郭文贵破产案 · ORDER · ECF #1307

元数据

当事人: 郭文贵 (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo / Ho Wan Kwok)
法院: CTB
案号: 22-50073
ECF #: 1307
类型: ORDER
立案日: 2023-01-09

原始法庭文件为英文，下方为英文全文。

全文

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \* HO WAN KWOK, GENEVER HOLDINGS \* CORPORATION and GENEVER \* HOLDINGS, LLC, \* \* Debtor. \* \* \* LUC DESPINS, \* Adv. Proc. No. 22-5027 \* Plaintiff, \* Bridgeport, Connecticut \* January 3, 2022 v. \* \* BRAVO LUCK LIMITED, et al., \* \* Defendants. \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING BAR DATES AND APPROVING FORM OF NOTICE; APPLICATION TO EMPLOY; APPLICATION TO EMPLOY ENGINEERING OPERATIONS AND CERTIFICATION SERVICES, LLC AS EXPERT; MOTION TO MODIFY CONSENT ORDER GRANTING INT'L FUNDS MOTION FOR ORDER and PRETRIAL CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: ERIC HENZY, ESQ. STEPHEN KINDSETH, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 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**

APPEARANCES: (Cont'd.) For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 ANNECCA H. SMITH, ESQ. Robinson & Cole, LLP 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: PATRICK LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. G. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ, ESQ. Paul Hastings, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 3 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 3:39 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case no. 22-50073, How Wan Kwok, and adversary no. 22-5027, Despins versus Bravo Luck Limited, et al. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee please. MR. LINSEY: Your Honor, Connecticut counsel for the Chapter 11 Trustee, Patrick Linsey. Mr. Despins' flight unfortunately was cancelled -- THE COURT: Oh. MR. LINSEY: -- and so he is unable to be here today. I filed this morning a request that he be able to participate by Zoom, but I understand Your Honor's been in calendars all day -- THE COURT: We've been in court, yes. MR. LINSEY: -- and I understand that you probably didn't have time to address that. THE COURT: Unfortunately, no. Does anyone have any opposition if we try to allow Mr. Despins to participate in this hearing? I don't know how it's going to work, but -- MR. HENZY: No opposition, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. So hold on a second then. Okay? Let's let the

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 4 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 4 | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | courtroom deputy see what we can do about getting | | 2 | information to Mr. Despins. | | 3 | So, yeah, we didn't see that request. I mean -- | | 4 | MR. LINSEY: No. I realize it was just filed. | | 5 | Obviously, I think it's been in the news, travel's | | 6 | been difficult -- | | 7 | THE COURT: Oh, yeah. No. I understand that. | | 8 | MR. LINSEY: -- all around lately. | | 9 | THE COURT: Unfortunately, people -- I do | | 10 | understand. | | 11 | MR. LINSEY: To everyone's consternation. | | 12 | (Pause.) | | 13 | MR. LINSEY: And, Your Honor, we have reached out | | 14 | to him. I do want to -- I'll just note that I spoke with | | 15 | -- was in touch with him when I was on my way here to the | | 16 | proceeding hearing, and he understood that the Court was in | | 17 | calendars and other matters, and I think he anticipated that | | 18 | he likely would not be able to participate, so -- | | 19 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 20 | MR. LINSEY: -- we should know shortly. | | 21 | THE COURT: So you think we should proceed without | | 22 | him? Is that what you're saying? Or do you want to wait a | | 23 | few minutes? | | 24 | MR. LINSEY: I think there are a few -- I think we | | 25 | can proceed. And if we hear from him, then -- | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 5 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 5 THE COURT: All right. Let me just check with the courtroom deputy. (Pause.) THE COURT: So you sent Trustee Despins an email giving him the information in case he wants to -- THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: -- in case he's able to join? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. All right. So I think if that works for everyone, we'll proceed. And then if Trustee Despins joins, he joins. MR. LINSEY: That's good. THE COURT: Does that make the most sense? MR. LINSEY: Yes. And Alexander Bongartz of Paul Hastings, counsel for the trustee, is here with me and so we are prepared to address the matters that are on the calendar today. I will note that I am also here in my capacity as counsel for Genever Holdings Corporation and Genever Holdings, LLC. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So then we should continue taking appearances please. MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 6 Alex Bongartz, of Paul Hastings, for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. FRIEDMAN: Good afternoon and Happy New Year, Your Honor. It's Peter Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers on behalf of PAX. I'm joined by my colleague, Mr. Stuart Sarnoff. MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Annecca Smith of Robinson & Cole, Connecticut counsel for PAX. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. MR. GOLDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, for the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. HENZY: Eric Henzy, of Zeisler & Zeisler, for the debtor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. KINDSETH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Stephen Kindseth for the debtor as well as HK USA. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And I should have said Happy New Year to all. So there are a lot of matters on the calendar today, including the pretrial conference in Despins versus Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 6 of 62

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 7 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 7 Bravo Luck, but also the motion for order setting bar dates and approving form of notice, an application to employ in Genever Holdings Corporation case, an application to employ, there's quite -- and a motion to modify consent order, and another application to employ. I was looking at the matters trying to figure out what we should take up first and it sounds like it might make sense to take up the applications to employ first, because unless I'm missing something, I don't see any objection to the applications to employ. Am I correct on that? MR. LINSEY: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So then let's look at first the application -- let's look at 1198 which is the application to employ Epiq. Now, we had a discussion about this some time ago. Oh, there's Mr. Despins. He's joining us now. There he is. Okay. Good afternoon, Trustee Despins. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. I apologize for not being there in person. THE COURT: That's fine. Not a problem. Not a problem. I'm glad you could join us. We were just about to discuss the applications to employ that are on the calendar today because we thought we might -- I thought we might be able to address them in a

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 8 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 8 somewhat summary fashion. But I did have a question on the application to employ the claims agent, because we had talked about that some time ago. Now, this was months ago, I think, if I remember correctly, but I wasn't sure why -- well, you're still intending to employ a claims agent, is that correct? MR. DESPINS: That is correct, Your Honor. That's a new issue. We did not intend to do that earlier. That came up as a result of, you know, a social media campaign by the trustee in the fact that claimants expressed to us their concern about filing a claim and being subject to some form of harassment and, therefore, we needed to figure out a way for people to file claims without disclosing their identity. And so initially we talked to the U.S. Trustee saying why don't they send them to us, the trustee, and they said, no, that's a bad idea because the debtor will say that somehow we're playing with the claims. So the only way to do it, and this is based on what happened in one of these, sorry for a better term, one of these catholic sex abuse cases was to use a claims agent so people can send to the claims agent something where the claims agent can redact the name and the information of the claimant to protect the identity of the claimant. So that just came up in the last 30 days, 40 days, Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 9 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 9 | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Your Honor. We did not intend to use a claims agent before. | | 2 | THE COURT: All right. Well, you know, obviously, | | 3 | the issues that are being raised in the Southern District of | | 4 | New York with regard to claims agents. I'm sure you're | | 5 | aware of that, correct? | | 6 | MR. DESPINS: Yes. | | 7 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 8 | MR. DESPINS: But I don't believe they're | | 9 | implicated here. | | 10 | THE COURT: Well, that's what we need to make | | 11 | sure. Okay? We need to make sure because that's -- it's a | | 12 | -- it appears to be a serious issue that Chief Judge Glenn | | 13 | and others in the Southern District of New York think are | | 14 | very serious. | | 15 | MR. DESPINS: Yes. | | 16 | THE COURT: And, obviously, if we're going to have | | 17 | a claims agent be employed by this estate, then I want to | | 18 | make sure that their services are narrowed and very precise. | | 19 | MR. DESPINS: Correct. | | 20 | THE COURT: And I don't think anyone's objected to | | 21 | this, but I do think that we have to see what happens as far | | 22 | as the Southern District of New York issues are concerned. | | 23 | Because whether or not anybody was aware of what might have | | 24 | been going on, which I have no idea whether it was or | | 25 | wasn't, that's what Judge Glenn is going to decide, right, |

