{"id":"court_ctb_966_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":966,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":"2022-10-13","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 \\* October 4, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor, JAMES M. MORIARTY, ESQ. HK International and AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. Mei Guo: STEPHEN KINDSETH, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Pacific STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Fund L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Robinson & Cole 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**\n\nAPPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 For the Chapter 11 NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ. Trustee: Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For Verdolino & Lowey, WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ. Creditor: Brown Rudnick Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 3 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 12:05 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, please, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, Connecticut counsel for the trustee, and with us on Zoom is Nicholas Bassett, of Paul Hastings, counsel for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman and Comley, representing the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Annecca Smith, of Robinson and Cole, for PAX, and on Zoom we have Stuart Sarnoff and Peter Friedman of O'Melveny. MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Mr. Romney?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 4 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 4 MR. ROMNEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Aaron Romney, Zeisler and Zeisler, on behalf of the debtor and HK International and Ms. Mei Guo. MR. MORIARTY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James Moriarty, Zeisler and Zeisler, for the same parties. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. KINDSETH: Stephen Kindseth, Zeisler and Zeisler, for those parties as well, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BALDIGA: Good afternoon, Your Honor. William Baldiga, Brown Rudnick, for both Brown Rudnick and Verdolino & Lowey. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. I think we have noted everyone's appearance for the record. Is that correct? Did we miss anyone? I don't think so. Okay. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Your Honor, there's a Peter Friedman who's in Zoom but not at his desk. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. Thank you. Mr. Sarnoff is there as well, and counsel is here in the courtroom for PAX as well, so thank you. MR. FRIEDMAN: I'm here. I'm just having video problems, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's okay.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 5 MR. FRIEDMAN: It's Peter Friedman. I apologize. THE COURT: No need to apologize. Thank you. All right. On the calendar today is a hearing on the motion for a protective order filed by the Chapter 11 Trustee. So I did see that there was a response. Mr. Baldiga, I saw that you filed a response on behalf of Brown Rudnick and Verdolino & Lowey. And I also know that the debtor filed an objection to the motion for the entry of a protective order. I also believe, although I could be incorrect, that the parties have been talking about some form of an order, but I don't know if there has been any agreement reached on the entry of a protective order. So, Mr. Despins or Mr. Linsey, I don't know who would like to address the protective order. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, my partner will handle it, Mr. Bassett. THE COURT: Mr. Bassett. Okay. Mr. Bassett? MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Then I'm going to turn to you. MR. BASSETT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Can you hear me okay? THE COURT: Yes, I can. Thank you.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 6 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 6 MR. BASSETT: Great. Thank you. So, Your Honor, as for the motion for a protective order, which was at ECF 874, we have continued over the last few days to have discussions with counsel for the debtor as to some comments they had regarding the protective order. I'm pleased to report that I think we have resolved their concerns with some slight revisions to the order that we had submitted. I believe one of Mr. Linsey's colleagues may be in the process of filing that right now. We did not reach agreement unfortunately on the language until this morning, so it was right before the hearing. I believe Mr. Goldman, on behalf of the committee, had one outstanding comment to the order that I'm happy to allow him address, but otherwise the -- as far as the debtor is concerned, I believe we do have agreement on an order that we could submit for entry by the Court. Your Honor had mentioned a response filed by Brown Rudnick and an objection by the debtor. I think, I could mistaken, but I believe those filings related to the separate motion that we filed last Friday that seeks an order enforcing the Court's prior privileges order and relates to the 2004 discovery that the trustee has served on Brown Rudnick. So that's separate. I'm happy to address that separately. But as to the motion for a protective order at ECF\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 7 874, again, I think we do have agreement on that. THE COURT: Okay. With regard to the documents though that I saw that were filed, I thought the Brown Rudnick and Verdolino & Lowey response was directed to the motion for a protective order. Mr. Baldiga, am I wrong on that. MR. BALDIGA: May I approach? THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. BALDIGA: Good afternoon. Again, William Baldiga, Brown Rudnick, for Brown Rudnick and Verdolino & Lowey. Your Honor, it is a response to the motion for a protective order. But largely because I was -- the protective order motion, as well as some other recent papers by other parties, characterize the discussions or positions of Brown Rudnick and Verdolino & Lowey over the last several weeks and I thought it was important for us to speak for ourselves as to where we really are with all of this. We feel a little bit caught in the middle. There's an extensive, you know, series of discussions. So I wanted to first -- and I was dismayed, frankly, by some of the Court's conclusions drawn from what other parties were saying that I thought were incorrect in terms of where we really stood, so I wanted to put in our own words what we've said to whom and what has happened. Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 7 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 8 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 8 I don't have any objection to the motion for a protective -- I haven't seen the -- whatever drafts are going around. I -- THE COURT: The order that is being spoken of, you haven't seen that is what you're saying? MR. BALDIGA: No. But I can't imagine we would have any objection to it. If the trustee and the debtor agree then, again, the last thing we want to do is be in between that. But we're really just trying to avoid, as I said in our papers, being caught in between and having our positions either mischaracterized or the Court to draw conclusions that were not warranted by what we were really saying. THE COURT: I think that's fair. MR. BALDIGA: So we're not going to have any objection to the protective order. I'm sure I would like to see something, but I, again, I would not think that we are going to have a problem with it. THE COURT: Okay. And I understand your concerns and I think it's fair what you've said. When you say conclusions that the Court may have made, I mean, I've made statements, no question about that, with regard to arguments made by various parties and Brown Rudnick's -- the subpoenas and things like that, but I'm not sure if I would\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 9 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 9 characterize it as a conclusion, more of a concern, but I appreciate you filing -- MR. BALDIGA: That's fair. THE COURT: -- the document on the record so that you can -- your position is known through you and not through other parties. Because that is part of the problem. If someone is arguing a position of someone who's not in the courtroom, then the person who's not in the courtroom doesn't get to say whether that's accurate or not. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: So, in any event, I appreciate you filing that and we'll go from there. We'll see where things stand. It sounds as though the parties may have an agreement. I have to check with the Chapter -- I'm sorry, the creditors committee with regard to what concern they may have with regard to the order, but I understand your point. And I was not trying to draw, at least from my perspective, any conclusions. It was more concerns. But it does help me to see what you have filed on the docket and I appreciate that. MR. BALDIGA: And maybe I've put words in your mouth unfairly in that regard, so -- THE COURT: No. No. Not necessarily. MR. BALDIGA: -- I take your comments in the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 10 of 108\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>10                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | spirit in which they're given that it's not a conclusion,      |\n| 2  | but I think we understand each other just fine here.           |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Yes.<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                      |\n| 4  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                         |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Thank you very much.                             |\n| 6  | MR. DESPINS:<br>And, Your Honor, I have a copy for             |\n| 7  | Mr. Baldiga.                                                   |\n| 8  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>That would be great.                           |\n| 9  | MR. DESPINS:<br>And for Your Honor if I may                    |\n| 10 | approach.                                                      |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Yes, please.<br>Thank you.                       |\n| 12 | So, Attorney Romney, I'm going to turn to you                  |\n| 13 | first before I turn to Attorney Goldman.<br>So the trustee is  |\n| 14 | -- and Mr. Bassett, Attorney Bassett -- saying that there's    |\n| 15 | an agreed-upon order at this point.<br>Have you seen the final |\n| 16 | version and you're fine with it?                               |\n| 17 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>I'm going to defer to Mr. Moriarty on           |\n| 18 | this one.                                                      |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>I'm sorry.                              |\n| 20 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>He's been handling it.                          |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Mr. Moriarty, go right ahead.                    |\n| 22 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                          |\n| 23 | MR. MORIARTY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                        |\n| 24 | We have had comments back and forth with the                   |\n| 25 | trustee's counsel.<br>We had a meet and confer with the        |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 11 of 108\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>11                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | trustee's counsel yesterday.<br>And the debtor and the       |\n| 2  | trustee's counsel arrived at an agreed to protective order.  |\n| 3  | I have had some email correspondence with Attorney Goldman   |\n| 4  | this morning and I think I understand his issue, but I'd     |\n| 5  | like to hear it from him before I speak to it.               |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>I just to make sure that         |\n| 7  | you're -- so we can proceed, I am correct to proceed on the  |\n| 8  | -- on the presumption that we have an agreed upon order      |\n| 9  | subject to what Mr. Goldman may be asking to add to the      |\n| 10 | order?                                                       |\n| 11 | MR. MORIARTY:<br>Correct.                                    |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                            |\n| 13 | All right.<br>Attorney Goldman, I haven't reviewed           |\n| 14 | the order so -- I mean, and that's fine, it was just handed  |\n| 15 | to me -- but what -- you have a concern or you have some     |\n| 16 | language that you'd like to have added to this order?        |\n| 17 | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Yes, Your Honor.<br>Thank you.               |\n| 18 | It relates to paragraphs 9 and 10.<br>Paragraph 9            |\n| 19 | deals with the dissemination of confidential information and |\n| 20 | 10 deals with the dissemination of highly confidential       |\n| 21 | information.                                                 |\n| 22 | And there are, you know, categories of persons or            |\n| 23 | entities that are listed as being qualified or actually      |\n| 24 | permissible recipients of that type of information, for      |\n| 25 | example, the trustee is expressly listed.                    |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 12 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 12 I was just ask that the committee to also be separately listed as a party to receive or to be able to receive confidential information and confidential materials, described as, and high-confidential material, that's all, in paragraphs 9 and 10. THE COURT: That's the only changes you'd like, is that correct? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. THE COURT: Trustee Despins, do you have any concerns about adding the committee as a party? And I haven't read 9 or 10, so I -- I think I know what they do, but I haven't read it yet. MR. DESPINS: I need to defer to Mr. Bassett. THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Bassett, I apologize. Mr. Bassett? MR. BASSETT: No problem, Your Honor. We do not have a problem with those changes. Paragraphs 9 and 10, as Your Honor I'm sure is familiar with, the way protective orders are often drafted, this one is no different in that there are two tiers of confidential information. There's documents and materials that are labeled confidential and then there's a higher, heightened sort of sensitivity designation for highly-confidential\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 13 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 13 documents and materials. Paragraphs 9 and 10 just list out who is authorized to see those materials. And all Mr. Goldman I think is saying is that in addition to the trustee being exclusively listed as one of the parties who can see those materials, he would like the committee to be listed as well. It may be more of an issue for the debtor's counsel to respond to. But as for the trustee, we are fine with it. I would note that adding Mr. Goldman's clients or anybody else to those provisions does not necessarily mean that they are automatically entitled to get all discovery materials. It just means that if they do get -- are in a position to have access to those materials, they would not need, for example, the debtor's consent if as Mr. Goldman is requesting the trustee is specifically -- or sorry, the committee is specifically added to those provisions. So, again, it may be more of an issue for Attorney Moriarty to address. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Moriarty? MR. MORIARTY: And it is more of an issue for Attorney Moriarty to address. So the way that this protective order was negotiated, Your Honor, is the trustee has the discretion in\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 14 the first instance to permit parties to review confidential and highly-confidential information and that party then has to sign an undertaking, which is attached as Exhibit A to the scheduling order. THE COURT: I just saw this declaration, right. I haven't read it, but I see it. MR. MORIARTY: Okay. And then the next step would be a party that produces material or the party, per paragraph 9B that the materials pertain to, if they're produced by a law firm or financial institution, can then object, reasonably object, to somebody seeing that information to the extent it's designated as confidential or highly confidential. There are individual creditors that the debtor and maybe others would object to having access to confidential and highly-confidential information. What we don't object to is a provision that allows counsel for the committee to have access to the material. So if we can agree that we will include the committee's counsel, that's okay. We don't need to have -- and it's not a veto because it has to reasonable -- but we don't need to have the ability to prevent counsel from seeing this. It may be that there are some creditors that this information should not go to. That's the concern. Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 14 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 15 of 108\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>15                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                                |\n| 2  | Attorney Goldman, were you able to hear what                     |\n| 3  | Attorney Moriarty stated with regard to the debtor's             |\n| 4  | concern?                                                         |\n| 5  | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Yeah.<br>I did, Your Honor.                      |\n| 6  | But I have to be able to share this with my                      |\n| 7  | committee members in order for us to properly represent our      |\n| 8  | constituents.<br>You know, we have responsibilities to the       |\n| 9  | body of unsecured creditors, so it can't just be attorneys       |\n| 10 | eyes only, which is what I think Mr. Moriarty is suggesting.     |\n| 11 | I need to be able to share this information with                 |\n| 12 | the committee, of course, subject to the bounds of the           |\n| 13 | protective order.<br>So that would be my response.<br>I think it |\n| 14 | has to be the committee, not committee counsel.                  |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Attorney Moriarty?                                 |\n| 16 | MR. MORIARTY:<br>Yes, Your Honor.                                |\n| 17 | There is a specific category of documents that                   |\n| 18 | already can't be shown to the committee members which is         |\n| 19 | highly-confidential material, that's counsel only.               |\n| 20 | And it may be that there are not objections to                   |\n| 21 | some members of the committee and maybe there are objections     |\n| 22 | to other members of the committee, but we specifically           |\n| 23 | negotiated this protective order with the trustee's counsel      |\n| 24 | to give the debtor that protection.<br>And that protection is    |\n| 25 | built into the order and it's important to the debtor.<br>And    |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 16 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 16 without that protection, I don't think we're going to have an agreed to protective order. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, I was suggesting that the committee also be added to paragraph 10. So I understand there is a privilege in there that allows it to be seen by retained professionals, but I'm also asking for the committee to be inserted there. And I don't think the committee's right to receive information relating to the administration of the estate should be subject by a debtor out of possession. THE COURT: I'm looking at the order as you speak, Attorney Goldman. So let me just -- I'm looking at it. So in paragraphs 9 and 10, the confidential material, which is paragraph 9, may be given, shown, made available to or communicated only to the following: the trustee, any party who has signed Exhibit A and delivered a copy thereof to the trustee, subject to the producing party's consent, not to be unreasonably held -- withheld, excuse me, and any other person specified in 10 below. Paragraph 10 specifies counsel -- for the highly- confidential material, counsel and staff working under the express direction of such counsel for the trustee, any party who has signed Exhibit A and delivered a copy to the trustee and professionals retained under 328 and 1103. I'm reading the other -- that was B. Now I'm\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 17 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 17 looking at C. Any person who's indicated to have been the author, addressee or copy recipient thereof, any adverse witness -- So it seems as though we have a problem then as far as a consent order. If, Attorney Goldman, you are asserting that your clients, not just you, need to be able to see this highly- confidential information, then I think we have a problem. And I guess I'll have to rule as to whether or not your request should be sustained or overruled. We do have a trustee who is conducting the investigation. You are protected, as are your clients, by the Chapter 11 Trustee's investigation. Understood that the role that the committee played when this was a voluntary Chapter 11 case with a debtor-in- possession is completely different than it is now, I don't know that it makes sense to hold up an agreed upon protective order that was filed by the Chapter 11 Trustee and negotiated between the Chapter 11 Trustee's counsel and the debtor's counsel at this point. You would still be entitled to see this information. Just your clients wouldn't at this point. And I don't think that it will serve the estate or the parties to have an argument about whether or not the\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 18 creditor committee members should see this highly confidential and -- I mean, it's a protective order. That's the point, right? So it's protecting information from certain parties. You're going to be able to see it. There's no -- Mr. Moriarty, there's no question of that, that Mr. Goldman would be able to see this, correct? MR. MORIARTY: Correct, Your Honor. And we're willing to amend the order prior to filing it to include that language that Attorney Goldman, as counsel to the creditors committee, has access to. Assuming that would be acceptable to the trustee's counsel, which I believe it would. THE COURT: Mr. Bassett seemed to indicate that it was, but I do need to ask him that obviously. Is there anyone else that wishes to be heard on this issue about the committee members being entitled to see this information that's confidential and highly confidential in this proposed protective order that admittedly I have not read thoroughly? But I looked at paragraphs 9 and 10 and understand in general what the purpose of those paragraphs are. Is there anyone else that wishes to be heard? MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, I just had a question to clarify an issue in my mind on this. I am added, I believe it would have to be to paragraph 9 as a recipient,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 18 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 19 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 19 authorized recipient. If the members of the creditors committee executed Exhibit A agreeing to be bound, would that open the door to my sharing the information with them? I'd like to have the other parties' understanding of the answer to that question. THE COURT: Mr. Moriarty? MR. MORIARTY: Most likely, answering to that hypothetical, the answer would be no. But I think we would have to view it on a creditor by creditor basis and we'd obviously have to speak with our client. But I know, for example, there is a registered agent of the CCP. And as Your Honor has heard, the debtor has grave concerns about the CCP. So, for example, that individual would be an absolute no. Might there be others that wouldn't be, I can't tell you right now, but I know that individual would be a no. THE COURT: But that -- is that individual that you're speaking of a member of the creditors committee? MR. MORIARTY: I believe he is. If he's not, it's not an issue, but I believe he is. MR. GOLDMAN: There's no -- there's no member of the committee that's associated with the CCP. THE COURT: Well, I obviously don't know that one way or another. Does -- the U.S. Trustee's Office can answer that\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 20 question? MS. CLAIBORN: I cannot, Your Honor. THE COURT: I don't know one way or the other obviously. MS. CLAIBORN: I don't know the answer. MR. MORIARTY: Okay. That's -- THE COURT: That's not been brought before me. MR. MORIARTY: Okay. I can only give you my understanding, Your Honor. THE COURT: So, Attorney Goldman, the answer to your question -- Attorney Moriarty, please correct me if I'm wrongappears to be signing that declaration doesn't guarantee that any member of the committee is going to be -- that's going to get over the hurdle of paragraphs 9 and 10. Is that correct? MR. MORIARTY: That's correct, Your Honor. And it's not -- the way that the protective order is laid out, it's not just the committee members. It's anybody who wants access to this information. But as it relates to the committee members, your statement is correct. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, the one thing -- the one Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 20 of 108\n\n thing I would add, I would just add to that is, I think in that scenario to say member of the committee or another creditor sign Exhibit A, and paragraph 9B I believe it is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 21 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 21 would come into play. Yes. Which in that case, it would be subject to the producing party's consent not to be unreasonably withheld.\n\n So I think the issue would be if a member of the committee or a creditor signed Exhibit A, they could then go to the producing party, which in this sort of hypothetical that we're dealing with would be the debtor, and they would say, hey, we'd like to get access to this particular type of information and then the debtor could either consent or not. And I suppose there could be a dispute over whether that consent is unreasonable, or the withholding of that consent is unreasonable, but that is I think how it would play out based on the way this is constructed.\n\n MR. GOLDMAN: Yeah. I would also note that a similar provision was contained in paragraph 10A(ii). So I think we would -- the highly-confidential material would fall into the category described by Mr. Bassett for paragraph 9.\n\n So I think with that, you know, I would be satisfied if they -- if I was just added as counsel to paragraph 9, similar to paragraph 9, as authorized to receive the confidential information. And then, you know, we can take up any issues that arise with the committee members receiving it, you know, later on down the road if there -- if there are any.