Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — bankruptcy case · TRANSCRIPT · ECF #2245

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT IN RE: HO WAN KWOK and GENEVER HOLDINGS, LLC, Debtors. . . . . . . . . . Case No. 22-50073 Chapter 11 915 Lafayette Boulevard Bridgeport, CT 06604 Wednesday, September 27, 2023 2:01 p.m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TRANSCRIPT OF FINAL APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION FOR SAXE DOERNBERGER & VITA, P.C., OTHER PROFESSIONAL, FEE: \$230,840.00, EXPENSES: \$5,612.00. FILED BY SAXE DOERNBERGER & VITA, P.C. [2156]; APPLICATION TO EMPLOY KROLL, LLC AS FORENSIC INVESTIGATORS FILED BY PATRICK R. LINSEY ON BEHALF OF LUC A. DESPINS, CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE [2162] BEFORE THE HONORABLE JULIE A. MANNING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT JUDGE APPEARANCES: Chapter 11 Trustee: Paul Hastings LLP By: LUC A. DESPINS, ESQ. 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 (212) 318-6001 For the Chapter 11 Trustee: Neubert Pepe & Monteith, P.C. By: PATRICK R. LINSEY, ESQ. 195 Church Street, 13th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 (203) 821-2000 APPEARANCES CONTINUED. Audio Operator: Courtroom ECRO Personnel Transcription Company: Access Transcripts, LLC 10110 Youngwood Lane Fishers, IN 46048 (855) 873-2223 [www.accesstranscripts.com] Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service.

APPEARANCES (Continued): For the Chapter 11 Trustee: Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. By: BRIAN J. CLIFFORD, ESQ. 35 Nutmeg Drive, Suite 140 Trumbull, CT 06611 (203) 287-2100 For Pacific Alliance Asia Opportunity Fund L.P.: Robinson & Cole, LLP By: ANNECCA H. SMITH, ESQ. 280 Trumbull Street Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 275-8325 For the U.S. Trustee Office of the United States Trustee By: STEVEN E. MACKEY, ESQ. The Giaimo Federal Building 150 Court Street, Room 302 New Haven, CT 06510 (203) 773-2210

2 THE CLERK:

3 Holdings LLC. 4 THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon.

5 appearances for the record, please, starting with the Chapter 6 11 Trustee. 7 MR. DESPINS: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

8 Despins for the Chapter 11 Trustee. 9 MR. LINSEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

10 Linsey for the Trustee. 11 MR. CLIFFORD: Good afternoon, Your Honor. 12 Brian Clifford for the Trustee. 13 MS. SMITH: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

14 Smith, Robinson & Cole on behalf of PACS. 15 MR. MACKEY: Steven Mackey for the U.S. Trustee. 16 THE COURT: Good afternoon to everyone.

wait a minute. I think there's somebody else maybe coming 18 in? Who is iPhone 21, please? 19 MR. DESPINS: That's Mr.

20 business representative from Kroll, Your Honor.

22 Kroll retention. 23 THE COURT: Okay.

24 name to Mr. Pfeiffer, please. 25 Okay. There are two matters on the calendar this

Case 22-50073 Doc 2245 Filed 10/06/23 Entered 10/06/23 14:58:53 Page 4 of 27

1 afternoon.

in the Kwok cases, the final application for

3 Doernberger & Vita, and then the application to employ Kroll. 4 Trustee Despins, how would you like to proceed? 5 MR. DESPINS:

6 final application. I see Mr. Clifford is there.

7 there are any objections but to the extent the Court has 8 questions or other parties have questions, Mr.

9 there to answer them. 10 THE COURT:

11 application for Kroll.

12 at the word Kroll as I'm talking.

13 correct? 14 MR. DESPINS: That's correct, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 MR. CLIFFORD: Correct, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: All right. Mr.

18 Trustee's Office has reviewed this application and filed a 19 statement of no objection. Is that correct? 20 MR. MACKEY: We have, Your Honor.

