郭文贵破产案 · TRANSCRIPT · ECF #2481

元数据

当事人: 郭文贵 (Guo Wengui / Miles Guo / Ho Wan Kwok)
法院: CTB
案号: 22-50073
ECF #: 2481
类型: TRANSCRIPT
立案日: 2024-01-02

原始法庭文件为英文，下方为英文全文。

全文

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION IN RE: . Chapter 11 . Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) HO WAN KWOK AND GENEVER . HOLDINGS CORPORATION AND . (Jointly Administered) GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC, . . Debtors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 . Adversary Proceeding TRUSTEE, . No. 23-05008 (JAM) . Plaintiff, . . Courtroom 123 v. . Brien McMahon Federal Building . 915 Lafayette Boulevard MEI GUO, . Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 . Defendant. . Monday, December 18, 2023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:36 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE Audio Operator: Electronically recorded Transcription Company: Reliable The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 110 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302)654-8080 Email: gmatthews@reliable-co.com Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 1 of 83

| | Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 | Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 2 of 83 | |----|---------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | 2 | | | | | | 1 | APPEARANCES: | | | 2 | For the Chapter 11 | | | 3 | Trustee: | Patrick R. Linsey, Esquire NEUBERT PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church Street | | 4 | | 13th Floor New Haven, Connecticut 06510 | | 5 | | | | 6 | | -and- | | 7 | | Georg A. Bongartz, Esquire Luc A. Despins, Esquire | | 8 | | PAUL HASTINGS, LLP 200 Park Avenue | | 9 | | New York, New York 10166 | | 10 | For the U.S. Trustee: | Holley, L. Claiborn, Esquire | | 11 | | OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE Robert N. Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street | | 12 | | Room 302 | | 13 | | New Haven, Connecticut 06510 | | 14 | For Mei Guo: | James M. Moriarty, Esquire | | 15 | | ZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C. 10 Middle Street Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 | | 16 | | | | 17 | | -and- | | 18 | | Melissa F. Wernick, Esquire CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI, P.C. | | 19 | | 105 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, New Jersey 07068 | | 20 | For Taurus Fund LLC, | | | 21 | Scott Barnett as trustee of Taurus Fund | | | 22 | LLC, and Taurus Management LLC, as | | | 23 | trustee of Taurus Fund LLC: | Michael T. Conway, Esquire | | 24 | | LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE 747 Third Avenue | | 25 | | 16th Floor New York, New York 10017 | | | | |

3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX MOTIONS: PAGE Matter No. 2375 Motion to Sell / Trustee's Motion, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 105 and 363, Bankruptcy Rules 2002, 6004(c), and 9014, and Local Rules 6004-1 and 6004 2, Seeking Entry of Order: (I) Authorizing and Approving Sale of the Lady May II Free and Clear of Liens, Claims, Interests, and Encumbrances, (II) Authorizing and Approving Purchase and Sale Agreement, and (III) Granting Related Relief Filed by Georg Alexander Bongartz on behalf of Luc A. Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. 5 Court's Ruling: 18 Matter No. 2429 Order Scheduling Status Conference on Notice Regarding Motion for Return of Property Filed by Alleged Customers of Himalaya Exchange in Debtor's Criminal Proceedings 23 Court's Ruling: -- Matter No. 67 Order Scheduling Status Conference Regarding Order Compelling Anton Development Limited, Whitecroft Shore Limited, and the Defendant to Comply with Subpoenas and Awarding Sanctions and Authorizing Chapter 11 Trustee to File Documents Under Seal. 23 Court's Ruling: -- Transcriptionists' Certificate 83 Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 3 of 83

4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Proceedings commenced at 2:36 p.m.) THE CLERK: Case Number 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok, and Adversary Number 23-05008, Despins v Guo. THE COURT: Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. BONGARTZ: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Alex Bongartz of Paul Hastings for the Chapter 11 trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MORIARTY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James Moriarty from Zeisler & Zeisler for the debtor in 22-50037 and as local counsel for Ms. Guo in 23-05008. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. MORIARTY: Good afternoon. MS. WERNICK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Melissa Wernick from CSG Law, on behalf of the defendant Mei Guo in Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 4 of 83

5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the adversary proceeding. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Is there anyone else that wishes to note their appearance this afternoon? (No verbal response) THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. There are certain matters on the calendar this afternoon that, I'm not sure, Trustee Despins, how you want to proceed, so how would you like to proceed? MR. DESPINS: It would probably make sense, Your Honor, to start with the sale of the small (indiscernible) -- THE COURT: It seems to make sense, yes; although, that is scheduled for 3:00 p.m., but there are no objections and you had no other bids is my understanding. Is that correct? MR. DESPINS: That's -- MR. BONGARTZ: That is -- I'm sorry -- that is correct. May I approach? THE COURT: Yes, please, thank you. So right now, we're going to be addressing ECF Number 2375. MR. DESPINS: Yes. MR. BONGARTZ: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon. This is, again, Alex Bongartz of Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 5 of 83

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Paul Hastings for the Chapter 11 trustee. Just one small housekeeping matter before I get started. Dirk Johnson, who is the declarant in support of the sale motion at Docket 2375 had not -- unfortunately was not able to travel down here due to the weather and I saw that Your Honor granted our request to have him appear remotely.

8 9 10 11 12 He is available, although, I think because the time -- the schedule start time was 3 o'clock, he may not yet be on the Zoom, but if Your Honor does have questions, I would be more than happy to contact him and he can join sooner than that.

THE COURT: Okay.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. BONGARTZ: In any event, let me just right into the motion. The motion, we filed on November 27 at Docket 2375 seeks the approval of the proposed sale of the Lady May II to Patrick Cloppenburg. I will refer to him as "the buyer." The proposed sale will be free and clear of all liens, claims, and encumbrances, pursuant to the purchase agreement, dated November 22nd, 2023, and the related addenda, thereto.

22 23 24 25 A few things to highlight, the sale would be on an "as-is, where-is" basis, no representations or warranties as to the condition of the Lady May II would be given by the estate. The proposed purchase price is \$375,000. The buyer

| 1 | has already made a good faith deposit in the amount of 25 | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | percent of the purchase price, which is \$93,750. | | 3 | Your Honor has already correctly noted, no | | 4 | objections have been filed to the motion and I'd be happy to | | 5 | walk Your Honor through the marketing process, the sale | | 6 | agreement, or any other questions that you have, but in light | | 7 | of the lack of objections, I would request that the Court | | 8 | grant the motion. | | 9 | THE COURT: The only thing I would like you to do, | | 10 | counsel, is just walk through the marketing and the service | | 11 | of the motion. I know there was a notice of sale posted on | | 12 | the Court's website, but I do think the record should contain | | 13 | representations, with regard to the marketing of the asset | | 14 | and the service of the motion and the objection deadlines and | | 15 | that so that the record is complete, okay? | | 16 | MR. BONGARTZ: Absolutely. Thank you, Your Honor. | | 17 | THE COURT: Thank you. | | 18 | MR. BONGARTZ: So let me take a step back and | | 19 | actually start with the marketing process, prior to the | | 20 | filing of the motion. Edmiston engaged in an extensive | | 21 | marketing campaign. They've canvassed the market of | | 22 | potential buyers and sent out mailers and emails to their | | 23 | distributions of their entire network of brokers and parties | | 24 | that might be potentially interested. | | 25 | The Lady May II was also displayed at the Newport | | | |

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Boat Show in mid-September 2023. There were some initial expressions of interest and we reached out to each of those parties and provided them with a copy of the proposed -- the form of proposed purchase-and-sale agreement. Unfortunately, by the proposed October 4 bid deadline, the trustee did not receive any qualified bids from any of the parties that had expressed tentatively, an interest.

8 9 10 11 The only bid that was received was for \$150,000, which was far below what our expectation was and also, in fact, far below the minimum bid that we had asked from those parties who had expressed interest.

12 13 14 15 16 17 Following the bid deadline, the trustee did not stop there. We continued to engage both, with the one bidder that had submitted a bid for \$150,000, as well as the purchaser of the Lady May, as you will recall, earlier this year, but that buyer had no interest in purchasing the Lady May II.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As far as the service of the motion is concerned, I should note that we served it on the ECF list, obviously, and those who did not seek or did not agree to accept services by email, we served a hard copy on those parties on the ECF list. We also served, in accordance with Your Honor's order, we served a copy of the sale notice on the Committee and I believe copy of the sale notice, as well as your hearing notice, were also served on everyone on the ECF

| 1 | list. | |---|-------| |---|-------|

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I would like to make one clarification, and I apologize for any oversight, but due to some miscommunication, the underlying motion was not served, again, on the proposed -- on the handful of parties that had initially expressed an interest, but never submitted a bid. They did get a copy of the PSA, though, as part of the bidding process and, I should also note as we explained in the supplemental declaration this morning, the broker, after the motion had been filed, sent a global notice to this entire network of brokers with the -- with all of the relevant information, the purchase price, the -- sorry, let me -- the proposed purchase price, as well as the hearing date, as well as the December 15 requested deadline for any further and final bids. And on top of all of that, the broker also updated the YATCO and YachtWorld listings, both of which also have now included the additional information about the hearing date. To be super clear, all these things, the email distributions, as well as the updates to the YATCO and YachtWorld listings were done on November 30th. So that's -- has been now, 19 days ago. I should also note that certificate of service that described the service of the motion was filed at Docket 2418.

Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

2 3 4 5 And I haven't seen yet, but I'm looking at a supplemental declaration of Dirk Johnson, who is not going to be here in person, because he had travel issues. That was filed at 9:48 this morning.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MR. BONGARTZ: Yes, that is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: And I'm looking at that, because I'm taking that into account as evidence in support of the marketing of the Lady May II and the service and discussions that were made in connection with the sale of the Lady May II. And it has several exhibits attached to it, including a brochure of the boat.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MR. BONGARTZ: Yes, just to explain really brief what the declaration shows, is that, as I mentioned earlier, there was a global email distribution to 1875 brokers, that's on Exhibit A, and that includes on the very first page, to do so hearing date, the proposed sale price, as well as the request for any final bids by December 15th. And then the other exhibits are just the updates to the YATCO and YachtWorld listing to include the same information.