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 10 it is -- I don't want to have to deal with that issue. Okay? So I want to make it very clear -- MR. DESPINS: But I think -- let me try to nip that one in the bud, not now, but with the claims agent after this hearing to make sure that none of those issues are present here and we can assure the Court of that fact. So that is what I would propose to do. Because, obviously, this is tied into the bar date. We need to get moving on that. So possibly it's time sensitive. So if we could then -- I understand Your Honor's concern. I'm aware of the issue. I don't think it applies here, but I don't want to give you that assurance without double checking with the claims agent and actually perhaps in the order tightening that up so there's no issue whatsoever. So let me do that and come back to the Court as soon as possible. THE COURT: Thank you. Does anyone have any objection with regard to the retention of Epiq as a claims agent in this case? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, Eric Henzy for the debtor. The debtor does not have any objection to the retention of Epiq as claims agent in the case. We have not objected to the bar date motion. I will have some comments on the bar date motion. And I think Mr. Despins may have previewed this in the sense that the

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 10 of 62

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 11 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 11 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | bar date motion and the Epiq retention are tied, because the | | 2 | reason Epiq is being retained is in connection with the | | 3 | relief being sought in the bar date motion. | | 4 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 5 | MR. HENZY: So no objection to Epiq being | | 6 | retained, but I will have some comments that relate to Epiq. | | 7 | THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. | | 8 | So with regard to this order, Trustee Despins, I | | 9 | think one of the things that I -- I have to say that I | | 10 | haven't studied the order so it could be that it's there, | | 11 | but I don't see -- so the clerk's office is not going to | | 12 | maintain a proof of -- a claims register. Epiq is going to? | | 13 | MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. That's | | 14 | the intent. Yes. And they will do so as agent of the | | 15 | clerk's office. | | 16 | MR. HENZY: Although, Your Honor, just to be | | 17 | clear, that in the Kwok case there already is a claims | | 18 | register. | | 19 | THE COURT: There are some claims that have been | | 20 | filed. That's true. | | 21 | MR. HENZY: I think -- | | 22 | THE COURT: There's a claims register that's been | | 23 | created by the clerk's office. That is correct. | | 24 | MR. HENZY: Yeah. So we may have two -- | | 25 | THE COURT: So are we talking about -- we're | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 12 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 12 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | talking only about claims that haven't been filed yet? | | 2 | MR. DESPINS: Correct. We're talking about -- the | | 3 | claims that have been filed, I think there are no more than | | 4 | 12, 13, something -- | | 5 | MR. HENZY: I think it's 15. | | 6 | THE COURT: 15? | | 7 | MR. HENZY: Yeah. | | 8 | THE COURT: Attorney Henzy thinks. Okay. | | 9 | So I guess we should make that clear, that there | | 10 | are two claims registers, the claims registers that existed | | 11 | before the retention of Epiq, and then the claims register | | 12 | that Epiq is going to create and maintain, which -- | | 13 | MR. HENZY: I guess I -- | | 14 | THE COURT: The language about the confidential -- | | 15 | I mean, I think I'm a little concerned that the order | | 16 | doesn't say that the -- does not provide -- it attempts to, | | 17 | but it says to provide public access to every proof of claim | | 18 | and to provide the clerk with a certified duplicate copy | | 19 | thereof upon request of the clerk. | | 20 | But I thought the purpose of Epiq was that we | | 21 | weren't going to provide the public access to every proof of | | 22 | claim? | | 23 | MR. DESPINS: Maybe Mr. Bongartz, my colleague -- | | 24 | MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. | | 25 | THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 13 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 13 | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | MR. DESPINS: -- can address that. | | 2 | THE COURT: Go ahead, Counsel. | | 3 | MR. BONGARTZ: Yes, Your Honor. May I approach? | | 4 | THE COURT: Please. | | 5 | MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. Thank you. | | 6 | Good afternoon, Your Honor. | | 7 | THE COURT: Good afternoon. | | 8 | MR. BONGARTZ: You correctly identified that we | | 9 | tried to address this through the immediately following | | 10 | parenthetical at the end of paragraph 4 that the foregoing | | 11 | is subject to and in accordance with any confidentiality | | 12 | restrictions approved by the Court. | | 13 | If you would like us to specifically cross | | 14 | reference the confidentiality restrictions that will be or, | | 15 | you know, request be approved pursuant to the bar date | | 16 | order, I'd be more than happy to do so. | | 17 | THE COURT: Okay. I don't think you need to do | | 18 | that yet. | | 19 | But, yes, if we're going to grant the bar date | | 20 | motion, then I want it to be clear in this order what Epiq's | | 21 | obligations are with regard to these confidentiality issues | | 22 | and whether or not -- what if somebody in the public wants | | 23 | to see what Epiq has? How does that work? | | 24 | MR. BONGARTZ: This is explained in the bar date | | 25 | order, proposed bar date order, as follows. Epiq will keep | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 14 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 14 | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | the proofs of claims confidential, but will post redacted | | 2 | versions of the proofs of claims where the names and contact | | 3 | information of the claimants, if they choose to have their | | 4 | proof of claim be treated confidentially where such | | 5 | information would be redacted, and the claims register that | | 6 | is publicly available on Epiq's website will post the proofs | | 7 | of claims with that information redacted. | | 8 | THE COURT: Okay. And then the public | | 9 | availability, how do they -- they just go on the website? | | 10 | They don't have to register or anything? | | 11 | MR. BONGARTZ: Correct. It's a publicly available | | 12 | website. It will just be on a website on Epiq. | | 13 | And I believe that in the bar date order we have | | 14 | also identified the website where people can submit their | | 15 | claims, which is the same website where people can also | | 16 | review the redacted versions of claims that have been filed | | 17 | and posted. | | 18 | THE COURT: Okay. I'm just looking at this as | | 19 | well. | | 20 | (Pause.) | | 21 | THE COURT: You know, I'm looking at the proposed | | 22 | order and the agreement with Epiq. And, again, just so it's | | 23 | clear, Epiq's right to make reasonable price increases is | | 24 | not absolute. It's still subject to court approval. Okay? | | 25 | So I think that needs to be clear. | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 15 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 15 Epiq understands there's no money to pay them, correct? MR. BONGARTZ: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BONGARTZ: And, in fact, they have agreed -- THE COURT: Because that's not what this agreement says. MR. BONGARTZ: No. No. But they have agreed that they will defer payment until there are resources available in the estate. And, in fact, actually the agreement does cover this point. Let me -- THE COURT: Where does it say that? MR. BONGARTZ: Yeah. Let me point you to the section. It's Section 3.1 at the end. Epiq has agreed to defer payment -- THE COURT: Okay. I didn't see that sentence. Thank you. (Pause.) THE COURT: Why is there an indemnification provision in this agreement? I mean, I know the answer is because there always is. But why is there an indemnification provision? Why does Epiq need an indemnification provision? I don't understand that.

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 16 MR. BONGARTZ: Well, it is part of their engagement contract, but -- THE COURT: I know it's part of their standard agreement, but what -- MR. BONGARTZ: -- we have -- THE COURT: So we're going to open up claims against the estate by Epiq? I don't think that makes a lot of sense. I'd like you to see if they'd agree to delete that provision or substantially narrow it, because it says, I mean, it couldn't be broader, "Indemnified person may be subject or involved in any capacity arising out of or relating to this agreement or Epiq's rendering of services pursuant hereto regardless of whether any indemnified person is a party to other than losses resulting solely from gross negligence or willful misconduct without limiting the generality of the foregoing. Losses include" -- I don't want to -- I'm not having litigation over whether or not they should be indemnified. I'm not doing that. Okay? We've got too many other things going on in this case. We're not going to set ourselves up for an indemnification argument. Okay? MR. BONGARTZ: Understood. Understood, Your Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 16 of 62

Honor.

