郭文贵破产案 · ORDER · ECF #479

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \* HO WAN KWOK, \* Bridgeport, Connecticut \* June 9, 2022 Debtor. \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* TRANSCRIPT OF SCHEDULING ORDER TO DISCUSS OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: JEFFREY L. JONAS, ESQ. Brown Rudnick, LLP Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund L.P.: LAURA ARONSSON, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Robinson & Cole 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992**

| | APPEARANCES Cont'd: | | | |--------------|---------------------------|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | For the Creditors Committee: | IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ.<br>Pullman & Comley<br>850 Main Street<br>Bridgeport, CT<br>06601 | | | For the Creditor, Rui Ma: | | CAROLLYNN CALLARI, ESQ.<br>Callari Partners LLC<br>1 Rockafeller Plz Floor 10<br>New York, NY<br>10020-2073 | | | | | KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ.<br>McElroy Deutsch<br>225 Liberty Street<br>36th Floor<br>New York, NY<br>10281 | | | For the U.S. Trustee: | | HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ.<br>Office of the United States<br>Trustee<br>The Giaimo Federal Building<br>150 Court Street, Room 302<br>New Haven, CT<br>06510 | | Logan Cheng: | For the Creditor, | | JAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ.<br>Randazza Legal Group, PLLC<br>100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor<br>Hartford, CT<br>06103 | | | International: | For the Creditor, Hong Kong | AARON ROMNEY, ESQ.<br>Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C.<br>10 Middle Street, 15th Floor<br>Bridgeport, CT<br>06604 | | | | | |

(Proceedings commenced at 2:04 p.m.) THE CLERK: Case Number 2022-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, please, starting with the debtor's counsel? MR. JONAS: This is Jeff Jonas, from Brown Rudnick, for the debtor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And counsel for PAX? MR. FRIEDMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. It's Peter Friedman from O'Melveny & Myers. I believe Ms. Smith is here from the Robinson & Cole firm and Ms. Aronsson and Mr. Sarnoff are also here from O'Melveny & Myers. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Thank you. MR. FRIEDMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Counsel for the creditors committee? MR. GOLDMAN: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman and Comley, representing the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. The Office of the United States Trustee, please? MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And counsel for the creditor, Rui Ma, and I may not say everyone's name, but I can see both of the attorneys present. If you would just

note your appearance for the record? MS. CALLARI: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Go ahead, Kris. MS. MAYHEW: Go ahead. MS. CALLARI: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Carollynn Callari, with Callari Partners, here with my colleague, Kristen Mayhew. Thank you. THE COURT: Good afternoon. And the creditors, Attorney Wolman, I apologize, I don't have your client's name in front of me at the moment, but if you would note your appearance for the record and your client's name, please? MR. WOLMAN: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is Jay Wolman, of Randazza Legal Group, for creditor Logan Cheng. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Is there any appearance that I have not -- that has not been noted for the record? MR. ROMNEY: Yes, Your Honor. Aaron Romney, Zeisler and Zeisler, on behalf of Hong Kong International. THE COURT: Thank you. I didn't see you there for a second, Mr. Romney, but I see you now, so thank you very much. MR. ROMNEY: You're welcome, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Again, I appreciate everyone

Case 22-50073 Doc 479 Filed 06/21/22 Entered 06/21/22 11:05:19 Page 4 of 28

making themselves available for this status conference this afternoon.

As you all know, the court's in the process of working on the decision on the motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, the joinder on the Chapter 11 Trustee motion that we had an evidentiary hearing on on May 25th.

Two of the parties in the case, the debtor and PAX, ordered official transcripts of that hearing, That evidentiary hearing on May 25th and the court is able to look at that transcript, not everyone else, to assist in the production of any decision that the court is making.

And obviously the decision that is in process is on the motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for the appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee.

