--- type: court_doc id: "court_ctb_1440_0" court: "CTB" case_no: "22-50073" doc_number: 1440 doc_type: "MOTION" filed_date: "2023-02-03" lang: "en" machine_translated: false url: "https://mubeitech.com/en/court/court_ctb_1440_0" json_url: "https://mubeitech.com/api/court/court_ctb_1440_0" --- # Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — bankruptcy case · MOTION · ECF #1440 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \* HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \* \* Debtor. \* \* PACIFIC ALLIANCE ASIA \* Adv. Proc. No. 22-05032 OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., \* \* Bridgeport, Connecticut Plaintiff, \* January 26, 2023 \* v. \* \* HO WAN KWOK, \* \* Defendant. \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND QUASHING INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR'S CLAIMS OBJECTIONS (EMERGENCY MOTION) BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor, HK AARON ROMNEY, ESQ. International and Mei Guo: JOHN CESARONI, ESQ. Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C. 10 Middle Street, 15th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 For the Creditor, Pacific ANNECCA SMITH, ESQ. Alliance Asia Opportunity Robinson & Cole Fund L.P.: 28 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992 APPEARANCES: For the Creditor, STUART SARNOFF, ESQ. Pacific Asia Opportunity DANIEL CANTOR, ESQ. Fund L.P.: O'Melveny & Myers LLP Times Square Tower 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: NICHOLAS BASSETT, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 PATRICK LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert, Pepe and Monteith 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 the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of the United States Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 For the Creditors Committee: KRISTEN MAYHEW, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601 For the Defendant Kwok: DAVID S. WACHEN, ESQ. Wachen LLC 11605 Montague Court Potomac, MD 20854 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 3 (Proceedings commenced at 12:10 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case no. 22-50073 Ho Wan Kwok and adversary no. 22-5032, Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund vs. Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon. If we could have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Depins, Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. HASTINGS: Nick Bassett, Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Patrick Linsey, from Neubert, Pepe & Monteith, Connecticut counsel for the trustee. MR. SARNOFF: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Stuart Sarnoff, O'Melveny and Myers, on behalf of creditor, PAX. With me is my partner, Dan Cantor -- Daniel Cantor from O'Melveny, saving Annecca Smith, from Robinson Cole, local counsel, an opportunity to have to run up in front and announce herself, I thought I would do that myself. THE COURT: Good afternoon. Thank you. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. MR. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristen Mayhew, Pullman and Comley, on behalf of the Creditor's Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 4 of 108 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 4 Committee. MR. ROMNEY: Good morning, Your Honor. Aaron Romney, Zeisler and Zeisler, on behalf of HK International, Mei Guo, and the debtor. Although, just calling the adversary proceeding, we have not appeared in that case. THE COURT: Is anybody here appearing in the adversary proceeding? MR. DESPINS: Mr. Wachen. THE COURT: Oh, Mr. Wachen. I'm sorry -- MR. WACHEN: Your Honor, David Wachen. THE COURT: -- Mr. Wachen. I saw you. I apologize. I was just looking in the courtroom so I got -- MR. WACHEN: It's okay. THE COURT: -- confused. Sorry. If you would just note your appearance, Mr. Wachen? I'm sorry. MR. WACHEN: Sure, Your Honor. David Wachen on behalf of Mr. Kwok. THE COURT: Okay. Good. Good afternoon. All right. So there are several matters on the calendar. The first matter, my understanding is there may be some request for a continuance. Is that correct, Trustee Despins? MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: For the record, Luc Despins, Chapter Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 5 of 108 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 5 11 Trustee. This is a -- this is on the motion to extend the sale process for the Sherry Netherland. The parties have agreed -- well, subject to Your Honor's agreement of course -- that we would like to adjourn this to the January 31st hearing next Tuesday. There is a proposed order that was circulated that meets with everyone's approval other than Bravo Luck at this point, so they are considering that, and they did not have a chance to consult their client on that and, therefore, we're not ready to appear today on that matter, so we have agreed to adjourn it to the 31st, subject to Your Honor's agreement of course. THE COURT: Okay. Hold on one second, please. So counsel for Bravo Luck is not here today. MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: There was probably presumption that this will be continued to the 31st. MR. DESPINS: Correct. We did send an email -- or Mr. Linsey sent an email to the courtroom deputy yesterday. I forgot what time but, you know, asking that it be adjourned and -- THE COURT: That's fine. I'm having some computer issues but -- but that's fine. So I don't recall sitting here, because I'm having computer issues. What time the -- is it in the afternoon of the Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 6 of 108 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 6 31st, correct? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes. I think it's 2:30. MR. DESPINS: 2:30, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'm looking at the courtroom deputy. THE CLERK: Yes. THE COURT: She's -- all right. THE CLERK: It's 2:30. THE COURT: So we'll continue this first matter, 12:57 to 2:30 p.m., and just give me a moment if you would, please? (Pause) THE COURT: All right. Sorry. There's something wrong with my computer, but I can see all of you so I think we'll be okay. All right. So the first matter, 1257 is continued to January 31st at 2:30 p.m. MR. DESPINS: And, Your Honor, thank you for that. We were wondering if we could hijack the agenda a little bit to talk about a procedural -- THE COURT: I'm not -- no. I'm not going to take the procedural matters first. I'm going to take the evidentiary matters first, because they could impact the procedural matters. So I'm going to take the evidentiary hearings first, on the issue of the motion -- the motions to compel. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 7 of 108 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Bassett 2　will be handling that matter. 3　MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, just for the record, for 4　appearances, it was a little confusing with respect to the 5　adversary proceeding versus the main case. But just to 6　clarify the record, I'd like to note our appearances in the 7　main case only. 8　THE COURT: I think Mr. Romney did that, but 9　that's fine. 10　MR. BASSETT: I don't think he completed the 11　sentence, but for the record, Your Honor, Aaron Romney, 12　Steven Kindseth and John Cesaroni for the debtor, Ho Wan 13　Kwok, in the bankruptcy case. Thank you, Your Honor. 14　THE COURT: Don't you represent other people in 15　the bankruptcy case too? 16　MR. BASSETT: We do, but that matter -- I don't 17　think there's a matter pertaining to Mei Guo and HK USA. 18　We'd hoped to talk to the Court about the PJR hearing, but 19　Your Honor is taking up this matter first, and we'd appear 20　for them -- 21　THE COURT: There's nothing about the PJR hearing 22　on the calendar today, so there's nothing to discuss. So 23　we're going to take up the motion to compel. Go right 24　ahead. Hold on. Sorry, Mr. Bassett. Hold on. 25　Oh, right, right, right. Okay. So what I said, Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 8 of 108 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 8 Mr. Kindseth, is we're taking up the motion to compel, and there's nothing about the PJR hearing on the calendar today. So, go right ahead, Mr. Bassett. MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon. Again, for the record, it's Nick Bassett, from Paul Hastings, on behalf of the Chapter 11 Trustee. Your Honor, there are, I think, sort of two distinct components as we see it too, the motion that we filed. Sort of the relief that we are seeking is to -- is with respect to the debtor's standing, which we don't think he has, to object to proofs of claim and relief that we're seeking with respect to objections that he's filed and his ability to do so in the future. That's primarily a legal argument based on standing that the trustee actually is going to be handling. The other piece of it, and it's sort of been separated in that way with respect to Mr. Kwok's counsel as well. I believe that's an issue that the Zeisler firm will be handling. The other issue is the motion to compel compliance with the Court's preliminary injunction order. It's related in that the issue is, you know, in our view, the debtor's ongoing conduct that violates the preliminary injunction order with respect to, in particular, statements made about Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 9 creditors that we think are highly problematic and we will discuss in more detail. What I've proposed just as a matter of structure is that we address that second piece first, which is the only piece that has evidence, and I'll start with the evidence, and then we can move into argument on that. THE COURT: That's what I need you to do. MR. BASSETT: Okay. THE COURT: Right? I've looked at the motion. It has a lot of assertions in it, so I need you to show me the evidence that supports those assertions. MR. BASSETT: Understood, Your Honor. So the evidence -- and we have -- we have copies of these documents that we can provide to the Court. There's not a lot. The first two documents, and these are cited in our motion, are the proofs of claim that were filed by creditor, Ms. Qiu Yu on January 6th. THE COURT: Would you please spell that name for the record? MR. BASSETT: Sure. It's Q-I-U, and then the last name is Y-U. Q-I-U is the first name, and the last name is Y-U. And throughout the day today, you'll -- there will be evidence indicating that that individual also goes by Gong Zu, and that is G-O-N-G, last name Z-U. These two proofs of claim are available on the Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 9 of 108 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 10 claims register at Claims 16-1 and 17-1. THE COURT: Are both of the proofs of claim in the name of Qiu Yu? MR. BASSETT: They are. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. That's -- MR. BASSETT: They are. And we would -- and we would offer them as just one exhibit, Trustee's Exhibit 1. Again, I can provide copies of those to the Court if the Court needs them. THE COURT: Well, I think I do in connection with this hearing, right? This is -- you're going to put on evidence to support the -- MR. BASSETT: Understood. THE COURT: -- assertions, so, yes. MR. WACHEN: Your Honor, I have not seen that exhibit either. It was not -- as far as I know, it was not filed in the adversary proceeding. THE COURT: It wouldn't be because it's a proof of claim, so it would just be filed on the claims register in the main case. MR. BASSETT: It's a -- MR. WACHEN: No, I understand that, but -- MR. BASSETT: Sorry, Mr. Wachen. I was just going to say, because it may be helpful, these two claims are available publically on the ECF. We're only introducing Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 10 of Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　them to show that these claims were filed by this 2　individual. That's it. They're publically available. You 3　can obviously -- they were cited in our motion and you know, 4　it's -- they're readily verifiable. 5　THE COURT: All right. So you -- you were 6　proposing to admit into evidence as full exhibits, Trustee 7　Exhibit 1. Did you say 1? I'm going to make it 1 if you 8　didn't say 1. 9　MR. BASSETT: Yes, I did, Your Honor. 10　THE COURT: Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Two proofs 11　of claim which are identified on the claims register in this 12　-- in the main case of 22-50073 as Claims 16-1 and 17-1? 13　MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. 14　THE COURT: Okay. Any opposition? I'm looking -- 15　this is -- this motion is in both the main case and in the 16　adversary. It's the same motion, isn't it? 17　MR. BASSETT: That is correct, Your Honor. 18　THE COURT: All right. So -- 19　MR. WACHEN: Yes, Your Honor. 20　THE COURT: -- any opposition in the main case? 21　MR. BASSETT: No, Your Honor. 22　THE COURT: Okay. Any opposition in the adversary 23　proceeding? 24　MR. WACHEN: No, Your Honor. 25　THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right. So I'd Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　ask you, Mr. Bassett, if you would, to approach the 2　courtroom deputy and she will mark those exhibits -- those 3　proofs of claim as one document as Trustee's Exhibit 1. 4　MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. 5　(Trustee's Exhibit No. 1 marked and admitted) 6　THE COURT: And what will happen after the 7　hearing, Mr. Bassett, is I'll have you -- your office file 8　these documents on the docket as exhibits introduced at the 9　hearing in PDFs with the labels that the courtroom deputy 10　will be affixing to any paper documents. Okay? 11　MR. BASSETT: Understood. We will do so. Thank 12　you, Your Honor. 13　THE COURT: Thank you. 14　MR. BASSETT: The next exhibit that the trustee 15　would offer, I would offer it in two pieces, a 2A and a 2B. 16　This is a video that the debtor posted to his GETTR account 17　on January 10th of 2023. It's cited in our motion. It was 18　actually also filed -- obviously the video itself was not 19　filed, but with a reply brief last night, we filed a 20　declaration of Douglas Baron. It appears at ECF 160 in the 21　adversary proceeding. 22　And Exhibit F, Your Honor, to that declaration is 23　a screenshot -- first of all, the declaration on Page 2 into 24　Page 3 -- again, this is ECF 160 -- displays the URL where 25　this video is located online at the GETTR website. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 12 of Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 13 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　And then Exhibit F is a screenshot that contains 2　an image from the GETTR page that contains the picture of 3　the video, and then behind that, we have a certified, 4　notarized translation of certain excerpts of the video. 5　And what I would propose to do, and we 6　communicated with the Court prior to today's hearing, is not 7　-- not play the entire video because the video itself is in 8　Mandarin, but I could have my colleague just publish for the 9　Court, for the record, a snippet of, you know, the beginning 10　of the video just to show that that video is an exhibit that 11　we intend to introduce. 12　We can coordinate with Your Honor to have that 13　submitted to the Court in the appropriate way so the actual 14　physical video file is on record. 15　I have discussed with Mr. Wachen, the 16　authentication of this document and others that are on our 17　list, and I believe we have an understanding that there is 18　an agreement that the video we are offering is authentic, is 19　in fact available on the debtor's GETTR page. But aside 20　from that, I'll have to defer to Mr. Wachen as to whether he 21　has any other issues with the exhibit. 22　But just in terms of relevance, Your Honor, this 23　is a January 10th -- a January 10th video, again posted by 24　the debtor, where, as we say in the translation attached as 25　Exhibit F, the debtor makes reference to Ms. Qiu Yu, who Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 14 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　filed the proof of claim on January 6th, calling the filing 2　of the claim gangster behavior, talking about how this 3　person is lying, it's fake, and that everything that this 4　person says will be published, et cetera. This is all in 5　the -- the certified translation that we have. 6　So with that, I can -- I can have my colleague 7　publish the video, and then we would offer that video as the 8　first component of Trustee's Exhibit 2, and then Exhibit F 9　to the Baron declaration would be the rest, which includes 10　the certified translation. 11　THE COURT: All right. So hold on. I think I've 12　followed you, but I want to make sure I have. 13　So Trustee's Exhibit 2, which you're proposing to 14　enter into evidence as a full exhibit is going to be a -- 15　the actual video you're going to show me? 16　MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. 17　THE COURT: Okay. So then -- 18　MR. BASSETT: Along with the certified 19　translation. 20　THE COURT: All right. So then the actual video 21　from Mr. Kwok's -- what page? From @MilesGuo? 22　MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor. Let me defer to my 23　colleague. 24　(Pause) 25　MR. BASSETT: Yes, it is, Your Honor. If you look Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　at Exhibit F in the Baron declaration -- 2　THE COURT: Well, I haven't looked at Exhibit F 3　last -- 4　MR. BASSETT: And we'll send -- 5　THE COURT: -- because it was filed last night. 6　MR. BASSETT: Understood, Your Honor. It -- 7　THE COURT: Well, it was filed at 10:15 last 8　night, right? 9　MR. BASSETT: Understood, Your Honor. 10　THE COURT: So I haven't looked at it. 11　MR. BASSETT: Understood. When you do have a 12　chance to look, you will see that it is in fact the 13　@MilesGuo handle. 