Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — bankruptcy case · ORDER · ECF #1020

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \* HO WAN KWOK, \* \* Debtor. \* \* In Re \* Case No. 22-50542 (JAM) \* GENEVER HOLDINGS \* Bridgeport, Connecticut CORPORATION, \* October 13, 2022 \* Debtor. \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 2004 DISCOVERY AND ENFORCING CONSENT ORDER RED: PRIVILEGES and MOTION FOR JOINT ADMINISTRATION WITH 22-50542 BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor, ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. HK International and AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. Mei Guo: Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditors Committee: IRVE GOLDMAN, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992

APPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Creditor, Pacific STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity PETER FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Fund L.P.: LAURA ARONSSON, ESQ. O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 PATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ. Robinson & Cole 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For the Chapter 11 NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ. Trustee: G. ALEXANDER BONGARTZ, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For Verdolino & Lowey, WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ. Creditor: Brown Rudnick Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036 For Logan Cheng, Creditor: JAY MARSHALL WOLMAN, ESQ. Randazza Legal Group, PLLC 100 Pearl Street Hartford, CT 06103 For Baker Hostetler, LAWRENCE GROSSMAN, ESQ. Interested Party: Green & Sklarz, LLC One Audubon Street New Haven, CT 06511 ANDREW V. LEYDEN, ESQ. DANIELLE L. MEROLA, ESQ. Baker Hostetler 200 South Orange Avenue Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 3 of 111

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 9:35 a.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok and case no. 2022-50542, Genever Holdings Corporation. THE COURT: Good morning. We have several people in the courtroom and several people on Zoom. And I know that when we were here last time I talked about allowing people to make requests to appear via Zoom via email but, unfortunately, it didn't work the way everybody had anticipated it would. There was going to be just one email, but we ended up getting about six or seven. The courtroom staff was a little inundated with that. And I think we're just going to have to take this on a hearing by hearing basis about whether or not people are actually going to allowed to appear remotely. One of the things I can let you all know, and you may know or may not know, if you're just here to observe, you can listen to the hearing. We have a public access line that's on all the time for every hearing that we have in our court in every division of our court. And on the court calendar on our website is the information for the conference call line where you can call that number and listen to the entire hearing. If you're not going to be participating, that may be the best way to proceed.

Also, as I think most of your know, within 24 hours, and sometimes on the very same day, the audio recording, which is the record in this case, and in every case, is posted on our docket of the case. And so that's another way for parties to listen to what occurred at a hearing, if they're not listening to them via the public access line.

So we're going to have to take this on a hearing by hearing basis, but I will say that with regard to the prejudgment remedy hearing scheduled to begin on October 31st, everyone will be -- anyone that wants to participate in that hearing must be here in the courtroom and we will not be having remote appearances in that case because we're going to be dealing with evidence and other issues, and unless someone shows good cause why there should be some remote aspect of that hearing, then that hearing will be a fully in-person hearing.

There is an order in place in this court signed by Chief Judge Nevins that all hearings are in person and that began back -- almost a year ago that order entered.

And so we'll take things on a case by case basis - - on a hearing by hearing basis, I should say. But I don't want people to have the expectation that you can just send an email and appear remotely, because that wasn't even supposed to be the case originally.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 5 of 111

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 5 Obviously, you had to file a request and there were obviously legitimate reasons to appear remotely. Attorney Romney and Attorney Kindseth, for example, recently had a completely legitimate reason to appear remotely. They both had COVID and so -- but we're at a point now where unless thing change from the rules and the orders entered by the chief judge of the district court and the chief judge of the bankruptcy court, the hearings are in person. Okay? And we'll do what we can to accommodate some issues, but I just wanted to be clear on that before we began today. Does anyone have any questions about the remote access line, the ability to listen in on the public access line or does anybody not understand that the audio of every hearing in every case in this district is posted on the docket of the case, usually within 24 hours and sometimes the very same day as the hearing? Does anyone have any questions? Okay. Then I am going to proceed to take appearances. Now I'm going to take appearance of everyone, even the people on Zoom. But if you're not -- if you're simply here to observe and not speak, then I -- that's fine. I would just ask you to keep your microphones on mute so that we don't have any disruption to the record.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 6 of 111

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 6 The other information that I've been told during our remote hearings is that it is sometimes difficult for the courtroom staff to pick up the voices of people that are not in the courtroom and that the record sometimes is garbled. And as people who have been involved in this case from the start know, the transcription of the audio often is not accurate. But it's not because of the transcriber's fault. It's just because it's audio and sometimes things don't get picked up as well. So we're trying our best to make sure that the record in every case in this district is as clear and accurate as possible. So those are some of the other reasons why the remote hearing appearances are discouraged because the record in our case is only audio. We don't have -- we're not authorize under Congressional budget issues or the -- when funds are spent to spend -- bankruptcy courts are not authorized to have a transcriber in the courtroom. So in any event, I am going to start with taking appearances for the record with the Chapter 11 trustee in the Kwok case, please. MR. DESPINS: Good morning, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee and I'm here with my counsel, Nicholas Bassett and Alex Bongartz, who are both in by Zoom,

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 7 I believe. Mr. Linsey is in the courtroom. Good morning. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. LINSEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Connecticut counsel, Patrick Linsey, for the trustee in the Kwok case. My firm is also proposed counsel for the Genever Holdings Corporation debtor in that case, which has also been called. THE COURT: Thank you. Then we will move to the creditors committee counsel, please. 11 MR. GOLDMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman and Comley, representing the creditors committee in the Ho Wan Kwok case. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. BIRNEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Patrick Birney, Robinson and Cole, on behalf of PAX. They haven't yet appeared, but this court provided a Zoom link to Stuart Sarnoff and Laura Aronsson, who will be appearing via Zoom. THE COURT: And I think Attorney Friedman, too. MR. BIRNEY: Yes. Of course, Attorney Friedman as well. THE COURT: I don't know if he's going to be appearing, but I believe that all three were provided with that information. MR. BIRNEY: Thank you, Your Honor.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 7 of 111

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 8 of 111

1 THE COURT: Thank you. 2 Okay. Counsel for Mr. Kwok, please. 3 MR. ROMNEY: Good morning, Your Honor.

4 Romney, Zeisler and Zeisler, for the debtor, Mr. Kwok, as 5 well as HK International and Ms. Mei Guo. Thank you. 6 THE COURT: Good morning. 7 MR. HENZY: Eric Henzy for the same parties. 8 THE COURT: Good morning. 9 MR. BALDIGA: Good morning, Your Honor.

10 Baldiga, for Brown Rudnick and Verdolino & Lowey. 11 THE COURT: Good morning. 12 Okay. Turning to the people on Zoom, the Office 13 of the United States Trustee, please. 14 MS. CLAIBORN: Good morning, Your Honor.

15 Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. 16 THE COURT: Okay.

17 creditor clients, please. 18 MR. WOLMAN: Good morning, Your Honor.

19 of Randazza Legal Group, for creditor Logan Cheng. 20 THE COURT: Good morning.

21 have two other attorneys from Florida who -- I know you both 22 have motions pro hac -- oh, where's Mr. Grossman? Okay. 23 Attorney Grossman, why don't you, as the sponsoring 24 attorney, note your appearance and then we'll talk to the 25 other attorneys, please.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 9 of 111

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 9 MR. GROSSMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Larry Grossman, for Baker Hostetler, and with me are Attorneys Andrew Layden and Danielle Merola. 4 THE COURT: Okay. Good morning to all of you. And Mr. Layden and Ms. Merola, I know that the motions for pro hac vice have been filed. It appears -- I haven't looked at everything but it does appear to be in order and so I assume, or presume, which I shouldn't do, I suppose, that those orders will enter today or tomorrow at the latest, okay. I have no -- I don't know if you're planning to say anything today, although the documents that were filed indicate that you might. But I'm going to hear from people in the courtroom first and then we'll see how things will proceed. Okay? MR. LAYDEN: Understood. Thank you, Your Honor, and thank you for the opportunity to appear remotely. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. So on the calendar today are a few matters as we -- as we all know. What we needed to talk about first is the trustee's motion for an order authorizing compliance with the Rule 2000 [sic] subpoenas and the privileges as they relate to Brown Rudnick and Verdolino & Lowey. I did see a response filed by Mr. Romney where Mr.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 10 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 10 Romney's response appears to indicate that some progress has been made with regard to the motion, but I obviously don't know where things stand as of this morning. So I don't know if Mr. Bassett is going to address that, Mr. Despins, directly? MR. DESPINS: Yes. Yes, Your Honor. I also I wanted to mention that we had filed a reply yesterday, but Mr. Bassett will take the lead. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: I did see your reply. I'm sorry. I should have noted that for the record as well. I saw that you filed something, a response, after Mr. Romney filed his response. So go right ahead. MR. BASSETT: Good morning, Your Honor. Again, for the record, Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. So a lot has been filed, as Your Honor just mentioned. And obviously we also started previewing some of these issues at last week's hearing, so I'll try to be brief, both because I don't want to repeat what's been said, and I also think that, frankly, from the trustee's perspective, the issue before the Court is a fairly simple one. So I'll start by saying that, and I'll get into this a little more in a few moments, but, you know, any

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 11 progress that has been made is not sufficient for the trustee at this stage and not sufficient to resolve the motion that we filed. So what I'd like to do is just start by giving a brief recap of kind of the time line of events and how we got to where we are. As the Court knows, the trustee was appointed in July with a mandate of conducting a comprehensive investigation into the debtor's assets and affairs. The trustee filed his 2004 motion on July 28th. The Court entered 2004 orders on August 16th. The trustee immediately thereafter served subpoenas on Brown Rudnick and the Verdolino firm and that was on August 17th. The deadline to produce documents in response to those subpoenas was 30 days later on September 16th. On September 14th, this court, after a hearing and eventually with the consent of the debtor, entered the privilege order delineating the very narrow category of privilege that the debtor can continue to assert in this case, vis-a-vis the trustee, for documents that may cause him personal harm and also set out a very clear procedure in paragraph 7 of that order for how the debtor may assert that privilege. And what that ordered required was for the Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 11 of

1 debtor's counsel, in this case Zeisler & Zeisler, to produce 2 a privilege log to the trustee within ten days of the 3 deadline to produce documents in response to a given a 4 subpoena. 5 As I said, the deadline to produce documents in 6 response to the subpoenas at issue here was September 16th. 7 The debtor's counsel's deadline to produce a privilege log 8 under the privileges order was, therefore, September 26th. 9 It is now October 13th, nearly three weeks after 10 that deadline.

11 subpoena or the privileges order, nor did the debtor move 12 for an extension of time (indiscernible) deadline under the 13 privileges order to provide us a privilege log. 14 And as you mentioned, Your Honor, and as you read 15 in the objection that the debtor filed, the debtor now touts 16 progress that he believes has been made in reviewing the 17 documents. 18 He says that he's received thousands of documents 19 from Brown Rudnick and Verdolino.

20 documents and he's claiming privilege over 30 or so odd 21 documents and, you know, adding the suggestion that that's 22 supposed to give us some comfort.

23 frankly, Your Honor, no comfort at all. 24 First of all, we still have not received a single 25 one of the documents at issue of these thousands of Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 13 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 13 documents that Brown Rudnick has apparently reviewed, or sorry, that the debtor's counsel has apparently reviewed. As he says, he's now asserting privilege over 30 or some odd documents which would leave several thousand that he's not asserting privilege over. We have none of those documents. We're told they're forthcoming soon, but we've not seen them. We also were told that there are thousands more documents that still need to be reviewed. And we're told that in a best case scenario we would get all of those documents finally produced to the trustee in maybe another two weeks. The other problem, Your Honor, is we finally got a privilege log which contains by my count approximately ten documents on it, not 33. And I'll get into this more in a moment, but that privilege log I think is just an indication that we are far from the end of the line with resolving disputes concerning the production of documents in response to our subpoena because the privilege log is, frankly -- it's almost absurd in its lack of compliance with the privileges order and the local rule generally. Before I get to that, I just want to emphasize that we're three weeks out from the production deadline. And, again, as I said, there has been no motion for an

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 14 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 14 extension of time. The Court needs to enforce its prior orders, including the privileges order. And that's critically important to maintain a semblance of order in this case and it's important because of the precedential effect that it will have in this case. As the Court knows, there are dozens of other subpoenas that the trustee has served on other parties, including, in particular, other law firms that represent the debtor. If the debtor and its counsel in response to this subpoena is allowed to drag its feet and completely ignore deadlines and allow weeks to elapse without compliance, then that's exactly what they're going to do in response to every other subpoena. I do want to just address -- well, I'll address the privilege log in a minute, Your Honor, but what I'd also like to do is just kind of anticipate some of what I think you're going to hear and what you've seen in the papers from both the debtor and from Brown Rudnick.