I just would like to point out to a separate

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 17 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 17 section of the agreement, and that is Section 8, 8.C, which applies notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the agreement including the -- THE COURT: Then you don't need the indemnity agreement. MR. BONGARTZ: Well, the -- THE COURT: See, that -- you know, I've done it all. I get it. I understand. MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: I understand, but I'm not doing that. I'm not going to have a claims agent come in and have potential litigation in a Chapter -- it's just not going to happen. Or you're not going to have a claims agent. I'm not going to do it. It's a waste of time and resources in a case where we don't have the ability to waste more time or any more resources. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, I hear you a hundred percent, but I had to beg to have these people take on this thing without any payment on the current basis. I really fear that they'll just tell us, sorry, we're not doing it. I don't disagree with your point. That's not my point. I'm just really concerned that we will lose them and nobody else is going to do this on a contingent basis. That's my only concern. THE COURT: I understand. But they're going to

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 18 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 18 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | have to make that decision because I'm not going to have | | 2 | litigation about indemnity of a claims agent. If all | | 3 | they're doing is recording and taking claims in a case, then | | 4 | why do they need to be indemnified? For what? | | 5 | (No response.) | | 6 | THE COURT: All right. With regard to -- so, as | | 7 | Attorney Henzy stated, Attorney -- so we've got it -- you | | 8 | need me to look at the bar date motion at the same time. | | 9 | So we essentially need to cross-reference these | | 10 | issues in these orders, correct? Is that what you're | | 11 | telling me? | | 12 | MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. The two go together. | | 13 | THE COURT: I know they go together. But I'm | | 14 | saying in the proposed orders, they don't -- there's no | | 15 | reference from one to the other in the -- at least not in | | 16 | the Epiq order, right? | | 17 | So let's look at the bar date order. | | 18 | Wait a minute. I'm sorry. Attorney Henzy, you | | 19 | said you had comments. Are you talking about to the order | | 20 | or to the motion as a whole with regard to the bar date? | | 21 | MR. HENZY: Really to the order. | | 22 | THE COURT: Okay. So then we'll go through the | | 23 | order in a minute. | | 24 | All right. So the application to employ Epiq is | | 25 | granted insofar as if they want to continue to be the claims | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 19 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 19 | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | agent after what I said needs to be limited and fixed with | | 2 | regard to the order. If they don't agree to that, then I | | 3 | guess we'll have to figure out how to proceed. But | | 4 | otherwise there's no need for me to sit here and look at | | 5 | these orders, right? | | 6 | I mean, the Court has to have some control over | | 7 | what happens in the case and that's how this court believes | | 8 | that should work. And if Epiq has an issue with that, then | | 9 | they'll have to let you know. Okay? | | 10 | Now, let's look at the bar date order. | | 11 | MR. HENZY: Just so I'm clear, Your Honor. So is | | 12 | that -- is the application to retain Epiq going to get | | 13 | continued? | | 14 | THE COURT: No. It's granted, unless they come | | 15 | and tell me that Epiq isn't willing to abide by the terms | | 16 | that I just stated on the record. | | 17 | MR. HENZY: Okay. My only concern is you may | | 18 | enter the bar date order and have it not really -- | | 19 | THE COURT: I'm not going to enter anything until | | 20 | I hear back on the whole -- since they're related, I'm not - | | 21 | - that's not going to happen. Okay? | | 22 | MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. | | 23 | THE COURT: But I understand your point, so that's | | 24 | fine. | | 25 | MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor -- | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 20 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 20 | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | THE COURT: So now we're looking at 1212, correct? | | 2 | MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor? | | 3 | THE COURT: Yeah. | | 4 | MR. FRIEDMAN: It's Peter Friedman for PAX. | | 5 | THE COURT: Yes. | | 6 | MR. FRIEDMAN: May I just ask that there be a time | | 7 | limit by which -- | | 8 | THE COURT: I will take care of all of that once | | 9 | we get -- | | 10 | MR. FRIEDMAN: -- yeah, by which they have to come | | 11 | back, because -- | | 12 | THE COURT: We're going to take care of all of | | 13 | that once we get through these, through these motions. | | 14 | MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. | | 15 | THE COURT: The motion for order setting bar date. | | 16 | So this is the proposed order that I should be going | | 17 | through, correct? Right at the moment? | | 18 | MR. BONGARTZ: You said docket no. 1212. | | 19 | THE COURT: I said the wrong docket number. | | 20 | MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. | | 21 | THE COURT: You're right. It's 1191, correct? | | 22 | MR. BONGARTZ: Correct. | | 23 | THE COURT: So that was my mistake. I'm sorry. | | 24 | So let me get to that order. | | 25 | (Pause.) | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 21 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 21 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | THE COURT: All right. I'm looking at the | | 2 | redlined version of the order which is on -- I'll tell you | | 3 | in a second where I am. | | 4 | Do you want me to pull it up? Would that be | | 5 | helpful to you? | | 6 | MR. BONGARTZ: I have it in front of me. | | 7 | THE COURT: All right. Attorney Henzy, do you | | 8 | need it pulled up or do you have it in front of you? | | 9 | MR. HENZY: I have it in front of me, Your Honor. | | 10 | Thank you. | | 11 | THE COURT: Okay. So I'm at 191, page 48 of 81, | | 12 | is that where I'm starting? Right? Okay. | | 13 | All right. So go -- I would like to hear from -- | | 14 | I've looked at the redlined. I have a couple of questions | | 15 | possibly, but I don't really have anything that I think | | 16 | needs to be immediately changed, so maybe we should hear | | 17 | from Attorney Henzy about what his comments are and then see | | 18 | if there's anything else we need to do. | | 19 | MR. BONGARTZ: I'm more than happy to -- | | 20 | THE COURT: Does that make sense? | | 21 | MR. BONGARTZ: That makes perfect sense. I just | | 22 | would like to preview that -- | | 23 | THE COURT: Sure. Go right ahead. | | 24 | MR. BONGARTZ: -- after discussions with counsel | | 25 | for the official committee we have agreed to also make a few | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 22 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 22 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | minor modifications. I'm happy to walk Your Honor through | | 2 | those before or after Mr. Henzy has provided -- | | 3 | THE COURT: That's fine. The only question I have | | 4 | -- actually, the only question I have is, I know we didn't | | 5 | have the hearing until today. You changed the date as of | | 6 | December 2nd to January 27th -- | | 7 | MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. | | 8 | THE COURT: -- but today's already January 3rd. | | 9 | MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. Yes. | | 10 | THE COURT: So are you proposing to a different | | 11 | date because the hearing wasn't held until today? | | 12 | MR. BONGARTZ: Correct. I was going to address | | 13 | that point as well. | | 14 | THE COURT: All right. Go right ahead. | | 15 | MR. BONGARTZ: We are prepared to move it out by | | 16 | 30 days to February 27. | | 17 | THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. | | 18 | And then go ahead and preview the other issues | | 19 | you'd like to preview for me please. | | 20 | MR. BONGARTZ: Thank you, Your Honor. Just give | | 21 | me a second. | | 22 | THE COURT: Certainly. | | 23 | MR. BONGARTZ: I'm just going to pull up the | | 24 | document. Okay. So there are -- it's really just a handful | | 25 | of changes. | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 23 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 23 | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | The first document to look at actually is the | | 2 | proposed bar date notice -- | | 3 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 4 | MR. BONGARTZ: -- which is annex 1. | | 5 | THE COURT: Which is attached to the order. Yeah. | | 6 | MR. BONGARTZ: Correct. Let me -- I also have | | 7 | hard copies of the markup if Your Honor prefers. | | 8 | THE COURT: I'm looking at it right now on the | | 9 | computer. | | 10 | MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. | | 11 | THE COURT: Unless it's different from the -- | | 12 | MR. BONGARTZ: It is. | | 13 | THE COURT: -- December 2nd -- | | 14 | MR. BONGARTZ: It is. | | 15 | THE COURT: Oh. Okay. Yes. Then would you hand | | 16 | that up please. | | 17 | MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. Of course. And I have extra | | 18 | copies for -- | | 19 | THE COURT: Attorney Henzy and -- | | 20 | MR. BONGARTZ: -- for the attorneys in the room. | | 21 | THE COURT: Okay. Good. | | 22 | MR. BONGARTZ: May I approach? | | 23 | THE COURT: Please. Thank you. | | 24 | MR. BONGARTZ: Just a second while I -- | | 25 | (Pause.) | | | |

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 24 MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. BONGARTZ: All right. In the bar date notice, the first change -- THE COURT: So don't go to the order, go to the notice first. MR. BONGARTZ: Yeah. THE COURT: That's fine. MR. BONGARTZ: That's how I had organized it here, but -- THE COURT: That's fine. MR. BONGARTZ: -- we'll flip back to the order in a second. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. MR. BONGARTZ: This is on page 4 of the blackline, Section 2, entitled What to File. THE COURT: Uh-huh. MR. BONGARTZ: In the second paragraph, counsel to the committee suggested, and we agreed, to add the words or the claimant's attorney at the end of the first sentence such that it's consistent with the official form proof of claim. Then in -- THE COURT: That's fine. MR. BONGARTZ: -- in paragraph or Section 3, right

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 24 of 62

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 25 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 25 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | after we identify the Epiq address where to submit proofs of | | 2 | claims, as well as where we explain how to submit claims | | 3 | electronically, we, again at the suggestion of counsel to | | 4 | the committee, are adding a proviso to make absolutely clear | | 5 | that if you do want to submit a claim on a confidential | | 6 | basis you must submit the claim to the claims agent as | | 7 | opposed to the Court directly. | | 8 | So those are the two changes to the bar date | | 9 | notice. | | 10 | And then in the bar date order, in paragraph 3.D, | | 11 | we have added, right after movants, we've added or the | | 12 | debtors because the debtors could also amend the schedules. | | 13 | THE COURT: Okay. Sure. | | 14 | MR. BONGARTZ: That's just a clarifying change. | | 15 | And then in paragraph 4, this is a clarification | | 16 | from our end. We just wanted to avoid any confusion in this | | 17 | regard, to make it clear, that the names and contact | | 18 | information would be redacted wherever they may appear in | | 19 | the proof of claim including in any attachments so, you | | 20 | know, there's no gaps there. | | 21 | And then the markup I've handed up to Your Honor | | 22 | also reflects our new proposed bar date of February 27. | | 23 | THE COURT: I saw that. Thank you. | | 24 | MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. Those are all the changes | | 25 | from our end. | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 26 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 26 | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | And just to be clear, this blackline, where it's | | 2 | marked to show changes, were against the proposed order that | | 3 | we had attached to the addendum filed with the Court on | | 4 | December 2nd. | | 5 | THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. | | 6 | Attorney Henzy, do you want to address your | | 7 | comments then? | | 8 | MR. HENZY: Sure. Thank you, Your Honor. | | 9 | First, just a clarification based on the earlier | | 10 | discussion is I think that there will now be two claims | | 11 | registers included on a going forward basis because the way | | 12 | this is set up a claimant can file either with the Court or | | 13 | with the claims agent if they want their -- to take | | 14 | advantage of these confidentiality provisions. | | 15 | So I have no objection to that, but just -- | | 16 | THE COURT: Is that your understanding, Counsel, | | 17 | that there will be two claims registers maintained? | | 18 | So somebody may get this, some individual or | | 19 | company might get this order, they may decide they can just | | 20 | file their proof of claim with the clerk's office. Is that | | 21 | your anticipation? | | 22 | MR. BONGARTZ: Yes, that was the thinking. | | 23 | THE COURT: Okay. Okay. | | 24 | MR. BONGARTZ: But obviously subject to Your | | 25 | Honor's -- | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 27 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 27 | |----|-------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | THE COURT: No, it's fine. It's fine. I just | | 2 | want to make sure everybody's on the same page. | | 3 | MR. BONGARTZ: But the -- | | 4 | THE COURT: This provision -- this proposal and | | 5 | process is to really deal with confidential claims and | | 6 | confidential information? | | | | | 7 | MR. BONGARTZ: Correct. It doesn't take anything | | 8 | away from the process that we had envisioned prior -- | | 9 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 10 | MR. BONGARTZ: -- to the recent round of changes. | | 11 | THE COURT: That's fine. | | 12 | Okay. So, Attorney Henzy, does that satisfy your | | 13 | question? | | 14 | MR. HENZY: Yeah. Again, that was just a -- that | | 15 | was my understanding, just a clarification based on the | | 16 | earlier discussion about that. | | 17 | THE COURT: Sure. Go ahead. | | 18 | MR. HENZY: Second, Your Honor, the debtor objects | | 19 | to pushing the bar date out to February 27. | | 20 | I understand that the committee has agreed to | | 21 | that, and I understand what the Court's view may be, but | | 22 | that -- without getting into any detail at all on | | 23 | discussions that have taken place in the case, the not | | 24 | knowing is a significant driver in this case at this point. | | 25 | And pushing it out another month at the rate that | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 28 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 28 I think administrative expenses are being incurred in this case is -- I think it's just -- it's too long. This is not a case that people don't know about. It has had certainly a certain amount of publicity or maybe notoriety. I think January 27 is over three weeks. I don't think -- I don't know what someone would need here in terms of times. I just don't see how anybody here would not understand whether or not they have a claim and they would need that much time. So I would ask that the date not be February 27, that it be sooner than that. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, this is Peter Friedman for PAX. We would join that request, just that it be moved as quickly as possible in the process. We do think it's important. We do think the case has had notoriety for some obvious reasons, and the sooner we -- the universe of claims, I think the better for everybody. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, the committee joins -- MR. DESPINS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Hold on a second. MR. GOLDMAN: -- in Mr. -- THE COURT: Hold on a second Trustee Despins. Go ahead.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 29 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 29 MR. GOLDMAN: -- in Mr. Friedman's position on behalf of PAX. Perhaps another week or two. But I think we do benefit from having a claims bar date that is shorter than February 27th. THE COURT: Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, the U.S. Trustee believes an additional amount of time is appropriate. There is notice provisions within this process that will take some time to actually accomplish. And so what we're really talking about by the time that is all said and done, and by the time this court enters this order, it's probably sometime around about a period of a month for creditors to actually get notice and get a proof of claim on file with the Court or with Epiq or wherever. And there are creditors who through no fault of anyone here may not actually be following the news coverage and may not be aware of what's going on, so we need time for those people to take this into consideration and take appropriate action if they want to file a proof of claim. THE COURT: Trustee Despins, did you want to be heard? MR. DESPINS: Yes. Just as Your Honor must remember that numerous claimants are located overseas so -- and English not being their first language there's a whole process issue here.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 30 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 30 So I get the point that the earlier the better. And I understand why PAX would want that because their claim is already there, so they don't really care about other claimants, but we have to be careful. There are, you know, numerous people that are contacting us from overseas. You know, not only China, but we're talking about Australia, U.K., et cetera, so to put a bar date at the 27th of January would be I'm sorry to say that it would be insane. February 27, now, can it be shorter by a few days? Sure. But we have to be careful here because there are a lot -- these people are pro se, English is not their first language, so there's a whole process issue that needs to occur here. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I guess I've said my piece. I think there should have been a bar date here a long time ago. The debtors had no control over this whatsoever. The longer this goes out, the higher degree of difficulty in this case, in a case that's already pretty high in a degree of difficulty. But, you know, I've said -- THE COURT: Okay.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 31 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 31 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | MR. HENZY: -- I've made my position clear. | | 2 | THE COURT: All right. Well, I'll -- I'm | | 3 | considering everyone's statements. | | 4 | Go on to your next point please. | | 5 | MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. | | 6 | Again, the debtor does not agree that this | | 7 | confidentiality relief is necessary. Other people have | | 8 | filed proofs of claim and I'm not aware that there's been | | 9 | any problem. But, again, trying not to fight about things | | 10 | that we don't need to fight about, I think it probably makes | | 11 | sense to see what claims actually get filed under this | | 12 | procedure. | | 13 | The order does provide that Zeisler & Zeisler gets | | 14 | to see the proof of claim subject to confidentiality, | | 15 | subject to a protective order, but at some point we can't by | | 16 | ourselves determine the validity or lack of validity of a | | 17 | claim. So at some point we're going to need someone on | | 18 | behalf of the debtor potentially to look at this claims. | | 19 | I mean, among other things, the debtor may file a | | 20 | plan and it would be difficult for us to file a plan if we | | 21 | don't know what the claims are. | | 22 | So my only comment is that this confidentiality | | 23 | procedure should be subject to further order of the Court. | | 24 | We should just have the ability after we've seen | | 25 | what claims come in to come before the Court and ask for a | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 32 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 32 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | change and we can have a discussion at that time about | | 2 | whatever protective mechanisms need to be put in place. | | 3 | But just a simple addition to the order that says | | 4 | this is subject to further order of the Court, which I think | | 5 | arguably it is anyway, but I want everyone to be on notice | | 6 | that we may be coming in front of you, Your Honor, and | | 7 | saying we need to share this information with someone or the | | 8 | debtor to be able to proceed with things that we have a | | 9 | right to proceed with and that we want to proceed with. | | 10 | THE COURT: Counsel? | | 11 | MR. DESPINS: We have no problems with that, Your | | 12 | Honor. | | 13 | MR. BONGARTZ: And I was just going to point out | | 14 | that the order already provides that the Court may authorize | | 15 | that additional parties get access to the confidential | | 16 | proofs of claims subject to the protective order. So I | | 17 | don't know if that's what Mr. Henzy had in mind or -- | | 18 | MR. HENZY: I wasn't clear that that covered -- at | | 19 | some point we may need to go to the debtor and say this | | 20 | person has made this claim against you, is there any | | 21 | validity to the claim? I don't know how we avoid having the | | 22 | debtor involved. | | 23 | So I appreciate that language, but I -- kind of | | 24 | the whole purpose of this was, as I understand it, was to | | 25 | keep this information out of the hands of the debtor and at | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 33 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 33 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | some point I think that just doesn't work. Maybe. Again, | | 2 | it may be that no one files one of these claims. | | 3 | So, again, we're trying to avoid fighting about | | 4 | something we may not need to fight about. | | 5 | It may be that based on our -- just Zeisler & | | 6 | Zeisler's review of the claims we can -- that may be enough, | | 7 | but there may be a situation where this -- a proof of claim, | | 8 | one or more, needs to be shared with the debtor in order to | | 9 | proceed with the case. | | 10 | THE COURT: What language were you referring to | | 11 | that you thought might address, Attorney -- | | 12 | MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. Yes. This is on page 6, | | 13 | paragraph 4.B.iii at the bottom, subject to the protective | | 14 | order, such other persons as the Court may authorize to | | 15 | access the confidential claim pursuant to a subsequent | | 16 | order. And that could include anyone that the Court deems | | 17 | necessary to become an authorized party. | | 18 | MR. HENZY: Your Honor, if counsel is saying on | | 19 | the record that that other persons could include the debtor, | | 20 | then I think that's subject to obviously the Court -- | | 21 | THE COURT: I think that's what he's saying. | | 22 | MR. HENZY: Yes. | | 23 | THE COURT: Right? | | 24 | MR. HENZY: Then that -- then that -- | | 25 | THE COURT: Then you're all set on that issue. | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 34 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 34 MR. HENZY: -- then I think I'm all set. Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. Then what's your next issue? MR. HENZY: That was it, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So the only issue is the bar date? That's the only issue? That's the only issue? MR. HENZY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: So some people want February 27th. Some people want January 27th. There's, you know -- I mean, we can be very non-scientific -- I'm sorry. Who's that? I don't know who that was. (Pause.) THE COURT: I'll set the bar date at February 17, which is a Friday. Okay? So then that -- so then that order will enter. Other than, counsel, I just think we do need to make a cross-reference between the Epiq order -- MR. BONGARTZ: Sure. THE COURT: -- and this order. Okay? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes, we will. We will add language. And I think it goes right in the -- at the end of paragraph 4 where you've already identified the issue of access to the claims register.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 35 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 35 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. | | 2 | And I do -- I have reviewed the form of notice and | | 3 | all that, the notice of deadlines that is attached. I don't | | 4 | have any further questions, comments, concerns. | | 5 | Obviously, you know, you're all going to do | | 6 | everything you can with regard to service. | | 7 | MR. BONGARTZ: Of course. | | 8 | THE COURT: And you'll demonstrate how service of | | 9 | this was made. | | 10 | MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. | | 11 | THE COURT: And then we'll go from there. | | 12 | So the motion for order setting bar date is | | 13 | granted with -- you're going to have to submit the new order | | 14 | anyway, right? | | 15 | MR. BONGARTZ: Correct. | | 16 | THE COURT: As you will with the Epiq order. | | 17 | But I agree with Attorney Henzy. We won't enter | | 18 | any order until we -- the process that we use is that we | | 19 | submit the orders to the courtroom deputy box in Bridgeport. | | 20 | You don't have to put it on the docket. I mean, some people | | 21 | do and that's fine, but you don't have to with everyone in | | 22 | agreement here. We're not -- | | 23 | But do you think you'll be able to do that by this | | 24 | Friday? | | 25 | MR. BONGARTZ: Yes, we will. We will endeavor, | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 36 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 36 obviously subject to talking to Epiq -- THE COURT: Right. MR. BONGARTZ: -- which I don't know what their response is going to be. THE COURT: All right. Well, I would like you to try to do that by this Friday -- MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: -- because I would like to get the orders entered as soon as possible so you can start the process as soon as possible. Okay? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: All right. So then let's look at the next matter that we need to look at. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. DESPINS: -- if I may on the Epiq matter? I was wondering if there's a way to finesse the issue you raised by adding some language that would say something like provided, however, that the bankruptcy court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the right of Epiq to any such (indiscernible) so it's clear that we can go -- that (indiscernible) the only one -- it's clear that subject to the gross negligence exclusion. Because I really fear, Your Honor, that they'll say, look, this was a favor we're doing you because we've

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 37 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 37 dealt with you for many years. I know how they're -- they're so dogmatic about their rights. And I'm really trying to finesse the issue, Your Honor, so that you're comfortable and I can tell them they should be comfortable as well. THE COURT: Does anyone have any concerns about what Trustee Despins just said with regard to the indemnification provision in the Epiq agreement? MR. BONGARTZ: I just wanted to add to that if Your Honor won't mind? THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. BONGARTZ: We've already included in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the proposed order a structure that there is no indemnification unless approved by the Court. THE COURT: Okay. Fine. Then we'll live with it, but I don't want to see any litigation over indemnification. I really don't. MR. DESPINS: Understood. THE COURT: I just don't think that would be of -- MR. DESPINS: We'll make sure they understand that. THE COURT: I think that would be a waste of everyone's time. MR. DESPINS: Okay. MR. BONGARTZ: Just to --

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 38 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 38 MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. BONGARTZ: Just so I can button his up -- THE COURT: Sure. MR. BONGARTZ: -- I want to make sure the only change then will be a process for notifying the Court and parties in interest of a change in the rates of Epiq. Is that -- THE COURT: And a cross-reference -- MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: -- between the two orders. MR. BONGARTZ: Correct. Okay. THE COURT: Both orders should cross-reference the other. I think they should. I think that if it's -- they work hand in hand, then we should make sure that they -- someone who has no idea of what's going on reading them might understand that. Okay? MR. BONGARTZ: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Now, the next matter is the application to employ an engineering and operations and certification specialist? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. I will be handling that application. THE COURT: Go right ahead. Does anyone have any objection to this motion that you --

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 39 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 39 MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. I was just going to start. This is an uncontested -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. BONGARTZ: -- application to retain Engineering Operations and Certification Services, LLC that the trustee engaged to conduct the inspection of the Lady May in accordance with the repair reserve order previously granted by the Court. I don't, as I -- as you correctly observed, there have been no objections. And I'm happy to walk the Court through the application, but if that's not necessary, we would obviously request that the application be granted. I do want to flag just briefly that we did file a revised proposed order -- THE COURT: I'm looking at the revised proposed order right now. MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. We filed that yesterday. THE COURT: Yes. MR. BONGARTZ: -- reflecting two changes requested by the United States Trustee's Office. They're fairly straight forward. They asked that it be made clear that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the engagement letter, that the retention is governed by the laws of

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 40 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 40 Connecticut, that any dispute arising out of that retention be resolved by this court which obviously we were okay with. THE COURT: Thank you. Yes, I see that in paragraph 8. MR. BONGARTZ: I would like to add one sort of additional data point. The inspection was of the initial work, to be precise, the inspection of the initial work was conducted, and we have received an invoice from Mr. White, who is the President and CEO of Engineering Operation Services. And I just wanted to in the interest of full disclosure tell the court that their fees for that inspection were less than \$10,000, so well below the cap envisioned under the fee protocol. And we intend, subject to approval of the retention, to submit that invoice obviously to the Court by filing it on the docket and giving parties in interest the contemplated notice period. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. BONGARTZ: Thank you. THE COURT: Mr. Kindseth? MR. KINDSETH: Yes. I actually wasn't going to make any comment, but in light of what was said about the initial inspection I just want to alert the Court that there is a dispute as to

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 41 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 41 whether or not there was an inspection or this inspection period with an initial inspection and then some open-ended inspection duration, which we dispute. From our perspective, the inspection has been conducted and we've provided all the information. There's been a sea trial. I believe that everything has passed with flying colors. We've been seeking confirmation from the trustee that that is, in fact, the case, that the Lady May is in good working order. We're waiting for a response. And we dispute that there's this prolonged inspection process. THE COURT: Okay. Well, that's not on the calendar today. MR. KINDSETH: I was just responding -- THE COURT: I understand. What's on the calendar today is the retention of this entity, Engineering Operations and Certification Services. And no one has any objection to that that I -- no one has filed any written objection and there's no one participating in this hearing today that's objecting. So I appreciate your comment and we'll see what happens. Okay? MR. KINDSETH: Thank you. THE COURT: That's where we'll head. Does anyone else wish to be heard on this

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 42 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 42 application? (No response.) THE COURT: Okay. Hearing nothing, then the application to employ Engineering Operations and Certification Services, LLC as expert is granted for the reasons stated on the record and the revised proposed order will enter. MR. BONGARTZ: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Just give me one second please. (Pause.) THE COURT: All right. Then we also have an application to employ the lawyers in the British Virgin Islands, correct? MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. I can address that. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel. MR. LINSEY: Your Honor, Patrick Linsey for -- I'll just take care of it if it's all the same to the Court -- Patrick Linsey for Genever Holdings Corporation, which again is the intermediate entity between Ho Wan Kwok, the debtor, individual debtor, and Genever Holdings, LLC, which is the owner of the apartment at the Sherry-Netherland Hotel. As Your Honor knows, we filed the Chapter 11 case for Genever Holdings Corporation, which has been

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 43 consolidated with the other two Chapter 11 cases -- rather is now jointly administered with the other two Chapter 11 cases. This law firm, Harney Westwood & Riegels, in the British Virgin Islands has already been employed by the Court's order to represent the trustee with respect to matters in the British Virgin Islands and BVI law. This application is for the firm to be employed to represent Genever Holdings Corporation. Genever Holdings Corporation has a director in the British Virgin Islands and issues of BVI law have come up and may come up in the future. There have been no objections filed and we would ask that the order be granted. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the application to employ Harney Westwood & Riegels as British Virgin Islands counsel for the debtor? One of the debtors obviously, Genever Holdings Corp., right, Corp., not LLC? MR. LINSEY: Corporation, yeah, as opposed to LLC. THE COURT: Right. (No response.) THE COURT: Okay. Hearing nothing, I have reviewed the application to employ. It appears that the application is in proper order. I understand why the debtor

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

## Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 43 of 62

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 44 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 44 is seeking to employ the counsel. The information submitted complies with the Bankruptcy Code and the bankruptcy rules and our local rules. No one has filed a written objection to the application and there is no one participating in this hearing today that is objecting to the application. For all those reasons, the application to employ is granted and the proposed order, which I have reviewed that was attached to the application, can enter. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Then we have two other things on the calendar, two other matters. We have the pretrial conference in the Bravo Luck adversary, but also the motion to modify a consent order with regard to the amounts in reserve for the repairs. I assume that the modification of the consent order will take more time than the adversary proceeding, but I'm not sure about that. MR. KINDSETH: It actually probably will not, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead then. MR. KINDSETH: Thank you. Steve Kindseth for the movant, HK USA.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 45 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 45 Before the Court is a motion by my client to obtain this court's permission to use some of the repair reserve money to pay ongoing operating expenses for the Lady May. In response to the motion, the trustee has made a proposal, and we're evaluating the proposal, and I anticipate -- THE COURT: Oh, okay. MR. KINDSETH: -- we're going to be engaging in conversations concerning a hopefully consensual resolution to this motion, so I'd ask to continue it one week if I could, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Hold on one second please. But I understand what you're saying, so just give me a second to look at the calendar and things. (Pause.) THE COURT: Next Tuesday is -- we have regular calendar and Chapter 13 day so that wouldn't -- I mean, you could wait around. I mean, I can't promise you you'd be heard before 2:30, 3 o'clock, but we could continue it to that if you would like to do so. MR. KINDSETH: That would -- that's fine by me. THE COURT: Trustee Despins and counsel for Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: That works.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 46 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 46 | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | THE COURT: Okay. All right. So then let's -- I | | 2 | would say to be on the safe side, I would say 3 p.m. to be | | 3 | on the safe side. Okay? | | 4 | MR. KINDSETH: Thank you very much, Your Honor. | | 5 | THE COURT: If you want to some in at 2:45 and | | 6 | we're done with the other matters, we can start then, but | | 7 | I'm just not sure. It's hard to predict on Chapter 13 | | 8 | hearings how long they'll last. | | 9 | MR. KINDSETH: Thank you. | | 10 | THE COURT: All right. So then we will continue | | 11 | the hearing on the motion to modify the consent order | | 12 | regarding the repair reserve to January 10 at 3 p.m. Okay. | | 13 | Then the only thing left on the calendar today | | 14 | then is the adversary proceeding pretrial conference. Is | | 15 | that -- that's all I see anyway. Am I missing something? | | 16 | MR. DESPINS: That's correct. | | 17 | THE COURT: Okay. All right. So in the pretrial | | 18 | conference, there has not been an answer filed by the | | 19 | defendants, correct? | | 20 | So who will be discussing the pretrial conference | | 21 | at the moment? | | 22 | MR. LINSEY: Your Honor, there was a -- we were | | 23 | contacted yesterday by counsel who will be coming in to | | 24 | represent the defendant, Bravo Luck Limited, whose name is | | 25 | Francis Lawall, of the law firm Troutman Pepper. And he | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 47 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 47 | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | notified us that he will be filing an appearance and | | 2 | responding to the complaint. However -- | | 3 | THE COURT: Only for Bravo Luck? | | 4 | MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. | | 5 | THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. | | 6 | MR. LINSEY: However, he's -- | | 7 | THE COURT: Sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt, | | 8 | but I just wanted to make sure. | | 9 | MR. LINSEY: No. No. I appreciate the question, | | 10 | Your Honor. | | 11 | However, he's in the process of locating | | 12 | Connecticut counsel and he asked that the -- this pretrial | | 13 | conference be continued. And the trustee consents to that. | | 14 | I should say all the adversary plaintiffs would consent to | | 15 | that. | | 16 | It may make more sense to have a pretrial | | 17 | conference after the response date in any event to the | | 18 | complaints, so -- | | 19 | THE COURT: Well, the response date has passed. | | 20 | You're talking about with regard to the other | | 21 | adversary proceedings? | | 22 | MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. | | 23 | THE COURT: So right now you filed a motion to | | 24 | consolidate three adversary proceedings, correct? | | 25 | MR. LINSEY: I have, Your Honor. | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 48 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 48 THE COURT: Okay. And we haven't -- MR. LINSEY: And in one -- THE COURT: -- we haven't -- motions to consolidate normally do get set for a hearing in case someone has an opposition to that. The problem with these three adversary proceedings, it's not a problem, is that we don't have appearance on behalf of the defendants yet, correct? In any of them, do we? MR. LINSEY: We do not. And I anticipate that that problem will be resolved in short order, in a matter of days, as to what we heard from Mr. Lawall. THE COURT: So how -- what would you like to do? MR. LINSEY: What we'd like to do is continue this pretrial conference to a date in early November, I'm sorry, early February. THE COURT: When you say early November, wow. All right. Early February is either -- I think it's going to have to be February 14th, but let me look at the docket. (Pause.) THE COURT: It's going to have to be February 14th in the afternoon or some other day that week. But if -- that's a Tuesday. I mean, that's where we are. Now, the motion to consolidate these adversaries

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 49 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 49 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | could come on before then and they could be consolidated and | | 2 | we could figure out how you're going to deal with them if | | 3 | you want to do that. | | 4 | MR. LINSEY: It may, Your Honor. The motions to | | 5 | consolidate are also something that we're discussing with | | 6 | Mr. Lawall and it is possible that there will be a consent | | 7 | order submitted. | | 8 | THE COURT: Well, do you want to continue this | | 9 | pretrial conference to January 31st then? | | 10 | MR. LINSEY: I believe that would be fine. Sure. | | 11 | THE COURT: Does anyone have any opposition to | | 12 | January 31st at 3:00 p.m.? | | 13 | (No response.) | | 14 | THE COURT: All right. So then we will continue | | 15 | the pretrial conference to January 31st at 3:00 p.m. | | 16 | So the motion to consolidate, are you asking the | | 17 | Court to set that for a hearing on these three adversary | | 18 | proceedings, Attorney Linsey? | | 19 | MR. LINSEY: No, Your Honor. There have not been | | 20 | any objections filed at this point, so I think we'd like to | | 21 | see -- | | 22 | THE COURT: There is an objection deadline. You | | 23 | filed motions to consolidate. I don't think you filed an | | 24 | objection deadline, did you? | | 25 | MR. LINSEY: No. | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 50 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 50 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | But based on my understanding of the local rules | | 2 | we would then be following District Court Local Rule 7, so | | 3 | there would be a 21-day objection period. | | 4 | THE COURT: That's true and not true. | | 5 | Because that's true if you seek it -- generally | | 6 | that's true in adversary proceedings, but I don't know that | | 7 | any of the adversary proceedings say that. | | 8 | Actually, you filed the motions all in the | | 9 | adversary proceedings, so did the docket entry indicate | | 10 | there was a 21-day response date? | | 11 | I'm looking at the courtroom deputy now. I can | | 12 | look too. | | 13 | MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. | | 14 | (Pause.) | | 15 | THE COURT: All right. There has not been any | | 16 | response date indicated on the docket yet, at least in 27- | | 17 | 5027. What happened was the rules require you to file them | | 18 | in all the cases. You did on the 29th it looks like. We'll | | 19 | look at it. Okay. We'll just look at it. | | 20 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I think there was on the | | 21 | 18th. | | 22 | THE COURT: Yeah. | | 23 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: I think then the deadline | | 24 | was the 18th. | | 25 | THE COURT: The 18th of what? | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 51 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 51 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Of January, coming up. Or | | 2 | is it the 18th? | | 3 | THE COURT: Where does it say that? | | 4 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Let me -- | | 5 | THE COURT: It doesn't say that on the docket | | 6 | though. | | 7 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: In number 5, I'm sorry, | | 8 | number 8, ECF No. 8. | | 9 | THE COURT: Oh, good. All right. There it is. | | 10 | All right. Then it's the 18th. Okay. Great. Thank you. | | 11 | See that's why I ask the courtroom deputy. | | 12 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: You're welcome. | | 13 | THE COURT: Okay. And it says that in the other | | 14 | two adversaries as well? | | 15 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Let me check. | | 16 | THE COURT: It might not. It might -- | | 17 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Right. | | 18 | THE COURT: It might be one more day. | | 19 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: On 22 -- on 22-5030, it's | | 20 | January 19th. | | 21 | THE COURT: Yeah. The next day. | | 22 | THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: And let me -- | | 23 | THE COURT: And the same thing will be true in 35, | | 24 | because that 21 days was keyed off when you filed the motion | | 25 | to consolidate in the other two adversary proceedings. |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 52 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 52 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Right. MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: So the 19th is going to be the response date essentially. MR. LINSEY: So here's what I would propose, Your Honor. I don't know that we need to have a hearing at this point. THE COURT: No, we don't. We'll wait and see what response you get, if any. MR. LINSEY: Correct. And I would ask that if there is a consent to a form of consolidation order -- THE COURT: Yeah. Then you just file it. MR. LINSEY: -- that we just be permitted to file that -- THE COURT: You just file it. You don't need -- MR. LINSEY: -- as a consent order. THE COURT: You don't need permission. MR. LINSEY: Okay. THE COURT: You just file it. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Let me make sure that we're not missing anything. Does anyone else think that there's anything else we need to address this afternoon?

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 53 MR. BONGARTZ: Your Honor, I have one final matter I would address. THE COURT: Is it on the calendar today? If it's -- I'm not saying I'm not going to listen to you. I'm just saying is there something that's -- that I'm missing that's on today's calendar? And you're saying, no, but there's something else you want to talk about? MR. BONGARTZ: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead. MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. I hope this can be resolved quickly and briefly. So this relates to the HK USA adversary proceeding. And as Your Honor knows there is a PJR hearing coming up in mid-February. In connection with the trustee's application for prejudgment remedies, we intend to depose the debtor, and we had listed him as a witness on our witness list, and HK USA had listed him on their list as well, although they have recently indicated that they may not call him as a witness. We sought confirmation from debtor's counsel that they would accept service of the subpoena, but we've been informed that Zeisler is not authorized to accept service of the deposition subpoena. And Zeisler has also informed us that the debtor's other counsel, Mr. Aaron Mitchell, has

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 53 of 62

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 54 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 54 also not been authorized by the debtor to accept service. This puts us, you know, in a position where we will have to incur additional expense to serve the debtor here in this case with a subpoena related to an application in one of the adversary proceedings. And we believe that debtor's counsel should accept the subpoena under these circumstances. I mean, it is the debtor's case. The debtor does have a duty to cooperate with the trustee under the Bankruptcy Code. The debtor's counsel has also filed a notice of appearance demanding that all notices and all papers served be served on them. So we're looking for, you know, the Court's guidance and hopefully instruction as to how to proceed here. You know, that's the issue I wanted to raise. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BONGARTZ: Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Henzy, Attorney Kindseth, why would you not accept service of a subpoena when you are representing the debtor in this case? You've made -- MR. KINDSETH: First of all, Your Honor, I don't think we've responded to that email. And I'm not lead counsel. And so you're saying my office affirmatively said

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 55 that we would not accept service, or are you still waiting for a response? MR. BONGARTZ: We have an affirmative response from Mr. Aaron Romney -- MR. KINDSETH: Right. MR. BONGARTZ: -- confirming that -- MR. KINDSETH: So Attorneys Romney and Moriarty are handling this matter, Your Honor. And the adversary proceeding is not -- THE COURT: You know what? They may be handling this matter, but you're all working together in this case. There's no reason why your firm shouldn't accept service of a subpoena when you represent this individual in this case. What's the reason? MR. KINDSETH: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Tell me why you shouldn't be required to accept service of that subpoena. MR. KINDSETH: Your Honor, I can only -- as a representative, as a lawyer for a client, I can only do and my firm can only do what we are authorized to do. If we're not authorized to do it, then it's as simple as that. THE COURT: You're the debtor in a Chapter 11 case in which your client voluntarily consented to the jurisdiction of this court. You can't do things to evade service. And your

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 55 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 56 client can't do things to evade service. He voluntarily came to this court. And if I have to, I will order that you have to accept service, because I don't want to spend one more minute on that. That's a complete waste of time. And that doesn't help your client in this case. MR. KINDSETH: And just to be very clear, Your Honor -- THE COURT: So this is a prejudgment remedy hearing that has been going on -- we've been working toward very -- there's been parts of the time where you've -- the parties have worked well, but I am not going to have a fight about service of a subpoena on a debtor who -- by the way, every single matter that we put on the calendar you're allowed to come in and object to when you're no longer the debtor-in-possession, when your client is no longer the debtor-in-possession. But he came to this court voluntarily. If you're telling me that your -- you are not authorized and will not be authorized to seek service of a subpoena, then I'll have to enter some kind of a form of order that your client's not going to like. And you're not Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 56 of 62

as the debtor's counsel whether this debtor is in possession or not in possession.

going to like. Because you have obligations to this court

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 57 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 57 MR. KINDSETH: May I be heard, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. KINDSETH: Thank you, Your Honor. First of all, to be very clear, this is not in the bankruptcy case. This is in the adversary proceeding brought with HK USA and Mei Guo, and Mr. Kwok is a -- THE COURT: That your client brought. Your client, HK International, commenced that adversary proceeding. MR. KINDSETH: Which is -- and Mr. Kwok is not a party. So this is a non-party, third-party subpoena, not in the bankruptcy case -- THE COURT: Okay. All right. If you're going to take that position, then you can't complain about the cost that the trustee has to incur in order to serve Mr. Kwok. So you do that at your own peril. MR. KINDSETH: Again, we were -- I was not aware that a definitive response had been provided. We will consult with our client, that being Mr. Kwok. But, again, in the context of the adversary proceeding is a third-party witness. And, you know, he will guide us and instruct us as he deems appropriate. THE COURT: You put on your list of witnesses and exhibits Mr. Kwok as a witness. MR. KINDSETH: And we actually have already

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 58 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 58 | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | advised -- I believe we've already advised counsel for the | | 2 | trustee that that is being amended based upon this decision. | | 3 | THE COURT: Based upon the decision not to accept | | 4 | service of a subpoena? | | 5 | MR. KINDSETH: And not testify. | | 6 | THE COURT: Okay. Counsel, you can take whatever | | 7 | action you think is appropriate. If you do not -- if they | | 8 | will not accept service, you file the appropriate documents | | 9 | with the Court and the Court will act on them accordingly. | | 10 | Okay? | | 11 | MR. BONGARTZ: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. | | 12 | THE COURT: With regard to a motion that was | | 13 | apparently filed by HK International in the main case with | | 14 | regard to hiring a new captain, has the trustee seen this | | 15 | motion? | | 16 | MR. BONGARTZ: We have, Your Honor. | | 17 | THE COURT: Do you have any opposition to the | | 18 | motion? | | 19 | MR. BONGARTZ: We had two comments that we have | | 20 | provided to counsel to the debtor which we understand are | | 21 | acceptable. In essence, they are to make sure that the new | | 22 | incoming captain remains subject to the stipulated order | | 23 | regarding the Lady May to the same extent that the old | | 24 | captain was and he currently is. | | 25 | THE COURT: Absolutely. They have to be bound by | | | |

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 59 the -- that they're restrained from removing the boat from the navigable waters of Connecticut and all the other provisions. And that's going to be clear in that order, Attorney Kindseth? MR. KINDSETH: Yes, Your Honor. I believe that was already in there, but if not, we'll clarify it. And that, of course, was our intention. And we said we'd be serving the new captain. And I plan on having the captain served either Thursday or Friday before there's any transition of the captain. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard on the motion with regard to the replacement of the captain of the Lady May? MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, to the extent you would like the committee's input here, I'm still polling the committee. But I'm going to recommend that they consent to the release subject to the caveats that counsel for the trustee mentioned. THE COURT: Well, I don't want to have a separate hearing on this. We're here. We're all here. There's no reason to have a separate hearing on this. There's going to be a captain or there isn't going to be a captain. If people have an objection, I want to know about it now. MR. GOLDMAN: I can't say we have an objection,

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 59 of 62

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 60 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 60 Your Honor. MR. KINDSETH: I believe PAX has already indicated that they do not object to the change of captain. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, it's Peter Friedman. PAX does not object. I just want to have it be very clear that I'm just remembering there's something in the motion that how Yachtzoo hadn't recalled exactly when to serve certain materials on certain people. Just an assurance from counsel that we've very clearly communicated to Yachtzoo what their obligations are. MR. KINDSETH: Correct. We obviously -- this occurred because of Yachtzoo, unfortunately, not recalling that a change in the captain required a court order. Additionally, the captain only gave his notice on December 23rd. And just so the record's very clear, our expectation, and it will happen, that the captain will comply with the stipulation, so the captain, the new captain, will have to sign the declaration. The new captain will have to be served with a copy of the order. And so our expectation is that we will fully comply with the stipulation with this as the captain with respect to the stipulated order concerning the return of the Lady May. THE COURT: Okay. Then with regard to some

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 61 of 62

Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 61 motions that were filed, I believe yesterday or the day before, I'm not even sure at this point, it might have been filed today. Let's see. They were filed on the 30th, and the Court was closed on the 30th, so Friday, and the Court was closed yesterday, the 2nd, but the -- what was filed on Friday was a motion for order authorizing HK International Funds Investment to engage James Pizzarusso, I don't know if I pronounced that properly, as captain of the Lady May and a motion to expedite. Denying the motion to expedite is moot since we just discussed the motion on the record. And the motion, ECF 1272, is granted subject to all parties seeing the proposed order and you submitting the order to the courtroom deputy, cc'ing all parties so that I know that everyone is in agreement with the order. Okay? MR. KINDSETH: Thank you, Your Honor. Very much appreciated, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah. Thank you. All right. Is there anything further we need to discuss this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. Very briefly, not on the agenda, and it does not require comment, but I just wanted to make sure Your Honor knew that the picketing has gone on unabated. And more than

Case 22-50073 Doc 1307 Filed 01/09/23 Entered 01/09/23 18:36:55 Page 62 of 62

| | Ho Wan Kwok/Depsins v. Bravo Luck - January 3, 2022 62 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | that, it has expanded. And as of today, back at my ex | | 2 | spouses house, at my two daughters' houses, one in Los | | 3 | Angeles and one in Boston. Thank you, Your Honor. | | 4 | THE COURT: Okay. Thank you for providing an | | 5 | update. | | 6 | Anything further from anyone? | | 7 | (No response.) | | 8 | THE COURT: All right. That concludes the | | 9 | hearings in the Kwok Chapter 11 case and related adversary | | 10 | proceedings, so Court is adjourned. | | 11 | (Proceedings adjourned at 4:56 p.m.) | | 12 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court Reporter | | 13 | and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct | | 14 | transcript from the official electronic sound recording of | | 15 | the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. | | 16 | | | 17 | | | 18 | January 9, 2023 | | 19 | Christine Fiore, CERT | | 20 | | | 21 | | | 22 | | | 23 | | | 24 | | | 25 | | | | |