14　THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to -- I am going to 15　look at it right now, because I'm not going to admit into 16　evidence anything I haven't looked at, okay? And you're 17　going to have to show me that video too. 18　MR. BASSETT: Yes, Your Honor. 19　THE COURT: Unless Mr. Wachen is completely 20　agreeing that you don't have to show the video and it's -- 21　you know, that's up to the two of you. I have no idea what 22　discussion you've had about it, but I'm now pulling up what 23　I -- is Exhibit F, attached to a Document 160. 24　MR. BASSETT: That's correct. 25　THE COURT: In the adversary proceeding, 22-5032, Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　and it's Page 35 of 41. Well, 34 of 41 is a document 2　entitled Exhibit F. 3　Then 35 of 41 is -- appears to be a post, and it 4　does say GETTR in the middle of it, and it does say Miles 5　Guo with a V, a white V in a red circle, which we talked 6　about at the preliminary injunction hearing, @MilesGuo with 7　a, what I would call a dot, January 10. I don't know if 8　that is what it is. 9　And I see a picture of a person with a -- with a 10　symbol of the -- a recording to hit play, and it says that 11　the video is 7 minutes and 49 seconds. It was posted at -- 12　on 7:33 a.m. January 10th, 2022. 13　And we know that posting time, whatever, could be 14　different depending upon time zones. That's what was 15　testified to -- well, during the preliminary injunction 16　hearing. 17　And there's a image of a person that aside from 18　the black circle with the -- what I would call a sideways 19　arrow, or the play button, looks to be Mr. Guo, or Mr. Kwok, 20　I should say, the person that's been in front of me. So 21　that's what I see. 22　And then the next page, 36 of 41, is a 23　certification of Divergent Language Solutions that certifies 24　that the attached translation is to the best of my knowledge 25　and belief, a true and accurate translation from Chinese Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 17 into English of the attached transcript excerpt from Miles Guo on GETTR, dated January 10, 2023 with Source Link, and then there's a link, signed by Edward J. Jacob, Divergent Language Solutions. Subscribed and sworn by a notary public, Matthew Zellick (ph). And then the 37 of 41 is the last page of Exhibit F, and that appears to be Mr. Jacob's translation of the audio portion of this video into English. That's what I see. Mr. Wachen, do you have an objection to the admission of this -- of the video and Exhibit F that's attached to ECF 160 as Trustee's Exhibit 2? MR. WACHEN: Your Honor, I do have an objection to the translation, because all they've offered is snippets out of context. I thought they were going to offer a translation of the whole video, but they haven't. And so I think it could be misleading to just see these one, you know, little phrases or sentences completely out of context. So I do have an objection to that. I agreed with Mr. Bassett before the hearing that the video that they are offering appears to be authentic in the sense that it comes from the internet, although the link that they cite is actually not from GETTR, it's from a Discord page, but he showed me the video. He showed me where it was on the internet, so I agree that the video that Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 17 of Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　he's going to offer is authentic. 2　So I'll agree with that, but I do object to the 3　translation as it's currently being proposed. 4　THE COURT: Because the translation is not 5　complete, or because the translation is not an accurate 6　translation? 7　MR. WACHEN: Because it's not complete, Your 8　Honor. 9　THE COURT: Okay. What's your response, Attorney 10　Bassett? 11　MR. BASSETT: So, Your Honor, it's -- as Your 12　Honor observed and as Mr. Wachen can also confirm, this is 13　indeed a 7-minute and 50-second -- nearly 8-minute video. 14　It is extraordinarily expensive to have these 15　certified translations done. We did what we had also done 16　for many of the videos that came into evidence, I believe, 17　at the preliminary injunction hearing, which is, you know, 18　focus our efforts on having certified translations done of 19　the relevant excerpts that we were asking the Court to rely 20　upon. 21　To the extent that Mr. Wachen wants to say that 22　the Court should discount the weight that it gives to this 23　document based on the fact that, you know, it doesn't have 24　the full context, it can't see everything else, that's up to 25　the Court. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 19 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　To the extent Mr. Wachen wanted to introduce a 2　fulsome translation to show additional context, you know, 3　he's free to do that, but we don't think that the Court 4　should, you know, only accept this video as translated into 5　English into evidence in a full, lengthy translated form. 6　THE COURT: Mr. Wachen? 7　MR. WACHEN: Yeah. Well, they're offering the 8　whole video, and the first line of the video -- or the first 9　line of the translation says, "It is completely gangster 10　behavior," but we don't even know what it is referring to. 11　This is three minutes into the video, and I'm assuming 12　they're going to suggest what they think it is, but it's 13　completely out of context. 14　MR. BASSETT: Your Honor -- 15　MR. WACHEN: And none of us speak Chinese. 16　MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, if I may? This piece of 17　evidence is also not being entered in a vacuum. 18　As the Court will see two other documents, two 19　other exhibits that we're asking to be admitted into 20　evidence are posts from the exact same day, in fact, within 21　hours of this video by persons on GETTR with the New Federal 22　State of China banner at the top of their GETTR page that 23　relates exactly to this proof of claim and relates to, you 24　know, our position that Mr. Guo -- or Mr. Kwok and his 25　associates are threatening creditors, including this in Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　particular creditor. 2　So we think that it's very clear what this post is 3　referring to; what these excerpts from the post by Mr. Kwok 4　on January 10th are referring to. But again, you know, it's 5　up to the Court. You know, this is not a -- obviously, 6　there's no jury. 7　It's up to the Court to decide what weight to give 8　the certified translation, and if Mr. Wachen's argument is 9　that, well, you know, it's not clear to him what it refers 10　to, then I think the -- you know, the Court can take that 11　into account. But I don't think it's something that should 12　-- you know, should prevent this document from being 13　admitted into evidence. 14　MR. WACHEN: Your Honor, he's asking you to make 15　some conclusions or findings based on the truth of what is 16　said in this video, and he's offering -- it's a 7-minute 17　video. He's offering you about ten lines of text from a 7- 18　minute video in which he wants you to make some adverse 19　conclusions about Mr. Kwok. 20　And it's their burden, not ours. We're not the 21　ones who brought this motion. They're the ones -- they say 22　it's expensive. You know, this is now the first time I'm 23　hearing them express concern about expense. I mean, they 24　bring lots of lawyers to the courtroom. They file motion 25　after motion. It's expensive for Mr. Kwok to have to defend Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　these motions. 2　And if they're going to ask you to make 3　conclusions from this video, they're the ones who picked the 4　seven minute video, not me, then they should have to provide 5　a complete transcript of the video for you to be able to 6　understand the context. Or they don't have to use the 7　video. They say they have other posts, they can rely on 8　those posts. We don't even need to talk about this video if 9　they don't want to. 10　MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, a couple further points. 11　THE COURT: Yes. 12　MR. BASSETT: If I may? 13　First of all, we're not offering this for the 14　truth of the matter assented, to the extent that that's what 15　Mr. Wachen was suggesting, although it wouldn't be hearsay 16　because it's a statement of Mr. Kwok anyway. 17　But we're offering to show what Mr. Kwok. You 18　know, the words on the page, not the truth of whether or 19　not, for example, filing a claim is gangster behavior. 20　We're obviously not trying to prove that. We're trying to 21　prove that this statement was made. 22　In regards to, you know, the other posts that we 23　are going to introduce, those are by other individuals who 24　have the New Federal State of China header at the top of 25　their page, and we think it's very clear based on the Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 22 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　Court's findings in the preliminary injunction order and the 2　accompanying memorandum decision that these individuals who 3　are associated with the New Federal State of China are in 4　active concert, in participation with the debtor, and that 5　they are taking direction from him. 6　And this -- the reason this video is so critical 7　is because again of the sequence. You have a proof of claim 8　that's filed on January 6th. You have this video published 9　by Mr. Kwok on January 10th in the morning. 10　Immediately thereafter, you have two other 11　accounts, which will be the next exhibits that we show, with 12　the New Federal State of China header, attacking this 13　creditor, doxing this creditor, putting passport information 14　online, criticizing the creditor for trying to attack the 15　whistleblower movement, which the Court already found in the 16　preliminary injunction order is controlled by the debtor. 17　So it's a critical exhibit. We can't just rely on 18　the other two, and it's -- it's again, what we have asked 19　the Court to admit into evidence is -- it's relevant and we 20　think it's admissible. 21　THE COURT: Let me see the next two exhibits, 22　please. 23　MR. BASSETT: Sure. 24　THE COURT: And then I will hold my ruling on this 25　exhibit. Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 23 MR. BASSETT: So the next -- the next exhibit, Your Honor, is -- I'm going to combine these together just to, I think, simplify the record. It's going to be -- the Trustee Exhibit 3 would be Exhibits A and B to the Baron Declaration at ECF 160, and in particular this -- so this would be at Page 4 of 41 of that document, Your Honor, as the cover sheet for Exhibit A. And then what you'll see -- what you'll see behind that, Your Honor, is a GETTR post on January 10th. It is from an account with the name OXV Design, O-X-V, Design. Again, the red checkmark that we talked about earlier, and then the handle also @OXVDesign, followed by January 10th appears below that. The URL where this is currently available on GETTR. This is something that I've discussed also with Mr. Wachen as to authenticity, appears in the upper left- hand corner of the document, slightly obscured by the ECF time stamp. As Your Honor will see, the post is in Chinese. Behind that, though, we do have a certified translation of the entire post. What you will see is that -- I won't read the entire thing, but there is an image, and it has Gong Zu and Yu Qiu, which as Your Honor will recall, is the name of the person who filed the proof of claim. And then it says, went Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 23 of Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　to US Bankruptcy Court in Connecticut, (indiscernible) the 2　matter with \$5,000, put herself on the list of creditors, 3　helped Luc to vilify the whistleblower movement. 4　Again, Your Honor, just to tie this to the last 5　exhibit, this is January 10th, the same day that -- and if 6　you look at the time stamp at the bottom, it's posted 11:40 7　a.m. And I believe if you go to Exhibit F, which we just 8　looked at -- 9　THE COURT: 7:33 a.m. is my recollection. 10　MR. BASSETT: 7:33 a.m. is the posting time on 11　Exhibit F, and then it's 11:40 on Exhibit A, and the last 12　thing that -- the other component of this exhibit, Your 13　Honor, I apologize, as I said, would be Exhibit B. 14　And if you turn to Exhibit B of the Baron 15　declaration, which is at Page 11 of 41, we're offering this 16　simply to show that this is the header of the OXV Design 17　GETTR page, because that header doesn't appear on the 18　individual post page at Exhibit A. But what the header page 19　shows is that this particular user has at the top, we are 20　the citizens of the NFSC. Our mission is to take down the 21　evil CCP. 22　So again, Your Honor, this is a post by someone ON 23　GETTR who very clearly, based on what we just looked at, 24　associates him or herself with the New Federal State of 25　China. The Court already found in the preliminary Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 25 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 25 injunction order and accompanying memorandum decision, that the debtor founded the NFSC, directs the NFSC, and directs the whistleblower movement. What you have again, sequentially, is the debtor in the morning of January 10th, posting the video that we just talked about, and then a couple hours later, you have this person from the New Federal State of China, posting a picture which I think the Court can, you know, infer from the post is of this claimant, whose name is posted there, criticizing this person for helping to, quote/unquote, villify the whistle blower movement, which again the Court also has already found is directed and controlled by the debtor. So with that, Your Honor, I would offer this exhibit into evidence, and obviously we can -- we can revisit the last exhibit if the Court would like, but maybe that makes more sense after the next exhibit. THE COURT: Let's do the next exhibit first, please, and then we'll revisit all three. MR. BASSETT: Sure. So the next exhibit we'll do in the same way, Your Honor, in that there will be two exhibits to the Baron declaration that I'll offer as -- as one exhibit in the hearing today. This cover sheet for Exhibit C appears at Page 16 of 41 of the Baron declaration, and what you will see, Your Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　Honor, this time it's a little more difficult because the -- 2　at least on the untranslated version, the user name is in 3　Chinese characters. 4　But beneath that you'll see an at, and you'll see 5　P-I-A-O-C-H-A-N-G-H-A-I, and then a dot, and then January 6　10th. We've redacted all the personal passport information 7　from what was posted here. But again, we sent -- Mr. 8　Wachen has seen the unredacted version. 9　And then if you look behind that, Your Honor, we 10　have a certified translation, and what you'll see is that 11　reveals the name of this user on GETTR as -- I'm probably 12　not going to pronounce this correctly, but Chang Hai Piao, 13　paren, Chang Hai Park, South Korea, Giangdo Farm (ph). 14　Beneath that the post says, "More whistleblowing news about 15　a little bastard Discord called Gong Zu, whose real name is 16　Yu Qiu. Comrades, please try to investigate. I heard that 17　her relationship with Di Dong Fang (ph) is very good." 18　There's an emoji. "Do you know her?" 19　Behind that, Your Honor, at Exhibit D, again we'll 20　do what we did before -- and by the way, I should have 21　mentioned for the record, the time of that post, which was 22　10:53 a.m. on January 10th. 23　If you go to Exhibit D, again, we're introducing 24　this, Your Honor, to show that this particular GETTR user 25　has at the top of his or her GETTR page banner, we are the Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　citizens of the NFSC. Our mission is to take down the evil 2　CCP. 3　I don't think I need to explain, you know, why 4　we're introducing this and its relevance because it's the 5　same as what I explained for the last exhibit, but those are 6　the next two exhibits that we would offer into evidence, 7　Your Honor. 8　THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 9　Mr. Wachen, do you have any objection to the 10　admission in full of Trustee Exhibit 3 and 4? 11　MR. WACHEN: That's the last two? No, Your Honor. 12　THE COURT: Okay. Exhibits 3 and 4 are admitted 13　in full. 14　(Trustee's Exhibit Nos 3 and 4 marked and admitted) 15　THE COURT: You're going to have to get those 16　documents to the Court, Mr. Bassett, as a PDF, because we 17　don't -- you don't have them to give to the courtroom deputy 18　right now, correct? They're just part of ECF 160? 19　MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. 20　THE COURT: Okay. 21　MR. BASSETT: But we obviously -- we -- 22　THE COURT: Okay. 23　MR. BASSETT: -- certainly will get them to the 24　Court. 25　THE COURT: All right. With regard to Trustee's Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　Exhibit 2, are you going -- I'd like you to start the video 2　so I can see it, please. 3　MR. BASSETT: Sure. Just with court's indulgence. 4　One moment, Your Honor. 5　THE COURT: Certainly. 6　(Pause.) 7　THE COURT: Now, how is Mr. Wachen going to be 8　able to see that? Is he going to be able to see that? 9　MR. BASSETT: Well, that does create -- it does 10　create an issue because he's on Zoom, Your Honor. 11　Technologically, I don't think he will be, but I also -- I 12　don't want to speak for him, but I think he has the video 13　and I can represent to him that we're playing the exact same 14　seven minute and 49-second video that he's seen and that 15　appears online. 16　THE COURT: Okay. 17　MR. WACHEN: I do -- on my Zoom screen, I do have 18　all these other boxes from the Court. I don't -- maybe it 19　will show up on -- 20　MR. BASSETT: No, the issue is that we're doing it 21　by, like, hard wire into the monitor, so it's not linked to 22　Zoom. 23　THE COURT: No, I don't think it will show up for 24　you, Mr. Wachen. I think it's just going to be projected in 25　the courtroom. Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 29 MR. WACHEN: Okay. THE COURT: But we'll see. MR. BASSETT: Yeah. MR. WACHEN: I've seen the video, so if it's the same video you sent me yesterday, then that's fine. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. BASSETT: And I can represent that it is. This video is muted on there. No, it's on -- on here, it's muted. Yeah. (Thereupon, the video recording was played for the record) MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, I'm pausing it only to ask if the Court would like us -- we obviously could play the entire eight minute video. I could also play the Chinese excerpts of the English translations that we're seeking to introduce, or we could stop it here. I'm happy to do whatever the Court would like. THE COURT: Mr. Wachen, what's your position on what part of the video should be played? MR. WACHEN: I don't know that any more needs to be played as far -- I mean, none of us will understand it, so I'm -- you know? I agree that there was a video posted. THE COURT: But you object to -- MR. WACHEN: My big concern was -- THE COURT: -- you object to the -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 29 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 30 MR. WACHEN: -- with the translation. THE COURT: All right. You agree that there is a video posted. You agree that that's your client, Mr. Kwok, in the video. Is that correct? MR. WACHEN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. And then your objection -- the remainder -- so that, you -- there's no objection with regard to those two factors. But with regard to the translation that was submitted as Exhibit F to ECF 160, that was filed last night, you object to the admission of that translation because it is only a portion of the entire video, and it's - - is that correct? MR. WACHEN: And a very small portion. And it -- and the parts of it -- I mean, there -- they translated several lines from the video. I'm assuming the translator has to translate the whole thing in order to find these particular snippets, and it's just taken completely out of context. I mean, there isn't -- how -- I don't know how you can -- from an eight minute video, how you can draw context from, you know, 50 words basically what -- I mean, I haven't counted them up, but I mean, it's just a smattering of words. MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, at a minimum, I mean -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 30 of Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 31 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　he's saying it's out of context, but in the -- in the 2　context of this dispute, and the context that I just 3　explained of these other exhibits, what is undisputed, 4　unless Mr. Wachen is saying he takes issue with the 5　translation, is that Mr. Kwok in this video is absolutely 6　referring to this individual, this creditor. 7　I mean, there are lines in here, Yu Qiu, you know, 8　Gong Zu, 100 percent is lying and faking it. 100 percent. 9　I mean, the Court's seen the proof of claim, seen the name 10　on the proof of claim. The Court's seen the other exhibits. 11　So I don't -- he may, you know -- I don't know 12　what other context he thinks is necessary, but these 13　translated excerpts themselves demonstrate the relevance of 14　this video. 15　THE COURT: I'd like you to go to three minutes 16　and five seconds in the video and play it at least until 17　three minutes and 40 seconds, please. 18　(Thereupon, the video recording was played for the 19　record) 20　THE COURT: I can't -- yeah, I was going to say, 21　you must be -- I can't really see it. 22　MR. BASSETT: Yeah. We're now at 3:54 and I would 23　-- obviously, Your Honor heard what Your Honor heard, but to 24　my ear you could hear Mr. Kwok saying the name Gong Zu, 25　which again is in the translation, which is not disputed. Case 22-50073　Doc 1440　Filed 02/03/23　Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54　Page 32 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　We're happy to show other portions as well. 2　MR. WACHEN: I'm not -- I'm not -- I'm not -- I'm 3　not disagreeing that he mentioned her name, or that he 4　thinks it's a bogus claim. But I would say, so what. And 5　-- but some of these other things, I mean, I just don't know 6　-- if all the point is did he talk about this woman in the 7　video, I'll agree that he did. 8　THE COURT: Is that sufficient, Mr. Bassett, for 9　you? 10　MR. BASSETT: It's not sufficient for me, Your 11　Honor, because it's not just that he mentioned her name. 12　It's the, frankly, you know, inflammatory and outrageous 13　statements that he's made. He's calling her spies. You 14　know? 15　MR. WACHEN: Well, he -- 16　MR. BASSETT: There's -- hold on. Let me -- 17　MR. WACHEN: Well, he -- 18　MR. BASSETT: -- I mean -- but there's language in 19　here, right? It's Gong Zu 100 percent is lying and faking 20　it, 100 percent. Now these spies like Gong Zu have come 21　out. And you know, it's completely gangster behavior. 22　All of this is -- it's relevant because it's not 23　just that he's -- this is not -- this is not Mr. Kwok going 24　online and saying, hey everyone, I respectfully disagree 25　with a proof of claim that was filed against my bankruptcy Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 33 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　estate, and I think we're kidding ourselves if that's the 2　way this would be interpreted. It is a much different tone 3　in this message, and that's why all the excepts that we've 4　had translated should be a part of the record in our view. 5　THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Wachen? 6　MR. WACHEN: Your Honor, I think yes, he's 7　critical of her claim. He thinks it's a bogus claim. And I 8　haven't seen the claim, so I can't -- and my colleagues at 9　Zeisler could probably speak to the claim itself, but I 10　think it's one of the ones that we objected to, but I can't 11　-- since I haven't seen it, I'm not certain about that. 12　But yes, he's critical of the claim and, you know, 13　did he say that she's lying and faking it? I think that's 14　probably what he believes. But I don't know that there's 15　any -- I mean, I think he's entitled to express his opinion 16　about a claimant. 17　THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to admit Trustee's 18　Exhibit 2 in full. Do you have any other exhibits after 19　Exhibit 4? 20　(Trustee's Exhibit 2 marked and admitted in evidence) 21　MR. BASSETT: I believe just two more, Your Honor. 22　The first one is -- 23　MR. WACHEN: Your Honor, can I -- Your Honor, I'm 24　sorry to interrupt Mr. Bassett, but could I just -- I just 25　-- before we go too far, I just want to mention something. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 34 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　We received Your Honor's mediation order, and we 2　spoke with the other side about trying to table these 3　issues, essentially, until March 3rd, and that we would -- 4　that Mr. Kwok would be willing to do certain things to kind 5　of keep things -- 6　THE COURT: I don't really want to hear any of 7　that, Mr. Wachen. That's why you're in mediation, okay? 8　MR. WACHEN: Okay. 9　THE COURT: And the mediation order clearly says 10　that the hearings that were already scheduled for Tuesday, 11　two days ago, today, and Monday are going forward. 12　So I appreciate that you're talking, but I can't 13　be part of that, okay? That's why you're in mediation. So 14　-- and continue to talk. But right now, this hearing was 15　scheduled and it's going forward, and that's what we're 16　doing. Okay? Thank you, though. 17　Go ahead, Mr. Bassett. 18　MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. The next -- 19　and again, like I said, there's only two more I believe. 20　The next exhibit is Exhibit E, E as in Edward, to 21　the Baron declaration. 22　THE COURT: And that will be Trustee's Exhibit 5 23　is what you're proposing? 24　MR. BASSETT: That's correct, Your Honor. 25　THE COURT: Okay. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 35 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 35 MR. BASSETT: And this -- I apologize. This exhibit begins at Page 28 of 41 of the declaration. If you turn to page 29 of 41, you will see that this is another GETTR post. This one has the user name Miles Guo, and then beneath it with the red checkmark that the Court observed earlier, beneath that, @MilesGuo with a dot, and then January 13th. What's posted then is in Mandarin. If you look behind this, there is a certified translation. And then the certified translation says, with the date January 13th, 2023, "Greetings esteemed comrades. Paul Hastings Law Firm is launching a campaign to register creditors. If there are comrades who are not strong willed, feeling their own investments and past investments have no sense of security and need to be a debtor, and if you think it is a better choice, you must contact Paul Hastings Law Firm to register in the bankruptcy court of Connecticut as soon as possible, and maybe you can become a billionaire." And then there are a couple of comments that it looks like other users posted beneath that, that I won't read into the record, but it was part of the post. And that's the -- that's the extent of -- that's the extent of Trustee's Exhibit 5, Your Honor, and just in terms of the reason we're offering it -- our motion really addressed two issues. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 36 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　The statements that we believe are violating the 2　preliminary injunction order in terms of harassing creditors 3　and dissuading people from filing claims against the estate. 4　And then the other issue is that, as we discussed 5　in our motion, the debtor has made statements online 6　encouraging people to file claims, and I'll get into more of 7　that in the argument as to why that's relevant and needs to 8　be stopped. But that's why we're offering this exhibit. 9　THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wachen, do you 10　have any objection to the admission of Exhibit 5? 11　MR. WACHEN: No, Your Honor. 12　THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the main 13　case have an exhibit -- objection to Exhibit 5? 14　MR. CESARONI: No, Your Honor. But again, for 15　the record, I believe this is part of the injunction portion 16　of the proceeding, so we're deferring to Mr. Wachen. 17　THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Trustee's Exhibit 5 18　is admitted in full. 19　(Trustee's Exhibit No. 5 admitted in evidence) 20　MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. 21　The last -- the last exhibit is Trustee's Exhibit 22　6, which will be Exhibit G to the Baron Declaration at ECF 23　160. This starts on Page 38 of 41. 24　This time, a translation is not necessary because 25　the document itself is in English. And, Your Honor, what Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 this exhibit shows is -- this is a printout from an article, and I don't -- oh, I was going to say, I don't believe the URL is on here, but the URL is in the Baron declaration. So if you were to go to Page G -- or sorry, Page 3 of the Baron declaration, Paragraph 8, it says, "Attached as Exhibit G is an English language version of an article posted on January 25th, 2023, to the Gnews.org website, which is available at the following URL." And then the URL where this appears, Your Honor, is Gnews.org/articles/828166. And this article posted by G News, which the Court found in, I believe, Paragraph 9 of its memorandum decision on the preliminary injunction, is an entity acting in concert with Mr. Kwok; an entity that he controls. And again, this is -- there is further discussion here of encouraging people to file claims. If the Court were to look at the second page of the document, what this article talks about in this -- in the first full paragraph on the second page, it says, "Mr. Guo suggested that all comrades could register because they had invested in G TV, but G TV was pseudo-classed as a fraudulent case and the SEC investigated it, so the money invested by the comrades had been withheld from the SEC and the Comrades were looking for money from the SEC." "But in the bankruptcy case, the comrades could Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　register as creditors of Mr. Guo, accept the registration of 2　other comrades. If all the comrades go to register, they 3　will make up the majority of the creditors, then the money 4　Mr. Guo earned will be distributed to the comrades, which 5　Mr. Guo is very willing to do." 6　"In addition, War Buddies as the majority can 7　initiate the ownership of Lady May ship and the 18th floor, 8　as also the majority will be given to the Hands of War 9　Buddies such as a way of handling all happy." And then it 10　goes on -- it goes on from there. 11　So with that, Your Honor, I would offer this 12　document. Again, Exhibit G to the Baron declaration, as 13　Trustee's Exhibit 6. 14　THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wachen, do you 15　have any objection to the admission of Trustee's Exhibit 6? 16　MR. WACHEN: I do, Your Honor. 17　This is like multiple levels of hearsay, and it 18　purports to quote my client, but we don't know who wrote 19　this, and there's no way to really verify it other -- I 20　mean, I'm accepting the fact that it came off the internet, 21　but whether my client actually said this or not, is sort of 22　the problem I'm having with it. And so, I do object to the 23　admission of this one. 24　THE COURT: Okay. 25　MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, this document does not, Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　I don't believe, purport to quote Mr. Guo. It is rather an 2　article that is expressing viewpoints, as I just read for 3　the Court, about the potential filing of claims in the case 4　by comrades. 5　And the article is -- as the Court can see from 6　the URL and from the label on the first page, an article 7　issued on the G News website. 8　Again, that is an organization that the Court has 9　already found is an organization controlled by Mr. Guo, 10　along with the other G-series entities we all know well, G 11　TV, G Fashion, and the like. 12　So I guess two points on that for me, a hearsay 13　perspective. First of all, we're not offering this for the 14　truth of the matter asserted. We're offering this to 15　demonstrate that G News, an entity controlled by Mr. Guo, is 16　disseminating information online about encouraging creditors 17　to file claims in the case in the means that I read into the 18　record. 19　Even if we were offering it for the truth of the 20　matter asserted, which we're not, this is an entity as I 21　said, that the Court has found is controlled by Mr. Guo. 22　So I think from that perspective, it could be seen 23　as an admission of a party opponent. But again, I don't 24　think the Court needs to go there because we're not offering 25　it for the truth of any statements made, or facts contained Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 40 in this article. THE COURT: So you're offering it for the purpose of establishing that this article was posted on January 25th, 2023 on the G News Org website? MR. BASSETT: Yes, and that it -- and that it has the statements that it contains about encouraging comrades to go register. Again, that's not a -- we're not offering -- we're not trying to establish any facts based on what's said here. We're offering this to show that this message was communicated online by G News. I mean, that's a -- that's established by the document itself. THE COURT: Mr. Wachen? MR. WACHEN: My understanding was that -- or my belief was they were offering this to establish that Mr. Guo, or Mr. Kwok, was encouraging people to file claims. And so they are offering it for what it says, not the fact -- so -- and if it's not quoting him, then we don't know who wrote this. We don't -- you know, it's purporting to -- it's purporting to communicate certain things relating -- that Mr. Guo was advocating, and so I think it's prejudicial and unreliable in the sense that it -- there's no way to really check it or cross-examine the person who wrote it to find out, is this just someone's opinion of the circumstances? Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 40 of Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 41 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　Is this actually Mr. Guo who's saying this, 2　because this is not consistent with the video, I don't 3　think, or some of the other things that -- the GETTR posts 4　that they showed from Mr. Guo. 5　MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, two -- 6　MR. WACHEN: And so that's the concern -- 7　MR. BASSETT: Sorry. 8　THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Wachen. 9　MR. WACHEN: No, and so that's the concern I have, 10　that this is being offered for what it's saying. I think it 11　is being offered for the truth. 12　MR. BASSETT: Your Honor, two brief responses to 13　that. 14　First, the exhibit we looked at before, Trustee's 15　Exhibit 5, demonstrates that Mr. Guo was advocating for 16　people to file claims. We're not offering this document, 17　Trustee's Exhibit 6 for that purpose because we have the 18　other exhibit. 19　What we're introducing this document for is to 20　show that G News was doing it. I think that's -- that's 21　self-evident from the document itself, and we already have 22　established in this case, through findings of fact, that Mr. 23　Guo controls G News. 24　MR. WACHEN: Well, I think this article is 25　purporting to communicate what Mr. Guo has been saying, and Case 22-50073　Doc 1440　Filed 02/03/23　Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54　Page 42 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　I don't think this -- I don't think everything that G News 2　puts out can be attributed to Mr. Kwok, as the words of him, 3　that he's -- that he's authorizing all these communications. 