Really what it is, Your Honor, is it's a lot of finger pointing as between those two parties. Brown Rudnick has said that there's been delay in getting the documents because the debtor initially insisted on having Brown Rudnick review the documents for privilege, which Brown Rudnick said was not its responsibility and it was incapable

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 15 of doing. And then you have the debtor saying that Brown Rudnick has delayed in sending documents to the debtor for review and, therefore, the debtor's hands are tied and there's nothing it can do. And I think the very simple response to all of that from the trustee's perspective is that that's not our problem. The Court entered an order with deadlines and those deadlines have not been complied with. No one sought an extension. That is the end of it, period. To the extent that there are issues that Brown Rudnick and the debtor need to iron out among themselves to comply with those deadlines, it's on them to do that, not on the trustee. Now I do want to address the privilege log because, again, I think this is just emblematic of where we're going to be headed and it is part and parcel to everything we've seen in this case from the debtor. We got a privilege log, as I said, last night, Your Honor. I don't know -- unfortunately, I don't think we have a copy of it. Is there -- is it possible to do screen sharing on the Zoom, Your Honor? THE COURT: It is possible to do screen sharing on the Zoom. Who has the -- do you have it, Mr. Bassett, and Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 15 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 16 you're trying to share your screen, or what are you -- what is -- MR. BASSETT: Well, my colleague, Mr. Bongartz, I think would do that if he can. MR. BONGARTZ: Yeah. Right now it says that I'm disabled to share my screen -- THE COURT: Right. MR. BONGARTZ: -- so I think the host -- THE COURT: Right. Hold on a second and we'll make you -- we will allow you to do that. But we're going to have to do that with regard to you, Mr. Bongartz. Okay? So just be patient for a second -- MR. BONGARTZ: Thank you. THE COURT: -- and then you can share your screen. So we're giving Mr. Bongartz the ability to share his screen? I'm looking at the courtroom deputy and others. Right? Okay. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. MR. BONGARTZ: Yes. I have the ability to share now. THE COURT: Okay. All right. So then go ahead and do that, counsel. One of the things -- I wonder if we can -- okay, good, the big screen shows the whole document. Is that right? Okay. I have to make it -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 16 of

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 17 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 17 MR. BONGARTZ: All right. Great. THE COURT: All right. So how -- Attorney Bongartz, you want to -- right now at least all I can see is -- maybe if I make my screen bigger I can see more, but I don't know about that. MR. BASSETT: So, Your Honor, if I may, I think what I'll do is I can guide Mr. Bongartz through it. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. BASSETT: And I won't spend -- I won't spend too much time. I just want to highlight a couple of issues. So this is the privilege log, again, that we received from the debtor's counsel last night purporting to withhold documents as privileged under the privilege order. And, as Your Honor knows, the privilege order, as I just discussed, states that the debtor can only withhold documents as privileged to the extent that he thinks they might give rise to personal harm to the debtor, e.g., related to his potential criminal liability, and that any privilege log would have to include not only the information that you would typically require under the relevant rules, including the local rule, sufficient to allow the other party to identify the claim of privilege, but also information to in this case identify the basis for withholding on the grounds of personal harm. And I just want to flag a couple of these entries.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 18 of

1 The first entry, according to this privilege log, 2 is an agreement dated October 19th, 2021 involving Golden 3 Spring New York, the debtor, Ace Decade Holdings and Dawn 4 State, Limited.

5 litigation funding and the claimed privilege is attorney 6 work product and common interest. 7 There's not even a superficial attempt to comply 8 with the terms of the privilege order.

9 indication whatsoever how this document could possibly 10 relate to personal harm to the debtor, nor is there any 11 other explanation as to why it's properly being withheld. 12 I'm not going to go through each entry on this 13 log. I'd like to have Mr. Bongartz maybe scroll to the last 14 one. As you will see, most of the other entries deal with, 15 you know, similarly cursory descriptions of issues that 16 don't relate to personal harm. 17 The last one, I imagine the assertion is that 18 maybe there is some personal harm here, but the only 19 description we have is that this particular document, which 20 in this case is an email dated May 10th, 2022, relates to 21 the effect of the dismissal of the bankruptcy case on 22 various future rights of the debtor. 23 Again, that is completely non-compliant with the 24 order requiring the debtor to explain why the document being 25 withheld would cause him personal harm.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 19 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 19 So, Your Honor, we're not moving with respect to these documents today. That is for, you know, something that I think we're going to have to have the Court address very soon, potentially reviewing documents that are being withheld in camera, but I raise it just to provide context for any assertion that meaningful progress is being made and this is all going to resolve itself if we just give the debtor more time. So, Your Honor, I think given all of this, given where we are, there is no other course of action right now than for the Court to enter an order that requires the immediate production of the files of Brown Rudnick to the trustee, and Verdolino, to the trustee subject to the

debtor's ability to exercise its claw back rights.

Now, the last point I'll make on that is that the Court has -- sorry, the debtor, in its paper, in it's objection, has said that, well, you know, it sites a case and it makes the argument that if documents are produced to the trustee on the basis, with a claw back right, that the debtor could still be prejudiced because if the trustee sees those documents, you know, you sort of can't unring the bell.

But that case and that argument is completely inapplicable here because we're not dealing with a situation where this debtor has the ability to assert all of its

1 ordinary privileges vis-a-vis the trustee.

2 rather now owns those privileges. 3 The only narrow area in which the debtor can 4 continue to assert privileges is with respect to personal 5 harm, specifically criminal issues, which the trustee is not 6 investigating. 7 So if there is a -- if there's a document that's 8 disclosed to the trustee that deals with personal harm or 9 criminal liability, that's not going to be prejudicial to 10 the debtor because the trustee is not investigating and not 11 prosecuting criminal liability anyway.

12 just not an issue. 13 And the solution that we've proposed is a 14 reasonable one.

15 the documents, enforce its prior orders, and to the extent 16 that there are privileged documents, the debtor can claw 17 those back. Thank you, Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: Thank you. 19 I was going to hear from the debtor first, Mr.

21 MR. BALDIGA:

22 more effective to have us report the facts as to where we 23 are and then he could argue from that. 24 THE COURT:

25 Attorney Baldiga, is that what you're saying, or Mr.

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 21 Romney's going to report? MR. BALDIGA: That I would first by -- THE COURT: Go right ahead then. Go right ahead. MR. BALDIGA: Then that's a joint suggestion. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: You're welcome. MR. BALDIGA: And I'm not going to argue. But just as I did at the last hearing, just so that you heard the time line from Mr. Bassett, the other aspect of the time line that's important here is that, you know, until -- before the consent order was entered on September 14, we didn't really know what we were going to do. I mean, we retained everything and we grabbed everything, but we had literally millions of responsive documents, or potentially responsive documents, and we started discussions with the -- with debtor's counsel and with Paul Hastings immediately upon entry of the consent order. I think you saw from the last time, that very day, it was on the first search terms. That's how you respond, you know, gather emails. The first search terms suggested by Paul Hastings in the week following crashed our system. We could not even pull -- I mean, it was in the millions, many millions of documents, because some of the terms were so general. Like, for example, the letter M. We just could not respond. Not Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 21 of

1 through any bad faith or improper suggestion or whatever, it 2 was just it took a while as it always does. 3 September 23rd, we had full agreement as to search 4 terms. Those search terms, this is just on emails produced 5 for review 180 -- this is just on Brown Rudnick -- 189,872 6 documents to be reviewed. 7 THE COURT: Say that number again, please. 8 MR. BALDIGA:

9 busy on and we have reviewed, at least a first review. 10 There's several levels of review, but -- so those, that's 11 the universe we started with.

12 but we're well on our way. 13 The Verdolino & Lowey documents were produced in 14 their entirety to debtor's counsel last week, I think on 15 Friday, but Mr. Romney can correct me. 16 MR. HENZY: Just to cut, it was on Thursday. 17 MR. BALDIGA: Thursday. I'm sorry. 18 MR. HENZY:

19 could use so we had to have a vendor convert so that we -- 20 the documents in a usable form were in our possession on 21 Friday. 22 MR. BALDIGA:

23 THE COURT:

24 second. 25 MR. BALDIGA: Yeah.

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 23 THE COURT: I think I did, but. So Brown Rudnick gave to the debtor's counsel the Verdolino & Lowey documents on Thursday -- MR. BALDIGA: But really Friday because they needed to go through a process to be usable. THE COURT: Right. I just want to -- MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: You had -- you were in possession of the -- Brown Rudnick was in possession of the Verdolino & Lowey documents, which were then turned over to the debtor on Thursday, which would have been the 6th I guess of October, and the debtor had to convert them into a usable format, which was accomplished on Friday, October 7th? MR. BALDIGA: One correction to that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. MR. BALDIGA: It did not come through Brown Rudnick. It went from Verdolino directly to -- THE COURT: Okay. That's what I was -- I was just -- MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. THE COURT: Thank you. That's the clarification I wanted. Okay. Thank you. Go right ahead. MR. BALDIGA: We were equally dismayed that they didn't -- they weren't in an electronic format, but in native form, technically compliant with the subpoena, but it Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 23 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 24 made review very difficult without the additional work that Zeisler did. THE COURT: When native form, do you mean they gave them paper? Is that what you're telling me? MR. BALDIGA: No. It was electronic, but I believe without Bates numbers. MR. HENZY: Yeah. There were no Bates numbers, that's correct. We had to go to an outside vendor to get it in usable form -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: -- that we could actually put eyes on it. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. BALDIGA: Those have been reviewed. Last night we were told that there were I think one document that was being -- for which there was a claim of privilege asserted, but that document shows up six times. I could be -- it could not be -- it might not be exactly six, but it's -- the one document is -- shows up multiple times. And Verdolino & Lowey is, as we speak, taking that document out of that production and sending the entirety directly to Paul Hastings and they've assured us that it will be done today. Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 24 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 25 THE COURT: All right. So hold on. I just want to make sure I've got that all. MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. THE COURT: So there's -- in addition to the documents, or as part of the documents that Zeisler & Zeisler has then converted to usable format, you've been told by Zeisler & Zeisler that there's -- MR. BALDIGA: On the privilege log -- THE COURT: Yeah. MR. BALDIGA: -- there's one document in the Verdolino & Lowey pile of I think almost 20,000 documents one document -- MR. HENZY: I don't know if this will help, Your Honor. It was 14,258 documents that we received from Verdolino & Lowey. THE COURT: You're going to have to slow down, okay -- MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: -- if I'm going to catch up with you. So hold on a second. Okay? Let me just finish with -- I appreciate that. I want to know the number. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: But I just -- MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: I just want to follow through with Mr. Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 25 of

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 26 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 26 Baldiga's -- MR. BALDIGA: Sure. And this -- and these weeds are important. So -- THE COURT: Yeah, they are. MR. BALDIGA: -- something more than 14,000 documents were provided to Zeisler. Again, they had them in usable form by Friday. Yesterday they published the privilege log that you started to see. THE COURT: So one document on the -- MR. BALDIGA: One document -- THE COURT: -- privilege log is a Verdolino & Lowey document, is that what you're telling me? MR. BALDIGA: A privilege assertion as to one document, but that document -- THE COURT: Produced by -- MR. BALDIGA: -- shows up multiple times in the Verdolino production. THE COURT: Okay. But it's a document produced by Verdolino & Lowey? MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. But there are multiple copies of it in the whole -- in the entire production? MR. BALDIGA: And that's why they have to go through it now and just make sure that if that one document has to be pulled, it's not pulled in one place and not

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 27 of

1 pulled -- and failed to be pulled in others.

2 done already, they assured us it would be done today. 3 THE COURT: Who's they? Verdolino? 4 MR. BALDIGA: Verdolino & Lowey. 5 THE COURT: Okay. Sorry.

6 sure that I'm accurate. 7 MR. BALDIGA: I shouldn't use pronouns in this. 8 THE COURT: No. That's okay.

9 problem.

10 MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. 11 THE COURT: -- I understand where we are.

12 ahead. 13 MR. BALDIGA:

14 made directly to the trustee today of the entirety of the 15 Verdolino & Lowey responsive universe of 14,200 and 16 something documents, with the sole exception of the one 17 document as to which the debtor has asserted a privilege. 18 THE COURT: Okay. 19 MR. BALDIGA:

20 because we weren't involved in the privilege review. 21 THE COURT: Right. 22 MR. BALDIGA: So I won't go there. 23 As to Brown Rudnick, we have produced to the 24 trustee directly somewhere north of 1,500 documents that 25 were with third parties, not debtor affiliates.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 28 of

1 been done. The debtor gave us clarity last week that those 2 aren't really subject to a possible privilege because they 3 went to people, for example, Mr. Goldman.

4 trustee has had those. So that's done. 5 THE COURT: About 1,500 documents? 6 MR. BALDIGA: I could be corrected on that.

7 more than 1,500 -- I don't have the exact number. 8 THE COURT: That's fine. 9 MR. BALDIGA:

10 & Zeisler for debtor's review on -- they will correct me, 11 either Thursday or Friday an additional 7,417 documents, I 12 believe. 13 And the remainder of the privilege log that you 14 saw, with the exception of the one Verdolino & Lowey, the 15 rest are assertions of privilege as to Brown Rudnick 16 documents. The great majority of those similarly are as to 17 one document that shows up more than ten times. 18 THE COURT: Okay. 19 MR. BALDIGA:

20 of that production, just like Verdolino is doing, the 21 documents as to which there is an assertion of privilege and 22 today getting all of that to Paul Hastings. 23 THE COURT:

24 the last sentence? 25 MR. BALDIGA: Of course.