21 22 23 THE COURT: I'm just reviewing the document right now, so if you will just bear with me for a moment, please. (Pause)

24 25 THE COURT: All right. I have reviewed the supplemental declaration of Mr. Johnson in support of the

| 1 | motion to sell the Lady May II and I see that the documents | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | filed on the docket of the case are what you described on the | | 3 | record here today, including information regarding the | | 4 | marketing and service and continued communications, with | | 5 | regard to the sale of the Lady May II for \$350,000 -- three | | 6 | hundred and seventy-five, I'm sorry, thousand dollars. | | 7 | Now, with regard to the purchase and sale | | 8 | agreement itself, I was looking at this before and I'm | | 9 | probably just looking in the wrong space. I know it has a | | 10 | closing date of the 31st of December 2023, but I'm actually | | 11 | looking at the date that this document was signed and I just | | 12 | don't see that, but I'm probably missing it somewhere. | | 13 | MR. BONGARTZ: It's actually on the very first | | 14 | page. There is a little -- if you go to the purchase-and | | 15 | sale agreement for brokerage vessel, which is the standard | | 16 | form -- | | 17 | THE COURT: Uh-huh. | | 18 | MR. BONGARTZ: -- there's a box at the top and if | | 19 | you look at the sub box that reads "important dates," there's | | 20 | a -- it says 31.12.2023; that's the European version of | | 21 | writing the date. | | 22 | THE COURT: Right. But I don't know the date this | | 23 | agreement was signed, I'm saying. | | 24 | MR. BONGARTZ: Oh, I'm -- | | 25 | THE COURT: I saw that date. |

12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BONGARTZ: No, it's on the signature block to the addendum. It's ECF page 52 of 62. I'm sorry, I misunderstood, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's okay. Okay. There it is. I didn't see it. That's all I was looking for. MR. BONGARTZ: No, it's okay. It's also on the form itself on page 45 of 62, but it's in multiple places. THE COURT: And this was on, obviously, of the docket of the case, so it was available for -- if someone has the ability to view, electronically, and/or, obviously, to come to the Clerk's Office and review this purchase and sale agreement. So, I don't know why I couldn't find that date before, but now I see it. Okay. So if this sale is approved today, there are a couple of provisions, obviously, that may change the actual amount that is delivered by the buyer to the seller, depending upon the date of closing, correct? MR. BONGARTZ: That is correct. There is a cost allocation with respect to the winterization and storage at the Newport shipyard, which depends on the scheduled date of closing. THE COURT: And have you -- are you able to report to the Court what day you think the closing may occur at this Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 12 of 83

13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 point? I'm not -- MR. BONGARTZ: No, we are preparing for a closing either Thursday or Friday this week. THE COURT: Of this week? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Does anyone else wish to be heard, with regard to the sale, the proposed sale of the Lady May II to the buyer identified in the purchase and sale agreement, as Patrick Cloppenburg? (No verbal response) THE COURT: All right. Hearing nothing, then I think the only thing we need -- I have a few questions about the proposed order. MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: You might need to revise it. MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: Is that -- you should have -- I mean, we can put in the hearing date today, but it says during which -- I'm sorry, I'm on page 2 of the order -- MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: -- and probably the sixth or seventh line down, it says, "During which the trustee's exhibits and the testimony of Mr. Johnson were admitted into evidence." I mean, he really isn't testifying, but you can say his affidavit and supplemental declaration were reviewed Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 13 of 83

14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 by the Court -- MR. BONGARTZ: Yep. THE COURT: -- and no party raised any objection to that admission as evidence in support of the sale. MR. BONGARTZ: We will make that change, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then in three lines down or two lines down, depending upon which line you're looking at there -- MR. BONGARTZ: Uh-huh. THE COURT: -- and it says, "And all objections thereto." I think I'd rather you say, "There being no objections filed" -- MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: -- or however you want to say it. MR. BONGARTZ: We'll put that there. THE COURT: But it's clear that there were no objections filed, okay? MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. THE COURT: And then on page 11 of the proposed order, paragraph 12. MR. BONGARTZ: Yes? THE COURT: It says, "It being the intent of the Court," in the second sentence -- MR. BONGARTZ: Uh-huh. Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 14 of 83

15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: -- I think it would just say -- I mean, what you're trying to say is just because we don't identify a specific provision in the PSA doesn't mean it's not enforceable, right. Isn't that what you're trying to say? MR. BONGARTZ: Correct, the entire agreement is approved by the Court and all provisions are enforceable; that is correct. THE COURT: I don't think we need it being the intent of the Court, right. It's not my intent. MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: I mean, it's what it says and that's what I'm approving. So I would just say, you know: "All the terms and conditions are in effect and enforceable and, therefore, authorized and approved." Okay? MR. BONGARTZ: Okay. THE COURT: Now, the one thing I noticed in paragraph 12 that might be different from the purchase-andsale agreement itself, but I think you have a provision that says the order will -- MR. BONGARTZ: We do. THE COURT: -- will govern? MR. BONGARTZ: Uh-huh. Yes, we do. THE COURT: But in paragraph 12, it says the -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 15 of 83

16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 isn't that saying just a few lines down, it says: "Provided, however, that the PSA may be modified, amended, or supplemented by the parties thereto in a writing signed by all the parties without further notice to or order of this Court." But then there is something -- I mean, I don't think it's -- I just thought there was something that said there might have to be further order of the Court if there was an amendment. MR. BONGARTZ: I think it's the last phrase, "Unless approved by order of the Court," I believe, refers to modifications that do have material and adverse effect. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. All right. Then the only other question I had -- I think it's the only other question I have -- so Florida law is going to govern this contract? That's what the purchaseand-sale agreement says. MR. BONGARTZ: If that's what it says, then that -- THE COURT: Well, it says, "State of blank," and then it says, "Florida," if left blank. So that's what I'm assuming? MR. BONGARTZ: That's the correct assumption; yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 16 of 83

17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BONGARTZ: Actually, Your Honor, let me double-check, because it may be that that provision was modified in the addendum, now that I focused on this question. Just give me a second, let me double-check. I just don't want to misstate. THE COURT: Yeah, I didn't see that, but you could be right. I mean, I don't know. (Pause) THE COURT: You're right, it's paragraph 4. MR. BONGARTZ: Yeah, I believe we -- THE COURT: On page 1 of the first addendum, it says, "Notwithstanding in the PSA --" MR. BONGARTZ: Yes, sorry. THE COURT: -- "to the contrary, the PSA is governed by and interpreted, according to the laws of the State of New York." MR. BONGARTZ: Yes, I apologize. I should have remembered that -- THE COURT: That's okay. That's fine. MR. BONGARTZ: -- we modified that. THE COURT: I saw it, so that's fine. We now understand that it's governed by the laws of the State of New York. All right. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the proposed order with regard to the sale of the Lady Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 17 of 83

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 May II? (No verbal response) THE COURT: All right. Hearing nothing, then I am prepared to grant the motion for the reasons that we've just gone through on the record, including the representations made in the motion, the evidence that support the marketing of the Lady May II, which includes prior pleadings, but also the affidavit of Mr. Johnson that was filed today at ECF 2441. I also reviewed information when the motion was filed and I know that the notice of sale was also posted on the Court's website, which indicated today would be the hearing on the approval of the sale and then an objection deadline was set at December 15 and no objections were filed with regard to the motion. I also find that service was appropriately made in

16 17 18 accordance with the applicable rules and the order entered by this Court with regard to a hearing and objection deadlines concerning the sale of the Lady May II.

19 20 21 22 23 No one has filed any written objections to the motion and there is no one participating in this hearing today that is objecting in any way to the motion or the proposed order, although, the Court has inquired and received no response from anyone in the courtroom.

24 25 So, for all those reasons, the motion to sell is granted and the proposed order, as we discussed, will just be

| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 19 of 83 | |---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | 19 | | 1 | a modified and submitted. I know you want to close soon, so | | 2 | I would assume you'll get that proposed order back to the | | 3 | Court tomorrow, at the latest, maybe even today. I have no | | 4 | idea. | | 5 | MR. BONGARTZ: We will get it back to chambers | | 6 | today. | | 7 | THE COURT: Actually, you don't have to get it | | 8 | back to the chambers. You can submit it to the courtroom | | 9 | deputy -- the Bridgeport courtroom deputy email box, | | 10 | please -- | | 11 | MR. BONGARTZ: Understood, Your Honor. | | 12 | THE COURT: -- and then please CC everyone in the | | 13 | courtroom that has noted their appearance for the record on | | 14 | that email, please, with the final changes to the proposed | | 15 | order. | | 16 | MR. BONGARTZ: Understood, Your Honor. | | 17 | THE COURT: Okay. | | 18 | MR. BONGARTZ: Thank you. | | 19 | THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much. | | 20 | Obviously, Mr. Johnson does not need to -- well, | | 21 | no one has asked Mr. Johnson to appear. I've looked at his | | 22 | affidavit. He would have testified about what he said in his | | 23 | affidavit and so if you need to tell Mr. Johnson he doesn't | | 24 | need to appear, that's fine with the Court. | | 25 | MR. BONGARTZ: Thank you, Your Honor. | | | |

20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Then, aside from the motion to sell the Lady May II, Trustee Despins, you've asked for a status conference that was filed in both, the main case and Adversary Proceeding 5008, with regard to compelling certain parties to comply with subpoenas and award sanctions. So, how would you like to proceed on that matter, Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: Mr. Linsey is handling this matter, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. There are two things that I'll be addressing -- Patrick Linsey for the trustee -- one is the privilege motion that was filed in the main case. The other is the discovery disputes and just a general update that exists in the adversary proceeding. I would propose to take the privilege motion first if that's acceptable to the Court? THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. LINSEY: Thank you. MR. MORIARTY: Your Honor, may I just confer with Attorney Linsey for one second on the motion that he's about to argue? THE COURT: I can't hear anything you said, Attorney Moriarty. Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 20 of 83

21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MORIARTY: I apologize, because I'm not speaking into a microphone. THE COURT: That's okay. MR. MORIARTY: May I just confer with Attorney Linsey for one second on the motion -- THE COURT: Certainly. MR. MORIARTY: -- he's about to argue? THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. MORIARTY: Thank you, Your Honor. (Counsel confers) MR. MORIARTY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yeah, just give me one moment. MR. LINSEY: Sure. (Pause) THE COURT: Sorry. Go ahead, Attorney Linsey. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. No problem. So what Mr. Moriarty wanted to ask me about is what I was coincidentally about to say, which is that in order to discuss the content of potentially privileged materials, I think we would probably need to have a sealed hearing and close the courtroom. I'm going to endeavor to -- THE COURT: Well, who's in the courtroom that hasn't signed the protective order yet? MR. LINSEY: I think this would go beyond the protective order, Your Honor, to the privileges order. Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 21 of 83

22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, and the privileges -- I mean, all right. So who you tell me who needs to leave the courtroom, then. MR. DESPINS: Everyone. MR. LINSEY: Everyone, other than Mr. Moriarty and trustee's counsel -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: -- and Your Honor can stay. (Laughter) THE COURT: The creditors have to leave? The creditors also have to leave? MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: And did you say the U.S. Trustee has to leave? MR. LINSEY: It's privileged, Your Honor, so the -- or, I should say it's potentially privileged and I'll get into why that "potential" word is there, but I do think there is some privileged material here. So, yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: What's the U.S. Trustee's -- I don't know that "position" is the right word -- but response to that request? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I'm in a bit of a difficult spot, as I believe Attorney Linsey is in, which is that the statute that provides for the U.S. Trustee's participation and that we're able to review anything that Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 22 of 83

1 2 3 gets filed on docket would also include the idea that we could be here today and participate and hear what's said in today's hearing.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That said, there is the other issue of the privilege and to the extent that the problem really gets elevated by my participation here, I will step into the hallway, but I will not agree that we have waived any argument that we're not entitled to be here. I'm making the decision to be in the hallway based on practical considerations, not because I don't think that it's appropriate. THE COURT: Okay. Well, this is what we're going to do. We're going to take a short recess and you're all going to chat and then we're going to come back and you're going to tell me where everyone stands, okay, and we'll make that record accordingly. So it's 3:05. I'm come back at 3:15, all right. The Court is in recess until 3:15. THE CLERK: All rise. The Court is in recess until 3:15. (Recess taken at 3:05 p.m.) (Proceedings resumed at 3:23 p.m.) THE COURT: The scheduling order and issues related to the privileges order. So where do things stand?

