's exactly why the debtor has not scheduled -- has not moved for a hearing on their motion to recuse me or to remove me because they love the uncertainty and to continue that. So for us, you know, we filed our motion on the 12th. Even under regular, non-accelerated days, that would bring us to August 1st or something like that, on the 20-day -- so personally from the 3rd to the 22nd, I'm -- I could not be in court. I mean, I could participate by Zoom. But if there -- if there's a real contested hearing, I could not be there. So we would urge the Court -- you know, PAX had said they were okay with a hearing next Monday. Of course, that's probably too short at this point. But anytime next\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 77 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
76 |\n| 1 | week or August 1st, we would urge the Court, if it's at all |\n| 2 | possible, to schedule it then because that will have been |\n| 3 | plenty of time for these issues to have been figured out. |\n| 4 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY:
Your Honor, may I be heard? |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | Just to be clear, I will file a motion to expedite |\n| 10 | right away on our 9024 motion.
We're not trying to have |\n| 11 | that float out there.
We think it should be taken up at the |\n| 12 | same time as the Paul Hastings application will be taken up |\n| 13 | because there will be a lot of overlap. |\n| 14 | We do need to take discovery in connection with |\n| 15 | our motion and the Paul Hastings application.
We're |\n| 16 | prepared to serve discovery immediately. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
I'm not sure you're entitled to |\n| 18 | discovery, Attorney Henzy. |\n| 19 | It's a motion for relief for a judgment order. |\n| 20 | Based upon, again, an issue of whether or not your client |\n| 21 | actually has standing to oppose this person being appointed |\n| 22 | as a Chapter 11 trustee in a case where your client has |\n| 23 | stated under penalty of perjury that they have \\$3,400 and |\n| 24 | some odd dollars as assets. |\n| 25 | So I understand your assertion, but I'm not sure I |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 77 agree with it at this point. I also -- as I started to say, I'm not sure that you don't have to meet the requirements of debtor -- a debtor's counsel under 327(a). I understand your argument, but no one has put forth anything in front of me to show me why you don't have to meet that requirement. Number one. Number two, even if you didn't have to meet the requirement, there's -- I don't know why it isn't a conflict of interest that you represent both HK International and Mr. Kwok. I don't -- I don't understand that. I'm having difficulty understanding that. And I'm having difficulty understanding that because of many reasons, including the fact that there is an adversary proceeding pending filed by your firm on behalf of HK International claiming that Mr. Kwok has no -- well, asking for a declaratory judgment that it owns the boat. So there's a lot of issues here and we're not going to get derailed on discovery on the presumption that you're entitled to do all these things to begin with. Those issues have to be addressed first. And I'm not going to allow discovery to drag out what was clearly before the debtor and Brown Rudnick as debtor's counsel since the U.S. Trustee filed a motion for the appointment of an examiner or in the alternative a trustee I believe back in February or early March. I can Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 78 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 79 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 78 look at the docket. It won't take me very long to find it. So that's not going to happen in this case. This case -- your client voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this court with all the benefits and burdens associated with that and that doesn't mean that your client, who as you have stated now on the record a few times, who's no longer in possession -- can now stall the process by insisting that you need discovery in connection with your allegations that Mr. Despins -- Mr. Despins -- now, we're talking about -- I made this point at the last hearing but you weren't here because you weren't counsel -- even though the trustee had -- the motion to appoint the trustee had been granted, that the difference between a conflict of Mr. Despins acting as the Chapter 11 trustee and Paul Hastings acting as Mr. Despins' counsel are two different things. And no one has put forth any information in this record to show that Mr. Despins has a conflict of interest. No one. And Mr. Despins has stated and sworn under penalty of perjury that he has no conflict, that the issues with regard to Paul Hastings that have been raised by you in your brief in your -- not your brief, but in your motion -- are things he did not know of and was not aware of personally. But, yes, his firm has offices in China. And,\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 79 yes, they represent parties that somehow are related -- could be related to Mr. Kwok, but not in connection with this case in any way. I'm not going to allow discovery to derail the process of the Chapter 11 trustee appointment and his duties and responsibilities to carry out his affairs in this case. And I'm certainly not going to do that unless and until I determine whether you're correct or not that you can represent the debtor without having to address the disinterestedness issues. Even if you can, I still have no understanding of -- I'm having very -- it's very difficult for me to understand how your firm does not have an actual conflict of interest in the simultaneous representation of HK International and Mr. Kwok. MR. HENZY: Thee's a lot -- THE COURT: There is a lot there. MR. HENZY: -- to unpack there, Your Honor. THE COURT: I agree with you. MR. HENZY: If I could -- if I could -- THE COURT: There is -- this case has a lot. It always has a lot. MR. HENZY: To show that I can joke too, I like it that you refer to Mr. Kwok as, you said, your client. You're not bound by it. But -- Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 80 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 80 THE COURT: Well, that's what you assert. That's what you assert, Mr. Henzy. MR. HENZY: That's what I assert. But, again, to show I can -- I can joke too. There's a lot to unpack there, Your Honor. I mean, in the sense that -- and I understand you're not agreeing with this but, you know, I believe Mr. Kwok does have standing to challenge the appointment of Mr. Despins. And just to be clear -- THE COURT: I didn't -- I didn't even say -- I didn't even argue with you on that -- MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: -- at this point. MR. HENZY: If he -- THE COURT: At this point. All I said is you're not getting discovery. MR. HENZY: Well, but if -- THE COURT: It's not being derailed with discovery. It's not happening. MR. HENZY: But if he -- if he has standing -- the rule 60 motion is a contested matter -- if he has standing to press that motion, and he has standing to object -- THE COURT: It's not a new trial. It's not a new trial. Right? Rule 60 isn't a new trial. MR. HENZY: This is not a new trial. Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 81 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 82 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
81 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Rule 60 is you want relief -- |\n| 2 | MR. HENZY:
That's right. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
-- from a judgment or order. |\n| 4 | MR. HENZY:
That is correct. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
That's right. |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY:
That's correct. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
So it's not a new trial.
You're not |\n| 8 | saying there's newly discovered evidence that -- |\n| 9 | MR. HENZY:
But it -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
-- the Court didn't consider when |\n| 11 | taking this all into effect -- into account. |\n| 12 | And Mr. Despins has, as you know, as any party |\n| 13 | does, a continuing obligation to disclose issues, which he |\n| 14 | did.
Which he did.
He filed a supplemental affidavit.
He |\n| 15 | filed that. |\n| 16 | And so there is no new -- this isn't -- the |\n| 17 | standard under Rule 60 and the standard under Rule 59 are |\n| 18 | completely different. |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:
It's a Rule 60(b)(2), Your Honor. |\n| 20 | It's -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
I understand what it is. |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
It's newly discovered evidence.
And |\n| 23 | this is -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
It's not newly discovered evidence. |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:
How could the debtor -- how could the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 83 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 82 debtor -- THE COURT: What's the evidence? MR. HENZY: Given -- THE COURT: Tell me what the evidence is. MR. HENZY: Sure. And counsel can say that this is all frivolous, but -- THE COURT: I'm don't want to -- I don't -- I'm not worried about him right now. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I'm worried about you. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: Tell me what the evidence is. MR. HENZY: There is a public record that the government of China, the Communist Party of China, Mr. Kwok is on the wrong side of the government of China. I don't think -- I don't know that anybody would dispute that. Okay? I think that it is now known -- and I don't know that Mr. Kwok knew or could have known this given the time line on Mr. Despins' appointment -- I think there was one day between the U.S. Trustee filing that motion and the hearing taking place that Paul Hastings -- THE COURT: I agree with you. MR. HENZY: -- Paul Hastings has offices as I understand it in China. Paul Hastings represents companies\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 83 that are affiliated with the Chinese government. That is -- I believe that is true. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: I also, from reading the newspaper, okay, have an understanding that being a citizen of the world, that China exercises a different degree of influence over entities doing business in China than let's say the United States government exercises over entities doing business in the United States. I think that is a fair statement for me to make. So I don't think it's frivolous or crazy or baseless -- THE COURT: But where's the evidence? What's your evidence? MR. HENZY: I -- THE COURT: That the newspaper says that China exerts control over -- and I'm not trying to be flip, Mr. Henzy, but -- MR. HENZY: Well, do you -- do you disagree with that, Your Honor, that the -- THE COURT: I don't -- I don't have to agree or disagree with anything. MR. HENZY: -- that the government of China -- I mean -- THE COURT: All I have to do is make findings of Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 84 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 84 fact, right? And I made those findings of fact when I appoint -- when I granted the motion for the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. I made those findings. Okay? Now, Mr. Despins has stated in the -- on the record, subject to penalty of perjury, that he personally has no conflict, doesn't represent the government of China. Yes, works for an international firm that has offices in China. Yes, the firm has business -- has as a past client, I believe is the exact language -- PAG, P-A-G, which is related to and/or -- Mr. Friedman can correct me -- but I think is the -- may be described as the parent company of PAX. What's the evidence there? How is that -- how is that enough evidence for this court to say he should be -- Mr. Despins should be removed? MR. HENZY: I can't give you the evidence -- THE COURT: Right. MR. HENZY: -- unless I can do discovery. THE COURT: But I'm not going to derail the process -- MR. HENZY: Unless -- THE COURT: -- so you can go make -- do discovery. What discovery? What possible -- what are you going to do? Are you going to depose people from the government of China? MR. HENZY: If Mr. Despins wants to stipulate as to all of Paul Hastings' connections in China, who they -- Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 85 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 86 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 85 how many parties they represent -- THE COURT: Why would he have to do that? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, you can, today, tell me that I'm just wrong, that Paul Hastings -- and Mr. Despins is a partner at Paul Hastings. I don't -- I don't think you just separate him and say if Paul Hastings is not -- is not disinterested, that Mr. -- I don't see how Paul Hastings could be not disinterested and have Mr. Despins not be disinterested. That doesn't make sense to me. Okay? But if you're going to say that notwithstanding these apparent connections that Paul Hastings hasn't -- with the Chinese government, with -- THE COURT: That have nothing to do with Mr. Kwok. Where's the connection? MR. HENZY: The connection is that the Chinese government -- the allegation is that the Chinese government is -- has persecuted Mr. Kwok and has persecuted his family. The allegation is that the Chinese government exercises a great deal of influence over entities that do business in China and that that puts Paul Hastings in a compromised position. And Mr. Despins, as a partner of Paul Hastings, in a compromised position. Your Honor, you can say I don't -- I don't agree\n\n### Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 87 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
86 |\n| 1 | with you that the Chinese government exercises influence |\n| 2 | over entities in China that are doing business in China. |\n| 3 | You could say that.
Okay.
And I -- I'm not going to go do |\n| 4 | discovery on that.
But this raises a significant issue. |\n| 5 | I don't -- I don't know if someone's going to |\n| 6 | stand up and say -- and defend -- in this court and defend |\n| 7 | the way the Chinese government deals with entities that do |\n| 8 | business in China and say, no, that's not true.
The Chinese |\n| 9 | government doesn't exercise any influence over people -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
If your client didn't -- if your |\n| 11 | client -- if you're allowed to represent this client in this |\n| 12 | court didn't want to subject himself to the jurisdiction of |\n| 13 | this court then he shouldn't have filed a Chapter 11 case. |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:
I don't think, Your Honor, that has |\n| 15 | anything to do -- |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, how does it not have anything to |\n| 17 | do with it?
Because you're saying that he -- the Chinese |\n| 18 | government influences everything that happens with regard to |\n| 19 | Mr. Kwok.
That's what you're saying. |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:
No, I'm not saying that. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Then what are you saying? |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:
What I'm saying is that the Chinese |\n| 23 | government exercises a great deal of influence over anybody |\n| 24 | who does business in China.
I think that's a fair statement |\n| 25 | for me to make. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 87 THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Okay. And Paul -- THE COURT: And how does that result in a conflict of interest that allows that Mr. Despins can't -- can't be the Chapter 11 trustee? MR. HENZY: And Paul Hastings does business in China. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: And the Chinese government -- THE COURT: And so what -- what control -- you have no evidence of what control they have. You just make a blanket -- and I'm not saying you just -- but the statement that you just made is the Chinese government has control over people who do business with them. Well, the control might be that they want the company to produce 12 cars as opposed to 20. How does that affect Mr. Kwok and Paul Hastings? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, the argument is that Paul Hastings does business in China. It represents entities connected with the Chinese government, therefore, the Chinese government is going to have influence or control -- THE COURT: So you're saying Mr. Despins is a -- is a puppet of the Chinese government? Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 88 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 88 MR. HENZY: No. That's completely unfair, Your Honor. I didn't say -- THE COURT: Well, then what are you saying? MR. HENZY: I did not say that. THE COURT: Well, then -- but then what are you saying? MR. HENZY: What I'm saying is that there's a disinterestedness issue here and we have a right to explore that issue. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I'm not sure I agree with you. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: But I understand your point. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I could, could I be heard for two seconds? THE COURT: Certainly. Certainly. MR. DESPINS: This argument is insane. Why? Let's assume he's right. Let's assume he's right on all -- so what's the discussion? So the Chinese communist party comes to our office in China and says what? Go easy on him or go hard on him? I'm going to go -- let me be very clear, I'm going to go and try to get all his assets. That's my job as the trustee. Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 89 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 90 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 89 So what's the conflict? Meaning, first of all, I'm not agreeing for a second that they would do that or that we would be susceptible to that. But let's assume that's the case, let's follow that to its logic. Unless I -- unless his point is that we would somehow work with them to arrest him or to bring him -- that's insane. This is a civil case. My job is not retribution. It's collection. I want to collect -- I want to be clear -- as much as I can for the holders of valid claims. That's the (indiscernible). And Paul Hastings will do the same. So this argument that we're subject to the influence, which way does that cut? Meaning that they would -- one way or another, they would say go harder? I'm going to -- I don't need the CCP to tell me that. I'm going to go hard to get all his assets. That's my job. So I don't understand the influence. I'm sorry. MR. HENZY: Can I -- can I just -- can I respond to that quickly, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, you can. MR. HENZY: Okay. And, again, this is public record. THE COURT: Public record where? MR. HENZY: I can give you -- I'll give you citations, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 91 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
90 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
But tell me what it is.
Are we |\n| 2 | talking about a social media website? |\n| 3 | MR. HENZY:
Absolutely not, Your Honor.
We're |\n| 4 | talking about statements from the United States Department |\n| 5 | of Justice. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 7 | MR. HENZY:
Okay. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
What part of the United States |\n| 9 | Department of Justice? |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:
Different parts. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:
And I can -- |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Go ahead. |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:
And I can tell -- okay. |\n| 15 | Mr. Steven Wynn, who is I think a well-known |\n| 16 | casino/hotel person, has -- the DOJ has filed a civil |\n| 17 | enforcement action against him to compel him to register |\n| 18 | under the Foreign Registration Act as an agent of the |\n| 19 | Peoples Republic of China and a senior official of the PRC's |\n| 20 | Ministry of Public Security, and the citation is -- it's a |\n| 21 | Justice Department -- it's in our motion -- it's a web, ww |\n| 22 | -- I can try to give it to you, but I -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
No, it's all right. |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:
Okay. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
You don't have to give it to me. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 92 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 91 MR. HENZY: And -- THE COURT: And how does that impact Mr. Wynn, I mean -- Mr. Wynn, I know how it impacts Mr. Wynn -- MR. HENZY: Okay. I'm -- THE COURT: -- how does it impact Mr. Despins and Paul Hastings? MR. HENZY: I'm responding to Mr. Despins' statement that it's insane to say that the Chinese government would exercise influence over someone doing business in China. THE COURT: That's not what he said. MR. HENZY: Okay. I think it is what he said. THE COURT: No. MR. DESPINS: No. THE COURT: That's actually not what he said. MR. HENZY: Okay. But if I could finish? THE COURT: He said your argument is insane. Because here's what he said. This is at least the way I interpret it. And you can disagree with me. He said your argument is insane because what -- the only two things that could happen is the Chinese government either tells him to go hard and get all of Mr. Kwok's assets or to do nothing and leave him alone. And Mr. Despins said, but I -- my job is to go hard and get all of his assets. So what's the problem?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 93 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 92 MR. HENZY: So then the argument is that Mr. Despins -- Mr. Despins' interest and the Chinese government's interest are aligned and, therefore, to the extent -- THE COURT: That doesn't mean there's a conflict. MR. HENZY: -- to the extent -- wait -- to the extent that there otherwise would be a disinterestedness issue, there's no issue, because if anything the Chinese government would tell him go hard, go hard, go hard. That's not the analysis though, Your Honor. That's not -- THE COURT: How is he -- how is he not disinterested even if his -- even if his goals are aligned with the Chinese government, how is he not disinterested? MR. HENZY: If there is -- if there is a party that exercises any kind of undue influence over a trustee, then that trustee is not disinterested. THE COURT: How are -- where is the proof that they're exercising undue influence over Mr. Despins? MR. HENZY: I don't have proof today -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: -- and I don't know how I could have proof today because -- THE COURT: Well, the bankruptcy code -- MR. HENZY: -- because I have --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 94 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 93 THE COURT: Here's what happens. The bankruptcy code allows you to bring that issue forth if you believe it to be true and then it will be addressed appropriate. A Rule 60(b) motion is not the appropriate way for that to happen. There is no newly discovered evidence. The only thing that came out is the continuing obligation -- and first of all, we're talking about Mr. Despins. I raised this at the first hearing. Maybe you could argue, but we're not arguing that today, there's a problem with Paul Hastings. Maybe you can argue that. But we're not arguing that. We're talking about Mr. Despins individually acting as a trustee. So your argument is that no matter who was the Chapter 11 trustee, whatever individual, if that individual works for a firm that somehow has business relationships with China, so had a purchase and sale agreement to buy toys from China, that they would be not -- they would disinterested because -- because every single person that does business with the Chinese government is unduly influenced by the Chinese government. That's your argument. MR. HENZY: Depends on facts and circumstances, but potentially, yes. THE COURT: Well, what's the facts and -- well, how are the facts and circumstances of the scenario I just\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 95 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 94 presented to you any different from what Mr. Despins has said in his -- in his disclosures? MR. HENZY: I might say that that party is unduly influenced by the Chinese government. THE COURT: Buying toys? MR. HENZY: Yes. I might -- yes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: I might say that. Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. You can say that, but I might disagree with you. MR. HENZY: And you might disagree with me. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: All right. MR. HENZY: Look, I think we're not arguing the 60(b) motion today. I think. I think anyway we're arguing is does Mr. Kwok have a right to take discovery and I think he does. THE COURT: Yes. And I'm finding he does not have the right to take discovery. And you can appeal that if you'd like -- MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: -- when I rule on the motion, but we're not going to do this. See, here's the problem. There's \\$37 million in\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 95 an escrow account. And there's a boat, a yacht, somewhere over there, right, that your client stipulated to would come to this jurisdiction. And before the Court didn't acquiesce to the plan of how the professionals were going to be paid \\$8 million in a very short amount of time without establishing the need to pay them and to pay them on a weekly basis outside of the provisions of the bankruptcy code. The boat was going to be pledged as -- to the plan to creditors. Now we're in a situation where your alleged client -- and it may be it may be he may be your client doesn't want anything else to happen. Doesn't want the boat to become part of the estate, but doesn't want the \\$37 million to become part of the estate either. And the way that that's going to be accomplished is to challenge Mr. Despins through a Rule 30(c) -- Rule 60 motion. That's not going to happen. MR. HENZY: I disagree with that, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may disagree. MR. HENZY: I just disagree. THE COURT: But that's not what's going to happen. MR. HENZY: Mr. -- THE COURT: You take your client, your client that you claim is your client, as you find him, correct? And you found him, as did Brown Rudnick, subject to orders of a Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 96 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 97 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
96 |\n| 1 | state court of New York that found after evidentiary |\n| 2 | hearings -- and I'm not saying they have collateral estoppel |\n| 3 | effect, I'm not saying any of that, I'm talking about how |\n| 4 | you found your client -- that found that not only was he -- |\n| 5 | did he take the Fifth -- and the inferences could be drawn |\n| 6 | in favor of the creditors with regard to him taking the |\n| 7 | Fifth -- but that he established and created a network of |\n| 8 | corporations to keep his assets out of the reach of |\n| 9 | creditors, including PAX, who's been fighting with him since |\n| 10 | 2009. |\n| 11 | Then your client decides to file a Chapter 11 case |\n| 12 | at the time that the sanction imposition by Justice Ostrager |\n| 13 | is continuing to accrue.
And the point -- and the argument |\n| 14 | is, well, the accrual, that's stayed.
I filed a Chapter 11, |\n| 15 | the accrual of that is stayed. |\n| 16 | So the argument then becomes that your client in |\n| 17 | some way, shape or form, depending upon the relief sought by |\n| 18 | the creditors, should either have an examiner appointed, a |\n| 19 | Chapter 11 trustee appointed, or there be a conversion of |\n| 20 | the case. |\n| 21 | Then your client says, no, no, we'll agree to |\n| 22 | dismissal.
After coming to this court, negotiating -- being |\n| 23 | part of a negotiation, which allegedly a separate and |\n| 24 | distinct corporate entity owned by his daughter also |\n| 25 | participated in, to bring the boat here, and then says, no, |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 97 you know what, why don't you just dismiss the case, judge. We'll agree to dismissal. Well, that -- you know, your client made a decision, an informed decision, when he decided to file Chapter 11. That's what he did. He could have addressed all of this through the state court process and could have appealed everything, and did appeal things and lost, got -- it was referred back to Justice Ostrager for Justice Ostrager to make a determination about the ownership of the boat. And then Chapter 11 case gets filed, and HK International, the alleged separate and distinct legal entity that is alleged to be the registered owner of the boat, files an adversary proceeding against your client, Mr. Kwok, saying that it wants a declaratory judgment that HK International owns the boat and it's not property of this debtor's estate. I already addressed all those issues by finding that a Chapter 11 trustee should be appointed. Your argument is that Mr. Despins is disinterested -- is not a disinterested person because his firm, not him, but his firm has offices in China and the Chinese government is out to get -- and by the way, maybe the Chinese government is out to get Mr. Kwok. I don't need to make findings about that, okay. Maybe they are, but that doesn't Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 98 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 98 impact Mr. Despins' role and his responsibilities under the bankruptcy code. And to argue otherwise is to attempt to derail Mr. Despins from carrying out his responsibilities. So I guess what you need from me at some point -- and maybe, you know, as I said, I've got to look at all these thing that were filed since July 8th. I'm going to set hearings on different matters -- the motion to withdraw as attorney -- I want you and the United States Trustee's Office to submit a brief on -- as to why you don't need to comply with 327(a). Maybe you're right, but I -- I don't see anything in front of me that convinces me of that at the moment. And then, we're -- and we'll probably have a hearing on your Rule 60(b) motion. And I think we should have it quickly, because if I'm going to deny it, you need to appeal. You need to appeal. And then you need to figure out how you're going to proceed from there. But this case cannot be stalled any longer. This court has a responsibility, as does Mr. Despins now at this point, to try to protect the interests of creditors in connection the parameters of the bankruptcy code, the bankruptcy rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and applicable non-bankruptcy law. And to argue that Mr. Despins is disinterested because the Chinese government influences every party with Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 99 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 99 whom it does business is not persuasive to me at this point. MR. HENZY: I understood. And just a couple points, Your Honor. I wasn't involved in Mr. Kwok's decision to file Chapter 11. THE COURT: I didn't say you were. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I said you took your client as you found him. MR. HENZY: I took -- THE COURT: That's what I said. Didn't I start the whole thing off by saying that? MR. HENZY: Yeah. And we are where we are today. But I don't think that Mr. Kwok decided to file Chapter 11. And just to be clear, he didn't appeal your decision on -- that a trustee would be appointed. And I'll state on the record if Mr. Whitley had been the appointed person, he would not have -- we would not be having this discussion, okay, because his understanding is some of the issues that we think exist with Paul Hastings and Mr. Despins do not exist with Mr. Whitley. So this is not -- this is not that Mr. Kwok was going to oppose anybody who got appointed and wants to obstruct a Chapter 11 trustee from doing his or her job. He understands completely that there is going to be a Chapter Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 100 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 101 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
100 |\n| 1 | 11 trustee.
So I think it's not correct to say that he's |\n| 2 | just trying to obstruct -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
I didn't say -- I said -- |\n| 4 | MR. HENZY:
-- for those purposes. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
I didn't say he was trying to |\n| 6 | obstruct.
I said I'm not going to let this be derailed. |\n| 7 | That's what I said.
Those were the words I used. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
I think -- I think if a different |\n| 9 | person had been appointed we wouldn't be having this |\n| 10 | discussion.
And I -- and there are -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Well -- |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:
Look, you can disagree, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | We think there are bona fide significant issues here. |\n| 14 | I understand you may disagree, but I don't -- it's |\n| 15 | not correct.
I don't think that because Mr. Kwok decided to |\n| 16 | file Chapter 11 that he doesn't have a right to say, wait a |\n| 17 | second, there's been a trustee appointed, understood, but he |\n| 18 | should just have to accept whoever gets appointed even when |\n| 19 | he believes that there are significant conflicts that that |\n| 20 | person has. |\n| 21 | I mean, just because you file Chapter 11 doesn't |\n| 22 | mean -- and subject yourself to the jurisdiction of the |\n| 23 | Court -- doesn't mean that you have to just sort of accept |\n| 24 | any and everything that comes along, even if you believe |\n| 25 | that it is not fair and is prejudicial to you. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 101 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HENZY: So I guess, Your Honor, are you ruling today -- THE COURT: No, I'm not ruling. MR. HENZY: -- that we cannot take discovery in connection with -- THE COURT: If you take any discovery before I rule on the 60(b) motion, then I will -- I'm not allowing you to take any discovery before I rule on the 60(b) motion. MR. HENZY: And on the Paul Hastings retention application? THE COURT: And on the Paul Hastings retention application. MR. HENZY: Okay. So you're ruling that today. THE COURT: That's correct. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: There is going to be no discovery. This is not -- these are not matters that are -- we're going to allow to have happen. That's not going to happen. We'll have a hearing. We'll hear your matter. And if we rule against you, then -- if I rule against you, then you'll appeal. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I would ask that there be at least a docket entry on that so ordering that we do not -- Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 102 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 103 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 102 THE COURT: Well, this is a status conference, so I'm not going to enter a docket entry on that right now. I'm telling you -- MR. HENZY: But if I don't have -- THE COURT: I'm telling you if you seek discovery before I rule on these matters, then I'm not going to make the other side comply. MR. HENZY: Okay. But, Your Honor, I don't want to go through the exercise of -- I don't know -- anybody -- THE COURT: This motion isn't even on the calendar -- MR. HENZY: I understand. THE COURT: -- so it's inappropriate to start discovery with regard to something that's not even -- This is a status conference. This was -- this was specifically scheduled as a status conference in connection with the motion, excuse me, the memorandum of decision and order appointing the Chapter 11 trustee. You filed documents after that -- this status conference was scheduled. None of your documents have been set for a hearing. Okay? So you can do whatever you think is appropriate once those matters are set for a hearing. MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. What I don't want to do is have us serve discovery and put other parties in a position of having to file motions with this court and\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 103 the Court then ruling on those motions and saying you don't get to take the discovery. I want to, I guess, just end -- THE COURT: You can do whatever you think is appropriate, Mr. Henzy. I am not -- this was not a hearing on which rulings were going to come out of it other than what I told you. I'm going to back and I'm going to issue -- I'm going to schedule hearings indifferent matters. And I'm going to require you in one of those orders to file briefs as to why you can represent this debtor without complying with 327 and when you have -- when you have what appears to be an actual conflict of interest. MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: And when I say you, I mean Zeisler & Zeisler. Okay? MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. On the discovery issue, okay, what I don't -- what I don't want to do -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. HENZY: -- I don't want to serve discovery after you've told me I'm not going to get discovery -- THE COURT: You can serve discovery at your own -- your decision. You do whatever you think, Counsel, but -- MR. HENZY: I thought you were about to say you Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 104 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 105 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 104 can serve discovery at your own peril, but -- THE COURT: I almost did actually. MR. HENZY: -- which I don't -- THE COURT: Yeah. MR. HENZY: -- which, again, I don't want to do that. But I don't think it's fair to tell me I -- I'm not going to let you serve discovery, but go do whatever you're going to do -- THE COURT: Where does it say under Rule 60 that you're entitled to discovery by the way? MR. HENZY: I think the motion is governed by Rule 9014, Your Honor. THE COURT: Right. 9014 means people have an opportunity to respond. And that until that response is filed, why would you be entitled to discovery? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I'm trying to not delay a hearing on these matters. I'm trying to have this go as fast as it can. Mr. Kwok's goal is not to delay the final appointment of a trustee. It's not to delay final retention of counsel for a trustee. We want to get to the issues as much as everybody else wants to get to the issues. Okay. So I understand that until someone files an objection to my Rule 60 motion, arguably, why am I taking discovery? I've a pretty good\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 105 idea that there are going to be objections to my Rule 60 motion and I'm trying to move this along as quickly as I possibly can. I don't want to serve discovery and put people in a position of having to file motions with the Court and have the Court potentially have a hearing or not have a hearing and rule on the motion to give me then whatever rights I have with respect to the Court's ruling. Which is why I -- for me, it would be much preferable -- it may be preferable for other parties -- if the Court's going to rule that is to rule that today and get it out of the way. THE COURT: Well, I'll consider that. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. GOLDMAN: May I be heard briefly? THE COURT: Can you -- make sure you can speak into the microphone. MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah. Can you hear me? THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah. One idea I'd like to offer for the Court's consideration as a potential way to resolve this motion -- Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 106 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 107 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
106 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
What concern? |\n| 2 | MR. GOLDMAN:
-- and concern -- |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
The 60(b) motion? |\n| 4 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Yes.
Yes.
And the concern about |\n| 5 | the Chinese government, not that that's an issue that I |\n| 6 | think -- I don't want to give it credence by proposing a |\n| 7 | solution, but the Court could simply provide that if Mr. |\n| 8 | Despins or Paul Hastings is contacted by the Chinese |\n| 9 | government with a threat of adverse action for purposes of |\n| 10 | influencing in any way the administration of this case that |\n| 11 | they would file a supplemental affidavit with the Court so |\n| 12 | indicating and we could take it from there because we are |\n| 13 | simply dealing with speculation. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Mr. Despins already has that |\n| 15 | obligation, Mr. Goldman.
He already has that obligation |\n| 16 | under his disclosure requirements under the code and the |\n| 17 | rules. |\n| 18 | I mean, I understand what you're saying, but I |\n| 19 | think it does give it credence where I haven't ruled on |\n| 20 | anything yet. |\n| 21 | And I'll consider what you said and I appreciate |\n| 22 | the -- raising the issue, but every lawyer, every trustee, |\n| 23 | has a continuing obligation. |\n| 24 | Mr. Despins has already stated under penalty of |\n| 25 | perjury that he doesn't have these connections. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 108 of\n\n| | 117 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
107 |\n| 1 | So I appreciate it.
I'm not sure how far that |\n| 2 | will go.
If you all want to talk about it, that would be |\n| 3 | something that would work out for you, that's fine.
I'm |\n| 4 | happy to entertain it if that's something that everybody |\n| 5 | wants to have entertained. |\n| 6 | But I'm not -- we're going to move this case |\n| 7 | forward and it's not going to be held up by matters that |\n| 8 | can't be addressed in other ways under the bankruptcy code |\n| 9 | and rules. |\n| 10 | Mr. Despins and any other person that would serve |\n| 11 | in that role understands the responsibilities of the role, |\n| 12 | understands the disclosures made under penalty of perjury, |\n| 13 | And if someone comes forth with some evidence that |\n| 14 | Mr. Despins is being influenced by the Chinese government, |\n| 15 | then they can bring that evidence forward. |\n| 16 | But to argue that without any evidence in the |\n| 17 | record and then say -- and I want discovery to stop the |\n| 18 | process I find that very unlikely that that will happen. |\n| 19 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Well, I certainly am in agreement |\n| 20 | with Your Honor's position on that.
I was just trying to |\n| 21 | address the Zeisler speculation. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
No.
I appreciate the offer. |\n| 23 | As I said, you know, it doesn't look like anybody |\n| 24 | wants to go to talk together, right?
I mean, I can take a |\n| 25 | recess if you want to have a discussion. |\n| | |\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 109 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 108 But this is -- we've been here now for almost two and a half hours. We need to let Mr. Despins go do his job. Okay? That's what this is all about. That's why a Chapter 11 trustee was appointed so that this could happen. What is in the record, whether or not it impacts any decision that is made by this court, Mr. Henzy, is what I started off my discussion with you a few minutes ago, which is you took your client as you found him. I'm sure you've read everything that has occurred in the New York State Court. Those are allegations that continue to be made here by the parties that were in that proceeding and by other parties. Your client has to make some decisions. And, you know, this court is here to support parties as much as the Court can, but the Court also has to move things forward if parties aren't moving together down the same path. And I'm not saying you should. I'm not saying that should happen. I'm saying otherwise why am I here? You can all go fight it out outside. Right? I mean, the point is we have to move the case along one way or another. Either your client makes decisions about trying to come up with a way to make this case work or not. And if he doesn't want to, that's fine. That is his prerogative. And\n\nI agree with you on that that that is his right. But he\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 109 takes those steps with the understanding that the Court may not agree with him. MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And that's -- that's where we are. I don't want to spend any more time today -- I mean, I will if you want to talking about it, but I think it's important to understand we have to move forward. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, Mr. Kwok does not disagree with that, but we have -- I think -- I think the Court would agree we have to move forward the right way. THE COURT: I have to give everybody an opportunity to respond to these different motions, right? So what I'm looking at -- and I think I heard Mr. Friedman and Mr. Despins tell me, and everybody else is going to have to make themselves available, that we're going to have a hearing on August 1st. That's a Monday. Okay? That's a week and a day from today, business days. We're going to have a hearing on August 1st and I'm going to rule on these issues if there isn't agreement. With regard to the motion to withdraw as attorney, with regard to Brown Rudnick's, again, whether or not that's going to be allowed, I don't know. But if it is, it's definitely with conditions. And I think the U.S. Trustee should be opining on Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 110 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 111 of\n\n| | 117 | | | | | | | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
110 | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | that.
I don't know how the U.S. Trustee -- the U.S. Trustee | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | has to opine on that.
There's a -- there's a -- that's what | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | the role of the U.S. Trustee is with regard to professionals | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | in a Chapter 11 case.
In every case, but certainly in a | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | Chapter 11 case. | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | With regard to the Rule 60(b) motion, I'm going to | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | give everybody an -- but you all have to understand, you all | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | don't -- I'm not getting pleadings filed on Friday the 29th | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | and you're expecting me to read them and be ready to rule on | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | Monday the 1st.
That's not going to happen.
So you're | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | going to have to address these issues in short order whether | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | you agree with that or not.
That's what's going to happen. | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | Okay? | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | With regard to the application to employ Paul | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | Hastings and Neubert, Pepe, that's going to be set for a | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | hearing as well.
All that's going to be set for hearing. | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | I understand -- I have to look at the stay | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | motions.
I don't remember whether I think those should be | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | set for hearing.
I might be setting 20 things for hearing | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | on August 1st.
Okay?
But we need to move this case along. | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | It's just that simple.
And that's what's going to happen. | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | So if I look at the docket -- and I did try to | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | look at it before we came out today, but we had another | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | hearing -- I mean, we do have other hearings as I know you | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | all know.
And the problem with why I want you to get -- why | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 112 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 111 I'm going to make you all respond earlier than the 29th, and probably by the 27th, which is next Wednesday, which isn't a lot of time, we have Chapter 13 day on the 28th. I mean, there are other issues that the Court has to address. Even though this case is extremely important to all of you -- and I completely appreciate that -- we do have other matters that we have to address. Okay? So I see that there are, you know, motions to appear pro hac vice in connection with these pending motions. Motions to appear pro hac vice are routinely granted. But if there's really going to be an objection to -- I'm going to let whoever wants to talk talk. Whether I think you're the lawyer or not, Mr. Henzy, I obviously let you talk today, right? I'm going to let you speak. But we have to make rulings on who represents what and in what context and who's going to appear in this case on a going forward basis. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, just to be clear, there will be no objection to the pro hac motions. I've never objected to a pro hac motion in my career and I don't expect I ever will. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HENZY: So those I think probably -- THE COURT: Well, then, maybe we can at least move\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 112 those along. Okay? MR. HENZY: So, Your Honor, evidence that I want to move this case along, there it is. MR. LINSEY: Those are, Your Honor, 530 -- rather 533 -- THE COURT: I have them. MR. LINSEY: Yes. THE COURT: I have them, Attorney Linsey. Thank you. All right. Is there anything else that anyone would like to state for the record this afternoon? (No audible response.) THE COURT: All right. I don't see anyone. Oh, Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: So I just want to be clear -- THE COURT: I didn't -- I didn't leave as fast as I should have I suppose. MR. HENZY: I just want to be clear on what's on the schedule for August 1st. Is it everything? Everything? THE COURT: I don't know yet. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: That's what I said. Well, I can tell you what's going to be on. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: What I think is going to be on. The Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 113 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 114 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 113 motion to withdraw as attorney, Brown Rudnick. Mr. Despins' application to employ Paul Hastings and Neubert, Pepe. Your Rule 60(b) motion. Anything else, I'm not sure about yet. The stay motions, things like that, I've got to go back. Unless somebody is telling me -- I'm giving you all the opportunity right now to tell me what else should be heard on August 1st. I don't know if I'll agree with you, but I'm giving -- And you, Attorney Henzy, and the U.S. Trustee's Office are going to have to file briefs by -- I think the response date on everything is going to the 27th, on why you can -- you have to convince me of your argument that you don't need to comply with 327 because you're -- because the debtor's no longer a debtor in possession. And why you don't -- and regardless of that, why you don't have an actual conflict of interest in representing HK International and Mr. Kwok simultaneously. MR. HENZY: I just want to be -- when you said you'll let me speak on August 1t, I mean, I wouldn't want to get here -- THE COURT: Yeah. You're going -- I'm going to let you make your argument. MR. HENZY: I wouldn't want to get here on August 1st and have you say I've decided you can't represent Mr. Kwok and then Mr. Kwok is not ready -- he's not --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 115 of\n\n| | 117 | | | | | | |\n|------------------------------------|------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022
114 | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | | THE COURT: | We're not going to do that. | | | | |\n| 2 | | MR. HENZY: | He's not represented. | | | | |\n| 3 | | THE COURT: | It's a hearing on whether or not you | | | | |\n| 4 | can do that. | Okay? | | | | | |\n| 5 | | MR. HENZY: | Okay. | | | | |\n| 6 | | THE COURT: | I'm not going to -- I would never say | | | | |\n| 7 | | | that you were not going to be allowed to speak. | | | | |\n| 8 | | MR. HENZY: | I didn't think you would, Your Honor. | | | | |\n| 9 | | THE COURT: | Okay. | | | | |\n| 10 | | MR. HENZY: | But I just don't want him to be not | | | | |\n| 11 | represented at that hearing. | | | | | | |\n| 12 | | THE COURT: | I understand.
Well, Brown Rudnick's | | | | |\n| 13 | going to be here anyway. | | | | | | |\n| 14 | | MR. HENZY: | I don't think Brown Rudnick is | | | | |\n| 15 | | | intending to prepare for that -- a hearing on August 1st. | | | | |\n| 16 | | THE COURT: | They may not be intending to prepare | | | | |\n| 17 | | | for that hearing, but they're going to have to be here on | | | | |\n| 18 | | | their motion to withdraw as attorney. | | | | |\n| 19 | | MR. HENZY: | Understood. | | | | |\n| 20 | | THE COURT: | Okay. | | | | |\n| 21 | | MR. HENZY: | Understood. | | | | |\n| 22 | | THE COURT: | And so if I don't grant their motion | | | | |\n| 23 | | | to withdraw as attorney, then they're still his attorney. | | | | |\n| 24 | | MR. HENZY: | Okay. | | | | |\n| 25 | | THE COURT: | Okay? | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 115 MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: All right. Anything further from anyone? (No audible response.) THE COURT: All right. That concludes the Kwok matter for today. That is the last matter on today's calendar. Court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 1:28 p.m.) I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 16 July 25, 2022 17 Christine Fiore, CERT Transcriber Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 116 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 871-2
Filed 09/23/22
Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35
117 | Page 117 of |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 | 116 |\n| 1 | | |\n| 2 | I N D E X | |\n| 3 | | PAGE |\n| 4 | EXHIBITS FOR THE TRUSTEE: | |\n| 5 | 1
Trustee written presentation copy | 7 |\n| 6 | | |\n| 7 | | |\n| 8 | | |\n| 9 | | |\n| 10 | | |\n| 11 | | |\n| 12 | | |\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":"附件B\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 2 of\n\n康涅狄格州联邦地区破产法院 布里奇波特分庭\n\n关于 案件编号 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵） 布里奇波特，康涅狄格州\n债务人。 July 21, 2022\n\n美利坚合众国破产法院\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官面前举行的状态会议记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：\nDYLAN P. KLETTER（迪伦·P·克莱特），律师\nBrown Rudnick, LLP（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\n185 Asylum Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\nERIC HENZY（埃里克·亨齐），律师\nAARON ROMNEY（亚伦·罗姆尼），律师\nZeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC：\nSTEPHEN M. KINDSETH（斯蒂芬·M·金德塞思），律师\nZeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Asia Alliance Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋亚洲联盟机会基金，L.P.）：\nPETER FRIEDMAN（彼得·弗里德曼），律师\nSTUART M. SARNOFF（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫），律师\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥美律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n诉讼程序由电子录音记录，记录稿由速记服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与速记服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员续：\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Asia Alliance Opportunity Fund, L.P.（太平洋亚洲联盟机会基金，L.P.）：\nPATRICK M. BIRNEY（帕特里克·M·伯尼），律师\nRobinson & Cole LLP（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n280 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE GOLDMAN（欧文·戈德曼），律师\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street, 8th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表债权人 Rui Ma（马蕊）、Zheng Wu（吴征）及 Weican Meng（孟伟灿）：\nKRISTEN MAYHEW（克里斯滕·梅休），律师\nMcElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter（麦克尔罗伊·多伊奇·马尔瓦尼与卡彭特律师事务所）\n30 Jeliff Lane\nSouthport, CT 06890\n\nCAROLLYNN H.G. CALLARI（卡罗琳·H.G.·卡拉里），律师\nLaw firm of Callari Partners（卡拉里合伙人律师事务所）\nOne Rockefeller Plaza, 10th Fl.\nNew York, NY 10020\n\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平斯），律师\nPaul Hastings, LLP（保尔·哈斯廷斯律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nDOUGLAS S. SKALKA（道格拉斯·S·斯卡尔卡），律师\nPATRICK R. LINSEY（帕特里克·R·林赛），律师\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙泰思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩），律师\n美国受托人办公室\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 3\n\n（程序于上午10:06开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案件编号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法庭：早上好。请先由债务人代理律师开始，为记录说明出庭情况。\n\n亨齐先生：法官阁下，我代表 Ho Wan Kwok，来自 Zeisler & Zeisler 的 Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐）。\n\n法庭：请稍等一下。Baldiga 先生或其他人在哪里——\n\n克莱特先生：您好，早上好。我是来自 Brown Rudnick 的 Dylan Kletter（迪伦·克莱特），到庭处理解除代理人资格的动议。\n\n法庭：好的。好的。还有谁？先生，抱歉，请继续。\n\n罗姆尼先生：法官阁下，我是来自 Zeisler & Zeisler 的 Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼），也代表债务人。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n金德塞思先生：我是代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok 的 Stephen Kindseth（斯蒂芬·金德塞思）。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。律师，请继续。\n\n德斯平斯先生：早上好，法官阁下。很高兴当面见到您。我是第11章受托人 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯）。\n\n法庭：早上好，Despins 先生。抱歉。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 4 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 4\n\n我们此前只是在 Zoom 上见过面，因此在今天之前我没有当面见过您，欢迎。\n\n斯卡尔卡先生：早上好，法官阁下。我是来自 Newbury, Pepi and Monteith 的 Douglas Skalka（道格拉斯·斯卡尔卡），拟担任第11章受托人的本地代理律师。\n\n法庭书记员：Skalka 律师，我听不见您说话。\n\n斯卡尔卡先生：抱歉。\n\n法庭：没关系。请您再说一遍。\n\n斯卡尔卡先生：是，法官阁下。我是来自 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith 的 Douglas Skalka，拟担任第11章受托人的本地代理律师。\n\n林赛先生：法官阁下，我是来自 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith 的 Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛），也是受托人的本地代理律师。早上好。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n斯卡尔卡先生：早上好。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：早上好。我是代表美国受托人的 Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩）。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n弗里德曼先生：早上好，法官阁下。我是来自 O'Melveny & Meyers、代表 Pacific Alliance Group（太平洋联盟集团）的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。\n\n书记员：抱歉，Friedman 律师，我听不见您——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 5 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 5\n\n弗里德曼先生：抱歉。\n\n法庭：因为我们只有几个麦克风，而到场的人很多，所以有点困难。抱歉。\n\n弗里德曼先生：早上好，法官阁下。我是来自 O'Melveny & Meyers、代表 Pacific Asia Alliance 的 Peter Friedman。Sarnoff 先生与我一同出庭。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n弗里德曼先生：来自 Robinson & Cole 律师事务所、担任我们康涅狄格州代理律师的 Birney 先生也在场。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n戈德曼先生：早上好，法官阁下。我是来自 Pullman & Comley、代表债权人委员会的 Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼）。\n\n法庭：早上好。\n\n梅休女士：早上好，法官阁下。我是来自 McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter、代表债权人 Rui Ma、Zheng Wu 及 Weican Meng 的 Kristen Mayhew（克里斯滕·梅休）。与我一同出庭的是共同代理律师 Carollyn Callari（卡罗琳·卡拉里）。\n\n法庭：两位早上好。好的。本院依照驳回无损害撤案动议并指定第11章受托人的裁决备忘录，安排于今天举行状态会议。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 6 of\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 7 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 6\n\n该裁决备忘录指出，应在指定第11章受托人后14日内举行状态会议，以便第11章受托人向本院报告，从第11章受托人的角度看目前进展如何，并讨论第11章受托人可能正在处理、审查和分析的具体问题，以及向本院说明，Despins 先生，您认为本案将朝何方向发展。\n\n我安排状态会议，也是因为在指定之后——即指定您、Despins 先生的命令之后——提交了大量文件，涉及贵所的申请，即您聘用贵所 Paul Hastings 的申请，以及 Brown Rudnick 提交的解除代理人资格动议；该动议是在指定 Despins 先生的命令作出后提交的。因此，我希望首先听取您的意见，Despins 先生，了解您已经能够完成的工作、您打算完成的工作，以及本案接下来的步骤可能是什么。我们将就该申请进行审议，至少讨论聘用贵所的申请。然后，我们将讨论解除代理人资格动议——该债务人的代理律师 Brown Rudnick 自本案开始即参与本案。好吗？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 871-2\nFiled 09/23/22\nEntered 09/23/22 14:50:35\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022\n\n1 因此，Despins 先生，请继续。\n\n2 德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n3 法庭：\n如果您愿意，请上前。\n\n4 另外，Despins 先生，如果您——如果您\n5 在任何时候认为有帮助，需要本院调出您需要查看的\n6 任何诉状，\n7 您只需告知我们，法庭书记员便可\n8 为您调出。\n\n9 德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n10 因此，我们为本院准备了一份陈述材料。\n\n11 法庭：\n请。\n\n12 德斯平斯先生：\n我预计所需时间不超过\n13 15分钟，但我们有一份视觉辅助材料，也就是说——\n14 书面形式的材料——\n\n15 法庭：\n好的。\n\n16 德斯平斯先生：\n——该材料将有助于本院\n17 理解陈述。因此，如可以，我们将分发——\n18 我们为法庭内的每位人士准备了副本，并且为——\n\n19 法庭：\n当然。若您这样做，\n20 那将很好。然后我们可以——我们可以将该\n21 陈述材料标记为受托人证物1。\n\n22 （受托人书面陈述材料副本标记为受托人\n23 证物1。）\n\n24 德斯平斯先生：\n是。我想明确说明，这并非\n25 证据。它只是一份工作计划——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 871-2\nFiled 09/23/22\nEntered 09/23/22 14:50:35\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022\n\n1 法庭：\n明白。\n\n2 德斯平斯先生：\n好的。\n\n3 法庭：\n它仅为示范性材料，但它将\n4 有助于本院，我们可以将其纳入\n5 记录。好吗？\n\n6 德斯平斯先生：\n完全同意，法官阁下。\n\n7 而且，如果——法官阁下，您是否希望我们也将其\n8 提交备案？\n\n9 法庭：\n不。没关系。\n\n10 德斯平斯先生：\n好的。\n\n11 法庭：\n我们可以处理此事。谢谢。\n\n12 德斯平斯先生：\n谢谢。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n13 好的。因此，我——首先，感谢法官阁下\n14 就此事项听取我们的陈述。\n\n15 因此，我将从——第2页的\n16 行政事项开始。其中一些事项，法官阁下，\n17 相当常规且乏味，所以我不会花太多\n18 时间。您已经知道了。\n\n19 但为确认起见，我们缴纳了\n20 $25,000 的保证金。我们开立了银行账户，即事项\n21 第二项。第三项仅是提醒：此前曾于 March 21st、于 April 6th 举行三次\n22 第341条会议，\n23 但会议均未完成，因此美国受托人需要另行安排一次\n24 会议。因此，我希望您知悉此事。\n\n25 法庭：\n谢谢。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 10 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 9\n\n德斯平斯先生：随后，在这份事项清单中，月度经营报告方面，债务人在我们获指定之前仍有两份报告应提交，因此这些报告需要——我不知道这是否属于 Brown Rudnick 的解除代理人资格动议所涉事项，或将由其他人负责，但此事需要完成。该事项列于第2页。\n\n不过，我想指出，第2页底部以粗体显示的月度经营报告反映，第三方为债务人的利益作出了支出，平均每月约为 115,000。我认为这是一个重要的数据点。\n\n下一页，法官阁下，债权申报截止日期。关于债权申报截止日期曾有许多来回讨论。我知道您当时正在考虑撤销本案，因此在案件可能被撤销的情况下，就债权申报截止日期作出命令没有意义；但目前本案不会被撤销，我认为应作出债权申报截止日期命令。\n\n我认为您已有修订版本——有人告诉我您已有修订版本——我们鼓励本院作出该命令，因为我们需要知道有哪些债权人，特别是政府实体方面，我们需要了解这一点。因此，这就是债权申报截止日期命令。\n\n在第六项下，这是关于 Lady May（梅夫人号）检验的更新。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 10\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，July 13th 进行了检验，参与者为 PAX 的专家以及我聘请的一名专家，后者基本上负责监督 PAX 的专家。让我解释一下。显然，我们没有资金，破产财产为零美元。PAX 正在与一位声誉极佳的专家进行其自身审查，并由其支付费用，我们对此表示感谢。不过，鉴于本案的情况，我不能前往检验现场后表示我只依赖 PAX 的专家，尽管从方向上看，我们的方向一致，即我们和 PAX 都想知道这艘游艇是否存在问题。因此，我所做的是聘请 Paul Derecktor（保罗·德雷克特），他是——我不知道法官阁下是否知悉此事——\n\n法庭：是，我知悉。\n\n德斯平斯先生：——那家公司曾经处于——\n\n法庭：我知悉。\n\n德斯平斯先生：您当时是否——\n\n法庭：我的意思是，您一说出这个名字。我不知道您聘请了该人士，但我——我知道那家公司。\n\n德斯平斯先生：我不知道。您是该案的法官吗？\n\n法庭：不是。\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 11 of\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 12 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022\n\n法院：\n不，我没有。\n\nDESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：\n好的。所以他是——他在该地区有一家造船厂。他确实很懂船。但他同意以 $2,500 的费用监督 PAX（PAX）的专家工作。我认为这是一笔适度的投入，只是为了确保没有人批评我们完全依赖 PAX 的专家。因此，我们已经这样做了。\n\n仍有一些讨论需要进行，让我说明这些讨论的性质。\n\n基本上，Derecktor先生（德雷克托先生）告诉我，他说，听着，任何购买这么大一艘船的人，实际上都会将其移出——移出水面，以检查船体。我说，那么费用是多少？哦，$400,000。那就算了。我们做不了。有没有 B 计划？\n\n他说，嗯，你们可以派潜水员到水下检查船体，因为这艘船是从欧洲返回的，而且在海洋中经常会撞到——你知道的——各种东西，存在这种可能。潜水员的费用是 $2,500。因此，我们正与 PAX 就这样做是否合理进行讨论。\n\n他提到的第二件事是，我们确实应当进行海试。起初我认为我们不会把船开到海上去。他说，不，基本上这就像——就像汽车一样。开出去转一圈，半小时，只是为了确保——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文档 871-2\n提交日期 09/23/22\n录入日期 09/23/22 14:50:35\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n法院：\n我熟悉海试。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n好的。我不熟悉。因此，这仍在考虑之中，法官阁下。\n\n所以，现阶段我们需要与 PAX 的专家会面，综合我们的共同意见，并回到作为登记船舶所有人的实体处。这就是目前检查工作的情况，法官阁下。\n\n但是，很明显——您知道，我不是船舶专家——这艘船存在损坏，因为您只是从旁边走过时，就能看到船首有一部分被某物撞击过。不过，无论如何，我们会——这项工作正在推进。\n\n仍在事项清单中的是——您知道，第 4 页——自动中止函。我指示我的律所向本案外围涉及的各方发送了 20 多封信。\n\n例如，一个名为 Golden Spring New York（纽约金泉）的实体，法官阁下可能记得，其曾在某些情形下提供部分资金。我不——我不想详述，但它们显然属于与债务人有关联的公司范围。\n\n然后是 Bravo Luck（好运公司），该实体据称有一项信托协议，规定其拥有 Sherry Netherland（雪莉-荷兰大厦）的公寓。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文档 871-2\n提交日期 09/23/22\n录入日期 09/23/22 14:50:35\n第 14 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n因此，它们都列在那里。嗯，其中一些列在那里。但我们也向 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）发送了同样的信函，对方已予确认；还向康涅狄格州格林尼治的一家律师事务所 Whitman Breed（惠特曼·布里德律师事务所）发送了该信函。这实际上很有意思，因为我获得了将房屋出售给债务人的人的许可，可以取得成交结算单、银行电汇等文件。\n\n但当我致电 Whitman Breed 时，对方的说法是，我们不能向您提供那些材料，因为我们在其他事项中代表债务人。我说，这与此有什么关系？你们没有在该出售交易中代理他们，对吗？没有。但我们不会向你提供任何文件。因此，这意味着他们在其他事项中代理债务人。显然，我们希望他们保存这些文件，并让我们能够取得这些文件。\n\n因此，自我们获任以来，已经发出了若干此类信函，可能有 20 封。\n\n第 5 页，仍是（听不清）事项。为了让法官阁下知悉，我们正联系关键各方，显然，我们从债务人开始。因此，在获任后的第一天，我致电 Brown Rudnick，我说——顺便说一下，除说明以下内容外，我不会披露任何和解讨论——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文档 871-2\n提交日期 09/23/22\n录入日期 09/23/22 14:50:35\n第 15 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n我的首要做法是联系他们并说，我们何不开会看看，在我们进入这一极其昂贵且范围极广的程序之前，是否可以达成全面和解；而在那之后我听到的下一件事是，他们不再担任该先生——担任债务人的律师。\n\n但我想确保这种做法——我们的做法是，如果不必花钱，我们就不必花钱。我知道，如果我们必须前往所有这些法域，费用将会非常高昂，因为涉及许多法域。\n\n但我们想看看是否存在一个数额，可以据此达成全面和解，而这——至少截至目前——尚未实现。\n\n因此，我们联系了债务人的律师。显然，我们联系了委员会律师 Goldman先生（戈德曼先生），他就本案及相关事项向我们提供了非常好的建议。Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）的 Friedman先生（弗里德曼先生）也是如此。\n\n我们联系了 Genever Holdings（Genever控股公司）的律师，这是第 11 章实体，法官阁下。还有一次有意思的谈话，因为我问他，在该案中你听从谁的指示？他说，哦，Miles。我不知道他是这样使用名字的——这是他所熟知的称呼。因此我说，谁是 Miles？他说，哦，那是第 11 章债务人。\n\n案号 22-50073\n文档 871-2\n提交日期 09/23/22\n录入日期 09/23/22 14:50:35\n第 16 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n所以，他在该案中听从这名债务人的指示。因此我说，嗯，我现在是第 11 章受托人。他说，嗯，我想我是在听从你的指示。我说，嗯，我们会——你知道的，未完待续。\n\n但是，您知道，我稍后会再谈此事，但关于这个问题，有很多事项需要讨论。不过，我马上会回到这个问题。\n\n因此，我们联系了他。我们也联系了前法官 Cyganowski（西加诺夫斯基法官），她是该案中由法院指定的销售代理人。我想明确说明——我稍后会谈到这一点——受托人并不主张应当停止出售。因此，这不是我们计划的一部分。\n\n但我想联系她，介绍我自己，并获取有关该不动产目前情况的反馈。顺便说，她确实告诉我，债务人目前正占用该不动产，即纽约的 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-荷兰大厦）。\n\n然后是债权人的律师。Rui Ma（马蕊）和 Zheng Wu（郑武），以及 Carollyn Callari（卡罗琳·卡拉里），显然，我们联系了她，因为她是重要的利益相关方之一。\n\n自与 Brown Rudnick 的尝试失败后，我们已要求债务人的新律师与债务人举行会面，不一定是讨论和解，而是因为我们需要与债务人进行严肃讨论，以确保债务人明白他目前所处的制度——\n\n案号 22-50073\n文档 871-2\n提交日期 09/23/22\n录入日期 09/23/22 14:50:35\n第 17 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n现在。我们在上周五提出了该请求。截至目前，我们尚未收到回复。也许很快会收到。\n\n接下来，法官阁下，仍在第——现在是第 6 页，仍是行政事项，即对未决对抗性程序的管理。\n\n有若干对抗性程序，法官阁下。其中大多数涉及不可免责性。我想明确说明，因为我们联系债务人说，嘿，我们希望——我不确定——这并非非正式介入，我们希望这些程序中止。最初的反应是，嗯，这不关你们的事。这是债权人与债务人之间的争议。\n\n一般来说，这可能是对的，所以也许他们会喜欢这一让步，然而，从法院效率的角度来看，我认为现在对法院时间的投入将是非常不划算的，而且我们也需要参与，并投入我们的时间，去处理一项不可免责性诉状。因为要做到这一点，您需要审查债权。实质上，您需要说，我有一项债权，一项有效债权，而且它不可免责。嗯，那将与日后在债权核准程序中可能进行的程序重复。\n\n我的观点是，在遗产目前没有资产的情况下，何必经历那种劳心伤神的过程；也就是说，当存在可供争夺的资产时，那么当然所有这些程序都应当进行。但今天这样做将会是——您知道——显然，您是法官，您将决定您的日程安排，但在我们看来，这将是对法院时间以及我们时间的极差使用，因为我们现在可能不得不在遗产没有资产时经历债权核准程序；您知道，我坚信有一天遗产将会有资产，但今天没有。我认为这将会是——您知道——无论如何。这就是我们的观点，法官阁下。因此，我想确保您理解我们为何提交这项中止动议。\n\n但是，我们不会就不可免责性问题，针对某一特定债权人介入，也不会在该问题上支持或反对债务人。那不是我们的目标。我们的目标是，从案件管理的角度，确保在这些事项上能妥善利用每个人的时间，包括法官阁下的时间。\n\n第 7 页，第九项，还有另一项对抗性程序，即由登记船舶所有人 HK International（香港国际）提起的程序。他们已提起——而 Zeisler律师事务所（蔡斯勒律师事务所）此前代理原告，现在同时代理原告和被告——这只是一个小玩笑——截至目前，我将被替换为该诉讼中的被告。我会在接近最后时再谈这一点，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n但他们给予我们 30 天延期，以便在该案中答辩或以其他方式提出动议。\n\n第 8 页，法官阁下，第十项，介入出庭及其他诉讼。债务人有 25 起正在进行的诉讼。我并非——而且我不想对此掉以轻心——我目前并不太担心他作为被告的那些案件，因为中止令——您知道——适用。问题在于他作为原告的诉讼。我们需要掌握这些请求权是否有价值，并且已经开始联系相关人士。\n\n但我不想误导法官阁下。我们在这方面尚未取得很多进展。这是我们在接下来的——您知道——一个月左右需要做的事情。\n\n因此，那里的思路是，联系债务人在作为原告的案件中的律师，以了解诉讼的性质。例如，那里是否有价值？如果有，我想确保法官阁下知道这一点。有一项——我认为——$1 billion，这是所主张的数额——他在英国起诉 UBS（瑞银）的案件，因此，显然，我联系了律师，希望我们将与他们讨论该诉讼涉及什么、了解相关情况，等等。这只是其中一个例子。\n\n接下来，第十一项，是与\n\n案号 22-50073\n文档 871-2\n提交日期 09/23/22\n录入日期 09/23/22 14:50:35\n第 19 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文档 871-2\n提交日期 09/23/22\n录入日期 09/23/22 14:50:35\n第 20 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n1 美国证券交易委员会（Securities and Exchange Commission）。\n\n2 所以，我不知道法官阁下是否看到了这个——您可能不会花时间查看债权登记册——但 SEC 提交了一项债权申报，基本上——\n\n3 其中已有说明——他们称已就可能——\n\n4 违反证券法律的事项进行了调查。这不是好消息，\n\n5 不仅对——\n\n6 法庭：他们没有主张任何金额吗？\n\n7 他们说他们正在调查，是这样写的吗？\n\n8 德斯平斯先生（MR. DESPINS）：是的。嗯，我想我们在那里引用了原文，但是，您知道，他们正在调查，\n\n9 而且他们实际上可能会对债务人提起民事诉讼，\n\n10 寻求追缴不当得利以及诸如此类的救济。\n\n11 所以，我以前处理过 SEC 的事务，我对他们怀有充分敬意地说这句话，我担心的是，这可能会对例如高盛先生（Mr. Goldman）所代表的债权产生稀释效应。\n\n12 因此，我已联系 SEC，我们目前处于非常初步的阶段。尚未进行任何实质性讨论，但我想确切了解他们的问题是什么、与何事有关，以及他们是否知悉我们尚不知悉的任何资产。因此，这件事——再次说明，我不想误导您——本周才刚刚开始，所以在这方面尚未取得太多进展。这就是 SEC。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- July 21, 2022 20\n\n法庭：他们刚刚——他们提交的这项债权申报，是最近提交的，对吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：是的。我想是五天前、六天前。\n\n法庭：对。好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：大概是这样。是的。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：好的。接下来是第9页第十二项，涉及收到的线索。法官阁下，我们收到了一些人的询问——基本上是线索——称此人在这里或那里藏匿资产。我想向法官阁下说明清楚。我处理过许多此类案件，我想说这些线索通常分为三类。第一类，我称之为疯子。也就是说，这类案件会吸引各种各样的人，其中一些人完全不理性。因此，这可能是第一种情形。第二种情形——我并不是说本案中存在这种情形——但在那种情形下，目标对象本身匿名发送这些信息，只是为了把我们引到例如非洲，让我们在那里花钱，而那里根本没有任何值得调查的东西。第三种情形是，您可能获得真实线索，而\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 录入于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第21页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 录入于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第22页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- July 21, 2022 21\n\n这正是我们正在调查的。有些线索非常具体，涉及持有资金的人员。正如我所说，我目前无法核实这些线索。我不想误导法庭，说，哦，我们在这里发现了 $5 billion。不，我不能这么说。\n\n但是，这表明第11章受托人程序正在发挥作用，因为人们纷纷出现，告诉我们应当核查以下事项，而这些事项在现阶段无论如何都是我们起初绝不可能自行发现的。正如我所说，这些线索可能是编造的，所以我们必须对此非常谨慎，因此我不想夸大它们的重要性。\n\n接下来，法官阁下，聘任专业人士。嗯，您知道，我们已经申请聘任 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）。显然，我们还聘任了斯卡尔卡先生（Mr. Skalka）和林赛（Linsey）。关键在于，我们将尝试——您会看到，除我以外没有其他 Paul Hastings 律师出席——在法官阁下面前的大量事项中高度依赖他们来处理。而且，您当然非常了解该律师事务所。\n\n第10页，这里我们将真正进入更实质性的事项，法官阁下。他们将其题为“行使公司治理权”。债务人列出了若干由债务人100 percent持有的实体。其中之一是 Genever BVI（Genever 英属维尔京群岛）实体，即英属维尔京群岛实体。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 录入于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第23页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- July 21, 2022\n\n1 群岛实体。我们已要求债务人的三家律师事务所，即 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）、中间那一家，以及现在的 Zeisler firm（蔡斯勒律师事务所），向我们提供与该实体有关的公司治理文件。截至目前，没有任何提供。\n\n2 但是，您会记得，该 BVI 实体拥有美国的 Genever，即第11章债务人。而正如我告诉您的，债务人的律师认为，至少截至目前，他是根据债务人的指示行事。\n\n3 而我们的立场是，受托人承继债务人的公司治理权。这是基础法律原则。不过，我们可能仍须向法庭提交某项申请，以寻求对此的确认，但有许多判例支持这一点。这意味着，我们最终可以参与 Genever USA（Genever 美国）第11章案件。显然，我们绝不会请求您就此给予我们救济。我们会向加里蒂法官（Judge Garrity）提出申请。\n\n4 我们在这里提到的一件事是，我们将请求在加里蒂法官面前举行一次状态会议，以说明我们在此，情况已不再相同。我们需要完成对 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内瑟兰）以及为儿子的公司设立的信托这一问题的分析，并需要将其最终确定下来。但很可能我们会出庭并说，法官，情况已经不同了。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 录入于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第24页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- July 21, 2022 23\n\n但正如我开头所说，我们并非试图改变出售。那已经预先确定了。存在一个出售程序。我们不会试图触及它。但法官可能会说，那么你们能做什么？正如我告诉您的，法官——前西加诺夫斯基法官（Judge Cyganowski）告诉我，债务人仍住在那套公寓里。那么，如果我控制拥有该公寓的实体，我希望从任何能够向我支付租金的人那里取得租金收入。因此，如果债务人不愿支付租金收入——顺便说一句，那将是数千美元。这不是每月 $5,000。那将会是——您知道，我不想夸大，但会是非常大的金额。如果债务人想占用该物业，他就必须付出代价。收取该代价的是 Genever，而这正是我们现在控制的公司。如果他——如果他不愿支付，那么其他人将租用该物业——当然须经 Sherry-Netherland 董事会批准等等——但这是一处可收取最高租金的物业，因为这——这套公寓不会明天就出售。这些都是非常昂贵的公寓。您需要——您知道，我不知该如何表述，但其市场是一个截然不同的市场，可能需要数个\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 录入于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第25页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- July 21, 2022 24\n\n月才能售出。所谓数个月，我的意思是真正的数个月。因此，我并非预测它何时会出售，但如果本财产不能通过我们控制的一家子公司享有租金收入的利益，那将令人难以置信。因此，我并不请求您对此发表意见或作出裁定。我相信蔡斯勒律师事务所的朋友们会对此持有不同看法，但我想告诉您，这件事即将到来。顺便说一句，Genever 只是一个例子，其他公司也是如此。问题在于，我们需要取得所有文件，以确切了解正在发生什么。我们需要取得这些实体的银行账户。我们需要了解所有已经进行的转让。这正是——您知道——我们当然首先从公司治理文件开始的事项。截至目前，我们尚未收到任何文件，但我们打算继续追究此事。第11页第二项，就是我刚才所说的。我们将请求本法庭给予救济，以便法庭确认这一点。此外，法官阁下，我们希望根据第1505条获得指定。这是一个奇怪的条款，因为第15章——这与本案有什么关系？我们并非处于第15章程序中。但这是一项\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 871-2\n提交于 09/23/22\n录入于 09/23/22 14:50:35\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- July 21, 2022\n\n1 条款——我惭愧地说，我了解到——最近重新了解到——它并非仅适用于第15章。\n\n2 该条款基本规定，并且第11页中引用了其内容：“受托人可经法庭授权，代表根据第541条设立的财产在外国行事。根据本条获授权行事的实体，可以适用的外国法律允许的任何方式行事。”因此，这将意味着我们前往 BVI，采取任何必要措施以取得对该实体的控制权。\n\n3 显然，如果可以，我们正试图避免诉诸法庭，因为，您知道，没有钱，但这不限于 BVI。\n\n4 还有其他——这取决于目标对象以及我们获得的线索——还有其他潜在国家，我们将向当事人寻求取证。因此，我们将请求法庭作出一项广泛裁定，根据第1505条指定我们为外国代表，但仅为取得文件或追回资产之目的。再次说明，这件事将会到来。我只是想让您预先了解我们在这方面的计划。\n\n5 在第11页底部，法官阁下，我们还想提及，在此类案件中，法庭，即法官阁下，通常会载入一段内容，请求外国法院协助取得受托人将寻求的救济。\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- July 21, 2022 26\n\n而您可能会说，好吧，为什么——我为什么需要这么做？首先，这有点像一项无偿的请求，因为它绝不会以任何方式约束法庭。但是，在外国法院，能够指向这样一段文字并说，看，法庭正在请求您，或请求您的协助，以尽快推进程序，这极其重要。因此，您可能会说，这为什么是必要的？我给您举一个例子。BVI，愿上帝保佑他们，他们有暑期休庭。8月，什么事都不办。我也很希望这里有这种制度，但我们没有。因此，唯一的例外是我们能够基于紧急情况采取行动。所以我并不是请求——我只是告诉您，如果您日后看到这种请求，您会知道我们为什么提出它——因为这是在8月期间以紧急方式引起他们注意的唯一办法。顺便说一句，您知道，8月即将到来。我们对 BVI 可能不需要这个，但在其他国家可能需要。因此，我们显然会就此回到法庭。第12页，对公司治理的请求。我已经讲过了。我们已提出请求。尚未提供。第13页，项目 C，识别并在适当情况下寻求移交财产资产。这很重要。您知道，一项\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 录入于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第27页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 录入于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第28页，共\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- July 21, 2022\n\nRule 2004 动议，显然我们会提出。但 Goldman（戈德曼）先生已经获得了该项救济，因此我们将设法借助该项救济，以避免重复劳动，因为他已经完成了大量该等工作。因此，这当然是我们希望采取的大致方向。\n\n但下一点更为重要，法官阁下，即作为此事的一部分，我们将寻求取得如 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）等律所所享有的律师—当事人特权及工作成果，因为法院对此已相当明确：受托人控制该等特权，特别是在债务人为自行管理债务人期间。\n\n因此，您或许会问，您为何想要这些？例如，就已编制的资产和负债明细表而言，其中可能存在一些对我们而言具有意义的往来沟通。而且这并不限于 Brown Rudnick。\n\n顺便说一句，我并不是——我不想指责 Brown Rudnick。这不是——这只是一个例子。但当然，那家位于 Greenwich（格林尼治）的律所，我们——您知道，他们代理债务人。\n\n顺便说一句，他们并未表示我们代理债务人的妻子，或名为 Greenwich Land Trust（格林尼治土地信托）的那家公司。他们表示其代理债务人。我们希望了解他们正在处理什么，以及其中有哪些工作成果，因为我们相信受托人对此享有控制权。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—July 21, 2022 28\n\n我相信我的同事对此会持不同看法，但我希望确保您知道这一点即将到来，因为我相信，作为调查的一部分，这可能产生结果。现在，第14页，仍然是关于识别资产并寻求将资产移交给破产财产。Lady May（梅夫人号）。因此，我不会朗读其中的全部内容，但基本上，法官阁下，我们引用了 Judge Ostrager（奥斯特拉格法官）在 New York Supreme Court（纽约州最高法院）作出的判决。而且他们相当——我不想——我不是来就此进行辩论的，因为我们仍在审查此事，并且还会再审查一次，但看来其中就该女儿作出了相当有力的认定；该女儿当然是该船舶登记所有人的唯一股东；并且就债务人对该船舶的控制权及受益所有权也作出了认定。我们在第15页所说的是，在完成审查的前提下，我们认为本法院应认定这些认定对该船舶及登记船舶所有人公司具有约束力，即使该公司本身并非该诉讼的当事人。但该女儿是证人。其律师对证人进行了交叉询问，诸如此类，并且是该审判的完全参与者。而 New York Appellate Division（纽约州上诉分院）已将案件发回给奥斯特拉格法官，要求其就该船舶的所有权作出认定。\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 871-2\n提交 09/23/22\n登记 09/23/22 14:50:35\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—July 21, 2022\n\n该案发回奥斯特拉格法官，要求其就船舶所有权作出认定。因此，他们已得到明确、明确的——您知道——通知，法官将会这样做。事实上，他确实这样做了。\n\n而在该时点，再次强调，在进一步审查的前提下，我们认为存在争点排除，即使作为登记所有人的公司不是该诉讼的当事人，因为存在法律上的同一性。是同一当事人。\n\n而且，尽管对 Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）的朋友们抱歉，但他们——现在代理登记所有人和 Kwok（郭）先生，您知道，这几乎就像——我是在开玩笑——该点上几乎可作出即决判决——也就是说，是的，他们是同一的，他们全都共同参与其中。\n\n因此，就争点排除而言，我们认为这应当具有约束力。再次说明，这是以后的事，但我想先提醒您，因为我们不认为他们可以重新来过，并在这里进行类似十天的审判，再让相同人员出庭，诸如此类，就同一争点进行审理。\n\n第16页，法官阁下，我已经提到 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-尼德兰）。我已告诉您那里的计划。Greenwich 的住宅。您知道，这些是由债务人妻子百分之百拥有的一家公司在2020年近期购置的。两栋房屋。当然，我们希望知道资金来源的细节。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交 09/23/22 登记 09/23/22 14:50:35 第31页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—July 21, 2022 30\n\n然后是第五点，其他资产。我想明确，我们并未将自己限于这三类。稍后我会再回到法院，并更新我们就此所作的工作成果，但我想明确，所传达的信息并非只有 Sherry-Netherland 和游艇。还有——还有其他资产需要——以及 Greenwich 房产——还有其他资产需要进行调查。\n\n第17页，法官阁下，债权审查和准许程序。这与我先前所说的是同一回事。在理想世界中，每个人都希望其债权明天就获准，但在此阶段进行该程序将极为适得其反，因为，您知道，没有资金来做这件事；而且有什么目的，如果我们——除非——直到我们有资金可供争取，在此之前就不要为此争取，但那只是我们对此的看法。因此，关于时间安排，法官阁下，我会说这还要数月。我不想误导您，说，哦，我们下个月就能完成。不是。未来几个月我们将尽量不把重点放在这上面，因为唯一重点是将资产纳入破产财产。这是唯一的短期重点。\n\n最后一页实际上是 Chapter 11（第11章）计划。同样，法官阁下，我们——我不想——您知道，我年轻时，我的老板总是告诉我，少承诺，多交付。我不想误导您。\n\n这将需要——除非达成一项我们欢迎的全面和解——数月时间。我不想在此问题上误导法院。我希望情况不是这样，但我对事情将如何发展有所预感，而且我认为不幸的是，这将会是事情发展的方式。\n\n因此，这就完成了我们的陈述，法官阁下。我很乐意回答您可能提出的任何问题。\n\n法庭：好的。目前，我确实有一两个问题，但我非常感谢该陈述。\n\n裁决备忘录中要求安排一次状态会议的原因之一，是让受托人完成您刚才所做的事情，即前来告诉法院受托人认为情况处于何种状态、需要处理哪些问题、接下来将会发生什么，以及最终目标可能是什么。\n\n即使该目标无法实现，我也理解，您知道，我们处于 Chapter 11（第11章）程序中，因此显然，最终目标是某种形式的计划，如果我们走到那一步的话。因此，我表示感谢。\n\n鉴于您所说的，在我看来，从您的角度看，您希望法院处理的最重要事项之一，是作出一项裁定，确定债权申报截止日期。而且，如您在陈述中所示，在您获任之前，由于案件可能被驳回的问题，以及该案件也可能转换程序的可能性，该事项在一定程度上处于搁置状态。法院还必须考虑其他问题，因此，关于债权申报截止日期的问题——对此有两个问题。有一个问题是，法院担心在当时该期限过短，因为案件仍在发展中。但现在该案已历时五个月。由于本案各方提交的信息和诉状，以及本案期间提出的证据，已任命一名 Chapter 11（第11章）受托人。而案卷材料支持这一点。因此，我同意您，法院将在短期内着手确定债权申报截止日期。\n\n我对此的考虑是该裁定的送达，向谁送达？您知道，我们可以进行公告送达，也可能会进行公告送达。这可能是您感兴趣的事项。但我所关切的事项之一是——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交 09/23/22 登记 09/23/22 14:50:35 第33页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交 09/23/22 登记 09/23/22 14:50:35 第34页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—July 21, 2022\n\n已提交的资产明细表和财务状况说明中附有许多限定条件。我不知道——我也不确定您是否知道，因此我并不是说您会知道——实际会收到债权申报截止日期通知的人员名单，在本案中是否充分？\n\n因此，我认为我们可能会做的是——我想对此再考虑一下——考虑该裁定将如何送达，以及除送达外公告送达是否适当，以及公告将如何进行，实际上将在何处刊登公告？\n\n我请您对此进行考虑。我不知道这些问题的答案。就我现在坐在这里而言，我提出这些问题，是为了让我们所有人都考虑，就债权申报截止日期而言，将提供的通知是否充分。\n\nDespìns（德斯平斯）先生：法官阁下，您提出了一个非常好的问题。我希望能够就此向法院作出回复，特别是公告送达方面，即在何处、如何进行。因此，我说作出该项（听不清）裁定将会很重要，但这不是几天内的事。您知道，但我们将就该点向法院作出回复。\n\n法庭：我对此表示感谢。我也会对此进行考虑。您知道，多年来已有案件，以及近期不同巡回区作出的案件，涉及实际通知与推定通知，以及——债权申报截止日期及此类事项，因此我希望确保我们都在考虑——在当前所呈现的情形下尽我们所能，使人们就提交债权证明获得适当通知。\n\n因此，关于您提交的其余信息，我再次非常感谢。这正是法院所希望看到的，关于——我尚未审阅，但我在您的报告或陈述中看到对抗程序的问题。\n\n那么，您是否已在每一项对抗程序中提交暂停动议？昨天刚提交了一项对抗程序。\n\nDespìns先生：昨天。\n\n法庭：以及前一天。\n\nDespìns先生：因此，我们已在三项程序中提交，但我们将提交一项补充——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nDespìns先生：——暂停其他程序的动议。\n\n法庭：显然，我也必须审阅那些动议。并且，根据我们的地方法规，在对抗程序中的动议程序是，当事人有21天时间——有21天的答复期限，以提出异议或不提出异议，您知道，就其认为适当的事项而言。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 35 提交一项动议，然后法院将决定是否需要举行听证会。现在，我相信在一些较早的对抗程序中，该 21 天期限可能会落入一个可能产生问题的时间范围。因此，我将审查那些对抗程序。如果在等待该答复期限届满方面存在某些问题，我认为我可以发布某种命令，或者延长答复期限，或者延长现有的期限，但须视对中止该程序的动议所作出的裁定而定。当然，如果你们获得各方对中止对抗程序的同意，那么我不明白——或者说，我会感到惊讶——为何我不会准许中止那些对抗程序。\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢。公平地说，我们刚刚开始中止程序。但无论如何，我不知道债务人为什么会想要继续推进该程序，或者寻求不可免责认定的人为什么想要今天就对此作出裁定，或今天就为此花费大量金钱。不过，这是他们的选择，因此我们将寻求同意。\n\n法院：对。但是，如果你能够——如果每项对抗程序中的各方均同意中止，那么将准予中止——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 36 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 36\n\nDESPINS 先生：是。\n\n法院：——但须受法院进一步命令以及案件进展的约束。我同意你的看法，即法院的目标并不是让当事人——无论其争议为何的所有当事人——无谓地花费金钱。没有人希望如此。但我们需要——我们需要确保程序得到适当遵循，并且《联邦民事诉讼规则》得到适当遵循。不过，如果你获得那些对抗程序中的各方同意中止对抗程序，那么这些程序将被中止。好吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。我不确定是否还有其他我需要询问的问题。我理解你们正在审查许多事项，并且可能会在短期内采取不同步骤；法院将尽力在这些事项提交法院后尽快予以处理。我只是要确认没有其他我需要询问的问题。我再看一遍你们的陈述。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法院：我认为引起我注意的就是那两个问题，即截止日期命令和中止——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 37 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 38 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n1 对抗程序中的中止动议。因为我确实同意你们的看法，即你们讨论的许多其他事项正在发展中，并且你们正在按适当程序处理这些事项；当你们认为有必要且适宜这样做时，将向法院寻求救济。\n\n7 因此，我目前没有其他问题，先生。非常感谢。\n\n9 DESPINS 先生：谢谢。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n10 HENZY 先生：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？\n\n11 法院：Henzy 先生，你可以发言，但就谁代表债务人这一问题，我们仍有一些事项需要从法院和 United States Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）的角度予以解决。\n\n15 目前，Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）代表债务人。Brown Rudnick 在其退出代理的动议中没有说明其撤回出庭代理的任何理由。\n\n18 Brown Rudnick 必须经过每一位债务人律师都必须经过的程序，即提交受聘申请、提交无利害关系人宣誓书、遵守《破产法》第 327(a) 条和规则 2014，以及我们的地方法则 2014。而任命其的命令中没有任何内容表明其可以提交动议，退出担任债务人律师。\n\n25 因此，虽然我理解你希望发言，但你目前不是债务人的律师。而且——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 38\n\nHENZY 先生：不，我是。我绝对是，法官阁下。\n\n法院：那么，你不是依照——你如何依《破产法》担任债务人律师——\n\nHENZY 先生：债务人——债务人——\n\n法院：——Henzy 先生？\n\nHENZY 先生：债务人现在已不再自行管理财产，且无需根据第 327 条提交申请以——\n\n法院：哪一项判例法这样说，Henzy 先生？\n\n法院：法官阁下，第 327 条本身规定——第 327(a) 条规定——\n\n法院：因此，即使你不是无利害关系人且存在利益冲突，仅仅因为债务人不再自行管理财产，你也可以担任律师吗？\n\nHENZY 先生：绝对可以。\n\n法院：我希望看到说明这一点的判例法。\n\nHENZY 先生：我无法向您提供判例法，法官阁下，因为第 327 条——我认为第 327(a) 条使我们成为受托人，并在括号中包括占有中债务人，因为占有中债务人拥有受托人的权力——必须——必须依照法院命令聘请律师。但是并无此项要求——并且，法官阁下，在第 7 章案件中，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 39 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 39 债务人并非受聘——\n\n法院：我们不是第 7 章案件，Henzy 先生。\n\nHENZY 先生：我明白。但这——这现在是一个不再自行管理财产的债务人。我不认为——我的意思是，我不——我不愿——我希望谨慎，法官阁下，并且恕我直言，您要求我提供表明第 327(a) 条如其文字所规定的判例，但我不知道有任何判例——\n\n法院：不。我要求你提供一项判例，其中已经任命第 11 章受托人，而原本担任债务人律师的债务人律师可以直接退出，其他人可以接替，而无须满足《破产法》——\n\nHENZY 先生：这——\n\n法院：——请让我说完——《破产法》和规则中的任何要求，并且该人存在利益冲突，因为其代表由债务人的女儿所有的实体，而该女儿显然是《破产法》规定的内部人。\n\nHENZY 先生：法官阁下，有一些判例——我认为据我所知并没有判例——让我这样说。我不知道有任何判例认为，不再自行管理财产的债务人无需就其律师提交聘用申请。因为，再次说明，我——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 40 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 40 认为第 327(a) 条的明文规定——我不知道在场是否有任何律师会提出相反意见——只规定占有中债务人必须这样做。我确实知道有一些判例，我们可以向您提交这些判例，涉及在任命第 11 章受托人之后，债务人的律师是否可以从破产财产中获得报酬。对该问题的通常答案是否定的。其依据是，不再自行管理财产的债务人的律师并非依照第 327(a) 条受聘，且不受第 330 条和第 331 条涵盖。有些判例中，法院表示不再自行管理财产的债务人的律师可以获得报酬，但实际上是基于实质贡献类型的依据，而不是作为依第 327(a) 条受聘并受第 330 条和第 331 条要求约束的律师。我可以向您提交那些判例，法官阁下。但我——那略有不同。那些判例是在通常不能从破产财产获得报酬这一语境下，认为不再自行管理财产的债务人的律师不是第 327 条律师，且不受第 333 条、第 330 条和第 331 条约束。因此，我会向您提交那些判例。\n\n法院：好的。这是 United States Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）的立场吗？这里不存在利益冲突？Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒和蔡斯勒律师事务所）可以代表债务人，因为债务人不再是占有中债务人？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 41 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 41\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：法官阁下，美国受托人仍在评估该问题。我认为有一个问题需要向法院提出，我认为 Henzy 律师不会对此提出异议，即作为债务人的律师，他们有义务披露其与债务人订立的报酬协议或其他协议。\n\n法院：这绝对会发生，所以你无需提出该论点。\n\nHENZY 先生：是，我不——我不——\n\n法院：Henzy 先生，如果你——如果你的说法准确，如果你是正确的，那么无论是谁向你付款，都可以拿走原本可能可供破产财产债权人取得的任何款项，并继续向你付款。\n\nHENZY 先生：那不是真的。我认为那不正确。\n\n法院：那怎么会不是真的？\n\nHENZY 先生：因此，我不能——我百分之百同意我们需要提交我们的 329 2016(b) 声明。我理解，我自提交出庭代理之时起有 14 天时间这样做，而且我们会这样做。我不能——再次回到我所提到的那些判例，我不能从破产财产资产中获得报酬。\n\n法院：第 329 条何处说你要提交受聘申请？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 42 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 43 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n1 HENZY 先生：哦，没有，法官阁下。\n\n2 法院：对。\n\n3 HENZY 先生：没有。我不是——对不起。\n\n4 法院：那么第 329 条如何适用？\n\n5 HENZY 先生：哦，我——根据第 329 条，我相信 Claiborn 律师所指的是，我仍须提交第 329 条和规则 2016(b) 要求的声明。\n\n8 法院：那么，如果你是债务人——让我们将你的思路推演到底。如果你不再是占有中债务人，并且不必受法院、受《破产法》或规则中任何法院监督的约束，那么你为什么有资格发表任何意见？\n\n14 HENZY 先生：因为我代表不再自行管理财产的债务人。不再自行管理财产的债务人——\n\n16 法院：好的。你代表不再自行管理财产的债务人。在你所谈论的第 7 章案件中，第 7 章债务人没有资格，除非并直至证明第 7 章债务人会有任何剩余财产。\n\n21 而在目前，我们都知道——每个人都知道——Despins 先生知道，他接受这项任命时就知道该破产财产中没有钱，因此你如何有资格就任何事项提出论辩。如果将你的论点推演至极致，你不受无利害关系要求约束，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 44 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 43 你不受利益冲突约束，你所要做的只是披露你的钱——你所支付、所获得的钱来自何处，那么你为何有资格发表任何意见？\n\nHENZY 先生：我认为，就某些问题而言，法官阁下，我并不反对您的看法。债务人可能没有资格。就我希望就此类问题发言的范围，您可以告诉我您不会听取我的意见。我会理解。我认为，不再自行管理财产的债务人就某些问题仍有资格。\n\n法院：哪些问题？\n\nHENZY 先生：Despins 先生谈到了尚未裁决的第 523 条诉讼及其就这些诉讼提出的中止动议，并就债务人在这些事项上的立场向法院作出了某些陈述。当然，Kwok 先生在——方面有资格。\n\n法院：我不认为他作出了任何陈述——\n\nHENZY 先生：哦，他——\n\n法院：——关于债务人的立场。他说——\n\nHENZY 先生：我认为他作出了。他作出了。\n\n法院：这是一项——这曾是一项——这是一项——首先，我没有说这是证据。我说这是示范性诉状，我将允许其作为证物 1 载入记录。仅此而已。我——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 45 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 44\n\n我并没有说，我将基于德斯平斯先生今天向我们提供的内容作出任何认定、裁定或其他任何决定。\n\n亨齐律师：明白，法官大人。我是在回答您的问题。我不认为您会说债务人在第523条诉讼中不具备诉讼资格。\n\n法庭：好的。但如果这些诉讼被中止了，让我们——我只是——假定这些诉讼已被中止，那么在它们不再被中止之前，债务人就没有什么可担心的了，对吗？\n\n亨齐律师：我不一定同意这一点。但是我——\n\n法庭：那么，在这些诉讼被中止期间，债务人无需履行任何答辩要求或采取其他任何行动，对吗？\n\n亨齐律师：如果这些诉讼被中止，那可能是对的。我当时是在回答您关于诉讼资格的问题，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n亨齐律师：可能有些事项债务人没有资格就其发表意见。我并不反对您。并且——我认为也会有一些事项债务人有资格就其发表意见。举例来说——因为这在德斯平斯先生的陈述中提到过——是关于第523条诉讼。如果我们谈论的是\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 45\n\n第523条诉讼，我不认为法官大人会说债务人不具备诉讼资格。\n\n法庭：嗯，我们现在并不是在谈第523条诉讼，对吗？你起身并不是为了和我谈第523条诉讼。\n\n亨齐律师：实际上，我就是为了这个。\n\n法庭：哦，你是。好的。\n\n亨齐律师：是的。\n\n法庭：那就请继续。\n\n亨齐律师：好的。我起身是为了提出很少几点。\n\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n\n亨齐律师：好的。有一点，我想明确说明，因为我此前没有参与本案。我审阅了一些案卷材料，但我的感觉是，人们或者当事人想要对郭先生以及他处理事情的方式作出某些描述。关于第523条诉讼，受托人向我们提出的、受托人最初向我们表明的立场是，在其获任命后，他便被替代为第523条诉讼中的当事人。我只是——我认为那是不正确的，法官大人。我不认为受托人成为被告——即第523条诉讼中的被告。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n亨齐律师：因此，我们对案件\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 46 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 47 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n1 受托人的律师的答复是，我们认为你——因为我们被问到\n\n2 什么——我们希望——我们希望中止，贵方的\n\n3 立场是什么？而我们的答复是——因为我们现在是\n\n4 这些诉讼中的被告——我们的答复是，不，\n\n5 你不是。从某种意义上说，我们——我们不知道\n\n6 你在说什么。好的。\n\n7 因此，并不是说——郭先生拒绝回答\n\n8 这类基本问题，或者仅仅为了制造困难而故意\n\n9 为难。我认为这一点\n\n10 很重要。再次，我认为当事人——已经或将会以\n\n11 某些方式描述郭先生的处理方式，\n\n12 我认为那是不公平的。\n\n13 再次，就第523条诉讼而言，我们被问及是否同意中止\n\n14 债权人对郭先生提起的\n\n15 诉讼。\n\n16 就法官大人所说的一点，如果这些诉讼\n\n17 被中止，您说郭先生便无须担心任何事情。\n\n18 好的。我不知道我是否一定想同意\n\n19 受托人关于这些诉讼将被中止的主张，\n\n20 并受到提起这些诉讼之人的批评。\n\n21 再次，我在此的重点并不是就\n\n22 是否应当作出中止裁定、这些第523条\n\n23 诉讼的依据，或者受托人在这些诉讼中可能享有或不享有何种权利\n\n24 进行诉讼或辩论。我只是想回应德斯平斯先生\n\n25 关于第523条诉讼的陈述，因为在可能的范围内\n\n案件 22-50073\n文件 871-2\n提交于 09/23/22\n登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n1 我想避免对郭先生处理事情的方式作出不公平的描述。\n\n2 \n\n3 我们确实——我们是 HK International（HK国际）的律师，\n\n4 好的，该公司是 Lady May（“Lady May”号）的登记所有人。而且\n\n5 尽管德斯平斯先生说他不会\n\n6 进行辩论，他还是进行了辩论。我想明确这一点。\n\n7 并且法官大人指出，今天尚未采纳任何\n\n8 证据，所提交的文件\n\n9 并未作为证据，德斯平斯先生的陈述也不是\n\n10 证据。因此，这都没有问题。\n\n11 我确实想指出，我们绝对——HK International\n\n12 绝对反对任何在纽约发生的事情\n\n13 对本法庭具有约束力。\n\n14 您知道，所提交的文件从那里的法官所作出的冗长\n\n15 程序和冗长裁定中摘取了片段。\n\n16 Lady May号的所有权将会通过诉讼解决。因此，我只是想让这一点——\n\n17 \n\n18 亨齐律师：你将如何在 HK International 对郭先生及\n\n19 破产财团就 Lady May号所有权提起的\n\n20 对抗程序中，同时代理 HK International\n\n21 和郭先生？\n\n22 这难道不是绝对且明显的利益冲突吗？\n\n23 亨齐律师：在此情形下不是，法官大人。\n\n24 法庭：怎么不是？\n\n25 亨齐律师：有一点我绝对同意\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 48\n\n德斯平斯先生的意见，即在其获任命后，他自动成为该诉讼的被告，而郭先生不再是该诉讼的被告。\n\n法庭：但你仍然代理——这无关紧要。你代理 HK International，现在又代理郭先生。你——你是否不再参与该对抗程序无关紧要。\n\n亨齐律师：不，他不再参与了。\n\n法庭：这无关紧要。\n\n亨齐律师：这有关紧要。\n\n法庭：不，实际上无关紧要。\n\n亨齐律师：根据——规则——\n\n法庭：这是实际的利益冲突。你——你在一项针对郭先生、由你们律师事务所代表 HK International 提起的对抗程序尚在审理期间，接受了对郭先生的代理。\n\n亨齐律师：我们是在德斯平斯先生——之后接受对郭先生的代理。\n\n法庭：但是，你看，你想两头兼得。你想说，哦，在那项对抗程序中，德斯平斯先生自动成为被告，但在第523条诉讼中，他不是。\n\n亨齐律师：嗯，我——\n\n法庭：这就是你的主张，对吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 49 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 49\n\n亨齐律师：这就是我的主张。而且我认为那是明确的法律规则，法官大人。\n\n法庭：在哪里？真的？\n\n亨齐律师：我不——\n\n法庭：我希望你向我出示那项明确的法律规则。\n\n亨齐律师：我不认为德斯平斯先生会告诉您他是被告——\n\n法庭：我不是在问德斯平斯先生。我是在问你。\n\n亨齐律师：法官大人，他不是第523条诉讼中的被告。我认为那是明确的法律规则。\n\n法庭：好的。我很想看到那项明确的法律规则，请。\n\n亨齐律师：我不知道我是否能找到说明这一点的判例，因为我不知道——我不知道是否有人会主张受托人成为——是第523条诉讼中的被告，法官大人。我不——这对我而言甚至毫无道理。再次，恕我直言，法官大人，我——我不知道受托人如何可能成为第523条诉讼中的被告。\n\n法庭：好的。我明白你说的意思。\n\n亨齐律师：好的。\n\n法庭：继续。\n\n亨齐律师：好的。因此，我——郭先生不再是\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 50 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 50\n\nLady May号对抗程序的被告。我认为德斯平斯先生的立场是，他现在是该当事人——\n\n法庭：好吧。那么我们不再谈第523条。关于 Lady May号有一份约定，债务人和 HK International 都是该约定的当事人。\n\n亨齐律师：嗯哼。\n\n法庭：好的。你——所以，先生——你的意思是，就该约定而言，你不再代理债务人，而是由德斯平斯先生代理？\n\n亨齐律师：我认为答案是肯定的，而且我认为那也是德斯平斯先生的立场。\n\n法庭：好的。所以你的意思是，你的利益冲突不存在，因为德斯平斯先生被任命为第11章受托人？\n\n亨齐律师：是的。\n\n法庭：因此你可以——好的，这就是你的论点？\n\n亨齐律师：这就是我的论点。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n亨齐律师：根据《职业责任规则》第1.7条，那——那就是我的论点。而我——\n\n法庭：我看的不是《职业责任规则》第1.7条。我看的是破产\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 51 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 51\n\n法典和破产规则。\n\n亨齐律师：法官大人，我不知道破产法典和破产规则中有任何规定——有任何规定在此时会规范此事。我认为这是——\n\n法庭：那么，你目前唯一具有诉讼资格的地方是在一项第523条诉因中，对吗？\n\n亨齐律师：我不——法官大人，我没有准备好考虑本案中可能出现的每一个问题，并告诉您债务人是否具有诉讼资格。\n\n法庭：可是你已经主张德斯平斯先生不应当担任第11章受托人。\n\n亨齐律师：而且我认为——我认为债务人具有诉讼资格——\n\n法庭：你在哪里具有主张这一点的诉讼资格？\n\n亨齐律师：我不知道债务人怎么会没有资格主张受托人不应担任受托人，或者受托人应被免职。\n\n法庭：我希望看到一些关于这一点的判例，因为我不认为你——我明白你的论点，但我没有看到支持你论点的依据。你没有说服我你享有一项权利——债务人享有一项权利。你曾有权反对任命一名\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 52 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 52\n\n第11章受托人，Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克）曾这样做过。他们提出了反对。他们实际上请求驳回本案。我考虑了他们的全部论点。我考虑了所有债权人就转换、任命第11章受托人以及任何其他争议事项提出的全部论点。本法庭作出了任命第11章受托人的决定，无论该决定是对是错。没有人就该命令提起上诉。布朗·鲁德尼克甚至特别指出，他们没有就该命令提起上诉。你现在在上诉期限届满后攻击该命令。你说你可以这样做，因为你不必受到——我说“你”时，我指的是现在据称代理债务人的律师事务所。顺便说一句，布朗·鲁德尼克的动议尚未获准，所以你要明白这一点，即你不必——你不必使自己遵守布朗·鲁德尼克所遵守的相同标准，因为第11章受托人已经获任命。并且第11章受托人在所有这些其他情形中取代你的位置，包括在 HK 对郭先生和 PAX（PAX）的对抗程序中，但你却具有资格说他不能担任受托人。这就是你的论点？\n\n亨齐律师：我认为，法官大人——我认为你——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 53 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 54 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 53 混淆了两个问题。法庭：好的。那么，请告诉我，我是如何将它们混淆的。HENZY先生（亨齐先生）：所以，我认为诉讼资格问题并不是关于我是否具有诉讼资格，或者——法庭：不，不。是代表Kwok先生。HENZY先生：好的。法庭：我并不是——HENZY先生：那么是否——法庭：但是我——HENZY先生：——该——法庭：我还不确定你是否是Kwok先生的律师。我现在还不确定。HENZY先生：我确信我是Kwok先生的律师。法庭：我知道你是。HENZY先生：我理解您——我理解您并不——法庭：我知道你是，但我不确定就本案而言你是否是。就其他目的而言，你可能是。HENZY先生：法官大人，我认为，债务人有资格对受托人的任命提出异议。请允许我说明，我理解针对该命令的上诉期限——我想我会称之为准许受托人任命动议的命令，好吗——已经过去，没有人上诉，而且Kwok先生并未以任何方式对该命令提出异议。法官大人作出了另一项命令——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 54 法庭：我同意你的意见。HENZY先生：好的。法庭：我同意。HENZY先生：——批准美国受托人对Despins先生（德斯平斯先生）的任命。随后提交了60(b)动议。我认为是在七日内提交的。法庭：不，我同意。HENZY先生：好的。法庭：我的意思是，如果我——如果我接受你的论点，我并不是说你的60(b)动议逾期。HENZY先生：好的。法庭：好吗？HENZY先生：我认为，债务人有资格对受托人的任命提出异议，或寻求撤换受托人。我的意思是，除其他事项外，有判例法规定，受托人不得对包括债务人在内的任何一方存有任何偏见或偏颇。如果这是正确的——而且，我再次认为判例法在这一点上是明确的——那么我不知道债务人为何不能有资格向法庭说明，我认为该受托人对我存有偏见或偏颇。Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 55 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 55 这构成撤换受托人的理由。美国受托人关于名册受托人的手册——我理解Despins先生并非名册受托人——规定，受托人不得对案件中涉及的任何人存有偏见或偏颇。因此，作为债务人，债务人有权获得一名不对债务人存有偏见或偏颇的受托人。有权利即有救济。我不知道债务人为何不能有资格向法庭提出该问题。因此，我——法庭：你是否——你是否——那么你为何没有根据《法典》第324条申请撤换受托人？HENZY先生：法官大人，我们的判断是，这是一种更容易、更快捷的方式。我不认为这有什么不妥——法庭：那么如果我驳回呢？如果我驳回你的动议，那么届时你唯一能做的就是提交上诉通知。HENZY先生：是的。没错。我认为，法官大人，60(b)动议的依据，与第324条动议所依据的基础相同。如果您——如果您说我要驳回这个——法庭：实际上，我不确定这是否属实。我——Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 56 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 871-2\nFiled 09/23/22\nEntered 09/23/22 14:50:35\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n1 认为这些条款下的标准不同。\n\n2 HENZY先生：实际上，我同意您的意见。所以我\n\n3 说错了。\n\n4 而且，听着——听着，我们提交60(b)\n\n5 动议的原因，是因为我们认为，有一些信息\n\n6 本应提交给法庭，但并未\n\n7 提交给法庭。而且——\n\n8 法庭：好的。我明白。而且我们\n\n9 今天并不是要就该事项的最终实质问题举行听证。好吗？\n\n10 HENZY先生：我们不是。\n\n11 法庭：所以你起身告诉我，你\n\n12 认为债务人——无论存在的实际利益冲突如何，你都是债务人的律师——\n\n13 ——\n\n14 HENZY先生：我并非——我并非起身告诉您\n\n15 这一点，因为我并未质疑这一点。\n\n16 法庭：好的。对不起。\n\n17 HENZY先生：但您告诉我，我可能不是。\n\n18 法庭：我道歉。\n\n19 HENZY先生：是的。\n\n20 法庭：那么你起身是要告诉我什么？是\n\n21 你认为Despins先生提出了\n\n22 对Kwok先生的描述性论点，而你认为那些论点不公平？\n\n23 HENZY先生：正是如此。\n\n24 法庭：好的。然后——并且你的\n\n25 当事人在——因为我曾询问Despins先生——Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 58 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n1 关于对抗性程序和停止令问题的问题，你的当事人在第523条\n\n2 诉讼中具有诉讼资格，并且不——而且你——你的主张是\n\n3 Despins先生并不会自动成为\n\n4 第523条诉讼中的被告，\n\n5 但在由HK International（HK国际）提起的诉讼中会成为被告？\n\n6 \n\n7 HENZY先生：当然。\n\n8 法庭：好的。\n\n9 HENZY先生：是的。\n\n10 法庭：那么你还想\n\n11 告诉我什么？\n\n12 HENZY先生：我还想代表HK International告诉您，\n\n13 因为我认为Despins先生确实提出了论点，\n\n14 为使记录清楚，HK International\n\n15 同意——抱歉——不同意他的论点。仅此而已。\n\n16 \n\n17 法庭：好的。\n\n18 HENZY先生：是的。\n\n19 法庭：好。你还有什么\n\n20 想告诉我的吗？\n\n21 HENZY先生：目前没有，法官大人。\n\n22 法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n23 HENZY先生：谢谢您，法官大人。\n\n24 法庭：Kindseth先生（金德塞斯先生）？\n\n25 KINDSETH先生：法官大人，我代表HK——Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 59 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n1 International，我只想澄清一些——\n\n2 关于对Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）的检查，我只是\n\n3 想确保不存在任何误解。\n\n4 受托人使用了该游艇\n\n5 受损这一说法，我认为这留下了很多未说明之处。而且我认为\n\n6 法官大人应当听取有关\n\n7 该游艇在航行途中并未受损这一具体问题的陈述。\n\n8 我们在非常短的通知期内允许进行了检查。\n\n9 \n\n10 Pacific Alliance（太平洋联盟）有三名检查员在场。受托人\n\n11 有一名检查员在场。他们获准\n\n12 不受限制地进入整艘船。我们的轮机长\n\n13 和船长均可供配合。轮机长始终陪同\n\n14 所有检查员，并回答他们的问题。\n\n15 此外，他们获准不受限制地\n\n16 查阅游艇的账簿和记录。他们查阅了\n\n17 记录，并取得了其所寻求的所有信息。\n\n18 \n\n19 据我所知，我当时在场并亲眼见证了\n\n20 所发生的情况，关于Lady May已知的唯一问题\n\n21 首先是海水阀，我们已经就此向法庭通报\n\n22 相当长一段时间。我们曾获得在法国进行该项工作的\n\n23 估价，但时间不允许。因此，我们知道某些海水阀上有生锈的螺栓\n\n24 需要更换，我们完全打算为此预留资金。\n\n25 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 59 不幸的是，其中一个燃油泵在纽约外海损坏。我们在检查前已披露此事。我们正在就此取得报价，并打算为此预留资金。此外，所谓该船受损，是指在航行途中船体上的部分油漆脱落。我们完全打算对此进行检查，并取得该项费用的估价。因此，这就是三项问题。而且，再次说明，我亲自在场。检查员进行了讨论，轮机长也进行了讨论，不存在其他问题。这就是受托人所提及的、引号所示“损坏”的全部范围。根据该约定，我们将提出一份估价。我们将向法官大人提交估价，并请求法官大人命令为该等金额预留资金。谢谢您，法官大人。法庭：好的。谢谢。关于HK的——HK整体的账簿和记录，我——显然——我不应当说显然——今天发生的任何事情显然都不是法庭面前的证据。我们听取的是不同的报告，这正是法庭希望听取的。但HK International将要——Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 60 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022\n\n1 受到某项要求的约束，须将这些记录移交给\n\n2 受托人。\n\n3 SKALKA先生（斯卡尔卡先生）：是的。法官大人，请接受我的歉意。而且\n\n4 我相信，您知道，Henzy律师本意是要谈及此事。\n\n5 关于公司账簿和记录\n\n6 等等，我们已收到受托人的请求。我们\n\n7 完全理解我们的义务，债务人也理解\n\n8 在受托人被任命后、债务人不再自行管理财产期间，债务人根据《法典》和\n\n9 《破产规则》应与受托人合作的义务。\n\n10 我们正在整理信息和记录。\n\n11 \n\n12 而HK International虽然不是\n\n13 债务人实体，但其由该女儿所有。\n\n14 作为律师，我理解\n\n15 需要出示这些记录，我们完全打算在该过程中\n\n16 与受托人合作。\n\n17 法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n18 现在，关于状态会议，\n\n19 另一事项——另外两项事项——我们首先处理Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）\n\n20 关于撤回作为律师的动议。\n\n21 那么，律师，我不确定你们二人中\n\n22 哪一位想要发言，但除非我遗漏了\n\n23 某些事项——这很有可能——我没有看到动议中载明任何理由，\n\n24 说明为何应当——为何应当撤回作为本案\n\n25 债务人律师的代理。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 61 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 62 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 61 因此，我想请你们说明，为何你们认为你们有权——你们的律师事务所有权——以及所有在本案中提交出庭通知的个人均有权在此时撤回作为债务人的律师？KLETTER先生（克莱特先生）：当然。并且澄清一下，Romney先生（罗姆尼先生）来自Zeisler律师事务所（泽斯勒律师事务所）。再次说明，我是Dylan Kletter（迪伦·克莱特）。法庭：哦，是的。抱歉，Romney先生。KLETTER先生：没关系。我是来自Brown Rudnick的Dylan Kletter。您说得对。动议未详述理由，但我认为Zeisler律师事务所现已准确说明，由于他不再自行管理财产，他有权终止其律师的代理，而他确实如此做了。他已以Zeisler律师事务所的替代律师Mitchell先生（米切尔先生）取而代之。我们的立场是，如您所见，Zeisler律师事务所显然正在处理该案卷，而且我们有一项无人提出异议的撤回作为律师的动议。法庭：我不知道你们是否有一项无人提出异议的撤回作为律师的动议，因为该动议尚未排期举行听证，也没有人被要求对你们的动议提交任何答复。即使你们有一项无人提出异议的撤回作为律师的动议，也不意味着法庭\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 62 并不负有独立义务来确定该动议是否应予准许、驳回，或附条件准许。贵所已使自身接受本法庭及破产案件程序的管辖。贵所从某一来源收取了百万美元的预付聘金，我并不——我记不起——也许案卷中有关于该来源的证据，我记不起——我此刻很抱歉我并不——但是，您也知道，贵所将需要提交费用申请，且须使该等费用获得批准，并须证明该预付聘金尚未被动用，以及诸如此类的事项。因此，尽管该事项最终可能成为一项——无异议的律师退出代理动议，但在目前这个时间点，它尚非如此，因为其并未按照适当方式提交本法庭，无论是通过我们的争议事项程序，还是列入听证日程。这就是我们康涅狄格州地方法规的运作方式。因此，我们可以——先生，我将听取其他当事人的意见，但将会有一个程序。也许该动议将获准。但至少，如获准，您——贵所将有义务遵守《破产法典》及相关规则的要求，至少包括提交一份费用申请，该申请\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 14:50:35 录入 第63页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 14:50:35 录入 第64页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\n1 将可受到异议，并就\n2 该律所产生的费用和支出，由本法庭进一步举行听证并作出\n3 裁定。明白吗？\n4 SKALKA 先生：\n明白。\n5 法庭：\nFriedman 先生，我看到您已起身。\n6 请讲。\n7 FRIEDMAN 先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n8 女书记官助理，您能从\n9 这里听到我吗，还是希望我——\n10 法庭：\n如果您不介意，Friedman 先生，也许这样会更合适。\n11\n12 FRIEDMAN 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。这是来自 O'Melveny & Myers（奥美律师事务所）的\n13 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。\n14 法庭：\n下午好。\n15 FRIEDMAN 先生：\n我想就您迄今听到的事项\n16 简要提出三点，然后我想回来讨论与\n17 聘任动议和\n18 60(b) 动议有关的任何日程安排问题。\n19\n20 法庭：\n请讲。\n21 FRIEDMAN 先生：\n第一点是回答您的问题。\n22 Lamp Capital（蓝普资本）提供了一笔贷款——\n23 法庭：\n谢谢。\n24 FRIEDMAN 先生：\n——资金就是由此而来\n25 的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 14:50:35 录入 第65页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 64 第二点涉及 523 及那些诉状。我的看法是——显然每个人都已提出了他们认为正确的答案——我们甚至不知道该债务人是否会提出，我很抱歉，受托人是否会提出一项包含免责的计划，因此在我看来，鉴于此，中止尤为适当。为什么要浪费时间就一项可能在宪法意义上尚未成熟的诉讼进行争讼？我认为，若我们不知道债务人——是否会提出免责，对任何该等请求权而言，其成熟性实际上是一个相当严重的问题。我难以设想受托人会提出这样的计划，除非请求权几乎得到全额清偿。我不知道受托人将如何处理此事。但在我看来，这构成考虑让当事人可能同意中止该等事项的独立理由。至于香港有关该船只的诉讼，您知道，PAX 是被告。我希望我们可以约定 PAX 无须作为被告。我们从未主张拥有该船只。我们不能主张债务人的权利。由于自动中止仍然有效，我们不能执行扣押。因此，您知道，PAX 在本案中已经不得不投入大量资源。如果我们能够\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 14:50:35 录入 第66页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\n1 不必在一宗我们确实并非适格被告的诉讼中投入资源，\n2 考虑到本案目前的情形，\n3 那将非常好。\n4 因此，这就是我想提出的三点。\n5 我确实希望就聘任问题以及\n6 60(b) 动议发表意见，因为我们确有一些意见要说。\n7 法庭：\n请讲。\n8 FRIEDMAN 先生：\n到时候再说。您知道，我不\n9 知道您是否希望我——\n10 法庭：\n嗯，您可以——您现在可以告诉我\n11 您想告诉我的事情。我的意思是，我们将要——您\n12 请讲。\n13 FRIEDMAN 先生：\n好的。那么，法官阁下，有几件\n14 ——几件事情。\n15 关于——关于这两件事，无论是涉及\n16 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所），还是涉及 Despins 先生，我\n17 认为我们最大的担忧是——涉及 Kwok 先生在其信函及\n18 其社交媒体账户上提出的问题，\n19 我不知道您是否已经——也许法庭不宜查看该内容——但关于\n20 PAG 通过与 DOJ（美国司法部）勾结实施欺诈等说法，\n21 在他的 Gettr 账户上比比皆是。\n22\n23 我认为他最近的 Gettr 帖文是，您知道，\n24 Miles Guo（郭文贵）将发起一系列动议和上诉，\n25 以揭露 CCP（中国共产党）对美国司法机构的渗透以及\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 66 美国司法机构的黑手。有人指控我与 CCP 勾结。我当然想就 PAG 及我本人说明——法庭：关于 PAG，P-A-G？FRIEDMAN 先生：是。法庭：好的。FRIEDMAN 先生：——及其所有关联方，以及我本人，如果在由律师签署的诉状中再次出现任何该等说法，我们将寻求 Rule 11 制裁。我只是想就此提醒各方。明白吗？作为法庭官员，我要告诉您，我是唯一与——也许 Sarnoff 先生也曾与——但我们的客户从未就该任命与 Department of Justice（美国司法部）交谈过的人。我们实际上推荐了 Despins 先生以外的人选。出于与成本有关的原因，我们实际上并不希望由一家大型律师事务所的人在本案中担任受托人，因为费用高昂。我们非常明确地表示，有我们支持担任受托人的人选。他们未被选中。两位被选中的人中，没有任何一位被选中。我们本可以接受 Whitley 先生。我们对 Despins 先生并不满意，原因是费用，也因为他们现在提出，我们的客户是我们的一名前\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 14:50:35 录入 第67页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 67 客户，我认为，您知道，被视为前客户并非我们的客户认为那么好的事情，但事实就是如此。但我只是想非常明确地说明，如果任何人在签署的诉状中作出该等指控，将可依据 Rule 11 予以制裁，因为这根本不是真的。更广泛地说，就这两件事而言，法官阁下，法庭显然有权控制其如何处理该等动议，以及其允许提出何种问题。如果涉及使我们接受证据开示，显然，您知道，我们认为这极其不公平且不明智。我们认为，如果这实际上涉及迫使人们进入死胡同，以应对，您知道，Paul Hastings 与在中国运营的公司之间的联系，以及关于与 CCP 勾结而提出的那类死胡同般、荒谬的理论，如果法庭将容许此类证据开示，法庭应考虑采取不同做法，因为这是一项——您知道，Paul Hastings 将就此收费——这会侵蚀债权人的回收款。它使我们偏离本案应当处理事项的注意力。我认为赋予 Kwok 先生这样做的能力并不合适。那将是——证据开示等等，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 14:50:35 录入 第68页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 14:50:35 录入 第69页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\n1 都将在之后辩论。但如果法庭将要——我们\n2 宁愿看到法庭就受托人采取不同做法，\n3 因为这不符合\n4 破产财产的最佳利益，而不是因费用问题\n5 和延误问题而走进那些死胡同。\n6 再次，我认为这些指控不是——而是\n7 无理取闹的指控，可能使律师、客户以及任何某种程度上支持该等指控的人\n8 面临真正的问题。\n9 但我们只是，您知道——如您所知，PAX 自 2009 年以来一直\n10 等待获得支付。在这些问题上花费更多时间进行争斗，\n11 而这些问题与\n12 Kwok 先生的资产是什么以及如何使其进入\n13 债权人手中实际上并无关涉，这似乎只是——您知道，绝不可能符合\n14 破产财产的利益。\n15 至于更广泛的成本问题——而且，您知道，我\n16 已向 Despins 先生表达过这一点，您知道，我们担心\n17 费率结构和费用。他显然\n18 已经做了大量工作，这很好，而且我认为他的\n19 陈述很重要，但，您知道，我们担心。\n20 我认为，在我们能够且将会的范围内，\n21 如果有必要，我们将就——如果我们必须——就费用\n22 提出异议，并且或许\n23 提出某种方案。我不确定。但我不希望任何人\n24 对此感到意外。我尽量不让人感到意外，\n25 您知道，尤其是其他，您知道，律师界成员\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 69 在敏感问题上——我理解费用是敏感问题，费率也是敏感问题，但这对 PAX 而言很重要，作为拥有 \\$260 million plus 判决且为最大债权人的一方。我想这就是我想说的全部内容，法官阁下。感谢您给予我发言机会。法庭：好的。在您退下之前，我——如您所知，这是一次进度会议，因此我们将就不同事项安排一些听证，具体包括 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）的退出代理动议。并且我必须查看——自 Despins 先生被任命为 Chapter 11（第11章）受托人以来，已提交许多文件，我们将对此进行审查。您是在请求法庭采取与法庭计划采取的行动不同的做法，还是仅请求保留您就任何后续事项发表意见的权利？FRIEDMAN 先生：后者。我还想请求的是，法庭是否可以——我想我在 August 5th 无法出席。我想——法庭：5 日？FRIEDMAN 先生：——该周的星期五，即那个星期五，我无法出席。除此以外，我随时听候法庭安排。法庭：好的。谢谢。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 14:50:35 录入 第70页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 于 09/23/22 提交 于 09/23/22 14:50:35 录入 第71页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 70 FRIEDMAN 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：Goldman 先生？GOLDMAN 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我将——法庭：请您也到这里来，好吗。GOLDMAN 先生：是，当然。法庭：只是因为我认为法庭助理更容易收录您的声音。请。谢谢。GOLDMAN 先生：仅简要说几点，法官阁下。委员会就 Friedman 先生针对受托人及其律所所述的交叉关注事项，与 PAX 立场一致。我们希望就该申请保留权利。我们对于债务人提交的 9024 动议的看法也一致，我们认为该动议完全是转移注意力且毫无依据。我们需要着手管理这宗已有五个月的案件，而且我们迄今已经有足够多的诉讼。在我们看来，所提出的这些问题毫无根据，我们不应在此花费大量——大量时间。仅就向法官阁下说明本案迄今请求权的规模而言，尽管尚未设定债权申报截止日期，债权登记册\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）- July 21, 2022 71 显示，已提交的债权申报约为 $83 million。该数额不包括 PAX（PAX）约 254 million 的债权申报。昨天刚刚提交的集体诉讼 523 申诉称，其债权总额为 $114 million。我相信，这与 GTV（GTV）有关的证券，即被指称的证券违法行为有关。这也可能是 SEC（美国证券交易委员会）提交债权申报所涉的同一项债权，尽管我并不完全确定。因此，如将这两项尚未提交的债权计算在内，债权总额约为 $450 million。因此，我们确实需要着手争取收回这些债权。我并不想淡化这一点：我们对 Despins 先生（Mr. Despins）及其迄今所做的工作抱有很大信心，但与此相应地，也存在对费率和费用金额的担忧；当然，他将作为受托人根据 section 326，按其收回的金额取得报酬。如果聘用其律师事务所，该所也将以该种方式获得报酬。因此，关于——法庭：有一个问题——我原本也打算问 Kindseth 先生（Mr. Kindseth）这个问题——而且或许也应该问 Despins 先生这个问题——关于 Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 72 of 的协议约定。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 73 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - July 21, 2022\n\n1 关于“Lady May（梅夫人号）”，仍有其他义务必须履行。\n2 仍有 $37 million 被托管。\n3 我所见，协议约定中的其他条款\n4 尚未得到履行。唯一已经履行的协议条款\n5 是 HK（HK）所作的报告，\n6 其已及时完成该报告，以及在协议约定日期之前\n7 归还该船只，即游艇。\n8 但该协议约定中的其他条款\n9 尚未解决。\n10 因此，当你谈到推进\n11 破产财产的管理时，这正是法庭在决定\n12 应当任命 Chapter 11 受托人时所认定的事项——\n13 需要对\n14 就该游艇和/或该 $37 million 将如何处理\n15 给予一些关注。该笔资金仍受\n16 本法庭管辖。\n17 并且，就\n18 我认为需要提交的证明文件及其他事项，仍存在问题，\n19 对此设有提出异议的期限。\n20 因此，在我看来，各方需要\n21 着重处理这些问题。因为这些问题\n22 搁置的时间越长，管理\n23 破产财产所需的时间就越长。\n24 GOLDMAN 先生（MR. GOLDMAN）：是。我们当然与\n25 法庭阁下在此问题上立场一致。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 74 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - July 21, 2022\n\n1 法庭：好的。好。好。我\n2 感谢你所说的话。今天下午，你还有任何\n3 希望载入记录的陈述吗？\n4 GOLDMAN 先生：没有，法庭阁下。谢谢。\n5 法庭：好的。谢谢。\n6 美国受托人办公室（Office of the United States Trustee）是否希望\n7 发表意见？\n8 CLAIBORN 女士（MS. CLAIBORN）：目前没有，法庭阁下。\n9 法庭：好的。那么，我将要求\n10 美国受托人办公室就为何\n11 ——并且我将——实际上，我将要求 Henzy 律师（Attorney\n12 Henzy）的律师事务所同时作同样的事——以及任何\n13 其他希望这样做的人均可这样做，但并非必须——就\n14 债务人为何有权聘用 Henzy 律师的律师事务所，\n15 而无需该所遵守\n16 《破产法》327(a) 和 2014 的规定，提交书面意见。\n17 在本次状态会议之后的某个时候，\n18 我将安排就 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）提交的撤回动议举行听证，\n19 届时将设定异议截止日期，\n20 以便各方就 Brown Rudnick 的\n21 动议提交异议，如有。\n22 然后，Despins 先生，关于申报截止日期\n23 问题及公告问题，你在\n24 我们记录在案的谈话中表示，你希望考虑这些\n25 问题。我认为，安排就该动议举行听证，\n\n郭文贵 - July 21, 2022 74 就该动议再举行一次听证，以便我们最终确定该动议并使该命令得以登记，可能是合理的。我可以这样做。我预计我可以在接下来一两周内迅速这样做。这是否会给你足够时间分析该问题，Despins 先生？DESPINS 先生（MR. DESPINS）：是，法庭阁下。法庭：好的。谢谢。关于 Despins 先生申请聘用 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）以及聘用 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所），我认为这些也必须安排听证并设定异议截止日期。很可能——但在我回去审阅全部材料之前我无法确定——我们将来会安排一天处理所有这些事项；显然，那将需要一天，因为有许多事项需要处理。我同意我们需要推进本案的管理，这正是法庭作出任命 Chapter 11 受托人的决定的原因。如果各位能稍候片刻，请允许我看一下日程安排。DESPINS 先生：法庭阁下，关于时间安排，我可以发表意见吗？法庭：当然。请。DESPINS 先生：那么，我们已经提交了——谢谢，法庭阁下。我们已经提交了一项加速审理动议，显然尚未获准。请理解，原因是我们目前正在全力以赴。如果法庭将来，比如说，认为——顺便说一句，我是在开个小玩笑——但如果法庭说，我们认为你是共产党党员，因此我们不会批准该聘用——这是个玩笑，法庭阁下——那么，我就不受 30-day rule 的保护。因此，对该律师事务所而言，确实存在不利影响；而且，顺便说一下，这也正是债务人尚未安排——尚未就其要求我回避或罢免我的动议申请举行听证的原因，因为他们喜欢这种不确定性，并希望它持续下去。因此，对我们而言，我们在 12th 提交了动议。即使按正常、非加速的期限计算，在 20-day 期限下，也会到 August 1st 左右。就我个人而言，从 3rd 到 22nd，我无法出庭。我可以通过 Zoom 参加。但如果存在真正有争议的听证，我无法到场。因此，我们敦请法庭——PAX 曾表示他们可以接受下周一举行听证。当然，现阶段这可能过于仓促。但下周任何时候或 August 1st，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 77 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - July 21, 2022\n\n1 我们敦请法庭，如有任何可能，\n2 届时安排听证，因为届时\n3 这些问题将已有充足时间得到厘清。\n4 谢谢，法庭阁下。\n5 法庭：谢谢。\n6 HENZY 先生（MR. HENZY）：法庭阁下，我可以发表意见吗？\n7 法庭：可以。\n8 HENZY 先生：谢谢，法庭阁下。\n9 为澄清起见，我将立即就我们的\n10 9024 动议提交加速审理动议。我们并非试图让\n11 该动议悬而未决。我们认为应当与\n12 Paul Hastings 的聘用申请同时审理，\n13 因为两者将有大量重叠。\n14 我们确实需要就\n15 我们的动议和 Paul Hastings 的聘用申请进行证据开示。我们\n16 准备立即送达证据开示请求。\n17 法庭：我不确定你有权\n18 进行证据开示，Henzy 律师。\n19 这是一项请求免除判决书命令效力的动议。\n20 再者，该问题基于你的客户\n21 是否确有资格反对任命此人为\n22 Chapter 11 受托人；而在本案中，你的客户\n23 已在伪证处罚下陈述，其资产为 $3,400\n24 及若干零星美元。\n25 因此，我理解你的主张，但我不确定我\n\n郭文贵 - July 21, 2022 77 目前同意该主张。此外——正如我刚才开始说的——我不确定你不必满足债务人——债务人代理律师根据 327(a) 所须满足的要求。我理解你的论点，但没有人向我提出任何材料，说明你为何无需满足该要求。这是第一点。第二点，即使你无需满足该要求，我也不知道为何你同时代理 HK International（HK国际）和郭先生（Mr. Kwok）不构成利益冲突。我不——我不理解这一点。我难以理解这一点。我难以理解的原因有很多，包括贵所代表 HK International 提起的一项未决对抗性程序，该程序主张郭先生没有——嗯，该程序请求作出确认判决，确认其拥有该船只。因此，这里有许多问题，我们不会在假定你一开始就有权做所有这些事情的前提下，因证据开示而偏离正轨。必须先处理这些问题。而且，我不会允许证据开示拖延本应已清楚呈现在债务人和作为债务人代理律师的 Brown Rudnick 面前的事项；自美国受托人在我相信是 February 或 early March 提交要求任命审查员，或作为替代请求任命受托人的动议以来，这些事项便已清楚呈现。我可以\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 79 页，共\n\n郭文贵 - July 21, 2022 78 查看案卷。我不需要很长时间就能找到它。因此，本案不会发生这种情况。本案中——你的客户自愿接受本法庭管辖，并承担与此相关的全部利益和负担；这并不意味着你的客户——正如你现在已数次在记录中陈述的那样，已不再占有财产——现在可以通过坚持认为，就你关于 Despins 先生——Despins 先生——现在我们谈论的是——我在上次听证时已指出这一点，但你当时不在场，因为你当时不是代理律师——尽管已准许任命受托人的动议，Despins 先生担任 Chapter 11 受托人与 Paul Hastings 担任 Despins 先生的代理律师之间的利益冲突，是两件不同的事情。没有人向本记录提交任何信息，以证明 Despins 先生存在利益冲突。没有人。Despins 先生已在伪证处罚下陈述并宣誓，他不存在利益冲突；你在书面意见中提出的有关 Paul Hastings 的问题——在你的——不是书面意见，而是在你的动议中——是他并不知悉且个人并未意识到的事项。但是，是的，他的律师事务所在中国设有办事处。而且，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 79 是的，他们代理的当事人以某种方式与——可能与 Kwok 先生有关联，但与本案毫无关联。我不会允许证据开示干扰第11章受托人的任命程序，以及其在本案中履行职责和责任、处理其事务的过程。当然，除非且直至我确定你关于无需处理无利害关系人问题即可代理债务人的主张是否正确，否则我不会这样做。即使你可以这样做，我仍无法理解——我很难——你们律所如何在同时代理 HK International（香港国际）和 Kwok 先生时不存在实际利益冲突。亨齐律师：这里有很多——法院：确实有很多。亨齐律师：——需要厘清，法官阁下。法院：我同意。亨齐律师：如果我可以——如果我可以——法院：本案有很多问题。一直都有很多问题。亨齐律师：为了表明我也会开玩笑，我喜欢您称 Kwok 先生为——您说——您的当事人。您并不受此约束。但是——Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 80 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 80 法院：嗯，那是你的主张。那是你的主张，亨齐律师。亨齐律师：那是我的主张。但是，再次说明，我也——我也会开玩笑。这里有很多需要厘清，法官阁下。我的意思是，就这一点而言——我明白您并不同意这一点，不过，我认为 Kwok 先生确实有资格对 Despins 先生的任命提出异议。并且，为明确起见——法院：我并未——我甚至没有——我甚至没有就此与你争论——亨齐律师：好的。法院：——目前。亨齐律师：如果他——法院：目前。我所说的只是你不能进行证据开示。亨齐律师：嗯，但是如果——法院：不会因证据开示而被干扰。不会发生。亨齐律师：但是如果他——如果他有资格——第60条动议是一项有争议事项——如果他有资格提出该动议，并且他有资格提出异议——法院：这不是重新审判。这不是重新审判，对吗？第60条不是重新审判。亨齐律师：这不是重新审判。Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 81 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 82 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022\n\n1 法院：\n第60条是指你寻求——\n2 亨齐律师：\n正是如此。\n3 法院：\n——免除判决书或裁定。\n4 亨齐律师：\n正确。\n5 法院：\n是的。\n6 亨齐律师：\n正确。\n7 法院：\n所以这不是重新审判。你并非\n8 主张存在新发现的证据，而该证据——\n9 亨齐律师：\n但是它——\n10 法院：\n——法院在将所有这些纳入考量时\n11 未予考虑。\n12 而且，如你所知，Despins 先生与任何一方当事人\n13 一样，持续负有披露相关问题的义务；他已经\n14 履行了该义务。他已经履行了。他提交了一份补充宣誓书。他\n15 提交了该文件。\n16 因此，并无新的——这不是——第60条项下的\n17 标准与第59条项下的标准\n18 完全不同。\n19 亨齐律师：\n这是第60(b)(2)条，法官阁下。\n20 它是——\n21 法院：\n我明白它是什么。\n22 亨齐律师：\n这是新发现的证据。而且\n23 这——\n24 法院：\n这不是新发现的证据。\n25 亨齐律师：\n债务人怎么能——债务人怎么能——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 83 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 82 债务人——法院：证据是什么？亨齐律师：鉴于——法院：告诉我证据是什么。亨齐律师：当然。对方律师可以说这一切都是毫无根据的，但是——法院：我不想——我不——我现在并不担心他。亨齐律师：好的。法院：我担心的是你。亨齐律师：好的。法院：告诉我证据是什么。亨齐律师：有公开记录表明，中国政府、中国共产党，Kwok 先生处于中国政府的对立面。我认为——我不知道是否有人会对此提出异议。好吗？我认为现在已知——而且鉴于 Despins 先生获任命的时间线，我不知道 Kwok 先生当时是否知道或能够知道这一点——我认为，从美国受托人提交该动议到举行听证会之间只有一天，Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）——法院：我同意你。亨齐律师：——据我了解，普衡律师事务所在中国设有办事处。普衡律师事务所代理一些公司\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 83 ，这些公司与中国政府有关联。这一点——我相信这一点是真的。法院：好的。亨齐律师：此外，根据报纸报道，好吗，我作为世界公民了解到，中国对在中国经营业务的实体施加的影响程度不同于，比如说，美国政府对在美国经营业务的实体施加的影响程度。我认为这是我可以作出的公正表述。因此，我认为这并非毫无根据、荒谬或无事实依据——法院：但证据在哪里？你的证据是什么？亨齐律师：我——法院：报纸称中国对——施加控制，这就是你的证据吗？我并非想轻率对待此事，亨齐律师，但是——亨齐律师：那么，法官阁下，您——您不同意这一点吗，即——法院：我不必同意或不同意任何事情。亨齐律师：——即中国政府——我是说——法院：我所要做的只是作出事实认定，Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 84 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 84 对吧？我在任命——在准许任命第11章受托人的动议时作出了那些事实认定。我作出了那些认定。好吗？现在，Despins 先生已在记录中作出陈述，并受伪证处罚约束，称其个人不存在利益冲突，也不代理中国政府。是的，他在一家在中国设有办事处的国际律所工作。是的，该律所曾有一名客户——我认为这是确切表述——PAG（PAG），P-A-G，其与 PAX（PAX）有关联和/或——Friedman 律师可以纠正我——但我认为它可能被描述为 PAX 的母公司。这里的证据是什么？这如何——这如何足以让本法院认定应当——应当解除 Despins 先生的职务？亨齐律师：我无法向您提供证据——法院：对。亨齐律师：——除非我可以进行证据开示。法院：但我不会干扰该程序——亨齐律师：除非——法院：——让你去进行——做证据开示。什么证据开示？有什么可能的——你要做什么？你要对中国政府人员进行证言录取吗？亨齐律师：如果 Despins 先生愿意就普衡律师事务所在中国的所有关联关系、其——Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 85 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 86 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 85 代理多少当事人作出约定——法院：他为什么必须这样做？亨齐律师：法官阁下，您今天可以告诉我，我就是错了，即普衡律师事务所——而 Despins 先生是普衡律师事务所的合伙人。我不——我不认为您可以仅将他分离出来，并称如果普衡律师事务所不是无利害关系人，那么——我不明白普衡律师事务所怎么可能不是无利害关系人而 Despins 先生却是无利害关系人。这对我来说没有道理。好吗？但是如果您要说，尽管普衡律师事务所与中国政府存在这些表面上的关联——法院：这些关联与 Kwok 先生毫无关系。关联在哪里？亨齐律师：关联在于，据称中国政府——指控是中国政府一直——一直迫害 Kwok 先生并迫害其家人。指控还称，中国政府对在中国经营业务的实体施加极大影响，而这使普衡律师事务所处于受制约的地位。Despins 先生作为普衡律师事务所的合伙人，也处于受制约的地位。法官阁下，您可以说我不——我不同意\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 87 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022\n\n1 你的观点，即中国政府对在中国经营业务的实体\n2 施加影响。\n3 您可以这样说。好的。而我——我不会就此进行\n4 证据开示。但这引发了一个重大问题。\n5 我不——我不知道是否有人会站出来说——并在\n6 本法院为中国政府对待\n7 在中国经营业务的实体的方式辩护，并说，不，这不是真的。中国\n8 政府不会对人们施加任何影响——\n9 法院：\n如果你的当事人没有——如果你的\n10 当事人——如果你获准在本法院代理这名当事人——不愿\n11 接受本法院的管辖，\n12 那么他就不应当提起第11章案件。\n13 亨齐律师：\n法官阁下，我认为这与此\n14 毫无关系——\n15 法院：\n嗯，这怎么会毫无关系？\n16 因为你说他——中国\n17 政府影响与 Kwok 先生有关的一切事情。\n18 这就是你所说的。\n19 亨齐律师：\n不，我不是这样说的。\n20 法院：\n那你在说什么？\n21 亨齐律师：\n我所说的是，中国\n22 政府对任何在中国经营业务的人\n23 施加极大影响。我认为这是我可以作出的\n24 公正表述。\n25 我认为这是我可以作出的公正表述。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 87 法院：好的。亨齐律师：好的。而普衡——法院：这如何导致一项利益冲突，以至于 Despins 先生不能——不能担任第11章受托人？亨齐律师：普衡律师事务所在中国经营业务。法院：好的。亨齐律师：好的。法院：好的。亨齐律师：而中国政府——法院：那又怎样——其具有什么控制？你没有任何证据证明他们具有什么控制。你只是作出一项笼统——我并不是说你只是——但你刚才所作的陈述是，中国政府控制与其有业务往来的人。嗯，这种控制可能是他们希望公司生产12辆车而非20辆。这如何影响 Kwok 先生和普衡律师事务所？亨齐律师：法官阁下，论点是普衡律师事务所在中国经营业务。它代理与中国政府有关联的实体，因此，中国政府将会具有影响力或控制力——法院：所以你是说 Despins 先生是——是中国政府的傀儡？Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 88 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 88 亨齐律师：不。这完全不公平，法官阁下。我并没有说——法院：那么你在说什么？亨齐律师：我没有这样说。法院：那么——但那你在说什么？亨齐律师：我所说的是，这里存在无利害关系人问题，而且我们有权探究该问题。法院：好的。亨齐律师：好的。法院：我不确定我是否同意你。亨齐律师：好的。法院：但我理解你的观点。Despins 先生：法官阁下，如果可以，我可以发言两秒钟吗？法院：当然。当然。Despins 先生：这一论点荒谬至极。为什么？假设他说得对。假设他在所有方面都对——那么要讨论什么？那么中国共产党来到我们在中国的办公室，说什么？对他宽容些，还是严厉些？我要——让我说得非常清楚，我将去设法取得他的全部资产。这是我作为受托人的职责。Case 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 89 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 90 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 89 那么，冲突是什么？我的意思是，首先，我绝不承认他们会那样做，或者我们会受那种影响。但假设确实如此，就让我们把这个假设推演到底。除非我——除非他的观点是，我们会以某种方式与他们合作逮捕他，或者把他带来——那太荒谬了。这是一起民事案件。我的职责不是报复，而是追偿。我想要追偿——我想明确一点——尽可能多地为持有有效债权的人追回财产。这就是（听不清）。Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）也会这样做。因此，认为我们会受到影响的这个论点，这究竟是朝哪个方向起作用？意思是，他们会——以某种方式——让我们更严厉一些？我将会——我不需要中国共产党告诉我这样做。我会竭尽全力取得他的全部资产。这是我的职责。所以我不明白所谓的影响。抱歉。亨齐先生：我能否——我能否——简要回应一下，法官阁下？法庭：可以。亨齐先生：好的。而且，再说一次，这属于公开记录。法庭：哪里的公开记录？亨齐先生：我可以给您——我会给您引证，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 91 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\n1 法庭：但请告诉我那是什么。我们\n2 是在谈论一个社交媒体网站吗？\n3 亨齐先生：绝对不是，法官阁下。我们\n4 谈论的是美国司法部\n5 的声明。\n6 法庭：好的。\n7 亨齐先生：好的。\n8 法庭：美国司法部的\n9 哪个部门？\n10 亨齐先生：不同部门。\n11 法庭：好的。\n12 亨齐先生：而且我可以——\n13 法庭：请继续。\n14 亨齐先生：而且我可以说——好的。\n15 Steven Wynn（史蒂夫·永利）先生，我认为是一位知名的\n16 赌场／酒店业人士，美国司法部已对其提起一项民事\n17 执法诉讼，以强制其登记为\n18 根据《外国代理人登记法》登记的中华人民共和国代理人，\n19 以及中国公安部的一名高级官员的代理人，而该引证是——它是一份\n20 司法部的——在我们的动议中——它是一个网页，ww\n21 ——我可以尝试给您，但我——\n22 法庭：不，没关系。\n23 亨齐先生：好的。\n24 法庭：您不必给我。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 92 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 91 亨齐先生：而且——法庭：这如何影响永利先生，我是说——永利先生，我知道这如何影响永利先生——亨齐先生：好的。我——法庭：——这如何影响德斯平斯先生和 Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）？亨齐先生：我是在回应德斯平斯先生的说法，即认为中国政府会对在中国开展业务的人施加影响是荒谬的。法庭：他不是这么说的。亨齐先生：好的。我认为他就是这么说的。法庭：不是。德斯平斯先生：不是。法庭：事实上，他不是这么说的。亨齐先生：好的。但我能说完吗？法庭：他说你的论点荒谬。因为他是这么说的。这至少是我对其的理解。你可以不同意我的看法。他说你的论点荒谬，因为——可能发生的仅有两种情况是，中国政府要么告诉他全力以赴取得郭先生的全部资产，要么什么也不做，放过他。德斯平斯先生说，但我——我的职责就是全力以赴取得他的全部资产。那么问题是什么？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 93 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 92 亨齐先生：那么，论点就是德斯平斯先生——德斯平斯先生的利益与中国政府的利益一致，因此，在——法庭：这并不意味着存在利益冲突。亨齐先生：——在——等等——在原本会存在非利害关系人资格问题的范围内，就不存在问题，因为即便有影响，中国政府也会告诉他全力以赴、全力以赴、全力以赴。但这不是分析方法，法官阁下。这不是——法庭：即使他的——即使他的目标与中国政府一致，他怎么会不是无利害关系人？亨齐先生：如果有——如果有任何一方对受托人施加任何形式的不当影响，那么该受托人就不是无利害关系人。法庭：证据在哪里，证明他们正在对德斯平斯先生施加不当影响？亨齐先生：我今天没有证据——法庭：好的。亨齐先生：——而且我不知道今天如何能有证据，因为——法庭：那么，《破产法》——亨齐先生：——因为我有——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 94 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 93 法庭：事情是这样的。《破产法》允许你在相信该问题属实的情况下提出该问题，随后将得到适当处理。Rule 60(b) 动议不是处理此事的适当方式。不存在新发现的证据。唯一出现的是持续的义务——而且首先，我们谈论的是德斯平斯先生。我在第一次听证时提出过这一点。或许你可以主张——但我们今天并未主张——Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）存在问题。你或许可以这样主张。但我们并未主张这一点。我们谈论的是德斯平斯先生以受托人身份单独行事。因此，你的论点是，无论 Chapter 11 受托人是谁，无论是哪个个人，只要该个人为一家以某种方式与中国有业务关系的公司工作，例如签订了从中国购买玩具的买卖协议，他们就会不是——他们就会是无利害关系人，因为——因为每一个与中国政府开展业务的人都会受到中国政府的不当影响。这就是你的论点。亨齐先生：取决于事实和情形，但有这种可能，是的。法庭：那么，事实和——那么，我刚才向你提出的情形中的事实和情形，与德斯平斯先生在其——在其披露中所说的有何不同？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 95 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 94 亨齐先生：我可能会说，该方受到了中国政府的不当影响。法庭：买玩具？亨齐先生：是的。我可能会——是的。法庭：好的。亨齐先生：我可能会这么说。是的。法庭：好的。你可以这么说，但我可能不会同意你。亨齐先生：而您可能不会同意我。法庭：好的。亨齐先生：是的。法庭：好吧。亨齐先生：听着，我认为我们今天不是在争论 60(b) 动议。我认为。我无论如何认为，我们所争论的是郭先生是否有权进行证据开示，我认为他有。法庭：是的。而我认定他无权进行证据开示。当我对该动议作出裁定时，如果你愿意，你可以对此提起上诉——亨齐先生：是的。法庭：——但我们不会这样做。你看，问题在于。有 \\$37 million 存在一个\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 95 托管账户中。而且在那边某处有一艘船，一艘游艇，对吧，你的委托人曾约定将其带至本司法管辖区。而在法庭未同意该计划之前，即专业人员将在极短时间内获得 \\$8 million 报酬的计划，且未证明有必要支付该等报酬，也未证明有必要在《破产法》规定之外按周支付该等报酬，该船本将作为——向债权人的计划担保物。现在我们面临一种情形，即你所称的委托人——而且可能是，他可能确实是你的委托人——不希望再发生任何其他事情。不希望该船成为破产财产的一部分，也不希望 \\$37 million 成为破产财产的一部分。而实现这一点的方式，是通过一项 Rule 30(c)——Rule 60 动议对德斯平斯先生提出质疑。这不会发生。亨齐先生：我不同意，法官阁下。法庭：你可以不同意。亨齐先生：我只是不同意。法庭：但这不会发生。亨齐先生：先生——法庭：你接受你的委托人，你声称是你委托人的那位委托人，如其现状，对吗？而你发现他——Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）也是如此——受到纽约州法院命令的约束，该法院在证据听证之后认定\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 96 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 97 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022\n\n1 州法院在证据听证之后认定——我并不是说这些认定具有禁止反言\n2 效力，我并不是作任何那样的表述，我谈论的是\n3 你发现你的委托人时的状况——该法院认定，他不仅——\n4 他援引了第五修正案权利——而且可以就他\n5 援引第五修正案权利作出有利于\n6 债权人的推定——\n7 而且，他建立并创建了一个公司网络，\n8 以使其资产不受\n9 债权人追索，其中包括自\n10 2009 年以来一直与他争讼的 PAX（PAX）。\n11 随后，你的委托人在 Ostrager 法官（Justice Ostrager）\n12 施加制裁持续累积之时，决定申请 Chapter 11\n13 案件。而关键点——论点是，\n14 嗯，该累积已被中止。我申请了 Chapter 11，\n15 其累积已被中止。\n16 因此，随后论点变成，你的委托人以\n17 某种方式，取决于债权人请求的救济，\n18 应当要么被指定一名审查员，\n19 要么指定一名 Chapter 11 受托人，或者\n20 将案件转换。\n21 随后，你的委托人说，不，不，我们同意\n22 驳回。来到本法庭之后，进行谈判——参与一项谈判，\n23 而据称由其女儿拥有的一个独立且不同的\n24 公司实体也参与了该谈判——以将该船带到这里，然后说，不，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— July 21, 2022 97 你知道吗，法官，何不直接驳回该案件。我们同意驳回。嗯，那个——你知道，你的委托人在决定申请 Chapter 11 时作出了决定，一项知情决定。这就是他所做的。他本可以通过州法院程序处理所有这些事项，并且本可以对所有事项提起上诉；他也确实对一些事项提起上诉但败诉，该案件被发回 Ostrager 法官（奥斯特拉格法官），由 Ostrager 法官就该船的所有权作出裁定。随后申请了 Chapter 11 案件，而 HK International（香港国际）——据称独立且不同、并据称为该船登记所有人的法律实体——对你的委托人郭先生提起对抗程序，称其要求作出确认判决，确认 HK International 拥有该船，且该船不是本债务人破产财产的一部分。我已经通过认定应当指定一名 Chapter 11 受托人处理了所有这些问题。你的论点是，德斯平斯先生是无利害关系人——不是无利害关系人，因为他的事务所，而不是他本人，而是他的事务所在中国设有办事处，而且中国政府意图对付——顺便说一句，也许中国政府确实意图对付郭先生。我无需就此作出认定，好的。也许他们确实如此，但这并不\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 871-2 提交于 09/23/22 登记于 09/23/22 14:50:35 第 98 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—July 21, 2022 98 影响Despins先生（德斯潘先生）的职责及其根据破产法承担的责任。而作出相反主张，是试图阻挠Despins先生履行其职责。因此，我想，您在某个时候需要从我这里获得的——也许，如我所说，我必须审阅自7月8日以来提交的所有这些事项。我将就不同事项安排听证会——律师退出代理的动议——我希望您和United States Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室）提交书面意见，说明为何您们无需遵守327(a)。也许您们是对的，但我——我目前面前没有任何内容能够使我信服这一点。然后，我们——我们可能还将就您的Rule 60(b)动议举行听证会。我认为应尽快举行，因为如果我要驳回该动议，您就需要上诉。您需要上诉。然后您需要确定此后将如何推进。但本案不能再被拖延。本院负有责任，正如Despins先生在此时也负有责任一样，在破产法、破产规则、Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（联邦民事诉讼规则）及适用的非破产法规定的范围内，努力保护债权人的利益。而主张Despins先生具有无利害关系性，因为中国政府影响与其有业务往来的每一方当事人，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 871-2 提交 09/23/22 录入 09/23/22 14:50:35 第99页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—July 21, 2022 99 目前无法使我信服。HENZY先生（亨齐先生）：我明白了。法官阁下，我只说明几点。我未参与Kwok先生决定提交Chapter 11（第11章破产）申请的决定。法庭：我没有说你参与了。HENZY先生：好的。法庭：我说的是，你接受你的委托人时，他就是那样的状况。HENZY先生：我接受——法庭：这就是我说的。我不是一开始就这么说了吗？HENZY先生：是的。我们今天所处的状况就是如此。但我不认为Kwok先生决定提交第11章申请。而且为明确起见，他没有就您作出的将任命受托人的决定提起上诉。我将在记录中说明，如果Whitley先生（惠特利先生）是被任命的人选，他不会——我们不会进行这场讨论，明白吗，因为他所理解的是，我们认为Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）和Despins先生存在的一些问题，并不存在于Whitley先生身上。因此，这并不是——这并不是说Kwok先生会反对任何被任命的人，并希望阻碍第11章受托人履行其职责。他完全明白，将会有一名第11章\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 871-2 提交 09/23/22 录入 09/23/22 14:50:35 第100页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 871-2 提交 09/23/22 录入 09/23/22 14:50:35 第101页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—July 21, 2022\n\n1 第11章受托人。\n因此，我认为说他\n2 只是试图阻碍——\n3 法庭：\n我没有说——我说的是——\n4 HENZY先生：\n——出于这些目的。\n5 法庭：\n我没有说他试图\n6 阻碍。我说的是，我不会让此事被破坏。\n7 这就是我说的。这些就是我使用的措辞。\n8 HENZY先生：\n我认为——我认为，如果任命的是不同\n9 的人，我们就不会进行这场\n10 讨论。而且我——并且有——\n11 法庭：\n嗯——\n12 HENZY先生：\n请看，法官阁下，您可以不同意。\n13 我们认为这里存在善意且重大的问题。\n14 我明白您可能不同意，但我不——这\n15 并不正确。我不认为，因为Kwok先生决定\n16 提交第11章申请，他就无权说，等等，\n17 已经任命了一名受托人，明白，但他\n18 即使相信该人存在重大利益冲突，也应当仅仅接受\n19 任何被任命的人，\n20 即使该人存在这样的重大利益冲突。\n21 我的意思是，仅仅因为你提交第11章申请，\n22 并使自己受本院管辖，\n23 并不意味着你必须仅仅接受\n24 随之而来的任何及一切事项，即便你相信\n25 这对你不公平且对你不利。\n\nHo Wan Kwok—July 21, 2022 101 法庭：好的。谢谢。HENZY先生：那么，法官阁下，我想问，您今天是否作出裁定——法庭：不，我不作出裁定。HENZY先生：——我们不能就下列事项进行取证——法庭：如果你在我就60(b)动议作出裁定之前进行任何取证，那么我将——我不允许你在我就60(b)动议作出裁定之前进行任何取证。HENZY先生：以及就Paul Hastings的聘任申请？法庭：以及就Paul Hastings的聘任申请。HENZY先生：好的。那么您今天就此作出裁定。法庭：正确。HENZY先生：好的。法庭：不会有任何取证。这不是——这些不是——我们将允许发生的事项。那不会发生。我们将举行听证会。我们将审理你的事项。如果我们作出不利于你的裁定，那么——如果我作出不利于你的裁定，那么你将上诉。HENZY先生：法官阁下，我请求至少对此作出一项案卷记录，命令我们不得——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 871-2 提交 09/23/22 录入 09/23/22 14:50:35 第102页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 871-2 提交 09/23/22 录入 09/23/22 14:50:35 第103页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—July 21, 2022 102 法庭：嗯，这是一次状态会议，因此我现在不会就此录入案卷记录。我是在告诉你——HENZY先生：但如果我没有——法庭：我是在告诉你，如果你在我就这些事项作出裁定之前寻求取证，那么我不会要求另一方予以配合。HENZY先生：好的。但是，法官阁下，我不希望经历这样一个过程——我不知道——任何人——法庭：这项动议甚至还未排入日程——HENZY先生：我明白。法庭：——因此，就甚至尚未——的事项开始取证是不适当的。这是一次状态会议。此次会议——此次会议被特别安排为与该动议有关的状态会议，抱歉，是与任命第11章受托人的决定备忘录和命令有关的状态会议。该状态会议安排之后，您提交了文件。您的任何文件均未被安排举行听证会。明白吗？因此，一旦这些事项被安排举行听证会，您可以做任何您认为适当的事情。HENZY先生：明白，法官阁下。我不希望做的是，我们送达取证请求，使其他当事人不得不向本院提出动议，并且\n\nHo Wan Kwok—July 21, 2022 103 本院随后就那些动议作出裁定，并说你们不能进行取证。我想，我想仅仅结束——法庭：Henzy先生，您可以做任何您认为适当的事情。我并非——这不是一次将作出裁定的听证会，除我已告知您的事项外，不会从中产生其他裁定。我将返回并发布——我将就不同事项安排听证会。并且我将在其中一项命令中要求您提交书面意见，说明为何在未遵守327且在您——在您似乎存在实际利益冲突的情况下，您仍可以代理该债务人。HENZY先生：明白，法官阁下。法庭：当我说“您”时，我指的是Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）。明白吗？HENZY先生：明白，法官阁下。关于取证问题，好的，我不——我不希望做的是——法庭：我明白。HENZY先生：——在您已经告诉我我不会获得取证之后，再送达取证请求——法庭：是否送达取证请求由您自己——由您决定。律师，您做任何您认为适当的事情，但是——HENZY先生：我以为您正要说，您\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 871-2 提交 09/23/22 录入 09/23/22 14:50:35 第104页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 871-2 提交 09/23/22 录入 09/23/22 14:50:35 第105页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—July 21, 2022 104 可以自行承担风险送达取证请求，但是——法庭：实际上我差点这么说。HENZY先生：——而我不——法庭：是的。HENZY先生：——而且，再说一次，我不希望那样做。但我不认为告诉我，我——我不会允许你送达取证请求，但你去做你要做的任何事情——是公平的。法庭：顺便问一句，Rule 60的哪一处规定你有权获得取证？HENZY先生：我认为该动议受Rule 9014管辖，法官阁下。法庭：对。9014意味着各方有机会作出回应。在该回应提交之前，你为何有权获得取证？HENZY先生：法官阁下，我是在努力不延误对这些事项的听证。我是在努力使此事尽可能快地推进。Kwok先生的目标不是拖延对受托人的最终任命。不是拖延对受托人律师的最终聘任。我们与其他所有人一样希望尽快处理这些问题。好的。因此，我明白，在有人对我的Rule 60动议提出异议之前，可以说，我为何要进行取证？我非常清楚\n\nHo Wan Kwok—July 21, 2022 105 我的Rule 60动议将会受到异议，而我正试图以我所能做到的最快速度推进此事。我不希望送达取证请求，使人们不得不向本院提出动议，并让本院可能举行或不举行听证会，以及就该动议作出裁定，从而赋予我与本院裁定有关的任何权利。这就是为什么我——对我而言，更可取的是——对其他当事人而言可能也更可取的是——如果本院将作出该项裁定，就在今天作出裁定并将此事处理完毕。法庭：嗯，我会考虑这一点。HENZY先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法庭：好的。GOLDMAN先生（戈德曼先生）：法官阁下？法庭：是。GOLDMAN先生：我能否简要陈述？法庭：你能否——确保你对着麦克风说话。GOLDMAN先生：可以。您能听见我吗？法庭：能。谢谢。GOLDMAN先生：是。我想为本院考虑提出一个想法，作为解决该动议的一个潜在方式——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 871-2 提交 09/23/22 录入 09/23/22 14:50:35 第106页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 871-2 提交 09/23/22 录入 09/23/22 14:50:35 第107页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—July 21, 2022\n\n1 法庭：\n什么担忧？\n2 GOLDMAN先生：\n——以及担忧——\n3 法庭：\n60(b)动议？\n4 GOLDMAN先生：\n是。是。以及关于\n5 中国政府的担忧，并非我认为那是一个\n6 问题——我不想因提出一个解决方案而赋予其可信度，\n7 但本院可以简单规定，如果Despins先生\n8 或Paul Hastings受到中国政府联系，\n9 且中国政府以不利行动相威胁，以\n10 任何方式影响本案管理为目的，\n11 他们将向本院提交一份补充宣誓书，\n12 说明该情况，而我们可以据此继续处理，因为我们\n13 仅仅是在处理推测。\n14 法庭：\nDespins先生已经负有该项\n15 义务，Goldman先生。他已经依据\n16 法典和规则规定的披露要求负有该项义务。\n17 \n18 我的意思是，我明白你所说的，但我\n19 认为这会赋予其可信度，而我尚未对\n20 任何事项作出裁定。\n21 而且我会考虑你所说的，我感谢你\n22 ——提出该问题，但每一位律师、每一位受托人，\n23 都负有持续性义务。\n24 Despins先生已经在伪证处罚的约束下声明，\n25 他不存在这些联系。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 871-2 提交 09/23/22 录入 09/23/22 14:50:35 第108页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok—July 21, 2022\n\n所以，我对此表示感谢。我不确定这会有多大进展。如果各位想就此进行讨论，而这将为各位带来解决办法，那也可以。如果这是大家都希望讨论的事情，我乐意予以考虑。但我不会——我们将推进本案，且本案不会因可根据破产法典和规则以其他方式处理的事项而被耽搁。\n\nDespins（德斯潘先生）及任何担任该职务的其他人，都了解该职务的责任，也了解在伪证处罚的约束下所作的披露。如果有人提出证据证明Despins先生受到中国政府影响，那么他们可以提出该证据。但在记录中没有任何证据的情况下提出该主张，然后又说——我希望通过证据开示程序停止这一进程——我认为这种情况极不可能发生。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：嗯，我当然同意法官阁下在这一点上的立场。我只是试图回应Zeisler（蔡斯勒）的推测。\n\n法庭：不。我感谢这一提议。正如我所说，看起来没有人想一起去谈谈，对吗？我的意思是，如果各位想要讨论，我可以休庭。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 109 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- July 21, 2022 108 但情况是——我们现在已经在这里将近两个半小时了。我们需要让Despins先生去履行他的职责。明白吗？这就是此事的全部目的。这就是为何指定Chapter 11（第11章）受托人，以使此事得以进行。记录中的内容，无论其是否影响本法庭作出的任何决定，Henzy先生，正是我几分钟前与你开始讨论时所说的：你是按你找到当事人时的状态接受了你的当事人。我相信你已经阅读了在New York State Court（纽约州法院）发生的一切。那些主张仍由该程序中的当事人以及其他当事人在此提出。你的当事人必须作出一些决定。而且，你知道，本法庭会在其所能范围内支持各方当事人，但如果各方当事人没有沿着同一条道路共同前进，法庭也必须推进事项。我并不是说你们应该这样做。我并不是说那应当发生。我是说，否则我为什么在这里？各位可以到外面去把争议解决掉，对吗？我的意思是，我们必须以某种方式推进本案。要么你的当事人作出决定，尝试找到使本案得以进行的办法，要么不这样做。如果他不想这样做，也可以。那是他的选择权。而且，我同意你所说的，那是他的权利。但他采取这些步骤时，应当明白法庭未必会同意他的意见。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 109 HENZY先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。这就是我们目前所处的情况。我今天不想再花更多时间——我的意思是，如果各位想谈，我会这样做，但我认为重要的是要明白，我们必须向前推进。\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，Kwok先生并不反对这一点，但我们必须——我认为——我认为法庭会同意，我们必须以正确的方式推进。\n\n法庭：我必须给予所有人机会回应这些不同的动议，对吗？因此，我正在考虑的是——我想我听到Friedman先生和Despins先生告诉我，而且其他所有人都必须腾出时间——我们将在August 1st举行听证会。那是星期一。好？从今天起一个星期零一个工作日。我们将在August 1st举行听证会，如果未达成协议，我将就这些问题作出裁定。关于撤回作为律师的动议，关于Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）的动议，同样，我不知道是否会获准。但如果获准，肯定附有条件。我认为U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）应当就此发表意见。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 110 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 111 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022\n\n对此。我不知道U.S. Trustee——U.S. Trustee必须就此发表意见。对于Chapter 11案件中的专业人士，这就是U.S. Trustee的职责。在每一个案件中都是如此，但在Chapter 11案件中尤其如此。\n\n关于Rule 60(b)动议，我将给予所有人一个——但各位都必须明白，各位不能——我不会在Friday the 29th收到提交的诉状，然后你们期待我阅读并准备好在Monday the 1st作出裁定。那不会发生。因此，无论各位是否同意，你们都必须迅速处理这些问题。这就是将会发生的情况。明白吗？\n\n关于聘用Paul Hastings（宝德律师事务所）和Neubert, Pepe（诺伊伯特、佩佩律师事务所）的申请，也将安排举行听证会。所有这些都将安排举行听证会。\n\n我明白——我必须查看中止动议。我不记得我是否认为这些应当安排举行听证会。我可能会安排20项事项在August 1st举行听证会。明白吗？但我们需要推进本案。就是这么简单。这就是将会发生的情况。\n\n因此，如果我查看案卷——我今天出来之前确实尝试查看过，但我们还有另一场听证会——我的意思是，正如各位都知道的，我们确实还有其他听证会。而我希望你们在29日之前——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 112 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 111——我将要求各位比29日更早作出回应，很可能在27日，也就是下周三，时间并不充裕——的原因是，我们在28日有Chapter 13日。我的意思是，法庭还必须处理其他问题。即使本案对各位所有人极其重要——我完全理解这一点——我们确实还有其他事项必须处理。明白吗？因此，我看到，就这些待决动议而言，有一些申请pro hac vice（临时出庭许可）的动议。申请pro hac vice的动议通常都会获准。但如果确实会有人对——我将允许任何想发言的人发言。无论我是否认为你是律师，Henzy先生，我今天显然允许你发言了，对吗？我将允许你发言。但我们必须就谁代表谁、在何种背景下代表，以及今后谁将出庭参与本案作出裁定。\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，为明确起见，对于pro hac动议不会有任何异议。我在职业生涯中从未反对过pro hac动议，我也不认为自己将来会反对。\n\n法庭：好。谢谢。\n\nHENZY先生：所以，我认为这些可能——\n\n法庭：那么，也许我们至少可以推进这些事项。好？\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 112 HENZY先生：所以，法官阁下，证明我希望推进本案的证据就在这里。\n\nLINSEY先生：那些是，法官阁下，530——不，是533——\n\n法庭：我有。我有，Linsey律师。谢谢。好。今天下午还有任何人希望陈述并记入记录吗？\n\n（无可听见的回应。）\n\n法庭：好。我没有看到任何人。哦，Henzy先生？\n\nHENZY先生：所以，我只想明确——\n\n法庭：我想，我没有像本应当的那样快地离开。\n\nHENZY先生：我只想明确August 1st的日程安排。是所有事项吗？所有事项？\n\n法庭：我还不知道。\n\nHENZY先生：好。\n\n法庭：这就是我所说的。不过，我可以告诉你将会有哪些事项。\n\nHENZY先生：好。\n\n法庭：我认为将会有哪些事项。该——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 113 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 114 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 113 撤回作为律师的动议，Brown Rudnick。Despins先生聘用Paul Hastings和Neubert, Pepe的申请。你的Rule 60(b)动议。其他事项，我目前还不确定。中止动议，诸如此类，我必须回去查看。除非有人现在告诉我——我现在给予各位机会告诉我，August 1st还应当审理什么事项。我不知道我是否会同意各位，但我正在给予——而且你，Henzy律师，以及U.S. Trustee办公室，必须在——我认为所有事项的回应期限都将是27日——之前提交书面陈述，说明为何你们能够——你们必须说服我接受你们的论点，即由于债务人不再是占有中的债务人，你们不需要遵守327；以及为何你们不——无论是否如此，为何你们同时代理HK International（HK国际）和Kwok先生并不存在实际利益冲突。\n\nHENZY先生：我只是想——当您说您将在August 1t允许我发言时，我的意思是，我不想到了那里——\n\n法庭：是的。你将会——我将允许你提出你的论点。\n\nHENZY先生：我不想在August 1st到这里后，您说我已决定你不能代理Kwok先生，然后Kwok先生尚未准备好——他没有——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 115 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022\n\n法庭：我们不会那样做。\n\nHENZY先生：他没有代理人。\n\n法庭：这是关于你是否可以这样做的听证会。明白吗？\n\nHENZY先生：好。\n\n法庭：我不会——我绝不会说不允许你发言。\n\nHENZY先生：我并不认为您会这样做，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好。\n\nHENZY先生：但我只是不希望他在该听证会上没有代理人。\n\n法庭：我明白。嗯，Brown Rudnick无论如何都会在这里。\n\nHENZY先生：我不认为Brown Rudnick打算为该——August 1st的听证会作准备。\n\n法庭：他们可能不打算为该听证会作准备，但他们必须就其撤回作为律师的动议出席。\n\nHENZY先生：明白。\n\n法庭：好。\n\nHENZY先生：明白。\n\n法庭：因此，如果我不准许他们撤回作为律师的动议，那么他们仍然是他的律师。\n\nHENZY先生：好。\n\n法庭：好？\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 115 HENZY先生：好。\n\n法庭：好。还有任何人要补充吗？\n\n（无可听见的回应。）\n\n法庭：好。今天有关Kwok事项的审理至此结束。这是今日庭审日程上的最后一项事项。现在休庭。\n\n（程序于1:28 p.m.结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法庭批准的速录员及认证电子记录员和速录员，证明上述内容系以上述案名事项程序的官方电子录音所制作的正确庭审记录。\n\nJuly 25, 2022\n\nChristine Fiore，CERT 速录员\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 871-2 Filed 09/23/22 Entered 09/23/22 14:50:35 Page 116 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 871-2\nFiled 09/23/22\nEntered 09/23/22 14:50:35\n117 Page 117 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 21, 2022 116\n\n索引\n\n页码\n\n受托人提交的证物：\n\n1\n受托人书面陈述副本 7","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je","Paul Hastings","CCP","CIPA","GETTR","Guo","Miles Guo","Luc Despins","GTV","Chinese Communist Party"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":31141,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-09-23 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-09-23","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:26:13"}