Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — bankruptcy case · ORDER · ECF #1029

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 1 of 24

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \* HO WAN KWOK, \* \* Debtor. \* Bridgeport, Connecticut \* October 17, 2022 \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION IN AID OF COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER REGARDING RULE 2004 SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor, ERIC A. HENZY, ESQ. HK International and 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 Creditor, Pacific PATRICK BIRNEY, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity Robinson & Cole Fund L.P.: 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 For the Chapter 11 PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Trustee: Neubert Pepe & Monteith, PC 195 Church Street 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)

Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166

> Seven Times Square New York, NY 10036

For Brown Rudnick, WILLIAM BALDIGA, ESQ. Creditor: Brown Rudnick

For Baker Hostetler, LAWRENCE GROSSMAN, ESQ. Interested Party: Green & Sklarz, LLC One Audubon Street New Haven, CT 06511

2

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 3 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 3 (Proceedings commenced at 10:03 a.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good morning. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good morning, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. LINSEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey for the trustee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. GOLDMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Irve Goldman, Pullman & Comley, representing the creditors committee. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. BIRNEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Patrick Birney, Robinson & Cole, on behalf of PAX. Your Honor, there's a preliminary matter I would like to take up after appearances if I can? THE COURT: Certainly. Good morning. Mr. Baldiga? MR. BALDIGA: Good morning, Your Honor. William Baldiga, Brown Rudnick, for Brown Rudnick. THE COURT: Good morning.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 4 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 4 MR. HENZY: Eric Henzy, Zeisler & Zeisler, for the debtor. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. HENZY: Thank you. Good morning, Your Honor. MR. GROSSMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Larry Grossman for Baker Hostetler. And as with Attorney Birney there is a preliminary matter I would like to address. THE COURT: Good morning. So, Attorney Birney, I think, and Attorney Grossman, you're talking about motions to appear remotely, but I'm not going to allow that today. We talked about that last week. I'm not going to have hearings remotely unless I think there's a need to. So if your clients want to listen on the phone they can do that on the public access line or they can listen to the hearing once this hearing is concluded. We also didn't get a chance to really review the motions. I know they were filed. But that's what I discussed last week at our hearing and you were -- and everybody was -- I think all the parties that are here today and that were on the phone heard me say that, so we're not going to do that today. Okay? Thank you, both. MR. BIRNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Baldiga, this is your

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 5 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 5 motion. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. First, thank you for hearing us on such short notice. I believe that we're here on a fully consensual basis. THE COURT: That would -- that's nice to hear. I'd like to hear about that then. MR. BALDIGA: Well, there haven't been too many times, Your Honor, where people have been able to say that in this case, but through good discussions with all parties, not just over the weekend, but in the days before that. And we are prepared to produce all of our files immediately to the trustee upon entry of this order. There are three things addressed, Your Honor, in this order. There is one minor nit that I will take up. THE COURT: When you talk about this order, just would you like me to refer to the order that's already entered or the order that you submitted with your motion? MR. BALDIGA: The proposed order. THE COURT: Okay. That proposed order, just so you know, even if everyone agrees to those terms, there's still terms in the order that I entered that are not in your proposed order that will need to be in that order. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. Well, obviously then -- THE COURT: Such as --

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 6 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 6 MR. BALDIGA: Yeah. THE COURT: -- and I'll just -- I'll just -- it's not -- it may not have anything to do with you -- MR. BALDIGA: Sure. THE COURT: -- quite frankly, but the order that was entered on the 13th had provisions with regard to the debtor filing the privilege log on the docket, also had a provision -- I guess I didn't understand your argument about the clawback issue because the rule is cited in the order -- three or four -- in three or four places. So if you want -- I don't know. I don't think it needs to be explicit, but I guess you're saying you want it explicit. Is that what you're telling me? MR. BALDIGA: It's less our issue, Your Honor, than the debtor's. And if -- we thought it was appropriate that it be explicit because the rule applies to, as we understand it, an inadvertent production. And whether this production that we make today is inadvertent or not, I don't know and wouldn't want to argue that point, but we -- it's not our clawback right so I'm not inclined to argue. THE COURT: I agree. And I think the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for what they provide for. I'm not sure that it needs to be explicit.

