{"id":"court_sdny_2119_0","court":"SDNY","case_no":"","doc_number":2119,"sub_number":null,"doc_type":"DOC","filed_date":"2023-08-24","title":"SDNY ECF 2119","summary_zh":"破产法庭庭审记录 —— 美国诉 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵 / Guo Wengui / Miles Guo）案，康涅狄格州破产法院案号 22-50073 ECF #2119（2023年7月11日）。Hon. Julie A. Manning 法官主持的完整庭审记录，涉及聘请公共理算员、强制执行 2004规则传票、撤销律师代理、与 HCHK Technologies 及 G Club 实体的和解动议等多项事项。","summary_en":"Bankruptcy court hearing transcript —— United States v. Ho Wan Kwok (Miles Guo / Guo Wengui / Kwok Ho Wan), Case No. 22-50073, U.S. Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut, ECF #2119 (July 11, 2023). Full proceedings before Judge Julie A. Manning covering applications to employ adjusters, motions to compel Rule 2004 discovery, motions to withdraw counsel, and settlement agreements with HCHK Technologies and G Club entities.","body_en":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \\* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \\* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \\* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \\* \\* Debtor. \\* U.S. BANK NATIONAL \\* Adv. Proc No. 23-05012 ASSOCIATION, as escrow \\* agent, \\* \\* Plaintiff, \\* v. \\* \\* HK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS \\* INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED, \\* \\* Defendant. \\* \\* LUC A. DESPINS, \\* Adv. Proc. No. 23-05013 \\* Plaintiff, \\* \\* v. \\* Bridgeport, Connecticut \\* July 11, 2023 HCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., \\* et al., \\* \\* Defendants. \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* \\* TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE 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\n| 2 |\n|---|\n\n| | TRANSCRIPT OF | | | | |\n|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|\n| #1749 | APPLICATION TO EMPLOY AFFILIATES ADJUSTMENT | | | | |\n| | GROUP, LTD. AS PUBLIC ADJUSTER | | | | |\n| #1805 | MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2004 | | | | |\n| | SUBPOENAS (SECOND OMNIBUS)(INSOFAR AS IT RELATES | | | | |\n| | TO THE HUDSON DIAMOND ENTITIES) | | | | |\n| #1903 | MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY FILED BY A. ROMNEY | | | | |\n| #
28 | MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT | | | | |\n| #1936 | MOTION TO COMPROMISE CONTROVERSY W/BRIAN W. | | | | |\n| HOFMEISTER AS ASSIGNEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF | | | | | |\n| | CREDITORS OF HCHK ENTITIES UNDER NY COURT | | | | |\n| | ASSIGNMENT PROCEEDINGS | | | | |\n| #
25 | MOTION TO COMPROMISE CONTROVERSY W/BRIAN W. | | | | |\n| | HOFMEISTER AS ASSIGNEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF | | | | |\n| | CREDITORS OF HCHK ENTITIES UNDER NY COURT | | | | |\n| ASSIGNMENT PROCEEDINGS, 3131 PRINCETON PIKE | | | | | |\n| | BLDG. 5, STE 110, LAWRENCEVILLE, NJ 08648 | | | | |\n\nAPPEARANCES: Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: NICHOLAS A. BASSETT, ESQ. AVRAM E. LUFT, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the U.S. Trustee 150 Court Street New Haven, CT 06510 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE J. GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For HK International Funds ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. Investments, LLC and JAMES M. MORIARTY, ESQ. Mei Guo and Hudson Diamond AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. NY: Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Plaintiff, LEE VARTAN, ESQ. HK International Funds and Chiesa Shahinian & Mei Guo: Giantomasi, PC 105 Eisenhauer Pkwy Roseland, NJ 07068 For the Assignee, RYAN T. JARECK, ESQ. Brian W. Hofmeister: Cole Schotz P.C. 25 Main Street Court Plaza North Hackensack, NJ 07601\n\n3\n\nAPPEARANCES (Cont'd): For Various Creditors JOSEPH M. PASTORE, III, ESQ. Of HCHK Technologies: MELISSA R. McCLAMMY, ESQ. Pastore, LLC 4 High Ridge Park, Third Floor Stamford, CT 06905 For Joshua Sherman: JOSHUA SHERMAN, ESQ. HCHK Technologies, Inc. 303 5th Avenue #1705 New York, NY 10016 For G Club News GREGORY F. ARCARO, ESQ. Operations, LLC: GRAFSTEIN & ARCARO, LLC 114 W. Main Street, Suite 105 New Britain, CT 06051 For G Club Operations, LLC: KELLIANE BARANOWSKY, ESQ. Green & Sklarz, LLC 1 Audubon Street, 3rd Floor New Haven, CT 06511 CAROLINA A. FORNOS, ESQ. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019\n\n4\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 5\n\n| 1 | (Proceedings commenced at 12:33 p.m.) | | | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| 2 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Case Number 22-50073, Ho | | | | | | |\n| 3 | Wan Kwok and Genever Holdings, LLC.
Adversary Number -- | | | | | | |\n| 4 | excuse me, 23-5012, U.S. Bank National Association vs. HK | | | | | | |\n| 5 | Funds Limited.
And also, Case Number 23 -- Adversary Number | | | | | | |\n| 6 | 23-5013, Despins vs. HCHK Technologies, Inc. | | | | | | |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Good afternoon.
If we could | | | | | | |\n| 8 | have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter | | | | | | |\n| 9 | 11 Trustee, please. | | | | | | |\n| 10 | MR. DESPINS:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Luc | | | | | | |\n| 11 | Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. | | | | | | |\n| 12 | MR. BASSETT:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Nick | | | | | | |\n| 13 | Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 | | | | | | |\n| 14 | Trustee. | | | | | | |\n| 15 | MR. LINSEY:
Good afternoon, Patrick Linsey, | | | | | | |\n| 16 | Connecticut counsel for the trustee. | | | | | | |\n| 17 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Holley | | | | | | |\n| 18 | Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. | | | | | | |\n| 19 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Irve | | | | | | |\n| 20 | Goldman, Pullman & Comley, for the Creditors' Committee. | | | | | | |\n| 21 | MR. MORIARTY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
James | | | | | | |\n| 22 | Moriarty from Zeisler & Zeisler for the debtor and also for | | | | | | |\n| 23 | HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC in | | | | | | |\n| 24 | Docket 23-05012. | | | | | | |\n| 25 | MR. ROMNEY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Aaron | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 6 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 6 Romney for the same parties as well as for Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. And I'm appearing today on behalf of myself in response to the Court's order to show cause. I also want to put on the record, Attorney Vartan was stuck in very terrible traffic. He should be here any minute. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. MORIARTY: Thank you. MR. HENZY: And Eric Henzy on behalf of the debtor and also potentially on behalf of Mr. Romney. THE COURT: The debtor, Mr. Kwok? MR. HENZY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Attorney Vartan? MR. VARTAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor Lee Vartan also on behalf of Mei Guo and HK USA. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. VARTAN: Good afternoon. THE COURT: All right. Trustee Despins, there are several matters on the calendar today. We've just gone through appearances. How would you like to proceed today? MR. DESPINS: We had promised Mr. Romney that we would start with his matter, so unless the Court has a preference, we're okay with that order.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 7 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 7 MR. ROMNEY: If I may, Your Honor, just by further way of explanation? I have a 7:00 flight out of LaGuardia for depositions in Atlanta tomorrow which I'm very much trying to make. THE COURT: Okay. Then we will proceed that way. MR. DESPINS: Actually, Your Honor, if I -- maybe take five minutes to do the public adjustor retention. Mr. Luft is also -- was also stuck in traffic. He's on his way. Should be here. MR. ROMNEY: I think he'll be here in five minutes or so. If he's not here by the time we get through this, somebody else can handle the motion to withdraw. I'll handle the motion to withdraw if Mr. Luft is not here. But this will take probably five minutes. MR. DESPINS: The public adjustor retention. THE COURT: Okay. Does any -- Mr. Romney, do you have any opposition if we -- MR. ROMNEY: No, of course not. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Then let's address the application to employ the public adjustor first which is in the main case, ECF Number 1749. MR. DESPINS: Correct, Your Honor. And you may have noticed that we filed a amended retention order at\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 8 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 8 Docket Number 1992, because we had received comments from the U.S. Trustee to -- so at 1992 you have both the clean and the marked to show changes. 1992 at pages 10 and -- of the 11 -- or, sorry, 10 of 11, yes? You can see the changes. And, basically, it was to clarify their compensation. Just to give you a little bit of background, this is regarding the fire at The Sherry Netherland. Public adjustors are often retained by companies or owners to negotiate settlements with insurance companies. And you might say, well, but there's no settlement with the insurance company. Good point. But there may come a time where there would be a settlement mode. And, here, this retention is purely on a contingency basis. So no settlement, no compensation. And this person actually has been very helpful in helping me prepare things like a proof of claim. You need to actually submit to the insurance company a claim form. And we did that with respect to -- and he did that with respect to the cleanup costs, et cetera, et cetera. So even though at one point we thought we were going to put this retention to the side for now, it's becoming clear now that we need this person to do the various -- you know, all the legwork that needs to be done with respect to the evaluation of the claim. And given\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 9 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 9 that, again, he doesn't get paid anything unless there's a recovery from the insurance company, we believe it's -- that, you know, it's appropriate to go forward, because there's no risk to Genever US, which is the entity retaining him. And just for the record, to state the compensation, basically it's 5 percent on the first 3 million or less plus 4 percent on any settlement proceeds recovered in excess of 3 million up to 15 million, plus 3 percent on any settlements recovered in excess of 15 million up to 50 million. And we also made a correction to state that the public adjustor -- the acronym is AAGL -- will not hold any settlement proceeds recovered under such insurance policies. That's a change that the U.S. Trustee wanted to make, and so we made that change. So at this point, there had been an objection filed by PAX. It was withdrawn. We have been working with PAX on this, and we're happy that they withdrew the objection. And at this point, we would -- subject to any comments Your Honor may have with respect to the order, we would like to proceed with the retention. THE COURT: I have no comments or questions at this time. Attorney Claiborn, do you wish to be heard?\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 10 MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. The order as revised and filed at ECF 1992 resolves the U.S. Trustee's concerns. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. And I note, obviously, that the application is both under 327(a) and 328 because of the setting of the compensation at this time, the schedule of compensation. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the application -- the trustee's application to employ the public adjustor, Affiliated Adjustment Group, LTD? All right. Hearing nothing, I have seen no written objections other than the objection of PAX, which I note for the record was withdrawn. The United States Trustee has just stated their position that they are in support of the application in connection with the revised proposed order that was filed on the docket yesterday at ECF Number 1992 which resolves any concerns that the U.S. Trustee has. I understand the reason for the retention that you are seeking, Trustee Despins, and it certainly seems to be reasonable under the circumstances of the case. And for all those reasons, the application to employ Affiliated Adjustment Group as a public adjustor is granted, and the proposed order that is -- appears on pages 5, 6, and 7 of ECF Number 1992 can enter. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 10 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 11 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
11 |\n| 1 | MR. DESPINS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 3 | MR. DESPINS:
So at this point, Your Honor, our |\n| 4 | colleague is in route, but we shouldn't hold up the hearing |\n| 5 | for him.
So we're ready to go forward. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Give me one second, please. |\n| 7 | MR. DESPINS:
Okay.
All right.
The other -- the |\n| 8 | next matter -- there are many matters on the calendar.
But |\n| 9 | we -- Attorney Romney specifically requested and the trustee |\n| 10 | and the trustee's counsel agreed to proceed next with the |\n| 11 | motion to withdraw as attorney filed by Attorney Romney, |\n| 12 | 1903, on behalf of the Hudson Diamond entities from which an |\n| 13 | appearance was filed. |\n| 14 | I had indicated that the -- Attorney Romney and |\n| 15 | Attorney Vartan needed to appear today to address the motion |\n| 16 | to withdraw.
And I -- and both are in the courtroom.
So, |\n| 17 | Attorney Romney, do you wish to proceed? |\n| 18 | MR. ROMNEY:
I do, Your Honor.
One point of |\n| 19 | clarification.
Your Honor just said a moment ago that it |\n| 20 | was a motion to withdraw from representation of the Hudson |\n| 21 | Diamond entities.
It's just the Hudson Diamond New York |\n| 22 | entity, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay.
That's true.
I did see that. |\n| 24 | I'm sorry.
But I thought originally -- originally, I |\n| 25 | thought it was all of the entities.
But you're correct. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 12 of\n\n| 180 | | | | | | | | |\n|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
12 | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | Thank you for noting that for the record. | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | MR. ROMNEY:
Understood, Your Honor.
Your Honor, | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | as more further set forth in the affidavit submitted at the | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | request of the U.S. Trustee, this is a situation where we | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | became aware of a subpoena directed to the -- both Hudson | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | Diamond entities by virtue of the trustee's motion to compel | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | filed in May.
That motion to compel identified Hudson | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | Diamond Holdings, LLC as the sole member of Hudson Diamond | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | New York and had documentation supporting that proposition | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | attached to it.
The -- and sought contempt against both | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | entities. | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | I had been -- known as of that time that Ms. Guo | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | was -- is the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings.
And I | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | was under the very distinct impression for a number of | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | reasons, including the Chapter 11 trustee's pleading but | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | also conversations that I've had with Ms. Guo who was under | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | the impression, that Hudson Diamond New York was a | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | wholly-owned subsidiary of Hudson Diamond Holdings. | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | That is why I negotiated an extension on behalf of | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | both entities.
That is why I filed an appearance on behalf | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | of both entities.
And that is why both Attorney Vartan and | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | I following the negotiation of an adjournment in order to | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | allow compliance diligently attempted to locate documents on | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | behalf of both entities, neither of which were in the actual | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | physical possession of the natural human being that's our | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 13 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 13 client, Ms. Guo. During the course of that investigation/process, we were told by the general counsel of Hodgson Russ, LLP that Ms. Guo was not the -- sorry, that Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC was not the sole member of Hudson Diamond New York and, at that time, identified another individual who is identified in my affidavit, the debtor's son, Mileson Guo, was the member of that entity. At that moment, as stated in my affidavit, I immediately first sought the advice of firm's general counsel who's with me today, Mr. Henzy. The next thing I did was call Attorney Luft to tell him that I had just been informed that it appeared Hudson Diamond Holdings was not the sole member and that it appeared I had made a mistake and that I intended to withdraw, because I didn't believe I had authority to represent the New York entity as distinguished from the holdings entity which, to this -- am positive that I have authority to represent. My understanding is that under the rules of professional conduct, Rule 1.16(b), I cannot represent an entity unless I've been authorized by someone with actual authority and, therefore, must withdraw. And that's why I filed a motion to withdraw, because at the time that I filed\n\ngeneral counsel of a very reputable firm who I believe to be\n\nthe motion to withdraw, based upon the representation of the\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2119 | Filed 08/24/23 | Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 | Page 14 of |\n|---------------|----------|-----------------------------|---------------------------|------------|\n| | | 180 | | |\n| | | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 | | 14 |\n\n an honest person and upstanding member of the bar, led me to believe that I had made a mistake.\n\n Subsequent to filing that motion, further questions have been raised that now, as I sit here today, I do not know who the sole member of Hudson Diamond New York is. And as set forth in my affidavit, on -- I believe it was June 25th, Attorney Luft brought a document to my attention which was attached to their motion to compel and for contempt that was consistent with our original understanding that, in fact, Hudson Diamond Holdings was the sole member of this New York entity -- of the Hudson Diamond New York entity, and that Mei Guo was the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings.\n\n At that point, Attorney Vartan and I reached out to Hodgson Russ that confirmed that they, in fact, had prepared that document on which the Chapter 11 trustee appears to have relied, which was entirely consistent with Ms. Guo's original understanding that the holdings entity was the parent of the New York entity. They do not have any explanation for why they have an operating agreement that says the debtor's son or an entity he controls is the parent of that entity, but they also prepared and are in possession of a document that indicates Ms. Guo's entity is the parent of this New York entity.\n\nBecause, as I stand here today, I have no\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 15 of\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | 15 |\n| 1 | confidence that I have actual authority to represent the New |\n| 2 | York entity, I believe that the Rules of Professional |\n| 3 | Conduct require me to continue to pursue this motion to |\n| 4 | withdraw.
Since the day that this issue has arisen, other |\n| 5 | than what I say what I do every day, which is wake up and |\n| 6 | make sure my family is okay, this has been my number one |\n| 7 | priority to both gather documents or attempt to locate |\n| 8 | documents and attempt to answer this question so that I |\n| 9 | could come in here today and answer any questions the Court |\n| 10 | has or anyone else.
I've done my best, but that's what I |\n| 11 | have for the Court today. |\n| 12 | Everything that I did was an attempt to further |\n| 13 | this process to avoid a situation where it appeared that |\n| 14 | either me, my firm, or Ms. Guo or any entity that she |\n| 15 | controls was attempting to ignore a court order or do |\n| 16 | anything other than attempt to comply with it.
And that has |\n| 17 | at all times been my sole motivation for every action that I |\n| 18 | have undertaken in connection with this entire process. |\n| 19 | I'm prepared to answer any questions that the |\n| 20 | Court or anybody else in the room has, but with that I rest |\n| 21 | on my motion. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
Well, I'm going to ask other parties |\n| 23 | to raise their issues, and then I'll see if I have any |\n| 24 | questions.
Attorney Romney, you did file a -- an affidavit, |\n| 25 | but I don't think -- and I may have missed -- Attorney |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 16 Vartan, did you file anything? MR. VARTAN: I did not, Your Honor. But I've obviously reviewed Attorney Romney's affidavit, and I -- THE COURT: Well, that doesn't -- that's fine. I just wanted to know whether you filed anything. MR. VARTAN: Oh. I have not, Your Honor. THE COURT: And why did you not file anything? MR. VARTAN: Because everything that Mr. Romney cited in his affidavit is consistent with the record, and I have nothing more -- THE COURT: And don't you have an obligation to make a statement to the Court and not through Attorney Romney? I mean, the issues that we've talked about in this case at different times is who represents whom, who's acting in what nature, you're local counsel, you're main counsel. We've had these discussion before. And the discussion -- what I don't understand is -- I know you're here, and I appreciate that you're here, but I don't understand why Attorney Romney is the only one that filed an affidavit. I would think you would have filed an affidavit. And Attorney Romney has stated, as have other members from his firm, that they got involved and were retained through discussions with you, that your -- you had the contact with the client. Attorney Romney didn't speak directly to Mei Guo. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 16 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 17 That's not what your affidavit says. You said you and Attorney Vartan -- MR. ROMNEY: We -- THE COURT: -- spoke with Mei Guo. And doesn't Attorney Vartan have the relationship with Mei Guo? Don't you, sir? MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, I certainly do have a relationship with the client, as does -- THE COURT: Well, who retained you, Attorney Vartan? MR. VARTAN: Ms. Guo did. THE COURT: Okay. And who did she retain when she retained you? Did she retain you, or did she retain you and Mr. Romney? MR. VARTAN: Both of us. THE COURT: Okay. And there's -- MR. VARTAN: Well, Mr. Romney had already been retained, Your Honor. THE COURT: In connection with the motion for contempt? MR. VARTAN: So in -- I was answering questions with respect to Ms. Guo's retention of Mr. Romney and then Ms. -- with me generally. With respect to the Hudson Diamond entities, Mr. Romney and I both spoke with Ms. Guo. THE COURT: And why didn't you file an appearance Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 17 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 18 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
18 |\n| 1 | on behalf of the Hudson Diamond entities? |\n| 2 | MR. VARTAN:
I was planning on doing so, but |\n| 3 | Mr. Romney put forward in his affidavit why I did not. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Well, that's Mr. Romney's affidavit. |\n| 5 | That's not your affidavit. |\n| 6 | MR. VARTAN:
No, I understand, Your Honor.
But |\n| 7 | there was nothing that I had to add to the record beyond |\n| 8 | what Mr. Romney put forward in his affidavit.
And I'm also |\n| 9 | happy to answer any questions that Your Honor may have or |\n| 10 | anyone else may have. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Well, I just asked you a question that |\n| 12 | you didn't answer.
Why didn't you file an affidavit? |\n| 13 | MR. VARTAN:
Because, again, I didn't have |\n| 14 | anything more to add to the record.
And I didn't have an |\n| 15 | understanding that we were under court order to file. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
Well, it says on an order entered on |\n| 17 | June 20, 2023, that you were to appear and show cause why |\n| 18 | the motion to withdraw should not be granted.
And then the |\n| 19 | United States Trustee filed a response to the motion to |\n| 20 | withdraw.
And, remember -- well, maybe you don't remember, |\n| 21 | but I do -- that there was a hearing on the motion to compel |\n| 22 | at which I was told on the record through counsel, and which |\n| 23 | included you, that you were resolving -- or attempting to |\n| 24 | resolve the motion for contempt, because you represented the |\n| 25 | Hudson Diamond entities and that you would be producing |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2119 | Filed 08/24/23 | Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 | Page 19 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
19 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | documents in accordance with the subpoena. |\n| 2 | Immediately after -- no, that's not fair.
It's |\n| 3 | not immediately after.
But shortly after that hearing, |\n| 4 | Attorney Romney files a motion to withdraw the appearance. |\n| 5 | Now, I've asked on many occasions, is Mr. Romney |\n| 6 | taking direction from Ms. Guo, or is he taking direction |\n| 7 | from you and Ms. Guo?
I've had that discussion.
Because |\n| 8 | we've had a discussion about who's local counsel, who's main |\n| 9 | counsel. |\n| 10 | We're not going to do this where -- you're at two |\n| 11 | different firms.
Either you're both counsel where you both |\n| 12 | are bound and have to comply with court orders or you're |\n| 13 | not.
But we're not going to have, oh, I'm not going to say |\n| 14 | anything further because Attorney Romney already said it. |\n| 15 | Otherwise, why would I put you in that order?
I |\n| 16 | put you in that order, sir, because you're the person who's |\n| 17 | come in and said you have the client contact and authority |\n| 18 | with Ms. Guo.
That's what you've said on many occasions in |\n| 19 | this court.
And you've said it in -- and the pleadings that |\n| 20 | are filed are signed by you first and then Attorney Romney. |\n| 21 | So the -- you have an obligation, a professional |\n| 22 | obligation and ethical obligation, to the Court and all the |\n| 23 | parties involved in the case.
So I don't understand why -- |\n| 24 | so that's fine.
If you're telling me you're going to rely |\n| 25 | on Attorney Romney's affidavit, that's what you're telling |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 20 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
20 |\n| 1 | me.
I'm not sure that's showing cause why the motion to |\n| 2 | withdraw shouldn't be granted. |\n| 3 | But in any event, with regard to -- a couple of |\n| 4 | questions with regard to Hodgson Russ.
You talk about -- |\n| 5 | first of all, I don't see how there's been any -- maybe |\n| 6 | there has been.
But there's nothing in the record before me |\n| 7 | right now that shows that there's been any compliance with |\n| 8 | the motion for contempt even on behalf of the entity which |\n| 9 | you say you still represent, which is Hudson Diamond |\n| 10 | Holdings. |\n| 11 | Has there been any compliance with the subpoena? |\n| 12 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yes, there has, Your Honor. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
And what has that compliance been? |\n| 14 | MR. ROMNEY:
The compliance on January -- excuse |\n| 15 | me -- June 15th, which was the deadline for compliance, |\n| 16 | Attorney Vartan sent a letter which the two of us prepared, |\n| 17 | that explained that -- what we had done at -- as of that |\n| 18 | time to attempt to locate documents.
It provided the |\n| 19 | operating agreement that showed Ms. Guo controlled Hudson |\n| 20 | Diamond Holdings, LLC.
It provided the articles of |\n| 21 | organization that showed Hudson Diamond Holdings' creation. |\n| 22 | It explained the efforts that we had undertaken to attempt |\n| 23 | to locate documents. |\n| 24 | We, as officers of the court and our client as a |\n| 25 | natural human being, only have the ability to produce |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 21 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 21 documents that we can physically possess or that are under the possession of people who we have the ability to control, in other words that we constructively control. We have attempted every which way that we could to locate documents, and we have produced what we could. But we -- and we have also identified other sources of documents where we believe to have them but will not give them to us or Ms. Guo, such as Hodgson Russ and Capital One Bank. We have done everything we could, but they will not give them to us. The other two individuals who -- THE COURT: Well, so let's slow down a little bit on that. Okay? So there's a couple of things that you said. You said that you -- but Attorney Vartan signed a letter and sent it to the trustee on June 15th saying you've done all you can to comply. Is that right? I think I -- I'm just making sure I heard what you said. MR. ROMNEY: We didn't say we've done all we can to comply. We said that. But also -- meaning, yes, that's a fair summary of what we said. And we produced the documents I just described. THE COURT: Okay. And tell me -- I apologize. What are the documents that were produced on June 15th? MR. ROMNEY: It's the Hudson Diamond Holdings operating agreement signed by Ms. Guo.\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 22 THE COURT: Signed by -- so Exhibit T? MR. ROMNEY: No. THE COURT: The two -- the two-page document? MR. ROMNEY: No. THE COURT: So there's an operating agreement. MR. ROMNEY: There's a -- THE COURT: How many pages is that document? You don't need to tell me exactly. I'm saying like is it -- are you talking about a 25-page document -- MR. ROMNEY: I believe it -- THE COURT: -- a 50-page document? MR. ROMNEY: I believe it's about a five-page -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- five or six-page document. THE COURT: And that operating -- that agreement is an operating agreement of which entity? MR. ROMNEY: Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC signed by Mei Guo as the sole member. THE COURT: Okay. And you -- you're telling me, and I'm just trying to make it clear for the record, that Mei Guo retained you specifically to represent Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC in this case in connection with the motion for contempt? MR. ROMNEY: She directed me to represent Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC in connection with -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 22 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 23 THE COURT: So she didn't retain you? MR. ROMNEY: I don't understand the distinction. THE COURT: Well, I think there is a -- MR. ROMNEY: But we do not have a separate retention letter. THE COURT: You do not have a separate -- is that what you said? MR. ROMNEY: With the entity. That's correct. THE COURT: Okay. So you don't have a separate retention letter with regard to Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. And you believed at the time that she directed you to represent the Hudson Diamond entities. That included Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, correct? MR. ROMNEY: No. I know that she did. THE COURT: Okay. Yeah. MR. ROMNEY: Yeah. THE COURT: Okay. So then things progress. You file a notice of appearance, and you come to the Court and you say at the hearing on the motion for contempt, which I'm not saying it would have happened, okay, but the trustee's counsel was pressing for an order of contempt against both Hudson Diamond New York, LLC and Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC. You say -- MR. ROMNEY: Yes. And that matter is on the calendar today. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 23 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 24 of\n\n| | 180 | | | | | |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
24 | | | | | |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Right.
But at that original hearing, | | | | | |\n| 2 | you said we have an agreement to adjourn that hearing | | | | | |\n| 3 | because we're going to enter into a consent order about how | | | | | |\n| 4 | we're going to comply with the subpoenas essentially, | | | | | |\n| 5 | correct? | | | | | |\n| 6 | MR. ROMNEY:
I think we actually entered into it | | | | | |\n| 7 | on the record. | | | | | |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
No, you did. | | | | | |\n| 9 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yeah. | | | | | |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I'm actually looking at it right now. | | | | | |\n| 11 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yeah.
Yeah. | | | | | |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Okay. | | | | | |\n| 13 | MR. ROMNEY:
Meaning we entered into it orally on | | | | | |\n| 14 | the record and then submitted -- | | | | | |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
But then you entered into an order | | | | | |\n| 16 | regarding the motion for entry, holding Hudson Diamond New | | | | | |\n| 17 | York, LLC, and Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC in civil | | | | | |\n| 18 | contempt for failing to respond to the subpoenas.
And in | | | | | |\n| 19 | that order, the Hudson entities say that they have no reason | | | | | |\n| 20 | to and therefore do not dispute that they were properly | | | | | |\n| 21 | served with the 2004 subpoenas directed to each of them and | | | | | |\n| 22 | that they contend that the relevant individual of the Hudson | | | | | |\n| 23 | entities was not actually made aware of the subpoenas until | | | | | |\n| 24 | after the filing of the motion.
So who was the relevant | | | | | |\n| 25 | individual at the Hudson entities that was not made -- | | | | | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 25 actually made aware of the subpoenas until after the filing of the motion for contempt? MR. ROMNEY: Ms. Guo was the individual -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- I was referring to in that statement. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: And what we meant by it was we have no reason to doubt the veracity of the returns of service that indicate that statutory service agents were signed. But what I was reporting back was that as best I could tell, Ms. Guo was learning about those subpoenas for the first time when Attorney Vartan and I -- I think it was actually me in that particular case that sent the email. And then the three of us had a phone call together. But that it appeared that we were informing her of those subpoenas. THE COURT: Why do you say it appeared that we were informing her? You know or didn't know? MR. ROMNEY: Well, I don't -- THE COURT: She's told you she'd never seen the subpoenas before? MR. ROMNEY: Without waiving privilege with respect to any other statement, yes. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I don't think it's waiving privilege if you want to show cause as to why you Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 25 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 26 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
26 |\n| 1 | want to be -- withdraw as an attorney, right?
Otherwise, |\n| 2 | you bring Ms. Guo in.
She can testify.
Right?
You could |\n| 3 | bring her in.
She could support everything you've said. |\n| 4 | MR. ROMNEY:
Your Honor, right now I'm the one |\n| 5 | with the target on my back, and I'm not going to throw my |\n| 6 | client under the bus. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
I don't understand what that statement |\n| 8 | means, what you just said. |\n| 9 | MR. ROMNEY:
The Court is obviously upset with |\n| 10 | something I've done, and I'm here to explain my behavior. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
No, I didn't say -- I'm asking |\n| 12 | questions.
You said -- I think you ended your presentation |\n| 13 | by saying does the Court have any questions.
And, yes, I |\n| 14 | do.
So I'm asking them. |\n| 15 | MR. ROMNEY:
Understood.
And that -- and I'm here |\n| 16 | to ease your concerns.
But I understand that you're |\n| 17 | concerned.
And that's -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Well, I am concerned, because there |\n| 19 | was an agreement made on the record that there would be |\n| 20 | compliance with a subpoena so that the Court would not rule |\n| 21 | on the motion for contempt with regard to the Hudson Diamond |\n| 22 | entities that you filed a notice of appearance on behalf of. |\n| 23 | And in your affidavit and in your statements here -- and |\n| 24 | Mr. Vartan's not disputing it -- it's with -- in |\n| 25 | consultation with Mr. Vartan too. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 27 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 27 So if you have a target on your back, it may be placed by somebody else other than the Court. Because you're putting yourself out there, and I'm not sure why. Because at this point, you're saying you believe that Mei Guo didn't know about the subpoenas until the motion for contempt was filed and you sent an email and then had a phone call with Attorney Vartan and Ms. Guo. MR. ROMNEY: The typical practice when there's matters of substance is for the three of us to have a phone call and discuss matters concerning her or entities that she controls. And sometimes -- I mean, we can't jointly send an email. Sometimes one of us sends it. And if there's a ministerial update, either one of us could have the call. But my point was, in this particular case, I have a recollection of going through my emails where I was the one that sent the subpoenas to her and then requested a call with her and Attorney Vartan. And then we had that call. THE COURT: Okay. So who authorized you to file the notice of appearance on behalf of Hudson Diamond, LLC and Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: Just so we have a clear record, it's Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC and Hudson Diamond New York, LLC. THE COURT: That's fine. Hudson Diamond New York, LLC and Hudson Diamond -- because the notice of appearance\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 28 was on behalf of both of those entities, correct? MR. ROMNEY: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. And who authorized you to file that notice of appearance? MR. ROMNEY: Mei Guo. THE COURT: Okay. And in what capacity? MR. ROMNEY: As counsel for those entities believing that -- THE COURT: No, I'm sorry. I didn't ask the question properly. I'm sorry. How do you believe she had authority to direct you to file an appearance on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC and Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: Well, as stated, but apparently not very clearly, the Chapter 11 trustee's motion for contempt represents that Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC is the parent of Hudson Diamond New York and that Mei Guo is the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. I knew that Mei Guo was the sole -- was the parent -- sorry, the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. I also believed based upon statements from Ms. Guo, which I believe she was subjectively -- I believe she believed she was the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings and that Hudson Diamond Holdings was the sole member of Hudson Diamond New York. I believe the basis of Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 28 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 29 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
29 |\n| 1 | her belief, among other things, is that she had been asked |\n| 2 | to sign documents on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York as |\n| 3 | the member of Hudson Diamond Holdings which was New York's |\n| 4 | sole member. |\n| 5 | And the sole reason that caused us to believe that |\n| 6 | Ms. Guo was mistaken, just like I may or may not have been |\n| 7 | mistaken based upon what we know now, is that Hodgson Russ |\n| 8 | informed Attorney Vartan and I when we called them together, |\n| 9 | Attorney Kevin Kearney stated to us that Hudson Holdings, |\n| 10 | LLC was not the sole member of Hudson Diamond -- Hudson |\n| 11 | Diamond New York and that he was -- appeared to have been |\n| 12 | reading an operating agreement that his firm had prepared |\n| 13 | that indicated that the debtor's son was the sole member of |\n| 14 | the New York entity. |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
Of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? |\n| 16 | MR. ROMNEY:
Hudson Diamond New York, LLC.
Which |\n| 17 | is what prompted me to immediately consult with Attorney |\n| 18 | Henzy, immediately call Attorney Luft, and then the |\n| 19 | following morning file my motion to withdraw the appearance |\n| 20 | pursuant to what I believed I had to do under Rule 1.16(b) |\n| 21 | of the Rules of Professional Conduct. |\n| 22 | THE COURT:
With regard to the operating agreement |\n| 23 | of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, you may have done this -- |\n| 24 | I'm sorry, but there are, as you know, substantial amount of |\n| 25 | documents in this case.
Have you filed that operating |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 30 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 30 agreement on the docket somewhere that indicates that the debtor's -- the individual debtor's son is the member of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: I don't have that operating agreement -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- because Hodgson -- Hodgson Russ would not provide any information concerning any of the Hudson Diamond entities to me, Ms. Guo, or Attorney Vartan. And in my affidavit -- declaration, excuse me, as well as copied into the body of the declaration as well as the email chain with the attachment evidenced that Hodgson Russ will not give us any documentation concerning those entities. So I don't have it. All I had was the word of the general counsel of what I understand to be a highly reputable firm telling me that the debtor's son was the member. THE COURT: So -- MR. ROMNEY: He then subsequently amended his statement to say that it was not the debtor's son in his individual capacity but the debtor's son as an officer and -- an officer in some other capacity of some third entity, Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc., which is a British Virgin Island company, which I have no idea who actually owns that entity, only I believe it -- I have no reason to believe it's Ms. Guo. Ms. Guo has no reason to believe it's\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 31 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
31 |\n| 1 | her.
And it appears to be the debtor's son based upon |\n| 2 | statements that Hodgson Russ has made to us, because he |\n| 3 | appears to be signing documents on behalf of that entity. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
So you filed a motion to withdraw your |\n| 5 | appearance because Hodgson Russ told you that Hudson Diamond |\n| 6 | New York, LLC's managing member is the debtor -- individual |\n| 7 | debtor's son, but you never saw a document that confirmed |\n| 8 | that? |\n| 9 | MR. ROMNEY:
He would not give it to me, so that's |\n| 10 | correct. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Okay. |\n| 12 | MR. ROMNEY:
Which leaves me where I am right now, |\n| 13 | because Hodgson Russ has also prepared a subsequent document |\n| 14 | that indicates that it prepared a document for Ms. Guo to |\n| 15 | sign as the member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC as the |\n| 16 | sole member of Hudson Diamond New York.
So where I stand |\n| 17 | here right now is I don't know who the sole member of Hudson |\n| 18 | Diamond New York is.
Hodgson Russ doesn't appear to know. |\n| 19 | I've asked them for information concerning why |\n| 20 | they prepared this document which is the only document they |\n| 21 | first identified to Attorney Vartan and I at the time I |\n| 22 | filed the motion to withdraw.
They have not explained to me |\n| 23 | why they produced that document that referenced the debtor's |\n| 24 | son and the debtor's -- and then subsequently prepared a |\n| 25 | document identifying the debtor's daughter as the indirect |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2119 | Filed 08/24/23 | Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 | Page 32 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
32 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | member of the New York entity.
And, therefore, I have |\n| 2 | absolutely no idea which one it is.
And that's why I |\n| 3 | believe I'm required to pursue my motion to withdraw my |\n| 4 | appearance. |\n| 5 | I will say that to the extent I was able to |\n| 6 | determine that Ms. Guo directly or indirectly is, in fact, |\n| 7 | the member, indirect member or person with the authority to |\n| 8 | control or retain counsel for Hudson Diamond New York, I |\n| 9 | would withdraw my -- well, I would withdraw my -- I would |\n| 10 | withdraw my motion to withdraw my appearance, because I am |\n| 11 | in no way trying to hide from this situation, run from this |\n| 12 | situation, or try and pull a fast one on behalf of Hudson |\n| 13 | Diamond New York, Hudson Diamond anything or Ms. Guo.
I am |\n| 14 | simply trying to fulfill my ethical duties to this Court, my |\n| 15 | sole natural client in this situation, Ms. Guo, and everyone |\n| 16 | else in the room. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Well, she's not your client in this |\n| 18 | situation. |\n| 19 | MR. ROMNEY:
No.
But she's my client in general. |\n| 20 | I mean -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
No.
But she's not your client in this |\n| 22 | situation.
The client -- and you've been very careful, and |\n| 23 | I understand why.
The client -- the only client you |\n| 24 | represent at this point -- or that you believe you represent |\n| 25 | and had authority to represent is Hudson Diamond Holding, |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 33 LLC. MR. ROMNEY: Correct. But my statement, Your Honor, and maybe it wasn't precise enough, was that all I'm trying to do is my best to fulfill my ethical obligations to the Court, the Hudson Diamond entities, Ms. Guo, and everybody else in the room. I don't represent anybody else in this room, but I have ethical obligations to them just like I have ethical obligations to the Court. And that's to\n\n tell the truth and to do my best and to honor the agreements that I make to the best of my ability. And that's what I do every day in every one of my cases. And it's what I'm doing right now.\n\n THE COURT: Well, let me ask one more question. So the hearing on the motion to -- for contempt was held on June 6th.\n\nMR. ROMNEY: Correct.\n\n THE COURT: There were a number of hearings held on that day, but that was one of -- that -- the motion for contempt directed against many parties, including the Hudson Diamond New York, LLC and the Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC entities. And at that hearing, you had filed a notice of appearance before that hearing.\n\n You had prepared -- appeared at that hearing and said there was an agreement with regard to the production and that the production would be completed, not just done\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 34 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
34 |\n|---|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | but completed, by June 15th on behalf of both entities.
And |\n| 2 | then on June 8th, the consent order was filed that |\n| 3 | memorialized the agreement made on the record on June 6th. |\n| 4 | And the Court entered that order, I think.
I don't know if |\n| 5 | it was the same day or the next day.
Apparently, it looks |\n| 6 | like the same day.
And then -- which is June 8th.
And that |\n| 7 | order is ECF 1896. |\n| 8 | And so as of June 6th -- and, again, confirmed on |\n| 9 | June 8th, you represented both Hudson Diamond -- excuse |\n| | |\n\n me -- New York, LLC and Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. And you and Attorney Vartan represented that you were going to complete the compliance with the subpoenas by June 15. On June 13, two days before -- you know, so five days after the consent order entered but two days before the compliance was due, you filed a motion to withdraw only as to Hudson Diamond New York, LLC.\n\n So you're saying -- I want to just make sure that I understand. You're saying from -- you have complied with the consent order as far as Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC is concerned?\n\nMR. ROMNEY: That's correct.\n\n THE COURT: Okay. And what about Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? They haven't complied, correct?\n\n MR. ROMNEY: I'll answer that, if I may, two ways. I believe that's correct. And I am not here to oppose and\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 35 do not intend to oppose and will not oppose an entry of an order of contempt against the New York entity, because I don't have authority to argue that one way or another. Or I'm not convinced that I do. What I will say is that in the intervening period between June 6th, when I entered into the stipulated order that Your Honor just described, and the present, Attorney Vartan and I and Ms. Guo have attempted to locate documents concerning Hudson Diamond New York as well as Hudson Diamond Holdings. And we have just not been able to locate them. We believe that there are documents at Capital 1 -- THE COURT: I'm sorry. Say that again. You've been attempting to locate documents for Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: That's correct. THE COURT: Why if you don't represent them? MR. ROMNEY: Because during this intervening period, I believed that I did. THE COURT: Okay. So what did you do to try to locate the documents? MR. ROMNEY: As set forth in my declaration, the -- we did three things. We contacted Hodgson Russ, which we believed to have represented -- well, we knew formed the New York entity, because we had the articles of Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 35 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 36 organization that confirmed it formed it. So we attempted to contact -- THE COURT: That the articles of -- I'm sorry. I'm not trying to interrupt you. I just want -- MR. ROMNEY: It's -- THE COURT: -- to be very clear. The Hudson Diamond New York, LLC articles of incorporation. Is that what you're talking about? MR. ROMNEY: Yes. THE COURT: And those were signed by whom? MR. ROMNEY: They were filed by Hodgson Russ. THE COURT: Yeah. But who signed them? Who would the -- who was the Hudson Diamond New York, LLC signatory? MR. ROMNEY: I don't believe there was a signatory. THE COURT: Okay. So you have articles of incorporation that aren't signed? MR. ROMNEY: I don't believe New York law or Connecticut, for that matter, requires a signatory. But New York -- THE COURT: Well, who's the managing member? MR. ROMNEY: It's not identified in the -- there is no natural person identified -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- in the articles -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 36 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 37 THE COURT: All right. MR. ROMNEY: -- of organization other than Hodgson Russ as the \"filing party.\" THE COURT: So you got that document from Hodgson Russ? Is that what you're telling me? These articles of incorporation? MR. ROMNEY: I got that document from Ms. Guo. THE COURT: Okay. And it's not signed. But she had it? MR. ROMNEY: Correct. THE COURT: In her personal files? MR. ROMNEY: Which further -- which was further support for my belief and her belief that it was her entity. Correct. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: Yes. THE COURT: All right. That's what I'm asking. MR. ROMNEY: Yes. THE COURT: All right. So she had it in her files, and she turned it over to you. And Mr. Vartan or just you or Mr. Vartan? MR. ROMNEY: She sent an email to Attorney Vartan and I. So she turned it -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- over to us -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 37 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 38 THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- simultaneously. THE COURT: And what other documents did she turn over with regard to Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: With regard to Hudson Diamond New York, LLC? Those were the only ones. THE COURT: Okay. And did you -- and you may have said this, okay, so I'm sorry. I need to be clear. Did you supply that document to the trustee? MR. ROMNEY: That document had been supplied to the trustee, I believe, in connection with earlier production on the part of Ms. Guo. THE COURT: But you didn't produce it to the trustee on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, even though Ms. Guo sent you an -- you and Attorney Vartan an email with that document? MR. ROMNEY: I did not. Because by the time of the production date, I didn't believe I had authority to do anything on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, because -- THE COURT: When did you get the email from Ms. Guo that had that agreement attached to it? MR. ROMNEY: I don't recall the date. It was before -- THE COURT: Was it before you filed your motion to Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 38 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 39 withdraw as attorney? MR. ROMNEY: It was before I filed -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- my motion to withdraw as an attorney. THE COURT: All right. Now, with regard -- so you have no opposition, because you can't -- you have no authority to oppose an order entering against Hudson Diamond New York, LLC to hold them in contempt. Is that correct? MR. ROMNEY: That's correct. THE COURT: Okay. With regard to Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC, you believe -- and, Attorney Vartan, you're going to be asked the same question -- that you complied and you -- with the consent order for -- and what your terms are in this consent order is that you've completed the production to the trustee on behalf of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC? You -- by June 15th. You believe you've complied with that order? MR. ROMNEY: I do. THE COURT: Okay. Attorney Vartan, you believe you've complied with the order -- the consent order that included Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, completing its production of documents to the trustee by June 15th? MR. VARTAN: Yes, Your Honor. We sought to obtain all documents from all sources that we could and -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 39 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 40 THE COURT: What sources did you seek to obtain them from? MR. VARTAN: So we sought to obtain documents from Hodgson Russ. We sought to obtain documents from Capital One. And we obviously also sought to obtain documents from our client directly. There were a number of other individuals who could theoretically have had documents who would not speak with us. THE COURT: Well, what does that mean? I mean, I don't know what that means, who would not speak with us. MR. VARTAN: So -- THE COURT: What attempts did you make? MR. VARTAN: So we attempted to reach out through our client to both -- THE COURT: So you didn't reach out. Your client reached out? MR. VARTAN: Correct. THE COURT: So you have no knowledge as the lawyer representing the Hudson Diamond entities at that time of whether your client actually reached out to these other sources? MR. VARTAN: Well, we have knowledge that our client went to the bank, because we were on the phone with her both before and after. THE COURT: But you don't know if she was at the Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 40 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 41 bank when she was -- MR. VARTAN: We don't -- THE COURT: You don't -- MR. VARTAN: We have no reason to doubt our client in any way. THE COURT: That's not my question. You don't know. You're the lawyer, right? Aren't you supposed to know? MR. VARTAN: I know that she went to the bank based upon -- THE COURT: How do you know that? MR. VARTAN: -- based upon my conversations with her. THE COURT: So based upon what she says, you know that? MR. VARTAN: Again, I have no reason to doubt her, Judge. THE COURT: I didn't say you have a reason to doubt her. I'm saying based upon what she says to you. MR. VARTAN: If you're asking me if I went to the bank with her, I did not. THE COURT: That's -- okay. So -- MR. VARTAN: But we -- THE COURT: What other sources -- what are you -- were you there when she went through the records of these Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 41 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 42 entities to see what was -- what would be responsive to the subpoena? MR. VARTAN: I have been through Ms. Guo's records with her previously in making -- THE COURT: That wasn't my question. MR. VARTAN: -- prior productions. THE COURT: That wasn't my question. My question was a very direct question. MR. VARTAN: Not -- THE COURT: Were you there when she went through her records, reviewing documents that would be responsive to the subpoenas served on the Hudson Diamond entities? MR. VARTAN: My understanding, Judge, is she has no records beyond the records she and I had previously reviewed. THE COURT: That still didn't answer my question, Attorney Vartan. MR. VARTAN: So then -- THE COURT: Listen to the question. Were you there when your client went through her records that -- to -- that would -- to determine whether she had records that were responsive to the subpoenas issued and served, which you acknowledge were served on the Hudson Diamond entities? MR. VARTAN: I was not when she went through -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 42 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 43 THE COURT: Okay. MR. VARTAN: -- documents right prior to June 15th. Correct. THE COURT: So you were not there. You did not view, observe, or discuss what your client did with regard to the review of the documents in her possession and control that would be responsive to the subpoenas served on the Hudson Diamond entities? MR. VARTAN: We absolutely did discuss. So I didn't view or observe her. THE COURT: Well, what discussions did you have about responsive to subpoenas? That isn't protected. So you can argue it's attorney/client. It's not. MR. VARTAN: Well, I -- THE COURT: You have a subpoena. You've already acknowledged the subpoena was appropriately served. You didn't oppose the subpoena. You didn't file a motion to quash. You didn't file a protective order. So there's no opposition that you can raise right now that is in any way privileged. So what discussions did you have with regard to documents that would have been responsive to the subpoenas served on the Hudson Diamond entities? MR. VARTAN: Well, I would maintain that the communications are privileged. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 43 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 44 THE COURT: Well, you can, but I -- you're wrong. So go ahead. What -- MR. VARTAN: So, well, I'm not going to go into privileged communications with my client, but certainly what we -- THE COURT: Well, then you're going to get held in contempt, okay? Because you have obligations, Attorney Vartan. You have obligations to the Court as an officer of the court. MR. VARTAN: No doubt. THE COURT: Okay? MR. VARTAN: And not to interrupt -- THE COURT: And you stated in a consent order and on the record through Attorney Romney that you were going to comply with these subpoenas. And you have to demonstrate, not just your client, you have to demonstrate what steps you've taken to be in compliance with the subpoenas. And I haven't heard anything. Not one thing. MR. VARTAN: Well, Your Honor, first and foremost, we had multiple conversations, both telephonic and email, with Hodgson Russ who we understood to be the attorneys for both the holdings entity -- THE COURT: And you didn't get any documents from them. They told you they wouldn't produce them. And what did you do at that? You just said, okay, they're not going Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 44 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 45 to produce them. That's what you said. I've seen it. I mean, Attorney Romney has attached to his declaration some -- one person from Hodgson Russ who said I decline to talk to you. MR. VARTAN: Correct. That was the attorney who actually worked on the file. THE COURT: Okay. And what did you do when he said I -- MR. VARTAN: So when he -- THE COURT: -- decline to talk to you. MR. VARTAN: -- when he said I decline to speak with you, we said it was incredibly important that we speak. He then directed -- THE COURT: I don't think I saw anything about that. MR. VARTAN: Well, there was email communication which -- THE COURT: Well, it's not in the record. MR. VARTAN: Well, Your Honor, if I could finish. All I was saying -- THE COURT: You can finish, Attorney Vartan, but you need to be very careful. Okay? MR. VARTAN: I'm trying to be. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. MR. VARTAN: And after we spoke with Mr. Harmon Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 45 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 46 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
46 |\n| 1 | and he declined to speak with us, he then referred us to the |\n| 2 | general counsel at Hodgson Russ.
So that's how we got to |\n| 3 | the second attorney.
And Attorney Romney and I had multiple |\n| 4 | conversations with him where we explained that we were |\n| 5 | endeavoring to do our best to make a complete production on |\n| 6 | behalf of both Holdings and on behalf of New York. |\n| 7 | In the context of those conversations is when he |\n| 8 | told us that he did not believe that Ms. Guo had anything to |\n| 9 | do with New York.
And that is what precipitated the filing |\n| 10 | of the motion to withdraw. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Right.
But you've seen no documents |\n| 12 | or have -- |\n| 13 | MR. VARTAN:
Well -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
And your client said just the |\n| 15 | opposite. |\n| 16 | MR. VARTAN:
But can -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Wait.
Hold on.
Hold on.
You have no |\n| 18 | documents to support the statement made by the attorney from |\n| 19 | Hodgson Russ. |\n| 20 | MR. VARTAN:
That's correct. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
You have no documents. |\n| 22 | MR. VARTAN:
But can I -- |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
And -- hold on, please. |\n| 24 | MR. VARTAN:
I'm sorry.
I apologize. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
And your client said just the |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 47 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
47 |\n| 1 | opposite, that she was the managing member of Hudson Diamond |\n| 2 | New York, LLC. |\n| 3 | MR. VARTAN:
So, Your Honor, if I could address |\n| 4 | it?
The reason that we don't have documents from Hodgson |\n| 5 | Russ is not for lack of effort on our part.
It's because |\n| 6 | Hodgson Russ was representing that Hudson Diamond New York |\n| 7 | had nothing to do with our client, had everything to do with |\n| 8 | her brother who we don't represent.
And so, therefore, |\n| 9 | there's a privilege between Hodgson Russ and the brother of |\n| 10 | Hodgson Russ and Hudson Diamond New York that we certainly |\n| 11 | can't abrogate.
So it's not for lack of effort on our part. |\n| 12 | And the one thing, Judge, that I just want to |\n| 13 | point out, I think it was implicit and explicit in what |\n| 14 | Mr. Romney was saying, but we're not here in any way to hide |\n| 15 | the ball from the Court or from the trustee.
The whole |\n| 16 | reason that we made an appearance on behalf of both Holdings |\n| 17 | and New York in this case was not to obfuscate in any way, |\n| 18 | but it was to make as complete a production as possible to |\n| 19 | the trustee. |\n| 20 | We did not have an interest in either entity to |\n| 21 | the extent that we believed at the time that Ms. Guo was |\n| 22 | affiliated with them to have either entity held in contempt. |\n| 23 | And I believe the trustee isn't looking to hold entities in |\n| 24 | contempt.
The trustee is looking to get documents. |\n| 25 | And so we were -- |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 48 THE COURT: Well, he's got a pending motion to hold them in contempt, so I disagree with you. MR. VARTAN: But what I was saying is I assume the trustee's preference would be to get documents -- THE COURT: It may -- yeah, it would be his preference. MR. VARTAN: -- as opposed to hold an entity in contempt. And that's what we were endeavoring to do no more. Had we continued to believe that we represented Hudson Diamond New York in addition to Holdings, then we would have made a production. The only reason there was a motion to withdraw with respect to New York was based upon the conversations, based upon the due diligence we were doing with respect to Hodgson Russ. THE COURT: Did you meet the Hodgson Russ lawyer in person? MR. VARTAN: I did not, Your Honor. THE COURT: Did you have a video conference with the person? MR. VARTAN: We had multiple telephone conversations. THE COURT: So you don't even know who the person is. You don't even know what the person looks like, right? MR. VARTAN: From the website, I do. But, no, I did not have -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 48 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 49 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
49 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 2 | MR. VARTAN:
-- a video conference. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
So you had a telephone conversation in |\n| 4 | which the person at Hodgson Russ who wouldn't produce any |\n| 5 | documents to you told you that the son is the managing |\n| 6 | member.