21 employment application, our statement of no objection is 2231. 22 THE COURT:

23 application for compensation. 24 MR. MACKEY:

25 it's 2206 is the statement of no objection.

Case 22-50073 Doc 2245 Filed 10/06/23 Entered 10/06/23 14:58:53 Page 5 of 27

1 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. All right.

the final fee application, I've reviewed it. 3 No one has filed any written objections to the fee 4 application. There is no one participating in the hearing 5 today that is objecting to the fee application.

6 States Trustee's Office has filed a statement of no objection

8 compensation, which as Attorney Mackey stated, is ECF Number 9 2206.

10 with regard to the final application for compensation

Vita? 12 I noticed there's a couple of typos in the order. 13 We're going to fix the order so that it says it's a final 14 application and note today's hearing date.

15 4, 5, and 6 of the proposed order are not necessary and they're 16 duplicative of the things that are in the first three ordered 17 paragraphs, so I'm not going to include those provisions in the 18 order unless someone has a problem with that.

19 address that now, if you do.

20 proposed order will be revised before it is docketed and the

the final application is granted. 22 Okay. Hearing nothing, then the final application of 23 Saxe, Doernberger & and Vita for compensation of special 24 insurance coverage counsel is granted.

25 will be revised as noted on the record and we'll enter.

ACCESS TRANSCRIPTS, LLC 1-855-USE-ACCESS (873-2223)

1 MR. CLIFFORD: Thank you, Your Honor.

2 THE COURT: Thank you. 3 MR. DESPINS: Thank you.

4 Kroll retention, Mr. Linsey is going to handle that. 5 THE COURT: Okay. Go right ahead, Attorney Linsey. 6 MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor.

7 brief presentation on the application to employ Kroll as 8 forensic investigators.

9 professional assistance both to uncover and analyze information 10 that's necessary to understand the debtor's finances and to 11 assist the Trustee with forensic analysis in connection with 12 the Trustee's prosecution of adversary proceedings that have 13 been and will be securing property of the estate. 14 As we've discussed in a number of contexts, the 15 debtor's finances, and particularly the manner in which assets

17 the debtor is convoluted.

18 help untangle the web of the debtor's business and financial 19 interests. Kroll has assisted in a number of complex 20 bankruptcy cases, providing exactly that sort

22 two examples, from the Southern District of New York.

24 negotiated discounts to Kroll's typical hourly rates.

sliding scale for a minimum of 10 percent to

ACCESS TRANSCRIPTS, LLC 1-855-USE-ACCESS (873-2223) 1 the Kroll professionals with lower rates to a maximum of 25 2 percent discount to the Kroll professionals with their higher 3 billing rates. The Trustee believes that these discounts will 4 generate substantial savings for the estate.

5 generally, we believe that the investment in Kroll's services 6 will return substantial value to the estate by ensuring that 7 the debtor's financial interests are understood and that estate 8 assets are recovered for the benefit of creditors. 9 In fact, Kroll is already at work analyzing many of 10 the business and financial records that the Trustee has 11 obtained and accumulated in the course of Rule 2004 and other 12 discovery in the year that we've been involved in the case -- 13 the year-plus.

14 engagement be retroactive to August 2nd, which is within that 15 30-day safe harbor look-back window from the filing of their 16 retention application. 17 The Trustee has filed a certificate of service, which 18 is at ECF 2179. The U.S. Trustee has filed a statement of no 19 objection, which is at 2231. Mr.