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 7 But go right ahead and let me hear you and then we can see where we stand. MR. BALDIGA: Okay. So there were three things to be addressed. One is the order entered on Thursday, docket 962, applies to on its face post-petition documents. It's perhaps my fault that I haven't addressed with this court prior to that what has been discussed among the parties, which is that our work began a day or two prior to the commencement of the case. Almost all of the documents accordingly have been created or delivered to us post-petition. And I guess it depends on -- there's always that interesting thing about the day of filing itself, whether that's pre or post or some of both. And so we have just stricken, again by agreement, the word post-petition because we are delivering all of our files. And that will extend to at least some things, very, very few, that are technically pre-petition because they were created or delivered to us the day before or the day of, but prior to the time of filing. It's more of a technical thing, but we have not had the ability to try to distinguish between pre and post- petition and I think no one believes that that would be a good use of anyone's time. Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 7 of 24

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 8 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 8 THE COURT: Okay. MR. BALDIGA: Second, the clawback issue that we've already addressed, I don't have more to say about that. Third, that this proposed order has something that the docket 962 order does not have, which is just a -- I think a fairly simple acknowledgment again which is not a concern of the debtor or the trustee, that -- clarifying that what this court is ordering us to do is not to violate our legal or ethical obligations. And we think that has been implicit all along. But since if that issue does come up in future years, may not be in this court, what was implicit perhaps we think in this courtroom would be a better explicit. And, again, no one has any problem with that. And obviously gives us the comfort to produce immediately. So with that, Your Honor, there is one nit that Mr. Henzy and I have discussed and obviously we will -- we didn't intend for this to -- well, we intended that this would supplant the prior order, but not replace it in its entirety, but we're happy to have that be an amended and restated order and to work with the parties and the Court to have it do that and to bring in the other provisions of 962 that are not explicitly here. But let me just get to the one nit. In the first

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 9 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 9 decretal paragraph -- I'm not sure if you're at our order. THE COURT: Yeah. I'm holding it right now. MR. BALDIGA: The first decretal paragraph says the motion is granted as set forth below. Objections to the motion. And then I would strike the next five words. So strike the words and the prior enforcement motion. And that's it. And then we're prepared to have this order be entered, again, with whatever changes the Court believes appropriate. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BALDIGA: Thank you. THE COURT: Mr. Despins? MR. DESPINS: Good morning, Your Honor. There's just one thing I need to check with Mr. Baldiga, but generally we agree that this is consensual and it's the order my partner had seen the deletion of these last few words. MR. BALDIGA: No. That was just this morning. MR. DESPINS: So I apologize for doing this. I -- THE COURT: That's all right. Well, we may have to take a little recess in a few minutes once we -- MR. DESPINS: It would be a very, very short recess. THE COURT: -- once we hear from everyone. Okay?

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 10 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 10 MR. DESPINS: Okay. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, I don't want to -- just on it being consensual all around, I don't want to disappoint everyone. I could probably come up with something, but I won't. Mr. Baldiga's correct. With that one change to the order, we'll have no objection. In terms of whether this is a -- there's going to be a new order or -- I had, I think with Attorney Baldiga, contemplated that this order was going to be in addition to the court's order, but, you know, I have no objection to there being a, you know, combined order that melds everything. THE COURT: Your client has no problem with the Court ordering that the production of the documents does not and shall not violate the respective legal and ethical obligations to the debtor? MR. HENZY: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. Then what I'd like you all to do -- Thank you. I'm sorry. Is there anything else you wanted to say, Attorney Henzy? MR. HENZY: There's nothing else, Your Honor, no. THE COURT: Attorney Grossman?