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 22 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 22 THE COURT: Attorney Moriarty? MR. MORIARTY: As I said, Your Honor, just adding a provision that allows the committee's counsel to receive it is fine, but not the committee. So -- THE COURT: I think that then we have an agreement? MR. MORIARTY: Yes. THE COURT: Which is you're going to add a provision that the committee's counsel may receive the information in paragraphs 9 and 10. And then if some creditor, whomever it may be, whether it's a member of the committee or not, signs the declaration that's Exhibit A, they'll have to, according to what I've read, produce that declaration to the Chapter 11 Trustee who then would have to produce it to whomever was the producing party, who then would have, as Attorney Bassett said, the opportunity, not unreasonably, but to reasonably withhold that production. 19 And if there's still an argument, then we'll have to have a hearing. I presume that's how it will have to work. MR. MORIARTY: I believe that's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: The producing party would be as\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 23 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 23 defined in paragraph 9B, which would include, for some purposes, the debtor or others for whom the -- to whom the information is about. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I think we then have an agreement on a protective order. Attorney Bassett, Attorney Moriarty said that he will add the language into paragraphs 9 and 10 that the committee -- counsel to the committee can receive that information. So just to be clear for the record, is that agreeable to the Chapter 11 Trustee? MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor. That's fine. If Mr. Moriarty wants to send us a revised version, we can just take a quick look at it and get it submitted to the Court. THE COURT: Is that fine, Mr. Moriarty? MR. MORIARTY: Yes, Your Honor. I will do that. THE COURT: Okay. Yeah. That is fine. Mr. Moriarty will do that. All right. What else do we need to -- and by the way, I didn't say that I do appreciate the fact that you have been -- you met and conferred and you've been working on this order. And that even though there still could be issues that arise from this order and the declarations, that I do appreciate the efforts of the parties in reaching this\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 24 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 24 agreement. I think it's important to not -- to move forward to the extent possible. And obviously you've all done that. And we'll see how it works out. I understand that there's -- there are many issues still that will come before the Court for determination, but the trustee does need to conduct his investigation and this definitely helps. I'm not of the belief that it means that there will be no issues, but I understand that this is very helpful. So I appreciate the efforts of all the parties in reaching this point. So I know that that is the only matter on today's calendar with regard to this case. I know that there are some other things that are pending. And I know things have been filed as recently as an hour ago. One thing I will say, I appreciate everybody filed their list of witnesses and exhibits for Friday's evidentiary hearing on the repair reserve. There are a lot of the same documents by the way. And that's fine. I mean, it appears that both sides Attorney -- I don't know if Attorney Friedman and Attorney Sarnoff are there, but it seems that some of the exhibits, many of the exhibits that the debtor HK has submitted are the same as PAX. There are some differences. We can deal with that. That's not a problem.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 25 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 25 Are we going to have any need for any kind of interpreter to be at this hearing on Friday? MR. KINDSETH: Your Honor, if I can circumvent that, it appears very likely that we're going to have an agreed upon repair reserve order. THE COURT: Okay. MR. KINDSETH: And so we're down to the finer points. I really don't believe there's going to be any issue other than because the repair reserve order triggers my client's ability to file a certification to cause the release of the \\$37 million escrow fund that was posted to secure the return of the Lady May, and because the trustee is seeking separately in the adversary proceeding involving HK International to get a prejudgment remedy against those funds, there's a bit of a timing issue with respect to a component of the repair reserve order that's going to hopefully be stipulated to. It depends upon the timing of the PJR hearing. And I believe, I know counsel sent the courtroom deputy a proposal for new dates for the PJR hearing. I believe the trustee has a conflict with the current dates. And so what I'd ask is that we discuss, and I believe the trustee was going to request that we discuss, a PJR hearing continued date. And then once I have that date, my client,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 26 of 108\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>26                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | assuming it's not too far out, my client will agree not to   |\n| 2  | file the certification until the day after the dates that we |\n| 3  | decide the PJR hearing can take place.                       |\n| 4  | So if you have any questions about what I said, I            |\n| 5  | know it's convoluted, but --                                 |\n| 6  | THE COURT:<br>No.<br>I understand what you said.             |\n| 7  | MR. KINDSETH:<br>Okay.<br>Perfect.<br>So if we could         |\n| 8  | move to working out new dates for the PJR hearing, I can     |\n| 9  | then -- I believe we'll have an agreement on the repair      |\n| 10 | reserve.                                                     |\n| 11 | And what we're proposing is, Your Honor, assuming            |\n| 12 | that the PJR hearing and agreed-upon order, we'll just       |\n| 13 | submit a stipulated order.<br>If Your Honor finds it         |\n| 14 | acceptable, Your Honor would hopefully enter it, and then    |\n| 15 | Friday can go on.                                            |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So you're anticipating                |\n| 17 | submitting that stipulated order before Friday?              |\n| 18 | MR. KINDSETH:<br>Hopefully, later today or tomorrow,         |\n| 19 | yes.                                                         |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 21 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Your Honor, it's Peter Friedman.            |\n| 22 | From PAX's perspective, we confirm that.                     |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>I couldn't hear you, Attorney                  |\n| 24 | Friedman.<br>I'm sorry.                                      |\n| 25 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Sorry, Your Honor.<br>We just confirm       |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 27 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 27 from PAX's perspective -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. FRIEDMAN: -- everything Mr. Kindseth said. THE COURT: Okay. Great. Just so the record is clear, because you were a little muddled, and I'll just fill it in, Attorney Friedman for PAX has stated that he confirms what Attorney Kindseth said on the record with regard to the repair reserve and the hearing, evidentiary hearing, scheduled for this Friday, October 7th. Okay. Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. If I may? THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. DESPINS: So Mr. Kindseth is right. The two are tied together. And really what we're looking for is what -- you had given us two dates, 13th and possibly the 14th. Those dates don't work. And we're wondering what other dates you could give us so we're -- again, it's your calendar, but we're thinking 18th and 19th. In my email to the courtroom deputy, I mentioned the 20th not knowing that that's your -- that's your Chapter 13 day. THE COURT: Thirteen day. MR. DESPINS: So that's probably off. So the question is --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 28 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 28 THE COURT: I'm looking at the calendar while you're talking. I'm not not listening to you. I'm trying to look at dates. So I just want to -- what about the 17th, what about the Monday, the 17th? The reason I say that is I think I have an issue with the 19th. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: So if we started on the 17th, which is Monday. MR. DESPINS: It could be a little bit tight, Your Honor. THE COURT: Otherwise, I have a -- I have a commitment with the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges. That's the -- MR. DESPINS: That's the 19th? THE COURT: That's the rest of that week, yes. MR. DESPINS: Oh, the rest -- MR. MORIARTY: So, Your Honor, this is Attorney Moriarty for HK and Ms. Guo. I would be defending the PJR application with Attorney Romney. I have a jury trial scheduled in state court starting on the 13th of October. There's a hearing this afternoon at which it is likely, although I can't say how likely, that that jury trial will be continued. So what we had discussed earlier was waiting until\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 29 sometime later this afternoon when I will know for sure if my jury trial is going forward and then propose some dates to the Court. And it sounds like we may be looking at maybe the first week in November. Attorney Romney and I are at a conference the last week in October so that may be where we wind up. MR. DESPINS: But we should -- before we -- I think it would be very helpful to hear from Your Honor what your calendar looks like, for example, the first of November, if that's where we're heading, because I know that Mr. Bassett is not available the second or third -- please jump in if I've got this wrong. THE COURT: The first week of November, including October 31st, other than regularly scheduled hearings on November 1st, is fairly available. MR. BASSETT: And, Your Honor, I think what the trustee was referring to is that on the 3rd I will be participating in a hearing and I'll be out the 3rd and the 4th. So it would be preferable if it works for the Court and the other parties to do it -- THE COURT: Monday the 31st is available. And on Tuesday, the 1st of November, there are hearings, but I think we could have the afternoon of the 1st of November if we had to go into the next day. And we could go into the Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 29 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 30 2nd as well. I don't know how long you all think this hearing is going to take, but -- MR. DESPINS: To be safe, we should -- we should plan for two days. THE COURT: Right. So if we started on October 31st and then we go -- we start the afternoon -- Attorney Goldman is on the phone right now. On the November 1st there's an initial pretrial conference in a case in which you're a lawyer, Attorney Goldman. I don't know who else, if the other side's even appeared, *Diamond Landscaping & Athletic Fields*. I mean, we could -- we could continue that for a week. That doesn't need to happen that day. Correct? MR. GOLDMAN: That would be fine, Your Honor. I may not be -- I may not have attended that anyway because I have co-counsel, but Your Honor's pleasure on that. THE COURT: Well, I would -- MR. GOLDMAN: It was an outside chance. THE COURT: Yeah. I would continue that though because it's at 2:00 p.m. And it would cut into if we were starting the second day of the prejudgment remedy hearing in this case. So I would -- the other matters I probably would keep on the calendar and then continue that matter. So what I'm saying to you, all the parties, is October 31st is available. November 1st from possibly noon, Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 30 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 31 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 31 but at least 1:00 p.m., is available. And November 2nd appears to be fairly open. And I think those are the dates that you're talking about, correct? MR. DESPINS: I'm sorry to do this that way, but I need to defer to Mr. Bassett. THE COURT: He has to be somewhere the 3rd and the 4th. Do you have to travel on the 2nd to be there on the 3rd and the 4th, Mr. Bassett? MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, what -- no, Your Honor. What you're proposing, the 31st through the 2nd, would be fine. THE COURT: Understanding that the 1st would only be the afternoon, probably noon or 1:00 we would start, because I do have to have the regular -- our regularly scheduled hearings go forward. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, if we did the afternoon of the 1st and the 2nd, I think we would -- that would be allotting us the same time that we were originally allotted, I think, an afternoon and a following day. THE COURT: Well, I didn't stop the allotment. I said continuing, if necessary, understanding that I didn't know how long it was going to take, right? MR. ROMNEY: Understood. But I -- and forgive me if I'm recalling it incorrectly, we were starting on the\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 32 afternoon of the first day and then going into a second day if necessary is -- THE COURT: And then a third day if necessary and a fourth day if necessary. MR. ROMNEY: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. I don't know how long this is going to take. I have no idea. You all have to figure that out, right? MR. ROMNEY: Correct. THE COURT: So -- MR. ROMNEY: My concern with the 31st, Your Honor, is that we'll be flying back from Texas late on the 28th. Mr. Moriarty did have plans then to go see his elderly mother that weekend. But as I understand, he could adjust that. But either way, we would then need to prepare our witnesses over the weekend, which I would accommodate. But I don't -- I don't know if I can -- I don't know that I want to speak for them, which is why if I left the 31st open -- THE COURT: Well, let me just stop you right there for a second. That's fine. If you don't want to start until the afternoon of the 1st, that's fine. But from what I understood Mr. Kindseth to say, even if the repair reserve is stipulated to, his -- HK has to be bound by not filing the certification until after this hearing is held, the PJR hearing.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 32 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 33 MR. KINDSETH: That's not -- that's not the agreement, Your Honor, and there's a lot of reasons for the agreement. THE COURT: Well, then, what did you say? I thought that's what you said. MR. KINDSETH: No. What I said was we would fix the date. And so let's say Your Honor scheduled the hearing for the 1st and 2nd, okay, we would commit not to file the certification until the 3rd. That leaves another 15 days. Because the cert is filed and there's 15 days to object, it only (indiscernible) expiration that period. And so even if let's say, you know, the 1st and 2nd the PJR hearing takes place, I file the certification on the 3rd, the trustee has another two weeks to try to get the PJR. And that's the agreement that we've reached. THE COURT: Well, that's assuming that I have ruled. MR. DESPINS: Yeah. But -- THE COURT: So let me just ask you another question though about the boat, right? The last time we were here anyway someone mentioned that it wasn't in good working order and it appears to no longer be in the water and on dry dock to be repaired. Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 33 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 34 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 34 MR. KINDSETH: Yeah. THE COURT: So doesn't the certification require that the boat be in good working order? MR. KINDSETH: No. The certification requires that we've established a repair reserve. And, Your Honor, notwithstanding the fact that we adamantly disagree that the amount is necessary, my client has agreed to post \\$4 million to secure all conceivable, possible costs to repair. And so the whole point of the repair reserve was to not hold up the release of the 37 million pending the repairs. It was that a repair reserve would be established to cover whatever conceivable, reasonably conceivable, costs there would be. And so our stipulation is that \\$4 million from the \\$37 million will be reserved. It will be deposited with the trustee. And it will be subject to this process for the payment of repairs. And so that was the agreement. The repairs don't need to concluded. And just to add though, Your Honor, the boat is dry docked. The engine repairs are commencing this week. The surveyor for the insurance company is going to be there this week. It's expected that insurance is going to cover all the engine repairs. And the other repairs, except for\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 35 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 35 the valve service, which needs to be performed elsewhere, are all -- should be completed within the month of October. The expectation is to get the boat back in the water in November and do a sea trial. And all of this is in the repair reserve proposed order. And so in terms of the certification, we're entitled to file the certification upon the entry of the repair reserve, but we're not agreeing to give the trustee a brief period of time to have the PJR hearing. MR. DESPINS: So let me try to address that, Your Honor. There are nuances there that are important. What Mr. Kindseth said about the way the existing Lady May stipulation works, there's a debate. From our point of view, there's a debate about that. He believes that just by establishing a reserve he can release the funds. We disagree with that, but we've agreed, we would agree as part of this deal, that he can -- the Court can set a repair reserve and subject to our right to do the sea trial, et cetera. Now, the 15-day issue is critical, and that's why -- and I want to make sure Your Honor knows the back and forth on this, because under the first Lady May stipulation it says that once that notice is given, the Court has very limited ability to do certain things. And of course we\n\ndon't want to be in that limited mode because we have a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 36 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 36 prejudgment remedy motion pending. And so what we've agreed to is that he would not send the notice until the completion of the hearing provided that -- you know, it would be too easy for us, for example, to tell Your Honor, Your Honor, let's adjourn this hearing on the PJR until June. And of course in the meantime this 37 million is held in escrow and of course they're not happy about that. So we've agreed, but I want to make sure you know, it boxes you in. I'm sorry to use that term. But it would provide that you would hold this hearing on the PJR on two days and he could send that notice the day after that. Of course, you might say, well, Mr. -- you've just said that. I may not have ruled, you're right, but the compromise was that this is what would happen. Meaning that there would be -- there's an assumption on my part, and you might say wrong, that you would be able to rule on the PJR at the completion of the second day hearing. Because once he sends that notice, he will argue, and I'm not faulting him for that, that your jurisdiction to do things is very limited. And that's why we want, it's important, that we have this hearing before he can send the notice. Not only that the 15 days doesn't run, but rather that the -- that the notification period does not start, does not commence,\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 37 until Your Honor, we hope, has ruled. And if you rule against us, then I'm dead. If you rule for us, then there's not going to be a notice sent because Your Honor will have ruled that there's an attachment that must issue. So I want -- it's not ideal. Of course from your point of view, you would like to say the notice cannot be given until I rule. But I understand from their point of view, I get that, that that would allow us, the trustee, to say, well, let's adjourn the hearing for several months. And you might say, no, I'm not going to allow that. But I understand there are concerns. So that's why the deal that we have -- and Your Honor, you know, might say I'm not going to do that is that the notice can issue the day after the second day trial day on the -- on the -- THE COURT: PJR? MR. DESPINS: -- on the pretrial remedy provided that that hearing takes place on a date that's satisfactory to them, for example, first week of November, or something like that. That's really the back and forth. THE COURT: I understand. MR. DESPINS: I want to make sure you have the full picture there. THE COURT: Well, that's why I said before I think Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 37 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 38 of 108\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>38                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | I got the picture, right, which is that means you need me to   |\n| 2  | rule in the 15 days.<br>That's what the point is.              |\n| 3  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Well, before the 15 days.<br>Sorry.            |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.<br>Before.<br>Yeah.<br>I can't rule on     |\n| 5  | the 15th day.<br>That won't really help, will it?              |\n| 6  | MR. DESPINS:<br>No.                                            |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>I know you want me to rule at the end            |\n| 8  | of the hearing.<br>I understand that.<br>I understand.         |\n| 9  | MR. KINDSETH:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                        |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                              |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:<br>So that's why it's critical.<br>I'm a          |\n| 12 | little bit nervous about picking half days because we want     |\n| 13 | to make sure we have two full days to make sure we don't run   |\n| 14 | out of time.<br>I hope and I think it will last less than two  |\n| 15 | full days.<br>But given that I have this sword hanging over    |\n| 16 | our head on the day after the second day, I would like to      |\n| 17 | have two full days.<br>So I don't know where that leaves us in |\n| 18 | terms of days though.                                          |\n| 19 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>So what if -- if it is okay with the            |\n| 20 | Court and everyone, if we started the 31st, but in the         |\n| 21 | afternoon, then had the 1st, and if we needed a half day on    |\n| 22 | the 2nd?                                                       |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>You all talk about that.<br>I mean,              |\n| 24 | that's fine.<br>When you say start in the afternoon of the     |\n| 25 | 31st, what are you proposing, Mr. Romney?                      |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 39 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 39 MR. ROMNEY: 1 o'clock if that -- THE COURT: That's fine. MR. ROMNEY: It would give us the morning to do any work with our witnesses that we needed to do. THE COURT: Understood. MR. DESPINS: So just to repeat, it would be the 1 o'clock on the 31st, full day on the 1st? THE COURT: No. MR. DESPINS: No. THE COURT: Unfortunately, the 1st is our regular calendar day, so we wouldn't be able to start again until probably noon. MR. ROMNEY: So half day, half day, full day, right? MR. DESPINS: And the second full day? THE COURT: If that works with everyone, that's fine with the Court. MR. DESPINS: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: Right. And notwithstanding you said two -- MR. BASSETT: Your Honor -- sorry, one point that I -- MR. ROMNEY: Go ahead, Attorney Bassett. MR. BASSETT: Sorry, Your Honor. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 40 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 40 One point that I wanted to raise is that we've been talking about obviously witnesses and the evidentiary presentation that will need to take place at this hearing, we've not yet exchanged witnesses, a witness list. So, you know, if Mr. Romney can let us know how many witnesses -- THE COURT: Well, I'm going to require you both to file a list -- MR. DESPINS: Yes. We'll need to -- THE COURT: -- of witnesses. Didn't I put that in the -- MR. DESPINS: Yes. But we'll need to push back that date because -- THE COURT: Oh, right. Right. Exactly. Okay. MR. BASSETT: Yeah. My only point, Your Honor, is just that in terms of talking about how long it's going to take, obviously, it's a bit difficult to know that until we understand how many witnesses there are going to be. THE COURT: All right. Let me just take a look back at the docket for a moment. (Pause) THE COURT: Oh, I know why I'm not finding it, because I'm looking in the main case and it's in the adversary proceeding, the order that set the hearing. MR. DESPINS: Yes. Remember -- THE COURT: Yes. No. I --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 41 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 41 MR. DESPINS: -- it set it one week before the -- THE COURT: Yeah. MR. DESPINS: -- hearing dates. THE COURT: And I think it's going to be the same thing. I think it's going to be a list of witness -- we usually require a list of witnesses and exhibits a week before the hearing. So that's why I wasn't finding it just looking at the main case, because it's not in the main case. It's in the adversary. MR. DESPINS: So we would just adjust those dates to reflect the new hearing dates. THE COURT: Right. And it would be a week before the list of witnesses and exhibits would need to be filed. MR. DESPINS: Well, given that we have more time, we may, let's see if we can agree on -- THE COURT: So I am fine with what everyone's proposed. Attorney Sarnoff, did you want to say something? I didn't know if you had -- if you had been cut off at one point. MR. SARNOFF: (Inaudible) THE COURT: No? Okay. MR. SARNOFF: (Indiscernible) THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. So what we're going to do then is we're going to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 42 of 108\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>42                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | continue the evidentiary hearing on the prejudgment remedy     |\n| 2  | to October 31st at 1:00 p.m., continued to November 1st at,    |\n| 3  | I believe, 12:00 p.m., but it might be 1:00 p.m.<br>I have to  |\n| 4  | check on that.<br>But it won't be that -- it won't be any      |\n| 5  | later than that.<br>And then to 10:00 a.m. on November 2nd.    |\n| 6  | And the list of witnesses and exhibits must be filed before    |\n| 7  | 5:00 p.m. on whatever that would be.<br>What's 31 minus 7, 24, |\n| 8  | right?<br>So October 24th.                                     |\n| 9  | And, you know, we can get that order entered                   |\n| 10 | today, later today or tomorrow, at the latest as long as       |\n| 11 | everyone's in agreement with that, correct?                    |\n| 12 | I haven't heard anyone disagree with that?                     |\n| 13 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>We're in agreement, Your Honor.                 |\n| 14 | And would the deadline for HK to file its --                   |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.<br>The objection deadline will --           |\n| 16 | the same thing, you're correct.<br>I'm sorry I didn't say      |\n| 17 | that, but you are correct.                                     |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:<br>We'll adjust.<br>Okay.                         |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>You'll adjust it accordingly.<br>So if           |\n| 20 | we look back at that docket --                                 |\n| 21 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:<br>It's 22-5003, and ECF 41 is           |\n| 22 | Your Honor's scheduling order that applies.                    |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Right.<br>Right.<br>So the -- yeah.<br>The       |\n| 24 | objection deadline's the same time, Attorney Romney, and       |\n| 25 | Attorney Kindseth, and Attorney Moriarty.<br>Okay?<br>It's the |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 43 of 108\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>43                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | same time.<br>It's a week before the hearing at 5:00 p.m. on |\n| 2  | the 24th.<br>Okay?                                           |\n| 3  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                        |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Attorney Kindseth?                             |\n| 5  | MR. KINDSETH:<br>Thank you very much, Your Honor.            |\n| 6  | And just to close the loop, it's probably clear,             |\n| 7  | but I just want to be very clear, now that we have the       |\n| 8  | dates, I can put in the repair reserve order, the date by    |\n| 9  | which we will not file the certification.                    |\n| 10 | And then our hope is that everybody who was a                |\n| 11 | party to the prior stipulation, plus the trustee, and I'm    |\n| 12 | not acknowledging that he's not part of the stipulation,     |\n| 13 | vis-a-vis the debtor, but out of respect for his position    |\n| 14 | I'm saying and the trustee.                                  |\n| 15 | So when I submit that to the Court I'll be                   |\n| 16 | representing to the Court that all the parties to the prior  |\n| 17 | stipulation and the trustee have consented to the form of    |\n| 18 | the order for the repair reserve and would ask that the      |\n| 19 | Court consider that and decide it promptly so then we don't  |\n| 20 | need to continue to prepare for Friday's hearing --          |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Right.                                         |\n| 22 | MR. KINDSETH:<br>-- and Friday's hearing can go on.          |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Understood.                                    |\n| 24 | MR. KINDSETH:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                      |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                            |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 44 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 44 All right. So I'll be looking for the repair reserve order, will be issuing an order in the adversary 22- 5003, continuing the evidentiary hearing on the prejudgment remedy of attachment. I know there's also a motion -- there's a few motions now pending. MR. DESPINS: Yes. So let me address those, Your Honor. The first one is what we call the Brown Rudnick motion filed Friday. And my partner, Mr. Bassett, will address it, not the merits, but the scheduling of that. Mr. Bassett. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, again, Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the trustee. So, Your Honor, we had actually discussed this topic and I think hinted that the motion would be forthcoming at the last status conference. And this relates to, as the trustee said, to the trustee's Rule 2004 discovery, in particular the subpoena that was served on Brown Rudnick on August 17th. As we have explained in the papers that we filed, issues have arisen getting documents pursuant to that subpoena as a result of issues that the debtor has raised concerning potential privileges in the documents in the files at Brown Rudnick.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 45 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 45 Our position, as we articulate in the papers, is that all these issues are very clearly dealt with in the privileges order that the Court entered on September 14th at ECF 856. The purpose of that was to narrowly articulate the areas in which the debtor could attempt to assert a privilege to the extent that he believes he would be subject to personal harm if documents in the files of attorneys like Brown Rudnick and others are disclosed to the trustee. We filed a motion to expedite. And basically the relief that we're seeking, Your Honor, in this order, is an order authorizing Brown Rudnick to produce the documents that we subpoenaed to the trustee so there's no longer any delay in getting those documents. We, you know, have been at this for months now already. We don't think there's a basis for those documents to be withheld. We, therefore, sought to expedite that originally asking for a hearing on the motion to be heard today. The debtor has objected to the motion to expedite and I believe Your Honor has ruled on it. The trustee's position is that there is an urgent need for this issue concerning the files we're seeking from Brown Rudnick to be resolved. If the motion is not heard today, we would request\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 46 that it be heard at the Court's earliest convenience. Friday, where we already have a hearing, I think would be the logical time to do it. Again, we've been at this for a very long time. You know, the subpoena, as I said, was served on August 17th. The deadline to produce documents in response to that subpoena was the 16th. You know, again, it's just taking us way too long to make progress in the investigation. And as we know from findings that have been made elsewhere that we've discussed at length already in this case, the debtor has taken steps in the past to conceal assets and do things with shell companies that could be very prejudicial to the trustee. So it is very, very important that we start to get access to these documents now, that these not be delayed, and that's the reason for seeking to have this expedited, Your Honor. So, again, originally we were seeking to have this motion heard today. Because if it's not today, and I appreciate the Court has not ruled on the motion to expedite, then I think what we would request is that it be heard on Friday. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Romney or Moriarty, I know that one of you, and I don't recall, I'm sorry, filed an objection to Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 46 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 47 the motion to expedite. And I didn't rule on the motion to expedite. I haven't done that yet. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Aaron Romney, Zeisler & Zeisler, on behalf of the debtor. Your Honor, as I said at our last status conference, the debtor has serous issues with the way this issue has been presented to the Court, the characterization of the debtor's positions. The debtor has not asked Brown Rudnick or anybody else to withhold documents. The debtor has not insisted that Brown Rudnick review documents on a document-by- document basis. The debtor has said, as I stated last time, at the last status conference, that the debtor reserves its rights. Brown Rudnick knows what it does and doesn't have. And to the extent that it has information that is not the -- that cannot be withheld by the debtor under this order, based upon its professional judgment, we're not asking Brown Rudnick to withhold it or look at every document. It's familiar with its file. What the debtor did when Brown Rudnick asserted discomfort, for lack of a better word with that, was offered, it did not ask for, it did not demand, and frankly does not want to, but will, in order to resolve what appears to be an impasse between the trustee and Brown Rudnick's Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 47 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 48 of 108\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>48                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | comfort complying with this is, we offered to review          |\n| 2  | documents and make that determination.                        |\n| 3  | We would need a reasonable time to do that.<br>And            |\n| 4  | what reasonable time is is based upon the volume of           |\n| 5  | documents that are presented to the debtor to make that       |\n| 6  | determination, which we haven't seen.<br>I don't know if it's |\n| 7  | 500 pages of documents or even 2,000.<br>We could probably do |\n| 8  | it two days if we shifted resources to do it.<br>But we don't |\n| 9  | know.<br>We've had discussions.                               |\n| 10 | And the debtor is willing, in the interest of                 |\n| 11 | allowing Brown Rudnick to feel comfortable knowing that       |\n| 12 | certain categories of documents can be produced, is willing   |\n| 13 | to describe those documents.<br>We just can't identify the    |\n| 14 | documents without seeing them.                                |\n| 15 | For example, anything that clearly pertains to a              |\n| 16 | dispute regarding dischargeability, that would be a document  |\n| 17 | that the production of which could cause personal harm to     |\n| 18 | the debtor.<br>I don't know if Brown Rudnick --               |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>I thought that was carved out of the            |\n| 20 | -- I don't remember, I'm trying to remember, Attorney         |\n| 21 | Romney, but I thought what was carved out of the subpoenas    |\n| 22 | was anything that had to do with the dischargeability of the  |\n| 23 | debt.<br>I thought we had addressed that issue.               |\n| 24 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>I believe --                                   |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Am I wrong?                                     |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 49 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 49 MR. ROMNEY: I believe we addressed that issue by allowing the debtor to assert privilege over those documents. And when I say the debtor, I believe that necessarily implies counsel holding the documents. THE COURT: Okay. I understand what you're saying. I think what I'm remembering is that there was -- with regard to the subpoenas, there was a category of -- categories of information that the trustee was seeking and that it went to the assets of the estate, the administration of the estate, and pre -- post-petition discussions. So I may be confusing something, but my thought was I don't think anybody's seeking things with regard to dischargeability of debt. Maybe I'm wrong. MR. ROMNEY: What they're looking for, Your Honor -- MR. BASSETT: Your Honor -- sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. MR. ROMNEY: What they're -- THE COURT: I'll let Attorney Romney finish, Attorney Bassett, and then I'll hear from you. Go ahead. MR. ROMNEY: What we understand they are looking for is Brown Rudnick's entire file. And that's our point, Your Honor, is that's too broad. And we understand. We're not envious of anybody in this situation. It will require\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 50 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 50 somebody to look at least some documents and make a determination as to whether they fall within these categories of documents that would result in personal harm. Our understanding is that Brown Rudnick was uncomfortable making that determination. The debtor certainly asked Brown Rudnick to do that. It did not demand that Brown Rudnick withhold anything, that in its determination it did not fall within these categories that could be held back. And when it became clear to us that Brown Rudnick was not comfortable making that determination, we offered as an accommodation, and we being the debtor and my firm on behalf of the debtor, offered to make the review for the parties as expeditiously as we can. And I will say, despite all the allegations of the debtor looking to slow things down, we have responded to expedited motion after expedited motion and in many cases, particularly recently, worked this out. We are acting in good faith. We are not trying to slow this down. And if the parties and/or the Court determine that the most expeditious and most equitable way to deal with this issue is for the debtor and Zeisler & Zeisler, as its counsel, to make this determination, we will, as we've done with everything since we stepped into this case, and that's not to suggest that debtor's counsel was not expeditious\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 51 of 108\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>51                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | before we stepped into this case, but we will review the     |\n| 2  | documents expeditiously.<br>We will get them to the trustee. |\n| 3  | And my belief, again, it's somewhat speculative              |\n| 4  | because I haven't seen the documents, but my belief is the   |\n| 5  | trustee is going to get the vast majority of what Brown      |\n| 6  | Rudnick has.                                                 |\n| 7  | I would think that Brown Rudnick could produce a             |\n| 8  | number of these documents comfortably without even sending   |\n| 9  | them to us.<br>And we're not asking them to send anything in |\n| 10 | particular.                                                  |\n| 11 | If it is looking at a document and it refers to              |\n| 12 | assets, schedules, things of that nature, I believe Your     |\n| 13 | Honor's order that we agreed to is clear.<br>And we are not  |\n| 14 | withholding -- we are not directing Brown Rudnick to         |\n| 15 | withhold any particular documents.                           |\n| 16 | We are identifying the categories that we believe            |\n| 17 | we have the right -- that the debtor has the right to        |\n| 18 | withhold, and we are offering to assist in any way that we   |\n| 19 | can to eliminate disputes between the trustee, Brown         |\n| 20 | Rudnick, and anyone else, on this issue, and just get this   |\n| 21 | done as expeditiously and efficiently as possible with as    |\n| 22 | little waste of this court's time as is absolutely           |\n| 23 | necessary.                                                   |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>Attorney --                                    |\n| 25 | MR. BASSETT:<br>Your Honor, could I be heard?                |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 52 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 52 THE COURT: Just one second. Go ahead, Attorney Bassett. And then Attorney Baldiga would like to be heard too. So go ahead. MR. BASSETT: Sure. Again, Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings for the trustee, Your Honor. You know, I'm not entirely sure. It sounds like Attorney Romney is obviously arguing the merits. I don't think we've determined that this is -- that the merits of the motion is being heard today, but I did want to respond to some of his comments. First of all, Your Honor, we have been at this for weeks. We have been trying to do whatever we can to simply get a production of documents from Brown Rudnick. And I will say that Brown Rudnick has been extraordinarily cooperative with the trustee and has done everything I think in their power to get us the documents that we subpoenaed. The problem is that the debtor has not allowed that to happen, at least not in any remotely expeditious manner. He initially was taking the position that Brown Rudnick should review all these documents and assert privilege, didn't want the debtor and his counsel to have to review them themselves. That position has now evolved. I don't want to get into the details of a back and\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 53 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 53 forth of who said what during meet and confers. Suffice it to say we are at a point where we filed the motion, and we filed in on expedited notice, because we need the Court's intervention. We're not getting these documents under any reasonable time frame and we need the Court to help us do that. A couple of things I would say, just to, you know, clarify why we're seeking this relief and why we are entitled to it is, first of all, Your Honor, in the (indiscernible) motion that was entered on September 14th, again, that's at ECF 856, it contains a presumption that all these documents in Brown Rudnick's files, this is paragraph 6, a presumption that the privilege associated with those documents has transferred to the trustee. The only very limited carve out for that is set forth in paragraph 7 where if the debtor can demonstrate that there is personal harm that would result to him if the document is disclosed, he can follow procedure to have those documents logged. Notably, and this came up during the negotiation of this order, I remember having an exchange with Your Honor about it, there was specifically inserted into this order a time period through which -- pursuant to which the debtor would have to log any document that he was seeking to withhold as privileged because they would cause personal\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 54 harm. And what it says is, and this is in paragraph 7, the debtor's counsel shall, within ten days of the applicable production deadline, log the documents. The production deadline, under the Brown Rudnick subpoena, was on September 16th. Ten days from then was September 26th. The debtor did not come to this court asking for more time to produce a log. He had the opportunity to do it. He didn't do it. He no longer has that opportunity under the Court's order. Notwithstanding that, to be as reasonable as we could possibly be to try to resolve this issue without court intervention, with all parties acting reasonably and cooperatively, we told the debtor, look, if you are concerned about the possibility that a document might be produced that could give rise to personal harm, that you think might be privileged within the narrow scope of the privileges order, we will make it abundantly clear that you can exercise your claw back right under Rule 26. We built that into the proposed order that we filed. And the concept is very simple, it's that in order to make sure we get the documents (indiscernible), Brown Rudnick can produce them, the debtor won't be prejudiced because he could, if he sees documents produced that he\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nthinks give rise to personal harm, he can exercise his claw\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 55 back rights and he won't be prejudiced because the trustee is not able to share documents that he receives that are privileged with other parties. That's clear under the privileges order. Unfortunately, the debtor rejected that proposal. And we are where we are. We are at an impasse and we need the Court to intervene. We need the Court to intervene and help us as quickly as possible. Again, that's why we originally wanted this motion heard today, but we're happy to have it heard on Friday. THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Bassett. Mr. Baldiga? MR. BALDIGA: Thank you, again. William Baldiga for both Brown Rudnick and Verdolino & Lowey. And I think all of these arguments apply to both firms equally. First, just on scheduling, Your Honor, I leave tomorrow morning for a one-week vacation, so Friday -- I think circumstances have shown that I'd really like to be here when this is argued. I think in reality we're in the middle of the argument in any event, and so I'm prepared to contribute to the argument, most importantly answer whatever questions the Court may have. But I wanted to give an example, without telling any tales out of school, because it's -- the facts are in evidence already from prior filings of the example or type Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 55 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 56 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 56 of thing that we're dealing with. We very much respect the fact that there have been issues from day one of our work that could implicate the debtor's personal harm. The case was filed, as set forth in many pleadings, to avoid the debtor's incarceration. The debtor has testified that if incarcerated he believes he would be killed. So, for example, a great deal of our work dealt with PAX's motions to dismiss, to appoint a trustee, for relief from stay and so forth. If relief from stay were granted, I think the contemplation was by many parties that the debtor could be incarcerated, in the debtor's view would be killed. I read being killed or significant risk of being killed as within Section 7. That being said of our many feet of documents, what then would be within paragraph 7? We have no idea whether any of that would be considered and for good reason. If paragraph 7 were drafted to say Brown Rudnick or Verdolino & Lowey take a good guess at that, we would have come in and protested immediately. We have no ability to today guess what the debtor believes and the debtor's good faith would be implicated by that sentence, which is why we absolutely respect and agree that the order was drafted by consent and entered by the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 57 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 57 Court the way it is. It is the debtor's belief. I can't, and I'm as close to this as -- closer than anybody else at Brown Rudnick. I would not have the ability to look at our files and substitute my belief for the debtor's belief. We've had no contact with the debtor himself for more than three months. I wouldn't know what the debtor now believes about anything. And so I don't have the ability to implement this order in a manner that substitutes our belief, especially about issues as critical as the debtor's personal safety, as reflected here. And it puts our firm not just at risk, but -- and it's not just about risk, but it's doing what the order provides. So I couldn't -- if the Court sent me back to, well, do your best, decide what puts the debtor at personal harm or not or risk of personal harm, I wouldn't know where to start. And I think that's -- So we don't have a dispute with the trustee. We don't have a dispute with the debtor. They clearly have a dispute with each other. I will say that our files are pretty much ready to go. We're still searching some search terms and refining them with the trustee and so forth, but it is the entirety of our file with very minor exceptions for internal management documents.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 58 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 58 Verdolino & Lowey's files are entirely ready to go. Their work was almost entirely in connection with the preparation of the schedules and statement of affairs, which are indeed very responsive to the trustee's scope of requests. So we're happy with -- happy is not the right word. We're prepared to do whatever the Court tells us to do, but we're not prepared to substitute our own judgment for what the order now provides because we don't think that works and it gives rise to risk to the debtor perhaps if we guess wrong, what would result in personal harm, risk to the estate that we're over-guessing, and risk to the firm if someone criticizes -- You know, we do owe obligations to our former client to implement the orders of the Court and so we need to be directed what to do. And I think this has been argued to the Court, from what I understand over and over already, and I know you've spent a lot of time getting to this order. I don't have a problem coming back for another hearing, but I wouldn't be able to do that until a week from tomorrow at the earliest. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: Does the Court have any questions about anything I've said?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 59 of 108\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>59                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Well, I think -- yes, I do actually.           |\n| 2  | I want to make sure I understood what you just               |\n| 3  | said which is you would like an order entered directing what |\n| 4  | should be turned over to the trustee because you're          |\n| 5  | concerned that if you turn over something without such an    |\n| 6  | order, that you might be substituting your judgment for the  |\n| 7  | debtor's judgment about whether he would suffer personal     |\n| 8  | harm?                                                        |\n| 9  | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Yes.<br>That is one of our concerns.         |\n| 10 | Because this isn't the run of the mill case.<br>It           |\n| 11 | hasn't been from day one in many respects.<br>But risk of    |\n| 12 | personal harm has been front and center to an awful lot of   |\n| 13 | our work.                                                    |\n| 14 | When the debtor comes in and says my fear is                 |\n| 15 | incarceration and death, and that drives much of this case,  |\n| 16 | we have to take that seriously.                              |\n| 17 | So this first sentence of paragraph 7 has to mean            |\n| 18 | something.<br>And it could cover a lot of our files or it    |\n| 19 | cover none of our files.<br>We don't know, including because |\n| 20 | we don't know what the debtor today believes in good faith.  |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                          |\n| 22 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Which is the language the parties            |\n| 23 | chose to use.                                                |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>I understand.<br>I do understand that.         |\n| 25 | And that was a subject of discussion at the hearings that we |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 60 had on that order. So I do, I know that it's there. And I know that -- that doesn't mean that we all agree what it means, but I understand. MR. BALDIGA: But it's not my place to say that. THE COURT: I understand. I understand your position. MR. BALDIGA: Any other questions at this time, Your Honor? THE COURT: No. But I appreciate that. Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Bassett? MR. BASSETT: Yeah, Your Honor. I apologize. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings. I just wanted to clarify, and Mr. Baldiga can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Brown Rudnick would support the entry of the proposed order that we attached to our motion. So, again, Mr. Baldiga can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think if that order were entered, it would resolve their concerns that he had in particular. THE COURT: He's going to come forward and let you know whether he agrees with what you just said. MR. BALDIGA: Yes, Your Honor. I've spoken with Mr. Bassett about some very minor\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 60 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 61 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 61 wording changes, the addition of one phrase. And instead of saying authorized to say authorize and directed. But if -- but basically, yes, we are satisfied -- well, we have no problem with the Court's entry of the proposed order with some very minor wording changes. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Attorney Bassett, so you heard Attorney Baldiga, correct? MR. BASSETT: I did, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: So he's looking for some minor word changes though to the order assuming it gets entered. And I'm not ruling on this today. Remember, all I'm ruling on today is whether there's an expedited -- we're going to have an expedited hearing. Okay? And I did see the request for the expedited hearing, but I also saw the objection that was filed. So I wanted to hear what everyone had to say today considering that we have several issues that are unresolved, this is one of them. So with regard to the motion to expedite the hearing, Attorney Romney, you just stated that you wanted to be able to look at the documents and you need time. But regardless of that, when we set a hearing on\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 62 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 62 the -- on the motion, you're going to have an opportunity to file an objection. The problem is, from your perspective, I think, that you might not have as much time as you would like. The problem from the Court's perspective is that the 2004 subpoena issue has been addressed several times and agreed that there has been consent orders entered, but there has to be a point where we have to go forward one way or another, you know, whether or not -- I don't know how the Court's going to rule. Somebody's not, if I have to rule, not going to like it. And who knows what's going to happen at that point. But with regard to an expedited hearing, the arguments that have been made that there has been a substantial amount of time where compliance has not occurred, where -- where it's now October 4th and we're still -- we're not even -- we don't even have a hearing scheduled yet on this issue -- MR. ROMNEY: May I be heard on the delay issue, Your Honor? THE COURT: I don't -- when I say -- did I use the delay? Did I use the word delay? I think I said there hasn't been compliance. MR. ROMNEY: May I be heard on the passage of time issue?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 63 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 63 THE COURT: Sure. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, as I think everyone agrees and has pointed out, the privilege order entered on September 14th, on September 21st, that was seven days later, I had lengthy calls with several people from Paul Hastings as well as Attorney Linsey. I had separate, extensive calls with Attorney Baldiga and Attorney Axelrod from Brown Rudnick. Seven days later is when we said in order to break this impasse, we will review the documents. I do not believe that seven days in the context of complex litigation and the number of issues going on in this case at any one time is -- can fairly be said anything remotely akin to an undue delay. Seven days. Sorry. The following day, Attorney Baldiga sent me an email after my understanding was that Paul Hastings was not willing to allow us to undertake this review and move it along. And I said to him we've been trying to assist. We're trying to break an impasse here. But we don't have a deal. And we can only review these documents if the trustee consents. So comply with the subpoena to the best of your ability. That is the opposite of what we are being accused of doing. We are saying comply. The best of your ability. You have your ethical rules. You have your rules under the -- you have your obligations under federal rules. Comply.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 64 Look at the documents like we could. We're not asking you to hold anything back. We're not saying you have to review everything. And this is an email so it's not going to be he said, he said, because it was said. And the things that are being said about the positions I took, they're false. And that's just the reality. Attorney Baldiga responded to me that evening. I remember it very clearly because I was working on my couch, home with COVID, working on another matter, and Attorney Baldiga said to me, in an email, what I think we should do is just start excluding categories that we can exclude. We'll get everything else to Zeisler & Zeisler and we'll just get this out on a rolling basis. And I said is Paul Hastings okay with that? And he said I believe so. So that seemed inconsistent with what I had discussed with Paul Hastings the day before. So the following day I called Attorney Lindsey and said I had this conversation with you and Attorney Bassett and Attorney Lutz and then I got this email from Attorney Baldiga and they seem inconsistent, so can you get back to me on what we should be doing. Never got back to me. And here we are. And my only point, Your Honor, is we can -- Your Honor can obviously enter an expedited hearing and then we can be back here again fighting the Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 64 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 65 of 108\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>65                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | merits or we can just be given a reasonable time to get this |\n| 2  | done and we can spend our time getting documents to the      |\n| 3  | trustee instead of fighting about who said what, who didn't  |\n| 4  | say what, who's trying to delay, who's not, and we can just  |\n| 5  | do our jobs instead of fighting about how we got here.       |\n| 6  | Because it is what it is.                                    |\n| 7  | That's my humble suggestion, Your Honor.                     |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>Well, let me ask you about that                |\n| 9  | suggestion.<br>You just said so you can do what you need to  |\n| 10 | do.<br>What is it that you need to do?                       |\n| 11 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Well, whatever documents Brown                |\n| 12 | Rudnick does not believe that it can produce to the trustee, |\n| 13 | meaning that there is a colorable basis that there might be  |\n| 14 | harm to the debtor, and I believe that that's what ABA       |\n| 15 | formal opinion 473 says with respect to counsel and former   |\n| 16 | counsel that have been served with a subpoena, which is, if  |\n| 17 | there is a colorable basis, log it and assert the privilege. |\n| 18 | If there isn't, produce the document.<br>That's more or less |\n| 19 | what it says.                                                |\n| 20 | And we don't believe Brown Rudnick needs to review           |\n| 21 | every document because I think there are going to be a vast  |\n| 22 | majority of documents or a vast number of documents that can |\n| 23 | just be excluded.                                            |\n| 24 | You know, the emails about what time should be               |\n| 25 | meet at court, all of these things can be filtered out.<br>I |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 66 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 66 don't know. There's ways to sorts these things out with electronic search terms. Obviously emails with third parties, they're not privileged. They can be produced. I'm not telling Brown Rudnick -- not that I expect them to listen to me, but we're certainly -- and the debtor is not directing them to withhold anything or not. They're a sophisticated law firm. If they're not comfortable producing something, we will look at it and we will do it expeditiously. And that will solve this problem. It will give this court one less issue that it needs to deal with in this case. And we will get it done quickly. And if -- anyone will be free to come into court and say Zeisler & Zeisler has had these documents for, insert time, they're not doing what Mr. Romney said on October 4th they would do. And hold whoever in contempt of the order that I'm asking you to enter giving us a reasonable time, but that would seem to address everybody's interest and be a fair result. Because otherwise, I don't know, it's just going to create a mess. We're talking about the attorney/client privilege and we're talking about the attorney/client privilege concerning documents that Attorney Baldiga has just confirmed some of them implicate issues that could be withheld on paragraph 7 of the order, that, yes, the debtor stipulated to, but the trustee stipulated it too. And\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 67 what's good for the goose is good for the gander. We now have an order. It's -- THE COURT: Let me just stop you for a second. I don't think Attorney Baldiga confirmed that there are documents that the debtor could assert personal harm to. I think what Attorney Baldiga said is he's not going to substitute his judgment for the debtor's judgment. I think there's a -- that's a distinction that does make a difference. So I just want to clarify that for the record. Attorney Baldiga just nodded his head when I said that as well. So I'll I want -- all I'm trying to do, Attorney Romney, because there are many, many issues in this case, is just be as clear as possible. Okay? So I don't -- Attorney Baldiga didn't say that. Okay? He said he's not going to substitute his judgment, nor the firm, or Verdolino & Lowey, for an assertion that the debtor could make. MR. ROMNEY: Fair enough, Your Honor. There are documents that could -- that somebody could in good faith argue these concern personal harm to the debtor. And I think what the ABA formal opinion 473 says is that if there's a colorable dispute then that privilege can be asserted, privilege should be asserted, and then those documents can be logged, and we can submit those Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 67 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 68 documents to the Court in camera as I believe the stipulated order prescribes -- THE COURT: So what prevents Mr. Baldiga or Verdolino & Lowey from turning over those documents to the trustee right now? MR. ROMNEY: Absolutely nothing -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- if that's what they -- THE COURT: So, but -- then why -- why do you need to review them? I'm not being -- I'm truly trying to understand what's -- MR. ROMNEY: I have -- THE COURT: I'm not ruling on anything. We haven't even set an expedited hearing. I'm just trying to understand the point that you're making. MR. ROMNEY: Fair enough. The point that I'm making is that we are not saying that we need to review documents. And I want to be very clear about that. What we are saying is we are -- the debtor has said and asked Brown Rudnick to make a determination as to what should be produced and what shouldn't. My understanding is Brown Rudnick is not comfortable doing that. And I'm saying that with any judgment one way or another. Is that they will not.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 68 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 69 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 69 And so because we were in a situation where Brown Rudnick was not producing and we did not seem to be getting anywhere in terms of resolving the issue of Brown Rudnick not producing, and the debtor not be willing to say I waive my right to assert privilege over all of these documents, that's where we offered to step in and review documents. And the debtor would then say there's no assertion -- privilege assertion here. These can go. And these we're logging. That we were offering to do that. If Brown Rudnick is comfortable responding to this -- or if Brown Rudnick will respond to this subpoena, that's what we've asked it to do in an email on September 21st. THE COURT: Okay. So let's just take a moment. Brown Rudnick, through Mr. Baldiga, said that he would be bound by the order that the trustee has asked enter with some minor changes to the language. You're now -- we've now spent at the beginning of this hearing very -- I think you all worked hard to come up with a protective order, right? It all relates to all this. So what would be the issue of having the documents turned over to the trustee and then you asserting whatever you want to assert, whatever you feel you can assert, under this protective order and the privileges order? MR. ROMNEY: The issue is that we already negotiated a stipulated order which has a procedure by which\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 70 of 108\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>70                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | most privileged documents should go to the trustee, but      |\n| 2  | there are to be some documents that are to be withheld.      |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>Where does -- I don't think it says            |\n| 4  | that quite.<br>I understand that it says that you can be     |\n| 5  | concerned about a good faith -- in a good faith basis to     |\n| 6  | believe personal harm.                                       |\n| 7  | I guess we'd have to pull it up.<br>You know, that's         |\n| 8  | one of the problems.<br>When we talking -- we've had -- how  |\n| 9  | many orders do we have now?<br>Quite a few.                  |\n| 10 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>It's docket 856, Your Honor.                  |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>856.<br>Let's pull up 856.<br>It may take      |\n| 12 | a minute, but let's pull it up and look at it.<br>Because I  |\n| 13 | thought what it said -- well, I'm not going to say anything. |\n| 14 | Let's pull it up and we'll read it.<br>Okay?                 |\n| 15 | (Pause)                                                      |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>And what paragraph is it, Attorney             |\n| 17 | Romney, when we get it pulled up?                            |\n| 18 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>I believe that the -- paragraphs 4            |\n| 19 | and 7 are the most applicable.                               |\n| 20 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>So let's scroll down when you         |\n| 21 | can to paragraphs 4 through 7.<br>Let's stop at paragraph 2  |\n| 22 | for a minute.                                                |\n| 23 | So, Attorney Romney, you were arguing earlier                |\n| 24 | about documents that may go to dischargeability of debt      |\n| 25 | issues.                                                      |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 71 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 71 MR. ROMNEY: Correct. THE COURT: My understanding of paragraph 2 was none of those documents are being requested because the trustee has the exclusive control of any attorney/client privilege, work product doctrine that could otherwise be asserted by the debtor's counsel under any applicable law, including common interest or joint defense privileges concerning, one, assets, right? Two, go to the next page if you would, please, top of page 3, the debtor's financial condition. And three, activities related to the administration of the estate. So my understanding, and I thought we talked about that fairly extensively, but I could be wrong, but my understanding is that has nothing to do with the non- dischargeability issues because, as Mr. Henzy's argued, I believe, and you can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but that the trustee doesn't step into the shoes of Mr. Kwok in the non-dischargeability actions. And so, therefore, the trustee agreed, through this order, to carve that out, to not fight that fight another day if it's even going to be fought, right? So with regard to the issue of documents that go to non-dischargeability, the trustee's not seeking that. None of the -- none of the subpoenas seek that. And so if the subpoena document requests don't see anything with\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 72 regard to production of documents that might go to non- dischargeability of debt, then those documents don't need to be produced. MR. ROMNEY: But, Your Honor, I don't believe that accurately states what the trustee is seeking from Brown Rudnick. I believe they're seeking anything in their file regardless of subject matter. And that's our entire point, Your Honor. Is that's why somebody needs to determine what falls within the category of what should be produced under this order. THE COURT: But where does it say that? It doesn't say that. It doesn't say somebody needs to determine. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor. Your Honor, if I -- THE COURT: So you think it says that in paragraphs 4 and 5 and 6? Is it you want to keep going on it? Hold on. Is that Attorney Bassett? MR. ROMNEY: How -- MR. BASSETT: Your Honor -- MR. ROMNEY: Sorry, I apologize. MR. BASSETT: I agree with Your Honor. It does not say that. And, in fact, I just want to emphasize this again, as I did at the outset, paragraph 7 of this order, if you Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 72 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 73 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 73 would scroll down -- THE COURT: All right. MR. BASSETT: -- could not be more clear. There is a very limited ability of the debtor, notwithstanding the presumption that is set forth in paragraph 6, that all of the post-petition documents in the files of Brown Rudnick and their financial advisor, which are the subject of this motion, notwithstanding that the privilege passes to the trustee on those documents, the debtor has a very narrow ability to assert privilege to the extent that he believes documents disclosed to the trustee could result in personal harm. If he has a good faith belief that such personal harm will occur, paragraph 7 says that the debtor's counsel, i.e. Zeisler & Zeisler, shall within ten days of the applicable production deadline here -- as I mentioned, they served a subpoena on August 17th, the deadline for production was September 16th, ten days from September 16th was September 26th -- the debtor's counsel can log those documents. They did not do so. Nor did they come to this court seeking relief from that deadline. And, again, this ten day period was specifically negotiated as part of this. We had a dialogue with the Court and with Mr. Romney where we talked about this and I recall the Court saying we're going to make sure that is a\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 74 short period of time so there's no delay in this investigation. As it appears that what the debtor is now asking is that we rewrite this order to give them a quote/unquote, \"Indeterminate reasonable time in order to complete a privilege log.\" And that is something that the trustee is not going to agree to. We think it entirely inappropriate. It is rendering (indiscernible) any teeth that this ten day deadline would have. So I think that alone is enough to demonstrate why there's urgency in this relief. That ten day period expired last week. We should have already received any log. We haven't. If we were to let this motion now play out on regular notice, we would be making frankly a mockery of this ten day deadline. The other thing I would say, Your Honor, and I still haven't heard a response to this, is that we have offered to resolve any issue of prejudice to the debtor by allowing the debtor to assert a claw back right over these documents. So Mr. Romney's concern that the documents produced, we don't know, it could go to non- dischargeability, there could be personal harm in there, they will have the opportunity to assert, after the fact, a privilege over a document that's produced, and we can then deal with any privilege issues at that time. So that there Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 74 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 75 would be no harm. There would be no prejudice. And there is real urgency here. We're just asking for this order, which we painstakingly negotiated for specific purposes to avoid long, drawn out fights, to be enforced. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Romney? MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, it is absurd to read the order as requiring the debtor's counsel, which it doesn't say Zeisler & Zeisler, it says the debtor's counsel, it is absurd to require anybody but the person who is in -- who received the subpoena who is or was the debtor's subpoena and that is in possession of the documents to create the privilege log. Zeisler & Zeisler and nobody in the universe other than Brown Rudnick can create a privilege log of documents within ten days or any days unless they have the documents. It's an absurd reading of the order. And to suggest that we would agree that the debtor's current counsel in this bankruptcy, meaning Zeisler & Zeisler, would be creating privilege logs regarding documents in the custody of parties other than us within ten days of the compliance date of the subpoena, it's physically impossible to create a privilege log concerning documents that one doesn't have custody or control over.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 75 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 76 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 76 And the record is clear from the hearings, plural, on the negotiation of this order, that the contemplation was that the professionals who received these subpoenas would be applying this order to the documents they were in possession and control over. It was one of the responses to the trustee's concern that it would -- that the debtor would have some carte blanche right to just start holding back documents. And it was very clearly stated on the record, which is clear evidence of our intent, that, no, this is to give direction to the more than 20 professional firms that have received subpoenas to give them some guidance due to a conflict of authority as to how this issue should be handled in an individual debtor's case. We just haven't delayed logging documents that we don't have. With regard to the trustee's proposal, all they're saying is that they're bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That's not a proposal. That's not an offer of compromise. It is what it is. They're bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, just like very person and professional that is subject to this court. That's what their proposal is, is give us everything we want. And if you want to raise an issue later, you can assert your rights under Federal Rule 26. I fail to see how that is any sort\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 77 of good-faith compromise. THE COURT: You already did assert your rights under Federal Rule -- MR. ROMNEY: The claw back provision of Federal Rule 26. THE COURT: No. But you already did. This resulted in this order. You objected to the motion that was filed with regard to the privileges and the Rule 2004 subpoenas. This order, your client already objected to it. This was a result -- this was an agreement reached after that objection was raised. MR. ROMNEY: And -- THE COURT: And you don't -- I don't think that this order -- well, I'm not going to say anything more. You did already object. You did. And that's what resulted in this order. MR. ROMNEY: And we are saying apply this order -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- to these facts -- THE COURT: So -- MR. ROMNEY: -- then there's no need for another order. THE COURT: So then according to Attorney Bassett, if you apply this order, then it says -- remember this is covered by a trustee privilege, which is a defined term, and Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 77 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 78 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 78 that concern the investigation topics, which is also a defined term, has nothing to do with non-dischargeability, nothing, because that's not a defined -- that's not an investigation topic. MR. ROMNEY: This order isn't the subpoena, Your Honor. THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on, Attorney Romney. It may not be the subpoena, but it's what is applied to the subpoenas. That's what we had the hearing about. That's what it was all about. You came in and objected to subpoenas. You said that it was all broad and overreaching and -- I mean, understandably that you have the right to do that. There's no problem with that. But this is the order that resulted from that argument. This is the order. And it says that within ten days of the applicable production deadline, subject to the right to make a good -- a motion in good faith to the Court for a reasonable extension of time, which that hasn't happened, log all such documents in accordance with the requirements of the Local District Court Rule 26 and/or identify all such documentary information necessary to support the claim of privilege, including with sufficient information to prima facie identify the basis for asserting the potential for personal harm. So what I'm -- what my question was is so what's\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 79 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 79 the problem? And I'm trying to understand it. So if Brown Rudnick and Verdolino & Lowey and everyone else that's been subpoenaed turns over this information that's responsive to those topics, the investigation topics, a term of art that was agreed to by the parties, then what's the problem? You still can assert that some of it is -- could result in personal harm. I'm trying to read the exact language of the -- to the extent that the debtor believes in good faith that particular documents covered by the privilege in the investigation topics could result in personal harm to the debtor. You could still do that. The trustee's already said he's not going to show them to everybody else. Isn't that what you said, Mr. Despins? Isn't that the agreement? MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: The agreement is you're not giving these to anybody else? MR. DESPINS: Yes. And we have -- we have no -- THE COURT: This is just your investigation? MR. DESPINS: We have no power to waive the privilege under the order. THE COURT: You're just -- it's just his investigation. He's not sharing these -- when -- these\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 80 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 80 documents aren't being put into evidence. They're not being testified to. They're not -- there's nothing yet. This is to have his investigation begin, which he hasn't been able to do, for whatever reason. I'm not -- let's just be -- let's just state a fact. The trustee has -- according to the documents that have been submitted to this court, and I haven't seen anything to the contrary, there haven't been compliance with the subpoenas. So there was this order entered back on September 14th to address these issues and to address the privilege issue and the investigation topics. Then there was a hearing today on a protective order. And you all come through and you have a protective order that sets forth a mechanism with regard to specific information that is only going to be shared with the trustee and counsel to the committee at this point and then anybody who signs a declaration. So, again, this is all about protection, right? It's all about protecting your client's rights and that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to protect your client's rights. But there also comes a point where there has to be production. And the production is -- should have already taken place according to the order entered on September\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 81 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 81 14th. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, this order contemplates a process for the application of documents that are otherwise responsive to a subpoena to be produced or not. Yes, nobody has produced a privilege log within ten days of the compliance date. But my point, Your Honor, is the debtor couldn't possibly have done that because the debtor doesn't control the documents. They're not documents in the debtor's control. And, yes, we expected this order, document 856, to be applied to the subpoena that was served on Brown Rudnick and every other professional. What I'm understanding is that Brown Rudnick is uncomfortable, incapable, unwilling, I don't want to put words in their mouth -- THE COURT: I think Mr. Baldiga said it clearly. He is not going to be put in the position of substituting the judgment of Brown Rudnick for the debtor as to what the debtor believes in good faith that particular documents or information that are covered by a trustee privilege and that concern the investigation topics could result in personal harm to the debtor. I don't think he said anything other than that. That's what he said. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, it's very simple. The debtor has sued at least four firms for malpractice. They\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 82 of 108\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>82                             |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | want cover from Your Honor.                                     |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>I understand.                                     |\n| 3  | MR. DESPINS:<br>That's all this is about.                       |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>But I understand that.<br>Unfortunately,          |\n| 5  | I do understand that.                                           |\n| 6  | So I hear what you're saying, Attorney Romney, but              |\n| 7  | right now, first of all, I'm not ruling on anything.<br>I'm     |\n| 8  | just going to set a hearing.<br>Whether I'm going to set it     |\n| 9  | right now before we end this hearing or I set it when I go      |\n| 10 | back and look at documents again, but there's going to be a     |\n| 11 | hearing set on the motion, the underlying motion.<br>Okay?      |\n| 12 | We've now got -- we've now got three orders, the                |\n| 13 | governance order, the privileges and investigation topics       |\n| 14 | order, and, based upon everyone's representations already       |\n| 15 | made on the record today, there will be a protective order.     |\n| 16 | That governs the protections of the parties in the case.        |\n| 17 | Otherwise, we're not going to have a trial on these issues.     |\n| 18 | This is -- the trustee was appointed to                         |\n| 19 | investigate the affairs of the debtor.<br>One of the reasons.   |\n| 20 | It states it clearly in the decision which was not appealed     |\n| 21 | by your client.<br>I know you weren't the lawyer.<br>I'm not    |\n| 22 | saying that.<br>But it wasn't appealed.<br>The appointment of a |\n| 23 | Chapter 11 Trustee was not appealed by Mr. Kwok so there's a    |\n| 24 | Chapter 11 Trustee.                                             |\n| 25 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>There is.                                        |\n|    |                                                                 |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 83 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 83 THE COURT: And he needs to carry out his investigative duties under the code. He's attempting to do that. You may disagree. And I understand that as to what this order says, but I haven't seen anything to the contrary put in front of me that persuades me that this -- all these documents should not be produced to the trustee. We're going to have a hearing on that, right? That's what it's going to be. It's a motion to compel, right? So we're going to have a hearing. You're going to argue that, you know -- and I'm not -- you have the right to argue what you think is appropriate. I'm not suggesting anything to the contrary. But the point is the subpoenas were served in August after, by the way, being on -- and I'm not saying that anyone had to do anything, because they don't under our local rules, but parties were already on notice of what the subpoenas were seeking before they were ever served because that's how our process works in the 2004 examination. The subpoena gets attached to the motion, the form of the subpoena. And so the subpoena who is -- everybody that received the motions received the subpoena. Now, it wasn't a subpoena that was enforceable because it hadn't been served yet, but everyone was on notice as to what -- everyone that was served was on notice\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 84 of 108\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>84                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | as to what was going to be in the subpoena when it was       |\n| 2  | served on them, whatever the parties may be.<br>Okay?        |\n| 3  | Then we get to the point where service of the                |\n| 4  | subpoenas are made.                                          |\n| 5  | According to Attorney Bassett, it appears that's             |\n| 6  | true, but I'm just, I could be wrong about the date, but it  |\n| 7  | appears all of the subpoenas were served no later than       |\n| 8  | August 14th.<br>Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure   |\n| 9  | that requires compliance by September 14th.                  |\n| 10 | You objected to the subpoena on behalf of Mr.                |\n| 11 | Kwok, and maybe on behalf of others, I don't recall, but you |\n| 12 | objected and you asked for -- you said it was too broad --   |\n| 13 | you know, whatever, you made objections under the Federal    |\n| 14 | Rules of Civil Procedure.                                    |\n| 15 | Then you worked with the debtor's counsel, I mean,           |\n| 16 | the trustee's counsel, excuse me, and the trustee, and you   |\n| 17 | produced this agreed upon order.<br>I'm not going to -- I'm  |\n| 18 | not going to have hearings about what the agreed-upon order  |\n| 19 | means.<br>It is what it is.<br>It says what it says.         |\n| 20 | So I don't -- I still don't understand, with all             |\n| 21 | the protections in these, now it will be the third order,    |\n| 22 | how your client still can't -- is going to be harmed if      |\n| 23 | Brown Rudnick, Verdolino & Lowey, and any other professional |\n| 24 | or any other party that was subject of the subpoenas, the    |\n| 25 | three groups of subpoenas, how your client's going to be     |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 85 harmed. He's still got protections. He can assert whatever he wants to assert. MR. ROMNEY: And one of those protections is the right to assert privilege with respect to a narrow category of documents. THE COURT: What narrow category? MR. ROMNEY: Documents, the disclosure of which, could result in personal harm to the debtor. THE COURT: Okay. So when Mr. Despins and you and every -- I'm not saying just you, I know it was negotiated with many people -- the topics were investigation topics, assets. Which by the way your client already disclosed when he filed his schedules and statements of affairs, so he put all that on the table. There's no expectancy of confidentiality or anything with regard to assets that your client has already disclosed. Okay? There's case law on that. How can there be an expectancy when you voluntarily come to the Court and you disclose all these assets? Right? One of which is the suit in London. The trustee had been attempting to get information about that and has been not successful in doing that. Okay? Your client made his decision. With that decision, comes consequences. One of the consequences is that information -- and you've already agreed that all post-\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 85 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 86 of 108\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>86                           |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | petition information is -- the trustee holds the privilege.   |\n| 2  | You've already agreed to that in this order.                  |\n| 3  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>We have not, Your Honor.                       |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>That's -- well, then, let's go back to          |\n| 5  | the beginning of the order.<br>Let's go back to paragraph 1.  |\n| 6  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Paragraph 6 is what governs the                |\n| 7  | documents in the possession of Brown Rudnick and --           |\n| 8  | THE COURT:<br>I'm not talking about just Brown                |\n| 9  | Rudnick, Counsel, Mr. Romney.<br>I'm talking about everybody. |\n| 10 | So can we go back to paragraph 1 on ECF 856,                  |\n| 11 | please, scroll up, please.<br>Thank you.                      |\n| 12 | (Pause)                                                       |\n| 13 | THE COURT:<br>So the first line, the first sentence           |\n| 14 | that has many commas in it, but it says, upon the motion, in  |\n| 15 | his capacity as trustee, for entry of an order pursuant to    |\n| 16 | several sections of the bankruptcy code, including 521, 541   |\n| 17 | and 1108, and the Court's orders granting the trustee's       |\n| 18 | motions for examinations confirming that the trustee owns     |\n| 19 | and controls the attorney/client privilege, work product      |\n| 20 | privilege and other privileges -- I don't have to read it     |\n| 21 | all -- but you're already --                                  |\n| 22 | Keep scrolling down a little bit, please.<br>Keep             |\n| 23 | going.<br>Stop if that -- right there, please.                |\n| 24 | Paragraph 2, you've agreed -- you agreed to this.             |\n| 25 | The trustee has exclusive control of any attorney/client      |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 87 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 87 privilege or work product protection that could otherwise be asserted by a debtor's counsel concerning what I just already said, the assets, the administration of the estate. Go to the next page, if you would, please, page 3. I'm sorry. The financial condition of the debtor. Any activities related to the administration of the estate, including, without limitation, the preparation of schedules and the preparation of the declaration of Mr. Kwok. So I don't understand the problem. What could possibly be in those documents that could cause personal harm to your client that he already hasn't disclosed in this case? MR. ROMNEY: The documents that are referred to in the subpoena served on Brown Rudnick that are not enumerated in paragraph 2. That's exactly our point, Your Honor. THE COURT: What documents are those? MR. ROMNEY: Nobody's made that determination. THE COURT: Tell me what they are, Attorney Romney. Tell me what they are. MR. ROMNEY: I don't have Brown Rudnick's files. THE COURT: Well, you have the categories, so what category is objectionable? MR. ROMNEY: The documents hypothetically that Mr. Baldiga referenced at the beginning of this hearing or the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 88 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 88 middle of this hearing, whenever it was, where the debtor was discussing in theory his fear of going to jail and that he would be assassinated in jail. THE COURT: That's not the -- that's not included in the investigation topics -- MR. ROMNEY: And who's going to -- THE COURT: -- or the administration of the estate. MR. ROMNEY: That's precisely my point, Your Honor. Somebody needs to determine what documents in the Brown Rudnick file pertain to the debtor's fear of being assassinated as distinguished from the assets of the estate. That's all our point is. And our view is that it should be Brown Rudnick because they are competent and they can interpret this order. THE COURT: Well, then, what's the problem? They are going to turn it over. They're going to turn it over, so I don't understand your problem. MR. ROMNEY: Turning -- they're proposing to turn everything over, both the documents in paragraph 2 -- THE COURT: No, they're not. I think Attorney Baldiga said there's things that are -- we're going to take out of the file. We're almost ready to. And he said Verdolino & Lowey is ready. He didn't say he was going to turn over every single document. That's not what he said at\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 89 all. Am I wrong, Attorney Baldiga? You didn't say that. You said you were reviewing the file. You're taking out documents and you're taking out things that relate to the firm's administration, or whatever, and that you're not turning over the whole file. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. We have very few documents that relate to the internal administration of the firm. I was the CEO of the firm for most of the period here. So there are certain things -- if we -- that have nothing to do with the administration of the estate, but the firm. So the word Kwok would show up on our lists of accounts receivable that we give to the bank for example. THE COURT: Certainly. Yeah. That's not -- MR. BALDIGA: Okay. Exclude those. THE COURT: That's not -- that's not part of the subpoena. MR. BALDIGA: I don't think anybody has any problem -- THE COURT: Yeah. MR. BALDIGA: -- with that type of thing because I get a lot of emails that others wouldn't. We were not engaged to work on any of the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 90 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 90 dischargeability matters, so that's off the table. THE COURT: So you don't have any -- you don't have any documents in your files that relate to the dischargeability matters? MR. BALDIGA: Well, I want to be clear, an awful lot of our work had to do with PAX. I'm just using that as an example. That's responsive. PAX was -- PAX is the creditor that had the proceedings that would have resulted in the incarceration of Mr. Kwok, so -- and so -- and later filed -- THE COURT: But you don't have any of PAX's documents. You only have your own documents. MR. BALDIGA: No. But what I mean is -- so the entirety of our files, with the internal firm administration exception that no one cares about, the entirety of our files and Verdolino & Lowey's, fall within investigation topics. Because we did not work on dischargeability matters, there's one other thing that would need to be clarified. We were engaged three days before the petition was filed. Of course some period of time, but very short. I have asked the parties to, with respect to us, agree that since this order is phrased post-petition/pre- petition, given that our work only has three pre-petition days relating to the commencement of the case, that that be clarified so that it's all included in one. Because it\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 91 of 108\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>91                              |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | doesn't make any sense to have two separate protocols for us     |\n| 2  | at least.<br>Verdolino & Lowey was only post-petition.           |\n| 3  | So using PAX as an example, because I think it's                 |\n| 4  | important, everything we have that relates to PAX at all is      |\n| 5  | within investigation topics.<br>PAX was threatening              |\n| 6  | incarceration and PAX later filed an objection to discharge.     |\n| 7  | So it depends on how the question is asked.<br>Did               |\n| 8  | we work on the dischargeability matter?<br>No.<br>Did we work on |\n| 9  | everything to do with PAX's claims?<br>Yes.<br>On the basis of   |\n| 10 | that information, did PAX later file an objection to             |\n| 11 | discharge?<br>Yes.                                               |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>I don't think it's an objection to                 |\n| 13 | discharge.<br>I think they filed an objection to the             |\n| 14 | dischargeability of their debt as opposed to -- yeah.            |\n| 15 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Yeah.<br>I'm sorry.<br>As to their               |\n| 16 | claim, yes.                                                      |\n| 17 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.<br>Okay.<br>That's fine.                      |\n| 18 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>And did they threaten incarceration?             |\n| 19 | Yes.                                                             |\n| 20 | So in fairness the entirety of our files falls                   |\n| 21 | within section 2 of this order, investigation topics.            |\n| 22 | What we don't know is what the debtor would now                  |\n| 23 | believe as part of those files would be subject to section 7     |\n| 24 | determination as to the current good-faith belief as to          |\n| 25 | personal harm.                                                   |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 92 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 92 THE COURT: Understood. MR. BALDIGA: So I want to make it clear in that regard. THE COURT: Right. And so my question is so why can't those documents all be turned over to the trustee and then the debtor can make whatever claims that they want? MR. BALDIGA: We have no argument against that. THE COURT: Right. No. No. MR. BALDIGA: That's not our dispute. THE COURT: I understand. I understand. MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. I understand your point. But what I'm trying to ask Attorney Romney is he seems to think that -- at least maybe I'm misunderstanding him, but it seems to me what he's saying is he doesn't want you to turn those over to the trustee until he looks at them and then makes a determination. MR. BALDIGA: I don't want to speak for Mr. Romney. THE COURT: Right. But isn't that what you're saying, Attorney Romney? MR. ROMNEY: No. THE COURT: Okay. Then what are you saying? MR. ROMNEY: What I'm saying is that paragraph 7\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 93 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 93 refers to documents that both are covered by a trustee privilege and concern the investigation topics and could result in personal harm to the debtor if disclosed to the trustee. What I'm saying is given that there are documents that it appears concern -- that are covered by a trustee privilege and that are concerned investigation topics, paragraph 2, and that could result in personal harm to the debtor, somebody -- THE COURT: How could -- MR. ROMNEY: -- it does not need to be Zeisler & Zeisler -- we've asked that it not be -- but we could agree to do. THE COURT: How could -- how could anything that Brown Rudnick has with regard to PAX's claim, which is all public record, what would they have of PAX that isn't already public record that would cause in a good -- have a good faith basis for the debtor to believe that it would cause him personal harm? When you say threatened incarceration, PAX didn't threaten incarceration. They filed documents in a case in state court and a state court judge entered orders with regard to that. So you're saying that none of that -- that's going to be -- it can't be a basis to assert that there's going to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 94 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 94 be personal harm to the debtor because it's all public record. And the debtor was represented by counsel in that case. And the debtor was involved in all of those matters. So what could Brown Rudnick possibly have, or anyone else, with regard to PAX's claim? PAX didn't turn over their documents to Brown Rudnick. Brown Rudnick didn't subpoena PAX. MR. ROMNEY: All internal communications that PAX doesn't have that came from the debtor's counsel in these matters, or the debtor, or the debtor's other professionals, or internal discussion among Brown Rudnick about those topics in discussions, none of which are available to -- THE COURT: And that's already been waived by this order. MR. ROMNEY: -- anyone in the universe except Brown Rudnick. THE COURT: That's all been waived by this order. You've all agreed that it passed to the trustee on a pre -- on a post -- yes, you did. That's what the first two paragraphs of the -- of the order say. MR. ROMNEY: Paragraph 7 says notwithstanding anything to the contrary -- THE COURT: Okay. So then -- all right. MR. ROMNEY: -- that to -- THE COURT: Go ahead.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 95 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 95 MR. ROMNEY: -- that to the extent documents are covered by a trustee privilege and that concern investigation topics, those are the documents in paragraph 2. To the extent that any of those could result in personal harm to the debtor if produced to the trustee, the debtor has a right to assert privilege. And when the debtor's counsel or former counsel is holding -- THE COURT: No. The debtor doesn't have the right. The debtor has to have a good faith belief that he's entitled to the privilege. He doesn't have an automatic right. MR. ROMNEY: That is -- THE COURT: So let's make that very clear. That's what you negotiated. MR. ROMNEY: That's correct. THE COURT: We had a whole argument about what that meant. We had a whole argument about what personal harm meant. So if -- what personal harm could Mr. Kwok suffer other than being incarcerated, by whom by the way? There's no order by anyone anywhere that's going to put Mr. Kwok in jail. Not in the United States that anybody's told me about. So what -- he has to have a good-faith belief. What order is there out there, Attorney Romney, that's going to put Mr. Kwok in jail right now? MR. ROMNEY: That -- I'm not aware of any.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 96 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 96 THE COURT: So then how could he have a good-faith belief that any of the documents that get turned over will result in personal harm to a trustee who's not going to share them with anybody else? MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, this order was negotiated and entered under the backdrop of authority that is split, but that clearly recognizes the right of an individual debtor to withhold based on privilege documents that concern certain topics, is harm to the debtor in the case law. I objected to the language personal harm. I said that I believed it was ambiguous. I said why? Because there was a connotation that it related to physical injury. You told me that my objection on that regard was not well-founded, that, as I recall, that you felt personal harm or your interpretation of the word personal there was to the debtor as distinguished from to some other entity. And based upon that interpretation we did not object to the word personal harm. But this order was negotiated under the backdrop of a split of authority. And what we intended to do was take off the table any argument that the debtor retained all of his privilege, even though there is authority for that, would take off the table that the debtor had no right to assert any privileges, and agree on what the majority of the\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\ncase law holds, which is a balancing test, but there has\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 97 been no balancing test done with respect to these documents because no one has undertaken that test. THE COURT: Well, you haven't asserted that he has a good-faith basis to object to anything at this point. MR. ROMNEY: I can't -- THE COURT: That's your -- that's your job. So why haven't you done that? If you believe he has a good faith basis, then why haven't you done that? The time to do that was in this order. MR. ROMNEY: What we did was ask Brown Rudnick to look at this order, look at the information on its files, and make a determination as to whether any of this information fell within it. We don't know what's in their files. It does. If Brown Rudnick makes a determination that it sounds like Your Honor has made without seeing the files either that there are no documents that the debtor is allowed to assert control over, then Brown Rudnick can turn over its files and it has nothing to worry about. THE COURT: I didn't make any determination, Counsel. I asked you a number of questions with regard to issues that have been heavily negotiated. And now you're saying something that is not what we discussed when this order entered. You're saying that, oh, there's no way we could ever comply with paragraph 7 unless we see the Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 97 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 98 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 98 documents first. That's what you're saying. MR. ROMNEY: No, I'm not saying that. THE COURT: Then what are you saying, counsel? MR. ROMNEY: I'm saying that the counsel that has the documents can comply with paragraph 7 by looking at paragraph 7 and knowing what it has. And I don't think that that requires someone to review every single document necessarily. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: It could. It's what I would do if I were counsel served with a subpoena in this order. But I'm not going to tell any other counsel how to do their job. That's their job to do. And they were not comfortable applying this order to their files, as I understand it, and so we offered to do it. And if Brown Rudnick, with control of its files, believes that there is nothing in its files that it can in good faith assert privilege on behalf of its former client, then it has an obligation to the Court and the trustee to turn over those files. That's a fact. THE COURT: Okay. Anything else that you'd like to be heard on? MR. ROMNEY: No, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. So there's a motion to expedite the\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 99 hearing pending on -- I have to go back to the main case, sorry, I'm in the adversary -- let me just get the right order here. (Pause) THE COURT: So on September 30, the Chapter 11 Trustee, through his counsel, filed a motion to expedite a hearing on a motion for an order which is ECF 899. The order that the trustee is seeking to expedite the hearing on is the motion for compliance with the Rule 2004 subpoenas and enforcing consent order regarding control of attorney-client privilege and work product protection related to the 2004 subpoenaed information. Mr. Baldiga has stated on the record that he, although he has a vacation scheduled, and that he can't be available if there is a hearing later this week or early next week, that he has minor changes to the proposed order that the trustee has submitted granting that motion, 899 -- that's 898 and 899, I'm sorry, 899 is the affidavit, 898 is the motion. Attorney Romney has made some arguments about expediting the hearing and I understand those arguments. And we talked about some of the merits. But I'm not ruling on anything today because the debtor will have an opportunity to file a response to the motion.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 99 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 100 of\n\n|    | 108                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>100                           |\n| 1  | Which I don't believe you have done that yet,                  |\n| 2  | Attorney Romney, the motion.