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 29 THE COURT: Yes. MR. BALDIGA: So we are -- we got the privilege log last night. The technical people are now going into our documents, pulling out from that the documents as to which there is a privilege assertion. THE COURT: I see. Okay. MR. BALDIGA: The entire remainder is being delivered to Paul Hastings today. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: If it's not done already. THE COURT: Understood. Understood. Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: We're now with both Verdolino & Lowey in that it's solely a matter of technical expertise, not anything else. We have remaining -- of the 189,872 documents, we have remaining 10,100 documents that are possibly responsive, but we believe most of those may not be. And that -- and I think previewed this a little bit, most of those are internal emails only. And they would include, for example, because I was CEO of the firm during the engagement, the word Kwok shows up on almost all of our financial reports. Everyone agrees while that is technically responsive because the word Kwok is one of the search terms, no one here needs what we provide to our auditors or others. Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 29 of

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 30 of

1 And we believe a great many of what is left are 2 those types of things, so that number is shrinking quickly. 3 THE COURT:

4 discussed part of the 189 or in addition? 5 MR. BALDIGA: Yes. 6 THE COURT: It's part of. Okay. 7 MR. BALDIGA: The 189 is the largest universe. 8 THE COURT:

9 MR. BALDIGA: We shrunk it really considerably. 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 MR. BALDIGA:

12 because there are only certain people within the firm that 13 can be authorized to review frankly my emails -- 14 THE COURT: Understood. 15 MR. BALDIGA:

16 are confidentiality issues. 17 We have committed to Paul Hastings that at the 18 latest we will finish our delivery of what is left to 19 debtor's counsel by one week from today on a rolling basis. 20 A big part of that is going over today or it went last 21 night. I'm not sure if you did get things last night, but 22 it's we're doing it on a daily basis.

23 be in large part done by Tuesday of next week. 24 There will always be stragglers, but there won't 25 be much, if anything, left after Tuesday.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 31 of

1 for a hard commitment and we said Thursday.

2 will have to personally review some universe of hundreds of 3 documents at the end of the thing.

4 my level probably won't be anything that moves the needle on 5 anything here. So that's -- those are the facts. 6 I think the September 23 date is important to all 7 of the arguments that will be made by others as to the date 8 on which agreement was made as to search terms.

9 heard at the last hearing trustee's counsel say that we've 10 been tremendously responsive here given the complexity of 11 this. I share that view. I think we continue to be. 12 I think the progress made during the last week, 13 real progress on the ground, is not maybe satisfactory to 14 anybody, but it has been very substantial in that just in 15 that week more than half of the universe of documents that 16 -- much more than half -- has been already produced and will 17 be to the trustee today and the remainder will be over the 18 next few days. 19 The other thing that's of significance to us is 20 that -- and, again, not throwing aspersions in any 21 direction, but the debtor's response to the trustee's motion 22 to compel, I know it's not styled as a motion to compel, as 23 to which we said we would support that relief. 24 The debtor has now said, and I think it's the 25 central part of that response, that if Brown Rudnick were to

1 produce directly to the trustee without a privilege review, 2 that would violate our ethical obligations and would be 3 illegal. 4 And we have told Paul Hastings and Zeisler & 5 Zeisler since that.

6 it clear that if that order enters it has to contain a 7 simple additional sentence to make it clear that the Court 8 is not ordering us to do something that is illegal because 9 we obviously can't do that. 10 But we need the Court to decide whether that's 11 illegal or not because we can't do anything now that there 12 is a flat statement that we would be doing something 13 illegal. That's a change in circumstance. 14 So we would suggest to the Court, but I'm not 15 going to argue this, that we complete the process that is 16 now well under way.

17 are -- there's a lot of dates being thrown around. 18 The agreements as to search terms on September 23 19 was obviously one week after the deadline to respond.

20 the trustee has already said we've been superbly responsive, 21 so it's not like anybody has been flouting any dates on our 22 end. I think we've worked really well actually with 23 trustee's counsel.

24 minds as to us working with search terms and so forth. 25 And I think we've worked very well with debtor's

1 replacement counsel as to all of this. 2 I know they don't agree with each other as to much 3 and that's unfortunate, but that's -- there's nothing we 4 could do about that.

5 discussions daily that's produced the progress that I've 6 just reported to you. 7 And I think if we're -- and at the end of the day, 8 you may have some work to do as to the privilege issues, but 9 that our job is to get it all done so that those can land on 10 your desk squarely. I can't speak to any of that. 11 THE COURT: Understood. 12 MR. BALDIGA:

13 you a lot of numbers and facts, are there questions for me? 14 THE COURT: Yes.

15 moment. 16 MR. BALDIGA: Yes. 17 THE COURT:

18 debtor that you've just referred to that was filed 19 yesterday, and you've referred to the statement that if 20 Brown Rudnick were to directly produce documents to the 21 trustee, it's the position of the debtor that you'd be 22 violating the law. 23 You haven't -- isn't every -- from what you've 24 just told me, at least I think is what I heard, is that 25 you're not producing anything directly to the trustee,

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 34 you've already produced everything or will be produce everything to the debtor's counsel? MR. BALDIGA: Well, that's what we've been doing in earnest over the last week. The motion before the Court -- THE COURT: No. I understand. But what I'm -- what I'm -- MR. BALDIGA: -- is for direct production. THE COURT: I understand that, but even if I entered that order today for direct production, you've already given everything to Zeisler & Zeisler, haven't you? MR. BALDIGA: Not quite everything. That's what I said would be finished -- THE COURT: So what haven't? The 10,000? MR. BALDIGA: -- within the next few days. THE COURT: Just the 10,000, the ones that -- MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: Those documents -- MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: -- that are internal? Okay. That you're saying, I think you're saying, that Paul Hastings and the trustee would agree, after you review, are probably not going to be produced anyway because they're internal communications of Brown Rudnick and your business operations that have nothing to do with the -- with the topics under Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 34 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 35 which -- MR. BALDIGA: Not quite. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: Most I think are, but there will almost certainly be in that universe things that are responsive that need to be produced. I can't say that none of those are properly -- THE COURT: Okay. So the risk -- the risk that exists if I enter an order saying that there's immediate production directly from Brown Rudnick to the trustee relates to those 10,000 documents? MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. That was my question. MR. BALDIGA: And some -- I just want to be fair, some are going to end up being responsive and should be produced. Now, whether there's a privilege claim or not, I don't know. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: But they're not all going to be just accounting documents. THE COURT: Okay. Understood. But the remaining, the 10,000 documents that you described, and I know we're not talking specific, you know, exact numbers, but as closely as we can get, are part of the 189,000. And so essentially 179,000 documents have already been given over Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 35 of

1 to the debtor that you intend to produce to the trustee? 2 MR. BALDIGA: No.

3 Brown Rudnick review, were determined not to relate to this 4 case or not to be responsive, we've already cleared the

6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 MR. BALDIGA: -- of most of those.

8 about 15 percent or so of that 189,000.

9 example, is one of the search terms.

10 clients named Miles. 11 THE COURT: Right. 12 MR. BALDIGA:

13 discard, discard, discard, we're down to 10,000.

14 keep working through those. We've made huge progress.

15 just -- and I wish I could stand up and say we're done, 16 everything went to Zeisler last night, but we're not. 17 THE COURT: All right.

18 though, how many documents have -- has Brown Rudnick turned 19 over to Zeisler & Zeisler?

20 not asking you to give me a precise number.

21 the range of what we just talked about. 22 MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. At least 7,500. 23 THE COURT: Okay. 24 MR. BALDIGA:

25 more than that.

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 37 delivered as we speak or went last night and I just don't know, but that's a substantial -- that's in the several thousands as well. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Henzy rose when I asked you that question. MR. BALDIGA: I'm sorry. He may know better. THE COURT: Do you have a more precise answer? MR. HENZY: Yeah. So, Your Honor, last Thursday, we received from Brown Rudnick 3,263 documents. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: And last night, I'm going to say at probably 7 o'clock, we received an additional 4,100 documents. MR. BALDIGA: So that adds up to about 7,500. MR. HENZY: I think Mr. Baldiga was pretty close. MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. And those are documents, Your Honor, not pages. THE COURT: Right. MR. BALDIGA: Often lawyers talk about how many pages -- THE COURT: Right. MR. BALDIGA: -- but these are actual documents. We haven't even -- given the number of documents, we haven't even tried to calculate pages. It's not meaningful. THE COURT: Understood. Okay. Then I don't have Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 37 of

2 MR. BALDIGA: Thank you. 3 THE COURT: -- Attorney Baldiga.

4 much. 5 Attorney Henzy? 6 MR. HENZY:

7 characterize slightly different than Mr. Baldiga is the 8 debtor is not producing anything here.

9 issue was not served on the debtor.

11 THE COURT: I think everybody's clear on that. 12 MR. HENZY:

13 anything. 14 THE COURT:

15 was producing.

16 MR. HENZY: Understood. 17 THE COURT: -- provided to the debtor. 18 MR. HENZY:

20 THE COURT: With regard to Brown Rudnick. 21 MR. HENZY: Right.

22 documents in compliance with the subpoena. 23 THE COURT: Correct. 24 MR. HENZY: Right. Okay. 25 THE COURT: Correct.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 39 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 39 MR. HENZY: All right. And so I don't think anywhere in our objection we said that by directly producing Brown Rudnick would be doing something illegal. I think what we said was that the order that the trustee's asking for that Brown Rudnick immediately produce all of its documents would put Brown Rudnick in the position of producing documents without having met its professional obligations to review the documents as we all have. As lawyers, you can't produce an attorney, I'm sorry, a client document without putting eyes on the document or doing some sort of analysis about whether or not this document should be produced. So I don't -- weren't saying -- I don't think we said if Brown Rudnick directly produces they'd be doing something illegal. Again, that may just be a little bit of a different characterization. But I want to be -- Your Honor asked about that, so I want to be clear on that. Okay? THE COURT: Well, that's -- I asked about that because that's what Mr. Baldiga said. MR. HENZY: Yeah. And -- THE COURT: He had concerns that your reply, the reply filed on behalf of the debtor yesterday, said something different than the previous reply which is that if Brown -- according --

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 40 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 40 I believe I heard you properly, Mr. Baldiga, but if I didn't, please correct me, I think your concern was that the reply said that if BR, Brown Rudnick, was to produce directly to the trustee, these documents that Brown Rudnick would be in violation of the law. Those were the words that Mr. Baldiga used. Now, you're saying you don't -- that's not what you're -- Attorney Henzy, let me just make sure I'm clear, that the debtor isn't saying that. The debtor's saying that if Brown Rudnick produces documents directly to the trustee that they haven't looked at, they haven't met their obligation, their professional obligation, that's what you just said? MR. HENZY: Yes. That's right. THE COURT: Okay. And Mr. Baldiga already said he's not producing anything until he looks at it, so I don't think there's a problem. So why don't we move on. MR. HENZY: I don't either. Okay. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: I don't either. Okay. Just again, to be clear, Your Honor, we received on Thursday 14,258 documents from Verdolino & Lowey which again we had to have a vendor convert to usable form, so we started our review on Friday. We completed that review yesterday and produced a

1 privilege log, which was up on the screen, and have directed 2 to Verdolino & Lowey that they withhold it's actually six 3 documents, but it's the same document. 4 So of the 14,258 documents, the debtor has said 5 you should withhold these six documents, but, again, it's 6 actually the exact same document that just appeared in their 7 file six times. 8 That, Your Honor, is the first document on the 9 privilege log. And we -- on the subject, we could have been 10 more specific, but it's a litigation -- we say in the 11 subject line it's litigation funding.

12 funding agreement with respect to the UBS litigation that's 13 going on in the U.K., which that is carved out of the 14 privilege order. 15 And, as Your Honor is aware, that privilege with 16 respect to the U.K. litigation is the subject of appeal 17 that's pending in front of the district court. 18 That's the only document, or documents, plural, 19 again there's six copies, that we said should be withheld. 20 And to go to the, I'll talk about this more, the 21 good faith or lack thereof by the debtor here, our review -- 22 we were able to start a review on Friday.

23 14,258 documents by yesterday and produced a log yesterday 24 and withheld one document. I think that is pretty good. 25 Maybe somebody else could have gone faster than we did, but

1 I think that is pretty good. 2 On Thursday, Brown Rudnick produced 3,263 3 documents to us, which again, we got through by yesterday 4 and produced a privilege log last night. 5 Of the documents on the privilege log, some of 6 those are duplicates so there are a total of 11 documents I 7 believe that is -- 10, there's actually 10, one of which is 8 that Verdolino & Lowey document, so there's actually 9 9 documents that we've identified out of the 3,263 documents 10 we received from Brown Rudnick. 11 Within that 9, again, there are -- it's, 12 principally anyway, it's email chains, and it's overlapping 13 so I can't tell you exactly how many discrete documents it 14 is, but it's actually -- in some sense, it's less than 9 15 because there are overlapping emails within those 9 16 documents. 17 All but -- all but one of those documents, Your 18 Honor, and this is made clear in the privilege log, either 19 directly through mention of the UBS action or at least 20 mention of names of counsel who are involved in that action, 21 all but one of those documents relates to the UBS action. 22 So, again, of the 3,263 documents we received, 23 we've withheld, however you define it, 6 or 7, and all but 24 one of those relate to the UBS action. 25 The last, the only document that doesn't relate to

1 the UBS action, is -- it's actually a document that we're 2 going to -- we agree we're going to need to redact, so 3 probably two-thirds of the document we will be able to 4 produce. 5 We were not able to do that in the time frame that 6 we had, but that document will be redacted, and that 7 involves advice, you know, outside of this bankruptcy case, 8 which we believe would be privileged within the meaning of 9 the privilege order.

10 but that's -- we're making that claim and we may have to 11 deal with it at some point. 12 The 3,263 documents that we received from Brown 13 Rudnick on Thursday we have been told are -- and if there's 14 stray documents that are not in this category, it's not 15 through any, you know, intention by Brown Rudnick to not 16 give us complete information. 17 Again, we're dealing with a tremendous amount of 18 documents and I think they are doing the best they can, but 19 we've been told the 3,263 documents is the universe of 20 documents which I'll call -- I'll say involve external 21 emails. Go emails between Brown Rudnick and somebody 22 outside of Brown Rudnick, whether -- so principally the 23 debtor or other counsel for the debtor. 24 Because again they've already carved away external 25 communications that involved committee counsel, involved

1 PAX, involved the U.S. Trustee and those documents have 2 already been produced. That's the 1,500 documents that Mr. 3 Baldiga mentioned. 4 So there's the 1,500 documents already produced. 5 There's this 3,263 of external emails that we've now 6 reviewed. And as Mr. Baldiga said those will be being 7 produced today or tomorrow. 8 We've been told that the 4,100 pages that we 9 received last night are internal Brown Rudnick emails. So 10 not necessarily the non-responsive, so the management type 11 of documents that Mr. Baldiga mentioned. 12 But it's -- so we have not reviewed these 4,100 13 documents yet, but my general understanding -- again, not to 14 hold Brown Rudnick to anything here, I think they're doing 15 the best they can -- is that these 4,100 documents are 16 internal emails that would be responsive to the subpoena. 17 So it's not management related things internal to Brown 18 Rudnick. It's actually 4,100 documents relating to this 19 case. 20 We've also been told that a not insignificant 21 portion of those 4,100 documents are things like drafts of 22 pleadings that Brown Rudnick ended up filing with this 23 court. So the expectation, and frankly the hope, from our 24 perspective is that the review will go fairly quickly.

25 large volume of the documents are draft pleadings, then the

1 debtor would not be making any claim that they -- they 2 should be withheld. 3 Again, Your Honor, I think that in terms of the 4 debtor's good faith, lack of good faith, attempt to obstruct 5 here, I think that us turning around 3,263 documents in less 6 than a week is a reasonable performance. 7 I agree with Mr. Baldiga that a critical date here 8 is the September 23rd agreement between Brown Rudnick and 9 Paul Hastings on search terms. 10 I don't think it's an unreasonable amount of time 11 for Brown Rudnick to have gone through from September 23rd 12 to October 6th, which is when we got our first slug of 13 documents from them, to go from that universe of 189 -- the 14 September 23rd search terms, as Mr. Baldiga said, produced 15 189,000 documents -- for them to go from that 189,000 to the 16 documents that they actually are sending us on a rolling 17 basis, I don't think that's an unreasonable amount of time 18 for Brown Rudnick to have gone through that process. 19 Again, I don't think it's an unreasonable amount 20 of time for us to have reviewed the documents from last 21 Thursday's receipt with respect to the Brown Rudnick 22 documents and then, in effect, receipt from Verdolino & 23 Lowey on Friday, to have gone through those documents and 24 produced a privilege log by yesterday. 25 The trustee's position is that the order --

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 46 of

1 production was due on September 16.

2 entered on September 14.

3 September 16. And that the debtor was obligated to either 4 produce a privilege log by September 26 or file a motion 5 with this court seeking an extension of time. 6 We couldn't have produced a privilege log until we 7 received the documents and we didn't receive the documents 8 until starting on last Thursday.

9 received another slug of documents last night.

10 we could not have produced a privilege log with respect to 11 those documents. And we understand next week there's going 12 to be another slug of documents coming.

13 should have filed a motion to extend our time to do that. 14 I understand the argument, Your Honor, and my 15 response is that that means that given the dates, given the 16 way that this all worked, our inability to comply with the 17 terms of the order essentially was baked into the order and 18 into the dates that were in the order. 19 And I guess we -- I would say fairly assumed that 20 there would be some normal, I'll call it, responsible 21 approach to producing documents pursuant to the Brown 22 Rudnick subpoena. 23 Again, from the debtor's perspective, we could not 24 have produced a privilege log until we received the 25 documents. And we have returned -- we have turned those

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 47 documents around I think very quickly. And, again, given the volume of documents and the really, really small number of documents that we have withheld, we have exercised I'm going to say a pretty light touch here. I mean, there's a grand total of one document that we've said should be not completely withheld, should be redacted based on privilege other than the UBS documents which, again, is the subject of appeal before the district court. One thing again I want to be clear on, Your Honor, is putting aside the UBS documents and putting aside the one document that I'm telling you we be believe needs to be redacted, because our view is that those are either carved out with respect to UBS or with respect to the redaction that we think needs to be made, is actually not responsive to the subpoena. We have not been reviewing -- the word privilege is being used -- we have not been reviewing for privilege. There are going to be thousands of pages of attorney/client privilege documents that are going to be produced to the trustee. We're not withholding, again, other than the UBS documents, okay, but we're not withholding based on -- I'm sorry, we didn't review for privilege. We Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 47 of Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 48 of

1 reviewed for the personal harm standard that was set out in 2 the privilege order.

3 standard, we've, depending on how you interpret the one 4 document that we're saying should be redacted is 5 interpreted, we are saying that it's either zero or one 6 document should be withheld based on that personal harm 7 standard. 8 Again, out of the three -- the 17,500 documents 9 that we received, it's we're saying either zero or one 10 should be -- should be withheld. 11 Just to reiterate, Your Honor, on the privilege 12 log, which Attorney Bassett says is so deficient, again, all 13 but one of the documents relate to the UBS litigation.

14 the extent that is not clear, we can certainly give them a 15 revised privilege log that makes that clear. 16 So there's only -- it's only one other document, 17 which I've actually -- I've described on the record.

18 Attorney Bassett wants us to have more specificity on that, 19 we certainly can do that.

20 privilege log to hide anything or to do anything other than 21 what -- that we were required to do. 22 With the remaining documents that -- with the 23 4,100 pages we received last night or with the documents 24 that are still to come -- so I think possibly, I'm not sure, 25 of the 10,000 pages Mr. Baldiga mentioned, I think -- I

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 49 of

1 think anyway we've already received 4,100 of them.

2 they're still looking at 6,000 pages.

3 that whatever comes out of that we'll have by a week from 4 today. 5 What we've asked for, or what we would ask for, is 6 that we have a week, so five business days, from receipt to 7 turn those documents around.

8 last Thursday, we turned it around in less than five 9 business days.

10 receiving documents so I don't know what other things may be 11 going on to be able to commit to less than five business 12 days. 13 I join Attorney Baldiga in asking the Court to let 14 this process just finish itself out.

15 again, I join Attorney Baldiga and I think that given the 16 volume of documents, given the dates that things happened, I 17 actually think we've done pretty well with both Brown 18 Rudnick in terms of going through their files and getting 19 things to us and then us turning them around. 20 Attorney Baldiga is prepared to commit to having 21 all documents to us, maybe there's some stragglers, but 22 essentially all documents to us by a week from today.

23 as I've said, we will commit to having anything we receive 24 turned around five business days or one week from receipt 25 which, again, I think is pretty reasonable.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 50 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 50 We've already -- I can tell you, we've already started on the 4,100 pages that we received last night and we will turn those around and produce a privilege log to the extent one's necessary by probably Tuesday, Wednesday of next week. So, Your Honor, unless you have questions for me, Mr. Romney may have something to add, but that's all I have. THE COURT: I do have questions. MR. HENZY: Thank you. THE COURT: So I understood your argument about the privilege log, not being able to produce a privilege log, but where in paragraph 7 of the consent order does it say that the debtor's counsel has to review the documents before they're produced in connection with the subpoenas? MR. HENZY: Sure. And, Your Honor, from my perspective that has been, I guess, the subject of a lot of the discussion that has gone on between the trustee, Brown Rudnick and us. And it doesn't say that. Okay. But Mr. Baldiga can correct me, okay, I think that Brown Rudnick's position has been how do we know what the debtor believes in good faith may cause him or result -- THE COURT: But that's not the issue. Paragraph 7 has nothing to do with Brown Rudnick. It's drafted and was consented to by your client. And it only has to deal with the debtor. It doesn't have

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 51 anything to do with any of the other parties who were served with subpoenas. So it only has to deal with the debtor. So what you're basically saying is paragraph 7 is not workable? MR. HENZY: No. THE COURT: But that's what you're saying. MR. HENZY: No, it's not. THE COURT: Because -- well -- MR. HENZY: It's not. THE COURT: But let me finish, please, okay? MR. HENZY: Okay. Okay. THE COURT: Because what you're saying is you want this court to not enter an order compelling the production of documents that should have already been produced because paragraph 7 doesn't say what you think it should say, which is the debtor should be able to review the documents first. MR. HENZY: No. THE COURT: That's what you're saying. MR. HENZY: It's not what I'm -- THE COURT: Then what are you saying? MR. HENZY: So, again -- THE COURT: No. I need that question answered. MR. HENZY: Okay. Okay. THE COURT: Because here's the problem. You consented to this order. Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 51 of

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 52 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 52 MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: This was negotiated. There is nothing in paragraph 7 that says anywhere at any time that the debtor is allowed to review documents before the production of the documents. Okay? There's nothing there. And that's -- And, in addition to that, you didn't make any argument about why you didn't file a motion for an extension of time which was, as you said, baked in to that provision that would have given you the right to not have to make these arguments because you could argue, if you had obtained the extension of time, that the trustee would have no right to seek to compel under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Right? So why didn't you -- why didn't you file a motion for extension of time? MR. HENZY: Okay. Those are I think two questions. The first, on the first question, Your Honor, the debtor -- and, again, I don't mean to be putting this on Brown Rudnick, so if I can -- THE COURT: Well, you're not going to put it on Brown Rudnick -- MR. HENZY: Right. If I can finish -- THE COURT: -- because they're not part of this

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 53 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 53 stipulation. MR. HENZY: Well, I'm trying to answer your question, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: -- if I can speak. THE COURT: But they're not part of the stipulation. MR. HENZY: I'm trying to answer your question, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Thank you. I don't mean to put this on Brown Rudnick. Brown Rudnick communicated to us and I believe to the trustee we, Brown Rudnick, can't produce consistent with this paragraph 7, because how do we know what the debtor believes would result in personal harm to him. THE COURT: That's not what Mr. Baldiga said at the last hearing. He said I'm not going to substitute my judgment for the judgment of the debtor. And Mr. Baldiga said he would agree to the entry of the order that was submitted before the last hearing that would have been direct production to the trustee. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I want to try to answer your question. THE COURT: Okay.

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 54 MR. HENZY: Thank you. THE COURT: Well, I'm trying to follow your answer because -- MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: -- because you're saying something that's not accurate. That's not what Mr. Baldiga said. He stood right in front of me and said I am not in the position to substitute my determination of what the debtor could think is of a good-faith reason that would result in personal harm. That's what he said. And he also said, all that being said, I agree to the entry of the order that the -- that the trustee has submitted with regard to this motion. MR. HENZY: May I speak, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: Thank you. I don't think I mischaracterized anything. What Mr. Baldiga has consistently said to us is just what you said: I can't substitute my judgment for the judgment of the debtor. So we need you to look at these documents and tell us what the debtor believes results in personal harm and doesn't believe in personal harm. And Mr. Romney has said this multiple times on the record, we've said it in pleadings, what we said to Brown Rudnick, what we said to the trustee, consistently, going Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 54 of

1 back weeks, it was we're not asking, we're not demanding, 2 we're not telling you we think this is the way it ought to 3 work, that we review the documents. Okay? 4 Our consistent position has been Brown Rudnick has 5 the subpoena. Brown Rudnick has a court order.

6 Rudnick has the Rules of Professional Responsibility.

7 Rudnick needs to do what Brown Rudnick needs to do. 8 If Brown Rudnick and the trustee agree that what 9 should happen here is that Zeisler & Zeisler is going to 10 review all of these documents, we'll do that.

11 again, we didn't demand it, we didn't insist it, we didn't 12 tell anybody that's what this order says has to happen.

14 THE COURT:

15 me entering the order that's been asked to be entered then, 16 because otherwise you are saying that, you do want to change 17 the process. 18 MR. HENZY: No, I don't. 19 THE COURT:

20 want this to roll out for the next -- let it happen.

21 what you just said. Don't enter the order, let I happen. 22 MR. HENZY:

23 things, Your Honor. Okay? 24 If the order enters, it puts Brown Rudnick, and I 25 believe Mr. Baldiga would agree with this, in a somewhat

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 56 difficult position because it's now ordered to produce documents, okay, that it potentially is producing documents that it shouldn't be producing. And, again, that's not -- that's not -- you're right, that's not -- the debtor's not part of that. If you order that, you order that, and whatever the consequences are to Brown Rudnick the consequences are to Brown Rudnick. Okay? So I'm -- I'm not telling you that -- if you enter that order, then that -- it has the consequences that it has. Okay? I'm not telling you that you should -- that the process should roll out because that's the interpretation of this order. I'm telling you that because we were asked to do this. Okay. I've heard these words come out of Mr. Romney's mouth. Your Honor, we don't want to do it. Okay. We haven't wanted to do it. THE COURT: Then why do you need time to do it? MR. HENZY: Because Brown Rudnick has said we need the debtor to tell us, under this paragraph 7, whether or not -- THE COURT: No. I don't think that's -- MR. HENZY: -- there's personal harm involved. THE COURT: Mr. Baldiga, is that what you've said? You need the debtor to tell you? Because that's not what I Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 56 of

1 understood your argument to be.

2 to be we will not substitute our judgment for the debtor. 3 Are you telling me that you've now asked the 4 debtor to review everything before it's produced to the 5 trustee? 6 MR. BALDIGA: I've said both. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 MR. BALDIGA:

9 for us, having had no contact with the debtor for months, to 10 substitute our judgment for what the debtor today believes 11 in good -- in his good faith would subject him to personal 12 harm. I can't -- I wouldn't know where to start. 13 For example, now we know that the debtor has said 14 as to one document in the debtor's belief that is 15 implicated. I wouldn't have been able to say yay or nay to 16 that. I just -- I wouldn't know how to go about it. 17 And, yes, we've said from the day we saw this 18 order, we've said to the -- both the trustee and debtor's 19 counsel, how is this -- I mean, we see the order that you 20 worked out. Great. How does this work?

21 to do. 22 We could do everything you do in a normal, which 23 we have, in a normal document production.

24 no longer an issue because it's been assigned to the trustee 25 so all the normal considerations have been taken care of.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 58 of

1 We have this personal harm proviso that is unique 2 to this case, this order.

3 it? And, frankly, that's what's been the subject of dozens 4 of conversations over the month because we know we can't do 5 it. I didn't put it in there. Someone has to do it.

6 can't.

7 THE COURT:

8 to do it. Someone can do it if they decide to do it and 9 they need to go it in good faith. 10 MR. BALDIGA: But we have the documents. 11 THE COURT: No. But I understand that.

12 problem with paragraph 7 is that it says what it says.

13 no one, obviously the debtor, didn't take into consideration 14 those issues when they consented to this order, because the 15 order says that debtor's counsel shall within ten days of 16 the applicable production deadline, subject to the right to 17 make a motion in good faith to the court for a reasonable 18 extension of time, which they didn't do, log all such 19 documents in accordance with the requirements of District of 20 Connecticut, Local Civil Rule of Procedure 26(e).

21 hasn't been done. 22 MR. BALDIGA: I can't speak to any of that. 23 THE COURT:

24 MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. 25 THE COURT:

1 point of it? I mean, that's not your question, Mr. Baldiga, 2 sorry. 3 But what I'm saying to you is -- so you've just 4 clarified that you've said both. 5 MR. BALDIGA: Yes. 6 THE COURT:

7 MR. BALDIGA:

8 THE COURT:

9 MR. BALDIGA: -- one other thing. 10 THE COURT: Go ahead. 11 MR. BALDIGA:

12 -- it's not stated, you're exactly right, I mean, we've all 13 read this paragraph 7 now a number of times, I had assumed 14 that it was assumed by the parties at least, if not by the 15 Court, that we would be doing what we're doing now. 16 I had assumed that because I couldn't figure out 17 what the parties thought otherwise.

18 assumption. And, again, I wasn't in any of the discussions. 19 It's just picking up the document and reading it 20 and saying, hmm, how the hell is this going to work?

21 to that assumption. But I could be totally wrong.

22 be what the trustee assumed or not. I don't know.

23 be what this court assumed or not. Maybe no one assumed it. 24 But I am still at a loss as to how the debtor was 25 supposed to make a log of documents that were in another

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 60 firm's possession? THE COURT: Okay. I understand that. MR. BALDIGA: That's all I can add. THE COURT: All right. So the -- so, Mr. Henzy, you're saying, and Mr. Baldiga has just confirmed, that he's asked the debtor to go through all the documents, so Brown Rudnick has asked the debtor to go through the documents. So that is different from what the understanding of the court was last -- a week and a half ago. But that being said, so why didn't you file a motion for extension of time? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, maybe we or someone else or maybe we should have done that. THE COURT: Well, that, you're the only that would have done that. MR. HENZY: Maybe we should have done that, Your Honor. But, again, given the timing here, the order was entered on the 16th. And I suppose we literally -- THE COURT: It was entered on the 14th. MR. HENZY: You're right, Your Honor. It was entered on the 14th. And the production deadline was on the 16th. THE COURT: Right. MR. HENZY: So, I mean -- THE COURT: Which would have given you time to Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 60 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 61 extend the time. MR. HENZY: Well, literally, we would have been having to file a motion the day after the order entered. THE COURT: Which wouldn't have been -- which what would be the problem, because you didn't have any documents by then? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, if that's what people's hats are going to get hung on, that's what they get hung on. THE COURT: Well, it's not -- MR. HENZY: We didn't -- we didn't -- THE COURT: -- an issue of hats getting hung on. It's provisions of an order that you negotiated with the trustee's counsel that all the parties came and asked this court to approve. And it was negotiated with regard to the motion that the trustee had filed regarding the 2000 -- it was a resolution of a motion with regard to the 2004 Examination. So I understand what you're saying, but it's not persuading me at the moment with regard to why you didn't file a motion for an extension of time. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, could I have Mr. Romney address that, because he was more in the middle of that than I was? THE COURT: Yes. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. For the Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 61 of

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 62 of

record, Aaron Romney, Zeisler & Zeisler.

2 Your Honor, that order was negotiated in good 3 faith to do exactly the opposite of what the trustee is 4 accusing, to try and expedite this process -- 5 THE COURT: I'm not -- that's not the question. 6 MR. ROMNEY:

7 THE COURT: That's not the question.

8 is why didn't you file a motion for an extension of time in 9 accordance with paragraph 7 of the order that you negotiated 10 with the counsel to the trustee?

11 want answered. I don't want to hear argument.

12 it all. I know what the parties' positions are.

13 you file a motion for an extension of time? 14 MR. ROMNEY:

15 Honor, is that the reference to the debtor in the stipulated 16 order that I negotiated was viewed, under my understanding, 17 that an attorney when served with a subpoena with respect to 18 their client, or former client, under the ABA Guidelines 473 19 that I've attached to my objection, that the attorney 20 receiving the subpoena has the obligation to assert the 21 privilege objection on behalf of their client and their 22 former clients. That was the understanding that the debtor, 23 through me as the debtor's agent, thought was going to 24 happen. We were trying to work as quickly as possible. 25 And as a non-bankruptcy lawyer, but litigator

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 63 of

1 who's involved in discovery disputes all the time, what we 2 do is we avoid this as practitioners.

3 the Court with discovery disputes.

4 try and resolve everything.

5 trying to do. 6 And, yes, I believe that after spending weeks 7 trying to negotiate this order that we would then also work 8 together in good faith to have a practical solution to give 9 the debtor the rights that we negotiated on this order and 10 not make the order a total rubber stamp to allow the trustee 11 everything because we couldn't possibly have time to respond 12 to it. 13 I've never stipulated to an order and then moved 14 for an extension of time the next day.

15 THE COURT:

16 Mr. Romney. It provided for that.

17 problem had you done that because that's what the order 18 provided for. 19 It said clearly in paragraph 7, the paragraph that 20 we spent the most time talking about in connection with this 21 order, right, we spent the most time talking about that, you 22 could have filed an extension of time. 23 The Federal Rules -- and your ABA, you know, I 24 appreciate that you attached that, but the Federal Rules of 25 Civil Procedure apply and the Federal Rules of Civil

1 Procedure with regard to discovery and subpoenas and your 2 right to seek a protective order and do -- quash the 3 subpoena, do whatever else, that's what applies. Okay?

4 the ABA rule. 5 What applies is this court has to abide by, as do 6 all the participants, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7 and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and, and a 8 consent order that you negotiated and asked this court to 9 enter. 10 And so all I'm asking is why you didn't file a 11 motion for an extension of time?

12 because you didn't think you had to because you just entered 13 into a consent order. Okay.

14 your answer. That's fine. 15 MR. ROMNEY: Correct.

16 THE COURT: And then we can move on.

17 move on. We don't need to talk about it anymore. Okay? 18 MR. ROMNEY:

19 record that at the time I was negotiating the order on the 20 debtor's behalf and stipulating to the debtor -- to the 21 order on the debtor's behalf, I was not thinking about the 22 specifics of the 30 or 50 subpoenas that were served on 23 other parties.

24 THE COURT:

25 those? They weren't served on you and your clients?

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 65 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 65 MR. ROMNEY: And that's why I didn't move for an extension with respect to those subpoenas, those subpoenas that we're here -- THE COURT: This document -- MR. ROMNEY: -- talking about today, Your Honor. THE COURT: This document doesn't relate to those subpoenas, Mr. Romney. This document only relates to Brown Rudnick and Verdolino & Lowey. That's the document that you consented to. This is -- this regards -- this is with regard to Brown Rudnick and Verdolino & Lowey. That's what it says. That's what it says. MR. ROMNEY: I'm sorry. What is it, Your Honor? Are we talking about the -- THE COURT: I'm talking about paragraph 6, the paragraph right before paragraph 7. MR. ROMNEY: Paragraph 6 -- THE COURT: That says subject to the terms set forth in paragraph 7. MR. ROMNEY: Everything in the order is subject to paragraph 7. That's -- THE COURT: Well, for some reason you thought it was important to add that to the end of paragraph 6 that talks -- MR. ROMNEY: And several other places. THE COURT: -- that talks only about Brown Rudnick

1 and Verdolino & Lowey. 2 And those are the -- by the way, those are the 3 only parties that filed any timely objections to the 4 subpoena. No other party.

5 motion to quash, a motion for a protective order, no one. 6 So there's -- it doesn't matter.

7 Brown Rudnick and Verdolino & Lowey.

8 talking about. 9 And paragraph 6 of that order specifically talks 10 about that. It talks about that.

11 the terms set forth in paragraph 7.

12 about. 13 So I don't want to -- I'm not spending any more 14 time on it. I've got your argument. Okay?

16 MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT:

18 talked about in the privilege log. 19 You said there's ten documents, one of which is a 20 Verdolino & Lowey document, and the other nine, eight of 21 which relate to the action in London, the UBS action.

22 you said those are subject of an appeal. 23 I don't understand that completely because I 24 thought the appeal was with regard to the order that 25 required your client to sign a letter and send it to the

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 67 trustee which your client didn't do. So how are those other documents that might relate to the UBS litigation part of the subject on appeal? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, the debtor has not waived privilege with respect to any privileges that he still has in that UBS litigation. And, again, in paragraph 9 of the privilege order, to just put it colloquially, carves out the UBS litigation from the order. THE COURT: Okay. So all you're saying right now is you're claiming that -- MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: -- and the Court's going to have to determine that? MR. HENZY: Yeah. Yeah. Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. MR. HENZY: Yeah. Yep. THE COURT: That's the question I'm asking. MR. HENZY: Yep. Yep. THE COURT: All right. I don't think I have any other questions at the moment. MR. HENZY: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Mr. Bassett? Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 67 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 68 MR. BASSETT: Sorry. Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. May I be heard in response briefly? THE COURT: Yes. MR. BASSETT: Again, for the record, Nick Bassett from Paul Hastings on behalf of the trustee. I'm going to I think focus my comments to just a couple of issues. As far as kind of the big picture, I think frankly, you know, some of the comments that Your Honor just made really address what I was going to say. And to summarize, I think we've heard a lot of discussion both from Attorney Baldiga and Attorney Henzy about the process that the parties are currently engaged in, the number of documents that have been sent to Zeisler & Zeisler for review, timing of when we can expect to receive documents. And I think one of the comments of Attorney Henzy sort of summed it up when he said, you know, all things considered, we've, quote, "Done pretty well." And it's just -- it's hard to put into words how -- how troubling and how sort of hard to understand a comment like that is when basically what counsel is saying is that we've -- we're now going to be over a month after a deadline to produce documents, with no extension motion having been filed, and that is sort of doing pretty well. I mean, that is just not -- it's not acceptable to Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 68 of

1 the trustee.

2 forward in any kind of organized fashion.

3 to be enforced. 4 I think Your Honor hit the nail on the head.

5 had time to file a motion for an extension.

6 so. Paragraph 7 says what it says. It should be enforced. 7 That, again, from the trustee's perspective is the end of 8 the analysis. 9 Now, there are two other points that I want to 10 briefly address. 11 One is the issues with the privilege log.

12 been discussions of all the documents listed on the log that 13 relate to, purportedly, the UBS litigation in the U.K. in 14 some capacity. 15 Now, Attorney Henzy is correct that paragraph 9 of 16 the privilege order carves out documents that may be subject 17 to a U.K. privilege.

18 the debtor and his U.K. counsel about U.K. legal issues that 19 legitimately would be covered by U.K. privilege.

20 something that is just not addressed per paragraph 9 of the 21 privilege order. 22 But what the privilege order does not do is 23 address in any way or carve out in any way U.S. documents 24 that relate to the UBS litigation in the U.K.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 70 of

1 communications with Brown Rudnick about the UBS litigation, 2 documents that somehow, according to the debtor, were 3 relevant to the administration of this estate, hence is 4 sharing them with Brown Rudnick, those documents are not 5 privileged and are not carved out. 6 Also, Your Honor, there was discussion about 7 litigation funding agreements.

8 agreements are not privileged, period.

9 not privileged, period, but they are directly relevant to 10 the trustee's investigation into the assets and financial 11 affairs of this estate. 12 Who is funding the debtor's litigation and the 13 sources of that funding?

14 relevant to the investigation and there is no privilege that 15 covers those types of agreements. 16 There is also the last document on the privilege 17 log which Attorney Henzy addressed.

18 described it was that that document concerned advice not 19 related to the bankruptcy case and, therefore, needed to be 20 redacted. 21 That explanation does not in any way justify the 22 withholding of this document as privileged.

23 it doesn't relate to this case, I'm not sure what that 24 means, that does not give rise to a grounds to withhold the 25 document as privileged.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 71 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 71 If it is a document that relates to the debtor. It is a document that we're entitled to see unless there is a legitimate claim under paragraph 7 of the privilege order that it would give rise to personal harm if disclosed to the trustee. And no such assertion in that regard has been made. So, Your Honor, I think in an effort to help ensure that we don't get bogged down with additional issues on the privilege logs that we have yet to receive for the remainder of the documents, and they'll have to come back to the Court, I do think it would be helpful for the Court to, you know, instruct the debtor that any future privilege logs provided to the trustee has to actually comply with the terms of the privilege order, which this one does not. The last -- the last issue I wanted to very briefly address, Your Honor, was certain comments that Attorney Baldiga had made about the review that Brown Rudnick is conducting of these documents. And perhaps he can provide some clarification, but I want to make sure there's no confusion. Attorney Baldiga had said, you know, there's some discussion of the, quote/unquote, "Internal documents" of Brown Rudnick that are being reviewed and there are some of those documents that they believe would not be responsive to the subpoena and, therefore, would not be produced to

1 Zeisler & Zeisler and, therefore, would not be produced to 2 the trustee. 3 I think I understand that position and don't 4 object to it insofar as it relates to the business of the 5 law firm.

6 communications with the firm's auditors, its financial 7 affairs, things like that. I don't take issue with that. 8 But to the extent that there are internal 9 communications among Brown Rudnick attorneys related to Mr. 10 Kwok, related to the debtor, those I think are absolutely 11 responsive to the subpoena and relevant. 12 And to the extent that attorneys at Brown Rudnick 13 are discussing whether they believe something that the 14 debtor just told them, you know, whether they're commenting 15 on something the debtor just told them, those types of 16 communications are certainly responsive and certainly 17 relevant, and I just want to make sure there's no confusion 18 as to whether or not the trustee is getting those documents. 19 Your Honor, I think -- I think that is all I have 20 for now, but I am happy to answer any questions you may 21 have. 22 THE COURT: Thank you.

23 at the moment, but I think Attorney Baldiga wanted to 24 respond to your questions. 25 So go ahead, Attorney Baldiga.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 73 of

1 MR. BALDIGA: Just two things very briefly. 2 First, we are in accord exactly as just described 3 as to the scope of the response.

4 would say and so we are -- we have no disagreement in that 5 regard. 6 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 7 MR. BALDIGA:

8 additional facts, the Court could do with them as you see 9 fit. Just because the debtor is not -- the debtor was not 10 part of any mail chain between our firm and the trustee's 11 counsel as to our responses, on September 9 there was an 12 email exchange where the trustee and Brown Rudnick agreed -- 13 I say Brown Rudnick, it applies to Verdolino & Lowey equally 14 -- that in lieu of a formal response to the subpoena we 15 would provide a methodology or protocol for production. 16 On September 13, we made that proposal to the 17 trustee. On September 20, the response to our proposal 18 suggesting additional protocols was made by the trustee to 19 Brown Rudnick.

20 process of agreement to search terms and our search 21 commenced on that day. 22 So it was that -- what I just described, was 23 subject to a very long email chain going back perhaps a 24 dozen of times in lieu of more -- of something more formal. 25 You referred to our formal response which was really a place

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 74 of

holder really.

2 THE COURT:

3 but it's required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- 4 MR. BALDIGA: Well, that's why we did it. 5 THE COURT:

6 MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. 7 THE COURT:

8 that's why we're even discussing it.

9 with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by seeking some 10 kind of protective order or quashing of the subpoena that 11 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require.

12 compliance with the subpoena would have already been overdue 13 and subject to an order to holding a party in contempt. 14 So I understand and I appreciate what you told me 15 about the progress of what -- and the continuing obligations 16 and discussions that you had with Paul Hastings, but any 17 party that was served with a subpoena had to have followed 18 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

19 then it's too late for them.

20 talking to you. 21 MR. BALDIGA: Okay. 22 THE COURT: Okay? 23 MR. BALDIGA: All right. I appreciate that.

24 wanted you to have the full picture.

25 everything we did with the trustee here I think is well

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 75 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 75 within the norms of how this handled well by all parties, but I wanted the Court to have the full benefit of that. THE COURT: I appreciate that. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, could I make three quick points? THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: One, I will be quoting Mr. Bassett on that court orders have to be enforced at a PJR hearing. Second, to Mr. -- the comments Mr. Baldiga just made about their communications with Paul Hastings, if the Court is going to say -- if the Court ends up saying that we didn't file a motion to extend time, that's the end of the analysis, and that's what the Court is going to say. I will tell you that we were trying to work in good faith with Paul Hastings and with Brown Rudnick to make this production work. So there was numerous emails, numerous telephone conferences, some of which I -- many actually -- probably more than not I was not on, but we were trying to work in good faith to have this production work. And maybe shame on us in the midst of that we should have been filing a formal motion for an extension of time. I don't remember, again -- I was not on all calls,

anyone saying to us, you know, this discussion we're having right now is really pointless because your time to do this has come and gone. Again, the order says what it says, Your Honor.

don't -- I can read the words and I know what the order says. I was not, and maybe I was, I was not intending to argue, third point, is the privilege log today. Okay?

don't think that that's before the Court. THE COURT: I agree, it's not. MR. HENZY:

to the Court what I believe has been the debtor's and my firm's attempt to comply with what we've been asked to do, again, what we've been asked to do, and point out that out of the 17,000 documents that we received last Thursday, you know, we put a grand total of ten on a privilege log, a number of which are duplications. Okay. So it's not -- I'm not arguing the privilege log today. I'm saying I think the ten, listing ten items out of

THE COURT:

MR. HENZY: -- we've done the best we could. Okay. THE COURT:

that. You're pleading, I think I read yesterday said, there

1 were 33 documents. So what happened to the other 23? 2 MR. HENZY:

3 I'll put that on -- Mr. Romney did that pleading.

4 lot going on. We were trying to work through the documents. 5 And, you know, through yesterday, we were continuing our 6 review of documents and it got down to the list that's on 7 the privilege log. 8 So at the time the pleading was filed -- actually, 9 I think the pleading may have been filed not yesterday.

10 was filed on Tuesday. 11 THE COURT: What's today? Okay. 12 MR. HENZY: Today's Thursday. 13 THE COURT: Tuesday. Okay. Sorry. 14 MR. HENZY: Yeah.

15 pleading was filed, we may have been working with -- 16 THE COURT: Okay.

17 MR. HENZY: Yeah. Yeah. 18 THE COURT:

19 well, of the documents that you've already reviewed -- 20 MR. HENZY: We're done. 21 THE COURT:

22 of the -- okay. 23 MR. HENZY: That's it. 24 THE COURT: That was the question I forgot to ask. 25 MR. HENZY:

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 78 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 78 sent our log -- THE COURT: I'm not -- I don't -- MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: I'm not -- MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: -- giving a rubber stamp to the way the process works. My question was of the documents that you've reviewed and this privilege log that is not before the Court today, but I am asking the question, because you've both raised the issue about the privilege log, are you adding any more -- MR. HENZY: No. THE COURT: -- documents to that privilege log -- MR. HENZY: Not -- THE COURT: -- of what you've reviewed to now? MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: That's my question. MR. HENZY: So the answer is no. THE COURT: So the answer is no. MR. HENZY: The answer is no. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: All right. MR. HENZY: Thank you.

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 79 THE COURT: Thank you. MR. ROMNEY: Just for the record, the statement was 33. I don't have it specifically in front of me, but it was many or some of which are duplicates and the explanation for the 33 to 10 is the duplicate. THE COURT: Yeah. No. That's fine. I just was asking because I saw that number in the pleading. That's all I'm -- that's -- it was just a question. That's all it was. Okay? All right. MR. ROMNEY: Your Honor, may I make one additional point that will take less than a minute? May I? THE COURT: Okay. The clock is ticking. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you. I think you correctly stated Brown Rudnick did what it was supposed to do. They complied with the Rules of Civil Procedure. They sought an extension. And we talked a lot about paragraph 7. And I agree Brown Rudnick did what it was supposed to do in terms of getting an extension and being reasonable, but -- THE COURT: Well, it wasn't an extension. They sought a protective order, slash -- I mean, they responded to the subpoena. They weren't seeking an extension. They were saying we need some protection here. That's what they were saying. MR. ROMNEY: Well, I wasn't aware of them filing Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 79 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 80 for a protective order. I thought that they were -- what we were discussing was them working with the trustee to establish protocols for what would be done. And the only point I'm making is that Brown Rudnick first got the -- the first tranche of documents to us on the 6th and we produced a privilege -- the debtor produced a privilege log on the 12th, which is less than ten days from when it could have possibly done so. That's the only point I want to make. THE COURT: Okay. And you did it in less than 60 seconds, so thank you. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I think that we're concluding all the arguments on the trustee's motion and we'll move on to other matters at the moment. We'll come back to that later. Okay? So now with regard to the other matters on the calendar, there are both in the Kwok case and the Genever Holdings Corporation case a motion for joint administration that was scheduled for a hearing today in accordance with a motion to expedite the hearing on the motion for joint administration. So, Mr. Linsey, are you going to be discussing the motion for joint administration? MR. LINSEY: I am, Your Honor. And I can discuss Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 80 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 81 that for both of the movants' perspective. Would Your Honor like some brief background about the filing and the -- THE COURT: Sure. MR. LINSEY: Okay. So the Genever Holdings Corporation debtor is essentially an intermediate entity in the chain of ownership of the penthouse at the Sherry- Netherland Hotel in New York City. More specifically, the Kwok debtor as of the petition date owned Genever Holdings Corporation, an entity that was created in the British Virgin Islands. Genever Holdings Corporation owns Genever Holdings, LLC. That's a U.S. entity, and that is the owner of the penthouse in New York City. It is also a Chapter 11 Debtor in a case pending in the Southern District of New York. To reduce confusion, what I'll propose to do is call the Genever Holdings Corporation, which is the debtor in your court, Genever BVI and the other one Genever U.S. And there is now pending a motion by the Chapter 11 Trustee in the individual debtor, Mr. Kwok's, case to transfer that Genever U.S. case to Your Honor's court. On August 10th, 2022, in the Kwok Chapter 11 case, the Court granted the trustee his corporate governance rights motion and entering it's corporate governance rights order, pursuant to which the Kwok debtor's shares in Genever Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 81 of Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 82 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 82 BVI were transferred to the Chapter 11 Trustee. Last month a new director was appointed for the Genever BVI debtor. Her name is Claire Abrehart. She's in the British Virgin Islands. Ms. Abrehart approved the Genever BVI Chapter 11 filing. And the basis for the filing is set forth in her declaration,which is attached as part of a petition package and was also filed separately by my office yesterday. Summarizing, very briefly, from that declaration, there is an entity purportedly owned by Mr. Kwok's son called Bravo Luck, Limited. Bravo Luck, Limited has asserted claims in litigation pending in the British Virgin Islands to the effect that Bravo Luck is claiming that it is the beneficial owner of the Sherry-Netherland penthouse in New York City pursuant to a purported trust agreement that is highly dubious both with respect to its provenance and with respect to its legal effect. Bravo Luck has also taken the position in the BVI litigation that the automatic stay in this case does not prevent it from continuing to litigate ownership issues in the BVI. The Chapter 11 -- THE COURT: Let me stop you for a second. MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor.

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 83 THE COURT: When you say the automatic stay in this case, you mean in the Kwok case? MR. LINSEY: I apologize, Your Honor. Yes. THE COURT: Or in the -- MR. LINSEY: I mean in the individual debtor's, Mr. -- THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I just want to be clear for the record. MR. LINSEY: And I'll try -- when I say the individual debtor, it's clear that I'm referring to Mr. Kwok -- THE COURT: Yes. MR. LINSEY: -- versus the entity, yes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LINSEY: And they had taken -- this was prior to the Genever BVI petition that was filed two days ago, but after the petition date in the individual debtor's case that the automatic stay in the individual debtor's case did not necessarily stay or require a stay of the litigation in the BVI. Now, the trustee has taken steps to resolve the claims on the position of Bravo Luck, which the trustee strongly disagrees with. The trustee's commenced adversary proceedings both in this court attendant to the individual debtor's case an Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 83 of

1 in the Southern District of New York to resolve those 2 questions. 3 But what the trustee does not want to be in the 4 position of doing is requiring the Kwok estate to undertake 5 both the distraction and the additional expense of 6 litigation activities in the British Virgin Islands when 7 these are issues that rightly should be decided in this 8 court. 9 So that's sort of the background that led to the 10 decision by the director to file the Genever BVI case, which 11 my office then filed two days ago. 12 The trustee -- before I move on and address the 13 motion, does Your Honor have any questions about any of 14 that? 15 THE COURT: I do not. Thank you. 16 MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. 17 And I realize some of it was repeating what Mr. 18 Despins has discussed in prior status conferences. 19 The trustee in Mr. Kwok's case and Genever BVI 20 debtor have jointly filed a motion for joint administration 21 of the Chapter 11 cases pending in Your Honor's court. 22 There's no substantive consolidation sought.

23 administrative. It will promote convenience.

24 reduce expense. 25 The motion and proposed order were served pursuant

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 85 to Your Honor's order yesterday. A certificate of service was filed by my office yesterday evening. We don't believe it's a controversial motion and we would ask that that order enter. THE COURT: Thank you. Does anyone wish to be heard on the motion for joint administration? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, other than disagreeing with some of Attorney Lindsey's characterizations on the background, not on the joint administration motion, but on the background overall, which I don't think you'd need or want me to get into on the record because I don't think it's before the Court, but no objection to the joint administration motion, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. GOLDMAN: Your Honor, the committee has no objection. We think it's appropriate inasmuch as it's procedural only and for the benefit of the Court and the parties. THE COURT: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be heard? The Office of the United States Trustee? MS. CLAIBORN: Your Honor, the United States Trustee has no objection to the joint administration motion. THE COURT: Thank you.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 85 of

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 86 of

Attorney Linsey, do we need to -- and I have seen no written objection.

there has been no written objection to the motion and there is no one participating in this hearing today that's objecting to the motion for joint administration. Do we need to -- oh, you did it in a footnote I guess on the caption, although I don't see where the footnote is, but the caption of the case then, if we don't spell out both debtors' names and you just put a footnote in it, then we need to make sure -- is that -- so you're going to say that the caption of every pleading in every case -- every party that files a pleading in this case should use the caption with the footnote? MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor.

make things easier, I can have a word version sent to the courtroom deputy. THE COURT: Yes. That would be helpful.

-- you know, it doesn't really matter.

it different ways where joint administration still refers to the second case, even the case number, but I'll -- we'll look at it. It's fine.

every party that files a motion is going to use that footnote even though they're supposed to.

out. Okay? MR. LINSEY: Understood.

1 something we feel strongly about as long as the Court 2 approves a form of caption to go on the case. 3 THE COURT: Yes.

4 substantially, if not the exact form that you've proposed. 5 I've just seen, as I said, in other cases where the second 6 case caption appears as well and then it just says jointly 7 administered under 22-50073, you know, and all pleadings 8 shall be filed in that case. Okay? 9 MR. LINSEY: Understood, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: We'll figure it out.

11 problem with the motion.

12 circumstances as presented in the motion for joint 13 administration filed in both of the cases. 14 The motion will be granted in both of the cases. 15 The order will enter in both of the cases.

16 will direct that all future pleadings will be filed only in 17 case number 22-50073. Okay? So that motion is granted. 18 MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Thank you. 20 Now, with regard to the extension of time to file 21 schedules, would you like to be heard on that motion? 22 MR. LINSEY: I would, Your Honor. 23 THE COURT: Go right ahead. 24 MR. LINSEY:

25 filed by the Genever BVI debtor in the Genever BVI case.

1 was served pursuant to the Court's hearing order and a 2 certificate of service was filed yesterday evening. 3 I did have discussions with Ms. Claiborn of the 4 U.S. Trustee's Office about that motion. 5 The motion requests a 45-day extension of time in 6 addition to the 14 days provided under the code to file 7 schedules and a statement of financial affairs. 8 My understanding, and Ms. Claiborn will correct me 9 if she thinks anything I say is wrong or incomplete, is that 10 the U.S. Trustee's Office would be more comfortable with an 11 initial extension of 30 days total to file -- for the 12 Genever BVI debtor to file a schedule and statement of 13 financial affairs. 14 That said, there are discussions that have already 15 started, and I believe productive, with the U.S. Trustee's 16 Office about scheduling and administrative matters in this 17 case. 18 For one thing, Ms. Abrehart, the sole director of 19 the Genever BVI debtor, is located in the British Virgin 20 Islands. So, for example, we're seeking to have her 21 attendance at the 341 meeting done remotely.

22 issue for today, but it is to say there are some sort of 23 intricacies here that don't arise in every case. 24 So I think that what the U.S. Trustee's Office and 25 my office understands is there's going to a continuing

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 89 dialog about the time frame to file those documents. And if the Genever BVI debtor believes that further extension is warranted, then we will discuss that with the U.S. Trustee's Office and make an appropriate motion. However, at the present time, all that the Genever BVI debtor would ask for on agreement with the U.S. Trustee's Office is that extension of time to a total of 30 days. And my office will file a proposed order later today reflecting that resolution to the extent that Your Honor is comfortable with it. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. That is a correct statement of the U.S. Trustee's position. Should the debtor find itself in a position where it needs an additional extension of time, it certainly has the right to ask for that and we can address that situation at that time. And then I wanted to let the Court know that we have scheduled the initial debtor interview consistent with Ms. Abrehart's schedule and we have scheduled the 341 meeting for November 7th. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the motion to extend time to file schedules and financial affairs? Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 89 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 90 MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, it's Peter Friedman. We agree with the U.S. Trustee's position. We're glad that the trustee and U.S. Trustee have worked together to design a relatively short order time frame in the initial request. And to the extent that there are additional requests, we would just ask to be included in the discussions. We're, therefore, happy to seek -- it sounds like this case will -- the Genever case will move forward expeditiously. We do think it's really important to keep forward momentum in all these cases. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? (No response) THE COURT: Okay. Attorney Linsey, so you will submit a revised proposed order, you and Attorney Claiborn, at or before 5:00 p.m. today. Do you think you'll get it in by 5:00? MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. So then the motion is granted for the reasons stated on the record and the revised proposed order will be submitted at or before 5:00 p.m. on October 13. I just have a question about the list of 20 largest that was filed with the petition. Obviously, you Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 90 of

1 need time to figure out if there are other creditors. 2 Do you have any information at this point with 3 regard to any additional creditors other than the list of 20 4 that was filed with the -- and it's just a question, I'm 5 just curious -- other than what was filed with the petition? 6 MR. LINSEY:

7 that was filed as part of the petition that goes beyond the 8 list of 20. 9 THE COURT: Oh, I might not have seen that then. 10 MR. LINSEY:

11 THE COURT: Was this just filed the other day?

13 MR. LINSEY:

14 Honor, so I wouldn't expect that Your Honor had time to go 15 -- it's a stack. 16 THE COURT: Okay. That's fine then. 17 MR. LINSEY:

18 THE COURT: Thank you. 19 MR. LINSEY:

20 though. It's roughly equivalent if not entirely equivalent 21 to the debtor's -- rather the individual debtor's creditors 22 as scheduled and as reflected in proofs of claim that were 23 filed in the individual debtor's case. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MR. LINSEY:

1 asserted, PAX has asserted that Genever BVI is an alter ego 2 of the debtor, of the individual debtor, and so, therefore, 3 the individual debtor's creditors would also be creditors of 4 the Genever BVI debtor. 5 And, obviously, you know, with respect to noticing 6 creditors, we want to be sure to include everyone so that's 7 what we've done. 8 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 9 The reason I asked that question, Attorney Romney 10 and Attorney Henzy, with regard to the debtor's schedules 11 that were filed I think on March 9th before you were both 12 involved, the schedules, specifically the schedule of 13 unsecured creditors, has additional names of creditors than 14 the creditor list that was filed with the petition. 15 So you're going to need to amend your list of 16 creditors in the -- in the debtor's case to comply with the 17 -- to list all the parties that are on the schedules. 18 Our local rules say that, but we don't have a 19 process, by the way, in place that allows the debtor to 20 verify that and that it hasn't been done in the debtor's 21 case. 22 So, for example, in the list of -- the list of 23 creditors that was filed with the petition does not have the 24 first three or four people that are listed, and it has more 25 -- I'm just giving you an example, there's more, you'll have

1 to compare them -- that doesn't have the first three or four 2 listed creditors that are on Schedules E and F filed by the 3 debtor on March 9. So you'll have to file an amended list of 4 creditors. 5 And I'm not going to give you a lot of time to do 6 that because we're going to start -- if these cases are 7 jointly administered, everybody's going to have to get 8 served with everything, right, so we want to make sure that 9 service is robust and accurate. 10 So today's the 13th.

11 that amended list of creditors by next Wednesday, the 19th? 12 MR. DESPINS:

13 for the interruption.

14 Trustee. I can shed some light into the issue that I think 15 would be beneficial for the Court.

16 interrupting. 17 THE COURT: Go ahead. 18 MR. DESPINS: I think that you are right.

19 list is different, but that's not an accident. 20 The debtors in the individual case listed 21 affiliates as part of the 20 largest which they were not 22 supposed to do.

23 sidebar over that issue, but the point is that the 24 affiliates are not supposed to be there. 25 So, for example, they listed I think Bravo Luck

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 94 and other entities like Golden Spring in the 20 largest. And we did not do that, not because we don't like them, but because they don't belong there. That's the discrepancy, Your Honor. I wanted to shed some light. So it's not because the list is different. It's just that they don't belong in 20 largest because they're affiliates of the debtor. Sorry for the interruption. THE COURT: But on the actual schedules, Trustee Despins, there are a number of entities that are listed and that are not part of the creditor list that gets sent to -- when things are served by the Court and that's what I'm concerned about. MR. DESPINS: Okay. Okay. THE COURT: And it's not just the Schedule F, it's also the Schedule H. It's the executory contracts, parties to the executory contracts. I don't think that he listed any co-debtors, although I'd need you to check that. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: All I want -- all I'm requiring the debtor to do is to file an amended list of creditors that is in compliance with our local rule that says the list of -- the creditor list is supposed to include all of the names. And I've -- I'll read it to you. I think it says on the schedules and I think it lists all the schedules on Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 94 of

1 the local rule.

2 it's 7 or 17. I think it's 7 actually. Yes, 7. 3 It says a creditor list containing the names and 4 addresses of each individual entity included or to be 5 included in Schedules D, E, F, G and H shall be filed 6 contemporaneously with every petition or within 14 days 7 after the entry. 8 And obviously you've got -- your client, you don't 9 know, you weren't involved, but they got an extension of 10 time on March 9th and they complied with the time frame. 11 But the difference is that the actual creditor 12 list that the clerk's office uses to serve people, when the 13 clerk's office has to serve, is not -- does not match up 14 with the names in the schedules as required by the local 15 rule. 16 So is that -- can you file that by the close of 17 business on October 19th? 18 MR. HENZY:

19 Honor? 20 THE COURT: Sure. 21 MR. HENZY:

22 with either you or trustee Despins. I just want to make -- 23 I'm a little bit -- I want to make sure I understand what 24 Your Honor is asking because I think anyway Trustee Despins 25 was referring to a discrepancy between the creditor list

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 96 he's filed with the new Genever BVI case -- and he's shaking his head yes -- and what's filed -- THE COURT: I agree with that. MR. HENZY: Okay. And that's -- THE COURT: I'm just talking about the debtor's case. MR. HENZY: You're -- so I don't -- THE COURT: I'm not talking about Genever Holding, Genever, how are we -- what is the proper pronunciation? MR. HENZY: I think Genever BVI everybody -- THE COURT: Genever. Genever. MR. HENZY: -- understands what -- yeah. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: But -- THE COURT: In a Genever case, I'm not talking about that. MR. HENZY: So I don't -- THE COURT: I'm speaking specifically with Mr. Kwok and the schedules that he filed on March 9th. MR. HENZY: That he filed. Understood. Okay. Then I would ask for more time, Your Honor. I wasn't -- we were not involved. My understanding is that the Verdolino & Lowey firm did a lot of the work getting the schedules done. I know we now don't have the advantage of having the Verdolino & Lowey people around so I just don't Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 96 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 97 know, because this is the first I've heard of this. THE COURT: It's not substantial. We're talking maybe 20, 30 different names. But I'll give you a week. I'll give you from today and that's it. It's got to get done. MR. HENZY: So -- THE COURT: Service. There are things that have been served in that case that have not been served on parties listed on the debtor's schedules and that's the way it's supposed to be. MR. HENZY: So -- THE COURT: No. Today, the 20th. MR. HENZY: So the 20th. THE COURT: Thursday, the 20th, that's a week from today. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: An amended list of creditors needs to be filed and uploaded. You know, you have to upload it so that the clerk's office can use it appropriately for service issues. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: Okay? MR. HENZY: I'm going to do the best I can. THE COURT: It's not substantial. Okay? MR. HENZY: I appreciate -- okay. I just don't -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 97 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 98 I just, you know -- THE COURT: At least from my review of it. I looked at it, and I said, oh, it appears that there are parties on these schedules that aren't getting served by the bankruptcy noticing -- MR. HENZY: I see. THE COURT: -- center when we issue a notice that is required to be issued under Rule 2002. MR. HENZY: I see, Your Honor. So just -- and I'll look at it, Your Honor. So it's there's people who are scheduled who aren't on the matrix, is that -- THE COURT: Correct. The creditor list we call it -- MR. HENZY: So those people -- THE COURT: -- but the same thing, yes. MR. HENZY: -- those people need to be put on the creditor list. THE COURT: That's what -- so you need to amend the -- you need to file an amended creditor list. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: And that, I think, unfortunately, results in like a fee of \$32 or something. MR. HENZY: Okay. Understood. THE COURT: Because the -- it is -- but, as you think you know, the bankruptcy noticing center serves who is Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 98 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 99 on the creditor list. If those people -- if there are people on the schedules that are not on the creditor list, they're not getting served. MR. HENZY: Your Honor, if this is -- so this is something my firm can do. That's easy. THE COURT: Yeah, I think it is. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I mean, I'm telling you, this is not -- all you're doing is filing an amended creditor list with the names that appear in the schedules that don't already appear on the creditor list. MR. HENZY: I understand now what -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: -- needs to be done. And it should -- THE COURT: That's all. It's just -- MR. HENZY: -- be easily done by the 20th, Your Honor. THE COURT: It's just, you know, we -- because there's a presumption when a petition is filed and a creditor list is filed and the schedules are filed at the same time that they all have the same information. In this case -- but that's not necessarily true by the way, but that's the presumption, right? In this case, the schedules weren't filed -- in this case, I'm talking about Mr. Kwok's personal Chapter 11 Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 99 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 100 case, the schedules weren't filed until almost a month after -- he got -- they were timely filed. He got an extension of time. But when they were filed, no one ensured that the names on the schedules matched the names on the creditor list and they don't. MR. HENZY: I'm now on the Court's page. I understand. THE COURT: Okay. That's all I'm asking you to do. Okay? MR. HENZY: Yeah. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'm actually ordering you to do it by next Thursday, the 20th. MR. HENZY: I was taking it as an order, not a request, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right. The only other thing that I -- it's not on the calendar, but I didn't know if the parties have had any discussions about, is HK International's request for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading to the counterclaim in the adversary proceeding. They're seeking an extension of time. Mr. Romney, you're seeking an extension of time until November 15 is my understanding of the motion. I have no problem with that extension of time with Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 100 of

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 101 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 101 the understanding that it nowhere -- it has no impact on the commencement and this court conducting the evidentiary hearing on the prejudgment remedy that's scheduled for October 31st, November 1st and November 2nd. MR. ROMNEY: Aaron Romney for the record on behalf of HK. That's correct. The intention was to allow HK and the trustee and any other party in interest to focus on the PJR hearing and not a responsive pleading. THE COURT: Okay. Does anyone -- thank you. Does anyone have any objection to the HK's motion for extension of time? And if you have had time to talk about it, that's fine, but I want to know the position because I think it can be granted unless someone tells me some reason why it shouldn't be. MR. DESPINS: The trustee has no objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Good. Then we can take care of that matter and we'll enter an order extending the time for HK International to respond to the counterclaim in the adversary proceeding that HK commenced in Mr. Kwok's individual Chapter 11 case. MR. ROMNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you.

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 102 All right. So is there anything else we're going to discuss today? I'm obviously going to go -- maybe it's not obvious to you, but I'm going to go back and listen to or review what you all just argued with regard to the trustee's motion for an order of compliance, and I will rule probably, if not by tomorrow, Monday at the latest. Does anyone -- is there any other matter that we need to address today? MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. For the record, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. Your Honor, there are a couple of things I wanted to mention. The first one is Mr. Linsey mentioned that we filed this complaint in the case where I'm the trustee to avoid this trust agreement between the son and Mr. Kwok. And I want to let you know -- and he also mentioned that a similar action was filed in front of Judge Garrity. And I -- and, you know, and that was filed by the debtor in that case, that we control because we now have the shares. And I want to explain the rationale to that because you might say, well, wait a minute, aren't you trying to transfer this case here? And the reason being why we have to file this is because the two-year Section 546 limitation period was Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 102 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 103 expiring on October 12th in that case, because we're alleging that the trust agreement is a fraudulent transfer. And so, therefore, we have no choice but to file that action there even though the venue motion had not been granted yet. So we had to file it there, otherwise we'd be time barred or may have been time barred I should say, and that's why we did that. And obviously, if we're going to do that, then we filed it in this case as well. There are three entities that are parties, or, sorry -- on our side of the issues, there are three entities that are a party to this trust -- I suppose trust agreement. There's Mr. Kwok, Genever BVI, that's the entity that just filed before Your Honor, and Genever USA that's before Judge Garrity. So that's why this complaint was filed there because the two years was about to expire. That's one thing. And, by the way, this is an extensive complaint. We tried to avoid the cost of doing that by contacting Bravo Luck's counsel to say, hey, would you agree to tolling of the two-year period? They never responded so we had no choice but to file the action. That's one thing I want to mention. The second one is we filed this motion to expedite Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 103 of

Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.

the hearing on our motion for contempt regarding Ace Decade

1 and its subsidiary Dawn State. 2 We had suggested the week of the 24th for a 3 hearing on that because, again, we need -- you know, this 4 has been pending now for more than a month.

5 that he doesn't own it. Fine. 6 Let's have an evidentiary hearing on that because 7 we believe he's in contempt of the corporate governance 8 order. And so we would ask the Court to schedule a hearing 9 on that so that we can get that issue determined. 10 As you know, that relates to the UBS litigation 11 and this could be a back door for us to resolve some issues 12 involving privilege there.

13 it's a full solution. We don't know that yet. 14 But certainly we believe he owns it and we should 15 get control of these two entities.

16 like the Court, subject obviously to your schedule, to 17 schedule something on that for the week of the 24th of 18 October. And we filed a motion to seek that. 19 I don't think it's been objected to.

20 I'm not saying that they're not objecting.

21 I don't think it's been objected to formally by the debtor. 22 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 23 Attorney Henzy? 24 MR. HENZY:

25 hearing being scheduled.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 105 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 105 But I -- I would be the person principally handling that and the week of the 24th I cannot do, Your Honor. I'm going to be in a mediation ordered by Judge Tancredi and then I have a trial in state court. So, again, I'm not objecting to scheduling, but the week of the 24th, I -- THE COURT: Well, if I schedule it the week of the 24th, then you are objecting because -- MR. HENZY: I'm objecting -- THE COURT: -- you can't be there. MR. HENZY: I'm objecting to it being scheduled the week of the 24th, yes, Your Honor. Yes. THE COURT: Trustee Despins, did you hear what Attorney Henzy just said? MR. DESPINS: Yeah, I did. MR. HENZY: He doesn't care. THE COURT: That's not -- I -- MR. HENZY: Oh, no, I think it is fair. I think it is fair. He's about -- he might not say that, but I think that's the answer, but that's okay. THE COURT: Well, he filed a motion for an expedited hearing. He's asking for it to be set. And you're telling him that you can't be there that week. And I don't know what -- I'll have to figure out what to do with that.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 106 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 106 MR. DESPINS: It's been pending for more than a month now. So, you know, it may be we -- well, I don't know if we can do it next week then. I don't know. And it cannot be the first week of November because we're going to be fully engulfed in this -- in the, you know, the prejudgment remedy matter. THE COURT: Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: Next week I'm going to be fully engulfed in potentially reviewing documents which actually I wanted to ask Your Honor a question about. But I'm not sure, Your Honor, what the hurry is. But I'm not sure what the hurry -- MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, the hurry is that we're supposed to have control of these entities. We're being deprived of control -- of access to privilege in relation -- for to those entities because that's the same counsel representing Mr. Kwok and those two entities. And so to say there's no rush, I don't know what to say about that. It's been ten -- we're not rushing, meaning we've asked for this for a while now. And if we are correct that he owns it, the rush is that he's just disregarding this case completely. So I don't know what to say about the issue of no rush. THE COURT: Okay. Anything further, Attorney Henzy?

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 107 MR. HENZY: On an unrelated or -- THE COURT: So nothing further on this request that the Court schedule an expedited hearing on the motion for contempt? MR. HENZY: Your Honor, I cannot do it the week of the 24th. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: And next week I think is too soon. It's now Thursday at 12 o'clock. And I think it's -- I think it's too soon. Mr. Despins has had the ability since almost day one to get an awful lot of information about the UBS litigation. It's been his choice. I've offered multiple times to work with counsel in the U.K. to answer questions to provide information that was not going to create privilege issues and he has decided not to take me up on that and I think to take U.K. counsel up on that. So it's not that he's just being prevented from getting any and all information or understanding what's going on in that litigation. I'm not aware, right now, Your Honor -- my understanding is that there is an appeal pending in that litigation and there's not a -- as I understand it, there's not a whole lot that's happening right now because the time Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 107 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 108 for that appeal to happen has been pushed out and that's just sort of, you know, I mean, it's just sort of sitting there. That's my understanding. So I don't think it's something happening next week or the week after next week or something like that that if Mr. Despins doesn't have some information right now that that's going to be a big problem. So I think next week is too soon. As I said, I cannot do the week of the 24th. And so if, you know, the Court's going to schedule a hearing, I would ask that it be sometime after that. MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, may I be heard? THE COURT: Yes. MR. FRIEDMAN: It's Peter Friedman from O'Melveny on behalf of Pax. THE COURT: Yes. MR. FRIEDMAN: I just want to point out that we have a party that hid and evaded assets for years before bankruptcy, filed for bankruptcy in February, was a faithless fiduciary to the point where he had a trustee appointed. It's now been three months since Mr. Despins was appointed and we still have delay. We're the largest creditor in this case. We are owed more than \$250 million. We need somebody empowered in this case as quickly as possible to have full reign over the Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 108 of

1 debtor's assets to marshal them to our behalf.

2 an enormous amount of money. 3 We just think further delay on a basic blocking 4 and tackling issue like this is deeply prejudicial to us. 5 So we would strongly, strongly endorse Mr. Despins' position 6 that this go forward as soon as possible.

7 Honor. 8 THE COURT: Thank you. 9 All right.

10 an expedited hearing after we conclude today's hearing and 11 will rule on that accordingly. 12 MR. HENZY:

13 and you may tell me it's I've got to do what I've got to do, 14 you know, I received 4,100 documents last night.

15 not and I'd not have one or probably two other people from 16 my office work through the weekend to review those documents 17 if there's going to be an order that says it's pointless. 18 THE COURT:

19 be an order that says it's pointless? 20 MR. HENZY:

tomorrow or Monday that says Brown Rudnick is to 22 immediately produce all documents, then -- 23 THE COURT:

24 under paragraph 7 to assert whatever privilege you want with 25 regard to those documents?

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 110 of

Ho Wan Kwok - October 13, 2022 110 MR. HENZY: I suppose. I suppose I can try to claw documents back, so maybe that's the answer, Your Honor. I'm going to need to look at them anyway. THE COURT: I think that's what the order already provides for actually. MR. HENZY: That's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: I think it does. MR. HENZY: Understood. THE COURT: I think that's what it says. MR. HENZY: Understood. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Anything further from anyone else? MR. DESPINS: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So I'm going to look at the motion, the trustee's motion, for an order authorizing compliance with the Rule 2004 subpoenas and rule on that, as well as the motion for an expedited hearing on the motion for contempt. And to be clear, I think I have been clear, but just to reiterate, the hearing, the evidentiary hearing, scheduled to begin on October 31st on the application for prejudgment remedy will be an in-person hearing. You already all have the dates for compliance as far as when a list of witnesses and exhibits need to be filed. And the exhibits need to be in PDF format.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1020 Filed 10/24/22 Entered 10/24/22 12:04:10 Page 111 of

1 And what I would require or request is that the 2 trustee's exhibits, you know, say Trustee Exhibit 1 through 3 whatever. And if the debtor says, you know, Debtor's or 4 Kwok Exhibit 1. I just use numbers.

5 identifier of the party. Okay?

6 those exhibits. And I think that's all for today. Okay? 7 So we have no other matters on the calendar today 8 so court is adjourned.

10 I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court Reporter and 11 Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct 12 transcript from the official electronic sound recording of 13 the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.