24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LINSEY: Counsel for everyone present discussed, and we think it makes the most sense to deal with the privileges motion at the end of the day, such that everyone else can leave. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: And Mr. Moriarty and I and the trustee, I assume, will all stick around and deal with that. So, then, I would propose to move on to the discovery status conference in the Whitecroft, rather the Mei Guo/Bombardier adversary proceeding. I'm going to step back a bit further than some of the other discovery motions that have been filed in this case, because the trustee has learned certain information in the last couple of weeks that has given rise to substantial concern. In August of 2022, the trustee served the defendant with a Rule 2004 subpoena. That Rule 2004 subpoena called -- THE COURT: In the main case -- MR. LINSEY: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- the Rule 2004? Go ahead. I just want to make sure I'm completely following you. MR. LINSEY: I appreciate it. The Rule 2004 subpoena included, as an associated entity, Whitecroft Shore Ltd. and numerous of the requests Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 24 of 83

1 2 3 4 5 6 called for documents and records that are a lot of the evidence that we're seeing more recently, documents that exist, but were not produced 16 months ago. As the Court is well aware, there was a pattern of obstruction with respect to the Rule 2004 subpoena, which eventually led to an order holding the defendant and others in contempt.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Thereafter, the defendant filed the declaration, wherein the defendant said that the defendant had complied and purported to detail her compliance. What we have seen recently is documents that prove that either one of two alternatives. Either the defendant had responsive information, knew about responsive information and lied about it or the defendant didn't know about the responsive documents and information, because someone other than the defendant is conducting the business that the defendant purports is beneficially owned by her.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Moving forward to this adversary proceeding, as the Court has seen from several of the recent filings, it's been pulling teeth for the trustee to try to obtain discovery in this adversary proceeding. Agreeing on a deposition date for the defendant required a motion to compel. Enforcing subpoenas against the shell companies, Whitecroft Shore Ltd. and Anton Development, likewise, required a motion to compel. The Court entered an order on that motion to compel and set deadlines for the shell companies, Whitecroft

1 2 3 4 5 and Anton Development, and the defendant, in her capacity with respect to those shell companies, to provide documents to the trustee. The trustee received nine documents from Whitecroft on the day of the deadline and nothing from Anton Development.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 The documents, we have sort of a confidentiality issue again. This one, just a confidentiality issue. They've all been marked "highly confidential," so I won't get into the subject matter of those documents, but I will say - and this is -- the specifics of these facts are discussed in the emergency motion for a temporary restraining order that my office filed shortly before this hearing.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 The content of those documents reflects that there are other documents out there; in particular, there is an account that was opened, a financial institution in the United Kingdom called "JNFX." Approximately \$12 million of proceeds from the sale of a private jet that the trustee believes is the debtors' private jet, was deposited into that account.

20 21 22 23 24 25 The best case, based on the trustee's investigation to date, that amount in that account has substantially diminished. And we're not talking about a long time frame here. The sale of the Bombardier was postpetition. The sale apparently closed in between August and October of 2022. Funds were originally transmitted, sale

1 2 3 4 5 proceeds were originally transmitted to an escrow agent. The funds show as depositing in this U.K. financial institution, JNFX, in February of 2023. That's why -- you know, that's well into a number of things; among them, the trustee's efforts to obtain Rule 2004 compliance from the defendant.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 In the relatively short time, six months, that - ten months -- that the funds have been in the JNFX account, best case, they have diminished substantially, going from, as far as the trustee can discern -- and this is, information is coming in literally minute to minute here -- there is approximately \$10.1 million U.S. worth of assets left in the account, which had started around \$12 million. That's in less than a year.

14 15 16 17 18 So the trustee is substantially concerned about the safety of the funds in this account. The trustee is also concerned about who may give orders, the defendant or others, that funds in the account may be moved or that other things may happen.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Prior to the shell companies appearing for their 30(b)(6) deposition, prior -- one hour prior to the shell companies appearing for their 30(b)(6) deposition, the trustee received a statement from JNFX through defendant's counsel and received email correspondence. The email correspondence reflects JNFX telling one of the defendant's agents that the defendant had made agreements that allowed

28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JNFX to engage in certain transactions with these funds. The trustee was obviously substantially concerned to see the content of these emails, particularly concerned when the one statement that we have seen reflected a zero balance in the account. The trustee called the defendant's counsel and was told that defendant's counsel was unsure what the statement meant. The trustee then sought to take the 30(b)(6) deposition of Whitecroft and, unfortunately, the defendant, appearing as the 30(b)(6) representative for Whitecroft, invokes the -- I should say, sought to invoke the Fifth Amendment, with respect to almost every substantive question that was posed to her. And as I think the Court is aware at this point, corporations do not enjoy a Fifth Amendment privilege. It was incumbent upon the corporation to provide a witness who could intelligently testify with respect to the facts at issue in this adversary proceeding, none more important than what is going on with these Bombardier proceeds. And yet, when I asked question after question, What agreements were made with JNFX? What is this agreement that the representative from JNFX is referring to in the email? All the trustee's counsel heard was "Fifth Amendment. Fifth Amendment. Fifth Amendment." That isn't proper, but it's also prejudicial.

1 2 3 4 It's prejudicial that discovery has been delayed. At this point, if we go back to Rule 2004 discovery, we would have known about the funds before they even made it to JNFX, before that two million dollars turned into vapor.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 And I do want to caution, we're getting more information about the JNFX, but that 10.1 -- and the funds, but that 10.1 million is the best information I have right now, and the trustee is substantially concerned to the point that trustee's counsel sent, this morning, are correspondence to JNFX and spent the weekend preparing an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order to ensure that the funds of JNFX are not further diminished or dissipated.

13 14 15 16 17 18 So, in terms of discovery disputes that exist right now, I would say that the primary discovery dispute is what the trustee views as improper invocation of the Fifth Amendment by the shell companies and the shell companies' if failure to provide documents and information, which it appears to the trustee, must exist.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I will also -- I want to add one more element to the frustration that came from the deposition on Friday. The trustee sought to inquire about when the shell companies sought to obtain documents responsive to the subpoena and the 30(b)(6) witness, the defendant, was unable to testify about those facts, either because she asserted that she did not know or because she was invoking the Fifth Amendment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 But there are material facts that the trustee is entitled to explore in discovery. That's something that Your Honor will see. In this TRO motion is evidence the debtor has uncovered -- evidence the trustee has uncovered that it was the debtors' alter-ego Golden Spring that orchestrated the sale of the Bombardier jet. It was Max Krasner identifying himself in emails as the director of operations of Golden Spring, who was the client contact for Jetlaw, which was the law firm that purported to represent Whitecroft in the sale of the jet. So the trustee is entitled to information from the shell companies about those facts or entitled to a 30(b)(6) representative who will testify knowledgeably. And if for some reason that can't happen in a closed conference room, then it should happen in open court and the defendant should come to open court and Your Honor can rule about which invocations of the Fifth Amendment are proper and which invocations are not. And just very briefly, Your Honor, I want to read from one of the JNFX representative's emails to Ms. Guo and an agent that the trustee had never heard of until last Friday. The email reads:

23 24 25 "The statements are in U.S. dollars and Euro, reflecting the FX conversion from U.S. dollars to Euro that Ms. Guo agreed to previously, and which JNFX are entitled to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do, pursuant to our terms and conditions. Funds have been converted back to U.S. dollars in anticipation of returning U.S. dollar sums to the account from which they were received, but you made it clear, this step would be unwelcome." Someone is plainly giving JNFX instructions about what to do with this money and the trustee is profoundly concerned that someone is going to give JNFX the wrong instructions and that JNFX is going to listen. So we're not here today to argue a TRO motion, but I couldn't, in good conscience, not -- in light of these facts, not discuss it. The trustee's primary interest from a discovery perspective is getting through these shell company depositions without further delay and getting testimony to which the trustee is entitled. THE COURT: So right now, with regard to the depositions of the shell companies, the answers to the 30(b)(6) representative, who's the defendant in adversary 5008 is either "I don't know" or "the Fifth Amendment." That's what you're telling me? MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor, with very, very few exceptions. There were some basic questions, and I mean very basic about document production that were answered, but anything that became, you know, who specifically was reached out to or when was anyone reached out to, then we were in "I

| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 32 of 83 | |---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | 32 | | 1 | don't know" or sometimes we were in the territory of the | | 2 | "Fifth Amendment." | | 3 | And Your Honor can read the deposition transcript | | 4 | in its entirety. It's attached as an exhibit to the TRO | | 5 | motion. | | 6 | THE COURT: And this was the deposition that took | | 7 | place on Friday, December 15th; is that what you're telling | | 8 | me? | | 9 | MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. It was the | | 10 | Whitecroft deposition. | | 11 | In light of having received the information about | | 12 | the JNFX account one hour before the deposition began, the | | 13 | deposition was delayed in getting started. We didn't even | | 14 | finish that deposition. | | 15 | It's also -- it was an unwieldy practice to | | 16 | continuously ask the 30(b)(6) representative to continually | | 17 | instruct that from the trustee's perspective, the | | 18 | representative needed to answer the questions and was not | | 19 | invoking properly, a Fifth Amendment privilege. | | 20 | But, Your Honor -- | | 21 | THE COURT: You're saying that -- who conducted | | 22 | the deposition on behalf of the trustee? | | 23 | MR. LINSEY: I did, Your Honor. | | 24 | THE COURT: So you said -- you're saying -- I | | 25 | obviously haven't looked at what you're talking about -- but | | | |

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what you're saying is that when the defendant, as the 30(b)(6) representative of Whitecroft invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege, you stated on the record that it's the trustee's position that such an invocation is improper? MR. LINSEY: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: We got to a pattern. I would ask a question. The defendant would say -- I should say the 30(b)(6) representative would say, "Fifth Amendment." I would say, "Are you invoking the Fifth Amendment in your individual capacity?" The witness would say, "Fifth Amendment." I would say, "Please answer the question on behalf of Whitecroft." The defendant or representative would say, "Fifth Amendment." And I would say, "Is Whitecroft refusing to answer the question?" And the witness would say, "Fifth Amendment." Eventually, we agreed that her initial invocation of Fifth Amendment could be taken as her continued responses to that colloquy and incorporated it into all of the questions. But the trustee wished to be very clear that the trustee disagrees that a corporation may assert the Fifth Amendment.

| 1 | The trustee has cited Second Circuit case law to | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | the effect that corporations do not enjoy a Fifth Amendment | | 3 | privilege against self-incrimination and the trustee is | | 4 | entitled to a witness who can testify knowledgeably, | | 5 | particularly, where there is evidence; and evidence now that | | 6 | the Court has access to; evidence, which the trustee has | | 7 | recently just gotten access to, that there are instructions | | 8 | going. There is business happening. People are doing | | 9 | things, purportedly, on behalf of Whitecroft. | | 10 | So, you know, the Fifth Amendment cannot | | 11 | completely insulate a corporation, allow it to do business, | | 12 | allow it to, you know, potentially dissipate funds that a | | 13 | trustee believes are property of the estate, without any | | 14 | remedy for the trustee to obtain information about that, | | 15 | because the corporation's chosen 30(b)(6) representative is | | 16 | invoking the Fifth Amendment. | | 17 | THE COURT: Didn't you attempt to conduct these | | 18 | depositions once before, following the deposition of the | | 19 | defendant and those depositions did not occur? | | 20 | MR. LINSEY: We did, Your Honor. On November -- | | 21 | THE COURT: Who represented the defendant as the | | 22 | 30(b)(6) representative at the deposition on December 15? | | 23 | MR. LINSEY: Ms. Wernick was counsel for the | | 24 | defendant and was counsel for Whitecroft. | | 25 | The defendant's personal criminal counsel was |