4　It's just something that was released. 5　Do I agree that he was advocating for people who 6　have claims to file claims? Yes. But that's -- this 7　article says something a little bit different, and I don't 8　know if it's just someone's interpretation or what, but it's 9　unreliable in the sense that the -- for what they're 10　offering it. 11　If they're -- if all they're trying to show is 12　that he's encouraging people to file claims, they have the 13　GETTR posts. I'm not sure why they would need this. 14　THE COURT: Mr. Baron (sic), anything further? 15　MR. BASSETT: No, Your Honor. 16　THE COURT: Mr. Wachen, anything further? 17　MR. WACHEN: No, Your Honor. 18　THE COURT: All right. I'm going to admit Exhibit 19　6 as a full exhibit over objection, and I will give it 20　whatever weight I think is appropriate. 21　(Trustee's Exhibit No. 6 marked and admitted in 22　evidence.) 23　MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. I believe 24　that closes the trustee's evidentiary presentation on the 25　motion. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　THE COURT: And then we're going to talk about the 2　legal side of it, and then you want me to decide it all as 3　one, or how will we -- 4　MR. BASSETT: Well, so I was -- I was getting -- 5　what I had proposed to do, Your Honor, is that I would -- 6　again, since we sort of bifurcated this, right, the portions 7　that Mr. Wachen and I are handling are the portions that 8　have the evidence, that the evidence that was just 9　introduced is relevant to. 10　So what I would propose is that I proceed with the 11　-- with the trustee's argument on that issue. Mr. Wachen 12　can respond and if -- you know, obviously reserve some time 13　for rebuttal, and then we could deal with the separate, you 14　know, more legal standing issue as I would call it, after 15　that, which has different counsel handing it. But I'm 16　obviously happy to proceed however the Court thinks is best. 17　THE COURT: Well, if the debtor doesn't have 18　standing, then -- well, I guess just proceed the way you've 19　proceeded, but I think standing is a -- 20　MR. BASSETT: Well, this -- 21　THE COURT: -- gateway issue, isn't it? 22　MR. BASSETT: No, it is. It is, Your Honor, and I 23　guess to be clear, I don't think the issue is whether the -- 24　whether the debtor has standing to respond to our request to 25　enforce the preliminary -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 44 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　THE COURT: I understand. 2　MR. BASSETT: -- injunction. 3　THE COURT: But your -- the issue of standing -- 4　MR. BASSETT: It's standing to file proofs of -- 5　THE COURT: -- is whether or not they have -- 6　MR. BASSETT: -- claim. 7　THE COURT: -- a right to object to the proofs of 8　claim. 9　MR. BASSETT: Exactly. I'm sorry. Exactly. I'm 10　sorry, Your Honor. 11　THE COURT: I understand. 12　MR. BASSETT: Yeah. 13　THE COURT: So what your motion is saying is that 14　the Court -- well, what are you asking the Court to do? Let 15　me ask you that question. What are you asking the Court to 16　do? 17　MR. BASSETT: So my colleagues will certainly jump 18　in if I get this wrong, but in our motion, we are asking the 19　Court to enter an order finding that the debtor has no 20　ability to object to proofs of claim filed in this case. 21　That objections he has filed be quashed. That he be 22　enjoined from further filing injunctions, unless -- or 23　filing objections to claims unless he first obtains 24　permission from the Court. That's part 1. 25　The second part is, we're asking the Court to Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 45 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　enter an order enforcing, if necessary, finding the debtor 2　in contempt for failing to comply with the preliminary 3　injunction order and the TRO that preceded it, by making the 4　statements that the evidence we've presented has shown that 5　he's made, and the consequences that those statements have 6　had in terms of the statements that the followers of the 7　NFSC have made. 8　So those are the -- that's -- I think that's the 9　summary of what we're seeking in our motion, Your Honor. 10　THE COURT: All right. Well, Mr. Wachen and Mr. 11　Barrett (sic), what else are you going to tell me that you 12　haven't already told me with regard to the issue of the 13　evidence and with regard to what you've bifurcated as to 14　apparently the alleged violations of the preliminary 15　injunction? 16　MR. BASSETT: Is that to me, Your Honor, or to Mr. 17　Wachen? 18　THE COURT: It's to both of you. 19　MR. BASSETT: Oh, so -- 20　THE COURT: What else are you going to tell me? I 21　mean -- 22　MR. BASSETT: Well, what I -- what I was going to 23　tell you, Your Honor, was simply that we think the 24　preliminary injunction order that the court entered on 25　January 11th is very clear, and what it prohibits. And to Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　be fair, in sequencing some of these posts that we showed 2　were on January 10th. At that point, the TRO was in effect. 3　Both the TRO and a preliminary injunction very 4　clearly -- and this is Paragraph 2 of the preliminary 5　injunction order, prevents the debtor from taking any action 6　that interferes with the integrity of his Chapter 11 case. 7　And the Court entered that order on the heels of 8　an extensive evidentiary presentation, along with a very 9　lengthy, detailed, thoroughly reasoned memorandum decision 10　that took into account that evidence, including evidence and 11　findings, that part of what led to the inunction was the 12　fact that statements that the debtor had been making were in 13　fact interfering with creditors and disincentivizing them, 14　and dissuading them from participating in the claims 15　process. 16　So on the heels of that, on January 10th -- and 17　then we have two things that happen. January 10th, you have 18　the debtor post this video where he immediately -- I mean, 19　it took a matter of days. The claim was filed -- it's dated 20　January 6th. 21　I'm not actually sure when it became publically available on ECF. Either way, almost four days later the debtor is on GETTR calling out the name of a person who filed that claim, calling the filing of the claim gangster behavior, saying that the person is lying, saying that the Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 47 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 47 consequence of participating in the case is going to be having your information publically disclosed online. And then what happens after that, which is what has happened every time this same type of thing has been done by the debtor in the past, as we demonstrated during the PI hearing, is that his followers are immediately called into action. His initial post on a topic is a call to arms. Within hours, we have two people posting from GETTR accounts bearing the NFSC banner at the top, who start attacking that same creditor. We have somebody who posts a passport online. 13 We have somebody else who is calling out that person for trying to vilify the whistle blower movement. All of that is designed to keep these engines moving, to get other followers, to get everyone else to line up and to dox and to threaten people who dare to stand up to this debtor, and dare to do something like file a claim in this case. So we think it's abundantly clear that the debtor's post is -- it's interfering with this Chapter 11 process. There's no question about it. He's calling out a creditor who filed a claim, immediately after that claim filed. These other parties who are posting with NFSC banners, the Court found that the NFSC is in active concert Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. and participation with the debtor. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　So we don't think there's any question that a 2　violation has occurred, but yet that post hasn't been taken 3　down. 4　Paragraph 3, I believe, of the Court's preliminary 5　injunction order says that the debtor has to take down all 6　social media posts that violate Paragraphs 1 and 2 above. 7　Paragraph 2 above is the paragraph that talks 8　about interfering with the Chapter 11 process. These posts 9　are still out there. You can go to the website right now, 10　they're still there. There's absolute no question that he's 11　violating the preliminary injunction order. 12　The other thing the debtor did -- this is on the January 23rd post, and then the January 25th G News article -- is he's going out there and additionally interfering with the integrity of the Chapter 11 process by encouraging his comrades across the world to come and flood the docket with proofs of claim. And as the article indicates, I mean, what's the debtor's purpose? Probably to make the trustee's life more difficult, to interfere with progress being made in the trustee's investigation, and the other aspects of this case that are critically important. Then the article also mentions, you know, you'll be able to, you know, have a say in the case. You know, perhaps the objective of the debtor is to try to drum up Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　support for a plan. I don't know. 2　But what I do know is that the debtor is posting 3　online, encouraging people to come file claims with this 4　court in a way that's going to interfere with the process. 5　So that's another way that we think -- there really is no 6　dispute. 7　It's violating the clear language of and -- and 8　definitely the spirit of Paragraph 2 of the preliminary 9　injunction, which prohibits him from interfering with the 10　integrity of this case. 11　Mr. Wachen's arguments and his objection are that 12　there's no evidence of noncompliance. I think the evidence 13　speaks for itself, and there absolutely is evidence of 14　noncompliance with the preliminary injunction order. 15　He also says that no further order is necessary. 16　The fact that the debtor is not complying, the fact that 17　these posts continue to sit online is evidence in and of 18　itself that a further order is in fact necessary. 19　At a minimum, the debtor needs to know that what 20　he has done is not complying with the preliminary injunction 21　order to the extent there was any doubt in his mind about 22　that. And if he doesn't do that, he needs to be held in 23　contempt of court. 24　The objection also says that -- tries to make the 25　case that what the debtor is doing is harmless because if Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 50 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　anything, he's simply raising concerns about improper 2　claims. You know, I don't even know how to react to that. 3　If he had concerns about improper claims, he could try to 4　raise them in the procedurally and legally correct way. 5　But going online and calling people gangsters, 6　doxing them by having followers put out information on 7　passports, is not just simply raising concerns about valid 8　claims. It's intimidation, which the Court has already 9　found the debtor has engaged in. 10　That's -- those are the primary points, Your 11　Honor. We think to summarize, the preliminary injunction 12　order and the TRO that preceded it, are very clear what they 13　prohibit, and they're made even more clear against the 14　backdrop of the memorandum decision that the Court entered 15　and it's findings of fact. 16　And then we also think the evidence that we've 17　introduced is clear, that what the debtor is doing is 18　violating that order, and it's having the exact same harmful 19　effects that we've always worried about because it's 20　activating his followers across the world to do even more 21　damage. 22　So that's why we think we're entitled to that 23　relief that we're seeking, Your Honor. 24　THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wachen, what's 25　your response to Mr. Bassett's argument? Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 51 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　MR. WACHEN: Your Honor, we take issue strongly 2　with what he is arguing. We don't think Mr. Kwok is 3　violating the order in any way. The order talks about 4　interfering in any way with the integrity of the case, and 5　it specific -- the only thing it specifically mentions is 6　safety involving certain -- with the people, the trustee, 7　PAX, affiliated officers and so on and so forth. 8　There's no allegation that Mr. Kwok is doing 9　anything with respect to the safety of those individuals. 10　Mr. Bassett didn't even mention that. 11　And as far as the integrity of the proceedings go, 12　if anything, I would say Mr. Kwok is concerned about the 13　integrity of the proceedings, because he's concerned about 14　this individual claim, which he believes is bogus, and he is 15　calling it out. 16　They're saying, well, there's a way to do it in 17　the Chapter 11 case, but then they're also saying that he 18　shouldn't be allowed to object in the Chapter 11 case. So 19　where can -- where can he express his concerns? 20　I think there's nothing in this order from Your 21　Honor that prohibits him from expressing concerns about 22　bogus claims. 23　There's also nothing in this order that prohibits 24　him from encouraging people to file meritorious claims if 25　they have one. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 52 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 52 And that's all his GETTR post says, that if you have a claim, you can file it. If anything, you would think -- I mean, I thought that's what the trustee was trying to do, to get people who have claims to file them. So I don't see how this is inconsistent. Now his language about maybe you can become a billionaire, I think when you read the context of it, I think it's clear sarcasm. It's not -- it's not -- that's really all it is. That's the way I understood it anyway, and you know, part of the problem here is, most of these things are written in Chinese. Sometimes things are lost in translation. The use of the word gangster, for example, I don't -- I mean, it's offered totally out of context, but you know, that may be some -- have some meaning in Chinese that we don't fully appreciate. But he's criticizing someone who he thinks doesn't have a meritorious claim. And I know some of the details of it. The bankruptcy counsel for the debtor I think probably could speak in more detail to what the problems are with that particular claim. But that's his concern and I think he has a right. If anything, I don't see how expressing concern about a particular claim and whether it's legitimate or not, interferes in any way with the integrity. So that's -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　that's what I would say about that. 2　They are asking Your Honor to -- at the beginning 3　of their order, they're asking you to order Mr. Kwok to 4　comply with your preliminary injunction order, which seems 5　superfluous. You've already issued an order. 6　As far as we're concerned, he is complying with 7　it. I don't think there's a need for another order to say 8　comply with that other order. The order speaks for itself 9　and it's still in effect. 10　We've appealed it. We don't think it's valid. We 11　don't think it's clear, quite honestly, with all due 12　respect, and that's why we've appealed it for that and many 13　other reasons. But we don't think there's been any 14　violation. 15　This speculation as to what's behind all this, 16　this is all -- you know, it's all contrived and it's all -- 17　well, what he's really suggesting is this, and he's -- this 18　is a way fro him to mobilize people on social media. 19　But the reality of social media is, somebody posts 20　something on social media and people react to it. Whether 21　it's Mr. Kwok or anybody else who gets -- has a large 22　following on social media. And he can't control what these 23　people say or do. 24　And these people -- these posts, there's no 25　evidence that he has anything to do with these other posts. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 54 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 54 The video, the one that he posted, okay. That's him. But these other ones, there's no connection with him and there's no -- one of the people was I think in South Korea and he posted it, it appeared. But he had nothing to do with those and there's nothing he can do to control them. But he does have a right to speak out on things that he hasn't been enjoined to speak out on, and speaking out on this individual is not one of those things that he was not allowed to talk about. Paragraph 3 talks about taking down different social media posts in certain categories, containing the home addresses of the trustee, PAX, related officers, employees and so on and so forth. There's no allegation that that's contained in any of his posts, or encouraging or inciting or suggesting activities enjoined. There's no indication that he's done that either. So there's really no He has a right to speak out, and I mean, he didn't -- by filing for bankruptcy, he didn't give up his First Amendment rights, and I think that's what the trustee is trying to do, to silence him, but he has a right to call into question claims that have been asserted that frankly don't have any merit. And to the extent people who have claims want to file them, they can file them, and I think that's what the trustee is trying to do. reason for him to have to take anything down. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 55 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　We don't believe there's any violation. There's 2　been no doxing, either, by Mr. Kwok. That was another thing 3　he mentioned. The information about -- I mean, he mentioned 4　her name. Her name is a matter of public record. She filed 5　a claim on the docket. Her name and address are in the 6　bankruptcy case. But he mentioned her name. The passport, 7　or whatever it was, that wasn't something that he posted. 