{"id":"court_ctb_992_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":992,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"TRANSCRIPT","filed_date":"2022-10-17","title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT **UPDATED** DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT **10/17/22** BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Case 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 1 of 105\n\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT **UPDATED** DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT **10/17/22** BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK, \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* August 4, 2022 Debtor. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 PATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ. Robinson & Cole 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 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, Rui Ma, KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Weican Meng and Zheng Wu: McElroy Deutsch 225 Liberty Street 36th Floor New York, NY 10281 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Counsel for the G. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ, ESQ. Chapter 11 Trustee: Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 For Creditor Logan Cheng: JAY M. WOLMAN, ESQ. Randazza Legal Group, PLLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103\n\n2\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 3 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 1:05 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Thank you. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. And I'm here with my counsel from Paul Hastings, Alex Bongartz, and Mr. Linsey, local counsel to the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And then if we could have counsel for the committee, please. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, representing the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And counsel for the creditor PAX. MR. BIRNEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Birney, Robinson & Cole, on behalf of PAX. With me this afternoon is Stuart Sarnoff from O'Melveny & Myers. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Who am I missing? Counsel -- MR. BIRNEY: Your Honor, Mr. Friedman has just\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 4 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 4 joined as well. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Counsel for the creditors Rui Ma and related creditors. MS. MAYHEW: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew, McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter, on behalf of Rui Ma, Zheng Wu and Weican Meng. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Counsel for the debtor. MR. HENZY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Eric Henzy, of Zeisler & Zeisler, for the debtor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Counsel for the U.S. Trustee, please. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: And I think Mr. Wolman. And that's the only person I'm missing at this point, is that right? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I believe so, Your Honor. MR. WOLMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jay Wolman, of Randazza Legal Group, for creditor Logan Chang. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Okay. I think everyone's appearances have been noted for the record. As I stated before, that there are two matters on the calendar.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 5 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 5 I did not see any objection or response to the Chapter 11 trustee's motion for extension of time with regard to the removal of civil actions. The motion looks fine to me, as does the proposed order. Does anyone wish to be heard on the trustee's motion to extend the deadline for removal of civil actions? (No audible response) THE COURT: Okay. Hearing no response -- MR. LINSEY: Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. MR. LINSEY: Yeah. I won't say much if the motion looks fine to you. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Attorney Linsey -- MR. LINSEY: This is Patrick Linsey for the trustee. Just note -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Excuse me. Attorney Linsey, if you could just state your name. MR. LINSEY: This is Patrick Linsey for the trustee. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. LINSEY: I won't -- I won't say much considering Your Honor said the motion looks acceptable. I will just note there was a prior motion that had been filed by the debtor that I do not believe there were\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 6 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 6 any objections to that's not been acted upon. And presuming the Court enters the order that we filed with our motion will then be causing the debtor's motion to be withdrawn. THE COURT: Yes. That was noted in your motion. So thank you. And when this order enters, that -- the proposed order that was submitted with the motion, as appears at pages 10 and 11 of ECF 672,and when that order enters, then the prior motion of the debtor will be withdrawn is on the record now withdrawn by the trustee. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. So that motion is granted and the proposed order can enter. So that takes care of the first matter on today's calendar. The second matter obviously is the -- was continued from Monday, the 1st, to today, and it is the trustee's motion for an order confirming that the trustee holds all the debtor's economic and corporate governance rights. And this was continued to today to give the debtor an opportunity to file a response, which the debtor did this morning. And I also -- the debtor objected and then the Chapter 11 Trustee filed a reply to the objection. So I understand in the papers, or at least I've\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 7 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 7 seen some mention in the papers, and I'll turn to you, Mr. Despins, first, that there's been some discussions. And I see that there's been a redline version of an order that appears to show there's been some I guess I would call progress with counsel in London about the issues that we discussed on Monday, but I'd like to hear from you on where things stand, please. MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. So there are two aspects to the motions. Well, there are many aspects, but there are two that are contested I think. The focus is on UBS, which is you just raised. And then the other one is what's happening with the BVI shares, et cetera. So since you started with UBS, let me launch into that. There were a lot of back and forth between me and counsel for -- or counsel for the debtor in that UBS action. And basically, you know, they raised several issues. And at the end of the day, I said, look, why don't you just draft a letter that you would be comfortable receiving from Mr. Kwok that would allow you to, you know, give me an update on the merits of the claims, any settlement proposals, basically what a client would receive. And eventually she did that. And the -- and we said that in the reply. There are parts of this that I have swallow hard\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 8 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 8 to accept in the sense that, you know, you know, to say that, you know, that the Court's jurisdiction is a U.S. issue only. I mean, as you know in the U.S. we view you, Your Honor, as having worldwide jurisdiction over all assets of the debtor. But putting that aside I figure let's not have a, you know, US/UK debate over jurisdiction. And so we took her letter with some minor changes and basically that's the letter that we're now asking the Court to direct the debtor to send to her that basically says give him full access. But the debtor, per her -- U.K. counsel's request is saying that his consent, and this is in the letter, does not extend to me waiving a privilege. And that's not an issue meaning, I didn't intend to do that anyways. But I thought it's always my privilege to waive. But my point is let's not get into those issues. The important thing is to get access to the files and understand the case, to get a full briefing. And based on the letter I think, although they were very careful about saying we cannot guarantee that this letter will bind us, and we said fine, but I think that based on that letter we should have full access to the files. And that's the goal. And, therefore, you know, we're going to look the other way on the issues of limiting the Court's jurisdiction\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 9 and all that. So that's where we are on that. So from my point of view, vis-a-vis U.K. counsel, I think we're done. But I don't know where the debtor is at on that issue. THE COURT: Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: We're not done on that issue. A couple of points, Your Honor. First, Mr. Despins referred to U.K. counsel, which the person that he and I both have been communicating with is Jenny Morrissey of the Harcus Parker firm. As debtor's counsel, I just want to be clear. I'm not sure that that is correct. I'll be honest with you, Your Honor. The convergence of U.S. and U.K. law is a little bit unclear to me. I know that under the bankruptcy code that upon his appointment Mr. Despins was automatically substituted as the plaintiff in that U.K. action. What I've heard from Attorney Morrissey is that what the bankruptcy code says, that's not her view anyway. And I'm not -- I don't -- I know zero about U.K. law, so she's right, she's wrong, but that -- that is her view. I believe it's also her view that Mr. Despins is not yet a party in that action. There are some steps that have to be taken under U.K. law. Again, I don't opine as to that. I'm reporting to you what Attorney Morrissey Case 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 9 of 105\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 10 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 10 indicated to me. So I don't think she's the debtor's lawyer. I don't think she's Mr. Despins' lawyer. I frankly am not sure where that leaves the status of whoever is the plaintiff in that action in the U.K. I'm not sure where the letter stands. The last iteration of the letter that I saw was from Paul Hastings to Harcus Parker. I think Mr. Despins said this on the last day Harcus Parker is being very, very careful here, so I don't know if the last iteration that Paul Hastings sent to Harcus Parker would be acceptable to Harcus Parker or not. Even assuming that it is, I believe that it is simply beyond question that the Court, with all due respect to the Court, may not compel Mr. Kwok to waive his attorney- client privilege. Now, I -- THE COURT: The letter doesn't say that he is waiving his privilege. In fact, it says that any waiver of the privilege is limited to the provision of this information to the trustee. That's what it says. MR. HENZY: That the waiver is -- that the waiver is privileged, Your Honor. So there's -- I want to make a distinction here. There are two -- and, Your Honor, we're dealing with cross-border issues here. So the privilege here I think anyway is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 11 of 105\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>11                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | not under U.S. law.<br>It's under U.K. law.                    |\n| 2  | And as I understand my communications from                     |\n| 3  | Attorney Morrissey, there may be items that -- I think this    |\n| 4  | is true under U.S. law too, a trustee is appointed and         |\n| 5  | there's different standards between a corporate debtor and     |\n| 6  | an actual person.<br>An actual person may maintain certain     |\n| 7  | privilege even after the appointment of a trustee.<br>And as I |\n| 8  | understand it, it is similar in the U.K.                       |\n| 9  | So there may be items that are in the possession               |\n| 10 | of Harcus Parker that Mr. Kwok personally still has a          |\n| 11 | privilege with respect to, as opposed to items that under      |\n| 12 | U.K. law he doesn't.                                           |\n| 13 | And I -- again, I don't know U.K. law.<br>I don't              |\n| 14 | think Mr. Despins knows U.K. law.<br>What's what I do not      |\n| 15 | know.                                                          |\n| 16 | There's a right way to do this, Your Honor, I                  |\n| 17 | think.<br>Mr. Despins needs to take steps to have himself      |\n| 18 | recognized as a party in the U.K. action and that privilege    |\n| 19 | issue then I think needs to be worked through.                 |\n| 20 | I don't know how the debtor -- I don't know how                |\n| 21 | Mr. Kwok can say I'm going to grant a waiver of any            |\n| 22 | privilege rights I have.<br>Again, it's any privilege rights   |\n| 23 | that he has.                                                   |\n| 24 | Your Honor, I don't know.<br>Attorney Morrissey may            |\n| 25 | make a judgment that he doesn't have any privilege rights.     |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 12 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 12 She may make a judgment that he has a lot of privilege rights with respect to what's in her possession. I don't know how he can fairly be asked to waive any privilege that he still has when he doesn't know what he's waiving it with respect to. So I don't know what documents Attorney Morrissey would say would come under an umbrella of things that Mr. Kwok under U.K. law still has a privilege in. Again, I think there is a way to work through this. It may be that Attorney Morrissey would identify some discrete number of documents that she would say these are documents that Mr. Kwok has privilege in and possibly subject to me reviewing and they're completely innocuous -- and that's great -- but there has to be a process gone through. Mr. Kwok cannot make a knowing and voluntary waiver when he doesn't know what he's waiving. He can't do that. And he's not going to do that. And, again, with all due respect, I don't believe you can compel him to do that. I do not believe that you can compel him by signing this letter to waive his -- whatever his attorney/client privilege is under U.K. law. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: You know, there's an attempt to\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 13 muddy the waters here. If the letter doesn't work for counsel in the U.K., I'll deal with that. So let's put that aside for now. I think it will work because she marked up our letter and she sent us this letter. We made some very minor nonsubstantive kind of changes, so that's number one. And that letter basically, that she marked up, says that if she gets that letter she will share the privilege as to -- or she will give me privileged information. As to what? As to the merits of the litigation. That's an asset of the debtor. Mr. Henzy made a big deal about his 475 million or whatever sum. That's an asset of the debtor. The only way -- this is like a car. In order to access the car, I need the key. The key is the letter. Because otherwise they won't talk to me because, you know, either U.K. rules or their concern about being sued. They've never actually articulated that, but that's the subtext here. It's pretty clear. So the letter I think works. There's not an unknown or unlimited waiver of the privilege. It's regarding the merits of that litigation. That's what she's going to share with me. Because Mr. Henzy has -- you must remember -- had very nicely sent an email to Case 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 13 of 105\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 14 of 105\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>14                               |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | them a long time ago that said I own the claims basically        |\n| 2  | dealing with Mr. Despins.<br>Mr. Kwok is completely out of       |\n| 3  | this -- out of that claim.<br>He did say that.                   |\n| 4  | So what would be the point of me being, you know,                |\n| 5  | having the claim if I cannot be briefed by the lawyers about     |\n| 6  | the merits of the claim?<br>Again, it's the key that gets me     |\n| 7  | the car.<br>And I absolutely need that.                          |\n| 8  | And case law is clear, Your Honor, that the                      |\n| 9  | trustee can have access to privileged information of the         |\n| 10 | debtor with respect to assets of the debtor.                     |\n| 11 | Here there's not even a dispute.<br>This is not like             |\n| 12 | the yacht or the Sherry-Netherland apartment where he says,      |\n| 13 | oh, I don't own it.<br>He says -- he filed a claim.<br>He said I |\n| 14 | own this.<br>It's clear that the trustee owns the claim now.     |\n| 15 | And clearly I have the right to have access to that.             |\n| 16 | There's not an unknown or unlimited waiver.<br>And so,           |\n| 17 | therefore, we believe the Court can compel.<br>This is           |\n| 18 | 521(a)(3),(a)(4).<br>The Court can absolutely do that because    |\n| 19 | this is equal to the debtor saying, yeah, here's the car,        |\n| 20 | but I'm not giving you the key.                                  |\n| 21 | Without the briefing on the merits of the claim or               |\n| 22 | knowing whether there has been any settlement, I cannot          |\n| 23 | drive the car.<br>I cannot sell the car.<br>You know, that's the |\n| 24 | analogy.<br>And we need access to that.                          |\n| 25 | Thank you, Your Honor.                                           |\n|    |                                                                  |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 15 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 15 MR. HENZY: Your Honor, if I may? THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: One point I want to be clear on, that Attorney Morrissey's clear with me on, is that there's two other plaintiffs here and the privilege is joint. And Attorney Morrissey's been clear that Mr. Kwok cannot raise the privilege with respect to information that is the joint information of -- along with those other parties. So she's been very, very clear that the only thing that in theory Mr. Kwok could raise with respect to -- with the property that as I understand it he is the sole owner of. So, again, what the -- the universe of information here is that Harcus Parker would ever say that they're going to release is that, you know, I don't know. But I want to give you two cites that were not in my objection. I did have a relatively short time to get the objection done, Your Honor. I did cite one case where the Second Circuit says that you cannot compel a person to waive their attorney/client privilege. And, again, I want to be clear here, Your Honor, to the extent that Mr. Kwok no longer owns the privilege, under -- I think it's under U.K. law -- not under U.S. law -- whether -- what the attorney-client privilege is in the U.K. and what -- to what extent the privilege belongs to him\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 16 of 105\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>16                           |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | versus belongs Mr. Despins, that's what's -- that's a matter |\n| 2  | of U.K. law.<br>It's not U.S. law.                           |\n| 3  | But two other Second Circuit Court of Appeals                |\n| 4  | cases.<br>One is Highland Capital Management vs. United      |\n| 5  | States.<br>It's at 626 F. App'x -- I never know how to       |\n| 6  | pronounce that thing, 324.<br>It's a 2015 decision.          |\n| 7  | If I could quote, Your Honor.<br>\"Compelled                  |\n| 8  | disclosure of privileged attorney/client communications      |\n| 9  | absent waiver or acceptable exception is contrary to well    |\n| 10 | established precedent.<br>When parties disagree whether a    |\n| 11 | privilege applies, courts often review the contested         |\n| 12 | material in camera.<br>In contrast, requiring a litigant to  |\n| 13 | turn over documents subject to claims of attorney/client     |\n| 14 | privilege to opposing counsel without a judicial ruling on   |\n| 15 | the merits of the claim will undermine the attorney/client   |\n| 16 | privilege and it's, therefore, impermissible.\"               |\n| 17 | So, again, what privilege Mr. Kwok has here and              |\n| 18 | what privilege he doesn't have may well be subject to        |\n| 19 | dispute.<br>Plus you can't order him to waive privilege      |\n| 20 | without working through that dispute.                        |\n| 21 | And I'll say again, Your Honor, there's a right              |\n| 22 | way to do this.<br>If Mr. Despins, rather than trying to     |\n| 23 | bulldoze through an order here, would work with U.K. counsel |\n| 24 | and me to try to identify what potentially is the universe   |\n| 25 | of documents that even are at issue here she may go through  |\n|    |                                                              |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 17 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 17 her documents, Your Honor, and say I can't give you anything because these other people have privilege and I'm not going to -- I'm not going to give you anything. She may say there's five pieces of paper that Mr. Kwok is the sole owner of that I could ever release to you. And the five pieces of paper are pictures of his kids. And no one -- and no one's going to care about that -- to tell us any number of things. But there's a -- there's a process that has to be worked through. The Second Circuit says that you cannot order this kind of blanket waiver without making findings with respect to specific documents. THE COURT: Where does it say that in the *Highland* case? I'm looking at it. And the *Highland* case is not a bankruptcy case. It's a third-party subpoena with regard to an IRS issue. So where does it say that? Where does it say that a court cannot compel a debtor out of possession to waive a privilege with regard to an asset that the debtor has stated under penalty of perjury is an asset of his estate? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, this is -- you're right. This is not a debtor case. But I don't think -- I don't -- I'm not aware of any case. And I will say this, Your Honor. I'm not aware of any case that says that.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 18 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 18 Because what the Second Circuit says is that after an applicable exception. And I think the typical exception that comes up in cases is where a party -- in criminal cases where a party says it had ineffective assistance of counsel. And the rule is that you can't say you haven't had effective assistance counsel unless you're going to be willing to waive relevant communications with counsel. I'm not aware of any case that says that a -- that there's an applicable exception for a debtor. But I'm going to push back to one of the other points I've made here. I don't think it's up to the debtor that's here to prove the negative. Not by motion. But by submitting a proposed order Mr. Despins is seeking relief from it. He is seeking to have you compel the debtor -- THE COURT: Not yet. MR. HENZY: -- to waive his privilege. THE COURT: Not yet. If the debtor doesn't sign the document, then -- I asked that question of Mr. Despins the other day, and then he will file a motion. The problem is your case law says compel disclosure of privileged attorney/client communications absent waiver or applicable exceptions contrary to well- established precedent. Well, this is -- this is -- Mr. Kwok has stated under penalty of perjury in his schedules -- and you've\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 19 of 105\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>19                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | reached out to the lawyer in the U.K. saying that Mr.          |\n| 2  | Despins is the party, and you've acknowledged that Mr.         |\n| 3  | Despins steps into the shoes of Mr. Kwok in the action in      |\n| 4  | the U.K.<br>And so you can't then argue that Mr. Kwok -- the   |\n| 5  | lawyers who represented Mr. Kwok can't turn over that          |\n| 6  | information to Mr. Despins for his review.<br>I mean, you can  |\n| 7  | make that argument, but it's not persuasive.                   |\n| 8  | You're having --                                               |\n| 9  | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.<br>There's nothing --                      |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Excuse me.<br>Let me -- let me just              |\n| 11 | finish.                                                        |\n| 12 | You are coming to this court.<br>Your client                   |\n| 13 | voluntarily came to this court and put his assets in           |\n| 14 | question for creditors of this estate and has stated that      |\n| 15 | this cause of action is his cause of action and an asset of    |\n| 16 | the estate.                                                    |\n| 17 | The minute the Chapter 11 trustee was appointed,               |\n| 18 | the Chapter 11 trustee steps into the shoes of Mr. Kwok.<br>So |\n| 19 | the Chapter 11 trustee has the privilege of Mr. Kwok in that   |\n| 20 | lawsuit.                                                       |\n| 21 | And so your arguments are not persuasive.<br>So                |\n| 22 | let's move onto the next issue about whether -- because that   |\n| 23 | order --                                                       |\n| 24 | MR. HENZY:<br>Your Honor, can I -- can I -- may I --           |\n| 25 | THE COURT:<br>Excuse me.<br>I'm not finished.                  |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 20 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 20 MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: That letter -- Mr. Despins has just stated he's a -- he is subject to Rule 11 sanctions if he's incorrect, Mr. Henzy. That he got this letter from the lawyers in -- from the barristers or solicitors in London. They're willing to sign it. They marked it up. That's what's going to happen. That's what's going to happen. So let's go to the next issue which has to do with the Genever issue and the fact that you've argued that Mr. Kwok, you know, doesn't have any control over Genever. But when you look at the trustee's reply to your objection this morning, there are exhibits attached to it where Mr. Kwok admits -- it's an admission of a party, that he owns the shares of the cooperative that owns the apartment. So what's your response to that? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, just if I could go back for a second. For the record, you're not going to hear any further arguments from me on the privilege issue. THE COURT: That is correct. MR. HENZY: I just want to make -- THE COURT: I've decided the issue. MR. HENZY: I want to make a record. THE COURT: I've decided the issue. That is correct. Your arguments about the privilege are not\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 21 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 21 persuasive. Mr. Despins stepped into the shoes of the debtor when he became the Chapter 11 trustee. There's well settled case law on that, Attorney Henzy. The cases that you've cited are not applicable. They're not involving a Chapter 11 trustee who steps into the shoes of a debtor who has been taken out of possession. And so, therefore, your case law does not support your argument. And I will -- and we can move on to the next issue now about the Genever Holdings matter and the Sherry- Netherlands apartment. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. On the Genever BVI issue, my first -- because I got this not that long ago, but the documents that are attached to the reply are not in evidence, Your Honor. I think we can all agree on that. And I -- I'm not -- I do not -- THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure that's true. First of all, some of them are from the bankruptcy court in New York. And this court can take judicial notice of those documents and their reliability based upon the fact that they were filed in a -- in the Chapter 11 case of Genever Holdings in New York. So when you say they're not in evidence, well,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 22 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 22 then I can make them in evidence. I can say that they are now evidence in connection with the trustee's motion because they were all filed, many of them -- and we can go through each one -- in the -- in the bankruptcy case of Genever Holdings. And the Court can take judicial notice under the federal rules of evidence of that because the reliability of that is obvious. So to say that they're not in evidence, well, okay, I'm going to now rule that they are in evidence. That the exhibits attached to the trustee's reply that was filed today in response to your objection, Exhibits A through G, are in evidence and they will be marked as exhibits. So that if you want to appeal you can -- these exhibits will be in evidence. (Exhibits A through G attached to Trustee's motion for an order received into evidence as Trustee Exhibits A through G.) MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. Just for the record, so I make my record, I do object to their admission. THE COURT: Understood. MR. HENZY: And in addition to -- I'm in a difficult position to give you specific objections as I'm required to do under the rules of evidence as I've -- as that I've had almost no time to go through these documents\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 23 individually. So that is an issue for me. And that kind puts, you know, pushes me to a different issue which -- THE COURT: Well, let's go through them right now. We'll pull up Exhibit A. MR. HENZY: That's unfair, Your Honor. Because if I -- THE COURT: No, it's not unfair, counsel. MR. HENZY: It is. THE COURT: Because these are all exhibits that your client signed or you should have as his counsel. You don't get to come in and stall things. And I'm not saying -- you don't get to come in and say the trustee, who's been appointed since July 8th, can't do his job because I'm new counsel and I haven't had a chance to look at all this. You don't get that opportunity. MR. HENZY: No. THE COURT: It doesn't happen that way. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor. MR. HENZY: The point -- the point I was going to make, Your Honor, is that you're admitting exhibits in connection with relief sought by the trustee that is not in the motion that he filed and on a hearing that as far as I know was not scheduled as a trial, but an evidentiary hearing. I have no ability to try to rebut what is in these documents. That this is just -- it is fundamentally unfair.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 23 of 105\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 24 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 24 THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: I have no notice -- THE COURT: How would you rebut the -- your client's answers to interrogatories that were filed in the New York State Court, which is Exhibit A and which he signed? How would you rebut that? What could you possibly put forth that could rebut that -- those interrogatory answers that your client signed in an action in New York that has been pending for years? MR. HENZY: I'm going to try to answer that specifically, Your Honor, but I think -- and actually I'm going to try to answer your question. Okay. The first -- I don't know. I'm not -- I don't -- I do not practice trial law in New York State so I don't know if interrogatories are filed. They're not filed, for example, in federal court or state court in Connecticut. So maybe they are and maybe they aren't. I don't know that. So that if they're not, I don't think you could take judicial notice. That's one issue. THE COURT: Well, there's a file stamp on the top of it from New York filed New York County Clerk 4/28/2021, 10:54 p.m. That states that on the top of the document. MR. HENZY: Sorry. I don't -- again, Your Honor, I'm not -- I don't practice trial law in New York so I don't know what the procedure is.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 25 I will point out, Your Honor, if you go to page 3, the definition of interest. THE COURT: Page 3 of Exhibit A? Is that what you're saying? MR. HENZY: Of what I -- what I'm understanding is now you've admitted this as Exhibit A. THE COURT: That is correct. MR. HENZY: Okay. And just to be clear, I do object to that, Your Honor. I understand you're overruling my objection, but the -- on page 3, definition 2 -- I might -- I might be getting this wrong, Your Honor -- again, I have not -- I understand Your Honor. I'm not telling you that I don't have a responsibility to have gone through things, but there is a lot that was put on in connection with this this morning. But the definition of interest is very, very broadly defined there. The term interest means any direct, indirect interest, whether partial, whole or potential, et cetera. So it's a very, very broad definition of interest. Again, if I go to response interrogatory number one, where, among other things, there's a little box that says admission of ownership -- and I don't, Your Honor, where that came from. I don't -- I don't know if that was part of what was filed with the New York State Court. I'm going to doubt it, as opposed to this is somehow Case 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 25 of 105\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 26 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 26 constructive for your purposes or someone else's purposes. I don't know. I just wasn't -- I did -- I don't know the answer to that. That -- I think that should not be before Your Honor. But his answer is I am the legal owner of the issued shares of Genever Holdings Corporation. And if you go back to definition of interest -- again, it's a very, very broad definition, it makes the distinction between legal and equitable. And if I jump to response interrogatory number 5, on page 9, again, I am the legal owner of the issued shares of Genever Holdings Corporation. That statement is consistent with the statements that Mr. Kwok made in the declaration he filed in this case and also consistent with the global notes to the statement of financial affairs that he filed in this case. That is, that he is the legal owner of the issued shares of Genever Holdings Corporation, which will be referred to as Genever BVI. And what he's said there -- in the declaration filed in this case and in the global notes filed in this case -- is that he holds those shares, he holds legal title to those shares as trustee under a trust. And the beneficiary of that trust is Bravo Luck. So I -- we can debate -- and I know Mr. Sarnoff really wants to debate -- about what this says. But my\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 27 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 27 point is I'm -- I am not able to put on evidence, Your Honor, to explain this and to explain what's in the declaration and to explain what's in the global notes. And that's not -- that's fundamentally unfair. This was not scheduled to have an evidentiary trial. I have -- this is not even -- what the relief sought here -- as I pointed out in my objection, Your Honor, it is not even relief that's sought in the motion that was actually filed. This is -- this is new relief. And we're now having, as I understand it, a trial on almost no notice on new relief where I have absolutely no ability to meet the claim that is now being made. And that is -- again, I think that's fundamentally unfair and I absolutely object to it. MR. SARNOFF: Judge Manning, this is Stuart Sarnoff. May I be very, very briefly heard, because I might be able to help the Court on an issue relating to this? THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. SARNOFF: So I -- Judge Manning, I've been the lead counsel for PAX in the state court litigation. I filed the complaint on its behalf. All I want to do, Your Honor, is to point out that PAX filed and won a turnover motion with respect to Genever BVI shares as a post judgment enforcement action. And I would just raise that never proffered before\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 28 of 105\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>28                            |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | the Court was the alleged deed of trust.<br>But in any event, |\n| 2  | the judge -- on September 22nd, 2021, Judge Ostrager,         |\n| 3  | Justice Ostrager, in his ruling on the record, and then       |\n| 4  | confirmed in an order dated that day, ordered the turnover    |\n| 5  | to PAX of Mr. Kwok's Genever BVI share ownership because he   |\n| 6  | said, quote, on page 16 of the September 22nd, 2021           |\n| 7  | transcript, \"Mr. Kwok identified his ownership interest in    |\n| 8  | Genever Holdings BVI as his only asset worth more than        |\n| 9  | \\$10,000 in response to PAX's post-judgment interrogatories,\" |\n| 10 | which is the document at number 756 in this case at page 9.   |\n| 11 | The ownership shares -- and then he goes on to say the        |\n| 12 | ownership -- so he's admitted that this is his one asset.     |\n| 13 | And because PAX has a judgment of 130-something               |\n| 14 | million dollars at that time, \\$126,000 million, they're      |\n| 15 | entitled to get turnover.                                     |\n| 16 | We had to bring a subsequent contempt motion which            |\n| 17 | was pending when Mr. Kwok filed for bankruptcy because of     |\n| 18 | course Mr. Kwok didn't do what he was supposed to do, vis-a   |\n| 19 | vis, the turning over.                                        |\n| 20 | But there is -- you know, there's a judicial                  |\n| 21 | ruling that the shares belong to Mr. Kwok for purposes of     |\n| 22 | being able to turn them over or for, in this case, for Mr.    |\n| 23 | Despins to step into those shoes to have that same bundle of  |\n| 24 | rights.                                                       |\n| 25 | And I would also note, Your Honor, that Mr. Kwok              |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 29 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 29 did not appeal that ruling. You know, it should be collaterally estopped. You know, whatever it is. This has been litigated whether or not the shares are sufficiently his for purposes of turnover or for Mr. Despins to step into his shoes. And in a ruling on September 22nd, 2021 -- MR. HENZY: Your Honor. MR. SARNOFF: -- Justice Ostrager ruled on that. MR. HENZY: I want to be clear. Is Mr. -- are you taking this as Mr. Sarnoff's testimony? Because if you are, I would like him to be sworn. THE COURT: I'm not taking it as Mr. Sarnoff's testimony, Attorney Henzy. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Despins? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may very briefly? You are not -- we're not asking you today to find that the trust agreement isn't valid or doesn't exist. We added -- in what we filed today at 681, docket 681, we added a safety valve. So I thought that Mr. Henzy would jump at that. But basically it says the Court is not finding -- making any findings regarding the validity or invalidity of the trust agreement. Any challenges to the trust agreement are preserved.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 30 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 30 However, what cannot be controverted is that he's the legal owner of these shares and now we are entitled to get those shares.\n\n And the issue of the validity of that trust -- by the way, we have craved out over it -- you know, that trust, the allegation that there's a trust was never raised in state court for four years, so that gives you a sense of how -- you know, that's let not editorialize over that.\n\n But the point is that there's a safety valve in the order and, therefore, the order should enter. And then Mr. Henzy also complained about the lack of notice in these documents.\n\n Your Honor, on August 1st, you may remember -- I don't know if you saw this, but I offered Mr. Henzy more documents. These were these documents and he threw them to the floor. A little temper tantrum there. I don't know if you saw that.\n\n But the point is that if he hadn't done that he would have all these exhibits, that these were the exhibits I was giving him at the time, which are, as you said, are exhibits, for example, in the Genever Chapter 11 case, which nobody can dispute.\n\n And those are to the effect that Mr. Kwok is exercising, and I've exercised, all corporate governance rights with respect to Genever Holdings, Genever USA, and --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 31 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 31 And so regardless of the trust agreement, there's never a -- in all these signature pages, you never see a countersign or approved by Bravo Luck or anything like that. It's Mr. Kwok signing. And so, therefore, that tells you that these are the rights we should have. And those include the rights to direct the Chapter 11 case of Genever Holdings subject to the jurisdiction of Judge Garrity. And there's also a safety valve in the order that says you're not ordering me or allowing me to do anything in that case without his approval. So that's all covered. But I think it's important to stick to the facts here. And it's a limited relief. And it's basically getting the shares in my name so I can exercise all the corporate governance rights of that entity. Thank you, Your Honor. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, just so I could be clear, I assume that that was -- you're not taking Mr. Despins' statements as testimony either? THE COURT: I'm not taking anyone's statements, including yours, as testimony either. MR. HENZY: Oh, I know you're not taking or I think I know you're not taking mine. Your Honor, I probably did have a little, very brief temper tantrum on Monday.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 32 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 32 But this is a trial by ambush, Your Honor, and I think the rules do need -- there does need to rules. There needs to be order in proceedings. And I don't -- I don't think that that is happening here. I've tried -- I don't know if Your Honor has more questions of me. I would like to make further points, again, just to make my record, you know. I believe there is a dispute. I understand that Mr. Despins doubts it. I understand that Mr. Despins and Mr. Sarnoff have formed a version of facts to, you know, to the Court that, again, I'm not in a position to rebut. I don't have a witness here. I don't -- I didn't know this was going to be a trial. I will point out, Your Honor, that this dispute is the subject of a settlement agreement in the Genever U.S. case that was approved by Judge Garrity, that as I understand it contemplates that this ownership issue is to be litigated in the BVI. Again, that is my -- THE COURT: So do you -- so you're asking for your exhibits then to become part of the record as well in evidence because now you're relying on exhibits that you attached to your objection to make the statement that you just made? MR. HENZY: You know, Your Honor, I am relying on that --\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 33 THE COURT: Okay. Then they'll be admitted into evidence as well. MR. HENZY: -- to try to make an argument, to try to respond. THE COURT: Okay. Well, then your exhibits are admitted into evidence as well. (Exhibits attached to Debtor's objection to Trustee's motion for an order received into evidence.) I mean, what else do you -- why else would you have filed an exhibit -- and the same reason that Mr. Despins did -- so the Court could review them in connection with your positions? MR. HENZY: In connection with -- THE COURT: And so to argue that this is now an evidentiary hearing and that you're being -- you're not given fair opportunity -- but you want to make your argument based upon the exhibits that you attached to your motion, your reply. So I think you need to be a little bit more -- we need to be -- treat this the same on both sides of these -- of the equation. You can't argue that Mr. Despins is now making this an evidentiary hearing because he's submitted exhibits and attached to his reply, but you can persuade the Court with regard to the exhibits you've attached to your -- to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 33 of 105\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 34 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 34 your objection and that's -- that's not part of an evidentiary hearing. Well, of course it is. It's either -- it's all in evidence or it's not, Mr. Henzy. It's part of the record of this case. You made it part of the record when you submitted your objection with those exhibits. That's the record of this case, ss are the exhibits that Mr. Despins submitted. Then you made the argument, well, they're not in evidence. Well, I don't agree with you because they're part of the record of the case. But we'll just put them all in evidence. So there's no -- MR. HENZY: Well, Your -- THE COURT: -- there's nothing unfair about that, Mr. Henzy. That's how it works. MR. HENZY: Oh, I think there is something unfair about it, Your Honor, but I understand your ruling. THE COURT: I know you do. MR. HENZY: I understand -- THE COURT: But you haven't been able to articulate or point to any case law or statute that supports your argument. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, you're taking evidence. And I understand I attached a document to my memo. Okay. And that's for the purposes of argument. I was not\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 35 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 35 contemplating anything was going to be admitted into evidence. You're taking evidence. You're holding a trial right now as I understand it. THE COURT: No, I'm not holding a trial, Mr. Henzy. You're the one that said that Mr. Despins couldn't argue about the exhibits attached to his reply because they weren't in evidence. And I said to you, okay, well, then let's put them in evidence because they are part -- MR. HENZY: And I -- THE COURT: -- of the record of this case. And then you just said -- you just said -- you weren't relying on those exhibits to make findings but, yes, you are. You exactly just said the settlement agreement that's been approved by Judge Garrity is what controls Genever Holdings. And so it's either part of the record or it's not. If you're -- then nothing you've said -- you don't have any -- anything to support your argument because you don't want it to be part of the record. So fine. If you don't want it to be part of the record, that's fine. And if you don't -- but you already made it part of the record because you submitted it with your pleading. MR. HENZY: I'm not going to dispute, Your Honor, that you can take judicial notice for what it's worth of a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 36 of 105\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>36                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | document that's been filed in the Genever bankruptcy case.     |\n| 2  | I'm not going to -- I'm not going to dispute that.             |\n| 3  | THE COURT:<br>But you have to do that under the                |\n| 4  | federal rules of evidence, Attorney Henzy.<br>I don't just say |\n| 5  | I take judicial notice.<br>I have to do that under the -- the  |\n| 6  | applicable rule of evidence regarding judicial notice.<br>So   |\n| 7  | it's evidence, as is the documents you've submitted with       |\n| 8  | regard to the settlement agreement.                            |\n| 9  | MR. HENZY:<br>Yeah.<br>I understand, Your Honor.<br>I          |\n| 10 | understand your ruling.                                        |\n| 11 | But there is a dispute, Your Honor, as to the                  |\n| 12 | ownership.<br>Now, Mr. Despins did file -- and that dispute I  |\n| 13 | believe under applicable law has to be resolved by an          |\n| 14 | adversary proceeding.<br>And I've cited lots and lots of cases |\n| 15 | that say that.                                                 |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>Mr. Henzy, let me stop you right there           |\n| 17 | on the adversary proceeding issue.                             |\n| 18 | I think you have a problem with the language in                |\n| 19 | 7004 -- 7001(a) that you didn't -- you stopped the sentence.   |\n| 20 | I mean, I looked back at it three times this morning because   |\n| 21 | I thought that you were -- that was not an accurate            |\n| 22 | statement.<br>And it says -- (a)(1) says a proceeding to       |\n| 23 | recover money or property other than a proceeding to compel    |\n| 24 | the debtor to deliver property to the trustee.                 |\n| 25 | How do you -- do you not see that language?<br>How             |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 37 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 37 do you interpret that language in any other way that that still requires Trustee Despins to file an adversary proceeding? How do -- I don't understand that. MR. HENZY: So, Your Honor, just as with the cases that -- Judge Trancredi case that I cited that dealt with a 363 motion, I don't -- I understand he can file a motion for turnover but, Your Honor, he hasn't filed a motion for turnover. THE COURT: He doesn't have to. Your client is obligated to cooperate with him under the debtor's duties when he voluntarily came to this court and sought this court's protection. And then -- and to say that your client's being ambushed, this issue of the trustee has been pending since the middle of February. The trustee was appointed on July 8th. It's August 4th. And your client hasn't cooperated with the trustee. I mean, you can continue to make the argument, but your argument is not persuasive. MR. HENZY: May I speak, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: I don't agree that Mr. Kwok has not cooperated with the trustee. So that's one. I understand this case was filed in February. The trustee was not appointed until July 8th, Your Honor. I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 38 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 38 understand a trustee was appointed. I have tried to familiarize myself with as much of the record in this case as I could. I don't understand that Your Honor has ever made findings regarding the debtor's lack of cooperation, regarding the debtor being a bad person. My understanding of your ruling granting the motion was really -- that it was focused on best interest of creditors. You said that there may be assets -- just a centralized form. So really the best interest of creditors type of matters. I've read your decision and I don't see anything regarding misconduct. I believe that Mr. Kwok's consent that there was cause was based on best interest of creditors. There was no admission by him as to malfeasance or any kind of bad conduct. So in the -- I guess it's three or four weeks since Mr. Despins -- and I'll say, Your Honor, I don't -- I don't believe that because a person files Chapter 11 that they then waive any and all of their rights if and when a trustee is appointed. THE COURT: Okay. But you didn't answer my question, Mr. Henzy, about 7001(a) and how you could interpret it in any way other than the language in the rule? MR. HENZY: So, Your Honor, 542 -- 7001(a)(1) --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 39 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 39 I'm sorry -- 7001(1) applies -- I recognize it applies to a proceeding to compel the debtor to deliver property to the trustee. But where -- I think that is with respect to property where there's no dispute that the property is property of the estate. And here there is a dispute. It's the same as with the 363 motion, Your Honor. The courts have held, including Judge Tancredi, that you can't grant a 363 motion until you've decided whether the property that's sought to be sold is property of the bankruptcy estate. And that requires an adversary proceeding. THE COURT: We're not selling property at this time. Number one. And number two, it is being sold subject to the New York Bankruptcy Court's order selling the property. So that's already been done, number one. And then your client admits that it is his asset in some way, shape or form, Mr. Henzy. I don't have to find whether he -- it's a legal interest, an equitable interest, a beneficial interest. I don't have to find any of that. Your client has already admitted it, that it's his asset. So I don't -- so I don't -- you still haven't answered the question of how 7001(a) requires Mr. Despins to bring an adversary proceeding. MR. HENZY: Well, Your Honor, I think there is no\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 40 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 40 7001(a). It's 7001(1), which does provide -- THE COURT: Okay. Sorry, 7001(1). MR. HENZY: -- a carve -- it carves out -- THE COURT: Sorry. MR. HENZY: -- it carves out turnover. But, again, that's for property of the estate. There has to be a determination that that, in fact, is property of the estate. And that -- THE COURT: Your client has already said it is property of the estate in the declaration. Even if he says he's holding it in trust, he still owns the shares. He says that in the declaration 107 that we talked about the other day. So he's already said that. MR. HENZY: What he said is that he has -- he has legal title as -- THE COURT: Okay. And guess what, as you know, the definition of property of the estate includes all interests, legal, beneficial, equitable, that you have in any property that you have. And so he has. MR. HENZY: But, Your -- THE COURT: It's property of the estate. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, Mr. Despins filed the -- the third revised proposed order, I think, nine -- or nine and a half minutes before the hearing. I did not have a chance to look at it. If there are appropriate protections\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 41 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 41 in there, then it may well be that the debtor won't object to the entry of that order, but I would like an opportunity, and not in the middle of this hearing, to review that order. THE COURT: Okay. Would you like to take a recess for an hour and you can go read the order? I mean, that's fine if that's what you'd like to do. But Mr. Despins just explained how he did put in safeguards in that order. MR. HENZY: I don't know what safeguards he put in and I don't know if they're sufficient. The issue, Your Honor, the problem, is that what Mr. Despins put in front of you would appear to be a -- require a transfer of the shares in full. Okay. That's the way I understood it. Okay. Where he said these shares get transferred to him solely in his capacity as Chapter 11 trustee. Well, if Mr. Kwok is the mere legal owner, as trustee, and these are now being transferred to Mr. Despins, I think Mr. Despins is becoming the trustee of that trust. If there's a valid -- if there's a valid trust, there has to be a trustee. And if Mr. Despins is now the legal owner of the shares, I think he's owning them as trustee of that trust. So, again, if we're all clear that that is the case, then maybe we don't have a problem. I'm not sure Mr. Despins really wants to be a\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 42 trustee of that trust with all that that might bring in terms of duties to the beneficiary of the trust, but you can't have it both ways. As Your Honor has said multiple times, you take the debtor as -- in this case -- he comes. And the argument is that with respect to this asset the way he came was as the legal owner, as trustee of a trust, for the benefit of a third party. So if -- if the -- all that he has is that legal ownership interest as trustee is what's being transferred, and it's being transferred to Mr. Despins as trustee of that trust, then maybe that's okay. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead. MR. DESPINS: That argument is preserved. We're not asking you to go all the way and find that the trust is not valid. We're preserving that issue for another date. But he cannot have an advisory opinion saying that a trust is valid. As you pointed out in the interrogatories, it's not question whether they've been filed or not in New York State. They're signed under penalty of perjury by Mr. Kwok. And he never mentioned the trust, the trust that existed five years or four years before. So that's the state of the law. That's how we Case 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 42 of 105\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 43 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 43 take our debtor. The debtor said nothing about that trust. And I'm -- I think we're being kind. We're preserving their argument that there's a trust for a later date, meaning it would be unfair to ask you to rule that the trust is not valid. We have serious issues about it, but that's for another day. That's what the order provides. It leaves that issue open for another day. THE COURT: All right. So, Mr. Henzy, did you -- MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, it's Stuart Sarnoff. THE COURT: Okay. Hold on one second. MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, I was just going -- THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Sarnoff. Go ahead. MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, I was merely going to point out that the Court's decision and -- decision and order on motion with respect to PAX's motion for turnover, not the transcript, but the written decision and order, was filed. We filed it in this court's docket on March 1st, 2022 as I believe docket number 57-2. If I have my -- forgive me if my information is incorrect. We were scrambling. But I think that's the correct information. It's a Supreme Court in the State of New York decision and order, and that would be the court's -- Justice Ostrager's ruling on our motion for a turnover. The\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 44 predicate of which was it was his asset that he needed to turn over to PAX. THE COURT: You think it's at ECF what? What page? 57 at what page? MR. SARNOFF: Dash 2, Your Honor. THE COURT: It's just taking a minute to open. I'm trying to see. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, with your permission, could we show on the Zoom -- I don't know -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: -- my colleague -- put up the -- THE COURT: Yes, we can. What would you like to show? MR. DESPINS: Show the paragraph that we've added to the order so Mr. -- so they can see that. It's a very short paragraph. THE COURT: So we need to pull up ECF 681. And you want to go to the black lined version or the plain version? MR. DESPINS: My colleague -- my colleague, Mr. Bongartz, can tell us exactly where we have to go. MR. BONGARTZ: It's page 35 at 40. THE COURT: Okay. We'll just need a minute, and the clerk will pull it up so we can all read it. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 44 of 105\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 45 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 45 (Pause) MR. BONGARTZ: And, Your Honor, while he's doing that, I do have a page reference. I guess -- I guess 57-2 is an exhibit. I believe it's page 131 of the exhibit, 1-3- 1 of the exhibit. Sorry. THE COURT: Thank you. (Pause) THE COURT: We're just waiting on 681, right, to be pulled up? And go to page 35 of 40 on that, please. I'm looking at a hard copy of it, but I can -- I'm sure we can pull it up in a second. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. (Pause) THE COURT: If you're having difficulty, I can share my screen and show it. Right? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: Is there a -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: She is having a problem there. Yes, she's having a problem. THE COURT: All right. So then you need me to -- you need to let me share then. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. You can share. THE COURT: Okay. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: You have ability. (Pause)\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 46 THE COURT: Is it showing? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: I can't see because I can't know that I'm sharing. All right. So this is the paragraph, Mr. Despins, paragraph 9? MR. DESPINS: Yes. Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. Can everyone see that? (No audible response) THE COURT: Okay. Everyone can at least view that? Attorney Henzy, do you see that? I'm not suggesting that you can't have a recess to look at the whole order. I'm just asking do you see paragraph 9? MR. HENZY: I see it, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. So, Attorney Henzy, are you -- are you asking the Court for a recess so that you can review this matter, or what are you asking the Court to do at this point? MR. HENZY: I don't think I was asking the Court to do anything, Your Honor. If the Court would like, I'm happy to take a recess and review this carefully. I don't know if it will take an hour. I don't know if it will require discussions with Mr. Despins or anyone else. I will though -- I want to be clear, Your Honor,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 46 of 105\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 47 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 47 that I am pressing my objection that this was not in the motion that was filed. And under Rule 9013 and relevant case law, I think it's not properly before the Court. So principally my argument is that you should not rule on this and that you should tell Mr. Despins to file a motion so that this can be done in an orderly way, as opposed to this was first filed and raised at 10:09 on Sunday night, Your Honor. Okay. So, again, this is -- this is not fair. There's not sufficient notice. His support for the relief he's seeking is not stated with particularity anywhere. Certainly it's not in the motion. And I don't think it's -- the revised proposed order that he has, it does not speak for itself. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, we filed a very broad motion seeking all corporate governance rights and we mention BVI specifically. Mr. Henzy responded saying BVI, it's too late. There's no -- you can't just -- you can't give an open-ended order like that with respect to BVI. We responded by saying, okay, we'll be very precise. That's exactly what we need from BVI. That's subsumed in the relief sought. So I don't understand the -- but he got it Sunday. The relief, again, this is very simple. There's a\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 48 of 105\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>48                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | car, we need the key.<br>If we're to get the keys to Genever,  |\n| 2  | we need the debtor to sign all these documents so that the     |\n| 3  | transfer is processed.<br>That's very consistent with the      |\n| 4  | motion.<br>It didn't have to be more specific than that, but   |\n| 5  | now it's very, very specific and it's been very specific       |\n| 6  | since Sunday.                                                  |\n| 7  | MR. HENZY:<br>I disagree, Your Honor.<br>I think it's          |\n| 8  | not -- it was not -- the relief that's sought now was not      |\n| 9  | part of the motion that was -- that was produced and filed.    |\n| 10 | So I'm going to -- I'm going to press that objection.          |\n| 11 | Again, if the Court or the parties think it makes              |\n| 12 | sense for us to take an hour recess so I can look at the       |\n| 13 | order and potentially talk to my client at least, I'm happy    |\n| 14 | to do that.                                                    |\n| 15 | But I don't -- I don't want there to be a surprise             |\n| 16 | if I come back and I say something like irrespective of        |\n| 17 | what's in this order I'm objecting to the relief being         |\n| 18 | entered.                                                       |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Does anyone else wish to be heard?               |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:<br>Your Honor, this doesn't need to                 |\n| 21 | happen this way.<br>But the status in the Genever U.S. case is |\n| 22 | the property is being sold under the supervision of Melanie    |\n| 23 | Cyganowski.<br>As I understand it the debtor there has         |\n| 24 | essentially handed control of that process over to Melanie     |\n| 25 | Cyganowski.                                                    |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 49 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 49 As I understand it, I don't think the debtor can do anything to impede that process. So nothing here is going anywhere. There's going to be a sale process. The sale proceeds I believe will be property of that bankruptcy estate and I believe won't be distributed except pursuant to court order, a court order entered by Judge Garrity. So there's no -- I don't think there's any rush here. And, again, as with the discovery, the U.K. discovery issue, Your Honor, if it's done the right way, this might be a lot easier. I don't think -- I don't think I'm creating the agita here. I think the trustee is creating the agita by the way that he's choosing to do this, which is really just to try to push them through on essentially no notice. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, the reason for the emergency is that we need to appear in the Genever case for reasons I explained about of last year. There are time- sensitive issues. We need to resolve them as soon as possible. And I don't want to go to that court and have someone like Bravo Luck say, well, he doesn't have the right to be here because he doesn't hold the shares. I don't want to be in that position, Your Honor. That's why we're doing this now.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 50 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 50 Thank you. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, it's Peter Friedman. If I may be heard for just a moment? We strongly agree with that. There's a plan on file in that case which PAX has objected to. But, you know, it has all sorts of provisions that we think unfairly favor certain parties that are aligned with Mr. Kwok. And obviously the debtor as a -- we don't think he's actually acted as a fiduciary in the context of that plan proposal and we believe that it would be much more appropriate to have Mr. Despins in whatever capacity dealing with the debtor in an even handed manner that benefits Mr. Kwok's legitimate creditors and so there actually is time sensitivity. I think there's a disclosure statement here -- and at least currently scheduled for August 16th. And the shape of the river of that case could be substantially changed if Mr. Despins' ability to participate in that case is made clear. THE COURT: Right. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, Irve Goldman for the committee. May I be heard briefly? THE COURT: Yes. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, I think a distinction has to be drawn between the equitable ownership of share\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 51 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 51 interests and the legal ownership of share interests which carry with it corporate governance rights. And I think it's unquestionable that the debtor has acknowledged he's the legal owner of the shares and he has exercised that legal ownership to control the administration of the Genever USA Chapter 11 case. So that is the subject of the motion. And the trustee has acknowledged by paragraph 9 of the order that the equitable interest by virtue of the trust agreement cannot be determined at this point. So I'm not sure what the argument is about. Secondly, even under the case law that Attorney Henzy cited regarding Rule 9013 and the need to be particular about the relief granted, this is simply incidental to the principal form of the relief that was sought in the first instance. It just got more -- the relief got more particular at the request of the debtor. So we support completely what the trustee has presented in the form of the proposed order. I just want to go back for a minute to the proposed letter to Attorney Morrissey before we break. And these are -- these comments are really pro estate comments. I think that the way the letter is drafted, the revised letter, could suggest that the attorney/client privilege belongs to the debtor. It does not.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 52 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 52 I agree fully with the trustee that the trustee holds the debtor's attorney/client privilege particularly when it relates to a matter that seeks to augment the estate. Now, this letter states that -- in part the black lined version states -- and to take instructions from him, meaning the trustee, in relation to my claim in the UBS litigation regardless of any attorney/client privilege, work product, or other privilege which belongs to me. I would suggest that the word may be inserted, which may belong to me, and then the following sentence. Any waiver of privilege is limited to the provision of this information to the trustee. My consent is limited to giving full access to the trustee and is not a consent by me to allow the trustee to waive the privilege. I don't want that sentence to be taken to mean that we need Mr. Kwok's allowance to the trustee to waive the privilege. The privilege belongs to the trustee in the first instance. So I would suggest if it wouldn't upset the agreement that the trustee reached, or apparent agreement the trustee reached with the U.K. firm that these provisions be massaged somewhat to -- not be taken to concede that it's the trustee that has the privilege. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, may I be heard?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 53 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 53 THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: Thank you. Mr. Goldman can hope, we can all, but I will tell you that that letter I'm aware has gone through several iterations between U.K. counsel and Mr. Despins' firm. And I think the U.K. counsel is taking a pretty careful approach and they're -- they are very concerned about their own professional obligations. In response to something that Mr. Goldman said, the trustee holds the privilege. We're talking about privilege under U.K. law, Your Honor. We're not talking about attorney/client privilege under U.S. law. There's new litigation pending in the U.K. Mr. Goldman may have some expertise on privilege under U.K. law. I'll admit I have none. I'm relying on what U.K. counsel has stated to me. So I don't think it's as simple as this is what the bankruptcy code says when a trustee is appointed vis-a- vis privilege. There's a -- how the privilege works in the U.K. is how it works in the U.K. So I don't think -- I don't know that anybody on this hearing can with any authority speak on that, on how the privilege works in the U.K. So I think -- I think it's dangerous to -- to be -- I'm trying to wordsmith -- when we frankly don't know\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 54 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 54 that we really know we're talking about. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if I may? I totally feel Mr. Goldman's pain. I feel the same pain. He is correct. Except that here, you know, this is -- I think this could turn out to be a fool's errand, meaning that they could play a game where the letter is sent and they say, oh, we're not going to share anything with you because he hasn't waived the privilege or anything like that. Of course, we'll be back to Your Honor. The important thing is Your Honor or the trustee are not taking the position. The letter is being sent by or is supposed to be sent by Mr. Kwok to counsel and that's his letter. We're not -- the trustee is not taking the position that that's the correct view under U.S. law. It is my price of admission apparently to see what's behind the curtain. And if it's there's nothing behind the curtain, I'll be back to Your Honor. I hope that I will see what's behind the curtain. And I think the same thing as Your Honor. But because you're directed to send the letter doesn't mean that you agree that I don't have access to the privilege. It's a -- it's a practical solution. And I am -- this will be rare event. I would be aligned with Mr. Henzy on this. I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 55 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 55 would not try to wordsmith the letter today on this if we can. And I am not naive. I know this -- this could be a setup where, in fact, there's nothing behind the curtain and I'll be back before Your Honor. Your Honor is not ruling that the privilege does not belong to me. It's just directing the debtor to send that letter. So I want to be -- So, Mr. Goldman, I understand his point completely, but I would urge the Court not at this stage to play with the language. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, I think with that, with that caveat, you know, I think I would be fine as long as we recognize that no ruling here -- there's no ruling on whether the trustee holds a privilege and -- or whether it's Mr. Kwok. I think there is an issue, given that this is an asset of a bankruptcy estate in the U.S., whether, you know, it's U.S. or U.K. law that governs a privilege -- but we -- I agree with Mr. Despins that it's not necessary to make that determination today. THE COURT: And the motion doesn't ask -- MR. HENZY: I think it's really not necessary because --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 56 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 56 THE COURT: The motion doesn't ask for -- MR. HENZY: -- as I said -- THE COURT: Hold on a second, Attorney Henzy. And the motion doesn't ask for that determination to be made. So I'm not making that determination. Sorry, Attorney Henzy. Go ahead. MR. HENZY: Well, Your Honor, actually the motion doesn't address the Harcus Parker issue at all in any way, shape or form. We can argue about whether the action on BVI is incidental to the motion that was filed, and I think it wasn't, but I don't think there really is an argument that the Harcus Parker issue is part of that motion. It's just not there, Your Honor. And I'll say again I think that the right way to do this where, you know, it may be that we can get to a productive place, and this -- this is not it. In terms of talking about the contents of the letter, Mr. Kwok is not going to waive, voluntarily waive, attorney-client privilege. He's not going to do it. And as I said I'm not going to compel him to do it. So it may be that if you're going to enter an order we're going to get to -- we're going to get to a contempt, but he's not going to do it. So I don't know how much time we need to spend on\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 57 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 57 the language of that, of that letter. THE COURT: Well, I'm going to take a recess until 3:30. And then we'll come back and see if you've had any discussions. And if not, we'll go from there. MR. HENZY: Right. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Court is in recess until 3:30. (Recess from 2:25 p.m. until 3:31 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: The United States Bankruptcy Court in the District of Connecticut is now in session after recess. We remain on case number 2022-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. We're back after recess. When we took a recess, the parties were going to attempt to talk and look at a proposed order that was filed on the docket today by the Chapter 11 trustee. So, Mr. Despins, where do things stand after a recess? MR. DESPINS: I'll let Mr. Henzy provide more detail because it's really the ball is in his camp. But we -- we did talk about one aspect -- well, we talked about all aspects, but one might be resolved, so maybe Mr. Henzy can address the Court on this. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 58 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 58 Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: Sure. So, Your Honor, with that additional paragraph 9, you know, the Court -- the Court enters an order directing Mr. Kwok to sign these -- the BVI share transfer document and the resolution and the -- the so-called Transfer-In Pack of Harneys Fiduciary, that Mr. Kwok is going to do that. Just for the record, I believe that, you know, the trust agreement itself does prohibit Mr. Kwok from transferring the shares, but he is not doing so voluntarily. He's being forced to by a court. Whatever flows from that flows from that I believe. And whatever other rights any party has as a result of Mr. Despins becoming the -- whatever he's becoming, the legal owner, trustee under a trust, et cetera, whatever he is, flow from that, I just -- the debtor is not, you know, certainly not opining on what may flow from it. And I don't think I want the debtor to be accused of having failed to fully inform people or anything like that. But all that being said, with that paragraph 9, the debtor is not going to object to the entry of that portion of the order. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, just two seconds on this.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 59 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 59 1 The transfer occurred on July 8th when I was appointed. The bankruptcy code made that transfer happen. What we're doing here is we're documenting the transfer. Again, you own the car. The car became the trustee's car, not personally, but in a trustee capacity, and now we're dealing with the registration to make sure it's endorsed and all that. The transfer occurred on July 8th by operation of law. I think that's very important to -- to understand that. But, you know, it is what it is. So we're -- I think we're happy that this aspect of it was resolved. MR. HENZY: And just for the record, I hear Mr. Despins' position. I don't agree with it. But, again, this aspect of it is resolved because Mr. Kwok, upon being ordered to do so, is going to sign these documents. THE COURT: Okay. Then what is left is the issue of the letter to counsel in -- to the firm in London. Is that the remaining issue? MR. HENZY: So, Your Honor, just to be clear, I had filed -- after the motion itself was filed, but before the revised proposed order was filed, I filed an objection raising other objections and I have not waived those objections. I know at the last hearing you told me that -- and I can't remember your exact words, you were inclined or you\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 60 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 60 had -- to overrule those objections. But I want to be clear that I am not waiving those objections. That I'm pressing those objections. And I'm happy to be -- THE COURT: Well, let's make the record clear then because -- MR. HENZY: I would like to be -- THE COURT: -- I need to know what you're objecting to. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: You're objecting to the fact that Mr. -- that Mr. Despins didn't file an adversary proceeding to have the property turned over to him? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I think that issue is resolved. THE COURT: Well, I need to know that. When you say you think that issue is resolved, if it's not, I'm going to rule on it, so you need to tell me whether it's resolved. MR. HENZY: Now, Judge, I'm sorry. I think I was being unclear. The argument that this needs to be done by adversary proceeding, that argument has gone away because that related to this share transfer that we just told you is resolved and going to happen. So when I'm referring to my other objections, if dial back to the motion as originally filed -- give me one\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 61 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 61 second, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Sure. MR. HENZY: -- the motion as originally filed, which is document 598 -- THE COURT: ECF 598. Right. And you're saying you still want to preserve your objection that the trustee didn't specifically reference section 521 of the code? MR. HENZY: No. So, Your Honor, on July 29, I filed an objection. It's document number 643. THE COURT: Yes. I understand. MR. HENZY: Okay. Okay. And I raised objections to the relief that was originally sought in the motion that has nothing to do with Harcus Parkus -- I keep saying Harcus Parkus, which sounds terrible -- but Harcus Parker and then the share issue that we resolved. I raised other objections that we haven't talked about at all today. THE COURT: Okay. Well, go ahead then. MR. HENZY: And, again -- THE COURT: I want to know what it is specifically you are still objecting to. MR. HENZY: Okay. And maybe, Your Honor, the -- to try to be -- to try and like to be clear, I am objecting to -- give me one -- I'm sorry, Your Honor. Give me one second. THE COURT: That's fine.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 62 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 62 (Pause) MR. HENZY: I'm sorry. I'm getting all these orders straight. So in the objection that I filed on July 29, if I -- if I look at the -- the easiest way to organize it might be the order that was filed this afternoon just before the hearing, which is document no. 681. THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead. I'm listening. I'm not sure where you're going. I thought we were going to -- MR. HENZY: Okay. I just want -- THE COURT: -- talk about what you're -- MR. HENZY: I want -- Judge, I'm sorry. I just wanted to try to tie back to the objection I filed on July 29. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Okay. It's paragraph 2 -- and this is -- this is -- putting aside -- THE COURT: Paragraph 2 of what, the order or your objection? MR. HENZY: Of the order. THE COURT: Paragraph 2 of ECF 681. MR. HENZY: Correct. THE COURT: You're objecting to what? MR. HENZY: Okay. I'm objecting to paragraph 2, although, again, we've dealt with the BVI issue.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 63 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 63 But this, the relief sought here asks for very broad relief with respect to entities that are not specified, the authority to replace any existing officer, director, manager or similar person. So Mr. Despins is seeking this court to give him authority over entities that are not specified without regard to those particular entities, what applicable law, non-bankruptcy law governs those entities and what the organization documents of those entities might provide. I don't think, Your Honor, that this works. I think that this type of authority -- with Mr. Despins, I think he has the authority that he has, and this goes -- and I'm not disputing any particular authority he has with respect to any entities because I don't know what entities we're talking about. But what this provision would do is give him authority that may not be provided for under applicable non-bankruptcy law and the governing documents of particular entities. THE COURT: Can't that just be -- MR. HENZY: And the cases that Mr. -- THE COURT: Can't that just -- can't we just fix that problem by saying that -- you're talking about for the avoidance of doubt language, that sentence? For the avoidance of doubt, that foregoing rights include the trustee's asserted authority. He's asserting he Case 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 64 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 64 has the authority. If he doesn't and he does something wrong, then you can sue him. MR. HENZY: Actually, Your Honor, I mean, I think I put this in my response, which is, if this paragraph had just been made -- made subject to applicable non-bankruptcy law and the governing documents of these entities, then I -- then I would have no objection to this provision. Again, I'm not trying -- I'm not trying to create an issue here. I really am not. But I think that that is the correct statement of law. He has whatever authority he has as trustee, but with respect to any particular entity, it is subject to applicable non-bankruptcy law and the governing documents of that entity. That's all. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, if we do, we do. If we don't, we don't. But I don't want to open satellite litigation over these issues with the debtor because that's how the fees are going to be -- you know, going to get out of control in this case. The reason we asked for blanket authority is because we will not exercise that right unless we believe through due diligence we have the power to do it. And if we're doubtful, we'll come back to the Court. But we cannot be in a position where there's a satellite litigation open whether -- what state law provides, what foreign law provides, because that's a --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 65 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 65 that's going to be another case basically. MR. HENZY: Judge, the last thing that Mr. Kwok wants to do is engage in litigation over how these entities are going to be governed. But if Mr. Despins is saying to you he -- after doing his diligence, that he would only do what he has the power to do, then I don't know -- all I want is to say that in this order, but I think that's not what this order says. THE COURT: Well, I think that a -- MR. HENZY: It goes -- it goes beyond that. THE COURT: -- I think my suggestion works. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing rights include the trustee's asserted authority to replace any existing officer, director, manager or similar person of the debtor- control entities. And then the next sentence says as part of the foregoing. So the point is he's asserting he has this authority. He's acting as a trustee. So that's what he's asserting. And that's what I'm going to -- I'm going to add the word assert. And that's all I'm going to change in paragraph 2. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. Just to be clear, I'm not -- I am not -- I am pressing my objection to that, that language. THE COURT: Understood. That objection's\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 66 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 66 overruled. So what's your next objection? MR. HENZY: Okay. Again, I'm trying to simplify here, Your Honor. Is I have no objection on -- to the first decreedal paragraph of paragraph 3. And then now with this resolution on BVI that we had just told you about, to that -- then that -- as you go over to page 3, that little (a), I have no objection to that paragraph. Then that's been resolved. The next paragraph down on that page, paragraph (b), we've discussed that at length, the -- on the U.K. issue, the UK/UBS litigation issue and I maintain my objection on that issue. On paragraph -- THE COURT: Hold on. Just wait a minute. I'm just writing this down. So what else are we going to discuss about (b)? I think the arguments have been made, correct? MR. HENZY: I think the arguments have been made, Your Honor. I don't want to belabor anything. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: But, Your Honor, I just want to add briefly to that the only privilege information we're seeking is with respect to the merits of the affirmative claims of Mr. Kwok against UBS. No other issues.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 67 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 67 So, for example, crazy example, Mr. Kwok, in the context of that representation, said, oh, by the way, I've transferred an interest in a private jet to my daughter. I'm not -- I'm not seeking that. That's not part of the affirmative claim of Mr. Kwok against UBS. So that privilege that the -- that Your Honor is directing him to send a letter about is the privilege regarding that litigation, that affirmative litigation, only. I want to make sure the record is clear about that. MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, I'd like to be clear. I understand Mr. Despins' position. I'd like to be clear that I believe Mr. Despins owns whatever -- I assume, again, I don't know U.K. law -- he owns whatever privilege he owns and Mr. Kwok has whatever privilege he has, if any. And Mr. Kwok is -- to the extent he has any privilege, he is not going to waive it. But, again, I think we've made -- I've made the argument that I have to make on that. I think. THE COURT: Okay. The objection to the language in paragraph (b) on page 3 of the proposed order is overruled. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: So what's your next objection? MR. HENZY: On paragraph 4, on page 4, Your Honor, that essentially is a blanket authorization to the trustee\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 68 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 68 to act outside of the ordinary course of business with respect to so-called debtor controlled entities. And I object to that. Frankly, I've never heard of or seen that. My understanding of bankruptcy code Section 363 is that when a debtor trustee -- debtor or trustee -- debtor- in-possession or trustee wants to act out of the ordinary course of business, they need to notice a hearing, come and ask for the Court's authority to do that. And this would make it so that there doesn't have to be notice and a hearing. And, again, this is a blanket authority. And I think that is not provided for in the code. I think that is just extraordinary relief and I don't think it's appropriate. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, on that point, it's the same argument as to applicable law. We don't want to be in a position where later it is argued that we acted outside of the ordinary course of business. And the safe valve -- the safety valve, is at the end of paragraph 4 where it says for the avoidance of doubt nothing in this order authorizes the trustee to sell, otherwise dispose of, lease or encumber any equity in debtor controlled entities or other assets of the debtor. So, yes, the language is broad, but then it's completely narrowed at the end to avoid the type of concerns\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 69 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 69 that have been raised. The reason we need the opening language is we don't want to be in a position where we're litigating over, well, you know, you terminated or you removed a director, an officer. You shouldn't have done that. That's not -- that's not in the ordinary course of business, and we have all these satellite litigation over whether we acted within -- with or without it. We believe that we should get both reliefs as long as the safety valve is in there which protects the estate, no sale, no lease of property without a court order. Thank you. THE COURT: Does anyone else -- MR. HENZY: I see -- I see the limitation, Your Honor, but I still think -- I don't think there's any such thing as blanket authorization to act out of the ordinary course under 363. MR. DESPINS: That solely to exercise corporate governance rights, Your Honor. Nothing else. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, may I be heard -- it's Peter Friedman -- for just a moment? The order that was originally proposed did not include that language that Mr. Despins put in and we thought it was extremely important. And, you know, I think had that language not been\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 70 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 70 in there, as creditors, we would have objected. But we found that that addition to be -- to represent I think an extremely good faith move by the trustee in balancing the economic interests of creditors, which I think has to be paramount, with efficiency. So we strongly support the inclusion of that particular paragraph with the protective language that was added at our request. THE COURT: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard on paragraph 4? (No audible response) THE COURT: Okay. I'm just reading the language again. (Pause) THE COURT: Okay. Anything further from anyone on paragraph 4? (No audible response) THE COURT: While I understand the objection, Attorney Henzy, I'm overruling it because I think that the language -- it is specific to the economic and governance rights with respect to the debtor-controlled entities. And, you know, if litigation ensues about that, then it can ensue. But we're not going to -- it is -- it is qualified by the last sentence and I think it's protective enough of the debtor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 71 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 71 MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: So what is your next objection? MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, great news, I have no objection to paragraph 5. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HENZY: On paragraph 6, the -- so paragraph 6 provides debtor shall not interfere with, hinder or delay trustee's exercise of authority on this order. I have no objection to the first sentence of paragraph 6. However, the second sentence would restrict the debtor's ability to seek relief and it would restrict it to seek relief from this court. And I don't -- I don't know that the debtor ever would seek relief. But because particularly for the fact this paragraph 4 and the broad authority that Mr. Despins is being granted there, I don't know what might occur here. I don't know what rights, if any, the debtor would have to do anything. But I don't think the debtor -- to the extent that the debtor otherwise would have a right to seek relief, I don't think it should be restricted by this order. So I would ask that the second sentence of paragraph 6 be struck from the order. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, same issue. The debtor is before this court. He has worldwide assets. From your perspective you have exclusive jurisdiction over that. We\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 72 cannot have the debtor running in foreign courts to assert claims. It may be that he comes, Your Honor, but, you know what, there's a real important twist on the U.K. law regarding issue XYZ there. And you might decide, yeah, you're right, go for it or something like that. But everything needs to be centralized in this court by this debtor. He cannot have satellite litigation elsewhere. And they have the ability to come to this court for relief. So that's a very important position, Your Honor. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, the way this order is set up, Mr. Despins can run to other courts including courts in foreign countries. MR. DESPINS: That's correct. MR. HENZY: So the way that this would now be set up is Mr. Despins decides he's going to go to a court in this country or a foreign country and the debtor, even assuming under the law of that foreign country, the debtor has a right to appear and do whatever a debtor is going to do. This order says the debtor can't do that. And it says the debtor I guess would have to come back to you and say to you Mr. Despins is doing this thing in a foreign court and I'm in front of you telling you he shouldn't be doing it because I've been told I can't go to a foreign court to make the argument that under the foreign Case 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 72 of 105\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 73 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 73 court law I'm entitled to make. And that doesn't -- that does not make any sense to me. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor -- MR. HENZY: If Mr. Despins is going to have the ability without seeking court authority to go to other courts, then -- again, Your Honor, you said it, you take the debtor as he comes. The debtor should be able to go do whatever the debtor has a right to do under the foreign law. THE COURT: Well, the problem is -- MR. DESPINS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: -- Mr. Despins is the debtor and so he already has the rights. He doesn't need authority from this court to do what he's doing in the actions that are already pending in which the debtor is a party. So your argument, while I understand it to an extent, the problem is what right would Mr. Kwok have to do anything in any of those foreign courts if Mr. Despins has now become Mr. Kwok? MR. HENZY: Well, Mr. Despins is not -- THE COURT: Which you've admitted in your papers that as soon as the filing of -- as soon as the order appointing the trustee was approved, that Mr. Despins became Mr. Kwok. So what possible rights would Mr. Kwok have? MR. HENZY: Well, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Mr. Despins has stepped into all of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 74 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 74 those rights. MR. HENZY: I think I agree. I didn't -- I don't think I said Mr. Despins became Mr. Kwok. And I'm going to guess Mr. Despins doesn't want to be Mr. Kwok, but he absolutely is substituted for Mr. Kwok in any pending litigation. But I don't think that the way this order is set up it's not just pending litigation, Mr. Despins can commence new litigation that the debtor might or might not even be a party to. Now, what rights in particular in a foreign jurisdiction Mr. Kwok might have as a debtor out of possession? Your Honor, I don't know. He may or may not have any. He may not have any rights. So I don't know because I don't know what jurisdiction we're talking about. I don't know what entity we're talking about. I don't know what action it is that Mr. Despins would be taking. So I'm perfectly -- look, the way, again, this is set up is Mr. Despins can go do whatever he's going to do, only to the extent that under some applicable foreign law Mr. Kwok would have a right to show up and do something -- and he might not, he might not, Your Honor, he should be able to do that. I don't -- I don't think he should have to come back to this court to find out whether or not he has a right to show up in another court under non-bankruptcy --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 75 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 75 applicable non-bankruptcy law. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, may I be heard for a moment on this issue? It's Peter Friedman. I think it is really important because I think the issue is, you know, in any premise, Mr. Kwok's going to have to determine if he has standing given the insolvency of his estate. So I think it's actually critical, given that he said he has \\$3,850, that before he goes to another court and be permitted to litigate, that he actually would show that he would have permission to interfere with the trustee's use of debtor property given his economic -- where the economics of this exist. I think that's an issue that really has to be made to determine with reference to U.S. bankruptcy law and his rights. So I actually think what Mr. Despins has proposed is extremely appropriate. It certainly is a prudent measure and one that falls really within core bankruptcy determination as to whether he even has standing to have standing to be heard. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, just to pose a hypothetical. Let's say Mr. Despins goes to a foreign court and in the foreign court seeks to compel Mr. Kwok to do the kind of things that he sought to do with this order. He seeks to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 76 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 76 compel him to execute a document, let's say a corporate document. Then I don't -- I mean, would anyone say that Mr. Kwok wouldn't have standing in that foreign court to tell the judge in the foreign court, well, I shouldn't have to execute this document for whatever reason. And the judge may say, you're wrong, you have to execute the document. The judge is going to say whatever the judge is going to say. But how could Mr. Kwok not have the right to show up in that foreign court -- and it's before a judge -- before a judge can say to Mr. Kwok I don't believe you have standing for whatever reason. And Mr. Despins can tell the judge, the foreign judge, Mr. Kwok doesn't have standing. So how can Mr. -- in my hypothetical, how can Mr. Kwok not have the ability to show up in court and potentially defend his rights to the extent that he has any? MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, I won't speak for Mr. Despins, but I don't understand the order as depriving Mr. Kwok of the ability to defend himself if there's a matter in a different court. But if he's seeking to initiate litigation, I think he would certainly have to come to this court. MR. HENZY: Well, that's not what the order says. MR. DESPINS: In any event, Your Honor, the point is that the Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Mr. Kwok.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 77 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 77 He needs to come back to this court. And, in fact, if there are compelling circumstances, yeah we'll authorize him to go to Australia, for example, to defend some action to see that. The point is that he should not be roaming around and having the ability to disrupt what we're doing around the world without coming to Your Honor to say this is what I'm doing. I have some particularized injury that somehow I'm able to assert even though I'm out of possession. Well, that argument should only be made to Your Honor. And then if you find it compelling, you'll send -- you'll authorize him to do whatever he wants abroad. But you cannot have him running around in this. It's just fundamental, Your Honor. MR. HENZY: But, Your Honor, arguably what this order is doing though you are giving up a certain degree of jurisdiction to Mr. Despins, meaning you're telling him that he can act out of the ordinary course of business without coming and asking permission from you. But then what Mr. Despins and Mr. Friedman are essentially arguing is but you -- but you hang on with respect -- let's say to the same matter, you hang on to jurisdiction with respect to the debtor. So Mr. Despins can do whatever he wants to do, but Mr. Kwok can't respond to that. And that seems it should be\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 78 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 78 one way or the other. If Mr. Despins wants to come back and make a motion to act out of the ordinary course of business and the debtor has to respond to that in bankruptcy court, that's okay. But if he's going to not have to do that, then I think the debtor should be able to show up wherever he's doing things and respond to the extent that he has a right to do so. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, the debtor and the trustee are not on equal footing. This concept that somehow because we have the right to do it they should. That's not the way it works. THE COURT: Well, I was going to make that point. The point is Mr. Despins is an independent third party who's been appointed to run the -- administer the estate of Mr. Kwok. It's the -- the language says in the second sentence to the extent the debtor opposes the trustee's exercise of authority, okay, the debtor shall be limited to seeking relief from this court on notice to parties in interest to the extent the debtor can show he has standing to do so. And, unfortunately, given where -- for the debtor -- given what he's stated in all of his filings, and as\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nwe've talked before, there is no evidence before this court,\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 79 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 79 and nothing in the record -- in fact, the only things in the record support that the debtor will have no interest in this estate because there won't be any -- a full payment to creditors in this case. And so there will not be any surplus to which the debtor would have standing to raise such arguments. And if Mr. Despins does something outside of his authority, then the debtor still has the right to make that argument. But he has to make it here in this court subject to this court's authority over this estate. And that's one of the, you know, results of the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. So, again, while I understand your argument, it doesn't foreclose the debtor from opposing the trustee's exercise of authority, but he has to do it in this court. And so I'm going to overrule your objection to paragraph 6. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. Just as an aside, just saying, the damage claim in the UBS litigation in the U.K. is \\$500 million. I have no knowledge of the strength -- THE COURT: That claim wasn't listed as an asset of this estate, Mr. Henzy. MR. HENZY: Oh, no, it was. THE COURT: No. It actually wasn't originally.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 80 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 80 MR. HENZY: I believe it was. THE COURT: No. I think it was not. MR. HENZY: Okay. I'll go -- I'll go back and check, but I thought that it was. But in any event, I don't -- I don't think the debtor would dispute at all that to the extent that it wasn't in the schedules, Your Honor, it should have been. And I think the debtor absolutely -- THE COURT: Well, maybe it was. So let me just -- let me go back in the global notes which aren't really notes -- which, again, there's no authority for any debtor, that I'm aware of under the bankruptcy code, under case law, under statute, under local rules, under the federal rules, to file global notes to your -- to your schedules to disavow what you say in your schedules under penalty of perjury. I've never seen or heard of such a thing, but I understand that's now becoming something that people do. But that doesn't -- that doesn't mean that the global notes have any bearing on whether or not Mr. Kwok accurately completed his schedules. All that being said, even if he did list it, it's a \\$500 million claim with two other plaintiffs, correct? MR. HENZY: Yes, but -- THE COURT: So it would be split three ways, correct?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 81 of 105\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>81                            |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | MR. HENZY:<br>Under --                                        |\n| 2  | THE COURT:<br>And the claim of -- the claim of PAX            |\n| 3  | that your client did put in his schedules, actually on a      |\n| 4  | schedule, is -- he listed it as not less than \\$254 million,  |\n| 5  | I believe, maybe it's 53.<br>I haven't looked at it recently. |\n| 6  | But in any event, the solvency of your debtor, of             |\n| 7  | your client, is still very much at issue in this case.        |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>I don't -- I don't disagree with that           |\n| 9  | at all, Your Honor.                                           |\n| 10 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                           |\n| 11 | MR. HENZY:<br>I'm just pointing out that you're not           |\n| 12 | -- I have no idea of what the strength or weakness of the     |\n| 13 | claim in the U.K. is and what percentage --                   |\n| 14 | THE COURT:<br>I understand.                                   |\n| 15 | MR. HENZY:<br>-- if that's so.                                |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>But he'll have -- he'll have to come            |\n| 17 | back here and explain why he opposes the trustee's exercise   |\n| 18 | of authority.<br>And he'll be heard.                          |\n| 19 | MR. HENZY:<br>Okay.<br>Understood.<br>My objection on --      |\n| 20 | I understood.                                                 |\n| 21 | THE COURT:<br>Maybe.                                          |\n| 22 | MR. HENZY:<br>That objection's overruled.                     |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>Depending upon if he has standing,              |\n| 24 | okay, at that point in time.                                  |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:<br>Understood, Your Honor.                         |\n|    |                                                               |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 82 of 105\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>82                          |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>So that -- so that, I overruled your          |\n| 2  | objection to paragraph 6, the language in paragraph 6 we    |\n| 3  | just discussed on the record.                               |\n| 4  | MR. HENZY:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                        |\n| 5  | THE COURT:<br>So what is your next objection?               |\n| 6  | MR. HENZY:<br>The last objection is on paragraph 7.         |\n| 7  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                         |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>So this asks for an order where --            |\n| 9  | that provides that you request the assistance of foreign    |\n| 10 | courts, including the assistance of the BVI court regarding |\n| 11 | any request of the trustee for relief with respect to the   |\n| 12 | trustee exercising corporate control over Genever BVI.      |\n| 13 | I would -- I'm absolutely not going to tell the             |\n| 14 | Court what it ought to be telling other judges, but I just  |\n| 15 | -- I think that is very, very broad.                        |\n| 16 | And the way I read this is it would sort of give            |\n| 17 | Mr. Despins this court's impromatur to go in front of       |\n| 18 | another judge and say please give this to me -- and Judge   |\n| 19 | Manning tells you that you ought to give it to me, even if  |\n| 20 | you, Your Honor, don't know that -- what it is that he's    |\n| 21 | telling another judge that it is that he wants.             |\n| 22 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                         |\n| 23 | MR. DESPINS:<br>So, Your Honor, this type of                |\n| 24 | language is often used in the foreign, you know, foreign    |\n| 25 | representative context.                                     |\n|    |                                                             |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 83 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 83 I'm happy -- obviously, you don't know me and you may not be comfortable giving me a blank check and I don't think this is a blank check -- but it's really an indication to foreign courts that it may not be (indiscernible) as U.S. courts that this court is requesting their assistance not to do something illegal or inappropriate, but in requesting their assistance. That's kind of run of the mill language, but I was always told never raise section 105 in front of Judge Manning, so I'm not going to raise it. But it's something along those lines. So if you -- I'm happy with it or without it. I'd rather have it in, but I'm not going to -- I don't want to put you in a position where you don't feel 100 percent comfortable with that. THE COURT: Well, I mean, I think that the section in Chapter 15 -- you know, the whole purpose of Congress making Chapter 15 part of the code in 2005 was to acknowledge, you know, cross border cases and try to have cooperation between the foreign courts and foreign representatives. Okay? So I think we could -- we could say in furtherance of the trustee's exercise of authority of this order, the Court respectfully requests the assistance of foreign courts with respect to the trustee's exercise of corporate control\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 84 over debtor entities, including Genever BVI. I don't think there's -- MR. DESPINS: Absolutely. Good point. THE COURT: -- any problem with that. I mean. And I think that it -- I mean, I think in the -- there have been cases in this district where an order like that has entered with regard to proceedings in other -- outside of the United States. So I don't -- I think I could change -- Mr. Despins, do you have any problem -- I didn't write down exactly what I just said -- MR. DESPINS: No. THE COURT: -- but would the -- with the change that I described? MR. DESPINS: We'll make that change, Your Honor, if you want. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Or it's up to you. MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, just for the record, I am -- if the Court's comfortable with the language, I'm not going to press an objection on that issue. THE COURT: All it's -- MR. HENZY: Again, that -- THE COURT: All it's asking for, and I believe is appropriate, is that because Congress decided to make Case 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 84 of 105\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 85 of 105\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>85                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | Chapter 15 a separate and distinct chapter in the code that    |\n| 2  | they're trying to recognize the cooperation between courts     |\n| 3  | that might be necessary for a case in one jurisdiction to be   |\n| 4  | carried out with respect to related proceedings in another     |\n| 5  | jurisdiction outside of this country.                          |\n| 6  | So I don't have a problem with it, with the                    |\n| 7  | changes as I've just described them.                           |\n| 8  | MR. HENZY:<br>Understood, Your Honor.                          |\n| 9  | THE COURT:<br>Okay.                                            |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:<br>We'll make the change, Your Honor.             |\n| 11 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.                                       |\n| 12 | MR. HENZY:<br>Last issue, Your Honor -- and I'm not            |\n| 13 | trying to go back and argue the --                             |\n| 14 | MR. DESPINS:<br>I thought it was the -- that was the           |\n| 15 | last issue.                                                    |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:<br>There's one more.<br>I'm not -- I'm not          |\n| 17 | trying to go back.<br>On paragraph 3, so back on page 3, this  |\n| 18 | is the Harcus Parker letter, what this says is that the        |\n| 19 | debtor is directed to deliver no later than two business       |\n| 20 | days after the entry of this order.<br>Well, there's a couple  |\n| 21 | of issues with that, Your Honor.                               |\n| 22 | The copy of the letter and the form attached as to             |\n| 23 | Exhibit B to what's in front of you has -- as I understand     |\n| 24 | it, that has not been agreed to by Harcus Parker.<br>So you're |\n| 25 | kind of in some sense --                                       |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 86 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 86 THE COURT: I just have a question about that though because Trustee Despins said that this is the letter he got back from them, so how would they not agree to it? MR. DESPINS: It's a letter. What I said is the letter we got back from them with some minor changes that we made. But in the event, I'll deal with that, meaning if they -- if they say -- I think the changes we made are -- and by the way, we did send them earlier today a -- the changes we made, so they've seen them. We haven't heard back from them. But if it's an issue, we'll fix it, meaning, that's not Mr. Kwok's issue, meaning, we have the letter as we submitted it to Your Honor and we'll see what they say. And if it needs to be modified, we'll just file a supplement. It would be very, very -- a very minor change really. MR. HENZY: I guess -- so I'm not clear if -- so he's going to be -- Mr. Kwok's going to be ordered to sign a letter that U.K. counsel may tell us is not acceptable. I don't want to be in a situation where Mr. Despins is negotiating for three days with the U.K. counsel on what a letter might say and this says he has to sign -- THE COURT: So I think what you're saying, Attorney Henzy, is you just don't want the Court to enter the order until you see the final version of the letter. Is\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 87 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 87 that what you're saying? MR. HENZY: Or at least until there -- yes, until there is a final version. Yes, until there is -- right now, as I understand it, there is no final version. But then the second point is -- as I said earlier, Mr. Kwok is not going to sign this letter. This provides that he must do so within two business days of whenever the letter is actually finalized and complete. And I just -- you know, I -- we will be filing an appeal. We will seek a stay pending appeal. I just -- I don't want Mr. Kwok to be in contempt because he has not -- he has not signed this order. I just want -- so I just wanted to alert the Court. I would -- I guess I don't know why there's a rush of two business days. I don't know what's going to happen in two business days, you know, and why there couldn't be a little longer period of time so that Mr. Kwok can get his appeal filed and file whatever motion for stay pending appeal he's going to file. 20 I just don't want to have an unnecessary fire drill, Your Honor. If the order ends up not being stayed and he -- and he's not signing it, then whatever consequences from that will flow from that. But I don't -- I don't know how realistic it is going to be that we're going to be able to get in front of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 88 Your Honor within two business days on a motion for a stay pending appeal. That's all. And, again, I don't -- I would ask that this be a longer period than two days. MR. DESPINS: So, Your Honor, we -- I understand your concern and I share your concern to be sure that the changes we made were stylistic only. But, you know, given where this is heading, we should have precision. So what we should do is -- I'm just kind of thinking out loud here what's the best way to handle this -- I mean, there will be a letter. There should be a final letter. And maybe the order can provide that we will provide the letter in the final form within X days and the debtor will have Y days to -- to do it. Y number of days to do it. And the letter will be substantially in the form attached. So we can submit an order that will address that issue, that exact issue, Your Honor. And understand that precision -- we shouldn't -- we should be careful about this and have more precision rather than that. I understand your point, Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you have any objection to extending the two days to a longer period of time for the debtor? He's not going to sign it, but I guess what he's saying is he wants the -- he's going to be filing an appeal so -- I Case 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 88 of 105\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 89 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 89 don't -- MR. DESPINS: Sure. THE COURT: I don't have an opinion either way. I was just asking you the question. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor -- and the answer is of course. I mean, whatever you, Your Honor, feels is a better period of time we'll obviously go with that. Generally we want to get the show on the road regarding that claim, but two versus four days is not going to, you know, break the bank. THE COURT: Mr. Henzy? MR. HENZY: I'd ask for five business days. That I don't -- I don't know when exactly this is all going to happen. I don't know what will be going on in my life. I don't know what will be going on with the Court. I don't -- I don't think a day or two one way or another -- MR. DESPINS: You know, five business days is fine, Your Honor. Thank you. MR. HENZY: I just -- THE COURT: Five days did you say, Mr. Despins? That's fine? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then there you go. You've got five days, Attorney Henzy. MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor, again, I -- because I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 90 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 90 don't want to have parties, you know, pointing at me or pointing at Mr. Kwok, I think this is going to be a mess, okay, in terms of getting this letter done. The Harcus Parker lawyer told me that a prerequisite to her ever agreeing to do anything is that any waiver by Mr. Kwok would have to be voluntary. And this is not going to be voluntary. I'm not telling her what position she should take based on that. Mr. Kwok is not communicating with her. So I don't -- what her response to Mr. Kwok being ordered over the objection to sending this letter, I, you know, that's not my -- that's not my thing. That's not Mr. Kwok's thing. The U.K. lawyer is going to react however -- they going to react however they react. Okay? MR. DESPINS: I understand that, Your Honor. And the point is that there's a certain limit to what we're going to allow these folks to dictate. If they get a letter from someone regardless of whether a court orders them to do it or not -- and by the way, this is moot because he's saying he's not going to sign the letter. So, you know, we're arguing -- we're -- THE COURT: Right. He's not going to sign it anyway. Right. MR. HENZY: Well, but the -- there just may never be a letter. That's all. I mean, at some point, I\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 91 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 91 understand -- THE COURT: Oh, no. I think there'll be a letter. The point is your client's already stating he's not going to sign it. He's not. He's already stating through you that he's not going to comply with this court order. MR. HENZY: And, Your Honor -- THE COURT: And it hasn't even entered yet, but he's not going to comply with it. MR. HENZY: He's not going to voluntarily waive his privilege, Your Honor, to the extent he has any. But I think -- the point I'm trying to make is a letter, I understand Mr. Despins at some point is going to put a letter in front of you and that letter may not be agreed to by the Harcus Parker firm. That's all. Because the Harcus Parker -- THE COURT: He's not going to put a letter in front of me that's not agreed to by that firm. They're the ones that have prepared it. MR. HENZY: No, they haven't. THE COURT: They're the ones who have made the final comments to it. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I don't know what they're going to do. If they understand that the debtor is not voluntarily waiving, they make take the position we're not -- we're just not doing it. Okay. I don't know that, Your\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 92 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 92 Honor. THE COURT: Well, then, Mr. Despins will have to deal with that. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: If he doesn't have a letter, then there isn't any five days to worry about. If he doesn't get a letter from them, then you -- there's nothing -- then your client won't be in violation of a court order because there wouldn't be a letter -- MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: -- for him to have to sign to deliver to them. MR. DESPINS: No. Actually, Your Honor, I think -- at one point we will need a letter from the debtor, because otherwise these lawyers would just keep us in limbo. What's going to happen is that if the debtor refuses to sign the letter, we'll have a court order. We'll go to U.K. court. It will cost a lot of money and all that, but we'll go to the U.K. courts and seek relief from the U.K. courts against these lawyers who are refusing to give us access even if there's a letter from the debtor that says you need to give them access. But, again, I -- you know, we're arguing over a letter that the debtor says we'll never -- they will never sign anyway, so, you know, I think that's -- let's get to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 93 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 93 that point first. MR. HENZY: I'm comfortable with the Court saying if there's no -- if there's no letter the firm is agreeing to there's nothing for the debtor to do. MR. DESPINS: No. Your Honor, because that's giving -- that's -- THE COURT: Well, that's not what I said. I said then the five days doesn't matter. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: If there's no letter, than the five days doesn't matter. That's what I said. You asked for more time. MR. HENZY: Yeah. Yeah. THE COURT: He's agreed to more time. Then you've now said, what you've also said on many times during the -- during this day that your client's not going to sign the letter. MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: So I said if he's not going to sign the letter, then he's going to be in violation of the court order. MR. HENZY: I'm positing a situation where there is not a letter that the firm in the U.K. has agreed to. That's all. MR. DESPINS: And the firm in the U.K. cannot be\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 94 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 94 the ultimate arbiter of what happens in this case. We've given them a lot of leeway. And Your Honor is not going to give a U.K. lawyer control over privilege in this case. So we're willing to work with them. And we're doing that. But, you know, Mr. Henzy cannot use their ability to derail the process as a defense for him, his client, not signing the letter. MR. HENZY: I'm not using anything to derail the process here, Your Honor. Your Honor, if you -- I understand that if there is a letter and you order -- whether the U.K. firm has agreed to the letter or not, and you order Mr. Kwok to sign that letter that his five days will start to run. I understand that. MR. DESPINS: That's all I'm asking. And, Your Honor, we would propose to revise the order to deal with the letter and all that. So we will do that if Your Honor will authorize us because we need to fix the order. You suggested better language elsewhere so we need to do that and we will do that with your permission. THE COURT: Yes. You have my permission to do that. And do you think you will get that order to the Court tomorrow? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 95 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 95 THE COURT: Okay. Or Monday? MR. DESPINS: From our point of view, yes. We will do our best to do that, yes. THE COURT: Or Monday. MR. HENZY: Can I have some time -- I would like some time just to review the order, Your Honor. MR. DESPINS: Yes. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: Well, we've just gone through what the order is going to say. We've gone through every paragraph including every one of your objections, which were overruled. I've stated all the rulings on the record. MR. HENZY: I would like to just put eyes on the order, Your Honor, just -- I'm not -- I completely trust Mr. Despins, that he's going to accurately make the changes that we talked about, but I just am in the practice of wanting to see the final order. That's all. I'm not saying I'm going to object to it or anything like that. THE COURT: But then if you disagree, we're going to have another hearing. That's what -- that's what you're trying -- that's what you're saying. You're saying you -- if something -- if something doesn't comport with what you think it is, then we're going to have another hearing. That's what you're saying. MR. HENZY: Yes. But that's all because --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 96 of 105\n\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>96                             |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1  | THE COURT:<br>Well, I'm not going to have another              |\n| 2  | hearing.<br>I've ruled.<br>I've ruled what the order's -- what |\n| 3  | the order needs to say.<br>We've gone through it.              |\n| 4  | You just spent the time.<br>You said to me -- this             |\n| 5  | is what you said -- I asked you what your objections were to   |\n| 6  | the relief.<br>And I went back and I started with so you're    |\n| 7  | objecting about the fact that Mr. Despins didn't cite to       |\n| 8  | 521.<br>And you said, no, no.<br>Let's go -- let's go through  |\n| 9  | the order.<br>Let's go through my original objections and      |\n| 10 | let's go through the order.<br>So that's what we just did.     |\n| 11 | We're not coming back to court on this.<br>This is             |\n| 12 | what we just did.                                              |\n| 13 | MR. HENZY:<br>So, Your Honor, what if -- what if --            |\n| 14 | what if the order that's submitted -- again, I am not          |\n| 15 | telling -- saying I think Mr. Despins is going to do this --   |\n| 16 | what if the order that's submitted is not consistent with      |\n| 17 | what's been on the record today?                               |\n| 18 | THE COURT:<br>Then I'm not going to enter it.<br>I'm           |\n| 19 | going to read the order.                                       |\n| 20 | MR. HENZY:<br>I'm sorry, Your Honor.<br>I think it's           |\n| 21 | customary for all counsel to have an opportunity to review     |\n| 22 | an order before it's entered.<br>But I understand.             |\n| 23 | THE COURT:<br>But that's what we just did.<br>We just          |\n| 24 | spent the time that you would spend going over an order.       |\n| 25 | MR. HENZY:<br>I understand what the Court's saying.            |\n|    |                                                                |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 97 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 97 THE COURT: We just spent a substantial amount of time, as a matter of fact, going through every paragraph in the order. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, if you're ruling I'm not going to have an opportunity to review the final order -- THE COURT: Mr. Despins -- MR. HENZY: -- then I understand the Court's -- THE COURT: You know, I'm -- Mr. Despins, is your firm going to have -- This is what I would want everyone to do. This is how it's going to work out because we are not doing this on a regular basis. Mr. Despins, would you please send an email to the courtroom deputy box, your firm will know and Mr. Linsey can help you if necessary, with the order CC'ing all the parties. I'm not going to enter that order for some period of time -- I don't know what -- but several hours probably. Okay? And then I'm going to enter the order. I'm not going to have another hearing going through the language of the order. We just did that. The only reason that that order will not enter is if Mr. Despins wrote something like the Court has allowed me to live in the courtroom. Then I wouldn't enter that order. Okay? For many reasons. It wouldn't be comfortable for him\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 98 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 98 anyway. But that's the point. We're not going to do this. We've had -- this is the second hearing on this issue. This motion was filed on July 23rd. It's August 4th. Your client is no longer a debtor in possession. Someone has to come to that realization. Okay? The trustee has that authority to do what he's doing as I have just ruled. And that's -- we've gone through every paragraph of the order and I have made rulings on those paragraphs. And there are changes that will be made. And so that's what we're going to do. Mr. Despins, your office or through Mr. Linsey will send -- MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: -- an email to the courtroom deputy box in Bridgeport and indicate that the order -- this is the order that has been prepared after the hearing on August 4th with all the changes discussed on the record. And you will CC all the parties, including Mr. Henzy. And then I will enter that order in due course after some period of time. But I am not having a further hearing. This hearing is concluded. MR. DESPINS: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: I have ruled. Okay?\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 99 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 99 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, two housekeeping matters. THE COURT: Yes. Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: Five minutes. Okay. First, we have suggested dates, but of course subject to Your Honor's schedule for status conferences. THE COURT: Did you submit them to someone yet? MR. DESPINS: Actually, we have not. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: So you're absolutely right. That's tabled. Let's table. We were going to post them. I don't know if my colleague has the ability to put that up on Zoom, the potential suggested dates. Or you know what, Your Honor, let's circulate. We'll table that. Let's circulate those dates. We'll come back to Your Honor about that. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Apologies. You're absolutely right. We should -- THE COURT: And you can communicate to the courtroom deputy about those suggested dates through the email box and CC everybody so everybody knows this is what you're suggesting. MR. DESPINS: Will do. THE COURT: Okay?\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 100 of\n\n|    | 105                                                          |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>100                          |\n| 1  | MR. DESPINS:<br>Will do, Your Honor.                         |\n| 2  | Next item I want to raise is we've had a meet and            |\n| 3  | confer with the debtor's counsel regarding the Rule 2004     |\n| 4  | discovery on the issue of discovery of professionals, like   |\n| 5  | lawyers. And that issue is going to be a problem in the      |\n| 6  | sense that they -- their view is that we don't have access   |\n| 7  | to the -- at least the way it was articulated to me, that we |\n| 8  | don't have access to the privilege documents when the debtor |\n| 9  | -- with respect to assets of the debtor or assets we think   |\n| 10 | should be the debtor's such as the Lady May or Sherry        |\n| 11 | Netherland because the debtor believes they're not assets    |\n| 12 | and, therefore, they would be invading his privilege to go   |\n| 13 | after these documents.                                       |\n| 14 | So the reason I'm telling you this -- I'm not --             |\n| 15 | because I'm not asking you to rule on this, but we need to   |\n| 16 | tee that up sooner rather than later because they want to    |\n| 17 | tee it up 30 days after they receive the subpoena which      |\n| 18 | would get us into September/October.                         |\n| 19 | There's a clear issue here which is an issue of              |\n| 20 | what privilege the trustee succeeds to.<br>And I think the   |\n| 21 | case law is clear that when dealing with assets of the       |\n| 22 | estate, either assets that are already in the estate or      |\n| 23 | assets that there is a claim they belong to the estate, such |\n| 24 | as the Lady May and the Sherry-Netherland, that the trustee  |\n| 25 | have access to privileged communications regarding these     |\n|    |                                                              |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 101 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 101 assets, or with respect to administration of the case, for example, preparation of schedules by Brown Rudnick. I'm not asking you to rule, but we need to tee that up. And we're not going to do that now, but we want to tell you we're going to ask for a date earlier than 30 days after the service of subpoena because that could bring us to September or October. So that's an issue that's out there. The last issue, Your Honor, is, you know, you've asked us, you raised this issue of conflict before and we left it the other day. And you said, hey, people need to be attuned to this. But this meet and confer just made us or my partners realize that the issue is not a Zeisler issue. The issue is that a target of the trustee's investigation, which is his son, the debtor's son, is paying for the fees of counsel. It's impossible for counsel to be adverse or to think in any way adverse to somebody paying their fees. It's theoretically possible, but I wouldn't hold anyone to that standard. So we're not asking -- there's no punch line here where we're saying we're asking you to disqualify Zeisler. I don't think it's Zeisler issue. I think that it is very difficult for any firm\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 992<br>Filed 10/17/22<br>Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05<br>Page 102 of<br>105 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>102                                                           |\n| 1  | that represents the debtor, that has duties to the estate,                                    |\n| 2  | to be paid by the targets of the trustee's claims.<br>And the                                 |\n| 3  | harm here, that's the Sherry-Netherland, Bravo Luck, et                                       |\n| 4  | cetera.                                                                                       |\n| 5  | And so, you know, again, I don't have a punch                                                 |\n| 6  | line.<br>We're still thinking about it, but I wanted to -- we                                 |\n| 7  | have a duty to relay the issue to the Court.                                                  |\n| 8  | I don't want somebody weeks from now to say you                                               |\n| 9  | sat on this.<br>Really, that's the issue, is the payment of                                   |\n| 10 | fees by a target of the investigation to debtor's counsel.                                    |\n| 11 | That is problematic, I think.                                                                 |\n| 12 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                                                             |\n| 13 | MR. DESPINS:<br>That's all we have.                                                           |\n| 14 | MR. HENZY:<br>May I be heard, Your Honor?                                                     |\n| 15 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.                                                                            |\n| 16 | MR. HENZY:<br>Thank you.                                                                      |\n| 17 | On the 2004, I don't know why that's coming up                                                |\n| 18 | now.<br>We're talking about 2004 orders that haven't been                                     |\n| 19 | entered.<br>As to the objection date to the 2004 motions that                                 |\n| 20 | were filed hasn't even come up.<br>It's tomorrow.<br>So we're                                 |\n| 21 | talking about 2004 orders that haven't entered and subpoenas                                  |\n| 22 | that haven't issued.<br>I don't know how that's going to play                                 |\n| 23 | out, but right now it's interesting to preview it I suppose,                                  |\n| 24 | but I have no idea how that's going to play out.                                              |\n| 25 | On my firm's conflict issue, if Mr. Despins wants                                             |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 992<br>Filed 10/17/22<br>Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05<br>Page 103 of<br>105 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>103                                                           |\n| 1  | to file a motion disqualifying my firm, he should do that.                                    |\n| 2  | Any party wants to file a motion to disqualify my firm, they                                  |\n| 3  | should do that.                                                                               |\n| 4  | If the Court believes my firm should be                                                       |\n| 5  | disqualified, then the Court should take whatever action the                                  |\n| 6  | Court deems necessary.                                                                        |\n| 7  | But other than that, I'm not going to -- I'm not                                              |\n| 8  | going to think about it and I'm not going to talk about it.                                   |\n| 9  | I'm going to represent my client.                                                             |\n| 10 | All the facts are out there.<br>If somebody thinks                                            |\n| 11 | there's a problem, they should -- they should do that.                                        |\n| 12 | I said this at the hearing the other day.<br>This                                             |\n| 13 | should not being used as<br>(indiscernible) sword against my                                  |\n| 14 | firm or against Mr. Kwok.<br>So either file your motion or                                    |\n| 15 | just leave it alone.                                                                          |\n| 16 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Anything further from                                             |\n| 17 | anyone this afternoon?                                                                        |\n| 18 | MR. DESPINS:<br>No, Your Honor.<br>Thank you.                                                 |\n| 19 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.                                                             |\n| 20 | Then the -- so that the record is clear, the                                                  |\n| 21 | trustee's motion for order extending deadline to file                                         |\n| 22 | notices of removal is granted and the proposed order will                                     |\n| 23 | enter.                                                                                        |\n| 24 | The motion for order confirming that the Chapter                                              |\n| 25 | 11 Trustee holds all of the debtor's economic and corporate                                   |\n|    |                                                                                               |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 104 of\n\n|    | 105                                                            |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022<br>104                            |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 1  | governance rights in debtor controlled entities authorizing    |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 2  | Chapter 11 trustee to act in any foreign country on behalf     |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 3  | of the estate and granting related relief is granted for the   |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 4  | reasons stated on the record with an order to be submitted     |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 5  | by trustee's counsel on notice to all other parties who will   |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 6  | be -- receive a copy of that when it's submitted to the        |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 7  | Court.<br>And then the Court will review it and enter it after |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 8  | the fact.                                                      |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 9  | Okay?<br>All right.<br>Thank you, all.<br>This is the          |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 10 | last matter on the calendar, so court is adjourned.            |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 11 | ALL COUNSEL:<br>Thank you, Your Honor.                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 12 | (Proceedings concluded at 4:35 p.m.)                           |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 13 |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 14 |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 15 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and             |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 16 | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that    |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 17 | the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official        |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 18 | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above     |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 19 | entitled matter.                                               |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 20 |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 21 |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 22 | October 17, 2022                                               |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 23 | Christine Fiore, CERT                                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 24 | Transcriber                                                    |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n| 25 |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n|    |                                                                |  |  |  |  |  |  |\n\n|    | Case 22-50073<br>Doc 992<br>Filed 10/17/22<br>Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05<br>105 | Page 105 of |     |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|-----|\n|    | Ho Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022                                                   |             | 105 |\n| 1  | INDEX                                                                          |             |     |\n| 2  |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 3  | TRUSTEE EXHIBITS:                                                              | PAGE        |     |\n| 4  | A-G<br>Attachments to Trustee's motion                                         | 33          |     |\n| 5  |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 6  |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 7  |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 8  |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 9  |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 10 |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 11 |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 12 |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 13 |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 14 |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 15 |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 16 |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 17 |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 18 |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 19 |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 20 |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 21 |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 22 |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 23 |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 24 |                                                                                |             |     |\n| 25 |                                                                                |             |     |\n|    |                                                                                |             |     |","body_zh":"案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交，于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 1 页，共 105 页\n\n美国破产法院\n康涅狄格州联邦地区法院\n10/17/22 更新\n布里奇波特分庭\n\n关于\n*\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n*\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）\n*\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n*\n2022 年 8 月 4 日\n债务人。\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n\n尊敬的 JULIE A. MANNING（朱莉·A·曼宁）美国破产法官庭前程序记录\n\n出庭人员：\n\n代表债务人：\nERIC A. HENZY（埃里克·A·亨齐），律师\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所）\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n\n代表债权人 Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.（太平洋联盟亚洲机会基金有限合伙企业）：\nPETER FRIEDMAN（彼得·弗里德曼），律师\nSTUART M. SARNOFF（斯图尔特·M·萨诺夫），律师\nO'Melveny & Myers LLP（奥迈律师事务所）\nTimes Square Tower\n7 Times Square\nNew York, NY 10036\n\nPATRICK BIRNEY（帕特里克·伯尼），律师\nRobinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所）\n28 Trumbull Street\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE GOLDMAN（欧文·戈德曼），律师\nPullman & Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所）\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n\n程序通过电子录音记录，记录文本由转录服务机构制作。\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与转录服务公司）\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n出庭人员：（续）\n\n代表债权人 Rui Ma（马睿）、Weican Meng（孟维灿）及 Zheng Wu（吴峥）：\nKRISTEN MAYHEW（克里斯滕·梅休），律师\nMcElroy Deutsch（麦克尔罗伊·多伊奇律师事务所）\n225 Liberty Street\n36th Floor\nNew York, NY 10281\n\n代表美国受托人：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN（霍莉·L·克莱伯恩），律师\nOffice of the United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）\nThe Giaimo Federal Building\n150 Court Street, Room 302\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n第 11 章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS（吕克·A·德斯平斯），律师\nPaul Hastings LLP（博恒律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\n第 11 章受托人代理律师：\nG. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ（G·亚历山大·邦加茨），律师\nPaul Hastings LLP（博恒律师事务所）\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n\nPATRICK R. LINSEY（帕特里克·R·林赛），律师\nNeubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C.（纽伯特、佩佩与蒙蒂思律师事务所）\n195 Church Street, 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n\n代表债权人 Logan Cheng（程龙）：\nJAY M. WOLMAN（杰伊·M·沃尔曼），律师\nRandazza Legal Group, PLLC（兰达扎法律集团）\n100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor\nHartford, CT 06103\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交，于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 3 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 8 月 4 日 3\n\n（程序于下午 1:05 开始。）\n\n法庭书记员：案号 22-50073，Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。\n\n法官：谢谢。请为记录说明出庭人员，先请第 11 章受托人。\n\nDESPINS 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Luc Despins（吕克·德斯平斯），第 11 章受托人。我与来自 Paul Hastings（博恒律师事务所）的代理律师 Alex Bongartz（亚历克斯·邦加茨）以及受托人的当地代理律师 Linsey 先生一同出席。\n\n法官：下午好。接下来请委员会的代理律师。\n\nGOLDMAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼），来自 Pullman & Comley（普尔曼与科姆利律师事务所），代表债权人委员会。\n\n法官：下午好。请债权人 PAX 的代理律师。\n\nBIRNEY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Patrick Birney（帕特里克·伯尼），来自 Robinson & Cole（罗宾逊与科尔律师事务所），代表 PAX。今天下午与我一同出席的是来自 O'Melveny & Myers（奥迈律师事务所）的 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）。\n\n法官：下午好。还缺少谁？律师——\n\nBIRNEY 先生：法官阁下，Friedman 先生刚刚也已加入。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交，于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 4 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 8 月 4 日 4\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。请债权人 Rui Ma（马睿）及相关债权人的代理律师。\n\nMAYHEW 女士：是，下午好，法官阁下。Kristen Mayhew（克里斯滕·梅休），McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter（麦克尔罗伊·多伊奇·马尔瓦尼与卡彭特律师事务所），代表 Rui Ma（马睿）、Zheng Wu（吴峥）和 Weican Meng（孟维灿）。\n\n法官：下午好。请债务人的代理律师。\n\nHENZY 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Eric Henzy（埃里克·亨齐），来自 Zeisler & Zeisler（泽斯勒与泽斯勒律师事务所），代表债务人。\n\n法官：下午好。请美国受托人的代理律师。\n\nCLAIBORN 女士：下午好，法官阁下。Holley Claiborn（霍莉·克莱伯恩），代表美国受托人。\n\n法官：我想还有 Wolman 先生。此时唯一尚未说明出庭身份的人就是他，对吗？\n\n法庭书记员：我相信是的，法官阁下。\n\nWOLMAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Jay Wolman（杰伊·沃尔曼），来自 Randazza Legal Group（兰达扎法律集团），代表债权人 Logan Chang（罗根·张）。\n\n法官：下午好。好的。我认为所有人的出庭身份均已记入记录。正如我此前所述，日程表上有两项事项。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交，于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 5 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 8 月 4 日 5\n\n我没有看到针对第 11 章受托人关于延长移送民事诉讼时限之动议的任何异议或答复。该动议以及拟议命令在我看来均无问题。是否有人希望就受托人延长移送民事诉讼期限的动议发表意见？\n\n（无可听见的回应）\n\n法官：好的。未听到回应——\n\nLINSEY 先生：法官阁下。\n\n法官：是。\n\nLINSEY 先生：是。如果该动议在您看来没有问题，我不会多说。\n\n法庭书记员：Linsey 律师——\n\nLINSEY 先生：我是代表受托人的 Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛）。只是说明——\n\n法庭书记员：请原谅。Linsey 律师，请您说明姓名。\n\nLINSEY 先生：我是代表受托人的 Patrick Linsey（帕特里克·林赛）。\n\n法庭书记员：谢谢。\n\n法官：请继续。\n\nLINSEY 先生：鉴于法官阁下称该动议看来可以接受，我不会——我不会多说。我只想指出，债务人此前提交了一项动议，我认为对此没有任何异议，但该动议尚未得到处理。而假定法院作出我们随本动议提交的命令，则将导致债务人的动议被撤回。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交，于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 6 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 8 月 4 日 6\n\n法官：是。你们的动议中已提到这一点。因此谢谢。当该命令作出时，即随动议提交、载于 ECF 672 第 10 页和第 11 页的拟议命令作出时，债务人此前的动议将被撤回；现由受托人在记录中予以撤回。\n\nLINSEY 先生：谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n法官：好的。谢谢。因此，该动议获准，拟议命令可以作出。这样就处理了今日日程表上的第一项事项。第二项事项显然是——已从周一，即 1 日，延期至今日审理；即受托人请求作出一项确认受托人持有债务人全部经济权利和公司治理权利的命令之动议。该事项延期至今日，是为了给予债务人提交答复的机会，债务人已于今早提交答复。我还——债务人提出了异议，随后第 11 章受托人就该异议提交了答复。因此，我理解书面文件中，或者至少我已在书面文件中看到一些提及，并且我先请你发言，Despins 先生，即已经进行了一些讨论。我看到一份命令的红线版本，似乎显示就我们周一讨论的问题，与伦敦的律师已取得了一些——我想我会称之为进展，但我想请你说明目前情况。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交，于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 7 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 8 月 4 日 7\n\nDESPINS 先生：是，法官阁下。因此，这些动议有两个方面。嗯，有许多方面，但我认为其中有两项存在争议。重点是您刚才提到的 UBS（瑞银），另一项则是英属维尔京群岛股份等事项的情况。因此，既然您先提到 UBS，我就从这一点开始。就该 UBS 诉讼，我与——或者说债务人的代理律师的律师之间进行了很多来回沟通。基本上，他们提出了若干问题。最后，我说，听着，你们何不草拟一封信，该信如果由 Kwok 先生发给你们，你们会乐意收到；该信将允许你们向我提供关于各项主张实质内容、任何和解提议的最新情况，基本上就是客户会收到的内容。她最终确实这样做了。并且——我们在答复中也提到了这一点。就此事的部分内容而言，我必须勉强接受，意思是，声称法院的管辖权仅是美国境内的问题。我的意思是，如您所知，在美国，我们认为您，法官阁下，对债务人的全部资产拥有全球管辖权。但姑且不论这一点，我想还是不要就管辖权展开美英之间的辩论。因此，我们采纳了她的信，只作了一些小改动，基本上，这就是我们现在请求法院命令债务人向她发送的信；该信基本上说，应当给予他完全查阅权限。但债务人依照她——英国代理律师的要求表示，其同意，而且这写在信中，并不延伸至我放弃特权。这不是一个问题，也就是说，我本来就无意这样做。但我原以为，始终由我有权放弃特权。不过，我的意思是，不要陷入这些问题。重要的是取得文件查阅权限并了解案件，获得完整的说明。我认为，根据该信，尽管他们非常谨慎地表示，我们不能保证该信将对我们具有约束力，而我们说可以，但我认为，根据该信，我们应当能够完全查阅文件。这就是目标。因此，我们将不再追究限制法院管辖权的问题。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 8 月 4 日 9\n\n以及诸如此类的事项。因此，这就是目前在该问题上的情况。就我而言，关于英国代理律师，我认为我们已经处理完毕。但我不知道债务人在该问题上的立场如何。\n\n法官：Henzy 律师？\n\nHENZY 先生：我们在该问题上尚未处理完毕。法官阁下，有几点。第一，Despins 先生提到了英国代理律师，他和我一直与之沟通的人是 Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克律师事务所）的 Jenny Morrissey（珍妮·莫里西）。作为债务人的代理律师，我只想明确说明。我不确定这一说法是否正确。法官阁下，我坦率地说，美英法律的衔接对我而言有些不清楚。我知道，根据《破产法》，在 Despins 先生被任命后，他自动替代成为该英国诉讼中的原告。从 Morrissey 律师那里得知的是，《破产法》所说的内容，至少不是她的观点。我并非——我并非——我对英国法律一无所知，因此她是对是错，但那——那是她的观点。我相信，她的观点也是 Despins 先生尚未成为该诉讼的一方。根据英国法律，尚有一些步骤必须采取。同样，我不对此发表意见。我是在向您转述 Morrissey 律师所说的内容。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交，于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 9 页，共 105 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交，于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 10 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022 年 8 月 4 日 10\n\n她向我表示的内容。因此，我不认为她是债务人的律师。我不认为她是 Despins 先生的律师。坦率地说，我不确定这使得英国该诉讼中无论谁是原告的人处于何种地位。我不确定该信目前处于何种状态。我看到的该信最后版本是由 Paul Hastings（博恒律师事务所）发给 Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克律师事务所）的。我认为 Despins 先生在上次庭审时说过，Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克律师事务所）在此事上非常、非常谨慎，因此我不知道 Paul Hastings（博恒律师事务所）发送给 Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克律师事务所）的最后版本，Harcus Parker 是否会接受。即使假定其会接受，我认为，毫无疑问，法院——在对法院表示充分尊重的前提下——不得强迫 Kwok 先生放弃其律师—客户特权。现在，我——\n\n法官：该信并未说他放弃其特权。事实上，该信称，任何特权放弃仅限于向受托人提供该信息。这正是该信所称的内容。\n\nHENZY 先生：该放弃是——该放弃具有特权，法官阁下。因此，这里——我想作出区分。这里有两个——而且，法官阁下，我们正在处理跨境问题。因此，我认为这里的特权是\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交，于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 11 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022\n1　并非依据美国法律。\n而是依据英国法律。\n2　据我从\n3　Morrissey律师（莫里西律师）处获悉，可能存在一些事项——我认为这\n4　在美国法律下也是如此——即会指定一名受托人，\n5　而公司债务人与\n6　自然人之间适用不同的标准。\n自然人在受托人获指定后，仍可能保有某些\n7　特权。\n据我\n8　理解，英国的情况也类似。\n9　因此，Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克）持有的某些事项，\n10　Kwok先生本人可能仍对其享有\n11　特权；而对于其他事项，\n12　依据英国法律，他则不享有该等特权。\n13　而且我——再次说明，我不了解英国法律。\n我不\n14　认为Despins先生（德斯平斯先生）了解英国法律。\n这是我所不知道的。\n15　\n16　我认为，法官阁下，处理此事有一种正确的方式。\n17　Despins先生需要采取措施，使其本人\n18　在英国诉讼中被承认为当事方，而后我认为该特权\n19　问题需要据此予以处理。\n20　我不知道债务人——我不知道\n21　Kwok先生如何能说，我将放弃我所享有的任何\n22　特权权利。\n再次说明，是他所享有的任何特权权利。\n23　\n24　法官阁下，我不知道。\nMorrissey律师可能\n25　会判断他并不享有任何特权权利。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 12 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022 12 她可能会判断，对于其持有的材料，他享有大量特权权利。我不知道，在他不知道自己就何种事项放弃特权的情况下，如何能够公平地要求他放弃其仍享有的任何特权。因此，我不知道Morrissey律师会说哪些文件属于这样一类事项，即依据英国法律，Kwok先生对其仍享有特权。再次说明，我认为有一种方式可以处理此事。Morrissey律师可能会确定若干具体文件，并称这些是Kwok先生享有特权的文件；可能在由我审阅后，这些文件完全无害——那当然很好——但必须经历一个程序。在Kwok先生不知道自己放弃的是什么的情况下，他无法作出知情且自愿的放弃。他不能这样做。而且他不会这样做。并且，再次恕我直言，我不认为您可以强迫他这样做。我不认为您可以通过签署这封信，强迫他放弃其——无论其在英国法律下的律师—当事人特权为何——该等特权。\n\nDESPINS先生：法官阁下，容我发言吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nDESPINS先生：您知道，这里有人试图\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022 13 混淆视听。如果该信对英国的律师不起作用，我会处理此事。因此，我们暂且将此搁置。我认为它会起作用，因为她对我们的信作了修改，并向我们发送了这封信。我们作出了一些非常轻微、非实质性的修改，所以这是第一点。而那封由她作出修改的信基本上说，如果她收到该信，她将分享有关特权的——或者说，她将向我提供受特权保护的信息。关于什么？关于该诉讼的实体问题。那是债务人的一项资产。Henzy先生（亨齐先生）大谈其475 million或任何数额。那是债务人的一项资产。唯一的方式——这就像一辆汽车。为了取得该汽车，我需要钥匙。钥匙就是这封信。因为否则他们不会与我交谈，因为，您知道，要么是英国规则，要么是他们担心被起诉。他们从未明确说明过这一点，但这就是潜在含义。情况非常清楚。因此，我认为该信有效。并不存在对特权的未知或无限制放弃。它涉及该诉讼的实体问题。这就是她将与我分享的内容。因为Henzy先生——您必须记得——曾很好地发送了一封电子邮件给\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 13 of 105\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 14 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022\n1　他们，很久以前就说，我基本上拥有\n2　与Despins先生有关的该等请求权。\nKwok先生完全脱离了\n3　此事——脱离了该请求权。\n他的确如此表示。\n4　那么，如果我不能由律师向我说明\n5　该请求权的实体问题，\n6　我拥有该请求权又有什么意义？\n再次说明，这把钥匙使我取得汽车。\n7　而我绝对需要它。\n8　法官阁下，判例法很明确，\n9　受托人可以取得债务人与债务人资产有关的\n10　受特权保护的信息。\n11　在这里甚至没有争议。\n这不像\n12　游艇或Sherry-Netherland公寓，在那些事项中他称，\n13　哦，我并不拥有它。\n他说——他提交了一项请求权。\n他说我\n14　拥有这个。\n显然，受托人现在拥有该请求权。\n15　而且显然我有权取得该等信息。\n16　这并非对特权的未知或无限制放弃。\n因此，\n17　我们认为法庭可以强制。\n这是\n18　521(a)(3),(a)(4)。\n法庭绝对可以这样做，因为\n19　这等同于债务人说，是的，这里有汽车，\n20　但我不给你钥匙。\n21　如果不了解该请求权实体问题的说明，或\n22　不知道是否已达成任何和解，\n23　我就无法开这辆车。\n我无法出售这辆车。\n您知道，这就是\n24　类比。\n而我们需要取得该等信息。\n25　谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 15 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022 15 HENZY先生：法官阁下，容我发言吗？\n\n法庭：可以。\n\nHENZY先生：我想明确一点，Morrissey律师已向我明确说明，此处还有另外两名原告，且该特权为共同特权。Morrissey律师已经明确表示，Kwok先生不能就与其他当事方共同拥有的信息主张特权。因此，她非常、非常明确地表示，理论上Kwok先生唯一能够主张特权的，是据我所知由他单独拥有的财产。因此，Harcus Parker会表示其将释放的信息范围究竟是什么，您知道，我不知道。但我想向您提供两个在我的异议中未列出的引证。法官阁下，我完成该异议的时间相对较短。我确实援引了一宗案件，其中Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）表示，您不能强迫一个人放弃其律师—当事人特权。再次说明，法官阁下，我想在这里明确，如果Kwok先生不再拥有该特权，依据——我认为是依据英国法律——而非美国法律——英国的律师—当事人特权为何，以及该特权在何种程度上属于他\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 16 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022\n1　而非属于Despins先生，这就是——这是一个\n2　英国法律问题。\n不是美国法律问题。\n3　但还有两宗Second Circuit Court of Appeals（第二巡回上诉法院）的\n4　案件。\n其中一宗是Highland Capital Management v. United\n5　States（Highland Capital Management诉United States）。\n其引注为626 F. App'x——我从来不知道如何\n6　念那个东西，324。\n这是一项2015年的裁决。\n7　法官阁下，如可允许我引用：\n8　“在未放弃特权或不存在可接受例外的情况下，强制\n9　披露受特权保护的律师—当事人通信，\n10　有悖于确立已久的先例。\n当当事方对某项\n11　特权是否适用存在争议时，法院通常会对争议\n12　材料进行非公开审查。\n相反，在未就\n13　该主张的实体问题作出司法裁定的情况下，要求诉讼当事人\n14　向对方律师交出受律师—当事人\n15　特权主张约束的文件，将损害律师—当事人\n16　特权，因此是不允许的。”\n17　因此，再次说明，Kwok先生在此享有何种\n18　特权以及不享有何种特权，很可能\n19　存在争议。\n此外，未经处理该争议，您不能命令他放弃特权。\n20　\n21　法官阁下，我再说一遍，处理此事有一种正确\n22　的方式。\n如果Despins先生不试图\n23　强行取得一项裁定，而是与英国律师\n24　和我合作，尝试确定此处即使可能存在争议的文件范围，她可能会查阅\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 17 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022 17 她的文件，法官阁下，并说，我不能向你提供任何东西，因为这些其他人享有特权，我不会——我不会向你提供任何东西。她可能会说，有五页文件是Kwok先生唯一所有人，我可以向你释放。那五页文件是他孩子的照片。没有人——也没有人会关心那个——来告诉我们任何事情。但有一个——有一个必须经历的程序。第二巡回法院表示，未经就具体文件作出认定，您不能命令这种一揽子放弃。\n\n法庭：Highland案中何处这样说？我正在看它。而且Highland案并非破产案件。这是与IRS问题有关的第三方传票。那么，何处这样说？何处说法院不能强迫一个非占有债务人，就债务人已在伪证罪处罚下声明为其破产财产的一项资产，放弃其特权？\n\nHENZY先生：法官阁下，这——您说得对。这不是债务人案件。但我不认为——我不——我不知道有任何案件。而且我要说，法官阁下。我不知道有任何案件是这样说的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 18 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022 18 因为第二巡回法院所说的是，在存在适用例外之后。而且我认为，案件中通常出现的例外是，一方当事人——在刑事案件中——称其获得了无效的律师协助。规则是，除非你愿意放弃与律师之间的相关通信，否则你不能声称未获得有效的律师协助。我不知道有任何案件表示，对债务人而言存在一项适用例外。但我要回应我在这里提出的另一点。我不认为在此的债务人有责任证明否定事实。并非通过动议。但Despins先生通过提交拟议裁定寻求救济。他正在寻求让您强制债务人——\n\n法庭：尚未。\n\nHENZY先生：——放弃其特权。\n\n法庭：尚未。如果债务人不签署该文件，那么——我前几天向Despins先生提出了那个问题，届时他将提交一项动议。问题在于，你的判例法说，在未放弃特权或不存在适用例外的情况下，强制披露受特权保护的律师—当事人通信，有悖于确立已久的先例。那么，这——这——Kwok先生已在其财产清单中、在伪证罪处罚下声明——而你们已经\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 19 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022\n1　联系了英国的律师，称 Despins 先生（德斯平斯先生）是当事方，而且你已承认，在英国的诉讼中，\n2　Despins 先生取代 Kwok 先生（郭先生）的位置。\n3　\n4　因此，你不能继而主张，Kwok 先生——\n5　代表 Kwok 先生的律师不能将该等\n6　信息交给 Despins 先生审阅。我的意思是，\n7　你可以提出该项主张，但它没有说服力。\n8　你正在——\n9　HENZY 先生：好的。没有任何——\n10　法庭：请原谅。让我——让我先\n11　说完。\n12　你来到本法庭。你的当事人\n13　自愿来到本法庭，并将其资产置于\n14　本遗产债权人的审查之下，并称\n15　本诉因是其诉因，且是\n16　该遗产的一项资产。\n17　在第 11 章受托人被任命的那一刻，\n18　第 11 章受托人即取代 Kwok 先生的位置。因此，\n19　第 11 章受托人在该诉讼中享有 Kwok 先生的特权。\n20　\n21　因此，你的论点没有说服力。因此，\n22　让我们转到下一个问题，即是否——因为该\n23　命令——\n24　HENZY 先生：法官阁下，我能否——我能否——可以吗——\n25　法庭：请原谅。我还没有说完。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 992 提交于 10/17/22 录入于 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 20 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - August 4, 2022 20 HENZY 先生：好的。法庭：那封信——Despins 先生刚刚表示，如果他不正确，他将受到《规则》第 11 条制裁，Henzy 先生。他从伦敦的律师——从出庭律师或事务律师那里收到了这封信。他们愿意签署该信。他们已对其作了标记。这就是将要发生的事。这就是将要发生的事。因此，让我们转到下一个问题，即 Genever 问题，以及你主张 Kwok 先生并不对 Genever 享有任何控制权这一事实。但是，当你查看受托人今晨对你异议的答复时，随附的证据显示 Kwok 先生承认——这是一项当事人自认——他拥有持有该公寓的合作社的股份。对此你有何回应？HENZY 先生：法官阁下，如果我可以回到刚才的问题。为记录在案，您将不会听取我就特权问题提出的任何进一步论点。法庭：正确。HENZY 先生：我只是想作出——法庭：我已经裁决了这个问题。HENZY 先生：我想保留记录。法庭：我已经裁决了这个问题。正确。你关于特权的论点没有\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 992 提交于 10/17/22 录入于 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 21 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 21 说服力。Despins 先生在成为第 11 章受托人时，即取代了债务人的位置。对此已有确立的判例法，Henzy 律师。你所援引的案件并不适用。它们不涉及取代已被解除占有之债务人位置的第 11 章受托人。因此，你的判例法并不支持你的论点。现在我将——我们可以转到关于 Genever Holdings（Genever 控股公司）事项和 Sherry-Netherlands 公寓的下一个问题。HENZY 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。关于 Genever BVI 问题，我首先——因为我不久前才收到这个——但随附于答复的文件并未作为证据提交，法官阁下。我认为我们对此都可以达成一致。而且我——我不是——我并不——法庭：嗯，我不确定这是否正确。首先，其中一些来自纽约的破产法院。本法庭可以对这些文件及其可靠性予以司法认知，依据是它们是在纽约 Genever Holdings 的第 11 章案件中提交的。因此，当你说它们未作为证据提交时，嗯，\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 992 提交于 10/17/22 录入于 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 22 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 22 那么我可以使其成为证据。我可以说，它们现已作为与受托人动议有关的证据，因为它们全部都已在 Genever Holdings 的破产案件中提交，其中许多——我们可以逐一审阅——都已在该案件中提交。法庭可根据联邦证据规则对此予以司法认知，因为其可靠性显而易见。因此，说它们未作为证据提交，嗯，好的，我现在裁定它们已作为证据提交。受托人就你方异议于今日提交的答复所附证据 A 至 G，均已作为证据提交，并将标记为证据。因此，如果你想上诉，你可以——这些证据将作为证据在案。（随附于受托人请求裁定之动议的证据 A 至 G，作为受托人证据 A 至 G 收入证据。）HENZY 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。仅为记录在案，以便保留我的记录，我确实反对接纳该等证据。法庭：明白。HENZY 先生：此外——根据证据规则，我须提出具体异议，而我处境困难，因为我——因为我几乎没有时间逐份审阅这些文件\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 23 。因此，这对我来说是一个问题。这也有点使我，你知道，转向另一个问题，即——法庭：嗯，我们现在就逐一审阅。我们将调出证据 A。HENZY 先生：这不公平，法官阁下。因为如果我——法庭：不，这对律师并不不公平。HENZY 先生：这就是不公平。法庭：因为这些全都是你的当事人签署的证据，或者作为其律师你本应持有。你不能到这里来拖延事情。我并不是说——你不能到这里来说，受托人自 7 月 8 日起已被任命，却不能履行其职责，因为我是新律师，且我没有机会审阅这一切。你没有这样的机会。HENZY 先生：不。法庭：事情不是这样运作的。DESPINS 先生：法官阁下。HENZY 先生：我原本要说的重点，法官阁下，是您正在接纳与受托人所请求救济有关的证据，而该项救济并不在他所提交的动议中，也不是在据我所知并非安排为审判、而是证据听证会的听证会上提出的。我没有能力尝试反驳这些文件中的内容。这实在是——根本不公平。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 992 提交于 10/17/22 录入于 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 23 页，共 105 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 992 提交于 10/17/22 录入于 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 24 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 24 法庭：好的。HENZY 先生：我没有收到通知——法庭：你将如何反驳——你的当事人在纽约州法院提交并由其签署的询问书答复，即证据 A？你将如何反驳？对于你的当事人在纽约一宗已审理多年的诉讼中签署的那些询问书答复，你究竟可能提出什么来反驳？HENZY 先生：我会尽量具体回答，法官阁下，但我认为——事实上，我会尽量回答您的问题。好的。第一，我不知道。我不是——我不——我不在纽约州从事审判业务，因此我不知道询问书是否会被提交。例如，它们不会在联邦法院或康涅狄格州法院提交。所以或许会提交，也或许不会。我不知道。因此，如果它们未被提交，我认为您不能予以司法认知。这是一个问题。法庭：嗯，其顶部有纽约的归档戳，显示“filed New York County Clerk 4/28/2021, 10:54 p.m.”。文件顶部如此写明。HENZY 先生：抱歉。我不——再次说明，法官阁下，我不——我不在纽约从事审判业务，因此我不知道程序为何。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 25 我要指出，法官阁下，如果您看第 3 页，关于权益的定义。法庭：证据 A 的第 3 页？你是这个意思吗？HENZY 先生：据我所理解的，现在您已将其接纳为证据 A。法庭：正确。HENZY 先生：好的。为明确起见，我确实反对该项接纳，法官阁下。我明白您驳回了我的异议，但是——在第 3 页，定义 2——我可能——我可能弄错了，法官阁下——再次说明，我尚未——我明白，法官阁下。我不是在告诉您，我没有责任审阅这些事项，但今晨就此提交了很多材料。不过，权益的定义在其中非常、非常宽泛。“权益”一词是指任何直接或间接权益，无论是部分、全部或潜在权益，等等。因此，这是一个非常、非常宽泛的权益定义。再次，如果我查看对第 1 号询问书的答复，其中除其他事项外，有一个小方框写着“所有权承认”——而我不知道，法官阁下，它从何而来。我不知道它是否是向纽约州法院提交的材料的一部分。我对此表示怀疑，而不是说这在某种程度上是\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 992 提交于 10/17/22 录入于 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 25 页，共 105 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 992 提交于 10/17/22 录入于 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 26 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 26 为了您的目的或他人的目的而推定存在的。我不知道。我只是没有——我确实——我不知道答案。那——我认为那不应当提交给法官阁下。但他的答复是：“我是 Genever Holdings Corporation（Genever Holdings 公司）已发行股份的法定所有人。”而如果您回到权益的定义——再次说明，这是一个非常、非常宽泛的定义，它区分法定权益与衡平权益。如果我跳到第 9 页对第 5 号询问书的答复，再次是：“我是 Genever Holdings Corporation 已发行股份的法定所有人。”该陈述与 Kwok 先生在本案中提交的声明中的陈述一致，也与他在本案中提交的财务状况说明书的总体说明一致。也就是说，他是 Genever Holdings Corporation 已发行股份的法定所有人，该公司将被称为 Genever BVI。他在本案中提交的声明和总体说明中所说的是，他作为信托项下的受托人持有这些股份，持有该等股份的法定所有权。该信托的受益人是 Bravo Luck（Bravo Luck）。所以我——我们可以争论——而且我知道 Sarnoff 先生（萨诺夫先生）确实很想争论——这说明了什么。但是我的\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 992 提交于 10/17/22 录入于 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 27 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 27 观点是，我——我无法提交证据，法官阁下，来解释这一点，解释声明中的内容，并解释总体说明中的内容。而这并非——这根本不公平。本案并未安排进行证据审判。我——这甚至不是——如我在异议中指出的，此处请求的救济甚至不是实际提交的动议中所请求的救济。这是——这是新的救济。而现在，据我所理解，我们正在就新的救济进行一场几乎没有任何通知的审判，我完全没有能力应对此时所提出的主张。而这——再次说明，我认为这根本不公平，而且我绝对反对。SARNOFF 先生：Manning 法官（曼宁法官），我是 Stuart Sarnoff（斯图尔特·萨诺夫）。我能否非常、非常简短地陈述意见，因为我或许能够就与此有关的问题协助法庭？法庭：请讲。SARNOFF 先生：所以我——Manning 法官，我一直是 PAX（PAX）的州法院诉讼主办律师。我代表其提交了起诉书。我只想指出，法官阁下，PAX 就 Genever BVI 股份作为判决后执行程序提交并赢得了一项交付动议。我仅想提出，此前从未提出过\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 992 提交于 10/17/22 录入于 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 28 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022\n1　向本院提交的是所称的信托契据。\n但无论如何，\n2　该法官——2021年9月22日，Ostrager 法官（奥斯特拉格法官），\n3　Ostrager 大法官在其当庭作出的裁定中，随后又\n4　在日期为当日的命令中予以确认，命令将\n5　Kwok 先生对 Genever BVI 的股份所有权交付给\n6　PAX，因为他在2021年9月22日\n7　庭审记录第16页中称，引用如下：“Kwok 先生在\n8　回答 PAX 的判决后书面质询时，将其在\n9　Genever Holdings BVI 中的所有权权益确认为其唯一价值超过\n10　$10,000 的资产，”该文件为本案第756号文件第9页。\n11　该所有权股份——随后他接着说所有权——因此他已承认这是其唯一资产。\n12　\n13　并且，由于 PAX 当时拥有一项金额为1亿3千余万\n14　美元的判决，$126,000 million，他们\n15　有权获得交付。\n16　我们不得不提出后续的藐视法庭动议，该动议在 Kwok 先生申请破产时\n17　仍在待决，原因当然是\n18　Kwok 先生没有履行其应履行的义务，即\n19　交付。\n20　但是——您知道，已有一项司法\n21　裁定认定，为了能够交付股份，或者在本案中，为使\n22　Despins 先生（德斯平斯）代位取得该等权利，\n23　股份属于 Kwok 先生，从而拥有同样的一揽子\n24　权利。\n25　此外，法官大人，我还想指出，Kwok 先生\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 992 提交日期 10/17/22 登记日期 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 29 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022 29 未对该裁定提起上诉。您知道，应适用争点排除。您知道，不管怎样。关于股份是否在为交付之目的或为使 Despins 先生代位取得其权利之目的而足够属于他，这一问题已经过诉讼。在2021年9月22日作出的裁定中——\n\nHENZY 律师（亨齐）：法官大人。\n\nSARNOFF 律师（萨诺夫）：——Ostrager 大法官已就此作出裁定。\n\nHENZY 律师：我想澄清一下。您是否——您是否将此视为 Sarnoff 律师的证词？如果是，我希望他宣誓。\n\n法庭：我并未将此视为 Sarnoff 律师的证词，Henzy 律师。\n\nHENZY 律师：谢谢，法官大人。Despins 先生？\n\nDESPINS 律师：法官大人，如可允许，我简要说明一下？您并未——我们今日并未请求您认定该信托协议无效或不存在。我们在今日提交的第681号文件，即案卷第681号中，加入了一项保障条款。因此我原以为 Henzy 律师会欣然接受。但其基本内容是，法庭并未就该信托协议的有效性或无效性作出任何认定。对该信托协议的任何异议均予保留。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 992 提交日期 10/17/22 登记日期 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 30 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022 30 然而，无可争议的是，他是这些股份的法定所有人，而我们现在有权取得这些股份。\n\n至于该信托的有效性问题——顺便说一句，我们已将其排除在外——您知道，关于存在信托的主张四年来从未在州法院提出，因此这让您可以感受到其如何——您知道，就此不作评论。\n\n但关键在于，该命令中有一项保障条款，因此该命令应予作出。随后 Henzy 律师还抱怨这些文件缺乏通知。\n\n法官大人，在8月1日，您可能记得——我不知道您是否看到，但我向 Henzy 律师提供了更多文件。这些就是那些文件，而他把它们扔到了地上。稍微发了一点脾气。我不知道您是否看到了。\n\n但关键是，如果他当时没有那样做，他现在就会拥有所有这些证据附件；这些正是我当时给他的附件，正如您所说，例如，它们是 Genever 第11章案件中的附件，这一点无人能够否认。\n\n这些附件表明，Kwok 先生一直在行使，而我也一直在行使，与 Genever Holdings、Genever USA 以及——有关的一切公司治理权利。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 992 提交日期 10/17/22 登记日期 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 31 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022 31 因此，无论该信托协议如何，在所有这些签署页上，你从未看到 Bravo Luck（布拉沃·勒克）的副签或批准，或任何类似内容。都是 Kwok 先生签署。因此，这表明这些是我们应当拥有的权利。其中包括在受 Garrity 法官（加里蒂法官）管辖的前提下，指挥 Genever Holdings 第11章案件的权利。命令中还有一项保障条款，规定您并未命令我或允许我在未经其批准的情况下在该案件中采取任何行动。因此这一切均已涵盖。但我认为，坚持事实很重要。这是一项有限救济。其基本上是将股份转到我的名下，以便我能够行使该实体的一切公司治理权利。谢谢，法官大人。\n\nHENZY 律师：法官大人，为了明确起见，我假定——您也没有将 Despins 先生的陈述作为证词？\n\n法庭：我并未将任何人的陈述，包括你的陈述，也作为证词。\n\nHENZY 律师：哦，我知道您没有将——或者我想我知道您没有将我的陈述作为证词。法官大人，我周一可能确实短暂地发了一点脾气。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 992 提交日期 10/17/22 登记日期 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 32 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022 32 但这是突袭式审判，法官大人，我认为规则确实需要——程序确实需要规则。程序必须有秩序。而我不——我不认为这里正在发生这种情况。我已经尽力——我不知道法官大人是否还有问题要问我。我想进一步提出一些观点，仍然只是为了保留我的记录，您知道。我相信存在争议。我理解 Despins 先生对此表示怀疑。我理解 Despins 先生和 Sarnoff 律师已向法庭提出了一种事实版本，而我再次无法对此作出反驳。我这里没有证人。我不——我不知道这会是一场审判。我想指出，法官大人，该争议是 Genever U.S. 案件中一项和解协议的标的，该协议已获 Garrity 法官批准，据我所知，该协议设想该所有权问题应在 BVI 进行诉讼。再次说明，这是我的——\n\n法庭：那么你——那么你是在请求将你的附件也作为证据纳入记录，因为你现在依赖于随你对动议提出的异议所附的附件，来作出你刚才所作的陈述？\n\nHENZY 律师：您知道，法官大人，我正依赖于该——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022 33\n\n法庭：好的。那么它们也将获准作为证据。\n\nHENZY 律师：——来试图提出论点，试图作出回应。\n\n法庭：好的。那么你的附件也获准作为证据。\n\n（随债务人对受托人请求作出命令之动议提出的异议所附附件，获接纳为证据。）\n\n我的意思是，你还——你为什么还要提交附件——Despins 先生也是出于同样的原因——让法庭能够结合你们的立场审阅它们？\n\nHENZY 律师：结合——\n\n法庭：因此，主张这现在是一场证据听证，而你正被——没有获得公平机会——但你却希望基于随你的动议、答复所附的附件提出论点。因此，我认为你需要稍微更——我们需要——在这一问题的双方之间采取同样的处理方式。你不能一方面主张，Despins 先生因为提交附件并将其附在其答复中，就使这成为一场证据听证；另一方面，却又可凭借你随你的——所附的附件说服法庭。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 992 提交日期 10/17/22 登记日期 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 33 页，共 105 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 992 提交日期 10/17/22 登记日期 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 34 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022 34 异议提出论点，并称那不属于证据听证的一部分。当然属于。要么——所有材料都是证据，要么就不是，Henzy 律师。它们是本案记录的一部分。你在提交附有那些附件的异议时，就使其成为本案记录的一部分。那是本案记录，Despins 先生提交的附件也是如此。然后你提出论点说，它们不是证据。好吧，我不同意，因为它们是本案记录的一部分。但我们就将它们全部作为证据提交。这样就没有——\n\nHENZY 律师：那么，法官大人——\n\n法庭：——对此没有任何不公平之处，Henzy 律师。这就是程序的运作方式。\n\nHENZY 律师：哦，我认为其中确有不公平之处，法官大人，但我理解您的裁定。\n\n法庭：我知道你理解。\n\nHENZY 律师：我理解——\n\n法庭：但你未能阐明或指出任何支持你论点的判例法或法规。\n\nHENZY 律师：法官大人，您正在接纳证据。我理解我在备忘录中附上了一份文件。好的。那是为了论证之目的。我当时并未\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 992 提交日期 10/17/22 登记日期 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 35 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022 35 预期任何内容会被接纳为证据。您正在接纳证据。据我理解，您现在正在进行审判。\n\n法庭：不，我并未进行审判，Henzy 律师。是你说 Despins 先生不能就其答复所附的附件提出论点，因为那些附件并未作为证据。然后我对你说，好的，那么我们就将它们作为证据，因为它们是——\n\nHENZY 律师：而我——\n\n法庭：——本案记录的一部分。然后你刚才说——你刚才说——你并未依赖那些附件作出认定，但实际上你确实在依赖。你刚刚确切地说，获得 Garrity 法官批准的和解协议控制 Genever Holdings。因此，它要么是记录的一部分，要么不是。如果你——那么你所说的任何内容都——你没有任何——任何支持你论点的依据，因为你不希望它成为记录的一部分。那么好。如果你不希望它成为记录的一部分，也可以。但你已经使它成为记录的一部分，因为你随你的诉状提交了它。\n\nHENZY 律师：法官大人，我不会争议您可以就其所值，对一份已在 Genever 破产案件中提交的文件采取司法认知。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 992 提交日期 10/17/22 登记日期 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 36 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— August 4, 2022\n1　文件。我不会——我不会对此提出争议。\n2　\n3　法庭：但你必须依据联邦证据规则这样做，\n4　Henzy 律师。我不能仅仅说\n5　我采取司法认知。我必须依据——有关司法认知的\n6　适用证据规则这样做。因此，\n7　它是证据，正如你就和解协议\n8　提交的文件也是证据一样。\n9　\n10　HENZY 律师：是的。我理解，法官大人。我\n11　理解您的裁定。\n12　\n13　但就所有权而言存在争议，法官大人。\n14　现在，Despins 先生确实提交了——而我认为，根据适用法律，该争议\n15　必须通过对抗程序解决。\n16　我援引了大量判例来说明这一点。\n17　\n18　法庭：Henzy 律师，让我就在对抗程序问题上\n19　打断你。\n20　我认为，你在 7004——7001(a) 的措辞上存在问题；你没有——你把句子截断了。\n21　我的意思是，我今天早上回头看了三遍，因为\n22　我认为你所说的——那并非准确陈述。\n23　该条规定——(a)(1) 规定，为追索金钱或财产而进行的程序，\n24　但不包括要求债务人向受托人交付财产的程序。\n25　你怎么——你没有看到该措辞吗？怎样\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 992 提交日期 10/17/22 登记日期 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 37 页，共 105 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— August 4, 2022 37 你还能以其他任何方式解释该措辞，从而仍要求德斯潘（Despins）受托人提起对抗程序吗？怎么会——我不明白。亨齐先生（MR. HENZY）：因此，法官阁下，正如我援引的那些案件——唐克雷迪法官（Judge Tancredi）审理的涉及一项 363 动议的案件一样，我不——我明白他可以提出交付动议，但法官阁下，他并未提出交付动议。法庭：他不必提出。你的当事人在其自愿来到本法庭并寻求本法庭保护时，依据债务人的义务，有义务与他合作。而且——至于说你的当事人遭到突袭，受托人这一问题自二月中旬以来一直悬而未决。受托人于 July 8th 被任命。现在是 August 4th。你的当事人并未与受托人合作。我的意思是，你可以继续提出该论点，但你的论点没有说服力。亨齐先生：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？法庭：可以。亨齐先生：我不同意郭先生未与受托人合作这一说法。这是第一点。我明白本案于二月提起。受托人直到 July 8th 才被任命，法官阁下。我\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 992 已提交 10/17/22 已录入 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 38 页，共 105 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— August 4, 2022 38 明白受托人已被任命。我已尽力熟悉本案记录中我所能熟悉的尽可能多的内容。我不明白法官阁下是否曾就债务人未予合作、债务人是坏人作出过认定。我对您准许该动议的裁定的理解确实是——其重点在于债权人的最佳利益。您说可能存在资产——只是采取集中管理的形式。因此，确实是债权人最佳利益这一类事项。我读过您的裁决，并未看到任何有关不当行为的内容。我相信，郭先生同意存在理由，是基于债权人的最佳利益。他没有承认存在失职行为或任何形式的不良行为。因此，在——我想，自德斯潘先生被任命以来已有三或四周——而且我要说，法官阁下，我不——我不认为一个人提交 Chapter 11 申请后，在受托人被任命时或如果被任命时，就放弃其任何及全部权利。法庭：好的。但你没有回答我的问题，亨齐先生，即关于 7001(a)，以及你如何能以任何不同于该规则文字的方式解释它？亨齐先生：因此，法官阁下，542——7001(a)(1)——\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 992 已提交 10/17/22 已录入 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 39 页，共 105 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— August 4, 2022 39 抱歉——7001(1) 适用——我承认它适用于要求债务人向受托人交付财产的程序。但在——我认为，那是针对不存在争议、即该财产属于破产财团财产的财产。而本案存在争议。这与 363 动议相同，法官阁下。法院已裁定，包括唐克雷迪法官在内，在决定拟出售的财产是否属于破产财团财产之前，不得准许 363 动议。而这需要对抗程序。法庭：我们目前并未出售财产。这是第一点。第二点，该财产的出售受纽约破产法院（New York Bankruptcy Court）出售该财产的命令约束。因此，这已经完成了，这是第一点。而且你的当事人承认，无论以何种方式、形式或形态，它是他的资产，亨齐先生。我不必认定他是否——拥有法律权益、衡平权益或受益权益。我不必作出任何此类认定。你的当事人已经承认，该资产是他的。因此，我不——所以我不——你仍未回答 7001(a) 如何要求德斯潘先生提起对抗程序这一问题。亨齐先生：嗯，法官阁下，我认为不存在\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 992 已提交 10/17/22 已录入 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 40 页，共 105 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— August 4, 2022 40 7001(a)。是 7001(1)，其确实规定——法庭：好的。抱歉，是 7001(1)。亨齐先生：——一项排除——其排除——法庭：抱歉。亨齐先生：——其排除了交付。但同样，那是针对破产财团财产。必须认定该财产事实上属于破产财团财产。而且——法庭：你的当事人已经在声明中表示它属于破产财团财产。即使他说他是以受托人身份持有它，他仍拥有这些股份。他在我们前几天讨论的第 107 号声明中如此表示。因此，他已经这么说了。亨齐先生：他所说的是，他拥有——他拥有法律所有权，作为——法庭：好的。而且你知道，破产财团财产的定义包括你对任何财产拥有的一切权益，即法律权益、受益权益、衡平权益。因此，他拥有。亨齐先生：但是，法官——法庭：这是破产财团财产。亨齐先生：法官阁下，德斯潘先生在听证会前九——或者九分半钟提交了第三份修订后的拟议命令。我没有机会查看它。如果其中有适当的保障措施\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 992 已提交 10/17/22 已录入 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 41 页，共 105 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— August 4, 2022 41，那么债务人很可能不会反对录入该命令，但我希望有机会审阅该命令，而不是在本次听证会进行期间。法庭：好的。你想休庭一小时，以便阅读该命令吗？我的意思是，如果这是你想做的，那没有问题。但德斯潘先生刚才解释了，他确实在该命令中加入了保障措施。亨齐先生：我不知道他加入了什么保障措施，也不知道这些措施是否充分。法官阁下，问题是，德斯潘先生提交给您的内容看来是——要求完整转让股份。好的。这是我的理解。好的。他说，这些股份仅以其 Chapter 11 受托人的身份转让给他。那么，如果郭先生只是作为受托人的法定所有人，而这些股份现在被转让给德斯潘先生，我认为德斯潘先生成为该信托的受托人。如果存在有效信托——如果存在有效信托，就必须有一名受托人。如果德斯潘先生现在是这些股份的法定所有人，我认为他是作为该信托的受托人持有这些股份。因此，再次强调，如果我们都明确情况确实如此，那么我们或许没有问题。我不确定德斯潘先生确实想成为一名\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— August 4, 2022 42 该信托的受托人，以及由此可能产生的对信托受益人的全部义务，但你不能两头都占。正如法官阁下多次所说，你接受债务人——在本案中——其原本状态。而论点是，就该资产而言，他原本是法定所有人，是为第三方利益设立的信托的受托人。因此，如果——如果他所拥有的一切只是作为受托人的该项法定所有权权益被转让，而该权益被转让给德斯潘先生作为该信托的受托人，那么这或许可以。德斯潘先生：法官阁下。法庭：是。请继续。德斯潘先生：该论点已被保留。我们并未要求您作出最终认定，认定该信托无效。我们将该问题保留至日后处理。但他不能取得一份咨询性意见，称该信托有效。正如您在书面质询中指出的，问题不在于它们是否已在纽约州（New York State）提交。它们由郭先生在伪证处罚下签署。而他从未提及该信托，即在五年前或四年前已存在的该信托。因此，这就是法律现状。这就是我们\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 992 已提交 10/17/22 已录入 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 42 页，共 105 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 992 已提交 10/17/22 已录入 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 43 页，共 105 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— August 4, 2022 43 接受债务人的方式。债务人对该信托只字未提。而且我——我认为我们已相当宽容。我们为日后保留其关于存在信托的论点，这意味着要求您裁定该信托无效将是不公平的。我们对此存有严重疑问，但那是另一天的问题。这正是该命令所规定的内容。它将该问题留待日后处理。法庭：好的。那么，亨齐先生，你是否——萨诺夫先生（MR. SARNOFF）：法官阁下，我是斯图尔特·萨诺夫（Stuart Sarnoff）。法庭：好的。请稍等。萨诺夫先生：法官阁下，我刚才正要——法庭：请继续，萨诺夫先生。请继续。萨诺夫先生：法官阁下，我只是想指出，关于 PAX（PAX）提出的交付动议，本法庭的裁决及——动议裁决和命令，并非庭审记录，而是书面裁决和命令，已提交。我们于 March 1st, 2022 将其提交至本法庭案卷，我相信其案卷编号为 57-2。若我的——如我的信息不准确，请原谅。我们当时很匆忙。但我认为该信息正确。这是一项纽约州最高法院（Supreme Court in the State of New York）的裁决和命令，且这将是本院——奥斯特拉格法官（Justice Ostrager）就我们提出的交付动议所作的裁决。其前提是，该资产是他的，他需要将其交付给 PAX。法庭：你认为它在 ECF 的什么编号？哪一页？57 的哪一页？萨诺夫先生：57-2，法官阁下。法庭：打开需要一点时间。我正在查看。德斯潘先生：并且，法官阁下，经您许可，我们能否在 Zoom 上展示——我不知道——法庭：可以。德斯潘先生：——让我的同事——展示——法庭：可以。你想展示什么？德斯潘先生：展示我们在命令中增加的段落，以便萨诺夫先生——以便他们能看到。这是一段很短的文字。法庭：因此我们需要调出 ECF 681。你想看标有修订痕迹的版本，还是无标记版本？德斯潘先生：我的同事——我的同事邦加茨先生（Mr. Bongartz）可以准确告诉我们应当看哪里。邦加茨先生：第 35 页，共 40 页。法庭：好的。我们只需要一点时间，书记员会将其调出，以便我们都能阅读。德斯潘先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 992 已提交 10/17/22 已录入 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 44 页，共 105 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 992 已提交 10/17/22 已录入 10/17/22 15:07:05 第 45 页，共 105 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— August 4, 2022 45 （暂停）邦加茨先生：并且，法官阁下，在他进行该操作时，我确有一个页码引用。我想——我想 57-2 是一份证据。我相信它是该证据的第 131 页，证据的 1-3-1。抱歉。法庭：谢谢。（暂停）法庭：我们只是在等待调出 681，对吗？请转至其中第 35 页，共 40 页。我正在看它的纸质副本，但我可以——我相信我们很快就能调出来。法庭书记员（THE COURTROOM DEPUTY）：是。（暂停）法庭：如果你们有困难，我可以共享我的屏幕并展示它。对吗？法庭书记员：是。法庭：是否有——法庭书记员：她那里出了问题。是的，她出了问题。法庭：好的。那么你们需要让我——需要让我共享。法庭书记员：好的。您可以共享。法庭：好的。法庭书记员：您有此权限。（暂停）\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 46　法官：显示出来了吗？法庭书记员：是的。法官：我看不见，因为我无法知道自己是否正在共享。好的。那么这是第9段，Despins（德斯平斯先生）？DESPINS先生：是的。正确，法官阁下。法官：是。大家都能看到吗？（无可听见的回应）法官：好。大家至少都能查看到吗？Henzy律师，您看到了吗？我并不是说您不能休庭查看整份命令。我只是问您是否看到了第9段？HENZY先生：我看到了，法官阁下。法官：好的。谢谢。好的。那么，Henzy律师，您是否请求法院休庭，以便您审阅此事，还是您此时请求法院采取什么行动？HENZY先生：我认为我并未请求法院采取任何行动，法官阁下。如果法院愿意，我很乐意休庭并仔细审阅。我不知道这是否会花一个小时。我不知道是否需要与Despins先生或其他任何人讨论。不过，我会——我想明确说明，法官阁下，\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 46 页，共 105 页\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 47 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 47　我坚持提出异议，即此项内容并未载于已提交的动议中。根据规则9013及相关判例法，我认为该事项并未适当地提交法院审理。因此，我主要主张的是，您不应就此作出裁决，并且您应要求Despins先生提交一项动议，以便能够有序处理此事，而不是像这样在周日晚上10:09才首次提交并提出此事，法官阁下。好的。因此，再说一遍，这——这不公平。通知并不充分。他对所请求救济的支持理由，在任何地方都没有具体说明。当然，动议中没有。我认为这——他所提出的修订后拟议命令，并不能不言自明。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，我们提交的是一项范围很广的动议，请求取得所有公司治理权利，并且我们特别提到了BVI（英属维尔京群岛）。Henzy先生答复称，BVI，已经太晚了。没有——您不能——您不能就BVI作出那种开放式命令。我们答复说，好，我们会非常精确。这正是我们需要从BVI取得的内容。这已包含在所请求的救济之中。因此，我不理解这个——但他周日就收到了。再次说，这项救济非常简单。有一辆\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 48 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日\n1　车，我们需要钥匙。如果我们要取得Genever（Genever）的钥匙，\n2　我们需要债务人签署所有这些文件，以便\n3　完成转让手续。这与\n4　该动议完全一致。本不必比这更具体，但\n5　现在已经非常、非常具体，并且自周日以来\n6　一直非常具体。\n7　HENZY先生：我不同意，法官阁下。我认为\n8　不是——现在所请求的救济并不是——\n9　并不是已制作并提交的动议的一部分。\n10　因此，我将——我将坚持该项异议。\n11　再说一遍，如果法院或各方认为\n12　我们休庭一小时让我查看该\n13　命令，并至少可能与我的委托人交谈，是有意义的，\n14　我很乐意这样做。\n15　但我不——我不希望出现意外，\n16　即如果我回来后说，无论\n17　该命令中写了什么，我都反对作出该项\n18　救济。\n19　法官：还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？\n20　HENZY先生：法官阁下，这不需要\n21　以这种方式进行。但是，Genever U.S.（Genever美国）案件目前的状态是，\n22　该财产正在Melanie Cyganowski（梅拉妮·西加诺夫斯基）的监督下出售。\n23　据我了解，该案中的债务人\n24　已基本将该程序的控制权交给了Melanie\n25　Cyganowski。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 49 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 49　据我了解，我认为债务人无法采取任何措施阻碍该程序。因此，此处没有任何事情会失去控制。将会有一个出售程序。我相信出售所得将成为该破产财团的财产，而且我相信除非根据Garrity法官作出的法院命令，否则不会予以分配。因此，没有——我认为此处并不紧迫。而且，再次强调，如同证据开示、英国证据开示问题一样，法官阁下，如果以正确方式进行，这可能会容易得多。我不认为——我不认为是我在制造这里的焦虑。我认为受托人正在以他选择的方式制造焦虑，也就是实际上试图在基本没有通知的情况下推动这些事项通过。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，紧急的原因是，出于我就去年所解释的原因，我们需要在Genever案件中出庭。其中存在时间敏感的问题。我们需要尽快解决这些问题。我不想去那个法院，然后让像Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）这样的人说，嗯，他无权在这里出庭，因为他并不持有股份。我不想处于那种境地，法官阁下。这就是我们现在这样做的原因。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 50 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 50　谢谢。FRIEDMAN先生：法官阁下，我是Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。我能否简短陈述？我们强烈同意这一点。该案中已有一份计划提交备案，PAX（PAX）已对此提出异议。但是，您知道，其中包含各种我们认为不公平地偏袒与Kwok先生一致的某些当事人的条款。而且显然，债务人作为一名——我们认为，他实际上并未在该计划提案中以受信义务人的身份行事；我们认为，由Despins先生以任何身份与债务人打交道，并以公平方式使Kwok先生的合法债权人受益，将会更加适当，因此确实存在时间敏感性。我认为这里有一份披露声明——并且至少目前安排在8月16日。若明确Despins先生参与该案的能力，该案的走向可能会发生重大改变。法官：对。GOLDMAN先生：法官阁下，我是委员会代理律师Irve Goldman（欧文·戈德曼）。我可以简短陈述吗？法官：可以。GOLDMAN先生：法官阁下，我认为必须区分股份权益的衡平所有权与附带公司治理权利的股份权益的法定所有权。我认为毫无疑问，债务人已承认其为股份的法定所有人，并且他已行使该法定所有权，以控制Genever USA（Genever美国）第11章案件的管理。因此，这正是该动议的标的。受托人已在命令第9段承认，依据该信托协议，衡平权益目前无法确定。因此，我不确定争议何在。第二，即使根据Henzy律师援引的、涉及规则9013及所授予救济须具体明确之必要性的判例法，这也只是最初所请求救济的主要形式所附带的事项。只不过是应债务人的请求，救济变得更加——救济变得更加具体。因此，我们完全支持受托人以拟议命令形式提交的内容。休庭前，我想回到给Morrissey律师的拟议信函。这些——这些意见实际上是有利于财团的意见。我认为，该信函的起草方式，即修订后的信函，可能会暗示律师—委托人特权属于债务人。并非如此。\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 52 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 52　我完全同意受托人的意见，即受托人持有债务人的律师—委托人特权，尤其是在该特权涉及寻求增加财团资产的事项时。现在，这封信载明——其中部分划线修订版载明——“并就与我在UBS（瑞银）诉讼中的请求权有关的事宜，接受他的指示”，即受托人的指示，“无论任何属于我的律师—委托人特权、工作成果或其他特权如何。”我建议可以插入“可能”一词，即“可能属于我的”，然后是下一句。“对特权的任何放弃仅限于向受托人提供该等信息。我的同意仅限于向受托人提供完全访问权，并非我同意允许受托人放弃该特权。”我不希望该句被理解为，我们需要Kwok先生允许受托人放弃特权。该特权首先属于受托人。因此，我建议，若不会破坏受托人与英国律所达成的协议，或受托人与该英国律所显然达成的协议，则应对这些条款作某些修改，以——避免被理解为承认由受托人拥有该特权。HENZY先生：法官阁下，我可以陈述吗？\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 53 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 53　法官：可以。HENZY先生：谢谢。Goldman先生可以希望，我们都可以，但我要告诉您，据我所知，该信函已在英国律师与Despins先生的律所之间经过数次修改。我认为英国律师采取了相当谨慎的做法，他们——他们非常关切自身的职业义务。针对Goldman先生所说的受托人持有特权一事，我们谈论的是英国法下的特权，法官阁下。我们谈论的不是美国法下的律师—委托人特权。英国有新的诉讼正在进行。Goldman先生可能对英国法下的特权具有某些专业知识。我承认我完全没有。我依赖于英国律师向我所作的说明。因此，我不认为这像在任命受托人时《破产法典》对特权所作规定那样简单。英国的特权如何运作，就按英国的方式运作。因此，我不认为——我不知道本次听证中的任何人能否以任何权威性说明英国特权如何运作。因此，我认为——我认为在——坦率地说我们并不知道\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 54 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日 54　我们确实知道自己在谈论什么的情况下，试图对措辞作字斟句酌是危险的。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，如果可以？我完全理解Goldman先生的痛苦。我有同样的痛苦。他是正确的。只不过在这里，您知道，这——我认为这可能最终是徒劳无功，意思是他们可能会玩一种游戏，即信寄出后，他们说，哦，我们不会与你分享任何内容，因为他没有放弃特权或诸如此类的事情。当然，我们会回到法官阁下这里。重要的是，法官阁下或受托人并未采取这种立场。该信由Kwok先生发送或应由Kwok先生发送给律师，那是他的信。我们——受托人并未主张这是美国法下的正确观点。这显然是我窥见幕后情况所要付出的代价。如果幕后什么都没有，我会回到法官阁下这里。我希望我能看到幕后情况。我与法官阁下想法相同。但是，因为您被指示发送该信，并不意味着您同意我无权获得该特权。这是一个——这是一个务实的解决办法。而且我——这将是罕见情形。我会在此事上与Henzy先生立场一致。我\n\n案件 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 登记 第 55 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 55 如果可以的话，我今天不会试图对这封信的措辞进行字斟句酌。而且我并不天真。我知道这——这可能是一个圈套，实际上帘幕背后什么也没有，我还会再回到法官阁下面前。法官阁下并未裁定该特权不属于我。法官阁下只是指示债务人发送那封信。因此，我想要——所以，Goldman（戈德曼）先生，我完全理解他的观点，但我敦促法院在现阶段不要在措辞上做文章。谢谢。法院：谢谢。GOLDMAN先生：法官阁下，我认为在附带该项保留的情况下，只要我们确认此处没有裁定——没有就受托人是否持有一项特权和——或者是否由Kwok先生持有作出裁定，我想我是可以接受的。鉴于这是美国破产财产的一项资产，我认为存在一个问题，即适用的是美国法还是英国法来规范一项特权——但我们——我同意Despins（德斯潘）先生的意见，即今日无须作出该项认定。法院：而且该动议并未请求——HENZY（亨齐）先生：我认为确实没有必要，因为——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 56 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 56 法院：该动议并未请求——HENZY先生：——正如我所说——法院：请稍等，Henzy律师。而且该动议并未请求作出该项认定。因此，我不会作出该项认定。抱歉，Henzy律师。请继续。HENZY先生：嗯，法官阁下，实际上，该动议完全没有以任何方式涉及Harcus Parker（哈卡斯·帕克）问题。我们可以争论在英属维尔京群岛（BVI）的诉讼是否附带于所提交的动议，我认为不是，但我认为确实不存在任何论点认为Harcus Parker问题是该动议的一部分。该问题根本不在其中，法官阁下。我再说一次，我认为正确的处理方式是，在这里，您知道，我们或许可以达成一个富有成效的结果，而这——这不是。就讨论该信函内容而言，Kwok先生不会放弃，不会自愿放弃律师—当事人特权。他不会这么做。正如我所说，我也不会强迫他这么做。因此，如果您要作出一项命令，我们可能会走到——我们会走到藐视法庭那一步，但他不会这么做。因此，我不知道我们需要花多少时间讨论\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 57 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 57 那封信的措辞。法院：那么，我将休庭至3:30。之后我们回来，看看你们是否进行了任何讨论。如果没有，我们再从那里继续。HENZY先生：好的。谢谢，法官阁下。法院：好的。法庭休庭至3:30。（休庭时间：下午2:25至下午3:31。）法庭书记员：康涅狄格州美国破产法院现于休庭后开庭。我们继续审理案号2022-50073，Ho Wan Kwok案。法院：好的。下午好。我们在休庭后回来。我们休庭时，当事人将尝试讨论并审阅第11章受托人今日提交至案卷的一项拟议命令。因此，Despins先生，休庭后情况如何？DESPINS先生：我会让Henzy先生提供更多细节，因为实际上决定权在他手中。不过我们——我们讨论了一个方面——嗯，我们讨论了所有方面，但其中一项可能已经解决，因此也许Henzy先生可以就此向法院说明。法院：好的。谢谢。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 58 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 58 Henzy先生？HENZY先生：当然。因此，法官阁下，附加第9段后，您知道，法院——法院作出命令，指示Kwok先生签署这些——BVI股份转让文件、决议以及Harneys Fiduciary（哈尼斯受托服务公司）所谓的Transfer-In Pack，Kwok先生将会这样做。为记录在案，我认为，您知道，信托协议本身确实禁止Kwok先生转让股份，但他并非自愿这样做。他是被法院强制这样做的。我认为，由此产生的任何后果就由此产生。因Despins先生成为——无论他成为何种身份，法律所有人、信托项下受托人等等，不论他是什么身份——而使任何一方获得的任何其他权利，也由此产生，我只是——债务人并未，您知道，当然没有就可能由此产生什么发表意见。而且我不希望债务人被指称未能充分告知任何人或诸如此类的事情。不过话虽如此，附加该第9段后，债务人不会反对该部分命令的作出。法院：好的。谢谢。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，就此只需两秒钟。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 59 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 59 1 该转让于我被任命之日，即7月8日发生。破产法典使该转让发生。我们在这里所做的是对该转让进行文件化。再说一次，您拥有该汽车。该汽车成为受托人的汽车，并非以个人身份，而是以受托人身份；现在我们在处理登记事宜，以确保其已背书以及完成所有相关事项。该转让于7月8日因法律的施行而发生。我认为理解这一点非常重要。但是，您知道，事实就是如此。因此，我们——我认为我们很高兴这一方面已经得到解决。HENZY先生：为记录在案，我听到了Despins先生的立场。我不同意。但同样，这一方面已经解决，因为Kwok先生将在被命令这样做后签署这些文件。法院：好的。那么，剩下的是致伦敦律师——致该伦敦律师事务所的信函问题。那是剩余的问题吗？HENZY先生：因此，法官阁下，为了明确起见，我在——在提交该动议之后、提交修订后的拟议命令之前，提交了一份异议，提出了其他异议，我并未放弃那些异议。我知道在上次听证会上您告诉我——我不记得您的原话，您倾向于或您\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 60 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 60 已经——驳回那些异议。但我要明确，我并未放弃那些异议。我坚持那些异议。而且我很乐意——法院：那么，让记录明确，因为——HENZY先生：我希望能够——法院：——我需要知道你在反对什么。HENZY先生：谢谢，法官阁下。法院：你反对的是Despins先生——Despins先生没有提起对抗程序，要求将财产移交给他这一事实吗？HENZY先生：法官阁下，我认为该问题已经解决。法院：嗯，我需要知道这一点。当你说你认为该问题已经解决时，如果没有解决，我将对此作出裁定，因此你需要告诉我它是否已经解决。HENZY先生：现在，法官阁下，抱歉。我认为我刚才表述不清。认为这需要通过对抗程序办理的论点已经不存在了，因为那与我们刚刚告诉您已经解决并将会发生的这项股份转让有关。因此，当我提到我的其他异议时，如果回到最初提交的动议——请给我一\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 61 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 61 秒钟，法官阁下——法院：当然。HENZY先生：——最初提交的动议，即文件598——法院：ECF 598。对。而且你是说你仍想保留你的异议，即受托人没有明确援引法典第521条？HENZY先生：不是。因此，法官阁下，7月29日，我提交了一份异议。那是文件编号643。法院：是的。我明白。HENZY先生：好的。好的。而且我对动议中最初请求的救济提出了异议，这与Harcus Parkus——我一直说Harcus Parkus，听起来很糟糕——而是Harcus Parker，以及随后我们已经解决的股份问题毫无关系。我提出了其他异议，我们今天完全没有讨论。法院：好的。那么请继续。HENZY先生：而且，再次——法院：我想知道你具体仍在反对什么。HENZY先生：好的。也许，法官阁下，为了尝试——尝试并且希望说清楚，我反对——请给我——抱歉，法官阁下。请给我一秒钟。法院：没关系。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 62 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 62 （停顿）HENZY先生：抱歉。我正在理清所有这些命令。因此，在我于7月29日提交的异议中，如果我——如果我查看——最容易的整理方式可能是今天下午听证会前刚刚提交的命令，即文件编号681。法院：是的。请继续。我在听。我不确定你要说什么。我以为我们要——HENZY先生：好的。我只是想——法院：——谈谈你在——HENZY先生：我想——法官阁下，抱歉。我只是想尝试与我于7月29日提交的异议联系起来。法院：好的。HENZY先生：好的。是第2段——而且这——这——暂且不谈——法院：哪一份文件的第2段，命令还是你的异议？HENZY先生：命令的。法院：ECF 681的第2段。HENZY先生：正确。法院：你反对什么？HENZY先生：好的。我反对第2段，尽管，再次，我们已经处理了BVI问题。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 63 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok - August 4, 2022 63 但是，这里请求的救济就未具体指明的实体而言请求了非常广泛的救济，即有权替换任何现有高级职员、董事、经理或类似人员。因此，Despins先生正在请求本法院授予他对未具体指明的实体的权限，不考虑那些具体实体、不考虑适用于那些实体的非破产法，以及不考虑那些实体的组织文件可能作出的规定。我认为，法官阁下，这样不可行。我认为这种权限——就Despins先生而言，我认为他拥有他所拥有的权限，而且这超出了——我并未质疑他就任何实体所拥有的任何具体权限，因为我不知道我们在谈论哪些实体。但该条款将会赋予他可能未由适用的非破产法以及特定实体的管理文件规定的权限。法院：这难道不能——HENZY先生：而且Despins先生援引的判例——法院：这难道不能——我们难道不能仅仅通过说明——你说的是为了避免疑义的措辞，也就是那句话？为了避免疑义，前述权利包括受托人所主张的权限。他主张他\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 64 of 105\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2022年8月4日 64 有该项权限。如果他没有该权限却做了错误的事情，那么你们可以起诉他。HENZY先生：实际上，法官阁下，我是说，我想我在答复中已经提出过，如果本段仅规定须遵守适用的非破产法以及这些实体的管理文件，那么我——那么我就不会反对这项规定。再次说明，我并非试图——我并非试图在这里制造争议。我确实不是。但我认为那才是对法律的正确表述。作为受托人，他享有其所享有的任何权限，但就任何特定实体而言，该权限均须遵守适用的非破产法以及该实体的管理文件。仅此而已。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，如果我们有，我们就有；如果我们没有，我们就没有。但我不希望因这些问题与债务人展开附带诉讼，因为那样本案的费用将会——您知道——失去控制。我们请求概括授权的原因是，除非我们通过尽职调查认为我们有权这样做，否则我们不会行使该权利。如果我们存有疑问，我们会回到本院。但我们不能处于这样一种境地，即就——州法规定什么、外国法规定什么——而展开附带诉讼，因为那将是——\n\n案号 22-50073，文件编号 992，提交日期 10/17/22，录入日期 10/17/22 15:07:05，第 65 页，共 105 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2022年8月4日 65 基本上会成为另一宗案件。HENZY先生：法官阁下，郭先生最不想做的事情就是就这些实体应如何治理而进行诉讼。但如果Despins先生向您表示，他——在完成尽职调查后——只会做他有权做的事情，那么我不知道——我只希望在本命令中写明这一点，但我认为这并不是本命令所说的内容。法庭：嗯，我认为一项——HENZY先生：它——它超出了这一点。法庭：——我认为我的建议可行。为免生疑问，上述权利包括受托人所主张的、替换债务人控制实体的任何现有高级职员、董事、经理或类似人员的权限。随后一句写道，作为上述事项的一部分。因此，关键在于他主张他拥有该权限。他是以受托人身份行事。因此，这就是他所主张的内容。这也是我要——我要加上“主张”一词的内容。这就是我对第2段将作出的全部修改。HENZY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。为明确起见，我并未——我并未——放弃我对此、对该措辞的异议。法庭：明白。该异议——\n\n案号 22-50073，文件编号 992，提交日期 10/17/22，录入日期 10/17/22 15:07:05，第 66 页，共 105 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2022年8月4日 66 被驳回。那么你的下一项异议是什么？HENZY先生：好的。再次说明，法官阁下，我想简化一下。我对第3段的第一项命令性段落没有异议。然后，鉴于我们刚刚向您说明的关于英属维尔京群岛（BVI）的这一解决方案，对于该——那么——当您翻到第3页时，那个小项(a)，我对该段没有异议。因此该事项已获解决。该页下方的下一段，即(b)段，我们已经就该段进行了长时间讨论，关于——英国问题、英国/瑞银集团（UBS）诉讼问题，我维持对该问题的异议。关于该段——法庭：等一下。请稍等。我正在记下来。那么我们还要讨论(b)的什么内容？我认为双方已经提出论点，对吗？HENZY先生：我认为双方已经提出论点，法官阁下。我不想赘述任何事情。法庭：好的。DESPINS先生：但是，法官阁下，我只想简要补充，我们所寻求的唯一特权信息，是与郭先生针对瑞银集团提出的积极主张的实体问题有关的信息。没有其他问题。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件编号 992，提交日期 10/17/22，录入日期 10/17/22 15:07:05，第 67 页，共 105 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2022年8月4日 67 例如，举一个荒谬的例子，郭先生在该代理关系的背景下说，哦，顺便一提，我已将一架私人飞机的权益转让给我女儿。我并未——我并未寻求该等信息。那不是郭先生针对瑞银集团的积极主张的一部分。因此，法官阁下指示他就此致函的该项特权，是仅就该诉讼、该积极诉讼而言的特权。我想确保记录对此明确。HENZY先生：而且，法官阁下，我想明确说明。我理解Despins先生的立场。我想明确说明，我认为Despins先生拥有其所拥有的任何——我再次假定，我不了解英国法——特权，郭先生则拥有其所拥有的任何特权，如果有的话。并且，郭先生——在他拥有任何特权的范围内——不会放弃该特权。但再次说明，我认为我们已经——我已经提出了我必须就此提出的论点。我认为如此。法庭：好的。对拟议命令第3页(b)段措辞的异议被驳回。HENZY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：那么你的下一项异议是什么？HENZY先生：法官阁下，关于第4页的第4段，该段实质上是对受托人的概括授权，允许其就所谓债务人控制实体在正常营业过程之外采取行动。而我对此提出异议。坦率地说，我从未听说过或见过这种情况。我对《破产法典》第363条的理解是，当债务人受托人——债务人或受托人——占有中债务人或受托人希望在正常营业过程之外采取行动时，他们需要通知举行听证会，并前来请求本院授权其这样做。而这将使得无需通知和听证会。并且，再次说明，这是概括授权。我认为《破产法典》并未对此作出规定。我认为这只是非常救济，而且我认为并不适当。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，就该点而言，这与适用法律问题是同一论点。我们不希望日后有人主张我们在正常营业过程之外采取了行动。而安全阀——保障措施——位于第4段末尾，其规定，为免生疑问，本命令中的任何内容均不授权受托人出售、以其他方式处置、出租或设定负担于债务人控制实体中的任何股权或债务人的其他资产。因此，是的，该措辞很宽泛，但随后在末尾被完全限缩，以避免所提出的这类担忧。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件编号 992，提交日期 10/17/22，录入日期 10/17/22 15:07:05，第 69 页，共 105 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2022年8月4日 69 我们需要开头措辞的原因是，我们不希望处于这样一种境地，即我们就诸如“嗯，您知道，您解除了或免除了某位董事、高级职员的职务。您不应当那样做。那——那不属于正常营业过程”，以及我们是否在——有或没有该授权的情况下采取行动，而进行所有这些附带诉讼。我们认为，只要其中包含保护破产财产的安全阀，即未经法院命令不得出售或出租财产，我们就应当获得两项救济。谢谢。法庭：还有其他人——HENZY先生：我看到——我看到该限制，法官阁下，但我仍然认为——我认为根据第363条，不存在在正常营业过程之外采取行动的概括授权这种事。DESPINS先生：仅限于行使公司治理权，法官阁下。没有其他事项。FRIEDMAN先生：法官阁下，我能否发言——我是Peter Friedman——片刻？最初拟议的命令并未包含Despins先生加入的那项措辞，而我们认为其极其重要。并且，您知道，我认为如果没有——\n\n案号 22-50073，文件编号 992，提交日期 10/17/22，录入日期 10/17/22 15:07:05，第 70 页，共 105 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2022年8月4日 70 该等措辞，作为债权人，我们本会提出异议。但我们发现，该补充内容——我认为——体现了受托人为平衡债权人的经济利益（我认为这必须是最重要的）与效率而作出的极具诚信的举措。因此，我们强烈支持纳入该特定段落及应我们要求加入的保护性措辞。法庭：谢谢。是否还有其他人希望就第4段发言？（无可听见的回应）法庭：好的。我正在再次阅读该措辞。（暂停）法庭：好的。是否还有任何人就第4段有任何进一步意见？（无可听见的回应）法庭：HENZY律师，尽管我理解该异议，但我将驳回该异议，因为我认为该措辞——其具体针对债务人控制实体的经济和治理权利。而且，您知道，如果就此发生诉讼，那么就可以发生。但我们不会——它——它受到最后一句的限定，而且我认为其对债务人的保护已经足够。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件编号 992，提交日期 10/17/22，录入日期 10/17/22 15:07:05，第 71 页，共 105 页\n\n郭文贵（Ho Wan Kwok）— 2022年8月4日 71 HENZY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：那么你的下一项异议是什么？HENZY先生：而且，法官阁下，有个好消息，我对第5段没有异议。法庭：好的。谢谢。HENZY先生：关于第6段，该——因此第6段规定，债务人不得干扰、阻碍或延迟受托人行使本命令项下的权限。我对第6段第一句没有异议。然而，第二句将限制债务人寻求救济的能力，并会将其限制为向本院寻求救济。而我不——我不知道债务人是否会寻求救济。但特别是鉴于第4段及Despins先生在该段获得的广泛权限，我不知道这里可能会发生什么。我不知道债务人可能拥有何种权利（如有），以采取任何行动。但我认为债务人——在债务人原本有权寻求救济的范围内——不应受本命令限制。因此，我请求从命令中删除第6段第二句。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，还是同一问题。债务人已在本院面前。他拥有全球资产。从您的角度而言，您对此享有专属管辖权。我们不能让债务人前往外国法院主张请求。可能他会来到这里，法官阁下，但您知道，英国法中关于XYZ问题有一个极其重要的转折点。然后您可能会决定，是的，你是对的，去做吧，或诸如此类。但对于该债务人而言，一切都必须集中在本院。他不能在其他地方进行附带诉讼。而且他们有能力来本院寻求救济。因此，这是一个非常重要的立场，法官阁下。HENZY先生：法官阁下，按照本命令的设置方式，Despins先生可以前往其他法院，包括外国法院。DESPINS先生：这是正确的。HENZY先生：因此，按照现在的设置方式，Despins先生决定前往本国或外国的法院，而债务人，即使假定根据该外国法律，债务人有权出庭并采取债务人将会采取的任何行动。本命令规定债务人不得这样做。并且其规定，我猜债务人必须回来向您说明，Despins先生正在外国法院做这件事，而我在您面前告诉您，他不应当这样做，因为我被告知不得前往外国法院提出以下论点：根据外国——\n\n案号 22-50073，文件编号 992，提交日期 10/17/22，录入日期 10/17/22 15:07:05，第 72 页，共 105 页\n\n案号 22-50073，文件编号 992，提交日期 10/17/22，录入日期 10/17/22 15:07:05，第 73 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 73 我有权依据法院法律提出。那并不——那对我而言毫无道理。DESPINS先生（德斯平斯先生）：法官阁下——HENZY先生（亨齐先生）：如果Despins先生能够在无需寻求法院授权的情况下前往其他法院，那么——再说一次，法官阁下，您已经说过了，债务人应按其现状被接收。债务人应能够根据外国法律，行使债务人有权行使的一切权利。法院：嗯，问题在于——DESPINS先生：法官阁下——法院：——Despins先生就是债务人，因此他已经拥有这些权利。他无需本院授权，即可在债务人为当事人的已决诉讼中采取其正在采取的行动。因此，虽然我在一定程度上理解你的论点，但问题是，如果Despins先生现在已成为Kwok先生，Kwok先生在任何这些外国法院中还能有什么权利采取任何行动？HENZY先生：嗯，Despins先生并非——法院：正如你在书面文件中承认的，一旦提交——一旦任命受托人的命令获批，Despins先生就成为了Kwok先生。那么，Kwok先生还可能拥有什么权利？HENZY先生：嗯，法官阁下——法院：Despins先生已取代并承接了所有这些\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 74 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 74 权利。HENZY先生：我想我同意。我没有——我不认为我说过Despins先生变成了Kwok先生。我猜Despins先生也不想成为Kwok先生，但在任何未决诉讼中，他绝对已被替代为Kwok先生。不过，我认为按照该命令的设置，这不仅涉及未决诉讼，Despins先生还可以提起债务人可能甚至不是当事人的新诉讼。现在，作为不占有财产的债务人，Kwok先生在某一外国法域具体可能拥有什么权利？法官阁下，我不知道。他可能有，也可能没有。他可能没有任何权利。所以我不知道，因为我不知道我们谈论的是哪个法域。我不知道我们谈论的是哪个实体。我不知道Despins先生将采取什么行动。因此，我完全——您看，再说一次，该命令的设置方式是，Despins先生可以去做他将要做的任何事情，只要根据某项适用的外国法律，Kwok先生有权出庭并采取某些行动——而他可能没有，他可能没有，法官阁下——他就应能够这样做。我不——我不认为他应当必须回到本院，以查明他是否有权依据非破产——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 75 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 75 适用的非破产法，在另一法院出庭。FRIEDMAN先生（弗里德曼先生）：法官阁下，我能否就此问题发言片刻？我是Peter Friedman（彼得·弗里德曼）。我认为这确实很重要，因为我认为问题在于，无论如何，鉴于其财产无力偿债，Kwok先生将不得不确定其是否具有诉讼资格。因此，我认为，鉴于他说自己有$3,850，在他前往另一法院并获准进行诉讼之前，他实际上应当证明，鉴于其经济状况，他有权干预受托人对债务人财产的使用。我认为，这是一个确实必须参照美国破产法及其权利来作出认定的问题。因此，我实际上认为Despins先生所提议的做法极为适当。这无疑是一项审慎措施，并且确实属于破产核心事项的范围，即认定他是否甚至具有获得听证的诉讼资格。HENZY先生：法官阁下，仅提出一个假设。假设Despins先生前往外国法院，并在该外国法院寻求强制Kwok先生实施他通过该命令寻求让其实施的那类行为。他寻求强制其签署一份文件，比如说一份公司文件。那么我不——我的意思是，是否有人会说Kwok先生在该外国法院没有诉讼资格，向外国法院的法官说，嗯，基于任何理由，我不应当必须签署该文件。而法官可能会说，你错了，你必须签署该文件。法官会说出法官将要说的话。但Kwok先生怎么可能无权在该外国法院出庭——而且是在法官面前——在法官可以因任何理由对Kwok先生说，我不认为你具有诉讼资格之前。Despins先生可以对该法官，即外国法官，说Kwok先生没有诉讼资格。那么，在我的假设中，Kwok先生怎么可能没有能力出庭，并在其拥有任何权利的范围内可能为其权利进行抗辩？FRIEDMAN先生：法官阁下，我不代表Despins先生发言，但我不认为该命令剥夺了Kwok先生在另一法院存在事项时为自己辩护的能力。但是，如果他寻求提起诉讼，我认为他当然必须来到本院。HENZY先生：嗯，但该命令并非如此规定。DESPINS先生：无论如何，法官阁下，关键在于本院对Kwok先生享有专属管辖权。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 77 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 77 他需要回到本院。而且事实上，如果存在令人信服的情形，是的，例如我们会授权他前往澳大利亚，为某项诉讼进行抗辩，诸如此类。关键在于，他不应四处奔走，并在未向法官阁下说明“这是我正在做的事情”的情况下，有能力在世界各地扰乱我们正在进行的工作。我遭受了某种具体损害，尽管我不占有财产，我仍以某种方式能够主张该损害。嗯，该论点只能向法官阁下提出。然后，如果您认为其具有说服力，您将派遣——您将授权他在国外做任何他想做的事。但您不能让他在这种情况下四处奔走。这是基本原则，法官阁下。HENZY先生：但是，法官阁下，可以说该命令所做的是，您向Despins先生让渡了一定程度的管辖权，也就是说，您告诉他，他可以在正常营业范围之外行事，而无需前来向您请求许可。但随后Despins先生和Friedman先生实质上主张的是，然而您——然而您对于——假设就同一事项而言，仍保留对债务人的管辖权。因此，Despins先生可以做任何他想做的事，但Kwok先生不能对此作出回应。这似乎应当是\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 78 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 78 二者择一。如果Despins先生想要回到本院并提出动议，以在正常营业范围之外行事，而债务人必须在破产法院对此作出回应，那没有问题。但如果他无需这样做，那么我认为债务人应能够在他行事的任何地方出庭，并在其有权这样做的范围内作出回应。DESPINS先生：法官阁下，债务人与受托人的地位并不平等。认为由于我们有权这样做，他们就也有权这样做的这种观念，并非运作方式。法院：嗯，我正要指出这一点。关键在于，Despins先生是一名独立第三方，被任命来运营——管理Kwok先生的财产。命令第二句的文字是，在债务人反对受托人行使授权的范围内，好，债务人应仅限于在通知利害关系方后，向本院寻求救济，但以债务人能够证明其有诉讼资格为限。而且，不幸的是，鉴于——对于债务人而言——鉴于他在其所有提交文件中所陈述的内容，以及\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（菲奥雷记录与誊写服务公司）\n\n我们此前讨论过的内容，本院面前没有证据，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 79 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022 79 并且记录中没有任何内容——事实上，记录中唯一的内容支持债务人在该财产中不会拥有任何权益，因为本案不会向债权人全额清偿。因此，不会存在任何剩余财产，债务人也就不会具有诉讼资格提出此类论点。并且，如果Despins先生在其授权范围之外采取行动，那么债务人仍有权提出该论点。但他必须在本院提出，受本院对该财产所享有的管辖权约束。这正是任命Chapter 11（第11章）受托人的后果之一。因此，再说一次，虽然我理解你的论点，但这并不排除债务人反对受托人行使授权，不过他必须在本院这样做。因此，我将驳回你对第6段提出的异议。HENZY先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。顺带一提，仅仅说一下，英国UBS（瑞银）诉讼中的损害赔偿请求为$500 million。我不了解其力度——法院：该请求并未被列为该财产的一项资产，Henzy先生。HENZY先生：哦，不，它被列了。法院：没有。实际上最初没有。HENZY先生：我相信它被列了。法院：没有。我认为没有。HENZY先生：好的。我会——我会回去核查，但我以为它被列了。不过无论如何，我不——我不认为债务人会争议，在其未列入资产负债表的范围内，法官阁下，它本应被列入。而且我认为债务人绝对——法院：嗯，也许被列了。那么让我——让我回到全球注释，其实那不是真正的注释——再说一次，据我所知，根据破产法典、判例法、成文法、地方法规或联邦规则，没有任何授权允许任何债务人向其——向其资产负债表提交全球注释，以否认其在宣誓后如实陈述的资产负债表内容。我从未见过或听说过这种事，但我理解这现在正成为人们所做的事情。但这——这并不意味着全球注释会对Kwok先生是否准确完成其资产负债表产生任何影响。话虽如此，即使他确实列出了它，这是一项$500 million的请求，另有两名原告，对吗？HENZY先生：是的，但是——法院：那么它将三等分，对吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 81 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n1　HENZY先生：\n根据——\n2　法院：\n而PAX的请求——\n3　你客户确实在其资产负债表中列出的请求，实际上是在一份\n4　资产负债表中列出的——他将其列为不少于$254 million，\n5　我相信，也许是53。我最近没有查看。\n6　但无论如何，你的债务人，即\n7　你的客户，是否具有偿债能力，仍然是本案中非常重要的争议问题。\n8　HENZY先生：\n我——我完全不同意这一点\n9　，法官阁下。\n10　法院：\n好的。\n11　HENZY先生：\n我只是指出，你并不——\n12　——我完全不知道英国的\n13　该请求有何强弱，以及百分比为何——\n14　法院：\n我明白。\n15　HENZY先生：\n——如果确实如此。\n16　法院：\n但他将——他将必须回到\n17　本院并解释为什么他反对受托人行使\n18　授权。他将获得听证。\n19　HENZY先生：\n好的。明白。我的异议——\n20　我明白了。\n21　法院：\n也许。\n22　HENZY先生：\n该异议已被驳回。\n23　法院：\n取决于他是否具有诉讼资格，\n24　好的，在当时。\n25　HENZY先生：\n明白，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 992 Filed 10/17/22 Entered 10/17/22 15:07:05 Page 82 of 105\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日\n\n1　法院：\n因此——因此，我驳回了你对第6段的异议，即我们刚刚在记录中讨论的第6段措辞。\n\n4　HENZY 先生（亨齐）：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n5　法院：\n那么你的下一项异议是什么？\n\n6　HENZY 先生：\n最后一项异议针对第7段。\n\n7　法院：\n好的。\n\n8　HENZY 先生：\n因此，这要求作出一项命令，其中——该命令规定您请求外国法院提供协助，包括就受托人行使对 Genever BVI（英属维尔京群岛的杰内弗）的公司控制权而提出的任何救济请求，请求英属维尔京群岛法院提供协助。\n\n13　我——我绝对不会告诉法院应当对其他法官说什么，但我只是——我认为这非常非常宽泛。\n\n16　而我对此的理解是，它会在某种程度上给予 Despins 先生（德斯平斯）本院的认可，使其可以到另一位法官面前说，请把这个给我——而且 Manning 法官（曼宁）告诉您，您应当把它给我，即使您，法官阁下，并不知道——他对另一位法官所说的、他想要的究竟是什么。\n\n22　法院：\n好的。\n\n23　DESPINS 先生：\n因此，法官阁下，这类措辞经常用于外国——您知道的，外国代表的情形。\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 录入 第83页，共105页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日　83\n\n我很乐意——显然，您不了解我，而且您可能不愿意给我一张空白支票，我也不认为这是一张空白支票——但这实际上是向外国法院表明，本院正在请求其协助，而并非是请求其做任何非法或不当之事；外国法院可能不像美国法院那样（无法辨认）。这算是常规措辞，但我一直被告知，绝不要在 Manning 法官面前援引第105条，所以我不会援引它。但大致就是类似的意思。因此，如果您——有或没有这项措辞，我都可以接受。我宁愿把它写进去，但我不会——我不想让您处于您对此并非百分之百安心的境地。\n\n法院：\n嗯，我是说，我认为第15章中的这一部分——您知道，国会于2005年将第15章作为法典的一部分，其全部目的就是承认——您知道——跨境案件，并努力促成外国法院与外国代表之间的合作。明白吗？所以我认为我们可以——我们可以说，为促进受托人行使本命令所赋予的权限，法院恭请外国法院就受托人行使公司控制权提供协助。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日　84\n\n对债务人实体，包括 Genever BVI（英属维尔京群岛的杰内弗），我认为不存在——\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n完全同意。说得很好。\n\n法院：\n——任何问题。我是说。而且我认为——我是说，我认为在——本辖区曾有案件，就美国境外的其他诉讼程序作出过这样的命令。因此我不——我认为我可以修改——Despins 先生，您是否有任何问题——我没有记下我刚才所说的确切措辞——\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n没有。\n\n法院：\n——但采用我所述的修改，您是否——\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n如果您愿意，我们会作出该项修改，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n好的。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n或者由您决定。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n而且，法官阁下，为记录在案，如果法院对该措辞感到满意，我不会就该问题坚持提出异议。\n\n法院：\n它所——\n\nHENZY 先生：\n再次说明，那——\n\n法院：\n它所请求的全部内容，而且我相信是适当的，就是因为国会决定将——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 录入 第84页，共105页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 录入 第85页，共105页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日\n\n1　第15章作为法典中独立且不同的一章，他们试图承认法院之间的合作；为使一个司法辖区内的案件得以就本国境外另一司法辖区中的相关程序实施，这种合作可能是必要的。\n\n6　因此，按照我刚才所述的修改，我对此没有问题。\n\n8　HENZY 先生：\n明白，法官阁下。\n\n9　法院：\n好的。\n\n10　DESPINS 先生：\n我们会作出修改，法官阁下。\n\n11　法院：\n谢谢。\n\n12　HENZY 先生：\n最后一个问题，法官阁下——我并不是试图回头争论——\n\n14　DESPINS 先生：\n我以为那——那就是最后一个问题。\n\n16　HENZY 先生：\n还有一个。我不是——我不是试图回头争论。关于第3段，也就是回到第3页，这是 Harcus Parker（哈克斯·帕克）的信函，其中写道，债务人被指示在本命令作出后不迟于两个营业日交付。\n\n20　嗯，这里有几个问题，法官阁下。\n\n22　摆在您面前的材料中，作为附件B所附的该信函副本和表格——据我了解，Harcus Parker 尚未同意该副本和表格。因此，从某种意义上说，您有点——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 录入 第86页，共105页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日　86\n\n法院：\n不过，我对此有个问题，因为受托人 Despins 说这是他从他们那里收到的信函，那么他们怎么会不同意呢？\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n这是一封信。我所说的是，我们从他们那里收到的信函，我们作出了一些细微修改。但无论如何，我会处理这个问题，也就是说，如果他们——如果他们说——我认为我们所作的修改是——顺便说一下，我们今天早些时候确实向他们发送了——我们所作的修改，因此他们已经看到了。我们尚未收到他们的回复。但如果这成为一个问题，我们会解决它，也就是说，这不是 Kwok 先生的问题，也就是说，我们已将该信函按提交给您时的形式呈交，我们将看看他们怎么说。如果需要修改，我们只会提交一份补充文件。这实际上将是非常非常——非常细微的改动。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n我想——因此我不清楚是否——因此他将会——Kwok 先生将被命令签署一封英国律师可能会告诉我们不能接受的信函。我不想处于这样一种情况：Despins 先生与英国律师就一封信可能应当写什么谈判三天，而这项命令却说他必须签署——\n\n法院：\n因此，我认为您的意思是，Henzy 律师，您只是不希望法院在您看到该信函最终版本之前作出该命令。是——\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 录入 第87页，共105页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日　87\n\n这就是您的意思吗？\n\nHENZY 先生：\n或者至少在有——是的，在有最终版本之前。是的，在有——据我目前了解，现在没有最终版本。但第二点是——正如我早先所说，Kwok 先生不会签署这封信。本命令规定，他必须在该信函实际最终确定并完成后的两个营业日内签署。我只是——您知道，我——我们将提起上诉。我们将申请上诉期间中止执行。我只是——我不想让 Kwok 先生因未——未签署本命令而构成藐视法庭。我只是想——所以我只是想提醒法院。我会——我想我不知道为何两个营业日如此紧迫。我不知道两个营业日内会发生什么，您知道，也不知道为什么不能有稍长一些的期限，以便 Kwok 先生可以提出上诉，并提出他将提出的任何上诉期间中止执行动议。\n\n20　我只是不想造成不必要的紧急混乱，法官阁下。如果该命令最终未获中止执行，而他——而他没有签署，那么由此产生的任何后果都将随之发生。但我不——我不知道我们是否现实地能够在两个营业日内就上诉期间中止执行动议到您面前出庭。这就是全部。而且，再次说明，我——我请求这一期限长于两天。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n因此，法官阁下，我们——我理解您的担忧，我也有同样的担忧，即确保我们所作的修改仅属文体性修改。但是，您知道，鉴于事情正朝这个方向发展，我们应当做到准确。因此我们应当做的是——我只是在思考处理此事的最佳办法——我是说，会有一封信。应当有一封最终信函。也许命令可以规定，我们将在 X 天内提供最终形式的信函，而债务人将有 Y 天来——来完成此事。Y 天期限来完成此事。该信函将大致采用所附的形式。因此，我们可以提交一项命令，处理该问题，正是该问题，法官阁下。并且我理解，准确性——我们不应当——我们应当对此谨慎，做到更加准确，而不是那样。我理解您的观点，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n您是否反对将债务人的两天期限延长为更长的期限？他不会签署，但我想他的意思是他希望——他将提出上诉，所以——我\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 录入 第88页，共105页\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 录入 第89页，共105页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日　89\n\n不——\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n当然。\n\n法院：\n我对此没有任何倾向性意见。我只是问您这个问题。\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n法官阁下——当然答案是可以。我的意思是，无论您，法官阁下，认为哪个期限更合适，我们显然都会遵从。通常我们希望就该项请求尽快启动工作，但两天还是四天不会——您知道——不会造成重大影响。\n\n法院：\nHenzy 先生？\n\nHENZY 先生：\n我请求五个营业日。我不——我不知道这一切究竟何时会发生。我不知道我的生活中会发生什么。我不知道法院会发生什么。我不——我不认为相差一天或两天会有什么——\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n您知道，五个营业日可以，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n我只是——\n\n法院：\n您说五天，Despins 先生？可以吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n可以，法官阁下。\n\n法院：\n好的。那么就这样。Henzy 律师，您有五天。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n而且，法官阁下，再次说明，我——因为我\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 录入 第90页，共105页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）—2022年8月4日　90\n\n不希望当事人，您知道，指责我或指责 Kwok 先生，我认为在完成这封信方面将会是一团糟，好吗。Harcus Parker 律师告诉我，她同意做任何事情的先决条件是，Kwok 先生作出的任何放弃必须是自愿的。而这不会是自愿的。我并不是告诉她应当基于此采取什么立场。Kwok 先生没有与她沟通。因此我不——对于她将如何回应 Kwok 先生被命令、在提出异议后仍发送这封信，我，您知道，那不是我的——那不是我的事。那不是 Kwok 先生的事。英国律师将会以他们——将会以他们自己的方式作出反应。明白吗？\n\nDESPINS 先生：\n我理解，法官阁下。关键在于，对于我们将允许这些人决定什么，有一定限度。如果他们从某人那里收到一封信，无论法院是否命令他们这样做——而且顺便说一下，这已无实际意义，因为他说他不会签署这封信。因此，您知道，我们在争论——我们——\n\n法院：\n对。反正他不会签署。对。\n\nHENZY 先生：\n嗯，但是——可能永远不会有一封信。仅此而已。我的意思是，在某个时候，我\n\n案号 22-50073 文书 992 于 10/17/22 提交 于 10/17/22 15:07:05 录入 第91页，共105页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日 91 我明白——法庭：哦，不。我认为会有一封信。关键是你的当事人已经表示他不会签署该信。他不会。他已经通过你表示，他不会遵从本法庭的这项命令。亨齐先生（Mr. Henzy）：而且，法官阁下——法庭：而且该命令甚至尚未录入，但他不会遵从。亨齐先生：他不会自愿放弃其特权，法官阁下，倘若他享有任何特权的话。但我认为——我想表达的是，我理解德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）在某个时候将向您提交一封信，而该信可能未获 Harcus Parker 律师事务所（Harcus Parker firm）同意。仅此而已。因为 Harcus Parker——法庭：他不会向我提交一封未经该律所同意的信。是他们起草了该信。亨齐先生：不，他们没有。法庭：是他们对此作出了最终意见。亨齐先生：法官阁下，我不知道他们会怎么做。如果他们明白债务人不会自愿放弃特权，他们可能会采取立场称我们不——我们就是不做。好。我不知道，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 992，提交日期 10/17/22，录入日期 10/17/22 15:07:05，第92页，共105页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日 92 法庭：那么，德斯平斯先生将不得不处理该问题。亨齐先生：好的。法庭：如果他没有一封信，那么就没有什么五日期限需要担心。如果他没有从他们那里收到一封信，那么你——就没有什么——那么你的当事人不会违反法庭命令，因为不会有一封信——亨齐先生：好的。法庭：——要求他签署并交付给他们。德斯平斯先生：不。实际上，法官阁下，我认为——在某个时候我们将需要债务人出具一封信，因为否则这些律师只会让我们一直处于悬而未决的状态。将会发生的情况是，如果债务人拒绝签署该信，我们将有一项法庭命令。我们将前往英国法院。这将花费很多钱，诸如此类，但我们将前往英国法院，并向英国法院寻求救济，以对抗那些即使已有债务人信函说明你们需要让其获得查阅权限，却仍拒绝让我们获得查阅权限的律师。但是，再说一次，我——您知道，我们正在为一封债务人称我们永远不会——他们永远不会签署的信争论，所以，您知道，我认为那——让我们先到达\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 992，提交日期 10/17/22，录入日期 10/17/22 15:07:05，第93页，共105页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日 93 那一步。亨齐先生：如果法庭表示，如果没有——如果没有该律所同意的信，债务人就无须采取任何行动，我对此没有异议。德斯平斯先生：不，法官阁下，因为那是在给予——那是——法庭：嗯，那不是我所说的。我说的是，五日期限无关紧要。亨齐先生：好的。法庭：如果没有信，五日期限就无关紧要。这就是我所说的。你请求了更多时间。亨齐先生：是。是。法庭：他已同意给予更多时间。然后你现在又说，在——在今天期间你多次所说的是，你的当事人不会签署该信。亨齐先生：是。法庭：所以我说，如果他不会签署该信，那么他将违反法庭命令。亨齐先生：我所假定的情况是，英国的律所并未同意一封信。仅此而已。德斯平斯先生：而英国的律所不能成为\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 992，提交日期 10/17/22，录入日期 10/17/22 15:07:05，第94页，共105页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日 94 决定本案将如何处理的最终裁决者。我们已给予他们很大的余地。而法官阁下不会将本案中的特权控制权交给一名英国律师。因此，我们愿意与他们合作。我们也正在这样做。但是，您知道，亨齐先生不能将他们阻挠程序的能力作为他本人及其当事人不签署该信的抗辩理由。亨齐先生：我没有利用任何事情来阻挠本程序，法官阁下。法官阁下，如果您——我理解，如果存在一封信，而您命令郭先生（Mr. Kwok）签署该信，无论英国律所是否同意该信，他的五日期限均将开始起算。我理解这一点。德斯平斯先生：这就是我所请求的全部。而且，法官阁下，我们建议修改命令以处理该信及所有相关事项。因此，如果法官阁下授权我们，我们将会这样做，因为我们需要修正该命令。您在别处建议了更好的措辞，所以我们需要这样做，并且我们将在获得您的许可后这样做。法庭：是。你们获准这样做。你认为你们明天能将该命令提交法庭吗？德斯平斯先生：是，法官阁下。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 992，提交日期 10/17/22，录入日期 10/17/22 15:07:05，第95页，共105页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日 95 法庭：好的。或者周一？德斯平斯先生：从我们的角度而言，可以。我们将尽最大努力这样做，是的。法庭：或者周一。亨齐先生：我能有一些时间——法官阁下，我想要一些时间审阅该命令。德斯平斯先生：可以。亨齐先生：好的。法庭：嗯，我们刚刚已经逐项讨论了该命令将会如何表述。我们逐段讨论了，包括你的每一项异议，而这些异议均已被驳回。我已经在庭审记录中宣布了所有裁决。亨齐先生：法官阁下，我只是想看一眼该命令——我并不是——我完全相信德斯平斯先生会准确作出我们讨论过的修改，但我一贯希望看到最终命令。仅此而已。我并不是说我会对此提出异议或任何类似的事情。法庭：但是，如果你不同意，我们就要再举行一次听证会。这就是——这就是你试图——这就是你所说的。你是在说，如果某些内容——如果某些内容不符合你认为应有的内容，那么我们就要再举行一次听证会。这就是你所说的。亨齐先生：是。但是，这都因为——\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 992，提交日期 10/17/22，录入日期 10/17/22 15:07:05，第96页，共105页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日\n\n法庭：嗯，我不会再举行一次听证会。我已经作出裁定。我已裁定该命令——该命令需要如何表述。我们已逐项讨论过。你刚刚花了时间。你对我说过——这就是你所说的——我问过你对所请求救济的异议是什么。于是我回过头来，从“那么你反对德斯平斯先生没有援引第521条”开始。而你说，不，不。让我们——让我们逐项讨论该命令。让我们讨论我最初的异议，并讨论该命令。因此，这就是我们刚刚所做的。我们不会就此再回到法庭。这就是我们刚刚所做的。\n\n亨齐先生：那么，法官阁下，如果——如果——如果所提交的命令——再说一次，我并不是告诉——说我认为德斯平斯先生会这样做——如果所提交的命令与今天庭审记录中的内容不一致，怎么办？\n\n法庭：那么我不会录入该命令。我将阅读该命令。\n\n亨齐先生：抱歉，法官阁下。我认为，在命令录入之前，所有律师均有机会审阅命令是惯常做法。但我理解。\n\n法庭：但这就是我们刚刚所做的。我们刚刚花费了你本会用来审阅命令的时间。\n\n亨齐先生：我理解法庭所说的。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 992，提交日期 10/17/22，录入日期 10/17/22 15:07:05，第97页，共105页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日 97 法庭：事实上，我们刚刚已花费了大量时间，逐项讨论了该命令中的每一段。亨齐先生：法官阁下，如果您裁定我将没有机会审阅最终命令——法庭：德斯平斯先生——亨齐先生：——那么我理解法庭的——法庭：您知道，我——德斯平斯先生，你的律所是否会——这是我希望每个人都做的。这将是处理方式，因为我们并非经常这样做。德斯平斯先生，请你向法庭书记官邮箱发送一封电子邮件，你的律所会知道，必要时林赛先生（Mr. Linsey）可以协助你，附上该命令并抄送所有当事人。我在一段时间内——我不知道是多久——但可能几个小时，不会录入该命令。好吗？随后我将录入该命令。我不会再举行一次听证会来逐字讨论该命令的措辞。我们刚刚已经这样做了。该命令不予录入的唯一原因是，若德斯平斯先生写了诸如法庭允许我住在法庭内之类的内容。那样我就不会录入该命令。好吗？原因有很多。无论如何，他住在那里也不会舒服。但关键在于此。我们不会这样做。我们已经——这是就该问题举行的第二次听证会。该动议于 July 23rd 提交。现在是 August 4th。你的当事人已不再是占有中的债务人。必须有人认识到这一点。好吗？受托人具有我刚刚裁定其所享有的权力，可以采取其正在采取的行动。而且这——我们已经逐项讨论了该命令的每一段，并已对这些段落作出裁定。将会作出修改。因此，这就是我们将要做的。德斯平斯先生，你的办公室或通过林赛先生将发送——德斯平斯先生：是。法庭：——一封电子邮件至布里奇波特法庭书记官邮箱，并说明该命令——这是在 August 4th 听证会后依照庭审记录中讨论的所有修改而拟定的命令。你将抄送所有当事人，包括亨齐先生。随后，我将在一段时间后适时录入该命令。但我不会再举行听证会。本次听证会结束。德斯平斯先生：明白，法官阁下。法庭：我已经作出裁定。好吗？\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 992，提交日期 10/17/22，录入日期 10/17/22 15:07:05，第98页，共105页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日 98 无论如何。\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 992，提交日期 10/17/22，录入日期 10/17/22 15:07:05，第99页，共105页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日 99 德斯平斯先生：法官阁下，有两项程序性事项。法庭：是。请讲。德斯平斯先生：五分钟。好的。第一，我们已建议了一些日期，但当然须视法官阁下的日程安排，以举行情况会议。法庭：你们已经提交给某人了吗？德斯平斯先生：实际上，我们尚未提交。法庭：好的。德斯平斯先生：所以您完全正确。此事暂缓。让我们暂缓。我们原本准备展示这些日期。我不知道我的同事是否能在 Zoom 上展示可能建议的日期。或者您知道吗，法官阁下，让我们传阅。我们暂缓该事项。让我们传阅这些日期。我们将就此回复法官阁下。法庭：好的。德斯平斯先生：抱歉。您完全正确。我们应当——法庭：你们可以通过电子邮件箱，就那些建议日期与法庭书记官沟通，并抄送每个人，以使每个人都知道这就是你们的建议。德斯平斯先生：会这样做。法庭：好吗？\n\n案号 22-50073，文件 992，提交日期 10/17/22，录入日期 10/17/22 15:07:05，第100页，共105页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）— 2022年8月4日\n\n1　DESPINS 先生：\n遵命，法官阁下。\n\n2　我想提出的下一项是，我们已就依据 Rule 2004 对专业人士，例如律师，进行取证的问题，与债务人的律师进行了会商。而该问题将会产生困难，因为他们——至少据向我表述的方式——认为，当涉及债务人的资产，或我们认为应属债务人的资产，例如 Lady May（“Lady May”号）或 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内德兰）时，我们无权取得享有保密特权的文件；因为债务人认为这些不是资产，因此追索这些文件将侵犯其保密特权。\n\n14　因此，我向您说明此事的原因——我并非——因为我并未请求您对此作出裁定，但我们需要尽早提出该问题，因为他们希望在收到传票后 30 天提出该问题，这将使我们进入 September/October。\n\n19　这里存在一个明确问题，即受托人承继何种保密特权的问题。我认为判例法很明确：在处理破产财团资产时，无论是已属破产财团的资产，还是有人主张其属于破产财团的资产，例如 Lady May（“Lady May”号）和 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内德兰），受托人均有权查阅有关这些资产的享有保密特权的通信，或有关案件管理的通信，例如 Brown Rudnick（布朗·拉德尼克）编制清单的相关通信。我并未请求您作出裁定，但我们需要提出该问题。我们现在不会这样做，但我们想告知您，我们将请求确定一个早于送达传票后 30 天的日期，因为那可能使我们进入 September 或 October。因此，这是目前存在的一个问题。最后一个问题，法官阁下，是，您此前曾要求我们注意，您也提出过利益冲突问题，而我们前几天暂且搁置了该问题。您说，大家需要留意此事。但这次会商使我们或我的合伙人认识到，问题并非 Zeisler（蔡斯勒）的问题。问题在于，受托人调查的目标，即债务人的儿子，正在支付律师费用。律师不可能对支付其费用的人采取不利立场，或以任何方式考虑对其不利的立场。这在理论上是可能的，但我不会要求任何人达到该标准。因此，我们并非请求——这里没有什么结论说我们请求您取消 Zeisler 的代理资格。我认为这不是 Zeisler 的问题。我认为，对于任何代表债务人并对破产财团负有义务的律师事务所而言，由受托人主张权利所针对的对象支付其费用，都是非常困难的。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 992\nFiled 10/17/22\nEntered 10/17/22 15:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n1　而此处的损害涉及 Sherry-Netherland（雪莉-内德兰）、Bravo Luck（布拉沃·拉克）等等。\n\n5　所以，再次说明，我没有什么结论。我们仍在考虑此事，但我想要——我们有义务向法院转达该问题。\n\n8　我不希望数周后有人说你们对此置之不理。实际上，这就是问题所在，即调查目标向债务人的律师支付费用。我认为这是有问题的。\n\n12　法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n13　DESPINS 先生：\n我们要说的就是这些。\n\n14　HENZY 先生：\n法官阁下，我可以发言吗？\n\n15　法院：\n可以。\n\n16　HENZY 先生：\n谢谢。\n\n17　关于 2004，我不知道为什么现在提出这个问题。我们谈的是尚未作出的 2004 命令。对于已提交的 2004 动议的异议截止日期，甚至尚未到来。是在明天。因此，我们谈的是尚未作出的 2004 命令和尚未发出的传票。我不知道这将如何发展，但我想目前预先谈论此事颇有意思，不过我完全不知道这将如何发展。\n\n25　关于我律师事务所的利益冲突问题，如果 Despins 先生希望提交一项取消我律师事务所代理资格的动议，他应当这样做。任何一方希望提交一项取消我律师事务所代理资格的动议，都应当这样做。\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 992\nFiled 10/17/22\nEntered 10/17/22 15:07:05\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022\n\n1　如果法院认为我的律师事务所应被取消代理资格，那么法院应采取其认为必要的任何行动。\n\n7　但除此之外，我不会——我不会考虑此事，也不会谈论此事。我将代理我的当事人。\n\n10　所有事实都已摆在那里。如果有人认为存在问题，他们应当——他们应当这样做。\n\n12　我前几天在听证会上说过这一点。这不应被用作针对我律师事务所或 Kwok 先生的（听不清）利剑。因此，要么提交你们的动议，要么就不要再提此事。\n\n16　法院：\n好的。今天下午还有其他人要补充吗？\n\n18　DESPINS 先生：\n没有，法官阁下。谢谢。\n\n19　法院：\n好的。谢谢。\n\n20　那么——为使记录明确，受托人请求延长提交移送通知截止期限的命令之动议获准，拟议命令将予作出。\n\n24　请求确认 Chapter 11（第 11 章）受托人持有债务人控制实体中债务人的全部经济权利和公司治理权利、授权 Chapter 11 受托人代表破产财团在任何外国行事并给予相关救济的命令之动议，基于记录中陈述的理由获准；命令将由受托人的律师拟定，并通知所有其他当事人，待其提交法院时，其他当事人将收到副本。随后法院将予审查，并于其后作出该命令。\n\n9　好的？好。谢谢各位。这是日程表上的最后一项事项，现宣布休庭。\n\n11　全体律师：\n谢谢，法官阁下。\n\n12　（程序于下午 4:35 结束。）\n\n15　本人，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），经法院批准的记录转写员及认证电子记录员和转写员，特此证明：上述内容是对上述案件程序官方电子录音的准确文字记录。\n\n22　October 17, 2022\n\n23　Christine Fiore, CERT\n\n24　转写员\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 992\nFiled 10/17/22\nEntered 10/17/22 15:07:05\n105　第 105 页，共 105 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- August 4, 2022　105\n\n1　索引\n\n3　受托人证物：　页码\n\n4　A-G\n受托人动议的附件　33","key_entities":["Kwok","Despins","Ho Wan Kwok","Je","Paul Hastings","CIPA","Luc Despins"],"ecf_references":[{"doc_number":598,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":672,"court":"CTB"},{"doc_number":681,"court":"CTB"}],"word_count":26377,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-10-17 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-10-17","updated_at":"2026-08-23 22:09:56"}