{"id":"court_ctb_936_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":936,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2022-10-11","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KW","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* September 27, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF CONTINUED STATUS CONFERENCE AND APPLICATION TO EMPLOY FILED BY LUC A. DESPINS ON BEHALF OF LUC A. DESPINS, TRUSTEE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor, ERIC HENZY, ESQ. HK International and AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. Mei Guo: Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Pacific STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity O'Melveny & Myers LLP Fund L.P.: Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Robinson & Cole 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 For the Chapter 11 NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ. Trustee: Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 3 of 71\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022<br>3                      |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | (Proceedings commenced at 2:10 p.m.)                       |\n| 2  | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan         |\n| 3  | Kwok.                                                      |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.                              |\n| 5  | If we could have appearances for the record,               |\n| 6  | please, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee.              |\n| 7  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee.           |\n| 8  | Good afternoon, Your Honor.                                |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.                              |\n| 10 | MR. LINSEY:<br>Patrick Linsey, Connecticut counsel         |\n| 11 | for the Chapter 11 Trustee.<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.                              |\n| 13 | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.<br>Irve        |\n| 14 | Goldman, Pullman and Comley, representing the creditors    |\n| 15 | committee.                                                 |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Good afternoon.                              |\n| 17 | MS. SMITH:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.                  |\n| 18 | MR. BASSETT:<br>Good afternoon, Your Honor.                |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Hold on just a second on the phone.          |\n| 20 | MR. BASSETT:<br>I apologize.                               |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.<br>Hold on.                            |\n| 22 | MS. SMITH:<br>Attorney Annecca Smith, Robinson and         |\n| 23 | Cole, for PAX, and on Zoom is Stuart Sarnoff, of O'Melveny |\n| 24 | and Myers, also for PAX.                                   |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.<br>Good afternoon.                |\n|    |                                                            |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 4 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 4 MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. MR. BASSETT: And, Your Honor, Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee, also on Zoom today. Thank you. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: Eric Henzy, for the debtor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. HENZY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Kindseth and Mr. Romney? MR. KINDSETH: Good afternoon. Stephen Kindseth, for the debtor, Ho Wan Kwok, as well as the third party, HK International and Mei Guo. MR. ROMNEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Aaron Romney Zeisler and Zeisler, for the same parties. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Mr. Romney, when you have a chance, maybe you can just get closer to the microphone when you speak. It's just a little garbled. You don't have to do it right now, but it just came through a little garbled. Okay? MR. ROMNEY: Is that better, Your Honor? THE COURT: That's a little better, yes. It's\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 5 just a -- it just sounds like you're far away. And so I just want to make sure the courtroom deputy can pick up your voice clearly. Okay? MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. On the calendar, in the Kwok case today, there are three applications to employ and then the continued status conference. Mr. Goldman, I had asked you at a prior hearing about the two applications to employ. And you asked to just set them for hearing today and that you'd report on how you wanted to proceed with regard to those two applications to employ. So the applications to employ are ECF 321 and 325. So how are you intending to proceed today? MR. GOLDMAN: So what I'd like to do, Your Honor, is, since that last hearing, we've had discussions. I've had discussions with the U.S. Trustee and the trustee to try to work out some language that they could accept for the retention of these two professionals consistent with the idea that, you know, the trustee would have -- would have a say in whatever we wanted them to do, if anything. And so we were able to work out language, as of yesterday, that is acceptable to the U.S. Trustee and the trustee that revises those retention orders. Conceptually what the revisions involve are the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 5 of 71\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 6 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 6 idea that the professionals would be retained unqualifiedly for the services they performed in the week or so after they were retained, so from May 3rd. For Coleman, it was May 3rd through May 10th, I believe. And then he stopped working at our request because that -- at that point in time, we knew that the funding -- the DIP motion had been withdrawn, the debtor had consented to dismissal. We thought it was, you know, a prudent course of action to just have those professionals stop working at that time until we knew how the case was going to turn out. For Dundin, it was May 3rd to May 15th that they worked. And so for those two periods the orders would provide that, you know, they were retained and authorized to provide all the services that were identified in the application and the proposed order. But after that, those dates, if the committee wanted the professionals to perform any services, we would first have to consult with the trustee, seek his consent, and if he didn't consent, we would have an opportunity to come to the Court after notice and a hearing to get the approval for those unwanted services, let's say, that the trustee did not consent to. So that really -- those are conceptually the changes. We've worked out the actual language. And I can\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 7 submit the orders, in blackline and redline versions as well, from the original orders, to Your Honor at this point unless any other party had an issue with the -- with what I described. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. That makes sense to me. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the applications to employ the professionals by the committee that were filed back some time ago, I think in early May? Does anyone else wish to be heard? (No response) Okay. Hearing nothing then, Attorney Goldman, you'll submit those revised proposed orders. How much time would you like? MR. GOLDMAN: By Friday? THE COURT: That's fine. Just for the clerk's office, otherwise it will get lost or it could get lost -- MR. GOLDMAN: Sure. THE COURT: -- so I'd like to have a date -- MR. GOLDMAN: That's plenty of time. THE COURT: -- so it's easier for the clerk's office. Okay? So then an order will enter granting the application, and you'll submit that revised, proposed order by Friday, the 30th? Case 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 7 of 71\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 8 of 71\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022<br>8                          |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Yes.                                           |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Great.<br>On both -- on both of         |\n| 3  | these applications?                                            |\n| 4  | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Both the professionals.<br>Yes.                |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                            |\n| 6  | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                         |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you very much.                             |\n| 8  | All right.<br>Then, Mr. Despins, you have an                   |\n| 9  | application to employ as well, so go right ahead.              |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.<br>For the              |\n| 11 | record, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee.                       |\n| 12 | It's the retention of Harney's, a British Virgin               |\n| 13 | Island law firm, that we need to use as counsel over there     |\n| 14 | to handle local law issues.<br>That was filed at docket 807 on |\n| 15 | August 30th.<br>And I'm not going to spend a lot of time on    |\n| 16 | this in the sense that there were no objections by anyone.     |\n| 17 | So the important thing from our point of view is               |\n| 18 | they've agreed to wait to get paid until there are funds in    |\n| 19 | the estate.<br>The same way, you know, subject to the same     |\n| 20 | regime we are, which is a lot of value to us.                  |\n| 21 | After we filed this, we disclosed to the U.S.                  |\n| 22 | Trustee that their affiliate, which is not a law firm, but     |\n| 23 | it's certainly an affiliate of Harney's, provides director     |\n| 24 | services.<br>That's the way it works in the BVI.<br>You hire   |\n| 25 | these professional directors.                                  |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 9 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 9 And the U.S. Trustee's view was that we should file not only a full disclosure of that, which we did, but also amend the application to make sure that it's the retention of Harney's as lawyers, but also the retention of that, you know, director services firm, as under 363. And as I said before, I'm not sure that we agree that's required, but we did it. Full disclosure is important. And so we filed this at docket number 855. Their fees are 6,000 -- for the rest of the year, are 6,667. And they also agreed for their future fees to wait to get paid until there's money in the estate. And, again, as we said, that structure is highly advantageous to us. No other firm would give us these discounts unless it was a package deal. And for those reasons, we believe it's appropriate to retain them on the terms set forth in the application and the amended application, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone wish to be heard on the application to employ Harney Westwood? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. The U.S. Trustee has no objection. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the application to employ Harney Westwood?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 10 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 10 (No response) THE COURT: Okay. Hearing nothing, I -- The proposed order that was originally submitted, Trustee Despins, with the application, is there any need that that has to be revised because of the -- of what you talked about with the United States Trustee's Office? MR. DESPINS: I'm not 100 percent sure. We probably should. I should look at that. Yes. It's logical. THE COURT: So why don't we do this. I will say that the application is granted, subject to the submission of a revised, proposed order. And then it might be the same order depending upon what the situation is, but you'll submit it. You'll have to look at it. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. And then how much time would you like to do that? MR. DESPINS: Just two days is fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: We'll give you -- we'll give you to Friday. And if you get it in earlier, you get it in earlier. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. So then we -- the final matter on today's calendar is the status conference. And I know that the trustee has an outstanding\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 11 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 11 application for an expedited hearing on the protective order issue that was filed over the weekend. And I see that the debtor filed an objection to that. I did not rule one way or another because I didn't see it until at some point yesterday. And then I saw the debtor's objection. The debtor's objection is asking for some time to review it. Given where we've been in different situations in this case, I assume that the trustee would have no opposition to giving the debtor some time to review the proposed order. And my thought was -- subject to hearing from -- and I don't know if Attorney Henzy or Attorney Romney are handling the discovery part of it, that we set it for a hearing next Tuesday and give the debtor an opportunity to file any objection it may have to the order by the -- by noon on Monday. That was where I was proposing to go with regard to the protective order. So I don't know. Attorney Henzy or Attorney Romney, which of the two of you are -- or maybe Attorney Kindseth -- I shouldn't say that, I don't know who's handling it, but which of you would like to be heard on that? MR. ROMNEY: Yes, Your Honor. Aaron Romney for the debtor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 12 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 12 What Your Honor is proposing is all we were looking for. The protective order was filed over the weekend. We hadn't seen it. Some people are out for Jewish holidays. And all we wanted was an opportunity to review it and discuss it with the trustee's counsel. Certainly by early next week, I think Your Honor said, Monday, that would be agreeable to either hear that matter or more likely submit an order on Tuesday. THE COURT: Okay. So even though the motion for expedited hearing is not on today's calendar, what I will do after this hearing, after our status conference is complete, I will -- we will grant that motion for an expedited hearing. We will set it for hearing for next Tuesday. And just bear with me for a moment. I just lost my place. I'm sorry. (Pause) THE COURT: We can have the hearing on Tuesday at noon if you'd -- or any time after that. Whatever anybody would prefer. It's up to the parties. Would you like noon, Trustee Despins, or later? And what's everybody else's schedules? MR. DESPINS: Noon is fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Does that work for everyone else? Noon next Tuesday? MR. ROMNEY: Works for me, Your Honor, on behalf\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 13 of the debtor. THE COURT: Okay. So then the motion for an expedited hearing will be granted. The hearing will be held at noon on October 4th, and the -- any party who wishes to file an objection to the underlying motion regarding the protective order must do so by noon on Monday, October 3rd. Okay? And then the trustee's counsel will serve the order. But obviously the majority of people will get it electronically and we'll go from there. Okay? Does that make sense to everyone? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: Yes. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. So, Mr. Despins, you also had a suggested agenda for today's status conference. So I have no problem with you proceeding in the manner in which you suggested, so go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: Okay. So may I approach, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes, please. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, my understanding is that a PowerPoint presentation was provided. I know it was presented to Mr. Henzy before the hearing because I was there, but it was supposed to be emailed to Mr. Romney and Case 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 13 of 71\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 14 of 71\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022<br>14                       |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Mr. Kindseth some time around two o'clock.<br>I hope they    |\n| 2  | received it from -- I'm not -- I'm not saying then --        |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>I'm just --                                    |\n| 4  | MR. DESPINS:<br>It was sent from Mr. Lindsey's firm.         |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 6  | MR. LINSEY:<br>They got it, Your Honor.                      |\n| 7  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Okay.                                        |\n| 8  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>And obviously I have it, Your Honor.          |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                            |\n| 10 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Thank you.                                    |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:<br>And I believe that it was sent to            |\n| 12 | Mr. Sarnoff as well.                                         |\n| 13 | So an update on the HK USA adversary proceeding.             |\n| 14 | On Friday, we filed our answer and counterclaim, fairly      |\n| 15 | extensive counterclaims. So today is not the trial on that   |\n| 16 | obviously.                                                   |\n| 17 | But at the same time, we also asked for                      |\n| 18 | prejudgment remedy to maintain the status quo, particularly, |\n| 19 | but not only, particularly with respect to the \\$37 million. |\n| 20 | And we had asked for an expedited hearing on that. That may  |\n| 21 | have gotten lost in the shuffle, but I think to get to the   |\n| 22 | punch line on that, we had asked for a hearing on October    |\n| 23 | 7th because that's the hearing scheduled on the Lady May --  |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Repairs --                                     |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- you know, repairs.                        |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 15 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 15 THE COURT: Right. MR. DESPINS: And the debtor's filed an objection, which we -- that was filed yesterday. And just to put people at ease, we're okay not proceeding on the 7th. What we need, however, is the status quo, the legal status quo, to be maintained as it is today. So, therefore, if the debtors want more time to deal with the prejudgment attachment motion, that's fine, but then there needs to be an order, hopefully it would be on consent, that would say the following things will not happen. For example, no notice will be given to the bank that holds -- I forget if it's U.S. Bank or UBS, whatever -- but that holds the \\$37 million and things along those lines. And obviously the yacht will not be moved until there's a hearing, whatever that hearing is. THE COURT: May I -- may I ask you a question? When you say not proceed on October 7th, are you saying not proceed at all with anything on October 7th or just the pre -- your request for a prejudgment -- MR. DESPINS: Just the prejudgment attachment. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Thank you. I wasn't sure. I just wanted to clarify that. MR. DESPINS: The only thing that's not -- that's unclear about what is the legal status quo other than what I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 16 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 16 just mentioned is with respect to the debtor's daughter, who is now -- the summons has not issued for some reason by the clerk's office. But we did name her in the counterclaim as a defendant, but for some reason, the summons has not issued. But the question is as to -- THE COURT: The clerk's office actually was not open yesterday. They had a meeting offsite, so that's probably -- when did you file the counterclaim, on Friday afternoon? MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: Yeah. That's probably why. MR. DESPINS: To be fair, evening. THE COURT: But I would assume that you'll get a summons issued. Well, let's stop for a minute though. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. THE COURT: It's your counterclaim, right? MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: So you need a summons issued because you're now the counterclaiming plaintiff? MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: And they need to -- okay, okay. I haven't -- MR. DESPINS: No. No. THE COURT: I know it was filed, but I haven't looked at it very much, so that's fine.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 17 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, it -- THE COURT: We'll make sure the clerk's office takes care of that. MR. DESPINS: It's a beast, so I don't -- didn't expect you to have looked at it or digest it by now. There's a lot of meat in there. So what I was saying is, with respect to her, the question is what is the status quo? Meaning we're not going to be ridiculous here in a sense that we're not interested in personal effects and things like that, but if she has millions of dollars parked somewhere, that money should not be moving until there's a hearing on this. So, you know, -- and I don't know. I mean, they've -- the Zeisler firm represents her so I don't know if they're aware of her personal financial condition, but we know that the debtor typically has parked a lot of cash and a lot of assets with his family so it's certainly a possibility. But if it's -- if she has none, meaning she has regular stuff like clothes and an apartment and things like that, we're not interested in that. We're interested in, you know, things that would move the dial in a material way. So, you know, I guess it's up to I guess to the Zeisler firm to let us know their views on that. So we're not looking for a big production over the Case 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 17 of 71\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 18 of 71\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022<br>18                         |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | issue of the scheduling.<br>We're happy to have a schedule     |\n| 2  | whenever convenient to them as long as there's a clear         |\n| 3  | understanding that nothing is happening with the yacht, the    |\n| 4  | \\$37 million, and what I would describe as material assets of  |\n| 5  | the new counterclaim defendant, the daughter's -- the          |\n| 6  | debtor's daughter.                                             |\n| 7  | So moving on -- I'm sure they'll have comments on              |\n| 8  | this later.                                                    |\n| 9  | The next item on the agenda is the update on Ace               |\n| 10 | Decade and Dawn State, Your Honor.<br>You're familiar with     |\n| 11 | that.<br>I mean, it's been a month now.<br>There's an order in |\n| 12 | place saying they're supposed to give us all these things.     |\n| 13 | They're not.<br>You know, there was -- I'm not going to be     |\n| 14 | petty about this, but it was first Mr. Henzy and Mr.           |\n| 15 | Kindseth were in New York so they were not available.<br>Then  |\n| 16 | there's COVID.<br>Then there's Rosh Hashanah.                  |\n| 17 | The point is there's no reason why we don't have               |\n| 18 | the documentation for Ace Decade and Dawn State.<br>And,       |\n| 19 | again, it's been a month now practically since we've made      |\n| 20 | that request.                                                  |\n| 21 | The order is precise so there's no need for                    |\n| 22 | another motion.<br>The order says you shall provide to the     |\n| 23 | trustee all these corporate documents with respect to          |\n| 24 | entities you own.<br>And, in fact, we've provided two or three |\n| 25 | reference points as to why Mr. Kwok owns these two entities.   |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 19 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 19 So we hope that this will be addressed today. Now, moving on to the -- on page 7, the Rule 2004 discovery. This is not the appropriate forum to go through that in details, but I want Your Honor to know that we're hitting major roadblocks with the debtor's positions. For example, their view is that they only need to provide us discovery with respect to assets that he acknowledges he owns or that are subject to litigation, for example, the apartment in New York or the yacht. But other assets that he may own, or we believe he may own, they don't need to provide us discovery on that. Obviously, that's the whole point of the investigation. That's one thing. Then they take the position that he has no documents, none. Okay. I'm not sure that's possible. And they say, well, how do we know that? Well, we've asked him and he says he has none. Well, you don't need to go very far. There's a video that we referred Your Honor, you know, a long time ago on HBO of the debtor where he goes through is apartment. And on the table there, there are about 12 iPhones. And he's pointing out that he's using those because the Communist party is always listening to him, but he has 12 iPhones. And he stated in the complaint, the UBS complaint that we've given to Your Honor, that he communicated with\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 20 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 20 UBS by WhatsApp, which is an application that people can use on an iPhone or other, you know, intelligent device, so clearly he is using technology. He's always on the internet every day, you know, issuing all sorts of statements so he is very -- he knows what he's doing. And so the concept that he has no documents is a problem because what he does, and that's exactly the way he operates his business, is that every one, you know, these other shell companies that he controls completely, and he has people that are in charge that are his bodyguard, you know, they're the shareholder, but he's -- they're really what -- if you ask them what they do for a living, he's the bodyguard, he's the chef, he's an assistant that has -- does not have a high school degree, these are the shareholders, and these people have everything. But he's saying, well, you know, they have it, we don't have it. He controls it. Under the rules he's supposed to produce it. So today is not the motion to compel, but I want to tell you we're spending a lot of time on this. And you'll hear during the case that the fees generated are very high. And they are very high because we are -- we're facing roadblock after roadblock on all of this. So that's -- that is, again, today is not the motion to compel, but I want to make sure that Your Honor knows that we're hitting these roadblocks.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 21 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 21 And then on the privilege -- you know, so there was a consensual order on privilege, so we thought, hmm, that's going to go smoothly. Well, what's happening is that, for example, Brown Rudnick is saying I'm not producing a document until the debtor's counsel tells me it's okay. Well, they're saying, well, we need to review that. That's going to take, you know, unlimited -- or there's no deadline provided so we don't have any of those documents. And so, again, that's going to probably be teed up through a motion to compel, but I wanted Your Honor to be aware of it. Now, housekeeping matters. The first one, we're troubled by this. There were two houses in Connecticut that were owned by a company called Greenwich Land. And that entity the debtor testified is owned by his wife. It's not demeaning in any way, but she has no money. That money to buy these two houses came from Kwok entities. And what happened pre-bankruptcy is that PAX issued a notice to that company, Greenwich Land, that it was a domestication in Delaware of the order by Judge Ostrager saying you shall not transfer anything. And that notice was valid for one year. It was given in May of 2021, so it was good until May 2022. Well, they sold one of the houses in April 2022.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 22 And, you know, obviously we're going to look into this, but, you know, makes us very concerned about -- and it explains a lot about how we're acting in the case that -- if this is happening. Now, that didn't happen on our watch, meaning that happened in April of this year. There was no trustee in place. And I'm sure they'll say, well, that's the wife's house so, you know, we're free to sell it, but there was -- there was an order preventing the sale of the house as far -- at least the way I understand it, and that house was sold for 2 million plus. Monthly operating report. Well, the deadline has not passed. The other point is the next status conference we had scheduled one for October 4th, but there's no point in doing that on October 4th because we're going to be here on October 7th. So if Your Honor is okay with that, we would move the next status conference. THE COURT: I think that makes sense. MR. DESPINS: But I think, Your Honor -- THE COURT: So you're not having a conference on the 4th? MR. DESPINS: -- we really need to hear about Ace Decade and we need to hear about the prejudgment attachment because we want to avoid a lot of -- and we're volunteering, Case 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 22 of 71\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 23 of 71\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022<br>23                          |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | you know, on the prejudgment attachment to take much more       |\n| 2  | time than if they want to as long as there's a very tight       |\n| 3  | order that's entered that protects the estate against any       |\n| 4  | dissipation of assets.                                          |\n| 5  | Thank you, Your Honor.                                          |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                        |\n| 7  | Attorney Henzy?                                                 |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>I'm going to just address the Ace                 |\n| 9  | Decade issue, Your Honor.                                       |\n| 10 | The debtor does not admit, in fact, disputes that               |\n| 11 | he owns Ace Decade.<br>I understand that the trustee has        |\n| 12 | pointed to some things.<br>I can talk about those things.       |\n| 13 | But there is -- right now there is nothing before               |\n| 14 | the Court.<br>This is a status conference.<br>There's no motion |\n| 15 | that's been filed.<br>So I don't know.                          |\n| 16 | One of my I guess questions with these status                   |\n| 17 | conferences is -- they're helpful to the Court, that's          |\n| 18 | obviously what matters, but we get in front of you and talk     |\n| 19 | about these things when there's no motion.<br>So there's no     |\n| 20 | motion I would argue.                                           |\n| 21 | I understand there's the corporate governance                   |\n| 22 | order, but the corporate governance order assumes that the      |\n| 23 | debtor owns something.<br>As I said, the debtor disputes that   |\n| 24 | he owns Ace Decade, so I don't --                               |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Well, what do you -- what do you --               |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 24 how do you respond to that issue when your client apparently testified at the 341 meeting that he owned it? MR. HENZY: So, Your Honor, we are getting a -- our own translation of the 341 meeting, but the debtor has reviewed the transcript -- THE COURT: The debtor had a translator at the 341 meeting. MR. HENZY: And, actually, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: -- that 341 meeting, I think there was a lot of back and forth about the translation. And I, you know, I've got a bunch of stickies in the transcript that's been produced where there was back and forth between translators and where the -- THE COURT: I don't think there were two translators. There were two translators when we had a hearing in court once. Were there two translators at the 341 meeting? MS. CLAIBORN: Yes. Let me just break it into two pieces. THE COURT: Can you just speak a little bit more into the microphone. I'm sorry. MS. CLAIBORN: Yes. THE COURT: I just couldn't hear you very well. MS. CLAIBORN: This microphone I think is not very Case 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 24 of 71\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 25 of 71\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022<br>25                        |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | good, so I'll have to get very close to it.                   |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>Sorry.                                          |\n| 3  | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>At the first 341 meeting, that               |\n| 4  | meeting was held telephonically.<br>The U.S. Trustee had a    |\n| 5  | translator that was on the telephone from a translation       |\n| 6  | service.<br>The debtor was appearing I believe from the Brown |\n| 7  | Rudnick office with his own translator in person with him at  |\n| 8  | that time.                                                    |\n| 9  | So notwithstanding whatever criticisms there may              |\n| 10 | be of the translator provided by the U.S. Trustee's Office,   |\n| 11 | the debtor had his own personal translator with him that      |\n| 12 | day.<br>And my recollection is that it was Ms. Wilkinson, who |\n| 13 | is the same translator who appeared before the Court.         |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>And we had two translators that day             |\n| 15 | when Mr. Kwok testified in person in this court to alleviate  |\n| 16 | the claim that there -- that the translation might not be     |\n| 17 | correct.                                                      |\n| 18 | And when there was an issue that came up between              |\n| 19 | the two translators, it was discussed in open court and they  |\n| 20 | agreed to what the language was of the question being asked   |\n| 21 | and the answer being provided.                                |\n| 22 | So I understand what you said, but I'll tell you              |\n| 23 | it's going to be interesting for Mr. Kwok, who came into      |\n| 24 | this court and said he wanted to resolve his issues with his  |\n| 25 | creditors, and then testified that he owns Ace and now        |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 26 claims that he doesn't, that he disputes that. That's going to be a difficult road for him I think. MR. HENZY: So, Your Honor, just to be clear, the 341 that is where the relevant testimony is is the second 341. So I think not -- MS. CLAIBORN: I can speak to that one too if you'd like. MR. HENZY: Yeah. That's April 6th. And, again, I don't know that today's the day, but the -- THE COURT: Well, there is already an order in place, right? And the trustee's already demanded, asked for that information, and you said at a prior conference that you needed time to review it because you didn't know, and that was fair, you didn't know what the status of Ace and Dawn were, the other two plaintiffs in the action in London. The trustee has now shown you the 341 meeting transcript. And maybe I'm -- I could be confused about this point, so let me just say that I'm not sure I'm accurate about what I'm going to say, but I thought there was also something in Mr. Kwok's declaration that he filed back in March or April to support the DIP financing motion and the plan. MR. HENZY: There was not. THE COURT: Well, I don't think -- I'm not -- MR. HENZY: Not on -- not on Ace Decade.