20 Allen Pfeiffer, who is the lead professional on the engagement. 21 He is here in the hearing today if the Court has any questions. 22 But if not, we would ask that the Court enter the order 23 approving Kroll's engagement. 24 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

heard on the application to employ Kroll as the estate's

investigator, specifically forensic investigator? Attorney Mackey, your office has reviewed this application. Is that correct? MR. MACKEY: That is correct. It was Attorney Claiborn, of course, who spent most of the time with this case. She reviewed it and it was she who filed the statement of no objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I do have a question or two about the application and the proposed order. I don't know why the estate is indemnifying Kroll in connection with this retention. I don't see any reason why that should occur. MR. DESPINS: Yeah, let me address –- MR. LINSEY: Your Honor –- oh, go ahead. MR. DESPINS: And I -- many judges have had this reaction to these requests for indemnification, Your Honor. They have, for better or for worse, become standard, and I know that's not a complete answer to Your Honor. But they are now standard in all retention orders in a sense that no financial advisor is going to be retained without that language because all the others are getting that same language. But remember that there's an – exculpate doesn't mean exclusion if they're in bad faith or grossly negligent. THE COURT: Well, isn't that true regardless of an indemnification? I mean, if the forensic professionals act in a -- in gross negligence or malfeasance, or -- then they're

ACCESS TRANSCRIPTS, LLC 1-855-USE-ACCESS (873-2223)

1 liable anyway. So what's the need for an indemnification?

2 MR. DESPINS: Yes. 3 THE COURT: I don't understand.

4 understand anybody can ask for what they want, but why are we

6 liability that it doesn't have?

8 Madoff, or the other cases that have been cited to.

9 because somebody asked for it and they got it, doesn't mean 10 that it's appropriate.

11 in this case. 12 MR. DESPINS:

13 in this case when you're dealing with somebody as litigious as 14 the debtor or his associates who could bring claims against 15 anyone, that's why it's, you know, I think there's not one firm 16 that wouldn't ask for that and insist on that because of the 17 risk of getting involved and ending up on the wrong end of a 18 lawsuit with the debtor or his associates. 19 THE COURT:

20 you're the one that retained them.

21 professionals. They're an arm of you.

22 independently. They're retained by this estate to act as your 23 professional. 24 I understand your point.

25 that there could be a lawsuit, but that could be true in any

ACCESS TRANSCRIPTS, LLC 1-855-USE-ACCESS (873-2223)

1 case: Chapter 7, Chapter 11, Chapter 13.

2 estate representative who is retaining this professional as an 3 arm of you to carry out the duties that you believe you need to 4 carry out.

don't get me wrong.

5 reason for the request, but, you know, just because you ask for 6 it doesn't mean you're entitled to it.

7 this liability out there?

8 don't understand it.

9 completely able to carry out these duties and responsibilities 10 as they've done in all these other Chapter 11 cases. 11 So I don't understand what their risk is.

12 risk? What's the risk?

13 indemnification?

15 not going to have litigation over indemnification of a 16 professional retained by the Trustee.

17 the dispute's going to be between the Trustee and the 18 professional, and the estate and the professional.

19 better things to do than to worry about that. 20 MR. DESPINS: I understand your reaction, Your Honor. 21 But in this case, given the fact that, for example, I've been 22 sued in all, you know, in many other courts, and we got rid of 23 those claims.

24 that regard, Your Honor.

25 case is different in certain respects.

1 instance where it is different because the debtor's associates

2 have no compunction about suing anyone in any other court and

4 agent, I would come to their defense under the Barton

5 or something like that to try to bring it back to Your Honor, 6 et cetera. 7 But in this case, I have to tell you --

8 very candid, Your Honor.

9 actually withdrew from the process because of the fear of being

end of the debtor or his associates.

11 credit, Kroll stepped up to the plate with the normal standard 12 language. I understand this is not General Motors.

13 you know, it's not FTX.

15 rule that you have, which is there should be no 16 indemnification, because of the external circumstances here. 17 THE COURT:

18 protecting against? Just so that Kroll doesn't have to have a 19 fight in this Court with you?

21 MR. DESPINS: No, no. 22 THE COURT:

24 they're entitled to under the indemnification provision? 25 MR. DESPINS:

1 this Court that determines that.