And based on that, you -- |\n| 7 | MR. VARTAN:
Of New York. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
Right.
Of New York. |\n| 9 | MR. VARTAN:
Correct. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
And that you -- based on that, you |\n| 11 | withdrew -- you moved -- well, you didn't file an |\n| 12 | appearance, which is another whole issue.
So we're going to |\n| 13 | talk about that at a different point.
We're not doing this |\n| 14 | ping pong thing.
Okay?
I've had that conversation from the |\n| 15 | beginning of this case.
You're either both in or you're |\n| 16 | both out, or you're one in or you're one out. |\n| 17 | I need to know who represents these entities. |\n| 18 | This is not going to continue in this court.
Okay?
You |\n| 19 | need to decide how that's going to work, and you need to |\n| 20 | stick by that. |\n| 21 | Because to have you sign some documents with |\n| 22 | Attorney Romney's signature under them as -- which appears |\n| 23 | as local counsel and then have Attorney Romney be the only |\n| 24 | person that files a notice of appearance is not appropriate. |\n| 25 | And it will not continue in this case.
So you'll all have |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 50 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
50 |\n| 1 | to figure that out.
You either both represent them or one |\n| 2 | of you represents them, and that's it. |\n| 3 | MR. VARTAN:
And I just wanted to clarify that for |\n| 4 | the record.
So since I and my law firm have been involved |\n| 5 | with the case it's very much been a co-counsel relationship |\n| 6 | between CSG, my law firm, and -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Then why didn't you file a notice of |\n| 8 | appearance on behalf of both the Hudson Diamond entities? |\n| 9 | MR. VARTAN:
Your Honor, by the time that I was |\n| 10 | preparing to do that, there was an issue, obviously, which |\n| 11 | we brought to the Court. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
That's not accurate.
That's not |\n| 13 | accurate.
The motion to compel for contempt was pending. |\n| 14 | And Mr. Romney filed an appearance well before the hearing |\n| 15 | on the motion for contempt.
So, Mr. Vartan, that is not |\n| 16 | accurate.
So I don't want to hear that, because that's not |\n| 17 | accurate. |\n| 18 | You made a choice.
And, fine, you made that |\n| 19 | choice.
But you're not making that choice anymore.
You |\n| 20 | either both represent the entities or one or the other of |\n| 21 | you does. |\n| 22 | We are not doing this anymore.
You are wasting |\n| 23 | the Court's time, and I don't feel that you are being |\n| 24 | accurate in your representations to this Court.
And so you |\n| 25 | need to think long and hard about that. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 51 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 51 Attorney Romney's the only one that filed an affidavit or a declaration in connection with this motion to compel. You're going to argue, well, I didn't have to. I never filed the notice of appearance on behalf of the Hudson Diamond entities. But what do I hear? Every conversation that has to do with the motion for contempt and the notice of appearance and the motion and the production of documents has you involved in it, Attorney Vartan, not just Attorney Romney. That's not appropriate. MR. VARTAN: Understood, Your Honor. And I am truly not trying to hide anything from this Court or any party in the courtroom. Really, what we have endeavored to do since the filing of the motion seeking to hold the Hudson Diamond entities in contempt was to do our level best to figure out which of the entities that we represent. We certainly -- THE COURT: Well, you didn't do your level best to figure out which one of the -- entities you represented when Mr. Romney filed the notice of appearance. He represented both of them. MR. VARTAN: Your Honor, but, again, it was done -- and I understand a mistake was made. But what we're saying here is it was done with the best of intentions. Meaning we were not trying to hide anything from anyone. We were just --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 52 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 52 THE COURT: Whether it's done with the best of intentions really doesn't matter, Attorney Vartan. MR. VARTAN: Well, I -- THE COURT: What matters is what are your professional obligations -- MR. VARTAN: We were trying -- THE COURT: -- under the applicable codes of conduct and as a member of the bar of the State of New York or New Jersey and practicing before this Court. And that's what your obligations are. You can have whatever intent you think. It doesn't matter. What matters is, what are your requirements? What are your obligations? What are you obligated to do? MR. VARTAN: And, Your Honor, I believe that we've met those obligations. THE COURT: Okay. That's your belief. That's fine. All right. Attorney Romney, is there anything else you'd like to add? MR. ROMNEY: Yes. Very briefly, Your Honor. My appearance on behalf of the Hudson Diamond entities -- I actually don't have that with me, but I believe it was -- THE COURT: I can -- we can put it up on the screen if you'd like. MR. ROMNEY: If it's not too much trouble, that\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 53 would be helpful. THE COURT: All right. We'll find it. Give us a minute, and we'll put it up on the screen. MR. ROMNEY: I believe it's June 1st, filed at around 10-something p.m., if I recall correctly. THE COURT: 1848 is the ECF number. And it says that you entered an appearance on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC and Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC, parties in interest. MR. ROMNEY: And I -- am I correct that it was filed at 10-something p.m.? THE COURT: 10:16 p.m. Actually -- yes. No. 8:16 p.m. MR. ROMNEY: 8:16. Okay. I thought it was around 10. But the -- perhaps it was the motion for an adjournment that was filed at 10-something. THE COURT: That may be. You want me to -- MR. ROMNEY: No, no, no. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: The point I was making, Your Honor, was that this was filed on the evening before the deadline to respond for -- or the evening of -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. ROMNEY: -- the deadline to respond. THE COURT: I understand. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 53 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 54 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
54 |\n| 1 | MR. ROMNEY:
Attorney -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
The hearing wasn't until June 6th. |\n| 3 | MR. ROMNEY:
I understand.
Attorney Vartan was -- |\n| 4 | is admitted in this Court pro hac vice on behalf of |\n| 5 | HK International and Mei Guo.
I recall very specifically |\n| 6 | why I am the one that filed this appearance was because |\n| 7 | there wasn't time to get another pro hac vice application. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
I understand that.
But you could have |\n| 9 | done that the next day. |\n| 10 | MR. ROMNEY:
It could have.
And as -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
There was -- actually, you could have |\n| 12 | done it that night, because it's all electronic filing. |\n| 13 | It's very easy. |\n| 14 | MR. ROMNEY:
We -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
You've done it very well on many other |\n| 16 | occasions, as have other people in the court. |\n| 17 | MR. ROMNEY:
I actually don't know how to E-file, |\n| 18 | which is pretty sad in this day and age.
But I -- but we |\n| 19 | have very good support staff, so that's a distinction |\n| 20 | without a difference. |\n| 21 | At the time that we filed this, nobody -- not me, |\n| 22 | not Attorney Vartan, not Ms. Guo and nobody else that I've |\n| 23 | had discussions with -- was expecting for anything other to |\n| 24 | happen other than us to negotiate a brief extension in |\n| 25 | exchange for our compliance.
And by compliance, I define, I |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 55 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
55 |\n| 1 | believe correctly so in connection with the case law -- but |\n| 2 | if I'm mistaken, I apologize -- to attempt in good faith and |\n| 3 | diligently to locate every document that is within the |\n| 4 | client's control, actual and constructive.
And that is what |\n| 5 | we intended to do.
That's what we agreed to do.
And that's |\n| 6 | what we did do. |\n| 7 | And nobody, between Attorney Vartan, myself, and |\n| 8 | Ms. Guo, expected this to become anything worthy of having |\n| 9 | another attorney file a pro hac -- another pro hac vice |\n| 10 | application, another docket entry in this case, because we |\n| 11 | all intended and did act in good faith to comply and get the |\n| 12 | trustee everything that the trustee wanted concerning these |\n| 13 | entities.
And I -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Well, I don't have any declaration of |\n| 15 | Ms. Guo, so I can't make any findings with regard to that. |\n| 16 | The only thing I could make a finding with -- is with regard |\n| 17 | to what you've said in your declaration under penalty of |\n| 18 | perjury, which I appreciate that you filed.
Okay? |\n| 19 | MR. ROMNEY:
Thank you. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
So I can't speak to what Ms. Guo's |\n| 21 | intentions are.
I can't speak to what Attorney Vartan's |\n| 22 | intentions are, because he hasn't filed anything.
All I can |\n| 23 | speak to is what has happened in this case and what -- where |\n| 24 | we are. |\n| 25 | And we were at a point on June 6th where there was |\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 56 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
56 |\n| 1 | going to be an order possibly entered against the Hudson |\n| 2 | Diamond entities holding them in contempt.
And I was told |\n| 3 | on the docket, on the record that there was agreement that |\n| 4 | you represented both of them, that there was an agreement |\n| 5 | that they would produce and they would do so by June 15th. |\n| 6 | You've now stated, Attorney Romney, that you |\n| 7 | believe that you complied with regard to -- that you've |\n| 8 | complied on the -- with the subpoenas for the production of |\n| 9 | the documents with regard to Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC. |\n| 10 | That's your statement.
And the trustee will do with that |\n| 11 | what the trustee's going to do with that.
And we'll hear in |\n| 12 | a -- I'm sure soon. |\n| 13 | With regard to Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, there |\n| 14 | has been no compliance that I'm aware of.
And no one has |\n| 15 | shown me that there is any compliance.
So if the trustee |\n| 16 | moves for a contempt, then I'm going to consider that. |\n| 17 | MR. ROMNEY:
And I will not oppose it. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Well, as you said, I don't think you |\n| 19 | have -- well, you -- |\n| 20 | MR. ROMNEY:
Correct.
That's -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
If you are consistent with your motion |\n| 22 | to withdraw your attorney, you don't have any authority to |\n| 23 | oppose it. |\n| 24 | MR. ROMNEY:
Correct. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
So in any event, is there anything |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 57 else you wanted to add? MR. ROMNEY: No. Thank you for -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: -- hearing us. THE COURT: All right. Then I'd like to hear from the trustee's counsel -- MR. VARTAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- and the Office of the United States Trustee as well. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, do you have a preference as to which you hear from first? THE COURT: I have no preference. MR. LUFT: Okay. Your Honor, may I approach? THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Avi Luft, Paul Hastings, on behalf of the trustee. Your Honor, I don't have any intention to speak today as to what the intent was of counsel. I wasn't part of their conversations that they had with anyone else, whether it be their client or Hodgson Russ. And I have no way to speak to that. So what I do want to speak to, and hopefully briefly, though, is with regard to this notion that no one knows who runs Hudson Diamond New York and that all Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 57 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 58 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 58 documents that presumably exist in the world that could have been responsive to our subpoena have been produced and, thus, there has been compliance. Because I don't think either of those is quite that straightforward. Look, as I understand it, Your Honor, they made reference to the fact that we filed papers indicating that Hudson Diamond New York appeared to be -- have a sole member of Ms. Guo. We did. They're attached to my declaration which is at Exhibit 1805. And specifically, Your Honor, if you look -- THE COURT: Exhibit T. MR. LUFT: There is Exhibit T, Your Honor. There is also Exhibit U which -- THE COURT: I may not have looked at Exhibit U. Go ahead. MR. LUFT: -- as well as Exhibits G, H, and I, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LUFT: And in brief, and this is why we believed it, if you look at Exhibit G, it is a document prepared by Hodgson Russ for Ms. Yvette Wang of Golden Springs which sets out an -- sets out org charts of the entities, which I can tell you from speaking to them they believed were controlled by the debtor. But be that as it may, they had listed who is named.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 59 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 59 And under the one for Hudson Diamond Holdings, you can see Ms. Guo on the top directly above Hudson Diamond Holdings, directly above Hudson Diamond New York, LLC. Consistent with that, at Exhibit H is a document for Hudson Diamond New York which lists Ms. Wang as the contact but as the sole member says Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, 100 percent. Not surprisingly, located at 162 East 64th Street in Manhattan which is where most of the debtor's entities are located. And then if we go to Exhibit I, we see who owns Hudson Diamond Holdings. The member is listed as Ms. Guo, 100 percent interest, again with the 162 East 64th Street address. As Your Honor mentioned, and there is Exhibit T in which we see Ms. Guo signing consistent in her role as the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings. And Exhibit U where we see Ms. Guo again signing, this time as the sole member of Hudson Diamond Holdings. Based on that documentation, that is why we understood Ms. Guo to be the person in control of Hudson Diamond Holding and Hudson Diamond New York. We are not aware of any document which indicates that anyone else is the named member. I will tell you I\n\non discovery and our investigation. But in terms of who is\n\nbelieve that the debtor actually controlled the entity based\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 60 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 60 the member and who can -- should be responding to the subpoena, that is what -- who we believe is in charge. Now, I feel like I'm not sure why we have confusion at this point, because my understanding is that while there is no document anywhere that someone has seen that indicates that someone other than Ms. Guo is the member, there have been representations that there were conversations in which Mr. Kearney of Hodgson Russ indicated that the son may be the member. That very well may have happened. I don't know. What I do know is if we look at Mr. Romney's declaration and Exhibit A, Mr. Kearney wrote to Mr. Romney and Mr. Vartan saying that he questions whether he ever said that but then more importantly says the documents indicate that Holdings was the member, not Qiang Guo, who is the son. And he goes on to say that the engagement concerning Hudson Diamond New York was addressed to Ms. Wang. So whatever may have been said on the call, and very well there may have been a miscommunication, I think Mr. Kearney has made clear at this point that there is not a belief that Mr. -- the debtor's son, Mr. -- again, Mr. Guo is the member of Holdings, in which case there is no reason to believe that Ms. Guo, Mei Guo, is not the member of Holdings, in which case they should be able to comply. Why do I care about this, Your Honor? Solely for\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 61 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
61 |\n| 1 | one reason.
We need to get documents.
We need someone who |\n| 2 | we can speak to, who we can get from. |\n| 3 | And that brings me to really the second point we |\n| 4 | have here, which is you've heard today that they've said |\n| 5 | that they've gotten all documents from all sources. |\n| 6 | Mr. Romney in his declaration says I do not have any reason |\n| 7 | to believe that New York or Holdings have any assets or the |\n| 8 | ability to produce additional documents. |\n| 9 | Well, Your Honor, I don't know how that could be |\n| 10 | true.
I've had conversations with Mr. Vartan and |\n| 11 | Mr. Romney.
And I've pointed them in particular to Exhibit |\n| 12 | J of my declaration, which is an insurance agreement on |\n| 13 | behalf of Hudson Diamonds New York with AIG indicating that |\n| 14 | there's a Rolls-Royce in their name.
We don't have any |\n| 15 | documents about that.
We received two documents total in |\n| 16 | compliance from Holdings.
So J talks about a Rolls-Royce. |\n| 17 | If you look at Exhibit V, that is the deposition |\n| 18 | of Margaret Conboy. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Exhibit -- which? |\n| 20 | MR. LUFT:
V as in Victor. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
V?
Okay.
Hold on one second. |\n| 22 | MR. LUFT:
Of course, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
All right.
So I'm looking at -- |\n| 24 | MR. LUFT:
So it's -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
-- Exhibit J to your declaration -- |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 62 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
62 |\n| 1 | MR. LUFT:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
-- which is attached to 1805 at |\n| 3 | 1805-36, page 1 of 5.
And there's a -- New York auto bill |\n| 4 | declaration page.
It says there's a policy number, name of |\n| 5 | insured, and mailing address, Hudson Diamond New York, LLC, |\n| 6 | 162 East 64th Street, New York, New York.
Name and address |\n| 7 | of issuing company, AIG Property Casualty Company. |\n| 8 | Description of your covered automobiles.
2019 Rolls-Royce |\n| 9 | with a VIN number and an agreed-upon value of \\$283,712. |\n| 10 | That's what you're referring to? |\n| 11 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yes, Your Honor. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
And the description of the drivers are |\n| 13 | two individuals who says are authorized and covered, Dean |\n| 14 | Rabideau -- I'm not sure I'm pronouncing that right -- |\n| 15 | R-A-B-I-D-E-A-U -- and I -- Cao Defeng -- and again, I |\n| 16 | probably did not pronounce that correctly -- C-A-O is the |\n| 17 | first name.
D-E-F-E-N-G is the second name. |\n| 18 | And there's a million-dollar coverage -- liability |\n| 19 | coverage per occurrence.
Medical expenses coverages of |\n| 20 | \\$50,000 person.
Uninsured motorist of a million per |\n| 21 | occurrence.
Collision coverage for your damage to your |\n| 22 | automobile up to the agreed value.
Personal injury |\n| 23 | protection with a premium of \\$5,817.
That's a four-page |\n| 24 | document, it looks like. |\n| 25 | Okay.
Go ahead.
That's Exhibit G -- J as in jam. |\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 63 of
180 |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
63 |\n| Now we need to look at V as in Victor? |\n| MR. LUFT:
Yes, Your Honor, which is a transcript |\n| of a deposition of Margaret Conboy who is a lawyer at |\n| Whitman Breed who represented on behalf of Hodgson -- Hudson |\n| Diamond with regard to at least five real estate |\n| transactions that Mr. -- |\n| THE COURT:
What page do you want me to go to in |\n| this deposition?
I've opened up Exhibit V now. |\n| MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, I can point you to Exhibit |\n| 21 -- page 21 where there is a discussion about Hudson |\n| Diamond.
I don't -- just so you can see what it is.
I |\n| don't intend to go through all of this. |\n| THE COURT:
Do you want me to pull it up on the |\n| screen, or do you just want to -- wait.
How do you want to |\n| handle that? |\n| MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, I'll make reference to it. |\n| I think that'll just expedite things. |\n| THE COURT:
Okay.
Go right ahead. |\n| MR. LUFT:
But, specifically, it talks about the |\n| purchase being made on behalf of an entity called Hudson |\n| Diamond.
And then it says, \"Is this the same engagement |\n| where you were told you were representing the interests of |\n| Mr. Kwok and his family, correct?
Yes.\"
And it goes on |\n| from there. |\n| I raise these, Your Honor, and I raised them with |\n| |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 64 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
64 |\n| 1 | Mr. Vartan and Mr. Romney previously to say we know about |\n| 2 | the car, we know that there were real estate transactions, |\n| 3 | we know there seems to be transfers related to the Hudson |\n| 4 | Diamond entities, meaning there should be documents.
This |\n| 5 | isn't a shell company that did nothing or that no one ever |\n| 6 | did anything on behalf of. |\n| 7 | But all we've received is the two documents you've |\n| 8 | heard about from Holdings, and we've received nothing from |\n| 9 | New York at this point.
And, unfortunately, it sounds like |\n| 10 | we're being told there's no one we can even talk to about |\n| 11 | that.
I really would rather much prefer to have the |\n| 12 | information about where these assets are, whether some -- a |\n| 13 | house was actually purchased. |\n| 14 | Some of these houses that I looked up were worth |\n| 15 | upwards of \\$35 million, Your Honor.
I don't know if |\n| 16 | anything was ever consummated.
But I know that they must |\n| 17 | have had funds if they were looking to buy it.
Or at least |\n| 18 | that would be a reasonable assumption. |\n| 19 | So that's what I'm trying to find out here.
And |\n| 20 | at this point, it seems to me that this seems knowable.
Not |\n| 21 | only do all the documents suggest it, but the idea that a |\n| 22 | brother and a sister and a father can't speak and understand |\n| 23 | who's the person that the debtor -- whose name the debtor |\n| 24 | put on top of the company, that seems knowable, particularly |\n| 25 | when two of the three entities are represented by the same |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 65 counsel. So, Your Honor, that's really where we are with regard to this. I understand the idea that if they -- if they say that they're not representing them then they can't -- they need to withdraw, because they're not representing them. I can only speak to in terms of what we know and we've presented to you in terms of why we believed Ms. Guo was the person in charge. That's where that is. But what I do have to take issue with is the idea that there has been compliance or we've received all the documents related to Hudson Diamond, whether from Holdings, which appears to us to wholly own New York, or from New York. I don't know which specific -- where all the assets are or whatever else. That's what the documents would tell me. But I don't believe we've had compliance. And so as to both, I would renew our motion for contempt, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. I want to circle back to something Attorney Luft pointed out, and I think that that is important to focus on, which is that based upon the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 66 of\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
66 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | emails between Attorney Romney and Attorney Kevin Kearney at |\n| 2 | Hodgson Russ, there appears to be a consensus that the last |\n| 3 | document that exists that anyone's seen was actually signed |\n| 4 | by Mei Guo in her capacity as the sole member of Holdings, |\n| 5 | which is the same -- it's the same sole member of New York. |\n| 6 | So that's the last document that's been before the Court and |\n| | |\n| 7 | the last document that's been talked about. |\n| 8 | That document is consistent with what Attorney |\n| 9 | Kearney is saying in the emails that are attached to |\n| 10 | Attorney Romney's affidavit.
So based on that, there |\n| 11 | doesn't seem to be any confusion, at least on paper, that |\n| 12 | Mei Guo is the person in charge. |\n| 13 | So if Mei Guo is the person in charge, then |\n| 14 | Attorney Romney appears to have a direct connection to her, |\n| 15 | because he represents her in her individual capacity as |\n| 16 | well.
And then there seems to be no reason to do a |\n| 17 | withdrawal of the appearance. |\n| 18 | The other thing I wanted to say is that the |\n| 19 | withdrawal of the appearance on behalf of Hudson Diamond -- |\n| 20 | sorry, Hudson Diamond New York, LLC appears to be |\n| 21 | detrimental to the estate.
Because as Attorney Luft just |\n| 22 | pointed out, there are a number of areas of documents that |\n| 23 | should have been provided, haven't been provided, and are |\n| 24 | delinquent.
The trustee has a pending motion for contempt |\n| 25 | for the failure to comply with the subpoenas and allowing |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 67 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
67 |\n| 1 | Attorney Romney to withdraw from representing Hudson Diamond |\n| 2 | New York, LLC would appear to be detrimental to the estate |\n| 3 | and detrimental to the investigation that the trustee is |\n| 4 | trying to pursue.
So at the end of the day, Your Honor, I |\n| 5 | don't think that Attorney Romney has met his burden to |\n| 6 | demonstrate that the withdrawal is appropriate. |\n| 7 | The other thing I would say is that the U.S. |\n| 8 | Trustee's response to the Court's order asked both Attorney |\n| 9 | Romney and Attorney Vartan to provide answers to a number of |\n| 10 | different questions.
As the Court has already noted, |\n| 11 | Attorney Vartan did not file anything in response.
And I |\n| 12 | would say that the response filed by Attorney Romney did not |\n| 13 | address all of the points requested by the United States |\n| 14 | Trustee.
And it appears based on not only the declaration |\n| 15 | that was filed and the comments that are made today that |\n| 16 | there is more information that could have been provided to |\n| 17 | the Court about the series of events that led to the motion |\n| 18 | to withdraw.
So, unfortunately, the U.S. Trustee's efforts |\n| 19 | to try to get some more information about what's happened |\n| 20 | and how we got here remain unfulfilled. |\n| 21 | But getting back to the point I made a minute ago which |\n| | |\n\n is that the last document anyone has that has been provided demonstrates that Mei Guo is at the heart of all of these entities and, therefore, based on that, it appears that Attorney Romney has a basis to stay in this case. Thank\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 68 you. THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Romney, do you wish to respond? MR. ROMNEY: Yes, I do. On the first issue, responding to Attorney Luft, the issue is not whether there are documents in the world concerning the Hudson Diamond entities. I'm in no position to opine on that beyond what I already have. The issue is whether I or somebody I can control can locate them. The trustee has alleged in this case that the two individuals that, as far as their investigation is concerned with all of their resources, which is well beyond what I can do -- and they have all of Hodgson Russ's files. I don't. The record is clear that I requested it. I demanded it, and I was told no. That is in the record. I cannot go to Hodgson Russ' office with a gun in my hand, nor am I required to, and make them give me my files. I can ask. I can demand. But at the end of the day, I was told no. They were told yes. They got the files. I didn't. They have the information. With that information, they have alleged, consistent to what Ms. Guo has said or told us and what we have represented, is that the two individuals who were responsible for the management of these entities were Yvette Wang, who is incarcerated and I have no access to\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 69 whatsoever, and Max Krasner, who we cannot locate, has had no contact with Ms. Guo as far as we know for months. And we are unable to locate him. So the individuals that have the information for all that we know, all that the documents that are being referred to by the trustee beyond the extent that they're with Hodgson Russ and whoever else is cooperating with them and not us are in the possession of the U.S. Department of Justice. I don't believe -- I have not taken it upon myself to ask the U.S. Department of Justice for their files on these entities, because I've never in my entire career, even when I had clients that were cooperating with them, received a document from the U.S. Department of Justice. We have done what we can. That's point number one. Second, Hodgson Russ, in the most recent communication with us, is refusing under Ethical Rule 1.6 to communicate confidential information with us, because he, as the general counsel of the firm that prepared the document that the U.S. Trustee's Office and Mr. Luft are saying is now conclusive, but he, the general counsel to the firm that prepared this so-called conclusive document is unsure enough as to what that document is, why it was prepared that he won't give me as counsel to Ms. Guo and Hudson Diamond Holdings any information besides the fact that it was prepared at the Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 69 of\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nrest -- at the request of Max Krasner.\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 70 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
70 |\n| 1 | So I find that far from conclusive that Ms. Guo |\n| 2 | controls these entities.
And, you know, if Ms. Guo controls |\n| 3 | these entities, as I've said on the record, I will withdraw |\n| 4 | my motion to withdraw the appearance, because my sole basis |\n| 5 | for moving to withdraw is -- was because I do not know |\n| 6 | whether Ms. Guo has the authority to direct me to appear on |\n| 7 | behalf of it.
And the attorney who prepared the smoking gun |\n| 8 | that she does doesn't know himself or the general counsel of |\n| 9 | the firm. |\n| 10 | So I don't know how this Court can require me to |\n| 11 | stay in on behalf of this entity.
I would love to know all |\n| 12 | of these facts and be able to stay in on behalf of this |\n| 13 | entity and continue to do everything I can.
But I don't.
I |\n| 14 | do not have sufficient information that I believe under the |\n| 15 | ethical rules that I can continue to represent this entity |\n| 16 | based on the facts that are available to me. |\n| 17 | One point with respect to what Attorney Luft said |\n| 18 | with respect to Attorney Kearney and Hodgson Russ's |\n| 19 | comments.
Attorney Kearney did not say, contrary to the -- |\n| 20 | or despite the fact that in his email communication he does |\n| 21 | not recall telling us -- telling Attorney Vartan and I that |\n| 22 | it was the debtor's son.
That appears to be a distinction |\n| 23 | without a difference, because he is clearly saying that it |\n| 24 | was the debtor's son as signatory on behalf of Hudson |\n| 25 | Diamond Holdings, Inc. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 71 of\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
71 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Hudson Diamond's Holding, Inc. (sic) per Hodgson |\n| 2 | Russ, is a British Virgin Islands company.
It is not Hudson |\n| | |\n| 3 | Diamond Holdings, LLC.
The fact that they both have the |\n| 4 | name Hudson Diamond Holdings in them does not make them the |\n| 5 | same entity and does not make Ms. Guo the principal of the |\n| 6 | British Virgin Island company. |\n| 7 | And as best as I recall, I don't even think the |\n| 8 | trustee has alleged in this case that Ms. Guo has anything |\n| 9 | to do with Hodgson Diamond Holdings, Inc.
So whether |\n| 10 | Attorney Kearney told us that it was Mileson Guo, the |\n| 11 | debtor's son, which I am 100 percent sure he did, or told us |\n| 12 | that it was Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc., a British Virgin |\n| 13 | Island company -- which the emails in the record do draw |\n| 14 | distinctions between those two entities towards the, you |\n| 15 | know, earlier part of the email chain, because he |\n| 16 | specifically referred to Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.
And |\n| 17 | I said Attorney Vartan and I represent Hudson Diamond |\n| 18 | Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
Is |\n| 19 | your answer that you do not represent the same with respect |\n| 20 | to the Delaware LLC as it is with the BVI Inc.?
And his |\n| 21 | response was, yes, it is. |\n| 22 | So whether it's Mileson Guo in his individual |\n| 23 | capacity or Mileson Guo as president of Hudson Diamond |\n| 24 | Holdings, Inc., a BVI company, the answer with respect to -- |\n| 25 | that it was -- that it -- there's no connection that I can |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 72 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 72 ascertain with respect to Ms. Guo is the same. And for that reason, I believe I am required to withdraw. The last thing, with respect to the U.S. Trustee's contention or belief that I have not answered her questions in response to the affidavit that she requested, was I went through her questions. I believed them to be largely redundant, at least with respect to the two entities, but --\n\n same time with respect to both of them. And I gave -- I did my best to provide everything I could with respect to her questions, my knowledge, and my diligent investigation with respect to this matter.\n\nbecause many of these discussions were happening, all at the\n\n And, in fact, what I did after I drafted this declaration is I went back and I re-read the U.S. Attorney's request for information. And after I drafted, based upon having reviewed her request three times, drafting this document, I realized that the only question that I believed I have not ascertained was the question of why I and not Attorney Vartan -- or why my appearance was the only one. And that's why that -- the answer concerning why I appeared and Attorney Vartan did not. And that involved the pro hac vice motion as well as our understanding at the time that this was a very minor matter that did not strike us as prudent or efficient to involve multiple appearances in a pro hac vice motion.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 73 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
73 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Hold on one second.
With regard to |\n| 2 | what you just said, so I'm clear, you believed that the |\n| 3 | motion for contempt was a very minor matter? |\n| 4 | MR. ROMNEY:
I believed that the motion for |\n| 5 | contempt -- or the process of negotiating a brief extension |\n| 6 | and doing everything possible to comply would be a minor |\n| 7 | matter, because I did not -- I expected us to appear.
I |\n| 8 | believed I could negotiate a brief -- actually, I take that |\n| 9 | back.
By the time I appeared, I knew that Attorney Vartan |\n| 10 | and Attorney Luft had reached an agreement for a brief |\n| 11 | extension, and I knew that I was going to do everything I |\n| 12 | could in conjunction with Ms. Guo and Attorney Vartan to |\n| 13 | comply or -- and locate as many responsive documents as |\n| 14 | possible. |\n| 15 | As I've said earlier, my understanding of |\n| 16 | responding to a subpoena is providing all documents that are |\n| 17 | in the actual and constructive control of a client.
And I |\n| 18 | do not believe that if I make a demand on a former law firm |\n| 19 | or law firm that claims it never represented the client and |\n| 20 | it tells me to go pound sand, I believe that that is -- the |\n| 21 | documents in that firm's control are not under my or my |\n| 22 | client's actual or constructive control. |\n| 23 | Actual or constructive control under my |\n| 24 | understanding is that it's under the control of somebody who |\n| | |\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n\nis acting under the direction of me or my client and that if\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 74 of\n\n| 180 | | | |\n|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
74 | | |\n| 1 | I tell them they have to comply.
Not that I have to take | | |\n| 2 | legal action against someone to produce documents that my | | |\n| 3 | understanding is the Chapter 11 trustee already has, because | | |\n| 4 | their whole position -- notwithstanding that Hodgson Russ | | |\n| 5 | doesn't know whether it was the debtor's son or the debtor's | | |\n| 6 | daughter that owned these companies, it still produced all | | |\n| 7 | of its files concerning these to the Chapter 11 trustee | | |\n| 8 | despite the fact that it's not contending, as far as | | |\n| 9 | anything that's been told to me, that it was the debtor's | | |\n| 10 | entity. | | |\n| 11 | And there's no objection to that.
The Chapter 11 | | |\n| 12 | trustee got the documents.
They have more information than | | |\n| 13 | we do.
But we, as is evidence by these documents, tried and | | |\n| 14 | tried again and tried again.
We told them it was important. | | |\n| 15 | We told them why it was important.
I told them I had filed | | |\n| 16 | a motion to withdraw based on their representation, and I | | |\n| 17 | needed all information.
I made multiple demands in writing. | | |\n| 18 | I do not know what else I can do with respect to | | |\n| 19 | the Hodgson Russ firm.
I don't know what else I can do with | | |\n| 20 | respect to Max Krasner.
And I told -- to the extent that | | |\n\n respect to Max Krasner. And I told -- to the extent that the Chapter 11 trustee wasn't aware of the Capital One bank accounts, I told them about them so that they can get them from Capital One. And I tried -- I would have much rather been the one to deliver them, so then I could have delivered them. But I can't.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 75 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 75 The best thing I could do is tell them these accounts exist. And I know these accounts exist, because they told Ms. Guo that -- according to what she told me, they told her that these accounts existed, but they would not give the documents to her. So -- THE COURT: You're saying -- just so -- you mean the bank, Capital One? MR. ROMNEY: Capital One Bank. Yes. THE COURT: And the documents existed that are the Hudson Diamond entities accounts. Is that what you're saying? MR. ROMNEY: That's what I'm saying. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. ROMNEY: And the last thing I would like to say is that if the Chapter -- if the U.S. Trustee or anybody else in the room believes I have neglected to answer any questions under oath, I am right here and prepared to answer any questions under oath that anybody would like to ask me. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I just have a question, though, that I didn't ask you before, because I didn't focus on some of the exhibits that Attorney Luft focused on. So did you ask Ms. Guo to give you any documents about this insurance policy with AIG between Hudson Diamond New York and -- covering an automobile?\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 76 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
76 |\n| 1 | MR. ROMNEY:
I was not aware of a insurance policy |\n| 2 | concerning an automobile. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Well, except the only problem with |\n| 4 | that is that exhibit was filed back with 1805, and that was |\n| 5 | filed back sometime before you filed an appearance on behalf |\n| 6 | of -- it was filed on May 18th. |\n| 7 | MR. ROMNEY:
I understand that.
And, Your Honor, |\n| 8 | as Your Honor has pointed out, there's a tremendous amount |\n| 9 | of paper in this case.
There's a tremendous amount to do. |\n| 10 | And -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Right.
But this was directed to |\n| 12 | Hudson Diamond.
This was -- remember, this is part of the |\n| 13 | motion for contempt. |\n| 14 | MR. ROMNEY:
This -- |\n| 15 | THE COURT:
And the motion for contempt |\n| 16 | specifically laid out exhibits to support an assertion that |\n| 17 | certain entities -- and there were many.
There weren't just |\n| 18 | the Hudson.
I agree with you.
But they -- it had exhibits |\n| 19 | attached to it that -- with regard to the Hudson Diamond |\n| 20 | entities. |\n| 21 | And it said this is why we want the documents. |\n| 22 | Here's some exhibits that show you that, at least from what |\n| 23 | we've been shown to this point, that Hudson Diamond New |\n| 24 | York, LLC and/or Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC had assets and |\n| 25 | have assets in the present.
The policy covered a period of |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 77 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
77 |\n| 1 | time through May of 2023.
And then there was this -- the |\n| 2 | deposition transcription of a prior counsel who talked about |\n| 3 | the Hudson Diamond entities trying to purchase real estate. |\n| 4 | I mean, there's Exhibits G, E, H, U, J, and then |\n| 5 | T, which you refer to.
You refer to Exhibit T in your |\n| 6 | declaration, which is one of the reasons I looked back at |\n| 7 | it, because you refer to Exhibit T in your declaration.
And |\n| 8 | I appreciate that you referred to that exhibit. |\n| 9 | But there's other exhibits attached to that very |\n| 10 | same motion in which Exhibit T appears that directly address |\n| 11 | the existence of assets of Hudson Diamond New York, LLC or |\n| 12 | Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC.
And so my question is, did |\n| 13 | you ask your client about those exhibits and those assets? |\n| 14 | MR. ROMNEY:
I need to answer that question in two |\n| 15 | ways.
And the -- phrased as did I ask them about those |\n| 16 | exhibits, no.
Because prior to filing the motion for |\n| 17 | adjournment -- you know, again, I didn't think there was any |\n| 18 | dispute about the ownership.
I spoke to Attorney Luft -- |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
The ownership of -- |\n| 20 | MR. ROMNEY:
Of the New York entity. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Who controlled the entities -- |\n| 22 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yes. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
-- not of specific assets? |\n| 24 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yes. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 78 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 78 MR. ROMNEY: I spoke with Attorney Luft in the conference room, as the Court directed, for purposes of reaching our agreement. He, in that meeting, mentioned a Rolls-Royce, didn't mention a -- an exhibit or anything but asked me about a Rolls-Royce. I said I'd ask about it. And I -- that was when I first mentioned the -- what I was aware of was a Capital One bank account that had been closed. I did inquire about the Rolls-Royce with Ms. Guo. I did not receive any response or any documentation concerning it. Had I done so, I would have turned it over. I didn't -- THE COURT: So she never responded to your question about the Rolls-Royce? MR. ROMNEY: She didn't neglect to respond. She responded by indicating that she did not have any documentation and -- THE COURT: About the Rolls-Royce? MR. ROMNEY: About a Rolls-Royce. And -- THE COURT: See, none of that's in the record. She didn't file any declaration. MR. ROMNEY: Well, again, she's not a party to this. It's -- THE COURT: Well, she is a party if she's the management member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, which the documents indicate she is. And you represent her. You've\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 79 clearly said -- MR. ROMNEY: I do. I represent her. THE COURT: -- you -- as the managing member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. MR. ROMNEY: I don't know that that's -- she was the -- THE COURT: Well, how else do you have authority to -- MR. ROMNEY: -- individual that directed me to -- THE COURT: How else do you have authority to act on behalf of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC? MR. ROMNEY: That is the only way. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: But I don't believe -- THE COURT: So then -- MR. ROMNEY: -- when I -- THE COURT: So then you do represent her in her capacity as the managing member of Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC. MR. ROMNEY: That's -- I look at it as representing the entity. But I also represent her in her individual capacity. THE COURT: Yeah. But you represent the entity. That's who the appearance -- that's who the motion for contempt is addressed against. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 79 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 80 MR. ROMNEY: That is. And I believe that we -- I don't believe -- THE COURT: But she never answered your question about the Rolls-Royce? MR. ROMNEY: I -- that's not what I said. THE COURT: Okay. And -- MR. ROMNEY: She answered my question in that she did not have any documentation, and she could not get -- THE COURT: And you specifically asked her about the Rolls-Royce? MR. ROMNEY: I specifically asked her about the Rolls-Royce. THE COURT: And you specifically asked her about the real estate transactions that Hudson Diamond were supposedly involved in? MR. ROMNEY: I don't believe I specifically asked her about the -- I don't recall, is the answer. And what I was getting into was that I did not read Attorney Luft's declaration or all of the exhibits. When Attorney Luft brought Exhibit T, I believe -- THE COURT: It wasn't a declaration. It was the actual motion. MR. ROMNEY: I thought it was the -- THE COURT: No. That's the -- well, in support of the motion. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 80 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 81 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
81 |\n| 1 | MR. ROMNEY:
No.
Right.
The declaration -- |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Right. |\n| 3 | MR. ROMNEY:
-- attached -- I did not read the |\n| 4 | declaration or the exhibits. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
In support of the motion for contempt. |\n| 6 | Yeah.
Yeah. |\n| 7 | MR. ROMNEY:
He brought the Exhibit T to my |\n| 8 | attention, which I very much appreciated and expressed that |\n| 9 | to him and called him.
I said both verbally and in writing |\n| 10 | that we were willing to do anything that we could to help |\n| 11 | the trustee locate documents on behalf of either entity. |\n| 12 | And if he had any information available to him that would |\n| 13 | assist me to locate documents for them, that I would do |\n| 14 | anything I could with that information.
And I didn't |\n| 15 | receive any additional information. |\n| 16 | Perhaps that was foolish of me, and that is on me. |\n| 17 | And I will own that.
I should have done that.
And with the |\n| 18 | many moving parts of this situation and the other moving |\n| 19 | parts of what goes on in any given day in the world that is |\n| 20 | this case and the others that we all have to manage, I did |\n| 21 | not go back to that declaration and see if there were any |\n| 22 | other documents that could have helped me. |\n| 23 | However, I was told among -- I was told and I |\n| 24 | believe this is Hodgson Russ and -- but I am not positive. |\n| 25 | And, frankly, I didn't think of it as very significant.
But |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 82 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
82 |\n| 1 | I believe I was told by Hodgson Russ's general counsel that |\n| 2 | the New York entity explored real estate transactions but to |\n| 3 | the best of their knowledge never consummated a single one. |\n| 4 | And I am virtually certain that Attorney Luft told me the |\n| 5 | exact same thing without referencing any particular |\n| 6 | documents. |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 8 | MR. ROMNEY:
Okay.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Is there anything else you want to |\n| 10 | add? |\n| 11 | MR. ROMNEY:
No.
Other than renewing my offer to |\n| 12 | answer any questions that anybody else has under oath. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Does anybody have any questions that |\n| 14 | they would like to place Attorney Romney under oath and ask |\n| 15 | as part of this proceeding? |\n| 16 | MR. LUFT:
None from me, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Your Honor, if I could take up the |\n| 18 | opportunity to ask Attorney Romney to go through the U.S. |\n| 19 | Trustee's pleading, which is ECF 1971. |\n| 20 | THE COURT:
You're calling -- you'd like him to go |\n| 21 | to the stand and be sworn in? |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:
If I could. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 24 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Because I -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Mr. Romney offered, so -- |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 83 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
83 |\n| 1 | MS. CLAIBORN:
There are a number of questions we |\n| 2 | had that were not answered. |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
Mr. Romney, come forward, please. |\n| 4 | MR. ROMNEY:
Yep.
Mr. Henzy will be representing |\n| 5 | me, Your Honor. |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Well, I don't know how that works, |\n| 7 | actually. |\n| 8 | MR. ROMNEY:
I believe as a witness I have the |\n| 9 | right to counsel for the purpose of lodging objections. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
I understand that.
And I'm not |\n| 11 | suggesting that.
But how are -- how is Mr. Henzy, who |\n| 12 | represents the debtor and other parties, going to be your |\n| 13 | counsel in connection with a motion to withdraw an |\n| 14 | appearance? |\n| 15 | MR. ROMNEY:
I don't believe that there's any |\n| 16 | conflict in terms of -- Attorney Henzy has been my firm's |\n| 17 | general counsel for years.
I don't believe there's any |\n| 18 | conflict between representation of me and any of my clients. |\n| 19 | I don't believe I have any adverse interest to any of my |\n| 20 | clients. |\n| 21 | I believe as a witness I'm not entitled to lodge |\n| 22 | an objection to a question.
And I believe I'm entitled to |\n| 23 | counsel to lodge an objection if there is one. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
I understand that you're entitled |\n| 25 | to -- I'm not quarreling that you're entitled to counsel if |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 84 you want to have counsel and -- you offered to get on the stand. Okay? MR. ROMNEY: I did. THE COURT: You offered. MR. ROMNEY: With my general counsel present. THE COURT: Okay? But, I mean, I don't understand how Attorney Henzy can be your lawyer in this situation. You are partners in a firm together. You both have pecuniary interests in the firm. How could it not be a conflict? How could it -- because he has to worry about him as well. Because whatever happens to you happens to him. How could that not be a conflict? MR. ROMNEY: I would say that means our interests are 100 percent aligned. THE COURT: Okay. Well, guess what? We're not going to do this today until -- there is -- I mean, Trustee Despins, United States Trustee's Office, do you really believe that Attorney Henzy can represent Attorney Romney in connection with a cross-examination of documents in this case that relate to a motion for contempt that might enter against Attorney Romney in addition to the client that Attorney -- client or clients that Attorney Romney represents? Am I just on another planet here? I mean, this is Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 84 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 85 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
85 |\n| 1 | insane.
How is that not a conflict?
No -- how is that not |\n| 2 | a conflict? |\n| 3 | MR. ROMNEY:
It is solely for the purpose of |\n| 4 | lodging evidentiary objections.
I respectfully submit |\n| 5 | that -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
It is not solely for the purpose of |\n| 7 | lodging evidentiary objections.
It's Mr. Henzy is trying to |\n| 8 | protect you, which he -- any lawyer would do who represented |\n| 9 | you.
That's the point, right?
That's why you need a |\n| 10 | lawyer.
You want to be protected. |\n| 11 | How is it not a conflict?
I just -- I'm sorry.
I |\n| 12 | just don't see it.
I don't -- I'm not saying you're not |\n| 13 | entitled to counsel.
You offered to put yourself on the |\n| 14 | stand.
You now want me to allow Attorney Henzy, your |\n| 15 | partner with whom the -- all of you and your other partners |\n| 16 | all have a pecuniary interest to help each other, you all |\n| 17 | have -- you're involved in a partnership agreement.
I don't |\n| 18 | know what your obligations are to each other. |\n| 19 | And you might be found -- you could be -- I'm |\n| 20 | talking now for the analysis of the conflict.
You could be |\n| 21 | found personally held in contempt for which you'd have to |\n| 22 | pay a fine, supposedly.
Okay?
I'm talking about for the |\n| 23 | contempt purpose.
How is that not a conflict? |\n| 24 | MR. ROMNEY:
I don't believe it is. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
We got 80 lawyers in the room.
How is |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 86 this not a conflict? MR. ROMNEY: Well, if I have to pay a fine, then I have to pay a fine. If my firm has to pay a fine, my firm has to pay a fine. And I'd say my partners have the same interest as I do, which are the same as my clients. THE COURT: I don't know that that's true. Depends upon what your partnership agreement says. I don't even know what you have. I have no idea, and I don't want to know, because it's not relevant to the issue. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, I am trying to be as transparent as possible. I am -- THE COURT: I'm not suggesting otherwise, Attorney Romney. I'm not suggesting any of that. I just don't know how Attorney Henzy can be your lawyer in this situation. And I don't know why anyone else thinks that he can be. MR. HENZY: Well, I think I can be, so just -- THE COURT: Well, I don't -- MR. HENZY: -- just to be clear -- THE COURT: I'm not asking you right now. MR. HENZY: -- just to be clear, there's at least one other person in the courtroom who thinks that I can be, but -- THE COURT: Okay. Well, that's good. I'm glad you think that. MR. HENZY: Okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 86 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 87 THE COURT: But I'm not asking you right now. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I'm asking other people. MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, perhaps I can propose a solution, which is that if you go back to what the U.S. Trustee filed at 1971, it is very straightforward, with the questions that are being asked. But, for example, if you just look at the first bullet point, which is little (Indiscernible), that question never actually gets answered in Attorney Romney's declaration. So my suggestion was going to be that Attorney Romney redo his declaration and actually respond to all the questions that are asked or -- THE COURT: Fine. You know what? MS. CLAIBORN: -- assert that he -- or assert that he can't. THE COURT: Actually, just get him on the stand. Let Attorney Henzy represent him. Nobody seems to think it's a problem, so go right ahead. MS. CLAIBORN: I didn't say that, Your Honor. I'm just suggesting -- THE COURT: Oh, well, I'm saying that. Attorney Romney, get on the stand. Trustee -- Attorney Claiborn, start asking your questions. Let Attorney Romney get sworn in. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 87 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 88 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
88 |\n| 1 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Attorney Romney, please |\n| 2 | stand and raise your right hand. |\n| 3 | AARON ROMNEY, WITNESS, SWORN |\n| 4 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Can you please state your |\n| 5 | name for the record? |\n| 6 | THE WITNESS:
Aaron Romney. |\n| 7 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Name and address. |\n| 8 | THE WITNESS:
My business address -- |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Yeah.
Just your business address. |\n| 10 | THE WITNESS:
-- is 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor, |\n| 11 | Bridgeport, Connecticut, 0604 -- 06604.
May I be seated? |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may. |\n| 13 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
If you need -- there's water.
There |\n| 15 | should be water there too. |\n| 16 | THE WITNESS:
Thank you. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
All right.
Go ahead, Attorney |\n| 18 | Claiborn. |\n| 19 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you.
Holley Claiborn for the |\n| 20 | U.S. Trustee. |\n| 21 | DIRECT EXAMINATION |\n| 22 | BY MS. CLAIBORN: |\n| 23 | Q
Attorney Romney, can you please tell the Court when you |\n| 24 | were first contacted by a representative of Hudson New York |\n| 25 | with respect to the subpoena issued to Hudson New York?
And |\n| | |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 89 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
89 |\n| 1 | I'm using that term as defined in my pleading with respect |\n| 2 | to the subpoena issued by the trustee to Hudson New York. |\n| 3 | A
Yes.
And I interpret that question as in the capacity |\n| 4 | as somebody acting as behalf of Hudson New York.
And the |\n| 5 | only reason -- point of clarification I draw there is that |\n| 6 | obviously I've spoken to Mei Guo, the individual who was |\n| 7 | that representative.
I've spoken with her consistently |\n| 8 | since I began representing her in April of last year. |\n| 9 | But with respect to in her capacity as a representative |\n| 10 | of Hudson Diamond New York, I believe I contacted her.
And |\n| 11 | that was on, I believe -- it's stated in my declaration when |\n| 12 | I did it.
I believe it was on April -- sorry, May 30th that |\n| 13 | I sent her the subpoenas.
But we would have had to have |\n| 14 | been discussing them prior to that.
So sometime in between |\n| 15 | April 23rd and May 30th, I believe closer to May 23rd.
But |\n| 16 | it was within that time frame. |\n| 17 | Q
Do I understand your testimony correctly that Ms. Guo |\n| 18 | did not know about the subpoena issued to Hudson Diamond New |\n| 19 | York until you told her about it? |\n| 20 | A
That is my correct -- that is my understanding. |\n| 21 | Q
And what do you base that understanding from? |\n| 22 | A
Because she told me. |\n| 23 | Q
Do you know what the first point of contact was for |\n| 24 | Attorney Vartan with respect to the Hudson Diamond New York |\n\nsubpoena issued by the trustee?\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 90 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
90 |\n| 1 | A
I do. |\n| 2 | Q
What was that? |\n| 3 | A
It was the same as I just described.
In fact, I, on |\n| 4 | May 23rd, read the motion to compel for the first time.
I |\n| 5 | believe it was filed May 18th.
As I've mentioned several |\n| 6 | times in court today, we have very case -- we have very busy |\n| 7 | case loads right now, so I did not actually read that |\n| 8 | document until May the 23rd.
At that point, I read the |\n| 9 | portions with respect to Hudson Diamond.
I recognized the |\n| 10 | names, and I emailed Attorney Vartan, and I said something |\n| 11 | to the effect of we need to contact Ms. Guo about this |\n| 12 | immediately. |\n| 13 | Q
Who was the person on behalf of Hudson Diamond New York |\n| 14 | who engaged your representation as their counsel? |\n| 15 | A
Ms. Guo. |\n| 16 | Q
Who were the members of Hudson Diamond New York as of |\n| 17 | December 1, 2022? |\n| 18 | A
I don't know the answer to that question for the |\n| 19 | reasons stated in my declaration. |\n| 20 | Q
Who were the members of Hudson Diamond New York as of |\n| 21 | June 1, 2023? |\n| 22 | A
I don't know the answer to that -- I'm sorry.
Did |\n| 23 | you -- was that question about Hudson Diamond -- were either |\n| 24 | of those questions about Hudson Diamond New York or |\n| 25 | Holdings? |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 91 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
91 |\n| 1 | Q
They were both intended to be about Hudson Diamond New |\n| 2 | York. |\n| 3 | A
Okay.
That's what I thought, but I just -- I don't |\n| 4 | know the answer to that question. |\n| 5 | Q
Okay.
And who are the members of Hudson Diamond New |\n| 6 | York as of June 13, 2023? |\n| 7 | A
I don't know the answer to that question for the |\n| 8 | reasons stated on the record today. |\n| 9 | Q
Did you ever ask Mei Guo those questions as to those |\n| 10 | memberships and those dates we just went over? |\n| 11 | A
Specifically with respect to those particular dates, I |\n| 12 | don't believe I specifically referenced those dates.
But if |\n| 13 | your question is did I ever discuss with Mei Guo whether she |\n| 14 | was -- whether Hudson Diamond Holdings was a -- was the |\n| 15 | member of Hudson Diamond New York, the answer is yes.
And |\n| 16 | her belief, as I've stated, was that Hudson Diamond Holdings |\n| 17 | controlled the New York entity, which is why she directed me |\n| 18 | to respond -- to attempt to negotiate a -- me and Attorney |\n| 19 | Vartan to attempt to negotiate an extension and then do |\n| 20 | everything that I could to provide the Chapter 11 trustee |\n| 21 | with responsive documents that we were able to locate.