35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Matthew Leder (phonetic) of Depeny (phonetic). THE COURT: And both parties invoked -- interposed objections and questions and things, both counsel? MR. LINSEY: Mr. Leder of -- Mr. Leder primarily advised the witness, with respect to her invocation of the Fifth Amendment. THE COURT: What was his advice? MR. LINSEY: Well, generally, it was to invoke, Your Honor. I don't mean to make light of it. It was a frustrating afternoon. But Your Honor will see in the transcript, the vast majority of questions that were put to Whitecroft were met with a Fifth Amendment, particularly, as I discussed Max Krasner, the communications that he had with Jetlaw, was Max Krasner an authorized agent of Whitecroft? That was met with, "Fifth Amendment." Yvette Wang also appears on documents related to the sale of the Bombardier; for example, she's listed as an addressee on the letter of intent that the buyer of the Bombardier sent in, I believe it was February of 2022. That's another exhibit to our TRO motion. And when I sought to ask about Yvette Wang and her role with respect to the sale of the Bombardier, I was met with, "Fifth Amendment." And there are exigencies that apply to this information, Your Honor. I mean, one of the reasons that the Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 35 of 83

| 1 | trustee wants to be very clear about who was an authorized | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | agent for Whitecroft is because the trustee is concerned | | 3 | about who is going to potentially be doing things that could | | 4 | prejudice a recovery by further dissipating or diminishing | | 5 | the money that, right now, may be held in that JNFX account. | | 6 | THE COURT: Well, when you say, Who is an | | 7 | authorized representative, the counsel for the defendant | | 8 | appointed an authorized representative under the Federal | | 9 | Rules of Civil Procedure, correct? | | 10 | MR. LINSEY: Correct. | | 11 | And I don't mean to use overlapping terminology; I | | 12 | just meant it as a general principal of an agency; someone | | 13 | who has the power to call the bank and tell the bank what to | | 14 | do. | | 15 | THE COURT: No, no, I understand what you're | | 16 | saying, but right now you're talking to me about discovery, | | 17 | right? | | 18 | MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. | | 19 | THE COURT: That's the conversation were having. | | 20 | We're having a conversation about discovery and the | | 21 | conversation that we're having is that, first of all, the | | 22 | status conference was requested because, I believe, and you | | 23 | can please correct me if I'm wrong -- somebody will, I'm sure | | 24 | -- because there was not compliance at the previous | | 25 | deposition that was noticed and subpoenaed for the Rule 30(b) |

| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 37 of 83 | |---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | 37 | | | | | 1 | representative of Whitecroft and Anton Development. That was | | 2 | number one, correct? That was one of the reasons you wanted | | 3 | to have a status conference. | | 4 | Number two, you weren't sure whether they were | | 5 | going to appear for a deposition on the 15th, right, and they | | 6 | did, apparently. | | 7 | MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. | | 8 | THE COURT: You're telling me. I'm sure that's | | 9 | accurate. | | 10 | So, now, they did and they -- and when I say | | 11 | "they," I shouldn't say that. So, now, a Rule 30(b) | | 12 | representative who happens to be the defendant, Ms. Guo, | | 13 | appeared as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative on behalf of | | 14 | Whitecroft, you didn't get to Anton Development; is that | | 15 | correct? | | 16 | MR. LINSEY: That's correct, Your Honor. | | 17 | THE COURT: And Ms. Guo was represented by | | 18 | counsel, who is in this courtroom at that deposition in her | | 19 | capacity as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative of Whitecroft | | 20 | and then represented by criminal counsel, which I don't know | | 21 | if I understand why there was criminal counsel there, because | | 22 | she was testifying as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative. | | 23 | So, now, you're asking the Court to make a ruling. | | 24 | I'm asking you, this is what you're asking me to do, to rule | | 25 | on whether or not there was a proper invocation of the Fifth | | | | | | |

| 1 | Amendment by Ms. Guo as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | while she was represented by counsel, both, in her capacity | | 3 | as a Rule 30(b)(6) representative and, I guess, as potential | | 4 | -- for potential exposure, although, I don't know how she has | | 5 | criminal exposure as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative. But | | 6 | in any event, and she -- you're telling me that she was | | 7 | counseled and instructed to invoke the Fifth Amendment. | | 8 | Is that what you're telling me? | | 9 | MR. LINSEY: That's my understanding, Your Honor. | | 10 | THE COURT: Well, when you say your understanding, | | 11 | isn't that what -- that's what they said? Does the | | 12 | deposition transcript reflect that? | | 13 | MR. LINSEY: No, there were breaks where counsel | | 14 | spoke with the witness. Sometimes, Mr. Leder would gesture, | | 15 | which I understood those gestures to be suggesting the Fifth | | 16 | Amendment be invoked. | | 17 | Mainly, the witness invoked the Fifth Amendment on her own, | | 18 | but it was my understanding that counsel -- that it was a | | 19 | strategy that was employed -- | | 20 | THE COURT: Did counsel ever tell her that it was | | 21 | improper to invoke the Fifth Amendment –- | | 22 | MR. LINSEY: Certainly not. | | 23 | THE COURT: -- on the record. | | 24 | MR. LINSEY: Certainly not. Trustee's counsel was | | 25 | emphatic repeatedly that the invocations were improper and |

| 1 | | should cease. | |---|--|---------------| |---|--|---------------|

2 3 4 5 6 THE COURT: Okay. So, you are asking this Court to enter an order compelling her, the representative, who was designated as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative of Whitecroft, to answer those questions because there was an improper invocation of the Fifth Amendment?

7 8 9 MR. LINSEY: That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: You are asking for an order from the Court to say that?

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. I would suggest, if the Court would entertain it, that we would be in a more effective environment to obtain the discovery if there were a way to obtain a resolution to disagreements that would occur during the deposition. One way to resolve that would be to have the deposition occur in open Court. I am not eager to take Your Honor's time if we don't need to. Another way could be to take the deposition at a time where, potentially, Your Honor might be available by phone to the extent that there is a dispute that arises during the deposition.

20 21 22 23 24 25 One of the things that I have tried to emphasize is that there is a lot of exigencies here. We have already burned a month obtaining the shell company's compliance such as it is; compliance such that the walk-through, the threshold of Trustee's counsel's office, but not substantively testify. So, the Trustee wants to move this

40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 forward –- wants to move this case forward expeditiously. THE COURT: Okay. So, aside from the privileges issue, is that the discovery issue that you are asking me to review and determine? Is there any other discovery issue that you are asking me –- well, Anton hasn't even appeared apparently. MR. LINSEY: That is correct, Your Honor. I would –- THE COURT: And is Ms. Guo the –- isn't she the 30(b)(6) representative of that corporation as well. Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 40 of 83

11 12 13 14 15 16 MR. LINSEY: She was. I would anticipate that if we had –- we stayed until seven o'clock Friday night. So, we didn't knock off early. The interpreter had to drive back to New Jersey. So, at a certain point I wanted to let her go. If we had stayed till ten and gotten into Anton my sense is that it would have gone the same way.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: So, I just want to make sure, from the Trustee's perspective that is Your –- those are Your discovery issues that you asked for a status conference on, which we already had discussions about because of the prior deposition of the defendant in this adversary proceeding in which she was also –- Ms. Guo was also subpoenaed to testify on behalf of the two corporations as the representative and she and her criminal counsel refused to do so, correct? MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. Look, if we're not

| 1 | going to get compliance then at a certain point the Trustee | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | believes that the Court just needs to enter –- to order | | 3 | sanctions, whether they be negative inferences, whether they | | 4 | be –- given the pattern of obstruction here, and that is why | | 5 | I started with the Rule 2004 subpoena, the long –- these few | | 6 | documents that the Trustee got were dated in the fall of 2022 | | 7 | and the winter of 2023. Had the defendant –- | | 8 | THE COURT: What is the representation from the | | 9 | defendant's counsel as to when they came into possession of | | 10 | those documents? | | 11 | MR. LINSEY: I don't have a representation from | | 12 | defendant's counsel. I asked the witness, the 30(b)(6) | | 13 | witness, at the deposition on Friday whether Ms. Guo sought | | 14 | to obtain responsive documents from Whitecroft and in | | 15 | response to that question, like so many others, the witness | | 16 | invoked the Fifth Amendment. | | 17 | THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. | | 18 | MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. | | 19 | THE COURT: Counsel, I assume you would like to be | | 20 | heard. | | 21 | MS. WERNICK: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. | | 22 | I want to begin as to, you know, how we are here | | 23 | today and why we are here today in the frame of the requested | | 24 | status conference. Much of Mr. Linsey's presentation or | | 25 | Attorney Linsey's presentation are of events that have | | | |

1 2 3 4 5 transpired on Friday or earlier today including a TRO motion that was filed moments before Court began. From defendant's perspective the issues that had been addressed previously included appearance at depositions which occurred. We made clear that we were –- that Ms. Guo

6 7 8 was prepared to testify as a 30(b)(6) representative for both Anton Development and Whitecroft on Friday in compliance with the Court's order. Documents have been produced –-

9 10 11 12 13 THE COURT: Well, how did you make that clear because my understanding is that you filed a motion, an emergency motion, for a protective order. So, how did you make it clear that you were going to appear for a deposition on December 15th?

14 15 16 17 18 19 MS. WERNICK: Through conversations with Attorney Linsey. And to back up, I want to make sure the stage is appropriate set, Ms. Guo appeared for her deposition, in her individual capacity, at the beginning of November. On that same day she was served with subpoenas for Whitecroft and Anton Development, and requested –-

20 21 22 THE COURT: Well, wasn't that because you wouldn't accept service? I mean, you know, I do know what happened. I read the papers.

23 24 25 MS. WERNICK: Certainly, but there is no obligation for anyone to accept service. There a request for –-

Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 43 of 83

1 2 3 THE COURT: But you knew that she was going to be served. If you are not going to accept service how else is she going to be served?

4 5 MS. WERNICK: Well, but certainly not for a deposition to occur moments later that same day.