So we had the hearing and I started to review the transcript and I noticed that there were several things in the -- I don't want to say mistakes, because it's the way that the court reporter heard the audio, then it's not necessarily a mistake, but there are things that, in my opinion, need to be corrected in this transcript. I mean, this is the official transcript.

We have talked about it and I have to ensure -- and we've talked about it since the beginning of this case actually, that since the bankruptcy court's record is audio only, that when something is transcribed and there is an

#### Case 22-50073 Doc 479 Filed 06/21/22 Entered 06/21/22 11:05:19 Page 6 of 28

official transcript, as there is now in this case, we need to make sure it's accurate because if it's not accurate then it doesn't really help us all if it's not accurate. So I talked to the clerk of the court about this issue because I was somewhat concerned that there doesn't seem to be a process for either the court or any other party, other than a party that -- well, I don't even know if the parties that ordered the transcript know -- would do this, but to make sure that if there was a mistake or something that needed to be corrected in the record, that there was a process by which those corrections could be brought to the attention of the reporter and then a new official transcript could be produced. And I'll explain to you all what my concerns are, starting with the very first page, on page 3 of the transcript, the official transcript it says, proceedings commenced at 10:05 p.m. Well, I don't think any of us were here at 10:05 p.m. on May 25th, so that's a problem right there. And you know, as is true in every single decision that the bankruptcy court enters, every -- and the record of any proceedings regarding a decision or an order that the bankruptcy court enters they're subject to appeal. And I would certainly hate for this to be appealed

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

and have the court, whoever is looking at it say, they

started the proceedings at 10:05 p.m.? I mean, it just doesn't make sense. It's not accurate. This is not an accurate reflection of what occurred on May 25th. So that's -- number one, I thought that was interesting on the very fist page.

Then there are a number places in the transcript in which the reporter writes the word indiscernible. Well, I'm not sure it's indiscernible completely. I mean, it might be, but if all of us listened to it, we might understand what the word is that the reporter couldn't understand. I think that's a relevant concern.

Then there are several places in the transcript where parties speak about the status quo, and the reporter spells the word quo as a capital -- I'll tell you in a second. I'll give you an example. Capital K-U-O, and it happens about 15 times throughout the course of this transcript. That concerned me.

I didn't think -- I mean, I am not going to make a presumption that some appellate court looking at this on appeal is going to understand that that should be status quo, Q-U-O. I don't think that's fair.

Then there's a couple of times where PAX's counsel says the words, there's a through line, and the reporter spells it T-H-R-U. I don't know if that's what -- I think it was you, Attorney Friedman, were talking at that time, is

-- that's what you said, but I don't even know what T-H-R-U means. I don't think it's a word. If it's a word, it's a new word to me. There is another point in the transcript where there's a discussion about a quality of distribution in bankruptcy cases, and the reporter transcribes it as, a quality in distribution. Again, not accurate. The reporter seems to have gotten a lot of the case names that the parties cited in their arguments correct, but not every one and not every spelling of the case name. And again, if we are -- and I will be insisting that the transcript be accurate. I want to make sure that all those references are accurate so that when whomever it is that's looking at this, if there is an appeal, can understand what actually happened with accuracy in this court. There's one -- there is one situation where the reporter -- someone spoke about Jevic, and they spell -- and it was spelled G-E-V-I-C, as opposed to J-E-V-I-C. Again, that's a -- could be material to a court on appeal looking for that case. You know, I can't presume to know what an appellate court would do with this. There is another situation where the transcript refers to the statute that people were talking about,

including the court, 157(b)(2)(B), and it's cited as 156(b)(2)(B), and then it's also sited as 128 instead of 28. I think that's an issue that needs to be fixed. In one place, there's just a specific typo. It says in front, F-O, instead of in front of. There is a -- there -- you know, you all may think -- and I'm not saying you do, but you may think that, oh, well, somebody could figure that out, but I'm not make -- I'm not in the job of presuming that someone can figure that out. I'm in the job of making sure the record is accurate. So I asked the clerk of the court about it and while there's a notice that goes out to all the parties who appear at a hearing, and I think it goes out to more than that quite frankly, but it at least goes out to the parties that appear at a hearing, of -- a notice of filing of transcripts and deadlines to restrictions and redaction, that notice is supposed to only -- although I don't think it says it clearly enough, but it's supposed to only apply to personally identifiable information and other information that someone could claim should not be part of the public record. I've already talked about -- to the clerk's office, about revising that notice in the procedure because I don't think it's clear at all what that means and I don't

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

know if any of you even read that. Maybe you did, but I

read it and I didn't really understand what it meant. And it's part -- it's included with the transcript, but apparently is still served on everybody even though the transcript is not.

The issue of the transcript is that it's locked for 90 days by policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and there appear to be several reasons why the Judicial Conference of the United States made a determination some time ago that transcripts should be locked for a period of 90 days unless ordered -- you know, unless someone places an order for that transcript, like the debtor did and PAX did, because it's protective of the transcriber and the transcriber's business, because as I said to you all a million times in this case, we don't have -- Congress has not authorized or approved or appropriated funds to the bankruptcy court to have a transcriber keep the record in this case.

So I have been told by the clerk of the court that the only way people on this call who have not reviewed the -- who have not ordered the transcript, made an official order for an official transcript, can review the transcript within 90 days of the transcript being created, which was May 31st, is my understanding, is to go to a clerk's office of the bankruptcy court in Hartford, New Haven or Bridgeport and read it there. The only other thing you can do is order

the transcript. So that -- I don't know what the answer to that is. I'm just explaining to you what the status is. There also doesn't appear to be any process for the court when the court finds a problem in a transcript, to correct that, other than possibly Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024, which incorporates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which says if a court finds a mistake, it can correct it. But I'm not going to correct that mistake without all you knowing that I think there's a mistake, right? Otherwise, that doesn't make a lot of sense because you may disagree that there's a mistake and you should have an opportunity to review the transcript to see if you think there's a mistake. And we don't seem to have any process in place for that. And I don't know that any court does, quite

frankly. I really don't know. If you all know of any process in place, let me know, because we don't have one apparently.

So I'm going to make -- I'm going to tell you that there is several problems I see with this transcript, and our clerk's office has tried to put together what would be -- and has put together, and it's not an official local form yet, but it would be an errata sheet regarding a -- an official transcript that could be used by any party to indicate if they believe that there's a problem with the

official transcript.

Now if there's an appeal filed, the appellate rule -- the 8000 rule has attempted to address this issue, but they don't really address it fully because they -- it says in 8000 -- now I've got to open it up. Sorry. I don't remember if it's 8 or 9. I think it's 9. 8009. Yes. Correcting or modifying the record, 8009(e), and it talks about if there's a difference that arises about whether the record accurately discloses what occurred in the bankruptcy court, the difference must be submitted to and settled by the bankruptcy court. That, of course, presumes people read everything and that they bring it to the bankruptcy court. And it doesn't say what the bankruptcy court can do if they find a problem with the record. But that's if there's an appeal. There isn't an appeal, at least not yet, because there isn't anything to appeal because I haven't ruled yet. So I think the only basis upon which I can do this at this point is under corrections based on a clerical mistake under Rule 60. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission when everyone has found in a judgment order or other part of the record. The court may do so on its own -- on motion or on its own with or without notice. But after an appeal has

Case 22-50073 Doc 479 Filed 06/21/22 Entered 06/21/22 11:05:19 Page 13 of 28

been docketed, and while the appeal is pending, such a mistake may only be corrected with the appellate court's leave. Okay? So I don't know what everybody thinks about this but I -- there are things in this transcript that I want to have corrected and I'm going to share all that with you. I already shared some of it with you. I didn't share the exact page and line number where they exist. And there is another -- there's another place in the transcript where I was talking about that 157(b)(2)(B), and I said it's not a core proceeding, C-O-R-E, and it was transcribed as a court proceeding. I think that's a major difference, actually, especially when an appellate court looks at that. They would have no idea that that should say core as opposed to court. And there's a couple of other -- there's a -- there's a point when somebody said made, said the words made first, and it was transcribed as May, like the month, first, with a number 1 with an S-T. So I don't know how you all want to proceed, but I'm going to -- and I'm happy to hear what your thoughts are, but I think we all need to review this transcript and come up with a process by which we submit to everybody what we think our changes are and then go from there. I'm going to make those changes, whether -- and

### Case 22-50073 Doc 479 Filed 06/21/22 Entered 06/21/22 11:05:19 Page 14 of 28

you all can disagree, obviously, but I'm going to do that, because the record is inaccurate from my perspective. So I'm going to pick on you, Attorney Jonas, first, since you represent the debtor, and see if you have any thoughts about what I've just said. MR. JONAS: Thank you, Your Honor, and thank you, obviously, for being so conscientious about all of these things. Frankly, more conscientious than me, because I did read it and I noted some of the things you've mentioned, but didn't really -- didn't really think about, you know, the next step. I'll just speak frankly, you know, from the debtor's perspective. We've been looking forward to like -- I think tomorrow is the -- I think is the 15th day, and so we've been obviously looking forward to a decision. Our hope obviously being that the case would be dismissed and things could move on. So I'm just concerned about, again selfishly, how any of what you've suggested, which I can't disagree with, you're 100 percent correct, and as I said, we noted many of the same things but I just kind of -- I guess glossed over them. 23 And so I'm just wondering if I should be concerned that what you're suggesting might impact the timing on a decision. That's frankly my question so --

THE COURT: Well, that's a fair question. That's a fair question. And I can tell you, if it impacts it, it will impact it minimally. The -- MR. JONAS: Okay. THE COURT: I am working actively on the decision. Okay? MR. JONAS: Okay. THE COURT: It's not -- I'm not suggesting we set up some process that's going to stop the decision from being issued. Whether the decision is going to be issued tomorrow or not, that might be a little bit -- it might not happen, just depend -- we were in court all day this morning until this hearing, and that's why I didn't have this hearing until 2:00, so I've lost a little of time that I was hoping I had, so I don't -- I cannot say that the -- here's the interesting thing about the 15 days. I agree with you, Attorney Jonas, it's tomorrow, number one. Number two, apparently there's no real consequence if the Court doesn't issue that by tomorrow, but I still am trying to do that. I don't want to delay this either. Attorney Claiborn was correct in her statement -- or she made many statements, but she made a statement that there needs to be a swift decision in this case. So I have -- I'm not raising this to stop the clock from running or anything like that. I don't know that

I will decide by tomorrow though, but I am very confident that it will be a few days after that if it's not by tomorrow. So this is not being raised to derail any timing. Okay? It's being raised because I want the record to be accurate and I -- and when we had our hearing, our evidentiary hearing on the 25th, you know, we talked -- everybody talked in general about -- not everybody. I mean, it was mentioned in general about an appeal. Well, you know, this has made me think about every case I deal with, right? It's not just this case. It's every case, how accurate the record really is in a bankruptcy case and if anybody is really looking at it for that purpose. Okay? So to -- it's a fair question. Am I trying to rule by tomorrow? Yes, I certainly am. I have been working on this decision. Will I rule by tomorrow? I don't know. But if I don't rule by tomorrow, it's not going to be very much longer. It will be a few -- a day or two, you know, longer. Make sure I don't make typographical errors. Make sure my case cites are accurate. Make sure I don't put May 1st for made first. So -- MR. JONAS: And the only -- THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. JONAS: Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Your

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

## Case 22-50073 Doc 479 Filed 06/21/22 Entered 06/21/22 11:05:19 Page 16 of 28

Honor. I mean, just from a -- just to explain myself a little more from a very, very practical standpoint. There is a continued 341 meeting from Monday. THE COURT: Oh. I didn't know that. Okay. MR. JONAS: And -- yeah. And that's why I wanted to advise you of that. Obviously, if the UST was willing to continue that for -- that that -- that would alleviate at least this particular concern. To be honest, you know, we didn't want to -- both from a Brown Rudnick standpoint and -- we didn't want to expend resources unnecessarily, so we -- but there would -- we would need to get the debtor ready, obviously, and be at the 341, et cetera. So, you know, there's a fair amount of time and effort that -- that was my main concern with -- you said there may be no consequence and you may very well be right. And frankly, I -- other than just wanting to move on, my main concern was in fact the 341 meeting, just so you know - - THE COURT: Well -- MR. JONAS: -- where I'm coming from. THE COURT: -- I'm glad you raised it, because as you know, the Court isn't involved in the 341 meeting scheduling or conducting the meeting or anything, so no, I didn't know that, and if it's on the docket, then I missed

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

it. So that's -- whatever. Attorney Claiborn, is the U.S. Trustee's office willing to continue the 341 meeting pending the ruling on this decision? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I believe so, but I would need to confirm and get actual authority to make that statement. THE COURT: Okay. All right. I would appreciate it if you would do that. I think it's a fair point that Attorney Jonas raises, and I don't think that if the decision isn't rendered tomorrow, which it might not be, that the debtor should have to go forward with a 341 meeting at this point. I mean, waiting another week shouldn't matter, at least from the Court's perspective. Maybe everybody else disagrees with that but -- and so tell me if you do, but as I said to you, if this order -- if this decision doesn't issue tomorrow, it's going to issue early next week. It's not -- we're not -- I'm not raising this issue about the record to stop that issue -- that decision from being issued. So, Attorney Claiborn -- MR. JONAS: Your Honor, just to -- THE COURT: -- how much time do you think you -- MR. JONAS: I'm sorry.

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

THE COURT: -- would need to find out and get back to Attorney Jonas as to whether or not the 341 meeting could be continued, at least for a week? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, I'm trying to communicate as we are in the midst of this hearing to see if I can get an answer. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. So what does everybody else think about this issue that I've raised on this record? Attorney Friedman? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, Your Honor. PAX is amendable to a -- to the 341 being postponed for a week in order to permit the Court to reach its determination. I guess our view, Your Honor, is that obviously it's important to have a good transcript and a clean transcript in light of the court's -- the issues the court's raised. I will say I've not been before a judge who is just as diligent on this as you are, and so I've never seen anybody do it and so I'm not familiar with the mechanism, but it certainly is important. I don't know, Your Honor. We did order the transcripts. I don't know if it's verboten for us to give it to other creditors or parties in interest so that they may see a copy of it so they don't have to schlep to Hartford. I certainly would be willing to.

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

| | 20 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | THE COURT:<br>And I appreciate that. | | 2 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>And -- | | 3 | THE COURT:<br>I don't know.<br>It might be, | | 4 | unfortunately.<br>That's the problem with this Judicial | | 5 | Conference policy is that -- I'll let you all decide what | | 6 | you want to do, but I'll tell you that the point is -- | | 7 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>Okay. | | 8 | THE COURT:<br>-- on the docket, it says that the | | 9 | transcript is locked for 90 days unless you purchase an | | 10 | official transcript, or as I've been informed by the clerk | | 11 | of the court, go to a clerk's office and actually review it. | | 12 | And I understand, Attorney Friedman, why you're | | 13 | saying what you're saying, because I would have probably | | 14 | said the same thing in a case with other lawyers when I was | | 15 | practicing, right?<br>But it's an -- | | 16 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>I mean, Your Honor, we -- | | 17 | THE COURT:<br>-- odd, odd situation. | | 18 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>We also might need to file it, | | 19 | honestly, as an exhibit, which obviously other counsel would | | 20 | be entitled to see if we're going to put an errata on.<br>So I | | 21 | think there may be some ways to skin the cat -- | | 22 | THE COURT:<br>Right. | | 23 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>-- which -- with your blessing. | | 24 | THE COURT:<br>Right. | | 25 | MR. FRIEDMAN:<br>But -- | | | |

