郭文贵破产案 · ORDER · ECF #766

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 1 of 43

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \* HO WAN KWOK, \* Bridgeport, Connecticut \* August 12, 2022 Debtor. \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR 2004 EXAMINATION OF THE DEBTOR; MOTION FOR 2004 EXAMINATION OF OMNIBUS RE: DEBTOR'S PROFESSIONALS; MOTION FOR 2004 EXAMINATION OF OMNIBUS RE: RELATED PERSONS; ORDER SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor, STEPHEN M. KINDSETH. ESQ. HK International and AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. Mei Guo: ERIC HENZY, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Pacific PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity STUART M. SARNOFF, ESQ. Fund L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 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: JONATHAN KAPLAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the Creditors, Rui Ma, KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Weican Meng and Zheng Wu: McElroy Deutsch 225 Liberty Street 36th Floor New York, NY 10281 For the U.S. Trustee: KIM McCABE, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Counsel for the NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ. Chapter 11 Trustee: Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, P.C. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 For Creditor Logan Cheng: JAY M. WOLMAN, ESQ. Randazza Legal Group, PLLC 100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 For the Creditors, Rui Ma, KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Weican Meng and Zheng Wu: McElroy Deutsch 225 Liberty Street 36th Floor New York, NY 10281 For Verdolino and Lowey: TRISTAN AXELROD, ESQ. Brown Rudnick Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036

2

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 3 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 10:00 a.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good morning. 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 morning. And then if we could have the appearances for the Office of the United States Trustee. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, for the trustee, this is Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, counsel for the Chapter 11 trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. LINSEY: Good morning, Your Honor. For the trustee, local counsel Patrick Linsey. THE COURT: Good morning. And then if we could have -- go ahead. Whoever wants to jump in next. Go right ahead. MS. McCABE: Kim McCabe on behalf of the United States Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MS. McCABE: Good morning. MR. FRIEDMAN: It's Peter Friedman on behalf of

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 4 PAX. I see Mr. Sarnoff and I see Annecca Smith from the Robinson Cole firm. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. AXELROD: Your Honor, Tristan Axelrod for Brown Rudnick, LLP, and Verdolino and Lowey, PC. I filed a pro hac vice motion yesterday that has yet to be granted and I'd ask to be heard to the extent appropriate today, notwithstanding the pending motion. THE COURT: You are welcome to be heard and I believe the order -- the motion is going to be granted. It's probably just that there hasn't been ample time to enter the order yet since it was filed yesterday afternoon. MR. AXELROD: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. KINDSETH: Good morning, Your Honor. Stephen Kindseth, Zeisler and Zeisler, for the debtor Ho Wan Kwok, as well as HK International Funds Investments USA Limited and Mei Guo. MR. ROMNEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Aaron Romney, Zeisler and Zeisler, also for the debtor, HK International and May Guo. MR. HENZY: And Eric Henzy, Your Honor, Zeisler and Zeisler, for the same parties. MS. MAYHEW: Good morning, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew on behalf of creditors Rui Ma, Zheng Wu and Weican Meng and also with me is Carolynn Callari. Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 4 of 43

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 5 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 5 THE COURT: Good morning. MR. KAPLAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Jonathan Kaplan, of Pullman and Comley, on behalf of the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. WOLMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Jay Wolman, of Randazza Legal Group, for creditor Logan Cheng. THE COURT: Good morning. Has everyone noted their appearance for the record? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Despins, this is a status conference that you requested, and there are also issues with regard to three motions for 2004 Examinations. So please proceed. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. For the record, Luc Despins, the Chapter 11 Trustee. Your Honor, we filed with the Court, our PowerPoint presentation regarding the status report, so I don't want to burden the Court for very long by reading every page. We're not going to do that. I assume Your Honor has had a chance to at least peek at it. But most of the PowerPoint presentation deals with what we raised with Your Honor at the last hearing, which is the need to coordinate the two cases, the *Kwok* case before Your Honor, and the *Genever U.S.* case that's before Judge

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 6 Garrity. So just very briefly, on Page 2 we talked about the fact that the same issues are present in the same case. Yes, they're two different types of assets, but -- and they involve, you know, two different individuals. One is the daughter, one is the son of the debtor. But the issues are all the same, meaning we believe the same or likely the same witnesses would appear at the hearing on the issue of ownership of these assets, the same documents or similar documents would be introduced into evidence and for these reasons, we believe it is critical to have one court handle both of these cases. We explain how these cases -- on Page 4, how these cases got to be two courts. That's all -- and I'm not faulting PAX, but as a result of PAX's litigation, both cases were started to foreclose or to stop litigation by PAX against Mr. Kwok, or with respect to some of his assets, the Sherry Netherland apartment. And one point that we make, Your Honor, is that we've recently learned, although as I said in the past, we have to verify information because we never know how accurate it is, but that, in fact, Bravo Luck -- and you'll

remember Bravo Luck is the entity that was allegedly owned by the son of Mr. Kwok. But that entity was also involved in the various Lady May transactions. So that's even

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 7 of 43

| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>7 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | additional evidence and additional reason why these two | | 2 | cases should be handled together. | | 3 | And I know, Your Honor, it's not your decision, so | | 4 | I'm not arguing the motion.<br>I just want to make sure you | | 5 | have the background on why we're doing this. | | 6 | Very quickly on page 8, the bar date issue in the | | 7 | Genever case, is a real mess in the sense that probably just | | 8 | five or six creditors that filed claims and that got notice. | | 9 | The folks that are in our case and that have similar or | | 10 | perhaps identical claims to PAX in terms of alter ego | | 11 | against the Sherry Netherland apartment were not notified, | | 12 | and you know, all of that needs to be coordinated and et | | 13 | cetera, et cetera. | | 14 | On page 9, we explain what we described to the | | 15 | court last time, which is that right now, without the | | 16 | ability of these creditors to file claims directly in the | | 17 | Genever U.S. case, they would be structurally subordinated | | 18 | to the five or six debtors that filed claims in that case, | | 19 | and the trustee -- this is on page 10 -- opposes that. | | 20 | And you know, so for all these reasons, we think | | 21 | the transfer of venue is appropriate.<br>We say there are no - | | 22 | - this is on page 11 -- there are no assurances that the | | 23 | transfer, if any, would be granted.<br>On the other hand, and | | 24 | we said this at the prior hearing, (indiscernible) the | | 25 | trustee appointed in your court. | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 8 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 8 I do not want to go down that road if Your Honor sees a lot of red flags, and I -- so I'm not asking for any opinion like that. But -- and I want to tell you that this is our next step to go in front of Judge Garrity. So to the extent Your Honor would see red flags, you know, we would love to hear them at this stage, because the next stage is to go in front of Judge Garrity and seek that transfer of venue. And on page 13, we address the fact that the venue transfer is not incompatible with the settlement agreement regarding the sale of the Sherry Netherland apartment. As you know, there's a process to sell that apartment. We're not trying to stop that or -- at this time, and this is not a ploy to stop that. In the event, it's really -- and by the way, that settlement agreement did not say at the end of the day that there was an agreement between the parties to litigate in one forum or another. But it's very clear at this point, given that we're making progress every week, we're pretty sure that there will be a fraudulent transfer challenge to some of these transfers, or some of the documentation that's been provided to sustain an argument that Mr. Kwok is not the owner of either of these main assets and, therefore, it makes no sense to have that -- to have that heard in the BVI.

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 9 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 9 It just makes sense for that to be heard in the bankruptcy court, and we believe given that we have a -- you know, we've already begun the process with the 2004, et cetera, that it makes sense for this Court to be the court where venue of both cases would be residing. So at this point, Your Honor, I flew through this very quickly, but I'm happy to entertain questions or comments the Court may have before we turn to the last two pages, 15, 16, that are in the nature of housekeeping matters before we get to the 2004 matters. THE COURT: I do not have any questions at this time. Thank you. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, may I be heard briefly? THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: Thank you. Your Honor, I just want to be clear and confirm this is a status conference. The PowerPoint that Mr. Despins filed is not in evidence. I don't take a position right now on transfer of venue in -- of either case, to either court. As Mr. Despins recognizes, that whether the case in New York is transferred to Bridgeport is going to be up to Judge Garrity, so that all of this is just -- is not before you right now. I have no problem with him telling you what he's going to do in the Southern District of New York, but I think it is not before you.

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 10 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 10 There are characterizations in the PowerPoint that I don't agree with. I'm not asking you to let me plow through this and tell you each and every place where I don't agree, because again, my understanding is this is a status conference and this is not in evidence. So what -- but again, I just want to have that on the record so that somewhere down the road, this isn't pointed to as, oh, we didn't -- we didn't walk through this point by point and tell you where we disagree and somehow there's been a waiver or something binding, or Mr. Kwok should have said something. THE COURT: Does anyone else wish to be heard? MR. DESPINS: Your Honor -- Your Honor, just to briefly to respond. We agree with Mr. Henzy's position. This is not evidence. This is a status report. (Indiscernible) general denial is sufficient to deny every statement contained in (indiscernible), understand (indiscernible). THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. Let's move on to the Rule 2004 Examination issues before we do this housekeeping, Mr. Despins, because I think there are some other matters that you -- I would just like to know what the Court -- what you are going to do with applications and motions that were pending before your appointment too. So why don't we address the 2004 Examination issues, and

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 11 then we'll go back to the housekeeping matters, please. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor. Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the trustee. I'll be addressing the 2004 motion today. First of all, Your Honor, I'd just like to say, it's nice to be before you for the first time. In this case, I've been kind of in the background on some of the hearings in the past, but it's nice to be actually before the Court, albeit virtually today. As I believe the Court is aware, we filed three 2004 motions on July 28th seeking to conduct examinations of approximately 34 different examinees. There's one motion that's directed to the debtor that seeks an examination of the debtor. There's another motion that seeks an examination of approximately 14 professional firms by either law firms or other advisory firms who kind of provided advice to the debtor in the past. And then there's a third motion that's directed to approximately 19 relatives, related persons and related entities who we think may have information that's important to these cases and to the trustee's investigation. So each of these three motions, Your Honor, is geared very specifically toward identifying information and getting documents related to potential assets of the estate. As we've articulated in the motions, we think there is an Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 11 of 43

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 12 of 43

| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>12 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | abundance of evidence based on news reports, based on | | 2 | findings of other courts that the debtor does, in fact, have | | 3 | interest in valuable property and at various LLC's that are | | 4 | holding companies that he is trying to keep beyond the reach | | 5 | of his creditors, and we think the targets of these motions | | 6 | are the types of people who are likely to have that | | 7 | information, whether it's advisors that were used in forming | | 8 | legal entities and protecting assets, whether it's relatives | | 9 | who hold those assets, or related companies, those are | | 10 | really the targets of our motion. | | 11 | Your Honor, I won't summarize what we're seeking | | 12 | any further today because I think the issue before the Court | | 13 | in light of the responses received is very narrow. | | 14 | I mean, there's really -- there really is not much | | 15 | opposition at all.<br>I think, you know, of the 34 proposed | | 16 | examinees, there were only three responses filed.<br>Two of | | 17 | those were by Brown Rudnick on its own behalf, and for the | | 18 | other debtors, former local counsel in this case, and those | | 19 | two responses are really in the way of reservation of | | 20 | rights, but I don't think actually raise that objection to | | 21 | that motion, so I won't address those up front although to | | 22 | the extent Mr. Axelrod has comments ready to respond to it, | | 23 | I may do that later. | | 24 | What I'll instead do is just respond briefly to | | 25 | the limited objections that the debtor has filed to the 2004 |

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 13 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 13 motion. The debtor's objection really, as far as I understand it, makes two points. The first is that it addresses a privilege issue that it concedes is not actually before the Court today. The debtor articulates in its objection that it believes there is a split of authority and a question of whether or not the trustee controls the debtor's privileges, attorney/client privilege and otherwise. Your Honor, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time responding to those issues, but I do want to make a few points. First, suffice it to say the trustee disagrees wholeheartedly with the debtor's position as to the state of the law on this issue. We think it is very clear, based on the weight of the authority of cross-jurisdictions, that the trustee does in fact succeed to the debtor's privilege, in particular on issues related to assets of the estate, to the administration of the estate and to the debtor's financial condition. And as I said before, all of the discovery requests that we have included in our 2004 motions really go to those issues, so we don't think there is really any room for the assertion of a privilege by the debtor on those issues. We think it passes to the trustee and the trustee

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 14 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 14 is entitled to those documents. The other thing I would like to do is just briefly correct the record with respect to an affidavit that the debtor's counsel filed yesterday. That affidavit talks about the meet and confer that we held with the debtor's counsel on August 2nd. And one thing that I noticed the debtor says in there is that, during that meet and confer, we the trustee -- trustee's counsel had refused to be willing to address this issue of the privilege, other than on a document by document basis. Your Honor, I think that is not correct. That's not what we said. What we had said on that call is that we need to understand the debtor's position on the issue of what privileges it continues to retain that it can assert vis-a- vis the trustee. And what we heard in response to that was basically that the debtor's counsel was still new to the case, they really had no idea what types of documents the debtor has. They didn't know what kind of communicates the debtor had with his former counsel. They really had done none of that initial legwork. In fact, I think the comment that was made at one point was that we, the trustee and his counsel, probably had a better idea of the debtor's documents than they do.

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 15 of 43

| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>15 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | And it's needless to say, that was a very | | 2 | concerning comment, because it really seems to be setting | | 3 | the stage for more delays in this case, and another way to | | 4 | prevent the trustee from making meaningful progress with | | 5 | this investigation, and that's something that just can't | | 6 | happen. | | 7 | I mean, this debtor, as Your Honor knows, filed | | 8 | his case back in February.<br>It's been embroiled in | | 9 | litigation with PAX and other parties for years, so issues | | 10 | concerning what documents he has, what documents might be | | 11 | privileged, all of that should be well known to the debtor. | | 12 | So the bottom line on this issue, Your Honor, is | | 13 | contrary to what was described in the affidavit, we do think | | 14 | this issue of privilege needs to be teed up as soon as | | 15 | possible with the Court. | | 16 | So what we plan to do, and I believe the trustee | | 17 | previewed this during last week's status conference, is we | | 18 | intend to file a motion, likely on short notice, to have the | | 19 | Court issue a ruling as to the scope of all the privileges | | 20 | that pass to the trustee so we have clarity on that and it's | | 21 | not something that is used to delay our investigation going | | 22 | forward. | | 23 | The second thing that the debtor raises in its | | 24 | objection, Your Honor, is -- and this is really actually the | | 25 | only -- the only argument or issue that can be characterized | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 16 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 16 as an actual objection to the relief that we're asking the Court to grant in the proposed orders that we provided. But they take issue with the fact that we have included in the proposed order a 30-day deadline for responding to the subpoenas. Your Honor, we think that is appropriate and is something that should remain part of the proposed orders. For the reasons I just discussed, and as the Court well knows, given the history of this case, we think it is imperative to do whatever we can at the outset to prevent any arguments or avenues for delay. We think it is critically important that the debtor be compelled and other parties to be required to provide documents to us, and to get back to us on our subpoenas within 30 days. And we don't think this is at all inconsistent with either Rule 2004 itself, or the local rule. Local Rule 2004-1 actually requires the moving party to attach to its motion and proposed order form subpoenas. And obviously a form subpoena, we as the party serving that subpoena, are entitled to indicate at date and a place for compliance. So rather than put it in our subpoenas, we have simply asked the Court to include that 30-day deadline in the proposed order. I would also note that I think this is perfectly

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 17 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 17 consistent with Rule 2004(c), which is specific to investigations of the debtor, and it specifically says that the Court may, for cause shown and on terms as it may impose, order the debtor to be examined under this rule at any time or place it designates. So the Court specifically has the power under Rule 2004 -- I think I said 2004(c), but I believe it's 2004(d). The Court specifically has the ability to order compliance by the debtor at a particular time. You know, we're not -- I think one of the issues that the debtor raised is that they think we're trying to prevent it from raising objections that it might have to individual document requests. Your Honor, we're not doing that. To the extent that the debtor or any other party believes they have meritorious arguments with respect to individual requests that they want to raise in response to - - or as part of the motion to quash or otherwise, they can do that. We're just seeking to ensure that this all happens expeditiously, and that's the reason we've included that 30- day deadline in our order. That's all I had at the outset, Your Honor, but obviously I'll be happy to answer any questions and reserve the right to respond to any comments made by other parties. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 18 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 18 wish to be heard? MR. AXELROD: Yes, Your Honor. Tristan Axelrod, Brown and Rudnick. May I be heard very briefly? THE COURT: Yes, go right ahead. MR. AXELROD: Just two very quick points. One, Mr. Bassett mentioned Verdolino and Lowey as local counsel to the debtor. Not entirely true. They're the proposed financial advisor. There is actually an application pending to date. Second point, just would agree with Mr. Bassett that issues of privilege and work product protection are probably going to be central to the discovery that is proposed to be served, and once that is served, I think we would appreciate the Court's guidance on that issue. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Would you just -- what guidance are you looking for? I'm sorry. I don't think I heard what you said at the end. MR. AXELROD: Well, not looking for any today, but once discovery is served, I think all the parties are signaling that there may be a disagreement on the boundaries of privilege that have been transferred to the trustee, and the extent of work product protection that remains in the hands of professionals or the debtor. And I think the professionals who are being served Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 19 of 43

| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>19 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | at this point will need some guidance or appreciate some | | 2 | guidance once those issues come up.<br>I think Mr. Bassett was | | 3 | saying the same thing.<br>He'll correct me if I'm wrong about | | 4 | that, but I think we anticipate that being an issue and will | | 5 | appreciate the Court's guidance down the road. | | 6 | THE COURT:<br>Well, I think what will happen under | | 7 | both Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004, and our | | 8 | local rule 2004-1, is that it -- when a subpoena is served, | | 9 | the party who receives the subpoena can take whatever | | 10 | actions it deems appropriate under the Federal Rules of | | 11 | Civil Procedure, meaning -- | | 12 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>Your Honor, I'm having | | 13 | trouble hearing you.<br>I don't know if anybody else is. | | 14 | UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:<br>I (indiscernible) but I | | 15 | cannot hear either, Your Honor. | | 16 | THE COURT:<br>Well, and that's one of the reasons | | 17 | why we're going to have all of our future hearings in | | 18 | person.<br>This is -- it's very difficult when there is so | | 19 | many of us, and we're going to have the hearings in person. | | 20 | Today you ask -- this was asked ons short order, but we need | | 21 | to be in the courtroom so I can see and hear you, and you | | 22 | can see and hear me. | | 23 | So what I said, counsel, was when you asked for | | 24 | guidance -- I don't think the Court will give guidance.<br>I | | 25 | think the Court will rule on whatever the issue may be. | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 20 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 20 And when a subpoena is served under -- in connection with a Rule 2004 examination and under our local rules, the party who is served with the subpoena has whatever rights it has under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with regard to that subpoena. And Mr. Despins said he's going to file a motion on the privilege issue, so that would be the time when the Court would make a ruling, and/or the Court would rule on connect -- in connection with any motions to quash or any protective orders. So I don't really view it as guidance. I view it -- you all have obligations as lawyers under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- MR. AXELROD: Yes. THE COURT: -- to attempt to resolve these issues. If you don't resolve these issues, then you file the appropriate documents under the appropriate rules and the Court will rule. Okay? MR. AXELROD: Thank you, Your Honor. I was perhaps inartful in my speech, but a ruling will be helpful. Thank you. THE COURT: It wasn't -- I don't mean to say you were inartful. I just -- I don't think it's an area of the law where the Court -- I don't think the Court can provide guidance. I think it's -- would have to rule, right? This

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 21 of 43

| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>21 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | is discovery.<br>The lawyers have -- you all have obligations | | 2 | to attempt to resolve these issues, and if you don't, then | | 3 | the way that they're resolved is a ruling from the Court. | | 4 | Okay?<br>All right.<br>So no one else wishes to be heard on | | 5 | the Rule 2004 Examination motions? | | 6 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Your Honor, Aaron Romney, Zeisler and | | 7 | Zeisler in support of the debtor.<br>Limited objections.<br>I | | 8 | apologize, I attempted to speak after Mr. Bassett and I was | | 9 | on mute. | | 10 | But very briefly, I think that the -- you used the | | 11 | term limited objection and it is limited, and as I listened | | 12 | to Mr. Bassett speak, I'm not sure what the dispute is.<br>We | | 13 | are not objecting to the 30-day time parameters. | | 14 | The objection is solely that the proposed order | | 15 | granting the Rule 2004 motion directs the parties to produce | | 16 | the documents.<br>The purpose of Rule 2004 in the scope of the | | 17 | Rule 2004 motion is to permit the service of subpoenas which | | 18 | is what the second soordered paragraph in the proposed order | | 19 | said. | | 20 | The third so ordered paragraph in the proposed | | 21 | order -- | | 22 | THE COURT:<br>Let -- Attorney Romney, let's stop for | | 23 | a minute and pull up the order so we can all look at it the | | 24 | same time, because I want to make sure I'm following your | | 25 | argument.<br>Okay? | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 22 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 22 So which -- which one -- you're talking -- does it matter which one we pull up is -- that's on the calendar today? MR. ROMNEY: Correct. I'm specifically looking at 637. THE COURT: Okay. Let's look at -- MR. ROMNEY: But -- yeah. THE COURT: Let's look at 637, then. Let's pull that up, and we'll go to the proposed order and then you can show me where in the proposed order -- you know, we'll go through the paragraphs that you were starting to talk about, okay? MR. ROMNEY: Thank you very much, Your Honor. (Pause) THE CLERK: It will just be one moment, Your Honor. (Pause) THE COURT: Okay. It looks like we are looking at the proposed order on ECF 637. So, Attorney Romney, you want me to go to the next page, I assume, where we start to have numbered paragraphs. Or is that -- or should I stay on this page? MR. ROMNEY: That is the page we're looking at, Your Honor, what's on the screen. THE COURT: All right. So stay on this page?

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 23 of 43

| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>23 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Correct. | | 2 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>So tell me what you want | | 3 | me to look at, please. | | 4 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>The third ordered paragraph, and in | | 5 | particular the first sentence of that paragraph, that says, | | 6 | "The professionals are hereby directed to produce all | | 7 | documents within 30 days of the service of the subpoena." | | 8 | And again, the issue is not so much the 30 days, | | 9 | it's the court order directing the production of documents | | 10 | as distinguished from the preceding paragraph which permits | | 11 | the trustee to serve the subpoenas and then pursuant to | | 12 | Local Rule 2014, the parties who receive them would have the | | 13 | right to raise substantive objective -- objections then. | | 14 | Our issue is that quite literally -- and it | | 15 | doesn't seem ambiguous.<br>This is a court order directing the | | 16 | production of documents which exceeds the scope of the | | 17 | relief that can be granted on a motion for Rule 2004 Exam. | | 18 | THE COURT:<br>Well, why -- what if we just qualify | | 19 | the paragraph by saying, subject to the applicable Federal | | 20 | Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy | | 21 | Procedure, because I think what you're saying, Attorney | | 22 | Romney, although I could be wrong, is that you're thinking | | 23 | this is overriding your right to file a motion to quash or a | | 24 | motion for a protective order? | | 25 | MR. ROMNEY:<br>Correct, Your Honor. | | | |

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 24 THE COURT: So what if we just did what I -- MR. ROMNEY: And, Your Honor -- THE COURT: -- did what I just said? What if we just qualify it with that language? I'm not saying that's going to be the final result. I'm just asking you the question. MR. ROMNEY: That is what I'm here asking for today, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. ROMNEY: Is either removing that language, that paragraph, or qualifying it. Either one would work, as long as it's clear to the people receiving this order and the subpoenas, that their rights to object under the local rules and Rules of Civil Procedure are being preserved and not circumvented by this order. THE COURT: Attorney Bassett, were you about to respond to that argument? MR. BASSETT: I was, Your Honor. Thank you. I don't think we really have a disagreement on this issue. As I said in my remarks at the outset, we're not -- we understand that as per the local rule and a practice, parties do have the opportunity to move to quash or otherwise raise issues in response to a subpoena issued pursuant to the Court's Rule 2004 order. All we want to make sure happens is that unless

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 24 of 43

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 25 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 25 the Court orders otherwise, based on, for example, a successful motion to quash, parties responding to the discovery requests do have to do so within 30 days. Otherwise, we're just very worried about this process dragging out for much longer than necessary under circumstances where we really do need to move things forward and make progress. THE COURT: Okay. So you have no issue then if -- Attorney Bassett, if the beginning of the third ordered paragraph says subject to the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Local Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure? Something along those lines? MR. BASSETT: In concept, I think that is fine, Your Honor, because that's specifically with the intention of (indiscernible). THE COURT: Well, I think what -- the point that's being made, and I think it's fine, and so I think we should just add the additional language so that there's no controversy. Okay? And then we can move on. And then parties will have to take whatever steps they feel are necessary and appropriate. So I would ask you with regard to these three 2004 Examination motions that are on the calendar today to submit a revised proposed order changing -- adding that language to

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 26 the beginning of paragraph -- the third ordered paragraph. Okay? And then those motions are granted. Then the subpoenas can be served and then we'll see what response you get. Okay? MR. BASSETT: Thank you. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. The only other thing is I do take some issues with the characterization of our meet and confer. I'm not suggesting any disingenuousness or dishonesty, but I certainly perceived that conversation differently. I don't think there's any issues before the Court right now and I don't want to take up the Court's time getting into these issues, but I did want to put on the record that we do dispute those characterizations. THE COURT: There is nothing before the Court and there won't probably be anything before the Court on the meet and confer issues. Okay? All right. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: So now that we've resolved the three Rule 2004 Examination motions, which are now granted subject to the submission of revised proposed orders -- and, Attorney Bassett, how much time do you need to get the revised proposed order to the Court? Orders, I should say, to the Court? Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 26 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 27 MR. BASSETT: We'll do that today, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Well, they may not enter today. But if they don't enter today, they'll on Monday assuming that they're received today. Then we can go back, Mr. Despins, to the housekeeping matters that you had in your -- at the end of your report that you filed on the docket this morning. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. And by the way, you had raised questions before we actually did that. You had raised questions regarding motions that had been filed by the debtors but then were sort of dormant since the appointment of a trustee, so I -- I can address those. To the best of my knowledge, I think the first -- one of them that you had raised was the application to retain Verdolino. I recall that you had raised that. And I understand that Mr. Kindseth -- sorry, yeah, Mr. Linsey, pardon me, just filed a notice of withdrawal of that -- of that application. I also understand that there was a motion to schedule or to set up an interim compensation process. I think we should just table that because unfortunately there's no money and, therefore, no interim comps to be had in the current regime. So I think we have to wait -- Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 27 of 43

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 28 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 28 THE COURT: Well, I'd like to have that motion withdrawn. You know. You could refile it again if there's some ability to discuss that -- MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: -- but I'd like that motion withdrawn because from the clerk's office standpoint it's still an outstanding motion. MR. DESPINS: Okay. We will, Your Honor. The other one that was kind of floating out there was there was a motion to retain Stretto as claims agent. So I'm not sure if that was withdrawn or just them -- THE COURT: I think that already was withdrawn actually. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: I think the Stretto motion was withdrawn by the debtor-in-possession actually. MR. DESPINS: Okay. And the last -- THE COURT: By the debtor-in-possession some time ago. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. And the last one I have on my list that I think has been resolved is the motion to extend time to the remove actions, but I believe that was withdrawn by the debtor, and was supplanted by the order that you ordered on our request last week.

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 29 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 29 So that I think that covers what we have on our list of matters that were sort of in limbo, but you may have others, other motions -- THE COURT: Well, if we have others, we can -- I'll point them out at the next conference. I know that there was -- in connection with the DIP financing motion, which has been withdrawn by the debtor, which was withdrawn by the debtor-in-possession prior to the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, there were two motions for Rule 2004 Examination of HK International and Golden Spring that were filed by the committee. And I don't -- I think that those basically are moot due to the withdrawal of the motion, the DIP motion. But I don't know if the committee has a different view on that. MR. KAPLAN: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Can you repeat the motion that you were asking about? THE COURT: There are two motions for Rule 2004 Examination that were filed by the committee some time ago, ECF 295 and 297. And I believe they were filed in connection with the motion filed by the debtor-in-possession for debtor-in-possession financing. So I think those motions are moot since the financing motion was withdrawn, but I need the committee to withdraw those or report that they're moot at the next

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 30 status conference. And then the committee was seeking to employ two professionals as well. Those applications were filed on May 4th, 321 and 325. And I think those should either be withdrawn or moot or if you're proceeding with them, then we need to do something to proceed with them. Okay? MR. KAPLAN: Understood. And we'll -- if we intend to withdraw, we'll do so before the next status conference. THE COURT: Okay. All right. I think if there's anything else, we can talk about that at the next status conference. I'm just looking at a list of issues here. Just give me a second, please. I just want to make sure that -- before we talk about what Mr. Despins wants to talk about, that I want to just see one other thing here. (Pause) THE COURT: Okay. Let me just -- I am not sure, but I could be wrong, so that's why you'll all need to correct me if I'm wrong, which is very possible, did we address fully at the last hearing the Chapter 11 trustee's motion to quash subpoenas served by the debtor on the Chapter 11 trustee, which was 608? I'm not sure if we have. I don't recall. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, I think you did. You Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 30 of 43

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 31 of 43

| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>31 | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | denied them as moot, if I -- if I remember correctly. | | 2 | MR. HENZY:<br>I agree with that, Your Honor. | | 3 | THE COURT:<br>Okay. | | 4 | MR. HENZY:<br>You denied that as moot. | | 5 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Thank you.<br>I'm just not | | 6 | sure I see that on our docket, but it may be there.<br>And, | | 7 | you know, there are 700 and some odd docket entries, so I | | 8 | could be missing it. | | 9 | MR. LINSEY:<br>Your Honor, I believe that's at 670. | | 10 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you.<br>Okay.<br>Thank you.<br>Yes, I | | 11 | see that.<br>I appreciate your help on that.<br>Thank you. | | 12 | All right.<br>So then, Mr. Despins, let's turn to | | 13 | your last housekeeping issues that you wanted to discuss, | | 14 | please. | | 15 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes.<br>And I'm not going to cover all | | 16 | of them because some of them are self-explanatory.<br>But the | | 17 | one that I think we need to cover is the motion to establish | | 18 | a reserve -- a repair reserve with respect to the Lady May, | | 19 | and (indiscernible) merits of that, but rather the request | | 20 | to expedite that matter.<br>The trustee opposes that | | 21 | expedition.<br>There are a lot of issues relevant to this in | | 22 | the sense that I'll explain. | | 23 | I'm not an expert on engines or yachts, but what I | | 24 | understand from my expert is that you cannot rely only on | | 25 | estimates given, because once you start opening up that |

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 32 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 32 engine box, there could be extensive damage beyond what is apparent to the eye initially.

And, therefore, our view, and I believe the view of the other parties and the committee and PAX, is that what needs to happen is that repairs have to be made, and then there should be a sea trial, because if the repairs are made and there's a sea trial then that's -- it's subject to sending the scuba divers to check the hull of the yacht. That's the end of the process from the engine's point of view because -- but to say let's establish a reserve, to have the lawyers and the judge say, okay, well, this engine repair should cost XY and Z based on invoices is really imprudent and that's why we believe this shouldn't be expedited.

Because what should happen here is that this should be -- the repairs should be done, whatever they are, then we can inspect them and do a sea trial and then come back to Your Honor with any remaining disputes.

So I wanted to state for the record that the trustee opposes expedition of that motion.

And that's all I'm going to cover regarding the housekeeping matters, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm looking at the docket now and I see that this motion was filed -- the motion for an order establishing a reserve for the Lady May was filed yesterday

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 33 of 43

| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>33 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | with a motion to expedite.<br>So I haven't reviewed either one | | 2 | of those two documents at this point in time, but I | | 3 | understand your point. | | 4 | Mr. Kindseth, did you want to be heard? | | 5 | MR. KINDSETH:<br>Yes.<br>Thank you very much, Your | | 6 | Honor. | | 7 | The request being made by the trustee is directly | | 8 | contrary to the stipulated order that we reached which | | 9 | contemplated a repair reserve in advance of the repairs so | | 10 | that the repairs would not hold up the release of the \$37 | | 11 | million.<br>I understand that estimates are estimates. | | 12 | My client is willing to significantly enhance the | | 13 | amount of the reserve to cover the anticipated repairs and | | 14 | any reasonably projected, worst case scenario.<br>I mean, | | 15 | significantly enhance. | | 16 | But what's unfair and what's completely contrary | | 17 | to the agreement reached and inappropriate is simply holding | | 18 | up the release of the \$37 million pending the completion of | | 19 | the repairs which is directly contrary to the agreement we | | 20 | reached. | | 21 | Your Honor, as I know you appreciate, this | | 22 | stipulated order resolved a very significant and heavily | | 23 | contested issue that transpired over the course of more than | | 24 | a year, if not years. | | 25 | There's a process that's been laid out, including | | | |

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 34 my client depositing \$37 million in an escrow agent to secure the return of the Lady May. The Lady May has been returned. We have permitted, as required by the stipulated order, the trustee, as well as PAX and the committee, and their experts, on July 13th to inspect the Lady May, which is about a month ago. We've provided all of the estimates that we have been provided. We've used the highest of the estimates in coming up with the repair reserve. Additionally, Your Honor, with respect to the engine, that -- this damage is covered by insurance and so the risk of this engine issue costing more is not a repair reserve issue because there's insurance to cover it. And we would at the repair reserve hearing put on evidence of that, Your Honor. Notwithstanding our proposal is to fund the full cost of the engine repair as well as the \$100,000 deductible. So we basically have done everything plus to protect the estate, protect the trustee's interests. And I really -- Your Honor, I really want to emphasize, because I think this is the point where the trustee, PAX and the committee are acting in bad faith. We have said to them for weeks what amount do you want? \$37 million is the original purchase price of the Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 34 of 43

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 35 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 35 yacht. The yacht is worth far less now. The engine damage is covered by insurance. We're posting that cost anyways. What amount do you want and they've refused to provide it. So what I'd ask that Your Honor do is schedule a hearing, and I'm suggesting the last week of August, on the repair reserve, hear from the experts and decide at that time. We believe we will be able to establish a reasonable estimate. And you can even take a reasonable estimate and double it and fund that. That would satisfy this requirement. And then all of our requirements will have been satisfied, and the \$37 million could be released to my client and the estate will be fully protected. And so all I'm asking at this time, Your Honor, is that the Court, consistent with the stipulated order, enter a hearing on the repair reserve so Your Honor can hear from the surveyors, and perhaps the captain and the chief engineer, as to the reasonable costs and the reasonable risks with respect to making these repairs. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, very, very briefly. The issue -- we have no problems with that motion being heard. But I'm sorry if it sounded like that. But rather it's the expedition that we're concerned about.

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 36 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 36 I mean, this can wait until I guess the first week of September, something like that. I'm not sure it needs to be resolved by the end of August. So that's all. That's the only point we're making for today, because -- simply because you don't have hearings regarding expedition. And I want to make sure you have the trustee's view. The trustee was not around when this stipulation was entered into. There was really, you know -- we're not a party to that stipulation. We don't have visiting rights. But I would say to Mr. Kindseth very kindly gave us those visitation rights, (indiscernible). Thank you. We appreciate that. But the trustee is not a party to that agreement. But in any event, the only issue that's before the Court today is the expedition, actually coming before the Court today, but we would -- you know, we would consider too we want you to know that we oppose the expedition (indiscernible). Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else we need to address today? MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, it's Peter Friedman. I do want to make two points. Obviously with respect to expedition, you know, we do have rights to submit, and I think an obligation if we're going to object to it, a specified amount of time that

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 37 shouldn't be truncated. Our own proposal on the repair reserve, if we believe that's appropriate, that it shouldn't be truncated now that the debtor has gone before, I'm sorry, HK International has gone before the Court. To the extent that somebody's going to put on opposing evidence, we need to be able to review all opposing evidence. Mr. Kindseth said that they intend to put on opposing evidence, perhaps potentially declarations to various people. Obviously our rights shouldn't be truncated with respect to that. Our view is that, you know, the condition of the ship has multiple facets. There may be something that parties can agree on a reserve rate with respect to. On the other hand, when the ship is, as we understand it, not able to be sea tested, that poses a different kind of challenge to how we assess ultimately whether the boat can be made operable, which is a condition of the stipulation. So I think, you know, we don't necessarily view every component of this as falling into the same bucket. There may be issues or repairs that we can agree on estimates for. But because we can't do a sea test because of the condition of the engine, that poses a different and Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 37 of 43

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 38 of 43

| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>38 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | meaningful kind of challenge to setting a reserve. | | 2 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>Thank you. | | 3 | Anyone else wish to be heard? | | 4 | MR. KINDSETH:<br>Just one point, Your Honor. | | 5 | Under the stipulated order, it clearly permits | | 6 | them to inspect the Lady May.<br>They can inspect it again. | | 7 | It was already inspected a month ago.<br>We'll continue to | | 8 | permit it to be inspected. | | 9 | It was never required, and it was specifically | | 10 | negotiated, the repairs would not be done before the repair | | 11 | reserve was established.<br>And, therefore, the whole sea test | | 12 | is an after the repairs requirement, not part of the | | 13 | inspection requirement. | | 14 | And I urge Your Honor to enforce the terms of the | | 15 | stipulated order and schedule a repair reserve hearing so | | 16 | Your Honor can hear from everybody. | | 17 | And I would also like to say, Your Honor, I have | | 18 | repeatedly for weeks tried to get the trustee and PAX's | | 19 | counsel to communicate with me as to their issues and | | 20 | they've refused to work with me.<br>They've refused to provide | | 21 | information.<br>They've refused to negotiate a reasonable | | 22 | number. | | 23 | And my client is willing to significantly enhance | | 24 | the number, but they're playing games.<br>They don't -- they | | 25 | don't want a repair reserve.<br>They want to hold up this | | | |

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 39 whole process. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, I just -- I cannot disagree with that more vociferously. We just got the final estimate late last week from counsel, so I don't think it can be said that we're playing games or acting in bad faith. We were waiting for a comprehensive set of all estimate reserve repairs or estimate -- estimating work orders that include time and labor and all material conditions. And we have made requests. They were out. I'm not -- Mr. Kindseth has supplied the information as it's come in, but it's not like we received a full set of information a month ago and haven't responded. So I just -- I don't agree that there's been anything other than good faith in discussion. By the way, including on Mr. Kindseth's side in supplying this information. I'm not impugning his motives and I don't think ours should be impugned either. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? (No response) THE COURT: I note that this morning there was a motion to withdraw as attorney filed by counsel for Golden Spring which will be set for a hearing. Mr. Despins, I just have a question for you about Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 39 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 40 is there a need, given that today's August 12th, to have another conference on August 24th as opposed to August 7th[sic]? And if there is, that's fine. I'm just asking the question. MR. DESPINS: The problem, Your Honor, is that this case has an issue, what I call issue du jour. Every day there's a new issue. But it's very hard for me to tell you today whether we need one on the 24th. But we will be on -- I think as we said to the Court before is that 24 hours before I need to provide an agenda, and if -- and if we have nothing, we will ask the Court to cancel the status conference. THE COURT: Okay. That's fair. That's fine. MR. DESPINS: But, I mean, we would try our best not to have -- let's put it this way -- from a directional point of view, we will try our best not to have one on the 24th. But the problem is that in this case we move very fast and I would feel really bad if there was some kind of emergency and then we only had September 7th. THE COURT: I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have one on the 24th. I was just asking if you felt there was a need. And I understand your point that you'd like to keep those dates that you've proposed, August 24th, Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 40 of 43

September 7th, September 21st and October 3rd as dates for

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 41 of 43

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 41 status conferences. And that's fine. We'll do that. But we're going to need to have these conferences in person or at least the local counsel in Connecticut have to appear. It's very difficult -- well, I just think it's more appropriate in this case to be in person. If people want to make requests to appear remotely, there's a process we have in our court to make that request. And that's what I -- that's the opinion of the Court at this moment. If people tell me there's a reason why they can't appear in person, we have allowed that to happen, but I -- this case has, as you've all pointed out, many issues going on at all times, and I don't find -- I find it is not as effective for me to understand the issues when I'm looking at a screen versus when the people are in the courtroom. Obviously, if there's a change in COVID situations and we're required to do something different in this courthouse, then that would -- obviously we wouldn't be in person. But we're not under that directive from the district court at this point. So in any event, the status conferences that you're looking for I believe, Mr. Despins, since they're going to be in person, at least, unless people obtain an order allowing them to appear remotely, that we can start them later in the day.

Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 42 of 43

| | Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022<br>42 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | We can start them -- we can have it at 11 or 12 or | | 2 | something like that if that's more helpful for people, or in | | 3 | the afternoon if that's -- but the 24th actually would have | | 4 | to start at noon or 1:00.<br>I have to attend to something in | | 5 | the afternoon of the 24th, so it would have to be noon or 1 | | 6 | o'clock.<br>Do people have a preference? | | 7 | Mr. Despins, do you have a preference? | | 8 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Your Honor, I'm just five stops down | | 9 | the Metro North.<br>I can be there at noon, 1:00, whatever you | | 10 | want. | | 11 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you. | | 12 | Does anyone else have a preference on timing? | | 13 | MR. HENZY:<br>Not for the debtor, Your Honor. | | 14 | THE COURT:<br>Okay.<br>All right.<br>Hearing nothing, | | 15 | then we'll set the Wednesday, 24th, August 24th, status | | 16 | conference at 1:00 p.m.<br>And then we'll address the times of | | 17 | the other conferences. | | 18 | I'm going to have to review the matters that were | | 19 | discussed, the motion to expedite and the repair reserve.<br>I | | 20 | haven't even looked at those motions, so I'd have to review | | 21 | that. | | 22 | We've already discussed the three 2004 Examination | | 23 | motions, which are granted subject to the submission of a | | 24 | revised proposed order for each one of those motions. | | 25 | And I believe that's all we can address today. | | | |

Ho Wan Kwok - August 12, 2022 43 Okay. Thank you, all. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. (Proceedings concluded at 10:58 a.m.) I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above- entitled matter. 11 August 16, 2022 12 Christine Fiore, CERT Transcriber Case 22-50073 Doc 766 Filed 08/18/22 Entered 08/18/22 11:30:43 Page 43 of 43