2 THE COURT: Right. So that's my point. 3 MR. DESPINS:

5 THE COURT: So now that's my point.

6 to have to have a fight over whether --

7 extent they should be indemnified. 8 MR. DESPINS: Well, yes and no. It depends.

9 they're clearly sued for wrong reasons, there's no doubt that I 10 should, because they're my agent, defend them in your court,

12 sue them without your prior authorization.

13 there'll be disputes between the Trustee and Kroll over the 14 scope of the indemnification. 15 But your point is well taken that only Your Honor 16 should determine the scope of the --.

the claims agent as well.

18 resolved that by making sure that Your Honor, as between the

20 that case, that Your Honor had exclusive jurisdiction over 21 these issues to make these determinations.

22 how Your Honor ultimately got comfortable with that, the 23 language in the engagement letter for the claims agent.

25 Mr. Pfeiffer about this, but there's no doubt that this Court

Case 22-50073 Doc 2245 Filed 10/06/23 Entered 10/06/23 14:58:53 Page 13 of 27

1 should have the final say-so on the issue of indemnification

2 and also claims asserted against Kroll, because we would move 3 all these cases to Your Honor, in any event.

5 THE COURT:

6 MR. DESPINS:

goes a long way. 7 THE COURT:

9 expenses. Why would they need attorneys?

10 that. They're your professional. 11 MR. DESPINS:

12 them, meaning against wrongfully brought claims.

13 typical in these documents. 14 THE COURT: I understand. Believe me, I understand. 15 I understand what the agreements say.

17 agreements that people just put in.

19 MR. DESPINS: Yes. 20 THE COURT:

that they are appropriate.

21 Mr. Pfeiffer, is Kroll not going to proceed if there isn't 22 indemnification language in this agreement with the Trustee? 23 MR. PFEIFFER:

24 not proceed unless we have these provisions in order.

25 not asked our general counsel specifically with regard to this

Case 22-50073 Doc 2245 Filed 10/06/23 Entered 10/06/23 14:58:53 Page 14 of 27

1 case, about what we would do, but I am doubtful.

2 THE COURT: And why is that?

3 educated. 4 MR. PFEIFFER:

5 become a risk that a firm like ours is not willing to take. 6 THE COURT:

what's your risk though?

7 what I'm trying to understand. 8 MR. PFEIFFER:

9 THE COURT:

10 risk. 11 MR. PFEIFFER: A risk that we get sued.

12 sued in a case where, you know, just for whatever wrongful

14 anything terrible, but we still have to defend it.

15 a lot of money and a lot of legal fees. 16 THE COURT:

17 every day? Every engagement you enter into?

18 always a risk that you'll be sued? 19 MR. PFEIFFER: Sure.

we have a fee. 21 THE COURT: Right. 22 MR. PFEIFFER:

23 defending the case, which, you know, where we –- 24 THE COURT:

25 MR. PFEIFFER:

1 for us.

2 THE COURT:

4 party. You're in an engagement with a court officer who is 5 retaining you to carry out certain duties so you're not going 6 to be sued, or if you are sued, the Trustee's going to have to 7 address that issue. 8 MR. PFEIFFER: Right. 9 THE COURT:

10 entitled to be paid additional fees and expenses above their -- 11 or hourly rates that have already been negotiated in connection

because there's two possibilities, right?

13 because there is gross mismanagement, or you get sued because 14 it's a frivolous suit, or maybe not frivolous --

15 sustainable suit. 16 If it's not a sustainable suit, the Trustee's going 17 to deal with that, as the Trustee should.

18 as an officer of this estate.

19 then you're going to be sued regardless.

20 have to deal with that, and there is no indemnification for 21 that. 22 MR. PFEIFFER: Okay. 23 THE COURT: So I'm a little puzzled.

24 everybody gets this, so we want it. And I understand that. 25 But this, you know, this estate already has substantial

2 circumstances of this case.

3 estate to another potential administrative expense when it's 4 not necessary. Or no one's convinced me yet. 5 MR. LINSEY:

6 THE COURT:

7 necessary other than this is what we want in the documents and

if we don't get it, we're not going to do 9 the work. 10 MR. LINSEY: Your Honor, can I just add one thing?

and I probably should have mentioned this 12 initially. The engagement letter that's attached as the 13 exhibit to the retention application was extensively negotiated 14 between the Trustee and Kroll.

15 form engagement letter and agree to it.

16 provisions, including the scope of the indemnification 17 provision, including the provision in the engagement letter, 18 that provides this Court sole authority over any claims and 19 controversies, which Your Honor's obviously aware, of during 20 the pendency of this bankruptcy. 21 And other facets of the agreement were negotiated

23 the discounts that Kroll agreed to apply to its hourly rates. 24 That we feel is, under the circumstances, not only a fair, but 25 a competitive package for their engagement.

1 feel that we have, you know, are happy to put it in front of

2 Your Honor and have not seen objections to date.

3 that, understanding Your Honor's concerns.

4 make sure that Your Honor had that context. 5 THE COURT: Thank you.

6 to be suggesting that you'd go back and talk about this 7 indemnification issue and try to change the provisions of the 8 order and possibly the engagement letter to be more along the 9 lines of the indemnification issues that we've already

a claims agent.

11 headed? 12 MR. DESPINS:

13 just for the purpose of making sure, if it's not already there, 14 that this Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the 15 scope of the indemnification, meaning whether they're entitled 16 to it or not. That is my recollection of what we have –

17 been agreed to with the claims agent and that is what I would 18 propose here. It may already be there. I apologize.

19 know that offhand, but if it's not there, I would go back to 20 Kroll and ask them to agree to that, because I think that's -- 21 if it's not there, that it should be there. 22 But I would not ask them to drop their 23 indemnification claim, Your Honor.

24 on practical experience in this case of trying to retain a 25 financial advisor, and based on the fact that the debtor and

1 his associates have, in fact, asserted claims against people

2 that are completely frivolous and have been sanctioned by other 3 courts. I think that I understand fully why Kroll would not 4 proceed without that language.

5 be the sole arbiter of whether they're entitled to 6 indemnification or not.

7 was reached with the claims agent. 8 THE COURT: Okay.

9 too, I don't understand why they're still incurring fees, by 10 the way. So I think you need to take a look at that, because

I have no understanding why they would be still 12 incurring fees. 13 But in any event, I don't think the order says what 14 you just said, Trustee Despins, number one.

it has a lot of other provisions in it that I think are 16 unnecessary.

17 duplicative of the second. It's unnecessary.

18 sixth paragraph is not necessary.

19 saying you shall indemnify Kroll to the extent, well, you're 20 only going to indemnify Kroll if this Court finds that an

I don't agree that it's necessary.

22 you're telling me that that's the only way this is going to 23 proceed, then I'll turn my head and let it happen, although I 24 don't understand what the risk is.

25 understand what additional risk there is than the risk that

1 already exists every day with any professional out in the

2 world, because that's the way it works.

whether or not there's any indemnification of 5 anything, would have to be brought before this Court.

6 unless and until it is, there is no indemnification.

8 the order. Paragraph 10, your increases in rates, you can 9 notify people about increases in rates, but that doesn't mean 10 that they're determined to be allowed by this Court, because 11 that doesn't happen without the Court approving that increase 12 in rate, meaning you can ask for it at the time --

13 the time you increase the rate, or you can ask for it when you 14 file your fee application.

15 rate doesn't mean it's approved. 16 I don't see why Paragraphs 11, 12, 14 and 15 –

17 14 are necessary. With regard to 13, it says, to the extent 18 the application, the engagement letter, and the Pfeiffer 19 declaration are inconsistent with this order, the terms of the 20 order shall govern. Well, that's all the more reason why this 21 order needs to be fixed, because if it was written the way I 22 think it would be written, there wouldn't be an indemnification 23 provision in it so you'll have to fix that.

25 excellent job.

Mr.

1 to the case. You don't know everything that has happened over

2 the past however many, you know, I guess 18 or more months. 3 But I don't want to have a fight about indemnification.

and I don't understand your risk yet.

6 the risk that you say that you're trying to protect against -- 7 I think it exists today regardless of this case, anybody can 8 sue you at any time.

9 by the estate. But I understand that you get it in all your 10 other agreements. I understand that. 11 But, you know, in any event, I think I've said 12 enough. I think you need to talk.

13 to look at the order and revise it.

14 indemnification insofar as you can seek it through this Court 15 and the Court will either approve it or deny it.

16 saying that there's an automatic indemnification that you can 17 just say to the Trustee, we spent this,

18 that. That's not going to happen.

20 to be a distribution to creditors.

21 about, the creditors.

22 the parties have had prior to today, and I appreciate 23 everything you've said.

24 picture and make sure it's not exposing the estate to 25 additional potential administrative expenses that are

1 unnecessary because every administrative expense dollar is one

2 less dollar that goes to creditors.

I mean, I know you know that, and you may

that may not be your concern, but it has to be the 5 Court's concern. So, does anyone else wish to be heard, or 6 Mr. Pfeiffer, is there anything else you'd like to say?

7 come in and out a little bit on this hearing, so I haven't 8 necessarily heard everything you've said because I think

9 connection is a little poor, but I'm happy to listen to 10 anything you would like to add to the record. 11 MR. PFEIFFER: I apologize for the connection.

12 understand your concern.

13 estate are also a concern to us.

16 here today and look forward to adding a lot of value to the 17 Trustee and to the Court. 18 THE COURT: Thank you.

20 MR. DESPINS:

21 THE COURT: Go ahead. 22 MR. DESPINS:

23 said, loud and clear. We'll talk to Kroll and with Mr.

24 and come back to Your Honor with a revised proposed order on 25 this.

1 THE COURT: Yes.

2 there can't be an indemnification provision, but it's not 3 automatic. It's subject to Court review and granting or 4 denying that. And I do understand the position that you're

well.

6 please do that, if you would submit a revised proposed order. 7 How much time?

8 agree with Attorney Linsey that this application was filed 9 within the time frame under our local rules, so the effective 10 date of the retention of Kroll would be August 2nd.

I don't have an issue with that at all. 12 How much time do you need to talk about and submit a 13 revised order? I mean, do you think you can do it by the end

or would you like more time than that? 15 MR. DESPINS: Yes, Your Honor. Yeah.

16 do it by the end of the week, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT:

18 you need more time, then let the courtroom deputy know that 19 you're still working on the revised proposed order, please, and 20 then we won't worry about it. 21 MR. DESPINS: We'll do, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: We'll know that you'll get there. 23 Assuming you both can be satisfied with the language in the 24 proposed order, then the application is granted.

25 will be employed effective as of August 2nd, 2023, and the

1 revised proposed order will be submitted by the parties.

2 not going to give you a date because today is already Wednesday 3 and the hearing was supposed to be yesterday, obviously.

if you believe you are not in a position to 5 have a revised proposed order by, you know, the afternoon on 6 Friday, please send an email to the courtroom deputy email box, 7 saying that you're still working on the terms and conditions of 8 the order. Okay? 9 MR. DESPINS: Will do, Your Honor.

10 if I may, I just want to cover two points that should not be 11 controversial at all.

if I may. 13 THE COURT: Yes, go right ahead. 14 MR. DESPINS: Okay.

15 morning around ten o'clock or so, we filed a document, a notice 16 to update the Court and parties in the case.

17 2234, which attaches a number of pleadings or letters that were 18 filed in the criminal case.

19 has that. Of course, you haven't seen it yet, but that you 20 know about that. And I would particularly draw your attention 21 to the first document, which is the Department of Justice 22 submission to the criminal court.