THE COURT: I don't think I can give my blessing. I think I can -- you can all figure out what you think -- MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. THE COURT: -- is appropriate. MR. FRIEDMAN: We understand, Your Honor, and we will confer. I think we share Mr. Jonas's just general concern about time. I guess what I would say is, the court can issue its decision, and obviously there's a time in which people can appeal, and maybe that time can be used for people to file any errata or to review the -- MR. GOLDMAN: You froze. THE COURT: Yeah, Attorney Friedman, you -- we lost you after you said there's -- we can use the time during the appeal to deal with the errata and then you froze. MR. FRIEDMAN: I guess it -- so can you hear me now? Am I unfrozen? THE COURT: Yes. Yes. MR. FRIEDMAN: Okay. So I would submit that the court, if it's -- with whatever opinion it renders, issues an errata, and the other parties can then use the intervening time in which they have to file an appeal to meet and confer about any additional errata that the parties may propose are necessary to see if we can come to a

consensual understanding as to anything. And obviously see if we can have an agreed to transcript. And if not, I guess submit to the Court any -- any areas where there are differentiations, and we're happy to undertake to put together, you know, a document which includes where the parties agree and where they may disagree, if anywhere, about what the errata ought to reflect. THE COURT: Anyone else wish to be heard on the issue? I'd like ideas, honestly. I mean, it is a very interesting situation, I think. That should be between -- MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, Irve Goldman. THE COURT: -- all cases by the way. MR. GOLDMAN: I apologize for interrupting, Your Honor. Irve Goldman for the committee. We have no objection to marking over the 341 meeting that's scheduled for Monday. In terms of a process, I was thinking maybe that if Your Honor had already done an errata sheet for the court, which I would expect would be thorough and comprehensive, but perhaps it could be circulated among the parties and that, you know, if anyone had any objection or any additions to it, they would be given a certain amount of time to do that, absent which that would become the, you know, official errata sheet so to speak.

THE COURT: Well, I plan -- the way I'm going to circulate it is I'm going to put it on the docket. You know, I'm going to -- I'm going to file it on the docket and say this is what the court believes are the corrections or changes that must be made to the transcript, and then I agree, Attorney Goldman, that there would also be associated with that a time frame for people to object or submit their own errata sheets. But you know, whether or not you want to do your own review is up to you. So I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to be able -- in a position to complete and file the errata sheet until after the decision is entered, or I'm going to spend time on an errata sheet, which I don't want to do, right? I've got to get the decision entered first. But that's why I wanted to have this conference today, to tell you all in the preparation of this decision, I found a lot of issues with the -- with the transcript. Attorney Claiborn has her hand up, that I can see, so she may have something to report to us. MS. CLAIBORN: Yes, Your Honor. I can report that the U.S. Trustee is willing to continue the 341 meeting. I don't have a date to offer the court or the parties today, but I will be in communication with the parties. THE COURT: Okay. Good. Thank you very much and thank you for your quick attention to that issue.

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

MS. CLAIBORN: You're welcome. THE COURT: All right. So, Attorney Jonas, you don't have to prepare your client for a continued 341 meeting on Monday. MR. JONAS: Thank you, Your Honor, and thank you to the United States Trustee's office. THE COURT: All right. Does any -- I'm going to -- unless you all have some other ideas, concerns, thoughts, I'm not going to prepare this errata sheet until after I issue the decision, but then I am going to finalize this errata sheet, put it on the docket, have some kind of time frame -- and the errata sheet's got to go to the reporter by the way. So it doesn't make sense to get it to the reporter until everybody has a chance to review it and see if they have any opposition or additional changes that should be made, because you can't make the reporter do it three times, right? We're either -- this is going to be the whole change

or not. So does anyone else have any thoughts or concerns or desires to file something on their own?

