Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — bankruptcy case · ORDER · ECF #2232

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION In Re \* Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) \* HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER \* Bridgeport, Connecticut HOLDINGS CORPORATION, \* September 19, 2023 \* Debtors. \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* TRANSCRIPT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER AUTHORIZING GENEVER HOLDINGS LLC TO OBTAIN SERVICES NECESSARY TO REMEDIATE AREAS OF SHERRY NETHERLAND APARTMENT AFFECTED BY MARCH 15, 2023 FIRE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: Chapter 11 Trustee: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. Paul Hastings LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. Neubert Pepe and Monteith 195 Church Street,13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 For the U.S. Trustee: HOLLEY L. CLAIBORN, ESQ. Office of U.S. Trustee The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. **Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc. 4 Research Drive, Suite 402 Shelton, CT 06484 (203)929-9992**

APPEARANCES: (Cont'd) For the Creditors Committee: KRISTEN B. MAYHEW, ESQ. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06601

Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 3 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 3 (Proceedings commenced at 2:16 p.m.) THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 22-50073, Ho Wan Kwok. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. THE COURT: The Courtroom Deputy has already called the case, so if we could please have appearances for the record, starting with the Chapter 11 Trustee, please. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon. Patrick Linsey for the trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. CLAIBORN: Good afternoon. Holley Claiborn for the U.S. Trustee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. MAYHEW: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kristin Mayhew on behalf of the creditors' committee. THE COURT: Good afternoon. All right. On the calendar today in the -- this Chapter 11 case is the motion for an order by -- for the debtor, Genever Holdings, LLC, to obtain an order regarding necessary services to remediate areas of The Sherry Netherland apartment. So I have not seen any written

Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 4 opposition to your motion, Trustee Despins. Am I correct on that? MR. DESPINS: You're correct. We're not aware of any. THE COURT: Okay. All right. So how would you like to proceed this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: With a short presentation. THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. Go right ahead. MR. DESPINS: May I approach? THE COURT: Yes. Thank you. MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Luc Despins, Chapter 11 Trustee. So this is the remediation motion that I forecasted last week at the DIP hearing, because a lot of the funds for the DIP financing will be used for this process. And we filed this at Docket Number 2113, Your Honor. And, you know, as I described it last week, this is really a complex process to bring back the apartment to a condition that is not the same condition that it was in on March 14th but it is in -- that it would be in a condition that it could be sold. They call that white boxing. And with white box, the 28 percent of the apartment that was affected by the fire -- but it sounds very simple to say white boxing, but it's more than that. There are a lot of structural items that were Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 4 of 24

Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 5 of 24

| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023<br>5 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | destroyed, electrical, plumbing, et cetera.<br>And so I will | | 2 | describe that as briefly as possible as the motion really | | 3 | goes through that.<br>And the supplement we filed on the 8th | | 4 | of September at Docket 2183 also discusses this. | | 5 | But, essentially, there are a few work streams | | 6 | that need to happen.<br>The first one is asbestos related. | | 7 | Apparently, there is a -- the fire exposed the fact that | | 8 | there's asbestos in -- with -- in three different places | | 9 | involving the pipes, the plumbing, near the heaters and also | | 10 | where the asbestos sprayed on the wall as a fire retardant | | 11 | of some kind. | | 12 | So all of this needs to be, one, investigated. | | 13 | And a permit needs to be obtained from the city building | | 14 | department.<br>Highly regulated. | | 15 | So we had to hire a company that's a asbestos | | 16 | surveyor, to be distinguished from the asbestos removal | | 17 | company.<br>A lot of that process has already taken place. | | 18 | The surveyor went to take some samples.<br>They prepared a | | 19 | report.<br>And they're on the verge of being able to file a | | 20 | application for a permit with the New York City Department | | 21 | of Buildings, that -- the division that deals with asbestos. | | 22 | But because we're seeking a variance -- I'll | | 23 | explain why in a second -- it's going to take four to five | | 24 | weeks before the permit can be obtained.<br>In the meantime, | | 25 | no other work can be done. |

Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 6 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 6 So why are we seeking a variance? Because this will not be done in a completely sealed environment, because the -- some asbestos must be removed from the walls. There has to be like the equivalent of shower curtain all around, but there has to be access to the wall to remove that area. And that requires a variance. It requires air monitoring during that process by the surveyor, et cetera, et cetera. So that process is going to take several weeks to get the permit and to actually do the work. The total price approximately of this surveying, removal process which involves plumbing and electrical, because some items need to be disconnected and reconnected after the asbestos removal has been done, total cost is about \$75,000. It's a lot of money. And after that but also during that time, the architect, which is Acheson, they have been working on a report, a conditions report. And, basically, the conditions report is really a status report saying you have the following 23 items that need to be fixed. We just received it on Friday. It's more than a hundred pages. And, basically, that's the blueprint for the contractors to submit a bid, because now they'll know exactly what needs to be fixed. And, also, it's a blueprint for the architect himself to prepare the plans to deal with these various issues. That report and the plans are

Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 7 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 7 necessary to obtain bids. As we describe in here, we commit to obtain or to seek at least three bids from different companies so that it's a competitive bidding process. And I'll be candid, Your Honor. In the motion, we're asking the Court for some leeway, because, you know, there's a -- there could be a hyper technical view of this, which is we should come back for the plumber, for the electrician, for the surveyor, for the asbestos removal, and for the bids. The problem with that is that we -- it would delay us tremendously to do that. So we're asking for the Court to bless a process that will involve, by the way, the U.S. Trustee and PAX and the creditors' committee. They'll be consulting parties. So we're not going to go on our own doing any of this without reviewing the bids and the process with these parties. But we're asking the court to approve this without having to come back for the various pieces of this, because otherwise it would take months. It's already going to take months. This will not be completed, Your Honor, until at least March. And I want to say that the relationship with The Sherry Netherland has been excellent. They've been very supportive. There are issues between us that we need to resolve. They're allocation issues. Because, as you know, in a co-op, they own the walls, the outside structure. Some

Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 8 of that is damaged. That's their responsibility. We own the inside pieces. But it's really more intricate than that in the sense that -- I'll give you an example. If windows in the apartment were the original windows, that's the responsibility of The Sherry Netherland. If they were replaced, that's the responsibility of the owner. It so happens that they were replaced, so it's our responsibility to deal with things like that. So there are a lot of moving pieces, but we're working -- I'd say knock on wood -- very well with The Sherry Netherland thus far in terms of making sure that the allocation is appropriate, that this is not a ride on Genever, if you will, or on the trustee, because the trustee's funding this. And so that process is going very well. But, you know, I've always learned in this business to -- you know, to under promise and over deliver. Here, I would be shocked if this were completed by March, meaning it would be -- everything would have to fit into place very, very nicely. This is a union building, so also some rules that apply. And so this is not a -- like building a house in a -- on a lot in Greenwich, Connecticut. It's very, very different. Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 8 of 24

Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 9 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 9 So we've explained in the motion and in the supplement -- I should take about the supplement, because we've added a lot more details regarding additional items. And there's a marked show change order which is at pages -- starting at page 32 of 36 of Docket Number 2183 which shows the various changes. What we've done, really, is to be more specific. Because before in the motion we said the Court is approving all the work that needs to be done. Now we're saying you're approving the third-party services, including GBTS. That's the surveyor. GEM. That's the electrician. Breslaw is the plumber. And ABF is the asbestos removal company. So there's more precision, but the concept is the same. And I -- as I said, in terms of selecting the contractors and all that, we intend to work closely with PAX, the U.S. Trustee, and the committee to make sure that they're satisfied everything is going, you know, okay and that everything is appropriate. As I said before, we received no objection to this. The only point, though, Your Honor, is that I am not sure that Your Honor entered an order limiting notice. I know we filed the motion, but I was checking before coming to the hearing, but I am not sure that Your Honor entered the proposed order limiting notice. THE COURT: With regard to the hearing on this

Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 10 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 10 motion? MR. DESPINS: Correct. We could be wrong and happy to be wrong on that. But I -- so we did serve it according to what the limiting -- limitation on notice we were seeking from Your Honor. But my colleagues were under the impression that that order had not been entered. So if Your Honor were inclined to grant the relief we're seeking, that order, unless you've already entered it, should be entered as well. THE COURT: I see the notice of hearing on August 30. Let me go back and see if there's -- I understand. I don't see one either, so we'll take a look back at that. MR. DESPINS: Okay. THE COURT: Because the -- it would have been an order granting -- well, let me see. I see -- no, that's the different order. So you're right. I'm not sure if I do see anything there. Well, we'll take a look at it. I understand your point. MR. DESPINS: Okay. And on the order that's modified -- THE COURT: Because the motion was -- the motion to limit notice was 2114. MR. DESPINS: Correct. THE COURT: And I'm not sure I see an order that

Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 11 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 11 relates to that, but we'll take a look at that. MR. DESPINS: Okay. And in the order, again, that's attached to the supplement filed at Docket 2183, the marked-to-show-changes version, we've added a provision at the request of the U.S. Trustee saying nothing in this order shall approve the retention and/or compensation of any attorneys. That's understood. And we -- then the other changes we made is just to mention the name of these entities so we can show that to them to say you see the Court approved the -- your retention -- THE COURT: Uh-huh. MR. DESPINS: -- so they feel comfortable with that. And also we need to put the date of the order today, again if Your Honor were inclined to grant the relief sought. THE COURT: Yeah. And I think what happened with 2114 is that we had a status conference on 2113 and 2114, because it originally was -- the motion that is on today's calendar, 2113, was filed under the contested matter -- MR. DESPINS: Right. THE COURT: -- procedure. But it appeared that it needed attention in a much more expedited manner. And so we set for status conference 2113 and 2114, which is the motion to limit notice. MR. DESPINS: I should have raised 2114 at that -- Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 12 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 12 THE COURT: Yeah. And -- MR. DESPINS: -- at that status conference (indiscernible) -- THE COURT: Right. Well, I think we talked about it a little bit, but I don't know -- I don't remember what we said. So I can't tell you anything about that until -- unless I listen to what we said or have a -- I don't have to listen. I think someone's already ordered a transcript. But in any event, I understand your point. It does appear from a review of the docket sitting here that there is not an order limiting notice, granting that motion to limit. But I was inclined to do that, so I would be surprised if there would not be an order entered granting that. I think it was just that we talked about it during the status conference and then didn't have an order enter afterwards, unfortunately. But, I mean, it's not a problem, actually, because we can just do that. And I do see -- you know, the status conference was held, so -- and a transcript was requested. So I'll be able to figure that out. MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. So that -- in terms of our presentation, that would complete that, Your Honor, unless you have -- THE COURT: No. So -- MR. DESPINS: -- additional questions.

Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 13 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 13 THE COURT: So my questions are -- they're not substantial. But I understand and I agree that you should be able to -- you as the trustee of the estate -- or you as the debtor in possession of Genever should be able to go forward and try to remediate the problems in the apartment and the get the apartment in a condition to sell. I mean, that's what you're trying to do, obviously. And I agree that you shouldn't have to come back for every entity that you need to use to accomplish that goal. You have to use your professional judgment. You're bound by that. And you're doing that. And in this situation, you've asked for specific people to be -- and I looked -- I, you know, pulled up your supplement -- to be noted in the order, and I think that's fine. I don't think that's a problem. But I also agree that it doesn't limit you to those parties, that you have to do what you have to do in order to have the apartment be in a better condition than it's in now. And I understand the timing that you've said that you think it will take to accomplish the goal of getting the apartment into a position that will never be the -- necessarily the same that it was but in a position for you to be able to address it as an asset of the estate in some way, shape, or form. So I think that's fine. I don't have any questions.

Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 14 of 24

| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023<br>14 | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | Except for this.<br>You said the PAX, Sherry | | 2 | Netherland, the U.S. Trustee, and the committee are all | | 3 | going to be -- | | 4 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Consulting parties. | | 5 | THE COURT:<br>-- consulting parties, right?<br>Right. | | 6 | Those are all the parties.<br>I didn't miss anyone, did I? | | 7 | MR. DESPINS:<br>The only one is -- I'm not sure that | | 8 | The Sherry Netherland is.<br>But they -- if they're not, they | | 9 | practically are, meaning I need to look at the -- | | 10 | THE COURT:<br>Yeah.<br>They may not be defined as a | | 11 | consent party, but you're still -- | | 12 | MR. DESPINS:<br>But -- yeah. | | 13 | THE COURT:<br>-- you still have to work with them. | | 14 | MR. DESPINS:<br>They're consulting parties -- | | 15 | THE COURT:<br>Right. | | 16 | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- not consent parties.<br>But I -- in | | 17 | any event, they are practically consulting parties, because | | 18 | we don't -- we can't do anything in there without their | | 19 | involvement.<br>And they're involved at every stage, so it's | | 20 | whatever the -- and I'm trying to find the -- | | 21 | THE COURT:<br>The consultation parties are -- | | 22 | MR. DESPINS:<br>PAX, the committee, the U.S. -- | | 23 | THE COURT:<br>-- PAX, the committee, the U.S. | | 24 | Trustee, and The Sherry Netherland. | | 25 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Then -- good. | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 15 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 15 THE COURT: Yeah. MR. DESPINS: Exactly. Okay. THE COURT: Okay. So I don't have any problem with proceeding in the way that you're proceeding. In some respects, you know, people could say that -- people -- you could make an argument, but I -- I'm not sure I would, but I think you could make an argument that you could do this without court order. But you now have put everybody on notice, and they have been served, although we -- the limiting of the service is -- under the circumstances of this case, we have been limiting service -- notice and service on certain parties that either electronically file, have consented to electronic notice and service, have filed appearances, are parties involved, or parties listed on a list. So I have no problem with that. Everyone is on notice of what's happening, including the individual debtor. And I've seen no objection, no written objections, and there's no one participating in this hearing today that is objecting as far as I know. I will ask if anyone else wishes to be heard. But I think that it's correct that Genever U.S. should be authorized and empowered to take the actions necessary to effectuate the relief that you seek in the motion and in the supplement.

Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 16 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 16 So does anyone else wish to be heard in connection with the motion to obtain services necessary to remediate areas of The Sherry Netherland Apartment? MS. MAYHEW: Yes, Your Honor. Kristin Mayhew for the creditors' committee. Just for the record, we wanted to note that we do support the motion. The Chapter 11 trustee was gracious enough to share with us a draft of the motion in advance, and we had an opportunity to review that. We did have some concerns regarding payments to subcontractors and the sharing of costs between the estate and The Sherry Netherland. But they have been satisfactorily addressed and in the supplement. So we do support the motion and just wanted to note that for the record. THE COURT: Thank you very much. MS. MAYHEW: Thank you. THE COURT: Attorney Claiborn? MS. CLAIBORN: The U.S. Trustee has no objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I'm just looking at this order that was a little bit -- was revised a little bit from the original order. Nothing -- there's no -- there is -- there are no provisions in the order that concern me. The only thing we'd have to do, turning to the

Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 17 courtroom deputy, is add the hearing date on page 2 of the proposed order. There's just a blank for today's hearing date. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. THE COURT: So for all those reasons, Trustee Despins, your motion is granted, and the proposed order that has been revised that's in Docket Number 2183 can enter. Okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Good luck with that, obviously. Are there any other matters we need to address this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: Actually, Your Honor, I should have started -- just I was looking at my notes -- should have started with this. In this case, you know, it shouldn't be a surprise, but I did receive a call from The Sherry Netherland on Tuesday of last week saying that there was a big storm in New York on Monday, not this Monday, the Monday a week ago, and there was water that was on the terrace at the 18th floor. The drains were clogged somehow. Water, because it overflowed, went down below. So the first apartment is the one that was destroyed because of the fire, of the -- so apparently the damages there are -- I don't want to qualify them, but Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 17 of 24

Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 18 of 24

| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023<br>18 | |----|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | they're not huge.<br>But it went down below further.<br>And | | 2 | there, apparently some artwork was affected by this.<br>So | | 3 | there is another claim at The Sherry Netherland, so I -- | | 4 | THE COURT:<br>Okay. | | 5 | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- should have mentioned that at the | | 6 | outset.<br>I forgot. | | 7 | THE COURT:<br>So how do you anticipate that's going | | 8 | to be handled? | | 9 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Well, I made a claim with AIG, | | 10 | and -- | | 11 | THE COURT:<br>Okay. | | 12 | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- we'll see how that plays out. | | 13 | THE COURT:<br>All right.<br>That's fine.<br>That's what | | 14 | I thought you were saying, but I just wanted to be clear | | 15 | with that. | | 16 | I'm trying to think.<br>I feel like there were some | | 17 | other things that -- yeah, that I wanted to address.<br>And | | 18 | there's -- yeah, there's some outstanding -- there was an | | 19 | outstanding motion in the -- one of the adversaries to | | 20 | compel compliance with the preliminary injunction.<br>You had | | 21 | filed that some time ago.<br>And it's just -- there's a few | | 22 | outstanding things that I think that are really either moot | | 23 | or have been withdrawn. | | 24 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Which adversary proceeding was that, | | 25 | Your Honor? | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 19 of 24

| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023<br>19 | |----|--------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | THE COURT:<br>32, 5032. | | 2 | MR. LINSEY:<br>The demonstration one. | | 3 | THE COURT:<br>Yeah. | | 4 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Oh. | | 5 | THE COURT:<br>The demonstration -- | | 6 | MR. LINSEY:<br>The PAX demonstration one. | | 7 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Frankly -- | | 8 | THE COURT:<br>Well, just -- I think that -- | | 9 | MR. DESPINS:<br>-- that's off my radar screen -- | | 10 | THE COURT:<br>I think it's almost moot, quite | | 11 | frankly, but -- | | 12 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Because it's on appeal now. | | 13 | THE COURT:<br>Yes.<br>Well, not only that.<br>I just | | 14 | don't think it -- I think it's moot. | | 15 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Okay. | | 16 | THE COURT:<br>Okay?<br>And then but we need to -- if | | 17 | there's some issue, you'll have to raise that. | | 18 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yeah.<br>We'll go back to the office | | 19 | and look at that, Your Honor. | | 20 | THE COURT:<br>And then on 23-5013, give me a moment. | | 21 | I want to look at that one, because there was something in | | 22 | particular about that.<br>I just need to look at the docket. | | 23 | So that's involving G Club? | | 24 | MR. DESPINS:<br>This discovery?<br>Yes. | | 25 | MR. LINSEY:<br>Yes. | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 20 of 24

| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023<br>20 | |----|----------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | MR. DESPINS:<br>Yes, Your Honor. | | 2 | MR. LINSEY:<br>Is this regarding the G Club | | 3 | confidentiality?<br>Yeah.<br>We are looking into that as well, | | 4 | Your Honor.<br>We have had questions.<br>My understanding was | | 5 | that it was G Club's responsibility to file a response.<br>So | | 6 | I think -- so there are inquiries that are being -- | | 7 | THE COURT:<br>But I don't think they did. | | 8 | MR. LINSEY:<br>That's correct.<br>So my -- the last | | 9 | that I heard -- | | 10 | THE COURT:<br>Well, let me put it the other way. | | 11 | Let me put it in the affirmative.<br>They did not file a | | 12 | response on the deadline that they were supposed to file a | | 13 | response.<br>And we had counsel here on several occasions | | 14 | talking about those confidentiality issues.<br>And they were | | 15 | required -- my recollection is, in that adversary they were | | 16 | required to file a response.<br>And the date went by, and they | | 17 | didn't file anything. | | 18 | MR. LINSEY:<br>That's my understanding, Your -- as | | 19 | well, Your Honor.<br>And I believe that someone was going to | | 20 | reach out to them was the last that I had heard a couple | | 21 | days ago on this.<br>But there were people on our team who | | 22 | were asking questions about that as well, and we had the | | 23 | same understanding. | | 24 | The only thing I will say, Your Honor, is -- and I | | 25 | just -- this is in the interest of full disclosure.<br>I don't | | | |

Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 21 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 21 believe they're a party to the adversary proceeding. So that was the only reason that we were going to reach out to them and give -- you know, that was the -- rather than filing something in the form of a default -- THE COURT: Well, there was an issue about -- remember, you were arguing that they had waived their right -- MR. DESPINS: That's correct. THE COURT: -- to any privilege and that no right or -- to object or responsiveness as to the G Club documents turned over could be asserted by them. MR. LINSEY: Correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: So I don't know where that stands. I don't know if you need an order that says that. I don't know. But all I know is that there was a deadline. Counsel asked for a deadline. She was here. I recall it. She asked for a deadline. And it was set. And nothing was filed. MR. LINSEY: I think it should have been -- THE COURT: I think we -- MR. LINSEY: Yeah. THE COURT: I think we, you know, issued rulings with regard to everybody but G Club in that context. So all I'm saying is if there's something that needs to be done,

Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 22 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 22 you have to let us know. MR. DESPINS: We'll verify and file some kind of report of trustee with respect to, you know, this matter. MR. LINSEY: And I'm not excusing the missed deadline. I just wanted to make sure the Court had all information -- THE COURT: No. I'm not excusing the missed deadline either. MR. LINSEY: Yeah. THE COURT: I am just stating that there were already orders entered, and they were carved out of that order, essentially, because they asked to be and because we were going to provide them -- and we did provide a timeline. And they didn't file anything by that timeline. It wasn't a timeline. It was a deadline. It was a so-ordered deadline. They didn't do anything. So whether you need anything or not, I have no idea. But if you do, you'll have to file something in that adversary proceeding. Okay? MR. LINSEY: We'll do that, Your Honor. THE COURT: I mean, I'm not studying it to the extent to know whether or not you actually need anything at this moment. I just know it's an outstanding issue as far as prior rulings and essentially carving out that entity in connection with those issues in that adversary proceeding.

Case 22-50073 Doc 2232 Filed 09/26/23 Entered 09/26/23 15:28:59 Page 23 of 24

Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023 23 Okay? MR. DESPINS: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Is there anything further this afternoon? MR. LINSEY: There was just one other item which is -- I've gotten some internal nudges about and I believe is under the Court's consideration, which is the sixth 2004 exam motion -- THE COURT: Yes, it is -- MR. LINSEY: -- number 279 -- THE COURT: -- under the Court's consideration. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: And it -- I would bet that there will be some -- something issued in the next day or so. MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. Appreciate that. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Anything further this afternoon? MR. DESPINS: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Then that concludes today's -- all the matters on today's calendar, so Court is adjourned. Thank you, all. MR. DESPINS: Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise. Court is

| | Ho Wan Kwok - September 19, 2023<br>24 | |----|------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | adjourned. | | 2 | (Proceedings concluded at 2:44 p.m.) | | 3 | | | 4 | | | 5 | I, CHRISTINE FIORE, Certified Electronic Court | | 6 | Reporter and Transcriber, certify that the foregoing is a | | 7 | correct transcript from the official electronic sound | | 8 | recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter. | | 9 | | | 10 | | | 11 | | | 12 | September 26, 2023 | | 13 | Christine Fiore, CERT | | 14 | | | 15 | | | 16 | | | 17 | | | 18 | | | 19 | | | 20 | | | 21 | | | 22 | | | 23 | | | 24 | | | 25 | | | | |