<br>It was filed on Friday, so I   |\n| 3  | would assume you have not filed any response, written          |\n| 4  | response, to the motion for order authorizing compliance.      |\n| 5  | Is that correct?                                               |\n| 6  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>It's correct, Your Honor.                       |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.<br>I thought that was        |\n| 8  | the case.<br>I just wanted to make sure.                       |\n| 9  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Thank you.                                      |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>So I have a question as to why -- I'm            |\n| 11 | looking at scheduling a hearing on this motion to compel       |\n| 12 | compliance.<br>And I know we're -- Attorney Bassett has        |\n| 13 | suggested this Friday.                                         |\n| 14 | But I'm also considering whether or not we could               |\n| 15 | have that hearing on Thursday, October 13th.<br>And I heard    |\n| 16 | something before about, and I don't remember from whom at      |\n| 17 | this point, that there was a concern.                          |\n| 18 | Well, the prejudgment remedy hearing is being                  |\n| 19 | continued from the 13th and 14th to later in the month, but    |\n| 20 | what's the scheduling problem on the 13th?                     |\n| 21 | MR. DESPINS:<br>It's mine, Your Honor.<br>So if it             |\n| 22 | could be on the 13th in the morning, that would be fine.       |\n| 23 | But I don't know if that's what you had in mind.               |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>That's fine.<br>I have no problem with           |\n| 25 | that.<br>We can start it, you know, 9:00 or 9:30.<br>We can -- |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 101 if you have a scheduling conflict for the afternoon, we can start earlier. MR. DESPINS: And could it be done by Zoom for my partner, Mr. Bassett? THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anyone else have an issue with the 13th? MR. ROMNEY: The 13th works for me, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And that will give you an opportunity to file a written objection too, Attorney Romney. Okay? MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Is there a particular date and time by which -- THE COURT: Yes. We have, I believe, although I honestly am not sure, are we closed on Monday, October 10th for the holiday? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. So, yes. I would like your objection to be filed by noon on October 11th, so that gives you a full week, well, a little less since it's 2:30, but that gives you a few days to file a written objection to the trustee's motion. So what I'm going to do is the motion to expedite the hearing, ECF 900, will be granted in part because it's Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 101 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 102 of\n\n|    | 108                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>102                         |\n| 1  | not going to be granted on the date that the debtor -- the   |\n| 2  | trustee asked, but it will be granted, and the hearing will  |\n| 3  | be held on October 13th at 9:30 a.m.                         |\n| 4  | And then the debtor's counsel will have an                   |\n| 5  | objection deadline of October 11 at 12 p.m.                  |\n| 6  | And then we'll hear that order.<br>We'll hear that           |\n| 7  | -- we'll have a hearing on that motion.                      |\n| 8  | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Your Honor may --                             |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Go ahead.                                      |\n| 10 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>-- I have until later in the day on           |\n| 11 | the 11th?<br>I'll be --                                      |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>How much later?                                |\n| 13 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>5:00 p.m., or potentially even in the         |\n| 14 | evening.                                                     |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>I'll give you 4:00, 4:00 p.m.<br>So 4:00       |\n| 16 | p.m. on the 11th.<br>Okay?                                   |\n| 17 | And then we will have that hearing.                          |\n| 18 | Now, that's the only other -- I know that a motion           |\n| 19 | was also filed today.                                        |\n| 20 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes.                                         |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>I haven't read it.<br>I don't know if it       |\n| 22 | was -- if expedited relief was sought with regard to that    |\n| 23 | motion, but I don't think that is the case.                  |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:<br>We didn't do that because we were            |\n| 25 | going to -- we were about to walk into court and I figured I |\n|    |                                                              |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 966<br>Filed 10/13/22<br>Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06<br>Page 103 of<br>108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>103                                                          |\n| 1  | would -- I would raise the issue with Your Honor.                                             |\n| 2  | But basically, Your Honor, this is the Ace Decade                                             |\n| 3  | motion for contempt.<br>This has been pending for more than 30                                |\n| 4  | days at this point.                                                                           |\n| 5  | So we would ask Your Honor to schedule that at                                                |\n| 6  | your earliest convenience, except that if there's going to                                    |\n| 7  | be witnesses, then -- because I understand that the argument                                  |\n| 8  | will be, as described by Mr. Henzy, that the translation's                                    |\n| 9  | not accurate.<br>We don't believe that's controlling because                                  |\n| 10 | there are other statements made.                                                              |\n| 11 | But if Mr. Kwok's going to be coming to testify,                                              |\n| 12 | we would need to take his deposition, so we need to build                                     |\n| 13 | that into the schedule here.                                                                  |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>I'm going to look at the motion                                        |\n| 15 | and then we'll figure that out.<br>And we'll have to figure                                   |\n| 16 | out -- you know, maybe we'll have to have some kind of                                        |\n| 17 | conference to schedule that.<br>I don't know.<br>I have to look                               |\n| 18 | at it.<br>I haven't looked at it yet.                                                         |\n| 19 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                                                        |\n| 20 | And then there was a last housekeeping matter.                                                |\n| 21 | I think Mr. Linsey wanted to address to the Court.                                            |\n| 22 | MR. LINSEY:<br>Good afternoon, again, Your Honor.                                             |\n| 23 | Patrick Linsey for the trustee.                                                               |\n| 24 | This is back to the adversary proceeding we                                                   |\n| 25 | discussed earlier.                                                                            |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 104 THE COURT: You need -- I'm sorry, when you filed the cross-claim, there has been no summons issued. Is that -- MR. LINSEY: That's exactly correct. THE COURT: Yes, I know that. And that does have to happen. So I agree with you. I haven't been able to talk with the clerk's office about that yet, but there does need to be a summons issued. MR. LINSEY: We just wanted to make sure there was nothing else you needed from us, Your Honor. THE COURT: No. But I completely agree that there does need to be a summons issued. Okay? MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: And, as I said, you know, the clerk's office might not have understood that there was a counterclaim for which there was a summons that needs to be issued, so we will take care of that as well. MR. LINSEY: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. And just to be clear with everyone, maybe -- I don't know what we're going to do yet as far as the motion that was filed this morning in scheduling, but, Mr. Kindseth, you said you think there will be a stipulated order submitted on the repair reserve. And you think that will be submitted -- when did you say, tomorrow? Case 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 104 of\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 966<br>Filed 10/13/22<br>Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06<br>Page 105 of<br>108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>105                                                          |\n| 1  | MR. KINDSETH:<br>Realistically, tomorrow.                                                     |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Well, if by Thursday,                                             |\n| 3  | midday or something, like that I haven't seen anything, I                                     |\n| 4  | may have a status conference and say where are things and --                                  |\n| 5  | because I need to know whether we're going to have a -- you                                   |\n| 6  | know, just so we have appropriate staff and everything if                                     |\n| 7  | we're actually going to have an evidentiary hearing on                                        |\n| 8  | Friday.                                                                                       |\n| 9  | MR. KINDSETH:<br>I completely appreciate that, Your                                           |\n| 10 | Honor.                                                                                        |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>Thank you.                                               |\n| 12 | MR. LINSEY:<br>Your Honor, I have just one quick                                              |\n| 13 | question.                                                                                     |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Sure.                                                                           |\n| 15 | MR. LINSEY:<br>You had said to the trustee that Mr.                                           |\n| 16 | Bassett may appear without -- remotely, so we will not need                                   |\n| 17 | to file a separate request, correct?                                                          |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.<br>I'm going to try to stop you                                           |\n| 19 | all from having to file remote motions under the specific                                     |\n| 20 | facts and circumstances of this case.<br>Okay?<br>Because I                                   |\n| 21 | think we all know who's going to be here and not here.                                        |\n| 22 | But I think what I would like you to do, both                                                 |\n| 23 | sides, depending upon -- I mean, obviously Mr. Romney and                                     |\n| 24 | Mr. Kindseth, when you had to appear, it was unfortunately                                    |\n| 25 | for health reasons and I understood that.<br>There's never                                    |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 966<br>Filed 10/13/22<br>Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06<br>Page 106 of<br>108 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>106                                                          |\n| 1  | going to be an issue with regard to that.<br>And hopefully you                                |\n| 2  | won't have to have that happen again.<br>Obviously.                                           |\n| 3  | But if we can just all agree that people can                                                  |\n| 4  | appear remotely that are in Connecticut, I think that would                                   |\n| 5  | be helpful.                                                                                   |\n| 6  | And what I would ask is the way that that could be                                            |\n| 7  | accomplished is that someone from the trustee, someone from                                   |\n| 8  | PAX, someone from HK, someone from the debtor, and Ms. Guo,                                   |\n| 9  | just send a -- one person sends it, I don't care who, an                                      |\n| 10 | email to the courtroom deputy with everybody else cc'd,                                       |\n| 11 | including the U.S. Trustee's Office so they know, these                                       |\n| 12 | people would like to appear remotely at whatever hearing it                                   |\n| 13 | is.<br>Okay?<br>Not witnesses.<br>I'm not talking about witnesses.                            |\n| 14 | I'm talking about lawyers who want to either be                                               |\n| 15 | heard or be part of a hearing by observation.<br>If it came to                                |\n| 16 | a witness situation, we'd have to have a discussion about                                     |\n| 17 | that.<br>And then you'll get the information for people to                                    |\n| 18 | appear remotely so we don't have to keep -- you don't have                                    |\n| 19 | to keep filing these motions.<br>Okay.                                                        |\n| 20 | In the specific circumstances of this case,                                                   |\n| 21 | because I'll probably get in trouble for having said all                                      |\n| 22 | that.<br>So you have to understand that I agree that -- we                                    |\n| 23 | don't need to have ten more docket entries about motions to                                   |\n| 24 | -- understandably that you filed them, but let's cut that                                     |\n| 25 | now if we can as long as everybody -- I don't see why                                         |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 107 of\n\n|    | 108                                                            |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>107                           |\n| 1  | anybody have a problem with that.                              |\n| 2  | Does anybody have a problem with that right now                |\n| 3  | what I've suggested?                                           |\n| 4  | ALL COUNSEL:<br>No, Your Honor.                                |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Great.<br>I appreciate it.              |\n| 6  | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Your Honor, I don't have a problem.            |\n| 7  | I just have a question.                                        |\n| 8  | The committee itself doesn't have out-of-state                 |\n| 9  | counsel, and there are matters where we have only a            |\n| 10 | tangential interest, so would that -- would that -- would      |\n| 11 | Your Honor's remarks apply to --                               |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Yes, the committee.                              |\n| 13 | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>-- the committee's counsel as well?            |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>Yes, it would.<br>I think that the               |\n| 15 | committee counsel can appear remotely even though the          |\n| 16 | committee's in Connecticut because, again, I agree, Attorney   |\n| 17 | Goldman, at this point, the role is different than it was      |\n| 18 | prior to the appointment of a trustee.                         |\n| 19 | So unless someone has a problem with that, I have              |\n| 20 | no problem with that.<br>Okay?<br>But just get in the group of |\n| 21 | the emails so that the courtroom deputy makes sure that        |\n| 22 | everyone is on the same page.<br>All right?                    |\n| 23 | MR. GOLDMAN:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                         |\n| 24 | THE COURT:<br>But that's the way we'll disseminate             |\n| 25 | the information without everybody having to file motions.      |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 108 of\n\n|    | 108                                                        |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022<br>108                       |\n| 1  | All right.<br>Is there anything further we should          |\n| 2  | address this afternoon?                                    |\n| 3  | MR. DESPINS:<br>No, Your Honor.<br>Thank you.              |\n| 4  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you, all.                     |\n| 5  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Thank you.                                 |\n| 6  | (Proceedings adjourned at 2:29 p.m.)                       |\n| 7  | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court Reporter    |\n| 8  | and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct   |\n| 9  | transcript from the official electronic sound recording of |\n| 10 | the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.              |\n| 11 |                                                            |\n| 12 |                                                            |\n| 13 | October 13, 2022                                           |\n| 14 | Christine Fiore, CERT                                      |\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\n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债务人。                                          2022年10月4日\n\n保护令动议听证笔录\n\n主审法官：朱莉·A·曼宁（JULIE A. MANNING）阁下\n美国联邦破产法官\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人、HK International（HK国际公司）及\nMei Guo（郭美）：\n\nJAMES M. MORIARTY, ESQ.\nAARON ROMNEY, ESQ.\nSTEPHEN KINDSETH, ESQ.\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：\n\nSTUART SARNOFF, ESQ.\nPETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nANNECCA SMITH, ESQ.\nRobinson & Cole\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n庭审程序以电子录音方式记录，笔录由速记服务机构制作。\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：\n\nIRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.\nPullman & Comley\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n代表美国受托人：\n\nHOLLEY CLAIBORN, ESQ.\nOffice of the United States Trustee\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表第11章受托人：\n\nNICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ.\nNeubert Pepe & Monteith, PC\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n第11章受托人：\n\nLUC A. DESPINS, ESQ.\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n代表债权人 Verdolino & Lowey（韦尔多利诺与洛伊）：\n\nWILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ.\nBrown Rudnick\nSeven Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 966 提交于 10/13/22 录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 3 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月4日\n\n（庭审于下午12时05分开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法庭：下午好。请各方为记录而出庭陈述，先请第11章受托人。\n\nDESPINS先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins，第11章受托人。\n\nLINSEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Linsey，受托人的康涅狄格州律师；通过 Zoom 与我们连线的是 Paul Hastings 的 Nicholas Bassett，受托人的律师。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nBASSETT先生：下午好。\n\nCLAIBORN女士：下午好。Holley Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n\nGOLDMAN先生：下午好，法官阁下。Irve Goldman，Pullman and Comley，代表债权人委员会。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nSMITH女士：下午好，法官阁下。Annecca Smith，来自 Robinson and Cole，代表 PAX；通过 Zoom 与我们连线的是 O'Melveny 的 Stuart Sarnoff 和 Peter Friedman。\n\nSARNOFF先生：下午好，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：下午好。Romney先生？\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 966 提交于 10/13/22 录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 4 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月4日\n\nROMNEY先生：下午好，法官阁下。Aaron Romney，Zeisler and Zeisler，代表债务人、HK International 及 Mei Guo 女士。\n\nMORIARTY先生：下午好，法官阁下。James Moriarty，Zeisler and Zeisler，代表同一批当事人。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nKINDSETH先生：Stephen Kindseth，Zeisler and Zeisler，也代表该等当事人，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nBALDIGA先生：下午好，法官阁下。William Baldiga，Brown Rudnick，代表 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino & Lowey。\n\n法庭：下午好。\n\nBALDIGA先生：谢谢。\n\n法庭：好的。我认为我们已记录各方的出庭情况。是这样吗？是否遗漏了任何人？我想没有。好的。\n\n法庭书记员：法官阁下，有一位 Peter Friedman 通过 Zoom 在线，但未在其座位前。\n\n法庭：好的，没关系。谢谢。Sarnoff先生也在线，而且 PAX 的律师也在法庭内，所以谢谢。\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：我在。只是我的视频有问题，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：没关系。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月4日\n\nFRIEDMAN先生：我是 Peter Friedman。抱歉。\n\n法庭：无需道歉。谢谢。好的。今天的日程安排中有一场就第11章受托人提交的保护令动议举行的听证会。因此，我确实看到已提交了一份答复。Baldiga先生，我看到您代表 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino & Lowey 提交了一份答复。我也知道债务人对申请签发保护令的动议提交了异议。我还认为，尽管我可能有误，各方一直在讨论某种形式的命令，但我不知道各方是否已就签发保护令达成任何协议。因此，Despins先生或 Linsey先生，我不知道谁愿意就保护令发言。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，我的合伙人 Bassett先生会处理此事。\n\n法庭：Bassett先生。好的。Bassett先生？\n\nBASSETT先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：那么我请您发言。\n\nBASSETT先生：下午好，法官阁下。您能清楚听到我说话吗？\n\n法庭：是的，能。谢谢。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 966 提交于 10/13/22 录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 6 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月4日\n\nBASSETT先生：很好。谢谢。因此，法官阁下，关于载于 ECF 874 的保护令动议，在过去几天中，我们继续与债务人的律师就其针对保护令提出的一些意见进行讨论。我很高兴地报告，我认为我们已经通过对我们提交的命令作出若干轻微修改，解决了他们的关切。我相信 Linsey先生的一位同事可能正在提交该命令。遗憾的是，我们直到今天上午才就措辞达成协议，所以是在听证会即将开始之前。我相信 Goldman先生代表委员会，对该命令尚有一项未解决的意见，我乐意让他说明；但除此之外，就债务人而言，我相信我们确已就一份可提交法院签发的命令达成协议。法官阁下提到了 Brown Rudnick 提交的一份答复以及债务人提出的一项异议。我认为，我可能弄错了，但我相信那些提交文件涉及我们上周五提交的另一项单独动议，该动议寻求签发一项命令以执行法院此前关于特权的命令，并涉及受托人向 Brown Rudnick 送达的 2004 审查取证。因此，那是另一个事项。我乐意另行处理该事项。但就 ECF 874 的保护令动议而言，我再次认为我们确已就此达成协议。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月4日\n\n法庭：好的。不过，就我看到已提交的文件而言，我原以为 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino & Lowey 的答复是针对保护令动议的。Baldiga先生，我理解错了吗？\n\nBALDIGA先生：我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：可以，请。\n\nBALDIGA先生：下午好。再次说明，我是 William Baldiga，Brown Rudnick，代表 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino & Lowey。法官阁下，这确实是对保护令动议的答复。但主要是因为保护令动议以及其他当事人近期提交的一些文件，对 Brown Rudnick 和 Verdolino & Lowey 在过去数周的讨论或立场作了表述，而我认为，我们有必要就我们在整个事情中的真实立场自行说明。我们感觉有点被夹在中间。存在一系列广泛的讨论。因此，我首先想要说明——坦率地说，我对法院基于其他当事人所述内容得出的某些结论感到不安；我认为，就我们真实的立场而言，那些结论并不正确。因此，我希望用我们自己的话说明，我们向谁说了什么，以及发生了什么。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 966 提交于 10/13/22 录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 7 页，共 108 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 966 提交于 10/13/22 录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 8 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月4日\n\n我对保护令动议没有任何异议——我还没有看到——无论目前传阅的是哪些草案。我——\n\n法庭：您的意思是，您还没有看到现在所说的那份命令？\n\nBALDIGA先生：没有。但我无法想象我们会对此提出任何异议。如果受托人与债务人达成一致，那么，再次说明，我们最不愿意做的就是夹在其中。但正如我在我们提交的文件中所说，我们实际上只是试图避免被夹在中间，并避免我们的立场被歪曲，或者避免法院基于我们实际所述内容得出没有根据的结论。\n\n法庭：我认为这很公平。\n\nBALDIGA先生：因此，我们不会对保护令提出任何异议。我当然希望看到一些文件，但再次说明，我不认为我们会对此有问题。\n\n法庭：好的。我理解您的关切，而且我认为您所说的是公平的。您提到法院可能作出的结论时，我的意思是，毫无疑问，我确实就各方提出的论点、Brown Rudnick 的传票以及诸如此类的事项作出过陈述，但我不确定我是否会将其称为结论；更多的是一种关切。不过，我感谢您提交——\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 966 提交于 10/13/22 录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 9 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月4日\n\n将该文件载入记录，以便您可以——您的立场通过您本人而非其他当事人而为人所知。因为这正是问题的一部分。如果有人在陈述一位不在法庭内之人的立场，那么不在法庭内的人就无法说明那是否准确。\n\nBALDIGA先生：是。\n\n法庭：无论如何，我感谢您提交该文件，我们将据此继续。我们将看看情况如何。听起来各方可能已有协议。我必须就债权人——抱歉，债权人委员会对该命令可能有何关切与其确认，但我理解您的观点。而且，至少从我的角度而言，我并非试图得出任何结论。更多的是关切。但这确实有助于我看到您已在案卷中提交的内容，我对此表示感谢。\n\nBALDIGA先生：或许在那方面，我不公平地把一些话放到了您的嘴里，所以——\n\n法庭：不。不一定。\n\nBALDIGA先生：——我本着您所作陈述的本意接受您的意见，即这不是结论，但我认为我们在这里彼此完全理解。\n\n案号 22-50073 文档 966 提交于 10/13/22 录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 10 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月4日\n\n法庭：是。好的。谢谢。\n\nBALDIGA先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法庭：非常感谢。\n\nDESPINS先生：并且，法官阁下，我有一份副本给 Baldiga先生。\n\nBALDIGA先生：那太好了。\n\nDESPINS先生：如果我可以上前，也给法官阁下一份。\n\n法庭：可以，请。谢谢。\n\n那么，Romney律师，在我转向 Goldman律师之前，我先请您发言。因此，受托人——以及 Bassett先生，Bassett律师——表示，此时已有一份经各方同意的命令。您是否已看过最终版本，并且对此没有意见？\n\nROMNEY先生：这一点我交由 Moriarty先生处理。\n\n法庭：好的。抱歉。\n\nROMNEY先生：一直由他处理。\n\n法庭：Moriarty先生，请直接发言。\n\nROMNEY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nMORIARTY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n我们一直与受托人的律师来回交换意见。我们与其进行了会面协商。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022\n\n昨日与受托人律师进行了沟通。债务人和受托人律师已就一项经同意的保密令达成一致。\n\n今天上午我与Goldman律师（戈德曼律师）进行了几次电子邮件往来，我认为我理解他的疑虑，但在我对此发表意见之前，我想先听听他本人怎么说。\n\n法院：好的。为了确保我们能够继续进行，我是否可以正确地基于以下假定继续进行：我们已有一项经同意的命令，但须视Goldman先生可能要求加入该命令的内容而定？\n\nMoriarty先生（莫里亚蒂先生）：正确。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。\n\n好的。Goldman律师，我尚未审阅该命令——我的意思是，这没有问题，它刚刚交给我——但你是否有疑虑，或者有希望加入该命令的措辞？\n\nGoldman先生：是的，法官阁下。谢谢。这涉及第9和第10段。第9段涉及保密信息的披露，第10段涉及高度保密信息的披露。\n\n其中列有被认定为有资格接收或实际获准接收该类信息的人员或实体类别，例如，受托人被明确列出。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 12 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022 12\n\n我只是要求将委员会也单独列为可接收或能够接收保密信息、保密材料以及高度保密材料的一方，如第9和第10段所述，仅此而已。\n\n法院：这是你希望作出的唯一修改，对吗？\n\nGoldman先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n法院：好的。\n\nGoldman先生：是的。\n\n法院：Despins受托人（德斯潘斯受托人），将委员会作为一方加入，你是否有任何疑虑？而且我还没有读过第9或第10段，所以——我认为我知道它们的内容，但我尚未阅读。\n\nDespins先生：我需要请Bassett先生（巴塞特先生）回答。\n\n法院：哦，对不起。Bassett先生，我很抱歉。Bassett先生？\n\nBassett先生：没问题，法官阁下。我们对这些修改没有异议。正如法官阁下必定熟悉的那样，第9和第10段采用了保密令通常的起草方式；本案也不例外，其中设有两个层级的保密信息。有标注为“保密”的文件和材料，另有对“高度保密”文件和材料所作的更高、更严格的敏感性指定。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 13 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022 13\n\n第9和第10段仅列明获授权查看该等材料的人员。我认为Goldman先生所说的只是，除将受托人单独列为可查看该等材料的一方外，他还希望将委员会也列入其中。这或许更应由债务人律师作出回应。但就受托人而言，我们对此没有异议。\n\n我要指出的是，将Goldman先生的委托人或任何其他人加入这些条款，并不必然意味着他们自动有权获得所有证据开示材料。这仅意味着，若他们获得——处于能够接触该等材料的地位，则例如，如果如Goldman先生所要求的那样，受托人被特别——抱歉，委员会被特别加入这些条款，他们将无需取得债务人的同意。因此，再次强调，这或许更应由Moriarty律师处理。\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。Moriarty律师？\n\nMoriarty先生：而且这确实更应由Moriarty律师处理。因此，法官阁下，这项保密令的协商方式是，受托人首先有酌处权允许各方审阅保密及高度保密信息，而该方随后必须签署一份承诺书，该承诺书作为附件A附于排期令之后。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022 14\n\n法院：我刚刚看到这份声明，对吧。我还没有读它，但我看到了。\n\nMoriarty先生：好的。随后，提供材料的一方，或者根据第9B段，如该等材料由律师事务所或金融机构提供，则该等材料所涉一方，可对某人查看该等信息提出异议，前提是该等信息被指定为保密或高度保密信息。\n\n有些个别债权人，债务人以及可能其他人会反对其接触保密和高度保密信息。我们不反对允许委员会律师接触该等材料的条款。因此，如果我们能够同意纳入委员会律师，那是可以的。我们不需要拥有——而且这不是否决权，因为必须是合理的——但我们不需要拥有阻止律师查看这些材料的权力。可能存在一些债权人，不应向其提供该等信息。这就是担忧所在。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 14 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 15 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022\n\n法院：好的。