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 11 of 24

| | Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022<br>11 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | MR. GROSSMAN:<br>Thank you, Your Honor. | | 2 | My client, Baker Hostetler, is a law firm like | | 3 | Brown Rudnick and was also served with a subpoena.<br>And like | | 4 | Brown Rudnick, Baker Hostetler is concerned about the | | 5 | obligations it may have to the debtor, its client or former | | 6 | client. | | 7 | And we filed a joinder in the Brown Rudnick motion | | 8 | filed Friday.<br>We filed that yesterday simply asking that | | 9 | any order entered by the Court similarly apply to Baker -- | | 10 | THE COURT:<br>Hold on a second, Attorney Grossman. | | 11 | I'm sorry.<br>We can't hear you if that's happening.<br>They | | 12 | were supposed to stop that, but I guess they didn't.<br>Just | | 13 | give it, if you don't mind, a second. | | 14 | (Pause) | | 15 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Go ahead.<br>Let's see how | | 16 | we do.<br>No, that's not good. | | 17 | (Pause) | | 18 | THE COURT:<br>Well, I know what your point is.<br>Let | | 19 | me just say that I don't know when your client was served | | 20 | with a subpoena.<br>When was your client served with a | | 21 | subpoena? | | 22 | MR. GROSSMAN:<br>It was served with a subpoena I | | 23 | believe in September.<br>We -- | | 24 | THE COURT:<br>Well, we need to know that | | 25 | specifically because your client has to exercise its rights | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 12 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 12 and remedies under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure like Brown Rudnick did. You have not done that that I can tell at this point, there's nothing before the Court. I don't know when the subpoena was served. And this order only applies to Verdolino & Lowey and Brown Rudnick. So why don't we take a recess so Mr. Despins can talk to his partner about the proposed changes to the order and then you and he can talk about -- and the debtor about what, if anything, you can come up with. But this is specifically limited to Verdolino & Lowey and Brown Rudnick so there isn't going to be a joinder of this. You may need to file your own documents. This is something that's been going on for quite some time. Mr. Baldiga's been here at every hearing I think since the middle, if not the beginning of September, addressing these issues on the subpoenas that were served. So I have no idea. It's not before me in the record anywhere that I'm aware of. And, Mr. Linsey, maybe you can help on that. I don't know when Baker Hostetler was served with a subpoena. But the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply so we need to make sure that these things are handled appropriately under those rules. Okay? MR. GROSSMAN: Your Honor, would it make any difference if I were to inform the Court that my co-counsel,

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 13 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 13 partner at Baker Hostetler, spoke with the trustee's counsel? THE COURT: It might. That's why you need to talk to them and see what you can come up with. Okay? MR. GROSSMAN: Understood. Thank you. THE COURT: So we're going to take a short recess. I'll probably be back out at 10:30. Hopefully the construction will stop by then. (Recess from 10:16 a.m. until 10:37 a.m.) THE COURT: Please be seated. All right. We're back on the record after a recess. And, Mr. Baldiga, I know you were going to speak with Mr. Despins about -- or vice versa about an issue that you weren't sure that you had closed the loop on prior to this morning, so go right ahead. MR. BALDIGA: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. William Baldiga. That language that -- the deletion of those five words is fine with the trustee as well. THE COURT: And with the debtor as well? MR. BALDIGA: Yes. MR. HENZY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, basically -- Luc

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 14 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 14 Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. We believe that the prior order overruled the objections, but the point is this order does not need to say that specifically so we're okay with the deletion. THE COURT: Well, I think what this order is going to say is that it's going to be a consent order superceding the prior order so that we don't have confusion about two different orders. And I want -- I would like the parties, when they present this order -- the order that entered, 962, the first two paragraphs before the ordered paragraph should start the order. Okay? What I'm going to do, Mr. Baldiga, is we'll enter some kind of order granting your urgent motion in aid of compliance with the order and then it will say, you know, order -- motion granted, revise consent order, superceding ECF 962 will enter. Okay? MR. HENZY: At the risk of causing trouble, the debtor did object to -- THE COURT: And we're going to make them -- we're going to ask Mr. Baldiga to make sure he puts that in this new consent order that you did object. MR. HENZY: Because if this is going to supercede the existing court order -- THE COURT: All right. How about revised, revise or amend?. How would you like it to be characterized?

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 15 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 15 MR. HENZY: Well, it's just -- it wouldn't be a consent order, that's all. The debtor's not objecting to the entry of Mr. Baldiga's order or the additional relief I'll call it that Mr. Baldiga is asking for, but the debtor did object to the entry of the order that the Court had entered. THE COURT: Okay. When I asked you this morning though I think you said you consented to the language that Mr. Baldiga asked for. MR. HENZY: So I do. THE COURT: Okay. MR. HENZY: But if there's now going to be a revised order that supercedes the Court's order -- and just so -- which was document number 962 and that would then become I guess I'll call it the operative order the debtor didn't consent to the entry of 962. THE COURT: I agree. And if you look at what I said about adding the first two paragraphs from the prior order -- MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: -- the second paragraph talks about the debtor's objection. MR. HENZY: I understood, Your Honor. But if this order is going to be called a consent order, I think that implies that the debtor consented to the entry of the order,

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 16 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 16 and that's -- if this is superceding 962, the debtor did not consent to the entry of that order. So I'm -- THE COURT: But it doesn't make sense to have two orders. MR. HENZY: I agree with you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So what's your solution? MR. HENZY: If you want to have a revised order, a revised order I think is fine, but it just -- it would not be a consent order. THE COURT: Well, then the language that you are consenting to, that paragraph, I want it to say that all the parties consented. THE COURT: And that's fine. THE COURT: Okay. Because that's got to be in here. I'm not making any rulings. MR. HENZY: Yeah. THE COURT: You're consenting to that. MR. HENZY: To that language, yes. THE COURT: Yes. MR. HENZY: And we can -- THE COURT: To the language about -- that Brown Rudnick and Verdolino & Lowey -- MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: -- whatever it says. I'm sorry. MR. HENZY: That language is consented to, Your

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 17 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 17 Honor, yes. THE COURT: Okay. Then that's what I want you to say. MR. HENZY: Understood. THE COURT: And then make it a revised order. But I'm not entering a revised order unless and until that language, which is already -- everyone stated on the record is consented to. Okay? MR. HENZY: Understood. MR. BALDIGA: Everything you just described, Your Honor, I think we can work -- and I'll make sure that we circulate something, but we'll produce today on that basis. THE COURT: Okay. So in addition to the first two paragraphs in 962, I also would like the third ordered paragraph that requires the debtor to file the existing privilege log on the docket in that order. The one that you submitted, Attorney Baldiga, doesn't have any of that in there. Okay? MR. BALDIGA: Yes. THE COURT: And then let me just make sure. I don't think your order -- let me triple check for a second. Maybe it does have it and I'm just not seeing it. I don't see a provision in your proposed order, Attorney Baldiga, regarding the debtor's -- which I think the trustee asked for in his original order, two things.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 18 of 24

| | Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022<br>18 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Your order does not have the -- an ordered | | 2 | paragraph that Trustee Despins asked for and is in 962, | | 3 | which is the third from the bottom ordered paragraph, where | | 4 | it says pursuant to paragraph 7 either the trustee or the | | 5 | debtor may avail itself of the right to request adjudication | | 6 | of any dispute. | | 7 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Yes.<br>All for the same reason.<br>We | | 8 | were not intending that this replace that.<br>But now that we | | 9 | know that it does -- | | 10 | THE COURT:<br>Yes. | | 11 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>-- we will bring all of that in. | | 12 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>That's got to be in. | | 13 | And then also the written notice provision of the | | 14 | debtor if he -- this was Mr. Despins' language as well, the | | 15 | fourth from the bottom ordered paragraph, I think it changed | | 16 | a little bit, but, any document which the debtor provides | | 17 | written notice to the Chapter 11 Trustee under Federal -- | | 18 | this is a prospectively, not that exists, right, under | | 19 | Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) that the debtor | | 20 | claims is subject to privilege or protection shall be logged | | 21 | in a privilege log provided to the trustee and filed on the | | 22 | docket of this case within two days of the debtor's written | | 23 | notice.<br>That was Mr. Despins' language.<br>So that's got to | | 24 | be in there too. | | 25 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>We will. | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 19 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 19 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So what else do we need to accomplish today? Attorney Grossman? MR. GROSSMAN: Your Honor, Larry Grossman again on behalf of Baker Hostetler. During the break, I conferred with the debtor and there is no agreement at this time regarding Baker Hostetler. We are not going to press the joinder motion. We will be filing a motion this week and a motion to expedite a hearing to facilitate our agreement with the trustee. And we hopefully will have the consent of all parties. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Despins, there's another motion for extension of time that was filed by another party that was served with a subpoena, it was filed last week, saying that they need time to comply with the subpoena. Give me a second and I'll tell you who -- I'm sorry, I don't have it right in front of me. On the 13th, there was a motion to extend time to respond to subpoena filed by, and I'm not going to pronounce the name properly, and I apologize, Hing Chi Ngok interested party, represented by Evan Goldstein. Mr. Linsey, do you know what -- are you familiar with that motion?

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 20 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 20 MR. LINSEY: I am familiar with that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Are you going to be -- are you going to be -- MR. LINSEY: Generally. THE COURT: If you're going to oppose it, I need you to oppose it in writing by the end of this week. Okay? MR. LINSEY: We will do. And we do intend to submit a written response to that motion, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, I'm going to order you to do that by Friday. MR. LINSEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay? So I will take care of that later today, insofar as there will be some order entered that the trustee needs to file a response to the motion by whatever Friday is, the 21st I think. MR. LINSEY: Understood. And for your understanding, it's the debtor's wife is the is discovery party at issue. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Is there anything further we need to review today? MR. DESPINS: Just for the record, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee, just a housekeeping matter. I mentioned this to Mr. Henzy before the hearing. We're going to file a motion seeking a preliminary

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 21 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 21 injunction in connection with the prejudgment remedy -- THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: -- to be heard at the same time. It doesn't change anything except that there's a -- and Your Honor knows this, but I -- the difference between in personam and in rem jurisdiction with the prejudgment remedy you can attach assets in Connecticut or in -- but we also need to be -- to have in personam remedies against, for example, if Your Honor will grant that, against the daughter because she may have assets elsewhere. And so, therefore, it's a purely -- it doesn't change the hearing at all except actually the preliminary injunction standards are probably higher for us than the prejudgment remedy, but we wanted to let you know that we're going to do that. And I don't know if -- I didn't want to box in Mr. Henzy. I mentioned before the hearing if we need to file a motion to shorten the time, but it would be the same schedule, the same hearing, it's the same -- everything is the same except that technically it's a different type of remedy in personam versus in rem. MR. HENZY: For the record, I don't agree that it doesn't change the relief being sought. It does change the relief being sought. THE COURT: I don't think that's what he said, but

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 22 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022 22 I understand why you said that. I think he said it doesn't change the schedule. I thought that's what he said. MR. HENZY: Well, I think it -- THE COURT: But it only doesn't change the schedule if he files a motion and it gets scheduled at the same time. MR. HENZY: I think that's right. THE COURT: Yeah. MR. HENZY: But I think -- THE COURT: I understand. MR. HENZY: Okay. THE COURT: I understand your point. MR. HENZY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: There's no question it's a different standard if a temporary restraining order is sought -- MR. HENZY: Yes. THE COURT: -- in addition to a prejudgment remedy. MR. HENZY: And I think, as Mr. Despins seems to recognize it, it also brings -- potentially brings into play assets that until that motion is filed are not in play. So that that is just additional relief. THE COURT: Well, we'll see what happens when it gets filed -- MR. HENZY: Yes, Your Honor.

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 23 of 24

| | Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022<br>23 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | THE COURT:<br>-- and then we'll go from there. | | 2 | MR. HENZY:<br>Yes, Your Honor. | | 3 | THE COURT:<br>Okay? | | 4 | MR. HENZY:<br>Thank you. | | 5 | THE COURT:<br>Thank you. | | 6 | MR. DESPINS:<br>So, therefore, we need to file a | | 7 | motion to expedite on that hearing? | | 8 | THE COURT:<br>I'll let you all talk about it -- | | 9 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Okay. | | 10 | THE COURT:<br>-- but it seems to me that Attorney | | 11 | Henzy would say yes. | | 12 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Okay. | | 13 | MR. HENZY:<br>Yes. | | 14 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Thank you, Your Honor. | | 15 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>Is there anything else we | | 16 | need to address today? | | 17 | All right.<br>I do appreciate the parties working | | 18 | through the issues over the weekend.<br>And I understand the | | 19 | issue about it not being a consent order.<br>That's fine as | | 20 | long as that provision that Mr. Baldiga, you know, had | | 21 | talked about, and we did talk about at the hearing | | 22 | extensively, I actually went back and listened to it before | | 23 | today, that it's got to be clear that that's on consent. | | 24 | Okay? | | 25 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Understood, Your Honor. | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 1029 Filed 10/25/22 Entered 10/25/22 21:25:45 Page 24 of 24

| | Ho Wan Kwok - October 17, 2022<br>24 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>So then we'll look for the | | 2 | revised proposed order when it comes in and it will enter | | 3 | shorter thereafter. | | 4 | MR. BALDIGA:<br>Thank you. | | 5 | UNIDENTIFIED:<br>Thank you, Your Honor. | | 6 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>That is the only thing on | | 7 | today's calendar, so court is adjourned. | | 8 | (Proceedings adjourned at 10:49 a.m.) | | 9 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court Reporter | | 10 | and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct | | 11 | transcript from the official electronic sound recording of | | 12 | the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. | | 13 | | | 14 | | | 15 | October 25, 2022 | | 16 | Christine Fiore, CERT | | 17 | | | 18 | | | 19 | | | 20 | | | 21 | | | 22 | | | 23 | | | 24 | | | 25 | | | | |