And |\n| 22 | she offered to -- or she indicated, and I believe did, |\n| 23 | assist Attorney Vartan or participate in that process with |\n| 24 | us. |\n| 25 | Q
With respect to Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC, do you |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 92 intend to continue to represent that entity? A Of course. MS. CLAIBORN: Okay. I have nothing further. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. You can step down, Attorney ROmney. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything further on the motion for contempt, the motion to withdraw as attorney? Okay. I'll take those matters under advisement. Let's proceed to the next matter. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, I apologize. May I be excused? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. ROMNEY: I do have to catch a flight. Thank you very much, Your Honor. THE COURT: You're welcome. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, if it pleases the Court, I think the next matter we would propose to take up is the motion for summary judgment in the Adversary Proceeding 23-5012, which involves the -- it's the interpleader action with respect to the HK USA escrow funds. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. So I apologize. I think I may have started a past hearing with a Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 92 of\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 93 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
93 |\n| 1 | similar remark, and it's unfortunate, but I do feel like |\n| 2 | there are several occasions in which we find ourselves |\n| 3 | before Your Honor arguing motions that, in our view, just |\n| 4 | are not necessary.
This is another one of those. |\n| 5 | I think it will be brief.
And the reason for that |\n| 6 | and the reason why this hearing is, in our view, necessary |\n| 7 | is because the issue before the Court, which is whether or |\n| 8 | not the funds sitting in escrow pursuant to the escrow |\n| 9 | agreement should be released to the trustee, has already |\n| 10 | been conclusively decided by this Court's summary judgment |\n| 11 | decision issued on May 18th finding both that HK USA is the |\n| 12 | debtor's alter ego and that all of its property, including |\n| 13 | the escrow funds, are property of the estate. |\n| | |\n\n And I'd like to cite to the Court the particular language of the order. And this May 18th order is at ECF 221. On page 36, the first two so-ordered paragraphs. The first so-ordered paragraph says that \"HK USA is and was at all relevant times the alter ego of the debtor, Mr. Kwok.\" The very next paragraph says that \"All property of HK USA at all relevant times to the present is property of the estate.\"\n\n What this means, Your Honor, is that the definition of property of the estate under Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, which refers to all legal or equitable interests in property, extends by virtue of the May 18th\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 94 of\n\n| | 180 | |\n|---|---------------------------------------------------------------|----|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 | 94 |\n| 1 | summary judgment order to all of HK USA's property.
And it | |\n| 2 | is not subject to any reasonable dispute.
There's been no | |\n| 3 | suggestion to the contrary in the papers filed by HK USA | |\n| 4 | that the definition of property of the estate under Section | |\n| 5 | 541 of the Bankruptcy Code includes contractual rights and | |\n| 6 | legal rights. | |\n| 7 | So therefore, by operation of the May 18th order, | |\n| 8 | any contractual right that HK USA ever could have hoped to | |\n\n hold and to exercise under the escrow agreement is now a right that belongs to the estate and is property of the estate under the Bankruptcy Code. So HK USA has no ability to stand before the Court today and to obstruct in the way that it has for the last several weeks or, I guess, since the issuance of the summary judgment order and prevent the funds from being released by purportedly hiding behind contractual rights that it's trying to exercise. Those rights now belong to the estate.\n\n They have no response to this point in their papers, because there is not one. This ends the analysis, and the Court need not consider anything else. Whether or not the escrow funds are property of the estate has already been decided, and it cannot be relitigated. That's res judicata.\n\n Now, HK USA in its opposition to the trustee's motion for summary judgment spends a lot of time focusing on paragraph 4 of the escrow agreement, which is attached as\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 95 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
95 |\n|---|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | Exhibit 1 to the complaint.
They also cite case law |\n| 2 | purportedly standing for the unremarkable proposition that, |\n| 3 | generally speaking, contracts should be enforced and public |\n| 4 | policy concerns related to that principle.
But all of that |\n| 5 | is irrelevant in this situation where the Court has already |\n| 6 | decided that any contractual rights that HK USA held or |\n| 7 | holds under the escrow agreement are, by virtue of the May |\n| 8 | 18th decision, property of the estate, exercisable by the |\n| 9 | estate. |\n\n And not surprisingly, none of the cases they cite which talk about enforcement of contractual rights generally or enforcement of rights in escrow agreements have anything to do with the finding that one entity is another's alter ego and that, therefore, the rights that a party is purportedly trying to exercise, under an escrow agreement or otherwise, are actually rights that belong to another party. They don't cite any case like that. And it's not surprising why, because it wouldn't make sense for there to be an outcome in a situation like this other than the one we are asking the Court to order.\n\n What I would also point out, while we're on the topic of looking at the language of the escrow agreement, which HK USA is so intent on doing, is that if you look at paragraph 16 of the escrow agreement, it specifically deals with revisions, amendments, modifications to, changes to the\n\n#### Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 96 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
96 |\n| 1 | escrow agreement.
What it says is that the escrow agreement |\n| 2 | may not be modified unless ordered by the bankruptcy court. |\n| 3 | Now, this is significant, because even assuming HK |\n| 4 | USA still had the ability to exercise its contractual rights |\n| 5 | under the escrow agreement, which it does not for the |\n| 6 | reasons I've already discussed, this paragraph 16 allows the |\n| 7 | Court to modify it.
Now, they may say, well, you know, what |\n| 8 | that really means is that if the parties agree then the |\n| 9 | Court has to so order that agreement.
But they didn't -- |\n| 10 | that language doesn't appear in paragraph 16. |\n| 11 | If it did, it would say in order to modify this |\n| 12 | agreement, the parties have to agree on it, and then the |\n| 13 | Court needs to so order it.
It doesn't say that.
It says |\n| 14 | the Court can order a change to the agreement.
If they're |\n| 15 | going to be held to the benefit of the bargain that they |\n| 16 | seem so worried about, then it needs to apply to the entire |\n| 17 | agreement. |\n| 18 | The last point that I'll make, Your Honor, is the |\n| 19 | one we make in our motion, which is with respect to the |\n| 20 | overall purpose of the escrow agreement and the related |\n| 21 | stipulation concerning the Lady May and the fact that there |\n| 22 | is no question the purpose of the agreement has run its |\n| 23 | course.
The agreement and the stipulation, and it's |\n| 24 | undisputed, were designed originally, ostensibly, to secure |\n| 25 | delivery of the Lady May yacht to the estate. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 97 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 97 The Court recognized this in its recent decision denying the HK USA or the -- I guess HK USA's motion for stay pending appeal at ECF Number 24. And there is no genuine factual dispute about this purpose. In their opposition to the motion for summary judgment, they try to erect the strawman argument that if we're talking about the intent of the agreement it must be introducing questions of fact.\n\n There is no genuine factual dispute about the very clear purpose of that agreement. You can just look at background paragraph D of the agreement which makes it very clear that the entire purpose of the escrow agreement was to complement the stipulation and secure delivery of the Lady May to the estate.\n\n Now, why is this significant? Because, obviously, that purpose has run its course. As the Court again pointed out in its decision denying the motion for stay pending appeal, the HK certification was going to be submitted so that the funds could be released to HK USA. That was postponed while the Court considered the trustee's pending motion for preliminary injunction and a prejudgment remedy.\n\n So but there's no question. I mean, the yacht's now been sold. The purpose of holding the funds in escrow has run its course and is no longer necessary. You know, in fact, if you were to ask counsel today or anytime in the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 98 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 98 recent past whether they think that the escrowed funds should be released to HK USA, I'm sure they would tell you yes. I don't think they could say with a straight face that they don't think they should get the funds back. The problem with that argument from their perspective is the second that the funds are released to them, they're our property. Because all property of HK USA under the May 18th order is property of the estate. I say this because it just highlights the absurdity of their position. They are not using the escrow agreement and its provisions in order to fulfill its intended purpose of holding the funds in escrow while there might be a dispute resolved about whether or not the certification requirements have been satisfied. They're now using it to obtain a de facto stay pending appeal and to hold hostage this Chapter 11 case and the trustee's efforts to enforce the May 18th order. So for those reasons, Your Honor, I think there's no question in our mind. This is an open and shut motion for summary judgment. There are no disputed issues of fact. This issue has already been decided by the Court. There's no stay pending appeal. The escrow funds should be delivered to the trustee. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you.\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 99 of
180 |\n|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
99 |\n| 1 | Mr. Moriarty, you're going to respond? |\n| 2 | MR. MORIARTY:
Yes.
Thank you, Your Honor.
And |\n| 3 | for the record, James Moriarty for HK International Funds |\n| 4 | Investments (USA) Limited, LLC. |\n| 5 | So I will start, Your Honor, with Attorney |\n| 6 | Bassett's point about paragraph 16 of the escrow agreement. |\n| 7 | Obviously, I agree with what he says about it, because it |\n| 8 | says what it says.
I do want to point out for the Court -- |\n| 9 | and as Your Honor remembers, the escrow agreement was for, |\n| 10 | for lack of a better term, amended back in October of 2022. |\n| 11 | At that point, \\$4 million were released from escrow to |\n| 12 | create the repair reserve for the Lady May. |\n| 13 | And the order that Your Honor entered is at Docket |\n| 14 | Entry 932.
It's dated October 7, 2022.
And even with that |\n| 15 | order, the first paragraph starting with order, that |\n| 16 | actually refers to paragraph 42 of the escrow agreement. |\n| 17 | And it says that as soon as reasonably practical after this |\n| 18 | order becomes a final non-appealable order.
So even with |\n| 19 | respect to the repair reserve, the order had to become final |\n| 20 | and non-appealable before that \\$4 million was going to be |\n| 21 | released. |\n| 22 | So can the escrow agreement be amended by court |\n| 23 | order?
Absolutely.
That's what the parties agreed to. |\n| 24 | Does that order have to become final and non-appealable |\n| 25 | before that modification of the escrow agreement would be |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 100 enforceable and applicable? Yes. And we see that in the Court's order at Docket 932. As far as the escrow agreement running its course, HK cites in its opposition the case Netherberg vs. G.V. Licensing (sic). And I will give Your Honor the citation for that in a second. So that is at 1995 US Dist. LEXIS 11725 and also 1195WL491489. And in that case, the Court was looking at an escrow agreement, and the escrow agreement had been set up in connection with the sale of some intellectual property. And the escrow was designed to protect the seller post closing for litigation that based on the decision was then ongoing. The seller settled its litigation. The party with whom it settled sought to either terminate the escrow or to have released from escrow proceeds that were not disputed. And one of the arguments that was made to the Southern District in that case was, well, this escrow agreement is now superfluous, because we've settled the litigation that the escrow funds were intended to secure. And what the court said -- and this is on PDF page 2 of 3, and it's at start 4 in my LEXIS printout -- even if the reasons for the parties' execution of the escrow agreement fail to have continued validity, that would not void the amended escrow agreement which plaintiff agreed to Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 100 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 101 of\n\n| 180 |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
101 |\n| in its settlement agreement with Gitano.
Plaintiff's |\n| argument that only GVTI, which was the buyer of the |\n| intellectual property, has an interest in the escrowed funds |\n| fails to state a legally recognized reason to override the |\n| negotiated terms of a binding agreement.
And in that case, |\n| the court -- it held that it was not going to alter the |\n| terms of the escrow agreement and that one of the |\n| contingencies that was required to occur before the funds |\n| would be released had to occur, and it had not happened yet. |\n| And that is our case.
We have in paragraph 4 of |\n| the escrow agreement four contingencies.
And upon the |\n| occurrence of one of those contingencies, the escrow funds |\n| would be released.
This Court entered an order, and it |\n| entered an order that HK USA is the debtor's alter ego. |\n| We are not seeking to relitigate that issue here |\n| at all.
What we are talking about here is we are talking |\n| about timing and conditions precedent.
When are these funds |\n| going to be released from escrow to the trustee, who, by the |\n| way, has the proceeds right now.
And one of those |\n| contingencies has to be satisfied. |\n| |\n\n And the contingency that we're focused on is that we need a final, non-appealable order of this Court. And the order that the Court entered on May 18th is presently being appealed. The appeal is pending before Judge Dooley in the district court, and so that contingency has not been\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 102 of
180 | | |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
102 | |\n| 1 | satisfied, and the funds should not be released pursuant to | |\n| 2 | the terms of the escrow agreement. | |\n| 3 | This is a summary judgment motion.
It's a | |\n| 4 | contract issue.
The contract with respect to the | |\n| 5 | contingencies is non-ambiguous.
And as a matter of law, | |\n| 6 | those conditions -- one of those conditions has to be | |\n| 7 | satisfied before the funds can be released. | |\n| 8 | Now, Attorney Bassett did argue that this | |\n| 9 | agreement was really all about returning the Lady May and | |\n| 10 | now the Lady May has been sold.
And as I just identified to | |\n| 11 | the Court, there's the Netherberg (sic) decision.
But if | |\n| 12 | we're talking about summary judgment, and that is what we're | |\n| 13 | talking about, if we're going to get into the intent of the | |\n| 14 | parties, what did the parties intend when they drafted this | |\n| 15 | language that there has to be a final, non-appealable order | |\n| 16 | of the bankruptcy court?
Did they intend it to apply solely | |\n| 17 | with respect to issues regarding the Lady May, or did they | |\n| 18 | expect it to apply more broadly? | |\n| 19 | If you read the plain language of the agreement, | |\n| 20 | it has to be applied more broadly.
But regardless, if we're | |\n| 21 | talking about what did the parties mean by this provision, | |\n| 22 | and we're not going to give it its plain meaning from the | |\n| | | |\n\n judgment has to be denied based on the fact that there is an issue of fact as to what the parties intended with the\n\nagreement, then there's an issue of fact, and summary\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 103 escrow agreement. And then lastly, Your Honor, with respect to property of the estate, there is no dispute that HK's right to receive the escrow proceeds is an asset of the estate. But that right is contingent on the happening of a contingency or a condition precedent, which has not happened yet. And in Your Honor's decision granting summary judgment on the trustee's second counterclaim on May 18th, Your Honor distinguished between Count 2 of the counterclaim, which was alter ego, and Count 3, which I believe was a fraudulent transfer claim, but I could be mistaken on that. But in distinguishing it, what Your Honor distinguished was with respect to the alter ego claim, it makes the assets of HK available to satisfy the claims of the creditors. If the trustee wanted to control the entity, he would have to move under Count 3. And if the trustee had moved solely under Count 3 as Your Honor discusses in the decision which is at page 25, then the trustee would control the entity. The entity would be property of the estate, an asset of the estate. But in order to get to the assets of the entity, the trustee would still have to pierce the veil. So the trustee does not control HK. HK is an independent entity whose assets have been made available to Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 103 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 104 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 104 the creditors. And, Your Honor, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. THE COURT: I have no questions. MR. MORIARTY: Thank you. MR. BASSETT: Just a few brief points in response, Your Honor. And I'll -- I guess I'll start where Attorney Moriarty ended, which is the question of the passage of property rights to the estate and what is the consequence of that under the May 18th order. The rights that it -- to the extent that what Attorney Moriarty is arguing is that the only right that passed to the estate is the right to receive the escrow funds and that any contractual rights that HK holds to prevent that from happening are not rights of the estate, that is simply not the law. The estate is now, pursuant to this Court's very clear order -- and I want to make another point, which is that when Attorney Moriarty was referencing the Court's order, he's focused on the alter ego finding and what that means. And I will get to that in a second. But he's ignoring the very clear provision saying that all property of HK USA, which includes contractual rights, is property of the estate. So to the extent -- and he's -- I don't think he's\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 105 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
105 |\n| 1 | arguing that HK USA does not have this ability, because it |\n| 2 | obviously does.
To the extent that HK USA, as everybody |\n| 3 | knows it could, could go to the escrow agent and say, hey, |\n| 4 | we authorize you to release these funds, that right, that |\n| 5 | ability now belongs to the trustee. |\n| 6 | (Audio skip 2:46 p.m. to 2:49 p.m.) |\n| 7 | MR. GOLDMAN:
At the time this contract was made |\n| 8 | to which the committee was a party, no one certainly |\n| 9 | envisioned the situation we are now dealing with right now, |\n| 10 | which is that a trustee would later be appointed months |\n| 11 | after the transaction took place and would end up freezing |\n| 12 | and obtaining a PJR against the funds that were on deposit. |\n| 13 | The purpose of that deposit, as articulated by Mr. Bassett, |\n| 14 | was to secure the delivery of the Lady May. |\n| 15 | Certainly, this situation was not envisioned by |\n| 16 | any party at the time the escrow agreement was entered into. |\n| 17 | And Your Honor ought to interpret the contract in light of |\n| 18 | that purpose.
And it's specifically the situation of the |\n| 19 | parties and the circumstances connected with the transaction |\n| 20 | at the time, which means that it just simply is inapplicable |\n| 21 | to the current situation right now. |\n| 22 | And we otherwise fully support the arguments made |\n| 23 | by Mr. Bassett. |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 25 | Anyone else wish to be heard?
Okay.
The motion |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 106 for summary judgment is taken under advisement. What's the next matter that the Court needs to address this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: It's the HCHK settlements, Your Honor. And Mr. Luft is going to handle that matter. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: Unless Your Honor wants to take a break. THE COURT: No. I think -- MR. DESPINS: No? Okay. THE COURT: -- we should continue. MR. GOLDMAN: Okay. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Your Honor, may I approach? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Please proceed. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. Excuse me. Avi Luft of Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 trustee. Your Honor, what I'm here is (sic) in connection with our 9019 motion to approve the settlement agreement between the Chapter 11 trustee and the assignee for the HCHK entities. Your Honor, the agreement we present to the Court is highly beneficial to the estate for multiple reasons. It is the product of extensive good faith negotiation. It will immediately transfer on an interim basis pending the outcome Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 106 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 107 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
107 |\n| 1 | of the adversary proceedings over \\$38 million of the HCHK |\n| 2 | entity's cash to the trustee's account. |\n| 3 | Sum and agreement will resolve all open issues |\n| 4 | between the trustee and the assignee, avoiding an expensive |\n| 5 | and time-consuming disputed preliminary injunction |\n| 6 | litigation.
It also helps pave the way for an expedited and |\n| 7 | less costly resolution of the adversary proceeding.
The |\n| 8 | assignee has agreed not to oppose the relief sought by the |\n| 9 | trustee in the adversary proceeding which we believe should |\n| 10 | clear the path. |\n| 11 | The settlement agreement provides for continued |\n| 12 | administration of the assignee, of the HCHK entities, the |\n| 13 | Columbus Circle offices, and the Columbus Circle assets, |\n| 14 | which will lessen the administrative burden on the trustee. |\n| 15 | And, Your Honor, the settlement ensures that there is -- |\n| 16 | will be due process available to all. |\n| 17 | Now, Your Honor, the 9019 standard the Court is |\n| 18 | well aware of.
But in short, the settlement need not be the |\n| 19 | best that the debtor could have obtained, but rather it must |\n| 20 | be in the range of reasonableness and make sure it falls not |\n| 21 | within the lowest point.
And one looks at the Iridium |\n| 22 | factors to determine if that's the case.
When one looks at |\n| 23 | the benefits we just discussed in light of the Iridium |\n| 24 | factors, I think it's quite clear that the -- this |\n| 25 | settlement is most assuredly in the best interests of the |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 108 estate. With regard to possibility of success versus future benefits, by securing the funds now, settlement eliminates the risk and cost related to the PI litigation as well as providing a more likely positive outcome with regard to the adversary proceeding. As to the second factor of the likelihood of complex and protracted litigation, this would eliminate both the PI -- the need for a PI evidentiary hearing as well as, as I said, streamline the future adversary. With regard to the interests of the creditors of the estate, Your Honor, I'll note that not one creditor of the estate has objected. The UCC supports this. And I'll note that this -- by making sure that the assets are within the trustee's control, it prevents the possible dissipation of substantial assets of the trustee, which he hopes to bring into the estate for the benefit of all creditors. The fourth factor under Iridium is support of other parties in interest. As I noted, the UCC is in support. There have been very few objections. Notably, a number of them that have been filed in fact make clear that they do not dispute the terms of the settlement but rather seek to make sure that their own claim can be added or with regard to a very discrete issue in the case of the U.S. Trustee. I will deal with all those. Which really leaves\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 109 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
109 |\n| 1 | only one substantial objection which is from the Himalaya |\n| 2 | parties.
And I will deal with that shortly, but it -- I |\n| 3 | think, clearly, on balance most parties support this |\n| 4 | settlement. |\n| 5 | With regard to competency of counsel and |\n| 6 | experience of Judge, I will be modest here, but I will |\n| 7 | certainly say that this Court is by far the most up-to-date |\n| 8 | and aware of the issues related to this case and more than |\n| 9 | appropriate to judge whether this is an appropriate |\n| 10 | settlement. |\n| 11 | As to the nature and breadth of releases of the |\n| 12 | directors and officers, the former HCHK executives are not |\n| 13 | getting releases.
There is the issue of the assignees' |\n| 14 | exculpation provision, which will be addressed later.
But |\n| 15 | with regard to the directors and officers of HCHK who |\n| 16 | existed previously, they are not getting a release. |\n| 17 | And as to whether this was an arm's length, I can |\n| 18 | report to the Court that this was the product of extensive |\n| 19 | negotiations following an emergency TRO in which the parties |\n| 20 | very much were on -- had different interests at the start |\n| 21 | but were able to reach resolution. |\n| 22 | Your Honor, before I delve into the objections, |\n| 23 | though, I think it would be helpful -- and if you're -- the |\n| 24 | Court would appreciate, I would like to walk through how the |\n| 25 | settlement will work.
Because there is, as we've outlined |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 110 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
110 |\n| 1 | in our papers, sort of three phases as to the settlement. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
Go right ahead. |\n| 3 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
So this |\n| 4 | proposed order with regard to the settlement will modify the |\n| 5 | TRO order that exists, and it does so in three phases.
The |\n| 6 | first is stage one.
As I referenced, there'll be initial |\n| 7 | transfer of the HCHK funds to the trustee.
The amount will |\n| 8 | be \\$38,835,734.27. |\n| 9 | The trustee will invest those funds in treasury |\n| 10 | securities pending a dispositive ruling.
Pending that |\n| 11 | dispositive ruling, to be clear, the trustee will not be |\n| 12 | authorized to use the HCHK funds for any purpose other than |\n| 13 | set forth in the 9019 order. |\n| 14 | Another part of the stage one will be the assignee |\n| 15 | will make available to the trustee all HCHK non-privileged |\n| 16 | corporate records and other documents in his possession. |\n| 17 | The assignee has agreed to take no position in connection |\n| 18 | with the adversary proceeding.
And I believe as indicated |\n| 19 | in their papers that they were -- would not be in a position |\n| 20 | to say otherwise.
Nor will they assist any party in |\n| 21 | opposing such relief. |\n| 22 | At the same time, Your Honor, this order would |\n| 23 | make clear that this settlement and the fund transfers are |\n| 24 | without prejudice of the rights of any party, other than the |\n| 25 | assignee who for the reasons stated above, to file pleadings |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 111 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
111 |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | and take positions subject to meeting standing requirements. |\n| 2 | And the trustee notes that, of course, he has -- reserves |\n| 3 | the right to oppose standing.
But in short, what that means |\n| 4 | is if you qualify for standing and you have it, then you'll |\n| 5 | have the opportunity.
And, of course, the trustee will have |\n| 6 | the opportunity to challenge that. |\n\n That is stage one. Stage two will be following the entry of the proposed order, should it be entered, and the occurrence of the initial HCHK fund transfer. That deals with in paragraph 9 of the order the authorized assignee actions. This allows the assignee, pursuant to the terms of the order, to take certain actions related to the Columbus Circle offices, HCHK's remaining employees, and related issues to that which are procedural and administrative, and that the trustee may advance portions of the HCHK funds for payment of those expenses. And this is the administrative relief that I referred to, which is a benefit to the estate.\n\n Paragraph 10 notes that the New York court relief is not -- will not be binding, which brings us to stage three which arises upon dispositive ruling on the alter ego and the equitable ownership claim. To the extent that there is a favorable ruling on the trustee's adversary proceeding, it does provide -- paragraph 11 of the order provides for settlement payments. It sets out the amounts.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 112 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 112 Paragraph 12 deals with a modification of the bar date where the trustee is authorized to seek the Court to modify the bar date to allow HCHK entities' creditors, to the extent there are any, to now file under the debtor's Chapter 11 case, because to the extent an alter ego or equitable ownership is granted, those creditors will now become creditors of the debtor's estate to the extent they exist. Paragraph 13 deals with the channeling injunction which we will speak about later. Paragraph 14, the exculpation provision. And then, Your Honor, I'll turn to what happens to the extent there is a final order ruling against the trustee and the adversary. Paragraph 15 explicitly provides for the return of funds to the trustee -- from the trustee to the assignee. So that is the three stages of how the order would work and what we would propose under the settlement. Your Honor, before I turn to the objections, I'll ask if you have any questions. THE COURT: I have no questions. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. Okay. In which case, let me turn to the objections. So I started off by speaking about why we believe the Iridium factors have been met. I will note that, overall with regard to the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 113 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 113 objections, the Iridium factors have largely been not addressed. Rather, they seem to be a mishmash of things that people would like, attempts to jump ahead on the claims process, or in the case of Himalaya, who I will turn to, frankly, a person who is not happy with how the assignment process has worked out for them but not one who has actual basis to be objecting here.\n\n So the Himalaya parties who, as we detail in our reply brief, Your Honor, are largely made up of entities that this Court has either directly found the debtor to control -- the Himalaya farms, Himalaya -- or other entities that the debtor has been involved with, has filed an objection. And I think the heart of it is effectively saying we would have preferred to be in New York state court; we thought that's where the assignment was going to go.\n\n Everyone's entitled to their preferences, but that's not a basis to object to the settlement. And it's certainly not a basis to claim that this is not in the best interest of the debtor's estate, which is what the 9019 motion is about.\n\n Now, the Himalaya parties spend a good part of their papers contesting the alter ego and equitable ownership claims in the adversary proceeding. That's not what's before us today, Your Honor. They -- to the extent\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 114 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
114 |\n| 1 | they have standing, they will have an opportunity to raise |\n| 2 | whatever objections they have to the trustee's adversary |\n| 3 | proceeding.
But nothing about the settlement precludes them |\n| 4 | from that. |\n| 5 | Similarly, Your Honor, the assignee is the party |\n| 6 | who makes the decisions.
That's what happens when he was |\n| 7 | appointed.
None of these entities objected to the |\n| 8 | assignment, to my knowledge.
Nor did any of them intend -- |\n| 9 | to my knowledge intend -- file any objections to date of the |\n| 10 | idea of -- when the assignee was considering selling these |\n| 11 | entities to another party, a G News party. |\n| 12 | The assignee made the decision that this was -- |\n| 13 | this settlement is in its best interest.
It's not the place |\n| 14 | for purported creditors or the assignee to take issue with |\n| 15 | it. |\n| 16 | This Court clearly has jurisdiction as set forth |\n| 17 | in the TRO order.
And accordingly, any -- the arguments |\n| 18 | about its jurisdiction are really just a collateral attack |\n| 19 | on that.
I don't think they're appropriate. |\n| 20 | Finally, Your Honor, the Himalaya entities raise |\n| 21 | issues with regard to the channeling injunction and the |\n| 22 | exculpation provision.
Counsel from Cole Schotz is going to |\n| 23 | focus on those issues.
But I will say that the trustee |\n| 24 | agreed to those provisions and supports them.
But I will |\n| 25 | let counsel from Cole Schotz address those as they focus |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 115 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
115 |\n| 1 | more directly on their issue and their papers. |\n| 2 | Finally, Your Honor, the only other issue I |\n| 3 | believe the Himalaya parties raise is with regard to |\n| 4 | authority.
Again, counsel for Cole Schotz will focus on |\n| 5 | this.
But I will note that under the deeds of assignment, |\n| 6 | which not only weren't objected to but were entered, it is |\n| 7 | my understanding that the assignee has full authority to |\n| 8 | settle any and all claims against it.
And I would certainly |\n| 9 | think that this would fall within that. |\n| 10 | If Your Honor has any questions with regard to the |\n| 11 | Himalaya parties' objection, I'll answer them.
Otherwise, |\n| 12 | I'll move on to the next one. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
I have no questions.
You may move on |\n| 14 | to the next objection. |\n| 15 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
The next one is |\n| 16 | the U.S. Trustee's limited objection with regard to the |\n| 17 | channeling and exculpation issues.
As I said, counsel for |\n| 18 | Cole Schotz is going to focus on that.
I will -- it's, I |\n| 19 | think, a very similar issue.
I'll leave that there. |\n| 20 | Otherwise, there's a question about the notice. |\n| 21 | The U.S. Trustee's office has indicated that they'd like |\n| 22 | three days' notice and a \\$25,000 cap.
The trustee has |\n| 23 | proposed a \\$50,000 cap just given the costs in the case in |\n| 24 | an effort to decrease administrative burden.
And it's our |\n| 25 | view that raising it to 50,000 would not harm the interests |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 116 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
116 |\n| 1 | of people interested in understanding what expenses were |\n| 2 | being made and, at the same time, would make it much more |\n| 3 | manageable for the trustee to handle to have a slightly |\n| 4 | higher cap.
So that is the only difference there to my |\n| 5 | knowledge. |\n| 6 | With regard to G News' limited objection and the |\n| 7 | objection from Attorney Sherman, both of them raise a very |\n| 8 | similar issue, which is they believe they have what I think |\n| 9 | they would term an administrative claims.
They have monies |\n| 10 | that they -- either in the case of Mr. Sherman who he |\n| 11 | believes is owed to him pursuant to a severance agreement. |\n| 12 | In the case of G News, they outlaid a limited amount of |\n| 13 | money when they thought their transaction was going to go |\n| 14 | forward for rent and other expenses. |\n| 15 | I don't believe the -- an objection to the 9019 |\n| 16 | motion is the appropriate procedural vehicle for raising |\n| 17 | these claims.
Certainly don't speak to the interests of the |\n| 18 | estate.
I don't believe moving forward with this settlement |\n| 19 | would in any way prejudice either parties' rights.
If they |\n| 20 | have -- if these claims are valid, they'll be dealt with in |\n| 21 | a number of ways.
And there'll be more than enough time to |\n| 22 | deal with them.
But there's no reason to hold up the |\n| 23 | settlement for it or to change the settlement to add other |\n| 24 | people's claims into it. |\n\nI believe, Your Honor, that leaves us with the G\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 117 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
117 |\n| 1 | Club -- what it refers to as its notice and not an |\n| 2 | objection.
I should pause and say does Your Honor have any |\n| 3 | questions before I turn to that last one? |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I do not. |\n| 5 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Your Honor |\n| 6 | is -- I think we've been talking about G Club for a while |\n| 7 | recently in this Court.
This is the same G Club entity that |\n| 8 | we have been having the discovery issues with.
And this, of |\n| 9 | course, involves documents again. |\n| 10 | G Club has in its notice made clear that they are |\n| 11 | not objecting but that they claim that there is a master |\n| 12 | services agreement, which is not attached, nor is any |\n| 13 | provision cited.
But they say that there is now a master |\n| 14 | services agreement -- which there may be, I don't know -- |\n| 15 | that provides -- pursuant to which all documents and emails, |\n| 16 | in fact, for G Club, they say, in fact, were being |\n| 17 | administered by HCHK. |\n| 18 | Now, Your Honor will recall that previously we |\n| 19 | were told that there was, at best, a tangential relationship |\n| 20 | between the debtor and G Club, and that's why they couldn't |\n| 21 | produce their documents.
That, you know, he was an unpaid |\n| 22 | spokesperson.
After that, we were told that because |\n| 23 | executives left, documents couldn't be produced, because the |\n| 24 | relevant people had left. |\n| 25 | Now, we've sort of taken a 180, and now G Club is |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 118 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 118 saying not only is there a relationship with the debtor but, in fact, it's so close that it -- an entity which we believe we will show to be its alter ego had a management service agreement with it and that the emails were, in fact, sitting in Manhattan, available at HCHK this whole time. Be that as it may, they now have a new argument for why the trustee should not be able to get documents.\n\n They ask for a modification of the order to say that the trustee should only be allowed to see HCHK documents that only relate to HCHK. Now, the impact of that, Your Honor, quite likely is to create a null set of documents because, by HCHK's own papers, the -- what they did was they provided services for all the different debtor entities. So to the extent you can only talk about documents only related to HCHK, they would have carved it out such that I would -- my guess is that almost all their documents would once again be pulled out from the grasp of the trustee, and we would once again not have them.\n\n The second thing that they claim is that these documents are confidential and, thus, must be returned to them. And here, Your Honor, I will note that the assignee, when he was appointed, G Club didn't come forward and say these are -- you have confidential documents; you can't be looking at them. They've certainly never argued that any of these are privileged.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 119 of\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
119 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | And then when the assignee was going to sell all |\n| 2 | the assets to G News, another entity which would have |\n| | |\n| 3 | included these same files, again, to my knowledge, no |\n| 4 | objection to it.
It seems that G Club only has an objection |\n| 5 | when the trustee is going to gain access to the documents. |\n| 6 | I don't think there's any basis for it, Your |\n| 7 | Honor.
I think the settlement should stand as it is.
I |\n| 8 | think, to the extent there are responsive documents from G |\n| 9 | Club, we will be able to see them.
I think the agreement |\n| 10 | that the trustee be able to see HCHK's documents who also |\n| 11 | had a pending 2004 against it at the time is completely |\n| 12 | appropriate. |\n| 13 | I think, for all those reasons and what I've said |\n| 14 | before, Your Honor, G Club's objection shouldn't stand. |\n| 15 | The final thing I'll just mention, Your Honor, |\n| 16 | there are -- I did mention that fees will be paid.
To be |\n| 17 | clear, the trustee has done an initial review of the |\n| 18 | documentation.
The fees that are listed in the order appear |\n| 19 | to be reasonable in the trustee's view.
But I do note that |\n| 20 | the trustee does have an opportunity to do a further review |\n| 21 | to the extent there is any question to make sure that the -- |\n| 22 | any such fees are reasonable. |\n| 23 | Your Honor, if you have any questions, I'm happy |\n| 24 | to answer them.
Otherwise, I'll -- I have nothing further |\n| 25 | at
this time. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 120 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I have no questions. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. Who wishes to be heard in response to the trustee's motion to compromise? MR. LUFT: Your Honor, I believe this is the attorney from Cole Schotz. THE COURT: Okay. Yes. Come forward, sir. So if you'd just state your name again for the record, please. MR. JARECK: For the record, Your Honor, Ryan Jareck, Cole Schotz PC, on behalf of the assignee, Mr. Hofmeister. And, Your Honor, just by way of introduction, Mr. Hofmeister is in the room. THE COURT: Okay. MR. JARECK: I just wanted to briefly introduce you to him. THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Hofmeister. MR. HOFMEISTER: Afternoon, Judge. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 120 of\n\n MR. JARECK: Your Honor, I don't know if you have a preference if I address the U.S. Trustee's objection first or the Himalaya objection as it relates to the authority issue. THE COURT: You can -- you should proceed in any\n\n way you think is appropriate. Okay? MR. JARECK: Thank you, Your Honor. I'll start\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 121 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
121 |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | with the U.S. Trustee's objection.
So, Your Honor, the U.S. |\n| 2 | Trustee objects to the 9019 motion on two bases.
First, the |\n| 3 | U.S. Trustee objects to the proposed channeling injunction |\n| 4 | which is paragraph 13 of the proposed order.
And it |\n| 5 | secondly objects to the proposed exculpation provision, |\n| 6 | which is paragraph 14 of the order. |\n\n Your Honor, we put in a response on Friday to sort of put the -- put some context as to why these are critical components of the settlement for the assignee, and I would just like to hit on a couple of points. The assignee is currently enjoined under the TRO from prosecuting the assignment proceedings. If the settlement is approved, the assignment essentially will be wound down in an orderly fashion.\n\n If the trustee obtains a dispositive ruling, the HCHK estates will essentially be folded into the Kwok estates before this Court. Accordingly, as part of the settlement discussions, it was important that any and all claims arising from the assignment proceedings be decided by this Court, be channeled to this Court as opposed to having piecemeal litigation in multiple forums. And that's the reason why the assignee requested a channeling injunction.\n\n The channeling injunction is solely intended to be a forum mechanism, and it will not -- is not intended to affect any parties' rights. If Your Honor actually has\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 122 paragraph 13 of the order or can pull it up, please. THE COURT: Of the temporary restraining order? MR. JARECK: No. Of the proposed 9019 order. THE COURT: Oh, okay. Hold on a minute. MR. JARECK: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: No, I don't have that. MR. JARECK: It's Case 23-05013, Docket Entry 25. THE COURT: Just give me a moment, and I will do that. MR. JARECK: Absolutely, Your Honor. (Pause) THE COURT: Oh, good. We've just pulled it up. What page do you want me to go to? MR. JARECK: Page 24 of 28, paragraph 13. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. JARECK: So, Your Honor, you see paragraph 13, the channeling injunction? THE COURT: Yes. MR. JARECK: It says in sum and substance, in the event of a dispositive ruling -- so in other words, assuming you're -- the -- Your Honor agrees with the trustee and finds that there is an alter ego, all creditors and equity holders shall be barred and enjoined from asserting claims and causes of action. And as you continue to scroll down, it then says, \"except as raised through the appropriate Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 122 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 123 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 123 pleadings filed in this court.\" This is not, as the United States Trustee asserts, whether it's a non-consensual, non-debtor, third-party release, this is solely a forum mechanism. This is simply a mechanism to ensure that any and all claims following a dispositive ruling be filed in this court under the Court's supervision. And, in fact, we actually thought the U.S. Trustee's Office would prefer this. When speaking with Attorney Claiborn over the weekend and as most recently as yesterday, we circulated language to make it even more clear that this was a forum mechanism. And, in fact, we proposed -- after the words \"except as raised through the appropriate pleading filed in this court,\" we proposed \"(it being expressly understood that the foregoing provision is solely intended to be a forum mechanism and not affect any parties' rights)\". That proposed revision as part of more global settlement discussions, unfortunately, was rejected. Similarly, Your Honor, the exculpation provision is very important. All right? You may have the opportunity to -- excuse me. The exculpation provision is also not a release of third-party claims. The provision, which is found in paragraph 14\n\n right below the channeling injunction provision, is contingent upon the Court issuing a dispositive ruling in\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 124 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|---|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
124 |\n| 1 | favor of the trustee.
Once that ruling is made, the claims, |\n| 2 | if any, against the assignee for purposes of the assignment |\n| 3 | proceedings and the settlement agreement become estate |\n| 4 | causes of action.
So any claims for mismanagement, breach |\n| 5 | of fiduciary duty, to the extent they exist, they're no |\n| 6 | longer direct claims of any creditor.
They are not estate |\n| 7 | causes of action. |\n\n In other words, the exculpation provision is more in the nature of a debtor release, not a third-party release. The Second Circuit is very clear that a debtor is authorized to release estate causes of action under Rule 9019. And I'm happy to provide the Court with citations to the extent that the Court is interested. I think it's pretty well known that debtors and trustees can compromise claims under 9019. That's what the rule's actually for.\n\n Therefore, although it is styled as an exculpation, it's more in the nature of a limited debtor release for certain acts in favor of the assignee. This is not a Purdue Pharma third-party release issue whatsoever. And to the extent the language is not clear, we're open to any modification to make sure that the intent of the assignee is explicit in the order.\n\n Your Honor, just to put it more in perspective, if the U.S. Trustee is successful and the other creditors are successful in knocking out the exculpation provision and the\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 125 of\n\n| | 180
Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
125 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| 1 | channeling injunction, after a dispositive ruling, again |\n| | |\n| 2 | assuming these provisions are not approved, the assignee may |\n| 3 | be subject to claims in multiple forums without any |\n| 4 | resources to defend against them.
That is simply |\n| 5 | inequitable based on the services that the assignee |\n| 6 | performed and his professionals for these estates and the |\n| 7 | value derived therefrom. |\n| 8 | Your Honor, I'll stop there and ask if you have |\n| 9 | any questions on our position as it relates to the |\n| 10 | channeling injunction and the exculpation. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I do not have any questions.
Thank |\n| 12 | you. |\n| 13 | MR. JARECK:
So, Your Honor, I'm then going to |\n| 14 | shift to the Himalaya creditors' objection and focus on the |\n| 15 | authority issue that has been raised by them, which I think |\n| 16 | is more appropriate that it be addressed by the assignee and |\n| 17 | his counsel. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 19 | MR. JARECK:
Thank you, Your Honor.
First, the |\n| 20 | objectors cite to numerous provisions of the deeds, New York |\n| 21 | debtor/creditor law.
Those provisions are simply not |\n| 22 | applicable to what we're proposing to do by way of this |\n| 23 | settlement.
And I'll just give you a few examples. |\n| 24 | First, the objectors challenge the assignee's |\n| 25 | authority to enter the settlement agreement, and they cite |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 126 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
126 |\n| 1 | to -- and, I'm sorry, in paragraphs 57 and 60.
They cite to |\n| 2 | the deeds.
They cite to New York debtor/creditor law which |\n| 3 | require the state court approval of any sale or disposition |\n| 4 | of personal property. |\n| 5 | The settlement agreement is not a sale of the |\n| 6 | assignor's assets.
The settlement agreement simply |\n| 7 | contemplates the transfer of the HCHK funds from one |\n| 8 | fiduciary to another fiduciary under the express supervision |\n| 9 | of this Court.
The funds will sit in a trustee custodial |\n| 10 | account pending this Court's decision on the trustee's alter |\n| 11 | ego claims. |\n| 12 | Similarly, the objectors in paragraph 58 cite to a |\n| 13 | provision of New York debtor/creditor law concerning the |\n| 14 | authorization of the assignee to sell, compromise, or |\n| 15 | compound any claim or debt belonging to the estate.
Again, |\n| 16 | Your Honor, the assignee is not selling or compromising any |\n| 17 | claims belonging to the assignors.
And, in fact, to the |\n| 18 | contrary. |\n| 19 | There's no release provision.
As part of the |\n| 20 | agreement, the assignee made it required that all interested |\n| 21 | parties of the estates received notice of the proposed |\n| 22 | settlement, and all parties' rights are expressly reserved |\n| 23 | and preserved pursuant to the no-prejudice paragraph in |\n| 24 | paragraph 8. |\n| 25 | In addition, in paragraph 61, the objectors |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 127 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
127 |\n| 1 | criticize the assignee for not providing notice and |\n| 2 | opportunity to be heard.
The assignee certainly provided |\n| 3 | creditors with the opportunity to be heard in this Court. |\n| 4 | Following entry of the expedited hearing order, notice to |\n| 5 | these creditors were provided and a certificate of service |\n| 6 | was filed to that effect. |\n| 7 | Lastly, Your Honor, I want to note, consistent |\n| 8 | with counsel previous brought up, that the authority issue |\n| 9 | is actually addressed in the deeds and at Section 4F which |\n| 10 | says that the assignee has the right to settle any and all |\n| 11 | disputes.
That's precisely what we're doing here, Your |\n| 12 | Honor. |\n| 13 | There's been several discussions with the trustee |\n| | |\n\n and his counsel following entry of the TRO. As a result of those discussions, the assignee determined in his business judgment to enter into this settlement as opposed to litigating the request for an injunction and the issues raised in the adversary complaint, provided that the transfer of the funds to the control of the trustee would be subject to this Court's ultimate adjudication of the issues raised in the adversary complaint.\n\n Your Honor, the assignee believes that the settlement agreement should be approved and is beneficial to creditors as the issues raised by the trustee in his complaint has to be resolved or adjudicated in one form or\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 128 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
128 |\n| 1 | another.
The settlement avoids costly litigation but at the |\n| 2 | same time preserves parties' rights to contest the trustee's |\n| 3 | claims should they wish to do so. |\n| 4 | For these reasons, the assignee respectfully |\n| 5 | submits that the 9019 motion should be approved.
And I'll |\n| 6 | stop there and ask if the Court has any questions about my |\n| 7 | presentation this afternoon. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
I do not have any questions.
Thank |\n| 9 | you. |\n| 10 | MR. JARECK:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 11 | MR. PASTORE:
May I approach, Your Honor? |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Yes, you may. |\n| 13 | MR. PASTORE:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Could you just state your name -- |\n| 15 | MR. PASTORE:
Yeah. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
-- for the record, please? |\n| 17 | MR. PASTORE:
Of course.
My name is Joseph |\n| 18 | Pastore from Pastore LLC.
With me today is my colleague, |\n| 19 | Melissa McClammy.
We also have some summer associates in |\n| 20 | the room in the back. |\n| 21 | We represent several of the creditors of the HCHK |\n| 22 | entities.
And if Your Honor would like, I could read it. |\n| 23 | They're difficult to pronounce in numbers.
Or if the record |\n| 24 | is fine with our brief -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
The record is fine.
Thank you. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 129 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 129 MR. PASTORE: Great. Thank you. Your Honor, I represent creditors who, despite innuendo and statements, believe that they're bona fide creditors of these entities, loaned money, and are legitimate creditors. I have no personal relationship with them, no history with them, no history with the movement, no relationship to anything that's gone on here. I'm dropping into a play that I know has had many acts, and I only see a piece of it. And I respect that and understand it. But from our perspective, I'm here because there's creditors whose rights are being abridged by a settlement that we think is ultra vires or illegal. I think counsel for the assignee highlighted it. This is a motion to compromise. And the New York law makes clear, we just read it, that the assignee is not free to compromise -- paragraph 58, I believe, of our objection -- without court approval under New York law. And there's a reason for that. The assignee is not a creature unto himself. The assignee operates under the direction of the New York court. Very respectful of the TRO. I understand the need to freeze the money. I understand the need to be very careful. But someone has to supervise and legitimatize the assignee's compromise. He does not get to unilaterally act on his own belief. He has to seek approval in New York\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 130 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
130 |\n| 1 | court.
And because of that, this settlement agreement is |\n| 2 | unlawful, because no such approval was sought. |\n| 3 | And from our perspective, someone has to validate |\n| 4 | the assignee's belief that he could disenfranchise these |\n| 5 | creditors without any investigation, any information, simply |\n| 6 | disenfranchise creditors that he has a fiduciary obligation |\n| 7 | to serve and protect under the New York law. |\n| 8 | Now, let's be clear.
When I say disenfranchise, |\n| 9 | the creditors of the HCHK entities, assuming they're bona |\n| 10 | fide -- and I have to assume it.
And I've investigated it. |\n| 11 | Best I know, they're legitimate creditors.
Good faith |\n| 12 | claims.
Good faith monies loaned.
Are being completely |\n| 13 | disenfranchised by this arrangement. |\n| 14 | And the assignee has had to report to no one as to |\n| 15 | why he's doing that.
He's getting immunized for doing it. |\n| 16 | He's getting \\$550,000 for doing it.
His counsel is getting |\n| 17 | \\$400,000 for doing it.
And under what theory can anyone |\n| 18 | suggest he's acted in the best interest of the creditors |\n| 19 | he's sworn to protect? |\n| 20 | As a result, the agreement as structured by the |\n| 21 | trustee and the assignees is illegal, ultra vires.
This |\n| 22 | Court has authority to stay the New York action.
But I |\n| 23 | don't think this Court has the authority to tell the New |\n| 24 | York court you must approve this assignment in this action |\n| 25 | by the assignee. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 131 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
131 |\n| 1 | I think that's for the New York court to |\n| 2 | determine.
And if the New York court so determines it, the |\n| 3 | settlement could proceed.
But absent that, someone has to. |\n| 4 | It can't -- the assignee is not free to do this under New |\n| 5 | York law simply on its own volition. |\n| 6 | With respect to the, you know, someday maybe we'll |\n| 7 | have a finding of alter ego, maybe we will, maybe we won't. |\n| 8 | But I don't think that's strong enough for this Court simply |\n| 9 | to ignore the plain strictures of the New York law.
There |\n| 10 | may be a finding someday of alter ego, and if that's the |\n| 11 | case, ultimately, these monies will be transferred.
But |\n| 12 | until then, it doesn't justify just ignoring the law. |\n| 13 | So our view, Your Honor, is that this settlement |\n| 14 | should not be approved as it's structured.
It's ultra |\n| 15 | vires.
It's illegal.
And that the stricture should be |\n| 16 | followed. |\n| 17 | We intend, if the case proceeds, to intervene in |\n| 18 | the case and protect our creditors' rights.
They're |\n| 19 | good-faith creditors of this entity and this money.
And we |\n| 20 | intend to try to hold the assignee to his sworn duty to |\n| 21 | protect the rights of the creditors, my clients. |\n| 22 | If you have any questions, Your Honor, I'm happy |\n| 23 | to answer them.
That's the position of the creditors that |\n| 24 | we represent. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
I do not have any questions at the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 132 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 132 moment. MR. PASTORE: Okay. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. PASTORE: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard on the motion to compromise? MR. SHERMAN: Your Honor, may I be heard? My name is Joshua Sherman. I filed a limited objection. THE COURT: Yes. MR. SHERMAN: I just wish to state that -- THE COURT: Why don't you come up to this podium, please -- MR. SHERMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- so it'll be easier. Thank you. MR. SHERMAN: Your Honor, I just wish to state that I agree with the arguments made by the Himalaya creditors. But in addition, I just wanted to state that my own claim, I believe, is administrative in nature. I described it in my letter to the Court. The trustee and the assignee have not argued otherwise. Therefore, if the Court is inclined to approve the settlement, my claim should be included among the authorized assignee actions in a proposed order. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. ARCARO: Your Honor, good afternoon. Gregory\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 133 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 133 Arcaro appearing on behalf of G News Operations, LLC. Similar to counsel's objection, my client entered into a management agreement with the assignee and prepaid rent and other expenses pursuant to that management agreement. The proposed order and settlement agreement provides for the termination of that management agreement but does not provide for the fallout of that, which is the recoupment of the funds outlaid by my client.\n\n I heard trustee's counsel say that the objection to a motion to compromise is not the proper place to assert claims, but the trustee put that issue squarely before the Court when it proposed a payment of certain administrative -- what I would consider to be administrative claims as part of the settlement but does not propose a mechanism to pay my client, simply requesting that a mechanism be included so that my client can submit a claim and, if proved up, be paid along with other administrative claims and asserts that it stands on equal footing to all the other proposed payments in the settlement agreement, specifically in phase three, but could also come in phase two when the trustee is authorized to advance the assignee to pay certain expenses, could come either way in either section of the settlement agreement but should be a specific reference to how that claim is to be addressed. Thank you, Your Honor.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 134 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
134 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 2 | MS. BARANOWSKY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor. |\n| 3 | Kelliane Baranowsky with Green & Sklarz on behalf of G Club |\n| 4 | Operations, LLC.
And I'm joined with Carolina Fornos from |\n| 5 | Pillsbury Winthrop on behalf of the same entity. |\n| 6 | MS. FORNOS:
May I approach, Your Honor? |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
Yes, please. |\n| 8 | MS. FORNOS:
Thank you. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Good afternoon. |\n| 10 | MS. FORNOS:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Carolina |\n| 11 | Fornos of Pillsbury Winthrop on behalf of G Club Operations. |\n| 12 | Your Honor, we had filed a notice, and the frame -- the way |\n| 13 | that the trustee has framed that notice is all about |\n| 14 | avoiding producing documents.
To be clear, G Club |\n| 15 | Operations has produced documents, not just the 300 that we |\n| 16 | mentioned when we were last before the Court but also over |\n| 17 | 100,000 documents that we produced this morning.
And there |\n| 18 | are more that we will produce because we will comply with |\n| 19 | the Court's order prior to July 14th. |\n| 20 | The issues that we are presenting to the Court is |\n| 21 | that the trustee cannot simply walk in, assume alter ego, |\n| 22 | assume substantive consolidation, and take hold of all |\n| 23 | documents in the possession of HCHK.
To be very clear, HCHK |\n| 24 | Technologies -- and there are multiple entities.
The only |\n| 25 | issue for us is HCHK Technologies.
That had an |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 135 administrative and managerial position with respect to our IT. HCHK does not have the authority to transfer those rights and documents to the assignee. And the assignee does not have rights to just turn that over to the trustee. And the trustee can't just do an end-run around discovery and just say, oh, I'm just going to take all these documents, ignoring privilege, ignoring contractual rights. And that is the reason that we have filed the notice. We respectfully ask that the Court take notice that we will produce documents, but G Club has to have access to their documents, review them, account for privilege, and we will produce what is responsive. The trustee doesn't get to just take everything irrespective of privilege rights and responsiveness. Does the Court have any questions on this issue, Your Honor? Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 135 of\n\n THE COURT: I just -- the only thing I think you said that I believe I knew but I want to make sure I understand is your notice is only -- the notice that you filed on behalf of G Club Operations relates only to the HK -- HCHK Technologies entity, correct? MS. FORNOS: Yes, Your Honor. That is correct.\n\n And, Your Honor, we don't take a position -- we defer to other counsel to address the settlement. The issue is that Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 136 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
136 |\n| 1 | the proposed order as currently drafted bypasses a number of |\n| 2 | rights and due process rights that affect G Club Operations. |\n| 3 | Those rights start with the concept that the settlement |\n| 4 | agreement assumes alter ego, assumes substantive |\n| 5 | consolidation, and assumes that the trustee can just take |\n| 6 | hold of all of our documents and do an end-run around the |\n| 7 | discovery process. |\n| 8 | That's the concern, and that's why we are flagging |\n| 9 | that the proposed order should be modified.
To the extent |\n| 10 | that the Court agrees with the settlement, the proposed |\n| 11 | order should be modified to protect our rights. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Let me just ask you about the HCHK |\n| 13 | Technologies, though.
HCHK Technologies executed some |\n| 14 | document that assigned all of their rights and title and |\n| 15 | interest and claims and assets to the assignee, right? |\n| 16 | We're not disputing that?
That happened? |\n| 17 | MS. FORNOS:
Your Honor, yes. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 19 | MS. FORNOS:
But I want to clarify -- let me |\n| 20 | clarify this.
The trustee made it sound as if no one |\n| 21 | objected.
The TRO was entered before any dates would have |\n| 22 | come up in state court to file position statements.
So the |\n| 23 | TRO -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
No, no.
I understand that.
I'm |\n| 25 | talking about even before the TRO, though.
The reason the |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 137 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
137 |\n| 1 | case was commenced in New York was because somebody in |\n| 2 | control at HCHK Technologies signed a document assigning |\n| 3 | over all of its everything to the assignee.
That occurred, |\n| 4 | right? |\n| 5 | MS. FORNOS:
Yes, Your Honor.
But I don't believe |\n| 6 | that the process was finished.
But I will defer to -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
No, no.
I'm not suggesting that you |\n| 8 | believe that.
I'm just saying that's what happened, right? |\n| 9 | So the assignee comes into this case in New York and has |\n| 10 | assigned to him as the assignee all of these entities, |\n| 11 | assets and -- for the benefit of creditors, right?
So that |\n| 12 | the assignee's role would be to take everything in the -- |\n| 13 | from those entities and turn them into cash and pay |\n| 14 | creditors.
That's what was supposed to happen. |\n| 15 | MS. FORNOS:
Your Honor, that was, I think, the |\n| 16 | intent.
But to be clear, the assignee steps into the shoes |\n| 17 | of -- if all of that is proper under New York law -- |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
Yeah. |\n| 19 | MS. FORNOS:
-- and everything was supposed to be |\n| 20 | done and everybody was afforded the opportunity to be heard |\n| 21 | with that process, assuming all of that takes place, the |\n| 22 | assignee takes the -- would arguably take the shoes of HCHK |\n| 23 | Technologies and step into the shoes of those contracts. |\n| 24 | And under those contracts, the assignee would still be bound |\n| 25 | by those agreements.
And those agreements specifically |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 138 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
138 |\n| 1 | contain confidentiality provisions and specific provisions |\n| 2 | that prevented the assignee or HCHK from just transferring |\n| 3 | all documents -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 5 | MS. FORNOS:
-- irrespective of -- |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
Did you point out in your notice -- |\n| 7 | and I apologize if you did, and I just didn't see it -- |\n| 8 | where in the agreements between G Club Operations and HCHK |\n| 9 | Technologies there's this confidentiality provision? |\n| 10 | MS. FORNOS:
Your Honor, we did not attach the |\n| 11 | master services agreement.
We note for the record that |\n| 12 | counsel for the trustee was provided not only with the |\n| 13 | master services agreement originally in the original |\n| 14 | production of the 300 documents, the Court may recall that |\n| 15 | the Court specifically asked me about HCHK at the last |\n| 16 | hearing and -- |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
I asked about the confidentiality |\n| 18 | provisions, right, and whether the members had any -- I'm |\n| 19 | not talking about HCHK.
I'm talking about G Club right now. |\n| 20 | You were talking about -- I said is there any contractual |\n| 21 | basis upon which a member would have a belief that their |\n| 22 | information would remain confidential. |\n| 23 | MS. FORNOS:
Your Honor, I will answer that. |\n| 24 | There's two different -- |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
Sure.
Go ahead. |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 139 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 139 MS. FORNOS: -- issues. There's the membership agreements and the membership rights. And the Court properly raised that issue last time, and we did look into it and determined that we do have the ability to provide it subject to the protective order, which is what we discussed with the trustee and resolved that. THE COURT: Okay. MS. FORNOS: This confidentiality issue that we're talking about is a separate issue. This is our entire IT system. This is all of our email communications. This is Microsoft 365. THE COURT: Right. MS. FORNOS: This is -- THE COURT: But you have to have some agreement with HCHK regarding that. MS. FORNOS: And that contains a confidentiality agreement with respect -- THE COURT: Okay. That's what I'm asking. MS. FORNOS: -- to all of our -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. FORNOS: -- all of our information. And that does exist, and we have provided a copy of that agreement to the trustee -- THE COURT: Okay. MS. FORNOS: -- multiple times and have copied him\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 140 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
140 |\n| 1 | on communications with HCHK demanding this information back. |\n| 2 | And accordingly, Your Honor, the way the proposed |\n| 3 | order is structured right now does not take into account -- |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Well, when you say this information, |\n| 5 | what information are you talking about?
Isn't it all |\n| 6 | software if they were controlling your systems? |\n| 7 | MS. FORNOS:
It's IT.
It's emails and other |\n| 8 | applications, Your Honor. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Okay. |\n| 10 | MS. FORNOS:
And we simply ask that the Court take |\n| 11 | notice that the trustee cannot just do an end-run and just |\n| 12 | step in and say I'm going to just take everything. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
Well, whether or not that's what the |\n| 14 | trustee's saying, I don't know.
That's what you're saying |\n| 15 | the trustee's saying.
But my question was, what -- |\n| 16 | you're -- you are asserting on behalf of G Clubs (sic) |\n| 17 | Operations that there is an agreement between G Club |\n| 18 | Operations and HCHK Technologies in which there's a |\n| 19 | confidentiality provision with regard to the information |\n| 20 | that HCHK manages on behalf of G Club Operations?
That's |\n| 21 | what you're -- |\n| 22 | MS. FORNOS:
Correct, Your Honor. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 24 | MS. FORNOS:
That's correct. |\n| 25 | THE COURT:
And you've provided that information |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 141 to the trustee, is what you've said. MS. FORNOS: Yes. THE COURT: And you're saying that -- are you saying that it should never be turned over, or you need it back? What are you saying with regard to the information that is in the agreement between G Club and HCHK aside from the members that we talked about already? MS. FORNOS: Yes. That all information should be returned to G Club so that G Club can perform review, determine responsiveness, produce what's responsive, and withhold privileged information. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. That's what I wanted to be clear about. MS. FORNOS: Thank you, Your Honor. MS. CLAIBORN: Again, Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. I think I'm the last of the objecting parties to present to the Court today. The U.S. Trustee filed a limited objection to the settlement. It's at ECF 1978, and it takes issue with three things. I'm going to take the easiest of it first, and I'm going to go back into the more substantive discussion. The easy part has to do with the trustee's use of the funds that he gets if the Court approves the settlement and what people should know about that. And the U.S. Trustee took the position that we should have some greater transparency with Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 141 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 142 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
142 |\n| 1 | respect to that and some guard rails to know what's going to |\n| 2 | happen. |\n| 3 | The U.S. Trustee proposed that the monthly list of |\n| 4 | what gets paid be filed by the trustee.
I think the trustee |\n| 5 | is on board with that.
The U.S. Trustee also proposed that |\n| 6 | for an expense that exceeded \\$25,000 that there be given an |\n| 7 | opportunity for the U.S. Trustee and the committee to weigh |\n| 8 | in on whether or not that that was an appropriate expense. |\n| 9 | And the trustee has pushed back and asked for that be |\n| 10 | increased to \\$50,000. |\n| 11 | I don't think I heard any argument other than that |\n| 12 | it's more efficient to have a threshold of \\$50,000.
I think |\n| 13 | the problem really is, is that we don't really know what the |\n| 14 | trustee's going to be doing with the money.
And we ought to |\n| 15 | have some sort of mechanism to assure ourselves that an |\n| 16 | expense that's significant is properly before the parties to |\n| 17 | know what's happening before it happens. |\n| 18 | So the U.S. Trustee thought that the \\$25,000 |\n| 19 | marker was a better threshold for what would be a reasonable |\n| 20 | threshold for knowing what's going to happen in advance of |\n| 21 | it happening.
So the U.S. Trustee would like that to be the |\n| 22 | threshold at which the trustee has to take into |\n| 23 | consideration the opinion of the U.S. Trustee and the |\n| 24 | committee.
And to be clear, to the extent that the U.S. |\n| 25 | Trustee has a problem with the proposed expense, it's the |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 143 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
143 |\n| 1 | U.S. Trustee's burden to come back to the Court to take it |\n| 2 | up with the Court. |\n| 3 | Going back to the other two issues that the U.S. |\n| 4 | Trustee raised in the objection.
They are important issues. |\n| 5 | And they are issues of some significance right now in courts |\n| 6 | across the nation, including the Second Circuit. |\n| 7 | The proposed settlement agreement includes two |\n| 8 | provisions that work hand in hand with each other. |\n| 9 | Paragraph 13 of the proposed order provides for a channeling |\n| 10 | injunction, and paragraph 14 of the proposed order provides |\n| 11 | for an exculpation.
And they are as broad as can possibly |\n| 12 | be written.
And there is no dispute that they actually do |\n| 13 | intend to protect the assignee and his professionals from |\n| 14 | claims of others who are not the debtors, the debtor's |\n| 15 | estate, or claims by the trustee. |\n| 16 | The definition of who is protected is referred to |\n| 17 | as the assignee, but it does, for clarification -- and -- |\n| 18 | reference not only the assignee, Mr. Hofmeister, but several |\n| 19 | professionals.
So it's a group.
And it includes counsel |\n| 20 | who made the presentation today on behalf of the assignee, |\n| 21 | the firm of Cole Schotz. |\n| 22 | The exculpation that is included in the order and |\n| 23 | the settlement agreement is absolutely within the purview of |\n| 24 | this Court to decide if it's appropriate.
And it's the U.S. |\n| 25 | Trustee's position that it's not appropriate, because it's a |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 144 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
144 |\n| 1 | functional equivalent of an improper non-consensual release |\n| 2 | of a third-party claim. |\n| 3 | Stepping back from that for a minute.
If the |\n| 4 | trustee were to be proposing that the trustee wants to |\n| 5 | release the estate's claims against the assignee and his |\n| 6 | professionals, the trustee has the capacity to do that.
But |\n| 7 | that's not what the language proposed says. |\n| 8 | The language proposed goes far beyond that.
It |\n| 9 | talks about any liability to any person or entity and then |\n| 10 | goes on to talk about the various different conduct.
And |\n| 11 | included, for example, in that conduct that is not protected |\n| 12 | and reserved is criminal conduct.
So, for example, if a |\n| 13 | government agency wanted to take steps to pursue criminal |\n| 14 | charges, those would arguably be barred by the exculpation |\n| 15 | language that's in the proposed order. |\n| 16 | The U.S. Trustee doesn't believe that the proposed |\n| 17 | language for exculpation meets the standards that the Second |\n| 18 | Circuit has articulated recently in the Purdue Pharma case. |\n| 19 | None of the factors that are cited in that case, and there |\n| 20 | are seven of them, appear to have been met by the proposed |\n| 21 | motion and settlement terms.
And the Court has to evaluate |\n| 22 | whether or not it actually has the ability to approve that |\n| 23 | release, because it affects the claims of not just this |\n| 24 | estate but of third parties who are not here and are not |\n| 25 | subject to the subject matter of this Court and this |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 145 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
145 |\n| 1 | jurisdiction.
And you may have claims that have not been |\n| 2 | articulated or presented to this Court. |\n| 3 | Even to the extent that this Court determines for |\n| 4 | some reason that the Purdue Pharma factors have actually |\n| 5 | been met, the Purdue Pharma decision recently issued by the |\n| 6 | Second Circuit makes it very clear that this Court does not |\n| 7 | have the actual authority to finally approve the proposed |\n| 8 | channeling injunction and the exculpation, because any |\n| 9 | findings it would make would just be proposed findings that |\n| 10 | would have to be approved and blessed and adopted by the |\n| 11 | District Court.
And that's because this is a non-core |\n| 12 | proceeding, and it violates the opinion of the United States |\n| 13 | Supreme Court in Stern v. Marshall to the extent it's asking |\n| 14 | this Court to just bypass and adopt full jurisdiction, |\n| 15 | because it doesn't have it. |\n| 16 | THE COURT:
So wait a minute.
Let me stop you on |\n| 17 | that question, because I'm not sure I follow you.
The Court |\n| 18 | doesn't have core jurisdiction to decide a motion to -- for |\n| 19 | settlement under this -- in this case because why? |\n| 20 | MS. CLAIBORN:
I'll be more specific. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay. |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:
The Court does not have |\n| 23 | jurisdiction to approve the channeling injunction and the |\n| 24 | exculpation because together they comprise a non-consensual |\n| 25 | release of third-party claims that do not belong to this |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 146 estate. That -- THE COURT: So but -- MS. CLAIBORN: That determination about jurisdiction -- THE COURT: But you're taking about jurisdiction, so -- you're talking about jurisdiction, so we -- I just want to be -- MS. CLAIBORN: So my argument is -- THE COURT: I just want to make sure I understand your position clearly. MS. CLAIBORN: My argument is twofold. One, that we don't think that the factors articulated in the Purdue Pharma decision -- THE COURT: That I get. I -- MS. CLAIBORN: -- have been met. THE COURT: The Seventh Circuit -- the seven factors haven't been met. MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. THE COURT: But even if they have, I can't decide them anyway, because they're not core -- MS. CLAIBORN: You don't have final approval authority. THE COURT: -- they're not core proceedings, and they'd have to be referred to the district court? MS. CLAIBORN: Correct. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 146 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 147 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
147 |\n| 1 | THE COURT:
But couldn't -- even if you're |\n| 2 | correct, which I don't know if you are or not, because I |\n| 3 | haven't studied what you just said until -- I didn't |\n| 4 | appreciate what you're saying until now, can I enter |\n| 5 | proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule |\n| 6 | 7052? |\n| 7 | MS. CLAIBORN:
You can.
But the district court |\n| 8 | has to ultimately weigh in on that. |\n| 9 | THE COURT:
I understand.
Okay.
All right. |\n| 10 | MS. CLAIBORN:
And that's -- |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
I'm just asking. |\n| 12 | MS. CLAIBORN:
And that's with respect to just the |\n| 13 | issues of the exculpation provision -- |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Yep. |\n| 15 | MS. CLAIBORN:
-- and the channeling injunction. |\n| 16 | The other thing that I want to point out is that |\n| 17 | there is no statutory authority for this Court to approve a |\n| 18 | channeling injunction outside the confines of the plan. |\n| 19 | That issue is a big issue, and it stops this channeling |\n| 20 | injunction request in its tracks.
The only mechanisms -- |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Doesn't that -- aren't people asking |\n| 22 | for that all the time in -- I actually have -- the Chapter 7 |\n| 23 | trustee is asking for those, and no one's raising an issue |\n| 24 | about channeling injunctions and no statutory authority. |\n| 25 | And I -- and in Chapter 11 cases when there aren't plans |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 148 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 148 confirmed yet. And where does 542(g), I think, say that it has to be in connection with a plan? I'm not sure it does. There's been a lot of controversy over that, hasn't there? MS. CLAIBORN: There has been, Your Honor. And it's 524(g). THE COURT: What did I say, 42? MS. CLAIBORN: Yeah. THE COURT: I said it backwards? MS. CLAIBORN: That's okay. THE COURT: 24(g). Sorry. MS. CLAIBORN: So the point is that the authority to impose that restriction on others is found only in that section. And courts have determined that that section does authorize channeling injunctions outside the concept of the specific language that's in there that refers to asbestos cases. That said, there is no case law that we're aware of that authorizes the Court to impose this channeling injunction outside the confines of a plan. All of the case law determines the appropriateness of a channeling injunction in the confines of an actual plan. THE COURT: Okay. MS. CLAIBORN: So it's the U.S. Trustee's position that this Court does not have authority to do -- THE COURT: There's no statutory authority to --\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 149 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
149 |\n| 1 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Correct. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
-- to allow that.
Okay. |\n| 3 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Correct. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
I -- that help -- that's helpful to -- |\n| 5 | for you to just articulate that.
I wasn't exactly sure. |\n| 6 | But that -- now I understand what you're saying. |\n| 7 | MS. CLAIBORN:
So circling back to the proposal, |\n| 8 | if it were scaled back to the idea that the trustee wants to |\n| 9 | release the assignee and his professionals for claims that |\n| 10 | the estate may have against them, that's within the |\n| 11 | trustee's purview.
But the trustee does not have the |\n| 12 | authority to ask this Court to bless releases of claims held |\n| 13 | by third parties against the assignee and his professionals. |\n| 14 | And so we're asking the Court to deny that part of |\n| 15 | the settlement agreement with respect to the two provisions, |\n| 16 | because they have to be read in harmony with each other.
So |\n| 17 | that's 13 and 14 in the proposed order, and we would ask |\n| 18 | that those be stricken from the proposed order to the extent |\n| 19 | that the Court approves the actual settlement agreement |\n| 20 | that's before the Court. |\n| 21 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 22 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you. |\n| 23 | THE COURT:
Any response from the trustee? |\n| 24 | MR. DESPINS:
Yes, Your Honor.
The first response |\n| 25 | is would it be possible to take a ten-minute recess, so we |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 150 can discuss -- THE COURT: Yes. But actually, before we do, is there anybody else that has an objection that hasn't been heard? And who are you representing, Attorney Moriarty? MR. MORIARTY: The debtor, Your Honor. And -- THE COURT: Which debtor? MR. MORIARTY: Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Mr. Kwok? MR. MORIARTY: Mr. Kwok. THE COURT: He's -- MR. MORIARTY: I'm not objecting. THE COURT: He isn't -- MR. MORIARTY: I just want to state for the record that the debtor does not take any position on the settlement agreement or the motion. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MORIARTY: And that is it. Okay? THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Yes, let's take a ten-minute break -- recess. Court is in recess until 4 p.m. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise. Court is in recess until 4 p.m. (Recess from 3:51 p.m. to 4:05 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 150 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 151 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
151 |\n| 1 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
All rise.
United States |\n| 2 | Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut is back -- |\n| 3 | is now in session. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Please be seated. |\n| 5 | Okay.
We took a recess a little before -- around |\n| 6 | 3:50-ish, I guess, Trustee Despins.
So where do we stand |\n| 7 | now? |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
I'm happy to report that we have |\n| 9 | reached an agreement with the assignee which I think |\n| 10 | resolves a lot of the issues that were raised regarding |\n| 11 | exculpation and channeling.
And the agreement is as |\n| 12 | follows. |\n| 13 | The trustee will release any estate cause of |\n| 14 | action against the assignee and/or his professionals.
And |\n| 15 | we obviously -- you know, I don't have to tell you this. |\n| 16 | You know it better than I do.
The trustee can do that |\n| 17 | subject to Your Honor's approval.
We believe there are no |\n| 18 | such claims, but we would be releasing them as part of the |\n| 19 | settlement. |\n| 20 | And as far as channeling, there wouldn't be a |\n| 21 | broad channeling injunction that concerned the U.S. Trustee, |\n| 22 | but rather there would be basically the Court being placed |\n| 23 | into the gatekeeper function, meaning that anyone who wants |\n| 24 | to assert a claim against the assignee or his professionals |\n| 25 | with respect to his role as assignee and the assignment for |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 152 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 152 the benefit of the creditor must first file such claim before this Court so that the Court can determine whether that cause of action was released by the trustee pursuant to the release that we would be giving.\n\n And by the way, that release would only be given if Your Honor approves, you know, the third stage of the settlement, which is if Your Honor approves the alter ego or equitable ownership claims that the trustee has brought forward. If that's not approved, all of -- all bets are off. There's no release. There's no gatekeeper function by the Court. This would all be done in the third phase of this process.\n\n But, again, the trustee would release only estate claims against the assignee and his professionals. There would be a provision and -- you know, the assignee is okay with this subject to reviewing the language, his counsel reviewing the language. But the concept would be that any claims against the assignee or his professionals must first be brought before this Court so that the Court may determine whether those claims are subject to the release.\n\n Because this -- as you know, the issue whether people have direct claims or not in this context is very murky. And we don't want people to be suing all over the place until Your Honor determines, yes, that's a direct claim not subject to the trustee release; go ahead and you\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 153 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
153 |\n| 1 | can sue whoever you want.
We hope that will not happen. |\n| 2 | But the point is that that right is protected. |\n| 3 | But the Court would play a gatekeeper function. |\n| 4 | We believe there's plenty of support for giving the Court |\n| 5 | jurisdiction to do solely that.
Because they're not being |\n| 6 | precluded from bringing the other claims; they're just -- |\n| 7 | there's just one step, which is they need to start with this |\n| 8 | Court so the Court can protect its jurisdiction, i.e. did -- |\n| 9 | are these claims derivative claims or are they claims that |\n| 10 | are direct and not derivative.
And that determination must |\n| 11 | be made by this Court, the Court that approved -- or if Your |\n| 12 | Honor approves it, that would approve the settlement. |\n| 13 | So that's the -- I think that resolves that issue. |\n| 14 | My colleagues will address other issues raised by other |\n| 15 | claim creditors or alleged creditors.
But that issue, to |\n| 16 | me, I think that resolves a -- an issue in a way that's |\n| 17 | favorable to the estate but also that should make the Court |\n| 18 | comfortable that you have the jurisdiction and power and |\n| 19 | that it's appropriate to issue such -- that type of order. |\n| 20 | The only point -- before I cede the podium to my |\n| 21 | colleague, I would just say, Your Honor, every time people |\n| 22 | who -- whose name starts with a G -- and I don't mean a |\n| 23 | first name, but a company starts with a G appears in court |\n\n here, putting themselves at -- or asking for -- the Court for protection, I would be very concerned that we need to\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 154 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
154 |\n| 1 | see how the dust settles on these things.
We need to see |\n| 2 | what's what, what happened.
And, you know, I would be very |\n| 3 | concerned about any attempt to derail this or for people |\n| 4 | saying, well, I want a special deal as well. |\n| 5 | First of all, it's important to understand that |\n| 6 | the relief that the assignee and his professionals are |\n| 7 | getting, they're getting that only if Your Honor determines |\n| 8 | that this -- these entities are alter egos of the debtor. |\n| 9 | If not, they're not getting that.
And at that stage, people |\n| 10 | will be free to say, oh, I'm an admin creditor of the |\n| 11 | estate; let me explain to you why.
And we'll determine that |\n| 12 | at that time. |\n| 13 | But this is not today the proper (indiscernible) |\n| 14 | or process to have the claims of people who would like to be |\n| 15 | recognized as admin -- eventual admin claimants.
That's not |\n| 16 | the proper context. |\n| 17 | But I'll -- on that note, Your Honor, I'll cede |\n| 18 | the podium to my colleagues. |\n| 19 | THE COURT:
Let me ask you one question about what |\n| 20 | you just explained as a resolution of the release issues and |\n| 21 | the exculpation issues.
You're saying that you'll agree to |\n| 22 | limit the release language to say that the trustee will |\n| 23 | agree only estate claims against the assignee are released |\n| 24 | and that if any -- |\n| 25 | MR. DESPINS:
And his professionals.
Yes. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 155 THE COURT: Go ahead. I'm sorry. What? MR. DESPINS: And his professionals. THE COURT: And his professionals. Okay. And that if any party has a claim -- what they believe is a claim against the assignee and his professionals, they have to bring that claim before this Court? MR. DESPINS: Or file a motion before the Court saying I want to be authorized to bring that claim in -- wherever they want to bring it, in New York state court, and let me explain to the Court why that claim that I have -- this is the creditor speaking now -- is not covered by the release that the trustee gave to the -- to these folks. THE COURT: Then how do these creditors know that? How are they going to know that? MR. DESPINS: Well, in the notice that they would get -- again, this only happens in the third phase. If Your Honor rules that these entities are alter egos of the debtor, at that point there would be a notice given that says that any -- and we can work on the language -- but that any creditor that believes that they have such a claim need to file first a motion with this Court to be authorized to bring any such claim. That's a minimum -- you know, frankly, in terms of due process, it -- it's a very light impediment to them Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 155 of\n\nexercising their rights and -- because, at the end of the\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 156 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
156 |\n| 1 | day, it's very likely that all these claims are derivative |\n| 2 | claims and, therefore, that we own those claims.
And that's |\n| 3 | why it's important to have that gatekeeper function, Your |\n| 4 | Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
How does the proposed -- let's -- if |\n| 6 | you are successful and the motion to compromise is granted, |\n| 7 | how does the proposed order at this point address that |\n| 8 | issue -- |\n| 9 | MR. DESPINS:
We would -- |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
-- that you -- |\n| 11 | MR. DESPINS:
We need to submit new language to |\n| 12 | Your Honor.
But, basically, I would say ignore the sections |\n| 13 | that -- on exculpation on channeling that you have before |\n| 14 | you now.
We will submit one provision that says the |\n| 15 | trustee -- if the Court grants the relief, we call that |\n| 16 | the -- in the dispositive motion, meaning the summary |\n| 17 | judgment or whatever motion we bring -- the trustee will |\n| 18 | release, add that point, all claims against the assignee and |\n| 19 | his professionals. |\n| 20 | And the Court will, at that point, enter an |\n| 21 | order -- or, you know, of course, subject to Your Honor's |\n| 22 | consent, would enter an order saying that any creditor |\n| 23 | wishing to assert a claim against the assignee or his |\n| 24 | professionals must first file a motion before this Court to |\n| 25 | be authorized to do so, so that the Court can determine |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 157 whether the claims to be asserted are claims that are derivative, meaning that are still owned by the estate, or a direct claim of these creditors, something along those lines. Again, I hesitate to give too much language, because counsel for the assignee has not reviewed this language. But those are the concepts, Your Honor. So, obviously, we need to submit a new order to Your Honor. You know, there's no doubt about that. THE COURT: All right. But for right now, your proposal addresses the United States Trustee's objections? MR. DESPINS: Well, no. THE COURT: Oh, she's shaking her head. MR. DESPINS: No, I don't -- I said that we resolved this with the assignee. THE COURT: It doesn't resolve it with the U.S. Trustee. Okay. MS. CLAIBORN: It does resolve the U.S. Trustee's concerns with response to the release. The estate is authorized to propose a release of whoever it wants to release. And it's up to the Court as to whether or not that's appropriate. We're not arguing that point. What we were arguing about was whether or not you could release other claims that belong to third parties who are not the estate Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 157 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 158 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
158 |\n| 1 | and not the debtor.
So that issue, I think, can be dealt |\n| 2 | with by language and can be resolved. |\n| 3 | The issue as to the proposed mechanism for the |\n| 4 | Court to be a gatekeeper, I don't have any authority to |\n| 5 | consent to that at this point.
I need to see the language |\n| 6 | and discuss it with the U.S. Trustee and circle back to the |\n| 7 | Court and to the parties. |\n| 8 | MR. DESPINS:
But, again, I think that we're far |\n| 9 | away from the channeling injunction where it was mandatory |\n| 10 | that any claims be brought here for -- on the merits. |\n| 11 | Basically, it's solely a gatekeeper function.
And I believe |\n| 12 | that there are precedents for courts doing that, so. |\n| 13 | But, anyway, if I could have my colleague address |\n| 14 | other -- I mean, unless you have other questions, Your |\n| 15 | Honor.
There are other objectors, and that raises -- raised |\n| 16 | issues.
And I'd like my colleague to address these points |\n| 17 | if possible. |\n| 18 | THE COURT:
I'm just looking to see if I have any |\n| 19 | other questions.
I don't have any other questions at the |\n| 20 | moment, but that doesn't mean I might not, depending upon |\n| 21 | what else is -- |\n| 22 | MR. DESPINS:
So I'll -- if -- I'll ask Mr. Luft |\n| 23 | to come to the podium to address -- |\n| 24 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you. |\n| 25 | MR. LUFT:
Your Honor, may I approach? |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 159 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 159 THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. DESPINS: Actually, Your Honor, there's one point I -- this is purely procedural before Mr. Luft comes up. Mr. Goldman asked me whether the committee could have a review right regarding the fees of the assignee's professionals, and that was agreed to. THE COURT: With the assignee as well? MR. DESPINS: Just the assignee's professionals. Because the assignee, there's nothing to review. It's a -- meaning the -- THE COURT: No, but you -- MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: But the -- MR. DESPINS: They agreed to that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. DESPINS: I apologize. I didn't understand your question. The second point is that Mr. Luft accurately described the provision saying that the funds would be invested in treasuries. That's the current version. But we need to modify that -- and, again, the assignee has agreed to this -- to provide that we can also keep it in the trustee Section 345 accounts. Because, to make a long story short, after we told the bank that we were going to take the money and invest it in treasuries, they said, well, you know, guess what, we'll\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 160 offer you 4.95 percent, which is just like a quarter point or half a point less than treasuries. And that's in a 345 account. So we decided to -- THE COURT: You mean U.S. Bank offered you that? Is that what you're saying? MR. DESPINS: No. A bank -- THE COURT: Oh. MR. DESPINS: -- but not U.S. Bank. Not this U.S. Bank. But the bank that holds the other trustee accounts in the case. THE COURT: Okay. Got it. MR. DESPINS: And they've agreed to give us -- THE COURT: The estate trustee accounts. MR. DESPINS: -- 4.95 percent, which is pretty -- it's not marketing for them, but that's a pretty high interest rate. And it's a Section 345 account. So the U.S. Trustee is happy. So the point is that we need to modify that section to allow for the money to be deposited in such accounts. But that -- those are the only two procedural points I wanted to make. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LUFT: Thank you, Your Honor. Avi Luft again from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. I will try to be brief, because I realize it is getting late. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 160 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 161 of\n\n| 180 | | | | | | | | |\n|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
161 | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | I will go in order in which it was discussed. | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | Your Honor, with regard to the comments made by the -- what | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | I've referred to as the Himalaya objectors, I want to focus | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | just on two things really.
The first is that nowhere in | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | there was there any discussion of the Iridium factors or | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | that, in fact, this is not in the best interest of the | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | debtor's estate.
And that's really what we're here for on a | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | 9019 settlement. | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | In fact, I didn't hear that from anybody.
And to | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | be honest, I think that really is where the analysis should | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | be focused. | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | Beyond that, Your Honor, I do want to just | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | comment.
There was a lot of language thrown around about | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | people being \"completely disenfranchised\" and suggestions | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | that they won't be able to have claims.
That's just not how | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | this settlement is structured, Your Honor. | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | To the extent the trustee prevails in the | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | adversary proceeding with regard to either alter ego and/or | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | equitable ownership, to the extent people are valid | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | creditors of the HCHK entities, then they will have an | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | opportunity to bring claims in this case subject to the | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | trustee making his application to reopen the deadline for | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | filing claims, which is already provided for in the order. | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | And to the extent the trustee is to lose, then the money is | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | returned to the assignee.
In which case, they're in -- no | | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 162 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 162 worse off. So all this language with regard to people being disenfranchised or losing claims just isn't true. And I think in the papers that they filed, the reality kind of is there. There's a reference to the fact that what they really think is unfair is that in the New York state court case they would have only been competing with other creditors of HCHK, but if the trustee is to prevail on his alter ego claims then they will be subject -- equal with the other creditors of the debtor. But that's actually quite fair, Your Honor. If we are right that HCHK entities are alter egos of the debtor, then creditors of one -- of one aspect of the debtor's estate is -- should be treated the exact same as creditors of other aspects of the estate. So with that, Your Honor, unless you have questions, I'll move on to the others. THE COURT: I have no questions. MR. LUFT: Thank you. With regard to Mr. Sherman's statement, he made a brief reference that we did not specifically disagree with him that his claim is an admin claim. Your Honor, what I said in my opening statement was that I thought it was premature to deal with what -- these claims. And just so we're clear, I would not take the fact\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 163 that I did not get into the details as to whether or not it is an admin claim as any type of agreement that it is. I think when the time and the place is right, it could be submitted. It could be considered. THE COURT: Well, when would the time and the place be right? I'm just asking. MR. LUFT: Yeah, Your Honor. That's completely fair. I think, should we prevail on the adversary proceeding and it is determined that we are -- that the HCHK assets are part of the debtor's estate, then I think any creditors of the debtor, whether through HCHK or otherwise, here I think Mr. Sherman or whoever else, can come forward and say I have a claim, and they can assert it. THE COURT: But what if it's an administrative claim? MR. LUFT: Your Honor, in terms of the timing, I still think that would probably be the right time just because prior -- THE COURT: Okay. I'm just asking, because there is -- MR. LUFT: No, it's completely fair. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. LUFT: Look, Mr. Sherman's free to raise it to us now. We can talk about it. I just don't think it has any bearing on the settlement. Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 163 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 164 of\n\n| 180 | | | | | | | | | |\n|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
164 | | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | As I -- the only thing I'll finish with is, to the | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | extent we were to lose, then the money would go back to the | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | assignee, and then he would have to make the judgments, | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | which is why I time it to awaiting that judgment. | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | With regard to G News, I'll simply say, look, | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | there is no obligation because you settle a claim with one | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | party to settle all claims that any party may have.
Again, | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | this is a settlement that was reached -- with the assignee | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | and the trustee.
That's whose claims are being addressed. | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | I don't think the fact that that is happening in | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | any way prejudices G News.
Again, we will deal with their | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | claim at the appropriate time. | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | Finally, with regard to G Club, I just want to | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | make a few comments.
First of all, I'll note they're not a | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | creditor, Your Honor.
It's not exactly clear on what | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | grounds they are objecting to this settlement. | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | I will note specifically there was no mention with | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | regard to the language I highlighted which is in their | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | proposal in paragraph 6 of their notice that we may only | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | look at documents pertaining \"only to the HCHK entities.\" | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | As I said, the inclusion of that language which they added | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | and which they did not address now very likely could create | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | a null set of what documents the trustee may see.
I don't | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | think it's appropriate.
Nor do they seem to have a response | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | with regard to it. | | | | | | | | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 165 of\n\n| | 180 | | | | | | | | |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
165 | | | | | | | | |\n| 1 | With regard to this idea that HCHK controls all | | | | | | | | |\n| 2 | their emails and all their IT, I'll note that despite what | | | | | | | | |\n| 3 | is now going on seven, perhaps eight, months this -- this | | | | | | | | |\n| 4 | notice was the first time we've heard that HCHK -- or in the | | | | | | | | |\n| 5 | last weeks the first time we've heard that HCHK's emails | | | | | | | | |\n| 6 | were, in fact, all controlled by a third party and that HCHK | | | | | | | | |\n| 7 | ran it all.
We've never heard that from G Club when they | | | | | | | | |\n| 8 | had -- were asked to produce their documents for months. | | | | | | | | |\n| 9 | They now raise privilege and confidentiality | | | | | | | | |\n| 10 | issues.
I don't see how they can do that.
They didn't | | | | | | | | |\n| 11 | object when the assignee was sent the documents.
They | | | | | | | | |\n| 12 | didn't seem to have a problem with HCHK having their | | | | | | | | |\n| 13 | documents.
And they didn't seem to have an objection to the | | | | | | | | |\n| 14 | idea of the assignee selling it all to G News and letting | | | | | | | | |\n| 15 | them have all their documents. | | | | | | | | |\n| 16 | You know, I think to the extent there ever was any | | | | | | | | |\n| 17 | privilege or confidentiality concerns, of which I have | | | | | | | | |\n| 18 | questions, those are -- in my view have been waived.
It | | | | | | | | |\n| 19 | seems that everyone else is allowed to see these documents. | | | | | | | | |\n| 20 | It'd be appropriate for the trustee. | | | | | | | | |\n| 21 | Finally, with regard to the notion your -- the | | | | | | | | |\n| 22 | Court asked questions with regard to the MSA and what | | | | | | | | |\n| 23 | provisions you asked.
It is quite possible that the MSA was | | | | | | | | |\n| 24 | produced to us along with the other documents.
Certainly, | | | | | | | | |\n| 25 | no provision in the MSA was highlighted to us.
No language | | | | | | | | |\n| | | | | | | | | | |\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2119 | Filed 08/24/23 | Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 | Page 166 of |\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------------------|-------------|\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
166 |\n| 1 | was shown to us.
Nor was any included in this agreement |\n| 2 | indicating what was being allegedly violated or otherwise. |\n| 3 | Again, I think the most appropriate thing is to |\n| 4 | let the trustee, just like the assignee, put them in the |\n| 5 | same position.
Let them have the documents of HCHK.
Let |\n| 6 | them use it for -- to the extent they need to review it.
If |\n| 7 | there are G Club documents included within that, then that |\n| 8 | was always the case.
It didn't seem to be a problem before. |\n| 9 | It shouldn't be a problem now. |\n| 10 | Your Honor, if you have any questions, I'm happy |\n| 11 | to answer them. |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
I have no questions.
Thank you. |\n| 13 | MR. LUFT:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 14 | THE COURT:
Anyone else wish to be heard? |\n| 15 | MR. GOLDMAN:
Thank you, Your Honor.
Irve Goldman |\n| 16 | for the committee.
I just wanted to express our support for |\n| 17 | the settlement the trustee has proposed.
We appreciate the |\n| 18 | alacrity and aggressiveness with which the trustee has been |\n| 19 | able to halt the state court proceedings and bring the |\n| 20 | assets that were subject to those proceedings when the -- |\n| 21 | within the protective umbrella of the Chapter 11 process. |\n| 22 | And these are assets that could have been -- could have |\n| 23 | evaded the reach of the estate.
Not that they've been |\n| 24 | determined to be property of the estate yet, but at least |\n| 25 | they've come before the Court for that determination. |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 167 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
167 |\n| 1 | Of course, this Court has the exclusive |\n| 2 | jurisdiction over property of the estate, and I would submit |\n| 3 | exclusive jurisdiction to determine what is property of the |\n| 4 | estate.
And that's what this settlement does.
As the |\n| 5 | assignee mentioned, this is just a forum-shifting settlement |\n| 6 | which actually channels whatever claims there were in the |\n| 7 | assignment proceedings into this Court, preserves all the |\n| 8 | claims that could be asserted.
No one is getting |\n| 9 | disenfranchised. |\n| 10 | You know, we -- as to the estate release, that's a |\n| 11 | business judgment standard.
And we are supportive of that |\n| 12 | if it means approving the entire settlement. |\n| 13 | On the gatekeeping function, I think it's a common |\n| 14 | feature for courts to apply when a direct claim is dressed |\n| 15 | up -- well, rather a derivative claim is dressed up as a |\n| 16 | direct claim.
And so this type of gatekeeping function is |\n| 17 | commonly utilized so that creditors aren't able to do that, |\n| 18 | and the Court will be the ultimate arbiter of what is a |\n| 19 | direct claim and what is a derivative claim so that those |\n| 20 | derivative claims dressed up as direct claims can't just go |\n| 21 | off in various courts filing suit until the Court at least |\n| 22 | determines that they're legitimately direct claims. |\n| 23 | So with that, the committee does support the |\n| 24 | settlement as modified in the way that has been articulated |\n| 25 | to the Court. |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 168 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: Thank you. MR. PASTORE: May I approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. PASTORE: I know it's late, so I'll be brief. I have deep respect for my good friend, Mr. Goldman, and -- but I wanted to highlight one word he just used, which is \"halt.\" THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I'm sorry. I need your name. I didn't get that name. MR. PASTORE: Oh, I'm sorry. Joseph Pastore for the -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. MR. PASTORE: -- HCHK creditors. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you. MR. PASTORE: Halt. I think that's an important word. So what we have here is we have no finding of alter ego, no finding that any of the creditors are worthy of impugnment, but we're going to halt a proceeding in New York without anyone finding that what -- the assignee was in the best interest of those creditors he was assigned to protect, which is the New York court's role, and then tell those creditors that they can't bring any lawsuits against the assignee for his actions unless it's approved by this Court. I think always a fan of the due process clause, Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 168 of\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 169 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
169 |\n| 1 | always a fan of, you know, findings of -- conclusions of law |\n| 2 | and findings of fact.
You have none of that here.
Yet, my |\n| 3 | clients' rights are all being disenfranchised, clearly. |\n| 4 | At a minimum -- we do appreciate the U.S. |\n| 5 | Attorney's objections to the injunction.
I think that's -- |\n| 6 | had to be said for sure.
And I think I said it.
At a |\n| 7 | minimum, we'd request the right to look at any proposed |\n| 8 | order changing that language and comment on it if necessary. |\n| 9 | Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 11 | MR. JARECK:
Your Honor, one final? |\n| 12 | THE COURT:
Yes.
Yes.
Go right ahead. |\n| 13 | MR. JARECK:
For the record, Ryan Jareck, Cole |\n| 14 | Schotz PC, on behalf of the assignee.
Your Honor, it's |\n| 15 | actually perfect timing, because my comment deals with what |\n| 16 | Mr. Pastore said earlier in his presentation that this |\n| 17 | settlement is ultra vires and violates New York law. |\n| 18 | And when saying that, he cites to his own brief, |\n| 19 | paragraph 58, which is, again, another section from the New |\n| 20 | York debtor and creditor law.
And what that says is \"The |\n| 21 | judge may, upon application of the assignee, authorize the |\n| 22 | assignee to sell, compromise, or compound any claim or debt |\n| 23 | belonging to the estate of the debtor.\" |\n| 24 | Again, Your Honor, this is a complete mis-cite. |\n| 25 | This is not what we're doing.
We're not selling.
We're not |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 170 compromising. We are simply shifting the funds to another fiduciary under the control of this Court. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. FORNOS: Your Honor, may I approach? THE COURT: Yes. MS. FORNOS: Just briefly, Your Honor. G Club Operations has not waived any of its rights. As the Court may recall, I specifically mentioned the issue of HCHK at the last hearing. I teed it up. I also contacted Mr. Jareck on June 19th regarding this issue and return of our confidential information. I also contacted Mr. Jareck and Mr. Lutz as well on July 5th and provided them a copy of the master services agreement. Our position is very simple. We can address the proposed order in the way that the Court feels appropriate. The issue is simply that the trustee cannot just do an end-run around discovery and step into the shoes of a company that hasn't even been determined to be an alter ego, hasn't been substantively consolidated with this estate, and all of a sudden step in and say these are all our documents now, we can -- get to have them. So we respectfully request that the Court consider our request that they -- that the trustee does not get a right to do that. Rather, they should be returned to G Club Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 170 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 171 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
171 |\n| 1 | Operations so that G Club Operations can review for |\n| 2 | responsiveness and privilege and produce accordingly.
Thank |\n| 3 | you, Your Honor. |\n| 4 | THE COURT:
Thank you. |\n| 5 | MS. FORNOS:
Any other questions from the Court? |\n| 6 | THE COURT:
No.
Thank you. |\n| 7 | MS. FORNOS:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 8 | THE COURT:
So the motion to compromise |\n| 9 | controversy was filed both in the main case at ECF Number |\n| 10 | 1936 and in the Adversary Proceeding 23-5013 at ECF Number |\n| 11 | 25.
And our local rules of bankruptcy procedure require |\n| 12 | that any motion to compromise in an adversary proceeding |\n| 13 | also be filed in the main case so that notice and service of |\n| 14 | the motion to compromise is provided to all parties. |\n| 15 | The motion -- the notice and service of the motion |\n| 16 | and the hearing on the motion was properly made as |\n| 17 | established by the record in the main case and in the |\n| 18 | adversary proceeding and the certificate of services -- the |\n| 19 | certificates, excuse me, of service that relate to the |\n| 20 | motion in the main case and the motion in the adversary. |\n| 21 | The parties -- certain parties filed objections to |\n| 22 | the motion to compromise, all of whom have appeared at this |\n| 23 | hearing today, including the Himalaya parties represented by |\n| 24 | Attorney Pastore, Attorney Sherman representing himself with |\n| 25 | regard to a claim of -- that he is entitled to an |\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 172 of\n\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 | 172 |\n|---|--------------------------------------------------------------|-----|\n| 1 | administrative claim from the HCHK parties.
Counsel for G | |\n| 2 | News filed an objection again asserting that there is -- G | |\n| 3 | News has a right to an administrative claim and requests a | |\n| 4 | mechanism be implemented for administrative claims. | |\n\n And then counsel for G Club Operations filed notice which counsel has articulated, and the concern is that the trustee is entering into this settlement agreement in order to obtain documents through discovery that it might not be able to obtain until G Club Operations has its documents returned from the HCHK Technologies entities. And then G Club can undertake its review of those documents and determine what, if any, of those documents can be produced subject to whatever privilege G Club could try to assert.\n\n But I remind G Club and the trustee that apparently with regard to the other discovery sought against G Club -- and I'm not saying that this settlement is discovery, but that's the view of G Club Operations -- that the protective order and confidentiality provisions and orders already in place in the main case apparently have addressed the issues that the Court raised with regard to the pending motion to -- for contempt and to compel the production of documents from G Club.\n\n Also, the United States Trustee filed a limited objection. I understand the limited objections of the United States Trustee. And Mr. Kwok through his counsel,\n\n| Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 173 of
180 |\n|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
173 |\n| Mr. Moriarty, has taken no position on the motion to |\n| compromise. |\n| Apparently -- it's more than apparent.
As stated |\n| on the record, the trustee has agreed to limit the releases |\n| set forth in the -- any order on the motion to compromise to |\n| estate -- an estate release.
And that release will only |\n| occur if the third stage of the settlement is reached.
And |\n| that will only happen after the Court makes a ruling on |\n| whether or not the alter ego claims and -- are decided in |\n| favor of the trustee. |\n| Because the discussions and representations and |\n| suggestions made on the record by the trustee and other |\n| counsel, including the Office of the United States Trustee |\n| and the creditors' committee and counsel for the assignee, |\n| are somewhat different than proposed before the hearing, I'm |\n| going to continue this hearing but solely for a week and |\n| only to see what the proposed order approving a settlement |\n| looks like with the changes noted on the record today.
All |\n| parties' objections have been noted for the record.
There's |\n| no need for any further objection by any of the parties who |\n| filed objections.
And the Court isn't going to consider any |\n| further objections. |\n| But I will order the trustee's counsel to revise |\n| that proposed order along the lines that were stated on the |\n| record today and serve it on all objecting parties.
And I'd |\n| |\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
174 |\n| 1 | like that done by 5 p.m. on July 13th so that when we come |\n| 2 | back here to a hearing next week I know what, if any, |\n| 3 | problems there may be with regard to the provisions of a |\n| 4 | proposed order approving the settlement. |\n| 5 | I am not ruling on whether -- right at this moment |\n| 6 | on whether this motion to compromise is granted or not |\n| 7 | granted.
I am suggesting that the parties need to have some |\n| 8 | discussions about the proposed order.
I'm going to take a |\n| 9 | look at proposed order and, with it, the revisions as noted. |\n| 10 | And then next week, I will either say that the |\n| 11 | matter is ripe for decision, I will decide, or I will insist |\n| 12 | that, I suppose, other things could be included in the |\n| 13 | order.
But I'm not ruling at this time.
I will go back and |\n| 14 | review everyone's pleadings, and I will review them in the |\n| 15 | light of the arguments that were made during the hearing |\n| 16 | today. |\n| 17 | But the hearing itself with regard to the |\n| 18 | substantive motion, the relief sought in the motion and the |\n| 19 | objections, there'll be no need for any further hearing.
I |\n| 20 | want to see what this order looks like, and I want to |\n| 21 | understand it. |\n| 22 | So, Trustee Despins, when your office serves the |\n| 23 | order on everyone at 3 p.m. -- I'm sorry, 5 p.m. on the |\n| 24 | 13th, I'd like you to put it on the docket of the main case |\n| 25 | and the adversary proceeding as well.
That'll give the |\n| | |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 174 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 175 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
175 |\n| 1 | Court time to review it and prior to the continued hearing, |\n| 2 | which we will schedule -- there are already other matters |\n| 3 | scheduled in the case and the adversary proceedings on July |\n| 4 | 18th starting at 12 p.m.
And I will schedule this -- I will |\n| 5 | continue the hearing solely with regard to the proposed |\n| 6 | order.
And I will schedule it for 2 p.m. |\n| 7 | And the reason I say 2 p.m. is because, right now, |\n| 8 | on next week's calendar, the original pretrial conference in |\n| 9 | the Genever Holdings vs. AIG Property Casualty adversary |\n| 10 | proceeding is scheduled.
And given that we're going to have |\n| 11 | two days of -- or possibly two days of evidentiary hearing |\n| 12 | with the -- in the AIG adversary proceeding starting |\n| 13 | tomorrow, there's no need for a pretrial conference next |\n| 14 | week.
I'll know what's going on.
And I'm not going to |\n| 15 | bring the parties into the court on a pretrial conference |\n| 16 | when that's not necessary. |\n| 17 | So this -- so the hearings on -- in the main case |\n| 18 | on ECF 1936, the motion to compromise, and the hearing in |\n| 19 | Adversary 23-5013 on ECF 25, motion to compromise, are |\n| 20 | continued to July 18th at 2 p.m.
And I'm not going to enter |\n| 21 | a formal scheduling order with regard to the filing and |\n| 22 | service of the revised proposed order, because I'm ordering |\n| 23 | it on the record. |\n| 24 | Does anybody have any question about that? |\n| 25 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Just one question, Your Honor.
If |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 176 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
176 |\n| 1 | a party has a problem with the proposed order, is there a |\n| 2 | deadline by which the Court would like comments? |\n| 3 | THE COURT:
We're going to talk about it at the |\n| 4 | hearing next -- well -- |\n| 5 | MS. CLAIBORN:
No, I know.
For a written response |\n| 6 | if one is -- |\n| 7 | THE COURT:
I would give everyone an ability to |\n| 8 | file a written response by 5 p.m. on Friday, July 14th. |\n| 9 | MS. CLAIBORN:
Thank you. |\n| 10 | THE COURT:
Now, no other party that -- the only |\n| 11 | parties that are -- I'm going to entertain any kind of |\n| 12 | written response is going to be parties that have already |\n| 13 | filed an objection.
Anybody that hasn't already filed an |\n| 14 | objection is already beyond the deadline, number one. |\n| 15 | Number two, this hearing next week is not -- we're |\n| 16 | not going to go over the same issues we've already gone |\n| 17 | over.
I've gone -- we've gone through them.
I understand |\n| 18 | the parties' respective positions, and I'll rule based -- at |\n| 19 | some point, whether it be at the hearing, after the hearing, |\n| 20 | whatever I see with regard to your revised proposed order |\n| 21 | and any responses.
But the hearing is going to be limited |\n| 22 | to those issues. |\n| 23 | Does anyone have any questions? |\n| 24 | MR. PASTORE:
Just a quick statement.
I've got a |\n| 25 | settlement conference in federal court in New Jersey at |\n| | |\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 177 2 p.m. that day. Ms. McClammy can handle this hearing. I just wanted the Court to know. No disrespect, but I will be -- THE COURT: That's fine. Thank you. MR. PASTORE: Yeah. THE COURT: I appreciate that. MR. PASTORE: Yeah. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, do you have any flexibility as to the time? For example, could it be later, like maybe 3:30 or 4:00? THE COURT: Sure. I mean, if that's what people want to do. But you've got to get everybody's agreement on that. MR. DESPINS: Oh, well -- THE COURT: If everybody agrees, that's fine. I mean, I'm not going to go later than 4 p.m., though. The court staff -- I have no idea what everybody's going to say. Maybe they'll be -- maybe there won't be a problem. But the court staff -- I -- you know, I -- they like to go home at night, which I can understand. MR. ARCARO: Your Honor, just one question for the Court. THE COURT: Yes. MR. ARCARO : To the extent that the revised order that's submitted to the Court -- we -- there's no -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 177 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 178 THE COURT: It's going to be docketed, so Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 178 of\n\n everybody that has an appearance will get it via -- I'm not sure if that was your question. But you will get it via CM/ECF.\n\n MR. ARCARO: My question is that Your Honor is giving the opportunity to file a response to that proposed order.\n\n THE COURT: By Friday at -- July 14th at 5 p.m. MR. ARCARO: If no response is filed, are objections considered waived?\n\n THE COURT: No. Your objections will still be considered. I haven't ruled yet, right?\n\nMR. ARCARO: Your Honor, thank you. Thank you.\n\n THE COURT: So sorry if that wasn't clear. I will consider everyone's objections.\n\n MR. ARCARO: Very well. Thank you. THE COURT: But I want to see how this revised proposed order is going to look given what we all talked about -- I didn't talk about it, but what you all talked about today and what your presentations were on your respective objections.\n\n MR. ARCARO: Thank you very much. THE COURT: So, no, it's not -- you're not waiving any objection that has been timely filed. They will be considered.\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 179 of\n\n| | 180 |\n|----|--------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
179 |\n| 1 | MR. ARCARO:
Very well. |\n| 2 | THE COURT:
But I want to see where we get on the |\n| 3 | revised proposed order as well. |\n| 4 | MR. ARCARO:
Very well.
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 5 | THE COURT:
Okay?
Thank you. |\n| 6 | All right.
So the courtroom deputy will note |\n| 7 | probably later today or -- not today, tomorrow that that |\n| 8 | pretrial conference next week in the AIG adversary will just |\n| 9 | be continued to a date to be determined. |\n| 10 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Okay. |\n| 11 | THE COURT:
Okay? |\n| 12 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
Yes. |\n| 13 | THE COURT:
And I believe we're starting with the |\n| 14 | evidentiary hearing with the AIG adversary proceeding at 10 |\n| 15 | a.m. tomorrow.
Is that correct? |\n| 16 | MR. DESPINS:
That's correct, Your Honor. |\n| 17 | THE COURT:
Okay.
Then I -- we have concluded all |\n| 18 | the matters on today's calendar.
For those reasons, court |\n| 19 | is adjourned.
Thank you, all. |\n| 20 | IN UNISON:
Thank you, Your Honor. |\n| 21 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY:
All rise.
Court is |\n| 22 | adjourned. |\n| 23 | (Proceedings concluded at 4:46 p.m.) |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |\n\n| | Case 22-50073
Doc 2119
Filed 08/24/23
Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49
Page 180 of
180 |\n|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| | Ho Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023
180 |\n| 1 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and |\n| 2 | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that |\n| 3 | the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official |\n| 4 | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the |\n| 5 | above-entitled matter. |\n| 6 | |\n| 7 | |\n| 8 | July 20, 2023 |\n| 9 | Christine Fiore, CERT |\n| 10 | |\n| 11 | |\n| 12 | |\n| 13 | |\n| 14 | |\n| 15 | |\n| 16 | |\n| 17 | |\n| 18 | |\n| 19 | |\n| 20 | |\n| 21 | |\n| 22 | |\n| 23 | |\n| 24 | |\n| 25 | |\n| | |","body_zh":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION（美国康涅狄格区破产法院布里奇波特分部）\n关于\n案号 22-50073 (JAM)\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）及 GENEVER HOLDINGS CORPORATION，\n债务人。\nU.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION（美国银行国家协会），作为托管代理人，\n原告，\n对\nHK INTERNATIONAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS (USA) LIMITED，\n被告。\n对抗性诉讼案号 23-05012\nLUC A. DESPINS，\n原告，\n对\nHCHK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 等，\n被告。\n对抗性诉讼案号 23-05013\n康涅狄格州布里奇波特\n2023年7月11日\n\n审讯记录\n主审法官：JULIE A. MANNING，美国破产法院法官\n诉讼程序由电子录音记录，记录文稿由转录服务机构出具。\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.\n4 Research Drive, Suite 402\nShelton, Connecticut 06484\n(203)929-9992\n\n记录内容\n#1749 聘用 AFFILIATES ADJUSTMENT GROUP, LTD. 担任公估人的申请\n#1805 强令遵守第 2004 条规则传票的动议（第二号综合动议）（仅涉及 HUDSON DIAMOND 相关实体部分）\n#1903 由 A. ROMNEY 提交的辞任代理律师动议\n简易判决动议\n#1936 关于就纽约法院转让程序下作为 HCHK 实体债权人利益受让人的 BRIAN W. HOFMEISTER 达成和解的动议\n关于就纽约法院转让程序下作为 HCHK 实体债权人利益受让人的 BRIAN W. HOFMEISTER 达成和解的动议，3131 PRINCETON PIKE BLDG. 5, STE 110, LAWRENCEVILLE, NJ 08648\n\n出庭人员：\n第 11 章受托人：\nLUC A. DESPINS, 律师\nPaul Hastings\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\n代表第 11 章受托人：\nNICHOLAS A. BASSETT, 律师\nAVRAM E. LUFT, 律师\nPaul Hastings LLP\n200 Park Avenue\nNew York, NY 10166\nPATRICK R. LINSEY, 律师\nNeubert Pepe & Monteith, PC\n195 Church Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n代表美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）：\nHOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, 律师\nOffice of the U.S. Trustee\n150 Court Street\nNew Haven, CT 06510\n代表债权人委员会：\nIRVE J. GOLDMAN, 律师\nPullman & Comley\n850 Main Street\nBridgeport, CT 06601\n代表 HK International Funds Investments, LLC、Mei Guo（郭美）及 Hudson Diamond NY：\nERIC A. HENZY, 律师\nJAMES M. MORIARTY, 律师\nAARON ROMNEY, 律师\nZeisler & Zeisler, P.C.\n10 Middle Street, 15th Floor\nBridgeport, CT 06604\n代表原告 HK International Funds 及 Mei Guo：\nLEE VARTAN, 律师\nChiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, PC\n105 Eisenhauer Pkwy\nRoseland, NJ 07068\n代表受让人 Brian W. Hofmeister：\nRYAN T. JARECK, 律师\nCole Schotz P.C.\n25 Main Street Court Plaza North\nHackensack, NJ 07601\n\n出庭人员（续）：\n代表 HCHK Technologies 的多名债权人：\nJOSEPH M. PASTORE, III, 律师\nMELISSA R. McCLAMMY, 律师\nPastore, LLC\n4 High Ridge Park, Third Floor\nStamford, CT 06905\n代表 Joshua Sherman：\nJOSHUA SHERMAN, 律师\nHCHK Technologies, Inc.\n303 5th Avenue #1705\nNew York, NY 10016\n代表 G Club News Operations, LLC：\nGREGORY F. ARCARO, 律师\nGRAFSTEIN & ARCARO, LLC\n114 W. Main Street, Suite 105\nNew Britain, CT 06051\n代表 G Club Operations, LLC：\nKELLIANE BARANOWSKY, 律师\nGreen & Sklarz, LLC\n1 Audubon Street, 3rd Floor\nNew Haven, CT 06511\nCAROLINA A. FORNOS, 律师\nPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman\n31 West 52nd Street\nNew York, NY 10019\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 第 5 页\n1 （庭审程序于下午 12:33 开始。）\n2 法庭书记员：\n案号 22-50073，Ho\n3 Wan Kwok 与 Genever Holdings, LLC。\n对抗性诉讼案号——\n4 对不起，23-5012，U.S. Bank National Association 诉 HK\n5 Funds Limited。\n还有，案号 23——对抗性诉讼案号\n6 23-5013，Despins 诉 HCHK Technologies, Inc.。\n7 法官：\n好的。\n下午好。\n请记录在案的各位出庭人员报到，\n8 请先从第 11 章受托人开始。\n9\n10 DESPINS 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。\nLuc\n11 Despins，第 11 章受托人。\n12 BASSETT 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n来自 Paul Hastings 的 Nick\n13 Bassett，代表第 11 章受托人。\n14\n15 LINSEY 先生：\n下午好，Patrick Linsey，\n16 受托人的康涅狄格州法律顾问。\n17 CLAIBORN 女士：\n下午好，法官阁下。\nHolley\n18 Claiborn，代表美国受托人。\n19 GOLDMAN 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。\nPullman & Comley 的 Irve\n20 Goldman，代表债权人委员会。\n21 MORIARTY 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。\n来自 Zeisler & Zeisler 的 James\n22 Moriarty，代表债务人，同时也代表\n23 卷宗 23-05012 中的 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC。\n24\n25 ROMNEY 先生：\n下午好，法官阁下。\nAaron\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 6 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 第 6 页\nROMNEY 先生：Romney，代表上述相同各方当事人以及 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC。此外，针对法院出具的说明理由裁定，我今天代表我自己出庭。我还想在庭审记录中说明一下，Vartan 律师遇到了极其严重的堵车。他随时都可能赶到。\n法官：好的。谢谢。\nMORIARTY 先生：谢谢。\nHENZY 先生：Eric Henzy 代表债务人，可能也会代表 Romney 先生。\n法官：债务人郭先生？\nHENZY 先生：是的，法官阁下。\n法官：好的。谢谢。\nHENZY 先生：谢谢法官阁下。\n法官：Vartan 律师？\nVARTAN 先生：下午好，法官阁下。Lee Vartan，同样代表 Mei Guo 及 HK USA。\n法官：下午好。\nVARTAN 先生：下午好。\n法官：好的。Despins 受托人，今天日程上有几项事项。我们刚刚完成了出庭登记。今天您希望按什么顺序进行？\nDESPINS 先生：我们之前答应过 Romney 先生先从他的事项开始，所以除非法院另有偏好，我们对这个顺序没有意见。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 7 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 第 7 页\nROMNEY 先生：法官阁下，如果可以的话，我能稍作进一步解释吗？我今天得赶晚上 7:00 从拉瓜迪亚机场起飞的航班去亚特兰大参加明天的取证程序，我非常希望能赶上这趟航班。\n法官：好的。那我们就按那个顺序进行。\nDESPINS 先生：实际上，法官阁下，如果可以的话——也许可以先花五分钟处理聘用公估人的事。Luft 先生也——之前也遇到了堵车。他正在赶来的路上。应该快到了。\nROMNEY 先生：我想他大概五分钟左右就能到。如果在我们审理完这项前他还没到，其他人可以处理辞任动议。如果 Luft 先生没到，我会处理辞任动议。不过这大概只需要五分钟。\nDESPINS 先生：聘用公估人的事项。\n法官：好的。有人——Romney 先生，如果我们——您有异议吗？\nROMNEY 先生：没有，当然没有。\n法官：好的。谢谢。\nROMNEY 先生：谢谢。\n法官：好的。那我们先处理聘用公估人的申请，该申请属于主案，ECF 编号为 1749。\nDESPINS 先生：是的，法官阁下。您可能已经注意到，我们在卷宗编号 1992 下提交了一份修改后的聘用裁定，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 8 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 第 8 页\nDESPINS 先生：因为我们收到了美国受托人的意见——所以在 1992 号文件中，您既能看到清洁版，也能看到显示修改痕迹的版本。1992 号文件的第 10 页和——第 11 页中的——抱歉，是 11 页中的第 10 页，对吧？您可以看到这些修改。基本上就是为了明确他们的报酬。为了向您交代一点背景，这涉及 The Sherry Netherland（雪莉荷兰酒店）的火灾。公估人通常由公司或业主聘用，负责与保险公司协商和解事宜。您可能会说，好吧，但现在并没有与保险公司达成和解啊。问得好。但是可能会有一个进入和解模式的时机。而且，这里的聘用完全是基于风险代理机制。也就是说，没有和解，就没有报酬。事实上，此人在协助我准备索赔证明等材料方面提供了很大帮助。实际上需要向保险公司提交索赔申请表。关于——我们在清理费用等方面提交了索赔，他也协助办理了这些。因此，尽管我们一度认为要把这项聘用暂时搁置，但现在情况越来越明确，我们需要此人来做各项——您知道的，关于索赔评估所需进行的所有繁琐跑腿工作。鉴于\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 9 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 第 9 页\nDESPINS 先生：话说回来，除非从保险公司获得赔偿款，否则他得不到任何报酬，我们认为——您知道的，继续推进是恰当的，因为对聘用他的实体 Genever US 而言没有任何风险。为了记录在案并说明其报酬，基本上是：首笔 300 万美元及以下部分按 5% 收取，超过 300 万美元至 1500 万美元部分的任何和解赔偿收益按 4% 收取，超过 1500 万美元至 5000 万美元部分的任何和解收益按 3% 收取。我们还做了一项更正，说明公估人——缩写为 AAGL——不会持有根据此类保单所收回的任何和解收益。这是美国受托人希望做出的修改，因此我们做了该修改。目前的情况是，PAX 之前提出过异议，但已经撤回了。我们一直就此与 PAX 进行沟通，很高兴他们撤回了异议。在目前节点上——取决于法官阁下对该裁定是否还有任何意见，我们希望继续推进这项聘用。\n法官：我目前没有任何意见或疑问。Claiborn 律师，您是否希望发表意见？\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日 10 克莱本女士（MS. CLAIBORN）：谢谢您，法官阁下（Your Honor）。经修订并在 ECF 1992 归档提交的裁定（order）解决了美国联邦破产受托人（U.S. Trustee）的关切。法庭（THE COURT）：好的。谢谢。我显然注意到，由于此时设定了报酬标准、报酬明细表，该申请同时依据《破产法》第 327(a) 条和第 328 条提出。是否还有其他人希望就受托人聘请公定理赔人（public adjustor）附属理赔集团有限公司（Affiliated Adjustment Group, LTD）的申请陈述意见？好的。在未听到任何意见的情况下，除 PAX（PAX）的异议外，我未看到任何书面异议，我在此记录 PAX 的异议已被撤回。美国联邦破产受托人（United States Trustee）刚刚表明了其立场，即他们支持该申请，并结合昨天在案卷中以 ECF 编号 1992 提交的修订拟定裁定，该拟定裁定解决了受托人的任何关切。受托人德斯平斯（Trustee Despins），我理解您寻求聘用该机构的理由，在案件具体情况下这无疑显得合情合理。基于所有这些原因，聘请附属理赔集团作为公定理赔人的申请予以批准，出现在 ECF 编号 1992 第 5、6、7 页上的拟定裁定可以签署生效。案件号 22-50073 文件 2119 于 08/24/23 归档提交 于 08/24/23 12:37:49 录入 第 10 页，共\n\n案件号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n于 08/24/23 归档提交\n于 08/24/23 12:37:49 录入\n第 11 页，共\n180\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日\n1 德斯平斯先生（MR. DESPINS）：谢谢您，法官阁下。\n2 法庭：谢谢。\n3 德斯平斯先生：因此在这一点上，法官阁下，我们的\n4 同事正在赶来的路上，但我们不应该为了等他而推迟听证会。\n5 所以我们准备好继续进行了。\n6 法庭：好的。请稍等我一秒钟。\n7 德斯平斯先生：好的。行。另一项——\n8 下一项事项——日程表上有很多事项。\n9 但是我们——罗姆尼律师（Attorney Romney）特别要求，受托人\n10 及受托人律师亦同意接下来处理\n11 罗姆尼律师提交的撤销代理律师身份动议（motion to withdraw as attorney），\n12 编号 1903，其代表的是已提交应诉出庭通知（appearance）的哈德逊钻石（Hudson Diamond）各实体。\n13 我曾指出，\n14 罗姆尼律师和\n15 瓦尔坦律师（Attorney Vartan）今天需要出庭就该撤销代理动议\n16 陈述意见。而且我——两人都在法庭内。\n17 那么，罗姆尼律师，您希望开始陈述吗？\n18 罗姆尼先生（MR. ROMNEY）：是的，法官阁下。有一点需要\n19 澄清。法官阁下刚才说\n20 这是撤销对哈德逊钻石各实体的代理动议。\n21 仅涉及哈德逊钻石纽约实体（Hudson Diamond New York），法官阁下。\n22 法庭：好的。\n23 确实如此。我确实看到了。\n24 很抱歉。但我原先以为——原先，我\n25 以为是涉及所有实体。但您是对的。\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 2119 于 08/24/23 归档提交 于 08/24/23 12:37:49 录入 第 12 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日\n1 感谢您在记录中指明这一点。\n2 罗姆尼先生：明白，法官阁下。法官阁下，\n3 正如在应美国联邦破产受托人要求提交的宣誓书（affidavit）中所进一步阐述的那样，具体情况是我们在\n4 5月份因受托人提交的强制作为动议（motion to compel）\n5 获悉了一份针对两家哈德逊钻石实体的传票（subpoena）。\n6 该强制作为动议指出哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司（Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC）\n7 是哈德逊钻石纽约公司的唯一成员（sole member），并\n8 附有支持该主张的证明文件。\n9 并且——请求判令两家实体构成藐视法庭（contempt）。\n10 截至当时我已得知，郭女士（Ms. Guo）\n11 过去是——现在也是哈德逊钻石控股公司的唯一成员。\n12 并且基于多项原因，我当时留有非常明确的印象，\n13 这包括第 11 章（Chapter 11）受托人的诉状，\n14 也包括我与郭女士的谈话（她当时也是如此认为），\n15 即哈德逊钻石纽约公司是哈德逊钻石控股公司的全资子公司。\n16 这就是为什么我代表两家实体协商了延期。\n17 这就是为什么我代表两家实体提交了出庭通知。\n18 这也就是为什么瓦尔坦律师与我本人在协商延期以\n19 满足合规要求之后，尽职尽责地代表两家实体尝试查找文件，\n20 而这两家实体所涉文件均不在作为我们客户的自然人\n21 郭女士的实际物理掌控之中。\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 2119 于 08/24/23 归档提交 于 08/24/23 12:37:49 录入 第 13 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日 13 客户郭女士。在调查/处理过程中，霍奇森·拉斯有限责任合伙律师事务所（Hodgson Russ, LLP）的总法律顾问告诉我们，郭女士并非该——抱歉，哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司并非哈德逊钻石纽约公司的唯一成员，且当时指出了我宣誓书中提及的另一名个人，即债务人的儿子 Mileson Guo（郭强），是该实体的成员。就在那一刻，正如我的宣誓书中所陈述，我立即首先咨询了今天与我一同出庭的本所总法律顾问亨齐先生（Mr. Henzy）的意见。我做的下一件事就是致电卢夫特律师（Attorney Luft），告诉他我刚刚获知哈德逊钻石控股公司似乎并非唯一成员，并且看来是我犯了错误，我打算撤销代理，因为我认为自己无权代理纽约实体，这与控股实体不同，对于控股实体，我至今——确信自己拥有合法的代理权。我的理解是，根据《职业行为规则》（Rules of Professional Conduct）第 1.16(b) 条规则，除非获得具有实际权限之人的授权，否则我不能代表某一实体，因此必须撤销代理。这就是我为何提交撤销代理动议的原因，因为在我提交动议时，\n\n一家极具声誉的律师事务所的总法律顾问（我认为他是一个\n\n撤销代理动议所基于的陈述，来自\n案件号 22-50073 文件 2119 于 08/24/23 归档提交 于 08/24/23 12:37:49 录入 第 14 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日 14\n\n诚实的人和正直的律师协会成员），这让我确信自己犯了错误。\n\n在提交该动议之后，又出现了进一步的问题，以至于此时此刻我坐在这里，我并不清楚谁才是哈德逊钻石纽约公司的唯一成员。正如我宣誓书中所载，在——我相信是在6月25日，卢夫特律师提请我注意一份附在其强制作为及判令藐视法庭动议中的文件，该文件与我们最初的理解相一致，即哈德逊钻石控股公司实际上是该纽约实体——即哈德逊钻石纽约实体的唯一成员，而 Mei Guo（郭美）是哈德逊钻石控股公司的唯一成员。\n\n在那一刻，瓦尔坦律师与我联系了霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所，对方确认他们确实起草了第 11 章受托人似乎据以引用的那份文件，这与郭女士最初认为控股实体是纽约实体的母公司的理解完全一致。对于为何他们手中既有一份声称债务人的儿子或其控制的实体是该实体母公司的运营协议（operating agreement），同时又起草并持有一份表明郭女士的实体是该纽约实体母公司的文件，他们未给出任何解释。\n\n因为此时此刻我站在这里，我无法\n\n案件号 22-50073 文件 2119 于 08/24/23 归档提交 于 08/24/23 12:37:49 录入 第 15 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日\n1 确信自己拥有代表纽约实体的实际代理权限，我认为《职业行为规则》要求我继续推进该撤销代理动议。\n2 自该问题出现之日起，除了我每天所说的日常事务（即醒来并确保家人平安）之外，\n3 无论是收集文件、尝试查找文件，还是尝试解答该问题，\n4 都是我的头等大事，以便我今天能来到这里回答法庭或任何其他人提出的任何问题。\n5 我已经尽了最大努力，这就是我今天向法庭汇报的全部内容。\n6 我所做的一切都是为了推进这一程序，避免出现\n7 我本人、我所执业的律所、郭女士或她控制的任何实体试图忽视法庭命令\n8 或做出任何违背依从命令意图的行为。\n9 这始终是我在与整个过程相关的所有行动中的唯一动机。\n10 我已准备好回答法庭或在场任何其他人提出的任何问题，鉴于此，我对我的动议陈述完毕。\n11 法庭：好的，我将要求其他各方提出他们的问题，然后我再看我是否还有疑问。\n12 罗姆尼律师，您确实提交了一份——一份宣誓书，但我认为——我也许忽略了——瓦尔坦律师，\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日 16 您是否提交了任何文件？瓦尔坦先生（MR. VARTAN）：我没有提交，法官阁下。但我显然审阅了罗姆尼律师的宣誓书，并且我——法庭：嗯，那没有——没关系。我只是想知道您是否提交了任何材料。瓦尔坦先生：哦。我没有提交，法官阁下。法庭：您为什么没有提交任何材料？瓦尔坦先生：因为罗姆尼先生在其宣誓书中引用的所有内容都与案卷记录相吻合，我没有更多——法庭：难道您没有义务直接向法庭作出陈述，而不是通过罗姆尼律师转达吗？我的意思是，我们在本案中不同时间讨论过的问题是谁代表谁、谁以何种性质行事、您是本地代理律师（local counsel）、您是主代理律师（main counsel）。我们之前就进行过这些讨论。而讨论中——我不理解的是——我知道您出席了，我也很感谢您的出席，但我不理解为什么罗姆尼律师是唯一提交宣誓书的人。我本以为您会提交一份宣誓书。罗姆尼律师以及他律所的其他成员已经陈述过，他们是通过与您的讨论才介入并接受聘任的，是您——您与客户保持联系。罗姆尼律师并未直接与郭美沟通。案件号 22-50073 文件 2119 于 08/24/23 归档提交 于 08/24/23 12:37:49 录入 第 16 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 17 你的宣誓书中不是这么说的。你说你和 Attorney Vartan（瓦尔坦律师）—— 罗姆尼先生（MR. ROMNEY）：我们—— 法庭（THE COURT）：——与 Mei Guo（郭美）进行了交谈。瓦尔坦律师难道不是与郭美有代理关系吗？您不是吗，先生？ 瓦尔坦先生（MR. VARTAN）：法官阁下，我当然与该委托人有关系，正如—— 法庭：那么，是谁聘请了你，瓦尔坦律师？ 瓦尔坦先生：是 Ms. Guo（郭女士）。 法庭：好的。她聘请你的时候，聘请的是谁？她是聘请了你，还是聘请了你和 Mr. Romney（罗姆尼先生）两个人？ 瓦尔坦先生：我们两个人。 法庭：好的。而且—— 瓦尔坦先生：嗯，罗姆尼先生之前已经被聘请了，法官阁下。 法庭：是在蔑视法庭动议方面吗？ 瓦尔坦先生：所以关于——我刚才是在回答有关郭女士聘请罗姆尼先生以及随后郭女士——通常与我接触的问题。关于 Hudson Diamond entities（哈德逊钻石实体），罗姆尼先生和我两个人均与郭女士进行了交谈。 法庭：那你为什么没有代表 Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 17 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\nPage 18 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 哈德逊钻石实体提交出庭通知？\n2 瓦尔坦先生：我原本计划这样做，但是\n3 罗姆尼先生在他的宣誓书中阐明了我为何没有提交的原因。\n4 法庭：嗯，那是罗姆尼先生的宣誓书。\n5 那不是你的宣誓书。\n6 瓦尔坦先生：不，我明白，法官阁下。但是\n7 除了罗姆尼先生在其宣誓书中提出的内容之外，我没有任何\n8 需要补充到记录中的内容。而且我也\n9 很乐意回答法官阁下可能有的\n10 或任何其他人可能有的任何问题。\n11 法庭：嗯，我刚才问了你一个问题，\n12 你没有回答。你为什么没有提交宣誓书？\n13 瓦尔坦先生：因为，再次说明，我没有任何\n14 更多内容可以补充到记录中。而且我没有\n15 认为我们受到必须提交的法院命令的约束。\n16 法庭：嗯，2023年6月20日录入的一份命令中写道，\n17 你应当出庭并申述理由，说明为何\n18 撤回代理动议不应获得准许。随后\n19 United States Trustee（美国受托人）对撤回代理动议\n20 提交了答复。而且，请记住——嗯，也许你不记得了，\n21 但我记得——在强制动议听证会上，\n22 包括你在内的律师在记录中告诉我，\n23 你们正在解决——或者试图解决蔑视法庭动议，\n24 因为你们代表哈德逊钻石实体，并且你们将\n25 按照传票的要求提供文件。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 19 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 紧接着——不，这样说不公平。\n2 不是紧接着。\n3 但在那次听证会后不久，\n4 罗姆尼律师就提交了一份撤回出庭通知的动议。\n5 现在，我已经在很多场合问过，罗姆尼先生\n6 是听从郭女士的指示，还是听从\n7 你和郭女士的指示？\n8 我已经进行过那次讨论。因为我们讨论过谁是当地出庭律师，谁是主要出庭律师。\n9 我们不能这样做——你们在两家\n10 不同的律所。\n11 要么你们两位都是律师，并且你们双方都受到约束且必须遵守法院命令，要么你们都不是。\n12 但我们不能接受，噢，我不会再说什么了，\n13 因为罗姆尼律师已经说过了。\n14 否则，我为什么要在命令中列出你？先生，我\n15 在那份命令中列出你，是因为你是那个到庭并表示你与郭女士有委托人联系和权限的人。\n16 这就是你在本法庭多次陈述的内容。\n17 而且你在——提交的诉状中也是这么说的，这些诉状首先由你签署，然后由罗姆尼律师签署。\n18 所以——你对法庭以及本案涉及的所有各方\n19 负有一项义务，一项专业义务和职业操守义务。\n20 所以我不明白为什么——所以这没关系。\n21 如果你告诉我你打算依赖罗姆尼律师的宣誓书，这就是你告诉我的。\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\nPage 20 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 我不确定这是否算作说明了为何撤回代理动议不应被准许的理由。\n2 但无论如何，关于——关于 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）的几个问题。\n3 你谈到——首先，我看不出有任何——也许\n4 曾经有过。\n5 但在我目前的记录中没有任何证据表明，\n6 甚至连你声称目前仍代表的实体，即 Hudson Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股有限公司），\n7 对蔑视法庭动议有过任何遵从。\n8 对传票有任何遵从吗？\n9 罗姆尼先生：有的，法官阁下。\n10 法庭：具体的遵从情况是怎样的？\n11 罗姆尼先生：在1月——不好意思——6月15日，也就是遵从的截止日期，\n12 瓦尔坦律师发出了一封由我们两人共同准备的信函，\n13 该信解释了——截至当时我们为试图查找文件\n14 所做的工作。该信提供了\n15 显示郭女士控制 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）的运营协议。\n16 提供了显示哈德逊钻石控股设立的组织章程。\n17 解释了我们为试图查找文件所做出的努力。\n18 我们作为法庭官员，以及我们的委托人作为一个自然人，\n19 仅有能力提供\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 21 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 21 我们能够实际占有的文件，或者由我们有能力控制的人（换句话说，我们推定控制的人）所占有的文件。我们已经尝试了所有可能的方法来查找文件，并且我们已经提供了我们能够提供的文件。但是我们——并且我们还确认了其他我们认为持有文件但拒绝向我们或郭女士提供文件的来源，例如霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所和 Capital One Bank（第一资本银行）。我们已经竭尽所能，但他们不肯给我们。另外两名个人—— 法庭：好，那我们稍微放慢一点节奏。好吗？你说了几件事。你说你们——但瓦尔坦律师签署了一封信，并在6月15日寄给了受托人，信中说你们已经尽一切可能遵从。是这样吗？我想我——我只是想确认我没有听错你说的话。 罗姆尼先生：我们没有说我们已经尽一切可能遵从。我们是那样说的。但也是——意思是，是的，这是对我们所说内容的一个公允概括。并且我们提供了我刚才描述的文件。 法庭：好的。请告诉我——抱歉。6月15日提供的文件是什么？ 罗姆尼先生：是由郭女士签署的哈德逊钻石控股运营协议。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 22 法庭：签署的——是证据 Exhibit T 吗？ 罗姆尼先生：不是。 法庭：是那份两——两页的文件吗？ 罗姆尼先生：不是。 法庭：所以有一份运营协议。 罗姆尼先生：有一份—— 法庭：那份文件有多少页？你不需要告诉我确切页数。我的意思是比如——你说的是一份25页的文件—— 罗姆尼先生：我认为它—— 法庭：——还是一份50页的文件？ 罗姆尼先生：我认为大约是一份五页的—— 法庭：好的。 罗姆尼先生：——五到六页的文件。 法庭：那份运营——那份协议是哪个实体的运营协议？ 罗姆尼先生：是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的，由作为唯一成员的郭美签署。 法庭：好的。而且你——你是在告诉我，我只是想在记录中明确这一点，郭美在此案中特别聘请了你代表 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 就蔑视法庭动议进行代理？ 罗姆尼先生：她指示我代表 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 就—— Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 22 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 23 法庭：所以她并没有聘请你？ 罗姆尼先生：我不明白这两者的区别。 法庭：嗯，我认为是有—— 罗姆尼先生：但是我们没有单独的聘请函。 法庭：你们没有单独的——你是这么说的吗？ 罗姆尼先生：与该实体之间没有。是的。 法庭：好的。所以就 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 而言，你们没有单独的聘请函。而且你在当时认为她是指示你代表哈德逊钻石实体。这包括 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司），对吗？ 罗姆尼先生：不对。我知道她指示了。 法庭：好的。是的。 罗姆尼先生：是的。 法庭：好的。那么事情继续推进。你提交了出庭通知，并来到法庭，在蔑视法庭动议的听证会上你说，我并不是说事情一定会发生，好吧，但受托人的律师当时正力求对哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司和 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 双方均作出蔑视法庭裁定。你说—— 罗姆尼先生：是的。该事项列在今天的日程表上。 Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 23 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 24 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 法庭：对。但在最初的那次听证会上，\n2 你说我们达成了一致同意延期该听证会，\n3 因为我们将达成一项关于我们实质上将如何\n4 遵从传票的同意令，\n5 对吗？\n6 罗姆尼先生：我认为我们实际上是在记录中\n7 达成了该协议。\n8 法庭：不，你们确实达成了。\n9 罗姆尼先生：是的。\n10 法庭：我现在实际上正看着它。\n11 罗姆尼先生：是的。是的。\n12 法庭：好的。\n13 罗姆尼先生：意思是我们在记录中口头达成了该协议，随后提交了——\n14 法庭：但随后你们就录入动议达成了一份裁定，\n15 裁定哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司以及哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司\n16 因未能对传票作出答复而构成民事蔑视法庭。\n17 在那份裁定中，哈德逊实体表示它们没有理由\n18 并且因此不争议针对它们各自发出的2004调查传票已被妥善送达，\n19 并且它们主张哈德逊实体的相关个人\n20 直到该动议提交之后才实际得知传票的存在。\n21 那么哈德逊实体中没有得知传票的相关个人是谁——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 25 实际上直到提出藐视法庭动议之后才获悉这些传票吗？\n\nROMNEY 律师：郭女士就是那位个人——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nROMNEY 律师：——我那句话中所指的人。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nROMNEY 律师：我们的意思是，我们没有理由怀疑显示法定送达代收人已签署的送达回执的真实性。但我当时汇报的是，据我所知，郭女士是在 Vartan 律师和我——我想在那起具体案件中实际上是我发送了电子邮件——然后我们三人一起通了电话时，才第一次获悉那些传票的。但当时看来是我们正在将那些传票告知她。\n\n法庭：你为什么说是“看来”我们正在告知她？你是知道还是不知道？\n\nROMNEY 律师：嗯，我并不——\n\n法庭：她告诉你她以前从未见过那些传票？\n\nROMNEY 律师：在不对任何其他陈述放弃特权的前提下，是的。\n\n法庭：好的。好吧，如果你想就你为什么想——为什么想撤回作为代理律师说明理由，我认为这并不构成放弃特权，对吧？否则，你把郭女士带过来。她可以作证。对吧？你可以把她带过来。她可以支持你所说的一切。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 25 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\nPage 26 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n\n1 想成为——撤回作为代理律师，对吧？否则，\n2 你把郭女士带过来。她可以作证。对吧？你可以\n3 把她带过来。她可以支持你所说的一切。\n4 ROMNEY 律师：法官阁下，现在我才是那个\n5 成为众矢之的的人，我不会出卖我的\n6 委托人。\n7 法庭：我不明白那句话是\n8 什么意思，你刚才说的话。\n9 ROMNEY 律师：法庭显然对我做过的\n10 某些事情感到不满，我是来这里解释我的行为的。\n11 法庭：不，我没说——我是在提\n12 问题。你说——我想你在结束陈述时\n13 说过法庭是否有任何问题。是的，我\n14 确实有。所以我正在提问。\n15 ROMNEY 律师：明白了。那——而我在这里\n16 就是为了打消您的顾虑。但我理解您有所\n17 顾虑。那就是——\n18 法庭：好吧，我确实有所顾虑，因为此前\n19 在庭审记录中达成了协议，承诺会\n20 遵守传票，以便法庭不对涉及你代表其提交出庭通知的\n21 Hudson Diamond 各实体的\n22 藐视法庭动议作出裁定。\n23 而在你的宣誓书和你在此处的陈述中——并且\n24 Vartan 先生对此没有异议——这也是与——与\n25 Vartan 先生协商后的结果。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 27 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 27 所以如果你成了众矢之的，那把靶子放在你背后的可能是法庭以外的其他人。因为你正把自己置于险境，而我不知道是为什么。因为在这一点上，你说是你认为 Mei Guo（郭美）直到提交藐视法庭动议、并且你发送了电子邮件随后与 Vartan 律师及郭女士通了电话之后，才知道传票的事。\n\nROMNEY 律师：通常的做法是，当有实质性事项时，我们三人会通电话，讨论有关她或她所控制实体的事项。有时候——我的意思是，我们无法联合发送电子邮件。有时是我们中的一个人发送。如果有事务性的最新进展，我们中的任何一个人都可以通电话。但我的意思是，在这一特定案件中，我记得翻看我的电子邮件时，是我把传票发送给她的那个人，随后要求与她和 Vartan 律师通话。然后我们通了那次电话。\n\n法庭：好的。那么是谁授权你代表 Hudson Diamond, LLC 以及 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 提交出庭通知的？\n\nROMNEY 律师：为了记录明确，实体名称是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 和 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC。\n\n法庭：没关系。Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 和 Hudson Diamond——因为出庭通知\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 28 是代表这两个实体提交的，对吗？\n\nROMNEY 律师：对。\n\n法庭：好的。是谁授权你提交那份出庭通知的？\n\nROMNEY 律师：Mei Guo（郭美）。\n\n法庭：好的。以什么身份？\n\nROMNEY 律师：作为那些实体的法律顾问，认为——\n\n法庭：不，抱歉。我没把问题问好。抱歉。你凭什么认为她有权指示你代表 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 和 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 提交出庭通知？\n\nROMNEY 律师：好吧，正如已经陈述但显然不够清楚的那样，第11章（Chapter 11）破产受托人的藐视法庭动议中声称 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 是 Hudson Diamond New York 的母公司，且 Mei Guo（郭美）是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的唯一成员。我知道郭美是唯一——是母公司——抱歉，是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的唯一成员。我也基于郭女士的陈述认为——我认为她在主观上——我相信她曾认为自己是 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的唯一成员，且 Hudson Diamond Holdings 是 Hudson Diamond New York 的唯一成员。我认为她产生这一认知的依据，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 28 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\nPage 29 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n\n1 除其他事项外，在于她曾被要求代表 Hudson Diamond New York 签署文件，\n2 身份是作为 New York 唯一成员的 Hudson Diamond Holdings\n3 的成员。\n4\n5 而让我们认为郭女士搞错了——就像根据我们现在所掌握的情况我可能搞错也可能没搞错一样——\n6 的唯一原因，是 Hodgson Russ\n7 在我和 Vartan 律师一起致电他们时告知了我们，\n8 Kevin Kearney 律师对我们表示 Hudson Holdings,\n9 LLC 并非 Hudson Diamond——Hudson Diamond\n10 New York 的唯一成员，并且他当时——似乎正在宣读一份\n11 由其律所起草的运营协议，\n12 该协议表明债务人的儿子才是该\n13 纽约实体的唯一成员。\n14\n15 法庭：是 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 吗？\n16 ROMNEY 律师：Hudson Diamond New York, LLC。\n17 这促使我立即咨询了 Henzy 律师，\n18 立即致电 Luft 律师，然后于\n19 次日清晨根据我认为在《职业行为守则》（Rules of Professional Conduct）第 1.16(b) 条下\n20 必须履行的义务，提交了撤回出庭的动议。\n21\n22 法庭：关于 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的运营协议，\n23 你可能已经这么做了——抱歉，如你所知，本案有\n24 大量的文件。\n25 你是否已在案件卷宗的某处提交了表明债务人的——个人债务人的儿子是 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 成员的该运营协议？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 30 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 30 协议在卷宗的某处，表明债务人的——个人债务人的儿子是 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的成员？\n\nROMNEY 律师：我没有那份运营协议——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\nROMNEY 律师：——因为 Hodgson——Hodgson Russ 拒绝向我、郭女士或 Vartan 律师提供关于任何 Hudson Diamond 实体的任何信息。而在我的宣誓书——抱歉，是声明书中，以及抄录在声明书正文以及带有附件的电子邮件往来记录中均证明，Hodgson Russ 不会向我们提供关于这些实体的任何文件。所以我没有该协议。我所拥有的只是据我所知是一家声誉卓著的律所的总法律顾问的口头告知，他告诉我债务人的儿子是成员。\n\n法庭：那么——\n\nROMNEY 律师：他随后修正了他的陈述，称不是债务人的儿子以个人身份，而是债务人的儿子作为高管以及——以某种其他高管身份属于第三家实体 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.，这是一家英属维尔京群岛公司，我完全不知道谁实际拥有该实体，只是我认为——我没有理由相信是郭女士。郭女士也没有理由相信是\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\nPage 31 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n\n1 她。根据 Hodgson Russ 向我们作出的陈述，\n2 该人似乎是债务人的儿子，因为他\n3 似乎代表该实体签署文件。\n4 法庭：所以你提交了撤回出庭的动议，\n5 是因为 Hodgson Russ 告诉你 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的管理成员是债务人——个人\n6 债务人的儿子，但你从未见过确认\n7 这一点的文件？\n8\n9 ROMNEY 律师：他不愿意提供给我，因此那\n10 是事实。\n11 法庭：好的。好的。\n12 ROMNEY 律师：这让我陷入了现在的境地，\n13 因为 Hodgson Russ 随后还准备了一份后续文件，\n14 显示其准备了一份供郭女士签署的文件，\n15 身份为作为 Hudson Diamond New York 唯一成员的 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的成员。\n16 所以我现在站在这里的情况是，我不知道谁是 Hudson Diamond New York 的唯一成员。\n17\n18 Hodgson Russ 似乎也不知道。\n19 我曾向他们询问过相关信息，询问他们为什么\n20 准备了这份文件——这份文件是他们在我提交撤回动议时\n21 首先向 Vartan 律师和我指明的文件。\n22 他们尚未向我解释\n23 为何他们出示了那份提及债务人\n24 儿子的文件，随后又准备了\n25 一份指认债务人女儿为间接\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 32 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n\n纽约实体的成员。因此，我完全不知道到底是哪一个。这就是为什么我认为我必须继续推进我撤销出庭代理资格的动议。我想说的是，只要我能够确定郭女士（Ms. Guo）直接或间接确实是Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约公司）的成员、间接成员，或有权控制或为其聘请律师的人，我就会撤回我的——嗯，我就会撤回我的——我就会撤回我撤销出庭代理资格的动议，因为我绝不是试图逃避这种情况、逃离这种情况，或者试图代表Hudson Diamond New York、任何哈德逊钻石相关实体或郭女士耍什么花招。我只是在努力履行我对本法庭、对我在此情况下的唯一自然人客户郭女士以及在场所有其他人的职业道德义务。\n\n法庭（THE COURT）：嗯，在这种情况下她并不是你的客户。\n\n罗姆尼律师（MR. ROMNEY）：不是。但总体而言她是我的客户。我的意思是——\n\n法庭：不是。但在这种情况下她不是你的客户。客户——而且你一直非常谨慎，我也明白为什么。客户——你目前所代表的唯一客户——或者你认为你代表并且有权代表的客户，是Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第33页\n\nLLC。\n\n罗姆尼律师：没错。但法官阁下，我的陈述——也许不够精确——是说我所努力做的一切，就是尽我所能履行我对法庭、哈德逊钻石各实体、郭女士以及在场所有其他人的职业道德义务。我没有代表在场的任何其他人，但我对他们负有职业道德义务，就像我对法庭负有职业道德义务一样。那就是\n\n说实话、尽我所能，并尽我最大努力履行我所达成的协议。这就是我每天在我的每一个案件中所做的事。这也是我目前正在做的事。\n\n法庭：好吧，让我再问一个问题。那么关于藐视法庭动议的听证会是在6月6日举行的。\n\n罗姆尼律师：没错。\n\n法庭：那天举行了若干场听证会，但那是其中之一——那项针对包括Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）和Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）实体在内的多方当事人的藐视法庭动议。在那场听证会上，你在听证会前已经提交了出庭代理通知。\n\n你准备——出席了那场听证会，并表示就文件调取交付达成了协议，且文件调取交付将于6月15日之前代表这两个实体完成，而不仅仅是办理\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 34 of\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n\n而是完成。然后在6月8日，记录了6月6日庭审记录中达成的协议的同意令被提交。我想法庭签署发布了该命令。我不知道\n\n是当天还是次日。看起来显然是同一天。然后——也就是6月8日。那项命令是 ECF 1896。\n\n因此，截至6月6日——并且在6月8日再次确认——你代表了Hudson Diamond——对不起——New York, LLC 和 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC。而且你和瓦尔坦律师（Attorney Vartan）表示你们将在6月15日之前完全遵守传票要求。在6月13日，即到期前两天——也就是说，在同意令下达五天后，但距离遵守期限还有两天时——你仅针对Hudson Diamond New York, LLC提交了撤销代理的动议。\n\n所以你的意思是——我只是想确认我理解正确。你的意思是，就Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC而言，你们已经遵守了同意令？\n\n罗姆尼律师：没错。\n\n法庭：好的。那Hudson Diamond New York, LLC呢？他们没有遵守，对吗？\n\n罗姆尼律师：如果可以的话，我从两个方面来回答。我认为那是对的。我今天来不是为了反对，并且\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第35页\n\n无意反对、也不会反对针对该纽约实体下达藐视法庭命令，因为我没有权限就此进行任何一方的辩论。或者说，我不确信自己有这个权限。我想说的是，在6月6日（即我签署法官阁下刚才描述的约定命令之日）至今的这段期间内，瓦尔坦律师、我和郭女士曾试图寻找有关Hudson Diamond New York以及Hudson Diamond Holdings的文件。而我们就是无法找到这些文件。我们认为Capital One（第一资本）有相关文件——\n\n法庭：抱歉。请再说一遍。你一直在试图为Hudson Diamond New York, LLC寻找文件？\n\n罗姆尼律师：没错。\n\n法庭：如果你不代表他们，为什么还要这么做？\n\n罗姆尼律师：因为在这段过渡期内，我认为我是代表他们的。\n\n法庭：好的。那么你们做了什么来试图查找这些文件？\n\n罗姆尼律师：正如我的声明书中所陈述的，我们做了三件事。我们联系了Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所），我们认为该所曾代表——嗯，我们知道是该所设立了该纽约实体，因为我们有组织章程证明是其设立的。因此我们试图联系——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 35 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第36页\n\n法庭：组织章程——抱歉。我不是故意打断你。我只是想——\n\n罗姆尼律师：这——\n\n法庭：——弄得非常清楚。Hudson Diamond New York, LLC的公司设立章程。你说的是这个吗？\n\n罗姆尼律师：是的。\n\n法庭：那是谁签署的？\n\n罗姆尼律师：是由Hodgson Russ提交备案的。\n\n法庭：对。但谁签署的？谁是——谁是Hudson Diamond New York, LLC的签署人？\n\n罗姆尼律师：我认为没有签署人。\n\n法庭：好的。所以你有一份没有签名的公司设立章程？\n\n罗姆尼律师：我认为纽约州法律，或者就此而言康涅狄格州法律，都不要求签署人。但是纽约——\n\n法庭：那么，谁是管理成员？\n\n罗姆尼律师：文件中没有指明——没有指明任何自然人——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n罗姆尼律师：——在组织章程中——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 36 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第37页\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n罗姆尼律师：——除了作为“提交方”的Hodgson Russ之外。\n\n法庭：所以你是从Hodgson Russ拿到那份文件的？你是这个意思吗？这些公司设立章程？\n\n罗姆尼律师：我是从郭女士那里拿到那份文件的。\n\n法庭：好的。而且上面没有签名。但她手里有这份文件？\n\n罗姆尼律师：没错。\n\n法庭：在她的个人档案里？\n\n罗姆尼律师：这进一步——这进一步支持了我以及她的看法，即那是她的实体。没错。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n罗姆尼律师：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。这就是我要问的。\n\n罗姆尼律师：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。所以她档案里有这份文件，并且转交给了你。转交给了瓦尔坦先生还是只有你，或者瓦尔坦先生？\n\n罗姆尼律师：她给瓦尔坦律师和我发了一封电子邮件。所以她是转交给——\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n罗姆尼律师：——我们双方——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 37 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第38页\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n罗姆尼律师：——同时转交的。\n\n法庭：关于Hudson Diamond New York, LLC，她还转交了什么其他文件？\n\n罗姆尼律师：关于Hudson Diamond New York, LLC？就只有那些。\n\n法庭：好的。那你有没有——你可能已经说过了，好的，抱歉。我需要明确一下。你把那份文件提供给受托人了吗？\n\n罗姆尼律师：我认为，那份文件在郭女士早前交付文件的过程中已经提供给受托人了。\n\n法庭：但即便郭女士给你们——给你和瓦尔坦律师发了一封附有该文件的电子邮件，你也没有代表Hudson Diamond New York, LLC向受托人交付该文件？\n\n罗姆尼律师：我没有。因为到了交付文件之日，我认为我无权代表Hudson Diamond New York, LLC做任何事情，因为——\n\n法庭：你是什么时候收到郭女士那封附有该协议的电子邮件的？\n\n罗姆尼律师：我不记得日期了。是在——之前\n\n法庭：是在你提交撤销律师代理资格动议之前吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 38 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第39页\n\n罗姆尼律师：是在我提交——之前\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n罗姆尼律师：——我撤销律师代理资格的动议。\n\n法庭：好的。现在，关于——所以你不持异议，因为你不能——你无权反对针对Hudson Diamond New York, LLC下达认定其藐视法庭的命令。对吗？\n\n罗姆尼律师：没错。\n\n法庭：好的。关于Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC，你认为——并且，瓦尔坦律师，你也会被问到同样的问题——你遵守了并且你——遵守了同意令——根据该同意令中的条款，你已经在6月15日之前代表Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC完成了向受托人的文件交付？你——在6月15日之前。你认为你已经遵守了该命令？\n\n罗姆尼律师：是的。\n\n法庭：好的。瓦尔坦律师，你认为你遵守了该命令——即包括Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC在6月15日之前完成向受托人交付文件的同意令吗？