8　That was somebody else. So I don't think he can be called 9　to answer for that. 10　And at this point -- I mean, to the extent they're 11　seeking to hold him in contempt of the order, I think, you 12　know, for them to just -- they mention contempt, I think in 13　a parenthetical. That was the extent. 14　I don't think it's appropriate for Your Honor to 15　hold Mr. Kwok in contempt without a full evidentiary hearing 16　on that issue, and then having to meet their burden of 17　what's needed, and we haven't even -- that process hasn't 18　even begun, but we don't believe there's any basis for doing 19　so. 20　So for all those reasons, Your Honor, we'd ask the 21　Court to deny their motion at this point. 22　MR. BASSETT: Just a couple responses, Your Honor. 23　Oh, I'm sorry. 24　THE COURT: And you've spoken, Mr. Wachen, with 25　your client about Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the preliminary Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　injunction order? 2　MR. WACHEN: I have not personally spoken with 3　him, but he has been spoken with. 4　THE COURT: Okay. Who has he been spoken with by? 5　Who -- you represent him in this adversary proceeding. So 6　you haven't talked to him directly about what this 7　preliminary injunction order means? 8　MR. WACHEN: Well, for what I -- I don't speak 9　Chinese, so that's one concern I have. But I have spoken 10　with his -- with co-counsel, and co-counsel have spoken with 11　him about it. 12　THE COURT: Which co-counsel have you spoken with? 13　MR. WACHEN: Well, several of them, but the one I 14　will mention is Mr. Mitchell. 15　THE COURT: Okay. 16　MR. WACHEN: It's my understanding that Mr. 17　Mitchell has discussed the order with him. 18　THE COURT: But you have not directly had any 19　discussions with Mr. Kwok about this preliminary injunction 20　order or the memorandum of decision? 21　MR. WACHEN: I have not, Your Honor, no. 22　THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 23　MR. WACHEN: But I've discussed it with Mr. 24　Mitchell, and Mr. Mitchell, I understand, has discussed it 25　with Mr. Kwok, and I've discussed that with Mr. Mitchell. Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Barrett (sic), 2　what else would you like to say? 3　MR. BASSETT: Just a couple -- a couple responses, 4　Your Honor. He mentioned, in discussing Paragraph 2 of the 5　preliminary injunction order, he said that there's been no 6　evidence that anything that the debtor is -- has done would 7　affect the safety of any individual. Two responses to that. 8　First of all, Paragraph 2 is not so limited. I 9　mean, Paragraph 2 says very clearly, the debtor is further 10　preliminarily enjoined from interfering in any way with the 11　integrity of his Chapter 11 case, and then it goes on to 12　say, including taking any act to threaten the safety of the 13　Chapter 11 trustee, PAX, or its affiliates, and others. So 14　the including clause obviously is not -- is not limiting. 15　Number one. 16　Number two, what you have here is very clear 17　evidence of intimidation. I'll get to the argument that 18　there's no connection between Mr. Kwok's post and what 19　happens by his followers and that he has no control over 20　that. 21　But you have a call to arms by Mr. Kwok. That's 22　what we think it very clearly is, and this is not in a 23　vacuum. This is based on the evidence, the abundant 24　evidence the Court has already heard at the preliminary 25　injunction hearing. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 58 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　And then after that, within hours, you have NFSC 2　supporters posting online passport information. And Mr. 3　Kwok -- Mr. Kwok himself, in the translated excerpt of the 4　video said, if you do this, you're going to be exposed. 5　What happens? Immediately, there's information 6　online, passport, personal information that absolutely is 7　something that begins to threaten the safety of these 8　individuals given the nature of this case, given the -- 9　everything the Court has seen in evidence about the protests 10　and how exercised people on either side of this are. 11　That kind of doxing is certainly something that 12　threatens the safety, but it doesn't matter because 13　Paragraph 2 is not limited to threatening the safety in any 14　event. 15　He mentioned, well, you know, if the debtor cannot 16　you know, criticize claims online, and we're also arguing 17　that he doesn't have standing, then he has no place to go. 18　Your Honor, the standing issue is separate. We don't think 19　the debtor has standing. 20　But if he doesn't have standing, his recourse is 21　not to circumvent that and get around it by going out and 22　harassing people online and taking his criticism public 23　because he has no right to do it in this Court. So that's, 24　I think, a non-answer to the question. 25　I think that's it, Your Honor. I mean, again, on Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 59 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　the question of is there control of these people. The 2　timing. He posts this in the morning on January 10th. 3　Immediately there are NFSC members posting thereafter. Mr. 4　Wachen mentioned that one of them appeared to be in South 5　Korea. I don't understand how that's possibly a limitation. 6　The Court heard evidence that there are people protesting 7　outside of Paul Hastings' office in Tokyo. The reach of 8　this is worldwide. 9　Your Honor, that's all I had. I appreciate the 10　Court's time on this today. 11　THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wachen, 12　anything further? 13　MR. WACHEN: Yes, Your Honor. 14　Just to be clear, this safety thing that they keep 15　talking about, the language at Paragraph 2 talks about the 16　safety of Chapter 11 trustee, PAX's or its affiliated -- 17　affiliates, officers, or employees, counsel to the Chapter 18　11 trustee or PAX, and any of their respective relatives. 19　So unless this woman is somehow a relative of one 20　of these people that we don't know, or a former spouse, the 21　safety clause of Paragraph 2 doesn't even come into play 22　here. 23　Mr. Kwok hasn't threatened the safety of anyone, 24　but to the extent that's what they're arguing, the safety 25　clause is really a non-issue because it's not -- she's not Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 60 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 60 one of the people that's mentioned. But in terms of interfering in any way with the integrity, I'll just reiterate that nothing he's done here to criticize a claimant who he thinks has filed a bogus claim, who's trying to take advantage of the system, is interfering with the integrity. If anything, it's helping to ensure the integrity. And so I guess I just don't understand that argument that they're making. If this is about this being a call to arms any time he opens his mouth, well, he has a lot of people who believe in him. He's -- he has -- you know, he's a public figure. He is a leader of the Chinese Dissident Movement. There are people all around the world who support him in various ways. Not the people he knows, but people who believe in him. And so, like anything else on social media, when somebody posts something, people often react to it from all over the place, and that's -- you know, it's uncontrolled. I mean, I think that's just the nature of social media, that people come out of the woodwork and start saying things. I don't think he knows -- I don't think there's any evidence that he has anything to do with these posts or that he knows who posted this passport or whatever it is, from this woman. Somebody put it up there, but it wasn't him, and Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 61 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　it wasn't as if he encouraged someone to do that either. 2　He's just concerned about her and other people, perhaps like 3　her, who are going to flood -- I mean, basically what 4　they're concerned about. They're going to come forward and 5　put in claims that are not legitimate. 6　So I mean, on the one hand they're concerned about 7　people flooding the docket with illegitimate claims, but 8　then when he raises an issue or concern about one of the 9　claims, now he's done something wrong. I mean, it just -- 10　it seems like, you know, no matter what he does, he's 11　somehow doing something wrong. 12　But the fact that people react to his posts on 13　social media, I mean, that's just -- I think that's just the 14　nature of social media. There's no indication that he has 15　anything to do with actively encouraging these people to go 16　and put up the passport or to do what they were doing. 17　And as far as harassment, I just don't think 18　there's any indication that he has harassed anybody. Have 19　other people done things that maybe they shouldn't? 20　Perhaps, but I don't think he has to answer for someone -- 21　some guy in South Korea who posted some inflammatory post. 22　THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, both. I will hear 23　the arguments on standing, please. 24　MR. BASSETT: Thank you, Your Honor. 25　MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. For Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 the record, Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. I'll try to cover this briefly. We believe that the Court should enter an order quashing these objections under various grounds. It's not limited to standing, technical standing. It's important to go through the code. I know you know it well, but just for two seconds. 704 Sub (a)(5) says that the trustee -- we're talking about a Chapter 7 trustee now -- has the duty -- shall, it's a shall -- review claims and object to claims if appropriate, or something like that. Claims that are improper. That's the Chapter 7 trustee, 704(a)(5). 1106 says that the title -- the Chapter 11 trustee has those duties. Those duties were given under 1107 to the debtor in possession while he was in possession, but doesn't have that ability anymore. So there's very specific language regarding this, and the argument to the contrary is that we're a party in interest under 1109. And by the way, Your Honor, there are many other parties -- people that are parties in interest under 1109. A creditor, like PAX, the creditor's committee. Everyone is a party in interest. It doesn't stop. And by the way, under 502, it says a party in interest can object to claims. And that has not stopped courts repeatedly in Case 22-50073　Doc 1440　Filed 02/03/23　Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54　Page 63 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 63 Chapter 7 cases to say, creditors cannot go and object to other creditor's claims, even though you're a party in interest. And they have done the same in Chapter 11. Why? Because it would be chaos. That's the -- you know, the Dow Corning case lists tons of cases on this, that we cannot allow creditors that have -- when you think about it, creditors have much more standing than an out-of-possession debtor. Especially in a case like this, because the current position of the debtor is, I have no assets. That's the position that he had -- that he's advocated thus far. And, however, PAX is a creditor. Clearly a party in interest. In theory, they should go and object -- they could go and object to other creditor's claim, because there would be a direct benefit to them, a direct pecuniary interest, right? Because you follow that logic of party in interest. But courts never allow that when there's a trustee in place. Even, they don't do it when the debtor in possession is in place. I'll put that aside, but when a trustee is in place, they don't allow creditors to do that; creditors that have more standing from a pecuniary interest point of view than a debtor that's out of possession that says, I have no assets and my claims -- although he's going to dispute all those claims -- but there's at least \$400 million of claims Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 64 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 64 before the bar date that are in the case. So the point is not only standing, because you know, the issue -- you know, it's true that 1109 says a debtor is a party in interest, and also says a creditor's committee and creditors are parties in interest, but it has not stopped cases or courts in Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 cases from saying, you cannot file objections because it's chaos. It's the job of the trustee to do that. And just, if we look at this case, Your Honor, recall the case started with, I have no assets, so there's nothing to distribute. Now, it's getting pretty clear that there are some assets. I don't want to be over confident about this, but I think that we will establish that there are some assets of the estate. So now the debtor is shifting to, well, but there are no claims. We're going to object to all the claims, and the problem with that is that we're conducting an investigation. So on the H coins, for example, we are conducting an investigation. We're not done with that investigation, and we've told Your Honor months ago that the first focus has to be on bringing assets into the estate. But the debtor is very good at distracting all of us, and I'm including the Court, not in the critical way, but -- in fact, I was thinking about this. This opinion you wrote on the First Amendment and Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 65 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　all that, I know it would have taken me 150 hours to do this 2　because I know nothing about the First Amendment. So I'm 3　assuming you know a lot more than me, but it certainly took 4　you a hundred hours to write this. This is a hundred hours 5　that could have been spent on other aspects of the case. 6　But -- so the Court was distracted. We were 7　distracted. And now they want to open another angle, which 8　is, let's object to claims. Let's have trials on the H Coin 9　and all that. I have not completed my investigation on 10　that. That's why the trustee is supposed to do this, not 11　the out-of-court -- not an out-of-possession debtor. And 12　that's fundamental. 13　So in this case, what's happening is that they 14　want us to be distracted again from the main task, which is 15　bringing assets into the estate so that we are going after 16　claimants. 17　And, you know, look, it's -- I'm looking at the 18　claims. I have already said this to Your Honor. The 19　claimants are not sophisticated in the sense that they 20　believe they've been defrauded. They don't express that in 21　the best terms. I saw the claim myself, but that claim was 22　filed two weeks ago. This is not like I'm sitting on this 23　for two years. It was filed two weeks ago. I have not spent any time looking at these claims in detail. I'm looking at them, you know, briefly, but not Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　in detail because the main goal here is to get money into 2　the estate. 3　Without money into the estate, this case dies and 4　we cannot spend our time being distracted by the debtor 5　that's completely out of possession economically, trying to 6　open up these sideshows, as we had on the First Amendment, 7　and now there seem to be another sideshow which is, let's 8　object to claims. We cannot have that, Your Honor. 9　This is why courts have said in their -- you know, 10　again, the Dow Corning case cites probably ten cases that 11　have held this in Chapter 11, where it basically says that a 12　trustee or debtor in possession, even though creditors have 13　standing under -- because they're a party in interest, we 14　will preclude them from that because otherwise it would be 15　chaos. 16　And for these reasons, Your Honor, we would ask 17　you to enter an order that says that these objections are 18　quashed. 19　Two, that no other objections by the debtor may be 20　filed without prior permission from Your Honor. And so they 21　can come back later. You know, if they can establish that 22　the trustee has been sitting on those claims, and really to 23　favor these people, fine. But they filed those claims like 24　two weeks ago, or I'm not even sure it's been two weeks. 25　Obviously, we have no time to act. Perhaps we Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　will review them and determine, after we complete our 2　investigation on the H Coin, that these people have valid 3　claims, or not. 4　I am telling Your Honor that if these claims are 5　not valid, they will not be allowed. This is not a game 6　that we're going to play. If they're not valid, you know, 7　they will not be allowed. 8　And it's, you know -- also, lastly I would say 9　that there's kind of something humorous about a debtor that 10　has no records whatsoever, right? That's the theory. Not 11　only I have no assets, but I have no records, but they're 12　sure that these claimants have no claims. And they know 13　that how? Because they have no records themselves of any of 14　this. 15　Your Honor, there will be certainly more than 200 16　claims filed in this case. Perhaps more than that. So all 17　these people are wrong. All people are imagining things? 18　Possible, but I would say, Your Honor, the trustee 19　needs to be able to conclude its investigation to review 20　those claims. 21　And if the debtor eventually is able to put 22　forward a plan that pays people in full, then they can 23　object to claims, but until then, they have no credential 24　standing, and even from a chaos point of view, they should 25　be precluded from prosecuting these objections. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 68 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 68 Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. CESARONI: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. CESARONI: The issue that the trustee had raised was pretty clearly the standing of the debtor to file objections to claims in this Chapter 11 case. I don't know where the sort of chaos argument came from, but in the larger picture, if the debtor objects to claims, takes discovery from those claimants as to the propriety of their claims, and is able to eliminate claims, it would actually benefit the estate because in the end the estate -- the trustee wouldn't have to spend estate money doing that type of investigation and it would also reduce the total claims pool. As Your Honor had heard -- THE COURT: How could the debtor do that if it doesn't have -- he doesn't have any income? MR. CESARONI: So, as the Court had heard -- THE COURT: No, I mean, I've looked back at the schedules during the course of the case and the debtor lists on his schedules that he has zero income and he doesn't anticipate having any in the future. That's what he says on his schedules. So even if I were to agree with what you just Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　said, how would the debtor do that if he doesn't have any 2　money and he doesn't have any income? 3　MR. CESARONI: Well, in -- 4　THE COURT: Who would pay -- who would pay for 5　that? 6　MR. CESARONI: Well, and I won't get into the 7　details, but the Court -- 8　THE COURT: Well, but you have to. I mean, your 9　argument is -- your argument is, you'd be helping the estate 10　because the debtor would undertake this analysis and 11　discovery and determine whether the claims were valid or 12　not. 13　And I -- so my question is, well, how would that 14　happen? He said in this Court while he was a debtor in 15　possession, in -- on his schedules filed under penalty of 16　perjury, that he has no income and doesn't anticipate any 17　change in that -- in that status. That's what his schedules 18　say. I'm not -- I mean, I can open them up for you and we 19　can go right to them. 20　So my -- so if you're going to make that argument, 21　I'm happy to have you make the argument, but you have to 22　tell me how that's going to happen. 23　MR. CESARONI: Yes, Your Honor. 24　So the Court had heard testimony from, among other 25　people, Mr. Kindseth. And I'm -- what I said I'm not going Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　to get into deal -- details of was, I believe there was 2　testimony that there was a settlement but we never got into 3　-- the Court never heard what the terms were and -- 4　THE COURT: And I'm not going to hear anything 5　about a settlement. 6　MR. CESARONI: -- I'm not going to -- right. 7　THE COURT: So you're telling me that I don't -- I 8　have to take on face value, that this debtor, who came to 9　this court voluntarily, no one forced this debtor to file 10　Chapter 11, that he -- even though he has no income and 11　doesn't expect to have any income, that he can handle all 12　this and don't worry about it, Court. Right? That's what 13　you're saying. 14　MR. CESARONI: Well, I think -- I think that the 15　evidence that this could potentially be handled by money 16　coming in from potential other sources, is the fact that 17　through negotiation, there was at least a potential 18　settlement of the case in principle with the creditor's 19　committee and the major creditors. 20　THE COURT: I don't -- I don't care about the 21　settlement -- 22　MR. CESARONI: So there -- 23　THE COURT: -- in principle. That's not my 24　question. I'm responding to your argument. Your argument 25　is, the trustees just said that there would be chaos. You Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 71 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 71 know, and you didn't know where that came from, and I understand what you're saying. And then you said, but, regardless of that, if the debtor does this, it's going to help the estate because he's going to determine whether there's valid claims or not. He's going to conduct discovery, which I think is an interesting suggestion that you make, of a debtor out of possession conducting discovery on proofs of claim filed in a case in which there's a trustee, and then somehow the debtor is going to be able to afford to do all that, and that's going to benefit the estate. That doesn't really make a lot of sense to me right now. I'm having trouble understanding that, okay? MR. CESARONI: I understand the Court's concern. So the real impediment to actually resolving this case is the belief by the trustee that the claims in the debtor's schedules and to the PAX claim and the claims represented by the creditor's committee, are not the entire universe of claims, or it -- and that there are many other claims out there that have to do with things like H Coin and the -- and with the basis of which, which obviously we disagree with, is that, you know, that people are saying that, well, it's hard to tell from the face of these proofs of claim, but people are essentially saying that they made investments and that the debtor fraudulently induced them to Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 72 do so. Now if those claims are not valid, which is what the debtor -- debtor argues, and which we believe we could show, then that eliminates a large part -- that eliminates the problem that got in the way of potentially resolving this case which was, the trustee saying, no, there are all these other issues and -- THE COURT: I don't want to know about what potentially -- look, we're focused today. This is what our focus is today, right? Our focus today is, does the debtor have standing to object to these proofs of claim. That's the focus of -- that's -- other than the argument that Mr. Bassett and Mr. Wachen just went through with regard to whether he's in violation of the preliminary injunction order and should be held in contempt, the issue is, does the debtor have standing to object to proof of claims, the debtor who is no longer in possession, have standing. That's the issue. I don't want to hear about a global settlement. MR. CESARONI: Sure. THE COURT: I want to hear why you believe the debtor has standing to do this. MR. CESARONI: So in a Chapter 11 case -- so a lot of the case law that the trustee, and pretty much exclusively relies upon, is Chapter 7. And a Chapter 7 Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 72 of Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　debtor is in a different position than a Chapter 11 debtor 2　in a case where a trustee has been appointed, and there are 3　a couple of reasons. 4　First of all, Section 1121 allows the debtor to 5　file a plan of reorganization. So the -- so once a trustee 6　is appointed, the trustee can file a plan, the creditors can 7　file a plan, the debtor can file a plan. So the debtor has 8　an interest in being able to confirm a plan of 9　reorganization so that -- so that he can resolve his 10　liabilities. 11　Unlike in a Chapter 7 where presuming -- 12　presumably if there wasn't any fraud or misconduct, the 13　Chapter 7 debtor doesn't have to do anything and -- you 14　know, except comply with the bankruptcy code, do what he has 15　to do. 16　I'm not suggesting that a Chapter 7 debtor doesn't 17　have to do anything, but you know, assuming that there's no 18　successful objections to discharge or non-dischargeable 19　claims, the Chapter 7 debtor will get his discharge. 20　So courts in that instance have said, well even 21　so, in a Chapter 7, there are situations where that Chapter 22　7 debtor has standing. One of them that there be a surplus 23　in the estate, or a pecuniary interest of the debtor. 24　THE COURT: Okay. 25　MR. CESARONI: Now, we're -- Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 74 THE COURT: I understand that. So -- MR. CESARONI: We're not arguing that there's going to be a surplus here -- THE COURT: Well, but you have to argue that, don't you? I mean, here's the point, right? This is a Chapter 11 case in which this debtor says he has no income and he doesn't foresee any income. So how could this be a surplus case? MR. CESARONI: Well, I again -- THE COURT: And he has no assets. MR. CESARONI: Again, I don't think it has to be a surplus case. THE COURT: Well, and why is that? MR. CESARONI: Well, because if his claims -- if the debtor's claims are not automatically discharged in a Chapter 11, and he would have to -- one of two things would have to happen. A plan of reorganization would have to be confirmed, or this would essentially have to be a liquidating 11, which is interesting as to a individual debtor, but I won't get into that. But the issue really is that the debtor has two sides of a balance sheet. Right now, there are very significant claims out there against the debtor, and being able to potentially confirm a plan with money from assets that are not part of Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 74 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 75 Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 75 of the estate, which might be used as part of some type of plan. So, you know, plans have certainly been confirmed where money comes from outside sources and -- THE COURT: Understood. I -- but -- but -- MR. CESARONI: And so, the fact that the -- THE COURT: -- but didn't you -- MR. CESARONI: -- fact that the debtor doesn't have personal assets doesn't necessarily mean that a plan couldn't be confirmed, and it also doesn't mean that, for example, creditors might, for the right amount of money, agree to their claims being impaired. THE COURT: Well, that's a whole different situation that we haven't come anywhere near yet in this case, number one. Number two, why can't he -- as most often -- I mean, we can -- we can -- all the cases that have been cited, we can go through that the objection to claims don't even happen until after confirmation. So what's the need to object to the claim now, a claim that was filed two weeks ago? MR. CESARONI: I -- and I think that the need is the fact that we view these claims, and the debtor views these claims as an impediment in this case because these types of claims that are made, you know, that there's some sort of fraudulent inducement or investment fraud as they're Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　claiming, apart from the fact that we don't think that 2　they're valid, they are on the claims register and so the 3　value of the case on paper is going to look like it's more 4　than we believe that it is. 5　And if that's the case, it's going to make it very 6　difficult to resolve a case in a situation where we don't 7　know what the end -- we don't know what the -- what the 8　amounts are that we have to deal with. So if somebody said 9　-- 10　THE COURT: So that happens all the time in 11　Chapter 11. It happens all the time. It -- 12　MR. CESARONI: It -- 13　THE COURT: -- almost every Chapter 11 case of any 14　size, the claims are not resolved until after confirmation 15　of the plan, okay? Number one. 16　Number two, when you say we think these claims 17　aren't valid, what evidence do you have that they're not 18　valid? 19　MR. CESARONI: Well, the -- 20　THE COURT: Because as you know, the bankruptcy 21　code and rules provide that a proof of claim is prima facie 22　validity of that proof of claim. So what evidence do you 23　have that it's not valid? 24　MR. CESARONI: Well, again, the code does provide 25　that, provided that it's a -- and this is addressed in the Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 77 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 77 specific objections to the individual claims, but our argument is that on their face, the claims are not claims -- the claims have not demonstrated or alleged sufficient facts or provided sufficient documentation to show that on their face they are claims against the debtor, because, just for example, in the claims of Ms. Yu, there -- the -- it just says, I think investment fraud is the reason, and then attached is a wire transfer in German from Ms. Yu to something called the Crane Advisory Group. THE COURT: Okay. So if you think -- MR. CESARONI: I mean, so -- THE COURT: -- they're not valid, then why are you worried about them? You can worry about the later. If you want to file a plan, your client wants to file a plan, your client can file a plan and say that he's not going to treat these claims because he thinks they're invalid, and he's going to be a -- at confirmation objecting to them. And then the Court can consider all that. But if you're saying on the one hand that they're not valid, but yet you need to object to them within two weeks of the filing of the claim, that seems odd to me. MR. CESARONI: Well, I mean, I do understand that the normal -- in a normal case, in -- that a lot of times claims rejections are handled after the fact. Now it's -- in some cases, they could just not be treated. Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 78 I think that that creates serious issues for plan confirmation and would probably draw objections, at least from the creditors who weren't being treated. But assuming that they were, the money has to be there to account for their claims and be held, generally by a claims agent, but - - THE COURT: And how many times do we have Chapter 11 plans that have a reserve set aside for disputed claims that if the claim is found to be valid, that it gets paid, and if it doesn't, then it enures to the benefit of either the estate, or the debtor if there's a surplus? MR. CESARONI: Right. And that's a question of timing, but the issue -- THE COURT: No, that's a question of law. That's a question of law. See, you still -- what I don't understand is what's the rush to object to these claims. If you even have standing. Okay, which I -- we haven't even talked about that. I'm reacting to your argument that this would be helpful to the estate, and I -- and -- because he's going to do all this discovery and all this other -- these other things, with no money, and that's going to be beneficial to the estate. But, at the same time you say they're invalid. So Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 78 of Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. what do you have to do discovery about? I mean, what's -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　why go down that path? It makes no sense. There's no logic 2　associated with what's going on. 3　So then the Court says, well, what's going on? 4　What's going on here? There -- you know, I -- so what's 5　your argument about standing? 6　MR. CESARONI: Yes, Your Honor. And just very 7　briefly, I think that me saying they're invalid or Mr. Kwok 8　saying they're invalid is certainly one thing. It's a 9　completely different thing if the Court finds that, because 10　then it's not a topic for debate, it's been decided. 11　But as to standing, I'll start with, you know, Mr. 12　Despins, cited to 704(a)(5), which actually -- which says, 13　if a purpose would be served, examine proofs of claim and 14　object to the allowance of any claim that as improper. So 15　that's -- the trustee shall do that. 16　Just because someone has a duty to something -- do 17　something, doesn't mean that it's the case that no one else 18　can do it. The trustee may have to examine claims, and it 19　says in an appropriate case. In a Chapter 7, it's generally 20　going to be an asset case that would be the appropriate case 21　to object to claims, but that's not exclusive. 22　There's nothing in 705 or in 1106, which 23　incorporates 705 -- 705(a)(5), or 704(a)(5) rather, into a 24　Chapter 11 case where a trustee has been appointed. And a 25　Chapter 7 is also silent about who's a party in interest for Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 80 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　the purposes of who can object to a claim under 502, and 2　Chapter 11 isn't. Chapter -- in Chapter 11, 1109 3　specifically references the debtor in addition to the 4　trustee and creditors as being parties in interest. 5　But even in a Chapter 7, you know, courts have 6　carved out situations where there would be standing of the 7　debtor. And one, as I said, was a surplus. The other is -- 8　there are a few others, but one is that if the debtor has 9　non-dischargeable claims against him, the debtor would have 10　standing, even if there's not going to be a surplus. 11　And the theory behind that is that if the debtor 12　can decrease the size of the claim pool, he will increase 13　the payments to non-dischargeable claims, which will 14　decrease his personal liability after the case to pay those 15　non-dischargeable claims. And there have been several non 16　dischargeable claims asserted in this bankruptcy case, and 17　Mr. Kwok certainly would have an interest in decreasing the 18　size of the claim pool in order to theoretically have more 19　payments go to non-dischargeable claims, even if there isn't 20　a surplus. 21　And now, you know, obviously we're not -- we have 22　opposed the non-dischargeability actions and we don't believe that they have merit, but you know, of course, there's always risk in litigation, and -- as we all know. So that's -- and that is nowhere in the trustee's papers, Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　even when -- even assuming that the Chapter 11 case is 2　applied, which I don't think they do because, you know, 1109 3　puts -- 4　THE COURT: You mean the Chapter -- you mean the 5　Chapter 7 cases, right? 6　MR. CESARONI: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. 7　THE COURT: That's all right. 8　MR. CESARONI: I don't think -- 9　THE COURT: I just wanted to make sure I was 10　following you. 11　MR. CESARONI: Right. So I don't think -- to the 12　extent that the Chapter 7 cases even apply, there are other 13　exceptions, one being, you know, the surplus. One being the 14　non-dischargeable claims, and one being that it isn't 15　interfering with the administration of the estate. 