谢谢。Goldman律师，你是否听到了Moriarty律师就债务人的担忧所作的陈述？\n\nGoldman先生：是的，法官阁下，我听到了。\n\n但是，为了使我们能够适当代表我们的利益相关方，我必须能够与我的委员会成员分享这些信息。我们对无担保债权人群体负有责任，因此不能仅限于律师查阅，我认为这正是Moriarty先生所建议的。\n\n我需要能够与委员会分享这些信息，当然，须受保密令的限制。因此这就是我的回应。我认为应当是委员会，而非委员会律师。\n\n法院：Moriarty律师？\n\nMoriarty先生：是的，法官阁下。\n\n已有一类特定文件不能向委员会成员出示，即高度保密材料，仅限律师查阅。\n\n对于委员会的某些成员，可能不存在异议；对于委员会的其他成员，可能存在异议，但我们专门与受托人律师协商了这项保密令，以向债务人提供该项保护。该项保护已纳入命令之中，并且对债务人很重要。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 16 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022 16\n\n如果没有该项保护，我认为我们将无法达成经同意的保密令。\n\nGoldman先生：法官阁下，我建议也将委员会加入第10段。因此，我理解其中有一项权限允许受聘专业人士查阅，但我也请求将委员会加入其中。我认为委员会接收与破产财产管理有关信息的权利，不应受非占有债务人的限制。\n\n法院：Goldman律师，我正在你发言时查看该命令。让我——我正在查看。因此，在第9和第10段中，保密材料，即第9段所述材料，只能向下列人员提供、出示、供其查阅或与其沟通：受托人；任何已签署附件A并向受托人交付其副本的一方，但须经提供材料一方同意，该同意不得被无理拒绝——抱歉，无理扣留；以及下文第10段所规定的任何其他人员。\n\n第10段规定——对于高度保密材料，为受托人的律师及在该等律师明确指示下工作的工作人员；任何已签署附件A并向受托人交付副本的一方；以及根据328和1103受聘的专业人士。我正在读另一项——那是B项。现在我正在看C项。任何被指明为其作者、收件人或抄送收件人的人员，任何不利证人——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 17 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022 17\n\n因此，看来就同意令而言，我们存在问题。如果，Goldman律师，你主张你的委托人而不仅仅是你，需要能够查看这些高度保密信息，那么我认为我们存在问题。我想我将不得不就你的请求应被支持还是驳回作出裁定。\n\n我们有一位正在进行调查的受托人。你和你的委托人一样，均受到Chapter 11 Trustee（第11章受托人）调查的保护。\n\n可以理解的是，当这还是一宗由占有中的债务人进行的自愿第11章案件时，委员会所扮演的角色与其现在的角色完全不同。我不认为，在这个时候，搁置由第11章受托人提交、并由第11章受托人律师与债务人律师协商达成的经同意保密令是合理的。\n\n你仍将有权查看这些信息。只是目前你的委托人不能查看。我不认为就债权人委员会成员是否应查看这些高度保密信息发生争论，会有利于破产财产或各方。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022 18\n\n而且——我的意思是，这是一项保密令。这正是其要点，对吗？它是在保护信息不被某些当事方获取。你将能够查看这些信息。没有——Moriarty先生，Goldman先生将能够查看这些信息，这一点没有疑问，对吗？\n\nMoriarty先生：正确，法官阁下。我们愿意在提交前修改该命令，以纳入Goldman律师作为债权人委员会律师有权接触该等材料的措辞。前提是受托人律师可以接受，我相信其会接受。\n\n法院：Bassett先生似乎表示可以，但显然我确实需要问他。是否还有其他人希望就委员会成员是否有权查看这项拟议保密令中保密及高度保密的信息这一问题发表意见？诚然，我尚未彻底阅读该命令，但我看了第9和第10段，并大体理解这些段落的目的。是否还有其他人希望发言？\n\nGoldman先生：法官阁下，我只是有一个问题，以澄清我对此问题的理解。我被加入，我认为必须被加入第9段，作为接收人、获授权接收人，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 18 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 19 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022 19\n\n如果债权人委员会成员签署附件A并同意受其约束，这是否会为我与他们分享该等信息打开大门？我希望听取其他各方对该问题答案的理解。\n\n法院：Moriarty先生？\n\nMoriarty先生：对于该假设问题，答案很可能是否定的。但我认为我们必须按每位债权人逐一审查，而且我们显然必须与我们的委托人沟通。但是，我知道，例如，有一名中国共产党（CCP）的登记代理人。正如法官阁下所听到的，债务人对中国共产党有严重担忧。因此，例如，该个人将绝对不可以。是否会有其他人不属于这种情况，我现在无法告诉你，但我知道该个人不可以。\n\n法院：但你所说的那个人是债权人委员会成员吗？\n\nMoriarty先生：我相信他是。如果他不是，那就不是问题，但我相信他是。\n\nGoldman先生：委员会中没有——没有任何成员与中国共产党有关联。\n\n法院：嗯，我显然无从得知到底是不是这样。美国受托人办公室可以回答这个问题。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022 20 问题？克莱伯恩女士：我不能回答，法官阁下。法院：显然，我也不知道答案。克莱伯恩女士：我不知道答案。莫里亚蒂先生：好的。那——法院：该事项尚未提交到我面前。莫里亚蒂先生：好的。我只能向您说明我的理解，法官阁下。法院：那么，戈德曼律师，您问题的答案——莫里亚蒂律师，如我有误请予纠正——似乎是，签署该声明并不保证委员会的任何成员能够——能够跨越第9和第10段的门槛。对吗？莫里亚蒂先生：对，法官阁下。而且——按照保护令的结构，并不只是委员会成员。任何想要获取该信息的人都是如此。但就委员会成员而言，您的说法是正确的。法院：好的。巴塞特先生：法官阁下，唯一的一点——唯一的一点我想补充的是，我认为在该情形下，若委员会成员或另一债权人签署附件A，则我认为第9B段将适用。是的。在该情况下，须经提供方同意，但该同意不得被不合理地拒绝。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 966，提交于 10/13/22，录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06，第20页，共108页\n\n我认为，问题在于，如果委员会成员或债权人签署附件A，他们随后可以向提供方提出请求；在我们正在讨论的这类假设情形中，提供方将是债务人。他们会说，嘿，我们希望获得这类特定信息，然后债务人可以同意或不同意。我想，可能会就该同意是否不合理，或者拒绝给予该同意是否不合理，产生争议；但我认为，根据该文件的构成方式，事情将会如此进行。\n\n戈德曼先生：是的。我还要指出，第10A(ii)段包含类似规定。因此，我认为高度保密材料将属于巴塞特先生就第9段所述的类别。\n\n因此，我认为，只要将我作为律师加入第9段，与第9段类似，授权我接收保密信息，我就会满意。然后，委员会成员接收该信息所产生的任何问题——如果有的话——我们可以在日后再行处理。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 966，提交于 10/13/22，录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06，第21页，共108页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022 21 将适用。是的。在该情况下，须经提供方同意，但该同意不得被不合理地拒绝。\n\n法院：莫里亚蒂律师？莫里亚蒂先生：如我所言，法官阁下，仅增加一项允许委员会律师接收该信息的规定可以，但委员会本身不可以。因此——法院：那么，我认为我们已经达成一致？莫里亚蒂先生：是的。法院：即，您将增加一项规定，委员会律师可以接收第9和第10段中的信息。然后，如果某一债权人，不论其为何人，不论其是否为委员会成员，签署作为附件A的声明，则根据我的阅读，该债权人必须将该声明提交给第11章受托人，后者随后必须将其提交给作为提供方的任何人；如巴塞特律师所说，提供方随后将有机会不以不合理方式、而是以合理方式拒绝提供该材料。如果仍有争议，那么我们将不得不举行听证会。我推定事情将必须如此进行。莫里亚蒂先生：我相信这是正确的，法官阁下。法院：好的。莫里亚蒂先生：提供方将如第9B段所定义，其中就某些目的而言，包括债务人或信息所涉及的其他人。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 966，提交于 10/13/22，录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06，第22页，共108页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022 22 法院：好的。谢谢。我认为我们随后就保护令达成了一致。巴塞特律师，莫里亚蒂律师表示，他将于第9和第10段中加入如下措辞：委员会——委员会的律师可以接收该信息。因此，为使记录清楚，这是否为第11章受托人所同意？巴塞特先生：是的，法官阁下。可以。如果莫里亚蒂先生希望向我们发送修订版本，我们可以快速审阅并将其提交法院。法院：莫里亚蒂先生，这可以吗？莫里亚蒂先生：可以，法官阁下。我会这样做。法院：好的。是的，这可以。莫里亚蒂先生会这样做。好了。我们还需要——顺便说一句，我还没有说，我确实感谢各位已经——已经会面协商并一直在处理这项命令。尽管该命令和声明仍可能产生问题，我确实感谢各方为达成这一\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 966，提交于 10/13/22，录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06，第23页，共108页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022 23 协议所作的努力。我认为，尽可能地推进而不是——是很重要的。显然，各位都已经这样做了。我们将看看其运作情况。我理解，仍有许多问题将提交法院裁决，但受托人确实需要进行调查，而这无疑有所帮助。我并不认为这意味着不会有任何问题，但我理解这非常有帮助。因此，我感谢各方为达到这一步所作的努力。我知道，这是今日日程中与本案有关的唯一事项。我知道还有一些其他待决事项。我也知道，甚至在一小时前仍有文件提交。有一点我要说，我感谢各方都已提交其本周五关于维修准备金证据听证会的证人和证物清单。顺便说一下，其中有很多相同的文件。这没有问题。我的意思是，似乎双方——我不知道弗里德曼律师和萨尔诺夫律师是否在场——但债务人HK提交的一些证物、许多证物，与PAX（帕克斯）的相同。存在一些差异。我们可以处理。这不是问题。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 966，提交于 10/13/22，录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06，第24页，共108页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022 24 协议。我认为，尽可能地推进而不是——是很重要的。显然，各位都已经这样做了。我们将看看其运作情况。我理解，仍有许多问题将提交法院裁决，但受托人确实需要进行调查，而这无疑有所帮助。我并不认为这意味着不会有任何问题，但我理解这非常有帮助。因此，我感谢各方为达到这一步所作的努力。我知道，这是今日日程中与本案有关的唯一事项。我知道还有一些其他待决事项。我也知道，甚至在一小时前仍有文件提交。有一点我要说，我感谢各方都已提交其本周五关于维修准备金证据听证会的证人和证物清单。顺便说一下，其中有很多相同的文件。这没有问题。我的意思是，似乎双方——我不知道弗里德曼律师和萨尔诺夫律师是否在场——但债务人HK提交的一些证物、许多证物，与PAX的相同。存在一些差异。我们可以处理。这不是问题。\n\n法院：本周五的此次听证会是否需要任何种类的口译员到场？金德塞斯先生：法官阁下，如果我可以避免这个问题，看来我们极有可能会有一份双方同意的维修准备金命令。法院：好的。金德塞斯先生：因此，我们现在只剩下细节问题。我确实不认为会有任何问题，唯一的问题是，维修准备金命令会触发我的当事人提交证明书的能力，以促成释放为担保返还Lady May（“Lady May”号）而缴存的$37 million托管资金；而受托人在涉及HK International（香港国际）的对抗诉讼中，另行寻求对该等资金取得判决前救济，因此，关于希望能够约定的维修准备金命令中的一项内容，存在一些时间安排问题。这取决于PJR听证会的时间安排。我相信，我知道律师已向法庭书记员提交了关于PJR听证会新日期的提议。我相信受托人与目前日期存在冲突。因此，我请求我们讨论——我相信受托人原本也会请求我们讨论——PJR听证会延期后的日期。一旦我获得该日期，我的当事人，\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 966，提交于 10/13/22，录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06，第25页，共108页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022\n假定该日期不会太晚，我的当事人将同意在我们确定PJR听证会可以举行的日期之次日之前不提交该证明书。\n\n因此，如果您对我所说的有任何问题，我知道这很复杂，但是——\n\n法院：没有。我明白你所说的。\n\n金德塞斯先生：好的。太好了。因此，如果我们能够着手确定PJR听证会的新日期，那么——我相信我们将就维修准备金达成一致。\n\n而且，我们的提议是，法官阁下，假定PJR听证会和双方同意的命令确定下来，我们将仅提交一份约定裁定。如果法官阁下认为可以接受，法官阁下希望会签发该裁定，然后本周五的程序可以继续进行。\n\n法院：好的。那么，你预计会在本周五之前提交该约定裁定？\n\n金德塞斯先生：希望在今天晚些时候或明天，是的。\n\n法院：好的。\n\n弗里德曼先生：法官阁下，我是彼得·弗里德曼。从PAX的角度，我们确认这一点。\n\n法院：我听不见您，弗里德曼律师。对不起。\n\n弗里德曼先生：抱歉，法官阁下。我们只是确认\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 966，提交于 10/13/22，录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06，第26页，共108页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022 27 从PAX的角度——法院：好的。弗里德曼先生：——金德塞斯先生所说的一切。法院：好的。很好。为使记录清楚，因为你刚才有些含混，我来补充一下：代表PAX的弗里德曼律师已陈述，他确认金德塞斯律师就维修准备金及安排于本周五 October 7th 举行的证据听证会在记录中所说的内容。好的。德斯平斯受托人？德斯平斯先生：下午好，法官阁下。如果可以的话？法院：是的，请讲。德斯平斯先生：因此，金德塞斯先生是对的。两者相互关联。我们真正寻求的是——您曾给我们两个日期，即13th和可能的14th。那些日期不合适。我们想知道您还能给我们哪些日期，所以我们——再次说明，这是您的日程安排，但我们考虑的是18th和19th。在我给法庭书记员的电子邮件中，我提到20th，但当时不知道那是您的——那是您的第13章日。法院：第13章日。德斯平斯先生：那么该日期可能不行。因此，问题是——\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 966，提交于 10/13/22，录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06，第27页，共108页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022 28 法院：我在你讲话时查看日程表。我并非没有在听你说话。我是在试着查看日期。所以，我只是想——17th怎么样，星期一17th怎么样？我之所以这么说，是因为我认为19th有安排冲突。德斯平斯先生：好的。法院：因此，如果我们从17th开始，即星期一。德斯平斯先生：时间可能会有点紧，法官阁下。法院：否则，我与全国破产法官会议有一项——有一项安排。那是——德斯平斯先生：那是19th？法院：是那一周余下的时间，是的。德斯平斯先生：哦，余下的——莫里亚蒂先生：那么，法官阁下，我是代表HK和郭女士的莫里亚蒂律师。我将与罗姆尼律师共同抗辩PJR申请。我在州法院有一场陪审团审判，安排于 October 13th 开始。今天下午有一场听证会，届时该陪审团审判很可能——尽管我无法说明可能性有多大——将被延期。因此，我们先前讨论的是等待直至\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022 29 在今天下午稍晚些时候，我将确切知道我的陪审团审判是否会如期进行，然后向法院提出一些日期建议。听起来我们可能会考虑十一月的第一周。Romney（罗姆尼）律师和我在十月最后一周有一个会议，所以最终可能会定在那时。DESPINS 先生：但是我们应当——在我们——我认为，如果我们正朝着十一月初这个方向推进，听取法官阁下关于您的日程安排的意见将非常有帮助，例如十一月的第一周，因为我知道 Bassett（巴塞特）先生在第二周或第三周没有空——如果我说错了，请您补充。法 院：包括 October 31st 在内的十一月第一周，除 November 1st 已例行安排的听证会外，时间相当充裕。BASSETT 先生：法官阁下，我想受托人所指的是，3日我将参加一场听证会，我在3日和4日都不在。因此，如果法院和其他各方都方便，最好安排在——法 院：星期一31日有空。星期二，即 November 1st，有听证会，但我认为，如果我们必须延至次日，我们可以使用 November 1st 下午的时间。我们也可以安排在\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 提交于 10/13/22 录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 29 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok — October 4, 2022 30 2日。我不知道各位认为本次听证会会持续多久，但是——DESPINS 先生：为稳妥起见，我们应当——我们应当安排两天。法 院：对。因此，如果我们从 October 31st 开始，然后我们——我们从下午开始——Goldman（戈德曼）律师现在正在电话上。November 1st 有一宗案件的首次审前会议，Goldman 律师，您是该案的律师。我不知道还有谁，如果对方甚至已经出庭，Diamond Landscaping & Athletic Fields（钻石园林与运动场）。我的意思是，我们可以——我们可以将其延后一周。那天不必举行。对吗？GOLDMAN 律师：那没有问题，法官阁下。即便如此，我也未必会出席，因为我有共同代理律师，但一切听从法官阁下的安排。法 院：那么，我会——GOLDMAN 律师：那只是一个可能性不大的情况。法 院：是的。不过我会将其延后，因为它在下午 2:00 举行。如果我们开始本案判决前救济听证会的第二天，那将会占用时间。因此，我会——其他事项我大概会保留在日程中，然后延后该事项。所以我对各方所说的是，October 31st 有空。November 1st 从可能中午开始，\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 提交于 10/13/22 录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 30 页，共 108 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 提交于 10/13/22 录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 31 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok — October 4, 2022 31 但最迟下午 1:00 起有空。November 2nd 看起来也相当空闲。我认为这些就是各位所说的日期，对吗？DESPINS 先生：很抱歉以这种方式处理，但我需要听从 Bassett 先生的安排。法 院：他3日和4日必须去某处。Bassett 先生，您是否必须在2日出行，以便3日和4日到那里？BASSETT 先生：法官阁下，您所——不，法官阁下。您所提议的31日至2日没有问题。法 院：须理解，1日只能安排在下午，我们大概会从中午或下午 1:00 开始，因为我必须让例行——我们例行安排的听证会照常进行。ROMNEY 律师：法官阁下，如果我们安排在1日下午和2日，我认为我们——那将给我们分配与原先相同的时间，我认为，即一个下午和随后一天。法 院：我没有限制分配的时间。我说的是，如有必要则继续审理，因为我不知道会持续多久，对吗？ROMNEY 律师：明白。但是我——请原谅我如果记错了，我们原本是在第一天的\n\nHo Wan Kwok — October 4, 2022 32 下午开始，然后如有必要则进入第二天——法 院：如有必要再进入第三天，如有必要再进入第四天。ROMNEY 律师：好的。法 院：好的。我不知道这会持续多久。我毫无头绪。各位必须自行弄清楚，对吗？ROMNEY 律师：对。法 院：那么——ROMNEY 律师：法官阁下，我对31日的担忧是，我们将在28日晚些时候从 Texas（得克萨斯州）飞回。Moriarty（莫里亚蒂）先生原本计划在那个周末去探望年迈的母亲。但据我了解，他可以调整安排。不过无论如何，我们随后需要在周末准备我们的证人，这一点我可以配合。但我不——我不知道我是否能——我不认为我想代表他们发言，因此，如果我把31日空出来——法 院：好，让我就在这里先打断您一下。没问题。如果您不想在1日下午之前开始，也没有问题。但据我理解 Kindseth（金塞斯）先生所说，即便维修准备金已达成约定，他的——HK 必须承诺在本次听证会，即判决前救济听证会举行之后，才提交证明文件。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 提交于 10/13/22 录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 32 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok — October 4, 2022 33 KINDSETH 先生：那并非——那并非该协议，法官阁下，而且该协议有很多理由。法 院：那么，您说的是什么？我以为您就是这么说的。KINDSETH 先生：不是。我所说的是，我们会确定日期。因此，假设法官阁下将听证会安排在1日和2日，好，我们将承诺在3日之前不提交证明文件。这样还留有15天。因为提交该证明文件后有15天可以提出异议，只有在该期限届满后才会——（听不清）。因此，即使假设判决前救济听证会在1日和2日举行，我在3日提交证明文件，受托人还有另外两周时间来尝试取得判决前救济。这就是我们达成的协议。法 院：那是假定我已经作出了裁决。DESPINS 先生：是的。但是——法 院：那么，让我再问您一个关于这艘船的问题，好吗？无论如何，上次我们在这里时，有人提到它并不处于良好工作状态，而且看起来它已不再在水中，而是在干船坞维修。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 提交于 10/13/22 录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 33 页，共 108 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 提交于 10/13/22 录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 34 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok — October 4, 2022 34 KINDSETH 先生：是的。法 院：那么，证明文件是否要求该船处于良好工作状态？KINDSETH 先生：不。该证明文件要求我们已设立维修准备金。而且，法官阁下，尽管我们坚决不同意该金额为必要金额，我的当事人已同意提供 $4 million，以担保所有可设想的、可能的维修费用。因此，维修准备金的全部目的，就是不因维修而延迟释放 37 million。也就是说，应设立维修准备金，以支付任何可设想的、合理可设想的费用。因此，我们的约定是，从 $37 million 中保留 $4 million。该款项将存入受托人处。它将受制于这一维修付款程序。因此，这就是协议。维修不需要完成。而且再补充一点，法官阁下，该船现已在干船坞。发动机维修将于本周开始。保险公司的检验员将于本周到场。预计保险将承担全部发动机维修费用。至于其他维修，除\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 提交于 10/13/22 录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 35 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok — October 4, 2022 35 阀门维护外——该项维护需要在其他地方进行——其余维修全部应在十月内完成。预计将于十一月使该船重返水中并进行海试。所有这些都载于维修准备金拟议命令中。因此，就证明文件而言，我们有权在维修准备金命令录入后提交证明文件，但我们不同意给予受托人一小段时间来举行判决前救济听证会。DESPINS 先生：那么请允许我对此作出回应，法官阁下。其中有一些重要的细微之处。Kindseth 先生就现有 Lady May（梅夫人号）约定的运作方式所说的话，存在争议。从我们的角度看，对此存在争议。他认为，仅通过设立准备金，他就可以释放资金。我们不同意这一点，但作为本协议的一部分，我们已经同意，我们会同意他可以——法院可以设定维修准备金，但须受制于我们进行海试等的权利。现在，15天的问题至关重要，这就是为什么——我想确保法官阁下了解就此进行的来回协商，因为根据第一个 Lady May 约定，该约定规定，一旦发出该通知，法院采取某些措施的能力就非常有限。当然，我们\n\n不希望处于那种受限状态，因为我们尚有一项判决前救济动议待决。因此，我们已同意，他在听证会结束之前不发送通知，前提是——您知道，例如，我们很容易对法官阁下说，法官阁下，让我们将这场判决前救济听证会延期到六月。当然，与此同时，这 37 million 被托管，当然他们对此并不满意。因此我们已达成同意，但我想确保您知道，这会限制您的选择。很抱歉使用这个词。但这将规定，您将在两天内就判决前救济举行本次听证会，他可以在第二天之后发送该通知。当然，您可能会说，好吧，先生——您刚才已经说了。我可能尚未作出裁决，您是对的，但妥协方案是这将会发生。这意味着——我方面有一个假定，而您可能会说这是错误的，即您能够在第二天听证会结束时就判决前救济作出裁决。因为一旦他发送该通知，他将主张——我并不因此指责他——您采取行动的管辖权非常有限。这就是为什么我们希望，重要的是，在他能够发送通知之前举行这场听证会。不仅是15天期限不开始计算，而且是——通知期限在法官阁下作出裁决之前不开始、不启动，\n\nHo Wan Kwok — October 4, 2022 37 我们希望如此。如果您作出对我们不利的裁决，那么我就完了。如果您作出对我们有利的裁决，那么不会发送通知，因为法官阁下将裁定必须签发扣押令。因此，我想——这并不理想。当然，从您的角度看，您会希望说，在我作出裁决之前不得发出通知。但我理解他们的立场，我明白，即那将允许我们受托人说，好吧，让我们将听证会延期数月。您可能会说，不，我不会允许那样做。但我理解其中存在担忧。因此，这就是我们达成的协议——而法官阁下，您知道，可能会说我不会这么做——即可以在判决前救济的第二个审判日次日发出通知，在——在——法 院：判决前救济？DESPINS 先生：——在判决前救济方面，前提是该听证会在他们满意的日期举行，例如十一月第一周，或类似时间。这就是整个来回协商过程。法 院：我明白。DESPINS 先生：我想确保您掌握完整情况。法 院：好，这就是为什么我之前说我认为\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 提交于 10/13/22 录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 37 页，共 108 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 提交于 10/13/22 录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 38 页，共 108 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）—2022年10月4日\n\n1　我明白了，对，也就是说，你们需要我在15天内作出裁定。这就是重点。\n\n德斯平斯先生（MR. DESPINS）：\n3　在15天之前。抱歉。\n\n法院（THE COURT）：\n4　是。在之前。是。我不能在第15天作出裁定。\n\n5　那实际上不会有什么帮助，对吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n6　不会。\n\n法院：\n7　我知道你们希望我在听证会结束时作出裁定。\n\n8　我明白。我明白。\n\n金塞思先生（MR. KINDSETH）：\n9　谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n10　好的。谢谢。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n11　所以这就是为什么这很关键。对于安排半天，我有一点担心，因为我们想确保有整整两天，以确保我们不会时间不够。\n\n14　我希望并且我认为，这将持续不足整整两天。但是，鉴于在第二天之后的那一天，我们头上悬着这把剑，我希望有整整两天。\n\n17　所以，我不知道这在日期安排方面会使我们处于什么情况。\n\n罗姆尼先生（MR. ROMNEY）：\n19　那么，如果法院和各方都同意，我们在31日下午开始，然后安排1日，如果需要的话，在2日再安排半天，怎么样？\n\n法院：\n23　你们都商量一下。我的意思是，这没问题。当你说在31日下午开始时，你的提议是什么，罗姆尼先生？\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 966　提交于 10/13/22　录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06　第 39 页，共 108 页\n\n郭文贵—2022年10月4日　39\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n下午1点，如果这样可以——\n\n法院：\n没问题。\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n这样我们上午就可以完成与证人之间需要进行的任何工作。\n\n法院：\n明白。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n所以，只是重复一下：31日下午1点，1日全天？\n\n法院：\n不是。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n不是。\n\n法院：\n不幸的是，1日是我们的常规开庭日，因此我们可能要到中午才能再次开始。\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n所以是半天、半天、全天，对吗？\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n那么第二个全天呢？\n\n法院：\n如果这对所有人都合适，法院没有异议。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n好的。\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n对。而且尽管您说了两——\n\n巴西特先生（MR. BASSETT）：\n法官阁下——抱歉，我有一点——\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n请讲，巴西特律师。\n\n巴西特先生：\n抱歉，法官阁下。我是来自保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所（Paul Hastings）的尼克·巴西特（Nick Bassett）。\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 966　提交于 10/13/22　录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06　第 40 页，共 108 页\n\n郭文贵—2022年10月4日　40\n\n我想提出的一点是，我们一直在讨论显然将在本次听证会上进行的证人证言和证据陈述，但我们尚未交换证人名单。因此，如果罗姆尼先生能够告知我们有多少名证人——\n\n法院：\n那么，我将要求你们双方提交一份——\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n是。我们需要——\n\n法院：\n——证人名单。我没有把这写进——\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n写进了。但是，我们需要推迟那个日期，因为——\n\n法院：\n哦，对。对，正是。好的。\n\n巴西特先生：\n是。法官阁下，我唯一的一点是，就讨论这将花费多长时间而言，显然，在我们了解将有多少名证人之前，很难知道。\n\n法院：\n好的。让我暂时回头看一下案卷。\n\n（暂停）\n\n法院：\n哦，我知道为什么我找不到了，因为我正在主案中查找，而设定听证会的命令是在对立程序中。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n是。记得——\n\n法院：\n是。不。我——\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 966　提交于 10/13/22　录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06　第 41 页，共 108 页\n\n郭文贵—2022年10月4日　41\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n——它将日期定在听证日期之前一周。\n\n法院：\n是。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n——听证日期。\n\n法院：\n而且我认为这次也是一样。我认为将是证人名单——我们通常要求在听证会前一周提交证人及证物清单。所以这就是为什么我仅在主案中查找时没有找到，因为它不在主案中。它在对立程序中。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n那么，我们只需调整那些日期，以反映新的听证日期。\n\n法院：\n对。证人及证物清单须在一周前提交。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n那么，鉴于我们有更多时间，我们可以，让我们看看能否就——达成一致。\n\n法院：\n所以，我同意各方提出的方案。萨诺夫律师（Attorney Sarnoff），您想说些什么吗？我不知道您是否——您是否曾在某个时候被打断。\n\n萨诺夫先生（MR. SARNOFF）：\n（听不清）\n\n法院：\n没有？好的。\n\n萨诺夫先生：\n（无法辨识）\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。那么，我们将要做的是，我们将——\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 966　提交于 10/13/22　录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06　第 42 页，共 108 页\n\n郭文贵—2022年10月4日\n\n1　将判决前救济措施的证据听证会延期至10月31日下午1:00，续至11月1日，我相信是中午12:00，但也可能是下午1:00。\n\n3　我得核实一下。但不会——不会晚于那个时间。然后续至11月2日上午10:00。\n\n6　证人及证物清单必须在相应日期下午5:00之前提交。31减7是多少，24，对吗？\n\n8　所以是10月24日。\n\n9　而且，只要所有人都同意，我们可以在今天、今天晚些时候，或者最迟明天，让该命令录入，正确吗？\n\n12　我没有听到任何人不同意，对吗？\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n13　我们同意，法官阁下。那HK提交其——的截止日期是否也——\n\n法院：\n15　是。异议截止日期将——也是一样，您说得对。抱歉，我没有说明这一点，但您说得对。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n18　我们会调整。好的。\n\n法院：\n19　你们将据此调整。那么，如果我们回看该案卷——\n\n法庭书记员（THE COURTROOM DEPUTY）：\n21　是22-5003，ECF 41是适用的法官阁下排期命令。\n\n法院：\n23　对。对。所以——是。异议截止日期也是同一时间，罗姆尼律师、金塞思律师和莫里亚蒂律师（Attorney Moriarty）。好的？它是——\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 966　提交于 10/13/22　录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06　第 43 页，共 108 页\n\n郭文贵—2022年10月4日\n\n1　同一时间。即听证会前一周，也就是24日下午5:00。好吗？\n\n罗姆尼先生：\n3　谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n4　金塞思律师？\n\n金塞思先生：\n5　非常感谢您，法官阁下。只是为了把这件事说清楚，这大概已经很明确了，但我只是想非常明确地说明，既然现在我们已有日期，我可以在维修准备金命令中写入我们将不会提交证明文件的日期。\n\n10　然后，我们希望此前协议的所有当事人，加上受托人——我并不承认，就债务人而言，他并非该协议的一方，但出于对其立场的尊重，我说的是加上受托人。\n\n15　所以，当我将其提交给法院时，我将向法院陈述，此前协议的所有当事人和受托人均已同意维修准备金命令的形式，并将请求法院考虑该命令并迅速作出决定，这样我们就无需继续为周五的听证会做准备——\n\n法院：\n21　对。\n\n金塞思先生：\n22　——而周五的听证会可以继续进行。\n\n法院：\n23　明白。\n\n金塞思先生：\n24　谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n25　好的。谢谢。\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 966　提交于 10/13/22　录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06　第 44 页，共 108 页\n\n郭文贵—2022年10月4日　44\n\n好的。那么，我将等待维修准备金命令，并将在对立程序22-5003中发布一项命令，将关于判决前扣押救济措施的证据听证会延期。我知道目前还有一项动议——现在有几项待决动议。\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n是。那么请允许我说明这些，法官阁下。第一项是我们所称的周五提交的布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所（Brown Rudnick）动议。我的合伙人巴西特先生将说明该动议，不是说明其实质，而是说明其排期。巴西特先生。\n\n巴西特先生：\n法官阁下，我再次说明，我是代表受托人的、来自保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所的尼克·巴西特。那么，法官阁下，我们实际上已讨论过这一议题，而且我认为在上次状态会议上已暗示将会提出该动议。这涉及，如受托人所说，受托人依据规则2004进行的证据开示，尤其是于8月17日向布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所送达的传票。正如我们在提交的文件中说明的，由于债务人就布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所档案中的文件可能享有的特权提出问题，依据该传票获取文件时出现了问题。\n\n案件 22-50073　文档 966　提交于 10/13/22　录入于 10/13/22 21:00:06　第 45 页，共 108 页\n\n郭文贵—2022年10月4日　45\n\n我们的立场，如我们在文件中所阐述，是所有这些问题都已在法院于9月14日在ECF 856录入的特权命令中得到非常明确的处理。该命令的目的，是狭义地界定债务人可以尝试主张特权的领域，即在其认为披露布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所及其他律师的档案中的文件给受托人会使其遭受人身损害的范围内。我们提出了加速审理动议。基本上，法官阁下，我们在该命令中寻求的救济，是一项授权布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所向受托人提交我们传唤的文件的命令，从而不再延迟取得这些文件。我们已经为此忙了数月。我们认为没有理由扣留这些文件。因此，我们寻求加速审理，最初请求今天审理该动议。债务人已对加速审理动议提出异议，我相信法官阁下已就此作出裁定。受托人的立场是，迫切需要解决我们所寻求的布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所档案相关问题。如果该动议今天不予审理，我们请求——\n\n郭文贵—2022年10月4日　46\n\n——在法院最早方便的时间审理。周五我们已有听证会，我认为那将是合乎逻辑的时间。再次说明，我们为此已忙了很长时间。正如我所说，传票于8月17日送达。就该传票提交文件的截止日期是16日。再次说明，我们在调查中取得进展花费的时间实在太长。正如我们从在其他地方作出的、我们已在本案中详细讨论过的认定中所知，债务人过去曾采取措施隐匿资产，并利用空壳公司从事可能严重损害受托人利益的行为。因此，现在开始取得这些文件至关重要，不应延迟取得这些文件，这就是寻求加速审理的原因，法官阁下。所以，再次说明，我们最初寻求今天审理这项动议。因为如果不是今天，并且我理解法院尚未就加速审理动议作出裁定，那么我认为我们将请求在周五审理。\n\n法院：\n好的。谢谢。罗姆尼律师或莫里亚蒂律师，我知道你们其中一人——我不记得了，抱歉——对……提出了异议。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日 47 加快审理该动议。我尚未就加快审理动议作出裁定。我还没有这样做。ROMNEY先生：谢谢，法官阁下。Aaron Romney，Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒律师事务所），代表债务人出庭。法官阁下，正如我在上次案情状态会议上所说，债务人对该事项提交法院的方式以及对债务人立场的描述，存在严重问题。债务人并未要求Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）或任何其他人扣留文件。债务人并未坚持要求Brown Rudnick逐份审阅文件。正如我上次在上次案情状态会议上所述，债务人表示保留其权利。Brown Rudnick知道其持有哪些文件以及未持有哪些文件。在其基于专业判断持有不属于债务人可依本命令扣留的信息的范围内，我们并未要求Brown Rudnick扣留该等信息，或审阅每一份文件。其熟悉自己的案卷。当Brown Rudnick表示不安——如无更妥当说法——时，债务人所做的是提出建议；债务人并未请求、并未要求，而且坦率地说并不希望如此，但为解决受托人与Brown Rudnick之间似乎存在的僵局，债务人将会这样做。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件966 于10/13/22提交 于10/13/22 21:00:06录入 第47页，共108页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件966 于10/13/22提交 于10/13/22 21:00:06录入 第48页，共108页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日\n1　为使其能够安心遵守本命令，我们提出审阅\n2　文件并作出该项判断。\n3　我们需要合理的时间来完成此事。而\n4　何为合理时间，取决于提交给债务人以作出该项\n5　判断的文件数量；我们尚未见到这些文件。我不知道是\n6　500页文件，还是甚至2,000页。若我们调配资源来处理，\n7　可能两天内就能完成。但我们并不知道。\n8　我们一直在进行讨论。\n9　债务人为使Brown Rudnick能够放心地知悉\n10　某些类别的文件可以提交，愿意\n11　对该等文件加以说明。我们只是无法在未见到\n12　文件的情况下识别这些文件。\n13　例如，任何明显涉及可否免责争议的文件，均会是\n14　其提交可能对债务人造成个人损害的文件。我不知道Brown Rudnick是否——\n15　法院：我以为那已从——我不记得了，我正在努力回忆，\n16　Romney律师，但我以为传票中被排除的是\n17　与债务可否免责有关的一切事项。\n18　我以为我们已经处理过该问题。\n19　ROMNEY先生：我相信——\n20　法院：我错了吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件966 于10/13/22提交 于10/13/22 21:00:06录入 第49页，共108页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日 49 ROMNEY先生：我相信，我们通过允许债务人就该等文件主张特权的方式处理了该问题。当我说债务人时，我相信这必然包括持有文件的代理律师。法院：好的。我明白你的意思。我记得的情况是，关于传票，受托人寻求的是一类——几类信息，涉及破产财产的资产、破产财产的管理，以及破产申请前——后的讨论。因此，我可能混淆了某些事情，但我的想法是，我认为没有人正在寻求与债务可否免责有关的事项。也许我错了。ROMNEY先生：法官阁下，他们所寻求的是——BASSETT先生：法官阁下——抱歉，我无意打断。ROMNEY先生：他们所——法院：我会让Romney律师先讲完，Bassett律师，然后我会听取你的陈述。请继续。ROMNEY先生：据我们了解，他们所寻求的是Brown Rudnick的全部案卷。这就是我们的观点，法官阁下，那过于宽泛。我们理解。我们并不羡慕任何处于此种境地的人。将需要有人至少审阅部分文件，并判断其是否属于会导致个人损害的此类文件类别。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件966 于10/13/22提交 于10/13/22 21:00:06录入 第50页，共108页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日 50 我们了解到，Brown Rudnick对作出该项判断感到不安。债务人当然要求Brown Rudnick作出该项判断。债务人并未要求Brown Rudnick扣留其判断不属于可被扣留类别的任何文件。当我们明确得知Brown Rudnick不愿作出该项判断时，我们为便利起见提出，由债务人及代表债务人的本所尽可能迅速地为各方进行审阅。我还要说，尽管有人一再指称债务人意图拖延程序，我们已对一项又一项加快审理动议作出回应，并且在许多情况下，尤其是最近，已将此事解决。我们是本着诚意行事。我们并非试图拖延此事。如果各方和/或法院认定，处理该问题最迅速且最公平的方式是由债务人及其代理律师Zeisler & Zeisler作出该项判断，我们将会这样做，正如我们自介入本案以来对所有事项所做的一样；这并非暗示在我们介入本案之前债务人的代理律师未能迅速行事。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件966 于10/13/22提交 于10/13/22 21:00:06录入 第51页，共108页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日\n1　但我们将迅速审阅该等\n2　文件。我们会将其交给受托人。\n3　而且，我的看法是，这多少带有推测性，\n4　因为我尚未见到这些文件，但我的看法是，\n5　受托人将获得Brown Rudnick所持有文件中的绝大多数。\n6　\n7　我认为Brown Rudnick可以安心地提交\n8　若干此类文件，甚至无需将其发送给我们。\n9　我们并未要求他们发送任何特定文件。\n10　\n11　如果其审阅一份文件，而该文件提及\n12　资产、清单或诸如此类事项，我相信\n13　法官阁下我们同意的命令已很明确。我们并未扣留——我们并未指示Brown Rudnick\n14　扣留任何特定文件。\n15　\n16　我们正在识别我们认为自己有权——即债务人有权\n17　扣留的文件类别，并且我们愿意尽我们所能提供协助，\n18　以消除受托人、Brown Rudnick和任何其他人之间\n19　就该问题产生的争议，并以尽可能迅速和高效的方式完成此事，\n20　且绝对必要地尽量少占用本法院的时间。\n21　\n22　法院：律师——\n23　BASSETT先生：法官阁下，我可以陈述意见吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文件966 于10/13/22提交 于10/13/22 21:00:06录入 第52页，共108页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日 52 法院：请稍等一下。请继续，Bassett律师。之后Baldiga律师也希望陈述意见。请继续。BASSETT先生：当然。再次说明，我是代表受托人的Paul Hastings（保罗·哈斯廷斯）的Nick Bassett，法官阁下。我并不完全确定。听起来Romney律师显然是在就实体问题进行辩论。我认为我们尚未确定今天是否审理该动议的实体问题，但我确实想回应他的一些意见。首先，法官阁下，我们已为此努力数周。我们一直试图尽一切可能，仅仅从Brown Rudnick取得文件。我要说，Brown Rudnick一直与受托人极为合作，并且我认为已尽其所能向我们提供我们传唤的文件。问题在于，债务人一直未允许此事发生，至少不是以任何稍具迅速性的方式发生。他最初的立场是，Brown Rudnick应审阅所有这些文件并主张特权，而不希望债务人及其代理律师亲自审阅这些文件。该立场现已发生变化。我不想详述各方在协商会议中谁说了什么的来回经过。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件966 于10/13/22提交 于10/13/22 21:00:06录入 第53页，共108页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日 53 只需说，我们现已到了提交该动议的阶段，并且我们在加急通知下提交了该动议，因为我们需要法院介入。我们未能在任何合理的时限内取得这些文件，我们需要法院帮助我们做到这一点。我要说明几点，以澄清我们为何寻求该项救济以及我们为何有权获得该救济。首先，法官阁下，在9月14日录入的（听不清）动议中，同样，该动议见ECF 856，其载有一项推定，即Brown Rudnick案卷中的所有这些文件——这是第6段——与该等文件相关的特权已转移给受托人。唯一极为有限的例外规定于第7段，即若债务人能够证明披露文件将对其造成个人损害，他可以遵循程序将该等文件列入清单。值得注意的是，并且这在协商该命令期间曾被提出，我记得曾就此与法官阁下进行交流，命令中特别规定了一段期限，在该期限内——依该期限——债务人必须将其拟以特权为由扣留的任何文件列入清单，因为该等文件会造成个人损害。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日 54 其规定，并且这载于第7段，债务人的代理律师应在适用提交截止日期后十日内，将文件列入清单。根据对Brown Rudnick的传票，提交截止日期是9月16日。自该日起十日是9月26日。债务人并未向本法院请求更多时间来提交清单。他有机会这样做。他没有这样做。根据法院命令，他不再有该机会。尽管如此，为尽可能合理地在无需法院介入的情况下解决该问题，并使所有当事方合理且合作地行事，我们告诉债务人，如果你担心可能会提交一份会造成个人损害、且你认为可能在特权命令狭窄范围内享有特权的文件，我们将明确说明你可以依据规则26行使你的撤回权。我们已将此写入我们提交的拟议命令。其概念非常简单，即为确保我们取得文件（听不清），Brown Rudnick可以提交这些文件，债务人不会受到不利影响，因为如果其看到已提交的文件而认为该等文件会造成个人损害，他可以行使其撤回权。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022 55\n\n返还权利，且他不会受到不利影响，因为受托人无法与其他当事人共享其收到的受特权保护的文件。这一点根据特权命令是明确的。遗憾的是，债务人拒绝了该提议。我们目前陷入了现状。我们处于僵局，需要法院介入。我们需要法院介入，并尽快协助我们。再次说明，这就是我们最初希望今天审理该动议的原因，但我们也乐于在周五审理。\n\n法官：谢谢您，Bassett先生（巴塞特先生）。Baldiga先生？\n\nBaldiga先生：再次感谢。William Baldiga（威廉·巴尔迪加）代表Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）和Verdolino & Lowey（韦尔多利诺与洛伊律师事务所）。我认为所有这些论点同样适用于两家律所。首先，关于排期问题，法官阁下，我明天上午将出发休假一周，因此周五——我认为实际情况已表明，我确实希望在辩论该事项时在场。我认为无论如何，我们实际上已经处于辩论过程之中，因此我准备参与辩论，最重要的是回答法院可能提出的任何问题。但我想举一个例子，并非泄露任何不应公开的事情，因为相关事实已经通过此前提交的文件作为证据，说明了我们正在处理的这类事项。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 55 页，共 108 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 56 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022 56\n\n我们非常尊重这样一个事实：自我们工作的第一天起，就一直存在可能涉及债务人人身伤害的问题。如许多诉状所述，本案的提起是为了避免债务人被监禁。债务人已作证称，如果被监禁，他相信自己会被杀害。因此，例如，我们的大量工作涉及PAX的驳回动议、指定受托人的动议、解除自动中止的请求等等。如果批准解除自动中止，我认为许多当事人的设想是债务人可能会被监禁，而债务人认为自己会因此被杀害。我认为被杀害或面临被杀害的重大风险属于第7节范围。话虽如此，在我们数英尺高的文件中，哪些内容会属于第7段的范围？我们不知道其中任何内容是否会被视为属于该范围，这也是有充分理由的。如果第7段的表述是要求Brown Rudnick或Verdolino & Lowey对此作出合理猜测，我们将会立即提出异议。我们今天无法猜测债务人认为何种情况会导致其善意判断受到该句影响，这就是为什么我们绝对尊重并同意该命令是经各方同意起草并由法院如此作出的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 57 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022 57\n\n这是债务人的信念。我不能——而且在Brown Rudnick，没有人比我更接近此事——我没有能力审阅我们的文件，并以我的信念替代债务人的信念。我们与债务人本人已超过三个月没有联系。我不会知道债务人目前对任何事情持有什么信念。因此，我没有能力以替代我们自身判断的方式执行该命令，尤其是就这里反映出的、债务人人身安全这样至关重要的问题而言。这样做不仅会使我们律所面临风险，而且——这不仅仅是风险问题，而是按照命令的规定行事。因此，如果法院让我回去，尽力而为，决定什么会使债务人遭受人身伤害、不会遭受人身伤害，或者面临人身伤害风险，我根本不知道从何着手。我认为这就是——因此，我们与受托人之间没有争议。我们与债务人之间没有争议。他们显然彼此之间存在争议。我想说的是，我们的文件基本已准备就绪。我们仍在检索一些检索词并与受托人一起加以完善等等，但除极少数内部管理文件外，这将是我们的全部文件。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 58 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022 58\n\nVerdolino & Lowey的文件已全部准备就绪。他们的工作几乎完全与编制清单和财务状况说明有关，而这些材料确实对受托人请求的范围具有很高的回应性。因此，我们乐于——“乐于”不是恰当的词。我们准备按照法院指示去做任何事情，但我们并不准备以我们自己的判断取代该命令目前所规定的内容，因为我们认为那样行不通；如果我们错误猜测什么会导致人身伤害，可能会给债务人带来风险；如果我们猜测得过多，会给破产财产带来风险；如果有人批评我们，也会给律所带来风险——您知道，我们有义务向我们的前委托人履行职责，并执行法院的命令，因此需要有人指示我们应当怎么做。据我了解，这一点已一再向法院辩论，而且我知道您已花费大量时间形成该命令。我不介意回来参加另一次听证会，但最早也要到从明天起一周后才能参加。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。\n\nBaldiga先生：法院对于我所说的任何内容有问题吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 59 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022\n\n法官：嗯，我想——是的，实际上我有。我想确认我理解了您刚才所说的话，即您希望法院作出命令，指示应向受托人移交哪些内容，因为您担心，如果没有此类命令而您移交某些内容，您可能会以自己的判断取代债务人对于其是否会遭受人身伤害的判断？\n\nBaldiga先生：是的。这是我们担忧的问题之一。因为这不是一宗普通案件。从许多方面来看，自第一天起就不是。但是，人身伤害风险始终是我们大量工作的核心。当债务人来到这里并称，他所恐惧的是被监禁和死亡，而这推动了本案的大部分进程时，我们必须认真对待。因此，第7段的第一句话必须具有某种含义。它可能涵盖我们大量文件，也可能完全不涵盖我们的任何文件。我们不知道，其中一个原因是我们不知道债务人今天善意地相信什么。\n\n法官：好的。\n\nBaldiga先生：这正是各方选择使用的措辞。\n\n法官：我理解。我确实理解这一点。而且，这是我们就该命令举行听证会时讨论过的议题。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022 60\n\n法官：所以我确实知道这一点。我知道——这并不意味着我们所有人都同意它的含义，但我理解。\n\nBaldiga先生：但不应由我来作出这种判断。\n\n法官：我理解。我理解您的立场。\n\nBaldiga先生：此时还有其他问题吗，法官阁下？\n\n法官：没有。但我感谢您。谢谢。\n\nBaldiga先生：谢谢。\n\n法官：Bassett律师？\n\nBassett律师：是，法官阁下。我很抱歉。Nick Bassett（尼克·巴塞特）代表Paul Hastings（保罗·黑斯廷斯律师事务所）。我只是想澄清一下，如果我有误，Baldiga先生可以纠正我，但我认为Brown Rudnick会支持作出我们附在动议中的拟议命令。所以，再次说明，如果我有误，Baldiga先生可以纠正我，但我认为如果作出该命令，将会解决他特别提出的担忧。\n\n法官：他会走到前面来，告诉您他是否同意您刚才所说的内容。\n\nBaldiga先生：是的，法官阁下。我已与Bassett先生讨论过一些非常细微的措辞修改，即增加一个短语。并且将“获授权”改为“被授权并受指示”。但是——基本上，是的，我们满意——嗯，我们不反对法院以一些非常细微的措辞修改作出拟议命令。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 60 页，共 108 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 61 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022 61\n\n法官：好的。好。谢谢。我感谢这一点。\n\nBaldiga先生：谢谢。\n\n法官：好的。Bassett律师，所以您听到Baldiga律师所说的话了，对吗？\n\nBassett律师：我听到了，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法官：所以，如果该命令获得作出，他希望对该命令进行一些细微的文字修改。我今天并不就此作出裁决。请记住，我今天所要裁决的只是是否进行加速听证——我们将进行加速听证。