6 7 8 9 10 11 THE COURT: My recollection of that is that that was well-known by you and Attorney Twardy, I believe, who was there. I mean I understand, okay. I understand, but you have obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and if you don't want to comply with those then that is Your choice. That is Your choice.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I know where you are going, okay, but to say to the Court, any Court no matter who it is, that the Rule 30(b)(6) representative, the Rule 30(b)(6) representative of a corporation, has the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege, please, please, show me Your case because I have seen about –- I have seen numerous cases to the contrary. So, where do you have a case that says that the person that you, as counsel because you counseled this person, designated as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative with Your understanding of Your obligations, Your personal obligations as a lawyer, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that its –- that there is law that supports the claim that ta 30(b)(6) representative of a corporation can invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege. Show me that.

| | 44 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | MS. WERNICK: Your Honor, we are happy to brief | | 2 | the issue. There is -- | | 3 | THE COURT: No, no, no. Stop, stop. Show me that | | 4 | right now. That is what you are here for, right. We all | | 5 | know why we are here. This is –- we all know why we are | | 6 | here, right. We are here because Your client was served with | | 7 | a 2004 examination motion last August, August of 2022. I had | | 8 | to go back and look at it because at first I thought is that | | 9 | right and then I said, yeah, that is right. August of 2022 | | 10 | and we are now –- its December 18th of 2023 and I am having | | 11 | an argument about whether –- I mean if that is the path you | | 12 | want to go down that is you choice. That is Your choice. | | 13 | I would urge you to think about that choice very | | 14 | long and hard because for you to say we will brief the issue | | 15 | it doesn't need to be briefed. I can show you twelve cases. | | 16 | Show me one. If you show me one I will listen to you. I | | 17 | haven't seen one. It's Your obligation. You filed a motion | | 18 | for a protective order, emergency motion to stop the | | 19 | deposition from happening. I guess because I didn't see it | | 20 | you then appeared on the 15th somehow to try to be in | | 21 | compliance with the Court order, but you still are not in | | 22 | compliance because the other entity hasn't been deposed, | | 23 | number one. | | 24 | Number two, if this is accurate, which I haven't | | 25 | seen everything, okay, to be fair I haven't seen what |

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Attorney Linsey said about this deposition, but apparently there is a deposition transcript that I will be able to look at. If –- you need to tell me that what Attorney Linsey said is inaccurate that Your client, as the 30(b)(6) representative of Whitecroft, didn't invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege with regard to questions about Whitecroft. MS. WERNICK: Ms. Guo does not cease to be a natural person simply because she appeared in her capacity as

10 11 12 13 14 15 a 30(b)(6) witness. Ms. Guo was accompanied by her personal criminal attorney throughout the course of the deposition. Certainly, I am not going to disagree with her invocation. It's in the transcript. It is what transpired on Friday and was instructed by her personal criminal counsel to invoke the Fifth Amendment.

16 17 18 I think the Court, and I would respect the Trustee as well, has to recognize a real tension here with respect to the complaint that the Trustee has brought and then –-

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: You know what, none of that matters. What matters is you are the lawyer who represents the defendant who agreed and counseled her to be designated as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative. This Court has spent an enormous amount of time and every time you all complain about how much money the Trustee spends in fees you lose. You know why, because you're fighting a fight that its clear what the

46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 answer is yet you continue to fight the fight. So, you are now fighting a fight that you're saying she –- nobody said she ceases to be an individual, but that is not what she was being deposed about. She was being deposed as a Rule 30(b)(6) representative of Whitecroft. You, as the lawyer, counseled her to be that party. If there is somebody else then that is Your mistake for not brining that person forward. You can't use the process to delay the process. You can't use the process to suit Your desires at a time that it works for you. You are making a decision and that decision is going to have ramifications. So, I urge you to seriously think about what you just said.

13 14 15 16 17 No one is suggesting that Ms. Guo isn't an individual. She wasn't being asked any questions in her individual capacity. If that is the case, counsel, then every single time a Rule 30(b)(6) representative is deposed they should have a criminal lawyer there with them.

18 19 20 MS. WERNICK: No, but certainly this is not every single case. Here Ms. Guo has been told by the Department of Justice that she is a subject or a target of –-

21 22 THE COURT: I am not involved with the Department of Justice.

23 24 25 MS. WERNICK: -- a criminal investigation. THE COURT: I am involved with a Trustee whose assets –- there are assets here, correct? Ms. Guo testified

47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 already that the plane was sold, but she doesn't know to whom and she doesn't remember when. MS. WERNICK: Documents have been produced by the entity and we have been real time producing –- THE COURT: When did you get the document about the bank account? MS. WERNICK: We sent it last week, as soon as it was received. THE COURT: No, no, no, that wasn't my question. I didn't ask you when you sent it. MS. WERNICK: No, I –- THE COURT: I asked you when you got it. MS. WERNICK: Within days of receipt and the email –- we sent our email correspondence from JNFX to the Trustee so they could see in real time as they were being –- THE COURT: So, you had no idea that there was money being taken out of a bank account? MS. WERNICK: And what we believe the record will show there was a single statement. We were extremely forthcoming to the Trustee that we have been trying to get information from JNFX. We were providing them with information in real time. And what we believe, when additional information from JNFX is obtained, that it will show that it's just fees from JNFX itself being withdrawn from the account. Remember –- Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 47 of 83

48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: \$10 million? MS. WERNICK: No, no, no, that is not what Attorney Linsey said. There is \$10 million in the account. THE COURT: I think I heard that the account is depleted. MS. WERNICK: No, no, that there had been withdrawals from the account that we understand to be JNFX fees for holding the funds. There is \$10 million presently sitting in the account today which we would agree, Your Honor, we would agree with the Trustee, that that is subject to the preliminary injunction that was –- THE COURT: So, they don't need a temporary restraining order? Those funds aren't going to –- MS. WERNICK: Exactly. So, the instruction provided –- THE COURT: Wait a minute, hold on. That may be progress, hold on. So, you are saying that you have evidence, today, that there is \$10 million in a bank account in –- where is it: Europe, London? MS. WERNICK: In London. THE COURT: Okay. MS. WERNICK: The Trustee received the same email that we did earlier today. THE COURT: And you are going to agree what? MS. WERNICK: The position, and I think what Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 48 of 83

| 1 | further discovery on the communications that the Trustee | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | reference would show, is that the reason why there couldn't | | 3 | be movement of the funds from that account is because they | | 4 | have been subject to the injunction this whole time. So, the | | 5 | funds were in that account prior to the entry of the | | 6 | preliminary injunction, prior to the complaint in this | | 7 | adversary proceeding, and they have been with JNFX per the | | 8 | direction of Whitecroft's corporate counsel in the British | | 9 | Virgin Islands that we have identified –- that was identified | | 10 | during the course of the deposition and on the direction of | | 11 | Ms. Guo that they be preserved in that account. | | 12 | It is our understanding that any deduction in the | | 13 | account is fees being charged by the holder of the funds. | | 14 | And, you know, I don't want to be speaking out of turn, | | 15 | but –- | | 16 | THE COURT: I'm sorry, I'm interrupting you just | | 17 | because I want to get the timing right. Are you saying the | | 18 | fees that were deducted were deducted before the preliminary | | 19 | injunction, is that what you are saying, or were they | | 20 | deducted after the preliminary injunction? | | 21 | MS. WERNICK: I couldn't speak to that | | 22 | specifically. | | 23 | THE COURT: I think I would need to know that, | | 24 | wouldn't I? | | 25 | MS. WERNICK: Certainly, but it's not under the | | | | | | |

50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 direction of Ms. Guo, right. So, the preliminary injunction –- THE COURT: Well, if Ms. Guo was served with a preliminary injunction and it applies to Whitecroft then why would a bank take out money if they knew that there was a preliminary injunction with regard to Whitecroft that says you can't transfer, dispose of; I mean, I can go through the language. MS. WERNICK: Right, exactly, which is why the funds weren't moved. So, they pre-existed in that account. They remained in that account. We would agree that they were subject to the preliminary injunction that was imposed by the Court. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, just for the record, \$1.5 million in fees on a \$12 million investment –- THE COURT: We haven't even gotten to that point. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: I understand. MS. WERNICK: So, I understand the concern over the assets, but I raise it just to note just that the assets, we would agree, have been part of the –- THE COURT: All right. Let's just go back to what this is about, at least what it was about when the order was granted scheduling a status conference, right. This was about the failure of Your client to testify as the Rule Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 50 of 83

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30(b)(6) representative and produce documents, subject to a subpoena, of both Whitecroft and Anton Development. So, as we stand here today that still hasn't happened. MS. WERNICK: Again, Your Honor, I would respectfully disagree that documents were produced, all documents. We contacted –- and as Ms. Guo testified during the course of her deposition, she requested counsel reach out to any identifiable parties to seek documents. That was done. THE COURT: What counsel? MS. WERNICK: She asked –- THE COURT: The British Virgin Islands counsel? MS. WERNICK: -- both BVI counsel, our office. We made efforts to reach out and I think, again, this is where we need to contextualize where we are in this case. Folks don't answer to us. We tried to reach out to Max Krazner. I would like to reach out to Max Krazner and ask him to give us, you know, whatever documents or materials he has. We have attempted phone numbers, we have attempted emails. I'm sure, certainly, all the methods of communication that the Trustee himself perhaps has attempted to reach this individual. So, we don't receive responses from Mr. Krazner. We don't receive responses from the jet management company. We reached out to AKAS (ph), which is another entity that was

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 identified, and they say we will give you all the documents we have already provided to the Trustee. We reach out to former counsel that we understand would have documents and we provide to the Trustee whatever was able to be obtained. So, I truly don't want there to be any thought that efforts haven't been made to comply with a subpoena because they certainly have and any documents obtained were provided to the Trustee. So, I would want to note for the record that it's not lack of compliance with a subpoena when there are no documents received in return for these various endeavors. THE COURT: Well, but Your client won't testify that there are no other documents. She has taken the Fifth, for a corporation. So, you can't say that. You can't say what you just said because you have no evidence to back it up. If Your client testified as to that and then the documents are found, well then, Your client has got another problem apparently. That is not the point, counsel. There is no evidence that there aren't other documents. I have no idea, but if the documents that you produced, including something from some bank, like where is the bank statements? MS. WERNICK: So, again, this is not a typical

24 bank. My understanding is –- again, we have to go back to the –-

THE COURT: Again, you can say whatever you want,

1 2 3 4 5 but without evidence it really doesn't matter what you say. Okay. So, I don't have any evidence for you to say it's not a typical bank. I have no idea what that means. You have nothing to support that. You have nothing to prove what you just said.

6 7 8 So, if Your client isn't going to testify under oath about these issues then there is no evidence to support Your claims. There is no evidence.

9 10 11 12 MS. WERNICK: Well, I would respectfully disagree. Ms. Guo testified during the course of the deposition that she requested –- she sought, through counsel, that documents be requested. That is –-

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 THE COURT: So what. That doesn't mean anything. I can request through counsel something too. That doesn't mean documents don't exist. You have an obligation. You, as the lawyer, have an obligation to counsel Your client and the client has an obligation under the subpoena powers. So, I mean you can make these arguments, and you go right ahead, and you create whatever record you want to create, but you don't have a record that has any proof in it.

21 22 23 24 25 All you have, at this point, is you and Your client, subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the sanctions that are also imposed in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure not complying with an order of this Court and a subpoena. So, I think that you need to think about that.