\n\n瓦尔坦律师（MR. VARTAN）：是的，法官阁下。我们尽力从我们所能获得的所有来源获取所有文件，并且——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 39 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第40页\n\n法庭：你们试图从哪些来源获取文件？\n\n瓦尔坦律师：我们试图从Hodgson Russ获取文件。我们试图从Capital One获取文件。显而易见，我们也试图直接从我们的客户那里获取文件。理论上还有许多其他可能持有文件的人员不愿与我们交谈。\n\n法庭：嗯，这是什么意思？我的意思是，我不明白“不愿与我们交谈”是什么意思。\n\n瓦尔坦律师：是这样——\n\n法庭：你们做了什么尝试？\n\n瓦尔坦律师：我们试图通过我们的客户去接触双方——\n\n法庭：所以你们没有去接触。是你们的客户去接触的？\n\n瓦尔坦律师：没错。\n\n法庭：所以，作为当时代表哈德逊钻石各实体的律师，你并不知晓你的客户是否真的接触了这些其他来源？\n\n瓦尔坦律师：嗯，我们知晓我们的客户去了银行，因为事前和事后我们都与她通了电话。\n\n法庭：但你不知道她当时是否真的在\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 40 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第41页\n\n银行——\n\n瓦尔坦律师：我们不——\n\n法庭：你并不——\n\n瓦尔坦律师：我们没有任何理由以任何方式怀疑我们的客户。\n\n法庭：那不是我的问题。你并不知道。你是律师，对吧？难道你不应该知情吗？\n\n瓦尔坦律师：我知道她去了银行，这是基于——\n\n法庭：你是怎么知道的？\n\n瓦尔坦律师：——基于我与她的谈话。\n\n法庭：所以是根据她说的话，你才知道的？\n\n瓦尔坦律师：法官，我再次重申，我没有任何理由怀疑她。\n\n法庭：我没说你有理由怀疑她。我是说这是基于她对你说的话。\n\n瓦尔坦律师：如果您是问我有没有和她一起去银行，我没有。\n\n法庭：那是——好的。那么——\n\n瓦尔坦律师：但是我们——\n\n法庭：还有什么其他来源——你是什么——当她查阅这些记录时你在场吗\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 41 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 42 实体，看看哪些是——哪些文件会应答该传票？\n瓦尔坦律师（MR. VARTAN）：我之前曾与郭女士一起梳理过她的记录，以进行——\n法庭（THE COURT）：那不是我的问题。\n瓦尔坦律师：——先前的证据出示。\n法庭：那不是我的问题。我的问题是一个非常直接的问题。\n瓦尔坦律师：不是——\n法庭：当她梳理自己的记录、审查可能应答送达给哈德逊钻石（Hudson Diamond）各实体的传票的文件时，你在场吗？\n瓦尔坦律师：法官，我的理解是，除了她和我之前审查过的记录之外，她没有其他记录。\n法庭：瓦尔坦律师，那仍然没有回答我的问题。\n瓦尔坦律师：那么——\n法庭：听清问题。当你的当事人梳理她的记录以——以——以确定她是否有记录应答已签发并送达（你承认已送达给哈德逊钻石各实体）的传票时，你在场吗？\n瓦尔坦律师：当她梳理——\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 42 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 43\n法庭：好的。\n瓦尔坦律师：——紧接在6月15日之前的文件时，我不在场。没错。\n法庭：所以你不在场。关于你的当事人对其持有和控制的、可能应答送达给哈德逊钻石各实体的传票的文件所进行的审查，你没有查看、观察或讨论过，是吗？\n瓦尔坦律师：我们绝对讨论过。所以我没有查看或观察她。\n法庭：那么，关于应答传票，你们进行了什么讨论？这不受特权保护。所以你可以主张这是律师/当事人特权。但这并不是。\n瓦尔坦律师：好吧，我——\n法庭：你收到了一份传票。你已经承认传票已妥善送达。你没有对传票提出异议。你没有提交撤销动议。你没有提交保护令申请。所以你现在不能提出任何享有任何特权的异议。那么，关于可能应答送达给哈德逊钻石各实体的传票的文件，你们进行了什么讨论？\n瓦尔坦律师：好吧，我坚持认为这些沟通是享有特权的。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 43 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 44\n法庭：好吧，你可以这么坚持，但我——你错了。继续说吧。什么——\n瓦尔坦律师：所以，好吧，我不会深入探讨与我当事人的特权沟通，但当然我们——\n法庭：好吧，那你会被判藐视法庭，明白吗？因为你有义务，瓦尔坦律师。作为法庭官员，你对法庭负有义务。\n瓦尔坦律师：毫无疑问。\n法庭：明白吗？\n瓦尔坦律师：我不是想打断——\n法庭：而且你在同意令中以及通过罗姆尼律师（Attorney Romney）在记录中声明过，你将遵守这些传票。并且你必须证明，不仅是你的当事人，你必须证明你采取了哪些步骤来遵守传票。而我什么都没听到。一件都没听到。\n瓦尔坦律师：法官阁下，首先也是最重要的，我们与霍奇森·罗斯律师事务所（Hodgson Russ）进行了多次交谈，包括电话和电子邮件，我们认为该所是控股实体（holdings entity）双方的律师——\n法庭：而你没有从他们那里拿到任何文件。他们告诉你他们不会出示这些文件。对此你做了什么？你只是说，好吧，他们不打算\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 44 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 45\n出示。这就是你所说的。我已经看过了。我的意思是，罗姆尼律师在他的声明书后面附上了——霍奇森·罗斯的一位人士说我拒绝与你交谈。\n瓦尔坦律师：没错。那是实际经办该案卷的律师。\n法庭：好的。当他说我——时你做了什么？\n瓦尔坦律师：所以当他——\n法庭：——拒绝与你交谈。\n瓦尔坦律师：——当他说我拒绝与你交谈时，我们表示我们交谈是极其重要的。然后他指示——\n法庭：我不记得我看到过任何关于这方面的内容。\n瓦尔坦律师：嗯，有电子邮件往来，其中——\n法庭：嗯，这没有记入案卷记录。\n瓦尔坦律师：法官阁下，请允许我说完。我刚才说的只是——\n法庭：你可以说完，瓦尔坦律师，但你需要非常小心。明白吗？\n瓦尔坦律师：我正尽量小心。\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n瓦尔坦律师：在我们与哈蒙先生（Mr. Harmon）交谈之后\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 45 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 46 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n1 他拒绝与我们交谈，随后他让我们去找霍奇森·罗斯的总法律顾问。\n2 这就是我们如何联系到\n3 第二位律师的。\n罗姆尼律师和我与他进行了多次\n4 交谈，在交谈中我们解释了我们正在\n5 尽最大努力代表\n6 控股公司（Holdings）和纽约公司（New York）进行完整的证据出示。\n7 在这些交谈的背景下，\n8 他告诉我们，他不认为郭女士与\n9 纽约公司有任何关系。\n而这正是促成提交\n10 退出代理动议的原因。\n11 法庭：\n对。\n但你没有看到任何文件\n12 或者有——\n13 瓦尔坦律师：\n这个——\n14 法庭：\n而你的当事人说的恰恰\n15 相反。\n16 瓦尔坦律师：\n但是能——\n17 法庭：\n等等。\n等等。\n等等。\n你没有任何\n18 文件来支持来自霍奇森·罗斯的律师\n19 所发表的声明。\n20 瓦尔坦律师：\n确实如此。\n21 法庭：\n你没有任何文件。\n22 瓦尔坦律师：\n但我能不能——\n23 法庭：\n还有——请等等。\n24 瓦尔坦律师：\n对不起。\n我道歉。\n25 法庭：\n而你的当事人说的恰恰\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 47 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n1 相反，她说她是哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司（Hudson Diamond New York, LLC）的管理成员。\n2\n3 瓦尔坦律师：\n那么，法官阁下，请允许我对这一点进行说明？\n4 我们没有霍奇森·罗斯的文件，\n5 其原因并非是我们缺乏努力。\n这是因为\n6 霍奇森·罗斯声明称哈德逊钻石纽约公司\n7 与我们的当事人没有任何关系，而与\n8 她的兄弟有全部关系，而我们并不代理她的兄弟。\n因此，\n9 在霍奇森·罗斯与该兄弟之间存在特权，\n10 在霍奇森·罗斯与哈德逊钻石纽约公司之间存在特权，我们当然\n11 不能废止。\n所以这并不是因为我们缺乏努力。\n12 还有一件事，法官，我只想\n13 指出，我认为在罗姆尼先生\n14 所说的话中已经含蓄和明确地表达了，但我们在这里绝不是在对法庭\n15 或对受托人隐瞒真相。\n我们在本案中代表控股公司\n16 和纽约公司出庭的全部原因\n17 绝不是为了混淆视听，\n18 而是为了向受托人做出尽可能\n19 完整的证据出示。\n20 我们对任何一家实体都没有利益关系，\n21 就我们当时认为郭女士\n22 与它们有关联的范围而言，我们不希望任何一家实体被判藐视法庭。\n23 而且我相信受托人并不是想让这些实体被判\n24 藐视法庭。\n受托人想要获得文件。\n25 所以我们——\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 48\n法庭：好吧，他提出了一项待决的判决藐视法庭动议，所以我不同意你的说法。\n瓦尔坦律师：但我刚才说的是，我认为受托人更倾向于获取文件——\n法庭：这可能——是的，这会是他的倾向。\n瓦尔坦律师：——而不是让一个实体被判藐视法庭。而这就是我们竭尽全力所做的事，仅此而已。如果我们继续认为除了控股公司之外我们还代理哈德逊钻石纽约公司，那么我们就会进行证据出示。针对纽约公司提出退出代理动议的唯一原因，是基于那些交谈，基于我们针对霍奇森·罗斯所做的尽职调查。\n法庭：你当面见过霍奇森·罗斯的律师吗？\n瓦尔坦律师：我没有，法官阁下。\n法庭：你和那个人开过视频会议吗？\n瓦尔坦律师：我们通了多次电话。\n法庭：所以你甚至不知道那个人是谁。你甚至不知道那个人长什么样，对吧？\n瓦尔坦律师：从网站上我知道。但是，没有，我没有——\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 48 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 49 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n\n1 法庭：好。\n2 瓦尔坦律师（MR. VARTAN）：——一次视频会议。\n3 法庭：所以你进行了一次电话交谈，\n4 其中 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）那位不肯向你提交任何\n5 文件的相关人员告诉你，儿子是管理\n6 成员。基于这一点，你——\n7 瓦尔坦律师：纽约的。\n8 法庭：对。纽约的。\n9 瓦尔坦律师：没错。\n10 法庭：而且你——基于这一点，你\n11 撤回了——你提出动议——嗯，你没有提交\n12 出庭通知（notice of appearance），这完全是另一个问题。\n13 所以我们会在另一个时间谈论这一点。\n14 我们不能这样打乒乓球推来推去。好吗？\n15 我从这个案件一开始就谈过这个问题。\n16 你们要么都代理，要么都不代理，要么由一人代理一人不代理。\n17 我需要知道究竟是谁代表这些实体。\n18 这种情况在本法庭不能继续下去了。好吗？\n19 你们需要决定这究竟如何运作，并且你们需要\n20 坚持到底。\n21 因为让你在一些文件上签字，\n22 并在下方附上罗姆尼律师（Attorney Romney）的签名，\n23 显得像是作为本地代理律师（local counsel），然后让罗姆尼律师成为\n24 唯一提交出庭通知的人，这是不合规的。\n25 这在本案中绝不能再继续下去。所以你们大家必须\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 50 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 弄清楚这个问题。你们要么都代表它们，要么由你们当中的\n2 一人代表它们，仅此而已。\n3 瓦尔坦律师：我只是想在\n4 庭审记录中澄清这一点。\n5 自从我和我的律师事务所介入该案以来，\n6 在我的律所 CSG 与——之间，在很大程度上一直是一种共同法律顾问（co-counsel）关系。\n7 法庭：那为什么你没有代表\n8 两个 Hudson Diamond（哈德逊钻石）实体提交出庭通知？\n9 瓦尔坦律师：法官大人，等我\n10 着手准备提交时，显然出现了一个问题，\n11 我们已将该问题呈报给法庭。\n12 法庭：这不是事实。这不是\n13 事实。\n14 申请以藐视法庭为由强迫执行的动议当时正在审理中。\n15 而罗姆尼律师早在藐视法庭动议的听证会之前很久就提交了出庭通知。\n16 所以，瓦尔坦律师，这不是事实。\n17 所以我不想听这些，因为这不是事实。\n18 你做出了选择。行吧，你做出了那个\n19 选择。但你不能再这样选了。\n20 你们要么共同代表这些实体，要么由你们中的某一个人\n21 来代表。\n22 我们不能再这样下去了。你们在浪费\n23 法庭的时间，而且我认为你们对本法庭的陈述并不\n24 准确真实。所以你们\n25 需要好好反省深思这一点。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 51 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 51\n\n罗姆尼律师是唯一就该强迫执行动议提交宣誓书（affidavit）或声明书（declaration）的人。你会辩解说，嗯，我没必要提交。我从未代表 Hudson Diamond 实体提交过出庭通知。但我听到了什么？每一次与藐视法庭动议、出庭通知、动议以及文件提交相关的交谈，都有你瓦尔坦律师参与其中，而不仅仅是罗姆尼律师。这是不合规的。\n\n瓦尔坦律师：明白，法官大人。我也确实没有试图向本法庭或法庭上的任何当事方隐瞒任何事情。事实上，自从提交了要求裁定 Hudson Diamond 实体藐视法庭的动议以来，我们一直在尽最大努力弄清我们到底代表其中的哪一个实体。我们当然——\n\n法庭：嗯，当罗姆尼律师提交出庭通知时，你可没有尽最大努力去搞清楚你代表哪一个——实体。他当时代表了这两个实体。\n\n瓦尔坦律师：法官大人，不过话又说回来，这确实是做出来的——我也明白确实犯了错误。但我们这里想表达的是，这是出于最良好的意图做出的。也就是说，我们并没有试图向任何人隐瞒任何事情。我们只是——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 52 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 52\n\n法庭：瓦尔坦律师，无论这是否出于最良好的意图，其实都无关紧要。\n\n瓦尔坦律师：嗯，我——\n\n法庭：重要的是，你的职业义务是什么——\n\n瓦尔坦律师：我们当时试图——\n\n法庭：——根据适用的行为守则，以及作为 State of New York（纽约州）或 New Jersey（新泽西州）的律师协会成员并出庭本法庭执业，你的义务是什么。这些才是你的义务。你心里无论怎么想的意图都无所谓。重要的是，你的法定要求是什么？你的义务是什么？你依法必须做什么？\n\n瓦尔坦律师：法官大人，我认为我们已经履行了这些义务。\n\n法庭：好。那是你的看法。行吧。好的。罗姆尼律师，你还有什么想补充的吗？\n\n罗姆尼律师（MR. ROMNEY）：有的。非常简短地说几句，法官大人。我代表 Hudson Diamond 实体提交的出庭通知——我手头其实没有带这份文件，但我记得它应该是——\n\n法庭：我能——如果你愿意的话，我们可以把它投到屏幕上。\n\n罗姆尼律师：如果不太麻烦的话，那\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 53\n\n会有所帮助。\n\n法庭：好的。我们来找一下。稍等一分钟，我们会把它投到屏幕上。\n\n罗姆尼律师：如果我没记错的话，我认为是6月1日晚上10点多提交的。\n\n法庭：ECF 编号是 1848。上面显示你代表利害关系人 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）和 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）进行了出庭登记。\n\n罗姆尼律师：我——我确认一下它是在晚上10点多提交的吗？\n\n法庭：晚上10点16分。其实——是的。不对，是晚上8点16分。\n\n罗姆尼律师：8点16分。好的。我以为是在10点左右。不过——也许是在10点多提交的延期审理（adjournment）动议。\n\n法庭：可能是这样。你想让我——\n\n罗姆尼律师：不用，不用，不用。\n\n法庭：好的。\n\n罗姆尼律师：法官大人，我想说明的一点是，这份文件是在答辩截止日期的前一天晚上——或者截止日期的当晚提交的——\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\n罗姆尼律师：——答辩截止日期。\n\n法庭：我明白。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 53 of 180\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 54 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 罗姆尼律师：律师——\n2 法庭：听证会直到6月6日才举行。\n3 罗姆尼律师：我明白。瓦尔坦律师曾经——\n4 是代表 HK International（HK 国际）和 Mei Guo（郭美）经特别许可（pro hac vice）获准在本法庭出庭的。\n5 我非常明确地记得，\n6 之所以由我来提交这份出庭通知，是因为\n7 当时没有时间再办理另一份特别许可出庭申请。\n8 法庭：我理解这一点。但你本可以\n9 在第二天办理的。\n10 罗姆尼律师：确实可以。而且正如——\n11 法庭：当时有——实际上，你当晚就本可以\n12 办理，因为全部都是电子化提交（electronic filing）。\n13 非常容易。\n14 罗姆尼律师：我们——\n15 法庭：在许多其他场合你都办得很好，\n16 本法庭的其他人也是如此。\n17 罗姆尼律师：实际上我不知道怎么进行电子提交（E-file），\n18 在今时今日这确实挺让人难为情的。但我——但我们\n19 有非常优秀的辅助工作人员，所以这并没有实质区别。\n20\n21 在我们提交这份文件时，没有任何人——不仅是我，\n22 瓦尔坦律师不是，郭女士也不是，我与之交谈过的其他任何人也都没有——\n23 预料到除了我们通过协商获得短暂延期\n24 以换取我们的合规配合之外还会发生别的事情。\n25 而关于合规配合，我认为——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 55 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 结合判例法我做出的定义是准确的——但\n2 如果我搞错了，我表示道歉——即真诚且\n3 勤勉地尝试去查找属于委托人\n4 实际和推定控制下的每一份文件。而这正是\n5 我们打算做的。这正是我们同意去做的。这也就是\n6 我们实际所做的。\n7 而且在瓦尔坦律师、我自己和\n8 郭女士之间，没有任何人预料到这会演变成值得\n9 让另一名律师提交特别许可出庭申请——另一份特别许可出庭\n10 申请、在本案中新增一项案卷记录（docket entry）的程度，因为我们\n11 大家都打算并且确实出于善意去履行配合，并将破产受托人（trustee）\n12 针对这些实体所想要的一切全部提供给受托人。\n13 而且我——\n14 法庭：嗯，我没有收到郭女士的任何\n15 声明书，所以我无法就此做出任何事实认定。\n16 我唯一能做出认定的——是针对\n17 你在承担伪证罪处罚前提下在声明书中所陈述的内容，\n18 我对你提交该声明表示认可。好吗？\n19 罗姆尼律师：谢谢您。\n20 法庭：所以我无法评论郭女士的\n21 意图是什么。我也无法评论瓦尔坦律师的\n22 意图是什么，因为他没有提交任何材料。我唯一能\n23 评述的就是本案中已经发生的事情以及——我们目前\n24 所处的境况。\n25 而且我们在6月6日时的处境是，当时\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 56 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 可能会针对 Hudson Diamond 实体\n2 作出一项裁定，认定其构成藐视法庭。而在\n3 案卷上、在庭审记录中我被告知，各方已经达成一致，\n4 确认你代表它们两个实体，且各方达成协议\n5 它们将提交文件，并且将在6月15日之前提交。\n6 罗姆尼律师，你现在陈述说，\n7 你认为就——关于针对 Hudson Diamond Holding, LLC 提交文件的传票（subpoenas），\n8 你已经履行配合完毕。\n9 这是你的陈述。受托人接下来打算怎么处理\n10 就怎么处理。我们很快就会\n11 在——我相信很快就会听到反馈。\n12 至于 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC，据我所知\n13 没有任何合规履行。而且也没有人\n14 向我证明存在任何合规履行。因此，如果受托人\n15 提出认定藐视法庭的动议，我届时将会予以审理。\n16 罗姆尼律师：我不会提出反对。\n17 法庭：嗯，正如你所说的，我认为你没有——嗯，你——\n18 罗姆尼律师：没错。那是——\n19 法庭：如果你与你提出的撤销律师资格动议（motion to withdraw your attorney）保持一致的话，你没有任何代理权限来\n20 反对它。\n21 罗姆尼律师：没错。\n22 法庭：所以无论如何，还有什么\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日 57 还有什么要补充的吗？\n罗姆尼律师：没有了。谢谢您——\n法庭：好的。\n罗姆尼律师：——听取我们的陈述。\n法庭：好的。那么我想听听破产受托人律师的意见——\n瓦尔坦律师：谢谢法官阁下。\n法庭：——以及United States Trustee（联邦破产受托人办公室）的意见。\n卢夫特律师：法官阁下，关于您先听哪一方的陈述，您有偏好吗？\n法庭：我没有偏好。\n卢夫特律师：好的。法官阁下，我可以向前到发言席吗？\n法庭：可以，请。\n卢夫特律师：谢谢法官阁下。下午好，法官阁下。Avi Luft（艾维·卢夫特），来自Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所），代表破产受托人。法官阁下，我今天无意去谈论对方律师的意图是什么。我没有参与他们与任何其他人进行的谈话，无论对方是他们的当事人还是Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·罗斯律师事务所）。我对此无从置评。因此我想谈的，且希望是简短阐述的，是针对这样一种说法，即没有人知道是谁在运营Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约公司），以及推定在世界上存在的、可能符合我们传票要求的所有文件均已提交，从而已经构成了遵从。因为我认为这两点都没那么简单明了。法官阁下，据我理解，他们提到了我们提交的文件中显示Hudson Diamond New York的唯一成员似乎是郭女士。我们确实提交了。那些文件附在我的证词陈述中，即证据1805。具体来说，法官阁下，如果您看一下——\n法庭：证据T。\n卢夫特律师：有证据T，法官阁下。还有证据U，它——\n法庭：我可能还没看证据U。请继续。\n卢夫特律师：——以及证据G、H和I，法官阁下。\n法庭：好的。\n卢夫特律师：简而言之，这就是我们为何这样认为的原因：如果您看证据G，那是Hodgson Russ为Golden Springs（金泉公司）的Yvette Wang（王雁平女士）准备的一份文件，其中列出了相关实体的组织架构图；我可以告诉您，从与他们的交谈中得知，他们认为这些实体是由债务人控制的。但即便如此，他们也列出了具名的人员。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 58 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日 58 在关于Hudson Diamond Holdings（哈德逊钻石控股公司）的图表下，可以看到郭女士位于最顶端，直接在Hudson Diamond Holdings之上，而后者又直接在Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）之上。与此一致的是，证据H是一份关于Hudson Diamond New York的文件，其中将王女士列为联系人，但将唯一成员列为Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC，持股100%。不出所料，地址位于曼哈顿东64街162号，这正是债务人大部分实体所在地。接着如果我们看证据I，我们可以看到谁拥有Hudson Diamond Holdings。成员被列为郭女士，持有100%权益，地址同样是东64街162号。正如法官阁下所提到的，还有证据T，其中我们看到郭女士签字，与其作为Hudson Diamond Holdings唯一成员的身份一致。以及证据U，其中我们再次看到郭女士签字，这次也是作为Hudson Diamond Holdings的唯一成员。基于这些文件，这就是我们为何认定郭女士是控制Hudson Diamond Holdings和Hudson Diamond New York的人。我们不知道有任何文件表明具名成员是其他任何人。我要告诉您的是，\n\n基于证据开示和我们的调查，我认为债务人实际上控制着该实体。但就谁是\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 60 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日 60 成员以及谁能够——应当回应传票而言，这就是——我们认为由谁负责。现在，我感觉我不清楚为什么此时会出现混乱，因为我的理解是，虽然没有任何地方有任何人见过的文件表明郭女士以外的人是成员，但曾有陈述称发生过一些谈话，在谈话中Hodgson Russ的科尔尼律师表示其子可能是成员。那完全有可能发生过。我不知道。我所知道的是，如果我们看罗姆尼律师的证词陈述和证据A，科尔尼先生写信给罗姆尼律师和瓦尔坦律师，表示他怀疑自己是否说过那样的话，但更重要的是指出，文件表明Holdings是成员，而不是儿子Qiang Guo（郭强）。并且他接着说，关于Hudson Diamond New York的委托书是发给王女士的。因此，无论在电话中说了什么，而且很可能存在误传，但我认为科尔尼先生此时已经明确表示，并不认为债务人的儿子郭先生是Holdings的成员；在那种情况下，没有任何理由认为郭女士，Mei Guo（郭美），不是Holdings的成员；在那种情况下，他们应当能够遵从传票。法官阁下，我为什么在乎这一点？完全\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 61 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日\n1 出于一个原因。我们需要获取文件。我们需要一个\n2 我们能够与其对话、能够从中获取文件的人。\n3 这就引出了我们这里的第二个要点，\n4 那就是您今天听到了他们说\n5 他们已经从所有来源获取了所有文件。\n6 罗姆尼律师在其证词陈述中说，我没有任何理由\n7 相信New York或Holdings拥有任何资产或\n8 提交额外文件的能力。\n9 那么，法官阁下，我不知道这怎么可能\n10 是真实的。我曾与瓦尔坦律师和\n11 罗姆尼律师交谈过。我特别向他们指出了我证词陈述的证据\n12 J，那是代表Hudson Diamonds New York与\n13 AIG（美亚保险）签订的一份保险协议，表明\n14 有一辆劳斯莱斯登记在他们名下。我们没有任何\n15 关于此的文件。我们从Holdings那里遵从传票收到的总共\n16 只有两份文件。所以证据J涉及一辆劳斯莱斯。\n17 如果您看证据V，那是Margaret Conboy（玛格丽特·康博伊）的\n18 宣誓证言笔录。\n19 法庭：证据——哪一个？\n20 卢夫特律师：V，Victor的V。\n21 法庭：V？好的。稍等一秒。\n22 卢夫特律师：好的，法官阁下。\n23 法庭：好的。那么我现在看的是——\n24 卢夫特律师：那就是——\n25 法庭：——你证词陈述所附的证据J——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 62 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日\n1 卢夫特律师：是的，法官阁下。\n2 法庭：——该证据附于1805号文件之下，位于\n3 1805-36，第1页（共5页）。这里有一份——纽约汽车账单\n4 声明页。上面写着保单号、被保险人姓名/名称\n5 及邮寄地址，Hudson Diamond New York, LLC，\n6 纽约州纽约市东64街162号。承保公司名称\n7 及地址，AIG Property Casualty Company（AIG财产意外险公司）。\n8 承保车辆描述：2019款劳斯莱斯，\n9 附车辆识别代码（VIN），约定价值为$283,712。\n10 这就是你所指的内容吗？\n11 罗姆尼律师：是的，法官阁下。\n12 法庭：对驾驶人的描述是\n13 两名注明已获授权并承保的个人，Dean\n14 Rabideau——我不确定我读得对不对——\n15 R-A-B-I-D-E-A-U——以及曹德锋——同样，我\n16 发音可能不太准确——C-A-O是\n17 姓氏。D-E-F-E-N-G是名字。\n18 每次事故有一百万美元的责任\n19 保险保额。每人医疗费用保额为\n20 $50,000。无保险驾驶人保额为每次事故一百万。\n21 车辆自身损坏的碰撞险\n22 最高达约定价值。人身伤害\n23 保障保费为$5,817。看起来\n24 这是一份四页的文件。\n25 好的。请继续。这是证据G——J，jam的J。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 63 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日\n现在我们需要看Victor的V吗？\n卢夫特律师：是的，法官阁下，这是Margaret Conboy的宣誓证言笔录，她是Whitman Breed（惠特曼·布里德律师事务所）的一名律师，曾代表霍奇森——Hudson Diamond处理涉及郭先生的至少五笔房地产交易——\n法庭：在这份宣誓证言中，你想让我翻到哪一页？我现在已经打开证据V了。\n卢夫特律师：法官阁下，我可以为您指出证据21——第21页，那里有一段关于Hudson Diamond的讨论。我并不——只是为了让您能看到这是什么。我并不打算把所有这些都过一遍。\n法庭：你想让我把它调到屏幕上，还是你只想——等等。你想怎么处理？\n卢夫特律师：法官阁下，我直接援引即可。我认为这样可以加快进度。\n法庭：好的。请继续。\n卢夫特律师：具体而言，它谈到了代表一个名为Hudson Diamond的实体进行的购买行为。然后上面写道：“这也是那次委托吗，当时你被告知你代表的是郭先生及其家族的利益，对吗？是的。”然后由此继续展开。法官阁下，我提出这些，并且我和他们提出过\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 64 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年7月11日\n\n此前瓦尔坦律师（Mr. Vartan）和罗姆尼律师（Mr. Romney）曾表示，我们知道有关车辆的情况，我们知道存在房地产交易，我们知道似乎存在与 Hudson Diamond 各实体相关的转账，这意味着应当存在相关文件。这并不是一家什么都没做过、或者从未有人代表其行事的空壳公司。\n\n但我们目前所收到的，只有各位从 Holdings 那里听说的两份文件，而截至目前，我们尚未从 New York 那里收到任何文件。而且不幸的是，听起来我们被告知根本没有任何人可以就此进行沟通。我实在更希望能够掌握关于这些资产身在何处的信息，例如是否实际购买了某处——某处房产。\n\n法官阁下，我查到其中一些房产价值高达3500万美元以上。我不知道是否最终完成了任何交易。但我知道，如果他们打算购买，就必定拥有资金。或者至少这是一个合理的推断。\n\n因此这正是我在此试图查明的情况。而在目前看来，我认为这应当是可以查知的。不仅所有文件都表明了这一点，而且说哥哥、妹妹和父亲彼此之间无法沟通并不清楚债务人将谁的名字置于公司名下，这本身应当是可以查清的，尤其是在这三个实体中的两个由同一位代理律师代表的情况下。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年7月11日 第65页 律师。因此，法官阁下，这确实是我们在此问题上所处的现状。我理解这样一种主张，即如果他们——如果他们表示自己并不代表它们，那么他们就不能——他们就需要撤回代理，因为他们并没有代表它们。我只能根据我们已知的信息，以及我们向您呈交的关于我们为何认为郭女士是负责人的理由来陈述。情况就是如此。但我必须提出异议的是，关于已经履行了义务、或者我们已收到与 Hudson Diamond 相关的全部文件的主张，无论该文件是来自在我们看来全资拥有 New York 的 Holdings，还是来自 New York。我不知道具体的——所有资产到底在哪里或诸如此类的具体情况。这正是文件应当告诉我的。但我并不认为他们已经履行完毕。因此针对这两方面，法官阁下，我谨重申我们关于裁定藐视法庭的动议。法庭：好的。谢谢。勒夫特律师：谢谢。法庭：克莱伯恩律师？克莱伯恩女士：谢谢，法官阁下。霍莉·克莱伯恩（Holley Claiborn）代表美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）。我想回到勒夫特律师（Attorney Luft）指出的某一点上，我认为那是应当重点关注的，即基于\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 入卷于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第66页 共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年7月11日\n\n罗姆尼律师与 Hodgson Russ 律师事务所的凯文·卡尼律师（Attorney Kevin Kearney）之间的电子邮件，各方似乎达成了一致共识，即任何人所见过的现存最后一份文件，实际上是由郭美（Mei Guo）以 Holdings 唯一成员（sole member）的身份签署的，而 Holdings 同样是——它同样是 New York 的唯一成员。因此，那是呈交在法庭面前的最后一份文件，也是被讨论到的最后一份文件。\n\n该文件与卡尼律师在罗姆尼律师宣誓书所附电子邮件中所表达的内容是一致的。因此基于此，至少在纸面文件上，郭美是负责人这一点似乎没有任何疑义。\n\n因此，如果郭美是负责人，那么罗姆尼律师似乎与她存在直接联系，因为他同时也以她的个人身份代表她。那么，似乎就没有任何理由提出撤回出庭代理。\n\n我想说的另一件事是，代表 Hudson Diamond——抱歉，Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 撤回出庭代理，似乎会对破产财团（estate）造成损害。因为正如勒夫特律师刚才所指出的，有许多方面的文件本应提供却未予提供，且已逾期。受托人目前有一份因未能遵守传票而要求裁定藐视法庭的待决动议，而允许\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 入卷于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第67页 共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年7月11日\n\n罗姆尼律师撤回对 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 的代理，似乎会损害破产财团的利益，并损害受托人试图开展的调查。因此归根结底，法官阁下，我认为罗姆尼律师并未完成其证明撤回代理具有正当性的举证责任。\n\n我要说的另一件事是，美国受托人对法院命令的回应中，要求罗姆尼律师和瓦尔坦律师就若干不同问题作出答复。正如法院已经注意到的，瓦尔坦律师未提交任何回应。而我认为，罗姆尼律师提交的回应并未涵盖美国受托人所要求的全部要点。\n\n并且，不仅基于已提交的声明以及今天发表的意见来看，关于导致提出撤回代理动议的一系列事件，显然本可以向法院提供更多信息。因此不幸的是，美国受托人试图获取更多关于发生了什么以及我们如何走到这一步的信息的努力，仍未能实现。\n\n但是回到我刚才提到的那一点，\n\n即所提供的任何人持有的最后一份文件均表明，郭美是所有这些实体的核心，因此基于此，罗姆尼律师似乎具有继续留任本案的依据。谢谢\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年7月11日 第68页 各位。法庭：谢谢。罗姆尼律师，你是否希望作出回应？罗姆尼先生：是的，我希望回应。关于第一个问题，回应勒夫特律师：问题不在于世界上是否存在关于 Hudson Diamond 各实体相关的任何文件。除了我已经发表的意见之外，我无法就此进一步置评。问题在于我或我能控制的人是否能够找到这些文件。受托人在本案中声称，就其动用全部资源（远远超出我所能动用的范围）所进行的调查而言，涉及两名个人——而且他们拥有 Hodgson Russ 律师事务所的全部案卷档案。而我没有。记录很清楚地显示我曾提出要求。我进行了索取，但我被拒绝了。这在记录中有载。我不可能手里拿着枪去 Hodgson Russ 办公室，法律也没有要求我这么做，去强迫他们把我的案卷给我。我可以询问。我可以要求。但归根结底，我被拒绝了。而他们得到了同意。他们拿到了案卷。我没有拿到。他们掌握着信息。根据该信息，正如郭女士所言或告知我们的那样，以及我们所陈述的那样，他们指称负责管理这些实体的两个人是王雁平（Yvette Wang），她目前在押，我根本无法\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年7月11日 第69页 与她取得联系；以及马克斯·克拉斯纳（Max Krasner），我们无法找到他，据我们所知他与郭女士已有数月没有任何联系。而且我们无法找到他的下落。因此，就我们所知，掌握这些信息的个人，以及受托人所提及的所有文件，除了存放在 Hodgson Russ 以及其他正在配合他们而非配合我们的人手中的部分外，均在美国司法部（U.S. Department of Justice）手中。我不认为——我并未主动向美国司法部索要他们关于这些实体的案卷，因为在我的整个职业生涯中，即使是在我有客户配合他们的情况下，我也从未从美国司法部那里收到过任何一份文件。我们已经尽力而为了。这是第一点。第二，Hodgson Russ 在与我们最近的沟通中，根据《职业行为伦理规则》第1.6条拒绝向我们披露保密信息，因为作为起草了这份被美国受托人办公室和勒夫特先生称为决定性文件的律所总法律顾问，起草了这份所谓决定性文件的律所总法律顾问自身对该文件究竟是什么、为何起草都不甚确定，以至于作为郭女士和 Hudson Diamond Holdings 的代理律师，除了该文件是应 案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 入卷于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第69页 共\n\n菲奥雷速记与转录服务公司（Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.）\n\n马克斯·克拉斯纳的要求起草的这一事实之外，他拒绝向我提供任何其他信息。\n案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 入卷于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第70页 共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年7月11日\n\n因此，我认为这远不能确凿证明郭女士控制着这些实体。而且，您知道，如果郭女士控制这些实体，正如我在记录中所言，我将撤回我要求撤回出庭代理的动议，因为我提请撤回的唯一依据是——曾经是因为我不知道郭女士是否有权指示我代表其出庭。而起草证明她拥有该权力的“确凿证据”（smoking gun）的律师本人或该律所的总法律顾问自己都不知道。\n\n因此我不知道本法院何以能要求我继续代表该实体。我非常希望能掌握所有这些事实，并能够代表该实体继续留任并继续竭尽所能。但我并不掌握。根据我所掌握的事实，我没有充分的信息让我相信，在伦理规则之下我可以继续代表该实体。\n\n关于勒夫特律师就卡尼律师和 Hodgson Russ 的意见所说的话，还有一点需要说明。卡尼律师并没有说，与事实相反——或者尽管他在电子邮件沟通中表示他不记得曾告诉我们——告诉瓦尔坦律师和我那是债务人的儿子。这似乎是毫无实质差异的区别，因为他明确表示那是债务人的儿子作为 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc. 的签署人。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 入卷于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第71页 共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）——2023年7月11日\n\n根据 Hodgson Russ 的说法，Hudson Diamond's Holding, Inc.（原文如此）是一家英属维尔京群岛公司。它不是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC。它们名称中都含有 Hudson Diamond Holdings 这一事实，并不能使它们成为同一个实体，也不能使郭女士成为该英属维尔京群岛公司的主要负责人。\n\n而且据我所忆，我甚至认为受托人在本案中从未指控郭女士与 Hodgson Diamond Holdings, Inc. 有任何关联。因此，无论卡尼律师是告诉我们那是债务人的儿子迈尔斯·郭（Mileson Guo，即郭强）——对此我百分之百肯定他确实说过，还是告诉我们那是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.，一家英属维尔京群岛公司——记录中的电子邮件确实在邮件往来的较早部分对这两个实体作出了区分，因为他明确指称了 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc.。而我说瓦尔坦律师和我代表的是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC，一家特拉华州有限责任公司。关于特拉华州有限责任公司，您的答复是否与英属维尔京群岛股份有限公司相同？他的回答是：是的，相同。\n\n因此，无论是以个人身份的迈尔斯·郭，还是作为英属维尔京群岛公司 Hudson Diamond Holdings, Inc. 总裁的迈尔斯·郭，关于——它是——关于此的答复是，就我所能\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 入卷于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第72页 共\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 72 对郭女士（Ms. Guo）的核实情况也是一样的。出于这个原因，我认为我必须退出代理。最后一点，关于美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）的主张或认为我在回应其要求的宣誓书时未回答其问题，我逐一查看了她的问题。我认为这些问题在很大程度上是多余的，至少就这两家实体而言是如此，但是——\n\n针对它们两者都是同时进行的。而且我提供了——我尽了最大努力，就她的问题、我所掌握的知情情况以及我就此事进行的勤勉调查，提供我所能提供的一切。\n\n因为许多这些讨论都是同时发生的，\n\n而且，事实上，我在起草了这份声明后所做的，就是回头重新阅读了联邦检察官（U.S. Attorney）索取信息的请求。在我基于三度审查她的请求并起草了该文件之后，我意识到我认为自己唯一没有确定的问题，就是为什么是我而不是瓦尔坦律师（Attorney Vartan）——或者为什么唯独我出庭。这就是为什么——关于为什么是我出庭而瓦尔坦律师没有出庭的答复。这涉及到专门出庭动议（pro hac vice motion），以及我们当时认为这是一件非常轻微的事情，在专门出庭动议中让多人出庭在我们看来既不明智也不高效。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 73 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 法官：稍等一下。关于\n2 你刚才说的话，为了明确起见，你认为这项\n3 蔑视法庭动议是一件非常轻微的事情？\n4 罗姆尼律师（MR. ROMNEY）：我认为该蔑视法庭动议\n5 ——或者协商短期延期并\n6 尽一切可能予以配合的过程，会是一件轻微的\n7 事情，因为我并没有——我预料我们会出庭。\n8 我曾认为我可以协商一个短期——实际上，我收回刚才的话。\n9 在我出庭时，我已经知道瓦尔坦律师\n10 与卢夫特律师（Attorney Luft）已就短期延期\n11 达成了协议，而且我知道我将与\n12 郭女士及瓦尔坦律师通力合作，竭尽所能去\n13 配合执行，或——并尽可能多地找到符合要求的\n14 文件。\n15 正如我之前所说，我对\n16 回应传票的理解是，提供属于当事人\n17 实际控制和推定控制之下的所有文件。\n18 而且我不认为，如果我向前任律师事务所\n19 或声称从未代表过该当事人的律师事务所提出要求，\n20 而该所叫我吃闭门羹，我认为那就是——处于\n21 该所控制之下的文件并不属于我和我当事人的\n22 实际或推定控制之下。\n23 按照我的理解，\n24 实际或推定控制是指处于受我和我当事人\n\nFiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.（费奥雷速记与转录服务公司）\n\n指示行事之人的控制之下，并且如果\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 74 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 我告诉他们必须配合执行。而不是说我必须对某人采取\n2 法律行动来调取据我理解第11章受托人（Chapter 11 trustee）\n3 已经掌握的文件，因为他们的整个立场是——尽管 Hodgson Russ（霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所）\n4 不清楚拥有这些公司的是债务人的儿子还是债务人的\n5 女儿，它仍然将其关于这些公司的所有\n6 案卷提供给了第11章受托人，\n7 尽管据向我透露的一切情况来看，\n8 它并未主张这是债务人的\n9 实体。\n10 对此并无异议。\n11 第11章受托人拿到了这些文件。\n12 他们掌握的信息比我们多。\n13 但正如这些文件所证明的，我们一次又一次、\n14 一再进行了尝试。\n15 我们告诉了他们这很重要。我们告诉了他们为什么重要。\n16 我告诉他们我已经基于他们的陈述提交了退出代理的动议，\n17 且我需要所有信息。我多次发出了书面要求。\n18 关于霍奇森·拉斯律师事务所，\n19 我不知道我还能做些什么。\n20 关于 Max Krasner（马克斯·克拉斯纳），我也不知道我还能做些什么。并且我告知了——在第11章受托人不知道\n\n关于马克斯·克拉斯纳。并且我告知了——在第11章受托人不知道第一资本银行（Capital One）账户的范围内，我把这些账户告诉了他们，以便他们可以从第一资本银行调取。而且我本想——我其实宁愿由我来交付这些文件，这样我就可以交付了。但我做不到。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 75 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 75 我能做的最好的事就是告诉他们这些账户的存在。而且我知道这些账户存在，是因为他们告诉郭女士——根据她告诉我的，他们告诉她这些账户存在，但他们不肯把文件给她。所以—— 法官：你是说——为了明确起见——你指的是那家银行，第一资本银行？ 罗姆尼律师：第一资本银行。是的。 法官：而且存在的文件是 Hudson Diamond（哈德逊钻石）实体账户的文件。你是这个意思吗？ 罗姆尼律师：我就是这个意思。 法官：好的。请继续。 罗姆尼律师：我想说的最后一件事是，如果第11章——如果美国受托人或在场的任何其他人认为我漏答了宣誓下的任何问题，我就在这里，并准备好回答任何人想向我提出的宣誓下的任何问题。谢谢。 法官：好的。谢谢你。不过我正好有一个之前没问你的问题，因为我之前没有关注卢夫特律师所关注的某些证据项。那么，你是否曾要求郭女士向你提供关于 Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约公司）与 AIG（美国国际集团）之间承保一辆汽车的这份保险单的任何文件？\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\nPage 76 of\n180\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 罗姆尼律师：\n2 我不知道有关于汽车的保险单。\n3 法官：\n4 呃，唯一的问题是，该证据项早在第1805号文件中就提交了，而那是在\n5 你代表——提交出庭通知之前的一段时间提交的，\n6 它是在5月18日提交的。\n7 罗姆尼律师：\n8 我理解这一点。而且，法官阁下，\n9 正如阁下所指出的，本案中有大量的\n10 书面文件。有大量的工作要做。\n11 而且——\n12 法官：\n13 没错。但这是针对\n14 哈德逊钻石的。这是——请记住，这是蔑视法庭动议的\n15 一部分。\n16 罗姆尼律师：\n17 这——\n18 法官：\n19 而且蔑视法庭动议\n20 具体列出了各项证据，以支持关于\n21 某些实体的指控——并且涉及许多实体。不仅是\n22 哈德逊。我同意你的看法。\n23 但是他们——该动议附有与哈德逊钻石实体相关的\n24 证据项。\n25 并且上面说这就是我们索取文件的原因。这里有一些证据项向你表明，至少从目前向我们展示的情况来看，Hudson Diamond New York, LLC（哈德逊钻石纽约有限责任公司）和/或 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC（哈德逊钻石控股有限责任公司）曾经拥有资产，并且目前也拥有资产。该保单承保的期间\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 77 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 持续至2023年5月。然后还有前任律师的\n2 宣誓证言转录文本，其中谈到了\n3 哈德逊钻石实体试图购买不动产。\n4 我是说，有证据项 G、E、H、U、J，然后是\n5 证据项 T，也就是你提到的。你在你的声明中\n6 提到了证据项 T，这也是我回头看它的\n7 原因之一，因为你在声明中提到了证据项 T。\n8 而且感谢你提到了该证据项。\n9 但是在包含证据项 T 的同一份动议之后还附有其他证据项，\n10 它们直接涉及 Hudson Diamond New York, LLC 或\n11 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的资产存在情况。\n12 所以我的问题是，你是否就那些证据项和那些资产\n13 询问过你的当事人？\n14 罗姆尼律师：\n15 我需要从两个方面来回答这个问题。\n16 如果表述为我是否就那些证据项询问过他们，回答是没有。\n17 因为在提交延期审理动议之前——你知道，再次声明，我认为关于\n18 所有权没有任何争议。我与卢夫特律师谈过——\n19 法官：\n20 谁的所有权——\n21 罗姆尼律师：\n22 纽约实体的。\n23 法官：\n24 谁控制这些实体——\n25 罗姆尼律师：\n26 是的。\n27 法官：\n28 ——而不是具体资产的所有权？\n29 罗姆尼律师：\n30 是的。\n31 法官：\n32 好的。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 78 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 78 罗姆尼律师：正如法庭所指示的，我在会议室与卢夫特律师交谈，以达成我们的协议。他在那次会议上提到了一辆劳斯莱斯（Rolls-Royce），没有提到证据项或任何东西，而是问了我关于一辆劳斯莱斯的事。我说我会去问。而且我——那是我第一次提到——我所知情的是一个已被关闭的第一资本银行账户。我确实向郭女士询问了关于劳斯莱斯的事。我没有收到任何回复或任何有关它的文件。如果我收到了，我早就移交了。我没有—— 法官：所以她从未回复你关于劳斯莱斯的问题？ 罗姆尼律师：她并没有怠于回复。她的回复是表明她没有任何文件，而且—— 法官：关于劳斯莱斯的？ 罗姆尼律师：关于一辆劳斯莱斯的。而且—— 法官：你看，记录中完全没有这些。她没有提交任何声明。 罗姆尼律师：呃，再说一次，她不是本案的当事人。这—— 法官：好吧，如果她是 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的管理成员，她就是当事人，而文件表明她确实是。并且你代表她。你已经\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 79 明确说过—— 罗姆尼律师：是的。我代表她。 法官：——你——作为 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 的主理成员。 罗姆尼律师：我不知道那是否——她是—— 法官：那么，你还能通过什么方式获得授权来—— 罗姆尼律师：——指示我的个人—— 法官：你还能通过什么方式获得代表 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 行事的授权？ 罗姆尼律师：那是唯一的途径。 法官：好的。 罗姆尼律师：但我不认为—— 法官：那么—— 罗姆尼律师：——当我对—— 法官：那么你确实是在她作为 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC 主理成员的身份下代表她。 罗姆尼律师：那是——我认为我是代表该实体。但我也在她个人身份下代表她。 法官：对。但你代表该实体。出庭通知正是针对该实体——蔑视法庭动议也正是针对该实体提出的。 Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 79 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 80 罗姆尼律师：是的。而且我认为我们——我不认为—— 法庭：但她从未回答你关于劳斯莱斯的问题？ 罗姆尼律师：我——我不是这么说的。 法庭：好的。而且—— 罗姆尼律师：她回答了我的问题，即她没有任何文件，而且她无法获得—— 法庭：那你具体问了她关于劳斯莱斯的事吗？ 罗姆尼律师：我具体问了她关于劳斯莱斯的事。 法庭：那你具体问了她关于Hudson Diamond涉嫌参与的房地产交易吗？ 罗姆尼律师：我不认为我有具体问她关于——我不记得了，这是我的回答。而且我刚才想说的是，我没有阅读Luft（卢夫特）律师的声明或所有的证物。当卢夫特律师提出证物T时，我认为—— 法庭：那不是一份声明。那是实际的动议。 罗姆尼律师：我以为那是—— 法庭：不。那是——嗯，支持动议的。Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 80 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\nPage 81 of\n180\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n\n1 罗姆尼律师：\n不。\n对。\n该声明——\n\n2 法庭：\n对。\n\n3 罗姆尼律师：\n——附带——我没有阅读该\n\n4 声明或证物。\n\n5 法庭：\n支持藐视法庭动议的。\n\n6 是的。\n是的。\n\n7 罗姆尼律师：\n他提请我注意证物T，\n\n8 我对此非常感激，并向他表达了这一点，\n\n9 还给他打了电话。我口头和书面上都表示，\n\n10 我们愿意尽一切可能协助\n\n11 受托人代表任一实体查找文件。\n\n12 如果他掌握任何有助于我\n\n13 为他们查找文件的可用信息，\n\n14 只要有该等信息，我会尽一切努力。但我没有\n\n15 收到任何补充信息。\n\n16 也许我那样做很愚蠢，那是我的责任。\n\n17 我会承担这一点。我本应该那么做的。由于\n\n18 这种情况有许多变动因素，以及在构成\n\n19 本案的这个世界和我们大家都必须管理的\n\n20 其他案件中任何特定一天发生的其他变动因素，我没有\n\n21 回去查阅该声明并查看是否有任何\n\n22 其他本可以对我有所帮助的文件。\n\n23 但是，我被告知——我被告知，且我\n\n24 相信这是Hodgson Russ律师事务所，并且——但我不能肯定。\n\n25 而且坦白讲，我认为这不是很重要。但是\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 82 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n\n1 我相信Hodgson Russ的总法律顾问告诉我，\n\n2 纽约实体探讨过房地产交易，但据他们\n\n3 所知从未完成过哪怕一笔。\n\n4 而且我几乎可以肯定，卢夫特律师在未提及任何具体\n\n5 文件的情况下向我说了完全相同的\n\n6 事情。\n\n7 法庭：\n好的。\n\n8 罗姆尼律师：\n好的。谢谢您，法官阁下。\n\n9 法庭：\n您还有其他想补充的\n\n10 吗？\n\n11 罗姆尼律师：\n没有。除了重申我愿意宣誓\n\n12 回答其他人提出的任何问题。\n\n13 法庭：\n有人有任何问题想让罗姆尼律师宣誓\n\n14 并作为本次程序的一部分\n\n15 提问吗？\n\n16 卢夫特律师：\n我没有问题，法官阁下。\n\n17 克莱伯恩律师：\n法官阁下，如果我可以借此机会\n\n18 请罗姆尼律师梳理一下U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）的\n\n19 诉状，即ECF 1971。\n\n20 法庭：\n您是传唤——您想让他出庭\n\n21 作证并宣誓吗？\n\n22 克莱伯恩律师：\n如果可以的话。\n\n23 法庭：\n好的。\n\n24 克莱伯恩律师：\n因为我——\n\n25 法庭：\n罗姆尼律师主动提出，所以——\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\nPage 83 of\n180\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n\n1 克莱伯恩律师：\n我们有许多问题\n\n2 没有得到解答。\n\n3 法庭：\n罗姆尼律师，请上前。\n\n4 罗姆尼律师：\n好的。Henzy（亨齐）律师将代表\n\n5 我，法官阁下。\n\n6 法庭：\n嗯，实际上我不知道这该怎么运作。\n\n7\n\n8 罗姆尼律师：\n我认为作为证人，我有权为了\n\n9 提出异议的目的而聘请律师。\n\n10 法庭：\n我明白这一点。我也不是\n\n11 这个意思。但是——代表债务人和其他各方的亨齐律师，\n\n12 如何能在与撤回出庭\n\n13 动议相关的程序中担任您的\n\n14 律师？\n\n15 罗姆尼律师：\n我不认为有任何\n\n16 利益冲突——亨齐律师多年来一直是我律所的\n\n17 总法律顾问。我不认为代表我\n\n18 与代表我的任何客户之间存在任何冲突。\n\n19 我不认为我与我的任何客户之间存在任何相反利益。\n\n20\n\n21 我认为作为证人，我无权对问题提出\n\n22 异议。我认为我有权由\n\n23 律师在有异议时提出异议。\n\n24 法庭：\n我理解您有权——\n\n25 我并非在争论您是否有权在您想要律师时聘请律师——\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 84 您主动提出要出庭作证。对吧？ 罗姆尼律师：是的。 法庭：您主动提出的。 罗姆尼律师：在我的总法律顾问在场的情况下。 法庭：好的？但是，我的意思是，我不明白亨齐律师在这种情况下如何能担任您的律师。你们是同一家律所的合伙人。你们在律所中都有金钱利益。这怎么可能不是利益冲突？怎么可能——因为他也得为自己担心。因为发生在你身上的任何事都会发生在他身上。这怎么可能不是利益冲突？ 罗姆尼律师：我认为这意味着我们的利益是百分之百一致的。 法庭：好的。好吧，你猜怎么着？在——有——之前，我们今天不会这么做，我的意思是，Despins（德斯平斯）受托人、United States Trustee's Office（美国受托人办公室），你们真的认为亨齐律师可以在本案中就与可能针对罗姆尼律师以及罗姆尼律师所代表的客户或诸位客户作出的藐视法庭动议相关的文件交叉询问中代表罗姆尼律师吗？难道我身处另一个星球吗？