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 26 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 27 THE COURT: Okay. Well, other people seem to be nodding their heads. MR. HENZY: Just so -- because there's no -- just so there's no, you know -- THE COURT: Yeah. MR. HENZY: -- the documents are what they are. In the complaint that was filed in the U.K., it's a -- what I'm going to call the equivalent of a verified complaint, I don't -- I don't think it's what they call it there, but there's a complaint signed by counsel, and then someone on behalf of the plaintiffs, each of the three plaintiffs, signed it to say everything in here is true. And in the complaint it says that Mr. Kwok acquired Ace Decade, I think it was in 2014. THE COURT: Two thousand, fourteen. MR. HENZY: Okay. And I've been told that that statement is not correct. And counsel in the U.K. -- THE COURT: You've been told by Mr. Kwok that that statement is not correct? MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Well, that's interesting. MR. HENZY: I understand. I understand. THE COURT: That's interesting, because he said -- MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I -- THE COURT: -- he said now in more than one Case 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 27 of 71\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 28 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 28 jurisdiction that he did own -- does own it. MR. HENZY: And in other places, as I understand it, he has said that he doesn't. So, again, we're not -- I don't think we can litigate this today, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'm not trying to litigate it. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I'm trying to have the debtor respect the terms and conditions of an order that he hasn't appealed. He didn't appeal the portions of the governance order that said that the Chapter 11 Trustee stepped into his positions as far as governing the entities in which he has an interest or which he is the owner or controller of that entity. And the problem that he has right now is that in this court, in this 341 meeting, a direct question from Ms. Claiborn by the way, Attorney Claiborn -- I mean, I read it. It's more than one question, I think it's two or three -- and he said I -- I don't have to say what he said because it says it in the paper -- but it says that he owns and controls it. That's what he -- he answers the question. And there's no interpreter or anyone somehow saying whatever he said is inaccurate. He didn't raise an objection. The interpreter didn't raise an objection. No one raised an objection.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 29 of 71\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022<br>29                         |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Now, as you know, the Court isn't at 341 meetings.             |\n| 2  | We're not -- and that's fine.<br>But I've got the              |\n| 3  | representative of the United States Trustee's Office, who      |\n| 4  | conducted these examination of Mr. Kwok two times, and on      |\n| 5  | the second time making -- she, at least from what I can see,   |\n| 6  | was very careful about how she asked the question and he       |\n| 7  | said he owned it.                                              |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>May I be --                                      |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>That's what he said.                             |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:<br>Your Honor, may I be heard?                      |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Sure.                                            |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:<br>Thank you.                                       |\n| 13 | Your Honor, I don't speak Chinese.<br>I don't read             |\n| 14 | Chinese.<br>There is an audio of the 341 meeting and the audio |\n| 15 | has the words on it that it has on it.<br>And as I understand  |\n| 16 | it, different interpreters will interpret from Chinese to      |\n| 17 | English in different ways.                                     |\n| 18 | And actually if you look at the transcript of the              |\n| 19 | April 6th 341 meeting, there is repeated interjections by      |\n| 20 | the private interpreter that Mr. Kwok had there disagreeing    |\n| 21 | with the interpretations of the interpreter that the U.S.      |\n| 22 | Trustee had there.<br>So different.                            |\n| 23 | And I'm not -- I'm not -- I don't know what the                |\n| 24 | proper interpretation of the words that came out of Mr.        |\n| 25 | Kwok's mouth at that 341 are.<br>Again, I don't read Chinese.  |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 30 I don't speak Chinese. I can't do that. THE COURT: So how do you communicate with your client? MR. HENZY: There's always an interpreter there. THE COURT: So you're -- so Mr. Kwok didn't tell you that he didn't own it, an interpreter told you after Mr. Kwok told the interpreter that he didn't own it? MR. HENZY: I can only speak to my client through an interpreter, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. That's what I'm asking. MR. HENZY: Yeah. I mean, Mr. Kwok -- just so -- THE COURT: So Mr. Kwok hasn't said to you directly that he doesn't own these entities. He said -- the interpreter said that he disputes that he owns the entities, that's what the interpreter told you? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, well, I guess a couple of things. With all due respect, Your Honor, I think that's kind of an odd question. I can't -- THE COURT: I don't think it's an odd question. MR. HENZY: I can't -- THE COURT: You're telling me -- you're saying -- you're coming into this court and you're now saying that your client told you something different that's in the record in five different places, but you're telling me he didn't tell you that directly. He told you that through an\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 30 of 71\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 31 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 31 interpreter. MR. HENZY: I don't -- I don't -- he told me that directly. If I speak to my client through an interpreter, I think I'm speaking directly to my client. THE COURT: How do you know? You don't speak Chinese. You just said that. MR. HENZY: I do not. But I -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: I'm not sure what -- frankly, I'm not sure what Your Honor's point is. THE COURT: My point is how do you know what you're being told is accurate? You're saying -- MR. HENZY: I guess I -- THE COURT: -- you can't -- MR. HENZY: I guess I -- THE COURT: -- you don't know -- you don't know what's being MR. HENZY: Well -- THE COURT: You're saying you don't know what Mr. Kwok testified to when there were interpreters is accurate, so how do you know what you're being told is accurate? MR. HENZY: It could be the interpreter is misinterpreting. But then the interpreter here could misinterpret. So, I mean, I don't -- I'm not sure -- THE COURT: That's why we had two interpreters in\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 32 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 32 court that day -- MR. HENZY: Well, this wasn't court. THE COURT: -- so that there wouldn't be this argument about misinterpretation of someone's statements. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I'm really not sure where you're going with this. I'm not. THE COURT: I'm not going anywhere. You're the one who's just come in and said -- MR. HENZY: So I -- THE COURT: -- wait a minute, hold on -- and said Mr. Kwok is disputing that he owns those two entities. MR. HENZY: That is correct. THE COURT: Okay. That's what you said. And I said how do you know that? And you said because he told me. MR. HENZY: That's correct. THE COURT: And I said did he tell you directly or did he tell you through an interpreter? And at one point you said through an interpreter and at one point you said through directly, so I don't know how he told you. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: But my point is you said you don't understand Chinese. I don't think any of us do. Okay? That's why we have interpreters. And now to come in at this point, months and months and months after a 341 meeting, because the Chapter\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 33 of 71\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022<br>33                          |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | 11 Trustee's trying to investigate the affairs of the           |\n| 2  | debtor, and say now he disputes that, that doesn't seem --      |\n| 3  | that's a hard -- that's hard for the Court to understand.       |\n| 4  | MR. HENZY:<br>It may be hard for the Court to                   |\n| 5  | understand.<br>And the trustee will I'm sure will file an       |\n| 6  | appropriate motion and we'll have a hearing.                    |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Well, we will --                         |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>Yeah.                                             |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>-- because then your client will be in            |\n| 10 | violation of a governance order.                                |\n| 11 | MR. HENZY:<br>Based on my client's position that he             |\n| 12 | does not own Ace Decade -- that --                              |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>Well, then he's going to have to come             |\n| 14 | in here and testify.                                            |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY:<br>He may have to do that.                           |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>And show why the interpreter who took             |\n| 17 | the testimony at the 341 meeting was wrong.<br>And we're going  |\n| 18 | to have to have two interpreters because we're not just         |\n| 19 | going to have Mr. Kwok's interpreter.                           |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:<br>We may need to have more than two                 |\n| 21 | interpreters.<br>I don't know.<br>But clearly interpretation is |\n| 22 | an issue in this case.                                          |\n| 23 | MS. CLAIBORN:<br>Your Honor, could I just complete              |\n| 24 | my thought that I didn't finish earlier about the second 341    |\n| 25 | meeting?                                                        |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 34 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 34 THE COURT: Sure. MS. CLAIBORN: That 341 meeting took place in person at the U.S. Trustee's Office in New Haven. Mr. Kwok was there. His same personal interpreter, Ms. Wilkinson, was there. And the U.S. Trustee had an in-person interpreter. And admittedly the transcript does reflect that there are disputes as to translations, but I would make the point that just as Ms. Wilkinson did when she participated in the hearing before Your Honor, she's quite capable of speaking up when she thinks the translation was inaccurate, mistaken, could be better. She spoke up an awful lot in both the first 341 meeting and the second 341 meeting. So to the extent that there's now a dispute over this particular section of the transcript, I don't know what it's based on because, as Your Honor noted, my question was simple, his answer was simple, and there is no dispute being raised by the lawyers within that particular subsection. MR. HENZY: I'm not sure I agree with that completely, Your Honor, but -- and I may be simplifying translation. The words came out of Mr. Kwok's mouth. And, again, I may just be wrong on this, okay, that there -- it seems to me there's an objective, those words are translated into these words in English. And either he answered one way\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 35 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 35 or he answered another, I don't know. There's no way for me to know that. I can't listen to the audio and say I think this transcript is correct or I think it's in correct. I can't do that. THE COURT: But you already did. You just did. You said he disputes it. MR. HENZY: I have no way to do that independently. THE COURT: Okay. Well, then, you can say whatever you'd like him disputing it, but without any evidence, then I'm just hearing you say he disputes it. Right? I mean, because he's already testified that he owns it. He's testified under oath. He took an oath. MR. HENZY: And he disagrees that he testified that he owns it. THE COURT: Okay. Well, okay. MR. HENZY: Okay. And I understand -- THE COURT: So what next? So he -- so then Mr. Despins is going to file a motion -- MR. HENZY: Right. THE COURT: -- and your client is going to be held -- if that's the dispute, if he's going -- if he's going to say he disputes that testimony without disputing it at the time that he gave the testimony, that's going to, you know, may result in an order he doesn't like.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 36 of 71\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022<br>36                       |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. HENZY:<br>It may, Your Honor.<br>I think -- I            |\n| 2  | guess what I would ask Your Honor is to withhold judgment    |\n| 3  | until there's actually a record --                           |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>I said it may result in an order --            |\n| 5  | MR. HENZY:<br>-- that's put before you.                      |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>-- he might not like.<br>That's what I         |\n| 7  | said.                                                        |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.<br>Because, again, I don't think         |\n| 9  | you want me today to go through all the places in this       |\n| 10 | transcript that I marked where there was -- Mr. Baldiga laid |\n| 11 | down a continuing objection based on the interpretation.     |\n| 12 | Okay?<br>The parties went off the record and came back on.   |\n| 13 | And on the record, Attorney Claiborn announced all           |\n| 14 | objections to form are being reserved because I -- as I      |\n| 15 | understand what happened is that the progress of the 341 was |\n| 16 | being so interrupted by the objections, by the interjections |\n| 17 | from the private interpreter, that to get it on track, there |\n| 18 | was this all objections are going to be reserved.<br>I don't |\n| 19 | know how broad that reservation was intended to be, so I     |\n| 20 | don't know.                                                  |\n| 21 | I know that the transcript is a mess.<br>There are           |\n| 22 | repeated interjections, even in the place where this is      |\n| 23 | relevant, okay.<br>And the trustee didn't include the next   |\n| 24 | page, okay.                                                  |\n| 25 | At the bottom of page 61, which is attached to               |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 37 what the trustee filed, you can see: \"Ms. Claiborn: I don't think that was\" -- and the next page isn't there. \"Let's start over because I don't think that was - - that was\" -- the private interpreter says, \"yeah. I thought that it was. Ms. Claiborn: That was the question because it didn't involve Dawn State. Private Interpreter: Yes. So I'm going to start over.\" And then there's -- then there's a series of questions. So I don't -- I don't think it's so clear cut. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: That's fair. In that series of questions -- MR. HENZY: And so I would ask Your Honor -- THE COURT: -- does he dispute owning it? MR. HENZY: Does he dispute owning it? THE COURT: When you're -- when you're talking about those additional questions that are starting to be asked after page 61, does he dispute when the questions are asked again? MR. HENZY: Then, actually, it moved on to another topic.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 37 of 71\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 38 of 71\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022<br>38                       |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>But it was never asked again?                  |\n| 2  | MR. HENZY:<br>It was never asked again.                      |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 4  | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.<br>So I don't think it's so clear        |\n| 5  | cut.<br>And, again, I would -- before Your Honor is holding  |\n| 6  | the debtor in contempt, I would ask that you at least --     |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>I haven't done any such thing.                 |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>-- allow there to be a record made.            |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>I haven't done any such thing.<br>Okay?        |\n| 10 | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>So I -- but I'm concerned.<br>I mean, we       |\n| 12 | did -- we've gone through a lot to get to the point of       |\n| 13 | discovery.<br>And hearing that there's all these problems,   |\n| 14 | including Brown Rudnick, who came in here and said they      |\n| 15 | agreed that the privilege had passed to the trustee and that |\n| 16 | everything isn't privileged, and now I'm hearing they're not |\n| 17 | going to turn everything -- anything over until your client  |\n| 18 | gives them approval to do so.                                |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:<br>Mr. Romney is going to address that,           |\n| 20 | but I think it's actually more complicated than that, Your   |\n| 21 | Honor.                                                       |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 23 | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Your Honor, forget the 341.<br>There's       |\n| 25 | a complaint, a verified complaint, signed not only by Mr.    |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 39 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 39 Kwok, but by two other people, one on behalf of Dawn State and another on behalf of the other entity I forget, Ace Decade, that say that what's in the complaint is true. So those people also don't understand. So we've got three people who don't understand English, they're signing a verified complaint in the U.K. and then they say later, just, you know, sorry, but none of this is true? It just -- it boggles the mind. And the strategy, Your Honor, he has unlimited resources. He will make us spend money until the end of time. And this is just one example of it. But we'll bring a motion. MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, this is Stuart Sarnoff. I don't mean to be glib or inflammatory, but the five years we were litigating with Mr. Kwok, and when we filed a state court complaint against Mr. Kwok, he filed all of his contracts that were relevant to PAX in his motion to dismiss from his own files and argued that these agreements were signed by him in Europe, in Asia, and, therefore, the matter should be (indiscernible) back to Hong Kong and the motion was granted. 22 And if it goes to an appeal that then he signed certificates and requests for admission that these documents were authentic (indiscernible) deposition because it didn't suit him, because he was losing his case, to testify that\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 40 these are forgeries, that he'd never seen them before. So the fact that he might strategically change his testimony is -- this is not his debut at behavior like this and I think it's important to keep that in mind when you think about the credibility of the arguments that are being put forward now. MR. HENZY: And I assume we'll get to that when the trustee files a motion, Your Honor, and we'll all have an opportunity to make a record. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Romney, you were going to be heard on some of these discovery disputes. Is that -- Mr. Henzy said you were going to address these? MR. ROMNEY: Yes. If Your Honor would like. I'll take up first the Brown Rudnick (indiscernible)/discovery issues. Can Your Honor hear me okay? I know there were -- you had some problems hearing me (indiscernible) -- THE COURT: It's a little better, but, yes. Anytime, if you don't mind, just kind of leaning in, that would be helpful. MR. ROMNEY: Yes. And please let me know if something doesn't come through. As far as the discovery is concerned, there's sort of -- there's a couple of issues there. The debtor (indiscernible) -- I do not agree with the trustee's Case 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 40 of 71\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 41 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 41 characterization. I think we've got a number of instances where during our meet and confers we've had different perceptions of what was being said to the point that I suggested that we start recording these conversations. The trustee's counsel was not agreeable to that. As far as Brown Rudnick and the privilege order is concerned, the debtor's position is that the Court has entered an order, an order on the consent of the debtor and the trustee. The subpoenas have been served on a number of highly competent professionals, some of which represent the debtor and some of which represent related entities. It's our position that the professionals -- as I said in open Court as we were debating the entry of that order that these professionals are perfectly capable of looking at this order, looking at the documents in their possession, and making their own independent determination based upon their professional judgment whether a document should be withheld or not under the terms of that order or not. We have not told a single professional to withhold a document or to turn it over directly to us. What we have said is that the debtor doesn't raise whatever rights the debtor has under that order.\n\n We have said to the professionals, who are aware of the terms of the order, that they have been served with a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 42 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 42 subpoena, they have an obligation to comply with it, and they have a professional obligation to their client, or former client, or whoever their clients are, to withhold privilege under that order if, and only if, there's a basis to do so. In addition, in an effort to be accommodating --\n\n and this was an offer, it was not a demand, it was not a direction to counsel or former counsel, we offered, if there are particular documents that professionals are struggling should they be withheld under this or not, we will look at them and we will give the debtor's opinion as the debtor's current counsel whether the documents should be flagged.\n\n We have not insisted that anyone do that. We have offered it solely in an effort to avoid burdening this court further with issues related to that order solely so that there isn't unnecessary delay caused by people who are uncomfortable with how they should be applying this order. That's what we've done.\n\n And really it's -- this is with respect to documents that -- in almost all circumstances no longer represents debtor. As the trustee has been very adamant, the trustee controls the debtor's pre-petition and pre- appointment -- pre-trustee appointment causes of action, meaning assets of the estate, these professionals are no longer under the debtor's control.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 43 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 43 All that the debtor and us as his professionals, with his permission, have offered to try and facilitate this process, speed it up, because as I have pointed out to the trustee's counsel, the debtor has no interest in delaying this proceeding. This is not a state court foreclosure where he's trying to get as much free rent as possible before the bank takes his house. This process is going to take its course. It's going to be complicated. And the debtor has directed us to cooperate and we are trying to cooperate. We he have not directed anyone to withhold documents under the terms of that order other than saying look at the order, apply it to the documents you're looking at and provide them or not. As far as what I was what I would refer to as the second part of the discovery issue, and what the debtor does have and doesn't have, the video or movie, whatever it is that the trustee is referring to, was from 2017. That was five years ago, Your Honor. The WhatsApp messages referred to, I don't have them in front of me, I believe those were things said in 2017 as well. Five years ago. I don't think it is an unreasonable conclusion or impossibility that somebody, particularly in the debtor's situation, who left Hong Kong years ago, filed an asylum application in 2017, and has been\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 44 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 44 through years of litigation as a result of the hundreds of millions of dollars of judgments, including contempt, that his lifestyle might be different or what he has and doesn't have might be different today near the end of '22 as it did in 2017. Now, should people be required to answer questions that the trustee wants to ask them? Sure. They're legitimate questions. But it's not exactly smoking gun evidence that the debtor had a cell phone in 2017 that he can't locate here in 2022. It's just not, Your Honor. And the debtor is being unfairly characterized again and again based upon information that is five years old. As far as what the debtor does and doesn't have, I have had multiple discussions with the debtor through his interpreter where he has repeatedly said that he does not keep records related to any of the businesses that the trustee is asking about. Whatever there is is in the hands of his former professionals related to these entities. He does have two cell phones. My understanding is those cell phones were disclosed on his petition. They're not being hidden from anyone. And his position is not that the cell phones don't exist, but that the information on the cell phones doesn't concern these businesses. That's what he told us. That's what we told the trustee's counsel. The trustee's counsel's response, as I understand\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 45 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 45 it, is effectively we don't believe him. And they don't have to believe him. It's their job arguably not to, Your Honor. But to come in there and say that he's lying because they think he is, that's not evidence and that's not the way our judicial system is intended to work. That's all I have on the discovery issues, Your Honor, unless the Court has any questions. THE COURT: The consent order that you entered into with regard to the privileges states that, and your client agreed to it, that the trustee holds all of the debtor's privileges on a post-petition basis through the point -- through the date of the appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee and that all information with regard to assets of the estate are discoverable. That's what it says. That's what he agreed to in the very first paragraph. It's not limited to Rule 2004 Examination motions that have been filed or subpoenas that have been served. The privilege motion was establishing the trustee's rights to proceed with the investigation. Your client's declaration filed on March 20, 2022 in this case, when things were moving along in a manner in which he would -- he and Brown Rudnick had proposed, says that the assets of his estate include litigation pending in the United Kingdom, and he lists that on his statements of financial affairs as well, and a litigation in the District\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 46 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 46 -- in the District Court of the District of Columbia, and that those are valuable assets of the estate. The plan that he filed and signed said that he was going to fund the estate with the proceeds from those litigations. That's what your client has said in this case. Those are admissions of your client in this case. So to find out now that I'm hearing that lawyers for Mr. Kwok aren't going to turn over documents until he gives them permission seems to me to be in violation of the consent order that you've signed onto, number one. Number two, with regard to the issues related to Ace and Delta in -- I think that's the other name -- Delta in London -- MR. DESPINS: Decade. THE COURT: Decade, excuse me, in London, then those two assets, those two entities, he says he owns. He's said he's owned. Mr. Henzy says he disputes that. Well, he'll have to come in and prove that when he -- that when he testified before his testimony was inaccurate. He'll have to come in and prove that. And right now Mr. Kwok has agreed that Mr. Despins succeeds to the rights of those two entities in London, that the -- that he has now the privileges -- any privileges with regard to the -- well, first of all, he doesn't even have to agree to that because the *Weintraub* case says that.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 47 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 47 The United States Supreme Court case of *Weintraub* says that when it relates to the corporate entities, the trustee succeeds to the interest of that corporate entity and the -- and the privilege passes to that corporate entity. So I don't know what it is that is not -- you say he's cooperating. And he said in his -- in his declaration back on March 10 that -- I'll tell you exactly what he says -- we can go -- we can go to the page. He says that he wants to give everyone a fair opportunity to investigate his assets. So the trustee has been attempting to do so through the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You and he and others have worked hard on a consent order. That consent order says that the trustee possesses the privilege on a post-petition basis at the very least with regard to all of the debtor's assets. That's what it says. It doesn't say not with regard to the assets I listed in my petition. It says with regard to all the debtor's assets. So I don't know how there could be -- MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, could you pull up document 856, please. THE COURT: Hold on a second. Hold on a second, Attorney Romney. Let me finish please. MR. ROMNEY: I apologize.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 48 of 71\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022<br>48                         |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>So I don't know how there could be an            |\n| 2  | argument made that anyone who's been served with a -- with a   |\n| 3  | subpoena for post-petition information and/or assets related   |\n| 4  | to the administration of the estate, because that's what the   |\n| 5  | order says, can say that they don't have to turn over          |\n| 6  | documents.<br>I think that that's going to be a very           |\n| 7  | interesting argument.<br>And they do have -- it's their burden |\n| 8  | to prove that they should not have to turn over those          |\n| 9  | documents.                                                     |\n| 10 | The Rule 2004 motions were granted.<br>They then               |\n| 11 | have to seek appropriate relief under the Federal Rules of     |\n| 12 | Civil Procedure.                                               |\n| 13 | And to hear that -- well, I don't know what's true             |\n| 14 | at this point, but if the prior counsel is saying they're      |\n| 15 | not going to turn over documents until Mr. Kwok approves       |\n| 16 | that, if that's what they're saying, which I don't know if     |\n| 17 | that is, but if that's what they're saying, then that's in     |\n| 18 | violation of the consent order.                                |\n| 19 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Can I be heard now, Your Honor?                 |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                             |\n| 21 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>The consent order that entered,                 |\n| 22 | document 856, in a number of locations specifically talks      |\n| 23 | about the debtor's right to withhold documents subject to a    |\n| 24 | balancing test, notwithstanding anything therein to the        |\n| 25 | contrary.<br>As Your Honor knows because --                    |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 49 THE COURT: Tell me where it says that, Attorney Romney. MR. ROMNEY: The first line of paragraph 7, Your Honor. THE COURT: What's the document number again, 8? MR. ROMNEY: 856. THE COURT: 856x. Why don't we pull up 856 and we'll go through it again. (Pause) THE COURT: So what -- where do you want us to start? MR. ROMNEY: The particular language, that's most directly to what I was saying was found in a number of places, is the first line of paragraph 7, notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary. (Pause) THE COURT: He has to -- he has to make a statement that is going to result in personal harm to him if disclosed to the trustee. All of these assets that the trustee is investigating your client already disclosed as assets on the schedules filed in this case in March of this year. He isn't -- so where is the harm? He put those assets out there. He said that the claim in London is an asset of the estate that he was going Case 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 49 of 71\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 50 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 50 to use to fund the plan in addition to the boat, which was going to be used to fund the plan. So where's the -- how could there be -- how could there be in good faith an allegation of personal harm with regard to the investigation of assets that your client put in play when he -- when he filed his -- filed this case and then filed his statements and schedules of affairs? MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, the debtor, to my knowledge, has not directed anyone to withhold any particular document based upon this balancing test. THE COURT: I'm not talking about that. That's not my question, Mr. Romney. You just pointed me to paragraph 7, first line. That's what you said. You said look at the language in paragraph 7. So I'm looking at the language in paragraph 7, and it says notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, to the extent the debtor believes in good faith that particular documents or information that are covered by a trustee privilege and that concern the investigation could result in personal harm to the debtor if disclosed to the trustee. Well, what the trustee is investigating are the claims in London and all of the other claims associated with assets either disclosed or not disclosed by Mr. Kwok. And my question to you about the London litigation is how can that be an issue? Your client put that out as an\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 51 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 51 asset of the estate and said it was going to be available to fund a plan. So how could there be any information that he could have -- that someone could have that would somehow personally harm him, number one? Number two, with regard to the administration of the estate and what Brown Rudnick would have, what could your client possibly argue that he believes in good faith would result in personal harm if it was -- if that information was disclosed to the trustee? MR. ROMNEY: Okay. So let me take those two in turn. One, with respect to the U.K. matter, one, the U.K. matter was expressly carved out from docket number 856. THE COURT: It's only carved out to the extent that you believe -- your client believes he might have a privilege. That's all it is. It's only with regard to your client. It's not with regard to Brown Rudnick or anyone else that the trustee is seeking information. It says -- nine says, nothing herein shall be construed to impact one way or another the debtor or the debtor's counsel's rights, whatever they may be, to assert privileges the debtor may have under the laws of the United Kingdom. That has nothing to do with any of the information that the trustee's seeking from any other party other than the debtor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 52 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 52 MR. ROMNEY: As I said, the debtor has not directed anyone to withhold any information. What the debtor had said is that they would -- they're asserting their rights under this order to the extent that the debtor has any with respect to a particular document. We have said that it is -- we are not demanding that the debtor review individual documents. We have said that the debtor -- that the recipients of these subpoenas to look at this order. And it may be with respect to most, if not all of these professionals, that there is no document that should be withheld. I haven't seen them. Nobody in my office has seen them. They're in the hands of the people who were served with these subpoena. I don't know how to be any more clear that the debtor is not obstructing this investigation. 16 The debtor -- THE COURT: Okay. Well, then good. Then there won't be anything filed under paragraph 7 because he won't have a good faith basis to believe that he will be -- he will suffer any personal harm if any of these people turn the documents over to the trustee because he hasn't seen them. MR. ROMNEY: We have not seen the documents. THE COURT: So how can he make a good-faith -- MR. ROMNEY: The debtor hasn't seen them. I think\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 53 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 53 that if they -- THE COURT: So how can he make a good faith claim that they shouldn't be turned over? MR. ROMNEY: He hasn't because he hasn't seen the documents. And I think the recipients of these subpoenas -- THE COURT: Well, he's not entitled to see the documents. They're not being subpoenaed to him. They're being subpoenaed to other people. MR. ROMNEY: Okay. And all that the debtor has said -- THE COURT: And the other people don't have a privilege to assert on behalf of the debtor because the trustee has that privilege. You consented to that. MR. ROMNEY: Yes, the debtor did. And, yes, I did as his counsel. And all that the debtor is saying to anyone who asks is that he reserves his right under this order whatever they may be. And the professionals who receive this subpoena can do what they will with that information, but he's not waiving anything that he has under this order. He's not required to waive anything that he has under this order. And professionals who are served with this subpoena should comply with these subpoenas in their professional judgment. That's what they should do and that's what we've said. I do not know what else the debtor can be required\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 54 to do. As I said, if somebody is uncomfortable, somebody has a question, and they would like the debtor's current counsel, meaning me or one of my colleagues, to look at it and specifically say whether the debtor has a good-faith belief with respect to that particular document, we are willing to do that, but we're not demanding that we have a right to compel that. We're not. The debtor's not required to waive whatever rights the debtor has under this order and that's the only thing the debtor is saying he won't do. THE COURT: No one's asking him to. I haven't heard anybody ask him to so I don't even know why you're raising that issue. MR. ROMNEY: But that's all that the debtor is doing. The debtor is not obstructing anything. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I think we can -- we just need to move on. Mr. Despins, you're just going to have to file motions. It's the only way things are going to proceed in this case. With the issue on the litigation in London, you know, now that you have the privilege with regard to the two entities unless they can come in and prove otherwise that they don't own it. He's testified that he owns it. I'm\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 55 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 55\n\ntold today that he disputes that.\n\n Well, he'll have to -- just like they're going to make you file all those motions, they're going to have to file those motions and they're going to have to show that there is something inaccurate or he -- with regard to his prior testimony and with regard to the prior declaration he made in this case back in March of -- and with regard to his statements and schedules of affairs, which he signed under penalty of perjury in which he lists -- and with regard to the plan that he signed in which he said that he was going to use the funds from the UBS litigation to help fund the plan for the payment of creditors.\n\n So I think that that, you know, we're not going to get any further and we're just going to have to file motions and I'll have to make rulings. That's unfortunate, but that's where we are.\n\n It's a situation where -- and actually with regard to the London litigation, are you still pressing the need for that letter to the counsel? Now that you have the corporate entity privilege, why do you need the letter anymore? If you don't need the letter, then the appeal's moot.\n\n MR. DESPINS: Let me come back to Your Honor on this. I mean, in the sense that I think I have the privilege, I agree with you. The problem is that they'll\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 56 of 71\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022<br>56                         |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | say, no, you don't have the privilege.                         |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>I understand what you're saying.                 |\n| 3  | MR. DESPINS:<br>So we're going to be in that.<br>But           |\n| 4  | let me -- that's a fair question that you're raising, so let   |\n| 5  | me -- let me come back to Your Honor on that.                  |\n| 6  | But I think at this point what would make sense,               |\n| 7  | because we did file a motion, but it probably got lost in      |\n| 8  | the shuffle there, there's a motion to expedite                |\n| 9  | consideration of the prejudgment attachment.                   |\n| 10 | I made a proposal.<br>Maybe Mr. Kindseth -- actually           |\n| 11 | we made that proposal, not today, we made it yesterday,        |\n| 12 | before they filed their objection, which is that if they       |\n| 13 | agree that the status quo remains, then we don't need to       |\n| 14 | schedule anything for October 7th, anything on the             |\n| 15 | prejudgment attachment.<br>So I think that that's probably the |\n| 16 | best thing we could do today because there isn't -- we filed   |\n| 17 | a motion on that.                                              |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>When they filed an objection, you mean           |\n| 19 | the debtor filed an objection to the PJR application?          |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:<br>No.<br>To the schedule for the PJR --          |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                            |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- basically raising --                        |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>I don't think I -- I thought I saw the           |\n| 24 | objection only related to the protective order.<br>But I'm     |\n| 25 | wrong, it related to both?                                     |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 57 MR. DESPINS: No. There were separate objections, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I didn't see that. MR. DESPINS: It was filed yesterday afternoon. THE COURT: All right. I didn't see that. Hold on. MR. DESPINS: Sorry. That's the problem. It's in the adversary case, not in the main case. MR. HENZY: Yes, we did. We did file an objection to the motion to expedite. THE COURT: To the PJR? MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: In the adversary? MR. HENZY: Right. But Mr. Despins is correct, it's in the adversary, not the main case, yeah. MR. DESPINS: But it's on the scheduling, not on the merits of the -- MR. HENZY: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So let me look at that in the adversary, the debtor's objection to the scheduling of the hearing on the PJR, which the trustee was seeking a hearing on October 7th. Okay. Here it is. (Pause) THE COURT: Okay. So who's going to address the plaintiff's objection to the trustee's motion for an Case 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 57 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 58 expedited hearing on the prejudgment remedy that the trustee's seeking for October 7th? MR. ROMNEY: I am, Your Honor. Aaron Romney for the record. THE COURT: Could you -- I'm sorry, Mr. Romney. Could you just lean again in a little bit? I can just hear you better when you lean in. Thank you. MR. ROMNEY: Is that better, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, it is. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you. THE COURT: So go right ahead. So you have objected to the hearing being held on October 7th saying you need more time, which, I mean, I understand that, but I understand also that the trustee is saying that they would agree to that if you would agree that there would be essentially a status quo order, a temporary restraining order, restraining everyone from doing anything until there's a hearing on the preliminary injunction on the PJR. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, in the first instance, as far as Ms. Guo is concerned, the trustee has not put forward any evidence that would entitle him to a temporary restraining order or an expedited hearing on the PJR. THE COURT: Well, he didn't say he put forth any evidence to entitle him to a temporary restraining order. He didn't say that, number one. I said that's essentially\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 58 of 71\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 59 of 71\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022<br>59                         |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | what he's asking, right?<br>And I didn't -- I don't agree -- I |\n| 2  | didn't -- I'm not suggesting he has put forth evidence.<br>He  |\n| 3  | said he made a -- he made a proposal.<br>You either accept it  |\n| 4  | or you don't.<br>That's fine.<br>That's the -- that's where we |\n| 5  | are.                                                           |\n| 6  | He's asking are you going to agree to maintain the             |\n| 7  | status quo until there's actually a hearing on the             |\n| 8  | preliminary -- on the -- I keep saying preliminary             |\n| 9  | injunction, I'm sorry -- the prejudgment remedy.<br>And if     |\n| 10 | your answer is no, then your answer is now.<br>That's fine.    |\n| 11 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>With regards to Ms. Guo, we're                  |\n| 12 | unaware of any basis that the trustee could possibly           |\n| 13 | establish to restrain her individual assets.<br>And,           |\n| 14 | therefore, no, we will not.                                    |\n| 15 | With respect to the -- what appears to be the                  |\n| 16 | primary focus, and only with an articulated exigent            |\n| 17 | circumstance of the \\$37 million escrow, the escrow was the    |\n| 18 | subject of a heavily negotiated order between a number of      |\n| 19 | parties, including the debtor, in whose shoes the trustee      |\n| 20 | currently stands.                                              |\n| 21 | The order specifically required HK International               |\n| 22 | to bring the boat back and outlined a number of terms          |\n| 23 | regarding what the escrow funds that were designed to secure   |\n| 24 | that promise could and could not be used for.                  |\n| 25 | Paragraph 12 of that order, which is document 299              |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 60 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 60 entered in this case, specifically precludes the parties, including the debtor, to whom the trustee is the successor in interest, from asserting any claims to that escrow fund, including to the enforcement of any judgment or service of any prejudgment remedy or other legal process other than with respect to securing the promise to return the boat or with regard to particularized repairs to the boat, which is what the subject of the repair reserve motion is.\n\n To have HK and Ms. Guo, who personally guaranteed the loan of this \\$37 million that HK then posted, to have them comply with their obligation under this court stipulated order, and then have the trustee say now that the boat is back I want the \\$37 million too is not only unconscionable, but it is the source of promissory estoppel and collateral estoppel given that it is the subject of a court order.\n\n And for that reason, under no circumstances should Ms. Guo or HK be required to defend an evidentiary hearing against a 65-page counterclaim that was briefed with a 40- page memorandum of law and that is supported with 3,000 pages of exhibits in two weeks, which two weeks include two Jewish holidays and two weekends, so that the trustee can try and attach funds that a court order expressly precludes the trustee from attaching is simply unconscionable and I don't believe lawful.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 61 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 61 And for that reason we will not agree to restrain the very funds that have already been agreed shall not be the subject of further restraint. THE COURT: Okay. That wasn't the only question though. It wasn't just with regard to the funds. So you've said no. The question was with regard to everything else, not just the funds. I understand your point. I understand he's seeking a PJR against the funds. I've seen that. I haven't read it. And everything else you've said you'll file in your opposition papers. You'll do whatever you need to do. MR. ROMNEY: Right. And HK, as well Ms. Guo, will need a reasonable time to defend against those allegations. The trustee has not established any cause for an expedited hearing -- THE COURT: Well, that's -- MR. ROMNEY: -- other than that it wants -- he wants to attach these funds that an order precludes him from attaching. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may be heard on this? THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: Okay. So we did establish cause. And yet I know you haven't seen the papers, but the point is that they want the 37 to leave the jurisdiction, go back to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 62 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 62 essentially Mr. Kwok, but that's a different story, as soon as possible. That's the issue here. That's why we're saying there should be a standstill on the \\$37 million. And as you said, the argument that they just made that the debtor bound the trustee, which was not around at the time. And, by the way, at this time, there was a motion to appoint a trustee and a motion to dismiss the case and they made very particular provisions regarding what happens in the dismissal but nothing with respect to what happens when there's a trustee. This is kind of (indiscernible). In DIP financing orders you always put a provision saying if this is binding on a successor trustee, et cetera, et cetera, for the very reason that it's not binding. And, in fact, that's what they forgot to do here. There was a pending motion. And if they had asked you at that time, Your Honor, you understand there's a motion pending to appoint a trustee, this will bind the trustee through the reference here to Mr. Kwok, the debtor, you know, I doubt very much Your Honor would have intended to do that. And to be really clear about this, in the discovery disputes the Zeisler firm has taken the position that with respect to documents relating to this stipulation that there was a common interest between Mr. Kwok, the debtor, and HK International, that tells you everything you\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 63 need to know. There was no -- this is not like when a debtor is at arm's length with another party. They were together on this stipulation trying to get the boat out of the jurisdiction as soon as possible. And the \\$37 million out of the jurisdiction. But the point is you don't have to resolve this now. They can file their papers saying exactly what Mr. Romney just said and we will deal with it. The point though is if there's going to be race to, you know, release those funds, then we need a hearing sooner. If there's not going to be a race, then they can have all the time they want. But they can't have it both ways where they say, yes, indeed, he has no right to do that and, therefore, we will do everything we can to take the money out of the Court's jurisdiction, then we need a hearing before that happens. It's as simple as that. And if they're willing to agree, without any prejudice, but I want to be clear, we would not later argue that because they agreed to this standstill that somehow they're waiving their argument that they just made that the trustee cannot do what it's doing, not at all. This is what we call an administrative freeze to make sure that the Court has the time to review this and\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 64 that they have the time. They think they want more time, sure, take more time. But there's no reason right now with -- the position they're taking is that we're going to jam the Court, meaning we're going to say, no, we're not agreeing to anything, including anything regarding the \\$37 million, because we don't think he has no -- the trustee has a right to that relief. My point is it's totally within their control. It's a self inflicted ruling. I want to be clear, again, them agreeing today that they will not be -- that there will not be any actions taken with respect to \\$37 million would not be used, could not be used in any way as an argument that somehow they have waived any of the arguments that Mr. Romney has made and any other arguments they want to raise. So it's really totally within their control. They cannot -- And the argument is simple. Is the 37 staying or not? If it's not staying, or some of it is not staying, we need to have a hearing as soon as the money is going to leave the -- before the money leaves the jurisdiction. It's as simple as that. And to be clear, again, no prejudice to them whatsoever because this is just a -- it's like we're on appeal, you know, we often have an administrative freeze to Case 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 64 of 71\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 65 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 65 allow the Court to -- an administrative stay and it allows the Court to review the matter and take its time. And it's without prejudice to either side's position. That's all we're proposing. If they're not willing to agree to any of that, fine, then we need a hearing on an expedited basis because we can't let the money leave the jurisdiction. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: And because, Your Honor, this will be the last 37 million we'll ever see from the debtor very likely. THE COURT: Mr. Romney, did you want to respond? MR. ROMNEY: Yes, I did, Your Honor. Your Honor, the trustee sought two extensions to its filing to HK's complaint. The trustee was appointed I believe on July 15th. The motion was filed on September 24th around 10:00 p.m. If this was such exigent circumstances and not an attempt at sandbagging, for lack of a better word, this motion would have been filed months ago when we were scheduling the hearing on the reserve order. But the trustee needed multiple extensions of time to respond, one of which was on consent, one of them was over HK's objection, and they received it. Second, the trustee is the successor in interest,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 66 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 66 as we've been over in numerous contexts in this case, including today, in the context of the trustee's rights with respect to assets and certain privileges. The trustee is the successor to the debtor. And that works both ways, Your Honor. The trustee is the successor to the debtor in possession. The trustee is bound by the debtor's contracts whether the trustee likes that or not.\n\n And this order that the Court entered specifically precludes attachments of the PJR funds. And there's a very simple reason for that. The funds wouldn't have been here if it wasn't for this order. This order is a negotiated order, an agreement, designed to facilitate the return of the Lady May and make sure it's in good working order.\n\n The Lady May is back. There is a hearing scheduled for October 7th to reserve sufficient funds to make sure that it will be in good working order. But the trustee does not get both. The order says what it says.\n\n And to say that unless we decide that we won't subject the funds to attachments, unless we agree to defend these allegations on 14-day's notice, it's just unconscionable and there's no basis in law for it.\n\n If I may have one moment. Oh, and the trustee said there's no prejudice. The prejudice is, as we've said multiple times, and I believe has been before the Court before, the interest on this loan from a third party is \\$1.3\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 67 million per month. That's real money that has to be paid to a real third party while this money is sitting in an account. The incentive, yes, is to repay that loan and stop the interest that Ms. Guo has personally guaranteed and HK is incurring. It is to repay the money to a lender. It is not to steal the money. And to the extent that the trustee believes that there is cause to actually take this money, notwithstanding what the order says, perhaps the trustee should post a bond to secure the damages that HK and Ms. Guo will incur if these funds are tied up, and it incurs several million dollars of interest. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, all these points will be heard. All these arguments can be heard at the time of the issue of the bonding will be addressed as well. So the point is, you know, the point they're making, because we're going to win, we're going to win, and, therefore, nothing needs to happen. No. We've made -- If Your Honor has not read the counterclaims, but -- and I'd -- it would be too much to expect you to have done that over the weekend, but it's very precise in terms of allegations regarding the providence of these funds, where these funds came in. This argument, you know, I hesitate to use that Case 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 67 of 71\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 68 of 71\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022<br>68                          |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | term, but we don't want to insult people's intelligence, the    |\n| 2  | fact that a third party would have lent \\$37 million to an      |\n| 3  | unemployed, 28-year-old, really, who believes that?<br>That's   |\n| 4  | all Kwok's money.<br>And I know they did.<br>That's exactly the |\n| 5  | way they structure all these enterprises where he has           |\n| 6  | nothing and it has to come from others.<br>And in this case,    |\n| 7  | it's his daughter.<br>The daughter doesn't have the funds to    |\n| 8  | pay 500,000.<br>That will never happen.<br>The reason that's    |\n| 9  | created is to give the appearance that, in fact, she'll be      |\n| 10 | prejudiced.                                                     |\n| 11 | And there's so many examples in the counterclaims.              |\n| 12 | You'll see there are pages, page after page, of examples of     |\n| 13 | using these shell companies or using family members to hide     |\n| 14 | money from the creditors.<br>And that's exactly what's          |\n| 15 | happening here.<br>And the Court, you know, needs to be         |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\ncognizant of that.\n\n But, again, I'm not arguing the math now. I'm just saying a very simple thing, which is the hearing should be on October 7th or they can have it whenever they want. Again, I'm not asking you to rule on the merits, just a scheduling, or they can have it whenever they want if they agree that nothing happens with the \\$37 million and the Lady May. That's all.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 69 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 69 (No response) THE COURT: All right. Is there any other matter we need to address this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I will look at -- I did not schedule a hearing and did not grant the motion for an expedited hearing because I wanted to hear what the parties' positions are. Now I've heard what the parties' positions are and I will rule accordingly. We also have, I believe, a scheduling order in place with the Lady May reserve, repair reserve, where documents need to be filed before the hearing next week, a list of witnesses and exhibits and things of that nature, correct? Do we have dates? MR. KINDSETH: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. KINDSETH: They're due to follow. THE COURT: So everyone's keeping to that schedule, correct? MR. KINDSETH: That's correct. And currently the evidentiary hearing scheduled for October 7th on the repair reserve which Your Honor scheduled I believe more than a month ago for the specific issue of having a hearing on the repair reserve. THE COURT: Well, because you had asked for an\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022 70 evidentiary hearing and we had a status conference on that issue. MR. KINDSETH: Correct. THE COURT: And that's why we needed to schedule it as we scheduled it because you needed an evidentiary hearing, which is fine. MR. KINDSETH: Correct. And that's scheduled for October 7th. THE COURT: Right. Okay. Then I will take a look at what has been filed over the last few days and I will issue an order with regard to the -- either granting or denying the motion for an expedited hearing. So is there anything further we need to address today? MR. DESPINS: Not from the trustee's point of view, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Anyone else? MR. ROMNEY: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then this is our last matter on the calendar today, so court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 3:40 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 70 of 71\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022                           | 71 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| 1  |                                                            |    |\n| 2  | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court             |    |\n| 3  | Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a  |    |\n| 4  | correct transcript from the official electronic sound      |    |\n| 5  | recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. |    |\n| 6  |                                                            |    |\n| 7  |                                                            |    |\n| 8  | October 9, 2022                                            |    |\n| 9  | Christine Fiore, CERT                                      |    |\n| 10 |                                                            |    |\n| 11 |                                                            |    |\n| 12 |                                                            |    |\n| 13 |                                                            |    |\n| 14 |                                                            |    |\n| 15 |                                                            |    |\n| 16 |                                                            |    |\n| 17 |                                                            |    |\n| 18 |                                                            |    |\n| 19 |                                                            |    |\n| 20 |                                                            |    |\n| 21 |                                                            |    |\n| 22 |                                                            |    |\n| 23 |                                                            |    |\n| 24 |                                                            |    |\n| 25 |                                                            |    |\n|    |                                                            |    |","body_zh":"美国康涅狄格联邦破产法院布里奇波特分院\n\n关于　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*　案号：22-50073 (JAM)\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵），　　　　　　*　康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*　September 27, 2022\n债务人。　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　*\n\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）代表LUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯）受托人提交的续行状态会议及聘用申请庭审记录\n\n于尊敬的JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）法官，美国联邦破产法官面前\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：\nERIC HENZY（埃里克·亨齐），律师\nHK International（香港国际）及\nMei Guo（郭美）：　　　　　　　　　　AARON ROMNEY（亚伦·罗姆尼），律师\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Bridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表债权人：\nPacific Alliance Asia Opportunity　　　　STUART SARNOFF（斯图尔特·萨诺夫），律师\nFund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金　　　 O'Melveny & Myers LLP\n有限合伙）：　　　　　　　　　　　　　Times Square Tower\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　7 Times Square\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　New York, NY 10036\n\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ANNECCA SMITH（安妮卡·史密斯），律师\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Robinson & Cole\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　28 Trumbull Street\n　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Hartford, CT 06103\n\n庭审程序由电子录音记录，庭审记录由转录服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE GOLDMAN（欧文·戈德曼），律师\nPullman & Comley\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY CLAIBORN（霍莉·克莱伯恩），律师\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表第11章受托人：\nNICHOLAS BASSETT（尼古拉斯·巴塞特），律师\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n第11章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS（卢克·A·德斯平斯），律师\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n案卷 22-50073 文书 936 提交日期 10/11/22 登记日期 10/11/22 09:53:48 第 3 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022\n\n1　（程序于下午2:10开始。）\n\n2　法庭书记员：\n案号 22-50073，Ho Wan\n\n3　Kwok。\n\n4　法庭：\n下午好。\n\n5　请各方为记录出庭，\n\n6　请先由第11章受托人开始。\n\n7　DESPINS先生：\nLuc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\n8　下午好，法官阁下。\n\n9　法庭：\n下午好。\n\n10　LINSEY先生：\nPatrick Linsey，康涅狄格州律师，\n\n11　代表第11章受托人。下午好，法官阁下。\n\n12　法庭：\n下午好。\n\n13　GOLDMAN先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Irve\n\n14　Goldman，Pullman and Comley，代表债权人\n\n15　委员会。\n\n16　法庭：\n下午好。\n\n17　SMITH女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n\n18　BASSETT先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n\n19　法庭：\n请电话上的人员稍等一下。\n\n20　BASSETT先生：\n抱歉。\n\n21　法庭：\n是。请稍等。\n\n22　SMITH女士：\n律师 Annecca Smith，Robinson and\n\n23　Cole，代表 PAX；通过 Zoom 出席的是 Stuart Sarnoff，来自 O'Melveny\n\n24　and Myers，同样代表 PAX。\n\n25　法庭：\n谢谢。下午好。\n\n案卷 22-50073 文书 936 提交日期 10/11/22 登记日期 10/11/22 09:53:48 第 4 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022\n\n4　SARNOFF先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n\nBASSETT先生：\n并且，法官阁下，我是 Nick Bassett，来自 Paul Hastings，代表第11章受托人，今天也通过 Zoom 出席。谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n下午好。Claiborn 律师？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n\n法庭：\n下午好。Henzy 律师？\n\nHENZY先生：\nEric Henzy，代表债务人。\n\n法庭：\n下午好。\n\nHENZY先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\nKindseth 先生和 Romney 先生？\n\nKINDSETH先生：\n下午好。Stephen Kindseth，代表债务人 Ho Wan Kwok，以及第三方 HK International 和 Mei Guo。\n\nROMNEY先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。Aaron Romney，Zeisler and Zeisler，代表同一各方。\n\n法庭：\n下午好。Romney 先生，方便时，请您发言时靠近麦克风一些。声音有一点不清楚。您现在不必这样做，但刚才传来的声音有一点含混。好吗？\n\nROMNEY先生：\n这样好一些吗，法官阁下？\n\n法庭：\n是，好一些。这只是——\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022\n\n5　听起来您离得很远。因此，我只想确保法庭书记员能够清楚地听到您的声音。好吗？\n\nROMNEY先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n谢谢。好的。今天 Kwok 案件的日程中，有三项聘用申请，随后是续行状态会议。Goldman 先生，我曾在先前的一次听证中就两项聘用申请询问过您。您要求将其安排在今天开庭审理，并表示您将说明拟如何就这两项聘用申请继续推进。因此，聘用申请为 ECF 321 和 325。那么，您今天打算如何推进？\n\nGOLDMAN先生：\n法官阁下，我想做的是，自上次听证以来，我们一直在讨论。我与美国受托人和受托人进行了讨论，试图拟定他们能够接受的措辞，以聘任这两名专业人士，并符合这样的理念，即，您知道，受托人将会——将会对我们希望他们从事的任何工作，如有，拥有发言权。因此，截至昨天，我们拟定了美国受托人和受托人均可接受的措辞，对那些聘用命令作出修改。从概念上说，修改涉及——\n\n案卷 22-50073 文书 936 提交日期 10/11/22 登记日期 10/11/22 09:53:48 第 5 页，共 71 页\n\n案卷 22-50073 文书 936 提交日期 10/11/22 登记日期 10/11/22 09:53:48 第 6 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022\n\n6　这样一种理念，即专业人士将就其在受聘后约一周期间所提供的服务获得无条件聘用，自 May 3rd 起算。对于 Coleman，我认为是 May 3rd 至 May 10th。随后，他应我们的要求停止工作，因为——当时，我们知道融资——DIP 动议已被撤回，债务人已同意驳回。我们认为，您知道，在当时让这些专业人士停止工作是审慎的做法，直至我们知道该案件将如何发展。对于 Dundin，则是从 May 3rd 至 May 15th 工作。因此，就这两个期间而言，命令将规定，您知道，他们获聘并获授权提供申请和拟议命令中确定的全部服务。但在那些日期之后，如委员会希望这些专业人士提供任何服务，我们将首先必须与受托人协商，寻求其同意；如果他不同意，我们将有机会在通知并举行听证后向本法庭申请，以获得对那些未获受托人同意的服务的批准。如此说来，这确实——这些就是概念上的变更。我们已经拟定实际措辞。而且我可以——\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022\n\n7　此时向您提交命令，包括相对于原命令的黑线版和红线版，除非任何其他当事方对——对我所描述的内容有异议。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。这对我来说是有道理的。是否还有其他人希望就委员会于一段时间前提交的、我认为是在 May 初提交的聘用专业人士申请发言？是否还有其他人希望发言？\n\n（无回应）\n\n法庭：\n好的。既然无人发言，那么 Goldman 律师，请您提交那些修订后的拟议命令。您希望有多少时间？\n\nGOLDMAN先生：\n到 Friday？\n\n法庭：\n可以。只是为了书记官办公室，否则它会遗失，或者可能会遗失——\n\nGOLDMAN先生：\n当然。\n\n法庭：\n——所以我希望有一个日期——\n\nGOLDMAN先生：\n时间很充裕。\n\n法庭：\n——这样书记官办公室处理起来更容易。好吗？那么将作出准许该申请的命令，而您将在 Friday，即 30th 前提交该修订后的拟议命令？\n\n案卷 22-50073 文书 936 提交日期 10/11/22 登记日期 10/11/22 09:53:48 第 7 页，共 71 页\n\n案卷 22-50073 文书 936 提交日期 10/11/22 登记日期 10/11/22 09:53:48 第 8 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022\n\n1　GOLDMAN先生：\n是。\n\n2　法庭：\n好的。很好。这两项——这两项\n\n3　申请都是如此？\n\n4　GOLDMAN先生：\n两名专业人士均是。是。\n\n5　法庭：\n好的。\n\n6　GOLDMAN先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n7　法庭：\n非常感谢。\n\n8　好的。那么，Despins 先生，您也有一项\n\n9　聘用申请，请继续。\n\n10　DESPINS先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。为记录起见，\n\n11　Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\n12　这是聘用 Harney's，一家英属维尔京群岛\n\n13　律师事务所；我们需要聘请其作为当地律师，\n\n14　处理当地法律问题。该申请于 August 30th 以案卷编号 807 提交。\n\n15　对此我不会花太多时间，\n\n16　因为没有任何人提出异议。\n\n17　因此，从我们的角度来看，重要的是\n\n18　他们已同意在遗产中有资金之前等待收取报酬。\n\n19　同样，您知道，受制于与我们相同的\n\n20　安排，这对我们具有很大价值。\n\n21　在我们提交此申请后，我们向美国\n\n22　受托人披露，其关联方并非律师事务所，\n\n23　但确实是 Harney's 的关联方，提供董事\n\n24　服务。这是英属维尔京群岛的运作方式。您聘请\n\n25　这些专业董事。\n\n案卷 22-50073 文书 936 提交日期 10/11/22 登记日期 10/11/22 09:53:48 第 9 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022\n\n9　美国受托人的观点是，我们不仅应当提交对此的完整披露——我们已这样做——还应修改申请，以确保聘用的不仅是作为律师的 Harney's，也包括根据363条聘用该，您知道，提供董事服务的公司。正如我此前所说，我不确定我们是否同意这是必要的，但我们这样做了。完整披露很重要。因此，我们以案卷编号 855 提交了该申请。他们截至今年年底的费用为 6,667。他们还同意，其未来费用将在遗产中有资金之前等待收取。并且，再次如我们所说，这一结构对我们极为有利。除非作为一项整体安排，没有其他公司会给予我们这些折扣。基于这些理由，法官阁下，我们认为按申请及修订申请所载条款聘用他们是适当的。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。是否有人希望就聘用 Harney Westwood 的申请发言？\n\nCLAIBORN女士：\n法官阁下，Holley Claiborn，代表美国受托人。美国受托人没有异议。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢。是否还有其他人希望就聘用 Harney Westwood 的申请发言？\n\n案卷 22-50073 文书 936 提交日期 10/11/22 登记日期 10/11/22 09:53:48 第 10 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - September 27, 2022\n\n10　（无回应）\n\n法庭：\n好的。既然无人发言，我——Despins 受托人，最初随申请提交的拟议命令，是否需要因——因您刚才与美国受托人办公室讨论的内容而作出修订？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n我不是百分之百确定。我们可能应当修订。我应当查看一下。是的。这是合乎逻辑的。\n\n法庭：\n那么我们这样做吧。我将说明该申请获准，但以提交修订后的拟议命令为条件。届时可能仍是同一命令，取决于具体情况，但您将提交该命令。您必须查看一下。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。那么您希望有多少时间完成此事？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n两天即可，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n我们给您——我们给您到 Friday。如果您更早提交，就更早提交。好吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的。因此，我们——今天日程中的最后事项是状态会议。我知道受托人有一项尚未解决的\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月27日 11 关于保护令问题的加急听证申请，该申请于周末期间提交。我看到债务人对此提出了异议。我没有作出任何裁定，因为直到昨天某个时候我才看到该申请。随后我看到了债务人的异议。债务人的异议请求给予一些时间进行审阅。鉴于我们在本案不同情形中的经历，我认为受托人不会反对给予债务人一些时间审阅拟议命令。我的想法是——在听取意见后，并且我不知道亨齐律师（Attorney Henzy）或罗姆尼律师（Attorney Romney）是否负责其中的证据开示部分——我们将听证定于下周二，并给予债务人机会在周一中午前就该命令提出其可能提出的任何异议。这是我就保护令所拟采取的处理方式。所以我不知道。亨齐律师或罗姆尼律师，你们二位中的哪一位——或者也许是金德塞思律师（Attorney Kindseth）——我不该这么说，我不知道谁在负责此事，但你们中哪一位希望就此发表意见？罗姆尼先生：是，法官大人。亚伦·罗姆尼（Aaron Romney）代表债务人。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 936 提交于 10/11/22 录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48 第 12 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月27日 12 法官大人所提议的正是我们所寻求的一切。保护令是在周末期间提交的。我们此前没有看到。一些人员因犹太节日休假。我们所希望的只是有机会审阅该命令并与受托人的律师讨论。当然，在下周初，即法官大人所说的周一，我认为无论是在周二就该事项举行听证，还是更可能在周二提交一项命令，我们都可以接受。法庭：好的。因此，尽管加急听证动议未列入今天的日程，我将在本次听证、即我们的状态会议结束后，准许该加急听证动议。我们将把听证安排在下周二。请稍等片刻。我刚刚找不到位置了。抱歉。（暂停）法庭：如果你们愿意，我们可以在周二中午举行听证，或者此后的任何时间。以各方当事人偏好为准。德斯潘受托人（Trustee Despins），您希望中午还是稍晚一些？其他各方的日程如何？德斯潘先生：中午可以，法官大人。法庭：好的。其他人都可以吗？下周二中午？罗姆尼先生：代表债务人而言，我可以，法官大人。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月27日 13 法庭：好的。那么，加急听证动议将获准。听证将于10月4日中午举行，任何希望就有关保护令的基础动议提出异议的当事人，必须在10月3日星期一中午前提出。好吗？然后受托人的律师将送达该命令。但显然，大多数人将以电子方式收到，我们将据此继续进行。好吗？大家都明白吗？德斯潘先生：是，法官大人。法庭：好的。罗姆尼先生：是。谢谢。法庭：好的。那么，德斯潘先生，您还提出了今天状态会议的建议议程。因此，我不反对您按所建议的方式进行，请开始吧。德斯潘先生：好的。法官大人，我可以上前吗？法庭：可以，请。谢谢。德斯潘先生：法官大人，据我了解，已提供了一份PowerPoint演示文稿。我知道它在听证前已交给亨齐先生，因为我当时在场，但本应通过电子邮件发送给罗姆尼先生和\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 936 提交于 10/11/22 录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48 第 13 页，共 71 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 936 提交于 10/11/22 录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48 第 14 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月27日\n1 金德塞思先生，大约在两点钟左右。我希望他们\n2 已从——我不是——我不是说当时——\n3 法庭：\n我只是——\n4 德斯潘先生：\n它是由林西先生（Mr. Lindsey）所在律所发出的。\n5 法庭：\n好的。\n6 林西先生（Mr. Linsey）：\n他们收到了，法官大人。\n7 德斯潘先生：\n好的。\n8 罗姆尼先生：\n显然，我也收到了，法官大人。\n9 法庭：\n好的。谢谢。\n10 罗姆尼先生：\n谢谢。\n11 德斯潘先生：\n而且我相信，它也发送给了\n12 萨诺夫先生（Mr. Sarnoff）。\n13 因此，现就HK USA对抗程序作一更新。\n14 上周五，我们提交了答辩和反诉，反诉内容相当\n15 广泛。因此，显然今天不是对此进行审判。\n16\n17 但与此同时，我们还请求采取\n18 诉前救济以维持现状，尤其是，\n19 但并非仅限于，尤其是涉及$37 million。\n20 我们曾请求对此举行加急听证。这可能\n21 在忙乱中被忽略了，但我认为，直截了当地说，\n22 我们曾请求在10月\n23 7日举行听证，因为那天已就Lady May——\n24 法庭：\n维修——\n25 德斯潘先生：\n——您知道，维修事项安排了听证。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 936 提交于 10/11/22 录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48 第 15 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月27日 15 法庭：对。德斯潘先生：债务人已提出异议，我们——该异议于昨日提交。为使大家放心，我们可以不在7日继续进行。可是，我们需要维持现状，即法律上的现状，保持其今日的状态。因此，如果债务人希望有更多时间处理诉前扣押动议，这没有问题，但随后需要有一项命令，最好是经同意作出，规定以下事项不得发生。例如，不得向持有——我忘了是U.S. Bank（美国合众银行）还是UBS（瑞银集团），不管是哪一家——但持有该$37 million的银行发出通知，诸如此类。显然，在举行听证之前，无论该听证为何，游艇不得移动。法庭：我可以——我可以问您一个问题吗？当您说不在10月7日继续进行时，您的意思是10月7日完全不继续进行任何事项，还是仅指您关于诉前——您提出的诉前请求——德斯潘先生：仅指诉前扣押。法庭：好的。好的。谢谢。我不太确定。我只是想澄清这一点。德斯潘先生：除我刚才提到的事项外，关于何为法律上的现状，唯一不明确的是\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 936 提交于 10/11/22 录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48 第 16 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月27日 16 债务人的女儿。由于某种原因，传票尚未由书记官办公室签发。但我们确实在反诉中将她列为被告，不过由于某种原因，传票尚未签发。但问题在于——法庭：书记官办公室昨天实际上没有办公。他们在场外开会，所以这大概——您何时提交反诉的，周五下午吗？德斯潘先生：是。法庭：对。这大概就是原因。德斯潘先生：公平地说，是晚上。法庭：但我想您会取得已签发的传票。不过，先停一下。德斯潘先生：对。法庭：这是您的反诉，对吗？德斯潘先生：正确。法庭：因此，您需要签发传票，因为您现在是反诉原告？德斯潘先生：正确。法庭：而他们需要——好的，好的。我还没有——德斯潘先生：不。不。法庭：我知道它已提交，但我没有仔细看过，所以没关系。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月27日 17 德斯潘先生：法官大人，它——法庭：我们会确保书记官办公室处理此事。德斯潘先生：它内容繁多，所以我并不——并未期待您现在已经看过或消化完毕。其中有很多实质内容。所以我所说的是，就她而言，问题是何为现状？意思是，我们不会在这方面荒谬行事，也就是说，我们对个人物品和类似物品不感兴趣，但如果她在某处存有数百万美元，该笔资金在就此举行听证之前不应被转移。所以，您知道——而且我不知道。我的意思是，他们——蔡斯勒律师事务所（Zeisler firm）代理她，所以我不知道他们是否了解她的个人财务状况，但我们知道债务人通常将大量现金和资产存放在其家人名下，因此这当然是一种可能性。但如果她没有，意思是她拥有衣物、公寓及类似普通物品，我们对此不感兴趣。我们感兴趣的是，您知道，会在实质上产生重大影响的事项。所以，您知道，我想这取决于蔡斯勒律师事务所向我们告知他们对此的看法。因此，我们并不希望就\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 936 提交于 10/11/22 录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48 第 17 页，共 71 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 936 提交于 10/11/22 录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48 第 18 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月27日\n1 日程安排问题大张旗鼓。\n只要对方方便，我们乐意安排\n2 日程，只要明确理解\n3 游艇、该$37 million以及我所称的新\n4 反诉被告，即女儿——\n5 债务人的女儿——的重大资产，均不得发生任何变动。\n6\n7 因此，继续——我相信他们稍后会就\n8 此发表意见。\n9 议程上的下一项是关于Ace Decade（艾斯十年）和Dawn State（曙光州）的更新，法官大人。\n10 您对此很熟悉。\n我的意思是，至今已一个月。\n已有一项\n11 命令，要求他们向我们提供所有这些材料。\n12 他们没有提供。\n您知道，我不想\n13 在此斤斤计较，但最初是亨齐先生和\n14 金德塞思先生在纽约，因而无法处理。随后\n15 是COVID。再后来是犹太新年。\n16\n17 关键在于，没有理由让我们尚未取得\n18 Ace Decade和Dawn State的文件。而且，\n19 自我们提出该请求以来，实际上又已过去一个月。\n20\n21 该命令表述明确，因此无需\n22 再提出动议。该命令规定，您应向\n23 受托人提供与您拥有的实体有关的所有这些公司文件。\n24 而且，事实上，我们已经提供了两三个\n25 参考依据，说明Kwok先生拥有这两个实体。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 936 提交于 10/11/22 录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48 第 19 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月27日 19 因此，我们希望今天能处理此事。现在，转到——第7页的Rule 2004（规则2004）证据开示。这里并非详细讨论该事项的适当场合，但我希望法官大人知道，我们因债务人的立场而遇到重大障碍。例如，他们的观点是，他们仅需就他承认拥有的资产或正处于诉讼中的资产向我们提供证据开示，例如纽约的公寓或游艇。但对于他可能拥有、或我们认为他可能拥有的其他资产，他们无需就此向我们提供证据开示。显然，这正是调查的全部目的。这是一点。然后，他们的立场是他没有任何文件，一个也没有。好的。我不确定这是否可能。他们说，那么我们如何知道？我们问过他，他说他没有。嗯，您根本不需要查得很远。我们很久以前曾向法官大人提到过HBO（美国有线电视网）上一段有关债务人的视频，他在视频中展示其公寓。桌上有大约12部iPhone。他指出自己使用这些手机，是因为共产党始终在监听他，但他有12部iPhone。而且，他在我们已提交给法官大人的UBS起诉书中陈述，他曾与\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 936 提交于 10/11/22 录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48 第 20 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022 20 通过 WhatsApp 使用 UBS；WhatsApp 是人们可以在 iPhone 或其他，你知道的，智能设备上使用的一种应用程序，所以显然他在使用技术。他每天总是在互联网上，你知道的，发布各种声明，所以他非常——他知道自己在做什么。因此，他没有任何文件这一说法是个问题，因为他所做的，以及这正是他经营其业务的方式，是这些其他的空壳公司中的每一家——你知道的——都由他完全控制；他安排一些负责人，他们是他的保镖，你知道的，他们是股东，但他——他们实际上是——如果你问他们以何谋生，他是保镖，他是厨师，他是一名没有高中学历的助理，这些人就是股东，而这些人拥有一切。但他却说，嗯，你知道的，是他们持有，我们没有。他控制着这些文件。根据规则，他应当提交这些文件。因此，今天并非强制提交动议，但我想告诉您，我们在此事上花费了很多时间。您将在本案过程中听到，所产生的费用非常高。费用确实非常高，因为我们——我们在这所有事情上面临着一个又一个障碍。因此，这——这再次说明，今天并非强制提交动议，但我希望确保法官阁下知道，我们正在遭遇这些障碍。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 936，于 10/11/22 提交，于 10/11/22 09:53:48 录入，第 21 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022 21 然后是关于特权的问题——你知道的，因此有一项经双方同意的关于特权的命令，所以我们认为，嗯，这会顺利进行。可是，正在发生的是，例如，Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克）称，在债务人的律师告诉我可以之前，我不会提交文件。嗯，他们说，我们需要审阅该文件。这将需要，你知道的，无限的时间——或者没有规定截止日期，因此我们没有任何这些文件。所以，再次，这可能会通过一项强制提交动议提请审理，但我想让法官阁下知悉此事。现在是一些事务性事项。第一件事，我们对此感到不安。Connecticut（康涅狄格州）有两栋房屋，由一家名为 Greenwich Land（格林尼治置地）的公司所有。债务人作证称，该实体由其妻子所有。这绝无任何贬低之意，但她没有钱。购买这两栋房屋的资金来自 Kwok（郭文贵）实体。在破产前发生的情况是，PAX（PAX）向该公司 Greenwich Land（格林尼治置地）发出通知，称这是对 Ostrager 法官（奥斯特拉格法官）命令在 Delaware（特拉华州）进行承认登记；该命令称，你不得转让任何财产。该通知有效期为一年。该通知于 2021 年 5 月送达，因此有效至 2022 年 5 月。可是，他们于 2022 年 4 月出售了其中一栋房屋。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022 22 而且，你知道的，显然我们将对此进行调查，但是，你知道的，这使我们对——并且解释了我们在本案中的很多做法——如果这种事情正在发生，感到非常担忧。现在，这并非在我们任职期间发生的，也就是说，这发生在今年 4 月。当时没有受托人在任。当然，他们会说，嗯，这是妻子的房屋，所以，你知道的，我们可以自由出售，但据我理解，当时有一项命令禁止出售该房屋，至少按我的理解如此，而该房屋以 2 million plus 的价格出售。月度经营报告。嗯，截止日期尚未届满。另一点是，下一次状态会议，我们原定于 October 4th 举行一次，但在 October 4th 举行没有意义，因为我们将在 October 7th 到庭。因此，如果法官阁下同意，我们将改期举行下一次状态会议。法庭：我认为这很合理。DESPINS 先生：但我认为，法官阁下——法庭：所以你们不会在 4 日举行会议？DESPINS 先生：——我们确实需要听取关于 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）的情况，并且需要听取关于判决前扣押的情况，因为我们希望避免许多——而且我们愿意，\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 936，于 10/11/22 提交，于 10/11/22 09:53:48 录入，第 22 页，共 71 页\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 936，于 10/11/22 提交，于 10/11/22 09:53:48 录入，第 23 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022\n\n1 关于判决前扣押，花费比他们希望的更多时间，只要作出一项非常严格的命令，以保护破产财产免于任何资产耗散。\n\n2\n\n3\n\n4\n\n5 谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n6 法庭：谢谢。\n\n7 Henzy 律师（亨齐律师）？\n\n8 HENZY 先生：法官阁下，我只谈 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）的问题。\n\n9\n\n10 债务人并不承认，事实上对其拥有 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）一事提出争议。\n\n11 我理解受托人已经指出了一些事项。\n\n12 我可以谈谈那些事项。\n\n13 但是——目前法庭面前没有任何事项。\n\n14 这是一次状态会议。尚未提交任何动议。\n\n15 所以我不知道。\n\n16 我想，我对这些状态会议的问题之一是——\n\n17 它们对法庭有帮助，那显然才是重要的，但我们来到您面前讨论\n\n18 这些事情时，并没有任何动议。\n\n19 所以我主张，没有任何动议。\n\n20\n\n21 我理解有公司治理命令，\n\n22 但该公司治理命令的前提是债务人拥有某物。\n\n23 正如我所说，债务人对其拥有 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）提出争议，所以我不——\n\n24\n\n25 法庭：那么你——你——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022 24 你如何回应这个问题，即你的当事人显然在 341 会议上作证称他拥有该公司？HENZY 先生：因此，法官阁下，我们正在取得我们自己对 341 会议的翻译，但债务人已经审阅了记录誊本——法庭：债务人在 341 会议上有一名译员。HENZY 先生：而且，实际上，法官阁下——法庭：是的。HENZY 先生：——在那次 341 会议上，我认为有关翻译有许多来回讨论。而且，我，你知道的，在已提交的记录誊本中贴了很多便笺，显示译员之间有来回讨论，而且——法庭：我不认为有两名译员。我们有一次在法庭举行听证会时有两名译员。341 会议上有两名译员吗？CLAIBORN 女士（克莱伯恩女士）：是的。请让我把它分成两部分说明。法庭：能否请你再靠近麦克风一些说话。抱歉。CLAIBORN 女士：可以。法庭：我刚才听不太清楚你说的话。CLAIBORN 女士：我认为这个麦克风不是很——\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 936，于 10/11/22 提交，于 10/11/22 09:53:48 录入，第 24 页，共 71 页\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 936，于 10/11/22 提交，于 10/11/22 09:53:48 录入，第 25 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022\n\n1 好，所以我得非常靠近它。\n\n2 法庭：抱歉。\n\n3 CLAIBORN 女士：在第一次 341 会议上，\n\n4 该会议通过电话举行。美国受托人有一名译员，\n\n5 该译员通过一家翻译服务机构的电话\n\n6 接入。债务人当时据我所知是在 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克）办公室\n\n7 出席，并有他自己的译员亲自陪同他，\n\n8 当时如此。\n\n9 因此，无论对美国受托人办公室提供的译员可能有何批评，\n\n10\n\n11 债务人当天有他自己的私人译员陪同。\n\n12 而且我记得那是 Wilkinson 女士（威尔金森女士），\n\n13 她就是出庭的同一名译员。\n\n14 法庭：在 Kwok 先生（郭文贵先生）亲自在本庭作证的那天，\n\n15 我们有两名译员，以消除以下主张，\n\n16 即翻译可能不准确的主张。\n\n17\n\n18 当两名译员之间出现一个问题时，\n\n19 该问题在公开法庭上进行了讨论，他们\n\n20 就所提问题和所作回答的\n\n21 措辞达成了一致。\n\n22 因此，我理解你所说的话，但我要告诉你，\n\n23 对于 Kwok 先生（郭文贵先生）而言，这将会很有意思；他来到\n\n24 本庭称他想解决与债权人之间的问题，随后\n\n25 作证称他拥有 Ace，而现在\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022 26 却声称他并不拥有，对此提出争议。我认为，这对他将是一条艰难的道路。HENZY 先生：因此，法官阁下，为澄清起见，相关证词所在的 341 会议是第二次 341 会议。所以我认为并非——CLAIBORN 女士：如果您愿意，我也可以谈谈那次会议。HENZY 先生：是的。那是 April 6th。而且，再次，我不知道今天是否是适当的日子，但是——法庭：嗯，已经有一项命令生效了，对吗？受托人已经要求、索取该信息，而你在先前一次会议上称你需要时间审阅，因为你不知道，且那是公平的，你不知道 Ace 和 Dawn（道恩）的状态，它们是在 London（伦敦）诉讼中的另外两名原告。受托人现已向你出示 341 会议记录誊本。也许我——我可能对这一点感到困惑，所以让我说，我不确定我接下来要说的是否准确，但我以为 Kwok 先生（郭文贵先生）为支持 DIP 融资动议和计划而在 March 或 April 提交的一份声明中也有相关内容。HENZY 先生：没有。法庭：嗯，我不认为——我并非——HENZY 先生：并非关于 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 936，于 10/11/22 提交，于 10/11/22 09:53:48 录入，第 26 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022 27 法庭：好的。嗯，其他人似乎在点头。HENZY 先生：只是为了——因为没有——只是为了没有，你知道的——法庭：是。HENZY 先生：——文件就是文件。在 U.K.（英国）提交的起诉状中，它是——我会称之为经核实起诉状的等同物，我不——我不认为那是他们在那里的称法，但有一份由律师签署的起诉状，然后三名原告中的每一名原告均由代表其的人签署，以说明其中的所有内容均属实。起诉状称，Kwok 先生（郭文贵先生）取得了 Ace Decade（艾斯十年），我认为是在 2014。法庭：Two thousand, fourteen。HENZY 先生：好的。而且有人告诉我，该陈述不正确。并且 U.K.（英国）的律师——法庭：是 Kwok 先生（郭文贵先生）告诉你该陈述不正确？HENZY 先生：是。法庭：好的。嗯，这很有意思。HENZY 先生：我理解。我理解。法庭：这很有意思，因为他说——HENZY 先生：法官阁下，我——法庭：——他现在已在不止一个\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 936，于 10/11/22 提交，于 10/11/22 09:53:48 录入，第 27 页，共 71 页\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 936，于 10/11/22 提交，于 10/11/22 09:53:48 录入，第 28 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022 28 司法管辖区称，他曾拥有——现在拥有它。HENZY 先生：而据我理解，他在其他地方称自己并不拥有。因此，再次，我不——我认为我们今天无法就此进行诉讼，法官阁下。法庭：我并非试图就此进行诉讼。HENZY 先生：好的。法庭：我试图让债务人遵守一项他并未上诉的命令的条款和条件。他没有就公司治理命令中如下部分提起上诉：第 11 章受托人取代其职位，就他在其中拥有权益、或其为该实体所有人或控制人的实体进行治理。而他目前的问题在于，在本庭，在这次 341 会议上，Claiborn 女士（克莱伯恩女士）提出了直接问题，顺便说一句，是 Claiborn 律师——我的意思是，我读过该记录。这不止一个问题，我认为是两个或三个问题——而他称我——我无须复述他说了什么，因为文件中写明了——但文件写明他拥有并控制该公司。这就是他——他对问题的回答。而且没有译员或任何人以任何方式称无论他说了什么都不准确。他没有提出异议。译员没有提出异议。没有人提出异议。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 936，于 10/11/22 提交，于 10/11/22 09:53:48 录入，第 29 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 27, 2022\n\n1　现在，如你所知，法院并不出席341会议。\n\n2　我们不出席——这没问题。但我这里有美国受托人办公室（United States Trustee's Office）的代表，她曾两次对郭先生进行审查，而在第二次审查时——至少从我所能看出的情况——她非常谨慎地提出问题，而他说他拥有该项资产。\n\n8　亨齐先生（MR. HENZY）：我能否——\n\n9　法院：这就是他说的。\n\n10　亨齐先生：法官阁下，我能否陈述意见？\n\n11　法院：当然。\n\n12　亨齐先生：谢谢。\n\n13　法官阁下，我不会说中文。我不识中文。\n\n14　有341会议的录音，录音中包含其所包含的文字。\n\n15　据我了解，不同口译员会以不同方式将中文译成英文。\n\n18　实际上，如果您查看4月6日341会议的记录，郭先生聘请的私人口译员多次插话，表示不同意美国受托人所聘口译员的翻译。\n\n22　所以存在差异。\n\n23　而且我并不——我并不——我不知道郭先生在那次341会议上所说的话应如何正确翻译。再次说明，我不识中文。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 27, 2022 30　我不会说中文。我无法做到这一点。法院：那么你如何与你的当事人沟通？亨齐先生：始终有一名口译员在场。法院：所以你——所以郭先生并没有告诉你他不拥有它，而是在郭先生告诉口译员他不拥有它之后，口译员告诉你的？亨齐先生：法官阁下，我只能通过口译员与我的当事人交谈。法院：好的。这正是我在问的。亨齐先生：是。我的意思是，郭先生——只是为了——法院：所以郭先生没有直接告诉你他不拥有这些实体。他说——口译员说他对其拥有这些实体一事提出异议，这就是口译员告诉你的？亨齐先生：法官阁下，嗯，我想有几件事。恕我直言，法官阁下，我认为这有点是个奇怪的问题。我不能——法院：我不认为这是个奇怪的问题。亨齐先生：我不能——法院：你是在告诉我——你是在说——你走进本法院，现在说你的当事人告诉了你某件与记录中五处不同的事情，但你告诉我他没有直接对你说。他是通过一名\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 30 of 71\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 31 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 27, 2022 31　口译员告诉你的。亨齐先生：我不——我不——他是直接告诉我的。如果我通过口译员与我的当事人交谈，我认为我是在直接与我的当事人交谈。法院：你怎么知道？你不会说中文。你刚才说过。亨齐先生：确实不会。但我——法院：好的。亨齐先生：坦率地说，我不确定——我不确定法官阁下的意思是什么。法院：我的意思是，你如何知道别人告诉你的内容是准确的？你是在说——亨齐先生：我想我——法院：——你不能——亨齐先生：我想我——法院：——你不知道——你不知道正在被——亨齐先生：嗯——法院：你说，在有口译员在场时，你不知道郭先生所作证言是否准确，那么你如何知道别人告诉你的内容是否准确？亨齐先生：可能是口译员翻译错误。但这里的口译员也可能翻译错误。所以，我的意思是，我不——我不确定——法院：这就是为什么那天我们在\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 32 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 27, 2022 32　法庭上安排了两名口译员——亨齐先生：嗯，这不是法庭。法院：——以免就某人陈述的误译产生这种争论。亨齐先生：法官阁下，我确实不确定您要说什么。我不确定。法院：我并没有要说什么。是你刚刚进来说——亨齐先生：所以我——法院：——等一下，等等——并且说郭先生对其拥有那两个实体一事提出异议。亨齐先生：这是正确的。法院：好的。这就是你所说的。而我问你，你如何知道？你说，因为他告诉我。亨齐先生：这是正确的。法院：而我问，他是直接告诉你，还是通过口译员告诉你？你一度说是通过口译员，一度说是直接告诉你，所以我不知道他是如何告诉你的。亨齐先生：好的。法院：但我的意思是，你说你不懂中文。我想我们谁都不懂。好吗？这就是为什么我们有口译员。而现在，在341会议过去数月又数月又数月之后，因为第11章\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 33 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 27, 2022\n\n1　第11章受托人正试图调查债务人的事务，却现在说他对此提出异议，这似乎——这很难——法院很难理解。\n\n4　亨齐先生：这可能很难让法院理解。我相信受托人将提出适当动议，我们将举行听证。\n\n7　法院：好的。那么，我们将会——\n\n8　亨齐先生：是。\n\n9　法院：——因为那样你的当事人将违反一项治理命令。\n\n11　亨齐先生：基于我当事人的立场，即他不拥有Ace Decade（艾斯十年）——即——\n\n13　法院：那么，他将不得不到这里来作证。\n\n15　亨齐先生：他可能必须这样做。\n\n16　法院：并说明为何在341会议上接受证言的口译员是错误的。我们将不得不安排两名口译员，因为我们不能仅有郭先生的口译员。\n\n20　亨齐先生：我们可能需要两名以上口译员。我不知道。但显然，翻译是本案中的一个问题。\n\n23　克莱伯恩女士（MS. CLAIBORN）：法官阁下，我能否完成我先前未讲完的、关于第二次341会议的意见？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 34 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 27, 2022 34　法院：当然。克莱伯恩女士：该次341会议在纽黑文的美国受托人办公室亲自举行。郭先生在场。他的同一名私人口译员，威尔金森女士（Ms. Wilkinson），也在场。美国受托人聘请了一名现场口译员。诚然，记录确实反映出对翻译存在争议，但我要指出的是，正如威尔金森女士在参加法官阁下面前的听证时所做的那样，当她认为翻译不准确、有误或可以更好时，她完全能够提出意见。她在第一次341会议和第二次341会议中都多次提出意见。因此，关于记录这一特定部分现在存在争议的范围，我不知道该争议基于什么，因为正如法官阁下所指出的，我的问题很简单，他的回答很简单，而且在该特定小节中，律师之间并未提出任何争议。亨齐先生：法官阁下，我不确定我是否完全同意这一点，但是——而且我可能是在简化翻译。话是从郭先生口中说出的。再次说明，我对此可能就是错的，好吗，即——在我看来，存在一个客观的情况，即这些话被译成英文中的这些词。他要么以一种方式回答，要么以另一种方式回答，我不知道。我无法知道。我不能听录音后说，我认为这份记录正确，或我认为它不正确。我无法做到这一点。法院：但你已经做了。你刚刚做了。你说他对此提出异议。亨齐先生：我无法独立做到这一点。法院：好的。那么，你可以说任何你想说的他对此提出异议的内容，但没有任何证据，我听到的只是你说他提出异议。对吗？我的意思是，因为他已经作证说他拥有它。他是在宣誓后作证的。他作了宣誓。亨齐先生：而他不同意自己曾作证称拥有它。法院：好的。嗯，好的。亨齐先生：好的。我明白——法院：那么下一步呢？那么他——那么德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）将提出一项动议——亨齐先生：对。法院：——而你的当事人将被认定——如果这就是争议，如果他——如果他将要说他对该证言提出异议，却没有在作证时提出异议，那么这将会，你知道，可能导致一项他不喜欢的命令。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 36 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - September 27, 2022\n\n1　亨齐先生：法官阁下，这可能如此。我想——我想请求法官阁下暂缓作出判断，直到实际上有一份记录——\n\n4　法院：我说的是，这可能导致一项命令——\n\n5　亨齐先生：——提交到您面前。\n\n6　法院：——他可能不喜欢的命令。这就是我所说的。\n\n8　亨齐先生：好的。因为再次说明，我认为您今天不希望我逐一说明我在这份记录中标记出的所有地方，在那些地方——巴尔迪加先生（Mr. Baldiga）基于翻译提出了持续性异议。好吗？各方停止记录后又恢复记录。在记录中，克莱伯恩律师宣布，对形式的一切异议均予保留，因为据我理解所发生的情况是，341会议的进程不断受到异议和私人口译员插话的干扰，以致为了使其重回正轨，作出了保留一切异议的安排。我不知道该保留意图涵盖的范围有多广，所以我不知道。\n\n21　我知道这份记录一团糟。即使在与此相关的地方，也反复出现插话，好吗。而受托人没有附上下一页，好吗。\n\n25　在受托人提交文件所附第61页底部，你可以看到：“克莱伯恩女士：我不认为那是”——而下一页没有了。“让我们重新开始，因为我不认为那是——那是”——私人口译员说：“是的。我认为是。”克莱伯恩女士：“那是问题，因为它没有涉及Dawn State（道恩州）。”私人口译员：“是的。所以我要重新开始。”然后有——然后有一系列问题。所以我不——我不认为事情如此清楚明确。法院：好的。亨齐先生：好的。法院：这很公平。在那一系列问题中——亨齐先生：因此，我想请求法官阁下——法院：——他是否对拥有它提出异议？亨齐先生：他是否对拥有它提出异议？法院：当你——当你谈到第61页之后开始再次提出的那些额外问题时，他是否在问题再次被提出时提出异议？亨齐先生：随后，实际上转到了另一个话题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 37 of 71\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 38 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月27日\n\n法庭：\n但之后再也没有提出过该请求？\n\nHENZY 先生（亨齐先生）：\n之后再也没有提出过。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n好的。因此，我认为事情并没有那么清楚明确。并且，再次，在法官阁下认定债务人藐视法庭之前，我请求您至少——\n\n法庭：\n我没有做过任何此类事情。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n——允许形成一份记录。\n\n法庭：\n我没有做过任何此类事情。好吗？\n\nHENZY 先生：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n所以我——但我感到担忧。我的意思是，我们为达到证据开示阶段已经做了很多工作。而现在听说存在所有这些问题，包括 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所），其来到本庭并表示同意特权已转移给受托人，且并非所有事项均受特权保护；而现在我又听说，在贵方当事人批准其如此做之前，他们不会交出任何东西。\n\nHENZY 先生：\nRomney 先生（罗姆尼先生）将就此作出说明，但我认为实际情况比这更复杂，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生（德斯平斯先生）：\n法官阁下，别管 341 会议了。有一份起诉状，一份经核证的起诉状，不仅由 Kwok 先生签署，还由另外两人签署，其中一人代表 Dawn State（道恩州），另一人代表我忘记了的另一实体 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）。该起诉状称其中的内容属实。因此，这些人也不懂英语。因此，我们有三名不懂英语的人在英国签署了一份经核证的起诉状，之后他们又说，只是，您知道，抱歉，但这些都不是真的？这实在令人难以置信。而且，该策略，法官阁下，他拥有无限资源。他会让我们花钱直到永远。这只是其中一个例子。但我们将提出动议。\n\nSARNOFF 先生（萨尔诺夫先生）：\n法官阁下，我是 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨尔诺夫）。我无意轻浮或煽动，但在我们与 Kwok 先生诉讼的五年期间，当我们在州法院对 Kwok 先生提起起诉状时，他从自己的档案中提交了与 PAX 相关的全部合同，作为其驳回动议的附件，并主张这些协议由其在欧洲和亚洲签署，因此该事项应被（听不清）送回香港，而该动议获准。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 936 于 10/11/22 提交，于 10/11/22 09:53:48 录入，第 39 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月27日 39\n\n而如果进入上诉程序，那么他签署了证明书和承认请求书，承认这些文件真实（听不清）证言，因为这不符合他的利益，因为他的案件正在败诉，于是作证称这些是伪造文件，他此前从未见过它们。因此，他可能会出于策略而改变其证言这一事实——这并不是他首次出现此类行为，我认为在考虑目前提出的论点的可信度时，牢记这一点很重要。