1 That is a problem.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MS. WERNICK: Frankly, Your Honor, and I want to –- you know, when Mr. Linsey, you know, appeared before the Court there was a notion that we're having a discussion which is, you know, my understanding of what we are here for today in terms of a status conference there is no pending motion, there wasn't a request for entry of an order prior to –- THE COURT: Well, there has been a pending motion for sanctions and to compel compliance. So, I am not sure what you mean about that. And I entered an order that said the deposition had to happen by the 15th. Now, I didn't look at the –- I shouldn't say I didn't look at, I saw –- I don't remember exactly what was put in the emergency motion for a protective order, but you didn't want to go through with that, it's pretty clear. MS. WERNICK: Well, it was only a matter of scheduling. We had originally proposed to Attorney Linsey that the depositions proceed either today or tomorrow given the scheduling reason. When it was not agreed with and made the application to the Court –-

22 23 THE COURT: I understand, but I entered an order and it said the date.

24 MS. WERNICK: Understood.

THE COURT: It said, very clearly, by

55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 December 15th. MS. WERNICK: Which is why we respected that and appeared by December 15th. THE COURT: Well, only because, I guess, there was no protective order entered. You wouldn't have respected it if there was a protective order. MS. WERNICK: But there was –- then the order would have been modified. So, I mean to suggest that, you know, we should be any way penalized for violating the order. THE COURT: First of all, I don't even know how you could have asked for a protective order. It was a Court order ordering Your client to appear. You don't get protection from a Court order. Where in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does it say, oh, and if I don't like the order and it has to do with discovery I can ask for a protective order. First of all, there is no basis in law for that, counsel, okay. Number one. Number two, I still don't have any basis in law from anything you are telling me about Your client invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege when she was designated and counseled by you and Your colleagues to be the Rule 30(b)(6) representative. So, when you say there is no motion pending that is not accurate. There is a motion pending. There absolutely is a motion pending and I issued an order for compliance. Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 55 of 83

| 1 | I just want to be very clear, I am not going to | |----|-------------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | spend a lot of time on discovery. You are just going to have | | 3 | to deal with the results of the rulings. This is –- we have | | 4 | gone through this, okay. I may be old, but I'm not that old. | | 5 | I remember things, okay. I have gone through this since the | | 6 | beginning of this –- since the time the Trustee was | | 7 | appointed. And all it is, is a constant barrage of | | 8 | roadblocks, that is the attempt; road-block after road-block. | | 9 | If you have a case that says what you are telling | | 10 | me then you should have already filed that. You should have | | 11 | filed a protective order in the first place with regard to | | 12 | the subpoenas. You didn't do that. You filed a motion for a | | 13 | protective order with regard to a Court order compelling | | 14 | compliance. There is no such thing. You cannot do. There | | 15 | is no law. You had no basis in statute, or law, or rule to | | 16 | seek the relief that you were seeking for a protective order. | | 17 | MS. WERNICK: Respectfully, I would submit that | | 18 | that application was mooted because we did, in fact, appear. | | 19 | THE COURT: Respectfully, you wasted the Court's | | 20 | time of having to read something that you filed under | | 21 | Rule 11, which says I don't –- you are not going to file | | 22 | anything for the cause of delay or the purpose of delay that | | 23 | there is no basis in law to grant the relief that you | | 24 | requested, none. | | 25 | So, if there is no basis in law to grant the |

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 relief that you are requesting then the issue becomes sanctions. If that is the path you want to go down that is the path we will have to go down. I am not going to spend hours, and hours, and hours on discovery that when you have an obligation as an officer of the Court to address those issues and when you file a motion, and I'm not saying just you, I know it was colleagues and whatever, that says that you want a protective order from a Court's order compelling compliance you lost. You have lost. MS. WERNICK: Which is why out of respect for the order, again, I would just repeat that –- THE COURT: When you say that, you should have had respect for the order in the first place. There was no basis for Your request. So, you didn't have respect for the order because if you did you wouldn't have made a baseless, meritless request that has no support in the code, the rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, our Local Rules of Procedure, nothing. You had nothing. You didn't even have anything.

20 21 22 MS. WERNICK: I mean, again, Your Honor, I would agree entirely that there is no need to spend additional time on the motion for a protective order. I don't want to –-

23 24 25 THE COURT: Then produce Your client and have her testify appropriately. Your client cannot –- and I have seen no case that says the Rule 30(b)(6) representative of a

58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 corporation can properly invoke the Fifth Amendment; otherwise, what would be the point of Rule 30(b)(6). There is no point. MS. WERNICK: But, Your Honor, again, I would respectfully disagree. Any statements made by Ms. Guo or anyone who is under the subject of a real serious criminal investigation –- THE COURT: Then appoint someone else. MS. WERNICK: We would be happy to. So, if there is not going to be any objection to appoint an agent or some other individual then –- THE COURT: Who is it going to be and when you are going to do it? MS. WERNICK: Exactly. THE COURT: Isn't she the only person who –- MS. WERNICK: So, that is the real –- THE COURT: Wait a minute. Isn't she the only person that has the authority to do so for both of these corporations? I thought she testified there is nobody else? MS. WERNICK: Exactly. THE COURT: Then how can you appoint somebody else? MS. WERNICK: So, this is the real tension. If we can –- THE COURT: Well, it's not a tension, counsel. Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 58 of 83

| 1 | It's not a tension. It's the reality and you have to deal | |----|------------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | with the reality. It's time to deal with the reality. It's | | 3 | not a tension. Its specifically how Your client setup these | | 4 | corporations or was instructed to setup these corporations. | | 5 | You can't now hide behind it by saying, well, she is an | | 6 | individual and she has been told that she might be the | | 7 | subject of a criminal inquiry and, therefore, she can invoke | | 8 | her Fifth Amendment privilege when she is –- I mean, that is | | 9 | ludicrous. What you are saying is actually ludicrous because | | 10 | then every single time that any party is a Rule 30(b)(6) | | 11 | representative they could have criminal counsel. | | 12 | MS. WERNICK: I am not here to suggest that there | | 13 | shouldn't be potentially an adverse inference or whatever | | 14 | legal arguments would be made as a result of the | | 15 | implication –- | | 16 | THE COURT: Well, then why don't you stipulate to | | 17 | that? | | 18 | MS. WERNICK: I understand. | | 19 | THE COURT: Why don't you stipulate to all the | | 20 | facts. Trustee said that, why don't you stipulate to all | | 21 | these facts. Just stipulate to them. What is the problem | | 22 | with that? | | 23 | MS. WERNICK: I am not aware of that proposal | | 24 | having been presented. | | 25 | THE COURT: It's in writing. I have read it. So, | | | |

60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 nobody came and told me about it. It's in one of the pleadings. MS. WERNICK: I am not familiar with the –- again, what I –- THE COURT: I don't know how you can't be familiar with that proposal, counsel. You represent the defendant and the defendant, in the defendant's capacity, as the Rule 30(b)(6) representative for both Whitecroft and Anton. I don't know you can't be familiar with that. So, in any event, did you want to add anything else to the record? MS. WERNICK: If Your Honor has any questions, I am happy to answer them. I would repeat that our position is that there has been compliance. I am happy to provide the Court with a further and supplemental information with respect to the invocation. THE COURT: Thank you. MS. WERNICK: Thank you. THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Linsey? MR. LINSEY: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: So, then that takes care of the discovery issues. With regard to the privileges issue we need to clear the courtroom because we are going to have a sealed hearing, is that –- MR. DESPINS: We were thinking of doing the status Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 60 of 83

| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 61 of 83 | |---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | 61 | | 1 | conference on the other matter first if everyone can leave. | | 2 | THE COURT: That's fine. | | | | | 3 | MR. DESPINS: Is that okay with Your Honor? | | 4 | THE COURT: That's fine. | | 5 | MR. DESPINS: May I approach, Your Honor? | | 6 | THE COURT: Yes, you may. | | 7 | MR. DESPINS: So, Your Honor, about ten days ago | | 8 | or so –- first of all, for the record, Luc Despins, | | 9 | Chapter 11 Trustee. About ten days ago we filed with the | | 10 | Court a copy of a motion that had been filed in the criminal | | 11 | case for the return of customer funds. That motion had been | | 12 | filed by counsel for, I will say in quotes, "alleged" group | | 13 | of customers represented by Mr. Giar (ph). I will come back | | 14 | to why I am saying "alleged" in quotes. | | 15 | Basically, we had said in that filing that we were | | 16 | available for a status conference and Your Honor did schedule | | 17 | the status conference. The first thing I want to say is why | | 18 | we are saying "alleged" in quotes is because, and I want to | | 19 | be very clear about this, it is obvious that there are | | 20 | victims of the various transactions that transpired around | | 21 | Mr. Kwok. Those victims need to be compensated at one point. | | 22 | The challenge is who are those victims, who | | 23 | decides that they are victims, and how much are they owed. | | 24 | That is why we are emphasizing the word "alleged". The | | 25 | reason I may sound defensive about this is that there is a | | | |

1 2 3 4 5 supplemental pleading filed by Mr. Giar on Friday that, basically, takes a very strident attack on the DOJ and the Trustee on the basis that –- you know, there is basis, but the lead one is that the DOJ or the Trustee are hostile to victims. I want to debunk that myth from the beginning.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 So, I'm glad the Court gave us an opportunity to be heard on this. As you can see from the notice we filed this morning, I'm not sure you had time to look at it, but there was this extensive reply, I would say premature reply filed by Mr. Giar. By the way, we invited Mr. Giar to attend the hearing today, but he had a conflict. He was not available. Basically, we wanted to address what we are going to file with the criminal court and we will come back to that in a second.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 First, I want to give you a bit of background. So, as I said on Friday, counsel for the "alleged" claimant filed a, what we call, somehow premature response because we had not filed our substantive response in the criminal court. As I said, filed a very aggressive pleading attacking the Chapter 11 process and the DOJ. So, this is remarkable for various reasons.

22 23 24 25 First, the reply rehashes that Paul Hastings is a tool of the CCP argument and attaches, for the criminal court, a copy of Mr. Kwok's motion to disqualify the Trustee based on the fact that Paul Hastings had offices in China.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Second, it takes the position that there is no jurisdiction over the Himalaya Exchange because it is a company, a BVI company, therefore not a US company, and because Kwok is not an officer or director of that company. Obviously, we know that that is not the law. The reply pushes really hard on the concept that the Himalaya Exchange is entirely separate from Mr. Kwok. It doesn't mention at all that William Je, who is a co-defendant of Mr. Kwok, is the registered owner of the Himalaya Exchange. It also fails to mention that, Your Honor may recall, that in this case the defendant and the airplane adversary proceeding, also the defendant in the Lady May adversary proceeding the debtor's daughter, referred to Mr. Je as Uncle William. You recall that he is the one that used the Himalaya Exchange to provide \$37 million for the Lady May escrow. So, there is a direct connection to the debtor and to this case. Then the reply makes a number of fascinating legal pronouncements such as the Trustee has no greater right then a bank would have with respect to deposits left with a bank by customers, meaning that customers own deposits with a bank. It's been Hornbook law in this country for at least a hundred years, Your Honor, that banks own the deposits that

23 24 customers leave with them and that the customers are unsecured creditors of the bank.