我的意思是，这Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 84 of\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\nPage 85 of\n180\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n\n1 简直荒谬。这怎么不是利益冲突？\n不——这怎么不是利益\n\n2 冲突？\n\n3 罗姆尼律师：\n这完全是为了\n\n4 提出证据异议的目的。我谨此提出——\n\n5\n\n6 法庭：\n这并非完全是为了提出\n\n7 证据异议的目的。这是亨齐律师试图\n\n8 保护您，任何代表您的律师都会这么做。\n\n9 关键就在这里，对吧？这就是为什么您需要一名\n\n10 律师。您想受到保护。\n\n11 这怎么不是利益冲突？我只是——抱歉。\n\n12 我就是看不出来。我不是——我并不是说您无权\n\n13 获得律师代理。您是主动提出要出庭\n\n14 作证的。您现在想让我允许您的合伙人亨齐律师——\n\n15 您和您的所有其他合伙人\n\n16 都拥有互相帮助的金钱利益，你们都有——\n\n17 你们参与了一份合伙协议。我不\n\n18 知道你们彼此之间有什么义务。\n\n19 而且您可能会被裁定——您可能会——我现在是\n\n20 就利益冲突的分析而言。据称，您可能会被裁定\n\n21 个人藐视法庭，为此您将不得不\n\n22 支付罚款。明白吗？我是就\n\n23 藐视法庭的目的而言。这怎么不是利益冲突？\n\n24 罗姆尼律师：\n我认为不是。\n\n25 法庭：\n我们在房间里有80位律师。这怎么\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 86 不是利益冲突？ 罗姆尼律师：嗯，如果我必须支付罚款，那我就必须支付罚款。如果我的律所必须支付罚款，我的律所就必须支付罚款。我认为我的合伙人与我的利益相同，这与我的客户的利益也是相同的。 法庭：我不知道这是否属实。这取决于你们的合伙协议是怎么规定的。我甚至不知道你们有什么协议。我毫不知情，而且我也不想知道，因为这与该问题无关。 罗姆尼律师：法官阁下，我正试图尽可能保持透明。我是—— 法庭：罗姆尼律师，我并没有暗示不是这样。我没有暗示任何那些内容。我只是不知道亨齐律师在这种情况下如何能担任您的律师。而且我不知道为什么其他任何人会认为他可以。 亨齐律师：嗯，我认为我可以，所以只是—— 法庭：好吧，我并不—— 亨齐律师：——只是为了明确起见—— 法庭：我现在没有问你。 亨齐律师：——只是为了明确起见，法庭上至少还有另外一个人认为我可以，但是—— 法庭：好的。好吧，那很好。我很高兴你这么认为。 亨齐律师：好的。Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 86 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 87 法庭：但我现在没有问你。 亨齐律师：好的。 法庭：我在问其他人。 克莱伯恩律师：法官阁下，也许我可以提出一个解决方案，那就是如果您回过头去看美国受托人在1971号文件（ECF 1971）中提交的内容，针对所提出的问题，这是非常明确直接的。但是，例如，如果您只看第一个要点，即小（听不清），这个问题在罗姆尼律师的声明中实际上从未得到解答。所以我的建议是让罗姆尼律师重做他的声明，并实际回应所有提出的问题，或者—— 法庭：行。你知道吗？ 克莱伯恩律师：——主张他——或者主张他不能。 法庭：实际上，直接让他出庭作证。让亨齐律师代表他。似乎没有人认为这是个问题，所以请继续吧。 克莱伯恩律师：法官阁下，我并没有那么说。我只是建议—— 法庭：噢，好吧，我是这么说的。罗姆尼律师，请出庭作证。受托人——克莱伯恩律师，开始提问吧。让罗姆尼律师宣誓。Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 87 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 88 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 法庭副书记官：\n罗姆尼律师，请\n2 站起并举起您的右手。\n3 证人 AARON ROMNEY（亚伦·罗姆尼），经宣誓\n4 法庭副书记官：\n请您说出您的姓名以记录在案好吗？\n5\n6 证人：\nAaron Romney（亚伦·罗姆尼）。\n7 法庭副书记官：\n姓名和地址。\n8 证人：\n我的办公地址——\n9 法庭：\n对。\n只要您的办公地址。\n10 证人：\n——是康涅狄格州布里奇波特市米德尔街10号15楼，邮编0604——06604（10 Middle Street, 15th Floor, Bridgeport, Connecticut, 0604 -- 06604）。\n我可以坐下吗？\n12 法庭：\n可以，请坐。\n13 证人：\n谢谢您。\n14 法庭：\n如果您需要——那里有水。\n那里\n15 应该也有水。\n16 证人：\n谢谢您。\n17 法庭：\n好的。\n请继续，Claiborn（克莱伯恩）律师。\n18\n19 CLAIBORN 女士：\n谢谢您。\n我是代表 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人）的 Holley Claiborn（霍利·克莱伯恩）。\n20\n21 直接询问\n22 由 CLAIBORN 女士进行：\n23 问：\n罗姆尼律师，您能否告诉法庭，关于向 Hudson New York（哈德逊纽约）发出的传票，Hudson New York 的代表是什么时候第一次与您联系的？\n24\n25 并且\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 89 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 我使用的是在我的诉状中所定义的该词，即受托人向 Hudson New York 发出的传票。\n2\n3 答：\n是的。\n我将该问题理解为代表 Hudson New York 行事的人的身份。\n而且\n4\n5 我在此做出澄清的唯一原因——要点在于，\n6 显然我曾与 Mei Guo（郭美）交谈过，即作为该代表的个人。\n7 自从我去年四月开始代表她以来，我一直与她保持沟通。\n8\n9 但是关于她作为 Hudson Diamond New York（哈德逊钻石纽约）代表的身份，我认为是我联系了她。\n10 并且\n11 那是在，我相信——我什么时候联系的在我的书面声明中已有陈述。\n12 我相信是在4月——抱歉，是5月30日，\n13 我向她发送了传票。\n但在那之前我们肯定已经\n14 在讨论这些传票了。\n所以在4月23日至5月30日之间的某个时间，我认为更接近5月23日。\n15 但是\n16 是在那个时间范围内。\n17 问：\n我对您的证词理解是否正确：郭女士在您告诉她之前，并不知道向 Hudson Diamond New York 发出的传票？\n18\n19\n20 答：\n那是我的正确——那是我的理解。\n21 问：\n您的这一理解是基于什么？\n22 答：\n因为是她告诉我的。\n23 问：\n关于受托人向 Hudson Diamond New York 发出的传票，\n24 您知道 Vartan 律师的第一联络点是什么时候吗？\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 90 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 答：\n我知道。\n2 问：\n是什么？\n3 答：\n正如我刚才所描述的一样。\n事实上，我在\n4 5月23日第一次阅读了强制披露动议（motion to compel）。\n我\n5 相信它是在5月18日提交的。\n正如我今天在法庭上多次提到的，我们有非常——我们目前的案件负荷非常重，\n6 所以我直到5月23日才实际阅读了那份\n7 文件。\n在那一刻，我阅读了\n8 涉及 Hudson Diamond 的部分。\n我认出了那些\n9 名字，我给 Vartan 律师发了电子邮件，我说了类似\n10 我们需要立即就此事联系郭女士的话。\n11\n12\n13 问：\n代表 Hudson Diamond New York 聘请您作为其代理律师的人是谁？\n14\n15 答：\n郭女士。\n16 问：\n截至2022年12月1日，Hudson Diamond New York 的成员（members）是谁？\n17\n18 答：\n基于我在书面声明中所陈述的理由，我不知道该问题的答案。\n19\n20 问：\n截至2023年6月1日，Hudson Diamond New York 的成员是谁？\n21\n22 答：\n我不知道该问题的——对不起。\n您——刚才那个问题是关于 Hudson Diamond——那两个问题是关于 Hudson Diamond New York 还是\n23\n24 Holdings（控股公司）？\n25\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 91 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 问：\n两个问题原本都指的是 Hudson Diamond New York。\n2\n3 答：\n好的。\n我也是这么想的，但我只是——我不知道该问题的答案。\n4\n5 问：\n好的。\n那么截至2023年6月13日，谁是 Hudson Diamond New York 的成员？\n6\n7 答：\n基于今天记录在案的理由，我不知道该问题的答案。\n8\n9 问：\n针对我们刚才提到的那些成员身份和那些日期，您是否曾向郭美问过这些问题？\n10\n11 答：\n具体针对那些特定的日期，我认为我没有特别提及过那些日期。\n12 但是，\n13 如果您的问题是我是否曾与郭美讨论过她是否——Hudson Diamond Holdings 是否是——是否是 Hudson Diamond New York 的成员，答案是肯定的。\n14 并且\n15 正如我所陈述的，她的看法是 Hudson Diamond Holdings 控制着该纽约实体，这就是为什么她指示我作出回应——指示我和 Vartan 律师尝试协商延期，\n16 然后\n17 尽我所能向 Chapter 11（第11章）受托人\n18 提供我们能够找到的应予答复的文件。\n并且\n19 她提出——或者她表示，而且我相信她确实协助了 Vartan 律师或与我们一起参与了该过程。\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25 问：\n关于 Hudson Diamond Holdings, LLC，您是否\n\n打算继续代表该实体？\n答：\n当然。\nCLAIBORN 女士：\n好的。我没有其他问题了。谢谢法官阁下。\n法庭：\n好的。您可以退席了，Romney 律师。\n证人：\n谢谢法官阁下。\n法庭：\n关于藐视法庭动议、撤销代理律师动议，还有什么要补充的吗？好的。我将对这些事项作深入审斟（take under advisement）。让我们进入下一项议程。\nMR. ROMNEY：\n法官阁下，非常抱歉。我可以先行退庭吗？\n法庭：\n可以，请便。\nMR. ROMNEY：\n我确实要赶飞机。非常感谢法官阁下。\n法庭：\n不客气。\nMR. BASSETT：\n法官阁下，如果法庭允许，我认为我们建议审理的下一事项是民事对抗程序 23-5012（Adversary Proceeding 23-5012）中的简易判决动议，该案涉及——是关于 HK USA 托管基金的权属竞合诉讼（interpleader action）。\n法庭：\n请继续。\nMR. BASSETT：\n谢谢法官阁下。我感到抱歉。我想我过去可能在某次听证会上也用类似的开场白开始过，\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 92 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 93 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 这很令人遗憾，但我确实觉得有几次我们来到法官阁下面前，所争辩的动议在我们看来根本就是没有必要的。\n2\n3\n4 本次也是其中之一。\n5 我想会很快。\n其原因在于——\n6 以及为什么我们认为举行这次听证会是必要的，\n7 是因为摆在法庭面前的问题，即根据托管协议存放于托管账户中的资金是否应当释放给受托人，\n8\n9\n10 已经由本法庭于5月18日发布的简易判决裁决作出最终判定，认定 HK USA 既是债务人的另一个自我（alter ego），\n11 其所有财产，包括\n12 该托管资金在内，均属于破产财团财产（property of the estate）。\n13\n\n并且我想向法庭援引该裁定/命令的具体措辞。这份5月18日的命令位于 ECF 221。在第36页，前两段依此裁定（so-ordered）的段落。第一段依此裁定的段落指出，“HK USA 在所有相关时间现在是且曾经是债务人郭先生的另一个自我。”紧随其后的下一段指出，“HK USA 在截至目前的所有相关时间的所有财产，均为破产财团财产。”\n\n法官阁下，这意味着，《破产法》（Bankruptcy Code）第541条下对破产财团财产的定义——指财产中的一切法定权益或衡平权益——凭借5月18日的\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 94 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日 94\n1 简易判决裁定/命令扩展至 HK USA 的所有财产。\n这\n2 不容置疑。\nHK USA 提交的文件中没有任何相反的表示，\n3 即《破产法》第541条下对破产财团财产的定义\n4 包括合同权利和\n5 法定权利。\n6\n7 因此，根据5月18日裁定/命令的效力，\n8 HK USA 曾经可能指望在托管协议下\n\n持有并可行使的任何合同权利，现在均属于破产财团的权利，且属于《破产法》项下的破产财团财产。因此，HK USA 今天无权站在此法庭上，以其在过去几周里或自简易判决裁定/命令发布以来一直在阻挠的方式进行阻挠，并企图通过躲在其试图行使的合同权利之后来阻止资金被释放。这些权利现在属于破产财团。\n\n他们在文件中对这一点没有任何回应，因为根本无法回应。分析到此结束，法庭无需考虑其他任何事情。托管资金是否属于破产财团财产已经有了定论，且不得被重新诉讼。这就是既判力（res judicata）。\n\n现在，HK USA 在其对受托人简易判决动议的异议中，花费了大量时间专注于托管协议第4段，该协议作为\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 95 of\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日\n\n1 起诉状的附件1附上。\n他们还援引了判例法，\n2 据称支持合同通常应当予以履行这一平淡无奇的主张，以及与该原则相关的公共政策考量。\n3\n4 但所有这些\n5 在本案情况下都是无关紧要的，因为法庭已经\n6 判定 HK USA 根据托管协议所持有或\n7 保有的任何合同权利，凭借5月\n8 18日的决定，均属于破产财团财产，可由破产财团行使。\n9\n\n不出所料，他们引用的所有论述一般合同权利的执行或托管协议中权利的执行的案例，都与“认定一个实体是另一实体的另一个自我，且因此当事人据称试图行使的权利（无论是在托管协议项下还是以其他方式）实际上属于另一方当事人的权利”这一裁定没有任何关系。他们没有引用任何这类的案例。这也并不奇怪，因为在这样的情况下，除了我们请求法庭裁定的结果之外，产生其他结果是说不通的。\n\n我还想指出的是——既然我们谈到了查看托管协议的文本这一话题，而 HK USA（HK USA）又如此执意要这么做——如果您查看托管协议第 16 款，它专门对托管协议的修订、修正、变更和更改作出了规定。该条款规定，除非破产法院作出裁定，否则不得修改托管协议。这一点非常重要，因为即便假定 HK USA 仍有能力行使托管协议项下的合同权利（基于我此前已阐述的理由，它并不具备此种能力），第 16 款也允许法院对其进行修改。他们现在可能会说，您知道，这真正的意思是若双方达成合意，则法院必须签字批准该协议。但他们并没有——第 16 款中并未出现此类表述。如果确实如此，它应当表述为：为修改本协议，双方必须达成一致，然后法院须签字批准。但条款并非如此表述。它规定的是法院可以命令对协议进行变更。如果他们要像他们所极力担忧的那样坚守讨价还价所得的利益，那么这就必须适用于整份协议。法官阁下，我要说明的最后一点，正是我们在动议中提出的主张，即关于托管协议以及涉及 Lady May（梅女士号）的相关约定的总体目的，毫无疑问，该协议的目的已经达成。毫无争议的是，该协议和约定最初表面上的设立目的，是为了确保向破产财产交付 Lady May 号游艇。\n\n法院在最近驳回 HK USA（或者说，我认为是 HK USA）在 ECF 编号 24 处提交的上诉期间中止执行动议的裁定中，已经确认了这一点。关于这一目的，不存在实质性的事实争议。在他们对简易判决动议的反对意见中，他们试图树立一个稻草人论点，称如果我们谈论协议的意图，就必然会引入事实问题。\n\n关于该协议极其明确的目的，不存在实质性的事实争议。只要查看协议的背景条款第 D 款即可，该款极其清楚地表明，托管协议的全部目的就是为了补充该约定，并确保向破产财产交付 Lady May。\n\n那么，为什么这一点很重要？因为显而易见，该目的已经达成。正如法院在驳回上诉期间中止执行动议的裁定中再次指出的那样，提交 HK 证明文件的原本目的是为了将资金释放给 HK USA。在法院审理受托人悬而未决的初步禁令及判决前救济动议期间，该事项被暂缓处理。\n\n因此毫无疑问。我的意思是，游艇现在已经售出。在托管账户中保留资金的目的已经达成，不再有必要。事实上，如果您今天或在最近过去的任何时间询问对方律师，他们是否认为应当将托管资金释放给 HK USA，我确信他们会说是的。我认为他们无法理直气壮地说自己不认为应该拿回这笔资金。从他们的角度来看，该主张的问题在于，资金一旦释放给他们，立即就成为我们的财产。因为根据 5月18日裁定，HK USA 的所有财产均为破产财产。我之所以这样说，是因为这恰恰突显了他们立场的荒谬性。他们并不是为了实现将资金留置于托管账户的预期目的（即在可能存在的关于是否满足证明要求的争议得到解决期间留置资金）而使用托管协议及其条款。他们现在是在利用它来谋求事实上的上诉期间中止执行，并将本第 11 章破产案以及受托人执行 5月18日裁定的工作扣为人质。因此基于这些理由，法官阁下，我认为在我们看来毫无疑问。这是一项毫无悬念、显而易见的简易判决动议。不存在有争议的事实问题。该问题已由法院作出裁定。不存在上诉期间中止执行。托管资金应当交付给受托人。谢谢，法官阁下。 法庭：谢谢。\n\n法庭：Moriarty（莫里亚蒂先生），您要进行答辩吗？\n莫里亚蒂先生：是的。谢谢，法官阁下。为记录在案，James Moriarty（詹姆斯·莫里亚蒂）代表 HK International Funds Investments (USA) Limited, LLC（HK国际基金投资（美国）有限公司，LLC）。法官阁下，我首先从 Bassett（巴塞特律师）关于托管协议第 16 款的观点开始谈起。显然，我同意他对该条款的字面解读，因为字面意思确实如此。我确实想向法院指出——而且法官阁下也记得，托管协议在 2022年10月 曾被（由于缺少更恰当的词）修改过。当时，从托管账户中释放了 $400万 用于为 Lady May 设立维修储备金。法官阁下作出的裁定位于 Docket Entry 932。日期为 2022年10月7日。即便是在该裁定中，以“命令”开头的第 1 款实际上指的就是托管协议第 42 款。该条款规定，在本裁定成为终局且不可上诉的裁定后，在合理可行的范围内尽快执行。因此，即使就维修储备金而言，在该 $400万 释放之前，该裁定也必须成为终局且不可上诉的裁定。那么托管协议可以通过法院裁定修改吗？当然可以。这正是双方所同意的内容。那么，在该托管协议的修改具有可执行性和适用性之前，该裁定是否必须成为终局且不可上诉的裁定？是的。我们从法院在 Docket Entry 932 作出的裁定中就可以看出这一点。至于托管协议是否已达成目的，HK 在其反对意见中引用了 Netherberg vs. G.V. Licensing (sic)（Netherberg 诉 G.V. Licensing 案，原文如此）。我马上就向法官阁下提供该案的判例引证。该案见于 1995 US Dist. LEXIS 11725 以及 1195WL491489。在该案中，法院审查了一份托管协议，该托管协议是结合某项知识产权的出售而设立的。托管的设立旨在交易完成后保护卖方免受诉讼影响（根据该判决，诉讼当时正在进行中）。卖方和解了其诉讼。与其达成和解的一方试图终止托管，或者要求从托管中释放不存在争议的款项。而在该案中向 Southern District（纽约南区联邦地区法院）提出的论点之一是：好吧，这份托管协议现在是多余的了，因为我们已经就托管资金旨在担保的诉讼达成了和解。法院当时的认定是——这在 PDF 第 2 页共 3 页处，在我打印的 LEXIS 文本第 4 页星号处——即使双方签署托管协议的理由不再具有持续的有效性，这也不会使原告在与 Gitano 的和解协议中所同意的经修改的托管协议无效。原告关于仅作为知识产权买方的 GVTI 对托管资金享有权益的主张，未能构成在法律上推翻具有约束力协议的协商条款的法定认可理由。在该案中，法院裁定不会变更托管协议的条款，且在资金被释放之前所要求发生的先决条件之一必须发生，而该条件尚未达成。这正是我们的案件情况。我们在托管协议第 4 款中设定了四个先决条件。一旦这些条件之一发生，托管资金即应释放。本法院作出了一项裁定，裁定 HK USA 是债务人的另一个人格。我们完全不是要在此处重新对该问题进行诉讼。我们在此讨论的是时间和先决条件。这些资金何时从托管账户中释放给受托人——顺便说一句，受托人现在持有这些款项。而这些先决条件之一必须得到满足。\n\n我们所关注的先决条件是，我们需要本法院作出终局且不可上诉的裁定。而法院在 5月18日 作出的裁定目前正在上诉中。上诉正在 Dooley（杜利法官）主持的地区法院审理，因此该先决条件尚未得到满足，资金不应依据托管协议的条款予以释放。这是一项简易判决动议。这是一个合同问题。关于先决条件的合同条款是明确无歧义的。根据法律规定，在资金可以释放之前，这些条件——这些条件之一必须得到满足。巴塞特律师确实辩称该协议完全是关于归还 Lady May，而现在 Lady May 已经售出。正如我刚刚向法院指出的，有 Netherberg 案（原文如此）的判决先例。但如果我们谈论的是简易判决（而我们正在谈论的正是这一点），如果我们打算探讨双方当事人的真实意图，即当双方起草“必须有破产法院终局且不可上诉的裁定”这一文字表述时，当事人的意图是什么？他们是打算让它仅仅适用于涉及 Lady May 的问题，还是期望它适用得更为广泛？如果按该协议的字面含义解读，它必须适用得更为广泛。但无论如何，如果我们讨论的是双方对该条款的真实意图，并且我们不打算按照协议给予其字面含义，那么这就存在事实问题，并且鉴于双方在协议中的意图存在事实问题，简易判决必须予以驳回。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第103页 托管协议。最后，法官阁下，关于破产财产，毫无争议的是，HK获得托管收益的权利属于破产财产的一项资产。但该权利取决于某项附带条件或先决条件的发生，而该条件目前尚未发生。并且在法官阁下于5月18日就受托人的第二项反请求作出准予即决判决的裁决中，法官阁下区分了反请求的第2项罪名（项）即人格混同（alter ego），与第3项罪名（项）——我认为是一项欺诈性转让主张，但我也可能记错了。但是在进行区分时，法官阁下所区分的是，关于人格混同主张，它使得HK的资产可用于清偿债权人的债权。如果受托人想要控制该实体，他就必须依据第3项主张提出动议。正如法官阁下在裁决书第25页所讨论的，如果受托人仅依据第3项提出动议，那么受托人将控制该实体。该实体将成为破产财产，成为破产财产的一项资产。但为了触及该实体的资产，受托人仍必须刺破公司面纱。因此，受托人并不控制HK。HK是一个独立的实体，其资产已被提供用于清偿债权人的债权。并且，法官阁下，如果您有任何问题，我很乐意回答。\n法庭：我没有问题。\nMORIARTY 律师：谢谢。\nBASSETT 律师：法官阁下，我简要回应几点。我想我将从 Moriarty 律师结束的地方开始，即财产权向破产财产转移的问题，以及根据5月18日的命令这会产生什么后果。就 Moriarty 律师所辩称的——转移至破产财产的唯一权利是接收托管资金的权利，而HK为阻止该情况发生所持有的任何合同权利均不属于破产财产的权利而言，这根本不是法律规定。破产财产现在依据本法院非常明确的命令——而且我想提出另一点，即当 Moriarty 律师提及法院的命令时，他侧重于人格混同的认定及其含义。我稍后会谈到这一点。但他忽略了非常明确的条款，该条款规定 HK USA 的所有财产，包括合同权利，均为破产财产。所以就——而且他——我认为他并没有辩称 HK USA 不具备这种能力，因为显而易见它是具备的。就 HK USA（正如每个人都知道它可以做的那样）可以前往托管代理人处并表示“嘿，我们授权你们释放这些资金”而言，该权利、该能力现在属于受托人。\n（音频中断，下午2:46 至 下午2:49）\nGOLDMAN 律师：在订立委员会作为当事方参与的这份合同时，当时当然没有任何人预见到我们目前正在处理的这种情况，即在交易发生数月后，随后会指定一名受托人，该受托人最终冻结了存入的资金并针对该笔资金获得了审前救济（PJR）。正如 Bassett 先生所阐述的，该笔存款的目的是为了担保 Lady May 号的交付。在订立托管协议时，任何一方当然都没有预见到这种情况。法官阁下应当根据该目的来解释合同。这正是基于当时当事人的状况以及与交易相关的情形，这意味着它根本不适用于目前的当前状况。我们在其他方面完全支持 Bassett 先生提出的论点。\n法庭：好的。谢谢。还有其他人希望陈述意见吗？好的。关于即决判决的动议已交由法院审议。今天下午法院接下来需要处理的事务是什么？\nDESPINS 律师：是 HCHK 的和解事项，法官阁下。Luft 先生将处理该事项。\n法庭：好的。\nDESPINS 律师：除非法官阁下想休庭。\n法庭：不。我认为——\nDESPINS 律师：不想吗？好的。\n法庭：——我们应该继续。\nGOLDMAN 律师：好的。谢谢。\nLUFT 律师：法官阁下，我可以走上前吗？\n法庭：可以，请上前。\nLUFT 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。\n法庭：请继续。\nLUFT 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。抱歉。我是 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）的 Avi Luft，代表第11章破产受托人。法官阁下，我在此是为了处理我们根据第9019条提出的动议，该动议旨在批准第11章破产受托人与 HCHK 各实体的受让人之间的和解协议。法官阁下，我们向法院提交的该协议出于多项原因对破产财产极为有利。它是广泛善意谈判的成果。它将在对诉程序得出结果之前，以临时方式立即将 HCHK 实体超过3800万美元的现金转入受托人的账户。\n\n总括而言，该协议将解决受托人与受让人之间的所有未决争议，避免昂贵且耗时的争议性初步禁令诉讼。它还有助于为对诉程序迅速且成本更低地解决铺平道路。受让人已同意不对受托人在对诉程序中寻求的救济提出异议，我们认为这应当扫清道路。该和解协议规定了受让人对 HCHK 各实体、Columbus Circle（哥伦布圆环）办公室以及哥伦布圆环资产的持续管理，这将减轻受托人的行政管理负担。并且，法官阁下，该和解确保了将向所有人提供正当程序。\n\n现在，法官阁下，法院对第9019条的标准非常清楚。但简而言之，和解方案不一定是债务人本可以获得的最佳方案，而是必须在合理性范围之内，并确保其不处于最低点。并且应参考 Iridium 考量因素来确定是否属于这种情况。当结合 Iridium 考量因素审视我们刚才讨论的各项利益时，我认为非常明确的是，该和解绝对符合破产财产的最大利益。\n\n关于胜诉可能性与未来利益的对比，通过现在确保资金安全，和解消除了与初步禁令诉讼相关的风险和成本，并在对诉程序方面提供了更有可能实现的积极结果。关于复杂且旷日持久的诉讼可能性这第二项因素，这将同时消除初步禁令——对初步禁令证据听证会的需求，并且正如我所说，精简未来的对诉程序。关于破产财产债权人的利益，法官阁下，我要指出的是，破产财产的债权人中没有一个人提出异议。无担保债权人委员会（UCC）对此予以支持。而且我要指出的是，通过确保这些资产处于受托人的控制之下，这防止了受托人期望为了所有债权人的利益而纳入破产财产的大笔资产可能发生的流失。Iridium 下的第四项考量因素是其他利害关系方的支持。正如我所指出的，无担保债权人委员会表示支持。异议非常少。值得注意的是，已提交的若干异议实际上明确表明它们对和解条款没有争议，而是寻求确保其自身的主张能够被加入，或者在涉及美国联邦破产受托人（U.S. Trustee）的情况下涉及一个非常个别的争议点。我将处理所有这些问题。这实际上仅留下了一项实质性异议，即来自 Himalaya（喜马拉雅）各方的异议。我很快会处理该异议，但我认为，权衡之下，显然大多数当事方都支持这项和解。\n\n关于法律顾问的胜任能力和法官的经验，我在此就不多言了，但我肯定要说的是，本法院在与本案相关的问题上无疑是最具最新了解且最明晰的，完全适合判断这是否是一项合适妥当的和解。\n\n关于对董事和高级管理人员免责的性质和范围，前 HCHK 高管并未获得免责。存在受让人的免责免除条款问题，稍后会予以阐述。但对于此前存在的 HCHK 董事和高级管理人员，他们不会获得免责。\n\n至于这是否属于公平交易，我可以向法院报告，这是在紧急临时限制令（TRO）之后进行广泛谈判的产物；各方在谈判之初的利益截然不同，但最终达成了解决方案。\n\n不过，法官阁下，在深入探讨异议之前，我认为这会有所帮助——如果法院愿意，我希望先梳理一下和解将如何运作。因为正如我们在文书中所概述的，这项和解大致分为三个阶段。\n\n法庭：请直接讲。\n\nLUFT 律师：谢谢，法官阁下。因此，这份关于和解的拟议命令将修改现有的临时限制令命令，并且分三个阶段进行。第一阶段是初始阶段。正如我所提及的，将进行 HCHK 资金向受托人的初始转移。金额将为 $38,835,734.27。\n\n在作出决定性裁决之前，受托人将把这些资金投资于国债。为明确起见，在作出该决定性裁决之前，受托人除根据第9019条命令所列明的目的外，无权将 HCHK 资金用于任何其他目的。\n\n第一阶段的另一部分将是受让人向受托人提供其持有的所有 HCHK 非特权公司记录和其他文件。受让人已同意不对对诉程序采取任何立场。而且我相信，正如其文书中所表明的，他们无法做出其他表示。他们也不会协助任何一方反对该等救济。\n\n同时，法官阁下，该命令将明确，本次和解及资金转让不损害除受让人（基于上述原因）以外的任何一方提交诉状的权利\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 111 of\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n111 |\n1 并根据满足诉讼主体资格要求的情况表明立场。\n2 受托人指出，他当然拥有——保留\n3 反对诉讼主体资格的权利。但简而言之，这意味着\n4 如果你符合诉讼主体资格并拥有该资格，那么你将\n5 拥有此机会。当然，受托人也将拥有\n6 对此提出异议的机会。\n\n这是第一阶段。第二阶段将在拟议裁定（如果获作出）作出以及首次 HCHK 资金转账发生之后进行。这涉及该裁定第 9 段中关于获授权受让人行为的规定。这允许受让人根据该裁定的条款，采取与 Columbus Circle 办公室、HCHK 留任员工以及与此相关的程序性和行政性问题相关的某些行动，且受托人可垫付部分 HCHK 资金用于支付这些费用。这就是我所指的行政救济，这对破产财产是有利的。\n\n第 10 段指出，纽约州法院的救济不具有——将不具有约束力，这就将我们带入第三阶段，该阶段在就人格混同和衡平法所有权主张作出处置性裁定后产生。如果受托人的对抗性诉讼获得胜诉裁定，裁定第 11 段确实规定了和解付款。其中列明了具体金额。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 112 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 112 第 12 段涉及修改债权申报截止日，其中授权受托人请求法院修改债权申报截止日，以允许 HCHK 实体的债权人（如果存在）现在根据债务人的《破产法》第 11 章案件进行申报，因为如果人格混同或衡平法所有权获得支持，那些债权人（如果存在）现在将成为债务人破产财产的债权人。第 13 段涉及分流禁令，我们稍后将对此进行阐述。第 14 段是免责条款。然后，法官阁下，我将谈到如果最终裁定作出不利于受托人和对抗性诉讼的裁决会发生什么情况。第 15 段明确规定将资金退还给受托人——从受托人退还给受让人。这就是该裁定将如何运作以及我们在和解协议下提议的三个阶段。法官阁下，在我转向异议之前，我想请问您是否有任何问题。法官：我没有问题。谢谢。LUFT 律师：谢谢法官阁下。好的。既然如此，请允许我转向异议部分。我首先谈到了为什么我们认为已经满足了 Iridium 因素。我谨指出，总体而言关于这些\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 113 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 113 异议，Iridium 因素基本上未被提及。相反，它们似乎是人们想要的诉求的大杂烩，企图在债权程序中抢先一步，或者以 Himalaya（喜马拉雅）为例——我将谈到他们——坦率地说，这是一个对转让程序对其产生的结果感到不满的人，但不是一个在此提出异议具有实际依据的人。\n\n因此，Himalaya 各方提出了异议，法官阁下，正如我们在答辩状中详细说明的那样，他们主要由本法院已直接认定由债务人控制的实体（Himalaya 农场、Himalaya）或债务人参与的其他实体组成。我认为其核心实际上是在说，我们原本更希望在纽约州法院进行；我们以为转让将在那里推进。\n\n每个人都有权有自己的偏好，但这不是反对和解的依据。这当然也不是声称这不符合债务人破产财产最大利益的依据，而这正是 9019 动议所关涉的。\n\n现在，Himalaya 各方在文书中用了很大一部分篇幅争辩对抗性诉讼中的人格混同和衡平法所有权主张。法官阁下，那不是我们今天所审理的事项。他们——在\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\nPage 114 of\n180 |\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n114 |\n1 他们具有诉讼主体资格的范围内，他们将有机会提出\n2 他们对受托人的对抗性\n3 诉讼持有的任何异议。\n但该和解协议没有任何内容排除他们\n4 这样做。\n5 同样地，法官阁下，受让人是作出\n6 决定的当事人。\n这就是他被\n7 任命后所发生的情况。\n据我所知，这些实体均未对该\n8 转让提出异议。\n据我所知，在受让人考虑将这些实体\n9 出售给另一方，即 G News（G新闻）一方时，他们中也没有任何人打算——\n10 截至目前提出任何异议。\n11\n12 受让人作出了这项决定，认为这——\n13 这项和解符合其最大利益。\n声称的债权人或受让人\n14 对此提出异议是不合时宜的。\n15\n16 本法院明确具有临时限制令（TRO）裁定中\n17 所阐明的管辖权。\n因此，任何——关于其管辖权的论点\n18 实际上只是对此进行的附带攻击。\n19 我认为这些论点是不恰当的。\n20 最后，法官阁下，Himalaya 各实体对分流禁令和\n21 免责条款\n22 提出了异议。\nCole Schotz 律师事务所的律师将\n23 重点关注这些问题。\n但我可以说，受托人\n24 同意这些条款并支持它们。\n但我将\n25 让 Cole Schotz 的律师来处理这些问题，因为他们更直接地聚焦\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\nPage 115 of\n180 |\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n115 |\n1 于他们的问题和他们的文书。\n2 最后，法官阁下，我认为 Himalaya 各方\n3 提出的唯一其他问题是关于\n4 授权问题。\n同样，Cole Schotz 的律师将重点关注\n5 这一点。\n但我谨指出，根据转让契据，\n6 这些契据不仅没有遭到异议，而且已获签署生效，据我的理解，\n7 受让人拥有完全的权力\n8 和解针对它的任何及所有主张。\n我当然\n9 认为这属于该范围。\n10 如果法官阁下对 Himalaya 各方的\n11 异议有任何问题，我将予以回答。\n否则，\n12 我将继续讨论下一个异议。\n13 法官：\n我没有问题。你可以继续讨论\n14 下一个异议。\n15 LUFT 律师：\n谢谢法官阁下。下一个是\n16 美国受托人办公室（U.S. Trustee）关于分流和\n17 免责问题的有限异议。\n正如我所说，Cole Schotz 的律师\n18 将重点阐述该问题。\n我将——我认为这是\n19 一个非常类似的问题。\n我就说到这里。\n20 此外，还有一个关于通知的问题。\n21 美国受托人办公室已表示，他们希望获得\n22 提前三天的通知以及 25,000 美元的上限。\n受托人\n23 提议了 50,000 美元的上限，这仅仅是考虑到案件中的成本，\n24 旨在减少行政负担。\n我们的\n25 观点是，将其提高到 50,000 美元不会损害那些\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 116 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n116 |\n1 有兴趣了解正在发生的开支情况的人士的利益，\n2 与此同时，略高一些的上限\n3 将使受托人处理起来\n4 更加可行。\n因此，据我所知，\n5 这就是那里唯一的区别。\n6 关于 G News 的有限异议以及来自\n7 Sherman 律师的异议，两者都提出了一个非常\n8 类似的问题，即他们认为他们拥有我认为\n9 他们称之为行政费用的债权。\n他们拥有一笔款项，\n10 他们——要么在 Sherman 先生的情况下，他认为\n11 根据离职补偿协议欠他的款项。\n12 在 G News 的情况下，当他们以为其交易将要推进时，\n13 他们垫付了有限金额的资金\n14 用于租金和其他开支。\n15 我不认为对 9019 动议提出\n16 异议是提出这些债权主张的\n17 恰当程序工具。\n这些主张当然谈不上符合破产财产的\n18 利益。\n我不认为继续推进该和解协议\n19 会以任何方式损害任何一方的权利。\n如果他们\n20 拥有——如果这些主张有效，它们将通过\n21 多种方式得到处理。\n而且将有足够的时间\n22 来处理它们。\n但没有任何理由为此拖延\n23 和解，或通过修改和解协议将其他人的\n24 债权主张加入其中。\n\n法官阁下，我认为这就给我们留下了 G\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 117 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n117 |\n1 Club（G俱乐部）——它称其为主张通知而非\n2 异议。\n我是否应该暂停一下并问法官阁下\n3 在我转向最后一个问题之前是否有任何问题？\n4 法官：\n我没有。\n5 LUFT 律师：\n谢谢法官阁下。法官阁下\n6 是——我认为最近在本法院我们谈论 G Club 已经有一段时间了。\n7 这就是我们在证据开示问题上一直与之存在争议的\n8 同一个 G Club 实体。\n这当然\n9 再次涉及文件。\n10 G Club 在其主张通知中明确表示他们\n11 并非提出异议，但他们声称存在一份主\n12 服务协议，该协议未附上，\n13 亦未引用任何条款。\n但他们表示现在存在一份主\n14 服务协议——可能存在，我不知道——\n15 该协议规定——根据该协议，事实上 G Club 的所有文件\n16 和电子邮件，他们表示，事实上均由\n17 HCHK 进行管理。\n18 现在，法官阁下会记得此前我们\n19 被告知债务人与 G Club 之间充其量只存在\n20 附带关系，这就是他们无法\n21 提供其文件的原因。\n就是，您知道的，他是一位未领取报酬的\n22 代言人。\n在此之后，我们被告知因为\n23 高管离职，文件无法提供，因为\n24 相关人员已经离开。\n25 现在，我们有点来了个 180 度大转弯，现在 G Club\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 118 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 118 却说不仅与债务人存在关系，而且事实上这种关系如此密切，以至于——一个我们相信我们将证明是其人格混同的实体与它签订了管理服务协议，而且这些电子邮件事实上一直存放在曼哈顿，在 HCHK 处随时可取。尽管如此，他们现在有了一个关于受托人为何不应能够获取文件的新理由。\n\n他们要求修改该命令，规定受托人只应被允许查看仅与 HCHK 有关的 HCHK 文件。法官阁下，这样做的后果很可能是导致产生一个空集的文件，因为根据 HCHK 自身的文件，他们所做的——他们是为所有不同的债务人实体提供服务。因此，如果只能谈论仅与 HCHK 有关的文件，他们就会将其排除在外，以至于我——我的猜测是，他们几乎所有的文件将再次脱离受托人的掌控，而我们将再次无法获得这些文件。\n\n他们主张的第二点是，这些文件属于机密文件，因此必须归还给他们。法官阁下，在此我想指出的是，当受让人被任命时，G Club 并没有站出来说这些是——你们持有机密文件；你们不能查看它们。他们当然也从未主张过其中任何文件享有特权。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 119 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n119\n1 然后，当受让人打算将所有\n2 资产出售给 G News（另一个实体，其中本会\n3 包含这些相同的文件）时，据我所知，再次没有任何\n4 异议。\n似乎只有当受托人将要获得对这些文件的访问权时，G Club\n5 才会提出异议。\n6 法官阁下，我认为这没有任何依据。\n7 我认为和解协议应维持现状。\n我\n8 认为，只要存在来自 G\n9 Club 的响应性文件，我们就能够查看它们。\n我认为允许\n10 受托人查看 HCHK 的文件（当时针对 HCHK 也有一个\n11 未决的 2004 调查程序）的协议是完全\n12 适当的。\n13 法官阁下，基于所有这些理由以及我之前\n14 所说的，我认为 G Club 的异议不应成立。\n15 法官阁下，我最后要提的一点是，\n16 有——我确实提到过将支付费用。\n需要\n17 说明的是，受托人已对这些文件进行了初步审查。\n18 命令中列出的费用在受托人看来\n19 是合理的。\n但我确实注意到，\n20 如有任何疑问，受托人确实有机会进行进一步审查，\n21 以确保——\n22 任何此类费用都是合理的。\n23 法官阁下，如果您有任何问题，我很乐意\n24 回答。\n否则，我——我目前没有其他\n25 事项了。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 120 法庭：好的。谢谢你。我没有问题。谢谢。LUFT 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。谁希望就受托人的和解动议陈述意见？LUFT 先生：法官阁下，我认为这位是来自 Cole Schotz 的律师。法庭：好的。请上前，先生。请再次向法庭记录陈述您的姓名。JARECK 先生：为记录在案，法官阁下，Ryan Jareck（瑞安·贾雷克），来自 Cole Schotz PC，代表受让人 Hofmeister（霍夫迈斯特）先生。并且，法官阁下，顺便介绍一下，霍夫迈斯特先生也在庭上。法庭：好的。JARECK 先生：我只是想向您简要介绍一下他。法庭：下午好，霍夫迈斯特先生。HOFMEISTER 先生：下午好，法官。Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 120 of\n\nJARECK 先生：法官阁下，我不知道您是否有偏好，是我先回应美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）的异议，还是先回应 Himalaya（喜马拉雅）关于授权问题的异议。法庭：你可以——你应该以任何\n\n你认为合适的方式进行。好吗？JARECK 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我将首先\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 121 of\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n121\n1 从美国受托人的异议开始。\n法官阁下，美国\n2 受托人基于两点对 9019 动议提出异议。\n首先，\n3 美国受托人反对拟议的集中管辖禁令（channeling injunction），\n4 即拟议命令的第 13 段。\n其次，\n5 它反对拟议的免责条款（exculpation provision），\n6 即命令的第 14 段。\n\n法官阁下，我们在周五提交了一份回应，以提供一些背景说明，解释为什么这些是受让人和解协议的关键组成部分，我只想强调几点。受让人目前根据临时限制令（TRO）被禁止推进转让程序（assignment proceedings）。如果和解协议获得批准，转让实质上将以有序的方式进行清盘。\n\n如果受托人获得决定性裁定，HCHK 破产财产实质上将被合并到本法院审理的 Kwok（郭）破产财产中。因此，作为和解谈判的一部分，至关重要的一点是，由转让程序引起的任何及所有索赔均由本法院裁决，集中归由本法院管辖，而不是在多个法院进行零星分散的诉讼。这就是受让人请求发出集中管辖禁令的原因。\n\n集中管辖禁令纯粹旨在作为一种法庭管辖机制（forum mechanism），它不会——无意影响任何当事方的权利。如果法官阁下手头有\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 122 命令的第 13 段，或者请调出该段内容。法庭：临时限制令的？JARECK 先生：不是。是拟议 9019 命令的。法庭：噢，好的。稍等一下。JARECK 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。法庭：不，我这里没有那个。JARECK 先生：是 Case 23-05013，Docket Entry 25。法庭：稍等片刻，我调出来。JARECK 先生：没问题，法官阁下。（休顿）法庭：噢，好了。我们刚刚调出来了。你想让我看哪一页？JARECK 先生：第 28 页中的第 24 页，第 13 段。法庭：谢谢。JARECK 先生：法官阁下，您看到第 13 段，集中管辖禁令了吗？法庭：看到了。JARECK 先生：其大意是，在做出决定性裁定的情况下——换句话说，假设您——法官阁下同意受托人的意见并认定存在另我（alter ego），所有债权人和股权持有人均应被禁止并不得主张索赔和诉由。当您继续往下翻时，上面接着写道，“除非通过在本法院提交的适当 Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 122 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 123 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023 123 诉状提出”。这并不像美国受托人所主张的那样，属于非经同意的、非债务人的第三方免责（non-consensual, non-debtor, third-party release），这纯粹是一种法庭管辖机制。这仅仅是确保在做出决定性裁定后的任何及所有索赔都在本法院的监督下向本法院提交的机制。事实上，我们本以为美国受托人办公室会更倾向于此。在周末以及就在昨天与 Claiborn 律师沟通时，我们传阅了相关措辞，以使其更加明确这是一种法庭管辖机制。事实上，我们提议——在“除非通过在本法院提交的适当诉状提出”这几个字之后，我们提议增加“（在此明确理解，前述条款纯粹旨在作为一种法庭管辖机制，不影响任何当事方的权利）”。作为更全面的和解谈判的一部分，该拟议修改遗憾地被拒绝了。同样，法官阁下，免责条款也非常重要。对吧？您可能有机会——抱歉。免责条款同样不是对第三方索赔的豁免（release）。该条款位于第 14 段\n\n就在集中管辖禁令条款的正下方，是以法院作出有利于\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 124 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - July 11, 2023\n124\n1 受托人的决定性裁定为前提条件的。\n一旦做出该裁定，就转让\n2 程序及和解协议而言，针对受让人的索赔（如有）将成为破产财产的\n3 诉由。\n4 因此，任何关于管理不善、违反\n5 信义义务的索赔，只要存在，它们就\n6 不再属于任何债权人的直接索赔。\n它们并不是破产财产\n7 诉由。\n\n换言之，该免责条款更偏向于债务人免除（debtor release）的性质，而非第三方免除。第二巡回法院非常明确地规定，债务人有权根据第 9019 条规则免除破产财产的诉由。如果法院感兴趣，我很乐意向法院提供判例引用。我认为大家都知道债务人和受托人可以根据 9019 条规则和解索赔。这正是该规则的实际用途。\n\n因此，尽管其形式被称为免责，但它更偏向于针对受让人的某些行为所给予的有限债务人免除的性质。这完全不是 Purdue Pharma（普渡制药）案中的第三方免责问题。如果在措辞上有不明确之处，我们愿意接受任何修改，以确保受让人的意图在命令中得到明确表达。\n\n法官阁下，换个角度来看，如果美国受托人成功并且其他债权人成功剔除了免责条款以及\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 125 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n第125页\n引导禁令，在一项决定性裁定之后，再次假设这些条款未获批准，受让人可能会在多个法庭面临索赔，而没有任何资源来进行抗辩。根据受让人及其专业人士为这些破产财团所提供的服务以及从中获得的价值，那完全是不公平的。\n法官大人，我就讲到这里，请问您就我们关于引导禁令及免责条款的立场是否有任何问题。\n\n法庭：\n我没有任何问题。谢谢你。\n\nJARECK 律师：\n那么，法官大人，我接下来将转向喜马拉雅债权人的异议，并聚焦于他们提出的授权问题，我认为这由受让人及其律师来应对更为合适。\n\n法庭：\n好的。\n\nJARECK 律师：\n谢谢您，法官大人。首先，异议人援引了转让契据及《纽约州债务人与债权人法》（New York Debtor and Creditor Law）的若干条款。那些条款根本不适用于我们提议通过本和解协议所要做的事情。我仅举几个例子。\n首先，异议人质疑受让人签署和解协议的权限，并且他们援引——抱歉，在第57段和第60段中。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 126 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n第126页\n他们援引了转让契据。他们援引了《纽约州债务人与债权人法》，该法要求任何动产的出售或处置均须经州法院批准。\n本和解协议并非对转让人资产的出售。本和解协议仅仅设想在本法院的明确监督下，将 HCHK（喜马拉雅香港）资金从一个受托人转移至另一个受托人。这笔资金将存放于托管人的保管账户中，等待本法院对托管人的另我索赔作出裁决。\n\n同样，异议人在第58段中援引了《纽约州债务人与债权人法》关于授权受让人出售、妥协或和解属于破产财团的任何索赔或债务的条款。法官大人，受让人再次重申，并没有出售或妥协属于转让人的任何索赔。事实上，恰恰相反。\n这里没有任何免责条款。作为协议的一部分，受让人要求破产财团的所有利益相关方均收到关于拟议和解的通知，并且根据第8段中的无损害条款，所有当事人的权利均得到明确保留和维护。\n\n此外，在第61段中，异议人\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 127 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n第127页\n批评受让人未提供通知和陈述意见的机会。受让人当然向债权人提供了在本法院陈述意见的机会。在作出加快听证命令后，已向这些债权人提供了通知，并就此提交了送达证明。\n最后，法官大人，我想指出，正如律师此前所提到的，授权问题实际上已在转让契据中得到解决，并在第4F条中规定受让人有权解决任何及所有争议。法官大人，这正是我们在此所做的事情。\n\n在发出临时限制令（TRO）后，与托管人及其律师进行了数次讨论。作为这些讨论的结果，受让人根据其商业判断决定达成此项和解，而不是就禁令请求和对抗性诉状中提出的问题进行诉讼，前提是将资金转移至托管人控制须受制于本法院对对抗性诉状中提出问题的最终裁决。\n\n法官大人，受让人认为和解协议应当获得批准，并且对债权人是有益的，因为托管人在其诉状中提出的问题必须以某种形式得到解决或裁决。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 128 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n第128页\n和解避免了昂贵的诉讼，但同时也保留了各方在希望对托管人的主张提出抗辩时提出抗辩的权利。\n基于这些理由，受让人谨提请批准 9019 动议。我就讲到这里，请问法庭对我今天下午的陈述是否有任何疑问。\n\n法庭：\n我没有任何疑问。谢谢你。\n\nJARECK 律师：\n谢谢您，法官大人。\n\nPASTORE 律师：\n法官大人，我可以上前吗？\n\n法庭：\n可以，请上前。\n\nPASTORE 律师：\n谢谢您，法官大人。\n\n法庭：\n能否请你陈述一下你的姓名——\n\nPASTORE 律师：\n好的。\n\n法庭：\n——请记入笔录？\n\nPASTORE 律师：\n当然。我的名字是 Joseph Pastore（约瑟夫·帕斯托雷），来自 Pastore LLC（帕斯托雷有限责任公司）。今天与我在一起的是我的同事 Melissa McClammy（梅丽莎·麦克拉米）。在后排房间里还有我们的一些暑期实习生。\n我们代表 HCHK 实体的若干债权人。如果法官大人愿意，我可以逐一宣读。它们在数字上很难发音。或者如果笔录以我们的简报为准——\n\n法庭：\n笔录这样就可以。谢谢你。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 129 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n第129页\nPASTORE 律师：\n太好了。谢谢您。法官大人，我代表的债权人，尽管存在各种影射和说法，他们坚信自己是这些实体的善意债权人，借出了资金，并且是合法的债权人。我与他们没有任何私人关系，与他们没有过往渊源，与该运动没有过往渊源，与这里发生过的任何事情都没有关系。我介入的是一出我知道已经上演了许多幕的戏剧，而我只看到了其中的一小部分。我尊重并理解这一点。但从我们的角度来看，我在这里是因为有债权人的权利正受到一项我们认为是越权或非法的和解的侵害。我认为受让人的律师已经强调了这一点。这是一项妥协动议。而纽约州法律明确规定，我们刚刚读到过，根据纽约州法律，受让人不得在未经法院批准的情况下随意进行妥协——我认为是在我们异议书的第58段。这是有原因的。受让人并非独断专行的主体。受让人是在纽约法院的指导下运作的。我们非常尊重临时限制令。我理解冻结资金的必要性。我理解需要非常谨慎。但必须有人监督并使受让人的妥协合法化。他不能凭自己的信念单方面行事。他必须在纽约法院寻求批准。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 130 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n第130页\n正因如此，该和解协议是非法的，因为并未寻求过此类批准。\n从我们的角度来看，必须有人来核实受让人的信念，即他是否可以在没有任何调查、任何信息的情况下剥夺这些债权人的权利，仅仅剥夺他根据纽约州法律负有服务和保护信托义务的债权人的权利。\n现在，让我们明确一点。当我说剥夺权利时，HCHK 实体的债权人，假设他们是善意的——我必须这样假设。我也调查过了。据我所知，他们是合法的债权人。善意的索赔。善意出借的款项。正在被这种安排彻底剥夺权利。\n而且受让人无需向任何人汇报他为何要这样做。他这样做获得了豁免。他这样做获得了 $550,000。他的律师这样做获得了 $400,000。在什么理论下能有人认为他的行为符合他宣誓保护的债权人的最佳利益？\n因此，由托管人和受让人构建的协议是非法的、越权的。本法院有权中止纽约州的诉讼。但我认为本法院无权告知纽约法院必须在受让人的此项诉讼中批准该转让。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 131 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n第131页\n我认为这应由纽约法院来裁定。如果纽约法院如此裁定，和解就可以继续进行。但若非如此，必须有人来……受让人根据纽约州法律不得仅仅凭其自身意愿随意这样做。\n关于，你知道，也许将来某一天我们会有关于另我的认定，也许会有，也许不会。但我认为这不足以成为本法院直接无视纽约州法律明确限制的充分理由。将来某一天可能会有另我的认定，如果是这样的话，最终这些款项将被转移。但在此之前，这不能成为直接无视法律的合理解释。\n因此，法官大人，我们的观点是，按照目前的结构，这项和解不应获得批准。这是越权的。这是非法的。应当遵循法律的限制。\n如果案件继续进行，我们打算申请参加诉讼以保护我们债权人的权利。他们是该实体及该款项的善意债权人。我们打算努力让受让人履行其宣誓承担的职责，保护作为我当事人的债权人的权利。\n法官大人，如果您有任何问题，我很乐意回答。这就是我们所代表的债权人的立场。\n\n法庭：\n我目前没有任何问题——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 132 of 180\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第132页 片刻。PASTORE 先生：好的。法庭：谢谢。PASTORE 先生：谢谢法官阁下。法庭：关于和解动议，还有其他人希望发言吗？SHERMAN 先生：法官阁下，我可以发言吗？我叫 Joshua Sherman（约书亚·谢尔曼）。我提交了一份有限异议。法庭：请讲。SHERMAN 先生：我只想陈述——法庭：你何不上前来发言席，请——SHERMAN 先生：谢谢法官阁下。法庭：——这样会更方便些。谢谢。SHERMAN 先生：法官阁下，我只想陈述，我赞同喜马拉雅债权人提出的论据。但除此之外，我只是想说明，我相信我自己的债权在性质上属于行政管理费用债权。我在给法庭的信函中对此作了说明。受托人和受让人并未提出相反的主张。因此，如果法庭倾向于批准和解协议，我的债权应当被列入拟议裁定书中获授权的受让人行为之中。谢谢。法庭：好的。谢谢。ARCARO 先生：法官阁下，下午好。Gregory\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 133 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第133页 Arcaro（格雷戈里·阿尔卡罗）代表 G News Operations, LLC（G新闻运营有限责任公司）出庭。与前述律师的异议类似，我的当事人与受让人签订了一份管理协议，并根据该管理协议预付了租金及其他费用。拟议裁定书和和解协议规定终止该管理协议，但并未规定随之而来的后果，即追回我方当事人垫付的资金。\n\n我听到受托人的律师说，对和解动议提出异议并不是主张债权的适当场合，但在拟议作为和解协议的一部分支付某些行政管理——我认为属于行政管理费用债权时，受托人已将该问题直接提交到了法庭面前，然而却没有提出向我的当事人付款的机制，只是请求纳入一个机制，使我的当事人能够提交债权，且一旦证明属实，便与其他行政管理费用债权一同获得支付，并坚称其与和解协议中所有其他拟议款项享有同等地位，特别是在第三阶段，但也可能在第二阶段发生，届时受托人获准向受让人垫款以支付某些费用，无论在和解协议的哪一部分都可以发生，但应当对如何处理该债权作出具体说明。谢谢，法官阁下。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 134 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第134页\n1 法庭：谢谢。\n2 BARANOWSKY 女士：下午好，法官阁下。\n3 Green & Sklarz 律师事务所的 Kelliane Baranowsky（凯莉安·巴拉诺夫斯基）代表 G Club\n4 Operations, LLC（G俱乐部运营有限责任公司）。\n和我一同出席的还有来自 Pillsbury Winthrop（毕斯堡·温斯罗普律所）的 Carolina Fornos（卡罗琳娜·福诺斯），\n5 代表同一实体。\n6 FORNOS 女士：法官阁下，我可以走上前去吗？\n7 法庭：可以，请。\n8 FORNOS 女士：谢谢。\n9 法庭：下午好。\n10 FORNOS 女士：下午好，法官阁下。\n毕斯堡·温斯罗普律所的 Carolina\n11 Fornos 代表 G俱乐部运营公司。\n12 法官阁下，我们曾提交了一份通知，而框架——受托人\n13 构建该通知的方式完全是关于\n14 规避出示文件。\n明确地说，G俱乐部\n15 运营公司已经出示了文件，不仅包括我们\n16 上次在法庭出庭时提到的那300份，而且还包括\n17 我们今天上午出示的100,000多份文件。\n并且\n18 我们还会出示更多文件，因为我们将在7月14日之前\n19 遵从法庭的命令。\n20 我们向法庭提出的问题是，\n21 受托人不能仅仅直接介入，推定人格混同，\n22 推定实质合并，并夺取\n23 HCHK 占有的所有文件。\n非常明确地说，HCHK\n24 Technologies（HCHK科技）——而且存在多个实体。\n对我们而言唯一的\n25 问题是 HCHK科技。\n该实体在\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第135页 我们的 IT 方面处于行政管理和经营地位。HCHK 无权将这些权利和文件转让给受让人。受让人也无权直接将其移交给受托人。受托人更不能直接绕过证据开示程序，直接说，哦，我要拿走所有这些文件，无视特权，无视合同权利。这就是我们提交该通知的原因。我们恳请法庭注意到我们将出示文件，但 G俱乐部必须能够查阅其自身的文件、对其进行审阅、考虑特权因素，并且我们将出示具有回应性的文件。受托人无权不顾特权权利和回应性而直接拿走一切。就此问题，法庭有什么疑问吗，法官阁下？ Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 135 of\n\n法庭：我只是——我认为你所说的唯一一件事，虽然我相信我知道但我想要确认我理解了的是，你的通知仅——你代表 G俱乐部运营公司提交的通知仅涉及 HK——HCHK科技实体，对吗？FORNOS 女士：是的，法官阁下。正是如此。\n\n而且，法官阁下，我们不持立场——我们交由其他律师来谈和解协议。问题在于 Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 136 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第136页\n1 目前起草的拟议裁定书绕过了多项\n2 影响 G俱乐部运营公司的权利和正当程序权利。\n3 这些权利始于这样一个概念：和解\n4 协议推定存在人格混同，推定实质\n5 合并，并推定受托人可以直接拿走\n6 我们所有的文件并绕过\n7 证据开示程序。\n8 这就是担忧所在，这就是为什么我们指出\n9 拟议裁定书应当予以修改。\n在法庭\n10 同意和解协议的范围内，拟议\n11 裁定书应当予以修改以保护我们的权利。\n12 法庭：不过，让我问你一下关于 HCHK\n13 科技的事情。\nHCHK科技签署了某种\n14 文件，将其所有的权利、所有权、\n15 权益、索赔主张和资产转让给了受让人，对吧？\n16 我们对这一点没有争议吧？\n这是发生过的吧？\n17 FORNOS 女士：法官阁下，是的。\n18 法庭：好的。\n19 FORNOS 女士：但我想澄清——让我\n20 澄清这一点。\n受托人说得好像没有任何人\n21 提出异议一样。\n临时限制令（TRO）是在州法院提交立场声明的任何日期\n22 到期之前作出的。\n因此该临时限制令——\n23 法庭：不，不。\n24 我理解这一点。\n不过我说的是甚至在临时限制令之前。\n在纽约州提起该\n25 案件的原因是，因为\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 137 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第137页\n1 HCHK科技的某个掌权人员签署了一份文件，将其\n2 所有的一切全部转让给了受让人。\n3 这件事发生过，\n4 对吧？\n5 FORNOS 女士：是的，法官阁下。但我并不认为\n6 该程序已经完成。但我将听凭——\n7 法庭：不，不。我不是指你\n8 认为如此。我只是说事情就是这样发生的，对吧？\n9 于是受让人参与到纽约州的这个案件中来，并且作为受让人，\n10 所有这些实体的资产为了债权人的利益\n11 都转让给了他，对吧？\n12 因此受让人的职责就是将来自那些实体的\n13 一切资产变现并偿付\n14 债权人。\n原本应当发生的是这个。\n15 FORNOS 女士：法官阁下，我认为这原本是\n16 其意图。但明确地说，如果所有这一切在纽约州法律下都是合法的——\n17 受让人承继的是——\n18 法庭：是的。\n19 FORNOS 女士：——并且一切本应完成，\n20 且每个人在此过程中都被给予了陈述意见的机会，假设所有这些都发生，\n21 受让人将承继——可以说将取代 HCHK\n22 科技的地位并承继那些合同。\n23 而在那些合同项下，受让人仍将受到\n24 那些协议的约束。\n25 并且那些协议明确\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 138 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第138页\n1 包含保密条款以及明确阻止\n2 受让人或 HCHK 直接转让\n3 所有文件的具体条款——\n4 法庭：好的。\n5 FORNOS 女士：——无论——\n6 法庭：你在通知中有没有指出——\n7 如果你指出了而我只是没看到，我表示抱歉——\n8 G俱乐部运营公司与 HCHK科技之间的协议中，\n9 哪一部分有这个保密条款？\n10 FORNOS 女士：法官阁下，我们没有附上\n11 主服务协议。我们记录在案的是，\n12 受托人的律师不仅在最初出示的\n13 300份文件中就收到了\n14 主服务协议，法庭可能还记得\n15 法庭在上次听证会上特别向我问及了 HCHK，并且——\n16 法庭：我问的是保密\n17 条款，对吧，以及成员是否拥有任何——我现在\n18 不是在说 HCHK。我现在说的是 G俱乐部。\n19 你之前在说——我说是否存在任何合同\n20 依据，使成员能够合理确信其\n21 信息将保持保密。\n22 FORNOS 女士：法官阁下，我来回答这个问题。\n23 这存在两个不同的——\n24 法庭：当然。请讲。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 139 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第139页 FORNOS 女士：——问题。存在会员协议和会员权利。法庭上次恰当地提出了该问题，我们确实对此进行了调查并确定我们确实有能力在遵守保护令的前提下提供该内容，这就是我们与受托人讨论并解决的问题。法庭：好的。FORNOS 女士：我们正在谈论的这个保密问题是一个单独的问题。这是我们的整个 IT 系统。这是我们所有的电子邮件通信。这是微软365。法庭：对。FORNOS 女士：这是——法庭：但你必须就此与 HCHK 存在某种协议。FORNOS 女士：并且该协议包含一份关于以下事项的保密协议——法庭：好的。这就是我要问的。FORNOS 女士：——关于我们所有的——法庭：好的。FORNOS 女士：——我们所有信息。并且该协议确实存在，我们已经向受托人提供了该协议的副本——法庭：好的。FORNOS 女士：——多次，并已抄送给他\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 140 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n第 140 页\n1 在与 HCHK 进行的沟通中，要求其交还该等信息。\n2 因此，法官阁下，目前拟议\n3 裁定的构建方式并未考虑到——\n4 法庭：\n好吧，当你提到“该等信息”时，\n5 你指的是什么信息？\n如果他们当时控制着你们的系统，\n6 这难道不全都是软件吗？\n7 FORNOS 女士：\n是 IT 资产。\n是电子邮件以及其他\n8 应用程序，法官阁下。\n9 法庭：\n好的。\n好的。\n10 FORNOS 女士：\n我们只是请求法庭\n11 注意到受托人不能直接采取变通规避手段，直接\n12 介入并声称“我打算把一切都拿走”。\n13 法庭：\n好吧，受托人是否是这么说的，\n14 我并不清楚。\n这是你所述的受托人的说法。\n15 但我的问题是，什么——\n16 你的——你代表 G Clubs（原文如此）\n17 Operations 主张，G Club\n18 Operations 与 HCHK Technologies 之间存在一份协议，\n19 其中针对 HCHK 代表 G Club Operations\n20 所管理的信息设有保密条款？\n这就是你所——\n21\n22 FORNOS 女士：\n是的，法官阁下。\n23 法庭：\n好的。\n24 FORNOS 女士：\n确实如此。\n25 法庭：\n而且正如你所言，你已经向受托人\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第 141 页 提供了该等信息。FORNOS 女士：是的。法庭：而且你的意思是——你的意思是说该等信息绝不应该被移交，还是说你们需要将其收回？除了我们之前谈到的成员信息之外，关于 G Club 与 HCHK 之间协议所涵盖的信息，你的立场是什么？FORNOS 女士：是的。所有信息都应当归还给 G Club，以便 G Club 能够进行审查、确定关联响应性、提供具有响应性的内容，并扣留享有特权的信息。法庭：好的。谢谢。这就是我想明确清楚的地方。FORNOS 女士：谢谢您，法官阁下。CLAIBORN 女士：再次发言，我是代表 U.S. Trustee（美国受托人办公室）的 Holley Claiborn。我想我是今天最后一位向法庭陈述的异议方了。美国受托人对和解协议提交了有限异议。该异议位于 ECF 1978，主要针对三个事项提出质疑。我先从最容易的部分谈起，然后再回到更具实质性的讨论。容易的部分涉及受托人对款项的使用，即如果法庭批准和解协议，他所获得的款项将如何使用，以及公众对此应当了解什么。美国受托人主张，在这方面我们应当拥有更高的透明度，案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第 141 页\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交于 08/24/23\n录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49\n第 142 页，共 180 页 |\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n第 142 页\n1 并设立一定的防护机制，以便了解后续将发生的情况。\n2\n3 美国受托人建议，受托人应当按月提交\n4 款项支付清单。\n我认为受托人\n5 对此是赞同的。\n美国受托人还建议，\n6 对于超过 $25,000 的支出，\n7 应当给予美国受托人和委员会机会，\n8 以评估该笔支出是否适当。\n9 而受托人对此表示反对，并要求将该金额门槛\n10 提高至 $50,000。\n11 我认为除了提出将门槛设为 $50,000\n12 效率更高之外，我没有听到任何其他抗辩理由。\n我认为\n13 真正的问题在于，我们并不知道\n14 受托人将如何使用这笔资金。\n而且我们应当\n15 建立某种机制，以确保一项重大支出\n16 在发生之前能够适当地提交给各方，\n17 以便在支出发生前了解具体情况。\n18 因此，美国受托人认为 $25,000\n19 的分界线是一个更合理的门槛，\n20 适合作为在事情发生前预先了解情况的合理门槛。\n21 因此，美国受托人希望将此作为受托人必须\n22 考虑美国受托人和\n23 委员会意见的\n24 门槛金额。\n需要明确的是，只要美国受托人\n25 对拟议支出存有疑虑，\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交于 08/24/23\n录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49\n第 143 页，共 180 页 |\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n第 143 页\n1 美国受托人有责任重新向法庭提出，\n2 与法庭进行交涉。\n3 回到美国受托人在异议中提出的\n4 另外两个问题。\n它们是重要的问题。\n5 这些问题目前在全国各地的法院中都具有相当的重要性，\n6 包括 Second Circuit（第二巡回上诉法院）。\n7 拟议的和解协议包含两项\n8 相辅相成的条款。\n9 拟议命令第 13 段规定了 channeling injunction（引流禁令），\n10 拟议命令第 14 段规定了\n11 exculpation（免责条款）。\n它们的措辞极其宽泛，\n12 达到了最大可能的限度。\n无可争议的是，它们的真实意图\n13 确实是保护受让人及其聘请的专业人员\n14 免受除债务人、债务人\n15 破产财产之外的其他人的诉求，或免受受托人提出的索赔诉求。\n16 受保护对象的定义被称为\n17 “受让人”，但为了明确起见——而且——\n18 它不仅指受让人 Hofmeister 先生，还涉及数名\n19 专业人员。\n因此这是一个群体。\n而且它包括了今天代表受让人\n20 进行陈述的法律顾问，\n21 即 Cole Schotz 律师事务所。\n22 命令和和解协议中包含的免责条款，\n23 绝对属于本法庭\n24 判定其是否适当的裁决职权范围。\n而美国受托人的\n25 立场是，该条款并不适当，因为它是\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交于 08/24/23\n录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49\n第 144 页，共 180 页 |\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n第 144 页\n1 对第三方索赔诉求进行不当非自愿免除（release）的\n2 实质等同物。\n3 暂且退一步来说。\n如果\n4 受托人提议要由受托人\n5 免除破产财产对受让人及其\n6 专业人员的索赔主张，受托人是有权这样做的。\n但\n7 拟议的条文表述并非如此。\n8 拟议的条文表述远远超出了这个范围。\n它\n9 涉及对任何个人或实体的任何责任，\n10 进而又涉及各种不同的行为。\n例如，\n11 在未受保护且被保留追究的行为中，\n12 包含刑事行为。\n因此，举例来说，如果某个政府机构\n13 想要采取措施追究刑事责任，\n14 根据拟议命令中的免责条文，\n15 这些刑事指控在争辩中可能会被禁止。\n16 美国受托人认为，拟议的\n17 免责条文不符合第二巡回上诉法院\n18 最近在 Purdue Pharma（普渡制药案）中所明确的标准。\n19 该案中引用的各项考量因素（共七项），\n20 拟议的动议及和解条款\n21 似乎均未满足。\n法庭必须评估\n22 自身是否真正具备批准该\n23 免除条款的权力，因为这不仅影响到本破产财产的\n24 索赔诉求，而且影响到并未到庭、且不受\n25 本法庭及本管辖区标的管辖权约束的第三方的索赔诉求。\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交于 08/24/23\n录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49\n第 145 页，共 180 页 |\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日\n第 145 页\n1\n2 而且可能存在尚未向本法庭明确阐述或提出的索赔诉求。\n3 即使本法庭出于某种原因判定\n4 普渡制药案的考量因素实际上\n5 已经得到满足，第二巡回上诉法院最近作出的\n6 普渡制药案裁决也十分明确地表明，本法庭并不具备\n7 最终批准拟议引流禁令和\n8 免责条款的实际权限，因为本法庭作出的任何\n9 事实认定都仅仅是拟议的事实认定，\n10 必须经由 District Court（联邦地区法院）批准、认可并采纳。\n11\n12 这是因为本案属于非核心程序（non-core proceeding），\n13 且若要求本法庭直接绕过程序并采纳全部管辖权，\n14 则违反了 United States Supreme Court（美国最高法院）在 Stern v. Marshall 案中的判决意见，\n15 因为本法庭并不具备该管辖权。\n16 法庭：\n那么请稍等一下。\n请允许我在这个问题上打断你一下，\n17 因为我不确定我是否完全理解你的意思。\n法庭\n18 没有核心管辖权去裁决在本案中关于和解的\n19 动议，是因为什么原因？\n20 CLAIBORN 女士：\n我可以说得更具体一些。\n21 法庭：\n好的。\n22 CLAIBORN 女士：\n法庭并不具备\n23 批准引流禁令和\n24 免责条款的管辖权，因为这两者结合在一起，构成了\n25 对不属于本破产财产的第三方索赔诉求的非自愿免除。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 第 146 页 这一——法庭：所以但是——CLAIBORN 女士：关于管辖权的这一判定——法庭：但你正在谈论管辖权，所以——你正在讨论管辖权，所以我们——我只是想——CLAIBORN 女士：所以我的论点是——法庭：我只是想确保我清楚理解了你的立场。CLAIBORN 女士：我的论点包含两层。第一，我们认为普渡制药案裁决中阐明的各项考量因素——法庭：这一点我理解。我——CLAIBORN 女士：——并未得到满足。法庭：第七巡回——七项考量因素未得到满足。CLAIBORN 女士：没错。法庭：但即使它们得到了满足，我也无论如何无法对它们作出裁决，因为它们不属于核心——CLAIBORN 女士：您没有最终批准的权力。法庭：——它们不属于核心程序，必须移交给地区法院？CLAIBORN 女士：没错。案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第 146 页\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第 147 页\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日\n147\n\n法官：\n但是难道不能——即使你是对的，我也不知道你对不对，因为在你刚才说之前我还没研究过——直到现在我才完全理解你的意思，我能否根据规则 7052 做出拟议的事实认定和法律结论？\n\n克莱伯恩女士（Ms. Claiborn）：\n您可以。但最终必须由地区法院对此发表意见。\n\n法官：\n我明白。好的。行。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n而且那是——\n\n法官：\n我只是问问。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n而且那仅仅是针对免责条款——\n\n法官：\n是的。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n——以及管道禁令的问题。\n我想指出的另一件事是，本法院没有任何法定职权在重整计划范围之外批准管道禁令。\n这个问题是个大问题，它直接彻底阻止了这项管道禁令请求。唯一的机制——\n\n法官：\n难道那不是——人们难道不是一直在——实际上我手头就有——第 7 章受托人就在请求这些，而且没有人对管道禁令以及缺乏法定职权提出异议。而且我——而且在尚未确认重整计划的第 11 章案件中也是如此。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 148 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 148 我记得第 542(g) 条在什么地方说过它必须与重整计划相关联吗？我不确定它有这么说。对此一直存在很多争议，不是吗？ 克莱伯恩女士： 确实有争议，法官阁下。而且是第 524(g) 条。 法官： 我刚才说了什么，42？ 克莱伯恩女士： 是的。 法官： 我说反了？ 克莱伯恩女士： 没关系。 法官： 是 24(g)。抱歉。 克莱伯恩女士： 所以关键在于，对他人施加该限制的职权仅见于该条款。法院已经判定，该条款确实授权了超出其中提及石棉案件的具体措辞概念之外的管道禁令。话虽如此，我们目前未发现有任何判例法授权法院在重整计划范围之外施加此种管道禁令。所有的判例法都是在实际重整计划的范围内确定管道禁令的适当性。 法官： 好的。 克莱伯恩女士： 因此，美国受托人（U.S. Trustee）的立场是，本法院无权做出—— 法官： 没有法定职权去——\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 149 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n149\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n正确。\n\n法官：\n——去允许那样做。好的。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n正确。\n\n法官：\n我——那很有帮——由你把这点明确阐述出来很有帮助。我之前不完全确定。但是那——现在我理解你的意思了。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n所以回到该提议，如果将其范围缩小为受托人希望就破产财产可能对受让人及其专业人士持有的主张，对受让人及其专业人士予以免责，这属于受托人的权限范围。但受托人无权请求本法院批准对第三方针对受让人及其专业人士所持有之主张的免责。\n因此，我们请求法院驳回和解协议中关于这两项条款的部分，因为它们必须相互配合解读。也就是拟议裁定中的第 13 条和第 14 条，我们请求在法院批准呈交本法院的实际和解协议的范围内，从拟议裁定中将这些条款删除。\n\n法官：\n好的。谢谢你。\n\n克莱伯恩女士：\n谢谢您。\n\n法官：\n受托人有何回应？\n\n德斯平斯先生（Mr. Despins）：\n有的，法官阁下。第一个回应是，是否可以休庭十分钟，以便我们能够讨论——\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 150 法官： 可以。但在休庭之前，是否还有其他人有尚未被听取的异议？莫里亚蒂律师（Attorney Moriarty），您代表谁？ 莫里亚蒂先生（Mr. Moriarty）： 债务人，法官阁下。而且—— 法官： 哪位债务人？ 莫里亚蒂先生： Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）。 法官： 郭先生？ 莫里亚蒂先生： 郭先生。 法官： 他—— 莫里亚蒂先生： 我没有提出异议。 法官： 他没有—— 莫里亚蒂先生： 我只是想记录在案，债务人对和解协议或动议不持任何立场。 法官： 好的。 莫里亚蒂先生： 就是这样。可以吗？ 法官： 好的。谢谢你。好的。是的，我们休息十分钟——休庭。现在休庭至下午 4 点。 德斯平斯先生： 谢谢您。 法庭副书记官： 全体起立。现在休庭至下午 4 点。 （下午 3:51 至下午 4:05 休庭） Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 150 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 151 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n151\n\n法庭副书记官：\n全体起立。美利坚合众国康涅狄格区破产法院（United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut）重新——现已开庭。\n\n法官：\n请就座。好的。德斯平斯受托人，我们在之前一点——大概 3:50 左右休庭。那么我们现在进展到哪一步了？\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n我很高兴地报告，我们已经与受让人达成了协议，我认为该协议解决了就免责和管道禁令所提出的许多问题。协议内容如下。\n\n受托人将免除破产财产对受让人和/或其专业人士的任何诉由。而且我们显然——您知道，我不必向您讲这些。您比我更清楚。在得到法官阁下批准的前提下，受托人可以这样做。我们认为不存在此类主张，但作为和解的一部分，我们将对其予以免除。\n\n至于管道机制，将不会存在令美国受托人担忧的广泛管道禁令，而是基本上由法院担任守门人角色，也就是说，任何想就受让人的身份以及为债权人利益之转让（assignment for the benefit of the creditor）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 152 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 152 针对受让人或其专业人士提出主张的人，必须首先向本法院提起该等主张，以便法院能够判定该诉由是否已被受托人根据我们将给予的免责予以免除。\n\n顺便说一句，只有在法官阁下批准和解的第三阶段时，即如果法官阁下批准了受托人提出的另我（alter ego）或衡平法所有权主张时，才会给予该免责。如果该部分未获批准，一切——一切协议作废。不存在免责。不存在法院的守门人职能。这一切都将在该程序的第三阶段进行。\n\n但是，再次强调，受托人仅会免除破产财产针对受让人及其专业人士的主张。将会有一项条款，并且——您知道，受让人在审查具体措辞、其律师审查具体措辞的前提下对此表示同意。但其概念是，针对受让人或其专业人士的任何主张必须首先提交至本法院，以便法院可以确定这些主张是否属于免责范围。\n\n因为正如您所知，在这种情况之下，人们是否拥有直接主张的问题是非常模糊的。我们不希望人们到处滥诉，除非法官阁下判定，是的，这是一项不受受托人免责约束的直接主张；您可以继续去起诉\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 153 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n153\n\n您想起的任何人。我们希望这种情况不会发生。但重点在于该权利受到了保护。\n但是法院将发挥守门人职能。我们认为，有充分依据赋予法院仅仅执行该项职能的管辖权。因为他们并没有被阻止提起其他主张；他们只是——只需要完成一个步骤，即他们需要先向本法院提出，以便法院能够保护其管辖权，即：这些主张是派生主张，还是直接且非派生的主张。该判定必须由本法院做出，即批准了——或者如果法官阁下批准的话，即批准和解的法院。\n因此我认为这解决了该问题。我的同事将回应其他主张债权人或所谓的债权人提出的其他问题。但在我看来，我认为该问题以一种有利于破产财产的方式得到了解决，并且该方式也应当让法院确信您拥有管辖权与权力，并且发布此类——该类型的命令是适当的。\n在把发言席让给我的同事之前，我最后只想说一点，法官阁下，每次那些名字以 G 开头的人——我指的不是名字（first name），而是一家以 G 开头的公司出庭，\n\n在这里现身，让自己处于——或者向法院请求保护时，我都非常担忧我们需要\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 154 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n154\n\n看这些事情尘埃落定之后的结果。我们需要看清楚究竟是怎么回事，发生了什么。而且，您知道，对于任何破坏此事的企图，或者对于有人说，好吧，我也想要一份特殊待遇，我都会非常担忧。\n首先，重要的是要理解，受让人及其专业人士所获得的救济，只有在法官阁下判定这些实体是债务人的另我时，他们才能获得。如果不是，他们就得不到。到了那个阶段，人们可以自由地说，噢，我是破产财产的行政债权人（admin creditor）；让我向您解释原因。我们到时再行确定。\n但今天不是就那些希望被确认为行政债权人——最终行政主张权利人的主张进行审理的适当时机（听不清）或程序。这不是适当的语境。\n但就此，法官阁下，我把发言席让给我的同事。\n\n法官：\n让我问你一个关于你刚才解释的免责问题和免除责任问题的解决方案。你的意思是说，你同意限制免责条款的措辞，写明受托人仅同意免除针对受让人的破产财产主张，并且如果任何——\n\n德斯平斯先生：\n以及他的专业人士。是的。\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵） - 2023年7月11日 155 法官阁下：请继续。抱歉。什么？DESPINS 先生：以及他的专业人员。法官阁下：以及他的专业人员。好的。如果任何一方拥有索赔主张——他们认为是对受让人及其专业人员的索赔主张，他们必须向本法院提出该索赔主张？DESPINS 先生：或者向法院提交动议，表示我希望获得授权在——无论他们想在哪里提出，在纽约州法院提出该索赔主张，并让我向法院解释为什么我拥有的该索赔主张——现在是债权人在发言——不在破产受托人向——向这些人做出的豁免范围内。法官阁下：那么这些债权人怎么知道这一点呢？他们将如何知晓？DESPINS 先生：嗯，在他们将收到的通知中——再次说明，这只发生在第三阶段。如果法官阁下裁定这些实体是债务人的替身，届时将发出一份通知，说明任何——我们可以在措辞上进行完善——但任何认为自己拥有此类索赔主张的债权人，都需要首先向本法院提交动议以获得授权提出任何此类索赔主张。这是最低限度的——您知道，坦率地说，就正当程序而言，这——这对他们行使权利来说是一个非常轻微的阻碍，而且——因为归根结底，Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 155 of\n\nexercising their rights and -- because, at the end of the\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\nPage 156 of\n180 |\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n156 |\n1 归根结底，所有这些索赔主张极有可能都是派生\n2 索赔，因此，我们拥有这些索赔主张。\n这也就是 |\n3 为什么拥有这种把关功能非常重要，法官\n4 阁下。\n5 法官阁下：\n拟议的——让我们——如果 |\n6 你们胜诉并且和解动议获得批准，\n7 目前的拟议裁定如何解决该\n8 问题——\n9 DESPINS 先生：\n我们会—— |\n10 法官阁下：\n——你们—— |\n11 DESPINS 先生：\n我们需要向法官阁下提交新的 |\n12 措辞。\n但基本上，我会说请忽略您目前面前的关于免责、关于集中管辖的 |\n13 那些条款。\n14 我们将提交一项条款，规定破产 |\n15 受托人——如果法院准予该救济，我们称之为\n16 处置性动议中的救济，即简易\n17 判决或我们提出的任何动议——破产受托人将\n18 在该时间点免除针对受让人及其\n19 专业人员的所有索赔主张。\n20 届时法院将作出裁定——\n21 或者，您知道，当然须经法官阁下\n22 同意，将作出裁定，规定任何希望\n23 对受让人或其专业人员主张索赔的\n24 债权人必须首先向本法院提交动议以\n25 获得授权，以便法院能够确定\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 157 拟主张的索赔是派生索赔（即仍由破产财产所有），还是这些债权人的直接索赔，诸如此类的规定。再次说明，我不太愿意给出过多具体措辞，因为受让人的律师尚未审阅过这些措辞。但法官阁下，这些就是基本构想。所以，很显然我们需要向法官阁下提交一份新的裁定。您知道，这是毫无疑问的。法官阁下：好的。但就目前而言，您的提议是否解决了 United States Trustee（美国破产受托人）的异议？DESPINS 先生：嗯，没有。法官阁下：哦，她在摇头。DESPINS 先生：没有，我不——我说的是我们已经与受让人解决了这个问题。法官阁下：这并没有与美国破产受托人解决。好的。CLAIBORN 女士：就豁免而言，这确实解决了美国破产受托人的关切。破产财产有权提议豁免其希望豁免的任何人。至于这是否恰当，取决于法院。我们并不是在争论这一点。我们之前争论的是，你们是否可以免除属于非破产财产且非债务人的第三方的其他索赔主张。Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 157 of\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\nPage 158 of\n180 |\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n158 |\n1 所以那个问题，我认为可以通过措辞予以处理并可以得到解决。\n2 \n3 关于拟议由法院充当把关人的机制问题，\n4 目前我没有任何权限同意这一点。\n5 我需要看到具体措辞并与美国破产受托人讨论，\n6 然后向法院和各方当事人汇报反馈。\n7 \n8 DESPINS 先生：\n但我再次认为，我们已经远离了那种强制要求所有索赔都必须在实体上由本院审理的集中管辖禁令。\n9 基本上，这纯粹是一项把关功能。\n10 而且我认为法院这样做是有先例的，所以。\n11 \n12 不过，无论如何，如果可以让我的同事来陈述其他——\n13 我的意思是，除非您还有其他问题，法官\n14 阁下。\n15 还有其他异议人，并且引起了——提出了各种问题。\n16 如果可能的话，我想请我的同事来陈述这些要点。\n17 \n18 法官阁下：\n我只是看看我是否还有任何\n19 其他问题。\n我目前没有任何其他问题，但这并不意味着我之后不会有，这取决于\n20 还有什么——\n21 \n22 DESPINS 先生：\n那么我将——如果——我将请 Luft 先生\n23 来到发言席陈述——\n24 法官阁下：\n好的。谢谢。\n25 LUFT 先生：\n法官阁下，我可以走上前吗？ |\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 159 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 159 法官阁下：可以，请。DESPINS 先生：实际上，法官阁下，在 Luft 先生上前之前，我还有一点——这完全是程序性的问题。Goldman 先生问我委员会是否可以拥有关于受让人专业人员费用的审核权，那已经达成一致了。法官阁下：受让人本身也是如此吗？DESPINS 先生：仅针对受让人的专业人员。因为受让人本身没有什么可审核的。那是一个——意思是——法官阁下：不，但是你——DESPINS 先生：是的。法官阁下：但是——DESPINS 先生：他们对此同意了，法官阁下。法官阁下：好的。DESPINS 先生：我很抱歉。我之前没理解您的问题。第二点是，Luft 先生准确地描述了关于资金将投资于国债的条款。那是目前的版本。但我们需要对其进行修改——同样，受让人也对此表示同意——以规定我们也可以将其保存在受托人第 345 条账户中。因为长话短说，在我们告知银行我们将提取资金并投资于国债之后，他们说，嗯，您知道，猜怎么着，我们\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 160 将向您提供 4.95% 的利率，这只比国债低四分之一点或半个百分点。而且那是在 345 账户中。所以我们决定——法官阁下：你是说 U.S. Bank（美国合众银行）向你们提供了那个利率？你是这个意思吗？DESPINS 先生：不是。是一家银行——法官阁下：哦。DESPINS 先生：——但不是 U.S. Bank。不是这里的这家 U.S. Bank。而是持有本案其他受托人账户的那家银行。法官阁下：好的。明白了。DESPINS 先生：他们已经同意给我们——法官阁下：破产财产受托人账户。DESPINS 先生：——4.95%，这相当——虽然这不是给他们做营销，但那是相当高的利率了。而且这是一个第 345 条账户。所以美国破产受托人很满意。因此关键在于我们需要修改该条款，以允许将资金存入此类账户。但这就是——这些就是我想说明的仅有的两点程序性问题。法官阁下：好的。谢谢。LUFT 先生：谢谢您，法官阁下。我是来自 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）代表 Chapter 11（第 11 章）破产受托人的 Avi Luft。我将尽量简短，因为我意识到时间已经很晚了。Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 160 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 161 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n161 | | | | | | | |\n1 我将按照讨论的顺序进行发言。\n2 法官阁下，关于我所称的 Himalaya（喜马拉雅）异议人\n3 所发表的意见，我其实只想聚焦于两点。\n4 第一点是，其中完全没有任何关于 Iridium 考量因素的讨论，或者\n5 关于事实上这并不符合债务人破产财产的最佳利益的讨论。\n6 而那正是我们在 9019 和解中所要关注的根本所在。\n7 \n8 事实上，我没有听到任何人提及这一点。\n9 坦白说，我认为那确实才是分析应该聚焦的地方。\n10 \n11 除此以外，法官阁下，我确实只想作个说明。\n12 关于人们“完全被剥夺权利”的说法有很多，还有人暗示说他们将无法拥有索赔主张。\n13 法官阁下，这根本不是该和解方案的构建方式。\n14 \n15 在受托人在关于替身和/或衡平法所有权的对抗性诉讼中胜诉的范围内，在人们属于 HCHK 实体的有效债权人的范围内，他们将有机会在本案中提出索赔，前提是受托人提出重新开放索赔提交截止日期的申请，而该裁定中已经对此作出了规定。\n16 而如果受托人败诉，资金将退还给受让人。\n17 在那构情况下，他们的境况——没有任何恶化。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 162 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 162 没有任何恶化。所以所有这些关于人们被剥夺权利或丧失索赔主张的言论都不是事实。我认为在他们提交的文件中，实际情况多少有所体现。文件中提及，他们真正认为不公平的是，在纽约州法院的案件中，他们本来只需要与 HCHK 的其他债权人竞争，但如果受托人在其替身索赔主张上胜诉，那么他们将受制于——与债务人的其他债权人享有同等地位。但法官阁下，这实际上是非常公平的。如果我们关于 HCHK 实体是债务人的替身这一主张是正确的，那么债务人破产财产某一方面——某一部分的债权人，就应该受到与该破产财产其他部分的债权人完全相同的对待。因此，法官阁下，除非您有疑问，否则我将继续陈述其他事项。法官阁下：我没有问题。LUFT 先生：谢谢。关于 Sherman 先生的发言，他简要提及了我们没有具体反驳他的索赔属于行政管理费用索赔这一观点。法官阁下，我在开场陈述中所说的是，我认为处理何种——处理这些索赔还为时过早。为了明确起见，我不认为这一事实\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 163 我并没有深入探讨它是否属于行政管理权请求（admin claim）以及属于何种协议形式的细节。我认为在时间和地点适当时，可以提交该请求。可以对其进行审议。法庭：那么，什么时候时间和地点才合适呢？我只是问问。LUFT先生：是的，法官阁下。这完全合情合理。我认为，如果我们在这场对抗性诉讼（adversary proceeding）中胜诉，并且确定我们——确定HCHK的资产属于债务人财产（debtor's estate）的一部分，那么我认为债务人的任何债权人，无论是通过HCHK还是其他途径，在这里我认为包括Sherman先生或任何其他人，都可以站出来说我有一项债权，并且他们可以主张该债权。法庭：但如果它是一项行政管理费用请求（administrative claim）呢？LUFT先生：法官阁下，就时间而言，我仍然认为那可能是合适的时间，只是因为在此之前——法庭：好的。我只是问问，因为存在——LUFT先生：不，这完全合情合理。法庭：好的。请继续。LUFT先生：听着，Sherman先生现在可以自由向我们提出。我们可以就此进行商讨。我只是认为这与和解没有任何关系。案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第 163 页，共\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第 164 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n164\n1 正如我——我要结束发言的唯一一点是，在\n2 我们败诉的限度内，资金将退还给\n3 受让人（assignee），然后他将不得不做出判断，\n4 这就是为什么我把时间定在等待那项判决。\n5 关于G News，我只想说，听着，\n6 并不会因为你与一方\n7 达成债权和解，就有义务去和解任何一方可能拥有的所有债权。\n同样，\n8 这是受让人与受托人（trustee）之间达成的\n9 和解。\n这才是其债权正在得到处理的主体。\n10 我认为这一情况的发生绝不会\n11 以任何方式损害G News的利益。\n同样，我们将在适当的时间处理他们的\n12 债权。\n13 最后，关于G Club，我只想\n14 发表几点意见。\n首先，我要指出他们并不是\n15 债权人，法官阁下。\n目前尚不完全清楚他们基于什么\n16 理由对该和解提出异议。\n17 我要特别指出，关于我在他们通知第6段的\n18 提案中强调的用语，完全没有被提及，\n19 即我们只能\n20 查阅“仅涉及HCHK实体”的文件。\n21 正如我所说，纳入他们所添加的、\n22 且他们现在并未予以说明的这一用语，极有可能导致\n23 受托人可以查阅的文件变成空集。\n我认为\n24 这是不妥当的。\n他们对此似乎也没有\n25 做出任何回应。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第 165 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n165\n1 关于HCHK控制了他们所有电子邮件和所有IT系统的\n2 说法，我要指出的是，尽管目前已经过去了\n3 七个月，也许八个月，这份——这份\n4 通知是我们第一次听说HCHK——或者在\n5 过去几周里第一次听说HCHK的电子邮件\n6 实际上全部由第三方控制，且HCHK\n7 管理着这一切。\n在数月来要求G Club出示其文件时，\n8 我们从未从他们那里听过这种说法。\n9 他们现在提出了特权（privilege）和保密性\n10 问题。\n我不明白他们怎么能提出这些问题。\n11 当文件被发送给受让人时，他们并未提出异议。\n12 他们对于HCHK持有他们的文件\n13 似乎也没有异议。\n而且他们对于受让人将这一切出售给G News并让他们\n14 拥有其所有文件的想法，\n15 似乎也没有提出异议。\n16 你知道，我认为即使曾经存在任何\n17 特权或保密性顾虑（对此我表示怀疑），\n18 在我看来，这些顾虑也已被放弃。\n19 似乎其他所有人都被允许查看这些文件。\n20 这对受托人来说应当是恰当的。\n21 最后，关于——\n22 法庭就MSA（主服务协议）以及哪些条款\n23 提出了问题。\nMSA很可能是连同其他文件一起\n24 出示给我们的。\n当然，\n25 MSA中没有向我们强调任何条款。\n没有任何用语\n案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第 166 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n166\n1 向我们展示过。\n本协议中也没有包含任何内容\n2 说明究竟据称违反了什么或存在其他情况。\n3 同样，我认为最合适的事情是\n4 让受托人就像受让人一样，处于\n5 相同的地位。\n让他们获取HCHK的文件。\n让他们将其用于——在他们需要审查的范围内进行使用。\n如果\n7 其中包含G Club的文件，那么\n8 情况历来如此。\n以前这似乎不是问题。\n9 现在也不应该成为问题。\n10 法官阁下，如果您有任何疑问，我很乐意\n11 解答。\n12 法庭：\n我没有疑问。\n谢谢你。\n13 LUFT先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n14 法庭：\n还有其他人希望发表意见吗？\n15 GOLDMAN先生：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。Irve Goldman\n16 代表委员会。\n我只是想表达我们对受托人提议的\n17 和解的支持。\n我们赞赏\n18 受托人能够迅速且积极地\n19 叫停州法院的诉讼程序，并将\n20 受制于这些诉讼程序的资产置于——\n21 置于第11章（Chapter 11）程序的保护伞之下。\n22 这些资产本可能——本可能\n23 脱离破产财产的追索范围。\n并不是说它们已经被\n24 认定为破产财产，但至少\n25 它们已经被提交到本法庭以作出该项认定。\n\n案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第 167 页，共\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n167\n1 当然，本法庭对破产财产享有专属\n2 管辖权，并且我认为对确定何为破产财产享有\n3 专属管辖权。\n而这正是本和解所实现的目的。\n正如受让人\n5 所述，这只是一项转移管辖法院的和解，\n6 它实际上将转让程序中的任何债权\n7 导入本法庭，保留了所有\n8 可以主张的债权。\n没有任何人的权利\n9 被剥夺。\n10 你知道，我们——关于破产财产的豁免，这是\n11 商业判断标准。\n如果这意味着批准整个和解，\n12 我们对此表示支持。\n13 关于把关职能，我认为这是法院在直接请求被伪装成——\n14 确切地说是衍生请求被伪装成\n15 直接请求时通常适用的\n16 一项机制。\n因此，通常会利用此类把关职能，\n17 以便债权人无法这样做，\n18 并且法庭将作为何为直接请求、何为衍生请求的\n19 最终仲裁者，从而使那些\n20 被伪装成直接请求的衍生请求不能随意前往\n21 各个法院提起诉讼，直到法庭至少\n22 认定它们确系合法的直接请求为止。\n23 因此，委员会支持\n24 按照向法庭阐述的方式进行修改后的\n25 和解。\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 168 法庭：好的。谢谢。GOLDMAN先生：谢谢。PASTORE先生：法官阁下，我可以走上前吗？法庭：可以，请上前。PASTORE先生：我知道时间很晚了，所以我长话短说。我对我优秀的友人Goldman先生深表敬意，而且——但我想强调他刚才使用的一个词，即“叫停”（halt）。法庭书记员：对不起。我需要您的姓名。我没听清那个名字。PASTORE先生：哦，抱歉。Joseph Pastore，代表——法庭书记员：谢谢。PASTORE先生：——HCHK债权人。法庭书记员：谢谢。PASTORE先生：叫停。我认为这是一个重要的词。所以我们面临的情况是，我们没有法人人格混同（alter ego）的认定，没有对任何债权人值得质疑/指责的认定，但我们却要叫停纽约的一项程序，而在没有任何人认定什么——受让人的行为符合他受指派去保护的那些债权人的最佳利益（这是纽约法院的职责），然后告诉那些债权人，除非得到本法庭的批准，否则他们不能就受让人的行为对其提起任何诉讼。我想一直作为正当程序条款（due process clause）的拥护者，案号 22-50073 文件 2119 提交于 08/24/23 录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49 第 168 页，共\n案号 22-50073\n文件 2119\n提交于 08/24/23\n录入于 08/24/23 12:37:49\n第 169 页，共\n180\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n169\n1 一直作为，你知道，法律结论认定\n2 和事实认定的拥护者。\n在这里你一项都没有得到。\n然而，我\n3 客户的权利显然都被剥夺了。\n4 至少——我们确实赞赏联邦检察官（U.S. Attorney）\n5 对禁令提出的异议。\n我认为那是——\n6 肯定必须要说的话。\n而且我认为我已经说过了。\n7 至少，我们请求有权查看修改该用语的任何拟定\n8 裁定/命令，并在必要时提出意见。\n9 谢谢您，法官阁下。\n10 法庭：\n谢谢。\n11 JARECK先生：\n法官阁下，最后一句？\n12 法庭：\n可以。\n可以。\n请讲。\n13 JARECK先生：\n记录在案，Cole Schotz PC律师事务所的Ryan Jareck，\n14 代表受让人。\n法官阁下，这\n15 实际上时间刚刚好，因为我的发言涉及\n16 Pastore先生早些时候在陈述中所说的本\n17 和解属于越权行为（ultra vires）且违反纽约州法律的内容。\n18 在这样说时，他引用了他自己的诉状摘要（brief）\n19 第58段，这同样是《纽约州债务人与债权人法》中的\n20 另一条款。\n该条款规定：“经受让人申请，\n21 法官可以授权受让人出售、和解或折算属于\n22 债务人财产的任何债权或债务。”\n23 同样，法官阁下，这完全是引用错误。\n24 这不是我们正在做的事情。\n我们不是在出售。\n我们不是在\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 170 和解。我们只是将资金转移给受本法庭管辖的另一名受托人。谢谢法官阁下。\n法庭：谢谢。\nFORNOS 女士：法官阁下，我可以走近前来说话吗？\n法庭：可以。\nFORNOS 女士：法官阁下，我就简单说几句。G Club Operations（G Club 运营公司）并未放弃其任何权利。正如法庭可能记得的那样，我在上次听证会上特别提到了 HCHK 的问题。我提出了这个问题。我还就该问题以及归还我们机密信息的事宜，于 6月19日 联系了 Jareck 先生。我也在 7月5日 联系了 Jareck 先生和 Lutz 先生，并向他们提供了主服务协议的副本。我们的立场非常明确。我们可以按照法庭认为适当的方式处理拟议裁定。核心问题就在于，破产受托人不能直接规避证据开示程序，直接取代一家甚至尚未被认定为分身（alter ego）、尚未与本破产财产进行实质性合并的公司的地位，突然介入并说“这些现在全都是我们的文件了，我们可以——有权拥有它们”。因此，我们谨请求法庭考虑我们的请求，即受托人无权这样做。相反，这些文件应当归还给 G Club Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 170 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 171 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n171\n1 Operations，以便 G Club Operations 可以就关联性和特权进行审查并据此提供。谢谢\n2 法官阁下。\n3\n4 法庭：\n谢谢。\n5 FORNOS 女士：\n法庭还有其他问题吗？\n6 法庭：\n没有了。\n谢谢。\n7 FORNOS 女士：\n谢谢法官阁下。\n8 法庭：\n那么，和解争议动议\n9 既在主案（ECF 编号 1936）中提交，\n10 也在对抗性诉讼 23-5013（ECF 编号 25）中提交。\n11 我们的破产程序本地规则要求，\n12 在对抗性诉讼中的任何和解动议\n13 也必须在主案中提交，以便向所有各方当事人提供\n14 该和解动议的通知和送达。\n15 该动议——动议的通知和送达\n16 以及动议听证会，均已妥善进行，\n17 这已由主案及\n18 对抗性诉讼中的记录以及送达证明——抱歉，\n19 是与主案动议和对抗性诉讼动议\n20 相关的送达证明所证实。\n21 当事人——某些当事人对和解动议\n22 提出了异议，他们今天全部出席了\n23 本次听证会，包括由 Pastore 律师代表的喜马拉雅（Himalaya）各方当事人、代表其本人的 Sherman 律师，涉及\n24 其主张——主张其有权获得\n25 来自 HCHK 各方当事人的行政费用优先受偿请求权。\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 172 of\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 172\n1 G News 的法律顾问\n2 提交了异议，再次坚称——G News 有权获得行政费用优先受偿请求权，并请求\n3 就行政费用优先受偿请求权建立一套执行机制。\n4\n\n然后 G Club Operations 的律师提交了通知，律师已对此作了阐述，其担忧在于，受托人签署该和解协议是为了通过证据开示获得其原本可能无法获得的文件，直到 G Club Operations 从 HCHK Technologies 各实体取回其文件为止。届时 G Club 才能对这些文件展开审查，并在 G Club 可以尝试主张的任何特权的约束下，确定这些文件中是否有任何文件可以提供。\n\n但我提醒 G Club 和受托人，显然关于针对 G Club 寻求的其他证据开示——我并不是说该和解就是证据开示，但那是 G Club Operations 的看法——在主案中已经生效的保护令以及保密条款和裁定，显然已经解决了法庭就待决的藐视法庭动议及强制作出 G Club 文件开示的动议所提出的问题。\n\n此外，United States Trustee（美国受托人办公室）提交了有限异议。我理解美国受托人的有限异议。而郭先生通过其律师\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\nPage 173 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n173\nMoriarty 先生，对和解动议未持任何立场。\n显然——这不仅仅是显而易见的。\n正如在庭审记录中所述，\n受托人已同意将和解动议任何裁定中所规定的免责\n限定于破产财产——破产财产免责。\n而且该免责仅在和解的第三阶段达成时才会发生。\n而这只有在法庭就分身主张是否作出有利于受托人的裁定\n之后才会发生。\n由于受托人和其他法律顾问（包括美国受托人办公室、债权人委员会以及受让人律师）在记录中所作的讨论、陈述和建议与听证会前拟议的内容有所不同，我将延期继续进行本次听证会，但仅延期一周，且仅仅是为了查看包含今日记录中注明的修改后的批准和解拟议裁定是什么样的。\n所有当事人的异议均已记录在案。\n已提交异议的任何当事人无需再提出进一步异议。\n法庭也不会再考虑任何进一步的异议。\n但我将命令受托人律师按照今日记录中所述的原则修改该拟议裁定，并送达给所有提出异议的当事人。\n我希望\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n174\n1 该工作在 7月13日 下午 5 点前完成，以便当下周我们回到这里举行听证会时，\n2 我能了解关于批准和解的拟议裁定条款\n3 是否存在任何问题。\n4\n5 我现在——就在此时此刻——不对该和解动议是获得批准\n6 还是未获批准\n7 作出裁决。\n8 我建议各方当事人需要就该拟议裁定进行一些讨论。\n9 我将审视拟议裁定以及记录注明的修改内容。\n10 然后在下周，我要么宣布\n11 该事项已具备裁决条件并由我作出裁决，要么我坚持认为，\n12 我想，裁定中还可以包含其他内容。\n13 但我现在不做裁决。我将回头\n14 审查每个人的诉状，并结合今天听证会上提出的各项论点\n15 对其进行审查。\n16\n17 但就实体动议、动议所寻求的救济\n18 以及异议而言，听证会本身将不再需要进一步开庭。\n19 我想看看这份裁定是什么样的，我想\n20 弄明白它。\n21\n22 因此，Despins 受托人，当你的办公室在 13日 下午 3 点——抱歉，是下午 5 点向所有人送达裁定时，\n23 我希望你将其同时提交至主案\n24 和对抗性诉讼的诉讼卷宗中。\n25 这样法庭将有时间在继续进行的听证会前对其进行审查，\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 174 of\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 175 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n175\n1 我们将安排——在 7月18日 中午 12 点开始的该案及对抗性诉讼中，\n2 已经排定了其他事项。\n3 我将安排此事项——我将仅仅针对该拟议裁定\n4 延期继续听证。\n5 我将其安排在下午 2 点。\n6\n7 我之所以定在下午 2 点，是因为目前下周的日程上，\n8 安排了 Genever Holdings 诉 AIG Property Casualty 对抗性诉讼的原定审前会议。\n9 鉴于我们从明天开始将在 AIG 对抗性诉讼中进行为期两天——或者可能是两天的证据听证会，\n10 下周就没有必要举行审前会议了。\n11 我自会知晓情况。我不会在没有必要的情况下\n12 让各方当事人到法庭参加审前会议。\n13\n14 因此本案——主案中关于 ECF 1936 和解动议的听证会，\n15 以及对抗性诉讼 23-5013 中关于 ECF 25 和解动议的听证会，\n16 均延期至 7月18日 下午 2 点继续进行。\n17 我不会就修改后的拟议裁定的提交和送达签发正式的日程排定裁定，\n18 因为我已经在庭审记录中作出了命令。\n19\n20 对此有人有任何疑问吗？\n21\n22 CLAIBORN 女士：\n法官阁下，只有一个问题。\n如果\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\nPage 176 of 180\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n176\n1 某方当事人对拟议裁定有异议，法庭是否设定了接收意见的截止日期？\n2\n3 法庭：\n我们将在下周的听证会上讨论——嗯——\n4\n5 CLAIBORN 女士：\n不，我知道。关于书面答复，如果有的话——\n6\n7 法庭：\n我准许所有人可以在 7月14日 星期五下午 5 点之前提交书面答复。\n8\n9 CLAIBORN 女士：\n谢谢。\n10\n11 法庭：\n另外，其他任何当事人——我唯一会考虑其任何书面答复的当事人，\n12 必须是已经提交过异议的当事人。\n13 任何尚未提交异议的人都已超过截止日期，这是第一点。\n14\n15 第二点，下周的听证会不会——我们不会重复审议我们已经审议过的问题。\n16 我已经——我们已经过了一遍。\n17 我理解各方的各自立场，我将在某个时候——无论是在听证会上、听证会后，根据我看到的关于你们修改后的拟议裁定及任何答复作出裁决。\n18 但听证会仅限于这些问题。\n19\n20 有人有任何问题吗？\n21\n22 PASTORE 先生：\n就简短说明一句。我在新泽西州联邦法院有一场和解会议，定在\n\nHo Wan Kwok（郭文贵）- 2023年7月11日 177 当天下午 2 点。McClammy（麦克拉米）女士可以处理本次听证会。我只是想让法庭知悉。绝无不敬之意，但我将——法庭：没问题。谢谢。PASTORE（帕斯托雷）先生：好的。法庭：感谢。PASTORE 先生：好的。DESPINS（德斯平斯）先生：法官阁下，关于时间您这边有灵活性吗？例如，能否稍晚一点，比如大概 3:30 或 4:00？法庭：当然可以。我是说，如果大家都想这样的话。但你们必须就此达成所有人的一致同意。DESPINS 先生：噢，好吧——法庭：如果大家都同意，那就没问题。不过，我的意思是不会晚于下午 4 点。法庭工作人员——我不知道大家会怎么说。也许他们会——也许不会有问题。但是法庭工作人员——我——你知道的，我——他们希望晚上能按时回家，这是我可以理解的。ARCARO（阿尔卡罗）先生：法官阁下，向法庭提一个问题。法庭：请讲。ARCARO 先生：就提交给法庭的修订后命令而言——我们——没有——Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 177 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日 178 法庭：它将被记入诉讼卷宗，因此 Case 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 178 of\n\n出庭的每一个人都会通过——我不确定这是否是你的问题。但你们会通过 CM/ECF 收到它。\n\nARCARO 先生：我的问题是，法官阁下是否会给予对该拟议裁定提交回应的机会。\n\n法庭：在周五——7月14日下午 5 点之前。ARCARO 先生：如果未提交回应，异议是否被视为放弃？\n\n法庭：不会。您的异议仍将被审酌。我还没有作出裁定，对吧？\n\nARCARO 先生：法官阁下，谢谢您。谢谢。\n\n法庭：如果刚才没讲清楚，我很抱歉。我会审酌每个人的异议。\n\nARCARO 先生：好的。谢谢您。法庭：但我想看看鉴于我们所有人讨论的内容——我没有参与讨论，但鉴于你们所有人今天讨论的内容以及你们就各自异议所作的陈述，这份修订后的拟议裁定会是什么样。\n\nARCARO 先生：非常感谢。法庭：所以，不会的，并没有——你们并没有放弃任何已及时提交的异议。它们都将被予以审酌。\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 2119 Filed 08/24/23 Entered 08/24/23 12:37:49 Page 179 of\n\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n179\n1 ARCARO 先生：\n好的。\n2 法庭：\n但我也想看看我们在修订后的拟议裁定上能达成什么进展。\n3\n4 ARCARO 先生：\n好的。\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n5 法庭：\n好吗？\n谢谢。\n6 好的。\n那么法庭书记官大概会在今天晚些时候或——不是今天，是明天记录下，\n7 下周关于 AIG 对抗性诉讼的审前会议将\n8 延期至待定日期。\n9\n10 法庭书记官：\n好的。\n11 法庭：\n好吗？\n12 法庭书记官：\n是的。\n13 法庭：\n并且我认为我们明天上午 10 点从 AIG 对抗性诉讼程序的证据开示听证会开始。\n14\n15 是这样吗？\n16 DESPINS 先生：\n是的，法官阁下。\n17 法庭：\n好的。\n那么我——我们已经结束了今天日程上的所有\n18 事项。\n基于这些原因，现在休庭。\n19 谢谢各位。\n20 齐声：\n谢谢您，法官阁下。\n21 法庭书记官：\n全体起立。\n休庭。\n22\n23 （庭审于下午 4:46 结束）\n\nCase 22-50073\nDoc 2119\nFiled 08/24/23\nEntered 08/24/23 12:37:49\nPage 180 of\n180\nHo Wan Kwok - 2023年7月11日\n180\n1 我，CHRISTINE FIORE（克里斯汀·菲奥雷），法院认可的逐字记录员及\n2 认证电子速记与逐字记录员，特此证明：\n3 上述内容为本案诉讼程序官方\n4 电子录音的准确无误的记录文本。\n5\n\n8 2023年7月20日\n9 Christine Fiore, CERT（认证速记员）","key_entities":[],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":51363,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-08-24 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-08-24","updated_at":"2026-08-23 08:51:21"}