24 Honor will find that interesting, but I wanted to also mention 25 something in our submission to the criminal court.

1 see in there that the Trustee has said that to the criminal

2 court that at this time, we will not seek to enforce Your 3 Honor's contempt order of the debtor.

4 agreeing to that, you know, I thought long and hard about it. 5 It was a very difficult decision because, in particular, 6 because I'm sure Your Honor spent hours and hours drafting

7 opinion, which, again, there's no problem with the opinion at 8 all.

9 before in the case, to the extent we can avoid direct conflict 10 with the Department of Justice, we will do that, and this was 11 one of these instances.

12 requested it, but because the Department of Justice requested 13 it, and I wanted Your Honor to know that, that that's the 14 reason why we did that. And I apologize. 15 I wish, you know, Your Honor did not have to write 16 that very lengthy, very, very thorough decision.

17 there was a lot of pain and suffering involved in that, but 18 anyway, it came after the fact.

19 to that, to avoid direct conflict with the DOJ, so I want to 20 make sure Your Honor knew that. 21 The second thing I want to mention, which is not 22 related at all to this 2234 docket filing, is the fact that we 23 have not given you any news about the Lady May II

24 for a while now. And so, you may be wondering what's happening 25 with that.

show in Newport about 10 days ago. We were told by the broker we should wait for that so the boat could be exposed to numerous buyers. Now we have several -- over, I think, four or five, buyers that are interested, but not at a price that is satisfactory to us at this point.

So we're going to do the same process we did with the Lady May, which is we told them that they need to submit their highest and best offer by Wednesday of next week. This is not done pursuant to any court order. It's the same process we followed with the Lady May. And depending on what transpires on Wednesday of next week, in terms of bids being acceptable or not, we will file a motion submitting for Court approval, the winning bid -- again, subject to higher and better offers in the bankruptcy process. We've consulted with the Committee, with PACS on this, and the U.S. Trustee, so they're aware of this, and I wanted Your Honor to know about it at all -- as well.

We're not asking the Court for any relief. We're just really telling the Court that this is going on in the background. The idea here is that, you know, the sale price is not going to be \$20 million. Obviously, it's much less than that. So therefore, the cost of winterizing, which, I'm not sure that's a verb, but winterizing the boat and maintaining the boat and all that, you know, are large compared to the value of the boat, so we need to sell this boat as quickly as

and that's why we're engaging in that process.

2 wanted to make sure Your Honor knew about that as well.

3 again, we're not asking the Court to take any action on this at 4 this time. And that would complete my update, Your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

6 that you filed something today.

II. So thank you. 8 Is there anyone else that wishes to be heard on any 9 matter this afternoon in these cases? Okay.

10 then. I'm not sure when our next hearings are scheduled, but 11 I'm sure there are some hearings.

12 coming up on the 17th of October, and maybe there'll be some 13 before, who knows?

14 hearings in these cases, unless there's some adversaries that 15 have hearings scheduled, which could be next week or the 16 following week, which is fine.

17 from there. 18 I think we have an adversary next week and then the 19 17th is the next day. Okay? All right. Thank you, all. 20 MR. LINSEY: Thank you, Your Honor. 21 MR. DESPINS: Thank you, Your Honor. 22 MR. CLIFFORD: Thank you, Your Honor. 23 MR. MACKEY: Thank you, Your Honor. 24 MR. PFEIFFER: Thank you. 25 THE COURT:

afternoon. That was the last matter on the calendar. So court is adjourned. THE CLERK: Court is adjourned. (Proceedings concluded at 2:41 p.m.) \* \* \* \* \* C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, Teresa Saint-Amour, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound recording provided for transcription and prepared to the best of my professional skills and ability. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ TERESA SAINT-AMOUR, AAERT NO. 2020 Dated: October 3, 2023 ACCESS TRANSCRIPTS, LLC