16　I don't see how -- and even in cases -- I don't 17　see how the trustee has an issue with a debtor spending -- 18　not spending estate money to potentially reduce the claim 19　pool. 20　We're only here because the trustee objected to us 21　going forward and says, we don't have standing, which I 22　believe we do, you know, under 1109 and under the -- there 23　admittedly aren't a lot of cases, but the cases that I had 24　cited that stood for the proposition that, you know, Chapter 25　11 is different. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 82 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　THE COURT: Well, wouldn't you have to ask for 2　court approval to do that? So a creditor's committee is a 3　party in interest in a Chapter 11 case, correct? 4　MR. CESARONI: That's correct. 5　THE COURT: Right. So -- and they can't bring 6　causes of action against certain parties unless they get 7　court approval, or unless the debtor refuses to do so, 8　correct? 9　MR. CESARONI: That's true. 10　THE COURT: So what's the difference with this and 11　the Chapter 11 trustee? You aren't -- your client is no 12　longer in possession, and may not even have a pecuniary 13　interest in the outcome of this case, because if there isn't 14　a surplus, there isn't a surplus. 15　So why aren't you asking -- show where in the 16　bankruptcy code that says you can do what you can do. I 17　don't find it, and in all the cases that have cited -- that 18　have been cited, there are some Chapter 11 cases that have 19　been cited, number one. 20　Number two, you already have referenced that it 21　could be a liquidating plan. Well, if it's a liquidating 22　plan, then the decisions in the Chapter 7 case would be very 23　supportive of the trustee's argument in this case. That's 24　another issue. 25　And then again, what is the need to object to the Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　claims now? You haven't convinced me there's a need. 2　There is no need, in fact, that claims -- this is 3　the whole claims process. You don't -- people don't get to 4　-- the proof of claim bar date hasn't even passed and you're 5　-- and you're starting -- your client -- you, on behalf of 6　your client, have filed papers under Rule 11 that says, 7　these claims are invalid. 8　And I asked you what evidence you have of that, 9　and you said, well, there's a -- I think you said, there's a 10　wire transfer from Germany. Okay. How does that establish 11　that the claim is invalid? 12　MR. CESARONI: I believe that our argument in the 13　claims objection is predicated on the fact that the claims 14　are filed without sufficient allegations or evidence. 15　THE COURT: Right. So even if that's true, I can 16　allow them to amend their claim. 17　MR. CESARONI: Well, then would -- then in that 18　sense, I think it would help the estate to the extent that 19　-- it would actually help the creditor if the creditor knew 20　that we thought the claim was objectionable to fix it. 21　THE COURT: That's only if I think that it doesn't 22　meet the prima facie validity on it -- under the rules. 23　MR. CESARONI: That's true, Your Honor. 24　THE COURT: That's not up for the debtor to 25　decide. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　MR. CESARONI: I -- that, I completely understand, 2　and I wasn't suggesting otherwise, but I mean, just timing 3　-- standing doesn't affect -- isn't affected by timing. 4　I mean, there's nothing in the bankruptcy code 5　that says you have to wait until after the -- you have to 6　wait until X date or after confirmation, or anything about 7　when you're going to file objections to -- 8　THE COURT: I agree, but there's nothing in the 9　bankruptcy code that says a debtor in possession can object 10　to proofs of claim either. 11　A debtor out of possession can object to proofs of 12　claim when a trustee has been appointed and the trustee has 13　statutory duties to administer the estate, which includes 14　proofs of claim filed in the case. 15　MR. CESARONI: So Section 502 -- 16　THE COURT: Yep. Go ahead. What do you think 502 17　says? 18　MR. CESARONI: It says -- Part A says a claim or 19　interest, proof of which is filed under Section 501 of this 20　title, is deemed allowed unless a party in interest, 21　including a creditor of a general partner and a partnership 22　that is debtor under Chapter 7 of this title, objects. 23　THE COURT: Right. 24　MR. CESARONI: And then -- 25　THE COURT: Right. Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 85 MR. CESARONI: -- 1109 goes on to define what a party in interest is -- THE COURT: Yep. MR. CESARONI: -- in a Chapter 11 case. THE COURT: Yep. MR. CESARONI: And it includes -- it says a party in interest, including the debtor, the trustee, a creditor's committee, an equity security holder's committee, a creditor equity security holder, or any indentured trustee may raise -- may raise and may appear and be heard on an issue in the case -- THE COURT: No, I know what it says. MR. CESARONI: -- under this chapter. Okay. THE COURT: I know what it says. Yep. MR. CESARONI: So, if a party in interest can object to proofs of claim, and the debtor is a party in interest, then the debtor should be able to object to -- THE COURT: Except there's plenty of cases that don't allow parties in interest to do exactly what you're saying that you want to do, as I just gave you the example of the creditor's committee. The Creditor's committee can't bring the cause of action unless they get approval from the bankruptcy court to do so, and the bankruptcy court would have to make findings as to why that power that was reserved to a debtor in Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 85 of Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 86 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　possession, or a trustee that was appointed and the debtor 2　became out of possession, why that power should be allowed 3　to be exercised by someone other than the party that is 4　obligated to do so under the code, number one. Number two, you know, if you look at Colliers and you look at what they think about this issue, and what they talk about, they say that a debtor -- an out of possession is like a Chapter 7 debtor and doesn't have standing to challenge claims unless there is -- they have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case or could prove there's a surplus. So if you can prove there's a surplus, then we were talking -- we have a whole different ball game. But that's -- you -- I don't know how you can do that at this point. Maybe you can at some point, but right now the debtor's schedules say he had zero income and he doesn't anticipate any change in that status. Now he hasn't updated any of his schedules or said that he has any income, but without that, you know, you're taking -- you're -- at some point, you're using the fact that you're a debtor out of possession and you don't have to comply with what you'd have to do when you're a debtor in possession. But then when -- but then when -- you're saying, but we're still a party in interest and we can do this Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　because it doesn't say we can't. 2　Well, it doesn't say you can, and any other party 3　in interest in a Chapter 11 case that tries to do -- take an 4　action that they're not directly authorized to take, has to 5　ask for the court approval to do so, and you haven't done 6　that. 7　What you've done is you've filed objections to 8　claim -- claims that were filed two weeks ago, well before 9　the proof of claim bar date was set, when it's the trustee's 10　initial duty to do that. 11　So I'm not convinced. I'm not convinced. If you 12　-- you look at the -- these are the treatises on bankruptcy 13　law, and this is what they say, both in -- speaking in 14　Section 502 and speaking in Section 1109. 15　And it talks about that a party in interest may 16　not always be able to do what a party in interest thinks 17　they can do under -- under 1109. 18　MR. CESARONI: So I am familiar with the Colliers 19　statement in 11 -- I believe it's -- actually, I think it's 20　in 502 -- 21　THE COURT: It's in 502. 22　MR. CESARONI: -- in 502. 23　THE COURT: That's correct. 24　MR. CESARONI: That a Chapter 11 debtor -- it 25　lumps the Chapter 11 debtor and a Chapter 7 debtor together Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　and actually cites to a -- 2　THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure it -- I'm not sure 3　it lumps them. I think, you know, this is a treatise. 4　They've thought about it very carefully, and it says, in a 5　Chapter 7 case, or in a Chapter 11 case in which the debtor 6　is not in possession and there is no possibility of a 7　surplus being returned to the debtor, the debtor has no 8　pecuniary interest in the outcome of claims objection, and 9　thus no standing to object to claims. That's what it says. 10　I wouldn't call that a lumping. I would call that 11　that -- you may disagree with it. I understand that, but 12　they cite to two cases, and this is recognized as the 13　treatise on bankruptcy law. 14　So I understand -- I just -- I would just -- you 15　can say you disagree. I'm happy to have you say that, but I 16　don't think it's a lumping. 17　It's very specific about a Chapter 11 case in 18　which the debtor is out of possession. That's what this 19　case is. And you made that clear to the Court from the very 20　minute after the debtor was no longer in possession, and 21　that's fine, and you're correct. 22　But with that, it also carries this issue, which 23　is I don't see how you have standing to object to the claims 24　at this point. You haven't proven that there's -- that the 25　debtor is solvent. You haven't proven that there will be a Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　surplus. You haven't proven that the debtor has any 2　pecuniary interest in the outcome of this case. 3　And I don't know how you can at this point when 4　the only evidence in this record about the debtor's 5　financial status is that he has no income, he has assets of 6　less then \$4,000, and he doesn't believe that there will be 7　any change in his status as to income in this case. 8　So I -- you know, you can make your arguments 9　about 1109, and I understand them, but the argument you're 10　-- I'm not persuaded by them. 11　MR. CESARONI: I understand, Your Honor. Although 12　I -- you know, I don't think that the -- that there has to 13　be a surplus is the correct analysis because, you know, 14　there is a Chapter 11 trustee, but the debtor's not 15　completely divested of its interest in this -- of his 16　interest in this case, and I cite to cases that discuss that 17　in our papers. The real -- because the debtor can file a 18　plan, and -- 19　THE COURT: Right. 20　MR. CESARONI: -- the fact that he can file a plan 21　-- 22　THE COURT: Go right ahead. 23　MR. CESARONI: -- gives him an interest in this 24　estate. Apart from the 1109 argument -- 25　THE COURT: And I've already suggested -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　MR. CESARONI: -- which -- 2　THE COURT: -- what you can do with these claims 3　with regard to this plan that you're going to file on behalf 4　of the debtor. 5　He can say in that plan that these claims are 6　invalid and that there will be a claims objection process 7　after confirmation. But if he can't confirm a plan, 8　counsel, then it doesn't really matter. Okay? That's the 9　point. 10　MR. CESARONI: Well, I -- 11　THE COURT: The point is, this is a Chapter 11 12　case. There's going to be a plan or there isn't going to be 13　a plan. And the plan that is filed, if it is filed, has to 14　be confirmable. 15　If it's not confirmable, it really -- I'm not 16　going to spend this time -- this Court's time or resources, 17　or have to deal with discovery issues about the debtor going 18　after a claimant for depositions and interrogatories and 19　whatever else. That is not going to happen. 20　MR. CESARONI: I understand, obviously, the 21　Court's position, although, you know -- and I will just say 22　is -- the last point is that, you know, we very much do 23　believe that a large impediment to being -- and probably the 24　main impediment to being able to resolve this case is the 25　presence of claims which I don't know what the trustee's Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　opinion of their validity is, and I don't -- but the debtor, 2　you know, obviously, doesn't believe that there are grounds 3　for these claims to be allowed. 4　THE COURT: What's the total amount of these three 5　claims? 6　MR. CESARONI: So, it's about \$10 million. But of 7　course the claim -- the claim bar date is not for some time 8　now, so -- 9　THE COURT: I'm asking about these three claims, 10　\$10 million, right? 11　MR. CESARONI: It's about \$10 million. 12　THE COURT: Okay. 13　MR. CESARONI: So as that number would 14　theoretically grow, it's going to make that problem even 15　bigger, and we wanted to address it now, in the interest of 16　being able to get to a point where we could, you know, 17　potentially try to file a -- you know, the idea is to try to 18　-- is to gain consensus and try to resolve this case. 19　And obviously, neither the Court has ordered us to 20　mediation, which, you know, the debtor, you know, fully will 21　-- you know, will fully participate in, in hopes that this 22　will work in good faith and hopes that this case can be 23　resolved. 24　But you know, it -- short of that, it's going to 25　be very difficult with these claims sitting out here and the Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 92 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　argument being that you're not -- the argument I think will 2　be that, okay, debtor, you may have come up with -- you're 3　saying the claims pool is this, but it's really not, it's 4　this. And I think that that would be -- that's a key issue 5　that if we don't address it now, it is going to be 6　detrimental, I think, down the line in this case, and that's 7　why we moved quickly to do what we did. 8　THE COURT: Okay. I understand, but I'm 9　overruling the objections to all three of those claims. I'm 10　going to enter an order that the debtor is not authorized to 11　object to any claims without seeking authority to do so from 12　the Court. 13　And with regard to your comments, I understand 14　your comments about the world of creditors, or the amount of 15　money that might be at the -- exposed. 16　But Chapter 11, you can file a plan that says if 17　these are the amount of the claims, this is how it will 18　work, Part A. 19　If these are the amount of the claims, this is how 20　it will work, Parts B. If these are the amount of the 21　claims, this is how it will work, Part C. It's all 22　completely doable. It's been done time and time again, and 23　the arguments that have been raised are not persuasive. 24　The debtor does not have the authority or the 25　standing to do what he's doing at this point in time. A Case 22-50073　Doc 1440　Filed 02/03/23　Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54　Page 93 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　proof of claim bar date hasn't passed, and to say that the 2　claims are invalid with a creditor who has no records, 3　according to his schedule, no books or records, but can say 4　that these claims are invalid, I'm not going to go down a 5　path of discovery disputes and other issues that will waste 6　this Court's time. 7　If the debtor and the parties -- and I'm talking 8　about all the parties, are really in good faith wanting to 9　resolve this case, you now have an opportunity and a pathway 10　to do that. Okay? 11　So the objection to the claims, all three, are 12　overruled. An order will enter that says that the debtor is 13　not allowed to object to any claims unless and until he 14　obtains authority from the Court to do so. 15　MR. CESARONI: Understood, Your Honor. Thank you. 16　MR. KINDSETH: So, Your Honor, just to be clear 17　with respect to the overruling, can it be without prejudice, 18　Your Honor, just so the record -- 19　THE COURT: Well, I just said, you can seek 20　authority to file -- 21　MR. KINDSETH: Thank you. 22　THE COURT: -- new claims. 23　MR. KINDSETH: Thank you. 24　THE COURT: That's what I said. All right. So 25　what else do we need to address this afternoon? Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 94 MR. DESPINS: Your Honor, can we add on Tuesday, a status conference only regarding the PJR? It's not going to be controversial, I don't think. THE COURT: Well, you can do whatever you want, but we're not having the PJR hearing in February as scheduled. So -- MR. DESPINS: No, no, we want to -- THE COURT: -- and if anybody didn't get that, then -- MR. DESPINS: No, no. We -- THE COURT: -- I don't know how much more I need to say. MR. DESPINS: We got that loud and clear. THE COURT: Okay. MR. DESPINS: That -- it's not to revisit that. It's plumbing issues, Your Honor, that's -- that's basically it. THE COURT: Okay. With regard to the status conferences on the proof of claim issue and the Epic issue, there is a couple of issues with regard to the Epic order and what I was told was going to happen and what's happening, which I think we can work out, but we need to work it out. I was told -- because I think, Mr. Despins, you'll remember that when -- you won't remember what happened Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 94 of Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 95 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023　95 1　before you were appointed, but before you were appointed, 2　the debtor in possession wanted to have a claims agent, and 3　I said to counsel at that time, I see no reason why there 4　would be a claims agent in this case. It will only result 5　in additional administrative expenses being incurred, and 6　the clerk's office is completely equipped to deal with 7　proofs of claim. The prior counsel for the debtor said okay, fine, we won't press that motion. We're not going to seek a claims agent, even though that claims agent started making service of things before there was ever any ruling on whether or not there would be a claims agent. This is not a Chapter 11 Southern District of New York, Delaware bankruptcy case of a corporation with -- you know, this is just not -- it's not that case. So then we had a discussion, Mr. Despins, when you came in and you said I would like to have a claims agent because I'm concerned about the confidentiality of certain proofs of claims and people are afraid to file proofs of claims because they believe that the debtor will go after them if they file proofs of claim. And I said, okay, well -- I wanted to be clear with Epic, because I talked about I don't -- then if that's all they're doing, why do we have an indemnification provision and all these other things? We went through this. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 96 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 96 So in any event, the order that was submitted, I think goes a little further than what I thought was going to happen, which is now I -- my understanding is that Epic is serving pleadings in the case. Not -- they're not just maintaining a claims register with confidential claims, but that they're serving different documents, and my understanding is that, you know, they -- there's not really any direction as to whom they should serve with what. And my problem with that is, that I -- I'm concerned with that. I don't know who they're serving, and they -- the other day we had a hearing where they didn't file their certificate of service until after the hearing started. So that doesn't really help me. I need to know who's being served, and why, and when, and have the certificate of service filed before a hearing, and that's not happening. Now, I didn't understand or appreciate that you were having them serve anything, because I thought the whole purpose of Epic was to maintain this confidential claims register. If you want them to serve things, then we need to get that in order because the order as it exists right now, are not -- is not clear on that. I also think they need to serve things differently, and they need to clean up their service list, because they're serving people that already are represented Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　by counsel, and they served Paul Hastings four times with 2　things in the mail. I don't understand that, and that's not 3　going to be compensated. Okay? 4　This is a case where, as we all know, it's -- 5　they're -- we're not going to incur administrative expenses 6　unnecessarily. It's only going to -- it's not going to help 7　what everybody just said they want, which is a global 8　resolution of this case. 9　So, Mr. Despins, what I need you to do -- or 10　whomever, you know, with you, helping you, is you've got to 11　talk to Epic, and you've got to tell me exactly what they're 12　doing and how they're doing it, clean up the service list, 13　stop listing -- creating a document of people who get served 14　electronically. 15　Our local rules in every district court in the 16　United States and bankruptcy court local rule says, the 17　notice of electronic filing is the certificate of service. 18　I don't need that again. That doesn't need to be another 19　page stuffed in an envelope for which they can get a copy -- 20　and I'm not blaming them. I'm not -- this isn't a blame -- 21　I'm just saying, in this case, not happening. We're 22　cleaning this up. This needs to be cleaned up. 23　I need to understand what they're serving. I need 24　to understand who are they taking direction from, if 25　anybody, and they should be. They need to be taking either Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　direction from the clerk's office, or from the Court, or 2　from you. 3　And we -- or whomever files whatever. I'm not 4　just talking about you. I don't know what they're serving. 5　I don't know if they're serving other people's motions. I 6　have no idea what they're doing, but it needs to be cleaned 7　up. 8　And we may need to figure out a process where -- I 9　don't know -- understand fully, but I mean, I think I 10　understand but I haven't seen -- that they must be creating 11　a confidential proof of claim register. Fine. That's fine. 12　But I need to know how many claims are being 13　filed, and there might need to be some kind of duplication 14　of that claims register for the clerk's office, because the 15　Court is supposed to maintain -- 16　MR. DESPINS: Yes. 17　THE COURT: -- the record of the case. 18　MR. DESPINS: Yes. 19　THE COURT: Okay? There's no problem with 20　sealing. We've already done all that. We agree, everything 21　is going to be under seal. Our clerk's office needs -- 22　knows how things work under seal. They do it on a regular 23　basis, okay? 24　So this -- I need you to tell me by Tuesday at the 25　latest, if not before. I want some kind of revised order Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　regarding the retention and appointment of Epic, and if 2　there -- are they just the claims agent, or are they the 3　noticing agent? 4　And if they are, then I want to know exactly 5　what they're noticing and how they're noticing it, and make 6　it very clear to them, they've got to clean up this service 7　stuff. 8　I'm not -- again, I'm not blaming them. I'm just 9　telling you, this is a very specific issue in this case that 10　I do not want to have get out of control, and that's how 11　that's going to work. All right? 12　Now it may be that they do have to serve 13　everything. And so maybe Epic has to talk to the clerk of 14　the court before, you know, tomorrow and Monday, but they 15　have to do it in a manner that makes sense. Okay? 16　And it may be that they have to serve everything, 17　and I don't know the answer to this yet, but -- because they 18　have that confidential claims register. But they have to 19　work that out. Everybody's making assumptions about things 20　and nobody really understands what everybody's doing, so we 21　need to fix that. All right? 22　So I will -- we'll put this on the calendar on 23　Monday -- Tuesday, excuse me. But if you submit an order 24　prior to that time, a revised order, and it makes sense, 25　then -- and I enter it, then you know we don't have to talk Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 100 about it on Tuesday, okay? With regard to the -- so that's it on Epic. Anybody have any questions? MR. DESPINS: I would just say, Your Honor, that I have not, but my colleague, Mr. Bongartz has been in touch with them daily, and I understand they have been in touch with the clerk's office. They only served the bar date notice and the one order that -- I mean, I'll confirm that -- but that the clerk's office had asked them whether it was okay to -- THE COURT: They served a notice of hearing too. They did other things. And they -- MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: -- you just made me think of something when you said that. Now I lost it. Now, I don't remember. MR. DESPINS: Well, we'll -- THE COURT: In any event -- MR. DESPINS: -- we'll fix it. THE COURT: We just need you -- MR. DESPINS: We'll -- THE COURT: We just need to fix it up, that's all. MR. DESPINS: Absolutely. THE COURT: Just, we need to fix it. MR. DESPINS: Absolute. That's not an issue. THE COURT: That's all. We just need to -- Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Page 100 of Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　MR. DESPINS: We will fix it, Your Honor. 2　THE COURT: -- we just need to fix it. Okay? All 3　right. 4　Oh, I know what I was going to say. Because the 5　services agreement attached to the application doesn't say 6　-- very -- if it said something about being a noticing 7　agent, it only says it as if it is their title, as opposed 8　to specifically delineating service of things. Okay? 9　And I think they did that on purpose because Mr. 10　Despins said, hey, she doesn't want you doing all this 11　stuff. She wants you to just do the claims register, and 12　they did you a favor, they -- you said, because they know 13　they don't know if they're going to get paid, and I 14　understand that. I do understand that. 15　And so I think the servicing agreement may have 16　been different from ones they use in other cases. They 17　might have crossed some stuff out and things like that. But 18　just, somebody take a look at it and fix it. 19　MR. DESPINS: And we'll report to the Court and 20　we'll see exactly what they'll do with respect to service, 21　or not do, and we'll do all of that. Okay. 22　THE COURT: Yeah. I know, it's not a problem, but 23　I'm explaining to you how it needs -- I know it's going to 24　get fixed, but that's what you have to do, you have to fix 25　it. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　MR. DESPINS: Okay. 2　THE COURT: Okay. With regard to the proof of 3　claim issue, the reason I put that on the calendar today for 4　a status conference was because I didn't know what everyone 5　was going to argue with regard to this issue about the 6　proofs of claim that were filed and the objections to the 7　proofs of claim. I've heard the arguments. I'm overruling 8　the objections to the proofs of claim and allowing the 9　debtor to file an application to object to a proof of claim 10　in the future, which may or may not be granted. 11　The issue I have, though, if there is still an 12　issue with regard to the proof of claim process, is that Mr. 13　Cesaroni, I'm -- whatever that order is that comes out that 14　I just overruled these objections, you're going to have to 15　serve that on those claimants so they know they don't have 16　to file a response by February 17th. I'm going to put that 17　in the order, okay? 18　MR. CESARONI: Absolutely, Your Honor. 19　THE COURT: So that they understand. And my 20　concern -- not about that, okay. My concern overall is, 21　it's January 26th, right, so we have a month left of proof 22　of claims. 23　And I have to tell you that I'm all considering -- 24　and I will tell you on Tuesday whether I'm going to do 25　anything different. But I'm considering extending that bar Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　date. Whether I will or not, I don't know, and I'll give 2　you all the opportunity to tell me what you think about it 3　on Tuesday. And that's the reason that I put this matter on 4　the calendar with all these other matters today. 5　This has to be a process that's fair, transparent, 6　and accurate and I don't want people to not file proofs of 7　claim for any reason, no matter what it may be, if they 8　believe they have a proof of -- a valid claim. 9　Now, their claim may not be valid ultimately, but 10　to -- I do not want there to be one possible perception that 11　people should not file proofs of claim. 12　If you want to go back and read Stern, Chief 13　Justice Roberts was very clear about the Supreme Court's 14　view of bankruptcy, which is it's a claims process. And the 15　claims process should not be disturbed in any way, shape, or 16　form. And so I'm telling you all now that I'm thinking 17　about that, and I'll let you all tell me what you think 18　about that on Tuesday. Okay? 19　I am not ruling on anything. I'm just concerned 20　given different issues that have been brought to the Court's 21　attention, and the evidence that's been submitted today, 22　quite frankly, in connection with this preliminary 23　injunction motion for contempt. 24　I'm not ruling on the contempt portion of the -- 25　your motion today, Mr. Bassett. I have to think about it. Case 22-50073　Doc 1440　Filed 02/03/23　Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54　Page 104 of Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　I have to look at what you've submitted. As you said, you 2　filed this last night at 10:00 or whatever. I didn't see it 3　until now. I've looked at it while we've talked about it, 4　but I have to go back and look at it. 5　I have to take into consideration some of the 6　things that Mr. Wachen said. I mean, all the exhibits are 7　in. I'm not suggesting anything to the contrary, but the 8　last -- the exhibit on the article, you know, I said I'd 9　give it whatever weight I think it's worth, right? So I 10　have to think about that, and I will. 11　So what I'm going to do is continue the status 12　conference on both the Epic -- I'm looking at the courtroom 13　deputy now -- at the Epic matter and the proof of claim 14　matter to Tuesday as well. Maybe one of them may not go 15　forward if there's some kind of order on Epic before that. 16　On the bar date issue, I'm going to keep that on 17　the hearing because I'm going to -- no, I don't want anybody 18　filing any papers. Okay? I know what everybody's positions 19　are. I don't need any papers. I just want to hear what 20　your thoughts are on the bar date issue, on whether or not 21　the bar date should be further extended. Okay? 22　And I think that takes care of everything for this 23　afternoon. 24　Did you have something, counsel? 25　MR. CANTOR: Yeah. May I be heard briefly, Your Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 105 Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. CANTOR: Thank you. Daniel Cantor, Your Honor, from O'Melveny on behalf of PAX. Your Honor, PAX just wanted to express its sincere and deep thanks for the Court's decision to send this case to mediation, and for the process that it laid out in its order. We are very supportive of that process. We think it is exactly the right move at this point in the case. PAX intends to be an active participant in the mediation, it intends to be a constructive presence, and will do what it can to try and make all of this work. We hope and are hopeful that the mediation will succeed. But for any mediation to succeed, the parties need to trust and believe in the good faith of the parties that they are negotiating with in that process. You heard Mr. Cesaroni a moment ago, mention that Mr. Kwok will participate in good faith in the mediation. But frankly, Your Honor, it's a bit hard for PAX to believe that it has a good faith negotiating partner in Mr. Kwok, given the ongoing and very targeted campaign of harassment against PAX, its executives, and its outside counsel. For example, Your Honor, the demonstrations outside of Mr. Sarnoff's house continue again this morning Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　with no respect and no recognition of the time, place, and 2　manner restrictions from Your Honor's preliminary injunction 3　order. 4　And earlier this month, Your Honor, Mr. Kwok's 5　supporters filed a completely friviolous lawsuit against -- 6　law suits, I should say, against PAX and Mr. Shan (ph) and 7　O'Melveny and Mr. Sarnoff, claiming, among other things, 8　that they are unregistered foreign agents of the People's 9　Republic of China. 10　Your Honor, this has to stop. But the cessation 11　of this campaign of harassment, Your Honor, it cannot be the 12　end goal, merely the end goal of the mediation. 13　It's not some sort of a bargaining chip to be 14　passed across the table in order to achieve something 15　through negotiation. Rather, Your Honor, it is a necessary 16　-- an extremely important condition in order to create an 17　environment for productive negotiations. 18　And, Your Honor, Mr. Kwok knows this. As Your 19　Honor heard during the preliminary injunction hearing, as 20　Your Honor noted in your decision on the preliminary 21　injunction motion, back in October, when the parties were 22　having discussions about a potential resolution of this 23　matter, Mr. Kwok broadcast to his supporters, calling on 24　his, quote, fellow fighters, friends of the New Federal 25　State of China, to stop doxing and harassing PAX's Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　executives, family members, and counsel. 2　And you heard in the hearing that it was 3　understood that that was necessary in order to -- for there 4　to be a chance to have a successful negotiation. 5　So, Your Honor, we just wanted to flag that as we 6　head towards the mediation process, a mediation process that 7　PAX truly hopes is going to result in a global resolution, 8　as you mentioned several times today, and ends the disputes 9　between the various parties and brings peace to this whole 10　process. So we just wanted to express that, Your Honor. 11　Thank you very much. 12　THE COURT: Thank you. All right. 13　MR. DESPINS: Your Honor. 14　THE COURT: Mr. Despins? 15　MR. DESPINS: I would just echo that, you know, 16　150 percent. You know, and I'm saying this on my behalf, on 17　behalf of Paul Hastings and my family. I don't see how we 18　can have constructive discussions when somebody is holding a 19　gun to our head. So I'm not going to go further than that, 20　but I think that's a really important issue. Thank you. 21　THE COURT: Thank you. And as noted, I noted it 22　in the preliminary injunction motion, that it was obviously 23　able to be accomplished back in October, and I would 24　certainly hope that the parties that are in this courtroom 25　would understand that there is a way to accomplish it again. Case 22-50073 Doc 1440 Filed 02/03/23 Entered 02/03/23 15:38:54 Ho Wan Kwok/PAX v Kwok - January 26, 2023 1　So you'll need to talk to Judge Tancredi about all those 2　issues. Okay? 3　All right. That concludes the hearings today, so 4　court is adjourned. 5　THE CLERK: All right. Court is adjourned. 6　(Proceedings concluded at 2:34 p.m.) 7　I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court Reporter 8　and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a correct 9　transcript from the official electronic sound recording of 10　the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 13　February 2, 2023 14　Christine Fiore, CERT 15　Transcriber