好吗？我确实看到了加速听证的请求，但我也看到了已提交的异议。因此，鉴于我们有若干尚未解决的问题，而这只是其中之一，我想今天听取每个人的意见。因此，关于加速举行听证会的动议，Romney律师，您刚才表示您希望能够查看文件，并且您需要时间。但是，无论如何，当我们就该动议安排听证会时，您将有机会提交异议。从您的角度来看，我认为问题在于，您可能没有您希望拥有的那么多时间。从法院的角度来看，问题在于，2004传票问题已经被多次处理，并且同意已有经各方同意作出的命令，但总要有一个时点，我们必须以某种方式继续推进，您知道，无论是否——我不知道法院会如何裁决。如果我必须作出裁决，总会有人不喜欢它。谁又知道届时会发生什么。但是，关于加速听证，已有论点指出，已有大量时间未发生遵从，目前已经是October 4th，而我们仍然——我们甚至尚未就该问题安排听证会——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 62 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022 62\n\nRomney律师：法官阁下，我可以就拖延问题陈述意见吗？\n\n法官：我不——当我说——我使用了“拖延”一词吗？我使用了“拖延”这个词吗？我认为我说的是尚未遵从。\n\nRomney律师：法官阁下，我可以就时间经过问题陈述意见吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 63 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— October 4, 2022 63\n\n法官：当然。\n\nRomney律师：法官阁下，我认为大家都同意并已指出，特权命令于September 14th作出；在September 21st，也就是七天后，我与Paul Hastings的几个人以及Linsey律师进行了长时间通话。我还分别与Brown Rudnick的Baldiga律师和Axelrod律师进行了广泛而深入的通话。七天后，我们表示，为打破这一僵局，我们将审阅这些文件。我不认为，在复杂诉讼以及本案任何时候同时进行的问题数量这一背景下，七天可以被公平地说成与不当拖延有任何接近之处。七天。抱歉。次日，在我理解Paul Hastings不愿允许我们进行该审阅并推进此事之后，Baldiga律师给我发了一封电子邮件。我对他说，我们一直在努力协助。我们正试图打破这里的僵局。但是我们尚未达成协议。我们只有在受托人同意的情况下才能审阅这些文件。因此，请尽您最大能力遵从传票。这恰恰与我们被指控所做的事情相反。我们是在说：请遵从。尽您最大能力。你们有你们的职业道德规则。你们有联邦规则项下的义务。请遵从。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022 64 查阅文件，就像我们能够做的那样。我们并未要求你们隐瞒任何内容。我们并不是说你们必须审查所有文件。而且这是一封电子邮件，因此不会变成他说、他说的争议，因为相关内容已经被说出来了。对于我所持立场的那些说法是虚假的。这就是事实。Baldiga 律师当晚回复了我。我记得非常清楚，因为当时我因感染 COVID 居家，在沙发上处理另一件事务，而 Baldiga 律师在一封电子邮件中对我说，我认为我们应当做的是，先开始排除我们能够排除的类别。其余所有文件都交给 Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所），然后我们按持续方式逐步提供。我问 Paul Hastings（宝盛律师事务所）是否同意这样做？他说，我相信是的。因此，这似乎与我前一天同 Paul Hastings 讨论的内容不一致。于是第二天，我给 Lindsey 律师打电话，说我曾与你、Bassett 律师和 Lutz 律师进行这次谈话，之后又收到 Baldiga 律师的这封电子邮件，它们似乎不一致，所以你能否回复我我们应当如何处理。其后从未回复我。现在我们就在这里。我的唯一观点，法官阁下，是我们可以——法官阁下显然可以安排一次加急听证，然后我们又可以回到这里，就案件实体问题继续争执，或者可以给我们合理的时间来完成此事，我们可以把时间花在向受托人提供文件上，而不是争论谁说了什么、谁没有说什么、谁在拖延、谁没有拖延，并且我们可以做自己的工作，而不是争论我们是如何走到这一步的。因为事实就是如此。这是我谦卑的建议，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 64 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 65 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022\n\n法 院：那么，让我问问你关于该建议的事。你刚才说，以便你们能够做你们需要做的事。你们需要做的是什么？\n\nROMNEY 先生（罗姆尼）：嗯，任何 Brown Rudnick（布朗·鲁德尼克律师事务所）认为其无法向受托人提供的文件，意即存在有合理依据表明可能会对债务人造成损害的文件。我相信，这正是 ABA 正式意见第 473 号就已被送达传票的现任律师和前任律师所说的内容，即，如果存在表面成立的依据，就应将其列入清单并主张特权。如果不存在，就提供该文件。这大致就是它所说的内容。\n\n我们不认为 Brown Rudnick 需要审查每一份文件，因为我认为会有绝大多数文件，或者大量文件，可以直接予以排除。比如，关于应当何时在法院见面的电子邮件，所有这些都可以筛除。我不知道。可以通过电子搜索词对这些事项进行分类。显然，与第三方之间的电子邮件不受特权保护。它们可以被提供。我并不是在告诉 Brown Rudnick——并非我预计他们会听我的话——但当然，我们以及债务人并未指示他们隐瞒任何文件或不隐瞒任何文件。他们是一家成熟的律师事务所。如果他们对提供某些文件感到不妥，我们将审查该文件，并将迅速处理。这将解决这个问题。这将使本法院在本案中需要处理的问题少一个。我们会迅速完成此事。而且，如果——任何人都可以自由地到法院来，说 Zeisler & Zeisler 已经持有这些文件达[填入时间]，他们没有按照 Romney 先生于 October 4th 所说的那样做。并根据我请求您作出的、给予我们合理时间的命令，对任何人作出藐视法庭的认定，但这似乎能够兼顾各方利益，并取得公平的结果。因为否则，我不知道，这只会造成混乱。我们谈论的是律师—当事人特权，并且我们谈论的是有关文件的律师—当事人特权，而 Baldiga 律师刚刚确认，其中一些文件涉及可根据该命令第 7 段予以隐瞒的问题；是的，债务人已就此作出约定，但受托人也作出了约定。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 67 对一方有利的，对另一方也应当有利。我们现在已有一项命令。它——\n\n法 院：让我先打断你一下。我不认为 Baldiga 律师确认了存在债务人可以主张个人损害的文件。我认为 Baldiga 律师所说的是，他不会以自己的判断取代债务人的判断。我认为——这一区别确实具有影响。因此，我只是想为记录澄清这一点。Baldiga 律师在我这样说时也点了头。因此，我想——我所做的一切，Romney 律师，因为本案存在很多很多问题，就是尽可能明确。好吗？所以，我不——Baldiga 律师没有这样说。好吗？他说，他和该律师事务所，或 Verdolino & Lowey（韦尔多利诺与洛伊律师事务所），不会以其判断取代债务人可能作出的主张。\n\nROMNEY 先生：可以，法官阁下。确有一些文件——有人可以善意地主张，这些文件涉及对债务人的个人损害。我认为 ABA 正式意见第 473 号所说的是，如果存在表面成立的争议，则可以主张特权，应当主张特权，然后可将这些文件列入清单，并且我们可以依照我认为该约定命令所规定的方式，将这些文件提交法院进行不公开审查——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 67 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 68\n\n法 院：那么，是什么阻止 Baldiga 先生或 Verdolino & Lowey 现在就将这些文件交给受托人？\n\nROMNEY 先生：完全没有——\n\n法 院：好的。\n\nROMNEY 先生：——如果那是他们——\n\n法 院：那么，但是——那为什么——你为什么需要审查它们？我并不是——我确实是在试图理解这到底是怎么回事——\n\nROMNEY 先生：我——\n\n法 院：我并未就任何事项作出裁定。我们甚至尚未安排加急听证。我只是试图理解你所提出的观点。\n\nROMNEY 先生：可以，法官阁下。我所提出的观点是，我们并未说我们需要审查文件。我希望对此非常明确。我们所说的是，我们——债务人已经表示并要求 Brown Rudnick 就哪些文件应当提供、哪些文件不应当提供作出决定。我的理解是，Brown Rudnick 对此并不感到适宜。我说这话并不带有任何一方或另一方的判断。也就是说，他们不会这样做。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 68 of 108\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 69 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 69\n\n因此，由于我们当时处于 Brown Rudnick 未提供文件的情形，而且就解决 Brown Rudnick 未提供文件的问题而言，我们似乎没有取得任何进展，并且债务人不愿意说“我放弃就所有这些文件主张特权的权利”，所以我们才提出介入并审查文件。债务人随后会说，这里不存在主张——特权主张。这些文件可以交出。这些文件我们列入清单。我们提出这样做。如果 Brown Rudnick 愿意回复这——或者如果 Brown Rudnick 将回复该传票，这就是我们在 September 21st 的一封电子邮件中要求其做的事。\n\n法 院：好的。那么我们先稍作停顿。Brown Rudnick 通过 Baldiga 先生表示，他将受受托人请求作出的命令约束，但对措辞作出一些小的修改。现在你们——我们现在已在本次听证开始时花了非常——我认为你们所有人都努力拟定了一项保护令，对吗？这全都与此有关。那么，将文件交给受托人，然后你们根据该保护令和特权命令主张任何你们希望主张、任何你们认为可以主张的事项，会有什么问题？\n\nROMNEY 先生：问题在于，我们已经协商了一项约定命令，该命令规定了一项程序，据此，大多数享有特权的文件应交给受托人，但有一些文件应当予以隐瞒。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 70 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022\n\n法 院：在哪里——我不认为它完全是这样说的。我理解它是说，你们可以关切是否有善意——有善意的依据相信存在个人损害。我想我们必须把它调出来。你知道，这就是问题之一。当我们谈论——我们现在有多少项命令？相当多。\n\nROMNEY 先生：是案卷第 856 号，法官阁下。\n\n法 院：856。让我们调出 856。这可能需要一点时间，但让我们把它调出来看看。因为我以为它说的是——嗯，我不打算说任何话。让我们把它调出来并阅读。好吗？\n\n（暂停）\n\n法 院：那么，Romney 律师，等我们把它调出来后，是哪一段？\n\nROMNEY 先生：我相信第 4 段和第 7 段最为适用。\n\n法 院：好的。那么，请在可以时向下滚动至第 4 至第 7 段。我们先在第 2 段停一下。那么，Romney 律师，你先前论及可能涉及债务不可豁免性问题的文件。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 966 Filed 10/13/22 Entered 10/13/22 21:00:06 Page 71 of 108\n\nHo Wan Kwok - October 4, 2022 71\n\nROMNEY 先生：正确。\n\n法 院：我对第 2 段的理解是，并未请求任何该等文件，因为受托人对债务人律师根据任何适用法律原本可能主张的任何律师—当事人特权、工作成果原则，包括涉及以下事项的共同利益或共同辩护特权，享有排他性控制权：第一，资产，对吗？第二，请翻到下一页，第 3 页顶部，债务人的财务状况。第三，与破产财团管理有关的活动。因此，我的理解是，而且我以为我们曾相当广泛地讨论过此事，但我可能错了，我的理解是，这与不可豁免性问题毫无关系，因为，如 Henzy 先生所辩称的，我相信，而且如果我错了你当然可以纠正我，受托人并不会在不可豁免性诉讼中取代 Kwok 先生的地位。因此，受托人通过该命令同意将其排除在外，不在另一天再争论该问题，倘若该问题甚至会被争论，对吗？因此，就涉及不可豁免性的文件问题而言，受托人并未寻求该等文件。没有任何——没有任何传票寻求该等文件。因此，如果传票中的文件请求没有看到任何与\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年10月4日 72 关于可能涉及债务不可免责的文件出示，则无需出示该等文件。罗姆尼先生：但是，法官阁下，我不认为这准确陈述了受托人向 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）所寻求的内容。我认为他们寻求其档案中的任何文件，不论其主题事项为何。这正是我们的全部观点，法官阁下。这就是为何需要有人确定哪些文件属于应根据本命令出示的类别。法官：但这在哪里写着？并没有这么写。并没有说需要有人确定。巴西特先生：法官阁下。法官阁下，如果我——法官：所以你认为第4、5和6段是这么说的吗？你还想继续谈这个吗？等一下。那是巴西特律师吗？罗姆尼先生：怎么——巴西特先生：法官阁下——罗姆尼先生：抱歉，我道歉。巴西特先生：我同意法官阁下的意见。它并没有这么说。事实上，我只是想再次强调，正如我在开头所做的那样，本命令第7段，如果您——\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 于 10/13/22 提交 于 10/13/22 21:00:06 录入 第 72 页，共 108 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 于 10/13/22 提交 于 10/13/22 21:00:06 录入 第 73 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年10月4日 73 向下滚动——法官：好的。巴西特先生：——再清楚不过。尽管第6段规定了这样一项推定，即 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）及其财务顾问档案中、作为本动议标的的所有破产申请后文件，其特权均转由受托人承继，但债务人仍有一项非常有限的权利，即在其认为向受托人披露文件可能导致其遭受个人损害的范围内主张特权。如果他善意地相信将发生此类个人损害，第7段规定，债务人的律师，即 Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所），应在此处适用的出示期限后十日内——正如我提到的，他们于8月17日送达传票，出示期限为9月16日，9月16日后十日即为9月26日——债务人的律师可以将该等文件列入特权清单。他们没有这样做。他们也没有向本法院寻求免除该期限的救济。再者，这十日期限是作为本协议的一部分专门协商确定的。我们与法院及罗姆尼先生进行了讨论，谈及此事；我记得法院说过，我们将确保这是一个\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年10月4日 74 短期限，以免延误本调查。债务人目前似乎要求的是，我们重写本命令，给予他们所谓“完成特权清单所需的不确定的合理期限”。这是受托人不会同意的。我们认为这完全不适当。这会使该十日期限失去任何效力。因此，我认为仅此一点就足以表明该救济具有紧迫性。该十日期限于上周届满。我们本应已经收到任何清单。我们尚未收到。如果我们现在让本动议按照常规通知程序推进，坦率地说，我们将使该十日期限沦为笑柄。法官阁下，我还要说的是，我仍未听到对此作出回应：我们已提议允许债务人就这些文件主张追回权，以解决任何可能对债务人造成不利影响的问题。因此，罗姆尼先生担心所出示的文件——我们不知道，可能涉及不可免责性，其中可能存在个人损害——他们将有机会在事后就已出示的文件主张特权，然后我们可以在彼时处理任何特权问题。因此，\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 于 10/13/22 提交 于 10/13/22 21:00:06 录入 第 74 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年10月4日 75 将不会造成任何损害。不会造成任何不利影响。而且此处确有真正的紧迫性。我们只是请求执行这项为特定目的而经我们煞费苦心协商达成的命令，以避免长期、拖延的争斗。法官：好的。谢谢。罗姆尼律师？罗姆尼先生：法官阁下，将该命令解读为要求债务人的律师——它没有说 Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所），而是说债务人的律师——制作特权清单，是荒谬的；该命令不可能要求除收到传票、且是或曾是债务人律师并持有相关文件之人以外的任何人制作特权清单。除 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）之外，Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所）以及宇宙中的任何其他人，都不可能在十日内或任何期限内制作其未持有文件的特权清单。这是对该命令的荒谬解读。并且，暗示我们会同意债务人在本破产案中的现任律师，即 Zeisler & Zeisler（蔡斯勒与蔡斯勒律师事务所），将在传票履行日期后十日内，就由我们以外当事人保管的文件制作特权清单，是不可能的。就一个人并不拥有保管权或控制权的文件制作特权清单，在事实上是不可能的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 于 10/13/22 提交 于 10/13/22 21:00:06 录入 第 75 页，共 108 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 于 10/13/22 提交 于 10/13/22 21:00:06 录入 第 76 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年10月4日 76 而且，关于协商该命令的数次听证会记录清楚表明，当时所设想的是，收到这些传票的专业人士将把该命令适用于其拥有及控制的文件。这是对受托人担忧的一项回应，即债务人会拥有某种全权酌处权，可以随意扣留文件。记录中非常明确地说明——这清楚证明了我们的意图——不是，这是为了向收到传票的二十多家专业机构提供指引，因为关于在个人债务人案件中如何处理该问题，存在相互冲突的权威依据。我们没有拖延将我们并未持有的文件列入清单。关于受托人的提议，他们所说的只是，他们受《联邦民事诉讼规则》约束。这不是一个提议。这不是和解要约。事实就是如此。他们受《联邦民事诉讼规则》约束，如同受本法院管辖的每一位个人和专业人士一样。他们的提议就是，把我们想要的一切都交给我们。如果你想在以后提出问题，你可以根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第26条主张你的权利。我看不出这如何构成任何形式的善意妥协。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年10月4日 77 法官：你已经根据联邦规则主张过你的权利——罗姆尼先生：《联邦民事诉讼规则》第26条中的追回条款。法官：不，但你已经这样做了。这导致了本命令。你对就特权及 Rule 2004 传票提出的动议提出了异议。你的当事人已经对本命令提出异议。这是——这是在提出该异议后达成的协议。罗姆尼先生：而且——法官：而且你并不——我不认为本命令——好吧，我不会再说什么了。你确实已经提出异议。你提出了。而这就是导致本命令的原因。罗姆尼先生：我们所说的是适用本命令——法官：好的。罗姆尼先生：——于这些事实——法官：那么——罗姆尼先生：——那么就不需要另一项命令。法官：那么，根据巴西特律师的说法，如果你适用本命令，那么它规定——请记住，这受受托人特权的涵盖，这是一个定义术语，并且\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 于 10/13/22 提交 于 10/13/22 21:00:06 录入 第 77 页，共 108 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 于 10/13/22 提交 于 10/13/22 21:00:06 录入 第 78 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年10月4日 78 涉及调查事项，这也是一个定义术语，与不可免责性毫无关系，毫无关系，因为那不是一个定义——那不是一项调查事项。罗姆尼先生：本命令不是传票，法官阁下。法官：等一下。等一下，罗姆尼律师。它可能不是传票，但它适用于传票。这就是我们举行听证会的原因。这就是全部内容。你进来反对传票。你说它们都范围过宽且过度——我的意思是，可以理解，你有权这样做。这没有问题。但这是该项争论导致的命令。这就是该命令。它规定，在适用的出示期限后十日内，但有权善意地向法院提出动议以寻求合理延长期限者除外——而这种情况尚未发生——应按照地方法院 Local District Court Rule 26 的要求，将所有该等文件列入清单，及/或识别支持特权主张所必需的所有该等文件信息，包括提供足以初步证明主张可能造成个人损害之依据的信息。因此，我的问题是，那么问题在哪里？我正试图理解这一点。因此，如果 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）和 Verdolino & Lowey（韦尔多利诺与洛伊律师事务所）以及其他所有收到传票的人，交出回应那些事项即调查事项的信息——这是双方同意的一项专门术语——那么问题在哪里？你仍然可以主张其中一部分可能导致个人损害。我正试图读出准确的文字——在债务人善意地相信受调查事项中所涉特权涵盖的特定文件可能导致债务人遭受个人损害的范围内。你仍然可以这样做。受托人已经说过他不会将它们展示给其他所有人。那不是你所说的吗，德斯平斯先生？那不是协议吗？德斯平斯先生：是。法官：协议是你们不会将这些交给其他人？德斯平斯先生：是。而且我们——我们没有——法官：这只是你们的调查？德斯平斯先生：根据该命令，我们无权放弃特权。法官：你们只是——这只是他的调查。他并未分享这些——当——这些\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 于 10/13/22 提交 于 10/13/22 21:00:06 录入 第 79 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年10月4日 80 文件不会被作为证据提交。不会就其作证。它们不会——目前还没有任何事情。这是为了让他开始调查，而由于某种原因，他一直无法开始调查。我并不是——让我们只是——让我们陈述一个事实。根据已提交给本法院的文件，且我没有看到任何相反内容，受托人尚未收到对传票的履行。因此，9月14日作出本命令，以处理这些问题，并处理特权问题和调查事项。随后今天举行了关于保护令的听证会。你们都通过了，而且你们有一项保护令，其中就具体信息规定了一项机制；在目前，该等信息只会与受托人及委员会律师分享，然后与任何签署声明的人分享。因此，再次强调，这一切都是为了保护，对吗？这全都是为了保护你当事人的权利，而这正是我们努力要做的。我们努力保护你当事人的权利。但也会到必须出示文件的时候。而根据9月作出的命令，该等出示——本应已经完成\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 于 10/13/22 提交 于 10/13/22 21:00:06 录入 第 80 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2022年10月4日 81\n\n案件 22-50073 文档 966 于 10/13/22 提交 于 10/13/22 21:00:06 录入 第 81 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022\n\nROMNEY 律师：法官大人，本命令设想了一个程序，用以决定本应回应传票的文件是否应予提交。是的，在履行日期后十日内，没有人提交特权清单。但我的观点是，法官大人，债务人不可能做到这一点，因为债务人并不控制这些文件。这些文件不在债务人的控制之下。而且，是的，我们预期本命令，即文件 856，将适用于送达给 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）及其他所有专业人士的传票。我所理解的是，Brown Rudnick 对此感到不安、无力或不愿意——我不想替他们说话——\n\n法庭：我认为 Baldiga 律师已经说得很清楚。他不会被置于这样一种境地：就债务人善意认为哪些受受托人特权保护并涉及调查议题的特定文件或信息可能会对债务人造成个人伤害，而以其判断取代 Brown Rudnick 对债务人的判断。我认为他没有说别的。这就是他说的。\n\nDESPINS 律师：法官大人，这很简单。债务人已至少就专业失职起诉了四家律师事务所。他们想得到法庭的庇护。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交 10/13/22 录入 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 82 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\nDESPINS 律师：这就是全部原因。\n\n法庭：但我明白这一点。不幸的是，我确实明白。\n\n因此，Romney 律师，我听到了你的说法，但目前，首先，我不会就任何事项作出裁定。我只是要安排一次听证。无论是在本次听证结束前立即安排，还是在我回去再次查看文件后安排，但将就该动议，即基础动议，安排一次听证。明白吗？\n\n我们现在已有——我们现在已有三项命令：治理命令、特权和调查议题命令，以及，根据今天已在记录中作出的各方陈述，将会有一项保护令。该保护令规范本案当事人的保护措施。否则，我们不会就这些问题进行审判。\n\n本案中任命受托人的目的之一，是调查债务人的事务。该裁定中已清楚说明，而该裁定未被你的当事人上诉。我知道你当时不是律师。我并不是说你是。但该裁定没有被上诉。Kwok 先生并未就任命第 11 章受托人提出上诉，因此现有一名第 11 章受托人。\n\nROMNEY 律师：是的。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交 10/13/22 录入 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 83 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022\n\n法庭：而他需要履行《破产法》规定的调查职责。他正试图这样做。你可能不同意。而且，关于该命令的内容，我理解这一点，但我尚未看到任何提交到我面前的相反材料，足以说服我不应将所有这些文件提交给受托人。我们将就此举行听证，对吗？事情就是这样。这是一项强制执行动议，对吗？所以我们将举行听证。你将进行辩论，知道吗——而且我并非——你有权主张你认为适当的事项。我并非提出任何相反意见。但关键是，传票是在 8 月送达的；顺便说一句，在此之前——我并不是说任何人必须做什么，因为根据我们的地方法规则，他们没有这种义务——各方在传票实际送达之前，已经知悉传票所要求的内容，因为这正是我们在 2004 审查中的程序运作方式。传票附在动议之后，即传票格式。因此，收到动议的每个人都收到了传票。现在，那还不是一份可执行的传票，因为它尚未送达，但每个人都已知悉——每个被送达者都已知悉——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交 10/13/22 录入 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 84 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022\n\n在传票向其送达时，传票中将包含什么内容，无论当事人可能是谁。明白吗？\n\n然后，我们到了传票送达完成的阶段。\n\n根据 Bassett 律师的说法，情况似乎如此，但我可能记错日期，不过看来所有传票最迟均于 August 14th 送达。根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》，这要求在 September 14th 之前履行。\n\n你代表 Kwok 先生，也可能代表其他人，我不记得了，对传票提出了异议；但你提出了异议，并请求——你说其范围过宽——无论如何，你根据《联邦民事诉讼规则》提出了异议。\n\n之后，你与债务人的律师，我是说受托人的律师，抱歉，以及受托人合作，并提交了这份经同意的命令。我不会——我不会就该经同意命令的含义举行听证。它就是它本身。它说的就是它所说的。\n\n所以，我仍然不明白，在这些命令所提供的一切保护措施之下，现在这将是第三项命令，如果 Brown Rudnick、Verdolino & Lowey（韦尔多利诺及洛伊律师事务所）以及任何其他专业人士，或任何其他作为传票对象的当事人，即三组传票所涉及的主体，如何会使你的当事人受到伤害。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022\n\n法庭：受到伤害。他仍然受到保护。他可以主张任何他想主张的事项。\n\nROMNEY 律师：其中一项保护是，有权就一小类文件主张特权。\n\n法庭：哪一小类？\n\nROMNEY 律师：披露后可能会对债务人造成个人伤害的文件。\n\n法庭：好的。因此，当 Despins 律师、你以及每一位——我并不是只说你，我知道这与许多人共同协商过——所涉议题是调查议题、资产。顺便说一句，你的当事人在提交其财产清单和财务状况说明时已经披露了这些，因此他已将所有这些摆到台面上。对于你的当事人已经披露的资产，不存在任何保密预期或其他类似预期。明白吗？对此有判例法。当你自愿来到法庭并披露所有这些资产时，怎么可能存在此类预期？对吗？其中之一是在伦敦的诉讼。受托人一直试图获取有关该诉讼的信息，但未能成功。明白吗？你的当事人作出了他的决定。该决定会带来后果。其中一个后果是，该信息——而且你已经同意，所有申请破产后信息——\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷速记和转录服务公司）\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交 10/13/22 录入 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 85 页，共 108 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交 10/13/22 录入 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 86 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022\n\n受托人持有该特权。你已经在这项命令中同意了这一点。\n\nROMNEY 律师：我们没有同意，法官大人。\n\n法庭：那——好吧，那我们回到命令的开头。我们回到第 1 段。\n\nROMNEY 律师：第 6 段规定的是由 Brown Rudnick 持有的文件——\n\n法庭：我说的不只是 Brown Rudnick，律师，Romney 先生。我说的是所有人。\n\n那么，请回到 ECF 856 的第 1 段。请向上滚动。谢谢。\n\n（停顿）\n\n法庭：所以，第一行，第一句，其中有很多逗号，但它说，根据受托人以受托人身份提出的动议，请求根据《破产法》的若干条款，包括 521、541 和 1108，以及法庭准许受托人进行审查之动议的命令，作出一项命令，确认受托人拥有并控制律师—当事人特权、工作成果特权及其他特权——我不必全都念出来——但你已经——\n\n请再向下滚动一点。继续。请停在——那里，对。\n\n第 2 段，你已经同意——你同意了这一点。受托人对原本可由债务人律师就我刚才已经提到的事项，即资产、破产财产管理，主张的任何律师—当事人特权或工作成果保护，享有排他性控制权。请翻到下一页，第 3 页。抱歉。债务人的财务状况。与破产财产管理相关的任何活动，包括但不限于编制财产清单以及编制 Kwok 先生的声明。因此，我不明白问题何在。在这些文件中，究竟可能有什么会对你的当事人造成个人伤害，而他在本案中尚未披露？\n\nROMNEY 律师：传唤 Brown Rudnick 的传票所提及、但未在第 2 段列举的文件。这正是我们的观点，法官大人。\n\n法庭：那些是什么文件？\n\nROMNEY 律师：没有人作出这种认定。\n\n法庭：请告诉我它们是什么，Romney 律师。告诉我它们是什么。\n\nROMNEY 律师：我没有 Brown Rudnick 的档案。\n\n法庭：好吧，但你有类别，那么哪一类有异议？\n\nROMNEY 律师：假设性地说，Baldiga 律师在本次听证开始时，或在本次听证中间，无论是什么时候，所提及的文件，即债务人理论上讨论其对入狱的恐惧，以及他将在监狱中被暗杀。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交 10/13/22 录入 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 88 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022\n\n法庭：那不属于——那不包括在调查议题之内——\n\nROMNEY 律师：而谁将——\n\n法庭：——或破产财产管理之内。\n\nROMNEY 律师：这恰恰是我的观点，法官大人。需要有人确定 Brown Rudnick 档案中哪些文件涉及债务人对被暗杀的恐惧，而非涉及破产财产的资产。这就是我们的全部观点。并且我们的观点是，应由 Brown Rudnick 作出判断，因为他们有能力并且能够解释这项命令。\n\n法庭：那么，问题是什么？他们将把它交出来。他们将把它交出来，所以我不明白你的问题。\n\nROMNEY 律师：交出——他们提议交出一切，包括第 2 段中的文件——\n\n法庭：不，他们没有。我认为 Baldiga 律师说，有些东西——我们将从档案中取出。我们几乎准备好了。而且他说 Verdolino & Lowey 已准备好。他并没有说他将交出每一份文件。他并不是这么说的。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- October 4, 2022\n\n法庭：完全不是这样。我说错了吗，Baldiga 律师？你并没有那么说。你说你正在审查档案。你正在取出文件，并取出与律所管理有关的事项，或者其他类似事项，而且你不会交出整个档案。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：感谢您给予澄清的机会。我们只有极少数与律所内部管理有关的文件。在此期间的大部分时间里，我都是该所的首席执行官。因此，有些事项——如果我们——与破产财产管理毫无关系，而是与律所本身有关。例如，Kwok 这个词会出现在我们提供给银行的应收账款清单上。\n\n法庭：当然。是的，那不是——\n\nBALDIGA 律师：好的。排除那些。\n\n法庭：那不是——那不是传票的一部分。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：我认为没有人对——\n\n法庭：是的。\n\nBALDIGA 律师：——那类事项有任何问题，因为我收到很多其他人不会收到的电子邮件。我们并未受聘处理任何——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 90 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月4日 90 可免除性事项，因此该问题不予考虑。法院：那么，你们没有——你们的档案中没有任何与可免除性事项有关的文件？BALDIGA先生（巴尔迪加先生）：好的，我想澄清的是，我们大量的工作与 PAX（PAX公司）有关。我只是以此为例。这是相关的。PAX 曾经——PAX 是债权人，该债权人的程序本会导致 Kwok 先生被监禁，所以——然后——后来提交了——法院：但你们没有 PAX 的任何文件。你们只有自己的文件。BALDIGA先生：不。但我的意思是——因此，除无人关心的律所内部行政管理例外外，我们全部档案以及 Verdolino & Lowey（Verdolino & Lowey律师事务所）的全部档案，均属于调查事项。由于我们没有处理可免除性事项，还有一件事需要澄清。我们是在申请提交前三天受聘的。当然，有一段时间，但非常短。我已要求各方就我们而言同意，鉴于该命令表述为申请提交后/申请提交前，而我们的工作中仅有与案件启动有关的三天申请提交前工作，应予澄清，以便将其全部纳入同一范围。因为这\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 91 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月4日\n\n至少对我们而言，采用两套不同程序毫无意义。Verdolino & Lowey 的工作仅发生于申请提交后。因此，以 PAX 为例，因为我认为这很重要，我们所持有的任何与 PAX 有关的文件，均属于调查事项。PAX 曾以监禁相威胁，且 PAX 后来对债务免除提出异议。因此，这取决于问题如何提出。我们是否处理过可免除性事项？没有。我们是否处理过与 PAX 债权有关的一切事项？是。基于该信息，PAX 后来是否对债务免除提出异议？是。\n\n法院：我认为那不是对债务免除的异议。我认为他们对其债务的可免除性提出了异议，而不是——是的。\n\nBALDIGA先生：是的。抱歉。就其债权而言，是的。\n\n法院：是。好的。没问题。\n\nBALDIGA先生：他们是否曾以监禁相威胁？是。因此，公平而言，我们全部档案均属于本命令第 2 节，即调查事项。我们不知道的是，债务人现时会认为该等档案中的哪些部分应依第 7 节就其对人身损害的当前善意信念作出认定。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 92 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月4日 92 法院：明白。BALDIGA先生：因此，我想就此予以澄清。法院：对。那么，我的问题是，为什么不能将那些文件全部交给受托人，然后由债务人提出其希望提出的任何主张？BALDIGA先生：我们对此没有异议。法院：对。不，不。BALDIGA先生：那不是我们的争议。法院：我明白。我明白。BALDIGA先生：是。法院：好的。我明白你的观点。但我试图询问 ROMNEY 律师（罗姆尼律师）的是，他似乎认为——至少也许是我误解了他，但在我看来，他的意思似乎是，在他审阅这些文件并作出决定之前，他不希望你们将其交给受托人。BALDIGA先生：我不想代 Romney 先生发言。法院：对。但这不正是你所说的吗，Romney 律师？ROMNEY律师：不。法院：好的。那么你在说什么？ROMNEY律师：我所说的是，第 7 段\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 93 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月4日 93 所指的是同时受受托人特权保护、涉及调查事项，并且如向受托人披露可能对债务人造成个人损害的文件。我所说的是，鉴于看来存在一些文件——该等文件受受托人特权保护、属于第 2 段所述调查事项，并且可能对债务人造成个人损害，因此需要有人——法院：怎么会——ROMNEY律师：——不一定非得是 Zeisler & Zeisler（Zeisler & Zeisler律师事务所）——我们要求不应由其进行——但我们可以同意进行。法院：怎么会——Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克律师事务所）就 PAX 的债权所持有的任何东西，该债权全部属于公开记录，他们会持有任何并非已属公开记录的 PAX 文件吗？什么会使债务人有善意依据相信其会对其造成个人损害？当你说以监禁相威胁时，PAX 并未以监禁相威胁。他们在州法院的一起案件中提交了文件，一名州法院法官就此作出了命令。因此，你是说这一切都不是——这将会——它不能成为主张将会\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 94 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月4日 94 对债务人造成个人损害的依据，因为它们全都属于公开记录。而且债务人在该案中由律师代理。债务人也参与了所有这些事项。那么，Brown Rudnick 或其他任何人就 PAX 的债权可能持有什么？PAX 并未将其文件交给 Brown Rudnick。Brown Rudnick 未向 PAX 发出传票。ROMNEY律师：所有 PAX 并不持有的内部通讯，该等通讯来自债务人在这些事项中的律师、债务人、债务人的其他专业人士，或 Brown Rudnick 就这些议题所作的内部讨论，而这些均无法向——法院：该命令已经放弃了这一切。ROMNEY律师：——除 Brown Rudnick 外的宇宙中任何人取得。法院：该命令已经放弃了所有这些。你们都同意其在申请提交前——在申请提交后——是的，你们同意了。这正是该——该命令前两段所述。ROMNEY律师：第 7 段规定，尽管有任何相反规定——法院：好的。那么——好。ROMNEY律师：——即，为了——法院：请继续。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 95 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月4日 95 ROMNEY律师：——即，在文件受受托人特权保护并涉及调查事项的范围内，这些就是第 2 段中的文件。在该等文件中的任何一份如交给受托人可能对债务人造成个人损害的范围内，债务人有权主张特权。而当债务人的现任律师或前任律师持有——法院：不。债务人并没有该权利。债务人必须具有善意信念，认为其有权享有该特权。他并不自动享有该权利。ROMNEY律师：那是——法院：所以，让我们把这一点说得非常清楚。这是你们协商达成的内容。ROMNEY律师：正确。法院：我们曾就那意味着什么进行了完整辩论。我们曾就个人损害意味着什么进行了完整辩论。因此，如果——Kwok 先生除被监禁之外还可能遭受何种个人损害？顺便问一句，是由谁监禁？没有任何人在任何地方作出的命令会将 Kwok 先生送入监狱。至少在美国，没有任何人这样告诉我。那么，什么——他必须具有善意信念。Romney 律师，目前有什么命令会将 Kwok 先生送入监狱？ROMNEY律师：那——据我所知，没有任何命令。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 96 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月4日 96 法院：那么，他怎么可能具有善意信念，认为交出的任何文件会对一名不会与任何其他人分享这些文件的受托人造成个人损害？ROMNEY律师：法官阁下，该命令是在一种存在分歧但明确承认个人债务人有权基于特权扣留涉及某些议题的文件的权威背景下协商并作出的，判例法中所称的是对债务人的损害。我反对“个人损害”这一措辞。我说我认为它含义不明确。我说为什么？因为它有与身体伤害有关的含义。您告诉我，我在这方面的异议没有充分依据；据我回忆，您认为“个人损害”或您对其中“个人”一词的解释，是指对债务人本人而非对其他实体造成的损害。基于该解释，我们没有反对“个人损害”一词。但是，该命令是在权威意见分歧的背景下协商达成的。我们意图做的是排除任何认为债务人保留其全部特权的主张，尽管存在支持该主张的权威意见；排除债务人无权主张任何特权的主张；并就大多数\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（Fiore 记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n判例法所采取的平衡测试达成一致，但尚未就这些文件进行任何平衡测试，因为尚无人进行该项测试。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月4日 97 法院：好的，你们至今尚未主张他具有善意依据反对任何事项。ROMNEY律师：我不能——法院：那是你的——那是你的职责。那么你为什么没有这样做？如果你相信他具有善意依据，那么你为什么没有这样做？这样做的时机是在该命令中。ROMNEY律师：我们所做的是要求 Brown Rudnick 审阅该命令，审阅其档案中的信息，并确定其中是否有任何信息属于该命令范围。我们不知道其档案中有什么。确实有。如果 Brown Rudnick 作出一项决定，即如同听起来法官阁下在未见到档案的情况下也作出的决定，即不存在债务人获准主张控制权的文件，那么 Brown Rudnick 可以交出其档案，而且没有任何需要担心的事情。法院：我没有作出任何决定，律师。我就经过大量协商的问题向你提出了若干问题。而现在你所说的并非我们在作出该命令时讨论的内容。你是在说，哦，除非我们先看到该等文件，否则绝无可能遵守第 7 段。你就是这个意思。案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 97 页，共 108 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 966 提交日期 10/13/22 录入日期 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 98 页，共 108 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年10月4日 98 ROMNEY律师：不，我不是这个意思。法院：那么你是什么意思，律师？ROMNEY律师：我的意思是，持有文件的律师可以通过审阅第 7 段并了解其所持有的内容来遵守第 7 段。我不认为这必然要求某人审阅每一份文件。法院：好的。ROMNEY律师：也可能需要。如果我是收到该命令下传票的律师，我会这样做。但我不会告诉其他律师应如何工作。那是他们应做的工作。据我了解，他们不愿意将该命令适用于其档案，因此我们提出由我们来做。如果 Brown Rudnick 对其档案具有控制权，并认为其档案中没有任何文件可由其代表其前客户善意主张特权，那么它有义务向法院和受托人交出该等档案。这是事实。法院：好的。还有任何你希望陈述的事项吗？ROMNEY律师：没有，法官阁下。谢谢。法院：好的。谢谢。好。那么，有一项加速审理的动议。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日：第99页，待处理听证事项——我得回到主案，很抱歉，我现在在对抗程序中——让我先找出正确的命令。（暂停）法院：因此，9月30日，第11章受托人通过其律师提交了一项动议，请求加快就一项命令动议举行听证，该动议为 ECF 899。受托人请求加快举行听证的命令，是要求遵从 Rule 2004 传票并执行有关对与 2004 传唤信息相关的律师—当事人特权及工作成果保护控制权的同意命令的动议。巴尔迪加先生（Mr. Baldiga）已在记录中表示，尽管他已安排休假，且如听证安排在本周稍后或下周初，他将无法出席，但他对受托人所提交、请求准许该项动议的拟议命令作了一些小幅修改，899——抱歉，是 898 和 899，899 是宣誓书，898 是动议。罗姆尼律师（Attorney Romney）就加快举行听证提出了一些论点，我理解这些论点。我们也讨论了一些实体问题。但我今天不会就任何事项作出裁定，因为债务人将有机会对该动议提交答复。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 966 提交于 10/13/22 登记于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 99 页，共 108 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 966 提交于 10/13/22 登记于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 100 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日\n\n1　我相信您尚未这样做，\n2　罗姆尼律师，即就该动议提交答复。该动议于周五提交，因此我\n3　推定您尚未就请求发布授权遵从命令的动议提交任何书面\n4　答复。\n5　这样对吗？\n6　罗姆尼先生：是的，法官阁下。\n7　法院：好的。谢谢。我原以为\n8　情况如此。我只是想确认一下。\n9　罗姆尼先生：谢谢。\n10　法院：那么，我的问题是为何——我正在\n11　考虑安排就这项强制遵从动议举行听证。\n12　我知道——巴塞特律师（Attorney Bassett）已经\n13　建议在本周五举行。\n14　但我也在考虑，我们是否可以\n15　在10月13日星期四举行该听证。我之前听到\n16　有人说过一些事情，但此刻我不记得是\n17　谁说的，即存在某种顾虑。\n18　嗯，判决前救济听证正从13日和14日\n19　延期至本月稍后时间，但13日的\n20　日程安排有什么问题？\n21　德斯平斯先生（MR. DESPINS）：是我的问题，法官阁下。因此，如果\n22　能在13日上午举行，就没有问题。\n23　但我不知道这是否是您所考虑的安排。\n24　法院：可以。我对此没有问题。\n25　我们可以在，比如说，9:00 或 9:30 开始。我们可以——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日：第101页，如果您下午有日程冲突，我们可以更早开始。德斯平斯先生：我的合伙人巴塞特先生可以通过 Zoom 参加吗？法院：可以。德斯平斯先生：好的。谢谢，法官阁下。法院：还有其他人对13日有异议吗？罗姆尼先生：13日对我可以，法官阁下。法院：好的。罗姆尼律师，这也将给您机会提交书面异议。好吗？罗姆尼先生：谢谢，法官阁下。是否有一个具体的日期和时间，在此之前——法院：有。我相信，虽然坦白说我不太确定，10月10日星期一我们是否因节假日休庭？法庭书记员：是。法院：好的。那么，是的。我希望您的异议在10月11日中午前提交，这样您有完整一周——嗯，因现在是2:30，少一点——但这给您几天时间就受托人的动议提交书面异议。因此，我将作出的安排是，加快举行听证的动议，ECF 900，将获部分准许，因为它不会在债务人——受托人所请求的日期获准，但将获准，听证将于10月13日上午9:30举行。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 966 提交于 10/13/22 登记于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 101 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 966 提交于 10/13/22 登记于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 102 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日\n\n1　不会在债务人——\n2　受托人所请求的日期获准，但将获准，\n3　听证将于10月13日上午9:30举行。\n4　然后，债务人的律师将有\n5　截止至10月11日中午12点提交异议。\n6　然后我们将审理该命令。我们将审理\n7　该事项——我们将就该动议举行听证。\n8　罗姆尼先生：法官阁下可以——\n9　法院：请讲。\n10　罗姆尼先生：——我可以延至11日\n11　稍晚些时候吗？我会——\n12　法院：晚多久？\n13　罗姆尼先生：下午5:00，或甚至可能在\n14　晚上。\n15　法院：我给您到4:00，下午4:00。因此是\n16　11日下午4:00。好吗？\n17　然后我们将举行该听证。\n18　现在，这是唯一的另一项——我知道今天也\n19　提交了一项动议。\n20　德斯平斯先生：是。\n21　法院：我还没有阅读它。我不知道是否\n22　就该动议请求了加快救济，\n23　但我认为并非如此。\n24　德斯平斯先生：我们没有这样做，因为我们当时\n25　正要走进法庭，我想我会\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 966\n提交于 10/13/22\n登记于 10/13/22 21:00:06\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日\n\n1　我会——我会向法官阁下提出该问题。\n2　但基本上，法官阁下，这是 Ace Decade（艾斯十年）请求裁定藐视法庭的动议。该动议\n3　截至目前已待决超过30\n4　天。\n5　因此，我们请求法官阁下在您最早方便的时间\n6　安排审理，除非将有\n7　证人——因为我理解，如亨齐先生（Mr. Henzy）所述，\n8　其论点将是翻译不准确。\n9　我们不认为该问题具有决定性，因为\n10　还作出了其他陈述。\n11　但如果郭先生将出庭作证，\n12　我们需要对他进行证言录取，因此我们需要将此\n13　纳入此处的日程安排。\n14　法院：好的。我将审阅该动议，\n15　然后我们再确定此事。我们还得确定\n16　——您知道，也许我们需要举行某种\n17　会议来安排此事。我不知道。我得先审阅\n18　它。我尚未审阅。\n19　德斯平斯先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n20　然后还有最后一项事务性事项。\n21　我想林齐先生（Mr. Linsey）想向法院提出。\n22　林齐先生：下午好，再次向您问好，法官阁下。\n23　受托人的代理律师帕特里克·林齐（Patrick Linsey）。\n24　这又回到我们先前讨论的\n25　对抗程序。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日：第104页。法院：您需要——抱歉，当您提交交叉请求时，尚未签发传票。是这样吗——林齐先生：完全正确。法院：是的，我知道。而且确实必须签发传票。所以我同意您的看法。我尚未能就此与书记官办公室沟通，但确实需要签发传票。林齐先生：我们只是想确认，您是否还需要我们提供其他任何事项，法官阁下。法院：不需要。但我完全同意，确实需要签发传票。好吗？林齐先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法院：而且，如我所说，书记官办公室可能没有理解存在一项反诉，需要就其签发传票，因此我们也会处理该事项。林齐先生：谢谢。法院：好的。谢谢。并且，为向各方明确说明，也许——就今天上午提交的动议及日程安排，我们尚不知道将如何处理，但金德塞思先生（Mr. Kindseth），您说您认为将提交一项关于维修准备金的协议命令。您认为将于何时提交——您说是明天吗？\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 966 提交于 10/13/22 登记于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 104 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 966\n提交于 10/13/22\n登记于 10/13/22 21:00:06\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日\n\n1　金德塞思先生：现实而言，明天。\n2　法院：好的。那么，如果到星期四\n3　中午左右，我还没有看到任何材料，我\n4　可能会举行一次状态会议，并询问进展如何，以及——\n5　因为我需要知道我们是否将举行——您知道，只是为了\n6　确保我们有适当的工作人员及一切安排，以便如果\n7　我们实际将在周五举行一场证据听证。\n8　\n9　金德塞思先生：我完全理解这一点，\n10　法官阁下。\n11　法院：好的。好的。谢谢。\n12　林齐先生：法官阁下，我只有一个简短\n13　问题。\n14　法院：当然。\n15　林齐先生：您曾对受托人说，巴塞特先生\n16　可以不亲自出席——远程出席，因此我们无需\n17　另行提交申请，对吗？\n18　法院：是的。鉴于本案具体事实和情形，我将设法\n19　免除你们所有人提交远程出席动议的需要。\n20　好吗？因为我想我们都知道谁会在场，谁不会在场。\n21　\n22　但我认为我希望双方所做的是，视情况而定——我的意思是，显然罗姆尼先生和\n23　金德塞思先生，当你们必须远程出席时，很遗憾是\n24　因健康原因，我理解这一点。绝不会\n\n案号 22-50073\n文书 966\n提交于 10/13/22\n登记于 10/13/22 21:00:06\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日\n\n1　就此产生任何问题。而且希望\n2　你们显然不必再次遇到这种情况。\n3　但如果我们都能同意，身在康涅狄格州的人员可以\n4　远程出席，我认为这将\n5　有所帮助。\n6　我请求的是，实现这一点的方式\n7　是由受托人一方一人、PAX 一方一人、HK 一方一人、债务人一方一人以及\n8　郭女士（Ms. Guo），\n9　只需发送一封——由一人发送即可，我不在乎是谁——给\n10　法庭书记员的电子邮件，并抄送其他所有人，\n11　包括 U.S. Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室），以便他们知悉，这些\n12　人员希望在任何相关听证中远程出席。\n13　好吗？不包括证人。我说的不是证人。\n14　我说的是希望发言或通过旁听\n15　参与听证的律师。如果涉及\n16　证人的情况，我们就必须对此进行讨论。\n17　然后你们将获得供人员\n18　远程出席的信息，这样我们无需持续——你们无需持续提交这些\n19　动议。好的。\n20　在本案具体情形下，\n21　因为我可能会因说了这些话而惹上麻烦。\n22　因此，你们必须明白，我同意——我们\n23　不需要再有十项关于动议的案卷记录——\n24　可以理解你们提交了这些动议，但只要各方都——如果可以的话，让我们现在停止这样做，\n25　我不明白为什么\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 966 提交于 10/13/22 登记于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 107 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日\n\n1　任何人会对此有问题。\n2　现在有人对我所建议的事项\n3　有问题吗？\n4　全体律师：没有，法官阁下。\n5　法院：好的。很好。我很感谢。\n6　戈德曼先生（Mr. Goldman）：法官阁下，我没有问题。\n7　我只是有一个问题。\n8　委员会本身没有州外\n9　律师，而且有些事项我们仅具有\n10　间接利益，因此这——这——\n11　法官阁下的意见是否适用于——\n12　法院：是的，委员会。\n13　戈德曼先生：——委员会的律师也是如此吗？\n14　法院：是的，适用。我认为\n15　委员会的律师可以远程出席，即使\n16　委员会在康涅狄格州，因为同样地，我同意，\n17　戈德曼律师，截至目前，委员会的角色与受托人获任命\n18　之前不同。\n19　因此，除非有人对此有问题，我\n20　对此没有问题。好吗？但请加入\n21　电子邮件群组，以便法庭书记员确保\n22　所有人知悉相同情况。好吗？\n23　戈德曼先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n24　法院：但这将是我们传达\n25　信息的方式，无需所有人提交动议。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 966 提交于 10/13/22 登记于 10/13/22 21:00:06 第 108 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年10月4日\n\n好的。\n本日下午还有其他需要处理的事项吗？\n\nDESPINS先生：\n没有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n法庭：\n好的。谢谢各位。\n\nDESPINS先生：\n谢谢。\n\n（庭审于下午2:29休庭。）\n\n本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），注册电子法庭记录员兼誊录员，特此证明：上述内容系根据对上述案件庭审程序的官方电子录音制作的准确誊本。\n\nOctober 13, 2022\nChristine Fiore, CERT","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je","Paul Hastings","Guo","CCP","CIPA","Luc Despins"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":41,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":856,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":874,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":899,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":900,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":26951,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-10-13 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-10-13","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:14:30"}