MR. SARNOFF: Your Honor, this is Stewart Sarnoff also of -- also on behalf of PAX, and I would just say, maybe I am an optimist, but I think although our parties might have divergent views as to how they would like to see Your Honor's decision come out, my guess is that we will all

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

be able to agree that status quo is not spelled Q [sic] U-O, that a meeting that took place in the morning did not take place in the evening, and that by and large we're not going to be advocating the modification of the errata sheet, but just sort of confirming like, of course that's the right spelling and it shouldn't be -- you know, it shouldn't be court, it should be core.

And my guess is that we'll all be able to come up harmoniously with an errata sheet that will accurately reflect what occurred on that date, and this will be less of a problem hopefully than perhaps we're envisioning it to be.

THE COURT: I don't see it as a problem. I see it as accuracy, and I don't -- and I understand that you all might agree and that's great.

But you're not going to be deciding the appeal and -- or -- and none of the people here on this call are going to be part of the deliberations on the appeal when the, whatever court it is, has to review the transcript of that evidentiary hearing.

So my point is I'd think there are some -- I understand your point about status quo, but that's not the only problem with the transcript. And that -- and that shouldn't exist regardless. That's what you pay a transcriber for, right?

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

### Case 22-50073 Doc 479 Filed 06/21/22 Entered 06/21/22 11:05:19 Page 26 of 28

And if it was a deposition, you would have gone through it with your -- with the witness and you would have filled out an errata sheet. So it's really not -- I think the accuracy of the record is paramount and I don't want a court reviewing this -- a record of our court making a decision based upon an inaccurate record, because as you all know, the intricacies of what we deal with with the bankruptcy code and rules, you know, have to come across clear and accurate or there might be an incorrect ruling. So is there any -- anyone else wish to be heard? And if not, I'll leave you all alone, but I just wanted you to understand where I was coming from. MS. CALLARI: Your Honor, this is Attorney Callari. Just wanted to clarify my understanding, because I do agree that what counsel have said. I think what I heard is Your Honor will file the errata sheet after the decision, whenever that is and then we can comment. I agree with everybody that I think the counsel can work together to respond one time or not at all, but we all agree. But I also want to note, I am not aware of any limitation on counsel who ordered the transcript from sharing it in that as Mr. Friedman says, if for some reason he had to file the transcript in connection with something, there's nothing prohibiting him from doing that.

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

So we will work with them (indiscernible) information than you want. I'm just saying that I don't think this will be an issue, so I'm just echoing everybody and we'll look for your errata sheet. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? (No audible response) THE COURT: Okay. Well, then you will get the decision on the pending motion, which we had the evidentiary hearing, as soon as possible. Possibly tomorrow. And if not, it will be early next week. And then after that, I'll deal with the errata sheet. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay? MR. JONAS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you -- MS. CALLARI: Thank you, Your Honor. MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you. THE COURT: -- all for making yourselves available on short notice. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. THE COURT: Thanks to the United States Trustee's office for continuing the 341 meeting during this process. Okay? MR. JONAS: Thank you.

| | 28 | |----|-------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>That concludes the hearing | | 2 | today.<br>Court is adjourned. | | 3 | THE CLERK:<br>Court is adjourned. | | 4 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>Thank you. | | 5 | (Proceedings concluded at 2:42 p.m.) | | 6 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and | | 7 | certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that | | 8 | the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official | | 9 | electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above | | 10 | entitled matter. | | 11 | | | 12 | | | 13 | June 17, 2022 | | 14 | Christine Fiore, CERT | | 15 | Transcriber | | 16 | | | 17 | | | 18 | | | 19 | | | 20 | | | 21 | | | 22 | | | 23 | | | 24 | | | 25 | | | | |