Other allegations are that this is the victim's

| 1 | money, we will come back to that. The key allegations is | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 2 | that Himalaya Exchange is a foreign entity and, therefore, no | | 3 | one has jurisdiction over it. Again, its Hornbook law, as | | 4 | Your Honor knows, that this Court has jurisdiction over | | 5 | property of the estate wherever you are located in the world | | 6 | and by whomever. | | 7 | THE COURT: You are talking about a filing that | | 8 | was made by someone who says they represent the Himalayan | | 9 | investors? | | 10 | MR. DESPINS: Correct, 3,700 of these. | | 11 | THE COURT: In the… | | 12 | MR. DESPINS: In the criminal case. | | 13 | THE COURT: Okay. It was filed here today, you | | 14 | are saying. | | 15 | MR. DESPINS: Well, we filed a copy of that | | 16 | ourselves, basically, so that you would have it. I didn't | | 17 | expect you to have a chance to read it before the hearing, | | 18 | but, basically, their theory is that we represent these | | 19 | 37,000 people –- no, sorry, 3,700 claimants and we can't tell | | 20 | you who they are because they could be at risk for physical | | 21 | aggression if their identity is known, but trust us, criminal | | 22 | court, give us the money and we will make sure that the money | | 23 | is given to the right people. That is really the nature of | | 24 | this motion. | | 25 | So, they attacked the Chapter 11 Trustee for |

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 being –- for requesting to be heard by the criminal court on the basis that this is a foreign company and, therefore, the Trustee has no jurisdiction over it or this court has no jurisdiction over it. Obviously, we know that that is not the case. They also pushed really hard on the fact that because Mr. Kwok is not a director or an officer of the Himalaya Exchange that company is totally independent and, of course, we know from tons of findings that have been made by this Court that it's possible to have a company that, on the surface, doesn't look like it has anything to do with Mr. Kwok, but, in fact, is controlled and owned by him. So, I am not going to repeat all this because you know this in spades, but in addition to that it's not only the Court's finding but its (indiscernible), but also in 2023. Three District Courts in the Southern District of New York sanctioned a number of claimants or plaintiffs that sued the Trustee, PAX, O'Melveny. Didn't sanction them just because they alleged meritless claims, but because those three separate District Courts found that the plaintiffs in there were bringing this litigation for improper purposes, i.e. on behalf of Mr. Kwok. So, this whole allegation that somehow if you are foreign company, if Mr. Kwok is not a director or an officer, then you are independent and, therefore, we're off to the races is, as you know, Your

25 Honor, not credible.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Then, and again I want to be very clear about this, they say that the victims it's their money, why is the DOJ and the Trustee trying to preclude the victims from receiving their money. Of course, there are victims here. Of course they need to be compensated. As I said at the beginning, the issue is who is a victim, who is a real victim, who is not, and how much are they owed. As Your Honor knows, in this case tons of claimants have filed claims saying I was defrauded by the Himalaya Exchange scheme. So, how would we turn over, you

12 13 claimants and leave these other people alone or on their own, I don't know, but the point is it makes no sense.

know, \$200 million plus to Mr. Giar based on unnamed

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 So, there needs to be a determination by a Court about who is a claimant, who is not, and for how much. Obviously, the issue of property of the estate is key here and there is only one Court that has jurisdiction to determine that and it's this Court. I also want to point out, as Your Honor knows, we have seen many "victims" show up in this Court, swear under oath that they had no contacts or no alignment with Mr. Kwok, only to be confronted by my partners with videos of them giggling with Mr. Kwok, or selling G clothes, or WhatsApp chats where they were involved with Mr. Kwok.

So, that is why the Trustee has grave concern when

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 people show up and say we represent the real victims here because we were not aligned with Mr. Kwok. In light of our position that we need to be extremely careful before anyone reaches a final determination as to who is a victim and for how much its very relevant that in this particular case, and I mean by that Mr. Giar's movement which is called the Himalaya Exchange Restoration Program. That was started in August of this year on the internet by someone named Little Sara. Of course, that is not her real name, that is a "Kwok world name". Little Sara can be seen, Your Honor, on several postings either calling the debtor Uncle, dining with the debtor (indiscernible) apartment, being on the Lay May II that we just are in the process of selling, or protesting at the house of PAX's chairman. So, you might say, well, they are entitled to free expression and that's great, we respect that, except that that post said, "Call Mr. Giar". So, with all due respect, and we give the benefit of the doubt of anyone that comes to this Court saying they represent victims, but we have to say our antennas are up about this one because the first mention of Mr. Giar was by Little Sara in that posting in August where she said call this guy to get Your money back. Of course, you know, more

23 on that later.

24 25 Now in terms of process going forward Mr. Giar's request was twofold. One, to tell the criminal court the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 forfeiture was inappropriate or the forfeiture should be undone. So, that is one part. The second part is criminal court, please, direct the DOJ to give Mr. Giar the money. So, we are going to file something tomorrow, its due tomorrow, telling the criminal court that we are not taking a position on whether the forfeiture was appropriate or not, that is not for us to say. The Government has already filed an extensive letter explaining why this makes no sense, but we are not going to take a position on that.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 We are taking a position on the second part, which is, please, criminal court, once you have determined that the forfeiture should be undone order the transfer of these funds to Mr. Giar and on that, Your Honor, we are going to tell the District Court that this Court should be given an opportunity to rule on the issue of property of the estate and other relief before that second part of the relief is considered. We are not stipulating or conceding in any way that the first part will be granted, meaning that the Court will find that forfeiture was not appropriate, but only that if the Court reaches that conclusion then the Court should not order the return of funds to anyone until this Court has the ability to look at property of the estate, the impact of the automatic stay, etc., etc.

24 25 So, I wanted to alert the Court to this. I know that you have had some concerns in the past about issuing an

| 1 | injunction involving the defendant in a criminal case, but |----|----------------------------------------------------------- | 2 | these people are not defendants. We are talking about people | 3 | attempting to grab money that we believe is property of the | 4 | estate. It's possible that some of these people are true | 5 | victims of Mr. Kwok. We are not debating | 6 | only debating that there is an organized process to determine | 7 | that and that on the issue of whether this is property of the | 8 | estate or not only this Court should be able to determine | 9 | that. | 10 | So, that is the update on that, Your Honor. We | 11 | wanted you to have the benefit of that before we file our | 12 | response with the criminal court tomorrow. | 13 | THE COURT: There is nothing in front of this | 14 | Corut right now with regard to these issues. | 15 | MR. DESPINS: No. The only communication I had | 16 | with Mr. Giar, he sent me some text or emails saying I was | 17 | hoping not to have to deal with the Bankruptcy Court. It was | 18 | like, okay, good luck with that. So, there is nothing before | 19 | the Court today. There may very well be later some type of | 20 | motion to enforce the automatic stay or something along those | 21 | lines if the proceeding is going forward before the District | 22 | Court beyond the issue of whether the forfeiture was | 23 | appropriate or whether the forfeiture or freezing of these | 24 | sums should be undone. | 25 | THE COURT: The United States Government froze | | | | | | | --------|--|--|--|--|--|--| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | that today. We are | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| 1 | those funds as part of the criminal indictment? | | | | | | | | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--| | 2 | MR. DESPINS: Yes. So, they are arguing that they | | | | | | | | | 3 | have a right to forfeiture and they filed a pleading to that | | | | | | | | | 4 | effect. We are not debating that with them at this stage. | | | | | | | | | 5 | So, it may be that this goes nowhere from our point of view | | | | | | | | | 6 | in the sense that the Court will say, no, the forfeiture or | | | | | | | | | 7 | the temporary forfeiture, the pre-conviction forfeiture, is | | | | | | | | | 8 | appropriate and, therefore, it ends there in which case we | | | | | | | | | 9 | don't have to do anything at this point. But if it went to | | | | | | | | | 10 | the next level where the Court said actually I think that | | | | | | | | | 11 | these funds should be unfrozen then we will be back in front | | | | | | | | | 12 | of Your Honor for the next stage which is those funds should | | | | | | | | | 13 | certainly not go back to the BVI or to anyone until this | | | | | | | | | 14 | Court has had a chance to review the automatic stay and | | | | | | | | | 15 | property of the estate issues. | | | | | | | | | 16 | THE COURT: Okay. I understand. | | | | | | | | | 17 | All right. With regard to the issue that we just | | | | | | | | | 18 | discussed prior to what I reported or has been reported will | | | | | | | | | 19 | be a closed courtroom, I heard a lot of things today about | | | | | | | | | 20 | Whitecroft and this deposition, and now apparently a | | | | | | | | | 21 | temporary restraining order, a motion for a temporary | | | | | | | | | 22 | restraining order or an application. That is something you | | | | | | | | | 23 | want soon, I would have to assume. | | | | | | | | | 24 | MR. DESPINS: Yes; although, I heard, through Your | | | | | | | | | 25 | questioning, counsel for the defendant, I don't want to push | | | | | | | |

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that too hard, volunteering to agree to a consensual TRO meaning that none of these funds would be moved in any way. We would like to loop in the holder of the funds to something along those lines. So, we understand that Your docket is full, so if we don't have to go through the temporary restraining order we would also rather avoid that, Your Honor. So –- THE COURT: All I am asking you is what are the dates you are looking for if there isn't some agreement. I would assume, and I don't know this, that you are asking for something soon. So, I would have to go look at these documents and then it was filed, so you are not seeking an ex parte TRO. MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: The other side already knows that you are seeking it, right? MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: So, then it would have to be some kind of a deadline for a response; although, I would, again, assume that that you would like it to be as soon as possible. So, today is the 18th. MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor, but if we –- I think the next matter would be the privilege issue, but perhaps we would take a –- in any event, the courtroom has to be cleared for that. We could take a short recess. We could

72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 talk to counsel about stipulating to –- THE COURT: Let me just ask the courtroom staff because I don't remember –- are we closed this Friday? MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: So, we are closed this Friday and then when are we closed again? MR. DESPINS: Monday. THE COURT: Okay. Well, you know better than I. Obviously Monday makes sense, but then are we closed another day before the 1st of January and next Friday. So, we are closed the 23rd, the 25th and the 29th, is that right –- or the 22nd, sorry. The 22nd, the 25th, and the 29th. So, that is not a lot of time, obviously. MR. DESPINS: Based on what I heard and maybe I misheard that, but I think we may be able to resolve this consensually short term. So, maybe a five-minute break if that is acceptable to Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, whatever you want. All I am saying is if you want me to enter an order setting up a hearing on a temporary –- granting a temporary restraining order and then having a preliminary injunction hearing, you know, I need to understand timeframes. MR. DESPINS: Well, if they did not consent to this we would want this to be heard as soon as possible, Your Honor. I mean the issues are not complicated. We know where Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 72 of 83

1 2 3 4 5 the funds are. We know she has testified that these funds are hers. We don't buy that for a second, but at least they are not somebody else's funds. It's just the issue is freezing those funds until Your Honor has ruled on the adversary proceeding.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 So, if they are not going to stipulate to those funds that are frozen, we are not going to get the formal agreement from the foreign exchange entity that holds this then we would need to proceed as soon as possible and maybe as early as Wednesday. Your Honor, there is another emergency motion that you may not have seen that was filed. It's a motion to preserve evidence regarding a storage facility that is a few miles from the (indiscernible). We are asking that to be heard on shortened notice and on Wednesday of this week.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Just to set the stage, we have discovered that there is a storage facility that is not just a cubicle. They are paying \$7,000 a month for that facility. So, it must have a certain size. And we know that its related to the Mahwah mansion because the bodyguard, Barnett, was the lessee on the storage facility lease. He then transferred that to another entity which is a Kwok entity.