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n我想，当受托人提出动议时，我们会处理此事，法官阁下，而且我们都将有机会形成记录。\n\n法庭：\n好的。Romney 先生，您原本要就其中一些证据开示争议发表意见。是这样吗——Henzy 先生说您将处理这些问题？\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n是的。如果法官阁下愿意，我将首先谈谈 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）（听不清）/证据开示问题。法官阁下能清楚听到我说话吗？我知道此前——您在听我说话时有些问题（听不清）——\n\n法庭：\n好一些了，不过可以。如果您不介意，随时稍微靠近一些，这会有帮助。\n\nROMNEY 先生：\n好的。如果有任何内容没有传达，请告诉我。就证据开示而言，存在某种——有几个问题。债务人（听不清）——我不同意受托人的定性。我认为，我们在会面协商期间有多次对所说内容存在不同理解，以至于我建议我们开始录音记录这些谈话。受托人的律师不同意这样做。\n\n就 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）和特权命令而言，债务人的立场是，本庭已作出一项命令，该命令经债务人与受托人同意作出。传票已送达若干极具能力的专业人士，其中一些代表债务人，另一些代表关联实体。我们的立场是，这些专业人士——正如我们在公开法庭上辩论是否应作出该命令时所说——完全有能力审阅该命令，审阅其持有的文件，并根据其专业判断独立决定某份文件是否应依该命令的条款被保留。我们没有告诉任何一位专业人士保留文件，或将文件直接交给我们。我们所说的是，债务人不主张债务人在该命令下可能享有的任何权利。\n\n我们已告知知悉该命令条款的专业人士，他们已收到传票，负有遵从传票的义务，并且对其客户、前客户或无论其客户为何人，负有专业义务：当且仅当存在依据时，依该命令主张特权并保留文件。此外，为了作出配合——\n\n这是一项提议，不是一项要求，也不是对现任律师或前任律师的指示。我们提出，如果专业人士对特定文件是否应依此被保留感到为难，我们将审阅这些文件，并以债务人现任律师的身份给出债务人的意见，即这些文件是否应被标记。\n\n我们没有坚持要求任何人这样做。我们提出此建议，仅是为了避免因与该命令相关的问题进一步给本庭增加负担，并仅是为了避免因人们不确定应如何适用该命令而造成不必要的延误。这就是我们所做的。\n\n而且实际上，这——涉及的文件，在几乎所有情况下，其持有人已不再代表债务人。正如受托人一直坚决主张的，受托人控制债务人在申请破产前及在任命受托人前——在任命第 11 章受托人前——产生的诉因，即破产财产的资产；这些专业人士已不再受债务人控制。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 936 于 10/11/22 提交，于 10/11/22 09:53:48 录入，第 40 页，共 71 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 936 于 10/11/22 提交，于 10/11/22 09:53:48 录入，第 41 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月27日 41\n\n债务人以及作为其专业人士的我们，在获得其许可后，所提出的一切只是试图促进这一程序并加快其进程，因为正如我向受托人的律师指出的，债务人无意拖延本程序。这不是一宗州法院止赎案件，他试图在银行收走他的房屋之前尽可能多地免付租金。该程序将按其进程推进。它将是复杂的。债务人已指示我们合作，而我们正试图合作。除说明审阅该命令、将其适用于您正在审阅的文件，并据此提供或不提供文件外，我们没有指示任何人依该命令保留文件。\n\n至于我所称的证据开示问题的第二部分，即债务人拥有和未拥有的东西，受托人所提到的视频或影片，不管它是什么，来自 2017 年。那是五年前，法官阁下。所提到的 WhatsApp 信息，我现在没有放在面前，我相信那些也是 2017 年所说的事情。五年前。我认为，作出如下结论并非不合理或不可能：某人，特别是在债务人的情况下，数年前离开香港，于 2017 年提交了庇护申请，并且因数亿美元的判决，包括藐视法庭，而经历了多年的诉讼，其生活方式可能已发生变化，或者其在 2022 年接近年底时拥有和未拥有的东西，可能与 2017 年不同。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 936 于 10/11/22 提交，于 10/11/22 09:53:48 录入，第 42 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年9月27日 42\n\n现在，是否应要求人们回答受托人希望向他们提出的问题？当然。这些是正当的问题。但债务人在 2017 年拥有一部手机、而他无法在 2022 年在此找到该手机，并不完全是确凿证据。确实不是，法官阁下。而债务人一次又一次地被不公正地定性，依据的是五年前的信息。\n\n至于债务人拥有和未拥有的东西，我曾通过其口译员与债务人进行过多次讨论，他一再表示，他不保留与受托人所询问的任何业务有关的记录。无论存在什么，均在与这些实体有关的其前任专业人士手中。他确有两部手机。据我了解，这些手机已在其申请书中披露。它们并未向任何人隐瞒。而且他的立场并不是这些手机不存在，而是手机中的信息与这些业务无关。这是他告诉我们的。这是我们告诉受托人律师的。\n\n据我理解，受托人律师的回应实际上是，我们不相信他。他们不必相信他。可以说，法官阁下，不相信他是他们的职责。但到这里来并称他在撒谎，只因他们认为他在撒谎，这不是证据，也不是我们司法制度所意图的运作方式。就证据开示问题而言，我要说的就是这些，法官阁下，除非法庭有任何问题。\n\n法庭：\n您就特权达成的同意命令载明，而且您的当事人已同意，受托人在申请破产后直至——直至任命第 11 章受托人之日，持有债务人的全部特权，并且与破产财产资产有关的全部信息均可进行证据开示。这就是该命令所载明的内容。这是他在第一段中同意的内容。它并不限于已提出的《规则 2004 审查》动议或已送达的传票。特权动议确立了受托人为推进调查所享有的权利。\n\n您当事人在本案中于 March 20, 2022 提交的声明，在事情正以其——他和 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）所提议的方式推进时，称其破产财产的资产包括在 United Kingdom（英国）待决的诉讼，他也在其财务状况说明中列明了该项资产，以及在该地区的诉讼。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022 46 ——在 District Court of the District of Columbia（哥伦比亚特区联邦地区法院）进行的诉讼中，而且那些是破产财产中有价值的资产。他提交并签署的计划书称，他将以那些诉讼的所得为破产财产提供资金。这就是你当事人在本案中所说的。这些是你当事人在本案中的承认。因此，现在我得知郭先生的律师在未经其许可前不会交出文件，在我看来，这违反了你们已签署同意的同意命令，这是第一点。第二点，关于与 Ace（艾斯）和 Delta（德尔塔）有关的问题——我想那是另一个名称——伦敦的 Delta——DESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：Decade。法庭：抱歉，是伦敦的 Decade（迪凯德），那么那两项资产、那两个实体，他称其为他所有。他一直称其为他所有。Henzy先生（亨齐先生）称其对此有异议。那么，当他——当他作证称其先前证词不准确时，他将必须到庭证明这一点。他将必须到庭证明这一点。目前，郭先生已同意 DESPINS先生承继该伦敦两个实体的权利，即——他现在拥有相关特权——任何有关该——嗯，首先，他甚至无需同意这一点，因为 Weintraub（温特劳布）案就是如此规定的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 47 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022 47 United States Supreme Court（美国联邦最高法院）的 Weintraub（温特劳布）案称，当涉及公司实体时，受托人承继该公司实体的利益，并且——特权转由该公司实体享有。因此，我不知道究竟有什么未——你说他正在配合。而且他在3月10日的——他的声明中称——我准确告诉你他说了什么——我们可以——我们可以看那一页。他说，他希望让每个人都有公平机会调查其资产。因此，受托人一直试图通过 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（《联邦民事诉讼规则》）这样做。你、他以及其他人一直努力制定一项同意命令。该同意命令称，至少在申请破产后，就债务人的所有资产而言，受托人享有特权。这就是其所称内容。它并未称不适用于我在申请书中列出的资产。它称适用于债务人的所有资产。因此，我不知道怎么会有——ROMNEY先生（罗姆尼先生）：法官阁下，请调出文件856。法庭：等一下。等一下，罗姆尼律师。请让我说完。ROMNEY先生：抱歉。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 48 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022\n1　法庭：\n因此，我不知道如何能够提出这样一种论点，即任何收到有关申请破产后信息和／或与破产财产管理有关资产的传票的人——因为命令就是这么说的——可以称他们无需交出文件。我认为那将是一个非常有意思的论点。而且他们负有证明自己不应当交出那些文件的责任。\n10　Rule 2004 动议已获准。他们随后必须根据 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure（《联邦民事诉讼规则》）寻求适当救济。\n13　而且听说——嗯，我目前不知道什么是真的，但如果先前的律师称，在郭先生批准之前他们不会交出文件，如果他们是这么说的——我不知道他们是否如此说——但如果他们是这么说的，那么这违反了同意命令。\n19　ROMNEY先生：法官阁下，我现在可以发言了吗？\n20　法庭：可以。\n21　ROMNEY先生：已作出的同意命令，即文件856，在多处明确谈及债务人有权根据利益衡量测试保留文件，尽管其中有任何相反规定。正如法官阁下所知，因为——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022 49 法庭：告诉我它在哪里这么说，罗姆尼律师。ROMNEY先生：法官阁下，第7段第一行。法庭：文件编号又是多少，8？ROMNEY先生：856。法庭：856。为什么我们不调出856，再过一遍。（暂停）法庭：那么——你希望我们从哪里开始？ROMNEY先生：与我所述内容最直接相关的特定措辞、在多处出现的措辞，是第7段第一行：“尽管本命令中有任何相反规定”。（暂停）法庭：他必须——他必须作出一项陈述，即如果向受托人披露，将对他造成个人损害。受托人正在调查的所有这些资产，你的当事人已在本案今年3月提交的资产清单中披露为资产。他并没有——那么，损害在哪里？他把那些资产公布出来了。他称伦敦的该项请求权是破产财产的一项资产，他将\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 49 of 71\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 50 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022 50 除该游艇外，还将其用于为计划提供资金，而该游艇也将用于为计划提供资金。因此，何来——怎么会有——怎么可能善意地主张，对于调查你当事人在其——在其提交——提交本案并随后提交其事务声明和资产清单时主动提出的资产，会造成个人损害？ROMNEY先生：法官阁下，据我所知，债务人未指示任何人基于该利益衡量测试扣留任何特定文件。法庭：我说的不是这个。这不是我的问题，罗姆尼先生。你刚才指向第7段第一行。这就是你所说的。你说看第7段的措辞。因此，我正在看第7段的措辞，其称，尽管本命令中有任何相反规定，如债务人善意认为受受托人特权涵盖且涉及该调查的特定文件或信息，在向受托人披露后可能对债务人造成个人损害。嗯，受托人正在调查的是伦敦的请求权，以及与郭先生已披露或未披露的资产有关的所有其他请求权。而我就伦敦诉讼向你提出的问题是，这怎么会成为一个问题？你的当事人将其列为\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 51 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022 51 破产财产的一项资产，并称其将可用于为一项计划提供资金。因此，他可能拥有的——某人可能拥有的、会以某种方式对他造成个人损害的信息，怎么可能会有？这是第一点。第二点，关于破产财产管理以及 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）可能持有的资料，你的当事人究竟可能主张他善意相信什么会在——如果该信息向受托人披露时造成个人损害？ROMNEY先生：好的。那么让我逐一回应这两点。第一，关于英国事项，第一，英国事项被明确排除在案卷编号856之外。法庭：仅在你认为——你的当事人认为他可能享有一项特权的范围内被排除。仅此而已。它只与您的当事人有关。它与 Brown Rudnick 或受托人正在向其寻求信息的任何其他人无关。其称——第9条称，本命令中的任何内容均不得解释为以任何方式影响债务人或债务人律师根据 United Kingdom（英国）法律主张债务人可能享有的特权的权利，无论该等权利为何。这与受托人正在向债务人以外任何其他方寻求的任何信息毫无关系。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 52 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022 52 ROMNEY先生：如我所说，债务人并未指示任何人扣留任何信息。债务人所称的是，他们将——在债务人就某一特定文件享有任何权利的范围内，他们正在根据该命令主张其权利。我们已说过——我们并未要求债务人审阅单个文件。我们已说，债务人——收到这些传票的人应查看该命令。而且，就这些专业人士中的大多数、即使不是全部而言，可能没有任何文件应被扣留。我没有看过它们。我办公室里没有人看过它们。它们在收到这些传票的人的手中。我不知道还能如何更清楚地说明，债务人并未阻碍这项调查。债务人——法庭：好的。那么很好。那么第7段下不会提交任何东西，因为他不会有善意依据相信，如果这些人中的任何人将文件交给受托人，他将——将遭受任何个人损害，因为他没有看过这些文件。ROMNEY先生：我们没有看过这些文件。法庭：那么他怎么能作出善意——ROMNEY先生：债务人没有看过它们。我认为\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 53 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022 53 如果他们——法庭：那么他怎么能善意地主张它们不应被交出？ROMNEY先生：他没有，因为他没有看过这些文件。而且我认为收到这些传票的人——法庭：嗯，他无权查看这些文件。这些传票不是向他发出的。它们是向其他人发出的。ROMNEY先生：好的。而债务人所说的一切——法庭：而其他人无权代表债务人主张特权，因为受托人拥有该特权。你已对此同意。ROMNEY先生：是的，债务人同意了。而且是的，我作为其律师也同意了。而债务人对任何提出询问的人所说的一切是，他保留其在该命令下的任何权利，无论该等权利为何。收到该传票的专业人士可以自行决定如何处理该信息，但他并未放弃其根据该命令享有的任何权利。他无需放弃其根据该命令享有的任何权利。收到该传票的专业人士应根据其专业判断遵守这些传票。这是他们应当做的，也是我们所说的。我不知道还能要求债务人做什么。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022 54 正如我所说，如果有人感到不安，有人有疑问，并且希望债务人现任律师，即我或我的一位同事，查看该文件并具体说明债务人是否就该特定文件具有善意信念，我们愿意这样做，但我们并未要求我们有权强制这样做。我们没有。债务人无需放弃债务人根据该命令享有的任何权利，而这是债务人所说他不会做的唯一事情。法庭：没有人在要求他这么做。我没有听到任何人要求他这么做，因此我甚至不知道你为什么提出这个问题。ROMNEY先生：但这就是债务人正在做的一切。债务人没有阻碍任何事情。法庭：好的。嗯，我认为我们可以——我们只需继续推进。Despins先生（德斯平斯先生），你将不得不提交动议。这是本案中事情得以推进的唯一方式。关于伦敦诉讼问题，你知道，既然你就那两个实体享有特权，除非他们能够到庭证明并非如此，即他们并不拥有它。他已作证称他拥有它。今天有人告诉我，他对此有异议。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 936 Filed 10/11/22 Entered 10/11/22 09:53:48 Page 55 of 71\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- September 27, 2022 55\n\n今天有人告诉我，他对此有异议。\n\n那么，他就必须——正如他们将迫使你提交所有那些动议一样，他们也必须提交那些动议，并且必须证明存在某些不准确之处，或者他——就他先前的证词、就他在本案中于三月作出的先前声明、以及就他的陈述和事务清单而言——他是在伪证处罚下签署该等文件的，其中他列明——以及就他所签署的计划而言——他在其中称将使用 UBS litigation（瑞银诉讼）所得资金，协助为向债权人付款的计划提供资金。\n\n因此，我认为，嗯，我们无法再取得任何进展，我们只能提交动议，而我必须作出裁定。这很不幸，但我们目前就是这样。\n\n这是一个——实际上，就 London litigation（伦敦诉讼）而言，你们是否仍坚持需要给律师的那封信？既然你们现在拥有公司实体特权，为何还需要那封信？如果不需要那封信，那么上诉便无实际意义。\n\nDESPINS 先生：请允许我就此向法官大人回复。我的意思是，从我认为我享有该特权这一意义上说，我同意您的看法。问题是他们将会——\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 936　提交于 10/11/22　录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48　第 56 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 9 月 27 日\n1　说，不，你不享有该特权。\n2　法庭：\n我明白你的意思。\n3　DESPINS 先生：\n因此，我们将会陷入那种情况。不过\n4　请允许我——您提出的是一个合理的问题，因此请允许\n5　我——请允许我就此向法官大人回复。\n6　不过，我认为目前合理的做法是，\n7　因为我们确实提交了一项动议，但它可能在\n8　事务繁杂中被忽略了，即一项请求加速\n9　审理判决前扣押的动议。\n10　我提出了一项建议。也许 Kindseth 先生——实际上\n11　我们昨天提出了该建议，并非今天提出，\n12　是在他们提交反对意见之前，即如果他们\n13　同意维持现状，那么我们就无需\n14　安排 10 月 7 日的任何事项，即任何有关\n15　判决前扣押的事项。因此，我认为这大概是\n16　我们今天所能做的最佳事项，因为并不存在——我们已就此提交\n17　一项动议。\n18　法庭：\n你是指他们提交反对意见，即\n19　债务人对判决前救济申请提交了反对意见？\n20　DESPINS 先生：\n不是。\n是对判决前救济的日程安排——\n21　法庭：\n好的。\n22　DESPINS 先生：\n——基本上提出——\n23　法庭：\n我想我没有——我以为我看到的\n24　反对意见仅涉及保护令。不过\n25　我错了，它涉及两者？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 9 月 27 日　57　DESPINS 先生：不是。有分别的反对意见，法官大人。法庭：好的。我没有看到。DESPINS 先生：它于昨天下午提交。法庭：好。我没有看到。稍等。DESPINS 先生：抱歉。问题在于，它在对抗程序案件中，而不在主案件中。HENZY 先生：是的，我们确实如此。我们确实对加速审理动议提交了反对意见。法庭：针对判决前救济？HENZY 先生：是。法庭：在对抗程序中？HENZY 先生：对。不过 Despins 先生说得对，它在对抗程序中，而非主案件中，是的。DESPINS 先生：但它是针对日程安排，而非针对——的实体理由。HENZY 先生：正确，法官大人。法庭：好的。那么让我在对抗程序中查看，债务人对受托人请求于 10 月 7 日就判决前救济举行听证会的日程安排所提出的反对意见。好的，在这里。（暂停）法庭：好的。那么谁将回应原告对受托人提出的——\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 936　提交于 10/11/22　录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48　第 57 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 9 月 27 日　58　就受托人请求于 10 月 7 日取得的判决前救济举行加速听证会的动议所提出的反对意见？ROMNEY 先生：我，法官大人。记录在案，Aaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼）。法庭：能否——抱歉，Romney 先生。您能否再稍微靠近一些？您靠近时，我能听得更清楚。谢谢。ROMNEY 先生：这样更好吗，法官大人？法庭：是的。ROMNEY 先生：谢谢。法庭：那么请开始。你们反对于 10 月 7 日举行听证会，称你们需要更多时间，我的意思是，我理解这一点，但我也理解受托人称，如果你们同意实质上作出一项维持现状的命令，一项临时限制令，限制任何人在就判决前救济的初步禁令举行听证会前采取任何行动，他们将同意该请求。ROMNEY 先生：法官大人，首先，就 Guo 女士（郭女士）而言，受托人并未提出任何证据，使其有权取得临时限制令或就判决前救济举行加速听证会。法庭：嗯，他并没有说他提出了使其有权取得临时限制令的任何证据。他没有那样说，这是第一点。我说那实质上是——\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 936　提交于 10/11/22　录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48　第 58 页，共 71 页\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 936　提交于 10/11/22　录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48　第 59 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 9 月 27 日\n1　他所请求的，对吗？而且我并不——我不同意——我没有——我并非表示他已经提出了证据。他说他提出了——他提出了一项建议。你们要么接受，\n2　要么不接受。这没问题。这就是——这就是我们目前的\n3　情况。\n4　他问的是，你们是否会同意维持\n5　现状，直至实际就初步——就——我一直说初步\n6　禁令，抱歉——判决前救济举行听证会？如果\n7　你们的答案是否定的，那么现在就回答否定。这没问题。\n8　ROMNEY 先生：\n就 Guo 女士而言，我们\n9　不知道受托人可能据以\n10　限制其个人资产的任何依据。因此，\n11　不，我们不会同意。\n12　就——似乎是主要焦点的事项而言，并且仅就已表述的\n13　有关 $37 million 托管款项的紧急情形而言，该托管款项是包括\n14　债务人在内的数方当事人经过大量协商达成的一项命令的\n15　标的，受托人目前承继债务人的地位。\n16　该命令明确要求 HK International（香港国际）将该船带回，并就\n17　旨在担保该项承诺的托管资金\n18　可用于及不得用于何种用途，列明了多项条件。\n19　该命令第 12 段，即本案中录入的文件 299，\n20　明确禁止当事人，包括债务人——受托人为其权益继受人——\n21　对该托管基金提出任何主张，包括为执行任何判决或送达任何\n22　判决前救济或其他法律程序，\n23　但为担保返还该船的承诺或就该船的特定维修而言除外，\n24　而这正是维修准备金动议的标的。\n25　\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 936　提交于 10/11/22　录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48　第 60 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 9 月 27 日　60　让 HK International（香港国际）和 Guo 女士——Guo 女士亲自为 HK 随后缴纳的这笔 $37 million 贷款提供了担保——履行其在该法院经当事人约定的命令项下义务，然后受托人称，既然该船已经回来，我也要这 $37 million，这不仅违背良心，而且鉴于其为法院命令的标的，构成允诺禁反言和争点排除的依据。\n\n因此，在任何情况下，均不应要求 Guo 女士或 HK 在两周内，就一项长达 65 页、附有 40-page 法律备忘录并有 3,000 页证物支持的反诉，针对证据听证会进行抗辩；该两周期间包括两个犹太节日和两个周末。为使受托人得以尝试扣押法院命令明确禁止受托人扣押的资金而作此要求，实属违背良心，我不认为其合法。\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 936　提交于 10/11/22　录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48　第 61 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 9 月 27 日　61　因此，我们不会同意限制已经约定不得再受限制的那些资金。法庭：好的。但这并非唯一的问题。并非只涉及资金。因此，你们已经说了不。问题是有关其他一切事项，而非仅仅资金。我理解你们的观点。我理解他在寻求针对资金的判决前救济。我看过那份文件。我还没有读。你们所说的其他一切内容，将在你们的反对文件中提交。你们将采取任何所需行动。ROMNEY 先生：对。HK 以及 Guo 女士将需要合理时间来就那些指控进行抗辩。受托人并未证明有任何理由举行加速听证会——法庭：嗯，这——ROMNEY 先生：——除了其希望——他希望扣押一项命令禁止其扣押的这些资金。DESPINS 先生：法官大人，如果允许，我可以就此发言吗？法庭：可以。DESPINS 先生：好的。因此，我们确实证明了理由。尽管我知道您还没有看过文件，但关键是他们希望 $37 尽快离开本辖区，回到——\n\n案号 22-50073　文件 936　提交于 10/11/22　录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48　第 62 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 9 月 27 日　62　实质上回到 Kwok 先生手中，但那是另一回事。这就是本案的问题。这就是我们称应就 $37 million 实施冻结的原因。正如您所说，他们刚才提出的论点是，债务人约束了当时尚不存在的受托人。顺便说一句，当时有一项任命受托人的动议和一项驳回本案的动议，他们就案件被驳回时会发生什么作出了非常具体的规定，但没有就任命受托人时会发生什么作出任何规定。这有点——（听不清）。在 DIP financing orders（占有债务人融资命令）中，你总是加入一项条款，称这是否对继任受托人等具有约束力，恰恰因为它不具有约束力。事实上，这正是他们在这里忘记做的。当时有一项尚待裁决的动议。如果他们当时询问您，法官大人，您明白有一项任命受托人的待决动议，通过此处对 Kwok 先生即债务人的指称，这将约束受托人，嗯，我极其怀疑法官大人本意会是如此。为澄清此事，在证据开示争议中，Zeisler firm（蔡斯勒律师事务所）采取的立场是，就与该项约定有关的文件而言，Kwok 先生、债务人与 HK International 之间存在共同利益，这已经说明了一切。并不存在——这并非债务人与另一方当事人处于独立交易关系的情形。他们共同就该项约定行事，试图尽快将该船移出本辖区。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 9 月 27 日　63　并将 $37 million 移出本辖区。但关键在于，您现在不必解决此事。他们可以提交文件，确切陈述 Romney 先生刚才所说的内容，我们将对此处理。不过，关键是，如果将出现竞相——嗯——释放那些资金的情形，那么我们就需要在此发生之前举行听证会。如果不会出现竞相情形，那么他们可以获得其希望的所有时间。但他们不能两全其美：一方面称，确实，他无权这样做，因此我们将尽一切所能将资金移出法院的管辖范围；另一方面又要求更多时间。那么，我们就需要在此发生之前举行听证会。就这么简单。如果他们愿意同意，且不构成任何不利影响，但我想明确的是，我们日后不会主张，由于他们同意这一冻结，就意味着他们放弃了其刚才提出的论点，即受托人不能采取其正在采取的行动，绝非如此。这就是我们所称的行政冻结，以确保法院有时间审查此事并且\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 27, 2022　64　他们有时间。他们认为他们想要更多时间，当然，可以多花些时间。但就目前而言，没有理由——他们所采取的立场是，我们要让法院措手不及，也就是说，我们将会说，不，我们不同意任何事项，包括有关 \\$37 million 的任何事项，因为我们认为他没有——受托人无权获得该项救济。我的观点是，这完全在他们的控制之内。这是自作自受的裁定。我想再次明确，今天他们同意不会——不会就 \\$37 million 采取任何行动，不会以任何方式被用作主张，即他们以某种方式放弃了 Romney 先生提出的任何论点以及他们希望提出的任何其他论点的依据。因此，这确实完全在他们的控制之内。他们不能——而争点很简单。这 \\$37 million 是否维持现状？如果不维持现状，或其中一部分不维持现状，我们需要在资金离开管辖范围之前，尽快举行听证会。就是这么简单。并且再次明确，这对他们毫无不利影响，因为这只是一项——就像我们在上诉中一样，您知道，我们经常有行政性冻结，以便法院——行政性中止，使法院能够审查该事项并从容处理。这不损害任何一方的立场。这就是我们所提议的全部内容。如果他们不愿同意其中任何一项，很好，那么我们需要以加急方式举行听证会，因为我们不能让资金离开管辖范围。案件 22-50073　文件 936　提交于 10/11/22　录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48　第 64 页，共 71 页\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 936　提交于 10/11/22　录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48　第 65 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 27, 2022　65　以便法院允许行政性中止，并使法院能够审查该事项并从容处理。这不损害任何一方的立场。这就是我们所提议的全部内容。如果他们不愿同意其中任何一项，很好，那么我们需要以加急方式举行听证会，因为我们不能让资金离开管辖范围。法庭：好的。谢谢。DESPINS 先生：而且，法官阁下，因为这很可能是我们今后能从债务人那里看到的最后 \\$37 million。法庭：Romney 先生，您想回应吗？ROMNEY 先生：是的，法官阁下。法官阁下，受托人曾就其对 HK 的起诉书提交获得两次延期。受托人据我所知于 July 15th 被任命。该动议于 September 24th 晚上约 10:00 提交。如果这是如此紧急的情形，而不是试图打伏击——恕我找不到更好的说法——那么该动议本应在数月前、我们就储备金命令安排听证会时就已提交。但是，受托人需要多次延期才能作出答复，其中一次经同意，另一次遭到 HK 反对，但他们获得了延期。第二，正如我们在本案的许多情境中、包括今天就受托人对于资产及某些特权的权利所讨论的那样，受托人是权利继受人。\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 936　提交于 10/11/22　录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48　第 66 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 27, 2022　66　受托人是债务人的权利继受人。这是双向适用的，法官阁下。受托人是占有中债务人的继受人。无论受托人是否愿意，均受债务人合同的约束。\n\n而且，法院作出的这项命令明确禁止扣押 PJR 资金。这有一个非常简单的理由。如果不是因为这项命令，这些资金不会在这里。这项命令是一项经协商达成的命令、一项协议，旨在促成 Lady May（“Lady May”号游艇）的返还并确保其处于良好工作状态。\n\nLady May 已经返还。已安排于 October 7th 举行听证会，以保留足够资金，确保其处于良好工作状态。但受托人不能两者兼得。命令的规定就是其字面所规定的内容。\n\n而声称除非我们决定不使该资金受扣押约束，除非我们同意在 14-day's notice 的通知期内就这些指控进行抗辩，否则就——这简直令人无法接受，且没有任何法律依据。\n\n请给我一点时间。哦，而且受托人说不存在不利影响。正如我们多次陈述、而且我相信此前已提交法院的那样，不利影响在于，这笔来自第三方的贷款利息为每月 \\$1.3\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 27, 2022　67　million。在这笔资金存放于账户期间，这是真实的资金，必须支付给真实的第三方。的确，其动机是偿还该笔贷款，并停止 Guo 女士（郭女士）个人担保且 HK 正在承担的利息。其目的是向贷款人偿还资金。目的不是窃取资金。并且，如果受托人认为尽管该命令已有规定，确有理由实际取得这笔资金，那么受托人或许应提供保证金，以担保若这些资金被占用并产生数百万美元利息，HK 和 Guo 女士将遭受的损失。DESPINS 先生：法官阁下，所有这些要点都将得到审理。所有这些论点都可以在届时审理，保证金问题也将得到处理。因此，关键在于，您知道，他们提出的观点是，因为我们会胜诉，我们会胜诉，因此不需要采取任何措施。不。我们已经提出——如果法官阁下尚未阅读反诉，但——我也不应期望您在周末已经阅读了反诉，不过，反诉中对于这些资金的来源、这些资金从何而来作出了非常具体的指控。这个论点，您知道，我不愿使用这个案件 22-50073　文件 936　提交于 10/11/22　录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48　第 67 页，共 71 页\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 936　提交于 10/11/22　录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48　第 68 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 27, 2022\n1　词，但我们不想侮辱人们的智力，\n2　一个第三方会向一名失业的 28 岁人士出借 \\$37 million 这一事实，\n3　真的，谁会相信？\n这\n4　全都是 Kwok 的钱。\n而且我知道他们确实如此。\n这正是\n5　他们构建所有这些企业的方式，他一无所有，\n6　资金必须来自其他人。\n而在本案中，\n7　是他的女儿。\n该女儿没有资金去\n8　支付 500,000。\n这绝不会发生。\n其原因\n9　在于制造一种表象，即事实上她会受到\n10　不利影响。\n11　反诉中有如此多的例子。\n12　您会看到，一页又一页的例子，\n13　通过使用这些空壳公司或利用家庭成员来向\n14　债权人隐匿资金。\n而这正是\n15　本案中正在发生的事情。\n而法院，您知道，需要对此\n\n保持警觉。\n\n但再次说明，我现在并非在争论具体金额。我只是说一件非常简单的事，即听证会应当在 October 7th 举行，或者他们愿意何时举行都可以。再次说明，我并未要求您就实体问题作出裁定，只是安排日程；或者，如果他们同意不对 \\$37 million 和 Lady May 采取任何行动，他们愿意何时举行都可以。仅此而已。\n\n法庭：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？\n\n案件 22-50073　文件 936　提交于 10/11/22　录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48　第 69 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 27, 2022　69　（无人回应）法庭：好的。今天下午还有其他事项需要处理吗？DESPINS 先生：没有，法官阁下。法庭：好的。我将审阅——我没有安排听证会，也没有准许加急听证动议，因为我想听取各方的立场。现在我已经听取了各方的立场，我将据此作出裁定。我们还就 Lady May 的储备金、维修储备金有一项日程安排命令，我相信在下周听证会之前需提交文件、证人和证物清单以及诸如此类的事项，对吗？我们有日期吗？KINDSETH 先生：是的，法官阁下。法庭：好的。KINDSETH 先生：它们即将到期。法庭：因此，每个人都在遵守该日程，对吗？KINDSETH 先生：是的。目前，已安排于 October 7th 就维修储备金举行证据听证会，这是法官阁下据我所知在一个多月前就为维修储备金听证会这一特定问题所安排的。法庭：嗯，因为你们请求举行\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 27, 2022　70　证据听证会，而我们就该问题举行了状态会议。KINDSETH 先生：正确。法庭：这就是为什么我们需要按所安排的时间安排听证会，因为你们需要证据听证会，这没有问题。KINDSETH 先生：正确。并且该听证会安排在 October 7th。法庭：对。好的。那么，我将审阅过去几天提交的材料，并就——准许或驳回加急听证动议——发布命令。那么，今天还有其他需要处理的事项吗？DESPINS 先生：从受托人的角度而言，没有了，法官阁下。谢谢。法庭：还有其他人吗？ROMNEY 先生：没有，法官阁下。法庭：好的。那么，这是我们今天日程表上的最后一项事项，现休庭。（程序于 3:40 p.m. 结束。）案件 22-50073　文件 936　提交于 10/11/22　录入于 10/11/22 09:53:48　第 70 页，共 71 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— September 27, 2022　71\n\n2　本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），认证电子法庭\n3　记录员兼文字记录员，证明上述内容系\n4　对上述标题案件程序官方电子录音的正确\n5　文字记录。\n\n8　October 9, 2022\n9　Christine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je","Guo","Paul Hastings","Luc Despins","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":299,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":321,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":856,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":17636,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-10-11 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-10-11","updated_at":"2026-08-23 21:45:27"}