{"id":"court_ctb_913_7","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":913,"sub_number":7,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-10-04","title":"Exhibit G Transcript of September 6, 2022 Status Conference","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"## **Exhibit G**\n\n**Transcript of September 6, 2022 Status Conference**\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 2 of\n\n## 111\n\nIn Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* September 6, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR ORDER PROVIDING THAT CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES PASSED TO TRUSTEE UPON APPOINTMENT AND FOR RELATED RELIEF\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION\n\nBEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE\n\n## APPEARANCES:\n\nFor the Debtor, ERIC HENZY, ESQ. HK International and AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. Mei Guo: Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\nFor the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity O'Melveny & Myers LLP Fund L.P.: Times Square Tower\n\n7 Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\nANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Robinson & Cole 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103\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 Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 For the Chapter 11 NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ. Trustee: Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\n2\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 1:04 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Luc Despins, Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, local counsel for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. MR. GOLDMAN: Oh. MR. BASSETT: Sorry. Sorry, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's okay. MR. BASSETT: It's Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, appearing remotely and thank you for allowing me to do that today. THE COURT: You're welcome. And good afternoon. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman and Comley, representing the Creditors Committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 4 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 4 MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. SMITH: Good -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. It's Peter Friedman, from O'Melveny & Myers, on behalf of PAX. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. SMITH: And Annecca Smith, of Robinson & Cole, also on behalf of PAX. THE COURT: Good afternoon. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I'm sorry. Could you repeat your name? I couldn't hear you. MS. SMITH: Annecca Smith. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. MS. SMITH: Thank you. MR. ROMNEY: Aaron Romney, Zeisler and Zeisler, on behalf of the debtor, HK International, and Mei Guo. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. HENZY: Eric Henzy, Zeisler and Zeisler, for the same three parties. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. HENZY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Today we're here on a few matters, but the status -- I did get the agenda submitted by the Chapter 11 Trustee, which I appreciate. Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 5 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 6 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 5 And if no one has any different view, I'd like to proceed with the agenda. And then there's a couple of minor housekeeping matters from the Court's perspective before we talk about -- more about the privileges issue. And I know you both submitted an order that I asked you to around noon or a little before and I, you know, have looked at it for about 15 seconds so you'll have to bear with me. We did have hearings this morning. But in any event, we'll get there. So, Mr. Despins, if you want to start with your status conference report and then I can talk. I just -- when you're done, there's two or three minor things that came to my attention that I just need some confirmation from the parties on after you're done with your presentation. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. May I approach to give you -- THE COURT: Please. MR. DESPINS: -- a hard copy of the -- THE COURT: Yes. Please. Thank you. You may approach. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. For the record, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. We just wanted first to give the Court and the parties in interest an update on Genever BVI. Remember,\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 7 of
111 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
6 |\n| 1 | that's the holding company that owns the LLC that in turn |\n| 2 | owns the apartment. |\n| 3 | So the shares have been transferred.
I now hold |\n| 4 | them as trustee. But there's one matter that we are taking |\n| 5 | care of now which is we need to appoint a director for that |\n| 6 | entity. |\n| 7 | And the way it's done in the BVI is that there are |\n| 8 | professional directors.
And we have that in the U.S. as |\n| 9 | well where we pay them and that's their job.
And that |\n| 10 | company that provides these services is an affiliate of our |\n| 11 | proposed BVI counsel called Harneys.
So it's called Harneys |\n| 12 | Fiduciaries. |\n| 13 | And so we -- and we filed an application to retain |\n| 14 | Harneys.
And I believe last week we filed a supplemental |\n| 15 | declaration saying, oh, by the way, we're going to retain |\n| 16 | these folks as, you know, professional directors. |\n| 17 | And the issue I want to mention first is a |\n| 18 | compensation issue.
We have to pay them 6,000 and change. |\n| 19 | And they've agreed to defer all their other costs until -- |\n| 20 | their fees until we receive funding in this estate.
So |\n| 21 | that's a very good thing, but we need to pay them 6,667. |\n| 22 | There's a technical issue here, which we've |\n| 23 | discussed with the U.S. Trustee.
Those folks, the director, |\n| 24 | not those folks, there's one person who would be the |\n| 25 | director is not providing legal services, is not being |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 8 of
111 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
7 |\n| 1 | retained by this estate.
It's being retained by the non |\n| 2 | debtor called Genever BVI. |\n| 3 | The U.S. Trustee feels that nevertheless we should |\n| 4 | file some kind of retention application that would cover |\n| 5 | both Harneys as the lawyers and their affiliate as |\n| 6 | directors. |\n| 7 | I always hesitate to say that I disagree with the |\n| 8 | U.S. Trustee, but I disagree with the U.S. Trustee on this. |\n| 9 | But, nevertheless, there should be full disclosure of all |\n| 10 | the connections that both have. |\n| 11 | We've already done that for Harneys, the law firm. |\n| 12 | That has not been done for Harneys Fiduciaries.
They're the |\n| 13 | entity providing the trust, sorry, the director services. |\n| 14 | We will do that just in an abundance of caution. |\n| 15 | But we don't want -- and I've had the discussions |\n| 16 | with the U.S. Trustee on this, we don't want our efforts of |\n| 17 | full disclosure to be interpreted as us agreeing that, in |\n| 18 | fact, they're subject to a disinterestedness standard. |\n| 19 | Again, they're just acting as a director for a non-debtor |\n| 20 | entity. |\n| 21 | But I can't disagree with the concept that more |\n| 22 | disclosure is always better, so we will supplement the |\n| 23 | disclosure and refile this, you know, hopefully, you know, |\n| 24 | tomorrow or something like that. |\n| 25 | But I wanted to mention this to the Court because |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 8 that's something we need to go forward with to have that director in place. And so that's, you know, an update. I don't know if the U.S. Trustee will want to be heard about this, but that's really the issue at this point. We've committed to them to provide full disclosure on the director role in terms of their connection with the case, although we think that that's not the controlling standard, but we've agreed to do that. So that's the update on the director issue. On page 2, there's another issue that's coming up. I always say there's an issue every day in this case. And so we had the Labor Day Weekend so there was no issue every day. But Bravo Luck, you'll remember that entity that is controlled or allegedly controlled by Mr. Kwok's son, has sent a notice to reactivate the litigation pending in the BVI that predates this case. It's a litigation that involves Mr. Kwok, Bravo Luck, PAX. Because remember they were in state court trying to get control of these shares, and so there was litigation pending in the BVI over who owns the shares, with Bravo Luck taking the position that they can rely on this trust agreement and PAX arguing the opposite. That litigation never really practically got off the ground, but now they send a notice, you know, three or Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 9 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 9 four days ago, saying we want to reactivate this. But the point we're making here is that we believe that's a clear violation of the automatic stay. To be clear, this is Bravo Luck doing this. And Bravo Luck is a BVI entity, but they filed the claim in the New York case as a creditor and they've appeared in that case and we believe it's a violation of the stay. And I would say on this stay tuned. I think we will need to deal with this sooner rather than later because we can't just let this litigation, which is an issue that Your Honor should decide, but -- go forward. Moving on to page 3, update on other debtor related entities. You may remember, well, I know you remember the UBS litigation. And you always mention, well, there are two other plaintiffs in that litigation. And those are not like third parties, they're entities controlled by Mr. Kwok. They're called Ace Decade and Dawn State. And if you read that 2020 complaint, which is signed by Mr. Kwok, verified as to the facts by Mr. Kwok, and verified as to the facts by a representative of Dawn State and Ace Decade, it basically says that he owns first Ace Decade. He owns it. And that the entity below it, Dawn State, is controlled a hundred percent by Ace Decade. So we sent a letter to Mr. Henzy last week saying Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 10 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 11 of\n\n| | 111 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
10 |\n| 1 | this is like Genever.
I want all the books and records.
I |\n| 2 | want the stock transferred to us.
And we had asked for a |\n| 3 | response by this morning.
We didn't get one.
And, you |\n| 4 | know, I understand, you know, a holiday weekend, et cetera, |\n| 5 | et cetera, but we need to take control of these -- of these |\n| 6 | two entities. |\n| 7 | There's no doubt that they are owned by Mr. Kwok, |\n| 8 | because he said so and so did the representatives for these |\n| 9 | two entities in the U.K. litigation that was sworn to in |\n| 10 | 2020, not in 2015, very recently in 2020.
So, you know, |\n| 11 | we'll hear from the debtor on this. |\n| 12 | But clearly that's an issue that needs to be |\n| 13 | resolved because then I should have control of this.
And I |\n| 14 | control all the plaintiffs in that litigation which would |\n| 15 | really minimize a lot of issues going on with U.K. counsel |\n| 16 | in that litigation. |\n| 17 | Page 4, just to mention debtor's whereabouts, |\n| 18 | we've been informed that Mr. Kwok has moved out of the |\n| 19 | Sherry-Netherland.
This is where he had his GETTR feed |\n| 20 | taping every day, sometimes twice a day. |\n| 21 | And he's moved his personal effects out of there |\n| 22 | and the furniture that he put in when he moved in 2015.
And |\n| 23 | what they did is they moved in the furniture of the previous |\n| 24 | owner that he had acquired as part of a -- of the |\n| 25 | acquisition of the Sherry-Netherland. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 12 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 11 I'm a little bit concerned about that, Your Honor, because that could be an indication that he's leaving the jurisdiction. Mr. Henzy, you know, told me that no. In fact, that he's residing in Greenwich, Connecticut, so we'll take that representation. But the fact that he's moving out of the apartment with his personal effects and the furniture could be another sign. And, you know, unfortunately, the Chapter 11 Trustee does not have an ankle bracelet program. I'd love to have that, but we don't have that, and we don't have a LoJack, so we can't keep track of the debtor, but, you know, we know we have the power and the Court has the power to force the debtor to appear for examination. So we may, in fact, use that to -- not only to verify that he is still in the country, but also to verify other issues such as Ace Decade and Dawn State. Now moving onto page 5, the housekeeping matters, I just want to remind Your Honor that right now this is -- we're now on the Lady May, you know, the action filed by the Hong Kong entity or the subsidiary of the Hong Kong entity to -- for a declaration that they own -- that that entity owns the yacht. The answer deadline was I believe the 29th of August. We moved to extend. They opposed that. Also there\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 12 was in theory a pretrial conference that was supposed to take place. We moved to adjourn that. So that's pending. I wanted to make sure Your Honor was aware of that, that these requests and objections are pending and there's no scheduled hearing. THE COURT: Let me take a look at that at the moment because that might be one of the things that I was thinking I needed to talk with you about. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: There was -- I know one of the issues was that -- I don't -- let me look before I say something that's inaccurate. (Pause.) THE COURT: So in the HK International adversary, which is 5003, this is the adversary I wanted to talk about. But I actually was not focusing on what you're saying, which is that there's a motion for extension of time -- MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: -- to respond. Oh, no, no. That was PAX's. But it appears to me that the debtor has withdrawn, not the debtor, excuse me. HK International, the plaintiff, has withdrawn the adversary proceeding or dismissed it, excuse me, as to PAX. That I've seen. Okay? MR. DESPINS: That's correct. Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 13 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 14 of\n\n| | 111 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
13 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
And I think that's self-effectuating |\n| 2 | under Rule 41, so I don't think there's anything that the |\n| 3 | Court needs to do on that. |\n| 4 | MR. DESPINS:
That's correct. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So with regard to -- |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
Our motion to enlarge the time would |\n| 7 | be docket 28, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
28.
And then the motion to continue |\n| 9 | the pretrial conference. |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Would be -- well -- and the |\n| 11 | objection by the debtor was 31.
Then the motion to continue |\n| 12 | the pretrial would be 32. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Right.
Right. |\n| 14 | (Pause) |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
All right.
I have not -- I did not |\n| 16 | see that objection yet, but I can -- I will definitely look |\n| 17 | at that after we are concluded today in the matters today. |\n| 18 | All that being said, let me just go back to one |\n| 19 | other thing in this adversary proceeding that you're |\n| 20 | speaking about.
I just want to make sure that I am |\n| 21 | reviewing the right -- |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
By the way, I misspoke.
The |\n| 23 | pretrial was scheduled for September 13th, not for today. |\n| 24 | My mistake.
But same concept. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Yes. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 15 of\n\n| | 111 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
14 |\n| 1 | MR. ROMNEY:
If I may?
The confusion on the date |\n| 2 | may have been the pretrial order in that action.
The |\n| 3 | parties' joint pretrial order would be due today unless the |\n| 4 | Court grants the trustee's extension on that deadline, which |\n| 5 | HK -- given the circumstances that there's an outstanding |\n| 6 | motion for an extension of time, HK would not object to, in |\n| 7 | any event, pushing out the date for the pretrial conference, |\n| 8 | if that helps, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you. |\n| 10 | All right.
So then what I'm going to do is after |\n| 11 | we're done with the more substantive matters that I think |\n| 12 | we're going to address this afternoon, then I will look back |\n| 13 | at this adversary proceeding and enter appropriate orders |\n| 14 | with regard to the pending matters that are -- the pending |\n| 15 | motions that are -- and the objection that you've just |\n| 16 | pointed out to me, both of you, Trustee Despins and Attorney |\n| 17 | Romney.
I'll take a look at that.
I have not -- |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
I have not had an opportunity to look |\n| 20 | at that yet, but that won't take me long after we -- we're |\n| 21 | completed today.
Okay? |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | Moving on to page 5, monthly operating reports, |\n| 24 | the debtors are still -- are still in default of filing |\n| 25 | their May, June and the first few days of July reports. So |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 16 of
111 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
15 |\n| 1 | that needs to happen. |\n| 2 | Then page 6, continuing failure to produce |\n| 3 | documents. The debtor and HK counsel had made a |\n| 4 | representation at the July 21st hearing that they would |\n| 5 | provide books and records, for example, for HK |\n| 6 | International.
There's a quote here in the report that's a |\n| 7 | quote from the transcript.
Still haven't produced anything |\n| 8 | regarding HK International and still haven't produced, you |\n| 9 | know, hardly anything regarding the debtor's books and |\n| 10 | records. |\n| 11 | Next item is trustee's application to retain BVI |\n| 12 | counsel. I've already addressed that.
That's scheduled for |\n| 13 | September 27th.
But we will file a supplement to that |\n| 14 | hopefully in the next 48 hours. |\n| 15 | Page 7, just to mention that we have a status |\n| 16 | conference in the Genever USA case before Judge Garrity, |\n| 17 | currently scheduled for September 27th, but we're trying to |\n| 18 | move that up because of the inability of some counsel to |\n| 19 | attend. |\n| 20 | Next, number 6, remember Paul Derecktor, the |\n| 21 | expert. I had raised the issue and you had told me rightly |\n| 22 | so did you talk to anyone about this and I said no.
So now |\n| 23 | we did. |\n| 24 | And the U.S. Trustee has agreed, and we appreciate |\n| 25 | their flexibility on this, that we can expense that \\$2,500 |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 17 of\n\n| | 111 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
16 |\n| 1 | and not file a separate application for the retention of Mr. |\n| 2 | Derekctor as an expert.
This was a one shot deal.
He just |\n| 3 | was there to come for the inspection with PAX's expert, so |\n| 4 | he's not going to serve as an expert going forward.
If he |\n| 5 | did, we would have to file a retention application.
So it's |\n| 6 | just \\$2,500. |\n| 7 | Ultimately, that's Your Honor's call.
But I |\n| 8 | wanted to let you know that the U.S. Trustee had no |\n| 9 | objection to that approach because -- and of course from the |\n| 10 | cost point of view for us to file and prepare an application |\n| 11 | would cost much more than the 2,500, so we would really love |\n| 12 | to be able to dispense with that requirement. |\n| 13 | Of course, there's no money in the estate now. |\n| 14 | Well, there is -- I shouldn't say that --- there's \\$14,000 |\n| 15 | in the estate.
So we -- Paul Hastings, is fronting the bill |\n| 16 | for that and will not be reimbursed from the estate until |\n| 17 | there's a fee and expense reimbursement application, which |\n| 18 | is not going to happen for a while until there is |\n| 19 | substantial money in the estate. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I understand. |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS:
And the last point was scheduling |\n| 22 | the next status conference.
We had mentioned -- we had |\n| 23 | proposed September 21st and October 3rd, so I don't remember |\n| 24 | -- we have never -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
September 21st is absolutely fine. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 18 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 17 MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: We can start at whatever time the parties would like to start. I mean, if you want to start in the morning, you want to start at lunchtime, you want to start in the afternoon, whatever anyone -- MR. DESPINS: I think it's always good to start in the afternoon in the event that we -- that other matters are tagged on so people can -- from Washington, or Mr. Friedman, for example. THE COURT: Is 1:00 p.m. a good time for everyone for a status conference on the 21st? Now, October 3rd is possible, but it's also there's something scheduled that might need to change. I don't know yet, but -- MR. DESPINS: Well, we can play that by ear then. We can -- THE COURT: Or if it's October -- yeah, we might -- it might be more helpful honestly to do it on that week. And I'm just looking, if you don't mind bearing with me for a moment, the afternoon of October 4th. If we started it at 1:00 p.m. on October 4, which is a Tuesday, not a Monday, does that present problems to anyone? MR. DESPINS: Not for me. But there are people on the phone. I don't know. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, if I'd be permitted to\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 18 attend remotely, that would be fine. It's Yom Kippur. THE COURT: Oh. MR. FRIEDMAN: It is Yom Kippur that -- on the 4th. THE COURT: I'm sorry. Okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: So as long as I can attend remotely, that would be fine. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, remember that our goal is not to have those if we can dispense with them. THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: So we will try our best not to have them. And then we need to cancel them if we're going to do that or at least advise the Court that we won't require them at least 24 hours before so Your Honor can cancel them if you deem it appropriate. THE COURT: Attorney Friedman, what time are you available until on October 4th? MR. FRIEDMAN: 5:00. THE COURT: I would let you appear remotely, I'm just asking what time. MR. FRIEDMAN: 5:00 p.m., Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So then why don't we set it for noon on October 4th. That way, in case there's some reason that we have to spend time, it won't -- it will not take -- I mean, we won't run into your holiday, which obviously I Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 19 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 20 of
111 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
19 |\n| 1 | didn't realize it was -- I thought it was the next day, the |\n| 2 | 5th, so it's my mistake.
But we do have court hearings on |\n| 3 | the 4th, but we have them in the morning.
So if we schedule |\n| 4 | it -- |\n| 5 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
-- at noon on October 4th -- and you |\n| 7 | can, you don't have to file a request to appear remotely. |\n| 8 | I'm granting that right now on the record.
Okay? |\n| 9 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Thank you. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Okay.
You're welcome. |\n| 11 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
You're welcome. |\n| 13 | And then we'll see what happens.
You know, if for |\n| 14 | some reason everyone agrees there isn't a need for a |\n| 15 | conference on the 4th, that's fine too, but let's schedule |\n| 16 | it so it's a date that we have set aside. |\n| 17 | May I -- may I ask a question before we get to the |\n| 18 | substantive issues? |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:
Of course. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
Okay.
So I guess I would ask Attorney |\n| 21 | Henzy and Attorney Romney and Attorney Claiborn, so there |\n| 22 | aren't any monthly operating reports for a few months. Is |\n| 23 | that right? |\n| 24 | Are we missing monthly operating reports did you |\n| 25 | say? |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 20 MR. DESPINS: For May and June and the first part of July until the trustee was appointed. THE COURT: Okay. So, Attorney Henzy or Attorney Romney, have you -- what's your position with regard to these monthly operating reports, because they need to be filed? MR. HENZY: My position is they will be filed. They have not been filed yet. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm going to give you a date by which you need to file them. Do you have a suggested date? MR. HENZY: I would like three weeks, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, I don't know that I can give you three weeks because they're overdue, at least the May and June are well overdue. And let me look -- let me look at the calendar. How about if you get, well, I will order you, the debtor, to submit May and June by September 23rd. And then July -- when's -- August will be due on September 20, right? MR. HENZY: That's not the debtor that will be filing that. THE COURT: Oh, you're right. Only until the date. I'm sorry. I'm thinking of the time frame the U.S. Trustee uses. But, you're right. So May and June by September 23rd. And then what Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 21 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 21 else do we need? Do we need part of July, to July 8th, right? MR. DESPINS: 9th. Yeah. THE COURT: 9th? MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: I'll give you that until the following week, September 30. MR. HENZY: I would ask for September 30 for all three, Your Honor. Frankly, the issue we face is that the Verdolino and Lowey firm was doing those operating reports. THE COURT: They were never retained officially though. Just so you know. MR. HENZY: I understand that. THE COURT: You weren't involved in that -- in that. MR. HENZY: I understand that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. HENZY: But they were doing the operating reports. THE COURT: Okay. I'm just -- I'm just -- MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: I was only telling you that because you weren't involved in the case and so I didn't know if you were aware of that. MR. HENZY: I was aware of that, Your Honor. Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 22 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 23 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 22 THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: And as sometimes is the case, you know, I or my office is going to have to take a very active part in getting these operating reports done. And, you know, frankly, I have an extremely busy next couple of weeks with other matters. I have other clients. And it would -- I'm concerned just about am I going to have time to get to these in the next two weeks. So I don't know that a week would make a difference in the grand scheme of things. It would make a significant difference for me and for my workload this month. THE COURT: Trustee Despins, do you have any opposition to September 30? MR. DESPINS: That's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. We'll give you to September 30, Attorney Henzy. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. But if he doesn't comply with that, then we're going to have to address that issue. MR. HENZY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, then the last point is, is the point I made before, you've already entered the corporate governance order. It's on appeal, but there's no\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 23 stay pending appeal under that order. They're supposed to give us all the shares and the documents regarding the entities they control. And these two entities, Ace Decade and Dawn State, they've stated unequivocally under oath that Mr. Kwok owns the first one who then controls the second one. You know, we would like a date by which they need to comply. There's already an order in place. It's just a question of making it clear that -- it's very clear it applies to all such controlled entities and these are the two. And so we would like the Court to impose a deadline by which they need to do that. Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. So just to give you the timeline, so the trustee sent by email, me, a letter end of day this past Wednesday. I was tied up on other client -- and by other client, I don't mean other client matters, not other matters for Mr. Kwok, but for other clients that I have all day Thursday. I had long planned to take a long weekend, including Friday, which I did, so I didn't change my family plans to comply with the trustee's demand that by 10:00 a.m. this morning that what they're asking be done. I did not do that. I don't know right now that this issue is as clear Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 24 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 25 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 24 cut as the trustee is telling you that it is. I can lay eyes on what's in the UBS complaint and understand what's in the complaint, but I don't know that the issue is as simple as what the trustee is telling you. I think I'm going to have to interface with U.K. counsel to understand why what's in the complaint is in the complaint and what -- how that came to be. I don't know how long that is going to take. And you certainly -- of course, Your Honor, you can impose a deadline, but I'm not going to agree to a deadline because I just -- I do not know the facts here and I don't know how long it's going to take me to drill down on the facts. You know, I'm going to move with all due speed, but I just -- I don't know how long it's going to take me to understand all of the facts. And I'm not going to advise Mr. Kwok to sign documents when I don't know that the documents being proposed are appropriate or they're the correct documents, how they might impact the U.K. litigation. I don't know any of those things right now. So I'm -- again, I'm going to look into it. I'm going to work on it. I'm going to move with all due speed, but I don't know how long it's going to take me. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, Mr. Kwok knows if he owns this company or not. Actually, he swore to it and so\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 25 did the representatives from these two entities. The U.K. counsel has no involvement in this. And the impact on the UBS litigation is irrelevant. The question is today who is the owner of that entity? We have a sworn statement, 2020. Unless he's going to come in and say I transferred it and then obviously we'd want to know to who he transferred it, that's a sworn statement by all of these entities. It doesn't take more than four or five days to figure that out. Thank you. THE COURT: May I just ask -- I don't -- I am not certain if the UBS complaint is on -- in the record of this case. Is it in the record of this case somewhere? MR. HENZY: I think that either I or the trustee attached it to -- THE COURT: To the issue of the governance motion or to the privileges motion? MR. HENZY: I don't think it would have been the privileges motion, Your Honor. I think it may have been the governance motion. I'm highly confidant that one of us -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: And I don't think either of us -- UNIDENTIFIED: It might have been the motion to stay somewhere -- MR. DESPINS: No, it was before that. MR. HENZY: Yeah. I know we -- Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 26 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 26 THE COURT: Okay. All right. That's what -- MR. HENZY: I believe we have absolutely, yeah, put it -- THE COURT: I just wanted -- I need to take a look at it obviously. MR. HENZY: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. THE COURT: And I'm not going to do anything today, Mr. Despins, with regard to Ace Decade and Dawn State, but I'm going to look after we're done with our hearing today to see what's in the record of this case and then determine what steps will be taken and if a deadline will be set to -- and it's likely that it will be, but I don't know that until I review everything, after I review what's in the record of this case. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Yes. And just to save Your Honor time, in the -- there's a -- something called Particulars of Claims, well, that's a complaint by U.K. standard. Page 1, paragraph 2, it says Ace Decade was incorporated in June 2014 and acquired by Mr. Kwok on or about November 10, 2014. And then paragraph 3 talks about -- and 4 talks about the fact that Dawn State was acquired by Ace Decade in September of 2015. And if you go to the last page, on page 38, this is where the second claimant and the third claimant, meaning Ace Decade and Dawn State, swear that all the facts in the Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 27 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 27 particular claims are true and that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to make a false statement in a document verified by a statement of a truth. And on page 37, there's a signature by Mr. Kwok, and 38, the other two entities have signed. So just to save Your Honor some time. MR. HENZY: Just to save -- by -- it's another status conference where we're putting evidence into the record. But, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Well, I don't agree with that though. The only thing I'll say, Attorney Henzy, is I don't agree that's evidence putting in the record. If the complaint is in the record, then all Mr. Despins is doing is pointing to me where it is. MR. HENZY: Understood. THE COURT: So I'll get there. We'll get there. MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, so we're talking about -- the complaint refers to something that happened seven years ago. I've been told -- I don't -- I haven't done any diligence on this, Your Honor, so I want to be very careful, okay, that at some point that got changed at the insistence of UBS in connection with this transaction. I don't -- I don't know if that's true. I don't know anything. Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 28 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 28 THE COURT: I understand. MR. HENZY: But I need to do some diligence. Okay? Again, I know what's in the complaint. I put eyes on it and I can read so I know what's there, but I don't know today that Mr. Kwok is the -- is the owner of this entity. And I'm not going to have him, you know, sign a document that's not -- that's not an appropriate document. That's all. THE COURT: And I'm not making any ruling that you have to do anything today. MR. HENZY: Understood. THE COURT: I have to look at what's in the record of this case. And I will do that. And then I will determine what next steps need to happen -- MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- with regard to that issue. Okay? MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Now, let me just make sure that there is nothing else that I thought I needed to address as far as a housekeeping side of the equation. But I think the only thing that is not -- has not been addressed, other than the motion that we're here for on today, which is a different issue, is the status of the extensions motions and the objection in that -- in the HK adversary proceeding. So that's -- is there something else Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 29 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 30 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 29 on the house -- MR. HENZY: I would like to be heard on a couple of points in the status report, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sure. Go right ahead. MR. HENZY: Thank you. Your Honor, on the page 2 on the update on Genever BVI, the debtor has done everything he was asked or required to do. What happens with that now is not the debtor's problem or my problem. I will point out -- and Bravo Luck is very well represented and they'll take whatever position they take if and when the trustee decides to take action on some asserted violation of the automatic stay. I will point out that in connection with the corporate governance motion, I think both in pleading and in open -- statement in open court, the trustee represented that he had no intention to and he would not interfere or seek to change the settlement order that Judge Garrity entered in the Genever BVI Chapter 11 case in the Southern District of New York. That order expressly contemplates that this equitable ownership issue would be resolved either in the pending New York State Court action or in litigation in the BVI. Now, that -- I suppose both things could be true,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 31 of\n\n| | 111 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
30 |\n| 1 | that there's an order from Judge Garrity that contemplates |\n| 2 | that this is going to get resolved in litigation in the BVI |\n| 3 | or in New York State Court, and the trustee can make a claim |\n| 4 | that -- to do that, to do what's contemplated under Judge |\n| 5 | Garrity's order, constitutes a violation of the automatic |\n| 6 | stay. |\n| 7 | But I do think it's important to point out that |\n| 8 | that -- Judge Garrity did enter that order and the trustee |\n| 9 | here expressly said that he was not planning or intending to |\n| 10 | interfere with the operation of that order, or at least |\n| 11 | that's what I understood that he said. |\n| 12 | Your Honor, on the debtor's whereabouts, it's hard |\n| 13 | to respond when what the trustee says to you is he has been |\n| 14 | informed.
I have no idea what the source of his information |\n| 15 | is.
I don't know if he's having someone spy on the debtor |\n| 16 | or he's just sort of asking around.
I don't -- I don't know |\n| 17 | where that information comes from. |\n| 18 | To be clear, you know, I haven't -- I'm not going |\n| 19 | to, I can't represent or vouch for where the debtor is |\n| 20 | living.
I'm not -- I'm not tracking the debtor around. |\n| 21 | What I told the trustee, and I'll state in court, |\n| 22 | is that Mr. Kwok's residence right now is, his legal |\n| 23 | residence, is at his wife's home in Greenwich.
That is the |\n| 24 | basis for the case being here.
That's what he said in a |\n| 25 | sworn statement. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 31 He does spend some number of days or nights, I've been told it's four or five, at the Sherry-Netherland in New York. I have no information, okay, and I have inquired and I have been told, that he hasn't -- he may have moved some personal possessions from the Sherry-Netherland to the house in Greenwich. I don't know. But I guess my reaction to that is so what? I don't think that there's anything in the bankruptcy code or bankruptcy rules or anything else I'm aware of that says because you're a debtor in a bankruptcy case that you can't move personal possessions or you can't sleep in a different bed some number of nights in a month. I have no information. I have no reason to believe Mr. Kwok is somehow fleeing the jurisdiction or fleeing the country. I think that if Mr. Despins is going to continue with the attempts to sort of smear or make Mr. Kwok look like a bad guy or he's doing something sinister or he's doing something wrong, that he -- on something like this where he's got to come in and say to you he's concerned Mr. Kwok is fleeing the jurisdiction or he's leaving the jurisdiction and he's going to be outside of the jurisdiction of this court, that he really needs to do better than that. He has been informed. Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 32 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 33 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 32 I think he should come in and tell the Court here's my source of information. There's some concrete, hard information, so that I maybe -- can actually go back and talk to my client or I can actually have something to respond to. But right now his official residence, his legal residence, is his wife's home in Greenwich. And he does spend some number of nights per month at the apartment at the Sherry-Netherland. On the production of documents, Your Honor, this is -- this is -- the statement was by Mr. Kindseth, not by me, the statement that's quoted, so I, you know, I don't remember this. Mr. Kindseth -- THE COURT: What page are you looking at? MR. HENZY: I'm on page 6 where he has a two- paragraph quote about -- I believe -- I hope I didn't say this, Your Honor, because I don't remember saying it. And I am getting older, but I think I would remember this, I hope. But Mr. Despins just said to me it was Mr. Kindseth. But I would expect that what he was referring to on the HK International piece of it was -- the assumption is that HK International is going to get a subpoena. And, in fact, I think it has gotten a subpoena, right? Yeah. I mean, it's been served with a subpoena. It's going to produce documents pursuant to a subpoena. I don't know that\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 34 of
111 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
33 |\n| 1 | there was ever an intention that we're just going to just |\n| 2 | produce documents outside of a process. |\n| 3 | On Mr. Kwok, again, I haven't been in the middle |\n| 4 | of that, but I know that we have gotten documents and we |\n| 5 | have forwarded those documents.
At issue may be, not that |\n| 6 | documents were being withheld, I think the issue is that |\n| 7 | that's the documents that are in Mr. Kwok's possession. |\n| 8 | Whether there should be more documents in his |\n| 9 | possession maybe is a question.
But I think -- I'm going to |\n| 10 | go back and check and make sure the documents that are in |\n| 11 | his possession or that he has control of have been produced, |\n| 12 | but I think anyway that that is what is happening. |\n| 13 | There's not been an intention to just withhold |\n| 14 | documents that he has access to or possession of or control |\n| 15 | over.
So thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 17 | MR. DESPINS:
Your Honor, very briefly. |\n| 18 | First, on the Sherry-Netherland, I never said that |\n| 19 | -- the only thing I said is that I wouldn't stop the sale of |\n| 20 | the apartment.
And the sale is done pursuant to that |\n| 21 | stipulation.
And that's perfectly all right. |\n| 22 | That stipulation does not contain an agreement by |\n| 23 | anyone to that stipulation that matters will be tried in the |\n| 24 | BVI.
There's a reservation of rights in paragraph 7(b) of |\n| 25 | that stipulation that says that nothing herein shall |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 34 preclude people from doing that. By the way, that's an order that was entered pre this bankruptcy, so it has no binding affect on this court. But I want to be very clear there's no agreement in that order that matters will be litigated in the BVI. There's a reservation of rights. 7 Mr. Friedman was a party, well, not himself personally, but PAX was a party to that stipulation and order so he can speak to it, but it does -- there's no agreement to litigate in BVI. And, in fact, it says that it can be litigated in the bankruptcy court. At that time, the bankruptcy court, there's only one, that was the one in New York. But, again, that's a pre-petition order. And the only thing I've said is that I am not going to try to stop the sale of the Sherry-Netherland. So that's -- I want to be clear about that. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, may I be heard for a moment? THE COURT: Yes. Go right ahead. MR. FRIEDMAN: It's Peter Friedman on behalf of PAX. I think this highlights that there needs to be a Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 35 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 36 of\n\n| | 111
Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 35 |\n| 1 | resolution of this issue regarding the BVI.
Obviously, |\n| 2 | trustee's position that Bravo Luck is in violation of the |\n| 3 | automatic stay which kind of puts PAX in an extremely |\n| 4 | difficult position.
It does not wish to violate the |\n| 5 | automatic stay, but it can be prejudiced if someone is |\n| 6 | pursuing claims against it in the BVI. |\n| 7 | I'll note that obviously we're in a very different |\n| 8 | situation now.
The claims that PAX is asserting, you know, |\n| 9 | are claims that Mr. Kwok owns an asset, which makes the BVI |\n| 10 | also a difficult place to litigate this claim because |\n| 11 | they're really claims for which the cost ought to be borne |\n| 12 | by the estate as a whole, not PAX.
And PAX really, you |\n| 13 | know, does not want to be in a position where somebody |\n| 14 | accuses it of pursuing claims that are really estate claims. |\n| 15 | And, you know, that puts -- for both of those |\n| 16 | reasons, we would just urge the trustee to come to a |\n| 17 | resolution very quickly of how it is going to bring those |\n| 18 | claims into an appropriate forum so that, again, PAX isn't |\n| 19 | required to incur costs. |\n| 20 | PAX isn't in a position where somebody is going to |\n| 21 | assert (indiscernible) violating the automatic stay either |\n| 22 | under, you know, trying to pursue claims that belong to the |\n| 23 | estate or interfering with assets of the estate.
So we |\n| 24 | really think it's imperative this gets addressed quickly. |\n| | |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nWe agree on both counts with Mr. Despins that we\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 37 of
111 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
36 |\n| 1 | don't think that there is a specific place agreed to as to |\n| 2 | jurisdiction over claims resolving ownership of the Sherry |\n| 3 | Netherland. |\n| 4 | And, again, we also agree that it was a |\n| 5 | stipulation agreed to where at least, in our view, in the |\n| 6 | Genever New York case you really had a faceless debtor that |\n| 7 | had no interest in serving as a neutral fiduciary, which |\n| 8 | forced PAX into asserting claims that we now I think are |\n| 9 | hopeful and believe that we have a fiduciary trustee in |\n| 10 | charge of the Genever estate that's able to pursue claims or |\n| 11 | defenses to claims in a true debtor capacity.
So we |\n| 12 | shouldn't have to be in the middle of that. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Understood.
Thank you. |\n| 14 | MR. FRIEDMAN:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Does anyone else wish to be heard on |\n| 16 | the issue of the cause of action that we've just been |\n| 17 | speaking about? |\n| 18 | (No response) |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Okay.
I note Attorney Friedman's |\n| 20 | concerns and I know parties will take all appropriate |\n| 21 | actions they deem necessary and we'll -- Court will address |\n| 22 | them in due course. |\n| 23 | Right now there's nothing in front of me that is |\n| 24 | -- that I would need to act upon.
But I understand that one |\n| 25 | of the reasons we have these status conferences is to not |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 38 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 37 only update where things stand in the case as a whole, but also to highlight issues that may be coming forth to the Court. And so I think that's appropriate. Parties will file whatever they think is appropriate and there will be an opportunity to object and be heard on all of those issues. So we'll continue to proceed in that manner. With regard to existing orders, again, we'll see where things stand. But I did say and I would -- I did say that I would go back and look at -- I think it's in the record, and both counsel for the debtor and the trustee believe it is, the UBS litigation complaint or bill of particulars. I forget what you said it was called, Trustee Despins. Obviously, I haven't looked at it, but I'll look at that and we'll see where things stand. We're going to have another status conference on September 21st, which is not that far away. And we will, you know, people may file things before that conference, and there may be things that get added to that conference that actually get heard or not. We'll have to -- we'll have to see. But I understand the positions of the parties. Before we turn to the substantive motion that we continued to -- that was continued until today, in which you both filed orders on, there's one matter that I -- it is\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 38 housekeeping from the Court's perspective, but it's an important housekeeping. Again, I know I've said this to all the parties that have been involved in the case from the start, and you're probably tired of hearing it, but because the Court's record, official record, is audio and because there are appeals pending, I think it's important to make sure that the transcript is accurate. In the August 4th transcript of the hearing of the governance motion, which Attorney Henzy has filed a notice of appeal, I've found some things in that transcript that I -- you know, may seem insignificant to all of us, but when you have a district court reviewing the case and know nothing about it, I think the transcript needs to be accurate. So long story short, in the next day or two, I'll submit on the record, you know, the errata sheet that we think has issues. You all have a time to respond. And then we'll get that worked out. Because, as you know, in this case, there's already been, you know, a situation where the transcript was inaccurate and it had a substantive effect of being inaccurate. And I just -- I don't -- I'm not going to proceed to allow a transcript to go forward. And it's not anyone's fault by the way. The court Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 39 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 40 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 39 reporter who transcribes can only do what she can do -- it happens to be a she in this case -- when she hears what she hears. It's an audio, you know, so she does the best she can. But I want the transcript to be accurate. So, in any event, that will be coming for all of you to take a look at. Okay? For example, there's places where somebody cites to Section 353. There is no Section 353. I mean, it was obviously a cite to Section 363. None of us may think that's relevant, but it could be relevant to a district court judge. And so I want that to be corrected. So I don't know if anybody has any questions about that, but that's what I'm going to do. MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. And I'll state outright that I'm the first violator of that rule. So, Luc Despins, Trustee, for the record. The transcript often misstates who is talking. Like they would say Mr. Skalka was talking, but it was Mr. Kindseth or vice -- well, no -- THE COURT: Well, you can make all those corrections. See I don't always pick up on that issue, but I appreciate that you're saying that. I think that should be clear. MR. DESPINS: But my point is that I think we need going forward to always either --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 41 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 40 THE COURT: Say your name when you speak. Yeah. MR. DESPINS: Every time, because otherwise we're going to create this --\n\n THE COURT: I mean, that's the problem. It is the problem from the bankruptcy court's perspective. We're not allowed -- the budget of the Congress does not allow us have a transcriber in the courtroom and so it's the audio recording.\n\n So I understand what you're saying. And I do think that in this case, you know, from the beginning of this case, we asked the debtor's prior counsel to submit a list of names just to get the names right in the transcript. That happened.\n\n People may think this is overkill. And if you do, I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with you because the district court has no idea when they get this case. And they're going to read the words the way that the words are transcribed, even if that is inaccurate. And it's not inaccurate on purpose. At least I don't find that it is. I just think we need to be clear.\n\n So, in any event, you'll see something in the next day or two which will give you all time to review and make whatever changes you feel should be made to the transcript as well.\n\nOkay? Does anybody have any questions about that?\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 41 (No response) THE COURT: Okay. All right. So before -- I was in a hearing at noon. And I know that the parties submitted -- when I say the parties, the Chapter 11 Trustee and counsel for the debtor, submitted, as I asked you to do, orders regarding the motion that I would call the, you know, privilege control motion for lack of a better moniker. We can just call it that. And we had an argument on it last week. Each party made their arguments. Attorney Romney did for the debtor and Mr. Despins and Mr. Bassett for the Chapter 11 Trustee. I haven't had a real chance to study all this. Okay? I did -- I have it in my hands. I have what was filed by the Chapter 11 Trustee at 11:41, and then what was filed by the debtor at 11:51. I haven't looked at them to see how they overlap or anything. Although I think the Chapter 11 Trustee tried to show me that. But I don't know, Mr. Romney, did you happen to look at what the Chapter 11 Trustee submitted in? Is that accurate? I think it would be Exhibit C to the Chapter 11 Trustee's order. Is that the order that you've submitted? MR. ROMNEY: Yes. Aaron Romney, Zeisler & Zeisler, on behalf of the debtor. I looked at it very quickly and I believe there is Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 42 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 43 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 42 only one discrepancy between the redline submitted by counsel for the trustee and that which we ended up filing. To be clear, through absolutely no fault of counsel for the trustee, there was just one addition made due to time constraints. It was sent over to counsel for the trustee shortly before their document was filed or potentially moments after it was filed, shortly before ours was filed. But the one discrepancy between the redline submitted by the trustee and what the debtor actually submitted at docket number 824 is that docket number 24 [sic] has a new paragraph which is now paragraph 11, so the final paragraph before the retention of jurisdiction. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: Which that paragraph states, just for the record, and, again, this is the debtor's proposed language, nothing herein shall purport to impact the rights of any holder of a joint or common interest privilege along with the debtor or the counsel of any such holder to assert its rights with respect to such joint or common interest privilege. THE COURT: Okay. And now with regard to that language, which I don't know what the trustee's position is yet, but I'll ask them in a minute, Mr. Romney, are you saying to the Court -- I just want to make sure because, you\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 44 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 43 know, we haven't talked about this yet today -- that the debtor is prepared to agree that the order submitted at 824, ECF 824, can enter with regard to the privilege motion? MR. ROMNEY: That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. I just want to -- I just want to be sure. Okay. So, Trustee Despins, did you happen to see, or Mr. Bassett, did you happen to see the paragraph 11 that Mr. Romney just talked about on the record that was added to the order he submitted, or I don't know if he submitted, but was submitted on behalf of the debtor at ECF 824? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, it's Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the trustee for the record. I just pulled that up so I do see it. I do see it now. THE COURT: Do you all need time to talk about that? Or do -- you mean, you haven't seen it. I don't think that you've had time to think about it. I have another question regardless of all this, but I do appreciate the parties have made some progress given what we talked about last week. Attorney Romney, you feel that this order addresses some of the concerns that you raised during the hearing last week, correct? MR. ROMNEY: Yes, Your Honor. Aaron Romney.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 45 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 44 I agree with your perception, Your Honor, that both sides put forward a genuine effort. I don't think that either side -- either proposed order submitted by either party, well, certainly speaking for myself, is not the debtor's wish list. It's not our ideal order on this issue, but we did make genuine efforts to get to narrow the issues. There are still some differences, potentially relatively substantial ones, but the parties -- the parties are closer together. And I think they've gone -- they've gone as far as I think each was prepared to go in the spirit of compromise. I will represent to the Court that as late as approximately 7:30 last night Attorney Bassett, Attorney Linsey and myself were on the phone putting our heads together in what I perceived to be genuine efforts to get closer. But as Your Honor will see from the redline and from reading the orders, there are some -- there are some substantive differences between the parties' orders. THE COURT: And the reason I asked the question is are there -- and from -- and the trustee may disagree with you, Mr. Romney, but I want to understand from the debtor's perspective, are there substantive issues in the motion then you believe are still unresolved even if ECF 824 were to enter?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 46 of\n\n| | 111 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
45 |\n| 1 | MR. ROMNEY:
I want to make sure I'm speaking and |\n| 2 | articulating myself correctly. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Go ahead. |\n| 4 | MR. ROMNEY:
The debtor consents to the entry of |\n| 5 | 824 if that answers your question. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
No, it doesn't. |\n| 7 | MR. ROMNEY:
Then I -- |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
My question is when you -- and, again, |\n| 9 | I'm not saying this is easy, right, but you raised a lot of |\n| 10 | issues last week in opposition to the trustee's motion to |\n| 11 | have an order enter saying he owns all the privileges, |\n| 12 | right, that's what the -- that's what the motion is.
You |\n| 13 | raised a lot of issues with regard to that. |\n| 14 | I asked the parties, and you obviously did, and |\n| 15 | the Court appreciates it, to spend time reviewing those |\n| 16 | issues, as you're obligated to do. |\n| 17 | And so what I need to understand is if this order |\n| 18 | enters, 824, are you still going to be arguing about |\n| 19 | privileges?
That's what I need to understand.
And what -- |\n| 20 | and on what basis?
Right?
Because then there has to be |\n| 21 | some kind of a ruling.
That's what I'm trying to figure |\n| 22 | out. |\n| 23 | MR. ROMNEY:
Correct. |\n| 24 | And so with respect -- if docket number 824 |\n| 25 | entered, the only remaining outstanding issues -- and I -- |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 47 of
111 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
46 |\n| 1 | speaking from my own perceptions, I believe this would be |\n| 2 | true if docket number 823 entered too. |\n| 3 | There could still be disputes as to whether a |\n| 4 | particular document fell within a -- within a scope of what |\n| 5 | was ordered as retained by the debtor versus transferred to |\n| 6 | the trustee.
It wouldn't eliminate all of the issues. |\n| 7 | And I don't think it's possible for this court, |\n| 8 | given the applicable standard of a balancing test, to enter |\n| 9 | an order that would preclude disagreements as to which |\n| 10 | bucket something dropped into.
And I think the Court would |\n| 11 | need to resolve those issues as they arose. |\n| 12 | What I can say from my perception, and it's under |\n| 13 | the assumption that all of the professionals who received |\n| 14 | the subpoenas will do their best to both fulfill their duty |\n| 15 | to their clients and comply with the order and in good faith |\n| 16 | attempt to apply it, I think it will substantially reduce |\n| 17 | the amount of discovery disputes that would -- that would |\n| 18 | occur going forward because everyone would have a standard |\n| 19 | to apply, as opposed to a body of law that has different |\n| 20 | standards. |\n| 21 | So does that sense, Your Honor? |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Yes, it does to an extent.
It makes |\n| 23 | sense to a large extent. |\n| 24 | But there's still the issue of from the debtor's |\n| 25 | perspective are there issues raised in the trustee's |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 47 privileges motion that you believe that the Court has to rule on at this time? Assuming one of these orders enters. MR. ROMNEY: I believe that if docket number 824 entered that the debtor's proposed trustee -- that it would address the issues raised in the trustee's motion as well as the debtor's objection. Again, not in a manner that either party would prefer it to be, or certainly not the debtor's ideal, but in the interest of, you know, understanding that there are varying authorities. And, yes, there would be no more issues that I can identify raised by the trustee's motion and the debtor's objection insofar as the debtor certainly is not going to argue that this order would not be applicable. And I believe it covers the issues raised in the trustee's motion and the debtor's objection. THE COURT: Okay. I understand what you're saying. Mr. Despins, do you have anything you want to say with regard to Mr. Romney, what -- the questions I asked Mr. Romney? Do you have any different opinion? MR. DESPINS: Mr. Bassett will handle that. THE COURT: Mr. Bassett. I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, again, it's Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings for the Chapter 11 Trustee. Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 48 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 48 I guess from the debtor's perspective the order that we believe the Court should enter is the order that we filed, docket number 823, Exhibit A. I think -- I think I agree with Mr. Romney that to the extent an order -- to the extent that order is entered, that grants the trustee the relief that he is seeking on this motion. However, I also agree that, you know, there could be privilege issues down the line that the Court still needs to consider. I think those could fall into one of two buckets. You know, the purpose of this order and the motion that we filed is to obtain a ruling from the Court as to the scope of the privileges over which the trustee now has control and, therefore, the debtor is not entitled to assert in responding to discovery. That includes any privileged communications related to assets of the estate, to the debtor's financial condition and to matters involving the post-petition administration of the estate. So it's possible if the -- if the debtor were to respond to our subpoena by listing on a privilege log documents that fall into one of those buckets, then we would have to come back to the Court and I think that would be a violation of this order and we would have to seek to enforce Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 49 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 50 of
111 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
49 |\n| 1 | this order because this order is designed to prevent the |\n| 2 | debtor from doing that. |\n| 3 | Another bucket I think that could exist that could |\n| 4 | generate future disputes as to privileged communications is |\n| 5 | that, as we've made clear in our order, you know, there are |\n| 6 | carve outs designed to address specifically the concerns |\n| 7 | that the debtor has raised concerning privileged |\n| 8 | communications that relate to criminal allegations that have |\n| 9 | been made against him or that relate to his asylum |\n| 10 | application.
And I'm happy to and I'm prepared to walk |\n| 11 | through our changes in more detail. |\n| 12 | But, again, if the debtor were to assert a |\n| 13 | privilege over those documents on a privilege log, then we |\n| 14 | could be back before the Court disputing those privileges |\n| 15 | because the point of the order is to reserve all rights with |\n| 16 | respect to those privileges. |\n| 17 | It could be that the debtor asserts a privilege |\n| 18 | over criminal allegations. Then, you know, we would argue |\n| 19 | that there's a crime fraud exception and we would otherwise |\n| 20 | argue that the document is just not privileged.
So that |\n| 21 | could be back before the Court. |\n| 22 | But to answer the Court's question, if this order |\n| 23 | is entered, it does resolve what we are asking the Court to |\n| 24 | do today. |\n| 25 | And, again, Your Honor, what we filed was a copy |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 50 of our revised proposed order, a redline to the initial order that we had filed with the motion, a redline to Mr. Romney's proposal subject to the new paragraph 11 that he mentioned. And then at the end to the extent it would be helpful as we walk through issues that we have with the debtor's changes, we have an annotated version of their proposed order that I could walk through. So I'm happy to -- I'm happy to walk through our changes as they appear in the redline against the order as filed. I'm also happy to just address the differences between our order and the debtor's order. I'm also happy to answer any questions. I'll proceed however Your Honor would like. THE COURT: Well, when I looked -- as I said to you, to both you and Mr. Romney and everyone else, I've looked at this very quickly. Okay? Understandably. I mean, I asked you to file it by noon and you did that. Unfortunately a hearing at noon went until about five minutes before this hearing so I didn't have enough time to review it as thoroughly as I would normally. But I do have a question that I don't -- I just want to make sure I'm understanding. You say -- I think it says, when I say it, let me -- let me tell you exactly where I am so the record is Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 51 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 52 of\n\n| | 111
Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 51
clear, paragraph 2 on -- let me tell you where we are -- on |\n| | |\n| 2 | page 15 of 24 on 823 says \"The trustee has exclusive control |\n| 3 | of any attorney-client privilege and work product protection |\n| 4 | that could otherwise be asserted by the debtor's counsel.\" |\n| 5 | And that's defined as the trustee privileges.
Okay? |\n| 6 | And that's also in Mr. Romney's version in |\n| 7 | paragraph 2, on page 2 of 4, of ECF 824.
Okay? |\n| 8 | MR. ROMNEY:
I'm sorry, what was the page number, |\n| 9 | Your Honor? |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Which one do you need me to talk to |\n| 11 | you about, Mr. Romney?
Theirs first?
Or yours? |\n| 12 | MR. ROMNEY:
Either one. |\n| 13 | MR. BASSETT:
But, Your Honor -- and, Your Honor, |\n| 14 | Nick Bassett again. |\n| 15 | Just to be clear, I think the document you were |\n| 16 | referring to at page 15 of 24 on ECF 823 -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:
-- that is the redline of the |\n| 19 | debtor's proposal compared to the trustee's proposal showing |\n| 20 | the changes that the debtor wants to make to our proposal. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Understood. |\n| 22 | MR. BASSETT:
Okay. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
That's why I'm saying your document at |\n| 24 | 15 of 24 says the same thing. That's why I'm comparing them, |\n| 25 | this is what the debtor wants, but the debtor is agreeing |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 52 that the trustee has exclusive control over any attorney/client privilege or work product doctrine that could otherwise be asserted by the debtor or his counsel, okay, with respect to documents. Now, documents is a capitalized term but there's no definition for it. And what about the communications with the lawyers that aren't documented, what happens there? MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, the debtor's intention with regard to this was to limit it to documents and that is largely because when we looked at the title, including the original proposed order submitted by the trustee, was that this was an order that was always captioned as applying to documents and that, therefore, our proposed changes -- THE COURT: Mr. Bassett, is that your position, that this order only applies to documents in connection with Rule 2004 subpoenas? MR. BASSETT: That is not our -- Your Honor, again, Nick Bassett. That is not our position. I think it's pretty Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 53 of\n\n clear, if you look at the relief that we're seeking in our motion and you look at the subpoenas that are attached to the Rule 2004 motion and order, we are, of course, seeking both document discovery and depositions from the parties subject to the 2004 orders.\n\nAnd we think it's critically important that this\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 54 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 53 order resolve privilege issues that apply both to documents subject to production, as well as to information that may be obtained via deposition testimony. I think otherwise we're just, you know, not making enough progress as we can. We're only going to end up back before the court on issues related to deposition testimony that could otherwise be resolved by this order. THE COURT: Mr. Romney? MR. BASSETT: And to -- THE COURT: Oh, sorry, go ahead. MR. BASSETT: And to be clear, Your Honor, you know, the scope -- the scope of the privilege is the same, right? I mean, there's no -- there's no reason it would be different and we're not asking for it to be different. The scope of the privilege that passes to the trustee is that which is set forth in our proposed order. It's just applied equally to depo testimony and to documents. THE COURT: Well, the reason I'm asking the question is I only see the word \"documents\". And it's not - - and it's capitalized and it's not a defined term. And I didn't think -- MR. BASSETT: So I -- THE COURT: -- or I should put in, I thought that the trustee was asking for an order to have the Court determine that the privileges, whatever the debtor's\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 54 privileges are, are now the trustee's and that they weren't limited to documents produced in accordance with a subpoena. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may? I think there's confusion here. That document you're looking at is our order with their changes -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. DESPINS: -- so the document thing is not what we want. THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: We want -- we don't want documents. That's their change. THE COURT: Right. No. I understand that. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: I understand that. That's why I'm asking the question. That's why I asked Mr. Romney the question that I asked him, which is do you believe that this order, if I were to enter the order that he submitted resolves all the issues? I understand, Mr. Despins. That's why I'm saying. So we still have a disagreement on whether or not the -- or do we have a disagreement that the debtor's privileges pass to the trustee, whatever privileges that the debtor may have outside from these documents and the Rule 2004 subpoenas. MR. ROMNEY: I want to make sure I -- Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 55 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 56 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 55 THE COURT: Here's what -- maybe I should ask a better question. Maybe it's my problem and I'm not framing it properly. What I want to know, and why I asked you what you thought was resolved or unresolved, is am I going to continue to have hearings after hearings about whether the privilege applies, whether the trustee can exercise the debtor's privilege? And I think what you're saying is yes. And that's okay if that's what you're saying. I want to understand it. I may not agree with you, but that's what I'm -- I'm trying to understand. Right now it seems as though we're limiting this privilege issue to these subpoenas that were issued in connection with 2004 Examinations. I don't think the trustee thinks that, but I think you think that. I just want to make sure I understand your position. Because otherwise in my -- it seems to me that if you're saying that you'll -- and I don't mean you, Mr. Romney -- MR. ROMNEY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- I'm saying on behalf of the debtor, that you'll agree to this order being entered, but it's only with regard to documents that only relate to these Rule 2004 subpoenas, then I think you are saying what I am saying, which is you're only agreeing to it in the limited scope.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 57 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 56 And I'm not sure if that makes -- I'm not sure if that makes the most sense that we do this on a piecemeal basis. And I'm not saying you agree with me. And I'm not saying you should have to. You don't have to agree with me. I am speaking out loud given what I've looked at for five minutes before this hearing, right, and my review of your order, the order submitted on behalf of the debtor, that the debtor would agree can enter, at least initially, and you can convince me that I'm wrong, looks like it's limited to these subpoenas and the -- and the production of documents. And if it is, then I just want to understand that. I want to make sure I understand your client's perspective. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, I think that that is an accurate read of the proposed order that the debtor submitted. I believe that change was made in response to our read of the caption of the document which we understood to state that it was with regard to Rule 2004 subpoenaed documents and the directing that the debtor and other examinees not withhold documents on account of such privileges. We were tracking the order to relate to that caption of the proposed order. Now, there's other -- the prong granting related relief, which on its face, I don't know what that means.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 58 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 57 I will, in all candor, say that this particular issue, meaning the -- that we're discussing right now, the documents on the one hand versus documents information as it's characterized in the trustee's proposed order, that was not one of the issues that we discussed during our telephone meet and confer last night. I wish we had only because I'm saying, and I don't want to say anything out of turn here without communicating with anybody else on our side of the fence, as I stand here right now. 11 I imagine the parties would be able to work out that issue because I do agree that with respect to a privilege on a particular issue, I can't articulate a basis as I stand here why the privilege would transfer with respect to a document and not a communication on the identical subject if that makes sense. THE COURT: Okay. Yes, it does. Because that's part of my question, right? It's the privilege transfers, whatever it is, it transfers. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about a communication or a document or at least from the perspective of the Court at this point, that's the perspective. That's why I'm asking the question. Because me, when I looked at your order, your proposed order, Attorney Romney, it seemed much more pointed than what I just said. It seemed to only apply to documents\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 59 of\n\n| | 111 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
58 |\n| 1 | that were subject of subpoenas and that's why I raised the |\n| 2 | concern because I don't want us -- I don't think it makes |\n| 3 | sense for any of us to spend time having hearing after |\n| 4 | hearing about whether the privilege applies to a document or |\n| 5 | a communication. |\n| 6 | Now, you still have rights to assert whatever |\n| 7 | you're going to assert, right, with regard to subpoenas? |\n| 8 | People still -- nobody's filed motions to quash yet that I'm |\n| 9 | aware of.
Maybe that's coming.
You know, I don't know. |\n| 10 | We'll see. |\n| 11 | But it's one of the reasons why I said the other |\n| 12 | day rightfully or wrong -- I might be right or wrong why I |\n| 13 | think this motion that the trustee filed is related to the |\n| 14 | issue on appeal from the governance motion, which is who has |\n| 15 | the privilege? |\n| 16 | And I understand, and Attorney Henzy can be heard |\n| 17 | on it if he wants to be heard. I understand the point that |\n| 18 | Attorney Henzy has raised on the appeal that he believes |\n| 19 | that the governance order compels disclosure of information |\n| 20 | and that you can't do that.
No court can do that. |\n| 21 | But you could also argue that if that's the issue, |\n| 22 | if the issue that Attorney Henzy is raising on appeal, and |\n| 23 | he has raised on appeal, is the compel disclosure, it's |\n| 24 | almost as if you've already jumped over the issue of whether |\n| 25 | Mr. Kwok actually has a privilege to assert anymore even in |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 60 of
111 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
59 |\n| 1 | the U.K. litigation.
Okay? |\n| 2 | And I understand the arguments about the U.K. law |\n| 3 | may be different or whatever, but I don't know that because |\n| 4 | nobody's put anything in front of me to say it is different. |\n| 5 | I've seen cases that you both have attached to |\n| 6 | your, you know, submissions, but the issue about the |\n| 7 | privilege and who has the right to exercise the privilege |\n| 8 | has not been ruled on yet by this court and that's what I'm |\n| 9 | asking you. |\n| 10 | Is that what you want or do you want -- or do you |\n| 11 | want to proceed -- and I'm not -- piecemeal is not a -- I'm |\n| 12 | not using that term as if it's a -- you're doing something |\n| 13 | wrong, so just let me -- maybe that's not the best word. You |\n| 14 | want to proceed incrementally.
I don't know that it makes |\n| 15 | sense to proceed incrementally. |\n| 16 | And I think their motion -- I think the trustee -- |\n| 17 | I think the trustee's motion is seeking broader relief than |\n| 18 | what this -- and I'm not saying you think it doesn't, but |\n| 19 | your order narrows the relief.
Again, there's nothing wrong |\n| 20 | with that.
That's the position you take.
You have |\n| 21 | absolutely every right to take that position. |\n| 22 | MR. ROMNEY:
That is correct, Your Honor.
The |\n| 23 | proposed order, docket number 824, would narrow the proposed |\n| 24 | relief that the trustee sought through the -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
And so it's my fault that maybe I |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 60 didn't ask the question very artfully at the beginning of this, but that was my point. So do you think that there's still unresolved issues in the trustee's motion? And your answer is yes, because they're seeking broader relief than you're agreeing to that they're entitled to have. MR. ROMNEY: Correct. And there are substantive differences between 823 and 824. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. ROMNEY: I guess I interpreted the question of if, you know, 824 were to enter, it would be an order of this court. And the debtor and the debtor's professionals would do their -- would do their best to follow it because it would be an order of a court. THE COURT: Understood. I understand. But, no, that's why I asked you did you believe all the issues were resolved? And maybe I just didn't ask the question as well as I could have. MR. ROMNEY: Well, I believe it would resolve them in the sense of the Court would be ordering some things that the trustee's motion sought and it would be denying some things that the trustee -- THE COURT: Well, but, it doesn't say anywhere that it denies it. See, that's the point. It just says it's granted in part. It doesn't say that the rest of the Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 61 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 61 relief that the trustee sought is denied. And that's where -- again, I'm telling you, I spent five minutes on this, okay? So just, you know, I could be completely wrong about everything I'm saying, but I'm telling you your language is -- what you changed it -- I think the trustee had -- the motion is granted to the extent of or the -- you know, in the way that whatever follows. And yours was it was granted in part as set forth herein. It doesn't say that the rest of the relief that the trustee was seeking is denied. MR. ROMNEY: Well, I suppose that was inartful drafting on my part. THE COURT: No, it doesn't -- I'm not sure it's inartful drafting. I'm just saying I need to figure out what it is you want me to do. Right? You need -- you want me to say it's granted to the extent that you agree to and denied, and there's nothing wrong with that -- and denied, all the other relief should be denied. MR. ROMNEY: I suppose that's correct. The way this was drafted was it had -- it had new provisions that entitled expressly the debtor to retain the right to control the privilege with respect to certain issues, and so I suppose implicitly -- THE COURT: I don't think anybody disputes that, Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 62 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 63 of\n\n| | 111 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
62 |\n| 1 | right?
I think there's one thing we can agree on, at least |\n| 2 | I think, is I don't think anyone is disputing, at least I |\n| 3 | haven't heard, even from the trustee -- and Mr. Bassett, |\n| 4 | you'll have to correct me -- I don't think anyone is |\n| 5 | disputing that the privilege, the trustee's agreeing that |\n| 6 | he's not going to exercise the privilege with regard to the |\n| 7 | asylum issue and with regard to the tort issues that someone |\n| 8 | has raised in different -- with regard to -- and I forget |\n| 9 | the language here, but I have to find it -- with regard to |\n| 10 | these allegations of serious personal torts occurring |\n| 11 | without, you know, having to state them all, right? |\n| 12 | And that -- and that nothing's going to impact the |\n| 13 | debtor's right against his Fifth Amendment right.
I think |\n| 14 | everybody agrees to that, I believe.
I think that's the |\n| 15 | trustee's position. |\n| 16 | But with regard to everything else, other than |\n| 17 | those carve outs, the trustee's position is that he has the |\n| 18 | privilege.
He can exercise the privilege.
I think you |\n| 19 | don't agree with that. |\n| 20 | And I think Mr. Henzy, I don't know if I'm right |\n| 21 | on this, but I know Mr. Henzy definitely felt that that |\n| 22 | letter compelled disclosure. |\n| 23 | And my point about that issue was if Mr. Kwok |\n| 24 | doesn't hold the privilege, there's nothing -- he's not |\n| 25 | being compelled to do anything. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 63 All he was doing was sending a letter saying can you cooperate with -- cooperate with the trustee because the trustee's now appointed. Now, I know Attorney Henzy doesn't agree with that. I'm not suggesting he does. But that's why I'm saying I think they are related, these two matters are related, and we have to decide what -- and you -- and I could be wrong in whatever decision I make. If I disagree with you, then you have a right to appeal it. If I disagree with the trustee, then they have a right to appeal it. And when you talk about it -- and you're right, Attorney Romney, that the law, at least as far as I've seen, is not conclusive on these issues, on the individual bankruptcy debtor regardless of chapter by the way, right? It's not as etched in stone as it could be with regard to the trustee's right to exercise the privilege in an individual bankruptcy case. And, you know, we can go through that. I've looked very carefully at what both of you have cited on those issues. And my point is, I think, you know, if you -- you want me to say without -- I don't think this order clearly says that you want me to deny that the trustee has the right to those other -- that other scope of the privilege, that the scope is only going to be what Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 64 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 64 you've agreed to in this order. And then anything else we're going to have to fight about in the future. Which is -- I'm not saying that's wrong either. I'm just trying to understand your position so that I'm clear if I rule, and I rule one way or another, that I'm ruling appropriately. MR. ROMNEY: So the language in proposed paragraph 2 in the debtor's order, docket number -- THE COURT: In 824? MR. ROMNEY: In 824. Is while the first portion of the phrase, similar if not identical in the debtor's and the trustee's, the Romanettes as to what we are agreeing, the language in the Romanettes I, II, III, are materially different in the debtor's proposed -- materially narrower in the debtor's proposed order. And I will say that the reason why they're narrower is taking in mind that despite the somewhat murky case law on this issue, the majority of the case law, while applying this standard differently, does try to balance the trustee's legitimate interest in administering the estate and identifying the assets with the individual debtor's, you know, privilege and the, you know, interest in free communications between attorneys and clients, as well as the fact that there are some issues that the individual debtor Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 65 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 66 of\n\n| | 111
Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | 65
could be discussing with counsel that simply don't relate to |\n| | |\n| 2 | the discharge of the trustee's duties in administering the |\n| 3 | estate.
For example, the asylum application, which it's not |\n| 4 | an asset.
It's different. |\n| 5 | So to highlight the differences in the language |\n| 6 | with the Court, understanding that it's only had these |\n| 7 | orders for less than I think 15 seconds was the Court's |\n| 8 | language on the record, was rather than saying the trustee |\n| 9 | has the right to control the privilege on anything |\n| 10 | concerning assets without regard to anything else, because |\n| 11 | documents could concern assets and they could concern |\n| 12 | something else. Documents concerning assets could have |\n| 13 | issues in other proceedings such as dischargeability. |\n| 14 | And what this language said was documents that are |\n| 15 | sufficient to identify the debtor's bankruptcy estate's |\n| 16 | assets, you know, are necessary to identify the debtor's |\n| 17 | estate's liabilities and relate solely to the administration |\n| 18 | of the estate. |\n| 19 | Now, I could -- one could disagree what exactly |\n| 20 | that -- whether a particular document applies to that |\n| 21 | standard or doesn't, but the point is is that once -- once |\n| 22 | sufficient information, privileged or not, has been provided |\n| 23 | to the trustee to administer its duties, to identify assets, |\n| 24 | to identify liabilities, and to effectively prosecute causes |\n| 25 | of action that are assets of the estate, then that is |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 67 of\n\n| | 111 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
66 |\n| 1 | satisfying the trustee's legitimate interest in doing the |\n| 2 | job that this court appointed him to do and that, therefore, |\n| 3 | further documentation, privileged documentation, would not |\n| 4 | need to be produced by the debtor or the debtor's |\n| 5 | professionals. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
That's helpful.
But what about |\n| 7 | when they look at a document, say Trustee Despins gets a |\n| 8 | document and it says Verdolino and Lowey, because we talked |\n| 9 | about them today, we'll just bring them up, had a discussion |\n| 10 | with the debtor about how to characterize an asset, they -- |\n| 11 | I think what you're saying is that the trustee doesn't get a |\n| 12 | right to go talk to Verdolino and Lowey and talk about the |\n| 13 | discussions that Mr. Kwok had with Verdolino and Lowey.
Is |\n| 14 | that what you're saying? |\n| 15 | MR. ROMNEY:
I think that's what document 824 |\n| 16 | says.
And, again, that was -- meaning insofar as it |\n| 17 | contains the word document, not documents or information. |\n| 18 | Is that -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
Or communications.
It doesn't |\n| 20 | have to be a document. |\n| 21 | MR. ROMNEY:
Court documents or -- |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Verdolino and Lowey could be deposed, |\n| 23 | right? |\n| 24 | MR. ROMNEY:
Correct. |\n| 25 | And as I intended to articulate, that language, |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 68 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 67 the reference to documents, was tying in the order to the -- to what we perceived to be the caption of the order insofar as it referred to subpoenaed documents and not withholding documents and, therefore, our proposed order tracked that language. THE COURT: I understand. But I want to get to the heart of the matter, which is I don't want to do this every time there's a controversy, right? Or if we do, if that's what's going to happen, I want to know that's what's going to happen in advance, right? I don't want to enter an order that I think does one thing and you think does something other than that. So the issue is, as you said already, and I think you're correct, that how could it be that the trustee would succeed to the privileges with regard to documents and not with regard to communications? MR. ROMNEY: I don't think I asked the question, but I did acknowledge that I couldn't answer the question, if that distinction is one without a difference. THE COURT: Well, I'm trying to figure out how we should proceed. And right now this was a continued hearing on the trustee's motion to have this court determine that he holds all the privileges of the debtor. My understanding of that motion was that even though the trustee wants that order, he would agree to carve\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 68 out anything with regard to the asylum issue, anything with regard to these alleged tort issues and, obviously, with regard to the Fifth Amendment. I mean, he was -- he's not asserting and never has asserted that he's going to exercise that right. MR. ROMNEY: Yeah. Well, there is a discrepancy, as I read the orders on the -- what I would describe as tort issue. THE COURT: Well, I -- I mean -- MR. ROMNEY: Yeah. THE COURT: -- I'm talking about the allegations of rape and things like that. I don't know what those are about, but that's what's been put forth, right, in this -- in the record of this case. Before the trustee was even appointed there were people that said that they -- these causes of action were out there. Those creditors filed motions in this case. They said a lot of things, obviously, none of which have been substantiated in this court at this point and maybe never will be. Okay? So that's what I'm talking about when I'm talking -- I'm talking about some of the alleged very difficult to discuss torts, not, you know, if there was some other -- like maybe you claimed the -- I don't even know. As you know, I didn't read the UBS complaint. Is Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 69 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 70 of
111 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
69 |\n| 1 | there a tort cause of action in that including a breach of |\n| 2 | contract?
I don't know.
There might be.
I have no idea. |\n| 3 | Right? |\n| 4 | But my point is is that I -- while there's no |\n| 5 | question that you all have worked hard to try to narrow the |\n| 6 | scope of this disagreement, I need to understand if there's |\n| 7 | still a disagreement, and I think there is. |\n| 8 | I think there's still a disagreement from the |\n| 9 | debtor's point -- standpoint, that the trustee controls all |\n| 10 | of the privileges regardless of the 2004 motions and |\n| 11 | subpoenas. |\n| 12 | MR. ROMNEY:
There is -- the trustee and the |\n| 13 | debtor don't agree -- have an agreed stipulated order on |\n| 14 | this.
And what I mean by that is the material difference |\n| 15 | between 823 and 824. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 17 | MR. ROMNEY:
So there still is a -- there still is |\n| 18 | -- the Court would have to still pick a side in terms of |\n| 19 | somebody's -- somebody's getting what they're, you know, |\n| 20 | what they're willing to live with and somebody else is |\n| 21 | getting what they're willing to live with. |\n| 22 | And I chose those words rather than somebody's |\n| 23 | getting what they want and the other person's getting what |\n| 24 | they want -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I understand. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 70 MR. ROMNEY: -- because both of these reflect a compromise. THE COURT: I understand. MR. ROMNEY: But the answer is yes. I think that there could be unresolved issues following the application of either order. I suppose -- and I think the intention from both sides was to narrow the scope of those potential future issues to the extent -- and perhaps maybe it is, maybe it was wishful thinking and maybe the better approach is to deal with this on a subpoena by subpoena basis, because I can't stand here today and say that with any degree of certainty that either of these proposed orders will resolve privilege related discovery down the road. THE COURT: Okay. That's fair. I appreciate the response. Okay. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I -- if I may be heard on this briefly? THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: I'll take the blame for this, but it's not fair to put you in this position where with five minutes' notice you have to go through these orders. Yes, I would like the order to be entered three days ago, but that's not going to happen. And it's not Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 71 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 72 of
111 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
71 |\n| 1 | going to be entered today because it shouldn't be entered |\n| 2 | today because I want Your Honor to have a clear picture of |\n| 3 | what's happening. |\n| 4 | I believe, Mr. Bassett may correct me if I'm |\n| 5 | wrong, there's no more than ten issues that I could put on a |\n| 6 | list of differences. |\n| 7 | And this is like the game we used to play when we |\n| 8 | were kids called Battleship where, you know, I'm shooting, I |\n| 9 | don't know where the submarine is, but they know. |\n| 10 | And so everything that, all those changes, if you |\n| 11 | see them -- just, for example, they deleted or any related |\n| 12 | privilege or protection.
They're telling you they're going |\n| 13 | to hang their hat on that.
I don't know why or how.
Or, |\n| 14 | for example, when they say that they deleted actual or |\n| 15 | potential causes of action, so it's only a cause of action. |\n| 16 | So, therefore, it's potential, no discovery. |\n| 17 | Also they've added the word necessary, necessary |\n| 18 | to identify.
So they will argue, I guarantee you, that it's |\n| 19 | not necessary for us to get this to identify causes of |\n| 20 | action.
This is a Battleship game, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | And I think I would like to put on a piece of |\n| 22 | paper ten open issues and for Your Honor to have time to |\n| 23 | digest this, because at the end of the day, you know, let's |\n| 24 | remember who we're dealing with here and go back to |\n| 25 | Ostrager, you know, basically first steps. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 73 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 72 You know, we know they're good at this. They did it for four years in front of Ostrager. And this is all about this, meaning live another day so I can object to the production of documents another day and we'll be back in front of Your Honor every week. And that's what the purpose of that is. Of course, we're trying to avoid that. But my point is that there's probably ten points maximum on this. You should have them in a bullet point before hearing, not five minutes before the hearing. And as I said, I'll take the hit for that. THE COURT: Well, I set that time frame so it's not -- I set that time frame. MR. DESPINS: No. But I -- THE COURT: I did it because I thought we would have more time this morning before the hearing at 1 o'clock. And I continued this, so I don't think it's -- I think it's -- I understand what you're saying, but I said why don't you both submit an order within an hour of the hearing. And it just didn't happen that I had time to look at it. So, you know, I don't think the blame lies -- I don't think there's an issue of blame. It was an issue of trying to advance the ball with enough time and there wasn't enough time. But what I'm hearing is that the debtor -- and I do appreciate the parties talking and trying to resolve the\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 74 of
111 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
73 |\n| 1 | issue, but I don't think there is a resolution. |\n| 2 | MR. DESPINS:
There won't be. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
I think there is not a resolution.
I |\n| 4 | think that the resolution that I was wondering if could be |\n| 5 | reached can't -- I guess can't be reached.
And that's fine. |\n| 6 | If that doesn't happen, it doesn't happen.
Then we'll have |\n| 7 | to rule accordingly. |\n| 8 | But I think that at least the way, Attorney |\n| 9 | Romney, I read the order that you submitted at ECF 824 is |\n| 10 | that it's limited to the documents and it's limited to these |\n| 11 | 2004 examination and subpoenas.
And I don't know that I |\n| 12 | think that makes -- I don't know yet, but I don't know that |\n| 13 | I think that makes sense. |\n| 14 | I mean, the debtor -- the case law is not clear. |\n| 15 | And, you know, it may be that I have to rule so you guys can |\n| 16 | appeal.
Maybe that's what has to happen.
Maybe you go |\n| 17 | direct appeal to the Second Circuit and you say, look, |\n| 18 | there's no controlling case law here.
We need to have it. |\n| 19 | The trustee needs -- the trustee may be the person who wants |\n| 20 | to appeal.
Who knows? |\n| 21 | But how else am I going to be able to rule on |\n| 22 | these pivotal issues in this estate to allow the trustee to |\n| 23 | do his investigation to determine whether or not there's |\n| 24 | anything here for creditors if there's a disagreement on the |\n| 25 | privilege. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 75 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 74 I'm not suggesting you don't have the right to disagree. You absolutely do. And you have the right to do whatever you think is appropriate under the law. But I just don't know how. What are we going to do? I don't think incremental steps makes sense. I think there has to be a definitive way that this is going to be dealt with. And unfortunately for all of us, in my opinion, there is no clear law. I couldn't find any. You all didn't bring any. You haven't brought anything before me that says it doesn't pass to the trustee. 12 You haven't brought anything to me, before me, because there isn't, that says automatically it passes to the trustee in the individual case. The only case that talks about it in the bankruptcy context, aside from all the other cases that you've cited, is the *Weintraub* case that talks about a corporate transfer of the -- of the privilege to the trustee in 1986. And then they didn't address what would happen in an individual case. They purposefully didn't address it, okay, the Supreme Court. And where's -- there's no circuit case. Where's the circuit case? There's nothing here that's controlling. So every single time we do this, we could have another appeal, we could have another appeal, we could have\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 76 of\n\n| | 111 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
75 |\n| 1 | another appeal.
It doesn't make sense, to me anyway.
And |\n| 2 | maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't make sense. |\n| 3 | MR. BASSETT:
I suppose -- |\n| 4 | MR. ROMNEY
Your Honor -- I apologize. |\n| 5 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, it's Nick Bassett from |\n| 6 | Paul Hastings on behalf of the trustee. |\n| 7 | I think we certainly agree with that sentiment |\n| 8 | insofar as the objective of this motion and our proposed |\n| 9 | order, the revised proposed order, is to give as much |\n| 10 | guidance to the parties and set parameters that will |\n| 11 | eliminate the need as much as possible for future disputes |\n| 12 | as to privilege. |\n| 13 | And I think the language, and we don't need to |\n| 14 | belabor it, Mr. Despins addressed it, Mr. Romney addressed |\n| 15 | it, but the language that the debtor has added to paragraph |\n| 16 | 2 of it's proposed order I think would kind of do the |\n| 17 | opposite in that it, you know, including the word necessary, |\n| 18 | which would give all kinds of grounds for disputes and, you |\n| 19 | know, would allow the debtor to make judgments as to what |\n| 20 | documents he thinks are necessary for the trustee to |\n| 21 | identify potential assets of the estate.
You know, that |\n| 22 | kind of language I think is just a recipe for all kinds of |\n| 23 | sorts of disputes. |\n| 24 | What we tried to do with our proposed order -- and |\n| 25 | I don't disagree with the Court that there is no binding |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 77 of\n\n| | 111 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
76 |\n| 1 | Second Circuit authority on this question -- but I do think, |\n| 2 | as we tried to marshal in our papers and talk about at last |\n| 3 | week's hearing, there are many bankruptcy cases out there |\n| 4 | that have tried to address the issue of the individual |\n| 5 | privileges passing to a trustee in the wake of Weintraub. |\n| 6 | And I think the overwhelming majority of those |\n| 7 | cases and the clear trend of the case law is to say that the |\n| 8 | trustee passes when the privilege relates to efforts by the |\n| 9 | trustee to identify estate assets, to investigate the |\n| 10 | debtor's financial condition, and certainly with respect to |\n| 11 | any post-petition matters affecting the administration of |\n| 12 | his estate prior to the appointment of a trustee. |\n| 13 | And that is exactly how we tried to craft our |\n| 14 | revised proposed order is to track those categories in that |\n| 15 | weight of the case law and then to also make clear to |\n| 16 | address the debtor's concerns that he is still able to |\n| 17 | assert privileges over documents related to criminal |\n| 18 | allegations or to his asylum application but are not related |\n| 19 | to those four -- to those three categories that I just |\n| 20 | mentioned. |\n| 21 | So to address the particular comment that Attorney |\n| 22 | Romney made, I think he said, you know, there may be a |\n| 23 | document that talks about estate assets, but it also, you |\n| 24 | know, is a privileged communication related to criminal |\n| 25 | allegations against the debtor, you know, that have been |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 78 of
111 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
77 |\n| 1 | brought to the Court's attention in this case, and that type |\n| 2 | of document. |\n| 3 | The debtor would still be able to assert the |\n| 4 | privilege related to any discussion about the criminal |\n| 5 | allegations, so I don't think that's a concern. |\n| 6 | But, again, I just wanted to respond to some of |\n| 7 | the points that have come up during the discussion Attorney |\n| 8 | Romney and to clarify, you know, sort of our perspective on |\n| 9 | what makes the most sense here and what we were trying to |\n| 10 | accomplish with our order. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Understood.
Thank you. |\n| 12 | And I do -- I do appreciate the efforts of the |\n| 13 | parties in seeing what you can -- what you could do.
And |\n| 14 | you obviously spent time, and that's important, but I don't |\n| 15 | -- I do not see that there's an agreement. |\n| 16 | And so I don't know that it makes sense to enter |\n| 17 | either one of these orders at the moment.
I have to think |\n| 18 | about it.
I have to figure out whether or not I have to |\n| 19 | just issue a ruling and then let you both decide what you |\n| 20 | want to do. |\n| 21 | I mean, the problem is, if I enter -- if I enter |\n| 22 | the Chapter 11 Trustee's order, you're going to appeal it. |\n| 23 | I know that.
We all know that. And if I enter your order, I |\n| 24 | think the Chapter 11 Trustee is going to appeal it. |\n| 25 | So I -- you know, I'm searching for you to tell me |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 79 of
111 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
78 |\n| 1 | some other way to proceed, but it's a pivotal issue in the |\n| 2 | case right now. |\n| 3 | I mean, without a determination as to where this |\n| 4 | goes, I don't know how -- I don't know how we won't be here |\n| 5 | every week arguing about the same thing.
Not the same |\n| 6 | thing.
I mean, in general the issue, not what might be with |\n| 7 | regard to a different document request or testimony in a |\n| 8 | 2004 Examination or whatever, but that was my -- that's my |\n| 9 | concern. |\n| 10 | MR. ROMNEY:
And, Your Honor, the difficult thing |\n| 11 | obviously with privilege issues is, once the -- you know, |\n| 12 | once the privileged document is out and about, you know, |\n| 13 | it's kind of hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube, |\n| 14 | particularly in a situation such as this where it seems that |\n| 15 | the debtor's position and the trustee's position are very |\n| 16 | different from each other on many things. |\n| 17 | We keep discussing Judge Ostrager's decision, |\n| 18 | which obviously had some choice words about the debtor, |\n| 19 | though in many respects wasn't really relevant to the issue |\n| 20 | before the Court. |\n| 21 | But my point here is that we have a situation |\n| 22 | where we have a trustee, and I'm not casting judgment or |\n| 23 | placing -- I'm trying to state an objective view of the |\n| 24 | situation. We have a trustee who is, if not already |\n| 25 | technically, likely to be in an adversarial position with |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 80 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 79 the debtor. And that's different for many cases where it's easier to apply what is necessary -- what is balanced between the trustee, you know, administering the estate and protecting the debtor's interest against, you know, protecting his or her privileged information. And maybe the answer is unfortunately that this does need to be dealt with, you know, as issues arise regarding particular documents because the standard is murky. I think both sides did their best to try and come up with something that balances the competing interests here, but the reality is in a case like this they're competing interests and sometimes it's hard to balance competing interests. So, as I said, the debtor is -- has submitted 824. It's something it would consent to. The debtor certainly is not waiving its right to appeal anything else though it's not something I'm prepared to, you know, state one way or another. And, you know, the only other point I would like to add, obviously, as the Court has pointed out, the parties are not in agreement. They've each -- they've each presented narrowed, but still competing orders. The Court is the Court. The Court's job is to\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 81 of
111 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
80 |\n| 1 | decide the dispute.
And there is still a dispute before the |\n| 2 | Court. |\n| 3 | To the extent that the Court were otherwise |\n| 4 | inclined to enter 824, but the issue is that it refers to |\n| 5 | documents and not documents and communications and |\n| 6 | information, that would certainly be within the Court's |\n| 7 | right if that were the Court's major concern with document |\n| 8 | 824. |\n| 9 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Anything -- |\n| 11 | MR. BASSETT:
-- Nick Bassett again for the |\n| 12 | trustee. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Go ahead. |\n| 14 | MR. BASSETT:
I guess I would just say to go back |\n| 15 | to the comments that Your Honor was making earlier, I do |\n| 16 | think it is -- it is clear that we are -- we have not |\n| 17 | reached an agreement on a proposed order and there are |\n| 18 | issues that I think have created a gap that cannot be |\n| 19 | bridged.
So the Court has our proposed order and the |\n| 20 | debtor's proposed order. |\n| 21 | And, you know, as Mr. Despins said I think you can |\n| 22 | distill down the remaining points of disagreement into, you |\n| 23 | know, a dozen or so.
If you look at Exhibit B to what we |\n| 24 | filed, we tried to flag those and provide sort of the key |\n| 25 | issues that we have with the remaining areas of |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 81 disagreement. So, you know, from my perspective, I think that is where we are. The Court has two orders. We think that the order we proposed is both consistent with the case law and will most appropriately give the parties the instruction that they need to proceed with discovery in the case. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, Irve Goldman for the committee. I just didn't want our silence to be taken as being a neutral bystander, which we're not. We're in favor of the trustee's proposed order for a couple of reasons, which he's mentioned some of them. I do think that their proposed order that was advanced by the debtor provides too much of a window of opportunity to resist further discovery. And I think that if past history is any indication, meaning the litigation that took place before Judge Ostrager, that is likely to happen with the type of malleable language that they've used in their order. The trustee mentioned the word \"necessary,\" that whatever might be necessary to discovery of assets. I can envision an argument that it's not necessary for the trustee to obtain certain information because it might be easier to Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 82 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 83 of
111 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
82 |\n| 1 | get it elsewhere.
That shouldn't be the result here.
And |\n| 2 | so I think that word -- that word should at a minimum be |\n| 3 | removed. |\n| 4 | The other problem that we have is this word |\n| 5 | \"solely\" that they introduced, that the information can only |\n| 6 | relate to documents that are solely related to the |\n| 7 | administration of the case. |\n| 8 | Well, a document could certainly have dual |\n| 9 | purposes and yet that invites an argument that it's not |\n| 10 | solely, doesn't solely relate to the administration of the |\n| 11 | case.
That's an absurd result. |\n| 12 | And on the issue of -- in that regard, a document |\n| 13 | could relate to criminal activity.
For example, under 18 |\n| 14 | U.S.C., Section 157, it's a bankruptcy crime to conceal and |\n| 15 | misrepresent assets in a bankruptcy case. |\n| 16 | So I can envision a document that might provide |\n| 17 | evidence of that.
It clearly also relates to the |\n| 18 | administration of the estate.
Yet it could invite an |\n| 19 | objection that they're trying to reserve with their proposed |\n| 20 | order, which I think is improper. |\n| 21 | So for those reasons we support the trustee's |\n| 22 | proposed order. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 24 | Does anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
As a final word, Your Honor, Luc |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 83 Despins, Trustee. Would it make sense -- obviously for Your Honor to review this, which you will, but to have an adjourned hearing so we can address any open questions you may have, Because as Mr. Bassett said there's probably 10, 12 issues. I think they're cut and dry from our perspective. And you may rule against us on some of them. But the point is I think it might be beneficial too. And I know your docket is very full, but if we could adjourn it to a date not too far in the future, I think that would be great. THE COURT: What kind of time frame are you thinking? Later this week or early next week? MR. DESPINS: You mean how long the hearing would be or -- THE COURT: No. When would you like to adjourn it to? Are you talking, you know, later this week or early next week? MR. DESPINS: If Your Honor has time, let's say on Thursday or Friday of this week. Whatever will allow the Court enough time to really review and have a -- I'm sure, knowing you, that you'll have a series of questions. And I think that whatever gives you enough time to do that we're prepared to roll with that. THE COURT: I'm just looking at the calendar. Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 84 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 85 of
111 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
84 |\n| 1 | (Pause) |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
So, Mr. Despins, if you're going to |\n| 3 | file this document that shows, you know, a bullet point of |\n| 4 | the differences, when can you do that?
How quickly could |\n| 5 | you do that? |\n| 6 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes.
I'm looking for Mr. Bassett |\n| 7 | for an answer. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Mr. Bassett, how quickly could you do |\n| 9 | that? |\n| 10 | MR. BASSETT:
Your Honor, it's Nick Bassett. |\n| 11 | We could do that today.
If not today, you know, |\n| 12 | tomorrow certainly. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
I don't -- I don't think it needs to |\n| 14 | be done today.
We have another hearing at 3 o'clock.
So, I |\n| 15 | mean, I think -- |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
By 10 o'clock tomorrow I'm sure. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
You could do it by noon tomorrow.
I |\n| 18 | don't have to have it by 10:00 a.m. |\n| 19 | But what I'm going to do is, I will continue this |\n| 20 | hearing one last time to Monday, the 12th of September.
And |\n| 21 | I can -- I will -- actually, because we've talked about this |\n| 22 | three times now or twice anyway, I will let it be remote so |\n| 23 | people don't have to get dragged into this because I'm going |\n| 24 | to just tell you what I'm going to do at that point. |\n| 25 | So instead of dragging you into court, what I'll |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 85 do is -- what time do you -- you want to start at 1:30 or 2:00 on Monday the 12th? Anyone have a preference? (No response) THE COURT: All right. Let's say 2:00 p.m. on the 12th we'll continue this hearing. Mr. Despins is going to file something on the docket, or his counsel is, tomorrow by noon with regard to the differences between the two orders. And then on the 12th -- I'm sorry, Mr. Romney, did you want to file something? MR. ROMNEY: Well, I was just a little unclear on whether -- if we're talking about differences, is this to be a joint pleading or should we submit differing views of our -- THE COURT: I'm going to let you work that out. I'm going to let you both talk about that. How's that? And you can do what you think is appropriate. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. And what was the time by which -- THE COURT: By noon tomorrow. I can give you until 1:00 p.m. if that's easier. Another extra hour might be helpful to people, right? MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. 1:00 p.m. tomorrow. That will give me some time to look at it. Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 86 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 87 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 86 And then I will tell you on Monday what I'm going to do. And that's what -- and I will have that hearing remotely. No one has to come to court for that because this is now the -- that will be the third hearing on the motion. And I'm either going to -- I'm going to tell you what I'm going to do. I don't know what I'm going to do right now, but I'll know by then. So I think that's the best way to proceed. I think that I do -- I don't want to discourage the parties from talking, because I do appreciate that you did do that. If that doesn't result in a resolution, it doesn't result in a resolution. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But I do appreciate the efforts that were made. I just think at this point there still is not an agreement and there probably will not be. If there is, you'll let me know. But if there isn't, I'm going to proceed as, you know, that there is not an agreement. And that I will be reviewing the matters in that light. And I'll be ready to tell you at 2:00 p.m. on September 12th where things stand. Now, maybe I have some questions of both of you, both the debtor and the Chapter 11 Trustee, and anybody else that wishes to be heard, but I may not. I may not have any questions at that point. I really don't know. So I will\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 87 let you know. Okay? Is there anything that anyone else would like to address this afternoon? MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, if I may, just in less than two minutes respond to a few of the points that Attorney Goldman made? THE COURT: Sure. MR. ROMNEY: I just want to say with regard to the concept of bankruptcy fraud or anything like that under 157, I'm aware of no evidence in this record to suggest the debtor has engaged in any type of bankruptcy fraud. To the extent that anybody has probable cause for that allegation and that attorney communications were used in furtherance of it, that's what the crime fraud exception is for. It's a separate issue as to whether the trustee has a privilege or not, because that is one of the few items or exceptions to privilege even if -- where the debtor retains it. Second, with regard to the verbiage used by the debtor, and certainly Your Honor is going to rule and Your Honor could accept some of the debtor's points and revise some of the language to the extent it has concerns or vice versa with respect to the trustee's issues. However, the concept -- the changing of the Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 88 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 88 language to necessary to identify is -- was done for the purpose of allowing the trustee sufficient information to identify assets and liabilities without a complete waiver of any communication. And I think the courts all the time in the context of discovery recognize -- and this is beyond the scope of privilege, but recognize that asking for all documents concerning, insert any subject, is overly broad. And many times courts on discovery orders change language to something like sufficient -- sufficient to identify items of this topic. And I just wanted to clarify for the Court that is the purpose of that revised language. It's not to be cure or create avenues to dispute issues. It is a -- in the future. It is a genuine attempt to try and balance the trustee's right to information with the debtor's, you know, right to free communication with his counsel. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, just if I could briefly respond. Nick Bassett for Paul Hastings again -- to a couple of those comments? THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. BASSETT: So the discovery that the trustee is seeking is pursuant to an order issued under Rule 2004, Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 89 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 90 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
89 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | which, of course, entitles the trustee to conduct a broad |\n| 2 | investigation, akin to a fishing expedition, and the breadth |\n| 3 | of the investigation that the trustee is able to conduct |\n| 4 | under 2004, and is entitled to conduct, is particularly |\n| 5 | critical in this case because as the Court knows, and as |\n| 6 | everyone knows, from the record that's been established in |\n| 7 | the New York Court and elsewhere there are serious concerns |\n| 8 | that we all have regarding whether or not the schedules that |\n| 9 | the debtor has filed in this court are accurate in setting |\n| 10 | forth the assets that he has.
We think they absolutely are |\n| 11 | not. |\n\n And in order to explore thoroughly where assets of the debtor might be and to explore thoroughly other matters relating to the administration of this estate, we absolutely need the ability to obtain discovery that is broadly related to not only assets of the estate, of the debtor, that the debtor has had previously, but assets of others that the trustee is investigating for the purpose of determining whether they are, in fact, assets of the estate.\n\n And this language that the debtor would have the Court add to the proposed order that says we only have control of the privilege to the extent that the communication at issue is, you know, quote/unquote, \"Necessary,\" for the trustee to identify assets of the estate provides way too much ambiguity and opportunity for\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7
Filed 10/04/22
Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18
Page 91 of
111 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
90 |\n| 1 | the debtor to decide what he does and does not want to |\n| 2 | provide in discovery. |\n| 3 | To just respond to one other point that Mr. Romney |\n| 4 | had raised earlier, he raised this concept of there being an |\n| 5 | adversarial relationship between the trustee and the debtor. |\n| 6 | I don't know if he is suggesting that to the |\n| 7 | extent the debtor does not want assets of his relatives, for |\n| 8 | example, to become property of the estate, that there is |\n| 9 | suddenly an adversarial relationship when we seek discovery |\n| 10 | related to an issue like that, but if that is what he is |\n| 11 | suggesting, then I think we absolutely disagree as to |\n| 12 | whether or not the trustee controls the privilege in that |\n| 13 | situation. |\n| 14 | I think we absolutely control the privilege as it |\n| 15 | relates to the trustee's efforts to identify potential |\n| 16 | assets of the estate, even if the debtor is taking the |\n| 17 | position that he'd prefer for these assets to remain with |\n| 18 | relatives or in LLC's or other shell companies that he's |\n| 19 | created.
That is not a basis for the debtor to retain a |\n| 20 | privilege in that situation. |\n| 21 | I think -- I think those are the comments that I |\n| 22 | wanted to make, Your Honor, but happy, of course, to answer |\n| 23 | any questions. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
I don't have any questions at this |\n| 25 | time.
Thank you. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 91 MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, you recall we talked about the U.K. complaint. We found the docket number. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: It's 622-1. It's called Particulars of Claims. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, for the committee, just a few brief comments if I may? THE COURT: Sure. MR. GOLDMAN: The fact that something might relate or be covered by the crime-fraud exception to the attorney/client privilege would not also mean necessarily that it could not relate to the administration of the case. And that's where I think the word \"solely\" is just improper. You can't just say that, hey, if it's subject to crime fraud exception, you'll get it that way, even though it also can relate to the administration of the estate. And on the word \"concerning,\" I would just note it's a specifically defined term in the local district court rules in fashioning discovery requests. So there's nothing improper about using the term here. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. HENZY: Last point for the debtor, Your Honor. This is why courts don't like entering advisory Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 92 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 92 opinions and that is what this is. There is a normal process -- THE COURT: But that is what -- wait a minute. Let me just -- let me step back. That is what what is? MR. HENZY: What the trustee -- THE COURT: If I rule on this motion, I'll be issuing an advisory opinion? MR. HENZY: You will. THE COURT: Why? MR. HENZY: You are giving an advisory opinion as to -- you're being asked to issue a decision. And I think - - I think this is where you're, in some sense where you're going, Your Honor. You're being asked to give a decision or to rule -- how you would rule on this muddle of case law. So where you'd come out -- THE COURT: Well, but there's a motion pending in front of me. It's been brought to me. It's a controversy. MR. HENZY: I don't -- THE COURT: I'm not doing it as an advisory opinion. MR. HENZY: I don't think it is a controversy. Right now there's no discovery dispute before you. There's not. There's not. THE COURT: No. No. What is before me is the trustee's motion to enter an order saying he controls the Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 93 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 93 privilege. And you've responded to that. MR. HENZY: But that's a very -- and that's the muddle of the case law. That's a very fact sensitive analysis. It just is. Because -- I mean, as Mr. Romney has pointed out -- THE COURT: But what facts do I need that I don't have? MR. HENZY: You don't -- THE COURT: Of whether or not -- no, let me just hear you out. What facts do I need that I don't have to determine whether or not the trustee should control the privilege? MR. HENZY: I think though the question is does the trustee control the privilege with respect to particular documents. THE COURT: I don't think that's what his motion says. MR. HENZY: Well, I think he's -- like I said, Your Honor, I didn't want to -- I didn't want to -- I think what he's -- what you're being asked to do is give an advisory opinion in a vacuum. Because right now there is no one in front of you saying I'm claiming a privilege on this document and you now need to rule on whether with respect to this document the privilege passed to the trustee -- Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 94 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 94 THE COURT: No. I don't think that's accurate though. But I understand your point. But I -- MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: Here's the problem. Then why did you respond by saying that he couldn't get all the information from Brown Rudnick and, you know, all these other people that you don't represent? Your response, your objection to his motion, starts talking about things that have nothing to do with your client. I mean, insofar as -- MR. HENZY: Well -- THE COURT: -- they're parties that your client dealt with. But they have the right to assert their -- MR. HENZY: Oh, they do. THE COURT: -- their issues, don't they? MR. HENZY: Yeah. But that doesn't mean the debtor doesn't. THE COURT: Well, that doesn't mean that the trustee can't seek an order from this court. You may disagree -- MR. HENZY: The -- THE COURT: -- you may disagree, but listen, at this point, here's the problem, right? The trustee is trying to conduct an investigation. He's not able to do that. He's been told that -- by at least with regard to Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 95 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 95 the London situation that -- when I say situation, the case pending in London -- that your client is not going to try to cooperate with him and tell the lawyers in London that he can talk to them. And -- MR. HENZY: That's not true. That's not true. But, okay. THE COURT: Well, you wouldn't -- you said you wouldn't send the letter saying that because you believe that one part of it says it's compelled disclosure. That's what you're saying. Isn't that what you're appealing? You're appealing the 3(b) section of the -- MR. HENZY: I didn't mean to get -- I didn't mean to get off on a -- I'm going to answer your question. THE COURT: But that's what you're -- but that's what you're doing. I mean, and that's fine. MR. HENZY: No. THE COURT: I don't have a problem with it. MR. HENZY: No. THE COURT: But here's the point. How's the trustee going to continue -- how's the trustee going to carry out his duties in this case right now when every -- when your client has argued to this point that the attorney/client privilege issue does not pass automatically to the trustee? That's what you've argued. MR. HENZY: No. No, it is not. Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 96 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 97 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 96 THE COURT: Okay. What have you argued then? MR. HENZY: I -- THE COURT: Then why did you cite to *Weintraub*? MR. HENZY: I think that what we -- THE COURT: That's what *Weintraub*'s all about, the automatic passing of the privilege to the trustee in a corporate bankruptcy case. MR. HENZY: What we've argued is that there -- the cases say that there is this balancing test. I don't -- I don't think any of us disagree about that. And what we -- but what we've argued is that that analysis -- and we've cited case law that says that that balance has to be done on a case by case basis. THE COURT: Right. Right. MR. HENZY: That's -- THE COURT: So what facts don't I have in this case to make a case by case analysis if you're right? MR. HENZY: You don't have the facts that courts always have when resolving discovery disputes, which is specific privilege that has been claimed with respect to a specific document or communication. I don't know -- Your Honor, I've -- maybe it's just me, I've never seen an order like this in any case that I've been involved in. I'm not -- it's -- THE COURT: Well, here's the problem. You\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 97 wouldn't need one in a corporate case because it automatically happens. And the problem with the law is there aren't very many, if any, Chapter 11 individual cases where this has become an issue, where the individual has said that the trustee doesn't have the right to assert the privilege. So -- MR. HENZY: We haven't said that. THE COURT: Well, yeah, I think you have. You have. MR. HENZY: No. I think what we said is that there's a balancing test and that that balancing test has to be analyzed on a case by case basis. THE COURT: So you're saying the trustee's motion is not ripe because there isn't anything in front of this court as far as somebody asserting a privilege? MR. HENZY: I guess that is what I'm saying, Your Honor. Yeah. I don't know how -- look, I probably shouldn't have said anything. It was more commentary because you're wrestling with this. I think the reason you're wrestling with it is because the motion asks for you to rule in a vacuum. I've never been involved in a case, not even bankruptcy cases, where -- I do litigation in state court Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 98 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 99 of\n\n| | 111 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
98 |\n| 1 | and federal court that has nothing to do with bankruptcy |\n| 2 | cases where a discovery dispute has been resolved outside of |\n| 3 | the normal process where people ask for things and either |\n| 4 | they get them, or they get a privilege log, and people |\n| 5 | assert whatever privileges they're going to assert, and then |\n| 6 | there's an obligation to meet and confer, and maybe you'd |\n| 7 | get it down to some small subset of documents. |\n| 8 | And if you have to you then go in front of the |\n| 9 | judge.
And everybody knows you better try really, really |\n| 10 | hard to work through whatever you've got to work through |\n| 11 | because judges really don't want to spend all their time |\n| 12 | resolving discovery disputes.
Right? |\n| 13 | And I think, to Mr. Romney's point, where does the |\n| 14 | -- where does let's the necessary analysis come in?
You may |\n| 15 | get down to where there's three documents and the trustee is |\n| 16 | convinced, you know, what, I really don't need those |\n| 17 | documents. |\n| 18 | The privilege is being claimed, but I have all |\n| 19 | these other documents so I really don't need those |\n| 20 | documents.
So now we don't have to go in front of the judge |\n| 21 | and argue about those documents.
That's the only way that |\n| 22 | I've ever resolved a discovery dispute. |\n| 23 | So I probably shouldn't have done it, was telling |\n| 24 | myself don't do it, to stand up and say I think the problem |\n| 25 | here and the reason you're wrestling with this is because |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 99 you don't have that. You're being asked to issue an order in a vacuum, outside of that case by case analysis. And you can -- THE COURT: I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure you're correct about that. Because if that's your position, then why did you present an order? MR. HENZY: Because we're trying -- because, Your Honor, we're trying hard to be cooperative. We are. We are. In the right situation, we are trying. You asked that we go and see if we could work to a consensual order. And we did that. And that's what ECF 824 -- as Mr. Romney has told you, if you enter that order, we're agreeing to that. The debtor is consenting to that order. But that doesn't mean that it's not still problematic, and that's the reason I think we're having this, as I'll say, we're wrestling with this. Because I -- because we're trying to fashion an order that's going to cover a controversy that right now is not in front of you. But we have tried to work through this. THE COURT: Well, I think -- I think it is in front of me in some respects though. And I'd have to think about what you're saying, Attorney Henzy. But, as I said before, before you got involved, Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 100 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 100 the trustee was appointed. The motion was granted. And your client didn't appeal it. MR. HENZY: Oh -- THE COURT: It didn't appeal the appointment of a trustee. But now, when the trustee's trying to carry out the duties, you're trying to limit the trustee's ability to do that and by asserting that you have a privilege that the trustee is not able to exercise. And now you're saying, okay, well, we'll let you exercise it with regard to documents and these 2004 subpoenas that have been served. Okay? And the trustee is saying I think I need an order telling me that I have this -- I have the privilege. And whether or not that -- I mean, I'm not sure you're correct about everything you've said, but I'll go back and look at it. But the point is is that I'm not going to -- whatever we do, we're not going to do it on a piecemeal basis. We're not going to do it on an incremental basis. Because that is -- you know, the reason that the trustee was appointed was for the best interest of the creditors. And your client, before you, consented on the record, in writing, that cause existed to either appoint a Chapter 11 Trustee, dismiss the case or convert. Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 101 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 102 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 101 Cause, as you know, is not defined. But to find that cause existed to appoint a Chapter 11 Trustee, there has -- there has to be a reason why that happened, right? And the reason why that happened is because there's a controversy over all these assets, whether they really belong to the debtor or not. And at one point, as I said I think last week, to maybe Mr. Kindseth and maybe to you, the entity had pledged the boat to the creditors, but now it's not, because there's no plan. So everything's changed in this case. Every single time we get to some point, the road curves. And what I think Mr. Despins is trying to do is say, okay, well, maybe the road can curve, but I need to know what it is I can do. The code says I can do all this stuff, but I'm getting met with resistance and I don't need resistance. I need to figure out for the benefit of the creditors whether or not these assets, or maybe even assets we don't know about yet, are property of the estate to pay these creditors. MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, again, I apologize to the extent that I've gotten us off topic. But I may be wrong on this. My understanding was the debtor -- and it doesn't matter at this point, I don't think it matters -- the debtor agreed that there was cause\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 103 of\n\n| | 111 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
102 |\n| 1 | for dismissal.
But -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
That's not accurate.
I'll tell you |\n| 3 | why. |\n| 4 | MR. HENZY:
Okay.
Okay.
That's fine. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Because I asked that question -- |\n| 6 | MR. HENZY:
But we did -- but he didn't appeal. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
-- four times. |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
He didn't appeal.
He didn't appeal -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
He didn't appeal it. |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:
-- the order. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Didn't appeal it. |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:
No controversy whatsoever.
But I |\n| 13 | don't think, Your Honor, that because a debtor files |\n| 14 | bankruptcy and a debtor then has a trustee appointed that |\n| 15 | whatever rights that that debtor has under the Federal Rules |\n| 16 | of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the |\n| 17 | Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Bankruptcy Code |\n| 18 | just go away.
The debtor still has rights. |\n| 19 | The debtor, for example -- |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
That may be.
That may be. |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
And that's -- so it's not -- I'm not |\n| 22 | saying that Mr. Despins doesn't get to conduct his |\n| 23 | investigation.
The debtor's not saying that.
That's |\n| 24 | absolutely not saying that. |\n| 25 | The debtor is not saying -- to the extent that |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 104 of\n\n| | 111 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
103 |\n| 1 | with respect to a document either Mr. Despins has inherited |\n| 2 | the privilege or to the extent there's no privilege, to the |\n| 3 | extent there's an exception, or whatever it is, he gets the |\n| 4 | document.
There's no controversy there. |\n| 5 | But to the extent that -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
So you're only agreeing -- your only |\n| 7 | concern is about communications, not documents? |\n| 8 | MR. HENZY:
No.
No. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Then what is it? |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:
With respect to anything to the extent |\n| 11 | that the debtor still does own the privilege, and hasn't |\n| 12 | been waived, and there's no exception, then the debtor has a |\n| 13 | right to say this is -- this is my privileged document and I |\n| 14 | don't have to give it to anybody.
That doesn't go away |\n| 15 | because he consented to a trustee being appointed.
And |\n| 16 | because he didn't appeal the Court's order, that doesn't -- |\n| 17 | it doesn't go away. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Well, I'm not sure that you're -- that |\n| 19 | case law would support that blanket of a statement, Mr. |\n| 20 | Henzy. |\n| 21 | MR. HENZY:
I'm saying if you get past the test, |\n| 22 | assume there's a document where the privilege does apply -- |\n| 23 | I'm not -- to go back to your point about the U.K. order, |\n| 24 | Your Honor, to the extent that under some law, whether it's |\n| 25 | U.K. law, whatever the law is, Mr. Despins has inherited the |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 104 privilege, then he should just -- he just can go to the U.K. and say give me the documents. What that order does do is, it says, it does compel a waiver of documents which is privilege. So that's the issue. So I'm just saying to the extent that there's a slice of the world, that under the applicable case law, the debtor and anybody else still has rights. They don't -- they don't -- they get to assert those rights. That's all. THE COURT: Well, then given what you just said, then why doesn't your client tell Mr. Despins what's privileged in the London litigation? MR. KINDSETH: Well, that -- Your Honor, that circles back on the problem about the way that motion and that order came down. THE COURT: No. No. But that's -- MR. HENZY: Okay. Remember -- THE COURT: No. No. MR. HENZY: Remember, that was a -- not in the motion. It got stuck onto a revised order. THE COURT: We had five hearings on it. You can argue that it wasn't in the motion. We had hearings and you had an opportunity to be heard. You asked for an extension. I gave you that extension. We went through all that time. You had an opportunity to be heard. MR. HENZY: Okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 105 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 106 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 105 THE COURT: And remember, we're still in a situation where the standing of the debtor is in question here. If this is an insolvent debtor, which the debtor was insolvent at the time that he filed, and he's still insolvent, and now there's a trustee. So have -- you have circular issues here. And the problem is why don't you just give him a list of what you say is privileged? Why don't you just -- why can't you just produce that? Why can't you say, you know what, Trustee Despins, I'm not giving you anything in London and here's the documents why I'm not giving them to you. These are all privileged. Why can't you do that? MR. HENZY: So I've said this before, Your Honor, I think, and I think the U.K. counsel has said this, there's a process that's supposed to be gone through and Mr. Despins is trying to short circuit that. THE COURT: What's the process? Nobody's put it in front of me to tell -- show me what the process is. I keep hearing about process, but I don't have anything in the record to support that there's a process. MR. HENZY: I'm not a U.K. lawyer, Your Honor. I'm not -- I'm not in that litigation over there. THE COURT: I understand that, but your client has an asset -- MR. HENZY: Okay.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 106 THE COURT: -- in the United Kingdom that this trustee is trying to find out about. MR. HENZY: Okay. Someone who -- the lawyer over there does not represent, and right now is not a party in that action, is going to that lawyer and demanding that documents be handed over. Okay? And I don't -- maybe I'm -- again, maybe I'm the only one in the room -- if a lawyer from the U.K. comes, if it's flipped around, and says to me give me these documents, my answer is absolutely not. Absolutely not, no way, not doing it. Okay? And that is the dynamic here. There's a litigation, not here, in the U.K. and -- THE COURT: But the U.K. lawyer would do that if Mr. Kwok said here's the list and tell them it's all privileged. Wouldn't they? Wouldn't they? MR. HENZY: I'm not -- there's no way that I'm in a position to do that given the way that this came down the pike. THE COURT: Okay. All right. MR. HENZY: And I've said -- hold on -- I've said to Mr. Despins multiple times that I would work with him and U.K. counsel to do exactly what Your Honor is talking about and that offer has been rejected. Okay? So if there's responsibility here, I'll accept responsibility when it's my responsibility. But the Case 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 107 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 108 of\n\n| 111 | | | | | | |\n|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022
107 | | | | | |\n| 1 | responsibility here that is not being worked through what I | | | | | |\n| 2 | think is the right way is not on me or on the debtor. | | | | | |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Anything further, Mr. Despins? | | | | | |\n| 4 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes.
Very briefly, Your Honor. | | | | | |\n| 5 | This argument that you cannot review -- you cannot | | | | | |\n| 6 | decide this issue because it's not ripe because you don't | | | | | |\n| 7 | have individual documents before you, one, their declaration | | | | | |\n| 8 | regarding the meet and confer process said that it couldn't | | | | | |\n| 9 | be done that way, that guidance from the Court was required. | | | | | |\n| 10 | These are their words. | | | | | |\n| 11 | Second, courts have said that the balancing test | | | | | |\n| 12 | can be done on a category of documents.
If we went to Your | | | | | |\n| 13 | Honor and we said the privilege has passed on everything, | | | | | |\n| 14 | that's a different story. | | | | | |\n| 15 | But we are limiting it to administration of the | | | | | |\n| 16 | estate, assets, and claims.
And the point there is that | | | | | |\n| 17 | these are categories that are narrow, well defined. | | | | | |\n| 18 | And, for example, let's take the administration of | | | | | |\n| 19 | the estate.
Mr. Kwok was debtor-in-possession.
And Your | | | | | |\n| 20 | Honor knows that that means.
He was a fiduciary.
He has no | | | | | |\n| 21 | privilege over that once a trustee gets appointed. | | | | | |\n| 22 | The issue of whether he has a privilege over pre | | | | | |\n| 23 | bankruptcy discussions, okay, I can see the debate there.
I | | | | | |\n| 24 | think the case law supports us. | | | | | |\n| 25 | But on the issue of Brown Rudnick advice or | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 109 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 108 communications with Brown Rudnick when he was a debtor-in- possession, there's no debate in the case law that we have access to that. It's narrow. It's a demonstration of the case. And he was acting as a fiduciary, not in his own capacity. And he was getting -- you know, shame on Brown Rudnick if they were giving him advice on his personal situation. They were giving advice to him as a debtor-in-possession. And that's fundamental, Your Honor.\n\n So the balancing -- you're doing the balancing. You're doing it on a category-by-category document with some very specific carve outs regarding the -- what do we call the crime, I want to be precise about this, although it's unfortunate, but the rape and confinement allegations carved out, the asylum issue carved out, you're doing the balancing.\n\n And courts, that's the way they've done it, by categories of documents. Where courts have been reversed, the only circuit court that reversed, and in that case, it's the same as here, where both sides agreed there should be a balancing test, is that the Court did not look at any documents or any category of documents.\n\n And here the Court has right in front of it the very narrow categories that we're raising. And on that basis you have the power to do this.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. Anything further from anyone\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 110 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 109 else? (No response) THE COURT: All right. Thank you all for your thoughts and I will continue to look at this. We'll continue this hearing to Monday, September 12th at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Romney, did you say you were going to submit something, you might submit something by 1 o'clock tomorrow? I know Trustee Despins and Attorney Bassett are going to submit something with regard to the difference of the two orders. MR. ROMNEY: I will confer with them and either submit something on behalf of the debtor or we can agree on an accurate or objective description of the issues, you know, that are disputed. I think it would be more efficient to do it together, but time will tell if that will be possible. THE COURT: Okay. That's fair. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you. THE COURT: That's fair. Is there anything else we need to address this afternoon? (No response) THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. That concludes the\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 913-7 | Filed 10/04/22
111 | Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 | Page 111 of | |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|--|\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 | | 110 | |\n| 1 | hearing today on the Kwok matter. | | | | |\n| 2 | | MR. BASSETT: | Thank you, Your Honor. | | |\n| 3 | | THE COURT: | Thank you. | | |\n| 4 | | | (Proceedings concluded at 3:31 p.m.) | | |\n| 5 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court | | | | |\n| 6 | Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a | | | | |\n| 7 | correct transcript from the official electronic sound | | | | |\n| 8 | | | recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. | | |\n| 9 | | | | | |\n| 10 | | | | | |\n| 11 | | | September 14, 2022 | | |\n| 12 | Christine Fiore, CERT | | | | |\n| 13 | | | | | |\n| 14 | | | | | |\n| 15 | | | | | |\n| 16 | | | | | |\n| 17 | | | | | |\n| 18 | | | | | |\n| 19 | | | | | |\n| 20 | | | | | |\n| 21 | | | | | |\n| 22 | | | | | |\n| 23 | | | | | |\n| 24 | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |\n| | | | | | |","body_zh":"附件 G\n\n2022年9月6日状态会议记录\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 2 of\n\n关于 * 案号 22-50073 (JAM) * HO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）， * 康涅狄格州布里奇波特 * 2022年9月6日\n债务人。 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n关于提供如下裁定的动议记录：特权控制权于受托人获任时转移给受托人，以及相关救济\n\n美国破产法院 康涅狄格州地区法院 布里奇波特分院\n\n在尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING 法官阁下\n美国破产法院法官面前\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人、ERIC HENZY 律师、HK International（HK国际公司）及 AARON ROMNEY 律师、Mei Guo（郭美）：Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所） 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表债权人、Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN 律师 Alliance Asia Opportunity O'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥迈尔文与迈尔斯律师事务所） Fund L.P.：Times Square Tower\n\n7 Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\nANNECCA SMITH 律师 Robinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所） 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103\n\n庭审程序由电子录音记录，记录文本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） 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）代表债权人委员会：IRVE GOLDMAN 律师 Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所） 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 代表美国受托人：HOLLEY CLAIBORN 律师 Office of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室） The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 代表 Chapter 11 NICHOLAS BASSETT 律师 Trustee（第11章受托人）：Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY 律师 Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所） 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）：LUC A. DESPINS 律师 Paul Hastings LLP（普衡律师事务所） 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 3\n\n（程序于下午1:04开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法庭：下午好。请将出庭情况记入记录，先请第11章受托人。\n\nDESPINS 先生：Luc Despins，受托人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nLINSEY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey，受托人的当地律师。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Irve Goldman。\n\nBASSETT 先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：哦。\n\nBASSETT 先生：抱歉。抱歉，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：没关系。\n\nBASSETT 先生：我是来自 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett，远程出庭，感谢您今天允许我这样做。\n\n法庭：不客气。下午好。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是 Pullman and Comley（普尔曼与康利律师事务所）的 Irve Goldman，代表债权人委员会。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 4 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 4\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：下午好，法官阁下。我是代表美国受托人的 Holley Claiborn。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nSMITH 女士：下午好——\n\nFRIEDMAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。我是来自 O'Melveny & Myers（奥迈尔文与迈尔斯律师事务所）的 Peter Friedman，代表 PAX。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nSMITH 女士：我是 Robinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）的 Annecca Smith，也代表 PAX。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\n法庭书记员：抱歉。您能重复一下您的姓名吗？我没听清。\n\nSMITH 女士：Annecca Smith。\n\n法庭书记员：谢谢。\n\nSMITH 女士：谢谢。\n\nROMNEY 先生：我是 Zeisler and Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）的 Aaron Romney，代表债务人、HK International（HK国际公司）和 Mei Guo（郭美）。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nHENZY 先生：我是 Zeisler and Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）的 Eric Henzy，代表同样三方。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nHENZY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。今天我们就若干事项举行听证，但关于状态——我确实收到第11章受托人提交的议程，我对此表示感谢。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 5 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 6 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 5\n\n如果无人持有不同意见，我希望按照该议程进行。然后，在我们进一步讨论特权问题之前，从法庭的角度而言，还有几项较小的事务性事项。我知道你们双方在中午左右或稍早些时候提交了我要求你们提交的一份裁定，而我，呃，已经看了大约15秒钟，所以你们得体谅我。我们今天上午确实举行了听证。但无论如何，我们会谈到这一点。那么，Despins 先生，如果您愿意，可以先作状态会议报告，然后我可以发言。我只是——您结束后，有两三件引起我注意的小事，在您陈述结束后，我需要各方就此作出一些确认。好的？\n\nDESPINS 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我可以上前给您——\n\n法庭：请。\n\nDESPINS 先生：——一份纸质版的——\n\n法庭：可以。请。谢谢。您可以上前。谢谢。\n\nDESPINS 先生：下午好，法官阁下。为记录起见，我是第11章受托人 Luc Despins。我们首先只是想向法庭和利害关系方更新 Genever BVI（Genever BVI 公司）的情况。请记得，\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022\n\n1 那是拥有该 LLC 的控股公司，而该 LLC 又\n2 拥有该公寓。\n3 因此，股份已经转让。我现在以\n4 受托人身份持有这些股份。但我们目前正在处理一项事项，\n5 即我们需要为该实体任命一名董事。\n6 \n7 在 BVI 的做法是，设有\n8 专业董事。在美国也有这种情况，\n9 我们向他们支付报酬，这就是他们的工作。而\n10 提供这些服务的公司，是我们拟聘 BVI 律师\n11 Harneys（哈尼律师事务所）的关联方。其名称为 Harneys\n12 Fiduciaries（哈尼受托服务公司）。\n13 \n14 因此，我们——我们已提交申请聘请\n15 Harneys。我相信上周我们提交了一份补充\n16 声明，说明，哦，顺便说一下，我们将聘请\n17 这些人士担任，您知道，专业董事。\n18 \n19 我首先想提及的问题是一个\n20 报酬问题。我们必须向他们支付 6,000 多。\n21 他们已同意将其他所有成本暂缓至——\n22 在我们从本财产获得资金之前暂缓收取其费用。因此，\n23 这是一件非常好的事，但我们需要向他们支付 6,667。\n24 \n25 这里有一个技术性问题，我们已就此与美国受托人进行了讨论。那些人士，即董事，\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022\n\n1 不是那些人士，而是有一人将担任\n2 董事，并非提供法律服务，也并非由本\n3 破产财产聘请。其受聘方是名为 Genever BVI 的非\n4 债务人。\n5 \n6 美国受托人认为，尽管如此，我们仍应\n7 提交某种聘任申请，涵盖作为律师的 Harneys\n8 及其作为董事的关联方。\n9 \n10 我总是犹豫是否要说我不同意\n11 美国受托人的意见，但我在此问题上不同意美国受托人的意见。\n12 不过，双方之间的所有关联关系应当得到充分披露。\n13 \n14 对于律师事务所 Harneys，我们已经做到了这一点。\n15 对于 Harneys Fiduciaries，尚未做到。他们是\n16 提供受托服务——抱歉，董事服务的实体。\n17 为慎重起见，我们将这样做。\n18 \n19 但是我们不希望——我已就此与美国受托人进行讨论——我们充分披露的努力\n20 被解释为我们同意他们事实上\n21 受制于无利害关系标准。\n22 再次说明，他们只是作为一名非债务人\n23 实体的董事行事。\n24 \n25 但是我不能不同意“披露越多总是越好”这一理念，因此我们将补充\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 8\n\n披露并重新提交，您知道，希望在明天或类似时间提交。但我想向法庭提及此事，因为我们需要推进此事，以使该董事到位。因此，这就是，您知道，一项更新。我不知道美国受托人是否希望就此发言，但这确实是目前的问题。我们已向其承诺，就该董事职务及其与本案的关联关系提供充分披露，尽管我们认为那不是适用的控制性标准，但我们同意这样做。因此，这就是关于董事问题的更新。\n\n第2页还有另一个即将出现的问题。我总是说本案每天都有一个问题。因此，我们经历了劳动节周末，所以不是每天都有问题。但是，Bravo Luck（布拉沃拉克公司），你们会记得该实体据称由 Kwok 先生的儿子控制，已发出通知，要求重新启动在 BVI 待决、且早于本案的诉讼。该诉讼涉及 Kwok 先生、Bravo Luck 和 PAX。因为请记得，他们当时正在州法院试图取得这些股份的控制权，因此在 BVI 有一宗关于谁拥有这些股份的待决诉讼，Bravo Luck 的立场是其可以依赖这份信托协议，而 PAX 提出相反主张。该诉讼实际上从未真正启动，但现在他们在大约三四天前发出通知，称我们希望重新启动该诉讼。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 9 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 9\n\n但我们在此提出的观点是，我们认为这显然违反自动停止。明确而言，是 Bravo Luck 在这样做。Bravo Luck 是一家 BVI 实体，但它作为债权人在纽约案件中提交了债权申报，并且已在该案中出庭，我们认为这违反停止令。关于这一点，我要说请继续关注。我认为我们将需要尽早而非迟些处理此事，因为我们不能仅仅让这项诉讼——而这是一项应由法官阁下裁决的问题——继续进行。\n\n转到第3页，关于其他债务人相关实体的更新。您可能记得，嗯，我知道您记得 UBS（瑞银）诉讼。您总是提到，嗯，该诉讼中还有另外两名原告。它们不像第三方，它们是由 Kwok 先生控制的实体。它们称为 Ace Decade（艾斯迪凯德公司）和 Dawn State（道恩州公司）。如果您阅读那份由 Kwok 先生签署、由 Kwok 先生就事实作出核实、并由 Dawn State 和 Ace Decade 的代表就事实作出核实的 2020 年起诉状，其中基本上称，他首先拥有 Ace Decade。他拥有该公司。并且其下一级实体 Dawn State 由 Ace Decade 百分之百控制。因此，我们上周向 Henzy 先生寄送了一封信，称\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 10 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 11 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022\n\n这就像 Genever（Genever）。\n\n我想要所有账簿和记录。\n\n我想要将股票转让给我们。我们曾要求在今天上午之前作出回复。我们没有收到回复。而且，您知道，我理解，假期周末，等等，等等，但我们需要取得对这两家实体的控制权。\n\n毫无疑问，它们由 Kwok先生（郭文贵）所有，因为他自己这样说过，而且这些实体在英国诉讼中的代表也曾如此表示，该表示于2020年宣誓作出，而不是在2015年，最近是在2020年。因此，您知道，我们将听取债务人对此事的意见。\n\n但显然，这是一个需要解决的问题，因为这样我就应当取得对此的控制权。而且我控制该诉讼中的所有原告，这将确实最大限度减少该诉讼中与英国律师有关的许多问题。\n\n第4页，仅提及债务人的下落，我们获悉 Kwok先生已搬离 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-荷兰人酒店）。这是他每天、有时每天两次录制 GETTR（GETTR）直播的地方。\n\n他已将个人物品以及他于2015年搬入时放置在那里的家具搬出。\n\n他们所做的是，搬入了前业主的家具，该前业主的家具是他作为收购 Sherry-Netherland 的一部分而取得的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 913-7 提交于 10/04/22 录入于 10/04/22 11:50:18 第12页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 11\n\n法官阁下，我对此有些担忧，因为这可能表明他正在离开本司法管辖区。Henzy先生（亨齐先生）告诉我并非如此。事实上，他居住在 Connecticut（康涅狄格州）Greenwich（格林尼治），因此我们将接受这一陈述。但他带着个人物品和家具搬离该公寓这一事实，可能是另一迹象。而且，不幸的是，第11章受托人没有电子脚镣项目。我很希望有，但我们没有，也没有 LoJack（LoJack），因此我们无法追踪债务人，但您知道，我们知道我们有权力，而且法院有权强制债务人出席接受询问。因此，我们实际上可能会利用这一点——不仅核实他是否仍在美国境内，也核实其他问题，例如 Ace Decade（Ace Decade）和 Dawn State（Dawn State）。\n\n现在转到第5页，即行政事项，我只想提醒法官阁下，目前这是——我们现在讨论的是 Lady May（Lady May），即由香港实体或该香港实体的子公司提起的诉讼，要求宣告该实体拥有该游艇。我相信答辩截止日期是8月29日。我们提出了延期动议。他们对此提出反对。此外，当时理论上本应举行一次审前会议。我们提出了延期举行该会议的动议。因此，该事项尚待处理。我想确保法官阁下知道，这些请求和异议尚待处理，且尚未安排听证会。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 12\n\n法庭：让我此刻看一下，因为这可能是我认为需要与您讨论的事项之一。\n\nDESPINS先生：好的。\n\n法庭：有——我知道其中一个问题是——我不——在我说出不准确的话之前，让我先看一下。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：因此，在 HK International（香港国际）对抗程序中，即5003，这就是我想谈的对抗程序。但我实际上并未关注您所说的，即有一项延期——\n\nDESPINS先生：正确。\n\n法庭：——提交答复的动议。哦，不，不。那是 PAX（PAX）的。但在我看来，债务人已撤回，而不是债务人，抱歉，是原告 HK International 已就 PAX 撤回对抗程序，或者说，已撤销该对抗程序，抱歉。我已看到这一点。好吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：正确。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 913-7 提交于 10/04/22 录入于 10/04/22 11:50:18 第13页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 913-7 提交于 10/04/22 录入于 10/04/22 11:50:18 第14页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日\n\n法庭：我认为，根据规则41，该事项自行生效，因此我认为法院无需对此采取任何行动。\n\nDESPINS先生：正确。\n\n法庭：好的。那么关于——\n\nDESPINS先生：我们延长期间的动议将是案卷编号28，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：28。然后是延期举行审前会议的动议。\n\nDESPINS先生：将是——嗯——债务人的异议是31。然后延期举行审前会议的动议将是32。\n\n法庭：对。对。\n\n（暂停。）\n\n法庭：好的。我尚未——我还没有看到那项异议，但在我们今天的事项结束后，我可以——我一定会查看。\n\n话虽如此，让我回到您所说的这一对抗程序中的另一件事。我只是想确保我正在审查正确的——\n\nDESPINS先生：顺便说一下，我说错了。审前会议原定于9月13日，而不是今天。是我的错误。但概念相同。\n\n法庭：是。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 913-7 提交于 10/04/22 录入于 10/04/22 11:50:18 第15页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日\n\nROMNEY先生（罗姆尼先生）：我可以说一下吗？日期方面的混淆可能是该诉讼中的审前命令。除非法院批准受托人就该截止日期提出的延期请求，否则各方的联合审前命令今天到期。鉴于存在尚未裁决的延期动议这一情况，HK 无论如何都不会反对推迟审前会议日期，如果这有帮助的话，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。谢谢。\n\n好的。那么，我将在我们处理完我认为今天下午将要处理的更具实质性的事项后，再回头审查这一对抗程序，并就尚待处理的事项——尚待处理的动议——以及你们两位刚刚向我指出的异议，即 Despins受托人和 Romney律师，作出适当命令。我会看一下。我尚未——\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：我还没有机会看该事项，但在我们今天结束后，这不会花我很长时间。好吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n转到第5页，月度经营报告，债务人仍然——仍未提交其5月、6月和7月前几天的报告。因此，\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 913-7 提交于 10/04/22 录入于 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日\n\n这需要完成。\n\n然后第6页，持续未能提供文件。债务人及香港律师在7月21日的听证会上曾陈述，他们将提供账簿和记录，例如 HK International 的账簿和记录。报告中有一段引文，系庭审记录的引文。迄今仍未提供任何有关 HK International 的材料，且对于债务人的账簿和记录，仍然几乎没有提供任何材料。\n\n下一项是受托人聘任英属维尔京群岛律师的申请。我已经处理过该事项。其定于9月27日审理。但我们希望在未来48小时内提交补充材料。\n\n第7页，仅提及，我们在 Garrity法官（加里蒂法官）审理的 Genever USA（Genever美国）案件中有一次状态会议，目前定于9月27日，但由于某些律师无法出席，我们正试图提前举行。\n\n接下来，第6项，记得专家 Paul Derecktor（保罗·德雷克特）吗？我曾提出这个问题，而您正确地告诉我，您是否就此与任何人谈过，我说没有。因此，现在我们谈过了。\n\n美国受托人已同意，我们感谢其在这方面的灵活性，我们可以将该 \\$2,500 列支为费用，而无需另行提交聘任 Derecktor先生为专家的申请。这是一次性事项。他只是与 PAX 的专家一同到场进行检查，因此他不会在今后担任专家。如果他将担任专家，我们就必须提交聘任申请。因此，这只是 \\$2,500。\n\n最终，这是由法官阁下决定。但我想让您知道，美国受托人并不反对这种做法，因为——当然，从成本角度而言，我们提交并准备一份申请所花费的成本将远高于2,500，因此我们确实希望能够免除该要求。\n\n当然，破产财产中现在没有钱。嗯，有——我不应当这么说——破产财产中有 \\$14,000。因此，Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）正在垫付该笔款项，在提出费用和支出偿还申请之前，不会从破产财产中获得偿还；在破产财产中有大量资金之前，该申请不会在短期内提出。\n\n法庭：好的。我明白。\n\nDESPINS先生：最后一点是安排下一次状态会议。我们曾提及——曾提议9月21日和10月3日，所以我不记得——我们从未——\n\n法庭：9月21日绝对可以。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 913-7 提交于 10/04/22 录入于 10/04/22 11:50:18 第18页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月6日 17\n\nDESPINS先生：好的。\n\n法庭：我们可以在各方希望的任何时间开始。我的意思是，如果你们想在上午开始，想在午餐时间开始，想在下午开始，无论任何人——\n\nDESPINS先生：我认为在下午开始总是好的，以防我们——其他事项被安排进来，这样来自 Washington（华盛顿）的人，或例如 Friedman先生（弗里德曼先生），就可以——\n\n法庭：对于21日的状态会议，下午1:00对每个人都合适吗？现在，10月3日也可能可以，但也有一项已安排的事项可能需要变更。我尚不清楚，但是——\n\nDESPINS先生：那么，我们到时再看情况。我们可以——\n\n法庭：或者如果是在10月——是的，我们可能——坦率地说，在那一周举行可能更有帮助。我正在查看，如果你们不介意稍等我片刻，10月4日下午。如果我们于10月4日星期二，而不是星期一，下午1:00开始，这会给任何人带来问题吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：对我没有。但电话中还有其他人。我不知道。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：法官阁下，如果允许我远程出席，那将没有问题。那天是 Yom Kippur（赎罪日）。\n\n法庭：哦。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：4日那天是赎罪日。\n\n法庭：对不起。好的。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：因此，只要我可以远程出席，那将没有问题。\n\nDESPINS先生：而且，法官阁下，请记得，如果我们可以免除这些会议，我们的目标是不举行这些会议。\n\n法庭：对。\n\nDESPINS先生：因此，我们将尽最大努力不举行它们。然后，如果我们要这样做，我们需要取消它们，或者至少在24小时前告知法院我们不需要它们，以便法官阁下如认为适当，可以取消它们。\n\n法庭：Friedman律师，10月4日您最晚可以到什么时间？\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：5:00。\n\n法庭：我会允许您远程出席，我只是问您到什么时间。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：下午5:00，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，我们何不将其定在10月4日中午。这样，如果有某种原因我们必须花费时间，它不会——它将不会占用——我的意思是，我们不会碰上您的节日，这显然我\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 913-7 提交于 10/04/22 录入于 10/04/22 11:50:18 第19页，共\n\n我没有意识到是——我以为是次日，即 5 日，所以是我的错误。但我们确实在 4 日有法庭听证，不过是在上午。因此，如果我们安排——\n\nMR. FRIEDMAN（弗里德曼先生）：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nTHE COURT（法庭）：\n——在 10 月 4 日中午——而且你们可以，无需提交远程出庭申请。我现在就在记录中准许该请求。好吗？\n\n弗里德曼先生：\n谢谢您。\n\n法庭：\n好的。不客气。\n\n弗里德曼先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n不客气。然后我们再看情况。你知道，如果出于某种原因，所有人都同意 4 日不需要举行会议，那也可以，但我们还是安排一下，以便这是一个已预留的日期。我可以——在我们讨论实体问题之前，我可以问一个问题吗？\n\nMR. DESPINS（德斯平斯先生）：\n当然可以。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么，我想问 Henzy 律师（Attorney Henzy）、Romney 律师（Attorney Romney）和 Claiborn 律师（Attorney Claiborn），有几个月没有月度经营报告。对吗？您是说我们缺少月度经营报告吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 20\n\n德斯平斯先生：5 月、6 月以及 7 月前半个月，直到受托人被任命为止。\n\n法庭：好的。那么，Henzy 律师或 Romney 律师，关于这些月度经营报告，你们的立场是什么，因为它们必须提交？\n\nMR. HENZY（亨齐先生）：我的立场是会提交。尚未提交。\n\n法庭：好的。嗯，我会给你们一个必须提交的日期。你们有建议的日期吗？\n\n亨齐先生：我希望有三周时间，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：嗯，我不知道是否能给你三周，因为它们已经逾期，至少 5 月和 6 月的已经严重逾期。让我看看——让我看看日历。如果你们——嗯，我会命令债务人于 September 23rd 前提交 5 月和 6 月的报告。然后 7 月——什么时候——8 月的报告将于 September 20 到期，对吗？\n\n亨齐先生：并非由债务人提交该报告。\n\n法庭：哦，你说得对。只到那个日期为止。抱歉。我想到的是 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）所采用的时间范围。不过，你说得对。因此，5 月和 6 月的报告于 September 23rd 前提交。然后我们还需要什么？我们需要截至 July 8th 的 7 月部分报告，对吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 21 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 21\n\n德斯平斯先生：9 日。是的。\n\n法庭：9 日？\n\n德斯平斯先生：是的。\n\n法庭：我给你们到下一周，即 September 30。\n\n亨齐先生：我请求三份报告均于 September 30 提交，法官阁下。坦率地说，我们面临的问题是 Verdolino and Lowey firm（Verdolino 和 Lowey 律师事务所）一直在编制那些经营报告。\n\n法庭：不过，他们从未被正式聘任。只是让你知道。\n\n亨齐先生：我明白。\n\n法庭：你没有参与那件事——那件事。\n\n亨齐先生：我明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：是的。\n\n亨齐先生：但他们一直在编制经营报告。\n\n法庭：好的。我只是——我只是——\n\n亨齐先生：是的。\n\n法庭：我只是告诉你，是因为你没有参与本案，所以我不知道你是否知晓此事。\n\n亨齐先生：我知晓此事，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 22 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 23 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 22\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n亨齐先生：而且，正如有时的情况一样，你知道，我或我的办公室将不得不非常积极地参与完成这些经营报告。而且，你知道，坦率地说，接下来几周我因其他事项而极其繁忙。我还有其他客户。而且——我担心的只是，在接下来的两周内，我是否有时间处理这些报告。因此，我不知道从全局来看，多一周是否会有所不同。但这对我和我本月的工作量会产生重大影响。\n\n法庭：Despins 受托人（Trustee Despins），你是否反对 September 30？\n\n德斯平斯先生：可以，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。Henzy 律师，我们给你到 September 30。\n\n亨齐先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。但如果他不遵守，那么我们将不得不处理该问题。\n\n亨齐先生：明白，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，那么最后一点，就是我之前提出的那一点，您已经作出了公司治理命令。该命令正在上诉中，但根据该命令，在上诉期间不存在中止执行。他们应当向我们交付他们控制的实体的全部股份和相关文件。而这两个实体，Ace Decade 和 Dawn State，已在宣誓后明确表示，Kwok 先生拥有第一个实体，继而控制第二个实体。你知道，我们希望有一个他们必须遵守的日期。现有一项命令。问题只是明确——非常明确，该命令适用于所有此类受控实体，而这两个就是。因此，我们希望法庭规定一个他们必须完成该事项的期限。谢谢。\n\n法庭：Henzy 律师？\n\n亨齐先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。那么，为了说明时间线，受托人在上周三临近下班时通过电子邮件向我发送了一封信。我周四全天都忙于其他客户——我所说的其他客户，并不是指 Kwok 先生的其他客户事项，而是指我的其他客户。我早已计划休一个长周末，包括周五，我也确实如此，因此我没有改变我的家庭计划，以遵从受托人的要求，即在今天上午 10:00 前完成他们所要求的事项。我没有这样做。我目前不知道这个问题是否像受托人向您所说的那样明确无误。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 24 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 25 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 24\n\n我可以查看 UBS complaint（瑞银起诉状）中的内容，也理解起诉状中的内容，但我不知道这个问题是否如受托人告诉您的那样简单。我认为我必须与 U.K. counsel（英国律师）沟通，以了解起诉状中为何会有相关内容，以及——该内容是如何形成的。我不知道这将花多长时间。当然——当然，法官阁下，您可以规定期限，但我不会同意某一期限，因为我只是——我不了解这里的事实，也不知道深入了解事实需要我花多长时间。你知道，我会以一切应有的速度推进，但我只是——我不知道需要多久才能了解全部事实。而且，当我不知道拟议文件是否适当、是否为正确文件、可能如何影响英国诉讼时，我不会建议 Kwok 先生签署文件。我现在不知道其中任何一项。因此，我——再次说明，我会调查此事。我会处理此事。我会以一切应有的速度推进，但我不知道需要多久。\n\n德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，Kwok 先生知道他是否拥有这家公司。实际上，他已就此宣誓，这两个实体的代表也同样如此。英国律师与此毫无关系。对 UBS litigation（瑞银诉讼）的影响无关紧要。问题是，截至今天，谁是该实体的所有人？我们有一份 2020 的宣誓陈述。除非他将出庭说我已将其转让，而那么显然我们会想知道他转让给了谁，否则，这就是所有这些实体作出的宣誓陈述。弄清此事不需要超过四五天。谢谢。\n\n法庭：我可以问一下——我不——我不确定 UBS 起诉状是否已载入本案记录。它是否在本案记录中的某处？\n\n亨齐先生：我认为我或受托人把它作为附件附在——\n\n法庭：附在公司治理动议问题上，还是附在特权动议问题上？\n\n亨齐先生：我认为不会是特权动议，法官阁下。我认为可能是公司治理动议。我非常确信，我们其中一方——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n亨齐先生：而且我认为我们任何一方都没有——\n\n身份不明者：它可能附在某处的中止动议上——\n\n德斯平斯先生：不，在那之前。\n\n亨齐先生：是的。我知道我们——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 26 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 26\n\n法庭：好的。好吧。这就是——\n\n亨齐先生：我相信我们绝对已经，是的，提交了它——\n\n法庭：我只是想——显然，我需要查看它。\n\n亨齐先生：是的。是的。是的。\n\n法庭：而且今天，Despins 先生，就 Ace Decade 和 Dawn State 而言，我不会采取任何行动，但在我们今天的听证结束后，我会查看本案记录中有什么，然后确定将采取什么步骤，以及是否会规定一个期限——而且很可能会规定，但在我审查完所有材料、审查本案记录中的内容之前，我无法确定。好吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：是的。为了节省法官阁下的时间，在——有一份称为 Particulars of Claims（索赔详情）的文件，嗯，按照英国标准，那是一份起诉状。第 1 页第 2 段称，Ace Decade 于 June 2014 注册成立，并由 Kwok 先生于 on or about November 10, 2014 收购。接着第 3 段和第 4 段谈及——Dawn State 于 September of 2015 由 Ace Decade 收购这一事实。如果您翻到最后一页，即第 38 页，第二原告和第三原告，即 Ace Decade 和 Dawn State，在此宣誓称，Particulars of Claims 中的全部事实均属实，并且任何在经真实性声明核实的文件中作出或促使作出虚假陈述的人，均可能被提起藐视法庭程序。而在第 37 页有 Kwok 先生的签名，第 38 页则有另外两个实体的签名。所以只是为了节省法官阁下的一些时间。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 27 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 27\n\n亨齐先生：只是为了节省——通过——这又是一次状态会议，我们正在把证据纳入记录。不过，法官阁下——\n\n法庭：嗯，我不同意这一点。我要说的唯一一点，Henzy 律师，是我不同意那是在将证据纳入记录。如果起诉状已载入记录，那么 Despins 先生所做的只是向我指出它在哪里。\n\n亨齐先生：明白。\n\n法庭：所以我会看到的。我们会处理到的。\n\n亨齐先生：而且，法官阁下，因此我们谈论的是——起诉状提到的是七年前发生的事情。有人告诉我——我不——我尚未就此进行任何核查，法官阁下，所以我想非常谨慎，好吗，有人在某个时候应 UBS 的坚持，就这笔交易对该事项作出了变更。我不——我不知道这是否属实。我什么都不知道。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 28 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 28 法庭：我明白。HENZY 先生（亨齐）：但我需要进行一些核查，好吗？再次说明，我知道申诉书中写了什么。我亲自看过，也能阅读，所以我知道里面有什么，但截至今天，我并不知道郭先生是——是该实体的所有人。而且我不会让他，您知道，签署一份并非——并非适当的文件。仅此而已。法庭：而且我并未作出任何裁定，要求您今天必须做任何事情。HENZY 先生：明白。法庭：我必须审阅本案记录中的内容。我会这么做。然后，我将确定接下来需要采取哪些步骤——HENZY 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：——以处理该问题。好吗？HENZY 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：好。现在，让我确认一下，就事务性方面而言，是否还有我认为需要处理的其他事项。但我认为，除我们今天在此审理的动议外——那是另一个问题——唯一尚未处理的事项，是延期动议的状态，以及 HK 对抗程序中的异议。因此，这——还有别的事情吗\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 29 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 30 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 29 关于事务性方面——HENZY 先生（亨齐）：法官阁下，我想就状态报告中的几个问题发言。法庭：当然，请讲。HENZY 先生：谢谢。法官阁下，在第 2 页关于 Genever BVI（Genever BVI）的更新中，债务人已完成其被要求或被规定完成的一切。此后发生什么，不是债务人的问题，也不是我的问题。我想指出——Bravo Luck（Bravo Luck）有很好的代理，他们会在受托人决定就所主张的违反自动中止行为采取行动时，采取其认为适当的任何立场。我想指出，就公司治理动议而言，我认为无论是在书面陈述中，还是在公开法庭上的陈述中，受托人均表示，他无意且不会干预或寻求变更 Garrity 法官（加里蒂）在 Southern District of New York（纽约南区）的 Genever BVI Chapter 11 案件中作出的和解命令。该命令明确设想，该衡平所有权问题将通过尚待审理的 New York State Court（纽约州法院）诉讼或在 BVI 的诉讼得到解决。现在，这——我想这两种情况都可能成立，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 31 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022\n\n1 即 Garrity 法官作出了一项命令，设想\n2 该问题将在 BVI 或\n3 纽约州法院的诉讼中得到解决，而受托人可以主张\n4 ——为实现该目的，为实施 Garrity 法官命令所设想的事项，\n5 构成对自动\n6 中止的违反。\n7 但我确实认为，重要的是指出，\n8 Garrity 法官确实作出了该命令，而本案受托人\n9 明确表示，他并不计划或意图\n10 干预该命令的执行，或者至少，\n11 这是我对其所言的理解。\n12 法官阁下，关于债务人的下落，当受托人对您说他获得了\n13 信息时，很难作出回应。\n14 我完全不知道其信息来源\n15 是什么。我不知道他是否派人监视债务人，\n16 还是仅仅四处打听。我不——我不知道\n17 该信息来自何处。\n18 为明确起见，您知道，我并没有——我不会，\n19 也不能就债务人居住在何处作出陈述或保证。\n20 我并没有——我没有跟踪债务人。\n21 我告诉受托人的，并且我将在法庭上陈述的是，\n22 郭先生目前的住所，即其法定\n23 住所，是其妻子位于 Greenwich（格林尼治）的住宅。这是\n24 本案在此审理的依据。这是他在一份\n25 宣誓陈述中所说的。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 31 据告知，他在 New York（纽约）的 Sherry-Netherland（谢里-尼德兰）每隔若干日或夜晚居住，约为四五天。我没有任何信息，好吗？我已询问，并被告知，他没有——他可能已将一些个人物品从 Sherry-Netherland 搬至 Greenwich 的住宅。我不知道。但我想，我对此的反应是：那又如何？我认为，在破产法典、破产规则或我所知的任何其他规定中，并没有任何内容规定，仅因您是破产案件中的债务人，您就不能搬动个人物品，或者不能在一个月中的若干夜晚睡在另一张床上。我没有任何信息。我没有理由相信郭先生以某种方式正在逃离本司法辖区或逃离本国。我认为，如果 Despins 先生（德斯平斯）要继续试图诋毁郭先生，或使郭先生看起来像个坏人，或暗示他在做某种阴险之事或做错事，那么——就像这种事情，当他来到法庭并对您说，他担心郭先生正在逃离本司法辖区，或正在离开本司法辖区，并将处于本法院司法辖区之外时——他确实需要拿出比这更充分的依据。他获得了信息。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 32 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 33 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 32 我认为他应当到庭并向法院说明：这是我的信息来源。这是一些具体、确凿的信息，以便我或许——能够实际回去与我的当事人交谈，或者我能够实际获得可以回应的内容。但目前，他的正式住所、法定住所，是其妻子位于 Greenwich 的住宅。他每月也会有若干夜晚住在 Sherry-Netherland 的公寓内。关于文件提交，法官阁下，这——这——该引述的陈述是 Kindseth 先生（金德塞斯）作出的，不是我作出的，因此我，您知道，我不记得此事。Kindseth 先生——法庭：您看的是哪一页？HENZY 先生：我看的是第 6 页，其中有一段两段式的引述，内容是关于——我相信——我希望这不是我说的，法官阁下，因为我不记得我说过这话。我年纪确实大了，但我想我会记得此事，我希望如此。不过 Despins 先生刚刚告诉我，这是 Kindseth 先生说的。但我预计，他就 HK International（HK International）部分所指的，是——假定 HK International 将收到传票。而实际上，我认为它已收到传票，对吗？是的。我的意思是，它已被送达传票。它将依传票提交文件。我不知道\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022\n\n1 是否曾有意图让我们仅仅在程序之外\n2 提交文件。\n3 关于郭先生，再次说明，我并未参与\n4 其中，但我知道我们已取得文件，并且\n5 已转交该等文件。争议可能并非\n6 文件被扣留，我认为问题在于，\n7 这些是郭先生持有的文件。\n8 他的持有范围内是否应有更多文件，\n9 或许是一个问题。但我认为——我将\n10 回去核查，并确保其持有或\n11 控制的文件均已提交，\n12 但无论如何，我认为目前正在如此办理。\n13 并无意图仅仅扣留他可取得、\n14 持有或控制的文件。\n15 因此，谢谢您，法官阁下。\n16 法庭：谢谢。\n17 DESPINS 先生（德斯平斯）：法官阁下，简要说明。\n18 首先，关于 Sherry-Netherland，我从未说过\n19 ——我唯一说的是，我不会阻止出售该\n20 公寓。该出售是依照该\n21 协议进行的。这完全没有问题。\n22 该协议不包含该协议任何一方同意\n23 将在 BVI 审理相关事项的约定。在\n24 该协议第 7(b) 段中保留了权利，\n25 其中规定，本文任何内容均不应\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 34 阻止任何人这样做。顺便说一句，该命令是在本破产案之前作出的，因此对本法院没有约束力。但我想非常明确地说明，该命令中不存在将于 BVI 诉讼相关事项的协议。那里保留了权利。Friedman 先生（弗里德曼）是该协议和命令的一方，嗯，并非其本人，而是 PAX（PAX）是该协议和命令的一方，因此他可以就此发言，但其中——不存在在 BVI 诉讼的协议。实际上，其中规定可以在破产法院诉讼。当时，破产法院只有一个，即纽约的那一家。但再次说明，那是一项申请破产前命令。而我唯一说过的是，我不会试图阻止出售 Sherry-Netherland。因此，这——我想就此作出明确说明。谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：谢谢。FRIEDMAN 先生：法官阁下，我可以发言片刻吗？法庭：可以，请讲。FRIEDMAN 先生：我是代表 PAX 的 Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。我认为这突出表明，需要就 BVI 相关问题作出\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 35 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 36 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022\n\n1 解决。显然，\n2 受托人的立场是 Bravo Luck 违反了\n3 自动中止，这使 PAX 处于极其\n4 困难的境地。它不希望违反\n5 自动中止，但如果有人在 BVI 对其\n6 主张权利，它可能会受到不利影响。\n7 我想指出，显然我们目前处于非常不同的\n8 情形。PAX 所主张的权利，您知道，\n9 是郭先生拥有一项资产的权利主张，这也使 BVI 成为\n10 审理该权利主张的困难地点，因为\n11 这些确实是其费用应由整个破产财产\n12 承担，而非由 PAX 承担的权利主张。而 PAX 确实，\n13 您知道，不希望处于有人\n14 指控其追究实际上属于破产财产的权利主张的境地。\n15 并且，您知道，这使得——基于这两个\n16 理由，我们仅敦促受托人尽快\n17 解决他将如何把这些\n18 权利主张提交至适当审理机构的问题，以便再次避免 PAX\n19 被要求承担费用。\n20 PAX 不会处于有人将主张其\n21 （听不清）违反自动中止的境地，无论是\n22 通过，您知道，试图追究属于\n23 破产财产的权利主张，还是干扰破产财产的资产。因此，\n24 我们确实认为，必须尽快处理此事。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\n我们在两点上均同意 Despins 先生，即我们\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022\n\n我不认为对于解决 Sherry Netherland（谢里-内瑟兰酒店）所有权的请求之管辖权，存在一个经约定的特定地点。\n\n而且，再次说明，我们也同意，这是一项约定；至少依我们看来，在 Genever New York（吉尼弗纽约）案中，你实际上面对的是一名不具名的债务人，其无意充当中立的受托人，这迫使 PAX（PAX）提出相关请求。我们现在希望并相信，负责 Genever 遗产的受托人能够以真正债务人的身份，对相关请求提出诉请或抗辩。因此，我们不应当处于该事项的中间。\n\n法庭：明白。谢谢。\n\n弗里德曼律师：谢谢，法官大人。\n\n法庭：是否还有其他人希望就我们刚才讨论的诉因发言？\n\n（无人回应）\n\n法庭：好的。我注意到弗里德曼律师的关切，并且我知道各方将采取其认为必要的一切适当行动，法庭将于适当时候处理这些事项。目前，我面前没有任何需要我采取行动的事项。但我理解，我们举行这些案件状态会议的原因之一，不仅是更新案件整体进展，也是向法庭提示可能即将提交法庭的问题。因此，我认为这很适当。各方将提交其认为适当的任何文件，并且将有机会就所有这些问题提出异议并陈述意见。因此，我们将继续以该方式推进。至于现有命令，再次说明，我们将视进展情况而定。但我曾说过，而且我会——我曾说过我会回去查看——我认为该文件已载入记录，债务人律师和受托人律师均认为如此——UBS（瑞银）诉讼的起诉状或详细陈述书。我忘了你说它叫什么，Despins 受托人。显然，我还没有看过，但我会看一下，然后我们将视进展情况而定。我们将于 September 21st 再举行一次状态会议，时间并不遥远。并且，大家可以在该会议之前提交文件，也可能会有事项被加入该会议，并实际获得审理，或者不获得审理。我们将不得不——我们将不得不拭目以待。但我理解各方的立场。在我们转向我们继续审理至今日的实体动议之前——你们双方均就该动议提交了命令——有一项事项，我——从法庭的角度看，这是事务性事项，但却是一项重要的事务性事项。再次说明，我知道我已向自案件开始以来参与本案的所有各方说过这一点，而且你们可能已经听腻了；但由于法庭的记录，即正式记录，是音频，而且已有上诉待决，我认为确保庭审记录准确十分重要。在 August 4th 关于治理动议听证会的庭审记录中，Henzy 律师已就该事项提交上诉通知书，我发现该庭审记录中有一些问题；这些问题对我们所有人而言可能看似无关紧要，但当地区法院审查本案且对其一无所知时，我认为庭审记录需要准确。因此，长话短说，在接下来一两天内，我将记入记录提交我们认为存在问题的勘误表。你们都将有时间作出回应。之后，我们将把此事处理妥当。因为，如你们所知，在本案中已经出现过庭审记录不准确的情况，而该不准确情况产生了实质性影响。我只是——我不——我不会允许一份庭审记录继续使用。而且，顺便说一下，这不是任何人的过错。法庭记录员只能根据她所听到的内容进行转录——本案中恰好是一位女性记录员——当她听到她所听到的内容时。那是音频记录，所以她已尽其所能。但我希望庭审记录准确。因此，无论如何，接下来一两天内你们所有人都会看到该文件，以供审阅。好吗？例如，有些地方有人引用 Section 353。并不存在 Section 353。我的意思是，显然是引用 Section 363。我们中无人可能认为这具有相关性，但对地区法院法官而言，它可能具有相关性。因此，我希望予以更正。我不知道是否有人对此有任何问题，但这就是我将要做的事情。\n\nDespins 先生：是的，法官大人。我坦率地说，我是第一位违反该规则的人。因此，为记录在案，我是受托人 Luc Despins（吕克·德斯潘）。庭审记录经常错误表述是谁在发言。例如，他们会说 Skalka 先生在发言，但其实是 Kindseth 先生，或者反——呃，不是——\n\n法庭：那么，你可以作出所有这些更正。你看，我并不总能注意到该问题，但我感谢你提出这一点。我认为这应当清楚。\n\nDespins 先生：但我的意思是，我认为今后我们需要始终要么——\n\n法庭：发言时说出你的姓名。是的。\n\nDespins 先生：每次都这样，因为否则我们将造成这种——\n\n法庭：我的意思是，这就是问题所在。从破产法院的角度看，这确实是问题。国会预算不允许我们在法庭内配备一名转录员，因此只能使用音频记录。\n\n因此，我理解你所说的。而且我确实认为，在本案中，自本案开始时，我们就要求债务人的前任律师提交一份姓名清单，只是为了确保庭审记录中的姓名正确。这已经发生了。\n\n有人可能认为这是矫枉过正。如果你这样认为，我很抱歉，但我谨表示不同意，因为地区法院收到本案时对此一无所知。他们将按照文字被转录的方式阅读这些文字，即使转录并不准确。而且这并非故意不准确。至少我并未发现是如此。我只是认为我们需要明确。\n\n因此，无论如何，在接下来一两天内，你们将看到一些材料，这将给予你们所有人时间审阅，并对庭审记录作出你们认为应当作出的任何更改。\n\n好吗？对此有人有任何问题吗？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 41\n\n（无人回应）\n\n法庭：好的。好。那么，在此之前——我中午时正在参加一场听证会。我知道各方已提交——我所说的各方，是第11章受托人和债务人的律师——按照我要求你们所做的，就我姑且称为特权控制动议的动议提交了命令；没有更好的名称。我们就这样称呼它即可。我们上周就此进行了辩论。各方均提出了其论点。Romney 律师代表债务人提出论点，Despins 先生和 Bassett 先生代表第11章受托人提出论点。我尚未真正有机会研究所有这些材料。好吗？我确实——这些材料就在我手中。我有第11章受托人于 11:41 提交的文件，以及债务人于 11:51 提交的文件。我尚未查看它们如何重叠或任何其他情况，尽管我认为第11章受托人曾试图向我说明这一点。但我不知道，Romney 先生，你是否碰巧看过第11章受托人提交的文件？那准确吗？我认为那会是第11章受托人命令的 Exhibit C。那是你提交的命令吗？\n\nRomney 先生：是的。为记录在案，我是代表债务人的 Zeisler & Zeisler（赛斯勒律师事务所）的 Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼）。我非常快速地看过，我相信受托人律师提交的红线版本与我们最终提交的版本之间只有一处差异。为明确起见，绝非受托人律师的任何过错，只是由于时间限制而作出了一项补充。该补充在其文件提交前不久，或可能在其文件提交后片刻、在我们文件提交前不久，被发送给受托人律师。但受托人提交的红线版本与债务人实际在 docket number 824 提交的版本之间的一处差异是，docket number 24 [sic] 增加了一段新段落，即现为第11段，也就是保留管辖权条款之前的最后一段。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nRomney 先生：为记录在案，该段规定，而且再次说明，这是债务人拟议的措辞，本命令中的任何内容均不得意图影响债务人与任何共同或共同利益特权持有人，或该等持有人的律师，就该共同或共同利益特权主张其权利的权利。\n\n法庭：好的。现在，关于该措辞——我尚不知道受托人的立场，但我稍后会问他们——Romney 先生，你是否是在向法庭表示——我只是想确保，因为我们今天尚未讨论此事——债务人准备同意，就特权动议而言，可以录入在 824，即 ECF 824，提交的命令？\n\nRomney 先生：是的，法官大人。\n\n法庭：好的。好。我只是想——我只是想确认。好的。那么，Despins 受托人，或者 Bassett 先生，你们是否碰巧看到了 Romney 先生刚刚在记录中谈到的、被添加至其提交的命令中的第11段，或者我不知道是否由他提交，但该命令是代表债务人在 ECF 824 提交的？\n\nBassett 先生：法官大人，为记录在案，我是代表受托人的 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。我刚刚调出了该文件，所以我看到了。我现在看到了。\n\n法庭：你们是否需要时间讨论该事项？或者你们——我的意思是，你们此前没有看过。我认为你们没有时间考虑此事。不论所有这些情况如何，我还有另一个问题；但鉴于我们上周讨论的内容，我确实感谢各方取得了一些进展。Romney 律师，你认为该命令解决了你在上周听证会上提出的一些关切，对吗？\n\nRomney 先生：是的，法官大人。我是 Aaron Romney。我同意您所作的判断，法官大人，即双方都作出了真诚努力。我不认为任何一方——任何一方提交的任何拟议命令，当然，就我本人而言，都不是债务人的愿望清单。这不是我们在该问题上的理想命令，但我们确实作出了真诚努力，以缩小争议问题。仍然存在一些差异，可能是相对重大的差异，但各方——各方的立场更加接近。我认为他们已经——他们已经本着妥协精神走到了我认为各自准备走到的最远程度。我向法庭陈述，截至昨晚大约 7:30，Bassett 律师、Linsey 律师和我仍在电话中集思广益；我认为这是为使立场更加接近而作出的真诚努力。但是，如法官大人将从红线版本和阅读命令中看到的，各方命令之间仍存在一些——一些实质性差异。\n\n法庭：我提出这个问题的原因是，是否存在——而且从——受托人可能不同意你的意见，Romney 先生，但我想从债务人的角度了解，即使 ECF 824 被录入，你是否认为该动议中仍存在尚未解决的实质性问题？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n1 ROMNEY先生（Mr. Romney）：\n我想确保我表达得\n2 准确无误。\n\n3 法庭（THE COURT）：\n请讲。\n\n4 ROMNEY先生：\n如果这能回答您的问题，债务人同意登记\n5 824。\n\n6 法庭：\n不，这并未回答。\n\n7 ROMNEY先生：\n那么我——\n\n8 法庭：\n我的问题是，当你——而且，再说一次，\n9 我并不是说这很容易，对吧，但你上周针对受托人要求\n10 作出一项命令、声明其拥有全部特权的动议提出了许多\n11 异议，对吧，这就是——这就是该动议的内容。你\n12 就此提出了许多问题。\n13 我要求各方，而你显然也确实如此，\n14 法庭对此表示感谢，花时间审查这些\n15 问题，这是你们有义务做的。\n16 因此，我需要了解的是，如果这项命令\n17 获登记，即824，你是否仍将就\n18 特权问题提出争议？这是我需要了解的。以及——\n19 依据是什么？对吧？因为届时必须有\n20 某种裁决。这正是我试图弄清楚的\n21 问题。\n\n22 ROMNEY先生：\n正确。\n23 因此，关于——如果案卷编号824\n24 获登记，唯一尚未解决的问题——而我——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022\n\n1 我仅根据自己的理解发言，我认为如果案卷编号823\n2 也获登记，情况也会如此。\n3 对于某一特定文件是否属于——属于被命令\n4 由债务人保留的范围，还是移交给\n5 受托人的范围，仍可能存在争议。\n6 这不会消除所有问题。\n7 而且我认为，鉴于适用的利益衡量检验标准，\n8 本法庭不可能作出一项\n9 排除对于某事物应归入哪一类别产生分歧的命令。\n10 我认为，法庭将需要在这些问题出现时\n11 予以解决。\n12 我可以根据我的理解说的是，并且这是基于如下假设：\n13 所有收到传票的专业人士都将尽力\n14 既履行其对客户的义务，又遵守该命令，并本着善意\n15 尝试适用该命令，我认为这将大幅减少\n16 今后可能——可能发生的\n17 证据开示争议数量，因为每个人都将有一个\n18 可适用的标准，而不是一套具有不同\n19 标准的法律体系。\n20 那么，法官阁下，这是否说得通？\n\n21 法庭：\n是的，在一定程度上说得通。这在很大\n22 程度上说得通。\n23 但仍然存在这样的问题：从债务人的\n24 角度看，受托人的特权动议中是否提出了你认为法庭必须在此时\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 47\n\n作出裁决的问题？假设其中一项命令获登记。\n\nROMNEY先生：\n我认为，如果案卷编号824获登记，债务人提出的受托人——其将处理受托人动议以及债务人异议中提出的问题。再说一次，这并非以任何一方希望的方式，当然也并非债务人的理想方式，但考虑到，您知道，存在不同的权威意见。并且，是的，就受托人的动议和债务人的异议所提出的问题而言，我无法识别出任何更多问题，因为债务人当然不会主张该命令不适用。我认为其涵盖了受托人动议和债务人异议中提出的问题。\n\n法庭：\n好的。我理解你的意思。Despins先生（Mr. Despins），对于Romney先生以及我向Romney先生提出的问题，你有什么要说的吗？你有不同意见吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：\nBassett先生（Mr. Bassett）会处理这个问题。\n\n法庭：\nBassett先生。抱歉。请讲。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n法官阁下，再次说明，我是代表Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）的Paul Hastings（宝盛律师事务所）的Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\nPage 48 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 48\n\n我想，从债务人的角度看，我们认为法庭应当登记的命令，是我们提交的命令，即案卷编号823，附件A。我认为——我认为我同意Romney先生的意见，即在该命令——在该命令获登记的范围内，该命令授予受托人其在本动议中寻求的救济。然而，我也同意，您知道，今后仍可能有特权问题需要法庭审议。我认为这些问题可归入两个类别之一。您知道，我们所提交的该命令和动议的目的是，就受托人现已控制、因此债务人在回应证据开示时无权主张的特权范围，获得法庭的裁决。这包括与破产财产资产、债务人的财务状况以及破产财产申请后管理事项有关的任何特权通信。因此，如果——如果债务人在回应我们的传票时，在特权清单中列出属于上述任一类别的文件，则我们将不得不再次向法庭提出此事，我认为这将违反该命令，我们将不得不寻求执行\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\nPage 49 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022\n\n1 该命令，因为该命令旨在防止债务人这样做。\n2 我认为，另一个可能存在、可能引发未来有关特权通信争议的类别\n3 是，如我们在我们的命令中已明确说明，\n4 其中设有专门旨在处理债务人就\n5 与针对其提出的刑事指控有关，或与其庇护\n6 申请有关的特权通信所提出关切的例外条款。\n7 我很乐意并且准备好\n8 更详细地说明我们的修改。\n9 但是，再说一次，如果债务人在特权清单中\n10 对这些文件主张特权，则我们可能再次来到法庭前，\n11 就这些特权提出争议，因为该命令的要旨是保留\n12 与这些特权有关的一切权利。\n13 债务人可能会就刑事指控主张特权。届时，\n14 您知道，我们会主张存在犯罪—欺诈例外，\n15 并且还会主张该文件根本不具有特权性。\n16 因此，该问题可能再次提交法庭。\n17 但为回答法庭的问题，如果该命令\n18 获登记，其确实解决了我们今天请求法庭\n19 处理的事项。\n20 再者，法官阁下，我们提交的是一份\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 50\n\n我们经修订的拟议命令副本、对我们随动议提交的初始命令的红线版本、对Romney先生提案的红线版本，但以其提及的新增第11段为准。然后在最后，若有助于我们逐项说明我们对债务人修改所持的问题，我们还有一份对其拟议命令的注释版本，我可以逐项说明。我很乐意——很乐意说明我们的修改，具体如其在与已提交命令相比较的红线版本中所示。我也很乐意仅讨论我们命令与债务人命令之间的差异。我也很乐意回答任何问题。我将依照法官阁下希望的方式进行。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，正如我对你、Romney先生以及其他所有人所说，我对这些文件审阅得非常快。好的？这也可以理解。我的意思是，我要求你们在中午前提交，而你们也确实提交了。不幸的是，中午的一场听证会一直持续到本次听证会开始前约五分钟，因此我没有足够时间像通常那样彻底审阅。但我有一个问题，我不——我只是想确保我理解正确。你说——我想上面写的是，在我说到这里时，让我——让我确切说明我看到的是哪里，以便记录\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\nPage 51 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\nPage 52 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022\n\n1 51\n清楚，第2段，在——让我说明我们在哪里——在\n2 823第24页中的第15页写道：“受托人对原本可由债务人律师主张的任何律师—客户特权和工作成果保护享有排他性控制权。”\n3 这被定义为受托人特权。好的？\n4 这也见于Romney先生版本的\n5 第2段，即ECF 824第4页中的第2页。好的？\n6\n7 ROMNEY先生：\n抱歉，法官阁下，是第几页？\n8\n9 法庭：\n你需要我向你说明哪一份，Romney先生？\n10 先说他们的？还是你的？\n11\n12 ROMNEY先生：\n哪一份都可以。\n13\n14 BASSETT先生：\n但是，法官阁下——法官阁下，\n15 再次说明，我是Nick Bassett。\n16 为明确起见，我认为您所指的ECF 823第24页中的第15页\n17 文件——\n18\n19 法庭：\n是。\n20\n21 BASSETT先生：\n——是债务人提案与受托人提案相比较的\n22 红线版本，显示债务人希望对我们提案作出的\n23 修改。\n24\n25 法庭：\n明白。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n这就是为什么我说你们的文件在第24页中的第15页也写了同样的内容。这就是为什么我在比较它们，这是债务人想要的，但债务人同意受托人对原本可由债务人或其律师主张的任何律师/客户特权或工作成果原则享有排他性控制权，好的，关于文件。现在，“文件”是一个首字母大写的术语，但没有定义。那么，未被文件化的与律师的通信怎么办，那里会发生什么？\n\nROMNEY先生：\n法官阁下，债务人就此的意图是将其限于文件，这主要是因为我们查看标题时，包括受托人提交的原始拟议命令在内，该标题是这一直被称为适用于文件的命令，因此，我们提出的修改——\n\n法庭：\nBassett先生，这是你们的立场吗，即该命令仅适用于与Rule 2004（规则2004）传票有关的文件？\n\nBASSETT先生：\n这不是我们的——法官阁下，再次说明，我是Nick Bassett。这不是我们的立场。我认为这相当\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\nPage 53 of\n\n清楚，如果您查看我们在动议中寻求的救济，并查看附于Rule 2004动议和命令的传票，我们当然寻求从受2004命令约束的各方取得文件证据开示和证言录取。\n\n而且我们认为，该\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\nPage 54 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 53\n\n命令解决既适用于应提交文件、也适用于可能通过证言录取取得的信息的特权问题，至关重要。我认为，否则我们只是，您知道，未能取得尽可能多的进展。我们最终只会再次就原本可由该命令解决的、与证言录取有关的问题来到法庭前。\n\n法庭：\nRomney先生？\n\nBASSETT先生：\n并且——\n\n法庭：\n哦，抱歉，请继续。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n并且为明确起见，法官阁下，您知道，特权的范围——特权的范围是相同的，对吧？我的意思是，没有——没有理由使其不同，而且我们也没有要求其不同。转移给受托人的特权范围，是我们拟议命令中规定的范围。只是同等适用于证言录取证词和文件。\n\n法庭：\n嗯，我之所以提出这个问题，是因为我只看到“文件”一词。而且它不是——它是首字母大写的，却不是定义术语。而且我并不认为——\n\nBASSETT先生：\n所以我——\n\n法庭：\n——或者我应该补充说，我原以为受托人请求一项命令，要求法庭确定特权，无论债务人的\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 54 特权现已归受托人所有，且并不限于依照传票提交的文件。DESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：法官阁下，我可以说一句吗？我认为这里存在误解。您正在看的那份文件是我们提出的命令，加上他们的修改——法庭：我明白。DESPINS先生：——所以关于文件的内容并不是我们想要的。法庭：对。DESPINS先生：我们要的是——我们不要文件。那是他们作出的修改。法庭：对。不，我明白。DESPINS先生：好的。法庭：我明白。这就是我提出这个问题的原因。这就是我向ROMNEY先生（罗姆尼先生）提出刚才那个问题的原因，即您是否认为，如果我签发他提交的命令，该命令是否解决了所有问题？我明白，DESPINS先生。这就是我所说的。因此，我们对于债务人的特权是否转移给受托人——无论债务人就这些文件和Rule 2004传票之外可能拥有何种特权——是否仍存在分歧，还是不存在分歧？ROMNEY先生：我想确保我——案件 22-50073 文档 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 第55页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 第56页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 55 法庭：情况是这样的——也许我应该问一个更好的问题。也许问题在于我没有恰当地表述。我想知道的是，也是我问您认为哪些问题已解决、哪些尚未解决的原因，是我是否还要就特权是否适用、受托人是否可以行使债务人的特权，一次又一次地举行听证会？我认为您所说的是会。而如果这就是您所说的，那也没关系。我想了解这一点。我可能不同意您的观点，但这正是我——我试图理解的事情。目前看来，我们正将这个特权问题限定于与2004 Examinations有关而发出的这些传票。我不认为受托人是这样想的，但我认为您是这样想的。我只是想确保我理解您的立场。否则，在我看来——似乎如果您说您会——我不是指您，ROMNEY先生——ROMNEY先生：明白，法官阁下。法庭：——我是说代表债务人，您会同意签发这项命令，但仅限于仅与这些Rule 2004传票有关的文件，那么我认为您所说的正是我所说的，即您仅同意其在有限范围内适用。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 第57页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 56 我不确定——我不确定我们以零散方式处理此事是否最为合理。我并不是说您同意我的观点。我也不是说您必须同意。您不必同意我。鉴于我在本次听证会前仅看了五分钟的材料，对您的命令——代表债务人提交的命令，即债务人至少初步同意可以签发的命令——所作的审查，我是在公开思考，您可以说服我我错了；但该命令看来仅限于这些传票及——及文件的提交。如果确实如此，那么我只是想弄清楚这一点。我想确保我理解您当事人的观点。ROMNEY先生：法官阁下，我认为这是对债务人所提交拟议命令的准确解读。我相信，该修改是针对我们对该文件标题的理解作出的；我们理解该标题表明，它涉及根据Rule 2004传唤的文件，并指示债务人及其他受询问人不得以此类特权为由扣留文件。我们是使该命令与拟议命令的该标题相对应。现在，其中还有另一项——准予相关救济的部分，就其表面而言，我不知道那是什么意思。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 第58页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 57 我坦率地说，这一特定问题，即——我们现在讨论的这个问题，一方面是文件，另一方面是受托人拟议命令中所称的文件信息，并不是我们昨晚电话协商会议中讨论的问题之一。我希望我们当时讨论了这个问题，因为我所说的是——而且我不想在未与我方任何其他人沟通的情况下在这里说任何不妥的话——就我现在站在这里所见，我设想各方能够解决该问题，因为我确实同意，就某一特定问题的特权而言，如果对于同一主题，特权会就一份文件转移、却不会就一项通信转移，我现在无法阐明其依据，如果这样说得通的话。法庭：好的。是的，说得通。因为这正是我的问题的一部分，对吗？特权会转移，无论它是什么，它都会转移。无论您谈论的是通信还是文件，这都无关紧要，至少从法庭目前的角度来看，这是法庭的观点。这就是我提出这个问题的原因。因为在我看来，当我看您提交的命令、您的拟议命令时，ROMNEY律师，它比我刚才所说的要具体得多。它看来仅适用于文件。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 第59页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n1 这些文件是传票的标的，因此我提出了这一\n2 担忧，因为我不希望我们——我认为我们任何人花时间\n3 一次又一次地举行听证会，以讨论\n4 特权是否适用于一份文件或者\n5 一项通信，都没有意义。\n6 现在，关于传票，您仍有权主张任何\n7 您将要主张的事项，对吗？\n8 各方仍然——据我所知，还没有人提出撤销传票的动议。\n9 也许那会发生。\n您知道，我不知道。\n10 我们拭目以待。\n11 但这也是我前几天所说的原因之一，无论对错——我可能对也可能错——为什么我\n12 认为受托人提出的这项动议与\n13 对治理动议提出上诉中的问题有关，即\n14 谁拥有\n15 该特权？\n16 我理解，而且如果HENZY律师（亨齐律师）想陈述意见，他可以就此陈述。我理解\n17 HENZY律师在上诉中提出的观点，\n18 即他认为\n19 治理命令强制披露信息，\n20 而您不能那样做。任何法院都不能那样做。\n21 但您也可以主张，如果那是问题，\n22 如果HENZY律师在上诉中提出的、并且\n23 确实在上诉中提出的问题，是强制披露，\n24 那就仿佛您已经越过了郭先生实际上是否仍有特权\n25 可以主张的问题，甚至在\n\n案件 22-50073\n文档 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n1 英国诉讼中也是如此。好吗？\n2 我理解关于英国法律\n3 可能不同或诸如此类的论点，但我不知道这一点，因为\n4 没有人向我提交任何材料说明它确实不同。\n5 我看过你们双方附在\n6 各自提交材料中的判例，但是关于\n7 特权以及谁有权行使该特权的问题，\n8 尚未由本法庭裁定，而这正是我\n9 正在问你们的。\n10 这是你们想要的吗，还是你们想要——或者你们想要\n11 继续——我并不是——零散并不是——我\n12 使用这个词并不是要表示——你们做了什么\n13 不妥的事，所以让我——也许那不是最好的词。你们\n14 想要逐步推进。我不知道\n15 逐步推进是否有意义。\n16 而且我认为他们的动议——我认为受托人——\n17 我认为受托人的动议寻求的救济比这项——\n18 我并不是说您认为它不是这样——但\n19 您的命令缩小了救济范围。再次强调，这没有任何不妥。\n20 这是您所持的立场。您\n21 完全有权采取该立场。\n22 ROMNEY先生：是的，法官阁下。拟议\n23 命令，案卷编号824，将缩小受托人通过——所寻求的拟议\n24 救济范围。\n25 法庭：因此，也许是我的错，因为我\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 60 一开始没有非常恰当地提出这个问题，但那就是我的意思。那么，您认为受托人的动议中是否仍有尚未解决的问题？而您的回答是有，因为他们寻求的救济比您同意他们有权获得的救济更广泛。ROMNEY先生：正确。823和824之间存在实质性差异。法庭：是的。ROMNEY先生：我想，我将这个问题理解为，如果——您知道——824获准签发，它将成为本法庭的一项命令。债务人及债务人的专业人士将尽——将尽其所能遵守该命令，因为这将是一项法院命令。法庭：明白。我明白。但是，不，这就是我问您是否认为所有问题都已解决的原因。也许我只是没有把问题问得尽可能好。ROMNEY先生：嗯，我相信它会在以下意义上解决这些问题：法庭将命令实施受托人动议所寻求的某些事项，同时会驳回受托人——法庭：但是，它没有在任何地方说它驳回了。您看，这就是问题所在。它只是说部分准予。它没有说受托人所寻求的其余救济被驳回。而这就是——再次强调，我告诉您，我只花了五分钟看这个，好吗？所以，您知道，我所说的一切可能完全错误，但我告诉您，您的措辞是——您所作的修改——我认为受托人原来写的是——动议在……范围内获准，或者——您知道，以其后所述的任何方式。您写的是，按本命令所述部分准予。它没有说受托人所寻求的其余救济被驳回。ROMNEY先生：嗯，我想那是我起草时不够严谨。法庭：不，这并不——我不确定那是不够严谨的起草。我只是说，我需要弄清楚您希望我做什么。对吗？您需要——您希望我说，在您同意的范围内准予，并且——这没有任何不妥——并且驳回所有其他救济。ROMNEY先生：我想这是正确的。这份命令的起草方式是，其中——其中有新条款，明确赋予债务人保留就某些问题控制特权的权利，因此我想可以默示——法庭：我不认为任何人对此有争议，案件 22-50073 文档 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 第62页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 第63页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n对吧？我认为，至少有一点我们可以达成一致。我认为没有人对此提出异议，至少我没有听到任何人提出异议，即便是受托人——Bassett先生（巴西特先生），你得纠正我——我认为没有人对以下一点提出异议：受托人同意，他不会就庇护事项以及有人在不同情况下提出的侵权事项行使该特权——就——我忘了这里的措辞，但我得找出来——就这些严重人身侵权行为的指控而言，无须逐一陈述，对吧？而且，没有任何事情会影响债务人依据第五修正案享有的权利。我认为大家都同意这一点。我相信这就是受托人的立场。\n\n但是，除这些保留事项外，就其他一切而言，受托人的立场是他享有该特权。他可以行使该特权。我认为你不同意这一点。\n\n而且我认为，Henzy律师（亨齐律师），我不知道我在这一点上是否正确，但我知道Henzy律师明确认为那封信强制要求披露。\n\n我对该问题的观点是，如果Kwok先生（郭文贵先生）并不持有该特权，那么就没有任何——他并未被强制做任何事情。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 6, 2022 63\n\n他所做的一切只是发出一封信，说你们能否与——与受托人合作，因为受托人现已获任。当然，我知道Henzy律师不同意这一点。我并非暗示他同意。但这就是为什么我说，我认为这两件事有关联，这两件事彼此相关，我们必须决定什么——而且你——而且无论我作出何种决定，我都可能是错的。如果我不同意你，你有权对此提出上诉。如果我不同意受托人，他们有权对此提出上诉。当你谈到这一点时——而且你是对的，Romney律师（罗姆尼律师），至少就我所见而言，法律在这些问题上并无定论，顺便说一句，无论属于哪一章的个人破产债务人都是如此，对吧？关于受托人在个人破产案件中行使特权的权利，它并不像本可以那样明确无疑。而且，你知道，我们可以讨论这一点。我已非常仔细地审阅了你们二位就这些问题所援引的所有材料。我的观点是，我认为，你知道，如果你——你希望我在没有——我认为这项裁定并未明确表明，你希望我否认受托人对那些其他——那一范围的特权享有权利，即该范围仅限于你们在本裁定中同意的内容。然后，其他任何事情我们今后都必须争论。也就是说——我也不是说那样是错误的。我只是试图理解你们的立场，以便如果我作出裁决，并且我作出某一种或另一种裁决时，我是在适当地作出裁决。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 64 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 64\n\nROMNEY律师：因此，债务人裁定草案中拟议第2段的措辞，案卷编号——\n\n法院：824中的？\n\nROMNEY律师：824中的。该短语的前一部分在债务人和受托人的文本中相似，即使并非完全相同；就我们所同意的内容而言，罗马数字分项I、II、III中的措辞存在实质性差异，在债务人提出的——债务人拟议裁定中的措辞实质上更为狭窄。我还要说，之所以更为狭窄，是考虑到，尽管关于这一问题的判例法在某种程度上并不明朗，大多数判例法虽然以不同方式适用这一标准，但确实试图平衡受托人在管理破产财产及识别资产方面的正当利益，与个人债务人的——你知道——特权，以及律师与当事人之间自由沟通的——你知道——利益，并且还考虑到个人债务人可能与律师讨论的某些问题，根本不涉及受托人在管理破产财产时履行职责。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 65 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 66 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 65\n\n例如，庇护申请并非一项资产。情况不同。\n\n因此，为向法院突出说明措辞上的差异，并且理解法院正如其在庭审记录中所说，仅在我认为不到15秒前才收到这些裁定，问题在于，与其说受托人有权控制所有涉及资产的事项的特权而不考虑其他任何事项，因为文件可能既涉及资产，也可能涉及其他事项。涉及资产的文件可能在其他程序中涉及诸如可免责性的问题。\n\n而该措辞所说的是，足以识别债务人破产财产资产的文件——你知道——是识别债务人破产财产负债所必需的，并且仅与破产财产的管理有关。\n\n现在，我可能会——有人可能会不同意特定文件究竟是否符合该标准，但关键在于，一旦——一旦已向受托人提供了足够的信息，无论是否享有特权，以使其履行职责、识别资产、识别负债，并有效追诉属于破产财产资产的诉因，那么这就已经满足了受托人为履行本院指派其履行的工作所具有的正当利益，因此，债务人或债务人聘请的专业人员无需再提供进一步的享有特权的文件。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 67 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022\n\n法院：好的。这很有帮助。但如果他们查看一份文件，例如受托人Despins（德斯平斯）收到一份文件，文件显示Verdolino和Lowey（维尔多利诺和洛伊），因为我们今天谈到了他们，所以就以他们为例，他们曾与债务人讨论如何界定一项资产，他们——我认为你的意思是，受托人无权去与Verdolino和Lowey交谈，讨论Kwok先生与Verdolino和Lowey之间的谈话。你的意思是这样吗？\n\nROMNEY律师：我认为这就是文件824所说的。而且，再次说明，那是——意思是，该文件使用的是“文件”一词，而不是“文件或信息”。是这样吗——\n\n法院：是。或者沟通。它不必是一份文件。\n\nROMNEY律师：法庭文件或者——\n\n法院：Verdolino和Lowey可以接受证言录取，对吧？\n\nROMNEY律师：正确。而且正如我意图阐明的，那一措辞，即对文件的提及，是将裁定与——与我们所理解的裁定标题联系起来，因为该标题提及的是被传唤的文件，而不是被扣留的文件，因此，我们的拟议裁定沿用了这一措辞。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 68 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 67\n\n法院：我明白。但我想直指问题核心，即我不想每次发生争议时都这样做，对吧？或者，如果我们要这样做，如果这将会发生，我希望预先知道这将会发生，对吧？我不想作出一项我认为做了一件事、而你认为做了另一件事的裁定。因此，问题正如你已经所说，而且我认为你是正确的，即受托人怎么可能就文件承继特权，却不就沟通承继特权？\n\nROMNEY律师：我认为我并未提出这个问题，但我确实承认，我无法回答这个问题，即该区分是否没有实质差别。\n\n法院：那么，我正在试图弄清楚我们应当如何继续。目前，这是就受托人的动议举行的续行听证，该动议请求本院裁定其持有债务人的全部特权。我对该动议的理解是，尽管受托人希望获得该裁定，但他会同意排除与庇护事项有关的一切、与这些被指称的侵权事项有关的一切，以及显然与第五修正案有关的一切。我的意思是，他——他并未主张，而且从未主张，他将行使该权利。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 68\n\nROMNEY律师：是的。嗯，正如我解读这些裁定，就我所称的侵权问题而言，存在差异。\n\n法院：嗯，我——我的意思是——\n\nROMNEY律师：是。\n\n法院：——我说的是强奸指控及诸如此类的事情。我不知道那些事情是怎么回事，但这就是在本案记录中所提出的内容，对吧？在受托人甚至获任之前，就有人称这些诉因存在。那些债权人在本案中提出了动议。他们说了很多事情，显然，其中没有一项在目前已获本院证实，也许永远不会。好吗？因此，当我说——我说的是某些据称非常难以谈论的侵权行为，而不是，你知道，如果存在其他——比如，也许你主张了——我甚至不知道。正如你所知，我没有读过UBS（瑞银）起诉状。其中是否存在包括违约在内的侵权诉因？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 69 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022\n\n我不知道。可能有。我毫无头绪。对吧？\n\n但我的观点是，尽管毫无疑问你们都已努力缩小这一分歧的范围，我需要理解是否仍然存在分歧，而我认为确实存在。\n\n我认为，从债务人的观点——立场来看，仍然存在分歧，即无论2004动议和传票如何，受托人都控制全部特权。\n\nROMNEY律师：确实存在——受托人与债务人并未就此达成一项双方同意的约定裁定。我指的是823与824之间的实质性差异。\n\n法院：对。\n\nROMNEY律师：因此，仍然存在——仍然存在——就某人的——某人获得其——你知道——其愿意接受的内容，而另一人获得其愿意接受的内容而言，法院仍然必须选择一方。\n\n我选择这些措辞，而非说某人获得其想要的内容，另一人获得其想要的内容——\n\n法院：我明白。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 6, 2022 70\n\nROMNEY律师：——因为这两份文件都体现了一种妥协。\n\n法院：我明白。\n\nROMNEY律师：但答案是肯定的。我认为，在适用任一裁定后，仍可能存在未解决的问题。我想——而且我认为双方的意图都是尽可能缩小这些潜在未来问题的范围——也许确实如此，也许那只是希望如此，也许更好的办法是逐份传票处理此事，因为我今天不能以任何程度的确定性说，这两份拟议裁定中的任何一份都将解决今后与特权相关的证据开示问题。\n\n法院：好的。这很公平。我感谢你的答复。好的。\n\nROMNEY律师：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，如果我——如果我可以就此简要陈述？\n\n法院：可以。\n\nDESPINS先生：这件事由我负责，但让您在只有五分钟通知的情况下审阅这些裁定，是不公平的。是的，我希望该裁定在三天前就已作出，但这不会发生。而且这并不——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 71 of\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 913-7\n提交日期 10/04/22\n录入日期 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 6, 2022\n\n1 今天将要录入，因为它不应当在今天录入，\n2 因为我希望法官阁下能清楚了解\n3 正在发生的事情。\n4 我相信，Bassett 先生可以纠正我，如果我\n5 错了，我可以列出的分歧事项不超过十项。\n6 \n7 这就像我们小时候玩过的一种游戏，\n8 叫作“战舰”，其中，您知道，我在射击，我\n9 不知道潜艇在哪里，但他们知道。\n10 因此，所有那些修改，如果您\n11 看到它们——举例来说，他们删除了“或任何相关的\n12 特权或保护”。他们是在告诉您，他们将\n13 以此作为立足点。我不知道为什么或如何。又如，\n14 当他们说他们删除了实际或潜在的\n15 诉因，因此只剩下诉因。\n16 因此，那是潜在的，不得进行证据开示。\n17 他们还加入了“必要”一词，即“为识别所\n18 必要”。因此，我向您保证，他们会主张，这\n19 对于我们识别诉因而言并非必要。\n20 这是一场“战舰”游戏，法官阁下。\n21 我认为我希望将十个未决问题写在\n22 一张纸上，让法官阁下有时间\n23 消化这些内容，因为归根结底，您知道，让我们\n24 记住我们在这里面对的是谁，并回到\n25 Ostrager（奥斯特拉格），您知道，基本上是最初的步骤。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 913-7 提交日期 10/04/22 录入日期 10/04/22 11:50:18 第 73 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 6, 2022 72 您知道，我们知道他们擅长这个。他们在 Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官面前做了四年。这一切都是为了这个，也就是说，再拖一天，这样我就可以在另一天对文件出示提出异议，而我们将每周都回到法官阁下面前。这就是其目的。当然，我们正试图避免这种情况。但我的观点是，这方面最多大概只有十点。您应当在听证会前以要点形式收到这些内容，而不是在听证会前五分钟。正如我所说，我愿意为此承担责任。法庭：嗯，是我设定了那个时间框架，所以这不是——是我设定了那个时间框架。DESPINS 先生：不。但是我——法庭：我这样做是因为我以为今天上午在下午 1 点的听证会之前我们会有更多时间。我延续了这个事项，因此我不认为这是——我认为这是——我理解您的意思，但我说过，你们双方为什么不在听证会后一小时内提交一份命令。只是我没有时间看它。因此，您知道，我不认为责任在于——我不认为存在责任问题。这是一个试图留出足够时间推进事项的问题，而时间不够。但我听到的是，债务人——我确实赞赏各方进行沟通并试图解决该\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 913-7\n提交日期 10/04/22\n录入日期 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 6, 2022\n\n1 问题，但我认为并不存在解决方案。\n2 DESPINS 先生：不会有。\n3 法庭：我认为不存在解决方案。我\n4 认为我曾想知道是否能够达成的解决方案\n5 不能——我想不能达成。那也没关系。\n6 如果没有发生，那就没有发生。那我们就\n7 必须相应作出裁决。\n8 但是，我认为至少按照，Romney 律师，\n9 我对你们在 ECF 824 提交的命令的理解，\n10 它限于文件，也限于这些\n11 2004 审查和传票。我不知道我是否\n12 认为那是——我现在还不知道，但我不知道\n13 我是否认为那是合理的。\n14 我是说，债务人——判例法并不明确。\n15 而且，您知道，可能我必须作出裁决，以便你们可以\n16 上诉。也许必须如此。也许你们可以\n17 直接向 Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）上诉，并说，看，\n18 这里没有具有约束力的判例法。我们需要有这样的判例法。\n19 受托人需要——受托人可能是想要\n20 上诉的人。谁知道呢？\n21 但是，如果对于这些关乎该财产的关键问题，\n22 即允许受托人进行调查以确定是否\n23 存在任何可供债权人获得的财产，特权问题存在分歧，\n24 我又怎能作出裁决呢？\n25 \n\n案号 22-50073 文件 913-7 提交日期 10/04/22 录入日期 10/04/22 11:50:18 第 75 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 6, 2022 74 我并不是说你们无权持不同意见。你们绝对有权这样做。并且你们有权做任何你们认为依法适当的事情。但我就是不知道该怎么办。我们要怎么做？我认为渐进式步骤没有意义。我认为必须有一个确定性的方式来处理此事。而且不幸的是，就我们所有人而言，依我之见，没有明确的法律。我找不到任何。你们也没有提出任何。你们没有向我提出任何表明该特权不会转移给受托人的内容。12 你们没有向我提出任何，也无法向我提出，因为不存在这样的内容，表明在个人案件中该特权会自动转移给受托人。除你们援引的所有其他案件外，唯一讨论破产背景下该问题的案件，是 1986 年 Weintraub（温特劳布）案，该案讨论了公司特权向受托人的转移。然后，他们没有处理在个人案件中会发生什么。他们是有意不处理该问题的，好吗，Supreme Court（联邦最高法院）。而且，巡回法院的案件在哪里——没有巡回法院的案件。这里没有任何具有约束力的内容。因此，每次我们这样做时，我们都可能有另一次上诉，我们都可能有另一次上诉，我们都可能有\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 913-7 提交日期 10/04/22 录入日期 10/04/22 11:50:18 第 76 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 6, 2022\n\n1 另一次上诉。至少对我而言，这没有意义。而且\n2 也许我错了，但这没有意义。\n3 BASSETT 先生：我想——\n4 ROMNEY 先生：法官阁下——抱歉。\n5 BASSETT 先生：法官阁下，我是代表受托人的 Paul Hastings（博钦律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）。\n6 \n7 我认为，我们当然同意这一观点，\n8 因为本动议及我们提出的命令，即经修订的拟议命令，\n9 其目标是向各方提供尽可能多的\n10 指引，并设定参数，\n11 以尽可能消除今后关于\n12 特权的争议需要。\n13 我认为该措辞，我们无需\n14 详加论述，Despins 先生谈到了它，Romney 先生也谈到了它，\n15 但债务人在其拟议命令第\n16 2 段中加入的措辞，我认为会产生相反的效果，\n17 即，您知道，包括“必要”一词，\n18 将为争议提供各种理由，并且，您\n19 知道，将允许债务人判断他认为哪些文件对于受托人\n20 识别潜在的破产财产\n21 是必要的。您知道，我认为这类措辞\n22 正是引发各种\n23 争议的根源。\n24 我们试图通过我们提出的命令做到的是——\n25 我并不反对法庭认为在此问题上不存在具有约束力的\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 913-7 提交日期 10/04/22 录入日期 10/04/22 11:50:18 第 77 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 6, 2022\n\n1 第二巡回上诉法院判例——但我确实认为，\n2 正如我们试图在我们的书面材料中汇集并在上周\n3 听证会上讨论的，有许多破产案件\n4 试图处理 Weintraub（温特劳布）案之后个人\n5 特权转移给受托人的问题。\n6 我认为，这些案件中的绝大多数以及判例法的明确趋势\n7 是认为，当该特权涉及受托人\n8 识别破产财产、调查\n9 债务人的财务状况，以及当然涉及\n10 任何影响其破产财产管理的申请破产后事项时，该特权\n11 转移给受托人，该等事项发生在受托人获任命之前。\n12 \n13 这正是我们试图起草经修订拟议命令的方式，\n14 即遵循该大量判例中的这些类别，\n15 并且同时明确回应债务人的关切，即他仍然能够\n16 就与刑事\n17 指控或其庇护申请有关、但与\n18 我刚才提到的那四项——那三项类别无关的文件主张\n19 特权。\n20 \n21 因此，就 Romney 律师提出的具体意见而言，\n22 我认为他说过，您知道，可能存在一份\n23 谈及破产财产的文件，但它同时也是，\n24 您知道，与针对债务人的刑事\n25 指控有关的特权通信，该等指控已经\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 913-7\n提交日期 10/04/22\n录入日期 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 6, 2022\n\n1 在本案中提请法庭注意，而该类\n2 文件。\n3 债务人仍能够就任何有关\n4 刑事指控的讨论主张特权，因此我不认为那是一个关切。\n5 \n6 但是，再次，我只是想回应\n7 在 Romney 律师讨论期间提出的一些\n8 观点，并澄清，您知道，我们对于\n9 此处何者最为合理以及我们试图通过我们的命令\n10 实现何种目标的看法。\n11 法庭：明白了。谢谢。\n12 我确实——我确实赞赏各方为了解你们能够——能够做些什么所作的努力。而且\n13 \n14 你们显然花了时间，这很重要，但我不——我没有看到存在协议。\n15 \n16 因此，我不知道目前录入这两份命令中的任何一份\n17 是否合理。我必须考虑。\n18 我必须确定我是否必须\n19 仅仅作出一项裁决，然后让你们双方决定你们\n20 想做什么。\n21 我是说，问题在于，如果我录入——如果我录入\n22 Chapter 11 Trustee（第 11 章受托人）的命令，你们将会上诉。\n23 我知道这一点。我们都知道。而且如果我录入你们的命令，我\n24 认为第 11 章受托人将会上诉。\n25 所以我——您知道，我在寻求让你们告诉我\n\n案号 22-50073\n文件 913-7\n提交日期 10/04/22\n录入日期 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 6, 2022\n\n1 另一种推进方式，但这目前是本案中的一个关键问题。\n2 \n3 我是说，如果不就此事的归属作出确定，\n4 我不知道该如何——我不知道我们如何不会每周都在这里\n5 就同一问题争论。不是同一\n6 事情。我的意思是，一般而言的该问题，而不是就\n7 不同的文件请求或 2004 审查中的证词或其他事项\n8 可能出现的具体问题，但那是我当时的——那是我的\n9 担忧。\n10 ROMNEY 先生：而且，法官阁下，显然，\n11 特权问题的困难在于，一旦——您知道，\n12 一旦特权文件已经泄露，您知道，\n13 就很难把牙膏重新塞回管子里，\n14 特别是在像本案这样的情形中，似乎\n15 债务人的立场和受托人的立场在许多事情上\n16 彼此截然不同。\n17 我们不断讨论 Ostrager（奥斯特拉格）法官的裁决，\n18 该裁决显然对债务人有一些尖锐的措辞，\n19 尽管在许多方面实际上与法庭面前的问题\n20 并不真正相关。\n21 但我在此的观点是，我们的情形是\n22 有一名受托人，我并非作出评价或\n23 作出——我试图客观陈述\n24 这一情形。我们有一名受托人，即使尚未在技术上如此，\n25 也很可能处于对立地位，与\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 79 债务人。而这与许多案件不同，在那些案件中，较容易适用必要且均衡的做法——即在受托人管理破产财产与保护债务人有关其特权信息的利益之间取得平衡。遗憾的是，答案或许是，确实需要在有关特定文件的问题出现时逐一处理，因为标准并不明确。我认为双方都已尽力尝试提出某种平衡此处相互竞争利益的方案，但现实是，在这样的案件中存在相互竞争的利益，有时很难加以平衡。因此，如我所说，债务人已提交824。这是其愿意同意的内容。当然，债务人并未放弃就任何其他事项提出上诉的权利，尽管这并非我准备以任何一种方式作出表态的事项。而且，我唯一还想补充的一点是，显然，正如法院所指出的，当事人并未达成一致。他们各自——他们各自提交了范围缩窄但仍相互竞争的拟议命令。法院就是法院。法院的职责是\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n1 裁决争议事项。\n目前仍有一项争议事项提交在\n2 法院面前。\n3 如果法院原本倾向于签发824，\n4 但问题在于其提到的是\n5 文件，而不是文件、通讯和\n6 信息，那么，如果这正是法院对文件\n7 824的主要关切，这当然属于法院的\n8 权限范围。\n9 巴塞特先生：\n法官阁下——\n10 法院：\n还有什么——\n11 巴塞特先生：\n——我是代表\n12 受托人的尼克·巴塞特（Nick Bassett）。\n13 法院：\n请讲。\n14 巴塞特先生：\n我想，我只是想回到\n15 法官阁下先前所作的评论，我确实\n16 认为很明确的是，我们——我们尚未\n17 就一项拟议命令达成协议，而且存在\n18 一些我认为造成了无法\n19 弥合的鸿沟的问题。因此，法院面前有我们的拟议命令和\n20 债务人的拟议命令。\n21 而且，如德斯平斯先生所说，我认为您可以\n22 将剩余的分歧归纳为大约\n23 十几个。如果您查看我们所提交文件的附件B，\n24 我们试图标明这些分歧，并列出我们对其余\n25 领域所存在的关键问题。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 81 分歧。因此，就我而言，我认为这就是目前的情况。法院面前有两份命令。我们认为，我们提出的命令既符合判例法，也将最适当地向当事人提供其在本案中进行证据开示所需的指引。法院：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望发言吗？戈德曼先生：法官阁下，我是代表委员会的欧文·戈德曼（Irve Goldman）。我只是不希望我们的沉默被理解为我们是中立的旁观者，而我们并非如此。我们支持受托人的拟议命令，原因有几个，其中一些他已经提到。我确实认为，债务人提出的拟议命令给予了其过多机会来抵制进一步的证据开示。我认为，如果过去的经历具有任何指示意义——也就是奥斯特拉格法官（Judge Ostrager）面前进行的诉讼——那么，以他们在其命令中使用的这类弹性措辞，这很可能会发生。受托人提到了“必要”一词，即资产调查所必需的一切。我可以设想一种论点，即受托人没有必要取得某些信息，因为可能更容易从别处取得。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n1 这不应成为本案的结果。而且，\n2 因此，我认为该词——该词至少应当\n3 被删除。\n4 我们存在的另一个问题是他们引入的\n5 “仅仅”一词，即该信息只能\n6 与仅仅涉及\n7 本案管理的文件有关。\n8 一份文件当然可能具有双重\n9 目的，但这却会引发一种论点，即它并非\n10 仅仅、并非仅仅涉及本案的\n11 管理。这是荒谬的结果。\n12 而就此而言，一份文件\n13 可能涉及犯罪活动。例如，根据18\n14 U.S.C. Section 157，在破产案件中隐瞒及\n15 虚假陈述资产构成破产犯罪。\n16 因此，我可以设想一份文件可能提供\n17 该等行为的证据。它显然也与\n18 破产财产的管理有关。然而，它可能引发\n19 他们试图通过其拟议命令保留的异议，\n20 我认为这是不适当的。\n21 因此，基于这些理由，我们支持受托人的\n22 拟议命令。\n23 法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n24 还有其他人希望发言吗？\n25 德斯平斯先生：\n作为最后一句，法官阁下，卢克·德斯平斯（Luc\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 83 Despins），受托人。是否有意义——显然法官阁下会审阅此事，您也会如此做——安排一次延期听证，以便我们能够回应您可能尚未解决的任何问题？因为正如巴塞特先生所说，可能有10个、12个问题。从我们的角度看，我认为这些问题界限分明。您可能会在其中一些问题上作出对我们不利的裁定。但关键在于，我认为这样做可能也会有益。我知道您的日程非常满，但如果我们能将其延期至不久后的某个日期，我认为那将很好。法院：您考虑的时间范围是什么？本周稍晚些时候，还是下周初？德斯平斯先生：您的意思是听证会将持续多长时间，还是——法院：不是。您希望延期到何时？您是指本周稍晚些时候，还是下周初？德斯平斯先生：如果法官阁下有时间，比如说本周的周四或周五。任何能让法院有足够时间真正审阅并且——我确信，了解您，您会有一系列问题。无论什么时间能让您有足够时间这样做，我们都准备配合。法院：我正在看日历。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n1 （暂停）\n2 法院：\n那么，德斯平斯先生，如果您将要\n3 提交这份列明——也就是以要点列出\n4 分歧的文件，您何时可以提交？\n5 您能多快提交？\n6 德斯平斯先生：\n可以。我正在等巴塞特先生\n7 回答。\n8 法院：\n巴塞特先生，您能多快完成\n9 这项工作？\n10 巴塞特先生：\n法官阁下，我是尼克·巴塞特。\n11 我们今天就可以完成。如果不是今天，\n12 那么明天当然可以。\n13 法院：\n我不——我不认为\n14 需要今天完成。我们下午3点还有另一场听证会。所以，我\n15 是说，我认为——\n16 德斯平斯先生：\n我确信明天10点前可以。\n17 法院：\n您明天中午前可以完成。我\n18 不必在上午10:00前收到。\n19 但我要做的是，我将最后一次继续审理本次\n20 听证会，延期至9月12日星期一。而且\n21 我可以——我将——实际上，因为我们现在已经讨论过此事\n22 三次，或者无论如何是两次，我将允许其远程进行，这样\n23 人们无需被拖到这里来，因为我到时候\n24 只会告诉你们我将如何处理。\n25 因此，与其把你们拖到法院来，我将\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 85 做的是——你们希望在12日星期一1:30还是2:00开始？有人有偏好吗？（无人回应）法院：好。那么我们定在12日下午2:00继续本次听证会。德斯平斯先生或其律师将在明天中午前就两份命令之间的分歧向案卷提交某份文件。然后在12日——抱歉，罗姆尼先生（Mr. Romney），您想提交什么吗？罗姆尼先生：嗯，我只是有点不清楚，如果我们谈论的是分歧，这是否应当是一份联合提交的诉状，还是我们应当提交我们各自不同的观点——法院：我会让你们自行解决。我会让你们双方谈谈此事。怎么样？你们可以做你们认为适当的事。罗姆尼先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。那么截止时间是——法院：明天中午前。如果这样更方便，我可以给你们到下午1:00。多一个小时可能会对大家有帮助，对吧？罗姆尼先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法院：好。明天下午1:00。这会给我一些时间审阅。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 86 然后我将在星期一告诉你们我将如何处理。这就是——我将远程举行那次听证会。没有人需要为此到法院来，因为这现在是——那将是就该动议举行的第三次听证会。而且我将要——我将告诉你们我将如何处理。我现在不知道我将如何处理，但到那时我会知道。因此，我认为这是最好的推进方式。我确实认为——我不想阻止当事人继续交谈，因为我确实赞赏你们已经这样做了。如果这没有导致解决，那就没有导致解决。没关系。这没有任何问题。但我确实赞赏已经作出的努力。我只是认为，此时仍然没有达成协议，而且可能也不会达成。如果达成了，你们会告诉我。但如果没有，我将以不存在协议的情况继续处理。我将从这一角度审阅相关事项。我将在9月12日下午2:00准备好告诉你们情况如何。现在，也许我会向你们双方、债务人和Chapter 11受托人，以及任何其他希望发言的人提出一些问题，但也可能不会。到那时我可能没有任何问题。我确实不知道。因此，我将\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 87 告知你们。好吗？今天下午还有其他人希望处理什么事项吗？罗姆尼先生：法官阁下，如果可以的话，我能否用不到两分钟回应戈德曼律师提出的几点意见？法院：当然。罗姆尼先生：我只是想说，就破产欺诈或根据157的类似事项而言，我不知道本案记录中有任何证据表明债务人从事过任何类型的破产欺诈。如果任何人对该指控具有合理根据，并且律师通讯被用于推进该行为，那正是犯罪欺诈例外所适用的情形。这与受托人是否享有特权是一个独立问题，因为即使债务人保有该特权，这也是特权的少数事项或例外之一。其次，关于债务人所使用的措辞，当然，法官阁下将作出裁定；法官阁下可以接受债务人的一些观点，并在您对此有所关切的范围内修改部分措辞，或者反过来就受托人的问题作出处理。然而，这一概念——对该措辞的改变——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 88 所使用的措辞——即“为识别所必需”——是为了使受托人获得足以识别资产和负债的信息，而无需完全放弃任何通信。我认为，法院在证据开示的语境中一贯承认——这超出了特权的范围，但仍予以承认——要求提供与任何特定主题有关的所有文件，范围过于宽泛。许多时候，法院会在证据开示命令中将措辞改为类似“足以——足以识别本主题事项”的表述。我只是想向法院澄清，这就是经修订措辞的目的。其目的并非补救或制造争议问题的途径。它是——在未来——一次真诚的尝试，旨在平衡受托人获得信息的权利与债务人，即其与律师自由沟通的权利。谢谢。法庭：谢谢。巴塞特先生：法官阁下，如可允许，我想简要回应一下。再次说明，我是代表 Paul Hastings（博钦律师事务所）的 Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）——回应其中几项意见，可以吗？法庭：请讲。巴塞特先生：因此，受托人寻求的证据开示，是依据根据 Rule 2004 发布的命令进行的，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 89 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 90 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n1 该命令当然授权受托人进行广泛调查，近似于钓鱼式取证，而\n2 受托人根据 2004 能够进行并有权进行的调查范围，\n3 \n4 尤其\n5 在本案中至关重要，因为如法院所知，以及如\n6 所有人从纽约法院及其他地方已经形成的记录中所知，\n7 我们都严重关切\n8 债务人在本法院提交的财产清单是否\n9 准确列明了其拥有的资产。\n10 我们认为其绝对\n11 不准确。\n\n为彻底查明债务人的资产可能位于何处，并彻底查明与本财产管理有关的其他事项，我们绝对需要有能力获得广泛涉及以下事项的证据开示：不仅涉及本财产的资产、债务人目前拥有的资产及债务人此前拥有的资产，也涉及受托人正在调查、以确定其是否事实上属于本财产资产的他人资产。\n\n债务人要求法院加入拟议命令的这项措辞，即我们仅在相关通信——也就是所谓“为受托人识别本财产资产所必需”——的范围内控制特权，这为\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7\nFiled 10/04/22\nEntered 10/04/22 11:50:18\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n1 债务人决定其愿意或不愿意\n2 在证据开示中提供何种材料，留下了过多的模糊空间和机会。\n3 再回应 Romney先生（罗姆尼）先前提出的另一点，\n4 他提出了受托人与债务人之间存在对抗关系这一概念。\n5 \n6 我不知道他是否是在暗示，如果\n7 债务人不希望其亲属的资产，例如，\n8 成为本财产的财产，那么当我们寻求与该类问题有关的证据开示时，\n9 便突然出现了对抗关系，\n10 \n11 但如果这就是他的暗示，那么我认为我们绝对不同意\n12 在该情形下受托人是否控制特权。\n13 \n14 我认为，就\n15 受托人为识别本财产潜在资产所作努力而言，我们绝对控制特权，\n16 即使债务人的立场是其更希望这些资产\n17 留在亲属手中，或留在其\n18 设立的 LLC 或其他空壳公司中。\n19 这并不是债务人在该情形下保留\n20 特权的依据。\n21 我认为——我认为这些就是我\n22 想提出的意见，法官阁下，但当然乐于回答\n23 任何问题。\n24 法庭：\n我目前没有任何问题。\n25 谢谢。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 91 DESPINS先生（德斯平斯）：并且，法官阁下，您记得我们谈过英国诉状。我们找到了案卷编号。法庭：好的。谢谢。DESPINS先生：是 622-1。该文件称为 Particulars of Claims（诉讼请求详情）。法庭：谢谢。GOLDMAN先生（戈德曼）：法官阁下，我代表委员会，如可允许，简要发表几项意见？法庭：当然。GOLDMAN先生：某事项可能涉及或受律师—客户特权的犯罪—欺诈例外涵盖，并不必然意味着它不能也涉及案件管理。这就是我认为“solely”一词不恰当的原因。不能仅仅说，嘿，如果它受犯罪—欺诈例外约束，你们就可以通过该途径取得它，尽管它也可能涉及本财产的管理。至于“concerning”一词，我只想指出，在制定证据开示请求时，它是当地地区法院规则中专门定义的术语。因此，在此处使用该术语并无不当。法庭：谢谢。HENZY先生（亨齐）：法官阁下，代表债务人的最后一点意见。这正是法院不喜欢作出咨询意见的原因，而这正是目前的情况。存在一个通常程序——法庭：但这就是——等一下。让我——让我退一步。这是指什么？HENZY先生：受托人所——法庭：如果我对这项动议作出裁定，我将是在作出咨询意见？HENZY先生：是的。法庭：为什么？HENZY先生：您正在就——您被要求作出一项决定。我认为——我认为在某种意义上，这正是您正在走向的方向，法官阁下。您被要求就这堆混乱的判例法作出决定或裁定——您将如何裁定。因此，您的结论会是——法庭：可是，我面前有一项待决动议。它已提交给我。这是一项争议。HENZY先生：我不——法庭：我不是将其作为咨询意见来处理。HENZY先生：我认为这不是一项争议。目前，您面前没有证据开示争议。没有。没有。法庭：不，不。我面前的是受托人的动议，要求作出一项命令，说明其控制该\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 92 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 92 特权。并且你们已经对此作出回应。HENZY先生：但那是非常——而这就是判例法的混乱之处。这是一项极其依赖具体事实的分析。确实如此。因为——我是说，正如 Romney先生所指出的——法庭：但我缺少什么事实？HENZY先生：您没有——法庭：关于是否——不，让我先听你说完。我缺少什么事实，无法确定受托人是否应当控制特权？HENZY先生：我认为问题是，受托人是否就特定文件控制特权。法庭：我认为他的动议并非如此表述。HENZY先生：嗯，我认为他——如我所说，法官阁下，我不想——我不想——我认为他——您被要求做的是在真空中作出咨询意见。因为目前没有任何人在您面前说，我就这份文件主张特权，而您现在需要裁定，就该文件而言，特权是否已转移给受托人——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 93 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 93 法庭：不，我认为这并不准确。不过我理解你的观点。但是我——HENZY先生：好的。法庭：问题在于，那么你们为什么在回应中说，他不能从 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）以及你们并不代理的所有其他人那里获得全部信息？你们对其动议的回应、你们对其动议的异议，一开始就谈及与贵方当事人毫无关系的事情。我的意思是，就——HENZY先生：嗯——法庭：——他们是贵方当事人与之打过交道的当事人而言。但他们有权主张其——HENZY先生：哦，他们有。法庭：——他们的争议，不是吗？HENZY先生：是的。但这并不意味着债务人没有这种权利。法庭：嗯，这并不意味着受托人不能向本法院寻求一项命令。你可以不同意——HENZY先生：这——法庭：——你可以不同意，但听着，此时此刻，问题是这样的，对吧？受托人正试图进行一项调查。他无法进行。他被告知——至少就\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 94 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 94 伦敦的情况而言——当我说情况时，是指在伦敦待决的案件——贵方当事人不会尝试与他合作，也不会告知伦敦的律师他可以与他们交谈。并且——HENZY先生：那不是真的。那不是真的。不过，好的。法庭：嗯，你不会——你说你不会发出那封信，因为你认为其中一部分内容称其为被强制披露。这就是你的说法。那不正是你正在上诉的内容吗？你正在上诉该——的第 3(b) 节——HENZY先生：我并不想——我并不想偏离——我会回答您的问题。法庭：但这就是你——但这就是你正在做的。我的意思是，这没问题。HENZY先生：不。法庭：我对此没有异议。HENZY先生：不。法庭：但关键在于。受托人现在如何继续——当贵方当事人一直主张律师—客户特权问题不会自动转移给受托人时，受托人现在如何履行其在本案中的职责？这就是你们所主张的。HENZY先生：不。不，不是这样。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 95 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 96 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 97 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 96 法庭：好的。那么你们主张了什么？HENZY先生：我——法庭：那你们为什么引用 Weintraub？HENZY先生：我认为我们——法庭：Weintraub 所涉及的正是公司破产案件中该特权自动转移给受托人的问题。HENZY先生：我们主张的是，判例表明存在这种利益衡量检验。我认为我们任何人对此都没有异议。而我们——但我们主张的是，该分析——我们引用的判例法表明，这种衡量必须逐案进行。法庭：对，对。HENZY先生：这就是——法庭：那么，如果你是对的，我在本案中缺少什么事实，无法进行逐案分析？HENZY先生：您没有法院在解决证据开示争议时一贯拥有的事实，即就某一特定文件或通信主张的具体特权。我不知道——法官阁下，我——也许只是我个人如此，我从未在我参与过的任何案件中见过这样的命令。我并非——这——法庭：嗯，问题在于。你——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 97 在公司案件中不需要有这样的裁定，因为它会自动发生。法律上的问题在于，即使有，也几乎没有 Chapter 11 个人案件曾出现过这个问题，即个人主张受托人无权主张该特权。因此——\n\nHENZY先生（亨齐）：我们并未这么说。\n\n法院：嗯，是的，我认为你们已经这么说了。你们确实这么说了。\n\nHENZY先生：没有。我认为我们所说的是，存在一项利益衡量测试，并且该衡量测试必须逐案分析。\n\n法院：所以你的意思是，受托人的动议尚不成熟，因为就任何人主张特权而言，本院面前并无任何事项？\n\nHENZY先生：我想这就是我的意思，法官阁下。是的。我不知道该如何——听着，我可能本不该说任何话。这更多是一种评论，因为您正在为此斟酌。我认为您之所以为此斟酌，是因为该动议要求您在没有具体情境的情况下作出裁定。我从未参与过任何案件，甚至包括破产案件——我在州法院从事诉讼——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 913-7 提交于 10/04/22 登记于 10/04/22 11:50:18 第 98 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 913-7 提交于 10/04/22 登记于 10/04/22 11:50:18 第 99 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n以及与破产案件无关的联邦法院案件，其中证据开示争议会在正常程序之外得到解决；正常程序是，人们请求材料，要么获得材料，要么获得特权清单，人们主张其将要主张的任何特权，然后负有会面协商的义务，并且可能将争议缩小至一小部分文件。\n\n如有必要，随后你们便到法官面前处理。每个人都知道，你最好非常、非常努力地解决必须解决的问题，因为法官确实不希望把全部时间都花在解决证据开示争议上。对吧？\n\n而且我认为，就 Romney先生（罗姆尼）所提的观点而言，必要的分析究竟在哪里进行？你们可能最终只剩三份文件，而受托人确信，知道吗，我实际上并不需要那些文件。\n\n特权被主张了，但我有所有这些其他文件，因此我实际上并不需要那些文件。这样我们就不必到法官面前就那些文件进行争论。这是我唯一曾用来解决证据开示争议的方式。\n\n所以我可能本不该这样做，我当时告诉自己不要这样做，却站起来说，我认为这里的问题以及您之所以为此斟酌的原因是——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 99 您没有那些情况。您被要求在没有具体情境的情况下、在逐案分析之外作出一项命令。而且您可以——\n\n法院：我不确定——我不确定你对此是正确的。因为如果这是你们的立场，那么你们为什么提交了一项命令？\n\nHENZY先生：因为我们正在努力——因为，法官阁下，我们正在努力合作。我们确实如此。我们确实如此。在适当的情况下，我们正努力这样做。您要求我们去看看能否就一项合意命令达成一致。我们做到了。这就是 ECF 824——正如 Romney先生告诉您的，如果您签发该命令，我们同意该命令。债务人同意该命令。但这并不意味着它仍然不存在问题，这也是我认为我们正在——我会说，我们正在为此斟酌的原因。因为我——因为我们正试图拟定一项命令，以涵盖目前并未呈现在您面前的争议。但我们一直努力解决这个问题。\n\n法院：嗯，不过我认为——我认为在某些方面它确实在我面前。而且我得考虑一下你所说的话，Henzy律师。但正如我之前所说，在你参与之前——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 913-7 提交于 10/04/22 登记于 10/04/22 11:50:18 第 100 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 100 受托人已获任命。动议获准。你的当事人没有对此提起上诉。\n\nHENZY先生：哦——\n\n法院：他没有就任命受托人提起上诉。但现在，当受托人试图履行职责时，你们却试图限制受托人履行该职责的能力，并主张你们拥有受托人无法行使的一项特权。现在你们说，好吧，关于文件以及已送达的这些 2004 传票，我们将允许你行使该特权。明白吗？而受托人说，我认为我需要一项命令，告诉我我拥有这项——我拥有该特权。至于那是否——我是说，我不确定你所说的每一点都是正确的，但我会回去审视它。不过关键是，我不会——无论我们做什么，我们都不会零碎地做。我们不会渐进地做。因为——你知道，任命受托人的原因是为了债权人的最大利益。你的当事人在你之前，曾在记录中以书面同意，存在理由任命 Chapter 11 受托人、驳回案件或转换程序。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 913-7 提交于 10/04/22 登记于 10/04/22 11:50:18 第 101 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 913-7 提交于 10/04/22 登记于 10/04/22 11:50:18 第 102 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 101 如你所知，“理由”并无定义。但要认定存在任命 Chapter 11 受托人的理由，就必定——必定有某种原因导致此事发生，对吧？而发生此事的原因在于，围绕所有这些资产是否确实属于债务人存在争议。正如我认为上周对 Kindseth先生（金德塞斯）以及或许对你所说的，该实体一度将该船只质押给债权人，但现在不再如此，因为没有计划。本案中一切都变了。每次我们走到某个节点，道路就转弯。而我认为 Despins先生（德斯平斯）试图做的是说，好吧，道路也许会转弯，但我需要知道我能做什么。《法典》说我可以做所有这些事，但我遇到了阻力，而我不需要阻力。我需要为了债权人的利益确定，这些资产，或者甚至我们尚不知道的资产，是否属于破产财产，以清偿这些债权人。\n\nHENZY先生：而且，法官阁下，再次，对于我在多大程度上使我们偏离主题，我表示歉意。但我可能对此有误。我的理解是，债务人——而且我认为在此时这无关紧要，这不重要——债务人同意存在驳回案件的理由——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 913-7 提交于 10/04/22 登记于 10/04/22 11:50:18 第 103 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n驳回案件的理由。但是——\n\n法院：这不准确。我告诉你原因。\n\nHENZY先生：好的。好的。没关系。\n\n法院：因为我问了那个问题——\n\nHENZY先生：但我们确实——但他没有上诉。\n\n法院：——四次。\n\nHENZY先生：他没有上诉。他没有对——\n\n法院：他没有对此提起上诉。\n\nHENZY先生：——该命令提起上诉。\n\n法院：没有对此提起上诉。\n\nHENZY先生：完全没有争议。但我不认为，法官阁下，因为债务人申请破产，且随后为债务人任命了一名受托人，该债务人根据《联邦证据规则》《联邦民事诉讼规则》《联邦破产程序规则》和《破产法》享有的任何权利就全部消失。债务人仍然享有权利。例如，债务人——\n\n法院：可能如此。可能如此。\n\nHENZY先生：而且这就是——所以这不是——我并不是说 Despins先生无权进行调查。债务人并未如此主张。绝对不是这么说的。债务人并不是说——在以下范围内——\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 913-7 提交于 10/04/22 登记于 10/04/22 11:50:18 第 104 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n就某一文件而言，Despins先生要么已承继该特权，或者不存在特权，或者存在例外情形，或无论属于何种情形，他都可以取得该文件。对此没有争议。\n\n但在以下范围内——\n\n法院：所以你们仅同意——你们唯一关切的是通信，而不是文件？\n\nHENZY先生：不。不。\n\n法院：那么是什么？\n\nHENZY先生：就任何事项而言，只要债务人仍拥有该特权、该特权尚未被放弃，且不存在例外情形，债务人就有权说，这是——这是我的特权文件，我无需将其交给任何人。该权利不会因为他同意任命受托人而消失。也不会因为他没有对本院的命令提起上诉而——它不会消失。\n\n法院：嗯，我不确定判例法会支持你那样宽泛的表述，Henzy先生。\n\nHENZY先生：我的意思是，如果通过了该测试，假定存在一份适用特权的文件——我并不是——回到您关于英国命令的观点，法官阁下，如果根据某项法律，无论是英国法还是其他什么法律，Despins先生已承继该特权——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 104 那么他就应该——他可以直接去英国并说，把文件给我。该命令所做的是，它确实强制放弃对享有特权的文件的特权。因此，这就是问题所在。所以我只是说，只要存在这样一个范围，即根据适用的判例法，债务人和其他任何人仍享有权利。他们不会——他们不会——他们有权主张这些权利。仅此而已。\n\n法院：那么，鉴于你刚才所说的话，你的当事人为什么不告诉 Despins先生在伦敦诉讼中哪些材料享有特权？\n\nKINDSETH先生：嗯，那——法官阁下，这又回到了该动议和该命令作出的方式所带来的问题。\n\n法院：不。不，但那——\n\nHENZY先生：好的。请记住——\n\n法院：不。不。\n\nHENZY先生：请记住，那并未——并未列入动议。它被塞进了一项修订后的命令。\n\n法院：我们就此举行了五次听证。你可以争辩说它未列入动议。我们举行了听证，你有机会陈述意见。你请求延期。我准许了你延期。我们经历了所有这些时间。你有机会陈述意见。\n\nHENZY先生：好的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 913-7 提交于 10/04/22 登记于 10/04/22 11:50:18 第 105 页，共\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 913-7 提交于 10/04/22 登记于 10/04/22 11:50:18 第 106 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 105 法院：请记住，我们仍处于债务人的当事人资格在此受到质疑的情形。如果这是一个资不抵债的债务人——债务人在申请时即资不抵债，而且他现在仍资不抵债，并且现在已有受托人。因此——你们在这里存在循环性问题。问题是，你们为什么不直接给他一份你们称享有特权的材料清单？为什么不直接——为什么不能直接提供该清单？为什么不能说，知道吗，Despins受托人，我不会向你提供伦敦的任何材料，以下是我不向你提供这些材料的文件理由。这些材料都享有特权。你们为什么不能这样做？\n\nHENZY先生：所以我以前说过这一点，法官阁下，我认为，而且我认为英国律师也说过，有一个应当遵循的程序，而 Despins先生正试图绕过该程序。\n\n法院：什么程序？没有人把它提交到我面前来告诉——向我展示该程序是什么。我一直听到有人说程序，但记录中没有任何材料支持存在某种程序。\n\nHENZY先生：我不是英国律师，法官阁下。我并不——我并未参与那边的诉讼。\n\n法院：我明白，但你的当事人有一项资产——\n\nHENZY先生：好的。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 106\n\n法庭：——在英国，受托人正试图查明此事。\n\n亨齐先生：好的。一名英国律师并不代理、且目前并非该诉讼当事人的人，正在要求该律师交出文件。明白吗？而且我不——也许我——再说一次，也许我是房间里唯一这么想的人——如果一名英国律师来到这里，情况反过来，对我说把这些文件给我，我的回答绝对是否定的。绝对不可能，绝无可能，不会这么做。明白吗？而这正是这里的情形。有一场诉讼，不是在这里，而是在英国，并且——\n\n法庭：但如果 Kwok 先生说，这是清单，告诉他们这些全都受特权保护，英国律师就会这么做，不是吗？不是吗？\n\n亨齐先生：鉴于此事出现的方式，我绝不可能处于能够那样做的位置。\n\n法庭：好的。好。\n\n亨齐先生：而且我已经——等一下——我已经多次向 Despins 先生表示，我愿意与他及英国律师合作，完全按照阁下所说的方式处理，但该提议遭到了拒绝。明白吗？因此，如果这里存在责任，责任在我时我会承担。但这里未能按照我认为正确的方式处理的责任，不在我或债务人身上。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 107 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 108 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022\n\n法庭：Despins 先生，还有什么要说的吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：有。非常简短，阁下。\n\n你们不能审查——不能裁定这一问题，因为该问题尚未成熟，因为你们面前没有单独的文件，这一论点，第一，他们关于会谈协商程序的声明称，不能以那种方式进行，需要法庭的指导。这是他们的原话。\n\n第二，法院已经表示，衡量测试可以针对一类文件进行。如果我们向阁下表示，特权已经移转至所有事项，那就是另一回事。\n\n但我们将其限于财产、资产和债权的管理。而关键在于，这些类别范围狭窄、界定明确。\n\n例如，以财产管理为例。Kwok 先生曾是占有中的债务人。阁下知道这意味着什么。他是一名受托义务人。一旦受托人获任命，他对此不享有任何特权。\n\n至于他是否对破产前的讨论享有特权这一问题，好吧，我可以理解其中存在争议。我认为判例法支持我们。\n\n但就他作为占有中的债务人期间接受 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）建议，或与 Brown Rudnick 进行沟通的问题而言，判例法中毫无争议，我们有权获取这些内容。范围很窄。这是对该案的说明。他是作为受托义务人行事，而非以其个人身份行事。而他获得——你知道，如果 Brown Rudnick 就他的个人情况向他提供建议，那就该谴责 Brown Rudnick。他们是就其作为占有中的债务人的身份向他提供建议。这是根本性的，阁下。\n\n因此，这项衡量——您正在进行衡量。您正按类别逐一对文件进行衡量，并就——我们怎么称呼这项犯罪，我想对此准确表述，尽管这令人遗憾——强奸和非法拘禁指控作出了非常具体的排除，并排除了庇护问题，您正在进行衡量。\n\n而法院就是这样做的，按文件类别进行。在法院裁定被推翻的情形中，唯一作出推翻裁定的巡回法院，在该案中与本案相同，双方均同意应当进行衡量测试，问题在于法庭没有审查任何文件或任何类别的文件。\n\n而在这里，法庭面前正是我们提出的那些非常狭窄的类别。基于此，您有权这样做。\n\n法庭：好的。还有其他人要补充吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 110 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 109\n\n法庭：好的。感谢各位的意见，我将继续审阅此事。我们将把本次听证延期至 Monday, September 12th at 2:00 p.m.。Romney 先生，您是否说过您将提交某些材料，可能会在明天 1 o'clock 前提交？我知道受托人 Despins 和 Bassett 律师将就两项命令之间的差异提交某些材料。\n\n罗姆尼先生：我将与他们协商，并代表债务人提交某些材料，或者我们可以就存在争议的问题达成一份准确或客观的说明。我认为共同处理会更有效率，但是否可行还要看时间。\n\n法庭：好的。这很公平。\n\n罗姆尼先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：这很公平。今天下午还有其他需要处理的事项吗？\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。这结束了今天关于 Kwok 事项的听证。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 913-7 Filed 10/04/22\n111 Entered 10/04/22 11:50:18 Page 111 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 6, 2022 110\n\n巴西特先生：谢谢，阁下。\n\n法庭：谢谢。\n\n（程序于 3:31 p.m. 结束。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），认证电子法庭书记员兼记录誊写员，兹证明上述内容系根据上述案件程序的官方电子录音制作的正确笔录。\n\nSeptember 14, 2022\nChristine Fiore（克里斯汀·菲奥雷）, CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins","Guo","GETTR"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":823,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":824,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":29684,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-10-04 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-10-04","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:26:02"}