23 24 25 What we want is just to be able to go to the facility and no one else can access the facility in the meantime because we don't want stuff to be taken out of that

| 1 | facility. This does not disrupt anyone in the sense that | | | | | | | | |----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|--| | 2 | it's a facility where there are objects in there or maybe | | | | | | | | | 3 | not. To answer an order that says nobody will go to that | | | | | | | | | 4 | storage facility until the Trustee has had a chance to visit | | | | | | | | | 5 | it should be not disruptive to anyone. We are not asking | | | | | | | | | 6 | anything beyond that, but that was an emergency motion that | | | | | | | | | 7 | was filed in the Mahwah mansion adversary proceeding this | | | | | | | | | 8 | morning because we discovered the existence of this storage | | | | | | | | | 9 | facility. | | | | | | | | | 10 | As you remember, there are assets that disappeared | | | | | | | | | 11 | from the Mahwah mansion. So, they could be there, we don't | | | | | | | | | 12 | know that. Certainly, if they are paying \$7,000 a month for | | | | | | | | | 13 | storage there has to be something there, but we don't know. | | | | | | | | | 14 | So, that is another matter. And we filed a motion to | | | | | | | | | 15 | expedite the hearing on that so it would be heard on | | | | | | | | | 16 | Wednesday of this week. So, with my apologies we are | | | | | | | | | 17 | discovering all of this on the fly. | | | | | | | | | 18 | THE COURT: So, we are talking about the Taurus | | | | | | | | | 19 | Fund adversary proceeding? | | | | | | | | | 20 | MR. DESPINS: Yes. | | | | | | | | | 21 | THE COURT: Mr. Conway, I see you are in the | | | | | | | | | 22 | courtroom. | | | | | | | | | 23 | MR. CONWAY: I am, Your Honor. Michael Conaway, | | | | | | | | | 24 | Taurus Fund LLC. | | | | | | | | | 25 | THE COURT: Okay. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| Case 22-50073 | Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 75 of 83 | |---------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | 75 | | 1 | MR. CONWAY: I will just –- | | 2 | THE COURT: We can't hear you. It's not Your | | 3 | fault, but we can't hear you because everything has to be | | 4 | picked up by a microphone. | | 5 | MR. CONWAY: Michael Conway. I represent Taurus | | 6 | Fund LLC. I did speak with the Trustee about this. That is | | 7 | one of the reasons I am here because I got that while I was | | 8 | in the neighborhood. I got a copy of the unredacted motion. | | 9 | I was reading it while we were sitting here. I suspect that | | 10 | as long as it says I can go in and do an inventory as well in | | 11 | the order I think we would stipulate to what the Trustee is | | 12 | asking for. So, to the extent that the Trustee is concerned | | 13 | about timing, I think we can get that one off Your plate. | | 14 | THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Again, these were | | 15 | filed today so I haven't seen what it is, but it sounds like | | 16 | you might be able to agree to an order which should be fine. | | 17 | MR. CONWAY: It sounds like he just doesn't want | | 18 | anything to move, which is fine with me. I just want to be | | 19 | able to see what is there myself. | | 20 | THE COURT: Is –- well, I will let you both talk | | 21 | about it. I am not going to worry about the facts because I | | 22 | don't need to at the moment. | | 23 | MR. DESPINS: So, Your Honor, Mr. Linsey is | | 24 | correcting me. The –- what we are asking you on the TRO is | | 25 | to enter it without a hearing; meaning that fourteen days | | | |

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 thereafter there will be a hearing. Again, it's just to freeze funds, nothing more than that. Again, I would hope that we can –- THE COURT: This is what I am going to do, we are going to have more of a hearing this afternoon. We have other hearings scheduled tomorrow, but my understanding is there were things in this case that have been continued. So, I am not sure there is anything on the calendar in this case or any related adversary proceeding tomorrow afternoon. I am not sure about that. MR. DESPINS: No, you are correct. THE COURT: Then I need to know by tomorrow afternoon –- at least as far as this temporary restraining order is concerned, I don't know what Mr. Conway just said about the Taurus Fund adversary proceeding. It sounds like that could be resolved. MR. DESPINS: Absolutely. We have no problem with him coming with us. THE COURT: All right. So, let's put that aside. Then we have the temporary restraining order seeking to stop any kind of transfer, withdrawal, or disposition the funds in a bank account in London. MR. DESPINS: It's not a bank, it's a foreign exchange. THE COURT: Whatever it is, somebody holding \$10

77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 million, right? MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: And counsel –- Attorney Wernick said that she might agree to that. Now she hasn't had a chance, in fairness. I mean I was asking questions or whatever and she was responding. So, in fairness she has hasn't had a chance to talk about that, really, either. So, I think that what we should do then is use the time that was set aside for tomorrow for you to report to me where we stand on the –- because if there isn't agreement then I have to rule one way or another on the TRO. I guess that is what I will have to do. That is fine, but I need to understand what I am being asked to do. MR. DESPINS: Understood. THE COURT: So, Mr. Conway –- it sounds like you and Mr. Conway, Your issue might be more directly resolved and that can be something that I don't need to enter an order until and unless you tell me you don't have an agreement. MR. DESPINS: There is only one wrinkle to this which is the entity that is currently the lessee under that storage facility, I forget the name of that entity, but it's –- I am not sure if Mr. Conway represents them. They are a BVI entity. Again, it's a Kwok related entity. We don't know necessarily where they are or who represents them. So, in theory they are the ones who have the right Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 77 of 83

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to say no or yes. Mr. Conway is involved because it's in his case, but he is not the lessee under that facility. So, we appreciate his consent and we are happy to have him come with us to visit, but the other entity somehow would need to acquiesce and I am not sure Mr. Conway represents them. MR. CONWAY: I have never heard of them until I saw it in Your filing. THE COURT: Okay. I will let you figure that out. MR. DESPINS: Well, the question is –- THE COURT: Well, you will have to tell me tomorrow. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: I am not going to have time to look at anything anyway tonight, right, and then we have –- well, I mean I could have time, but I don't because we have other hearings tomorrow that I have to look at. Then I think we need to use the time that was originally scheduled for whatever hearings were on in the main case and adversaries tomorrow which I think were one p.m. I could do it remotely. I don't have to bring people back into the courtroom. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: I want to know where things stand on what appears to be two matters that were filed today that have associated with them the assertion that they are emergencies. So, I need to figure that out because you are

79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not going to have people here over the next week. MR. DESPINS: Understood. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: So, therefore, the only thing that remains for today is the privilege discussion where we would clear the courtroom. THE COURT: Before you do that the storage facility issue have you talked to the storage facility? MR. DESPINS: They have been served with the papers, but I don't think –- THE COURT: Okay. So, they –- MR. DESPINS: So, they have been served with a subpoena. They know about this. THE COURT: -- have been served with this. They have some idea? MR. DESPINS: Yes. THE COURT: I don't think that –- THE COURT: No, I am not suggesting they are the problem. I just want to know whether not –- MR. DESPINS: Yes, they have. THE COURT: All right. So, Mr. Conway, Attorney Wernick, and I don't know if Attorney Moriarty is going to be available or how you are going to handle it as far as who is going to appear tomorrow, but I need to know on the issues that we discussed when I was talking with you about the Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 79 of 83

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 discovery issues where you stand on whether there is consent to some kind of order, at least temporarily, with regard to the funds in the accounts and Mr. Conway. I understand what the Trustee just said, but even if you consent its better than no one consenting. So, I would like to know if that is possible as well. Okay. So, we will do it at one o'clock tomorrow. We will –- I guess you will have to contact the calendar connect, is that how

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 they should do it to get the Zoom information for the 1:00 p.m. because we don't even have it set up yet, obviously. So, you can do that. I'm sure the courtroom deputy will be able to get something together between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning when we have other hearings in person here. Then you will get that information. You can all appear via Zoom and we can see where things stand.

17 18 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, could we have that at two o'clock by any chance?

19 20 THE COURT: Sure. We can have it at two o'clock. MR. DESPINS: Thank you.

21 22 MR. CONWAY: Your Honor, if the Trustee and I come to an agreement –-

23 24 25 THE COURT: No, you don't have to appear. If you have an agreement then you do what you need to do other then be involved. That is true with you too, Attorney Wernick. If

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all it is, is the Trustee reporting agreements then no one else has to appear. I have no problem with that, but I just need to know what, if anything, I need to do between Tuesday afternoon and Thursday when the staff is leaving for the holidays. That is what I need to know. MR. LINSEY: I thought of something, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. MR. LINSEY: I will be filing what looks like an unremarkable consent motion to add an addendum to the protective order based on an agreement reached between the Trustee and the FDIC. While it will not look important, it is very important in order for the Trustee to get Rule 2004 discovery that directly bears on that February 15th deadline which is the only reason I am standing up to mention it now. THE COURT: So, you are going to be filing something is what you are saying that we need to take a look out for. MR. LINSEY: Likely tomorrow, if not Wednesday. THE COURT: I just realized Wednesday, you know, I am not going to make people stay on Thursday after the regular close of business. I mean I may be here, but they are not going to be here. MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. That is why I wanted to mention it. It will look very garden variety. It's just further privacy protections that the FDIC wanted to

comply with some of the banking regulations that they are subject to. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. LINSEY: Thank you. THE COURT: So, everyone, do what you can do, obviously, and if you need the information for a Zoom call at 2 o'clock tomorrow then you will contact the calendar connect information to get that Zoom information. MS. WERNICK: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much. Now you all tell me who has to leave. MR. DESPINS: Mr. Moriarty is going to stay with Mr. Linsey and myself. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. (Recess taken at 4:48 p.m.) Case 22-50073 Doc 2481 Filed 01/02/24 Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 Page 82 of 83

| Case 22-50073 | | Doc 2481 | Filed 01/02/24 | Entered 01/02/24 07:51:50 | | Page 83 of 83 | | | | | |---------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------|--|-------------------|--|--|--|--| | | | | | | | 83 | | | | | | 1 | CERTIFICATION | | | | | | | | | | | 2 | We certify that the foregoing is a correct | | | | | | | | | | | 3 | transcript from the electronic sound recording of the | | | | | | | | | | | 4 | proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of our | | | | | | | | | | | 5 | | | knowledge and ability. | | | | | | | | | 6 | | | | | | | | | | | | 7 | | | /s/ William J. Garling | | | December 26, 2023 | | | | | | 8 | William J. Garling, CET-543 | | | | | | | | | | | 9 | Certified Court Transcriptionist | | | | | | | | | | | 10 | | For Reliable | | | | | | | | | | 11 | | | | | | | | | | | | 12 | | /s/ Mary Zajaczkowski | | | | December 26, 2023 | | | | | | 13 | | | Mary Zajaczkowski, CET-531 | | | | | | | | | 14 | | | Certified Court Transcriptionist | | | | | | | | | 15 | | For Reliable | | | | | | | | | | 16 | | | | | | | | | | | | 17 | | | | | | | | | | | | 18 | | | | | | | | | | | | 19 | | | | | | | | | | | | 20 | | | | | | | | | | | | 21 | | | | | | | | | | | | 22 | | | | | | | | | | | | 23 | | | | | | | | | | | | 24 | | | | | | | | | | | | 25 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |